To patch, or not to patch.....


Jan 17, 2002
Washington D.C.
All right, I have been reading all the traffic since v1.17 came out.
I have been playing v1.16 and think it works very well. I do not do any editing or changing of the rules as so many of the disgruntled players seem to, I just really enjoy playing (insert addicted at this point for complete accuracy). With all the grumbling and apparent bugs in v1.17, I am wondering if I should bother installing v1.17 ( I have downloaded, but not installed at this point).

So here it is;
To patch, or not to patch? That is the question....

I think we should get a consensus vote here from the folks already using v1.17.
Please reply with an explanation of what you think.
My vote?

With all the bugs and unresolved problems, I am underwhelmed.
For now im staying with v 1.16 and having no problems....:lol:
I'm happily playing v1.17 with default rules.

The ai's tech trading seems a lot more aggressive. Maybe too much so. Beyond that, I'm happy.

I'll need to revert back for a succession game, but I see no other reason to do so.
Glad to hear a success story, Ripley. But I'm lazy; I don't want to install 1.17f and then find out that I have to take it back out again.

I'm letting everyone else do the testing.:)
I'll second Ripley's bugs at all, but AI tech trading needs to be throtled back a bit. I'd recommend it over 1.16 :)
Worth it for stack movement and sentry alone if nothing else. Agree with the AI tech trading comments though. Personally no regrets on upgrading.
I really enjoy the new and improved goody huts.
The stacking movement is great.

But, I enjoy playing the tech lead. If people are right about the research rate penalty when you are the first to a tech, combined with the tech overtrading AI, I will remove the patch.

I haven't played v1.17f much but that bug in v1.16f that makes your game cause an illegal operation when all (or many) of your cities go into civil disorder drove me crazy!
This may be a little off topic, but it bears on wheither or not I will want to install the downloaded patch.

Those of you've who have played a bit with 1.17 ... would you say that the Pope Strategy has been wrecked by the more aggressive AI tech trading?? Or is it still viable but harder? Lots or a little harder? or not effected?

Thanks for your input!!!!
Based on what I have read from everyone here and at "the other big civ site" I will keep playing on 1.16f. I've had no problems at all with the first patch and don't see the justification in upgrading to the new patch with all these problems rampant.

Maybe a lot of the problems are stemming from patching over the previous patch. Maybe removing Civ3 from your hard drive then reinstalling followed by the latest patch is key to solving many of the glitches people have seen. I'm just not willing to go through all that trouble yet as I have a pretty decent game going on right now.
I've been using patch 1.17f now for two days without problems :) and I played for a good 12 hours in that time!
I have played most of one game with the 1.17 patch, and I am having no problems, except that I think Monarch level just got a little harder. I was about to move up to emperor, but I guess I hang around monarch a while longer.
I have no plans to go back to 1.16 at the moment, although its certainly something I thought about.

The AI tech trading has made it very hard to stay up with technology (never mind get ahead) - especially on non-science Civs (I'm currently exploring the Relgious angle and suffering on the science side).

One or two of the 'new' bugs are irritating (such as the enhancement introduced in to ask what a city should build next - which now doesn't work) but I can live with that for now.

Even though the AI seems to be more agressive on the trading side (and one-side at that) I get the impression that something has been weakened on the territory-grabbing aspect. I've had less trouble beating the AI to the unoccupied territory that I used to have (but that's only based on 2 games under 1.17).

I guess it comes down to whether any specific issues that are fixed between 1.16 and 1.17 cause you big problems, and whether any of the new aspects are likely to make it unplayable. The other issue is - what if you get a problem and haven't upgraded - if you fall behind what everyone else is playing, you won't be able to get a lot of help.

For me, it has meant dropping back to Regent level to get and enjoyable game (and I may have to drop one more level) - that I can live with though - I don't have to play at Emperor or above to get satisfaction.
kittenOFchaos, eyrei, and Exile_Ian

Thanks for all of your informative reports on games with patch 1.17f. I found your replies to be encouraging and will indeed patch after I finish my current game.

kittenOFchaos and eyrei,

I'm new here to this board, signed up last month, but I've seen both of your names in several threads throughout the entire forum. I've read a lot of your past posts and they all show me that you are both intelligent gamers. This is another reason why I've finally made up my mind about patching after thinking about it all weekend.

Keep up the good work everybody and good gaming to all! :goodjob:
Stilgar, thanks for starting this thread :goodjob: because I was wondering the same thing. I read the patch readme and it sounded very good but I have seen mostly moans from the other threads covering the patch. Mind you, they were mostly there to record problems so that is mostly what one will get. But even knowing how some of these threads get carried away with the negatives, I was developing a real reluctance to install the patch which I downloaded Friday (I am winning for the first time on Emperor and am very reluctant to patch before finishing this game). As Moff wisely noted however, some posters are more worth listening to then others and I too will patch before starting my next game.
:( I've been having the same debate; I've downloaded the patch but not yet installed it. The responses on this thread have been helpful, but I think I am going to hold off on patching. Though I'd like the sentry and stack movement, I am worried about the agressive AI trading I have read about. I am kind of a lousy player - I can beat the AI on Warlord, but Regent kicks my butt - and I usually win by spaceship or diplomatic victory. I need tech superiority to beat the game and I am afraid of making it any harder!
usually I complain ;-) but I have tried the patch and I LIKE IT!

- no installation problems

- some cities did flip with 1 or 2 units inside but I have not lost a complete army so far, quite fair to me

- more than 2 workers are now cleaning up pollutions (once they are finished they ask me for commands again, how can I keep them in a 'waiting for next pollution' mode?)

- well, my playing skill has not increased with the patch, maybe an issue here :)
I really enjoy the new and improved goody huts.
The stacking movement is great.

Yes, I like it very much - it is possible to get some additional settlers at the beginning of the game, even if you are not
Expansionist. Armies from goody huts are also very nice ;-)

But, I enjoy playing the tech lead. If people are right about the research rate penalty when you are the first to a tech, combined with the tech overtrading AI, I will remove the patch.

And this is why finally I have removed this patch. I have a similar style of play - to be the tech leader. Now I play at the Regent level; if the game is successful, at the end of the Medieval Era I could be about 6-7 techs ahead and the difference became greater and greater. After the patch, I could be only 2-3 techs ahead so other civs could beat me to build some nice Great Wonders :-(

I could live with aggresive AI tech trading policy (I do the same...) but research rate penalties seem to be unfair - they may be useful if one is at a small island far from other civs only.


Slawomir Stachniewicz.
Top Bottom