Why not the best of every game?

[MilesBeyond]

The AI advances better than the player at higher difficulties like if they were cheating, but they're not.

...No, I'm pretty sure the AI cheats obscenely.


As for the discussion of the thread, the problem is that if the devs want this 1UPT thing to work, they're going to have to entirely rethink Civ, because as it stands it's not built for that. Cities are still designed to churn out vast armies, but because your force is limited by map size, you can now only build a few soldiers. Add this to the fact that, for utterly baffling reasons, they decided to re-implement maintenance for city buildings and you've got a bunch of hammers that you haven't really got anything to do with. Can't build units because the map's full, don't want to build buildings because they're too much of an economic drain.

I've said it before but if they want to go for a more tactical feel, the ideal solution is separate-screen battles as per almost ever other TBS, from Master of Orion/Master of Magic to Age of Wonders to HOMM to Total War. Allow us to stack X amount of units on a hex (or go MoO style and have no limits LOL) and then split those up into 1UPT on a battle screen when you fight someone.

Of course, the problem with this is that unless you've got a very good auto-combat system (which, as much as I love Firaxis, I can't see them really doing), it's going to bog down MP games a ton. Tactical battles work in the above games because they're primarily about conquest. Civ is kinda about conquest but has got a thousand other aspects to it too, and so to manage lengthy tactical battles on top of those other aspects can rapidly become very time-consuming.

And at the end of the day, maybe that's it. Maybe Civ simply cannot be both a deep empire-builder and a compelling tactical simulation without becoming too bogged down. Maybe it is one or the other. Certainly the problem with Civ V, at least IMHO, is that it tried to do both and ended up not succeeding at either. Is it even possible to marry the two? I suppose MoO 2 did, so maybe so. But could Civ do it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

At the end of the day, while I know a lot of complaints have merit, I am compelled to point something out. When I started playing computer games, which was something over twenty years ago, one of the very few games on the shelf was Civilization. In some form or another Civ has been on the shelf ever since. Clearly they are doing more right than wrong.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

You forgot that "recommended specs" part at the end of the sentence you quoted! Last I checked, the game does not recommend an AMD 8 core .

No, it doesn't, and that was my point. I have to literally overkill the game with computing power to play it smoothly. With my old quad core, I couldn't play music in the background whilst playing Civ5, it would stutter and drop out. With an 8 core, no problem, but I shouldn't have to use 8 cores to play the game and listen to music at the same time.

I have noticed with 8 cores that my turn wait time is no worse than Civ4 when playing with my old quad core, or my dual core laptop. In comparison, playing Civ5 with a quad core introduced significant lag between turns.

That said, do you really avoid a 1-4 second pause after moving units and have sub 5-10 second turn rollovers on standard maps?

There doesn't seem to be a pause after moving units, and most turn rollovers are between 2 and five seconds.

That's some incredible machine power.

It's overclocked at 4.6 GHz with 16 GB of RAM, so yes, it is a byte-molester. I also have a high end graphics card to help with the rendering issue. That might be what's making the difference. When last I played, I didn't have a nifty graphics card like I do now.

That said, if they're going to make it so resource intensive, they should then recommend high-end machines,

Yes, they should. Or else, make settings in the game that allow one to play with the recommended specs and play smoothly. Though, to be fair, you have to keep in mind that the "recommended" specs are usually the bare minimum needed to get the game to run at all. It's very deceptive, and in my view, quite dishonest.

 

[AdamCrock]

It's overclocked at 4.6 GHz with 16 GB of RAM, so yes, it is a byte-molester. I also have a high end graphics card to help with the rendering issue. That might be what's making the difference. When last I played, I didn't have a nifty graphics card like I do now.

Gawd dang !!! I feel so puny now with my 2,0 GB RAM and my inferior 2,6 GHz. Forgive me the retrospection but I still remember the times when having 32 MB (yes it's not a mistake - MB - ) RAM would make You "Da Pimp" and "Mr. sexy" in da neighborhood I just can't seem to keep up with the Miniaturization process that makes this possible (remember that tech from good ol' Civ 1 ? ) Now I feel old too Thank's a lot Lemon (Just kidding - using a bit of sarcasm here and there to spice up the mood ) I just envy You you sexy specs ! And the overclock !? My dear Lord ! Isn't that a bit ... overkill ? Hope it will not fry ! (unless You're an avid FPS gamer) Like razing a pack of warriors with a nuke Oh but I still envy You ^^ Im too affraid to ask about Your graphics card .... :gulp:

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, they should. Or else, make settings in the game that allow one to play with the recommended specs and play smoothly. Though, to be fair, you have to keep in mind that the "recommended" specs are usually the bare minimum needed to get the game to run at all. It's very deceptive, and in my view, quite dishonest.

No kidding, especially because they *do* list "minimum specifications", which are lower than their "recommended specifications".

It's pretty objectively dishonest. With "minimum specifications", you can't even play all of the game's content. That's true, but to a lesser extent, with "recommended" as well. If someone has recommended specs and the recommendations are honest, they should be able to run huge maps (on lowest settings, but still huge maps) with tons of other people in multiplayer. Good luck with that one though lol. There isn't really an excuse for the game's content not being available on specs they sell the game to use.

 

[AdamCrock]

Yeah "minimum specifications" my ....... well You know It does not, will not ever represet our engines specs to run the gawd dang game ! It is supposed to be minimum but we are all expecting at least 2 AA (Antyaliasing) out of it right ?

 

[duckstab]

The problem with squares is that 4 of the possible moves move the unit ~1.4 times futher than the other 4 possible moves, which can also break immersion.

The real issue I have with the use of squares in Civ 4 is that it's inconsistent. Surface movement is calculated based on "chess king" distance, while ranges are Euclidean. Thus, an enemy stack 6 tiles to the east of my city is in strafing range of my fighters while one 6 tiles to the northeast is not. So to make a square grid realistic, they'd have to have scaled the cost of diagonal movement accordingly. Since they didn't do that, I find the result less immersive than I would hexes.

But for Civ, I'd rather have squares in a game that is otherwise well designed than hexes in a game that is otherwise broken.

However, I agree with this point as well.

The archery "I can shoot longer than modern artillery" barrage is imho a joke, but I do wish the sieges (and modern ships) could do ranged attacks in civ4 (it can with DCM, but the AI doesnt understand how to use it, which then it becomes a player advantage/exploit.

This is one feature of Civ5 that I just couldn't get over. The unrealistic ranged attacks by archery units just make the combat feel completely cartoonish.

I've said it before but if they want to go for a more tactical feel, the ideal solution is separate-screen battles as per almost ever other TBS, from Master of Orion/Master of Magic to Age of Wonders to HOMM to Total War. Allow us to stack X amount of units on a hex (or go MoO style and have no limits LOL) and then split those up into 1UPT on a battle screen when you fight someone.

I'm still not convinced of the original premise: that Civ as a game is improved with the addition of more tactics. Over the historical time span involved and with so many other mechanics in place, it makes perfect sense to me that military tactics would be greatly simplified.

However, if you do buy into that premise, then I agree, a separate tactical map is the way to go. Battles could then be more reasonably scaled to the era and the units involved. And there would be no need to nerf unit production to keep the strategic map from getting saturated.

Of course, the problem with this is that unless you've got a very good auto-combat system (which, as much as I love Firaxis, I can't see them really doing), it's going to bog down MP games a ton. Tactical battles work in the above games because they're primarily about conquest. Civ is kinda about conquest but has got a thousand other aspects to it too, and so to manage lengthy tactical battles on top of those other aspects can rapidly become very time-consuming.

And at the end of the day, maybe that's it. Maybe Civ simply cannot be both a deep empire-builder and a compelling tactical simulation without becoming too bogged down. Maybe it is one or the other. Certainly the problem with Civ V, at least IMHO, is that it tried to do both and ended up not succeeding at either. Is it even possible to marry the two? I suppose MoO 2 did, so maybe so. But could Civ do it?

Another thought I had was that Civ6 combat could devolve to simplified stack-on-stack fighting by default. At the player's option, an individual battle could move to the tactical map instead. Maybe even offer tactical combat as a separate DLC module. Players in MP games could presumably make their own house rules about which mode were preferred.

 

[civvver]

No, please no. We do not want separate tactical battles in a civ game. Civ series needs to get back to being an empire building simulation/strategy game, not a tactical strategy/rts game.

I also disagree with not having tech trades. Research agreements in civ5 are still super easy to abuse and really buggy. Tech trades add more flavor and research variety because you are able to backfill. Just make the tech trades more balanced somehow, like each time you trade a tech it reduces the amount of research required to research said tech by a significant amount, more than the standard reductions for multiple civs owning it. It would simulate global research progress, and prevent you from flipping one tech in 10. You should be able to flip one tech into one or two of equal value or backfill a couple but not entire eras.

If civ5 had stacks of units (I don't mind the mechanics of combat in civ5 I just hate moving my units, it's way too cumbersome with large armies), sliders/commerce, trade routes and civic style options then it would be pretty good.

They also need to fix diplomacy. It needs to be somewhere between 4 and 5. 5 is just a math equation, if I do Y, this civ will like/hate me X amount. Civ5 there's definite repercussions to actions and they are listed like you settled too close to us and they make sense and I don't need exact values, but the warfare is completely broken. AI civs can be warmongering idiots and no one cares. If you attack one city state or defend yourself after being dogpiled everyone will hate you. It's stupid.

Some of the things I mentioned are supposedly going into the next expansion for 5. There will be some sort of civics thing that you can switch as well as trade routes and a tourism commerce thingy.

 

[AdamCrock]

No, please no. We do not want separate tactical battles in a civ game. Civ series needs to get back to being an empire building simulation/strategy game, not a tactical strategy/rts game. (.....)

That said ... !!! I do not need to hear more ! This guy is totally right !!!! he IS right !" "=) We have no need for another Panzer General tacticcccal makeover or ..... are we General Guderian ?

 

[AdamCrock]

Sorry for double post ... again.. I just be about personal choices ! as it always should have been ! Civ can't stand double crosses ! It kills my heart .... next Civ is should be about the freedom of choice !

 

[Drakarska]

Sorry for double post ... again.. I just be about personal choices ! as it always should have been ! Civ can't stand double crosses ! It kills my heart .... next Civ is should be about the freedom of choice !

Not if 2K can dictate otherwise

 

[reddishrecue]

...No, I'm pretty sure the AI cheats obscenely.

Ok AI cheats, but can you do something about that? Only thing I would do is take victory.

As for the discussion of the thread, the problem is that if the devs want this 1UPT thing to work, they're going to have to entirely rethink Civ, because as it stands it's not built for that. Cities are still designed to churn out vast armies, but because your force is limited by map size, you can now only build a few soldiers. Add this to the fact that, for utterly baffling reasons, they decided to re-implement maintenance for city buildings and you've got a bunch of hammers that you haven't really got anything to do with. Can't build units because the map's full, don't want to build buildings because they're too much of an economic drain.

ok

I've said it before but if they want to go for a more tactical feel, the ideal solution is separate-screen battles as per almost ever other TBS, from Master of Orion/Master of Magic to Age of Wonders to HOMM to Total War. Allow us to stack X amount of units on a hex (or go MoO style and have no limits LOL) and then split those up into 1UPT on a battle screen when you fight someone.

These sound like different games other than civilization. Or are these mods?

Of course, the problem with this is that unless you've got a very good auto-combat system (which, as much as I love Firaxis, I can't see them really doing), it's going to bog down MP games a ton. Tactical battles work in the above games because they're primarily about conquest. Civ is kinda about conquest but has got a thousand other aspects to it too, and so to manage lengthy tactical battles on top of those other aspects can rapidly become very time-consuming.

I guess so.. There's other victories you can achieve though.

And at the end of the day, maybe that's it. Maybe Civ simply cannot be both a deep empire-builder and a compelling tactical simulation without becoming too bogged down. Maybe it is one or the other. Certainly the problem with Civ V, at least IMHO, is that it tried to do both and ended up not succeeding at either. Is it even possible to marry the two? I suppose MoO 2 did, so maybe so. But could Civ do it?

I dont know..

 

[RD-BH]

Regarding squares:
... offset odd rows of squares by 1/2 the tile width and call them "hexes"
... 'course the transitional graphics (area between squares) will be all wonky