Is version 1.16 more fun than 1.17?

The list of rants against 1.17f includes:

AI tech trading ruins the game
Bombardment is worthless with the 16 defense for buildings
Pop rushing is fixed but not fixed
Culture flipping is fixed but not fixed
Stacked movement is there but not optimal
Goody huts are too good

So which version of the game is more fun for you? If you like you can post the difficulty level and map size (and civ) that you like to play on. Including that information in the poll would make it more like a maze than a poll

I answered both bad because they screwed up my game.

It won`t work anymore.

Other than that I wouldn`t know because I can`t play it.

After 14 votes it is six to six. I guess Firaxis could have left it at 1.16 and saved themselves a lot of work and about as many people would be happy (about 50%) as they are now.

Things that I would implement going forward if I were in charge:
1) Fix pop rushing again, closing the loophole of joining workers to an entertainer city. A simple fix is a one turn delay after joining before pop rushing is allowed. Another simple fix is forbidding the joining of workers to negative happiness cities.

2) Give players more options to deal with corruption. Add a third type of specialist, a shield specialist that generates one shield. Like other specialists these are immune from corruption. Limit shield specialists to three per city. If this turns out to be too powerful, limit it to one or two per city. This gives a builder player a way to actually produce something in distant cities. With the 1.17f pop rushing rules, there is no way to produce anything in a distant city that is not a garbage city. This makes the game tedious and a lot less fun. Four shields is not really enough to produce military units after the Ancient Age, but enough to build some smaller buildings in a reasonable amount of time. Supporting three specialists usually takes several improved tiles and a non-Despotism government. This gives a player a reason to work on these cities.

2a) More corruption options: Add a minimum effectiveness for courthouses and police stations, so that a courthouse almost always gets a second shield in a 5+ shield city. Do this by rounding up, not by setting a floor of 20% corruption with a courthouse. Do similar for a police station, a minimum of three shields in a 10+ shield city. Players absolutely hate it when they take the 80 or 160 turns to build these things and still see one shield output in a big city.

3) Make navies more useful. Add a pirate button for ships, similar to pillage for ground units. This command allows ships to pirate gold when next to an enemy city. Privateers can do this under hidden flag. Coastal fortresses get a free shot at pirates, and a hit by the fortress means no piracy that turn. Successful pirating yields maybe 1 to 10 gold depending on unit type and experience and the size of the city being pirated. Maybe 0 to 1 gold for a regular galley or other transports. Maybe 5 to 10 gold for an elite combat ship. Damaged units with one hit point get zero gold (coastal fortress can not hit them). Subs can pirate gold without fear of the coastal fortresses, but it is an act of war. These changes give a reason to build subs and privateers and a reason to have a standing navy and to build coastal fortresses (now useless).

3a) increase movement for modern navies (destroyers, battleships, nuclear subs, cruisers) by one.

3b) Add a fishery building, maybe with navigation/magnetism tech, or electricity (abilty to freeze fish) that increases food to three for coastal tiles. It is one of many absurdities in the game that fishing has no upgrade from the Ancient age (mapmaking and harbors).

4) Minor stuff: increase movement of radar artillery to two. Increase the range of stealth bombers by two.

That's it for now. I'd probably get about the same 50% vote that 1.17f is getting. Maybe less.

Originally posted by BillChin
3) Make navies more useful. Add a pirate button for ships, similar to pillage for ground units. This command allows ships to pirate gold when next to an enemy city. Privateers can do this under hidden flag. Coastal fortresses get a free shot at pirates, and a hit by the fortress means no piracy that turn. Successful pirating yields maybe 1 to 10 gold depending on unit type and experience and the size of the city being pirated. Maybe 0 to 1 gold for a regular galley or other transports. Maybe 5 to 10 gold for an elite combat ship. Damaged units with one hit point get zero gold (coastal fortress can not hit them). Subs can pirate gold without fear of the coastal fortresses, but it is an act of war. These changes give a reason to build subs and privateers and a reason to have a standing navy and to build coastal fortresses (now useless).

3a) increase movement for modern navies (destroyers, battleships, nuclear subs, cruisers) by one.

Click to expand...

You can do this with the editor. And I'm not sure with the piracy. It would require a harsher diplomacy. At the moment navy is mostly tolerated(AI players don't insist) which helps the game.

Originally posted by BillChin
2a) More corruption options: Add a minimum effectiveness for courthouses and police stations, so that a courthouse almost always gets a second shield in a 5+ shield city. Do this by rounding up, not by setting a floor of 20% corruption with a courthouse. Do similar for a police station, a minimum of three shields in a 10+ shield city. Players absolutely hate it when they take the 80 or 160 turns to build these things and still see one shield output in a big city.

Click to expand...

I've never understood the "outrage" about corruption. You can always rush-build. Little towns, and third world countries don't normally have the same advanced city improvements that they have in New York or Los Angeles. If you want a new colosseum in Calcutta, you're going to have to part with some money. If you want a significant increase in production, it's going to take some serious leadership (to rush the Forbidden Palace). Basically, most cities will never have a colosseum, much less be major manufacturing centers.

However, I like your idea of two shields with courthouse, three with police station.

Originally posted by BillChin
The list of rants against 1.17f includes:

AI tech trading ruins the game
Bombardment is worthless with the 16 defense for buildings
Pop rushing is fixed but not fixed
Culture flipping is fixed but not fixed
Stacked movement is there but not optimal
Goody huts are too good

So which version of the game is more fun for you? If you like you can post the difficulty level and map size (and civ) that you like to play on. Including that information in the poll would make it more like a maze than a poll

Click to expand...

Most of the rants are specious, but fun is in the eye of the beholder. Civ is a strategy game, so game mechanics are secondary. It is your relationship with other Civs that matter.

Originally posted by Mapache
You can do this with the editor. And I'm not sure with the piracy. It would require a harsher diplomacy. At the moment navy is mostly tolerated(AI players don't insist) which helps the game.

Click to expand...

With the editor, I can increase the movement and fiddle with the combat values. This does nothing to address the irrelevance of navies. A player with absolute global naval superiority gains nothing if their army is not up to the same standard. Under the current rules, a player only needs a minimal navy, the rest is just for show and for ego.

Piracy is an act of war, except when done by privateers, so little adjustment to diplomacy is needed. Especially after Wall Street is built, piracy can be a major drain on an economy. My piracy idea gives a reason to build privateers and submarines, and a reason to build ships and coastal fortresses to counter them. The current system relegates these units to eye candy, of no value after seeing the animation.

As for corruption, it is my opinion that corruption is a game balance contrivance. With the current system a lot of fun is drained from the game in the name of balance. Many players resort to the editor to restore some of the fun. My modest proposals increase the fun factor for the builders, without changing the balance much for the militarists.

According to the poll, less than half prefer 1.17 over 1.16. Not very impressive, Firaxis.

Originally posted by BillChin


With the editor, I can increase the movement and fiddle with the combat values. This does nothing to address the irrelevance of navies. A player with absolute global naval superiority gains nothing if their army is not up to the same standard. Under the current rules, a player only needs a minimal navy, the rest is just for show and for ego.

Piracy is an act of war, except when done by privateers, so little adjustment to diplomacy is needed. Especially after Wall Street is built, piracy can be a major drain on an economy. My piracy idea gives a reason to build privateers and submarines, and a reason to build ships and coastal fortresses to counter them. The current system relegates these units to eye candy, of no value after seeing the animation.

As for corruption, it is my opinion that corruption is a game balance contrivance. With the current system a lot of fun is drained from the game in the name of balance. Many players resort to the editor to restore some of the fun. My modest proposals increase the fun factor for the builders, without changing the balance much for the militarists.

Click to expand...

I think you're right about navies being weak, and I do agree that having "minimal" corruption resolution would be nice for certain buildings... in fact I wouldn't mind if some buildings added corruption (say like 2 REALLY cool buildings), and a bunch reduced it (say like 6). If you had all the good buildings and none of the bad, even the worst city could hit a production of 10 shields or so... but the "bad" buildings would be so good for other things, you'd really want to build them even though they'd cause corruption.

However, one thing that's important is that, while navies are weak, they are essential on the right map. I prefer archipelago just because navies are much more useful. I mean, if you have 2 battleships and your neighbors have 7, your chances of successfully invading another continent (without a ton of airpower) are reduced significantly. Plus that, having a big navy in real life is good, but if all you have is a good navy and no ground troops, you're still f*cked in a war.

I still like the piracy idea. Navies have their uses, but it would be nice to make them more fun!

After 36 votes it is still neck and neck, with 1.17 easing into a one vote lead over 1.16.

I believe that Firaxis needs to focus on the big picture instead of attending to every brush fire and responding to every rant. The big picture is that Civ III is a game, and games are supposed to be fun.

I do not agree with every complaint against 1.17f. However, it is clear that when half of the fans think the game has become less fun, something is very wrong. Most fans had high hopes upon seeing the 1.17f readme file. About half are disappointed, with only about 20% enthusiastic about the new patch.

If someone at Firaxis is reading along, again, when looking at potential changes going forward, please ask these questions:

1) Will this make the game more fun or more frustrating?
2) Does this change give a player more options, or funnel them into a narrower choice of strategies?
3) If the change does give a player more options, does it make the game too easy (less fun)?

Yes, all these points are open to debate, but I think a focus on fun, and playability are more important than some of the micro issues that seemed to be on the front burner for 1.17f.

That this poll is running around 50-50 seems pretty bad for 1.17 to me.

The polled question is an overall one including everything in 1.17. A 50-50 result on this suggests to me that the response to individual changes (Which AI is more fun? Bombardment? User interface? Culture flipping? Pop rushing?) could be spread out noticeably either way from the overall 50-50.

Putting it a bit differently: I think there are some changes in 1.17 which almost everyone finds to be an improvement. Allowing for that and a 50-50 overall result suggests to me that the rating people would give some of the other changes would be noticeably worse than 50-50.

BTW I'm not complaining Bill! This was an excellent question and I'm very glad you specifically put it in terms of fun. A poll to ask about some of the major changes separately seems impractical. (Or is it? I wonder.) Breaking it down by other factors (player's preferred difficulty level etc.) seems quite impractical.

Even looking at the overall picture just as a simple 50-50 the approval sure seems low. I think one should expect and get a lot more than that from a patch! (Unless it changes little and people don't much care. Clearly not the case with this patch.)