Reading the patch notes properly

[Bibor]

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.

Depends on diff. level you play on. AIs that favor early honor + warmongering usually delay their improvements. On Immortal they hook them up very fast anyway (free workers I suppose).

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Depends on diff. level you play on. AIs that favor early honor + warmongering usually delay their improvements. On Immortal they hook them up very fast anyway (free workers I suppose).

They hook up 1. They won't trade it. I'd say maybe 10% of the time there's a luxury available for trade early.

 

[Txurce]

Bibor, this is an excellent meta-analysis, written in a consistently clear manner that's accessible to all.

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.

Tall civs are also more likely to have more developed cities.

 

[cccv]

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.

You're just assuming that we never traded lux for lux? I don't see the good news for people who already traded lux for lux whenever possible once happiness is an issue and still want larger empires. There's a limit to how many cities you can manage, and the limit just got smaller, while I felt it was already too small for me to colonize and conquer as much as I wanted =/

 

[Txurce]

You're just assuming that we never traded lux for lux? I don't see the good news for people who already traded lux for lux whenever possible once happiness is an issue and still want larger empires. There's a limit to how many cities you can manage, and the limit just got smaller, while I felt it was already too small for me to colonize and conquer as much as I wanted =/

With a larger, well thought out empire, you should have more luxuries to both trade and keep. You're just going to have to be smarter about it. For some players, this means the game is now less "fun." If this is the case with you, then drop down a level or two.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Great summary of the essentials, Bibor!

Complexity in chaos is never easy to "Predict" though, as you well know already from some of our earlier tricky conversations on specific issues.

 

[cccv]

With a larger, well thought out empire, you should have more luxuries to both trade and keep. You're just going to have to be smarter about it. For some players, this means the game is now less "fun." If this is the case with you, then drop down a level or two.

Yeah, I already have plenty of luxuries when my empire gets large, and I trade for ones I don't have, or buy them from CS's, but there's only so many in the game. One new city now=4 unhappiness (3 instead of 2, plus 1 for the citizen), so a single lux only covers a size 1 city. Anyway, point was, like I said, I was already doing that, so no, that wasn't helpful advice.


I don't know how the math works out for happiness bonuses on low levels, but I don't suspect they'll be giving me enough to make up for the huge happiness hits.

 

[elprofesor]

You will now have to rely on SPs (or some wonders) to get most of your happiness. Luxs and colisseums will now be only a temporary solution, as natural wonders at a smaller scale.

 

[thadian]

Most people are right in one thing though - Civilization 5 is going to be a brand new game.

Yes, sir and i don't know if its good or bad but i like new.

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

And the AI gets to be all 3, while the player has to choose. That said, i like the decision delimma of how i want 30 future citizens. 3 cities, size 10? or 5 cities size 6?

[*] 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).

This will be fun, to experiment with new combinations. i can't judge them too much because i need to see them on my game screen to really relate. im a different kind of learner so i still don't get it even though it has been explained quite well.

[*] 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 think there is more versatility than meets the blind eye, im more interested in the hybrid where you chase one intended path but are able to transform into another if you need to. and with this, im seeing it.

[*] 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.

I kind of like this, you can't declare "I will win if i get iron" - it just makes us work a little differently, but im not sure if it makes us work harder.

[*] Final results, say "constantly having enough happiness", are now closely tied to how well the abovementioned synergy is executed.

If this means i have to think more i like it.

[*] 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.

I hate this, because it won't change anything for the AI.

[*]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.

I just have a certain feeling this statement will not hold true for multiplayer games.

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

Yes, which sucks - it makes puppet empires weaker without making anything else better. i hate all the micromanagement from annexes and i like the burden that puppeting lifts from my shoulders - back to razing for me i guess. it sucks but it's the "path of least resistance", right?

[*]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").

Will this actually change the game dynamics? AI will always behave the way it always did, and for multiplayer games it changes nothing.

[*]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".

I will have to put more thought in this, because i don't see a real change. the AI will still cheat out 1,000 units and you will have less ability to produce a response.

[*]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.

Yes, and with having less gold altogether i don't see how i am to compete with the AI - see what yo said above about having to re-learn the game. it could be a good thing, we will see.

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

Ahh yes, now i will be lucky to own 2 city states while an AI has them all.

[*]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.
[/list]

Wonderful - its a small way to give back what they took away. My only fear is that harder difficulties will become improbable and that "builder" will only be possible on prince because i will never be able to buy a city state, upgrade a few troops and buy a building within the first 100 turns but the AI can. I may as well just play as a city state.

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.

How else am i going to get gold? Seriously.

In the end, im very mixed - i will probably just play mods as i have been doing while being bored and unstatisfied with the origional game because i dont want to play a game of magic the gathering against an opponent who starts with table rule they draw 2 cards a turn and i draw one card every 2 turns. (as a metaphor).

 

[aatami]

Bibor should get an award for this, or something of the like, this really:
1. Solves the question completely of whether the patch ruined the game or not.
2. Answers the questions of pretty much almost every player who is conserned with the patch.

 

[spider1]

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.

This is how I feel about the game as well. That's part of the fun. Even if I select a map that will be positively suited for the Civ I pick to play, it's still a different game every time. Sometimes I have to do a lot of war to finish, sometimes not. And the civs being unpredictable adds to that.

And if my strategy for winning has to change with the new patch, then I'm good with that. As the patch notes say, if you get your butt kicked with the new patch drop a level until you catch up with the new stuff then bump yourself back to where you like it.

No big deal to me. The biggest thing I see in the patch is the seeming ability to get positive relations with trades. If that works the way I think it might, then having an ally to the end of the game is sweet. I miss that in Civ V.

 

[Valkrionn]

Yeah, I already have plenty of luxuries when my empire gets large, and I trade for ones I don't have, or buy them from CS's, but there's only so many in the game. One new city now=4 unhappiness (3 instead of 2, plus 1 for the citizen), so a single lux only covers a size 1 city. Anyway, point was, like I said, I was already doing that, so no, that wasn't helpful advice.


I don't know how the math works out for happiness bonuses on low levels, but I don't suspect they'll be giving me enough to make up for the huge happiness hits.

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.

 

[Bibor]

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

 

[Celevin]

For what it's worth: I believe there is an imbalance here for huge maps. There are enough luxuries in a standard map, but as the map grows, the number of luxuries stays the same... So you end up with too little happiness to adequately fill the map.

This is one of few actual happiness problems that I see.

Question, why doesn't the diversity of luxuries scale with map size? For example, 6 different types of luxuries on Standard, and 10 on Huge? Doesn't that make the most sense? I've been pondering this ever since Civ5 came out.

Secondly, I pray that luxuries will be sold for 80% of their current cost to reflect the happiness change. If they're kept at 10 gpt, you're going to see people selling all they can and making it up in buildings/policies. Not that that's not completely done now *cough*.

 

[Putmalk]

Bibor should get an award for this, or something of the like, this really:
1. Solves the question completely of whether the patch ruined the game or not.
2. Answers the questions of pretty much almost every player who is conserned with the patch.

No he doesn't. While I value the work he's done in the OP and appreciate it greatly, it is all based on speculation and nobody can answer these questions until, you know, people actually play it.

 

[Valkrionn]

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

Oh, I agree. But the issue WILL persist.

Question, why doesn't the diversity of luxuries scale with map size? For example, 6 different types of luxuries on Standard, and 10 on Huge? Doesn't that make the most sense? I've been pondering this ever since Civ5 came out.

Secondly, I pray that luxuries will be sold for 80% of their current cost to reflect the happiness change. If they're kept at 10 gpt, you're going to see people selling all they can and making it up in buildings/policies. Not that that's not completely done now *cough*.

Actually, I'm fairly sure it already does.... If you move DOWN from Standard size. The issue is that Standard already relies on all existing luxuries. We need more.

 

[Valkrionn]

Update on my prior statement: It DOES scale number of luxuries based on map size, just as I thought.

function AssignStartingPlots:GetDisabledLuxuriesTargetNumber()
	-- This data was separated out to allow easy replacement in map scripts.
	local worldsizes = {
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_DUEL.ID] = 6,
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_TINY.ID] = 4,
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_SMALL.ID] = 2,
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_STANDARD.ID] = 1,
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_LARGE.ID] = 0,
		[GameInfo.Worlds.WORLDSIZE_HUGE.ID] = 0
		}
	local maxToDisable = worldsizes[Map.GetWorldSize()];
	return maxToDisable
end

As you can see, Large and Huge got the shaft, here... Large may be balanced, if you keep the pattern (parabola centered on 1, standard), but with that setup Huge should have an additional 2 luxuries, minimum.

And that is doing nothing more than simply keeping to a perceived pattern, rather than looking at actual variation between worldsizes!

As I said, this is one of few happiness issues that I feel is legitimate.

 

[jdog5000]

A very nice analysis, pulling out the big picture from the list of piece meal changes. I think you're right on. But it's much more fun to run around screaming "the sky is falling! OMG" ...

 

[spfun]

After reading through the patch notes again, I conclude that the new happiness system will be better suited for all map sizes since happiness can be gained from most social policy branches as well. Well, without need for Theocracy, that's what I mean.

For example, honor offers up to +4 (realistically +2) happiness per city, Rationalism +3 (realistically +2), Piety also +3 (realistically +2), Patronage +2, Freedom as before etc.

However, overall happiness might be a problem. We'll see...

It boggles my mind how you come to your conclusions... You say happiness will be better suited for all map sizes & show your logic by showing the changes to the policies.

1) For most of the game you can't have all those policies for one, realistically you have to make a choose.
2) You forgot to add the negatives which for the most part cancel out a lot of your mentioned buffs ( which you won't be able to take all anyways ) -1 coliseum -1 per city that cancels out a quick organized religion right there pretty much. Not to mention you have to build all these buildings in the 1st place & have the pop per city to use them.
3) fact that order/freedom are exclusive now - i mention this as i have games where i have taken over the entire world & have all the +happiness policies inc order/freedom & still are only around zero happiness mark. & thats on a standard map. Filling a Huge map will be even harder post patch. I certainly don't see how it will be easier post patch especially with puppets. Theocracy alone will make that extremely difficult.

 

[Bibor]

It boggles my mind how you come to your conclusions... You say happiness will be better suited for all map sizes & show your logic by showing the changes to the policies.

Because the general principle is much easier to tweak and balance. It obviously needs testing, but let us see how it would fare compared to today's standards.

Currently, huge map policies costs an additional 15% per city.
From the new patch this number will be 7.5%.
Currently, each city costs 1.2 happiness on a huge map (2 on standard size) or 60% of the original.
From the new patch this number will be 1.8 (60% of 3).

Today:
+15% needed per city
-2.2 unhappiness per city (city + 1 citizen).

New patch:
+7.5% needed per city
-2.8 base unhappiness per city.

Lets say you want to expand, today, to 10 cities on a huge map with the first three social policy branches. The only policy that offers happiness is Meritocracy, a whopping 0.5 per city. The only policy that offers culture is Liberty, a whopping +1. Everything else must come from a Colosseum, Circus, Monument or Temple. You can obviously go Tradition, but we talk about really large empires.

***

From the new patch, it will be easy to expand with Honor. Honor will offer culture from barb kills (easy to get on huge maps, yes?), Military caste and Professional army will offer a total of +2 with a garrison and city walls as well as extra +2.

From there you can go Piety (still killing barbs), build a few monuments (15% cheaper due to Piety starter) and receive further +1 +2 per city. At this point you become happiness neutral (at population 1) and have +4 per city and +3 per city from policies and a monument.

You can place an almost indefinite number of pop 1 cities this way, whithout even touching luxury resources, colosseums or circuses.

Now lets add a colosseum +2 happy. A temple, +1 happy. Add a castle +1 happy. A stone works or circus, between +1 and +2 happy.

We're still in the medieval era and we can already have cities with population 6 or 7 without even dipping into luxuries.

As long as you build a monument, have a scout garrison (you can take Oligarchy as well) and if you dip slightly into luxuries you can place an infinite number of size 1 cities and build from there.

... and build from there. That's the idea I like the most.

Honestly, I presume the devs planned the new happiness system around players having at least 3 full policy branches before hitting industrial. And whatever way you go, you'll end up with +4 to +6 happiness per city from branches alone.