Farewell to unit spam

[r_rolo1]

So, there will be far fewer units overall (That much is obvious from the info collected so far: one unit per tile, total number of units capped by resources and maintenance upkeep, self-defending cities, etc.). Finally, no more mindless spamming of units! This alone will have radical consequences on game-play:

• Less micromanagement: that is self-explanatory.

• Less things to produce: in Civ4, the warmonger keeps his production cities busy by churning out zillions of units. Not so in Civ5, apparently. So, what will production cities do with their excess hammer/shields (or whatever these will called in Civ5)? We already know that units will take longer to train... even so there seems to be a production gap: at some point all the available military will have been trained... so what to produce next? Maybe improvements will also take longer to produce, or units will have to be unlocked by new improvements, or they will need to be maintained/healed/upgraded through production...

• Troubles for the AI’s “brute force” approach: the so-called “better AI” compensates for its ineptitude with production bonuses and unit spam. Most of us know the frustration of being “Shaka’ed”, e.g. swamped by seemingly endless flow of obsolete cavalry that dumbly suicide on your garrison. On the battlefield, the AI is simply too stupid to compete on a par with the human player, and it often needs at least twice as many units to put up a decent fight. In Civ4 the player is typically outnumbered at the higher levels, and herein lies the challenge. But in Civ5, the AI will no longer rely on unit spamming... or so it seems.. so how will it cheat? The AI will have to be very good if it has to pose a decent challenge on tactical level, while using a limited number of units.

Well, I don't know where you came with the less micromanagenent obviousness. Ok, you will surely have less MM in doing the army, but, due to the 1 unit per tile rule, you will have far more MM to do in moving them to and in battle. Not sure if the result will be less, more or roughly the same MM in terms of military.

The other two points are valid doubts , though....

Eh, when Civ 4 came out they promised that "city spam" was over, and that your empire would consist of just a few cities. It didn't people long to figure out that more cities = better empire, usually, and to learn lots of tricks to get lots of cities. I'll bet the same thing happens here, no matter how much they try to gimp unit production. Unless they literally put a hard cap on the number of units you can have, which just be stupid.

The point wasn't to reduce the number of cities, the point was to reduce the number of junk cities like one tile islands and tundra towns and in otherwise unviable locations.

No, the point was to make ICS unviable ( Soren wrote that in the manual ). Anyway, they failed miserabily in any of those possible objectives: ICS is a competitive option atleast until Immortal ( religious wonders, shrines, SoL and/or Merc and more recently corporations and Industrial parks make it viable and in some maps even attractive ) and any city, with enough investement, is more than enough to pay it's maintenance ( even tundra/ice cities with no resources )

pi-r8 touched a point I already talked about: Firaxis thinks they made something close to a hard cap to the upper limit of units you can make ( "You can't simply spam units" ), but I'm pretty sure that in some months top after the game is out, someone will get a way of making more units that the ones they expected to be possible. For just one reason: the community has far more testing power than the testing team of Firaxis and , with the rules they already announced, having more units is even more important than in Civ IV, so it makes getting a lot of them a very tempting proposal.

 

[tom2050]

Tom2050, you win the award for the most irrationally cynical Civfanatic. How about you wait until the game comes out before you act like 1UPT, no religion, and no tech trading represent the downfall of the Civilization franchise? Since you seem to think any break with Civ IV is such a tragedy, why don't you just continue playing Civ IV? Civ V is for people who want a different game, not a Civ IV clone.

Because otherwise the only thing heard from most of the masses is: 'We praise and worship Civ 5, , Civ 5 is perfect with no flaws, it's all done because it is better. Civ 5 even fills my gas tank when I run out"

Reality, if they went with hexes, which had stackable units, more tech trading, and a reasonable amount of unit spam... you would be praising it; saying it's perfect, because you just would...

They even brought Transformers into the game... your units magically spawn to floating boats and can travel the world. More than meets the eye... or 'what the hell were they smokin'?

 

[Chalks]

Because otherwise the only thing heard from most of the masses is: 'We praise and worship Civ 5, , Civ 5 is perfect with no flaws, it's all done because it is better. Civ 5 even fills my gas tank when I run out"

Reality, if they went with hexes, which had stackable units, more tech trading, and a reasonable amount of unit spam... you would be praising it; saying it's perfect, because you just would...

They even brought Transformers into the game... your units magically spawn to floating boats and can travel the world. More than meets the eye... or 'what the hell were they smokin'?

Just as mindless praise for mechanics that nobody understands is stupid, so is criticism. Without knowing how these systems will work and what the limitations will be, complaining about them is done just for the sake of it. You cannot have an opinion based on facts since you do not posses them. You have an opinion based on your imagination - as we all do.

You can point out things that you're worried about and you hope they fix or things that sound cool and you're excited about, but saying "new feature X will cause thing Y" is stupid no matter which side of the argument is saying it.

 

[tom2050]

Just as mindless praise for mechanics that nobody understands is stupid, so is criticism. Without knowing how these systems will work and what the limitations will be, complaining about them is done just for the sake of it. You cannot have an opinion based on facts since you do not posses them. You have an opinion based on your imagination - as we all do.

You can point out things that you're worried about and you hope they fix or things that sound cool and you're excited about, but saying "new feature X will cause thing Y" is stupid no matter which side of the argument is saying it.

Well why don't you start leaving posts like this to everyone who says "I'm glad they did this... I love it!"

You are not doing that... Why? Because seems you love mindless praise. If saying "new feature X will cause thing Y" is so stupid, and bothers you so much, why do you even read the threads.. That is what these threads are filled with.

Uhh.. yea. BTW, there are some features I absolutely love about Civ 5, although I don't know the full story yet (since no one does). Better AI. But you say that is stupid since Better AI must not be good without knowing all the facts...

 

[bonafide11]

Tom2050, mindless praise is also stupid, but you leave the same post in every thread complaining about how they took some feature out. Taking features out is not necessarily a bad thing. Civ IV was a great game, but it was not perfect, and there was a lot of room for improvement. The late game ran sluggish because of an excessive amount of units. The stack of doom required little to no strategy and was monotonous and boring. Religion was a fun concept, but it weighed down diplomacy way too much. Tech trading got annoying when it favored AIs who were good at it (Mansa Musa) way more than AIs who were bad at it (Tokugawa), plus the constant demands to give an AI a tech got really old. These are the features you're complaining about so much that they axed! None of these are vital to a Civ game, and Civ could very well be better without it. With Civ's track record, I am fairly sure that they know what they're doing and will replace these boring features with more fun features. Now, if you're going to miss these features that much, you can continue to play Civ IV. But I'm glad Civ is willing to revolutionize the game and build it up from the ground up rather than just piling more and more features into the same basic game.

It's fine if you want to discuss how you're disappointed with Civ V for whatever reason, but it gets really annoying reading in every thread you say something like "they got rid of tech trading for better diplomacy, which is nothing but better leaderheads!" Clearly that's not true; they've certainly done more to improve diplomacy than just touch up the leaderheads. The research pacts will be superior to tech trading since it will benefit both AI and human player equally, and the AI won't get mad at you for refusing it. You'll actually have to pick who want to make agreements with and who your allies will be. Plus, since the game was just announced two weeks ago, there will certainly be way more about diplomacy that has yet been announced, so it's silly to react to things the way you have been. Instead of looking at the game with an open mind, you're overreacting about everything and acting like a teenage girl who's mad at her mom for buying her the wrong purse.

 

[Pinstar]

As a peace-monger style player, I do hope that an aggressive player won't be able to develop their cities as deeply as mine just because they churned out an army and have nothing left to build twords the war effort.

On the other hand, this might be the one thing that finally teaches me to build enough military. When you can build any number of swordsmen, I might build 1 or 2. If I get iron and am ONLY allowed to build 5, you can be sure I'm going to build all 5. I hate to see something go to waste.

 

[tom2050]

@bonafide11: If you don't like, don't read it... and don't complain about gettnig a blood clot from it either. I can't help you with not being able to take it if someone gives honest, blunt answers.

I don't dance around trying to please everyone like a sissy. And I really don't care what you or your mom thinks.

It also is really annoying to everyone else with you following me around, leaving the same post in every thread. I could care less that you do it.

They got rid of tech trading for better diplo. Did not Civ 4 have something similar to research agreements? (I am asking here because I don't remember)
They said themselves that the largest new thing with diplo is the full-screen leaderheads that talk in different languages, and the rest of it will be very familiar to previous civ games.

I am not making this stuff up...

and they are not building it from the ground up, they are basing the whole combat model after another game; could they not think themselves of what works best for Civ?

If religion was taken out because of diplo problems, they could have just fixed the problem instead.

No one loves unit spam, but to go to the complete other side of the spectrum makes me skeptical. And I voice it. You don't like it, go jump off a cliff.

 

[bonafide11]

You don't like it, go jump off a cliff.

Solid, well thought out, intelligent argument.

 

[tom2050]

That was not an argument, I was telling you what to do if you don't like it, since you seem to be good at following orders.

Sometimes it's useful to use the mush pile in your skull you call a brain.

Moderator Action: Stop the insults.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

That was not an argument, I was telling you what to do if you don't like it, since you seem to be good at following orders.

Sometimes it's useful to use the mush pile in your skull you call a brain.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. That is certainly true. After a while though, a pattern emerges.

Moderator Action: Warned for Flaming/Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tom2050]

That is a nice picture of yourself there Thormodr.

 

[Thormodr]

That is a nice picture of yourself there Thormodr.

Actually, I'd be more like Tigger. You see, I'm an optimist. ciV is gonna be grrrrrreat.

 

[DPyro]

Well I'm the love child of Tigger and Eeyore!

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: Anyone who is unable to discuss the topic without also insulting other users should strongly consider not posting the post they were going to make.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Charles Martel]

I don't see how "less micromanagement" is self explanatory. Please explain.

I think it's obvious that far fewer units means less micromanagament overall. Sure, the new combat system will give us something else to do: 1-unit-per-tile deployment , swapping positions between fresh and wounded front-line units (and possibly supply lines) will involve at least some new kind of micromanagement. But, with far fewer units on the board, I’m sure (or, at least, hope) that the new micro will be nothing to what Civ4’s late wars have used us to. Micromanaged SoDs can easily become excruciating: it’s not just a matter of marching the SoD into enemy territory, you have to spam enough units, assemble them together, manually assign promotions, pick up the attacking units so that so the SoD attacks in the most efficient order, make sure that the SoD can leave a strong enough garrison behind, make sure that the SoD doesn’t split forces (so that any unit that ‘jumps out’ of the SoD is not left vulnerable to counter-attack), etc. And with naval invasion, everything is even more tiresome and time-consuming. None of this, apparently, will happen in Civ5. For example, you will not have to worry as much about city garrisons. Naval transport will be also simplified and streamlined (or so it seems). And, most importantly, you will not no longer have to deal with zillions of units, spammed by both you and the AI. The unbearable micromanagement associated with SoDs will be gone for good. If the new combat system, despite having less units, requires a different, but equally tedious and time-consuming micromanagement, then that will mean only one thing: Firaxis has screwed up. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

Unless they literally put a hard cap on the number of units you can have, which just be stupid.

I bet that there will be a hard cap based on number of resources and, possibly, maintenance costs. And, even if there is no such cap, you probably shouldn’t produce more units than there are hexes within in your empire (unless you want to spam units everywhere).

 

[Chalks]

Well why don't you start leaving posts like this to everyone who says "I'm glad they did this... I love it!"

I do.

Unfortunately I do not have the stamina to do so every time this happens since that would involve replying to half the posts on the board. I tend to pick on those who irritate me in particular - such as people who imply that mindless praise is the only type of mindless comment going on here.

 

[tom2050]

I tend to pick on those who irritate me in particular

You pick on yourself.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@rolo

While it's true that ICS strategies weren't totally eliminated in civ4, they do take a good deal more cunning to pull off than they did in civ3, ending its rule as the brainlessly-tedious-but-unfailingly-effective strategy par excellence.

Civ4's preference for Infinite Unit Spam has never inspired the same degree of loathing as did civ3's ICS fixation (at least not in my household), but it's still a bit crap that mindlessly queuing vast piles of cannon-fodder is often the most reliable way to get ahead.

So, I'm quite hopeful that the new arrangement will represent a significant improvement, even if it just means that you have to play smarter to get your numberless hordes out to the battlefield in the first place.

 

[r_rolo1]

Hi Winston, long time no see

I agree with your point, but there is a diference between ICS and what you called Infinite unit spam ... sure, ICS is no longer THE option ( well, it was not always the option in Civ III, but it was surely on top of the viable strategies in most games ) in Civ IV, but that was acheived by making cities more expensive that the benefits they could give in setting and for a long time. You can't definitely follow the same aproach with military ... bigger will continue to be better most of the times, from what I can read from the previews, it will be just harder to get ... while ICS was tamed by making bigger being worse, atleast for a while.

Well, this will be a strategy game, so any interesting choice is welcome

 

[bonafide11]

I think it's obvious that far fewer units means less micromanagament overall. Sure, the new combat system will give us something else to do: 1-unit-per-tile deployment , swapping positions between fresh and wounded front-line units (and possibly supply lines) will involve at least some new kind of micromanagement. But, with far fewer units on the board, I’m sure (or, at least, hope) that the new micro will be nothing to what Civ4’s late wars have used us to. Micromanaged SoDs can easily become excruciating: it’s not just a matter of marching the SoD into enemy territory, you have to spam enough units, assemble them together, manually assign promotions, pick up the attacking units so that so the SoD attacks in the most efficient order, make sure that the SoD can leave a strong enough garrison behind, make sure that the SoD doesn’t split forces (so that any unit that ‘jumps out’ of the SoD is not left vulnerable to counter-attack), etc. And with naval invasion, everything is even more tiresome and time-consuming. None of this, apparently, will happen in Civ5. For example, you will not have to worry as much about city garrisons. Naval transport will be also simplified and streamlined (or so it seems). And, most importantly, you will not no longer have to deal with zillions of units, spammed by both you and the AI. The unbearable micromanagement associated with SoDs will be gone for good. If the new combat system, despite having less units, requires a different, but equally tedious and time-consuming micromanagement, then that will mean only one thing: Firaxis has screwed up. I sincerely hope this is not the case.



I bet that there will be a hard cap based on number of resources and, possibly, maintenance costs. And, even if there is no such cap, you probably shouldn’t produce more units that there are hexes within in your empire (unless you want to spam units everywhere).

All I said is that it will not be the end up of micromanagement. I think the new combat system will be much more enjoyable, and I don't think it will be as tedious and monotonous as the SoD. But that doesn't mean that there won't still be micromanagement because moving each unit during war as you approach cities will still require a good amount of effort.