Downside of 1upt

[aziantuntija]

My reaction is nice and true. I still don't see how stacks 'confuse you' as you constantly say.

I would have to try to be confused by having a 5 unit stack, but it's almost impossible. Most all jobs have things that require much more thought than a 'stack'. To say stacks confuse you, then most everything in the world must confuse you. Any comment to clarify what's so confusing about them?

Or will you leave the same kind of comment you always do... like the one above?

Is there something wrong with you? I have told you this many many times

 

[aziantuntija]

You were the one insulting me, saying I was just obsessed with stacks, then you accused Bello of lying, basically. You said he was using propaganda. I wish we could avoid getting personal.

Hey come on man..

 

[tom2050]

Is there something wrong with you? I have told you this many many times

There's a big difference between not liking the way a combat model works and being confused about it.

con·fused
adj.
1. Being unable to think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence.
2.
a. Lacking logical order or sense
b. Chaotic; jumbled

You are saying that you are confused by a stack of units; that you can't think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence because it is a stack instead of 1 unit. You are saying you feel chaotic and/or jumbled about it, and that you lack logical order or sense because of it.

Makes no real sense, and I don't believe that a stack can be causing you so much confusion.

 

[aziantuntija]

There's a big difference between not liking the way a combat model works and being confused about it.

con·fused
adj.
1. Being unable to think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence.
2.
a. Lacking logical order or sense
b. Chaotic; jumbled

You are saying that you are confused by a stack of units; that you can't think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence because it is a stack instead of 1 unit. You are saying you feel chaotic and/or jumbled about it, and that you lack logical order or sense because of it.

Makes no real sense, and I don't believe that a stack can be causing you so much confusion.

Me no understand

EDIT: But nicely done twisting my sayings

 

[Celevin]

See it's players that want incredible simplification of the game so that it practically plays itself for you... that is driving 2K and Firaxis to turn Civ into checkers.

I think the word "simple" is one that's the most misused, not to say that you're misusing it. For example, one of my favourite games to play (if I find people to play against) is Go. It's a game with only 1 type of piece, and only one way to use the piece. In the understanding of the rules it's considered very very simple. Yet it's one of the deepest games ever made by man!

On the other side of the coin, I've seen games with stupidly complex rules, stupid ways to figure out how damage is done, and so on. Yet there's only 1-2 "good" strategies for the game. I think in some ways Civ4 touches upon this. Look how many lines of text a single combat is and look how many units are sometimes involved: I've seen stacks of 100 vs 100. Yet all I did was put on quick combat, attack with my siege engines, follow up with my other units, and win by a landslide. How is that deep?

My definition of simple when it comes to games is how much information needs to be processed. My definition of depth is how much thinking you can do before you find yourself unable to improve your position any more. Having said that, the goal of game design is usually to keep games as simple as possible, while offering the maximum amount of depth.

I would argue that 1upt does not make the game any more or less simple, but adds a lot more depth than stacks. The reason I don't like stacks is, especially with promotions and varying health levels, there's no way to easily process all the information if there's multiple stacks on the screen. Yes, I can do it if I think, but per unit of information I process, is the game adding much more depth? I don't think two vertical stacks fighting is interesting combat at all.

 

[brianshapiro]

I think the word "simple" is one that's the most misused, not to say that you're misusing it. For example, one of my favourite games to play (if I find people to play against) is Go. It's a game with only 1 type of piece, and only one way to use the piece. In the understanding of the rules it's considered very very simple. Yet it's one of the deepest games ever made by man!

On the other side of the coin, I've seen games with stupidly complex rules, stupid ways to figure out how damage is done, and so on. Yet there's only 1-2 "good" strategies for the game. I think in some ways Civ4 touches upon this. Look how many lines of text a single combat is and look how many units are sometimes involved: I've seen stacks of 100 vs 100. Yet all I did was put on quick combat, attack with my siege engines, follow up with my other units, and win by a landslide. How is that deep?

My definition of simple when it comes to games is how much information needs to be processed. My definition of depth is how much thinking you can do before you find yourself unable to improve your position any more. Having said that, the goal of game design is usually to keep games as simple as possible, while offering the maximum amount of depth.

I would argue that 1upt does not make the game any more or less simple, but adds a lot more depth than stacks. The reason I don't like stacks is, especially with promotions and varying health levels, there's no way to easily process all the information if there's multiple stacks on the screen. Yes, I can do it if I think, but per unit of information I process, is the game adding much more depth? I don't think two vertical stacks fighting is interesting combat at all.

Thats part of the question I'm trying to address, though. Should civilization be like a board game or like something else?

A computer game can do a lot more than a board game and have it come out work right. In SimCity, for example, you know when there's unemployment, because all of the buildings change to look as if they're vacated. The information is presented to the player in a way that doesn't make him think about it.

I fully agree with you that some systems of rules can be stupid, and I don't like the promotion system in Civ4. One of the reasons I promote realism so much is because I feel it makes games fuller, and always creates more balance. The problems in the Civ4 aren't because of realism.

And, if I just want a board game, well, why don't I just play Go.

 

[Celevin]

We are not in disagreement here but you didn't realize I was suggesting other strategies work well in human play, and would be better if the AI was better. Attacking cities is only good because that's how the AI will force things, as it stacks large number of defenders to be idle, you are of course right there. Everything else, dynamic control of countryside and resources and so on, can work just fine with civ4's system, if you are not playing against AI, or even against AI in some mods.

Ahh, I see what you mean. I mis-read what you wrote, you are right, if the AI was smarter there'd be more countryside combat. Even still, I hold to it that non-city tiles simply aren't valuable enough. Even against other players most of the time the best strat is to get on a hill next to a valuable city. This is remedied *to a degree* by two things. First, multiple strategic tiles really matters for a stronger army, as it will mean more elite units. Second, we've seen evidence to suggest that you can take away a city's culture on a tile, which aids in your own expansion, healing your units, and so on.

I don't think these are enough to actually switch my strategy to something other than rushing cities, but it's nice to see, and this has a lot of personal opinion to it. I'd like to see even more incentives.

As for map size, I've seen no evidence maps will be the same size or larger, and all screenshots have in fact been fairly small maps, so I'd rather say it's better to wait for proof that maps are not smaller. Plus, there are mechanics like the new focus on "capitol cities" and domination victory that imply smaller empires are what the game is balanced around. At any rate, the point about combat differing greatly at different scales still stands. For players (as the players I was responding to said) who enjoy huge maps, it's not going to be feasible in civ5 either most likely to tactically defend every type of terrain - chokepoints and territory will work differently at different map sizes, that's just a default.

The mechanics still work with huge maps, as long as the designers make sure it scales properly. Choke points might be 3 spaces wide rather than 1, but if the other fronts are also increasing by a factor of 3, and the number of units on the table has increased by a factor of 3 or more, it's still a very valuable choke point. It just requires more units to clog.

The reason I like huge maps isn't the "epic empire" feel. Instead, it's that in small games, one front could be the whole war and it collapsing will lose you the game. In a medium or large game, there's multiple areas, and while one could be lost, another could be won, leading to a much more dynamic game with more give and take. There will always be a big map for the junkies out there.

The mechanic that changes the most from small to big maps is the importance of individual cities. On small maps, losing one city is game changing because your empire only has 3-6. On big maps some cities feel more like wartime outposts that only serve to increase your culture border and have walls, which is a really really cool feeling in a war. Now if only the AI was just as smart and created specialized cities like that!

I dislike the entire "just take the capitol". I worry the AI isn't smart enough to give the proper defense, or will sometimes just put in too much defense and let other stuff go, similar to snuffing out an AI early in Civ4 just by declaring war and putting an archer on a wooded hill next to their capitol. Your comment just made me worry even more.

 

[Celevin]

Thats part of the question I'm trying to address, though. Should civilization be like a board game or like something else?

A computer game can do a lot more than a board game and have it come out work right. In SimCity, for example, you know when there's unemployment, because all of the buildings change to look as if they're vacated. The information is presented to the player in a way that doesn't make him think about it.

I fully agree with you that some systems of rules can be stupid, and I don't like the promotion system in Civ4. One of the reasons I promote realism so much is because I feel it makes games fuller, and always creates more balance. The problems in the Civ4 aren't because of realism.

And, if I just want a board game, well, why don't I just play Go.

No it shouldn't be a board game. You're right in that the reason that it's a computer game is because we want to take advantage of computer processing power. Where I think our point of contention is is you're assuming processing power used makes for a more complex game.

Having more calculations done at once doesn't necessarily make things more complex as long as the information that's passed back to the player is presented in a good way. For example, the number of calculations the computer does for city management (food, production, great people, etc) and the number of cities it does it for is extraordinary. But the information we process isn't that complex, we enjoy the customization, and if you put enough thought into it, you can make a really effective empire, making it a simple but deep system. It's this reason why it hasn't changed much in all the Civ iterations.

The biggest reason I like 1upt will probably seem the most shallow of all the reasons presented to a lot of people. It's simply the same thing you said about Sim City. The majority of the information I need to see is spread across the map with nothing hidden. When I make a decision in combat, it directly influences how the map looks after the combat. This doesn't exist in Civ4's stack combat.


On a side note, I don't think realism creates more complete or more balanced games, but I shouldn't be arguing or talking about it because I simply don't analyze it enough to be informed. My usual opinion is that I like realism as long as it doesn't get in the way of gameplay. I think the way that realism helps is if someone sees a swordsmen, they don't need to read "hey this guy can't bombard". They know that because it's a guy with a sword. It helps manage the information inflow by making sure things make sense.


EDIT: Gaaah, I need to stop typing and get back to thesis writing.

 

[brianshapiro]

No it shouldn't be a board game. You're right in that the reason that it's a computer game is because we want to take advantage of computer processing power. Where I think our point of contention is is you're assuming processing power used makes for a more complex game.

Having more calculations done at once doesn't necessarily make things more complex as long as the information that's passed back to the player is presented in a good way. For example, the number of calculations the computer does for city management (food, production, great people, etc) and the number of cities it does it for is extraordinary. But the information we process isn't that complex, we enjoy the customization, and if you put enough thought into it, you can make a really effective empire, making it a simple but deep system. It's this reason why it hasn't changed much in all the Civ iterations.

The biggest reason I like 1upt will probably seem the most shallow of all the reasons presented to a lot of people. It's simply the same thing you said about Sim City. The majority of the information I need to see is spread across the map with nothing hidden. When I make a decision in combat, it directly influences how the map looks after the combat. This doesn't exist in Civ4's stack combat.


On a side note, I don't think realism creates more complete or more balanced games, but I shouldn't be arguing or talking about it because I simply don't analyze it enough to be informed. My usual opinion is that I like realism as long as it doesn't get in the way of gameplay. I think the way that realism helps is if someone sees a swordsmen, they don't need to read "hey this guy can't bombard". They know that because it's a guy with a sword. It helps manage the information inflow by making sure things make sense.


EDIT: Gaaah, I need to stop typing and get back to thesis writing. I'm talking waaaaay too much!

We basically agree, I want as much realism as possible as long as it doesn't get in the way of gameplay. If we're talking about something like a limited stack, though, the stack could always be represented graphically as a unit formation on the map instead of the way we see in earlier Civ games where all of the units on the bottom are hidden by the top unit. It would have the same advantage we're talking about with 1upt. I think there's almost always a way to make the gameplay work.

I personally dislike games like Europa Universalis, but not because of the details and realism in those games, but because in my opinion the gameplay and the interface is really poor.

 

[Ricci]

A. I have read the whole thread.

B. I believe very strongly that 1upt will be better. I don't see where I went wrong in the analysis that I posted.

I can understand that people don't want civ to become a war game. But I honestly can't understand how people could say that stacks offer more strategic options than 1upt would offer . I was trying to make this point.

I also did not comment on limited stacks. I personally don't think they'd work if the combat system was simply civ 4 but with hard limits, but I do believe that there would be a way that could make them work.

As a personal favor to me, offer a constructive reply, or don't at all.

You are the one who should be trying to offer a constructive reply to many posts made here which you certainly did not read (or didn't care to understand) instead of repeating things already refuted.

 

[tom2050]

I apologize, I meant not really simple as in 'dumbed down'. It's definitely not that, the underlying mechanics of the game are likely more complex and impressive than civ 1-4 combined. The AI will be something of a nice feat of programming if it acts as represented, and it is nice to hear that work of such amount was put into the AI to make the single player game that much more formidable.

To me, simplifying is this.

I am used to the Civilization series since the days of 1. I have played them all. I like the way they are. I don't mind micro-management, and I don't mind stacks. Stacks and micromanagement have always been, to an extent, a part of the Civilization game itself.

And we all know they are trying to attract more mainstream gamers. A smart business move if done correctly, because if it makes them alot more money, it's good for them. Macromanagement gameplay style helps them in this goal.

Streamlining is fine, and I expect it, but they are heading into the direction of trying to remove all parts of this, and towards a macromanagement model. And they have said it themselves practically. This is what I don't agree with, the moving away from the Civ model which in essence made the game what it is. I like the game how it is. They should be careful about what they change; because if they change it too much it won't be the Civ game anymore.

Just a cautious bit to stay true to the series.

 

[aziantuntija]

I am used to the Civilization series since the days of 1. I have played them all. I like the way they are. I don't mind micro-management, and I don't mind stacks. Stacks and micromanagement have always been, to an extent, a part of the Civilization game itself.

"It is from their critics, not their fanbois, that companies learn the lesson of making good software...."


We had 20 years of stacking, i personally dont see no reason at all why we shouldnt try 1upt next. Remember that we havent even tested it yet and allready people are bashing it, its kind of stupid.

 

[Schuesseled]

you shouldn't be afraid of change tom2050, it might work better it might not at least our lords and masters over at firaxis have the gumbo to try eh?

 

[aziantuntija]

Missed this but i will answer it now

I'm not here to specifically defend Commander Bello's points firstly because I don't know all of them, but some of your criticism seems off the beat. In the first place, marathon speed is very different from all the rest of civ4, it really is a warped and different game.

I dont belive im "off the beat". Bello was talking specifically about huge map + marathons speed games and all the "tactical" things there is to do in those kind of games. I have loads of experience about those kinds of games (as i told in my post) and the tactic he talks about just isnt there, its the same "make a stack, bring it to enemy city" -system also in huge map + marathon speed games. Btw, i have over 400 units in my current game and im at war.. ..Do you have any idea how long my turns are? Its so stupid to hear when someone says something like: "OMG! We are going to get less units than we had in civ4!"

Secondly, with the realization that civilization 5 maps will be FAR smaller than civ4 huge games

What kind of civ5 map are we talking about? And just for curiousity, how do you know this?

 

[Celevin]

We had 20 years of stacking, i personally dont see no reason at all why we shouldnt try 1upt next. Remember that we havent even tested it yet and allready people are bashing it, its kind of stupid.

It's not stupid at all. This kind of argument is needed to see the strengths and weaknesses of 1upt. If the only people who commented and thought about 1upt were the ones who agreed with it, then we would see a lot less constructive points for and against it.

The biggest "bashing" I have seen in this thread is directed at other people for having different opinions.

 

[Celevin]

I apologize, I meant not really simple as in 'dumbed down'. It's definitely not that, the underlying mechanics of the game are likely more complex and impressive than civ 1-4 combined. The AI will be something of a nice feat of programming if it acts as represented, and it is nice to hear that work of such amount was put into the AI to make the single player game that much more formidable.

To me, simplifying is this.

I am used to the Civilization series since the days of 1. I have played them all. I like the way they are. I don't mind micro-management, and I don't mind stacks. Stacks and micromanagement have always been, to an extent, a part of the Civilization game itself.

And we all know they are trying to attract more mainstream gamers. A smart business move if done correctly, because if it makes them alot more money, it's good for them. Macromanagement gameplay style helps them in this goal.

Streamlining is fine, and I expect it, but they are heading into the direction of trying to remove all parts of this, and towards a macromanagement model. And they have said it themselves practically. This is what I don't agree with, the moving away from the Civ model which in essence made the game what it is. I like the game how it is. They should be careful about what they change; because if they change it too much it won't be the Civ game anymore.

Just a cautious bit to stay true to the series.

I'm curious to hear what micromanagement they took out. I must have missed something, I've been concentrating too much on 1upt and have forgotten most other features! Can you give some examples?

Are you talking about city management? It seems just as complex to me. In fact, with having multiple currencies (3 really: culture, gold and science), it might add a whole lot more complexity. I see buying tiles being a bit of micromanagement, but will require more thought than "buy this tile when I can", because that gold might be needed in other areas.

As for the actual tile production, I think there's gonna be a whole new layer that will only come into light once we get our hands on the game. Notice how close all the cities are in the demos, yet we hear how they can have up to *THREE* tiles away of city space! I think, from what I've seen, that it will take a long long time to get to that max workable area, and so cities will naturally overlap at a lot of tiles. As such, I think there will be almost too much micromanaging of overlapping tiles, switching them between cities for additional food or other resources.

Is it espionage and religion? I admit I was sad when they took out espionage and religion, but I don't think they took out much decision making from my part. Aside from a few games, I didn't really use espionage proactively much. Religion's a weird one where it was always on my mind, but I was constantly feeling like I was being jipped out of being able to build buildings that I should have been able. Religion was *definitely* a lot of micromanagement, and there was benefit to doing it, but I don't think it added many interesting choices, only mandatory ones. I'd like to see it re-implemented in another form.

I think 1upt may add some micromanagement, but in a bad way. I won't mind it when I'm at war, there it will just be strategic. But if I have a huge number of units, it might get a bit tedious organizing things. I also think there will be some more micromanagement during war, as unlike with stacks, a unit with low health should fall back and be replaced, which will require some welcome tedium. I like micromanagement when, after I do it, I feel "smart" for noticing it.

 

[aziantuntija]

It's not stupid at all.

We havent played civ5 yet so i really think its pretty stupid to bash it up at this stage but that is just my opinion.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This discussion has become very aggressive and partially insulting, and this is not something which we encourage here. Please come back to a civil level!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aziantuntija]

Apparently im the only one to blame here for this moderator action.


I have not tried to intentionally insult anyone at any point but im deeply sorry if i did so.


As for the aggressivness, i must say that i write pretty much straight forward so i might seem aggressive but im not. Im not sure though was that 'aggressive' meant for me but i guess im sorry for that also if it was.


In the end i must say that not everyone shares the same amount/kind of humour I will try to use less humour in the future


Once again im sorry.

 

[tom2050]

"It is from their critics, not their fanbois, that companies learn the lesson of making good software...."


We had 20 years of stacking, i personally dont see no reason at all why we shouldnt try 1upt next. Remember that we havent even tested it yet and allready people are bashing it, its kind of stupid.

There is a difference, again, between radical changes and fixing implementations that are not broken. Firaxis does the first instead of fixing game implementations. This is why religion was probably scrapped from the game. I never stated what you are implying, and I also did not bash 1upt. This is a discussion of downsides of 1upt; therefore if you want to hear all that is good, make a thread and call it upsides of 1upt.

you shouldn't be afraid of change tom2050, it might work better it might not at least our lords and masters over at firaxis have the gumbo to try eh?

Don't put words in my mouth. I aired on the side of caution. Who ever said scared of change? It's statements like this that de-rail a thread into non-sense.