Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Trav'ling Canuck, Mar 8, 2018.
What do people think about the nerf to England's foreign conquests in the March 2018 patch?
This specific change: no, I don't like it at all.
I think a better solution would be you just don't get free units from free cities - only from conquering other civ's cities or city states (and, of course from settling).
But I think there is a broader question whether England needs to be buffed more generally given the other changes in R&F - I think it does.
I'm all for fixing the exploit with free cities, but getting rid of units for conquering need to be rolled back. I'd also reinstate the trade route stacking while we're at it.
Nope. As they worded it, they only wanted to give a free unit on cities you actually settled. So it's not a nerf; it was never itended to be that way and whether or not that makes England good or not is an entirely diffrent issue.
They should probably look into rebalancing them though since regardless of intention, England is extremely weak right now.
I wonder if there is appropriate way we can convince the devs to revert it, without something ridiculous like a petition.
I'm all for keeping it.
Yeah, England wasn't the strongest civ to begin with, but strategies that require oversights in code should never be relied on in the first place.
Yeah I'm totally bummed about the nerf to trade in R&F, largely cos trade routes are the only way to build roads. I understand it makes Persia and The Cree's traits a little more important, but I think there needs to be a middle ground.
I'm convinced that the real oversight was what they did in this patch. From the beginning, the ability has said, quite clearly, "cities founded OR CONQUERED". Clearly the intent was that settling or conquering a city would give you a melee unit, and I don't believe that it was an oversight that conquering gave you a unit previously; something that big would have been fixed a looooooong time ago if so. I think what they meant to do today was change it so city flips through loyalty wouldn't give you a unit, but they screwed it up and made conquering not do it either.
Stiff upper lip, England.
Keep calm and carry on.
Get yourself a nice cup of tea and have a lie down.
They should revert it but address the free city farming. Or, if not, give England something else instead.
We could follow English tradition and write them a Strongly-Worded Letter...
I get the issue about free cities, but I really find it hard to believe a unit for conquering a city was a bug generally. The description always said settled or conquered cities, didn’t it?
A unit when you conquer a city also synergises well with England’s other bonuses (loyalty from RND and other foreign continent benefits), as it gives you a new unit just when you need it - to resupply existing units and provide another unit so you can garrison in the conquered city to maintain loyalty.
I’ve come round to the view that trade stacking shouldn’t be reintroduced. It would be too hard to build two districts, plus a lighthouse, plus a market. I think a better solution would just be one or two bonus trade routes at some point.
I actually wonder whether England needs to be completely reworked rather than just tweaked at this point.
- Keep RND as is. No trade stacking. Also keep British Museum, Sea Dog and Redcoats.
- New Civ Ability gives you the British Museum and additional two trade routes at Mercantilism.
- Pax Britania still gives you a Redcoat unit. But it’s main advantage is that you get a gold discount on the cost of purchasing and upgrading melee units (and maybe sea units). So, no more free units, but if you want a new unit in a conquered or settled city then you just buy one.
- Buff settling on foreign continents for all civs; e.g. improved luxuries give an additional +1 gold if they are on a foreign continents.
[edit: added last bullet point.]
I prefer this change. Because a) it doesn't make much sense that capturing an enemy city adds to the size of your army. If it was a free worker, that would make a bit more sense, like an alternative to the Eagle warrior's ability. And b) I thought it was boring anyway how many melee units your military ended up having.
Another compromise of mine would be that upon capturing a city, you could decide whether you want to buy a melee unit for half price on that turn, in that city.
I'd rather they get the double trade routes back and keep the free units as is with the current patch.
Well we know they read the forum from time to time, so simply talking about it enough should at least make it clear to them that the change is disliked. Whether they actually choose to do something about it in the next patch is entirely in their hands.
I was absent for quite a while.. can you please give more details how trade routes were altered with the expansion..?
You now have to build a market/lighthouse to get +1 trade route, rather than just the base CH/Harbour.
this one i have noticed.. thanks katakanja
thought it was something else as i don't get word "stacking" associated with new concept.. anyways what i don't like in R&F is that this merchant government type doesn't get +3 TR anymore.. i was devastated in my Cree game as i had ridiculously good trade routs (+8 food and other good stuff)..
I dunno...the Brits by Victoria's time were pretty good at incorporating their foreign subjects into the military...
I am also team "yes on conquest, except free cities" and I would be fine with "England's RND counts as a Lighthouse for trade route purposes" I.e. I don't necessarily want them getting 2 per city (this is at least partially because I don't want to have to manage that many routes if I am playing as England, but also because since R&F reduced the availability of bonus trade routes globally ((Carthage and Great Zimbabwe)) and also pushed District routes to the first building I suspect giving it to England back on the District level would be close to perfect.
On settlement only. But a new buff to compensate loss of conquer option.
Separate names with a comma.