Honor Tree

[VicRatlhead5199]

I've had several successful pure Honor starts in BNW, though with pretty late victory times (turn 360). This is more to do with Autocracy's weak paths for actual victory conditions (especially the lack of spaceship bonus) which if fixed would make Honor starts look more optimal (but don't really need to be fixed).

And, I wouldn't recommend ANY blending with Liberty or Tradition. If you are going to get Honor, you want to finish it. The last two policies and finisher are the ones that pay off in late game. If you are going to finish it, you want to do so before you have to sacrifice any Rationalism or Autocracy policies to do so.

The same considerations apply to Liberty and Tradition - having unfinished policies in Renaissance is unacceptable. Leaving them open is unacceptable, especially if Honor was opened and finished first - the Liberty and Tradition top-tree policies on their own are weak by the mid-game, Commerce or Exploration are objectively better for a warmonger. I strongly dislike split openings.

Honor openings imply you will lack food and production bonuses. Just do your best to make up for it. Splitting policies trees only makes things worse.

---

It's fair to criticize the garrison requirement, especially for the happiness. But early conquest is completely unrewarding in BNW anyway, and you aren't growing much, so you aren't likely to be actually 'held back' by happiness. This is something that should be fixed but doesn't come into play much under the current game balance. Conquering during late-game when you have Autocracy is more ideal. Here, Honor is doing you a huge favor for happiness with the XP-buildings discount. With the 2 happiness from Autocracy these are the best happiness buildings in the game (low gold maintenance) and Honor lets new conquests build them in a couple turns.

For the culture bonus, the garrison requirement is a fair nerf since its otherwise the strongest culture policy in the game (2 per city, twice what liberty opener gives).

---

I strongly agree with all the criticisms of Honor. I strongly dislike the fact that a human player with tradition will always have a stronger army (via better science) than a human player with Honor. I strongly dislike that the melee line has been completely superfluous compared to ranged since G&K, and Honor's production bonus only applies to a class of unit that will get chewed up by AI spam (I'd prefer it if melee dominated battles). I strongly dislike that you can't conquer early and Honor only tries to punish you more if you do (garrison happiness).

But the synergy with Commerce and Autocracy is a joy to behold, if you survive to late game. It sets up for a really engaging conquest. I've had successful Honor games (Immortal, Continents standard) as Zulus, Aztecs, Germany, Denmark. Failed as Huns (Korea got science victory 2 turns before me) and several others. It's a risky way to play.

I love everything you said in this post and almost completely agree. The tradition hybrid is mainly to help growth and economy for classical warfare. If they ever nerf the gold in tradition or do something to boost gpt (not just savings on what you spend) in honor (maybe move the free garrison to military caste) and I'll change my tune.

Finishing tradition gives you savings/income equal to or greater than a free trade route plus its other benefits. That helps maintain more troops and upgrade them easier until you get to the Renaissance and have more trade units and more lucrative routes to send them on. The warmonger penalty isn't the only thing screwing up early warfare.

Warmongering also generally is best when played wide and sadly tradition is as good if not better for wide empires than the other trees (something wrong there). Monarchy and Aristocracy produce the most happiness of the 4 starting trees unless you go really wide (I'm talking like 20 cities). The gold bonuses allow you to dedicate more trade to internal routes which is the best way to expand while avoiding losing turns due to the science penalty. The growth bonus to the finisher just makes more efficient use of those ITRs.

I do think mixing liberty and honor is silly though. No synergy like the oligarchy/military caste combo. No need for free workers as an early warmonger either, just steal them from other civs. They'll send settlers and workers out with minimal protection to be plucked like fruit from the vine.

Honor is one of the strongest culture trees in the game, second only to aesthetics, so hybrids are more viable because of that. Like I said I rarely fail to finish it before the Renaissance and can usually jump to Rationalism or Commerce (depending on my plans and where I am in relative to other civs) once I'm there. I usually feel compelled to finish commerce for protectionism which does take away from ideologies but rationalism really only requires secularism, humanism and free thought to be good. No need to finish the tree there.

 

[qemist]

at King, you have enough margin of error to still have fun with Honor.

At King you can choose your SPs at random. Honor wasn't a popular tree pre-BNW and they nerfed it. Nuff said.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

At King you can choose your SPs at random. Honor wasn't a popular tree pre-BNW and they nerfed it. Nuff said.

At diety you can chose your policies at random, probably win without picking a single one even.

Honor is as usefull as any other of the starting trees.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Are we... not supposed to be picking our SPs at random?

oh man,,

 

[budweiser]

OK. Try this, right side Honor X4. Archery>mining>BW, whatever, make another city, IW. Barracks, HE in cap. Left honor. Sword rush! Clear your lands.

You can get Professional army by t45, if not sooner.

 

[qemist]

At diety you can chose your policies at random, probably win without picking a single one even.

Dunno how you manage that.

Honor is as usefull as any other of the starting trees.

So was it overpowered before they took out happiness for fortifications?

 

[Callonia]

Dunno how you manage that.



So was it overpowered before they took out happiness for fortifications?

I don't know how you connect one happiness per walls overpowered. At best it pays for one population point, nothing more nothing less.... if you want overpowered, walls giving 4 happiness

I opened and filled out honor in vanilla.... and it still sucked. Nothing beats Tradition for warmongering. You can afford an massive reserve army with tradition.

Oligarchy+Garrisoned/walled cities = awesome to have.

Lets say you have 50 cities, you have at minimum 50 reserve units that can be called into action at any time. While those garrisons is garrisoned, you gain 1 happy and two culture. But if you want the happiness from walls, you have to rushbuy it which is about 400 gold? Or build it the slow way. Even then, honor sucked.

Only time honor is good is when it's supporting your main policy tree. Tradition+Honor or Liberty+Honor.

I will say it isn't even overpowered at all, because if you moved a unit out, you lose that 1 happiness.

But with walls giving happiness which basically cut the base unhappiness for founding a new city from 4 to 3. That was the main purpose of it for me, I built walls in every single city.

 

[isau]

The biggest problem with Honor may be actually a problem with melee units in general. They take way too much collateral damage from attacking on their turns. I think they are set up this way because of memories of Civ 4, where a unit running into another unit would naturally damage both units (even archers). But that really does not work well in Civ 5.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that a policy in Honor should reduce how much damage a melee unit takes when it attacks on its own turn. Same with melee ships and the Exploration tree. It's just really weird that these units shave off approx 1/3rd or 1/4th of their life bar to attack, with no options to reduce that. The entire reason these units are currently broken is their need to injure themselves to do anything, and as long as Honor, as well as certain supposed 'war monger' civs, depend on these types of units there will be issues.

 

[reddishrecue]

Honor's gains are too limited to call it a policy tree as good as the other trees. However, the honor tree is a challenge, for those who like a challenge.

 

[GhostSalsa]

The entire reason these units are currently broken is their need to injure themselves to do anything, and as long as Honor, as well as certain supposed 'war monger' civs, depend on these types of units there will be issues.

Exactly. In fact in Honor starts I'm often not averse to reloading when pre-rifling infantry get killed, because, "ok i have to do this because unit balance is completely distorted and broken and I only built this stupid sword unit to role-play as Honor dumb game"

 

[reddishrecue]

OK. Try this, right side Honor X4. Archery>mining>BW, whatever, make another city, IW. Barracks, HE in cap. Left honor. Sword rush! Clear your lands.

You can get Professional army by t45, if not sooner.

If you add the statue of Zeus before the barracks and HE, it would be even better and make clearing the honor social policy sooner.

 

[Callonia]

Reducing the amount that melee units take is called leveling up.

Really high level melee on right terrain will take almost no damage... I've had a enemy unit do only 3 damage to one of my units once

 

[qemist]

I don't know how you connect one happiness per walls overpowered.

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement but I find it is a good idea to read a thread of conversation before butting in. If a tree is equal to another tree now, and the first mentioned tree has been nerfed while the second has not, then pre-nerf the first mentioned tree must have been stronger than the second mentioned tree.

I opened and filled out honor in vanilla.... and it still sucked.

You don't know it but you're actually helping me make my point for me.

 

[Callonia]

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement but I find it is a good idea to read a thread of conversation before butting in. If a tree is equal to another tree now, and the first mentioned tree has been nerfed while the second has not, then pre-nerf the first mentioned tree must have been stronger than the second mentioned tree.



You don't know it but you're actually helping me make my point for me.

Final note is I agree with you that Honor tree sucks, but no, +1 happiness per walls doesn't equal overpowered, it just made the tree suck less as whole in comparison to tradition and liberty.

With it's removal, it became even more sucky.

And, I had melee units take zero damage after being attacked in melee.... in vanilla.
My unit was mech infantry with three rough terrain promos, and it got attacked by three gunships in a row, all gunships died without doing a single point of damage xD

And said mech infantry was fortified in a citadel on a hill.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Dunno how you manage that.

The ai is a non thinking brute, you don't really need anymore then the abillity to Think to beat it.
It will be much harder without SP but not impossible.


So was it overpowered before they took out happiness for fortifications?

They changed honor much more then just take away happines.
It did not increase build speed on training Buildings Before and also don't forget that they have changed around many other trees alot too.

It could give alot more happines Before however fortifications isn't something that you useally build in every city anyway and only one happines per building becomes pretty hammer expansive.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Reducing the amount that melee units take is called leveling up.

Really high level melee on right terrain will take almost no damage... I've had a enemy unit do only 3 damage to one of my units once

That's the problem. Really high level melee on the right terrain, defending with 100 percent health should take no damage. But swordmen are out-classed by pikes on turn 80. By the time you get longswords they are just fodder for super-cities. It's very hard to keep them alive until replaceable parts even if you baby them. The only time I even bother with melee is on Honor, to make use of the bonus, and I usually regret it.

 

[Callonia]

That's the problem. Really high level melee on the right terrain, defending with 100 percent health should take no damage. But swordmen are out-classed by pikes on turn 80. By the time you get longswords they are just fodder for super-cities. It's very hard to keep them alive until replaceable parts even if you baby them. The only time I even bother with melee is on Honor, to make use of the bonus, and I usually regret it.

That's odd because I never have problems with melee.

And a warrior from ancient era can take over a city from future era as long as the said city have 1 hp left or 0. Sure the warrior will lose 99 hp but will always win.

And I had plenty of battles where I fought exclusively with melee units with no ranged units around and my units live long enough to get march promo.

Unless you're complaining about deity, then stop complaining. Deity is irrelevant, cheating is rampant.

 

[qemist]

but no, +1 happiness per walls doesn't equal overpowered,

Where did I claim that? I'm sorry, but I decline to debate with someone who does not display a minimal level of honesty.

 

[Browd]

So was it overpowered before they took out happiness for fortifications?

Moderator Action: This was the quote. It was clearly a question, not a statement, and Callonia's response provided his view of the answer -- "no, +1 happiness per walls doesn't equal overpowered." Time for the two of you to stop trolling each other and move along to more productive discussion.

 

[reddishrecue]

I had the honor tree start and was able to survive. Still had technology and no one really attacked me.