New Beta Version - June 22nd (6/22)

[bigcat88]

Am I misunderstanding a corporation description? Firaxite Materials says that "trade units cannot be pillaged (except as a result of a declaration of war)", yet I keep getting my trade routes pillaged.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-be-beneficial-at-least.619450/#post-14803456

 

[Mitch.sp]

Hey all,

I'm back. Work and a vacation took me away. Will take me a few days to catch up on things.

G

Hi Gazebo, welcome back from your vacation!

As probably the next iteration will be a regular one consolidating last beta changes I'll like to ask what's the final stance relating to starting with a scout.

At first I was neutral to the change, but after several games, I prefer the previous mechanics of exploration (and additional options for start, having the possibility of build scout first), and the interactions with barbarians starting with warriors.

So resuming I'll like to know how it'll be for the next version so I can start to look how to do in case I prefer to revert the change and be ready for the next launch, thanks!

 

[bigcat88]

Make a poll for that, but I think most people will vote for start with a pathfinder.

Gazebo, can u add a possibility of building herbalist when a plantation near present? Cause sometimes there is plantations without any forest tile near...

 

[ElliotS]

I think starting with pathfinder is a HUGE improvement to Deity play. The AI starts with multiple exploration units and so forest starts are super important for any early game centered strat if you start with a warrior or you can't get a pathfinder fast enough to get any ruins.

It's annoying to need to restart in single-player, but is such an unfair advantage in multiplayer that starting with a scout is really important imo.

I think the start is much more interesting now and offers more possibilities.

If the 'start with warrior' lobby is big make it a set-up option, but reverting the decision outright would be really bad for balance in the upper difficulties.

 

[Misaka]

i vote for bigcat88, if herbalism bufs plantationes, i think if not have forest near but have a plantation, need the city can build herbalism.

 

[Owlbebach]

I think starting with pathfinder is a HUGE improvement to Deity play. The AI starts with multiple exploration units and so forest starts are super important for any early game centered strat if you start with a warrior or you can't get a pathfinder fast enough to get any ruins.

It's annoying to need to restart in single-player, but is such an unfair advantage in multiplayer that starting with a scout is really important imo.

I think the start is much more interesting now and offers more possibilities.

If the 'start with warrior' lobby is big make it a set-up option, but reverting the decision outright would be really bad for balance in the upper difficulties.

I think making it a set-up option is best. Personally i play without ruins because its a lottery, and starting with a warrior is way better for an authority start (think about how bad is it for Monty)

 

[Beniito]

I'm getting used to this new beta! I think the policy building changes are on point overall. one thing that bothers me a little is the fact that simple archers from 2 era before my frigate can hit targets two tiles away while my state of the art ships can hit targets only a tile away. However I think the "move after attacking" perfectly compensates for it!
One thing I cant get behind however, is the open borders. AI doesnt even want my open borders. I personally think AI should allow open borders if they're friendly but with out a need for a declaration of friendship. I dare say they should allow it even at neutral. maybe instead of AI not allowing open borders at all no matter what you suggest, they would do it if you're willing to open up your wallets a bit and spare some resources ?

 

[joosegoose25]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-be-beneficial-at-least.619450/#post-14803456

Thanks. So, if I'm understanding this correctly...

I'll say it in an example:
lets say you're japan and korea and china are next to you, and you have trade routes with both. in a normal situation, if china declares war on you, your trade route with china is automatically destroyed. china could also move in to a ocean/coast tile that your trade units use to go to korea and destroy your trade with korea!
however if you have that corporation, only the trade route that you have with china is destroyed, china can not destroy any other trade route that you have with any other civ other than china!
does that make sense ?

What I'm seeing is a bug (I think). Assyria is pillaging my trade routes with a city state friend, even though I have Firaxite Materials. They're not supposed to be able to do that, right?

 

[Beniito]

Thanks. So, if I'm understanding this correctly...



What I'm seeing is a bug (I think). Assyria is pillaging my trade routes with a city state friend, even though I have Firaxite Materials. They're not supposed to be able to do that, right?

I guess it's indeed a bug

 

[bigcat88]

Thanks. So, if I'm understanding this correctly...



What I'm seeing is a bug (I think). Assyria is pillaging my trade routes with a city state friend, even though I have Firaxite Materials. They're not supposed to be able to do that, right?

Report it on GitHub. Looks like it is an very old bug, cause I saw such think maybe a few month ago(but on that time I didn't know that this is a bug)

 

[tu_79]

I think making it a set-up option is best. Personally i play without ruins because its a lottery, and starting with a warrior is way better for an authority start (think about how bad is it for Monty)

Probably. But if goody huts is enabled, I prefer the start with the pathfinder. I fully agree with ElliotS in this. The change in behaviour for the player is minimal and the options are greater.

 

[Funak]

Gazebo, can u add a possibility of building herbalist when a plantation near present? Cause sometimes there is plantations without any forest tile near...

I'd go one step further and say allow herbalist no matter if there is a forest/plantation or not. Yeah it's not going to be a very good building without any of those nearby, but both tradition and the forest/jungle pantheon suffers unnecessarily if you can't build a herbalist in a city.

 

[tu_79]

I'd go one step further and say allow herbalist no matter if there is a forest/plantation or not. Yeah it's not going to be a very good building without any of those nearby, but both tradition and the forest/jungle pantheon suffers unnecessarily if you can't build a herbalist in a city.

I also suffer when my city can work a fish tile, but isn't coastal. Such a pity. I can send fishing boats from other cities, I can work it, but I cannot enhance it with buildings.

 

[Funak]

I also suffer when my city can work a fish tile, but isn't coastal. Such a pity. I can send fishing boats from other cities, I can work it, but I cannot enhance it with buildings.

I wouldn't really put that in the same category, but yeah coastal tiles in non-coastal cities are pointless.

 

[Misaka]

I'd go one step further and say allow herbalist no matter if there is a forest/plantation or not. Yeah it's not going to be a very good building without any of those nearby, but both tradition and the forest/jungle pantheon suffers unnecessarily if you can't build a herbalist in a city.

Well, in my opionion, i don't think so, because, autority principal its expanding (puppet preference), progres expanding where you can and close, and tradition for me its a very productive capital and a very good secondary city if you put them in rivers, and near of jungle/forest, but if you don't put in this spot for me its ok you take the concecuences. but if you have a plantation and do not jungle/forest its not ok for me you cant build herbalism

 

[Enginseer]

Don't forget that being allowed to build a herbalist regardless of forestion/plantation is another +10 Food, +10 Culture for Progress as well.

 

[tu_79]

So. Now, after some testing, and before G commits himself to the next release, is there any feature (not tweaks) of these betas that is not commonly accepted?

I'm pointing specially at ranged naval changes, so much contested, but there's also:
- Field guns -> Artillery
- Starting with a pathfinder
- Trade routes giving culture
- Fog of war for the turn (it makes yields map info to dissapear)
- Linking wonders to policy tree finishers.
- Delay for first policy.

I just dislike wonders to be tied to finishing social trees (it kind of encourages even more to complete trees). I'd rather link some wonders to specific policies, or even better, lower their policy requirements when its target construction date is passed. If Hanging Gardens should have been built by VI century b.C., being at IV century b.C. could lower the number of policies requirement. Buildings from older eras are already cheaper.

 

[Beniito]

So. Now, after some testing, and before G commits himself to the next release, is there any feature (not tweaks) of these betas that is not commonly accepted?

I'm pointing specially at ranged naval changes, so much contested, but there's also:
- Field guns -> Artillery
- Starting with a pathfinder
- Trade routes giving culture
- Fog of war for the turn (it makes yields map info to dissapear)
- Linking wonders to policy tree finishers.
- Delay for first policy.

I just dislike wonders to be tied to finishing social trees (it kind of encourages even more to complete trees). I'd rather link some wonders to specific policies, or even better, lower their policy requirements when its target construction date is passed. If Hanging Gardens should have been built by VI century b.C., being at IV century b.C. could lower the number of policies requirement. Buildings from older eras are already cheaper.

Open borders too I reckon.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I'm still seeing AI dromons and triremes ending in ocean tiles and attacking from there, not sure if a feature or not.

 

[Mad Madigan]

Personally I'm loving all of the changes within this beta, which means I'm probably not one to provide much useful feedback other than, "Yes, this is good". However, I never play on Immortal or Diety, and I rarely if ever go for Conquest victories since it's so annoying to do so when playing on Huge maps with 14-20 Civs. So from the perspective of someone who only ever goes for Diplo/Culture/Science victories, I find all of the changes to be very nice, even the unit changes to ships and ranged siege units.

I'm not sure where the dislike for the Policy-linked Wonders comes from though, as that seems to have been a long-time feature of this mod. I thought the whole point was to encourage players to fully complete Policy trees rather than just picking and choosing a few from each? The AI certainly never picks and chooses, they ALWAYS pick one tree and finish it before moving onto the next. If there is some strategic benefit to pick and choose 1-2 policies from a tree and then move to another, then the AI should be trained to utilize this as well. Otherwise the trees should be edited so that it's always optimal to fully complete them rather than pick and choose. Now, I can see arguments for what Wonders work best as the Policy tree finisher as compared to the current batch, but I'm not too bothered by the timing. Usually by the time I finish a tree I'm about 3-6 techs from unlocking the associated Wonder, but I also tend to focus on optimizing Cultural output, so I'm usually "ahead" of my own Scientific gains when compared to Policies. However, I cannot see a situation in which a player could be so far ahead in techs but so far behind in culture that they unlocked the tech for a Policy-locked Wonder before they had the policy tree complete. That said, the only time I've ever been blocked from building a Wonder due to lack of total Policies is when I rush to the Classical Age ASAP. Overall I also like the changes to the speed that policies unlock, but again I tend to focus on culture Civs so I am probably biased in this regard.

BTW - I agree with the sentiment in the Ideology balance threads that getting 2 free policies if you're the first to unlock an Ideology should be nerfed. It feels like cheating to get to Ideologies first, pick Order for the Great Leap Forward and free Military Academies, and then immediately switch to Freedom for the free Hospitals. I feel it would be fairer to only get one free policy once you accept an Ideology, and for ALL Civs to get this one free policy regardless of when they reach their Ideology. Then, once you get your free one you never get another free one even if you later switch your Ideology.