I know there are already numerous discussions about the the patch notes on these forums; again I find them too focused on specific little things instead of seeing the big picture. Most people are right in one thing though - Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

Here's what, in my opinion, Civilization 5 introduces in the June/July patch:

Three basic forms of gameplay are introduced: Tall Empire, Wide Empire and The Conqueror's Empire.
Social policies branches are now closely tied - and readily available - to all three new types of Empires (instead of being an almost exclusive benefit of going Tall).
The social policy branches now are tied to the 3 new playstiles in the following fashion: Tradition (Tall), Liberty (Wide), Honor (Conqueror), Piety (Culture), Patronage (City-states), Commerce (Commerce/Production), Rationalism (Science), Freedom (Tall), Autocracy (Conqueror), Order (Wide).
It is not possible to chase specific buildings (ex. University), Policies (ex. Theocracy) or units (ex. Longswords) that will serve as a panacea. Instead, deliberate choices and synergy of all possible factors will be required to achieve the desired effects.
Final results, say "constantly having enough happiness", are now closely tied to how well the abovementioned synergy is executed.
Technology advancement (as well as World Wonders) now requires deliberate planning and execution. For example, going for Education first presumes the player is planning to invest heavily into science throughout the game as well as aiming for building the Porcelain Tower (a wonder that reflects that choice). Correspondingly, going for Education early but not aiming for fast scientific advancement (i.e. slacking on Universities, skipping Rationalism branch, not even bothering with trying to build Porcelain Tower), is going to punish the player more severely.
Unit compositions now also require deliberate planning. No more "longsword rushes". A healthy mix (dependant on available resources) will be required as ranged units (ex. Crossbow) and flanking units (ex. tank) get a boost.
Gold, science, culture, production, food requirements and effects are better balanced out. This also makes puppet empires weaker.
Playstyles will now struggle when shifting between the 3 playstyles or when dealing with different playstyles. Scientific, Cultural, Commerce, Warfare empires now have different tools in dealing with each other, rather than Science and Commerce being the only relevant tools (i.e. "Slingshot to rifles, upgrade everything").
Production and other "percentage nerfs" now advocate more active play (yes, even investing into Militaristic city-states) instead of passive bonuses a la "Lets slap in a Factory and railroad connection and we're good to go".
Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings. Power plants (and indirectly the Spaceship factory) get a significant boost in their effectiveness and need for them. Power plants are the only viable way of getting production to pre-patch levels.
Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.
Working citizens (and their yields) as well as specialist super-improvements are being made more important. Production requires working hammer tiles and Engineers, science requires high population and Scientists etc.


EDIT: Reading the happiness changes properly

Happiness received a nerf in the 10-15 ballpark. Which is about right. Too much emphasis was put on "sell all your luxuries for 300 gold each", simply because it was possible. Overall happiness for your empire will be pretty much the same. The only difference is that you will not be able to exploit trade mechanics and that you will need to gradually build up happiness from various sources (policies, buildings, trades etc.). It is also true that cities will need to monitor their happiness more closely. This was done more to balance the benefits of surplus food than happiness.

Bibor, this was a most intelligent way to put the new patch changes into perspective. I am interested to see how this all pans out. It seems every new change firaxis made has intention behind it. The plan has always been to balance the game, so different styles of play can be successful. I believe after much review that the developers are surely taking the game in the right direction. :)

Now I am interested to see what new DLC they intend to introduce. :)

Bibor, this was a most intelligent way to put the new patch changes into perspective. I am interested to see how this all pans out. It seems every new change firaxis made has intention behind it. The plan has always been to balance the game, so different styles of play can be catered too. I believe after much review that the developers are surely taking the game in the right direction. :) ...

Ditto!:) I was thinking of ways of saying this, but couldn't have said it any better!:goodjob:

I agree what your saying Bibor. There are too many changes to focus on one thing individually. Don't forget, the notes say production costs are being significantly reduced, so I'm sure this will compensate the factory cuts etc.

I agree with the three play styles you have identified, yet I can see an overlap between wide and warmongering. I think there's more incentive to annex now the courthouse provides 3 :) and now that the culture costs per city are reduced.

I feel tall empires will be the most difficult of the play styles, due to the :) reduction of the Colosseum etc., unless one prioritises Notre Dame or something. With the buffed Meritocracy and Order polices, it seems more beneficial to go wide, and also a wide builder approach seems profitable with :) bonuses from monuments, universities, public schools (the things you build in every city although i know those two branches are incompatible anyway) and even walls and castles.

Although the three play styles look interesting and add more variety to the game, I think your right when you say if you start down one path you have to follow it through carefully. And although this adds overall grand strategy, I feel it compromises flexibility mid game... Though we've never had much of that in CiV anyway.

I disagree with the need for mixed arms. Longsword rush still looks like an effective opening. The reduced walls defence bonuses should compensate for the reduced combat strength. On the other hand, I feel it is now possible to go on an early conquest spree without iron, which is a welcome change.

I disagree with the need for mixed arms. Longsword rush still looks like an effective opening. The reduced walls defence bonuses should compensate for the reduced combat strength. On the other hand, I feel it is now possible to go on an early conquest spree without iron, which is a welcome change.

I think it really depends on the new strength values of units. If new crossbows are 14 and new longswords are 16 then it's closer to my prediciton. If it's going to be 17 vs 13 then you're likely to be right. :)

Gold, science, culture, production, food requirements and effects are better balanced out. This also makes puppet empires weaker.
God I hope you're right. Puppets (and how policy costs are worked) almost killed the game for me. I predicted mass puppet empires dominating back in the fall, and in my opinion they are *still* better than actually placed cities or annexed cities.

I think it really depends on the new strength values of units. If new crossbows are 14 and new longswords are 16 then it's closer to my prediciton. If it's going to be 17 vs 13 then you're likely to be right. :)

Yeah it depends on the values. Either way, its still going to be quicker to get to Steel than Machinery or Chivalry. And i think how early you can execute the attack will be the deciding factor (as usual). :) Edit - Although Metal Casting requires construction, you pick up the Colosseum that way so its no big deal for a warmonger.

Also, I expect Knights to be more dominant again. Especially Mongols / Songhai / Spain

God I hope you're right. Puppets (and how policy costs are worked) almost killed the game for me. I predicted mass puppet empires dominating back in the fall, and in my opinion they are *still* better than actually placed cities or annexed cities.

Puppet cities will be harder to manage due to the fact that happiness needs active management now (old Theocracy is a goner). Generally speaking, warmongers will have an easier time managing both puppet and Annexed empires. Which sounds about right.

Added a comment about happiness.

Three basic forms of gameplay are introduced: Tall Empire, Wide Empire and The Conqueror's Empire.


That is the most radical change that this patch will introduce now. And it's very interesting that with this patch,Tall empires can beat Wide Empires at Diplomatic and even Scientific Victorys,because having many cities with high population is nearly impossible. Besides, this is the best summary of this patch I've seen :goodjob:

For the first time ever I think I'll actually try annexing and using Honor.

Also it looks like with the way RA's work I'll be using the game unmodded, part of me doesnt even want to play anymore until the patch is released!

Very good post. I am still confused about factories though. They use up coal & provide so little production boost, isn't that bad for balancing ? In ciV, strategic resources are much limited so I think a building requiring coal should be powerful.

I really hope they've tweaked the build order of puppets somewhat so they understand that when you've got Organized religion build monument/temple faster etc... i sometimes see them attempt to build a stock exchanges before a monument... & because of there reactive nature of happiness, sometimes your in the red for ages before they all finish up stock exchanges & start building coliseums.

@Babri:With order, they now give +25% science. Not earth-shattering, but nice. IMHO, coal and oil are not very well implemented yet:
- oil because it obsoletes quickly (although maybe nerfed mech infantry and buffed tanks will change that) and completely, which simply trumps realism (and I'd like economic buildings requiring oil too, since it's the only modern resource not required by any building);
- ironclads have been slightly buffed (can upgrade to battleships, and destroyers have been nerfed, thanks to coming later and not getting extra sight anymore), so maybe on slower difficulties they will become predominant for a while in watery maps (naval warfare still needs some love though, it's just a matter of numbers until you get to battleships&co.), making coal a bit more important.

Other than that, very nice post, Bibor! You should point out that because of the strong nerf to happiness, which is now mostly concentrated in the SPs, you must stick to your approach if you want to stay happy (because you can't change the SPs you've chosen), or else produce a lot of culture to get more happiness elsewhere. Happiness-Golden Ages are the only thing that really suffer from the nerf.

I agree with Babri, coal is not a very useful resource except for factories (which in itself is a problem because you could very well have factories in almost all cities because you dont need the coal for anything else) and now factories is not that usedful. I had rather seen that they had introduced some new unit och building that used coal and forced the player to choose between factories or the other thing. I think that the problem is not so much that factories was too powerful but rhater that they were built in too many cities.

Reading your post I agree with everything you just said, but at the same time when reading posts against the new patch I also agree. We'll just have to wait and see. It will either make the game more complex, interesting, and ultimately fun once you get the hang of it, or it is going to make it too hard, dull, and absolutely terrible for builders.

Once question, what exactly are Tall and Wide empires? If I were to guess, Tall is not many cities with a high pop and Wide is lots of cities with a lower pop, but that is just a guess.

Bibor, I agree with the majority of what you've said. Always better to consider patch notes as a whole, rather than piecemeal. ;)

... Once question, what exactly are Tall and Wide empires? If I were to guess, Tall is not many cities with a high pop and Wide is lots of cities with a lower pop, but that is just a guess.

You got it!:goodjob:

Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

That's stretching it a bit ;)

If you relied on using the soon to be nerfed openings, sure you will have to figure out something new, but that's a good thing. It's still the same game, just better with more choices.

I've never like those "I have a gameplan no matter the start openings", so for me seeing those get brought in line is awesome. Reacting to your environment is a good thing, we need more of that throughout the game.

I think the main criticisms I have with Civ5 was the cheesy wins at higher difficulty levels (either through lucky capital conquests or through winning when the AI civs didn't try to stop me when they could). Also, Civ5 for me did end up being somewhat of a one-strategy-fits-all (but not to the extent of Civ4 though), except for cultural games.

In the end, not only do I want to have a challenge in playing at King-Emperor (it's not now except for hard maps) but I want Civ5 to do more in making each decision more important. Even to the extent that 1 food, 1 hammer, 1 gold, 1 building, 1 social policy or 1 key unit can make a difference (that's where Civ5 has it all over Civ4).

1upt and SPs are what prevents me from ever going back to Civ4 (which is my favorite game of all time) but Civ5 had not been there in giving me a satisfying gameplay/win below the top two levels (ala Civ4). This patch appears to have nailed it in making me think more (and differently beyond a 3-city-large-puppets strategy) and that's why I am excited about it.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but just to offer an alternate view. You are reading the patch notes one way and assuming others (like myself) are reading them incorrectly. Maybe you are right, maybe others are right, maybe no ones right.


The social policy branches now are tied to the 3 new playstiles in the following fashion: Tradition (Tall), Liberty (Wide), Honor (Conqueror), Piety (Culture), Patronage (City-states), Commerce (Commerce/Production), Rationalism (Science), Freedom (Tall), Autocracy (Conqueror), Order (Wide).


I'm not sure I agree with this. While landed elite and monarchy do I suppose favour tall empires, the rest is just okay for any kind of empire if you choose it. Keep in mind however you can get more happiness from Honor than Tradition now and more culture too. Liberty is similar but I won't get into a rant :P. And patronage is for everything pretty much. You want something? Ally a CS is 95% of the time the answer.


Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings. Power plants (and indirectly the Spaceship factory) get a significant boost in their effectiveness and need for them. Power plants are the only viable way of getting production to pre-patch levels.


Late game buildings also cost significantly less making these buildings possibly unneeded completely or at least much less useful. Perhaps no more so than they are now so not much of a change at all possibly.


Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.


I strongly disagree with this. First the AI never hooks up their darn resources (maybe that's changed... we don't know yet) so trading with them is useless for quite a while. So what's the alternative? Trade with the CSes! Just as it always has been. They are more reliable trade partners than the real nations ever are and provide more than just the luxury. If anything this will place more emphasis on them then less. This in a nutshell is my main complaint. They did NOTHING about the power of the CS in this patch... which was IMO by far and away the most unbalanced aspect of the game.

I strongly disagree with this. First the AI never hooks up their darn resources (maybe that's changed... we don't know yet) so trading with them is useless for quite a while. So what's the alternative? Trade with the CSes! Just as it always has been. They are more reliable trade partners than the real nations ever are and provide more than just the luxury. If anything this will place more emphasis on them then less. This in a nutshell is my main complaint. They did NOTHING about the power of the CS in this patch... which was IMO by far and away the most unbalanced aspect of the game.

Depends on diff. level you play on. AIs that favor early honor + warmongering usually delay their improvements. On Immortal they hook them up very fast anyway (free workers I suppose).

Depends on diff. level you play on. AIs that favor early honor + warmongering usually delay their improvements. On Immortal they hook them up very fast anyway (free workers I suppose).

They hook up 1. They won't trade it. I'd say maybe 10% of the time there's a luxury available for trade early.

Bibor, this is an excellent meta-analysis, written in a consistently clear manner that's accessible to all.

Once question, what exactly are Tall and Wide empires? If I were to guess, Tall is not many cities with a high pop and Wide is lots of cities with a lower pop, but that is just a guess.

Tall civs are also more likely to have more developed cities.

EDIT: Reading the happiness changes properly

Happiness received a nerf in the 10-15 ballpark. Which is about right. Too much emphasis was put on "sell all your luxuries for 300 gold each", simply because it was possible. Overall happiness for your empire will be pretty much the same. The only difference is that you will not be able to exploit trade mechanics and that you will need to gradually build up happiness from various sources (policies, buildings, trades etc.). It is also true that cities will need to monitor their happiness more closely. This was done more to balance the benefits of surplus food than happiness.

You're just assuming that we never traded lux for lux? I don't see the good news for people who already traded lux for lux whenever possible once happiness is an issue and still want larger empires. There's a limit to how many cities you can manage, and the limit just got smaller, while I felt it was already too small for me to colonize and conquer as much as I wanted =/

You're just assuming that we never traded lux for lux? I don't see the good news for people who already traded lux for lux whenever possible once happiness is an issue and still want larger empires. There's a limit to how many cities you can manage, and the limit just got smaller, while I felt it was already too small for me to colonize and conquer as much as I wanted =/

With a larger, well thought out empire, you should have more luxuries to both trade and keep. You're just going to have to be smarter about it. For some players, this means the game is now less "fun." If this is the case with you, then drop down a level or two.

Great summary of the essentials, Bibor! ;)

Complexity in chaos is never easy to "Predict" though, as you well know already from some of our earlier tricky conversations on specific issues.

With a larger, well thought out empire, you should have more luxuries to both trade and keep. You're just going to have to be smarter about it. For some players, this means the game is now less "fun." If this is the case with you, then drop down a level or two.

Yeah, I already have plenty of luxuries when my empire gets large, and I trade for ones I don't have, or buy them from CS's, but there's only so many in the game. One new city now=4 unhappiness (3 instead of 2, plus 1 for the citizen), so a single lux only covers a size 1 city. Anyway, point was, like I said, I was already doing that, so no, that wasn't helpful advice.


I don't know how the math works out for happiness bonuses on low levels, but I don't suspect they'll be giving me enough to make up for the huge happiness hits.

You will now have to rely on SPs (or some wonders) to get most of your happiness. Luxs and colisseums will now be only a temporary solution, as natural wonders at a smaller scale.

Most people are right in one thing though - Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

Yes, sir and i don't know if its good or bad but i like new.

Three basic forms of gameplay are introduced: Tall Empire, Wide Empire and The Conqueror's Empire.
And the AI gets to be all 3, while the player has to choose. That said, i like the decision delimma of how i want 30 future citizens. 3 cities, size 10? or 5 cities size 6?

Social policies branches are now closely tied - and readily available - to all three new types of Empires (instead of being an almost exclusive benefit of going Tall).
This will be fun, to experiment with new combinations. i can't judge them too much because i need to see them on my game screen to really relate. im a different kind of learner so i still don't get it even though it has been explained quite well.

The social policy branches now are tied to the 3 new playstiles in the following fashion: Tradition (Tall), Liberty (Wide), Honor (Conqueror), Piety (Culture), Patronage (City-states), Commerce (Commerce/Production), Rationalism (Science), Freedom (Tall), Autocracy (Conqueror), Order (Wide).

I think there is more versatility than meets the blind eye, im more interested in the hybrid where you chase one intended path but are able to transform into another if you need to. and with this, im seeing it.

It is not possible to chase specific buildings (ex. University), Policies (ex. Theocracy) or units (ex. Longswords) that will serve as a panacea. Instead, deliberate choices and synergy of all possible factors will be required to achieve the desired effects.
I kind of like this, you can't declare "I will win if i get iron" - it just makes us work a little differently, but im not sure if it makes us work harder.

Final results, say "constantly having enough happiness", are now closely tied to how well the abovementioned synergy is executed.

If this means i have to think more i like it.

Correspondingly, going for Education early but not aiming for fast scientific advancement (i.e. slacking on Universities, skipping Rationalism branch, not even bothering with trying to build Porcelain Tower), is going to punish the player more severely.

I hate this, because it won't change anything for the AI.

Unit compositions now also require deliberate planning. No more "longsword rushes". A healthy mix (dependant on available resources) will be required as ranged units (ex. Crossbow) and flanking units (ex. tank) get a boost.
I just have a certain feeling this statement will not hold true for multiplayer games.

Gold, science, culture, production, food requirements and effects are better balanced out. This also makes puppet empires weaker.

Yes, which sucks - it makes puppet empires weaker without making anything else better. i hate all the micromanagement from annexes and i like the burden that puppeting lifts from my shoulders - back to razing for me i guess. it sucks but it's the "path of least resistance", right?

Playstyles will now struggle when shifting between the 3 playstyles or when dealing with different playstyles. Scientific, Cultural, Commerce, Warfare empires now have different tools in dealing with each other, rather than Science and Commerce being the only relevant tools (i.e. "Slingshot to rifles, upgrade everything").
Will this actually change the game dynamics? AI will always behave the way it always did, and for multiplayer games it changes nothing.

Production and other "percentage nerfs" now advocate more active play (yes, even investing into Militaristic city-states) instead of passive bonuses a la "Lets slap in a Factory and railroad connection and we're good to go".
I will have to put more thought in this, because i don't see a real change. the AI will still cheat out 1,000 units and you will have less ability to produce a response.

Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings.
Yes, and with having less gold altogether i don't see how i am to compete with the AI - see what yo said above about having to re-learn the game. it could be a good thing, we will see.

Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.
Ahh yes, now i will be lucky to own 2 city states while an AI has them all.

Working citizens (and their yields) as well as specialist super-improvements are being made more important. Production requires working hammer tiles and Engineers, science requires high population and Scientists etc.
[/list]

Wonderful - its a small way to give back what they took away. My only fear is that harder difficulties will become improbable and that "builder" will only be possible on prince because i will never be able to buy a city state, upgrade a few troops and buy a building within the first 100 turns but the AI can. I may as well just play as a city state.

Happiness received a nerf in the 10-15 ballpark. Which is about right. Too much emphasis was put on "sell all your luxuries for 300 gold each", simply because it was possible.

How else am i going to get gold? Seriously.

In the end, im very mixed - i will probably just play mods as i have been doing while being bored and unstatisfied with the origional game because i dont want to play a game of magic the gathering against an opponent who starts with table rule they draw 2 cards a turn and i draw one card every 2 turns. (as a metaphor).

Bibor should get an award for this, or something of the like, this really:
1. Solves the question completely of whether the patch ruined the game or not.
2. Answers the questions of pretty much almost every player who is conserned with the patch.

I've never like those "I have a gameplan no matter the start openings", so for me seeing those get brought in line is awesome. Reacting to your environment is a good thing, we need more of that throughout the game.

This is how I feel about the game as well. That's part of the fun. Even if I select a map that will be positively suited for the Civ I pick to play, it's still a different game every time. Sometimes I have to do a lot of war to finish, sometimes not. And the civs being unpredictable adds to that.

And if my strategy for winning has to change with the new patch, then I'm good with that. As the patch notes say, if you get your butt kicked with the new patch drop a level until you catch up with the new stuff then bump yourself back to where you like it.

No big deal to me. The biggest thing I see in the patch is the seeming ability to get positive relations with trades. If that works the way I think it might, then having an ally to the end of the game is sweet. I miss that in Civ V.

Yeah, I already have plenty of luxuries when my empire gets large, and I trade for ones I don't have, or buy them from CS's, but there's only so many in the game. One new city now=4 unhappiness (3 instead of 2, plus 1 for the citizen), so a single lux only covers a size 1 city. Anyway, point was, like I said, I was already doing that, so no, that wasn't helpful advice.


I don't know how the math works out for happiness bonuses on low levels, but I don't suspect they'll be giving me enough to make up for the huge happiness hits.

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.
Question, why doesn't the diversity of luxuries scale with map size? For example, 6 different types of luxuries on Standard, and 10 on Huge? Doesn't that make the most sense? I've been pondering this ever since Civ5 came out.

Secondly, I pray that luxuries will be sold for 80% of their current cost to reflect the happiness change. If they're kept at 10 gpt, you're going to see people selling all they can and making it up in buildings/policies. Not that that's not completely done now *cough*.

Bibor should get an award for this, or something of the like, this really:
1. Solves the question completely of whether the patch ruined the game or not.
2. Answers the questions of pretty much almost every player who is conserned with the patch.

No he doesn't. While I value the work he's done in the OP and appreciate it greatly, it is all based on speculation and nobody can answer these questions until, you know, people actually play it.

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

Oh, I agree. But the issue WILL persist.

Question, why doesn't the diversity of luxuries scale with map size? For example, 6 different types of luxuries on Standard, and 10 on Huge? Doesn't that make the most sense? I've been pondering this ever since Civ5 came out.

Secondly, I pray that luxuries will be sold for 80% of their current cost to reflect the happiness change. If they're kept at 10 gpt, you're going to see people selling all they can and making it up in buildings/policies. Not that that's not completely done now *cough*.

Actually, I'm fairly sure it already does.... If you move DOWN from Standard size. The issue is that Standard already relies on all existing luxuries. We need more.

Update on my prior statement: It DOES scale number of luxuries based on map size, just as I thought.

function AssignStartingPlots:GetDisabledLuxuriesTargetNumbe r()
-- This data was separated out to allow easy replacement in map scripts.
local worldsizes = {
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_DUEL.ID] = 6,
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_TINY.ID] = 4,
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_SMALL.ID] = 2,
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_STANDARD.ID] = 1,
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_LARGE.ID] = 0,
[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_HUGE.ID] = 0
}
local maxToDisable = worldsizes[Map.GetWorldSize()];
return maxToDisable
end

As you can see, Large and Huge got the shaft, here... Large may be balanced, if you keep the pattern (parabola centered on 1, standard), but with that setup Huge should have an additional 2 luxuries, minimum.

And that is doing nothing more than simply keeping to a perceived pattern, rather than looking at actual variation between worldsizes!

As I said, this is one of few happiness issues that I feel is legitimate. ;)

A very nice analysis, pulling out the big picture from the list of piece meal changes. I think you're right on. But it's much more fun to run around screaming "the sky is falling! OMG" ...

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

It boggles my mind how you come to your conclusions... :lol: You say happiness will be better suited for all map sizes & show your logic by showing the changes to the policies. :eek:

1) For most of the game you can't have all those policies for one, realistically you have to make a choose.
2) You forgot to add the negatives which for the most part cancel out a lot of your mentioned buffs ( which you won't be able to take all anyways ) -1 coliseum -1 per city that cancels out a quick organized religion right there pretty much. Not to mention you have to build all these buildings in the 1st place & have the pop per city to use them.
3) fact that order/freedom are exclusive now - i mention this as i have games where i have taken over the entire world & have all the +happiness policies inc order/freedom & still are only around zero happiness mark. & thats on a standard map. Filling a Huge map will be even harder post patch. I certainly don't see how it will be easier post patch especially with puppets. Theocracy alone will make that extremely difficult.

It boggles my mind how you come to your conclusions... :lol: You say happiness will be better suited for all map sizes & show your logic by showing the changes to the policies. :eek:

Because the general principle is much easier to tweak and balance. It obviously needs testing, but let us see how it would fare compared to today's standards.

Currently, huge map policies costs an additional 15% per city.
From the new patch this number will be 7.5%.
Currently, each city costs 1.2 happiness on a huge map (2 on standard size) or 60% of the original.
From the new patch this number will be 1.8 (60% of 3).

Today:
+15% :c5culture: needed per city
-2.2 unhappiness per city (city + 1 citizen).

New patch:
+7.5% :c5culture: needed per city
-2.8 base unhappiness per city.

Lets say you want to expand, today, to 10 cities on a huge map with the first three social policy branches. The only policy that offers happiness is Meritocracy, a whopping 0.5 :c5happy: per city. The only policy that offers culture is Liberty, a whopping +1. Everything else must come from a Colosseum, Circus, Monument or Temple. You can obviously go Tradition, but we talk about really large empires.

***

From the new patch, it will be easy to expand with Honor. Honor will offer culture from barb kills (easy to get on huge maps, yes?), Military caste and Professional army will offer a total of +2 :c5happy: with a garrison and city walls as well as extra +2:c5culture:.

From there you can go Piety (still killing barbs), build a few monuments (15% cheaper due to Piety starter) and receive further +1 :c5happy: +2:c5culture: per city. At this point you become happiness neutral (at population 1) and have +4:c5culture: per city and +3:c5happy: per city from policies and a monument.

You can place an almost indefinite number of pop 1 cities this way, whithout even touching luxury resources, colosseums or circuses.

Now lets add a colosseum +2 happy. A temple, +1 happy. Add a castle +1 happy. A stone works or circus, between +1 and +2 happy.

We're still in the medieval era and we can already have cities with population 6 or 7 without even dipping into luxuries.

As long as you build a monument, have a scout garrison (you can take Oligarchy as well) and if you dip slightly into luxuries you can place an infinite number of size 1 cities and build from there.

... and build from there. That's the idea I like the most.

Honestly, I presume the devs planned the new happiness system around players having at least 3 full policy branches before hitting industrial. And whatever way you go, you'll end up with +4 to +6 happiness per city from branches alone.

The devs have shown in several patches that they don't want exploits (ICS) and they want the game balanced (as Bibor said, tall, wide, conqueror). They've nerfed and buffed areas of the game to achieve these objectives in all major patches. This patch is no different.

They nerfed the ability to exploit RAs, which has been the hallmark of Diety play (I play successfully on Immortal and have never employed the RA expoit strategy).

They are taking away the puppet exploit strategy. This is the current ICS strategy (build 3-4 cities and puppet everything else). By increasing unhappiness if you want to ICS, you will need the Police State policy (Courthouses +3 happiness, 50% cheaper to build), and it will be desireable and probably necessary to annex more and puppet less balancing out the empire.

I am a believer in the law of unintended consequences, so I will be interested in seeing how this very talented and creative user community finds new exploits to take the place of the nerfed ones. I also believe as 2K Gregg's post stated that many of us will have to drop a level. I believe the game gets harder with this patch.

Policies choices cannot be willie nillie any more. You will need to determine your grand strategy early and choose your policies to provide a sustainable advantage well into the late game when policies will be fewer and further between. The same applies for wonders and great people. I belive that strategy becomes much more important; again at the higher levels, you won't be able to thrive without having put in place a grand strategy early.

in the end is it a harder game, as in "This game requires more skill and percision" or hard as in "The AI didn't get nerfed". i still say good overall don't get me wrong but i like the anology of playin a game of chess against a bad, inept player who gets 3 moves a turn. most of the time you will lose.

Well i have quite a few games pre planned out in my head with the new changes, so i can't wait for the patch. :)

Well i have quite a few games pre planned out in my head with the new changes, so i can't wait for the patch. :)

Wow, you must be one hell of a chess player!:D I'm lucky if my next planned move goes the way I want.:blush:

I, also, am looking forward to the patch. Regardless of what a few others have posted here, it will be a brand new game (sort of like playing one of the mods, right?)

I'm looking forward to the new patch as well. Most of the changes should be exciting. I don't mind the happiness and I'd like to try out new policy combos since I can seemingly have more of them. However...


They nerfed the ability to exploit RAs, which has been the hallmark of Diety play (I play successfully on Immortal and have never employed the RA expoit strategy).


This isn't true, IMO. It's actually easier now to exploit RAs than before. Remember you get to choose what tech you want basically and in fact by opening up certain key techs you will be able to get more than 1 free tech per RA for a long time.

Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings.

They did mention wanting to nerf hammer cost of later game units. We will have to compare, but it might make it more important to have multiple cities churning out units during heavy war, instead of just having one or two cities doing all the production.

The flip side to this is that if the drop in hammer cost is even remotely significant, annexing good cities might be something you should do with "Conqueror" or even "Wide" playstyles.

Excellent overview, Bibor! My impressions weren't as specific as yours, but I was instantly struck by how much more interwoven all aspects of the game will be (buildings + policies + wonders + resources to maintain happiness, unit balance for more successful warring, etc).

Very good post. I am still confused about factories though. They use up coal & provide so little production boost, isn't that bad for balancing ? In ciV, strategic resources are much limited so I think a building requiring coal should be powerful.

Yeah, but coal is typically available in considerable abundance (like, 8 per instance), no? And, how many units require it, anyway?

edit: yeah, just factories and iron clad. One I build a lot, one almost never.

Nice overview Bibor, good posts as always. I do think a number of people are a little too worried, although it's understandable with the number of changes being made. There's going to be a lot of changes, but they should be for the better. I figure that they've been testing these changes for months (last patch didn't have any balance changes) so I can't see things being a total trainwreck; they know that it should work out (I hope). Either way, only way to see how they play out for certain is to play when the new patch comes out.

Well i have quite a few games pre planned out in my head with the new changes, so i can't wait for the patch. :)

Haha me too! :lol:

Bibor, this was a most intelligent way to put the new patch changes into perspective. I am interested to see how this all pans out. It seems every new change firaxis made has intention behind it. The plan has always been to balance the game, so different styles of play can be successful. I believe after much review that the developers are surely taking the game in the right direction.

Now I am interested to see what new DLC they intend to introduce.

For some1 having a clue of the game all changes apart the RA one seem totaly random.
In fact the sp changes make the game totaly boring - having ultimates in the tress bins u on some tree - so after 10 turn u decide and in the next 200 turns there arent choises anymore - u just wait for the next sp in "your" tree.

Also it if pretty fun that people talk still about ICS, when they talk about 5 city empires - 5 isnt infinate ....
whats so wrong about wanting to expand?
This patch just makes expanding impossible - the game is atm allready boring - 1-3 cities - decide your way to win and just do it - cult for example is so easy and cheap.

And domination is still way to easy.

The one important change have to be a more clever ai and i dont read about this in the notes - so they are just sad

It's actually easier now to exploit RAs than before. Remember you get to choose what tech you want basically and in fact by opening up certain key techs you will be able to get more than 1 free tech per RA for a long time.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean - can you explain this?

[Edit] What I mean is that RAs are currently used for slingshotting via tech-locking, i.e. to open up a single, very expensive tech and bulb it. If RAs are now a beaker bonus based on your median available tech, it's mathematically impossible to use them to bulb your most expensive tech.

The most compelling criticism that I saw of Civ 5 was that the design revolved around punishing players. Make buildings slow to create and add maintenance. Make your entire empire shut down unless you manage global happiness. Penalties for annexing; many ways to alienate computer AIs. few ways to please them.

The changes here make it substantially harder to build a large empire; this is (yet again) the designers trying to induce playstyles that they like by inducing penalties.

Sorry, not impressed. At all.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean - can you explain this?

[Edit] What I mean is that RAs are currently used for slingshotting via tech-locking, i.e. to open up a single, very expensive tech and bulb it. If RAs are now a beaker bonus based on your median available tech, it's mathematically impossible to use them to bulb your most expensive tech.

Plus, you only get 50% of the beakers now. Sure, you have "more" control (if you weren't tech blocking, I mean), but that makes it hardly more exploitable.

The changes here make it substantially harder to build a large empire; this is (yet again) the designers trying to induce playstyles that they like by inducing penalties.

That's what people were saying after the last patch, but I regularly have huge empires up through King and I almost never puppet, except during post-capture resistance. Once resistance is over, I annex and build a courthouse (which gets a boost in the coming patch).

Also, a punishment is a downside with no solution; in addition to new downsides (e.g., less happiness from buildings and lux) there are also new solutions (wonder buffs and policy changes addressing happiness).

Large empire happiness will have to be managed differently (generally, global management will be more important), but it will still be manageable.

Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.
[/list]

Can you elaborate on this a little? I understand that luxuries in general received a nerf, but isn't the usual technique:

- Improve your own luxury
- Sell it to AI
- Use gold to acquire a different luxury from CS
- Repeat

...which, if your own luxuries are redundant and CS luxuries are more diverse, can be an actual net gain in happiness, compared to holding on to your own luxuries, right?

Plus, you only get 50% of the beakers now. Sure, you have "more" control (if you weren't tech blocking, I mean), but that makes it hardly more exploitable.

No offence but you are saying that because you now have control over where the research from RAs go you can exploit is less? For me I can certainly exploit things I directly control much easier. I was ignoring the tech blocking which was an exploit to be sure that really should never have been used or included at all. So yes I suppose if you were tech blocking the new system is harder to exploit.. but wasn't the whole point / exploit of tech blocking that you got to choose what tech you got? Under the new system you get to choose it without tech blocking. So you don't really need to drastically alter your research to grab percetages of techs you don't want anymore at all to block them but just barrel through largely as normal.

RAs were largely exploitable to grab very expensive techs... not early cheaps ones. By that point it will be quite easy to get up to 100% bonus from RAs. I mean you can do it as soon as you get rationalism (you can have the tower up by then too - just use your GE from liberty or build it yourself... the tower isn't hard to get on harder difficulties). So how will you exploit it then?

As soon as you can arrange to have at least 1 more high cost tech open than low cost techs open, you're ready. You just sign the RAs and merily either choose to research on the high cost techs or the middle / median techs themselves. So lets say you staggered the RAs by 1 turn and signed 4.

The first one lands, you get the cost of your median tech that you get to direct whereever you want it. As long as you direct it at a median or high tech, the next one will be worth more. Now do I need to reblock techs before the next one lands? Under the current system yes sometimes you do. Now? no. Next turn when the next one lands I can again select whatever tech I want and it'll be worth more than the one before. Rinse and repeat. As long as you time it right and get your research to choke points (just like before) you can have your pick of whatever techs you want. No blocking required.

No offence but you are saying that because you now have control over where the research from RAs go you can exploit is less? For me I can certainly exploit things I directly control much easier. I was ignoring the tech blocking which was an exploit to be sure that really should never have been used or included at all. So yes I suppose if you were tech blocking the new system is harder to exploit.. but wasn't the whole point / exploit of tech blocking that you got to choose what tech you got? Under the new system you get to choose it without tech blocking. So you don't really need to drastically alter your research to grab percetages of techs you don't want anymore at all to block them but just barrel through largely as normal.

RAs were largely exploitable to grab very expensive techs... not early cheaps ones. By that point it will be quite easy to get up to 100% bonus from RAs. I mean you can do it as soon as you get rationalism (you can have the tower up by then too - just use your GE from liberty or build it yourself... the tower isn't hard to get on harder difficulties). So how will you exploit it then?

As soon as you can arrange to have at least 1 more high cost tech open than low cost techs open, you're ready. You just sign the RAs and merily either choose to research on the high cost techs or the middle / median techs themselves. So lets say you staggered the RAs by 1 turn and signed 4.

The first one lands, you get the cost of your median tech that you get to direct whereever you want it. As long as you direct it at a median or high tech, the next one will be worth more. Now do I need to reblock techs before the next one lands? Under the current system yes sometimes you do. Now? no. Next turn when the next one lands I can again select whatever tech I want and it'll be worth more than the one before. Rinse and repeat. As long as you time it right and get your research to choke points (just like before) you can have your pick of whatever techs you want. No blocking required.

Information in patch notes is too unclear to make conclusions. We don't even know if we can choose anything, or if those beakers will still go to a random tech like before. And we don't know what is the point that beaker count is calculated from: is it when you start an agreement or when it's finished. I guess what we know quite surely is that an agreement will still last 30 turns like before (they would probably have told if they had changed this).

But if it works like you described, it actually may be just as exploitable as it was, if not more...

Next turn when the next one lands I can again select whatever tech I want and it'll be worth more than the one before.

Wouldn't median only go up once you've fully unlocked a tech? And, since you only get 50% of the median tech's beaker value, there's no way you'd ever come close to unlocking median or higher via one RA. So, you can stack them and ultimately reach one target tech, but that's a lot different than when you could line up three RAs and unlock three techs in a row.

Wouldn't median only go up once you've fully unlocked a tech? And, since you only get 50% of the median tech's beaker value, there's no way you'd ever come close to unlocking median or higher via one RA. So, you can stack them and ultimately reach one target tech, but that's a lot different than when you could line up three RAs and unlock three techs in a row.

If you haven't boosted above 50%, yes you are right the amount of beakers won't go up if you don't actually complete a tech with it. And then there's the issue of where the overflow goes as well. But if you open rationalism and build the tower, then the value is 100% again.

MkLh is right though. There are a few unanswered questions that we won't know until the patch lands :). I'm assuming the beakers just suddenly get added lump sum to your research on the turn the RA lands.

In some ways it would be less exploitable if you got instead a certain number of beakers per turn.... like say you get median / 30 beakers each turn. Median would change of course so it would either be locked at time of signing or change over time. I still think the best system would be to boost your current research by a percentage instead of all this lump sum based on what techs are available nonsense... That way RAs can't replace your own research, which in many ways they can ATM.

Ah, right, forgot about the potential for 100% median value. Even then, if you line up 3 RAs, you can never use that to instantly propel yourself three techs further down the tech tree beyond your most advanced tech. Even if you can target techs for RA beaker dumps, you can either unlock 3 median techs in a row or chip away at something further down the line. But, I can't see how you could ever slingshot three techs ahead of your furthest techs in three turns. IMO that's what currently makes RAs + blocking truly an exploit.

edit: will be interesting to see if you can batch-open techs (opening 2 or 3 at once) that precede your median tech.

im still extremely confused about overflows and what does and does not, currently or post patch work under some wierd formula i don't understand.

I hope eventually everything overflows with a defined and simple hard cap such as "city size +X" and not "City Size + (insert calculus) = (insert quantum physics)."

I like the idea of research agreements and tribal villages giving you "Beakers" instead of technologies, then gave you a popup to let YOU dictate where those beakers go.

Oh yeah, also, when you have RAs at 100% median value, completing a *median* tech isn't exactly going to propel the new median very far down the tech line.

I guess my problem has always been that the opportunity cost of RAs is just too low compared with the cost of doing the research yourself. RAs let you get tech faster and at a lower cost than hard research once you get past the first 1/3rd of the game. And even if you can now only grab 1 median tech per RA... it still seems like too much to me again compared to the hard way of doing it.

For example. I can trade 1 luxury and get 1 free tech in return, 30 turns later. Or I can trade 3 luxuries and buy a single university that may accelerate my research by 10% overall (and now universities have been made worse for some unknown reason). Oh and if I have built Big Ben and have mercantilism I only need to trade 2 for that university. So why do I want to do research at all myself again? Research a bit yourself to get to 200 or 300BC, get yourself set up for RAs, sell all your science buildings and use RAs to rake in 8 techs every 30 turns.

Another thing that seems odd to me. They nerfed Babylon to produce less GSes and also a few wonders to produce less great people overall... under the assumption that generating GSes too quickly was too powerful because you can use them to bulb techs. That's fine. I have no problem with that. However if generating GSes to get techs was allowing you to get techs too fast... how is getting 8 techs in 30 turns for a pittance amount of gold you can get by trading luxuries (at the same rate of 30 turns) somehow acceptable?

EDIT: Oh and BTW to generate those GSes you need science buildings! Hence you actually do need a significant amount of your own science. So at least in that way it makes sense. Can the same be said for RAs?

@ArcaneSeraph

Research agreements now give a tech boost instead of a free tech. Tech boosts start at 50% of the median value of all techs you can research. Can be boosted to 100% if you both start Rationalism and build the Porcelain Tower.

Where did you get the assumption that you can actually CHOOSE the tech you want to boost?

To me it sounds like the same old random research agreement with the same rules regarding tech blocking etc.

You jump to conclusions way too fast and to be honest, I think the devs are intelligent enough to avoid your explained scenario.

I guess my problem has always been that the opportunity cost of RAs is just too low compared with the cost of doing the research yourself. RAs let you get tech faster and at a lower cost than hard research once you get past the first 1/3rd of the game. And even if you can now only grab 1 median tech per RA... it still seems like too much to me again compared to the hard way of doing it.

For example. I can trade 1 luxury and get 1 free tech in return, 30 turns later. Or I can trade 3 luxuries and buy a single university that may accelerate my research by 10% overall (and now universities have been made worse for some unknown reason). Oh and if I have built Big Ben and have mercantilism I only need to trade 2 for that university. So why do I want to do research at all myself again? Research a bit yourself to get to 200 or 300BC, get yourself set up for RAs, sell all your science buildings and use RAs to rake in 8 techs every 30 turns.

Another thing that seems odd to me. They nerfed Babylon to produce less GSes and also a few wonders to produce less great people overall... under the assumption that generating GSes too quickly was too powerful because you can use them to bulb techs. That's fine. I have no problem with that. However if generating GSes to get techs was allowing you to get techs too fast... how is getting 8 techs in 30 turns for a pittance amount of gold you can get by trading luxuries (at the same rate of 30 turns) somehow acceptable?

EDIT: Oh and BTW to generate those GSes you need science buildings! Hence you actually do need a significant amount of your own science. So at least in that way it makes sense. Can the same be said for RAs?

Well assuming you didn't RA block this patch is a straight up doubled the opportunity cost to RAs. Now if you go rationalism, and get the Porcelain Tower then and only then you get a small boost to RA value. If you did RA block, the opportunity cost went up even more considering you sorta artificially inflated your the RA value.

A lot of the building changes I think were trying to balance wide vs tall. They reduced a ton of % and added a ton of bases to a ton of things. (Broadcast tower is probably the most dramatic one)

@RealHuhn

If you can't choose the tech that the research targets, then yes I have no problem with them. Myself and quite a few others seem to be under the assumption, and it may be false, that it will go to whatever you happen to be researching when it lands with overflows following the same algorithm they do now. But yes if it is random then hey yes good on the devs cause I think the RAs are good cost for their value then. You can't manipulate them as much and you can't target them to give you free high level techs without first getting the median there too.

But you are assuming that they will remain random. I see no reason to assume that is any more valid than any other assumptions. Consider the Civ series has always been full of exploits and these are the same devs that implemented this exploitable blocking system I guess I have less faith in assuming that this new system will be without exploits at all.

Also since I am a strategy game dev myself I know from personal experience how easy it is to introduce an exploit when you are trying to make a cool new feature :).

@FuryCrab

I have no problem with the patch changes in general. I hope they work out well and remove the exploits. My two main complaints about an otherwise great game are RAs and Scholatism / CS abuse. If they have fixed those I'll be delighted :)

I'm looking forward to the new patch as well. Most of the changes should be exciting. I don't mind the happiness and I'd like to try out new policy combos since I can seemingly have more of them. However...



This isn't true, IMO. It's actually easier now to exploit RAs than before. Remember you get to choose what tech you want basically and in fact by opening up certain key techs you will be able to get more than 1 free tech per RA for a long time.

I believe that it will not be as effective as it is currently. We'll have to see what tactics the rather ingenious fan base can come up with.;)

I agree with you ArcaneSeraph, as a RA spammer before this patch all they did for me really is delay the spam. I still feel they're to good. If i had control of the patch notes i probably would of capped the bonus at 75% total. No mention of cost increases either, i think RAs would have been better if they cost a bit more, especially in the industrial/modern ages.

But in saying that i don't plan on any RA spam games for a while. I think I'm going to go back to scholasticism & buy CS. I never liked all the free techs in this game, that's why i was such a big advocate of getting them nerfed! I like to research my own techs.

I would summarize the patch as "Gradual Growth"

- Less happiness from luxuries, more from policies: less REXing, more gradually accumulating happiness.
- Because policies are more important, less policy costs in the beginning will give you easier policies. To not make Cultural Victory as easy, policies later on are more expensive.
- Reduced 'per-city Policy cost increase' by 50%, so you can build more cities, but because of slower happiness you won't ICS early and will settle cities later on
- Because more cities will be settled later on, production had to be rebalanced. Current modern production is only feasible with fully developend cities, but in the modern age there would be not enough time to fully develop them. More base hammers, less multiplayer achieves this goal.
- Gradual growth also means less instant boosts: National College, Longswordsman, Universities, RA, Theocracy. Only exception are Wonders, which primairy function is to have those kinds of boosts, and most needed the buffs to achieve that.
- Linking concepts together encourages gradual growth: less emphasis on pure happiness buildings, but more from Culture/Science/Military buildings in the policies. This makes it harder to putt all your eggs in 1 basket, ignore everything else and boosting/beelining/other your way through the game. But specialization is still important.
- More mixture in your empire, instead of 2-4 own cities and puppet everything else, this patch encourages a little more self settled cities and a little more annexing.
- Great Person tile improvements more valuable later on, added tech tree links & policy finishers also fit this narrative of gradual growth.

only grudge ive ever held against GP buildings is popping a coal, oil or aluminum on it. once, i got an iron on my landmark and that was pretty annoying.

I would summarize the patch as "Gradual Growth"

- Less happiness from luxuries, more from policies: less REXing, more gradually accumulating happiness.
- Because policies are more important, less policy costs in the beginning will give you easier policies. To not make Cultural Victory as easy, policies later on are more expensive.
- Reduced 'per-city Policy cost increase' by 50%, so you can build more cities, but because of slower happiness you won't ICS early and will settle cities later on
- Because more cities will be settled later on, production had to be rebalanced. Current modern production is only feasible with fully developend cities, but in the modern age there would be not enough time to fully develop them. More base hammers, less multiplayer achieves this goal.
- Gradual growth also means less instant boosts: National College, Longswordsman, Universities, RA, Theocracy. Only exception are Wonders, which primairy function is to have those kinds of boosts, and most needed the buffs to achieve that.
- Linking concepts together encourages gradual growth: less emphasis on pure happiness buildings, but more from Culture/Science/Military buildings in the policies. This makes it harder to putt all your eggs in 1 basket, ignore everything else and boosting/beelining/other your way through the game. But specialization is still important.
- More mixture in your empire, instead of 2-4 own cities and puppet everything else, this patch encourages a little more self settled cities and a little more annexing.
- Great Person tile improvements more valuable later on, added tech tree links & policy finishers also fit this narrative of gradual growth.

Excellent analysis. Even the Wonders provide less of an instant boost than they used to.

The new game will be very different, but not all that much harder if approached with discipline. However, the nature of the changes will frustrate players who seek one strong strategy, and expect to dominate soon after. This is probably why the devs are encouraging dropping down a level at first - to avoid frustration.

Excellent analysis.

I agree, a very good analysis by Montov.

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies. Basically, I want social policies to steadily accumulate for any kind of empire at any stage of the game; I want smaller, culture-focused empires to steadily accumulate them at a faster rate and to have an easier time getting enough for a Culture win, but I want all kinds of empires to be getting enough of them to keep moving forward.

Now, they've rebalanced a huge number of variables regarding policy cost and culture gain, so I will wait and see how things play out; I have no idea if Autocracy will continue to be useless or not. It's just a concern I have with the approach.

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies.

Seems like a legit concern. Especially with the nerfing of various slingshots, early NC, etc., which will make it harder to get to those ages before you accumulate a lot of policies. Even Babylon is getting their GS bonus nerfed.

They may need to eventually make those later SPs more powerful, to compensate. But I'd like to see how the patch works in general first.

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies. Basically, I want social policies to steadily accumulate for any kind of empire at any stage of the game; I want smaller, culture-focused empires to steadily accumulate them at a faster rate and to have an easier time getting enough for a Culture win, but I want all kinds of empires to be getting enough of them to keep moving forward.

Now, they've rebalanced a huge number of variables regarding policy cost and culture gain, so I will wait and see how things play out; I have no idea if Autocracy will continue to be useless or not. It's just a concern I have with the approach.

Well,if your focus is "Wide Empire Style" ,you'll probably just want to take Order Opener branch and another order sp branch(Nationalism if you are in war,United Front if you need City state alliance to maintain happiness or Planned economy to improve science) or Autocracy>Militarism>Police state if you are playing "Conqueror Empire style" and haven't conquered the world yet. And Autocracy becomes even more useful with this patch,since Liberty branch is no longer mutually exclusive to Autocracy branch.

Excellent analysis. Even the Wonders provide less of an instant boost than they used to.

The new game will be very different, but not all that much harder if approached with discipline. However, the nature of the changes will frustrate players who seek one strong strategy, and expect to dominate soon after. This is probably why the devs are encouraging dropping down a level at first - to avoid frustration.

Not only "one strong strategy" but also with the Civ4 way of thinking in terms of endless amount of everything. To them, it's too boring and frustrating to think about working for 1 extra food (culture, gold, hammers, etc.) and the benefits to such.

It is an excellent analysis. What a change since the first release when everyone was winning on high levels without even trying. I look forward to being forced to drop down a level and reading about the many attempts (and successes) in winning at Imm/Deity.

About Wide Empire policy costs, looking at the new cultural options a wide empire can get more culture than before if they work on it. Go Honor and then piety and mlitary caste and free religion increase in effectiveness the wider you are. With Representation, which you should have wide, each new city will add only 10% cost on standard maps and speeds. With a little cultural spam, made easier by piety opening and more rewarding by organized religion, you can probably get a decent amount of culture. Especially if late game Culture CS's got buffed significantly. Also new theocracy will really help wide empires. 10% gold boost per city, temples are cheap and even more useful now, could really help.

The cultural game that got hurt most is OCC with al the nerfs to multipliers and policy cost reductions. Maybe freedom finisher plus massed landmark, and late game Cs make up for this. Also remember that we lost 2 free policies in free religion and sydney opera house delaying games even more.

For the first time ever I think I'll actually try annexing and using Honor.

Also it looks like with the way RA's work I'll be using the game unmodded, part of me doesnt even want to play anymore until the patch is released!


The game has lost some luster since the patch notes were released waiting for the improved game to come out.

Very much disagree with ArcaneSeraph's frowning at research agreements. Diplomacy was always a very large part of your science production in Civ - just in former games there wasn't 'research agreements', but outright 'tech trades' (which, in fact, was even more 'extreme' than Civ5's RA may seem in how much benefit they provided). One easily 'cheated' through just as much of the tech tree using diplomacy in Civ4 as one does not in Civ5 - and I wouldn't want it any other way since it makes sense from both a gameplay and a realism standpoint. Real life United States didn't have to invent gunpower because the Chinese had already done that. It only makes sense that a large percentage of 'science' comes from abroad, in Civ represented as 'diplomacy'.

Research Agreements are, contrary to popular belief, one of the single best things about Civ5 compared to predecessors, one of the major steps forward. While their execution is poor (it really isn't that bad, it's just that the idiotic AI amplifies the issue manyfold), the truth is they remove the annoyance from previous games where one would constantly have to check diplomacy screens to find out if new opportunities for tech trades had arisen. Now, in Civ5, we comfortably just sign RA's and and don't have to bother with that boredom. I'm thankful for that.

About Wide Empire policy costs, looking at the new cultural options a wide empire can get more culture than before if they work on it. Go Honor and then piety and mlitary caste and free religion increase in effectiveness the wider you are. With Representation, which you should have wide, each new city will add only 10% cost on standard maps and speeds. With a little cultural spam, made easier by piety opening and more rewarding by organized religion, you can probably get a decent amount of culture. Especially if late game Culture CS's got buffed significantly. Also new theocracy will really help wide empires. 10% gold boost per city, temples are cheap and even more useful now, could really help.

The cultural game that got hurt most is OCC with al the nerfs to multipliers and policy cost reductions. Maybe freedom finisher plus massed landmark, and late game Cs make up for this. Also remember that we lost 2 free policies in free religion and sydney opera house delaying games even more.

Overall, the upcoming patch is going to offer empires a ton more culture and social policies - trust me on that one. OCC may be taking a hit - that's possible - but who cares? One City Challenge is just that, a challenge - it's not supposed to be a way of playing the game. If anything, this new patch is going to allow cultural victory pursues to run an actual empire, and not the pathetic Civilicities where anything much beyond three cities virtually guarantees your options for cultural victory are nullified.

This new patch will let everyone empire up a bit more so that there won't be huge unclaimed masses of land well into the industrial era. That's an aspect of the game I can't wait to see improve.

Very much disagree with ArcaneSeraph's frowning at research agreements. Diplomacy was always a very large part of your science production in Civ - just in former games there wasn't 'research agreements', but outright 'tech trades' (which, in fact, was even more 'extreme' than Civ5's RA may seem in how much benefit they provided). One easily 'cheated' through just as much of the tech tree using diplomacy in Civ4 as one does not in Civ5 - and I wouldn't want it any other way since it makes sense from both a gameplay and a realism standpoint. Real life United States didn't have to invent gunpower because the Chinese had already done that. It only makes sense that a large percentage of 'science' comes from abroad, in Civ represented as 'diplomacy'.

Research Agreements are, contrary to popular belief, one of the single best things about Civ5 compared to predecessors, one of the major steps forward. While their execution is poor (it really isn't that bad, it's just that the idiotic AI amplifies the issue manyfold), the truth is they remove the annoyance from previous games where one would constantly have to check diplomacy screens to find out if new opportunities for tech trades had arisen. Now, in Civ5, we comfortably just sign RA's and and don't have to bother with that boredom. I'm thankful for that.

I agree with you that tech trading was awful... it had a few good points to it (which I will get to in a moment) but in general the chain reaction feeding frenzy of tech trading was not a great game mechanic IMO. However RAs are not good... they just aren't as bad.

Tech trades, for how awful they were, at least didn't let you get tech that nobody had. Or trade with some backwards nation to get some very advanced tech. RAs on the other hand... well we know the answer to that, don't we :)? Does it make sense that I should be able to go to some guy stuck in the medieval era and have him somehow help me get globalization? It has happened to me many times. I hope the new patch mechanics fix this.

Still... does it make sense that I should be able to 'agree to research' with someone and have the results be something they don't know and aren't even lose to researching? Meh...
So yeah... better than tech trading but not good.

It is easy to bash and not to prop up. With that in mind what would I suggest as being better? A combo system of tech trading and RAs. In order to form a research agreement, you must go to a civilization that has a tech and pay them to send you scientists to help you learn that tech yourself faster. It avoids the feeding frenzy of old tech trading. Doesn't allow you to use RAs to jump to future techs no one even has. It allows AIs (and you, if that's the case) that are behind to catch up. It's a nice option IMO.

I agree with you that tech trading was awful... it had a few good points to it (which I will get to in a moment) but in general the chain reaction feeding frenzy of tech trading was not a great game mechanic IMO. However RAs are not good... they just aren't as bad.

I like the idea of RAs because it gives the player another option for spending money. You now have more choices to make. Tech trading didn't really provide those choices. Now you can buy an RA, bribe a CS, buy a building, or trade with another civ for something else. These choices allow players to really customize their strategy to a much greater extent. I think the new mechanic will also be better than the current implementation that allows the tech blocking exploit.

I like the idea of RAs because it gives the player another option for spending money. You now have more choices to make. Tech trading didn't really provide those choices.

You know you were always able to buy that tech off of them, right? As well as trade it for maps and other items that the AI civ would find of value.

You know you were always able to buy that tech off of them, right? As well as trade it for maps and other items that the AI civ would find of value.

Now I remember. Thanks for the memory jog. I haven't played CiIV in a loooong time. The interesting thing about RAs is the 30 turn wait for them to mature. No more immediate gratification. You have to think it out before you enter into it to try to figure out which techs will be available at RA maturity.

Tech trades, for how awful they were, at least didn't let you get tech that nobody had. Or trade with some backwards nation to get some very advanced tech. RAs on the other hand... well we know the answer to that, don't we :)? Does it make sense that I should be able to go to some guy stuck in the medieval era and have him somehow help me get globalization? It has happened to me many times. I hope the new patch mechanics fix this.

I like the new RA dynamic coming in this patch, but I do agree with this, and I do think that one of the flaws with this game is also that there's too little tech rubberbanding (where previous civs often had way too much).
I think an interesting partial solution might be to award tech based on the median value of the other civ's available techs. So trading with the backwards guys is less risky but gives less benefit for the cost, while trading with the advanced guys gives you more tech but also benefits your most dangerous rivals. And it somewhat slows a runaway tech leader while helping to give a leg up to those guys who are struggling an age or two behind.

I third that motion, tech rubber banding through the inability to have full scale research agreements with 'backwards' civs would be a very welcome addition indeed. So, I think we're all on the same page on this issue: We don't want to go back to tech trading, but the rubber banding effect from previous games is something we'd like more of. Polycrates' idea above would be an excellent way to implement this.

That sounds like a decent suggestion too, yeah. It would be very hard to manipulate your partner's median tech value too, making it harder to exploit. So some combination of their median and yours. In other words some measure of the advancement of both civs would be used to compute the cost and / or benefits of an RA.

I would be VERY happy with a combination (hell, even just the average of the two median values); doing so would make the value less clear, unfortunately (unless you tell them right then how much it will be, which wouldn't be difficult), but it has the side effect of making RA's much better for those lagging in tech... Which I like.

I would be VERY happy with a combination (hell, even just the average of the two median values); doing so would make the value less clear, unfortunately (unless you tell them right then how much it will be, which wouldn't be difficult), but it has the side effect of making RA's much better for those lagging in tech... Which I like.

Reading this gave me an additional idea. It would a way of balancing things to have the more advanced civ charge extra (as they are getting less out of it). This is obvious. But the idea would be then to allow the stuff that boosts RAs right now (the tower and rationalism) could actually be changed to... well... make you appear smarter than you are :). So that you will get better deals on the RAs. The tower and rationalism won't be overpowered (as I fear they might be now) but will still make RAs much more efficient for you.

I really like this whole idea... unfortunately we likely won't get it... but... it's a nice dream :)

What a great suggestion to fix RA's! This sounds like something that could be modded in too.

It's going to be difficult for me to learn this game from scratch again. There are so many changes!

It's going to be difficult for me to learn this game from scratch again. There are so many changes!

Like so many have posted on these "patch threads," it will be like a brand new game!:) To me, learning this new game from scratch again seems like it would be fun.:D

I was thinking about the broken RA system now, and the patch(afaik) doesn't seem to indicate that it will fix the ability to influence what techs you get.

I think RAs need to be fundamentally changed, because as everyone has pointed out on this thread and others-it makes no sense that you're able to get help with a modern tech from a backwards civilization.

I've been tossing an idea around in my head, and I haven't really deconstructed it in terms of how it could be exploited yet. I'd like to see a hybrid of the old tech trading and the current RA process. My idea is this:

A tech agreement involves CivA giving something(gold, resources, another tech agreement) to CivB for research help on *one* tech that CivA doesn't have, but CivB does. This would transfer a beaker bonus(say +25%) when CivA wants to research this. The new buff for the Porcelain Tower/Rationalism would still be in effect. You would also be able to stack this with multiple civs.

Pros:
Civs still need to do research on their own-no instant tech trades
Weaker civs have a way to rubber band back into the game

Cons:
Strongly allied civ gangs could double their science output if played right(could use some AI tweaking)
You'd know explicitly what techs other civs have

Thoughts?

@doctorfork

Yeah that is very similar to my suggestion as well. You go to a civ that has a tech, ask them to help you learn it, and they send people to accelerate your research on that tech and that tech alone. It would force you to have your own research but could still provide a significant boost to it.

To avoid exploits you might have to implement some sort of a delay between RAs so that you couldn't constantly have tons of them active for the same tech or something. Also you'd have to consider how to add this additional science in. If it is, say, a +25% boost... does it apply after other modifiers or in addition to them? Does it scale with how advanced the other civ is or perhaps more importantly does it scale with hold old the tech is? This would especially help with lagging civs. If the old techs were boosted much more strongly than modern techs, they could catch up more effectively.

So I kind of like this system.. but the other proposed system I think is pretty good too. It is close enough to the current system as not to annoy people too much and it is less exploitable. It is more conducive to allowing people to catch up and not allowing leaders to shoot further ahead. It has less micro than constant tech monitoring that tech trading had. So in many ways I think it would be the easiest to switch to from the proposed system.

Yeah, after I read your post again, I realized I pretty much repeated it. I don't know if I like the idea of limiting it to one at a time-because I think the ability to get tech-challenged civs back into the game should really be the focus behind diplomatic science.

I think scaling things based on the age of a tech is a slippery slope, because the AI(at least in Civ4) was abysmally bad at determining the true value of a tech. Generally speaking, natural growth automatically scales research. I'd say a +25% would go against the base value of produced beakers, so it would stack on top of other modifiers. It's difficult to gauge without playtesting. (I think this is how the PT and Rationalism bonuses will work).

The way I envision it is that once the deal is made, the Civ who purchased the RA would not be forced to research that tech, but they would get a bonus on it whenever they got around to it-and at the same time, they would not be able to open another RA with that Civ until that tech is finished. So, you could purchase a research bonus for Optics, but never get around to actually researching it til way in the future.

(It makes perfect sense in my head, but I don't know if that translates when I write it)

I was thinking about the broken RA system now, and the patch(afaik) doesn't seem to indicate that it will fix the ability to influence what techs you get.

I think RAs need to be fundamentally changed, because as everyone has pointed out on this thread and others-it makes no sense that you're able to get help with a modern tech from a backwards civilization.

I've been tossing an idea around in my head, and I haven't really deconstructed it in terms of how it could be exploited yet. I'd like to see a hybrid of the old tech trading and the current RA process. My idea is this:

A tech agreement involves CivA giving something(gold, resources, another tech agreement) to CivB for research help on *one* tech that CivA doesn't have, but CivB does. This would transfer a beaker bonus(say +25%) when CivA wants to research this. The new buff for the Porcelain Tower/Rationalism would still be in effect. You would also be able to stack this with multiple civs.

A simpler choice would be just to bring tech trading back as it would have essentially the same effect in a much simpler form. It would also make diplomacy more interesting. The problem is that Civ5 devs seem to think that they just have to do certain things differently than they were done in Civ4 even if their new way is horribly inferior. I understand that the horrible Global Happiness system is a core concept in game and can't be removed, but research agreements are not. If and when the newest version of RA will be a failure, I hope they will just throw it away.

@doctorfork

Yeah I think I understand. The bonus would need to be playtested for sure but I'm sure it is balancable with the cost.

The main thing I would change is I wouldn't allow the RAs to be of infinite duration, though. Yeah I agree with the you don't have to research the tech in question part but I think the duration should be limited. If you want to renew it afterwards... well that's up to you and the civ.

The part that would be interesting would be how to cost these RAs... I don't want to pay the same price for an RA that will only benefit me for 5 turns versus one that will help for 30.

One detail that comes out of this proposal that may be important. Forming RAs with nations that are behind you would be completely useless. They would not be able to help you with pretty much anything. That may or may not be a problem for people.

A sort of an alternate option comes to mind too. You don't target the RA to a specific tech but any tech the civ has that you don't. So you'll get bonuses to any one of them that you research. The problem here is again you'd have to know what techs the person has as to whether it is worth while or not... but that's the same as before.

Just some thoughts :)

A simpler choice would be just to bring tech trading back as it would have essentially the same effect in a much simpler form. It would also make diplomacy more interesting. The problem is that Civ5 devs seem to think that they just have to do certain things differently than they were done in Civ4 even if their new way is horribly inferior. I understand that the horrible Global Happiness system is a core concept in game and can't be removed, but research agreements are not. If and when the newest version of RA will be a failure, I hope they will just throw it away.

Tech trading was too easily exploited, which is why it was changed. A simple solution to RA exploits would be for an RA to grant a set number of bpt, or a lump sum at the end of the RA. This could be complicated based on each civ's overall bpt, or not.

Tech trading was too easily exploited, which is why it was changed. A simple solution to RA exploits would be for an RA to grant a set number of bpt, or a lump sum at the end of the RA. This could be complicated based on each civ's overall bpt, or not.

Yeah I have to agree... tech trading was just awful. Way too exploitable. The AI didn't do it right and due to their war ineptness you could get them to hand over like 5 - 10 techs at the end of a war... wait a few turns... and do it all over again. Further its instantaneous nature combined with the fact that every AI treated techs like their were knock-off merchandise salesman really didn't promote good gameplay. Also starting by yourself on an island was pretty much a restart the game scenario.

I know I turned tech trading off in Civ4, at least :)

It may not make sense that a civilization behind in tech can help research the advanced tech being researched by a civilization ahead of them in technology, but that is not unusual in real life. Real life doesn't necessarily follow logical thinking!

When China was/is behind the United States in technology, they sent students to more advanced countries, and these students have been instrumental in numerous technological advances. Other "backward" countries have done the same with the US and other more "advanced" countries. It may not "make sense" to some people, but reality trumps making sense. So, I do not see this argument preventing such things from happening in the game.

Some people in "backwards" countries even have knowledge which more "advanced" countries don't have. In Civ V, they also may have technolgies which more advanced civilizations don''t have.

I think we need to be more open to these possibilities when we write about what makes sense.

Tech trading was too easily exploited, which is why it was changed. A simple solution to RA exploits would be for an RA to grant a set number of bpt, or a lump sum at the end of the RA. This could be complicated based on each civ's overall bpt, or not.

"Exploits" of tech trading in Civ4 are often overestimated. Many have followed some Deity forum games and seen some really good player getting 5 techs by trading one. It may look like a cheap exploit, but they don't realize how much planning that kind of "exploit" needs and that it has risks too (one AI may get the tech you're beelining and trade it to everyone - you're getting nothing of your beeline). RAs, on the other hand, were guaranteed to give you a tech you wanted if only you were willing to do tedious but quite no-brainer calculating of blocking right techs at a right time. It was much more exploitable than tech trading ever was. Furthermore, RA is a fundamentally silly concept. Tech trading is a clear (while not realistic) concept - you give a tech and you get a tech, but RA don't make any sense in real world and just gets more and more confusing when they try to fix it.

Your lump sum solution would be better than it's now, but it would still offer an automatic no-brainer exploit for a player. He would simply have to make as much RAs as possible with as many AIs as possible to grant maximum RA beakers for him.

Allowing tech-lagging civs advantageous trades with more advanced nations was a "levelling" mechanic. Regardless of whether it was realistic, it was good game design.

Designers of previous Civ iterations were more sophisticated than the team that put Civ V together, I think. They understood how diminishing returns and scale inefficiencies enhanced stability. Currently, most mechanics favor the leading civs, there aren't any "catch-up" mechanics.

1. "Exploits" of tech trading in Civ4 are often overestimated.

2. Furthermore, RA is a fundamentally silly concept.

1. No, they aren't - see two posts up for a list of examples.

2. There's nothing silly about a Research Agreement, and there's nothing exploitative about paying lots of gold for multiple RA's.

It's pretty clear from what you wrote that your only point is to favorably compare Civ4 to Civ5 on a thread about the latest patch notes. So enjoy your preferred game, while I continue to enjoy mine.

It may not make sense that a civilization behind in tech can help research the advanced tech being researched by a civilization ahead of them in technology, but that is not unusual in real life. Real life doesn't necessarily follow logical thinking!

When China was/is behind the United States in technology, they sent students to more advanced countries, and these students have been instrumental in numerous technological advances. Other "backward" countries have done the same with the US and other more "advanced" countries. It may not "make sense" to some people, but reality trumps making sense. So, I do not see this argument preventing such things from happening in the game.

Some people in "backwards" countries even have knowledge which more "advanced" countries don't have. In Civ V, they also may have technolgies which more advanced civilizations don''t have.

I think we need to be more open to these possibilities when we write about what makes sense.

Interesting thinking :). I myself obtained degrees at a university where my particular program was approx. 80% Asian and this university is in Canada so the populace is definitely not 80% Asian :). So yeah I know what you mean exactly.

However, with respect, I don't believe this actually represents a backwards nation providing knowledge to a advanced nation... at least not in the way I was agruing against the concept in the game. In this examples, the nations that you considered backward were / are relatively speaking not very backward at all. China is not really all that far behind in tech and knowledge. So it makes perfect sense in game and in reality for both nations to be able to benefit from the research agreement / exchange / whatever you want to call it.

A more accurate example of the issue I don't like would be going to a nation that has no experience whatsoever with modern technology.. has no education system to speak of... bringing them over, sitting them down in front of a computer, and having them help you discover nuclear fusion. It's just not going to happen... and if it does the chances of success are very small. Also consider that the example you mentioned requires the other nation's people to be educated by YOUR nation's facilities... thus requiring you to have those facilities to be of high quality. The in-game research argreements do not reflect either of these realities, IMHO :).

Research Agreements are, contrary to popular belief, one of the single best things about Civ5 compared to predecessors, one of the major steps forward. While their execution is poor (it really isn't that bad, it's just that the idiotic AI amplifies the issue manyfold), the truth is they remove the annoyance from previous games where one would constantly have to check diplomacy screens to find out if new opportunities for tech trades had arisen. Now, in Civ5, we comfortably just sign RA's and and don't have to bother with that boredom. I'm thankful for that.

In Civ4 BTS, there is a thing called BUG mod, which gives you information about tech trading opportunities without need to check diplomacy screen at all.. RAs on the other hand need extremely tedious calculating and watching your research every turn (so that you don't by mistake research a tech you should block, which messes things up completely) if you wan't them to be useful at all. If you want to do that tedious and exploitative blocking, RAs are extremely powerful, but if not, you miss the most powerful feature of the game. Lose-lose situation. A terrible feature.

In Civ4 BTS, there is a thing called BUG mod, which gives you information about tech trading opportunities without need to check diplomacy screen at all.. RAs on the other hand need extremely tedious calculating and watching your research every turn (so that you don't by mistake research a tech you should block, which messes things up completely) if you wan't them to be useful at all. If you want to do that tedious and exploitative blocking, RAs are extremely powerful, but if not, you miss the most powerful feature of the game. Lose-lose situation. A terrible feature.

Which, in case you have misread the patch notes, appears to be something they intend to fix.

Like so many have posted on these "patch threads," it will be like a brand new game!:) To me, learning this new game from scratch again seems like it would be fun.:D

I agree with this. Also the biggest change I see is the ability to make nice with the AI civs and they'll remember it. Also, the Liberty tree looks awsome for an early game sweep of an entire policy tree. I used to just cherry pick what I wanted out of Liberty and Tradition.

"However, with respect, I don't believe this actually represents a backwards nation providing knowledge to a advanced nation... at least not in the way I was agruing against the concept in the game. In this examples, the nations that you considered backward were / are relatively speaking not very backward at all. China is not really all that far behind in tech and knowledge. So it makes perfect sense in game and in reality for both nations to be able to benefit from the research agreement / exchange / whatever you want to call it. "

"A more accurate example of the issue I don't like would be going to a nation that has no experience whatsoever with modern technology.. has no education system to speak of... bringing them over, sitting them down in front of a computer, and having them help you discover nuclear fusion. It's just not going to happen... and if it does the chances of success are very small. Also consider that the example you mentioned requires the other nation's people to be educated by YOUR nation's facilities... thus requiring you to have those facilities to be of high quality. The in-game research argreements do not reflect either of these realities, IMHO :).

What I was referring to was China a few decades ago when there was a real gap in technology.

Computers are very recent -- even rather late in the tech tree. Modern research is quite different from what research has been through most of human existence, and not just in the tools used. When you have a research agreement, somebody's facilities have to be used. Either that, or you just meet together some where (in Civ IV) and find someone with the backward technology of archery and you have horseback riding and behold, you eventually get horse archers.

In most societies there are those ahead of their time. Wouldn't you like to have DeVinci on your team, even today?

I think research is much broader, even today, than the picture you are painting of it. That is why the game suggestion in the patch is not reality-breaking, IMHO. We in advanced societies often underestimate the intelligence, creativity, insight and dedication of those whose civilizations we think are technologically behind us particularly once different civilizations begin to be aware of what is going on in the world around them.

the new patch doesn't favor culture (i don't understand why they made broadcast tower so useless) and it makes defensive buildings almost useless.

What I was referring to was China a few decades ago when there was a real gap in technology.

I don't think you are quite understanding my words... When I'm referring to gaps in technology. I'm referring to MASSIVE gaps in technology. China a few decades ago was NOT MASSIVELY behind the rest of the modern world. Again as I said before this example is not one I have any problem with.

Computers are very recent -- even rather late in the tech tree. Modern research is quite different from what research has been through most of human existence, and not just in the tools used. When you have a research agreement, somebody's facilities have to be used. Either that, or you just meet together some where (in Civ IV) and find someone with the backward technology of archery and you have horseback riding and behold, you eventually get horse archers.

The computer was an example, not the entire reasoning. I was trying to paint the picture of bringing someone that had no knowledge of a subject and expecting them to help you make a breakthrough faster than someone in your own nation who has studied their lives on the subject. It really doesn't matter whether they are using computers, writing on paper, or drawing in the sand.


In most societies there are those ahead of their time. Wouldn't you like to have DeVinci on your team, even today?

I think research is much broader, even today, than the picture you are painting of it. That is why the game suggestion in the patch is not reality-breaking, IMHO. We in advanced societies often underestimate the intelligence, creativity, insight and dedication of those whose civilizations we think are technologically behind us particularly once different civilizations begin to be aware of what is going on in the world around them.

Truthfully? If anything I think people overestimate the intelligence of people in advanced societies. I am quite well aware of numerous examples of how so called less developed societies can invent things and think of things that other supposed advanced nations haven't. Intelligence is divided equally across all types of people, regardless of where they come from.

But in your arguments you've made my point for me. You say that these civilizations, once becomming AWARE of the world and the ongoing research can contribute to it and I agree... but that's kind of the point isn't it? These civs that are truly backward (eras behind you in tech) aren't aware of anything your civ is. They have no idea of the problems of trying to operate a centrifuge or how to run a particle accelerator. They don't even know about atomic structure. They don't know about an assembly line... they don't know about factories, coal, exothermic reactions, pollutants... anything. Yes they are smart... yes they can be trained... but that's not what an RA is. A research agreement isn't "I'll bring your people over here, teach them hundreds of years of knowledge in my eduction system, have them use this knowledge to somehow discover technology faster than my own people, and then return them to their own civ and they somehow convieniently forget the entire knowledge" because the other civ doesn't get the same tech, remember? I'm all for assuming all civ's intelligence is equal but wouldn't this other civ have to be full of super intelligent people to do that?

RAs are about people from different backgrounds, different experiences, different knowledge coming together and sharing ideas in the hopes that together they can use their combined knowledge to do something faster than either could alone. Your arguments are all made on the intelligence factor... but knowledge is just as critical as intelligence. Yes Da Vinci was brilliant. But he didn't invent (or I suppose I should say invision because very few of his ideas were feasible) things he and the entire society in general hadn't even considered yet.

Anyways we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't want to detract the thread any further. All I can say is the game mechanic RAs, whether realistic or not, has not yet been fixed to my and many others liking :)

the new patch doesn't favor culture (i don't understand why they made broadcast tower so useless) and it makes defensive buildings almost useless.

I beleive, or I should say I hope, that the nerfs to culture were because you can now have 2x the number of cities contributing to culture, which should help make up the gap. I think they also wanted to alter the pacing of the game, perhaps pushing culture (along with other victory types) back.

I agree though with the defensive buldings... not sure why the nerf was needed there especially combined with boosting siege. I never really had that much of a problem taking AI cities under the current rules and apparently most people didn't actually build walls / castles themselves so again.. why the nerf?

I don't think you are quite understanding my words... When I'm referring to gaps in technology. I'm referring to MASSIVE gaps in technology. China a few decades ago was NOT MASSIVELY behind the rest of the modern world. Again as I said before this example is not one I have any problem with.



The computer was an example, not the entire reasoning. I was trying to paint the picture of bringing someone that had no knowledge of a subject and expecting them to help you make a breakthrough faster than someone in your own nation who has studied their lives on the subject. It really doesn't matter whether they are using computers, writing on paper, or drawing in the sand.

But in your arguments you've made my point for me. You say that these civilizations, once becomming AWARE of the world and the ongoing research can contribute to it and I agree... but that's kind of the point isn't it? These civs that are truly backward (eras behind you in tech) aren't aware of anything your civ is. They have no idea of the problems of trying to operate a centrifuge or how to run a particle accelerator. They don't even know about atomic structure. They don't know about an assembly line... they don't know about factories, coal, exothermic reactions, pollutants... anything. Yes they are smart... yes they can be trained... but that's not what an RA is. A research agreement isn't "I'll bring your people over here, teach them hundreds of years of knowledge in my eduction system, have them use this knowledge to somehow discover technology faster than my own people, and then return them to their own civ and they somehow convieniently forget the entire knowledge" because the other civ doesn't get the same tech, remember? I'm all for assuming all civ's intelligence is equal but wouldn't this other civ have to be full of super intelligent people to do that?

Anyways we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't want to detract the thread any further. All I can say is the game mechanic RAs, whether realistic or not, has not yet been fixed to my and many others liking :)

Agreed. We're not even discussing the same thing. I start in the ancient era. Computers and particle accelerators don't even apply.

Your qualification that backward civs refer to those several eras behind is an important one. In my games other civs are rarely that far apart, and if they are, the advanced one has few techs in the era they are ranked at and they may not have as many techs in the preceeding era as those they RA with. So, we may be closer than our arguments suggest.

Good luck in your games.

Bibor, I'd love to hear what you think of the patch as compared to what you predicted for the patch in the original post of this thread.