This is not strategy game

I am really dissapointed, I expected the game which will be really strategical expereince and it's not. I am not talking about tweaks to be made, exploits you can make or the lacks in interface. Those should not happen, but I belive it will be improved. I am talking about lack of strategical depth the game should have. And i believe that the game with more depth can be still done in a way to satisfy less experienced players. Thus my very strong opinion, sorry if I touched somebody, the game is not for strategy lovers but for:

- "Sims lovers" in more historical scenery. Instead of building sofa, you can build battleship, Eifel Tower, or even spaceship

- logical puzzle lovers - one unit per tile lovers, who love logical puzzle in historical scenery. Thus their main love is to move 20 units in a way to cicrumvent town in least turns possible, while putting the archers on the hills. It's an achievement, I admit, but it's not what I expect from strategy game.

- new civilization lovers - seeing a number of threads on that, I believe that this is pretty strong group of people. They will be happy with new civilizations to occur, gameplay less importatnt. I am just waiting for the tread, that you should be able to change colours of Cleopatra dress. Again, for me this should not be the most important.

I am really dissapointed that this "strategy" game satsisfies the lovers of above, instead of being strategy game. I am moreover dissapointed as I paid 80Eur (!!!!!) for the game like that.

 

What, in your opinion, makes this a non-strategy game? Is it simply that the AI (currently) poses very little challenge, or is there more to it?

 

Other than the complaints about AI how does it have less strategic depth than civ5?

 

So how many new bashing threads are you going to start? Just curious, have to plan ahead

If you're waiting for a Civ5-launch-esque dogpile you're going to be disappointed. Most people are receiving the game well, even while acknowledging the areas that need a little work.

 

AI is just part of the problem, the other problem is 1upt. Becasue of that not only AI suffers, but the whole gameplay. The wars taking few eras being not dynamic at all and ineresting at all, just a puzzle with not strategical depth. I'd love to see sea landings, paratroopers, pillaging. With 1 upt is nearly imposible. (apart from pilaging few tiles away from your borders). I'd love to see just a little bit deeper diplomacy, which is wisely used by AI. I'd love to see something happening since mid till late game (if you are not militaristic), apart from following all the time the same tech routes and boosts and placing efectively districts.

 

I'd really prefer to play the game

 

That's called "tactics", and present in most strategy games.

(and, I think this is mainly just another manifestation of the poor AI -- both in actually forming an army and using it)

 

For me it's arbritrary diplomacy, the inconsistent results. In Civ5 you played the map and AI tenancies here it's all over the place and the AI won't try and win even on deity.

 

You knew it was going to be 1upt, so why are you complaining about wasting your money?

This is something that concerns me, there still seems to be the handful of 'go to' techs that everyone will beeline.. I was hoping for more variance.

 

You are right, this is actually my fault

 

u know i just thought it woulda been cool if they would have added randomness to the tech tree like if when u researched a new tech that u say got a bonus to a pasture, instead of getting a predictable bonus of +1 procuction, the game would randomly pick +1 production, food or gold. They could have added things like that all over the tech tree making research resemble real life research more. Doesnt get to your "strategy" game point but just a thought.

 

Gotta agree with one point, 1upt is the worst thing to happen to civ, I'm struggling to accept this, kind of kills the military aspect of the game

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you're going to troll the forums. The mods may stop me, but I have to say this.

That wouldn't make much sense. Satellites aren't supposed to give you Faith.

 

Please tell me how deathstack spam promoted strategy in any way. 1upt is one of their best improvements ever

 

To me it does the opposite, it is the military side of the game's greatest strength. Stacks of doom were one of the most boring mechanics in the series. This allows wars to have some level of strategy to them.

The only concern about 1UPT that ever made sense was that the AI couldn't handle it, and arguably that's still true. That however doesn't suddenly make it "kill the military aspect".

 

I agree. Stacks of Doom only promoted zergrushing, and zergrushing hardly counts as strategy. Unstacking units makes sense, because as in real life, every soldier, horse, tank and ship takes up space: You can't just pile hundreds of tanks and think it will steamroll everything.

 

Stack of doom was not greatest idea, but much better than 1 upt. There is a lot of middleground between 1 and infinity. Let's say 5. I gave you the examples how it killed strategy promoting puzzle. Can you make in paratroopers drop on small island? No. Can you make praratroopers drop to on the back? No - it will be spread across being in shooting distance of few cities and amongst dozens of chartiots. Can you have small naval landing on the flank to support army advancements? No, becasue it will be spread on huge area, again in shooting range of few cities (clifs, mountains, other units). Can you make huge naval landing? Etremelly difficult, takes barely 2 eras when on the other side of map. Before you reach the shores, your units need uprgrade. It was all possible and should be. This is strategy is missing, which is mainly killed by 1upt. Of course, we have got another thinking, but for the game on that scale I would prefer strategies of above rather than thinking of archer placement on the hill.

I am not for stack of dooom, but just a little bit more units per tile.

 

I always hear this "there's a middle ground you know" argument, but I'm yet to see a persuasive argument for how such a middle game would create any better a system. The advantage as things stand is that units are differentiated, and in war you can target particular parts of an army, creating holes and weaknesses, giving an extra layer to the combat. Multiple units per tile preclude that possibility and just make it babies first stack of doom, while not actually solving any problems. It's like not being able to decide between calling your first born Adrian or Rudolf and just deciding to take the average and call them Rurian, it solves neither problem, and serves as nothing more than a suggestion to sooth both parties.

The simple point is that stacks of doom were a poor mechanic, and 1UPT works considerably better. The only real weaknesses that exist with it are to do with AI issues and occasional discussions about what should go on separate layers. Suggesting stacks of doom return, or even the judgement of Solomon suggestion of "Multiple Units per Tile", are as nonsensical as suggesting we drop the 3D graphics of Civ IV, V and VI (it's not like there wasn't opposition at the time).

 

I have to agree that we should be able to have 5 units per tile. Civ4 had its flaws, but it did a halfway decent job in getting you to "diversify" your army. If you didn't diversify, that SOD would hurt you bad. It was important to have "counters" to enemy units. Now it doesn't matter, archers can do almost everything by themselves. And some civilizations UU's are enough by themselves to conquer everything.

I want a game that allows me to make "armies". And no, not combine 3 units to make a slightly better 1 unit with expensive upgrade costs. Armies is historically won wars and conquered cities. I think it would be easier to program the ai to form a 5 unit army rather than program it to effectively utilize 1upt.

 

I guess OP is comparing the game with EU, Crown of Glory, Hearts of Iron and other sophisticated strategy turn-based games.
CIV games are simpler.

It's like an arcade flight simulation games like RED Baron, Combat ACE with hardcore flight simulation games like LOCK-ON, Falcon 4, IL-2...etc

Each of the genre has their own market and fans.

The simpler, easier to play gets more popular. Afterall games is for fun.