Reading the patch notes properly

[thadian]

im still extremely confused about overflows and what does and does not, currently or post patch work under some wierd formula i don't understand.

I hope eventually everything overflows with a defined and simple hard cap such as "city size +X" and not "City Size + (insert calculus) = (insert quantum physics)."

I like the idea of research agreements and tribal villages giving you "Beakers" instead of technologies, then gave you a popup to let YOU dictate where those beakers go.

 

[eric_]

Oh yeah, also, when you have RAs at 100% median value, completing a *median* tech isn't exactly going to propel the new median very far down the tech line.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I guess my problem has always been that the opportunity cost of RAs is just too low compared with the cost of doing the research yourself. RAs let you get tech faster and at a lower cost than hard research once you get past the first 1/3rd of the game. And even if you can now only grab 1 median tech per RA... it still seems like too much to me again compared to the hard way of doing it.

For example. I can trade 1 luxury and get 1 free tech in return, 30 turns later. Or I can trade 3 luxuries and buy a single university that may accelerate my research by 10% overall (and now universities have been made worse for some unknown reason). Oh and if I have built Big Ben and have mercantilism I only need to trade 2 for that university. So why do I want to do research at all myself again? Research a bit yourself to get to 200 or 300BC, get yourself set up for RAs, sell all your science buildings and use RAs to rake in 8 techs every 30 turns.

Another thing that seems odd to me. They nerfed Babylon to produce less GSes and also a few wonders to produce less great people overall... under the assumption that generating GSes too quickly was too powerful because you can use them to bulb techs. That's fine. I have no problem with that. However if generating GSes to get techs was allowing you to get techs too fast... how is getting 8 techs in 30 turns for a pittance amount of gold you can get by trading luxuries (at the same rate of 30 turns) somehow acceptable?

EDIT: Oh and BTW to generate those GSes you need science buildings! Hence you actually do need a significant amount of your own science. So at least in that way it makes sense. Can the same be said for RAs?

 

[RealHuhn]

@ArcaneSeraph

Research agreements now give a tech boost instead of a free tech. Tech boosts start at 50% of the median value of all techs you can research. Can be boosted to 100% if you both start Rationalism and build the Porcelain Tower.

Where did you get the assumption that you can actually CHOOSE the tech you want to boost?

To me it sounds like the same old random research agreement with the same rules regarding tech blocking etc.

You jump to conclusions way too fast and to be honest, I think the devs are intelligent enough to avoid your explained scenario.

 

[Furycrab]

I guess my problem has always been that the opportunity cost of RAs is just too low compared with the cost of doing the research yourself. RAs let you get tech faster and at a lower cost than hard research once you get past the first 1/3rd of the game. And even if you can now only grab 1 median tech per RA... it still seems like too much to me again compared to the hard way of doing it.

For example. I can trade 1 luxury and get 1 free tech in return, 30 turns later. Or I can trade 3 luxuries and buy a single university that may accelerate my research by 10% overall (and now universities have been made worse for some unknown reason). Oh and if I have built Big Ben and have mercantilism I only need to trade 2 for that university. So why do I want to do research at all myself again? Research a bit yourself to get to 200 or 300BC, get yourself set up for RAs, sell all your science buildings and use RAs to rake in 8 techs every 30 turns.

Another thing that seems odd to me. They nerfed Babylon to produce less GSes and also a few wonders to produce less great people overall... under the assumption that generating GSes too quickly was too powerful because you can use them to bulb techs. That's fine. I have no problem with that. However if generating GSes to get techs was allowing you to get techs too fast... how is getting 8 techs in 30 turns for a pittance amount of gold you can get by trading luxuries (at the same rate of 30 turns) somehow acceptable?

EDIT: Oh and BTW to generate those GSes you need science buildings! Hence you actually do need a significant amount of your own science. So at least in that way it makes sense. Can the same be said for RAs?

Well assuming you didn't RA block this patch is a straight up doubled the opportunity cost to RAs. Now if you go rationalism, and get the Porcelain Tower then and only then you get a small boost to RA value. If you did RA block, the opportunity cost went up even more considering you sorta artificially inflated your the RA value.

A lot of the building changes I think were trying to balance wide vs tall. They reduced a ton of % and added a ton of bases to a ton of things. (Broadcast tower is probably the most dramatic one)

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

@RealHuhn

If you can't choose the tech that the research targets, then yes I have no problem with them. Myself and quite a few others seem to be under the assumption, and it may be false, that it will go to whatever you happen to be researching when it lands with overflows following the same algorithm they do now. But yes if it is random then hey yes good on the devs cause I think the RAs are good cost for their value then. You can't manipulate them as much and you can't target them to give you free high level techs without first getting the median there too.

But you are assuming that they will remain random. I see no reason to assume that is any more valid than any other assumptions. Consider the Civ series has always been full of exploits and these are the same devs that implemented this exploitable blocking system I guess I have less faith in assuming that this new system will be without exploits at all.

Also since I am a strategy game dev myself I know from personal experience how easy it is to introduce an exploit when you are trying to make a cool new feature .

@FuryCrab

I have no problem with the patch changes in general. I hope they work out well and remove the exploits. My two main complaints about an otherwise great game are RAs and Scholatism / CS abuse. If they have fixed those I'll be delighted

 

[Civsassin]

I'm looking forward to the new patch as well. Most of the changes should be exciting. I don't mind the happiness and I'd like to try out new policy combos since I can seemingly have more of them. However...



This isn't true, IMO. It's actually easier now to exploit RAs than before. Remember you get to choose what tech you want basically and in fact by opening up certain key techs you will be able to get more than 1 free tech per RA for a long time.

I believe that it will not be as effective as it is currently. We'll have to see what tactics the rather ingenious fan base can come up with.

 

[spfun]

I agree with you ArcaneSeraph, as a RA spammer before this patch all they did for me really is delay the spam. I still feel they're to good. If i had control of the patch notes i probably would of capped the bonus at 75% total. No mention of cost increases either, i think RAs would have been better if they cost a bit more, especially in the industrial/modern ages.

But in saying that i don't plan on any RA spam games for a while. I think I'm going to go back to scholasticism & buy CS. I never liked all the free techs in this game, that's why i was such a big advocate of getting them nerfed! I like to research my own techs.

 

[Montov]

I would summarize the patch as "Gradual Growth"

- Less happiness from luxuries, more from policies: less REXing, more gradually accumulating happiness.
- Because policies are more important, less policy costs in the beginning will give you easier policies. To not make Cultural Victory as easy, policies later on are more expensive.
- Reduced 'per-city Policy cost increase' by 50%, so you can build more cities, but because of slower happiness you won't ICS early and will settle cities later on
- Because more cities will be settled later on, production had to be rebalanced. Current modern production is only feasible with fully developend cities, but in the modern age there would be not enough time to fully develop them. More base hammers, less multiplayer achieves this goal.
- Gradual growth also means less instant boosts: National College, Longswordsman, Universities, RA, Theocracy. Only exception are Wonders, which primairy function is to have those kinds of boosts, and most needed the buffs to achieve that.
- Linking concepts together encourages gradual growth: less emphasis on pure happiness buildings, but more from Culture/Science/Military buildings in the policies. This makes it harder to putt all your eggs in 1 basket, ignore everything else and boosting/beelining/other your way through the game. But specialization is still important.
- More mixture in your empire, instead of 2-4 own cities and puppet everything else, this patch encourages a little more self settled cities and a little more annexing.
- Great Person tile improvements more valuable later on, added tech tree links & policy finishers also fit this narrative of gradual growth.

 

[thadian]

only grudge ive ever held against GP buildings is popping a coal, oil or aluminum on it. once, i got an iron on my landmark and that was pretty annoying.

 

[Txurce]

I would summarize the patch as "Gradual Growth"

- Less happiness from luxuries, more from policies: less REXing, more gradually accumulating happiness.
- Because policies are more important, less policy costs in the beginning will give you easier policies. To not make Cultural Victory as easy, policies later on are more expensive.
- Reduced 'per-city Policy cost increase' by 50%, so you can build more cities, but because of slower happiness you won't ICS early and will settle cities later on
- Because more cities will be settled later on, production had to be rebalanced. Current modern production is only feasible with fully developend cities, but in the modern age there would be not enough time to fully develop them. More base hammers, less multiplayer achieves this goal.
- Gradual growth also means less instant boosts: National College, Longswordsman, Universities, RA, Theocracy. Only exception are Wonders, which primairy function is to have those kinds of boosts, and most needed the buffs to achieve that.
- Linking concepts together encourages gradual growth: less emphasis on pure happiness buildings, but more from Culture/Science/Military buildings in the policies. This makes it harder to putt all your eggs in 1 basket, ignore everything else and boosting/beelining/other your way through the game. But specialization is still important.
- More mixture in your empire, instead of 2-4 own cities and puppet everything else, this patch encourages a little more self settled cities and a little more annexing.
- Great Person tile improvements more valuable later on, added tech tree links & policy finishers also fit this narrative of gradual growth.

Excellent analysis. Even the Wonders provide less of an instant boost than they used to.

The new game will be very different, but not all that much harder if approached with discipline. However, the nature of the changes will frustrate players who seek one strong strategy, and expect to dominate soon after. This is probably why the devs are encouraging dropping down a level at first - to avoid frustration.

 

[Bibor]

Excellent analysis.

I agree, a very good analysis by Montov.

 

[Drawmeus]

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies. Basically, I want social policies to steadily accumulate for any kind of empire at any stage of the game; I want smaller, culture-focused empires to steadily accumulate them at a faster rate and to have an easier time getting enough for a Culture win, but I want all kinds of empires to be getting enough of them to keep moving forward.

Now, they've rebalanced a huge number of variables regarding policy cost and culture gain, so I will wait and see how things play out; I have no idea if Autocracy will continue to be useless or not. It's just a concern I have with the approach.

 

[Dizzy75]

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies.

Seems like a legit concern. Especially with the nerfing of various slingshots, early NC, etc., which will make it harder to get to those ages before you accumulate a lot of policies. Even Babylon is getting their GS bonus nerfed.

They may need to eventually make those later SPs more powerful, to compensate. But I'd like to see how the patch works in general first.

 

[GenjiKhan]

My big concern with the policy cost thing is that if late policies are more expensive, two of the late policy branches (Autocracy, Order) run the risk of being just useless, because the type of empire which would want them is only going to pick up a small handful of late-game policies. Basically, I want social policies to steadily accumulate for any kind of empire at any stage of the game; I want smaller, culture-focused empires to steadily accumulate them at a faster rate and to have an easier time getting enough for a Culture win, but I want all kinds of empires to be getting enough of them to keep moving forward.

Now, they've rebalanced a huge number of variables regarding policy cost and culture gain, so I will wait and see how things play out; I have no idea if Autocracy will continue to be useless or not. It's just a concern I have with the approach.

Well,if your focus is "Wide Empire Style" ,you'll probably just want to take Order Opener branch and another order sp branch(Nationalism if you are in war,United Front if you need City state alliance to maintain happiness or Planned economy to improve science) or Autocracy>Militarism>Police state if you are playing "Conqueror Empire style" and haven't conquered the world yet. And Autocracy becomes even more useful with this patch,since Liberty branch is no longer mutually exclusive to Autocracy branch.

 

[Buccaneer]

Excellent analysis. Even the Wonders provide less of an instant boost than they used to.

The new game will be very different, but not all that much harder if approached with discipline. However, the nature of the changes will frustrate players who seek one strong strategy, and expect to dominate soon after. This is probably why the devs are encouraging dropping down a level at first - to avoid frustration.

Not only "one strong strategy" but also with the Civ4 way of thinking in terms of endless amount of everything. To them, it's too boring and frustrating to think about working for 1 extra food (culture, gold, hammers, etc.) and the benefits to such.

It is an excellent analysis. What a change since the first release when everyone was winning on high levels without even trying. I look forward to being forced to drop down a level and reading about the many attempts (and successes) in winning at Imm/Deity.

 

[Gali]

About Wide Empire policy costs, looking at the new cultural options a wide empire can get more culture than before if they work on it. Go Honor and then piety and mlitary caste and free religion increase in effectiveness the wider you are. With Representation, which you should have wide, each new city will add only 10% cost on standard maps and speeds. With a little cultural spam, made easier by piety opening and more rewarding by organized religion, you can probably get a decent amount of culture. Especially if late game Culture CS's got buffed significantly. Also new theocracy will really help wide empires. 10% gold boost per city, temples are cheap and even more useful now, could really help.

The cultural game that got hurt most is OCC with al the nerfs to multipliers and policy cost reductions. Maybe freedom finisher plus massed landmark, and late game Cs make up for this. Also remember that we lost 2 free policies in free religion and sydney opera house delaying games even more.

 

[tomplum68]

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!

The game has lost some luster since the patch notes were released waiting for the improved game to come out.

 

[Strategist83]

Very much disagree with ArcaneSeraph's frowning at research agreements. Diplomacy was always a very large part of your science production in Civ - just in former games there wasn't 'research agreements', but outright 'tech trades' (which, in fact, was even more 'extreme' than Civ5's RA may seem in how much benefit they provided). One easily 'cheated' through just as much of the tech tree using diplomacy in Civ4 as one does not in Civ5 - and I wouldn't want it any other way since it makes sense from both a gameplay and a realism standpoint. Real life United States didn't have to invent gunpower because the Chinese had already done that. It only makes sense that a large percentage of 'science' comes from abroad, in Civ represented as 'diplomacy'.

Research Agreements are, contrary to popular belief, one of the single best things about Civ5 compared to predecessors, one of the major steps forward. While their execution is poor (it really isn't that bad, it's just that the idiotic AI amplifies the issue manyfold), the truth is they remove the annoyance from previous games where one would constantly have to check diplomacy screens to find out if new opportunities for tech trades had arisen. Now, in Civ5, we comfortably just sign RA's and and don't have to bother with that boredom. I'm thankful for that.

 

[Strategist83]

About Wide Empire policy costs, looking at the new cultural options a wide empire can get more culture than before if they work on it. Go Honor and then piety and mlitary caste and free religion increase in effectiveness the wider you are. With Representation, which you should have wide, each new city will add only 10% cost on standard maps and speeds. With a little cultural spam, made easier by piety opening and more rewarding by organized religion, you can probably get a decent amount of culture. Especially if late game Culture CS's got buffed significantly. Also new theocracy will really help wide empires. 10% gold boost per city, temples are cheap and even more useful now, could really help.

The cultural game that got hurt most is OCC with al the nerfs to multipliers and policy cost reductions. Maybe freedom finisher plus massed landmark, and late game Cs make up for this. Also remember that we lost 2 free policies in free religion and sydney opera house delaying games even more.

Overall, the upcoming patch is going to offer empires a ton more culture and social policies - trust me on that one. OCC may be taking a hit - that's possible - but who cares? One City Challenge is just that, a challenge - it's not supposed to be a way of playing the game. If anything, this new patch is going to allow cultural victory pursues to run an actual empire, and not the pathetic Civilicities where anything much beyond three cities virtually guarantees your options for cultural victory are nullified.

This new patch will let everyone empire up a bit more so that there won't be huge unclaimed masses of land well into the industrial era. That's an aspect of the game I can't wait to see improve.