Tell Firaxis what is making you nervous

[LaRate]

1UPT for me has potential for both improving as well as disturbing the gameplay.

On one hand, I kinda like the idea of being able to build up a front line to block enemies from wandering into my territory by sidestepping my Stack of Doom.

On the other hand it has severe potential for tedious micro-management. In Civ4 it was important to have a well-balanced stack of units, now additionally the placing of each unit is crucial. I can imagine going mad at my own infantry blocking the cavalry from the front, even worse if the infantry line is backed up by ranged units. I fear for the maneuverability of troops in general...
I am curious how they will handle this in the game.

Another (minor) concern is a visual one: on the screenshots the units are depicted as little armies of twelve. I find it extremely hard to tell the little buggers apart. I liked the symbolic two/three figures of Civ4 that both gave a hint toward the unit's hitpoints as well as being clearly identifiable. It would be really annoying having to zoom in and out a great deal just to be able to tell what is wandering about at your borders...

 

[Peng Qi]

Another (minor) concern is a visual one: on the screenshots the units are depicted as little armies of twelve. I find it extremely hard to tell the little buggers apart. I liked the symbolic two/three figures of Civ4 that both gave a hint toward the unit's hitpoints as well as being clearly identifiable. It would be really annoying having to zoom in and out a great deal just to be able to tell what is wandering about at your borders...

Relic solved this problem in their Dawn of War games by creating generic "unit decorators." Melee units that are effective against infantry have a little hovering icon of a fist over them; melee units effective against vehicles have a hammer. Ranged units effective against infantry have a bullet; effective against vehicles have a missile; effective against both have a lightning bolt. Suppression units have three bullets, etc.

Likewise, icons could be created along these lines that indicate unit role and era. A chess knight for early cavalry, a bugle for mid-game cavalry, a tank for tanks; a spear for early-game flank-defense, a crosshairs for mid-game flank defense, and a rocket for late-game flank defense; a sword for early-game line infantry, a rifle for mid-game, and an assault-rifle for late-game, etc.

This way you can keep the feeling of the battles being very large and conducted between lots and lots of infantry on each side but keep the units identifiable in the UI.

EDIT: Looking at the screenshots, such decorators are already in-game.

 

[LaRate]

EDIT: Looking at the screenshots, such decorators are already in-game.

Hmmm... They merely seem to indicate the type of arm. Also being able to tell musketmen and infantry apart could be vital in some situations.

 

[Schuesseled]

Relic solved this problem in their Dawn of War games by creating generic "unit decorators." Melee units that are effective against infantry have a little hovering icon of a fist over them; melee units effective against vehicles have a hammer. Ranged units effective against infantry have a bullet; effective against vehicles have a missile; effective against both have a lightning bolt. Suppression units have three bullets, etc.

Likewise, icons could be created along these lines that indicate unit role and era. A chess knight for early cavalry, a bugle for mid-game cavalry, a tank for tanks; a spear for early-game flank-defense, a crosshairs for mid-game flank defense, and a rocket for late-game flank defense; a sword for early-game line infantry, a rifle for mid-game, and an assault-rifle for late-game, etc.

This way you can keep the feeling of the battles being very large and conducted between lots and lots of infantry on each side but keep the units identifiable in the UI.

EDIT: Looking at the screenshots, such decorators are already in-game.

ep little bows and arrows, little hammer. thier there.

 

[Peng Qi]

Hmmm... They merely seem to indicate the type of arm. Also being able to tell musketmen and infantry apart could be vital in some situations.

You'll note that in one screenshot of revolutionary/American civil war era combat there are two different rifleman icons: one is a single rifle and one is a pair of crossed rifles. Don't know if that means something, but it might.

 

[Syndrome Zed]

You have to accept some level of abstraction. It's absurd for you to refuse to accept the abstraction of a "Viking Berserker" unit taking up an entire hex in Civ5, but be perfectly willing to accept that it takes an army centuries to march trivial distances in Civ4, and that the speed at which humans are capable of walking increases exponentially as time moves on.

Well, duh (as my 12 year old says) - of course you accept a certain level of abstraction. Unless you're planning to play Civ in real time, the scales of both the geography and passage of time are going to be screwed up. I'm not complaining about the scaling of the units to the map, nor have I ever refused to accept it. Hell, I always figured each early unit represented a horde (or at least formation) of actual warriors/pikemen/etc. I also mention in the "Guns, Germs" thread how impressed I am that Sid and gang have managed to include so accurately many of the mechanisms of civilization development - but they're all abstracted as well. Let's face it, we're playing a game where a single individual leads for up to 6 millennia...I'd say we've already accepted the abstraction of having a heck of a lot of governments all rolled up into one psychotic Monty.

I was pointing out that whoever's post I quoted didn't realize he'd hit the nail on the head talking about fewer units being made, and that's what Firaxis wanted. And that as alternatives go, I liked someone's idea of "unit points" as a way to introduce limited stacking instead of SoD's. Nothing in there about refusing to accept the 1UPT version of things.

I also think it's actually amusing more than anything that they claim they chose to represent modern army systems. We've only had them for 60 years or so. The rest of military history is mass formations and a lack of efficiency (in part due to the technology not catching up fast enough) - more of the "brute force" type of approach. I'd have been perfectly happy if Firaxis just said "it's easier to program a smarter AI" or whatever technical reason they have for doing it this way. It makes more sense to me than basing the decision on what kind of military they wanted to model, since it winds up representing just a sliver compared to the rest of military history. On the other hand, I don't want Civ5 to be Civ:Total War either. That series is fun in its own way, but I like Civ's unique breadth of non-combat features too.

 

[Antilogic]

I was pointing out that whoever's post I quoted didn't realize he'd hit the nail on the head talking about fewer units being made, and that's what Firaxis wanted. And that as alternatives go, I liked someone's idea of "unit points" as a way to introduce limited stacking instead of SoD's. Nothing in there about refusing to accept the 1UPT version of things.

I also think it's actually amusing more than anything that they claim they chose to represent modern army systems. We've only had them for 60 years or so. The rest of military history is mass formations and a lack of efficiency (in part due to the technology not catching up fast enough) - more of the "brute force" type of approach. I'd have been perfectly happy if Firaxis just said "it's easier to program a smarter AI" or whatever technical reason they have for doing it this way. It makes more sense to me than basing the decision on what kind of military they wanted to model, since it winds up representing just a sliver compared to the rest of military history. On the other hand, I don't want Civ5 to be Civ:Total War either. That series is fun in its own way, but I like Civ's unique breadth of non-combat features too.

While I agree it's amusing that they are only representing modern army systems, ancient armies had a greater level of organization than you seem to assume. At least, the ones who were successful did.

 

[Buccaneer]

In looking at the screenshots that have been posted recently in the various posts (like the Roads thread), I really hope I have the option to have a "Single Unit Graphics".

 

[brianshapiro]

Political messages, political correctness.

There were a bunch of political messages in Civ4 .

 

[Savoir10]

In looking at the screenshots that have been posted recently in the various posts (like the Roads thread), I really hope I have the option to have a "Single Unit Graphics".

I read somewhere that the number of men left in each unit actually indicates the remaining strength of that unit. If you go to Single Unit Graphics. you will lose this information. Unless you then get a strength bar with SUG. I'm Not sure.