Going for Gold: Policies

[CrazyG]

Do they get any culture / tourism bonuses? Just making sure the assessment is not more the civ than the system

He mentioned above that they did not.

I find tourism easier than the other victory types, and I would blame historic events or trade routes (not policies).

 

[crdvis16]

I've found getting influential with the world to be fairly difficult with civs that don't have innate tourism bonuses or utilize conquering. I have no idea how you pulled it off somewhat accidentally with a non-tourism civ and minimal conquering.

I posted a Poland review in the strategy forum a while back that I think showed how it can often be difficult. I went tradition-artistry-rationalism-freedom and planned for a tourism victory from the get go. I had to conquer my wonder-spamming Brazil neighbor to have a chance and I was fortunate that my other neighbor Persia was the only other culture hold out so it was fairly easy to hit him with multiple trade routes. Even with those lucky breaks it took until turn 405ish to hit influential. Had Brazil been on the other continent I probably would have been SOL.

Maybe in your Inuit game you were just such an overwhelming run away that any victory was attainable and culture just happens to be one of the quickest in that case? I'm not sure that's the best scenario to tweak balance, though. I would probably argue a highly competitive game where victory is not a foregone conclusion would be a better place to inspect the balance of the differing VCs.

I've always seen diplomacy and tourism as the fastest VCs but also the VCs that have the most counter-play opportunities for your opponents. Science is basically the default VC if no one is able to get clear tourism or diplo advantages.

 

[Stalker0]

If cv needs a change it’s probably a tweak to TR tourism. The recent change I think was very good but now TR give a bit too much tourism and so could stand with a reduction.

 

[Bhawb]

Do they get any culture / tourism bonuses? Just making sure the assessment is not more the civ than the system

They do, they have a UI that gives 1-4 Culture and some Fish resources are turned into a unique resource with 1-3 Culture. Combined with I believe a Tundra bias, double movement on Snow, and land units crossing Ice, they do actually have a slight bias towards CV by meeting civs very early and some slight Culture/Tourism bonuses that can run away early. Progress/Statecraft/Industry/Freedom are not uncommon CV choices either - Progress gives strong infrastructure to build your culture buildings, Statecraft has native Tourism bonuses for trade routes, and Industry/Freedom are standard CV trees.

That said, I do think it can be too easy to win CV on "accident" sometimes, and I blame it entirely on historic events. Every time I've seen a civ "accidentally" become super influential it was due to them being a run-away with a lot of Trade Routes or great people spam. My guess is he ran away on tourism due to Trade Routes to City States paired with meeting everyone super early.

 

[crdvis16]

That said, I do think it can be too easy to win CV on "accident" sometimes, and I blame it entirely on historic events. Every time I've seen a civ "accidentally" become super influential it was due to them being a run-away with a lot of Trade Routes or great people spam. My guess is he ran away on tourism due to Trade Routes to City States paired with meeting everyone super early.

If the accidental win was just due to being an overwhelming runaway then I would advise that we be careful making adjustments to the tourism VC.

I think the victory conditions are in fairly decent balance to each other when in competitive games. In a hypothetical situation where you have 3 similarly positioned civs in the lead and each is pursuing a different VC (diplomacy, tourism, and science) I would venture that each has a pretty decent shot at winning currently. If you make a change to tourism to address a run away situation then you may inadvertently upset that decent balance. I would argue that the balance of the 3-way competitive game is much more important than addressing the fact that a runaway will often fall into a tourism victory accidentally.

I think an overwhelming runaway accidentally winning via culture is just a symptom of the fact that the tourism victory is the one achievable in the shortest number of turns typically, largely because it has the earliest technology requirements. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing or that it means tourism is the easiest VC. I think it's ok for tourism to threaten to win slightly sooner than diplomacy and much sooner than science because they are in inverse order to how much counter play is available to stop them. I think it's something like this:

1) Domination can happen the earliest because it is very much a contested win condition- you have to directly conquer other civs to achieve it.

2) Tourism is the next earliest because there is a lot of counter play involved. There are tons of ways to cut down on opposition tourism via modifiers or boosting your culture to avoid being overtaken. DoWing the tourism leader makes it much harder for them to increase their tourism on you, for instance.

3) Diplomacy is only slightly behind tourism and has its own counter play dynamics in competing for CS alliances and opposition in the WC.

4) Science has very little counter play available to opponents so it comes last in the tech tree (and probably in terms of total turn count even if the science pursuer is 10+ techs ahead of the field).

I think the above dynamic is healthy.

 

[pineappledan]

Hey I usually don’t play progress civs, but I just started up a game and... is it just me or is the Progress finisher a complete joke? 15 on citizen birth? For comparison, goddess of love Pantheon gives 10155 and the progress opener gives >20 on birth.

It doesn’t have to be amazing, but it’s total rubbish right now. Especially in comparison to +1 to all GPTIs, +10% to All Yields and -2urbanization in the capital from Tradition’s finisher, or access to mercenary units from honour.

Maybe it could give 20 and in the capital for each, so its symmetrical with the opener? I dunno. Maybe progress doesn’t need th help, but the finisher is just... it’s painful to look at right now.

 

[Omen of Peace]

You can't look at one piece in isolation.
For instance, the Progress scaler is sooo much better than the Tradition one.

If anything, it's early Progress that could perhaps use a tiny boost in my opinion.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah I have 0 issues with the finisher. The tree is good

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Progress Finisher used to give 20 . It hasn't been hit as hard Industry Opener which used to give 25 per Building (Industrial Era gives X4 this amount), and now is 10 per new Building.

Progress still has good benefits as you head into Medieval, as it sets you up better for the incoming need of new Buildings you will need in your Cities.

 

[chicorbeef]

I have kind of a crazy idea regarding Fealty (not sure if possible to code) that may help reinforce the "work tiles, not Specialists" theme and make it more distinct from Artistry.

What if the Serfdom policy provided 1 Great Merchant/Scientist point per Farm/Pasture worked in a City, but removed the ability to get GPP from Scientists/Merchants? I think it would be cool, represent the idea of localized rural life rather than big urban life thematically, and provide synergy with the "+1 per 4 non-specialist Citizens". What are your thoughts?

 

[Bhawb]

I have kind of a crazy idea regarding Fealty (not sure if possible to code) that may help reinforce the "work tiles, not Specialists" theme and make it more distinct from Artistry.

What if the Serfdom policy provided 1 Great Merchant/Scientist point per Farm/Pasture worked in a City, but removed the ability to get GPP from Scientists/Merchants? I think it would be cool, represent the idea of localized rural life rather than big urban life thematically, and provide synergy with the "+1 per 4 non-specialist Citizens". What are your thoughts?

I think policies that have drawbacks should be limited to late-game non-mandatory ideology tenets instead of the 9 policy trees.

 

[Stalker0]

Should Serfdom affect plantations as well as pastures? I mean they are similar to me in bonuses and function, and often I have a lot of one or the other. It seems strange to restrict this to just the one type.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Conscription from discipline needs to be knocked back down to 8/city (maybe less) with the recent changes to food and settlers eating pop. I struggle to reach 10 pop in nearly all cities but my capital even by late medieval, which also invalidates the 2 culture and 1 happiness that garrisons are supposed to provide when I'm at wartime (which as authority, you should be nearly always...).

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I'm tossing out an idea for a slight Industry shuffle (minor buff). I think we can incorporate a way to address this reported iron shortage a few players have had issue with since the requirement on ships, while giving Industry more food for thought. Please feel free to critique and provide additional suggestion.

Industry and Order currently have no advantage when it comes to strategics, but Autocracy has two tenets that increase them. My tweak would give Industry / Order a touch of strategic flavor. As an Industry / Order civ, players will have the intended production powerhouses they desire, while having access to a reasonable amount of resources as a base to work with, regardless of initial strategic balance. This is stemming off the opinion that Rationalism / Freedom is built for tall, and if you have no iron, tough; trade for it with all your excess gold. Also, I have no sympathy for Imperialism players that fail to acquire their own iron through the necessary force. Strategics should remain so, and my changes add another layer when selecting Industry over it's more popular peers.

My initial gripe when choosing Industry - quite a rare occurrence these days - was that I'd often tech seaports / stations before being able to utilize Mercantilism's "100% production speed towards seaport / train station". I'd like this moved into Division of Labor, similar to Fealty's production bonus toward castles / armories coming with Nobility at the start of the tree. Regardless if anyone else agrees with my other tweaks, I feel this is a necessity. Hell, consider placing it in the opener if you need to. Let me know what you all think of the rest. Basically a few swaps, but additions are in bold. I didn't touch the opener / finisher. You'll find the changes keep the theme.

Free Trade:

• Great Merchants are earned 50% faster.

• +5 Gold from international trade routes.

• Gold investments in buildings reduce their production cost by an additional 10%. *Moved from Division of Labor. You could keep/swap the poverty reduction here, but I figured the investment bonus is more impactful near the tree start, keeping some incentive to go left side early.

Division of Labor:

• Forges, Windmills, Workshops, Factories, Stations, and Seaports generate +3% Production and Gold each.

• 100% production speed of seaports / stations. *Much more valuable from the start, a la castles / armories from Fealty's "Nobility".

• +1 Happy from workshops. *Moved up from Entrepreneurship for potential unhappiness relief due to poverty reduction being moved further back in tree.

Entrepreneurship (requires Free Trade):

• +25% Yields when you expend Great Merchants and Great Engineers for their instant Yield abilities.

• +1 Gold and +2 Production from every Mine, Quarry, and Lumbermill.

• Build factories in half the usual time (taken from Worker Faculties tenet). *I've never taken Worker Faculties for the same reason as above; most of my factories are already built and it's a waste (to be honest, this applies for most of the policies / tenets that boost production speed of a certain building because I've already prioritized them). This allows players to fully utilize the feature while staying thematic, representing business / manufacturing boom from a plethora of aspiring entrepreneurs.

Mercantilism (requires Division of Labor):

• Markets, Caravansaries, Customs Houses, Banks, and Stock Exchanges generate +1% Science and +3% Culture each.

• Unhappiness Needs Modifier for Poverty reduced by 15% in all Cities. *This policy might feel a bit light now compared to the rest, but the empire wide poverty reduction is still potent enough alongside the only science and culture aspect of this tree.

Protectionism (requires Entrepreneurship and Mercantilism):

• Receive two additional Trade Routes.

• Yields from Internal Trade Route increased by 33%.

• Ironworks provides +5 additional iron. *The number can be adjusted, but I figure 5 is a good number to start. It's nothing crazy, but not trivial. Think of it as better refining techniques to extract more resource, allowing for the construction of better units to help "protect" home soil. If Ironworks received a default bump of +1 (so 3 total), this change would bring an Industry civ 8 total iron as a base. If you've no iron within your lands, is 8 iron enough to feasibly contend with and spread between ships and siege? Probably not, but it's worth a try. Ultimately it's the players job to acquire more through other means if need be.

Worker Faculties (Order) now:

• Factories increase City Science Output by 10%.

• Factories no longer require coal. *Coal refineries provide enough coal (15) to cover a port / station + factory in seven cities. In situations which coal becomes scarce, this allows players to build factories - at twice the speed if paired with Industry - empire wide, including puppets, while enabling excess coal to be used for nation wide seaports / stations, or to be sold off (even used for ships if that change is ever reverted). Combined with the science boost, I would actually choose this tenet now...

 

[Deljade]

I think that the three late game trees are quite balanced right now. There's a situation for each one and there's situations where you can choose from two of them and there are cases where any of the three will be great.
We could move the construction bonus to the first policies, it could even be in the opener, this will surely make the tree stronger but do we need to? I think industry is fine. If I don't have the policy by the time I would tech stations, I play my game around that, getting other tech and building other things instead.

 

[CrazyG]

I almost never pick industry. I don't have issues getting enough gold and production to finish the big late game buildings with the other trees, and with industry I feel like I don't have enough science to build them anyways. It is sort of appealing to help you spam diplomatic units but I find imperialism supports diplomatic play extremely well anyways.

The only thing about that really appeals to me is happiness. The decreases to poverty are really potent.

 

[Deljade]

I almost never pick industry. I don't have issues getting enough gold and production to finish the big late game buildings with the other trees, and with industry I feel like I don't have enough science to build them anyways. It is sort of appealing to help you spam diplomatic units but I find imperialism supports diplomatic play extremely well anyways.

The only thing about that really appeals to me is happiness. The decreases to poverty are really potent.

I find that industry has enough hammers and gold to finish the buildings I unlock super fast and then use the spare turns to work on processing science or culture, depending on what I need. Might have to do with game speed (epic) but you could try that if you feel you're falling behind on science as industry. It might also be that I usually combine it with Order which is the most potent of the ideologies science wise.

 

[Legen]

If Industry were to get a strategics, it would make more sense to give them coal to build all those factories, seaports and train stations that it has bonuses attached. I don't see how Iron is related with what the tree is trying to provide.

If Iron is too scarse, we can just buff the Ironworks itself or reconsider the strategics requirements for ships and artillery.

About Order having more strategics, this is the second warmongering ideology, alongside Autocracy, it has a Domination tier 3 policy for a reason. It should be able to get by force from other civs and city-states, much like Imperialism can. Yeah, Autocracy has strategics in its policies, which makes little sense considering how the historical nations following it actually fared; I think Autocracy should have something else. The one ideology that makes sense to have is actually Freedom, both historically and due to its positive views on commerce. Commerce Raiders's extra strategics from city-state alliances would make way more sense in Arsenal of Democracy, for instance.

About balance, I find that the three last social trees and the ideologies are reasonably balanced right now. There are a few policies/tenets that are lacking here or there that could see major changes, as they either have a negligible component (like Workers Faculties faster factory construction) or are just something you never give a consideration (like New Deal, which is subpar even for GPTI-heavy Austria).

 

[pineappledan]

I like order being the straight-up, meat and potatoes, blunt bonuses tree. To that end, I would advocate for giving a policy 5 free iron, oil, and coal. No strings attached.

I agree with legen that, from a historical perspective, autocracy getting bonuses for strategies is a-historical. Germany, Japan, and other fascist nations are starved for strategic resources, especially coal and oil, and their rapid military expansionism was driven by their need for these resources, at least in part.

 

[Gazebo]

I like order being the straight-up, meat and potatoes, blunt bonuses tree. To that end, I would advocate for giving a policy 5 free iron, oil, and coal. No strings attached.

I agree with legen that, from a historical perspective, autocracy getting bonuses for strategies is a-historical. Germany, Japan, and other fascist nations are starved for strategic resources, especially coal and oil, and their rapid military expansionism was driven by their need for these resources, at least in part.

Historically they starved, but it’s what their ideology desired and wanted.

G