Fall 2017 Update Info

[Archon_Wing]

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.

Oh, but only the apostles that take that promotion do that though.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Oh, but only the apostles that take that promotion do that though.

It's kinda funny that an apostle can only be martyred by a rival religion. Run afoul of a barbarian = not a martyr. Trampled by infidel armies = not a martyr.

 

[Kyro]

@Archon_Wing

Are you serious about Religious Units not actually dying in "religious combat"? Because they totally do you know, from all empirical evidence and functional purposes. The term "destroyed" is used in a manner consistent with how it is used in the game for military units as well.

I think the more important question is, why defend the absurdity that is theological combat in the game? Do you really not want to see it changed to be in line with what a religious victory should be about?

 

[Ivan Hunger]

The fact that Apostles can actually get Martyred by theological combat proves that they are actually killed and not just "defeated".

Does it? Religious figures who died in prison are often also considered to be martyrs, even though they weren't killed violently.

I mean, if you're going to make that argument, then you have to start thinking about the mortality of individual units in civ games, and that way lies madness. Does a builder die when he magically turns into a farm? Why do your great people and spies never die of old age? How do your scouts, who are all the way on the other side of the earth, manage to stay alive with no supply chain to feed them? The answer is always "don't think about it".

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Does it? Religious figures who died in prison are often also considered to be martyrs, even though they weren't killed violently.

I mean, if you're going to make that argument, then you have to start thinking about the mortality of individual units in civ games, and that way lies madness. Does a builder die when he magically turns into a farm? Why do your great people and spies never die of old age? How do your scouts, who are all the way on the other side of the earth, manage to stay alive with no supply chain to feed them? The answer is always "don't think about it".

Why can I send a boat up to the North Pole, and after letting it sit there "on alert" for 2000 years expecting the crew to listen to what I have to say?

 

[Scaramanga]

Honestly, theological combat isn't really going to touch on the issues of religion, rather it is how religion interacts with the game at large.

Kind of like how a tank interacts with the game at large by blowing stuff up?

It's kinda funny that an apostle can only be martyred by a rival religion. Run afoul of a barbarian = not a martyr. Trampled by infidel armies = not a martyr.

Yes, like a famous martyr did when he was killed by angry Judaic inquisitors. That guy produced a TON of relics.

 

[Cerilis]

It's kinda funny that an apostle can only be martyred by a rival religion. Run afoul of a barbarian = not a martyr. Trampled by infidel armies = not a martyr.

Tbf, that was kinda a gameplay decision, I guess. Mass producing martyr apostels + sending them off to die to barbarians = easy relics = profit!

 

[Chocolate Pi]

Game dev (programmer) here, reading game news while home sick and had to chime in...


In my experience, most fields use "dev" and "programmer" synonomously. None of my friends in other industries would call a PM a dev.

However, the game industry has a distinctly different lingo. Everyone on the core team creating the game full time is a referred to as a game developer--I've never heard of a single studio where this isn't true. The industry trade show is called the Game Developer's Conference, and programmers tend to only make up ~15% of attendance.

Some companies include QA in their definition, others do not. (Though since 90% of talk here seems to be about bugs, sounds to me like a QA lead is exactly who you guys want to hear from.) Some companies include marketing and studio executives in their definition, others do not. (Keep in mind that over half the budget of a modern AAA game is marketing! (And much more for mobile games!) Speaking of the game as a holistic product rather than a lump of assets, marketing is responsible for more than half of the product.)

The ESA defines "Developers" as anyone contributing to the development (creation) of the product, period. This is over 80% of the industry; the rest is distribution, publishing, hardware, and external tools.


Related note: "Producers" in the games industry tend to work a bit differently than PMs elsewhere. PMs I often hear spoken of as this sort of adversarial bad guy: the bridge to the client or management that the guys on the ground have to constantly fight. That's... nothing like Producers in my industry. Like man, a good Producer is your best friend ever. Producers in games should really be called "Coordinators" or such; they exist to absorb the burden of synchronizing the diverse assets that are mixed into game creation (code, 2D art, 3D models, animations, music, sfx, vfx, netcode, bug tickets...) so that those individuals can focus on cranking stuff out. Game dev is such a mess, that without Producers no one could get anything done. You'd spend an hour making an animation, only to redo it from scratch because the model got re-rigged and then spend your entire afternoon yelling at an engineer because the animation importer broke. Everything falls apart when there's no glue.

I know this because my current project has no full-time Producer, and we all feel the pain. I'm spending at least 15 hours a week coordinating people's work, and there are still major efficiency losses that a skilled Producer with more time could mitigate. (Never mind how much more I could get done if I could code uninterrupted!)

A programmer isn't going to be able to tell you which bugs were fixed unless he happens to be the exact person who fixed that bug him/herself. He's not gonna know what art has changed, and she's not gonna have the best intel on balance changes. And if a random programmer does know all of these things, that's a strong symptom that their job is hell and the team is poorly managed.

Producers often get seen from the outside as a middle-manager, someone who is a "boss" yet has no influence on the creative development on the game. Both are false. Your typical Producer is in the trenches with everyone else, and often exerts more influence on the creative direction of the game (or a major set of its features) because they have by far the most information.


Anyway, hope someone found that interesting. Now I'll go back to happily waiting for the upcoming update, where the AI will have to buy expensive specialized religious units instead of 30 missionaries.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Kind of like how a tank interacts with the game at large by blowing stuff up?

/shrugs. Comparing a single purpose unit to a game mechanic isn't really providing anything of substance, much less worthy of a semi-witty rhetorical question.

Are you serious about Religious Units not actually dying in "religious combat"? Because they totally do you know, from all empirical evidence and functional purposes.

Are you serious about this when empirical evidence suggests debates generally don't kill people and humans don't shoot lightning?

I thought they made it so over the top that it wouldn't be taken seriously. I am wrong.

Furthermore, you suggested the martyr promotion is proof when that means not all apostles are trained to that level of fanactism.

Edit: To explain this better, you control units, not individuals. That warrior guarding my campus is not a 1200 year old clubman but more likely from a pround lineage of them. I mean I can upgrade him to an infantry and they know how to use a rifle immediately. If he had promotions, he would even be better than a fresh infantry! And he only takes 10 damage from being shot in the head by an outdated bombard.

When units "die", it does not necessarily mean they have all been destroyed. They may be routed or captured to the point they cease to function as a unit. Many armies did not fight to annihilation but rather surrendered.

Likewise religous units may simply by ousted and ended as dead as a group.

That doesn't mean there are no deaths, of course, violent things happen because humans are often so, but it is still not meant to be taken literally. Also, it is just a game; chill

 

[Tech Osen]

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.

Some guys in the Middle East are very much convinced that killing people will give them a religious victory.

Moderator Action: Please stick to the game issues. This is inappropriate for our forums. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[qadams]

Religion might be interesting if:

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.

Ooh, I love these ideas! That would be so much better than the current religion mechanics. Any chance some smart modder might try to make this happen? Or would it require more access to coding than is currently available?

 

[Victoria]

Very Enlightening @Chocolate Pi Producers do indeed sound like PM's in theory but angels in practice.
I stand corrected.
... still no excuse for people to abuse others in this thread. I thought this forum stopped such things

 

[Stilgar08]

I can't speak for the others but personally, the last patch removed some of the faith I had in the developers. The lack of communication and the bugs introduced in the last patch really turned me off.

Oh, I hear you, brother. I wrote a rant after the summer "patch" which broke so much more than it repaired and I usually never do that.
Nevertheless the spring patch (which was a really good one IMO) and many guys who play now and didn't play the spring patch definitely show that vast improvements can and have been made! Not enough? Absolutely! Combat AI still is a joke, for instance. But I just hope this one is at least as good as the spring patch. In that case we would be cool. I have a feeling it will be the last "major" overhaul until the first expansion so I really hope they keep that in mind and test thoroughly. Maybe the difference between us is just that I haven't lost as much faith as you, although I did...

Concerning the number of bugs smashed and balance imrovements I'll wait for the real notes, thank you. Will it be enough? Of course not, but I have hopes they will adress the major issues like trade. If they can...
It would be stupid marketing-wise to state that they will finally fix the sh$%& they did with the summer patch...

 

[Wingednosering]

Popping back in to share my two cents.

I'm pretty sure the whole 'imbalanced deal' thing happens when the AI tries to renew an expired deal that no longer works for them. Just changing the text to convey that would do a world of good. Fingers crossed for this patch.

Above all else, I hope they fix the damage done with the last patch. I bought Nubia as my first DLC to show support for more obscure, non-european, new-to-the-series civs and immediately regretted it because the patch was so unpleasant. Hoping I can start playing again after this update.

Religion:

I thought from the beginning that more types of religious units would help if they were really insistent on having another micro-heavy victory. It will be interestig to see if these changes work. If nothing else, we'll have a way to properly counter the apostle/missionary carpets. I'm really hoping warrior monks and gurus are widely available and NOT belief locked.

Getting new beliefs is great. This probably means either larger civ counts per map or extra benefits for Indo/Khmer.

Navy:

Not convinced the AI will significantly improve, but I admit to having my hopes up a bit. Naval combat is far easier to code than land combat, so it should be very possible for it to eclipse land combat in terms of effectiveness.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Perhaps the best solution would be that you have to declare a religious war, just like a military one. Without the declaration, the Missionaries and Apostles cannot enter your lands without an open border agreement?

That's exactly opposite to the religion game goal. It's designed to provide action for players during peace.

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.

Exactly the same problem. Passive religion spread requires zero actions from player, it's not a real game system.

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's interesting ideas, but the problem is - the current trade route and spy systems are abit boring, because they don't require real strategy or tactics. Using such mechanics for religion could be even worse, because trade routes and spies have clear targets - you may get a lot from long trade route, but need to protect it. And stealing great work of art or sabotaging production in spaceport city could be a game changer. Religion don't have such targets.

To clarify, I don't like religious combat, because:

1. It's immersion breaker.

2. If religion combat role is to provide tactical experience during peace times, choice of quite optional system for this, is not the best choice. There could be long peaceful periods for players without religion too.

But I understand the upgrade. If developers want to give tactical experience for peaceful times, making it more tactical with ZOC, flanking and support units is a logical step.

 

[darkace77450]

Here are my feelings on the patch notes. If the AI improvements to naval combat are similar to those they made with air combat then that's not good enough. New religious beliefs and pantheons are welcome. New religious units are a step in the wrong direction. Religious combat is just combat by another name and slightly different rules. We already have one combat victory, we don't need two.

Don't get me wrong, I love that there's a Religious Victory in the game, I just don't find it very interesting. Worse than that, with all the religious unit spam clogging up my territory, I find it tedious. I thought religious spread in Civ5 worked very well. I think they would have been much better off polishing that system and adding a victory condition. Instead they copies and pasted combat and slathered it with a new coat of paint and called it a day.

They will have to slowly filter between your Inqs and you can pick them off. Sure, you have to be proactive in defense, but it sounds feasible.

It does sound feasible, but does it sound fun?

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.

You worry about their feelings, the rest of us will worry about their commitment to making this game as good as it's supposed to be.

I would like to hear from a current dev regarding upcoming updates, not a marketer.

We only hear from marketers, and only when they've got new DLC they want to sell us. With this game in such a sorry state with so many glaring issues that have persisted since it launched last year, the last person I want to hear from is someone from the marketing department. Firaxis, what's left of your goodwill is burning in a raging inferno and you're trying to sell me pack of marshmallows. It's time to set the marshmallows aside for now, roll up your sleeves, and fight the fire with everything you've got before nothing remains of that good will but ash.

 

[dagriggstar]

I feel like the majority of the time I found a religion, I actively try to keep it to my cities only (Sometimes, one city only). If you think of spreading your religion as a trade, in a lot of cases you actually lose the trade. The only beliefs you really want to spread to other civs are things like Church Property, Pilgrimage, Tithe, World Church and Crusade. But the benefit to spread it for you (the origin civ) is generally less than the benefit for the destination civ. Maybe that will change with the new beliefs....but it seems like their focus is on the how religion spreads aspect, not the why.....

I would prefer just having passive spread. Split the founder beliefs up so you have a group of benefits to the founder (Church Property, Papal Primacy, Pilgrimage, Tithe, World Church, Crusade, Defender of the faith) and a group focused on how your religion will spread (Itinerant Preachers and Scripture. Then things like spreads along trade routes faster, spreads to city states at double rate, spread on city capture, spreads faster to a civ that doesn't have a majority religion, automatically spreads to any new cities you found etc). The idea being that you can control it a little bit, but not completely.

 

[God of Kings]

I would prefer just having passive spread. Split the founder beliefs up so you have a group of benefits to the founder (Church Property, Papal Primacy, Pilgrimage, Tithe, World Church, Crusade, Defender of the faith) and a group focused on how your religion will spread (Itinerant Preachers and Scripture. Then things like spreads along trade routes faster, spreads to city states at double rate, spread on city capture, spreads faster to a civ that doesn't have a majority religion, automatically spreads to any new cities you found etc). The idea being that you can control it a little bit, but not completely.

For spread on city capture, it should not fully convert a city to your religion (unless you're playing as Spain or Poland).

 

[Victoria]

Passive religion spread requires zero actions from player

I disagree, in V where passive spread was stronger and religious units lost strength in enemy territory the conflict took place at 3rd party cities that would make the difference with spread. You can still sort of play it at lower levels with the increased spread strength with printing belief.
To me if feels more like proper religion, you did not blunder into capitals but chipped away at outer cities. You did not sit back and do nothing, you had to look out for the opposition, build strategic cities for spread.
I rather enjoyed it.
I spent a lot of time looking at it in Dec/Jan and the spread is quite weak but does work, it's just that is fairly pointless with all the units charging around being able to blunder into a capital a magically cleanse it of alll. Yerevan is stupidly OP and should have it's suze changed.

 

[King William I]

Now that I think of it, losing health in lands without open borders would probably 'fix' the whole thing