1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The ''carpet of doom'' and similar issues.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Baron2, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    How I would change 1UPT

    Ranged units (before tanks) can no longer defend themselves. However, they can now stack with other units and have a slightly increased bombardment strength. Civilian units (including scouts) can infinitely stack, regardless of civilization, although workers still cannot work on the same tile. Movements are only ever cancelled if a route is blocked on the turn before they will get blocked, not so many turns in advance. It should also be far easier for units that can stack to move together. This would solve a lot of problems for me. It would keep the tactical elements of the game, I'd say increase them, but not force your military to be restricted. Allowing more units would mean that the relationship between teching and production could be far more balanced.
  2. Eskel

    Eskel Warlord

    Mar 19, 2006
    Poznań, Poland
    Principle: "gameplay >> realism" means no more, no less but that game's rules cannot fully simulate reality, as too complex games are becoming unfun. It goes along with widely accepted assesment that perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. Thing is obviously right, as people gets tired and frustrated when they are forced to put too much effort into understanding something that should be just relaxing entertainment.
    It might seem then that always less is better.

    However, it is not truth. That principle, as much as every else, has its extents. While usually right, it doesnt automatically mean that in every single case less is better, nor that rules can become irrational in sake of good gameplay. It is not that simple. I would dare say, that it is allowed untill it gets into conflict with logic, common sense and everyday experience.
    Human mind gets momentarily absorbed and its activity rises when it meets something unexpected, e.g. logical inconsistencies. Moreover, illogical rules might be received as unjust by player who judges them on his own merit and everyday experience and cause frustration. Which means, that right in general principle, improperly applied could bring conterproductive results.
    What Firaxis tried to make with "gameplay >> realism" statement, is just a poor excuse for lame design, implementation and quality assurance.

    Those posts above perfectly show why 1UPT is not appropriate for empire building game: having more manpower and stronger economy doesnt give you an edge over opponent in Civ 5. It goes directly again common sense (bigger is stronger), which is no good IMO, but what is more important - it is one of the major causes to huge imbalance between "war" and "build" strategy (for me, it actually RUINS gameplay). Please note that it has nothing in common with "reality simulation", just a plain logic.

    I agree that 1UPT is fun to play in tactical games. Thats why I also liked Panzer General. However, if maps in Civ get bigger, it will cause a lot of game-breaking issues.
    Bigger maps equal to:
    - memory hog, lags, frequent crashes
    - more challenge to AI
    - game will become unmanageable: more land, more clicking, more time, more terrain improvements to do = more tasks for workers
    - travel speed of units will be insufficient (maybe increasing move range would help without subsequent issues coming along)
    - lesser focus on terrain details, detaching player from building aspects even more
    - increased number of tiles within city radius (it is now 37 opposed to 21 in previous iterations) is one of the main reasons why lot of people is losing interest in city micro management, as human mind has finite capabilities and it is just tiresome to remember too much details. Isnt it going away from building an empire part of the game and huge minus for builders?
    - more tiles within city radius makes cities statistically similar, what is responsible for less importance of city placement
    Those are just few most important off top of my head. Among other reasons (well articulated by Sulla in his article) they inclined me to think of 1UPT as a game-breaking feature.

    That said, I dont like too complex games. I really apreciate Civ for being simple, actually. I dont want it to become "empire simulator" like Supreme ruler 2020 and similar titles - I find this entire genre time consumimg, boring and tedious. However, from empire building game (if Civ is still meant as one) I expect some degree of logic, and reflection of reality, at least at certain level of abstraction. Thats why I hate feeling I have with Civ 5 - that all the time I come across things that are completely irrational and not only are unrealistic - but are in opposition to common sense. It is the true reason I cannot enjoy this game anymore.
  3. man-erg

    man-erg Warlord

    Nov 18, 2006
    Yes, but at the STRATEGIC level of Civ, traffic jams should be abstracted.

    Nobody can deny that feeding the army is also the basis of large scale warfare. Should we then have a "Cooking Mama" mini game to represent this? Prepare the food gathered from the food tiles and if you don't stir fast enough, you get a combat penalty.

    There should also be a "Harvest Moon" style farming game as watering crops is pretty much the basis of farming and this has been a serious omission from the Civ series sa far...:mischief: Actually, with the direction taken by Rev and V, I hope no marketing guys from Fireaxis are reading this as they may just go for it.

    Simply, traffic jams do not belong in a turn based strategy game at the level of Civ. If you're going to include them for your military, then you should also include opportunity fire, fuel usage, armor thickness etc etc.
  4. man-erg

    man-erg Warlord

    Nov 18, 2006
    Can't say I've ever seen "trench warfare" in any Civ 4 game I ever played. Which must be over 100 by now. Much of the criticism of SOD is confusing for me in that if people are seeing 'trench warfare' (ie rows of units locked with no movement possible) what strange version or mod of Civ 4 are they playing?

    SOD was not perfect. It did get tedious churning out so many units. It needed a balancing adjustment but NOT a swing to the other, even more ridiculous extreme. If anything, trench warfare happens in V not 4, due to the 'traffic jams' and the fact that units need not be eliminated. If anything, 1upt, reduces mobility.
  5. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Oct 7, 2010
    If only you *could* choose.
    But that decision is no longer the player's one, it has been made by the developers already.

    The mantra of this game is "Thou shalt not have a big army!" and it is enforced by all kinds of penalties like long building times, high maintenance and desastrous effects on your economy if having more units than allowed by the game rules.

    There isn't the *strategic* decision to build a big army or not.
  6. LordOmega

    LordOmega Chieftain

    Feb 11, 2007
    Those posts above perfectly show why 1UPT is not appropriate for empire building game

    Exactly. In civ, you fight WARS, not battles. Therefore, 1upt is ludicrous. The intricacies of battle cannot be represented properly on a world scale map.
  7. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Mar 16, 2002
    Even using the Legions mod, which allows you to eliminate traffic jams and put more than one unit on a tile (but still no UI-convenient "stack" that you can move with a single click) doesn't really fix anything. The game's still tedious.

    If they wanted to implement tactical-scale battles, they should've included some kind of tactical-scale secondary game like Master of Orion I and II did, or like the Heroes of Might and Magic series. Or hell, stick us in a full-blown huge-map-size tactical battle and really specify what each "unit" represents (How many troops? A platoon? A regiment? 100 men? 1000 men? 5000 men?). Make things like unit facing, enfilading fire, and ACTUAL flanking (not just some rock-paper-scissors balance conceit) matter. Make unit morale count for something.

    You know what I think when I hear people lauding the "tactical" gameplay of Civ 5? I think these are people who wouldn't know an actual tactical combat game if it sat on their head. I say this because anyone who's played turn-based tactical combat games knows that a single battle can take HOURS to fight and is extremely complex. Maneuver counts, positioning of troops counts, proximity of troops counts, etc., etc., etc. Trust me, as slow as Civ 5 can play at times, the inclusion of actual tactical combat as a second-layer game would slow this game to the speed of a snail stuck in molasses.

    Civ is not and never has been a TACTICAL combat game. It's always been at the STRATEGIC level, which is where design decisions SHOULD have focused with this game. Instead, we get what is essentially a broken piece of software that cannot accomplish EITHER element particularly well.
  8. Threedog43

    Threedog43 Warlord

    Jun 1, 2010
    Between Stalin and Ghandi
    Sounds fun, actually.
  9. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Nov 29, 2005
    Riverdale, MD
    In my last game, I had a MASSIVE army. It was a diplo victory bid, and I was bleeding gold. So, in my experience, the idea that you can't have a big army is false and the choice is there. You just have to work for it.

Share This Page