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. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    478
    I mean, if the issue is huge empires having too many yields, just don't have it remove the cap. Have it increase the cap to some amount and keep the rest the same.

    But we shouldn't balance it around extreme edge cases, and having that few targets to spread corporations to is a definite edge case.
     
    BiteInTheMark likes this.
  2. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    It'sa pretty big deal for the tourism game, ever since the tourism modifier was added to franchises.
     
  3. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    This is my position as well. I pick the tree when I need nationalization - mainly if I have Giorgio or Firaxite and can get massive amounts of science or culture. Order is able to exploit its size through nationalization. Without it, I'd rather have Freedom if I'm not a warmonger.

    Order and nationalization is really good for allowing an early warmonger to pivot and exploit the number of cities taken.

    @Enrico Swagolo

    The removal of foreign corporations is only a minor aspect of the corporations power to me - its not the main reason I go for it. I also consider Order when in the lead and I expect to be sanctioned since otherwise I can't take advantage of corporations.
     
  4. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,867
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Seems like reducing the franchises per office to 1 solves most of the problems? You can get your franchises up faster, since you are just building offices instead of waiting for TRs to finish, and you lock out other civs' franchises, and it guarantees immunity to sanctions. Keeping it less powerful than the others seems reasonable, since corporations aren't exactly communism's strong suit, but gives them lots of utility to compensate.

    I do agree with Bite, however, that there are still some clear winners and losers W.R.T. the corporations. It doesn't matter if you have Syndicalism, Transnationlism or if you have to make do with Nationalization if you're stuck with 2Kay Foods as a corporation.
     
    telelavoro likes this.
  5. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I fear, only 1 franchise per office would make Order even less attractive for smaller empires. Would you pick nationalization, if you have 6 cities and get only 12 :c5science: or :c5culture:, while you could have 30-40 with freedom?

    The whole discussion about this tenet brings me personally to this conclusions:
    1. Corporations are imbalanced, if your empire is very wide, offices rising franchises is the major culprit, but also the nationalization tenet, which bypass the normal franchise limit
    2. The way you create or atleast the time you need to create a franchise is unsatisfying. Nationalization wouldn't be that strong, if you were able to create franchises much faster on other ways
    3. Sanctions are too strong. It's a too easy way to hurt someone very hard. You not only hurt his economy, but also his happiness, tourism, access to strategic resources

    Possible solutions:
    1. 3 offices rises the franchise cap by 1, up to a limit of 20. The cap for Venice is higher.

    2. Finishing trade routes can create a franchise. Every 5 turns, a franchise appear in a foreign city, cities you are targeting with a trade route are chosen first, cities which send a trade route to you are chosen second, after that, the current random mechanic works.

    Freedom increase the maximum franchise cap by 30% and reduce the Spawn time to 4 turns. +1 trade unit and trade units getting faster.

    Order immidiatly creates 2 franchises per Office in own cities, up to the normal cap. Trade route bonus to cities with a franchise is doubled. Others can't create franchises in your cities.

    Autocracy doubles the trade route bonus to cities with a franchise. +100% modifier for trade routes to cities from vasalls. Gain 1 of each strategic ressource for every 5 established franchise.

    3. Sanctions half the yields you get from trade routes and from foreign franchises. Ideological pressure to you is increased by 50%. Raise maintenance cost for buildings and units by 10%.
    This hurts, but it doesn't take you out of the game like the current version.
     
    telelavoro likes this.
  6. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    478
    The problem with reducing it to 1 is that you kill this policy for any civ with less than like 20 cities, which pretty much only happens for warmongers or people playing on map settings that are pretty empty. If people have an issue with the other mechanics it has we can address those, but I don't actually think it is that much stronger than others compared to the rest of the ideologies. Nationalism itself is one of the strongest tenets but Freedom and Autocracy overall are much better. With Autocracy I actually have issues picking between tenets because they're all so good and you can't have every tier 2. I actually really like that Order allows you to shut your borders to an extent. It is a great flavor mechanic and I almost never see games with just 1-2 non-Order civs where Order is somehow blocking everything.

    Also I don't think the analogy to IRL necessarily works. Nationalization essentially transforms the Corporation system into something else without going through the trouble of renaming it. Without diving into a bunch of politics, I don't think we can argue that socialized systems should be downgraded in game because Westerners think communism is bad. If anything I'd like it if Order leaned a bit more heavily into isolationism.

    1. All 3 tenets bypass the limit to some degree. Freedom has the weakest bypass, but Autocracy functionally turns every vassal and weak player into a source of a lot of free franchises, especially late in the game when Autocracy is more focused on sniping capitals and vassalizing quickly. Nationalization is only an "issue" because it plays by a different set of rules, and I even would argue that it isn't that big of a deal in 99% of situations.

    2. 100% agree that franchises are pretty annoying to deal with outside of Order.

    3. I don't think that Sanctions are too strong necessarily, I've won a lot of games under sanction, and it is a necessary diplomatic tool for civs to deal with runaways and warmongers. I do wish that sanctions had levels though, just like IRL sanctions do, and that they didn't mess with corporations so much when that is a massive source of late game yields. I think it would make sense if sanctions had tiers to them, maybe 3 ranging from slap-on-the-wrist type sanctions up to the ultra-sanction we have currently.

    I do think corporations need a bit of work for balance reasons. I will immediately restart any peaceful intended game if I start on a Hexxon or 2Kay resource. Food is by far the worst yield and yet 2Kay gives the same yield quantity and awful secondary effects. Hexxon is just a worse version of the Autocracy tenet if you happen to go Order and find yourself lacking strategics.
     
    telelavoro likes this.
  7. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,867
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    i Like the idea of skewing order more towards isolationism, and I think that reducing the power of nationalization to 1 per franchise keeps its biggest effect intact: being able to use corporations despite sanctions. In that respect, keeping as a “panic button” tenet that has distinct utility, and buffing some of the tier 2 order tenets to compensate for the lack of power in nationalization makes it a good utility pick. I’m at work so I can’t give specific ideas for how I would buff order, but I think the nerf it got a few versions ago did some real damage to the tree’s viability as a whole.

    Perhaps nationalization could be reduced to 1 Franchise per office AND 3-5 per vassal? Give Order a bit more satellite state, captive market feel?
     
    mikes61293, vyyt and crdvis16 like this.
  8. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    478
    If we're going to change it I think readjusting it to work better for the less aggressive Order users would be best. Maybe adjust down to 1 per franchise but give a boost to the flat science yield or add a different yield? That way it doesn't have the issue with massive exponential scaling, but doesn't hurt the semi-peaceful Progress civs that sit around 10-15 cities.
     
    Bromar1 and crdvis16 like this.
  9. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    I agree about slightly buffing the weaker policies of Order, it was hit too much, but Nationalisation even at 1 franchise per office is going to be super strong and probably overpowered still because of how fast the yields come up (can get XX yields per city while Autocracy/Freedom won't even finish a single trade route). It won't be a "must take every game" if you have 4-6 cities and for some weird reason didn't go Freedom, but most t2 tenets are like this. I won't take Autocracy's Commerce Raiders without enough naval cities and melee navy to make it worthwhile, I won't take Third Alternative if I have too many strategic resources and strategic monopolies to care about more or so little or even none in which case it won't even change anything, Police State should never be needed, nor will I consider Syndicalism without civs I am popular over that I can safely send TRs to while they have enough cities, I am not taking Lightning Warfare pretty much ever because Martial Spirit exists, and Martial Spirit is a no-no if I don't want to engage in some healthy warfare in the next 50 turns or I have to peace out without planning to instantly declare war once I'm able to again. Similarly, having Nationalisation have a wide or sanctioned regular civ niche is not going to make it suck but it'll instead open up the possibilities and add variety to the gameplay because maybe an Order civ will take another tenet in it's place.
     
    CrazyG and pineappledan like this.
  10. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    Reducing nationalization to 1 franchise per office would make it faster but weaker than a normal corporation. With a 6 city Tradition / Artistry / Industry / Freedom Arabia (14 trade routes), I was able to get 19 franchises. That's better than 3:1 franchise to office ratio. I didn't take Freedom's corporation tenet.
     
  11. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    So you want to say, all tall civs have to go freedom and such civs going order is a weird pick? Shouldn't be all ideologies fit every empire size?
     
  12. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,983
    I think that's a.....TALL order (hehe). In seriousness though, just as regular policies tend to lean to TALL or WIDE play, I think its fair to assume the same for ideologies. To a point, I don't want a TALL civ choosing order to be "crazy", but if Freedom has more natural synergy than that's ok.

    I also think Tall Autocracy is an interesting one in certain circumstances. Sometimes as TALL there is a runaway that has to be dealt with militarily, or is oppressing you militarily to the point where you need to switch it, and going Autocracy can create some interesting play.
     
    Enrico Swagolo likes this.
  13. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    The ideologies should all have their niche. I'm not saying a civ shouldn't ever go Order if they're tall, or they shouldn't ever go Freedom if they're wide - but it's more than fine if they're more inclined towards certain game styles and game plans. Like, Freedom clearly has more Great Person/specialist focus than the rest, and those things are what tall civs tend to like. Order has a ton of policies that benefit every city, so the wide game style fits it more, and Autocracy benefits aggression - whether it's continued or you plan it. Of course it's not always like this and the ideologies have enough choice to satiate way more game styles and what they gravitate to is certain types of victories, though through different means, but I see nothing wrong in them being focused towards certain things and liking others the rest - were they to all work greatly with the same civs, the same width, the same aggression, they'd feel the same, and that'd suck.

    Of course it shouldn't always be that Order is bad for tall, but the ideologies need their own and somewhat distinct areas to prosper in. They should lean towards certain tactics, game styles, game plans, but they shouldn't lock you to them - which I think is done by the choices presented in T2/T3s and somewhat in T1s too. So yes, Order shouldn't be your go-to for tall, but with some tactics, tenets or civs it should generally work.
     
  14. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, and this balance is based on Victory Types, but it shouldnt dependent on size.

    All freedom tenets are usable for tall or wide, some have a tendency for tall, especially those with tourism, but those give also benefits for wide too.
    Most Order tenets are good for tall or wide, but have a little bit more tendency for wide. Party Leadership and Resettlement are mainly for wide, but are not without use for tall. Changing the franchise per office to 1 would make this tenet the only one, which would hurt you as tall.

    How would be this:
    - Foreign Franchises are removed, you can no longer construct Franchises in foreign Cites, and foreign Corporations Franchise bonus in your cities is doubled
    - Corporation trade route bonus to your cities with an office is doubled (or gain +8 gold, if trade route effect only hit ETR)
    - Gain 1 Franchise every 3 turns, up to your normal Franchise limit
     

Share This Page