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.You don't have to take one of these tenets. By forcing UI yields on these tenets, you're forced to take one of them or your UI is screwed since they're balanced with these yields in mind. All spammable UIs currently suck in Industrial because of this.
Is it consistent with VP?I treat all UGPTIs as both unique improvements and GP tile improvements. Thus, they get all bonuses from both
Yes, he created the Ordo, so he made all the decisions as to how it behaves: in this case, consistent with his other civilizations.Is it consistent with VP?
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.Yes, he created the Ordo, so he made all the decisions as to how it behaves: in this case, consistent with his other civilizations.
There are missing details?Sponsored by me. But I need the details updated
No, there's not a way to do that unless you pollute the "history" entry.just noting I don't see any reasonable way to put this in the policy's tooltip itself, its just way too much text. Can we put it in civilopedia if it passes?
The OP still said this:There are missing details?
And I thought it was still being discussed or not settled yet.This is only a first draft, and we can debate the fine details.
Use this wording for the text.The tenet could thus be worded like this :
- Civil Society (Freedom) : Specialists consume 2 Food less than normal (minimum 1 Food). Farms, Plantations and Camps produce +4 Food. Unique improvements produce bonus Food based on their ease of construction.
- Five Year Plan (Order) : +20% Production towards all Buildings. Mines, Quarries, Lumber Mill and Oil Well produce +3 Production. Unique improvements produce bonus Production based on their ease of construction.
- Military-Industrial Complex (Autocracy) : -33% Gold cost for purchasing / upgrading Units. Defensive Buildings, Forts and Citadels produce +3 Science. Unique improvements produce bonus Science based on their ease of construction.
Copy-paste civfanatics thing.What happened to the icons in my proposal?
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)Any vote other than [Nay] is, at minimum, a vote to flatten and homogenize UIs.
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.I still don't see what we are fixing here. I can't think of any civ that we are intentionally propping up or holding back because of these tenants.
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.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.
Which is bad, since there's no way to make UIs workable in late Renaissance/Industrial. It's a timing problem.The balance of the UIs already factors in the boost from ideologies.
Just look at how sad Eki/Pata-Pata (and to an extent, Moai) yields are.Now to UIs themselves, do we have any actual UIs that are intentionally underpowered because these tenents exist? I can't think of any.