June/July Patch Notes

[Calouste]

Yes, that's the simple way... But it is NOT the right way.

Right now, an entire unit role simply vanishes in the modern era. Modern Siege units do not gain the ability to fire without setup until rocket artillery, I believe two unit tiers later? The best, simplest thing to do is to introduce at LEAST one new ranged unit, move the "no-setup" ability back one unit tier, and combine the two lines that way.

And? Pretty realistic looking at military history. You get aircraft back for that btw.

 

[Valkrionn]

Yes, but that role is easily filled by the advent of more mobile, faster firing field artillery. Which incidentally came about the same time as the muskets that finished off the crossbow.

I actually agree about Air units, though, and said so in a different post.

 

[apocalypse105]

I too was thinking new Hanging Garden is way overpowered. +5 hospitals are pretty strong and that is late game. +10 early game is dominating. The only negative could be too much growth but that is a pretty nice problem for a single city.

EDIT: I also want to be able to upgrade crossbows to something useful. Anti-personnel ranged units.

You still need the happiness... And because its nerved its gonne be diffiult.

Maybe one of the reasons they nerved happiness.

 

[Louis XXIV]

For the love of ALL THAT IS HOLY, do not add a freaking sniper unit.

Snipers are blown so far out of proportion in modern gaming that it is not funny. Please, please at least keep them out of Civ.

A far better unit would be a mortar team, or some other form of field artillery (as compared to siege artillery, which is already in game).

My suggestion is a Mortar around the same time as infantry and RPG around the same time as Rocket Artillery. The RPG is actually the preferred unit, since it definitely seems to be a staple of many armies and, especially, paramilitaries. The problem I have is thinking of a satisfactory early gunpowder upgrade for Crossbows.

 

[vexing]

er, if you have to do that, just build/buy an archer.

the only time to make chariot archers over actual archers is when you're upgrading to Keshiks or camel archers. (or getting siege for a mande cav rush)

you do realize chariot archers are going to be same strength, more ranged strength, cost less than regular archers and have multiple moves in flat terrain?

the only reasons to build archers over chariot archers is the use of a horse (which isn't an issue for egypt), and the lack of a same line upgrade. clearly china and england should use regular archers, but chariot archers aren't a bad choice for any other civ, and are great for egypt.

 

[neilkaz]

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Seriously Greg...I have to ask (and no I am not trolling nor flaming) why it is that you guys continue to think that you have to make it more and more difficult for us humans who play the highest levels to build a decent sized fun empire and/or to conquer one?

 

[Calouste]

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Unhappiness per city increased to 3 from 2.

Seriously Greg...I have to ask (and no I am not trolling nor flaming) why it is that you guys continue to think that you have to make it more and more difficult for us humans who play the highest levels to build a decent sized fun empire and/or to conquer one?

The highest levels are supposed to be a challenge. If you just want to play for fun, play at a lower level. I play Prince/King, don't want to have to think too hard when I get home from work.

 

[Gamemaster77]

My suggestion is a Mortar around the same time as infantry and RPG around the same time as Rocket Artillery. The RPG is actually the preferred unit, since it definitely seems to be a staple of many armies and, especially, paramilitaries. The problem I have is thinking of a satisfactory early gunpowder upgrade for Crossbows.

Well from a realism perspective in real life and in-game that is not realistic. You do realize infantry doesn't just mean foot soldiers with rifles right? Infantry includes all those, mortors, RPGs, and snipers.

 

[Horizons]

There is no single correct way to address balance issues, and obviously the entire game is linked. It sounds as if you would prefer that they build from the SP's on out - but there's no more reason to set them in stone than any other part of the game.

So why should I accept the changes in this patch as being final when if experience tells me that in the next patch they will get changed yet again?

When will this endless tinkering with the early game (the bit that needs the least fixing) stop?

 

[Gamemaster77]

So why should I accept the changes in this patch as being final when if experience tells me that in the next patch they will get changed yet again?

When will this endless tinkering with the early game (the bit that needs the least fixing) stop?

And so the old saying goes, if you dont like it, mod it different yourself.

 

[Muaziz]

Yes, but that role is easily filled by the advent of more mobile, faster firing field artillery. Which incidentally came about the same time as the muskets that finished off the crossbow.

Isn't that what the Grenadiers were in Civ4 BTS?

 

[Valkrionn]

Yes, but grenadiers are less ranged than the muskets are

 

[elprofesor]

While Field Artillery make far better sense, and keep to the common "the battlefield expands in the modern era" explanation for why Riflemen are not ranged.

A modern era ranged unit is a good idea (though I would say Rocket Artillery currently embodies a hybrid ranged/siege unit, so combining the lines at that point would work), but snipers are simply NOT a good idea.

I second this, but we would need 2 new units: one for late renaissance (rifles/cavalry/cannons), and one for the industrial era (infantry/tanks/artillery).
The second one is not really needed, because the 3 range and indirect fire from artillery lets it function as a regular ranged unit, despite it can't move before attacking, but if we want to keep the ranged promotions up to rocket artillery, one unit is not enough between crossbowmen and RA, is it?

On the subject of snipers, they make a better promotion than a unit, for the reasons you exposed. At most, a "civilian" unit that works similar to a GG; -10% strength towards enemy's adjacent units, or "adjacent enemy units don't benefit from morale, nationalism nor GG bonus", or whatever.

 

[Valkrionn]

I would simply add one unit, move back the "no setup" feature to Artillery, and merge the lines there. This way, you only add one unit, preserve a unit role more effectively, and make promoting ranged units effective.

 

[Deggial]

Again and again and again:

"Accuracy" and "Barrage" promotions are *NOT*(!!!) lost, when upgrading range units! They actually *STACK*(!!!) with their meele correspondent!
This might give you a stunning +130% bonus, when fully promoted with both lines!

All you will lose, are (of course) "range" and "indirect fire" promotions. But is this not worth the "doubled" bonus?

--

And regarding the upgrade path:
I'm not against it, despite of what writing above.
But then, snipers are *not* the way to do it. Snipers need direct line of sight.
Ranged units in CiV do *ballistic* shooting!


However, all this has nothing to do with the upcomming patch and therefore is totally off-topic...

 

[elprofesor]

Again and again and again:

"Accuracy" and "Barrage" promotions are *NOT*(!!!) lost, when upgrading range units! They actually *STACK*(!!!) with their meele correspondent!
This might give you a stunning +130% bonus, when fully promoted with both lines!

All you will lose, are (of course) "range" and "indirect fire" promotions. But is this not worth the "doubled" bonus?

Actually, ranged bonus are better than melee, but only apply when attacking. So a fully promoted crossbowmen-riflemen would get +145% bonus on attack, and 65% bonus on defense (it the terrain matches). They will take a while to get there, though, and you would be better getting march/blitz, and the upgrade to melee slows down its acquisition (if you had, say, barrage 3, when upgrading, you will have to get 3 more proms to get there). Obviously, in a vacuum, the possibility of extra proms is cool, but you will simply take too long to get there (unless you are talking about honor-boosted keshiks upgraded to tanks, maybe).

--------------------------------------------------

I would simply add one unit, move back the "no setup" feature to Artillery, and merge the lines there. This way, you only add one unit, preserve a unit role more effectively, and make promoting ranged units effective.

Getting rid of the "must set up before moving" for Artillery would probably OP them. The only reason Rocket Artillery isn't OP is that all units get a movement boost in the modern era (mech infantry now less), and that bombers will usually do their job a bit better (but they have to deal with AA defenses, etc). An artillery rush is doable and already very effective, I don't think they need a further buff. I'm ok with the merging at artillery of siege and ranged, but not with removing that penalty. People used to ask for crossbowmen upgrading to cannons, by the way.

 

[Deggial]

They will take a while to get there, though, and you would be better getting march/blitz, and the upgrade to melee slows down its acquisition (if you had, say, barrage 3, when upgrading, you will have to get 3 more proms to get there). Obviously, in a vacuum, the possibility of extra proms is cool, but you will simply take to long to get there (unless you are talking about honor-boosted keshiks upgraded to tanks, maybe).

Of course, you are right! It will take time to get there and it might be better to get other promotions first. All I write against ist the myth, that terrain dependend range promotions are useless when upgrading the unit.

 

[eric_]

i dont like any of the ranged non-siege units much it deprives from game experience that they upgrade to melee units instead of grenadiers/mortars.

Mortars would be *awesome* as a non-siege ranged upgrade! I think sniper would be better as a promotion. Maybe a %chance of incurring no damage when attacking?

edit: I think it would be easy to distinguish between mortar and cannons/artillery. Make the former significantly weaker, cheaper, no set up, and apply a penalty when attacking cities.

 

[Carl5872]

The game should be balanced at Prince/Multiplayer; extra difficulty is there only to make up for the poor AI, which simply can't compete with a human. The fact that Hanging Gardens is nearly impossible to build in harder difficulties is not a problem per se, since Deity is intended to be nearly impossible. And we still have to see if Hanging Gardens are "the best wonder", as you say.[/QUOT

For all you deity guys out there is it really impossible if you make an effort? I never play above king, but Is it because most people go for writing first, but what if a strategy was altered to target that wonder by beelining techs to get it. Not saying its necessarily worth it or anythign.

Another point is that you may not need to BUILD it.

 

[Carl5872]

very sad to see that my favourite wonders are ruined. Also sad to see so many buildings nerfed so much. Other than that, good update. To the people who are complaining that they can't play deity anymore, if you were relying on the exploits the allow you to beat deity, then that's good.

Ive seen a lot of people say buildings are nerfed. Are they really though? With the 1 gold less maintenance couldnt you afford more of them? Also there's a lot improvements from policies like meritocracy's full happiness per trade route.