Fall patch discussion thread

Does anybody know if the Mac version will have the patch now too? From what I can see, Steam isn't downloading a patch for me on my Mac =[
 
Fart. We don't have any idea of how much later?
Aspyr tweeted this:

Hey y'all. Won't be getting CivVIpatch out today, but cross-platform&new patch will be all in one in the near future. Thanks 4being awesome!
 
Ok so I've just been playing on the new patch for a few turns, the game feels much nicer to play now you can turn off unit auto-cycle off... seriously this 1 change is massive for how nice the game feels to play!

One change that I think went undocumented is that you now can't chop forests outside your own territory, this is a really good change as you could really exploit chop.
 
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.
My first thought was Religious Units. When a religious unit dies in combat the winning unit's religion gets a boost while the losing unit's religion takes a hit. If your Apostle is low on health and you don't think it'll survive the next turn, deleting it would ensure your religion doesn't suffer. Now you can't cheesily avoid that.
 
I just read the patch notes; it's AWESOME that you can finally declare a joint war with somebody and incur NO WARMONGER penalties whatsoever as a result of that war. This will create groundbreaking improvements in terms of relationship building with the AI. I would love to see them have the added relationship-improving modifier of making it so that delcaring a joint war with an AI gives a significant "friend" bonus.
 
On a related topic, I wonder about the behavior when units are forcefully disbanded due to negative gold. Will my full strength units be taken before the partially damaged units? Makes no sense to me.
 
Looks like City states can now upgrade units without strategic resources... no iron is present and a swordsman is present

And no encampment district either.

If city states played by major Civ rules they would never had decent military since ecempt strategic resources encampment is required if less then 2 rexources are available.
 
Oil scarcity being fixed.

Confirmation bias, there is no widespread map generation issue with oil. It's the same as iron/niter, if that's not good enough for you, the advanced options for map come with settings for resources.
 
Confirmation bias, there is no widespread map generation issue with oil. It's the same as iron/niter, if that's not good enough for you, the advanced options for map come with settings for resources.
Really? I had no Oil in my last game. Looked around and I saw perhaps 2 on the whole map. In a Lets Play he had no Oil too. Then found about 1 or 2 later. It seems way more scarce than any other resource. Are you sure it's the same at Iron/Niter?
 
But more importantly, allowing that kind of production on a military unit, so early in the game, throws the entire multiple victory condition system out of whack, unless/until the other systems are given a tuning pass to bring them in line with warmongering. Production already was the most advantageous resource to focus on. With the ease at which AI cities are conquered, combining easy shields with low-cost units made warmongering a cheat mode.
AI cities were easily conquered with or without the production card.

As an aside, assuming for the sake of argument that Horsemen with +100% production are too cheap by a factor of 1.33? You could drop the production card to +50% to fix that, or you could increase the cost of Horsemen by 33%. Why is nerfing the card the right choice?
 
Is it just horsemen that are over powered, or knights too?

I keep saying this in posts... horses before stirrups sucked. They only had impact when demoralizing led by a general and outflanking type behaviors. The only exception was the steppe type horse archers who lived in a saddle. I just shake my head that a horseman comes out of a barb hut with the power of a swordsman upgrade. Its just wrong. In the early battles archers where pretty important, slingers were the pits as they are. Also Spearmen were rubbish, it was a cheap weapon not at all well used in a strong defensive line against horsemen.

Knights had stirrups and Armour so were much much better but it was not just long bowmen that took them out historically.

On the Patch
OMG... been playing a french match and bang bang bang, China is grabbing those wonders faster. The fix to make the civs more victory focused seems to be in place. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
 
I just want to be able to customise my civ without having to MOD, change a leader name and maybe the CIV name,

glad to see you can at least tweak city names now.
 
One change that I think went undocumented is that you now can't chop forests outside your own territory, this is a really good change as you could really exploit chop.

From the patch notes: "Units may no longer remove features from tiles that are not owned by that player."
 
Well the swordsman has +10 against spears (which are rather common), while the horseman has -10. But I agree, that isn't enough.

If fact I'd say it isn't anything, since no one use spears. Why should they? With +cav production bonus card they are 50% more expansive to produce, same strenght, half mobility, in addition to getting completely destroyed by swordsmen if the opponent got any.
 
Back
Top Bottom