June/July Patch Notes

[aleph0]

The HG (with 10fpt) will have a more drastic effect for the player on growth etc. than the AI civ that builds it - especially on the hardest levels where the AI civ start bonus modifiers are huge and they essentially start out with 2-3 cities, workers and units. I would say that the wonder would have a noticeable effect for the AI civ as well, but less dramatic.

If you play like crap or 'leaned back', the HG cannot save you. No wonder can.

PS: no need to express being an unexperienced player. The questions you ask are perfectly valid and well articulated.

So you basically agree with me that it is no big deal? It could make the game a bit more difficult at higher level, but considering how many people have been complaining about the game being too easy, this is good. I just wonder at this point if the risk is that it makes lower levels too easy. Although I don't really believe so.

 

[Putmalk]

Wow, permanent negative and only temporary positive diplomatic modifiers. I honestly thought there would be enough positive modifiers that actual diplomacy would be worth it. Well, looks like I'm still on the warpath then.

Yet the modifiers make sense (why should the AI not hate you forever for nuking them and capturing their capital)? And why should the AI love you 400 turns after a 30 turn GPT deal expired back in the Classical Era? I believe these changes make a ton of sense.

 

[aleph0]

Yet the modifiers make sense (why should the AI not hate you forever for nuking them and capturing their capital)? And why should the AI love you 400 turns after a 30 turn GPT deal expired back in the Classical Era? I believe these changes make a ton of sense.

Completely agree. Also: if you take an AI capital, you are most likely doing a permanent damage. While commerce benefits are obviously temporary and much easier to achieve. Keep long lasting good commercial relations, and you obtain a permanent positive modifier.

 

[civnoob13]

Wow, permanent negative and only temporary positive diplomatic modifiers. I honestly thought there would be enough positive modifiers that actual diplomacy would be worth it. Well, looks like I'm still on the warpath then.

Yeah, I agree. I see no gameplay benefit in only positive modifiers degrading. There is already a desperate lack of positive modifiers, this improves the situation but there is no reason to make only these ones degrade. I do agree with new negative modifiers (not in terms of needing more, but they are appropriate and lacking without them), but they should degrade if the positive ones do. Or, even better, neither should degrade.

Kind of disappointed Commerce didn't get any improvements. Still looks like the most boring Social Policy tree.

Hmm, didn't notice this. Probably the worst tree hasn't even been improved? Huh?

Other than that, the rest look like improvements. Especially the RA fix. And Wonders are finally truly wonderful, instead of something to build when you don't want to build anything. Also like the improvements to the bottom-tier civs. Who also doesn't love an incentive to build Tanks?

I love the improvements to tanks, the Ottomans, Germany, and America, but why no improvement for England? It is probably the weakest one now, or maybe still just above the ottomans. Rather annoying considering that, out of the four mentioned civs, England (or rather Britain) has had the largest impact throughout history as a whole. As for wonders, I support some of the changes, but oppose most. The hanging gardens are now OP, stonehenge too dull to bother with, and pyramids completely useless. This will make early game far duller.

 

[civnoob13]

Yet the modifiers make sense (why should the AI not hate you forever for nuking them and capturing their capital)? And why should the AI love you 400 turns after a 30 turn GPT deal expired back in the Classical Era? I believe these changes make a ton of sense.

They may make sense in terms of realism, but in terms of gameplay they don't. Gameplay>realism.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yet the modifiers make sense (why should the AI not hate you forever for nuking them and capturing their capital)? And why should the AI love you 400 turns after a 30 turn GPT deal expired back in the Classical Era? I believe these changes make a ton of sense.

No, I was kind of hoping for the old Civ 4 modifers of "We have been at peace for so long!", "Our open borders bring us closer together!", "We appreciate your supply of resources", and "You have shared your technology with us". Because good trading relationships over hundreds of years should have an impact that sticks a bit, you know? Is it so much to ask for lasting good relations?

 

[aleph0]

They may make sense in terms of realism, but in terms of gameplay they don't. Gameplay>realism.

Why not? Commerce-related positive modifiers are much easier to achieve and the effects of good commerce relations have a much more limited timespan compared with conquering a capitol.

 

[Agent Cooper]

So you basically agree with me that it is no big deal? It could make the game a bit more difficult at higher level, but considering how many people have been complaining about the game being too easy, this is good. I just wonder at this point if the risk is that it makes lower levels too easy. Although I don't really believe so.

Not exactly.

My main point it that a deity AI civ as an example, might generate x amount of food per turn in it's 3 cities basically from the get go. If they build HG (10fpt), the overall impact might correspond to a 25% increase of x, meaning the HG will increase the food production for their entire empire with 25%.

If the player build the HG in his only city, the capitol, that percentage will be much higher because you only have one city generating food. As such, HG will have a more drastic effect on the growth of your empire than it will have on the overall growth of the AI civs empire.

Of course, compared directly capitol vs capitol, the growth rate caused by the HG will probably be similar between you and the AI.

As such, the HG could turn out to be quite a big deal to you, but not quite so much a big deal to the AI.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Increasingly heading for a *BALANCED* gameplay.

Policy finishers (Markus, how's that?!?), GreatPersons Info (Valkrionn?!), *true* RA flow and effects, un_happiness (superb twist, btw), complete revamp of "empire" managing. Can't say i won't keep investing into any subsequent DLC releases to thank this excellent work by Devs.

The big surprise wasn't really only about Replays or Hot-Seat, after all.

What a weird summer (+) this will cause!

 

[Valkrionn]

They may make sense in terms of realism, but in terms of gameplay they don't. Gameplay>realism.

No, I was kind of hoping for the old Civ 4 modifers of "We have been at peace for so long!", "Our open borders bring us closer together!", "We appreciate your supply of resources", and "You have shared your technology with us". Because good trading relationships over hundreds of years should have an impact that sticks a bit, you know? Is it so much to ask for lasting good relations?

IMO, there is one simple fact that both of you are ignoring... You won't be making just one trade with the AI, and then ignoring them for the rest of the game. Not if you are playing the game with any kind of proficiency at least.

The benefit from each individual trade wears off... As does the trade. But when one fades away, another generally takes it's place, turn after turn. So long as you maintain a good trading relationship, does this not yield what is in effect a permanent bonus?

 

[apocalypse105]

They may make sense in terms of realism, but in terms of gameplay they don't. Gameplay>realism.

I think it gives a better gameplay because nukes are so powerfull in this game it is only right to give you a perament diplomacy hit for using it...

Secondly you only need to take a capital for domination victory as result it is easier then previes civ so there must be some drawbacks for it....... And if you lose your own capital you cant win domination victory so it makes sence they are mad.
I again it is better that they give a negatif modifer for it.

 

[Valkrionn]

Increasingly heading for a *BALANCED* gameplay.

Policy finishers (Markus, how's that?!?), GreatPersons Info (Valkrionn?!), *true* RA flow and effects, un_happiness (superb twist, btw), complete revamp of "empire" managing. Can't say i won't keep investing into any subsequent DLC releases to thank this excellent work by Devs.

The big surprise wasn't really only about Replays or Hot-Seat, after all.

What a weird summer (+) this will cause!

You know, that's actually the first comment on that I've seen....

 

[aleph0]

As such, the HG could turn out to be quite a big deal to you, but not quite so much a big deal to the AI.

And that was exactly my point: at Deity doesn't affect the game so much if the AI gets it while it could significantly alter the game balance if you get it. So it's reasonable that at higher levels it is really difficult to get it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The benefit from each individual trade wears off... As does the trade. But when one fades away, another generally takes it's place, turn after turn. So long as you maintain a good trading relationship, does this not yield what is in effect a permanent bonus?

Not when the AI suddenly goes Guarded from seeing you trying to win or some other spur-of-the-moment change that suddenly prevents worthwhile trades.

And could you people stop putting words in my mouth? It's really annoying. Where did I say that I wanted a permanent positive modifier after only one trade?

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I had to have a bit of a chuckle reading some of the posts.

Poster#1 says: The game is becomming too much of a warmonger game and it seems now to have any chance to compete on harder difficulties I need to either go to war (which I don't want) or build good wonders that I might not be able to get (e.g., HG)

Poster #2 says: Well if someone else builds the HG just go attack them then its yours.

Ummm... failure to communicate?

 

[Agent Cooper]

And that was exactly my point: at Deity doesn't affect the game so much if the AI gets it while it could significantly alter the game balance if you get it. So it's reasonable that at higher levels it is really difficult to get it.

OK - sorry, I misread your post then as the HG not being a big deal for the player.

Yes, the AI that gets the HG (again, if 10fpt is correct), will basically just be more overpowered than it already is.

AI civ + HG = V8 engine -> supercharged V8 engine
Player + HG = V6 engine -> supercharged V8 engine

PS: on immortal/deity, the AI civ has more cars than you do

 

[civnoob13]

I think it gives a better gameplay because nukes are so powerfull in this game it is only right to give you a perament diplomacy hit for using it...

Secondly you only need to take a capital for domination victory as result it is easier then previes civ so there must be some drawbacks for it....... And if you lose your own capital you cant win domination victory so it makes sence they are mad.
I again it is better that they give a negatif modifer for it.

I agree that the new changes in terms of negative modifiers make sense, but when compared to the positive ones they don't as much. However, others have been making a good, and embarrassingly obvious point that you are going to be sustaining trades throughout the game, so it is effectively a permanent positive modifier.

 

[MkLh]

Again: I really shouldn't comment on this, as I'm not experienced enough. But for the sake of discussion: let's say HG are really overpowered. Are they so also for the AI at higher difficulties? I mean: AI already has a lot of advantages, does +10fpt really matter? If the answer is not, while it really can put a human player on par with high level AIs, then I think that it is fair that the human player must struggle very hard to get it (i.e. build his whole strategy around it), otherwise the whole point of playing higher difficulties is missing: just be able to build the HG and you are ready to play deity.

AFAIK the AI doesn't get any food bonus, but a bonus on growth - i.e. it needs less food to get a new citizen. This means that in some sense, extra food is more profitable to the AI than to a player as the same amount of food gives more citizens to the AI. The same goes for expansion, where that +10 fpt would really help the AI to churn out its cheap settlers but not so much a player who is limited by happiness.

 

[Valkrionn]

Not when the AI suddenly goes Guarded from seeing you trying to win or some other spur-of-the-moment change that suddenly prevents worthwhile trades.

And could you people stop putting words in my mouth? It's really annoying. Where did I say that I wanted a permanent positive modifier after only one trade?

I don't believe I did... I just pointed out that you won't be making just one trade. My apologies if you interpreted it that way, but then, you would be guilty of putting words in my mouth on that one.

 

[GenjiKhan]

One thing that I know many players can do if they feel that higher difficulties would be harder to beat with this patch. Play on lower levels to get use to and then move to higher levels when you are ready. this solution is so simple to do.