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

[Mycroft Canner]

Yes! Time to put Civ V aside for while.

 

[Delvi]

In my opinion the next DLC/patch package should focus on three different aspects.

1) Maps: would be great to have a huge map with 2-3 continents plus 4-5 big islands, with some islands inhabited, of course it should be combined with run for certain AI civs (Norway, Spain, Indonesia, England...) to run for sea exploration and founding cities in new continents;

2) gameplay: more balanced, while the best way to go with Civ5 was to have 4 cities and turtle, now with Civ6 it's too much better to play wide against playing tall;

3) make much more important to have naval units and improve AI skills for sea and air unit production and combat.

 

[Haig]

Which means, if I am hearing you correctly, that my dire prediction that there may BE NO 2nd expansion has not yet been ruled out.
.

Well R&F expansion is on steamdb in a folder called 'Expansion1' so I think it could be a clue for another one..

 

[Leyrann]

The game badly needs a map editor, either through the patch or through mods. I have just gone through several restarts, with the full maps revealed, trying different ages, different water levels, climates, map types etc. The last group of maps for example, (on "new") revealed many mountains NO HILLS on the entire maps, maps with extremely restrictive production potential. I don't like being hemmed in by tundra but I am on or within a few hexes of tundra on nine maps out of ten. Coastal cities, near the poles or hemmed in by mountains. I have had to install mods to get rivers. I see complaint after complaint from players who simply "hate' the map generation. Whoever designed these maps and surely they appear to reveal certain biases despite all disclaimers, may have thought they were making the game more challenging, failing to realize they were simply generating re-roll after re-roll, which simply makes the game boring.

I returned to Civ 6 only about two weeks ago, after buying R&F. I quit vanila 6 over a year ago from sheer exasperation with the useless AI, incapable doing anything but having its troops mill around after DoW. I have yet to complete a game in R&F, so I don't know how well that has been addressed.

The naval game not only has been nerfed, it's been orphaned so thoroughly that it appears to be intentional. I'd like to see that brought back from the dead.

There is a lot to like about R&F, after the Civ 6 debacle. I had wondered whether it was time to abandon the franchise permanently. I do see R&F, so far, as a big improvement.

FWIW, I took a couple of years to buy Civ V and really enjoyed the game. I feel as if I should have paid greater heed to my experience rather than buying Civ 6 at the launch, which despite its obvious potential I considered to be one of the worst games ever, of any genre.

Sounds to me like you have a mod that breaks map generation. Haven't heard about problems with too man mountains, no hills, always tundra (unless you're Russia) or no rivers anywhere else...

Also Civ V launch is (almost) universally considered to have been worse than Civ VI launch, and considering you didn't play at the time (neither did I, for the record), I'd say, believe those people. And if Civ V became a good game (imo it didn't get beyond "meh" due to certain aspects) then why can't Civ VI if it has a much better start?

 

[bonafide11]

Which means, if I am hearing you correctly, that my dire prediction that there may BE NO 2nd expansion has not yet been ruled out.

Pondering changing my forum title.

I'd be very disappointed if they didn't make a 2nd expansion, but I'd also be shocked if they didn't. There's still just too much to add to the game. It hardly feels complete.

 

[Gedemo]

Did someone noticed that in the Civilization.artdef file of the expansion 1, the first lines are:
<Element>
<m_Fields>
<m_Values/>
</m_Fields>
<m_ChildCollections>
<Element>
<m_CollectionName text="Audio"/>
<m_ReplaceMergedCollectionElements>false</m_ReplaceMergedCollectionElements>
</Element>
</m_ChildCollections>
<m_Name text="CIVILIZATION_HAIDA"/>
<m_AppendMergedParameterCollections>false</m_AppendMergedParameterCollections>
</Element>

Haida !?

 

[Duuk]

I believe that was supposed to be the original North American Native civ, but there was a religious issue with using their leader, so it was switched up after coding had started and the Cree were added in. Luckily that caused no controversy at all and it was happily ever after.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Haida !?

I believe that was supposed to be the original North American Native civ, but there was a religious issue with using their leader, so it was switched up after coding had started and the Cree were added in. Luckily that caused no controversy at all and it was happily ever after.

I'm not sure we ever got a reason for why no Haida (my recollection of a religious leader issue was for Civ 5 and the Pueblo nation) but as much as I'd love to see the Haida represented in the game, it seems unlikely that we would get two North American civilizations based in current Canadian territory and none based in current U.S. territory. This led people to assume the Haida and the Cree were both under consideration, with the Cree ultimately being the civ selected.

 

[AvianBritish]

I'm not sure we ever got a reason for why no Haida (my recollection of a religious leader issue was for Civ 5 and the Pueblo nation) but as much as I'd love to see the Haida represented in the game, it seems unlikely that we would get two North American civilizations based in current Canadian territory and none based in current U.S. territory. This led people to assume the Haida and the Cree were both under consideration, with the Cree ultimately being the civ selected.

With my recent holiday to Vancouver I learnt so much about the Hadia! I would love to have them in the game! I would love for them to have an ability relating to the Trickster Raven!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

With my recent holiday to Vancouver I learnt so much about the Hadia! I would love to have them in the game! I would love for them to have an ability relating to the Trickster Raven!

Well yes, you would, wouldn't you? I mean, avatar …

 

[Gedemo]

I'm not sure we ever got a reason for why no Haida (my recollection of a religious leader issue was for Civ 5 and the Pueblo nation) but as much as I'd love to see the Haida represented in the game, it seems unlikely that we would get two North American civilizations based in current Canadian territory and none based in current U.S. territory. This led people to assume the Haida and the Cree were both under consideration, with the Cree ultimately being the civ selected.

It's strange that they let the entry, and then added the cree. Why they didn't remove it?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's strange that they let the entry, and then added the cree. Why they didn't remove it?

If it's not causing errors, presumably there's no reason for anyone to go looking for it. "YEILD" was in the code for a long time, too.

 

[I_pity_the_fool]

The last summer patch came on July 27th. So if history is any judge, we're a few weeks away yet.

Aside from that, since we haven't mentioned it for a few posts I'd like to say that England was somewhat over-nerfed. My general philosophy is that civs should be (a) so comparable in power that MP games can function normally if you randomly determine leaders and (b) each civ should have a distinctive character and be 'fun'. We've got a problem with (b) and we've got a far way to go before we buff england enough to have a problem with (a).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The last summer patch came on July 27th. So if history is any judge, we're a few weeks away yet.

Aside from that, since we haven't mentioned it for a few posts I'd like to say that England was somewhat over-nerfed. My general philosophy is that civs should be (a) so comparable in power that MP games can function normally if you randomly determine leaders and (b) each civ should have a distinctive character and be 'fun'. We've got a problem with (b) and we've got a far way to go before we buff england enough to have a problem with (a).

While (a) is laudable, in a game as complex as Civ 6, it would be unreasonable for anyone to be able to even roughly balance the civs for power without making all their bonuses very bland. Only a lot of time in the field observing various multi-player strategy would provide the data needed for a proper balance pass, and even that would then be at risk of overcompensating when someone comes up with a new, innovative strategy. Maybe they have the data for that now. I'm concerned that they're just winging it based on the developers' own perceptions and the general tone of player comments (which don't necessarily correspond with true powerfulness as assessed by the best multi-players).

I'm all in on (b), as for me that's critical to the enjoyment of the single player game. It also, unfortunately, gets in the way of (a), as the more interesting and unique a civ is to play as or against, the more challenging the balancing becomes.

If the developers have to make a choice between these two - and I think they do - I'd rather they err on (b), and then create new multi-player modes where either the civs have their bonuses stripped away, or players can bid on civs using in game penalties, or something that allows competitive multi-player to exist side-by-side the unique characteristics for single player.

 

[Haig]

Personally I find England still one of the most fun civs. They are full on colonial imperialists stuffing their museums with stolen goods and usimg their navy and redcoats to stomp out rivals. Fun.

 

[I_pity_the_fool]

Do you still capture great works when you take a city? Maybe that could be England's compensating buff.