Print

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

[ZeroGravitas]

The problem is not and has never been how many units you could stack in a tile. Until V, Civilization had always allowed infinite stacking per tile.

The problem in IV was the rules on how stacks fought. Collateral damage became minimal. On the other extreme, if a defending unit lost a battle in Civilization 1, the entire stack was destroyed (except for units in cities or fortresses) (same in Civ 2, as I recall).

The new "assemble an army" mechanic in VI sounds like it's doing what Call to Power did decades ago: you create armies out of individual units.

[Sergarr]

They mentioned in an interview somewhere that they realized civ5 was kind of inflexable - build 3 - 4 cities every game, pick the same policies every time because they were terribly balanced, every game runs the same way with the same tech choices in the same order.... which was probably the biggest problem I had with the game.

Ahaha, really? I remember when they were making it, they were saying that "unlike Civ IV, which was all about rushing out cities and building death stacks, Civ V will have multiple options". They lied, yeah.

to be honest, i found civ V's only strategy to be much more fun than civ IVs. and while 1UPT had issues, i also just find it to be more fun than doomstacks, which are also pretty flawed.

That's easy to explain, Civ V's combat is more fun is because it actually has a combat system. Civ IV doesn't have a real combat system. Combat in that game is a subset of movement.

They mentioned in an interview somewhere that they realized civ5 was kind of inflexable - build 3 - 4 cities every game, pick the same policies every time because they were terribly balanced, every game runs the same way with the same tech choices in the same order.... which was probably the biggest problem I had with the game.

Ahaha, really? I remember when they were making it, they were saying that "unlike Civ IV, which was all about rushing out cities and building death stacks, Civ V will have multiple options". They lied, yeah.

to be honest, i found civ V's only strategy to be much more fun than civ IVs. and while 1UPT had issues, i also just find it to be more fun than doomstacks, which are also pretty flawed.

Agreed. I played IV after V, and I thanked every deity known to man that C2C included an option to limit UPT. Not 1UPT, though that was a thing, but 10UPT worked pretty good. Doomstacks were an exercise in tedium.

I don't quite remember doomstacks being tedious. Maybe that was because I was only playing small and very small maps, though.

[Cruxador]

While Civ6 is what I call a "Perfection Sequel" or to clarify a "Sequel that doesn't add much, but instead tries to perfect the formula of the previous installment".

Also known as an "even-numbered Civ game".

also some level of unit stacking?

Hahaha, it only took them what, several years to realize that 1UPT is a terrible idea and should have never existed to begin with in a 4x game like Civilization? What a joke.

The problem here is with "4x" not with "one unit per tile", though.

Given how the developers usually defend their work in spite of everything (like Bioware with its ME3 ending clusterfuck), the very existence of criticism - and, most crucially, the fact that his next game rejects the 1UPT completely - speaks volumes about how he really feels about it.

No, it speaks volumes about him (unlike Bioware) not being a complete and utter tool. He's a dev, not a PR team, and a good dev can acknowledge something isn't perfect even if it's not utter shit. You should not use a fiasco that stood out as unusual for your baseline. If that was how shit worked, a "Crusade" would mean "looting Christian cities because a rich guy said so".

3 city tall kingdoms

Which is a stupid concept in the first place, honestly.

And then it would stop being "Civilization" at all.

They said that about hex tiles too.

The new "assemble an army" mechanic in VI sounds like it's doing what Call to Power did decades ago: you create armies out of individual units.

At which point, why not just play something better, like Hearts of Iron? The new one looks like it's going to casualize the franchise enough that it becomes accessible to general audiences.

[Shadowlord]

> Hearts of Iron

Ah, that game where I feel overwhelmed the instant I start a game.

[Sergarr]

> Hearts of Iron

Ah, that game where I feel overwhelmed the instant I start a game.

Don't play Hearts of Iron 3, then. It's a micromanagement hell. Earlier installments are much better about this, especially if you pick a small-sized country for a start. Still quite boring to play, though. EU is a much better game than HoI, definitely. And CK2 is, I think, even better.

[Lukeinator]

I think the tech research rates when near different terrain is going to be cool.

[ZeroGravitas]

The new "assemble an army" mechanic in VI sounds like it's doing what Call to Power did decades ago: you create armies out of individual units.

At which point, why not just play something better, like Hearts of Iron? The new one looks like it's going to casualize the franchise enough that it becomes accessible to general audiences.

Because I don't want to fight WW2 over and over and over. They're completely different game experiences.

And that's without getting into getting into the bigger problem of Paradox's DLC strategy.

Transitioning from single-tile units to armies made out of units makes perfect sense in a Civ game.

[Shadowlord]

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

[ZeroGravitas]

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.

[pedrito]

Couldn't get excited about the announcement. The graphics put me off horribly... smells like Civ Rev. And there isn't any gameplay to actually prove my instinct wrong.

Besides, I'm still angry at Firaxis for creating in Civ V one of the greatest MP strategy games ever, just to leave it in an unfinished state for years without as much as a minor patch. The game has plenty of imbalances that could be easily fixed (and mostly have been in the unofficial community mod, which greatly improves such basic aspects as policies and techs, making for more diverse playthroughs). On the other hand, the steam multiplayer implementation is horrible, there are plenty of glitches that cause crashes, and mostly every lobby game ends with a CTD. In addition, the tools available in the lobby when setting up a game are nonexistent, there's no way to tell if the players you'll be sharing a 4-6 hours multiplayer session with are reliable players or ragequitters, if they have played 2000 hours or if it's their first MP game...

Most of these problems have been addressed by the community with patches and closed player groups, but obviously there are limits to what can be done in face of the absolute indifference and abandonment by the developers.

And now we get Civ 6? No, please fix the previous installment first.

[Mookzen]

Still doing the whole anachronistic leaders bit I see, well that's disappointing, breaks my immersion big time, maybe next time...

[miauw62]

Historical accuracy has never been what Civ is about. If you want that, you're probably better off playing Paradox games.

[Shadowlord]

Personally I found:
Civ III aggravating (other empires think they have the right to send settlers through your territory even if you order them out repeatedly, and they removed ZOC so there's no effective way to stop them - I forget what else, if anything, but that was the most annoying thing)
IV boring after a couple games
V also boring, but far more quickly, and the multiplayer seemed broken (and takes forever to load, only to have a 30 second turn; worse, you often do nothing but click next turn; it also failed to even work, or fucked up horribly, because OH YOU DON'T ALL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME DLCS)
II was good for the time but it's not the best game, really. It was easy to mod in new artwork and stuff, though, without a lot of skill, and there were a bunch of scenarios which didn't use stock units etc, if you got the expansions.
I don't really remember Civ I very well, but I know I played it because I remember the intro sequence.
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.

But today I would rather play Dominions 4 than any Civ.

[Mookzen]

Historical accuracy has never been what Civ is about. If you want that, you're probably better off playing Paradox games.

It's not about historical accuracy, in fact deviations from history and the emergent dynamics of every playthrough is one of the best features of the franchise, however every time I see a modern-era leader in the stone age or somesuch it makes me cringe, I can't help it.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Historical accuracy has never been what Civ is about. If you want that, you're probably better off playing Paradox games.

It's not about historical accuracy, in fact deviations from history and the emergent dynamics of every playthrough is one of the best features of the franchise, however every time I see a modern-era leader in the stone age or somesuch it makes me cringe, I can't help it.

It would be an interesting addition to the game to have era-specifc leaders, and maybe even era-specific (moreso than there is already) bonuses.