October 2020 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

If you're going to take away espionage in alliances, Firaxis, at least give us something else instead. For example, you could make it so we can send spies to allies as diplomats, where the mission choice would be less aggressive in nature (e.g. WC votes, using each other's city-state bonuses, etc.). You could even tie it to the new diplomatic quarter, where the district and buildings unlock diplomat slots, and maybe improve diplomat abilities. Those are just some ideas, but I really hope you don't leave it as it is.

 

A nerf. Very large one if you used Dramatic Ages.

Five Eyes says hi...

 

A plus side I see for the spy thing is that taking Democracy over the other tier 3 governments is now, for my play style at least, less of a no brainer. Up to +6 food and hammers on top of the alliance bonuses is just so strong, maybe it really needed a downside.

 

I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but the "controversial" change to spies seems like a great addition to me.

To me, it is a balance change to nerf the player against the AI at higher difficulties. As people here often complain about the game being too easy on deity (I tend to fall into that camp) this seems like a good change.

Production is king in this game, and you can buy production with GOLD. At high difficulty the AI will produce a lot of gold, and being able to set your ally up as the recipient of a disaster relief effort, and have the other AIs pour even more gold into them allows you to steal crazy (and game changing) amounts of gold.

People are complaining about not being able to disrupt spaceports against a runaway AI, but who cares about that if you can Reyna buy your own spaceports, or campuses and buildings to boost science, or pump out and army to invade.

The steal funds mission is about the only one I ever run in one of those "peaceful" games, and having to consider if the benefits of an alliance outweighs stealing gold is a decent thing to have to consider.

If anything, the extra penalties people are asking for should apply to spy missions against friends.

I would like to see my friendship instantly cancelled if I get caught stealing a friends funds, with heavy grievances on top.

 

And in the real world, there is no binding world congress resolution, nor diplomatic favor system, and no formal friendships and alliances and promises or grievances. (not that these matter anyway)
The Civ world IS imaginary to begin with, so let us enjoy it as such. Balance should trump realism.

 

Well I look forward to seeing the scaling changes in action this weekend. In particular the change to unit experience no longer scaling with game speed.

As a career epic speed player I've had many a good start ruined by barbarians I just couldn't get a handle on if I got unlucky early. Needing 22 exp to get the first promotions and the 50% field heal is (was) brutal. Also maybe I'll try levelling scouts and warrior monks again. Maybe.

Really undecided about this spying on allies thing. I do like some realism, so the proper solution in my mind would be to restrict most missions against allies not ban them altogether. I hated getting shared visibility and then being able to see my allies' spies in my cities and not be able to address it with them (looking at you, Poundmaker!). And I was always disappointed it was so easy for me to steal from and sabotage my allies, and vice versa. So I welcome attempts to address that but this seems like taking a very blunt force approach.

Gran Columbia nerf, the movement change, is a good one for me. No longer can you stack CG and GG to get siege weapons that can cross rivers and fire in the same turn. Now if you want +2 movement you have to invest in a GG, and it`s tied to era just like for everyone else. Meanwhile the part that makes them fun (+1 move alla time alla units) still there, still give them an edge even when at peace. Not sure if the haciendas and llaneros needed the changes so no opinion on that part.

 

Ah.
We have a bug then, as right now on my PC version (Steam) I can still see governors from other societies even after joining one.
I don't recall this always being the case though - will start a new game with latest patch & see what happens (I was getting my ass handed to me in the last one anyway)

That's a really good point, and I find that when it happens (and it does at every point somewhere along the line in every game) and an 'ally' neutralizes - or tries to neutralize - one of my Suzerainty CS there is absolutely nothing I can do about it whatsoever until the alliance runs out, no option to put it to a World Congress vote until the damage has been done & the CS has been defeated and only then 20 or so turns later (I will moan more about that in the proper place). If I eventually retaliate against the aggressor, then 9 times out of 10 I get an emergency against me almost immediately & I am almost guaranteed to lose DF from then onwards.

What would be nice to see in future is a much improved diplomatic system. For starters we need Vassal States again. So many times I have allowed myself to peace out against a repeat aggressor in order not to totally murder them & suffer DF penalties for the rest of the game only for them to repeatedly denounce & attack me - over and over again, with no apparent penalty to them, only me when my patience is finally exhausted & I kill them. What we need is an 'unconditional surrender' option as well as a vassal state for those times when mere vassalage would not be punitive enough (think of Vassal State being one who is weak & needs the alliance with you, but then has to ask your permission to actually do anything. This could be granted on an ad hoc basis, on an as needed basis or the boss civ could for example grant them the right to choose their own civic research, instead of having to ask you to select it for them. A similar thing could work with scientific research - with a vassal state who were more technically advanced then you, it could be possible to make them focus on a specific technology that you will get automatically once they have researched it. This alone would justify taking on a vassal state - likewise you would control their production decisions again on a build-by-build basis, or you could grant their old capital (or any other city) the ability to decide their own builds. The concept of Vassalage really could introduce whole new areas of havoc & fun, but it would have to be done properly.

 

It is not 'eminently sensible', it is moronically hamfisted. Instead of properly addressing the issue by limiting spying actions and adding more digitally/information focused ones, and altering alliances, they just lazily removed it.

Now we are going to have 20 spies all targeting Alexander or piled up in Bologna...

Edit -

About that...

 

People are entitled to their opinions on the mechanic, but the "this isn't how it happens in the real world" argument is a silly one IMO. Are we chopping spaceships out of wood these days? People are pretty inconsistent about what they want to apply that line of thinking to...

 

good question

 

To be fair, I think most people who argue along this line also are strongly for not allowing things like "chopping spaceships".

 

Those are different people, mate...

This change fails from a gameplay perspective, anyway.

 

Great change, you now need to select alliances more carefully if you plan on exploiting espionage.

 

Ahem

they most definitely do

I wont mention any particularly but there was one in very recent history and very close allies

But this is moving very much off topic and into very hot political waters.

But on the topic of gameplay. Civ is a game where there is only one winner. Everyone else looses. So while the game has alliances which contain advantages for both sides. At the end there is still only one winner. Espionage against allies allowed the player to undermine an allied opponent without the need to resort to more extreme methods. Though now that`s not available and you have to break the alliance, why would you then only use espionage to slow someone down. You might as well use an invasion or nuclear attack. So then what`s the point of espionage apart from feeling too lazy to move a large army around.

Also I liked the idea of the game mechanically changing over time. For example the game being more about brutal invasions in the early game, and then late game conflict being much more underhand with spies being the main form of warfare. This seems cool to me mechanically and thematically. Now we are moving further away from that and the best response to almost any situation is just throwing a large invasion at it.

But I'm happy for the people who are happy with this change. I just wish there was a toggle. Or for someone to make a mod if that code is open to modding

 

Well, the previous patch was overshadowed by making amenities almost irrelevant, this time it's spying that's been randomly selected for decimation. It suddenly seems that FXS is trying to dull their game whenever possible.

Yes, spying on allies allowed something that can be called an exploit, but, as such, the possibility of spying on allies wasn't the flaw that needed a hammer. It was this arbitrary locking into friendships and alliances for a fixed term that badly needed a revision. Axing out this unbreakable vow, which is more of the Harry Potter world than this, would have been much better.

It is this unbreakability of friendships and aliances that opens the way to all kinds of exploits and makes game more rigid, static and dull. You get a civ to be friends and allies and that's it - your diplomacy with them is ended. You can genocide the rest of the world and they will be "wow, good job, what a busy bee you are!" All those negative modifiers you accumulate with them afterwards count for nothing, they'll renew friendship on the turn of expiry. What a boring state of affairs.

And now, you can't spy on allies, so the game becomes even more rigid and dull. Rosey nosey holdy handy, bffs for life. More difficult to stop allies from victory? Yes, but achieved in an unimaginative and dull way. It is trying to rectify a situation, that was caused by one arbitrary condition, by introducing another arbitrary condition, both conditions very simplistic and greatly limiting the freedom of action for the player.

In comparison, Civ IV has a vastly superior diplomacy system. Friendlier leaders will not plot on you if they're 'pleased', with more devious ones you need to reach the status 'friendly' to be safe, but there's no fixed term locking of relations, apart from 10 turns safety net when you give into a demand or they give into your demand. Every action changes the diplo modifiers between civs and if behaving too aggressive you can drop out of the safe zone into the line of fire. The situation in the world is much more dynamic and interesting. Civ VI already suffers from too much static post mid game and they make it even more so.

The garbage bin of history if overflowing with treaties of 'eternal frienship and brotherhood' that were torn apart at the first opportunity. Who are those divine overseers who monitor the strict observation of those fixed term friendships? Please, FXS, stop drifting into this simplistic naive non-reality. Bring in carrot and stick approaches instead of these made up arbitrary conditions that everyone impeccably observes on the word of honour.

Two monthly patches, two very bad changes. Now I dread of what's still to come.

 

For all the outcry, I'm not sure I can find 5 games where I have used spies against allies. Basically for me this month of NFP brings absolutely nothing of value.

 

So were mine on the same subject and proffering the same explanation, but good to know there's some other rational mind at work.

 

It also means your AI allies can't perform spy missions on you.

 

Perhaps a middle ground where you can still conduct more "soft" spy missions on allies like stealing tech boosts, but can't do more disruptive ones like partisans and blowing up dams/factories?