Do you recommend upgrading to 1.17f or sticking with 1.16f?

[nbarclay]

I've seen a lot of criticism of the 1.17f patch, and I'm interested in seeing whether dislike toward it is widespread or just vocal. So the question is, do you recommend that those of us who haven't gotten around to trying it yet switch to 1.17f or stick with 1.16f? (Please only answer if you've played both enough to feel like you have an informed opinion.)

Nathan

[Jawa Jocky]

I've played several games on all three. Here is my ranking.

1. 1.17f
2. No patch
3. 1.16f

I liked the game right out of the box even after realizing I wasted $10.00 getting the limited addition. I lost a few games trying to start on Monarchy before I realized I needed to start lower. I did great on my first game at Warlord and started moving up. At this point my only complaints were corruption, poor automation, and worst of all my diplomatic adivsor screen had no lines. I was very excited about the release of the 1st patch.

While some things were fixed with 1.16f my 3 main complaints were not fixed. The deal breaking however was finding out the AI was trading tech back and forth during my turn. mad: At this point I tried every suggestion in the help forum trying to atleast get my dipolmatic lines. When nothing worked I quit playing and spent my time posting here because it was funny than actually playing.

Then 1.17f is released. The automation was improved so you could actually play the modern era at a reasonable pace. While corruption, AI tech trading, and no diplomatic lines were still a problem. The lack of micromanging rekindled my interest in this game.

I'm hoping 1.18f, XP, and other patches will someday fix my other complaints. If they don't I have found several great ideas for mod here......... blah blah blah

Sorry for going on too long..... to answer your question YES get 1.17f after your next game.

[Skanky Burns]

I would say get 1.17f too.
The benefits of it outway its problems.

[E_T]

I haven't downloaded the 1.17f Patch because of the problems that I've read about. As for the trading during my turn with the 1.16f patch, I've been able to get around that and had a fairly enjoyable game. The thing that I had noticed was that the AI wouldn't always trade with there next door neibor(sp), so I was able to take advantage of that.

If it wousn't for the problems that the new patch had presented, then I would most likely be playing it.

E_T

[nbarclay]

Personally, I've rarely been more than mildly annoyed by AI trades during my turn. It just doesn't happen all that often that I've noticed (at least except with contact). Then again, I've played mostly Monarch and a little Emperor; I suspect it's probably worse on Deity.

Another thought that occurs to me is, is it really a step forward to get rid of cheating that costs a few trading opportunities only to have the AI take away a larger number of trading opportunities with its extreme trading aggressiveness? If the reports I've read are to be believed, it sounds almost like a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Nathan

I think the 1.17 Patch is worth trying. Like Jawa Jocky said the decreased micromanagement in the modern era makes the game much more enjoyable. It still has problems, but is better than the game out of the box. I did not like the first patch since it was mostly cosmetic (ie : fixing typos).

[PGM]

I still haven't upgraded from 1.16 to 1.17, even though I downloaded the patch. Posts about too many new gameplay problems scared me off. But since I haven't tried it, can't really say if it's true or not...
If this poll's final results are convincing, my opinion might change though.

[Saurus]

Still using 1.16.
I just can't take the A.I tech-trading in 1.17.
I just can't!!

-Saurus

[player1]

1.17 is worth it.
Tech race could be problem, but there are nice strategies to counter them.
At least until 1.18f

For those who haven't tested 1.17f I suggest you do.
If some people who tried 1.17 are frustrated that doesn't mean that you'll be also.

I wasn't.
I like it overal.

Apolytoon is good place for getting opinions, but loudest opinions aren't always the best or right opinions.

[lockstep]

Tech trading is a problem in 1.17. It is possible to get a slight tech lead, but the best overall strategy is maximizing tax output and buying techs from the AI.

OTOH, I won't do without stacked movement anymore. So yes, I recommend installing 1.17.

[Matrix@CF]

With every new patch Firaxis has dealt with bugs and errors. All the things they changed with the patch is an improvement, actually by definition. That includes pop-rushing. It wasn't ment to be, so now it isn't there anymore.

And even if you don't like certain changes initially, I think you will finally. With the patch the game is more refined, thus better.

[DrSpike]

Aside from the tech quibbles 1.17f is pretty decent. I can't see much changing if there is 1.18f. Of course the tech is pretty central to the game, and the problems aren't easily fixed. Early on (1.07) it was too easy to tech whore, then the AI started trading in your turn (1.16). Now (1.17) they are too aggressive. Somewhere in between 1.07 and 1.16 would suit best, but it's not clear how to implement it.

[watorrey]

I play monarch level. The 1.17 patch made me drop back to regent for 2 games while i figured out what the heck the ai changes were.

No, i don't like the aggressive ai trading. There is no way to know what a tech is really worth to the various civs unless they happen to have more than it is worth. The ai always knows the value, we mere humans do not.

No, i don't like the pop rushing penalty. It makes the ai self destruct and feels like a cheat in the late game. Plus, an early war in despotism can produce worthless ai cities for a very long time.

That said... I think we should always play the latest patch by the default rules until they get it right. I have made minor changes, but i always feel like i am cheating and restore the default rules.

Trouble is, will they tell us when they are done patching? As much as everyone seems to like the Firaxis folks, I can't help but be reminded of politicians when i read thier posts and chat transcripts.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by lockstep
Tech trading is a problem in 1.17. It is possible to get a slight tech lead, but the best overall strategy is maximizing tax output and buying techs from the AI.

OTOH, I won't do without stacked movement anymore. So yes, I recommend installing 1.17.

It is actually not so much about who is leading the tech-race.
Leading the tech race is stupid since the only gain by this is
that you continuousely have to pay more for your techs.

After all, you don´t really need banking if you have not had the time to build marketplaces yet.

Need a tech to start building a wonder? Wrong! Wrong!
You only need masonry so that you can start building your palace. Then when you think you have built it enough, just buy
the desired tech from any A.I (and I must point out that the
longer you wait, have the less you will to pay)
and then switch the palace to the wonder - done.
It is sad, sad, sad. I let all my 7 A.I competitors build
the sistine chappel for 30 turns. Then I buy
Theology from the Greeks (I think the prize was 40 gold) and finished the wonder in one turn.

This is the weakness of patch 1.17.
The A.I is ready to sell its soul for whatever tech allthough the
infrastructure to effectively use the tech is missing.
It is compleatly stupid that your civ can build nuclear missiles
while vital structures like banks, factories, universities and even harbors are still to be built due to the quick techprogress.
Yes...and this by year 1200-1300 and stuff...
I actually do understand that not every city has finished building factories by that time (nor should they be!)but occassional nuclear explosions while most of the cities are still struggling building middleage-structures...horrible imbalance caused
by 1.17.

-Saurus

[Master Marcus]

1.17f is a decent improvement and is recommended UNLESS you are a peaceful builder making a minimum number of "required" units to thrive - because the AI is more agressive ( against everybody ) and " declares war on us" much more often than pre-1.17 all things being equal. Now you need to build more military units to contend the pace.

The big 1.17 +: stack movement

The big - : fast tech trading causing lack of time to use some era units ( especially medieval ,in games where the AI almost gets Rifleman when comes the time to just think for organizing Knights/Longbowman/Cavalry/Cannons ). A few decades later when you are ready for a war with those units, just imagine the number you need to capture a 13+ AI city on a hill defended with some Riflemen. Have to wait for tanks if you want to use Democracy benefits for a while before switching to Commie.

[Cookie Monster]

I prefer 1.16f myself by 1.17f is definately a lot more challenging. I don't particulary care for the AI tech trading and hate the fact that it's very tough to play a game that's not me vs. the world in 1.17f.

My 2 cents worth for whatever it's worth...............

[MiloMilo]

I disliked my games with 1.17f. The tech trading gives it a real 'player vs. the world' feeling, instead of a nice 'player is one independent entity among many' feeling, which is what civ should have. I never actually played long enough for the AI to ruin itself under Communism, but it's another big reason not to upgrade.

I'm sorry, but a response of 'hey, just put research to 0% and buy everything' is unacceptable. I want to play the game, not use stupid exploits to beat the game.

I reverted to 1.16f, and I'm now having lots of fun again. The AI trading techs during your turn is only a problem if you try to get rich by selling to everyone. This seems cheesy to me, so I don't do it, so a big problem with 1.16f is gone.

[Arrian]

I suppose it all depends. I'm sure there will be another patch, so if the "enhanced" tech trading sounds like something that will annoy you, stick with 1.16 until the new patch comes out.

I've adjusted to 1.17. Originally, I was really frustrated, but I changed my strategy a bit and I'm doing fine.

I still don't really like the tech trading and the pace of tech advancement (too fast, IMO). But, on the other hand, the AI can now keep up with (or close to) the human in tech. Sure, it's done artificially, but it was too easy to gain a massive tech lead before. I feel lucky to get Tanks before the AI gets infantry, whereas I did that all the time with 1.16 (sometimes Modern Armor vs. Riflemen, heh).

The other main problem with 1.17 is the poprushing fix. 40 turns of unhappiness per pop point rushed, cumulative. The human adjusts to this. The AI hasn't. Once the inevitable World War breaks out in the industrial era and all the civs go communist, bad things start to happen. They draft and whip themselves straight to hell. Their cities starve due to excessive unhappiness. It's ugly. It isn't always that bad - sometimes the "world war" isn't very intense. But often enough, especially with a human involved, it is.

Stack movement is nice, and there are a couple of AI tweaks that are good (they occasionally use bombard units offensively now, and seem much better attacking another continent).

Up to you...

-Arrian

[Cookie Monster]

Just from reading the past two posts (MiloMilo and Arrian) I have an opinion of the real problem. Perhaps Firaxis is trying to please everyone instead of concentrating on a few fixes at a time.

Let me explain. Many people have claimed that pre 1.17f tech advancement was too fast and it was easy to outpace the AI. I'll agree with that statement only if we're talking about during the middle of the industrial era forwards. What I mean by this is that once the University is available the human player is much more efficient at creating science cities and tweaking the science and tax rates than the computer is. We can also better manage money making through city improvements and tile manipulation. In Civ3 the AI doesn't appear to be very skilled at creating a powerful economic infrastrucer. What 1.17f did was not improve the AI "builder" ability but improve the AI's ability to wheel and deal the human to death. I must agree with MiloMilo I want to play the game the way it was meant to be. Not by using cheesy tricks and gimics but by actually using skill and orthodox strategies.

Now we have all used the pop rushing exploit in the past and are now punished severly in 1.17f. These patches seem to address only the exploits that everyone here has discussed on the boards. What I would like to see is Civ3 patched not to eliminate the holes the people have found in the game and exploit but to make the game more enjoyable. It is very difficult to play a game when the whole world has signed an alligence dedicated to your destruction. Again I agree with MiloMilo, where's the feeling of being on civ in a community of civs? It's pretty frustrating to be the black sheep of the civ communtiy and everyone wants your death. If I want to play Civ3 like that then I'll go back to Civ2 and Civ2 ToT.

[nbarclay]

Absolute words like "all" are dangerous because there are almost always exceptions. I toyed with the idea of trying a pop rushing strategy to beat Deity, but finally decided that if exploiting the pop rush hole was the only way I could beat Deity, I'd stick to Monarch and Emperor (at least unless/until I feel like I can tackle Deity some other way).

It's not that I refuse ever to do anything that might be regarded as taking unfair advantage of a game design. For example, I don't know how many times I've blunted efforts to attack me in the original Call to Power by giving the attacking A.I. a map and then demanding that it stop trespassing. (Yes, it actually works, and with near 100% effectiveness in my experience.) And I'm quite willing to go through restart after restart to get a great starting position and opening game if I'm setting myself a challenge that needs a great start.

But something about a small town that's only reason for existing is to bring in workers to pop rush troops rubs me the wrong way. For one thing, it seems counter to my idea of how a civilization ought to work, which seriously harms the role-play element of the game for me. I'm basically a builder at heart, although I do view war as a perfectly acceptable way to acquire more cities to build up. And for another, the fact that such a strategy goes directly against a deliberately designed feature of the game (the relationship between pop rushing and unhappiness) causes me to view it as a bug. Something in my mind (perhaps having to do with the fact that I'm a programmer myself) sees a difference between taking advantage of idiosyncrasies in AI behavior and taking advantage of an actual bug.

If you like taking advantage of the pop rushing exploit, please don't interpret this post as criticism. I'm just trying to explain how I personally feel about it, not trying to say everyone else should feel the same way.

Nathan