Civilization V - Units: Disappointment

[Buccaneer]

frekk, you showed my point. Hex-based wargames offer a tactical map suitable for 1upt, as they have for decades. Do you see anything in the Civ5 screenshots to indicate they were going to such a scale?

One of the great things about Civ2 and Civ4 (at least) was the ability to play on any size map of an infinite shape. Is the new combat model restricting the size and shape of map we can play on?

Imagine playing on a small landmass, say 10x5. You have two cities, the AI has two as well. Would nearly every hex of that landmass be consumed by the multitudes of units fighting on both sides in latter stages?

 

[frekk]

frekk, you showed my point. Hex-based wargames offer a tactical map suitable for 1upt, as they have for decades. Do you see anything in the Civ5 screenshots to indicate they were going to such a scale?

I have a feeling they are moving to larger maps and a smaller scale, given that the city footprint is being extended to 3 squares.

You are incorrect about the scales. I just picked that one at random because it showed a narrow landmass. There are lots of 1upt hex-based wargames that depict much larger scales, for instance, Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, one of the all-time most popular titles in that genre. Here is the same Italian campaign as seen in a small section of the map in that game:

Imagine playing on a small landmass, say 10x5. You have two cities, the AI has two as well. Would nearly every hex of that landmass be consumed by the multitudes of units fighting on both sides in latter stages?

A map that small would be covered with units in civ4, stacking or no. That's a damn small landmass for 2 civs and 4 cities. Awfully crowded. Nor could it possibly last that way to the "latter stages". One civ would probably be gone by the early iron age.

In civ5, it probably will not be covered in units at all. From what I gather, there's going to be a drastic reduction in unit count, such that a city will typically support only about 3 units or so (I doubt it's a hard limit, probably has to do with maintenance costs and/or resources). Given one garrison unit in each city, this means no more than 4 units or so per side on the terrain. So, hardly "consumed by multitudes" at all.

 

[Buccaneer]

Fair enough.

 

[vidion]

I also think that there will be fewer units in Civ 5. Remember the limit on the number of resource based units. If I have a 9 city empire I can expect to have at most 1 or 2 iron sources. So maybe we would have only 10 swords for your whole empire. And we have to keep upgrading them as time goes on.

 

[King Kalmah]

I agree with OP.Its gonna be weak with less units.

 

[Hail]

imho whether civ5 unit system will be a success or a failure largely depends on how much MM 1u/t will add to the game

 

[Howard Mahler]

Good initial post.
Unfortunately, the intellectual level of many of the replies is extremely low.

"It could be a map of my backyard."
Assuming that your backyard contains many major cities and civilizations.

Gameplay trumps realism.
As empty of meaning as the reverse.
Presumably, if it was more fun to start in 4000 B.C. with nuclear weapons, then that is the way to go.

Obviously, some compromises with realism have to be made.
Archers shooting across the U.S. Great Lakes is an unnecessary compromise.
At that point, my suspension of disbelief ends.

(What bothers different people varies. I am not bothered that the unit designation for an archer is made big enough for the player to see. Assuming a typical tile is 100 miles across, 250 tiles to go all the way around the world, I do not assume that the pictured archer is 50 miles tall.)

As near as I can tell, the head designer decided it would be really nifty to adopt a combat system that makes some sense for WW II combat in Europe on a certain scale of map. An inherently bad idea for a game that spans many millennia and is played on different scales.

Posters declaring the new combat system better, without even having played it?!?

 

[frekk]

Gameplay trumps realism.
As empty of meaning as the reverse.
Presumably, if it was more fun to start in 4000 B.C. with nuclear weapons, then that is the way to go.

Obviously, some compromises with realism have to be made.
Archers shooting across the U.S. Great Lakes is an unnecessary compromise.
At that point, my suspension of disbelief ends.

Entirely agree here.

As near as I can tell, the head designer decided it would be really nifty to adopt a combat system that makes some sense for WW II combat in Europe on a certain scale of map. An inherently bad idea for a game that spans many millennia and is played on different scales.

Posters declaring the new combat system better, without even having played it?!?

Don't agree here. You contradicted yourself. First you say that the new system is "inherently bad" and then you say nobody should think it might be good until they've played it.

 

[Chalks]

Posters declaring the new combat system better, without even having played it?!?

Reasons to think the new combat system will be better: there are a bunch of talented developers who know the Civ franchise inside out working on it and THEY think it's good.

Reasons to think the new combat system will ruin the game: An active imagination, personal distaste for any non SoD combat system, clairvoyance. Pick one.

I'm confident that the guys working on this project probably think the 1upt system plays very well. And I'm pretty confident that most fans of the genre will agree with them.

I also think that people like to jump to conclusions and complain about things that they do not understand.

 

[MrManNo1]

Unfortunately, the intellectual level of many of the replies is extremely low.

I can only assume that this includes your post, judging from your holier-than-thou attitude.

 

[cf_nz]

As near as I can tell, the head designer decided it would be really nifty to adopt a combat system that makes some sense for WW II combat in Europe on a certain scale of map. An inherently bad idea for a game that spans many millennia and is played on different scales.

Please elaborate on why the time frame and scale of Civ makes the combat system an 'inherently bad idea', I certainly don't see it, but then again I don't see a problem with the archer shooting over a lake either.

 

[Wolle68]

I've found the combat in cIV to be the worst aspect of the game, and the worst combat in any of the Civilization games so far. Every moment of combat seems to be telling me "Hi there, I just wanted to let you know, you're playing a game."

I don't like any of these: suicide cats, promotions, the paper-scissor-rocks system, cultural defense of a city (huh?), the "best defender defends" rule, and - of course - the stacks of death.

I realize that among these things, the "best defender defends" rule is the one that actually goes all the way back, but I didn't mind it when there was a defender that could be called "best" rather than constant shuffling back and forth between the defending unit. (It's particularly grating, when you promote an attacker to shock because the first defender is a swordsman, and all of a sudden a wounded longbowman steps up to the plate.)

So, for a long time I've wanted a change to combat that took the warfare out of the cities and into strategically important positions in the landscape. It seems that this is exactly the change Firaxis is going for with the new rules. Maybe war will actually become fun again.

(Of course, I might change my mind the first time I see arrows flying across a city to hit the attackers approaching on the other side. )

 

[SJSerio]

Reasons to think the new combat system will be better: there are a bunch of talented developers who know the Civ franchise inside out working on it and THEY think it's good.

The thing is, they are working on the system and they are used to it, so to THEM, it is going to be a great system. Just because THEY think it is good, doesn't mean that it will be good to you and me. As an example, I don't like potato salad, then the world's most renowned chef could make a dish of it and say that it is the best that they have ever done... but that doesn't mean that I am going to like it.

Reasons to think the new combat system will ruin the game: An active imagination, personal distaste for any non SoD combat system, clairvoyance. Pick one.

• An active imagination - this is invalid because it could also be applied to the SOD combat system.
• personal distaste for any non SoD combat system - For me, personally, it is not that I am open to new styles, but I just don't believe that the way that they are implementing the "new" combat system fits with Civilization.
• clairvoyance - ??? (please elaborate) If you are implying the fact that we are arguing against the new system without having played the game, then the same can be applied to those arguing for the new system (without actually playing the game)

You also forgot

• Scope of Civilization - The "new" combat system is fine for smaller scale games that focus on specific battles, but is out of place with a game on the scale of Civilization. People forget that Civilization is not like other turn-based strategy games in that aspect.
• Beyond the bounds of suspension of disbelief - While we have to forgive the developers for certain things (like lifelong leaders, etc), too much unrealistic aspects tend to pull the player out of the world. With all of the "forgiveness" that this new system is asking for (archers shooting miles, wide spread of armies, etc) lends to, it really stretches the bounds of "suspension of disbelief".

I'm confident that the guys working on this project probably think the 1upt system plays very well. And I'm pretty confident that most fans of the genre will agree with them.

Again, it is there own personal bias (that is not a slam against the developers... it is common throughout the industry and one of the reasons that many games are released that are not accepted very well by the public). How it WILL be accepted remains to be seen. As I have said, I may turn out to like it, but at this point, I am very skeptical.

I also think that people like to jump to conclusions and complain about things that they do not understand.

People also like to jump to conclusions and offer PRAISE about things that they do not understand.

 

[funat]

well - WW2 was a war of civilizations. it was not some local skirmish. it WAS fought on the whole globe with CIVILIZATIONS as key players. so PG style is absulutely OK. I personally like PG, and if CiV implements this combat model with all the needed compromises - it will be great.

 

[Mebber]

I don't know why anyone would say that "Stacks of Doom" have to go. In playing many Civ4 games, that was about the only threat I encountered from the AI in terms of military offense or defense. Most of the time, the AI defend their cities with very litte at worst and several decent units at best. And when they go an offensive, they usually come after me piecemeal. I would love to have seen more SoD from the AI because they are tough to beat (whether attacking on my cities, in the open or fortified in a city).

I've played a very long game once. I was invading another country, but then... the enemy's main force arrived. I had to pull back into a captured city on a hill to await the storm, then the battle began.

Well i watched the first gunfights until it becames boring so i poured myseld a nice cup of coffee. And another one. And another one. I was near to a caffeine-toxication as the battle ended. Sheesh, i swear, the bodies were stacked to the moon (yeah that's a metaphor i know there are no corpses in Civ4 ), hundreds of units died- and all that happened on two tiles.

Limited unites per tile... can't say i'm too mad about that idea, excessive SOB battles are somehow veeery boring. Hmm, just an idea, Civ combined with Massive Assault... that could be awesome- COULD. Could be crap also, who knows.

Who knows how the game will be in the end... just let's wait until we can play it. Maybe the new combat sys is good, maybe it is bad. In that case- hey, there are four good civilization games without tile restrictions.

 

[Wolle68]

Well i watched the first gunfights until it becames boring so i poured myseld a nice cup of coffee. And another one. And another one. I was near to a caffeine-toxication as the battle ended. Sheesh, i swear, the bodies were stacked to the moon (yeah that's a metaphor i know there are no corpses in Civ4 ), hundreds of units died- and all that happened on two tiles.

It's really a shame that a moment that should have been exciting and nerve-wrecking just ends up like

I can't see how the combat can fail to improve.

 

[boredatwork]

Upon further reflection my main worry with 1UPT is friendly and neutral nations. PG worked because (with a solitary exeption in PacGen) there were only two sides - your side and the enemy side. In civilization on the other hand there are going to be situations where another human (or worse, the AI) is going to be on your side fighting another power. Now if each of you are fighting on your own "front" then there are no worries - however how many times has an ally (or neutral) crossed your land to attack a third party?

My principle worry is that PG always worked because you had to put thought into the correct order to move and fight in, not only so your forces would end the turn in a favorable position but so they would start the next turn in a favorable position. Potentially the AI "allies" could make your life difficult by clogging up the chock point you just cleared or using the hole you blasted in the opponents lines to move through and waste time not exploiting it.

I think again this will come down to how much bigger they make the maps for a given number of cities. As long as there is "room" between cities for units to actually maneuver then it should be fine.

 

[Ahriman]

Upon further reflection my main worry with 1UPT is friendly and neutral nations.

Potentially the AI "allies" could make your life difficult by clogging up the chock point you just cleared or using the hole you blasted in the opponents lines to move through and waste time not exploiting it.

Absolutely, this is at least as significant as worrying about micromanagement requirements.
I do not want "open borders" to be a license to complicate my life.

I could also imagine some abusive exploits, where you can weaken an AI player by blocking their units without being at war. Eg: Player A attacks B, I am player C with open borders and good relations with B, who I want to protect. I rush my army into B's territory, and use it to frustrate and block A's invasion, all without declaring war or risking my own units.

The only options are:
a) Allied units can't stack, which can have problems like above.
b) Allied units can stack, 1 per ally, which has balance problems
c) Allied units can stack except when at war, which is confusing.

Unless they revamp open borders, so that you can't send units through foreign territory unless you're literally part of an alliance (or at war with them).

 

[cf_nz]

Scope of Civilization - The "new" combat system is fine for smaller scale games that focus on specific battles, but is out of place with a game on the scale of Civilization.

Can you please explain how the scale of Civilization makes the new combat system 'out of place'? I've seen the argument mentioned before but don't recall more of an explanation, this is for my interest more than anything else.

 

[Ahriman]

Can you please explain how the scale of Civilization makes the new combat system 'out of place'? I've seen the argument mentioned before but don't recall more of an explanation, this is for my interest more than anything else.

I think the idea is that Civ has traditionally modeled warfare at the strategic/theatre level, whereas Civ5 seems to be modelling more of a lower-scale tactical environment, where combat feels more like a specific battlefield, with an increased importance on unit positioning, unit congestion, archers as fire support, long range bombardment (ships shooting 4-5 tiles), high movement units (cavalry galloping around a flank to engage the siege units behind) etc.

I agree that this is likely to make the game feel "smaller". I just think its probably worth it, in order to make warfare more interesting, and to increase the number of meaningful decisions.