7.7 general thoughts

Thoughts from 7.8.

Strength 5 warriors are weak, especially when the barbarian units haven't been changed. Poachers (the barbarian archer) are strength 5!.

I don't like most of the policy changes.
Spoiler :
Republic is weak, sufficiently so that the left side of Liberty is barely worth getting. Meritocracy is probably too strong, +1 happy per city is just not a good idea. I worry that representation is too strong if you also include the vanilla patch change that halved the policy cost impact of cities (I haven't tested this).

The Honor unlock is lame, just like it has always been.
Professional army is too strong; happiness from walls and so forth is a bad idea. -50% gold upkeep cost is already a large bonus.

The Tradition unlock bonus to culture acquisition is still too high.
Landed Elite feels week (1 happiness per 10 pop in capital is only ever 1, 2, or 3 happiness. Lame.)
Tradition has no completion bonus??
Monarchy is weak; 10% wonder bonus is bugger all.

Piety unlock is pathetic.
Organized religion is insanely strong; +2 happy easy in every city?
Mandate of Heaven is very weak.
Reformation feels weak.

Commerce unlock feels weak; unlocks should be stronger for non-starter trees.
Rationalism unlock feels weak and boring; why should the Rationalism tree be tied to a diplomatic strategy?

Constitution is pathetic for a high-era policy.
Free speech is weak and out of flavor.
Democracy should go back to the unlock.
I like the old Freedom tree much better.

United Front is pathetic.
Planned economy is very weak in TBC where coal is limited so you can't spam factories everywhere.
Socialism feels weak.
Communism feels weak; very late-game policy that boosts building production? How many buildings are you producing in the very late game? Terrible.
 
Thoughts from 7.8.

I don't like most of the policy changes.

All of them work in conjunction with the changes to production and the Wonders. The overall effect is not allowing you to explode out of the gate, but allowing you to maintain steady momentum later. You'll probably have to play a full game (or more) to gauge how they work.
 
I don't like the changes to production either. The payback period on +5% or +10% production bonuses is far too long.
 
Also: "all of them work"? Really? In a game where happiness is the limiting growth factor, +0.5 culture per +1 happiness is a good policy? +2 culture per wonder in a game where you are lucky to snag a handful of wonders is a good policy?

I think you are far too optimistic to say that they all work.
 
Also: "all of them work"? Really? In a game where happiness is the limiting growth factor, +0.5 culture per +1 happiness is a good policy? +2 culture per wonder in a game where you are lucky to snag a handful of wonders is a good policy?

I think you are far too optimistic to say that they all work.

I said that "all of them work in conjunction with the changes to production and the Wonders." Meaning that is how they operate, not that every single one is a success.
 
<bug> Honor unlock doesn't seem to actually be giving the +25% bonus vs barbarians? At least, the only thing listed in combat odds is the standard +10%.

Is it possible that Collective Rule has some of its old abilities by accident in addition?

Babylon has built 5 cities and they are all size 3-7 in the very early game. They have double the score of the other players (360 vs ~160-180).
 
What if Republic gave a production bonus in cities with Walls? Hear me out! :lol:

  • A city with walls needs to spend less resources on sentries or guards, which can be channeled into other economically productive activities.
  • It creates synergy between expansion and wall-building for defense and development. (Think of how Washington plays with Pioneer Forts.)
  • Avoids boosting ICS like the +2:c5production: effect.
I could also put a Walls bonus somewhere in the Tradition tree, so the base-nerfed walls have bonuses after being improved, making them valuable for everyone in different ways.


  • I agree about Meritocrazy.
  • Representation was dropped from the mod's 50% to vanilla 33%.
  • Professional Army was dropped to 33%, the tooltip is a typo. It makes sense to me that cities with military spending in a militaristic society would be happier... people feel happier and safer behind walls.
  • Tradition's unlock effect was essentially halved because in TBC the cost of initial policies is 200% of vanilla.
  • Landed Elite is 1:c5happy: per 10:c5citizen: in every city. It lets the whole empire grow +10% population with the same amount of happiness.
  • The tradition tooltip's missing completion bonus is a tooltip error.
  • A free Great Engineer is an instant wonder, or the massive production from a Manufactory. I feel this plus a 10% wonder bonus is much more powerful than the original 25% wonder production bonus.
  • Not sure about the piety tree yet. I haven't played enough to see how useful it might be.
  • Not sure about Commerce or Rationalism openers. I moved the gold bonus off the Commerce opener to a larger bonus on its finisher, but plan on revisiting it.
  • I agree Constitution and Free Speech need work. I commend their decision to remove the -25% policy cost reduction however.
  • Not sure about the right side of Freedom.
  • The United Front tooltip is an error. I changed it to give +30:c5war: experience from Militaristic unit rewards. I'm not really any happier with that effect either but want to take a while to think over the policies before figuring out what to change it to.
  • I could change Planned Economy to affect all production buildings at a lower rate.
  • Not sure about Socialism or Communism.

Collective Rule has no changes in TBC.
 
What if Republic gave a production bonus in cities with Walls?
...
I could also put a Walls bonus somewhere in the Tradition tree
I don't see any reason to tie walls into social policies. Why can't they just be good for boosting city defense? Maybe have walls give defense boost, castle give faster healing, arsenal give defense boost, military base give ranged attack bonus (strength or range or a second shot?).

In general I dislike the new social policy design of trying to give social policies synergy with particular buildings. I far prefer the design where they give synergies with particular playstyles.

I also don't see what form of government (Republic) has to do with military defenses. The various famous Republics were hardly famous for their fortifications. Fortifications are more associated with monarchies and feudalism.

Representation was dropped from the mod's 50% to vanilla 33%.
Right, but did you also change the policy cost multiplier from 0.3 to 0.15?
If not, then representation is fine. If you did, then I'm a bit worried by each city only increasing poilcy costs by 10%. We're back to city-spam being a good strategy.

Landed Elite is 1 per 10 in every city
Ah, ok, I misread.
I don't like this effect in Tradition; Tradition should be about tall empires. This effect favors wide empires (it is easier to get 6 cities that are 10 each than 2 cities that are 30). An effect like this fits better in Liberty. Maybe this is better than the Meritocracy bonus for connected cities?
In Tradition, I prefer the food bonus, which makes more sense with the name Landed Elite. How does a happiness bonus from population fit with land?

A free Great Engineer is an instant wonder, or the massive production from a Manufactory. I feel this plus a 10% wonder bonus is much more powerful than the original 25% wonder production bonus.
I think free great people are very boring effects from social policies. I think policies should mostly favor long-term bonuses rather than 1-shots, and I think that great people should largely come from specialists (that is what specialists are for).
I think bonuses should actually be something you feel. You're barely going to notice a 10% bonus. That is maybe 1-2 turns faster, which is nothing.
I'd prefer to boost the long-term effect and drop the great engineer.
Tradition in particular should be about long-term gains, not instant power - the concept of tradition is all about slow and incremental change and favorable institutions, not bursts of greatness.
Alternatively; keep the wonder production bonus small, but add in a +X yield bonus per wonder, instead of having this on Constitution. +1 culture per wonder?

I commend their decision to remove the -25% policy cost reduction however.
Why? I'm not sure it is a bad idea, I'm just interested in your reasoning.

I'm not really any happier with that effect
A bonus from militaristic city states is far too narrow a bonus I think for a social policy. I'll try to think of some alternatives.
I could see this as a happiness effect; the idea being that lots of pro-labor organizations working together make the workforce easier to manage.
Maybe: happiness per production point? So you get +1 happiness for every X hammers being produced in each city? That might not be technically feasible, of course. The idea would be: more hammers means more jobs means happier workforce. It is a late-game policy, so it should be powerful.

I could change Planned Economy to affect all production buildings at a lower rate.
Maybe. But I think a science boost is weird. Since when did central planning increase science and creativity?
How about an effect that gives a production bonus to all the production buildings? That feels a lot more in flavor; Order seems to be about being an Industrial tree, as opposed to military, scientific, cultural, economic, etc.
+1 hammer to every workshop, forge, windmill, factory, watermill and their UU replacements? That could be a nice effect. If it is too weak, add hydro plant and solar plant and nuclear plant.

Ok on CR, maybe Babylon just had a really nice start position, and happened to have an AI flavor that game that really favored expansion.
 
Right, but did you also change the policy cost multiplier from 0.3 to 0.15?

That was the effect of Representation. I never modified the base value. :)

Old

  • 0.3 base
  • 0.1 with Representation, then nerfed to 0.15 (0.2 with Rep in vanilla)
New (all vanilla now)

  • 0.15 base
  • 0.1 with Representation
It's back to where I placed it a few versions ago. Since this is part of vanilla now, I feel more confident with the original decision. I like what Firaxis did because it makes Representation less necessary for a conquest game, though the tree as a whole is still valuable.

Landed Elite is 10% more population no matter how many cities we have. While it's a bit easier to get higher pop with smaller cities overall, I'm not too concerned about it. I think the tradition-liberty tall-wide split is defined well now and want to focus my time on policy trees that need more work, like Piety and Freedom.

Great Engineers can be used for a Manufactory or a Wonder, both of which are permanent long-term effects (unless you get the Great Wall or Colossus). Only the goldenage option is short-term, and it isn't a good option compared to the long-term options in the early game.


  • Early-game policies were very low value.
  • Players could achieve faster victories with higher scores in culture games by waiting until Christo and Free Speech, then get all policies.
These were the two problems with people saving policies. Both of these are now solved so there's no reason to keep the policy-saving ban in effect. I always disable it in game setup since it reduces our strategic options and flexibility, and makes it very difficult to balance Order and Autocracy (we can't fully develop those trees before the game ends). Once possible I'm going to default the option to disabled, though we can still enable the ban if we choose to do so.

I like the idea of a late game production/population synergy but it's not feasible.

+1:c5production: on building classes is easy to do.

Babylon has high expansion and growth flavors because the civ has strong early defense and science advantages. I encouraged Neb to fast expand/grow to utilize these traits well.
 
In general I dislike the new social policy design of trying to give social policies synergy with particular buildings. I far prefer the design where they give synergies with particular playstyles.

As a builder, I am really in favor of the new SP design: it *supports* different playstyles without *forcing* the player to follow them. Because so much is based on building infrastructure, "wide" empires are feasible while ICS is essentially dead. I think this is an excellent change, as previously small/tall was too efficient and who wants to have only four cities every game?

Moreover, both of the SP trees which utilize the building-enhancement mechanic are aimed at a type of building that is not prioritized for many people so I think it works:
•Honor's defensive building happiness bonus is less weird than I first thought because by warring (especially in the early eras) a lot of diplomatic flexibility is lost and later dows are much more likely. Defensive buildings will aid this player passively and probably actively. I'm not opposed to changing the effects to a production bonus, but I think we should consider the intent for the effect before making changes. But the main point is that even before the nerf to defense buildings they were rarely built by players, and often walls were more than sufficient.
•Piety's culture building effects are fantastic imo because they actually reward cultural investment as an end rather than a means. Investing in cultural infrastructure always felt like a pretty big opportunity cost when science, happiness or growth buildings were available.
 
Old
0.3 base
0.1 with Representation, then nerfed to 0.15
New
0.15 base
0.1 with Representation
These are fine, but what is "New TBC"?
0.3 base, 0.2 with Representation? That would be fine.

I think the tradition-liberty tall-wide split is defined well now
I'm not sure that this is true.
What was wrong with the old excess food bonus, which favored tall empires where you could afford to stack up food buildings and MCS bonuses?
It worked well.

Early-game policies were very low value.
Players could achieve faster victories with higher scores in culture games by waiting until Christo and Free Speech, then get all policies.
I disagree with your goal here. I think TBC should be designed around the default of no policy saving. I think that early policies should be weakened. I strongly disagree with the idea of removing a game policy solely because it is exploitable under a particular non-standard game option.

I like the idea of a late game production/population synergy but it's not feasible.
Ok, maybe keep in mind as a long term possibility though once there is much more code access, I like the flavor of it.
If you can't give happiness per production, can you give production per population?

1 on building classes is easy to do.
Another possibility that might work better is +2 hammers on workshop, forge, windmill, factory. I dunno. Any of these would need some testing, not sure what would be too strong or too weak.

On socialism, I would just increase the building maintenance modifier. The effect is fine.

On communism, we might need something different, particularly if we made planned economy into a direct production booster.
+1 Hammer bonus for mines, lumbermills and manufactories? Its a very late-game policy, so it needs to be very powerful. I thought about a food bonus, but that is just so horribly ahistorical (communism always destroyed agricultural output, farm collectivization is a terrible thing), whereas there is at least some support for industrial boosts in early Soviet Union.

We could also shuffle around these policies and effects within Order.
If there is a production bonus while constructing buildings, that should be at the very start of the tree, and it should be a big bonus (at least 20%, compare to the 20% gold cost reduction for purchases in commerce, or the 25% city state bonuses in patronage). Most buildings are already constructed by the late-game, so hammer boosts need to be very strong to have much impact, gold starts getting much more useful.

Another possibility for an Order policy; an instant free production building in every city (a la the Tradition policy that gives free culture buildings)? Might be problematic with the coal requirement on factories though.
 
it *supports* different playstyles without *forcing* the player to follow them
Sure it does; a culture bonus to temples is pretty useless if you don't have temples.

as previously small/tall was too efficient
I disagree here. I thought TBC had done a great job of rewarding tall empires appropriately.

Anyway, I'll give it a try.

But the main point is that even before the nerf to defense buildings they were rarely built by players
When defensive structures are weak the correct solution is to boost them, not to boost them under a particular set of policies.
Honor should be about military units, not about defensive structures.
 
The old effect of Landed Elite (population growth) is now the tradition finisher. Landed Elite gives happiness to get a bigger population, and the finisher lets us get there quicker.

The main goal of TBC is to increase Civ's strategic options and flexibility. Reducing these in policy selection goes in the opposite direction. :)

These are some options available for policies... most of the others are already in use.

CityYieldChanges
CoastalCityYieldChanges
CapitalYieldChanges
CapitalYieldPerPopChanges
CapitalYieldModifiers
Disables
Flavors
HurryModifiers
PrereqPolicies
PrereqORPolicies
SpecialistExtraYields
BuildingClassYieldModifiers
BuildingClassYieldChanges
BuildingClassCultureChanges
BuildingClassProductionModifiers
BuildingClassHappiness
ImprovementYieldChanges
ImprovementCultureChanges
ValidSpecialists
YieldModifiers
FreePromotions
UnitCombatFreeExperiences
FreePromotionUnitCombats
UnitCombatProductionModifiers
FreeUnitClasses
FreeItems
 
The main goal of TBC is to increase Civ's strategic options and flexibility. Reducing these in policy selection goes in the opposite direction.
Strategic options and flexibility are good.... but you have to think carefully about what that means.

I disagree with the idea that "strategic options" means that it is ok to have social policy trees that work equally well with any strategy. I fail to see how social policy trees that support particular strategies somehow means that there are no longer options.

You have options in what strategy you follow; once you pick a strategy, then there are particular policy trees that support that strategy.
If every policy tree is always good for every strategy, then you haven't really made options, you have removed having meaningful choices, because now it doesn't really matter what strategy you are following anymore.

So I think it is entirely appropriate to have particular policy trees support particular playstyles. That makes the choice of playstyle much more meaningful. Patronage is an excellent example of this; it supports a playstyle that favors city states. Everything in it supports that playstyle. And choosing patronage policies would be a bad idea if you weren't really investing in city states. Similarly, patronage has synergies with policies that boost your gold production or boosts yields from things that give you gold, but has dysynergies with policies that encourage you to spend your gold on things other than city states, or that encourage you to focus on areas other than gold production.

The very definition of a strategic system is something where some choices are better than others. There should be multiple good choices to make, but some combinations should be better than others. Strategy requires not just that there are things to choose, but that there are things that should not be chosen. Strategy implies prioritization.

* * *
CapitalYieldPerPopChanges
Do we also have CityYieldPerPopChanges? Or is it really just limited to the capital? That would be pretty lame.
As a stupid question; do we have the ability to create any kind of new tags at all? Or does that require more than XML?
 
1. I don't see any reason to tie walls into social policies...
I also don't see what form of government (Republic) has to do with military defenses. The various famous Republics were hardly famous for their fortifications. Fortifications are more associated with monarchies and feudalism.

2. In general I dislike the new social policy design of trying to give social policies synergy with particular buildings. I far prefer the design where they give synergies with particular playstyles.

3. If not, then representation is fine. If you did, then I'm a bit worried by each city only increasing poilcy costs by 10%. We're back to city-spam being a good strategy.

4. I don't like this effect in Tradition; Tradition should be about tall empires. This effect favors wide empires (it is easier to get 6 cities that are 10 each than 2 cities that are 30). An effect like this fits better in Liberty.

5. In Tradition, I prefer the food bonus, which makes more sense with the name Landed Elite. How does a happiness bonus from population fit with land?

6. I think free great people are very boring effects from social policies. I think policies should mostly favor long-term bonuses rather than 1-shots... I think bonuses should actually be something you feel. You're barely going to notice a 10% bonus.

7. Tradition in particular should be about long-term gains, not instant power - the concept of tradition is all about slow and incremental change and favorable institutions, not bursts of greatness.

8. A bonus from militaristic city states is far too narrow a bonus I think for a social policy. I'll try to think of some alternatives.

9. Maybe. But I think a science boost is weird. Since when did central planning increase science and creativity?

1. Venice - easily the most important Renaissance republic - used fortifications widely.

2. This is my favorite overall aspect of the post-patch SP changes. And the consensus on the threads is that the new SP tree is more focused on specififc playstyles.

3. You're saying this without any testing. I very much doubt that this policy will make city spamming a successful strategy.

4. I think this policy will help Tradition/tall approaches at least as much as Liberty/wide ones.

5. As with Tradition, I think you&#8217;re getting hung up on a name in a game that is understandably loose with its nomenclature.

6. I think they're among the most "fun" aspects of SP's. It's percentages that are boring, unless they're big &#8211; but there&#8217;s not a lot of room for the latter.

7. Players who use Tradition aren't playing a long-term game any more than anyone else - Civ is a long-term game.

8. This is narrow, but a lot of the policies have been scaled down.

9. What spurs science and especially creativity cannot be credited to government style.
 
These are fine, but what is "New TBC"?
0.3 base, 0.2 with Representation? That would be fine.

"New" refers to post-patch.
This is one of the best changes in the patch, imo. The culture cost increases were punitive and unnecessary.

I'm not sure that this is true.
What was wrong with the old excess food bonus, which favored tall empires where you could afford to stack up food buildings and MCS bonuses?
It worked well.

The food bonus is in the tree finisher (which you mentioned was not visible in game). I'm not crazy about the new Landed Elite effect, but it's better than a straight 10% happiness booster.

I disagree with your goal here. I think TBC should be designed around the default of no policy saving. I think that early policies should be weakened. I strongly disagree with the idea of removing a game policy solely because it is exploitable under a particular non-standard game option.

This is the effect in vanilla post-patch. The SP cost-reducing policy was quite lame, imo. The key is the restructuring of SP costs throughout the game, but I'm not sure how TBC has implemented that so I can't judge it's quality here.

Ok, maybe keep in mind as a long term possibility though once there is much more code access, I like the flavor of it.
If you can't give happiness per production, can you give production per population?

Could give a happiness per production building bonus here, but referring to my last post, production buildings are always useful so I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

Another possibility that might work better is +2 hammers on workshop, forge, windmill, factory. I dunno. Any of these would need some testing, not sure what would be too strong or too weak.

On socialism, I would just increase the building maintenance modifier. The effect is fine.

On communism, we might need something different, particularly if we made planned economy into a direct production booster.
+1 Hammer bonus for mines, lumbermills and manufactories? Its a very late-game policy, so it needs to be very powerful. I thought about a food bonus, but that is just so horribly ahistorical (communism always destroyed agricultural output, farm collectivization is a terrible thing), whereas there is at least some support for industrial boosts in early Soviet Union.

We could also shuffle around these policies and effects within Order.
If there is a production bonus while constructing buildings, that should be at the very start of the tree, and it should be a big bonus (at least 20%, compare to the 20% gold cost reduction for purchases in commerce, or the 25% city state bonuses in patronage). Most buildings are already constructed by the late-game, so hammer boosts need to be very strong to have much impact, gold starts getting much more useful.

Another possibility for an Order policy; an instant free production building in every city (a la the Tradition policy that gives free culture buildings)? Might be problematic with the coal requirement on factories though.

These ideas sound good to me.
___________

Sure it does; a culture bonus to temples is pretty useless if you don't have temples.

I wasn't clear that I was referring mainly to the first three SP trees as it seemed implied (and that's what I thought you were referring to). To me, the first three go toward playstyles (Tall, Wide, War) while mid trees go toward more specific strategies (Gold, Culture, City-States, Science) and the end trees return to the pattern of the first three.

When defensive structures are weak the correct solution is to boost them, not to boost them under a particular set of policies.
Honor should be about military units, not about defensive structures.

This is discussed in the original post:
&#8226;Honor's defensive building happiness bonus is less weird than I first thought because by warring (especially in the early eras) a lot of diplomatic flexibility is lost and later dows are much more likely. Defensive buildings will aid this player passively and probably actively. I'm not opposed to changing the effects to a production bonus, but I think we should consider the intent for the effect before making changes. But the main point is that even before the nerf to defense buildings they were rarely built by players, and often walls were more than sufficient.
We also had some discussion on this topic yesterday if you recall - buffing walls runs into the problem that the changes were meant to counteract:
it's the relative value that is the most important thing to bear in mind here. If the AI builds defense but the human doesn't it's an overall buff to the AI. So it seems there are three goals that need to be balanced here: (1) defensive buildings are not too strong so the AI is able to take cities more frequently (than pre-patch), (2) they are not too weak so that city capture remains a challenge for the human, and (3) they are also not too weak so that the human considers them worth building. I think the patch moved in the right direction in this balance, but tweaking might be necessary down the line if one of these goals isn't met.
I think the changes work as a whole and should be looked at as such, and not each effect in a vacuum.
 
By the way, "and UU replacements" is usually redundant since almost all changes are done to the unit or building class, which affects all unique units and barbarians based on that class. In the rare circumstances where I make a change that is not to the class, I specifically state "Barbarian Pikeman" or "Workshops (Non-UB)". :)
 
I have some ideas for Order... going to think about it for a while and see what can be done.

The main goal of TBC is to increase Civ's strategic options and flexibility. Reducing these in policy selection goes in the opposite direction.

What I'm saying here is if we can plan ahead... saving immediate policy benefits for future gains, that's a strategic decision unavailable with the savings ban. I dislike bandaids that reduce player flexibility to hide underlying problems. The two original problems are solved so there's no reason to keep the bandaid. :)

Do we also have CityYieldPerPopChanges? Or is it really just limited to the capital? That would be pretty lame.
As a stupid question; do we have the ability to create any kind of new tags at all? Or does that require more than XML?
That property doesn't exist. I can create new properties, but must code the effects manually -- which can be very time-consuming. I use existing properties when possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom