1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ 5: Finally some Strategy!

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by IronDraconis, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. IronDraconis

    IronDraconis Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    I just would like to throw IMHO out there in contrast with many of the other threads.

    I was very disappointed reading all the reviews, previews, etc, in the build up to Civ 5 that the Military was going to be the main overhaul. I liked Civ 2, Civ 3, and Civ 4 as empire building games which demanded city management. The Military seemed to work out well, better trained, better weapons, more units= militaristic play. That being said the switch to 1UPH was scary, and I was skeptical of the switch in game focus. I was worried my franchise of choice was going to switch focus from being an empire builder/City Manager kind of game to a War/War/War kind of game. That being said: As I have played Civ 5 I have come to LOVE what the Dev have done!

    Military matters, unit placement matters, unit production matters, strategic movement matters. I have found myself spending time outside of the city screen enjoying maneuvering, battling for key positions, and even thinking about combat itself rather than equations about combat!

    I have to give a round of applause to the dev of Civ 5. I never used to build any sort of army until late game stages, now I see the benefit. I never used to think of unit placement, or preservation of units (when you have 30 units on one stack, what does one rifleman matter?) now these are things which are inescapable.

    The dev wanted to bring expand the game and bring players out from the cities and into the world, and what a wonderful world it is.
     
  2. Ben Franklin

    Ben Franklin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    Canada
    Hear! Hear!
    I wholeheartedly agree!
    Just using your units as barriers at choke points can give you some extra turns advantage to let your settler get to that coveted spot before that dam Bismark....
    (He hates me....) ;-)
     
  3. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Goleta, California
    It feels like the one area they got completely right. I rather get bored by the amazingly simplified economics system, but at least the combat has felt interesting. Although, I find it a little odd when I'm embarking some random warrior to go circumnavigate the glob in the early middle game.
     
  4. nekom

    nekom Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I'm so far loving the combat as well. Rather than marching stacks of doom and seige weapons into towns to bowl them over, you have to really maneuver and play to each unit's strengths and weaknesses.

    Obviously it takes some getting used to but I think it really changes the game in a positive way.
     
  5. Oddible

    Oddible signal / noise > 1

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    908
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Yep, the unit cost / time to build, resource requirements add a very iconic feel to the military units. Like hero units. I no longer throw piles of units at a city hoping it will break, I'm vary careful about not losing units, especially those that cost a resource. The tactical aspect of 1upt has been a very fun change to the game. It has been a great fun figuring out how to use artillery effectively - especially in both advance and defense - planning for that setup cost. Paratroopers - freaking PARAtroopers now have a use! Really fun unit to get surround and attack escaping wounded units in the rear.
     
  6. Slayergnome

    Slayergnome Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Oh man I am excited to get Patatroopers now, have not had much time to play due to that dam job. Anyway nothing hurts quite as bad as taking it in the rear from some burly paratroopers .
     
  7. ctiberius

    ctiberius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Small nit here. You are describing tactics, not strategy. I agree totally. Civ was missing tactics specifically related to combat and I've been impressed with how its played. Very pleased with new combat system.
     
  8. smileylad

    smileylad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    england
    Just on the demo only, Bismark is always looking for an excuse to go to war :sad:
     
  9. dannythefool

    dannythefool King

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    657
    Strategy is more important for combat too, though. You can't decide in the last minute where you send your SoD next. Building roads to the front line is actually useful now that you may have to keep up a constant stream of units. Etc.
     
  10. digitalcraft

    digitalcraft Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    *deep breath* "I am a beautiful flower and all is right with the world"

    Ok, it's ok that you like Civ 5 better. You are not a civ enthusiast (" never used to build any sort of army until late game stages" - you never played on anything above chieftan, because you wouldn't survive until endgame nor be strong enough you could just spam army units and have your sad country stand up to the stronger countries) so its totally understandable that you like Civ 5 better. For the things you are interested in, it's probably the better game.

    Please don't claim that Civ 4 had no military strategy though, as that's objectively false.

    On any war that wasn't riflemen vs axemen, the terrain you fought on, wether you were about to stick your newly damaged unit in the middle of enemy units, if you were going to let an enemy move a unit into a forested hill, all matter. Could you hit their unit they left isolated without being within movement range of their 10 stack army just down the road?

    Also, you still had to worry very very much about unit types. The AI was smart about building the right type of units to counter what you've been building. Have macemen? It start spamming crossbowmen. Have some knights to do quick pillages to undermine their economy and slow their war machine? It'll start drafting pikemen.

    It was evil at sneaking units in to pillage your iron mine and damage your production too.

    You may like Civ 5 more, and I agree that the strategic movement with hexes and actual ranged combat is very nice, but please don't say that Civ 4 had no military strategy, that's preposterous.
     
  11. PotatoOverdose

    PotatoOverdose Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    352
    Civ 4 had stack of doom strategy, build a big stack, keep to the forests/hills, and make for the enemy city. You had to pick the right unit to attack and you would (preferably) not attack units in favorable terrain without siege.

    If you and the AI had tech parity in civ IV and they sent 20 units against your 5 units protecting a region of your empire, you would loose.

    In civ 5, this is not a given because of all of the potential maneuvering that you can do.
     
  12. digitalcraft

    digitalcraft Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    So being able to beat 20 AI units with your similar strength 5 units makes it good strategy?
     
  13. da_Vinci

    da_Vinci Gypsy Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,182
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Thanks, someone had to say it (I was about to ... ) ;) Although now, we are describing semantics ... :mischief:

    There are some tactical features that are not so different, comparing small stack combat in Civ IV to Civ V. The archer is like a siege weapon that softens up units before a melee attack (can kill it outright given enough rounds of bombardment). Taking a city still takes multiple units attacking after a seige bombardment.

    Enjoying the new tactics immensely.

    dV
     
  14. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,118
    Location:
    北京皇城
    Yeah, that would be the very definition of strategies. Or do you prefer the play-by-numbers system, which consists of throwing stacks against each other and praying for victory?
     
  15. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    Aren't there any strategies involving Social Policies? Even lemmy's game didn't have that.
     
  16. Ralgar

    Ralgar Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    133
    Thank you!

    I played Civ 4 in many multiplayer games (so disregard good/bad AI) and there were many tactics involved in combat. Like suiciding catapults in an enemy stack of doom, getting the right promotions, unit counters, fortifying in a city with tons of defense boni while the enemy is slowly catapulting your defense away and you are whipping desperately more units together. You also had to factor war wariness in!

    I have not yet played multiplayer in Civ 5, so I don't want to make a statement about that, but Civ 4 was not devoid of tactical/strategig decision making.
     
  17. Matte979

    Matte979 Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Chicago
    CIV5 will be a great war game when the AI is patched up. Right now my feeling its a builders game. I think most people that have an issue are the early war mongers and more aggressive people and that have no trouble exploiting AI issues.

    As a builder type I like CIV5 so much more than civ4. I feel that my building choices and what tiles to use matter much more and you have to switch around based on your current needs. CIV4 felt more like a wargame to me, the building game was always the same and you build the cities the same way until later in the game when you specialized them. Now you have to think from the begining on what to build.

    Its actually really ironic as most people was worried it was going to be a war game.
     
  18. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    No strategy in Civ4 combat? Jeez... part of it began with expansive borders for strategic depth, unit promotion choices, your own stacking, your road network. Give me a break people.
     
  19. Gath

    Gath Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    Civ 5's combat is tactical. not strategic.
     

Share This Page