April 2021 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[AntSou]

Voted Disappointing mainly because Corps mode seems broken still.

Even if they fix it in the future (and at best we'll have to wait a while for a new patch) I don't think the free stuff makes up for the broken paid DLC.

 

[VinhoVerde]

perhaps it is worth giving to Poland the opportunity to receive relics (old Khmer)

 

[pokiehl]

This very forum gives pretty narrow and negative view I think.

For example on reddit its people having fun with the game, here it's always topics titled "The game is a failure, an essay (part one of nine)"

Goes back to Civ 5 days too, I remember a multipage thread before the first expansion titled something like "Face it: there will be no expansions" lol

I feel like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t for sharing my opinion here sometimes.

There is an extremely negative contingent here who is hoping Civ 6 fails and want to “punish” Firaxis by rooting for Humankind. They’re 100% negative all the time and post rude, sarcastic remarks constantly. When I challenge them on these viewpoints, I get told that I “don’t understand” because I haven’t been a fan since Civ 1, or told “this forum isn’t a booster club for Firaxis.” It’s implied that I’m a silly fanboy or something.

Then I read this comment and others after it, and feel like I’m being told I’m a doomsaying hater for being unhappy with the patch and unsatisfied with the quality slippage of NFP. I know you didn’t intend it and didn’t direct it at me personally, of course.

I voted Disappointing. Isn’t there space for someone like me who loves the game, mods for it, finds it fun, but is also unhappy with the overall quality of NFP? I don’t mean “oh the modes are too fantastical!” because I really do like the modes and content. I mean like the laundry list of things that have dropped in quality compared with GS content: unclear and inconsistent writing, worse icons, less interesting unique district models, messing up city clutter graphics for multiple civs, failing to add city clutter graphics for all new districts, modes with broken mechanics (Corporations) etc.

I just wish a patch billed as a final patch (be it for NFP or the game itself) would have come in and cleaned up these imperfections that mar an otherwise excellent record since GS. Instead the patch was a lot of changes to civs that I feel were incoherent and largely unnecessary. None of the ripped seams have been addressed and it feels like they might not ever be.

It’s not just lack of polish either. I mean, two map scripts have been completely bugged for MONTHS. Archipelago and Island Plates have totally borked mountain generation since NFP. Crashes to desktop are more common than ever. I can go on and on.

I just don’t want Civ 6 left in this state. It feels...messy. Like with all these flaws it feels more like it jumped the shark rather than bowed out gracefully.

 

[AntSou]

To be clear, overall I enjoyed NFP. I'm just underwhelmed by this final patch, and that's entirely on the broken Corps mode (and other stuff left broken).

Otherwise I'd have gone with Good or Very Good, not so much because of the new units or Civ changes (which are nice), but because of the new Cultural Domination effects.

 

[Banana Sam]

You have to account for that fact that people who do polls are way more likely to be very very angry or very very happy. The patch is like 26 hours old I'm not sure most people are ready to make a declaration yet. Most people who have said they hate it were ready to hate it before any information about it came out at all, and vice versa.

Nah. I was very excited for this patch. It also doesn't take more than 26 hours to read these and see that top tier civilizations were buffed while those on the bottom like Cree were ignored. And this isn't a personal bias - Inca is my favorite civ to play in 6, but I did not want a buff for them as they were already too easy to win on deity with.

This very forum gives pretty narrow and negative view I think.

For example on reddit its people having fun with the game, here it's always topics titled "The game is a failure, an essay (part one of nine)"

Goes back to Civ 5 days too, I remember a multipage thread before the first expansion titled something like "Face it: there will be no expansions" lol

Dismissive comments like this do not address the very real and valid concerns we have regarding this game. This patch has objectively widened the already massive gulf in power between the likes of Korea and India. This patch has not improved the dysfunctional AI that cannot use the game's systems correctly (see deity AI settling cities it loses within 10 turns to influence without even trying to stop it, amongst countless other things.)

If you are satisfied with the patch that's great. But if you want to defend it against our complaints, debate the arguments presented instead.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

There's still no real incentive for high population cities

Well apart from, you know, Districts - one of the most fundamental aspects of the game!

 

[slavaskii]

perhaps it is worth giving to Poland the opportunity to receive relics (old Khmer)

If the developers decide that it’s worth pumping a second balance update, I feel like this should be included. I’ve joked before about writing a whole thesis on Poland’s problems, but there was simply never room for two relic civs in the game. Relics can be extremely powerful as Poland (particularly if you get one from an early goody hut), but they’re quite unreliable unless you make a lot of overly complex things happen. I also don’t feel like Poland’s kit has a clear direction; you have three things going on, an economic policy slot and market replacement, a wonky encampment bonus and a good UU, and a bonus towards relics and holy sites. Poland is, as I saw someone say elsewhere, a jack of all trades but a master of none. I was very disappointed that this wasn’t reconciled, as clearly someone realized the Khmer needed help but simultaneously thought Poland was good as-is (or as good as buffed Khmer, which is outrageous).

Such speculation probably deserves a thread on its own tbh, but I’d like to see a Poland rework in a future patch, though sadly I don’t see that happening after they were addressed once.

 

[Banana Sam]

Well apart from, you know, Districts - one of the most fundamental aspects of the game!

You don't want huge quantities of districts in your cities - that's a waste of production and tiles. It has been well established that sprawling low population empires fare far better as infrastructure trumps human capital in this game. This changed with the rationalism nerfs, but theorycraft still has a mass of pop 4 cities at Ecstatic as stronger for science victory - though I personally lean towards building up the 15 pop cities since it's simply easier gameplay.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I voted good solely for the fact that not all the civs that I wanted received some kind of buff. Probably would have voted very good if they gave something to Scotland.

Therefore Scotland was my vote on the other poll on which civ still is in most need of a rework.

perhaps it is worth giving to Poland the opportunity to receive relics (old Khmer)

In addition to let Polish missionaries start theological combat so it's not unreliable.

 

[slavaskii]

Side note: another great poll! I was considering making a new thread about what changes we’d like to see in the future, but polls are a lot more effective for getting the idea across without 30 page threads.

Voted there for Scotland. The main reason is that I believe Scotland to be a decent civ that has unfortunately not been updated along with the game. It was far easier to get happy cities before; now, they require a large investment that detracts from Scotland’s focus on campuses and industrial zones. Because of the amenity change alone, Scotland became much weaker and needs to be compensated for that fact.

Scotland’s leader ability is also extremely weak. Whereas Australia’s acts as a deterrent, Scotland’s 100% production bonus can only be achieved in extremely limited circumstances. Other civs enjoy the benefits of their bonuses all game long, while it’s a complete gamble whether or not Scotland will even be able to capitalize on it. I also hate to pry further, but the Highlander is weakened solely by the fact it’s a Ranger replacement. I’m not sure if this was updated to one of the newer units in the patch (I hope it was), but I’ve never found any reason to build Rangers and I’m not sure where their appeal lies. The Golf Course is an alright improvement but I agree with those saying it should be placed differently on the culture map or have additional yields.

There are other civs, like Egypt, which sorely need help, but none were ‘broken’ quite to the degree Scotland was. Perhaps the devs see a place for Egypt, but it really must be acknowledged that the place for Scotland significantly changed when the amenity update came out.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I voted Disappointing. Isn’t there space for someone like me who loves the game, mods for it, finds it fun, but is also unhappy with the overall quality of NFP?

I just don’t want Civ 6 left in this state.

That's fair, if I thought this was the final patch for Civ VI ever I would have a different attitude. I fully expect NFP Season 2 and of we don't get that we will surely get a final patch that fixes things / tidies things up. It would be strange of the last patch for a title had as much change as this one!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Scotland’s leader ability is also extremely weak. Whereas Australia’s acts as a deterrent, Scotland’s 100% production bonus can only be achieved in extremely limited circumstances. Other civs enjoy the benefits of their bonuses all game long, while it’s a complete gamble whether or not Scotland will even be able to capitalize on it. I also hate to pry further, but the Highlander is weakened solely by the fact it’s a Ranger replacement. I’m not sure if this was updated to one of the newer units in the patch (I hope it was), but I’ve never found any reason to build Rangers and I’m not sure where their appeal lies. The Golf Course is an alright improvement but I agree with those saying it should be placed differently on the culture map or have additional yields.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...es-to-civ-abilities-would-you-suggest.669530/
I outlined my changes to Scotland here which completely reworks Robert's ability into not situational, highlander unlocked an era earlier, and now the golf course can be built in another civ's territory, which provides culture and tourism (at flight) for golf courses in your territory.

 

[Lokreah]

Gonna hold off on attempting to play the newest patch on console (PS4). The stability and frame rate for the game has gotten really bad with the newest patch. Frequent delays when selecting units, long wait times early game when hitting "End Turn" on standard maps.

Shame :/

 

[Potworny]

I'm too intrigued by this Atlantis affair, I've launched a Deity all-modes-enabled game as Greece and chose Voidsingers. No luck.
I'm out of ideas, but I could just play the game through.

 

[Linklite]

That's fair, if I thought this was the final patch for Civ VI ever I would have a different attitude. I fully expect NFP Season 2 and of we don't get that we will surely get a final patch that fixes things / tidies things up. It would be strange of the last patch for a title had as much change as this one!

If that's the case and they announce it soon, I'll be the first to change my outlook on this patch. Here's hoping.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm too intrigued by this Atlantis affair, I've launched a Deity all-modes-enabled game as Greece and chose Voidsingers. No luck.
I'm out of ideas, but I could just play the game through.

I think it's just ba visual joke man.

 

[Vargas1]

I voted good on the poll, but just because it’s the middle option. I appreciate that they took the time to make the changes, and on balance they are a net positive for sure (though the Korea buff baffles me). But I think I’m somewhat disappointed because (1) some civs that needed it didn’t get touched, and (2) of the changes that were made, only a handful are things that are exciting or will have a major impact on the game for a certain civ.

On the first point, Scotland and Egypt stand out to me. Scotland because 3 of their 4 uniques are subpar. They’re still a strong civ for a science game based on their civ ability, but it’s a shame that nothing was done to make their kit more interesting. Egypt to some extent have the opposite issue (which is why I voted for them in the poll) - all of their unique are interesting, but have lagged behind the power creep of other civs. So they’re still fun to play but just feel underpowered.

On point two, I think there’s probably little dispute that Mapuche, Spain, Khmer, Canada, and Maya got solid, deep changes to their gameplay. I’m very happy with the work abs the thought that went into those. Maybe it’s a matter of expectations outstripping reality, but the others seem more like nibbling around the edges rather than big changes. More science for Zulu, more culture for Netherlands, more housing for Inca, stronger troops for Gorgo - none of these are bad changes, but it’s nothing that would encourage me to play a civ I hadn’t already wanted to play.

 

[Kwami]

You don't want huge quantities of districts in your cities - that's a waste of production and tiles. It has been well established that sprawling low population empires fare far better as infrastructure trumps human capital in this game. This changed with the rationalism nerfs, but theorycraft still has a mass of pop 4 cities at Ecstatic as stronger for science victory - though I personally lean towards building up the 15 pop cities since it's simply easier gameplay.

I don't know. Wasn't I just reading in another thread yesterday that having 5 extra population in your cities (as Khmer, in this case) was basically overpowered because it gave you Germany-level production?! I know you aren't the same poster, but it seems to me that the "theorycraft" isn't really settled.

And I'd take most districts over the yields of any one tile pretty much every time.

 

[Banana Sam]

I don't know. Wasn't I just reading in another thread yesterday that having 5 extra population in your cities (as Khmer, in this case) was basically overpowered because it gave you Germany-level production?! I know you aren't the same poster, but it seems to me that the "theorycraft" isn't really settled.

Ya there are differences for each civ. Tons of bonus amenities like Khmer allow for higher populations. There's a debate about it here:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/yield-of-science-under-different-population.665595/

Basically it is much harder to actually get all of these little cities with the infrastructure powered, but if you manage to do so the amenity system and CS/GS bonuses encourage it immensely - for most civilizations.

And I'd take most districts over the yields of any one tile pretty much every time.

Play how you want, but there are many ways to create monstrous yields that are far better than another Encampment, IZ, Neighborhood, Aqueduct, etc. Of course this is all dependent on land.

 

[Kwami]

Ya there are differences for each civ. Tons of bonus amenities like Khmer allow for higher populations. There's a debate about it here:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/yield-of-science-under-different-population.665595/

Basically it is much harder to actually get all of these little cities with the infrastructure powered, but if you manage to do so the amenity system and CS/GS bonuses encourage it immensely - for most civilizations.

I've just always felt that higher population was underrated in this game. It's not hard to keep them happy with even a minimal investment into amenities.

Play how you want, but there are many ways to create monstrous yields that are far better than another Encampment, IZ, Neighborhood, Aqueduct, etc. Of course this is all dependent on land.

Well, OK, but half of those districts aren't population-dependent, anyway. We were talking about having a higher population to allow more districts. The good ones!