March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[Thalassicus]

I'm in the camp where issues of scale have never bothered me... it's an abstract game. <shrugs>

 

[Louis XXIV]

Civ6 will bring in a new character who obviously has to betray everyone? Benedict Arnold as leader of America?

EDIT: Holy crap, I'm about 5 posts too slow

 

[Valkrionn]

Then up until the moment they are really fixed by the workers at Firaxis, they are perceived as conflicting by common players.
At least it looks that way from my common player POV.

Your fault. Others here did not interpret it that way.

Because maybe five people have read it?

Let's take a look at what you said.

Then up until the moment they are really fixed by the workers at Firaxis, they are perceived as conflicting by common players.
At least it looks that way from my common player POV.

Rephrase:

"It looks this way to me, and I define myself as a common player. Thus, other common players see the same issues!"

Again, this is a simple "Silent Majority" argument, plain and simple. Given that the very definition of "common" is "average, ordinary", your statement claimed that you are an average player, and that other average players hold the same view; Something cannot be average without being a majority, not when it's a simple case of "I see these issues" or "I do not see these issues".

Should I go on? A simple rephrasing of what you wrote would have removed any of these implications; At this point, I'm simply tired of straw-man arguments of that nature, and tend to jump on them. I apologize if I offended you, but my interpretation was quite valid.

If I believed the issues I have with the game could be addressed with the current access level of mods or wanted a modded fix I would read(again) Kael's how to mod pdf and do it myself.

Current access? That depends on the kind of issues. We actually have more capabilities at this point than many suspect; We are mainly lacking ability to play with the AI, as far as comparisons with Civ4 go.

 

[Valkrionn]

Perhaps, but with unlimited stacks it wasn't really an issue because it made the world seem huge, which in actuality it is. 1UPT makes it seem tiny, which can border if not surpass absurdity.

I actually agree with you here.

I disagree. I think this is an interesting idea, but I also like the option of players having a larger or smaller world to explore if they so choose. Thinking about it with a little more depth made me not like this idea.

And for what it's worth, here as well. The scale issue doesn't bother me enough to warrant that change; But there is no other way to remove the scale issue than to actually scale more than mapsize.

I should probably have said "I agree there is an issue with scaling, but ultimately it is a game, and the issue is not one that can be easily solved".

I think this is a fine sacrifice as it already somewhat exists currently. As long as the player has the ability to change the map scale but not the city or unit scale, then the city-to-unit scaling should be the #1 priority if we are addressing this issue at all. If Firaxis allows an option to change city size pregame then we wouldn't need to bother with this at all. Pick your settings to the scale you prefer.

Here, I completely and totally disagree. I still see no benefit as far as scale is concerned with simply expanding what one city can work; It causes more issues to me, as then you have cities that are the equivalent of thousands of miles of map area.

That post has interesting ideas, but not the one I listed, which I feel is the best option. I would not want a tactical map for sure. I do think a unit limit is a good idea, but would not solve the scalability issue.

Because it only lists unit management solutions, not scaling ones.

But yes, I agree on both. No tactical map (not as a physically separate map, at least!), and make the existing unit limit more of an integrated mechanic.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

My pipe dream would be a Civ game where city radius, tile improvements and tiles worked were one size hex, like we have now in Civ V. The tactical layer, where 1UPT applies, is contained within these hexes, with 7 (central +1 ring) or even 19 (central +2 rings) hexes contained within each strategic level tile. Military units would only occupy this tactical layer, and be limited to 1 UPT. Naval combat and transport could probably be handled on the strategic layer, as long as a naval escort system was implemented, that is better than what we have now. Roads, field fortifications, etc. would be built on the tactical layer, so workers would have a mechanism to move between the two layers, to do their thing.

Why stop there?!
A very simple MOD could do this with a few functions already coded;

-- WorldView.lua
-- Maxi-map (instead of Mini-map)
-- Indirect Parachuting methods.
-- Combat 1VS1 but with multiple "components" addressing parallel interactions between virtual stacks.

While providing for an additional Resolve routine.

 

[JohnnyW]

I think this is a fine sacrifice as it already somewhat exists currently. As long as the player has the ability to change the map scale but not the city or unit scale, then the city-to-unit scaling should be the #1 priority if we are addressing this issue at all. If Firaxis allows an option to change city size pregame then we wouldn't need to bother with this at all. Pick your settings to the scale you prefer.

Here, I completely and totally disagree. I still see no benefit as far as scale is concerned with simply expanding what one city can work; It causes more issues to me, as then you have cities that are the equivalent of thousands of miles of map area.

The simple solution to that is to play on the larger maps. Surely you can see the point I am making:

1) Unit scale cannot change with 1UPT: 1 unit = 1 hex.
2) Map scale is already changeable.
3) City scale is the only variable that is unchangeable currently, and potentially changeable in the future. This is what fixes city-to-unit scale; and that scale seems inappropriate. If we can change this then the player can set the map size to whatever they want to get their own personalized scale settings.

Because it only lists unit management solutions, not scaling ones.

Forgive me for reading only the solutions and not the prefaces

 

[Arsenic Steel]

Rephrase:

Your rephrasing of my post to suit your argument and attempt to explain your comprehension error can be handled like this; I did not mean it that way.
No matter how you interpreted, I have again corrected you on the matter so do try and deal with the statement as I meant and not how you want to argue it down.

Because maybe five people have read it?

I don't know how many people read it. Does it matter how many people have read it? You still got it wrong and others did not. Anyone stating that I meant some sort of majority validation of my point would also be equally as wrong as you were.

We actually have more capabilities at this point than many suspect

Do suspect you do or do you actually do? If you can't change behavior then you can't do anything I would not be able to do myself.

 

[Valkrionn]

The simple solution to that is to play on the larger maps. Surely you can see the point I am making:

1) Unit scale cannot change with 1UPT: 1 unit = 1 hex.
2) Map scale is already changeable.
3) City scale is the only variable that is unchangeable currently, and potentially changeable in the future. This is what fixes city-to-unit scale; and that scale seems inappropriate. If we can change this then the player can set the map size to whatever they want to get their own personalized scale settings.

I do; I simply vehemently disagree. You propose to fix city-to-unit scale, at a cost of city-to-terrain scale (which is more important to me; I do NOT want cities working half a continent on a normal map!). Tossing out a "play larger maps" argument doesn't work when larger maps contribute to slowdowns and crashes for many players.

Seems to really come down to this: You place precedence on the City-Unit scale. I place precedence on the City-Map scale.

Forgive me for reading only the solutions and not the prefaces

The thread was devoted entirely to whether or not 1upt would exist in civ6. Rather than argue for the continued inclusion of 1upt, I decided to list all the alternatives I could come up with; So aesthetic issues such as mapscaling didn't occur to me, just gameplay ones.

Your rephrasing of my post to suit your argument and attempt to explain your comprehension error can be handled like this; I did not mean it that way.
No matter how you interpreted, I have again corrected you on the matter so do try and deal with the statement as I meant and not how you want to argue it down.

Once again: I didn't say you meant it that way. Just that that is indeed a perfectly valid way to read it, and is in no way a "comprehension error".

Whether you meant it or not, you said you are a "common" player, that you perceive certain issues, and that other "common" players perceive the same issues. This is fact; Read your post if you disagree.

Now, I offered to actually discuss your issues with the game, rather than debate the wording of one small post, but apparently you have no interest in that. If you think I'm trying to out-yell your objections you're wrong; I have my own, and we may well agree on many. I'm simply tired of straw-man attacks on the game, and your post could easily be interpreted in that way; I pointed this out. Not once did I claim you meant it that way, or mean anything more with my statements than to simply point out the phrasing in the hopes you won't use it again.

Do suspect you do or do you actually do? If you can't change behavior then you can't do anything I would not be able to do myself.

You can change quite a bit of AI behavior, you simply cannot add new AI behaviors.

And yes, we actually do. If I say something is possible given the current state of Civ5 modding, then it is possible; I am very well acquainted with the system at this point, even if a minority of my mods are publicly available.

If I say something isn't possible, I'm quite likely wrong. I'm frequently taken offguard by what others are able to get working.

 

[JohnnyW]

I do; I simply vehemently disagree. You propose to fix city-to-unit scale, at a cost of city-to-terrain scale (which is more important to me; I do NOT want cities working half a continent on a normal map!). Tossing out a "play larger maps" argument doesn't work when larger maps contribute to slowdowns and crashes for many players.

Seems to really come down to this: You place precedence on the City-Unit scale. I place precedence on the City-Map scale.

No, I want them all to fit cohesively. We can alter the map size to whatever we want. If it needs to be 2x2 or 1500x1500 we can change that to fit our needs, whatever they may be. To keep 1UPT we cannot change the unit/hex ratio

H = hex; U = unit; C = city; M = map

1) Premise: 1UPT locks U/H ratio
2) Premise: M/H is changeable to anything
3) Premise: C/H ratio is *now changeable*

We agree that the current H/U/C/M scale could be improved, right? Ignoring performance issues for the moment, what would be the ideal U/M ratio? Tiny, Small, Standard, Large, Huge, or Other? What would be the ideal U/C ratio? 1 unit (0 radius city), 7 (1 radius), 19 (2), 37 (3), 51 (4) 81 (5), 117 (6)..... What is the ideal C/M ratio?

Since U/H is fixed, if U/C, U/M or C/M are inappropriate we can only change C/H and M/H ratios to reach appropriate numbers. Go back to premise 2: M/H is already changeable to whatever we want. This is not an issue. You could add 5 hexes in all directions to each map size; the sizes are not set in stone. Therefore M/H and M/U ratios are not a problem: we can already adjust them to precisely the settings we want with the game in its current state.

What we need is premise 3 to be true. Whether you like the scale currently or hate it, having the option to change it can only open doors to address the scalability issues that some of us do not enjoy. You do not have to sacrifice other ratios for this. If you increase C/H by a factor of 2, increase M/H by a factor of 2. Your map is now twice as big, but your city to map ratio is the same. *Remember we are ignoring performance issues for the sake of argument at the moment.*

Can you agree with me that this is precisely the one and only way for the game to possibly address the scalability issues as they currently stand? If you can't see that then I'm afraid this entire discussion has been a waste and I won't continue in any future posts in this thread.

Now, if you're arguing that this is unreasonable from a *performance* standpoint then okay! I have no problem admitting this would become an issue on larger maps. So. What? There are already issue on higher maps and the scale is broken (IMO). Wouldn't it be better to have a better scale in that same broken game while still having the option to have the original scale in a smaller game? What can you possibly lose by allowing this option? Also, when I say "option" I mean changeable by modders - the base game mechanics would alter too much to have a checkbox before the game started.



--It's really late for me and I'm tired. If I'm still not clear I can try to explain it again later, but I really truly hope you can agree with me bold and italicized statement. I feel like we agree on the issue but you're coming from a current practicality standpoint rather than an conceptual standpoint.

 

[Valkrionn]

Like I said: Your solution relies on expanding maps (doing otherwise simply overcrowds maps with cities, which the patches have been working against). As things stand currently, many players experience crashes or slowdowns on huge maps; The "new" map sizes would need to be even larger, IMO. There is no such thing as ignoring performance issues, so far as any solution to specifically Civilization 5 is concerned.

So it comes down to wanting larger maps, to make 1upt 'fit'. This just doesn't work with the current engine.


I completely disagree that it is the only way; I agree that it is one of the ways, but it is IMO non-viable for Civilization 5. Given an improved engine, it could possibly work in an expansion or in Civ6; As something patched into Civ5, the size requirements appear to surpass what is feasible.


I do, however, agree that a capability to change the number of workable tiles in a city would be nice. Doing so should cost next to nothing, as far as development time is concerned, and opens things to those players who wish to play around with it. It may well even be possible already; I honestly have not checked. It could just as easily turn out impossible given the engine; It was possible in Civ4 however, so odds are good it still is.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I *MUST* click on its icon to be politely presented a choice... 95% of the time, i select; OFF-Line Mode.

That's kinda my point. Because steam was last run in offline mode, next time you start it it asks you whether to go into online mode or offline mode before it goes into either. If you had been running steam in online mode previously, it would go straight into online mode without asking. This behaviour mightn't occur with some different configuration (I set Steam to save password and log in automatically when I launch it).

So basically, if you only ever run steam in offline mode, you're never forced to go into online mode and so never forced to update your game. Of course at any point you can choose the online option and then all bets are off as to whether your game will get updated or not.

 

[ohioastronomy]

1upt and Civ do not innately conflict. Virtually any perceived issue can be fixed, given adequate time.

This is an assertion without evidence. We see the current game and its deep. deep flaws. If you're claiming that a good computer AI can be built for any game, with any rules, and any design - well, that's really a pretty far-fetched assertion.

The traveling salesman problem is a fact. 1upt makes movement much, much harder. It stresses the system (ironic, since you're talking about problems with big maps.)

Games without stacking are tactical ones. This means that they have opportunity fire; unit support; lots of movements points; and tend to be custom battles scripted on custom maps. They work best on the tabletop when you alternate moving individual units. When you move away from these ingredients you lose the original draw of the system.

Civ 5 has an "I go, you go" setup. This leads to bizarre gamey behavior even in the best case. Add in a combat model where I can hurt you, but you can't hurt me and you get a mess. Add in terrain at the wrong scale and it gets worse; add in the damage to the empire-building game and it is a disaster.

Turning it around, this looks like an arbitrary design decision by an inexperienced designer with a poor sense of what makes for a good game. What evidence is there that this is a good idea even given better AI?

 

[Blue Oyster]

I'm gonna re-texture 2 of them B/W since they're still too noisy.
Gathering dog for hire, please. Barn them once improved.
Do somethin'!

I love the bucolic integrity of your solution!

 

[Mustakrakish]

I don't get it. What was really fixed about denunciations? They "value your relations when considering denouncement"? They don't seem to value anything at all. It's not permanent now, but that's the only change I see after trying 2 games now. I'm still getting denounced all the time by friendly civs just as much as by guarded, hostile civs...

 

[Blue Oyster]

My pipe dream would be a Civ game where city radius, tile improvements and tiles worked were one size hex, like we have now in Civ V. The tactical layer, where 1UPT applies, is contained within these hexes...

At the strategic level, one sees a stack-o-doom; at the tactical, the stack resolves to 1UPT, eh? Me like.

 

[thamis]

as i said before, a product has to build on the previous successful product. failure to do so results in Civ5 for example.

Absolutely not! A product should also go different ways.

Jon Shafer himself said that Civilization IV was already at its best, and he didn't see anything to improve. So Firaxis decided to take Civilization into a slightly new direction. I think they did that very successfully. CIV5 is a great game -- it's just different from CIV4.

If you don't like that, you can still play CIV4.

 

[Valkrionn]

This is an assertion without evidence. We see the current game and its deep. deep flaws. If you're claiming that a good computer AI can be built for any game, with any rules, and any design - well, that's really a pretty far-fetched assertion.

The traveling salesman problem is a fact. 1upt makes movement much, much harder. It stresses the system (ironic, since you're talking about problems with big maps.)

Games without stacking are tactical ones. This means that they have opportunity fire; unit support; lots of movements points; and tend to be custom battles scripted on custom maps. They work best on the tabletop when you alternate moving individual units. When you move away from these ingredients you lose the original draw of the system.

Civ 5 has an "I go, you go" setup. This leads to bizarre gamey behavior even in the best case. Add in a combat model where I can hurt you, but you can't hurt me and you get a mess. Add in terrain at the wrong scale and it gets worse; add in the damage to the empire-building game and it is a disaster.

Turning it around, this looks like an arbitrary design decision by an inexperienced designer with a poor sense of what makes for a good game. What evidence is there that this is a good idea even given better AI?

So you say. I personally see absolutely no reason a workable AI could not be developed. Other issues such as production could be resolved by a more integrated unit cap.

Simply because something has not yet been done, does not mean it is impossible. Developers should not be afraid of creating something new... Or would you prefer they all behave like activision, developing only those games easily churned out on a yearly basis?

What evidence is there that it is not simply a good idea, poorly implemented?

At the strategic level, one sees a stack-o-doom; at the tactical, the stack resolves to 1UPT, eh? Me like.

I don't. Places even more emphasis on war. A decent combat engine is a good thing, but at that level the game loses it's empire-building feel and becomes a war-game.

 

[need my speed]

There is also no reason why you can't create your own space ship.

1UPT may be a good idea, but not for Civilization. You say it's poorly implented, but to implent it correctly would remove many things that people enjoy about Civilization.

 

[Michl2602]

No, Polynesia doesn't have the historical "importance" some may want.

But if you're looking for variety and a unique flavor, it's pure gold.

The "unique flavor" especially is in the szenario, imo by far the best szenario there is so far. Your goal there is to achieve kind of a "thin culture victory" (complete 3 SP-trees different to the ones in the main game). Also the statues you can build really have something mystic and the maori-warriors a like.

I love it!

 

[futurehermit]

I played ciV for the first time in months last night and was surprised at how much friendlier the AI is. When the game first came out, it was nigh impossible to get along with the AI. I was trying out the "tall/small" empire approach with Ramesses and there was Siam, Russia, and India on my continent. We all had a friendly love-fest going on with mutual DoF's and so forth, even when my borders/cities started getting near Siam and Russia. I was able to settle 6 total cities peacefully while pulling down a fair number of wonders in my capital and was in a decent position to pursue a cultural victory path when I quit for the night. I had a super minimal military and, still, everyone was friendly with me. That is quite a change, especially, for Siam, who, previously, if I saw them nearby, I KNEW that we were going to end up fighting for SURE and that I should aim to take them out before they got their UU.