Tradition-Honor; How often are they used on Deity

[Kaosprophet]

The problem is not with liberty, its a good tree but its not op. The others are just underpowered.

I wouldn't say liberty is game-breakingly OP, but I would disagree that it's not worth at least considering the possibility that it is somewhat OP.

But then, I guess that depends how you define OP as well. To me, if you can look at the bits of Tradition and say for most "this is good, but it's not *as good* as what liberty offers" then the problem likely lies with Liberty, not Tradition.

Also, things will change shifting from multi to single player; and the game does need to be balanced for both as best as possible.

 

[Ashwind]

Here is a thought. Why bother balancing for both? Have different rules.you are playing got a different purpose anyway.

 

[TheHanzou]

yeah thats true. They should balance only around multiplayer.

Why bother with balancing singleplayer, you can get away with anything vs the dumb ai. Multiplayer is the only part where balance actually matters.

 

[Kaosprophet]

yeah thats true. They should balance only around multiplayer.

Why bother with balancing singleplayer, you can get away with anything vs the dumb ai. Multiplayer is the only part where balance actually matters.

That way leads to ruin. If you're going to just throw away the SP part of the game, don't even bother putting it in - and make it obvious that you've done so, so the people looking for an SP game don't waste their money.

 

[JamesCivFan]

I wouldn't say liberty is game-breakingly OP, but I would disagree that it's not worth at least considering the possibility that it is somewhat OP.

But then, I guess that depends how you define OP as well. To me, if you can look at the bits of Tradition and say for most "this is good, but it's not *as good* as what liberty offers" then the problem likely lies with Liberty, not Tradition.

Also, things will change shifting from multi to single player; and the game does need to be balanced for both as best as possible.

But doesn't looking at every policy of each tree and compare it to what the other one gives you, lead to actually say "Well, this tree needs some buffing"? Especially since we all agree that Liberty is not game-breaking.

 

[Full Metal]

I've grabbed the free settler, then moved over to Tradition to grab the 15% wonder bonus. Then I thought that if I get thru Liberty faster, I can settle a GE and make up that 15%, and then some. I don't even mess with Tradition anymore.

I played with Honor this last time out. The 10% adjacent bonus is cool. Other than that, I would just assume keep Liberty and move onto Piety and Freedom if I'm building a 5-6 city build.

 

[Tabarnak]

I've grabbed the free settler, then moved over to Tradition to grab the 15% wonder bonus.

It's an interesting path i can take when i get an early culture ruin and can own 2 productive cities for wonders.

 

[Kaosprophet]

But doesn't looking at every policy of each tree and compare it to what the other one gives you, lead to actually say "Well, this tree needs some buffing"? Especially since we all agree that Liberty is not game-breaking.

The way I do it, it's just as likely to say "this tree could tolerate a nerf." But I'm not as averse to nerfing as many here seem to be (in fact, I'm more averse to power-creeping - especially in the early game.)

You could also say "there's no problem if the trees are imbalanced, as long as nothing is outright game-breaking." I mean, so what if 99% of the games open with Liberty? It's no different than 99% of build orders going "scout-monument," or the typical opening research queue of "best food tech (if not already known), beeline to bronzeworking" from Civ4.

 

[JamesCivFan]

The way I do it, it's just as likely to say "this tree could tolerate a nerf." But I'm not as averse to nerfing as many here seem to be (in fact, I'm more averse to power-creeping - especially in the early game.)

You could also say "there's no problem if the trees are imbalanced, as long as nothing is outright game-breaking." I mean, so what if 99% of the games open with Liberty? It's no different than 99% of build orders going "scout-monument," or the typical opening research queue of "best food tech (if not already known), beeline to bronzeworking" from Civ4.

I think it's kinda different. First of all, Civ4 and Civ5 are two different games, and I don't really want to compare them. Now, talking about SP Trees, and building openers (which aren't always optimal), is still not the same either. See how Wainyciv plays in his recent games for example. He opens up with a warrior, and there's not much of a problem there. I have used that opening too (Warrior-Monument) and having a 2nd warrior right off the bat, can be helpful in taking care of a few barb camps, and of course using them for defending, or for an earlier rush than using a scout. That's not the topic here though, since we're discussing Social Policy trees which all give you bonuses, but some of them are objectively better than others (Liberty compared to Honor for example). But, there is no objectively "optimal" build order.

And that is what we're trying to say here. Games should not always open up with Liberty.

 

[elprofesor]

The way I do it, it's just as likely to say "this tree could tolerate a nerf." But I'm not as averse to nerfing as many here seem to be (in fact, I'm more averse to power-creeping - especially in the early game.)

You could also say "there's no problem if the trees are imbalanced, as long as nothing is outright game-breaking." I mean, so what if 99% of the games open with Liberty? It's no different than 99% of build orders going "scout-monument," or the typical opening research queue of "best food tech (if not already known), beeline to bronzeworking" from Civ4.

I agree with you about power-creep being a bad thing, especially in the beginning of the game (I mean, late SP trees should be better than earlier ones, since you need a bigger investment to unlock them).

However (and I'm not sure if we agree here or not, your tone was ambiguous), the difference with the building order and the science strategy is that they don't render other builds/techs more difficult to obtain later in the game. That is, if you prioritize 99% of the time bronze-working, you will still need/want to get optics later on. If you prioritize scout-monument, you will still need a worker, a warrior, etc. later on. On the other hand, if 99% of the time you open with liberty, 99% of the time tradition and honour aren't used at all, so it's as good as if the feature wasn't in the game to begin with.

 

[CYZ]

How about spreading the archers out on the last two righthand policies of honour? Give one archer on each.

There's synergy with both the garrison and upgrade bonus (you'll need garrisons and by the time the second archer comes it won't be long untill it needs upgrading unless you rushed it).

That way the archers are put back a while. They also don't come at the same time so if you really want to rush you'll need to attack after getting the first one and the second one will function as a reinforcement.


Another thought, how about a scout somewhere in Tradition. The ranged city strength one isn't very appealing right now, it's usually taken last unless you want to delay with free culture buildings. A scout right there comes at the perfect time to be usefull but not too powerfull. And it's also nice if all three early branches give free units, not just liberty (though tradition gives free buildings already).

 

[Kaosprophet]

I think it's kinda different. First of all, Civ4 and Civ5 are two different games, and I don't really want to compare them.

The mechanics differ, but the principal is the same.

Now, talking about SP Trees, and building openers (which aren't always optimal), is still not the same either. See how Wainyciv plays in his recent games for example. He opens up with a warrior, and there's not much of a problem there. I have used that opening too (Warrior-Monument) and having a 2nd warrior right off the bat, can be helpful in taking care of a few barb camps, and of course using them for defending, or for an earlier rush than using a scout. That's not the topic here though, since we're discussing Social Policy trees which all give you bonuses, but some of them are objectively better than others (Liberty compared to Honor for example). But, there is no objectively "optimal" build order.

Wainyciv is the 1% outlier case Though the actual statistic was pulled out of thin air, I don't really know how often 'scout monument' is optimal to the situation - or at least treated as such.

 

[TheHanzou]

The real problem here is that tradition is based around population, and population is useless:

Science does not scale well with population, it scales with specialist slots. which in turn means it scales with number of cities, not number of people. A single univercity with 2 scientists is worth the equivalent of 12 population in your capital. Its easy to get small cities with a univercity, so a big empire with small cities will out tech a small empire with big cities every time. And thats without counting the huge number of great scientists you get more on top of that.

Production does not scale at all with population, but only with number of cities. A city with 50 will have almost the same production as a city with 10. Its completly useless to go past 10 population in most cases.

The only thing that scales with population is gold. Because gold is the only thing u get from pop working food tiles.

The multipliers or force amplifiers for big cities are way to small to make any difference, therefore its much better to go for more net yield (more cities= more mines,more universities). On top of that there a re quite a number of buildings that encourage this playstyle even further by providing free food and hammers, which makes small cities even more atttractive.

Library gives science for every 2 pop, and thats not nearly enough to offset against bigger number of univercities. but for Production and Money these multipliers dont even exist.

 

[elprofesor]

A single univercity with 2 scientists is worth the equivalent of 12 population in your capital.

I believe you are forgetting the science/pop boni of library and university?
Otherwise, interesting analysis.

 

[TheHanzou]

I believe you are forgetting the science/pop boni of library and university?
Otherwise, interesting analysis.

those boni apply to a small city as well. There really is no difference. you have to pay the upkeep more often yes, but this is a non factor because the city itself produces gold food and hammers for free. You also have to pruduce those buildings first. But the fact remains that a 10 pop city has the same production as a 50 pop city. So the more cities the better.

On top of that more small cities can use the tiles much more effectively, which is hugely tied to the fact that anything but mines is rather useless, and you get the first 3 pop for free with city,granary,water mill. you also get even more free stuff with stone works, workshop etc. these buildings are highly effective.

Look at farms, they only give you food and what good is food? Get more pop that in turn produces even more food, and little else. you only need food until you have your mines worked. trade posts are even more useless, since money is the worst of all the 3 ressources they should give you a lot more of it. They did so in the past, and it was abused with ICS, which is exactly what im describing. Lots of small cities will yield a lot more production and science.

while its possible to keep up in science, this is not true for production. Its a valid strategy to just build all the production/food buildings and mines and then nothing but military units. A city like this is highly effective when you are warmongering and requires little preparation or time to grow.

Once you have a univercity you are basically capped concerning your science output. You can get 50% more in one city, but this does not really offset the huge amount of great scientists that an empire with univercities will receive.

 

[Singulare]

In the early game, Liberty gives you a higher population then tradition and more production, so more units, so a better army than honor. I think the best way to nerf Liberty would be to start off with 2 settlers, or make settlers easier to build.

More troops does not constitute a better and stronger army.

 

[Rpger29]

I think liberty wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for the AI double-standard on city settling. Speaking for myself, I only take liberty because of the free settler on the first row of policies. The rest of the policies are fine, but if you switched it into the second row people would pick liberty far less often.

The player is penalized for settling near an AI, but the player has no real way to hold the AI accountable for this diplomatically. The only option is to settle there first (liberty), or to take the city by force and raze/puppet. I guess there's a third option - settle inferior spots.

This is compounded by how commonly the AI will settle near you, even if better sites are available elsewhere (and nearer). If you had say, 12 good city sites on the map, there is no reason that four AI's should each settle a city toward you in the middle of the map. No reason except this: the AI in this game was created to be a hostile adversary instead of a nation-builder.

All that said, I still enjoy both tradition and honor. They certainly have their appropriate time and place. Both could use a minor boost IMO.

 

[Kaosprophet]

I think liberty wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for the AI double-standard on city settling. Speaking for myself, I only take liberty because of the free settler on the first row of policies. The rest of the policies are fine, but if you switched it into the second row people would pick liberty far less often.

The player is penalized for settling near an AI, but the player has no real way to hold the AI accountable for this diplomatically.

This is because only the human really bothers trying to exploit the diplomacy. The AI just does it's thing and lets the chips fall where they may.

You *can* request them not to settle near you. And you can denounce them for ignoring your requests, refuse to trade fairly with them, etc. The same things they do to you, except... you care about those things, they don't.

 

[Kaosprophet]

those boni apply to a small city as well. There really is no difference. you have to pay the upkeep more often yes, but this is a non factor because the city itself produces gold food and hammers for free. You also have to pruduce those buildings first. But the fact remains that a 10 pop city has the same production as a 50 pop city. So the more cities the better.

This has always been true.
However, more cities = more hammers spent on building settlers and infrastructure; and more work put in dealing with corruption (folded into happiness, in this edition.) You're devoting short-term resources to the expansion, for bigger pay-offs later on. This is part of why 'rush strategies' typically involve minimal expansion.

Of course, this tradeoff is less relevant when playing at quicker speeds, because the time between investment and payoff is smaller - the window of vulnerability shrinks faster.

 

[JamesCivFan]

The real problem here is that tradition is based around population, and population is useless:

Science does not scale well with population, it scales with specialist slots. which in turn means it scales with number of cities, not number of people. A single univercity with 2 scientists is worth the equivalent of 12 population in your capital. Its easy to get small cities with a univercity, so a big empire with small cities will out tech a small empire with big cities every time. And thats without counting the huge number of great scientists you get more on top of that.

Production does not scale at all with population, but only with number of cities. A city with 50 will have almost the same production as a city with 10. Its completly useless to go past 10 population in most cases.

The only thing that scales with population is gold. Because gold is the only thing u get from pop working food tiles.

The multipliers or force amplifiers for big cities are way to small to make any difference, therefore its much better to go for more net yield (more cities= more mines,more universities). On top of that there a re quite a number of buildings that encourage this playstyle even further by providing free food and hammers, which makes small cities even more atttractive.

Library gives science for every 2 pop, and thats not nearly enough to offset against bigger number of univercities. but for Production and Money these multipliers dont even exist.

So, you are saying that Tradition needs to give bonuses in science, related to population? Yes, that would make it much more interesting. But how exactly would you do that? Free libraries? Or maybe +10% science for every 5 citizens? (The numbers are totally random of course).