Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[King_Course]

I laugh at Tom Chicks because it's true, it's all true.

 

[kornelm1978]

If the problem is that it's too hot, then it's something that kind of works. If the problem is too cold, then that's also something that kind of works. Basically, both of those are plausible conditions about which you can do something. If so, then Stacks and 1UPT aren't unsolvable fundamental problems as Chick would describe 1UPT.

If you want to fly to London, middle-grounding a solution between a bicycle and an oven-toaster isn't going to work. Neither of those can be used to fly you to London.

I am sorry, but you mixed result with means.

I you want to go to London - this is a goal and you can ie fly by plane or take a ship (means). Bicycycle can be also a mean (if you are in Great Britain), toaster never is.

1upt or multiple units per tile are not goals but means. The goal is to have a good gameplay. Thus there is hypothetical middle ground which serves the goal (which is good gameplay). The analogy you repeat simply is not logical - you are comparing goal with means. If you bother to answer, please go to the point, not use just round words where I rarely understand the point of yours.

 

[Roxlimn]

If you review the post, I lead with the point.

 

[kornelm1978]

If you review the post, I lead with the point.

But still not get analogy with with London.

 

[Roxlimn]

If you got the point already, the analogy is rather moot.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

Giving Civ6 a score of 40% is laughable and unprofessional. It says more about the reviewer (bitterness) than the game.
Civ6 is flawed, but completely playable and IMHO enjoyable out of the box. Already 90 hours down and I think that's pretty common. Most people complaining about the game will have 50+ hours already and I wonder how bad the game can be in that case.
I could understand any rating between 70 and 85%. Just compare it to the infinite clone army of FPS games that easily breach the 80s ratings.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I've never played Civ IV, but for me those giant stacks seems just a whole bunch of units walking around and pretty much destroying anything in their path. Kinda like a Total War game, but without the real-time battles. If anyone can explain to me how better this system is in comparison to 1UPT, without resorting to blaming the AI, I'd appreciate.

As for me, 1UPT for me puts more emphasis on the terrain advantages and adds another layer of combat complexity and strategy.

Regarding the Missionary spam, my suggestion is to create a unit (Philosopher or Cynical, maybe?), which woud have less combat strength than Apostles and Inquisitors until the Enlightenment, but would be available even if you don't have a religion. It would also have a "spread" ability that decreases all religions in a city. And also allow stacking of civilian units from different civilizations (but you can't stack your own civilian units to prevent abuses), and 1 military and multiple civilian units (obeying the civilian stacking rule). Would it be hard to implement in a mod for testing?

 

[Stilgar08]

No, it never occured to me. Army is a collection of units, single unit is single unit. I really cannot imagine army of field guns, archers, etc.

That's a pity. You could imagine the "army of archers" is an army with a major strength in ranged (archer) combat, not just the 4 guys on that tile on the map... I understand you don't want to - fine by me, but wrong in MY opinion. But I don't care either so no harm done...

I imagine abstraction. Multiple units per tile is simpliefied abstraction of army. I do not now what is one upt abstraction of, explain me please.

We are both not fans of 1UPT so that's fine. SODs are stupid, too...
Nevertheless when it serves your points you decide to look at all abstractions like they are literally what is shown on the map (see above, case closed). My point was that in general the whole discussions circles around this lack of acceptance of abstraction - As you can see I referred to the general debate on this point, not 1 UPT - in fact - if you soften up that rule (and they're going in that direction with corps, armies, different layers... - it's not just enough yet) it would be a better game.

Yes, it is absurd way of presenting the argument of Roxlim in exagerrated form.

Nope, it's an exxageration making the whole point ridiculous. And no one in its right mind seriously would come up with such an implementation.

The forum is to discus, I am sorry, not just only to say how the great game is.

No need to be sorry!!! I disagree with your points here and we discuss. Good! I step over your displeasure in many threads, that's why I wrote what I wrote. I'm sorry - I didn't mean to be rude...

 

[Magil]

I've never played Civ IV, but for me those giant stacks seems just a whole bunch of units walking around and pretty much destroying anything in their path. Kinda like a Total War game, but without the real-time battles. If anyone can explain to me how better this system is in comparison to 1UPT, without resorting to blaming the AI, I'd appreciate.

As for me, 1UPT for me puts more emphasis on the terrain advantages and adds another layer of combat complexity and strategy.

To put it simply and briefly, Civilization is a large-scale empire-building strategy game. Not a tactical war-game. One-unit-per-tile is actually the system that's closer to wargames as it places a huge amount of emphasis on the positioning and movement of your individual units. Stack combat (stack-of-doom is almost a meaningless term nowadays as people seem to use it as a negative term without being able to explain why it's so bad) is an imperfect system, but I don't think the areas of improvement from V's are innate to one-unit-per-tile, as I like the hex grid for movement and "unit combat does not necessarily destroy the opposition in one shot" is also an improvement. But those systems could coexist with stack combat. Other things that bothered people such as suicide catapults are hardly necessary to stack combat, the ranged unit/bombard mechanic from V/VI could still work along with collateral damage (though the range should be reduced to 1 in this case).

Stack combat places the emphasis primarily on the economic and overall strategic management of you empire, which is how I (and some others) feel it should be. There are certainly still tactical considerations, as anyone who played even mid-level competitive Civ IV multiplayer could tell you. Terrain was still quite important in IV, as a hill near your city could provide defensive cover for invaders while a nice flatland was an ideal "killing ground". 1UPT as a system adds a lot of small-scale tactical considerations, but with them comes tedium; having to move 20 units around a map is a much more involved process in V/VI than moving 100 units in Civ IV (you could double click a stack of any size to instantly select every unit in the stack, and tell it where to move with one more click).

Honestly, the latter is the biggest factor for me. Along with stacking issues from not being able to stack multiple civilian/religious/etc units together, and not being able to stack with neutral/allied units, the increased tedium and involvement in moving a bunch of individual units on a map is not really what I'm looking for when I play Civ. I want to build an empire, not have a series of involved tactical battles. Granted it's more of a curb-stomp in the AI's current state. But consider that improving the AI could actually be one of the worst things they could do: imagine how much more tedious the gameplay would be if we had to slog it out in back-and-forth battles and wars of attrition with the AI using the 1UPT system. Ugh. Just abstract it more and be done with it, I say. These things were fine with stack combat because the unit management didn't take up so much time and space. It's awful thanks to 1UPT.

 

[Roxlimn]

Moving units from one place to another is generally considered logistics (in the realm of strategy), not tactics.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

In this point I have to agree with you: it can get quite tedious to move all those units every turn.

But I think stacks oversimplify combat, and interferes quite a lot in the grand strategy. I'd be less inclined to build a city to defend a chokepoint, since all enemy units are able to cross that narrow passage at the same time. I wouldn't think a city near woods or hills would be more defensible because my units might arrive at different times and would need set-up time. A single nuke might wipe out all of the defenders, instead of maybe leaving a few units for buying time until reinforcements arrive.

Those tactical considerations, of course, would be all valid things to think about if the AI did a more competent job at it. But with the current AI, stacks would make battles even more of a joke. Instead of "Hmm, if I attack that Archer with my Swordsman, I will kill it, but there's 3 more around, and my other Swordsmen won't make it in time", it would be "Oh, 1 more Archer stack. Another one for my steamrolling Swordsman stack".

Edit: Thinking about it now, maybe there could be a middle ground, with limited stacking (say, 3 units and growing in later eras), for both civilians and military. Kinda like the Corps and support units we have now. So you would need to decide to add another Medic to speed up healing or another unit to increase strength. Different units mixed together might unlock certain formations and abilities (2 spearmen in Schiltron formation, melee units absorbing damage from archers etc). And lastly the strength increase would be a percentage of the added unit. Does it look better?

 

[Kwami]

To put it simply and briefly, Civilization is a large-scale empire-building strategy game. Not a tactical war-game.

Says who? You don't get to define what Civilization games are. The developers do. I, for one, like the hybrid strategy + tactical war games known as Civilization V and Civilization VI.

 

[Magil]

Moving units from one place to another is generally considered logistics (in the realm of strategy), not tactics.

A rather pedantic point, but this is the definition of tactics I had in mind: "(noun) 1. the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle. 2. the maneuvers themselves." I agree that I wouldn't call moving the units from one side of the map to the other "tactics", but I don't think anyone considers the logistical concerns a good point. At best a necessary sacrifice for tactical depth.

Says who? You don't get to define what Civilization games are. The developers do. I, for one, like the hybrid strategy + tactical war games known as Civilization V and Civilization VI.

Then treat my statement as "up until V" if you prefer (and to avoid arguing this absurdity). But I think the rest of the game actively suffers because of this decision, for reasons that have been thoroughly explained ad nauseam.

 

[Zuizgond]

Says who? You don't get to define what Civilization games are. The developers do. I, for one, like the hybrid strategy + tactical war games known as Civilization V and Civilization VI.

Tactical war games in Civ 5 and 6? Are you serious??

 

[Kwami]

Tactical war games in Civ 5 and 6? Are you serious??

I was using a previous poster's words. Something like "tactical battles" would be more appropriate, probably. Regardless, I think that the point is clear.

 

[Roxlimn]

A rather pedantic point, but this is the definition of tactics I had in mind: "(noun) 1. the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle. 2. the maneuvers themselves." I agree that I wouldn't call moving the units from one side of the map to the other "tactics", but I don't think anyone considers the logistical concerns a good point. At best a necessary sacrifice for tactical depth.

The AI doesn't present tactical depth and even in MP, there isn't that much tactical depth. The range of units and abilities in games like Panzer General are just that much more, and the setups are genuine tactical questions. Those rarely come up in Civ V or Civ VI so looking for tactical depth in a system not designed for it seems kind of counterintuitive.

What it does promote is strategic depth. Disposition before battle, movement, selection of units, where to defend, where to attack - those all matter a lot more now. That didn't happen before, and that's a strategic point, not a tactical one. It's tactical EASY to defend an easily defensible spot. Yep. That's why it's referred to as a strong point. Whether you have to attack someone at a prepared strongpoint or not - that's a strategic decision. Granted, the AI right now is also rather bad at deciding where to attack and why, but it's getting there. Faster than the stack AI, anyway.

 

[Magil]

The AI doesn't present tactical depth and even in MP, there isn't that much tactical depth. The range of units and abilities in games like Panzer General are just that much more, and the setups are genuine tactical questions. Those rarely come up in Civ V or Civ VI so looking for tactical depth in a system not designed for it seems kind of counterintuitive.

What it does promote is strategic depth. Disposition before battle, movement, selection of units, where to defend, where to attack - those all matter a lot more now. That didn't happen before, and that's a strategic point, not a tactical one. It's tactical EASY to defend an easily defensible spot. Yep. That's why it's referred to as a strong point. Whether you have to attack someone at a prepared strongpoint or not - that's a strategic decision. Granted, the AI right now is also rather bad at deciding where to attack and why, but it's getting there. Faster than the stack AI, anyway.

I agree that the tactical depth in V/VI is fairly shallow. But the only advantage they have over stack combat is in the importance of maneuvering and positioning units in combat, which is more involved. Those are tactical concerns.

I will strongly disagree that there is somehow more strategic depth in 1UPT combat than stack combat. Your example isn't even a decision since you say "have to", but assuming you meant the decision as to whether or not to attack someone at a strong point, is relevant either way in both systems. As for "disposition before battle, movement, selection of units, where to defend, where to attack", well, I'll offer as much support for these points as you have: no, these were at least just as relevant in stack combat (except in the specific instance of individual unit maneuvering, which is, again, tactics). If only because these are informed by how you build your empire, which was a more involved and intricate process previously. But really, this

The idea that the AI is progressing in any way, shape, or form, is also fairly laughable. The AI right now parades its units around cities and doesn't attack them. The AI is a total and complete joke in terms of combat. It may occasionally win by weight of numbers, but most of the time it even fails with that advantage. Using stack combat, an AI could at least present a threat using weight of numbers (and presenting a threat in and of itself presents additional strategic challenges).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Giving Civ6 a score of 40% is laughable and unprofessional. It says more about the reviewer (bitterness) than the game.
Civ6 is flawed, but completely playable and IMHO enjoyable out of the box. Already 90 hours down and I think that's pretty common. Most people complaining about the game will have 50+ hours already and I wonder how bad the game can be in that case.
I could understand any rating between 70 and 85%. Just compare it to the infinite clone army of FPS games that easily breach the 80s ratings.

Those don't deserve passing scores either.

I like some parts of civ 6. On the other hand, there are serious problems with it (very poor UI, unit cycling unjustifiably bad via forcibly ignoring your commands and issuing other commands, MP re-sync 10 times in 15 turns) that are below the bar of a decent indy game. Depending on what you happen to care about, the sloppy UI and better-than-5 but still long turn times can hurt. Unit balance is abysmal...range was overpowered in civ 5 and they buffed it!

40% is a little low, but I don't think it's any more egregious than giving the game an 80% or 90% score, not when there is a AAA that fails on some basic conventions low budget games got right 15-20 years ago. It's a lot better than civ 5 release, but that was pretty low bar.

Warlords 2 has better unit cycling than Civ 6. There are many good civ players that weren't alive when that game was released. Why is it better? Every time you select a unit using any means, it will consistently select only that unit. When you go to issue a move order, it will not move a different unit. When pathing gets interrupted by something, it prompts you rather than making the unit do something asinine automatically. Its system for making units follow pending orders from previous turns consistently outperforms the awkward delay/"unit needs orders after end turn" stuff you get in civ 6.

How much surplus food am I making? Nope. What goes into a tourism victory, exactly? Nope. What exact values of war weariness does each action in each situation give me? Nope.

In addition to bugs like "hey, we declared on you after you agreed to move units away, and because you fought back you broke your promise" and other such nonsense, a game that gets outperformed in basic controls by games over two decades older on a tiny % of the budget, plus hides its rules in a frustrating bout of fake difficulty has no business getting a passing score. If you want to bring up the word "unprofessional"...why is a AAA title getting its controls *soundly* thrashed by a couple strategy programmers who put together a game several years older than civ 2?

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

Those don't deserve passing scores either.

I like some parts of civ 6. On the other hand, there are serious problems with it (very poor UI, unit cycling unjustifiably bad via forcibly ignoring your commands and issuing other commands, MP re-sync 10 times in 15 turns) that are below the bar of a decent indy game. Depending on what you happen to care about, the sloppy UI and better-than-5 but still long turn times can hurt. Unit balance is abysmal...range was overpowered in civ 5 and they buffed it!

40% is a little low, but I don't think it's any more egregious than giving the game an 80% or 90% score, not when there is a AAA that fails on some basic conventions low budget games got right 15-20 years ago. It's a lot better than civ 5 release, but that was pretty low bar.

Just one simple question: how many hours do you have clocked in with Civ6?

 

[Kwami]

Just one simple question: how many hours do you have clocked in with Civ6?

Don't mind TMIT. He's always grumpy.