I think you will have difficulty convincing people (including me) that adopting a separate battle map would be a smaller change in terms of "civ being civ" than adopting a 1 unit per tile system.
To be honest, I don't know how I would feel about it myself... but until Firaxis can prove otherwise, I would prefer it to 1UPT gameplay in a
Civilization setting.
Apparently some people can't deal with certain kinds of abstraction. Having the same leader for over 6000 years is ok but one unit per tile where the scale may be slightly out of whack is way too much for them. That indicates to me that really it's not the abstraction that's the problem as much as just grousing about change.
It's a crap excuse for not wanting to deal with an entirely new combat system and having to change their linear way of thinking.
Game play styles will have to change and that's a good thing. The old way was stale and in dire need of refreshing.
What I want is a combat system that fits the scope of the game. Change is fine... when done right. But, apparently, I am the antichrist because I don't agree with this particular change for this series.
Your "true concern" is "I can't be bothered with this". Pick any other aspect of the game and I guarantee you that this argument will be just as valid.
I do not disagree with all of the changes that they are making and that is part of the reason that I am holding on. And how are you claiming to know what I am thinking?
Your selective laziness is not a valid comment on the gameplay.
What, exactly, does this mean? My "selective laziness"?!?
"I hope this system doesn't hurt the game by forcing too much micro management" is a significantly different concern - it's a concern that everyone has. Everyone hopes that these changes do not damage the game.
Firaxis have already stated that they are trying to slim the game down so it is extremely unlikely that the end result will be more of a micromanagement burden than the current offering. As long as the gameplay is not damaged by this system, your complains boil down to "I don't wanna because I can't be bothered".
Of course, if they slim it down that to the point that this system does not add micromanagement, then they would have to remove some parts which are core to the game.
Come on, you guys caren't being fair. This is the single biggest change to the whole game. Its reasonable to be more concerned with such a major change than with the other changes they've announced. Its a bigger departure from previous versions, and its more subject to love-it-or-hate-it personal preference than a lot of other game features.
Thank you, Ahriman, for being civil and taken into account my perspective. In the end, we will have to see what happens. I'll be honest right here... when all is said in done, it is possible that the final product will not be as bad as I feared and I might even love it. At the very least, I by that time, I may warm up enough to except it... for now. Until then, I am going off of what I know, what I like in Civilization, and my past experiences with strategy games of all kinds and I just do not see this working well. The developers can say that it is working great, but they are deep into it. It is there ideas, so they become biased (whether they realize it or not) and think everything is fine. Once it hits the hands of the players, the results could be completely different. And just to note, I am not picking on Firaxis with those last statements, it can apply to any developer.
I'm not saying there aren't reasons for people to be concerned about the feature. I'm saying that without having played the game or even finding out how the actual mechanics will work you cannot possibly say that you "hate" the idea since the previous incarnation - stacking units to infinity then zerg rushing the opponent - was neither interesting, challenging or realistic. The concept may work badly, it may work really well, but you can't hate something without knowing how it will play.
Why does everybody use the argument "You haven't played the game yet, so you can't say that it is bad", yet the same can be said against saying that it will work fine? In the end, after we have had a chance to play the game (or the demo) it could turn out that I am right and you are wrong, that you are right and I am wrong, or that we are both right AND wrong. I am just expressing my concerns and my view points.
The stance of "I can't be bothered to do this" isn't a valid concern, because I could just as easily say "I can't be bothered to build cities". If you are opposed to a concept even if its implementation is the absolute height of gaming perfection and it turns Civ 5 into a masterpiece, then the problem isn't with the gameplay, the problem is with your attitude towards change.
The things is, perfection is NOT absolute! Where one person may find something to be perfect, another persome may find it to be complete garbage. Your argument (as just quoted above) really does not apply here. Change has nothing to do with it. It is what the change leads to that is the issue. It is not the fear of change, it is the fear of what that change will bring. It could turn out to be good, but it could, very well, turn out to be bad as well.
As I said before, an individual not wanting to participate in a particular aspect of a game does not mean that that aspect of the game is flawed.
Read this again:
And tell me that the implication is that he personally doesn't like making tactical decisions, and not that the concept will ruin the game for everyone.
When did I say that I do not like making tactical decisions. I just don't think that it would work in a game such as Civ in the way that they are implementing it. Again, if the tactical part was in the form of a seperate battle map (see my first response to Ahriman), I would be more willing to accept that. But, I think that the way that they are implementing it is the wrong direction.
I never said the possible increase in micromanagement with 1UPT would make the game better, merely pointing out that micromanagement is nothing new to Civ. If you think additional micromanagement will be too much, fair enough, I'm sure others will agree, but it's not something that will doom the game to failure.
That sounds pretty much like Civ V is shaping up to be. You will still be able to wage war against rival Civs, only (some of) the mechanics of war have changes and I don't believe this suddenly stops the game from being 'Civilization'.
If that is what you believe, then that is fine. At the very least, we can agree to disagree and see what happens.
Again, I think the focus should be about what the AI will be able to do with 1UPT. The human player will have no problems adjusting to whatever combat model the games forces but can the AI? They can't even defend or carry an effective offensive very well in Civ4, esp. something as simple as using a SoD.
That is fine, but the problem is that we won't be able to answer the AI question until after we have played the game (probably after several play throughs). They claim to be improving the AI, and I am not saying that they aren't... just that we won't be able to see the results until after then.
OK guys! I am about to go offline for a while. I am moving tomorrow, so I don't know when I will be back here. It may be tomorrow night, it may not be until Sunday or Monday. But I am sure that I will be back at some point. See you all later!
