The new patch

Txurce said:

I've played a couple with Germany after Thal buffed their SA, and meant to pursue them further, even though I also doubted I would do better than going small. But Thal has since made so many interesting changes that I keep being sidetracked!

Click to expand...

I know the feeling!

Gamewizard said:

At first look I would say Police State is buffed, and by buffed I mean by it being more interesting and fun, rather than just picking the policy and instantly having lots of happiness, but now you have to un-annex the city by building the courthouse (keeping the building relevant), which makes more sense to me.

Click to expand...

I like the change as well - though it would be even better if PS allowed the courthouse to be built in all cities with the same benefit (+3 happiness).

And I agree about wonders, I've almost stopped building them, only GEing the later powerful ones. I particularly like the new Hanging Gardens...I don't think I ever built the current one. I feel they did a good job buffing the weak ones (Colossus, Hanging Gardens, Great Lighthouse, Great Wall, Notre Dame) while nerfing powerful ones (Cristo, Great Library, Sistine Chapel, Stonehenge). Also good job nerfing the National College which I've always thought is OP.

Click to expand...

The only wonder nerfs I really disagree with are the Pyramids - it wasn't that strong to begin with, it should give like 3 workers! - and the Great Library - almost useless now, imo, though for a NC start it could work moderately well. Every other change looks fantastic.

Globalization requiring Computers is great. Increasing the tech cost of it is great as well, and making the tech paths of Diplomatic and Science victories is good too. I was finding that trying a Science Victory would usually get derailed as a Diplomatic was much quicker.

Seek said:

I like the change as well - though it would be even better if PS allowed the courthouse to be built in all cities with the same benefit (+3 happiness).



The only wonder nerfs I really disagree with are the Pyramids - it wasn't that strong to begin with, it should give like 3 workers! - and the Great Library - almost useless now, imo, though for a NC start it could work moderately well. Every other change looks fantastic.

Click to expand...

Agreed about all of this. Great Library could use an extra GS point or maybe 5 base beakers now.

Gamewizard said:

At first look I would say Police State is buffed, and by buffed I mean by it being more interesting and fun, rather than just picking the policy and instantly having lots of happiness, but now you have to un-annex the city by building the courthouse (keeping the building relevant), which makes more sense to me.

And I agree about wonders, I've almost stopped building them, only GEing the later powerful ones. I particularly like the new Hanging Gardens...I don't think I ever built the current one. I feel they did a good job buffing the weak ones (Colossus, Hanging Gardens, Great Lighthouse, Great Wall, Notre Dame) while nerfing powerful ones (Cristo, Great Library, Sistine Chapel, Stonehenge). Also good job nerfing the National College which I've always thought is OP.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way.

Wow, interesting patch. They seem really intent on moving away from production multipliers, and instead adding flat bonuses, which is interesting. Their production changes definitely favor wide empires, while their happiness changes favor tall empires, so it will be interesting to see what the net effect of these is. I like the addition of SP branch finishers. It always felt strange to me that I would take all but one or two SPs in a branch and then move on; I think adding an incentive to take less valuable policies in order to complete a branch will add some interesting decisions. I also like most of the wonder changes (though great library was definitely nerfed too much).

Yeah, I see it very similarly.

Busdriver said:

Their production changes definitely favor wide empires, while their happiness changes favor tall empires, so it will be interesting to see what the net effect of these is.

Click to expand...

I can't wait to test this dynamic. The net effect may be Seek's prediction that empires will grow bigger, but more slowly.

I don't have a problem with the happiness changes whatsoever. The people making a big fuss over it seem to be the players that play one grand strategy on a high level that don't want to move down a level cause that strategy won't work anymore. The changes appear to require a greater emphasis on controlled growth, infrastructure and correct policy choices, all for the better IMO.

Bibor has summed up the patch and it's goals nicely here. Check it out!

@Txurce - you're correct, there is a lot more happiness available through policies now; for some reason I was ignoring the happiness through buildings SPs. I like this method of rewarding the builder, especially Piety making culture buildings and end as well as a means.

Seek said:

Bibor has summed up the patch and it's goals nicely here. Check it out!

@Txurce - you're correct, there is a lot more happiness available through policies now; for some reason I was ignoring the happiness through buildings SPs. I like this method of rewarding the builder, especially Piety making culture buildings and end as well as a means.

Click to expand...

Bibor really cut through the underbrush. I'm very excited by the direction the vanilla patch seems to have taken, which is to force not just combined arms but "combined infrastructure," as well as a carefully targeted end goal. That's why I'm really looking forward to Thal's pov, once the patch arrives (if not sooner).

Absolutely. If Thal follows form, he'll have a substantive response in a couple days.

Definitely looking forward to the patch at this point (release: kindergarten, december patch: grade school, march patch: highschool, this patch: college!)

I've been taking a short break from modding the past few days to spend time with family while thinking about which parts of the patch to adopt. This patch affects the mod much more than any of the ones in the past so it'll take a while.

I like the basic concept of policy tree finishers. It's an idea I considered doing a long time ago, but would have been too far from vanilla, so I dropped it. The changes to policies overall are so numerous and complex it's hard for me to say what's good or bad until I have a chance to try it out. The human brain is great at intuitive pattern recognition when actually playing the game... not so much when looking at numbers on paper.

Txurce said:

I did think of the work you laying ahead for you, both because some of their changes are on the coding level, and because they are interesting enough to make you reconsider present approaches. This is more of a purpose question, though - is TBC balancing and improving vanilla, or heading in its own, however similar direction?

Click to expand...

I always intend to keep the mod relatively close to vanilla, unless it's things I particularly disagree with. For example, remember what I said in the Favorite Leaders thread of February?

Thalassicus said:

If a leader simply got +30% gold and nothing else, that'd be powerful, but probably not as fun as some cool bonus that changes gameplay in a more interesting way. I like traits that let us play differently instead of just better.

Click to expand...

The Ottoman and German patch changes are textbook examples of "just better" bonuses. The unit maintenance reductions give us more gold without any real strategy or excitement. Bonuses to barbarian capture and specialists fundamentally change gameplay for these leaders, and fit well with them historically.

Busdriver said:

They seem really intent on moving away from production multipliers, and instead adding flat bonuses

Click to expand...

I suspect the reason behind this is the rather vocal complaint about "carpets of doom" on the front page of CivFanatics by a certain prominent forum member, who shall remain nameless, back in October or so. With flat modifiers and the unit-production bonus removed from the Arsenal, there's no risk of map clogging in the late game because production is low. I feel the much better solution is to emphasize aircraft and missiles as I've done in TBC. It reduces map clogging while keeping the opportunities for city specialization strong.

With flat modifiers and the unit-production bonus removed from the Arsenal, there's no risk of map clogging in the late game because production is low.

Click to expand...

I think this is a really bad game design. It means that if an AI loses their army in the late midgame, they are totally hosed, because they are never going to be able to build up a decent sized army again by the late game.

Thalassicus said:

The Ottoman and German patch changes are textbook examples of "just better" bonuses. The unit maintenance reductions give us more gold without any real strategy or excitement. Bonuses to barbarian capture and specialists fundamentally change gameplay for these leaders, and fit well with them historically.

Click to expand...

The way I interpreted the patch is that those maintenaince reductions are on top of their unique converting. Because converting alone would hurt your economy, thus making a bonus into a punishment, they've added a 'just better' bonus to combat the negative of the unique trait. All in all, their unique ability can really shine now.

I suspect the reason behind this is the rather vocal complaint about "carpets of doom" on the front page of CivFanatics by a certain prominent forum member, who shall remain nameless, back in October or so. With flat modifiers and the unit-production bonus removed from the Arsenal, there's no risk of map clogging in the late game because production is low. I feel the much better solution is to emphasize aircraft and missiles as I've done in TBC. It reduces map clogging while keeping the opportunities for city specialization strong.

Click to expand...

I have another explanation, as fully explained here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10609257&postcount=69

I think more emphasis on base hammers instead of modifiers means new cities have a better shot at building modern units and building. And new cities wil be built later on because of the slower pace of expansion.

Montov said:

I have another explanation, as fully explained here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10609257&postcount=69

I think more emphasis on base hammers instead of modifiers means new cities have a better shot at building modern units and building. And new cities wil be built later on because of the slower pace of expansion.

Click to expand...

I agree, and was considering quoting your post here!

I think the aim of the patch is to balance wide and tall empires, with slower expansion for both, as I mentioned earlier (and delineated more eloquently by Bibor and others). I also think city specialization will become more prevalent as more buildings become viable for managing happiness and yields, so one idea that could be interesting is to convert the key yield National Wonders (Treasury, Ironworks, NC, maybe Cicus Maximus?) to strictly percentages and remove base yields from these structures. This would make city placement more important for specialization, create more of a dichotomy between regular buildings (with smaller or nonexistent % modifiers) and National Wonders and (of course) would further help small empires compete.

With the expected arrival of the new patch today, maybe we'll get lucky and Thal adjusting to the changes will also fix the crash bug... as opposed to bogging down Thal under a morass of work.

Patch just dropped. =/ Guess I won't finish the game I was playing.

I should have a preliminary version compatible with the patch out later today if all goes well. I did the xml updates earlier this week, and now dealing with things were mod components were included in vanilla (culture from garrisons, gold from kills, etc) that I'm disabling in the mod.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing how you approach the changes in the patch. Reports have been pretty positive for the most part, though it seems happiness is actually *less* of an issue!

(Now if only my neighbor would get off his bum and burn me windows 7 so I could try it out..)

Thalassicus said:

I should have a preliminary version compatible with the patch out later today if all goes well. I'm mainly just disabling lots of things, since so much stuff from the mod has been included in the patch... particularly with policies.

Click to expand...

This is the first vanilla game I've played since trying TBC that seems viable. As I mentioned before, lots of stuff comes from TBC - even the new standard price for luxuries!

After playing one game, the differences that jumped out at me were resource placement - much more balanced in TBC - and of course the GS effect. I found the latter not OP, but that may have been due to the fact that the game takes more effort and develops more slowly (although it's no harder).

Also, I mentioned elsewhere that more AI were expanding quickly, and kicking AI butt all over the place with the reduced city defenses, but building fewer Wonders.

Txurce said:

This is the first vanilla game I've played since trying TBC that seems viable. As I mentioned before, lots of stuff comes from TBC - even the new standard price for luxuries!

After playing one game, the differences that jumped out at me were resource placement - much more balanced in TBC - and of course the GS effect. I found the latter not OP, but that may have been due to the fact that the game takes more effort and develops more slowly (although it's no harder).

Click to expand...

I'll second the notion about resources. I forgot how much resourceless siege and less iron on the map makes it more fun. Even with their newly reduced strength I had something like 10 easily accessible iron and just made a fleet of longswordsmen to kill the seemingly more aggressive AIs (both Monty and Darius declared on me independently).