Fall patch discussion thread

[Wr4ith]

I see devs also balanced tile bonuses when founding city on luxury... Just found city on spices and I am very disappointed it gives me only +1 food

Also could not load any auto save from the game I just started after dl the patch... Older game loaded normally. Does anyone have same problems with saves?

 

[MyOtherName]

What gets me is the amount of people actually complaining they can't sell their soldiers any more. What's the matter? You produce soldiers to kill stuff and you delete them to get rid of their [maintenance] cost. You use district projects to convert production into gold. It's such an absolute non issue.

It's a game mechanic that had some potential to make the game more interesting, and in particular to relieve some of the very early game problems that tend to be the norm for games like Civ.

It's a shame to see the mechanic simply eliminated, but with so many other problems I imagine the devs don't have time to think it through so it was probably right to remove it, but I hope it gets reintroduced in the future.

 

[bdemz]

Still no HOF!?!?!?!

 

[Gorbles]

It's a game mechanic that had some potential to make the game more interesting, and in particular to relieve some of the very early game problems that tend to be the norm for games like Civ.

It's a shame to see the mechanic simply eliminated, but with so many other problems I imagine the devs don't have time to think it through so it was probably right to remove it, but I hope it gets reintroduced in the future.

Making every combat engagement have a percentage chance to spawn any unit you possess the build requirements for, for free, would make the game more "interesting". It would also completely break the game.

Just because something could be considered interesting, doesn't mean that it's a benefit for the game as a whole. Getting money back for a unit that you've already gained a material benefit from is a very quick and easy way to completely break the game economy. As some people had already discovered.

There are already systems in place that make the early-game economy far easier to manage. Warriors being free of upkeep is only one of those things, and there are more. The game is new, I think people seriously need to analyse their own perceptions of the game and how they handle winning and losing at it. It's a band-aid solution to perhaps something else that might be going wrong in the early-game? But as you haven't defined what those problems are, it's pretty hard to guess.

 

[Victoria]

I must say jolly good show, one will not please all the punters but its a punt the right way up the river for me.

 

[Lewi11]

You should try my mod, fixes the top 2 issues in your list.

Do you know if your mod still runs fine after this patch?

 

[MyOtherName]

Making every combat engagement have a percentage chance to spawn any unit you possess the build requirements for, for free, would make the game more "interesting". It would also completely break the game.

Would it? My first instinct is that it would very much not make the game more interesting.

Just because something could be considered interesting, doesn't mean that it's a benefit for the game as a whole. Getting money back for a unit that you've already gained a material benefit from is a very quick and easy way to completely break the game economy. As some people had already discovered.

Which is why, just like any other mechanic, it needs to be thought through and balanced.

The game is new,

... which means we have little experience with how unit selling would affect the game if there wasn't an exploit. Especially since the feature was obscure and (AFAIK) most people only learned about it concurrently with the exploit.

I think people seriously need to analyse their own perceptions of the game and how they handle winning and losing at it.

Um... okay? I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

But as you haven't defined what those problems are, it's pretty hard to guess.

The part I was most excited about in regards to unit selling was the potential to lessen the pressure to avoid exploration (and to avoid military if you aren't going for the early rush) in favor of maximally exploiting early development and expansion.

 

[MadDjinn]

Why restrict when a unit can be deleted, if deletion no longer provides gold? Makes me think that the first item was a hack fix before they implemented the second fix.

Maybe to prevent players from avoiding war-weariness penalties incurred by suicide-charging units into the enemy and then deleting them rather than losing them on a subsequent turn? Or to avoid upkeep costs? Or both? Just speculating.

this, and also for other circumstances where 'deleting' the unit prevents negative consequences for your actions. Effectively, being able to delete (and then also gain gold) units at any point leads players to 'game' the game and prevent the repercussions of their chosen actions. Now, not so much.

It's disappointing, but unsurprising, they took the nuclear option to nerfing horse selling. I hope they test putting unit selling back in after rethinking how it should work. Also, I would have preferred it if they left the production card unchanged, to give the playerbase a chance to gauge its balance.

The player base found did guage its balance and it was bad gameplay wise. It should never have been in the game in the first place. Unit creation is not a production->gold cycle that needs to exist.

Would it? My first instinct is that it would very much not make the game more interesting.

The part I was most excited about in regards to unit selling was the potential to lessen the pressure to avoid exploration (and to avoid military if you aren't going for the early rush) in favor of maximally exploiting early development and expansion.

So, what you're saying is that you don't want to use units created for their purpose, but rather wanted some cheap producible item that you can sell for gold and convert that to rush buying buildings? That's exactly the problem with selling units for gold.

 

[HF22]

So the improvement to AI guarding settlers seems to work at least

Also have the resource icons been improved? They look clearer to me now.

 

[MyOtherName]

The player base found did guage its balance and it was bad gameplay wise. It should never have been in the game in the first place.

As far as I saw, nobody complained about the card until the selling exploit was discovered. It looks much more like the initial impression of the player base is that giving horses a stronger production card was fine than it looks like it's bad gameplay wise and never should have been in the game in the first place.

Even afterwards, the complaints I saw that weren't about the exploit were basically "The horse card is different than the melee card." rather than an evaluation of how it impacts the game.

Unit creation is not a production->gold cycle that needs to exist.

Nor does it need not to exist.

So, what you're saying is that you don't want to use units created for their purpose,

That's like the exact opposite of the scenario I was describing. The benefits of development expansion strongly pushes the player into trying to make do without those purposes entirely. Being able to sell a unit when its served its purpose or after you discover you can't make use of its purpose lessens that push.

 

[topresch]

I have tested this in the vanilla version - when you use an archaeologist whose museum is full (due to trade or spy) you can still use his remaining charges to dig out artifacts but these artifacts just disappear/cannot be found anywhere. There is not even a warning that the museum is already full.

There's only one explanation. He sold it clandestinely to unscrupulous collectors for hard cash.

OT: Seems to be quite a good patch as long as it doesn't create other issues along the line. Also, it came out quicker than I thought a substantial patch would.

 

[rjg85]

Yay! Patch!

Glad to see selling units for gold is gone - horrible gamey exploit that ruins immersion. I think the only reason to nerf the +100% cavalry card is to stop Scythia snowballing too much - I don't see a problem with the +100% naval one (who builds naval??).

 

[fatgordy]

First Patch, and sooner than expected! YES!!

Woots:
AI improvements!
Rename cities!
Warmonger penalties adjusted
Got rid of selling unit exploit
Increased counterspy time

Dohs:
Still no restart option & remember menu settings
Build complete notification not fixed
Observation Balloon range bonus was being incorrectly applied when stacked. (I kind of liked this bug, haha)

Great job!!

 

[elitetroops]

As far as I saw, nobody complained about the card until the selling exploit was discovered. It looks much more like the initial impression of the player base is that giving horses a stronger production card was fine than it looks like it's bad gameplay wise and never should have been in the game in the first place.

The balance between horse/melee units was quite broken. To compare:

Swordsman: 35 strength, 2 movement, requires 3 techs to unlock, cost 90 production
Horseman: 35 strength, 4 movement, requires 2 techs to unlock, cost 80 production

Horseman is just as strong, twice as fast, cheaper, ignores zone of control, can receive fortification bonuses like swordsmen and unlocks faster than the swordsman. Why on earth should you also get a much better production bonus towards it? I think the main complaints about this issue came from the multiplayer scene where horse units were too dominating. I think it's still not quite balanced, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

I'm happy they removed all gold from disbanding units. Building an army is rewarding enough already. Military units don't need a secondary use. I suppose this also means no gold from disbanding great people. That I would have preferred to keep, since a secondary use for those is okay. Especially since a lot of them tend to come too late to be useful.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

There's only one explanation. He sold it clandestinely to unscrupulous collectors for hard cash.

We have top men working on it right now.

 

[rezaf]

It's both funny and sad to see how the Civ designers fumble around these days.
Sid Meier had most issues that plague Civ solved all the way back in Civ1 or Civ2 the latest, but the game designer laymen at Firaxis refuse to heed the lessons of history when designing their games about history in the here and now.
Didn't even Civ1 give you part of the shields as production if you disbanded a military unit in a city? That's the proper way to do it right there!

 

[Flaxton]

Easy fix: Don't bind the Archeologist directly to the museum that built him. Simply make him a "builder for archeological sites" with three charges. Put the artifact he discovers into the nearest museum and lift the restrictions on switching artifacts around. I mean: It's not like the current system serves any real purpose (that I can see) - you'll most probably have to switch artifacts around anyway to get theming bonuses.

If that 10 turn-waiting period serves an "internal"/gameplay/balancing purpose: Simply shift the restriction from the player's ability to move stuff around to the theming bonus kicking in. Meaning: I can instantly re-arrange my stuff as often as I like, but even if I manage to generate a theming bonus, that bonus will only come in X turns *after* I unlocked it.

S.

Each turn is measured in years. So it can be 50 years to move a work of art? Personally I always found theming to be a painful micro managing experience in Civ V and it's back again.

 

[Flaxton]

Added additional notifications

Please tell me this includes a link where the new barb enc is??

 

[Europa Victrix]

Uuuh...

 

[Sascha77]

Personally I always found theming to be a painful micro managing experience in Civ V and it's back again.

I didn't mind it all that much in V, since it wasn't a "chore" to move stuff around. Civ VI OTOH seems to try to actively discourage you from getting the most out of your works of art/artefacts.

I actually like the idea of theming, simply because it makes sense that a "well-tended" museum draws in more visitors than one that's just a collection of "old stuff" thrown together..



S.