this game is boring

klokwerk

Prince
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
433
Location
Paris
No, Civ 4 was a lot more boring than Civ 5. Endless stacks of dooms. Yeah, I manage a 120 units stack, that's so cool. No, not really.

I have a lot more fun with Civ 5 than I ever had with Civ 4, so no.
 

zonk

Prince
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
572
No, Civ 4 was a lot more boring than Civ 5. Endless stacks of dooms. Yeah, I manage a 120 units stack, that's so cool. No, not really.

I have a lot more fun with Civ 5 than I ever had with Civ 4, so no.

Well, that's the fault line in the debate.

Seems pretty clear that you play the series as a wargame. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would suspect that perhaps a slim majority of Civ players probably trend more towards that style of play.

BUT - it certainly isn't a supermajority. A lot of Civ players don't view Civilization as a wargame. Sid himself said years ago that he never thought Civ was supposed to be a wargame.

For the player not interested in solely managing the military and tactical battles -- V is boring.
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
There is a clear difference between having to micro-manage for no gain at all (unit movement) and micro-managing for better city output or whatever.

How is unit movement no gain? That statement is asinine. There's no difference, its just a different part of empire management.


For the player not interested in solely managing the military and tactical battles -- V is boring.

Speak for yourself. I generally play small empires and late game wars, and don't find it any more boring than Civ 4 was during my "growth" phase.
 

sketch162000

Warlord
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
221
Speak for yourself. I generally play small empires and late game wars, and don't find it any more boring than Civ 4 was during my "growth" phase.

The early "growth phase" was the best part of Civ IV, IMO while the later part of the game got tedious. The early game drags for me in Civ V. Ah well, different strokes, I guess...;)
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
Originally Posted by lschnarch
There is a clear difference between having to micro-manage for no gain at all (unit movement) and micro-managing for better city output or whatever.
How is unit movement no gain? That statement is asinine. There's no difference, its just a different part of empire management.

There is no gain in having to micro-manage your unit movement. And I am quite sceptical about the "empire management" aspect of having to wake your units every now and then because they may have run into a city, or to give new ordes just because another unit is (for just this one turn) sitting on their intermediate destination hex.
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
The early "growth phase" was the best part of Civ IV, IMO while the later part of the game got tedious. The early game drags for me in Civ V. Ah well, different strokes, I guess...;)

That's exactly the point. People can't accept it for what it is, but instead want to shed rivers of tears about how the game has personally insulted their deceased mother.
Everybody will bring something different away from the experience of playing it, and its not meant to be Civ 4 2.0.

That's not directed at you, by the way :) Just sayin
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
There is no gain in having to micro-manage your unit movement. And I am quite sceptical about the "empire management" aspect of having to wake your units every now and then because they may have run into a city, or to give new ordes just because another unit is (for just this one turn) sitting on their intermediate destination hex.

Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.
 

zonk

Prince
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
572
Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.

I thought you were claiming upthread to be "builder"?

Builders generally were pretty neutral on stacks - not big fans, but didn't particularly see them as "boring" because military action wasn't the gameplay focus.
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
I thought you were claiming upthread to be "builder"?

Builders generally were pretty neutral on stacks - not big fans, but didn't particularly see them as "boring" because military action wasn't the gameplay focus.

I am, I generally run small empires and late game wars. I focus on all aspects of the game at some point, including conquest, and yes, I much prefer the 1upt combat system to Civ 4's SoD which to me was incredibly lame and generally boring as all hell. Micro managing military and support units is just another aspect of empire management.
 

sketch162000

Warlord
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
221
That's exactly the point. People can't accept it for what it is, but instead want to shed rivers of tears about how the game has personally insulted their deceased mother.
Everybody will bring something different away from the experience of playing it, and its not meant to be Civ 4 2.0.

At the same time, a lot of people paid their money for the next iteration in a game series that has thus far given them a certain enjoyable experience, only to find that Civ V is a major unexpected departure.

They come on the forums to discuss their negative experience with Civ V, only to be instantly shot down by Civ V fanboys who act like critics just personally insulted their deceased mother.

There's something to be said about the people can't accept the others have a different opinion of Civ V and feel that they need to defend the game at all costs as well...

That's not directed at you, by the way :) Just sayin

Ditto. :)
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
At the same time, a lot of people paid their money for the next iteration in a game series that has thus far given them a certain enjoyable experience, only to find that Civ V is a major unexpected departure.

They come on the forums to discuss their negative experience with Civ V, only to be instantly shot down by Civ V fanboys who act like critics just personally insulted their deceased mother.

There's something to be said about the people can't accept the others have a different opinion of Civ V and feel that they need to defend the game at all costs as well...



Ditto. :)

Well, from what I've read, a lot of people paid their money for Civ 4 2.0, and anyone with experience in the Civ franchise knows that's not how it works. Also, the vocal majority on this forum aren't the fanboys, so you can guess where the "shooting down" is really coming from, at least from where I sit. I mean c'mon...its been made painfully clear here that if a review doesn't bash Civ 5 its not a good review.
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.

Well, if you would have just "clicked" your stack of 120 units into an enemy city then you would have done something wrong.
Fighting a battle with so many units would have been quite time consuming if done properly.

But at least you could move them without hassle, and that is what we were talking about.
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
Well, if you would have just "clicked" your stack of 120 units into an enemy city then you would have done something wrong.
Fighting a battle with so many units would have been quite time consuming if done properly.

But at least you could move them without hassle, and that is what we were talking about.

You're not talking about anything, you're complaining about a feature you don't like. People cry that there's not enough micro management in the economic management of the empire and then turn around and cry that there's too much micro management in the military aspect, when they both go hand in hand. You consider tactical unit management to be a hassle over the simplistic SoD armies of Civ 4, but then everyone decries Civ 5 for being "dumbed down". Amazing.
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
You're not talking about anything, you're complaining about a feature you don't like. People cry that there's not enough micro management in the economic management of the empire and then turn around and cry that there's too much micro management in the military aspect, when they both go hand in hand. You consider tactical unit management to be a hassle over the simplistic SoD armies of Civ 4, but then everyone decries Civ 5 for being "dumbed down". Amazing.

What I am complaining about is the tediousness of having to move my units one by one while marching in complete safety through my empire.
What I am complaining about is that one "friendly" unit sitting on a rough terrain tile within my own borders can block my army marching from the northern front to the southern one.
What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.
What I am complaining about is the pure fact that if one unit A is sitting on the end hex (for that turn) of unit B, unit B will stop and require new orders.

Nothing of these things adds even the slightest bit to tactical movement. It adds a lot to unnecessary, redundant manual action with no gain.
It is just that simple.
 

Jharii

King
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
696
Location
Walled Lake, MI
What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.

I have never had this happen to me one single time. I saw you post on this same item recently (yesterday?) and went so far as to try to force this behavior. I was unsuccessful in doing so. My units travelled seamlessly through cities, following their path, even when they stopped on the city in mid-path.

I agree that your other items are definitely tedious. But not game breaking. Grouping/following/rally point functionality would address this.
 

vandyr

Prince
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
351
What I am complaining about is the tediousness of having to move my units one by one while marching in complete safety through my empire.
What I am complaining about is that one "friendly" unit sitting on a rough terrain tile within my own borders can block my army marching from the northern front to the southern one.
What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.
What I am complaining about is the pure fact that if one unit A is sitting on the end hex (for that turn) of unit B, unit B will stop and require new orders.

Nothing of these things adds even the slightest bit to tactical movement. It adds a lot to unnecessary, redundant manual action with no gain.
It is just that simple.

Good lord dude, should the AI just move your units for you? Why do you even bother playing? I bet you automate all your workers too, don't you?

I don't find any of the above tedious, then again, I appreciate having a grasp of the tactical situation at all times, which moving units individually affords you. Like Sketch said above, to each his own.

I also haven't experienced a unit with orders to pass through a city stopping in one, which sounds like a bug. Everything else about your list doesn't bother me in the slightest, with the exception of neutral unit stacking (military and support).

Like Jharii said, unit grouping ( not stacking ) and setting rally points etc would be a good addition, but again, the lack of them is hardly game breaking.
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
I have never had this happen to me one single time. I saw you post on this same item recently (yesterday?) and went so far as to try to force this behavior. I was unsuccessful in doing so. My units travelled seamlessly through cities, following their path, even when they stopped on the city in mid-path.

Well, I have happened this now several times. And I am quite sure that sometimes I am even not noticing it, as I may have got distracted and just lost kept tracing them.

I don't know what the determining factors are, most probably (but this is just my assumption at the moment) it happens when the unit ends in this city and the next turn the designated next end-hex will have been occupied by another unit.

What I remember now that I am typing is that it happens with mounted units trying to attack an enemy in front of your city, while the mounted unit itself is coming from the backside.
The unit will stop in the city. And even then you cannot directly order it again to attack, but you first have to move it out of the city, and THEN to attack.
 

JLoZeppeli

Prince
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
598
Jharii, to be honest it happens to me quite often, i set the movement than i forget them only to discover them hiding in a city on the path... Probably it's a something in the path that blocks them, it not happens ever, so i think it was some other unit passing by, but i'm not sure of that... Maybe is the setting of the path, maybe if some other unit cross-path it set the city as last hex...
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
Good lord dude, should the AI just move your units for you?

Indeed, it should do so, when I have given a "move to" order. Where's the point in that feature, if I have to correct it all the times manually?

This constitutes a broken feature.
 
Top Bottom