Civilization VI!!?!

[MetalDog]

"Just another take on the whole stack no stack thing over at Civilization.  Perhaps the programmers there simply can't make an AI capable of handling stacks or even limited stacks so they decided to can the whole stacking thing.  Then you market it as a great new feature. 

I'm not trying to cause trouble, just looking at the issue from a marketing/manufacturing angle."

On the contrary. Having an A.I. properly combine arms is the more difficult task. As it is, no stacking means no stacking to defend cities. So you got your one unit in yours and the A.I> may or may not have their one unit. Properly combing arms ---3 to 5 units...will take a city. The a.I. can't...so it shows up with one.....next two turns....one.......in rare ocassions two. You simply leave your one unit who will assure defense...nurse you 5 unit army to take city after city. Game over.

In fact...I'm pretty sure Civ V's A.I. hasn't changed from Civ 4's. It just moves the stack as it moves single units. The difference mainly being the single unit can't challenge you but the stack can. Now, there are mods for V that allow 3 unit stacks to improve things but sadly the A.I. doesn't use them to defend so your back to square one.

As for movement....say compared to Warlock...is really unit cost. You can afford but 4 or 5 mostly so that's what you move in Civ...in warlock you can afford many more.

GR, you're the first person to mention that to me.  Is it really that simple?  You don't have to spam units to take over the world?  Or have a bunch of cities?

[ghostryder]

Mechanically you need enough cities to support your 5 unit army--after that no need really unless there's an important choke point you want to defend.

Doom stacks have their own issues-I'm not blind to it---but on the upside of giving the A.I. a chance--they just make more sense in this type of game where spear chuckers can kill a Panzer....abstractly yeah if there's 30,000 spearmen on a tank sure...I can buy that. So in that regard it makes more sense than a one vs on one.

This is why people expecting Panzer General or Panzer corp type battles given the no stacking and hexes were sorely disappointed---not only did the A.I. fall short--but all things aren't equal with civ games vs a WWII title---your battling across centuries many times.

The real answer to the problem that has plagued the civ games is they are too abstract. Without going into platoon, battalions and Corps size there's no way to compromise between single unit and stacks. It works much better with monsters...say the Fall From Heaven mod for Civ4. Titans and Godzilla or whatnot---that fits the abstract scale and time moreso.

What they really need to do is invest the dev time in A.I. Typically your give about 2 weeks---and i can tell you from experience a really good A.I. would take a couple years. However if done modularly that one time investment could be used in all future titles---but devs just don't think in these terms ----unless they're developing a chess game where it's expected to be good.

[JudgeDredd]

"Just another take on the whole stack no stack thing over at Civilization.  Perhaps the programmers there simply can't make an AI capable of handling stacks or even limited stacks so they decided to can the whole stacking thing.  Then you market it as a great new feature. 

I'm not trying to cause trouble, just looking at the issue from a marketing/manufacturing angle."

On the contrary. Having an A.I. properly combine arms is the more difficult task. As it is, no stacking means no stacking to defend cities. So you got your one unit in yours and the A.I> may or may not have their one unit. Properly combing arms ---3 to 5 units...will take a city. The a.I. can't...so it shows up with one.....next two turns....one.......in rare ocassions two. You simply leave your one unit who will assure defense...nurse you 5 unit army to take city after city. Game over.

In fact...I'm pretty sure Civ V's A.I. hasn't changed from Civ 4's. It just moves the stack as it moves single units. The difference mainly being the single unit can't challenge you but the stack can. Now, there are mods for V that allow 3 unit stacks to improve things but sadly the A.I. doesn't use them to defend so your back to square one.

As for movement....say compared to Warlock...is really unit cost. You can afford but 4 or 5 mostly so that's what you move in Civ...in warlock you can afford many more.

When Saladin DoW'd my arse, he turned up on my doorstep with enough units to surround my capital. We had open borders, so no alarm bells were going off on the number of units around my capital.

Also - he went after my capital even though I had 2 other cities - one north and one south. I don't know if that's a tactical AI move or not - all I can say is out of my 3 cities, with 1 being closer to Saladin, he went for my capital which was further away.

I have also seen the AI break away to heal.

He turned up with a mix of Chariots, foot soldiers and slingers.


For anyone who played Civ V for any length of time...did the barbarians come along with you through the eras? I never noticed in the time I played it but I noticed that the Civ VI the barbarians turned up with swordmen...which even I don't have  :o

[bbmike]

They really need to tweak the religious spam. The AIs are flooding the map with missionaries and apostles. I get that they might be going for a religious victory but something is out of whack. Plus, if they wipe out your religion in your cities, there is no way to bring it back (and no way for you to get a religious victory if that's what you're going for).

[Barthheart]

JD, yes the barbs in CiV gradually got better tech/units. Not sure but I think they kept up with the average tech of everyone in the game.

[undercovergeek]

They really need to tweak the religious spam. The AIs are flooding the map with missionaries and apostles. I get that they might be going for a religious victory but something is out of whack. Plus, if they wipe out your religion in your cities, there is no way to bring it back (and no way for you to get a religious victory if that's what you're going for).

Similar point was raised at rps - there is a way, I forget now and no I'm sorry I don't have a link 

[JudgeDredd]

I noticed the map has masses of religious folk!

[JudgeDredd]

JD, yes the barbs in CiV gradually got better tech/units. Not sure but I think they kept up with the average tech of everyone in the game.

Thanks  O0

[W8taminute]

On the contrary. Having an A.I. properly combine arms is the more difficult task.

I agree but there really isn't any ai combined arms in CiV is there?  Unless I'm missing something my 200+ hours of game time failed to show me I don't think there is an ai that successfully uses combined arms tactics in CiV. 

That's my point I was trying to make on getting rid of the stacking feature from Civ <= ver.4  It's far easier to not bother with the combined arms ai in a single unit stack than to program an ai capable of handling multi-unit stacks. 

In fact now that I think about it I don't think I've ever seen proper combined arms tactics being used by the ai in any civ game unless it was a user made mod (E.g. El Justo's "Age of Imperialism" for Civ III)

[Jarhead0331]

What is the point of "combined arms" in Civ anyway? Its not like you get any bonuses for having infantry supported by armor or cavalry. Civ has always been about spamming the most powerful unit. This is not a wargame.   

[Anguille]

What is the point of "combined arms" in Civ anyway? Its not like you get any bonuses for having infantry supported by armor or cavalry. Civ has always been about spamming the most powerful unit. This is not a wargame.

is Master of Orion a wargame then? I prefer that approach. While i usually like the beginning in Civ games, i find end game too micro because of th many units all around the place.

[tgb]

"Combined arms" might be something of a misnomer.  There are techs that allow you to combine two like units into a Corps, and 3 into an Army, with the new values being greater than the sum of the individuals.  You can also attach "support" units like medics or catapults, but I haven't gotten far enough to find out if they count as one of the 2 or 3.

[Jarhead0331]

What is the point of "combined arms" in Civ anyway? Its not like you get any bonuses for having infantry supported by armor or cavalry. Civ has always been about spamming the most powerful unit. This is not a wargame.

is Master of Orion a wargame then? I prefer that approach. While i usually like the beginning in Civ games, i find end game too micro because of th many units all around the place.

I said, what is the point of combined arms "in Civ anyway"? I'm not suggesting combined arms is a bad concept. I'm only stating a fact that it is not something that is featured in Civ.

[Anguille]

What is the point of "combined arms" in Civ anyway? Its not like you get any bonuses for having infantry supported by armor or cavalry. Civ has always been about spamming the most powerful unit. This is not a wargame.

is Master of Orion a wargame then? I prefer that approach. While i usually like the beginning in Civ games, i find end game too micro because of th many units all around the place.

I said, what is the point of combined arms "in Civ anyway"? I'm not suggesting combined arms is a bad concept. I'm only stating a fact that it is not something that is featured in Civ.

There was the exception of Civilization: Call to Power and Call to Power II...overall, it's true that it's not been a part of the "official" series...but why not? I would like it.

[Jarhead0331]

There was the exception of Civilization: Call to Power and Call to Power II...overall, it's true that it's not been a part of the "official" series...but why not? I would like it.

I don't think there is a man, woman, child, cat or dog that posts at Grogheads who wouldn't love to have combined arms officially modeled in Civ.