Why I will never accept 1upt, or buy future Civ games.

[TheMeInTeam]

Then how many tanks would it require to fill a capital city so much that noone else fits in?

That depends...what kind of system hardware are you running ?

 

[Funky]

But conversely, many fewer tanks ought to be able to spread across the UK, interdicting the movement of other tanks, without needing to pile on top of each other to defend at full effectiveness.

You could easily fit all the tanks in the world (approx. 500,000, including out-of-function models and museum pieces) in a space the size of a Civ 4 tile on the world map). I think you underestimate the size of our earth.

If 1UPT had really good gameplay, like a decent hex wargame, and much more interesting than Civ IV's SoD's smashing into each other - I'd hardly care for realism.

Here we differ. Good gameplay is important of course, but in my opinon gameplay should always be based on historical reality in a game like Civ.

 

[Windsor]

If 1UPT had really good gameplay, like a decent hex wargame, and much more interesting than Civ IV's SoD's smashing into each other - I'd hardly care for realism. As long as the Civ N combat system measures some decent mix of "firstest, mostest, and best handled" I don't care if it's got some unrealistic aspects - not least because it always will.

Agree. Civ is such an abstract game that it can get away with a lot of unrealistic features as long as mechanics provide solid gameplay.

 

[damerell]

You could easily fit all the tanks in the world (approx. 500,000, including out-of-function models and museum pieces) in a space the size of a Civ 4 tile on the world map). I think you underestimate the size of our earth.

No; I just understand that a tank can interdict a considerably larger area than it occupies.

Here we differ. Good gameplay is important of course, but in my opinon gameplay should always be based on historical reality in a game like Civ.

Too bad. It's not, in any Civ game. So now we've disposed of that, let's worry about gameplay.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Too bad. It's not, in any Civ game. So now we've disposed of that, let's worry about gameplay.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion; majority rules?

This may not be the thread for a discussion of game design, in which casw the point is deferred. But this topic might benefit from a broader range of opinions if you allow the subject to drift a bit.

 

[vranasm]

a single tank can't ever take or hold a city...it's always the people ruling over other people who hold city/territory...

the tank analogy seems a bit silly...

anyway the symbol of a 'tank' can mean a lot of things... did you know that some armies didn't use in history tanks as the only unit in the division?

Tank can for what we all care represent in civ tank brigade/division with let's say 500 tanks and 10k men behind...

I would agree that the scaling of civ V maps are not proper considering even bigger organizational units of traditional armies, but the last direction of arguing is a bit silly.

And what is worse...the 1upt rule made (in my opinion) even worse gameplay...

 

[Archon_Wing]

1 UPT is stupid. Tactical elements in a strategic game that doesn't involve active dexterity micro such as in RTS is like taking an analogy and interpreting it literally.

It's even more unrealistic than army stacks. If one tile represents a huge tract of land, then shooting arrows across to 2 tiles away is just plain idiotic.

I've seen large concentrations of forces. Can you imagine if IRL units didn't know how to make space and suffered from pathing issues. (Oh we moved south because the unit ahead of us is too fat).

In the end Civ 5 suffers from long build times and high maintenance (to limit units and to make 1 upt possible. ). In the end I haven't seen a game that actively punishes you for trying to play it (since it at its heart a wargame anyways) since maybe Diablo 3 at release, lol.

For all of its flaws, Civ 4 is actually FUN with massive armies and epic empires., Civ 5 just restricts your movements as you fight the game itself. Then again 4's UI wasn't particularly good either but at least the gameplay was easier to handle.

 

[ork75]

Someone a while back said something about not liking Civ V because it is not Civ 4. EXACTLY.
It is a completely different game, barely comparable. The combat, imho, is FAR better, because it is not simply "build SoD, aim in general direction of enemy, let 'im rip", but requires some tactics and planning.

Perhaps as a minor improvement 3-4 unit stacks could be added, but past that I think it is fine. The problem with small stacks, though, is that it becomes awkward if one wants to keep ties between units etc. Perhaps more tiles would solve this?

Also, the AI and combat are vastly improved in the expansion. How many in this thread have tried that? I feel that the expansion preserves the 1 more turn feel of BtS. Also, modern combat in V, especially G&K, is far better than that in IV.

Lastly, the Civ series and the entire 4x genre had not done much in terms of innovation for a decade or so until 5. At some point, the devs have to try new stuff, and trial and error in V may make for better games in the future.

 

[calibur]

So, you're saying 'I like 1upt, except for 1upt'
Everyone has already concluded that stack limits is a better solution than stack of doom or 1upt.

 

[Drakarska]

I would really like to know what you consider an improved AI and combat as well. What exactly are your benchmarks? Civ IV? in that case, I would consider it a fail. I've tried G&K over at a friends. It's still a pointless click fest, city states are still abused, your still punished for quanity of cities (making large maps useless), and diplomacy is still as bad as it was in vanilla. Modern combat improved? Giant Death Robot? no thx. If I want to play modern and beyond, I'll take Planetfall, Mars Now, or any of the other great futuristic mods that actually mesh with the game I'm playing.
I have no problem with Dev's wanting to innovate and breath life into a series, especially one as venerated as Civ. But IMHO, this one turned out to be an epic fail.

 

[ork75]

Giant Death Robot is not modern combat. Giant Death Robot is rarely, if ever, used, as the game is usually over by then. Modern combat means the massive network of units between great war infantry and stealth bombers.
Also, I never said that stack limits were the solution, I only said that they could be an option. Personally, I think 1upt is the best.
How are you punished for large numbers of cities? Isn't this true of all games? Also, if you mean that expanding rapidly prevents or hinders certain mechanics, you are not wrong. Unlike IV, small empires are a valid option.

 

[Funky]

Too bad. It's not, in any Civ game. So now we've disposed of that, let's worry about gameplay.

If you don't see how most of Civ 4's mechanics depict historical reality in a more or less abstract sense, and to a much larger extent than Civ 5, then nothing I say will convince you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And how did you arrive at that conclusion; majority rules?

This may not be the thread for a discussion of game design, in which casw the point is deferred. But this topic might benefit from a broader range of opinions if you allow the subject to drift a bit.

He's right by definition; we're playing a game. If our choices didn't influence the outcome in an interesting variety of ways, then there wouldn't be much point in using a game as the method of presenting civ (instead just make movies). On top of that, the scale of civ (not to mention the scale of going through history within a matter of hours) necessitates further breaks from reality.

The combat, imho, is FAR better, because it is not simply "build SoD, aim in general direction of enemy, let 'im rip", but requires some tactics and planning.

Ignorance of civ IV combat does not itself present an argument. Poor tactics in civ IV combat will lose you games outright, just as it will in civ V. A sizeable amount of people hated civ V simply because it was different, but to lump all civ V hate into that category is insulting to the players who have come up...time and again...with valid, objectively quantifiable, and very significant flaws in civ V.

 

[ork75]

Could you please explain sample tactics then (for Civ IV)?
I actually want to hear this....

 

[TheWilltoAct]

He's right by definition; we're playing a game. If our choices didn't influence the outcome in an interesting variety of ways, then there wouldn't be much point in using a game as the method of presenting civ (instead just make movies). On top of that, the scale of civ (not to mention the scale of going through history within a matter of hours) necessitates further breaks from reality.

The argument and its original context have been successfully evaded I'm sure. If it makes it more convenient to discuss Civilization without mentioning reality (as in the entire context for the game, historically speaking) then so be it.

Could you please explain sample tactics then (for Civ IV)?
I actually want to hear this....

Someone will probably indulge you, but it still doesn't sound like an honest question.

 

[digitalcraft]

Could you please explain sample tactics then (for Civ IV)?
I actually want to hear this....

Do you know what the Dun building does?

 

[Drakarska]

Not to mention you could head over to the S&T forums if you were actually serious about it.

 

[Windsor]

It is a completely different game, barely comparable. The combat, imho, is FAR better, because it is not simply "build SoD, aim in general direction of enemy, let 'im rip", but requires some tactics and planning.

Civ4 wars requires more preplanning. You have a shorter opportunity window and getting modern troops is harder. In Civ5 you only need to upgrade (which is extremely cheap). In Civ4 you need to carefully plan ahead how you are going to get a big enough army fast. In general, if you want to go to war in Civ4 you need to put your entire empire in "war mode". If you need to abort then it actually hurts.

Then you need to plan out execution. The war needs to be short and successful. Are you going to wait for enemy stack? Are you going to take cities on turn1? How do you avoid counter-initiation?

If you move your stack onto the wrong tile you can easily get hammered. Don't have enough units to capture a city? That's emergency.

In Civ4 a tactical mistake can lead to an endlessly long war. In Civ5 long wars is no problem since there's no WW and it's generally much easier to just keep a defensive line and get peace. In Civ4 such a war is something you can't afford.

We also need to look at Decisions-Per-Minute here. In Civ5 you will repeat lots of steps which requires little or no brain, but lots of clicking.

 

[PieceOfMind]

There are a lot of tactics to Civ4 combat. However this statement should be qualified with a few points:

-Just as in Civ5, Civ4's AI is unable to compete with any half-decent human player on a tactical level. Note that the handicaps given to the AI due to difficulty level only really change its apparent strategic effectiveness (e.g. ability to keep up in research); it will still make the same blunders about things like army composition.
-Civ4's combat system is not all that logical. In particular, the way that collateral from siege dominates most battles and that siege units are suicided at the start makes no sense, but once the quirks are learned, there can be tactically decent (I wouldn't say 'deep' ) gameplay.

Those who say in Civ4 it was just a matter of build SoD, point at enemy and fire away are deliberately over-simplifying the combat system. I bet Civ5 has the same characteristic that any army with overwhelming numbers will win, except in both games a decent human player can defend against a larger AI army. In fact it's probably easier in Civ5 because there are limits to how much force can be concentrated in a single place.

So, Civ5 increases the importance of tactics in civ gameplay but has an AI that is even worse at tactics than Civ4's. That is, Civ5's rules are tactically more rewarding, but its AI fails to provide as much challenge due to those rules. So both have their pros and cons.


****
Re the topic, I have to say even stack limits I do not think are the way to go. People say this like it is an accepted wisdom of all civ players. No, there just needs to be significant enough risks for stacking too excessively.

Did anyone play Civ1? In that game, and maybe in Civ2 too, I can't remember, if the strongest defender died, the whole stack did. That game didn't need 1UPT to stop people buildings stacks 'o' doom. It just needed a risk associated with stacking. In Civ4 obviously collateral was meant to achieve that function, but for various reasons it failed to do enough because of other things about how the combat system worked.

For example,
-"Defense bonuses" due to terrain were common but were there ever offensive bonuses?
-When two armies faced off, if whoever attacked first failed to wipe the other out, usually it meant the other would be able to get promotions on their turn and so instantly heal enough units to wipe out the other stack. Things like heals-from-promotions were probably best to not be put in the game.

 

[Windsor]

I've never understood why Civ4 (and Civ5) needs unit healing at all. It makes the difference between "dead" and "almost dead" gigantic.