1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Going for Gold: Ideologies

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Jun 4, 2018.

?

Is this item in a reasonable state of balance?

Poll closed Jun 18, 2018.
  1. Yes

    50.0%
  2. No

    50.0%
  1. lunker

    lunker Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    268
    Iron Fist gives too much yields for a single policy point. It doubles science, culture, and happiness from vassals which can be a HUGE boost if vassals are a sizeable part of your yield income. In many situations I feel obligated to take Autocracy for this tenet alone, especially since it is T1.

    I don't have exact numbers, but over the course of many games Iron Fist single handedly skyrockets me to the top in science/culture/happiness. Something like +700 science, culture, and +50 happiness is fairly common. I don't think any policy can give as much as this.

    All of this is on top of the very useful effect of preventing vassals from rebelling which would still be completely worth taking as a niche policy.

    Edit:

    Possible solution maybe something like removing the yield boon altogether, and maybe adding something like increased CS in vassal territory, or forcing the FRIENDLY status on them so that you can always repair things in their territory.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  2. Gokudo01

    Gokudo01 Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,043
    Location:
    Toulouse(France)
    you don't give your setup and how you got there. your numbers don't tell anything.
    I can give my feeling too : I don't have any issue with ironfist, if you did give back cities to your vassal to improve your output, then it's a choice. for example, in terms of raw yields, it's better to keep a puppet cities with imperialism than give it back the original master. ( you get 50% of the yield without science/culture cost penalty with a little happiness cost but with huge bonus to production while, with vassal (iron fist), you get 20 ( 40%) )
    so unless the city is so ****** that only the handicap bonus from AI can carry it, keep it as a puppet is always better than giving it back to your vassals.

    so unless you play on an unusual setup, no AI capitulates before being almost annihilated. so you never get a strong economy out of it.

    there are narrow situations where I can make iron fist extremely valuable but it's not that common despite what you are trying to say in your post.
     
    ElliotS likes this.
  3. lunker

    lunker Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    268
    I believe yields from cities will be 45%, not 40%. But take into consideration that with Iron Fist you gain all the cities from a vassal which is quite different than cities you spent the time to capture and puppet. Since the civ won't go to war unless you do, they can recover fairly quickly as well.

    A civ may be hurting badly after capitulation, but by the time you get Iron Fist, it's likely that they have recovered quite a bit. In the case that the civ capitulated in late-game, there's still the AI bonuses from their healthy cities.

    But in the end it's just my play experience. I'm curious to know how others feel about it as well.
     
  4. Almonds

    Almonds Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Instant +700 :c5science:Science and +700 :c5culture:Culture seems very high for Iron Fist, but I agree that it may be slightly overtuned. Since we're being anecdotal, I recently had a game where Iron Fist probably bumped me up about +250 :c5science:/:c5culture: yields when i first took it, but I was holding onto a very tall Babylon since Renaissance. Here is my Vassal's output just a couple turns before I won Domination in the Information Era:

    Spoiler Science Breakdown :


    :c5science:Science income was 42%, but at that point I owned two thirds of Pangaea and was railroading towards Domination. I guess playing with a 5% decease of the yield bonus from Iron Fist, but I think a better change would be to switch it to a T2 tenet.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  5. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,455
    Gender:
    Male
    Going to bring this up again. Getting to 27 policies takes an awful lot of time. In my experience, I only got to it by like mid-Atomic even playing as Arabia, only after faith purchasing 4+ Great Writers with a couple dozen Great Works backing them up! And I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a non-Culture civ....

    We want to prevent pre-Modern CVs, right? Why not just make it so that you need one T3 tenet, not two? Yes CVs can happen in, say, early Atomic but honestly that's far enough to avoid any balance problems. Why exactly does CV have to happen exactly at the time of Diplo/Science victories? It feels contrived. What's wrong with an early Atomic CV? The AI has had enough time by this point to play catchup since you got your Ideology and the CV is hardly "accidental" by this point.
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  6. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    8,223
    Unless you have some magic spaceship parts that I don't, you have to tech to Information Age to win science, so early Atomic is still earlier.

    For diplomatic I will flip the question around. Why does a DV have to happen after CV's are possible? Your absolutely right that the timing of the victory conditions are contrived....but I argue that the entire concept of "winning" civ is contrived. I send off a spaceship and I've "won" the world? I get everyone wearing my blue jeans and now I am the global leader?

    Victory Conditions are there to give the player different ways to win, not necessarily to short cut 100 turns of play. I don't mind playing around with the gate and adjusting it, but I can say with confidence that before the gate was introduced CVs could occur too early. CV is special because it is the most "comparative" victory condition. I have to influence the other civs, and depending how focused they on their culture, that can be very easy or hard. Maintaining a static baseline for victory helps smooth that issue out and ensures a reasonable chance for other civs to thwart your win.
     
  7. Zdrif

    Zdrif Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Gender:
    Male
    I think we are in the wrong topic, but I will drop my two cents about CV gate.
    I find having a gate that stops too early CV good, I have issues with the gate being 2 tier 3 tenets.
    27 policies or even, 9 policies in the ideology is fine, but tier 3 tenets are highly specific and sometimes even close to useless.

    Take freedom for example - votes, tourism and space parts(I am almost sure you never need space parts for CV actually). You may not need any of this, while having happiness or gold or army issues, but you are still forced to pick these and play with them for sometime. Feels like adding 5 space factories requirement to science victory to me :(
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
    lunker likes this.
  8. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,868
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    Just take all your T1 and T2 needed policies first, and then the two T3s in a row. Not a big sacrifice.
     
    Galbias and crdvis16 like this.
  9. Galbias

    Galbias Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2016
    Messages:
    488
    One thing that's always bugged me a bit since BNW is Spaceflight Pioneers (Order's lv 3 Science tenet). Along with a free GS/GE and Science on GP pop, it allows you to use Great Engineers to rush Spaceship parts, but Freedom is by far the most GP-focused tree, Order's focus is more on raw production. I haven't taken Order in awhile but from what I remember, Great Engineers aren't that good at Spaceship parts in the first place, I think they tend to be worth around maybe 2000 production by that point and a single Spaceship part is 8000 production on Standard.

    My thought would be something like changing Spaceflight Pioneers to be more focused building Spaceship parts via raw production and Science rather than GP. Something like, say,
    +40% Production to Spaceship Factories and Spaceship parts. Nuclear and Solar Plants give +1 Science on all improved resources.

    idk about the specifics but I'd rather have something in that direction.

    Would it be fine to just make Great Engineers usable on Spaceship parts for everyone? Atomic and Information era are relatively light on Wonders anyways so there's not much to use them for late game, and using them for a Manufactory at that point always feels like a waste.
     
    Gokudo01, mikes61293, tu_79 and 2 others like this.
  10. YukiN

    YukiN Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2018
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Singapore
    I agree spaceflight pioneers feels weak for a lvl 3 tenet. Compared to Space Procurements, the amount of resources you unlock to invest in the space race is significantly smaller.
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  11. Owlbebach

    Owlbebach Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    1,729
    Location:
    Moscow
    I'd like to point out that with latest changes to happiness Order's +3 pop in every city is a suicide
     
    Moi Magnus likes this.
  12. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,387
    So Martial Spirit doesn't scale with gamespeed. I don't understand why. Persia gets a bonus during Golden Ages, and they afaik scale duration and points wise. 50 turns on Quick, Epic, Marathon and Normal are very different. While this could be seen as a policy to "finish the game with", the time between policies on those speeds, as well as technologies, is vastly different. This makes the policy work differently - on quicker speeds, that 50 turns means you can easily get another policy (or two) in the meantime, perhaps assisting you with the conquest as it's ongoing as it'll last pretty much the rest of the game. On slower ones that becomes unlikely, as you have to get the preparing policies (like Elite Forces, Lightning Warfare, etc) before Martial Spirit if you want the optimal strength for your military. It means the policy is way worse on slower speeds. The amount of turns you get to use it is the same, but there's more turns overall for others to make a comeback.
     
  13. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,278
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Don’t assume that a vanilla function behaves as it does because it is intended to function that way, assume instead it was overlooked.

    G
     
  14. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    If this is "fixable", then, in VP, I would vote for "fix it".
    It's not just the speed of getting other policies that are the issue but also the entire war effort, including how quickly you can produce new units to compensate / adjust for things that happen (war is rarely entirely predictable) as well as buildings to build to adjust for stuff. For example, let's say an opponent proves far tougher than estimated and goes on the counter-offensive; now I may have to build military bases in my cities, after all, before I can send the necessary portion of my army elsewhere, because otherwise my cities will be too vulnerable; this change in strategy (wait for new buildings/units/whatever to finish before doing X) will take up far more of the 50 turn bonus on slower game speeds.
     
  15. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,319
    Gender:
    Male
    As someone who plays quite regularly on Marathon, I have to say that 50 turn bonus is more than enough. In the late game, I can, assume I didn't start building my military completely by scratch, certainly do a lot in 50 turns. Of course, we all know that timing can be hard to nail down so we won't get the full 50 turns. However, you'd be surprised how much can be accomplished in half that time or even a fifth of that time on Marathon. If, at that point, you are still building Military Bases and more troops, then you clearly haven't prepared enough. My question is why are you choosing that tenet then? For me at least, I don't declare war unless I know I can deal with a counter-offensive. Otherwise, I shouldn't waste turns fighting a war where I make little progress. That's, in my opinion, a complete waste of time when you can be otherwise preparing more to ensure a more complete victory. If I choose to rush into war, then I should be held responsible.

    If a change must be made, I'd prefer if this is a level 1 tenet. This will making timing a lot easier because level 2 tenets are harder to time and often require us to be less optimal if we want to get to level 3 (especially Air Supremacy) without wasting the bonus. Otherwise, I think the turns is enough. Slow speed doesn't mean you can accomplish less in those turns. If anything, the extra bonus can allow me to go more aggressively at the early stages of the war and the AI will have a harder time to respond due to how much longer it takes to replenish its troops compared to faster speeds.
     
  16. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,387
    But both you and people who play at Epic/Standard/Quick will have the tenet available at roughly the same time, with the same units unlocked. The difference is your window to act is (comparably) much smaller while the Quick guy pretty much takes it and I'm not sure if MS can possibly go away before he finishes the game. For me, it's roughly an era or slightly less than that, for you, it's maybe a third of an era I'm assuming. Sure, you can theoretically end the game in this time, but the ability is completely different, turning from something with a huge window of opportunity to a smaller one. That's especially more evident since War Weariness. In both cases there might be a time of forced peace, in which case the time to declare another war on the same guy will be different - peace time scales with gamespeed as well. It's 15 turns of peace on epic, so 30 on marathon I suppose. In other words for you it's just one war it affects, but for me - I can declare war, take 4 cities and get peace as I realise the red unhappy face is unhappy, only to declare it again. What's unarguable is - for you it is weaker, much weaker, than it is for a guy on Quick, or normal. AI taking this policy is also in a worse shape - on Quick it likely won't matter, as long as they declare war they benefit from CS. On Marathon if they decided not to, or peaced out, it just goes away.

    Also, the extra bonus at early stages of war works both ways. AI has more time to get it's anti-warmonger bonus too 25% as well. Darius' ability scales and it does pretty much the same thing, just not on policy adoption but on Golden Age. Either GAs need change, or Darius, or the policy because otherwise it's pretty inconsistent. It's weird everything scales with gamespeed but this particular ability doesn't. Sure, the window of opportunity due to increased time to move troops will make it better on longer ones, but many things are already superior in such cases. Ancient ruin that gives you a technology is better on slower speeds, especially if it happens to give you one you've been researching already - 5 turns of pottery is the same amount of science on Normal and Epic, and yet the costs of everything are higher. The difference isn't anywhere near as much, especially since this one comes to RNG. Other things that I think scale are other conditional CS% abilities coming from random events (like the Morale event), or so they did back in the day when I didn't turn off the events.
    Hell, I'd even support a remake of the ability to become something else as long as it's consistent throughout the gamespeeds, but I think all it needs is to scale.
     
  17. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    The point isn't whether the player should have perfectly prepared for this policy to be able to use it properly, but whether the policy has a similarly strong effect on different speeds.
    Since you're saying that preparation is necessary (which I agree with), it clearly means that there can be situations where one didn't prepare properly; since the timing, as you point out as well, is difficult, it is possible to have to choose the policy at a sub-optimal point in time. So both these (your) points are examples that show why the policy can't always be used to maximum effect, which makes it important that in sub-optimal conditions the policy still gives the player a great enough benefit on all speeds; this is not true in the current state where it lasts for 50 turns on all speeds, which guarantees the policy to be better at faster speeds.

    As to the question of how much it should be increased I wouldn't necessarily say that the usual scaling should be used, but the number of turns should increase with slower speeds; maybe 35, 50, 65, 90 for Quick to Marathon.
     
  18. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,319
    Gender:
    Male
    Note that I'm only talking from experience so other people might see this differently.

    The peace treaty does last 30 turns on Marathon. Essentially, you are limited to one war only. However, the timing of the second tenet, at least for me, usually sees a similar situation in all my games. I'm in the lead or competing for the lead and there are one or two major competitions. I might be limited to one war but this single war will eliminate one of my biggest rivals and ensure me victory of the game. With how wars are coded, I can go all out and wipe out an opponent. I did this with an older version in my Portugal photojournal but I'm sure I can do the same with the most recent one when happiness is more stable late game and I would rather crush my opponent than wait to give them a chance to recover at all.

    Do I think this tenet is good? I can go without it. A remake can work but, since we're going for gold, we might have to wait until after that. It will require quite a bit of discussion to make sure the ideology don't get too buffed.

    90 turns on Marathon is going to make this so broken. I can effectively war for x turns of it with a decisive victory, wait for the peace treaty to end while I build a stronger force, and then snowball even harder by having the bonus for the start of the next war where the AI has yet to fully recover from the last one. I'm not sure if we need more snowballing mechanics for warring civs on Marathon because, at this point, the most aggressive player/AI is already going to be supreme. If this isn't broken on faster speeds, I don't think we need to change it. At this point, warring is exceptionally powerful while peaceful play is extremely hard on Marathon speed.
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  19. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,387
    Except the same point applies to Epic and I can do the very thing you describe as so broken, meaning it definitely happens to normal guys. AI won't fully recover after 15 turns of peace either as all produiction costs scale so if they wouldn't produce anything in 30 for you, they will only build just as much for me after 15. The difference is I get to have another go at them if I will it, while a Normal guy can do a medium war yet another time.
     
  20. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,319
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why I don't think we need the turns to scale with gamespeed. We don't need to give the human player who can keep more units alive and with more promotions further buffs. Does this tenet need rework? I think it depends entirely on how it works on Standard speed. If it's fine and people like it, then we shouldn't bother on slower speed. It's pretty obvious that slower speeds are unbalanced due to various factors.
     

Share This Page