Brace yourselves for a new flood of whinging posts after this release lol - get ready!
Brace yourselves for a new flood of whinging posts after this release lol - get ready!
"Just to clear some things up - on Prince the AI plays by almost the exact same rules as the human. It receives a marginal discount to unit gold and supply costs, but that's pretty much it. There's no cheating with construction, gold production, happiness, puppet rules, research agreements, visibility, combat odds or whatever else.
If it seems like the AI has a lot more cities/happiness/units than the human at that level, it's merely that the AI focuses much more on those aspects of the game than a human does (perhaps too much so, in fact - at the expense of buildings and gold, in particular). One of our goals going forward is to shore up some of the biggest and most obvious AI deficiencies. The new rules added to Civ 5 pose a pretty big AI challenge, so we're spending as much time as possible working on this part of the game. "
hmm...i dont think your culture cost should go down as you lose cities though. You wont lose culture cost to lost puppet states, only ones you owned (Annexed, built)Mmm... I don't agree with that. If you raze things cost shouldn't go down, but if you lose a city it should. Or perhaps it should provide a small penalty to the AI?Originally Posted by phantomkp
Maybe if you lost aquired social policies as you lose cities it might make sense, but you dont. (then i could see the argument that you need lower costs to rebuild lost social policies)
Therefore, if im Rome and have 40 cities and aquired alot of social policies in my reign and expansion...and i lose 20 cities to the Mongols...your saying my culture cost should go down to make buying social policies easier? Even though i have so many social policies already which is what made my culture cost so high in the first place?
Rome losing 20 cities in this matter shouldnt be able to have it easier to advance with more, now easier to get, social policy aquistion...Rome in this situation is going backwards as a civilization...and its ability to advance in greater social structure should reflect this?
Thats my opinion anyways.
Flavor is like food for the AI.
To start with every AI craves certain types of foods, and everything they do in terms of building a certain type of unit, certain research, certain building/wonder, certain policy provides them with a set number of flavor points towards their cravings if you will.
Flavors come in:
Military unit types
Thats is as broken down as possible for a simple explanation.
This just gets better and better as time goes by and we'll finally have it sometime next week.
I am curious to know more about rebels though. I assume that they will be very similar to barbarians. Are they going to be spawned randomly outside our cities like Barbarians? Will we have bonuses when fighting rebels?
Thank you Greg for the full update.
I hope this patch will successfully address all crash issues (and not causing new ones) which has haunted so many of us since the release of this otherwise super game!
If your cities get captured, you no longer have access to that culture production, but still require the higher price tag for the next policy.
Basically it simply makes a culture victory more difficult (and culture is already one of the hardest victory conditions). If you are going for a culture win your military probably isn't the highest ranked in the first place. Losing a few cities will probably effectively knock you out of contention from that culture victory since it will put you dramatically behind (i.e., higher costs with no way to increase production) the rate at which you need to attain policies.
I understand removing the exploits, but this is just like insult to injury, not only are you losing the cities, but your "GS" is now screwed as well. Losing a city when going for a culture victory is already difficult to recover from, this makes it MUCH more difficult to recover, if it's possible at all.
A better strategy is to have fewer, but larger cities and maximize the cultural output in those cities. Keep the city sprawl smaller, your culture costs stay low you can buy policies cheaper.
If you try to increase cultural output FASTER by building more and more cities to make more and more buildings and wonders...well, gee shouldnt you have some kind of risk there? And losing too many cities cause you spread yourself thin but still having the culture cost maintain is a good risk/reward mechanism to that kind of gameplay. *shrugs*
Now, you can tell me its impossible to get a cultural victory now without spreading out and creating 40 cities...but all i can say is that this patch also increases culture options a bit and helps in creating larger cities...which should make it easier to obtain cultural without having to spread yourself so thin that you worry about losing so many cities to make the culture ceiling detrimental.
But if you are going to complain that even if you have fewer cities, they can still be destroyed by enemies and make it impossible for you to overcome the cultural deficit...thats kinda the point of the game :P gotta protect your cities no matter what kind of game you are playing!
And I always love new units buildings and wonder. But so far, I've seen nothing to resolve the nvidia 8800 lock-up problem in dx10. All the new changes will do nothing for me if this problem is not fixed. Nor do I see any fix for the large civilization lockup. Is that going to be resolved with the change in the save file fix?
I disagree that no matter what kind of game you are playing you equally have to protect your cities. With a conquest victory, you only need to protect capitals, you can lose every other city in the game. Granted it might be hard to build up the war machine with only a few cities, but it is doable to build up a massive force and blitz capitals while remaining apathetic about losing non-strategic cities.
I guess I could accept it if there was actually a good reason for it working this way. I get closing the exploit, but losing cities is not exploiting a loophole. Maybe there is a MP exploit here? Have your buddies take your cities to slingshot your culture or something? I dunno, but I don't like it. Maybe a toggle for it in the options like how you can choose whether or not to allow saving up policy picks.
2K Greg, thanks for the update, am excited about the patch. Can I assume that thanks to the magic of Steam, the Mac version will be out at the same time? You have been sharing with Asypr, haven't you?
It's basically lowering the chances, but still allowing an AI to make an attack that it has a very small chance of surviving. Which is fine. We don't want the AI doing that alot, but we do want it sometimes.
Can you not think of any civilizations or military in history that used soldiers in suicidal attacks? It happens!
It's apparently Dev speak for this game? I'm assuming it refers to those things that make certain aspects different from another. So, like a cultured city state has a different flavor than a maritime city state...theyd have different GS's based on what their goals and priorities are? And each social policy has a different flavor based on what specific traits and goals they enhance?I get that GS means Grand Strategy, but I still don't quite see how that relates to 'flavors'. Maybe that's just worded poorly and it should just say "Factor GS into decisions more".
But I get the point, probing the enemy for weakness if it loses a few units is fine, throwing an entire army at a chokepoint when things are obviously going badly is just not good, even if the chance of the AI doing so is small.
I tried it after reading that and was able to get further in DX10/11 mode than ever before. Usually I don't even get to make a move, but am now able to have at least a few turns. I have 320Meg 8800GTS and Win7 64bit 260.99 drivers.
Ok obviously we arent talking about losing cities we just aquired by waging war (trying to win culturally, waging war is setting yourself up with risks anyways.)
So we are talking about have a small set of cities and losing one or some to invaders.
I still find it hard to get worked up about it?
Lets say you are playing on a large map...6-7 cities is a sweet spot for attempting cultural victory (the policy cost change varies according to map size) Ok, a couple of things here:
1) Cities will be harder to conquer after this patch. Better defense, faster healing, unit nerfing...the chances of you losing a city is already reduced
2) With this patch, you get some culture points boosts. You can now work Natural Wonders for culture. Public schools give off culture now now. The Hermitage national wonder adds culture in addition to its x2 boost to culture.
3) You can aquire as many puppet states as you want to help bosst your culture, without raising your social policy costs.
4) The AI will be advancing through the tech tree and accumulating wealth at a slower rate (by design) with this next patch...which should also give more room for those who attempt cultural victories, who previously found it hard cause they fell behind on techs so quickly.
In the above scenario, If you lose 1-2 cities its not a game breaker. The cultural output of those cities to what they increased social policy ratio is not that great. Not every city is full of cultural producing building and wonders.
Now, if its one of your few cities that ARE the places that is the engine of your cultural output...all i can say is to defend those first. Thats kind of the goal. Yes, if one of THOSE cities fall, and you lose all those buildings and national wonders that were pumping out most of your culture points...you probably will find it difficult to recover and win culturally before time runs out or something. But i would argue that would be the case even if social policy costs were reduced with a lost city. Compared to the cultural buildings you lost, the difference in social policy costs between 6 cities and 7 cities aint that much really.
I dunno, i just dont see how the cultural victory game is that different with this fix. :/
Will we see a lone rifleman attempt to charge my calvary out in the open or a heavily wounded band of infantry attempt to climb the walls of my city in one last ditch effort of bravery? Yes! Even though the chances are slim, we want to see that kind of thing from time to time. It happens.
Geez, you want the devs to work on the patch AND to take the time to translate the notes for the layman??That's as good as an explanation as any... would really rather have the patch note say it in player speak, but it's not that big a deal.
It would take one guy about half an hour to program if he were also watching a ball game, eating nachos, and downloading music on the side. I mean damn! 2K Greg assured me that he brought the save Advanced Settings to their attention, which I guess means the devs aren't concerned about it.
Jesus Mother of God. Now we'll have to wait another three months and hope for this simple thing. For whatever reason, they don't release Steam-type quickfix patches — only their old-style Firaxis-type megapatches.
Gah. I wish we could cuss. You wouldn't believe how a Southerner can crank 'em out.
Will this Fix the Game Crashing Bug. In large Worlds marathon?
I've been reading the list for like 10 minutes now and I'm only half-way through...... I have to pause every couple of seconds to go "holy .. wow... new game.. amazing"
....great... I can barely survive a game for 20 minutes as it is, and now they are making the AI more efficient!
is the late game crash is all due to "SERIALIZATION/SAVES" ?
has the patch put in stuff to identify/log any further crash?
i don't see much mention about the crash fix, apart from the save.
and i don't think that's the sole cause, not in my experience.
1. Is there a combat log? I'm tired of getting mauled by units more than 2 tiers below me an not knowing why.
2. How about replays ...
3. I didn't see any internet multiplayer fixes in the patch notes. Single player was awful to begin with. Better to fix the multiplayer than waste time on an AI that's never going to be great. Simultaneous turns suck for a turn based strategy game too and I don't understand why multiplayer doesn't have unit animations when they should be client side.
I think the game could've been great, but it's clearly a 2/5 game even through the first two patches. The game clearly needed at least another 6 months of development to warrant the 5/5 some that game review sites gave it. The more I play, the more it makes me want to just pull out an play Axis & Allies on the kitchen table. Civ5 is not as good as the old Civs and not nearly the tactile turn based multiplayer it should be.
The more I play, the more disappointed I am.
Not me. I'm gonna keep playing. In fact, I'm going to start a new game right now. Shouldn't take me more than ten or twenty minutes TO REDO ALL THE FRIGGING SETTINGS TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY I LIKE IT. Besides, it's fun to make sure I don't accidentally miss something and not realize it until after 400 turns. Oh, darn. Forgot to turn off Diplomatic Victory. Again. Thanks, devs, for neglecting something so simple and obvious. In fact, rather than fix it, why not just penalize us for changing your default settings? After all, what's the fun in being annoyed without also being punished?
Really disappointed not to see the saving of advanced settings (all of them - in Civ4 we NEVER got this, only the saving of the dropdown options. I don't know what the devs have against saving all the advanced settings options. It's as if it's the hardest thing in the world to implement. I can't believe that.)
Whether you plan x64 version of game?
Steam achievements fixed?
This is looking great, and really gives the feeling that there's still love for the game (from the developers' side).
I can't wait to play with the new patch, as I've been forcing myself off Civ in the past few weeks because of it
Regarding the discussion of social policy costs... don't forget that current social policy cost is a function of two variables - number of cities you have, and number of social policies already bought. I gather the patch will change that "number of cities you have" into "highest number of cities you have ever had". Thus, the hypothetical 40 cities down to 20 wouldn't lead to horrendously cheap policies, just cheaper than they would have been with 40 cities. The number of existing policies bought wouldn't change.
will i be able to complete previous "late game crash" saves? or are they damaged beyond repair?
this patch seems to be great
specially game play changes
lot of good fix gg
next MP and more ...
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the new mechanic being good or bad, but I do disagree with your conclusion that dropping from 40 to 20 cities would not lead to horrendously cheap policies.
Policy cost increases by 30% per city on standard ,maps, 20% on large maps and 15% on huge maps.
Assuming a standard sized map, reducing 20 cities from the cost would reduce the total policy cost from a 1200% increase of the base policy cost, to a 600% increase. Essentially almost halving the total policy cost.
That is a huge reduction IMO.
I guess it comes down to ones definition of horrendously cheap.
Hm... I'm not too sure on the culture aspect with it never going down if you lose the city to war. Because, say you lost 1-2 cities. but seeing how they were a part of your civ, when you gain them back, will that increase the aquistion cost again?
I am quite concerned about this actually:
•Landed Elite (Tradition Branch) now reduces culture cost of border growth by 2/3.
Note that the maximum reduction in culture cost as set by GlobalDefines is 75%. This means that getting Landed Elite essentially obsoletes the Krepost (Russia UB) and the Angkor Wat (Wonder). And this policy not only affects the capital only but all your cities and puppets. That I believe is a bit too powerful for a very early game policy and still works late game. It will essentially turn all your cities into their range 5 (max) very quickly. 33% would be a lot more adequate for this early a policy and would not fully obsolete other buildings.
In terms of razing cities not affecting culture along with "fixed razing/unrazing exploit" I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean that when you decide to Raze upon capture and then change your mind twice (i.e. unraze, then notice a large enemy army the next turn and re-implement the raze) your policy cost goes up because you supposedly tried to "exploit" the mechanic? It would also seem that this means you can no longer annex a city initially and then choose to raze (valid strategy with small cities to give you a temporary boost in healing and combat effectiveness) it to reduce your culture cost as it was likely very poorly positioned.
Lastly, I would very much like to see a fix for the AI all beelining for Piety and then half of them going on to Rationalism. No human player in their right mind would do it and the AI shouldn't be doing this either, as it is self-defeating. In my own modded game, I made those 2 mutually exclusive, which helps a lot, but given the way the XML is coded, this meant I had to remove the mutually exclusive from Tradition/Liberty, which probably isn't that bad, but also not really desired. Furthermore, Piety should be more discouraged for the AI as it seems to just pick it because it is available so early (90% of AI in your game will end up "the Pious", 8% "Lord/the Great/Consul", 2% "the Wise"), without much regard for their later Grand Strategy. Even on Immortal I always outtech the AI unless it goes Rationalism. And I don't even pick Rationalism myself nor do I ICS.
tradition + napoleon looks nice.
But honestly, native city growth is such a tiny mostly unimportant part of the game as it is.
there's no bad tiles anyway. build a TP on anything
This had better fix the crashes man. Judging from the way it was written, I do not think that current saved games will be compatible with the fixes.