Going for Gold: Policies

[TwoPodRay]

By all means it is the intended behaviour for Tradition. Tradition is focused in a strong capital, wonders and great people. It is in its description.

Correct, so the only point we were looking at changing might be giving the GE to Progress instead of Tradition. Tradition will have more innately, addressing their hammer issue. Whether they need ANOTHER source of them is the question. Through the testing I’ve been doing, and possibly related to my play style, it is very easy to get wonders with Tradition from having GEs on hand so easily, while Progress, not so much.

Progress’ hammers are spread out throughout the empire and never have as many in the capital to compete with Tradition as is (due to specialists among other things) not even counting the more GEs Tradition is capable of with both natural and purchase.

 

[CrazyG]

Through the testing I’ve been doing, and possibly related to my play style, it is very easy to get wonders with Tradition from having GEs on hand so easily, while Progress, not so much.

Progress’ hammers are spread out throughout the empire and never have as many in the capital to compete with Tradition as is (due to specialists among other things) not even counting the more GEs Tradition is capable of with both natural and purchase.

I think this is the point. Tradition is supposed to be better at wonders. Progress has Great Writers which are also really, really good though.

 

[TwoPodRay]

I think this is the point. Tradition is supposed to be better at wonders. Progress has Great Writers which are also really, really good though.

That’s fair enough if that’s the answer, I just figured it might not be best to balance the trees around their strength on building wonders since it is hard to balance when wonders enter the equation.

 

[chicorbeef]

I posted this in the New Version-Sept.15 thread and then I realized it would probably be better here.

I feel like Industry's timing would be a little better if the +10% investment ability were moved to the opener and the +100% production to Train Stations/Seaports were moved to Division of Labor. It also opens up possibilities, like going Opener--->Free Trade--->Division of Labour. Thoughts?

Can I bring this up again? Even if we don't move the +10% investment, I think the +100% production to Stations/Seaports could be moved up at least.

 

[randomnub]

I don't like Tradition being slighty terrain-dependant, it doesn't feel right for an ancient policy tree when more often than not you don't have much of a choice in where to settle once the map places you into a not very synergetic area.

Ceremony: +1 to council and herbalist, but the latter is a situational building. It mostly encourages your capital to go for ToA (possibly after SH->Beauty, for the council as well), but you better have secundary cities with the right terrain or that policy loses value, forcing you into sub optimal building choices.

Splendor: +2 to monuments, gardens and baths. Missing Hanging Gardens as tradition hurts, doubly so when you could have had some free policy-bosted Garden an Era earlier. This is not the end of the world anyway, but I dare ask who ever went Tradition with a no-fresh water Capital (except the AI): Baths are a strong building, Splendid Baths even more so.

I'd like for more generic buildings to receive those policies boost, for example libraries and amphitheaters.

 

[pineappledan]

So the Imperialism GG/GA policy (+10% aura strength, +1 range, 25 +33% faster GG/GAs)

Does +10% CS seem low to anyone else? Authority gives +10%CS globally to all units, plus some other goodies, without tying it to any 1 unit. Should this be upped to 15%?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

This is always the policy I take last in that tree for sure as it simply cannot compete with the other options, but it's 33% faster GGs and GAs IIRC, not only GGs.

 

[Stalker0]

So the Imperialism GG/GA policy (+10% aura strength, +1 range, 25 +33% faster GG/GAs)

Does +10% CS seem low to anyone else? Authority gives +10%CS globally to all units, plus some other goodies, without tying it to any 1 unit. Should this be upped to 15%?

At this point I feel all units should have a GG bonus, so its basically +10% CS.

 

[Enginseer]

We could give all units that promotion that makes them hit harder when a great general is stationed on them...

 

[chicorbeef]

This policy is fine really, be careful not to overbuff Imperialism. And don't ignore that +1 Aura and the +33% GG/GA generation, as well as the fact that this usually your last policy (giving access to the finisher).

 

[Rekk]

There was a lot of talk about fealty in the Strategy section being the worst of the medieval trees, despite the AI's love of it. Would @Owlbebach, or anyone like to talk here about what's wrong with it and potential ways of fixing it?

 

[tu_79]

There was a lot of talk about fealty in the Strategy section being the worst of the medieval trees, despite the AI's love of it. Would @Owlbebach, or anyone like to talk here about what's wrong with it and potential ways of fixing it?

In my opinion, in which I seem to be alone, Fealty was balanced for 4 religions in standard. Now there are 5 religions, so getting benefits from your founded religion (which you probably had, since you've taken fealty), is harder. Consequently, getting buffs to your religion is weaker. Ways to fix it, we gave a lot, Gazebo chose a few.
Not to forget, that extra city defense accounted for happiness a few releases ago.

 

[Rekk]

Unfortunately, I imagine that changing the finisher doesn't change anyone's opinions that the actual policies themselves are lackluster/niche, and the main reason for taking the tree is the opener and finisher.

 

[Stalker0]

Unfortunately, I imagine that changing the finisher doesn't change anyone's opinions that the actual policies themselves are lackluster/niche, and the main reason for taking the tree is the opener and finisher.

Yep my mind didn’t change. Didn’t think it was UP before, and I still don’t

 

[Rekk]

Yep my mind didn’t change. Didn’t think it was UP before, and I still don’t

Well, it'll be up to your opponents to convince you otherwise, in the proper thread, of course.

 

[Minh Le]

Fealty doesnt under-perform, but it feels realy awkward. Its like Rekk said, most of its useful things are in the opener and finisher, the other policies are niche, or lackluster.

 

[Owlbebach]

There was a lot of talk about fealty in the Strategy section being the worst of the medieval trees, despite the AI's love of it. Would @Owlbebach, or anyone like to talk here about what's wrong with it and potential ways of fixing it?

As i said in other thread - i think main reason for that is that Religion was nerfed quite hard. Also before Fealty was helpful in fighting Crime and now it is not. It is also very low on culture (which is kinda right) but on top of that 3 of its policies are very weak. Back in time it used to give a lot of food and science but now it was also nerfed (with the nerf of Castle) and you don't even need it to get big bonus from Religion.

I go Artistry if i want Culture or Tourism
I go Statecraft if i want Science or Diplo (with +1 science from all specialists i think it gives more than Featly)
I go Fealty if i want ... what?

 

[black213]

What is the general consensus on the new Fealty? How does it compare to Statecraft/Artistry?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I think Fealty is absolutely mandatory for wide now, by which I mean the happiness would be impossible to manage otherwise. Pretty much every time I calculate it on standard map at 10+/15+ cities my happiness would be at or below 0 if I took anything else - most of the time, -15 to -20. It'd be unmanageable because I cannot build stuff fast enough to combat it if I ever expand again. Warmongering with Statecraft used to be fine, but now I really don't think that'd be a wise choice at all. Fealty/wide needs the 2 happiness from the policy for wide to survive with the current happiness numbers, but that means Statecraft, which previously was ok for wide, now won't work. Maybe Statecraft/Artistry need their old pre-nerf 2 per TR/Guild respectively so they open up for wide-ish playstyles more which is required with how Happiness is now.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think Fealty is absolutely mandatory for wide now, by which I mean the happiness would be impossible to manage otherwise. Pretty much every time I calculate it on standard map at 10+/15+ cities my happiness would be at or below 0 if I took anything else - most of the time, -15 to -20. It'd be unmanageable because I cannot build stuff fast enough to combat it if I ever expand again. Warmongering with Statecraft used to be fine, but now I really don't think that'd be a wise choice at all. Fealty/wide needs the 2 happiness from the policy for wide to survive with the current happiness numbers, but that means Statecraft, which previously was ok for wide, now won't work. Maybe Statecraft/Artistry need their old pre-nerf 2 per TR/Guild respectively so they open up for wide-ish playstyles more which is required with how Happiness is now.

I wouldn't call Fealty outright mandatory but it is a lot of happiness. I think the Happiness/Food from the Armory could be removed and old Nobility restored and we'd by ok. Better to tone down than up.