7.7 general thoughts

[Ahriman]

Spoilers for mass reply:

Txurce:

Spoiler :

1. Venice - easily the most important Renaissance republic - used fortifications widely.

Venice's main defenses at home and abroad were its navy and that its settlements were mostly on islands and so were hard to get to.
It used fortifications no more than any other power of the era.

3. You're saying this without any testing. I very much doubt that this policy will make city spamming a successful strategy.

By city spamming I don't mean ICS, I mean general wide-empire. It used to be the case that more cities reduced your policy gain rate. I think this was a good thing. If a new city only increases policy costs by 10%, then it is very likely that adding new cities can increase your policy gain rate. I don't think that is a good idea.

4. I think this policy will help Tradition/tall approaches at least as much as Liberty/wide ones.

I disagree. It is easier to have 6 size 10 cities than 2 size 30 cities.

5. As with Tradition, I think you’re getting hung up on a name in a game that is understandably loose with its nomenclature.

I think the names are very important for flavor bonus.
I think this is the biggest weakness of the current social policy implementation; things are getting changed around all over the place without any serious consideration linking the names to the effects.
We play civ because it is about history. If we lose the ties to history, then the game becomes a lot less fun.

6. I think they're among the most "fun" aspects of SP's.

My perspective is that great people should come mainly from specialists. That is what specialists are for. I think we have moved too far into great people coming from policies, and with so many great people about they start feeling less special.

7. Players who use Tradition aren't playing a long-term game any more than anyone else - Civ is a long-term game.

I was referring to tradition in a flavor sense. Tradition is about building and sustaining institutions - it is basically traditional conservativism (in the 19th century sense, not the modern political sense).
Just like: honor has typically been associated with field combat and not fortifications. Rationalism has been associated with anti-religion. Autocracy has been associated with militarism.

8. This is narrow, but a lot of the policies have been scaled down.

Yes, a lot of the policies have been scaled down. I don't think this is a good thing. I really liked the point we had where policies were valuable things and so investing significantly in culture production is valuable for its own sake, not just for a cultural victory. This was a big achievement. Weakening policies again is a big step backwards.

9. What spurs science and especially creativity cannot be credited to government style.

Of course it can. Scientific achievement is clearly linked with government style.
For example: Renaissance and Enlightenment-era Spain was vastly less innovative than the rest of Europe, in part because of its stultifying religious conservatism that made new ideas suspect.
More democratic regimes have generally been more meritocratic and so have made investment in education more worthwhile. In brutal tyrannical regimes where the commoners fear for their life or can be killed at whim, there tends to be very little innovation.
Some government styles favor stability, others favor innovation.

Seek:

Spoiler :

"New" refers to post-patch.

I understand that "new" refers to post-patch vanilla. But what is post-patch TBC?

I'm not crazy about the new Landed Elite effect,

So why don't we put the food yield bonus back into Landed Elite and think of something else for a Tradition finisher? Maybe gold per X pop in the capital? Some gold income would help, since small empires tend to struggle with gold since they have less pop and so less trade income.

The SP cost-reducing policy was quite lame, imo

I don't have a strong objection to removing policy cost reduction (or rather moving it to Piety, the culture tree), I just don't think we should be designing around a game option.

production buildings are always useful

I'm not sure that this is true anymore. But Order is supposed to be production bonuses for widespread empires, so bonuses per production building still seem reasonable.

Walls:

If the AI builds defense but the human doesn't it's an overall buff to the AI.

I don't see this as a problem.

I think the patch moved in the right direction in this balance

How? The patch made defensive buildings much less worth constructing for the human unless you are using Honor. I don't think "construct some specialist circumstances under which the human might want them" is the right way to go here.
A garrison bonus makes sense in Honor; Honor is about units. A walls bonus really doesn't.

Mostly Thal

Spoiler :

By the way, "and UU replacements" is usually redundant since almost all changes are done to the unit or building class

Understood, but it is not the case for strength changes unless you change them manually. UUs have their own XML entries, so changing the core unit will not change the UU. Right?
So for example changing archers doesn't automatically change bowmen.

I see the science bonus as a reference to the Space Race of the mid 20th century.

That seems very narrow and a bit odd to me. I think the space race is modeled in the game through the scientific victory. The space races encourages you to invest resources in science. It doesn't make your manufacturing suddenly boost your research.

I think a science bonus feels out of flavor in Order.

What I'm saying here is if we can plan ahead... saving immediate policy benefits for future gains, that's a strategic decision unavailable with the savings ban. I dislike bandaids that reduce player flexibility to hide underlying problems.

The AI doesn't understand how to save policies. I dislike adding mechanics that the AI cannot use at all. I don't think designing the mod around the core game design is problematic (should we weaken the barbarians because they might be too strong if someone turns raging barbarians on?). And I don't think that preventing saving is somehow a bandaid; the fact that we force you to use your free tech from the Great Library or Oxford University immediately isn't somehow a bandaid.

Anyway, as above I have no particular objection to removing policy cost reduction (though; you haven't removed it, you you have moved it to piety, and we need a decent replacement in Freedom) so the point is moot. And I'm fine for "allow policy saving" to be an option. People can enable that if they like.

 

[Txurce]

1. Venice... used fortifications no more than any other power of the era.

2. I disagree. It is easier to have 6 size 10 cities than 2 size 30 cities.

3. I think the names are very important for flavor bonus. I think this is the biggest weakness of the current social policy implementation; things are getting changed around all over the place without any serious consideration linking the names to the effects. We play civ because it is about history. If we lose the ties to history, then the game becomes a lot less fun.

4. I was referring to tradition in a flavor sense. Tradition is about building and sustaining institutions - it is basically traditional conservativism (in the 19th century sense, not the modern political sense).

5. Weakening policies again is a big step backwards.

6. Scientific achievement is clearly linked with government style.

7. The patch made defensive buildings much less worth constructing for the human unless you are using Honor.

8. I think a science bonus feels out of flavor in Order.

1. The point is that they were a Reoublic, and they used them. Walls are equally handy for an expansionist, non-warmongering civ.

2. I disagree with your defintions of what’s a tall civ and a wide one.

3. Names are important for flavor, but the game needs to keep the categories as loose as possible – hence, major branches are no longer called Communism or Fascism. Once they changed that, you can’t say that’s what it really is. It becomes your personal interpretation, and I don’t want you reinterpreting half the Social Policies for me!

4. This is a good example of the above – I disagree with how you define Tradition, and think the devs do as well. To me it means a small, tall, culture-heavy empire. It doesn’t build and sustain any more institutions in the game than most other approaches.

5. Again, they work in conjunction with changes to production and happiness. It’s a step in a more integrated, complex direction. Now that it’s here, I have no desire to go back to a simpler, easier game.

6. Nazi Germany, USSR, and the USA all did very well scientifically in the last century, despite each favoring a radically different political philosophy (the Big Three of the modern era).

7. Walls were weakened to allow the AI to do better at conquest. From what I’ve seen, the change has been a resounding success.

8. It seems right enough for the USSR’s missile and general armaments program.

 

[Zaldron]

[*]Landed Elite is 1 per 10 in every city. It lets the whole empire grow +10% population with the same amount of happiness.

Is it really +10%? I read it as 0% for 1-9 pop, 10% at 10 pop decreasing to 5% at 19 pop, then 10% at 20 pop, etc. This is rather less than a flat 10% increase. If I get motivated I might try to compute an averaged limit later on.

 

[Ahriman]

1. The point is that they were a Reoublic, and they used them.

The point is that they were a Republic, and they didn't favor them more than anyone else.
The bonuses of a "Republic" policy should be related to things that are actually special about a Republic; happier people, better economy, more trade, more innovation, whatever.
It is weird to say that Republic should give a bonus with walls, because once there was a Republic, and it had some walls, and so did all the non-Republics.
Republic Rome (which is what we're really modelling here) wasn't particularly known for its walls.

Names are important for flavor, but the game needs to keep the categories as loose as possible
...
and I don’t want you reinterpreting half the Social Policies for me!

I'm not so fussed about the names of the trees, but I do think it is important that the individual policy effects have some logical connection to the name attached to them. I don't want the fact that you don't seem to care much to mean that I can't interpret any of the policies because they have no logical connection to anything historic. If we go that way we may as well have theocracy giving a culture bonus to granaries and communism giving free experience to units produced in cities with wonders and merchant navy increasing the science yield of specialists.

Again, they work in conjunction with changes to production and happiness. It’s a step in a more integrated, complex direction.

You keep saying that, but without any kind of actual argument.
Why do the changes to production and happiness mean that policies should be weaker?

Nazi Germany, USSR, and the USA all did very well scientifically in the last century, despite each favoring a radically different political philosophy (the Big Three of the modern era).

I would dispute this. The Nazis and Russians had some technical success in very narrow fields, because they concentrated their research there. They were well behind on overall innovation; they yielded very little innovation that didn't have . Through the Cold War the West had huge technological innovations in consumer goods that made individuals much richer, as well as being at the forefront of innovation in all other fields: communications, military, medicine, etc. The Soviets kept up (mostly) in military tech, and were very effective in Rocketry. That's about it.
But even if you were correct, so what? How would three 20th century governments prove that governmental system has no impact on innovation under any circumstances?

It seems right enough for the USSR’s missile and general armaments program.

The Soviets accomplished scientific research by pouring funds into university research in particular areas, not into factories. There was no link between factories and production lines and rocketry research. Soviet production was very un-innovative, precisely because it was centrally planned.

 

[Ahriman]

Is it really +10%? I read it as 0% for 1-9 pop, 10% at 10 pop decreasing to 5% at 19 pop, then 10% at 20 pop, etc. This is rather less than a flat 10% increase.

IIRC the game allows for fractional happiness, though I think the final effect may be rounded down. 2 cities with 5 pop will give +1 happiness. 3 cities with 5 pop and +0.5 happiness from (eg) the old form of Meritocracy would give +2 happiness.

I don't think it is 0-9, 10-19 etc on an individual city basis.

But I could be wrong; if you could test that would be excellent.

 

[Txurce]

1. Republic Rome (which is what we're really modelling here) wasn't particularly known for its walls.

2. I don't want the fact that you don't seem to care much to mean that I can't interpret any of the policies because they have no logical connection to anything historic.

3. You keep saying that, but without any kind of actual argument.
Why do the changes to production and happiness mean that policies should be weaker?

4. How would three 20th century governments prove that governmental system has no impact on innovation under any circumstances?

5. The Soviets accomplished scientific research by pouring funds into university research in particular areas, not into factories.

1. You are once again telling me what "Republic" means - in this case, Rome. I think Civ5 has a much looser definition.

2. I do care about what policies mean - I just don't want you narrowly defining "Tradition," "Landed Gentry," or "Republic" for me, as a means of changing policies with which I may be content.

3. No one has been putting forth factual arguments in this case. I specifically mean that the game has been rebalanced so that you arrive at a successful position (most importantly having to do with happiness) via more hammers and weaker policies. It's much harder to remain happy post-patch if you don't set a clear goal early on, and steer your entire effort (buildings and policies) in that single direction. This was clearly the devs' purpose - that's why they made certain trees exclusive of others.

Have you played a post-patch vanilla game yet? I've played two, and am basing my opinion on them, as well as similar reports in other threads.

4. Three radically different forms of government all achieving notable scientific achievements disproves your argument that "scientific achievement is clearly linked with government style."

5. Similarly, your noting the Soviets poured funds into university research proves my point about a science bonus belonging in Order.

 

[Thalassicus]

None of us have played much yet so it's all speculation at this point. I'm reserving judgement on most policies until we have more experience.

Happiness is a decimal value rounded at the end of calculation. I suspect the landed elite effect is +0.1 per population, but I haven't tested it.

Each unit/building has both a type (specific) and a class (shared), as can be seen in the Bowman entry:

<Row>
  <Class>UNITCLASS_ARCHER</Class>
  <Type>UNIT_BABYLONIAN_BOWMAN</Type>
  <PrereqTech>TECH_ARCHERY</PrereqTech>
  <Combat>6</Combat>
  <RangedCombat>8</RangedCombat>
  <Cost>40</Cost>
  <Moves>2</Moves>
  <Range>2</Range>
  <CombatClass>UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER</CombatClass>
  <Domain>DOMAIN_LAND</Domain>
  <DefaultUnitAI>UNITAI_RANGED</DefaultUnitAI>
  <Description>TXT_KEY_UNIT_BABYLON_BOWMAN</Description>
  <Civilopedia>TXT_KEY_CIV5_BABYLON_BOWMAN_TEXT</Civilopedia>
  <Strategy>TXT_KEY_CIV5_BABYLON_BOWMAN_STRATEGY</Strategy>
  <Help>TXT_KEY_CIV5_BABYLON_BOWMAN_HELP</Help>
  <MilitarySupport>true</MilitarySupport>
  <MilitaryProduction>true</MilitaryProduction>
  <Pillage>true</Pillage>
  <ObsoleteTech>TECH_MACHINERY</ObsoleteTech>
  <GoodyHutUpgradeUnitClass>UNITCLASS_CROSSBOWMAN</GoodyHutUpgradeUnitClass>
  <AdvancedStartCost>50</AdvancedStartCost>
  <XPValueAttack>3</XPValueAttack>
  <XPValueDefense>3</XPValueDefense>
  <UnitArtInfo>ART_DEF_UNIT_U_BABYLONIAN_BOWMAN</UnitArtInfo>
  <IconAtlas>NEB_UNIT_ATLAS</IconAtlas>
  <UnitFlagAtlas>NEB_UNIT_FLAG_ATLAS</UnitFlagAtlas>
  <UnitFlagIconOffset>0</UnitFlagIconOffset>
  <PortraitIndex>0</PortraitIndex>
</Row>

Here's a typical change in the mod, one recently included in vanilla:

<Update>
  <Where Class="UNITCLASS_ARCHER" />
  <Set Cost="40" />
  <!-- was 70 -->
</Update>

Almost all changes I do are to the unit class, shared between the base unit and UUs. Firaxis does the same thing, which is why mentioning "and UUs" is unnecessary unless we're only changing the base unit (which is rare).

 

[Ahriman]

@Txurce

Spoiler :

1. You are once again telling me what "Republic" means - in this case, Rome. I think Civ5 has a much looser definition.

I don't think there is any reasonable definition of Republic where walls play a central role. Superior walls are just not a defining feature of a Republic. Roman Republic, Venetian Republic, Athenian Republic, whatever. The defining feature of a Republic is some sense that the right to rule depends on the willingness of the people (or some of the people), and so there is some degree of representation and meritocracy and liberty, which tends to result in better economic outcomes.
I don't think I'm telling you what to think.

I do care about what policies mean - I just don't want you narrowly defining "Tradition," "Landed Gentry," or "Republic" for me, as a means of changing policies with which I may be content.

Landed Elite clearly has something to do with land, and nothing to do with factories or aqueducts. I'm not imposing some weird view by pointing this out.

No one has been putting forth factual arguments in this case.

Fact: in vanilla, from the start and after the latest patch, many policies have been fairly weak.
Fact: older versions of TBC significantly increased the power of policies
Fact: there was widespread agreement that this was fun, and that this made cultural policies more worth striving for, and that this was a good thing
Fact: the latest TBC that has adopted vanilla versions of policies again (eg: reverting Mandate of Heaven to 50% culture per happiness) has weakened policies again.
Assertion: There is nothing in the changes introduced by the patch which mean that we need to weaken policies.
Implied conclusion: We should consider boosting the strength of policies similar to what they were in older versions of TBC and similar to what some of the trees have them as now, by fixing some of the policies where TBC 7.7 has adopted the (weaker) vanilla values.

Have you played a post-patch vanilla game yet?

I've played TBC 7.7. Many policies feel like they are not worth purchasing, because they are weak relative to other policies. For example, Patronage and Commerce are still good, but the left side of Freedom is weak, as is much of Piety, as is Order.

Three radically different forms of government all achieving notable scientific achievements disproves your argument that "scientific achievement is clearly linked with government style."

No it doesn't. Three forms of government are not all forms of government.
Go back to some of my examples; Counter-reformation Spain was less innovative than the rest of Europe in part because of its government style that gave lots of power to the very conservative Church. Chinese innovation collapsed in the 15th century because it shifted to a conservative governing style that favored order. Tokugawa Shogunate Japan largely ceased technological development because by shutting off contact with outsiders and discouraging innovation. 19th century Britain, Germany and BeNeLux achieved advances in industrialization before their contemporaries in part because of their institutions and governing style - similar 20th century US which was a huge technological leader.
In general, more open societies are far more innovative than rigid and closed ones. Highly autocratic monarchies (eg Czarist Russia) generally fail to innovate much.
In most previous versions of Civ this has been modeled by the giving Democracies more commerce, which meant more research and faster tech progression.

I disagree that Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were highly innovative societies. They had some innovation in some narrow niche areas (mostly those with military applications), but at the cost of stagnation in other areas.

Similarly, your noting the Soviets poured funds into university research proves my point about a science bonus belonging in Order.

No it doesn't. They achieved scientific advances in particular areas because they did very little research in other areas; they concentrated what research they had on military applications and spaceflight. Their actions would best be modeled by a decision to use their limited gold supply to purchase universities in several cities, and then concentrating on military techs.
Their industrial policy (which is what Order really represents) did not lead to innovation. Their industrial productivity growth was generally abysmal (and thus their lack of consumer goods) in part because innovation in industry and services was very low.

But I think we're getting off the point here.
* * *

This is the bowman entry. Each unit/building has both a type (specific) and a class (shared).

Right, but changing the ranged attack on the archer doesn't change the ranged attack on the bowman unless you change it manually.

 

[Txurce]

1. Superior walls are just not a defining feature of a Republic.

2. Come on. Landed Elite clearly has something to do with land, and nothing to do with factories or aqueducts. I'm not imposing some weird view by pointing this out. America is a prime Liberty civ.

3. We should consider boosting the strength of policies similar to what they were in older versions of TBC and similar to what some of the trees have them as now, by fixing some of the policies where TBC 7.7 has adopted the (weaker) vanilla values.

4. No it doesn't. Three forms of government are not all forms of government.
Go back to some of my examples...

5. They achieved scientific advances in particular areas because they did very little research in other areas; they concentrated what research they had on military applications and spaceflight. Their industrial policy (which is what Order really represents) did not lead to innovation.

1. Superior walls are useful when taking a defensive posture, as players choosing Liberty may well do. The Pioneer Fort is an excellent example of this. America is a prime Liberty civ.

2. Landed Elite has something to do with "land"? And "land" means food? Could it mean resources instead? Or the gold resulting from either? Or could it be that LE has to do with the "Elite"? Which in turn could have something to do with collective security (and resultant happiness) as a city grows under the leadership of that elite? Any of these could be true - hence why I resist your subjective interpretation.

3. Not when it's working as well for me as it is now.

4. All of your examples predate Order (including Czarist Russia). My examples show that civic openness has little to do with the sort of benefits that Order offers.

5. You're defining Order for me again - United Front and Nationalism have nothing to do with industrial policy.

I don't care what the Soviets chose to focus on specifically. You pointed out that they poured their research efforts into universities, and Planned Economy does exactly that.

 

[Ahriman]

Spoiler :

1. Superior walls are useful when taking a defensive posture, as players choosing Liberty may well do. The Pioneer Fort is an excellent example of this.

This is purely a gameplay argument. It has nothing to do with any logical connection of what it means to be a Republic, which is what my complaint is. There should be a logical connection between the policy name and its effect.

Landed Elite has something to do with "land"? And "land" means food?

Yes, land means food, as it has for most of history. Land is valuable because it provides food.
I'm not trying to say: Landed elite has to be a food bonus. But I am saying that whatever bonuses it gives needs to somehow be related to the realistic concept. The old bonuses we had worked well; food (Land) and science for specialists (Elite).

Not when it's working as well for me as it is now.

Again: what changes in the latest version meant that you think policies needed to be weakened?
Note that the vanilla patch didn't really weaken policies, it left them the same. The weakening happened in particular areas where TBC went from a design with strong policies to a design with some policies and some weak.
In the current design, you would purchase Mandate of Heaven or United Front? Really?

All of your examples predate Order (including Czarist Russia). My examples show that civic openness has little to do with the sort of benefits that Order offers.

Czarist Russia predates Marx?
Also: so? Your claim was that government system has no impact on innovation didn't mention anything about pre-20th century
And your examples don't work, because Nazis and Soviets weren't broadly innovative. So your 20th century examples don't work either.

You're defining Order for me again - United Front and Nationalism have nothing to do with industrial policy.

We weren't discussing a science boost for United Front or Nationalism. We were discussing a science boost for planned economy which gave a scientific boost to factories, which is almost the very definition of Industrial Policy.
And we already have a Rationalism tree for science boosts.

You pointed out that they poured their research efforts into universities, and Planned Economy does exactly that

Planned Economy doesn't do that. Planned economy gives a research bonus in cities with factories.

 

[Txurce]

0. This is purely a gameplay argument. It has nothing to do with any logical connection of what it means to be a Republic, which is what my complaint is. There should be a logical connection between the policy name and its effect.

1. I'm not trying to say: Landed elite has to be a food bonus. But I am saying that whatever bonuses it gives needs to somehow be related to the realistic concept. The old bonuses we had worked well; food (Land) and science for specialists (Elite).

2. Again: what changes in the latest version meant that you think policies needed to be weakened?
Note that the vanilla patch didn't really weaken policies, it left them the same. The weakening happened in particular areas where TBC went from a design with strong policies to a design with some policies and some weak.

3. Czarist Russia predates Marx?
Also: so? Your claim was that government system has no impact on innovation didn't mention anything about pre-20th century
And your examples don't work, because Nazis and Soviets weren't broadly innovative. So your 20th century examples don't work either.

4. We weren't discussing a science boost for United Front or Nationalism. We were discussing a science boost for planned economy which gave a scientific boost to factories, which is almost the very definition of Industrial Policy.

5. Planned economy gives a research bonus in cities with factories.

0. It has some connection - as much as Oligarchy having no-maintenance units, for example. And some connection is all I need to not have my immersion broken.

1. And the new bonus reflects the happiness brought about by existence under a Landed Elite. It's not the only way to go - but rejecting it is not a "no brainer" in my view.

2. Vanilla weakened certain trees - Liberty most notably. But the point is that the new policies are meant to work hand in glove with other game changes. Bottom line for me: the game works better than ever, so I'm going to balk at overnight wholesale changes proposed by one individual.

3. Order is an industrial policy. Czarist Russia wasn't industrialized - hence its irrelevance in this argument. All of my examples overlap with or come soon after the Industrial era - smack where Order lives. And my overall point here is that when the big three governmental systems of that time all produced scientific achievements that affected the globe, government type isn't where I would look for creativity.

4. You defined Order as having to do with industry. I'm showing that it is not all about that.

5. Sounds like the USSR to me.

 

[Seek]

I understand that "new" refers to post-patch vanilla. But what is post-patch TBC?

It's the same.

So why don't we put the food yield bonus back into Landed Elite and think of something else for a Tradition finisher?

I have no problem with this.

Maybe gold per X pop in the capital? Some gold income would help, since small empires tend to struggle with gold since they have less pop and so less trade income.

Well, gold per pop is already used in another policy...

I don't have a strong objection to removing policy cost reduction (or rather moving it to Piety, the culture tree), I just don't think we should be designing around a game option.

I don't think it is - that's just Thal's preference. I can't imagine going back to policy saving, myself.

Walls:

If the AI builds defense but the human doesn't it's an overall buff to the AI.

I don't see this as a problem.

Neither do I - quite the opposite in fact!

I think the patch moved in the right direction in this balance

How? The patch made defensive buildings much less worth constructing for the human unless you are using Honor. I don't think "construct some specialist circumstances under which the human might want them" is the right way to go here.

They're not worth constructing if you manage diplo well and aren't attacked, but (as I mentioned previously) there have been many reports of the AI taking cities more frequently than before the patch's change to city defense.

A garrison bonus makes sense in Honor; Honor is about units. A walls bonus really doesn't.

This seems somewhat one-dimensional to me - *why* should Honor just be about units? War in civ is more than just units and I prefer it as a "combat" or "warmonger" tree as it adds more flexibility and fun. I think I've made my argument in earlier posts and described how I think the changes to walls are successful in gameplay, if you'd like me to reiterate it (again), I can do that.

 

[Ahriman]

It's the same.

So with Liberty post-patch TBC means each extra city is only a 10% policy cost increase? This really feels low, this is what it used to be with the early 7.x versions of TBC, and it was too easy to get policies. I dislike more cities leading to a lower policy rate, I think we are losing too many of the factors that made a tall empire approach valuable.

Well, gold per pop is already used in another policy...

I'll think about it, see what I can come up with.

They're not worth constructing if you manage diplo well and aren't attacked, but (as I mentioned previously) there have been many reports of the AI taking cities more frequently than before the patch's change to city defense.

Taking cities more from each other or from the human?
I'd believe they take more cities from each other. But I think the marginal value of defensive structures to the human player is lower than it used to be (excepting honor) and so the player is less likely to build them.

This seems somewhat one-dimensional to me - *why* should Honor just be about units? War in civ is more than just units and I prefer it as a "combat" or "warmonger" tree

I am fine to define Honor as a Warmonger tree, that seems in flavor. But I don't find Walls very useful as a Warmonger; just the opposite, because as a Warmonger I will be conquering enemy territory and so my border city is much less likely to remain a border city.

I think I've made my argument in earlier posts and described how I think the changes to walls are successful in gameplay, if you'd like me to reiterate it (again), I can do that.

I saw an argument that the changes to walls make it easier for the AIs to take cities, and I think that is a fair point. I didn't see an argument that the human player should be more likely to build them (except using Honor). And I didn't see much argument for why a Wall bonus fits well in Honor.
If we had a tree that a Walls bonus suits well, it would be Tradition; walls are "conservative" in some kind of flavor sense, and in a tall empire with only a few cities it is really worth protecting each one, and you are likely to be playing more defensively, and a given city is more likely to be attacked. Would this make sense as a Tradition Finisher if we moved the food bonus to Landed Elite? A walls bonus might also make good sense in a policy that boosted wonder production; Monarchy makes good flavor sense for walls in a way that Republics don't. Monarchs very often spent a huge proportion of their income on building castles.
[See for example http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Battles-Bombs-Economics-Explains/dp/0226071634 ]

 

[Txurce]

So with Liberty post-patch TBC means each extra city is only a 10% policy cost increase? This really feels low, this is what it used to be with the early 7.x versions of TBC, and it was too easy to get policies. I dislike more cities leading to a lower policy rate, I think we are losing too many of the factors that made a tall empire approach valuable.

If we had a tree that a Walls bonus suits well, it would be Tradition; walls are "conservative" in some kind of flavor sense, and in a tall empire with only a few cities it is really worth protecting each one, and you are likely to be playing more defensively, and a given city is more likely to be attacked. Would this make sense as a Tradition Finisher if we moved the food bonus to Landed Elite?

The 10% policy increase is low because the progressive policy rate is now higher as the game advances. (Culture victories now take longer.) A player not taking the tall approach would wind up with few enough policies as to deprive them of this aspect's fun factor. As with the earlier decision to give culture via Honor (with which I disagreed), gameplay trumps "realism."

Tradition isn't "conservative" in Civ 5 - it's tall. Walls do make more sense for a tall empire than for the wide approach of Liberty. I think putting them in as a finisher is too little, too late. Landed Elite makes sense to me in this regard, given how many nobles had castles of some sort in the feudal era - although happiness associated with the (Landed) Elite also makes sense to me. Walls also make intuitive sense as part of Honor, but they could go anywhere, or nowhere.

 

[Ahriman]

because the progressive policy rate is now higher as the game advances

I'm not quite sure what this means; do you mean the marginal cost of each new policy is higher?
If so, that is yet another strike against weaker policies. If policies cost more culture and are weaker, then why bother investing in culture? Why ever take an artist specialist?

I think putting them in as a finisher is too little, too late.

Well, probably, though +1 happy each of the the 4 defensive buildings (which is the current honor policy) is potentially strong.

I think this could be a good bonus for landed elite though, your argument makes good sense here. If your elite are feudal lords, then each has their own castle, which they use to control the populace (ie "happiness").

Maybe more happiness is boring, but some kind of defensive building bonus makes the most sense to me in Tradition as compared to other policies.

 

[Txurce]

1. I'm not quite sure what this means; do you mean the marginal cost of each new policy is higher?
If so, that is yet another strike against weaker policies. If policies cost more culture and are weaker, then why bother investing in culture? Why ever take an artist specialist?

2. Well, probably, though +1 happy each of the the 4 defensive buildings (which is the current honor policy) is potentially strong.

I think this could be a good bonus for landed elite though, your argument makes good sense here. If your elite are feudal lords, then each has their own castle, which they use to control the populace (ie "happiness").

Maybe more happiness is boring, but some kind of defensive building bonus makes the most sense to me in Tradition as compared to other policies.

1. I mean that they made policies cheaper in the early game, and more expensive in the late game.

A little culture is better than none, of course, but the overall reduction does slow your progress. Victories now take longer, and I think this was the devs' intent. You are more likely to have a game stretch into the 1900s now, and it will take longer to really milk the Modern era.

2. Although I can accept the arguments for walls going just about anywhere, I agree with (your original point?) in that I'd leave all of the trees without it, or else put it in Tradition. While there's value for it in Liberty or Honor, there are more useful bonuses.

 

[Thalassicus]

changing the ranged attack on the archer doesn't change the ranged attack on the bowman unless you change it manually.

It's done in sql.

UPDATE Units
SET RangedCombat = ROUND(RangedCombat * 1.15, 0)
WHERE Class = 'UNITCLASS_ARCHER';

That alters archers and bowmen together and was in the mod pre-patch (removed with the broad ancient/classical strength drop). Whenever a change affects multiple items in a similar way I always group those changes together. It's good programming practice because it reduces the likelihood of mistakes.

You can see examples in the "BC - General.sql" file if you're interested in exploring further. There's some complex logic near the bottom I use to determine if promotions should upgrade or not.

 

[Ahriman]

1. I mean that they made policies cheaper in the early game, and more expensive in the late game.

I don't see how that is an argument for a lower impact on culture cost from adding cities.

Although I can accept the arguments for walls going just about anywhere, I agree with (your original point?) in that I'd leave all of the trees without it, or else put it in Tradition.

Great, we are in agreement here. My first preference would be to make defensive buildings actually worth building for the human player, in general.
My second preference would be that if any tree was going to encourage them, it should be Tradition. [I am fine with the military production bonus boosting wall creation, but I don't like the happiness from walls in honor.]

It's done in sql.

Ah! Cool.
My main problem isn't with the method or anything, it is that the warrior is too weak now, particularly compared to the strength value of the early barbarians (warrior vs poacher for example) and vs the archer and spearman (warrior should be able to defend against spearman, warrior should be able to beat archer 1v1 if it attacks first - not 1 shot, but in 2 attacks).

 

[Seek]

So with Liberty post-patch TBC means each extra city is only a 10% policy cost increase? This really feels low, this is what it used to be with the early 7.x versions of TBC, and it was too easy to get policies. I dislike more cities leading to a lower policy rate, I think we are losing too many of the factors that made a tall empire approach valuable.

I disagree. How does punishing a wider empire make small empires more valuable? I think rewarding small empires makes for better design. As I said earlier, the policy cost per city was punitive and un-fun, leading to mass-puppeting (even with the puppet nerf in TBC) and reduced the amount of decision-making since annexing was a bad idea 90% of the time. Now expanding and annexing are both much more enticing.

Taking cities more from each other or from the human?
I'd believe they take more cities from each other. But I think the marginal value of defensive structures to the human player is lower than it used to be (excepting honor) and so the player is less likely to build them.

Both, but we have been talking about the human, so that's what is important. The player is more likely to build walls if the AI is taking their cities. If this turns out not to be the case, however, perhaps the base city defense should be lowered (might be a good idea anyway now that I think about it).

I am fine to define Honor as a Warmonger tree, that seems in flavor. But I don't find Walls very useful as a Warmonger; just the opposite, because as a Warmonger I will be conquering enemy territory and so my border city is much less likely to remain a border city.

I saw an argument that the changes to walls make it easier for the AIs to take cities, and I think that is a fair point. I didn't see an argument that the human player should be more likely to build them (except using Honor). And I didn't see much argument for why a Wall bonus fits well in Honor.
If we had a tree that a Walls bonus suits well, it would be Tradition; walls are "conservative" in some kind of flavor sense, and in a tall empire with only a few cities it is really worth protecting each one, and you are likely to be playing more defensively, and a given city is more likely to be attacked. Would this make sense as a Tradition Finisher if we moved the food bonus to Landed Elite? A walls bonus might also make good sense in a policy that boosted wonder production; Monarchy makes good flavor sense for walls in a way that Republics don't. Monarchs very often spent a huge proportion of their income on building castles.
[See for example http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Battles-Bombs-Economics-Explains/dp/0226071634 ]

I do like this for Tradition, and would be fine with moving it there. I think it could fit equally well (from a gameplay perspective) in Liberty because smaller cities = lower defense values and a wider empire will by definition have more border cities. Otoh, for a small empire each city is more valuable, so it could fit in any of the first three trees.

The reason I'm arguing for keeping this mechanic in is because I found this solution to buffing walls elegant when considering the goals I outlined above for city defense:

So it seems there are three goals that need to be balanced here: (1) defensive buildings are not too strong so the AI is able to take cities more frequently (than pre-patch), (2) they are not too weak so that city capture remains a challenge for the human, and (3) they are also not too weak so that the human considers them worth building. I think the patch moved in the right direction in this balance, but tweaking might be necessary down the line if one of these goals isn't met.

These three goals are met to a much larger degree than pre-patch. It seems to me that goal (3) is not met for you, but by removing the buff from the SP (wherever it ends up) is *further* lowering the value for the human. Moreover, removing the SP walls buff and simply buffing defensive buildings back to pre-patch levels would result in goal (1) not being met, and I think that goal is more important than goal (3) because the AI will build defensive structures regardless so the result is a buff to the AI (and hopefully meets goal (2)) - and I think we can agree that is a good thing.

If anyone has a better suggestion for reworking this to improve it, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the walls SP. I would just hate to go back to pre-patch levels where both goals (1) and (3) were not met.

 

[Ahriman]

How does punishing a wider empire make small empires more valuable?

If you have to have a small empire in order to get lots of policies, then a tall/small empire strategy is relatively more powerful.
I think it is fairly obvious that reducing the policy-cost-increase-per-city parameter shifts the balance towards wide empires rather than tall, as does changing buildings towards +X rather than +X% modifiers. The main changes that favored tall empires were the unhappiness from cities increase and the reduction of happiness from buildings - both of which were already in TBC.

So the latest version of TBC has shifted much more towards wide empires relative to the vanilla patch.

As I said earlier, the policy cost per city was punitive and un-fun, leading to mass-puppeting (even with the puppet nerf in TBC) and reduced the amount of decision-making since annexing was a bad idea 90% of the time. Now expanding and annexing are both much more enticing.

I disagree. The old version made tall empires a valid strategic choice, particularly if you were going for policy advancement. Now, expansion is always enticing, and the small/tall empire is weak. So we now have fewer strategic options, because expansion is always favored (as long as happiness can support it).

Both, but we have been talking about the human, so that's what is important.

Given that, as you say, the human rarely built walls, I don't see how a walls nerf makes the AI more likely to take cities from the human, and I don't see any other changes that make this more likely. I don't think weakening city strength will make walls more valuable; all this will do is make it so cities can't really defend themselves, and so push you into using units more. The way to make walls worth building is to reward you for building walls.

I think it could fit equally well (from a gameplay perspective) in Liberty because smaller cities = lower defense values and a wider empire will by definition have more border cities.

This argument doesn't make sense to me. In a tall empire, every city is likely to be a border city. In a wide empire, many cities will be in the empire core and will never be border cities. Liberty is about expansion, and if you are expanding, then it isn't really worth building walls, because that border city might become a non-border city.
Tradition makes much more sense to favor defense. It also has nice synergy with Oligarchy.

The reason I'm arguing for keeping this mechanic in is because I found this solution to buffing walls elegant

I find it decidedly non-elegant to make walls worth building only when you have a particular social policy.
I think you might have a typo in goal (3)?
Assuming it is intended to read "they are not so weak that the human does not consider them worth building" then I find post-patch (3) is not met. They are much less worth building than before, because they are weaker.

The alternative solution here would be to significantly reduce the hammer cost of these buildings. That would make the benefit : cost ratio from building them higher, but would not increase the overall defense gain that you could get, so it would still be easier for the AI to capture cities.