Info on Next Patch

[Adam7Eight]

* Melee horse units combat value lowered, and now receive a penalty when attacking cities. (Added 11/18)
* Lowered bonuses received from Maritime city-states. (Added 11/18)

Good to hear.

 

[atteSmythe]

Oof. No saving promotions is going to be interesting, though I suppose I never did that much anyway. Removing maintenance from defensive buildings is a good call. Yay for naval combat.

Hope they didn't overcompensate regarding maritime CSs. I guess we all knew it was coming, but rebalancing them will be tough.

Nervous about the scope of the science track changes.

 

[MadRat]

AI
* Improve AI use of protected bombard attacks (melee in front, ranged in the rear). (Added 11/18)

GAMEPLAY

* Amount of damage caused during naval combat increased. (Added 11/18)
* Melee horse units combat value lowered, and now receive a penalty when attacking cities. (Added 11/18)
* Lowered bonuses received from Maritime city-states. (Added 11/18)
* Multiple unit upgrade track adjustments. Most (but not all) units now have a full upgrade path from start to finish. (Added 11/18)
* Open terrain penalty lowered. (Added 11/18)

Looking Good Firaxis!!

Rat

 

[Celevin]

* Policies must be selected the turn they are earned. (Added 11/18)

This does not solve the problem, Firaxis... It only solves it halfway, then makes the other half hard to see.

Now I'm going to want to speed up my settlers and will curse to high heaven if my city's settled right after I gain a new policy. Do it right. Don't increase policy cost, decrease culture gain rate.

 

[PawelS]

The changes added today are very interesting indeed.

 

[lschnarch]

Melee horse units combat value lowered, and now receive a penalty when attacking cities. (Added 11/18)

As soon as all other enemy units have been killed, they will still take the city if not the penalty would be something like -75%.

* Lowered bonuses received from Maritime city-states. (Added 11/18)

About this I am very curious.
If they only lowered the per city value, they would've made them meaningless. Taking Firaxis' records into consideration, I would assume they've done so.

Limiting the food provided for your empire in such way that only a limited number of cities can benefit from it doesn't really solve the ICS problem.

Well, let's see what their brains have breeded.

* Open terrain penalty lowered. (Added 11/18)

So the open terrain penalty as mechanics has been kept. How stupid can one be?

* Promotions must be selected the turn they are earned. If it’s as a result of combat, then the beginning of the next turn. (Added 11/18)

Fits into the overall picture. Instead of training the AI to make use of it in a meaningful way, they limit the options for the human player. This is true Shaferism.

 

[JimMac99]

* Science building track adjustments (cost, specialist slots, GP Points, etc). (Added 11/18)

What does this mean?

 

[Rokklagið]

The new features look very good, not sure about the policies needing to be spent the turn they are earned. It may lead to micro strategies such as "if a settle a new city now I will pull back the next policy 10 turns, just in time to unlock Patronage. I can always sell de city afterwards". But it might add more strategic choices as well.

And still no beaker overflow

 

[Putmalk]

* Science building track adjustments (cost, specialist slots, GP Points, etc). (Added 11/18)

What does this mean?

It might mean they readjusted the path of buildings that you get as you progress through the tech tree. Meaning the library might not provide two specialist spots or something.

It also might mean they've just lowered or raised the amounts on the buildings already present to fit their desires.

 

[ecki2k]

ok firaxis now you got me curious. If the naval warfare AND the pathfinding are really worked over this could enhance the game a whole lot (since pathfinding has a huge impact on long turntimes)... oh please, do something really good with this patch. please.

EDIT: And, by the love of God, do something about the AI treating everything it sees as its cultural borders. I´m incredibly fed up with AI showing up and calling me names when all i did was summon my Troops somewhere in my Territory and one of his units just wandered by. And when YOU expand to my borders, THATS NOT MY FAULT!

 

[Rokklagið]

* Science building track adjustments (cost, specialist slots, GP Points, etc). (Added 11/18)

What does this mean?

Scientist specialists and Great scientists are greatly overpowered. I suppose Libraries and Universities will be more expensive. Library will probably allow just one specialist instead of two (and the University or Public School one extra specialist). Each scientist specialist, will give just +2 Great Person points (because with the actual +3GP points it is possible to get Great Scientists every few turns).

 

[PawelS]

As soon as all other enemy units have been killed, they will still take the city if not the penalty would be something like -75%.

What's wrong with that?

So the open terrain penalty as mechanics has been kept. How stupid can one be?

What's wrong with "open terrain penalty as mechanics"? I think it's logical that in open terrain the attacker has an advantage over an unprepared (i.e. unfortified) defender. It's similar in Civs1-3, where most units have higher attack than defense.

Fits into the overall picture. Instead of training the AI to make use of it in a meaningful way, they limit the options for the human player. This is true Shaferism.

I think the "insta heal" promotion should be removed, this would make this change unnecessary.

 

[Lanstro]

These patch notes look great. Let's hope the sausage is as good as the sizzle.

 

[lschnarch]

What's wrong with "open terrain penalty as mechanics"? I think it's logical that in open terrain the attacker has an advantage over an unprepared (i.e. unfortified) defender. It's similar in Civs1-3, where most units have higher attack than defense.

Everything is obvious with that penalty, and it is quite obvious.

1) there is no neutral ground in the game where a unit defends with it's base combat value
2) of two units of the same type, in open terrain the defender will always have a disadvantage.
This is completely insane, as the defender has moved (otherwise he should have the fortification bonus) and get's a malus, whilst the attacker moves and doesn't receive the same malus. Complete insane.

 

[Celevin]

Everything is obvious with that penalty, and it is quite obvious.

1) there is no neutral ground in the game where a unit defends with it's base combat value
2) of two units of the same type, in open terrain the defender will always have a disadvantage.
This is completely insane, as the defender has moved (otherwise he should have the fortification bonus) and get's a malus, whilst the attacker moves and doesn't receive the same malus. Complete insane.

Why do you need neutral ground?
Why is it wrong for the defender to have a disadvantage?

These questions are rhetorical. There is no need for neutral ground. Also, without a defender disadvantage in a game with ranged units like this, turtling would become the main tactic used.

Imagine that the developers started at 50% rough terrain bonus and 0% open terrain bonus, then found out that the defender was dominating. What's the easiest way to fix this?

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Everything is obvious with that penalty, and it is quite obvious.

1) there is no neutral ground in the game where a unit defends with it's base combat value
2) of two units of the same type, in open terrain the defender will always have a disadvantage.
This is completely insane, as the defender has moved (otherwise he should have the fortification bonus) and get's a malus, whilst the attacker moves and doesn't receive the same malus. Complete insane.

You are completely ignoring all of the combat bonuses that units get if they are located next to one another and are organized correctly.

That means that a unit will only suffer a full penalty if it is completely alone, and nobody sends a single unit to war. Unless its a GDR, in which case the penalty won't matter because of how powerful it is.

In addition, you also fail to take into account that a defender can typically use his artillery and air force before the attacker can, which by itself grands the defender a considerable advantage. Its not all just a matter of stats and statistics.

If there were no simple way of dealing with the terrain penalty I would agree with you, but the fact that the penalty can be easily countered simply by organizing your units properly makes it hard for me to sympathize.

 

[BubbaYeti]

Policies must be selected the turn they are earned. (Added 11/18)

Really? Why, why, why!?

Policies were one of the things that were working halfway well. Now, one more interesting decision has been removed (do I want to use policies now, or stockpile them for later?).

 

[lschnarch]

Without a defender disadvantage in a game with ranged units like this, turtling would become the main tactic used.

I can only imagine that with "turtling" you mean defense positions. Anything else doesn't seem to make sense.
So, thanks to open terrain disadvantage there aren't defense positions anymore. Is it this, what you are trying to say?

Imagine that the developers started at 50% rough terrain bonus and 0% open terrain bonus, then found out that the defender was dominating. What's the easiest way to fix this?

Once again:
The first thing would have been to lower the rough terrain bonus, as I assume. There the ranged units will have the biggest problems.

 

[Buccaneer]

Melee horse units combat value lowered, and now receive a penalty when attacking cities. (Added 11/18)

WOO HOO!!! That's the direction that I was hoping the patches would go in after playing the initial release.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I can only imagine that with "turtling" you mean defense positions. Anything else doesn't seem to make sense.
So, thanks to open terrain disadvantage there aren't defense positions anymore. Is it this, what you are trying to say?

I think you should probably read what I saw in my above response.