Some Suggestions For an Otherwise Great Game

[Orange46]

When I first started playing this game, I was really disappointed. But, after a while, I started to see how good this game is and how great it will hopefully will be. Some of the things that still irk me are:

I miss being able to spot what tiles are being worked from the main map view. I find the city map view to be too busy, with resources being blocked by the ovals that show what tiles are being worked.

I find it cumbersome to select new construction in cities. First, I enter the city (and not by insert, as that takes you to the capital), then I hit back, so that I can view the base income, research, ..., then I go back to production and try to remember everything as I decide what makes most sense, then sometimes I have to repeat becasue I forgot something, then I finally get to select what I build. It would be nice if we could see base income, prodction, etc numbers when in build mode.

I find it difficult in busy areas to spot the active unit.

Borders are tough to spot in some areas, and more than once I have found myself going to an area between my border and someone else's, thinking that I controlled the tile in question.

Temporary overstacking should be allowed, provided that a legal path to relieve the condition exists or that path is a dark hex. In the dark hex case, the unit would be forced back to its last unstacked hex if the dark hex is unenterable.

In what universe is it a disadvantage to be on the defense (ok, Risk). When making a non ranged attack against open ground, the attacker is always at least as vulnerable as the defender, and usually more vulnerable. But, in V, the defender gets a -33% for his trouble. If Panzer General is the inspiration, ...

I wish that I could click on an enemy unit (or even a unit not at war) and see what the expected combat losses are.

I think that the repair all damage upgrade is way too powerful. I don't upgrade any more, so as to have instant healing available. You can even use it to heal losses from a just completed attack, so that you don't get destroyed during the enemy's turn.

Finally, in a game such as this, where most games are played over multiple sessions, why isn't the first and default option that you encounter after the game loads RESUME GAME.

[Jaybe]

I miss being able to spot what tiles are being worked from the main map view.

They could do this by showing the grid (perhaps in green) of the worked tiles. Grid would be colored for in case the grid is turned on.

I find it cumbersome to select new construction in cities. ...
I find it difficult in busy areas to spot the active unit.

I've got a large monitor (1920x1080) so only my turns to culture expansion is hidden. Are you using DX9 that minimizes the active unit highlight/halo? DX11 w/1GB vidram & high vid settings in-game are NICE!
I suggest you consider saving $$ and upgrading hardware. Remember your priorities in life!

Temporary overstacking should be allowed, provided that a legal path to relieve the condition exists or that path is a dark hex. In the dark hex case, the unit would be forced back to its last unstacked hex if the dark hex is unenterable.

I think I've actually seen this occur in 1.0.0.62!!! At least in some form, in some circumstances.

I still want a civilian unit to be able to transit through an AI unit.

In what universe is it a disadvantage to be on the defense ...

It's just another way of saying attack strength is higher than defense strength; I have no problem with it. Also, recall that there are SPs & wonders which affect defense substantially, not to mention fortification bonus (25-50%).

Something I've always dreamed about for civ5 is 'iffy' reconnaissance in a war situation: chance for view into rough hexes being inaccurate or out of date! Either spurious (decoy) unit or hidden unit.

I wish that I could click on an enemy unit (or even a unit not at war) and see what the expected combat losses are.

I've been there, and totally agree. If not at war, would need some clear indicator of such.

Finally, in a game such as this, where most games are played over multiple sessions, why isn't the first and default option that you encounter after the game loads RESUME GAME.

Finally, that would be just so cool!

----
Along with vast tactical AI improvements, of course.

[Iola of Shinola]

Agree with almost everything you said.

ADD:

Let the player jump to the city or the unit from the City and Military pages. If I am looking at the overview and spot a unit I otherwise can't find ( say an archer that didn't get upgraded ) there is no easy way for me to find that unit now. If I could just click on it, and the camera centered....

Let me choose/change what to produce from the cities list as well.

Nerf standard mounted units by not allowing them to fortify. As it is now, I can move, attack, and fortify all in the same turn which makes them way more powerful than infantry. Special mounted like Cossack, could retain their fortification ability.

Reduce the occurence/utility of the ancient ruins. Or at least tone down the ability to advance a warrior to a musketman by 500 bc.
Set the upgrade via ruins to a max number of 1. IE Your warrior gets upgraded to spearman. That units ability to upgrade via ruins is now set at 0. If he accesses another upgrade ruins, he gets a random result from culture/gold or experience.

[Jaybe]

Let the player jump to the city or the unit from the City and Military pages. If I am looking at the overview and spot a unit I otherwise can't find ( say an archer that didn't get upgraded ) there is no easy way for me to find that unit now. If I could just click on it, and the camera centered....

While you can't do this with the F3, you CAN do it with the military listing at upper left (where you can also show Tech research progress & city list). Select unit in listing, press 'c' to center on it.

[Orange46]

[QUOTE=Jaybe;5881077]

It's just another way of saying attack strength is higher than defense strength; I have no problem with it. Also, recall that there are SPs & wonders which affect defense substantially, not to mention fortification bonus (25-50%).
QUOTE]

True, but the initial fortification bonus is only 25% and that's less than 33%. It seems that whenever I am in enemy teritory attacking a unit that is identical to mine and it just woke up to my threat and moved to open ground, I win big. This isn't the case in Panzer General or any other realistic type game. Even if both sides are just standing opposite each other as in olden times, the attacker has to expend energy to get to the defender. If the attacker has an advantage, it is usually due to numbers, morale, training, weapons, but not just the fact that you are attacking. But, since I play only AIs, it's just one more thing that I get to take advantage of.

[Orange46]

"It would be nice if we could see base income, prodction, etc numbers when in build mode."

Somehow this has now come to pass. Thanks

[Iola of Shinola]

I just finished my first post patch game, and this really annoying "thing" (for lack of a more descriptive term) kept happening. I think it is due to the nature of the 1 stat unit strength and 1UPT, but it may not be. I certainly would like to see it fixed, not because it is game changing, but I found it amazingly aggravating. And yes before you all start flaming, I do recall the days of the lonely spearman defeating the tank in previous versions.

I was again playing a long game, trying to go for either cultural or space victory. I could have won a domination victory around 350 turns or so, but I left 3 other civs in the game and pushed ahead with science and culture. +/- Turn 370, Suleman decides to try his 3rd attack wave against me. He launches 40 or so units of Siliphai (sp) and riflemen against my army of Infantry, Mech Inf, Modern Armor, Stealth Bombers, etc. He caught one of my Armor units in the open, and hit it with a couple of Silphi. My Armor went down to half strength. He followed with a volley from cannon, and finished the armor off with a rifleman! Imagine my shock when my late 20th century armored unit got crushed by a ragtag collection of 18th and 19th century units!

That being said, I don't want to make too much of this, because it only happened once, and only because I foolishly left the unit in the open and right next to his border, AND Suleman was quickly destroyed by my superior army. However, several times during the fray, he did manage to put significant damage on mech infantry units with his mounted units.

Later, when I was closing in on my spaceship, the remaining two civs tried the old one-two punch sneak attack. Rome was so far behind, its army was comprised of Crossbowmen, Musketmen and the everpopular legions. France was somewhat better with hordes of musketeers, some foreign legions, and some artillery. Again the same type of results. Musketeers attacking Death Robot in waves, and doing significant damage. Legions severely damaging Mech Inf and Rocket Artillery. Knights and crossbowmen pushing my Modern armor into the red, and forcing a retreat. On and On. Of course these instances were somewhat isolated; and the AI didn't accomplish much other than to slow me down by a couple of turns and in general just piss me off. But I guess that is really the point.

I know this is Civ, and this is sort of the way Civ has always been, BUT in the past my exposure to these sorts of events was a once in a hundred turns or more sort of thing. Not every time my technologically supreme army engaged the forces of my backwards neighbors. If knights charge a tank, the results should be (Knights -10 and Tank -0) NOT (Knights -8 and Tank -3)!!!! When Crossbowmen attack Modern Armor the results should be ZERO damage. I was seeing 1 or 2 damage with the crossbow and knight units gaining experience. More than once the AI used the auto heal to pretty good effect. Again, this wasn't game breaking, but it surely put a serious crimp in my game enjoyment.

Solution:

1) Bring back separate attack and defense strengths for all units. This allows for some units to be powerful attackers but poor defenders and vice versa. This would allow the elimination of the "defender penalty" currently implemented.

2) Scale unit strength to their era. IE a Medieval Unit with 18 attack gets a multiplier of 1.25/era difference when attacking units from previous eras. So Classical Units --a scaled strength of 22.5. Against Ancient era it would be scaled to 27. Against more advanced era units, it would be a penalty of .75/era difference. So the same unit against Industrial would be scaled to 13.5. Against Modern-- 9.

OR

3) Set a threshold level for defending units that eliminate any possibilty of damage from weaker units. IE Tanks can only take damage from units that come from gunpowder or beyond. Mech Inf, Modern Armor could only take damage from Rifling and beyond.

I personally think #3 is awkward and hard to implement. #2 will create a premium for keeping your units up to date. If you combine that with making it very expensive to upgrade units beyond their native era, you might be able to somewhat break the "gold" centric nature of the game, and help shift the balance back towards production. By that I mean, Musketman to Rifleman (same era) the cost stays what it is now. Rifleman to Infantry (different eras) current cost x 1.75. But alas, I am starting to wander into another topic.

[Jaybe]

Armed personnel and their vehicles (including AFVs) are being killed & destroyed in Afghanistan by the Taliban of all people, and you are crying about the rare defeat of a poorly positioned unit overwhelmed by an inferior-tech civ??

Bleep happens in a war zone, especially if care is not taken. Supply & ordinance runs low; dragoons in the guise of cavalry manage to get to a vulnerable position; ...

Maybe it's your perception of reality that is off, not the game's.

[Iola of Shinola]

1) The Taliban are some of the finest warriors in the world. They beat the Soviets in the 80's and if the USA isn't careful, they will soon suffer the same fate. Perhaps you should evaluate your own perception of reality.
2) The Taliban may not have Abrahms tanks, but they are hardly fighting with 18th century equipment.
3) I don't believe I was "crying" about anything, and certainly not the loss of a unit.
4) My basic complaint was/is: How can pre-gunpowder units consistently damage modern armor / mech infantry? How can a Knight attack Modern Armor and not only survive, but put significant damage on the armor? And how does this happen over and over?
5) Perhaps this is the way it has always been. I usually am not fighting such completely outclassed civs technology-wise. Maybe it is because I dropped down to emperor to play this game.
6) Read your own signature line. Then read your response. Hopefully you are not so self blind as to see those two don't go together.

[Orange46]

Iola: I used to support your position, but after reading Jaybe's post, I started to think. (No wisecracks.) If this were a real situation, you would not see spearmen going up against tanks. Somehow, the spearmen would have gotten some modern weapons and they would be using them. So, spearmen in modern times represent soldiers from a third world country who have some but way too little modern arms. Swordsmen are just better armed units, but still inadequately armed, etc. In the board game Advanced Squad Leader, unarmed units could scrounge for weapons, and, if found, would rearm themselves. In many wars thru out history one side is armed with weapons that they have captured from their opponents.

So, if this is the intent of the game, I will stop getting annoyed; but, perhaps in some future expansion the game could use this concept - that is - not call them spearmen when eras change, but call them something else, while keeping their combat stats the same.

[ElDonReal]

The problem is not that the musketeer destroys a tank, but that a musketeer and a tank actually face in battle. The argument of the militia defeating the tank goes back to the days of Civ 1 and while Civ 4 was pretty good at avoiding it, the situation has again emerged in Civ 5. But well, I think for the sake of gameplay it would be pretty bad if the unit strengths would differ more. There's only one thing that you can do to avoid this situation: Conquer all inferior civilizations as quickly as possible

I think the removal of tech trading could be one of the major factors that creates such decoupled progress paths. In Civ4 even small civilizations managed to keep up their technological progress. In Civ 5 there's no other way, but to focus on your own scientific progress and sign a research agreement every now and then. I'm running my second game on King and find myself always ranked #1 in the literate rankings. The AI just doesn't get it.

[Orange46]

Techs probably should get cheaper to research as each civ discovers it - say 10% less per civ in a 10 civ game.

In prior Civs I always wanted to kill off all civs I fought, as the unhappy citizens left behind usually became a real pain. In V, that doesn't happen, so I'm thinking that I don't need to kill off the weaklings, and the few losses I have incurred so far at their hands is livable. But, I guess its time to move up to King, as Prince is easy.

Btw, I can't complete the tech tree, or come close to getting to a science victory, despite being #1 in tech every game so far. So, its been military victories - except my current game, where I was randomly given Greece and decided to go City State. I just started building the UN, so I hope to get my first non military victory.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Iola: I used to support your position, but after reading Jaybe's post, I started to think. (No wisecracks.) If this were a real situation, you would not see spearmen going up against tanks. Somehow, the spearmen would have gotten some modern weapons and they would be using them. So, spearmen in modern times represent soldiers from a third world country who have some but way too little modern arms.

This is an interesting idea.

Mind you, there's one conceptual issue - both spearmen vs. tank *and* warrior ak-47 occur in the modern world. The difference between the two categories is enacted by global trade and its in/exclusion of locales. So you might find 'negritos' in modern-day India that live in the jungle like hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, tribes in secluded areas in e.g. the middle east manage to access the global arms market.

What a game like civilization could do with this, is drop the 'research tree' as an actionable form of production and human technological evolution. Alpha Centauri had something which resembled this superficially.

This book reviews the world's technological evolution and comparative advantages across civilizations: "Why The West Rules – For Now: The Patterns of History and what they reveal about the Future"

The gist is that technological advances occur, and then spread. In the game of civilization, that would translate to having temporary advantages through (largely unguided) research, after which they leak and spread towards other cultures. Arms are traded and lose value over time as they become easier to produce, or because they have become obsolete. It turns the game into staying ahead of the curve, targeted espionage, and (material) trade.

Now *that* would induce the 'one more turn' effect for a lot of players.

[Iola of Shinola]

1) Military victory is a very easy path.
2) Diplomatic victory is so easy it is almost stoopid. I disable diplo in the victory conditions.
3) Cultural Victory is very hard, but more importantly -- it is not any fun to pursue. Limiting yourself to a couple cities + puppets makes for a long and tiresome game.

If you are playing a version of the ICS plus "gold centered" strategy to win, then completing the tech tree may be hard. I tend to eschew the "gold centered" approach and instead build a large number of 'balanced' medium to large population cities. I have finished the tech tree in every game with the exception of the "test" games I ran for 50-100 turns. In every game, I made a choice not to pursue the domination victory-- it usually would have taken place about 100 turns before I could pursue the space victory. of course even more turns go by for the cultural.

As far as the "evolution" of units go... well it seems like so much sophistry to me. The knights did not get hold of AK-47's, and if they did, they wouldn't be knights anymore. What I choose to take from your responses, is that I should work on not being so annoyed by the inevitable outcome of these mismatches. It is CIV, afterall. I hear you. I will adjust back to the bad old days of Civ and Civ 2-- but my question is-- why should I have to? As we are moving forward with these game concepts-- why do we return to problems left in the dust 10 years ago?

[Iola of Shinola]

But well, I think for the sake of gameplay it would be pretty bad if the unit strengths would differ more.

<><><><>

I cannot disagree more, BTW.

Gameplay would be greatly improved if such one sided mismatches were resolved with brutal efficiency. Imagine not spending 40 turns messing about with some AI that you have already completely dominated. After a series of seriously one sided military catastrophies, the people of that CIV should rise up, depose their leader and join the closest AI CIV in a merger. Give them enough free techs to get back in the ballpark(say, 90%), auto-upgrade their military units for free, and go forward from there. In fact, I think whenever a CIV falls behind the player character by more than 30% of its techs ( ie the player has 50 techs, and the AI only has <35 techs ) the AI should be trying to "merge" with its closest neighbor AI.

Obviously, this brings up lots of issues--and there are probably better ways to handle it. But the key idea is, there should be no contest between a "musketeer" civ and a "death robot" civ. The "musketeer" civ either has to have a way to make a quick and drastic improvement, or it has to capitulate to the more advanced civ. Spending 30 or more turns messing around is just a boring, frustrating waste of time.