It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
supplementscene: I've come through a time warp, in that I've played 1000s of hours or Civ 1 and Civ 2 and have only recently started Civ 5. And I'll say even though I haven't played that much, that it's pretty much the same game with extra bells and whistles. And I dislike that you can't stack units on a square and I'm not even sure that's even realistic. You can't have a couple of units in a square as big as a whole city? Really?

I will say in a way making it more complicated adds something but also takes away the simplicity.
Which civ game doesn't let you stack units on a square? That sounds absolutely retarded.
avatar
supplementscene: I've come through a time warp, in that I've played 1000s of hours or Civ 1 and Civ 2 and have only recently started Civ 5. And I'll say even though I haven't played that much, that it's pretty much the same game with extra bells and whistles. And I dislike that you can't stack units on a square and I'm not even sure that's even realistic. You can't have a couple of units in a square as big as a whole city? Really?

I will say in a way making it more complicated adds something but also takes away the simplicity.
avatar
macuahuitlgog: Which civ game doesn't let you stack units on a square? That sounds absolutely retarded.
"That sounds absolutely retarded"

OMG Yes we have a winner!!!! let me just nominate this as the most brilliant quote of the century!

Good to see someone finally GETS IT!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW, Yes, of course its retarded, OBVIOUSLY its retarded. Just try saying that over on the civilization forums.... they seem to all be suffering some kind of mental illness or something and don't get it? Its amazing to see.

Edit: Civ 5 is the culprit for this abomination of an idea by the way.
Post edited March 22, 2017 by mystikmind2000
All hail the Giant Stacks of DOOM!
avatar
MightyPinecone: All hail the Giant Stacks of DOOM!
Heaven forbid we consider any possible middle ground between ridiculous stack of doom and ..... 2

Two


The number 2, too two to

Too absurd, too ridiculous, too stupid too moronic


I could settle for 4, i would be happy with at least that number.... but 2? 2? Is this idea sponsored by dumb and dumber or what?
avatar
MightyPinecone: All hail the Giant Stacks of DOOM!
avatar
mystikmind2000: Heaven forbid we consider any possible middle ground between ridiculous stack of doom and ..... 2

Two

The number 2, too two to

Too absurd, too ridiculous, too stupid too moronic

I could settle for 4, i would be happy with at least that number.... but 2? 2? Is this idea sponsored by dumb and dumber or what?
I haven't really played Civ since Civ II, but I remember some silly stacks, so I assume they limited the number to make unit composition and placement more strategic.
Post edited March 22, 2017 by MightyPinecone
avatar
supplementscene: And I dislike that you can't stack units on a square and I'm not even sure that's even realistic. You can't have a couple of units in a square as big as a whole city? Really?

I will say in a way making it more complicated adds something but also takes away the simplicity.
avatar
macuahuitlgog: Which civ game doesn't let you stack units on a square? That sounds absolutely retarded.
Yeah, at least there was no such limitation in the original game.

But there was a very annoying feature in the original game related to defending units in a city square. If the population of the city was 1 and you managed to attack and wipe out the defending unit, it also meant that the city vanished from the game entirely.

Any time you destroyed a unit defending a city, the city population went down by one. In many cases it wasn't that major issue, but if you actually wanted to capture a city that had some wonders and stuff, and the population was down to 1, you either had to abandon the war, or wait until the population was up to at least 2.

If the claimed max units per square is related to that, and you can capture cities without them automatically losing critical population, then it's not necessarily a bad design decision. It really depends on how well that limitation is balanced by other aspects of the game.
avatar
mystikmind2000: Heaven forbid we consider any possible middle ground between ridiculous stack of doom and ..... 2

Two

The number 2, too two to

Too absurd, too ridiculous, too stupid too moronic

I could settle for 4, i would be happy with at least that number.... but 2? 2? Is this idea sponsored by dumb and dumber or what?
avatar
MightyPinecone: I haven't really played Civ since Civ II, but I remember some silly stacks, so I assume they limited the number to make unit composition and placement more strategic.
Yes there were unlimited units per tile which was bizarre

An old game i am playing at the moment is 'Call to power 2' which limits you to 12 units per tile and it works comfortably well. Unfortunately the AI is very dumb because its an old game, but still fun regardless.

Now Civilization moved from one extreme to the other, from unlimited units per tile to only 2 units per tile.... i just cannot fathom this overreaction, amazing.... like i said, i would be happy with at least 4 units per tile, what the hell is wrong with that? You tell me?
avatar
macuahuitlgog: Which civ game doesn't let you stack units on a square? That sounds absolutely retarded.
avatar
PixelBoy: Yeah, at least there was no such limitation in the original game.

But there was a very annoying feature in the original game related to defending units in a city square. If the population of the city was 1 and you managed to attack and wipe out the defending unit, it also meant that the city vanished from the game entirely.

Any time you destroyed a unit defending a city, the city population went down by one. In many cases it wasn't that major issue, but if you actually wanted to capture a city that had some wonders and stuff, and the population was down to 1, you either had to abandon the war, or wait until the population was up to at least 2.

If the claimed max units per square is related to that, and you can capture cities without them automatically losing critical population, then it's not necessarily a bad design decision. It really depends on how well that limitation is balanced by other aspects of the game.
So every Civ game after the first doesn't let you stack units on a square?
avatar
MightyPinecone: I haven't really played Civ since Civ II, but I remember some silly stacks, so I assume they limited the number to make unit composition and placement more strategic.
avatar
mystikmind2000: Yes there were unlimited units per tile which was bizarre

An old game i am playing at the moment is 'Call to power 2' which limits you to 12 units per tile and it works comfortably well. Unfortunately the AI is very dumb because its an old game, but still fun regardless.

Now Civilization moved from one extreme to the other, from unlimited units per tile to only 2 units per tile.... i just cannot fathom this overreaction, amazing.... like i said, i would be happy with at least 4 units per tile, what the hell is wrong with that? You tell me?
Fair enough, I can't really say which number would be the ideal—it's probably something that extensive playtesting would yield. Four sounds fine by me, not rediculous but it would still allow you to form armies, so to speak.

Despite having just poked fun of Civ II, I still kinda wanna play it again. It may just be nostalgia, but it was one of my favourite games back then. Make it happen GOG!
avatar
PixelBoy: Yeah, at least there was no such limitation in the original game.

But there was a very annoying feature in the original game related to defending units in a city square. If the population of the city was 1 and you managed to attack and wipe out the defending unit, it also meant that the city vanished from the game entirely.

Any time you destroyed a unit defending a city, the city population went down by one. In many cases it wasn't that major issue, but if you actually wanted to capture a city that had some wonders and stuff, and the population was down to 1, you either had to abandon the war, or wait until the population was up to at least 2.

If the claimed max units per square is related to that, and you can capture cities without them automatically losing critical population, then it's not necessarily a bad design decision. It really depends on how well that limitation is balanced by other aspects of the game.
avatar
macuahuitlgog: So every Civ game after the first doesn't let you stack units on a square?
As far as i know, every civ game lets you stack as many as you like except civ5 which lets you stack a whopping 2 TWO units only. Then like i said, Civilization call to power 1 and 2 lets you stack 12 units.

I think if the civilization series had the 12 unit limit like call to power from the start, then the stacks of doom would never have become an issue and then no one would have asked for the ridiculous 2 unit tile limit shit we got with civ5

Edit: the army management system in call to power is absolutely brilliant by the way, and i wish that was in the civ series, wow, that would be so brilliant!
Post edited March 22, 2017 by mystikmind2000
Just right now found it for Sorcerer King. Indeed, the Doom Counter and the plot for the next version are the same **problem** with the original Civilization game that it was capped at the achievement of Alpha Centauri ship and the game would end. I would usually win by conquest well before the ships were ready, while winning by ship landing was anticlimactic. (I also left once a Civilization game running and indeed it all hexed into cities all of them developed to the same depth).

I have a hypothesis: these guys are all programming from some unspecified, or very well specified, piece of binary code, using tricks like compilers or disassemblers and leaving aside the super advantages and convenience of high level languages. So they do not dare move some algorithms and do not fully understand how the code intertwines! The real source code is missing but the game was successful and keeps repeating. In SK it does look like the GUI dictated some aspects of the game and not the other way around, as it would happen when programming a GUI is rather trivial in a high level language. Though we already know always the obstacle to extend games is to extend the AI, not the GUI or the game concept.
avatar
syntotic: Just right now found it for Sorcerer King. Indeed, the Doom Counter and the plot for the next version are the same **problem** with the original Civilization game that it was capped at the achievement of Alpha Centauri ship and the game would end. I would usually win by conquest well before the ships were ready, while winning by ship landing was anticlimactic. (I also left once a Civilization game running and indeed it all hexed into cities all of them developed to the same depth).

I have a hypothesis: these guys are all programming from some unspecified, or very well specified, piece of binary code, using tricks like compilers or disassemblers and leaving aside the super advantages and convenience of high level languages. So they do not dare move some algorithms and do not fully understand how the code intertwines! The real source code is missing but the game was successful and keeps repeating. In SK it does look like the GUI dictated some aspects of the game and not the other way around, as it would happen when programming a GUI is rather trivial in a high level language. Though we already know always the obstacle to extend games is to extend the AI, not the GUI or the game concept.
Oh yea, i remember the ship building in civ2 now!

Probably the best civilization game i ever had was in civ2.... to start myself in Australia on the standard large world map.

Really, Australia is a horrible place to build a civilization in that world map, but with a bit of tweaking of the random seed, i was able to make it work. Anyway, by the time i was ready to invade America, oh boy, they hit my fleet with so many rockets you would not believe, and ships and planes.... i had to have a huge Aegis fleet with battleships in a big square formation in real siege mode, man, that was such a fight you would not believe.... sigh, eventually i decided to win with the spaceship, lol
I guess he meant "formula" not "algorithm"?
There is always a new conspiracy theorist, but it's always the same conspiracy theory!

They must be clones.
Yes