• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Civilization V: Brave New World

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
But Civ5 has grown since initial release and the 1UPT on hex requires a new take on tactics. Quite refreshing to go beyond the SOD and spamming units.
1UPT just makes moving armies tedious and annoying, turning the game into a grind a half hour in. Later game, the map is ridiculously cluttered because of it.

1UPT is the one aspect above all others that needs to be scrapped in Civ6.
 

Madia

Senior member
May 2, 2006
487
1
0
RPS has their initial impressions up here:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/12/impressions-civ-v-brave-new-world/

Five of the nine new civs have been revealed: Poland, Brazil, Assyria, Zulu and Portugal.

I've enjoyed the game since I've gotten back into playing it (with Gods & Kings) after I previously stopped playing about 3 months after it's initial release. A lot has improved since then although I never played Civ 4 so I can't compare the two.

I'm hoping steam will have it on sale eventually since I want to upgrade to the gold edition to pick up all the DLC civs. Right now the upgrade is $20 which isn't worth it since I already have Gods & Kings but I'd probably bite at $10.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,664
120
106
www.neftastic.com
1UPT just makes moving armies tedious and annoying, turning the game into a grind a half hour in. Later game, the map is ridiculously cluttered because of it.

1UPT is the one aspect above all others that needs to be scrapped in Civ6.
Honestly, I find it a better from a strategic gameplay standpoint since I absolutely hated having stacks of enemy units a mile tall defending a single city or trying to break out of a surrounded sieged city that had multiple units stacked around it.

What I WOULD change to it would be to allow both ranged and melee units to stack (but only 1 unit of each type) so as to give the typically weaker ranged units some melee protection.

I would also allow transitional units to stack in hexes, meaning that if a unit was moving they could end their turn in an already occupied hex, but they would provide a defensive penalty if attacked since they are designated to be on the move and not be "combat capable". They would also not be able to attack anything immediately adjacent to that tile.

Other than that, I find the combat okay. It makes strategy a bit more forthcoming instead of just building a huge army to mash the crap out of the other players with.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Assyria! Sweet, I thought those guys were awesome when I learned about Mesoptamia in 7th grade :D

And I never played Civ4 but after playing Civ5 for quite a bit I feel like allowing more than one unit on a tile would be pretty imbalanced; or rather, it would make it much easier to simply build build build tons of units. As it is it's already pretty easy to brute force an opponent unless they have an exceptional geographic position or tech advantage.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
Honestly, I find it a better from a strategic gameplay standpoint since I absolutely hated having stacks of enemy units a mile tall defending a single city or trying to break out of a surrounded sieged city that had multiple units stacked around it.
You had to use artillery or aircraft to weaken the city's defenses, or throw hoards of cheap units at the city to wear it down. ;)

I haven't played Civ5 for more than 30 minutes in almost a year. Every time I try, the game just gets mired down in the worst tedium imaginable as my armies slowly, slowly, slowly plod across a short span of territory . . . only be rendered obsolete by new technology before they even get into their first battle. :(
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,664
120
106
www.neftastic.com
You had to use artillery or aircraft to weaken the city's defenses, or throw hoards of cheap units at the city to wear it down. ;)

I haven't played Civ5 for more than 30 minutes in almost a year. Every time I try, the game just gets mired down in the worst tedium imaginable as my armies slowly, slowly, slowly plod across a short span of territory . . . only be rendered obsolete by new technology before they even get into their first battle. :(
Let's be honest... The same thing happened in earlier civ games. The pace of the early eras is ridiculously fast. I've always found it annoying that early era turns start in 50 year increments. Seriously, it doesn't take 50 years for a unit to move from one tile to the next!

That's always been the problem and why early era units have basically been nothing but a curious placeholder, resource sink and a minor deterrent against super-aggressive AIs.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,559
482
126
Unless you want to clear out a civ that is too close to you, I find the early units mostly a waste. Although I don't play at super high difficulty levels so that may be why.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,450
268
126
www.the-teh.com
Honestly, I find it a better from a strategic gameplay standpoint since I absolutely hated having stacks of enemy units a mile tall defending a single city or trying to break out of a surrounded sieged city that had multiple units stacked around it.

What I WOULD change to it would be to allow both ranged and melee units to stack (but only 1 unit of each type) so as to give the typically weaker ranged units some melee protection.

I would also allow transitional units to stack in hexes, meaning that if a unit was moving they could end their turn in an already occupied hex, but they would provide a defensive penalty if attacked since they are designated to be on the move and not be "combat capable". They would also not be able to attack anything immediately adjacent to that tile.

Other than that, I find the combat okay. It makes strategy a bit more forthcoming instead of just building a huge army to mash the crap out of the other players with.
The stacks just seem more realistic to me. Sure both games try to explain to you that a square or a hex = so many square miles, but let's face it when you look at a map on screen it looks like in one square or hex is a military unit and not a vast army. So in Civ 4 and < a stack looked like a real army to me and was usually a diverse collection of units. It was strategic because of that, you could have archers in that stack as well as spear men/warriors/etc. Cities fall easier to this stack, but you also have to consider they can't defend themselves like they can in Civ V.

Movement in 1UPT is just plain unrealistic. On small maps you can't even field an army because there's no place to put them. Because of that you find yourself in situations where you can't even defend yourself because the terrain won't allow you to move troops up the map because it's only 3 hexes wide with a mountain in one hex.

Anyway, after reading the RPS take on the upcoming expansion I can't wait to get my hands on it.
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,404
3
81
i loved the switch to 1UPT. makes battle seem much more strategic to me.

i agree with the clutter and movement issues. i think there is probably a compromise somewhere. maybe allow stacks of the same unit, or stacks of limited size?

the stacks of doom were just retarded and good riddance.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
The stacks just seem more realistic to me. Sure both games try to explain to you that a square or a hex = so many square miles, but let's face it when you look at a map on screen it looks like in one square or hex is a military unit and not a vast army. So in Civ 4 and < a stack looked like a real army to me and was usually a diverse collection of units. It was strategic because of that, you could have archers in that stack as well as spear men/warriors/etc. Cities fall easier to this stack, but you also have to consider they can't defend themselves like they can in Civ V.
I'm not opposed to units sharing a tile, but the problem with the way it has been traditionally done in Civilization is that the units attack in series and not in parallel and in a simplistic way. If the entire stack was involved in a single combat action and math was generated to more appropriately represent total force strength then it would be fine, but instead what we get is a stack of units where one unit participates while the rest sit around watching. The 1UPT might not be as visually indicitive of an army, but if you look at each unit as representing a quantitiy of units and personnel it's easier to deal with. In any case combat in Civ is about as simplistic as it can get and whether it's 1UPT or a death stack they both suck if you want a more strategic game.
 

el-Capitan

Senior member
Apr 24, 2012
571
2
81
i loved the switch to 1UPT. makes battle seem much more strategic to me.

i agree with the clutter and movement issues. i think there is probably a compromise somewhere. maybe allow stacks of the same unit, or stacks of limited size?

the stacks of doom were just retarded and good riddance.
I share this. I am a big fan of the 1UPT. Makes terrain bonuses, movement range, firing range all the more important. Every shot and move needs to be well thought out.

I dont think we need to allow more than one per tile. There are already great options of artillery, air and sea support.

The problem can be that the AI struggles to use its units effectively and will often just throw whatever it has at your defenses..
 

Madia

Senior member
May 2, 2006
487
1
0
i loved the switch to 1UPT. makes battle seem much more strategic to me.

i agree with the clutter and movement issues. i think there is probably a compromise somewhere. maybe allow stacks of the same unit, or stacks of limited size?
As someone who hasn't played Civ 4 I couldn't imagine going back to infinite stacks of units. I enjoy the 1upt although I could see a switch.

I think they could change it to a standard stack value and have every unit contribute a certain number toward it. For example, say the beginning stack value is 1 and an Archer has a .4 and a Warrior and Spearman each have a .6 stack value. So then you could stack the Archer and either a Warrior, Spearman or Archer but you couldn't stack a Spearman and Warrior.

Afterwards, when the game progresses your stack value would increase but so would the cost to stack newer units. So you might have a stack value of 2 by the time you can build the Swordsman but the Swordsman would have double the cost to stack (1.2) as the Warrior and Spearman.

Then of course there'd be penalties and bonuses applied to stacking via terrain, wonders, buildings, Civs, ect. For example, a jungle tile could apply a 50% penalty to units in the tile while upgrade such as walls, castles, etc. would provide a % stack bonus for units in that city.

While I think it could work in a Civ game, the main problem would be that it would make the game even more complex for new players. For that reason alone, I doubt we'll see it in a Civ game.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,559
482
126
IMO the combat is the most improved aspect of Civ 5 over earlier games. It's still not perfect (artillery units needs tweaking imo) but the stacks of doom were ridiculous. I have a screenshot somewhere from Civ3 where the AI had about 50 units all stacked together.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
I like the effect that 1UPT has had on combat strategy, but I dislike how much it slogs down the game. Military victories have traditionally been my favorite in previous civ games, but I've stopped doing them entirely in Civ5 because of how painstakingly boring it can be to move large armies across the map and deal with battling large numbers of units. Some maps its worse than others, where you have to deal with numerous choke points, lots of mountains, or just generally rough terrain - but even on the more open maps it is too much to deal with. I'm also anxiously awaiting updates to the AI, it doesn't handle the 1UPT system very well, making poor unit compositions, poor positioning, not adjusting its strategy to the local terrain, etc.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
I like the effect that 1UPT has had on combat strategy, but I dislike how much it slogs down the game. Military victories have traditionally been my favorite in previous civ games, but I've stopped doing them entirely in Civ5 because of how painstakingly boring it can be to move large armies across the map and deal with battling large numbers of units. Some maps its worse than others, where you have to deal with numerous choke points, lots of mountains, or just generally rough terrain - but even on the more open maps it is too much to deal with. I'm also anxiously awaiting updates to the AI, it doesn't handle the 1UPT system very well, making poor unit compositions, poor positioning, not adjusting its strategy to the local terrain, etc.
I think a compromise would work, like maybe allowing 2 or 3 units/tile.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,289
2,926
136
I think a better method would be to add in a 'ARMY' unit. It would be built by adding other units into it in a army building screen. Then it's stats and abilities would be determined by what type of units you load into it. It would be build a lot like you build a ship in some space 4X games, with you having a number of slots that you fill (maybe based on some command mechanic). Army units could have a area of control based on their strength, a lot like a city. So that if an enemy unit enters into the area of control of a army they must fight. This concept of area of control would also allow a army to be physically big but move though relatively small spaces (perhaps with a movement penalty.)
 

georgec84

Senior member
May 9, 2011
234
0
71
Looks pretty good. I haven't really played Civ V outside of one of the free Steam weekends. It just didn't feel right to me. I heard G&K improved A.I. and added much needed features, though.

Still, it's a shame they left out things like religion and espionage in the base game. Basically fits in with the current trend of gimped releases in favor of selling DLC later.
 

Lee Saxon

Member
Jan 31, 2010
91
0
61
Would i need the Civ 5 DLCs to get it to that level?
The full expansions yes, the DLCs no. They're just bonus Civs (although I love Polynesians, and play with them constantly. I think they're going to be included in BNW though)
 

Elcs

Diamond Member
Apr 27, 2002
6,278
6
81
Is there a Civ5 space-based Sci-Fi'ish Scenario/mod yet?

There was a great one in one of the Civ 4 expansions that I really enjoyed.

If so, I might pick this up at some sort of sale time.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,952
239
106
Is there a Civ5 space-based Sci-Fi'ish Scenario/mod yet?

There was a great one in one of the Civ 4 expansions that I really enjoyed.

If so, I might pick this up at some sort of sale time.
Fan of Alpha Centauri?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY