Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[footslogger]

Seriously, I read it BEFORE this forum decided that it was something Civ 4 grognards should celebrate.

Just for the record, I don't think that Civ 4-style SOD are the answer to 1upt. There are all sorts of interesting middle-ground solutions which have been suggested and I hope Firaxis will consider them for expansions.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Just for the record, I don't think that Civ 4-style SOD are the answer to 1upt. There are all sorts of interesting middle-ground solutions which have been suggested and I hope Firaxis will consider them for expansions.

Right? I personally think Civ IV stacks worked pretty well, but I won't pretend they're perfect. A system like Civ IV but with a stacking limit could've been tried. Or with an attrition penalty for keeping too many units of the same type together. These kinds of things.

I was really disappointed when it became clear that Civ VI was basically going to recreate Civ V's highly flawed system, with all the same problems. The combat AI is just as ineffectual this time around, and the traffic jam problem is even worse with more units on the map and higher terrain costs. Civ VI's gesture at a solution was corps and armies--an interesting idea, but far too little and far too late.

If the Civ IV stacks couldn't return, fine. But keeping intact a Civ V system that clearly didn't work well was a poor decision.

 

[Roxlimn]

Just for the record, I don't think that Civ 4-style SOD are the answer to 1upt. There are all sorts of interesting middle-ground solutions which have been suggested and I hope Firaxis will consider them for expansions.

Honestly? You don't middle ground a solution between two things that you honestly don't think work at all. So what this means is that you also think SODs also worked pretty well. Many of us don't. It's an ancient vintage Civ1 idea that should die already.

 

[lamaros]

Who?

 

[sonicboom12345]

1upt ruins Civ. I'm glad to see there are reviewers out there who are willing to address this.

 

[ThERat]

Logistics required to work 1upt? What sort of logistics are you talking about. When I send a unit from a city on its journey and want to not babysit it every single turn, it will automatically run into issues, even with roads. It would ends its turns in a city that might be occupied by a unit, it might run into another slower unit on the same road.
Yes, I do know about roads made by traders. doesn't help much. I tell you what helps much in this game. Having a policy card that gives you a multiplier in production. Producing then selling units far away from the front and buying new ones instantly at the front line city, preferably a city you just took over. That's not logistics, that's exploiting the game.

And don't ever mention military engineers. They have a charge of two....an expensive unit that can road two tiles? Unless you got nothing better to do, this is a bloody joke.

 

[Roxlimn]

Yes. Buying units at the front line to reduce travel time and congestion is logistics. The policy card? Not sure about that, and the disband thing that allows you to transform them into cogs is definitely wonky.

Yes, "Babysitting" a unit through its journey so that it arrives faster IS logistics. Having units arrive on time and in shape is logistics. What did you guys think logistics was? There's even a Logistics card in the game that gives you +1 movement in friendly territory so you can do this better. Seriously, folks.

There is ZERO logistics game in Civ 4. You right click on a tile. That's it.

 

[ThERat]

When I play AW in Civ3 for example, placing my cities 3 tiles apart, there is plenty of logistics being able to shuffle units from one city to the next. Setting up choke points and kill zones are huge fun and essential part of the game.

In the end, much boils down to the experience I get with the AI. Always War was/is a better experience in Civ3 than Civ4 due to the way the AI behaves. If you are threatened by the initial stacks that a high difficulty AI sends towards you in Civ3, the excitement is great and the satisfaction if you overcome that, is amazing. Civ4 AI was 'too smart' and did not run into you, but build up their economy before hunting you down. In a way Civ3 AI is a little like Civ6 barbarians.

However, 1upt AI is what it is. It doesn't offer any challenge to the human player. No fun. You fight with 'logistics' and terrain rater than the AI.

 

[Roxlimn]

You fight with logistics and terrain rather than a tactically smart AI. Sounds like a strategic game, eh?

 

[HF22]

Honestly? You don't middle ground a solution between two things that you honestly don't think work at all.

Umm, actually you do, all the time. Not too cold, not too hot, just right. As the fairytale put it.

Its the nature of problems on a continuum, which units per tile on a single strategy map in fact is.

Only way around that is getting rid of the everything on one map brainbug. Which, in fact, might be the ancient Civ 1 idea which needs to go away.

 

[Roxlimn]

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.

 

[skyclad]

Stacks of doom is a civ 1 relic that should just die - awesome. I love that i cant have armies anymore but can only have 1 unit per tile. Its so much more realistic, especially the ranged combat. I love that an Archer can shoot across the english channel.
Also its fantastic they got rid of that stupid unit mixing. Who ever heard of a force combined of pikemen, riflemen and cannons? Those guys HATE eachother and have to be at least 100 miles apart at any time.

I will admit the civ 4 version was perhaps not perfect, the use of siege weapons was a bit strange how it worked with collateral, but its still 100 times better than an Archer that can shoot 100s of miles and mech infantry/tanks that fight hand to hand... I mean what were they thinking, introducing this silly tactical element, with RANGED UNITS even (Possibly add range to late game siege weapons like howitzers and forward) it is so immersion breaking i just have to pretend its not there.
Seriously this game needs stacking for game play and immersion.

 

[HF22]

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.

Since both ways have been used in Civ games, they can't be toasters. But one can be better than the other, and a middle ground could be better than both.

 

[Roxlimn]

Civ 6 is already a middle ground. You can already combine Pikemen with other Pikemen. And if you don't know why it's a bad idea to combine different units into a single unit, you obviously haven't played with the broken Armies in Civ 3 Conquests.

 

[skyclad]

What are you talking about? corps/armies are a joke and just cos a features was poorly made before doesnt mean it Have to be. Bring up civ3 as an example of why mixed units are bad...

 

[HF22]

Civ 6 is already a middle ground. You can already combine Pikemen with other Pikemen. And if you don't know why it's a bad idea to combine different units into a single unit, you obviously haven't played with the broken Armies in Civ 3 Conquests.

Civ 6 has moved a little way with its armies. But they are too little stacking too late, and thus can only help with later game traffic, rather than with difficulty.

But really, now you have conceded a middle ground exists, what are you arguing?

 

[caiman0815]

I like most parts of Civ6, but 1upt is annoying to use (especially with other civs civilian units like missionaries), totally anti immersive, AI exploiting and time consuming. Tom Chick is totally right on this, however, civ is not that bad, most parts of the game are fun and well designed

 

[Roxlimn]

Civ 6 has moved a little way with its armies. But they are too little stacking too late, and thus can only help with later game traffic, rather than with difficulty.

But really, now you have conceded a middle ground exists, what are you arguing?

The AI is always going to suck at war, and stacking units is not going to help with that, since Civ 4 AI is STILL bad at war, and equally bad. If we want for that to be a challenge, then like I said before, literally cut out that entire war thing and replace war with tic tac toe. Literally tic tac toe. Then you can code something that will always at least stalemate. Though I can't imagine the attraction of an AI that literally cannot lose any battle. Or you can code it to lose some intentionally. That can be a thing.

 

[HF22]

The AI is always going to suck at war, and stacking units is not going to help with that, since Civ 4 AI is STILL bad at war, and equally bad.

Sorry, but that seems to me to just be empirically wrong. After 10 years, the community knows plenty of exploits, still finding them actually.

But the Civ IV combat AI is simply more effective. Stacks allow the economic bonuses of the AI to tell, and its simplicity allows the AI to actually do basic things like take under defended cities.

Stacks are not the only option which would be easier to program for effective difficulty curves. But in a Civ context, they clearly are easier to get right than 1upt.

 

[Roxlimn]

No it isn't, and the fact of the matter is that you still need the AI to HAVE economic bonuses to even wage war effectively at tech and infrastructure parity. It is simply ineffective at war, and the system doesn't make it better. What you have right is that the stack does allow the AI to flex its bonuses more effectively and the 1UPT system does not, and that's obvious, of course, since numbers won't matter past a certain point in 1UPT. That's the entire point of it.

That doesn't mean it's worse. It means you have to stack the bonuses directly, and they're starting to do that with the +4 outright bonuses the Deity AI gets right now. If you think that's not enough, then it could go up to +10 or even +20 bonuses - as high as you like. But they equally bad. The flat bonus is just necessary in 1UPT because the nature of the combat means that sheer unit numbers matter less, and in fact, that's one of the things I like about it.

If you ask me, just programming straight bonuses is WAY easier and more effective than trying to balance a bunch of economic bonuses that may or may not be expressed on the field, and it'll probably take less iterations to get it right for Deity players. Heck, you could just put it on a slider and be done with it.