Worst BNW social policies?

maybe these crap policies are needed to balance their trees...
Agree with most of what is written in this thread, many of these policies are really REALLY bad. I could live with that if they were in fact a "balance" for an overall great tree like Sovereignty in Rationalism (and it's not even *that* bad when going wide, yesterday I picked it when going wide and it earned me +55 GPT which is pretty decent), but many of the policies mentioned here sit in either Commerce, Exploration or Patronage, which are just crappy trees overall, so it's not even like they balance something great.

I think the problem with some of these are that it would be better if all policy trees worked like the Ideology trees - you pick the ones you want for your current situation from a larger pool of options. That way, you could have policies that cater a specific play style - Venice would love the extra Great Merchant chance, wide civs might want the gold-per-building type of policies, etc. - without having them disrupt the entire tree.

But arguably, a policy like Merchant Confederacy is just so bad that there is no excuse for it what-so-ever. :cry:
 
Patronage isn't a bad tree! It unlocks the Forbidden Palace which is very good for solidifying a position in WC early on. Whether it's worth filling completely is a whole different story, but I find many of the abilities there quite useful.
 
I've got some benefit out of religious tolerance every time actually, usually its something like piggybacking off of Desert Folklore or Sacred Path, but even in my current game I got some use out of it where late on Spain spammed missionaries and they gave me culture for pastures. If I'd really wanted to micromanage I could have even hooked up my Petra city with a trade route to someone with Desert Folklore. It can be pretty fun.
 
Those policies aren't bugged, you just have to wait a turn for them to kick in.
 
Patronage is cool. I went Oracle with Poland and pledged to every CS upon meeting. The finish time for Patronage (after full Liberty) was completely insane. Imagine all those great people I was getting!
 
1)Merchant Confederacy: +1 Gold from trade routes with city states.
Indeed terrible.
Suggeted fix: +2 gold and +5 science from trade routes with city states.

Another 1) because it's a tie. Wagon Trains: +2 Gold from all your Land Trade Routes.
Indeed not too great.
Suggested fix: +1 trade routes, reduces the cost of caravans by -50%.

1) (yes, ANOTHER tie) +3 gold from trade routes with other Freedom civilisations. Another horrid thing mostly because it all depends on enemies taking this ideology, and +3 gold at this stage isn't much.
Yep, also not great.
Suggested fix: +3 extra :c5food: and :c5production: from these trade routes.

2)Trade Unions: Maintenance paid on Roads and Railroads reduced by 50%.
Actually not that terrible because roads and railroads a very powerful tool for your military, esp. when on defence. With this policy you can build more of them to create short transport routes, create backup routes during war time and construct more brigdes across rivers. Building a road around your city can be a powerful tool for the defender if the enemy should attack it.

But a slight buff might be okay, so how about: "Removes maintenance cost from harbours"?

3)Professional Army: Gold cost of upgrading Military Units reduced by 33% and construct Barracks, Armories, and Military Academies 50% faster. - how many cities will even have XP buildings? One? Two? Gone is the great +1 happiness for defensive building from honour, replaced by... This?
I like the -33% upgrade cost reduction. That can save you a lot of money (esp. during the early game where it is really tight). Faster XP buildings can also be nice, esp. for nations that have UB based on them. Not great, but certainly not that horrible.

4) Entrepreneurship: Great Merchants are earned 25% faster. (requires Wagon Trains) - that's a horrible policy for everyone except Venice, for which it's a reasonable one. As all other civs you DON'T want to get Merchants. Ever. Only double gold/influence of MoV makes them worthwhile. If Venice didn't exist, this one would be another tie for nr 1 because it makes it more likely to get something that actually hurts you more than it helps by delaying the good Great People.
Well, probably not great and relative to playstyle, but a diplomacy player might find merchants quite useful to get some early city state friends. Again not great, yes, but THAT horrible? Hm...

5) United Front: Militaristic City-States grant units twice as often when you are at war with a common foe. - it's not horrible, but too situational. Militaristic city states shouldn't be depended upon much.
Situational, but not that bad. A free unit during a war is a free unit. :)

6) Treasure Fleets: +4 Gold from all your sea trade routes. Requires Merchant Navy. - at least it works on the superior routes, but still. 40 gold very late game IF you got collossus AND petra, 80 if you're Venice (which swims in money so much it doesn't care a lot).
As suggested above: "+1 trade routes, reduces cost for cargo ships by -50%". Fixed.

7) Religious Tolerance: Cities with a majority religion also get the Pantheon belief bonus of the second most popular religion. (requires Organized Religion) - okay, it's usable, but they're Pantheon beliefs. Most civs will take a pantheon because of their surroundings - you have 4 stones near the capital, good, take Stone Circles and get a guaranteed religion. Most other cities won't benefit from it, because they don't have the resources/luxuries the pantheon works with.
Indeed quite weak. Would be nice if it was pantheon AND follower belief(s).

And, yes, futurism is terrible...
 
Well, probably not great and relative to playstyle, but a diplomacy player might find merchants quite useful to get some early city state friends. Again not great, yes, but THAT horrible? Hm...

Early CS friends from Commerce isn't an option for normal games - the tree won't unlock until Medieval era.

I think the problem is the combination of Great Merchants being poor (heh) and each spawning GM increasing the costs of the much better alternatives Great Engineers and Great Scientists. It's fixed easily - either make Great Merchants better or make them not hurt one's GS and GE production.
 
It's fixed easily - either make Great Merchants better or make them not hurt one's GS and GE production.

You got it right. Entrepeneurship is the only policy that actually hurts the player, if you have puppet(s), thus making it clearly the worst policy in the game.
 
The trade route gold increasers are subject to market, bank and stock exchange, though. Makes them somewhat better.

My thoughts exactly. You're not just getting +1 gold, ect. from those routes.

3)Professional Army: Gold cost of upgrading Military Units reduced by 33% and construct Barracks, Armories, and Military Academies 50% faster. - how many cities will even have XP buildings? One? Two? Gone is the great +1 happiness for defensive building from honour, replaced by... This?

First off, -33% costs on upgrades is one of the crown jewels of the Honor tree, especially my the late-mid game. Do you really want to pay full cost to upgrade your frigates to battleships? This policy will save a militaristic Civ thousands of gold over the long haul, and it's not like those Civs have a ton of money in the first place.

Secondly, I think this policy is MORE useful now. If I have a culture driver, getting to this policy quickly means I can get Barracks in all my cities fast and early, allowing me to build the Heroic Epic much more quickly than in G&K. Also, I never thought the happiness for defensive buildings in Honor made sense. If you're going for domination, if you're being offensive, you should be crippling the AI to such a degree that you don't need defensive buildings. Yeah, the free happiness helped when your puppets build a wall. Or you could hard build a wall in a pinch for a couple happiness...but that wasn't really worth it and your resources were almost always better used elsewhere. This policy is more focused, more effective, and helps accomplish BNW's goal of reducing the happiness spam that G&K introduced.

7) Religious Tolerance: Cities with a majority religion also get the Pantheon belief bonus of the second most popular religion. (requires Organized Religion) - okay, it's usable, but they're Pantheon beliefs. Most civs will take a pantheon because of their surroundings - you have 4 stones near the capital, good, take Stone Circles and get a guaranteed religion. Most other cities won't benefit from it, because they don't have the resources/luxuries the pantheon works with.

Upon hearing about this SP, I think most of us assumed it would be very weak. With how trade routes work, though, I've found it to be quite helpful. Pantheons can sometimes be the most desirable part of someone else' religion: the faith or culture drivers. Frankly, if I've built a religion around Sacred Path, I'll be most ticked to lose that in my heavy jungle cities when that city is converted. With Religious Tolerance online, I don't have to worry about losing my culture driver because my "friend" Ethopia sent yet another Great Prophet into my territory.

Its situational and can be weak, but there is opportunity for a strong upside here, too.
 
3)Professional Army: Gold cost of upgrading Military Units reduced by 33% and construct Barracks, Armories, and Military Academies 50% faster. - how many cities will even have XP buildings? One? Two? Gone is the great +1 happiness for defensive building from honour, replaced by... This?

I have to chime in in favor of professional army as well; the happiness isn't gone for a full on military victory you just have to go into autocracy to get it. Then it's +2 happiness for each of those 3 buildings you're building at double speed for a nice +6 per city. And I don't want to give up all the promotions I'm getting from those happiness buildings so cheaper upgrades make me smile.

Still trying out honor starts as Assyria, went pretty well last time until Greece bought diplo end game. I thought I had time to go space after eliminating my continent but I couldn't control enough city states, ah well.
 
Patronage isn't a bad tree! It unlocks the Forbidden Palace which is very good for solidifying a position in WC early on. Whether it's worth filling completely is a whole different story, but I find many of the abilities there quite useful.
Well you only need to take opener to get Forbidden Palace. Don't get me wrong, Patronage opener is good, and Philantropy and Consulates (both first level) are also excellent picks. But Scholasticism is very bad, and Merchant Confederacy is without a doubt the worst policy in the entire game. Cultural Diplomacy can also be very good, and new finisher is potentially great. So Patronage is not a bad tree, but on the bottom line it looks like one where I'll take only a couple of policies and then move on to another tree instead. I think comparing things to Tradition is always valuable to put things a bit into perspective when it comes to balance in the policy trees ...

Exploration suffers from similar issues. The opening policy and the two first level ones are great, but then it seems very unlikely that you'll go further into it.
 
Is scholasticism bad? I've never actually paid much attention to how much science per CS ally it brings later on but around a few dozen beakers at the time of adoption is a significant amount IMO.
 
Is scholasticism bad? I've never actually paid much attention to how much science per CS ally it brings later on but around a few dozen beakers at the time of adoption is a significant amount IMO.

Scholasticism in many of my games is about a 5-10% increase in my science output. Sure, it's not Rationalism-opener good, but it's two Eras eariler?

And I, for one, like Futurism. Scaling to your Tourism output, if above 10%, it would be busted.

Futurism gives every Great Person in your Civ (and if you take it, it's for a CV, so lots of GWAM) a mini-Great Musician (Concert Tour) in addition to its other effects.

Sure, I rather take Freedom or Order for Culture Victories, but on the off chance that I am forced to switch to Autocracy, it's one of the first tenets I'll take.
 
Futurism gives every Great Person in your Civ (and if you take it, it's for a CV, so lots of GWAM) a mini-Great Musician (Concert Tour) in addition to its other effects.

No it doesn't, only GWAMs. And it's mini indeed.
 
My bad, Vaino. Only GWAMs. The point is that they're all on separate timers.

Double the bonus, and I think they'd be overpowered, in the sense that Autocracy would be the clear choice in a CV.

The only real issue is that it does not help you much when you're already Influential or better. At least for victory purposes.
 
So, lemme get this straight: we get a post with a long list of highly subjective gripes, and nobody shows up to call him a whiner and to stop complaining and that nobody's MAKING him choose those policies? No devil's advocates or contrarians in sight?

Whatever you got, buddy, I hope you start bottling and selling it. ;)

Overall, sopols are not what they once were, as the really juicy ones have been moved to ideologies.

Having said that, most of the OP's notions of worthless are based off of fairly min-maxed notions. For instance, naval trade routes may be sweet, but they're not always ideal. You might have some land-locked cities that have tons of resources, and you might well be able to beter protect a caravan than a cargo ship. Likewise, you may find yourself in a situation where CS's are your only good options for trading.

I don't get the big hate on GM's. I think that's more meme than anything. Scientists and engineers are better, but the customs house is still nice.

Btw, none of these suck as bad as Fine Arts.
 
In my own opinion, trade routes and policies affecting them do not work because the “trade routes” were initially designed to work with roads and not with the new trade unites. That is simply my opinion at this time.
 
In my own opinion, trade routes and policies affecting them do not work because the “trade routes” were initially designed to work with roads and not with the new trade unites. That is simply my opinion at this time.

Nope, these policies came with BNW so they were designed for the trade units.
 
Top Bottom