When standing on the shoulders of giants, don't jump

[SuperJay]

The problem is that the game just doesn't really work well as it stands currently. If all of the new features and concepts (like 1UPT) were integrated in a functional way with the rest of the game, I'd be playing it and enjoying it. But they're not; they're shoehorned in and the ripple effects throw off too many other aspects of the game.

I'll give Firaxis this: Civ 5 was an ambitious attempt to add a lot of new ideas to Civ. Maybe they expected another year of development time and that got pulled by Take Two so it Civ 5 sales could improve 2K's FYE numbers for 2010. Whatever happened behind the scenes, the half-finished results show in the final product, IMO.

 

[sketch162000]

The problem is that the game just doesn't really work well as it stands currently. If all of the new features and concepts (like 1UPT) were integrated in a functional way with the rest of the game, I'd be playing it and enjoying it. But they're not; they're shoehorned in and the ripple effects throw off too many other aspects of the game.

Change is most likely inevitable but I think the discussion needs to go beyond the just the implementation. It's important is to discuss the actual merits of the decisions that Firaxis made. Were the changes wise? Were they even necessary?

Change to the series is probably inevitable, but I am curious as to what prompted those ideas. Were the ideas solid in foundation but then the development fell through, or were they fundamentally flawed? After a couple of games and especially after reading Sullla's 1upt analysis, I believe it is the latter. I suspect that the devs were striving to optimize a certain playstyle as it was seen in previous versions, and in doing so, never actually considered the merits of their designs on their own. Was 1upt the best solution for SoD's, for example? Was global happiness the best way to counter sprawl? Civ V is like that guy that is a genius, but has no common sense...easily grasps complex ideas but not very good at finding good, practical solutions for mundane tasks.

 

[Trias]

To AFterShafter and Trias:
Can we discuss in particular my point 3b?

"If additions are generally liked they become part of the core gameplay (they are expected to return)."

Do you guys agree or disagree with this? This would relate directly to religion in Civ4->5.

Not necessarily. If old features do not work well in combination with new features, it sometimes is better to drop one of the old features. This seems to have been the case with religion in civ5. The old religion mechanic, which main effect was to determine AI diplomacy, was at complete odds with the redesign of the diplomacy system to get the AI to behave more rationally (from a gameplay perspective). So the old mechanic had to go, the remaining choice was adding a completely new religion mechanic or dropping it for vanilla release. Since they were already adding too many new features, dropping religion was probably the right call.

Big changes have always been part of civs developement. Sid's "magic formula" for a sequal is that it should be 33% old, 33% new, and 33% changed features.

The problem that the civ5 design team has encountered is (IMO) probably not the magnitude of the changes that they were making, but the amount of changes they were making simultaneously. Introduction of 1upt meant that almost all or the military mechanics in the game had to be reconsidered, while removal of the slider mechanic meant that almost all of the economic mechanics had to be revisited in someway, add to that many of the more minor changes like social policies, global happiness, hexes, road maintenance, diplomacy, etc. and you quickly find that pretty much every aspect of the game was facing repercussions from multiple changes. The balancing act to make that work is (nearly) impossible, especially in the strictly enforced limited time frame for development.

The development of the game would have been much better off, if they had chosen to not make all the changes at once. I think they should have chosen between either implementing 1UPT of eliminating the slider, not both.

 

[builer680]

Not necessarily. If old features do not work well in combination with new features, it sometimes is better to drop one of the old features. This seems to have been the case with religion in civ5. The old religion mechanic, which main effect was to determine AI diplomacy

The rest of the post, which flowed from this statement, seemed to be well written and well reasoned... given the perspective you're starting from. I don't really agree with you because I'm not starting from your perspective, so I come to different conclusions.

In any case, Diplomacy is indeed one of the things Religion affected, but I'm not sure I'd consider it main thing, and certainly it's other effects are worth mentioning so that we have more context to consider when pondering its removal in relation to some of the new mechanics in Civ 5.

Religion also affected Science (with Monasteries), Gold (with shrines), Happiness (with temples), had an effect on the Civics you might pick, and even had some Espionage implications with the ability to gain line of sight in all cities where a religion existed for which you had the shrine.

Regardless of its potential interaction with the mechanics of Civ 5, Religion in Civ 4 was very much more than a simple Diplomacy modifier, especially the more religions you could get in your cities. Your science could skyrocket, your happiness could be boosted substantially, etc...

The fact that it was removed instead of a new way being found to implement it in the framework of Civ 5's new mechanics, regardless of the reason (time constraints, streamlining, etc...), means fewer meaningful decisions and less depth. Yes, Religion could have been done better in Civ 4. But very simply, it feels like one of many steps backwards to remove it entirely.

Some of us expected it to be improved, not removed, for Civ 5. Therefore we really miss it, among many other things which are now gone or completely changed that presented us with more depth and meaningful decisions.

 

[Decimatus]

You know I have always been a fan of 1UpT. Partially because I like progress, and partially because I utterly HATE stacks of doom. HAAAATTEEE!

Anyway, that being said, I feel that there is good, well reasoned(sometimes), opposition to 1UpT's effect on Civ.

I don't entirely agree that much of this issue can't be resolved with some solid balancing, but there is no getting around the fact that given a huge production base, the AI WILL fill up every last hex they own, be it on the land, or the sea. Once war begins, those units simply die. People have stated the 10:0 and 30+:0 kill ratios, and I see these regularly. In fact, I have had enough fights where 15+ units can't capture my undefended city, that I am pretty much convinced that the devs Epic Failed on the AI.

Now, I have actually managed to get some challenging fights from the AI, but this is basically due to the fact that in my mod they can bring overwhelming numbers to bear on huge war fronts that dwarf what your average game might experience. Those AI units still die in vast numbers, eventually, and the AI ends up being defenseless when you move to counterattack.

In fact, I hardly ever offer more than token counterattacks due to the simple fact that the AI defense is so completely pathetic.


I suppose the question becomes, if 1UpT is simply incompatible with Civilization, mostly due to limited map sizes and tactical representations, is there a better system to replace it? Stacks of doom again, for CIV6? Is the old crappy standard the best we can do?

How about a more regimented Battalion/Division style where you have a tile cap, but the ability to mix and match weapon types in a fashion similar to hearts of iron(attach artillery battalions to your infantry division), and perhaps up the cap to something more akin to Call to Power(9 units).

One of the drawbacks of a 1UpT system when vastly limited space to play out the tactical warfare, is that 10 units doesn't sound anything like what an empire should be using to fight a war, in any era beyond ancient.

But what if instead of limiting it to 1 unit per tile, or allowing infinite units on each tile, you had a grouping of say 9 units, that represents more of an organized army, allowing multiple cities across the Empire to contribute the stack, while keeping it rational and allowing for some tactical maneuvering. Your 10 unit army because a 90 unit army, spread on 10 tiles.

In Call to Power, when it was time for war, you had this vast, intricate supply train of troops moving to the front line. As your units left the cities, they began to clump into bigger and bigger super units until they reached the cap of 9. Once in the stack of 9, they fought in a somewhat organized manner, with archers in the back row, and spears in the front. If your stack of 9 caught a smaller stack, you just scored a decent military victory. If several of your stacks get to bombard the enemy stacks before they bombard you, you scored even more victories.

A stack limited system similar to Call to Power's 9(or a number above 2 and less than dozens) unit stack limit offers some of the better advantages of both worlds I believe:

1. Advantage SoD: It really feels like your entire empire is contributing vast resources to fight vast wars. In 1UpT, it can feel a little like 1 city's unit vs another city's unit. When many cities contribute to the same stacked armies, it feels more like an empire banding together for a common purpose.

2. Advantage 1UpT: With stacks of 9, you have limitations. This is an important part of 1UpT, but perhaps the effect is too strongly felt given the terrain dimensions of Civilization. With a higher limit, you get some of the same tactical choices where you are forced to consider battlefield congestion and how you approach enemy strongholds and unit positions. You have to deal with the fact that your artillery both needs to be protected by your main stacks, and it also needs access to the front in order to provide effective support to the vanguard. Cavalry stacks must also be moved in ways that allows them access to lightning attacks and cutoff maneuvers.

3. Advantage SoD: Committing even 1 or 2 stacks to the wrong front, or inopportune conflict can have profound impacts to your civilization's defense. Likewise in Civ4, if your SoD was on the other side of your civilization, or off in foreign lands when an enemy SoD came knocking, you were in trouble.

4. Advantage 1UpT: Having unlimited units on a tile where tactical positions can not be represented is generally absurd, even for Civilization's scale. A stack limited system where you must clearly position your ranged, frontline, and flanking units for exploitation by either party, is the best way to handle the fact that you even have a multitude of different and special unit types(such as infantry, artillery, tanks, etc).

5. Advantage 9UpT: Given the fact that a vast army of 200 units can be represented on roughly ~22 tiles, the grand aspect of civilizational warfare is kept alive while greatly enhancing tactical gameplay, reducing unit clog, increasing production across the board, and thematically representing superior combat to either 1UpT or the SoD systems.



In closing, Call to Power 3, please and thank you.