June/July Patch Notes

[MkLh]

The point is, wonders shouldn't be standard things that are more or less required like Granaries (or whatever building you wish, I don't play Civilization V ).

Yeah, it may seem like a good thing that FP was buffed (after it was once nerfed ), but thanks to all happiness nerfs, it's going to be more or less a mandatory now for wider empires, which is not a good thing.

 

[Buccaneer]

Really, people's egos are getting in the way of thinking realistically. "Drop down a level" is excellent advice and the one thing that the game very much needed since it was released.

 

[MkLh]

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?108900-June-July-Patch-Notes&p=1407473#post1407473

Particularly interesting are United Front and Forbidden Palace.

With FP+Republic you're at 15%. That's getting close to Theocracy. If you take Landed Elite as well, that's up to 25% (depending on what the pop of the cities is). So as you can see happiness hasn't been nerfed quite as badly as we thought.

Theocracy wasn't the only thing that was nerfed regarding happiness. You must overcome resource, colosseum and theater nerfs (-1 from each) and added +1 unhappiness from the number of cities too. These are big things and may not be compensated easily with new "great" ways to gain happiness like Professional Armys +1 happiness from expensive and otherwise totally useless buildings (this seems like a trap that persuades you to make your empire weaker ). The only major buff I see regarding happiness is Organized Religion that gives happiness from monuments and temples as in this case the opportunity cost isn't necessary big.

But of course we need to see how it all works in practise before giving a final statement. It's clear that their goal was the make the game harder and seems quite likely that nerfing happiness was a part of that plan (as the AI gets unlimited happiness on higher levels, lowering happiness is a straightforward way to make the game harder).

 

[AckAck]

Your response is both logically flawed ("should be reassured') and then superficial ("drop down a level"). Your responses are also inconsistent - if there's no reason to worry, why should we need to drop difficulty?

At some point you just need to say, "okay, I'm wrong." Usually around the time everyone else chimes in and corrects you will work.

I don't want to get involved in the personal cage match here, but I do see several complaints from lots of posters about the stock 'drop down a level' reply. The devs themselves have said:

Consider dropping a difficulty level if you have problems.

It's clearly intentioned that the changes in this patch may require you to drop a level in difficulty. I don't necessarily agree with this intention, but the matter of whether the difficulty level of the game is affected by the patch should not be a point of contention.

I roleplay Civ MP with my friends, so I mostly care about the flavour of the game. I really appreciated the way Civ V opened up viable tall empires, even in the late game when expansion restriction are less stringent. The spread of happiness across multiple game effects doesn't bother me that much - it makes strategies more varied, and guarantees an asymmetry of power that makes the game more interesting. Of course, this is only in MP play with good friends where the asymmetry is a good thing - the way in which we relate to AIs, the subhuman cheating non-friends that they are, makes power asymmetry much more horrifying in that context.

 

[civnoob13]

Why would you fear a needed bonus? Isn't it more logical to be reassured by it?

One of the overarching goals of this patch is to integrate more aspects of the game. That's partly why more SP's are available, and why Wonders have added benefit. It should be harder to ignore any of the game's major facets.

Others have responded to this quite well, and as they said, you should not have to rely on wonders, which only one civilization can get, to maintain a happy empire. That is not a sign of good balance that on the lower difficulties especially (seeing as this is where you are recommending people should go) the majority of the AI are going to have a very unhappy empire.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'm not happy with this patch, but I have one major question to ask:

Is the double-happiness Policy bug fixed?

For those who don't know: there's currently only one Policy that adds Happiness based on the presence of a specific building. (Secularism? It's the one in the Rationalism tree that adds +1 per University.)

The problem is that it adds +1 to Happiness, and then ANOTHER +1 to UnmoddedHappiness, so you actually get +2 in most cases. The problem is inherent to the engine, although the Happiness UI Lua gives a pretty clear indication of what exactly it's doing wrong.

That was bad enough before, with that one Policy, but I see a TON of these being added; the Honor tree has one policy with four of these boosts (for Walls, etc.), and there are several more in the Piety branch. I'm really hoping they fixed this in the process of adding these Policy changes, but they're not in the patch notes.
(Imagine: if you had all four of those defensive buildings, none of which require any maintenance, and you took that Honor policy you'd gain +8 Happiness PER CITY.)

EDIT: and on a related note, I'd also like them to fix the bug that prevents you from giving a building a negative Happiness value.

 

[Valkrionn]

Others have responded to this quite well, and as they said, you should not have to rely on wonders, which only one civilization can get, to maintain a happy empire. That is not a sign of good balance that on the lower difficulties especially (seeing as this is where you are recommending people should go) the majority of the AI are going to have a very unhappy empire.

Yet until you have played with the patch, you cannot tell if you must RELY on wonders (bad design), or if they provide a large boost (good design).

Really, the two are one and the same; It all comes down to whether or not you adapt your playstyle to the new patch. If you seek to expand aggressively and play exactly like before... Well, you may indeed have to rely on the wonders. If instead you make use of new happiness sources, they could be a worthwhile, but not necessary, boost to your empire.

 

[Randall Turner]

It's clearly intentioned that the changes in this patch may require you to drop a level in difficulty. I don't necessarily agree with this intention, but the matter of whether the difficulty level of the game is affected by the patch should not be a point of contention.

It's the context. When Greg says it, he's saying that the patch is going to make the game harder. I accept that, and I realize that I probably won't get to play the vanilla civs at Deity. (And I expect to have trouble with my "weak" civ, America, on Immortal.) When Tuxurce says it, though, he's not saying the game will be harder, he's basically just covering up for his mis-post on the happiness difficulty thing. (ie, if he'd said "yeah, it might be harder, we might have to drop down" instead of "you might have to drop down", it'd be fine.)

Aside - there are good reasons to try to compensate for spot-difficulty problems with specific strategies, rather than a blanket drop in difficulty. I'm very good at combat, and I like to play late eras - dropping down takes away the AI's late game bonuses, which for me makes the game less fun at the point where I like it the most.

The point is that whether dropping down might be indicated isn't the issue - it's Tuxurce's inclination to tell others what to do in a confrontational manner. It's a pattern with him, ie, responding to MkLh yesterday in a tech discussion comparing civ 4 and civ 5...

It's pretty clear from what you wrote that your only point is to favorably compare Civ4 to Civ5 on a thread about the latest patch notes. So enjoy your preferred game, while I continue to enjoy mine.

so I guess MkLh is relegated to civ 4 and I'm stuck playing Prince. This sort of thing just isn't appropriate, it derails reasonable discussion.

 

[Txurce]

LOL Dude. You're just trolling now. And you're not contributing to the discussion. Noob makes the resaonable point that the developers' decision to provide us with high-happiness wonders implies that we might need them. Your response is both logically flawed ("should be reassured') and then superficial ("drop down a level"). Your responses are also inconsistent - if there's no reason to worry, why should we need to drop difficulty?

At some point you just need to say, "okay, I'm wrong." Usually around the time everyone else chimes in and corrects you will work.

Accusing someone of trolling is trolling - never mind not contributing to the discussion.

Noob found the seeming need to rely on Wonders for happiness "worrying," and I responded that the Wonders are not a sign of a problem, but rather the answer to his problem. That was meant to be reassuring - but if he wasn't, I'll live.

Dropping down a level (or more) is probably the most ignored piece of useful advice offered in this forum. It is relatively superficial, but so are the skills of casual gamers.

I offered the "wonders are your friend" advice above in response to noob - nothing regarding dropping down a level.

In response to your misassumption that happiness is dependent on an exclusive Wonder, I pointed out that there are a few offering happiness... and that if you still can't build any, you can drop down a level (or more) until you can. So you don't need to worry. Just deal.

I don't think the logic there is too hard to follow.

 

[The_J]

People, please don't get personal.

I read somewhere that it would be released next thursday. Has this rumour anything behind it?

No basis, besides the "tradition" of the patch release dates.

 

[Txurce]

That is not a sign of good balance that on the lower difficulties especially (seeing as this is where you are recommending people should go) the majority of the AI are going to have a very unhappy empire.

The AI is going to have very unhappy empires on the lower levels only if the devs have messed up happiness as much as you seem to fear. I don't think that's the case, and neither do quite a few players with a far deeper understanding of the game than I have. You should check out their analyses.

 

[Txurce]

The point is that whether dropping down might be indicated isn't the issue - it's Tuxurce's inclination to tell others what to do in a confrontational manner. It's a pattern with him, ie, responding to MkLh yesterday in a tech discussion comparing civ 4 and civ 5...

so I guess MkLh is relegated to civ 4 and I'm stuck playing Prince. This sort of thing just isn't appropriate, it derails reasonable discussion.

1. This is a thread about the upcoming patch notes, not about what's better in Civ 4 than Civ 5. If I wanted to have a reasonable discussion about 4 vs 5 (which I really, really don't), I'd do it in one of many more appropriate threads.

2. I'm sure you can work your way up from Prince if you study the game.
Moderator Action: Please change your tone.

 

[Randall Turner]

2. I'm sure you can work your way up from Prince if you study the game.

Can I not make it any clearer that I don't want or need gameplay advice from you?

 

[_hero_]

Theocracy wasn't the only thing that was nerfed regarding happiness. You must overcome resource, colosseum and theater nerfs (-1 from each) and added +1 unhappiness from the number of cities too. These are big things and may not be compensated easily with new "great" ways to gain happiness like Professional Armys +1 happiness from expensive and otherwise totally useless buildings (this seems like a trap that persuades you to make your empire weaker ). The only major buff I see regarding happiness is Organized Religion that gives happiness from monuments and temples as in this case the opportunity cost isn't necessary big.

But of course we need to see how it all works in practise before giving a final statement. It's clear that their goal was the make the game harder and seems quite likely that nerfing happiness was a part of that plan (as the AI gets unlimited happiness on higher levels, lowering happiness is a straightforward way to make the game harder).

All that is true, but not only did almost every policy tree get happiness buffs and policies become easier to get, but a handful of wonders also get +happiness buffs. The problem with the current happiness model is that it comes in waves. You'll push yourself to the edge and be "stuck" until you get a nice new policy be it planned economy, Theocracy, freedom, or until you unlock theaters/stadiums. Then you'll quickly get back up to your happiness threshold and be stuck waiting. I feel like this patch makes it more fluid, where you don't get as big of happiness boosts from particular buildings and policies, but you get minor boosts a lot more frequently.

So instead of having 50 turn expansions/wars followed by 50 turns of idling, I'll probably end up being able to expand much more frequently, though perhaps not as quickly. IMO that will make the game flow better, but we'll see.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: No more bickering.

 

[Randall Turner]

The question in my mind of whether the patch changes as a whole are beneficial to gameplay revolves around whether they've successfully managed to "push back" our game timeline. It's apparent that they're trying to extend the "signficant" portion of the game. (We may currently play into the modern era, but most games have been decided by then.)

All these happiness-contributing SP's will take a long time to adopt.

I agree that there are just too many changes to assimilate without actually playing. But I'm not sure, for example, whether "policies become easier to get" is accurate. All the late game multipliers (+100% Wonder culture bonus, +100% Broadcast Tower bonus, +100% Hermitage bonus) are reduced or removed outright, will the flat-rate culture bonuses they've added compensate? I don't know for sure, but I don't see how.

 

[Valkrionn]

I think it's more "Policy acquisition is smoothed out, such that it is easier to acquire early/mid game, but slower late game". I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the standard empire has more policies, yet a cultural victory takes longer.

All in all, I think they are doing exactly what you said; Extending the game.

 

[Zeknichov]

Any word on a release date? It is almost the end of June.

Since everyone else is commenting on the patch notes I will as well. I think happiness has been too much of a non factor in games so I welcome the changes. The nerf to longswords was needed and I think the changes to culture/policies will help to diversify the game.

Overall I am quite pleased with the direction Civ5 is taking. I just wish they would fix the multiplayer. If the new hotseat mode works for internet/lan games I would be really happy. Having players complete their turns at the same time reduces the strategy involved in Civ5 and completely defeats the purpose of playing civ multiplayer. I wish to best my opponents using superior strategy not superior key strokes. If I was looking for a "skill" based game I would play and FPS where strategy is not the main component. Just the other day I played with a friend and took over his city only because I attacked the city before he attacked my units attacking his city. That isn't strategy, that's just dumb.

 

[ButSam]

I think there is also a balance that civs with earlier unique units won't be quite as powerful, and that the first couple of eras will go faster but the modern era slower. I don't know that they are extending the game for most players (since most players don't win insanely early), but certainly will be shaking things up for the top players, and trying to push players out of the early phase of the game sooner. I think if you looked at average play time for average players, though, you will probably not see much of a change. That said, all of this is academic until the patch is released.....

 

[Kevin J]

I think it's more "Policy acquisition is smoothed out, such that it is easier to acquire early/mid game, but slower late game". I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the standard empire has more policies, yet a cultural victory takes longer.

All in all, I think they are doing exactly what you said; Extending the game.

Where's the "Like" button?

I think what Valkrionn posted sums up well how culture will play out:

"the standard empire has more policies, yet a cultural victory takes longer"