Limiting Exploration

[Marla_Singer]

Frankly, I care less what scale the game is in than whether the game makes for interesting gameplay.

To that purpose, I find stacking all your units on one tile (and worse, having to grind down a massive stack of all the AI's unit on one tile) far less interesting than a war of maneuver fought at a tactical scale, so personally I vastly prefer a limit to unit stacking. These are my personal preferences, having gone through the tedium of grinding away opponent stacks in III-IV where it was a common problem.

UPT can certainly be called an over-correction, but I feel strongly enough about the mass-stacks to feel Stack of Doom is an entirely appropriate and deserved name (and to roll my eyes and laugh at anyone who tell me I'm being hyperbolic). I won't stop using it, and I won't play a game that bring them back.

There is, however, much space for compromise between UPT and SOD.

I agree that most interesting situations are in-between. And I'll try to show that with a simple example:

Situation 1 :
You attack with 3 melee units facing 2 range units. Assuming that range units would hit 2 HP to all units in stack, then if you would go ahead with the 3 melee units all stacked on the same tile, they would all lose 4HP after the 2 range units have fired. However, if you spread them out on 3 different tiles, then only 2 units would lose 2HP each, the 3rd one being undamaged.

Situation 2 :
You still attack with the same 3 melee units, but this time facing 2 melee units. Assuming that melee units would deal first with the strongest unit in the stack, then you can protect your harmed ones in stacking them all. If instead you would spread out, then the opponent would attack the harmed ones first.

Whereas you are always on situation 1 with 1UPT and always on situation 2 with SOD, the best tactic would vary here with a very simple system. Add to that flank attacks dispersing a stack in pushing back a part of it and you add even more diversity to your military tactics.

 

[Arcaian]

But Civ games are strategic, not tactical scale games. An, "archer on a hill," is not a relevance on a global scale. And I hink only a minority of players outright eschew conquest victories entirely.

Honestly, I don't really care on this one. Does it make sense for an archer to be shooting over another unit when the timescale is decades between turns? Not at all. Do I find the tactical decisions around combat more intriguing than stacks of doom? Absolutely. Is the cost of the strangeness of the first worth the enjoyment of the second? For me personally, comfortably the answer is yes. I'm not opposed to the idea of within-turn combat resolutions to avoid this disconnect, using systems like Humankind/Age of Wonders/etc, but they do end up feeling a bit off in my experience with them, and I'm not entirely certain in how to improve them.

 

[Patine]

Honestly, I don't really care on this one. Does it make sense for an archer to be shooting over another unit when the timescale is decades between turns? Not at all. Do I find the tactical decisions around combat more intriguing than stacks of doom? Absolutely. Is the cost of the strangeness of the first worth the enjoyment of the second? For me personally, comfortably the answer is yes. I'm not opposed to the idea of within-turn combat resolutions to avoid this disconnect, using systems like Humankind/Age of Wonders/etc, but they do end up feeling a bit off in my experience with them, and I'm not entirely certain in how to improve them.

Again, I'm being accused of supporting UNLIMITED stacking, which Ihaven't, actually said, and having an annoying, hyperbolic term used again. I just think stacking should be in proportion to the scope and scale of the game. From what I understand, Humankind has, "zoom-in," mechanics making it completely different, and I find within-turn combat resolution such an onerous feature of a game, and I know that many others I've discussed it with feel the same, because it favours RTS and MOBA players and fast-and-coordinated AI players over most 4X players. Liking tactical-scale combat is perfectly acceptable, in and of itself, but it shouldn't be heavily pushed for an overtly strategic-scale game, especially with the view that those who disagree MUST support UNLIMITED stacking, by default, want, "complexity for it's sake," and couldn't possibly have any other reason, are killing enjoyment, and the other disingenuous claims I'm seen on this thread, collectively.

 

[AffineConstant]

I agree that most interesting situations are in-between. And I'll try to show that with a simple example:

Situation 1 :
You attack with 3 melee units facing 2 range units. Assuming that range units would hit 2 HP to all units in stack, then if you would go ahead with the 3 melee units all stacked on the same tile, they would all lose 4HP after the 2 range units have fired. However, if you spread them out on 3 different tiles, then only 2 units would lose 2HP each, the 3rd one being undamaged.

Situation 2 :
You still attack with the same 3 melee units, but this time facing 2 melee units. Assuming that melee units would deal first with the strongest unit in the stack, then you can protect your harmed ones in stacking them all. If instead you would spread out, then the opponent would attack the harmed ones first.

Whereas you are always on situation 1 with 1UPT and always on situation 2 with SOD, the best tactic would vary here with a very simple system. Add to that flank attacks dispersing a stack in pushing back a part of it and you add even more diversity to your military tactics.

As Jon Shafer, lead design of Civ V put it, Go is a game you can learn in about 30 seconds. Each player takes a turn placing a single stone on a free spot on the board, once surrounded by the other color (black and white) a group of stones is considered "captured" and is removed from the board. Last color on the board wins.
Not only does this have vastly less rules than chess, it is a game orders of magnitude more complex than chess. It took an extra 20 years of computing advancement to go from beating a human chess champion to beating a human Go champion.
"Stacking" is not only totally unnecessary to have a complex game, and makes the game harder to actually learn or play at all, but it also gives you less decisions to make. If you can't stack you have to decide what order your units are in, you have to pay more attention to how they move across the board, etc. That Civ hasn't done a great job of making combat the most fun, stacking or not, does not bear much on the inherent advantages or disadvantages of stacking or non stacking.

 

[Patine]

As Jon Shafer, lead design of Civ V put it, Go is a game you can learn in about 30 seconds. Each player takes a turn placing a single stone on a free spot on the board, once surrounded by the other color (black and white) a group of stones is considered "captured" and is removed from the board. Last color on the board wins.
Not only does this have vastly less rules than chess, it is a game orders of magnitude more complex than chess. It took an extra 20 years of computing advancement to go from beating a human chess champion to beating a human Go champion.
"Stacking" is not only totally unnecessary to have a complex game, and makes the game harder to actually learn or play at all, but it also gives you less decisions to make. If you can't stack you have to decide what order your units are in, you have to pay more attention to how they move across the board, etc. That Civ hasn't done a great job of making combat the most fun, stacking or not, does not bear much on the inherent advantages or disadvantages of stacking or non stacking.

I don't see how comparing to a completely unrelated game makes a case against any stacking at all in Civ.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As Jon Shafer, lead design of Civ V put it, Go is a game you can learn in about 30 seconds. Each player takes a turn placing a single stone on a free spot on the board, once surrounded by the other color (black and white) a group of stones is considered "captured" and is removed from the board. Last color on the board wins.
Not only does this have vastly less rules than chess, it is a game orders of magnitude more complex than chess. It took an extra 20 years of computing advancement to go from beating a human chess champion to beating a human Go champion.
"Stacking" is not only totally unnecessary to have a complex game, and makes the game harder to actually learn or play at all, but it also gives you less decisions to make. If you can't stack you have to decide what order your units are in, you have to pay more attention to how they move across the board, etc. That Civ hasn't done a great job of making combat the most fun, stacking or not, does not bear much on the inherent advantages or disadvantages of stacking or non stacking.

The other half of the original Go quote, which I heard from a Japanese Go player in college, was that it takes 30 seconds to learn and 30 years to learn how to play well.

One good point here, though, is that much of the dissatisfaction with either 1UPT or Stacking with or without limits is that no Civ game seems to have handled the consequences of those mechanics well or given us a combat system appropriate to the time and distance scale of the game or the place in the Chain of Combat from which the player is making decisions. After all, if in the rest of the game we are playing as the Near Omnipotent Wonderous Spirit of the Civ, why are we deciding which archers and in which sequence will fire at which enemy Warrior?

On the other hand, there is a sub-set of players who want to decide which archer is firing right-handed and which left-handed and wants to get the most out of each of them. So IF the game wants to accommodate everyone who ever turned on a computer, Decision levels have to be adjustable from Grand Strategic (the rest of the game) to Tactical (the Archer Company of Aethelwurst-on-the-Dung).

I think doing that will mean having:

1. An AI that can do almost as well as the gamer in almost every case, so all players with the slightest streak of competitiveness aren't forced to handle every tactical decision themselves.

2. An appropriate level of Non-Control over the tactical situation - appropriate to the technology, social and civic policy levels of the armies. This, not incidentally, will help make the AIs job easier (and more programmable, hopefully) because for a long time and in many armies that reduces your tactical decisions considerably. A Greek Hoplite Army, for instance, has 0 tactical decisions: the strategos fought in the front rank with the rest of the phalanx and couldn't influence anybody more than 10 paces away once the battle started: any 'tactical decision' he made had to be made before the battle. You want to make detailed tactical changes in the middle of the battle, that limits your options throughout most of history to things you did before reaching the battlefield or at least, before the first spearpoint hit the first shield.

3. Some way to decide the Entire Battle within a single turn. This is a no-brainer. When the smallest game-turn is 1 year, only the occasional siege lasts any appreciable fraction of a turn. At the other extreme, the entire Battle of Kursk in 1943, considered one of the largest land battles in history involving almost 3 million men, over 3500 tanks, 3000 aircraft, 25,000 artillery pieces, and involving a multitude of individual attacks, retreats, advances, and tactical maneuvers, was decided in less than 2 weeks - or less than 1/100th of a Game Turn.

Solving those problems, I think, is far more important than whether the game allows you to stack 1, 3, or 50 units in a tile - although I freely admit, I think some kind of 'massing' of individual units, however it is done, is unavoidable to maintain the battle within the time and distance scales of the rest of the game.

 

[pokiehl]

So IF the game wants to accommodate everyone who ever turned on a computer, Decision levels have to be adjustable from Grand Strategic (the rest of the game) to Tactical (the Archer Company of Aethelwurst-on-the-Dung).

I think this is a wrong assumption. Why would Civ ever even try to accommodate that level of detail or realism or whatever for combat? It doesn’t do that with anything else—like any other game, it has its identity and you either accept it or you don’t. In no world has Civ ever been a game that appeals to people who want to strategically plan out every aspect of a battle.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think this is a wrong assumption. Why would Civ ever even try to accommodate that level of detail or realism or whatever for combat? It doesn’t do that with anything else—like any other game, it has its identity and you either accept it or you don’t. In no world has Civ ever been a game that appeals to people who want to strategically plan out every aspect of a battle.

Which is why IF was capitalized in the quoted statement.

But in fact it is a correct assumption for Civ's 5 & 6, the latest in the basic series: you plan every shot by every single ranged unit, every frontal attack and flanking attack is a separate action, placement and use of support, Great General units, use of terrain by each individual unit - all those are tactical decisions. They are a level of detail but I grant you NOT a level of 'realism': not only are there no screams of pain or gouts of blood from the troops, the scale of decision-making is in no way in keeping with a Grand Strategy game like Civ.

And in these threads people have said that they like having that level of control, so despite the disconnect between levels of the game it is not an invalid assumption that the game design might continue to accommodate those gamers.

Furthermore, this kind of Chain of Command Hopping is nothing new in gaming. The Column, Line & Square rules, the first popular miniatures rules for Napoleonic warfare in the USA, written back in the late 1960s, I believe, had the gamer acting as a Nimber One Gunner for an artillery piece, estimating the range to the target, then as the battalion commander moving and maneuvering his infantry battalion, then as a brigade or division commander sending orders to all of his units - basically, swapping hats among 5 different levels of command within the space of a single turn. Civ 5 and 6, I maintain, do much the same thing when their 1UPT systems require you to fire, move and maneuver each individual unit in a turn that represents both up to 40% of a century and the actions of a single day of battle, all within one Game Turn, while also making Empire-wide decisions on religion, strategy, economics, productivity and cultural activities in that same turn.

 

[pokiehl]

But in fact it is a correct assumption for Civ's 5 & 6, the latest in the basic series: you plan every shot by every single ranged unit, every frontal attack and flanking attack is a separate action, placement and use of support, Great General units, use of terrain by each individual unit - all those are tactical decisions. They are a level of detail but I grant you NOT a level of 'realism': not only are there no screams of pain or gouts of blood from the troops, the scale of decision-making is in no way in keeping with a Grand Strategy game like Civ.

I guess your post confused me. The part directly before what I quoted mentioned picking which arm an archer fires from.

 

[Patine]

On the other hand, there is a sub-set of players who want to decide which archer is firing right-handed and which left-handed and wants to get the most out of each of them. So IF the game wants to accommodate everyone who ever turned on a computer, Decision levels have to be adjustable from Grand Strategic (the rest of the game) to Tactical (the Archer Company of Aethelwurst-on-the-Dung).

I guess your post confused me. The part directly before what I quoted mentioned picking which arm an archer fires from.

Of course, another very, very jarring bizarrity, along with 1UPT (or highly restricted stacking) is archers, slingers, crossbowmen, or handheld fiirearms-wielding infantry being, "rsnged," on a global scale, obviously strategic map, when one considers how far a single tile they're firing over actually is. Even a catapult is pushing the envelope.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I guess your post confused me. The part directly before what I quoted mentioned picking which arm an archer fires from.

Sorry. Exaggeration for the sake of Humor doesn't work quite as well in a venue where there are people who think any amount of detail in a game system is exactly what they want to play.​

- And, to be fair, I once (but only once!) played a set of miniatures rules in which swordsmen and spearmen who were left-handed had an advantage because no one was used to facing 'mirror-image' fighters. One of the many game experiences the memory of which still gives me shivers . . .​

​

Of course, another very, very jarring bizarrity, along with 1UPT (or highly restricted stacking) is archers, slingers, crossbowmen, or handheld fiirearms-wielding infantry being, "rsnged," on a global scale, obviously strategic map, when one considers how far a single tile they're firing over actually is. Even a catapult is pushing the envelope.

The only way to keep your sanity is to assume all ranges and movement rates are strictly Relational. An Archer fires further than a Slinger, modern Artillery further than a Crossbow or smoothbore Cannon. Scouts or Horsemen can move farther and faster than Hoplites. How much faster and farther is more related to map sizes than reality.

I can almost live with all of that, until I try to relate the relational ranges with the objects on the map. Then, having an archer who can shoot completely over an Industrial Area complete with Factory and Power Plant or a City Center complete with a Palace and its grounds makes my widdle head hurt and my left eyelid start to twitch uncontrollably . . .

 

[Arcaian]

Again, I'm being accused of supporting UNLIMITED stacking, which Ihaven't, actually said, and having an annoying, hyperbolic term used again. I just think stacking should be in proportion to the scope and scale of the game. From what I understand, Humankind has, "zoom-in," mechanics making it completely different, and I find within-turn combat resolution such an onerous feature of a game, and I know that many others I've discussed it with feel the same, because it favours RTS and MOBA players and fast-and-coordinated AI players over most 4X players. Liking tactical-scale combat is perfectly acceptable, in and of itself, but it shouldn't be heavily pushed for an overtly strategic-scale game, especially with the view that those who disagree MUST support UNLIMITED stacking, by default, want, "complexity for it's sake," and couldn't possibly have any other reason, are killing enjoyment, and the other disingenuous claims I'm seen on this thread, collectively.

I literally haven't mentioned you once in either of the messages here, I don't know why you think I'm arguing against your personal statements instead of doing what I stated in my original message, and trying to explain my personal preference for 1UPT. You stated the sentiment of wanting one unit per turn was utterly baffling to you; I explained why I preferred the change to 1UPT to provide an example as to why someone might prefer it. At not point in this procedure did I state that unlimited stacking was your opinion, and I certainly didn't accuse you of anything. I even went out of the way to frame it as my personal experience with the subject in both posts. I do not understand what part of my behaviour has led to you having such a confrontational response, but if this continues to be the way the conversation goes, I'm not going to participate in them because frankly the degree to which you are reacting negatively and reading conclusions into my comments that I never made (in posts in which I was careful to frame everything as from my personal experience and not statements about other people's experiences) makes this entire conversation feel hostile and aggressive. I will retire my use of the term stack of doom here, as I did not realise that it clearly is a point of frustration for you - I was using the most commonly used term to try and ensure my meaning was communicated. My point of comparison was with the other games in the series that have allowed stacking, which seems a reasonable point of comparison to me. When they changed from the Civ 4 to the Civ 5 combat system, I had more fun with the combat, and so I am generally more in favour of Civ5/6 style combat systems than Civ 1-4 combat systems. As stated in my posts, I am very much open to the possibility of alternative ideas that keep what I enjoy about the civ 5/6 combat system - that there are interesting tactical choices to make, that the map is more important, and that there's more reason to care about individual troops survival and experience gaining.

I do not understand why within-turn combat resolution would favour RTS/MOVA/coordinated players - there is absolutely nothing about within-turn combat resolution that has to be real-time, and both my examples (Humankind and Age of Wonders) are turn-based combat systems. I would not want a real-time combat resolution; a mix of turn-based campaign map and interesting real-time combat can be left to games like Total War which are much better designed for it than 4x games. Theoretically these Humankind-style combat systems wherein you go to a zoomed-in area of the map and fight it out in a turn-based combat system would provide the solution to both sides of the complaint here - they have the tactical gameplay and unit differentiation of Civ 5/6, but allow a good amount of stacking to help with the AI, and allow for the game's combats to operate on a sense of geographical and temporal scale that makes some amount of sense, like civ 1-4. However, I do find that they slow the game down quite a bit, and I've never found them fully satisfying and tend to just auto-resolve unless the result is giving me serious losses of troops. I'm not convinced that's inherent to this style of combat resolution, but there haven't been too many different versions of it tried to compare against.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The biggest problem with 1UPT is having to solve a sliding tile puzzle every time you move your units. This is extremely tedious, and is also tough for an AI to do. The biggest advantage is seeing your entire army at a glance at normal map scale.

The biggest problem with large stacks is not being able to see the contents of a stack without a seperate sub menu you have to click and drill down to. You cannot see your army at a glance. Often a seperate Stack Management system is needed. The biggest advantage is not having to solve a sliding tile puzzle.

3 UPT has the advantages of both and the downsides of neither. 3 units in a hex is few enough you can show them all at normal map scales. It removes the sliding tile puzzle, yet you don’t have to fuss with Stack Management either

Blam, I Kobayashi Maru’d the whole interview process.

 

[Patine]

I literally haven't mentioned you once in either of the messages here, I don't know why you think I'm arguing against your personal statements instead of doing what I stated in my original message, and trying to explain my personal preference for 1UPT. You stated the sentiment of wanting one unit per turn was utterly baffling to you; I explained why I preferred the change to 1UPT to provide an example as to why someone might prefer it. At not point in this procedure did I state that unlimited stacking was your opinion, and I certainly didn't accuse you of anything. I even went out of the way to frame it as my personal experience with the subject in both posts. I do not understand what part of my behaviour has led to you having such a confrontational response, but if this continues to be the way the conversation goes, I'm not going to participate in them because frankly the degree to which you are reacting negatively and reading conclusions into my comments that I never made (in posts in which I was careful to frame everything as from my personal experience and not statements about other people's experiences) makes this entire conversation feel hostile and aggressive. I will retire my use of the term stack of doom here, as I did not realise that it clearly is a point of frustration for you - I was using the most commonly used term to try and ensure my meaning was communicated. My point of comparison was with the other games in the series that have allowed stacking, which seems a reasonable point of comparison to me. When they changed from the Civ 4 to the Civ 5 combat system, I had more fun with the combat, and so I am generally more in favour of Civ5/6 style combat systems than Civ 1-4 combat systems. As stated in my posts, I am very much open to the possibility of alternative ideas that keep what I enjoy about the civ 5/6 combat system - that there are interesting tactical choices to make, that the map is more important, and that there's more reason to care about individual troops survival and experience gaining.

I do not understand why within-turn combat resolution would favour RTS/MOVA/coordinated players - there is absolutely nothing about within-turn combat resolution that has to be real-time, and both my examples (Humankind and Age of Wonders) are turn-based combat systems. I would not want a real-time combat resolution; a mix of turn-based campaign map and interesting real-time combat can be left to games like Total War which are much better designed for it than 4x games. Theoretically these Humankind-style combat systems wherein you go to a zoomed-in area of the map and fight it out in a turn-based combat system would provide the solution to both sides of the complaint here - they have the tactical gameplay and unit differentiation of Civ 5/6, but allow a good amount of stacking to help with the AI, and allow for the game's combats to operate on a sense of geographical and temporal scale that makes some amount of sense, like civ 1-4. However, I do find that they slow the game down quite a bit, and I've never found them fully satisfying and tend to just auto-resolve unless the result is giving me serious losses of troops. I'm not convinced that's inherent to this style of combat resolution, but there haven't been too many different versions of it tried to compare against.

First, if one reads my first response, I was responding to an aggregate of arguements and assumptions from several on this thread, and not just you, even though I tagged your post. 1UPT just seems so utterly inexplicable to me. A bottleneck by a single foot infantry unit on a global strategic map kills suspension of disbelief. Stacking should be handled more rationally, but not having it, or having strict limits, seems nonsensical, and already does in Civ6. I mean, yes, you can use Go as an example for your case, but I could use Backgammon for mine. And, I admit, I made an assumption on Humankind and Age of Wonders, having never played either, and believing they were more like the Total War series, or Star Wars: Empire at War, and The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Miiddle-earth II in War of the Rings mode, all of which go from a grand strategic turn-based map to a real-time, tactical map for battles. So, I did presume. But, one game I did play with a turn-based grand strategic map and turn-based tactical battle resolution was Master of Orion 2, made by Microprose, in fact, the company Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds started in, and made Civ1, Civ2, and the original Collonization with. MoO2's zoom-in battle system was an onerous chore tacked onto the game. You COULD auto-skip, but then you had to go in with overkill forces, or you always lost.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Suspension of disbelief is something that gets thrown around a lot. But aren't all these games just chock full with that stuff?

Take some other systems for example. Do you expect me to believe that Civ6 governments can switch policies and governments that easily and quickly? Not very realistic

What about the tech trees? You're telling me I can magically find the next technology with absolutely no need for inspiration or societal need for development?
Also not very realistic.

For combat, it's a similar situation. They wanted to depict the intricacies of grand military combat without straying too far away from the playable board, without having to zoom in, do any extra tricks, add convoluted mechanics and so on.

So for that, they chose quite willingly to ignore that fact about ranged units firing ridiculous distances - because the interesting combat was more important than the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Patine]

Suspension of disbelief is something that gets thrown around a lot. But aren't all these games just chock full with that stuff?

Take some other systems for example. Do you expect me to believe that Civ6 governments can switch policies and governments that easily and quickly? Not very realistic

What about the tech trees? You're telling me I can magically find the next technology with absolutely no need for inspiration or societal need for development?
Also not very realistic.

For combat, it's a similar situation. They wanted to depict the intricacies of grand military combat without straying too far away from the playable board, without having to zoom in, do any extra tricks, add convoluted mechanics and so on.

So for that, they chose quite willingly to ignore that fact about ranged units firing ridiculous distances - because the interesting combat was more important than the suspension of disbelief.

There are certain conceits of logic that have always been part of Civ - and 4X games in general - that are required to make them work, and that all players of any past iteration and or other similar game is used to. But, that doesn't mean an, "all or nothing," "baby with the bathwater," is, somehow needed, to grind things right down to an outright fanciful, cartoonish level, but again, I see the typical derisive, condescending, and toxic responses you usually give when I disagree with on anything. An attitude I've said is disharmonious, arrogant, intolerant, and needs to retired on a reputable forum like this, but still hasn't been. I have retired my most toxic habits of long ago, here (although I admit, I still have rough edges come out from time-to-time,but it's nothing like it used to be) , and you should do the same.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Suspension of disbelief is something that gets thrown around a lot. But aren't all these games just chock full with that stuff?

Take some other systems for example. Do you expect me to believe that Civ6 governments can switch policies and governments that easily and quickly? Not very realistic

What about the tech trees? You're telling me I can magically find the next technology with absolutely no need for inspiration or societal need for development?
Also not very realistic.

For combat, it's a similar situation. They wanted to depict the intricacies of grand military combat without straying too far away from the playable board, without having to zoom in, do any extra tricks, add convoluted mechanics and so on.

So for that, they chose quite willingly to ignore that fact about ranged units firing ridiculous distances - because the interesting combat was more important than the suspension of disbelief.

I have also criticized the policy and government-switching as far too easy and without consequence, and suggested that the Tech Tree at the very least be revised so that the current Eurekas become not Bonuses, but Requirements to research so that, as an instance, you cannot research Sailing or boats without some contact with water.

But the combat 'system' in Civ V/VI is not a similar situation. They not only expect me to accept grossly out of scale ground distances like range and size of the units but also grossly out of scale times required to complete any military action. The result is battles that can take most of a century (or more in the Ancient and Classical Eras) and simple marches to contact in which all the soldiers in the force would be dead of old age before they even reach the enemy. Wars that go on for millennia. Galleys with narrow oar-pierced hulls that magically 'upgrade' to sailing ships with braced hulls and sophisticated multi-mast rigging. This isn't 4X, this is Fairy Godmother stuff with a Supercharged Nuclear-Powered Wand.

They require me to believe not one, but Too Many ridiculous things before breakfast, and it breaks any immersion they may have achieved with other in-game systems.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I have also criticized the policy and government-switching as far too easy and without consequence, and suggested that the Tech Tree at the very least be revised so that the current Eurekas become not Bonuses, but Requirements to research so that, as an instance, you cannot research Sailing or boats without some contact with water.

But the combat 'system' in Civ V/VI is not a similar situation. They not only expect me to accept grossly out of scale ground distances like range and size of the units but also grossly out of scale times required to complete any military action. The result is battles that can take most of a century (or more in the Ancient and Classical Eras) and simple marches to contact in which all the soldiers in the force would be dead of old age before they even reach the enemy. Wars that go on for millennia. Galleys with narrow oar-pierced hulls that magically 'upgrade' to sailing ships with braced hulls and sophisticated multi-mast rigging. This isn't 4X, this is Fairy Godmother stuff with a Supercharged Nuclear-Powered Wand.

They require me to believe not one, but Too Many ridiculous things before breakfast, and it breaks any immersion they may have achieved with other in-game systems.

Yes, my point is, it's not just one system. There is "Immersion breaking systems" all over this game (and series), and other games (not just Civ).

There are certain conceits of logic that have always been part of Civ - and 4X games in general - that are required to make them work, and that all players of any past iteration and or other similar game is used to. But, that doesn't mean an, "all or nothing," "baby with the bathwater," is, somehow needed, to grind things right down to an outright fanciful, cartoonish level, but again, I see the typical derisive, condescending, and toxic responses you usually give when I disagree with on anything. An attitude I've said is disharmonious, arrogant, intolerant, and needs to retired on a reputable forum like this, but still hasn't been. I have retired my most toxic habits of long ago, here (although I admit, I still have rough edges come out from time-to-time,but it's nothing like it used to be) , and you should do the same.

Please don't take what I said personally, none of what I've said was personal or condescending. I hope you see I respect your opinion, and was just voicing mine

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For combat, it's a similar situation. They wanted to depict the intricacies of grand military combat without straying too far away from the playable board, without having to zoom in, do any extra tricks, add convoluted mechanics and so on.

So for that, they chose quite willingly to ignore that fact about ranged units firing ridiculous distances - because the interesting combat was more important than the suspension of disbelief.

I too do not mind suspending my brain from reality, in which the idea that most ranged units can fire from two spaces away, considering they are ranged and not melee.
If that wasn't the case, I believe the early game would be comprised of a lot of dead archers and crossbowmen.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I too do not mind suspending my brain from reality, in which the idea that most ranged units can fire from two spaces away, considering they are ranged and not melee.
If that wasn't the case, I believe the early game would be comprised of a lot of dead archers and crossbowmen.

It can be worked differently. In a composite system armies will act like 1UPT but will be formed by a customizable mix of units+formation/stand/order. This way they would usually have at least some front line of meele units to deffend the back line of ranged units (both lines still are part of the same 1UPT army). So you can send them with a volley and hold order from a defensive position forcing the enemy to charge against your wall of shields and pikes or they would retreat if dont want to keep being harrased. Other options like a hit and run tactic would be more effective with recon units from a forested position of by light cavalry units in open terrain.

The point is that you can built your own armies that usually would be something more than a helpless solitary unit, still the different proportion of units in each army, their types, battle formation, stand, promotion, tactical orders, terrain, etc. Would add variety and strategic without need to move dozens of conga line ping-ponging units neither watching stacks of JRPG slapping units. Most of the annoying parts of those extreme systems are simplified without lost their positive strategic and tactical elements.