February 2021 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I can't play right now - will someone confirm whether or not barb camps can in fact convert to city state? Just for posterity to confirm if there is a bug or not.

It *should* work. The version I have here works (but my version is not your version), and I haven't noticed any bugs in the Clans mode at all. Keep trying to feed them gold; if they truly don't flip, report the bug. It shouldn't be a common one.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Observations from playing a short time: It feels like more barb units are coming out of each camp. I didn't see the progress bar on some camps - maybe they didn't have any progress? I played a no-city state start. First impression is that like that it's eliminates some of the randomness in finding city states. But all the camps were either dispersed or didn't progress to CS in the time i played. I actively tried to keep a costal barb camp alive and but Kristina eliminated it.

Oh and you know which cards you don't need with no CS?

 

[Datgingah]

It *should* work. The version I have here works (but my version is not your version), and I haven't noticed any bugs in the Clans mode at all. Keep trying to feed them gold; if they truly don't flip, report the bug. It shouldn't be a common one.

Later on someone found it worked fine when at least 1 city state was allowed in the game - it was strictly with 0 starting city states that caused the problem. I can't personally confirm it, but I believe that was the conclusion reached.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Later on someone found it worked fine when at least 1 city state was allowed in the game - it was strictly with 0 starting city states that caused the problem. I can't personally confirm it, but I believe that was the conclusion reached.

OK. I'll ask around QA tomorrow. It's 11:30. Let's let the Carlbarian sleep.

 

[acluewithout]

Considering Potato McWhiskey agrees with your opinion, I can see the merit.

For those interested, the link is here (and here for his discussion of Autocracy and Oligarchy).

Potato makes a good point, that swapping Oligarchy and Autocracy’s cards basically is a nerf to Autocracy and buff to Oligarchy, which is crazy given Oligarchy was so strong just because of its Government Bonus.

TheGameMechanic’s comments on the change are here. He treats it as a buff to Oligarchy, but I honk that’s because he’s always favoured Oligarchy as the better government overall because if it’s slots and bonus.

I think the consensus generally is either “autocracy is weak, oligarchy strong, so flipping slots makes oligarchy better” or “oligarchy is the fighting government so it should get the military slots”. I think both views are wrong, and hence it’s actually a bad change that makes Oligarchy both too powerful and kinda dull (no trade off, no hard choices) and basically nerds Autocracy.

Anyway. It is what it is. Certainly doesn’t ruin the game for me, but just seems like a poor design choice.

Honestly if the diplomatic policy slot is so week they should just make 1-2 more early game diplomatic policy cards that are worth running. Something like:

Diplomatic Immunity: Increase bonuses given by the first envoy to a city state by +1

Sphere of Influence: -4 loyalty to any foreign city you have a trading post in (nonstacking).

Ancient Statecraft: +1 diplomatic visibility to any civilization you have a trading post with, +1 science for each embassy you have in a foreign capital, and +1 culture for each embassy in your capital.

We need something on this power level to make ancient diplo policy more useable.

Yeah, although, you know, power inflation.

 

[Datgingah]

For those interested, the link is here (and here for his discussion of Autocracy and Oligarchy).

Yeah, although, you know, power inflation.

Sorry I was trying to make some examples of power levels would be needed to match that era of military/economic policies - I might have gone a bit overboard, but more because charismatic leader feels weaker and I wanted some alternative options.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

somehow this patch notes isn't very attractive for me... Barbarian mod seems to be full of glitches and Ai still ISN'T improving its resources... Maybe I should wait till march update...

 

[acluewithout]

snip.

Nothing you need to say sorry about. We’re just talking.

I’d always assume early diplomatic cards are meant to be a bit weaker as part of the overall balance of the policy cards, governments etc. Likewise, I’d assumed Monarchy was meant to be a little underpowered because it came earlier and with a civic that’s really strong.

FXS are of course allowed to change design. In particular, I think there’s a trend by them to make Tall = Diplomacy, which is fine by me. For the Autocracy / Oligarchy change, I think what FXS have done makes the game less interesting. For Monarchy and Merchant Republic... yeah, not sure, but I think it’s kinda ok. Just different.

 

[Datgingah]

Nothing you need to say sorry about. We’re just talking.

I’d always assume early diplomatic cards are meant to be a bit weaker as part of the overall balance of the policy cards, governments etc. Likewise, I’d assumed Monarchy was meant to be a little underpowered because it came earlier and with a civic that’s really strong.

FXS are of course allowed to change design. In particular, I think there’s a trend by them to make Tall = Diplomacy, which is fine by me. For the Autocracy / Oligarchy change, I think what FXS have done makes the game less interesting. For Monarchy and Merchant Republic... yeah, not sure, but I think it’s kinda ok. Just different.

While thats fair, maybe instead they should make autocracy 1/1/0/2, similar to what potato said - this way they're still a bit tall focused, but offer more control. Though if this does happen it could become too powerful, which is a fair concern to have. Maybe 1/2/0/1?

Regardless of card change, I don't think autocracy should also be a war based government like it psuedo-was before. Peaceful play is fairly large in civ, and I think instead of balancing oligarchy/autocracy as war, they should keep to the current philosophy and balance autocracy/classical republic. Perhaps give autocracy defensive buffs if its deemed worthy to go to psuedo-war (+5 wall strength?), otherwise add something like +1 faith per wonder to the second ability.

 

[greenOak]

I still maintain that autocracy was never great for warmongering and that it’s strength was using the wonder bonus in more peaceful times.

 

[acluewithout]

Peaceful play

But what do people mean by “peaceful play”?

Peaceful Civ is not the same as a Civ without military power. To me, “peaceful play” doesn’t mean you ignore military, indeed you need military and defensive structures, eg walls, encampments, to be peaceful, because you need to both discourage and defend from aggressors. Indeed, you actually need some military force to make friends with Civs, because if you don’t have a reasonable army early they will just surprise war instead of being friendly and trading.

Autocracy and Monarchy are both “Tall” governments, and tall play is generally peaceful. Both governments provided economic bonuses for growing tall Cities (yield and wonder bonuses, housing, economic and wild card slots). But they also provided defensive bonuses (military cards, to build defensive units (both to defend aggression and run defensive cards), because defensive strength is integral to both Tall and peaceful play.

In any event, “Military” slots have lots of peaceful applications. Maritime Industries and Logistics are the best examples. Even just conscription is peaceful in that it lets you maintain a standing army more cheaply.

I really don’t think swapping Autocracy and Oligarchy slots is game breaking, but it is wrongheaded to me. It removes a bunch of interesting choices, actually makes the game more war focused by buffing oligarchy massively, and nerfs tall play by making autocracy much weaker.

I really think the only way FXS can fix this is buffing diplomacy cards, or giving autocracy two wild cards, but both of these seem problematic. Or they can just go back to how it was, but I can’t see them doing that now.

As an aside, one downside to the Monarchy / Merchant Republic changes is that now all three governments have very similar policy slots. Sure they’re some differences between wild card and economic slots, but given most wild card slots are fairly weak, and economic slots are pretty strong, people may find there’s not much practical difference between the card slots. That said, monarchy could let you more easily run one of the stronger legacy cards and some purple cards got buffed, so maybe there’s a bit more play between the T2 govs than I’m giving credit for. I’ll have to see how it plays.

 

[Qwan]

After reading 10 pages of reaction, here's my two cents.

Earth Goddess: while I can understand halving its faith generation for NFP games, given the Preserve, I don't have NFP and play GS, so this definitely hurts me. At Deity Level generally I'd get a pantheon after most other Civs, so I'd often choose this one, because in the long run it became good. I admit, it was great synergy with the Incas.

Oligarchy & Autocracy: switching the cards makes a lot of sense to me. Oligarchy is now clearly a warmonger government, with combat bonus working together with two military slots. Autocracy is now the more flexible government. I already preferred Autocracy to Oligarchy, despite Autocracy's previous restriction of two military slots; now I'll employ it even more. My main quibble is the names: to me "Autocracy" ought to be the warmonger government, and "Oligarchy" should be more flexible. I'd have switched the other effects.

Monarchy: already I employ Monarchy most of the time for my Tier 2 government, despite needing to choose three military policies. Giving it more flexibility AND giving favor for RenWalls I think makes it overpowered. Okay, MORE overpowered. I never understood why the AI didn't spend more time in Monarchy, and kept switching to various Tier 1 governments. Maybe the AI will employ Monarchy more, and stick with it more, now.

Merchant Republic: I seldom employed this government, and with it becoming more restrictive, I'll do so even less. Merchant Republic's advantage over Monarchy used to be that you could employ up to 4 economic policies versus 2 (and 3 for Theocracy). Now you can employ only up to 3 economic policies with any Tier 2 government. Although I'll admit that one of my favorite economic polices was Colonial Taxes, which is now diplomatic. Note also this weakens Potala's Palace, as who needs 3 diplomatic policies mid-game? If they had also made Triangular Trade a diplomatic policy, I'd feel differently.

Arena and Ferris Wheel: previously, I'd never build these until I wanted to build Zoos and Aquariums. The increase in amenity is nice, but I think the buildings should be cheaper as well. Alternatively, scale the amenities with the population of the city, e.g. 1 per 5 pop.

My favorite Tier 1 legacy building, Audience Chamber, just became better. Although, it's a small enough change, I wouldn't say it's overpowered.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Earth Goddess: It was very strong, however it no longer is. Power of Maori, Persia and Egypt requires a rethinking.

Oligarchy & Autocracy: I used to always choose Autocracy as I treat diplomatic slot useless. (The +1 envoy one can be put in the purple slot at turns it is used, the +2 influence one is rather weak.) Now Oligarchy definitely replaces this. Power of Civs with classical melee or anti-cav uniques (Japan, Rome, Zulu) are strengthened, as previously they were forced to choose Oligarchy and the current Oligarchy is much stronger.

Monarchy & Merchant Republic: Most games start from Feudalism & Upgrade -50%, what makes a difference is the following route. You can go for Merchant Republic, or you can go for Monarchy--Theocracy combo. Monarchy is better and therefore Monarchy--Theocracy combo becomes stronger and Merchant Republic becomes weaker.

Colonial Tax: A nice change, generally this means one more commercial policy slot and one less diplomatic slot, a good deal.

Arena: 150 prod for 1 culture and 2 amenity is a good deal. However, the entertainment complex prereq is too costly and worth little. So this is basically a bonus to Civs that have to build ECs like Brazil/Byzantium .

 

[greenOak]

But what do people mean by “peaceful play”?

Peaceful play for me simply means not declaring wars (of any kind), not pillaging, and not capturing / razing cities.

Encampments or walls are not necessary for survival. It is rare that I'll have to build either in a defensive war. In a peaceful game, I usually build one set of ancient walls, and one encampment for the eurekas - military engineers can be useful as well. In a peaceful science game I may also build encampments in spaceport cities.

You need units to defend yourself, but you'd be surprised how much you can fight off with a few archers. In a peaceful game, I typically only build units that will give me boosts or envoys. This almost always gives me enough units to defend myself.

I use a lot of the military cards in a peaceful game, but I don't feel like I ever need to run that many at once. Maritime industries seems like an odd choice for peaceful games. Logistics is good - mostly for builders - but I don't use it if I have golden age monumentality. Retainers and veterancy are the two early cards that spend the most time in play for me.

I only use discipline if my warrior hasn't got a promotion, or barbarians are actually spawning units. I'll still keep survey in if I'm clearing a barb camp with a promoted warrior.

Agoge, maneuver, and maritime industries are slotted in for a few turns and I'll have multiple cities produce units. I often ignore maneuver and maritime industries and just buy the desired units later.

In the early game, conscription is the charismatic leader of military policies. You often use it because there's nothing better, but its benefit is really underwhelming. For the first 100 or so turns in a peaceful game, it is not uncommon for my military to consist of nothing more than three archers, three warriors, and some scouts. Conscription saves you 3gpt in this situation. It does get better later game as you get more advanced units, and I make frequent use of levee on masse in peaceful games. Even if I have a few swordsmen, heavy chariots, and galleys in my military this card pretty much never saves me more than 10gpt.

Limes is sometimes slotted in for a few turns once in the game, but often I'll ignore it.

Professional army & retinues are slotted in together for one turn a few times in the game.

Note that all this applies to peaceful play.

 

[Ticio]

This to me does not ring as great reasoning, would be better to nerf Bull Moose Teddy than nerf that Pantheon. I really hope that Kongo are high on the priority list for the mooted April rebalancing as this Pantheon change hurts them the most

Exactly my reasoning. Because Bull Moose is insanely strong (and with Earth Goddess is just insulting), have all the other civs that profited well from earthGoddess to be nerfed too?
They should nerf a bit Bull Moose because earthgoddess for him is too strong, but not for the other civs.

From my point of view, now Civs that got a superb synergy with earthgoddess, without being too strong, have a disvantage.
Next, will they limit Dance of the Aurora or Desert Folklore because 2 Civs are insane with them? This would make Russia still a beast, but the poor civ that spawns in snow and do not have bonuses to it will suffer the most.

Examples: Incan+Mountain; Persia + Pairidaeza, Spain + HS + Mission; Egypt + Sphinx, Brazil + UD for GP.
How many of his civs should build preserves? They are not on their list of “priorities”, so Earthgoddess is a big help, but not the center of their gameplay.

Now Bull Moose still strong, but these civs that had more limited interaction with faith have even more! And I always thought it was a good exchange, they had + 2 faith, but they had to work on buildings and districts to reap just 2 faith. For me, it was a good inversion, not broken.

Give Bull Moose a -1 Faith on breathtaking tiles, but do not make other civs pay for his excessive power.

 

[acluewithout]

snip

In fairness, a lot of that is pretty consistent with how I play. I usually do have a reasonably small military if I playing “peaceful”. If I build walls, it’s because I want to build walls, not because I need to.

My comments are more directed at how the game (seems to me) to be designed. The nub of my argument is (1) Tall Govs (Autocracy and Monarchy) are not designed to be aggressive (thats what Oligarchy is for), but they are designed to be Defensive, and that’s why those governments give more military slots and a wall bonus, (2) likewise, military cards and some military infrastructure have some general growth / economic elements so they synergise with Tall governments (eg logistics, retainers), and (3) giving Oligarchy more military slots and Autocracy less actually messes up this design, and (because Diplo cards are weak early game), ends up buffing Oligarchy (which was already strong) and nerfs Autocracy (when Tall is already somewhat weak).

Playing very smart, you’re right, you don’t need a big army or walls etc. But even then, I get a lot more value out of Autocracy’s policy slots than Oligarchy’s slots. It’s really only in the mid game that I’d value green slots over red slots. And even with only a few units, conscription is usually good value, and so if I have only one military slot that often has conscription which limits the flexibility to use other slots.

 

[nauberry]

For anyone interested, the mode is working very well, if you just put some initial city states. This screenshot is on a huge map, and there are multiple new city states (-edit- marked with he white colour):

Spoiler :

 

[iammaxhailme]

Am I the only one who likes Autocracy better now? I never used it for military action, rather I used it for wonder spamming in games I intended to go scientific or cultural in, and its card lineup now is better for that.

 

[Vandlys]

Has anyone tried to play without City-States with Barbarian Mode on to check if they can progress towards them successfully?
It turns out if You choose to play with 0 CS game won't generate any possible CS players for barbarian camps to change from. Or am I missing something.
Also met already 4 barb camps and still 0 UU ;/

I had the same. Set the game to 0 CS because I want all CS to come from Barb camps. Am currently building Oxford U and still haven't seen a city states. Pumping money in remote camps but the bar doesn't move : /

Edit: read through the rest of the posts. Will start a new game with 1 CS selected and see what that does.

 

[Gedemon]

We toyed with using historical names (Moken, Bugis, Woku at sea; Jurchen, Hun, Xiongu on horseback; Wa, Picts, Tamang in the hills), but balked at identifying even historical peoples with the category of "barbarian." The geographic/animal feature seemed to fit more with the "Carlbarian" idea rather than actually creating thirty new "mini-civs" (there is a lot involved in researching/clearing civ choices). But we still wanted to have a bit of personality, so it's not just going to be "HILL DUDES"

and you still need to leave a bit of works to modders too !

but once you had name you could have just removed the Barbarian reference and only use tribe/people names. may have been a bit harder for the marketing people to sell the mode without "Barbarians" in the name then, but hey, that one was free anyway !

Thanks to @Boris Gudenuf and @Knasp, I do have now 235 tribe names to populate my maps... That should do it... at least for testing a bit !

Spoiler :