gingerbill
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 335
agreed , good post .
Civ V a step backward?
- Thread starter 1morey
- Start date
agreed , good post .
Well I lied Sim City 4 BECAUSE of its complexity.. so yeah. Sim City 300 was horrible though.
I really look forward to Civ 5, now that I look at it. THey have only have said that they religion is not like it was. I think it will still be represented, just hopefully not the objective way it is right now, were a city has a religion or not.
I really look forward to Civ 5, now that I look at it. THey have only have said that they religion is not like it was. I think it will still be represented, just hopefully not the objective way it is right now, were a city has a religion or not.
gingerbill
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 335
lol , a worn out franchise , hehe , wasnt civ 4 the biggest selling civ ever? And had plenty of new ideas and was highly rated by all the critics and reviews. And judging by the forums very popular with players?
civ series is not one to complain about money making expansion packs , each game when released has hundreds of hours of play without any expansion pack needed and also the expansion packs have been good.
dont understand the complaint about the civs , you want them to make up civs? course they going to use the same civs give or take.
England was originaly called Briton (as Rome invaded Briton..read History Books)
err , whats your point , i think everyone on the planet knows that , they dint pick civs and then give them the first name that country ever had? your point makes no sense. You seemed to be stuck on the idea its all about ancient civs , when clearly its not.
The main issue fo CiV is one unit per tile. I think it depends on how they implement it. Front-constipation is the main problem. If your front gets clogged easily or if you can clog up the competitions wars then this feature is FAIL. If you can have 15-50 units without clogging up the front (until perhaps industrialized times) then it is a success IMO. More units add little, having fewer units means that you have less options, and less oppurtunity to sacrafice economics/culture etc for military power.
One fix, if there is a problem (a fix to the engine not a mod) is to make a lot of little hexes for the units but the city and laborers have a 7 hex footprint. You could even have a little village/cottage graphic at the center of a laborers footprint. Thus way too much space for constipation to occur (until WWI perhaps?) without causing massive mm for cities & economics etc. This will also give you more freedom in setting units movement.
One fix, if there is a problem (a fix to the engine not a mod) is to make a lot of little hexes for the units but the city and laborers have a 7 hex footprint. You could even have a little village/cottage graphic at the center of a laborers footprint. Thus way too much space for constipation to occur (until WWI perhaps?) without causing massive mm for cities & economics etc. This will also give you more freedom in setting units movement.
Le Sage
Emperor
My problem with the frontline approach they seem to be advocating for Civ5 is that there were no frontlines for the most part of human history. Armies were a bunch of men grouped together, not in frontlines, but in bunches, really. The Napoleonic La Grande Armée made no massive frontlines that spanned entire continents. Those continental frontlines came with World War One.
Therefore, depending how they choose to do it, the Civ 4 approach is much more realistic for the most part of history; stacking troops together and falling on enemies heavily fortified inside fortified towns and strongholds. We can't have frontlines spanning the entire European continent during the Middle Ages, for an example. There should be sieges in the Middle Ages. Pitched field battles should be the exception.
There will be fewer troops to build frontlines during the Middle Ages, while there will be masses of troops to send in the field during the modern era. That is the solution, but the frontline theory, and the fact that they've placed such importance in it, still gives me the shivers. I think they've thought it through though, and I'm eager to see what their solutions have been.
Therefore, depending how they choose to do it, the Civ 4 approach is much more realistic for the most part of history; stacking troops together and falling on enemies heavily fortified inside fortified towns and strongholds. We can't have frontlines spanning the entire European continent during the Middle Ages, for an example. There should be sieges in the Middle Ages. Pitched field battles should be the exception.
There will be fewer troops to build frontlines during the Middle Ages, while there will be masses of troops to send in the field during the modern era. That is the solution, but the frontline theory, and the fact that they've placed such importance in it, still gives me the shivers. I think they've thought it through though, and I'm eager to see what their solutions have been.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
"For example: ... No Tech Trading to be huge improvements over the old system"
In Civ IV, those who want to can turn off Tech Trading.
So in Civ IV, the player gets to decide which type of game he finds more enjoyable: Tech trading allowed or no Tech Trading allowed.
(Some players, may alternate between these two possibilities.)
If they allow only one of these two options in Civ V, it is definitely a step backwards.
In Civ IV, those who want to can turn off Tech Trading.
So in Civ IV, the player gets to decide which type of game he finds more enjoyable: Tech trading allowed or no Tech Trading allowed.
(Some players, may alternate between these two possibilities.)
If they allow only one of these two options in Civ V, it is definitely a step backwards.
Someone has mentioned, that a square on a standard civ4 map represents 1000 km².
Packing all your troops onto 30 km long line is also not really realistic for attacking a city.
Le Sage
Emperor
Naah. That's true. Nor are cities covering more than 1000 square kilometres very realistic.
It's all symbolic I guess. But what I meant to argue is HOW warfare is conducted. The immense, continental frontlines won't make much sense in the Middle Ages when armies operated on such a small scale and sieges were the order of the day. If Civ5 has medieval armies forming frontlines going from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, I'll be very disappointed. Civ needs to keep the warfare specific and correct to the era.
In that respect, Civ 4 failed with stacking and just marching stacks off towards enemy cities. There were no frontlines in civ 4, which made warfare during the later ages a tad strange. Someone tried to make a World War One mod and failed, just because of that fact, because it wasn't possible. A combination of both systems might be in order.
But, as said, I think they've solved that already and warfare in the Middle Ages will be to my taste as well. I'm real glad they're trying to move battles out in the terrain, but for some periods in history, it's just not proper. It all remains to be seen.
It's all symbolic I guess. But what I meant to argue is HOW warfare is conducted. The immense, continental frontlines won't make much sense in the Middle Ages when armies operated on such a small scale and sieges were the order of the day. If Civ5 has medieval armies forming frontlines going from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, I'll be very disappointed. Civ needs to keep the warfare specific and correct to the era.
In that respect, Civ 4 failed with stacking and just marching stacks off towards enemy cities. There were no frontlines in civ 4, which made warfare during the later ages a tad strange. Someone tried to make a World War One mod and failed, just because of that fact, because it wasn't possible. A combination of both systems might be in order.
But, as said, I think they've solved that already and warfare in the Middle Ages will be to my taste as well. I'm real glad they're trying to move battles out in the terrain, but for some periods in history, it's just not proper. It all remains to be seen.
Suho1004
Warlord
Well, I do know that we will have fewer units to command, so maybe the number of units will increase as time goes on. Without enough units to fully cover a line, that line would actually be weaker than a concentrated force, so maybe in earlier eras combat will tend toward concentrated battles than stretched out lines. Perhaps once we get to the modern era we will then have enough units to form proper lines, and the face of warfare will change.
Obviously this is all speculation. But I agree with Le Sage on this: I'm pretty sure the developers have thought this through, and are not going to dump a lemon on us. It may not be perfect (in fact, I doubt it will be), but it will have been thought through.
Obviously this is all speculation. But I agree with Le Sage on this: I'm pretty sure the developers have thought this through, and are not going to dump a lemon on us. It may not be perfect (in fact, I doubt it will be), but it will have been thought through.
Ahriman
Tyrant
In Civ3 and 4, we have a combat system with stacks that is semi-realistic for ancient/medieval warfare, but is unrealistic for modern warfare.
With Civ5, we will have a combat system with 1upt that is unrealistic for ancient/medieval warfare (except in an abstract battlefield line of battle sense) but is more realistic for modern warfare.
Some lack of realism is really inevitable, but so what? Stacks are boring.
With Civ5, we will have a combat system with 1upt that is unrealistic for ancient/medieval warfare (except in an abstract battlefield line of battle sense) but is more realistic for modern warfare.
Some lack of realism is really inevitable, but so what? Stacks are boring.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Stacks are not boring per se as you can now see this huge army coming your way and gulp about it... It definitely has it's merits. I think rethinking the way siege works so that stacks do not become a steamroller that can bash through anything would have sufficed.
Also I would like there to be one or two more properties like 'first strikes' that units can pick up. You know, not first strike, but another property that some units have and others don't to make warfare more diverse. That way certain techs can unlock unit X that has first strikes and unit Y that has something other than first strikes but something that is useful in some situations but not in others. That way warfare can become a bit more about tactics and a bit less about bringing huge numbers again.
But whatever, I am sure that in Civ5 the 1upt will bring plenty of depth to the game. I am optimistic about the possibilities of an AI to handle the new rules since it is not that hard to program an AI that can pose a challenge for the human when confronted with simple rules like these. Sure the AI may make a questionable call every now and then, but in general the AI won't suck when it comes to unit placement.
All in all I think each and every version of the game is a step forward, and BtS was a huge step forward since it was the first Civ that I got me interested enough to actualy get good at it.
Also I would like there to be one or two more properties like 'first strikes' that units can pick up. You know, not first strike, but another property that some units have and others don't to make warfare more diverse. That way certain techs can unlock unit X that has first strikes and unit Y that has something other than first strikes but something that is useful in some situations but not in others. That way warfare can become a bit more about tactics and a bit less about bringing huge numbers again.
But whatever, I am sure that in Civ5 the 1upt will bring plenty of depth to the game. I am optimistic about the possibilities of an AI to handle the new rules since it is not that hard to program an AI that can pose a challenge for the human when confronted with simple rules like these. Sure the AI may make a questionable call every now and then, but in general the AI won't suck when it comes to unit placement.
All in all I think each and every version of the game is a step forward, and BtS was a huge step forward since it was the first Civ that I got me interested enough to actualy get good at it.
celticfc21
Chieftain
I agree with this. The AI would sometimes make very dumb decisions with stacks, but with only one unit per tile I think they will be much better at warfare. On top of this, it may increase performance and reduce the time between turns in the later stages of the game when everyone has hundreds of units...
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Apart from the fact that the AI will HAVE to be better in order to be able to handle coordinating units in multiple plots (which is a good thing), then there is no logic in the argument that it is easier to make the AI better at handling units if they are spread out over several tiles/plots rather than if they are stacked.
Considering that the 1upt approach is a major change from how all previous version of civ worked, then I can't help but wondering if it will even feel like playing a civ game at all with this mechanism in place.
The word that first springs to my mind when trying to imagine all the possible concequences of playing with such an obviously restrictive mechanism is "annoying!".
Considering that the 1upt approach is a major change from how all previous version of civ worked, then I can't help but wondering if it will even feel like playing a civ game at all with this mechanism in place.
The word that first springs to my mind when trying to imagine all the possible concequences of playing with such an obviously restrictive mechanism is "annoying!".
Ahriman
Tyrant
Its true that 1upt will place a higher burden on the AI. Stacks are very easy for the AI.
You could equally say this about every other significant change they've made since Civ1.
For me, its "ThankGod!NoMoreStacksofDoom!!!".
Le Sage
Emperor
@CyberChrist Actually both Civ 1 and 2 didn't have stacking. Units used one tile and that was it, so this is a revert to those days. It has to be done well, because in Civilization 2 I used to create a line of units along what I considered my borders to prevent enemy spies from getting into my lands. That created an absurd frontier situation with lots of troops in defensive lines, but there were no cultural borders in Civ2, as I remember.
Oh well.
Oh well.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
You remember wrong. It was most certainly possible to stack units in both Civ1 and 2, but maybe what you remember is the fact that if a stack lost a battle while defending then all units in the stack were killed.
Le Sage
Emperor
I stand corrected then, CyberChrist. Yeah. I remember losing lots of settlers on ships in that way, and maybe that's why the stack wasn't used, since it took out the entire stack to have the top unit defeated.
Achilles11
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 16
My fear is, that CIV 5 loses its complexitiy, so that it will be more palyable for console.
In other words, CIV 5 will be to simple for PC player and strategy players, ad will become boring.
In other words, CIV 5 will be to simple for PC player and strategy players, ad will become boring.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Fortunately, there is absolutely zero evidence to support this fear.
Civ 5 has a lot of challenges. It has to be able to pull people away from Civ 4 AND all the mods that go with it. Therefore the designers have to make it do things that the modders cannot do in Civ 4. The 1 U/H fits the bill and adds in tactical considerations absent from Civ 4 but that can reasonably expect to be popular if done right. Other changes such as advanced graphics in the leader screen and a streamlined user interface are all changes that modders can't easily do. Ditto city-states. Civ 5 is going to be a failure if it doesn't co-opt Civ 4s modding community. That is the number one thing on the designers minds.
The solution posited by many - increased realism and detail have their own problems. Either it is irrelevant to the game (and costs!) or it requires too much from the player. I expect Civ 4 is at or near goldilocks complexity. Every version of civ after civ 2 has to be revolutionary in some way. That may not be the best thing for Civ fans in the long run but that is definitely the business model they are stuck with.
The solution posited by many - increased realism and detail have their own problems. Either it is irrelevant to the game (and costs!) or it requires too much from the player. I expect Civ 4 is at or near goldilocks complexity. Every version of civ after civ 2 has to be revolutionary in some way. That may not be the best thing for Civ fans in the long run but that is definitely the business model they are stuck with.
