Trade Route chooser automatically selects previously completed trade route
Huzzah!!!!!
"Increased the discount for districts you have less of from 25% to 40%"
I guess I had better get back to working out exactly when the discount happens
" increased per settler cost bump by 50"
Bye bye peaceful builds, just encoutrages more war
Greece: Award an envoy whenever they complete an Acropolis.
Wowser, that makes a very powerful greece
Catherine’s Flying Squadron: now awards a free Spy when the extra capacity is earned at Castles. All spies start as Agents with a free promotion.
This is not to be underestimated, France is going to be a pain to play against
Especially as spies are reduced by 25%
This is a HUGE change.. massive benefits all over, wellk doine Firaxis! well worth the wait
Haven't seen you in a while Victoria.
Overall, amazing patch. All of the balance changes are welcome (except one) and nearly every change they made was really needed. I had no idea there was a discount for districts you had very few of.
As Victoria said, the settler change is the only bad one. They should be cheaper, not more expensive. It's getting harder and harder to play peacefully.
Is that a real concern? I haven't played for a long time, but in my experience the AI would declare war at the start of the game and, once defeated, would rarely if ever declare war again. The game should have an option to play peacefully in general, but it should never become Sim City where there is never any risk of war or where you can play solitaire without ever having to compete with the AI for resources. It's a longstanding problem in Civ as a series that the game is inherently non-interactive and rarely offers significant rewards for warfare past early game expansion unless you're actively pursuing domination. It's never been good at promoting 'realistic' situations in which actual map elements and resources are worth fighting over.
Well that and the AI becoming more aggressive when you are about to win could cause issues since it skews it once again to war.
I'd be worried even more about the later change, since that makes diplomacy even less appealing.
Is that a real concern? I haven't played for a long time, but in my experience the AI would declare war at the start of the game and, once defeated, would rarely if ever declare war again. The game should have an option to play peacefully in general, but it should never become Sim City where there is never any risk of war or where you can play solitaire without ever having to compete with the AI for resources. It's a longstanding problem in Civ as a series that the game is inherently non-interactive and rarely offers significant rewards for warfare past early game expansion unless you're actively pursuing domination. It's never been good at promoting 'realistic' situations in which actual map elements and resources are worth fighting over.
the later change was probably to make the late game more interesting. depending on just how unfriendly civs become when you approach victory, might make diplomacy more appealing. if 3 neighbors DOW at once 20 turns before endgame and actually send troops, and start pillaging distircts, late game could become very interesting. if you have alliances with your 3 neighbors however, that likely won't happen.
Anybody know what this actually means?
I'm guessing instead of dumping all their envoys into 1 city state to get suzerain, they may spread them out a bit to get the 1,3, and 6 bonuses. Which is what I often do.
Wha what? Not really sure which version of Civ you have been playing, as I've never played 1 or 3 but warfare has always been the best way to go about things regardless of your victory type.
i like the changes but i don't understand the increased cost of district building. are them already not that usefull? like markets and libraries?
Good points, didn't think too hard about that. My comparison is only for the current situation when the units come into play. They both upgrade to Crossbowmen, at that point I guess the production cost is balanced out somewhat. Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that the Pitati Archer is a great deal better than the Maryannu. The Pitati was made even better by the increased production cost for regular Archers. Nubia can now always build their UU faster than other civs can build their regular Archers, other things being equal. I updated my calculations for that as well in the other thread.It's less of a delayed investment, that's all. Its actual cost over the course of the game is exactly the same since its upgrade cost is increased to reflect its lowered building cost (30g to 50g). And the global decrease to districts means Egypt gets fewer "free" hammers than it did before. Overall Egypt is just a little bit weaker than it was, and a bit easier to play.
Could it also mean they're more likely to Levy a CS's military during war?I'm guessing instead of dumping all their envoys into 1 city state to get suzerain, they may spread them out a bit to get the 1,3, and 6 bonuses. Which is what I often do.
I'm liking pretty much everything here except, as others have said, the settler cost increase. Maybe I'll want to pay attention to walls now, especially if going for a culture victory.
Don't know yet if my incomplete Pericles game (with a bunch of mods) will load, but I won't mind too much if it doesn't, as it will be fun to pay him again sometime with the Acropolis buff.
War was only productive in Civ V because it was easy, as the AI was poor defensively, and from what I've played Civ VI is even worse in this regard thanks to the weakening of city defence and the AI's near-refusal to garrison with ranged units. The actual reward for taking territory wasn't important after the early game, since you need the time to build up the captured cities before they become useful. My point was that the actual direct reward from warfare was not valuable - strategic resources aren't useful in quantity save in Civ V, where they became obsolete sufficiently quickly that half the time by the time you captured the city you didn't need it. Tile outputs from other resources weren't worth the investment needed to take the cities either. If the AI could put up more of a fight it would be completely uneconomical. It was also a favoured way to play Civ V to play tall, so that you didn't really want further cities anyway.
It was more pronounced in Civ V than in earlier games, but those too had an 'expansion phase' where it was productive to go to war, and the mid- to late-game when the map was full and the only real reason to go to war was to up your score for domination or diplo victory. In those cases you still aren't caring unduly about fighting over the map or the actual output of the city - you're just grabbing cities for the population or score increase.