HONOR: A Tree in Need of Sprucing Up

[steveg700]

Honor gets a bit of a bad rap. It has good stuff in it, notably more per-city happiness than you'll find in any other sopol (+5!), and its finisher bennie is certainly a game-changer. That actually weds well with Piety. However, it does have a couple of very critical problems that compounded each other:

1) Folks don't like to pick it early because, unlike its Ancient-era peers, it offers no growth for your empire. You might argue that you could use some of its assets to strengthen an early rush, but we're talking about a pretty indirect and iffy means of growth.

2) Folks don't wanna pick it later because the opener is conditional upon the presence of barbarians, who have a well-understood shelf life.

So, Honor's got a problem as an eary pick, and a problem as a late pick. Like I said though, its got a lot of strengths. All it really needs is a way to get a foot in the door, and for that reason, I'd concentrate on buffing the opener.

Growthwise, bonus food or settlers don't really fit in with honor's emphasis on warfare, but let's not forget that gold buys settlers, so let's look at ways to get some of that. These could all be tacked onto the tail of the current Honor opener:

• Earn gold (in addition to culture) for killing barbarians, or earn extra gold for destroying encampments.
• +1 gold from barracks (instead of paying a maintenance cost). Free barracks in the capital.
• Extra gold from demanding tribute.
• +1 gold from horses and iron.

I kinda lean towards the second one myself. I like the idea of fast-tracking barracks in some fashion, because it usually makes little sense to build them early (when there are barbs to kill). Also, some synergy with the bronze/iron branch of the tech tree would be ideal, because it addresses some weakness in that area as well.

 

[kaspergm]

I agree with much of what you write here. I play with a mod I made myself that gave Honor a major overhaul (as well as several of the other policy trees), so let me share some of my thoughts behind that:

1) I made Tradition, Liberty and Honor mutually exclusive. This might seem contraindicated by the fact that Honor suffers by being weaker than Tradition and Liberty, but the idea here is that I want to encourage specialization. I dislike how with the current system, pretty much no matter what strategy you'll play, you'll always take a couple of policies in tradition from start, and like you say, postpone Honor. By making the exclusive, you have to make a strategy decision, and if you want to go for early warfare, Honor should be your pick, not Tradition. I did open Piety from Ancient era also, however, so you can theoretically sidetrack into Piety also, but obviously that works best when going Tradition/cultural.

2) Honor opener provides a free melee unit (Warrior / Swordsman etc. depending on your tech level). Since I disabled mixing Honor with the others, this effectively means you get a Warrior, so this might be more useful later in the tree, but I got the script from another mod, and haven't tried to change it yet.

3) I moved the current bonus from Discipline into Warrior Code, merging these two policies into one. Neither of them were extremely powerful as it was. Warrior Code also gets production bonus towards Siege units.

4) I added a +1 Gold to Baracks/Armory/Military Academy with Discipline, effectively making them free of charge. I also added +1 Science to these buildings with Discipline (which will stack with a general +1 Science on these buildings after Military Science is discovered, goes for all civs). Lastly, Discipline provides a 100 % production bonus to these buildings, allowing you to construct them in half time (similar to religious buildings in Piety).

5) Professional Soldiers was changed, so that Happiness was applied from Barracks/Armory/Military Academy rather than defensive buildings.

6) I doubled gold from Honor finisher. Unlike you, I don't think the finisher is very significant, I don't recall the numbers anymore, but the Gold you get from killing a medieval unit is very little (something like 15 Gold?). Finisher also adds another +15 XP to all newly trained units, and also gives a slight reduction (I think 17 %) on army maintenance cost.

I would have added the double gold from Barbarian camps to opener, but didn't have the skill to do this, so that was not part of the change.


My overall incentive with these changes was to:
a) Promote a stronger synergy between offensive strategies (through bonuses to Baracks etc.) rather than defensive strategies (Happiness from Walls etc.).
b) More Gold from Honor. Warfare takes a lot of Gold (maintenance, upgrades, bying units).
c) A slight Science boost to make it a viable alternative to Tradition (growth = science + money + production)

 

[Optional]

I'm certainly not against an extra incentive like a free barracks or so, but some of the bad press Honour gets is not deserved.

I noticed in another thread about the policy that Warrior Code got some serious slagging, with posters saying a build bonus on melee units was weak, which is something I agree with, but I also saw that posters were not aware of what you can do with a Great General. The culture bomb element, introduced with Gods & Kings, often gets missed. Yes, you can claim resources with that, and with a bit of luck you grab both a lux and horses from a CS. Big thing early game.

Another reason for the bad press Honour gets is that its bonuses are not automatic, but you actually need to play in a certain way to exploit them. A dummy can see the use of Liberty's free settler, free worker and free great person, of Tradition's free aqueducts. With Honour it's different. The Great General is a more particular to use, the starter requires a good use of units, and the finisher is mainly useful when the AI is attacking you.
It's the finisher that is the weakest element in my view, compared to the finishers of Tradition and Liberty at least. Although Honour's finisher can make a big difference, you don't know this in advance, and it's early in the game when you have to pick a certain tree.

Other trees are more fool proof choices, but in terms of game design Honour is by far the best tree of the starter ones. The other trees offer little challenge to get the most out of them; they're strategically more shallow, as their bonuses are more or less automatic. It would be a shame if Honour were to be redesigned to mimic them.

 

[kirbdog]

If the +2 culture part of Military caste were made into the opener, then Honor would have a culture-generating opener just like Liberty and Tradition do.

I would then suggest putting something in that part of the tree (where military caste was) that steals the gold part of having garrisons. That is, you pay no gold for garrisons.

I suggest giving Tradition four units maintenance free along with what they already have, instead of no maintenance for garrisons. Let that be an Honor thing instead.

Finally I suggest getting rid of the happiness for having garrisons thing. It's too fiddly to deal with.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Honor Opener: Culture per barbarian kill is fine, and depending on your settings, knowing where the Barb camps are the instant they appear is crucial.

Warrior Code: Barracks/Armory/Military Academy cost no maintenance; +50% production of these buildings.
Military Tradition: Units gain +50% XP from combat. XP Cap from Barbarian units lifted.
Discipline: Your units gain a bonus to defense against ranged attacks.
Military Caste: No change; that one's pretty nice.
Professional Army: +1 Happiness from Defensive Buildings/XP Buildings; bonus to Bullying City-States.

Finisher: Gold Per Kill, Culture Per Kill (Barb or not), and cheaper upgrading of troops.

 

[killmeplease]

i think opener is ok, it can give pretty much culture from barb hunting. on quick speed there are ~10 barbs will come to your capital and that's 60 culture, not bad. and you'll get more if you'll hunt barbs on purpose (or "farm" a couple of camps).

other policies are meh.
happiness from useless buildings, happiness from garrisons? i think it should be scrapped

heres my view of a "proper" honor tree:

opener: ok, leave it as that
warrior code: free barracks in first 4 cities, +15% to melee units production (no free general)
discipline: ok (+15% for adjacent unit)
military traditions: +50% xp from battles; +1 culture/turn per military unit you have
military caste: happiness from XP buildings; -20% military maintenance
professional army: -50% upgrade cost
finisher: ok

 

[kirbdog]

I like improved production speed to barracks/armory/military academy. The four free things in cities is part of the tradition tree, but I don't think it should spread to the Honor tree. Honor should be suited to tall or wide.

 

[killmeplease]

I like improved production speed to barracks/armory/military academy. The four free things in cities is part of the tradition tree, but I don't think it should spread to the Honor tree. Honor should be suited to tall or wide.

maybe free barracks in the capital then

 

[kaspergm]

i think opener is ok, it can give pretty much culture from barb hunting. on quick speed there are ~10 barbs will come to your capital and that's 60 culture, not bad. and you'll get more if you'll hunt barbs on purpose (or "farm" a couple of camps).

60 Culture is ok at best. That is the same you get from Tradition opener for free in only 20 turns. Of course the XP from killing the barbs and the gold from camps is on top of that, but you get that also without the Honor opener. I think suggestion above to move the culture bonus from garrisoned units to opener is one of the best I've seen, that will make Honor opener much more comparable to Tradition and Liberty in terms of cultural return.

 

[killmeplease]

you can get much more than 60 if you'll be active enough
not to say it gives not just culture but also a major bonus vs barbs which can be pretty useful, and shows their camps
while any bonus for garrisoned units i do not like as its "too fiddly" to use it as kirbdog said earlier

 

[steveg700]

I stated in my OP the two problems with Honor. One is with taking it early, and the other is with taking it later. Some responses don't seem to take those considerations into account.

The opener has made me more than 60. It has made less than 60. It isn't solely a matter of diligence. You may simply be on an island or peninsula that lacks enough "dark" tiles to spawn barbarians. You encampments can get capped by civ's or CS's. Or, you could lots of archers that kill for very little culture since it's strength-based. Lots of variables.

But at the end of the day, it's all "burst" culture, not a consistent outpour. The well of barbarians has a distinct tendency to go dry. Come to think of it, the culture isn't even going to a city expand its bordres.

 

[Rooftrellen]

The one big thing that stops me from taking honor is the opener. It's mediocre at the very best, and, most of the time, I'll grab the tradition opener followed by liberty (unless I see little room for growth or expect a war) due to the fact both openers work together well, and honor's free garrisons work wonders with my typically wide play style. Honor gives poor culture, AND that culture is NOT applied to cities to claim land.

I would take honor much more often if the culture per garrison were moved to the opener, and, if the free garrisons were moved to replace the lost part of that SP, I'd probably take it fairly regularly.

I'd also take it more if the synergy between Tradition and Liberty were broken a bit. They, ironically, feed each other too well. Tradition lets boarders pop more often, and liberty gives culture to cities to do it. Tradition gives culture buildings in the first cities, and liberty makes it possible to found them decently fast. Tradition gives a slight boost to wonder building and lets your capital get bigger, liberty gives hammers to all your cities to let them pick up the slack.

After the opener, honor is a really nice tree. Getting units faster is never bad, the early general is a monstrous boost in case of an early war (particularly with another 15% boost with another SP), the happiness is insane, and the extra exp is awesome, warmonger or not, especially with the cheaper upgrades...nevermind the fact that the finisher is one of the best before rationalism.

But the opener is just a stick in the mud...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I agree with everything in the OP to be honest, particularly with the opener and close. They aren't very attractive (when in context with the other two)...

Which leads me to what I think is the big problem; it is actually with the other two being too important early on rather than honour being weak.

IMO, the early social policies (particularly tradition and liberty) are actually better than the late game ones. Firstly that discourages a focus on cultural growth in the course of the game, which frankly should be a consideration for anyone on any strategy.

Secondly it means that you can put yourself in a runaway position far two easily with the help of a little early culture.

I know, everyone gets access to the same policies, and i know there needs to be some method to pull you forwards and prevent the game getting dull. But i feel like part of the mid game lull lots of people experience is the disparity between the growth you can get from early policies and the development you can gain from later ones (if your still getting them at any rate because your in a rare cultural situation)

The Fix

The liberty tree in particular is far too strong early in the game, it means your production is saved early on from the big hit of a settler or a worker, or both. Of course you make them later, and the G&K fix for collective rule helped this a bit, but i feel its still too strong. I think you should either get a settler or a worker, or the worker should simply be removed. That way at least you'd have to think about when to get the free settler and take a production hit of some form to legitimize it in happiness.

As for tradition, i feel part of the trouble is a strategy particularly rampant with the french. Take this early, then go wide. It makes for an incredibly powerful combination, and i think that there should be a negative to go with the opener (and possibly this should be applied to all other openers too). For instance, limitations on the number of settlers you can build with tradition or a slower production rate of them or increased happiness or gold cost of maintaining cities or roads. Something to discourage wide growth while encouraging tall growth.
With liberty there could be similar negative costs until you found a certain number of cities, or until you have a certain number of trade routes. This way you would have to consider if it's worth the trade off of rapid early expansion for completely forgoing cultural victory and putting yourself in a vulnerable position defensibly against these debuffs.
With honour there could be a penalty for happiness in non-occupied cities or some other similar penalty that discourages you from peaceful expansion.

You could argue that there are already inherant negatives, like the increased social policy cost of wide empires, or the decreased science potential of tall empires, but it's very apparent that these debuffs aren't enough to discourage mixing and matching of these early policies to gain a huge benefit, or using them for strategies that are far more general than their intended use.

Food for thought... Or maybe i'm just sadistically bringing in penalties on an innocent community

 

[Bandobras Took]

Food for thought... Or maybe i'm just sadistically bringing in penalties on an innocent community

Somewhat; in games such as Civ, an early bonus is usually always going to be better than a late bonus. I prefer having to pick between a bunch of really good options rather than having to pick between a bunch of really pathetic options.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Somewhat; in games such as Civ, an early bonus is usually always going to be better than a late bonus. I prefer having to pick between a bunch of really good options rather than having to pick between a bunch of really pathetic options.

I don't mean make them pathetic. They can still be excellent, but restrictive. You should need to think about strategy in a strategy game...

 

[steveg700]

I'd also take it more if the synergy between Honor and Liberty were broken a bit. They, ironically, feed each other too well. Honor lets boarders pop more often, and liberty gives culture to cities to do it. Honor gives culture buildings in the first cities, and liberty makes it possible to found them decently fast. Honor gives a slight boost to wonder building and lets your capital get bigger, liberty gives hammers to all your cities to let them pick up the slack....

So, I'm gathering that in the above, you were actually referring to Tradition's rather than Honor.

 

[steveg700]

How about this small addendum to the Honor opener: at the medieval era, receive +1 culture from each source of horses and iron. The medieval era is when you really expect encampments to become a thing of the past. And for an Honor civ, the medieval era is the heyday of horses and iron, giving rise to knights of the round, samurai and what have you.

 

[Bandobras Took]

I don't mean make them pathetic. They can still be excellent, but restrictive. You should need to think about strategy in a strategy game...

Restrictive, as I understand the word, diminishes options. I don't enjoy that in games. I also disagree with the premise that strategy means choosing how you're going to be gimped.

 

[Rooftrellen]

So, I'm gathering that in the above, you were actually referring to Tradition's rather than Honor.

Honor on the brain, but, yes, Tradition is what I meant.

I normally pick a few of both early (rarely finishing Tradition), simply due to how they play off each other.

Going wide and having each city a haven for a free unit is heaven in itself, let alone how other things can be woven together.

I fixed up my post up there, so thanks for pointing it out.

 

[kaspergm]

As for tradition, i feel part of the trouble is a strategy particularly rampant with the french. Take this early, then go wide. It makes for an incredibly powerful combination, and i think that there should be a negative to go with the opener (and possibly this should be applied to all other openers too). For instance, limitations on the number of settlers you can build with tradition or a slower production rate of them or increased happiness or gold cost of maintaining cities or roads. Something to discourage wide growth while encouraging tall growth.

I disagree with this. Most of the tradition bonuses only applies to the first 4 cities, so while this doesn't particularly harm you if going wide, this tree doesn't really cater to that strategy either. I think that's fine as is. When that is said, I do feel Tradition is generally just too good, the opener in particular, which is why I myself have made Tradition and Liberty mutually exclusive to enforce the choice between either one or the other and make your start more dependant on the strategy you intend to follow, which is sort of what I see you request.

Returning to Honor, I can't help but find it funny how half of the posters here praise the Honor finisher for being fantastic, whereas the other half find it severely underpowered. I'm just curious, those who find it excellent, how much gold do you approx. think you get from it in, say, Medieval and Renaissance era in an average game where you pick Honor?