With the announcement of Civ 6, what historical realms do you think could be added? With the dearth of sub-Saharan civs...

Disagree with you guys pretty hard. I couldn't stand Civ IV's stacking crap.

That being said, I think they have a pretty good improvement on the formula. In the Napoleonic era in Civ VI, you unlock an option to combine two units of like type to make a more powerful unit. Later on you can combine three together. That should stop the game from being flooded with "carpets."

What's so wrong with that?

stacking was terrible.

...

>I couldn't stand Civ IV's stacking crap.
It was a lot better. Do you really believe that armies for most of History just stretched over hundreds or thousands of kilometers? It doesn't make any sense from a realism perspective. It doesn't make much sense from a gameplay perspective either, because all it does is make the game incredibly tedious to play since you have to move all units manually, as well as make it harder for the AI to play since it sucks at it more than at stacking.

It's a video game, not a simulation of real life.

Plus they're fixing all of the issues with single units in 6 so calm down.

Stop being so fucking autistic for once.

>from a realism perspective

Like how it takes a trireme a thousand years to travel between cities?

>It doesn't make any sense from a realism perspective. It doesn't make much sense from a gameplay perspective either,

Being able to actually use tactics and troop placement in fighting your enemy doesn't make sense from a realism or gameplay perspective?

Is it opposite day?

Isn't it the only way for the game mechanics to make outflanking and logistics an important part of the game, as well as making mountain passes a bit better for national defense?

Civ is dogshite for plebes

for christ sake stop posting video games threads on Veeky Forums. No it's not history / humanities. C'mon anons, really. There's a specific board for this, i think you know about it.

>Plus they're fixing all of the issues with single units in 6 so calm down.
Explain how they're gonna solve the micromanagement needed.
Nobody said the game is totally realistic. In fact, it's very unrealistic, but one unit per tile is REALLY bad, and unneeded.
>Being able to actually use tactics and troop placement in fighting your enemy doesn't make sense from a realism or gameplay perspective?
Not over thousands of kilometers before ww1, no.
No, there's plenty of ways they could have done it, and better. For example by implementing a separate tactical map for every battles, like many strategy games do. Not that this was needed anyway, since stack battles are already fine when you consider the abstraction.

God that one inch this thread takes up on the frontpage must really bother you!

It is history because historical civs and leaders are discussed. You couldn't have this discussion on /v/

Also, I actually think the Manchus have some potential as a new civ. There are plenty of unique units they could give them based on units they used during the time they conquered China (under Qing). Not only did they have the banner armies, but they also created some specific Chinese regiments as well.

I think they could come up with something creative for a unique ability as well based on either the Jurchen Jin or Manchu Qing dynasty. While some might argue that there is some overlap with China here, I think the Manchus still would make a good addition as they were different from the Han people and arguably more attuned to the steppe.

Jesus christ are you dense. Having a thousand kilometers wide mining camp isn't an issue, having a city that covers Italy from the east to the west coast isnt an issue, having it take 500 years to move a unit a hundred kilometers isnt an issue, BUT when its the land area covered by an army suddenly there is an issue?

It's a gigantic issue when it means that I have to manually move tens of units per turns during war. In civ4, I can potentially move hundreds of units all at once and make them attack with just 3-4 clicks, all while they weren't occupying a front as large as a continent. It was infinitely superior.

It's all an issue, the entire game needs to be made more realistic. Honestly I stopped playing it when the Total War maps started to outstrip it in realism.

They also need to add other planets. You dominate the map by 2050 or whatever, why can't you then go on to set up some bases on Mars or something?

We fundamentally disagree here because I much prefer to be able to have more control and more things to do in a single turn.

You could invade and colonize Alpha Centauri in Civ2: Test of Time. Despite being outdated today, it's still a much better game than civ 5 is.
What you want to do is incredibly shallow, tedious, and boring. It's rather concentrate on the strategic aspect than on moving pawns around.

>discussing videogames
>/v/
i don't think you know what's going on there... unless it's weebshit, ecelebshit or the daily circlejerk thread with forced memes you won't be able to discuss anything there.

on topic: the game looks like shit and will probably play like shit too... it's the "we want the ios audience" all over again, because if age of empires flopped hard by doing this why wouldn't they try it too?

so except to have less civs and more of them being pop culture characters

This is how I feel.

I guess this is just an issue that has divided the fanbase. I personally couldn't stand stacks, but some people can't stand 1UPT. To each his own.

>African civs

The Mutapa Kingdom (Monomotapa on this map) was probably a successor to whoever build Great Zimbabwe, they existed from the 1400s to the 1700s and were the dominant kingdom in south east Africa. They apparently had an organised religion and priest caste too. King/Emperor Matope conquered a load of neighbouring tribes and left the kingdom very prosperous. Their abilities could be some ancient/classical construction boost or something religious.

Kanem (or Kanem-Bornu) was a large central African kingdom, the kings were fervent adopters of Islam and helped the religion's spread in the region. King Alooma was supposedly a great innovator who introduced many reforms to the kingdom's military and trade. Another candidate for leader would be the much earlier Dunama Dabbalemi who greatly expanded the kingdom, perhaps in the name of Islam since he was apparently against indiginous religions, he's also mentioned north African records. They could have a diplomacy and trade boost, perhaps a unique unit to show the military history.

That could definitly work, I think the Khitan might also be a good candidate, they had some of north China but controlled lots of land north of it too, so less overlap.

Are you trying to say that Egyptians weren't black?

Enlight us with your inteluctual intelligence master.

I want a medieval European kingdom leader. So something like a Frank civilization or the kingdom of Asturias or something like that would be fine by me.

Yeah I'm familiar with the Khitan from reading Mote's history book of Imperial China starting from the five dynasties and ten kingdoms. iirc they founded the Liao dynasty and "Cathay," an older description for China actually derives from their name. I think later they founded some other state called Kara-Khitai. Though ultimately I think they were largely conquered by the Jurchen Jin, which were proto-Manchus.

Thanks for the information on Mutapa and Kanem. Interesting stuff!

...

>Historical game is planned
>Spergs demand there be a medieval European kingdom despite the 1000000000000 other games that are about medieval Europe
People like you are why we never get any variety in games.

Tell me what European medieval ruler there is in civ 5? I am asking for variety. There also thousands of games about the american war of independence,and washington is in the game.

I like this idea. What time period would you consider medieval though?

how many units could you stack before civ5?
i played civ4 but i can't remember.. but 2 units per tile would be acceptable specially even if they limited it somehow
for example you could only merge together infantry and skirmishers

>Tell me what European medieval ruler there is in civ 5?
Theodora, Harald Bluetooth, Isabella I, Enrico Dandolo

Early middle ages,I just put 2 examples.

Casimir of Poland.

>Theodora
Meh,the Byzantine enpire is a totally differemt theme than Charlemagne,that is what I was refering to my comment
> Isabella
Not even belongs in that period of time
> Dandolo
A merchant republic,doesnt represents what I expressed in the coment
>Harald
Read Dandolo

Totally forgot about him

I'd be ok with them adding Charlemagne back. I guess some might argue that there is a bit of redundancy with him though. Casimir does sort of look the part though.

When I asked what time period I kinda meant what years (roughly) you were thinking of. Before AD 1000 and after maybe 400 to 500 I guess?

Yeah. I meant that. Forgot about Casimir tho

>muh death stacks
I strongly disagree. One unit per tile allows for actual micro instead of relying utterly on macro to produce more units than your opponent.

This,although I think that range(Not artillery)and mele units should be able to share 1 tile

Why? A few ranged units on the same tile would be able to one shot enemies. That would be impossible to beat at choke points.

I meant 1 range and 1 mele per tile.

...

>African
>civilisations

Good joke OP.

>Explain how they're gonna solve the micromanagement needed.
go look at some articles about the game

something about grouping units into formations and shit

I don't understand the gripe about micromanagement to begin with. It's a strategy game. These games are built around micromanagement.

Here is a screenshot with some edited desaturation

I think it looks crappy, but I don't really care. I REALLY hope they bring back strategic view. It made the game go by so much faster. Furthermore, I personally really liked the simplistic and easy to understand at a glance style that it used. Once I started using it in Civ V, I never stopped using it.

Durrani Empire

led by Ahmad Shah Baba

just want to roleplay as talib conquerors :3

No, strategy is built around macromanagement by definition. Tactical wargames would be built around micromanagement.

And 4x games are about both micromanagement and macromanagement.

It was only about macromanagement before civ 5 and its damned one unit per tile.

Lol no macromanagement means 'defeat oponnent with army' or 'make sure to have a good economy' the rest is micromanagement, besides the term macromanagement is barely used in video games, just use 'management' or 'strategic decisionmaking'

I feel like this is a semantics argument. Let me put it a different way. Do you take the time to optimize your cities by adjusting which tiles to work? That takes some time, especially later on in the game. Eventually your population grows, specialists become available and sometimes you might adjust things on each turn to manage certain priorities.

That takes a lot of time. I'd argue it takes just as much time as moving units around, yet you have an issue with moving the units for some reason. Even when I had a lot of units in Civ V I didn't find it problematic to manage them, especially since a lot were just fortifying cities in defense.

The difference is that you can choose whether you micromanage city tiles or not. It can be fully automatized if you want. Or it can be any mix of automatized and micromanaged. This is good game design. On top of that, you don't have to set the same tiles every single turn.

With the military, you have no choice but to do everything.

Death stacks were a mistake.

iirc that's not true. You could just have units fortify in place and I think you can even have them patrol around, requiring no input from the player and allowing you to hit end turn as often as you want. it's not necessarily effective, but then again neither is automatizing cities. You'll miss out on a lot by doing that.

Stacks is how armies worked for most of History. Why do civ5 players hate History so much?
>You could just have units fortify in place and I think you can even have them patrol around
Of course, but that's not actually going to win you a war. You'll need to manage most units eventually if you want to invade a country. Automanaging cities isn't the most efficient, but it's still totally possible to win while doing it.

Stacking armues makes it impossible to win,when you have an smaller army.

It's possible to win while having your units flail around too. It's just not efficient.

I feel like my perspective is just very different than your's. I don't like to really automate anything because I know it's detracting from efficiency. Managing tiles for instance makes a tremendous different in terms of whether you can output a wonder or control runaway population or focus on other yield priorities. I'm sure there are people who just ignore that shit entirely but to those people, I question why even play at all if you're just going to let the game play for you.

>actual micro
It's hardly "micro"
It's management for management's sake, i.e. busywork
It's supposed to create the illusion of depth in a combat system that, quite frankly, has no realism whatsoever in any incarnation of the franchise
"Death stacks," as you call them, are just easier to coordinate. Artificial difficulty isn't real, but artificial tactics? That's another story. 5's tactics are no deeper than 4's, despite the additional managerial tasks required. It wasn't revamped nearly enough to make a difference. Maybe 6 will redeem the system, I don't think it's worth hoping.

Well then, I really like managing the military and taking out enemy units one by one with carefully planned tactics,moving a huge army from A to B can be annoying though but it looks like they're addressing that(but I'm honestly not too annoyed by it)
So our opinions differ
However what if you could stack a few units BUT they'd be incapable of combat if you do so? maybe that would ease your woes
Civ is NOT historical, it's a 4x with some history flavor on it,
which fits 4xes very well and helps create good mechanics
HOWEVER realism is always put aside for a better gameplay experience,
so only historical phenomena that would make interesting mechanics that fit in the scope and detail of the game are added

Unit stacks turn a game of chess into a something more akin to the card game War.

>It's management for management's sake, i.e. busywork
Is that what you call skill based actions and unit placement that can make or break a war and an entire game? Because to me, that's the opposite of busywork.

Not true. Defensive bonuses are pretty brutal in civ4. Army composition matters a lot too. 3 Spearmen will almost certainly beat 5 horse archers, and the spearmen are cheaper, too.
>However what if you could stack a few units BUT they'd be incapable of combat if you do so? maybe that would ease your woes
No, that would be retarded.

>HOWEVER realism is always put aside for a better gameplay experience,
One unit per tile isn't a better gameplay experience. It's just tedious.
Civilizations wasn't always fucking game of chess. I've been playing since civ2 and the battle was fine.
This guy gets it.

Even when moving units, you can set a path for them iirc and have them carry out movement over multiple turns, thus easing the amount of "busywork" you have to do.

I feel like the complaint about managing units in 1upt just makes no sense to me. It hardly takes much time at all, there are plenty of ways to make it take less time and it's no more effort than managing city tiles for efficiency.

Wars were such a pain in the ass in Civ IV. I never had fun with them.

...

Leader: Alberto Barbossa
Unit: Flying Pyramids

Dude, just play a Paradox game.

>One unit per tile isn't a better gameplay experience. It's just tedious
again, your opinion, the game designers and the majority seem to disagree. However situations wherein large coordination is not needed could still be adressed, like moving your army over a large distance

>skill based actions and unit placement that can make or break a war and an entire game?
Yes, I do, when the mechanics aren't actually anything revolutionary compared to what came before. Like I said, Civ games aren't about tactical depth, and anyone playing Civ shouldn't expect Total War out of the experience.
A new tactical loadout that isn't well thought through is worse than no change at all. Hexagons may have been a mistake, even.

>the game designers and the majority
The game designers have been catering to a dedicated fanbase for over 20 years. The majority's opinion is not worth more for being the opinion of the majority, unless you think that quality is a product of democratic activity and not of anything else.

I already do. Unfortunately, their games are getting worse as well due to bad design decisions.
The majority of players left, maybe. Most people who've been playing the series for a long time tend to prefer stacking. Most pro players as well.

>Civ games aren't about tactical depth
Apparently they are.

They're "about" many things. If you actually go into Civilization and think "This is a game in which I am supposed to, primarily, build armies and compete tactically against opponents, and not focus on objectives or components of gameplay other than this," then I guess you and I just have different mindsets. I like the economic, technological, and cultural sides of the game a lot, and those are very important aspects of the depth that the series is praised for.
Meanwhile, games like Total War: Napoleon are entirely based around tactics. Sure, you manage an economy and research things, but the title is Total War, you always play as a warlord, a conqueror, or a general, and even your statesmanship is dependent on your ability to put down rebellions on a regular basis.
Maybe I'm just playing Civ wrong, but I always thought of war as government by extraordinary measures, not as the main point of the game.

Sales still drive decisionmaking, and far as tactics goes the one unit per tile system has worked wonders(in the scope of the game). Not only that but the game designers are CONVINCED that this is the better system, just read one of their interviews, I don't know about you but I wouldn't say that Firaxis has poor judgement designing mechanics otherwise they wouldn't keep themselves afloat, you could say that the majority is stupid, but then you should evaluate your judgement first to see whether or not it is you who is more fallible

Well it's not the main point of the game. It's just one part of Civilization that was improved in how skill based it is and how fun it is by getting rid of unit stacks.

But yeah, I too enjoy games that aren't solely focussed on war or violence.

Anyone psycched for Battlefield 1?

>Sales still drive decisionmaking, and far as tactics goes the one unit per tile system has worked wonders(in the scope of the game).
Not seeing an argument.
>CONVINCED
Capital letters, cool. I disagree with the game designers. Their interviews are probably given for the express purpose of driving sales. Gaming journalism is a fucking scam, anyway. I thought everyone who posts on chans knew that.
>otherwise they wouldn't keep themselves afloat
Why do so many people have such bad student loan debt issues? inb4 "what?"
> you could say that the majority is stupid, but then you should evaluate your judgement first to see whether or not it is you who is more fallible
You seem like an enlightened human being.
> improved in how skill based it is
What the fuck does this even mean? You keep asserting this as if it's true, I don't think you understand--I simply don't agree with you, Civ V is one of the worst tactical warfare experiences I've ever had.
>I too enjoy games that aren't solely focussed on war or violence
I don't care about what you enjoy, those are objectively good qualities of a game.

You never provided an argument to how deathstacks are not cancer and your whole argument against one per tile is "Im too lazy"

Ethiopia led by Haile Selassie
Mali led by Mansa Musa
Mexico led by Benito Juarez
Timurids led by Timur
Jerusalem led by Godfrey of Bouillon
Modern Israel led by David Ben-Gurion
And Yugoslavia under Tito

That's it, any more is just bloat at this point.

Yes. I am glad it is WW1, even though it will be an arcade game, it will introduce a huge amount of people to WW1 and educate them to some degree.

>You never provided an argument to how deathstacks are not cancer
I don't need to, I'm only arguing that the new combat is even worse. I just think Civ can't do war right, and that it should stop trying to be deeper than it already has been (which depth is obviously going away with each installment).
Do you work for Firaxis?

Canadian Civilization
>Leader
Trudeau
>Ability
"It's 2016" -Other nations' tourism has double effectiveness, half of all unit models will be female
>Unique unit
PC Police (replaces Infantry)
>Unique building
Safe space (replaces Castle)

The Kazaks, the Kirghizs, The Uzbeks, the Tajikis, The Cossacks, The Uiguri and the Tatars.

Duh.

Its not worse because the new combat is actualy that, combat. You have to carefuly plan and position your troops to win wars.

In the ye oldie days you just stack all your troops on one tile and rightclick the enemy town then mash the next turn button.

Shit why do you even play the game, having to pick policies research and managing towns is just too tedious!

>not ww2
>not Vietnam
>not Korea
>but
>not modern either

As excited as can be. Actually I was salty as fuck when it was announced but the more and more in think of it I'll probably cop it pham.

Ye but I have low expectations, EA will find a way to squeeze every last nickle out of its goodwilling consumers
>You seem like an enlightened human being
Wow nice rebuttal you sure got me
>improved in how skill based it is
did you forget to quote someone here? never said that

Honestly for being a long time fan you seem like an ubercasual for attacking civ for too much army management