This is not strategy game

I didn't realize people were in the habit of doing such things when playing strategy games.

 

I know hiring the emeritus professors is a bit extravagant, but after a long weeks work, spending my hard earned money on what I want really is one of the joys I live for.

 

Sorry to missundertand

Sorry if I missunderstood you (I can still be nice in discussion, and will be despite your insults), I thought you like the idea of corpse. I'd prefered limited stacks, but the corpse is the small step in good direction. The trade offs are to singificant though and it should be earlier accesible. And I do not want big number of unist, completly opposite. Though we may argue that 1up is more interesting or not from tactical/strategical point of view, but we can not argue, I believe (???), that it is not very realistic to siege Berlin and have artillery close to Paris (yes, that is the scale). Also it is not realistic to have wars for 500 or 1000 years in first eras and 50 or 100 in modern times. Or moving units to boarders to prepare attack for one tech length (so they are obsolete). And its all thanks to 1 upt.

 

Hrm. Ah, that's the trouble with dry humor on the internet -- I had thought you were mocking Fippy, not reinforcing his point!

 

I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any insults used.

I do like the idea of the corps (a corpse is a dead body).

The Paris to Berlin example is a result of the abstraction in the game. You can either have realism or the tactical side, and the Civ series has never sided with realism.

If it's taking you so long to move units that the era has moved on, it suggests you need more practice in moving units and planning. I suggesting hiring several emeritus professors to adivise your actions.

 

The AI will never be taught tricky strategies. It can only do simple ones. So brute number of AI units loosing vs just a little smaller army of human properly using artilery, terain, bombardements, chokepoints - that what I would like to see. But three times larger army should never loose war (with the same tech level). And thats the case now.

 

As we all know, there was never a case of an army with less than a third the army size of their enemy winning the war.

 

I can scent a sarcasm. Yes, they were battles, even won with bigger disaddvantage. But the satistic is pretty clear - larger (more modern) army wins. Thus winning the wars always (!!!!) with 3 times smaller army against AI is not accurate. With different design (more units per tile) the AI numbers could fight human more effecitvelly, but still loosing if equal (better using of terain, better bomardmenents, etc.).

 

But wasn't this supposed to be a discussion of systems? It's the common confusion which takes place when arguing 1UPT vs. doomstacks: it quickly shifts to AI, to the point it has nothing to do with the merits and flaws of one system or the other.

This is already happening, particularly on the offensive and more clearly in Civ6 than Civ5.

So overall the problem is that 1UPT, while a superior system in depth and potential, is hard to manage by the AI.

The real discussion is how to solve this issue. Some argue that, in light of that, the franchise should discard it entirely and return to the old, primitive system. The quick, easy way out. After all, why try something new when we can keep rehashing the old? Some others, myself included, would instead encourage the development of the AI so that its handling of 1UPT progressively improves. And that has been happening, throughout Civ5's and CivBE's life, and now through Civ6's.

It's very much in the franchise's interest that this continues, if it's meant to have proper, evolving sequels instead of a string of remakes and remakes of remakes.

 

And I'd prefer to have strategical realism in strategy game, and tactical realism in tactical strategy genre game. If you want to use previous Civ examples, please remember that 1-4 had multiple units per tile (which I believe promoted strategy over tactics). Thus basing your argumentation, even indirectly, in matter of CIV 1upt tradition is not relevant.

 

Can we consolidate the 8,000 1UPT vs. SoD threads into one? Maybe somewhere on the Civ V forum? Because 1UPT isn't going away and arguing about it, at this point, is a waste of time.

 

You are joking, but this actually happened. One example: http://www.sullla.com/Civ4/RBPB2-1.html / http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=62

Good luck finding the same kind of depth with V's or VI's game mechanics.

 

This was a topic in 5, but it is still in 6. This is still valid discussion and I believe core gameplay mechanic which still is hot. Probably not changing anything, but maybe (what I doubt) devs read forums on gameplay. And with all the respect, more important than treads on "what other civilizations you'd like to see in DLC", or please do Hungary, Israel, Tibeth or Portugal.

 

You know, I read through that game narrative, once. Then, I tried to find others like it. There are very few. Most Civ IV games are nothing like that at all.

What you linked is an account by two very good players who played in a very specific setting that allowed for a lot of planning and thinking. But, most people play real-time games with random strangers or, at best, a group of like-minded players who kind of sort of know each other as "civ friends" (like NQ). Civ is very clearly meant for these people.

Besides, that very account mentions lots of random chance (counter to strategy) with regards to which units live and die in the stacks. And, it show off some of Civ IV's worst aspects, like road spam.

Summary: One example is not a trend, and there is plenty of strategy to be found in Civ V and Civ VI. Also, stacks of doom suck.

 

The game developers probably do read the forums, but they did during the Civ V and Civ:BE eras, too. They know why you don't like 1UPT. Clearly, they do like it. It's not going away. Further, we've already got a bunch of threads about this topic. We really don't need another one, and we especially don't need one with such a hyperbolic title like "This is not a strategy game". That's nonsense, and you know it.

If you really don't like 1UPT, then go and play a different game. Civ VI has 1UPT and that's not changing. Therefore, threads about upcoming DLCs are actually better than threads like this because they might actually have some value.

 

Obviously, this is a rare example. A whole community - not two people, dozens, if not more - came together to crunch the numbers on every single thing, and the result is nothing short of sheer genius. But I am positing that the game mechanics of V and VI inherently don't lend themselves to this. Partly because of the massive lack of information displayed, and partly because many of these so-called systems are slapped on goodies. Admittedly, VI made them interact more with each other, so perhaps VI does lend itself to this - but not to the extent IV does.

And certainly! I, personally, am a very casual player, seeking story and not caring one iota about winning (indeed, I only play with the victory condition 'Conquest' on; wipe out or vassalise all other civilisations - my games never end). But Civilization VI fails on both fronts, for non-existent diplomacy - not to mention contradicting agendas - make that impossible as well.

Civilization has always been a game about adapting, not? I'm not sure how 'random units dying' is a point to make; which Civilization game doesn't have this? Sometimes your Major Victory eliminates a unit, sometimes your Decisive Victory doesn't, for example. Nor do I understand why 'road spam' is one of Civilization IV's worst aspects - where does that even come from? The entire civilised world should be covered in roads.

 

I was not hyperbolic in saying "this is not strategy game". And i said why. This is logical game - to move tons of units efectively in war part. This is logical game in not military aspect - how to place districts to have biggests advantagies, or how to logically plan boosts and researches. Not a strategy. Logical puzzle. And believe me - I have right to criticize becasue I paid for the game, and you want it or not, I am part of the community which loves or loved civ games.

 

Isn't logic a big part of strategy?

 

Yes, but not in way presented in the game. Imagine you are the ruler of the empire and your biggest decisions are: 1. built two archers to have boost on something, 2. place a religious district between three mountains, 3 place the archer on the hill. Although i like it, those decisions should not be most important for the game and they are. Of course, city placement is important, after that stage there is not much realy to decide, just follow the most logical pattern.

And decision taking, which shoud be part of strategy game, is also thinking considering risk (that's how the world works). So you do sth, you are not sure of the outcome. That is not considered (in not military aspect) by game at all (apart from startig building wonder, which is not completed). There is just logic, placing sth here would meant +2 gold, always, every game the same. The more you will play the more automatic you will be, you will see. And you will not take many decisions.

 

This but don't let the Civ4 zealots hear your blasphemy.

You do realize there is whole sub-genre of strategy games that is traditional wargames that have been around since the 1960?? This is the model that abstracts real-life, not some unrealistic fantasy that were stacks of dooms. Trying to coordinate the movements of companies/regiments/brigades/etc. over a varied terrain (with its movement rules) plus considering zone-of-control, leadership influence and return fire from enemies (cities/units/etc.) is the MOST strategic element ever introduced into the Civ series.