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. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,383
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Most free buildings are earned by different technological paths (temple of Artemis and herbalist) or much earlier (Hanging Gardens and gardens). If you didn't beelined for the wonder and build the free building yourself, then that wonder loses value for you. So it gets relatively more valuable to another civ, helping to spread out the wonders.
     
  2. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    If Nationalisation of Order wasn't nerfed since I last tried it, it's the most broken thing in the game, being the only policy to provide possibly a hundred or more yields per turn per city if you're wide. It's too good and it needs a very heavy nerf, and no attention is brought to it only because it's pretty late. It outshines every other policy in the game several times over and it has power exceeding social policy trees.
     
    CrazyG and pineappledan like this.
  3. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    As you said, its very late. And it has its downsides:
    Not gaining any other franchise denies you the extra benefits of other corporations.
    Not very suitable for a CV or DV, cause you need primarily external trade routes to other civs or CS.
    Some trade route effects increase gold or science for the trade route itself, but ITR didnt give you those yields, so the trade route effect and also the doubling is useless.
    A minimum of 9-10 cities is necessary to gain more franchises with nationalization than without it.

    Its really strong, if the circumstances are right, but it isnt always that way, so I would call it balanced.
     
  4. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    So is the Autocracy/Freedom equivalent, except they don't have a power comparable to that of Nationalisation. In fact, everything in ideologies is very late, so how come no other policy in any other ideology gives you 100:c5science: per city, or 100:c5culture: per city? Why only this one? Either Nationalisation's too strong, or every other policy in every ideology needs to have it's numbered pretty much increased tenfold, if not more.

    They're negligible and nothing compared to the yields other civs with Corporations lose by not being able to spread to you. This feature alone would almost be worth a policy slot if you're big enough - anything a civ spends on Corporations is just not worth it as long as you pick it.

    The policy doesn't forbid you from still sending TRs to CSs or other civs from what I remember, in fact it means you don't have to care for where you've spread the franchise, you just build the building and get the benefit. If you care so much for CV, just take Civilised Jewelers. TRs to CSs do little diplomacy wise at this point, too, and TRs to civs give some tourism, but are nothing compared to Historic Events... Which you get by spawning GPs.

    Then don't take those ones, or just ignore it? And even if those others don't exist, sure, you lose a few piddly yields, but you still have your 100:c5science: per city when other ideology ones can get maybe 6-10:c5science: at this point.

    No. You still have to wait until those trade routes finish, while here you just build it. That's up to an era of a difference, and you still deny your enemies the benefits of their corporation (if only two big guys remain and one took Order and the other one something else, that means only Order guy truly has a corporation)... Unless they also took Order and also have Nationalisation. What if there's not enough cities to send TRs to? What if they declare war?

    It's way too strong if circumstances are right, and too strong still even if they're suboptimal. In the right situation (very wide) this policy is stronger than pretty much the entire Order, Autocracy or Freedom put together. That's just bad balancing even if the situation was rare, and by late game it isn't. Before Autocracy can get 50 yields from it's Syndicalism (or Freedom from Transnationalism), the game's over.

    How come only one of the three has so much power if the circumstances are right, gets the yields much faster at a much, much greater rate, while having it's "right circumstances" be far easier to achieve (just build the things, no need to send TRs and hope they don't get pillaged, declared war upon, etc), not being possible to be "disrupted" by war or sacking TRs, while simultaneously just removing the others attempts at even getting near?

    Are you seriously calling a policy that gives 100 Science/hammers/culture per city (if not more), when it's alternatives provide maybe 10 or up to 20, balanced? I don't only mean Syndicalism or Transnationalism which are situational, I mean every other ideological policy. This is broken. Just getting the yields faster, without needing to send TRs, is already super powerful and worth a slot even if Nationalisation was weaker in the end than even policy-less corporations, let alone having so many franchises while simultaneously making both Transnationalism and Syndicalism worthless by making it impossible to spread to the wide Order civ.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  5. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    To reach 100 :c5science: or :c5culture:, you need atleast 25 cities.
    If you have 25 cities with freedom, you can get with freedom tenet transnationalismn around 14 by trade routes, 12 by offices and another 6 by the percentual boost. Thats 32 franchises which can give 64 :c5science: or :c5culture:. Thats not that far from the 100 you mentioned.With only 16 cities, you get 64 :c5science: or :c5culture: by Order, but with Freedom (14 + 8 + 5 = 27) 54 :c5science: or :c5culture:. Its close, and without the downsides.

    Its not always possible to pick the corporation you want. I think you will bring the arguement, that you will likely have access to nearly all corporations, if you are wide, but this isnt necessarly the case.
    And dont mix up 2 different things. Its not the Order tenet that gives you 100 science per city, its the corporation, and you have to compare the corporations with each other, not the corporation benefit with a policy benefit. You can easily get 100+ gold per city with a normal sized empire, even without Order or Freedom.
    This is completly wrong. You will have atleast 12 trade routes, and each of those end after 20-30 turns. Lets say its 30 turns, so every 2.5 turns a trade route end and spend you tourismn. In my last game, the tourismn by finishing a trade route was more than 5 times greater than my tourismn output (cause 50% of culture is taken into account for this). Half of this amount is copied to all civs which were not the target of the trade route, so 2.5 times my tourismn output. In this case, my trade routes were generating as much or even more tourismn than all my other per turn tourismn sources. On top of the tourismn by GP birth.
    You must agree that "only 2 guys are left and this way the other cant spread its franchise" is a very special and extremly rare case. In most cases, there are plenty enough other possibilities to spread your franchises.
    And no, you dont have to wait till YOUR trade routes are finished, cause franchises appear with EVERY trade troute from OR to an office. Other civs finishing trade routes to your cities also generate franchises in their own cities. Its very likely, that you get a lot of trade routes towards you, if you are the major or one of the leading civs, which speeds up building franchises pretty much. Additionally, I cant remember when I was able to pick transnationalismn before researching and building a corporation. I think this never happened, so those other civs didnt start with zero franchises, if you pick the tenet.
    And again, you make the wrong assumption, cause you compare a policy with the whole benefit of a full established corporation. Civs which didnt pick Order still get benefits by their corporation, but you didnt take this into account.
    The difference by a 16 city empire is only 10 yields. And for a standard game, this is already a lot of cities.

    The problem you are talking about is not a problem by ideology tenets, its by the corporation. More cities lead to more yields, but more cities also lead to more franchises, which lead to more yields per city. Exponential.
    Ask Gazebo why we cut exponential effects for Rome or Denmark, cause they were too powerful, but then integrate exponential effects for corporations, nobody asking for.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  6. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    100 :c5culture:/:c5science: per city is a gross exaggeration. You'd need 50 bonus Franchises for that, which is straight up impossible in a typical game (Do you build 50 offices?). You already get 1 Franchise per 2 offices without Nationalism so a realistic expectation is maybe getting +30-40:c5culture:/:c5science: per city faster. Keep in mind that you can't establish any foreign franchises with Nationalism so establishing Franchises with TRs will catch up when your TRs end and then may beat out Nationalism after the second batch of TRs. Also you're forced to use Internal Routes to get the +10% bonus from trading with a franchise (this can be a benefit if you're already using Internal TRs though). Nationalism is only valuable if you have a lot of non-puppet cities.
     
  7. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,273
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Corporations only affect the late game. Rome et al applied all game. Not the same thing. Try again.

    G
     
  8. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    He's assuming it's a very wide game. Theoretically, 25 cities are enough to get 50 franchises, cause offices count as 2, but Iam not sure anymore, if those can bypass the limit. The trade tenet from autocracy can, which would make it in this case the even stronger policy.

    So, you want to say it's OK, if one small game mechanic is able to double or triple the yields per city, as long as this game mechanic comes late?
     
  9. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    25 cities with Freedom still has to complete the trade routes, and unless you're Venice that means you will have to wait until you both build the Offices AND send the Trade Routes twice, assuming none get pillaged, no one declares war, etc. It also has another downside - you either wait in Modern/late industrial era before you unlock Corporations with your Trade Routes, or you have to stop running them - if you time franchise build wrong, it'll take a long time to spread the franchises with Syndicalism/Transnationalism civ. Either way, you will either lose yields from TRs, but you will likely have to stop internal trade routes - if you went mendicancy + fealty, it's a long time of lost benefits. Order, however, doesn't care and requires nothing - this is a massive strength.

    Also what downsides? What about the strengths? Order is wide, and Order taking this also is wide, meaning every downside hurts your opponent far more - no way they'll reach the limit with you there. The downside of all your Corporation effort being possibly thwarted by some random AI declaring war, or pillaging your TRs, being unable to have corporations in a wide civ like the one that took Nationalisation, far exceeds anything you've listed. There's no real downsides, in other words, because they're all connected to something that screws others far more than it does you.

    The tenet gives you that Science. Without the tenet, you wouldn't get those franchises, you wouldn't get them reliably (if someone plays Freedom/Autocracy, you can declare war if they send TRs to you and they aere screwed - no counterplay to Order.MASSIVE strength.) and you wouldn't get them fast. It's the tenet's yields because without tenet, they wouldn't exist. If a second row policy in Progress buffed Wells and Water Mills so they gave you 2.5 :c5production: for every pop in the city as opposed to the regular 1:c5production: for 4/5 pop, would you honestly say it's the fault of the Well and the Water Mill and not the policy? Or maybe the policy would just remove the Scaler and turn Well into a 10:c5production: building, and Watermill into a 11:c5production: building. Sure, eventually the regular civ's watermills/wells would get close to it, but would you seriously call that balanced and say it's the fault of the building when the policy is the obvious culprit?
    ...Of course to be more accurate, that policy would also need to screw over other civ's Water Mills, but let's say the above is enough.

    Again, my main point was that Order doesn't disable Tourism from Trade Routes and it does NOT forbid you from sending the Trade Routes wherever you want. In fact, it frees you - you can continue sending it to the biggest guy with most Culture, you don't have to send your TRs to diverse targets after the first batch has gone to the guy with most Culture that will be the hardest to overcome. You will lose tiny yields with some Corporations TRs, but they're less than nothing compared to the fact you're getting much more yields than the other ideologies with much less effort.
    Also at least 12 trade routes is not exactly incorrect. What if you didn't go Statecraft or Industry, and didn't pick Freedom but Autocracy? Then the number's smaller, and you might not have the TR wonders either.

    No, it isn't. In very many cases this late only one or two civs matter, the rest are much smaller and either vassalised or losing, with the leading two typically having the most cities. Yes, you can spread the franchises still, but there's always a risk of someone declaring war, pillaging your TRs, or even the other civ being unhappy and having Barbies spawn and pillage it. If there's tons of equal civs, there's still the chance of a war - in which case Order leads by being safe and having far superior yields, which you've never denied.

    You cannot guarantee civs will send TRs to you, sometimes they hate you and simply refuse to do so even if you've vassalised them, and you can forget about it if they're threat enough to consider war (they will do it). You say it's "very likely", but I could reuse your point and call it "very special and extremely rare case".

    Yes, they do get the benefits. After the TRs finish, which will take up to 60 turns normal speed. In modern era, so it'll be... atomic? And by this point, they'll at most get, what, 64 compared to 25+ cities Order's 100+, while Order is completely stable, impossible to counter (just declare war on Autocracy/Freedom civ and the TRs get screwed and you can pillage them so they don't get permanent super yields per city, can't do so with Order) while also presenting superior yields?

    You get 1 franchise limit per two offices, you don't get a franchise, you still have to finish the trade route. Depending on your policy choices (Statecraft? Industry? Freedom?) the number of your TRs might be much smaller and the game's likely going to be over before you get even 60 yields per city here. That takes way more time than just building the buildings, which you also have to do with other tenets and no tenets.

    And you don't understand how Order's Nationalisation even works. You get 2 established (no need to finish TR) franchises per office, and enemy cannot establish franchises in your cities (so if you're wide and one of the dominant forces, it's obvious they won't be able to reach the limit of their franchise - you cripple them). That means Giorgio gets 4:c5culture: per Office to all Offices, for instance, or the Science thing gets 4:c5science: per office to all offices, as opposed to regular... 2:c5culture:/:c5science: per finished Trade Route in a city that also has to have an Office (if you send a TR from a city without Office or someone else sends a TR to your city without Office, you don't get the yields) that takes 30 turns, can be disrupted, you can be declared war by your TR target, someone else can declare war on you and pillage the TR, etc. You also cannot establish more than one franchise in a city IIRC, so a big Order civ with this tenet means other civs just cannot get big corporations as there's too many cities that are impossible to spread to, and you can only spread to foreign ones.

    100:c5culture:/:c5science:/1000%:c5greatperson: (not sure about GP one, I might be mistaken here) as Order just means you have 25 Offices. 200:c5culture: per city = 50 Offices. As a regular corporation to get 100:c5culture:, you need to finish 50 Trade Routes to different targets while also having the Offices up, hoping no TR gets pillaged and no one declares war on you. The game will be over before 30 are finished, let alone 50.

    In addition after Gazebo's rework, there's no such thing as franchise limit as far as I know - so every city of Order is worth two finished TRs for regular civ that also require the Office and need a TR sent and finished (excl. Syndicalism that gives 2x franchise, but requires you to be Influential with the TR target/sender to your Office). Order will always have more franchises that are gotten easier and require absolutely no effort.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
    Bromar1 and CrazyG like this.
  10. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Ive checked it, and nationalismn can exceed the normal franchise limit, even it isnt mentioned directly in the policy description. (The comparable tenet from autocracy directly mention it, so maybe the ability to exceed it by nationalismn isnt wanted by design, but @Gazebo has to clarify that.) Syndicalism only needs to be popular to the other civ, which isnt that difficult, even if you didnt go for a CV. Theoretically, this tenet could give you even more yields than nationalization, but still has the situation, you have to establish franchises first.

    The most simple solution for nationalization would be to deny the ability to throw away the franchise limit, and only give benefits up to the normal franchise limit.
    Order would have an immidiatly established franchise cap and strong trade route bonuses.
    Freedom would have a greater cap than Order and a reliable option to spread franchises even without trade routes.
    Autocracy would have the option to create infinite numbers of franchises, if your strong at tourismn, but didnt have a reliable source of creating those franchises. (Despite the fact you need longer to establish those, double counting infinite franchises sounds pretty much stronger than a Order with a fast but small cap. )

    But the most simple solution to the whole thing, would be to remove the (idiotic) exponential effect of corporations. The discussion in the corporation thread started, cause there was a major imbalance in the corporations.
    The imbalance wasnt solved, Hexxon Refinery is still awful and probably nobody is picking it, if he isnt forced to pick it. TwoKay Food was buffed with small flat extra food, even everyone was saying, only gaining food by that corporation is awful too. Especially food is a relative weak yield in the lategame, gaining to much from it can hurt you, cause of more happiness issues (May be better, after the removal of population effect, but has to be tested)
     
  11. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    No, because Order is wide and Order disables franchises for others, Autocracy will never get anywhere near Order's franchises unless you play on something like a huge map. If we pretended the current game Songhai with 29 cities (had 33 before I took a few) took Order, I'd have less than 20 cities to send/receive TRs from, with 10+ of them belonging to Greece that is just as hostile, that or CSs allied with Songhai or Greece. No way would I ever get close to what I'd get with Order if I took Autocracy - granted, I balanced Nationalisation myself by going into the files and changing values so I won't go Order anyway.

    You omit the power of Order destroying the Freedom and Autocracy corporations by them not being able to exist in your cities, so they won't get even a fraction of what Nationalisation will - even if the limit was somehow changed.

    Nationalisation would be a situational pick even if it had only the "enemies can't make franchises in your civ" thing (as long as Order could still spread its own franchises outside that is), let alone the super-fast cap reaching, meaning 60-120 turns before the others, which others will probably reach after the game's over. Considering how powerful Corporations are, those 30-90 turns means potentially thousands upon thousands of yields. I genuinely think the Tenet cannot be salvaged. It has to be changed. Syndicalism requires effort, Freedom requires RNG (I guess?), this takes no effort and destroys any chance of other Civilisations competing with you. You get a super powerful Corporation, they get a worthless one.

    I'm not opposed to it, actually. On one hand the power means they can be a fun tool, but on the other they sure can result in a pain. Corporations are definitely a bit weird in comparison to every other building or feature so I would not mind a change, but I don't know how it can be done to keep Corporations relevant and still somewhat scaling. I agree the corporations aren't exactly balanced too well, though I don't think the exponential thing is a big problem. I believe if Nationalisation was to be heavily nerfed number wise perhaps with some parts of its benefits removed, Corporations would probably be closer to okay. Exponential growth this late doesn't seem like an issue by itself.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  12. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,273
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Continually referring to me and my actions as idiotic does nothing for your already dismal reputation. You are foolish if you think I value or consider your opinions to be anything but diatribe at this point. You might as well scream at the sun.

    G
     
  13. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    He can also scream at the moon instead to get other choices of Pokemon.
     
    vyyt, Bhawb and Gazebo like this.
  14. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Was I the only one in the corporation discussion? No. Others were also surprised you created the "offices gives franchises" mechanic. Denying my opinion about exponential effects, cause its working on a shorter term, is a lame arguement. @Enrico Swagolo example with 25 cities generating 100 :c5science: each city can happen. And I have no clue, how you would be able to beat such amount of yields with any civ, even with a Korea using 20 specialists in 25 cities.

    And it was also others opinion, that Hexxon and TwoKay are very bad corporations. The nerf to Gorgio Armeier was necessary, but buffing a corporation with +3 more food, while the main problem is the worth of food in that state of the game doesnt change anything.
     
  15. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    @Enrico Swagolo

    I agree that nationalization is strong. To me, it's the iconic ability of order - it exploits order being for a wide civilization. Without it, I don't think there's a situation that I'd take order. I'd almost always rather have Freedom if peaceful and Autocracy if a warmonger.

    It's late enough in the game that I don't have a problem with it as a win condition.
     
  16. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Maybe the nerfhammer hit it too hard, but that nerfhammer still doesn't compensate for Nationalisation. If a single policy can outyield pretty much every possible combination of yield policies in Freedom or Autocracy (several tenets), something's wrong. I'm not against Order having some buffs to its other, less impressive tenets of which there is several now (even if Order's not alone here), but Nationalisation does need to get very heavily nerfed. I doubt even halving it would keep it balanced because it is still a "destroy other people's corporations" button, so maybe a redesign could be done.
     
  17. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    478
    I'd support a rebalancing of Order. I literally only pick the tree for Nationalization, but outside of that it feels like a consistently weaker tree with less interesting options.
     
    Bromar1 likes this.
  18. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    My bad. For a long time it was just 1 Franchise per Office, that's how it was when I last used it. I forgot that it was buffed.

    In that case, just nerfing it down to 1 Franchise per Office again might be a good move.
     
  19. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    It'd probably still need the "other civilisations cannot get franchises up in your cities" out, though. There's no counterplay to that, it just makes the corporations other players own much less valuable by existing, and it enriches no one's experience. Even with that out, the tenet will still be OP because of how fast you get the yields here which is unlike any other corporation/tenet.
     
    Bromar1 likes this.
  20. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Only one franchise per office would be terrible. The minimum franchise cap you normally get is atleast 15 (more likely 20, cause the other two ideologies offer extra franchises by own tenets). For every civ below this amount of cities it would be a bad option.
    I think 2 franchises per office is ok, even then, picking it with below 9 or 10 cities would mean you get less franchises than you could get by other ideologies.
    Restricting the franchise limit to the normal cap, even if you had more offices would solve this, without making it too weak.
    Why are you so god damn focused on this part of the tenet? I never, never had any problem to spread my franchise to my limit. If you are playing on huge maps to reach such high number of cities you are claiming, there should be a lot of other cities your able to spread.
    Order is able to get the yields very fast with the tenet, but freedom and autocraty are able to reach higher amounts thanks to franchise limit increase (if natiounalismn would be nerfed to have the normal limit).

    And again. Dont blame this tenet to be imbalanced, the amount of yields come from corporation game mechanic, not by the tenet itself.
     

Share This Page