[NFP] Civilization VI: New Frontier Pass Discussion Thread

[yung.carl.jung]

Allright I checked and I dont have the save anymore, nations were starting to get fighter planes and I had Minas Gereas so that's the closest I can give, heh.

thank you anyway! not much data exists about when the AI finished peacefully (post patch and in general) so every bit is appreciated.

 

[Revanchist]

Expanding on the world congress, I would like a way of sanctioning countries that frequently warmonger or have too big of a force to confront with an ally. Perhaps they have been spamming apostles or aggressively stealing great works. Sanctioning could limit trade routes and city state bonuses, or even stop trade deals between certain players.

One thing I don’t agree with is the huge diplo favor loss from conquering capitals - it seems like a lazy solution to a desperately needed area of improvement. Instead, capturing capitals should have a big impact on allied civilizations and concern neutral civilizations. Obviously, this should be less impactful if the player invading was the one who was declared on.

 

[pokiehl]

@Eagle Pursuit You've been noting quite a bit of Steam db activity. Does this perhaps portend the patch coming sooner than later?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

@Eagle Pursuit You've been noting quite a bit of Steam db activity. Does this perhaps portend the patch coming sooner than later?

Nothing definitive yet.

 

[adrifranchise]

Nothing definitive yet.

Does the mac and linux build being sent to 2K suggest that they are in the finishing stages? or is it normal for aspyr to do that perhaps as a quality check?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Does the mac and linux build being sent to 2K suggest that they are in the finishing stages? or is it normal for aspyr to do that perhaps as a quality check?

It tends to mean they are close to being done. But 2K could always bounce it back to have a few more things fixed.

 

[Hogimus]

At some point during this year of development, I really think they should add trebuchets. As soon as crossbowmen show up catapults can be one-turn killed by a walled city with a crossbow.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

At some point during this year of development, I really think they should add trebuchets. As soon as crossbowmen show up catapults can be one-turn killed by a walled city with a crossbow.

I think siege should give a +10 or maybe higher ranged defence to make them hard to destroy without melee units. Another solution would be to give early siege a range of 3 to make them outrange ranged units.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Giving Siege units a range of 3 tiles would make conquering cities infinitely easy. There would be absolutely no risk to it. All you would need is a sentry (horseman) and a single catapult and you could conquer an entire neighbor with clever play. I think that would be strictly overpowered. OTOH giving Siege more combat strength against archers and city defense only makes sense. Personally I think Archers do too much damage to Catapults while Melees do too little currently.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Giving Siege units a range of 3 tiles would make conquering cities infinitely easy. There would be absolutely no risk to it. All you would need is a sentry (horseman) and a single catapult and you could conquer an entire neighbor with clever play. I think that would be strictly overpowered. OTOH giving Siege more combat strength against archers and city defense only makes sense. Personally I think Archers do too much damage to Catapults while Melees do too little currently.

That have alot more to do with the weakness in the ai than overpowered siege weapons, also late game they have siege weapons with range 3 or effectively more and also Aircrafts and the ai have huge issues with these.

Removing ranged attack from ancient walls and make medieval walls needed for it would also help with early game warfare.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

That have alot more to do with the weakness in the ai than overpowered siege weapons

Sure, that's true, but the AI won't be fixed soon so this is kind of a moot point. We have to balance the game around a broken AI, at least currently. have you used bombarbs with baloons? They're pretty much unstoppable for the AI.

Removing ranged attack from ancient walls and make medieval walls needed for it would also help with early game warfare.

That's a change I really like and agree with. Ancient walls are much too strong anyway, especially compared to medi.

 

[AntSou]

OTOH giving Siege more combat strength against archers and city defense only makes sense. Personally I think Archers do too much damage to Catapults while Melees do too little currently.

Defence Strength against archers, not offensive. I agree it's too easy to destroy Siege units. I'm still hoping they'll change Siege units and make them stack-able. It would considerably reduce the tactical considerations for the AI to handle. In regards to land warfare, that change alone could have considerable impact.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Defence Strength against archers, not offensive. I agree it's too easy to destroy Siege units. I'm still hoping they'll change Siege units and make them stack-able. It would considerably reduce the tactical considerations for the AI to handle. In regards to land warfare, that change alone could have considerable impact.

That's a great idea, I wonder why they didn't do that sooner. Should be a change that can be implemented in a matter of minutes. Currently, I think Siege is just a joke. All Catapults are useful for is diverting attention from your other units, ironically. From my experience the AI always focusses Siege and even with ancient walls your Catapults only take one hit before they have to retreat The only way I can shoot a walled city with a catapult is if I have a damaged Scout.. or a second Catapult.

 

[Hogimus]

I agree, melee units do too little damage and archers do too much. Maybe siege units should need to use a movement point to "set-up", and then get damage reduction from that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Defence Strength against archers, not offensive. I agree it's too easy to destroy Siege units. I'm still hoping they'll change Siege units and make them stack-able. It would considerably reduce the tactical considerations for the AI to handle. In regards to land warfare, that change alone could have considerable impact.

I agree, arrows aren't as effective at destroying wooden structures as running up and smashing them is.

 

[Josephias]

Defence Strength against archers, not offensive. I agree it's too easy to destroy Siege units. I'm still hoping they'll change Siege units and make them stack-able. It would considerably reduce the tactical considerations for the AI to handle. In regards to land warfare, that change alone could have considerable impact.

I agree as well, this would be great strategically: reduce greatly arrow & wall damage to siege units is a very logical and interesting step that would make them easier to use (now you nearly need to position two or three at the same time to get a shot). In exchange, make them vulnerable to melee attack, and you manage to increase the importance of ZOC for attack (and, in addition of higly mobile units for defense)

 

[AntSou]

(now you nearly need to position two or three at the same time to get a shot)

This. And you need to set them up first, meaning you move into range of a city, can no longer use them that turn (unless you've 3+ movement), and next turn you'll be down to two because they fall like flies. How is the AI supposed to handle all this?

 

[Zaarin]

I agree, arrows aren't as effective at destroying wooden structures as running up and smashing them is.

Pitch-coated incendiary arrows beg to differ.

 

[tedhebert]

Sometimes I wonder if siege units should't be support units, and attacks on it would have to target a military unit sharing the same hex.

 

[UWHabs]

Sometimes I wonder if siege units should't be support units, and attacks on it would have to target a military unit sharing the same hex.

I think that would break other parts of the game, basically that support units cannot directly attack. Although I would agree, I think it would logically make more sense.

Another option they could do would be to give siege units a much smaller melee defense, and a higher ranged defense. So if in the ancient era, if it was set up so that a swordsman or a horseman can practically one-shot a catapult, but that an archer or city-attack would only give minor damage to them, that might balance them more. I mean, even a scout getting in close on a catapult can do an awful lot of damage to cripple it, and while it wouldn't be able to stack with other units in that case, it would still have a similar effect where they're really easy to take down by an opposing unit.