Info on Next Patch

[Celevin]

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?

There are defensive positions and turtling is still a strategy that is used, but it is severely weakened compared to what it could have been. If you don't give the attacker an advantage in a turn based game like this, you will see massed archer units and almost nobody attacking compared to just "petering".

There is nothing wrong with an attacker advantage.

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

In this scenario, who is to say both weren't lowered?

 

[lschnarch]

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.

I can only guess, but I assume you are referring to the flanking bonus here? Well, the flanking bonus only applies if the friendly unit is adjacent to the enemy unit, not to your unit.
Or do you mean discipline? Well, this a social policy you first have to achieve.

So, I don't see where you're going with your statement?

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.

No, of course not. Because a -33% disadvantage wouldn't be stats and statistics, would it?

And if the defender can make use of ranged weapons before the attack, then it's just the way it is. Either I want to have meaningful use of my units, or I don't.
Wait... NOW I get it. You are defending the fact that less emphasize has to be put in the proper setup of attacking forces?

 

[MrWashington]

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.

I think the idea is that the defender should be able to make us of a strategic advantage rather than depend on a solitary unit. The open terrain penalty would apply primarily if a unit was ambushed or if they attacked, moved into the open terrain after winning, then was attacked by a third unit.

 

[Buccaneer]

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?).

Because this, as well as many other features, made the game cheesy, exploitative and overpowered. Civ should be hard to win and I am happy they are starting to go in that direction.

 

[Yzman]

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?


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.

I am not understanding your complaint still. How are there no defensive positions? First of all, you can fortify, and if the penalty has been reduced, then fortifying will negate it. Second, there is defensive terrain where you have a clear advantage. So you are making no sense.

 

[lschnarch]

There is nothing wrong with an attacker advantage.

And where is that advantage in rough terrain? Especially taking into consideration that rough terrain slows down the attacker's approach?

 

[Txurce]

Because this, as well as many other features, made the game cheesy, exploitative and overpowered. Civ should be hard to win and I am happy they are starting to go in that direction.

I couldn't agree more. Having the option to save an SP made no sense except as a way to game the system. Social change such as the ones described in the SPs happen when they happen. For those freaking about whether to build a city a turn too early, just keep an eye on the culture total. There are mods that tell you which turn the next SP will be available.

The same is true about promotions, although it wasn't quite so ridiculous. A unit gains experience when it gains it - to save that option is another example of "gaming."

 

[Celevin]

And where is that advantage in rough terrain? Especially taking into consideration that rough terrain slows down the attacker's approach?

Maybe the attackers do, but you're only seeing the final result. Imagine the bonuses being 50% and 0% respectively for rough/open. Then apply a bonus for the attacker.

Anyway, we're not going to convince each other of anything with this.

 

[Buccaneer]

I couldn't agree more. Having the option to save an SP made no sense except as a way to game the system. Social change such as the ones described in the SPs happen when they happen. For those freaking about whether to build a city a turn too early, just keep an eye on the culture total. There are mods that tell you which turn the next SP will be available.

The same is true about promotions, although it wasn't quite so ridiculous. A unit gains experience when it gains it - to save that option is another example of "gaming."

Well said.

 

[Sonereal]

There is no such thing as neutral ground in tactical combat. There's a reason why where games with varying genres from Mount and Blade to Call of Duty to World of Tanks have many players that say "don't go out into the open unless you're fast" because you simply don't. In World of Tanks, if you're not faster than the other "units" (in this case, tanks), you're basically a slow-moving giant artillery target out of cover. In Call of Duty, you're sniper bait in in most cases, just bait. In Mount and Blade, knights can lay waste to hordes of units just armed with swords while archer spam can pretty much kill every unarmored unit in the open or at least seriously damage them.

In Civilization, the defender in a war gets a strategic advantage already, the choice of where to wage the battle. The defender isn't forced to go out into the open but through good planning, will force the enemy to either try to go across open ground or hit a fortified unit on a hill.

 

[Txurce]

There is no such thing as neutral ground in tactical combat.

This says it all. Some units may use open ground to their advantage offensively (mounted and tread) but all units are at a disadvantage when in the open. The misconception comes from the "common sense" viewing of open ground as the norm, and therefore having a "neutral" value. Open ground, like all other terrain, is a plug-in equation.

 

[Surgeon]

Love the policy now change. Promotion now is a bit meh (id rather just kill off promotion heals).

All in all. This is an amazing patch even if not every item is perfect.

 

[Sonereal]

I actually like the promo change. Greatly weakens instant heal and makes it so players have to know where the unit is going to fight when its trained. So, an army mainly equipped to fight in the hills and jungle will need some time to get use to fighting in open plains and hope there are some units covering that department.

 

[Celevin]

I couldn't agree more. Having the option to save an SP made no sense except as a way to game the system. Social change such as the ones described in the SPs happen when they happen. For those freaking about whether to build a city a turn too early, just keep an eye on the culture total. There are mods that tell you which turn the next SP will be available.

The same is true about promotions, although it wasn't quite so ridiculous. A unit gains experience when it gains it - to save that option is another example of "gaming."

What if I notice that I'm going to go into a new era in 10 turns and gain a new policy in 9? Should I purposely slow my culture down just so I can gain a policy later instead? It feels restricted. It punishes anyone who doesn't micromanage.

Besides, it doesn't address the big problem, instead it only covers it up. The big problem is how easy costs can fluctuate just from building or selling cities. I am still punished for settling a couple turns too early. I can still benefit from selling a bunch of cities at once and gaining the last 3-4 policies very quickly.

And finally, if they actually just address the real problem and fix it in a way that I and numerous others have proposed, then we wouldn't need this fix at all. That makes it nothing but a restrictive detriment to anyone not micromanaging the crap out of their empire the moment the real solution is made.

 

[Sonereal]

What if I notice that I'm going to go into a new era in 10 turns and gain a new policy in 9? Should I purposely slow my culture down just so I can gain a policy later instead? It feels restricted. It punishes anyone who doesn't micromanage.

Sell exactly one monument.

Besides, it doesn't address the big problem, instead it only covers it up. The big problem is how easy costs can fluctuate just from building or selling cities. I am still punished for settling a couple turns too early. I can still benefit from selling a bunch of cities at once and gaining the last 3-4 policies very quickly.

Less effectively mind you.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I can only guess, but I assume you are referring to the flanking bonus here? Well, the flanking bonus only applies if the friendly unit is adjacent to the enemy unit, not to your unit.
Or do you mean discipline? Well, this a social policy you first have to achieve.

So, I don't see where you're going with your statement?

You get other bonuses as well depending on which units you use and how you use them, thought I don't remember the exact details.

No, of course not. Because a -33% disadvantage wouldn't be stats and statistics, would it?

And if the defender can make use of ranged weapons before the attack, then it's just the way it is. Either I want to have meaningful use of my units, or I don't.
Wait... NOW I get it. You are defending the fact that less emphasize has to be put in the proper setup of attacking forces?

 

[Louis XXIV]

* 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)
* Removed maintenance from defensive buildings. (Added 11/18)

All very good and important.

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

Those are big changes (especially SP change). It means only small civs could see anything in the second half the tree. It makes cultural victories much, much harder. Could be a positive change, though (although I liked SPs the way they are).

 

[Txurce]

What if I notice that I'm going to go into a new era in 10 turns and gain a new policy in 9? Should I purposely slow my culture down just so I can gain a policy later instead? It feels restricted. It punishes anyone who doesn't micromanage.

Besides, it doesn't address the big problem, instead it only covers it up. The big problem is how easy costs can fluctuate just from building or selling cities. I am still punished for settling a couple turns too early. I can still benefit from selling a bunch of cities at once and gaining the last 3-4 policies very quickly.

And finally, if they actually just address the real problem and fix it in a way that I and numerous others have proposed, then we wouldn't need this fix at all. That makes it nothing but a restrictive detriment to anyone not micromanaging the crap out of their empire the moment the real solution is made.

You argue that the change forces micro-managing, but I thought almost every example you gave was some sort of micro-managing. Sonereal offered a couple of solutions to your concerns, so I'll reply more generally.

I hated the saving-SPs exploit partly because it was used as a slingshotting exploit, and that is probably why the designers fixed it. But my biggest beef with it is that it is so blatantly phony. This is not an abstract game, but one loosely based on social, cultural and military history. Saving SPs goes against the game's verisimilitude. Now if you're the sort of player who sells a bunch of cities at once to jack your score or finish date, then I can see why you would not like having an exploit taken away from you. I don't play that way, so I'm very happy to have the exploit removed.

 

[Txurce]

Those are big changes (especially SP change). It means only small civs could see anything in the second half the tree.

I've always played as if the SP rule were already in effect, and always get into the second half of the tree (3-7 policies) while going for a science victory. What do you consider a "small" civ? Mine range as high as 12 cities, with no puppets.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I'll miss the ability to stockpile SP's (especially the free one from the Oracle ) but I think this change makes sense...seems kind of silly that you can enter a new era and immediately gain 3-5 policies relevant to that new age in a single turn.