Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by CD7, Jan 13, 2017.
If that's really what they are focusing on, they failed miserably.
I NEVER said/suggest that "things shouldn't be different". And can't help but feel that you make 'my dream game' post, filled with window shopped mechanics.. that their application here is not well thought out and ignores fundamental difference between the system you carbon copied to Civ (which is obvious even to me, and with minor time investment).
You take a system from a game with strategic focus, set in the late middle ages, and apply it to one with more tactical focus, set across all human history.. modern engagement don't follow your rigid historical phase idea, chopper aren't used like light cavalry, and creating a phase combat for each era --which often don't take more than few turns and can have a mish mash of units from a cross the ages-- don't work well!
Your suggestion that armies will 'have exactly the same stats as now' is absurd. The moment you take a bunch of units and park them in a stack that attack as one, most of their current stats and promotions stop to make sense. That why EU has no unit specific terrain bonus/promotions but army ones, and a whole lot of concepts that are foreign to CIV landscape. And you didn't even touched balance issues, how do you intend to prevent CIV armies from becoming too powerful or the system from becoming to rigid to utilize things like pillage\scouting, the effect of your extra tactics research, etc.. all you seem to be focused is reducing the amount of clicks..
Again I am in favor of improving the system, but I don't think that your suggestion is grounded enough to consider. No soup for you, come back one year!
It usually helps if you read the conversation you butt into. Yes unlike the example @Olleus provided, Civ focused more on individual units mechanics. Nothing you said change that, only show you disagree with the way they implemented\balanced some of those changes.
Yet another pointless strawmen. We were talking about a very specific and fundamental change. So unless you are actually suggesting that they will brake their 33/33/33" rule of sequel design, throw away most what they did with their last three hugely popular games to adopt a completely different and foreign mechanic to their user base.. than you are just arguing for the sake of the argument. I can make the same argument and smirk smile for them changing TB to RT !
"Focusing on individual unit mechanics" is not an identical case as "focusing on tactics".
Your original line was
I gave counter examples and demonstrated that in spite of going to a 1 UPT model, the considerations Firaxis removed reduced the total tactical consideration. That is a direct refutation of your claim that it "has been focusing more and more on tactics", because it demonstrates that Firaxis stripped the total number of tactical choices available and counterplays down. Noticeably, you changed your wording after quoting me. I'm not the one committing to a strawman...
They have done enough to cut the baseline strategy considerations that moving away from "33/33/33" wouldn't be more noticeable. Speaking of 33%, people are willing to spend around that much time waiting on the game apparently. I also am not 100% buying that civ 6 actually kept to 33/33/33. Districts and 2 tech trees alone aren't adding that...
Pushing the series form TBS --> RTS would get roughly the initial reception going from stacks --> 1UPT and destroying continent-spanning empires being advantageous to the player got. "What you are talking about", capped army sizes/set tactics, is nowhere near that level of fundamental change, it is a change closer in line to only one of those things, and it could work in principle, not to mention add more opportunities for player choices to matter/screw up. It's not viable to shoehorn into civ 6, just like stacking wouldn't be, but there's nothing wrong with it in concept if you're willing to design around it.
Optimistic solution! Developers release incredible mod tools. Resulting mods allow everyone to play the way they prefer. It is a single player game that is supposed to be highly moddable. We don't have to come to a consensus or a compromise. We just need the mod tools that were promised.
Btw I don't understand why mod tools haven't been released yet. Maybe they're too ashamed to show how badly programmed the base game is?
Optimistic: they are putting in extra work to make the tools the best they can be before release.
Sadly, my optimism rarely matches the truth.
Exactly, the game is for those who like micromanagent. Who like doing small things. Not for strategic players who expect to make big decisions on peace, diplomacy, war and long term civilization development. This is why the game is not for many (including me), but I am happy that at least majority (millions) is satisfied. The game is not for generals but for lieutanats of strategy games. And by definition generals qualities are less common than lieutanants qualites, that is why the game appeals for such a large audience.
I moved the unit - hooray!!. I moved another unit - hooray!!!
I probably agree with you here
Do you have to sound so pretentious? You are not more unique or smarter because you like a different sort of computer games. I could argue the opposite, there are more armchair generals than armchair lieutenants, because most people lack the right mind to pay careful attention to detail and prefer the feeling of being important than solving difficult problems.
See, I can say self aggrandising nonsense too, and it leads us nowhere.
Micromanagement desire is not welcome quality for senior managers and probably for generals as well. When you are micromanging it leaves you no time and distracts from high level decisions. Additionally in management theory (which probably applies to leading armies) taking all the decsions for all levels deacreses motivation/morale of subordinates. Attention to detail is something different. Taking care of proper food for soldiers by general does not mean that he cooks for them. He delegates it to right people and emphasizes its importatnce. That's real life.
In game terms perspective I do not feel like commander in chief when I need to click dozens of times to achieve result which is obivious (move the units). Some people love it. Does it make me smarter? I doubt as, micromanegment desire is not conntected with inteligence. But micromanagemt is surely not the quality of great leaders. And I'd prefer that the game which is supposed to give you a chance to be a leader of empire would not make you to make you mainly micromange.
I've tried to write a reply to that, but I can't tell if you are trolling or baiting me to do so. I'll just say that if you think the types of computer games you like indicate that you are a "great leader" then you are barking up the wrong tree. Feel free to boost your ego however you want, but please do try to not denigrate others for their taste.
See, this is another problem with the 1UPT debate, the proponents of the system apply girls logic, which means no matter what you say, you're wrong and the one to blame. Even if you use the same means they use.
Moderator Action: Girl's logic? Please drop the sexism to make your point. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
For example, 1UPT proponents will happily proclaim how those that like stack combat just cannot cope with the supreme level of tactical genius required by the 1UPT system. These comments are always heavily loaded with questions about the intellectual capabilities of those that like the clearly and obviously inferior in every way system of stacks. If someone points out how fielding and operating stacked armies was a challenge by itself, just in a strategic rather than a tactical sense, the counter argument is that people liking stacks just cannot cope with the supreme level of tactical genius required by the 1UPT system, otherwise they'd in an instant realize how superior it is to stacking.
If someone implies 1UPT basically appeals to a slightly different personality type (not better, not worse, not more or less clever) than stacking, he's immediately called out as being pretentious.
If someone writes he likes to feel like a great leader in his game, he is ridiculed for it - obviously feeling like a great leader IN A GAME has nothing to do with actually being a great leader. If you're a pro at swordfighting in Mount & Blade, chances are you'd actually fare considerably less well when holding a real sword and trying to fight a real swordsman. We're talking about games here, aren't we?
As I have said before, my personal taste is that 1UpT is the best thing to happen to the series. It was sorely needed but folks who want (infinite) units per tile or Civ IV style combat are just as valid. I will say I am happy 1UpT is in Civ VI.
I like the idea of changing what units represent. A single unit could represent a mix of infantry, cavalry, ranged etc... So on the map, a single unit might be represented graphically by a swordsman and a horseman side by side. In terms of combat, the unit could have a mix of melee and range attack strengths depending on its composition. furthermore, a unit could have multiple action buttons with slightly different effects that would allow some tactics. There could be a "charge" button, a "stand your ground" button etc... The player could only do 1 action per turn per unit so there would be some tactical choices that would need to be made. This system would preserve the essence of 1UPT since you could not have multiple units on the same hex, while effectively creating stacks but also keeping some tactical options.
I think the game would be better with looser retreats. Rather than just one lousy unit being able to do it.
I would not mind the enemy horseman at sea if I could just get my damn galley past their rowboats.
Yes 1 UPT has destroyed the franchise. Civ VI AI is even more pathetic than Civ V at handling the complexity of moving units - this is strange as one would have through they would have taken Civ V AI code and improved it. I just finished a Civ IV Monarch level game and the AI was challenging and knew how to play with the stacked rules.
The problem is no one can (or has yet?) programmed an AI that can be competitive with a human player using 1 UPT. Even the better Civ V mods were ho-hum and took forever to complete a turn (like >45 seconds).
Bottom line is the series is broken and not worth continuing with.
Regardless of which side you sit on the 1upt debate, I think we should all be able to agree that Firaxis' failure to learn from Endless Legend is.... disappointing.
While Endless Legend wasn't perfect, it really cracked how best to integrate tactical combat into a 4x game; (1) optionally, and (2) without introducing movement micro to the strategic layer of the game.
Isn't it cute, that NOT those, who enjoy to talk endlessly in the very same tone about all the same aspects, which all the others already know (well, some are even bored ) and announce "they will never buy again" etc. etc., will decide whether 'the series is broken and not worth continuing with', BUT those, who like the expansions & games and actually buy it?
One alternative to the 1upt/stacks debate is to, as others have said, do something a bit like endless legend. Or another would be to make something a bit like how the fighting happened in Heroes of might and magic. So right off the bat you would have, lets say, an army with 1 troop slot. You could fit any number of troops into that slot and move it as one unit on the strategic map. When you fight, you could either do it in a blended way on the map (aka Endless legend), or you could initiate a battle and go down a sort of call to power, HOMM, MOO2, or Ancient Wonders kind of mechanic. As you progress down the tech tree, you can unlock additional slots in your army. Which you could again fill with any number of that unit. Civs could have a unique unit which fits into that slot. Or multiple unique units (depending on how many slots you end up with). Great generals could take the place that heroes had in HOMM. You could substitute the role war machines played in HOMM with the one siege plays in civ. Theres lots of possibilities worth exploring here IMO.
I much preferred the stack mechanic in Civ IV. The AI was competent in it, and it made the game more fun. I was genuinely scared by some of the stacks I saw in Civ IV. I was never scared by anything I saw in Civ V (even though I did end up liking the game). And theres no way a carpet of horseman verses my 3 tanks is ever going to scare me in civVI. A carpet is also far less scary than a stack because you can never see it all.
Ultimately though I don’t think CivVI will ever overcome its problems. At best it will get to be on a level with CivV after all its expansions. But for a game released years after its predecessor, and taking years to get to a level of parity with it, this just isnt good enough in my opinion. I don’t think CivVI is a bad game. But I would be lying if I said I did not expect much much better.
I think a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the issue was never stacks themselves but the size of the stacks. There was nothing inherently wrong with being able to put multiple units on the same hex, especially considering the strategic scale of the map. And 1UPT has shown us first hand how no stacking creates problems with map congestion and movement. The size of the stack is the real problem. When there is no limit to the size of a stack, then combat becomes just a matter of who has the biggest stack which negates any tactics or even strategy of unit movement. In civ4, you basically just built mega stacks and sent them to the nearest enemy city. A big reason why Firaxis introduced 1UPT was to force the player to really consider tactics and unit positioning in war because these things were virtually non existent in civ4.
In conclusion, I actually think you could fix the stack of doom problem by just creating the right caps on the number of units in a stack and also a cap on the number of stacks. Additionally, if you added more terrain modifiers and different action buttons that each unit could use, you could add more tactics. In other words, I am not sure 1UPT was really needed in the first place. There were ways to fix stacks of doom without being so radical.
Its been suggested many times before i.e. Turning Civ into Total-War just with turns (aka like HOMM), with option to automate/skip combat, upto turning it into EU more strategic focus. Simple put I don't see this as anything but "old timers" fancy. I fully expect them to continue improving the current system, as they did with every Civ as far as my memory serves. BUT NOT completely changing the direction, throwing a system which lends best to what was the focus on their last two games, and what sets them apart from their main competitors..
I am not sure what "strategic scale" means, that we play on a world map? But a quick look at the units bonus and promotions, and related mechanics like city unstacking (I hate that term) suggest a more tactical nature.
With that said, I agree with your original point, as long as it lends well with what we have, no reason why we couldn't have multiple units per tile. As already seen in the vanilla with support and late "armies".
Separate names with a comma.