Do you also wait going to the dentist until after an aching tooth has turned black - or even fallen out of your mouth altogether?
MY point being that we need to speak up while there is still time to catch and correct potential flaws/problems - and not wait until it is too late to do anything about them.
No, but I also don't go to the dentist when I have a feeling that I
might have a toothache a few months from now.
My point is that it is not our job to speak up, as we do not have access to all of the information needed. Most games have testers, I'm sure Civ5 is no different. Leave it to them for now.
Like I said, as a developer I frankly would not pay much attention to the opinions of people who do not have access to the full design, and have not been able to play with it. A game of this nature needs to be considered as a whole, you can't nitpick individual features when you do not know how those features work with other, unannounced features.
It is called experience coupled with the ability to envisage how all the known bits are likely to work together.
Firaxis are not omniscient gods you know and they have produced this problem before. All previous civ versions (1-3) had mechanisms that allowed for blocking other players units and all of them even allowed for stacking of your own units, but the problem was still there and was widely abused (AI stupidity, accidents and/or malicious intent).
So yes I think it is quite possible that the Firaxis dev team have not thought all of the implications of the currently revealed core system through to the point of realizing this.
Again, the issue is you know of just a few random bits. It's like the Blind Men and the Elephant. Your opinions frankly do not matter at this point, as it's too late for major changes (only a few months till release, remember?) and you are unaware of how all the mechanics work together.
Either hope they learned their lesson in past games, or be cynical about it. Those are your two options here.
The problem I have been trying to make you see is not about your OWN units, but the fact that you can block OTHER players units - including friendly ones - with the current "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism.
To be honest, any minor negative is massively outweighed by the positive here. The whole point of hexes and 1upt is to allow for effect blockading and introduce true strategy.
Those seem to be the exact parts you are complaining about, so frankly, it looks like you will dislike the game. Get over it.
It isn't all that hard to come up with far better solutions to the SoD problem than by using one that reintroduce old mobility problems, adds to micromanagement and effectively reduce the freedom of modders.
1upt does not just solve the SoD problem. It brings
Strategy. If that's something you dislike, by all means, mod it out; They're advertising unprecedented tools, so I'm sure it will be possible.
I never said anything about the EXE, although I wouldn't rule it out.
What I tried to imply by saying "SEMI-hardcoded" was that the amount of work that will be required to rewire/mod the game to use a "multiple units per tile/plot" - that the AI can understand and handle properly - would probably be so massive that it might as well be hardcoded. There is certainly no way any casual modder would be able to accomplish this.
However, were they to include fully developed support for "multiple units per tile/plot" accessible to modders out-of-the-box then I wouldn't have any problem with them using the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism in the vanilla game.
Of course it will require work. Anything that extensive requires AI work. Look at the spell system in FfH.
There are enough competent modders that should one decide to remove that, they will be able to. Granted, it's not a mechanic I'd ever be inclined to remove, but I can't speak for others.
As for allowing support for both... Unless that's covered by the AI being able to use civilians/military/air units together, I doubt it will happen. That is a LOT of work, and a LOT of code, for something that is unused by the game. Not a good business practice at all, honestly.
Where did you hear/read this? All the reports I have seen are clearly stating "only 1 unit per tile/plot" with no further distinctions. And even if it is true then this in itself still wont do anything to solve the main problem of blockage abuse that comes with this mechanism.
Ah, now it seems you aren't keeping up enough.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355156
First line under Unit Behavior.
Again, blockading is one of the uses that was
advertised for the feature. Just because you dislike it, does not make it a problem. And we still don't know exactly how it will play out.
I still don't accept that you necessarily have to exclude the enhancement of old features in order to include new ones. There is plenty of room for both new and old alike.
I have to admit that this almost religious adherance to the 3x 1/3 rule is starting to annoy me a bit.
Did I ever say you have to?
I said that Espionage and Corporations both suck (badly). So they decided to drop the feature rather than refine it, apparently. So what? Not good features, and they've apparently come up with something better... I'm excited to see what these "City States" are.
As for Religion... Like I said, the released info lists enhanced diplomacy as one of the design points. Religion in civ4 affects diplomacy in a way they apparently didn't like, so they removed it. It played a negligible role in Civ4 anyway; It only became interesting in mods.
Lucky you then, but personally I'd rather that they had shown some innovative skills and come up with ways to improve these features rather than just tossing them aside in resignation.
Of course there are always the expansions ...
Both of those mechanics unbalanced economies, were difficult for the AI to understand, and could have been accomplished far more elegantly in different ways.
Espionage honestly would have been better as a simple unit. No points, no nothing. Just a spy unit able to carry out certain actions.
Corporations I just flat out dislike for Civ. The only good way I've thought of to adapt them to FfH wouldn't work in standard civ either.
Feel free to list your own ideas there, but honestly I don't think either mechanic was worth time fixing when they could instead focus on much better things. Let's wait and see what comes of that time.
Its April. The release is for September if I remember correctly. Firaxis playtests as it develops. The features have obviously passed a lot of scrutiny already and the game will be in a fairly late beta stage. They're not going to do huge changes to the design now.
You're already too late but thats fine because you have absolutely no evidence that theres a problem. You go to the dentist when pathological symptoms present themselves. Currently we don't have any here or reasonable cause to think they'll appear.
So you're in a standoff where its your words and baseless assumptions vs. Firaxis word and track record. You're not going to win that one.
But I imagine you enjoy trying to cast yourself as the "lone voice of dissent", right? If you're wrong you get a good game, if you turn out to be right (which would be sheerly accidental as you've no evidence) you can say "I told you so".
For Chrissakes CC, accept the fact the Firaxis is not going to listen to you, that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have, and most importantly it is their game. Firaxis will make the game they want to make, and if you don't like it, you have many options; from not buying it to modding to forming your own game company and making the game you want to see.
If you really want to make this argument, go troll in the Civ V forum and stop hijacking this thread!
(Yeah, I know, its troll food, but I couldn't hold back any longer...)
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
