Bye for now, Civ 6 - It was nice getting to know you

[MaximusPlatypus]

I don't even know why I open these threads.

(cue up the "so why even comment" comments)

 

[Magil]

Except that those are arguable points. The tactics, the production, the unit roster, and so on, and so forth. You are taking these things as some kind of factual basis when in fact this is just your analysis of the complaints.

Not so. I did not state them as fact. I stated they were "oft-repeated complaints". They may be arguable points, but that hardly makes them any less valid, nor does it mean they should be disregarded, as you seem so quick to do.

 

[Gorbles]

Not so. I did not state them as fact. I stated they were "oft-repeated complaints". They may be arguable points, but that hardly makes them any less valid, nor does it mean they should be disregarded, as you seem so quick to do.

We're getting into semantics awfully-fast. But, as you insist:

The complaints are oft-repeated. The link between them and 1UPT is one that you stated without explanation, as a factual statement.

I mean, I said a lot more than just that sentence, so it's kinda hypocritical that you ignore the rest of my post and then talk about what I disregarded! I disregarded nothing. I pointed out that your logical leap is something that could in fact be argued (individually, for each complaint that people have given about Civilisation 6, and their apparent relation to 1UPT), and I'm willing to debate it! But I'd rather qualify what we're debating before going off on a wall of text, and you trying semantics at the first hurdle doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Come on now. Assume I'm acting in good faith, here.

 

[Magil]

The complaints are oft-repeated. The link between them and 1UPT is one that you stated without explanation, as a factual statement.

The links are well-documented elsewhere, quite well explained, and frankly, self-evident. But if you insist, it's fairly easy to explain:

The tactical AI is a mess. It cannot utilize its raw numbers properly due to one-unit-per-tile. There is a hard cap as to how many units it can threaten you with at a given point in time. That much should be obvious, no? There are only so many tiles on your border. If it is restricted to 1 unit for each of those tiles, then it cannot utilize its numerical and production advantages as well as if it could stack all of its units together. That's the most basic part of it. You seem to reject arguments relating to AI pathfinding out of hand, but it's also a very valid concern that the AI will stumble over itself when trying to maneuver its units into position, because as we well know, the AI is not great at planning ahead. You have your own ideas here though (that contradict everything I have observed and see many other posts collaborate), so I don't see any point in arguing more than the most basic details in regards to this point.

Slow production. Again, self-evident. If units could be produced as quickly as they were in previous titles, the map would fill up and there would be no room for new units. Production must be slower to accommodate 1UPT. Corps and armies were supposed to alleviate this, and to some degree they have. But production is still slow compared to tech pace, and there's a lot of voice to this concern. You want a good example? In the latest patch, Firaxis responded to the complaint that religious units were spamming the map and making it difficult to move because of 1UPT. What did they do? They increased the cost of religious units and made them more powerful. I'll repeat that first part: they increased the cost of religious units. As a result of 1UPT concerns. It may not be production-based, but it's the same principle.

Unit gaps. The above concern feeds into this. Because 1UPT demands a slow production pace, it could become a problem if units go obsolete before they can even be produced. Therefore, large gaps in the individual unit lines are necessary. Pikemen to AT Crews being the obvious example. Swordsmen to Musketmen. Classical-era Quadriremes to Medieval-era Frigates. These are certainly larger gaps than existed in many previous Civ titles, and it's easy to see why: you tech too fast; I can't even make a Rifleman unit in V before it obsoletes sometimes.

Traffic jams. Do I actually need to explain this? Units get in the way of each other because of 1UPT. And only because of 1UPT, in most cases. End of point.

I mean, I said a lot more than just that sentence, so it's kinda hypocritical that you ignore the rest of my post and then talk about what I disregarded! I disregarded nothing. I pointed out that your logical leap is something that could in fact be argued (individually, for each complaint that people have given about Civilisation 6, and their apparent relation to 1UPT), and I'm willing to debate it! But I'd rather qualify what we're debating before going off on a wall of text, and you trying semantics at the first hurdle doesn't inspire me with confidence.

I didn't respond to that because it was so... baffling. Support units were a good idea that had awful implementation. Moreover, the concept is are dreadfully underutilized. There aren't enough of them, and they don't do enough. From a design standpoint they are baffingly stupid--battering rams and siege towers continue to work with Mechanized Infantry, but "obsolete" so you cannot build them long before then. Huh? Who thought that was a good idea? Military Engineers are a joke at 2 charges, at best they serve as a necessary unit to build silos, and airstrips have some limited strategic use, but they can't even build forts when you can first create the Engineer and their ability to build roads is laughable (yeah, 2 hexes of road is a real help... it has some very situational uses but it's a mostly a bad joke). Medics aren't even well-documented on what they actually do. And... what other support units are there? There should be a lot more if they were supposed to fix anything in the system, because you can still take a city with nothing but a swarm of ranged units and a cavalry unit to dash in when its at zero garrison. So, no, the support unit system is far too limited (and parts of it are weird/bad) to help 1UPT in any meaningful fashion.

I understand Firaxis has their own ideas. I'm also allowed to call them out where I think their ideas failed and point to mods that I think did a better job. And it's easy to explain why. Vox Populi allows for the stacking of your own civilians with neutral civilian units on the same hex. Logical. It works. Why didn't Firaxis do that? It's baffling. You can stack infinite civilian units on the same hex. Again, logical. It works. Why not, Firaxis? Why didn't you do that? It's frustrating.

 

[Severus]

Hello civfanatics,

This is the first time in about 10 years I've logged in here to post a message and I suppose this is as good a thread as any to post a few observations.

1) It amazes me that there are any posts at all on the forum from people saying negative comments about the game or Firaxis are a bad thing. I suppose they don't understand that when someone criticises something, and criticises strongly, it's because they care and they want the best for whatever they're criticising.

It seems to me that Civ players can be roughly split along generational lines these days. On the one hand there are the veterans who have played Civ since Civ 1 and who remember a time when you bought a computer game and swapped your cash for a finished product. I'm one of those people. I've been lucky enough to play computer games for over 30 years now, going from a Binatone "home entertainment system", to a Spectrum 48k, to a Master System, to a Mega Drive, and then to a PS1 and PS2. For the duration of all of those, a good 15 to 20 years, you bought a game - any game - and knew that it had been tested fully and that it worked and did what it purported to do whether you bought it on day one or a year later.

On the other hand we now have a generation of gamers who have grown up under a system where you buy a game and if it's been out a year or less you can be pretty sure it's not going to work as intended and you're left at the mercy of the developers as to whether it ever will or not. IMO everyone arguing that criticism or "game bashing" is a bad thing belongs to this generation. You're happy to pay your hard-earned cash to play with scraps while doing the work that should've been done by the people whose job it was to do said work.

The developers of Civ 6 should be castigated for the release of such a woefully inadequate AI allied with a woefully inadequate UI. They only get away with it because enough people are suckered into thinking that a move from a four-sided to six-sided tile and a move from being able to place as many units as you like on a tile to being limited to one are somehow "revelations".

I completely agree with whoever it was who said Civ 5 and 6 shouldn't even be considered part of the Civ series. Civ 5 was quite simply a regression of a series whose success had been built on ever-increasing depth and complexity in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Civ 6 has thus far simply continued the regression with its implementation of boosts which ensure you don't even need a strategy or even have to work on developing your science rate to be successful, all you need to do is "kill a unit with a slinger", "improve 3 tiles", and all the other crap they've put in the game in order to increase player success at the expense of actually having to use your brain.

Sadly it would appear that all game developers now come from the post-PS2 generation and don't understand that a sizeable minority - perhaps still the majority - of gamers remember a time when the fun wasn't in the winning so you could tick off your trophies and put the game away never to be played again, it was in the actual playing of the game and the struggle to win; it was in the dying 20 times or more before finally cracking the part you were stuck on, it was in the game kicking your ar*e and forcing you to play better to succeed; the fun was in the journey, not the destination.

Civ 5 sold a massive amount because Civ 4 was quite simply, in my opinion, the greatest game ever. It was bought by people who thought it was going to be the continuous improvement of the first 4 in terms of AI, UI, different play styles, complexity and increased number of in-game systems. I imagine all of those people - the people who made the series the incredible success it was in the first place - simply played it once, realised it was aimed at a generation who need as much streamlining, as little micro-management, and as instant gratification as possible, and then simply put it away and never played it again.

Civ 6 sold a massive amount because it promised to be more like Civ 4, it promised a return to depth and infinite re-playability. I imagine most of the people who bought it for that are the same people as the people I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

All that's left are the ones who think it's somehow better to have a game where you race through the tech tree without needing to actually do any work and the ones who think it's preferable to have a 1UPT system which the AI will never ever be able to get to grips with rather than an AI which can actually threaten.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong but quite frankly I think Civ is in its death throes because it's a thinking man's game in a market that is inexorably dumbed down with every passing year in order to sell the most to people with no knowledge of what games once were.

 

[Gorbles]

@Severus:

As a player of Civilisation the first (2.10MB, fit on a floppy disk), I recommend you not make any generational assumptions about the people who you disagree with

Your declarations about how older video games simply "worked" is also laughable, because this was the first hit for "bugs in older video games"!

@Magil:

I don't know what you think has an awful implementation unless you, y'know, say that. You can be baffled as much as you want - I'm sure your posts and logic baffle other people. But that's not an argument in of itself (and is, well, disregarding things in the same manner you criticised me for).

Concerns about what units do, and how they do it (Medics, among many other things) are completely valid. The transparency of game information really does need work, but that isn't necessarily a fault of the mechanics themselves. In a turn-based environment, a steep learning curve can be more easily forgiven assuming that learning curve is aided by a robust and informative user interface. As much as I like the Age of Exploration aesthetics, it really needs polish in a number of areas to bring it up to speed (though given the UI improvements in the first patch, I'm pretty sure we can expect more).

Complaints about the effectiveness of support units? Also valid. But that doesn't mean that they weren't a part of the re-evaluation of 1UPT that Firaxis have carried out for Civ 6. To go back to the original point that started this debate (well, one of them): Firaxis did re-evaluate 1UPT. You're perfectly allowed to call them out for where you think there is room for improvement, but you were wrong in inferring that they hadn't re-evaluated the system.

To go back to your 1UPT links, again, you saying them "self-evident" does not make them so. That's a technique that positions your opinions as more factual than they actually are. They're not self-evident. They make sense to you, and not necessarily other people. They are, therefore, arguable. If they're arguable, then they're most definitely not self-evident. To look at your reasoning, though (warning: wall of text):

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The tactical AI needs work, and has needed work since CiV came around. It has been worked on, though. It struggles far less with chokepoints, it struggles far less with decent army composition, and it struggles far less in declaring a war without the chops to back it up. That doesn't mean it doesn't struggle, of course.

Of course it doesn't benefit from straight-up difficulty-related number buffs to Production, etc, as it would were stacking available. But that doesn't mean that 1UPT is therefore a failure. If anything it exposes the issue with classical games design difficulty scaling which in 4x and RTS games tends to boil down to "give them more resources". I rejected no arguments about AI pathfinding, becauase none were offered. It seems to me that you have your own preconceived notions on a lot of the talking points here, and are using them to talk past me despite my insistence that I'm here and have my own arguments to offer. 1UPT limits available valid tiles for end movement positions for an AI to utilise in any one given situation. Absolutely. It does the same thing to human players, only we process things a bit differently (thus our advantage).

The human brain is likely to always exceed what is possible in video games AI. This is what created the necessity for resource modifiers to scale with difficulty in the first place. A "true" AI is an arduous task that costs a lot of time and money that even government-funded development teams rarely come out with. Having that kind of flexibility in a video game would require the same kind of resources, just for the AI component. Ludicrous. Completely cost-ineffective.

The human brain benefits from MUPT more than the AI, and the human brain benefits from 1UPT more than the AI. Your preference to MUPT because it allows the AI to benefit more from it's inherent Production / resource bonuses is purely a preference, and isn't actually good games design because it doesn't solve the problem of making the game AI better. 1UPT actively drives that goal by making more intelligent AI necessary. As I think you've said elsewhere, nobody expects a "true" AI in a video game. But we can expect and ask for improvements. My argument is that it has been improving (and likely will continue to do so). This is not a failing of 1UPT. This is 1UPT exposing the core design issues in contemptory video game AI design.

2. I don't actually agree with the solution to religious units. I think having a religious "layer" would work better, but I don't know the timescales involved in delivering this first patch or Firaxis' resources to deliver an addition layer of combat to the game. Certainly, it's a band-aid fix, and I hope they work on a more thorough solution.

That said I completely disagree that Production is somehow stilted in this game. It doesn't feel slower than CiV at all; I think the issue here is the general requirements of more military units. You need more units on the map compared to in CiV (and BE) in my experience, because tech-based slingshot approaches work worse in Civ 6 by design (more on this later). Certainly BE suffered the worst from this with a single Affinity upgrade rendering a single unit capable of smashing entire armies that were underneath you in Affinity level. You spend more time building units, and less time building other things. Ergo, Production feels slower. I don't exactly have the numbers to hand to work out how long it takes to build the basic unit in your starting city for Civ 4, CiV and Civ 6 (that'd be a bit of a mammoth task, expanding out for all units and Eras).

The issue with tech pacing is more with, well, tech pacing. Again, more on that later.

3. Do you have some numbers on unit variance, contrasted against previous titles? Because the issue you're complaining about was more of an issue in CiV. There were too many units, and you could skip a lot of them entirely. This has nothing to do with 1UPT, though. You're basing your conclusion here on a previously-drawn conclusion, so if I disprove the previous one (point 2.) then I disprove this one. The removal of excessive unit variants could stem from a vast number of reasons, from the basic games design rule of "back to basics" to it being proveable that there were too many units in the tree with overlapping roles and function.

Tech pacing impacts this; if it's too easy to get through the Eras, then units get made obsolete much faster. I agree with you in that this is a problem, but I think this is more to do with the pacing of the tech tree combined with what tech requirements unlock what units and resources. Firaxis have made some changes here, but arguably not enough. It's a complicated issue and I don't have enough thoughts on paper about the problems with the tech tree. I just think that it's an area that needs looking at.

Again, this is related to band-aid solutions. 1UPT vs. MUPT in this instance distracts from an arguably more fundamental issue - tech tree design. I'd consider this something that needs fixing before we look at blaming 1UPT or MUPT as a contributing factor.

4. Traffic jams are a direct result of 1UPT, but they're also an intended result. They make other methods of transport useful. Instead of shoving everything into a stack and onto a railroad, you actually have to consider logistics. Tactics. Strategy, even. Do you beeline certain naval techs because of the flexibility pushing a land unit out onto the Coast or Ocean tiles near you provides? There are other choices than this, but the restriction that 1UPT brings to the table also forces you to actually make important choices in both your army composition and how you approach your target. It also makes landmass features like Mountains actually useful, instead of pathing your ten Locusts of Chiron through the single tile opening to raze the target city to the ground (I played a lot of SMAC, and boy was Psi Combat easy to abuse).

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very easy to list all the negatives of something without the positives. People do this with MUPT too, it's true. But you need to consider that there are viable counterarguments to the theories you hold, because they're not as self-evident as you think they are.

 

[Severus]

@Gorbles

I said "roughly split along generational lines", if you're an outlier then that's fine. But I'm willing to bet that if it were possible to poll everyone who's played the Civ games and ask which is the most complete and most challenging the majority of those who have played any pre-Civ 5 game would not vote for either Civ 5 or 6. Therefore I stand by my comment. Of course it's pointless since we can't ever do such a thing

On MUPT v 1UPT imo you miss the point. You might like the fact that 1UPT puts the AI on a road that will make it more intelligent at some dim distant point in the future but we're not anywhere near such a future. I don't care that maybe because of 1UPT we might have a Civ game with a truly intelligent AI 20 years from now. We're not living in the future, we're playing these games now.

What makes a game against an AI better? A system where the AI moves intelligently but can't pose any threat because right here and now it can never be intelligent enough to threaten in any meaningful way or a system (MUPT) it can actually understand and use to create a challenge to the player?

No point praising a combat system because it promises something better "in the future" when it causes the game we play now to be utterly without challenge is there?

 

[Severus]

@Gorbles

And on the point about bugs in older video games:
I owned roughly 250 spectrum games, around 40 mega drive games, and around 60 PS1 and PS2 games. In all I would say there were bugs in maybe 30 of my spectrum games and not one of my mega drive or PS games had bugs.

I own around 30 PS4 games, not one of them didn't require at least one update to remove bugs which were present on release.

I stand by my comment

 

[Magil]

@Gorbles Of course VI production doesn't feel particularly slow compared to V. It does, however, feel slow compared III/IV. That's the point. Comparing VI to V doesn't make any sense in terms of production gaps, this is about 1UPT vs. MUPT, and Civ V uses 1UPT. Production was slow in V too, because it uses 1UPT.

You don't have to agree with the solution with religious units. I don't agree with it either, as a decision. It does, however, serve as evidence to prove the point, whether you agree with it or not.

Again, comparing unit variance to V highlights the flaws. V had too many units. That was okay in a system that allows stacking, like IV, where units could have specific purposes and more variance. In 1UPT, they cannot do this, because of the problems observed in V. That is why they scaled unit variance back in VI. My point is the game has fewer units and less unit variance because of the limitations of 1UPT and slowing down production. Which is the complaint. It was fine to have lots of different units in IV, because unit production was faster.

As for your points on AI... well, let's just say I don't agree. Frankly, it's delusional. The AI is worse than it was in Civ V, not better. I don't think debating the issue with you will accomplish much. Suiciding units is much better for an AI that gets massive production advantages than being overly timid.

It's very easy to list all the negatives of something without the positives. People do this with MUPT too, it's true. But you need to consider that there are viable counterarguments to the theories you hold, because they're not as self-evident as you think they are.

These aren't valid, though. In most cases they aren't even counter-arguments, it seemed like you completely missed the point.

 

[Fippy]

4. Traffic jams are a direct result of 1UPT, but they're also an intended result. They make other methods of transport useful. Instead of shoving everything into a stack and onto a railroad, you actually have to consider logistics. Tactics. Strategy, even.

But you realize that you already had to do this in IV?
If you put all your units onto railroads and they get within reach of enemy Artillery or similar, that will not end pretty for your stack.

It's puzzling how stacking often is reduced to simple logistics, collateral damage can be deadly in IV, they gave counters against it. Rock Paper & Scissors also offers some very nice possibilites, what's so great about taking the probably best mechanic in IV away? That you now cannot shorten your turns by moving units together? Oh i see.

 

[MyOtherName]

Your preference to MUPT because it allows the AI to benefit more from it's inherent Production / resource bonuses is purely a preference, and isn't actually good games design because it doesn't solve the problem of making the game AI better. 1UPT actively drives that goal by making more intelligent AI necessary. As I think you've said elsewhere, nobody expects a "true" AI in a video game. But we can expect and ask for improvements. My argument is that it has been improving (and likely will continue to do so). This is not a failing of 1UPT. This is 1UPT exposing the core design issues in contemptory video game AI design.

Nah, 1UPT just encourages giving the AI combat bonuses.

 

[Gorbles]

On MUPT v 1UPT imo you miss the point. You might like the fact that 1UPT puts the AI on a road that will make it more intelligent at some dim distant point in the future but we're not anywhere near such a future. I don't care that maybe because of 1UPT we might have a Civ game with a truly intelligent AI 20 years from now. We're not living in the future, we're playing these games now.

What makes a game against an AI better? A system where the AI moves intelligently but can't pose any threat because right here and now it can never be intelligent enough to threaten in any meaningful way or a system (MUPT) it can actually understand and use to create a challenge to the player?

There's no "dim" and "distant" about it. It's a thing that's already happening. Certainly, the AI in earlier Civilisation titles was hardly immune to criticism. MUPT presents issues as well - issues I tried to point out by explaining why developers trended to simply giving higher-difficulty AI better bonuses to compensate. The AI understands 1UPT, just as it understood MUPT. It wasn't ideal at either. MUPT worked with other AI-programmed mechanics to give the AI an edge.

To simulate that difficulty, even with 1UPT, all the developers would technically have to do is just raise those bonuses even higher. They'd work, in the end. It wouldn't be much fun to play again, but fun is horrendously subjective.

And besides, I'd rather have games based on modern design principles, than adhere to outdated concepts and band-aid solutions just to give the impression the AI is vaguely-competent. Your fix isn't the fix you think it is.

And on the point about bugs in older video games:
I owned roughly 250 spectrum games, around 40 mega drive games, and around 60 PS1 and PS2 games. In all I would say there were bugs in maybe 30 of my spectrum games and not one of my mega drive or PS games had bugs.

I own around 30 PS4 games, not one of them didn't require at least one update to remove bugs which were present on release.

I stand by my comment

This is an aside, so I'll leave it here. But you're completely discounting the PC vs. console paradigm in terms of software development (and many other factors. But this is an aside). I own 381 games on Steam alone and I don't sit around having bugs ruin my enjoyment of them.

@Gorbles Of course VI production doesn't feel particularly slow compared to V. It does, however, feel slow compared III/IV. That's the point. Comparing VI to V doesn't make any sense in terms of production gaps, this is about 1UPT vs. MUPT, and Civ V uses 1UPT. Production was slow in V too, because it uses 1UPT.

You don't have to agree with the solution with religious units. I don't agree with it either, as a decision. It does, however, serve as evidence to prove the point, whether you agree with it or not.

Again, comparing unit variance to V highlights the flaws. V had too many units. That was okay in a system that allows stacking, like IV, where units could have specific purposes and more variance. In 1UPT, they cannot do this, because of the problems observed in V. That is why they scaled unit variance back in VI. My point is the game has fewer units and less unit variance because of the limitations of 1UPT and slowing down production. Which is the complaint. It was fine to have lots of different units in IV, because unit production was faster.

As for your points on AI... well, let's just say I don't agree. Frankly, it's delusional. The AI is worse than it was in Civ V, not better. I don't think debating the issue with you will accomplish much. Suiciding units is much better for an AI that gets massive production advantages than being overly timid.

These aren't valid, though. In most cases they aren't even counter-arguments, it seemed like you completely missed the point.

Simply saying that arguments aren't worthwhile, doesn't make them not worthwhile. But if that's your critical response then unfortunately it doesn't look like there's any point in continuing this. To wrap it up:

1. Again, some comparative values would be helpful here. I didn't play much of III, and despite owning IV I've never touched it. I had my fill on the original Civ. and SMAC, and Production was always something to consider there. Despite my asking, you haven't provided anything that could advance this discussion. It's just your feelings vs. my feelings.

2. One example of how they looked at religious combat doesn't make for a trend. It supports your theory, of course, but it isn't proof in of itself.

3. And my point (which you apparently didn't read) was that there are plenty of other reasons for reducing unit variance. Including the pacing of the tech tree. Production speed has little to do with it (in fact, it's the reverse given how District costs rise based on the amount of techs / civics you possess, and Districts are a lot of the driving factor in both Production and Gold).

4. You can disagree with me on the AI without calling me delusional. Poor form. And no, the AI on release in CiV was an absolute shambles. If you're comparing fully-patched BNW to Civ 6 on release, then that's a bucketload of poor analogies for another time!

But you realize that you already had to do this in IV?
If you put all your units onto railroads and they get within reach of enemy Artillery or similar, that will not end pretty for your stack.

It's puzzling how stacking often is reduced to simple logistics, collateral damage can be deadly in IV, they gave counters against it. Rock Paper & Scissors also offers some very nice possibilites, what's so great about taking the probably best mechanic in IV away? That you now cannot shorten your turns by moving units together? Oh i see.

Collateral damage, penetrating stack damage (units underneath suffer diminishing returns of damage, etc), are all mechanics implemented to try and make MUPT worthwhile. You advocate for their existence and yet you argue against giving 1UPT the same time to mature. Why?

 

[MyOtherName]

Collateral damage, penetrating stack damage (units underneath suffer diminishing returns of damage, etc), are all mechanics implemented to try and make MUPT worthwhile. You advocate for their existence and yet you argue against giving 1UPT the same time to mature. Why?

Looks more like Fippy was dismantling your characterization of MUPT to me.

"1UPT is great because MUPT has some perceived flaws" isn't a very good argument. That goes double when the perceived flaws aren't actually accurate.

 

[Mustakrakish]

What the... Well, this escalated quickly. Walls and walls of text. Nope. Hell, no.

 

[Gorbles]

Looks more like Fippy was dismantling your characterization of MUPT to me.

"1UPT is great because MUPT has some perceived flaws" isn't a very good argument. That goes double when the perceived flaws aren't actually accurate.

That wasn't my argument, though. However as unit organisational paradigms, one has been allowed a lot more time to develop and mature.

There's no point touching who prefers what because it tends to split CFC into groups. People will support one or the other, and criticise one or the other. That's neither here nor there. You saying "the flaws aren't actually accurate" counts for very little because you haven't offered anything on the topic. Hot air, and nothing more

 

[Magil]

1. Again, some comparative values would be helpful here. I didn't play much of III, and despite owning IV I've never touched it. I had my fill on the original Civ. and SMAC, and Production was always something to consider there. Despite my asking, you haven't provided anything that could advance this discussion. It's just your feelings vs. my feelings.

Okay. Lategame armies in Civ IV consisted of literally hundreds of units. Even midgame armies got large. A quick google reveals this image.

Spoiler :

Trying counting the units there and figure out the production ratios. 67 military units (and 1 worker). And since upgrading was not a very common thing in IV due to higher costs (it costs you valuable gold you want to feed your tech rate), it's likely most if not all of those units were produced from scratch in the Renaissance era. By the Modern era, armies were double to triple that size.Would you ever see an army of that size in V? VI? Not under most circumstances, because you can't produce that many of a given type of unit before it obsoletes. And if you could, it would take up nearly (if not literally) every tile in your territory. This isn't "feelings". The problem is you never played the games I'm talking about, which is a severe problem, since I didn't know that before (and it explains a lot).

As for that late game...

Spoiler :

Every one of those little icons represents a unit, in case you're not familiar with the Civ IV UI. Yes, that's buttons to scroll to more units on the right. Production of individual units was definitely faster in Civ IV, to say the least. Significantly so.

2. One example of how they looked at religious combat doesn't make for a trend. It supports your theory, of course, but it isn't proof in of itself.

It's a solid example of easily-accessible proof. But frankly I had no idea you didn't play IV/III and have no frame of reference. In which case most of the argument is lost on you. Suffice it to say production was much quicker in older versions, but there are too many numbers involved to give a concise answer. You're just going to have to take the above examples as a point of reference.

3. And my point (which you apparently didn't read) was that there are plenty of other reasons for reducing unit variance. Including the pacing of the tech tree. Production speed has little to do with it (in fact, it's the reverse given how District costs rise based on the amount of techs / civics you possess, and Districts are a lot of the driving factor in both Production and Gold).

The pacing of the tech tree is only a problem relative to production rate. After all, if you could produce several copies of a unit and get to use that unit before you could research a replacement, then it's fine, right? The two issues are linked. They are not worth considering a vacuum.

I'm assuming your comment on district costs is a non-sequitur, because it supports my statement more than anything. It just proves that production in the game is too slow relative to the tech pace. Slowing the tech pace down helps, but it doesn't change the fact that the game is slower compared to past Civ titles. I mean, I suppose you could slow the tech down to Marathon pace and leave production on Quick pace, and it might be somewhat closer.

4. You can disagree with me on the AI without calling me delusional. Poor form. And no, the AI on release in CiV was an absolute shambles. If you're comparing fully-patched BNW to Civ 6 on release, then that's a bucketload of poor analogies for another time!

I call 'em how I see 'em. Haven't changed my mind. I don't see any reason to consider vanilla Civ V AI into this equation. I would hope we would have moved well past that. Obviously I'm going to compare it to V: BNW AI. And Civ IV AI. And Vox Populi AI. Because I hold Firaxis to a higher standard.

 

[Gorbles]

Ahh, the unit counts are really excessive, huh. Well that's poor design too, really. Why use a hundred units when, visually, ten will do? Even grand-scale history simulators like Europa Universalis abstract armies down into people carrying a banner.

Why did this change so dramatically between Civ 2 and Civ 4? Do you not think there might have been reasons that don't relate to 1UPT (in addition to the change to 1UPT) that were a factor in reducing that kind of count? Me playing the oldest games in the franchise count, here, because obviously something changed (and I'm assuming it's unmodded, for the sake of argument) because CiV and Civ 6 seem to be more comparable to the oldest games (unless there was a fantastic competitive meta in SMAC that revolved around drowning the map in units).

And no, production is not slow in comparison to Science / tech pacing. It's the other way around. Well, that's my argument at least.

But you still think a newly-released product on a new engine bears comparison to an established title with six years of development behind it (including the modding scene). A higher standard has nothing to do with it. It's an unfair comparison, pure and simple. I hope Firaxis will get better, but I realise this will take time. It's not an instant magical button press, and it never will be.

 

[Jabulani]

I finished a game as Gilgamesh last night and realized that there was nothing else I really wanted out of Civ 6. I deleted it. I might check in later after a patch or two, but I don't think Civ 6's big problems are patchable. I should say that I do not feel ripped off or aggrieved - I tried all of the civs at least once, and I won with every victory type. I had my fun and I think the developers did a good job, little things like the insane unit cycling notwithstanding. Maybe, as some have said on this board, the civilization concept is just a bit tired now. How could anyone make the concept fresh at this point?

I feel compelled to share my thoughts as a kind of post mortem.

1) I know this is "settled law," but the way that naval units work sits wrong with me. I was chasing a damaged chariot unit across a frozen peninsula, and when they reached the coast, it just turned into a boat and sailed away. I saw them waving facetiously as they left. Where did these boats come from? Perhaps it would be better if units could embark and "turn into boats" only at harbors. If you launch an amphibious invasion, you cannot just call it off and go back to the ocean; it's capture a harbor or your units are gone.

2) Religion clearly needs to be reconceptualized. Needing to send hundreds of religious units across closed borders so they can convert ancient holy cities just makes no sense. I like the idea of a religious dimension to the game, but when I see a carpet of missionaries coming my way, I just sigh. A religious victory perhaps could consist of collecting X holy relics from each of the five world religions? This needs much more thought than it has received.

3) Most importantly: the sense of urgency is sorely lacking. Civ 4 had this sense of urgency throughout, at least until the game was in hand - you needed to get that second city; needed to get iron hooked up; needed to get those cottages in place as an investment in the future; needed to do the next thing until the game was over. Civ 5 didn't have it because you just needed four cities to win. Civ 6 doesn't have it because after the opening era (when the warmonger penalty is zero and the AI seems willing to start wars), wars only happen if the player starts them. And one always knows one will win because the AI cannot play the 1UPT game, and couldn't in Civ 5 either. (Given that the designer of Civ 5 admits that 1UPT was a failure, I don't understand why it was revived, almost completely unimproved, for Civ 6. There are so many possibilities available.)

4) Related to number 3: Eurekas make the tech tree go by too fast, and there's too much gold floating around, allowing anyone to build a flash army whenever needed, rather than building a strong defense and maintaining it. Because of the ample supplies of money, I can just buy great people at will by the midway point.

Finally: a constructive suggestion: A hard cap for number of units per civ. This would avoid the carpet of doom problem, and also perhaps help with the fact that the game is too easy even at the hardest levels. Let's say that at the beginning of the game, with the chiefdom government and no special cards, the human player would be under a 10 unit cap. (6? 8?) This could be increased with more aggressive government types or with certain government cards, such that a warlike modern government might support 40 units (25? 30?), and a peaceful modern government support only 10, or even fewer. Also, the AI could get higher caps than the player at higher difficulties: at Prince, AI gets 10; at King: 12; and so on. I am not certain of the optimal numbers, but if everyone only had X units, each unit would become very important, and choosing the right balance would be paramount.

I very much like the idea of armies as the only military unit - at the outset you get one or two armies with three to four slots, and this number grows as your government matures - because it would solve the carpet of doom problem and yet make the military part of the game more strategic. (One army of just archers? One siege unit in each army? Interesting choices....) But I think this won't happen, even though it's not that far removed from the mechanics in place already.

Farewell Civ 6, and for those who enjoy it, best wishes and carry on. I think I like reading your thoughts about the game more than playing it!

Agreed. I'm still playing but devs never played a civ game before, that is clear despite what they say.

In addition, at least at emperor level, often AI cheats giving AT crew during medieval eras to at least one civ, that is ridiculous even if beatable.

The diplomacy is totally inexistent and buggy

Navy is a joke and I have never lost a city since my first game, AI is pathetic just like who developed it.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: The 1 UPT debate is growing tiresome. It has now been replicated in all material respects in 3 different threads over the past two weeks. In this particular thread, the debate has taken the thread fairly far afield from the points raised by the OP. Please return to the topic as framed by the OP and drop the 1 UPT debate in this thread.

 

[rschissler]

Collateral damage, penetrating stack damage (units underneath suffer diminishing returns of damage, etc), are all mechanics implemented to try and make MUPT worthwhile. You advocate for their existence and yet you argue against giving 1UPT the same time to mature. Why?

Hasn't Civ V had plenty of time to mature? Yet the AI in VI is no improvement.