New Version - November 17th (11/17)

[Enrico Swagolo]

Settling on rivers also allows for gardens and, later, a hydroplant. Making wells better is a way to balance river vs. non-river locations.

Meh, maybe, but the buildings compared to each other by themselves seemed relatively balanced before to me - one is slightly better, but it comes an era later and costs about twice as much. Hydroplant is not really noticeably more powerful compared to alternatives IIRC (unless some changes were made since), and imho if it's only about river vs non-river balance, it'd be better to undo the Watermill nerf and just allow Baths to be built everywhere, but gain some yields if on river, like +1-3 Food and/or Gold.

 

[Grabbl]

But the hydroplant is mirrored by the wind plant, leaving the only "unmatched" river building the baths. So I also think, the water mill gets too weak with the new version. Even before, I often liked to avoid rivers when founding cities because of the instant well vs. a much later water mill.

 

[Taticius]

Can someone create a multiplayer pack? My gf and I want to play this during the weekend. I tried using the MPMPM method but got several "(a nil value)" errors in FireTuner

 

[tu_79]

Can someone create a multiplayer pack? My gf and I want to play this during the weekend. I tried using the MPMPM method but got several "(a nil value)" errors in FireTuner

There's the modpack for the release previous to this one. Surely the current modpack is on its way. It usually takes a couple of days.

 

[Gazebo]

Small hotfix inbound for ally/friend mismatch for CSD buildings. Savegame compatible.

https://mega.nz/#!zNVxlYpY!v684tlvXstZysJbJs6vNjkvAx59AIJsEXV8yD9cwmIU

G

 

[matlajs]

i think, with all those culture boosts, you should also increase culture for WW. no matter if base value or through cultural heritage proposal, but you should. it does not make any sense to me that regular stuff should provide more culture than unique ones.

 

[Gazebo]

i think, with all those culture boosts, you should also increase culture for WW. no matter if base value or through cultural heritage proposal, but you should. it does not make any sense to me that regular stuff should provide more culture than unique ones.

Nah, wonders are plenty strong. No need to make them even more 'snowbally.'

 

[CrazyG]

I appreciate these fast updates. A random thought, for the Renewal Pantheon it doesn't give the culture or faith if you work 1 forest and 1 jungle, you have to work 2 of the same type. Is this intentional? It leads to a fair amount of micromanaging

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Nah, wonders are plenty strong. No need to make them even more 'snowbally.'

I think he means the great work combination bonus. In some cases it is pretty bad. Considering how much time is needed to get 2 works, let alone ones of the right type, it wouldn't cause a snowball. Well, unless you're Japan, Arabia or Maya I guess? Then it can be gotten quickly (with some RNG/Tradition/through fighting like a true man)

 

[ElliotS]

Settling on rivers also allows for gardens and, later, a hydroplant. Making wells better is a way to balance river vs. non-river locations.

See this is outright ignorant. The garden doesn't require a river anymore. The garden just requires aqueducts. The fact that you (and presumably other people) took this into consideration in considering river cities better (which they should be, at the very least because they make moving your units extremely annoying until later if not history) proves that the push for and nerf of the watermill was unreasonable.

As Enrico said, the watermill costs almost twice the production of the well, comes 5 techs later than the well (if you beeline it, which you won't, so probably 8-11 techs later at earliest) for a benefit of 1 base production and a staggering 1f/1p per 20 citizens. If anything the watermill was worse than the well to begin with, because the well provides a solid production boost cheap and early with no dependance on workers, whereas the watermill comes MUCH later, costs almost twice the production and and in a 40 pop city prodivdes a grand total of 3f/2p extra.

Now that I look at the numbers nerfing the watermill makes it the worst building in the game by far, and should be undone asap. (Or moved to wheel and made to cost the same as the well, giving river cities 1 food over non-river.)

Now river cities are actually worse than non-river (aka settling 1-2 tiles away from rivers so you can still have fresh water farmland.) because all they get are baths and later hydroplants while costing you the well, slowing your tile improvement due to the hassles of moving your units around your rivers, and hindering your non-scout military without amphibious. (While being sometimes easier to defend, but how often is a good player on the defensive in war?)

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Yeah, I've checked - it's almost exactly twice as much. On epic, IIRC Well was 112 and WMill was 210. That was an unneeded nerf imho. River cities are definitely better historically, and it seemed pretty balanced for me before. Sure, rivers were cool, but you wouldn't be losing your head over not getting one (esp since communitas mapscript loved to overcompensate those starts with lots of resources). Baths could instead lose river dependency, but gain +yields for river-cities, if river cities really were too strong before.

On another note, I've tested the new tribute. This is hot! I didn't need to put all my troops super-close to the CS and it was scared anyway. The Production borrowed from Antwerp really helped build stuff in my capital. Ultimately the benefits of Tribute are now pretty easy to get for an army-loving warmonger, but they are ultimately way worse than what you'd get if you were an ally instead, especially if you consider that the CS could've given you a mission. Seems okay to me. Nice way to annoy people around you, too.

 

[Zymos]

See this is outright ignorant. The garden doesn't require a river anymore. The garden just requires aqueducts. The fact that you (and presumably other people) took this into consideration in considering river cities better (which they should be, at the very least because they make moving your units extremely annoying until later if not history) proves that the push for and nerf of the watermill was unreasonable.

As Enrico said, the watermill costs almost twice the production of the well, comes 5 techs later than the well (if you beeline it, which you won't, so probably 8-11 techs later at earliest) for a benefit of 1 base production and a staggering 1f/1p per 20 citizens. If anything the watermill was worse than the well to begin with, because the well provides a solid production boost cheap and early with no dependance on workers, whereas the watermill comes MUCH later, costs almost twice the production and and in a 40 pop city prodivdes a grand total of 3f/2p extra.

Now that I look at the numbers nerfing the watermill makes it the worst building in the game by far, and should be undone asap. (Or moved to wheel and made to cost the same as the well, giving river cities 1 food over non-river.)

Now river cities are actually worse than non-river (aka settling 1-2 tiles away from rivers so you can still have fresh water farmland.) because all they get are baths and later hydroplants while costing you the well, slowing your tile improvement due to the hassles of moving your units around your rivers, and hindering your non-scout military without amphibious. (While being sometimes easier to defend, but how often is a good player on the defensive in war?)

Very much agreed.

 

[Gazebo]

Yeah, I've checked - it's almost exactly twice as much. On epic, IIRC Well was 112 and WMill was 210. That was an unneeded nerf imho. River cities are definitely better historically, and it seemed pretty balanced for me before. Sure, rivers were cool, but you wouldn't be losing your head over not getting one (esp since communitas mapscript loved to overcompensate those starts with lots of resources). Baths could instead lose river dependency, but gain +yields for river-cities, if river cities really were too strong before.

On another note, I've tested the new tribute. This is hot! I didn't need to put all my troops super-close to the CS and it was scared anyway. The Production borrowed from Antwerp really helped build stuff in my capital. Ultimately the benefits of Tribute are now pretty easy to get for an army-loving warmonger, but they are ultimately way worse than what you'd get if you were an ally instead, especially if you consider that the CS could've given you a mission. Seems okay to me. Nice way to annoy people around you, too.

Rivers have other benefits, such as pantheons, flood plains, earlier tech bonuses for improvements, etc. - having the watermill be later and more expensive than the well is more than balance by the benefits one can accrue from river tiles.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Rivers have other benefits, such as pantheons, flood plains, earlier tech bonuses for improvements, etc. - having the watermill be later and more expensive than the well is more than balance by the benefits one can accrue from river tiles.

G

Actually not settling on a river means one more improvement with the aforementioned earlier tech bonus, same with flood plains - not settling on them makes them workable, so you get that yield anyway, just by working it (and if you settle just on a straight desert, that's a net+ as that desert would be 0 yields otherwise, but has identical yields as a regular city). The only pantheon that gives stuff from river settling is goddess of purity IIRC?

 

[infidel88]

Historically, settling on river/lake was a must until very recently. And one of the best features of Civ6 is that you have to find good or great location for your city with fresh water source. I just don't get it why you try to get inland cities benefit somehow. They shouldn't get any. And I'm a bit puzzled to read that you want to make those cities even more equal. There should either be no benefit for settling cities inland and some big bonus for river cities or malus for cities without fresh water. Just my 0.02$

 

[Gazebo]

Actually not settling on a river means one more improvement with the aforementioned earlier tech bonus, same with flood plains - not settling on them makes them workable, so you get that yield anyway, just by working it (and if you settle just on a straight desert, that's a net+ as that desert would be 0 yields otherwise, but has identical yields as a regular city). The only pantheon that gives stuff from river settling is goddess of purity IIRC?

Right - the point of the watermill nerf is to make it matter less whether or not you settle directly on a river. By nerfing watermills, players can settle one tile off, farm the river, and not feel crippled by it.

 

[Gazebo]

Historically, settling on river/lake was a must until very recently. And one of the best features of Civ6 is that you have to find good or great location for your city with fresh water source. I just don't get it why you try to get inland cities benefit somehow. They shouldn't get any. And I'm a bit puzzled to read that you want to make those cities even more equal. There should either be no benefit for settling cities inland or some big bonus for river cities. Just my 0.02$

Thinking of civ as an abstraction, whether or not a 'city center' is on a river is irrelevant - rivers matter for fresh water, sure, but they matter for farming as well. I'd like to liberate players from feeling compelled to settle on rivers in order to open up more interesting improvement play.

 

[Txurce]

Right - the point of the watermill nerf is to make it matter less whether or not you settle directly on a river. By nerfing watermills, players can settle one tile off, farm the river, and not feel crippled by it.

Thinking of civ as an abstraction, whether or not a 'city center' is on a river is irrelevant - rivers matter for fresh water, sure, but they matter for farming as well. I'd like to liberate players from feeling compelled to settle on rivers in order to open up more interesting improvement play.

I agree with the logic. The historical and game point is that a city can access water. However, I don't see why this would lead to more interesting improvement play. It seems to lessen the sort of compromises that geography imposes, and give Civ some of its verisimilitude. (I imagine this is why you don't like Civ 6's districts, and concede that it comes down to a matter of subjective opinion.)

With regard to the water mill itself:

• Bumped Watermill to 1f/p per 5 (was 1 per 4)

Calling this an over-nerf is one sign that you are a drama queen.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

Why doesn't Mastery belief increase civil servants' yield? I think it gives them 1C/1G/1S or something like that.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

How about making no-river based building constructable on river based city and remaining no-river based and river based building exclusively?