[GS] Antarctic Late Summer Patch Discussion Thread

[Duuk]

I'll just quote you again. Emphases mine.

I was unaware that the real world had slider-adjustable climate nonsense. Someone should have told Al Gore.

And yes, Firaxis obviously hates coastal starts, since they've been constantly underperforming since Day One and, WHILE UNDERPERFORMING, have been hit with the nerf bat.

 

[Disgustipated]

The reason they were nerfed is because people were saying climate change wasn't severe enough (I wasn't one of those people). That was said right here at Civ fanatics. It's easy to blame Firaxis, but they are just giving us what we asked for.

And no, claiming plains starts are better than coastal starts is nonsense. It takes a long time to turn a plains start into something decent. Let's put it this way, I do much better with England Eleanor than inland French Eleanor. I also do better with Dido than Mansa Musa.

 

[V. Soma]

Steam db shows FXS changed Social media - is it sign of hotfix coming soon...?

 

[Stilgar08]

I was unaware that the real world had slider-adjustable climate nonsense. Someone should have told Al Gore.

And yes, Firaxis obviously hates coastal starts, since they've been constantly underperforming since Day One and, WHILE UNDERPERFORMING, have been hit with the nerf bat.

They didn't nerf coastal. They buffed highly demanded climate change impact. And they buffed coastal. I agree that they didn't buff enough but your claims are just false.

 

[WillowBrook]

Steam db shows FXS changed Social media - is it sign of hotfix coming soon...?

Not sure how that would relate to a patch (but I'm no expert), but other recent steam db activity points to a patch coming soon.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Regardless, nobody at Firaxis has a vendetta against ... England ...

The Scots-loving dev team member does.

 

[DWilson]

They didn't nerf coastal. They buffed highly demanded climate change impact. And they buffed coastal. I agree that they didn't buff enough but your claims are just false.

You might be able to argue they nerfed it with the seastead change (I was sad), but it's so late in the game, so I'm not sure it counts.

 

[Council 13]

Disasters don't just affect coasts. There are plenty of disasters that happen inland. Please stop complaining about this irrational and blatantly inaccurate point.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Not sure how that would relate to a patch (but I'm no expert), but other recent steam db activity points to a patch coming soon.

I think if we don't see any additional Mac and Linux QA and Branch updates today, the hotfix will come tomorrow.

 

[Delvi]

The issue with coast is linked to the yield of sea tiles and IMHO it could be solved having also science and culture yield every 3-4 tiles. I like role playing and when I manage a civilization which has the capital on the sea irl, then I found my capital on the coast and I'm fine with it.

 

[Kwami]

Weaker tile yields for water have been a feature of Civ since... Well, at least IV, when I started playing. Maybe before then? Coastal cities focus on Food and Gold, but lack Production. They're trading cities that get really big and make a lot of money, but don't build many wonders and units. That's pretty thematic, I think. If it's not working out in the current game, then maybe something needs tweaking (e.g. trade routes, costs to build Harbors and buildings in them, etc.). But, I wouldn't like random Culture/Science from water tiles or anything like that.

 

[Stringer1313]

Weaker tile yields for water have been a feature of Civ since... Well, at least IV, when I started playing. Maybe before then? Coastal cities focus on Food and Gold, but lack Production. They're trading cities that get really big and make a lot of money, but don't build many wonders and units. That's pretty thematic, I think. If it's not working out in the current game, then maybe something needs tweaking (e.g. trade routes, costs to build Harbors and buildings in them, etc.). But, I wouldn't like random Culture/Science from water tiles or anything like that.

What about additional adjacency bonuses for putting your Campus or Theater Square next to the coast (???) and/or other districts like Holy Sites? There are plausible reasons why people would be more inspired next to coastline. That might buff coasts without doing a flat overpowered bonus, but it gives you an incentive to put districts on the coast and risk getting flooded later. So you make that interesting risk/reward calculation

 

[Aristos]

Regardless, nobody at Firaxis has a vendetta against coastal starts, England, or whatever else.

Of course they have. They created the CC mechanic because they hate @Victoria ; for her, and only for her, so that England now sucks even more.

Seriously though, see it as a weapon. It's just that. I just finished an IMM Australia game where 90% of my cities were coastal, and NONE of them were scratched by coastal flooding. I waited enough for my cities to be barrier protected, and then pumped the heck out of my coal power plants, battleships and railroads into the atmosphere. Let them greenies drown in CO2 and water. Sweet revenge against the real life melodrama that I, at least, seriously question.

It's a weapon, nothing more. Use it as such.

 

[bbbt]

Weaker tile yields for water have been a feature of Civ since... Well, at least IV, when I started playing. Maybe before then? Coastal cities focus on Food and Gold, but lack Production. They're trading cities that get really big and make a lot of money, but don't build many wonders and units. That's pretty thematic, I think. If it's not working out in the current game, then maybe something needs tweaking (e.g. trade routes, costs to build Harbors and buildings in them, etc.). But, I wouldn't like random Culture/Science from water tiles or anything like that.

I think that's a lot of it - coastal cities were successful and grew large largely as influence of trade and economy in a game that's never had much of an actual trade or economic system besides +x gold. (or a representative population growth system for that matter).

They could do more on the +X gold front though for Civ 6 at least. Maybe some version of Mali's Sahel merchants - i.e. +1 gold to trade routes for every 2 coastal/ocean tiles in the starting city if it's founded on the coast, another +1 gold per 2 ocean/coastal tiles in the city for a harbor.

 

[Josephias]

I think if we don't see any additional Mac and Linux QA and Branch updates today, the hotfix will come tomorrow.

Hope is true... It's good rewatching Game of Thrones in preparation for new season has taken away part of my non-work time, but I understand people is becoming impatient.

I don't know if it would be posible or it is worth now, but some other games (iirc, TW:Rome II), did provide the option to go back to pre-patch status via BETA builds when some patch went wrong (in CA's Rome2 case, I think the new patch was messing up the old savegames). Maybe FXS was confident in managing the Hotfix in a short time, but if it takes more time tan expected, it could be a solution to consider.

Spoiler :

Yep, it was TW Rome: see below you can Access several patch versions via BETA menú.

 

[Takfloyd]

Weaker tile yields for water have been a feature of Civ since... Well, at least IV, when I started playing. Maybe before then? Coastal cities focus on Food and Gold, but lack Production. They're trading cities that get really big and make a lot of money, but don't build many wonders and units. That's pretty thematic, I think. If it's not working out in the current game, then maybe something needs tweaking (e.g. trade routes, costs to build Harbors and buildings in them, etc.). But, I wouldn't like random Culture/Science from water tiles or anything like that.

In earlier Civ games, weaker tile yields on water were offset by being able to build useful coast-exclusive buildings. But in Civ VI, the Commercial Hub provides an alternative to most of the benefits of a Harbor, and gold is easier to come by in general.

We used to get 2 trade routes if you had both a Harbor and Commercial Hub, but that's obviously too powerful when you can put the Traders anywhere and boost unrelated cities. Perhaps Harbors should instead provide an additional trade route from that city which can't be moved and becomes an innate power of a coastal city.

 

[criZp]

Traders should not be movable regardless of where they come from

 

[Takfloyd]

Traders should not be movable regardless of where they come from

That makes no sense. You could just buy them where you need them then. And if you disable that as well, the entire point of internal trade is lost (to help struggling new cities grow by moving traders there). My idea for harbors would be that you don't build a trader anywhere at all, one simply spawns in that city which can't be moved, while commercial hub traders work like they currently do.

They could change the trade route system completely though, make it so you can't move traders and can only build them in the city that has a commercial hub or harbor and no associated trader yet, and then make it so both cities get food and production for internal trade routes. That way you solve the exploit of stacking traders in one city, and can still boost a new city by sending many trade routes TO that city.

 

[UWHabs]

That makes no sense. You could just buy them where you need them then. And if you disable that as well, the entire point of internal trade is lost (to help struggling new cities grow by moving traders there). My idea for harbors would be that you don't build a trader anywhere at all, one simply spawns in that city which can't be moved, while commercial hub traders work like they currently do.

They could change the trade route system completely though, make it so you can't move traders and can only build them in the city that has a commercial hub or harbor and no associated trader yet, and then make it so both cities get food and production for internal trade routes. That way you solve the exploit of stacking traders in one city, and can still boost a new city by sending many trade routes TO that city.

I could get behind a system where each trader was essentially fixed from a starting location. Or maybe something like you have X global traders that you're allowed to build, but any one city can only send out one trader per city centre/CH/Harbor. So most cities would only be able to send out one or two traders, and only all 3 if it had all 3 districts (and them maybe you add in the capacity for an extra trader for the current wonders that give extra trade route slots). As you say, you probably need to give both cities the bonuses from trade routes in that case to balance things a little more. But at least in this case it would give you a larger bonus to coastal cities that can get both a harbor and commerce hub, even if you don't bring back them both giving the extra route they at least give an extra slot from that city.

I would still say that there should be other bonuses too to harbors. Even something like having a harbor count as a trading post, and giving them an extra "bonus" so that every trade route through a harbor the owner of the harbor gains a certain "tax" on any trade routes passing through. Like if they each gave a base +3 gold to each trade route passing through, that suddenly could make it even more powerful if they happen to be the only harbor on the continent.

 

[Duuk]

It would actually make more sense if the TARGET city received the food/production anyway, since you're SENDING those things to the new city. Right now it actually is backwards.