"Fall Patch" announced

+25! Too strong!

Not sure I'm a fan of the 25 heal when pillage, seems too powerful, and i don't think mounted needed the buff.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea, it's just i think 25 is too much - maybe 10, and maybe keep the 25 just for Denamrk (see next para). I thought they'd done a good job at rebalancing attack/defence in GnK but this will swing it back to a more agressive game, and it purely being a war simulator was what I hated most about vanilla.

What I do like is the buff to Denmark, seriously needed from a balance perspective (when is India gonna get a buff? It's easily the worst civ atm), but not true to life as now Denmark 'should' have a lot of mounted in their army, which doesn't feel right.

Severely lamenting the big nerf to Ottomans UA and UU. I was just getting used to them not being the worst civ, and janissaries were really fun. probably won't play them after the patch. The buff to sipahi doesn't seem to cover it cos it's not on the standard mounted line.

Not being mentioned much but I think big is the nerf to all 3 eras of bombers. I think they should have gone further though, and put air repair after bomb/siege 3 as well as logistics. That along with all the expected fighters and AA guns would seriously rebalance things, cos atm the game is suddenly rediculous on getting flight.

Lastly, if I were at firaxis, the first thing I'd change is the AI inability to move and shoot. If you see a crossbow 3 tiles away, you're fine for the next go cos it won't move into range and shoot on the same go. Same with naval warfare - insanely unbalanced towards human and easily (i imagine, I'm no programmer) fixed.

kingoglow said:

I am a bit surprised that they didn't take a pass at buffing the Piety tree.
No happiness anywhere in the tree
The opener is lackluster as is the finisher
Tree needs to be AS STRONG as Rationalism is it remains opposed to Rationalism.

Click to expand...

Agreed that piety needs a buff, but it doesn't need to be as strong as rationalism is now:
1) Rationalism should be weaker, science is still the easiest vc (better since GnK, but still true). Opener is too strong, and depending on the game so is the finisher.
2) You can open Piety 2 eras earlier. Liberty, Tradition and Honour aren' supposed to be as strong as freedom, autocracy and order. Similarly a classical tree doesn't need to be as strong as a reneissance tree.

They should focus not on making it absolutely stronger, but in providing more synergy (somehow!), atm it's half tall for the culture and half wide for religion. I think this will be helped cos the OP said something about rebalancing religion for tall civs? Anyone any idea what that'll look like?

Piety isn't weak because of the policies IMO. You can easily just pick up 1 or 2 policies and make it work in any strategy.

The issue is faith generation, or more specifically how the odds of getting a good religion/faith generation is almost entirely not tied into getting faith buildings.

I was hoping at a pass at the Faith generating Pantheons and RNG faith (ruins and CS). You shouldn't be able to get a religion with just 1-2 shrines...

In theory it should at least be able to keep up and compete with Rationalism type openers. The theory being that the hammers you save building temples and shrines effectively can be turned into an extra unit or building *cough* library *cough*, and you get more happiness with the extra faith which turns into bigger empires... The catch is that people who don't open piety can quite often get a religion faster, which makes it kinda pointless.

Furycrab said:

Piety isn't weak because of the policies IMO. You can easily just pick up 1 or 2 policies and make it work in any strategy.

The issue is faith generation, or more specifically how the odds of getting a good religion/faith generation is almost entirely not tied into getting faith buildings.

I was hoping at a pass at the Faith generating Pantheons and RNG faith (ruins and CS). You shouldn't be able to get a religion with just 1-2 shrines...

Click to expand...

The issue is that if you do that you're giving up rationalism later for just a couple of policies. This was ok when it was the rationalism opener in vanilla cos that was insane, but atm rationalism is much, much stronger, and a couple policies from piety just isn't worth it. (I'm suggesting a rationalism nerf here more than a piety buff).

Crafty Bison said:

The issue is that if you do that you're giving up rationalism later for just a couple of policies. This was ok when it was the rationalism opener in vanilla cos that was insane, but atm rationalism is much, much stronger, and a couple policies from piety just isn't worth it. (I'm suggesting a rationalism nerf here more than a piety buff).

Click to expand...

Btw, the new Rationalism opener is *WEAKER* than the old one with two exceptions, one being Multiplayer because people could and would stop doing research agreements with the guy that opened it and two being scenarios and games with no viable RA partners.

If you sign say 3 RAs (pretty standard) on first round, you could get the SR before they bloomed, and thus... You would get you 75% of your median tech X3 instead of 50% and there were even possibilities to get the PT much earlier too. Which you could work into a HELL of a lot more than 15% extra science.

SR is still the near "broken" policy, but realistically you'll get it only on your second or 3rd set which balances it out.

Like I said, the theory is that someone who opens piety could have a better looking/bigger empire before the guy who beelines Rationalism. The problem is that you can get a good religion going with little to no hammer/gold commitments.

No more coup sprees!
I'm also excited about the "grand Temple" since i'm more of a tall guy.
AI Dido: now improved!
________________________________
Stupid truth always resisting simplicity.
-John Green

Furycrab said:

Btw, the new Rationalism opener is *WEAKER* than the old one with two exceptions, one being Multiplayer because people could and would stop doing research agreements with the guy that opened it and two being scenarios and games with no viable RA partners.

If you sign say 3 RAs (pretty standard) on first round, you could get the SR before they bloomed, and thus... You would get you 75% of your median tech X3 instead of 50% and there were even possibilities to get the PT much earlier too. Which you could work into a HELL of a lot more than 15% extra science.

SR is still the near "broken" policy, but realistically you'll get it only on your second or 3rd set which balances it out.

Like I said, the theory is that someone who opens piety could have a better looking/bigger empire before the guy who beelines Rationalism. The problem is that you can get a good religion going with little to no hammer/gold commitments.

Click to expand...

I agree with your rationalisation for opening up piety if you miss your faith pantheon and can't use natural wonders etc. It seems logical, no synergy complaints there, and uses the all powerful snowball as hammers/gold can be used elsewhere early.

However, a rationalism nerf on the GnK switch was strong but still not nearly enough to balance the tree. Yes, RA's are weaker than before, and now later in the tree, but the opener, finisher and whole left side of the tree is all very strong for most (too many) strategies and used too often. At the moment, it not only unbalances the SP's and their ability to flavour the game, but ruins the play of the later game, as you fly through the last 3 1/2 eras and then people complain that only the first half of the game is polished (that and bombers, which the patch seems to address). The ones that make best use of it (the science civs) are still the strongest civs out there (cites the civ elimination thread, Korea 1, Babylon 3, Maya 5. (Inca 2, Siam 8)). The GnK science nerf was powerful, but didn't go far enough with rationalism, and another nerf is require to balance the game.

If rationalism was weaker then yes, the early advantage of a partial piety tree could be a viable startegy, but atm the opportunity cost for theis early boost is just too much, even with said snowball effect.

Crafty Bison said:

I agree with your rationalisation for opening up piety if you miss your faith pantheon and can't use natural wonders etc. It seems logical, no synergy complaints there, and uses the all powerful snowball.

However, a rationalism nerf on the GnK switch was strong but still not nearly enough to balance the tree. Yes, RA's are weaker than before, and now later in the tree, but the opener, finisher and whole left side of the tree is all very strong for most (too many) strategies and used too often. At the moment, it not only unbalances the SP's and their ability to flavour the game, but ruins the play of the later game, as you fly through the last 3 1/2 eras and then people complain that only the first half of the game is polished. The ones that make best use of it (the science civs) are still the strongest civs out there (cites the civ elimination thread, Korea 1, Babylon 3, Maya 5. (Inca 2, Siam 8)). The GnK science nerf was powerful, but didn't go far enough with rationalism, and a nerf would balance the game.

If rationalism was weaker then yes, the early advantage of a partial piety tree could be a viable startegy, but atm the opportunity cost for theis early boost is just too much, even with the snowball effect.

Click to expand...

I still think it could work leaving rationalism almost untouched. Patronage got a nice subtle buff for single player where Pledge to protect don't become ridiculous late game and there are ways to make a Religion work out to be equivalent to more than 15% science, snowball or not, while still keeping the fundamental value that if you are going for a tech victory, rationalism is your thing.

You could also introduce "subtle" nerfs like adding a requirement to Aesthetics, but I don't think that's a huge concern seeing the drawback to your religion...

But I'm going full circle back to my first point again, someone who beelines both the renaissance and rationalism just shouldn't have all the extra happiness/faith afforded by a Religion. You don't have the hammers to build temples, you don't have the gold since you are focused on using that to both stay alive and sign the first set of RAs, a religion shouldn't be dropping from the sky giving you bonuses to everything.

I'm just saying fixing problem A where Rationalism beeline means you don't have a strong religion with perhaps the exception of the Mayans (but they pay for it with not having many Great Scientists) will no doubt fix problem B where it feels really really strong no matter what you are doing to do so.

Furycrab said:

I still think it could work leaving rationalism almost untouched. Patronage got a nice subtle buff for single player where Pledge to protect don't become ridiculous late game and there are ways to make a Religion work out to be equivalent to more than 15% science, snowball or not, while still keeping the fundamental value that if you are going for a tech victory, rationalism is your thing.

You could also introduce "subtle" nerfs like adding a requirement to Aesthetics, but I don't think that's a huge concern seeing the drawback to your religion...

But I'm going full circle back to my first point again, someone who beelines both the renaissance and rationalism just shouldn't have all the extra happiness/faith afforded by a Religion. You don't have the hammers to build temples, you don't have the gold since you are focused on using that to both stay alive and sign the first set of RAs, a religion shouldn't be dropping from the sky giving you bonuses to everything.

I'm just saying fixing problem A where Rationalism beeline means you don't have a strong religion with perhaps the exception of the Mayans (but they pay for it with not having many Great Scientists) will no doubt fix problem B where it feels really really strong no matter what you are doing to do so.

Click to expand...

If picking rationalism meant you could not get a good religion, then I would regard that as a good nerf. Atm natural wonders, religious CS's and faith pantheons (and now grand temple) mean that this isn't the case most of the time, even going tall. How would you propose to realise such a nerf?

If you're getting that much science out of your faith, you're probably taking at least one of MoG/Interfaith. not only is tithe/CP/CB a stronger founder, I'd suggest you'd lose less by sacrificing your pantheon as a faith bonus, you can usually find one useful one, if all else fails take god of war, take your army to their borders and plant a city right next to them. This way you get your religion and your rationalism. I've been playing byzantium a fair bit recently and so have been experimenting with all the faith pantheons to get the daddy founders/enhancers, they can be quite fun, especially god of war and one with nature.

To conclude, I think making religions much harder to get without piety would work just fine as a nerf to rationalism/buff to piety, but cannot think of a nice way to realise this and put it in a patch. Maybe opening rationalism loses your founder, enhancer, or both (or entire religion!?)?

Holy sweet Sipahis. Sweet, sweet, Sipahis.

Crafty Bison said:

+25! Too strong!

Not sure I'm a fan of the 25 heal when pillage, seems too powerful, and i don't think mounted needed the buff.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea, it's just i think 25 is too much - maybe 10, and maybe keep the 25 just for Denamrk (see next para). I thought they'd done a good job at rebalancing attack/defence in GnK but this will swing it back to a more agressive game, and it purely being a war simulator was what I hated most about vanilla.

What I do like is the buff to Denmark, seriously needed from a balance perspective (when is India gonna get a buff? It's easily the worst civ atm), but not true to life as now Denmark 'should' have a lot of mounted in their army, which doesn't feel right.

Click to expand...

No, there's no reason for that. It's of benefit to mounted units because they can already move and pillage - but they still suffer weaknesses against cities and aren't on the ideal upgrade path for domination generally, or for Berserkers specifically. And any Danish infantry unit disembarking is faster than most cavalry. The Danish bonus is that they get with infantry, ranged and siege an ability that other civs will have to invest in cavalry whose uses are otherwise limited to field engagements to obtain.

Not being mentioned much but I think big is the nerf to all 3 eras of bombers. I think they should have gone further though, and put air repair after bomb/siege 3 as well as logistics. That along with all the expected fighters and AA guns would seriously rebalance things, cos atm the game is suddenly rediculous on getting flight.

Click to expand...

I like the fact that combat does change so drastically when Flight becomes available.

Fantastic! I just have a couple questions: amongst all these changes, did I miss a note about defensive pacts causing you to incur a diplomatic penalty for DoW chains? For example, you make friendships with Greece and Rome, and a defensive pact with Greece. Rome declares war on Greece and the pact forces you to declare against your friend Rome, which gives you the penalty with every other civ "You declared war against your friends".

Also, will defensive pacts still be reset after a CS alliance shift causes them to fire off?

Crafty Bison said:

If picking rationalism meant you could not get a good religion, then I would regard that as a good nerf. Atm natural wonders, religious CS's and faith pantheons (and now grand temple) mean that this isn't the case most of the time, even going tall. How would you propose to realise such a nerf?

If you're getting that much science out of your faith, you're probably taking at least one of MoG/Interfaith. not only is tithe/CP/CB a stronger founder, I'd suggest you'd lose less by sacrificing your pantheon as a faith bonus, you can usually find one useful one, if all else fails take god of war, take your army to their borders and plant a city right next to them. This way you get your religion and your rationalism. I've been playing byzantium a fair bit recently and so have been experimenting with all the faith pantheons to get the daddy founders/enhancers, they can be quite fun, especially god of war and one with nature.

To conclude, I think making religions much harder to get without piety would work just fine as a nerf to rationalism/buff to piety, but cannot think of a nice way to realise this and put it in a patch. Maybe opening rationalism loses your founder, enhancer, or both (or entire religion!?)?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go to such extremes. (last part)

If they want to stick to the formula they more or less have, they first need to address the issue of Faith before pantheon and Faith after pantheon. You need to get about 8-10 Faith per turn to have a good shot to be in the running for a Religion, when you go from 1-2 faith per turn to 8 just from getting a pantheon, it breaks the need for more shrines/temples. Desert Folklore and Stone Circles being the worst offenders when they apply.

Perhaps take away the 4-8 free faith from discovering a Religious CS, certainly look at that stupid Free faith ruin (*at the very least the +60 faith ones you can sometimes get), and maybe the Pantheon formula. The pantheon formula I don't mind as much though if you didn't triple your faith in some instances.

With all that changed the only left over real offender will be the Mayans since anyone else simply either won't get to renaissance fast enough or not have the faith for a religion.

Gamewizard said:

There doesn't need to be happiness IN the tree because if you take piety then you are religion heavy. Religion heavy gets you really good happiness beliefs like Ceremonial Burial and pagodas.

The problem I see with piety is that it is split between tall (mandate of heaven) and wide (left side of tree). Half production cost of shrines/temples is really good for the wide player who focused on other stuff before deciding to go religious. The finisher, however, usually never helps me as I don't build too many great prophet sites and my religious buildings are already built by then.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you the piety seems torn between a tall/wide split... I disagree that the tree needs no happiness offerings. You elude that you can/should get happiness out of the tree via religion. I say that you can just as much happiness out of religion avoiding piety as you can by taking it; morse so, in fact, since you applied your solical points into trees WITH happiness.

Every social tree needs happiness, as happiness is the one noose that developers can hamper us with. Either all trees need happiness or none of them should have it.

kingoglow said:

While I agree with you the piety seems torn between a tall/wide split... I disagree that the tree needs no happiness offerings. You elude that you can/should get happiness out of the tree via religion. I say that you can just as much happiness out of religion avoiding piety as you can by taking it; morse so, in fact, since you applied your solical points into trees WITH happiness.

Every social tree needs happiness, as happiness is the one noose that developers can hamper us with. Either all trees need happiness or none of them should have it.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

You can balance a tree so that it doesn't give any bonus happiness but gives other benefits that are worth it. Lower happiness means a smaller empire (fewer cities and/or less population), but if a tree makes those fewer total citizens each more productive, it can offset the difference.

The problem with Piety is it's tailor made for one and only one victory condition, and not even balanced as a no-brainer for that condition, since it's mutually exclusive with the hands down best policy track in the game in Rationalism.

smallfish said:

My experiences with having Defensive Pacts have mostly been with civs I am friends with. Anyone else would usually just say "I must decline" or some such self-interest deception - mainly because they are far more interested in stabbing me ("haha you got punked your weakness is MY opportunity!") or just plain disinterested to get entangled in closer diplomatics in future.

Though that is a good point, that allied city-states still won't be able to liberate your cities for you. This remains something to be worked on...

Click to expand...

In this main campaign i`m in, most everyone has been friendly and those I have asked for a defensive pact have accepted. Of course you have to be careful and I never accept pact`s that are more than 2 at a time or look like they`ll drag me into a war.

I was particular impressed by one AI Darius at one point because I had been in several wars with Washington and it was inevitable we were going to go to war sooner or later. I noticed Darius was right alongside Washington territorily and was about the same strength. I decided to invite Darius (whom I was friendly with for a long while and never had war) to a defensive pact, knowing that this would drag him into a direct war with Washington, squeezing the US and suiting me.

Darius must`ve realised this too because no matter what I offered him, he refused to join in a defensive pact with me, but still remained friendly. It was almost as if he could see with Washington`s and I`s long warring history that he`d be dragged into a fight he didn`t want.

Smart, I thought, even if accidental.

Excellent I might slow down on EU3 and revive my hours on civ to previous records.

I'll start playing again when this is released.

Crafty Bison said:

If picking rationalism meant you could not get a good religion, then I would regard that as a good nerf.
...
To conclude, I think making religions much harder to get without piety would work just fine as a nerf to rationalism/buff to piety, but cannot think of a nice way to realise this and put it in a patch. Maybe opening rationalism loses your founder, enhancer, or both (or entire religion!?)?

Click to expand...

What if instead of getting the enhancer belief as part of using a second great prophet you get it from finishing piety? I had actually assumed that's what would happen since two free policies were the old finisher before G&K and a free belief would seem the logical replacement.

I wish they took away air repair completely from air units. I`ve never heard of aircraft repairing in mid-flight.