Although Civ5 makes improvements, combat remains the series' weak point

[brianshapiro]

They are saying that gameplay takes priority over realism, not that there is a negative correlation between the two.

Actually, that's what I'm saying.

The point is that discussion of realism shouldn't be dismissed as if its meaningless.

 

[The Leviathan]

I applaud the changes made in Civ5 combat from the super stacks in Civ3 and Civ4, but in the end it's still inherently flawed and completely unrealistic. War is not fought as 1v1 duels between units stretched over thousands of miles of terrain (if you think of each hex as hundreds of miles). Ever since the massive armies fielded in Ancient China and Mesopotamia, war has been about combined arms and tactical maneuvering. Civ5 once again fails to capture this accurately.

In my opinion, combat was the closest to reality in the Civilization-clone Call to Power II, where units fought in armies. Even though the player could not control the action, the fighting was remarkably intelligent: spearmen and other melee units would form the first ranks and clash with the enemy. Archers form up behind them, providing support fire, while knights and other mounted cavalry attacked from the flanks. Dale's Combat Mod for Civ4 used similar mechanics.

Oh and before people say "it's just a game" in response to how unrealistic Civ5 combat is, keep in mind this game strives to be a historical simulator of sorts, so realism should be high on the priority list.

Do all of you anti-1UpT guys not understand what abstraction is or have imaginations?

Civ has never been very realistic. If you wanted realistic you would not be playing Civ but instead would be playing Europa Universalis 3 or Hearts of Iron. Please get over yourself and realize that whether or not something is represented extremely realistically has no bearing on whether this game will be fun or not.

Also I must disagree that Civ5's combat is going to better represent tactical maneuvering and combined arms better than Civ4's system ever did. Since you *Gasp* have to actually maneuver your combined forces of different troops to beat your enemies by protecting your ranged units with infantry who hold a line while you flank with quicker units.

 

[brianshapiro]

Civ has never been very realistic. If you wanted realistic you would not be playing Civ but instead would be playing Europa Universalis 3 or Hearts of Iron. Please get over yourself and realize that whether or not something is represented extremely realistically has no bearing on whether this game will be fun or not.

No I wouldn't, I don't think those are good games. Just because I want realism doesn't mean I want a bad game. Nor does it mean I think Civ5 will be a bad game, I just think it can be much better.

I'm not sure why there's so much hostility to a discussion of realism.

 

[The Leviathan]

No I wouldn't, I don't think those are good games. Just because I want realism doesn't mean I want a bad game. Nor does it mean I think Civ5 will be a bad game, I just think it can be much better.

I'm not sure why there's so much hostility to a discussion of realism.

Sorry you're right, I was just venting frustration with everybody who shares a similar opinion on you because on these boards I see the "it's not realistic" thing thrown around alot.

My problem with your opinion is simply that Civ is not supposed to be a simulator, nor has it ever been. It really isn't supposed to represent reality in the slightest. It just is a turn based strategy video game were you make an empire based loosely on history. That's it, It's not a simulator and as much as I love Europa Universalis 3 but I see that there is a big difference between the direction of both games.

There is so much more unrealistic features of Civ that I don't understand why you focus on complaining about realism being shattered by an obviously abstract way to represent war in a turn based video game. Just use your imagination and realize that those 1 units per tiles are supposed to represent an huge army of and that one tile just represents a part of the battlefield... not a million miles of land. It's called abstraction and if it's make Civ IV's combat system the best it can be than so be it.

Because fun should take precedence over realism

 

[brianshapiro]

Sorry you're right, I was just venting frustration with everybody who shares a similar opinion on you because on these boards I see the "it's not realistic" thing thrown around alot.

My problem with your opinion is simply that Civ is not supposed to be a simulator, nor has it ever been. It really isn't supposed to represent reality in the slightest. It just is a turn based strategy video game were you make an empire based loosely on history. That's it, It's not a simulator and as much as I love Europa Universalis 3 but I see that there is a big difference between the direction of both games.

There is so much more unrealistic features of Civ that I don't understand why you focus on complaining about realism being shattered by an obviously abstract way to represent war in a turn based video game. Just use your imagination and realize that those 1 units per tiles are supposed to represent an huge army of and that one tile just represents a part of the battlefield... not a million miles of land. It's called abstraction and if it's make Civ IV's combat system the best it can be than so be it.

Because fun should take precedence over realism

My view is just that if it can be both realistic and fun then we should do it. In the u1pt thread we were having a discussion on possible alternatives, like limited stacks.

 

[The Leviathan]

My view is just that if it can be both realistic and fun then we should do it. In the u1pt thread we were having a discussion on possible alternatives, like limited stacks.

The thing about limited stacks is that yes, they would be more realistic but they would also be a gameplay disaster simply because limited stacks gives us the problem of if you don't have the maximum number of units in that stack.. than that stack is at a disadvantage and not at "full health". If you can have a maximum of 4 units (example) in a stack but instead have 2, than that stack is considerably a .5 health. This makes it so you constantly want 4 and without 4 units in that stack constantly you are not a full unit. So why not just make it simpler and make it 1 unit per tile instead of 4 units = 1 unit?

1 Unit in Civ V is supposed to represent an army, just like 1 tile is supposed to represent a part of the battlefield. I don't understand why you can't simply pretend that one tile is not 1000 miles but instead a part of a battle field. It just requires a bit of an imagination and if you have one, than you're in for a much more fun and tactical combat/gameplay experience

I agree with you completely that realism is not meaningless in this type of game but what you don't seem to understand is that the entire game is already an abstract representation of warfare and empire building. Game play is simply the more important than realism and if 1 unit per tile is much more fun and skillful than Civ IV's extremely flawed stack system than I vote that the game has a 1upt combat system!

 

[brianshapiro]

The thing about limited stacks is that yes, they would be more realistic but they would also be a gameplay disaster simply because limited stacks gives us the problem of if you don't have the maximum number of units in that stack.. than that stack is at a disadvantage and not at "full health". If you can have a maximum of 4 units (example) in a stack but instead have 2, than that stack is considerably a .5 health. This makes it so you constantly want 4 and without 4 units in that stack constantly you are not a full unit. So why not just make it simpler and make it 1 unit per tile instead of 4 units = 1 unit?

Also I don't understand why you can't simply pretent that one tile is not 1000 miles but instead a part of a battle field. It just requires a bit of an imagination and if you have one, than you're in for a much more fun and tactical combat experience.

I agree with you completely that realism is not meaningless in this type of game but the entire game is an abstract representation warfare and empire building. Game play is more important, and if 1 unit per tile is much more fun and skillful than Civ IV's extremely flawed stack system than I vote that the game has a 1upt combat system!

I don't agree with you that it would be a disaster. It was discussed a lot in the other thread though

 

[Lone Wolf]

Europa Universalis is realistic ?

 

[JoeHollywood]

I think the 1upt is going to be a great change for the single player game.

I think the 1upt is going to be a huge disaster for multiplayer.

 

[Sealot]

They should add an "insanity" speed where it's so slow that 1 turn is just 1 week. That's essentially what the whiners want, isn't it?

 

[JoeHollywood]

Insanity time...heh


Pottery-Research time left...873 turns

 

[JonoLith]

I think the 1upt is going to be a great change for the single player game.

I think the 1upt is going to be a huge disaster for multiplayer.

Could not disagree with you more.

 

[12agnar0k]

I think the 1upt is going to be a great change for the single player game.

I think the 1upt is going to be a huge disaster for multiplayer.

Don't put any clarification into your thoughts then.

 

[Shurdus]

Oh and before people say "it's just a game" in response to how unrealistic Civ5 combat is, keep in mind this game strives to be a historical simulator of sorts, so realism should be high on the priority list.

Civ is a game and not a history simulator. I think none of the mechanics of the game make any sense in a simulator setting. As such, realism takes a backseat to gameplay, and therefore any system that is fun is better than a system that is not fun but realistic.

 

[King Jason]

The only thing that messes with realism in terms of the OP's argument is scale; the fact that these battles are taking place across the world map and are not confined, with all the units of your army, to a single hex.

Tactical gameplay, mix/matching army compositions... essentially everything you want is in the game. Battles AREN'T decided by 1v1 duels in Civ5. They're decided by tactical battles that pit two armies against eachother. The difference is that the space provided for them to fight own is not representative of a single battlefield space, but rather it is the singular world map on which the world is played.

If X game had a battle between two people fielding an army of 2 units fighting across the map... there would be virtually no difference in combat mechanics, under your model, the players constructed those units as part of a singular "army" unit, they met @ a hex on the map, and then zoomed to a different hex board that representated a smaller area. The only thing that shirks your sense of realism and causes you to too-simply claim the civ5 battle mechanic is weak is that "Battles" are spread across the world, as opposed to singular battlefields.

Ranged units, Calvalry, Terrain Bonii, ZoC, all of these things will make civ combat more tactical and engaging than ever. Such that it is more like a game of, say, chess, than ever before.

 

[Davor]

they do have something different this time around. drasticaly so. 1upt is a huge change. it looks like it will be fun, but not much more realistic than before. I don't really know what you mean by "ping pong ball combat" though.

First off, what is 1upt? I do not understand what this means.

For "Ping Pong Ball Combat" it was a term that the creators of the Original Civ called the combat system. Basically it was what ever the strength of the unit was, it would have that many ping pong balls in the jar, so if a spear man had 2 ping pong balls, (X2 I believe) vs the tank say 20 (X2) that would be 4 Spear ping pong balls and 40 ping pong balls. (I think they X2 so there would be no odd numbers) and you put your hand in the jar and pick out a ping pong ball, and who ever you drew won the combat.

I believe it was the same for Civ II, and it was still kept in some sort in Civ III and Civ IV.

Do all of you anti-1UpT guys not understand what abstraction is or have imaginations?

Where were you to tell all those people complaining about Spearman beating a tank, or battleship?

I don't ever recall you saying to use your imagination or it was an abstraction system.

 

[bjbrains]

Davor, the system is completely different in Civ 5. There is no 'highlander' (aka, one unit must die) in civ 5. Units deal damage to each based on their relative strengths, which do not decrease based on HP.
1UPT means one unit per tile, which refers to Civ 5's removal of stacking units. That is, only one unit of each type (military or civilian) can be on any hex at a time. Spearmen should no longer beat tanks, and I think you misunderstood Leviathan's post. He was just commenting on those who say that Civ 5's combat system isn't good because it's unrealistic.

 

[Davor]

I understnd what Leviathan ment, it was ment to be funny hence the smiley face, I was trying to make a joke. Guess it didin't work.

I thought 1UPT was an interenete review site LOL.

So you saying only unit per tile or unit type per tile so you can have say 20 spearmen only in the tile or one unit type per tile so 1 warrior, 1 spear man, 1 rifle man etc etc?

Thanks for the answer for 1UPT.

 

[Kramer3980]

So you saying only unit per tile or unit type per tile so you can have say 20 spearmen only in the tile or one unit type per tile so 1 warrior, 1 spear man, 1 rifle man etc etc?

Its 1 unit total. So only 1 spear-man or warrior or whatever in the tile. The exception is military and civilian units. you can have a worker or a great person in the same time with the military unit

 

[Ramesses]

Or Excel.

Hey, Excel is awesome. I just made a macro-enabled turn-based RPG turn roster generator, and it is the greatest thing ever.