10 Fixes Needed for the Fall Patch

Here are a few options I like:

Opener) In addition to half off the build time, shrines (and temples) give +1 culture

I think this is reasonable, as you'll probably have a shrine up shortly before or after that first policy. It's +1 culture/city, like liberty, but unlike liberty, you have the maintenance cost and you have to build it. So, it's slightly disadvantageous. But it works for both tall and wide in the sense that you were mostly likely going to build a shrine anyway. This provides one of the three key missing elements in Piety... Culture.


Second Policy) Choose a free additional pantheon

This serves a double purpose. It guarantees you a pantheon no later than turn 40, usually by turn 30. This is early enough even on Deity to get you the second or third pantheon. (Unless an AI also opens Piety)

It also allows you to supplement culture. One pantheon for faith, another for culture. But it's more flexible. You could take two food pantheons, or whatever. I like this one because it's very flexible.

This one might be better as a third policy just because it's so powerful people might abandon Piety right after it, ala Consulates. (with a monument and no culture ruin, you'd get it around turn 45-50, so it would be too late to get a "good" pantheon, but still valuable)
 
The Tradition opener also has the border expansion bonus. No one really seems to care much about it though, like with Angkor Wat.

My vote is +2 faith and +2 culture, both boosted to +3 and moved to the Holy City when a religion is founded.

It's funny, I was playing around with a (modding) idea to remove Tradition entirely and put parts of it into the other ancient SPs. Moving the tradition opener to Piety was one of the thoughts floating around. Not that I'm saying Tradition should necessarily be removed from vanilla BNW.

The Tradition border expansion is actually incredibly powerful in my book. Without it I often have to spend gold on buying territory. The way Tradition messes with the multipliers is incredible, while Angkor Wat isn't nearly as effective and often comes a little too late for it to matter as much. That's why I agree that it wouldn't be a problem for Piety to output more Culture via the capitol. Methods of having the Shrine and Temple produce Culture just tend to compete with Liberty's Opener in some form, which I'm not sure I like.

I do like the idea of the Holy City improving a plus Faith & Culture in the capitol bonus though. That's nifty and seems appropriate. It also comes late enough where it can be balanced in that regard.
 
Holy crap you've lost your mind. Your opener is strictly better than the Tradition opener in EVERY way.

Haha, I have the feeling that many people just want Tradition to remain OP for wonderspaming of to just neglect other efficient options. Still tradition starter has the border cost cut by 25% that is no joke. Right now is the best opener hands down.

IMO piety should be the best culture favored from the starter policies. That's a start, you will finish the tree much sooner, and get the prophet and the benefits in time.
 
Okay, this thread is very much dedicated to the 'Piety' SoPo and my "Fall Patch Fix" proposal dosn't fit into the ongoing discussion very well.

Anyway, the thread itself seems to be the proper place to post, so:

I feel that unrest duration should be lowerd in two cases:

- No resistance at all, when a city flips due to to ideology effects.
The city should be "online" at once, as the citizen did choose freely to join your empire. Additionally, a large city with long resistance (and they usually ARE large lategame) is more of an obstruction than a benefit for your empire for a very long time. This should not be the case.

- Halved resistence time, when a city changes hands due to peace treaties.
After all, there is no siege involved, no plundering, no deads. Strategically, it is often more reasonable to keep on fighting, as the decreased population after capturing the city by force reduces the unrest times as well (in addition to lowered unhappiness). Halved resistence time would make those peace treaties more tasty to accept, especially if more than one city is offered.
(I am aware the fact that...
a) All buildings are intact in those cities, so accepting them in a treaty is better than conquering them. But still, the price seems to high; more buildings equal higher upkeep - which has to be payed for a longer time period.
b) Cities can be declined in treaties. But this might leave your opponent more powerful than necessary.
c) Cities can alwas be razed after the peace treaty to reduce unrest time and happiness mali. But personally, I like to keep the bigger part more often than not.)
 
- No resistance at all, when a city flips due to to ideology effects.
The city should be "online" at once, as the citizen did choose freely to join your empire. Additionally, a large city with long resistance (and they usually ARE large lategame) is more of an obstruction than a benefit for your empire for a very long time. This should not be the case.

Presumably the decision was not unanimous.
 
I would certainly agree that the resistance time should be lower than a conquered city - after all, at least SOME of the people in a flipped city wanted to be on your side.
 
I would certainly agree that the resistance time should be lower than a conquered city - after all, at least SOME of the people in a flipped city wanted to be on your side.
I don't think that would really lower the time of revolt though; it would just reduce the number of PEOPLE revolting.

Look at real-life examples. Jerusalem could be seen as having culture-flipped and it's basically still in revolt.
 
I'm not a fan of applying this solution to diplo victory, because I don't like that I can tactically vote to not give Alexander diplo victory, but Alex won't do the same with me.

That doesn't make any sense. Tactically voting against Greece simply means voting for yourself or not voting for Greece (why would anyone vote for anyone else?). Doesn't the AI always do that (vote for themselves)? What is it that you would want Greece to do?

A player should never vote to lose and should always vote not to let someone else win (yes, usually Greece).

DV needs to be revamped and while I understand the need to push it later to be on par with others, it's just one more thing that can make the game last too many turns. While the typical victory for good players is in the turn 240-270 range, it does make it more interesting that while you trying to get that last part/capital/influence, you have to deal with Greece and their overwhelming number of allies. Take that away from them and you have nerfed them, which is the opposite of what you should do to any AI. However, the fact that you have to prevent yourself from winning DV (purposely or accidentally) while pursuing other victories is wrong.
 
I don't think that would really lower the time of revolt though; it would just reduce the number of PEOPLE revolting.

Look at real-life examples. Jerusalem could be seen as having culture-flipped and it's basically still in revolt.

Let's not bring the Middle-East into any discussion involving computer games, ever, thanks.
 
I also hope they fix the damned map scripts. Never again do I want to see those fornicating inland seas that are seperated from the ocean by one or two tiles. I usually just abandon the game when I find out my capital or another large coastal city (i.e. intended main trade hub) is on the coast of one of those things.
 
Top Bottom