I don't think that @Laurana Kanan was suggesting that Firaxis not fix the bug. She's just providing a temporary fix and showing that the missing meteor showers aren't a mystery.
[NFP] October Update
- Thread starter Lily_Lancer
- Start date
I don't think that @Laurana Kanan was suggesting that Firaxis not fix the bug. She's just providing a temporary fix and showing that the missing meteor showers aren't a mystery.
![Andrew Johnson [FXS]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/326/326908.jpg?1589646534){kind=avatar}
Andrew Johnson [FXS]
Firaxian
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 551
Hetairoi are supposed to receive an additional combat bonus when adjacent to GGs, but they don't. See here.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
As @Kwami rightly pointed out, I've never stated that FXS shouldn't correct this, I don't know where you both got that impression. I was only pointing out that it's not a "mystery" and there was a specific reason fires and meteors stopped working and that a fix is available for those that can/want to implement it. @Boris Gudenuf how would I know from your statement
that you were well aware of the reason and fix?
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
@Laurana Kanan, my profoundest apologies for spawning confusion: it was not my intention.
I stand by the original statement, though, that it IS mysterious when a feature of a game disappears from the game apparently as a direct result of actions taken by the game company with no explanation from the company as to why it happened or whether it was intentional or accidental. The fact that we know How it happened, and that a 'correction' is available, doesn't change the fact that it is still unknown = mysterious, Why it happened: we presume it was accidental but as far as I know nobody at Firaxis has confirmed that, and the fact that a relatively simple (apparently) action/mistake has not been corrected by the company makes me, at least, somewhat mystified as to what they intend or intended.
I stand by the original statement, though, that it IS mysterious when a feature of a game disappears from the game apparently as a direct result of actions taken by the game company with no explanation from the company as to why it happened or whether it was intentional or accidental. The fact that we know How it happened, and that a 'correction' is available, doesn't change the fact that it is still unknown = mysterious, Why it happened: we presume it was accidental but as far as I know nobody at Firaxis has confirmed that, and the fact that a relatively simple (apparently) action/mistake has not been corrected by the company makes me, at least, somewhat mystified as to what they intend or intended.
No worries @Boris Gudenuf ! 
tl;dr - "mysterious" as to "why", rather than "mysterious" as to "what" - gotcha!
iirc, it was acknowledged in the last livestream. I imagine, regardless of the simplicity of a fix, that it likely was put on a list of bugs to be addressed, and since it's not game-breaking, will be addressed in due order.
tl;dr - "mysterious" as to "why", rather than "mysterious" as to "what" - gotcha!
iirc, it was acknowledged in the last livestream. I imagine, regardless of the simplicity of a fix, that it likely was put on a list of bugs to be addressed, and since it's not game-breaking, will be addressed in due order.
October update info coming October 13th as per the Civ twitter. And after I bugged them about it for the umpteenth time over these past few months they replied to say forest fires and meteor showers are expected to be fixed for non-apocalypse mode games with this update.
We'll see.
Askia Muhammad
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 305
I'm sorry but there is nothing OP about Gran Colombia. Yeah, his units can quite literally run circles around certain other civs but that doesn't really matter when Byzantium blows him out of the water in terms of pure potential for a domination victory and the unit movement doesn't much matter if the units can't compete with buffed up units like those of Gaul. From day one I never understood the demand that Gran Columbia be nerfed. I play mostly multiplayer and Gran Columbia players have never even come close to winning.
One time I was beaten by Georgia while playing as Japan.
This is not because Japan is weak, but because the Georgia player was a lot better. You're probably going to be better than the kiddos who just bought NFP and are only playing as GC because some Youtuber told them it was the best Civ; by contrast, people who are actually good might prefer to avoid them for various reasons (e.g. preference, different strategy, not wanting to look like they need a crutch to win, not wanting a "delete me" flag on their heads, preferring to play as even more recent civs). Unless you happen to have access to a very broad and very rigorous set of online statistics, single-player is usually going to be better for testing against a "control", and Lily probably does more of that than anyone.
Aurelesk
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 623
Gran Colombia is the "blitzkrieg" civilization. They do not have overly powerful bonuses towards making their unit stronger (just 1 extra General for +5 CS), but they are far more quick:
Byzantium is the "snowballing" civilization. They starts slows since you need to unlock a Religion, the Hippodrome and the Tagma (which is in the Civic tree). Excluding the exploit, you need a "build-up" to make Byzantium works, but when it is done, it is far more threatening than Gran Colombia.
In the end, the bonuses of Gran Colombia are not abondant, but they are kicking early that it ends up to be really powerful. Too powerful? Feel free to judge. In the end, the "skill" of the player in Civilization VI (or the willingness to micromanage everything from A to Z twice) plays a far more role into a powerful play than the civilization itself.
- 1 extra Movement since turn 1
- Early exploration is easier
- Builders are way quicker, so do the Settlers (so safer)
- Dealing with Barbarians is easier since Scout can't easily escape.
- 1 additionnal Movement for military units with a (free) Comandante General
- You do not have to ponder if it's better to have a Promotion (and heal) or strike with high risk to lose the units. You can do both.
Byzantium is the "snowballing" civilization. They starts slows since you need to unlock a Religion, the Hippodrome and the Tagma (which is in the Civic tree). Excluding the exploit, you need a "build-up" to make Byzantium works, but when it is done, it is far more threatening than Gran Colombia.
In the end, the bonuses of Gran Colombia are not abondant, but they are kicking early that it ends up to be really powerful. Too powerful? Feel free to judge. In the end, the "skill" of the player in Civilization VI (or the willingness to micromanage everything from A to Z twice) plays a far more role into a powerful play than the civilization itself.
Askia Muhammad
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 305
I’m not going to disagree with you about Lily having more SP experience. Nowadays I watch more AI matches than I play SP. I play with random people online but I also play weekly with 7 other people who are pretty skilled and lately we even have a handicap mod to help less skilled players be competitive. GC has been chosen twice. Once they were killed in the classical era and the other time they were irrelevant. I’ve also never seen an AI GC do much.
But to be frank, I also thought Hungary was fine on launch since you could render their city state shenanigans useless by saving envoys
Caprikel
Warlord
I just want them to give Gran Colombia and negative trait to make them asymmetrical, like how they limited Gaul's district placement. Restrictions like that change how you play the Civ in an interesting way, while also keeping them from being too powerful. I'd much rather they let GC have the powerful +1 movement while having a restriction elsewhere than have their most fun ability be nerfed.
Askia Muhammad
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 305
I still don’t see how it’s very powerful. They seem mediocre in comparison to several other domination based civs especially Byzantium
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
Give GC Crusade or take crusade from Byzantium and then play em.
Give me Scythians or Mongols instead.
Zulu getting Statue of Zeus for some free spears and 50% discount on producing anti-cav could give Byzantium a real butt-kicking. Zulu should have one or more great generals to help out, too with their cheap Ikandas.
The Tagma (48 base+3 taxis +10 crusade=61) rolling into Zulu country and facing super cheap Impi corps (41 base +15 corps +10 anti-cav +5 great general=71) is not going to go well. The free Tagma are resource free but still require 4gp maintenance while the Impi are resource free and only 1gp maintenance.
I need to try out a Statue of Zeus Zulu game. From what I've seen the AI doesn't prioritize it much so it should be very easy to get.
Byzantium is really fun in the hands of a human vs AI but there are some good counters to them if it's human vs human and some of them (Mongols and Zulu) can fight full out Byzantium straight up.
The Tagma (48 base+3 taxis +10 crusade=61) rolling into Zulu country and facing super cheap Impi corps (41 base +15 corps +10 anti-cav +5 great general=71) is not going to go well. The free Tagma are resource free but still require 4gp maintenance while the Impi are resource free and only 1gp maintenance.
I need to try out a Statue of Zeus Zulu game. From what I've seen the AI doesn't prioritize it much so it should be very easy to get.
Byzantium is really fun in the hands of a human vs AI but there are some good counters to them if it's human vs human and some of them (Mongols and Zulu) can fight full out Byzantium straight up.
Last edited:
This is what I would like to see too. I think it would be good to give some sort of negative modifier for each CG that is active, and that stacks with additional CGs. For instance, have a cost for having an active CG of -1 amenities and -2 gold for every city, which an additional cost of -1 amenities and -4 gold for a second active CG, -2 and -8 for a third, etc. (I'm just tossing out numbers as an example; not sure what the right balance would be). That would incentivize activating the CGs and would make the GC player make decisions about whether the active bonuses are really good enough to warrant holding onto.
Tiger Genocide
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
- Messages
- 362
Most people especially on the forums are builder types and dislike/hate warmongering/domination type civs. Most also do not play multiplayer either so singleplayer bias is a tad strong as well. Any civ strong in that regard will get calls for a nerf. I think they should just buff up the other civs to have just as many bonuses as the newer civs instead of nerfing individual civs. To be fair some of the GC criticizers want the general stacking to get nerfed, but nothing else, which isn't a horrible idea, but it is better for the game's design to just level out the others if you are going to power creep multiple other civs (Gaul, Byzantium, etc) like that.
Larsenex
King
Greetings. What about Gaul makes them powerful and why?
