|
Clarste posted:I am also the person who builds pre-designed ships and auto-resolves combat in any game where I can. War in 4X games is tedious and fiddly and tends to make turns take at least 10-20 times as long as they do in peacetime, and I hate that. I feel like I'd prefer a game where it was streamlined simplified as much as possible. Like maybe if the stack was just a single unit with N power that decreases with attrition. This is kinda the fundamental dilemma of 4X games is that big chunks of the playerbase come to them for completely different reasons and pushing the series one way or another inevitably alienstes a group. Lotta people unironically play Civ and other 4X games as dollhouse builders and couldn’t give less of a gently caress anout military optimization.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:This is kinda the fundamental dilemma of 4X games is that big chunks of the playerbase come to them for completely different reasons and pushing the series one way or another inevitably alienstes a group. Plenty of people look for a cutthroat boardgame experience in Civ-style 4Xs and they're equally turned off by dumb fiddly bullshit where you design unit loadouts with 8 different slots that have 50 options each that ultimately mean jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Like maybe if the stack was just a single unit with N power that decreases with attrition. That is literally what stacks are in Civ4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Plenty of people look for a cutthroat boardgame experience in Civ-style 4Xs and they're equally turned off by dumb fiddly bullshit where you design unit loadouts with 8 different slots that have 50 options each that ultimately mean jack poo poo. Yeah. I don't mind Civ5/6/BE's combat system, and there are combat-focused strategy games like Age of Wonders 3 (and to name two guilty pleasures, Gladius and Warlock 2) that I enjoy, but the common theme to all of them is that the game presents pre-defined units with specific functions and roles. This is something I feel is sorely missing from modern space 4X games. Master of Orion 2 was innovative in a lot of ways, but I wish the ship designer was one innovation that hadn't become a staple. I just want the game to go "Here's your ship selection, here's more that are researched with these techs, here's what each one does, each has a specific role that's easy to understand." To me, interesting strategy and combat doesn't start with having a million fiddly customization options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:That is literally what stacks are in Civ4. Nah, you have to think about composition, and each unit has its own individual HP, and you can wipe out the stack in one attack no matter how much more power you have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Step one has to be using a system the AI can handle. It does alright in Civ 4 with stacks, especially with an AI mod, and does appallingly with 1UPT. They've had multiple games and years of time to teach their AI to use 1UPT, and have abjectly failed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
I think unit/ship designers need to have interesting choices. Just auto-upgrade everything to lasers II, but let me choose between a repulsor beam and a black hole generator or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Civ Rev implemented stacking 3 units into an army and it was really cool. Like, a feature that was a genuine improvement and a cool new implementation. So of course it was never used again. Never understood why they didn't just implement that in Civ 5 or 6 since they already worked out all the mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
mitochondritom posted:I can't help but feel that both Age of Wonders and Endless Legend both solved this problem for me. You have armies that band together and then the engage either on a smaller tactical map (age of wonders) or a section of the world map (Endless Legend). I much prefer either of these system to how Civ IV or V/VI go about it. Endless Legend has some of the worst combat in gaming history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Civ Rev implemented stacking 3 units into an army and it was really cool. Like, a feature that was a genuine improvement and a cool new implementation. So of course it was never used again. Civ 6 has that. Maybe try playing that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Civ 6 has that. Maybe try playing that? The loving brown fog of war in civ 6  I think there was a mod that fixed this though so it may be time.
Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Endless Legend has some of the worst combat in gaming history. Its not that bad, it could be iterated on and improved. Ignoring the ai controlled units (which I assume is where the issues are), having having stacked armies that are then positioned in an area and then go at it 1upt until one army wins would be better than how civ does it in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Civ Rev implemented stacking 3 units into an army and it was really cool. Like, a feature that was a genuine improvement and a cool new implementation. So of course it was never used again. Civ Rev had some really good ideas that all Civ games should emulate. * Every Civ gets something unique every era. So for example, England gets to begin the game with a Monarchy government, they get longbowmen in the Medieval age, Lancaster bombers and Spitfires later on, and so on. * Boats come with a free "crew" unit, which isn't militarily powerful but at least lets you get the drat goody hut you saw on that island that took you 15 turns to reach. * There are no worker units, you just buy tile improvements with gold, which mirrors nicely with you getting gold by pillaging tile improvements. * Spies make cartoon sneaking music when they move
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
mitochondritom posted:Its not that bad, it could be iterated on and improved. Ignoring the ai controlled units (which I assume is where the issues are), having having stacked armies that are then positioned in an area and then go at it 1upt until one army wins would be better than how civ does it in my eyes. This makes the combat take even longer than it already takes, and does nothing to address the main issue with the current 1UPT system which is the AI having no idea how to use it. In multiplayer the way it currently works is interesting and rewarding and doesn't need to be changed. In singleplayer it blows. Adding a whole new combat layer doesn't make it blow less, it just adds busywork.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Endless Legend combat is cool in theory but the controls are hopelessly obtuse, and the numbers are way too fiddly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
They could make something like, you can build a custom army of various units or you can send them all out Civ 4 style. No more 1upt, but you can have like a phalanx of 4x Praetorian armies each with 400HP, or you can just have a bunch of individual 100HP Praetorians running around and laying waste to poo poo if that suits you better. You could build a powerful cluster of 4x Archers who have four first strikes and can ruin almost anyone's day, but only 120HP and can get overrun by most units. Or you could mix and match, 2x Archers and 2x Warriors for 260HP--halfway tanky but it still gets a couple first strikes, and when it reaches 0 they all die. Break the combat math into two phases, First Strikes hit at the same time and then Regular Combat resolves afterwards, maybe even have it so Archer-type units don't even do damage in the Regular Combat round. Keep the hex tiles. You can avoid 1upt but it could lend a little more depth to the combat than just smashing Macemen into Longbows for a thousand years firaxis hire me i'll code all the non-AI math for you myself ciVIIization let's go bby
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
My main issue with 1UPT in Civ 5 and beyond is that it clearly wasn't designed with the intent of creating a balanced and nuanced combat system that stressed tactical maneuvering and allowed the map itself to inform what your unit compositions should be and how they should be deployed, it was designed to be easy to understand and easy to parse by inexperienced new players who have no idea what they're doing and become intimidated by the idea of having to mess with 30-unit stacks of which the implications of their composition aren't immediately obvious. Not that this is a bad thing per se, ease of use and simplicity in design and presentation are in themselves good design goals to strive towards, but it's clear Firaxis's team had no idea how to integrate 1UPT into their big-picture world history simulator without causing a whole cascading set of problems and problems arising from those problems that currently plague the implementation as is. Stuff like the AI having no idea what they're doing, maps not being big or varied enough to create true tactical conundrums and puzzles because, again, big-picture world history simulator is still what this is, and more nuanced issues that are articulated far better by others that I can't be bothered to get into. Not that stacks didn't have their own problems, but they gel way better with what Civ is and continues to be than 1UPT ever will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:My main issue with 1UPT in Civ 5 and beyond is that it clearly wasn't designed with the intent of creating a balanced and nuanced combat system that stressed tactical maneuvering and allowed the map itself to inform what your unit compositions should be and how they should be deployed, it was designed to be easy to understand and easy to parse by inexperienced new players who have no idea what they're doing and become intimidated by the idea of having to mess with 30-unit stacks of which the implications of their composition aren't immediately obvious. This post right here has it right. Even if we're not talking about the combat, one of the biggest things that kinda stands out to me when I go back to Civ IV nowadays is that the world feels so *free*. The fact that you can have several units on the same tile, and occupy the same tile as other civilizations. It's sooo freaking nice and does wonders for the gameplay and pacing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
I hope that wherever we fall on the 1UPT vs stacking argument, we can all agree that it being impossible to stack civilian units is goddamn crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ Rev had some really good ideas that all Civ games should emulate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:* There are no worker units, you just buy tile improvements with gold, which mirrors nicely with you getting gold by pillaging tile improvements. I prefer the Call to Power system, where improvements are bought with a separate resource, Public Works, that you can have cities produce ala research or gold. Roads in that game also passively generate public works, more for every normal tile improvement they cross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ Rev had some really good ideas that all Civ games should emulate. I don't like this one. It worked out well enough in Rev, but it's too much of an annoyance for a more complex game. It throws you into very specific patterns for every age, and dumbs it down. I always liked the rest though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:I hope that wherever we fall on the 1UPT vs stacking argument, we can all agree that it being impossible to stack civilian units is goddamn crazy. You got me there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Gort posted:I hope that wherever we fall on the 1UPT vs stacking argument, we can all agree that it being impossible to stack civilian units is goddamn crazy. Yeah, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:What's so bad about managing stacks? They're micromanagment timesinks that vaporize instantly upon contact with the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
One alternative way of dealing with units I was thinking of is to just build a generic "army" that you can then upgrade to add whatever specific bonuses you want: ranged, anti-cav, siege, etc. It would also follow logically that early armies are assorted rabble and only when you build at a barracks do you get trained professional units from the get-go. And it would make sense that your army is not spread across hundreds of miles of being terrain, instead being contained within one hex. So you could train an army with lots of ranged upgrades at the opportunity cost of other upgrades that can attack at range but mediocre at everything else. UU's can be factored into these upgrade trees as well in the form of specific bonuses. It results in fewer units to move around, but more interesting ones. Instead of researching new unit types, you're researching upgrades, similar to Alpha Centauri. So getting Chivalry unlocks cavalry bonuses or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:One alternative way of dealing with units I was thinking of is to just build a generic "army" that you can then upgrade to add whatever specific bonuses you want: ranged, anti-cav, siege, etc. It would also follow logically that early armies are assorted rabble and only when you build at a barracks do you get trained professional units from the get-go. And it would make sense that your army is not spread across hundreds of miles of being terrain, instead being contained within one hex. I always quite liked the idea of not having standing armies in the early game. Instead you have a big button marked "Levy" which gives you a grab-bag of units for each city based on the buildings in it, where a place with nothing just gets a bunch of peasant spearmen and huntsmen and a capital city with a stable, barracks, siege workshop and bowyer might get knights, men-at-arms, siege engineers and crossbowmen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
I'm in favor of whatever speeds up Civ combat. Honestly what I really want is something like an overhaul mod that removes all military units and makes a new resource called "soldiers," and you spend them the same way you spend hammers or gold. 5 soldiers a turn to keep up a wall, 100 soldiers to invade a city on your border and compare stats with that city, I don't know. I call this idea 0UPT, and I would insta-buy any good 4x that streamlined war like that. Or rip off the combat from Through the Ages. I feel like that could transfer to games with a map if costs and thresholds changed according to travel distance and terrain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:I'm in favor of whatever speeds up Civ combat. Honestly what I really want is something like an overhaul mod that removes all military units and makes a new resource called "soldiers," and you spend them the same way you spend hammers or gold. 5 soldiers a turn to keep up a wall, 100 soldiers to invade a city on your border and compare stats with that city, I don't know. I call this idea 0UPT, and I would insta-buy any good 4x that streamlined war like that. you've basically described an older internet idle game, like dominion or whatever. no thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I am also the person who builds pre-designed ships and auto-resolves combat in any game where I can. War in 4X games is tedious and fiddly and tends to make turns take at least 10-20 times as long as they do in peacetime, and I hate that. I feel like I'd prefer a game where it was streamlined simplified as much as possible. Like maybe if the stack was just a single unit with N power that decreases with attrition. This is why I play Paradox games. Because combat being complex is utterly boring to me and the way Age of Wonders (which I do like, I'll admit) does it would really make Civ slow as all hell. I still prefer stacks though because it's easier to say "new units, big numbers = win" than trying to move 30 units all in one turn and get them to the same place without them constantly clashing with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
Taear posted:This is why I play Paradox games. Because combat being complex is utterly boring to me and the way Age of Wonders (which I do like, I'll admit) does it would really make Civ slow as all hell. Same. I actually would like to see a 4X try something like paradox-style armies, ditching units completely. Dont think anyone ever tried that AoW is something I really tried to enjoy, but is not for me. It is like the opposite of what I want in this kind of games: too much focus in war, too shallow almost everywhere else. The tactical combat is boring and I will auto-resolve most of the time. But then there's not much else interesting to do in the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Same. I actually would like to see a 4X try something like paradox-style armies, ditching units completely. Dont think anyone ever tried that I enjoy the "feel" of Age of Wonders which is the only reason it clicks for me. Total War is my go to for how I'd hate combat to be. I just auto resolve so I can actually do the important part (expanding on the map) and then realise there's no point to playing if that's what I'm doing. I really hope combat in Civ never becomes that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:I'm in favor of whatever speeds up Civ combat. Honestly what I really want is something like an overhaul mod that removes all military units and makes a new resource called "soldiers," and you spend them the same way you spend hammers or gold. 5 soldiers a turn to keep up a wall, 100 soldiers to invade a city on your border and compare stats with that city, I don't know. I call this idea 0UPT, and I would insta-buy any good 4x that streamlined war like that. There's a really good 4X called Predynastic Egypt that does it this way. It has a free demo and is £7 for the full game so you should definitely check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's a really good 4X called Predynastic Egypt that does it this way. It has a free demo and is £7 for the full game so you should definitely check it out. It's a shame it's such a boring theme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Gort posted:I always quite liked the idea of not having standing armies in the early game. Instead you have a big button marked "Levy" which gives you a grab-bag of units for each city based on the buildings in it, where a place with nothing just gets a bunch of peasant spearmen and huntsmen and a capital city with a stable, barracks, siege workshop and bowyer might get knights, men-at-arms, siege engineers and crossbowmen. That's a good idea, it makes sense that the bulk of an army would be basic troops with just a few elites, but in the current system you basically always go for as elite as can be. I liked in civ 3 you could conscript troops, very weak but far better than in the current system where every single unit is a huge investment that a small town will take 40 turns to build after the ancient era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's a really good 4X called Predynastic Egypt that does it this way. It has a free demo and is £7 for the full game so you should definitely check it out. Oh hey, this looks really cool. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's a really good 4X called Predynastic Egypt that does it this way. It has a free demo and is £7 for the full game so you should definitely check it out. There's also a sequel called Egypt: Old Kingdom or something similar and a similar style game about Ancient Greece from the same publisher. I like them a lot but the one weakness is that playthroughs start to feel really similar after the first few, especially when you know all the major challenges in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:There's also a sequel called Egypt: Old Kingdom or something similar and a similar style game about Ancient Greece from the same publisher. I like them a lot but the one weakness is that playthroughs start to feel really similar after the first few, especially when you know all the major challenges in advance. Yea they are extremely formulaic with a bit of variation for exactly when the events will occur. They are good games though, but not really "civ-like" for their replay-ability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Building military units should just increase boarder size, and military should be entirely abstract force projection. If your boarder gets big enough to engulf an enemy city it's yours
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Impermanent posted:Building military units should just increase boarder size, and military should be entirely abstract force projection. If your boarder gets big enough to engulf an enemy city it's yours Sounds poo poo. How do you colonise an overseas city then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:28
|
|
