Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by CaiusDrewart, Nov 3, 2016.
They already do, don't they?
It doesn't feel enough - I whittled a city's defenses with only 4 archer units. I think that battering rams or siege should be mandatory in attempts to conquer a walled city. Right now one can take many cities without building those support units at all, at least from my experience.
Ranged units should do vastly reduced damage v walls (same as melee~15% maybe lower that to 5 or 10%...should be all non siege units) and nonslingers should probably be ~5 str weaker (both attack and defense.)
(Also cities should get range 3 in the modern era...perhaps observation baloons work on both siege units and cities)
I think archers (and ranged units in general) shourld be quite substantially nerfed. Archers should not be able to completely kill off spearmen or swordsmen. They should act as support units that can weaken melee units, but other melee units should be required to finish them off. And in the case that a phalanx are able to attack an archer it should be able to kill it very easily.
I proposed that the game let's units move as long as their movepoints are above 0, but that it reduce the movepoints of the unit on the next turn
moving into hills with only 1 movepoint give you one less movepoint on the next turn, etc
Or a simpler solution: let units have two stats, speed and movepoint. For example melee unit would be speed 2 movepoint 3. That means that they can move maximum two tiles each turn, but it can be a hill (2 move point required) and a flatland ( 1 move point)
Isn't this basically Civ 5's system, then?
I like the idea of residual movement points being transferred into next turn's movement. In fact, that's how I initially thought the Civ 6 system worked.
I feel like a good compromise would be giving melee units the old Civ V movement system, or at least when attacking. Whilst cavalry and range units keep the current movement system.
This is how I feel about Civ 6 in general. I can't enjoy it like this, it honestly feels like they haven't bothered to actually test the game before releasing it. Some things just aren't fun, and this is just one on my long list of gripes with this game.
How the reviewers can give this 9/10 is beyond me. Obviously they were paid quite a lot.
Allowing melee units to attack a unit on a hill for half damage if it has 1 (but not 2) movement points left would probably be a good solution to much of the problems we see now. The infinite chase we see now where units keep going up to hills and hence can't be attacked is just infuriating.
Actually, people did complain about the movement rules where you could always move to an adjacent tile if you had movement points left. Mainly, IIRC, it was just acknowledged that the opposite rule (you have to have enough points to move) has a lot of the same problems, just oriented differently. And making it random whether you can move or not is utterly horrible.
I don't think reviewers were paid for those reviews, that's some conspiracy bs if you ask me.. Rather the standards for new games is now so incredibly low that even Civ VI can get a 9/10.
Can you blame them? Imho video games as a medium have been declining for just about 10 years now. They're extremely derivative in design and focus often times on graphics and gimmicks instead of innovative gameplay.
As I understand it, the implication is less about outright bribery, and more a combination of the publishers seeking out the reviewers who are more likely to give favorable reviews, and reviewers giving favorable reviews so as to get repeat business.
A possible solution is to allow ranged to stack with Melee and reduce bow ranges to 1 tile perhaps? This addresses a few issues imo - 1upt vs SoD concerns Bows being OP and a bit of verisimilitude.
I love all these suggested 'fixes'; most amounting to nothing more than 'make it how it was' (either civ5, or 4).
You know the reason for this?
It's not because people dislike change.
It's because Firaxis already had it perfectly balanced.
This perfection is understandable, as they've had plenty of prior iterations to discover what works best.
As to why they change things that don't need changing..... who knows. Busy work? Lost knowledge/experience?
Well I think it's a bit of a generalisation to say that gaming in general has declined. I think part of the problem is that we have established genres, and not many games are doing anything original. Games like COD are very popular, and all they really do is give you new maps and reskin the game every year. Yet people keep buying that junk!
I used to love the Command & Conquer series, but they have gone downhill in recent years. I think the last one I liked was C&C3 Tiberium Wars. After that they changed up the format, and I didn't find it fun anymore.
Same has happened to Civ for me, they had a great formula but changed too many things and made the game slow and cumbersome. Things like 1upt are ok for combat units, but make the game annoying as hell when you can't move your units through a tile because there happens to be another unit there.
Firaxis did not have it perfectly balanced.... ranged was OP in civ5, civ4 was more balanced, but more tedious.
They did do some things to balance range (elimination of +range from regular archers promotion)... but they beefed it up with the movement so it needs to get hit back down (-5 str should work for the non slingers...especially if they really make walls almost impervious to non siege)
I do not like the new movement system. I kept telling myself that it took a while to get used to civ V's movement, so it'll just take time to get used to this game's movement. But so far that hasn't held up, moving troops is so tedious and difficult on what looks like normal-ish terrain that it influences my judgement to not go to war way too much.
War should be a tactical decision, and yes terrain absolutely should play a part in your decision on where/if to attack. But it's so tedious now that I won't really launch offensives that should be in my best interests because of the new movement system.
I think they should go back to civ 5's movement system - and not just because I'm used to it. Dragging troops through the jungle there was no picnic either, but in this every single damn tile may as well be a jungle tile.
Am I the only one who likes it?
It rewards you for getting your troops set up in good position ahead of time. I mean if an archer has to spend 2 turns just to get onto that hill in the first place, is it really an advantage to ranged units vs melee? It seems more like an advantage to entrenched defensive positions. Which is entirely appropriate. Why should a melee unit be able to charge up a hill and take out archers? That makes no sense, that is what cavalry (or your own ranged units) are for...
You know that's not a bad Idea... make archers the first early game support unit (like baloons and medics) that can stack with your warriors and then either give a -5 strength to neighboring enemies (like India's UU) or a +5-10 strenght to the stacked unit liek they where sitting in a fort
Separate names with a comma.