Need more turn to try it properly

[Agan]

60 turns is too short, which is a good thing as I would like to explore the game more and how robust it is.
The mechanic is awesome, and the game solid, however, something is missing, not sure what but it does feel like it.
The economic aspect is fine, but Combat is terrible. Just in general, you guys could have worked something different than a terrible animated Civ2 combat mechanic. I appreciate the idea of alternation in the attack sequences, but that is way too ugly and light. The same context of landscape tile management with your troop or even siege possibilities would help. Just bring something new, or just drop the animations because that is not innovation for the genre...
The game is great, keep it up or the next Civ is going to destroy you

[Molybdane]

Agreed, let's hope there will be a second demo round, based on the feedback from this round.

As for combat, I guess they should implement some kind of combat clock of 100 ticks, and give each unit an initiative score. The clock ticks, and when an initiative score is reached, the unit attacks. So lower initiative is better and allows for more attacks within the 100 tick timeframe.

Some units could get initiative bonuses depending on terrain, or spend initiative (adding initiative to their next round) to focus on killing off units or increasing defense. Tactics and/or technology could give bonus starting initiative, allowing for early attacks. The possibilities are endless.

At any rate, this would give the combat display a purpose too; providing feedback on how your unit (mix is ) are doing

[Typ32]

Yes, we need to see if the AI is as bad with big armies as in Civ VI - my main reason to not play that one any more.

[dcain3456]

I said all along that a demo would be too short.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Originally posted by Typ32:

Yes, we need to see if the AI is as bad with big armies as in Civ VI - my main reason to not play that one any more.

I've tested it, and it's pretty bad.

In a 4 player AI game played over 300 turns,
- 2 AI died to barbarians,
- 1 grew to about 1/4 of the map with their cities absolutely drowned in an ocean of units (that were doing nothing)
- the last survived with a few cities, though it very nearly died to barbarians on numerous occasions.

Obviously this was testing with only the stone/bronze/heroes ages so it isn't entirely representative of how a full game would play out.
Though it is somewhat telling that two of the AIs couldn't even hold back the barbarians (and the AI never managed to attack each other).

Game isn't out yet though, so there's still time for improvements. (though I wouldn't hold my breath)

[Comrade Point]

The ages go by very fast, I don't mind this too much for the first two ages but if there are going to be a bunch of interesting age types with unique mechanics those later ages need to last longer.

[Typ32]

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

Originally posted by Typ32:

Yes, we need to see if the AI is as bad with big armies as in Civ VI - my main reason to not play that one any more.

I've tested it, and it's pretty bad.

In a 4 player AI game played over 300 turns,
- 2 AI died to barbarians,
- 1 grew to about 1/4 of the map with their cities absolutely drowned in an ocean of units (that were doing nothing)
- the last survived with a few cities, though it very nearly died to barbarians on numerous occasions.

Obviously this was testing with only the stone/bronze/heroes ages so it isn't entirely representative of how a full game would play out.
Though it is somewhat telling that two of the AIs couldn't even hold back the barbarians (and the AI never managed to attack each other).

Game isn't out yet though, so there's still time for improvements. (though I wouldn't hold my breath)

Thx! That about answers it. :(

[Timonthy Truckle]

yep, I have no idea what I need to do in combat other then skip it. Just when I get into real game and something is going on, then it ends. 60 turns man. I wonder about the price now. Will have to wait maybe 5 years till I can get it in sale or something.

[Agan]

Yeah, for the combats, it is a cinematic. 0 added value actually, just pain for my eyes.
''The clock Ticks Apporach'' would be an option. Really need an improvement on bringing combat strategies... other than just the terrain type lol

[Rand]

So much of the criticism here I wouldn't say is necessarily wrong but just comes down to balancing & customization options, either provided directly by the game or by giving modders the ability to fine tune things. Like slowing thing downs by having different game speed settings, and a mod to require 4 tech researches before being able to unlock the new age. Civ also has combat animations, but eventually you just turn on the quick or instant resolve options. This is an early demo and as these are fairly simple things I'm going to assume for now they'll be in the final product.

For combat it needs some work but I view it as a plus so far, a good compromise between Civ V/VI and Civ III/IV. With the latter Civ games they made it more tactical with the single unit hex grid, but the problem is if you give the human player increased level of control then that increases the level of abuse we can take over the AI. You only need a few units to manhandle whatever large army the AI throws at you. But in earlier Civ games you had complete RNG results and the "stack of doom", where you could never be fully prepared for what the AI might throw at you.

So like I said, what we have here seems like a good balance between the two. Not enough control to abuse it, but not too much randomness that you get frustrated. It makes me think a little of a poorly presented SJRPG, a bit of a mix of Fire Emblem and Ogre Battle. What you want is for it to go a bit smoother like Ogre Battle (or for similar games on Steam Symphony of War), with maybe some more care/options for stack composition.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Originally posted by Rand:

So much of the criticism here I wouldn't say is necessarily wrong but just comes down to balancing & customization options, either provided directly by the game or by giving modders the ability to fine tune things. Like slowing thing downs by having different game speed settings, and a mod to require 4 tech researches before being able to unlock the new age. Civ also has combat animations, but eventually you just turn on the quick or instant resolve options. This is an early demo and as these are fairly simple things I'm going to assume for now they'll be in the final product.

For combat it needs some work but I view it as a plus so far, a good compromise between Civ V/VI and Civ III/IV. With the latter Civ games they made it more tactical with the single unit hex grid, but the problem is if you give the human player increased level of control then that increases the level of abuse we can take over the AI. You only need a few units to manhandle whatever large army the AI throws at you. But in earlier Civ games you had complete RNG results and the "stack of doom", where you could never be fully prepared for what the AI might throw at you.

So like I said, what we have here seems like a good balance between the two. Not enough control to abuse it, but not too much randomness that you get frustrated. It makes me think a little of a poorly presented SJRPG, a bit of a mix of Fire Emblem and Ogre Battle. What you want is for it to go a bit smoother like Ogre Battle (or for similar games on Steam Symphony of War), with maybe some more care/options for stack composition.

Yes, it might turn out to be a good game if they fix.....
- the UX,
- the graphics
- the balance(and I don't just mean Raiders; the domains themselves are conceptually imbalanced.
- the missing features,
- the bugs
- the terrible performance
and, last, but definitely not least,
- the AI

That's an awfully long list of things that need fixing, a list that wouldn't be entirely inaccurate if it was simply shortened to "everything".