About removing unique improvement-enhancing ideological tenets

[Hinin]

Hello everyone,

In this thread, I would like to talk about ideological tenets (so policies from Freedom, Order and Autocracy) that enhance unique improvements alongside other improvements, namely :
- Civil Society (Freedom) : Specialists consume 2 Food less than normal (minimum 1 Food). Farms, Plantations, Camps and all unique Improvements produce +4 Food;
- Five Year Plan (Order) : +20% Production towards all Buildings. Mines, Quarries, Lumber Mill, Oil Well and all unique Improvements produce +3 Production;
- Military-Industrial Complex (Autocracy) : -33% Gold cost for purchasing / upgrading Units. Defensive Buildings, Forts, Citadels and all unique Improvements produce +3 Science.

I, for one, would advocate for the removal of the three bonuses to unique improvements, for I do consider them balance nightmares when designing improvements : the yields brought by these tenet indeed do bring remarkable disparities in term of power level simply based on the spammability of a unique improvement, from highly spammable (Hunnic Eki, Shoshone Encampment) to rare (Mongolian Ordo).

I know why these bonuses where created in the first place: to make sure that the bonuses offered to improvements by tenets in order for them to be relevant in the endgame when compared to specialists and buildings don't disadvantage civilizations that must use space for their own unique improvements. This solution however, creates more problems than it solves : it not only makes ideologies quite reliant on terrain (which to me shouldn't be the case for such endgame, high stake elements when other, more controlable elements are already so defining for the choice of ideology), but also warps improvement balance too much to be looked at without thinking.

This is why I would like to discuss ways to replace these three effects. To me, the simplest solution would be to add new technology bonuses to all improvements present in these effects, and remove the bonuses from tenets: it would not only allow us to have a better grasp on the granularity of yield increase in the endgame, but would also give us the opportunity to better design unique improvement yields after the Industrial Era. That, of course, would require quite a lot of decision-making in the long run, but I wanted to ask about the opportunity of such changes in the first place to begin with.

Thanks for reading.

 

[KlHannibal2]

I see your points and fully agree about your assessment about balance. However, I would love to keep these tenets as they are. They are not good for balance, true. But they make ideology choices more interesting and less repetitive. Basically, these tenets change in value a lot between games based on your civ and terrain. In this case, paradoxically, less balance makes for more interesting choices IMO. Also, ideologies offer many tenets and you never take all of them.

If there is a change, I would like to keep the bonuses for unique improvements. But for example military industrial complex has all the science bonuses for autocracy. I would always take this tenet. If the UI bonus would go to an otherwise less useful tenet, that would make late game choices more varied IMO. And late game is much less varied than early game for a set victory condition.

 

[InkAxis]

I think it's a misinterpretation to say that they are bad for balancing because you are misinterpreting their use.

Ideology tenets are not policies.
This is very important.

For a policy in a policy tree, it *must* be taken to complete the tree. Meanwhile it is incredibly rare that every single tenet in a ideology is taken by a civ, in fact, you have to decide which tenets to take and which to not take.
This is part of the fun and balance of tenets, you pick and choose them based on your situation.
If every tenet was the same value in every situation, it would be very boring to choose them because the "choice" wouldn't matter as they are the same.

If a tenet is more/less powerful based on terrain, civ, etc. it creates more interesting choices because the player must adapt to their current situation. It creates a lot more depth.

 

[andersw]

In the case of Military-Industrial Complex somewhere around that time I tend to spam quite a lot of forts and should probably spam them even more.
5 science for a fort is great however forts are pretty garbage before this.
I didnt realise that it boosts uniques but I cant really say if the extra yields for them are so imbalanced.
So what do we mainly have (you cant really spam Portugals Feitora or am I wrong?):
China - does not connect resource
France Chateau - does not connect resource
Inca Terrace farm - does not connect resource
Hun Eki - removes resource below
Morocco Kasbah (Sharif don't like it) - connects resource
Maya Kuna - does not connect resource
Netherlands Polder - I forget, I think it connects resource
Polynesia Moai - does not connect resource
Shoshone Encampment - does not connect resource

Edit: this ofc also affect mod mods that have more UIs.
edit2: forgot kuna the UI of all UIs.
edit3: inca terrace farm

 

[pineappledan]

Unique improvements are already balanced against each other based on how easy/hard they are to place. An Ordo is much stronger than an Eki, and an extra 3 from Communism does little to change that.

If you remove the ideology bonus and then just replace it with an extra tech yield bonus, not much has changed. You have a bit more granularity for how many and what kinds of yields go on each UI, but it also means that the bonuses on the UIs never, ever change. Personally, I like how the ideologies each make it so your UIs give different bonuses based on what you have adopted.

 

[azum4roll]

It's not a balance issue for the tenets. It's an issue for the UIs. Now we simply can't have UIs with no placement restrictions, even if they only give the same yields as mines, because they'll all be boosted by one tenet and you're going to gain 3 per worked tile. These tenets only apply to a subset of improvements otherwise, which they're balanced upon.

 

[looorg]

By themselves they don't really do much. It's all a matter of how spammable the improvement is.

Farms are usually fairly spammable. But not really a good improvement to spam. While there are exceptions I never really find myself building large amounts of farms. Plantations and Camps require that you have a special resource so you can't really spam them. Mines, Quarries, Lumbermills and Wells are not really spammable either, for the same reasons.

So perhaps it's more the unique improvements then. Some of those are really spammable. Some have rules such as you can't place them next to each other while others don't. Or they require certain terrain or a resource of some kind to be built, either on or next to. Also then do they improve the resource or not. If it doesn't then the spammability goes down as you might want to connect the resource. So there is a random or luck aspect to it to -- did you get good land for your spammable improvement or not (are you inca and have lots of hills etc).

There are some really egregious once. I don't recall now if it's in 3&4 or main (since I always play with 3&4) but the chinese improvement can be built in every single tile. No requirements. No need to really build anything else. Just spam that sucker on every tile you can possibly find. It benefits greatly from whatever ideological tenent you then pick. Compared to say some civ with a unique improvement that have placement rules where +3 or +4 per tile really won't do much compared to +3 or +4 multiplied by more or less every single tile in your land. That adds up.

Also you have the once that use a lot of great people or all their great people to spam out unique improvements. Still it won't be as many. Not to mention you'll lose out in other aspects if you do that. But for some civs it's more or less viable.

So in that regard I don't think it's so much the bonus per the tile, it's just that some of the improvements are really spammable and really don't have any restrictions placed on them. That adds up. A lot.

Also changing the bonus from one tenet to a tech or to another tenet or ideological just moves them around. It doesn't really change anything. It just makes you pick a different one or go down a different path.

 

[andersw]

By themselves they don't really do much. It's all a matter of how spammable the improvement is.

Most are spammable but some are maybe a bit map dependant like moai and polders.
Even Kasbah max out at 6/city which is quite a lot.

 

[looorg]

Most are spammable but some are maybe a bit map dependant like moai and polders.
Even Kasbah max out at 6/city which is quite a lot.

Which once are there that you consider to be spammable and also good at being spammed? The only one of the basic once I can think of is the farm and that isn't very good to spam for large portions of the game. As noted a lot of them are quite dependent on the map (and luck). But at least a lot of them usually put you in a place where you can use a few of them, such as Maori usually being costal etc. Then you have a few of the more planning once such as the Kasbah, you have to consider where cities are placed so that eventually you can get a 6 Kasbah city. I find it quite rare to find those locations where they also fit into other aspects of the terrain or what would be considered ok placement. I think most of the cities I build are usually only good for like 3-4 Kasbah at best. Which still isn't bad.

Spamming farms is in that regard almost always bad. It might be good for the capital for a bit but for most of the cities you wouldn't want some kind of exponential pop growth as it just leads to happiness problems. At the very late stages of the games tho it usually doesn't matter and then you can do it and utterly crush the AI by your massive pop. But for the first say 3/4 of the game I would say it's kind of bad. So to get +x food on a farm tile is not something I look forward to in that regard.

But as noted I think it's China that have, or had, that improvement that you can practically spend/build on every single tile and it will be great. The map will look ridiculous but it will be great. Those like the Kasbah are a bit of a planning one tho as it will usually take an era or two before you can start to build them so initially you have to build some other improvements and then be prepared to eventually replace them. Something you really don't do very often I would say in general. Once an improvement is built it is usually what sticks for the rest of the game unless something (resource) is revealed at a later stage.

 

[andersw]

Which once are there that you consider to be spammable and also good at being spammed? The only one of the basic once I can think of is the farm and that isn't very good to spam for large portions of the game. As noted a lot of them are quite dependent on the map (and luck). But at least a lot of them usually put you in a place where you can use a few of them, such as Maori usually being costal etc. Then you have a few of the more planning once such as the Kasbah, you have to consider where cities are placed so that eventually you can get a 6 Kasbah city. I find it quite rare to find those locations where they also fit into other aspects of the terrain or what would be considered ok placement. I think most of the cities I build are usually only good for like 3-4 Kasbah at best. Which still isn't bad.

Spamming farms is in that regard almost always bad. It might be good for the capital for a bit but for most of the cities you wouldn't want some kind of exponential pop growth as it just leads to happiness problems. At the very late stages of the games tho it usually doesn't matter and then you can do it and utterly crush the AI by your massive pop. But for the first say 3/4 of the game I would say it's kind of bad. So to get +x food on a farm tile is not something I look forward to in that regard.

But as noted I think it's China that have, or had, that improvement that you can practically spend/build on every single tile and it will be great. The map will look ridiculous but it will be great. Those like the Kasbah are a bit of a planning one tho as it will usually take an era or two before you can start to build them so initially you have to build some other improvements and then be prepared to eventually replace them. Something you really don't do very often I would say in general. Once an improvement is built it is usually what sticks for the rest of the game unless something (resource) is revealed at a later stage.

Kuna, astronomy 5 science, archaelogy 7, 2 picks of rationalism 9(jungle), and then 12 with autocracy, science goes through the roof, (kuna spam usually means some sacrifice in hammers) 3-8/city could be doable in (see picture from old game I had available).
Ofc results may vary with terrain and requires good planning.

Spoiler :

Chateau and kasbah are really good ones that find a good amount of locations especially in the initial 5-6 cities.
But maybe Im biased because of playing pangea, some of these are maybe less spammable on communitas maps.
Terrace farm is good but "just" hammer and food.
Now 3 is maybe not considered spamming but when you go wide and get 3 for every city it adds up thats +9/city for the policy.
Im not sure its too much yields, Im just trying to point out the amount that can be built.

 

[pineappledan]

all UIs will get either 4 , 3 , or 3 with ideologies, and if their tech yields don’t account for that then they should. That’s not that much extra yields in total, and all UIs get at least 2 tech unlock yield boosts already.

Why should we remove a unique boost and then replace it with a boring boost of the same power?

 

[statusquo]

- Military-Industrial Complex (Autocracy) : -33% Gold cost for purchasing / upgrading Units. Defensive Buildings, Forts, Citadels and all unique Improvements produce +3 Science.

Maybe something like -1 Science if improvement is adjacent to another unique improvement..
That would keep the power or UI that are usually stand alone and remove power of those spammable ones?
The rationale could be that, those improvements that can cluster themselves kinda works as one big improvement, so tuning down could be a quick solution.
And yea Eki is best example of it, i remember my Science spike when i played with those

Or, maybe just add some yields to city square if unique improvement is in range like "up to three times" for example?
That would make a yield cap on some insane situations

 

[pineappledan]

Btw you can individually set the yields on each UI on each individual tenet. They are listed and defined separately in the yield table.

Have fun describing that coherently in the text description tho.

 

[Zuizgond]

It happens so late in the game I don't think it matters much.

 

[Hinin]

It happens so late in the game I don't think it matters much.

To me, that's more an issue with the age-old "blitz endgame", because yield inflation is still very much a thing.

Btw you can individually set the yields on each UI on each individual tenet. They are listed and defined separately in the yield table.

Have fun describing that coherently in the text description tho.

"Farms, Plantations and Camps produce +4 [IMG alt=""]https://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ5/food.png[/IMG] Food. Unique improvements produce more Food (amount may vary)."

Since the yields from policies are visible in the improvement help window, it should do the trick. With this, we can reduce the bonus for very spammable UIs, and keep at +4 it or even increase for rare UIs.

 

[Legen]

makes ideologies quite reliant on terrain

If a civ has a terrain-based UI, then chances are that the civ also has a terrain bias corresponding to that UI anyways.

warps improvement balance too much to be looked at without thinking

If its between different types of improvements, UI or not, then it's expected that the UI would be only behind a GPTI, and the Ideology most focused on GPTIs has a separate tenet boosting them (New Deal) by a larger margin than Civil Society boosts UIs.

If it's between different types of UIs, can't that be already balanced by whether the UI gets yields from late techs? More spammable UIs can simply lack those yields from late techs, while stricter ones can have benefits from one or more.

 

[azum4roll]

If it's between different types of UIs, can't that be already balanced by whether the UI gets yields from late techs? More spammable UIs can simply lack those yields from late techs, while stricter ones can have benefits from one or more.

That'll just force those UI owners to take those tenets to put their UI back to workable.

 

[Anarcomu]

That'll just force those UI owners to take those tenets to put their UI back to workable.

You are already sort of forced to do it anyway, spam-able UIs have so much to gain from this.

 

[pineappledan]

If regular improvements get the boost but UIs don’t, then you could make the UIs unworkable, because basic mines etc have surpassed them.

That is, unless you add that tech yield that Hinin suggested in the OP, in which case what’s the point?

 

[Rekk]

If regular improvements get the boost but UIs don’t, then you could make the UIs unworkable, because basic mines etc have surpassed them.

That is, unless you add that tech yield that Hinin suggested in the OP, in which case what’s the point?

It's simpler to give each improvement yields based on how prevalent they are expected to be this way, for one. Unless you're doing this to the tenet :

Unique improvements produce more Food (amount may vary)."