Things that still irk me

[aieeegrunt]

Combat at this scale and in this type of game is going to be heavily abstracted no matter what. This isn’t ASL

 

[shapecharge]

Combat at this scale and in this type of game is going to be heavily abstracted no matter what. This isn’t ASL

What does ASL stand for?

 

[aieeegrunt]

What does ASL stand for?

Sorry showing my age

In this context ASL stands for a board game called Advanced Squad Leader about…well squad level combat in World War 2.

The basic rule book is 708 pages long. Yes. Seven hundred and eight. You could buy add on modules for the game; an early example of physical DLC, which usually added hundreds more pages of fudgery

At least the name is succinct

As the name implies there was a precursor game called just Squad Leader where the rules were like maybe a dozen pages that was actually fun

And that trend is one of the reasons Consim gaming is kinda dead now

This is the thing to be careful of when you say you want deeper more complex gameplay

One point I will say in Civ6’s favor is that the gameplay is pretty accessible, and it feels like that was a primary design goal

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sorry showing my age

In this context ASL stands for a board game called Advanced Squad Leader about…well squad level combat in World War 2.

The basic rule book is 708 pages long. Yes. Seven hundred and eight. You could buy add on modules for the game; an early example of physical DLC, which usually added hundreds more pages of fudgery

At least the name is succinct

As the name implies there was a precursor game called just Squad Leader where the rules were like maybe a dozen pages that was actually fun

And that trend is one of the reasons Consim gaming is kinda dead now

This is the thing to be careful of when you say you want deeper more complex gameplay

One point I will say in Civ6’s favor is that the gameplay is pretty accessible, and it feels like that was a primary design goal

Ah yes, ASL - the epitome of ridiculous complexity in boardgames - but not by any means the only such example from the period.

It brings up a point about all the discussions of weapons and units and effects in the past page or two of posts here, though. ASL was ridiculous because IRL, the actions of an individual in a squad are of interest only up to his platoon leader - his company commander and everybody above that level simply assume that a trained soldier will follow orders and act according to the doctrine he was taught and above the company level they don't even know his name.

In a game at the scale of Civ VI, the gamer has no business at all caring whether a crossbowman is shielded by a studded leather and wool shirt or his Faith in Dog or Kevlar composite armor: it's so far below level of interest of the Grand Fartlekaroo of the Civilization that it becomes ludicrous - unless you want 700+ pages of explanation of what every single soldier/warrior/camp follower in every single one of your units is doing at all times - and another 7000 pages to keep track of all the sparrows.

Complexity in utter disregard of the level of the gamer: the bane of rules writers and game designers.

In Civ VI, you are not playing the serjean in charge of a bunch of crossbowmen, or even the Major or Colonel in command of a battalion or regiment in the modern era - an individual unit represents far more than 800 - 2000 troops by that stage of the game and so what any individual soldier or crew is carrying as personal weaponry and doing with it is None Of Your Business and should be 'abstracted' by the game's design.
We will keep units referenced by their primary weapon because that will inevitably be the basis for the unit graphics and, frankly, while most gamers can tell the difference between a longbowman and a crossbowman at a glance, not 1 in 50 could name even three factors in the difference in effectiveness between a unit of longbows and one of crossbows besides the weapons they carry (hint: sheriffs, mercenary contracts, lances and coppicing all are parts and none have ever been depicted in a Civ game!).
But, as long as the individual weaponry is the sole basis and focus of the game's units, the game design is fatally flawed and flat wrong - and we get interminable arguments about the 'effectiveness' of tank versus crossbow armor and ranged versus melee.
Clue: at Civ scale, there is no on-map difference between ranged and melee weapons unless you are talking about modern missile artillery and airpower: everything else has an effect only within a tiny fraction of a single tile!

 

[VGhost]

The "don't move troops" thing needs to be clearer. Your reply options are "we're just passing through" or "war", which always has me thinking it's a fight/don't fight thing on the promise. If you "break" the promise just by having troops nearby, there needs to be a 3rd dialogue option or at least "sorry, we'll move away" (and how far away?).

 

[Linklite]

The "don't move troops" thing needs to be clearer. Your reply options are "we're just passing through" or "war", which always has me thinking it's a fight/don't fight thing on the promise. If you "break" the promise just by having troops nearby, there needs to be a 3rd dialogue option or at least "sorry, we'll move away" (and how far away?).

The "we're just passing through" means that your troops aren't staying. They're just temporarily at the borders as they're passing through. You're correct that on a meta level, it's not war v war, but you are promising to remove the troops by saying you're just passing through.

Perhaps you could add third option that indicates you're not going to move them but don't want war. Perhaps "we're performing exercises". After all, the AI is ridiculously sensitive to military presence (a single scout near a border is enough to trigger their paranoia). However, the AI would have to be significantly improved to be able to distinguish between a reasonable border garrison and a host preparing to invade, which the cynic in me doesn't see happening.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The "we're just passing through" means that your troops aren't staying. They're just temporarily at the borders as they're passing through. You're correct that on a meta level, it's not war v war, but you are promising to remove the troops by saying you're just passing through.

Perhaps you could add third option that indicates you're not going to move them but don't want war. Perhaps "we're performing exercises". After all, the AI is ridiculously sensitive to military presence (a single scout near a border is enough to trigger their paranoia). However, the AI would have to be significantly improved to be able to distinguish between a reasonable border garrison and a host preparing to invade, which the cynic in me doesn't see happening.

Given the number of times the pre-invasion explanation of "we're just conducting exercises" was taken at face value by self-deceiving politicians IRL, from Stalin in 1941 to the international community in February 2022, the AI would have to be improved to be better than human, which is highly unlikely.

 

[Zaarin]

Given the number of times the pre-invasion explanation of "we're just conducting exercises" was taken at face value by self-deceiving politicians IRL, from Stalin in 1941

Here's words I never thought I'd say, but in Stalin's defense he was conducting his own military exercises. He got a huge PR boost on the international stage when Hitler was kind enough to backstab him first. (The Russian people paid the price, but Stalin wasn't too worried about that. )

 

[reddishrecue]

Guys... the prompt has two options, "We're just passing through (Not declare war)" and the other one which says something different and (Declare war).

 

[Linklite]

Guys... the prompt has two options, "We're just passing through (Not declare war)" and the other one which says something different and (Declare war).

That misses out the nuance of "just passing through", which is that you're promising to move your troops. The dichotomy is "I'm not declaring war and promising to withdraw my troops" and "I'm declaring war".

 

[vorlon_mi]

That misses out the nuance of "just passing through", which is that you're promising to move your troops. The dichotomy is "I'm not declaring war and promising to withdraw my troops" and "I'm declaring war".

Yes, that's the key. Moving my troops around is one thing; making an implicit and *unwritten* promise not to declare war for N turns is quite another. Moreover. answering "declare war" happens on the other player's turn, giving them the initiative. When I declare war, I want that first turn to move and attack on my terms.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Am I crazy or does the AI ask you to move your troops even if you have denounced them? I seem to remember positioning units to attack when formal war is available and being asked.

 

[reddishrecue]

That misses out the nuance of "just passing through", which is that you're promising to move your troops. The dichotomy is "I'm not declaring war and promising to withdraw my troops" and "I'm declaring war".

It's not saying you will withdraw, we're just passing is saying that you won't declare war. Right, its dichotomy.

 

[fy00sh]

It's not saying you will withdraw, we're just passing is saying that you won't declare war. Right, its dichotomy.

"just passing through" definitely reads, to me at least, as "my troops are in the process of entering and later leaving your vicinity" which would be understood to be a promise that the troops will be withdrawn. the word "through" indicates going into and then back out of the vicinity of the border, in this context.
i do think that they should definitely at least add an option to say something like "we arent declaring war, but also we arent going to withdraw these troops", maybe at a grievance penalty, especially since the AI will sometimes ask for troops to be moved when its just a scout and a caravel thatre nearby. i feel like "just conducting exercises" works great for that purpose

 

[Linklite]

It's not saying you will withdraw, we're just passing is saying that you won't declare war. Right, its dichotomy.

While I took a little liberty with the word "withdraw" in that instance to account for the mechanics of what you're doing (as part of the game mechanic, you promise the civ that you'll move troops away from their border within so many turns, and if you fail to do so, you generate grievances), the phrase "passing through" means that you're going through a certain location on the way to another. If I'm passing through London, I'm not staying in London, I'm just going through London on my way to somewhere else. If I were to stop in London for any significant amount of time, then the phrase is not valid. The "just" in the phrase indicates that you have no intention of doing anything other than moving your troops through that location (in this case, the region of tiles near their border).

Both in terms of the text presented and in the mechanics, you are saying that your troops are going to be moved (which I took the liberty to change to "withdrawn" to match the point of view of the accuser). There is no option for "I'm plonking these guys down as a garrison, but don't worry, they're purely for a defence" or "this guy is remaining near your border for a while, but he's merely mapping the area so you have nothing to worry about". The dichotomy is between promising to move your troops away from their border within so many turns and declaring war, not just between declaring war and not declaring war.

 

[Tech Osen]

I think the giant death robot is supposed to be both melee and ranged. I think. Though I've never been able to get a GDR to take a city for some reason. It just shoots at them. Maybe it needs a particular promotion, but what do I know?

Use the move-to option to take a city.

 

[Widdershins]

Use the move-to option to take a city.

Didn't work, even when the city's defenses and health were wiped and there was no occupying enemy unit. The reticle was at the city center, but the clanker wouldn't walk to it. This went on for turn after turn. Ever since that crippling experience I do not trust a GDR to take a city, so I now always have a modern armor army handy for the final assault. But a fully-promoted GDR ranged attack seems to do more damage to city defenses than three jet bombing runs, so they certainly have their use.

Here's an irritating thing I encountered last night: CAN NOT combine an aircraft carrier with an aircraft carrier fleet to make an armada. Nope. Just wouldn't do it, one way or the other. And neither ship was carrying any aircraft. I can make destroyer armadas, missile cruiser armadas -- anything but a carrier armada, unless manufactured from scratch. Is it because one carrier was made by a city with a military academy while the other was not? Don't know!

And by what logic does an armada of carriers have no greater aircraft capacity than a single carrier unit? That's another irritant.

 

[reddishrecue]

While I took a little liberty with the word "withdraw" in that instance to account for the mechanics of what you're doing (as part of the game mechanic, you promise the civ that you'll move troops away from their border within so many turns, and if you fail to do so, you generate grievances), the phrase "passing through" means that you're going through a certain location on the way to another. If I'm passing through London, I'm not staying in London, I'm just going through London on my way to somewhere else. If I were to stop in London for any significant amount of time, then the phrase is not valid. The "just" in the phrase indicates that you have no intention of doing anything other than moving your troops through that location (in this case, the region of tiles near their border).

Both in terms of the text presented and in the mechanics, you are saying that your troops are going to be moved (which I took the liberty to change to "withdrawn" to match the point of view of the accuser). There is no option for "I'm plonking these guys down as a garrison, but don't worry, they're purely for a defence" or "this guy is remaining near your border for a while, but he's merely mapping the area so you have nothing to worry about". The dichotomy is between promising to move your troops away from their border within so many turns and declaring war, not just between declaring war and not declaring war.

That sounds like the you settle too close to me message. You're suggesting an add of diplomatic points then that would make sense because there wouldn't be a "..or else what?" Feeling if the troops weren't moved away.

 

[Jaybe]

And by what logic does an armada of carriers have no greater aircraft capacity than a single carrier unit?

That’s triple the escort units. Thanks for bringing it up and inspiring my (feeble i.e. not much use to the player) rationale. I assure you it irritated me, also.

 

[Widdershins]

That’s triple the escort units. Thanks for bringing it up and inspiring my (feeble i.e. not much use to the player) rationale. I assure you it irritated me, also.

I suppose that makes sense, notwithstanding that the game already has dedicated missile cruiser and destroyer units. So I guess a carrier fleet has phantom versions of these ships in the game. Or something.

In the early days of playing I tried to get a destroyer unit to escort a carrier. No joy, of course.