Summer 2017 Patch Notes Discussion

[Sherlock]

What is broken? Strong barbarians are by design. The strong city-states are too, since there are fewer disadvantages to capturing one, plus they have to deal with barbs too.

Yeah, who wants to build a dumb old granary? Or a monument, or a settler or a builder? Nah, let's just have the same exact beginning game where you build military unit after military unit and get further and further behind anyone lucky enough to not have barb camps nearby.

My first post-patch game - Barb Spearman shows up on turn 8, can kill my slinger in two turns.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What is broken? Strong barbarians are by design. The strong city-states are too, since there are fewer disadvantages to capturing one, plus they have to deal with barbs too.

i wouldn't say strong city-states are by design. Actually they:
- Can't build any districts other than their specialization.
- Can't build Wonders.
- Can't build settlers.
- Can't build projects.
So, they are forced to build large military, because most of the time they can't build anything else.

 

[AntoineS]

I'm not sure - as someone who often plays more peacefully (or take the nearest neighbor who is encroaching on my space and then play peacefully), my first thought is it will just cause me to do more mid game expansion (when my production is higher compared to the Settler cost) instead of early expansion. We'll see how it plays out though, and if the AI leaves spots to expand to. And also if they've improved the AIs city defensive abilities to make conquering them more expensive.

Please tell us how it goes for you. I play in the exact same way as you but I won´t be able to play for next few months... I´d like to get your opinion on this once you´ve played more

 

[antimony]

On the Kongo nerf... even if the Civ itself was not quite Tier A, it's probably a good thing to prevent any single Civ from dominating one aspect of the game in such fashion that others just can't catch up. Percentage increase bonuses can easily go out of control if they stack on other modifiers. Formerly, Kongo with Divine Spark could build a single theater site and run the policy card for 8 great writer points per turn.

 

[Photi]

Looks like the UI is moving further along in its alpha development! A few steps in the right direction.

Civ's mechanics have dictated that it's centered around military dominance first since civ 1, and none of the games between then and now have been an exception BTW. Playing pretend in SP remains an option just like in older versions.

conquering 25 cities across the globe and keeping them together and productive for a few thousand years to attain a year 900 CE space victory isn't pretend to you? capturing every capital ever isn't pretend to you? neutering culture production in every other civ to attain a super early, 17 foreign tourists "culture" victory isn't pretend?

the whole game is pretend, so maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive of those who prefer an unrealistic peaceful victory over those who prefer an unrealistic domination victory. your "pretend" comment seems more of a political statement than anything related to the game of civ.

to say civ mechanics "dictate" military dominance is quite the exaggeration, as i don't think i've ever personally won a domination victory in the 24 years (on and off) since i first played civ even though i have won countless games. if military dominance was dictated as you say, i would have only won a fraction of those. i've done my share of 'conquering my continent' or wiping out the nearest 3 or 4 civs or whatever, it's frankly imo a boring and OP way of playing. it's quite baffling that so many people consider this the "good" way to play. i'd say it is more likely the game was designed (at higher difficulties) for early wars of conquest aimed at player's nearest one or two civs, and later on a few wars of defense and maybe one or two wars of expansion. any more than this and the rest of the game's balance breaks, and victory becomes a thoughtless steamroll. it's highly unlikely the developers meant for most of their game to be irrelevant, which is what happens with unchecked global military dominance.

 

[Ozymandias9891]

I'm currently in my first game with the new patch as Nubia, and after a long war with Alexander in which I tried to liberate Armagh (Sumeria eventially liberated them), I went to make peace with Alexander, but he gave in to all my demands, which included 30 GPT, 34 gold lump sum, two of his cities, whales, silk, wine, and horses. I'd say the war was fairly even between both sides; it's not like I was absolutely wrecking him. Previously he had offered me 3 or 4 peace deals ranging between 200-300 gold lump sum and 28-32 GPT, without anything else. Not sure if this is because of the patch or not, though. Would be interested to hear if others have had similar experiences.

It's possible that the peace negotiations mechanic might've bugged out with this patch. Has anyone else had an easy time making peace?

 

[footslogger]

Very disappointed that there are no changes to tech/civic pacing. I know that the game is not about a close resemblance to historical facts but making it possible for the industrial era to occur pre-1000AD just seems too jarring to me.

 

[AntoineS]

on the settler cost, possibly they are doing it to slow expansion and increase minimum turn times to victory. which imo would be a good goal, but if that can be sidestepped by warmongering, then the goal not really accomplished.

You read my mind, I think it´s a move to make games longer as well... I also think it won´t work because of warmongering... but this pb will end up being solved naturally with the expansions and the increase of the number of techs and civics available in the respective trees

It should also solve the issue with pacing that @footslogger is referring to in his/her post

 

[Ozymandias9891]

Very disappointed that there are no changes to tech/civic pacing. I know that the game is not about a close resemblance to historical facts but making it possible for the industrial era to occur pre-1000AD just seems too jarring to me.

I absolutely agree with this. I've been saying sine the beginning that splitting into two separate trees makes them both feel incomplete and too quick to get through.

 

[Archon_Wing]

conquering 25 cities across the globe and keeping them together and productive for a few thousand years to attain a year 900 CE space victory isn't pretend to you? capturing every capital ever isn't pretend to you? neutering culture production in every other civ to attain a super early, 17 foreign tourists "culture" victory isn't pretend?

the whole game is pretend, so maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive of those who prefer an unrealistic peaceful victory over those who prefer an unrealistic domination victory. your "pretend" comment seems more of a political statement than anything related to the game of civ.

to say civ mechanics "dictate" military dominance is quite the exaggeration, as i don't think i've ever personally won a domination victory in the 24 years (on and off) since i first played civ even though i have won countless games. if military dominance was dictated as you say, i would have only won a fraction of those. i've done my share of 'conquering my continent' or wiping out the nearest 3 or 4 civs or whatever, it's frankly imo a boring and OP way of playing. it's quite baffling that so many people consider this the "good" way to play. i'd say it is more likely the game was designed (at higher difficulties) for early wars of conquest aimed at player's nearest one or two civs, and later on a few wars of defense and maybe one or two wars of expansion. any more than this and the rest of the game's balance breaks, and victory becomes a thoughtless steamroll. it's highly unlikely the developers meant for most of their game to be irrelevant, which is what happens with unchecked global military dominance.

Coming as someone that almost never wins peacefully in Civ 4 (mostly conquest or psuedoconquest), I've never won a domination victory in Civ 6, despite doing quite a bit of war. I am a builder at heart and have a bad habit of building wonders even during the middle of a war; it's just that everyone else disagrees.on that idea.

I obviously don't have a problem with warring being the meta, as I doubt I could win a lot of games otherwise, and yes war is a big part about human history. Also a lot of the units and even the 1 UPT system is designed with war in mind. But war also doesn't translate to mindless violence. Nations don't always maintain powerful military just so they can arbitrarily take over every capital in the world. Cultural and economic domination often work just as well as troops, though certainly not exclusive.

And at the same time I also like diplomacy and alliances that actually mean something. And when war becomes too necessary, then I am like why bother with anything else but that. Why make a game with agendas and alliances if it's more effort than it is worth (other than stalling for time until you build your Lawjnmower of Doom.

 

[antimony]

It's possible that the peace negotiations mechanic might've bugged out with this patch. Has anyone else had an easy time making peace?

No, it also happened to me before the patch. One Civ offered all their resources and gold in a peace deal after I took one city and their capital was still well defended. In fact, you tend to get a worse deal if you continue the war further, since they will spend their gold to rush units.

 

[Mrdarklight]

Uh... what the heck? This is on turn 43...

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, that is highly situational, but yes early game makes for a snowball effect. That applies to everything. I see that as mostly unavoidable but maybe if the ai could properly defend itself....

Highly situational? That example came to mind because it was from a previous playthrough. On my first playthrough with early war following this patch, I did it again - it only took as long as until turn 90 because I was having to mop up barbarians, and that's on top of the Russian settler I stole. I may end up at war again since much of the rest of the world hates me and Kongo may conceivably be a threat (they're rolling through Indian cities at this point), but with 7 cities by turn 90 - one of the Russian ones surprisingly well-placed and with a natural wonder to boot - I should be an odds-on favourite from here on out.

 

[Mrdarklight]

I noticed civs are a lot more friendly in the early game. In two games I've played so far, the first three civs I met wanted to be friends with me before long. Only one civ attacked me (Japan).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I noticed civs are a lot more friendly in the early game. In two games I've played so far, the first three civs I met wanted to be friends with me before long. Only one civ attacked me (Japan).

I think they toned down ancient diplomatic negatives. Alex doesn't even hate me right off the bat for being peaceful.

 

[Ozymandias9891]

I think they toned down ancient diplomatic negatives. Alex doesn't even hate me right off the bat for being peaceful.

He was certainly hating on me right off the bat for being peaceful

No, it also happened to me before the patch. One Civ offered all their resources and gold in a peace deal after I took one city and their capital was still well defended. In fact, you tend to get a worse deal if you continue the war further, since they will spend their gold to rush units.

In any case, I think it needs to be looked at and fixed.

 

[Photi]

I obviously don't have a problem with warring being the meta..

It may be the meta if a "good" game is measured solely off turns to victory. That's a product of math and logic.

If instead it was determined that a good game consists of fewest turns to victory with a diplomacy score of 80% or better (determined by an as of yet undefined rating system), then all of a sudden all war all the time is no longer the meta.

It's all just kind of arbitrary, and the increased settler cost with no corresponding warmongering cost seems to have come from the left field bleachers.

(Note:saying war/conquest is the strongest (meaning quickest) approach is different than saying the game dictates it, which is what I was objecting to in the previous post)

 

[leandrombraz]

I noticed civs are a lot more friendly in the early game. In two games I've played so far, the first three civs I met wanted to be friends with me before long. Only one civ attacked me (Japan).

They also like each other more. The diplomatic landscape of my match looks the exactly opposite of my early matches, from when the game launched. Back them everyone denounced everyone, now everyone is friend to everyone with a few exceptions and a war here and there. Lots of blue and green faces...

 

[victorINascx]

I don't think Nubia gets a desert start bias. I restarted four times already trying to find desert near my capital. Glad to have the restart button!

Actually the priority is merely tier 1 when I check the game data ,knowing that Russia gets 3 on tundra and Congo's tier 3 over jungle, it's true that desert isn't that frequent

 

[Gedemon]

Can someone confirm whether culturally linked starting position is actually a game setup option now?
This is something I liked from Civ III and have been missing ever since.

Unfortunately I can't check this myself because I am at work and probably won't be indulging in any Civ until tomorrow night

Really really exciting to start a new game with all these fantastic looking updates!

the "culturally linked starting position" is from YnAMP mod.