A worrisome thought on the 1upt aspect...

[PhilBowles]

gps, I thought you were a long-timer who knew how important stack composition and terrain modifiers were in previous games. I have seen severely out-teched and outnumbered civs completely wipe out gigantic invading forces simply because they used the right units at the right moment. And what do you call that? Tactics I think.

The Wikipedia quote is being used out of context. Tactics is indeed the organisation and use in combination of military units - but on a battlefield level (i.e. the way you arrange formations, the way your cavalry are used to support your infantry through flank or rear attacks etc.), it's not the actual selection of which units to put in a stack - this is the stage of "preparing to gain an advantage" (I know my rival uses cavalry, so I'll make sure I have spearmen). In Total War, there are no tactics involved in choosing which units to include in your army before you attack - that level of army organisation is strategic, it's what you do with them when in battle mode that's tactical.

Nor is the use of terrain with stack play at a tactical level; you're on a hill or across a river, all your units are on that hill or across that river. Choosing to deploy an army on a hill is not a tactic, it's part of the preparations for battle just like the particular unit selection you bring to the field (i.e. strategy). There's no use of different terrain by different units or formations to maximise their advantage or to keep vulnerable units in cover, none to ensure hills with good lines of sight for your ranged formations while your attackers seek flatter terrain that maximises their speed and so on and so forth.

So no, there isn't any tactical play to stacks of doom - you just throw one pre-made stack at another once you've settled on the unit selection. Suggesting this is tactical is akin to suggesting that playing Total War with auto-resolved battles is tactical.

And to be honest I can't really blame him because he has a point there - no matter if you agree with his dislike of it.

Regardless of one's feelings about 1UPT, it's the original post's logic that's at issue, which is at fault however much you prefer stacks.

And fundamentally it doesn't matter if you want to call Civ a wargame or not - it's a game which has always had a combat component, and one which is usually a dominant feature of gameplay in all incarnations. It's quite reasonable to want to treat the combat component of the game in the same way a wargame would - that does not entail that the game itself is a wargame. As another poster pointed out, the city development aspect of Civ may owe a lot to Sim City - it wouldn't make any sense to try and impose a wargame management system on non-military aspects of Civ play, but the very people making this point fail to realise that it's equally absurd to try and impose a "SimCity" approach on the military aspects of the game.

 

[headcase]

I like Civ for everything it has, but couldn't imagine going back from 1UPT (I've played Civ 4 PIG since which used to be awesome). If anything, I would argue that it slightly de-emphasizes the importance of military in that a smaller army now has a chance of defending against a carpet whereas before, if their stack was powerful enough compared to yours, that was it, there was nothing you could even hope for.

Don't get me wrong, a small army is still bad; you'll get pillaged, you can still be over-run, etc, but at least strategy (edit: sorry, tactics. Unit composition is strategy) can help cover a greater spread (even if the AI was good at combat, they still wouldn't be able to charge a stack like they could before).

I'm also not saying that Civ 4 wasn't tactical, but unit composition is in Civ 5 as well, and more important than ever now that each piece needs to have its own placement.

It does mean you spend a higher % time moving units around, but a lot of that time is well spent. If the game was more intelligent about moving units and had tools for moving groups around, that would be even better.

 

[Andulias]

...

Choosing your stack's composition, using the terrain to your advantage, building fortresses at key conjunctions, all of this is tactics. And it has been a part of Civ since the very beginning.

I am not arguing that CiV is a bit more tactical than its predecessor. I am arguing that it's nowhere as big of a deal as some people make it out to be, and it by no means detracts from the empire building.

 

[SilentWatcher]

Im a bit lost as to why people hated the SoD in the first place? marshalling your army wasnt a problem, tactics were involved in the make up of the stack with defensive troops being needed in the right ratio along with siege units. The defensive units did what they were meant to do by defending the offensive troops and the defenseless siege units. What use are defensive troops in civ V? well none really as you cant put them on the same square as the troops you want defending. apart from some ranged units you just attack with units that have the highest hit points you can muster and the type doesn't matter. Whats so wrong with the SoD that it had to be gone at any cost?

 

[Drakarska]

And that might be the big misconception. People are not looking actively for a reason to hate the next entry in their favourite game franchise. They just play it and feel something is wrong. And then they ask: "Why is that so..?" And you can argue that as long as you want: Civ V adds a kind of tactical focus on warfare that never has been there in the past (and which also has been badly implemented as the AI clearly has more issues with 1UPT than they had with SOD). Before the focus was mostly on punching out troops, building the bigger stack - and then you won the war. Clearly strategic focus. This is enough warfare for some people, adding 1UPT might be too much, because - to stick with your words - the Civ series is not a war-game series. Civ was never intended to be a war-game series. And nevertheless Jon Shafer made the wise decision to push V quite a lot in the direction of stuff like Battle Isle or Panzer General. That was a hazardous move, and time will tell whether it was the right one...

1) maybe it's because to a few of us ( at least to me), Civ V has lost a lot of it's immersion factor? it no longer "feels" like a empire builder, but more of a war game with city building elements? and limited amount of cities at that.

2) Your definition of wisdom is rather subjective, based on the individuals view point. And time has been told, and it is readily apparent through numerous patches that the attempt was hazardous.

 

[Drakarska]

Choosing your stack's composition, using the terrain to your advantage, building fortresses at key conjunctions, all of this is tactics. And it has been a part of Civ since the very beginning.

I am not arguing that CiV is a bit more tactical than its predecessor. I am arguing that it's nowhere as big of a deal as some people make it out to be, and it by no means detracts from the empire building.

Agree with the first part of your quote, and part of your second. However, the last part I do. You can't really build an empire similar to the ones in previous iterations of Civ. It has lost that aspect of an empire builder, and is more geared towards a war game style of play than that of a empire management game.

 

[Andulias]

Agree with the first part of your quote, and part of your second. However, the last part I do. You can't really build an empire similar to the ones in previous iterations of Civ. It has lost that aspect of an empire builder, and is more geared towards a war game style of play than that of a empire management game.

I like it when people dish out something like that without actually stating any arguments, I really do. I'm just messing, but really, either come up with some reasoning or else I just can't take your comment seriously.
Moderator Action: You're not allowed to troll in this forum.

As for immersion - I've already said it, CIV ruined that just fine a whiiiiile back, thank you very much. What with its leaderheads instead of having proper civilizations (my neighbours aren't the Aztec, it's Monty! Has been for 4000 years!), colourful borders, civics, ridiculous global warming, units getting teleported out of countries when DOW-ing, the removal of the city view, the advisors, the throne room, no different city styles etc. Where are my advisors, my council that makes me feel like I gover a freaking country? Is choosing "Representation" supposed to make a President out of me? Sure doesn't feel like it. Where is my custom-made palace? Why can't I take a closer look at my cities? Then again, why should I, they look the same whether I am Gandhi or Washington.

V actually brought some of it back - leaders look like proper leaders and you communicate with them not entirely via the trading screen, they also contact you for other reasons beyond "Go to war with us", "Choose civic/religion" and "Wanna trade?"; the cities of the Russians look different than the cities of the Iroquois; and hexes make the world look a lot more natural. No, it's not really (that much) better with its cheezy culture system, but, like I said, IV already took out my immersion.


But back on track, why isn't it an empire building game?

 

[Funky]

@Andulias:

You write a post like that, in that infantile tone and which is ridiculous on many levels, and then talk about others "dishing out" things and how you can't take them seriously?
Moderator Action: Such trolling is not appropriate for this forum.

It may be a lost case then, but I'll answer your question anyway: In previous civ games, war was usually decided by which civ had the better economy, technology and better production, which are results of strategic empire management. By making civ 5 more tactical lessens the importance of the empire building aspect per se, as now, despite say poor empire management, you can still win battles using tactical means. To say it more placatively, the armies decide battles, not the empire behind it. Note that that in itself is neither good or bad, and you are free to like the fact that civ 5 emphasizes tactics at the cost of more meaningful strategy. However, it is one of the main reasons why so many people think that civ 5 has the wrong feeling to it, as they were used to the civilization series being about, well civilizations, as opposed to armies.

 

[Andulias]

@Andulias:

You write a post like that, in that infantile tone and which is ridiculous on many levels, and then talk about others "dishing out" things and how you can't take them seriously?

It may be a lost case then, but I'll answer your question anyway: In previous civ games, war was usually decided by which civ had the better economy, technology and better production, which are results of strategic empire management. By making civ 5 more tactical lessens the importance of the empire building aspect per se, as now, despite say poor empire management, you can still win battles using tactical means. To say it more placatively, the armies decide battles, not the empire behind it. Note that that in itself is neither good or bad, and you are free to like the fact that civ 5 emphasizes tactics at the cost of more meaningful strategy. However, it is one of the main reasons why so many people think that civ 5 has the wrong feeling to it, as they were used to the civilization series being about, well civilizations, as opposed to armies.

Thank you for insulting me, that really helps further the discussion. It's nice that you answered, but next time be a dear and read the all the posts, will you? Like, say, number 20, where I described why what you just said simply doesn't happen in my book. And then be sure to ridicule my "infantile" tone and personal opinion about why I don't find CIV that immersive to begin with some more. It makes you look so smart and sophisticated.

 

[PhilBowles]

@Andulias:

You write a post like that, in that infantile tone and which is ridiculous on many levels, and then talk about others "dishing out" things and how you can't take them seriously?

It may be a lost case then, but I'll answer your question anyway: In previous civ games, war was usually decided by which civ had the better economy, technology and better production, which are results of strategic empire management. By making civ 5 more tactical lessens the importance of the empire building aspect per se, as now, despite say poor empire management, you can still win battles using tactical means. To say it more placatively, the armies decide battles, not the empire behind it. Note that that in itself is neither good or bad, and you are free to like the fact that civ 5 emphasizes tactics at the cost of more meaningful strategy. However, it is one of the main reasons why so many people think that civ 5 has the wrong feeling to it, as they were used to the civilization series being about, well civilizations, as opposed to armies.

If it were true that the armies decided battles to the exclusion of concerns about the tech levels of the units involved, the economy required to manage large numbers of units, and other strategic considerations, this would hold true. That is not the case in Civ V. There are very definite limits to the advantages you gain from utilising good tactics in Civ V - tactics mostly act as a way of keeping your units alive long enough to obtain the better promotions, which enhances their ability in combat ... but only in combat.

If you manage an empire poorly, you can't support a large army since there are no shortcuts that allow you to circumvent maintenance costs for anything other than garrison units (as opposed to the Civ IV civic that read, effectively, "No unit maintenance costs until the Renaissance"). You won't have the gold to buy units or upgrade the ones you have to a competitive tech level. If you mismanage production, you don't have an army, full stop.

If you mismanage science, either in terms of not producing enough research or not researching the right techs, even a minor tech disparity will kill you - I just came out of a game where I had Swordsmen against Landsknechts - even without being outnumbered I was facing a losing battle (although I had higher tech, I had no higher tech along the Warrior path, and hadn't invested in spears).

If you mismanage happiness, you end up with reduced fighting potential in your troops. Likewise if you mismanage resource access, and then lose access to a strategic resource you need.

Did I play better than the AI in combat in the game I just came out of (I quit after meeting the Romans and finding that they had double the score of everyone on my continent, while I had little prospect myself of surviving the ongoing war with Germany)? I'd like to think so. So why did I lose? Mainly because, as Korea, I'd focused heavily on food-production cities to maximise my specialists, I'd neglected going for Metal Casting early enough to build workshops in time, and my only production city was Attila's Court - which was only just getting started as it was my newest acquisition, as well as not being ideally placed (which was of course out of my hands, and to a large extent the AI's since it was a former capital).

Result? I had few units, no way of quickly replacing losses, and lacked the income to both support an army and build a sufficient reserve to upgrade units (the Swordsman I lost was in line for promotion to a Longsword, but with my luxuries already sold off to my other contacts to fund my research agreements I had no way of raising the money to upgrade it before it died, and in any case it would have had to compete with upgrading my catapult to a Hwach'a). None the result of bad tactical play, all the result of bad empire management.

To me the direction of the Civ series with Civ V resembles nothing so much as incorporating elements from Total War - which, despite its name, is primarily a strategy game. Such things as founding/capturing a new city/province always resulting in a net increase in income, roads that serve to increase unit speed and trade but aren't required to link resources or for spamming across the landscape, an experience-based espionage system with limits on the number of agents you can hire at a given tech level, even such things as a policy allowing you free garrison units but maintenance on all other unit types - and, yes, a tactics-led combat system. And in Total War (or in the RTSes which someone earlier on the thread compared Civ), just as in Civ, management of your empire is critical to battlefield success - but tactics on the battlefield are critical to keeping your units alive and so limiting the number you have to replace or the experience you lose (since fewer promoted units will die).

In summary, tactics don't influence anything but the outcome of battles, exactly as should be the case. It's irrelevant to broader empire management (except in production lost if you have to replace units lost due to poor tactical play) whether battlefield play is tactical (based mainly on unit placement and coordination during battle) or strategic (based mainly on unit selection and placement prior to battle). They don't become more relevant to strategic play than they are in Total War merely because they take place on the same map.

 

[The_J]

Oh, another rant thread. How unexpected, given the title.
-> Moderator Action: Thread closed.