Apolyton blog on Ancient and Classical Cultural Policies in Civ5

[Celevin]

A French REXer is going to be fearsome, indeed. +2 culture/city, pushing deep into Liberty for better cities and another +1 culture/city, will result in a lot of free culture later on. Happiness and Culture went hand-in-hand in Civ4, so if Civ5 is similar in that regard, a French player could grab a ton of early land, use Liberty to get the most out of their many small cities, and use their +3 culture/city/turn to keep ahead of everyone else culturally.

Indeed. Maintenance this time around is happiness, so a REXer would want happiness-giving policies. Also note that golden ages are better the bigger you are, and require happiness too! I think France will benefit greatly as a REXer who seeks anything that increases happiness, and might even shy away from war because of the position they'd be in.

 

[Szpilman]

Or get all but Free Religion in Piety, sit back until you're a few SPs short of building Utopia, and pick up your last two (and most expensive) SPs for the price of one.

It's actually three for the price of one for Utopia purposes, and two for the price of one benefit-wise.

Indeed. Maintenance this time around is happiness, so a REXer would want happiness-giving policies. Also note that golden ages are better the bigger you are, and require happiness too! I think France will benefit greatly as a REXer who seeks anything that increases happiness, and might even shy away from war because of the position they'd be in.

Fun lies exactly in everybody else wanting war with them!

 

[Diplomat32]

I think the new cultural policies will be much more interesting than civ4's civics because we will have so many more choices. It is also interesting how the various policies seem almost custom fit to certain civ's special abilities. The whole Piety branch helps Persia have more Golden Ages. Honor enhances the German special ability. Monarchy enhances the American special ability. Warrior Code fits with China. Piety also seems more valuable to the big civ since bigger civs will have happiness worries. I would also argue that Honor and Piety go well together since Honor will help you build a larger empire through conquest and Piety will help reduce the happiness problems.

 

[Xetal]

I think the new cultural policies will be much more interesting than civ4's civics because we will have so many more choices. It is also interesting how the various policies seem almost custom fit to certain civ's special abilities. The whole Piety branch helps Persia have more Golden Ages. Honor enhances the German special ability. Monarchy enhances the American special ability. Warrior Code fits with China. Piety also seems more valuable to the big civ since bigger civs will have happiness worries. I would also argue that Honor and Piety go well together since Honor will help you build a larger empire through conquest and Piety will help reduce the happiness problems.

That is actually pretty funny.

EDIT: Although, it depends if the 50% reduction is multiplicative or addative.

If it is multiplicative, then Americans pay 75% cost per tiles, 50% of that is a 37.5% reduction from base price. All other civs get 50% reduction from base price. Another civ might save 50 gold for a specific tile, America would only save 37.5 gold for purchasing the same tile.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That is actually pretty funny.

Actually, Representation also sits will with the American ability (assuming that the reduced cost of tiles also applies to *culture* cost. I actually feel that Monarchy should give bonus culture to cities, because this would sit well with the French Special ability (Ancien Regim). As I said above, Liberty should be better for smaller empires, whilst Tradition should aid expansion IMHO!

Aussie.

 

[Diplomat32]

That is actually pretty funny.

EDIT: Although, it depends if the 50% reduction is multiplicative or addative.

If it is multiplicative, then Americans pay 75% cost per tiles, 50% of that is a 37.5% reduction from base price. All other civs get 50% reduction from base price. Another civ might save 50 gold for a specific tile, America would only save 37.5 gold for purchasing the same tile.

Your example does not make sense unless you meant to write "pay" instead of "save": why would America pay more when it gets a discount? I assume the bonus would be cumulative. In other words, the American -25% would be on top of the -50% discount of the social policy. So, if a tile cost 100 gold, America would pay 37.5 gold while another civ would pay 50.

 

[bjbrains]

Your example does not make sense unless you meant to write "pay" instead of "save": why would America pay more when it gets a discount? I assume the bonus would be cumulative. In other words, the American -25% would be on top of the -50% discount of the social policy. So, if a tile cost 100 gold, America would pay 37.5 gold while another civ would pay 50.

Percents in Civ have been additive in the past. Research, gold, production all worked off of added percentages, which where then all applied together (so the two discounts would add up to -75%)

 

[Lyoncet]

Percents in Civ have been additive in the past. Research, gold, production all worked off of added percentages, which where then all applied together (so the two discounts would add up to -75%)

Yeah, don't see that happening this time around.

Hellenic League (Greece): City-State influence degrades at half and recovers and twice the normal rate.

Patronage

Unlocks at Medieval Era.
Patronage enhances the benefits of City-State friendship. Influence with City-States degrades 50% slower than normal.

 

[ShaqFu]

Fun lies exactly in everybody else wanting war with them!

If you're going for a culture win, you're likely pushing into Patronage, so hopefully you can leverage your diplomatic position into something more useful.

 

[mushroomshirt]

Percents in Civ have been additive in the past. Research, gold, production all worked off of added percentages, which where then all applied together (so the two discounts would add up to -75%)

This is not quite how they work in civ IV. In fact, to my knowledge there are no discounts, only bonuses.

For instance when certain traits give faster worker production they don't discount the price of the worker, they give a bonus to the number of hammers produced toward that worker. So if you were to have +100% worker production you would produce workers at double speed, you wouldn't get them for free.

(this leads to its own set of unintended consequences and exploits, that may or may not be fixed in civ V but oh, well).

 

[bjbrains]

This is not quite how they work in civ IV. In fact, to my knowledge there are no discounts, only bonuses.

For instance when certain traits give faster worker production they don't discount the price of the worker, they give a bonus to the number of hammers produced toward that worker. So if you were to have +100% worker production you would produce workers at double speed, you wouldn't get them for free.

(this leads to its own set of unintended consequences and exploits, that may or may not be fixed in civ V but oh, well).

True enough, but I don't think they're going handle percentages differently in any aspect of the game- Why would they? All they have to do is avoid getting too many discounts on given things (which they appear to have done).

 

[Xetal]

Your example does not make sense unless you meant to write "pay" instead of "save": why would America pay more when it gets a discount? I assume the bonus would be cumulative. In other words, the American -25% would be on top of the -50% discount of the social policy. So, if a tile cost 100 gold, America would pay 37.5 gold while another civ would pay 50.

So how much did the 25% bonus provide in savings then?

For America, from 50 gold to 37.5, a difference of 12.5 gold.
For any other Civ, from 100 gold to 75, a difference of 25 gold.
When you apply the same percentage to a smaller number, it yields smaller results.

Thus, if it is multiplicative, then the bonus saves less gold for America than it would for any other nation.

As far as bonuses being multiplicative or additive in Civ games, you have some of each so without testing (or 2k confirmation) then you can't tell.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's no worker stacking, so 25% bonus to worker speed is another great boost as it will allow you to setup your infrastructure much quicker and possibly require less workers

I doubt that mean faster workers, looks like workers require less production to be built. The description uses the same words Liberty uses as increased settler production.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So how much did the 25% bonus provide in savings then?

For America, from 50 gold to 37.5, a difference of 12.5 gold.
For any other Civ, from 100 gold to 75, a difference of 25 gold.
When you apply the same percentage to a smaller number, it yields smaller results.

Thus, if it is multiplicative, then the bonus saves less gold for America than it would for any other nation.

But they still save overall more gold. Americans pay 37.5, while everyone else pays 75. If the Americans beat them to the bonus, they pay 37.5 while everyone else pays 100 until they catch up. If the other civ bears them to the bonus, they pay 50 while the other guy pays 75 until the Americans catch up. Either way, it's advantageous and helpful for the American side to stack bonuses, even with diminishing returns.

It could be -25% from the base rate, however. In that case, if the original cost was 100 it would be -50 and then -25 (making the cost 25). That would prevent diminishing returns. As long as they don't add something else that makes it even cheaper, it might not be too overpowered either.

 

[mushroomshirt]

But they still save overall more gold. Americans pay 37.5, while everyone else pays 75. If the Americans beat them to the bonus, they pay 37.5 while everyone else pays 100 until they catch up. If the other civ bears them to the bonus, they pay 50 while the other guy pays 75 until the Americans catch up. Either way, it's advantageous and helpful for the American side to stack bonuses, even with diminishing returns.

It could be -25% from the base rate, however. In that case, if the original cost was 100 it would be -50 and then -25 (making the cost 25). That would prevent diminishing returns. As long as they don't add something else that makes it even cheaper, it might not be too overpowered either.

I almost guarantee that it will be a bonus to gold and not a discount, so there will be diminishing returns. Here's an example:

for something that costs 100 gold typically
cost: 100, bonus: 0%, 100 gold required
cost: 100, bonus: 25%, 80 gold required (80*1.25 = 100)
cost: 100, bonus: 50%, 66.7 gold required (66.7*1.5 = 100)
cost: 100, bonus: 75%, 57.1 gold required (57.1*1.75 = 100)

But I agree with your general point - for the Americans the 50% additional bonus takes them from 1.25 to 1.75 which is a relative benefit of 40% (1.25*1.4 = 1.75) whereas for all other civs the additional 50% is truly 50% (1*1.5 = 1.50).

 

[seasnake]

Here's the thing, where you're strong you can either get the bonus social policy and get really good, or you can ignore it and spend the culture elsewhere. America may not want to invest in a further reduction in tile cost, if it feels 25 percent discount is good enough already to accomplish its goals it can spend it elsewhere. You can either enhance your strengths or shore up other areas.

Social Policies are going to really add to the replay value as you try to make different choices and wonder if what build is optimal for what civ pursuing what type of victory. Great times ahead!

 

[Xetal]

But they still save overall more gold. Americans pay 37.5, while everyone else pays 75. If the Americans beat them to the bonus, they pay 37.5 while everyone else pays 100 until they catch up. If the other civ bears them to the bonus, they pay 50 while the other guy pays 75 until the Americans catch up. Either way, it's advantageous and helpful for the American side to stack bonuses, even with diminishing returns.

It could be -25% from the base rate, however. In that case, if the original cost was 100 it would be -50 and then -25 (making the cost 25). That would prevent diminishing returns. As long as they don't add something else that makes it even cheaper, it might not be too overpowered either.

My point was that it is NOT advantageous to stack diminishing bonuses in many situations. Yes, the Americans will have lower tile purchase, thanks to their UA. Because of this lower tile purchase they don't as badly need another lower tile purchase bonus, no matter if it is multiplicative or additive. If it is multiplicative this is doubly true because not only do they not need it, it is a weaker bonus than the other civs would get for the same civic.

Add to that it isn't a gameplay feature that you can "stack to win" (like a military bonus or culture bonus), and it is yet another reason why a -50% tile purchase civic would be worse for America than it would be for other Civs. Other civs subtract 50 gold on a 100 gold (base) purchase with it.

Would you rather save 50 gold or 37.5 gold?

 

[stealth_nsk]

My point was that it is NOT advantageous to stack diminishing bonuses in many situations. Yes, the Americans will have lower tile purchase, thanks to their UA. Because of this lower tile purchase they don't as badly need another lower tile purchase bonus, no matter if it is multiplicative or additive. If it is multiplicative this is doubly true because not only do they not need it, it is a weaker bonus than the other civs would get for the same civic.

That depends on strategy. For active expansion this could be really cool. Say you establish a city and instantly gain access to all nearby resources. But surely this will depend on addiction or multiplication bonus.

 

[Lyoncet]

Say you establish a city and instantly gain access to all nearby resources. But surely this will depend on addiction or multiplication bonus.

Now that would be an excellent (and probably way overpowered) Liberty bonus!

 

[stealth_nsk]

Now that would be an excellent (and probably way overpowered) Liberty bonus!

You still need money for this, so it's not overpowered. But powerful - yes.