Does anyone else miss stacking wars

Obviously a lot more players are fine with it, since Civ V is much more popular than Civ IV. Naturally the graphics and other stuff are a part of that, but I find it funny that you use this argument when Civ V is criticized for "dumbing down" and going for the lowest common denominator...

Yes. A game that came out in 2010 and had an expansion in 2012 and another in 2014 would, of course, be more popular than a game that came out a decade ago.

I don't think Civilization V has dumbed down the game across the board. I think that 1UPT was a novel idea, but it just doesn't work. I think religion and trade works better than CivilizationIV, but at the end of the day, the AI is still ridiculous.

It is not objectively worse, YOU prefer stacking. I find 1UPT to be infinitely more enjoyable. I have played every Civ game since I was a young kid, and I have never gotten majorly invested in them before Civ V (well, I did with Civ I) because I found war to be boring and repetitive. 1UPT made me renew my interest in the game. I can get the realism argument, I can get the strategy>tactics argument, but I don't get how one can possibly find stacking wars to be more fun to play than 1UPT wars.

If 1UPT is what it takes to get you into Civilization, then you might what to consider Panzer Generals or other tabletop war games.

The reason why limited or unlimited stacking is better than 1UPT is because 1UPT just doesn't work with the AI. If it worked, nobody would be complaining, but it simply doesn't.

And why shouldn't the solution be to design a better AI ? If Civ VI goes back to stacking, I might stick with Civ V personally, much like you presumably stuck to Civ IV.

Firaxis couldn't design a competent AI to save their lives. If they could, they would have by now.

No, I actually do play BNW modded still. I haven't played vanilla CivIV in years because mods are wonderful, wonderful creations.

Or it's because it's much harder to mod from a infinte stacking system to a 1UPT than from a 1UPT to a 3UPT or something similar. But you know, whatever weak argument you need to make is fine.

It really isn't, given the system allows anything from 1UPT to Unlimited UPT, and incredibly, the AI at 10UPT plays better than CivV's does at 1UPT.

Again, the larger the stacks, the better the AI will play, which is why you do see 3UPT and the very first mod for Civilization V was a stacking mod.
 
Obviously a lot more players are fine with it, since Civ V is much more popular than Civ IV.

Yes. A game that came out in 2010 and had an expansion in 2012 and another in 2014 would, of course, be more popular than a game that came out a decade ago.

I don't know. Is it really that "much more popular"? German civforum.de has an up-to-date vote in the neutral section started in Feb. 2013 where at the moment 48,89% say Civ IV is their favourite while Civ V only got 37,14% (III: 7,62%, II: 2,86%, I: 3,49%)...
 
So in the end, Firafix should try a compelling limited stacking combat system. Both sistems have advantages and not so much.

There should be more units of the field to wage wars then Civ5, but way less then Civ4 for not getting tendious, hard to move them around.

It will make the AI smarter then now, but also tactics and small advatanges for the human player will remain.

Its the best way to go.
 
If they were to change from a 1UPT system, I'd rather see 2UPT than 3UPT. With 3UPT, you'd probably just have a bunch of Melee/Range/Siege stacks all over the place in the early game (until things like Anti-Air, Anti-Tank, Paratroopers, and Marines come around). With 2UPT, you'd have to decide between Melee/Range or Melee/Siege (or even Range/Siege I suppose) combinations. This would still create a strategic element to your unit placement rather than identical stacks of the one combination.
 
@Sonereal : I'd raher have Firaxis try to make 1UPT work with the AI, than go back to stacks. Because I never enjoyed stacks, as I said. That doesn't mean I want to play another game, I want to play Civ with 1UPT. With stacks, I simply do not enjoy war at all in Civ, but this doesn't mean I don't enjoy the rest (or I wouldn't have played Civ I to IV at all, duh). With 1UPT, I enjoye the whole game. Not sure why you feel the need to direct me to other tactical games (by the way, I'm a big boardgamer but I don't enjoy wargames at all), this feels like you're trying to imply that people who like 1UPT are not "true" civ players or whatever, rather tactical wargames players ?

@gps : Popular on a dedicated fansite is not the same thing as popular in general. As an example, if you polled what difficulty people play on here, it would be much higher than the result you'd get if you somehow polled all civ V players. I assume a large majority of people who still play Civ IV are dedicated to the game and thus more likely to be present online than your average civ player.
 
Popular on a dedicated fansite is not the same thing as popular in general. ...
I assume a large majority of people who still play Civ IV are dedicated to the game and thus more likely to be present online than your average civ player.

So the large majority of people who still play Civ V are not dedicated and not likely to be present online, or what? Or they are so occupied shifting units that they don't have time to vote or what??? :lol:
Sorry, does not compute. If more people on a fansite vote for the eight year old predecessor than for the three year old current release, then that's a rather bad sign for the current release. You can try to look at it whatever way you want.
 
@Sonereal : I'd raher have Firaxis try to make 1UPT work with the AI, than go back to stacks. Because I never enjoyed stacks, as I said. That doesn't mean I want to play another game, I want to play Civ with 1UPT. With stacks, I simply do not enjoy war at all in Civ, but this doesn't mean I don't enjoy the rest (or I wouldn't have played Civ I to IV at all, duh). With 1UPT, I enjoye the whole game. Not sure why you feel the need to direct me to other tactical games (by the way, I'm a big boardgamer but I don't enjoy wargames at all), this feels like you're trying to imply that people who like 1UPT are not "true" civ players or whatever, rather tactical wargames players ?

Firstly, Firaxis cannot make 1UPT work with the AI. Firaxis hasn't designed a good combat AI in...well, I don't know. I didn't see it in CivIV. However, the poor AI really sticks out in CivV, which requires a higher-than-usual AI.

People who think 1UPT should be a central feature of future Civilization games clearly have lost sight of what Civilization actually is. It took two expansions, which focused mostly on the non-combat aspects of the game to make Civilization V a worthy successor, and a good game in its own right.

With that being said, I enjoy many aspects of the game, except for the combat, which simply does not work.

If they were to change from a 1UPT system, I'd rather see 2UPT than 3UPT. With 3UPT, you'd probably just have a bunch of Melee/Range/Siege stacks all over the place in the early game (until things like Anti-Air, Anti-Tank, Paratroopers, and Marines come around). With 2UPT, you'd have to decide between Melee/Range or Melee/Siege (or even Range/Siege I suppose) combinations. This would still create a strategic element to your unit placement rather than identical stacks of the one combination.

3UPT would be infinitely better, and a sound compromise.
 
So the large majority of people who still play Civ V are not dedicated and not likely to be present online, or what? Or they are so occupied shifting units that they don't have time to vote or what??? :lol:
Sorry, does not compute. If more people on a fansite vote for the eight year old predecessor than for the three year old current release, then that's a rather bad sign for the current release. You can try to look at it whatever way you want.

Yeah, the large majority of civ players don't go on online forums to talk about it constantly, and even if they are aware of these forums and sometimes consult them, they didn't necessarily happen to check it when the poll was going on. A poll on civfanatics (or whatever fan site this was on) is only representative of a "hardcore" minority. There's nothing wrong with that, passionate players shouldn't be takes for granted, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the majority of the playerbase either.

Sure, Civ V is a controversial game, because they changed a major aspect of the game. If you go back to stacking, it would alienate a lot of people too, yet you think it's a good idea ! Just because a change is divisive doesn't mean it's bad.

@Sonereal : I guess I have more hope in Firaxis than you do ;). There are a few flaws in the current combat AI that could very easily be fixed (units moving and firing on the same turn for example), and I hope to see that in the future.
 
I really am missing stack wars right about now since I have a bunch of troops being made in all my cities and I have to move each unit across the ocean and onto the other continent for invasion. All the new units simply add up to the time it takes for the turns to end. After awhile, I ended up with very long turns and also ended up missing the stacks.
 
Yeah, the large majority of civ players don't go on online forums to talk about it constantly, and even if they are aware of these forums and sometimes consult them, they didn't necessarily happen to check it when the poll was going on. A poll on civfanatics (or whatever fan site this was on) is only representative of a "hardcore" minority. There's nothing wrong with that, passionate players shouldn't be takes for granted, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the majority of the playerbase either.

Except there's no way to judge the actual size of the Civilization IV playerbase because CivIV isn't a Steamworks game, and doesn't require Steam to play. If we judge Civilization IV's playerbase by the activity of the S&T section, the massive output of mods for the game (even today), and the fact we're talking about IV, but not really talking about I-III's playerbase, should indicate that the playerbase for IV is still rather sizeable.

Firaxis shouldn't take into account the opinions of the proles, because they're not invested into the series in the first place.

Sure, Civ V is a controversial game, because they changed a major aspect of the game. If you go back to stacking, it would alienate a lot of people too, yet you think it's a good idea ! Just because a change is divisive doesn't mean it's bad.

A change is bad when it doesn't work as well as the old system.

@Sonereal : I guess I have more hope in Firaxis than you do ;). There are a few flaws in the current combat AI that could very easily be fixed (units moving and firing on the same turn for example), and I hope to see that in the future.

Except if they were easy to fix, they would've been fixed by now. The overall combat system has not changed significantly outside Gods and Kings in the four years of the game's existence, and this is a game that's been patched continuously throughout.
 
Except there's no way to judge the actual size of the Civilization IV playerbase because CivIV isn't a Steamworks game, and doesn't require Steam to play. If we judge Civilization IV's playerbase by the activity of the S&T section, the massive output of mods for the game (even today), and the fact we're talking about IV, but not really talking about I-III's playerbase, should indicate that the playerbase for IV is still rather sizeable.

Firaxis shouldn't take into account the opinions of the proles, because they're not invested into the series in the first place.

The proles ? I don't know that word.

They shouldn't take into account people who aren't "invested" into the series ? What ? That's ridiculous. First of all, there are people like me who have bought every Civ game and don't go on forums (I didn't until Civ V), does that not count as "invested" in your eyes ? Secondly... what ? You realize how ridiculous that sounds ? You want Civ to cater only to its passionate fanbase ? You understand they are a business right ?


A change is bad when it doesn't work as well as the old system.

Yeah, well it works better. It's almost as if different people like different things and the opinions of almighty "invested" players such as yourself isn't actually the word of God !

Except if they were easy to fix, they would've been fixed by now. The overall combat system has not changed significantly outside Gods and Kings in the four years of the game's existence, and this is a game that's been patched continuously throughout.

This is a good point though. I don't think it should be that hard though, and well, I guess we'll se when Civ VI rolls around.
 
Unlimited/"Stack of Doom" is bad.
1upt is bad.

Surely there must be an optimal middle ground? (2-3 upt?)
 
Unlimited/"Stack of Doom" is bad.
1upt is bad.

Surely there must be an optimal middle ground? (2-3 upt?)

Any hard limit to stacking is arbitrary and therefore not advisable. Instead, there should be soft limits, which have to do with supplies. Different tiles should offer different amounts of supplies, i.e. grassland more than hills or desert. Improvements like windmills, villages and towns would add to the supply limit, and roads connecting the tile to a city could offer additional supplies. The supply limit could increase over time, depending on the research of certain techs. Units in a stack larger than the supply limit would gradually start to lose hp. This system is not only realistic, it incorporates the superior combat system of Civ 4 without the downside of having tedious superstacks, which sometimes occur in the modern era, and requires a higher amount of strategical planning of wars.
 
Unlimited/"Stack of Doom" is bad.
1upt is bad.

Surely there must be an optimal middle ground? (2-3 upt?)

Surely there is. I guess, that 2-3UPT could work greatly with CIV4-style promotions and paper-rock-scissors mechanism.

Of course, some soft-reducing mechanisms are also viable, for example -10% penalty to unit's strength for each unit above 3 on the same tile, but I am afraid it will be too complex for AI to manage properly. So simplier solution seems better.
 
Any hard limit to stacking is arbitrary and therefore not advisable. Instead, there should be soft limits, which have to do with supplies. Different tiles should offer different amounts of supplies, i.e. grassland more than hills or desert. Improvements like windmills, villages and towns would add to the supply limit, and roads connecting the tile to a city could offer additional supplies. The supply limit could increase over time, depending on the research of certain techs. Units in a stack larger than the supply limit would gradually start to lose hp. This system is not only realistic, it incorporates the superior combat system of Civ 4 without the downside of having tedious superstacks, which sometimes occur in the modern era, and requires a higher amount of strategical planning of wars.

This sounds like a pretty neat idea.
 
Yeah, the large majority of civ players don't go on online forums to talk about it constantly, and even if they are aware of these forums and sometimes consult them, they didn't necessarily happen to check it when the poll was going on. A poll on civfanatics (or whatever fan site this was on) is only representative of a "hardcore" minority. There's nothing wrong with that, passionate players shouldn't be takes for granted, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the majority of the playerbase either.

Funny, you said 1upt is the better system and the fact that Civ V is "much more popular" because of it shows it. Now you say people who still play Civ IV are the dedicated enthousists who play hardcore and discuss online, while Civ V players are causal and don't care. Did I get you right? Blows your claim that Civ V is "much more popular" because people explicitely prefer 1upt as the better system totally out of the water... :lol:
Btw. even if only the "hardcore" gang really prefers stack warfare over 1upt and the others don't really care and play the newest because newest must be best - and this is your theory if I understood you correctly, not mine!!! - this would be a very bad sign for Civ V and the 1upt mechanic... ;)
 
Well, you're just twisting my words at this point.

I never said Civ V being more popular than Civ IV showed that 1UPT is better. I also never said people would just play the newest because it's the newest and therefore the best.

In fact, whoever brought up that poll was making that point, and I was trying to say that 1) that poll wasn't representative 2) being more popular does not mean it's better.

I said the majority of people who still play Civ IV are hardcore players, not that the majority of hardcore players still play Civ IV.
 
Obviously a lot more players are fine with it, since Civ V is much more popular than Civ IV.

In fact, whoever brought up that poll was making that point, and I was trying to say that 1) that poll wasn't representative 2) being more popular does not mean it's better.

Right, Civ V although beeing "much more popular" is not better than Civ IV. That's exactly my point. Great we agree on that one... ;)
Pleasure discussing with you! And sorry for "twisting" your words...
 
Top Bottom