Brave New World Patch notes! Version 1.0.3.276

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many experience it. Some of us don't. Firaxis doesn't. Which naturally is a problem when trying to fix it.;)
 
Can anyone please confirm that the patch has screwed up the multiplayer by resyncing almost every second turn?
I ask because me and my friends' connections can be a bit unstable on a bad day but the resync has never been so often before.
It seems like a game with only 2 players does not cause much resyncing but a game with 3-4 players causes the game to resync every 2 turn, which basically has broken the game for us as a game now takes twice as long as before.

Before we had like 5 resynchronizations in a whole game.

Yes, everybody has the same issue. The game is broken.
 
Wow, there's a new patch out? Might give BNW another go and see what they improved.

Unless the patch included something to help you actually listen to our advice for a change, I don't think you're going to enjoy the game any differently. :goodjob: It did decrease warmonger hate, so there's a chance things could be better for you.
 
After going through the posts on the 1st and last couple of pages Im unsure what im reading about as Ive just got the complete civ5 today and as such Im a complete noob-although a long time civ4 fanatic-simple question though,do I install it or not?Or is it it auto installed,and therefore Im not going to know any different?
 
I think the patch stopped me from getting a simple achievement like winning the game as X civ on any map.
 
After going through the posts on the 1st and last couple of pages Im unsure what im reading about as Ive just got the complete civ5 today and as such Im a complete noob-although a long time civ4 fanatic-simple question though,do I install it or not?Or is it it auto installed,and therefore Im not going to know any different?
The patch should install by itself whenever you login to steam.
 
Proposal to fix Civ 5:

Roll back the patch and release the new patch as a free DLC.

SP players get cocoa + reduced war monger penalties and MP players get a chance to play again.

Who thinks this is a reasonable idea?
 
Moderator Action: Please do not post the same content in multiple threads. This same post now appears in Ideas & Suggestions.
 
I didn't expect this patch one year later, caught me totally unaware.

• Fixed tech overflow bug that could allow a user to get free tech each turn for multiple turns.

At last! was a so stupid and abusable bug, glad they finally fixed it.

• Slight nerf to Tradition, and a boost to Piety (by adding one more prerequisite for Legalism and taking one away from Reformation).

Well, a little and lazy step in the right direction. Still piety bonuses are lackluster, and the most broken policy of the game is still intact: Monarchy. However the timing is important and as someone else pointed, this change hits harder than it may seem.

• Scale warmonger penalties by era (50% of normal strength in Ancient up to 90% in Industrial; 100% thereafter). Penalties for warmongering vs. City-States halved.

Clever way to ammend the most absurd outcomes of the warmonger formula, just because how is calculated the total number of cities is a big factor in warmonger calculations, making early warmongering too taxing. As the other big factor is the number of cities of the target, conquering a city state was just a diplomatic self-destruction.

I guess all the swarm of bug-fixing done into multiplayer comes directly from Beyond Earth improvements that just got imported. I'll take it a shot anytime soon.

To my opinion still there are many thing that could be fixed that I consider essential:

Early economy is a bit broken. You depend on many external variables to maintain a good economy until you get your markets and roads going. The cheapest buildings (Monument,Shrine) should be of free maintenance, that definitively would fix it.

Honor is a big looser as always. Still have the shape of Honor on the vanilla game, but without happiness.

They didn't take a look on the horrible behaviours the AI make when you are engaged with them. Still no move and shot, still troops embarking into water when they are on danger for no reason, still horrible aircraft management, still horrible city conquest decision making, still bugged policy selection...

But good news are good news.
 
Is it just me or does anyone else experience the AI being less willing to propose a declaration of friendship after the patch?
 
Nerfing the WM penalty for CS destruction may have been a little too much... in my first complete game post patch, I see 75% of the CS in the world destroyed. 75%. Never seen such proportion. Coincidence, or a pattern? If a pattern, may be worrisome...

Anyone else seeing this?
 
No, haven't seen such things. One or two gobbled up, but nothing out of the usual. Was the Kahn in the game? :lol:
 
I've noticed that the change in warmonger penalties certainly makes things more interesting. Before if a Civ like Rome captured a capital or a CS they would be chain denounced by the world and generally you wouldn't have to worry about that AI as the world will start forming alliances against it.
Now warmongers get away with a lot more so multiple capitals may fall before the other AIs start reacting. This changes your gameplay quite a bit. I think now you have to have a stronger military earlier.
 
Is it just me or does anyone else experience the AI being less willing to propose a declaration of friendship after the patch?

I haven't had that experience, in my last two games I've gotten plenty of DoF despite being an early-ish warmonger. I HAVE, however, found that the AI seems unwilling to give me much in peace deals, even when their back is against the wall. Has anyone else noticed that difference? Before I could get them to give me all of their gold and GPT fairly often, now I can't get a measly 5GPT out of em.
 
No, haven't seen such things. One or two gobbled up, but nothing out of the usual. Was the Kahn in the game? :lol:

Kahn WAS in the game, was swallowed very early by a monstrous Pocatello (35 cities), which was the one swallowing most of the CS... :lol:. More testing is needed, but I wouldn't be surprised that this may be a nasty side effect of a weakly analyzed nerf.
 
Kahn WAS in the game, was swallowed very early by a monstrous Pocatello (35 cities), which was the one swallowing most of the CS... :lol:. More testing is needed, but I wouldn't be surprised that this may be a nasty side effect of a weakly analyzed nerf.

The ability/willingness of certain AIs to swallow CS'es en-mass (given the right conditions) is not necessarily a bad thing: now you may actually need to make decisions and commitments on whether to defend your (potential or current) CS allies and/or declare war on others if you're gunning for a diplo victory and they are killing your votes :lol:.
 
Is it just me or does anyone else experience the AI being less willing to propose a declaration of friendship after the patch?

Through 6 plays post patch and still getting a good number of DoF.


Nerfing the WM penalty for CS destruction may have been a little too much... in my first complete game post patch, I see 75% of the CS in the world destroyed. 75%. Never seen such proportion. Coincidence, or a pattern? If a pattern, may be worrisome...

Anyone else seeing this?


Haven't seen anything on this scale, but in each of my post patch games at least 2-3 are being taken out, which seems to be more than in the past.


I've noticed that the change in warmonger penalties certainly makes things more interesting. Before if a Civ like Rome captured a capital or a CS they would be chain denounced by the world and generally you wouldn't have to worry about that AI as the world will start forming alliances against it.
Now warmongers get away with a lot more so multiple capitals may fall before the other AIs start reacting. This changes your gameplay quite a bit. I think now you have to have a stronger military earlier.

I do see more aggression out of some of some of the middle of the road Civs. For the better IMO.



I haven't had that experience, in my last two games I've gotten plenty of DoF despite being an early-ish warmonger. I HAVE, however, found that the AI seems unwilling to give me much in peace deals, even when their back is against the wall. Has anyone else noticed that difference? Before I could get them to give me all of their gold and GPT fairly often, now I can't get a measly 5GPT out of em.

Still getting solid deals in my games.



The ability/willingness of certain AIs to swallow CS'es en-mass (given the right conditions) is not necessarily a bad thing: now you may actually need to make decisions and commitments on whether to defend your (potential or current) CS allies and/or declare war on others if you're gunning for a diplo victory and they are killing your votes :lol:.

I like it as well, adds complexity into relationships.
 
Nerfing the WM penalty for CS destruction may have been a little too much... in my first complete game post patch, I see 75% of the CS in the world destroyed. 75%. Never seen such proportion. Coincidence, or a pattern? If a pattern, may be worrisome...

Anyone else seeing this?

As you said in a later post, that Pocatello was doing all (or most) of the CS conquering, which probably means that he was a runaway AI which would partially explain his behavior.

Personally, I absolutely love the new changes to warmongering and the vulnerability of city-states now. It makes warlike AIs an actual threat now (which makes the game much more interesting), and as a warlike player it gives you more liberty in playing an aggressive game without hamstringing yourself from early wars. Furthermore, the loss of city-state allies can potentially tone down diplomatic victories (which are the easiest type of victory in the game), and can open up more opportunities to liberate city-states.

Previously, before the 2014 patch, it always bugged me how you couldn't (or rather wouldn't want to) lay a hand on city-states due to the massive consequences. It felt like the game allowed you to do whatever you wanted, as in a sandbox environment, but "oh yeah, don't lay a finger on the city-states." City-states were like the sacred cow that couldn't be messed with.

I love the new changes to warmongering and city-states.
 
As you said in a later post, that Pocatello was doing all (or most) of the CS conquering, which probably means that he was a runaway AI which would partially explain his behavior.

Personally, I absolutely love the new changes to warmongering and the vulnerability of city-states now. It makes warlike AIs an actual threat now (which makes the game much more interesting), and as a warlike player it gives you more liberty in playing an aggressive game without hamstringing yourself from early wars. Furthermore, the loss of city-state allies can potentially tone down diplomatic victories (which are the easiest type of victory in the game), and can open up more opportunities to liberate city-states.

Previously, before the 2014 patch, it always bugged me how you couldn't (or rather wouldn't want to) lay a hand on city-states due to the massive consequences. It felt like the game allowed you to do whatever you wanted, as in a sandbox environment, but "oh yeah, don't lay a finger on the city-states." City-states were like the sacred cow that couldn't be messed with.

I love the new changes to warmongering and city-states.

No argument about how interesting the things may become after the last patch, we agree on that. Will be interesting to see to what extend the change to CS WM makes things more interesting without destroying one key component of the gameplay... I am not saying it will, I just wonder, and will be watching... if my example was circumstancial, but the new dynamic is a fact, then I am all for it. As you said, CS's should never have been guaranteed to be almost untouchable, but they also should not be guaranteed to be destroyed.

We shall see... one sure thing though, game has been revitalized...

(by the way, is it me or does it "feel" a little harder after the patch? I mean, not as in related to the WM changes only, but to AI's behavior...? I don't know, may be just me "re-discovering" the game...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom