Not excited...... not one bit

[KevinLancaster]

Well according to their AI war simulations in BE, the new AI is better, from the PC gamer interview.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Well according to their AI war simulations in BE, the new AI is better, from the PC gamer interview.

I really hope Firaxis (or at least some intrepid modder) backports these improvements. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice (especially seeing how both are a similar engine).

Same for the Mantle API implementation, really. I don't expect a full engine upgrade, but it would be nice for us to get some Civ5 improvements, since the brunt of the work is already done for Civ:BE.

 

[Arrowstorm]

1upt could definitely be improved in say, Civ VI, but I don't understand why people would be surprised that this game has 1upt just like Civ V. If you feel like that, I doubt you will feel excited about a Civ game for a loooong time.

I personally think the system is much better and more interesting than SoD's.

 

[KevinLancaster]

I really hope Firaxis (or at least some intrepid modder) backports these improvements. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice (especially seeing how both are a similar engine).

Same for the Mantle API implementation, really. I don't expect a full engine upgrade, but it would be nice for us to get some Civ5 improvements, since the brunt of the work is already done for Civ:BE.

Yes it would be nice, I believe Paradox did similar between their games, but alas, Firaxis is not Paradox and they might not have further long-term plans for Civ 5.

Also, another reason I think 1UPT will work better here is besides better AI and the different setting they also have a more consistent scale, though whose to say how much theatres of war may expand in the future. Even if they do expand, BE isn't so far an interplanetary wargame.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And, after all, there still will be only one (military) unit in said hex, may it be 10, 100 or even 1000 square miles big.
Scale is not important for how big one thinks the area covered by a hex is, but it is important in regards to how you can manouvre your units.

From the screenshots currently available we may assume that the maps don't differ very much from what we know from Civ4/5. There will be "forests" and "jungles", "swamps" and "plains" and "hills". They may be called differently now and will provide other ressources, but from the perspective of the gameplay they will be what we already know. And some of them will be hampering unit movement - huge.

From the perspective of an unit, they are just some hexes and most of them won't be easy and fast to cross, thus limiting the manouvreability.
That is the big mistake of having a 1upt military system on a planetscale overall map - to be able to display the whole planet you effectively put the units onto a "tactical" map (from the unit's perspective) of hilly, forest covered nature. Each and everywhere.
Now put some settlement (which, as the experience of C5 tells, for units have the nature of bunkers) in that picture and you know why a lot of tactical elements in warfare will get lost. No widespread actions anymore, which in other 1upt games with a real "tactical" map are creating the fun. No circumnavigation of the enemy, no "fake attack" here with the center of your army doing the "real" attack there.

The tactical elements of warfare are limited in such an environment - as planetwide scale of the map and unit scale don't fit.

And because they don't fit (and cannot fit) you have to limit the number of units. Because you have to limit the number, you have to make them expensive in terms of production. Because they will have to remain expensive even for a fullgrown economy, you have to limit economy as well. High production capacity is something which you cannot allow - or you're running into the "carpet of doom".

This can only be avoided if you somehow allow a "tactical" map for 1upt-style military actions - which you cannot do if the "tactical" map (unit's perspective) equals the "strategic" map (planetwide scale).

Having terrain limit movement makes it more strategic, not less. It allows you to use the terrain to prevent flanking in order to keep things focused where you need it to be. It allows you to create chokepoints to effectively defend against attacks. In other words, it makes terrain part of the equation in a way stacks never could.

I look at a location in Civ5 where the city is on a hill with one hill and two mountains on one side and coast on the other (angled in a way to sea attacks difficult) and I can instantly say "that's a difficult city to attack." Civ4 never had anything close to that.

 

[Commander Bello]

Having terrain limit movement makes it more strategic, not less.

Only if the limit is the exception.
On a planetwide scale the limit is the general rule.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I disagree based on my experience in Civ5, but we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[reddishrecue]

This new BE isn't that exciting actually when it comes down to it. All this time we were thinking that BE was going to make a change in our lives forever but didn't since the similar space program/scenario that appeared in civilization 4 bts as final frontier. 3 social policies also appear in civ 5 bnw which is also another thing that was brought back and doesn't excite as much.

 

[KevinLancaster]

What? It hasn't come out yet! SMAC technically is just heavily modded Civ 2, wasn't that exciting for most people and didn't sell that well back then either. Still an amazing game. What's nice is that the Civ series has a lot more players now so a lot more people to potentially transfer over to it. Final Frontier was a half-hearted effort, I heard, and this isn't just a scenario (I didn't play much Civ 4).

Have you tried SMAC? It's completely different, it takes place on one planet, and as far as I know BE is going to as well (might add more planets in an expansion I hope).

 

[Lemon Merchant]

And I'm not surprised you would think that. It seems like whenever 1UPT or Stacking is brought up, purists (not saying you are or not, just saying in general) on both sides rush off to the trenches and any attempts at finding a middle ground are thwarted by the fact that the middle ground becomes a No Man's Land attacked by both sides.

Are there pros and cons to both Stacks and 1UPT? Yes. Are these pros and cons weighted differently by different people? Yes.

Does that mean there's no chance for a happy middle ground? Not at all. I think that in the most extreme situations, such as unlimited stacking with no real penalties and 1UPT, the player is ultimately hurt because they lose the ability to choose. With megastacking, you don't have much of a choice but to stack more and stack better. For 1UPT, you don't have any choice but to shuffle units across the map.

A better system would have a player say something like, "Well, I can throw ten units into this stack for now, or I can spread them out to try to flank the enemy army. Both ideas have pros and cons, and my decision will totally be dependent on the situation."

[Emphasis mine]

Yes! You have summed up my thoughts nicely! Neither option is the best option - both have serious flaws IMHO.

There should be a way to cluster or group units so that you don't have to move each one individually. Moving a large (more than five units) army in Civ5 is a nightmare, unless you really love to hear your mouse click many times per turn. Don't get me wrong. I like the strategy required to use terrain to your advantage, or flank an enemy position, but jeez - getting your units there? Yuck.

To me, an acceptable compromise would be to stack up to five units, but only be able to attack with one of them per turn, unless you break the stack apart. Only one unit can attack per turn while stacked. You'd get the convenience of easier troop movement, but you'd have an incentive not to use your units in a stack.

This is something that I'd like to see in Civ BE.



You may now descend upon me like a pack of rabid dogs for spouting such anti-1UPT heresy.

 

[KevinLancaster]

What if you had land transport units, APCs? Can store five units or something, you can deploy them around them. Would make sense for a sci-fi game.

Dropships and other transports could be implemented to have a similar carrier for vehicles, using the orbital layer.

Maybe a subterranean layer would be interesting as well for an expansion. I'm thinking of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun in all this I suppose.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

What if you had land transport units, APCs? Can store five units or something, you can deploy them around them. Would make sense for a sci-fi game.

Dropships and other transports could be implemented to have a similar carrier for vehicles, using the orbital layer.

I like.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

APCs, no way. We've already gotten rid of embarking on transport ships. Adding an extra layer of complexity is not their current design goal. And low numbers of units/tile calls for troops with generalised functions, instead of Civ4 where high numbers of units/tile call for lots of highly specialised troops.

 

[KevinLancaster]

How about it's a grouping mechanic, you don't have to build the APCs, you select multiple units and order them to move into one tile, and they become one grouped unit at the cost of combat effectiveness.

 

[Traejun]

What if you had land transport units, APCs? Can store five units or something, you can deploy them around them. Would make sense for a sci-fi game.

Dropships and other transports could be implemented to have a similar carrier for vehicles, using the orbital layer.

Maybe a subterranean layer would be interesting as well for an expansion. I'm thinking of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun in all this I suppose.

If we're trying to be realistic in any way, shape or form:

1. A land transport (APC) of non-gargantuan size could reasonably carry 1 or 2 infantry squads. If each unit of infantry is supposed to be a company, or perhaps a regiment - which I think is the game's design intent - then 1 transport should be able to carry 1 unit. For purposes of game functionality, perhaps 2 or 3 at the most... any less and nobody would both constructing them.

2. Dropships should be used to carry about the same as an APC - perhaps 1 more unit at most. The reason to use them is clear - speed and invulnerability vs. anything but ground to air (AA) weapons.

3. Orbital Layer... sky is the limit. Orbital unit deployment, which I see as something like mass-landers capable of bringing tank companies to from low orbit to ground rapidly, should be something you research into. Perhaps it starts off in the early- to mid-game as capable of bringing down small number of units. Later, it should be capable of moving entire armies... assuming you research into it and spend the necessary hammers on constructing the necessary orbital facilities and vehicles.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Well, units in Civ were never really one unit, one APC unit would be a formation of APCs, though technically that means the infantry groupings are much smaller. The dropships would have to be reasonably limited to balance out their advantages, and as you said require the right techs.

Oh yeah and the grouping suggestion makes more sense than buildable units, to streamline the game. I suppose first it would be infantry only and then later small vehicles and eventually orbital drop.

Even if this isn't in the game, it would be cool for an expansion.

 

[Traejun]

Well, units in Civ were never really one unit, one APC unit would be a formation of APCs, though technically that means the infantry groupings are much smaller. The dropships would have to be reasonably limited to balance out their advantages, and as you said require the right techs.

Even if this isn't in the game, it would be cool for an expansion.

Fair point on the APCs... might be great to make "mechanized" a unit trait rather than making Mechanized Infantry a separate unit type. Something like, the infantry units enjoy a bonus of some sort for 1 or 2 rounds after dismounting, then take a small penalty of some sort thereafter for some number of rounds.

Things like that would make the military aspect of the game feel interesting, without making it the whole point of playing.

 

[householder]

Well, consider Panzer General, the 1upt game flaunted as the reason for it in Civ5. In PG, England is 500 hexes. In Civ5 England is 6-10 on an Earth map. You cannot engage a tactical combat system such as 1upt on a high-level overview strategic map such as Civ.

Would it be possible to allow unit stacking on the strategic map, but when combat is to be initiated, the game would switch to tactical map. The tactical map would be a larger, more detailed version of the terrain from the strategic map.

Of course, that would require taking the time to deploy your troops for tactical combat. But isn't that the general idea of 1upt?

 

[reddishrecue]

What? It hasn't come out yet! SMAC technically is just heavily modded Civ 2, wasn't that exciting for most people and didn't sell that well back then either. Still an amazing game. What's nice is that the Civ series has a lot more players now so a lot more people to potentially transfer over to it. Final Frontier was a half-hearted effort, I heard, and this isn't just a scenario (I didn't play much Civ 4).

Have you tried SMAC? It's completely different, it takes place on one planet, and as far as I know BE is going to as well (might add more planets in an expansion I hope).

I got to try the SMAC demo and got into it for awhile. I stopped using the SMAC demo for some reason since it was only a trial version but it was interesting for a bit.

 

[Sonereal]

But the idea of having to load a tactical map for each stack battle is painful, and doesn't really sound fun.