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.
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.
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.
How is unit movement no gain? That statement is asinine. There's no difference, its just a different part of empire management.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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Good lord dude, should the AI just move your units for you?