April 2021 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[Duke William of Normandy]

Surely Eleanor should spawn in Bordeaux rather than Normandy?

Shhh... It's the only representation in Civilization 6 I'll get.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Shhh... It's the only representation in Civilization I'll get.

shouldn't have been such a bastard

 

[João III]

Shhh... It's the only representation in Civilization I'll get.

1066 scenario in Civ V?

 

[iammaxhailme]

"Updated England and France Eleanor names to be consistent with other dual-civilization leaders."


Eleanor of Aquitaine (England) of the English Empire has declared war on Kublai Khan (China) of the Chinese Empire.
Yes. Because I didn't realize that Eleanor of the English Empire was the leader of ENGLAND.

Guess that's two more leaders I'm never putting in my games again.

Yeah, they should have been Frealanor and Englanor.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

1066 scenario in Civ V?

Yeah, you're right. Made it more clear now.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Regarding your final point, and I wrote a message about this earlier in the thread, I think that people are aggrieved because they were lead to believe this update would be more substantial than it was. And I think every person in this thread who is turning that back on anyone who mentions it with "sir it was your expectations that were faulty" is exhibiting extremely selective memory. The thread history on this forum is testament enough to how much hype was stirred up.
Firaxis had opportunities to be really clear about what they were delivering. Instead they hyped it up (recalling the tweet that went out about RE the word count of the patch notes). And I don't know why Firaxis chose to do that.

Hype was stirred up by whom? Obviously when they released the video, they needed to exhibit and put emphasis on the biggest and most major changes, that is called "marketing." And what about the word count of the patch note? Have you thrown the patch into a word counter and the number of words turns out to vastly different or something?

If they had actually done so the level of criticism would be substantially less

What criticism are you talking about? This thread has like 100 people commenting, there are like 3 or 4 of you who are entirely negative.

Someone else posted that BBG were consulted as research for this update

Source?

Let me get this straight: There is one important thing that all of you seem to forget: this is free, all of these contents come for free, for everyone, with no condition. The reason why @InsidiousMage got so much flak above was because he called this "a bait and switch" in one of his comments, but you backed up him because there are like 4 of you in the entire thread, thinking you are voicing on behalf of the majority or something. Imagine someone giving you a free gift, he gives you a few teasers about things that you may like, you hype yourself up about the entire thing and then get disappointed and begin criticizing the gift, which, again, is FREE, and your friend isn't obligated to give it to you in the first place, or can charge you money for it. And then to add salt to the wound, you call the gift to be "a bait and switch" scheme. So maybe, before you dish out further criticism that you deem to be valid, curb your sense of entitlement a little bit. Am I happy with all the changes? No. Do I want more changes for things I think need some changes? Absolutely. Do I think the devs over-promise and under-deliver and thus should be criticized for not giving out enough free stuffs to satisfy myself? Unfortunately, I have a sense of gratitude and realism, so no.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm playing a game as Persia and I've hit something I did worry about when I heard about the new units - I've just upgraded my starting Warrior into an Immortal, but I'm about 4 turns away from unlocking it's replacement (the Men-at-Arms). To be fair I have Science of +30 due to the Etemenanki but still I wonder if the windows for units are too short now??

It was guaranteed to happen which was one of the reasons why I thought that they weren't necessarily needed in the game in the first place. The Trebuchet is different though and I guess Line Infantry is fine. I definitely wouldn't mind if most UUs were at least relevant for two eras.

Especially with Gaul now building their UD, which unlocks Apprenticeship that Men-At-Arms comes at, making even their UU window use small.

"Updated England and France Eleanor names to be consistent with other dual-civilization leaders."


Eleanor of Aquitaine (England) of the English Empire has declared war on Kublai Khan (China) of the Chinese Empire.
Yes. Because I didn't realize that Eleanor of the English Empire was the leader of ENGLAND.

Guess that's two more leaders I'm never putting in my games again.

I guess it didn't occur to them that we all wanted the opposite.
As in Kublai to be like how Eleanor was.

 

[walkerjks]

Your citizens exert 25% more Loyalty pressure on foreign cities you culturally dominate.

Eleanor says "thank you!"

 

[CromulentRomulan]

Hype was stirred up by whom? Obviously when they released the video, they needed to exhibit and put emphasis on the biggest and most major changes, that is called "marketing."

I honestly want to know - in your opinion why is there any need to do marketing (applying techniques of persuasion) on a free update?

And what about the word count of the patch note? Have you thrown the patch into a word counter and the number of words turns out to vastly different or something?

In one of the other threads about this update a poster mention that a Firaxis member had tweeted about the word count length of the patch notes in the weeks preceding the patch release.

What criticism are you talking about? This thread has like 100 people commenting, there are like 3 or 4 of you who are entirely negative.

I'm a member of the unofficial Civ discord that is linked to the Civ subreddit. Similar critical remarks about this patch have circulated there.

Source?

Do a grep of this thread if you so disbelieve me. It came up in this thread and I'm repeating that second hand information. I find recourse to "source?" a pretty tiresome and passive aggressive way of debating so please don't do it to me again.

Let me get this straight: There is one important thing that all of you seem to forget: this is free, all of these contents come for free, for everyone, with no condition.
.

I've forgotten nothing. These updates have been marketed as free. In reality they have been part of an experiment in content delivery that Firaxis has undertaken. I can only speculate but this is what I understand to be most likely: the projected sales from the New Frontier Pass paid for the free updates that have interspersed the main content packs. I do not imagine these free updates would have happened without the Frontier Pass.
So they have been marketed as free and that marketing has been effective on you.

Do I think the devs over-promise and under-deliver and thus should be criticized for not giving out enough free stuffs to satisfy myself? Unfortunately, I have a sense of gratitude and realism, so no

Your gift receiving analogy was very in applicable to the present situation so I am not going to dignify it with a response. If you read my messages nowhere I have criticised Firaxis for not giving out enough free stuff

 

[InsidiousMage]

you call the gift to be "a bait and switch" scheme.

No, I called considering integrating pre-GS unique units into the unit upgrade tree as part of a civ's balance changes a bait and switch, not the whole update a bait and switch but I guess who cares about reading comprehension.

Moderator Action: Enough of the sniping at each other, there's plenty to discuss without that --NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Datgingah]

Eleanor says "thank you!"

I think it would be neat if they expanded this idea to have regional cultural dominance - like spheres of influence in the real world. Could be caused by trade routes/rock bands/etc just giving you an excessive amount of tourists in a city and a few around it. Could have the effects be the same as total dominance, or a somewhat reduced version of it.

 

[Duuk]

Anyone else having an issue where the game (PC) literally will NOT allow you to disable your mods? It's patch day, so I always assume my mods are broken, but it won't let me disable them. At all.

 

[Kwami]

The source for using BBG as inspiration for some changes was Carl in TGM's Twitch chat earlier today. But also, some of the changes are the same changes that BBG made.

 

[Peserwin]

Anyone else having an issue where the game (PC) literally will NOT allow you to disable your mods? It's patch day, so I always assume my mods are broken, but it won't let me disable them. At all.

It took me a while before the game let me disable my mods. It kept on loading.

 

[MrRadar]

Anyone else having an issue where the game (PC) literally will NOT allow you to disable your mods? It's patch day, so I always assume my mods are broken, but it won't let me disable them. At all.

No, I've disabled a couple of UI mods no problem. W10, and I'm using the launcher bypass, if relevant at all.

 

[Duuk]

It took me a while before the game let me disable my mods. It kept on loading.

I unsubscribed two of them and they STILL kept saying they were loading, even after I deleted their workshop folders. So now I'm uninstalling Civ6 and reinstalling it. Obviously not my day.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Here is what one commenter says
"Probably civs like America, Arabia, England, India and Norway whose UUs were balanced and combat strength changed. The UUs being balanced are in a separate section."
Here is what you replied to that comment

I'll be honest, that seems like a cheap bait and switch if that's how they are counting.

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove personal attacks. ~ LK

 

[InsidiousMage]

"Probably civs like America, Arabia, England, India and Norway whose UUs were balanced and combat strength changed. The UUs being balanced are in a separate section."
Here is what you replied to that comment
Maybe next time consider putting more words into clarifying your thoughts instead of trying to use some edgy labels and only trying to actually provide some clarity when getting called out for it?

It's pretty obvious that I'm taking about overall unit changes being considered as counting towards a civ being part of the 2/3rds getting balance changes and tweaks.

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove personal insult. ~ LK

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

It's pretty obvious that I'm taking about overall unit changes being considered as counting towards a civ being part of the 2/3rds getting balance changes and tweaks.

So how is that a bait and switch? They said 2/3 civs would receive changes, weren't they considered changed when their units got changed?

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove personal insults. ~ LK

 

[acluewithout]

Love it.

Patting the dog is awesome. Like, I get it’s a joke. But stuff like that makes me really happy.

Balance changes look really good overall. It’s pretty clear FXS aren’t balancing for power per se, but instead more for “fun”. I think they’ve mostly got that right.

No going to go through all the balance changes. But a few stand-outs. Buff to Radio Orange looks fine to me. Netherlands are very powerful already. The extra culture and loyalty are actually pretty good. +2 loyalty can be the difference to keeping amd losing a city, even if it’s just buying you a few turns to grow the city. Berserker buff is a great compromise, nice not getting chewed up by ranged attacks. Samurai at feudalism is cute.

Cultural Dominance is a good change that indirectly buffs a lot of Civs. I worry that means we’re really not getting Ideological Pressure in the future, but better than nothing.

It’s hard not to be bummed about things the patch didn’t do. That’s not really fair to FXS, and ignores how much the patch does cover. Anyway, overall, I think it’s really good.