Civ 5 - less units!?

[tom2050]

Having 30 units for a game that is supposed to be an epic empire is boring and lame. One of the reasons they did this was so they could improve the bad unit graphics of 4, and make the game run fast as a sell point (since there is not much else new over prev. versions).

It's going to be Epic Lines of Attrition instead of Stacks of Death. Immense Strategy? Not quite, once you learn the best way to attack a city, it will be the same every time, and perhaps a little different depending on the era...

Tom

 

[blacksmit049]

It is said that there are frontlines now, maybe there will be flanking attack. And now there are ranged units, who can fire less than 2hex, strategy will be more organized and tactical. One unit per tile will really add to faster gameplay during Modern Era. But I'm really curious how they plan to make the game more addicting during war and about the resources too, still skeptic.

 

[Keroro]

I'm happy with the idea of fewer units. It also seems that we will have fewer cities. As several people have said, this can add to the strategic aspects of the game rather than take away from it. When each unit is important in it's own right it makes the decision on whether to keep it in the fight or retreat much more interesting. When each city has it's own character and value it makes each one that much more to you. I'd rather have a number of good cities with some individual character rather than infinite city sprawl as you can in civ 3.

It also makes a game easier to play in that you don't need to micromanage nearly as much. I love civ 3 and my own stacks of doom, but sometimes having to arrange 50 units to attack another civ's 50 units seems kinda pointless - just give me one army and I'll attack once with that.

If the game is moddable then I'm sure people will mod it to do away with some of the limitations anyway - then it's each modder's choice how to organise their own games.

 

[tom2050]

The problem with this trend is that it IS NOT CIVILIZATION... It's some twisted sick form of it. Civ 6 you will end up with 1 unit the whole game and 1 city.

It's fine if they want to alter things, but this officially takes all the EPIC out of Civ forever. Nothing is epic with 10, 20, or 30 units. If people want strategy like that, no cities and few units, a good chess game has their name written all over it.

I stated this exactly... 2K is ruining the series by making the game so that everyone and their grandma will buy it. They will change the game in any way with no cares for sales. Take all the micro out, take the numbers (units/cities) out, concentrate on graphics, expand the play base with 'sit back and let computer play for you' style.

Of course most love this, because they are the general non-civ population.. not the die-hard civ fans.

Tom

 

[r_rolo1]

I mean the number of units on the map...

see the Eurogamer interview:

Dennis Shirk:
Units take longer to build now, they're more expensive, and they're a lot more important to you, because you need to keep them alive. You can't just spam tons and tons of units. You could before, but we wanted to make it more interesting. So you have to make more decisions, advance in technology faster, and work towards building stronger units.

PLUS the IGN Preview:

There's also a limitation on resources discovered in the field. Previously, if you found horses, it was a bottomless well of horses (thankfully not literally) but now you find a specific number - and once you've used them to make cavalry units, they're gone. Just as artificial, maybe, but another limitation on your war machine.

I pay to see this one ... and this regardless of my opinion on the issue of the number of units in game. i would even bet that in a couple of weeks, months at max, the community in here and in other civ dedicated forums will find atleast a way of circumvent this, or atleast to make far more units than the developers wanted you to have.

 

[bonafide11]

Having 30 units for a game that is supposed to be an epic empire is boring and lame. One of the reasons they did this was so they could improve the bad unit graphics of 4, and make the game run fast as a sell point (since there is not much else new over prev. versions).

It's going to be Epic Lines of Attrition instead of Stacks of Death. Immense Strategy? Not quite, once you learn the best way to attack a city, it will be the same every time, and perhaps a little different depending on the era...

Tom

The quote in bold seems to fit Civ IV more than Civ V. Warfare in Civ IV is not epic; it's stale and monotonous. Spamming units and sending massive stacks to sit outside an enemy city takes no strategy. It shouldn't be that easy to just send a massive stack to an enemy city; there should be enemy forces opposing it and preventing it from getting there. Wars should not take place only in the city, there should be battles as you try to reach the enemy city. This was the problem with Civ IV warfare, and this is what Civ V warfare will improve. There's nothing epic but a stack of doom, and there's no strategy in that. There's strategy in knowing what units to place where and having to position units in the right tiles to prevent an enemy from reaching your cities. In Civ IV, if you put single units outside your cities to defend them, the units will be destroyed by large diverse stacks. Now you can actually defend your countryside! How is this not a huge improvement for any strategy game?

Of course, some people will complain about change no matter what, just for the sake of complaining, without even considering that maybe it's an improvement.

 

[tom2050]

It may be an improvement... but you can't say it is.. since you don't know. You might say all change is terrific just for the sake of doing it, even if it may not be.

No units to defend your cities, you can build a garrison unit or something of the sort. You can flank, and shoot an arrow. Otherwise, single file line to the city. That is the strategy foundation from what we know so far... there is nothing else.

It may be PG inspired, but cannot work like PG... PG used alot of units, this will not. It cannot because the maps are not going to be huge.

By Epic, my idea is that if I have a large mighty empire, I should literally have a large empire, not 25 units. Doesn't make you feel it. Small city count in Civ 4 was the same way. Civ 3 and 2 were normal.. although there were many annoying factors in both that caused it to become tedious.

Tom

 

[r_rolo1]

@bonafine

You are making a terrible description of Civ IV warfare in general, because you are making a very good description of how to break the backs of a terrible player called AI. Civ IV warfare between competent players has very little to do with making huge stacks and simply march to the next city, because no competent player will try to defend their cities in the city walls. And even against the AI there is importance in defending the countryside and there is importance in placing the right units in the right spots. Making a statement like that is like saying that playing chess has no strategy behind and that it's dull based on your gaming experience against a 8-year old rookie that is only concerned on killing your units....

And about your sentence that putting isolated units in civ IV is a death sentence ... do you you really think it will be diferent in Civ V? Units like those will surely be surrounded, mauled with ranged attacks and erased , one by one... units grouped will still win against isolated ones

 

[Senethro]

Of course, some people will complain about change no matter what, just for the sake of complaining, without even considering that maybe it's an improvement.

Truest thing said in the thread so far.

You might say all change is terrific just for the sake of doing it, even if it may not be.

Change for the sake of change is welcome. We've already got Civ4, Civ4.5 and Civ4.75 as games and expansions. I'd like a new game, not a Civ4 remake. If its bad then you've still got Civ4.

By Epic, my idea is that if I have a large mighty empire, I should literally have a large empire, not 25 units. Doesn't make you feel it. Small city count in Civ 4 was the same way. Civ 3 and 2 were normal.. although there were many annoying factors in both that caused it to become tedious.

I used to play Alpha Centauri as the Hive and in 100 turns I would have 150 Formers (workers) and 200 crawlers (Non-military unit that can work a tile instead of a unit of population).

Unit spam is not epic. If you mindlessly want MOAR then just imagine that each unit represents twice the number of men it did in Civ4.

 

[bonafide11]

@bonafine

You are making a terrible description of Civ IV warfare in general, because you are making a very good description of how to break the backs of a terrible player called AI. Civ IV warfare between competent players has very little to do with making huge stacks and simply march to the next city, because no competent player will try to defend their cities in the city walls. And even against the AI there is importance in defending the countryside and there is importance in placing the right units in the right spots. Making a statement like that is like saying that playing chess has no strategy behind and that it's dull based on your gaming experience against a 8-year old rookie that is only concerned on killing your units....

And about your sentence that putting isolated units in civ IV is a death sentence ... do you you really think it will be diferent in Civ V? Units like those will surely be surrounded, mauled with ranged attacks and erased , one by one... units grouped will still win against isolated ones

First point, the majority of Civ players play against the AI. The game isn't designed solely for multiplayer, so that point is irrelevant. Plus I have played multiplayer and people still use the stack of doom in it, so your point isn't right anyway.

Second point, putting isolated units in Civ V won't be the same as in Civ IV because you have to use isolated units. There are no more stacks. If you want to prevent an enemy from crossing your borders, you need to blockade them by putting single units on each tile. In Civ IV, this is a death sentence because if you put a lone axeman on a tile, a chariot from a SOD will kill it; if you put a spearman on a lone tile, an axeman from a SOD will kill it; if you put an archer on a lone tile, a swordsman from a SOD will kill it. It's near impossible to defend more than one tile because single units outside of the SOD are always vulnerable to another unit. In Civ V, we don't know the specifics of combat yet, but I have a hard time believing they're going to make it a death sentence to put a single unit on a tile when that's the only option you have. All units will be on single tiles.

 

[tom2050]

Unit spam is not epic. If you mindlessly want MOAR then just imagine that each unit represents twice the number of men it did in Civ4.

If you mindlessly want less, then wish for the game to have 1 unit, and pretend it's 1000.

It's about balance, instead of seeking a balance, they went to an extreme. Civ 4 combat is actually close to the same as Civ 3 combat, with minor changes. The single number system with bonus' works in the end the same way as 2 number system and no bonus'. Civ 4 had more options, but basically they are similar. Other than that, unit numbers were nerfed. And now nerfed again. See the trend?

It's easier for casual players to play a game with very few units... this is their goal, the casual player market is a huge money pile.

Civ 5 is now becoming like Tiger Woods Golf... they change things just to change things, with no thought on actually improving what made Civilization such a success initially.

Tom

 

[Walkabout]

It may be an improvement... but you can't say it is.. since you don't know. /QUOTE]

Ah. But you do know, and can say that it isn't an improvement?

 

[tom2050]

Second point, putting isolated units in Civ V won't be the same as in Civ IV because you have to use isolated units. There are no more stacks. If you want to prevent an enemy from crossing your borders, you need to blockade them by putting single units on each tile. In Civ IV, this is a death sentence because if you put a lone axeman on a tile, a chariot from a SOD will kill it; if you put a spearman on a lone tile, an axeman from a SOD will kill it; if you put an archer on a lone tile, a swordsman from a SOD will kill it. It's near impossible to defend more than one tile because single units outside of the SOD are always vulnerable to another unit. In Civ V, we don't know the specifics of combat yet, but I have a hard time believing they're going to make it a death sentence to put a single unit on a tile when that's the only option you have. All units will be on single tiles.

Exactly, "Lines of Attrition" (LoA)

They don't look too happy about it either.

Tom

 

[esalkin]

Having to have a resource to build units could be a good idea if "unit building" resources were found in "regions" like in real life and resource trading was featured. So, If you want tanks, you must trade your over-abundant iron and corn for Japan's rich aluminum mines to build or heal tanks. Done right, it could really put diplomacy on a par with war. (and drive you crazy at the higher levels!)

 

[r_rolo1]

First point, the majority of Civ players play against the AI. The game isn't designed solely for multiplayer, so that point is irrelevant. Plus I have played multiplayer and people still use the stack of doom in it, so your point isn't right anyway.

Second point, putting isolated units in Civ V won't be the same as in Civ IV because you have to use isolated units. There are no more stacks. If you want to prevent an enemy from crossing your borders, you need to blockade them by putting single units on each tile. In Civ IV, this is a death sentence because if you put a lone axeman on a tile, a chariot from a SOD will kill it; if you put a spearman on a lone tile, an axeman from a SOD will kill it; if you put an archer on a lone tile, a swordsman from a SOD will kill it. It's near impossible to defend more than one tile because single units outside of the SOD are always vulnerable to another unit. In Civ V, we don't know the specifics of combat yet, but I have a hard time believing they're going to make it a death sentence to put a single unit on a tile when that's the only option you have. All units will be on single tiles.

To the first point:

I don't have the blame that the Ai is civ IV is generally underacheiving but my argument has little to do with MP/SP ... it has to do with competent/incompetent oponents. The AI in civ IV is incompetent , but a lot of human players are worse ( and some are far worse ) than the AI, otherwise there would be no one playing below noble. Your argument has the same weight than saying that civ IV warfare is dull because in your MP games there is always someone that takes the initial warrior to explore and leaves the first city undefended, making the game resume to march to those undefended cities...

My point is that the strategy line you are describing works againt the current AI and against people not very skilled in the game. It definitely does not work against seasoned human players and most surely would not work against a more well made AI. So describing that as THE strategy to follow in Civ IV is atleast reductive, besides being false.

And about people using the SoD in MP... true, a lot of people use the SoD in MP, but ,again that does not make it a smart move by itself First, SoD in Civ IV are terribly vulnerable to collateral damage and flanking damage ( probably not enough to balance the game, but that is another issue )... second the SoD has a inherent flaw: if your units are in a super big SoD , they aren't elsewhere ... this makes a good strategy to have a far smaller SoD and some auxiliary groups to act out of the enemy main forces reach in most cases. This is completely diferent from what you are describing in the post I quoted.

To your second point:

Replace SoD for line in your post and notice that still makes sense A isolated unit in Civ V will be exactly as vulnerable than a isolated unit from Civ V because it will still be possible to outnumber badly a isolated unit in a attack turn... by atleast 18 times if my math is correct, as units will be able to move atleast 2 hexes per turn. A less isolated unit, in a line for a example, will have in general far less tiles where it can be attacked from ( most likely 3 to 6 if you are in the middle of the line ). And this without counting with ranged attacks ... so if you try to make a nice countryside spreaded army, a person that keeps their units in a line will be able to eat your units one by one and rotate the injured ones to somewhere safer ( one of the confirmed features is that you can switch units between two tiles... ).

 

[esalkin]

(IMHO) 1 unit 1 tile is bad. Especially with the move to hexes where 1 unit can be attacked from many sides at once. I'm not a fan of "super-stacks" either. I much prefer the "weighed stack" option where each unit is given a "size" and a single cell can only support a maximum size stack. So you could stack 4 longbows but only 2 chariots on an plain. This could even lead to techs, building and wonders that allow you to increase the stack limit. ("urban combat theory", "training grounds", "West Point")

 

[tom2050]

The Dev's are using all the muscles except the one that matters...

They could have limited stacks to be able to contain combined arms only. Each stack can have a defender, ranged, offense unit, auxillary, etc...

Other than that, keep the rest the same, and it's normal... not some arcane attempt of a new feature, which is actually not new at all... it's a nerfed toned-down toilet version of Panzer General.

Tom

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is about what I expected to (one of their two possible ways to prevent 1 UPT from becoming Micromanagement hell)

The other is the ability to make the Individual Units as large as you like, and prevent them from Healing. (my preference since it makes other things simpler)


As for Spearman v. Tank that is a VERY easy problem to solve even keeping Random in

Spearman is Str 5.. with all standard bonuses)
Tank is Str 25...with all standard bonuses

Each unit has a 50/50 chance of getting the advantage

If the Spearman gets the advantage, then the Tank takes 1 damage per round and ths Spearman takes 0.5

10 rounds later Spearman dead, Tank=Str 15

If the Tank gets the advantage, then the Spearman takes 1 damage per round and the Tank takes 0.5

5 Rounds later, Spearman Dead, Tank=Str 22.5


(Note: this would also make the unit-unit battles more easily predictable to the player)

Basically you would know that if you had 2x the Strength you Will win... the issue is how much damge you will take.

Of course they also have Range.

 

[Pakhawaj]

Fewer units sound good, I never build many of them to begin with... I've also never won an "aggressive"-style victory. I like peace!
Hopefully fewer units will make the prospect of war more interesting than just having more units than the enemy.
I never knew about the fewer cities thing, I thought they were increasing the maximum world size? I hope we don't end up with vast areas of empty plains.

 

[Ahriman]

What I would really like to know is whether or not the loser of a fight will still be destroyed entirely or not.