When do you expect next patch fall and what could be it's priorities?

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I tend to play modless, never have the game crash etc. Must just be unlucky, or the turtles eat iron?

Very unlucky, I'd say. Iron being near your at least one of your first three cities is about a 50/50 proposition in my experience. Depending on how quickly you expand before revealing Iron, your odds may be better or worse. It looks to me like every continent is coded to have a few sources of Iron, and then it's just a matter of where on the continent your cities are compared to where on the continent the Iron is.

 

[UWHabs]

Most likely it's a case of forgetting you have it when you do, but remembering when you don't have it. I'd probably agree that "it feels like I never have iron nearby", but then again, my current game I had 2 iron in my 2nd city, and often times I'll see an iron tile in like the 3rd ring of my cap, or somewhere else that I could easily settle, if I think back hard at it.

 

[newbie2]

No it isn't. 8/10 games I don't have Iron nor Niter, despite covering sufficient land for such an abundant real life resource. I know what confirmation bias is, but this isnt the case. The strategic resource spawn is skewed against you to create an artificial and unrealistic difficulty barrier

On the whole, the strategicresources system is stupid.
You have 0 iron? bad luck, you're f***ed
You have 2 iron? you can make infinite swordmen
You have 1 iron? Make a building that magicly changes your 1 iron to 2 iron and make infinite swordmen again


I prefer the stockpile (and market) system of Endless Legend way more

 

[acluewithout]

Not being difficult, but I really like the strategic resource system. I love the simplicity. And it having iron is just as exciting as having it. If you don’t have it, can you settle to get it, conquer to get it, buy it from someone else, use other units.

The problems are upgrading with just one resource (broken), and later era resources having no relevance other than units (I have coal but all that lets me do is build a fancy boat!?!).

Also, why doesn’t Infantry require a resource? Would making infantry require oil be a good change?

 

[darkace77450]

(I have coal but all that lets me do is build a fancy boat!?!).

I still think they should have either made coal a requirement for factories or given factories in a city with a coal mine a huge boost to production. Whatever the next expansion brings (if there will indeed be another), I hope it makes the Industrial Revolution feel more like the game-changer it is supposed to be.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

No it isn't. 8/10 games I don't have Iron nor Niter, despite covering sufficient land for such an abundant real life resource. I know what confirmation bias is, but this isnt the case. The strategic resource spawn is skewed against you to create an artificial and unrealistic difficulty barrier

On the whole, the strategicresources system is stupid.
You have 0 iron? bad luck, you're f***ed
You have 2 iron? you can make infinite swordmen
You have 1 iron? Make a building that magicly changes your 1 iron to 2 iron and make infinite swordmen again

You can make infinite Swordsmen with 1 Iron. Build a Warrior, then upgrade to Swordsmen.

8/10 games without Iron within range of 3+ cities seems like a low probability event, so I would say that is, indeed, quite bad luck.

The whole strategic resources system is basically designed around the idea that you will be missing some resources and therefore miss out on easy access to some units. One can easily question the wisdom of that game design decision, but once it's made, it would then be irrelevant as a game system if the resource was accessible to all civs.

Iron is the most glaring, not only because it comes first (and is most important for that reason) but also because both Knights and Swordsmen are dependent on the same resource.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Not being difficult, but I really like the strategic resource system. I love the simplicity. And it having iron is just as exciting as having it. If you don’t have it, can you settle to get it, conquer to get it, buy it from someone else, use other units.

The problems are upgrading with just one resource (broken), and later era resources having no relevance other than units (I have coal but all that lets me do is build a fancy boat!?!).

Also, why doesn’t Infantry require a resource? Would making infantry require oil be a good change?

I rather like the system just the way it is. Having to wage war or forward settle in a loyalty challenged area to achieve an upgrade objective can be fun. Having to do it twice (edit: without the benefit of the upgraded unit), or worse yet, in two directions (ie. fronts), strikes me as considerably less so.

So far as the question of why infantry doesn't require any strategic resource to upgrade, I think the answer is that it's a mediocre fail safe unit that you can build reliably 100% of the time. Useful, but not optimal, in most circumstances.

 

[UWHabs]

You can make infinite Swordsmen with 1 Iron. Build a Warrior, then upgrade to Swordsmen.

8/10 games without Iron within range of 3+ cities seems like a low probability event, so I would say that is, indeed, quite bad luck.

The whole strategic resources system is basically designed around the idea that you will be missing some resources and therefore miss out on easy access to some units. One can easily question the wisdom of that game design decision, but once it's made, it would then be irrelevant as a game system if the resource was accessible to all civs.

Iron is the most glaring, not only because it comes first (and is most important for that reason) but also because both Knights and Swordsmen are dependent on the same resource.

Well, horses are first, but if you lack horses you're locked out of that line entirely and can shift focus. Lacking iron, though, you lose basically the strongest classical and medieval units, both of which come from a cheap upgrade from a unit you can build before, meaning their loss is felt a lot more. And for both, they happen early enough that it's possible you have nothing you can do about it. Whereas for Niter+, basically as long as there's a spot on the map, you can usually at least be willing to waste a settler to settle the spot, even if there's nothing else nearby.

But yes, the way resources are, you shouldn't have iron more than 1/2 or 2/3 of your games, otherwise why even bother with a resource system? But it is crazy how you can upgrade to a unit even if you can't build it. At the very least, you should probably only be able to upgrade a unit in a city or encampment, and thus only upgrade to a unit that that city/encampment could build. Although all that would likely do is just annoy you when you need to handle mass upgrades.

 

[sonicmyst]

Is see the implementation of resources as a reason to a) trade with another civ b) to find and befriend a CS with them and c) wage war

 

[acluewithout]

Upgrading with one resource really undermines the whole resource system. It also seems like a easy fix - just make upgrades require two resources. One resource should only let you heal or build new units with an encampment.

I agree infrantry don’t have a resource so you have a default unit. But they’re too rushable. I’d like Infantry to require oil as should mech infantry. Anti cav and ranged should be the fallbacks. Maybe anti cav need a buff after modern era.

I’d be surprised if the next expansion doesn’t buff coal oil and uranium. Seems very easy to make some mechanic where having those resources actually buffs you economy, whether by boosting factories or whatever.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Upgrading with one resource really undermines the whole resource system. It also seems like a easy fix - just make upgrades require two resources. One resource should only let you heal or build new units with an encampment.

An easy, and relatively cheap, upgrade system is likely the result of flak Firaxis has taken in the past from AI using anachronistic units. This is a real sore point with a vocal portion of the fanbase. I doubt we'd see any changes to the upgrade system that would make it more challenging for the AI to upgrade it's units.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Upgrading with one resource really undermines the whole resource system. It also seems like a easy fix - just make upgrades require two resources. One resource should only let you heal or build new units with an encampment.

I agree infrantry don’t have a resource so you have a default unit. But they’re too rushable. I’d like Infantry to require oil as should mech infantry. Anti cav and ranged should be the fallbacks. Maybe anti cav need a buff after modern era.

I’d be surprised if the next expansion doesn’t buff coal oil and uranium. Seems very easy to make some mechanic where having those resources actually buffs you economy, whether by boosting factories or whatever.

I disagree with your assertion that a 1 strategic resource upgrade undermines the system. I think a 1 resource threshold mitigates the random luck involved in a good start and affords a player the opportunity to use their skills to achieve a strategic objective without being penalized twice (ie. needing x2 resources to upgrade) for something as fickle as the luck of the start position.

I think the validity of this statement is proportional to which type of game you are playing: Multiplayer increases validity and single player versus the AI decreases it. I’ll grant you a bit more difficulty vs. the AI is not entirely uncalled for, so the x2 resources is certainly not without virtue. It just doesn’t strike me as particularly fun.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I disagree with your assertion that a 1 strategic resource upgrade undermines the system. I think a 1 resource threshold mitigates the random luck involved in a good start and affords a player the opportunity to use their skills to achieve a strategic objective without being penalized twice (ie. needing x2 resources to upgrade) for something as fickle as the luck of the start position.

I think the validity of this statement is proportional to which type of game you are playing: Multiplayer increases validity and single player versus the AI decreases it. I’ll grant you a bit more difficulty vs. the AI is not entirely uncalled for, so the x2 resources is certainly not without virtue. It just doesn’t strike me as particularly fun.

I agree with this. As things have unfolded, a couple of their game design decisions appear not to have worked out quite as the development team expected. Hardly surprising considering the complexity of the Civ 6 system, but possibly worthy of a review as part of the second expansion.

Strategic Resources were designed around a 0/1/2 system. Encampments were designed as a key component of that system, allowing for the creation of modern units when on 1 instead of 2. Not only did that go out the window with the upgrade system, the escalating production costs combined with the pricing of upgrades actually makes it preferential to not have an Encampment, so that you can build the anachronistic unit instead and upgrade.

When combined with a desire to not have ancient units kicking around when they're out of date, there's no simple solution to this short of a re-think of some fundamental design choices. Personally, I think the upgrade costs are fine, it's the cost of building modern units that's too high, and would like to see this dramatically reduced when the number of military units you have is below a certain infrastructure threshold. If each Encampment district and Encampment building increased that infrastructure threshold, that would be a boost to Encampments, and the 1 vs 2 distinction could be dropped, and we could go with a simple "either you have it or you don't" system rather than 0/1/2 distinctions.

 

[newbie2]

Is see the implementation of resources as a reason to a) trade with another civ b) to find and befriend a CS with them and c) wage war

It is except a) any resaonable AI (aka a player) wouldnt trade away something that makes you stronger, unless the trade deal favoured him massivly, and b) with envoys, rather than money deciding who is the suzerain of a city state, there is no guarantee on how long your hold will last (except rationing envoys, which handicaps your development as you miss out on science/gold/culture/etc..). If the AI doesnt conquer them all by turn 70 offcours.


The current system is extremely limiting and lopsided (not to mention unrealistic, as Iron and horses are quite common). The main reason I never fight wars past the ancient-classical era is because the majority of the time I won't have the resource required anyway, despite covering the same amount of land as the opponents. Strategy games should consists of choices. Constantly lacking resources to explore gameplay aspects doesnt make for interesting choices

I totally agree on things like oil, uranium.. being rare (and should maybe be a stimulus for a mid-late game colonization wave?). Its borderline stupid when it comes to iron and horses.

And yes, upgrading circumvents the whole system

Maybe strategic resources should be more prevalent, but rather than enabling the building of a unit, they should speed it up? Like +X% for having X amount of that resource in your empire.

 

[h0nk0815]

I expect next patch fall this fall.

 

[Duuk]

You can make infinite Swordsmen with 1 Iron. Build a Warrior, then upgrade to Swordsmen.

8/10 games without Iron within range of 3+ cities seems like a low probability event, so I would say that is, indeed, quite bad luck.

I think this is a bit of a "Civfanatics bias", and let me tell you why.

Outside of this forum, a vast majority of players DO NOT player on Huge+ Maps with Marathon speed games that last two months of play time. The Steam achievement stats back me up on this.

I can tell you I play on tiny maps (small if I'm feeling feisty) and the "8 out of 10 times I don't have iron, oil, horses, niter, or literally anything else" thing is real. I stock the maps full of AI (usually 2-3x the default number, plus a pile of city-states) so I have people to talk to. Founding 4-5 cities and then warring to get me to 10 before everyone starts moving towards victory conditions, whether that's conquest, religious, science, whatever. I always set the map to abundant resources.

And I still don't have iron at least 2/3 of the time without doing an early rush.

This forum has a tendency to think we're the center of the world, and I promise you we're not.

 

[Leyrann]

I normally play on standard maps with default settings and I don't notice any iron problems.

If you crowd the map it's part of the risk.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I typically play standard/medium everything and iron is normally at least reasonably close to one of the cities i've founded by that point. Not always but usually.

 

[Duuk]

I normally play on standard maps with default settings and I don't notice any iron problems.

If you crowd the map it's part of the risk.

I haven't played in a few weeks, but isn't the "default" setting small sized maps? I know mentally you'd think it would be standard, but I could have sworn small was the default.

 

[Japper007]

I still wish for a major civ rebalance, some civs have been ridiculous since release (Skythia, Sumeria), and we've been telling them since the trailers dropped on top of that so even before release. Then the DLC added even more broken ones to make the mess even bigger (Mongolia, the Zulu, basically all the non-expansion DLC civs...). It is just not fun to play when the deck is so stacked in the favor of some civs. It aIso has more than a whiff of being power-creep solely to sell the content. I mean, compared to civ 5 civs France isn't even that weak when it comes to uniques, but could you ever imagine taking it into battle in a competive civ 6 game? Where you could start right next to someone with Skythia?