[Vote] (1-07) Artistry OVERHAUL

Approval Vote for Proposal #7


  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the premise that the tradition/artistry golden/CV/GP spam playstyle is a bit one-dimensional. It's fun and there's plenty of interesting decisions to make, but the overall plan is very similar every time. However I don't think these changes are big enough to do anything. Tradition+artistry GP turtling would look almost exactly the same, and I would still choose fealty/statecraft over artistry in the same games I do now. I think shaking up the GP/GA/CV turtle style would require broader changes involving the other trees. The nature of tall GP strats is snowbally and you just want to get more GP stuff, which the other trees don't really offer.
 
I'm all for this change. It isn't the final step in changing tall gameplay, but it is interesting, in nerfing some aspects of the tree to make it more in line with others in only nerf gwam bonus, and stronger bonuses untied from ttall later, . I think it's a very good proposal as a step and it's very aesthetic that new line up of policies bonuses. It's a beautiful and useful cleanup of a very bloated tree
 
I sponsor the DLL change needed for this proposal.

Proposal Sponsors: pineappledan (other stuff), Recursive (DLL change).

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)
 
Artistry will always be the tall tree simply because of how tourism works with wide (it doesn't)
 
It might be nice to paste in the original tree, it can hard to guage for people what this is actually changing.
There is a link to the relevant wiki page in the OP. Posting the entire artistry tree's current bonuses makes the proposal too wordy.
 
Interesting, I almost never pick artistry when going wide and not going for CV unless I'm playing a civ with free GW/artifact per city like Egypt. I can't see any benefit doing so.
 
Last edited:
Artistry already has a lot of good things going for it wide, especially if you play a GA civ. The hope was to try to make it a bit wider, fix some of the ugly policies, and remove some of the repetition, while also adding some more policy mechanics.
 
hero worship + artistry + some monopolies + some civs abilities like Indonesia/Rome/Persia = lots of golden ages, which also gives lots of border growths so production and gold from tribute
if border growth is the name of the game, then fealty would serve you much better.
 
Artistry is OP for a peaceful/snowballing civ. I always found culture victory to be cheap and easy considering the requirements of 2 top tier ideology policies is literally a culture requirement, which you literally have as a tourism focused civ.

I propose culture victory have another requirement to make it harder, heck, "own 2 or 3 capitals". That way you can't just sit by but you have to declare war or take advantage of another war and steal away a city at some point, adding more gameplay and conflict.

The easiest wins are ones where you sit back and only contender for your culture victory has way too high an opinion of you because you voted for their meaningless proposals, accepted their war requests that didn't affect you, and gave them gifts that didn't have any negative effects. At least refuse open borders, geez,,
 
I prefer CV to not step on toes of dominion victory. CV already requires you to be influential will all the civs, have 2 3-tier tenets and build a wonder. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If it's too easy then lets just adjust tourism sources. It also doesn't make any sense. Small civs probably won't matter anyway, because you will be influenced with them when you try to influence bigger empires. What would be the point of conquering their capitals?
 
I prefer CV to not step on toes of dominion victory. CV already requires you to be influential will all the civs, have 2 3-tier tenets and build a wonder. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If it's too easy then lets just adjust tourism sources. It also doesn't make any sense. Small civs probably won't matter anyway, because you will be influenced with them when you try to influence bigger empires. What would be the point of conquering their capitals?
The problem is how easy it is to play 100% defensive and have everyone be friendly with you. Sure it depends on the map and not having a neighbor but in 25% of map generations you're alone on a big island and if you claim the edges fast enough you can guarantee yourself a peaceful game, following the top of the tech tree and snatching every world wonder and archaeology site and you already have the production, because you've snowballed, for the wonder.

Your only weakness is military might, considering the wonder is completely useless since the AI can't do anything about it, they can't suddenly not be influential while the wonder is being built
 
Sure it depends on the map and not having a neighbor but in 25% of map generations you're alone on a big island
Then that's an issue with your map choice. With standard continents you are almost always with 3 different civs on the continent.
Your only weakness is military might, considering the wonder is completely useless since the AI can't do anything about it, they can't suddenly not be influential while the wonder is being built
The wonder gives other civs more time to react. They could win before you build it, or could try to invade you, so you're either forced to build military instead or they conquer your capital. I actually had that situation in one of my recent games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom