10 Fixes Needed for the Fall Patch

The secondary issue facing Piety is that Faith generation from Desert tiles (and possibly Tundra tiles) with that Pantheon belief is undeniably overpowered. That Pantheon belief alone in a reasonably sized city can easily outperform four cities running Temples and Shrines. Faith generation from natural wonders is similarly ridiculous and more or less random. If the point of Piety is to give you a strong chance to win a religious race, it should be a reliable indicator of who will perform well. Instead, the religious race is almost entirely determined by whether you randomly start in a desert or next to a wonder.

Agree with everything you said. To add to Desert Folklore's overpoweredness, while also building on your first point, it's outproducing those 4 cities with shrines and temples, while not costing ANY maintenance. That's why I think founding a religion with shrines and temples as your foundation just isn't worth the -12 :c5gold: maintenance cost in those 4 cities, even with Organized Religion from Piety. I prefer using pantheons as my foundation and opening Tradition, building just a few shrines and no temples. If not Desert Folklore or Dance of the Aurora, something like Stone Circles or the pantheons for silver/gold or wine/incense will do. Scouts are important too for finding those faith ruins and finding those religious city-states.

I pretty much go down Piety only if I really REALLY want a Reformation belief, but is that really worth 5 policies when I don't care about the other ones?
 
Going down piety is definitely a good idea if your strategy revolves around religion. Reformation beliefs are INSANELY powerful if you pick the right ones. Lately I've been partial to combining Religious Texts with Unity of the Prophets; AI players will need to burn multiple Great Prophets to root out your religion for more than a few turns. Also, the reduced cost in buying with faith is the difference between your religion only being a personal one affecting your own cities or being a global power.

The major change needed in Piety is the AWFUL policy that gives you the pantheon belief of the second most popular religion. Unless you're at a religious crossroads, this is ALWAYS a worthless policy and, even if you are at one, it may STILL be a worthless policy if a pantheon you don't care about is powerful near you.
 
The major change needed in Piety is the AWFUL policy that gives you the pantheon belief of the second most popular religion. Unless you're at a religious crossroads, this is ALWAYS a worthless policy and, even if you are at one, it may STILL be a worthless policy if a pantheon you don't care about is powerful near you.

It would work if they could add a mechanic where religious pressure never ousts other religions, only pushes them down to one believer.

Then whenever you captured an enemy city dominated by another religion you could make some missionaries, and get a foothold for that religion in your other cities.

But as things stand it's a waste of time, because that foothold will soon be lost.
 
It would work if they could add a mechanic where religious pressure never ousts other religions, only pushes them down to one believer.

Then whenever you captured an enemy city dominated by another religion you could make some missionaries, and get a foothold for that religion in your other cities.

But as things stand it's a waste of time, because that foothold will soon be lost.
Even then why would I ever waste faith points spreading enemy religions? They should just change it to something useful, like +1:c5happy: from Shrines and/or Temples.
 
they can change that policy to be 1 free Pantheon that is added to Your religion.

TBH civ 5 has gotten more and more useless policies With BNW. So it is clearly a design desision to create some worthless policies/civs/buildings etc.
They are not even trying to Balance it. If they are then i feel sorry about there mathematics and general game knowlege.
 
I actually started to do the math (almost the very same calculations that you did) but I didn't bother posting them for the sake of brevity. :) I wound up just saying 10 turns from a calculation similar your second one. I also did one similar to your first calculation but concluded that I don't bother with a religion if I don't have the faith base from something else besides shrines/temples because I won't have the faith to make the most out of it anyway. But even if you want to take 30 turns of extra culture as the baseline, I still contend that +3 culture over the course of hundreds of turns (in particular the first 50 when +3 culture makes the biggest difference) will WAY outshine even 30 turns from piety.

Here's the math since you asked for it:
Let's say Tradition might've gotten a religion on turn 100, and those first 100 turns are the only turns we care about (even though Tradition's +3 will continue for all 300 turns of the game).
Tradition -- +3 culture over 100 turns = 300 culture, +2 culture from 4 free monuments that would've otherwise taken 10 turns to build = 2*4*10 = 80 culture (also 160 free hammers that could be spent elsewhere), total = 380 culture
Piety -- (let's say you get Sacred Path and work 6 jungle tiles during those 30 turns) +6 culture over 30 turns = 180 culture... if it's only a 10 turn difference, +6 culture over 10 turns = 60 culture << 380 culture
More importantly, Tradition's +3 culture came during those crucial early turns where +3 is a HUGE percentage of your cultural output otherwise.

Going by your second calculation, I don't think 10 turns usually changes the likelihood of getting a religion all THAT much, nor does the accrued culture over those turns come close to matching Tradition's overall output.

Yep, that math makes sense. Tradition will give you more culture for certain cases, and is obviously the better choice for going Tall with few cities. I still think Piety is fine the way it is. Piety is made for going wide anyways, since religion scales better when going wide as you get more affects from your religion.

Tradition can give you more culture, and it will give you culture during the crucial, early startup of a game. Piety can scale better and give you more culture in the long run for certain cases.
 
Yep, that math makes sense. Tradition will give you more culture for certain cases, and is obviously the better choice for going Tall with few cities. I still think Piety is fine the way it is. Piety is made for going wide anyways, since religion scales better when going wide as you get more affects from your religion.

Tradition can give you more culture, and it will give you culture during the crucial, early startup of a game. Piety can scale better and give you more culture in the long run for certain cases.

Fair enough. I agree that Piety is better for a wide empire. And since Liberty comes with fewer culture bonuses than Tradition, Piety can be a pretty solid addition to Liberty. I just have a hard time finding room for Piety if I'm also doing Liberty, Rationalism, and then my ideology.

In the Immortal game I'm doing right now, I tried Liberty for a change, and I accrued so much culture (and faith) from my pantheon -- Goddess of Festivals and later monasteries with 7 early wine, eventually 9 wine + 5 incense -- that I could afford to spend that culture on Piety, but only as a secondary tree after finishing Liberty and Consulates. By then I had already founded Catholicism, and my pantheon and monasteries and city-state friends were providing WAY more faith than shrines/temples, even with Organized Religion. So Piety was more for strengthening my religion than for founding it. Unfortunately it did delay my going into Rationalism, so I took Jesuit Education to make up for it.

Does anyone else consider the incredible synergy between Goddess of Festivals and monasteries to be a little ironic? I know a few monks, and they're great people, just not that festive. :)
 
Going down piety is definitely a good idea if your strategy revolves around religion. Reformation beliefs are INSANELY powerful if you pick the right ones. Lately I've been partial to combining Religious Texts with Unity of the Prophets; AI players will need to burn multiple Great Prophets to root out your religion for more than a few turns. Also, the reduced cost in buying with faith is the difference between your religion only being a personal one affecting your own cities or being a global power.

The major change needed in Piety is the AWFUL policy that gives you the pantheon belief of the second most popular religion. Unless you're at a religious crossroads, this is ALWAYS a worthless policy and, even if you are at one, it may STILL be a worthless policy if a pantheon you don't care about is powerful near you.


I have found the opposite to be true. My strongest religious games are when I avoid Piety until late and take Tradition. The reason for that is that Piety offers nothing you need early on except Faith points, but at the cost of prohibitive Gold. And a civ with a lucky desert start will still outperform you.

Let's look at what Piety offers you:


50% reduction in build time for shrines and temples.
Surely you're not waiting around for this policy to build your first shrine because to use the Piety tree at all you need a foot in the religious race. So 90% of the time the first point you put in the tree does nothing for you until either your second city or you get to Philosophy.

But wait. Let's say you actually do want to use this ability and build shrines and temples in half the time. Congrats, enjoy -3 gold per city. I hope you took Tithe as your religious ability because you'll need it to break even. (This theme of using your religion just to break even runs strong through Piety. With Liberty or Tradition there is no such tradeoff. What you get is a bonus not a penalty that you then offset just to break even.)


20% reduction in cost of buying units with Faith.
This is not a bad policy overall. Unfortunately its timing makes no sense. You're not going to be buying anything with faith because the entire religious race depends on you saving those points for a prophet. So once again we've got a policy that does nothing for us until later on. Ok, we could try to race for Hagia Sophia and grab a Prophet there and then get to buy stuff early. Except that Tradition players are better wonder builders, likely to have better science, a bigger population, and everything that goes with that. They are better situated to grab the Prophet than the tree allegedly devoted to doing that.

+1 Faith per temple and shrine
Cute but the main implication here early game is that you should build one shrine instead of two because you can't afford more. So while the intent here is good, other than the fact that you can get by with fewer shrines it's not helping you all that much. It's slightly better later on when you can afford all those temples and shrines. But early? You are 80% better off with granaries, water mills, and other buildings that actually benefit the city rather than just allow you to break even (if even that). Moreover, this isn't helping you with steles, it's not boosting Stonehenge, its not boosting Desert Folklore or Aurora, it's not increasing the Celt bonus from forests. So the best ways you would enter and sustain a religious race are not even covered by the policy that supposedly gives a lead in the religious race. Far from doing that, I'd argue, what this policy really is (early on at least) is a Hail Mary bid that is only useful if you've resigned yourself to the fact that you can't possibly win the religious race because of an unlucky start/Ethiopa or the Celts are around and are trying to at least grab the 4th or 5th religion before they are all gone.



10% gold from temples and +3 gold per holy site.
LOL at the holy site until later on. See comments about the entire point of the religious race above.

As for the temples, they are already costing us -2 gold. Someone else did the math and came up with a city needing +20gpt just to break even with this policy. Basically all you are getting here is a tiny discount on the gold cost of temples, and not even one that contributes in any meaningful way until much later in the game.


Religious tolerance.
Not only in this policy terrible, it may actually be the worst policy in the game. Situational doesn't begin to cover it. It's so terrible not just because it is bad in general (which it is), but because it actually runs completely counter to the goals of the Piety tree--building a strong religion and eliminating your opponents'. The implication of this power is that you are a non-Faith player who has resigned to letting the stronger religious civs take you over religiously, but you hope to hold on to part of your pantheon bonus, ie the exact opposite of what Piety is all about.


Reformation Belief
Ok finally something decent. That you just 4 burned highly questionable policies to get to. And only one and one half of which has in any way, up to this point in the game, likely contributed anything to your empire.
 
I have found the opposite to be true. My strongest religious games are when I avoid Piety until late and take Tradition. The reason for that is that Piety offers nothing you need early on except Faith points, but at the cost of prohibitive Gold. And a civ with a lucky desert start will still outperform you.

Let's look at what Piety offers you:


50% reduction in build time for shrines and temples.
Surely you're not waiting around for this policy to build your first shrine because to use the Piety tree at all you need a foot in the religious race. So 90% of the time the first point you put in the tree does nothing for you until either your second city or you get to Philosophy.

But wait. Let's say you actually do want to use this ability and build shrines and temples in half the time. Congrats, enjoy -3 gold per city. I hope you took Tithe as your religious ability because you'll need it to break even. (This theme of using your religion just to break even runs strong through Piety. With Liberty or Tradition there is no such tradeoff. What you get is a bonus not a penalty that you then offset just to break even.)


20% reduction in cost of buying units with Faith.
This is not a bad policy overall. Unfortunately its timing makes no sense. You're not going to be buying anything with faith because the entire religious race depends on you saving those points for a prophet. So once again we've got a policy that does nothing for us until later on. Ok, we could try to race for Hagia Sophia and grab a Prophet there and then get to buy stuff early. Except that Tradition players are better wonder builders, likely to have better science, a bigger population, and everything that goes with that. They are better situated to grab the Prophet than the tree allegedly devoted to doing that.

+1 Faith per temple and shrine
Cute but the main implication here early game is that you should build one shrine instead of two because you can't afford more. So while the intent here is good, other than the fact that you can get by with fewer shrines it's not helping you all that much. It's slightly better later on when you can afford all those temples and shrines. But early? You are 80% better off with granaries, water mills, and other buildings that actually benefit the city rather than just allow you to break even (if even that). Moreover, this isn't helping you with steles, it's not boosting Stonehenge, its not boosting Desert Folklore or Aurora, it's not increasing the Celt bonus from forests. So the best ways you would enter and sustain a religious race are not even covered by the policy that supposedly gives a lead in the religious race. Far from doing that, I'd argue, what this policy really is (early on at least) is a Hail Mary bid that is only useful if you've resigned yourself to the fact that you can't possibly win the religious race because of an unlucky start/Ethiopa or the Celts are around and are trying to at least grab the 4th or 5th religion before they are all gone.



10% gold from temples and +3 gold per holy site.
LOL at the holy site until later on. See comments about the entire point of the religious race above.

As for the temples, they are already costing us -3 gold. Someone else did the math and came up with a city needing +20gpt just to break even with this policy. Basically all you are getting here is a tiny discount on the gold cost of temples, and not even one that contributes in any meaningful way until much later in the game.


Religious tolerance.
Not only in this policy terrible, it may actually be the worst policy in the game. Situational doesn't begin to cover it. It's so terrible not just because it is bad in general (which it is), but because it actually runs completely counter to the goals of the Piety tree--building a strong religion and eliminating your opponents'. The implication of this power is that you are a non-Faith player who has resigned to letting the stronger religious civs take you over religiously, but you hope to hold on to part of your pantheon bonus, ie the exact opposite of what Piety is all about.


Reformation Belief
Ok finally something decent. That you just 4 burned highly questionable policies to get to. And only one and one half of which has in any way, up to this point in the game, likely contributed anything to your empire.

Exactly. This. Piety is at best a second policy tree that you take after you've gotten things going with Liberty. But... no, it's just bad.
 
I think the most broken thing right now is air combat. Anti air needs a boost, Great War bombers need to go (no such thing existed) and AA guns need to be weaker against some ground units
 
Thing is, once you're talking about taking second policy trees, you have to compete with Patronage, with it's ridiculous two-policy result of making you friends with every city state in the world, which is worth oodles of culture, happiness, food, faith and military units.

And once you've taken that, there's Rationalism to compete with, which is pretty much unbeatable given that science gives you a bonus to basically everything.

There's never enough time to take a rubbish policy tree. MAYBE if you're Poland, OR way late in the game when there's nothing good left. But there's usually something better than Piety.
 
Great War bombers need to go (no such thing existed)

Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Just googling for a second would give you mountains of evidence.

I would say they're too powerful, given that air-to-ground wasn't really a war-winner until far later on, but to say they didn't exist just shows a huge level of ignorance.
 
Exactly. This. Piety is at best a second policy tree that you take after you've gotten things going with Liberty. But... no, it's just bad.

Agreed, I think isau spelled it out pretty well. Piety is useless as a primary tree because it has to compete with Tradition and Liberty. But then as a secondary tree it's competing with Rationalism potentially. Maybe not entirely, but if you're aiming for Reformation, you'll only get a few policies deep into Piety as a secondary tree before you hit the Renaissance, and those few policies deep aren't nearly as powerful as Consulates would be.
 
Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Just googling for a second would give you mountains of evidence.

I would say they're too powerful, given that air-to-ground wasn't really a war-winner until far later on, but to say they didn't exist just shows a huge level of ignorance.

Well, yes technically, it's wrong. Bombers did exist in WWI. But your second statement (that bombers did not play a decisive role in WWI) and the fact that GWBs regularly play a decisive role in Civ V suggest to me that his conclusion is a reasonable one. Getting rid of Great War Bombers would be a great change in my mind. Unfortunately it won't happen... it'd look silly for them to take something back that they already provided.
 
Well, yes technically, it's wrong. Bombers did exist in WWI. But your second statement (that bombers did not play a decisive role in WWI) and the fact that GWBs regularly play a decisive role in Civ V suggest to me that his conclusion is a reasonable one. Getting rid of Great War Bombers would be a great change in my mind. Unfortunately it won't happen... it'd look silly for them to take something back that they already provided.
They could just move it up the tech tree and call it "Interwar Bomber."
 
I have found the opposite to be true. My strongest religious games are when I avoid Piety until late and take Tradition. The reason for that is that Piety offers nothing you need early on except Faith points, but at the cost of prohibitive Gold. And a civ with a lucky desert start will still outperform you.

Let's look at what Piety offers you:


50% reduction in build time for shrines and temples.
Surely you're not waiting around for this policy to build your first shrine because to use the Piety tree at all you need a foot in the religious race. So 90% of the time the first point you put in the tree does nothing for you until either your second city or you get to Philosophy.

But wait. Let's say you actually do want to use this ability and build shrines and temples in half the time. Congrats, enjoy -3 gold per city. I hope you took Tithe as your religious ability because you'll need it to break even. (This theme of using your religion just to break even runs strong through Piety. With Liberty or Tradition there is no such tradeoff. What you get is a bonus not a penalty that you then offset just to break even.)


20% reduction in cost of buying units with Faith.
This is not a bad policy overall. Unfortunately its timing makes no sense. You're not going to be buying anything with faith because the entire religious race depends on you saving those points for a prophet. So once again we've got a policy that does nothing for us until later on. Ok, we could try to race for Hagia Sophia and grab a Prophet there and then get to buy stuff early. Except that Tradition players are better wonder builders, likely to have better science, a bigger population, and everything that goes with that. They are better situated to grab the Prophet than the tree allegedly devoted to doing that.

+1 Faith per temple and shrine
Cute but the main implication here early game is that you should build one shrine instead of two because you can't afford more. So while the intent here is good, other than the fact that you can get by with fewer shrines it's not helping you all that much. It's slightly better later on when you can afford all those temples and shrines. But early? You are 80% better off with granaries, water mills, and other buildings that actually benefit the city rather than just allow you to break even (if even that). Moreover, this isn't helping you with steles, it's not boosting Stonehenge, its not boosting Desert Folklore or Aurora, it's not increasing the Celt bonus from forests. So the best ways you would enter and sustain a religious race are not even covered by the policy that supposedly gives a lead in the religious race. Far from doing that, I'd argue, what this policy really is (early on at least) is a Hail Mary bid that is only useful if you've resigned yourself to the fact that you can't possibly win the religious race because of an unlucky start/Ethiopa or the Celts are around and are trying to at least grab the 4th or 5th religion before they are all gone.



10% gold from temples and +3 gold per holy site.
LOL at the holy site until later on. See comments about the entire point of the religious race above.

As for the temples, they are already costing us -2 gold. Someone else did the math and came up with a city needing +20gpt just to break even with this policy. Basically all you are getting here is a tiny discount on the gold cost of temples, and not even one that contributes in any meaningful way until much later in the game.


Religious tolerance.
Not only in this policy terrible, it may actually be the worst policy in the game. Situational doesn't begin to cover it. It's so terrible not just because it is bad in general (which it is), but because it actually runs completely counter to the goals of the Piety tree--building a strong religion and eliminating your opponents'. The implication of this power is that you are a non-Faith player who has resigned to letting the stronger religious civs take you over religiously, but you hope to hold on to part of your pantheon bonus, ie the exact opposite of what Piety is all about.


Reformation Belief
Ok finally something decent. That you just 4 burned highly questionable policies to get to. And only one and one half of which has in any way, up to this point in the game, likely contributed anything to your empire.

I want to give you another way of looking at some of these policies. Maybe you'll see some use in them:

50% reduction in build time for shrines and temples.
For early game, this is best used for getting shrines built in your cities. Temples are not needed early game to get a religion. Shrines in a couple of cities should be more than enough. Why would you build a temple that adds +2 maintenance when you are already starved for gold? The faster build times on temples is best used later, and is even better if you pick a belief that enhances the template (i.e. +2 happiness or culture to the temple). Faster temple build times means you get those faster.

Also, this belief is great for civs with unique temple buildings (i.e. Songhai, Egypt).

+1 Faith per temple and shrine
This is a huge boost to faith production. A couple of cities with shrines almost ensure you get an early religion, and enhance much faster. All the added faith also means you can buy faith-bought buildings earlier (giving you their benefits earlier), buy missionaries faster (to spread your religion earlier), and help accumulate a larger faith mountain for late game. Piety is best used with wide empires, and this extra faith generation will add up.

You have to remember that religion is a contest in this game. This +2 faith gives you an edge over civs who do not take it.

10% gold from temples and +3 gold per holy site.
Definitely a weak policy. Usually the last one I take when using Piety. The 10% adds very little. The +3 gold on holy sites is ok. If you plan on planting holy sites, the +3 gold can start to add up a lot. It doesn't seem like this policy was added to help with gold problems in the early game. It's just a little boost for mid-late game gold.

This policy looks a little better when you play as Songhai, and have no maintenance on temples to start.

Religious tolerance.
Yea, agreed that this policy sorta sucks too. It can also be incredibly powerful, but the concept behind this policy means that you do not have control over it's usage. Obviously, this policy works best when you have neighbor civs who are pursuing a religion (hopefully they pick a good pantheon). Eventually in a game, you're cities will start to see this take affect as rival religions spread.

I think changing this policy to allow you to select a 2nd pantheon is too powerful. Maybe if they made it so that you can select a 2nd pantheon from ones that were already picked by a civ, that would be ok (AKA religious tolerance for existing religions).

Reformation Belief
A good policy, depending on what reformations you can choose. I personally don't like most of the reformations and think they are weak. Still a good policy though.

Finally, consulates is OP and should be nerfed or moved to later in the tree.
 
The piety opener needs to provide faith when it's taken. Anything short of that is awful when compared to the other openers, which directly provide culture. Someone opening piety should actually have a better shot at getting their ideal pantheon, which is definitely not the case now.
 
The piety opener needs to provide faith when it's taken. Anything short of that is awful when compared to the other openers, which directly provide culture. Someone opening piety should actually have a better shot at getting their ideal pantheon, which is definitely not the case now.

uh...yea it does get you a pantheon faster. Faster build time on shrine means you start producing faith sooner, which means you get pantheon sooner.
 
Religious tolerance can be controlled by trade routes. It might a little too micro intensive and situational for some, but you can make it work so that the second pantheon in each city is the one you would really want there. I agree its not the strongest policy in the tree, but thats why it leads to reformation.

And consulates needs to be nerfed or pushed further down the tree...it is a no brainer every game.
 
Religious tolerance can be controlled by trade routes. It might a little too micro intensive and situational for some, but you can make it work so that the second pantheon in each city is the one you would really want there. I agree its not the strongest policy in the tree, but thats why it leads to reformation.

And consulates needs to be nerfed or pushed further down the tree...it is a no brainer every game.

I had thought of that in one game as Indonesia, where I wanted as many religions as possible with my Candi. The strategy worked for the Candi, but not for Religious Freedom because it only takes the pantheon of the #2 religion. A pretty easy-to-program buff would be to make it apply to ALL religions with a citizen, and have it work even if there's no majority religion. It'd still be relatively underpowered I think, but being able to then manipulate it with trade routes to get the right pantheon would be a huge buff. It also makes sense: if you've encouraged religious freedom, then ALL minority religions benefit, not just the second religion, and even when there's no majority religion.
 
Top Bottom