On why civ5's combat system is nothing more than a good idea...

[Psyringe]

Good analysis in the OP imho. Two questions though:

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.

Up to here, in my own analysis I came to the same conclusions as you did. I also tried to understand why Firaxis designed the game that way, and which decisions necessitated which others (you seem to have gone a similar route in your thinking, as you note that to make the 1upt design work, it's necessary to reduce the number of units). However, I then thought that the enhanced survivability of troops (i.e. units not always being destroyed in the first encounter) was meant to specifically counter the problem the problem you point out. I suspect that the game-design reason for the "unit may survive an attack" mechanic is to give opportunities to retreat and regroup, heal, and mount the second defense that, as you describe, is currently lacking. 1upt requires fewer units, this makes each single unit more valuable and harder to replace, hence a mechanic to allow units to retreat is introduced (so that there is no need to replace every unit that lost a battle).

I'm rather skeptical if the AI can be taught to use such a mechanic effectively. However, under the assumption of a hypothetical perfect AI (as used by your argument), I wouldn't be so sure about the inherent brokenness of the system either.

There may also be other alternatives for game mechanics that allow a second defense (giving a defender free "partisan" units after he lost a city comes to mind). I'm not saying that that would be a great idea, just pointing out that even if a system is broken right now, there may be possibilities of fixing it that we don't see right now. (The fact that the current system is so broken that we have to hope for fixes we can't even fully envision yet is rather sad though.)

The truth is, hexes and 1UPT work only for wargames.

I'm not seeing why you're throwing hexes in here. Your argument so far doesn't distinguish between squares and hexes in any way, so it looks as if you dismiss 1upt as a wargame mechanic not viable for Civ (with a well-thought line of argument), and then just lump hexes together with it because they are another popular wargame mechanic. I don't see a good foundation for doing this.

Otherwise, as I said, I mostly agree with your post.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Well, my theory is that we should blame Paradox for Civ5. I've learned about EUIII on this very forum few years ago ('Ive been lurking here since civ3 ) and it was just like some freaking revelation. The concepts behind it are so genius, especially the Casus Belli system. So accurate and imersive that I just cannot think of a better solution. Advanced diplomacy really matters there, makes for another mini-game. And then the annexation rules, you literally have to chew the guy up before swallowing. This is a real limitation in blitz conquers. Then we have attrition, winter attrition (want to invade Russia? Really?) dynasties, economic issues like inflation and budget deficits, war over colonies, holy wars, epic armies etc.

Each time I've played it I had a feeling that Firaxis should implement many of those brilliant concepts and make this uber-mega-civ game. But it is technically stealing, and the game would be far too complex for mainstream. I think Firaxis knows that there already is a developer making games for wonks like me and taking it to the next level. So they just stepped away and produced this "streamlined" version for... I don't really know who, but presumably more mainstream consumer.

Yes. Even though I consider Civ5 to be a failed game, I've learnt a lot from this forum about current game systems like Paradox and Euro board games. (Haven't been following strategy games in recent years and was wondering where to start - EU sounds like a good place.) So, overall this has been a positive experience.

 

[drachasor]

That's certainly what it feels like. And it's better than the alternative - that they meant to release it as it stands.

Whenever they "meant" to release it, I know a poorly polished game when I play one. The basic mechanics ARE good, but there are many factors that haven't been balanced or refined properly (combat AI, diplomacy, tile improvements, etc).

 

[Roxlimn]

OP:

Your conclusion is not valid because it is based on a number of incorrect assumptions.

First is that it is impossible not to have a binary war in Civ V. This is not true. At higher settings especially, you have to slog through floods of units the entire way, it seems like.

It's also not true that you can't create new units and armies quickly. You may personally be having problems because of one of two things, or both:

1. Your cities have crap production. Rule of thumb is that a decent production city should be able to produce a basic era-specific unit in ten turns or less, preferably less. In Golden Age, this should ideally be 3-5 turns. This means that you can directly produce reinforcement units in modest amounts.

2. Your gold production is crap, so you can't buy anything. If you have small, crappy cities, you should at least have many of them, and that many cities should allow you to just buy an instant army whenever you choose. Buying 6 or 7 era-appropriate units instantly should be a cinch for a gold-focused economy.

Being that your first two premises are untrue, the latter conclusion is also untrue.

It's not even correct that wars weren't binary in earlier Civs. In Civ IV, it was SOD vs. SOD. After that massive battle, the rest is usually just cleanup. Civ V actually changes this dynamic slightly. You can do blitzes in Civ V, where you can quickly capture the enemy's core cities and force surrender thereby, without fighting his forces in the field.

 

[tupisac]

Yes. Even though I consider Civ5 to be a failed game, I've learnt a lot from this forum about current game systems like Paradox and Euro board games. (Haven't been following strategy games in recent years and was wondering where to start - EU sounds like a good place.) So, overall this has been a positive experience.

Yeah, the same feeling here. I've paid over 50 EUR so I can read walls of intelligent text, deep arguments and get nice tips about games... Positive thinking is a way to go. My catches are VASL, RTK and EWoM...

EUIII is a great place, but beware - it's not really TBS (but it works pretty well), it's more about war and diplomacy than actual empire building (kinda like some very elaborate civ scenario) and it's very old-school. Graphics is bad, UI is bad, manual is really long and concepts are hard to grasp at first. Again, I thank this very forum because without all the positive posts I wouldn't be able to push myself through the initial phase of "what and how". But when I've managed to wrap my head around it... Boy oh boy... I still remember the moment when this Luter motherf*** nailed his stupid ideas on some door which started spoiling my perfect catholic unity - so painfully deployed in the new world. I really wanted "arrest and burn the bastard" button, just so much hated the guy

 

[Psyringe]

Regarding EU3, it should be noted that - while I like the game - it really can't be recommended for people who dislike CivV due to its AI problems. The AI of EU3 needs massive bonuses, including combat cheats (higher values for generals which massively improve an army's fighting power), to not be a total pushover. The notion that its AI is actually quite good (which I've seen from time to time) stems from the early times, when it wasn't known yet that 8 nations get an undocumented "lucky" flag which provides them with massive bonuses. The usual justification presented for that is that the AI needs to handle dozens of nations in an RTS environment where its slot of processing speed is limited, and that "the AI doesn't cheat, it just plays by different rules". The former is imho acceptable, while the second is just trying to hide a weakness by relabeling it

 

[Peng Qi]

Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city.

Nonsense. My capitol was making a spearman every three turns in my most recent game; more than enough to cover my losses.

 

[tupisac]

Regarding EU3, it should be noted that - while I like the game - it really can't be recommended for people who dislike CivV due to its AI problems. The AI of EU3 needs massive bonuses, including combat cheats (higher values for generals which massively improve an army's fighting power), to not be a total pushover. The notion that its AI is actually quite good (which I've seen from time to time) stems from the early times, when it wasn't known yet that 8 nations get an undocumented "lucky" flag which provides them with massive bonuses. The usual justification presented for that is that the AI needs to handle dozens of nations in an RTS environment where its slot of processing speed is limited, and that "the AI doesn't cheat, it just plays by different rules". The former is imho acceptable, while the second is just trying to hide a weakness by relabeling it

This flag was more about scripting some historical accuracy into the game. I agree, AI is no real challenge. But it provides enough fun for at least few games and doesn't fail at diplomacy.

 

[davros42]

So true, and so sad. Civ has never made sense as a console game, and my guess is that even attempt will fail. Console gamers will not have the patience even this dumbed down version requires to play.

Civ I for the SNES worked fine as I recall. It was all I had at the time since convincing my dad we need to upgrade from the C64 to a proper computer for a game was not going to get me very far.

Also, SoD was godawful and produced just as many if not more binary wars. I can't believe people are still defending it. Not that I'm sure 1UPT is the absolute best solution, but it's so much better than SoD.

AI has been bad in Civ for a while now, shame they didn't learn anything from Civ IV in that regard. My one objection to all the eye candy hype was that the AI better not be rock stupid. I mean, I get that AI programming is hard but not being able to handle basic game core concepts (naval invasions/exploration, city locating and settling, ranged units, territorial defense) that's just shameful.

 

[Thedrin]

OP:

Your conclusion is not valid because it is based on a number of incorrect assumptions.

First is that it is impossible not to have a binary war in Civ V. This is not true. At higher settings especially, you have to slog through floods of units the entire way, it seems like.

At higher levels the AI has large production bonuses. This won't apply to multiplayer games. If a civ can only overcome the problem highlighted in the OP with the aid of production bonuses then there is a problem.

It's also not true that you can't create new units and armies quickly. You may personally be having problems because of one of two things, or both:

1. Your cities have crap production. Rule of thumb is that a decent production city should be able to produce a basic era-specific unit in ten turns or less, preferably less. In Golden Age, this should ideally be 3-5 turns. This means that you can directly produce reinforcement units in modest amounts.

If you're in a golden age and a key city is being threatened with imminent conquest by a military force that is stronger than yours, and there are 3 other cities close enough to have newly built units reach the endangered city, then you can only expect to get one new unit added to your defence each turn (using your figures; 4 production centers producing one new unit on each every 3 - 5 turns). Is this going to be enough to turn the tide? I'm inclined to think not. What if you're not in a golden age?

2. Your gold production is crap, so you can't buy anything. If you have small, crappy cities, you should at least have many of them, and that many cities should allow you to just buy an instant army whenever you choose. Buying 6 or 7 era-appropriate units instantly should be a cinch for a gold-focused economy.

Being that your first two premises are untrue, the latter conclusion is also untrue.

It's not even correct that wars weren't binary in earlier Civs. In Civ IV, it was SOD vs. SOD. After that massive battle, the rest is usually just cleanup. Civ V actually changes this dynamic slightly. You can do blitzes in Civ V, where you can quickly capture the enemy's core cities and force surrender thereby, without fighting his forces in the field.

Yes, it's true that defeating a stack could effectively end an opponents ability to resist total annihilation in CivIV. But the OP does give a good argument that this effect is greatly magnified by 1upt.

 

[Roxlimn]

Thedrin:

At higher levels the AI has large production bonuses. This won't apply to multiplayer games. If a civ can only overcome the problem highlighted in the OP with the aid of production bonuses then there is a problem.

In that case, there is a problem with Civilization games in general. Civs have always been like this.

If you're in a golden age and a key city is being threatened with imminent conquest by a military force that is stronger than yours, and there are 3 other cities close enough to have newly built units reach the endangered city, then you can only expect to get one new unit added to your defence each turn (using your figures; 4 production centers producing one new unit on each every 3 - 5 turns). Is this going to be enough to turn the tide? I'm inclined to think not. What if you're not in a golden age?

If you are in a war, you should have been shifting your production since the first turn of imminent war. Your units at the front should be fighting smartly. If they are in a losing battle, to give as much time as possible, and to kill as many units as possible. If you're getting creamed to the tune of more than 1 unit a turn without correspondingly losses on the other side, then you're dead no matter what. That isn't because all the units are concentrated - you're just getting steamrolled.

Yes, it's true that defeating a stack could effectively end an opponents ability to resist total annihilation in CivIV. But the OP does give a good argument that this effect is greatly magnified by 1upt.

Nonsense. His argumentation is based on wrong assumptions. It has good structure, but because he was incorrect in his assumptions, he arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

In fact, defending against units is much, much, much easier in 1UPT because chokepoints become true tests of power. As only one unit can come in at a time, you can subject that unit to a hail of firepower and it goes down. You cannot have done this in Civ IV.

Moreover, the sheer size of land constricts forward advancement in the same manner, even when it's not a choke point.

Finally, each city is much harder to capture, requiring up to three or more attacks by era-appropriate units to fall. In Civ IV, I could conduct a modern war and have it over and done with in ONE turn. One turn - that's all I need. This is much harder to do in Civ V, though it should be theoretically possible.

 

[r_rolo1]

In fact, defending against units is much, much, much easier in 1UPT because chokepoints become true tests of power. As only one unit can come in at a time, you can subject that unit to a hail of firepower and it goes down. You cannot have done this in Civ IV.

Moreover, the sheer size of land constricts forward advancement in the same manner, even when it's not a choke point.

Finally, each city is much harder to capture, requiring up to three or more attacks by era-appropriate units to fall. In Civ IV, I could conduct a modern war and have it over and done with in ONE turn. One turn - that's all I need. This is much harder to do in Civ V, though it should be theoretically possible.

You are basing your argument in the rather unproven theory that you can deploy your army in good order in time to adress the menace at all times. Static defense is clearly easier in civ V than it was in IV, but you can't count that you will have your troops in the right place at all times unless you started the war or if your oponent is dumb enough to not try to outflank you in some way. 1 upt makes that far harder than it was in civ IV, because you can't move troops as fast as you could with a SoD with all the clogging 1upt creates , especially on road/railroad networks. This also means that active defense in any sense that does not involve shelling your enemies from somewhere far is also harder than with a SoD aproach.

The only part where the civ V buffs defense with no matter of doubt is in the cities , and even then i wonder if a nice garrison in civ IV style would not be a thougher nut to break than a city with 1 slot for garrison + ranged fire after adding all out...

In resume , I think you are overvaluing the streghts of defense in civ V. A lot of what you said only holds value because the AI that we face is stupid as a brick in both strategical and tactical senses ... in other words, it is easy to defend against that AI When/if we see a competent enemy on the other side of the screen ( either SP or MP ), things will look far diferent ...

 

[Aristos]

OP:

Your conclusion is not valid because it is based on a number of incorrect assumptions.

First is that it is impossible not to have a binary war in Civ V. This is not true. At higher settings especially, you have to slog through floods of units the entire way, it seems like.

It's also not true that you can't create new units and armies quickly. You may personally be having problems because of one of two things, or both:

1. Your cities have crap production. Rule of thumb is that a decent production city should be able to produce a basic era-specific unit in ten turns or less, preferably less. In Golden Age, this should ideally be 3-5 turns. This means that you can directly produce reinforcement units in modest amounts.

2. Your gold production is crap, so you can't buy anything. If you have small, crappy cities, you should at least have many of them, and that many cities should allow you to just buy an instant army whenever you choose. Buying 6 or 7 era-appropriate units instantly should be a cinch for a gold-focused economy.

Being that your first two premises are untrue, the latter conclusion is also untrue.

It's not even correct that wars weren't binary in earlier Civs. In Civ IV, it was SOD vs. SOD. After that massive battle, the rest is usually just cleanup. Civ V actually changes this dynamic slightly. You can do blitzes in Civ V, where you can quickly capture the enemy's core cities and force surrender thereby, without fighting his forces in the field.

Well, enlighten us: what are the incorrect assumptions?

From what I see, you are arriving at the incorrect assumptions: my cities were not crap, they were blossoming, in gold, food and/or science. At the not-so-high levels (Emperor/Imm), I abandonded the games because I defeated the main armies of the enemies (the biggest challengers attacked me together), and started walking from city to city: boring, and with a defined outcome. In Deity, it took me longer to defeat the main armies, but the flood of new units that came as "second defense" because of production bonuses for the AI were, literally, cannon fodder (I had artillery units that could shoot 4 tiles away, more than once per turn, etcetc). Again, abandonded games because of defined outcomes and boring process to get there...

 

[the streak]

OP could you explain why the difference in unit movement leads to winner-takes-all battles in Civ 5 and not so in Civ 4? From my experience, it's much easier to hold off the AI in this game with reserve units positioned in key defensive positions, rather than in Civ 4 where the stack o' death steamrolls everything.

 

[Roxlimn]

r rolo1:

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. The issue the OP brings up is that it's easier to steamroll in Civ V. Not only was this mindbendingly easy to do in Civ IV, it's also not easier to do in Civ V.

If anything, you'd think criticisms would go the other way - Civs are too hard to steamroll efficiently.

When playing defense, each ungarrisoned city in Civ V buys you at least one turn, because cities in Civ V are that tough. If you put Walls and Castles in them as the City States do, they're even tougher.

This gets you the time you need to move your forces. Even with an army in the 20's, it shouldn't take you more than three turns to move your forces entirely cross-continent, shorter if they're not as far.

At that point, you can use defenses and territorial control to exert power over your cities.

My assessment of Civ V defense is not made from when I'm defending - it's when I'm attacking. I can obliterate entire Civs in one turn in Civ IV. I can't do that anymore in Civ V, and that means that Civ V favors defense more than Civ IV, not the other way around.


ricardojahns:

Whenever you defeat the main armies of your enemies, you steamroll. This was just as true in Civ IV as it is in Civ V. Arguably, it's easier to steamroll in Civ IV. I think you're getting bored because the flood of AI units isn't really offering any challenge, but you still haven't won because you still don't have the cities. The defense is so tough that even when you've won, you still haven't.

This speaks to a power of defense, not a power of offense.

Favoring defense over offense in games always runs the risk of making the game kinda boring. This is true in all game design, which is why most games are slanted to favor offense, including Civ V. It just didn't favor it as much as Civ IV did.

 

[Aristos]

OP could you explain why the difference in unit movement leads to winner-takes-all battles in Civ 5 and not so in Civ 4? From my experience, it's much easier to hold off the AI in this game with reserve units positioned in key defensive positions, rather than in Civ 4 where the stack o' death steamrolls everything.

That is what I am trying to do, find an explanation, and sharing the thought process. In practice though, I see the difference. I have never seen the AI in civ4 abandon everything and march towards you; I also rarely see an "all-out battle" between SoD's, but that is maybe because I have been playing with BetterAI for many years. Now, before someone comes with the falacy of "you cannot compare civ4BTS with BetterAI with civ5 vainilla", of course I can!!! civ5 is suposed to replace that, not civ5 vainilla. If modders did such marvelous things in their free time, and the new development staff at Firaxis cannot learn from that, well, there you have the seed of the "disaster"...

But again, my wars in civ4 are never that "binary" as someone else baptized it. That is my experience, in countless games... battles between SoD are harder, and the AI leaves some reserves behind. Also, reserves are quickly produced, but they don't clutter the map (because no 1upt there). Wars are much more fluid, and for a long time, somewhat undecided, when you face an equal or superior enemy.

In civ5, I have not seen that. All my battles were definitive, and that is good, for a WARGAME. For civ, it is not. It renders the rest of the game useless. And the rest of the game, in concept, is what Civilization is all about. War is a means to an end, even in real life, not the end. As it is now, war IS the end in civ5. My suspicions are that this is a result of the interactions of the systems, and if that is true, there is a good chance that it is unfixable.

I repeat: the solution to the SoD problem was Call to Power's combat system. But it appears to me that Shafer wen't "all or nothing", like his armies in the game, and well, he may have got nothing. The sad part is, that we got also the same: nothing.

 

[Jediron]

The OP is right. 1upt on a CIV map scale with a relative small amount of hexes is bad. The opposite; many units on these maps are BAD too. I cannot see the charm in a contentinet; carpeted with armored forces! City-states, that embark there armor, so that mine can pass their land; i've seen this! Don't you think that's horrible ?

In other civ's, it could get busy AT THE FRONT; where you expect it to be busy. With CIV 5, sooner or later the whole WORLD is filled with units, as far as your eyes can see. You think that's pretty ?

The SOD system wasn't perfect, because they never developed it properly. Combining unit into "Armies" is best the way to go for a 1 upt system; but make it functional; easy to use.
I personally like the TW-style Army-units. Fill the General's Army up to about 20 units, resupply, add, extract units. You can change those easely. Such kind of system would make it so much better; NO more carpet of dooms, No more silly traffic jams. Back are the "choke" points to launch your BLITZ. And very manageble, by moving some ARMIES instead of zillion single units.

That's the only way to go, with the current mechanics. What about "assembly" points, where ALL your freshly made panzer gather; instead of the old, 1 by 1 new unit move to order CIV 4 mechanics; that's 20+ move to orders in the late ages; one of the bad things of the old system.

See, most of the SOD horror can be solved by some smart coding and helpfull interface. That's why people disliked SOD so much. Like it was a pain in the b*tt to order arty to fire on a city, for every piece once. 10+ times if you were lucky. The game should fire all those arty, after one command, just as long as needed. Clever and userfriendly interface people, that's all too it.

 

[Roxlimn]

For what it's worth, I did not like CtP2's combat system. I did not think it was better, and yes, I played it back in the day. It was cute.

 

[polypheus]

@Roxlimn

As the OP explains there are really only two things that can happen under the 1UPT system and BOTH are bad. As you appear not to understand, let me explain his point again and perhaps I can do a good job to make it more clear.

1) Few units: This works great for 1UPT in the sense that you don't have to shuffle units around and can maneuver freely. But the huge drawback of course is that each unit now becomes so much more valuable and if one side loses its five units, then it is left totally defenseless.

Okay so we can fix this by allowing for many units, right? Well then you get
2) Infinite Unit Sprawl: Because of 1UPT, now you have a situation where almost every tile is occupied by a unit. Moving units now require tedious shuffling. And fighting wars now comes down to slogging through tons of battles unit by unit, tile by tile. This is actually just as bad if not worse than SoD vs SoD!

Under the current 1UPT system, there are only two possibilities. It is either (1) or (2) and both are seriously flawed. That is the point!

 

[Roxlimn]

polypheus:

No. I clearly explained that it was not.

You can maintain a modest army as well as good gold reserves in case of invasion. In fact, maintaining a small army gives you good gold reserves because units have high maintenance costs in Civ V.

So, keep a small army, then buy reinforcements as necessary. The Blanket of Doom really only happens on Deity AI. You don't need that many forces to win, precisely because 1UPT means that only the front units are the only ones that really matter.

His dichotomy is false because the two states are not the only states that exist, as I explained already. If you have difficulty reinforcing your army, you have crappy production, or you have crappy gold. You can't have neither one of those and have problems with reinforcement.