Barbarian Scenario (February 2021) Developer Livestream Discussion

[iammaxhailme]

I still like the idea I had when that change was made; you should not be able to do more destructive spy missions against allies (destroy dams/districts/etc) but you should still be able to do more "info gathering" (steal techs, diplomatic vision, etc).

 

[acluewithout]

pretty arrogant

Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to sound arrogant. Apologies if that was the tone.

There are already some great threads on Autocracy v Oligarch. See here here and here and here. If you read some of the posts by Vicky, Archon and Lily, and maybe some of mine, I think it’s clear that Autocracy has been generally underrated because some people haven’t appreciated the benefits of an extra military card over a Diplo card early game, and haven’t appreciated the benefit of the yield bonuses.

I think it’s also pretty clear that, with the previous spread Autocracy and Oligarchy balance, you were somewhat driven to sometimes flip between the two to warmonger - Autocracy to build the army, Oligarchy to use it - whereas now you will just run Oligarchy and not have to balance the use of those two governments.

I think you might have missed my point about Allies. My point was that, previously, the choice between Ally and not Ally wasn’t so binary, because making someone an Ally still allowed you to make war with them but only at other layers of the game (spies, religion etc). Now the choice is more binary, because Allies mean not only “no hot war” but also “no Cold War”. (Honestly, if FXS had just gone with limiting what missions you can run against Allies, or made spying on Allies more risky, rather than banning spy missions entirely, that would have been fine.)

I think you’re undervaluing early military cards and overvaluing diplocards (initially either just a little bit of extra influence or a card you slot for one turn for a few extra envoys).

Where do you get “10 turns later you get theocracy”? Maybe you do. But the point is Monarchy lets you grab an early T2 Government before you plough on though the middle of the civics tree.

I take the point about food and housing. As a change to just make tall more viable, it maybe does have some merit. And those changes were also made with amenities getting (arguably) a bit tougher.

I get people have different views. I’m not saying I’m right and everyone is wrong, really. But it I’m my view, some of these changes while maybe giving many people things they’ve been asking for, actually remove some really interesting choices from the game, and so make the game less challenging and interesting overall.

Anyway. If you don’t agree, that’s cool. If lots of people like the changes, then that’s great. Other than making a few posts about this topic, which I’ve already done, I’m not going to lose sleep over this stuff. There’s definitely more good than bad in NFP (although the Allies thing really does cheese me off every now and again).

 

[leandrombraz]

Oligarchy is incredibly strong. There’s no point taking any other Government.

Now that amenities matter a lot more, Classical Republic is the best way to make sure your cities won't get a penalty, mainly if they don't fix the AI not improving their luxuries (you can't buy luxuries from the AI). For me, this is the must adopt government while playing peaceful. If they fix the luxuries situation, now that Autocracy has decent slots, I might actually consider adopting it. A second military slot early is quite useless if you're not focusing on military. Oligarchy is only for when I plan to be aggressive, and for desperate times, when I just need that extra combat strength.

IMO diplo cards get a bad rap because of how crummy charismatic leader is and how often there’s nothing better run. Still, once you get to merchant confederation you can pretty much run powerful diplo cards for the rest of the game. Diplomatic league is great too.

Charismatic Leader is underrated, because people measure how good it is based on how many envoys they will get from it over time, which is a mistake, since the advantage of running it isn't to get more envoys, but to get them earlier, so you get access to CS bonuses/yields earlier. The early diplo slot is also good to adopt Diplomatic League when you need it, without having to remove whatever you're running on your wild slot.

 

[Datgingah]

You realise your 5 allies cannot spy on you, either, right? This change made alliances STRONGER.

In making alliances stronger on defense though, it added a lot of incentive to not actually pick them up. Anyone with an ounce of forethought isn’t going to get an alliance with someone who’s built several spaceship parts - because you lose offensive options, which debateably are more impactful to you the player.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Monarchy is a bit different. Monarchy has always been a bit underpowered and I think the changes make Monarchy much stronger. But I was ok with where Monarchy was - a bit weaker, but it came earlier and has great policy cards at Divine Right so it worked out and there was more than enough good Red policy cards. This is too much of a buff in my view.

I get people aren’t going to agree with me on this. FXS’s changes actually seem pretty consistent with the majority of the feedback they’ve had on Autocracy, Oligarchy and Monarchy. I note that streamers also seem to heavily favour Oligarchy (hilariously because they think it has a good card spread) and dislike Monarchy (because they under value Red Cards). So I can see why these changes have been made. But the change cuts across the original design, which I actually think has the better balance and approach, and overall makes the choices around governments less interesting because Oligarchy is now just always awesome and Monarchy isn’t such a hard choice.

Monarchy was the only government I really wanted them to change considering I never wanted to pick it , so to me any kind of buff was going to be necessary. Though I would have personally made it two diplo slots instead of two wildcards.

It’s a pity FXS keep tweaking the game to remove complexity. No spying on Allies is the worst. Before, you had this great “frenemy” dynamic, where you could Ally with someone precisely because you want to neutralise them as a war threat and spy on them; or you might have a Civ you want a good relationship with, but you might then have second thoughts and want to spy on them. Now you choose Allies, and the game basically enforces YOU WILL BE FRIENDS AND BE NICE TO YOUR ALLIES!

I can understand why they did this. However hopefully when they go back and rebalance all the civs they make it to where Catherine (Black Queen) is able to spy on her allies.
It would make her more interesting.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Monarchy was the only government I really wanted them to change considering I never wanted to pick it , so to me any kind of buff was going to be necessary. Though I would have personally made it two diplo slots instead of two wildcards.

As @Boris Gudenuf said, "Monarchy has been described as Government By Genetic Chance." Guess that's what the Wildcard is for.

Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to sound arrogant. Apologies if that was the tone.

There are already some great threads on Autocracy v Oligarch. See here here and here and here. If you read some of the posts by Vicky, Archon and Lily, and maybe some of mine, I think it’s clear that Autocracy has been generally underrated because some people haven’t appreciated the benefits of an extra military card over a Diplo card early game, and haven’t appreciated the benefit of the yield bonuses.

I think it’s also pretty clear that, with the previous spread Autocracy and Oligarchy balance, you were somewhat driven to sometimes flip between the two to warmonger - Autocracy to build the army, Oligarchy to use it - whereas now you will just run Oligarchy and not have to balance the use of those two governments.

I think you might have missed my point about Allies. My point was that, previously, the choice between Ally and not Ally wasn’t so binary, because making someone an Ally still allowed you to make war with them but only at other layers of the game (spies, religion etc). Now the choice is more binary, because Allies mean not only “no hot war” but also “no Cold War”. (Honestly, if FXS had just gone with limiting what missions you can run against Allies, or made spying on Allies more risky, rather than banning spy missions entirely, that would have been fine.)

I think you’re undervaluing early military cards and overvaluing diplocards (initially either just a little bit of extra influence or a card you slot for one turn for a few extra envoys).

Where do you get “10 turns later you get theocracy”? Maybe you do. But the point is Monarchy lets you grab an early T2 Government before you plough on though the middle of the civics tree.

I take the point about food and housing. As a change to just make tall more viable, it maybe does have some merit. And those changes were also made with amenities getting (arguably) a bit tougher.

I get people have different views. I’m not saying I’m right and everyone is wrong, really. But it I’m my view, some of these changes while maybe giving many people things they’ve been asking for, actually remove some really interesting choices from the game, and so make the game less challenging and interesting overall.

Anyway. If you don’t agree, that’s cool. If lots of people like the changes, then that’s great. Other than making a few posts about this topic, which I’ve already done, I’m not going to lose sleep over this stuff. There’s definitely more good than bad in NFP (although the Allies thing really does cheese me off every now and again).

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly (even though I do not agree with you), and I liked this because you gave a concise, clear argument, and didn't resort to underhanded tactics. Bravo!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As @Boris Gudenuf said, "Monarchy has been described as Government By Genetic Chance." Guess that's what the Wildcard is for.

Only when diplomatic relationships with other monarchies didn't work out I guess.

 

[leandrombraz]

Autocracy sucks because too many military cards and no Diplo cards

The only useful military policy in early game that isn't situational is Conscription, which isn't even that great if you're not maintaining a large, updated army, so it can be easily replaced by situational ones, unless you think Caravansaries is good, then you might like Conscription with only a couple of units that are paying maintenance. Any other is either a policy that you will only need for a few turns, or that are good only under certain circumstances. Equestrian Orders and Veterancy are the two with the most potential in the classical era for a peaceful player. One depends on the AI buying your resources (they won't buy it if they have it) and on how many of those tiles you have improved on your territory, the other depends on having cities where you're building harbors or encampments, two situational districts. Good policies, but situational, which can easily be an option that gives you a whole lot of nothing, and it often is. You'll only get a military policy that can be seen as non-situational by the end of the Renaissance era (Logistics), after you already unlocked a T2 Government. Can two military slots be useful in early game, even for peaceful players? Sure. Is it always useful? No, it usually isn't, so yes, that extra military slot often sucks for peaceful players, and I would rather have a diplo slot and speed up my City-States game. Autocracy is a better option for peaceful players without that extra military slot.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Only when diplomatic relationships with other monarchies didn't work out I guess.

Actually, the professor I quoted that from was talking about the extreme unlikelihood of a monarch getting an heir, let alone several heirs in succession, that are competent. His specific example (because he was a professor of 17th - 18th century French history) was Louis XIV of France, who as followed by such a succession of mediocrities that they virtually bankrupted France and brought the monarchy to a decapitated end less than 75 years later. I suggest that he could have used almost any other monarchial dynasty in history, and the reasonably competent successors would stand out as very rare exceptions.

 

[acluewithout]

The only useful military policy in early game that isn't situational is Conscription

Cheaper units useful is always useful, even if you’re not preparing for war, because you’ll need to defend yourself. You may also want early units you can upgrade later. You also need military slots for cheap upgrades although that comes much later.

Leaving that aside,

• Conscription (gold)
• Discipline (helps clear barbs)
• Survey (faster scouts, and faster scouts means more free envoys, Eurekas and era score)
• Limitanei (amenities, synergises with Conscription letting you turn warriors into free luxuries)
• Raid (pillaging is awesome, although obviously somewhat warmongering)
• Veterancy (cheap harbours? Yes please)

As an aside, can I also point out the extra military slots Monarchy has synergises with its bonuses? As in, you need a military slot for cheaper walls, and you also get the cheap knights and the same time as you get Divine Right.

Seriously. If you have the time, take a read of the threads I linked. Smarter people than me have gone over this ground. Autocracy is (was) very powerful, and part of that is how useful Military Cards are beyond just cheaper units.

 

[Zaarin]

Actually, the professor I quoted that from was talking about the extreme unlikelihood of a monarch getting an heir, let alone several heirs in succession, that are competent. His specific example (because he was a professor of 17th - 18th century French history) was Louis XIV of France, who as followed by such a succession of mediocrities that they virtually bankrupted France and brought the monarchy to a decapitated end less than 75 years later. I suggest that he could have used almost any other monarchial dynasty in history, and the reasonably competent successors would stand out as very rare exceptions.

They should have allowed women to inherit the throne earlier: Henry VIII produced two extremely competent (albeit diametrically opposed) daughters. Kind of hard to fairly judge Edward VI's competence since he was young and sickly...

 

[Josephias]

Craftsmanship now military policy.

So that policy is now War-craft

(sorry for the pointless joke post, but it just begged to begged to be made )

 

[leandrombraz]

Cheaper units useful is always useful, even if you’re not preparing for war, because you’ll need to defend yourself. You may also want early units you can upgrade later. You also need military slots for cheap upgrades although that comes much later.

Leaving that aside,

• Conscription (gold)
• Discipline (helps clear barbs)
• Survey (faster scouts, and faster scouts means more free envoys, Eurekas and era score)
• Limitanei (amenities, synergises with Conscription letting you turn warriors into free luxuries)
• Raid (pillaging is awesome, although obviously somewhat warmongering)
• Veterancy (cheap harbours? Yes please)

As an aside, can I also point out the extra military slots Monarchy has synergises with its bonuses? As in, you need a military slot for cheaper walls, and you also get the cheap knights and the same time as you get Divine Right.

Seriously. Have a read if the threads I posted. Smarter people than me have gone over this ground. Autocracy is very powerful, and part of that is how useful Military Cards are beyond just cheaper units.

That's situational. You don't always need to defend yourself, you don't always need more than a few units that early, and even if you do, conscription is weak and replaceable into you actually start paying the maintenance for those units that you're going to produce, so you don't actually need a second slot for that policy while building a defensive army, which doesn't need to be large, so you can swap the production policy for Conscription soon enough. If you get that second slot and you don't have a useful card to replace it once you're done building units, which shouldn't take long, that's it, you got a dead slot that will sit there doing nothing.

Every other policy you mentioned are also situational:

• Conscription is weak with only a few units and usually is only a good option because there's nothing else better to adopt;
• Discipline is useless if you're not dealing with Barbs, which is common in higher difficulties (more units and cities covering the map);
• Survey is a bad joke that can't possibly justify sacrificing a diplo slot for it;
• Limitanei is only useful if you've an idle army and if you actually need amenities;
• Raid is useless if you're playing peaceful.
• Veterancy is useless if you aren't building harbors.

Notice that I'm not saying that these cards are bad, I'm saying that they are situational. They can be essential or completely useless depending on what is happening on your game and on how you play, and you often only need to adopt them for a limited number of turns. You rarely need a dedicated slot for those cards and they have a tendency to be too weak to bother or completely useless in peaceful games.

As for Monarchy, the problem it had wasn't that it was weak, but that it was really, really hard to justify using it as more than a transitional government into you unlock one of the other two T2 governments. Sure, it's good to have military slots while running Monarchy, but 3 slots was overkill and I often found myself running policies that aren't really being used.

I'm in one of those threads. Military cards are useful, but it's the policy type that has the highest number of situational cards, and almost no permanent card, which are cards that you want to adopt ASAP and stick with it for the rest of the game. Military slots grow in value as the game progresses, but early, they are extremely dependent on what is happening on your game and how you're playing, so seeing an extra military slot as arguably better than a diplo slot just doesn't make any sense. That extra slot is situationally good.

 

[DWilson]

Was originally a bug but they liked it so much they kept it!

"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

 

[Pietato]

In making alliances stronger on defense though, it added a lot of incentive to not actually pick them up. Anyone with an ounce of forethought isn’t going to get an alliance with someone who’s built several spaceship parts - because you lose offensive options, which debateably are more impactful to you the player.

An AI has built several spaceship parts?

 

[Starina]

I'm glad they made Autocracy and Monarchy more useful. Still probably never going to have a real use case for Fascism, though. Monarchy in particular; it may be my new go-to for cultural victories, as you get two wildcard slots AND walls give tourism so I build them anyay.

In my last two games focused on cultural victory, I was forced to choose fascism, because most of the opponents (4/7) were fascists.
But I agree that 4 red cards are a lot, and one yellow is very few. Moreover, in reality, a strong army simply cannot exist without a strong economy.
Therefore, I think fascism and communism need to change the red card to yellow

 

[Pietato]

That's situational. You don't always need to defend yourself, you don't always need more than a few units that early, and even if you do, conscription is weak and replaceable into you actually start paying the maintenance for those units that you're going to produce, so you don't actually need a second slot for that policy while building a defensive army, which doesn't need to be large, so you can swap the production policy for Conscription soon enough. If you get that second slot and you don't have a useful card to replace it once you're done building units, which shouldn't take long, that's it, you got a dead slot that will sit there doing nothing.

Every other policy you mentioned are also situational:

• Conscription is weak with only a few units and usually is only a good option because there's nothing else better to adopt;
• Discipline is useless if you're not dealing with Barbs, which is common in higher difficulties (more units and cities covering the map);
• Survey is a bad joke that can't possibly justify sacrificing a diplo slot for it;
• Limitanei is only useful if you've an idle army and if you actually need amenities;
• Raid is useless if you're playing peaceful.
• Veterancy is useless if you aren't building harbors.

Notice that I'm not saying that these cards are bad, I'm saying that they are situational. They can be essential or completely useless depending on what is happening on your game and on how you play, and you often only need to adopt them for a limited number of turns. You rarely need a dedicated slot for those cards and they have a tendency to be too weak to bother or completely useless in peaceful games.

As for Monarchy, the problem it had wasn't that it was weak, but that it was really, really hard to justify using it as more than a transitional government into you unlock one of the other two T2 governments. Sure, it's good to have military slots while running Monarchy, but 3 slots was overkill and I often found myself running policies that aren't really being used.

I'm in one of those threads. Military cards are useful, but it's the policy type that has the highest number of situational cards, and almost no permanent card, which are cards that you want to adopt ASAP and stick with it for the rest of the game. Military slots grow in value as the game progresses, but early, they are extremely dependent on what is happening on your game and how you're playing, so seeing an extra military slot as arguably better than a diplo slot just doesn't make any sense. That extra slot is situationally good.

Seems you underestimate the military slots, while he overestimates them.

 

[Pietato]

In my last two games focused on cultural victory, I was forced to choose fascism, because most of the opponents (4/7) were fascists.
But I agree that 4 red cards are a lot, and one yellow is very few. Moreover, in reality, a strong army simply cannot exist without a strong economy.
Therefore, I think fascism and communism need to change the red card to yellow

I agree. Especially seeing as the most militaristic country on the planet (US) is a e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶a̶r̶c̶h̶y̶ democracy.

 

[acluewithout]

snip

You have some good points. But I’m conscious some of this stuff has been thrashed over before in the threads I’ve linked, so I’m not going to keep bashing on about the merits of early military cards v early diplo cards. Suffice to say I don’t think the early diplo cards are all that valuable, and that I think the military cards are less situational than you make out (although equally depends a bit on play style, difficulty etc).

I still think making Oligarchy the “obviously this one for warmonger” is a bit sad. As I said, before you had to think about the timing or switching from autocracy to oligarchy for warmongering. Now it’ll just be Oligarchy, other than maybe a few turns in autocracy to chop in a wonder (if you even need the wonder bonus in those circumstances).

while he overestimates them.

Am I overestimating them? Huh. I think I was just saying people underestimate early (even mid game) red cards v early (mid) green cards. If I’m saying people underestimate something, can saying that mean I’m over estimating, or do I just end up at “estimating” them? (These are the questions that keep me up at night.)

Anyway, beyond that, I think my thesis is just that early military slots are more useful than the early diplo slots. eg I feel like I get more envoys out of survey (and faster scouts) than diplomatic league. Faster scouts means more city state first meets, more ability to fulfil quests particularly Eurekas. And anyway, I can always just slot diplomatic league in a wild slot for a turn if it matters.

Like I said, this is all debated in other threads. I don’t have any new arguments beyond those. Over estimated, under estimated, on the nose estimated, I think the T1 governments were fine as they were, and that monarchy didn’t need as much of a buff as it got. And that’s pretty much all I’ve got on the topic (although happy for @leandrombraz to have the last word if he wants it).

[edit. Huh. Just noticed this thread here. I guess this will figure out if red beats green early game? Go team red!]

 

[Pietato]

Am I overestimating them? Huh. I think I was just saying people underestimate early (even mid game) red cards v early (mid) green cards. If I’m saying people underestimate something, can saying that mean I’m over estimating, or do I just end up at “estimating” them? (These are the questions that keep me up at night.)

You saying others underestimate them means that you place a higher estimation on them than they do.

For Monarchy era cards, yes, people seriously underestimate them. I meant more early game.