So how's the state of Civ 5 these days?

Willem said:

Personally I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Combat has always been a big part of the Civ games, and a reason why a lot of players like the series. In fact, having a combination of the two would be beneficial for the builder types since you could have a quick combat option that would bypass the whole tactical manoeuvring that the 1UPT system requires. You or the AI would simply march your stack onto a tile with an enemy on it, and the computer would calculate the odds and determine who won and lost. While those players who wanted to duke it out themselves would be taken to the tactical screen.

Click to expand...

The problem is that auto-resolved battles will always have to favor the AI, otherwise there would be no incentive to do the fighting yourself. Which means that on high difficulties we would be forced to do the fighting anyway, since if the automatic battles were good enough to sustain, the game would become too easy if we were to fight ourselves.

Besides this technical problem, it's the focus shift I don't like. You are right in that war has always been important in Civ, but elements of warfare (at least in Civ 4) are creating an economy suitable for war, building the right units, being able to afford the upkeep, dealing with war weariness, handling diplomacy etc, all things that are on the empire building (strategical) side of the game. I feel the actual combat should not be stressed too much, since wars should mainly be decided by strategical factors (i.e. whose economy was able to build and maintain a larger or more advanced army) rather than tactical ones. That's not to say tactics should be eliminated, but to fight every battle on a seperate screen would be way overstressing them IMO.

EDIT: Thanks for that quote, Verrucosus, it's another way of saying what I mean.

still discussing 1 upt vs other options? After all the time?

U can just reduce the discussion to the 1 problem that 1 upt is timeconsuming, in thinking how to move and when to move and in microing the moves,
With stacks things get simplified a lot IF YOU WANT TO.

So its really a decision between timeconsuming and more complex or fast and simple.
There is just no better or worse - every1 got different idea.


I was best civ4 player for few years and am now dominating civ5 mp, its still civ - just the combat system changed a bit - and not really much for me as I moved my units single mainly in civ4 aswell

BrotherInJah said:

And then what?

Click to expand...

The same thing that happens in Civ 4 when you make a stack attack.

After that what will happend on biger map. Do unit gain ground, retreat?

Click to expand...

Again, the same thing that happens in Civ. Some units will survive, others won't. If the enemy stack is completely destroyed then yours moves onto that tile, otherwise you'll have to decide whether to attack again, withdraw, or simply stand your ground.

With 1upt you can have small army but well prepered and placed. You can play on time until more unit will come to the rescue.

Click to expand...

Well there would still be the option to play that way if you wanted to. While I personally like the idea of a tactical 1UPT battle, I can see that some people would find it rather tedious and would just like to get things over with and get on with building their empire. Having a combination of combat styles would satisfy both types of players while making the game a lot more realistic.

Funky said:

Besides this technical problem, it's the focus shift I don't like. You are right in that war has always been important in Civ, but elements of warfare (at least in Civ 4) are creating an economy suitable for war, building the right units, being able to afford the upkeep, dealing with war weariness, handling diplomacy etc, all things that are on the empire building (strategical) side of the game. I feel the actual combat should not be stressed too much, since wars should mainly be decided by strategical factors (i.e. whose economy was able to build and maintain a larger or more advanced army) rather than tactical ones.

Click to expand...

Well if that's how you feel, then you should be advocating for a return to strictly stack combat. Even the 1UPT approach being in used in the game now requires a lot more tactical considerations than combat has ever done in previous Civ games. Having a tactical screen wouldn't really change anything, battles would still play out the same way they do now. It would however make the game more realistic, plus greatly simplify the movement of troops back and forth on the world map.

tommynt said:

still discussing 1 upt vs other options? After all the time?

Click to expand...

Yes, because it's still a concern of mine and one of the big reasons why I haven't bothered with this game. I want to feel like I'm actually managing a real empire, but having my troops spread out for thousands of miles across the continent, and having Archers fire their arrows for 400 miles, completely breaks that sense of immersion for me.

So its really a decision between timeconsuming and more complex or fast and simple.

Click to expand...

As I've been trying to point out however, there's absolutely no reason why you can't have a combination of both.

I for one am all for stack combat. I've always felt that in Civ 5 (which I have played) tactical combat was the focus rather than strategic choices when it comes to deciding what units to build and how many of each. Also, the "Stack of Doom" had a lot more thought in it then simply getting more units then the enemy. Checking what units your enemy favored and compensated, as well as choosing whether to be offensive or defensive actually put a fair amount of thought into the combat aspect of the game without making it dominate everything you do. I for one have never won a game in Civ 5 other than combat as it's so easy for me to do, especially with units able to embark without transport ships. (you don't just steamroll the continent you're on, you steamroll the entire planet) Tactical combat has always been one of my strengths and you can manipulate battles an awful lot of Civ 5 with unit choices and terrain, but I prefer the old stack system an awful lot.

Lord Silverkey said:

I for one have never won a game in Civ 5 other than combat

Click to expand...

Actually I spoke too soon here. I just realized that I've won with space race and cultural victory before. I just barely remember those games as they were terribly boring for me.

Willem said:

Well if that's how you feel, then you should be advocating for a return to strictly stack combat.

Click to expand...

As I said before, I think stacks are a good way of handling combat, far better than 1UPT. But I'd prefer to be able to create real armies rather than have every unit attack seperately as with Civ 4 stacks. We would have the chance to combine infantry, ranged units and cavalry, though depending on terrain and enemy units this may not always be the best solution. Whatever the army composition, I envision enemy armies fighting against eachother in the open, as most historical battles were fought, or an army with siege weapons besieging an enemy city. A defeated army would be damaged but not completely destroyed. To avoid invincible super-armies being created (this was the problem in the Call to Power Civ games), we would need rules like attrition, or make certain enemy units be able to make sallies against an army or poison its supplies etc.

The outcome of the battles would be calculated by the computer and be based on what units face eachother, the experience of the units, and on terrain, and in the case of city sieges on additional appropriate factors. Larger battles could last for more than one turn, with the option to retreat if it starts going badly. We would need complex algorithms to handle the countless scenarios in a plausible way, and a capable AI to propose a challenge. These premises fulfilled, I view this combat system as the most promising, not least because it's the most realistic while not over-emphasizing tactics.

I want to feel like I'm actually managing a real empire, but having my troops spread out for thousands of miles across the continent, and having Archers fire their arrows for 400 miles, completely breaks that sense of immersion for me.

Click to expand...

this is really a nonsense argument, a size 1 city cover a tile same as a size 30 metropole does in civ1 to civ5. gameplay over reallity is main pricip of every good game

tommynt said:

this is really a nonsense argument, a size 1 city cover a tile same as a size 30 metropole does in civ1 to civ5. gameplay over reallity is main pricip of every good game

Click to expand...

My friend, you just can't argue with some of the people here. For example, the op of this thread is filled with such a negative view of civ5, that he is ready to make a 7 page thread but not expend the time to even try free demo to at least have an idea how the game plays.

Moderator Action: Trolling (attacking the OP rather than addressing any points raised or contributing positively to discussion), after moderator warning not to.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Funky said:

But I'd prefer to be able to create real armies rather than have every unit attack seperately as with Civ 4 stacks. We would have the chance to combine infantry, ranged units and cavalry, though depending on terrain and enemy units this may not always be the best solution.

Click to expand...

That's how it works now in Civ 4. If you select Stack Attack in the game options menu, you can engage your entire stack in a battle at once. The computer will select what order the units will attack in, with Siege units always going first, and the AI will select whatever defender is appropriate for the attacking unit. The human would probably do a better job of selecting which units to use and when of course, but the computer does a reasonable job of it. The decision then boils down to selecting the composition of your stack, which is a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Which is exactly what you're after.

By the way I am not sure if the demo is patched at all? The game is changed a lot since it is released, but still is better than nothing.

tommynt said:

this is really a nonsense argument, a size 1 city cover a tile same as a size 30 metropole does in civ1 to civ5. gameplay over reallity is main pricip of every good game

Click to expand...

Well of course there are limits, you couldn't simply shrink a tile down to simulate a smaller city. And a single city tile doesn't necessarily represent the actual size of it, just it's sphere of influence. Same thing with a city's borders. If you have say, New York City on the map, the 3 tile radius it can expand into might represent the entire state of New York, rather than just the immediate areas around the city. That sort of representation isn't stretching the bounds of reality all that much really, but having your army spread out over thousands of miles, and having ranged units be able attack something at some absurd distance does.

Willem said:

That's how it works now in Civ 4. If you select Stack Attack in the game options menu, you can engage your entire stack in a battle at once.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with stack attack, I've used it ever since I found out about it six years ago. But that's not what I am proposing! With the stack attack option still all units attack seperately, only that the single fights are resolved right after eachother. What I want is real armies. E.g. 2 axemen, a spearman, 2 archers, and a chariot forming one army unit with a certain strength, which can vary depending on terrain and who they fight against. Clear now?

Funky said:

What I want is real armies. E.g. 2 axemen, a spearman, 2 archers, and a chariot forming one army unit with a certain strength, which can vary depending on terrain and who they fight against. Clear now?

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, that's pretty much the same thing they tried in Civ 3 and it didn't work well at all. Especially since the AI was never able to use an Army effectively. It just ended up being an exploit for the human player.

Willem said:

If I understand you correctly, that's pretty much the same thing they tried in Civ 3 and it didn't work well at all. Especially since the AI was never able to use an Army effectively. It just ended up being an exploit for the human player.

Click to expand...

Yes, I mentioned Civ 3 earlier in this context. Hence my above premise that the system requires a decent AI. I'm no programmer, but 12 years have passed since Civ 3, that surely must make a better AI possible than we had back then. Moreover, with some additional features, like attrition which I mentioned above, it would be harder for the player to create a super army. My proposal is not so far away from Crusader Kings 2, in case you are familiar with that game, and the AI is fine there.

Funky said:

Moreover, with some additional features, like attrition which I mentioned above, it would be harder for the player to create a super army.

Click to expand...

One thing I've thought would be an interesting mechanic would be supply lines. With a combination of Forts and special units you could expand the range of an army, but if it goes beyond that then the units would start taking damage and might even die off at some point. That way too you could destroy one of an enemy's chain of Forts and cut off his supply line, forcing his units to withdraw.

Willem said:

One thing I've thought would be an interesting mechanic would be supply lines. With a combination of Forts and special units you could expand the range of an army, but if it goes beyond that then the units would start taking damage and might even die off at some point. That way too, you could destroy one of an enemy's chain of Forts and cut off his supply line, forcing his units to withdraw.

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good idea which fits well to this kind of combat system. The larger the army, the more supplies it would need. Enemy units could try to impede the supply lines, this would be another way to prevent armies from getting too powerful relative to single units and smaller armies.

We should get together and design Civ 6!

Funky said:

Enemy units could try to impede the supply lines, this would be another way to prevent armies from getting too powerful relative to single units and smaller armies.

Click to expand...

That would also make Forts something useful to build. I'm not sure how Civ 5 deals with them, but they were pretty much useless in Civ 4. I rarely ever build them. BtS provided them with some purpose, but it wasn't enough IMO. I used to like how they worked in Civ 3, where a garrisoned unit had a chance to get a free attack against any unit that passed next to them. I'd build a chain of them all around my borders, spaced so that no enemy unit could enter my territory without taking a chance of getting hit. It was a very effective way of deflecting an attack as the AI would usually move the unit back to heal, which really helped in dividing it's forces.

Willem said:

That would also make Forts something useful to build. I'm not sure how Civ 5 deals with them, but they were pretty much useless in Civ 4. I rarely ever build them. BtS provided them with some purpose, but it wasn't enough IMO. I used to like how they worked in Civ 3, where a garrisoned unit had a chance to get a free attack against any unit that passed next to them. I'd build a chain of them all around my borders, spaced so that no enemy unit could enter my territory without taking a chance of getting hit. It was a very effective way of deflecting an attack as the AI would usually move the unit back to heal, which really helped in dividing it's forces.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take a quick peek over in the BTS S & T forums concerning forts. They are eminently useful, have some rather interesting abilities when chained, and some specialized abilities that you may not have thought of.