Regarding that, I’d say that 1-UPT and unstacking cities have changed the turn to turn (and also long-term) gameplay loop much more than switching civs or mix and match leaders.
But hey, those also weren‘t in civ 4 and were not introduced in civ 7. Seems almost like a games franchise is actually slowly evolving over decades in some form. Who could have known?
Regarding that, I’d say that 1-UPT and unstacking cities have changed the turn to turn (and also long-term) gameplay loop much more than switching civs or mix and match leaders.
But hey, those also weren‘t in civ 4 and were not introduced in civ 7. Seems almost like a games franchise is actually slowly evolving over decades in some form. Who could have known?
That is a very rational argument. People aren't rational creatures, though.
You can see the reality of that, spoken in the reception and swift loss of player interest. People tolerated 1UPT, mostly. The fan base grew and expanded to less hard-core, narrative driven gamers(which I enjoy personally even if I also appreciate hard-core strategy)
Switching seems to bother the narrative makers. Or, maybe it's the resets. Both, undoubtedly. Just too far for too many; it can be safely presumed to be the most impactful change the franchise has yet to make, and that impact does not seem warmly received at present.
I prefer 1UPT to doomstacks, but I also don't accept that those are the only two options. Sure, commanders help, but it's still 1UPT. Surely there is more of a middle ground that reins in the worst excesses of the doomstack while also generating the tactical gameplay of 1UPT.
1UPT would work better if you could compose armies, combining artillery, cavalry, and infantry to march over enemies. Something like commanders in Civ 7, but without having to unpack.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
