Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pedrito]

1UPT is pretty decent in theory... the problem with this system in CiV boils down to the following in my opinion:

- Singleplayer: The AI is thoroughly incompetent on the tactical field. On lower difficulty levels wars are simply a pushover because of this, on higher difficulties (immortal and deity mostly) the sheer amount of troops the AI can output makes for boring grinds trying to level up your units to get some super upgrades like +1 range or double shot... which the AI never ever gets.

- Multiplayer: Competitive MP wars are clickfests. There is a fair level of strategy and tactics involved in the positioning thanks to 1UPT, which is good, and an experienced player can easily sweep the floor with a rookie while being outnumbered 2 to 1 purely because of the tactical layer that 1UPT adds. But more often than not, wars are decided by who gets to move and shoot first at the beginning of each turn, which depends on non-game technical factors like connection and server. Simultaneous turns in a turn based game are simply not compatible 1UPT.

Anyway, going back to doomstacks would be a massive loss in my opinion. However flawed 1UPT may be both in SP and MP, doomstacks are worse. So I'm quite curious about the possible improvements that Civ VI could bring to this aspect of the game.

[Sirbug]

SMAC/SMAX was the best Civ I've ever played, but the multiplayer had issues (I had an internet game end because someone decided to just stop playing, and there was no way to do anything about it, or continue the game without them, or turn their empire into an AI, etc)
Beyond Earth... I have not played because it sounded like it didn't live up to SMAC's legacy.

I found SMAC to be a realm of tedious micromanagement. And AI was bad. If I can beat it on maximum difficulty, that says something. Flavor was good though. But micromanagement.

Beyond Earth - yeah, lore was not this fun and game mostly unbalanced. Affinity system needs more implementation.

[Niveras]

They already tried that... What was it, civ 3?

Sort of. Armies in Civ 3 required Great Leaders. Mostly you used individual units still.

Seems like armies will be the default in Civ 6, as they were in Call to Power 2.

I'm pretty meh on a Civ 6, though for reasons other than just franchise fatigue or because of anything I'd heard about what's coming.

However, I've often referred to CtP2's army system as a option between infinite doomstacks and ridiculous 1UPT. It's own interpretation was not perfect by any means, but it did try to innovate and I'm surprised that no one, even mods, ever try a similar system. Maybe CtP2 just never got popular enough for it to be seen.

There are actually hell of a lot of games that used a CtP-like system of battle, like Master of Orion/Master of Magic, and Age of Wonders; it's just that it usually also comes with the ability to manually control units in a tactical battle screen.

You're right, it occurs to me that a lot of the "tactical empire" games (AoW, the HoMM games too from what I remember, unless I'm conflating them with some other "Thing of Might and Magic" series) had that basic premise. Just that it isn't often used in 4X (never did play MoM or MoO), which is where some innovation was needed.

[MaximumZero]

The army stacking looks like it's being lifted directly from Civ Revolution.

[Ultimuh]

Right now, I'm not really hyped for this new game. My hype has been spent on Stellaris at trhe moment and enjoying that game so far.
Maybe a list of new features might give me that push into the hype train.

[Levi]

Alright, I watched the 1.2 hour dev's play Brazil video I think I'm officially hyped.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRSbI8NANno

My only worry is that the multiplayer will be stripped down a bit like Civ 5, but hopefully they are making it with Multiplayer in mind as an equal. 

[Culise]

Welp, oopsie. :3

Spoiler: Truncated civilization list inside (click to show/hide)

Already Known
Catherine de Medici (France)
Cleopatra (Egypt)
Frederick Barbarossa (Germany)
Qin Shi Huang (China)
Hojo Tokimune (Japan)
Montezuma (Aztec)
Pedro II (Brazil)
Theodore Roosevelt (America)
Tomyris (Scythia)
Victoria (England)

Not Yet Known
Gandhi (India)
Gilgamesh (Sumer/Mesopotamia)
Gorgo (Sparta/Greece)
Harald Hardrada (Scandinavian?)
Mvemba a Nzinga (Kongo)
Pericles (Athens/Greece)
Peter (Russia)
Philip II (Spain)
Saladin (Arabia)
Trajan (Rome) (!!!)

Interesting in the wake of the previous decoding efforts on that picture they showed before: Jadwiga/Poland is the most prominent absence, but so is Isabella of Spain.  Two Greek rulers also has interesting implications for a possible return to the Civ 4 "multiple leaders per civ" feature.

EDIT: Also, no Civet civ yet.  Sorry.

[IWishIWereSarah]

Well, the "multiple leaders per civ" feature was expected because of the was the Civ and the Leader Uniques were separated in the interface, and some of the way some uniques' description were written ("when X is the leader of Y, ....").

Anyway, I think I'll buy it nearly after launch. Because I live how Civ5 is now (although I don't play it without mods, CBO ahead), and because although they've said some things will not be present at first (World council is an example), I think some of the new systems seem cool.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Will they finally include spontaneous civilization creation, either revolutionary or mongol-type?

[Neonivek]

I wonder if this game will actually do what Civ has never been able to do before and make some of the more unique civilizations actually interesting.

No matter how great a Civ is... they often just flat out break down as soon as you escape their era.

[martinuzz]

I really played civ 1, 2 and 4 to death (3 was, you know, bad). I must have a couple of thousand of hours in civ 4 alone.

I bought 5 a few years ago. I didn't even make 100 hours in it over the years. It's just not.. Civ. It completely lacks replayability.

Have they seen their error yet, and gone back to glorious stacks of doom, and got rid of the hexes in favour of square tiles already?

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

What is the appeal of hexagonal tiles anyway?

[Criptfeind]

Have they seen their error yet, and gone back to glorious stacks of doom, and got rid of the hexes in favour of square tiles already?

Nope to both.

What is the appeal of hexagonal tiles anyway?

I'm not totally sure if this is the reason, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because it looks better and more natural. Going diagonal with squares is sorta janky.

[Neonivek]

They are currently doing a sort of blend...

You can stack to a certain extent.

[Criptfeind]

From what I've seen you can stack a support unit under a fighting unit. But that's as far as it goes.