June/July Patch Notes

[eric_]

Replay is now available at the end of the game, and through the main menu. You can choose Map, Graphs, and turn-by-turn. Only games played post-patch will apply.

Does this mean only games started post patch, or does it include ongoing game that get open and played post patch?

While play-by-email is not yet implemented, we did include an in-between turn saving option for those that want to play via email.

'in-between turn saving' - what does that mean?

All great person tile improvements now connect all strategic resources.

Meaning, e.g., a manufactory built on coal will make that coal available?

Map generation improvements to integrate Stone into production-poor terrain, reducing the temporary usage of Cows. Additionally, will switch grass bonus resources from Cows to Stone when production is needed.

Huh?

 

[Ermak-]

0 changes to multiplayer as always (excpet the hotseat BS- which is not really multiplayer) FIX THE MULTI GAME FREEZES FOR LORD'S SACK!

Moderator Action: Please do not try to circumvent the autocensor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Montov]

0 changes to multiplayer as always (excpet the hotseat BS- which is not really multiplayer) FIX THE MULTI GAME FREEZES FOR LORD'S SACK!

There is a change for multiplayer, but I think your vision is blurred by unfounded anger.

 

[Montov]

Does this mean only games started post patch, or does it include ongoing game that get open and played post patch?

It means turns played post patch. If you load an 'old' game, you probably won't see any graphs and other data, but if you play a couple turns, those turns will be visible (ok, that is my expectation). Newly started games will be coverd completely.

'in-between turn saving' - what does that mean?

Normally when you save, you save while it is your turn; you cannot save a game while the game is processing the moves of the AI. In-between turns means you can save a game between your turn and the turn of someone else, so you can grab the savefile, send it so someone else, and he/she will be able to load and play another slot of the Hotseat game.

Meaning, e.g., a manufactory built on coal will make that coal available?

Yes

Huh?

Less Cow, more Stone.

 

[Hakizo]

Hanging Garden's seem worth it now

 

[eric_]

Thanks Montov!

Less Cow, more Stone.

lol, that's much more elegant

Overall, I think I really like these changes. A lot more synergy between buildings and policies, many wonders seem much more consequential, etc. Will be very interesting to see how games play out, and if I'll have to kick it back down to King or even Prince (just jumped from Prince to Emp recently after a strong second showing in King).

 

[Agent Cooper]

Well, OK, I think we have agreement on your first point -- i.e., that the next patch might likewise make huge changes. But your logic doesn't flow smoothly from there. We're speaking of dedicated players here, aren't we, those who usually complain loudly on this forum that Civ V is way too easy? So, don't you think these dedicated players will welcome the opportunity to try their stuff with a harder game (or at least with a game requiring new strategies, etc.)? Then, three months later, don't you think these same dedicated players will have totally mastered the game again and will welcome new challenges?

I pretty much agree with this, but we just need to keep in mind that for every one of us dedicated fans at forums like this, the Civ series also has a huge fanbase/casual player base out there, that essentially decide indirectly with their wallets, whether dedicated Civ games will continue do be developed or Civ World will be the future of this franchise.

Most people don't mind change if it comes at a pace where they are allowed to adjust. Most people don't like change if it comes all at once, becomes overwhelming and essentially will make you look after alternatives instead.

I would hate to sit here at this forum in a couple of years, realizing that Civ 6 will be dumbed down (or perhaps discarded altogether in favor of developing CivWorld Cashcow) because the developers misinterpret a potential, growing lack of interest in the game franchise from the casual players, as a sign that the game is too 'complicated'.

My point has nothing to do with whether you believe the patch makes the game better or worse. It's directed at the approach of making massive fundamental changes in one single patch to an existing game most have now grown accustomed to.

 

[Thormodr]

There is a change for multiplayer, but I think your vision is blurred by unfounded anger.

Yes...because multiplayer works so well in Civilization 5.

 

[Furycrab]

Yes...because multiplayer works so well in Civilization 5.

Well Hotseat is a start, in all honesty I know some players have played Civ multiplayer before, but saying that multiplayer for any civ game should be a priority is a huge stretch .


I see a ton of good stuff, some funny stuff (Ottomans and Germans ), and a crazy amount of reworking strategies.

I don't see anything bad other than we might have to take an ego hit and go down a notch (in my case from Immortal back to Emp or King)

 

[GIO888]

I would hate to sit here at this forum in a couple of years, realizing that Civ 6 will be dumbed down (or perhaps discarded altogether in favor of developing CivWorld Cashcow) because the developers misinterpret a potential, growing lack of interest in the game franchise from the casual players, as a sign that the game is too 'complicated'.

Civ has ALWAYS been complicated and thus had a hardcore of players and modders that refine and improve the game. The casual players like nice graphics, and thats what most new incarnations will concentrate on until we get the total immersion game around ten years from now.

I can't wait to try out the new gameplay, for one

 

[Thormodr]

Well Hotseat is a start, in all honesty I know some players have played Civ multiplayer before, but saying that multiplayer for any civ game should be a priority is a huge stretch .


I see a ton of good stuff, some funny stuff (Ottomans and Germans ), and a crazy amount of reworking strategies.

I don't see anything bad other than we might have to take an ego hit and go down a notch (in my case from Immortal back to Emp or King)

Hotseat is indeed a start. Multiplayer is still a mess though. I wouldn't blame a dedicated multiplayer player for being pissed off at the lack of action on that front.

As for the changes, I guess we'll see. The proof will be in the pudding.

Stone sounds good anyway.

 

[Tatran]

I certainly will try the new patch.

Casual gamers and Civilization don't go together.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I pretty much agree with this, but we just need to keep in mind that for every one of us dedicated fans at forums like this, the Civ series also has a huge fanbase/casual player base out there, that essentially decide indirectly with their wallets, whether dedicated Civ games will continue do be developed or Civ World will be the future of this franchise.

Most people don't mind change if it comes at a pace where they are allowed to adjust. Most people don't like change if it comes all at once, becomes overwhelming and essentially will make you look after alternatives instead.

I would hate to sit here at this forum in a couple of years, realizing that Civ 6 will be dumbed down (or perhaps discarded altogether in favor of developing CivWorld Cashcow) because the developers misinterpret a potential, growing lack of interest in the game franchise from the casual players, as a sign that the game is too 'complicated'.

My point has nothing to do with whether you believe the patch makes the game better or worse. It's directed at the approach of making massive fundamental changes in one single patch to an existing game most have now grown accustomed to.

I think casual players will be okay with it.

To the contrary, I think it mostly hurts people who come onto the forums in order to copy strategies so they can pat themselves on the back by beating a difficult level. For a little while people will need to think through it themselves until people with more time to spend on the game come up with the Next Big Thing.

 

[Hawaiian]

I, for one, am very happy with the direction of the changes. Many new players may find nerfs to be disappointing, but just drop down to the easier levels if this is the case for you.

In truth, happiness needed a nerf. It was easy to have plenty of surplus happiness on Emperor without even building happiness buildings. With the restructuring of happiness, now there will be multiple ways to try and get it and manage your empire. Of course, I haven't actually tried this patch, but it sounds good on paper.

Thank you devs for catering to long-time players and hard core civ players. For newbies and players unfamiliar with Civ, they can play the easier levels and still find enjoyment, too!

Other notes:
*Very interested to see how stone is implemented!
*Nice to see an increase in influence for killing barbs for CS. Now it's actually worth it to make the effort in some cases.
*Destroyer moved to combustion, thank you!
*Tank movement increase, I'm guessing mainly for being able to take advantage of double attack after moving, too. I think I like this. Wondering if it will be worth it as a choice instead of mechanized infantry now. It will be weird to have less mobile mech infantry though. Will try it out.

 

[eric_]

Interesting about tanks. I'm kind of envisioning a three-tiered force moving through enemy territory: tanks, infantry, siege. With the new extra movement (and the -1 move for Mech Inf), tanks will be more effective for moving through first to deal with anything in the field, infantry protects siege from anything that gets by tanks, then takes cities after siege has softened 'em up (as usual). This could realistically enable you to field far fewer infantry, since 4 or 5 artillery + 2 infantry is often enough to take a city in one turn, maybe two.

The nerf to longswords may lead to similar tactics in the renaissance. In both cases, anti-cav units (pikes, anti-tank, lancers) will become more important.

Re: factory requiring coal and getting seriously nerfed, I'm OK with it. Coal is usually fairly abundant, and is used for pretty much just factories anyway (unless anyone's ever built a real fleet of ironclads )

 

[Man vs Civ AI]

I think this is a good change - after playing lots of Civ V, it was getting stale. As someone else said, it's almost like a whole new game. I have been playing against 21 civs on Prince and usually had no trouble, but the patch should make it more of a challenge. I refuse to play on higher levels due to the AI "bonuses". Just maybe this patch will provide the fair challenge I am looking for. I think it's good that wonders are being nerfed because in the "real world" they don't provide such things... perhaps only some happienss and slight advantage to whatever they are related to. Also I think wars will be more frequent and difficult early on. Domination victories will be more difficult to achieve. Happiness will be much more difficult to maintain, resulting in reduction of city growth and number of cities, while production will increase. Those are my first impressions from the upcoming patch, but we will see...

 

[aatami]

Right now my biggest concern is Arabia might become the worst civilization in the game.
But I still have my fingers crossed that Firaxis hasn't blundered like that.

 

[elprofesor]

Mine too. Others fear the happiness nerf, the new tech pace, the nerfed Landed Elite and Meritocracy (both come a lot later now)...
I fear that the bazar will now only give two extra gold in oasis and oil wells...

 

[apocalypse105]

Mine too. Others fear the happiness nerf, the new tech pace, the nerfed Landed Elite and Meritocracy (both come a lot later now)...
I fear that the bazar will now only give two extra gold in oasis and oil wells...

I dont mind if they remove the extra luxury resources and give it a good bonus

A bonus like the the paper maker from china. For example a market that gives you + 4 or 2 gold

The bonus it now gets is bad really bad

 

[apocalypse105]

Right now my biggest concern is Arabia might become the worst civilization in the game.
But I still have my fingers crossed that Firaxis hasn't blundered like that.

If they want to change the bazar at least give it a good bonus

Like a market that increas your gold output and gives you +4 gold. LIke the chinese paper maker