1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why does everyone hate CIV5?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ProudAmerican, Nov 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Should do what I do with spies: I kill spies. Namely, my priority is to send spies in to kill *spy production*. Sooner or later they either stop making spies or they have to dump piles of cash in to complete the spies before I get back there from the last kill.



    City States - not an innovation, Civ4 had them. Didn't work exactly the same, but they were there.

    One unit per hex - not an innovation, games have had this for over 30 years.

    Hexes themselves - not an innovation, games have had this for over 30 years.

    More sophisticated diplomacy (once they make it work) - I haven't seen any sophistication in the diplomacy, and a lot of other people haven't either. You sure it's there?

    Religion removed as a factor in diplomacy (could be introduced again for culture and happiness, perhaps also for money) - removing things is not innovation.

    No Stacks of Doom - An inevitable consequence of 1UpT. No claiming the same thing twice.

    The gamer can't build a zillion troops - idem.

    The AI realises that you are amassing troops for an attack (of course, there the AI needs to be tweaked against the "I'm scared because my borders have moved closer to your scouts" paranoia) - not an innovation, it's a basic requirement for any vaguely-competent AI.

    No longer possible to build things by slicing down your citizens like bacon - removing things is not innovation.

    No leaderheads looking like space aliens or the Playmate of the Month - simply a change in graphics, certainly not innovative.

    No need to station troops in cities - if you're talking about cities defending themselves, that might be an actual innovation.

    Puppets - Vassals, anyone?

    No dumbass map trading - removing things is not innovation.

    Research agreements instead of tech trading ("Give me the secret of Pottery or I'll kill you!") - this is an innovation, as far as I know.

    City expansion is slower and less regular - this is an innovation, as far as I know. Now if only we could explain to the mayor exactly *what* we want bought with the culture points.


    So, 2 innovations, 3 things that were developed *long* ago, 3 cutdowns, 7 miscellaneous. Batting 2 for 15.
     
  2. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,297
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    There has been several posts (even some threads) about why 1upt is a bad concept in the end. Nothing surprising if you pay attention to what is said.
     
  3. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    And they're all pretty bad :crazyeye:

    1UPT has MANY flaws, yet not nearly as many crppling flaws as stacks.
     
  4. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,297
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Well, I didn't see any convincing counter-argument when the explanations about why the 1upt is a crappy concept was made.
    So until you manage to make some, yes, actually, 1upt is far worse than stacks.
     
  5. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Let's see.. stacks.. no tactics whatsoever. Done.
     
  6. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    But the game is not a tactical warfare game. The series has always been about strategy, not tactics.

    Shoehorning a tactical combat simulator into civ is like fitting wheels to a tomato. Time consuming and pointless.
     
  7. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    1upt is for battlefields. A continent is not a battlefield. Done. It's a constant surprise how often this simple precept doesn't seem to sink in. It's only been stated and re-stated about 4 or 5 dozen times in various threads. Is there some kind of comprehension block that prevents some from discerning the difference between TACTICS and STRATEGY? I can only, at this point, chalk this up to willful ignorance (or blatant denial.)

    I Also can't help but notice that the Tactics vs. Strategy is NEVER argued. It's simply ignored.
     
  8. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    Probably because many people believe the words are synonymous. :blush:
     
  9. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    This is probably the point... Civ was a strategic and empire management game... Not a tactic wargame with some management...
     
  10. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,177
    Location:
    STL
    The only argument you guys are making against 1UPT is that "Civ is a strategy game, not a tactical game!" It's great you feel that way, but that doesn't explain WHY SoD is better than 1 UPT. You need to explain why one is better than the other in Civ without clinging to the strategy vs. tactics distinction.

    Whether you want to call it strategy or tactics, 1 UPT requires much more thinking while at war instead of just dragging a massive SoD from one city to the next. How was that ever fun to any of you? I played the hell out of Civ IV, but war way too simple and repetitive. That's why I think 1 UPT is superior and overall more fun than SoD.
     
  11. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    Why do you keep reducing the whole discussion down to a black and white "1UPT vs stacks" without any other context? Yes, if we only ever look at unit arrangement in a vaccuum, 1UPT is definitely more fun to me than stacks ever were. The problem with 1UPT in Civ5 is not that stacks were inherently superior, but that the rest of Civ5 is not designed to accomodate 1UPT. In its current implementation, 1UPT mandates fewer units, slower production, terrain and movement problems, road congestion, pathfinding issues, and an AI that can't fight its way out of wet paper bag. Maybe you find all that enjoyable, but I don't.

    Are you asking if I want stacks back just to have stacks back because they were so awesome? Then no, I don't. I want 1UPT, but I don't want it to cripple the AI and screw up the rest of the game. If I was given the choice between 1UPT + Civ 5 in its current broken state, or stacks of doom and a Civ 5 that actually worked, I'd take the return of stacks in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, I place a higher priority on a fun, engaging, replayable Civilization game than I do on any single feature, including 1UPT.
     
  12. Jarwy

    Jarwy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    119
    I like to call what I feel for this game, "cool disinterest". ;)
     
  13. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    You may have an "indirect" point there... but it is only a point about semantics. See, you are right when you say that Stack of Dooms are not better than 1UPT, but the opposite is also true: 1 UPT, for a STRATEGY game, is not better than stacks.

    The problem here is that Shafer, in his obsession to create a Panzer General with some cities in between, went from one extreme to the other. I agree that SoD has some big problems, but so does 1 UPT for the scale of a civ game.

    The correct solution of a thinking man would have been limited stacks, ala Call To Power. They did not even need to re-invent the wheel, it was already done, proven, and one of the best ideas introduced by CTP. Yet, Shafer and Co. did not have the vision to understand what type of game Civ is.

    So, the truth is simple: stacks (limited), are far superior than 1UPT, given the scale, scope, dynamic timeframe, purpose and core principles of the Civ franchise.
     
  14. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    First, any system which does not strictly limit the number of units in a tile/square/hex/whatever per definition is a "stack system".

    Although the combat system of Civ5 was announced to be 1upt, this is not true. We have stacking airplanes, we have stacking generals (which for this purpose have been transfered into 'civilian units') and we have stacking of military and civilian units in general.
    This was obviously caused by the simple fact that 1upt just does not work. At least not on typical civ-game maps.
    The sad truth is that you don't have enough space. Furthermore, without stacking there won't be "capturing" of settlers and workers, as this is reserved for melee type units which then have to occupy the same field as the potential victim.
    1upt does not work for a civ game, and the evidence is Civ5. It runs by a xupt system, with x typically equaling "1" or "2".

    Second, due to the attempts of making the x in xupt as small as possible, the workload for the core engine to calculate movements and positions was drastically increased.
    The result is that organizing the movement of a very small number of units (in comparison to say Civ4) takes considerably more time, thus resulting in longer waiting for the player.
    Furthermore, misplacement of only one unit easily results in unavoidable misplacing of other units as a result of some kind of "chain reaction".
    Say, you have six units A, B, C, D, E, F.
    For the best battle result, unit C has to be put into a certain hex.
    Now, due to movement restrictions (and I am not talking about weak programming here, this is just an additional problem) it may happen that unit C is to far away to occupy that hex. Therefore, the AI moves unit A into that hex.
    At the next turn, unit C may be in range, but cannot be moved into that hex, as it is still occupied by A. But A would belong behind C, which now isn't possible. Therefore, F is positioned behind A. But F would have been needed to "guard" E, a task which now is assigned to B, which in turn should have been positioned for flanking.
    You get the picture.

    The stack in contrast allowed the AI to group a given number of units and to move them all at once, avoiding pathfinding and positioning problems.
    As long as so-called AI's are weaker than the human brain (and this will be the case at least for the next 20 years) any additional load in terms of computing necessities actually reduces either the competitiveness of the AI or enhances the computing time significantly.
    In Civ5, both happens.

    This so-called "argument" doesn't become more true by repetition.

    Battles in Civ5 (as in all civ games so far) are fought over the control of cities.
    So, the target hex is just one hex, that way leading to the fact that in almost any case there isn't any point in having more than ~6 attackers (+/- 2).
    The defender typically needs/has even less.

    So, a group of 6 units is approaching the target.
    Due to questionable design decisions, placing attackers onto open terrain typically is a bad idea, at least as long as there are some defenders around which could perform counter-attacks.
    The result is that the attackers will move through rough terrain, limiting the number of feasible hex to be used for approach.
    Ranged units should be positioned in the rear, units with strong values in the front.
    If the defender has only a few or no defending units at all, it becomes even more easy.

    I have to admit that I am quite astonished that people call this "requiring more thinking".
    The way in which a target has to be approached should be a no-brainer for a decent human player. Only exception would be to be out-classed by the enemy units. But then typically you would like to avoid the attack anyway.

    Now, let's have a look at the "stack attack".
    As long as attacking and defending stacks are of similar strength (in terms of numbers and quality), attacking a city does require some thinking, too.
    You may want to sacrifice some weaker units (less promotions, weaker class, whatever) just to soften up the defense.
    Sometimes, a battle between the attacking and the defending unit just has a completely unexpected result; the defender may have taken no damage at all, or has been redlined, or whatever.
    The effect of this is that now not the second attacker (according to your initial plans) would be the best option, but attacker #5. And once again, combat results may cause for changing plans.

    A good attacking (and counter-attacking) requirese quite some thinking with stacks, too. At least as long as you would like to have next to optimal results, meaning to lose only that many units, to take only that much damage, to be enabled to move on with your attack force.

    In total: the way in which "battles" are resolved in Civ5 doesn't require considerably more effort from the human player.
    For the human player, any of both systems can be easy or difficult, based on the circumstances.

    Yet, for the AI the "1upt" makes it *much* harder, effectively making battling much easier for the human, as there isn't a worthy opponent.

    What was "gained" by switching from stacks to "1upt" was not more strategy, but more tedious manouvring without benefit; and I haven't even mentioned the infamous blocking due to neutral units somewhere on the way.
     
  15. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    I've made these statements before, in another thread, but I'll repeat here, yet again.

    GAME CONCEPT

    I came from CivII, skipped III completely. In II, stacks were there, but there was a problem. The example I've used is this; a stack of 8 Knights (a;4 d;2 m;2) moves onto a clear terrain tile. It is attacked by a Horseman (a;2 d;1 m;2) and, at essentially 1-to-1 odds, the Horseman wins and the entire stack of Knights is eliminated. I (and others) found this an unacceptable and inacurate outcome, not to mention ahistorical to boot. IV allowed stacking without the unrealistic consequences seen in II; a clear step forward, and resolving an unacceptable outcome in a positive way.

    HISTORY

    Historically, EVERY SINGLE ARMY prior to Napoleon's time marched and fought as a single unit. Infantry, Cavalry, Archery, and Elite (and later artillery) units combined to form the national/imperial ARMY. This was due primarily to two considerations; Logistics and Desertion. Feeding and watering the force was easier if consolidated. Reducing desertion was easier if the army was concentrated. Stacking in IV neatly simulated this situation in an historically accurate way. From my perspective (as well as many others)--problem solved.

    TACTICS

    These occur on the battlefield. The maneuver of indivual units so as to produce the best combat results became an art, and, arguably was perfected (for several centuries) by the Roman method of battlefield articulation. Roman tactical knowledge was still considered an essential component of the general's art until the Renaissance. Vegetius was read assiduously by leaders as late as Gustavus Adolphus and Frederick the Great.

    STRATEGY

    This occurs in the context of the campaign. Overall, strategy went through many permutations over time, historically fluctuating with the various geographies and force structures at hand. In some examples, we find strategy used in such a way that battles not only were avoided, considered as being too laden with risk, but campaigning could be undertaken in such a way that individual battles simply didn't occur at all. Marching your opponent to exaustion may sound a little tedious, but it was effective, and was practiced primarily by early modern commanders during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Positional warfare was an Italian variant of this type of avoidance strategy, and some battles fought in the Renaissance Italian wars between the competing city states generated less than 20 total casualties. On both sides!

    FALSE DILEMMA

    What I've seen repeatedly is the false dilemma of EITHER SoD OR 1upt. Where on earth is there a rule that says that these are the only two alternatives one can utilize? I didn't get that memo. In every IV game I've played into the era of tanks/aircraft/artillery, I've abandoned the stack/army as a viable strategy, and won quite a few games at Prince level with it. The method I use is the Broad Front, where a large army moves into hostile territory along every tile available, and that can be covered. Stacks are usually from 2 to 5 units, sometimes more, given special operational conditions. My own experience of AI warfare techniques is that these tend to do two things consistently; 1.) They infiltrate cavalry units into my empire and pillage improvements, forcing me to detach forces to pursue and eliminate them, and 2.) The AI regularly moves siege/artillery units adjacent to a stack/army and attacks, being killed in the process, but generating collateral damage to many units in the stack/army. Use of the Broad Front strategy prevents these two methods of harassment from being effective; the cavalry has no gaps through which to infiltrate, and the isolated attacks by single siege units is rendered ineffective through lack of desirable and vulnerable targets. Dealing w/an enemy stack army is done by; 1.) using espionage to maintain contact and intelligence regarding the location of this dangerous enemy formation, and 2.) coalescing several smaller stacks of my own, hitting the enemy army from several sides simultaneously and moving mobile reserves stationed somewhere behind the main front into position to vigorously attack the enemy stack. These mobile reserves can be either fast-moving cavalry or tanks.

    For me, the fact that the V AI cannot perform in 1upt is irrelevant. To me, an historically-minded individual, the entire concept is unacceptable as it is the application of an inapplicable concept to an inappropriate context. Tactics are not Strategy. Confusion, at the highest level of design, apparently, created this mess, and for me, it invalidated the game immediately. It was not simply a step backward to the unacceptable situation of II, but went even farther toward the nonsensical. In fact, I question the knowledge of the basic designers; did they know the difference between Tactics and Strategy? The game's current state suggests strongly that they did not.

    Hopefully, VI will swing back toward being a successful game.
     
  16. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Why oh why did they not simply have a seperate tactical map?
     
  17. Eskel

    Eskel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    Poznań, Poland
    My 2 cents to 1UPT vs SOD:
    Allow stacking or limited stacking, but set penalty for attacking from stack (this penalty could be relative with number of units on tile), thus making such "SOD's" unusable.
    Similar penalty could be applied for defending stack (not necessary), but some improvements/terrain types should rise the unit limit then, making defenders more effective.

    Moreover, each attack on stack should cause collateral damage, with exception of cities and forts.

    Of course, ZOCs and bonuses from flanking should stay as they are in civ5. IMO this should make unit movement much easier and accessible for both human player and AI, while combat still remains interesting and terrain-dependant.

    This could also lead to some new features, e.g. imagine partisan units that can successfuly apply hit-and-run tactics, thanks to bonuses vs stack and additional movement in rough terrain.
     
  18. Jarwy

    Jarwy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    119
    I have a strategy for this mod. Keep SoD right behind your leading units and replace the casualties when necessary.
     
  19. SerriaFox

    SerriaFox King

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    Texas
    Annoying load times. Auto calculate always results in less desirable outcomes which means player would never use auto calculate in close battles, leading to long load times and breaking the flow of the game.
     
  20. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Long load times? Total War manages this without massive loading times.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page