City Development

[Thalassicus]

You're right that Landed Elite could be put on any tier.

The thing is... the Civ policy trees don't work the same as WoW talent trees. Placement on the grid has no gameplay significance. The only restriction to get higher tier policies is the prerequisites, and if I just remove those, everything in Tradition becomes tier 1. Since the UI limits trees to 3 policies per tier, at least two policies must have prerequisites.

Something else to point out is Piety can be unlocked with only two techs: Animal Husbandry -> Sanitation. We do of course get luxury-unlocking techs first, but after that Sanitation is not far away at all. I think Aqueducts are useful for culture games, though I typically play conquest, so I can't say for sure.


===========

There's two ways to think about value:

• Absolute: is it useful to ever get X, or not at all?
• Timing: when is getting X most useful?

We can break down timing into four basic periods:

1. Immediate
2. Early
3. Later
4. Never

Absolute always/never is a subset of this: "always" is any of the first three categories, while "never" is the last. Freedom tree fits into the "immediate" category for cultural victories (25% policy reduction), while Autocracy tree is "never." Most policies, trees, buildings, and wonders fall between these extremes.

One of my primary balance goals is for buildings and policies to generally fall into the "early" or "later" categories, and the order to depend on circumstances. If we get the policies (and policy trees) in the same order every game there's not much decision-making involved.


I'm more familiar with conquest games so I'll give an example from there. If we start off very close to other players (10-20 tiles) then the Honor tree is best early, with Liberty later (conquer then expand). On the other hand... if we start farther from other players, then Liberty is best early, with Honor later (expand then conquer).

We can further break down individual policy choices depending on circumstances:

• If we're fighting against an opponent with a weak military presence or UUs, we can skip the left and right sides of the Honor tree. In contrast, if we're faced up against a strong army (like Greece) it's valuable to get the combat bonuses.
• If our capital site is weak or there's a strong spot near an AI, it's useful to get Collective Rule first and quick expand. In contrast, if our capital site is very strong it's valuable to get Citizenship and Representation first to get the policy cost reduction.

My goal with culture games is similar to that of conquest games. I want the order of filling out trees to differ in a significant way from game to game, and also for the paths in the trees to change depending on circumstances.

I'm not as familiar with culture games so feedback in this regard is helpful.

 

[Stalker0]

My goal with culture games is similar to that of conquest games. I want the order of filling out trees to differ in a significant way from game to game, and also for the paths in the trees to change depending on circumstances.

I haven't gotten to play on the very latest beta builds, but I've done a lot of culture games on the mod.

Here's my general take on the scenario:

1) Tradition - You are always going to take this for cultural victory, and early. The free GA gives you a massive bump and from there you get a lot of nice benefit.

2) Liberty - Went from a nice tree to a must have tree for me in my culture games. One is that honor is not that useful for a culture win so I need another tree to fill. The other is that liberty has a few very nice benefits. Representation even on only 4 cities still gives a lot of bang for the buck, and a +1 culture when multiplied several times provides a lot of culture over the course of the game.

I also enjoy the early settler for the kick start.

3) Piety - A must have tree, though when I take what policies varies a lot for me right now. Sometimes I want to finish up some of the nice tradition policies...and then as freedom opens up I tend to move over to freedom to fill it out.

4) Rationalism - I've tried a few games to see if the science rate made enough difference to give up piety. In short....it doesn't. Rationalism as is will never make the cut in a competitive culture victory.

5) Freedom - Must have tree for culture. I always beeline for 100% culture with world wonders and 25% less policy cost. After that, my choices vary in the tree.

6) Patronage - As time has gone by, this is more and more becoming a default culture tree for me.

Main reasons: Culture city states are getting better and better. You can apply multipliers to them...and I can funnel most of the culture into my capital (which is almost always my cultural center) and that generates a lot of extra money.

As such, the money I save on city state bribes is actually quite extensive. Second is that the allied science benefit for a small civ is actually extremely high. For a good portion of the game, city states can carry me on science and allow me to keep tech pace while gaining massive culture.

And last is that the great people benefit means the chance for more artists. Artists generate some of the best culture, though its a gamble on what you get.

7) Commerce - I've been playing around with commerce, but as I mentioned I've been shifting more to patronage instead. Patronage gets me less money than commerce...but patronage gives me culture, money (from less bribes) and a lot of science. That's hard to pass up. So I generally get a little commerce for the 25% cheaper buys, and then ignore it until late in the game in favor of patronage benefits.

8) Autocracy - Can't take freedom, so this tree never enters a culture game. Even if you could take it with freedom, it has no culture benefits.

9) Honor - While it has some culture benefits, Liberty provides more...and I never feel I need honor to defend myself militarily.

10) Order - By the time I get order, I really don't need the benefits. I've build the buildings I need to build, and the only real thing I like about order is united front to help me continue to secure cultural city states. But I can do that with heavier patronage, and generally at this point I want to fill out tradition, patronage, or liberty.


So in summary, my default culture trees are: Tradition, Liberty, Piety, Freedom, Patronage, Commerce.

 

[Ahriman]

The thing is... the Civ policy trees don't work the same as WoW talent trees. Placement on the grid has no gameplay significance. The only restriction to get higher tier policies is the prerequisites, and if I just remove those, everything in Tradition becomes tier 1. Since the UI limits trees to 3 policies per tier, at least two policies must have prerequisites.

I don't see the problem.
I don't have all the names in front of me, but the current design has:
A, B and C in the first tier
D and E in the second tier.

B is Aristocracy, C is Oligarchy, D is Landed Elite.

Why not just make it so that D just requires A, and E just requires C?

Liberty - Went from a nice tree to a must have tree for me in my culture games

To me, this indicates design failure of the tree.

One is that honor is not that useful for a culture win so I need another tree to fill

This in particular indicates design failure. When Tradition is designed for the culture victory user, then Tradition should be the tree for that player. They should just go up Tradition, and then piety. They should not be forced to fill a second of the first 3 trees. The trees should be designed such that they *want* to go up Tradition.

 

[Txurce]

I haven't gotten to play on the very latest beta builds, but I've done a lot of culture games on the mod...

So in summary, my default culture trees are: Tradition, Liberty, Piety, Freedom, Patronage, Commerce.

My best game - 221 turns on Emperor - was without Rationalism, but half-assed use of Liberty. I may well try a game with Rationaism but no Liberty as an experiment. The potential upside would be getting to the late culture techs early enough to make use of them. Without strong enough pop growth for science, I sometimes don't make it there.

This in particular indicates design failure. When Tradition is designed for the culture victory user, then Tradition should be the tree for that player. They should just go up Tradition, and then piety. They should not be forced to fill a second of the first 3 trees. The trees should be designed such that they *want* to go up Tradition.

I don't think anyone is saying Tradition is not the primary tree for a Culture win. But in my opinion you're off when you say someone should "just go for Tradition, then Piety," and that the tree should be designed such that one wants to go go (straight) up Tradition. Civ should be - and is - a lot more circumstantial than that. Seek and I had very consistent results (within 20 turns of each other in 5 games) playing India with a reasonable variety of approaches.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm in favor of optimal strategy being different depending on circumstances and the desired goal to be achieved. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Currently, it seems to be worth taking Liberty policies no matter the circumstances or desired goal. A policy tree about wide empires and rapid expansion shouldn't also be very good for a strategy focused on very limited expansion.

I guess my worry is: the flipside of optimal strategy depending on circumstances and the desired goal, is that it means there shouldn't be policies and strategies that work well in every circumstance.

Maybe the problem is not with Liberty, but is that the Tradition policies don't give a big enough gain in the short-term for following a limited expansion approach? Is there any way that we could change some of the Tradition policies to be short-term oriented, but powerful only for a civ with few cities?

Maybe +% production in capital? Or +hammers per pop in the capital? Or something similar?

 

[Txurce]

Currently, it seems to be worth taking Liberty policies no matter the circumstances or desired goal. A policy tree about wide empires and rapid expansion shouldn't also be very good for a strategy focused on very limited expansion.

Maybe the problem is not with Liberty, but is that the Tradition policies don't give a big enough gain in the short-term for following a limited expansion approach?

Keep in mind that neither Stalker0 nor myself value Liberty very highly in our Cultural games. It's just better than 4 or 5 other trees. If only 5 trees were required, I may well not take it.

I've historically started with Tradition when going for Science wins (as well as Cultural ones). With the buff to Liberty, I now split the difference - but that's as it should be. Again, my point here is that I'm not so sure Liberty is universally desirable. It may be the most flexible tree... but one of them has to be.

 

[Seek]

Again, my point here is that I'm not so sure Liberty is universally desirable. It may be the most flexible tree... but one of them has to be.

This. My responses yesterday were based on the notion you (Ahriman) had that the other early trees were undesirable for a cultural game. *I* find Liberty makes for a solid start with most games, but I'm not sure that it's always better to take it. I was simply outlining my playstyle: If I find a good strat, I like to share!

Anyhow, I like the idea for production per pop (maybe 1 per 3?) in the capital for Tradition. This could replace the wonder bonus.

 

[Txurce]

Anyhow, I like the idea for production per pop (maybe 1 per 3?) in the capital for Tradition. This could replace the wonder bonus.

But I love the Wonder bonus! Unless of course you mean a production buff equivalent to a progressive manufactory.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Stalker0, Seek, Txurce
You mentioned the order you take policies varies, could you explain this further? In what circumstances do you pick one policy route over another?

I don't see the problem.

A, B and C in the first tier
D and E in the second tier.

Why not just make it so that D just requires A, and E just requires C?

The prereq requirement is not a problem, I was just pointing out we do need at least 2 prerequisite links. Your suggestion is a great idea.

Currently, it seems to be worth taking Liberty policies no matter the circumstances or desired goal.

When Tradition is designed for the culture victory user, then Tradition should be the tree for that player. They should just go up Tradition, and then piety. They should not be forced to fill a second of the first 3 trees. The trees should be designed such that they *want* to go up Tradition.

What I was trying to explain about the two types of value is this is the "absolute value" way of analyzing things, which is a subset of "timing value." There's a big difference between immediate and late timing that's overlooked if viewed only as "always." I might not be explaining this very well... but I think it's the same point Txurce and Seek are making.

In other words it's helpful to discuss it as immediate-early-late-never instead of always/never, because the order we get policies in matters.

• Your goal: always fill out tradition immediately and piety later.
• My goal: fill out parts of tradition/liberty/piety in an order that depends on circumstances.

I feel the second option gives us more strategic decision-making opportunities.


Along these lines... I want to arrange the bonuses in the Tradition tree so it has flexibility like I described for Liberty and Honor. I'm not sure how to do this best, though.

• One way is for some policies better for "close to other civs," and other policies better for "far from others." The garrison bonus clearly fits into the first category, while the world wonder bonus fits in the second. (Building lots of wonders in Civ games always seems to be an invitation for an AI to declare war.)
• Another way could be distinguishing between "good second-city locations" and "good capital," similar to how Liberty's two sides work. These are the free settler and free worker, respectively. Capital bonuses would fall in the second category, but I'm not sure what could be in the first category.
• ???

 

[Txurce]

@Stalker0, Seek, Txurce
You mentioned the order you take policies varies, could you explain this further? In what circumstances do you pick one policy route over another?

If you're being anal about making use of as many chosen policies as possible, then starting with Liberty makes sense, so as to maximize the policy-cost reducer. But then Tradition's not being optimized. So you might pick Tradition + (GA SP) to rack up enough culture that entering Liberty late won't hurt you. This makes sense... but I'll bet it's not how Seek does it. And it's not what I do if I decide to roll the dice for a GE and Stonehenge. All of this is affected by variables like +30 culture from a ruin, etc.

From there the choices really become circumstantial. Gunning through Piety when available makes sense, except with regard to saving the last SP for either the end of the game (knocking off two worthless ones) or earlier when two SP's may blast you into Freedom, for example. Or do you use it to work your way to Scholasticism as quickly as possible before Freedom's available? Then there's Commerce, usually a "dip in when nothing better's available." But I can see a case where circumstances lead me to think Patronage won't help that much, and I take Rationalism instead. In this case, the sooner the better for its benefits, but they're only useful in reaching Broadcast Towers and Cristo Redentor much faster.

 

[Busdriver]

Right now the GE is one of the biggest draws of Tradition for me. If anything in tradition is worth changing, it is either Aristocracy (though it has really grown on me since I was complaining about it. I think the choice between temples and early GE is one of the most interesting early game decisions), or Landed Elite. My problem with landed elite is that +15% surplus food requires working a ton of food to be comparable to Republic. Since 2 allows you to work 3, I would compare 12 to 2.33. In order to get this bonus from LE, you need to be working about 16 surplus . This is a lot of food to be working. I think maybe LE should switch to something like a 5 or 10% bonus to all food. This would be more beneficial to bigger cities and would allow them to actually grow larger rather than just allowing them to grow faster, which I think is more fitting for Tradition. I realize that I haven't mentioned the 1 bonus to specialists, but in my experience this hasn't made a huge difference in my , since there simply aren't enough specialists available until later in the game (I still like the idea of adding more specialists slots to early buildings with a policy, if only it were possible).

 

[Txurce]

Right now the GE is one of the biggest draws of Tradition for me. If anything in tradition is worth changing, it is either Aristocracy (though it has really grown on me since I was complaining about it. I think the choice between temples and early GE is one of the most interesting early game decisions), or Landed Elite.

My problem with landed elite is that +15% surplus food requires working a ton of food to be comparable to Republic. I think maybe LE should switch to something like a 5 or 10% bonus to all food. This would be more beneficial to bigger cities and would allow them to actually grow larger rather than just allowing them to grow faster, which I think is more fitting for Tradition.

I realize that I haven't mentioned the 1 bonus to specialists, but in my experience this hasn't made a huge difference in my , since there simply aren't enough specialists available until later in the game (I still like the idea of adding more specialists slots to early buildings with a policy, if only it were possible).

I agree with the first two points. That extra science is significant with a fully worked NC approach + libraries everywhere approach.

 

[Ahriman]

How about switching the +15% stored food to a larger bonus, but only in the capital, or only in the largest 2 or 3 cities?

The +1 science is near useless in the early game, but it would give a policy like that some staying power value in the midgame.

I am fine with leaving the effect of Aristocracy *if* we aren't forced to choose it prematurely in order to access the second tier Tradition policies.

 

[Ahriman]

Something I'm finding odd in the latest version; the workshop replacement building (smithy?) is inferior to the windmill replacement building (workshop?), which has higher tech requirements. They give the same bonus but the latter is not on hills and only works for buildings.

 

[Thalassicus]

In vanilla the buildings-only version is even worse I think. I buffed them to be a little closer... considered changing it more... not sure. The real point of the Renaissance one is just to counterbalance the advantages of hill tiles.

It's a subject I have a lot of flexibility about if you think the Renaissance one should be buffed, or the Medieval one nerfed... which shall it be? Perhaps changing them in a more fundamental way?

 

[Txurce]

In vanilla the buildings-only version is even worse I think. I buffed them to be a little closer... considered changing it more... not sure. The real point of the Renaissance one is just to counterbalance the advantages of hill tiles.

It's a subject I have a lot of flexibility about if you think the Renaissance one should be buffed, or the Medieval one nerfed... which shall it be? Perhaps changing them in a more fundamental way?

Keep the upcoming path in mind when you consider this. I would tilt toward buffing the Renaissance, if only because in a close call the fun factor should prevail.

 

[Ahriman]

In vanilla the buildings-only version is even worse I think.

I thought that in vanilla the workshop (that boosts production for everything) had a 10% bonus while the windmill (that boosts buildings) had a 15% bonus.
In your mod, you boosted the general production one (correctly IMO), but you did not boost the bulidings-only one. I think you should boost the windmill replacement up to at least 20%.

But I might be wrong here, I am not certain.

Certainly though a later-tech building that has more restrictions should not be inferior.

I would tilt toward buffing the Renaissance, if only because in a close call the fun factor should prevail.

I agree. One of the best things about TBC is that it supports tall empires and city specialization by increasing the percentage bonus of buildings.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Any opinion on allowing Observatories in cities that have a mountain inside the cultural borders instead of having to be actually NEXT to a mountain?

 

[Thalassicus]

We can say "it needs that mountain requirement" but not change how the requirement works. It's controlled in the c++ part of the code we don't have access to.

 

[Ahriman]

I think it is fine to have a reward for having a mountain adjacent to your city. When you build a city you get 6 free tiles; having one or more of those as a mountain hurts you, because the tile is useless but you are forced to waste a slot on it. Having mountains just "nearby" (ie not in your free 6 tiles) doesn't hurt so much, because your cultural expansion will hardly ever capture those tiles.