Fall Patch changes discussion thread

Im playing a game now as inca and spain wants to be my freind so ofcourse i agree to work together. Then on the very next turn they denounce me???? I didnt do anything? Any reason why?

 

We'll they attacked me, took a city and razed it. I was warned about settling too close to them. Then a DoF and the came the denunciation the next turn. Idk about any wonders. I don't remember lol. I can say that the game was rather boring up until that point.

 

I think sometimes the AI does this because it's a bit masochistic and likes wearing the backstabber label for no reason at all. My guess is that this is part of the AI deception code that's gone wrong, probably they want to lure you to remove your units from their borders by signing the DoF and then backstab you and catch you unguarded (which is not a bad move), but obviously, with only 1 turn in between, this will have no effect.

 

It's good to see Germany and Japan getting a change. Wish America had more than that Minutemen bonus but it's still better than nothing.

 

Can Samurai build fishing boats if the city is not on the coast? If so, they're a little more useful.

 

Fishing boats can improve any sea resource, regardless of whether the city is on the coast or not. Usually the only problem in that instance would be getting a boat to the resource in the first place (eg. from another coastal city that has access).

So yes, Samurai can improve on a sea resource in those circumstance.

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned here, but I justed wanted to say that they really need to make it so that the AI spends their huge amounts of gold to stop you from getting a DV instead of watching carelessly.

 

Then that would go against all those that want a nice non-competitive, peaceful game that they can win.

Really, been saying that for couple of years now and it's not just DV. The AI, even at higher levels, just cannot win consistently win in under 300 turns since BNW, esp. DV which should be easy (at least pre-patch). Most good players can win between turns 225-275. If the AI can use their abundant resources just a little bit better (gold, techs, production, food, luxuries, etc.), then it would be more of a competitive game, esp. late game where turns 200+ would fall in.

 

Apologies if this is late to the punch, but it seems that the AI is now fine with trading a luxury resource for 7 gpt now. Could be a lucky shot, but if this is changed, maybe Netherlands got a tiny nudge in the right direction.

I'm loving the new patch.

 

I strongly disagree with you on this. AI should certainly NOT hand you a victory type over on a platter, no matter what victory type it is. However, that is how DV is, even now with the increased vote count. I won a DV the other day (on Emperor, where AI should play like it can) with 40 votes out of the 40 needed. I got these votes by being ally of every single city state - in spite of only having something like 5-10 influence more than Egypt and Persia with several of them AND in spite of them having 5000+ gold in the bank each. That's just silly.

I've said it before, if you are about to win a DV and if AI has money in the bank, it MUST try to buy you out from city states in order to prevent your win. If this needs that votes needed to win is cut back slightly to account for the difficulty increase, that's fine. But winning a "diplomatic" (economic) victory SHOULD mean that you've bested the AI in this area, NOT that the AI completely failed to take action to prevent you from doing it!

 

I'm disappointed by the patch notes except for the changes to the AI.

Nothing has changed about OP composite bowmen. They make early warfare extremely dull and boring. In BNW, I never build horsemen or longswordmen. Catapults are glass cannons etc. Unit balancing is just bad and lopsided towards the archer line.

Most changes are based on a very good idea but don't have any noticable effect on the game. For example, it takes a considerable effort to achieve familiar status over another civ and what do you get? 1 science per trade route with that civ? Compared to my 500-1000 beakers per turn? Wow, that's useful.
25% improved city raids is decent for warmongers but realistically, familiar status comes way too late unless you are lucky and get a strong religion with sacred sites.

The balance between tall and wide empires is exactly the same. Tradition is still OP and easy-mode. There's no incentive to build more than 4-6 cities which is a damn shame because I'm playing civ here, not town simulator 2.0.

Rationalism still feels like a must-have while Honor remains underpowered.

I don't know. I expected something that renews my interest in playing CIV5, similar to the last big fall patches. But now, this patch only scratches the surface and doesn't really change the gameplay, doesn't give me alternatives or new strategies.

 

I've actually come to like Chariot Archers somewhat in this last expansion. Take a look at the numbers:

6 Melee Strength versus 7 for the bowman
10 Ranged Strength versus 11 for the bowman
4 Speed versus 2 for the bowman
56 Cost versus 75 for the bowman

Sure, they require horses, but those aren't that uncommon. Chariots are cheaper, so you can have more, faster, so they're where you need them to be, and they come earlier in the tech tree. Might be interesting for an alternative strategy.

 

No it wouldn't.. not if the AI bonuses are adjusted.

The issue is not that the AI lets you get a Diplo Victory. The issue is that it lets you get a Diplo Victory when it Could stop you.

Even for people that want a 'non-competitive game', (as I do sometimes) an AI that has stacks of 20,000 gold and +1000 gpt while not spending it on things that are useful is excessively weird and immersion breaking.

Instead
1. make AIs actually spend their gold on useful things (CS allies get Much more useful as the UN starts... but also buildings and units are useful)
2. give AIs less gold at different difficulty levels to rebalance it (Deity probably doesn't need adjusting....it can be actual Deity level... but levels Emperor and below should decrease AI bonuses)

That should be the general rule for the Civilization AIs, (as opposed to the CS AIs)
1. Try to make them smarter*
2. adjust their bonuses to make up for their remaining stupidities (to get the proper level of competition)

Remaining adjustments
*If it seems like making the AIs smarter forces them into only one or two predictable overall strategies, change the game mechanics first so there is a greater variety of smart strategies.

If you want players to get some type of "diplomatic benefit" for doing things, work it through the CS or the World congress (ie if Civs got smart and started paying for luxuries based on need... then start allowing the selling of luxuries to CS) [CS could only take one source and not count resources they actually had, and only pay gpt]

 

I agree with KrikkitTwo, particularly, in the case of city states, as discussed in the other thread someone just made (why did Catherine let me win ...) having City State allies is beneficial for just about any victory condition. It should be possible to make it so that civs that go for domination will specifically target militaristic city states (and secondarily mercantile for the happiness), civs that go for culture win will specifically target cultural city states, civs with a religion should target religious city states, while civs that go for diplomatic victory should target any city state based on proximity and attitude.

This should be fairly easily codable (check for current victory condition, increase flavor of CS alliance with selected city states), would offer a good variation so as game not being too predictable, and would actually give an air of sensibility about how AI behaves.

 

The best thing about them is that if you're sieging a distant city, they can quickly retreat to your territory to heal, so if you have about 5-6 of them you don't have to worry about your siege failing.

 

Nope, I've seen it too - 7 gp/t +24 gp for luxury resource. 1 gp/t + 24 gp seems to be the new standard for research agreements.

 

kaspergm and KrikkitTwo, I'm sorry I wasn't clear as both of you are echoing the same thing I have said for a while now. The AI should not sit back and try not to use its resources to beat you. Not only gold for allies (only Greece seems to have learned to do this), but sitting back and watching you build spaceship parts under their noses; amassing a large force on your borders or off your coast and not attacking you; being content just to play nice with you by being an ATM and thinking trading is the most important factor in the game; or thinking their over-emphasis on religion and piety would lead to them to the mythical Religious Victory. If they just play a little smarter in each of these, then good players would have to play better to beat them or ideally, having to drop down a level or two.

But the basis for my comment was that there are some that do not want any of those changes and get annoyed when the AI plays to win.

 

For those complaining that samurai making fishing boats is completely useless. I don't think this ability was created with your own cities in mind. I think they are intended to be used on puppet cities that your samurai have taken over. Or non-coastal cities that can't actually make fishing boats but have sea resources in reach.

When you think about these situations, the ability is actually very useful. Do you want to unpuppet a city just to make fishing boats? Probably not. Do you want to be forced to build every single city on the coast? Not always. It's a versatile ability that may have been well thought out.

 

Except that the last thing you would want to do is to let puppets grow (hence, why we send workers to remove all farms and replace them with trading posts) - unless that has all changed.