"Fall Patch" announced

[The QC]

My grip isn't with the nerfing of Prize ships, which was needed. My grip is with having chosen to make it random.

I have the same feeling. And the same goes for Germany.

For me, it's not even the fact that you can get unlucky with it. It's the simple fact that it's not predictable. I just don't like dice throws in my games. You always feel cheated when a die falls badly, even if it's after many good rolls.

For instance, if the rule for the Germans would have been "every other barbarian will be captured" - statistically the same result, but more predictable - I'd like it. But not knowing what will happen before attacking annoys me.

 

[Deggial]

Well... yes. Predictability is a matter of taste, I guess.

But hasn't CiV already a "fake random generator"? When you look at battle result predictions and the real battle outcome, you can see that after at least two worse results you will get a better than predicted outcome.
Randomness in CiV is not true randomness - for the sake of enjoyment. (Do you remember all the Civ4 discussions, where people claimed that the random generator was broken? All that was broken was the human understanding of real randomness!)

What I want to say with this is: Even if there is a certain randomess in capturing enemy ships, the "sucess rate" should reach the 50 % mark way earlier than true randomness would create.
I think, we'll have to see how it works out in the game - but I'm quite confident that it will be okay.

-

Regarding the consequences of the new "health-by-pillage"-game rule and it's benefit for the invader: I still think, "active forts" (with a range 1 attack) will be an interesting way to help the defender.

 

[krc]

But not knowing what will happen before attacking annoys me.

I'm sure that (almost) every general throughout history felt the same way....

 

[The QC]

I'm sure that (almost) every general throughout history felt the same way....

True, and the also hated not having the ability to reload after failing . But Civ is a game.

I understand that I may be in a minority and I'm not requesting a change, just noting my personal displeasure. It puts me off playing the Ottomans and the Germans, even though in fact the ability is fun (I had fun with the Privateers in G&K and with the Germans in the mod that made their capturing probability at 100%).

 

[Socratatus]

I have the same feeling. And the same goes for Germany.

For me, it's not even the fact that you can get unlucky with it. It's the simple fact that it's not predictable. I just don't like dice throws in my games. You always feel cheated when a die falls badly, even if it's after many good rolls.

For instance, if the rule for the Germans would have been "every other barbarian will be captured" - statistically the same result, but more predictable - I'd like it. But not knowing what will happen before attacking annoys me.

You are asking for something that would make a game unimaginative and boring and certainly not realistic. You simply want an `I win` button.

Half the strategy and fun is the fact that EVERY choice and decision has possible failure. That`s what gaming, in all its forms is about. The only way to replicate this in games is by Dice and modifiers to the dice. Of course, work your tactics and strategy well and you greatly lessen the chances of failure; that`s how all the good war leaders won battles and wars. I would have it no other way.

 

[Babri]

I posted this in another forum.

25 HP heal upon pillaging sounds a bit OP to me especially for Danes & Picktish warriors which are already pretty powerful. People defend saying that there are finite number of tile improvements in a given area, I argue that 3-4 pillaging would be sufficient per city to minimize any losses unless attacking a very advanced civ which has superior army & defences.

Also currently AI already loves to target horse units to kill with City attacks & ranged units, unless they change it horses would absorb all damage & then pillage while the rest of the army takes down the city.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Can u pillage your own tiles in a desperate defense. Like scorched earth as the russians.

 

[Babri]

Can u pillage your own tiles in a desperate defense. Like scorched earth as the russians.

I don't think so. It used to be present in cIV, but they removed it in ciV. (correct me if I am wrong).

 

[smallfish]

I don't think so. It used to be present in cIV, but they removed it in ciV. (correct me if I am wrong).

Indeed, not at all.

Unless they happened to capture that city of yours on that turn.

 

[elprofesor]

You are asking for something that would make a game unimaginative and boring and certainly not realistic. You simply want an `I win` button.

Half the strategy and fun is the fact that EVERY choice and decision has possible failure. That`s what gaming, in all its forms is about. The only way to replicate this in games is by Dice and modifiers to the dice. Of course, work your tactics and strategy well and you greatly lessen the chances of failure; that`s how all the good war leaders won battles and wars. I would have it no other way.

Woaow.

So let's follow your logic. Bushido (Japan's UA) involves no intrinsic randomness in itself, it's just free extra strenght for you damaged units. So it's unimaginative, it's boring, and certainly not realistic (that last bit I can agree with); furthermore, this leads to a situation where we are awarded an "I win" button. Thus, Bushido is overpowered and should be nerfed, by associating it with some intrinsic randomness. But wait! All of the UAs (besides, IIRC, Germany's, Spain's and Ottoman's) aren't tied to luck, so maybe it would just be easier to buff those UAs instead? Thus, we reach my conclusion, even though we are following your set of rules: intrinsic randomness should be avoided.

You also say that every choice and decision has possible failure. Well, if I'm 400 beakers away from researching construction, and I'm producing 100 beakers per turn, expending a GS will grant me construction, no matter what. So you say that GS would be more strategic and fun if they gave a random amount of beakers? Well, I certainly can't agree about either of those qualities. Just in case it's really needed, let's pull a reductio ad absurdum: let's just determine the winner of a game of Civ 5 by throwing a dice. Man, was that fun and strategic!

And your definition of gaming is just the definition of what a game needs for it to be fun to you. Chess is a game, and it has no luck; the list of Boardgames that have no luck is crazy, so I'll leave it at that. Greed Corp is a strategy video game, and it has no luck. Heck, even Starcraft has minimal intrinsic luck. When I play a game, I don't want to lose because the RNG said so, I wan't to lose because I've been outsmarted. You don't need dice for you not to know how an encounter will end.

Now, I'm ok with some intrinsic randomness. The unknown outcome of a battle is ok to me, since the other side of the encounter won't get to react until I'm done, and generally luck is smoothed out after two or three turns (albeit I'd like it if ranged attacks had less variance in their results). But for germany, for its UA to smooth out, you may be talking about dozens of turns, with no way to control that, and one brute now is much better than one archer in 30 turns. Germany and prize ships are more subject to intrinsic randomness than any other thing in the game (except from Spain, but at least their gameplay is different enough from the rest to make them somewhat fun to play).

Long story short: intrinsic luck makes a game less strategic, you can argue that it makes it more tactical (not that I would agree with you, but still), and how fun it is depends on the person you ask.

 

[qemist]

what a disappointing patch, so many things left undone. meanwhile with this huge change to pillaging it looks like we'll be playing beta testers for the next couple of months as we discover just how unbalanced this potentially (probably) will be, esp in the case of the Danes. while I'm all in favour of innovation I have zero faith in firaxis' ability or willingness to actually test these changes thoroughly before releasing them upon us

Yairssss. That one did strike me as being a bit out of the blue. I don't recall anyone asking for it, and it doesn't make sense from a realism PoV. Spending their time in enemy territory stealing and raping might make soldiers feel better but it seems unlikely that it would heal their wounds or fix broken equipment.

Nonetheless the general reaction of the masses above is overwhelmingly in favor of this one.

far more pressing issues were meanwhile left untouched, like the fact that half the units are never used/built, half the civs are rarely used/or liked, the policy tree is sorely unbalanced in favour of some very specific strategies,

Well the +25hp for pillaging is a funny sort of buff for mounted melee units. I doubt that you are right about half the civs being rarely used. A lot of players use random civ.

the wait times between turns are atrociously long and a long list of other complaints frequently voiced on these forums.

Be fair. Many of the frequently voiced complaints are demands that the AI be smarter, and you want it faster too?

 

[Gamewizard]

There is always the chance that they changed the rules of pillaging...maybe you can't pillage and attack in the same turn anymore.

Unlike others, I have no doubt they have tested this new feature extensively. I'm sure they have very good players at their disposal. Highly unlikely they make a change this big and then let the public give it a go first.

 

[Uberfrog]

Well, wasn't it a feature of the Fall of Rome scenario? I haven't played that yet, but surely it gives some idea of how well the mechanic works.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Gamewizard,

Im not that sure about testing the game with good players first. If that was the case they should have made a much better effort with vanilla civ 5. Unless they preferred to rush it and patch later with patches and expansions. The game was awfull at release.

 

[Gamewizard]

Gamewizard,

Im not that sure about testing the game with good players first. If that was the case they should have made a much better effort with vanilla civ 5. Unless they preferred to rush it and patch later with patches and expansions. The game was awfull at release.

True, but it was rushed to release because of deadlines set by 2kgames. There are little to no financial obligations to rush out a balance patch unless it is set to be released alongside some DLC content.

The game has been out for 2 years, the highly skilled players have been realized. Maddjin 's involvement is proof toward this.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Yairssss. That one did strike me as being a bit out of the blue. I don't recall anyone asking for it, and it doesn't make sense from a realism PoV. Spending their time in enemy territory stealing and raping might make soldiers feel better but it seems unlikely that it would heal their wounds or fix broken equipment.

Nonetheless the general reaction of the masses above is overwhelmingly in favor of this one.

It is actually quite logical.

Going around the countryside would allow the army to rest (those farmers aren't putting up a real fight), get food and water, and likely recruit more people to replace anyone that has gotten sick or died. Anyone that knows about medicine could help take care of any injuries (by choice or force), and an easy victory over minor resistance, fresh food, and maybe even some news about the enemy's troubles are sure to raise morale and make the men fight a bit harder.

I'd say it only stops making sense in very recent times, with land owners not choosing their king, official languages and boarders promoting patriotism, and fast movement and longer range of armies and weapons, but in CiV you have bombers, railroads, battleships, and artillery to mirror the fact that spending time along the countryside is less valuable than taking a major population (and military and economic) center.

 

[SathingtonWaltz]

Can u pillage your own tiles in a desperate defense. Like scorched earth as the russians.

Now that is an interesting suggestion!

 

[Xger]

Yairssss. That one did strike me as being a bit out of the blue. I don't recall anyone asking for it, and it doesn't make sense from a realism PoV. Spending their time in enemy territory stealing and raping might make soldiers feel better but it seems unlikely that it would heal their wounds or fix broken equipment.

Continuing from Rooftrellen; a farm would have food and medicine (many plants have medicinal properties afterall); a mine could have supplies for weapons and armors; a trading post would have all of the above. Pasture and planation same as farm. Even oil wells would have supplies that could be used to repair weapons or improve them.

 

[Xger]

Now that is an interesting suggestion!

This change would require some hefty reworking of diplomacy and trading. Currently if I sell a luxury or resource to the AI and it is pillages the next turn, I take no diplomatic hit, and if you got straight gold, you don't lose the gold. So without a change self pillaging would be highly abusable.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Continuing from Rooftrellen; a farm would have food and medicine (many plants have medicinal properties afterall); a mine could have supplies for weapons and armors; a trading post would have all of the above. Pasture and planation same as farm. Even oil wells would have supplies that could be used to repair weapons or improve them.

And keep in mind that a farm in civ isn't just a little house with a ton of land. just a representation. I'd imagine any improvement would likely have a small town. I come from a small town surrounded by farms, myself.

There are some famous mining towns.

Trading posts probably have fairly booming little cities based on the prosperity of trade and goods.

It's not as if you go to a farm hex, pillage, and that was just like setting fire to a field.

One has to imagine there's more than a farmer's family living on all that land.