Not excited...... not one bit

[Commander Bello]

At the same time, using "pop-up" battles (akin to Endless Space, MoO 2 etc.) means you detract from the main map - something Civ is very focussed on (almost everything is a "main map gamepiece"

Well, except for city management, diplomacy, politics ...

As far as I remember, from the main map you can't even see which hexes are worked, right?

So, I just cannot agree with C5 being very focused on the main map, sorry.

 

[Lucius_]

Well, except for city management, diplomacy, politics ...

As far as I remember, from the main map you can't even see which hexes are worked, right?

So, I just cannot agree with C5 being very focused on the main map, sorry.

This is true, however, taking combat off the main map would be a new feature for the Civ series so you could look at as a break from Civilization tradition. I love tactical combat though and wouldn't mind a "battle" map based on the tile. That is the only major benefit I see from having a battle map, much deeper tactical turn based combat than what can be done on the world map.

 

[killmeplease]

HoM&M style tactical combat would ruin the game imo

 

[Jman5]

1 UPT certainly has weaknesses. In my opinion the biggest problem with the 1 UPT is the defender advantage. It's too easy to lock down key positions and just sit there while the AI suicides into you. Inevitably the tables turn and they are forced to retreat.

If I were designing things over at firaxis I would look very hard at the healing mechanic for military units. Right now, if you are holding position in a defensible tile the healing will often offset a large amount of attacks. Even if things get nasty, you have a good chance of rolling a promotion on a unit so you can give him an insta-heal to keep things going. At the very least I would like to see healing disabled if the unit is attacked on that turn. I shouldn't be able to just stand there healing 25 hp a turn while taking shots.

1UPT works, but you need the damage to pile up or you make defending too easy and attacking contingent on 1-shotting units per turn.

Other than that, I love the change from Stacks of Doom to One Unit Per Tile. I love the depth added to positioning such as creating intricate zones of control to block enemy units perfectly. I like the melee vs range dichotomy it introduced.

 

[Teproc]

Age of Wonders style tactical combat has a big problem which is that it makes the game significantly longer if you keep it in the usual Civ scale. Using that system would mean a much smaller scale, which would be a huge break and would not be adequate for a Civ game.

 

[Lord Tirian]

So, I just cannot agree with C5 being very focused on the main map, sorry.

It's not completely a main map game, but it is compared to the previous Civ's:

• Great people are no longer specialists, they are tile improvements.
• Just look at the city screen, it's now an overlay on the main map instead of the full screen experience of previous Civ's
• Diplomacy and politics require the main map more than before (because of City State votes)
• Spaceship parts are literally units now.
• BNW's trade routes are now running on the main map.
• BNW's culture victory necessitates archaeology on the main map (the less said about vanilla's culture victory the better! )

Basically, there was a strong shift towards use of main map in Civ5 and all victory conditions now require a lot of play on the main map. Why espionage was moved off the main map, though, I don't get. That was a weird decision. But Civ5 is certainly more main map-centric compared to the previous Civ games (where spaceship, diplomacy and culture victories basically just bypassed interaction with main map).

 

[Willem]

The point is that you engage armies in stacks. Then the battlefield is decided depending upon the terrain you are at. There on the battlefield units would have to follow the 1UPT and it's rules & regulations.

That's my take on it as well. I was disappointed that Civ 5 didn't use this approach and it was one of the reasons why I didn't buy the game. Especially after reading all the posts by people complaining about the hassle of moving their units around. IMO the main map should be used for moving units, with a separate tactical map for combat. That would even set some limits to the overall stack sizes as you couldn't have more units than would fit on the tactical map with 1UPT.

 

[Skipity]

1upt killed Civ5 for me. Truly and utterly killed it. I remember me and a couple others arguing vehemently over this topic. We argued for weeks over the fact that 1upt was a "tactical gaming" experience whilst stacking or armies was a "strategic gaming" experience. And sadly, 1upt defines the design for literally every other part of the game.

Why can't the head designers and developers see this painfully obvious truth?

1 UPT Killed Civ 5. It is not a fun game for anyone looking for a challenging strategy experience.

Sure, if you like to build up your Civ and stomp a helpless AI in your little sandbox, civ 5 has some charm.

 

[UTBear]

Why can't the head designers and developers see this painfully obvious truth?

1 UPT Killed Civ 5. It is not a fun game for anyone looking for a challenging strategy experience.

Sure, if you like to build up your Civ and stomp a helpless AI in your little sandbox, civ 5 has some charm.

Gee, if it killed it, how come so many of us are playing it? I could support some number limit of units above 1, but I never want to go back to SOD.

 

[Skipity]

Gee, if it killed it, how come so many of us are playing it?

Because unskilled players enjoy playing games they can't lose.

Moderator Action: Coming to a forum for civilization fanatics and suggesting that anyone who enjoyed the latest game in the series must be unskilled, is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Naokaukodem]

HoM&M style tactical combat would ruin the game imo

Yes, "it's not the philosophy of the game, I know better than you", blahblahblah... until the day where a Civ have strategic battles, a little like the unbelievable advent of hexagons and 1UPT in Civ5.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Sure, if you like to build up your Civ and stomp a helpless AI in your little sandbox, civ 5 has some charm.

One of the oddest parts of these forums is the large number of people who like to imagine that challenging AI was at some point manifest in the Civilization series. That hasn't been the case in any version of Civ I've seen or played; the only difficulty involved is not overcoming the AI's decision-making, but the AI's resource advantage.

 

[Commander Bello]

One of the oddest parts of these forums is the large number of people who like to imagine that challenging AI was at some point manifest in the Civilization series. That hasn't been the case in any version of Civ I've seen or played; the only difficulty involved is not overcoming the AI's decision-making, but the AI's resource advantage.

This sounds strange.
Because in former versions the AI was weak, too, it is ok that the unevitable weakness is made even more obvious?

Well, we all know that there are technical restrictions to the level an AI theoretically could reach, I give you that.
Nevertheless, knowing that there are such restrictions, I for my part would prefer game concepts making such restrictions less obvious.
But to each his own...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If I were designing things over at firaxis I would look very hard at the healing mechanic for military units. Right now, if you are holding position in a defensible tile the healing will often offset a large amount of attacks. Even if things get nasty, you have a good chance of rolling a promotion on a unit so you can give him an insta-heal to keep things going. At the very least I would like to see healing disabled if the unit is attacked on that turn. I shouldn't be able to just stand there healing 25 hp a turn while taking shots.

I think healing is a key part of the SoD AND 1UPT problem. Most specifically it doesn't cost anything to heal. In a sod, you protect the units with numbers. In 1UPT, you protect them with positioning and promotions.

I would like to see a system where all units could heal at some rate(similar to civ5 march) but it costs you something (gold or some form of stored production)

That way even if you didn't lose + replace the units, it would still put a strain on your economy.

 

[Kid R]

^ That's a good idea. It would have to be balanced properly though otherwise battles might just become who has the deepest wallet.

 

[_hero_]

I'll never understand why Stacks of Doom are heralded as some great strategic gameplay. While more strategic than 1upt, perhaps, they are far from great strategic gameplay. Stacks of doom basically boiled down to math at the end of the day. Every "good" stack is going to have similar units and a similar variety of upgrades. The one that comes from the economically or technologically superior civ wins.

If you beat a stack, it either means the opposing side made a mistake in building their stack, or your stack was simply bigger (or a few lucky rng rolls). This may prove your genius in building an economy/empire, but it doesn't prove anything about your brilliance as a military strategist.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I like 1UPT. The main problem with it is only that it's harder for the AI to deal with it. It's not a perfect system, but the alternative is simply much worse, and I can't think of ways to make the Stack of Doom mechanic work better. I mean, if you limited stack size, you'd be introducing the same problems the AI gets with 1UPT.

1UPT is also more maneuver-oriented than stacks, and feels better and more plausible than smashing two super-dense unit concentrations against each other over a single tile and potentially decide wars in a single battle.

And by the way, while armies are smaller in Civ5, units are more resilient. So it kind of balances out.

 

[neutral_leader]

I'll never understand why Stacks of Doom are heralded as some great strategic gameplay. While more strategic than 1upt, perhaps, they are far from great strategic gameplay. Stacks of doom basically boiled down to math at the end of the day. Every "good" stack is going to have similar units and a similar variety of upgrades. The one that comes from the economically or technologically superior civ wins.

If you beat a stack, it either means the opposing side made a mistake in building their stack, or your stack was simply bigger (or a few lucky rng rolls). This may prove your genius in building an economy/empire, but it doesn't prove anything about your brilliance as a military strategist.

SODs are a better choice for a strategy empire-building game precisely *because* they give victories to the economically and technologically superior players. Civ is not (primarily) about demonstrating your brilliance as a military strategist; it *is* about testing your genius at building an economy/empire. An actual war, when military strategy per se enters the game, is only the last ten percent of the strategy you've been playing, which has been demonstrated through growing your economy, building your industry, forging diplomatic links, forecasting the actions of other countries and anticipating their plays. Just like in real life, these should make up the greatest part of winning (or losing) a war.

 

[Lucius_]

SODs are a better choice for a strategy empire-building game precisely *because* they give victories to the economically and technologically superior players. Civ is not (primarily) about demonstrating your brilliance as a military strategist; it *is* about testing your genius at building an economy/empire. An actual war, when military strategy per se enters the game, is only the last ten percent of the strategy you've been playing, which has been demonstrated through growing your economy, building your industry, forging diplomatic links, forecasting the actions of other countries and anticipating their plays. Just like in real life, these should make up the greatest part of winning (or losing) a war.

So basically, domination wins should just be scientific or economic wins in disguise? That still contributes greatly in Civ V but at least there is some sense of strategy with 1UPT. Even with a tech lead or greater force, you can still lose if you use inferior tactics, like not softening targets with ranged and not protecting siege weapons with melee.

With 1UPT you can't just smash your troops against each other like you essentially did in previous Civ's.

 

[Pepo]

I like 1UPT. The main problem with it is only that it's harder for the AI to deal with it. It's not a perfect system, but the alternative is simply much worse, and I can't think of ways to make the Stack of Doom mechanic work better. I mean, if you limited stack size, you'd be introducing the same problems the AI gets with 1UPT.

1UPT is also more maneuver-oriented than stacks, and feels better and more plausible than smashing two super-dense unit concentrations against each other over a single tile and potentially decide wars in a single battle.

first,i think that ai problems with 1upt are because devs didn't put enougth effort into it.in fact ai in civ series can be improve a lot,and there are some mods that improve the ai a lot.

second,i don't know how 1upt is more plausible than SoD. battles are often decide on a small piece of land where each sides try to put has many soldiers as they can.honestly, SoD are way more logical for a game that try to represent human history than 1Upt. civ doesn't have the size scale for 1upt.

third,there are other ways to improve the combat system with limit of stacks but without too much resemble to 1upt.i was thinking of a supply limit: stacks have a unit limit,and if at the end of the turn there are more units than the limit,all the stack takes damage.if more units appear ,more damage is taken.units shouldn't be killed ,there should be a limit like 20% .terrains features like forest,cities and farms(living from the ground)increase and decrease the limit.techs also increase this limits.that way movement is more managable,there is more strategy and there aren't SoD