Civ 5 inspired by Panzer General

[Malakal]

PorkaMorka so how much abstraction are You willing to tolerate? How much archers is one archer unit? Is it an army composed entirely of archers? And what kind of combat would be preferable then? Tactical battles ala TW games? Turn off animations of combat (as does anyone who plays those games a bit longer) and no silly pictures will be present. Its simply unit attacking another unit stationed on another hex or some hexes away. Because Civ is a STRATEGY game where You win wars by outproducing and outeching enemies not by tactical thought (well sometime sYou do but thats because AI is pants on ehad retarded).

 

[mondblut]

Sorry guys, there is only room for one division in Kuwait, everyone else will have to wait offshore.

Are units referred as "divisions" anywhere? They could just as well represent army groups.

Map scale is irrelevant anyway. You could represent England and the whole world on maps of the same size, sans wrapping. Map of Earth is boring anyway, I always played Civ on random maps with much less water.

edit: archers shooting at 2 hexes *are* retarded, though. Even in *generals it took powerful artillery to strike from 2 or more hexes. In this mechanic archers are plain close range troops who just don't get counterattacked against.

 

[Technoviking]

If you want a sense of scale and some rudimentary attempt at steering the AI towards historical accuracy, then I suggest the Europa Universalis games.

They're quite a bit different from Civilization though, but excellent Strategy Games nonetheless. =)

 

[OSK]

PorkaMorka, I really don't understand why this abstraction is so horrible, but other ones are perfectly fine.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

It's from the skyway school of hating.

 

[attackfighter]

The thing about civ is that it isn't realistic or challenging and it doesn't have a whole lot of sim aspects. It's a lot like Oblivion in the sense that you have to 'make up your story' in order for there to be any substance at all.

 

[thesheeep]

What was that saying about haters again?
I can't seem to remember it...

 

[anus_pounder]

So uhh...why are romans attacking brazilians?

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

So uhh...why are romans attacking brazilians?

Because it's abstract, mang. Could be green bunnies versus orcs, and it'd still be Civ. We, realism whores, should go away and die in a paradox heavan ditch, please.

Hope Civ6's interface will be aimed at gamepads.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Civ fills its niche, just like Paradox fills its niche. Civ isn't trying to play itself off as a super historical game, but as a strategy game with real world leaders, and that's it. America didn't begin as a single settlement in 4000 BC, and that's okay. The abstraction has been there since the beginning.

God, some of you are huge fags.

 

[Shannow]

Ooh, I'll remember not to constructively criticise civ in the future. The stubborness of the reactions here is worse than when criticizing MotB or Fallout. *cough*fanbois*cough*

PorkaMorka, I hope you choke on your suggestions of improving civ's strategic and tactica gameplay! (I need some KKKs)

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Oblivion fills its niche, just like Troika filled its niche. TES4 isn't trying to play itself off as a super role-playing game, but as an action game with stats, and that's it. Decline didn't begin with a single game in 4000 BC, and that's okay. The retardation has been there since the beginning.
God, some of you are big meanies.

Thematic abstraction can, possibly, be a personal preference, I'll give you that. Though, why use historical figures/events, if you're just going to stick a horn on its forehead and call it Jessie, is beyond me. But alright, I'm letting it go - the game has its fans, they've slept through history classes and their teacher was a paedophilic tranny. See? I've already let it go.
But how can anyone defend land units transforming to boats or ranged infantry shooting over mountains (forget mountains - even over one hex) as streamlining abstractions - and even welcome them - is the real mystery... It's like they're trolling skyway or something.
If you want to make battles more tactical and cuddle the idea of single-unit hexes, then make the hexes smaller and the maps bigger. Or, at least, allow a hex to contain only one of each type of unit, as a proper - even abstracted - army could have on the hexes the size of a small country. Not to mention reinforcements.

Eh. I know why people like them vanilla. Casual fun is just fine with me. I'm just raging a bit over the fact that the game could easily be so much better, yet they insist on streamlining. And people here lauding them for it is really fucking perplexing.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

You can make the argument that building transports is unnecessary micromanaging, but ultimately I agree with you that it is unnecessary and I would prefer it otherwise. As far as the hex based stuff... I don't have a preference on that either way... it seems like an homage to the wargames of yesteryear, but without the tactical complexity that those games have. It's a worthwhile gripe.

Ultimately, I've always viewed Civ as a more casual strategy title, but it's still leagues more complex than any other mainstream game/series.

 

[Monsieur Yaourt]

Though, why use historical figures/events, if you're just going to stick a horn on its forehead and call it Jessie, is beyond me.

SMAC. It is so superior.

 

[OSK]

Ooh, I'll remember not to constructively criticise civ in the future. The stubborness of the reactions here is worse than when criticizing MotB or Fallout. *cough*fanbois*cough*

PorkaMorka, I hope you choke on your suggestions of improving civ's strategic and tactica gameplay! (I need some KKKs)

I don't think the knight in chess should be able to jump over other pieces because it's unrealistic that a horse carrying a knight in full armor can completely jump over a fully-grown man. I'm going to offer alternatives to satiate my Asperger's instead of coming up with alternatives that provide more enjoyable gameplay mechanics.

If PorkaMorka offered reasons for his dislike of the Civ V combat model other than it offending his sensitive sense of spatial cognition, the conversation in this thread would have gone much differently.

I'm just raging a bit over the fact that the game could easily be so much better, yet they insist on streamlining. And people here lauding them for it is really fucking perplexing.

I don't see anyone here lauding them for streamlining the game. Combat has always been a weakpoint in the Civ series, and Civ V is making major changes to address that. Bringing tactical depth to a game where combat previously consisted of building a giant stack of units to bump into another giant stack of units so you can select units one at a time to fight to the death with the automatically selected best defender isn't streamlining. It's quite the opposite.

On the topic of embarkation, I don't mind that they removed transport units, but the fact that embarking from any coastal tile in the world only costs a single movement point is really cheap. Especially when you consider that air units are incapable of getting to a distant continent without an aircraft carrier and that the stealth bomber doesn't even have that option.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I don't think the knight in chess should be able to jump over other pieces because it's unrealistic that a horse carrying a knight in full armor can completely jump over a fully-grown man.

Yes, let's talk chess.

Chess is a deeper game and far more challenging than any of the games we discuss on this forum.

None of us have mastered it yet, while the strategy games we discuss here offer far less of an intellectual challenge.

Why are we discussing these inferior games instead of sticking to chess?

Spoiler

Chess is too abstract to fire the imagination in the same way these inferior but less abstract games do.

Abstraction is not without tradeoffs. Thus the debate "has this level of abstraction gone too far"?

If PorkaMorka offered reasons for his dislike of the Civ V combat model other than it offending his sensitive sense of spatial cognition, the conversation in this thread would have gone much differently.

Since the game isn't playable yet, I can't discuss how it plays.

Trying to do so would be merely speculation, and would be pointless.

All I can say is when you think about it, informed by a knowledge of how Civ games play:

This is incredibly stupid looking.

As is the idea that no more soldiers can fit in Portugal.

 

[OSK]

Yes, let's talk chess.

Chess is a deeper game and far more challenging than any of the games we discuss on this forum.

None of us have mastered it yet, while the strategy games we discuss here offer far less of an intellectual challenge.

Why are we discussing these inferior games instead of sticking to chess?

Spoiler

Chess is too abstract to fire the imagination in the same way these inferior but less abstract games do.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. We play other strategy games because what they lack of tactical depth, they make up for in tactical breadth and variety. Chess has you moving units on a board. A 4x game has that as well as other things like economics, diplomacy, etc. Undoubtedly, things like setting and narrative can improve a game, but claiming it as the sole reason as why we play a game like Civilization instead of chess is ridiculous. If that was the case, why not just play Star Wars chess?

Since the game isn't playable yet, I can't discuss how it plays.

Trying to do so would be merely speculation, and would be pointless.

With experience of other strategy games, especially of previous Civ games, and with a wealth of knowledge available (the damn manual has been released), we can discuss quite a bit with a high level of certainty.

All I can say is when you think about it, informed by a knowledge of how Civ games play:

This is incredibly stupid looking.

And if we replaced all the pawns in chess with teletubbies, the game would play exactly the same.

As is the idea that no more soldiers can fit in Portugal.

In Civ terms, Portugal is defined as the cities and surrounding countryside owned by the the Civilization named Portugal, not the borders of the country in the real world. If Portugal doesn't have enough territory to fit all of their troops, they are probably starving economically. This game is not a simulation of the real world.

 

[MetalCraze]

So now that demo is out and after several reviews as I take it Civ5 has everything "streamlined" to allow combat approach to be the best one with everything else not being on a par?

As IGN said they really brought it to the masses.

 

[Groof]

Even in *generals it took powerful artillery to strike from 2 or more hexes.

In Fantasy General as well? I can't remember. Archers can shoot some distance in Fantasy Wars and that anyway. And that's like just fine.

There are some issues with the scale in Civilization games. Because they try to do both cavemen and laser-tanks or whatever in a games that aren't all that detailed. For some of the stuff they change the scale as you go, like a turn being a bunch of years early in the game and then not so many later on. Less trivial to do something like that with the map.

Oh. I never played Call to Power, but that seems worth checking out.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I just played the demo. Since my computer is shit, it looks like shit... Not really a flaw of the game. I dislike the new UI but I'm not used to it yet so I can't say it's bad (yet).

One thing that does suck however is the voice of the man who reads the quotes you hear whenever a tech is researched. He sounds like a child molester.

 

[MetalCraze]

Haven't noticed this but for fuck's sake - what the fuck is this shit? You can now attack with archers across rocks?

Now if they kept a slowed down movement for infantry that would mean that archers will rape infantry beyond mountains and infantry will never be able to reach them in time.

How very... streamlined

I said that Generals gameplay will never fit Civ scale due to one hex being so huge.

 

[mondblut]

In Fantasy General as well? I can't remember.

I am fairly certain of it. FG is reskinned PG anyway, with giant eagles for fighters and zeppelins for bombers. And in PG, it took highest generation tanks (i.e. Koenig Tiger) to shoot at 2 hexes, with its scale being roughly 1 km per hex.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Haven't noticed this but for fuck's sake - what the fuck is this shit? You can now attack with archers across rocks?

Now if they kept a slowed down movement for infantry that would mean that archers will rape infantry beyond mountains and infantry will never be able to reach them in time.

How very... streamlined

I said that Generals gameplay will never fit Civ scale due to one hex being so huge.

For the record I believe that in the final game you will either need line of sight or a spotter + promotion to shoot over mountains.

Didn't hear anything about the range being reduced though.

 

[OSK]

For the record I believe that in the final game you will either need line of sight or a spotter + promotion to shoot over mountains.

Didn't hear anything about the range being reduced though.

Yeah, you need a spotter and a promotion to shoot at tiles the archer cannot directly see.


Damn zero day patches and damn my slow internet connection. I want to play.

 

[Exmit]

on a 2nd note


This is releasing tomorrow.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBRJy4ojdVM


It scored 86% in a german review.