Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth

[sser]

I liked stacks of doom.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads my posts...
I have to repeat myself: The problem with Civilization combat is that it tries to simulate 5000 years of warfare in the single game, which ins't possible without a lot of thought given to mechanics. In fact, the game would need two or three different sets of mechanics - one for pre-1700 warfare and one for after.

SMAC's combat is better because it simulates modern warfare with better tech. Infantry, Rovers, Jets, etc. The combat only changes radically by addition - you get better guns and amor, not go from swords to rifles. You also get new devices that take the war to new places - Foils, Cruisers, Needlejets and Choppers, the more exotic attachments like Drop Pods. Also collateral damage from CivII is less punishing here, so stacking outside cities get you punished, and stacking inside cities make you vulnerable to artillery and mind control. Not to mention the really weird stuff like combat terraforming, psi combat, etc.

Paradox games have a nice answer to the doomstack problem: Supply limit. Translating it to 4X would mean that rather than 1UPT (which is retarded), each type of tile has X number of units allowed, and you can't go beyond the limit or only a penalty. Early wars would be very doomstacky, but eventually tech would make it so that modern units have to scatter and be in many squares rather than concentrate all in a single square- because if they do they either starve to the death or get wiped out by concentrated firepower.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

"realism invictus" mod for civ4 has flanking and supply limit. and ai can into using ships. damn england, it kept colonizing on mainland europe.

 

[Space Satan]

CivIV combat, even with all its flaws, is bearable. CivV is a neverending grind. Clusterfuck of a system that renders retreats impossible, due to retarded implementation of hexes. Your entire empire could be locked because your army created a human centipede while moving through a bottleneck. 1UPT turned already crippled and badly applied mechanic unplayable.
Once in a while I reinstall CivV and try it, because - maybe it gets better after some time and it is me who missed some strategic layers. But after several wars I uninstall it because the very concept of warfare in CivV is dumbed down to the amoeba levels.
This and inability and utter lack of devs' understanding of how UI works. You are reminded about EVERY useless and meaningless shit, dip screen will play animation from every AI where they will announce that they like\dislike\wanted to see you. In Beyond Earth all this flaws and design atrocities only became so exxagarated that even most loyal Firaxis fanbois frowned upon it.
No amount of of DLCs and expansions will fix it. What's worse - Firaxis will probably keep 1UPT and all their degenerade game design decisions to CivVI

 

[tuluse]

A lot of civ5 is designed to prolong the game instead of providing actual fun or challenge.

 

[Gozma]

Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads my posts...
I have to repeat myself: The problem with Civilization combat is that it tries to simulate 5000 years of warfare in the single game, which ins't possible without a lot of thought given to mechanics. In fact, the game would need two or three different sets of mechanics - one for pre-1700 warfare and one for after.

SMAC's combat is better because it simulates modern warfare with better tech. Infantry, Rovers, Jets, etc. The combat only changes radically by addition - you get better guns and amor, not go from swords to rifles. You also get new devices that take the war to new places - Foils, Cruisers, Needlejets and Choppers, the more exotic attachments like Drop Pods. Also collateral damage from CivII is less punishing here, so stacking outside cities get you punished, and stacking inside cities make you vulnerable to artillery and mind control. Not to mention the really weird stuff like combat terraforming, psi combat, etc.

Paradox games have a nice answer to the doomstack problem: Supply limit. Translating it to 4X would mean that rather than 1UPT (which is retarded), each type of tile has X number of units allowed, and you can't go beyond the limit or only a penalty. Early wars would be very doomstacky, but eventually tech would make it so that modern units have to scatter and be in many squares rather than concentrate all in a single square- because if they do they either starve to the death or get wiped out by concentrated firepower.

There really really needed to be some "pay a serious cost to stack some units" rule so high difficulty AIs couldn't completely disembowel themselves at a choke point. Having three quarters of a huge invasion force commit suicide by embarking to get around a choke point omigah

 

[Jigawatt]

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market.

no. just no. it's enjoyable, can be played, it's still extremely far from being a complex game, even farther from being a good game. nowhere in this universe it's one of the best.

Give me at least two better games of this genre released in the last ten years.

Well, there's Civ IV:BtS for one. I would posit that Endless Legend is better as well.

 

[Norfleet]

Paradox games have a nice answer to the doomstack problem: Supply limit. Translating it to 4X would mean that rather than 1UPT (which is retarded), each type of tile has X number of units allowed, and you can't go beyond the limit or only a penalty. Early wars would be very doomstacky, but eventually tech would make it so that modern units have to scatter and be in many squares rather than concentrate all in a single square- because if they do they either starve to the death or get wiped out by concentrated firepower.

Doomstacks don't really exist in SMAC, anyway, because the maximum value that can be safely concentrated in a stack must be lower than the cost of a nuke. Otherwise, the stack gets nuked and ceases to exist.

 

[Destroid]

Are nukes effective against unit stacks in CivIV? It's been too long since I played it.

 

[Space Satan]

Nuke argument is faulty because nukes were only late-game solution and even then were not intended to use massively. CivIV mistake was that they turned siege weapons into a close-combat weapons. And first to the fight were the catapults. That is not a solution. In SMAC all units could deal collateral damage(maybe with the exception of needlejet). Yet SMAC had enough space for maneuvers, retreats and regroup. In CiVV\BE units fighting at the front are suicide troops as it is near impossible to save non-cavalry units. No wayto protect them. CiVIV - you attack with swordsman and have full-heath axeman protecting wounded swordsman at the same tile. CivV - front units cannot retreat because 1UPT and reserves at the back press on to the meat grinder.

 

[Llord]

CivV - front units cannot retreat because 1UPT and reserves at the back press on to the meat grinder

But you can. Just have to think about it beforehand. You do know that it is possible to swap positions of two units if both of them have enough movement?

Combat system in CivV makes you consider terrain as none of previous ones did because it heavily influences all parts of gameplay. I spend as much time weighing out which city position is potentially more defendable as what economy bonuses it will provide. You enemy is behind a choke point? Don't start a war with him! Trade instead. You'll have to wait for artillery or send your troops around if you really need to destroy him.

As it was already said the AI unfortunately can't handle this well. That's why as a single-player game CivV is probably a bit worse than CivIV. But the multiplayer is way better.

And to stay on topic, Rising Tide changes seem interesting but I don't think they can do to BE what G&K did to CivV (make a decent game out of a mediocre one).

 

[baturinsky]

CivV combat is not THAt bad. Especially once you get to artillery, or your OP unique unit, if you have one.

 

[Norfleet]

Nuke argument is faulty because nukes were only late-game solution and even then were not intended to use massively.

Well, this is SMAC we're talking about, and nukes were available pretty early. They certainly were for me and I used the small-powered nukes specifically for targeted elimination of doomstacks.

 

[Space Satan]

CivV - front units cannot retreat because 1UPT and reserves at the back press on to the meat grinder

But you can. Just have to think about it beforehand. You do know that it is possible to swap positions of two units if both of them have enough movement?

Combat system in CivV makes you consider terrain as none of previous ones did because it heavily influences all parts of gameplay. I spend as much time weighing out which city position is potentially more defendable as what economy bonuses it will provide. You enemy is behind a choke point? Don't start a war with him! Trade instead. You'll have to wait for artillery or send your troops around if you really need to destroy him.

As it was already said the AI unfortunately can't handle this well. That's why as a single-player game CivV is probably a bit worse than CivIV. But the multiplayer is way better.

And to stay on topic, Rising Tide changes seem interesting but I don't think they can do to BE what G&K did to CivV (make a decent game out of a mediocre one).

In theory, you can. In practice, there's not enough space for maneuver. And I am not talking about bottlenecks. I know about swapping, and I know it doesn't help, only increase overall mess.

 

[Llord]

In theory, you can. In practice, there's not enough space for maneuver

Well in my practice there usually is. Maybe you are playing completely different settings. The size of an active army in a conflict growth from about 5 units early on to maybe 20 in the endgame, but so does the battle front. It's harder to save your units in hilly/foresty areas, but then this is just another thing to keep in mind when planning the engagement.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Plus Civ V combat has the awkward way that Archers and their upgrade line are game-breakingly powerful. Like, Zone of Control and 1UPT do not mix well and Civ V is the ultimate proof of this.

 

[Space Satan]

Plus Civ V combat has the awkward way that Archers and their upgrade line are game-breakingly powerful. Like, Zone of Control and 1UPT do not mix well and Civ V is the ultimate proof of this.

Archers, crossbowmen, longbowmen - range of attack - 2 tiles
Machine gun, great war infantry, modern infantry - range of attack - 1 tile.
Because Firaxis

 

[Galdred]

I don't know why I bother with this shit.

Hexes were a deal breaker to begin with.

That doesn't make any sense. The only thing squares have over hexes is that they are much better to tile human architecture. As Civ does not have walls that extend over several tiles, I see no reason why you would want squares instead of hexes.

 

[flyingjohn]

Actually the melee strength of ranged units seems to be the biggest problem,they can take a direct attack from a melee unit and still be okey without much harm being done,and then you just focus down with your army of ranged units.
There is even a bigger problem with melee units in the form of strength distribution.
You have mobile sams who are melee and are almost as strong as infantry which makes them a better meat shield which is ridiculous,but even more ridiculous is the uselessness of tanks .
Tanks in games should be a counter to infantry but in here they are just weaker infantry and therefore useless.
Not to mention wtf is the point of helicopters and the lower tech tree in the game.

 

[sser]

Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads my posts...
I have to repeat myself: The problem with Civilization combat is that it tries to simulate 5000 years of warfare in the single game, which ins't possible without a lot of thought given to mechanics. In fact, the game would need two or three different sets of mechanics - one for pre-1700 warfare and one for after.

SMAC's combat is better because it simulates modern warfare with better tech. Infantry, Rovers, Jets, etc. The combat only changes radically by addition - you get better guns and amor, not go from swords to rifles. You also get new devices that take the war to new places - Foils, Cruisers, Needlejets and Choppers, the more exotic attachments like Drop Pods. Also collateral damage from CivII is less punishing here, so stacking outside cities get you punished, and stacking inside cities make you vulnerable to artillery and mind control. Not to mention the really weird stuff like combat terraforming, psi combat, etc.

Paradox games have a nice answer to the doomstack problem: Supply limit. Translating it to 4X would mean that rather than 1UPT (which is retarded), each type of tile has X number of units allowed, and you can't go beyond the limit or only a penalty. Early wars would be very doomstacky, but eventually tech would make it so that modern units have to scatter and be in many squares rather than concentrate all in a single square- because if they do they either starve to the death or get wiped out by concentrated firepower.

This or a variation of the doomstack that sort of riffs off what Call to Power was doing.

I've never really bothered to totally write it out in detail, but I would very much like a system that utilized 'armies' as actual entities that carry limited slot numbers that you must then fill with infantry, archers, cavalry, etc., all of which are led by generals that confer various bonuses, with singular units being allowed to exist outside the 'armies' yet be less effective (unless, say, a general has an aura that increases their viability like a Hannibal would with cavalry). Said armies could then clash and deal damage based on various attributes the generals give them, as well as the overall make up of the army (5-infantry run into 3-infantry and 2-cavalry, 3-infantry hold the line, 2-cavalry flank and devastate the other army). Battles of annihilation are rare, but constantly reinforcing your armies puts a great deal of stress on the economy/population. Maybe have 'bonuses' to victories that isn't just taking peoples cities: large military victories give your cities happiness, science, gold, respect, whatever. Armies in enemy borders require more resources to support (think attrition in Rise of Nations); without support, an army starts losing slots for a turn (imagine them greyed out).

'Generals' could be much like Spies are in CivV: granted through eras or other means, and numerically increased through the ages so that by the modern era you might have many generals with much larger slot numbers. Said-generals could also earn experience points which is then spent on various pathways. War-like civs would get more generals and/or more slots. An army looking to siege would need to bring siege units, but this would make them necessarily weaker to field battles. Fighters and artillery could bomb armies, taking slots out for a turn as a form of close-air or artillery support. Maybe modern armies actually look like modern armies. Maybe we finally get one of the more devastating killers on the battlefield: the mortar. Mayhaps cities provide support resources for armies, so if you hit a city with bombers you indirectly harm the slots available on the field of battle.

Armies themselves would be supplied by the very resources you always harvest. A Wheat field could be set to feed a city/citizen, or set to feed an army slot. Suddenly, it's worth trading for food stuffs. Iron/Stone are used to help build buildings as sort of tools, or they can be used to help build armies/support slots. Luxury items could help offset the unhappiness of warfare or 'melted down' into slot-support parts in times of dire need (maybe at half-efficiency). "War economies" could be had. Wars of a different nature could take place. The AI would never again need to try and out-duel the player on hexes - which it never, ever will - but instead simplify their processes to simple army/army-support management.

Of course, none of that is ever going to happen. It would require a very different civ game in the first place (I can think of many, many things that would need to be reshaped) and secondly, Civ is based on its simplicity and constant sense of rewarding motion first and foremost. Call to Power tried a variation of the stacks of doom that is very much superior to Civ, but that's not likely to return. I think the suggestion of 'support' hexes which can hold various amounts of units while not allowing stacks of doom is the best and most likely middleground. Civ5's combat system is actually not that bad, but it is thoroughly and frequently betrayed by the maps upon which it is played, giving players the aforementioned bottlenecks or conga-lines of dudes snaking their way around awkwardly structured landscapes. 1-UPT is simply too restrictive and something of an oddity altogether. Nevermind the strong aesthetic dissonance between 'these hexes represent large tracts of land' and 'this archer can shoot over 3-hexes.'

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

"realism invictus" mod for civ4 has flanking and supply limit. and ai can into using ships. damn england, it kept colonizing on mainland europe.

Which would be interesting... if Civ4 didn't use gamebryo engine, thus running like crap. Have fun playing, say, Planetfall/Conflict on Chiron on a huge map..

well, planetfall sucks and coc is german only. i see no problem here.

 

[Eyeball]

CoC is in English as well.

 

[Average Manatee]

CivIV had only one problem - doomstacks. Firaxis failed to create a workable combat system even when they already had perfect solution for doomstacks we saw in Alpha Centauri.

The solution was catapults, git gud.

Alpha Centauri was a completely different kind of combat system.

AC already had a solution to Doomstacks

AC's solution was dumb (everything EXPLODES!!!!), wouldn't make sense before 2100 AD, and only sort of worked in AC because the combat system was already fucked from the get go (massively imbalanced Atk/Def, hyper mobility). It's fun but its the exact opposite of balance.

, and catapults weren't it, because artillery only did a small amount of damage and it would take massed artillery to even reduce everything in it to...half health.

If by massed artillery you mean, like, 5-7 for a 20-30 stack, of which 3-5 will usually survive.

As for half health: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/combat_explained.php

Ratio value	      Odds of winning
   >1.8                   99%+
 1.58-1.79	        95%-98%
 1.39-1.57	        87%-90%
 1.25-1.38	        75%-80%
 1.01-1.25	        62%-75%
    1.0                   50%
 0.80-0.99	        25%-38%
 0.73-0.79	        20%-25%
 0.64-0.72	        10%-13%
 0.56-0.63	         2%-5%
   <0.56                  <1%

Every fight where you have more than an 80% advantage over the enemy is essentially impossible to lose.

Summary: Your 20 stack + 5-7 artillery just killed 20 enemy units, lost 2 artillery, and suffered a bunch of minor damage that will heal in 2-3 turns.

Artillery sure sucks.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

play it with a book.
you can't blame a game for something it wasn't supposed to do, to even know it would have happened someday.

 

[Casanova_Frankenstein]

Archers, crossbowmen, longbowmen - range of attack - 2 tiles
Machine gun, great war infantry, modern infantry - range of attack - 1 tile.
Because Firaxis

That's what happens when you get rid of stacking. Archers now have to have meat shields on the tile in front of them in order be protected but they also have to be able to attack enemy units so they're given increased range.

Another perfect example of how removing what appears to be a simple gameplay mechanic, can change the whole complexion of a game.