Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[smartcanuck1988]

I will tell you why. Because many 1upt lovers will tell you that all games have 1upt and stacking is jus in civs 1-4. I had already the discussion with a guy saying that Galactic Civilizations is 1 upt. Really.

You will see that they are pretty immune to any arguments.

I feel like we (and others like Buni0ns) are in No Man's Land between the SOD and 1UPT trenches

 

[Buni0ns]

While I like Endless Legend in some respects, I don't much care for the combat. It breaks the pacing of the game to suddenly stop and having a little tactical turn-by-turn battle. And this is though I greatly enjoy those kinds of things on their own, I love turn-based small-scale tactics games, like Final Fantasy Tactics. And auto-resolving is just lame (the outcomes just don't make sense a lot of the time). Stack combat where each unit attacks the enemy stack individually is preferred to me for a game like Civ, mostly for pacing reasons.

I understand that some people might like that system. I would say those people should play the Endless games, but don't put it in Civ

That's an in interesting observation because 1 upt is an attempt to put tactics into a strategy game. When I point out here is a tactical system that seemingly works better (It is also not the greatest - good AI is HARD to achieve.) the objection "keep tactics out of the strategy game" is raised?

I am not advocating a 1 for 1 conversion of that system by the way. I am merely illustrating there are approaches that work better than what we are currently laboring under. The weirdest thing is there is no way to deny amplitude's influence on VI's design in other areas it seems.

 

[MyOtherName]

I guess it's because I'm a builder? When I'm building a worker in 5 turns and the AI is building their workers at 3 when we are clearly otherwise at parity, then that entire suspension simply crumbles and I'm reminded of that every time I have to whittle down a massive stack that doesn't know how to defend itself, or doesn't know what to do. It's partly why I don't like these kinds of things. They're obvious to me and I don't like it.

How often are you scrutinizing the AI city's in such detail that you know it's producing the same number of hammers as your city and that the AI had started a worker three turns ago?

Also, you know that human players can build massive stacks too, right? I know that even on Emperor level in Civ 4, it was still often possible to peacefully settle into a position where you can outproduce an AI.

 

[Biz_]

you can dismiss any complex tactical combat idea because it won't work in multiplayer

even 1UPT should have been dismissed because it doesn't work in multiplayer, but they went ahead with it and left MP to rot
only problem with that is if you ignore multiplayer and don't write AI, then you don't have a strategy game anymore

 

[Stalker0]

I think critiques of 1 UPT are fair simply because the vast majority of them do exist in Civ 6. And some of them are simple to deal with.

For example in the Community Balance Patch mod (or Vox Populi) for Civ 5, workers and religious units can stack with other units. So its a slightly softer 1 UPT that removes some of the issues we are seeing in Civ 6.

Personally I do like the Endless Legend concept of combat. Theoretically it lets an AI focus on strategic elements and simplistic pathfinding for the most part...but then allows you a tactical sandbox for combat that is small enough to optimize an AI....at least in theory. Its still a tall order to build a capable tactical AI, but far easier when the arena is small and you don't have to work about long distances in the calculations.

 

[rezaf]

I think critiques of 1 UPT are fair simply because the vast majority of them do exist in Civ 6. And some of them are simple to deal with.

All you can do is very very minor window dressing.

But, out of curiousity, a challenge for all you 1UPT is teh best guys out there:
Point me to one game using that system where...
... units typically can only move a tile or two each turn.
... units have a max. firing range of 2.
... there are potentially many units in play.
... the map can have as many navigation hazards as in Civ6.
... this all is actually challenging and fun.

Anyone?

 

[Roxlimn]

Civ 6 isn't like that? Both Cavalry can move 4 tiles, and all units in the late game can move more tiles because of roads.
Units in the late game have more firing range than 2

I don't know anyone saying that 1UPT is teh best EVAR. We're just saying it's better than stack combat, if only because we've only developed it for two games and it's already better than Civ 2's stack crap.

Stalker0:

Personally I do like the Endless Legend concept of combat. Theoretically it lets an AI focus on strategic elements and simplistic pathfinding for the most part...but then allows you a tactical sandbox for combat that is small enough to optimize an AI....at least in theory. Its still a tall order to build a capable tactical AI, but far easier when the arena is small and you don't have to work about long distances in the calculations.

Hm. Actually, the combat AI in EL is no better than in Civ 6, and it's much more easy to take advantage of because there's a lot more impassable terrain in EL.

 

[rezaf]

As for cavalry, there's always a hill or mountain, and firing ranges only start to increase when the game has long been decided.
For the vast majority of content, it's 1 movement per turn and a range of 2 for non-melee units.

Also, I CAN see how someone might not be happy with Civ4's stacks, but hitting on Civ2 in that regard? Seriously?
Civ2 hat no true stack combat, and having huge stacks was still massively dangerous, as all it took was for a single defensive action to be lost and you could kiss your entire stack goodbye.
How I wish we could have that behavior back.

 

[strollen]

"Carries a lot of weight", I don't think that's a valid way to put it. Let's just say he has some strange ideas on game design. I'll never forget how he gave MGS 4 a 1 star rating. Also The last of us got a 3 star but ZombiU and Assasins Creed 3 both got a 4 star.

To get a 5 star from Tom Chick you'd better be an indie title, preferably with some quirky twist and slightly underrated by other reviewers. Can be unpolished and very short but have some undeniable charm. Or you can be any new game by Soren Johnson.

Maybe I missed it in this long thread, but as someone who has been reading Tom's reviews and playing civ since Civ 1, I'm a little surprised that after 10 pages nobody actually posted his review criteria.

Here is the scientific breakdown for the Quarter to Three ratings system.

(5 stars)
I loved it

(4 stars)
I really liked it

(3 stars)
I liked it

(2 stars)
I didn’t like it

(1 star)
I hated it

It is an entirely subjective opinion on his part based on one simple criteria: did he have fun playing the game?. I've argued with him on his website about the foolishness of his rating systems. It has caused him a huge amount of grief and people understandably react negatively to his one and two star reviews of AAA games which are generally positively reviewed. But if you ignore his ratings and focus on what he writes, I think you'll see why many people consider him the best game critic out there. He clearly articulates the good and especially the bad points of the games and offers far more insight than almost any other reviewer.

I was an active member of Aployton and posted a bit on here during Civ IV days. I have more 2,000 hours in Civ IV, 1800 on Civ V, but only 200 hours on Civ VI. While I do expect to increase my Civ 6 time, since I'll probably buy an expansion. I doubt the amount of time I spend on Civ VI will ever come close to IV, or V unless they dramatically improve the AI. The reason is actually pretty similar to Tom Chick's reasoning.

I loved Civ IV, whatever the problems of stacks of doom, the bottom line is it made for exciting games. At the Emperor level, I lost/gave up a fair number of games, and at Immortal I lost more than I won.

Civ V had lots of neat features, but the 1UPT made the game not very challenging since my kill ratio was always 10-1 or greater due to incompetent tactical AI. But never the less it was still a fun game to play.

Civ VI added even more cool features. However, the AI is if anything even worse than Civ V. The tactical AI is a tad better,but the diplomacy is worse. More importantly the AI is currently, and I suspect will never be able to unlock all of the puzzle pieces in Civ VI. How in the heck are you suppose to program the AI to research one civic while you capital builds a water mill to unlock a eureaka moment. Or figure out that if you settle on this hex instead of the slightly better spot here, that in a couple thousand years you'll be able to build Alhambara or the Great Zimbabawe and get an extra 10 gold per trade route. I don't think you'll be able to program AI to recognize these times of pattern within less than a team of IBM Watson AI programmers.

So for me Civ VI is a game I like to play, but I'm a long long way from loving to play it and that's why I won't put in the hours. It simply doesn't present enough of a challenge for me to play even on emperor or immortal, and it is not different enough from Civ V to spend a lot of time. It is a really pity, because there are lot of very nice feature in Civ VI, many of which are nicely polished.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

So for me Civ VI is a game I like to play, but I'm a long long way from loving to play it and that's why I won't put in the hours. It simply doesn't present enough of a challenge for me to play even on emperor or immortal, and it is not different enough from Civ V to spend a lot of time. It is a really pity, because there are lot of very nice feature in Civ VI, many of which are nicely polished.

So, play Deity level, if Emporer or Immortal aren't challenging enough. All of the games I play for fun are Deity level. It isn't always challenging, but there are a few game situations where it can become quite challenging.

 

[Buni0ns]

Hm. Actually, the combat AI in EL is no better than in Civ 6, and it's much more easy to take advantage of because there's a lot more impassable terrain in EL.

I would say it has its flaws certainly, the suggestion (by me at least) is not adopt the EL system wholesale, rather look to it for inspiration. If such a system was simply ported over you trade one set of problems for another. (Albeit lesser problems) I still think a blended approach is a better answer on the whole. The idea is to come up with a better solution and not cleave to something that evidence suggests does not work well. Why must we persist with these poor results for 6+ years now?

There can be debate of course as to why it does not work. Some will say its AI, some will say AI is a symptom of the real malady - the system in place. It seems that is the sticking point with many, citing the community patch as an answer to the AI being manageable. My question then becomes: If the community patch is / was a workable solution, why after a full CiV life-cycle and now the Civ 6 initial development cycle and months into release, why has Firaxis been unable to address it?

Is it merely we have made the best of a bad situation as a community or perhaps that 1upt is a failed system with regard to Firaxis being able to implement it well?

Regardless, of whether one feels 1upt is the issue or the AI is the root cause, the results are glaring and have been since September 21, 2010.

 

[Zuizgond]

So, play Deity level, if Emporer or Immortal aren't challenging enough. All of the games I play for fun are Deity level. It isn't always challenging, but there are a few game situations where it can become quite challenging.

Yeah let's give AI +80% production and many other bonuses in order to have a challenging game...

No, this lazy company needs to put more than half a guy's working time in coding a decent AI.

 

[Underseer]

I wonder, is there a name for this fallacy? 'Argumentum ad [insert 'aging' in Latin]'? Even if something is complained about a thousand times, it doesn't make the actual argument(s) any less sound, provided they're logical and clearly explained -- which Chick does do here, highlighting AI fighting issues and the horrendous Missionary spam while trying to move Great People around. If you were looking for something really specific like 'When I move this Archer here, why doesn't the AI attack it with unit X?', that's a fair complaint, but it is a short article.

I'm surprised he didn't mention the unit auto-cycling or the horrible new movements rules. Perhaps he hasn't played enough to appreciate just how many times one has to click 'skip turn' during the course of game where there's any significant wars.

Randomized eurekas (or randomized *anything*) are a terrible idea in a strategy game; that bit dropped Chick's clout in my eyes by a fair bit. But it remains high because this guy is not afraid to call things as he sees them. Let's face it, a lot of things *suck* about Civ VI. Some of them will likely be corrected (interface, bugs) and some won't (1fupft -- no, I didn't misspell it).

Self-serving bias is a real thing.

 

[Underseer]

Yeah let's give AI +80% production and many other bonuses in order to have a challenging game...

No, this lazy company needs to put more than half a guy's working time in coding a decent AI.

If this AI was made with just half a guy, then you should be able to make a mod with a better AI all by yourself, right?

 

[Zuizgond]

If this AI was made with just half a guy, then you should be able to make a mod with a better AI all by yourself, right?

Half a guy's working time. Sometimes you need to read the entire sentence.

 

[strollen]

Yeah let's give AI +80% production and many other bonuses in order to have a challenging game...

No, this lazy company needs to put more than half a guy's working time in coding a decent AI.

I agree. I'm perfectly ok with giving the AI lots of boost to make a competitive game, and things like cranking up the production, giving the AI and advantage in diplomacy or combat are ok with me. The problem with playing Civ V or imagine VI at Diety level is I think you pretty much are forced be a warmonger in order to overcome the AI production addition. But since the AI is so bad at fighting wars it doesn't make the game very fun.

 

[Buni0ns]

Half a guy's working time.

I cannot verify this but it is an idea knocking around in my head nonetheless...

I would wager that many of the issues have arisen from a quality / enjoyment / AI / UI perspective are due to the way they chose to test the game. It seems like they mostly automated the testing for a large majority of the test process I know not entirely and I know about Frankenstein (but I worry if it was not enough or not given enough credence).

I wonder if that led to overlooking a lot of the lack of enjoyable gameplay aspects & "stupidity" on the behavior side of things. It's one thing to make sure it "works" properly (amongst the AI which is predictable at least) but does it work from an enjoyment perspective?

 

[PeteBDawg]

So I was reading this thread and somebody asked about Latin logical fallacy names and I went down a rabbit hole without realizing I was answering a question that nobody asked. But I'll share my answer anyway, because why not.

If I had to name one common kind of fallacy in arguments about product review journalism I'd name it in two ways, though I'm basically making these up:

Ad praesidium - Appeal to the garrison.

That is, because somebody gets support or patronage from somebody, therefore their argument is fase.

Pro praesidia - Appeal for the garrison

That is, if a statement aligns with other interests, therefore the argument that they must be getting support or patronage from somebody must be true.

The double whammy is to do both - to argue that the person must be getting support or patronage because of the orientation of their arguments, and then to conclude from the existence of that patronage that those arguments must be false: argumentum pro praesidia ad praesidium.

 

[Underseer]

Half a guy's working time. Sometimes you need to read the entire sentence.

That doesn't change anything. In order for the context argument to work, the missing part of the quote needs to change the meaning.

If it was half a guy's working time, then you should be able to make a better AI all by yourself, so why haven't you already? What's holding you back?

 

[Zuizgond]

That doesn't change anything. In order for the context argument to work, the missing part of the quote needs to change the meaning.

If it was half a guy's working time, then you should be able to make a better AI all by yourself, so why haven't you already? What's holding you back?

You seem to take it personally.

I said that this lazy company needs to put more than half a guy's working time in coding a decent AI. Look at the game credits and count the number of people who have worked on AI, then compare to the number of people who have worked on graphics and animations. Ratio is more than 1:30. They clearly chose to dedicate most of the resources to make a shiny game but when you scratch the surface you see it's just an empty shell.

Yeah, lots of people like shiny stuff, but civ fanatics are not the targeted playerbase anymore.