Civilization V - Units: Disappointment

Great - you finally did it. Now I feel disturbed because of the long ranged archers as well. And I wonder if Infantry can also perform range attacks which would be strange.

Infantry needs to see the enemy to shoot him. So they can't attack him, if there's another unit or Forrest in between (with no difference in level - e.g. hill / plain / hill). I dont mind Artillery shooting over let's say 3 tiles (hell, no suicide Art. anymore!!! :suicide.

I dont think the firststrike ability simulates the archer's fighting abilities well, because they would not go into close combat, if they didnt have to. They skirmish unless facing faster units like horse mounted units. So in conclusion - the cIV archer AND the upcoming 2-tile-ranged-archers don't satisfy me. Here's my suggestion:


I think archers shouldnt be able to destroy a unit (neither should artillery, air- and navy-units when attacking land units-generally you need close combat do get rid of the rest!). And archers shouldnt get damage when attacking unless fighting against faster units or ranged units (skirmishing). The attacking range should stay 1 tile, BUT: Archers placed in 2nd row should be able to support defending troops of the front line (attacking unit enters the tile of the defending unit, so that the distance between supporting archers and the attacking unit is just one tile...).


So archers can be used in an offensive way (skirmishing), and in a defensive way (supporting front line). This way it contains their special abilities and ranged attacks stay the artillerie's job as it's meant to be.

p.s.: Infantry shouldn't be able to perform support fire for the front line if there's no intervisibility with the enemy (no level difference).

Feedback please

As I've said elsewhere, I seriously hope that gunpowder units fight in "melee" rather than bombarding, and that archers bombarding is an abberation. It will be laaaame if everything in the modern age is bombardment, and bombardment makes unit positioning less important.

The base movement in the new game seems to be two tiles. So if an archer attacks a swordsman two tiles away is that going to be a melee fight or is it an ambush/bombardment. If it is the first then the archer should lose because you can't take a bow to a sword fight. Maybe archers have a special ambush/bombard option. But I hope they don't call it bombard.

I also agree that infantry shouldn't be able to bombard.

IMO some people are panicking too much about archers.

For one thing Civ5 isn't even in beta yet - just because a screenshot shows something doesn't mean that is how it will be in game.

The Panzer General series had so many different mechanics that could be applied to "ranged" units like archers that it would be premature to say that 2 hex bombardment is set in stone for the way it will be at release.

In fantasy general for example, IIRC, archer were units with an attack range of one - meaning they could attack an ajacent tile without fear of return casualties from non-ranged units. If an archer attacked another archer it was for all intents and purposes as if two melee units had attacked each other.

A bigger question will be is the PG concept of supression included in the game? Where certain units, especially things like bombers and artillery (or archers in FG) weren't necessarily always good at killing things but the did cause temporary disruption that would leave the unit more vulnerable to follow up attacks from other troop types.

Chalks said:

No, you have played with SOD combat. You KNOW how that works, you know if you enjoy it, you know if it is fun.

Have you played Civilization 5 with 1upt combat? No. You have not. You imagine it will work a particular way, so you elaborate on this fantasy and decide you don't like it.

If you are unable to recognise the difference between how you think this is going to be in your own head and how it will turn out to be in reality then that is the issue here.



But you don't know how they are implementing the new combat system. How can you "believe that the way they are implementing" anything will fit when you have never played the game? All you know is that it will be 1 unit per tile. The rest is in your head.



Yes, you have indeed identified my point.

I'm arguing for the new system because I know that talented developers who know the Civ franchise inside out think it's good - NOT because I imagine it to be good. So, people who know how it works think it's good. Can you list someone who knows how the game works who doesn't think it's good?

If you can't, then the only people who don't think it's good at this stage are people who don't know what they're talking about...

Humz....

Huummmzzz....

I wonder if this is significant.

I'm not saying that it will be good, but I'm certainly saying that you don't have enough knowledge at this point to pass judgement.

I have concerns, but I recognise that I am currently in a position of complete ignorance about the reality of the mechanics. You would do well to recognise the same.

Click to expand...

So, esentially, what you are saying is that if you think that everything will be all hunky-dory with the new system, then you are allowed to speculate... however, if you have even the slightest hesitance towards the new system... then you are the antichrist and need to burn in flame.

To that, I say...

Elp... Ahm beein oppressed!!!

The fact is that you don't know any more than me (do you?) and I have every right to express my concerns. You can disagree with me all you want, but you don't have the right to belittle my concerns. Every argument that you make can also be said for the reverse. And the part about the developers... I'll just go back to my previous analogy. Would a chef preparing your food admit to you that it is terrible before you have a taste? No! I am glad that you have such great faith in the developers, but no matter how good they are, they are human, too, and they make mistakes. They can easily go down a blind path thinking that everything is fine and working well. Then when the game is released, the fans don't like it at all. It has happened many times before. And I am NOT saying that it IS the case here... but it is a potential outcome. I am just being a realist.

And I have admitted many times that I may be wrong and like it, but so far, I am not convinced that it will work.

I haven't heard many people mention the potential intricacies of having a one unit/hex system. We simply don't have the details yet, but knowing that the people behind the Civ series aren't idiots, I don't think they will make a change to the combat system that doesn't drastically improve on the existing one. I imagine they will take a certain path (which I'll outline below), and will be very happy if they do:
Instead of the unit in a hex being a static, unchanging unit (i.e. the same as a unit in a SoD), it will be like one dynamic division of a larger army. Each division will be upgradeable, gain veterancy, and perhaps we will be able to allocate monetary resources to the unit in order that it grows in fighting power/ability. If this last quality were introduced it would change everything. Then, one unit wouldn't really be one unit; it would be a representation of a complex division of forces which you cultivate over time. The effects of this would be three-fold: 1) it would allow you to fine-tune/customize your armies depending on your available tech and resource allocation to them, 2) the outcome of a 1 unit vs. 1 unit battle would not be left to a 50/50 chance, but rather the amount of resources etc. you have invested in the unit, and 3) it would substantially increase the efficiency of battles in the late game: instead of having to deal with 200+ units all over the map, your armies would be represented by a several armies which are extremely powerful and capable, equal in potential force to any SoD in Civ IV, yet unique from any of Civ in the game because they are highly customized. This would be, in fact, a much more realistic representation of war, and frankly it would save us a lot of unneeded micromanagement in the late game, while still giving us the ability to highly customize our fighting forces.

Let's see whether or not they take a path such as this, but my guess is this is almost exactly what they have in mind.

Thorburne said:

So, esentially, what you are saying is that if you think that everything will be all hunky-dory with the new system, then you are allowed to speculate... however, if you have even the slightest hesitance towards the new system... then you are the antichrist and need to burn in flame.

Click to expand...

Wake me when "Mark my words, this feature will be the thorn in the side of Civ 5" is rational speculation or slight hesitance and not an arrogant statement of "fact" based on your own personal fantasy.

"This will absolutely be the most awesome thing" is just as stupid as "This will absolutely be the worst thing ever" - the difference being that only one of us has said something anywhere near this.

I have concerns about the system, but I am confident that the devs will probably end up with an enjoyable system. You are absolutely certain that it will be the feature that ruins the game.

Do you not see the difference there?

No, you probably don't.

The only thing im afraid of is the game becoming too tactical. What I mean by that is the civilization series is not about one's tour de force of strategic ability. If u want that play hearts of Iron and encircle armies and annihilate them.

Part of our love for SOD earlier was that, in some sense, you're screwed if the other guys is way bigger cause u havent played the economic and diplo situation right. There's no way to bail urself out using crafting tactics on the AI unless you have some kind of preprepared cards up ur sleeve.

On the bright side the one unit system might make forts relevant (you know like they actually were in history) and important as one cant garrison cities anymore with massive defenses. Ive always hoped that they might introduce a system like supply lines that would create an idea like fronts and battle lines but again such an idea is teetering dangerously close to a paradox games war simulator (good games but not what civ is necessarily about) and could lead to/necessitate a host of other changes for balance and eventually force diplo/religion and other victory types into the shadows.

Honestly I could probably list dozens of ideas off the top of my head that would make Civ way more complicated, accurate, and reasonable as a civilization simulator but in the end they would destroy the original charm of the series. Save such systems for mods.

All I hope for is another fun, addictive, different and seemingly simple game that has a lot of nuances underneath the surface like the previous versions. Civ 4 was a brilliant success with years worth of gameplay in it and we were afraid of it too in the beginning.

Go Firaxis

Chalks said:

Wake me when "Mark my words, this feature will be the thorn in the side of Civ 5" is rational speculation or slight hesitance and not an arrogant statement of "fact" based on your own personal fantasy.

"This will absolutely be the most awesome thing" is just as stupid as "This will absolutely be the worst thing ever" - the difference being that only one of us has said something anywhere near this.

I have concerns about the system, but I am confident that the devs will probably end up with an enjoyable system. You are absolutely certain that it will be the feature that ruins the game.

Do you not see the difference there?

No, you probably don't.

Click to expand...

Can you do me a favor and post a link of where I said that? I remember using the words "Mark my words", but do not remember the context since it has been a long time since I have made that post. I cannot find where it is!

That said, you should run for President next election cycle, because you definitely have the nack for spin!

In any case, I have stated over and over long since I made that statement that I could be wrong. However, given what I do know, I still stand by my belief that it will more likely hurt the franchise than improve it. If the new system is so great, then please... give us proof. If all I wanted was promises that things will be okay, then I would just watch CNN's coverage of the political world!

Can you do me a favor and post a link of where I said that?

Click to expand...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9036790&postcount=84

Ahriman said:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9036790&postcount=84

Click to expand...

Thanks, Ahriman! I swear... getting old sucks!

Just as I suspected, there was missing context from the quote!

Mark my words, unless Jon Schafer and Firaxis pull of a divine miracle, 1UPT is going to be the thorn in Civ V's side after release.

Click to expand...

It seems that it was not as absolute as you suggested, Chalks! Plus it was a reply to somebody who was arguing that the system will be far better than the old model of stacks. My point is that with a completely new system, it will bring on its own slew of problems that would likely be as bad as the "stack of doom" gameplay.

Just as I suspected, there was missing context from the quote!

Click to expand...

Oh come on... that hardly counts as missing context. You were quoted pretty fairly, making dire forecasts unless a miracle occurs counts as making dire forecasts.

Thorburne said:

That said, you should run for President next election cycle, because you definitely have the nack for spin!

Click to expand...

Hmm....

1 unit isnt 10 000 mans in any ages

a whole marching army of 10 000 was quite a feat in any age... except modern ones of course, The Roman empire at its peak (and full for barbarian soldier) were 600 thousands strong to cover an area spreading from Britain to Syria and back to spain by Africa. At best, casual fighting (the ones you bring ~10 troops in the game) were at best on the few thousands single digit very close to 1.

Troops reached the tens of thousand (both sides included) on a few celebrated battle through history... but those where far more closer to exceptions than anything else.

For stack of doom, i completely agree with getting ride of it... if it allowed for more strategic battles... plus, i love the fact that you're unit dont automaticly die upon losing, but since its totally new I'll wait and see before praising for its "greatness". New doesnt mean automaticly Better, merely different.!

Anyway I'll wait at least to the first expension before buying... the Vanillia product always lack flavors!!

Thorburne said:

It seems that it was not as absolute as you suggested, Chalks!

Click to expand...

My apologies for assuming that your caveat of an actual divine miracle was essential to your point.

I guess after release, when God himself comes down to Earth and points to the 1upt code and says "You see that bit there? That was my idea.", I'll think of you.

Thorburne said:

Plus it was a reply to somebody who was arguing that the system will be far better than the old model of stacks.

Click to expand...

Well, consider my finger wagged in their direction too for also considering themselves all seeing prophets of the future - although as I've noted, there's far more excuse for falling down on that side of the fence simply because it's being designed by people who probably know what they're doing.

Ahriman said:

Oh come on... that hardly counts as missing context. You were quoted pretty fairly, making dire forecasts unless a miracle occurs counts as making dire forecasts.

Click to expand...

Regardless, I still say that only a miracle will prove this system to work. The reason? Because, from what we know and the way they are implementing it, I see no way for it to work and keep to the core spirit of the Civilization franchise. All I can see so far is that it will take me too much out of the game. The only way that I can see 1UPT working in conjunction to the Civilization gameplay would be if it was in a seperate battle map. Of course, that has its problems too.

Chalks said:

My apologies for assuming that your caveat of an actual divine miracle was essential to your point.

I guess after release, when God himself comes down to Earth and points to the 1upt code and says "You see that bit there? That was my idea.", I'll think of you.



Well, consider my finger wagged in their direction too for also considering themselves all seeing prophets of the future - although as I've noted, there's far more excuse for falling down on that side of the fence simply because it's being designed by people who probably know what they're doing.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact that the other side of the argument may be wrong as well. But I just hope that your blind faith in the developers does not ultimately lead to massive dissapointment of the final product. After all (and as I have stated many times before), other developers who "knew what they were doing" have made bad decisions that have lead to disasterous results for their franchises before. Therefore, personally, I am not trusting to that faith. I could, in the end, be wrong. I want to be wrong! But until I get to not only see the pudding, but taste it too, I will remain skeptical.

You can mark these words for sure, if, when the game is finally released (or I at least get to play a decent demo), I find that the new system is far superior to the SoD model, I will come back to these forums and acknowledge it for you all. Even if I find the system to be passable, but not better, I will still acknowledge that (as I will expect will be the case). However, whether that happens will just have wait until then. Right now, I am tired of being told how great the new system is... I want to see it for myself!

Apparently Sid Meir works next to Jon Shafer and they bounce ideas off each other on a regular basis. Sid Meir seems to trust Jon Shafer with the game and franchise so I am inclined to do so as well. Jon Shafer also had a hand in the creation of cIV and it turned out great.

In my opinion ciV will be the best Civ game yet when all is said and done.
Combat is getting a thorough working over for the vanilla. Hopefully other things get spruced up in the expansions. Also, the mods should be fantastic.

I would like to see some new information though. All the reviews and interviews are recycling the same things now.

I guess I am and always have been an optimist.

Thorburne said:

But I just hope that your blind faith in the developers does not ultimately lead to massive dissapointment of the final product.

Click to expand...

Hey, there's no messing about here, if Civ 5 sucks, I'm going to be massively disappointed. That's just kinda the way it is.

But for now, I don't see the point in weaving elaborate theories about how things will work, then discussing them as if they are fact. I can see how saying "I think this might be a problem, I hope they consider it and ensure that it is not" is good - at this stage it's basically the entire point of this forum - but "this entire concept will doom the franchise unless the hand of god intervenes" is just meaningless hyperbole.

I haven't read through the whole thread, so don't know if this had been mentioned before. I see one big problem with "one unit per tile" rule. Say you have a stationary unit at a choke point, and you want to move another one past it. Since you can't have two units in one tile, you'll have to make sure that the unit that you are moving doesn't end its turn on the same tile as the stationary unit. Now suppose you have lots of units that you want to move - you'll now have to move them around in a particular order so that you have enough room where to move other units. Overall I think this has the potential to create lots of additional micromanagement.

Of course maybe I'm thinking in old terms and imagining hundreds of units roaming about, one unit per tile, whereas now we'll have much fewer units, but still I generally don't like such hard restrictions. Hopefully it will be able to mod this to implement soft restriction on the number of units in a tile - such as having too many units in a tile reduces their effectiveness.

I really like the idea that UU will be more unique instead of simply slightly stronger or cheaper generic units.

sgrig said:

I haven't read through the whole thread, so don't know if this had been mentioned before. I see one big problem with "one unit per tile" rule. Say you have a stationary unit at a choke point, and you want to move another one past it. Since you can't have two units in one tile, you'll have to make sure that the unit that you are moving doesn't end its turn on the same tile as the stationary unit. Now suppose you have lots of units that you want to move - you'll now have to move them around in a particular order so that you have enough room where to move other units. Overall I think this has the potential to create lots of additional micromanagement.

Of course maybe I'm thinking in old terms and imagining hundreds of units roaming about, one unit per tile, whereas now we'll have much fewer units, but still I generally don't like such hard restrictions. Hopefully it will be able to mod this to implement soft restriction on the number of units in a tile - such as having too many units in a tile reduces their effectiveness.

Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if they didn't just swap the units if you moved 1 unit you control onto another.