My theory, not based on steam updates or anything like that, is that the crew will stagger in late because of the long weekend and won't have anything public planned for today. Maybe I'm projecting but I had to be here EARLY and was in no mood to do anything with the public.
Videos are automated, mostly. So current capabilities of the devs aren't a hindrance to deploying one. The question is: are the devs relatively confident in a Thursday release that they would set up a video for today? Also, let's not assume that there will be a video. Not every patch has had one
FXS's vision for England has clearly changed, but I think WotW and RND actually work pretty well together both thematically and mechanically. An empire of iron and coal, and lots of hammers to boot.
The real problem is that these abilities basically play Civ VI bingo with all the mechanics that don't current gel - IZ and IZ buildings, Tier 3 buildings, Power, Military Engineers, Coastal Cities and Colonial Cities. If England had a unique wall, Seige unit and Anti-Cav unit then they'd have all the bad mechanics covered in one Civ.
So, WotW and RND seem fine to me. It's not England that's broken - it's the game itself.
What about the other abilities?
I go backwards on forwards with Pax B. The trade routes are awesome, and again synergise with RNDs and WotW. The free Melee unit is silly, but whatever. The free naval units are... Well. I don't know. Free units are free units. And it does give England a big Navy fast (potentially). But it also feels kinda ...lame. I think I'd rather build my own units.
Sea Dog is still lame. Capturing more units, when you already get free units, and your captured units don't get your +1 movement bonus, just feels ... wrong. If RND gave its movement bonus to units built or upgraded in your RND, and they got rid of the free naval units from the RND, I think the Sea Dog would make more sense and be more important to England.
I'm really hopeful the next patch will tackle some of these hard to get right mechanics like colonial cities. Not just so England is more fun - but so lots of other edge case Civs are more fun, and maybe the entire game is more fun...
Yeah, the problems with England are that they have gone back and forth on their "focus" for the civ, and their current focus obviously is on an industrialization theme, but that is really hardly important at all in the game. If they were, then England would be an amazing mid-game civ. It's not England that needs a buff, it's industrialization that does.
Yeah, the problems with England are that they have gone back and forth on their "focus" for the civ, and their current focus obviously is on an industrialization theme, but that is really hardly important at all in the game. If they were, then England would be an amazing mid-game civ. It's not England that needs a buff, it's industrialization that does.
I think the idea was that navies and overseas empires were originally going to play a larger role in the game (look at Spain and Norway too). Obviously, the manner in which the mechanics eventually played out was that there was little incentive to do either in a typical “standard continent” game. So, England went through an evolution of sorts, with an industrialization focus that highlights the country’s 19th century persona in concert with GS’s mid- and late-game focus.
I don’t think this was necessarily an illogical choice on the devs’ part, but the fact of the matter is that the civs that players inherently gravitate towards have early game traits that make England less than optimal. The same could be said for America, Spain, etc. In a game where a victory is assured by the time you hit Renaissance because of snowballing progression, late-game civ UAs need much more power to either speed thru the endgame towards victory, or early-game civ UAs need diminishing returns at some point to balance the field.
England does not need a buff per se but just needs to be enjoyable to play. Extra units are just meh, the only time they worked were pax and that was because you could get a few redcoats out, you could say that all UU’s are overpriced.
With England you wait for the Industrial Age and what happens? Not a lot TBH.
I've played them a little since the patch. I'm not a huge fan of the culture and science from Pillaging thematically. But it does play well, it synergises with their abilities andbit does make them different and interesting. What they really need - along with a bunch of other Civs - is for coastal cities to get buffed.
You know, I think maybe Norway and England are the wrong way round. I feel like Norway should be getting the free Melee units (maybe when they settle on the coast), not England. I've been playing England a little lately, and that one free Melee unit when you settle on another continent just feels daffy. And the free naval unit when you build a harbour ... I don't know, I kind of want to build the naval units myself. Its more rewarding that way and easier to control what you get.
Actually. Norway needs one buff urgently. Beserkers need to get their movement bonus at sea as well as in enemy territory...
And the Stave church is still a bit of a mess. I've no idea what it should do. But what it does at the moment is... not fun.
Stave Church is actually a bit better now for coastal cities, especially in tandem with God of the Sea if you can get it. Amazing? No, and of course not top tier. But it's better than Tsikhe, Tlachtli, and a couple others IMO. Extra production for coastal cities is never bad in a game that doesn't allow coastal cities to get the production they need all the time.
Berserkers are terrible however. They need to fix that unit - the defense penalty is ridiculous. Makes them easy pickings if they can't attack the turn they rush.
+10-5 sounds OK but yes, the -5 can hurt. What gets me is you get 4MP if you start in enemy territory but as you cannot ignore ZOC you are often glued to 2 tiles regardless.
But GG and Oligarchy makes dem walls a crumble as you start nearing one-shot territory.
+10-5 sounds OK but yes, the -5 can hurt. What gets me is you get 4MP if you start in enemy territory but as you cannot ignore ZOC you are often glued to 2 tiles regardless.
I wonder if the -5 came from the misconception that they fought naked and without shields.
I do not think they are that bad when fresh and perhaps due to their rage they fight like the samurai, without the negative affects of damage. Ah well, one feels the patch will not address such minor concerns with such larger ones to deal with.
I hope to hell they nerf hurricanes and not just slightly. Messed up too many of my games royally.
He's taking a trip through Canada. Was in Toronto over the weekend, that map is of Montreal, so he's presumably taking a stop there. Maybe it means it's less likely we're getting a patch this week if he's still on vacation?
I wonder if the -5 came from the misconception that they fought naked and without shields.
I do not think they are that bad when fresh and perhaps due to their rage they fight like the samurai, without the negative affects of damage. Ah well, one feels the patch will not address such minor concerns with such larger ones to deal with.
I hope to hell they nerf hurricanes and not just slightly. Messed up too many of my games royally.
It's similar to how in Civ III a Berserker had a whopping 6 attack and 1 or 2 defense, but that doesn't meld well with the current combat system.
It could be like you say, representing the berserker going into a destructive rage, providing massive offensive power, but having to recover, so without adequate protection and exhausted, being destroyed on the defense. But yes, on a first strike, they are good. I don't think that is still the best way to represent the unit even if that was the logic though.
Yes, they need to do some other fixes and rebalances. I haven't seen a major hurricane in awhile so I've got a feeling I'm in for something nasty in an upcoming game. Out of curiosity, what settings do you play on map-wise, Victoria?
Emperor or deity standard continents, everything else default including climate.
About 90% of games as Victoria but I stopped playing after being hammered in 3 games in a row and looked at the xml for exactly how it affects coastal cities.
Hurricanes are either cat4 or cat5. Even the cat4 guarantees 100% to pillage all districts and buildings on lowland coast and last patch they upped lowland coast to be 45% of the coast. You can repair many things with a builder charge but a pop15 city with no fisheries or fishing boats left, water park gone is miserable and takes many 10’s of turns to repair 1 district let alone 5. It is rather upsetting that a 17 tile cat 4 hurricane can mess your city so badly in this game. how many years did it take New Orleans?
Emperor or deity standard continents, everything else default including climate.
About 90% of games as Victoria but I stopped playing after being hammered in 3 games in a row and looked at the xml for exactly how it affects coastal cities.
Hurricanes are either cat4 or cat5. Even the cat4 guarantees 100% to pillage all districts and buildings on lowland coast and last patch they upped lowland coast to be 45% of the coast. You can repair many things with a builder charge but a pop15 city with no fisheries or fishing boats left, water park gone is miserable and takes many 10’s of turns to repair 1 district let alone 5. It is rather upsetting that a 17 tile cat 4 hurricane can mess your city so badly in this game. how many years did it take New Orleans?
Interesting! I barely see any myself right now...and I usually play on standard continents with default climate settings. I play King/Emperor (not ready to make that deity jump yet, still most comfortable on King as I experiment with Emperor more), so I wonder if difficulty has anything to do with it?
But yes, that's so much damage to repair that cannot be realistically repaired in game turns and production costs. Needs a rebalance for sure.
And if you think coastal cities cannot be hit by tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards and sandstorms you would be wrong. Making things ‘rebalanced’ I doubt will be adequate in that regard.
If coastal cities as important at the beginning of the game as they were in history then in combination that may be right but it ain’t gonna happen. Especially as they increased coastal lowlands last patch.
I can agree I had a run of bad luck but about 20 hours of my life discarded based on bad luck that I had no control over is questionable.
A game with 10 K rolls and things sorta balance out but if just 1 roll can have this effect it is a crap design.
Emperor or deity standard continents, everything else default including climate.
About 90% of games as Victoria but I stopped playing after being hammered in 3 games in a row and looked at the xml for exactly how it affects coastal cities.
Hurricanes are either cat4 or cat5. Even the cat4 guarantees 100% to pillage all districts and buildings on lowland coast and last patch they upped lowland coast to be 45% of the coast. You can repair many things with a builder charge but a pop15 city with no fisheries or fishing boats left, water park gone is miserable and takes many 10’s of turns to repair 1 district let alone 5. It is rather upsetting that a 17 tile cat 4 hurricane can mess your city so badly in this game. how many years did it take New Orleans?
I agree with you that the whole disaster/ climate change mechanic is way more harsh than in real life.
That said however New Orleans is not a good example as the Ninth Ward has not recovered, that is more due to the people not returning as to the actual damage.
However most US Hurricanes get repaired in 12-24 months, I also do not recall any that damaged 17"tiles" worth of actual US territory, a possible exception being one that hit Galveston TX in1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane .
This is why I suggested an off setting to both disasters and Climate Change so we as the paying customers of Civilization can play with the options we chose, not ones chosen for us by Firaxis, especially as some of us disagree with the theories that some are based on( OT Man made as opposed to natural cycle in my case).
I agree with you that the whole disaster/ climate change mechanic is way more harsh than in real life.
That said however New Orleans is not a good example as the Ninth Ward has not recovered, that is more due to the people not returning as to the actual damage.
However most US Hurricanes get repaired in 12-24 months, I also do not recall any that damaged 17"tiles" worth of actual US territory, a possible exception being one that hit Galveston TX in1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane .
This is why I suggested an off setting to both disasters and Climate Change so we as the paying customers of Civilization can play with the options we chose, not ones chosen for us by Firaxis, especially as some of us disagree with the theories that some are based on( OT Man made as opposed to natural cycle in my case).
While I don't see any inconvenient in giving the player more options to play with. I kind of disagree here, the scale of the damage and extension in time has to be balanced to be meaningful in game. It has to be adjusted to play with the city size and the turn system. Like all systems are. Imagine if war scale is measured to real life as well, with military deployments lasting dozens of years and armies blocking entire continents...
It really does not matter if you disagree with the actual origin of the climate change, the game plays with the most viable current scientific hypothesis and that is fine and cool. Even if that was not the case, a game system has not to be 100% reality tested to work. That is the world the game takes place in. Lets use as an example "A plague tale", it is a fun and great game. Though we now know it is based on a common belief that has been disproved for a long time (rats being the carriers of the plague). If that is not acceptable to you, you may consider entirely turning off disasters. But this is not the place to advocate for beliefs that do not hold up to scientific standards, or political statements.
That said, what the game does here is very appealing to me, it is an inherently balanced system, since affects all players equally and spices middle-late game. At least tries to, I sympathize with Victoria here. That being said, FXS also takes the climate change and extrapolates on it on a way that does not fully take control from the player. If you take scientific extrapolations, where entire regions would face strong desertification making entire countries turn into wastelands, we can say that FXS uses the concept in a softer, not harsher than reality way in order to be challenging but not too frustrating for the player while trying to affect all civilizations by focusing on more fair mechanics gamewise.
The only lacking part is to me making coastal cities stronger to incentivize a risk-reward system regarding settling on the coast. I think FXS tried to increase the relevance on naval battles and sea control, but kind of forgot economic advantages of coastal cities. I think this can be made increasing coastal food, increasing the importance of oil in sea platforms, making offshore oil rigs more important and only usable from coastal cities, adding other sea resources and buffing ocean trade routes. Maybe implementing sea blockades too.
In general, they don't seem to change civs for previous versions of the game. So, they probably won't change Norway. I'm actually somewhat surprised that they changed pillaging for R&F.
Why wouldn't they keep updating things for non-expansion version? We still paid for the game! I sure hope they'll update all versions when it's relevant in the future. Not sure if they'll get Norway up to date but I don't really see any good reason why they shouldn't do that even though those people didn't pay extra for the expansion, because they'd still be experiencing the same unbalance.
While I don't see any inconvenient in giving the player more options to play with. I kind of disagree here, the scale of the damage and extension in time has to be balanced to be meaningful in game. It has to be adjusted to play with the city size and the turn system. Like all systems are. Imagine if war scale is measured to real life as well, with military deployments lasting dozens of years and armies blocking entire continents...
It really does not matter if you disagree with the actual origin of the climate change, the game plays with the most viable current scientific hypothesis and that is fine and cool. Even if that was not the case, a game system has not to be 100% reality tested to work. That is the world the game takes place in. Lets use as an example "A plague tale", it is a fun and great game. Though we now know it is based on a common belief that has been disproved for a long time (rats being the carriers of the plague). If that is not acceptable to you, you may consider entirely turning off disasters. But this is not the place to advocate for beliefs that do not hold up to scientific standards, or political statements.
You would have a point if CC followed the scale of what is happening in real life however CC is not now as drastic as it is portrayed in the game (it snowed in the State of Arizona just last week when I turned on my computer the next morning it was -1c[30f US scale] in my home town in AZ) I did not mean to argue the pros or cons of CC, my point was it is OP in its current form in the game and ruins my emersion in the game that's why my call for an on/off switch. You on the other hand can leave it on and enjoy it to your hearts content.
I however am unable to play the game as currently configured and will not be able to justify the purchase of any more CIV titles as I have bought all previous titles pre-order.
As for the point of the intensity of CC/disasters neither should be more than speed bumps to the player otherwise why not just make Godzilla available to the AI and make him unable to be killed ( as CC is currently with the extreme cost of levees making it nearly impossible to defend your nation even if you produce no Carbon yourself).
You would have a point if CC followed the scale of what is happening in real life however CC is not now as drastic as it is portrayed in the game (it snowed in the State of Arizona just last week when I turned on my computer the next morning it was -1c[30f US scale] in my home town in AZ) I did not mean to argue the pros or cons of CC, my point was it is OP in its current form in the game and ruins my emersion in the game that's why my call for an on/off switch. You on the other hand can leave it on and enjoy it to your hearts content.
I however am unable to play the game as currently configured and will not be able to justify the purchase of any more CIV titles as I have bought all previous titles pre-order.
As for the point of the intensity of CC/disasters neither should be more than speed bumps to the player otherwise why not just make Godzilla available to the AI and make him unable to be Editkilled ( as CC is currently with the extreme cost of levees making it nearly impossible to defend your nation even if you produce no Carbon yourself).
The whole point was on extrapolation on civilization scale times. You see a snapshot of the current state on global warming but experience based on individual observation does not hold on large time scales. On a side note. Please before claiming lack on realism you should research on the subject. Weather is a complex system and a warmer on average climate does not mean it will not snow or it will not get cold. (This is the actual scenario as far as we know: https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/aridityprojections) Take a minute to consider however, that these discussions are mostly out of place here. To conclude, I must state how pointless it is to bring a fallacy to attack a system the game does not use. Civilization climate system does not remove blizzards due to climate change.
You are saying you are unable to play the game cause you don't think the climate model used in civilization is accurate enough. That is fair, but this is a game, and this post is not the place to discuss about that. Imagine how out of control this forum would get if every personal sensitivity could be raised. Refrain your concerns on game terms, so we can have a focused meaningful discussion.
Back on track, balance wise, hurricanes can be tuned down, and most players do not find flooding meaningful enough. I think you actually want just the option to control flooding speed or titles separated from disaster intensity. In that point we all can agree upon I think.
PS: Thanks for keeping the conversation polite and healthy, though. Appreciated.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
