Reading the patch notes properly

[Bibor]

I know there are already numerous discussions about the the patch notes on these forums; again I find them too focused on specific little things instead of seeing the big picture. Most people are right in one thing though - Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

Here's what, in my opinion, Civilization 5 introduces in the June/July patch:

• Three basic forms of gameplay are introduced: Tall Empire, Wide Empire and The Conqueror's Empire.
• Social policies branches are now closely tied - and readily available - to all three new types of Empires (instead of being an almost exclusive benefit of going Tall).
• The social policy branches now are tied to the 3 new playstiles in the following fashion: Tradition (Tall), Liberty (Wide), Honor (Conqueror), Piety (Culture), Patronage (City-states), Commerce (Commerce/Production), Rationalism (Science), Freedom (Tall), Autocracy (Conqueror), Order (Wide).
• It is not possible to chase specific buildings (ex. University), Policies (ex. Theocracy) or units (ex. Longswords) that will serve as a panacea. Instead, deliberate choices and synergy of all possible factors will be required to achieve the desired effects.
• Final results, say "constantly having enough happiness", are now closely tied to how well the abovementioned synergy is executed.
• Technology advancement (as well as World Wonders) now requires deliberate planning and execution. For example, going for Education first presumes the player is planning to invest heavily into science throughout the game as well as aiming for building the Porcelain Tower (a wonder that reflects that choice). Correspondingly, going for Education early but not aiming for fast scientific advancement (i.e. slacking on Universities, skipping Rationalism branch, not even bothering with trying to build Porcelain Tower), is going to punish the player more severely.
• Unit compositions now also require deliberate planning. No more "longsword rushes". A healthy mix (dependant on available resources) will be required as ranged units (ex. Crossbow) and flanking units (ex. tank) get a boost.
• Gold, science, culture, production, food requirements and effects are better balanced out. This also makes puppet empires weaker.
• Playstyles will now struggle when shifting between the 3 playstyles or when dealing with different playstyles. Scientific, Cultural, Commerce, Warfare empires now have different tools in dealing with each other, rather than Science and Commerce being the only relevant tools (i.e. "Slingshot to rifles, upgrade everything").
• Production and other "percentage nerfs" now advocate more active play (yes, even investing into Militaristic city-states) instead of passive bonuses a la "Lets slap in a Factory and railroad connection and we're good to go".
• Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings. Power plants (and indirectly the Spaceship factory) get a significant boost in their effectiveness and need for them. Power plants are the only viable way of getting production to pre-patch levels.
• Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.
• Working citizens (and their yields) as well as specialist super-improvements are being made more important. Production requires working hammer tiles and Engineers, science requires high population and Scientists etc.

EDIT: Reading the happiness changes properly

Happiness received a nerf in the 10-15 ballpark. Which is about right. Too much emphasis was put on "sell all your luxuries for 300 gold each", simply because it was possible. Overall happiness for your empire will be pretty much the same. The only difference is that you will not be able to exploit trade mechanics and that you will need to gradually build up happiness from various sources (policies, buildings, trades etc.). It is also true that cities will need to monitor their happiness more closely. This was done more to balance the benefits of surplus food than happiness.

 

[nokmirt]

Bibor, this was a most intelligent way to put the new patch changes into perspective. I am interested to see how this all pans out. It seems every new change firaxis made has intention behind it. The plan has always been to balance the game, so different styles of play can be successful. I believe after much review that the developers are surely taking the game in the right direction.

Now I am interested to see what new DLC they intend to introduce.

 

[wcbarney]

Bibor, this was a most intelligent way to put the new patch changes into perspective. I am interested to see how this all pans out. It seems every new change firaxis made has intention behind it. The plan has always been to balance the game, so different styles of play can be catered too. I believe after much review that the developers are surely taking the game in the right direction. ...

Ditto! I was thinking of ways of saying this, but couldn't have said it any better!

 

[kamex]

I agree what your saying Bibor. There are too many changes to focus on one thing individually. Don't forget, the notes say production costs are being significantly reduced, so I'm sure this will compensate the factory cuts etc.

I agree with the three play styles you have identified, yet I can see an overlap between wide and warmongering. I think there's more incentive to annex now the courthouse provides 3 and now that the culture costs per city are reduced.

I feel tall empires will be the most difficult of the play styles, due to the reduction of the Colosseum etc., unless one prioritises Notre Dame or something. With the buffed Meritocracy and Order polices, it seems more beneficial to go wide, and also a wide builder approach seems profitable with bonuses from monuments, universities, public schools (the things you build in every city although i know those two branches are incompatible anyway) and even walls and castles.

Although the three play styles look interesting and add more variety to the game, I think your right when you say if you start down one path you have to follow it through carefully. And although this adds overall grand strategy, I feel it compromises flexibility mid game... Though we've never had much of that in CiV anyway.

I disagree with the need for mixed arms. Longsword rush still looks like an effective opening. The reduced walls defence bonuses should compensate for the reduced combat strength. On the other hand, I feel it is now possible to go on an early conquest spree without iron, which is a welcome change.

 

[Bibor]

I disagree with the need for mixed arms. Longsword rush still looks like an effective opening. The reduced walls defence bonuses should compensate for the reduced combat strength. On the other hand, I feel it is now possible to go on an early conquest spree without iron, which is a welcome change.

I think it really depends on the new strength values of units. If new crossbows are 14 and new longswords are 16 then it's closer to my prediciton. If it's going to be 17 vs 13 then you're likely to be right.

 

[Celevin]

Gold, science, culture, production, food requirements and effects are better balanced out. This also makes puppet empires weaker.

God I hope you're right. Puppets (and how policy costs are worked) almost killed the game for me. I predicted mass puppet empires dominating back in the fall, and in my opinion they are *still* better than actually placed cities or annexed cities.

 

[kamex]

I think it really depends on the new strength values of units. If new crossbows are 14 and new longswords are 16 then it's closer to my prediciton. If it's going to be 17 vs 13 then you're likely to be right.

Yeah it depends on the values. Either way, its still going to be quicker to get to Steel than Machinery or Chivalry. And i think how early you can execute the attack will be the deciding factor (as usual). Edit - Although Metal Casting requires construction, you pick up the Colosseum that way so its no big deal for a warmonger.

Also, I expect Knights to be more dominant again. Especially Mongols / Songhai / Spain

 

[Bibor]

God I hope you're right. Puppets (and how policy costs are worked) almost killed the game for me. I predicted mass puppet empires dominating back in the fall, and in my opinion they are *still* better than actually placed cities or annexed cities.

Puppet cities will be harder to manage due to the fact that happiness needs active management now (old Theocracy is a goner). Generally speaking, warmongers will have an easier time managing both puppet and Annexed empires. Which sounds about right.

Added a comment about happiness.

 

[GenjiKhan]

[*] Three basic forms of gameplay are introduced: Tall Empire, Wide Empire and The Conqueror's Empire.

That is the most radical change that this patch will introduce now. And it's very interesting that with this patch,Tall empires can beat Wide Empires at Diplomatic and even Scientific Victorys,because having many cities with high population is nearly impossible. Besides, this is the best summary of this patch I've seen

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

For the first time ever I think I'll actually try annexing and using Honor.

Also it looks like with the way RA's work I'll be using the game unmodded, part of me doesnt even want to play anymore until the patch is released!

 

[Babri]

Very good post. I am still confused about factories though. They use up coal & provide so little production boost, isn't that bad for balancing ? In ciV, strategic resources are much limited so I think a building requiring coal should be powerful.

 

[spfun]

I really hope they've tweaked the build order of puppets somewhat so they understand that when you've got Organized religion build monument/temple faster etc... i sometimes see them attempt to build a stock exchanges before a monument... & because of there reactive nature of happiness, sometimes your in the red for ages before they all finish up stock exchanges & start building coliseums.

 

[elprofesor]

@Babri:With order, they now give +25% science. Not earth-shattering, but nice. IMHO, coal and oil are not very well implemented yet:
- oil because it obsoletes quickly (although maybe nerfed mech infantry and buffed tanks will change that) and completely, which simply trumps realism (and I'd like economic buildings requiring oil too, since it's the only modern resource not required by any building);
- ironclads have been slightly buffed (can upgrade to battleships, and destroyers have been nerfed, thanks to coming later and not getting extra sight anymore), so maybe on slower difficulties they will become predominant for a while in watery maps (naval warfare still needs some love though, it's just a matter of numbers until you get to battleships&co.), making coal a bit more important.

Other than that, very nice post, Bibor! You should point out that because of the strong nerf to happiness, which is now mostly concentrated in the SPs, you must stick to your approach if you want to stay happy (because you can't change the SPs you've chosen), or else produce a lot of culture to get more happiness elsewhere. Happiness-Golden Ages are the only thing that really suffer from the nerf.

 

[CTH]

I agree with Babri, coal is not a very useful resource except for factories (which in itself is a problem because you could very well have factories in almost all cities because you dont need the coal for anything else) and now factories is not that usedful. I had rather seen that they had introduced some new unit och building that used coal and forced the player to choose between factories or the other thing. I think that the problem is not so much that factories was too powerful but rhater that they were built in too many cities.

 

[civnoob13]

Reading your post I agree with everything you just said, but at the same time when reading posts against the new patch I also agree. We'll just have to wait and see. It will either make the game more complex, interesting, and ultimately fun once you get the hang of it, or it is going to make it too hard, dull, and absolutely terrible for builders.

Once question, what exactly are Tall and Wide empires? If I were to guess, Tall is not many cities with a high pop and Wide is lots of cities with a lower pop, but that is just a guess.

 

[Valkrionn]

Bibor, I agree with the majority of what you've said. Always better to consider patch notes as a whole, rather than piecemeal.

 

[wcbarney]

... Once question, what exactly are Tall and Wide empires? If I were to guess, Tall is not many cities with a high pop and Wide is lots of cities with a lower pop, but that is just a guess.

You got it!

 

[LostInTime]

Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

That's stretching it a bit

If you relied on using the soon to be nerfed openings, sure you will have to figure out something new, but that's a good thing. It's still the same game, just better with more choices.

I've never like those "I have a gameplan no matter the start openings", so for me seeing those get brought in line is awesome. Reacting to your environment is a good thing, we need more of that throughout the game.

 

[Buccaneer]

I think the main criticisms I have with Civ5 was the cheesy wins at higher difficulty levels (either through lucky capital conquests or through winning when the AI civs didn't try to stop me when they could). Also, Civ5 for me did end up being somewhat of a one-strategy-fits-all (but not to the extent of Civ4 though), except for cultural games.

In the end, not only do I want to have a challenge in playing at King-Emperor (it's not now except for hard maps) but I want Civ5 to do more in making each decision more important. Even to the extent that 1 food, 1 hammer, 1 gold, 1 building, 1 social policy or 1 key unit can make a difference (that's where Civ5 has it all over Civ4).

1upt and SPs are what prevents me from ever going back to Civ4 (which is my favorite game of all time) but Civ5 had not been there in giving me a satisfying gameplay/win below the top two levels (ala Civ4). This patch appears to have nailed it in making me think more (and differently beyond a 3-city-large-puppets strategy) and that's why I am excited about it.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but just to offer an alternate view. You are reading the patch notes one way and assuming others (like myself) are reading them incorrectly. Maybe you are right, maybe others are right, maybe no ones right.

[*] The social policy branches now are tied to the 3 new playstiles in the following fashion: Tradition (Tall), Liberty (Wide), Honor (Conqueror), Piety (Culture), Patronage (City-states), Commerce (Commerce/Production), Rationalism (Science), Freedom (Tall), Autocracy (Conqueror), Order (Wide).

I'm not sure I agree with this. While landed elite and monarchy do I suppose favour tall empires, the rest is just okay for any kind of empire if you choose it. Keep in mind however you can get more happiness from Honor than Tradition now and more culture too. Liberty is similar but I won't get into a rant . And patronage is for everything pretty much. You want something? Ally a CS is 95% of the time the answer.

[*]Due to the production "nerfs" of Workshop, Factory and Windmill, production will again need to be supplemented by rush-buys when dealing with large-scale warfare or when building late-game buildings. Power plants (and indirectly the Spaceship factory) get a significant boost in their effectiveness and need for them. Power plants are the only viable way of getting production to pre-patch levels.

Late game buildings also cost significantly less making these buildings possibly unneeded completely or at least much less useful. Perhaps no more so than they are now so not much of a change at all possibly.

[*]Trading for luxury resources is made beneficial to players again. This will indirectly sap players' ability to invest heavily into city-states.

I strongly disagree with this. First the AI never hooks up their darn resources (maybe that's changed... we don't know yet) so trading with them is useless for quite a while. So what's the alternative? Trade with the CSes! Just as it always has been. They are more reliable trade partners than the real nations ever are and provide more than just the luxury. If anything this will place more emphasis on them then less. This in a nutshell is my main complaint. They did NOTHING about the power of the CS in this patch... which was IMO by far and away the most unbalanced aspect of the game.