[Vote] (6-49) Unique Improvement Enhancements Reworks
- Thread starter Hinin
- Start date
- Status
so there is no issue with certain tenents being particularly good for certain civs. For example industry's +2 TRs is extremely good for portugal and ottomans.
So I don't mind that this tenent is particularly good for civs with UI...that's just how the game is played.
Now if we are intentionally nerfing UIs because of these the autocracy tenent than yeah that's a concern. (and realistically the only one I consider a possible issue is the science one, the food and prod ones....who cares at that point).
But takes Huns for example, they still aren't winning all that much, I don't think them getting a super science boost on this tenent is really an issue. probably the biggest offender might be china as they can spam their UI mightly....but order has a LOT of science bonuses and is very good for china....is autocracy's tenent SO good that I feel like I have to give up everything order gives me because I just have to have that tenent....eh I really don't think so.
So who are we really worried about here? What UI synergy is so good its breaking the bank?
Is it consistent with VP?
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,604
Yes, he created the Ordo, so he made all the decisions as to how it behaves: in this case, consistent with his other civilizations.
Last edited:
pineappledan
Deity
The ordo was created to be consistent with the old colonia UGPTI of the MoVenice. I was following a precedent set by base VP when I made it like that.
N.Core
1st Class of Neoa
Sponsored by me. But I need the details updated, also how the text will be if there are different yield bonuses?
There are missing details?
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,604
No, there's not a way to do that unless you pollute the "history" entry.
N.Core
1st Class of Neoa
The OP still said this:
And I thought it was still being discussed or not settled yet.
If it's settled, then you can mark it as sponsored.
@N.Core Marked as sponsored.
Optionally, list all improvement yields in the Civilopedia entries.
Use this wording for the text.The tenet could thus be worded like this :
- Civil Society (Freedom) : Specialists consume 2Food less than normal (minimum 1 Food). Farms, Plantations and Camps produce +4
- Five Year Plan (Order) : +20%Production towards all Buildings. Mines, Quarries, Lumber Mill and Oil Well produce +3
- Military-Industrial Complex (Autocracy) : -33%Gold cost for purchasing / upgrading Units. Defensive Buildings, Forts and Citadels produce +3
Science. Unique improvements produce bonus
Optionally, list all improvement yields in the Civilopedia entries.
Copy-paste civfanatics thing.
pineappledan
Deity
6-49 will create a text nightmare
6-49a removes all the yields with no compensation. In many cases this will make base improvements stronger than UIs. UIs, as a group, are already weaker than UBs, so this is unfathomably destructive.
6-49b is the only one of these proposals which even seems tenable, but even then all it manages to do is make these ideology tenets less interesting.
The balance of the UIs already factors in the boost from ideologies. This is not a balance concern. Any vote other than May is, at minimum, a vote to flatten and homogenize UIs.
6-49a removes all the yields with no compensation. In many cases this will make base improvements stronger than UIs. UIs, as a group, are already weaker than UBs, so this is unfathomably destructive.
6-49b is the only one of these proposals which even seems tenable, but even then all it manages to do is make these ideology tenets less interesting.
The balance of the UIs already factors in the boost from ideologies. This is not a balance concern. Any vote other than May is, at minimum, a vote to flatten and homogenize UIs.
How can you seriously say this? Giving each UI its own boosts (b) is just objectively less homogeneous than giving every UI +3 science (current, via tenet)
Anyway I voted for both a and b. B is of course the best. A is worse for balance, but it's still a step in the right direction for design, leaving room for future proposals to fix the balance.
pineappledan
Deity
The different yields that different ideologies give your UI might affect your decision about what to adopt. Different tenets means different yields on the UI, which means you can have different yields on the UI in different playthroughs of the same civ.
Civs with UBs already get different boosts from policies and beliefs. At minimum this makes UIs interact with policies in a novel way that UB civs take for granted.
Civs with UBs already get different boosts from policies and beliefs. At minimum this makes UIs interact with policies in a novel way that UB civs take for granted.
It's not a balance fix but rather a design fix. The UIs have to be balanced around the fact that they can get a big boost from tenets. For some UIs this means that they have to be weak without that tenet. This also means those civs can be more or less forced to take the UI booster tenet.
so the last statement to me is a non-issue, there are lot of policies that are highly optimized for certain civs. If you are a warmonger playing without authority, that's suboptimal. A trade civ without statecraft/industry, suboptimal. A UI focused civ without taking a UI boosting tenent...suboptimal.
Now to UIs themselves, do we have any actual UIs that are intentionally underpowered because these tenents exist? I can't think of any.
Which is bad, since there's no way to make UIs workable in late Renaissance/Industrial. It's a timing problem.
Just look at how sad Eki/Pata-Pata (and to an extent, Moai) yields are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
