Ancient era policy analysis and feedback.

[Funak]

There is no point to give a healing to units, which don't take damage upon attacking. 15 health is too low for melee units (when they take ~20 damage per attack) while it's a huge buff to anyone else (especially ships).

My ranged units tend to take damage, either from other ranged units or citybombardment, I like being able to keep fighting with them, lasthitting units to heal them rather than fortifying them to wait for more hp.
Also I really don't see a need for raised numbers for meleeunits either, my meleeunits pretty much never lose hp when I kill a unit with them if I have logistics, which is sorta the point.

 

[Gazebo]

I have to agree with Strigvir on this point, Funak. Melee units should benefit here, not ranged units. It is a little too easy for humans to exploit the heals of the ranged unit anyways.

G

 

[Funak]

I have to agree with Strigvir on this point, Funak. Melee units should benefit here, not ranged units. It is a little too easy for humans to exploit the heals of the ranged unit anyways.

G

I think that's just a pale copy of the jaguar ability instead of the extremely unique ability that it currently is. Also this entire ability is "easy for humans to exploit", there is a reason why the AI needs 5 times the number of units to win a war. If I lose units in a war it's usually to ranged units anyways.

 

[Strigvir]

My ranged units tend to take damage, either from other ranged units or citybombardment,

So do melee units.

I like being able to keep fighting with them, lasthitting units to heal them rather than fortifying them to wait for more hp.

And I like melee units actually benefiting from this policy.

pretty much never lose hp when I kill a unit with them if I have logistics, which is sorta the point.

Of course you rarely lose hp, because you attack everything with ranged units. But not every civ has to resort to Mounted Bowmen/Scout Archers cheese.

 

[Funak]

So do melee units.

And I like melee units actually benefiting from this policy.

I'm not suggesting removing the benefit for the meleeunits, but you can't really increase it either, or you'll be overlapping with unique units.

Of course you rarely lose hp, because you attack everything with ranged units. But not every civ has to resort to Mounted Bowmen/Scout Archers cheese.

No I dont? I think mounted bowmen are useless and pretty much never use them. I use flanking, crossbows and cannons.

 

[Strigvir]

I'm not suggesting removing the benefit for the meleeunits,

Giving a very low healing value = removing a benefit for melee units.

but you can't really increase it either, or you'll be overlapping with unique units.

Or you can just go non-Might tree and still benefit from units having a healing on kill. It more depends if this Jaguar promotion stays upon upgrading or not.

 

[Funak]

Giving a very low healing value = removing a benefit for melee units.

I think you need to look the word "remove" up in a dictionary.

Or you can just go non-Might tree and still benefit from units having a healing on kill. It more depends if this Jaguar promotion stays upon upgrading or not.

That's absolutely not the point, the point is that the unique units gets less unique if anyone can access it in a policy-tree.

 

[Stalker0]

That's absolutely not the point, the point is that the unique units gets less unique if anyone can access it in a policy-tree.

I would say that if the choice is between a good policy or a good unique, I would rather preserve the policy.

Than again, if the unique's ability and the policy abilities stack...I think that is still pretty unique.

 

[Strigvir]

I think you need to look the word "remove" up in a dictionary.

And you need to check for the word "negligible".

That's absolutely not the point, the point is that the unique units gets less unique if anyone can access it in a policy-tree.

Yeah, just like Musketeer and Lightning Warfare policy. Because the bonus on the one unit type equals to the whole policy.

 

[Funak]

Yeah, just like Musketeer and Lightning Warfare policy. Because the bonus on the one unit type equals to the whole policy.

Correct, I'm not a fan of that either, but at least that was a unique unit that was added after the policy, and it is a promotion that the unit couldn't get anyways.

And you need to check for the word "negligible".

I really don't see why that would be relevant, the policy isn't getting any worse, and it is, imho, fine at the moment.

 

[DrNooooo]

Liberty still feels like an overall boring, weak tree to me. The "science for capital growtg" policy is still amazing - but it comes too early to be a real choice. You always, always want to grab it first, then the left side, then the +1 movement policy, then the (initially rather useless since you don't get GPs for a while) GP bonus. Always in that exact order every time.

This is because the earlier you get the capital growth policy, the better - it has higher returns and activates more often. Even if you're going very wide very early, it is better, because you've slowed down your capital growth and the massive science yields are far superior to the relatively small production boosts.

I would make that policy a tier 2 policy. This slows down its incredible early game power and makes it more of a choice between it and the free worker. Also maybe boost the per city production boost policy, to encourage more choice between a wide and tall strategy?

 

[Gamewizard]

For me, Tradition also has only one path. I always choose the culture first in tier 1 and food in tier 3.

 

[DrNooooo]

Yes, Culture is overwhelmingly the best choice in Tradition too, now that you mention it. Gold is less useful in the early game and on top of that it gives you defense *and* GE points - it's a no brainer.

I do sometimes take the Faith boost in tier 3 instead of Food. Probably not the best choice but if I'm going Tradition I'm basically always gunning for a religion anyway. Maybe the Gold and Faith boosts could be switched and the GE points/defensive bonuses moved elsewhere? Gold would still be the much worse choice over Food though.

 

[Strigvir]

I've tried Aztecs+Might and it's pretty meh.
1. Stacking heal on kills isn't as good as Funak said. So upping the value to 30 won't be a problem too.
2. Logistics gives science for what reason exactly? Money are far more useful at this stage than some irregular science yields, and negative gpt starts to deduct from science at some point anyway, so no ancient era rushes.
3. The old Conscription was better, due to its synergy with Expansionism. And honestly, I don't need those 0 XP melee units, especially if it picks them bluntly. So no Jaguars if you took bronze working either, or any UU in that regard.

Some sort of "n units are maintenance free" could fit in that tree too (and be actually useful, unlike the Freedom tenet).

 

[Stalker0]

For me, Tradition also has only one path. I always choose the culture first in tier 1 and food in tier 3.

For Tier 1 I agree. Its mainly because that specialist slot is so nice early game.

That said, the gold slot isn't bad, its just not quite in the same league.

Tier 3 I go either way. The food bonus is quiet nice. On the other hand, with so many wonders at this point in the game the faster I can get that Great Engineer the better, so the 15% GP bonus is great too. I like them both.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing I wanted to mention. I don't mind at all that some of the strongest policies in a tree are early on. That makes sprinkle strategies (a little tradition, a little liberty, etc) possibly viable. The finishers encourage people to finish the tree, so its okay that later policies are not as good.

In terms of Liberty.

1) City Planning is always top of the list. The policy is amazing, that amount of science is a huge boost early game, and the food is great too. It also scales well. When I've played around with sprinkle strategies this is a great one to pick up.

2) Civil Engineers is always the second choice. Its a solid policy, not city planning but I love it still.

3) Citizenship is generally always next. The worker at this point in the game is solid, the +1 movement is nice. Ultimately its not my favorite policy but it does the job.

4) Meritocracy is pretty bland early game. It often doesn't give me benefits for quite a while, add doesn't help me that much at that point. Later game it gets more exciting. One thing to consider might be to swap this bonus with Tradition's splendor. Give Liberty the growth (which many of its policies utilize), and give Tradition the bonuses to GP (which it focuses on).

5) Representation....basically useless early game, though any happiness is something to consider.

6) Finisher: The gold is actually easy to overlook and it grows to be quite a lot later game.


Might

1) Tribute: I love this policy so much, I've been trying whole strategies around it. Its my first choice.
2) Logistics or Conscription: Both of these are good in different ways. Logistics generally wins because expansionism is so good. I also think the logistics science bonus works because might needs ways to get science to compete with the infrastructure of tradition/liberty.

3) Expansionism: Love this policy. Free settler always good. The +1 happy per city scales really well.

4) Martial Law: Its effective, but I have never liked making puppets stronger, and I do not think that occupied cities should be stronger than annexed ones...I just find that silly to me.

5) Finisher: Its nice enough, not my favorite but it does the job. That said, I can say I have never built a great general with faith....I get plenty of those when I am on the warpath.

 

[Funak]

1) City Planning is always top of the list. The policy is amazing, that amount of science is a huge boost early game, and the food is great too. It also scales well. When I've played around with sprinkle strategies this is a great one to pick up.

2) Civil Engineers is always the second choice. Its a solid policy, not city planning but I love it still.

I pretty much always pick Civil Engineers first, mostly because at this state of the game I'm either trying to build a wonder or trying to build 2 settlers.

4) Meritocracy is pretty bland early game. It often doesn't give me benefits for quite a while, add doesn't help me that much at that point. Later game it gets more exciting. One thing to consider might be to swap this bonus with Tradition's splendor. Give Liberty the growth (which many of its policies utilize), and give Tradition the bonuses to GP (which it focuses on).

5) Representation....basically useless early game, though any happiness is something to consider.

I usually switch these aswell, but they are usually equally meh by the time you get to them, so it's probably not a big deal.

About the switching of meritocracy and splendor, just no, growth is the one thing tradition still does well, no need to butcher that.

Might

1) Tribute: I love this policy so much, I've been trying whole strategies around it. Its my first choice.

I actually feel like this policy is just way too bad now since the border expansion change, it triggers like every 20 turns instead of every 2 turns.

3) Expansionism: Love this policy. Free settler always good. The +1 happy per city scales really well.

Agreed, this is the policy that keeps Honor together for me.

Imho the biggest problem with Honor is that you can't rely on getting barbarian kills, sometimes your neighbor builds a bigger army, and since he knows where the camps are and you don't you really have no way to take them out first unless you happen to get one spawning next to you out of dumb luck.
Main issue is that you can't effectively scout for barbcamps, as getting vision stops them from spawning. Also moving your troops out of your cities across the map to try and take out a barbcamp is a huge investment in culture and happiness from the lost garrisons.

 

[Finarvi]

Imho the biggest problem with Honor is that you can't rely on getting barbarian kills, sometimes your neighbor builds a bigger army, and since he knows where the camps are and you don't you really have no way to take them out first unless you happen to get one spawning next to you out of dumb luck.
Main issue is that you can't effectively scout for barbcamps, as getting vision stops them from spawning. Also moving your troops out of your cities across the map to try and take out a barbcamp is a huge investment in culture and happiness from the lost garrisons.

Good said, I think that barb camps spawning notifications would make honor tree less luck-dependant. And it fits this tree: you wan't to fight with barbs and take them down fast if you're at war.

 

[Edaka]

As many pointed out, Tradition doesn't offer much of a choice right now. Authority (the one with an engineer) is almost always the first pick in tier 1 and Splendor (the one with food) in tier 3. Here's a wild suggestion to make things more interesting: move +1 culture in all cities from Authority to Majesty (2 tier) and +10% culture from Majesty to Devotion.

 

[Strigvir]

Why are you rilled up over the "path of choice" inside a tree anyway? The only choice that should matter is the tree choice. Communitas had all policies in a tree available at the same time and there were far less problems with the "right" paths.
Now that I think about it, I hate this "this perk/skill/policy is too OP, let's just put some garbage perk/skill/policy as a requirement to it, surely it is balanced now!" mentality in regards of balance.