• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[Vote] (7-26 & 7-27) Tradition & Fealty Scaler Proposals + Fealty Policy Rework Proposals

Approval Vote for Proposals #26 and #27


  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
4,865
Location
Antarctica
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of options.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

Host Note: Proposals 7-26 and 7-26a are mutually exclusive, but either can be passed along with 7-27 or 7-27a (which are also mutually exclusive).

VP Congress: Session 7, Proposal 26

Discussion Thread: (7-26) Buff the Tradition Scaler
Proposer: @pineappledan
Sponsor: @pineappledan

Proposal Details
Current Tradition scaler:
+1 :c5science: Science in the Capital and +3% :c5food: Growth in all cities for each Tradition Policy adopted

In total the tree gives +20% :c5food: Growth in all cities: +15% from all scalers, and +5% on the Opener

Proposed Tradition scaler:
+1 :c5science: Science in the Capital and +5% :c5food: Growth in all cities for each Tradition Policy adopted

In total the tree gives +30% :c5food: Growth in all cities: +25% from all scalers, and +5% on the Opener

Rationale:
The current scaler is weak. It's possibly the worst scaler of any policy tree.
Tradition is generally considered weak, and while boosting the scaler's power is not a silver bullet, it's current weakness is at least a contributing factor.
Tradition used to have +5% growth on the scaler, but was lowered to 3% years ago. This was in a time when Tradition was considered more competitive, and we were looking for ways to manage unhappiness. Tradition is now much less competitive and Unhappiness is much more lenient, but this nerf was never reverted.
Tradition lacks many useful bonuses outside of the capital. The global growth bonus is one of the few abilities it grants on empire. Strengthening it will allow Tradition satellite cities to grow faster.



VP Congress: Session 7, Proposal 26a
Discussion Thread: (7-26a) Change Tradition and Fealty Growth and Food Scalers
Proposer: @hokath
Sponsor: @hokath

Proposal Details
Current: As 7-26 explains, the growth scaler on Tradition is weak. It was nerfed due to conditions that are no longer present and should be reverted.
However, it is also weak because %growth is fairly useless in the early stages of the game when food outputs are low. In return it scales later on.

Proposal:
Tradition gets +1 food in all cities instead of growth on the scaler. The opener 5% growth is removed and the +2 food in capital is increased to +3.
Fealty loses +1 food in all cities on the scaler. Instead it gains +1 faith. (edit: the combat strength is not changed) The +3 faith per city following your religion on the finisher is changed to +3 gold (it is currently +3 :c5science::c5faith::c5production::c5culture:).

Thoughts:
+1 food on the Tradition scaler is great for the early Tradition game because it allows you to immediately work :c5production: tiles like Hills or Plains that you usually have to wait to be able to use.
Later, it helps with working that first specialist slot. Overall this will push Tradition to be stronger early, and cut down on the scaling power later. The lasting impact of the tree remains its GPP bonuses.
The change to Fealty is approximately a neutral swap of yields (5 food for 2 faith and 3 gold), and shouldn't impact the balance a great deal. You will get more faith, earlier, which I think will be welcome for the religious fanatics amongst us.

Spoiler Why not just swap scalers? :
My initial draft, as per the 7-33 thread, was just to swap the two scalars. However, as I wrote the proposal I realised that %benefits like that really don't belong on a Medieval tree either. The other trees give flat yields like prod, sci, gold instead. You don't see %-type benefits until the industrial era trees. Rationalism has +25% growth in a tier 3 policy, better it be there you go looking for crazy food bonuses, I think. There's an argument that should be spread out over the scaler too (because that policy is really good already), but this isn't a thread about Rationalism.




VP Congress: Session 7, Proposal 27
Discussion Thread: (7-27) Buff Fealty Policies Organized Religion and Divine Right
Proposer: @hokath
Sponsor: @Recursive

Proposal Details
Current: Fealty has some policies that are rather left behind.
Divine Right has -2 boredom and 25% of happiness converted to culture in each city. A fairly boring (ha ha) bonus that gives fairly tame yields with the modern happiness numbers.
Organized Religion has 50% passive pressure from your cities under your religion against other religions' cities (wordy bonus but makes sense I think), and +1 faith from specialists.

Proposal:
Divine Right becomes:
-1 boredom,
50% of happiness to Culture and 50% of happiness to Tourism,
"Settling a City or Capturing a City triggers an Historic Event"

notes: 1) the boredom to -1 is to balance the additional yields from happiness conversion. 2) The strength of the historic event would be the same as new era from the palace.

Organized Religion gains "+1 gold for every 5 followers of your majority religion in the world"

Discussion: Clearly this is a straight up buff to Fealty. Personally I am of the opinion that Fealty is not as strong as Statecraft or Artistry, though clearly there are many caveats to that. I think these changes would strengthen Fealty in areas where a player wanting to make the most of Religion might want to go, rather than just cranking up some numbers that everyone would enjoy. In the case of the Divine Right happiness conversion I do think this is justified because of how low the numbers are, but if someone convinces me otherwise I'm happy to scratch that part. A +gold for followers option was a nostalgic nod to the CivIV religion mechanic, where you could turn Great Prophet into great profit (ageless joke).

Spoiler Other options that didn't make the cut: :

  • Also considered for Divine Right: "Converting a City to your Majority Religion for the first time triggers an Historic Event"
    But it was felt that Arabia could use this trigger for their UA to go absolutely bananas, especially on larger maps.
  • I also considered adding a source of Golden Age Points, instead of Tourism or Gold, since there is a Founder Belief that would like that.
    However they have been mostly eradicated and I didn't want to draw the ire of the pineapple.
  • I also considered something like +% faith during Golden Ages, like Rationalism and Artistry have for Sci and Culture.
    But I felt the faith economy should probably be left alone in the interests of balance, especially in light of the other Fealty proposal.




VP Congress: Session 7, Proposal 27a
Discussion Thread: (7-27a) Fealty - Alternate Rework on Organized Religion and Divine Right (+Serfdom)
Proposer: @azum4roll
Sponsor: @azum4roll

Proposal Details
Current Divine Right:
25% of :c5happy: Happiness produced in each City is added to the City's :c5culture: Culture per Turn.
-2 :c5unhappy: Unhappiness from :c5culture: Boredom in all Cities.

Current Organized Religion:
Emit +50% Pressure from Cities with your Primary Religion as your Majority Religion to all nearby Cities without your Primary Religion.
+1 :c5faith: Faith from Specialists.

Current Serfdom:
+1 :c5culture: Culture in Cities for every 4 non-Specialist :c5citizen: Citizens.
+2 :c5production: Production and +1 :c5gold: Gold from Pastures.
+33% Yields from Internal :trade: Trade Routes.

Problems:
  • 25% :c5happy: -> :c5culture: is not useful. If you get 11 :c5happy: Happiness in a city, it only translates to +2 :c5culture: Culture due to rounding.
  • -2 Boredom sounds like it would help the conversion ability, but no, it only affects unhappiness.
  • The weird +pressure to foreign cities NOT following your religion is what causes religion neutrality in the late game. Nothing organized about it.
  • Fiefdoms and Serfdom carry the tree. There's no reason not to pick those first before the other two branches.

Proposed Divine Right:
+33% Yields from Internal :trade: Trade Routes.
Completing an Internal Trade Route also triggers a Historic Event as if completing an International Trade Route.
-1 :c5unhappy: Unhappiness from :c5culture: Boredom in all Cities.

Note:
The Historic Event is the same type as International Trade Route to other major civs (land/sea).
Currently, completing an International Trade Route adds full influence to the target civ, and 1/3 of the influence to every other civ.
With the new Divine Right, completing an Internal Trade Route would add 1/3 of the influence to every civ (since it counts as completing a Trade Route to yourself).
This does NOT mean AI will get an extra trigger of difficulty yields when they complete an Internal Trade Route, unless a future proposal adds an Internal Trade Route completion historic event, or includes Internal Trade Route completion in the existing Trade Route completion historic events.

Rationale:
Removing the useless component and moving the ITR bonuses from Serfdom here. This policy is now for those who want to go for a Cultural Victory, but don't have a good (external) trade partner.


Proposed Organized Religion:
Cities with your Primary Religion as the Majority Religion emits +25% Religious Pressure.
+1 Delegate for every 10 Cities following your Primary Religion.
+2 :c5culture: Culture from Shrines and Temples.

Note:
You don't have to be a founder to benefit from extra delegates. This is also grouped into Religious Authority, and should be added to the number from the reformation building before rounding.
e.g. Reformed founder with Organized Religion and 15 cities following the religion gets floor(15/10 + 15/10) = 3 delegates from Religious Authority, not 2.

Rationale:
Now this actually helps you defend your primary religion (while attacking at the same time). Percentage is lowered since this works on every city in range instead of only those not following your religion.
If you want to go for diplomatic victory and have a strong religion, Fealty can also be a choice.
:c5culture: Culture from Shrines and Temples is to replace the lost happiness to culture conversion (and is buffed).

Implementation Details:
You don't need to have the Holy City to benefit from Religious Authority, so the check in CvPlayer::TestFaithToVotes() needs to be changed.
It doesn't matter right now, so I don't know why there was a check of Holy City ownership to begin with.


Proposed Serfdom:
+1 :c5culture: Culture and :c5faith: Faith in Cities for every 4 non-Specialist :c5citizen: Citizens.
+2 :c5production: Production and +1 :c5gold: Gold from Pastures.

Rationale:
Instead of putting yields on both specialists and non-specialists, this gives a non-specialist focus on the Fealty tree, which differs from the other two Medieval trees.
The :c5faith: Faith is moved here to compensate for the loss of ITR yields.
 
@Recursive Just to confirm, only the option with the most votes passes here, right?

So if 10 people vote and they all agree 7-26a is a wonderful idea and the proposer is very handsome etc, but then they come to 7-26a+7-27a and only 9 of them now vote yes then it will lose to 7-26a alone.
Then we get no changes to Divine Right etc. at all.

So if I want to see both pass is it the correct move not to vote for 7-26a? I am confused because it sounds like we're violating the monotonicity criterion or something dodgy.
 
@Recursive Just to confirm, only the option with the most votes passes here, right?

So if 10 people vote and they all agree 7-26a is a wonderful idea and the proposer is very handsome etc, but then they come to 7-26a+7-27a and only 9 of them now vote yes then it will lose to 7-26a alone.
Then we get no changes to Divine Right etc. at all.

So if I want to see both pass is it the correct move not to vote for 7-26a? I am confused because it sounds like we're violating the monotonicity criterion or something dodgy.
Vote for all options you'd be happy with if they were implemented. If you'd be happy only if both proposals pass (and not with either one individually) then only vote for the combination. If you would be happy if they pass individually as well, you could vote for the combination and the two individually. You can even vote for both Yea and Nay.
 
Thanks for the clarification.
If current trends continue only the Tradition/fealty swap will go through because the 7-27 vote is split (currently everyone* who is voting for 26a is also voting for 26a+27 or 26a+27a).
I guess I am asking for this to be split into two votes?

*not naming names. don't cancel me again :shifty:
 
Right, if we all read this properly.
Personally I am confessing that I did not completely understand how to vote here to express my preference the first time I looked.
Actually I should not have voted yes to either proposal on its own. I read "do you want this to pass" but it really means "do you want this to pass ONLY".
 
Last edited:
Right, if we all read this properly.
Personally I am confessing that I did not completely understand how to vote here to express my preference the first time I looked.
Actually I should not have voted yes to either proposal on its own.
Luckily, you can change your vote!
 
Indeed, hopefully some of the people who already voted come back and assess the situation also.
 
27a might be a nerf. I don't think that's warranted.
You need 20+ :c5happy: in each city for that to be a nerf. Or assigning more than 20% of your empire population as specialists.
 
Right, if we all read this properly.
Personally I am confessing that I did not completely understand how to vote here to express my preference the first time I looked.
Actually I should not have voted yes to either proposal on its own. I read "do you want this to pass" but it really means "do you want this to pass ONLY".
Basically, if you have a clear choice of each proposal number, you always vote for ONE option.

If you don't care which of 7-26 passes (or none of them), but really wants 7-27a to, you select all choices that include 7-27a.

If you want either 7-26 or 7-26a to pass, don't want 7-27, but don't care about 7-27a, you select "7-26", "7-26a", "7-26 and 7-27a", and "7-26a and 7-27a".

Finally, don't forget about the "Nay to all" option, which is for when you don't mind that none of these pass.
 
To surpass +6 :c5food: with +20% growth, you'll need (30 * food modifier) base growth, which is way past early game where an ancient policy tree should matter.
 
When I take tradition it's about capital, and in my games I always surpass +6 food with growth before I finish more than half the tree, also I like to mix trees, take Authority opener, Fealty opener.
 
Do you really have 30 base growth?
 
does Divine Right's culture bonus actually go into the city for happiness purposes?
 
When I take tradition it's about capital, and in my games I always surpass +6 food with growth before I finish more than half the tree, also I like to mix trees, take Authority opener, Fealty opener.
So the answer of "if this is a nerf" is yes and no.

Tradition cities will get a lot more food earlier in the game, but will get less growth later on. Now personally that early growth is much more impactful, but it is true you might not see quite as high final pop numbers as you see now.

I think the other big thing is it lets you use your early specialists more easily. You can maintain a few specialists and still get good growth, with the current version you lose all of your scaler benefits if you actually try to use the specialists you have been given.
 
You need 20+ :c5happy: in each city for that to be a nerf.
Then make it stronger like Hokath does instead of removing unique mechanics and replacing them with dime-a-dozen building yield changes :confused:
Or assigning more than 20% of your empire population as specialists.
It’s not just that it’s a side grade depending on how many specialists you work, it replaces a clear +1 on X bonus with something that has rounding shenanigans and is invisible to the UI except as part of a yield total. It’s a major downgrade for user experience, imo

Also, adding world congress votes to a policy tree all about feudalism is super weird to me…
 
Then make it stronger like Hokath does instead of removing unique mechanics and replacing them with dime-a-dozen building yield changes :confused:

It’s not just that it’s a side grade depending on how many specialists you work, it replaces a clear +1 on X bonus with something that has rounding shenanigans and is invisible to the UI except as part of a yield total. It’s a major downgrade for user experience, imo

Also, adding world congress votes to a policy tree all about feudalism is super weird to me…
Well Fealty is not really a feudalism tree, its as much (or more) a religion tree, and religions already get votes for cities following them. The flavor is simple: "If the owner of the Holy City of X is behind this proposal, than so are we!"

I find there is nothing inherently special about unique mechanics, or distasteful about building bonus. At the end of the day, its a simple question: Does this bonus make me play "differently"?


If it doesn't, than honestly I do not care a lick how the bonus is presented as long as it's good. I need yields, it gives me yields....simple.

Right now the +25% culture from happiness does not make me play happiness more than I do today. Would 50%? Eh probably not, I get most happiness bonus I can anyway at one point or the other, I don't think I'm going to suddenly want to amass extras because of this.

Does a +2 culture to shrines and temples make me want to get those buildings more? On another tree maybe, on the religion tree, I'm pretty much already getting them...so no it wouldn't. It would be the same if you just said "+4 culture for every city".


So neither of these mechanics really "thrill" me. But I do appreciate that +4 culture is a solid/meaty bonus that makes that policy look attractive to me.
 
Does this bonus make me play "differently"? […] Does a +2 culture to shrines and temples make me want to get those buildings more? On another tree maybe, on the religion tree, I'm pretty much already getting them...so no it wouldn't. It would be the same if you just said "+4 culture for every city".
Then you must detest this bonus.
If you didn’t have these buildings in your cities an era ago you wouldn’t have opened this policy tree in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom