Spring Patch Info

[Uberfrog]

Spoiler :

View attachment 493297

I take it those symbols are indicating what will improve/worsen the deal in the eyes of the AI, and what's off the table entirely. That's a good feature.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm really looking forward to the patch and to seeing what other balance changes they've made. Other than England-related matters, the announced changes look like a lot of steps in the right direction:

• Fixing turtles suggests a new found willingness to take the time to make sure intended features are actually implemented.
• Adding religious impacts to Loyalty is a logical step to expanding Loyalty into a fully fledged, integrated system. Of course we need to see how it works in practice, but that can be tweaked as necessary. The important factor to me is that Loyalty be influenced by multiple relevant factors rather than being primarily a result of relative population weights.
• Joint wars never really bothered me, they just didn't add anything positive to the game experience for me. This may change with the update, if the AI ever gets effective at late game war.
• Era score for national parks! Yes. Also for tier 3 buildings, which could use some additional benefits to warrant their cost (I'd have had them boost specialist yields rather than provide era score, but at least it's a boost).
• Fixing code errors. Hopefully they've done a pass to look for and fix more than just the "yeild" ones, and at least picked up the medieval_era and related goofs that have also been reported here.

And then there's England. I'm trying to picture the team brainstorming session that came up with this solution.

Dev 1: "People are mad about England. Anybody have any ideas?"
Dev 2: "How about giving them a melee unit when they build their unique harbour?"
Intern in back: "Umm, why would building a harbour give them a melee unit?"
Dev 1: "Right. That makes sense."
Janitor passing by in the hallway: "Wasn't England in Victoria's time renowned for having the world's biggest navy and a tiny land army?"
Dev 1: "Free melee units from harbours it is."

 

[historix69]

I would not see the free melee unit as an "english" unit.
When England aquired colonies, they used local population to set up colonial troops like all those Indian Regiments and Divisions later used in WW2. I suppose that the colonial troops were paid by colonial taxes, so for England it were FREE units to protect their colonies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#East_India_Company_Army_and_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army

 

[blackbutterfly]

I would not see the free melee unit as an "english" unit.
When England aquired colonies, they used local population to set up colonial troops like all those Indian Regiments and Divisions later used in WW2.

Like my grandad. He "fought" in the Ceylon Regiment of the British Army.

Well, he didn't actually get to see any warfare (perhaps luckily for him) cos Britain didn't allow coloured troops into battle. He dug trenches in the Cocos Islands.
Not exactly a Redcoat

 

[legalizefreedom]

When at peace: Either actively scouting or on fortify spread through my lands.
When at war: Manually activate them all (required anyways), move them to the front. As long as the war continues all units are either active or fortying until healed. If I no longer desire to press on, I make peace and redistribute my units over my borders.

Would you not prefer the fortified units wake when something comes near them? Alert does fortify, no?

And on the joint war topic, the vid did say they will now require a denouncement by one of the parties.

 

[acluewithout]

I'm really looking forward to the patch and to seeing what other balance changes they've made. Other than England-related matters, the announced changes look like a lot of steps in the right direction:

• Fixing turtles suggests a new found willingness to take the time to make sure intended features are actually implemented.
• Adding religious impacts to Loyalty is a logical step to expanding Loyalty into a fully fledged, integrated system. Of course we need to see how it works in practice, but that can be tweaked as necessary. The important factor to me is that Loyalty be influenced by multiple relevant factors rather than being primarily a result of relative population weights.
• Joint wars never really bothered me, they just didn't add anything positive to the game experience for me. This may change with the update, if the AI ever gets effective at late game war.
• Era score for national parks! Yes. Also for tier 3 buildings, which could use some additional benefits to warrant their cost (I'd have had them boost specialist yields rather than provide era score, but at least it's a boost).
• Fixing code errors. Hopefully they've done a pass to look for and fix more than just the "yeild" ones, and at least picked up the medieval_era and related goofs that have also been reported here.

And then there's England. I'm trying to picture the team brainstorming session that came up with this solution.

Dev 1: "People are mad about England. Anybody have any ideas?"
Dev 2: "How about giving them a melee unit when they build their unique harbour?"
Intern in back: "Umm, why would building a harbour give them a melee unit?"
Dev 1: "Right. That makes sense."
Janitor passing by in the hallway: "Wasn't England in Victoria's time renowned for having the world's biggest navy and a tiny land army?"
Dev 1: "Free melee units from harbours it is."

Yup. I really like the other changes in the patch. That is part of the reason I am so salty about England. Sigh.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Like my grandad. He "fought" in the Ceylon Regiment of the British Army.

Well, he didn't actually get to see any warfare (perhaps luckily for him) cos Britain didn't allow coloured troops into battle. He dug trenches in the Cocos Islands.
Not exactly a Redcoat

Whereas my first Canadian ancestor was a deserter from the British army. He settled in a Scottish-Canadian community where no one would turn him in

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm really looking forward to the patch and to seeing what other balance changes they've made. Other than England-related matters, the announced changes look like a lot of steps in the right direction:

• Fixing turtles suggests a new found willingness to take the time to make sure intended features are actually implemented.
• Adding religious impacts to Loyalty is a logical step to expanding Loyalty into a fully fledged, integrated system. Of course we need to see how it works in practice, but that can be tweaked as necessary. The important factor to me is that Loyalty be influenced by multiple relevant factors rather than being primarily a result of relative population weights.
• Joint wars never really bothered me, they just didn't add anything positive to the game experience for me. This may change with the update, if the AI ever gets effective at late game war.
• Era score for national parks! Yes. Also for tier 3 buildings, which could use some additional benefits to warrant their cost (I'd have had them boost specialist yields rather than provide era score, but at least it's a boost).
• Fixing code errors. Hopefully they've done a pass to look for and fix more than just the "yeild" ones, and at least picked up the medieval_era and related goofs that have also been reported here.

And then there's England. I'm trying to picture the team brainstorming session that came up with this solution.

Dev 1: "People are mad about England. Anybody have any ideas?"
Dev 2: "How about giving them a melee unit when they build their unique harbour?"
Intern in back: "Umm, why would building a harbour give them a melee unit?"
Dev 1: "Right. That makes sense."
Janitor passing by in the hallway: "Wasn't England in Victoria's time renowned for having the world's biggest navy and a tiny land army?"
Dev 1: "Free melee units from harbours it is."

You could probably get away with building only navy with England and just getting free land units from colonial cities. At least you would have a navy that is proportionally larger.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Time to get this thread back on topic or it'll be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[RohirrimElf]

Any chance this comes out today? I am reluctant to start a new game until the patch comes out.

As long as you are not running on some rediculous slow speed mod. My guess is that you could finish another game before the patch comes out. Or play most of it in case of slow late game turn times. At least the most interesting bits.
I would start a new game to fill up some time. Dont see this patch come out before next week Tuesday 16:00 CET.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Glad to see loyalty being tweaked, but I think that pop is still far too over-weighted for anything else to feel meaningful.

 

[nzcamel]

I'd prefer it if 2 Civs couldn't declare a joint war unless both had the same CB available against the target.

Or if the Civ that didn't have the CB had to be at least dec friends/allied with the one who did.

Like my grandad. He "fought" in the Ceylon Regiment of the British Army.

Well, he didn't actually get to see any warfare (perhaps luckily for him) cos Britain didn't allow coloured troops into battle. He dug trenches in the Cocos Islands.
Not exactly a Redcoat

I guess case by case basis, cos Gurkas?

 

[Phoenix1595]

I take it those symbols are indicating what will improve/worsen the deal in the eyes of the AI, and what's off the table entirely. That's a good feature.

It is a fantastic feature. I waste so much time trying to figure out trade deals thst the AI will accept without giving away too much. This will help tremendously.

 

[Danthor]

Regarding the free English melee unit:

Currently naval AI war is quite bad, so I guess a free naval unit is much less valuable than a melee one and would angry a lot more ppl for being a weak UA, imho.

I barely build any naval units in my games

 

[Ozymandias9891]

I can't believe I'm defending the developers but I don't know if ya'll realize how long it takes to do anything. I am as impatient as anyone, but changes to the game should be introduced slowly, to see how things interact with each other before introducing anything too drastic. Also, anyone who has worked in a large corporation knows that everything takes forever. Everything takes 100 times longer than someone not in the industry thinks something should take.

They could just place Magnus in Firaxis HQ and then chop nearby woods for an extra production boost

But in all honesty, I'd much rather see that they take the time required to slowly build up to a great game rather than do half a job and quickly release an unpolished product.

 

[historix69]

Original Wording from the Preview :

We added increased loyalty for cities that are following your religion and decreased loyalty for cities that are following a religion that is different from the one that you have founded.

What will be the effects of religious loyalty on gameplay?

If you have two neighbouring civs A and B with respective founded religions A and B and each civ follows its religion :
- Cities with Religion A in Empire A will get loyalty bonus, cities with Religion B in Empire B will get loyalty bonus
- Cities with Religion A in Empire B will get loyalty malus, cities with Religion B in Empire A will get loyalty malus
So for Empire A it will be more difficult in terms of loyalty to hold or incorporate cities following Religion B and vice versa (unless using an Inquisitor.)
A border city of Empire A with Religion A has a small Loyalty bonus (ca +3), with no Religion has no effect, with Religion B has a small malus (ca. -3).
So Religion stabilizes Empires who have founded an own Religion.
B can try to missionize a border city of A from Religion A to his own Religion B to change loyalty effect from +3 to -3 (?) (which is a total effect of -6) to destabilize the city and maybe flip it, but A can counter with an Inquisitor or other religious units.

How will it work if A has founded a Religion but B has not or if A and B both have not founded a Religion?

Imagine A has founded a Religion A but B has not. Will a city in Empire B which follows Religion A get the Loyalty Malus? From a rational view one would expect that the city may want to join A for religious reasons, but according to the wording "following your own religion" I suppose there might be no Loyalty Malus since B has no own religion. Or will there be a general malus for religious cities if the owning civ has not founded an own religion?

If both A and B have not founded a Religion, there might be no Loyalty effects from Religion at all in their empires.

We will have to see if there are more game rules for religious loyalty than the one mentioned in the preview (see above).


-------------------------

Is there an effect of the original civ on city Loyalty?
E.g. civ A founds a city which is taken over by civ B. Will population in the city (e.g. in era of Nationalism) have a loyalty effect towards reunification with civ A?

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Well I definitely welcome the changes to Magnus because he is starting to become a major crutch and it was getting to the point where I felt I needed a mod for him. It will be interesting to see the full patch notes. Religion and loyalty might be interesting but will have to see how that works.

I'm really hoping for some improvement to AI at this point because I'm starting to get bored again. I know people are upset with England but I think it's Georgia who really needs the buff not England. The harbor change is a little odd but it still seems pretty decent to me though I did like the old Pax as it was originally implemented. Having a half price harbor is still good even if it is a support district and doesn't give you an extra route especially if it gives you a free Redcoat.

 

[V. Soma]

At what time of the day can we expect a patch to come...?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

At what time of the day can we expect a patch to come...?

The last several have been consistently early afternoon Eastern Time.

 

[Xur]

The last several have been consistently early afternoon Eastern Time.

So, any minute now?