March Patch Notes (formerly february)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The way software companies create hard deadlines that they absolutely can hit is by setting the deadline weeks later than they expect they will probably have it ready.

If they felt they had to create a deadline that they absolutely would not miss, they would have announced it as the mid-to-late-March patch, not the February patch. They do this when distribution and logistics need to have a firm date months in advance, e.g. for a product launch.

Personally, for patches like this, I'd much rather have them give us a rough estimate that they might miss but get the patch as soon as it's ready than have them artificially hold it if it's ready early so that they won't miss a date. I'd rather have their best available info that might turn out to be wrong.
 
Maybe it was already said.. but I don't know so I will say it now:

After last patch, the AI uses too many atomic bombs !!! I play on a huge map and it's full of fallout... lol ! At least we had the SDI before... I miss that ! We even had the option to ban nuclear weapon at U.N. but now we can't do anything against them.


Pls change this... add SDI maybe ... ? And make AI use less nukes and make the use of nukes have a big impact on diplomacy. I can conquer like the entire map easy because they nuked each other and destroyed lots of improvements and units.

The possibility to ban nukes with U.N. will be good too.
 
You don't seem to be very clear on a certain concept here.

Certainly this is a forum about a game series that we like.

However, it is not a "remove your brain and ignore the many issues that plague this current iteration of a once proud game series" forum.

Trust me on this one. Stamping out all dissenting voices would be disastrous for these forums as well as for the game. Following the party line and being a bunch of yes men/women isn't going to help matters any.

Be careful what you wish for. ;)

I agree with your point. Dissent is the driving point to change/improvement of CIV 5, but one thing to remember is be specific. It does little good to say "diplomacy is broken" and Im not playing anymore until its fixed. There are many ways to interpret that. Devs may think "players want AI to be more aggressive, so then lets pump up the liklihood of them declaring war"

Instead of Diplomacy is Broken, say specifically what you don't like about it. Example: I don't like how there is no way to politely ask a civ for something. Your only option is to demad it, or present it as a "fair trade" If Im best buddies with Gandhi and he's asked me for two separate happiness resources, it would be reasonable for me to hit him up for 100 gold every now and then. Under the current system I have two choices:

1. Demand 100 gold, which will damage our relationship.

2. Offer 0 gold for his 100 in which he will see it as an unbalanced trade and refuse.

See whether or not you agree with teh above, it is clear on what I am askin for, and if enough people agreed with the above it would be easy for the Dev's to implement the change. It also eliminates the guessing they do when you give them a vague request.

Another suggestion on diplomacy is that the AI has never once tried to bribe me to go to war with someone. I think there should at least be a chance of them doing it.
 
The AI does ask me to go to war with someone else all the time; but they don't sweeten the deal with cash or anything else.

Another suggestion on diplomacy is that the AI has never once tried to bribe me to go to war with someone. I think there should at least be a chance of them doing it.
 
For people who are trying to let us know when they think something is going to be ready, they're always very reluctant to release an ETA. ;)

Because if they do release it, and then don't make it, they get called 'stupid' and 'unprofessional' by forum people whose only investment in the product is the tiny bit of money it took to buy the product.

i.e. the behavior of people toward them anytime they give a release date discourages them from ever giving another definite date again.

Blizzard learned this lesson years ago, and very rarely gives a real patch date till it's within a day or two of it.
 
I entirely agree they need to get such a long loved feature as the hotseat back in the game, but personally, I still enjoy playing it without. But yeah, hotseat should be a reasonbly high priority - a lot of old civvers did love it.

I agree it is very important to many, and couldn't possibly be opposed by anyone. Please bring it back!!!!!!
 
What's with the darn clock discussion you press Shift + Tab and you get your clock, access to friends and screenshots and what not.

My problem/need for the clock in game is that I often forget to check the time when playing civ. Hitting Shift+tab or checking a wall clock or watch requires me to be aware that time passes while I play civ. In civ 4, I couldnt help but notice the in game clock, and would avaoid accidentally staying up till 1am on a work night.
 
I agree with your point. Dissent is the driving point to change/improvement of CIV 5, but one thing to remember is be specific. It does little good to say "diplomacy is broken" and Im not playing anymore until its fixed. There are many ways to interpret that. Devs may think "players want AI to be more aggressive, so then lets pump up the liklihood of them declaring war"

Instead of Diplomacy is Broken, say specifically what you don't like about it. Example: I don't like how there is no way to politely ask a civ for something. Your only option is to demad it, or present it as a "fair trade" If Im best buddies with Gandhi and he's asked me for two separate happiness resources, it would be reasonable for me to hit him up for 100 gold every now and then. Under the current system I have two choices:

1. Demand 100 gold, which will damage our relationship.

2. Offer 0 gold for his 100 in which he will see it as an unbalanced trade and refuse.

See whether or not you agree with teh above, it is clear on what I am askin for, and if enough people agreed with the above it would be easy for the Dev's to implement the change. It also eliminates the guessing they do when you give them a vague request.

Another suggestion on diplomacy is that the AI has never once tried to bribe me to go to war with someone. I think there should at least be a chance of them doing it.

I have participated and given suggestions as to what I would like addressed in the past.

One of them is to not release games 1-2 years too early with disastrous results. That might not bear fruit until Civ VI comes out (if it does) and hopefully they won't have the nerve to pull this stunt again.

As for your diplomacy suggestion, I completely agree. I have stated in various threads that I thought that diplomacy was completely one sided. It can ask you for help but you certainly can't do that to them. I think this asymmetrical relationship is pretty lame.

Thank you for being constructive.
 
Thromdor there's a demand button in diplomacy button to ask for luxuries and resources, the same thing the AI tends to ask for.


I'm not sure what asymmetrical demands you are talking about, but if by assymetrical you mean being faced with requests from the AI and feeling like you have no choice but to agree, then that was also in Civ4 and in Civ3.
 
That's the point I was making. Only human players try to buy human war allies. AI players only ask, but never pay.

This has been the 'standard' model for human-AI diplomacy for ages.

Basically AI can ask for and do everything the humans can do, except it costs the AI less. and that is because the human players are expected to have an advantage when it comes to trading.

You can either have an open model of trades with the deck stacked slightly in favour of the AI on the actual trades, or we can have restrictive 1-1 deals, no GPT, no complex trades and feel we're getting fair trades.

You can spin both modesl to look bad. I prefer the open table trades, and it's one thing I was sad to see cut from Civ4 that was in Civ3.

Edit: also you can try and haggle with the AI on their war requests but hitting the propose button and adding some extras like open borders or gold. That step is done automatically by the AI when you ask them to go to war, with AI to human requests, the base request is obviously for a war only.
 
Thromdor there's a demand button in diplomacy button to ask for luxuries and resources, the same thing the AI tends to ask for.


I'm not sure what asymmetrical demands you are talking about, but if by assymetrical you mean being faced with requests from the AI and feeling like you have no choice but to agree, then that was also in Civ4 and in Civ3.

Read the post I replied to. He was talking about a way to ask the AI nicely for something as compared to demanding it.

The AI asked me many times for things and I'd usually comply. Strangely enough, it made our relationship better.

However, if I want the same thing, I have to demand it. That makes our relationship worse. That's an idiotic system that just leads to frustration. Especially for a peacenik like me that is actually nice to the AI nearly all of the time.

Basically one sided friendships are lame.
 
Thromdor there's a demand button in diplomacy button to ask for luxuries and resources, the same thing the AI tends to ask for.


I'm not sure what asymmetrical demands you are talking about, but if by assymetrical you mean being faced with requests from the AI and feeling like you have no choice but to agree, then that was also in Civ4 and in Civ3.

It's asymetrical because the AI politely ASKS you for things. The polite request should have minimal negagtive political effects on the person being asked.

A human does not have the ability to politely ask for things. They may only DEMAND. The political effects of the person being asked are negative.

Example: If I ASK Gandhi for gold, he will not be offended by me doing so. He may oblige me, or he may tell me to pound salt. While I may be offended by his refusal, he will not be the least bit upset for me asking.

Now if I DEMAND gold from Gandhi, he will be angry at me for it. Even if were best friends I have to DEMAND it of him. Even if he gives it to me he'll still resent me for demanding it of him, where if I had the ability to ask then he would just refuse and think no less of me.

Does that make sense?
 
I think a return of the "could you spare this for a good friend" option should appear if you have a declaration of friendship with a civ. Should allow you to ask for things without penalty. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
 
I think a return of the "could you spare this for a good friend" option should appear if you have a declaration of friendship with a civ. Should allow you to ask for things without penalty. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

Right. I could be capable of taking over everyone and my demands won't work, they just make them more mad at me. Oh well, I was going to annihilate them anyway.
 
I'm working over the new changes now, so far they make for a pretty good game, I've noticed already though that the AI is having some serious problems building new cities around the King settings. Working my way back up through the difficulties will post back with the higher settings. I completely gave up trying to play Civ5 in Multiplayer, although I assume if you could actually get a game it might be pretty fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom