Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 97

Thread: The Civ 5 Multiplayer Paradox

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28

    The Civ 5 Multiplayer Paradox

    The one unit per hex switch essentially ruined multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, gameplay-wise, tactically, I love it. It works great in single-player. But multi-player, unlike single-player, is played out on "simultaneous turns." This speeds up gameplay, instead of everyone separately taking their turn, everyone moves at once, and there is usually a turn timer enabled. So, in previous Civs, when stacks were king, you simply had to trouble yourself with one army while you were engaged in war with another player. Sure, you might have two armies, or one army and a couple guys scattered around scouting the enemy base, but the meat of your army was usually concentrated in one or two tiles at all times.

    Because of the simultaneous turns, there was often a "race" to see who could move a unit or a stack of units first. For example, if I have an army that I think can destroy an opposing player's army, I'd try to attack it, and he'd try to scamper across a river, or up a hill, or in a nearby forest tile to either escape or get a defensive bonus to mitigate my numerical advantage. This was all fine and dandy when you had more men but less tiles to worry about. I mean, if you have 100 men on a tile but they all move as one, then it's essentially just one big mega unit.

    Now, with simultaneous turns, and one unit per hex, it becomes a huge problem. Your army is spread out. Each unit is far more valuable than what its counterpart would be in previous Civs. The tactical implications are much more vast of losing a unit, or taking a tile, or losing a tile, etc. The problem is of course, that the "race" to to move or attack first becomes ultra-critical. If my army is 7 units and I lose two because you got the jump on me, then I'm basically finished. With so many more tiles to deal with, and so little time, and so much at stake, it becomes a farce.

    So, it's somewhat ironic that by trying to make the game more tactical, it had the reverse effect in multiplayer, where online warfare is largely a random affair based on whoever has less lag and can click faster.


    Edit: The reason why it was less of a problem in Civ 4, is because you'd usually end a stack's turn on a defensible tile, and a stack would include a variety of units which consequently would make the stack more impervious to getting wiped out.

    In Civ 5, because only one unit is allowed per hex, the fastest player to act can destroy the other (e.g. sending his pike against a horseman, etc.). To compound the problem, losing a unit in Civ 5 is much more devastating than it was in Civ 4. This creates a game where an entire war can be won or lost in the opening moments of one furious click-fest of a turn (inserted from a post below by way of further explanation).
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-04-2010 at 09:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by dusematic View Post
    So, it's somewhat ironic that by trying to make the game more tactical, it had the reverse effect in multiplayer, where online warfare is largely a random affair based on whoever has less lag and can click faster.
    Civ 5 is about multiplayer, which means you need a fast machine and internet. It was designed that way, it was built to be that way. That is what they called streamlining, there is nothing wrong with the game, just your inablity to understand the game was created like that for a reason. The reason? I really dont know, but if you asked the people that get paid to post, they might tell you.

    If you have a proper diversification of units. If they get to the hills first, you just use the long range units to kill them. Which is what they do in real life, after 1950's it was airstrikes, after 1880 it was shells, before that it was catapults, before that was arrows.

    The old civ was alot like Civil war tactics, which means you brought all the units to one spot and slugged it out. The one unit per hex means you have to build an archer/cannons/howitzer, spearmen/musketmen/infantry, chariot/mounted unit/tank.

    You need all of them to complete a battle. If you only build the same unit you will fail.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    150
    Simple solution: Allow the option to turn off simultaneous turns in mutliplayer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    I have FiOs internet and a beefy rig. The issue isn't one of lag. The issue is there are too many critical decisions to make all at once.

    You obviously didn't understand/don't want to understand/disagree with my point. That's fine. You say they designed this game for multi-player. But designing a game for multi-player, and designing a good multi-player game are not one and the same.

    There is no easy fix. No amount of strategy will fix this fundamental problem. If I have a line of units squaring off against an enemy line, it will be whoever can mouse-click their units to attack first.

    Like I said, the one unit per hex system works GREAT in single-player, and would work GREAT in multi-player if there was an option to do consecutive turns (leaving aside issues of feasibility). But it's broken in simultaneous multi-player.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    343
    Re-read what I just wrote.

    "The reason? I really dont know, but if you asked the people that get paid to post, they might tell you. "


    Quickly moving is not going to ruin the battle, you just need to make sure you keep your grouping very close to the front of the battle, you also need to make sure you have a variety of units.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    The reason why it was less of a problem in Civ 4, is because you'd usually end a stack's turn on a defensible tile, and a stack would include a variety of units which consequently would make the stack more impervious to getting wiped out.

    In Civ 5, because only one unit is allowed per hex, the fastest player to act can destroy the other (e.g. sending his pike against a horseman, etc.). To compound the problem, losing a unit in Civ 5 is much more devastating than it was in Civ 4. This creates a game where an entire war can be won or lost in the opening moments of one furious click-fest of a turn.
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-04-2010 at 02:47 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Re-read what I just wrote.

    "The reason? I really dont know, but if you asked the people that get paid to post, they might tell you. "


    Quickly moving is not going to ruin the battle, you just need to make sure you keep your grouping very close to the front of the battle, you also need to make sure you have a variety of units.

    No. The line before your quote also said there is nothing wrong with the game, just my "inability to understand." I disagree. You've expressed your disagreement, now kindly exit the thread or challenge me on the merits.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Beliathon View Post
    Simple solution: Allow the option to turn off simultaneous turns in mutliplayer.
    I agree it would help. But it really isn't feasible to do that with more than a few players. Not to mention they no longer give you an option to set the turn timer speed.

    Ultimately though, this is a critical design flaw with regards to multiplayer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by dusematic View Post
    No. The line before your quote also said there is nothing wrong with the game, just my "inability to understand." I disagree. You've expressed your disagreement, now kindly exit the thread or challenge me on the merits.
    You are pretty dense arent you? Here is a little hint, I have no idea why it was designed as it was, but it was designed has it was. It is what it is and the "offical" line is because they made it that way.

    But my point still stands. If you keep the front close, make sure you have a variety of units, and use common sense, you should never hit the point here you are facing pike men to horse.

    And if please do not ask people to leave your thread it is 1.) Rude and 2.) Impossible to enforce.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    You are pretty dense arent you? Here is a little hint, I have no idea why it was designed as it was, but it was designed has it was. It is what it is and the "offical" line is because they made it that way.
    No. I've never questioned why the game was designed the way it is. I'm criticizing their design decisions. Obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    But my point still stands. If you keep the front close, make sure you have a variety of units, and use common sense, you should never hit the point here you are facing pike men to horse.
    No. It doesn't matter if you "keep the front close [sic]." The fact of the matter is, there is a counter for just about every unit, and if the other player is faster than you, he will exploit that counter every time. Irregardless of counters, the first to attack generally receives a huge bonus tactically, since open terrain is a negative bonus, ranged can soften targets from the rear, and cavalry can move so many hexes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    And if please do not ask people to leave your thread it is 1.) Rude and 2.) Impossible to enforce.
    No. I've actually been pretty polite to someone that A) keeps spewing nonsense entirely unrelated to my points and B) has resorted to insults.

    I merely suggested that if all you have to offer is staunch disagreement then your time could better be served elsewhere, since, as I've noted, you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying nor do I imagine you'd agree even if you could.

  11. #11
    I would like to see simultaneous turns turned off for when two human players are at war and on when they are not. That in combination of only being able to declare war at the end of your turn.

    Would solve the problems with less draw backs than always turn off simultaneous turns.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    100
    It seem to me the reverse works too. If you wait long enough, in defensible terrain of course, for the enemy to move then you've got a different sort of advantage. You know where he is ending and can react, while he cannot. That is a decent trade off in moving slower. You can attempt to exploit gaps, respond to pushes, etc. I think it works just fine the way it is, and it doesn't seem like whoever "clicks first" has a very big advantage or is guaranteed to win.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    I'm struggling to see how people cannot understand this. Think back to Civ 4, and the little bits of cheese here and there with people attacking cities/tiles/units, and how often it came down to who could scoot a unit(s) into or out of position fast enough.

    Now multiply that problem by a thousand.

    Again, this is strictly a multiplayer problem.


    I think they could fix it by implementing some sort of system where once you declare war you can't attack for a brief period to give the opposing player notice, in conjunction with alternating attack windows. So for example, you attack me, and then I have 5 seconds to attack where you cannot, and so on and so forth. Of course, that will never happen.

    But I'd at least like to see the option to turn simultaneous turns off in multiplayer.

    Ultimately it's just an inherent problem with the system they've devised for multiplayer with no easy fix.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by dvang View Post
    It seem to me the reverse works too. If you wait long enough, in defensible terrain of course, for the enemy to move then you've got a different sort of advantage. You know where he is ending and can react, while he cannot. That is a decent trade off in moving slower. You can attempt to exploit gaps, respond to pushes, etc. I think it works just fine the way it is, and it doesn't seem like whoever "clicks first" has a very big advantage or is guaranteed to win.
    That's not how it works in practice. I'm not sure if you've played a lot of multiplayer, but try to think practically. My entire point is that someone could cripple you before you had time to react. This isn't a twitch-based game.

    Thus, the idea that more time to wait and see what the opponent has done imparting some sort of advantage doesn't float. If you wait and see what they've done, and what they've done happens to be exploit your entire army by virtue of a quick draw on all the choicest matchups, then you're done.

    And to reiterate, this isn't just theoretical/hypothetical. This happens in every multiplayer war worth mentioning.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    343
    Ok, you are dense.

    The Front: The area of conflict between two military forces.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_%28military%29

    If you group your forces and move to the enemy as one group, your problem would not exist. If you have to take a hill, you need to move your troops as one group. But you are really to dense to try to explain this too.

    Re-read what I posted and try to comprehend.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Ok, you are dense.

    The Front: The area of conflict between two military forces.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_%28military%29

    If you group your forces and move to the enemy as one group, your problem would not exist. If you have to take a hill, you need to move your troops as one group. But you are really to dense to try to explain this too.

    Re-read what I posted and try to comprehend.
    Mmmhmmm.

  17. #17
    [Quote] Now, with simultaneous turns, and one unit per hex, it becomes a huge problem. Your army is spread out. Each unit is far more valuable than what its counterpart would be in previous Civs. The tactical implications are much more vast of losing a unit, or taking a tile, or losing a tile, etc. The problem is of course, that the "race" to to move or attack first becomes ultra-critical. If my army is 7 units and I lose two because you got the jump on me, then I'm basically finished. With so many more tiles to deal with, and so little time, and so much at stake, it becomes a farce. [\quote]

    I see what you are saying but the door swings both ways and in the large battles I get into I find being quick on the moves helps in some cases and hurts me in others when the opponent attacks first. Your opponent has all the same advantages and disadvantages.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    109
    The door may sving both ways but:

    What he means is that civ is become a command and conquer stuff, because of the simultaneous turn in MP. IT is not (only) the tactical that win but the fastest to click.

    It is not difficult to anderstand what he mean and if you like the new "MP combat" well good for you but it is clearly design as a realtime strategie game and not a turn based strategy game.
    I though CIV was the second type of game, and it WAS, but maybe the dev decide it an other way.
    Well that game is an OK game (just for the fun of it: My father 65ya, play civ since the I like me, I introduce him to it. And when I have ask him what he think about civ5, he answered: Well it funny, it's a bit like the game I play from Orange. Orange is the internett operator he use in france, for some few euro a mons you can dowload all the game you want from there site. well he makes me laugh good, but he is right. CIV5 is a small funny game nothing like what we are use to and it should not be call Civilization.)

    Maybe we have been spoiled by the modder at Civfanatics, with for exemple Rise of manking/A New Dawn.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    472
    Civ 5 isnt the first game having to deal with multiplayer coming from a turn based game.

    Solutions or different concepts to solve this.

    In conflicting areas the players simply assign commands to their units and at the end of the turn the orders will be executed followuing certain rules. If you know the board game diplomacy its the same concept. IF the game is really well thought out this kind of mechanism only comes in to play when player really are in the same area.

    2nd improvement would be that the units get some kind iniative value.

    For example long range units highest always they excecute first" then horse units and then infantry.

    These are only some ideas. There is another game company having finished a turn based strategy game right now. If you cant come up with your own idea.... copy them....

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    [QUOTE=Tumbler;1198177]
    I see what you are saying but the door swings both ways and in the large battles I get into I find being quick on the moves helps in some cases and hurts me in others when the opponent attacks first. Your opponent has all the same advantages and disadvantages.

    Sure, but I don't like my Civilization so twitchy. If you do, that's fine, but we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel just as cheap when I'm taking advantage of the system as when I'm getting reamed by it. It doesn't feel like "hey I just made a tactical masterstroke!" rather it feels like "wow, I got lucky there." Cheapens the whole experience.
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-04-2010 at 09:32 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra View Post
    Civ 5 isnt the first game having to deal with multiplayer coming from a turn based game.

    Solutions or different concepts to solve this.

    In conflicting areas the players simply assign commands to their units and at the end of the turn the orders will be executed followuing certain rules. If you know the board game diplomacy its the same concept. IF the game is really well thought out this kind of mechanism only comes in to play when player really are in the same area.

    2nd improvement would be that the units get some kind iniative value.

    For example long range units highest always they excecute first" then horse units and then infantry.

    These are only some ideas. There is another game company having finished a turn based strategy game right now. If you cant come up with your own idea.... copy them....
    Pretty good ideas. I think maybe an initiative value might be interesting. Anything to make it feel less random would be nice really.

  22. #22

    Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by dusematic View Post
    The one unit per hex switch essentially ruined multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, gameplay-wise, tactically, I love it. It works great in single-player. But multi-player, unlike single-player, is played out on "simultaneous turns." This speeds up gameplay, instead of everyone separately taking their turn, everyone moves at once, and there is usually a turn timer enabled. So, in previous Civs, when stacks were king, you simply had to trouble yourself with one army while you were engaged in war with another player. Sure, you might have two armies, or one army and a couple guys scattered around scouting the enemy base, but the meat of your army was usually concentrated in one or two tiles at all times.

    Because of the simultaneous turns, there was often a "race" to see who could move a unit or a stack of units first. For example, if I have an army that I think can destroy an opposing player's army, I'd try to attack it, and he'd try to scamper across a river, or up a hill, or in a nearby forest tile to either escape or get a defensive bonus to mitigate my numerical advantage. This was all fine and dandy when you had more men but less tiles to worry about. I mean, if you have 100 men on a tile but they all move as one, then it's essentially just one big mega unit.

    Now, with simultaneous turns, and one unit per hex, it becomes a huge problem. Your army is spread out. Each unit is far more valuable than what its counterpart would be in previous Civs. The tactical implications are much more vast of losing a unit, or taking a tile, or losing a tile, etc. The problem is of course, that the "race" to to move or attack first becomes ultra-critical. If my army is 7 units and I lose two because you got the jump on me, then I'm basically finished. With so many more tiles to deal with, and so little time, and so much at stake, it becomes a farce.

    So, it's somewhat ironic that by trying to make the game more tactical, it had the reverse effect in multiplayer, where online warfare is largely a random affair based on whoever has less lag and can click faster.


    Edit: The reason why it was less of a problem in Civ 4, is because you'd usually end a stack's turn on a defensible tile, and a stack would include a variety of units which consequently would make the stack more impervious to getting wiped out.

    In Civ 5, because only one unit is allowed per hex, the fastest player to act can destroy the other (e.g. sending his pike against a horseman, etc.). To compound the problem, losing a unit in Civ 5 is much more devastating than it was in Civ 4. This creates a game where an entire war can be won or lost in the opening moments of one furious click-fest of a turn (inserted from a post below by way of further explanation).
    THAT'S THE REALITY OF LOGISTICS in 'WAR', try Sims series

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4
    I'm just going to toss my hat in the ring on this one.
    It may not apply to everyone, but me and my friends have a house rule, that when we fight against other humans that we take turns moving units to elinimate the entire click fest

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by rheaun View Post
    THAT'S THE REALITY OF LOGISTICS in 'WAR', try Sims series
    I guess I should have expected more of this type of reply. Probably most of the people lambasting me don't have a lot of multiplayer Civ 5 experience and are conflating my criticism of the multiplayer aspect with how the system works in singleplayer.

    But to answer your "point," of course my complaint has nothing to do with the logistics of warfare in Civ. I like the logistics, I dislike that the logistics are ruined by mad rush clickfests at the beginning of every turn of warfare. Some people may like this, and that's fine for them. But for me, manual dexterity has no place in deciding major outcomes for a strategy game.
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-05-2010 at 01:32 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    278
    Civilization has worked with simultaneous turns since civ3 ptw came around. It is the only practical way it can ever work (unless you are ready to wait 20 minutes every turn for other 7 players to finish their thinking and their moves). You have to pre-think your moves even if you cant move at the very time.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    472
    Well they had since Civ 3 to come up with better solutions ..Solutions already in other games. By the way, the highjacking of your view by the comp is kind of throwing a random factor into the fight.

    I am sure people will adpat their strategies. Keeping units out of range against a surprise attack...threatening enemies is they move units to close. Well I hope soon Civ 5 gives a good multiplayer experience

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    I just thought it was interesting that Draco trolled the hell out of my point, but in a later thread stated that "multiplayer is just click fast and pick your battles" (http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=93292).


    So, it may be that he is coming around to my way of thinking on this issue. If not, I'm sure he'll let me know.

    This is not an obvious problem with the game, and took me awhile to put my finger on. I suspect over time it will be recognized as the singular design flaw with regards to multiplayer gaming in Civ 5. Unfortunately, I doubt it will get addressed because I see no easy way to fix it, and it's not an issue that can be simply and concisely communicated as "fix this bug" so it gets lost in the shuffle.
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-06-2010 at 03:52 AM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23

    MultiPlayer Combat

    Quote Originally Posted by dusematic View Post
    Because of the simultaneous turns, there was often a "race" to see who could move a unit or a stack of units first. For example, if I have an army that I think can destroy an opposing player's army, I'd try to attack it, and he'd try to scamper across a river, or up a hill, or in a nearby forest tile to either escape or get a defensive bonus to mitigate my numerical advantage. This was all fine and dandy when you had more men but less tiles to worry about. I mean, if you have 100 men on a tile but they all move as one, then it's essentially just one big mega unit.

    Now, with simultaneous turns, and one unit per hex, it becomes a huge problem. Your army is spread out. Each unit is far more valuable than what its counterpart would be in previous Civs. The tactical implications are much more vast of losing a unit, or taking a tile, or losing a tile, etc. The problem is of course, that the "race" to to move or attack first becomes ultra-critical. If my army is 7 units and I lose two because you got the jump on me, then I'm basically finished. With so many more tiles to deal with, and so little time, and so much at stake, it becomes a farce.

    So, it's somewhat ironic that by trying to make the game more tactical, it had the reverse effect in multiplayer, where online warfare is largely a random affair based on whoever has less lag and can click faster.

    Edit: The reason why it was less of a problem in Civ 4, is because you'd usually end a stack's turn on a defensible tile, and a stack would include a variety of units which consequently would make the stack more impervious to getting wiped out.

    In Civ 5, because only one unit is allowed per hex, the fastest player to act can destroy the other (e.g. sending his pike against a horseman, etc.). To compound the problem, losing a unit in Civ 5 is much more devastating than it was in Civ 4. This creates a game where an entire war can be won or lost in the opening moments of one furious click-fest of a turn (inserted from a post below by way of further explanation).
    I understand your point; but, to propose a contrary view based upon my limited multiplayer experience, it seems to me that the simultaneous turns provide a more interesting and chaotic combat environment. I base this on my recent experience in the largest Civ V multiplayer battle that I have been in. This was a battle where there were aproximately 10 units per side available at start and both sides had reinforcements on the way.

    The game does have a very good "fog of war" element and this was strong in this battle. When the battle began, I really was not sure how large the force attacking me was. There had been a Cavalry unit scouting my territory earlier and I had begun to beef up my defending forces; but, I think the battle itself was set off by a Barbarian unit which had captured a worker and he was chasing it down into my territory. I did not realize this and only saw the Barbarian Rogue and the worker so had one of my Warriors attack and destroy the Barbarian. My opponent thought I was trying to be cute by stealing one of his workers and immediately attacked and destroyed my Warrior.

    Fog of war and terrian played a big part in this whole action because you can only see on your map, enemy units that one of your units/cities can see. This battle was generally fought in clear terrain where a unit could only see adjacent hexes and because of this, neither of us really knew the composition of the other guy's available force. I did not realize how large a force my opponent was bringing and this was not a raid; but, rather an invasion.

    My strategy was to pull back a hex or two -- bring up units to fill in the line and await my opponents moves and respond to them. Thus, I had happened into a defensive strategy. I had 4 Spearment and 4 Archers in my main line. My opponent had 2 Warriors, 3 Archers and at least 3 Cavalry along with another Cavalry unit which popped in out of the wild near my Capital with a Leader arriving in short order with reinforcements.

    Because my opponent had to move forward to attack and take ground, he had to move first and when he became visible, by moving adjacent to my advance line, my archers moved forward one hex and let loose. Ranged units are extremely powerful in the game if they can avoid direct contact. A general engagement ensued where I was able to take this initial tactical advantage and bring up supporting units so that I was able to kill several units a turn and only lose one myself.

    The engagement eventually became a rout as I was able to destroy his army piecemeal. It is very important that you keep your units grouped together and within mutual supporting range or really bad things can happen to your troops rather quickly.

    My opponent thought that there was some lag issue where he would try to retreat with a unit and I would destroy it before it could move. I really can not speak to that myself as I thought that he got the jump on me several times when I wanted a unit to move and his moved faster.

    I still have not worked all of this out in my head; but, I thought the combat was very interesting and could easly have turned out differently if the Barabarian had not gotten me to move up all my available units to get into range to participate in the battle. I really thought the "fog of war" element was cool.

    Anyone else had something like this happen in one of their games?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    But my point still stands. If you keep the front close, make sure you have a variety of units, and use common sense, you should never hit the point here you are facing pike men to horse.
    Due to the -33% open area defence penalty, the person to attack first gets the inherrant advantage, no matter what unit you are packing. Op is 100% correct.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    25
    I always wondered what Chess would be like if winning factors are based on who could move a piece faster. Well, I now know.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23

    More Combat

    Quote Originally Posted by Simkill View Post
    Due to the -33% open area defence penalty, the person to attack first gets the inherrant advantage, no matter what unit you are packing. Op is 100% correct.
    You are correct, as far as you go.

    In my battle example, after I fell back, I put units into any defensible terrain possible. Usually, there is a hill, or a river, or a forest -- you get it. And, as the defender, you get to pick the terrain on which you fight unless this truly was a meeting engagement.

    With a little defensive terrain and more units in support of the main line -- I do not think that moving first is always that significant advantage.

    Obviously, the size of the forces will play a big role -- but I do not think it is anywhere near as cut and dried as some are making out.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by sogard View Post
    I understand your point; but, to propose a contrary view based upon my limited multiplayer experience, it seems to me that the simultaneous turns provide a more interesting and chaotic combat environment. I base this on my recent experience in the largest Civ V multiplayer battle that I have been in. This was a battle where there were aproximately 10 units per side available at start and both sides had reinforcements on the way.

    The game does have a very good "fog of war" element and this was strong in this battle. When the battle began, I really was not sure how large the force attacking me was. There had been a Cavalry unit scouting my territory earlier and I had begun to beef up my defending forces; but, I think the battle itself was set off by a Barbarian unit which had captured a worker and he was chasing it down into my territory. I did not realize this and only saw the Barbarian Rogue and the worker so had one of my Warriors attack and destroy the Barbarian. My opponent thought I was trying to be cute by stealing one of his workers and immediately attacked and destroyed my Warrior.

    Fog of war and terrian played a big part in this whole action because you can only see on your map, enemy units that one of your units/cities can see. This battle was generally fought in clear terrain where a unit could only see adjacent hexes and because of this, neither of us really knew the composition of the other guy's available force. I did not realize how large a force my opponent was bringing and this was not a raid; but, rather an invasion.

    My strategy was to pull back a hex or two -- bring up units to fill in the line and await my opponents moves and respond to them. Thus, I had happened into a defensive strategy. I had 4 Spearment and 4 Archers in my main line. My opponent had 2 Warriors, 3 Archers and at least 3 Cavalry along with another Cavalry unit which popped in out of the wild near my Capital with a Leader arriving in short order with reinforcements.

    Because my opponent had to move forward to attack and take ground, he had to move first and when he became visible, by moving adjacent to my advance line, my archers moved forward one hex and let loose. Ranged units are extremely powerful in the game if they can avoid direct contact. A general engagement ensued where I was able to take this initial tactical advantage and bring up supporting units so that I was able to kill several units a turn and only lose one myself.

    The engagement eventually became a rout as I was able to destroy his army piecemeal. It is very important that you keep your units grouped together and within mutual supporting range or really bad things can happen to your troops rather quickly.

    My opponent thought that there was some lag issue where he would try to retreat with a unit and I would destroy it before it could move. I really can not speak to that myself as I thought that he got the jump on me several times when I wanted a unit to move and his moved faster.

    I still have not worked all of this out in my head; but, I thought the combat was very interesting and could easly have turned out differently if the Barabarian had not gotten me to move up all my available units to get into range to participate in the battle. I really thought the "fog of war" element was cool.

    Anyone else had something like this happen in one of their games?
    You misunderstand me a little bit. I'm not sure if you played Civ 4, or previous Civs, but in those games you could stack units onto a tile. So, 50 units or more could occupy one space. When you have a system like that, it essentially condenses a large number of units into one unit for movement purposes. I.e., if I have two stacks of 20 units, then because they all move together, I really have two units for movement/attacking/defending purposes.

    Civ 4, and even Civ 3 had simultaneous turns for multiplayer, but because of what I just explained, it wasn't really a problem. Sure, there was some last second cheesing, but it worked great overall.

    Civ 5 armies are incredibly spread out and take a ton of micromanagement by virtue of the one unit per tile rule. I LOVE THIS IN SINGLE-PLAYER. WORKS AWESOME. But it is an unmitigated catastrophe in multiplayer, and I doubt they foresaw the problem. They're going to have to adopt some sort of initiative system, or "you attack, then I attack" rule, or something. I have no idea, I just know that as it stands, it's completely botched.
    Last edited by dusematic; 10-07-2010 at 09:02 PM.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    25
    I think the term you are looking for is hot seat.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    27

    Lightbulb

    What I wish we had (In Civ4 and 5) is simultaneous mode for everything except war between two human players. In the event of state of war between two human players, one waits while the other finishes his turn, then he is permitted to move. Everyone else move as usual unaffected.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    472
    Quote Originally Posted by MikkOwl View Post
    What I wish we had (In Civ4 and 5) is simultaneous mode for everything except war between two human players. In the event of state of war between two human players, one waits while the other finishes his turn, then he is permitted to move. Everyone else move as usual unaffected.
    This could be and would be a simple and quite effective mechanic

    Good idea

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra View Post
    This could be and would be a simple and quite effective mechanic

    Good idea
    I agree. Sounds great in theory.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    7
    I issue a disagreement with the "take turns in PvP battles" side of this debate. Defense is more powerful then offense precisely because it lets you pick the terrain. It requires more power to go on the offense because of this. That's the joy of war. What, you think everyone hides in the trenches for the fun of it? Unless you catch an opponent way out of position, you're going to have to grind them down (at cost of your own units) or outsmart them.

    As for simultaneous turns, the solution to me (as the attacker) seems simple; LET them go first. Give them every chance to go first. Take advantage of the fact that everyone wants to rush. Send in a sacrifice to the alter of Foreknowlage and use the rest to pound them flat. Position your armies to strike from an unexpected direction before the war starts.

    If you can see that next turn they can get a unit to the trees and start working on your lines, prepare for it. If you have scouted the land ahead of time, plan around the obvious defensive strategies (my Archers do not care about Hills). And if they have an insurmountable defense, then go cry, emo kid, cause you can not has Domination. I absolutely love the concept of having to earn your player vs player battles on an entirely new and completely human level. And if I fail, then I'll laugh and play the lute as Rome burns.

    Someone also mentioned giving the defending player a window of opportunity to set up once war is declared. In English, it's called blitzkreig, and if you're not prepared for it ahead of time, bummer. It's on your backside to be prepared at all times. It's war, not huggy happy fun time, and if you prefer a peaceful lovefest where all the players try to get along, then make friends with some of those who follow the same practice and game with them.

    (Amusingly enough, I am one of those hippie huggy players. This results in a mindset of "get them before they get me," when i do venture into unknown multiplayer territory.)



    All that said, I do have to say I agree with the "take turns one at a time" idea as an optional setting, both to level the playing field for the less tactically gifted, and to reduce what is probably a big chunk of computer effort for the lower end PC people.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9

    A solution

    Just enable, the turn base option, who ever want's to play turn base and take more time, by doing so, there choice.
    Must add, that will be my choice, rather a chess like than a comand and conquer type of game.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    24
    inb4 (not really) sc2 bronze chobos saying that simultaneous clickfest turns require skill

    I totally agree with OP, simultaneous turns is really broken. If I wanted to play a real RTS instead of a turn based game I wouldn't go for civ obviously, and there are some very good suggestions in here btw

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11
    Because of the simultaneous turns, there was often a "race" to see who could move a unit or a stack of units first. For example, if I have an army that I think can destroy an opposing player's army, I'd try to attack it, and he'd try to scamper across a river, or up a hill, or in a nearby forest tile to either escape or get a defensive bonus to mitigate my numerical advantage.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •