Has the game improved much since launch?

[Leathaface]

How has the first patch polished things up? I got the game the hour it was released but after a couple of sessions I decided to wait for a patch.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Well, the patch has been out now for awhile so why don't you try it for yourself? People can give you their personal opinions but only can determine if the patch works for you.

The patch does change trade drastically. Trade routes no longer give huge boosts to both cities like they used to. So in that respect, trade is not OP anymore. Now, trade only really helps one city. So if you send a trade route from a big city to a new small city, only the big city will get anything. Not everone is happy with this.

The patch also rebalanced a lot of the units. The early affinity specific units like the battlesuits are not OP anymore.

But again, why don't you try the patch for yourself? Only you know what you are looking for and whether the patch makes the game better for you or not.

 

[CraigMak]

The game seems to be much more stable. Trade routes were toned down, level 4 affinity unites were completely neutered, the health system was revamped, the mega op free tech civs had their techs taken away. The changes seemed mostly for the good.

The only problem i see is that without OP affnity 4 units it is now incredibly difficult to attack each other in MP. It's very easy to get your cities up to strength 50 - 80 and nothing can efficiently deal with that except for orbital lasers or the 3rd tier rangers. If they have a laser behind that city, forget about it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It has improved, but not that much. The worst balance issues were fixed, but the first affinity units went from OP straight to useless, there is still no diplomacy, and you don't get any more affinity quests except for Cultural Burden, Solid State Citizen, Occupational Hazard or Familiar Exotics.
My estimation is that it ptobably two more patches to come close to its potential.

 

[Gort]

I'd definitely recommend playing with the quest fix and empowered wonders mods if you're coming back.

 

[Zenstrive]

The patch definitely slowed down the game for me. Trade routes being nerfed means less sciences, and your bigger cities becoming bigger.

But the patch forces me to diversify my tactics. Now I use weather control satellites and academy

 

[Xenotitan]

I highly recommend Ryoga's Affinity Quest Fix mod to go with the patch. While the patch fixes some things it seriously breaks the quest system (a major bug, not a balance issue).

 

[edingess]

Not all that much for SP. Balance and trade are changed but AI functionality is still a joke.

 

[Promethian]

The patch was a huge improvement but a lot of work still needs to be done to make the game great.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Yes it has improved. Before, health was nothing and trade was everything. Now health is key and trade while still powerful is no longer a all you need to win. It's still weirdly implemented though.
Level 4 UUs were nerfed so much that now you either use them right away or don't use them at all. They're rather sad.
The game is better but still needs work. If you have other games to play I wouldn't blame you if you if you put this one on hold until the next patch. Although you might want to play one game as PAU with artists and go crazy with virtues. They're the new overpowered sponsor. Actually got the tier 3 synergy bonus.

 

[Gort]

trade still weirdly implemented

I agree - it feels like the Internal routes are backwards at the moment - small cities feed the large ones.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I agree - it feels like the Internal routes are backwards at the moment - small cities feed the large ones.

I get that they don't want new cities to be instantly built up from focused trade, but I think that would be done better with some kind of size based cap on trade.

 

[Gort]

I get that they don't want new cities to be instantly built up from focused trade, but I think that would be done better with some kind of size based cap on trade.

Isn't that half the point of having a Civ 5-style trade system in the first place - to build up the new cities quickly?

I find it very hard to judge the trade system in this game as I don't actually know what they were trying to achieve with it in the first place. It just seems to be a weird way of getting food/production/science/energy that follows its own rules just because.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Isn't that half the point of having a Civ 5-style trade system in the first place - to build up the new cities quickly?

Yes, but in civilization 5 routes were more limited and you flat out needed them for gold so taking two routes off of gold to help get food and production to your own city was a trade off. Now a city gets to trade routes anyway.
I also wish they'd been clear on what trade was for. They said for civilization 5 BNW this is how you get your gold now. Maybe they didn't want to dilute the sci-fi elements by talking about something mundane like trade, but post release they could give some hints.

 

[Gort]

Dunno about you, but in Civ 5 my trade routes were permanently glued to sending food back to my ever-more-ridiculously-large Tradition capital, but I reckoned that was more a weird side-effect in that game rather than the desired design.

 

[Ryika]

Some of the main issues still exist. Trade routes yields aren't as op anymore, but they're still many and there's still nothing to help you micromanage them if you go for "min-maxing". Games still end hilariously fast, making most of the second half of the tech tree mostly useless - it's still "Get the important early and mid-game techs - then beeline to victory.". You'll basically never see high-tech units if you play for efficiency. Interaction with other factions is still very boring and unimportant. Trading doesn't really do anything useful except for allowing to exchange gpt in science or push your reputation so they don't attack you. And the AI-Leaders are still as generic as it gets.

But aside from these issues the patch has actually fixed a lot of the problems, especially most of the stuff that was very imbalanced. Wouldn't exactly call it "polished", but it's a lot closer than it was before.

I agree - it feels like the Internal routes are backwards at the moment - small cities feed the large ones.

That has always been the case in reality though. When new settlements and colonies were founded, that was usually done to supply the main cities with new goods. That system doesn't really work 1:1 for BE, but I can see the logic behind that.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Games still end hilariously fast, making most of the second half of the tech tree mostly useless - it's still "Get the important early and mid-game techs - then beeline to victory.". You'll basically never see high-tech units if you play for efficiency.

Though it's worth pointing out that this problem existed at least as far back as Civ 3. They can either make it impossible to win before turn 450 or not, but if they make it possible to win soon, it must of necessity mean that those who are in it for the fastest victory will miss late-game options and units.

 

[Ryika]

Though it's worth pointing out that this problem existed at least as far back as Civ 3. They can either make it impossible to win before turn 450 or not, but if they make it possible to win soon, it must of necessity mean that those who are in it for the fastest victory will miss late-game options and units.

Sure, but the way the victories work do a lot to completely remove the late game. This could for example be fixed by needing more pieces of tech on different branches of the tech tree - that way, victories would take way longer, thus giving more opportunities to squeeze out optional techs. Or they could just move the affinity bonuses to more high-end techs (on other branches of the tree than the actual victory buildings), reduce the bonus affinity you can get a bit and that also makes games longer and allows the decision between getting a new affinity unit or a new level of affinity, thus upgrading the units you already have.

Imho the game would work best if you needed to get 1/3 of the end-game tech tree per affinity with some optional early late-techs available in the other 2/3 that can give you additional bonuses.

 

[Promethian]

Sure, but the way the victories work do a lot to completely remove the late game. This could for example be fixed by needing more pieces of tech on different branches of the tech tree - that way, victories would take way longer, thus giving more opportunities to squeeze out optional techs. Or they could just move the affinity bonuses to more high-end techs (on other branches of the tree than the actual victory buildings), reduce the bonus affinity you can get a bit and that also makes games longer and allows the decision between getting a new affinity unit or a new level of affinity, thus upgrading the units you already have.

Imho the game would work best if you needed to get 1/3 of the end-game tech tree per affinity with some optional early late-techs available in the other 2/3 that can give you additional bonuses.

Just pushing the victory wonder requirement to affinity 18 will do the same. We'll need much more of the tree to finish and will actually get to use those fully upgraded units.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, but that way affinity and direct victory progress would still go 100% hand in hand. The idea was to have the lategame-part of the victory seperated a bit from the affinity so it's a decision between pushing to a peaceful victory faster or unlocking a few additional unit-upgrades. The way it is right now pushing to victory automatically comes with better units.