Am I correct in supposing that you are, primarily, a "warmonger?" (That is, you use warfare most often to achieve victory -- even in cases where you don't win via conquest or domination.) If that is the case, I can see why you'd view Civ as close to chess. In terms of combat, it can be. Although I'd say that chess is far more detailed in terms of the types of maneuvers and overall strategy required. Civ has (up until this version) never really been that, in my opinion.
I like equally the building and warmongering in Civ. The Civ building alone is not enough to hold me. Its the blend and Civ has a right combination of depth in building, diplomacy and strategy, there are many ways to win or achieve greatness.
Of course its not exactly like chess, but it has many chess like aspects in the way pieces move, some move one space, some two or even five, but always one move per piece per turn. It's much more interesting than chess, the huge board size and variety in terrain and units, the randomness and unusual predicaments that you wind up in. So what if the peninsula is one tile wide or what dimension it is in real life. It's one tile. If you want to capture the city on it, it may take acquiring astronomy or navigation to bombard from sea. For me, that makes it much more interesting. Each city capture is a new puzzle. E.g., last night, how do I capture this fortress of Moscow, with a river around it, a canon inside and one on a hill behind? It cost me two riflemen, but I captured it.
If you dig the approach to attacking the city, the positioning, etc., and if you dig chess, again, I can see why this new approach appeals to you. I got enough of that out of the stack system (IE: which unit do I attack with first, what tile do I stick my stack on, etc.), but that's just my tastes. I think, however, the problem is a bit different.
I think that seems to be the issue here, that some have different tastes as to how battles are fought. Civ has chosen to use 1UPT instead of stacks opening up to a full tactical map like TW series. I like both games, but Civ is still my favorite game to play for its building depth and overall complexity, the exploring and settling. I think the addition of 1UPT improved the game, but thats my opinion. 1UPT has a human scale to connect with on a one to one bass, one piece per tile. Stacks don't have that one to one connection. They become abstractions, heaping piles of units that you throw at one another.
That said, I still think you have a problem with 1UPT and scale that cannot be rectified by anything save either returning to stacks, or by switching to a two-tiered map system.
Time will tell. It may take another patch to perfect the 1UPT, but I like what I see, and have some faith that talented software designers will bring the balance eventually. By increasing the distance by one hex, it increased the area of a city by approximately a factor of two, which further reduces the chance of a carpet of doom happening. Also, it prevents the annoying tendency of being bombarded by close packed cities in an ICS grid. Thats no fun. I think it was a good move to nerf ICS. REX is fine and has always been there, but the ICS detracts from the game.
But in Civ, we're dealing (at least on Earth maps) with the real world...and coming up well short. We're dealing with odd abstractions that have no real consistency among them, and the question becomes WHY is the game this way. Civ 5, to me, seems very much a step back in this regard. In previous games, there seemed to be a drive towards the representational.
I really dont see the huge difference between Civ IV and Civ V other than 1UPT and hexes. The representation hasn't change much. You still move one or two squares at a time, maybe three if youre cavalry or mech infantry, but it is the same game. Regarding representation, I get flak from my girl friend such as what is the Great Wall doing around Paris?, or why is that Great General Robert E. Lee leading the Chinese? I just laugh and say that its a game, we get to rewrite history.
I never use earth maps, always random. But I do prefer the pangea or oval, since it gives everyone a chance on a level playing field regardless of naval AI intelligence, or lack thereof. Once in a while I like a continents game.
I guess that's where I see the problem with 1UPT and the Civ map, even after they "fix" production speeds and such. That'll be a big help, of course, but it still all just seems very...gamey.
Well, you know it IS just a game, right?
I get a huge kick out of an AI leader telling me well played, after I conquer them, and cringe when a sneering Washington tells me he has just attacked one of my city states and what am I going to do about it? I say nothing. He says yeah, thats right. He's so mean sometimes.
