Civilization VI


#2986

Speaking as the resident Civ V apologist/fan, I agree that’s the one piece which still needs improvement to this day even after mods have had their way with the game. If I had my way, we’d have stacks of doom and scene shifts to “battle views” where 1UPT is a lot easier to handle. Of course, each turn would take infinitely longer, but my thousands of hours spent on the game seem to argue at least I’d still be up for it.


#2987

For some reason most people seem to think the choice is 1 unit per turn or unlimited stacks of doom…

How about stack limits as determined by technology level/logistics?


#2988

To be fair, I think some people use “stacks of doom” as shorthand, but yes; that would have made IV a better game imho.


#2989

I thought that’s what they were doing in Civ6 when I heard about Corps and Armies at later tech. I was so disappointed at the implementation.


#2990

Ha I had that exact same thought too! For those brief seconds I was like “YES!” Then it was like… ohhh darn.


#2991

Once again leave it to Paradox and EU IV to find a better way.

Supply limit, which can vary based on terrain. It’s a limit, but a soft one if you can stomach the attrition damage.


#2992

For all the complaints of “Stacks of Doom”, I don’t think they were really ever the major issue people made them out to be. If there was a stack of doom that utterly annihilated you, that meant you got severely outplayed (whether due to playing poorly or just massive AI bonuses). Civ4 had siege weapons which could inflict collateral damage and beat the crap out of stacks. You had stacks of your own. I don’t know how the AI carpeting every available tile in the region with cavalry is a superior system, other than it’s so inept that it can’t understand how to move them when they’re all in a traffic jam like that. And if someone is really after the inept AI experience, they can just turn down the difficulty and roflstomp all over the world.

I think something like Call to Power or Endless Space have good concepts that would fit the Civ franchise far better than what they have now.


#2993

It was that stacks of doom made the game grind on interminably. It was that they were slow and obnoxious. With no group select option it made moving troops take 10x too long.

That was my issue.


#2994

Yeah, I can agree with that!


#2995

For CIV4? Wasn’t there a ctrl+select and alt+select for select all on tile and select all of type on tile?


#2996

Serein’s right. Moving that stacks was easy. Select all was definitely one option, and the grouping remained through the turns. It was also possible to easily split off certain units as well if required.

The issue I believe with stacks was the way combat was handled: suicide artillery/catapults/trebs etc, then throw cannon fodder to kill down the most defensive unit before hopefully having enough steam in the stack to use the highly decorated/promoted soldiers kill off the weakest defenders and wipe the stack. The most defensive unit always defended the stack, and once those were gone, the rest would crumble quickly. 1UPT got around this. Dare I say, I love, love, love 1UPT when it comes to naval battles! On land, it needs refinement and I can be counted into the list of people horribly disappointed that Firaxis didn’t go the route of Call to Power with their armies.

I agree with CraigM where I think supply limit would be a nice middle ground. My belief is to base that supply on the amount of food available on a tile. Pillaging becomes a defensive option, as tech improves and the landscape is more developed, larger armies can be fielded because those farms become more advanced.


#2997

Err…doesn’t 1upt do all of that but worse?


#2998

This. Imperialism also had a tactical system like Call to Power. Battles were short enough in duration not to bog down the strategy part of the game, but were interesting. 1UPT is just awful IMO.


#2999

Comparing lesser games to Imperialism is just unfair, though.


#3000

I could get behind this if they rebalance things to accommodate it. Something like forcing all units to be placed in armies or garrisoned in cities so you don’t have to worry about the AI spamming single units all over the map thus making you enter combat mode to fight each one individually (that would get tedious). Maybe have the number of armies that can be fielded limited by technology or population level, or possibly handle it like the great general great person unit.


#3001

I want a Civ with more abstract and less fiddly warfare. Shuffling units around and fighting wars is the part of the game that I care the least for. I can’t be the only one?


#3002

This would be a huge improvement for combat gameplay, but see, it would expose the non-tactical AI still further as being unacceptably bad. Because Civ is all about the illusion of meaningfulness. If you are distracted for 90% of every turn with unit movement, the thin illusion of some kind of world outside your border can be maintained a bit longer. But if all you do is interact with “AI” that has no notion of its own game-interests and goals because it has no planning model, the illusion is much harder to maintain.


#3003

I would love to see something like this but I don’t expect to see it happen.

Imperialism was mentioned above. Troop movement was brilliantly handled in that game. I agree that the tactical combat didn’t take too long but I usually just let it auto resolve.


#3004

2 words

Endless Legend

the best civ clone ever made…no problems with armies…no cluttered map…great tech platters…its perfect


#3005

I liked Endless Legend, but it did not scratch the Civ itch for me.