"Fall Patch" announced

Status
Not open for further replies.
About Austia. Let's say we use standard liberation mechanic. In this case Austria UA becomes much weaker - if choosing between allied city-state or fifth column city (turning against you if conquered), allied city-state could be better option. And if we implement non-standard liberation (i.e. city-state appears as Austria ally instead), the liberation becomes much less likely.

Speaking of the patch itself:

1. Looks like the list of features was finalized somewhere in July, so balance changes are minimal - only rough Austria nerfing.

2. UFO seems to influence the features coming to patch, so for example no MP improvements as MP people are probably working on UFO. On the other hand, UFO doesn't need graphic engine programmers (they use Unreal Engine), so we see graphic fixes here.

3. Pillage heal looks like the feature they wanted for G&K, but didn't have time to implement.

4. There are features like game restart or advanced settings saving - I think they should be in task list from the beginning, but with very low priority. Seeing them complete means what general feature list is nearly over. High chances what we'll see advanced reports, clocks and other UI things in the patch after this.
 
2. UFO seems to influence the features coming to patch, so for example no MP improvements as MP people are probably working on UFO. On the other hand, UFO doesn't need graphic engine programmers (they use Unreal Engine), so we see graphic fixes here.

XCOM's going to have a multiplayer mode? That just seems ... wrong. In any case there's only been one patch for Civ V I'm aware of that had any multiplayer changes and it wasn't especially well-received (not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it focused wholly on MP). MP isn't a big part of the game for most players so it makes sense for them not to focus heavily on it (then again, I can't imagine it will ever be a big part of XCOM).
 
XCOM's going to have a multiplayer mode? That just seems ... wrong. In any case there's only been one patch for Civ V I'm aware of that had any multiplayer changes and it wasn't especially well-received (not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it focused wholly on MP). MP isn't a big part of the game for most players so it makes sense for them not to focus heavily on it (then again, I can't imagine it will ever be a big part of XCOM).

It's not a major part of XCOM, but because you need to have the functionality of controlling alien units in order to have mind control implemented, why NOT put in a full-fledged multiplayer mode.

It's just head-to-head, single mission games, with soldiers and aliens bought with points (like a game of Warhammer or suchlike) so it can hardly have taken much time to implement.
 
2. UFO seems to influence the features coming to patch, so for example no MP improvements as MP people are probably working on UFO. On the other hand, UFO doesn't need graphic engine programmers (they use Unreal Engine), so we see graphic fixes here.

That's just speculation and conjecture. They have more than one team working on different games. The lead XCOM guy said so in a video. Also months back he said publishers love MP because it keeps people from selling the game and they will always give you more money and more people if you request it do the extra MP content. Also they had a team for making new Civ5 DLC too so DLC wasn't holding back patches either. These are not independent Kickstarter funded projects. They have more than one guy working on them.

XCOM's going to have a multiplayer mode? That just seems ... wrong. In any case there's only been one patch for Civ V I'm aware of that had any multiplayer changes and it wasn't especially well-received (not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it focused wholly on MP). MP isn't a big part of the game for most players so it makes sense for them not to focus heavily on it (then again, I can't imagine it will ever be a big part of XCOM).

They said the same thing about Mass Effect 3 but once you start smacking guys across the room as a Krogan, lighting people on fire as a Vorcha, just being all around awesome as an invisible robot sniper with a drone sidekick. I don't see how developers considering such things a worthy experience to offer is seen as a moral failing.
 
Having played with increased AI pillaging with the old VEM mod, I can say that if the AI really starts to pillage, it will make the higher difficulty levels a lot tougher. All those AI units milling in your territory now quickly cripple your happiness and (road) income. You can still hold them off due to their poor performance, but you are bleeding as a civ.
 
If you want to go domination with Denmark, sure - but then if you're planning on invading the rest of the planet as the Danish, you don't have a lot of room to complain about lack of plausibility... The Danes didn't use cavalry in the Viking era because they were coastal raiders; if they plan a land-based invasion there's no less reason for them to use cavalry than anyone else.

I see Denmark's UA less as one for a strict domination civ (it's not so good for that even with this change, and it's too good for civilian exploration to boot) and more one that can get you a big advantage when you use it - you're almost certain to take any coastal city you target since you can hit before defenders are ready, so just use it to grab a good city or two to boost your game and then play peacefully.



The change I like is the fact that the civ which gains air superiority can basically shut down attacks against them - and, with scouts in place, can attack across a much wider area; it's a type of warfare that very definitely should be reflected by a strong disparity between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Making it 'more even for both sides' runs counter to that. Okay, the first flying units we get are WWI aircraft, and they really didn't change combat all that drastically, but in game terms I think it helps to show that clear disparity between flight and non-flight.

If you use Denmark for vcs other than domination, then I will certainly wish you the very best of luck, but I'll continue as I was. Also the Vikings (a little off topic from Denamark but it's what everyone's thinking) went very far inland, using rivers as waterways well into what's now Russia (being called the Rus, i.e. ones who row. Russians carry part Viking blood, along with the rest of the NE Atlantic coast), getting all the way down to Constantinople for Byzantine/Arabian trade of the slaves captured from their raids on atlantic coasts. Didn't really take to horses.

From a balance persepective, the 'haves' and 'have nots' could certainly apply to bombers, but to anti air? Lack of ability to attack should not stop a civ defending (see vanilla's use of iron, all the defensive units were resource free, but to attack you couldn't do without. At least that's how it was intended :)) As it is fighters should come before bombers and cost less, atm, they're at the same time and cost the same. Anti aircraft/SAM should not come after the bombers, and as you say even from a historical persepctive the great war air units should not be nearly as strong. All these changes could be made and flight would still drastically transform warfare, it just wouldn't make the entirety of the last 2 eras totally biased towards the human (aka agressor).
 
If you use Denmark for vcs other than domination, then I will certainly wish you the very best of luck, but I'll continue as I was. Also the Vikings (a little off topic from Denamark but it's what everyone's thinking) went very far inland, using rivers as waterways well into what's now Russia (being called the Rus, i.e. ones who row. Russians carry part Viking blood, along with the rest of the NE Atlantic coast),

Russians are of Swedish descent, not Danish. I specified Danes in the Viking era. The only major inland conquest they made was the period of the Danish Great Army, which created a Danish territory across much of central England that ultimately developed into the post-Viking Danelaw.
 
Having played with increased AI pillaging with the old VEM mod, I can say that if the AI really starts to pillage, it will make the higher difficulty levels a lot tougher. All those AI units milling in your territory now quickly cripple your happiness and (road) income. You can still hold them off due to their poor performance, but you are bleeding as a civ.

So this will make settling on top of lux and strat resources a lot more... lucrative.

Hmm...
 
My gut feeling it will be in October.

No one really grasps that they said "Before windows 8" which is being released October 24th. I suspect it to be October 7th.
 
- Dutch will build farms before polders are available.

I'm actually a bit concerned about this one. Will that mean we'll see a lot less polders when the Dutch are controlled by AI?
They will get rid of most marshes they have (if they even have any - the start bias is awful) and plop down farms before they get the ability to produce awesome marsh polders :(

I'd like their start bias to be improved. Other Civs with a UI get a bias that allows them to use it always (Incan terrace farms - mountain start, Polynesian Moai statues - coastal start).
In fact, look at Arabs with desert start bias and having a building that gives extra gold for oasis, oil, and on top of that provides a bonus that is twice as good as the Dutch UA. The Dutch don't even have a coastal start bias potentially rendering their UU useless as well.

In the end, it's very easy to luck out when playing as the Dutch and end up not being able to use UI and UU appropriately.
Would that have been their intention maybe? High risk high reward? Don't know...
 
crawf0rd said:
No one really grasps that they said "Before windows 8" which is being released October 24th. I suspect it to be October 7th.

Where does it say this? Please post link :)
 
They said the same thing about Mass Effect 3 but once you start smacking guys across the room as a Krogan, lighting people on fire as a Vorcha, just being all around awesome as an invisible robot sniper with a drone sidekick. I don't see how developers considering such things a worthy experience to offer is seen as a moral failing.

It's wrong insofar as it's "not X-COM". X-COM isn't about the individual battles, it's about the campaign and the way your soldiers develop over time. In that respect at least it's not Dawn of War - the campaign in games like DoW is a taster for the main game, which is the multiplayer battles; X-COM is almost the exact reverse. Multiplayer X-COM seems to wholly miss the point.
 
crawf0rd said:

Thanks! I had seen that thread and in fact even posted on it but hadn't watched the vid (perhaps cause I was looking at it on my iPhone during a lecture).

The developer does indeed mention he "believes" the patch will ship before windows 8 is released (which at the time of the vid, was in about 2 months).

My money is on 23 October ;)
 
That's just speculation and conjecture. They have more than one team working on different games. The lead XCOM guy said so in a video. Also months back he said publishers love MP because it keeps people from selling the game and they will always give you more money and more people if you request it do the extra MP content. Also they had a team for making new Civ5 DLC too so DLC wasn't holding back patches either. These are not independent Kickstarter funded projects. They have more than one guy working on them

Yep. I just remember there were great problems with finding developers for MP in Civ. Doing all the work with network lags, sync and so on is completely different than, you know, parsing XML, coding UI in Lua and so on. I don't think they were able to found MP team to handle both projects.

Other than that and the fact we don't see any MP improvements in the fall patch, yes, that's pure speculation.
 
bolded the relevant part.

It's fairly consistent on the chances still. But now it's about the combat strength ratios. So wandering a Privateer up to a Battleship (or nuclear sub) is a lot less effective.

I've been without Internet for a while, so I couldn't respond to this. My grip isn't with the nerfing of Prize ships, which was needed. My grip is with having chosen to make it random, which I really don't like as a solution. That's why I drew the comparison with Furor Teutonicus: you can be really unlucky with it, and then you won't even notice that the promotion is there.

I'll give another example: pre-GaK, Ottomans' UA was: "when first approaching a barbarian ship with any one of your ships, you have a 1/2 chance to get that ship, plus 25 gold"; this was considered pretty much ignorable. Now, the UA is more along the lines of "when you destroy an enemy ship with one of your melee ships, you have a random chance (but close to 1/2) to get that ship back with 50hp". The only improvement over the previous UA is the fact that you can convert any ship, not only a barbarian ship. That's definitely a major improvement, but it's still random, and it comes with so many strings attached... If prize ships were at least 100% guaranteed to convert ships with less strength than the attacking unit, I wouldn't mind, but that's not how it works.
By the way, I'm not discussing here the good and bad points of the Ottomans (longswordmen upgrading to janissaries alone is a major boost to the civ), I'm just discussing why I believe this nerf is not the best one they could have come up with.

I'd rather have prize ships give you ships with only 1hp left, and not have it work on ships that are from a later era than the ship doing the attacking. I believe randomness is not the way to fix this promotion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom