"The Bad Sequel": Sullla's Analysis of Civ5

[Sullla]

People play Civ4 via PBEM all the time. We have about 10 active games going on right now at Realms Beyond. But Civ5 still has no PBEM feature, which has been promised at some indefinite point after release. Still waiting on that, by the way...

 

[LordTC]

I don't see how you can call stacks of 6 units "stacks of doom"...
I dislike simultaneous because once you get to the combat situation it all becomes very messy instead of favoring tactical thinking. If I wanted that kind of a game I'd go play a RTS instead.
If you retreat, then you've just lost your momentum, and I'll be able to outproduce you (because making a large army earlier has cost you development-wise) after having stopped your attack by rushing and drafting units.

My main point again, is that the "stack of doom" is only an issue because the AI lets you get away with it.

I think having say 80% of my units in 3 stacks is pretty close to stacks of doom. I also think it's unrealistic for you to say you've invested less heavily in military when you have 9 units defending and 9 units coming in for reinforcements (or something of that ilk), and I have 18 units attacking, representing the vast majority of my army. Any difference in army size is minor enough that it is unlikely one of us has a significant economic advantage. In fact if you're rushing units frantically in response to an attack by whipping population you're probably going to do more damage to your economy producing the units than I did to mine since I was able to carefully control which points of population I lost and from where, and I wasn't interrupting other plans for units.

I know from experience that allowing an opponent an easy retreat after suiciding 3 catapults is not a way to win. It takes very few turns to heal-up and you can do significant damage to their economy in the interrum. Note that your 2 unit stacks are going to be relatively easy to pick off one at a time once I've healed up!

Regardless, I think we are talking about very different games because simultaneous turns vs not is a big factor.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Thanks for the link, Sullla.

OK, my example was bad. I'm used to SMACX combat where healing in the field takes way longer (and you can't completely heal until late in the game). By the way, if you retreat completely then some of my catapults might stay alive, and I would have made some more, so we're back to zero with me being ready now.
Of course I've invested less in the military since I didn't start producing those supplementary units before I saw you show up.
Whipping will have to be carefully applied of course, but as a defender I don't need as many units as you to stop you. This becomes even more true with forts.
And in Civ4 there's no cost for retooling production to something else.

Anyway, in the later game, you're not going to keep more than say 6 units per stack, unless there's no space to move, if you know that there's artillery defending (and the more advanced the game becomes, the worse it is since artillery evolves and does even more collateral damage to more units).

Also, the surround and destroy mod emphasizes smaller stacks.

 

[Earthling]

The AI in the SSI games was pretty terrible and as expected, the AI for 1upt is terrible in civ5 too. Those games were fun and succeeded for a variety of other factors, like asymmetric and challenging scenarios but not the AI. And likewise civ V's AI can't come even close to competency on an even footing and is much worse off than we were with stacks, where it could.

 

[LordTC]

Thanks for the link, Sullla.

OK, my example was bad. I'm used to SMACX combat where healing in the field takes way longer (and you can't completely heal until late in the game). By the way, if you retreat completely then some of my catapults might stay alive, and I would have made some more, so we're back to zero with me being ready now.
Of course I've invested less in the military since I didn't start producing those supplementary units before I saw you show up.
Whipping will have to be carefully applied of course, but as a defender I don't need as many units as you to stop you. This becomes even more true with forts.
And in Civ4 there's no cost for retooling production to something else.

Anyway, in the later game, you're not going to keep more than say 6 units per stack, unless there's no space to move, if you know that there's artillery defending (and the more advanced the game becomes, the worse it is since artillery evolves and does even more collateral damage to more units).

Also, the surround and destroy mod emphasizes smaller stacks.

You talk about having 9 units initially with more units coming from elsewhere, presumably that elsewhere has some defenses as well, so you probably have something quite similar to the 18 units I'm attacking with initially.

If you want to have a meaningful economic advantage the numbers are going to be more like 27 vs 9 with 9 units coming from elsewhere, and the chance to build reinforcements.

The cost in Civ4 of "retooling" is the opportunity cost of leaving shields tied up in something for longer, which while much smaller than the cost in Civ5 is still a cost. If my 10 shields from turns 10-15 get used on turn 15 and your 8 shields from turns 10-14 get left in the queue until turn 20 that's a cost, namely you get whatever benefits of the thing you were producing 6 turns later than I did. I know the numbers aren't realistic but they still clearly illustrate the concept.

And I never mentioned retreating completely, I mentioned retreating say 1 square out of your territory and healing up. Also, if you're building forts instead of other improvements (limited worker turns) that has a cost to your economy, and as the attacker I can gain an economic advantage through pillaging as well.

I don't think the economics favor the defender anywhere near as strongly as you suggest, as evidenced by attacking being a rather succesful strategy in Civ IV, even against strong players who can defend well.

In particular, pillaging and camping out on key tiles can effectively negate large portions of a defensive advantage as units will be forced to come out and attack if you want to regain access to important economic resources/squares. For instance, if you effectively defend a city, an opportunistic thrust at a key strategic resource can actually turn the tables, by pillaging and camping a moderate stack. I find the most common error people make in Civ IV combat is being too aggressive at going for well defended targets like cities when its actually rather easy to get winning positions by opportunistically taking what the enemy gives you.

 

[André Alfenaar]

I´m not sure how to read this, as Sulla actually comments on the latest patch is his article. I´m also surprised how few people have apparently actually read the original article...

His criticism is incisive and correct. I´ve tried CiV a couple of weeks, giving it the benefit of the doubt, but it´s basically just a boring game (not only in single player but multiplayer as well). It´s simply not challenging. And the reasons for this are aptly described in Sulla´s article ´What Went Wrong´...

Excuse me, but I have read this article. I have also read the game walkthroughs that Sulla has published on his website. A lot of his frustrations have been addressed in the latest patch.

And concerning the patch: Sulla is not refferring to the latest patch, specifically. He only states something general about the patching process:

After a month passes and the initial excitement begins to wear off, more and more of the fanbase begins to lose interest. Some of those who initially defended the game begin to join the critics. A mantra begins among the faithful: "Wait for the patch!" Patching will surely solve these issues and salvage the game. The wait becomes interminable, and more fans drift away to other games. Then the developer finally delivers -- hallelujah! Only...the patch makes marginal improvements, and nearly everything remains the same. More fans drift away, and the waiting for the next cycle begins. Repeat and rinse until the patching/expansion cycle comes to a close.

I´m also surprised how few people have apparently actually read the original article...

 

[moscaverde]

Actualy André, I believe you didn't saw Sullas comments after the patch, I believe they're in the "What went wrong" article, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[André Alfenaar]

Actualy André, I believe you didn't saw Sullas comments after the patch, I believe they're in the "What went wrong" article, if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks! I found it: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

 

[Bahmo]

My, did I call it or what?! I knew this game was a horrible idea, and now I see it became a horrible result, too. I wonder if Garret is still going ahead and doing a Modcast on this game, or if he's ashamed he changed his plans to do so in the first place.

 

[Zhahz]

I live Civ 5 and I love 1upt. Opinions are opinions and Sulla's isn't any more valid than mine or anybody else's. I do think the combat AI sucks/sucked, and should've been more of a priority. AI in general is weak. Some of elements of the game could've been better thought out. Overall it's a good game though. I never wanted Civ 4.5.

I've always felt like combat is the weakest element of Civ - in all versions. Stacks of doom suck big time. Combat AI is always pitiful. The new system had a lot of potential to be the best ever and they failed to pull it off.

The game didn't feel tested well. Either Firaxis never listened or the testers failed to relay the state of the game worth a crap. It's amazing to me that so many members of the community here who were in beta, and are critical of the game now, failed to make an impact during beta.

 

[net55]

I don't understand how you see 1upt as more realistic than stacking

It's just that unlimited stacking seems to be way too many units for scale....considering that in civ, 1 units is actually 'many unit's. As I said, I'm not against stacking, just unlimited stacking.

 

[net55]

I have said it multiple times, and I'll say it again, the only reason players use stacks of doom against the AI in Civ4 is because the AI sucks. Also, If you make all units in the tile lose health when a unit is destroyed like in SMACX, it makes stacks even less appealing.

Agreed, that worked well in SMACX

 

[tom2050]

I have said it multiple times, and I'll say it again, the only reason players use stacks of doom against the AI in Civ4 is because the AI sucks. Also, If you make all units in the tile lose health when a unit is destroyed like in SMACX, it makes stacks even less appealing.

Agreed as well. That is how easy it is to use stacks/limited stacks while not ruining the game with 1upt (because AI doesn't haven't a clue). Tried, True, and Tested.

 

[RikC]

If I read Sulla's story, and part of the discussion here (which has become too long to read completely I'm afraid), isn't it time that somebody makes a No-1UPT mod? I understand that it kinda ruins a large part of the game concept, but what if the AI suddenly starts working and some balancing makes it a nicely playable game with a better engine and nicer graphics than Civ4 (and also Steam I'm affraid... oh well...)

 

[sketch162000]

If I read Sulla's story, and part of the discussion here (which has become too long to read completely I'm afraid), isn't it time that somebody makes a No-1UPT mod? I understand that it kinda ruins a large part of the game concept, but what if the AI suddenly starts working and some balancing makes it a nicely playable game with a better engine and nicer graphics than Civ4 (and also Steam I'm affraid... oh well...)

I'm not sure that's even possible without rebuilding most of the game from the ground up.

 

[Veritass]

I looked forward to Civ-5 and tried to play it for a few weeks and I ended up with the same complaint: it is just not fun. I am back to playing Civ-4 and it is much more enjoyable. There is more variety to what type of win you are aiming for, more interesting choices along the way, etc.

As far as the 1upt and combat are concerned, I much more enjoyed playing the general and building 2-3 "armies" or "stacks of doom", whatever you want to call them. I would only micromanage at the point of attack; otherwise I could move the army as a group, and they would auto-defend with the right units. With 1upt it was a pain just to try to coordinate (two horses + two spearmen + 1 general) to move across the board and get ready to attack something.

 

[Bandobras Took]

In counterpoint, I played a game of Civ 4 over the weekend and was frustrated by the inability to set up chokepoints. Lone AI Cavalry racing through the one diagonal I forgot about and nabbing a worker, etc. On the whole, for both defensive wars and strategic city placement (as opposed to economic city placement), I like Civ 5.

 

[RikC]

@Sketch,

I was allready afraid someone would hint at that ..

 

[Mark1031]

I have played all the Civ versions and each one that came out I initially had complaints about but then quickly grew to enjoy and become addicted to. Not CiV and it is for the reasons outlined by Sulla. The biggest problem is shown by the ability to beat Deity almost right out of the gate. In the old versions the initial complaints were “this is impossible to win on higher levels” because of corruption (CivIII )or because you cant expand to a large empire (CivIV). The old strategies didn;t work and there was not an obvious way forward. You had to play and try things and figure out different strategies. There has always been an advantage to warring as the human but building and consolidation of gains were also required and if you weren't careful you could be crushed by the AI. It is not always possible for an expert player to beat Deity in CivIV and this is as it should be. Without the SoD the AI cannot compete as it cannot make use of its production advantages. Combine that with a total gutting of diplomacy, a disincentive to build and grow large cities, and unworkable multiplayer and you have a sad pile of junk IMO. Oh well, better for my career and marriage that CiV is crap.

 

[MkLh]

If I read Sulla's story, and part of the discussion here (which has become too long to read completely I'm afraid), isn't it time that somebody makes a No-1UPT mod? I understand that it kinda ruins a large part of the game concept, but what if the AI suddenly starts working and some balancing makes it a nicely playable game with a better engine and nicer graphics than Civ4 (and also Steam I'm affraid... oh well...)

It would need a huge effort. Not only would you need to rewrite the combat AI (an AI that handles SoDs is not that trivial either), but also major changes to the UI would be necessary. And there is not much reward. While Civ5 may be graphically prettier than Civ4, it's horribly inferior in practically every other aspect. 1UPT is almost the only feature of the game that is even potentially an improvement. If you replace it with perhaps the most disliked feature of Civ4, there is nothing left but a mediocre strategy game with no real hope to ever grow greater.

Rather than starting a huge and pointless project for bringing back SoDs, an ambitious modder should try to make the AI cabable to handle 1UPT. That would not necessary be more difficult task: the game is already build on 1UPT, so you would only need to improve the AI. And it might actually give the game some extra life.