Poll: Civilization 5 looks good but I have 1 major problem with it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Most of you PC gamers out there probably know that Civilization 5 is coming in the next 3 months, and while I am personally looking forward to play the game I have one issue with it that was mentioned in this preview article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.202526-E3-2010-Civilization-V-Breathes-New-Life-Into-the-Series

article:

Another innovation that I personally think is genius and long-needed is the ability for land units to "embark" into sea travel without having to build dedicated transport units. "You don't have to build transports and fill them up with units anymore," Shirk said. "Now, they take the turn, and load themselves into the water. It's like they're loading themselves onto a ship, but they're defenseless. [Embarking] makes it very easy to stage a cross-continent invasion, which was always very difficult to do before

According to this, navies are no longer needed to carry troops over seas! What the hell?

So let me get this straight.....

If I have a massive ground army, and I want to invade another nation that is located on the other side of the globe then I can just effortlessly take my whole army and sail it across the ocean and land it straight at my enemies door without having to bother with any naval build up whatsoever??????

Who's idea was that!

I can't even begin to describe how stupid this is, it largely removes any need to build a navy in the first place since control of the seas is no longer needed to to insure save travel unless the enemy just so happens to have some naval units exactly where your troops are going (and its not like the player can't just take a long detour and sail past the enemies navy or anything!). This also means that small ocean spaces located inland (sort of like the Civilization equivalent of the English channel) loose all of their value as natural barriers since units can now just casually walk/sail over them provided that they aren't attacked before hand.

Not to mention that I can also imagine the enemy AI spamming the player with a series of pointless naval invasions that don't serve a purpose but happen anyways because the AI knows it can send units across the ocean with breeze and could as well continue to attack anyways.

Sure, you could argue that owning a powerful navy can allow you to destroy incoming ships before they reach shore, but that is beyond the point. It should not be possible sail units across the ocean without ships, simple as that.

The whole point of having a navy is to allow you to freely move across the ocean and prevent others from doing the same thing. Having a larger transport fleet then the enemy gave you a large advantage, because it made your army much more mobile and allowed you to send troops to a greater number of places at once then your enemy. And without transports the enemies offensive operations beyond his own turf are crippled, and because of that I always made it a high priority to locate and destroy the enemies transports and ships while at war to completely destroy my enemies ability to take the war to my home. But with this new system, the enemy can send armies over to my land regardless of how many of his ships I destroy because he no longer needs any ships to travel in the first place and thus the usefulness of having a powerful navy is effectively cut in half.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

I'm going to wait until I've seen it in play with all the other new fatures, such as not being able to stack a massive army into one square. I don't think getting armies onto a ship would work very well if you can't have more than one occupying a space. It would take ages to get an army across with the old method.

I'll wait and see if it's a good idea or not.

It doesn't bother me much, because navy building always made me feel like I was stretching myself thin. I like having one less thing to concentrate on. Then again, I'm obviously not an old-school grognard.

D4zZ:
I don't think having to have armies get onto ships would work very well if you can't have more than one occupying a space. It would take ages to get an army across with the old method like that.

No it would not, you would simply have to use enough ships and spread them across the ocean to cover more space. Yes it would be hard to stage a large scale naval invasion, but isn't that the whole point? launching a massive D-day style landing should not be a walk in the park and should require some thought from the player.

EDIT: Not to mention that you will still be limited to 1 unit per hex even with this new system, so I fail to see what the problem is.

War already takes far too long and much more effort than it should in the Civ games. wars against other islands doubly so. Anything that speeds that up is a good thing in my book.

Meh, we'll have to wait to see the full game before we can make any real guess as to how well the new systems will work. Overall, I think it might serve to help in early combat against civs that are across an ocean,lake, etc. And i'm pretty sure they stated you can easily kill the transports.

Having a system that allows armies to cross oceans without any (real) form of transport system totally negates island/coastal defences, and significantly reduces the effectiveness of naval oriented Civs, like the Vikings and the English. I've gotta say, I can see no real reason why they have unbalanced the game in such a fundamental way.

Grouchy Imp:
Having a system that allows armies to cross oceans without any (real) form of transport system totally negates island/coastal defences, and significantly reduces the effectiveness of naval oriented Civs, like the Vikings and the English. I've gotta say, I can see no real reason why they have unbalanced the game in such a fundamental way.

I'm with you, for the most part. Since the new Civ will have that '1 unit per hex' it makes sense since you can not board units that way either because that would make more units in a single hex. I'll wait and see how it turns out. It is Sid Meier we are talking about and he does have some credit with me. But i dont like the sound of this. How the hell am i gonna transport my Nukes around the globe?

Axolotl:
War already takes far too long and much more effort than it should in the Civ games. wars against other islands doubly so. Anything that speeds that up is a good thing in my book.

So you don't see anything questionable about unbalancing the game and potentially reducing the importance of having a good navy considerably simply so that those unwilling to invest time into their games can wage wars that don't last as long?

Sjakie:
How the hell am i gonna transport my Nukes around the globe?

Well, in Civ 4 you could simply airlift them from city to city.

Hardcore_gamer:

Axolotl:
War already takes far too long and much more effort than it should in the Civ games. wars against other islands doubly so. Anything that speeds that up is a good thing in my book.

So you don't see anything questionable about unbalancing the game and potentially reducing the importance of having a good navy considerably simply so that those unwilling to invest time into their games can wage wars that don't last as long?

But it doesn't unbalace the game since it's a central part of the new game, the game is balacened around this feature. And secondly it doesn't reduce the importance of a Navy it only reduces the importance of transport ships by removing them.

Axolotl:
And secondly it doesn't reduce the importance of a Navy it only reduces the importance of transport ships by removing them.

The whole point of having a navy is to allow you to freely move across the ocean and prevent others from doing the same thing. Having a larger transport fleet then the enemy gave you a large advantage, because it made your army much more mobile and allowed you to send troops to a greater number of places at once then your enemy. And without transports the enemies offensive operations beyond his own turf are crippled, and because of that I always made it a high priority to locate and destroy the enemies transports and ships while at war to completely destroy my enemies ability to take the war to my home. But with this new system, the enemy can send armies over to my land regardless of how many of his ships I destroy because he no longer needs any ships to travel in the first place and thus the usefulness of having a powerful navy is effectively cut in half.

EDIT: I will add this info to my first post because of its relevance.

You said the game will be balanced around this feature, but I have yet to hear anyone from Firaxis say anything that suggests that it is.

Another sign the series is dumbing itself down.

But I'll say this again: if Civ V fucks up I'll just keep playing Civ IV, not like it is going to be out of date anytime soon.

Hardcore_gamer:
The whole point of having a navy is to allow you to freely move across the ocean and prevent others from doing the same thing. Having a larger transport fleet then the enemy gave you a large advantage, because it made your army much more mobile and allowed you to send troops to a greater number of places at once then your enemy.

But in real life transports haven't been the relavent part of a Navy since classical times. Battleships are what matters for a navy. And presumably this will still be the case in Civ 5 where if yyou have more battleships you still have naval superiority which provides a major advantage.

Axolotl:
But in real life transports haven't been the relavent part of a Navy since classical times.

This is not true. During the second world war a number of proposed invasions into Italy had to be canceled or delayed because all of the transports and landing crafts were being sent to the UK so that they could be used for the D-day landings.

And even if transports were longer the most important ships, it still doesn't really change the fact that armies need some sort of transportation in order to travel across the ocean, they can't just magically create ships that can travel across ocean spaces out of thin air.

EDIT: Also, I CAN'T BELIEVE how many people how voted the "I don't care" option. Are you people actually willing to remove a whole layer of strategy from the series because you can't be arsed to manage your navies properly?

...I guess it just goes to show how many teens and children are on this site. I refuse to believe that any of the people who voted are long term fans of the series.

Though I like some of the changes and improvements they implemented, my biggest concern is that Civilization is moving away from actual Nation-Ruling and more into Real-Time-Strategy combat. I haven't heard a single thing about how citizens in towns/cities behave and whether tile improvements will be any different from previous installments.

Grouchy Imp:
Having a system that allows armies to cross oceans without any (real) form of transport system totally negates island/coastal defences, and significantly reduces the effectiveness of naval oriented Civs, like the Vikings and the English. I've gotta say, I can see no real reason why they have unbalanced the game in such a fundamental way.

The sea-faring vessels will be defenseless.

Shooting ducks in a barrel for a well-prepared navy.

At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

Hardcore_gamer:
*snip*
EDIT: Also, I CAN'T BELIEVE how many people how voted the "I don't care" option. Are you people actually willing to remove a whole layer of strategy from the series because you can't be arsed to manage your navies properly?

...I guess it just goes to show how many teens and children are on this site. I refuse to believe that any of the people who voted are long term fans of the series.

You didn't give an option for people who enjoy building navies, but still find the idea interesting regardless, given that you will instead have to focus on building better escort ships, and adapting new strategies, especially with the removal of the stack of doom treatment.

I seem to remember reading that the unit needs to take a turn building boats before it can cross, during that time it can't defend itself. The units will probably only move slowly across water, and it has been said that they need to rely on other ships to protect them.
Over all, I think the new mechanic is fine, and there still will be a need for a navy.

Ldude893:
Though I like some of the changes and improvements they implemented, my biggest concern is that Civilization is moving away from actual Nation-Ruling and more into Real-Time-Strategy combat. I haven't heard a single thing about how citizens in towns/cities behave and whether tile improvements will be any different from previous installments.

Well, judging from screenshots like these:

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/62125/sid-meiers-civilization-v/images/sid-meiers-civilization-v-20100615032310595.html

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/62125/sid-meiers-civilization-v/images/sid-meiers-civilization-v-20100615032239690.html

I think province improvements probably work mostly the same as they did in Civ 4 judging from the looks of it.

I read somewhere that the transports will be defenceless, so you still need a navy to protect them.

Borntolose:
I seem to remember reading that the unit needs to take a turn building boats before it can cross, during that time it can't defend itself. The units will probably only move slowly across water, and it has been said that they need to rely on other ships to protect them.
Over all, I think the new mechanic is fine, and there still will be a need for a navy.

Well perhaps if you are moving across large oceans, but what about small oceans where I won't have any time to send ships to counter the invasion because the enemy doesn't need more then a couple of turns to get across?

To be fair this may not be a issue if Firaxis finally decides to make it possible to use air units to destroy naval units. Civ 4 did not allow that and it was stupid.

Gonna need gameplay of this before I can make a decision. Don't disappoint me, or I'll keep playing Civ II.

I think you missing the point. They just removing the lame part of having to create transport ships, as that always slowed down the game. There will still be transport ships but you won't build them. They are already made.

But you still have to need to create a navy strong enough to carry troops around. My bet is that the number of transport ships and how many troops you can carry will be proportional to the number of ships you have to defend them. I really don't see what's the big fuss over this, apart from people wanting to complain for the sake of complaining.

if it ain't broke don't fix it...and yet they tried. it's a stupid idea

Since you can wall off with your troops now, it does not seem as bad as it could have been with the original system. However, I do believe some effort should be required in the creation of navies.

You're forgetting about all the other features.

Remember, it's one unit per tile, so if you've got a large navy, that navy won't be in a single tile, it'll be out at sea, guarding your entire coastal boarder. If you've got that large of a navy, it won't matter in the slightest that the enemy can build transport on the fly, because none of them will be able to pass your blockade.

Not to mention the fact that the enemy won't be able to hide their ships in cities any more, and so you're superior navy will have a much easier time hunting down the enemy offensive ships.

If anything, the changes making having a superior fleet more important, not less.

The new system is better - previously, any nation with a decent-sized landmass to itself could basically make itself impregnable (kind of like someone starting Risk with all of Australia in hand). You SHOULD have to worry about random attacks from overseas.

Personally, my biggest problem with the series (and others of its type) is limiting the amount of technologies a player can investigate to one - that mechanic leads to ridiculous situations in which a modern civilization lacks basic social or financial developments if the player chooses to concentrate on military advancement (or vice versa). You really should be able to investigate several technologies at once (i.e., military/social/religious/financial/etc.)

Hardcore_gamer:
*snip*

I fear you're missing the point...

Yes, you can embark your whole Army on Doom in a single turn. Also, all the other guy needs to stop you dead in your tracks is a few cheap combat ships. Unless I read something wrong, the transports you get when embarking are pretty much defenceless, so any naval presence will flatten you.

In turn this INCREASES the significance of a navy, since any nation with a costal region will want at least a few ships around to patrol the waters.

EDIT: Also, your poll options are quite a bit biased. I like building navies, but I still think this is a good idea. At least now I can build a NAVY instead of glorified tugboats...

Something tells me they are scaling a lot of things back with the one unit per hex thing. The quote below alone proves it; having to build one transport ship for one unit could only lead to frustration.

Then again, when your introducing a new system with any level of innovation over the previous iteration someone will say "This idea is stupid!" The only thing I can say is, give it a chance? If you don't like it, odds are, it can and will be modded in

You can't make another swordsman unit unless that one died or you gained access to another Iron source.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99021-Civilization-V-Offers-New-Strategic-Combat

Edit: Although I wonder if Fall from Heaven will get a mod release on Civ 5

Maze1125:

Remember, it's one unit per tile, so if you've got a large navy, that navy won't be in a single tile, it'll be out at sea, guarding your entire coastal boarder. If you've got that large of a navy, it won't matter in the slightest that the enemy can build transport on the fly, because none of them will be able to pass your blockade.

Ok, I will admit that you have a solid point there, but this still doesn't really fix the issue with armies being able to cross very small ocean spaces like channels that would normally prevent armies from being able to advance (in real life and in Civ 4) without at least some sort of a transportation thus resulting in a natural defensive line for the defender who may have cities on the other side.

It does say that embarking is not a very good strategy for invasion because it leaves units defenceless.

It has pros and cons. Firstly I found it quite tedious to attack other islands and speeding that up can only make the game more fun but I agree with you about the small ocean spaces not being a proper defense. Perhaps if it took a couple of turns to set up the boats would solve that problem but we'll see what it's like when it comes out.

Hardcore_gamer:

If I have a massive ground army, and I want to invade another nation that is located on the other side of the globe then I can just effortlessly take my whole army and sail it across the ocean and land it straight at my enemies door without having to bother with any naval build up whatsoever??????

Who's idea was that!

Well, when they are on the sea, they are defenseless.
Which means one attack, form any naval unit, will kill them.
Secondly, it takes a whole turn to A: Get into the 'naval mode' and B: Get back into 'land mode'.
So you will not be jumping into the ocean, travelling a small straight, and jumping back onto land in one turn.
It will take at LEAST 3.
And naval units can stop it easily.

Seems balanced to me.

But you are still at a disadvantage to people who DO have a navy. Because your units are defenceless, even a weak navy can crush them. So you do still need to buold a navy to portect your units.

One less thing to concentrate on... and a whole meaning of cross-continental invasion in ruins.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked