Will Civ 5 have some TOUCH of reality?

mld0806

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
4
Just played my first long game, just uninstalled the game.

I bought the game on reading that they "fixed" the problem of way out of date units beating modern units. Didn't realize they meant only one on one.

Perhaps someone at Firaxis can realize that, NO MATTER HOW MANY WAVES of Knights attack fortified Infantry in a city, THEY WOULDN'T, COULDN'T, AND SHOULD NOT WIN!!!!!!!

1930's and King Arthur is charging through the streets in the face of rifle fire....whatever...
 
Then perhaps they should relook at the statistics and say something like, "Warriors should be Strength 1, Kinghts Strength 20, and Modern Units strength 100" Keep the generations balanced and "Rock, Paper, Scissor", but break the eras up with wide enough statistics that you literally have to produce 20 to 1 to win anything.
 
Amen to that. It's hard on Civvers everywhere to hear some impatient schmo complain after just one bad experience. Welcome to the forums, and thanks for repeating a tired, old rant. I hope you find a short-attention-span game that's moreso created for you.

I think that it's a welcome relief to play Civ. Games have gotten people WAYYY too used to winning EVERYTHING. From little battles to the entire campaign. It's as if losing has become unacceptable. It's a nice change to lose once in a while - keeps the gaming fresh.
 
cairo140 said:
Amen to that. It's hard on Civvers everywhere to hear some impatient schmo complain after just one bad experience. Welcome to the forums, and thanks for repeating a tired, old rant. I hope you find a short-attention-span game that's moreso created for you.

I think that it's a welcome relief to play Civ. Games have gotten people WAYYY too used to winning EVERYTHING. From little battles to the entire campaign. It's as if losing has become unacceptable. It's a nice change to lose once in a while - keeps the gaming fresh.

I'm an avid player of Paradox strategy game, Matrix games, and have played Civ since the original. Far from short attention span, I'm an avid strategy gamer. If Knights beet Musketmen, I'd say, "Well, shoulda built more." But Infantry? At 4:3 odds against nights in a 1 up combat? No, that's not expecting to win everything, that's looking at reality and saying, "Not even 2:1 odds in favor of the bolt-action rifle, Tommy Gun toting Infantry against King Arthur and his Court?"

No, the rant is a correct one, and I've plopped down money for every Civ game ever produced in HOPES that they'll get it right one day. No company can ever get it right to everyone's taste, but a Zerg Rush of 800 year old units should be a waste of resources, not a valid strategy. If I wanted to play "match the statistics" I'd become a mathemetician, not a gamer. Statistically speaking, if you pound your head into a concrete wall repeatedly, the wall will give way. Biology and reality leave you a bloody mess on the ground long before the concrete even cracks.
 
@mld0806:
Unfortunately, this unrealistic feature won't ever change as it helps many, many players to survive.
Being completely outclassed by the AI, they still survive and keep thinking, they made something right.
 
mld0806 said:
Just played my first long game, just uninstalled the game.

I bought the game on reading that they "fixed" the problem of way out of date units beating modern units. Didn't realize they meant only one on one.

Perhaps someone at Firaxis can realize that, NO MATTER HOW MANY WAVES of Knights attack fortified Infantry in a city, THEY WOULDN'T, COULDN'T, AND SHOULD NOT WIN!!!!!!!

1930's and King Arthur is charging through the streets in the face of rifle fire....whatever...

Just have 2 infantrymen. And it works the other way too, play a harder difficulty, so it is your hordes of knights against the AI's..er..60mil infantry ;)
 
The way round your problem is easy - mod it yourself or request others to do it for you.

e.g. When a unit can no longer be built because of an upgrade, automatically change the unit graphics to the new unit - but keep the old unit values. Thus you still have to pay upgrade costs to get the full benefit of the new unit.

A lot of gameplayers have spacial awareness and can perceive the old units as being weaker modern units - but for those that can not, this is the visual answer.
 
mld0806 said:
Then perhaps they should relook at the statistics and say something like, "Warriors should be Strength 1, Kinghts Strength 20, and Modern Units strength 100" Keep the generations balanced and "Rock, Paper, Scissor", but break the eras up with wide enough statistics that you literally have to produce 20 to 1 to win anything.


The problem with this is, if someone is ahead in the tech race and gets into another era while his/her opponent isn't, it's GG.
 
Regrettably, this formula is not perfect, but it is indeed the best around.
 
Weird Piggy said:
The problem with this is, if someone is ahead in the tech race and gets into another era while his/her opponent isn't, it's GG.

Perhaps then era by era isn't the answer, however the curve should be steepened some. I don't think that one tech should mean that one unit becomes invincible, per se. That being said, there are steps between Knight and Infantry. 6 Knights in waves should be so much Daisy Food against Infantry, while perhaps Musketmen in waves or Cavalry in waves should do just fine, but still be hopeless in 1:1, or a fluke victory type thing (and I mean like 5% or less chance of it happening in any given combat).

Luck and tenacity of the troops fighting can overcome technological advantage (see Vietnam), but there should be limits to what is possible but unlikely and what is simply ********.
 
Just shut up!

We've all learned to deal with this unrealistic 'problem'; you don't see any of us complaining about it anymore!

Basically no part of this game is realistic! It's a game!
 
Here's the problem. You're an infantryman hanging out in your barracks, eating some good food (Biology had just been researched), all of a sudden a bunch of guys carrying maces run by. So what do you think?

They're LARPers.

Of course, when they turn and attack you, you're totally fooled. Caught by surprised, you're easily destroyed.

---

In the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, American War of Revolution, 1781, the Patriots had three distinct forces. The first line was local militia, North Carolina farmers and tradesmens. They were armed with old style rifles (1745-1760ish vintage). (The first line was expected to fire twice or three times and then bolt for home). The second line was more militia, but they were more experienced--veterans of Cowpens and Kings Mountain, for example, as well as Virginians. They had regular rifles, but not all of them had bayonets, they were expected to fire and attempt to hold, but it was understood that they might not be able to stop the Redcoats ... for the that was the purpose of the third line. These were Continental Army regulars. They had modern rifles with bayonets, and they were battle-seasoned. The plan and its execution was brilliant. The British almost lost the war that day -- until their commanders ordered their artillery to fire into the melee, forcing the Americans to withdraw but at great cost to themselves. While the war would not end for Cornwallis until Yorktown, after this pyrrhic victory the British cause was all but ended.

So why am I recounting this? Because I want to demonstrate that the units in Civ are necessarily vague. You would need three different unit types to represent the American order of battle (four if you included Lighthorse Harry Lee's Cavalry). Now, you can overly complicate the game by including thousands of different units, or you can use older units of equal strength to represent the differing units. In this case, you would have Longbows in the first line (the withdrawing ability makes this nice and accurate), the second line would be Muskets, while the third line would be Riflemen (and experienced ones at that). Now, some might argue that promotions could be used to distinguish, but that doesn't work either because it's really the equipment that's represented by the power of each unit. If you gave the first line Machine Guns, it doesn't matter how inexperienced they are, they're going to do damage. Here's the fun thing: they still may cut and run, even with the machine guns. Not everyone earns the Red Badge of Courage.
 
This is not a problem, but a design decision. If tanks would always beat knights, that would not be fun. There would be no chance involved, and beating the higher difficulty levels would be impossible.

As for realism, guns can eventually run out of ammunition...
 
The point is there is a tension between Realism and Balance... Look at Real History... about 500 years ago a bunch of civs got a tech advantage and took over the entire rest of the planet.


No the fact is if you made civ Very realistic (getting conquered doesn't mean you've lost, you don't have to, and probably Can't, research or even steal techs, with contact though you'll find them out eventually, and a 'one level' tech advantage is enough for 10:1 odds) Then it might work... but that would be a VERY hard game to make and even Harder to make it fun.
 
Gogf said:
This is not a problem, but a design decision. If tanks would always beat knights, that would not be fun. There would be no chance involved, and beating the higher difficulty levels would be impossible.

As for realism, guns can eventually run out of ammunition...
yeah in south africa the british went up against the zulus and lostone huge battle because of that not having enough ammo:eek: eventually british guns did prevail but the thing is chance is an equal to any gun. :crazyeye:
 
If a spearman takes out a tank in my game, I spend some time not complaining, but imagining how a few unlikely heroes were able to turn the tide of battle and use the natural terrain to their advantage.

We're talking 100% Ewoks vs the Empire here. Have you NOT seen Star Wars?
 
Back
Top Bottom