Why did civ7 get rid of unit promotions?

[marinesciencedude]

Assumed the answer to the question was 'micro' (see also: commander actions that do multiple attacks at once)

Cynically I considered Civ V's to be about about having the XP granting buildings and then having to mass promotion click whenever I churn out an army on the same turn, sometimes sniping Alhambra+Brandenburg Gate to get Blitz rather than feeling like I've earned it. Probably just my silly way of playing (often involving advanced starts or mods stopping at a certain era)

Definitely receptive to that idea of having new units come right off-the-bat with bonuses under certain conditions though.

 

[UWHabs]

What I quite like now is that units feel a little more disposable, which they sort of should be in a war. Previous games I would freak out if I lost even one unit, now I get to throw hordes of legions at the enemy and crush them under the weight.

My only "flaw" with the system is trying to remember which commanders do what. In my last game I renamed my commanders so I could remember who did what (playing Bulgaria, mostly it was about making sure my commander with the +50% pillage was moving around covering whichever tiles I was hitting that turn).

 

[shaglio]

My only "flaw" with the system is trying to remember which commanders do what. In my last game I renamed my commanders so I could remember who did what (playing Bulgaria, mostly it was about making sure my commander with the +50% pillage was moving around covering whichever tiles I was hitting that turn).

I routinely rename my commanders to things like “Melee” and “Range” so I’ll know which ones have which promotions.

Put me down as someone who also likes the change. In previous Civ games, losing a highly-promoted unit was very painful. But in Civ 7, losing a unit is less devastating, and losing a commander just means being without it for X turns.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Maybe a bit related but it occured to me that civ7 also got rid of the civ6 army/corps mechanic where you could merge 2-3 identical units. By merging 2-3 units, it allowed you to reduce the unit clutter on the map in the late game. I feel like that is a mechanic that civ7 should have kept. I don't think it would have messed up anything. It would still work with commanders. You could pack/unpack corps into a commander just as easily as units. And it would declutter the map in the Modern Age which I think is badly needed in civ7.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maybe a bit related but it occured to me that civ7 also got rid of the civ6 army/corps mechanic where you could merge 2-3 identical units. By merging 2-3 units, it allowed you to reduce the unit clutter on the map in the late game. I feel like that is a mechanic that civ7 should have kept. I don't think it would have messed up anything. It would still work with commanders. You could pack/unpack corps into a commander just as easily as units. And it would declutter the map in the Modern Age which I think is badly needed in civ7.

Army/fleet mechanic is Civ6 answer to carpet of doom. Civ7 answer to CoD is the combo of age resets and commanders. Having all 3 would be a bit overkill, IMHO.

From gameplay point of view, the concept of commanders supposes units are more or less equal and having those massively powerful joined units would change the gameplay significantly. From immersion perspective, commanders are the armies, they already combine units together.

 

[UWHabs]

Army/fleet mechanic is Civ6 answer to carpet of doom. Civ7 answer to CoD is the combo of age resets and commanders. Having all 3 would be a bit overkill, IMHO.

From gameplay point of view, the concept of commanders supposes units are more or less equal and having those massively powerful joined units would change the gameplay significantly. From immersion perspective, commanders are the armies, they already combine units together.

Yeah, the civ 7 model is basically that units are fungible, and basically if you don't want a unit cluttering up the front, you should pack them into a commander to get them out of the way.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Yeah, the civ 7 model is basically that units are fungible, and basically if you don't want a unit cluttering up the front, you should pack them into a commander to get them out of the way.

Except this does not work when all your commanders are full and there are still lots of units on the map. In my games, I tend to have way more units than I can ever fit in my commanders. I guess I just need more commanders.

 

[Crashdummy]

1) Maybe the devs were worried that unit promotions woud overshadow commander promotions. Players might rely on unit promotions to buff their units and ignore commanders altogether. By replacing unit promotions with commander promotions, it forces players to use commanders to buff their units.

I would bet on this one, but i cant really know. Maybe its to simplify the game for new players and AI

I dont think its a good change, but i also dont think its a deal breaker

 

[stealth_nsk]

Except this does not work when all your commanders are full and there are still lots of units on the map. In my games, I tend to have way more units than I can ever fit in my commanders. I guess I just need more commanders.

Yes, no solution against CoD is perfect, but with Civ7 commanders we have both units stacked inside and the reinforcement feature, which together work fantastic.

I agree about number of commanders, though. They are very expensive and their price skyrocket, so unless you dedicate a lot of resources, you rarely get many of them.

 

[Krikkit1]

Except this does not work when all your commanders are full and there are still lots of units on the map. In my games, I tend to have way more units than I can ever fit in my commanders. I guess I just need more commanders.

THat's a problem with game balance and the fact that late game units are too cheap (they should cost ~10-15 gold per turn when at peace...~30-40 gpt when at war)

 

[queenpea]

I prefer the commanders over unit promotions, except that in the very early game, or throughout the game when you don't have commanders available, I find that I am dissuaded from engaging in combat (if there is no way to benefit from the XP points).

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I remember there was an argument about Meteoritic Iron, and even after smelting improvements, Iron was very rare ORE.
A single swordsman with a super Iron sword made of Meteoritic Iron could get god-like perks...
Civ could value arms production more than its soldiers XP... but the argument swept under the rug...

As all sandboxy, complex systems and aggregate ideas that needed brainstorming, aging didn't end well.
What I mean is that simplicity will not age well. C7 HAS ROOM but not much time left.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the change is a good one.

Moving experience and promotions to commanders feels like the natural evolution of the great general mechanic ever since it was first introduced in Civ4 Warlords.

Armies becoming more powerful works much better than single units for me, and the reinforcement and movement mechanics are the best they’ve been in my opinion, and the number and disposability of units in the field feels a lot better than combat in 5 or 6.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the change is a good one.

Moving experience and promotions to commanders feels like the natural evolution of the great general mechanic ever since it was first introduced in Civ4 Warlords.

Armies becoming more powerful works much better than single units for me, and the reinforcement and movement mechanics are the best they’ve been in my opinion, and the number and disposability of units in the field feels a lot better than combat in 5 or 6.

But you could still do both. I don't see why it is either or. You could let units get a veteran bonus/promotion and still have commander promotions. Just because commanders get promotions does not mean that units cannot also get some sort of promotions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But you could still do both. I don't see why it is either or. You could let units get a veteran bonus/promotion and still have commander promotions. Just because commanders get promotions does not mean that units cannot also get some sort of promotions.

1. Overcomplication is not great thing. Having 2 different systems for the same goal is overcomplication in my book.
2. One of the advantages of Civ7 system are the expendable units and it changes tactics.

 

[Monene]

I prefer to play with only pawns because losing rooks and bishops feels painful and since I'm bad at strategy I prefer that the opponent can't exchange his pawn for a queen after crossing the entire board, square by square, without me being able to prevent it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

1. Overcomplication is not great thing. Having 2 different systems for the same goal is overcomplication in my book.

Thanks for the response. I don't consider it overcomplication. It could be as simple as just units getting a veteran promotion for winning a battle or being able to build "elite" units similar to Boris' idea.

2. One of the advantages of Civ7 system are the expendable units and it changes tactics.

Some units can be expendable sure. But I don't see why all units should be. It does not make for good tactics if all units are expendable because then it does not matter if the unit will lose. You will just always throw every unit against the enemy no matter what, because win or lose, you replace them with another identical unit. That is not tactics. That is WW1 style meat grinder. You would get better tactics if there was a decision where some units are expendable and some units are not.

 

[Crashdummy]

I prefer to play with only pawns because losing rooks and bishops feels painful and since I'm bad at strategy I prefer that the opponent can't exchange his pawn for a queen after crossing the entire board, square by square, without me being able to prevent it.

Chess is hard, lets dumb it down for console players, even when the franchise has 6 successful entries with this complexity so clearly players were able to figure it out

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Some units can be expendable sure. But I don't see why all units should be. It does not make for good tactics if all units are expendable because then it does not matter if the unit will lose. You will just always throw every unit against the enemy no matter what, because win or lose, you replace them with another identical unit. That is not tactics. That is WW1 style meat grinder. You would get better tactics if there was a decision where some units are expendable and some units are not.

I would hope that the point of the game's combat system would be to give the gamer the choice of "WWI meat grinder" tactics (which are also typical of any poorly led military force in the 20th century or the modern Russian military, apparently) or a more sophisticated type of tactics most often associated with 'maneuver warfare'.

I think by separating the types of promotions: single units getting more combat strength, Leaders getting bonuses to Flanking or even for combining unit types, we could have both. After all, Maneuver Warfare is also generally associated with better command and control and coordination of forces, the province of Leaders, whereas Assault tactics (the Meat Grinder) requires only Brute Force.

Note, however, that this distinction will also require revamping many of the bonuses from Civics or Techs in the game now, which apply combat strength bonuses only to Leaders.

Having done that, though, the gamer could have the choice of building a military with expensive, powerful units and adept/promoted Leaders or a more 'general' force of expendable units that may have to grind out a victory, but are far more easily replaced.

 

[Goodenuf]

I like the idea of units outside of the 'scope' of a commander being able to collect and accumulate XP, then assigning them to a commander once one is in range. Useful for early units (before commander is available) and for units stationed by your city to defend, but don't have a commander nearby.