Has anyone finished a 1.29 game?

[SpencerH]

Any comments on the feel of 1.29 games vs 1.21. I've started a 1.29 game myself but if the consensus is that it isnt much different from 1.21 I'll get back to work on my mod.

[miccofl]

The changes in game play are minor. The changes in the editor are major.

When you go back to work on your mod make sure any new units, improvements/wonders, resources, etc have a Civilopedia entry - any entry will do until you get around to writing the real one - or the game will crash to the desktop when you try to start your mod. (pediaicon crash)

This "feature" has rendered all my modded save games useless. The mods will work though once the add-ons have the appropriate Civilopedia entry.

[alva]

tech race didn't seem to have slowed down IMO.
maybe even faster, off this could have been a one-off.
the AI was doing rather well, all 7 off them.

[SpencerH]

Thats what I've seen so far on a monarch level game. Two other civs both trading happily with each other and being stingy with me.

[Catt]

I finished one Monarch game on a tiny map, four civs (including me). Everything random - I ended up with the Greeks (test run of the commercial trait ). Map looked to be archipelago, 70% or 80% water, arid, temperate or warm, 4 or 5 billion. Haven't played with these settings enough for meaningful comparisons of 1.29 versus 1.21, but:

1. I think the tech race went more slowly than normal. I built the Great Lighthouse and was able to control contacts for some time - I therefore had a tech lead pretty early which I never really relinquished, although the AI did a good job of keeping up. One AI civ did fall behind and was then left in the dust - not enough gold / resources to trade with its AI brethren.

2. I definitely saw more knights / cavalry / tanks than I am used to seeing pre-patch and therefore more blitz attacks.

3. Not enough experience to judge the strength of the new and improved commercial trait, although I had very little problem with corruption (well-placed FP) even though I eventually won via domination.

I have also almost finished one Emperor game on a standard map, eight civs (including me). Everything random - I ended up with the Chinese. Map looked to be continents 80% water or archipelago 60% water, wet or normal, temperate or warm, 3 or 4 billion. Thoughts:

1. I really think the tech race went more slowly. I'm into the very early 1800's without a SS launch, and I have a big, powerful empire that is researching most techs in 4 or 5 turns since about industrialization (and have a 4 or 5 tech lead). I did do a fair amount of early warmongering to secure my continent / landmass (by far the largest in the game) - so overall tech progression probably slowed by this - the other AI civs had settled all their available land and were stuck with relatively small empires and, therefore, weak research capabilities.

2. Lots of knights / cavalry / tanks!

Overall I am enjoying the new patch (principally the bug fix which ensures the AI has more "attacker" units), and, if the tech rate has slowed down (as opposed to a fluke with my games), I think I'll like that as well.

Catt

[Thrawn05]

I just did, and I find that trading with the AI is much more plesent, until morden age. I was able to trade luxury for luxury, resource for resource without havin' to pay extra... then all of a sudden, the AI wants 500 a turn for stupid ivory, or 2580 gold for Computers.

Firaxis... your almost there.

[SpencerH]

Great comments. Thanks for the effort.

[dnassman]

I completed a regent game and found that the AI civs that had the right techs "seemed" to upgrade their defensive units in their cities. Never seen that before. They didn't have any spearman as all "seemed" to be upgrade with musketmen or Riflemen which they recently discovered. Anyone else can confirm this???

[Dom Pedro II]

I've quit out of every 1.29 game I've played so far... I'm hoping to finish this latest one.

The one I worked the hardest on though got me all the way to 1954 when I was still with Cavalry and the AI civilizations were rumbling through with Bombers and Tanks. I decided to quit right then and there. There didn't seem to be much more of a point after that.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I've quit out of every 1.29 game I've played so far... I'm hoping to finish this latest one.

The one I worked the hardest on though got me all the way to 1954 when I was still with Cavalry and the AI civilizations were rumbling through with Bombers and Tanks. I decided to quit right then and there. There didn't seem to be much more of a point after that.

What level was that?

My first game in 1.29f I am playing in Warlord before I move up to Regent but I have not finished it yet. I must say that I have not seen much of a difference untll now.

[=DrJambo=]

do you ever see any marines or paras? Or just tanks, tanks, tanks?

regards the cost of luxuries and resources... the bigger your empire in relation to the AIs the more they will ask for these trades. Conversely, if they are much bigger than you expect to get some really good trading deals (eg. ivory for ivory +).

[NeoStar]

This all sounds too good.

When I finish messing around with scn's I have to check this out-the AI is on the offense with offensive units!

[vondrack]

I was able to finish one Regent game on a Standard Map ("everything average" settings), playing Americans. I did not notice any major differences as for the gameplay issues...

I did notice a couple of AI (Roman) Marines around actually... perhaps for the first time in my Civ3 playlife.

It's been a very good game. Although I was able to secure my finely sized continent after a bloody war with Aztecs, I had some tough time catching up on techs later. I beat Russians in the Space Race by several turns only - it was a nice example of that territory is not everything. Russians were relatively small (maybe one half of my area), but a bit isolated on two islands, so seldom finding themselves in wars...

Overall impression: a bit better than 1.21f (also because of the handy forced renegotiation option), although not significantly. Evolution, not revolution.

[Cookie Monster]

I haven't noticed any major differences in gameplay other than there are much much fewer bugs!

BTW where are all the great ones? I'm waiting to here feedback from Arrian, Sir Ralph, Velociryx, Aeson, Uber, NYE, etc. etc.


P.S. Panag where are you? It's been a while since we've last heard from you.

[Cort Haus]

To test the 'new, improved' commercial trait, I noted my commerce stats of an existing 30 city game (English) then ran the patch and compared.

In 1.21 I had :

city income : 439G
corruption : -129G
Max net income : +158
min research time : 9 turns (with +35G)

in 1.29

city income : 439G
corruption : -129G
Max net income : +158
min research time : 12 turns (with +35G)

So, absolutely not a single penny extra for being commercial. Corruption is the same (no improved max_no_of_cities), and waste was also the same in all cities.

Yes, science has slowed down, but it seems that there has been no change to the commercial trait, unless the factors are stored in the savegame in the start - which clearly isn't the case with the science rate.

nb: This was under monarchy govt, I don't know if the higher commerce levels of democracy would have shown a difference.