On-Topic Off-Topic Forum Thread: Rate'em! Civ's I-V

[Sir Og]

III and V are the two games in the series with a distinctive beta version feel. So any good concepts they had were meaningless when the execution was so poor.
We are yet to see what a well made 1upt (or some variation of it) would play like.

[Aeson]

In order of how much I enjoyed them: III, I, II, IV
In order of how well thought out/polished: IV, II, I, III

1UPT was a bad idea that really can't work with a game with the scope of Civ. It ruins the AI, it requires unfun "balancing", it makes no sense in the Civ World. (That band of warriors can't enter the same thousands of square miles as that worker for a decade? Really?

There is no "plus" for it unless you want the AI to have no chance at all to even function so that you can pretend to be playing a tactical wargame rather than a 4x empire building game.

[dannubis]

Civ needs an "army" unit you can customize by adding more units to it. Then you can have 1 APT rules.

[dannubis]

Well, it is not that different from upgrading your units with promotions...

[Heresson]

2-4-1-5-3

I chose to start with 2, because of all the scenarios that made it interesting.
I love civ 4
Civ 5 disappointed me, it was a step back compared to 4.
Civ 3 I wasn't hooked up, or what is the correct word.

[regexcellent]

I'm not sure I agree with stack limits. The way HoI does it is with a stacking penalty based on the number of divisions. I suppose Firaxis could also just throw in a combined arms bonus instead of just doing rock paper scissors. That might make it all excessively complicated. I am definitely in favor of ****canning the "commando" trait and just letting all units use all roads. Forts would then be actually important as more than just airbases. Speaking of which, you should be allowed to base airplanes at any fort that you have garrisoned, not just have cultural borders over.

Oh also I always mod the "amphibious" trait onto gunships in civ 4. I don't usually get far enough for it to be important but I always found it curious that they don't have that property.

[PLATO]

Speaking of which, you should be allowed to base airplanes at any fort that you have garrisoned, not just have cultural borders over.

QFT!

[Heresson]

QFT!

Quoted for truth? I thought it's QTF, Quite the ****.

[snoopy369]

Actually, 1UPT could be pretty easily managed if you separated moving/storing units from deploying them. Just like a catapult has to 'deploy' to be used - all units must deploy. However, they can move after deploy - just with 1UPT limits. During non-deployed phase, they can stack indefinitely; but only one deployed unit can share their tile. In non-deployed mode, all units have a 1 defense (or something similar, maybe changing with technology) and/or Civ1 rules.

Then the difficulty maneuvering is a game element rather than an annoyance - it should be difficult to maneuver around the battlefield (And sorry, you have to lose the 'realism' baloney - if it's a good game element it's fine.) You could also accomplish this the way Jon suggests, or something like that - microtiles which describe the combat, so a SOD of 10 units really occupies 10 of 20 microtiles inside one hex or something like that; and when you have combat, you switch over to micro-tile view. But that would be really excessive complication, for a game that's only partially about the war side of things...

[Hauldren Collider]

I think you should also be allowed to sacrifice your sea trade routes temporarily to get a transport (after discovering some tech, perhaps). So for a massive econ loss, it is easier to move armies for naval invasion. Or maybe that's a stupid idea.

[snoopy369]

Or maybe that's a stupid idea.

Yes. I don't see how that makes any sense - you can always sacrifice economic gain for military by just, well, buying stuff.

[Addled Platypus]

2-1-4-3-5


SM's Alpha Centarui for guilty pleasure

[Elok]

Then the difficulty maneuvering is a game element rather than an annoyance - it should be difficult to maneuver around the battlefield (And sorry, you have to lose the 'realism' baloney - if it's a good game element it's fine.)

If it's a good game element, yes. Why is it? Why 'should' it be difficult to maneuver around the battlefield, bearing in mind that you just denied the validity of realism yourself? Better players than I have elaborated the critical rule of thumb: every element of complexity introduced must give the player an interesting choice to make. Otherwise, you're saddling him with needless MM. Stacked combat works fine, and if it didn't there are far easier and more flexible ways to fix it than just killing stacks entirely.

You could also accomplish this the way Jon suggests, or something like that - microtiles which describe the combat, so a SOD of 10 units really occupies 10 of 20 microtiles inside one hex or something like that; and when you have combat, you switch over to micro-tile view. But that would be really excessive complication, for a game that's only partially about the war side of things...

I wouldn't call this 1UPT; more like a very primitive version of the combat subscreen system seen in games like MoM.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes. I don't see how that makes any sense - you can always sacrifice economic gain for military by just, well, buying stuff.

It's just that it takes so ****ing long to build enough ships to transport your guys overseas. I usually spend half the game building up my fleet, and then the rest of the game executing the invasion.

Honestly, I never had a problem with Stacks of Doom.

[Aeson]

Actually, 1UPT could be pretty easily managed if you separated moving/storing units from deploying them.

Doesn't make sense. Added (profuse) clicks. AI would be even more screwed by it. Adds nothing of value.

Even the "tactical" game you're trying to create never materializes in SP, since the AI would never even field a team (they wouldn't be able to use anyways). In MP it would result in the mother of all clickfests.

But that would be really excessive complication, for a game that's only partially about the war side of things...

"Excessive complication" to achieve a worse AI, less immersion, and a less fun game? That isn't "making it work" in my book.

(And sorry, you have to lose the 'realism' baloney - if it's a good game element it's fine.)

That's a hypocritical thing to say give your previous arguments about subjective matters and what "makes sense".

It's not baloney. "Makes sense" in the Civ universe is something every element should strive for. It helps with the immersion if things fit together and make sense. You go on to touch on that in your response to HC, "it doesn't make sense".

"Making sense" isn't the only consideration, but it definitely is one consideration. As such it's useful to include it in a discussion of whether or not 1UPT brings anything to the table.

I included it because from basically every possible angle 1UPT is screwed. It doesn't make sense. It's always going to screw the AI. It requires adjusting other things to be less fun (in ways that almost everyone agrees with ... practically no one is going to want to sit around hitting end turn waiting for things to happen for longer).

Maybe you liked it, but you keep noting things like, "I completely agree that 1UPT wasn't done right in Civ5". You note that some of the things that were done to try to make 1UPT "work" made the game less fun. These aren't surprises. 1UPT has easily identifiable problems in regards to a game like Civ, and a good game designer would have understood them before trying to implement it (and then not tried).

The problem isn't that 1UPT wasn't done right, it's that the things that are required to make 1UPT "done as well as it can be" in a Civ game make everything else less fun, harder to accomplish from a game design standpoint, in some cases (AI competence) are not feasible with technological and budgeting constraints, and in others (avoiding additional profuse clicking/micromanagement) are not possible.