• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

[Vote] (6-49) Unique Improvement Enhancements Reworks

Approval Vote (select all options you'd be okay with)


  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see no reason for them to double dip here. UGPTIs directly replace GPTIs. UIs replace other improvements. If you have a UI, you create fewer of other improvements. If you have a UGPTI ... you create the same number of GPTIs.
 
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.
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.

So I don't mind that this tenent is particularly good for civs with UI...that's just how the game is played.

Now if we are intentionally nerfing UIs because of these the autocracy tenent than yeah that's a concern. (and realistically the only one I consider a possible issue is the science one, the food and prod ones....who cares at that point).

But takes Huns for example, they still aren't winning all that much, I don't think them getting a super science boost on this tenent is really an issue. probably the biggest offender might be china as they can spam their UI mightly....but order has a LOT of science bonuses and is very good for china....is autocracy's tenent SO good that I feel like I have to give up everything order gives me because I just have to have that tenent....eh I really don't think so.

So who are we really worried about here? What UI synergy is so good its breaking the bank?
 
Yes, he created the Ordo, so he made all the decisions as to how it behaves: in this case, consistent with his other civilizations.
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.
 
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?
 
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?
No, there's not a way to do that unless you pollute the "history" entry.
 
@N.Core Marked as sponsored.
The tenet could thus be worded like this :
- Civil Society (Freedom) : Specialists consume 2 :c5food: Food less than normal (minimum 1 Food). Farms, Plantations and Camps produce +4 :c5food: Food. Unique improvements produce bonus :c5food: Food based on their ease of construction.
- Five Year Plan (Order) : +20% :c5production: Production towards all Buildings. Mines, Quarries, Lumber Mill and Oil Well produce +3 :c5production: Production. Unique improvements produce bonus :c5production: Production based on their ease of construction.
- Military-Industrial Complex (Autocracy) : -33% :c5gold: Gold cost for purchasing / upgrading Units. Defensive Buildings, Forts and Citadels produce +3 :c5science: Science. Unique improvements produce bonus :c5science: Science based on their ease of construction.
Use this wording for the text.

Optionally, list all improvement yields in the Civilopedia entries.
 
What happened to the icons in my proposal?
 
6-49 will create a text nightmare
6-49a removes all the yields with no compensation. In many cases this will make base improvements stronger than UIs. UIs, as a group, are already weaker than UBs, so this is unfathomably destructive.
6-49b is the only one of these proposals which even seems tenable, but even then all it manages to do is make these ideology tenets less interesting.

The balance of the UIs already factors in the boost from ideologies. This is not a balance concern. Any vote other than May is, at minimum, a vote to flatten and homogenize UIs.
 
Any vote other than [Nay] is, at minimum, a vote to flatten and homogenize UIs.
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)

Anyway I voted for both a and b. B is of course the best. A is worse for balance, but it's still a step in the right direction for design, leaving room for future proposals to fix the balance.
 
The different yields that different ideologies give your UI might affect your decision about what to adopt. Different tenets means different yields on the UI, which means you can have different yields on the UI in different playthroughs of the same civ.

Civs with UBs already get different boosts from policies and beliefs. At minimum this makes UIs interact with policies in a novel way that UB civs take for granted.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

Now to UIs themselves, do we have any actual UIs that are intentionally underpowered because these tenents exist? I can't think of any.
 
The balance of the UIs already factors in the boost from ideologies.
Which is bad, since there's no way to make UIs workable in late Renaissance/Industrial. It's a timing problem.
Now to UIs themselves, do we have any actual UIs that are intentionally underpowered because these tenents exist? I can't think of any.
Just look at how sad Eki/Pata-Pata (and to an extent, Moai) yields are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom