Policies -- A preemptive discussion

ExpiredReign

Deity
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,450
Location
Tasmania
Policies are to be the next big discussion point but before Thal sets the agenda for that I thought I might get us thinking about the Tradition finisher.

As the Alpha thread shows there appears to be a bug in the Firaxis code that prevents us from using Unique aqueducts that modify the <FoodKept> value in the database.

This means the Tradition finisher grants a Unique aqueduct to ANY civ regardless of the actual building it requires.

Therefore the options seem to be:
1) Change the finisher to grant something else or
2) Modify the UBs affected to be different in some other way or
3) Rewrite the code in the DLL to allow these UBs to exist

So lets have at it. Lay down your ideas and get the creative juices flowing.
 
Well, regarding...

3) Possible, but it's very work heavy and with DLL's, it's best when the basic version don't require them. Since the bug needs to be removed anyways as it's a very visible one, let's avoid it completely instead.
2) It's possible to limit our abilities here, but uniques are fun and I'd rather change the policy which isn't as sexy to me personally anyways than the civs. That's subjective of course. So let's go with
1) a new effect for the finisher. It's easy to do, only changes one thing (instead of several uniques across various civs) and thus will lead to the least bugs I assume. There are quite a few other possibilities her anyways. I don't want to propose anything in particular though.
 
I agree with mitsho that the basic mod version shouldn't require a DLL rewrite (at least in the short run). We can even hope that Firaxis fixes the Aqueduct finisher bug. ;-) With regard to UB modifications vs. finisher change: The stated aim of the Communitas Expansion Pack is to "remain[...] as close to the core experience as possible"; therefore I'd rather change the UB for two civilizations than change a policy finisher which affects all civiliations.
 
At this point the aqueducts on the tradition finisher seems fine.

I'd rather see if we can't make these two unique ones into a different building class to avoid the conflict. Unique granaries might be an option?
 
It's not the building class that's the problem. The C++ code indicates that it checks all buildings with a FoodKept value.


Spoiler :
PHP:
//	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/// Find the non-wonder building that provides the highest culture at the least cost
BuildingTypes CvCity::ChooseFreeFoodBuilding() const
{
	BuildingTypes eRtnValue = NO_BUILDING;
	int iNumBuildingInfos = GC.getNumBuildingInfos();
	CvWeightedVector<int, SAFE_ESTIMATE_NUM_BUILDINGS, true> buildingChoices;

	for(int iI = 0; iI < iNumBuildingInfos; iI++)
	{
		const BuildingTypes eBuilding = static_cast<BuildingTypes>(iI);
		CvBuildingEntry* pkBuildingInfo = GC.getBuildingInfo(eBuilding);
		if(pkBuildingInfo)
		{
			const CvBuildingClassInfo& kBuildingClassInfo = pkBuildingInfo->GetBuildingClassInfo();
			if(!isWorldWonderClass(kBuildingClassInfo) && !isNationalWonderClass(kBuildingClassInfo))
			{
				int iFood = pkBuildingInfo->GetFoodKept();
				int iCost = pkBuildingInfo->GetProductionCost();
				if(iFood > 0 && iCost > 0)
				{
					int iWeight = iFood * 10000 / iCost;

					if(iWeight > 0)
					{
						buildingChoices.push_back(iI, iWeight);
					}
				}
			}
		}
	}

	if(buildingChoices.size() > 0)
	{
		buildingChoices.SortItems();
		eRtnValue = (BuildingTypes)buildingChoices.GetElement(0);
	}

	return eRtnValue;
}
 
Question: Why doesn't it add a Medical Lab then? Is it because it has a lower food kept value? Or does the stacking work differently? If it doesn't awar one because of prerequisites, the solution is simple. I don't think it works like that, but I thought the thought is worthwhile to post :)

And I still rather have another tradition finisher... :)
 
Probably because the code takes into account the build cost and the FoodKept / Build Cost ratio isn't high enough to overtake the aqueduct.
 
The building class is the cause of the Food Kept modifiers being involved in the first place yes? Since they are aqueducts, then increasing the food kept modifier on top of the standard makes them too high and triggers a bug.

If you use some other building class instead of an aqueduct, then unique effects like bonus food on rivers or such could be reserved and used without incident, and it could have a very low food kept modifier added on if it adds that surplus to say a garden or granary. Or it could provide some other effect like surplus food/food bonuses that wouldn't conflict at all.
 
I only mentioned the DLL option because, whilst not desirable at the moment, it is an option.

Let's not get bogged down with the how to fix the building bug but rather look for viable options. We can always come back to this later and readjust if another better solution presents itself, but at the moment it is a bit of a game breaker.

For what its worth I agree with @Mitsho. Changing the finisher is the easiest solution and personally the current finisher is a bit, meh!

The pedia describes it as "good for small" empires which I take as meaning going TALL.
So the opener and Legalism give your :c5culture: a boost, - +3:c5culture: in capital & free :c5culture: buildings.
The finisher and Landed Elite focus on your growth, - 15% overall & 10% with +2:c5food: in the capital. (not including the buggy aqueducts)
Monarchy gives +1 :c5gold: & -1:c5unhappy:
Oligarchy makes your garrisons 50% better at ranged combat.
Aristocracy gives +15%:c5production: & +1:c5happy: per 10 :c5citizen:

Since Landed Elite already gives a good boost to growth the finisher could easily be changed to boost something else, like :c5production: or even :c5science:

Changing the finisher then only removes a 15% boost in growth and changing the building to suit the tone.
Landed Elite could also be changed to grant a small empire wide growth boost, and a reduction in the capital boost to compensate if desired.
 
If the new Migration system is strong I could imagine putting in a defense against that in the finisher. Flavourful, but not too strong or active. Even if it doesn't make the most sense (shouldn't people flock to the liberty-civs?), it kinda does (stay in the big strong cities).

As for the Unique Buildings, I'd rather lower the food kept value a bit, but add an additional 1 :c5food: as a workaround than change the building type.
 
If the new Migration system is strong
Whatnow? Migration system? I know they were planning to add the migration system mod for the American UA (which I don't think is a good idea, it's not fun to lose population, it would be simpler to model by just giving you food from international trade routes) but I didn't see anything about adopting a migration system that affects other civs. That seems like a big change away from vanilla.

We already had a significant amount of discussion about policy trees.
eg
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505047
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505960
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505023
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505241
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505016

So we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

I think the main conclusions for Tradition were:
a) take the faster culture expansion off the opener, and put it in the tree or the finisher.
b) The free aqueducts should require the tech, it's too powerful to get aqueducts in the early game (and with a single city you can power through the whole policy tree very quickly).
c) Mixed views on whether we need 2 growth boosting policies or whether they should be merged
d) Oligarchy too weak, though views were mixed on whether it needed a change.
e) No need for free culture buildings, you can already get policies very fast, monuments are cheap, and free ampitheaters are not very useful.

Here was one alternative design proposal:
So how about:
Opener: +3 culture in capital, enables hanging gardens, +1 culture on ampitheater, opera house, museum.
Aristocracy: +15% wonder production, +1 culture per world wonder.
Landed elite: +2 food in the capital, free aqueduct in first 4 cities (when tech is available)
Monarchy: +1 gold and -1 unhappy for every 2 citizens in the capital.
Legalism: Faster border expansion and ???free culture on some culture buildings???
Oligarchy: free maintenance for garrisoned units and and +50% ranged strength in cities with garrisons.
Finisher: +15% surplus food in all cities. Great engineers purchased with Faith in industrial era.

In regards to the main question in the OP, I think we can live with 2 civs not getting their UB if they go Tradition. That's probably a smaller problem than causing crashes if people have other mods active, which I presume is the result of changing the dll? Alternatively we could change those civs.
But it would also be fine to drop the free aqueduct and have a single growth boosting policy, we could then something that boosted production in your first 4 cities. The combination of Landed Elite and the finisher is a big part of what makes Tradition more powerful than Liberty or Honor.
 
Whatnow? Migration system? I know they were planning to add the migration system mod for the American UA (which I don't think is a good idea, it's not fun to lose population, it would be simpler to model by just giving you food from international trade routes) but I didn't see anything about adopting a migration system that affects other civs. That seems like a big change away from vanilla.

I don't think they lose population (since as you point out, it's not fun). I don't know, I haven't played yet. But I was looking at the github files some times ago trying to understand the thing a bit more, and some comments / files regarding migration caught my eye there. So I assumed that migration may be for everyone, but better for the Americans, also because the new leader files mention "better" migration for the Americans :)

But I guess that belongs to another thread and someone to play the civ :)

I'm not sure that you can just relate to these other threads and call it a day. First the discussion is ongoing (and claiming consensus is highly suspicious of trying to steer the debate somewhere, you gatekeeper ;)), but mostly this topic asks another question mainly regarding the finisher vs. unique buildings one. And that one hasn't been debated, that's for sure :)
 
Aside from fixing the tradition bug its going to be really important to get rid of the dud policies or remove the requirements for taking dud policies in honor, commerce, exploration, aesthetics and rationalism.

It pains me greatly every time i'm forced to pick wagon trains to complete commerce because its so weak and land trade routes are so inferior to sea routes after you get harbor.
 
Yes we have had policy discussions already (and weren't they great:)).

The main reason I raised the question was because of the finisher bug.

Some users who have played as India really liked the UB so just dropping or modifying it to fit the Tradition finisher shouldn't be done lightly.

To me, changing the policy was a preferred option, so it is just a case of testing the waters.

And just to clarify, I don't believe making a DLL is really an option to take. At least not by just one mod. I would though love to see a community wide DLL that incorporates all the mods now on the forum. Then we can just call the functions as needed. But that's another topic.

@ahirman
I like your idea about the Hanging Gardens being a part of the opener, fits nicely I think.
Also maintenance free garrisons isn't bad either.
No aqueducts though.
 
I really do hope migration is limited to the American UA and hasn't been made universal. It's a gigantic change to vanilla and one which isn't inherently more balanced or better, just different, which goes against the entire ethos of the mod.
 
No aqueducts though.
I'm fine with removing free aqueducts (and having a single growth boosting policy) if something else powerful is there. Honestly the free aqueducts is a huge part of the power of Tradition, and I think we want to be increasing the power of weak trees/policies rather than bringing down the strong ones.
 
Maybe having free walls somewhere in the tradition tree might be an idea? Maybe that could strengthen oligarchy? Or maybe instead of free aqueducts, the finisher gives free walls?

I also think Tradition is stronger than Liberty or Honor. The solution is to strengthen Liberty and Honor, not weaken Tradition. Maybe something in Honor to help with unit maintenance. Also better unit production in Honor would help (and not just melee units). More production in the Liberty tree (instead of +1 and 5% for buildings would be nice), and definitely more happiness is needed in Liberty.
 
Unit upkeep makes more sense as a later game effect for conquest empires, when units would be more expensive anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom