Fall 2017 Update Info

[agonistes]

Its possible that they are trying to make another VC as quick n' easy as dom.

If I ever see this: "10% of the production of any foreign city following your religion is converted to faith and added to your capital each turn" as a pantheon, I will view that possibility as confirmed.

I guess you could just make it a basic rule that you get the faith of any holy site, and its buildings, of any city following your religion.

 

[Ryika]

I sympathize. I am an advocate for passive religious spread. I've posted a number of times about it. Clearly the devs are not moving in that direction. I suspect some of them are scratching their heads about why more players are not enjoying the religion game. So they've expanded on it. Probably trying to make religion more attractive both in-game and meta-game. They want people to try it. They probably feel it adds layers to the game. I'll try it out.

I just don't understand why they feel that religion must be another version of unit combat. Unit Combat already exists, why have another version with less tactical abilities? Just adding some extra tactics with a new unit still doesn't push it to the same level as actual combat.

I would much prefer most of the religious spread to be passive, with some ability to exert control to where it spreads towards, instead of having to move even more units around every turn.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm just not sure if not talking about what the hardcores want to hear about is a better way to go.

Fluff first, then substance. It's how it always goes. I've made my peace with it. Ask the marketing type people for the reasoning behind it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It honestly surprises me that people want more passive religious spread when the culture victory is already complained to be "just clicking end of turn". So, the religious victory should be the same?

The complaint about "just clicking to end of turn" is more of an issue of tedium, where a already won situation is dragged out because it takes so long for tourism to take effect. This also wouldn't be the case if one had to concern themselves with staying alive.

Not to mention the religious game is the polar opposite, requiring the most clicks and trivial input even when the conclusion is forgone. But the effect is really the same. It does not help that late game is also plagued by pointless input spam (constant reassignment of spies and trade routes, and the 3617th denunciation for winning.).

They're completely different issues.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm just not sure if not talking about what the hardcores want to hear about is a better way to go.

I'm sure there will be more when the video or whatever comes out. This is the first Star Wars teaser trailer where you don't see anything but the logo on the screen.

 

[WorldWarIV]

Fluff first, then substance. It's how it always goes. I've made my peace with it. Ask the marketing type people for the reasoning behind it.

It is? It's honestly the first advertisement of this type I've seen. Usually I only watch the First looks and read the patch notes. That's why I think they should have tried to boost the moral of the troops with that one, I'm not sure many casuals will see it.

 

[Art Morte]

As for the religious changes in the patch, they sound fairly good. But completely irrelevant. There are other much bigger problems that should be fixed first: in actual bugs, in awful balancing and in AI. I know that these are not the full patch note, but developer time is limited and expensive. The fact they are focussing (and they probably are, considering they've made a rare press release about it) on playing around with religion is worrying.

Exactly. I don't know who would look at the game as it currently is and think "hmm, the way to improve this is to make changes to the religious game".

Seeing religious units smite down each other looks kind of ridiculous. The whole religious system feels kind of superficial and weird. And they want to add more of that? I just can't get excited about that.

Agreed. I don't think religious combat should exist in the game. It feels indeed superficial, simplified and not very realistic. And extremely repetitive with the same units from start to finish. Now, only passive religious spread could be too boring and too similar to culture / tourism, but religious combat - the way it is in the game - isn't the right solution either, if you ask me.

Maybe religious units could work the same way spies do. Place them in cities for a few different missions to gain passive spread from that city, or something like that. But any changes or additions to religious combat won't get me excited about it.

 

[bbbt]

I'm sure they've done something for the diplomacy and trade issues, thought I doubt it's anything more comprehensive than tweaking some of their numbers - and hopefully not causing more unintended consequences. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised though.

I do find this whole announcement a bit odd, in the sense that it's sort of out of the blue, and seems to be a significant time ahead of the actual patch release. I'm assuming it's a new PR push to raise excitement/awareness (and so tons of people aren't just posting, "whats this warrior monk and where did it come from". Hopefully it's not an attempt to soften the blow of what's actually in the patch (i.e. so we are like "oh wow, they did more for diplomacy/AI than we expected" instead of "wait, they made all these religion changes but didn't touch XYZ").

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm sure they've done something for the diplomacy and trade issues, thought I doubt it's anything more comprehensive than tweaking some of their numbers - and hopefully not causing more unintended consequences. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised though.

I do find this whole announcement a bit odd, in the sense that it's sort of out of the blue, and seems to be a significant time ahead of the actual patch release. I'm assuming it's a new PR push to raise excitement/awareness (and so tons of people aren't just posting, "whats this warrior monk and where did it come from". Hopefully it's not an attempt to soften the blow of what's actually in the patch (i.e. so we are like "oh wow, they did more for diplomacy/AI than we expected" instead of "wait, they made all these religion changes but didn't touch XYZ").

Maybe just the product of a new person running the "press releases" or whatever you'd call them.

 

[UWHabs]

Religion might be interesting if:

Spoiler :

1) Increase the passive religious spread somewhat and have a UI that actually explains anything about how it works. Cities with HS and buildings give larger pressure, so does the Holy City. Pressure decays with distance
2) Open borders double religious pressure between civs.
3) Missionaries act a bit like trade routes, but triple the religious spread between the two cities.
4) Apostles work a bit like spies, cause the target city to receive triple religious pressure (stacks with missionary).
5) Inquisitors act like counter spies. Can either passively be stationed in a friendly city and cuts incoming religious pressure by 3/4; or can hunt down apostles and kill them.

That way you need all 3 religious units at the same time and need to think about city/HS placement (playing the map and all) in order to maximise the number of missionaries/apostles that can be working to convert a target city at the same time.

But none of this matter. Religious victory isn't great, but it really isn't that much of a game killer. The game has actually completely broken stuff in it which are, once again: AI, UI and diplomacy/trade.

Do we know for certain, based on this announcement, that the devs are focussing on religion rather than those issues? No, we do not. Will the named changes be the only thing changed in the patch? Highly unlikely. But, considering that was the focus of the only piece of information we have from them about the patch; it is entirely asinine to think that this patch will focus on the parts of the game that are actually broken rather than just inconvenient. Thinking otherwise is just a textbook example of cognitive dissonance - interpreting the available evidence to fit your desired opinion/desires rather than taking the interpretation which is vastly more probable.

I like your religious ideas there. Would be great ways to get the religious units off the map, but still maintain an active religious presence. And you essentially "reuse" multiple other mechanisms (like trade routes or spies) to handle the "combat".

But, they did mention at least 2 of the 3 broken items that you listed, in fixing up the AI and the UI. And the trade system is mostly "broken" by what they did in the last patch, so in the past they have been good about fixing past bugs (and introducing new ones...). So hopefully this patch will hit up most or all of those points.

 

[Victoria]

Indeed, I can only hope they make ceded cities of some value beyond a points victory

 

[Cerilis]

Religion might be interesting if:

Spoiler :

1) Increase the passive religious spread somewhat and have a UI that actually explains anything about how it works. Cities with HS and buildings give larger pressure, so does the Holy City. Pressure decays with distance
2) Open borders double religious pressure between civs.
3) Missionaries act a bit like trade routes, but triple the religious spread between the two cities.
4) Apostles work a bit like spies, cause the target city to receive triple religious pressure (stacks with missionary).
5) Inquisitors act like counter spies. Can either passively be stationed in a friendly city and cuts incoming religious pressure by 3/4; or can hunt down apostles and kill them.

That way you need all 3 religious units at the same time and need to think about city/HS placement (playing the map and all) in order to maximise the number of missionaries/apostles that can be working to convert a target city at the same time.

But none of this matter. Religious victory isn't great, but it really isn't that much of a game killer. The game has actually completely broken stuff in it which are, once again: AI, UI and diplomacy/trade.

Do we know for certain, based on this announcement, that the devs are focussing on religion rather than those issues? No, we do not. Will the named changes be the only thing changed in the patch? Highly unlikely. But, considering that was the focus of the only piece of information we have from them about the patch; it is entirely asinine to think that this patch will focus on the parts of the game that are actually broken rather than just inconvenient. Thinking otherwise is just a textbook example of cognitive dissonance - interpreting the available evidence to fit your desired opinion/desires rather than taking the interpretation which is vastly more probable.

Now, that are some ideas one can work with. Though I would still try to find a way that doesnt copy from other systems.

 

[Softly]

I've come up with an interesting idea for an overhaul of religious spread. Don't want to derail this thread so just posting the link here. Let me know what you guys think.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...d-pro-active-passive-religious-spread.623255/

 

[Cerilis]

Maybe we should also wait how the new additions play out for now. If the Guru, for example, is a support unit and thus on a different layer it could help reduce the clutter in the first place (by being support and taking away faith for buying more missionaries). It is not mentioned in this announcement blurp, but it could very well also include increased costs for religious units, or making the missionary less effective when converting cities that already have a major religion, or something.

 

[cazaderonus]

Yeah i m right there with people being unenthusiastic about this update focusing on religions. The main reason being that in the hundreds of hours i played civi, i think i founded a religion maybe twice. So yeah i dont give a rat s ass about this.

Same goes with the naval combat part. Hello, ais suck at land combat and i m willing to bet that i wont fear their navy even post patch. It s even easier to outplay the ai at sea than it is on land.

I hope they follow up with some serious info on the first DLC otherwise civi is gonna a short lifespan on my computer s hard drive.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Theological combat is merely an abstraction, much like shooting arrows at a stone wall shouldn't destroy it, or archers outranging tanks. If you think about what a tile really is, that is some sick arm strength. So likewise, religous debates are just really intense, and they can be.

And the trade system is mostly "broken" by what they did in the last patch,

Is it really that broken? Yes the bugs involving undervaluing great works and presentations of invalid deals are annoyances, but it seens to work otherwise.

 

[Cerilis]

Theological combat is merely an abstraction, much like shooting arrows at a stone wall shouldn't destroy it, or archers outranging tanks. If you think about what a tile really is, that is some sick arm strength. So likewise, religous debates are just really intense, and they can be.



Is it really that broken? Yes the bugs involving undervaluing great works and presentations of invalid deals are annoyances, but it seens to work otherwise.

I rather like the comical idea of "whoever loses this religious debate shall be struck down by lightning."

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I rather like the comical idea of "whoever loses this religious debate gets struck down by lightning."

I like to think of the lightning strikes as sick burns.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The only unrealistic part is someone actually losing. Nobody actually admits they are wrong.

 

[Kyro]

Theological combat is merely an abstraction, much like shooting arrows at a stone wall shouldn't destroy it, or archers outranging tanks. If you think about what a tile really is, that is some sick arm strength. So likewise, religous debates are just really intense, and they can be.



Is it really that broken? Yes the bugs involving undervaluing great works and presentations of invalid deals are annoyances, but it seens to work otherwise.

The fact that Apostles can actually get Martyred by theological combat proves that they are actually killed and not just "defeated". It's more literal than abstract. Religious units are quite literally mass murders and their religion spreads when they kill somebody. Let's not try to downplay how badly the developers portrayed religious interactions in this game and say it plainly for what it is; something entirely not what religion is about.