1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Has 1UPT Completely Destroyed this Franchise?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by CD7, Jan 13, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,595
    Location:
    Ohio
    It clearly hasn't destroyed the franchise from a sales standpoint. From the point of view of those who prefer the mechanics of the earlier versions (IV and before)? Possibly so. I for one agree with the criticisms in the first post (except maybe IX, about builders, reserving judgement on that one), and don't really have much of an interest in V, VI, or any future installments with 1 UPT, based on my first-hand experiences with V, and what I've read about VI.

    Dale is on point with the strategic focus, too. I've argued in a lot of other threads that it felt like you were managing an empire in III, but not so much in IV, and V exacerbated the problem even more so with its increased penalties for expansion. I like the strategic focus of III, and found the focus in IV to be acceptable if not ideal, especially after BTS was released with its improvements, but can't get past the lack of feeling like I'm managing an empire in V. So, slightly different perspective on where III falls on the spectrum, but I certainly agree with the trend and the changes over time.

    Personally, I don't expect Firaxis to change this much in the future; if they were going to, they would've with VI. But I'm also OK with that, as there are plenty of other games I can buy that do have the focus I prefer.
     
  2. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    790
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    I'd say border growth is very weak in Civ 6. All you have is individual cities that expand very slowly. If Civ IV it was much more cohesive and felt more like a real empire. With the Civ 6 model, wars are so much easier because there is so much free space around the cities to move about. In Civ IV you had to invade enemy territory to get to the cities. Many times when you conquered a city, you were still surrounded by enemy territory because of the encompassing border. In Civ 6, you are free to move to the next city, since you are in open space.

    The bonus resources in Civ 6, are basically one resource because they act basically the same. In Civ IV there was a difference, as they had different effects, depending on what they were, with harbors, markets, and grocers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017
  3. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    I agree that in terms of tone Civ V and VI are more like its predecessors in the series than CIV IV ( which I previously compared to forth installment of Simcity, which was GREAT but also the most serious/cold one ). Also I play a verity of strategy games, which offer me different experiences, and while Civ has lesser learning curve than some (paradox games for example, particularly for folks who aren't familiar with the historical context) I am not sure that its fair to call it lightweight, in fact IMO Civ (particularly recent ones) sandbox nature is much more suited for competitive players. Its like with good ol' RTS argument, most of my fellow old timer will denounce it as twitch gaming and crown turn-base as the "thinking man" game, but there is more of midlife crisis scenario flavor to it than fact.
     
  4. Lemon Merchant

    Lemon Merchant Hall Monitor Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    8,638
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Sector A
    Disclaimer: While I realize that I am entitled to my own opinion on the contents of this thread, I also realize that if I post it to the forums, it is immediately "wrong" and "misguided" if I don't conform to the popular viewpoint, mantra, dogma, etc. And that I am not allowed to have an opinion. (This has been covered in another thread) That being said, I don't care. Don't read it if you don't want to.

    I have read this thread a couple of times over, and it actually strikes me as quite funny how stupid, pointless, and ridiculous this entire argument is. Person X complains about 1 UPT, person Y gets on their high horse and states that 1 UPT is the dawning of a new era in religious experience. Person X disagrees, and a bunch of other people jump into the fray, and we go round and round ad nauseum. Maybe I'm one of Ryika's "living fossils", but I find this entire argument a complete waste of time.

    People like that they like and some people don't like what others like. It's as simple as that. Whether or not 1 UPT has destroyed the franchise is irrelevant. Some people enjoy 1 UPT and some don't. Deal with it, get over it, and respect the other person's viewpoint.

    To the OP: I think you should have asked the question in your thread title differently. A better title would be "Has 1UPT completely destroyed the franchise for you?" While I agree with most of your assessment of Civ 6 and 1 UPT in general, I don't think it is a good thing to make a blanket statement like that. It invites attack.

    For me, 1 UPT has definitely destroyed the franchise ( note that I said "for me") I hate it. It just borks so many elements of a game that I love, that it just isn't worth playing. I played quite a bit of Civ 5 and finally had to give up in frustration as it was so boring just shuffling units around. I haven't played in in over three years. And I'm certainly not going to buy Civ 6 as it's just more of the same.

    Civ 5 was a bit of a blessing, though. It allowed me to branch out gaming wise, and to realize that there are much better games out there than Civ in it's current form, and that is where I choose to spend my time. Civ has lost it's appeal for me. I don't like the direction that the game has taken. It's all style without substance. Most of the strategy and decision making have been abstracted to the point that I no longer find it interesting to play. It's a shame really. The developers have taken streamlining to a ridiculous extreme.

    With that said, I'm off to play Stellaris this evening.

    Be well.
     
    man-erg, Sobornost, lp60068 and 8 others like this.
  5. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,323
    Fair points, but I think it's also fair to say as I did that Civ has a "reputation" for being lightweight - take for instance this recent description from Rock Paper Shotgun:

    "While Paradox Interactive games are often seen as the domain of hardcore strategy gamers who are willing to devote hours and hours of their lives to spreadsheets and micromanagement, Sid Meier’s Civilization series is the everyman of strategy gaming."

    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...ames-integrate-or-ignore-slavery/#more-423843

    I never got on as well with Civ IV as with Civ V. In part that may simply be that during most of Civ IV's life I wasn't gaming as heavily as I was before or since, but a large part of it is that - as much as I love strategy games "hardcore" and otherwise - Civ IV didn't feel as much like Civilization because it had moved too far from the series' board game roots. It focused more on micromanagement and on navigating the more complex links in its tech tree than the earlier games' deliberately linear gameplay, which just wanted to immerse you in an alternate history without caring very much about the fine detail. It felt more like an RTS aiming to push optimal build orders and finding the correct route through the game, and that 'gameyness' hit immersion.

    I've gone back to it semi-seriously since Civ VI released (as I have a Civ itch again that Civ VI doesn't fully scratch and I think I just spent too much time with Civ V to go back to it), and from a strategy gamer's perspective I definitely appreciate the choices (for all that many are false and others, like switching civics, happen only rarely), the greater difficulty and the fact that the first 'moves' of the game in terms of initial builds and teching aren't as automatically identical as they are in Civs V and VI (or come to that the 'settle, granary, settlers ad infinitum' play of the earlier games).

    But it still hasn't developed the feel of a world the way my Civ V games did. I have a few other competitors that I can use to trade important game resources like techs and otherwise largely ignore unless they decide I'm getting too far ahead and go to war - the names attached to them vary but I have little sense of how they differ in personality, much as in Civ VI.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
    Gub likes this.
  6. Sync

    Sync Warlord

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    Warrington, England
    It's not ruined the franchise for the masses, they're still making money. But it's ruined it for me personally. I know they'll never make another game I love even close to as much as Civ4, and that's sad to realise.
     
  7. gettingfat

    gettingfat Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    I think limited stacks make most sense. SOD is sort of unrealistic but 1UPT is really really really tedious especially considering the limited movement and widespread hills/forests/rivers. Just moving a modest size army of 8 or 9 units to start an early war can easily cost me fifteen minutes. That can easily turn into a nightmare if a couple of barbarians suddenly pop up from nowhere.

    And the so called AI obviously can't handle this tedious task more than humans.
     
    Sobornost and migalhone like this.
  8. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,506
    A side question, how many popular games out there use unlimted stacking?
     
  9. TehJumpingJawa

    TehJumpingJawa Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    204
    Some? Many? Most?
    What are you expecting, an enumeration of every computer strategy game released?
    It's a meaningless question; stacking is a game design consideration, not a popularity contest.
    Moreover very few people are suggesting a return to unlimited stacking; it's either hard stack limits (e.g. total war franchise), or soft stack limits (e.g. most Paradox franchises).
     
  10. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,506
    .... So not many stack of doom games out there?
    Thats what I was really asking. IDC about 1UPT but those civ4 stacks were the other extreme
    I like compromise
     
  11. rezaf

    rezaf Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    179
    Heroes of Might & Magic kinda has strictly limited stacking AND stacks of doom, both at the same time. :p

    Counter question, how many popular games out there where 1 unit represents an entire army have 1UPT?
     
  12. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,071
    I liked the way Age of Wonders 1 and 2 did the stacking. 8 units to a stack with a lot of encouragement to bring varied unit types. AoW 3 is also an excellent game, but I thought the reduction to 6 units per stack hurt it a little. Then again, AoW uses a completely different combat system than Civ, altho if you auto-resolve most combats, I suppose its fairly close to Civ 4.
     
    Siptah likes this.
  13. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,124
    CtP2

    Always CtP2.
     
    Siptah likes this.
  14. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    I agree with much of what you said, just don't like the term "lightweight", "hardcore", etc. Sure, I spend more time on paradox games then vanilla Civ --even without spending hours on research and composing of historical command structures for pure flavor-- and appreciate all the fine detail put into them, I also play a verity of other games, but I don't consider myself a hardcore nor find myself compromising on so called lightweight CIV, those just different games/experiences I enjoy. (and btw in both my most recently played mods for Civ4, there is slavery).

    I seen many strategy advice here that are top notch, much better than the flood of doom stacks FTW advice you see from the crowd of these "hardcore strategy" games recent streamlining, where kids just google most game breaking builds so they can insist on being hardcore.. I don't care about platform wars, only about my entertainment value.
     
    Victoria and c4c6 like this.
  15. Sobornost

    Sobornost Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    80
    Yeah, the time factor of 1UPT is a big negative for me. It's way too slow. So, so slow. I remember sitting down in a relatively long run with a friend and blowing through Civ 4 games on Epic speed, Huge map. And we were both major imperialists, subjugating most of the world as vassal states before coming to blows at the end typically. That type of game just wouldn't be possible in Civ 5 in one setting. Getting rid of SOD didn't ruin the series for me, but specifically, taking it to 1UPT certainly was a major negative. Didn't kill it entirely, since Civ 5 and 6 have done other interesting things beyond 4 to at least grab your attention a bit, but clunky combat mechanics in a game with so much combat hurts.

    My dream game would be Civ 4 combat with some of the newer ideas developed in Civ 5/6 like expanded religion, diplomacy/world congress, ideology, etc.
     
  16. Japper007

    Japper007 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think people wildly exaggerate the competence of the AI in previous civ games. Civ I and II the AI was basically useless, civ3's was cheat-boosted to hell but still all too easy to cheese.
    Civ 4's is actually slowed down by the stacking mechanic I find, you just suicide a few catapults into their massive stack and then blow it up with cavalry or tanks, no strategy required. Not to mention how useless it is at the (empire) builder aspect of the game.

    And 1upt can be done competently by AI, Warlock has 1upt and the AI is quite smart at fighting. The civ 5 CBP mod has AI that can beat a human on almost equal footing (how many civ4 mods can state the same?) It just requires that developers give enough of a crap to actually devote time and effort to it, which is where the real problem with civ 5 and 6 lies.
     
  17. Deadstarre

    Deadstarre Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    960
    Location:
    New York
    speaking of wild exaggerations...
     
  18. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,380
    Location:
    City of one angel
    Yeah, sure, easy job to blow up a SOD. No strategy required. 1upt however, incredibly nifty, that darn AI, so that you can hardly beat it.

    Guess I have played different games then :)
     
    Zuizgond likes this.
  19. Lemon Merchant

    Lemon Merchant Hall Monitor Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    8,638
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Sector A
    My, my, what version of Civ4 have you been playing? Obviously not Firaxis's version.
     
  20. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,506
    I do not play many other games which is why I asked in the first place, it was an innocent question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page