[NFP] April Update Video

[PhoenicianGold]

I know that players tend to play at the upper edge of their competence, but they needn't be "unhappy losers": in single player the game can be ABSOLUTELY tailored to their wishes & liking (& abilities). In heavy contrast to multiplayer.

True, but I also expect that a multiplayer experience would have generally more streamlined features and a much shorter skill curve (since the ability of the other players would determine difficulty--something which can be handicapped or self-moderated by good gamesmanship--as opposed to hopelessly incompetent AI).

Now that is the point, where in a perfect world we would receive the band aid sources and could try making a perfect civ6. But they wont want us to waste our time with such and even more playing that game (and prefer to chase us away) ...

No idea what you're talking about here. As far as I'm concerned, the lack of challenge in the game is due to a lack of real interactivity and choice the further along you go. A player can only play against a clunky, soulless, machine for so long before they get bored from one-sidedness. But adding features which incentivize multiplayer would create interactivity and challenge at every scale; social adaptability would shore up most of the game's problems.

I view the game as "single winner" play. ymmv. Divide et impera!

Also real time management is difficult enough in single player --

Well time management wouldn't be an issue in a faster-paced multiplayer game designed to end in half an hour, an hour.

And I'm sure you do view the game as a single player game, as do many civ fans, because that's how the game has generally been designed for over two decades. That doesn't mean that game still should or will always be with the times. Certain genres, like text-based adventures and collect-a-thons, are generally extinct because they waste players' time in ways that many feel are unnecessary.

 

[Yzman]

Also,I Support getting rid of every casus Belli Bonus(maybe keep Persia)

Robert the Bruce:+2 Combat Strength per excess amenity when fighting in your territory,and +2 Combat Strength per negative amenity when fighting in enemies territory(Amenities are of the city the unit in question fights in)

John Curtin: Districts can only be placed on tiles with at least 3 Appeal,but have a reduced production cost(5% per appeal of the tile)

Chandragupta:While at war with a neighboring civilization,cities with an established governor generate +1 Great Writer Point,+2 Faith.Capturing an enemies capital for the first time grants 2 Governor Titles.


Edit:I also don’t really like Barabarossas Bonus,I’d change it to
„+4 Combat Strength against City-States.Conquered City-States give bonuses as if you were their suzerain with 6 envoys.“

That Curtin proposal would screw him immediately on certain (or many) maps.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

My feeling out the Georgia change is this:

The original ability was centered around protecting the city-states you have suzerained. Ostensibly, you use the Faith to buy more units to fight to protect the city-state under attack. It doesn't have offensive or defensive abilities for your civ itself.

The new ability is more versatile. You get the Faith for fighting barbs and it helps you set up a pantheon earlier.

You get Faith for fighting offensively. And you can buy more units.

You get Faith for fighting defensively. And you can buy more units.

You can still get Faith for protecting your city-states.

Versatility.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The new ability is more versatile. You get the Faith for fighting barbs and it helps you set up a pantheon earlier.

Keeping barbarians out is one half of the Georgian Spirit.

 

[Lokreah]

My feeling out the Georgia change is this:

The original ability was centered around protecting the city-states you have suzerained. Ostensibly, you use the Faith to buy more units to fight to protect the city-state under attack. It doesn't have offensive or defensive abilities for your civ itself.

The new ability is more versatile. You get the Faith for fighting barbs and it helps you set up a pantheon earlier.

You get Faith for fighting offensively. And you can buy more units.

You get Faith for fighting defensively. And you can buy more units.

You can still get Faith for protecting your city-states.

Versatility.

Imo Tshikes are still worth building because Georgia can build them in 3-5 turns in a relatively short time with Limes. Easy faith generation.

I do like faith from kills. It makes it so Khevsurs aren't relegated specifically to capturing cities...

 

[GenyaArikado]

The Khevshurs are also lowkey buffed by not needing to get hardbuilt anymore so yeah.

Ultimately it's not a WOW buff but i think Georgia is overall solid

 

[Gedemon]

People don't read and assume too much. I never said I wanted the game to be that way (though I probably would enjoy it better because it would imply being more tightly designed).

Sorry !

You could say the same thing about Final Fantasy, or any other "turn-based" franchise. That's kind of a no true Scotsman fallacy (or some other essentialist nonsense). Civ can and will be whatever keeps it in business.

(and the quality of A.I. matters far, far less in multiplayer games)

And moving it away from turn based to make it a (relatively speaking) fast MP game will make it another kind of game completely. It won't happen, this is not a niche anymore, 2K will want something to fill it, especially now that there is a concurrence on it.

And it's in the specific case of MP with humans only that AI matters less.

 

[gcampono]

I differ on the majority of views of multiplayers in this thread.

I almost only play multiplayer mostly because the AI does not give a satisfying challenge: it's not that it's not hard (i only play deity and I lose several games in the beginning 50 turns) but it's not interesting because it does not play to win (probably on purpose) and it is too passive and predictable.

I don't agree that you only have 1 happy winner. I can be happy even if I come in the top half of the score or if I were able to resist (and maybe get the upper hand) against some good players. On the other hand I can be a not so happy winner in a boring single player game where I spend the last 100 turns just clicking for one more

And I play multiplayer despite all its shortcoming.
1) The most annoying ones are the technical ones: desyncs, disconnects, crashes happen too often. At least these should be fixed by FXS.
2) Then the lack of some matchmaking or scoring system (to have an indication of the level of other players) and quitters. This could be more difficult, but at least some matchmaking may be doable from FXS. Anyway, luckily there are groups like CPL and CIVFR.
3) The games do last too much even at online speed. On CPL/CIVFR games typically last 3-4 hours before there is a consensus winner (they last even more if played to victory screen) which clearly limits the audience. I don't think this can really be solved without changing what civ is (and I really find it wrong to suggest the RTS or MMO route!). Maybe make some victory condition faster, but all ideas I imagine(reduce some tech or civics? make scientific victory have less projects? make an ultra-online speed?) have some drawbacks.

I also think that the multiplayer base is not so small, despite all its shortcomings.

Finally I really wanted to say that I really wish that the AI to be improved. Multiplayer should not be an excuse for a poor AI. If FXS is not able or willing to do the job, please release the DLL so that some modder can improve the AI!!!

 

[Haig]

I dont want to be too greedy, but it would be cool if some leader would get a brand new UU added to leader ability.

Examples:
Barbarossa - Crusader
Pedro II - Caçador (line infantry in paraguyan war) etc.

Anyways I am so excited for the new units, line infantry and man at arms are the exact ones I have wanted! I dont get the trebuchet cult though, hehe.. The unit will help with sieges during its era I agree.

Love the naval AI bonuses too and the new maps and everything.

I am pretty sure that Netherlands/Wilhelmina gets some rework which would be cool.

 

[Linklite]

I dont want to be too greedy, but it would be cool if some leader would get a brand new UU added to leader ability.

Examples:
Barbarossa - Crusader
Pedro II - Caçador (line infantry in paraguyan war) etc.

Anyways I am so excited for the new units, line infantry and man at arms are the exact ones I have wanted! I dont get the trebuchet cult though, hehe.. The unit will help with sieges during its era I agree.

Love the naval AI bonuses too and the new maps and everything.

I am pretty sure that Netherlands/Wilhelmina gets some rework which would be cool.

I'd like Germany to get a new unit for sure, like a Teutonic Knight or something. The U-Boat is in many ways fitting, but rarely is it particularly useful. A lot of maps I play make navies redundant so there's no need and the AI doesn't really use navies (apparently that's changing with this patch, so maybe then?) So even on archipelago type maps there is just no need. Regardless, I normally want to be using battleships d such, so U-Boats aren't helpful. I don’t think I've ever built one because I just forget they even exist. I think every civ that has a unique naval unit should get a land one too, with the exception for ones where the unique is actually useful (for example, the Portuguese Nau that can also build fuertorias is fine).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I dont want to be too greedy, but it would be cool if some leader would get a brand new UU added to leader ability.

Examples:
Barbarossa - Crusader
Pedro II - Caçador (line infantry in paraguyan war) etc.

Anyways I am so excited for the new units, line infantry and man at arms are the exact ones I have wanted! I dont get the trebuchet cult though, hehe.. The unit will help with sieges during its era I agree.

Not sure about Pedro considering his ability has to do with acquiring Great People.

My most wanted would be a new Medieval UU for Scotland with Robert's ability as a new Man-At-arms replacement or Pikemen replacement.

 

[João III]

I'd like Germany to get a new unit for sure, like a Teutonic Knight or something. The U-Boat is in many ways fitting, but rarely is it particularly useful. A lot of maps I play make navies redundant so there's no need and the AI doesn't really use navies (apparently that's changing with this patch, so maybe then?) So even on archipelago type maps there is just no need. Regardless, I normally want to be using battleships d such, so U-Boats aren't helpful. I don’t think I've ever built one because I just forget they even exist. I think every civ that has a unique naval unit should get a land one too, with the exception for ones where the unique is actually useful (for example, the Portuguese Nau that can also build fuertorias is fine).

The U-Boat is so underwhelming, I wouldn't be upset if it got replaced with the Teutonic Knight unit from the Black Death scenario. More broadly though, I wouldn't mind keeping the U-Boat but allow Frederick to build Teutonic Knights; I think that'd fit thematically with his history as a crusader

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The U-Boat is so underwhelming, I wouldn't be upset if it got replaced with the Teutonic Knight unit from the Black Death scenario. More broadly though, I wouldn't mind keeping the U-Boat but allow Frederick to build Teutonic Knights; I think that'd fit thematically with his history as a crusader

Yeah I wouldn't outright replace it as it's the only link to modern Germany we have in the game.
Giving Frederick Barbarossa a Teutonic Knight would work. Well they did form 2 years after his death, but participated in the same Third Crusade as him so I think it will work. I mean Victoria gets Redcoats as her UU and she definitely wasn't the only one who used them.

 

[João III]

Yeah I wouldn't outright replace it as it's the only link to modern Germany we have in the game.
Giving Frederick Barbarossa a Teutonic Knight would work. Well they did form 2 years after his death, but participated in the same Third Crusade as him so I think it will work. I mean Victoria gets Redcoats as her UU and she definitely wasn't the only one who used them.

Better yet, we could keep a link to modern Germany and upgrade the UU by replacing the U-Boat with Panzers, then Teutonic Knights upgrade into Panzers

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Better yet, we could keep a link to modern Germany and upgrade the UU by replacing the U-Boat with Panzers, then Teutonic Knights upgrade into Panzers

I doubt they will completely get rid of a unit. I don't mind the U-Boat, even if it might not synergize well with the rest of the civ. At least it was a nice change from the Panzer who were in the past 3 games.

 

[Buktu]

Better yet, we could keep a link to modern Germany and upgrade the UU by replacing the U-Boat with Panzers, then Teutonic Knights upgrade into Panzers

This would make sense imo. I always felt like a naval UU but the desire to build Commercial Hubs (for Hansa adjacency) does not fit too well. Sure germany has the +1 district slot and the hanse did trait seawise alot so you could go for both districts easily but since you can not get 2 trade routes (well you can pick the owls if you got SS) from both districts in a city it was a little bit weird.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Germany's good enough as it is though. The U-Boat could be replaced with nothing and they'd be fine.

 

[Menocchio]

Since naval AI changes are part of the patch, maybe naval balance will be as well, and Privateers among others will see adjustments. That would lift up the U-Boat somewhat, even if would still have zero synergy with the rest of Germany's abilities.

 

[Aurelesk]

Are both the Men-at-arms and the Line Infantry melee units? The latter seems very likely since it fits between (early modern) Musketmen and (WW1/2-style) Infantry, representing the infantry of the 18th and 19th centuries, but putting men-at-arms between swordsmen and musketmen would mean a lot of upgrades for that one line alone.

I am glad they are going to add both the Men-at-Arms and the Line Infantry. But then, I started to think a little more about it.

I am going to assume a lot of things:

1. The Men-at-Arms unit will be unlocked at the Military Tactics technology, like the Berserker, the Khevsur and the Samourai.
2. The Line Infantry unit will be unlocked at Military Science technology, like the Garde Impériale and the Redcoat.
3. You cannot do an upgrade-jumping to units, like from Slinger to Crossbowman, if you didn't unlocked the technology of in-between units, like Archery.

If all those 3 points I assumed upthere are still true, therefore:

1. We would no longer be able to promote Swordsman units into Musketman straight away. We will need to unlock 2 new technologies in order to unlock the Men-at-Arms: Mathematics and Military Tactics.
2. Same thing from the Musketman unit to Infantry, except it is 7 new technologies (not including the 2 before): Wheel, Engineering, Machinery, Castles, Printing, Siege Tactics and Military Science.

It is quite misleading for point 2: there is no such thing as "Infantry rush" because we already needed all those technologies to unlock Oil anyway. I guess it is "possible" if you managed to get the Oil-revealing James Young as a industrial great Scientist and be lucky to have district on those juicy Oil (or be suzerain of Hattusa?), get the Oil-giving John Rockefeller as a modern great Merchant, or thougth Trade (but kind of defeat the whole Infantry rush...).



I am probably overthinking it and all those change would probably be nothing. The potential delay from the addionnal needed technologies is probably compensated by the ability to always have up-to-date Melee units and a hypothetical better Infantry* units.

* : The Infantry unit is likely to have his Combat Strength increased to 75 or/and increased Movement (to represent motorization / quick mobilization througth Oil), since the Line Infantry is shown to be at 65 in the video and it would weird that a unit far away and needing a brand new strategic ressource only has a marginal +5 Combat Strength and/or same Movement. Infantry might be more interesting to use in this update.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Better yet, we could keep a link to modern Germany and upgrade the UU by replacing the U-Boat with Panzers, then Teutonic Knights upgrade into Panzers

No panzers. Never again. Russia should get the tank UU if some civ must have one.

Panzers are exclusively associated with the bad time in Germany. U-boats at least have an origin prior to then. Germany is fine as-is. It does not need a strong or stronger UU.