Aristos
Lightseeker
I reckon I was one of many that waited for the new combat system with anticipation. It sounded very interesting, applicable, and a step forward when compared to what became known as the SoD.
Then reality struck. I won't go into details, because they have been pointed out many times around here. The system just does not seem to work in practice. What is interesting though, is the question: WHY?
After two weeks of trying hard to like civ5, and boys I tried (I promised lemmy101 in a long ago buried thread that I would after the initial horrible impression)... after much trying, I could see some things that may be worth sharing. One of these things is the answer to the previos question. In essence, I foresee that the combat system in civ5 is inherently broken by design, and not only because of its own design, but also because of how the system interacts with other parts of the game.
Most people here think the combat system will be perfect if they fix the horrible AI. I think it won't change anything. The combat system, and its interaction with the rest of the game, basically forces an all-out conflict in a war. Firaxis decided to go for 1UPT, but to "make it work", the obvious conclusion was that the number of units should be limited to small numbers in order to make them manageable, both for the player and the AI. Although it is a "logic" conclusion given the premise, it is also a broken conclusion.
When war starts in civ5, each side is compelled to take action. Whatever the sides are, and whoever is in charge, the fact is that one side will emerge victorious; in civ5 terms, this means something like "the last man standing". One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city. THAT is exactly what we are seeing now, when we defeat the horrible AI and walk from city to city aftwerwards.
Now, the problem with this is: even if they make the AI a superman, and able to defeat good civ players, the issue will be the same. Only this time, in such a miraculous scenario, the AI will defeat our army in the first wave, and there is no way the player will recover on time to mount a second defense. In both cases, the ultimate fact is that the player abandons the game (victorious or defeated), because either the challenge is over or it has become impossible (if they fix the AI, that is).
So, from this point of view, it is a Loose-Loose situation. The truth is, hexes and 1UPT work only for wargames. THAT is one of the biggest mistakes in design decision for this new version; in wargames, the player deals with closed scenarios, and total victory or defeat over the enemy is usually the objective, and the outcome. Destroying the army of the enemy in a wargame scenario just ends that scenario, and the player starts another one (or the same, if he has been defeated). In a civ game, the world is the scenario, and destroying the enemy's army means no more resistance, making the rest of the game useless.
This is a HUGE mistake. As you can see, fixing the AI won't fix this; the problem is inherent to the design, and very hard to fix. More units won't fix the problem either, as you can probably see when you try the higher levels and each hex is occupied by an AI unit. The reality is that the civ world is not a wargame scenario, and any mechanic that works there cannot work here. It is sad, because many of us expected the new system to be great. Of course, we did not have enough insight into the game to foresee this, but they did, and never saw it coming.
Now, for those of you who will jump at me yelling "fear of change!" blablabla and "why don't you propose the solution then?", I did many times before, even before Civ4 was released: CtP2's combat system. THAT is the system that solves the SoD problem while maintaining the core of the civ design. It would have worked perfectly, and with all the tools available now, Firaxis could have made the system much better than it was 10 years ago.
In summary, I honestly don't feel much hope that this can be fixed. Fixing it, from this point of view, would mean almost to remake it. And that does not seem to be a possibility... for the next 5 years, that is, and only if our beloved franchise survives this storm.
Have a peaceful Thanksgiving my friends!
EDIT: after two more months of playing, has something changed in our views? I still think mostly the same as when I posted this.
Then reality struck. I won't go into details, because they have been pointed out many times around here. The system just does not seem to work in practice. What is interesting though, is the question: WHY?
After two weeks of trying hard to like civ5, and boys I tried (I promised lemmy101 in a long ago buried thread that I would after the initial horrible impression)... after much trying, I could see some things that may be worth sharing. One of these things is the answer to the previos question. In essence, I foresee that the combat system in civ5 is inherently broken by design, and not only because of its own design, but also because of how the system interacts with other parts of the game.
Most people here think the combat system will be perfect if they fix the horrible AI. I think it won't change anything. The combat system, and its interaction with the rest of the game, basically forces an all-out conflict in a war. Firaxis decided to go for 1UPT, but to "make it work", the obvious conclusion was that the number of units should be limited to small numbers in order to make them manageable, both for the player and the AI. Although it is a "logic" conclusion given the premise, it is also a broken conclusion.
When war starts in civ5, each side is compelled to take action. Whatever the sides are, and whoever is in charge, the fact is that one side will emerge victorious; in civ5 terms, this means something like "the last man standing". One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city. THAT is exactly what we are seeing now, when we defeat the horrible AI and walk from city to city aftwerwards.
Now, the problem with this is: even if they make the AI a superman, and able to defeat good civ players, the issue will be the same. Only this time, in such a miraculous scenario, the AI will defeat our army in the first wave, and there is no way the player will recover on time to mount a second defense. In both cases, the ultimate fact is that the player abandons the game (victorious or defeated), because either the challenge is over or it has become impossible (if they fix the AI, that is).
So, from this point of view, it is a Loose-Loose situation. The truth is, hexes and 1UPT work only for wargames. THAT is one of the biggest mistakes in design decision for this new version; in wargames, the player deals with closed scenarios, and total victory or defeat over the enemy is usually the objective, and the outcome. Destroying the army of the enemy in a wargame scenario just ends that scenario, and the player starts another one (or the same, if he has been defeated). In a civ game, the world is the scenario, and destroying the enemy's army means no more resistance, making the rest of the game useless.
This is a HUGE mistake. As you can see, fixing the AI won't fix this; the problem is inherent to the design, and very hard to fix. More units won't fix the problem either, as you can probably see when you try the higher levels and each hex is occupied by an AI unit. The reality is that the civ world is not a wargame scenario, and any mechanic that works there cannot work here. It is sad, because many of us expected the new system to be great. Of course, we did not have enough insight into the game to foresee this, but they did, and never saw it coming.
Now, for those of you who will jump at me yelling "fear of change!" blablabla and "why don't you propose the solution then?", I did many times before, even before Civ4 was released: CtP2's combat system. THAT is the system that solves the SoD problem while maintaining the core of the civ design. It would have worked perfectly, and with all the tools available now, Firaxis could have made the system much better than it was 10 years ago.
In summary, I honestly don't feel much hope that this can be fixed. Fixing it, from this point of view, would mean almost to remake it. And that does not seem to be a possibility... for the next 5 years, that is, and only if our beloved franchise survives this storm.
Have a peaceful Thanksgiving my friends!
EDIT: after two more months of playing, has something changed in our views? I still think mostly the same as when I posted this.