Next patch anticipation thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

Lowers. So, I'm gonna start a new game now, as a weekend patch is even less likely.

Correct.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Well, maybe it's time to begin the newest GotM then.

 

[Lynnes]

I didn't get to where I am today by relaxing and having fun. I don't know how to code but if I did I would be doing it to the best of my ability.

I don't find no challenge to be fun. I push myself.

I am probably in no position to give you a piece of advice about life, since most Civ players seem to be much more mature and I guess so are you.
Still I hope you don't mind if I say, that I hope that someday you will find joy and happiness in something that won't keep challenging you, and that there won't be a need to prove anything.
I felt some kind of sadness only by reading your post, so I just had to get that off my chest.

Lowers. So, I'm gonna start a new game now, as a weekend patch is even less likely.

You are right, I'll do the same!
Anyone having a suggestion which leader I should pick? Preferrably someone where the special achievement ("do this or that while playing X") can easily be obtained, since I already missed the previous two.

 

[Skulbow]

The other two patches were released about an hour later than this time (as I write this 12:120pm AEST) so is there a reason to definitely suspect no patch today?

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

You are right, I'll do the same!
Anyone having a suggestion which leader I should pick? Preferrably someone where the special achievement ("do this or that while playing X") can easily be obtained, since I already missed the previous two.

Try someone you haven't played.

Give one of the religious leaders a spin (Arabia, Spain, Russia), but don't go for RV. (in the case of Arabia and Russia... the Unique horse units alone make them viable for snowball).

Give Norway or England a spin on a water map, they are actually decent (try a mod that buffs water resources maybe... I recommend The Crazy Scotsmans Improved Water Yields)

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I am probably in no position to give you a piece of advice about life, since most Civ players seem to be much more mature and I guess so are you.
Still I hope you don't mind if I say, that I hope that someday you will find joy and happiness in something that won't keep challenging you, and that there won't be a need to prove anything.
I felt some kind of sadness only by reading your post, so I just had to get that off my chest.



You are right, I'll do the same!
Anyone having a suggestion which leader I should pick? Preferrably someone where the special achievement ("do this or that while playing X") can easily be obtained, since I already missed the previous two.

Sometimes there's joy simply in doing a good job. Maybe that's the case.

Maybe trying Brazil's or Rome's special achievements? They're not that hard to do if you tech fast enough.

 

[Lynnes]

Try someone you haven't played.

Give one of the religious leaders a spin (Arabia, Spain, Russia), but don't go for RV. (in the case of Arabia and Russia... the Unique horse units alone make them viable for snowball).

Give Norway or England a spin on a water map, they are actually decent (try a mod that buffs water resources maybe... I recommend The Crazy Scotsmans Improved Water Yields)

Thanks, sounds good, I'll do that! What do you mean with viable for snowball?
I never really bothered about religion in Civ5 and was surprised how much fun the RV in Civ6 actually can be. And you don't even have to go to war or kill someone! Well, except Apostles who bore each other to death by reciting, I guess..

 

[Lynnes]

Sometimes there's joy simply in doing a good job. Maybe that's the case.

Maybe trying Brazil's or Rome's special achievements? They're not that hard to do if you tech fast enough.

Yeah, that might be the case.

Brazil and Rome sounds good too, but both require to play until late game, which might be tricky if they release the patch soon. But I'll keep them on my list for when the patch has arrived, thanks!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The other two patches were released about an hour later than this time (as I write this 12:120pm AEST) so is there a reason to definitely suspect no patch today?

My theory is that they wouldn't upload a new QA build to test if they were planning on putting up the patch and DLC, because there wouldn't be enough time to thoroughly test it.

They put up the latest QA build only a few hours ago.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

Thanks, sounds good, I'll do that! What do you mean with viable for snowball?
I never really bothered about religion in Civ5 and was surprised how much fun the RV in Civ6 actually can be. And you don't even have to go to war or kill someone! Well, except Apostles who bore each other to death by reciting, I guess..

I don't want to derail the thread too much.. but here goes.

Arabia's UU the Mamluk can beelined in only 3 techs, and seeing as they are resource less, March Knights... are no joke. In addition, obviously Arabia requires zero early investment into the religion game... even if you wait for "The Last Prophet" to kick in, you will still wind up with a decent founder ability like Zen Meditation. It's much more likely in my experience you will take over an early civ or two that has Holy Sites already built for you in their cities. Another interesting thing about Arabia, is there is an Apostle promotion Chaplain that provides extra healing... attach one of those to your Mamluk, in addition to the Mamluk's innate healing ability, a Chaplain (also has the speed to keep up with a cav unit) will make that unit damn near invincible. I've taken over my entire home continent with basically; one Mamluk/Chaplain unit. Russia's Cossacks, although they take much longer to unlock, ability to attack, cycle out, and heal are quite strong. Russia's land-grab ability is consistently good, and they can make tundra cities (which often contain powerful mid-late game resources) to get your empire up and running quickly without having to buy as many tiles in the expansion phase. Also Russia's generation of GP through Lavras is quite ridiculous to the point you will often have cultural Great Persons sitting around because you simply have no place to put them. In that case, use them as Invincible Super Scouts

 

[Lynnes]

I don't want to derail the thread too much.. but here goes.

Thanks a lot for explaining, I'll keep these strategies in mind!

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

In my opinion, Russia (due to the Dance of the Aurora pantheon) and Arabia (the unique building, Madrassa is unlocked at Theology, which is a whole era earlier than Universities) have the strongest faith generation ability in the game. Faith isn't necessarily the best yield in the game if city center or you are min/maxing) but Faith can be used to buy units, city center buildings (if you happen to Suzerain the Valetta city state) and make a strong Religious game much earlier than other currencies.

 

[tekjunkie28]

I am probably in no position to give you a piece of advice about life, since most Civ players seem to be much more mature and I guess so are you.
Still I hope you don't mind if I say, that I hope that someday you will find joy and happiness in something that won't keep challenging you, and that there won't be a need to prove anything.
I felt some kind of sadness only by reading your post, so I just had to get that off my chest.



You are right, I'll do the same!
Anyone having a suggestion which leader I should pick? Preferrably someone where the special achievement ("do this or that while playing X") can easily be obtained, since I already missed the previous two.

Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy Reef tanks, gardening, mowing, and working with my hands, lol.



I would like to see some sort of army/unit management. Does any one else get put off by having to move so many units?

 

[Lynnes]

Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy Reef tanks, gardening, mowing, and working with my hands, lol.

Okay, as long as you don't try to grow your sunflowers taller than those of your neighbor or to beat last week's record when mowing the lawn, this should to be fine.

 

[Leyrann]

I would like to see some sort of army/unit management. Does any one else get put off by having to move so many units?

I like it, to be honest. I mean, armies don't move automatically or something, you have to tell them (as general, which you presumably are) where to go and what to do. If your army is large, then yeah, it's going to be a big job.

That said, there's of course the stacks system that some other turn-based strategy games use, like Heroes of Might and Magic and Age of Wonders, where there's a limited amount of units in every stack. I do think that the only way to properly resolve combat like that then (assuming you don't want to end up with super mega complex combat rules of "if there's 2 archers, 3 melees and 1 cavalry in the stack, then this happens") is by putting tactical combat in the game, just like HoMaM and AoW use: When a stack attacks another stack, you move to a new map where the units from the stack are seperate units that then can move, attack and in newer games (at least in AoW; I don't follow HoMaM anymore) do things like flanking or using special abilities (though a historical game like Civ will have far fewer of those abilities than fantasy games like AoW and HoMaM). If you'd implement it in Civ (and I'm not sure if that's a good idea, as tactical combat is a huge change to gameplay in general and automatically puts more importance into combat, taking away from empire building), then you could for example have pikemen take a defensive stand to protect archers against a cavalry charge, or something like that.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I like it, to be honest. I mean, armies don't move automatically or something, you have to tell them (as general, which you presumably are) where to go and what to do. If your army is large, then yeah, it's going to be a big job.

That said, there's of course the stacks system that some other turn-based strategy games use, like Heroes of Might and Magic and Age of Wonders, where there's a limited amount of units in every stack. I do think that the only way to properly resolve combat like that then (assuming you don't want to end up with super mega complex combat rules of "if there's 2 archers, 3 melees and 1 cavalry in the stack, then this happens") is by putting tactical combat in the game, just like HoMaM and AoW use: When a stack attacks another stack, you move to a new map where the units from the stack are seperate units that then can move, attack and in newer games (at least in AoW; I don't follow HoMaM anymore) do things like flanking or using special abilities (though a historical game like Civ will have far fewer of those abilities than fantasy games like AoW and HoMaM). If you'd implement it in Civ (and I'm not sure if that's a good idea, as tactical combat is a huge change to gameplay in general and automatically puts more importance into combat, taking away from empire building), then you could for example have pikemen take a defensive stand to protect archers against a cavalry charge, or something like that.

I think it's not going to be popular unfortunately. Reading some complaints in these forums, people want less combat decisions, and more empire management. Maybe stacks limited by terrain type (more troops in a stack if beside a river, on flat grassland) and attrition mechanics (a big stack entering a desert, for example).

 

[Cerilis]

I think it's not going to be popular unfortunately. Reading some complaints in these forums, people want less combat decisions, and more empire management. Maybe stacks limited by terrain type (more troops in a stack if beside a river, on flat grassland) and attrition mechanics (a big stack entering a desert, for example).

But then, how's the AI gonna handle that? ^^"

 

[Leyrann]

I think it's not going to be popular unfortunately. Reading some complaints in these forums, people want less combat decisions, and more empire management. Maybe stacks limited by terrain type (more troops in a stack if beside a river, on flat grassland) and attrition mechanics (a big stack entering a desert, for example).

This is indeed also my problem with the mechanic. When I'm playing a game for combat, I go for Age of Wonders 3, when I'm playing a game to build an empire, I go for Civilization VI. Making maximum amount of units depend on terrain would require far too much micromanagement though. What would probably be better would be 2 or 3 units per tile max (allowing you to make corps and armies of the same kind of units just like Civ6 does), and having their stats stack with one another, letting them function as one unit.

For example (fair warning, this would change quite a bit of game mechanics which I talk about first), an archer and two swordsmen:

Archers now have 50 max hp (to represent their weakness in melee), Swordsmen still have 100. Archers have 25 ranged strength, Swordsmen have 20 melee strength still. Combining the three together gives (as long as they're on the same tile) a unit with 200 + 50 hp, 25 ranged strength and 20 melee strength. For the first X damage the unit takes (say, 40% of it's health, so 80 damage) all damage is taken by the swordsman, after that, Y% of the damage (say, 50%) is taken by the Archer. So if you deal 120 damage against this unit, the first 80 damage is dealt to the swordsmen, and then 20 to the swordsmen and 20 to the archer, meaning you end with 80/200 and 30/50 hp. Additionally, if the Swordman is below Z hp (for example 100), 20% of all damage is dealt to the archers, and then after the Swordsman has taken the 40% of it's health the rest of the damage is 50/50. This to simulate the swordsmen not being able to defend the archers because there's not enough of them.
On the other hand, if you attack, you first have the archers (from both sides) deal damage (25 strength) and then you have a round where the melee units fight (20 strength swordsmen in this case) and deal their damage.

With a combat system like this, you could then add things like cavalry dealing more damage against archers etc. On top of that, you would have advantages that you're outnumbering the opponent, both dealing more damage if you're 2 vs 2 than 1 vs 1 (broader battle line), etc.

 

[gfeier]

All I would like to see is to permit a ranged unit to stack with a melee unit. On the offense, the ranged unit would attack before the melee unit and on the defense it would get a shot off before the melee unit gets hit. If the melee unit is destroyed, both units are lost.

 

[Leyrann]

All I would like to see is to permit a ranged unit to stack with a melee unit. On the offense, the ranged unit would attack before the melee unit and on the defense it would get a shot off before the melee unit gets hit. If the melee unit is destroyed, both units are lost.

There's a mod that turns ranged units into support units which die if an enemy unit enters their tile.

(I should probably put "There's a mod for that" in my signature...)