March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[Drawmeus]

Cool we can use DLCs in multiplayer. But since these added civs are better than average, they will be selected in almost all games. Babylon=>free GS=>Steel. Et voilà.
I have to buy these DLCs or i will be stomped.

Eh, are they really better than average, or is one of them really good? Babylon is great, but are the Mongols better than average? They seem pretty bottom-tier to me.

 

[noncognosco]

Eh, are they really better than average, or is one of them really good? Babylon is great, but are the Mongols better than average? They seem pretty bottom-tier to me.

The Inca are better than the Babylonians with the right start location.

 

[Martin Alvito]

On paper, for sure. In practice, it has costs - it's a social policy that you probably wouldn't have taken before, so it costs you whatever the benefits of the social policy you would have but don't are. Quite possibly it costs you two social policies for nearly no net benefit

With the Culture buffs along that pathway, you won't be giving up SPs. You will be gaining them, because you'll be acquiring loads of extra Culture during the period when your SP costs remain small.

The problem isn't just Landed Elite itself. It's the fact that the intervening policies are the first things you should be collecting irrespective of strategy. Why would you go get the free Settler when early Culture bonuses can get you a bonus to and growth as well as the free Settler a few turns later?

 

[Drawmeus]

With the Culture buffs along that pathway, you won't be giving up SPs. You will be gaining them, because you'll be acquiring loads of extra Culture during the period when your SP costs remain small.

The problem isn't just Landed Elite itself. It's the fact that the intervening policies are the first things you should be collecting irrespective of strategy. Why would you go get the free Settler when early Culture bonuses can get you a bonus to and growth as well as the free Settler a few turns later?

If Tradition is just that much better than the other two options, then yeah, it's pretty much free for ICSers. I'm not convinced that that's true, though. The Liberty branch lets new cities replace their settler much faster, gives you a free settler, gives you free extra happiness per city (effectively decreasing the per-city unhappiness, empire-wide), helps you keep up with workers, and with significant investment in the branch, will give an ICS empire vastly more policies than Tradition policies ever will (+1 culture per city AND 33% reduction in per-city policy cost increases). I'm not at all convinced that an ICS empire using Tradition policies first will be better than one focused on Liberty first, given what you can get 3 and 4 policies into that tree for an empire going wide. Some ICS empires with a bit more cultural focus will manage to grab a bunch of policies from both before they unlock the later policy trees, but is that really a bad thing?

.shrug I'm not all that worried about it, in any case. ICS is taking three enormous blows in this patch regardless of what happens with the policies - increased distance between cities, decreased benefits of small cities (so it'll take quite a bit longer to reach break-even on cities) via the trade route nerf, and buffs to various resources by making the buildings that give extra bonuses more enticing (e.g. Monastery, Lighthouse, etc.).

That last bit isn't literally a nerf to ICS, but it's a shot at the reason ICS is a degenerate strategy rather than just good empire management - it makes the terrain matter incrementally more. Is that enough to destroy ICS? No, but it does reflect a rather promising commitment to balancing the game in a way that allows both wide and tall empires to be successful without being degenerate. In short, if they keep developing patches like this (and for that matter, like the last one - the last one was actually awesome but took a lot of heat simply because a lot of people had their hopes up for a magical fix-everything patch which was simply never going to happen), the future is bright, even if this one doesn't solve everything.

 

[lschnarch]

Some people have decided to hate Civ V regardless. I'm puzzled as to why they still bother to read and comment in the Civ V forums.

Why should we stop posting here?

There are some who have been expressing since release that Civ5 was a "perfect" game, "exactly what they were looking for" and now are frenetically cheering over each patch, especially the ones which completely change the course of the previously so "perfect" game.
Obviously, with such people you don't have problems? Very convincing.

Again, there's a difference between something being broken and something being used improperly.

The point is, a 1upt system cannot work in the context of a Civilization game (at least not without major changes to key concepts). This has been discussed in various threads already and therefore I am going to only give some short remarks.

In the old Sid Meier's Pirates you fought town sieges on a tactical map, and the computer could position its troops on hills, take advantage of cover, keep it's weaker ranged units back behind stronger melee, flank with mounted, etc. This game came out in about the year 2002. It's not some pie in the sky dream.

It was in 2004, as far as I remember from the original Pirates (MicroProse, late 80'ies) it took place on a limited map in comparison to a worldwide map (just the Carribean) and it covered only the weaponry from the Renaissance era.
And even then, as you say, they needed to introduce seperated combat maps. Now, see my remark above about regional concepts, and you get the picture.

As for as your confusion as to stacking of civilian units: 1UPT is designed make combat more tactical and battlefields and terrain more important. However, allowing multiple civilian units would not impact that and could have some other benefits, make it easier use your workers and great people, etc. It seems to me a reasonable suggestion I read on another thread could support.

This is just nonsense.
"1upt" first and foremost means one unit per tile. For each "element" (earth, water, air) this means to only have one unit. There is quite a reason why they had to allow civilian units to stack with military ones - and to make a General (!!!) a civilian unit.
Because a strict 1upt doesn't work.
In fact you're asking for nothing less than softening this concept even more - because you see the inherent flaws of it in the context of a Civilization game (geographical and time scaling).

And finally, why do you insult so many people by saying people like 1UPT because it makes the game easier? Why is it so hard to believe people enjoy a combat system that involves varied units with differing strengths and weaknesses, terrain positioning and chokepoints, zones of control, meaningful placement of forts and defensive structures? Forgive us for liking something that involves more thought than build a 100 units, march to city, crush city, rinse and repeat.

Because they are typically exactly the same people who are complaining about the multiple options of Civ4.
Because they are praising a system which only lives due to the inability of the AI.
Because 98% of them would cry and whine if they were confronted with a real opponent, being able to defend against their "big army" of six units.
And once again, unwillingly you are admitting this by yourself. You are referring to defensive structures and chokepoints, two things which the AI not only doesn't use properly but even doesn't grasp in the slightest way.
Yes, for you as the human player it may be fun to have the AI bleed to death in front of your forts. What about the same thing happening to you? What about the AI making use of its superior production and unit numbers in a cleverly placed system of defense positions?

Whatever we have been promised pre-release in terms of warfare wasn't fulfilled: the combat is still completely about seizing cities, fronts are non-existant and for sure are not at the borders (well, of course you can define three units accidentally being placed next to each other "a front", but that's it).
You adress this by the frustrated demand "they should fix this ASAP", but it isn't anything else than wishful thinking.
1upt may work (and does work) for limited regions, limited timeframes, limited set of units (in terms of unit types, weapon's technology included and whatnotmore), but it doesn't work for a Civilization game.
And any claim "but it COULD!!!oneeleven!!!!" doesn't disprove that statement.
Show me a 4xTBS game covering 6000 years (or any other timeframe from stoneage to nuclear time weapons) in which a 1upt system works, and I will admit that it works.
Unfortunately, I don't know any such game and for the moment being I'm assuming you don't know either.

 

[ThERat]

I actually still follow such threads because I want this train wreck reach the inevitable hall of shame as fast as possible so they can concentrate on the real next civilization game...any patch just delays that...
I guess they will sell more DLC's soon after the patch to reap the benefits of the excited crowd.

lschnarch is quite right in saying that many posters claim that Civ 5 is so great but are now shouting 'this is exactly what is needed'. Well, after all you also admit this game is broken.

I personally am not interested in a game that wants you to build an 'empire' consisting of 5 cities. That's not civilization for me.

 

[Scaramanga]

Thanks,
Any details on the Legalism "cultural buildings"?

I tentatively understand the "cultural building" to mean the cultural branch of buildings: monument -> temple -> opera house -> broadcast tower (I think?).

Depending which existing building you have in the city when you adopt the policy determines which new building will appear.

 

[Txurce]

And finally, why do you insult so many people by saying people like 1UPT because it makes the game easier? Why is it so hard to believe people enjoy a combat system that involves varied units with differing strengths and weaknesses, terrain positioning and chokepoints, zones of control, meaningful placement of forts and defensive structures? Forgive us for liking something that involves more thought than build a 100 units, march to city, crush city, rinse and repeat.

I was going to warn you of the canned rant coming your way. Unfortunately there will always be unsuspecting souls walking into that rubber room.

 

[sharkles]

They should make generals and great people their own kind of unit and then it would be perfect.
Perhaps squares instead of triangles or circles.

 

[noncognosco]

Why should we stop posting here?

There are some who have been expressing since release that Civ5 was a "perfect" game, "exactly what they were looking for" and now are frenetically cheering over each patch, especially the ones which completely change the course of the previously so "perfect" game.
Obviously, with such people you don't have problems? Very convincing.

I never saw anybody say that Civ V was a "perfect" game, either now or before. What many people have said is that it is a fundamentally solid game with a large number of problems. With each patch, more of the problems get corrected and the game improves. After this patch, the game is still not perfect and probably never will be. Civ 4 BTS was not a "perfect" game either.

This is what we call a "straw man" argument and is a pretty weak form of argument in general.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Show me a 4xTBS game covering 6000 years (or any other timeframe from stoneage to nuclear time weapons) in which a 1upt system works, and I will admit that it works.
Unfortunately, I don't know any such game and for the moment being I'm assuming you don't know either.

If i may... Galactic Civilization II (+ DA & TA expansions) does it quite well, AFAIC.
And don't bring me the pseudo_Fleets (1 or 2 or 3 combat ships) argument, cuz it's all deployed in a complex LYs distances (per square tiling, too) from Interstellar Space not on "Planetary" wide (huge to tiny) maps.

 

[Thalassicus]

I like most of the changes and I'm happy they decided to add resource yield bonuses to buildings, I think it adds a lot of fun to the game!

However, there's something that concerns me with a few big changes in the patches. I dislike how often choices are removed in core areas of the game instead of fixing the underlying problems. For many key overpowered strategies, they just remove the choice from the player entirely, instead of balancing the real cause of the issue.

• Early specialists deleted - because of overpowered GS lightbulbing
• Promotion saving gone - OP instant-heal
• Policy saving gone - OP late-game policies
• 2-tile city spacing gone - OP ICS

Sid Meir said a game is a series of interesting decisions. An overpowered strategy makes decisions less interesting, but removing choices is worse, because it completely eliminates the decision-making.

The better solution is to balance overpowered strategies:

• Nerf lightbulbing.
• Change the instant-heal promotion.
• Balance early vs late policies, and change cost-reduction policies to instead increase cultural output.
• Nerf ICS by shifting flat per-city bonuses to per-empire & percentage bonuses. (they actually buffed ICS in this patch by going in the opposite direction with many buildings...)

 

[sharkles]

I like most of the changes and I'm happy they decided to add resource yield bonuses to buildings, I think it adds a lot of fun to the game!

However, there's something that concerns me with a few big changes in the patches. I dislike how often player choice is reduced in core areas of the game instead of fixing overpowered strategies:

• 2-tile city spacing ICS overpowered -> blocked close city spacing.
• Instant-heal promotion overpowered -> blocked promotion saving.
• Free Speech policy cost reduction and other late-game policies overpowered -> blocked policy saving.

Sid Meir said a game is a series of interesting decisions. An overpowered strategy makes decisions less interesting. Removing choices entirely is worse, because it completely eliminates decision-making.

It's just a new rule in the game. You can't have strategy without rules.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I like most of the changes and I'm happy they decided to add resource yield bonuses to buildings, I think it adds a lot of fun to the game!

I wonder what's gonna happen to your Balance(s) MODs now that they have enforced some complex "Streamlining" and global value edits in multiple areas?
Cuz, 80+% of their stuff is directly pulled off your work.
You should be smiling in pride.

 

[Sneaks]

Why should we stop posting here?

There are some who have been expressing since release that Civ5 was a "perfect" game, "exactly what they were looking for" and now are frenetically cheering over each patch, especially the ones which completely change the course of the previously so "perfect" game.
Obviously, with such people you don't have problems? Very convincing.


The point is, a 1upt system cannot work in the context of a Civilization game (at least not without major changes to key concepts). This has been discussed in various threads already and therefore I am going to only give some short remarks.

It was in 2004, as far as I remember from the original Pirates (MicroProse, late 80'ies) it took place on a limited map in comparison to a worldwide map (just the Carribean) and it covered only the weaponry from the Renaissance era.
And even then, as you say, they needed to introduce seperated combat maps. Now, see my remark above about regional concepts, and you get the picture.

This is just nonsense.
"1upt" first and foremost means one unit per tile. For each "element" (earth, water, air) this means to only have one unit. There is quite a reason why they had to allow civilian units to stack with military ones - and to make a General (!!!) a civilian unit.
Because a strict 1upt doesn't work.
In fact you're asking for nothing less than softening this concept even more - because you see the inherent flaws of it in the context of a Civilization game (geographical and time scaling).

Because they are typically exactly the same people who are complaining about the multiple options of Civ4.
Because they are praising a system which only lives due to the inability of the AI.
Because 98% of them would cry and whine if they were confronted with a real opponent, being able to defend against their "big army" of six units.
And once again, unwillingly you are admitting this by yourself. You are referring to defensive structures and chokepoints, two things which the AI not only doesn't use properly but even doesn't grasp in the slightest way.
Yes, for you as the human player it may be fun to have the AI bleed to death in front of your forts. What about the same thing happening to you? What about the AI making use of its superior production and unit numbers in a cleverly placed system of defense positions?

Whatever we have been promised pre-release in terms of warfare wasn't fulfilled: the combat is still completely about seizing cities, fronts are non-existant and for sure are not at the borders (well, of course you can define three units accidentally being placed next to each other "a front", but that's it).
You adress this by the frustrated demand "they should fix this ASAP", but it isn't anything else than wishful thinking.
1upt may work (and does work) for limited regions, limited timeframes, limited set of units (in terms of unit types, weapon's technology included and whatnotmore), but it doesn't work for a Civilization game.
And any claim "but it COULD!!!oneeleven!!!!" doesn't disprove that statement.
Show me a 4xTBS game covering 6000 years (or any other timeframe from stoneage to nuclear time weapons) in which a 1upt system works, and I will admit that it works.
Unfortunately, I don't know any such game and for the moment being I'm assuming you don't know either.

Ischnarch is correct in a lot of his assessments of 1UPT in Civ V as it stands today. It is still entirely unclear whether an AI can be built for this system that can give proper challenge to a human opponent. This will require a lot of added pathing and logic, and it remains to be seen whether this engine (not even optimized for 64bit) will be able to slog through all of this additional math, given that many players already cannot use any larger maps.

That being said, 1UPT should probably only apply to military units. While this does deviate from an exact semantic definition, honestly, who cares? It would lead to better gameplay, and give the AI a slightly less heavy load.

Where he is wrong is his claim that 1UPT cannot work for Civ based upon the fact that a game does not already exist that meets these requirements. Of course this is a fallacy, but it does bring up an important point: Civ V is attempting to do something with 1UPT that will most likely take quite a lot of time to get right and balance. A serious question needs to be asked whether this creation of a workable 1UPT should be happening on the consumer's time as opposed to a prolonged beta before release. However, that also opens up a Pandora's box of other issues ranging from financial projections to budgets to time limitations.

It is best to approach Civ V in its current state. Can it be given a working combat system? Yes. Will that system require lots of time and memory? Yes. Is Firaxis/2k willing to invest in the system enough to see it through to its theoretical completed state? No one outside those companies knows.

 

[Sullla]

As long as there's no maintenance cost incurred, founding cities in ICS style will always be the best strategy for high-level play. At some point, I hope Firaxis will realize that their global happiness system doesn't work, and revert back to the one system that does. I see little in these patch notes to change that (especially with a new policy that gives +2 food in all cities, holy cow!)

Overall, good news for those who like Civ5; personally, still not interested.

 

[Martin Alvito]

If Tradition is just that much better than the other two options, then yeah, it's pretty much free for ICSers. I'm not convinced that that's true, though.

Work the math on going Tradition first with a Cultural ally against going Liberty first with a Maritime ally. You'll be surprised how quickly you have all the SPs the Liberty player has, plus your extra choices in Tradition.

If you go Tradition, Cultural ally and NC first, then REX, you're going to find that Collective Rule lands exactly when you want it to.

 

[Sneaks]

As long as there's no maintenance cost incurred, founding cities in ICS style will always be the best strategy for high-level play. At some point, I hope Firaxis will realize that their global happiness system doesn't work, and revert back to the one system that does. I see little in these patch notes to change that (especially with a new policy that gives +2 food in all cities, holy cow!)

Overall, good news for those who like Civ5; personally, still not interested.

Then you really should give alpaca's PlayWithMe a spin. His city maintenance system (based a lot off IV) does a lot to fix ICS in a far more sane way.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Is Firaxis/2k willing to invest in the system enough to see it through to its theoretical completed state? No one outside those companies knows.

Duh - what's patching to you?
Somebody worked at these compiling_coding hours for free?
Or is it *ALREADY* budgeted like every good business plan does?

I may be outside, but some financial common sense i've learned in University and applied in the workplace of banks and as accountant hints on a specific pattern.
Risk = Profits or Losses.

 

[_hero_]

As long as there's no maintenance cost incurred, founding cities in ICS style will always be the best strategy for high-level play. At some point, I hope Firaxis will realize that their global happiness system doesn't work, and revert back to the one system that does. I see little in these patch notes to change that (especially with a new policy that gives +2 food in all cities, holy cow!)

Overall, good news for those who like Civ5; personally, still not interested.

You're statement is a bit closed-minded. There are plenty of ways to make having few massive cities be the superior strategy besides just using Civ IVs extremely unrealistic maintenance style. For instance, if building modifiers were amplified with city size and especially if it were non-linear, but rather gained increasing amounts of power the more the city grew. Not only would that be historically accurate, but also would make ICS strategies relatively weaker.

Besides, I think you are missing the point. They aren't trying to make ICS weak, they are just trying to bring everything else up to it's level. This was another step in that direction, without over-nerfing, or breaking the game completely.