Authority is the only viable option on Immortal+

[Dawnbringer]

It really depends on barb tech. If they're on spearmen and horsemen, you aren't going to do much with the warriors.

 

[tu_79]

And spearman are on the way to swordsman, so you probably have an early access to them. I see that if you only plan to attack barbs, maybe warriors are a solid option for the very beggining, but I always thought that it is better to produce advanced units than upgrade with money, unless the upgradable unit has a lot of experience.
Didn't know of the tip for militaristic CS, I'll keep it in mind.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I feel like Progress and Tradition have gotten a bit too much, especially Progress though. That +50% faster improvement policy is just way too good to lose out on and feels weird compared to other policies strength-wise. I think Authority should get its +1 Production on opener back, or something different perhaps, though that are only my feelings.

 

[infidel88]

I feel like Progress and Tradition have gotten a bit too much, especially Progress though. That +50% faster improvement policy is just way too good to lose out on and feels weird compared to other policies strength-wise. I think Authority should get its +1 Production on opener back, or something different perhaps, though that are only my feelings.

True. You have to build some army anyways now to protect against barbs, so unless you play an early warmonger (Aztec, Songhai, Huns?) it's simply not worth to take authority and even for them maybe it's better just to take opener to grab culture?
+50% workers is massive, if you grab Pyramids, you get little robots and like 1 worker can easily handle 2 cities. If that bonus is additive (and I believe it is), how about making 50% back to 25% like it was and adding that missing 25% to final?

 

[Txurce]

I disagree -- it's all about the civ. Aztecs with Authority, for example, are brutal. And Authority for anyone has a huge leg up with the recent active, plentiful barbs.

If you grab the Authority opener, then you're probably no longer going for a full suite (or shouldn't be), so that's not exactly a putdown of the branch.

Enrico, are you basing your comments about Tradition and Progress on playing a couple of games with each? Or are you just unhappy that Authority has been nerfed a bit?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I disagree -- it's all about the civ. Aztecs with Authority, for example, are brutal. And Authority for anyone has a huge leg up with the recent active, plentiful barbs.

If you grab the Authority opener, then you're probably no longer going for a full suite (or shouldn't be), so that's not exactly a putdown of the branch.

Enrico, are you basing your comments about Tradition and Progress on playing a couple of games with each? Or are you just unhappy that Authority has been nerfed a bit?

That's the problem - it's very civ dependent now, which you claim yourself, along with infidel88. Wasn't the freason for the very first Tradition buffs to make them usable outside of the typical Tradition goers despite the fact it was already the optimal choice anyway for Sejongs, Haruns and the like?
Right now the same problem of Tradition is seen with Authority, except instead of fitting only GP-focused civs, its for civs with warmonger traits. Nobody ever complained about the performance of Tradition as Sejong or Harun, just like I am not complaining about Aztec performance.
Except Authority... I can't even find a reason to finish it. I grab the opener for convenience, might grab Dominance, then it feels more optimal to go Progress, go Piety. If I grap Inspiration for +1C per 2 followers/am Denmark/Poland/Greece or something with real lots of Culture, I might even finish Progress before going Piety (though that's really not optimal, that finisher is so nuts delaying it is probably unwise). The only real loss is -10%CS, which you can do without provided you ensure all of your units get morale or simply solve it with Crusader Spirit.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Personally one of the reasons why I prefer Progress/Tradition to Authority is that they're much more useful throughout the whole game. For example, each tradition policy taken is extra % food/growth (that inherently scales with era), each progress policy more culture (scaling with era), whereas each authority policy is 1+ production (negligeble in the mid- and late-game). Also, the finisher for authority is considerably worse than the other two.

So like others have said, it'd be great if authority provided more benefits not just directly linked to destroying units/combat/taking cities, but more to building a huge/threatening empire. Others have recommended bonuses for forts/citadels, I'd also include benefits for walls/barracks and such improvements (akin to traditions buff for councils etc.). I've seen recommendations for a social policy to increase the units cap space which I wholeheartedly agree with. Maybe make the each policy taken is extra 3 or 5% to military units, defensive buildings and barracsk/armories... I'd have to think some more about the posibilities, but if Authority was more along the lines of Progress (useful for big empires throughout the game and less focused on bonuses for actually killing), it'd be a much better alternative to the first two. Just my 2 cents, though it's been a while since I've last opened with Authority.

 

[Stalker0]

That's the problem - it's very civ dependent now, which you claim yourself, along with infidel88. Wasn't the freason for the very first Tradition buffs to make them usable outside of the typical Tradition goers despite the fact it was already the optimal choice anyway for Sejongs, Haruns and the like?

There are flexible civs and more railroaded civs, and I think that's fine overall. Its true that with some Civs some policies are a gimme, the synergy is just that good. But again, there are so many civs to choose from that is not an issue to me. But for others, I definitely debate policies based on the game and not the civ.

 

[Gazebo]

Personally one of the reasons why I prefer Progress/Tradition to Authority is that they're much more useful throughout the whole game. For example, each tradition policy taken is extra % food/growth (that inherently scales with era), each progress policy more culture (scaling with era), whereas each authority policy is 1+ production (negligeble in the mid- and late-game). Also, the finisher for authority is considerably worse than the other two.

So like others have said, it'd be great if authority provided more benefits not just directly linked to destroying units/combat/taking cities, but more to building a huge/threatening empire. Others have recommended bonuses for forts/citadels, I'd also include benefits for walls/barracks and such improvements (akin to traditions buff for councils etc.). I've seen recommendations for a social policy to increase the units cap space which I wholeheartedly agree with. Maybe make the each policy taken is extra 3 or 5% to military units, defensive buildings and barracsk/armories... I'd have to think some more about the posibilities, but if Authority was more along the lines of Progress (useful for big empires throughout the game and less focused on bonuses for actually killing), it'd be a much better alternative to the first two. Just my 2 cents, though it's been a while since I've last opened with Authority.

The majority of Authority's bonuses deal with these elements already. There are three major military perks (bonus v barbs, culture/science from kills, and healing after kills). The rest is dedicated to expansion.

In any case Authority is in a fine spot right now.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

The majority of Authority's bonuses deal with these elements already. There are three major military perks (bonus v barbs, culture/science from kills, and healing after kills). The rest is dedicated to expansion.

In any case Authority is in a fine spot right now.

The expansive rest is also rather underwhelming and weirdly placed, and healing after kills can no longer be really called major. It's okay, but not very major. I still use Archers for early rushes, and they don't heal - well, unless the bug of a Scout healing from kills after ruin turned him into an Archer isn't fixed, then one might heal. But I think it's gone.
I really preferred the old policy set up Authority had XX versions ago, where IIRC Dominance and border growth thing were swapped (though my memory might be misleading me and it was two different policies that were moved). The policies right now are pretty confusing in their set up imho. It'd be best if it were two lines, like

Dominance into Free Soldiers

Border Growth into Settler into Garrison

So fighty stuff is on the left, expansive stuff is on the right. Garrison and Settler can be moved around. I feel it would make the most sense to have Border Growth yields and culture stuff on the same line.

 

[Txurce]

That's the problem - it's very civ dependent now, which you claim yourself, along with infidel88. Wasn't the freason for the very first Tradition buffs to make them usable outside of the typical Tradition goers despite the fact it was already the optimal choice anyway for Sejongs, Haruns and the like?

Right now the same problem of Tradition is seen with Authority, except instead of fitting only GP-focused civs, its for civs with warmonger traits. Nobody ever complained about the performance of Tradition as Sejong or Harun, just like I am not complaining about Aztec performance.

I haven't found Authority weak mid- and late-game when playing with the Aztecs, but it may be too small a sampling. I do see your point that right now you are generally steered toward certain branches based on the civ you had (and appropriately, not particularly steered with others). But...

There are flexible civs and more railroaded civs, and I think that's fine overall. Its true that with some Civs some policies are a gimme, the synergy is just that good. But again, there are so many civs to choose from that is not an issue to me. But for others, I definitely debate policies based on the game and not the civ.

I happen to agree with this pov, which is that it's OK that way. The idea of a branch being about as good for all but a few civs doesn't appeal to me. It's one of the problems I had with the Communitas mod later in its life.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Thnx for the reply. My thoughts on some of the stuff:
1. Tribute -> the border part is great, but the bonus from demanding tribute isn't -> instead of helping you become strong, it only rewards you once you're strong. It's like Siam vs. Greece -> Siam's UA is great if you have lots of friends&allies with CS, but Greece's actually helps you get those friendships and alliances, and I think that's much better. I think authority could be more geared towards helping you get really big and powerful.
2. Imperium -> free settler comes too late, at least in my games by then it's very rare that there's any good settling spot left. Would be much more useful if it came sooner. The same with the settling bonus, really late and after the first few eras basically nonexistent. The conquering bonus only helps when you're strong AND very agressive, but isn't geared towards helping you get strong (same as above).
3. Dominance -> not sure why it's limited only to melee units, I'd recommend expanding it to all military units and cities (if that's not too hard to code).
4. Discipline -> good, don't see any big changes I'd hope for.
5. Honor -> the 10% fighting bonus is pretty good, but the free military units part doesn't cut it for me. First of all, you can't influence (at least to my understanding) which one you get, and secondly, like others have said, often it leaves you with units over the cap. I'd much rather have the policy increasing the military unit cap.
6. Scaler -> like I said above, it's underwhelming compared to tradition's and progress'. I'd much rather have them changed to bonus % production for military units, buildings, wonders. That would ensure a comparable relevancy and strength throughout all the game.
7. Finisher -> Terracota army good. GGs logical. Purchasing those merceneries etc. is to me quite underpowered compared to progress (free money, scaling, for every citizen!), and the tradition's is better (though not as much as progress'), especially taking into account that both tradition's and progress' offer you something new/extra that you otherwise couldn't get, whereas purchasing those units is meh, because those units aren't that special compared to commonly available units.

Again, I'm not a warmonger by heart, so I don't take authority all that much anymore, but I do love to engage in "just wars" and be the protector of CSs and ganged-upon AIs. Authority currently isn't that comparable to the progress if you want to be(come) big without necessarily fighting all the time all the game, but with some changes, I very well could see myself either taking Authority or first finishing Progress, opening statecraft&aesthetics and then going authority. And still it would leave enough extra incentive for playing aggressive (via bonuses for kills etc.). Maybe a policy could also increase the xp points gained through fighting.

Anyway, I didn't mean to be overly critical or picky, and my thoughts are perhaps not that relevant given my style of play. This is a tremendous mod and I admire&am thankful for all the hard work you're doing. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

 

[Gazebo]

Thnx for the reply. My thoughts on some of the stuff:
1. Tribute -> the border part is great, but the bonus from demanding tribute isn't -> instead of helping you become strong, it only rewards you once you're strong. It's like Siam vs. Greece -> Siam's UA is great if you have lots of friends&allies with CS, but Greece's actually helps you get those friendships and alliances, and I think that's much better. I think authority could be more geared towards helping you get really big and powerful.
2. Imperium -> free settler comes too late, at least in my games by then it's very rare that there's any good settling spot left. Would be much more useful if it came sooner. The same with the settling bonus, really late and after the first few eras basically nonexistent. The conquering bonus only helps when you're strong AND very agressive, but isn't geared towards helping you get strong (same as above).
3. Dominance -> not sure why it's limited only to melee units, I'd recommend expanding it to all military units and cities (if that's not too hard to code).
4. Discipline -> good, don't see any big changes I'd hope for.
5. Honor -> the 10% fighting bonus is pretty good, but the free military units part doesn't cut it for me. First of all, you can't influence (at least to my understanding) which one you get, and secondly, like others have said, often it leaves you with units over the cap. I'd much rather have the policy increasing the military unit cap.
6. Scaler -> like I said above, it's underwhelming compared to tradition's and progress'. I'd much rather have them changed to bonus % production for military units, buildings, wonders. That would ensure a comparable relevancy and strength throughout all the game.
7. Finisher -> Terracota army good. GGs logical. Purchasing those merceneries etc. is to me quite underpowered compared to progress (free money, scaling, for every citizen!), and the tradition's is better (though not as much as progress'), especially taking into account that both tradition's and progress' offer you something new/extra that you otherwise couldn't get, whereas purchasing those units is meh, because those units aren't that special compared to commonly available units.

Again, I'm not a warmonger by heart, so I don't take authority all that much anymore, but I do love to engage in "just wars" and be the protector of CSs and ganged-upon AIs. Authority currently isn't that comparable to the progress if you want to be(come) big without necessarily fighting all the time all the game, but with some changes, I very well could see myself either taking Authority or first finishing Progress, opening statecraft&aesthetics and then going authority. And still it would leave enough extra incentive for playing aggressive (via bonuses for kills etc.). Maybe a policy could also increase the xp points gained through fighting.

Anyway, I didn't mean to be overly critical or picky, and my thoughts are perhaps not that relevant given my style of play. This is a tremendous mod and I admire&am thankful for all the hard work you're doing. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

We've been down this road before, but it is worth reminding everyone that Authority's primary advantage is that it facilitates conquest, which is a zero-sum game. That, more than anything else, makes it the most powerful starting branch AND the riskiest starting branch. This is by design.

• If you want a 'safe' large empire with no combat bonuses but good yields, take Progress.
• If you want a 'conquest-based' large empire with average yields, take Authority
• If you want a 'population-heavy' imperial core for later expansion, take Tradition.

 

[Txurce]

We've been down this road before, but it is worth reminding everyone that Authority's primary advantage is that it facilitates conquest, which is a zero-sum game. That, more than anything else, makes it the most powerful starting branch AND the riskiest starting branch.

This gets to the core of the issue. Authority isn't a "who comes out ahead in the end" branch -- it's a "who's the last man standing" one. If you're not planning on conquering, it may not be worth it, although some civs (like the Aztecs) work so well with it that my games are all non-domination efforts in which I can win via any of the other 3 VCs.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Ok, thnx for the explanation, I didn't think of it in these terms, and it makes sense now. Thnx again!

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

We've been down this road before, but it is worth reminding everyone that Authority's primary advantage is that it facilitates conquest, which is a zero-sum game. That, more than anything else, makes it the most powerful starting branch AND the riskiest starting branch. This is by design.

• If you want a 'safe' large empire with no combat bonuses but good yields, take Progress.
• If you want a 'conquest-based' large empire with average yields, take Authority
• If you want a 'population-heavy' imperial core for later expansion, take Tradition.

I sort of don't get it to be honest. Like, Authority doesn't even keep up in yields with Progress when fighting because as soon as you get 8-10 cities, Progress' provides more of everything but Culture (and arguably Production, but Progress' faster buildings is better even by medieval) unless you kill no less than 2-3 units per turn - and even Culture it can compete in if you have lots of Production, doubly so if you consider how cost-ineffective +2C +1H garrisons are. How does it exactly facilitate conquest that much so the rest doesn't need to be that good? It only has two things that influence combat:

10 hp heal, only for close combat units - not very significant. Ancient era in my experience is mostly about Horses and Archers, and Classical unlocks
+10% combat strength - I suppose it makes all your units better, but only a bit so and it's on the policy which I don't think anyone ever takes as anything but the last one. It also doesn't seem to give CS against cities for whatever reason. Maybe it's a mistake of the UI.
Free unit - unreliable. It can give me a Scout which won't do anything, or it can happen in a city without Morale in which case it's pretty much as if the policy's second part (+10% CS) didn't exist and the unit is rendered to only be used for CS gifts/garrisoning.

Even early conquest became a pain in last version because the AI is now too smart about Walls. I think my 3 archers can do something but nope, Walls appear and I am cock-blocked as some would say. If I spend turns just razing his stuff and bullying him at war, I am not gaining any significant Culture + Science from opener/dominance, especially since the AI often forgets to create units when it feels a complete defeat is inevitable, whatever the reason. They get them very fast, and as soon as they have them on their cities, I need either catapults which are much later in the tree or lots and lots of turns of Archer fire. That sucks.

 

[Gazebo]

I sort of don't get it to be honest. Like, Authority doesn't even keep up in yields with Progress when fighting because as soon as you get 8-10 cities, Progress' provides more of everything but Culture (and arguably Production, but Progress' faster buildings is better even by medieval) unless you kill no less than 2-3 units per turn - and even Culture it can compete in if you have lots of Production, doubly so if you consider how cost-ineffective +2C +1H garrisons are. How does it exactly facilitate conquest that much so the rest doesn't need to be that good? It only has two things that influence combat:

10 hp heal, only for close combat units - not very significant. Ancient era in my experience is mostly about Horses and Archers, and Classical unlocks
+10% combat strength - I suppose it makes all your units better, but only a bit so and it's on the policy which I don't think anyone ever takes as anything but the last one. It also doesn't seem to give CS against cities for whatever reason. Maybe it's a mistake of the UI.
Free unit - unreliable. It can give me a Scout which won't do anything, or it can happen in a city without Morale in which case it's pretty much as if the policy's second part (+10% CS) didn't exist and the unit is rendered to only be used for CS gifts/garrisoning.

Even early conquest became a pain in last version because the AI is now too smart about Walls. I think my 3 archers can do something but nope, Walls appear and I am cock-blocked as some would say. If I spend turns just razing his stuff and bullying him at war, I am not gaining any significant Culture + Science from opener/dominance, especially since the AI often forgets to create units when it feels a complete defeat is inevitable, whatever the reason. They get them very fast, and as soon as they have them on their cities, I need either catapults which are much later in the tree or lots and lots of turns of Archer fire. That sucks.

I don't think you see what I'm talking about. Progress does not interact with the zero-sum game element of civ like Authority does. If you are capable of expanding to 10 cities without war, Progress is better than Authority. If you are capable of using Authority to settle 3-4 cities and conquer 6, Authority is much stronger because you have actually shifted the global balance by 12 - 6 for you, 6 less for your opponent(s). That's huge.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I don't think you see what I'm talking about. Progress does not interact with the zero-sum game element of civ like Authority does. If you are capable of expanding to 10 cities without war, Progress is better than Authority. If you are capable of using Authority to settle 3-4 cities and conquer 6, Authority is much stronger because you have actually shifted the global balance by 12 - 6 for you, 6 less for your opponent(s). That's huge.

G

So... essentially, Authority is by design supposed to be worse the larger the map is? Because I, on Large, rarely find problems settling 8-10 good cities - well, unless I start on a weirdly shaped peninsula of sort that is, with a civ standing in my way towards further expansion. I think that could be part of the problem, as there's rarely a situation where conquest is the only way to expand in my case. I think those masochists who play on Huge for whatever reason would find going Authority even harder to find reasons for, though at least they'd get more barbies to partially compensate for that early.

Anyway, I still don't see the great effect on conquest a 10% heal only on melee/horse route and a very late 10% CS (which I always take as the last policy whenever I go Authority because it's rather underwhelming compared to Food+Gold+Science+Culture of the left policies which you desperately need, even if the amounts you get are not overwhelming) somehow makes it much easier to conquer the cities compared to the benefit of Progress' superior yields. Wouldn't it make more sense in that case to just go with Progress even when conquering and then enjoy better, stable yields once you get those cities? Because 10% CS and 10% heal (half of your troops) won't suddenly make the enemy army and their walls quiver in fear. They are helpful, I won't deny that, but they do not turn your units into unthinkable city-eating behemots. Only the Catapults can eat walled cities reliably (and even that not always), and they're on an early classical tech to which you'll likely tech earlier to with Progress (unless Dominance really balls out of control).

Like, I get your reasoning but it fails to apply to what I've seen in the game. Maybe if one of the policies got something like "+10-20% damage against cities and their garrisons", that'd make more sense for what I understand as making Authority the "easier conquest, bad yields compared to what Progress gets, especially later and wider on" tree. As it is, I only see the full extent of the second part, the first is barely there. If Authority is focused on an Ancient era rush after a few cities to ball like you've implied, then it's barking up the wrong tree - that one only really works with Archers in my experience (unless you've got a spearman/horse UU, or their cities aren't on hills and the AI forgot to make units), so the dominance heal isn't going to do much. Sure, you'll have a Horse/Spear, but it's not going to do the brunt of fighting.

 

[Gazebo]

So... essentially, Authority is by design supposed to be worse the larger the map is? Because I, on Large, rarely find problems settling 8-10 good cities - well, unless I start on a weirdly shaped peninsula of sort that is, with a civ standing in my way towards further expansion. I think that could be part of the problem, as there's rarely a situation where conquest is the only way to expand in my case. I think those masochists who play on Huge for whatever reason would find going Authority even harder to find reasons for, though at least they'd get more barbies to partially compensate for that early.

There are many things in the game that become more/less balanced from larger map sizes. That's just unavoidable.

Anyway, I still don't see the great effect on conquest a 10% heal only on melee/horse route and a very late 10% CS (which I always take as the last policy whenever I go Authority because it's rather underwhelming compared to Food+Gold+Science+Culture of the left policies which you desperately need, even if the amounts you get are not overwhelming) somehow makes it much easier to conquer the cities compared to the benefit of Progress' superior yields. Wouldn't it make more sense in that case to just go with Progress even when conquering and then enjoy better, stable yields once you get those cities? Because 10% CS and 10% heal (half of your troops) won't suddenly make the enemy army and their walls quiver in fear. They are helpful, I won't deny that, but they do not turn your units into unthinkable city-eating behemots. Only the Catapults can eat walled cities reliably (and even that not always), and they're on an early classical tech to which you'll likely tech earlier to with Progress (unless Dominance really balls out of control).

Being able to trounce an enemy in the field is the meat of Authority's combat bonuses. If they have no army, then your catapults can take cities.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

There are many things in the game that become more/less balanced from larger map sizes. That's just unavoidable.

Well, at least I now know why those Standard map weaklings found Authority good while I've always thought it was actually worse than Progress and primarily took it to slow myself down a bit so I wouldn't need to step outside of my comfie difficulty (Emperor) too often. Sure, I can into Immortal and do it occassionally, but it can be pretty annoying.

Being able to trounce an enemy in the field is the meat of Authority's combat bonuses. If they have no army, then your catapults can take cities.

But how does a mere 10% heal on melee (because I doubt anyone takes +10% CS as anything but dead-last policy because the only source of Gold is on the left) trounce the enemy? The heal which is the only thing I have on Authority most of the time requires your army to actually be superior/more numerous in the first place to proc, because otherwise it's your unit that dies (unless the AI bashes on them as they're fortified/in good terrain, which they rarely do. Even barbies won't in the previous-to-last version which is impressive).

I still think Authority should get a city attack bonus of some sort though.