So anyway, place your bets: when will civ7 arrive?

[Miserable Old Git]

It's amazing to me how powerful is this falsy dichotomy of 1UPT vs SoD, as if there weren't tons of turn - based strategy games with all sorts of vastly different combat systems which are neither. With many of those combat systems not being as horribly tedious, time - consuming, traffic - jam - inducing, AI - crippling, anticlimactic* as 1UPT, or as detached, mindless and boring as SoD.

As someone who fell in love with the Panzer General series in the 90s, I was truly delighted when 1UPT came in, as would be most upset to revert to the unrealistic notion of infinite forces in finite space.

 

[Leucarum]

if your saying SoD again, then your wrong, the only good thing i see about humankind was it’s combat and wouldn’t mind changing to that. That being said i still thing 1upt was a great improvement over civ 4

Interesting, what did you like about it? It was one of the biggest lows of humankind for me.

I really don't like games which make a mini game out of combat, it just gets far too tedious. I'd rather keep combat as quick as possible, Civ has enough things which end up as time sinks as the game goes on and I don't think it needs more. I'd actually might prefer the doom stacks.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I think that this discussion has its roots in our preferences for the combat system in the game where we first encountered the Civ franchise. For those who began taking "just one more turn" in Civ3, Civ4, or earlier, it's expected that the player will create an army of 10 or more units in the ancient age, increasing to 20 or more in medieval and renaissance times. Stacks of 5, 10 are quite normal. Indeed, the AI will attack you with stacks of 10 or more in the BCE periods. The idea of taking a city with 3 ranged units (archers) and 2-3 melee units would be laughable in those games.
For those who began their Civ life with Civ5 and later, it's expected that armies are smaller, more highly promoted, and that units are conserved. Put a city under siege by surrounding it, breaking down the defenses over a few turns, and then conquer it. It would take scores of turns to produce (or faith-buy) an invasion force of 15 units or more. More than six ranged or siege units would have difficulty even getting close enough to take a shot at a city.

Over in the Civ4 forums, they asked about the largest stacks that players had (a) ever used, or (b) ever had used against them. A few players showed screenshots for case (a) of more than 100 units; AI players at Deity level often sent stacks of 50 more more. Yes, the AI knew / knows how to build a big army and how to invade the human player in Civ4/Civ3 and earlier. Those earlier games have *stack movement* shortcuts... surprise, surprise ... because moving > 20 units one-at-a-time is tedious. Optimal play is to *attack* one unit at a time, but dozens or scores of units can be moved with a single click. Those older games allowed the player to define a "rally point" so that newly produced units could move -- through and among cities and units -- without human intervention.

To me, it's all about what you expect to see, based on your first impressions. Based on the Steam data I've seen reported here, many more players got their start using 1UPT than unit stacking. Many long-term CivFanatics got their start using stacking.

And yes, I'm hopeful that Civ7 will come for Christmas in 2023. Announced in the fall, preorders around Halloween.

 

[Nikolai II]

I think that this discussion has its roots in our preferences for the combat system in the game where we first encountered the Civ franchise. For those who began taking "just one more turn" in Civ3, Civ4, or earlier, it's expected that the player will create an army of 10 or more units in the ancient age, increasing to 20 or more in medieval and renaissance times. Stacks of 5, 10 are quite normal. Indeed, the AI will attack you with stacks of 10 or more in the BCE periods. The idea of taking a city with 3 ranged units (archers) and 2-3 melee units would be laughable in those games.
For those who began their Civ life with Civ5 and later, it's expected that armies are smaller, more highly promoted, and that units are conserved. Put a city under siege by surrounding it, breaking down the defenses over a few turns, and then conquer it. It would take scores of turns to produce (or faith-buy) an invasion force of 15 units or more. More than six ranged or siege units would have difficulty even getting close enough to take a shot at a city.

Over in the Civ4 forums, they asked about the largest stacks that players had (a) ever used, or (b) ever had used against them. A few players showed screenshots for case (a) of more than 100 units; AI players at Deity level often sent stacks of 50 more more. Yes, the AI knew / knows how to build a big army and how to invade the human player in Civ4/Civ3 and earlier. Those earlier games have *stack movement* shortcuts... surprise, surprise ... because moving > 20 units one-at-a-time is tedious. Optimal play is to *attack* one unit at a time, but dozens or scores of units can be moved with a single click. Those older games allowed the player to define a "rally point" so that newly produced units could move -- through and among cities and units -- without human intervention.

To me, it's all about what you expect to see, based on your first impressions. Based on the Steam data I've seen reported here, many more players got their start using 1UPT than unit stacking. Many long-term CivFanatics got their start using stacking.

I began with Civ2 and am partial to a Civ5/6 system only modified. I'd like 1UPT to be the basis, but 1UPT per unit type, and then let technology slowly increase this to a bigger number throughout the game.

 

[whyidie]

I think that this discussion has its roots in our preferences for the combat system in the game where we first encountered the Civ franchise. For those who began taking "just one more turn" in Civ3, Civ4, or earlier, it's expected that the player will create an army of 10 or more units in the ancient age, increasing to 20 or more in medieval and renaissance times. Stacks of 5, 10 are quite normal. Indeed, the AI will attack you with stacks of 10 or more in the BCE periods. The idea of taking a city with 3 ranged units (archers) and 2-3 melee units would be laughable in those games.
For those who began their Civ life with Civ5 and later, it's expected that armies are smaller, more highly promoted, and that units are conserved. Put a city under siege by surrounding it, breaking down the defenses over a few turns, and then conquer it. It would take scores of turns to produce (or faith-buy) an invasion force of 15 units or more. More than six ranged or siege units would have difficulty even getting close enough to take a shot at a city.

Over in the Civ4 forums, they asked about the largest stacks that players had (a) ever used, or (b) ever had used against them. A few players showed screenshots for case (a) of more than 100 units; AI players at Deity level often sent stacks of 50 more more. Yes, the AI knew / knows how to build a big army and how to invade the human player in Civ4/Civ3 and earlier. Those earlier games have *stack movement* shortcuts... surprise, surprise ... because moving > 20 units one-at-a-time is tedious. Optimal play is to *attack* one unit at a time, but dozens or scores of units can be moved with a single click. Those older games allowed the player to define a "rally point" so that newly produced units could move -- through and among cities and units -- without human intervention.

To me, it's all about what you expect to see, based on your first impressions. Based on the Steam data I've seen reported here, many more players got their start using 1UPT than unit stacking. Many long-term CivFanatics got their start using stacking.

Great points.

As someone who was tired of stacks, I welcomed 1upt. Adding mini stacks via armies was a welcome step back to stacks as some of 6 and 5's constraints over time (maybe too many hours played) lead to not fun.
For 1upt/small stacks to be better what are the requirements ? For me I think the below are needed :

Movement rework - Small maps coupled with movement constraints (terrain, effectively 1mpt for non horse units) result in not fun. Are larger maps the answer ? More movement points ? Don't know. More stacks ? Better auto pathing ? Think auto pathing is limited by the other factors.

Bringing it back to 7, after playing and enjoying way too much of 5 & 6 I'm feeling claustrophobic. I'm ready for a version that allows more (or is it easier ? ) movement and expansion. I'm open to more stacking.

The city build options feel limited. If I want and IZ I need to have thing setup in just the right order. Then you're out of space for wonders and the like. Maybe its my playstyle, but what are the trade-offs to expanding a cities workable effects beyond 3 tiles ?

All that being said I'm going with November release, before the 24th.

 

[kaspergm]

Civ 2 on floppies also for me… not civ 1 though, not THAT ancient

Ancient?

I did start with Civ1 - but it was on those small hard discs, not floppies (edit: Ok I see floppy is used as a collective term covering also 3.5 inch discs, when I think of floppy discs, my mind was in the older 5 inch something discs). I didn’t really speak or understand any English back then, so for a while, most of my gameplay consisted of hitting next turn and being amazed by the images that came up when I researched a new technology.

I did play more seriously from Civ2 onwards.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's amazing to me how powerful is this falsy dichotomy of 1UPT vs SoD, as if there weren't tons of turn - based strategy games with all sorts of vastly different combat systems which are neither. With many of those combat systems not being as horribly tedious, time - consuming, traffic - jam - inducing, AI - crippling, anticlimactic* as 1UPT, or as detached, mindless and boring as SoD.

Sometimes I'm wondering how many people out there genuinely love 1UPT and would be in arms against changing the combat system, because discussions about it seem to be not divided between "haters vs lovers" but "haters vs people who are used to it". It is hard for me to recall many spontaneous outbursts of joy "guys I like this combat system so much" during the lifetime of civ6, it's much more often this reactive response to people criticizing it "no please guys don't change it to something worse" which in itself doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic acclaim lol

If civ7 is announced with 1UPT remaining in essentially the same form I'm gonna weep, it's my #1 problem with civ6 - I just don't enjoy combat with this system, it turns it into tedious work with no climactic payoff. Combat difficulty in civ6 mainly comes from the logistical nightmare of trying to take cities in the rough terrain, which is merely tedious and madness inducing for human being and incredibly hard for AI in this system. So AI is unable to threaten human players offensively, removing a lot of tension and meaning from the game (esp diplomacy); AI is bad at conquering other AIs (making the world boring); while human players have to input a lot of tedious work of purely logistical nature of moving units, not even getting some great battles in return.

* - tell me, how often do you have the feeling of Huge, Epic, Decisive Battle with 1upt? Very rarely - it makes the entire warfare dissolve into small skirmishes between individual units

If Civ7 has UPT then I’m not buying it till someone mods some sort of stacking back in

Honestly, I'd rather have 1upt over what Civ 4- had, because I never liked that system. There's some tactical advantage over knowing that you don't need a huge army to take a city, but in 4- I've never really got the grip on the "how many units is too many, and how many units is enough" game.

Not a page later and we see the false dicotomy again

As someone who fell in love with the Panzer General series in the 90s, I was truly delighted when 1UPT came in, as would be most upset to revert to the unrealistic notion of infinite forces in finite space.

Yes. Archers being able to shoot across the English channel is the height of realism. So is a carpet of units covering Asia Minor in the classical era

The only time historically you ever saw Civ6 1 UPT style congestion in history was a small corner of Northern France during WW1

 

[pokiehl]

The only time historically you ever saw Civ6 1 UPT style congestion in history was a small corner of Northern France during WW1

An appeal to realism is the least effective way to make your point about anything in this game. It’s necessarily full of abstractions and compromises.

 

[aieeegrunt]

An appeal to realism is the least effective way to make your point about anything in this game. It’s necessarily full of abstractions and compromises.

I was replying to the pretty ludicrous notion that 1 UPT is “realistic”

 

[pokiehl]

I was replying to the pretty ludicrous notion that 1 UPT is “realistic”

Ah gotcha.

 

[civac]

Ministacks would be an interesting way to go. A certain amount of units can combine on one hex but there is a limit. Combat would then function at the operational level instead of the tactical level. I wouldn't want to restrict it to one unit of each type though. That's seems excessively retrictive and arbitrary.

The current Civ 1upt iteration has a huge flaw in that you can block units of other factions in peace time. That's frustrating in SP and enables all manner of exploits in MP.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Ministacks would be an interesting way to go. A certain amount of units can combine on one hex but there is a limit. Combat would then function at the operational level instead of the tactical level. I wouldn't want to restrict it to one unit of each type though. That's seems excessively retrictive and arbitrary.

The current Civ 1upt iteration has a huge flaw in that you can block units of other factions in peace time. That's frustrating in SP and enables all manner of exploits in MP.

One cavalry, one melee, and one ranged in a hex works really well

 

[pokiehl]

One cavalry, one melee, and one ranged in a hex works really well

Pre-defining and limiting the composition of a stack seems like it would remove the majority of any strategic element to combat, right? Then every stack is basically the same.

 

[AntSou]

Types of stacks could be unlocked by culture. I've mentioned before the system used in through the ages:

You can partially imagine how such a system could work in Civilization. Unlocking a tactic requires some form of investment (in the case of Civ 6 it would be unlocking a civic, or using a policy). Each different type of stack, apart from the unique combination of units, also has a unique bonus. Furthermore, the first Civ to adopt a new tactic could get some sort of temporary bonus.

On top of that, there could exist unique stacks for specific Civs/leaders, or have them unlock earlier.

There's a lot that can be improved upon from this basic idea in the context of a 4x game.

 

[Abaxial]

As someone who fell in love with the Panzer General series in the 90s, I was truly delighted when 1UPT came in, as would be most upset to revert to the unrealistic notion of infinite forces in finite space.

Those who grew up with the SPI Napoleon at Waterloo system in the 70s (!) feel right at home with no stacking.

 

[Leucarum]

Types of stacks could be unlocked by culture. I've mentioned before the system used in through the ages:

View attachment 653666

You can partially imagine how such a system could work in Civilization. Unlocking a tactic requires some form of investment (in the case of Civ 6 it would be unlocking a civic, or using a policy). Each different type of stack, apart from the unique combination of units, also has a unique bonus. Furthermore, the first Civ to adopt a new tactic could get some sort of temporary bonus.

On top of that, there could exist unique stacks for specific Civs/leaders, or have them unlock earlier.

There's a lot that can be improved upon from this basic idea in the context of a 4x game.

This maybe sounds less like stacking and more like a change to the army system?

 

[Vilvatiktan]

Pretty sure they've been working base Civ7 almost completely, and they're watching closely for the development of the competitors. They'll just drop Civ7 when the time is perfect for them to market it against the competitors.

 

[AntSou]

Pretty sure they've been working base Civ7 almost completely, and they're watching closely for the development of the competitors. They'll just drop Civ7 when the time is perfect for them to market it against the competitors.

I doubt it, unless we get a Total War [next big title] announced to be released the same day as Civ 7. Not even Europa Universalis V would be significant.

There are no real competitors in the more specific genre of 4x historical games.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Not even Europa Universalis V would be significant.

And it's not like that comes in a foreseeable future - yet another DLC for EU4 is in the works, after all . I would say that Civ VII will definitely be here before EU5 will become a thing.

 

[Krajzen]

And it's not like that comes in a foreseeable future - yet another DLC for EU4 is in the works, after all . I would say that Civ VII will definitely be here before EU5 will become a thing.

Which is... sad, really. I loved eu4 for a few years, but seriously, this gamehas been bloated for years now, Crusader Kings II got released one year earlier than EU4 and yet its sequel was released two years ago. I have never seen the game as bloated with superficial DLC content, while at the same time screaming for fundamental engine changes which can't be done without a separate installment. People say civ6 was bloated and filled with disconnected features - civ6 is freakin minimalist when compared with eu4.

############

I am torn between seeing the recent explosion in new leaders as a hopeful 'hype buildup in months leading to civ7 announcement' and sad 'consolation prize for us not getting civ7 anytime soon'