Impact of patch on each civ.

[MadDjinn]

I can see France benefiting greatly from going Oligarchy/Military Caste.

+4 culture/+1 happiness per city when founded. a simple Scout keeps the settler alive on the way and then sits there maintenance free. No need to build a monument for a long while since border expansion is clearly taken care of.

France going Liberty:
Yes it'll be faster than everyone else. What about +2 cpt/city doesn't make that happen? (under the old rules) The first SP (Liberty opener) happens in 9 turns. That's before anyone else can get a monument. the 2nd SP (free worker first) happens shortly after that. The 3rd SP (free settler) is done before anyone else gets their 2nd SP; especially if the French player builds a monument.

After that, I'd got Republic (extra prod early might actually be useful) then Representation (well time GA and drops the per city culture cost, again) then Meritocracy when trade routes are being formed.

After that, or before Meritocracy if you didn't go for the wheel/trade routes, I'd grab some tradition (Oligarchy + Aristocracy) and Legalism after Philosophy is done to get free temples in four cities. Heading into Honour for Military caste will boost cpt and happiness. Go into Piety for the extra happy from culture buildings and then decide whether or not to finish Tradition and Piety. the +15% growth and +2food/city is still massive for expansion.

 

[fmlizard2]

France going Liberty:
Yes it'll be faster than everyone else. What about +2 cpt/city doesn't make that happen? (under the old rules) The first SP (Liberty opener) happens in 9 turns. That's before anyone else can get a monument. the 2nd SP (free worker first) happens shortly after that. The 3rd SP (free settler) is done before anyone else gets their 2nd SP; especially if the French player builds a monument.

After that, I'd got Republic (extra prod early might actually be useful) then Representation (well time GA and drops the per city culture cost, again) then Meritocracy when trade routes are being formed.

After that, or before Meritocracy if you didn't go for the wheel/trade routes, I'd grab some tradition (Oligarchy + Aristocracy) and Legalism after Philosophy is done to get free temples in four cities. Heading into Honour for Military caste will boost cpt and happiness. Go into Piety for the extra happy from culture buildings and then decide whether or not to finish Tradition and Piety. the +15% growth and +2food/city is still massive for expansion.

Ok, but if I am Siam, I go Tradition opener first and get a bonus 50% better than France (+3 culture in capital, plus lower border costs). With a hut (at least half of all games) I can pop that policy in about 10 turns. If unlucky, I still get it in about 17 turns with a monument, assuming a Scout for opening build.

Next, I take Liberty opener, which drops around turn 19-25. Siamese culture is +7. In your example, the free settler drops around this same time, but French culture is +5 only. Then you go start a new city, counterfeit a NC start, and raise your policy cost moving forward, and culture is still only +7.

Before turn 40, I get my free worker policy, which coincides roughly with my first worker build. I now have two workers and can develop at least 2 luxuries by turn 45. I sell them for a full cultural CS alliance and now have at least +19 culture flowing with only one city on my policy cost. If I got lucky with a hut ($) or barb camp or saved worker, I could easily have another cultural friend now, +6 more.

To get anywhere near +19-25 culture before turn 50, France would need 4 cities, each with monuments and the +1 per city Liberty opener. The 4 cities would make early policy grabs much more difficult and eliminate the NC start from your possible gambits.

 

[MadDjinn]

Ok, but if I am Siam, I go Tradition opener first and get a bonus 50% better than France (+3 culture in capital, plus lower border costs). With a hut (at least half of all games) I can pop that policy in about 10 turns. If unlucky, I still get it in about 17 turns with a monument, assuming a Scout for opening build.

Next, I take Liberty opener, which drops around turn 19-25. Siamese culture is +7. In your example, the free settler drops around this same time, but French culture is +5 only. Then you go start a new city, counterfeit a NC start, and raise your policy cost moving forward, and culture is still only +7.

Before turn 40, I get my free worker policy, which coincides roughly with my first worker build. I now have two workers and can develop at least 2 luxuries by turn 45. I sell them for a full cultural CS alliance and now have at least +19 culture flowing with only one city on my policy cost. If I got lucky with a hut ($) or barb camp or saved worker, I could easily have another cultural friend now, +6 more.

To get anywhere near +19-25 culture before turn 50, France would need 4 cities, each with monuments and the +1 per city Liberty opener. The 4 cities would make early policy grabs much more difficult and eliminate the NC start from your possible gambits.

erm, who said France needed an NC start?

You know that turns matter, right? IF you're only getting the free worker by turn 40, france could have run you down with swords by then. Cheaper per city costs will allow France to 'fill' the Liberty tree first. That's the point.

Siam waiting until turn 45 or so to buy a cultural ally might be a bit late though It's not a competition, everyone can have their different paths and be happy.

 

[fmlizard2]

erm, who said France needed an NC start?

Its been so long since I didn't do a NC start as any Civ I sometimes forget there is another way to play

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I don't think anyone would argue that France, under normal conditions, wouldn't be faster than anyone else at getting culture up early on at 0 opportunity costs. That is their UA.

However what I'm not certain about is whether that trait is better than other civs traits (and I'm really not saying France is worse or better now... honestly we just don't know without further info on the new mechanics). So what you really have to ask is: Does France's extra culture, with the obvious result of translating into extra policy choices early, net them a bigger gain than another civ's trait. In the short term? Long-term? Further have these changes made in this patch helped france or hurt them?

We don't really know. But my impresion is that france's bonus has gotten a tad weaker because those early policies (first 3 you can grab in the standard Tradition or Liberty openers) aren't as strong anymore. Some of them don't really help you early game at all in fact now. So the gain france got by getting those powerful policies sooner isn't as powerful now and it gives over civs more time to get their traits online and competetive.

As an example... Say you want to get that tradition finisher as france. Before they just needed 3 policies. Now they need 6. Before they could do it by say turn X. Now they need Y turns. Y > X, obviously. Consider however that Egypt, who could never have got burial tombs from legalism by turn X CAN do so by turn Y. So now France's bonus to grab that powerful policy comes online at about the same time as Egypt's bonus does. So france's ability to levarge that early culture into something better than the other civ's bonuses rely on them making good use of getting those early policies faster. Since the most powerful of those early policies have been nerfed somewhat in turn I beleive France itself has been nerfed somewhat. That's just my opinion though

Yes early social policy costs are cheaper... I doubt they will be nearly as cheap as people assume... I'd suspect maybe 25% at the most as anything more would force you to grab so many early policies before you can unlock the higher trees it might make them useless.

EDIT to fix horrible sentences

 

[vexing]

However what I'm not certain about is whether that trait is better than other civs traits

i suspect france will be the only civ that will be able to complete the liberty tree at a critical time to gain the free great person for say hagia sophia and porcelain tower. we'll see though, it really depends on how much lower the early costs are.

 

[bloodninja Tzu]

I see Persia, China, Mongolia and Songhai being stronger at warmongering and overall because of longswordsman nerf. Iron dominates war right now because swordsman are the most effective first rush and upgrade to longswordsman for the next effective rush. Now though, with boosted chariot archers and nerfed longswordsman, I see Chivalry/Machinery rushing as being more capable on the military front especially when combined with these 4 civs who have UUs in these branches and good warmongering strategy. It might just be personal preference because I don't see a lot of other people doing it, but whenever I play as these 4 civs I focus on spearmen and either archers/chariot archers so I can get a potent but cheap artillery force early and carry them through to rifling/cannons.

 

[MadDjinn]

I see Persia, China, Mongolia and Songhai being stronger at warmongering and overall because of longswordsman nerf. Iron dominates war right now because swordsman are the most effective first rush and upgrade to longswordsman for the next effective rush. Now though, with boosted chariot archers and nerfed longswordsman, I see Chivalry/Machinery rushing as being more capable on the military front especially when combined with these 4 civs who have UUs in these branches and good warmongering strategy. It might just be personal preference because I don't see a lot of other people doing it, but whenever I play as these 4 civs I focus on spearmen and either archers/chariot archers so I can get a potent but cheap artillery force early and carry them through to rifling/cannons.

replace China with Arabia or a number of other civs, and you might be right.

 

[bloodninja Tzu]

replace China with Arabia or a number of other civs, and you might be right.

Arabia was one of my favorite civs, but I just don't ever see myself picking Arabia over Mongolia in this game at this point. Now that the Bazaar is nerfed (assuming it doesn't provide double resources anymore), Arabia just doesn't have anything other than Camel Archers, which are much weaker than Keshiks + Khans.

As far as China, I put China there because China just doesn't need to rely on longswordsman or as much iron in general as other civs because of their UU and UA. Keeping an early warrior or two upgraded into Swordsman isn't hard, but I don't have time to dig through techs to longswordsman and then produce 90 hammer / 165 hammer units when I'm rushing Machinery and trying to focus on an artillery based army. It's much easier to produce Spearmen early, Pikemen later for a main battle line and focus production on Archers, Catapults and Horsemen.

Mounted Units for city flank and unit engagement with Pikeman/Swordsman GG line followed by Chu-Ko-Nus and catapults is just much more effective in my mind than focusing on teching and producing longswordsmen. There's nothing that would instill more fear into me than running into early aggressive Spearmen/Chariot Archers from Mongolia. Swordsman rushes might be more effective but even pre-patch I like to focus on immediate, constant pressure with cheaper units to promote city building and expansion as well instead of playing rush to rush.

 

[Furycrab]

Arabia's UA and UB are somewhat underwhelming in that they lack direction, however it's pretty much extra gold you know you will have all game long. However Camel Archers have always been good at dealing with pikemen and will now just be that much better at dealing with longswords (can hit and run making any combat on flat terrain stupidly one sided).

Arguably Keshiks + Khans are a little bit better, but when the game goes into later stages the mongolian edge fizzles out unless you need to smack a serious amount of CS.

 

[fmlizard2]

I still strongly believe the Bazaar will still provide +1 of anything. Look at the notes for things like wonders - they only note changes made to things, and if something is removed they explicitly state it. For example, it isn't as if Chichen Itza is now only +4 By the logic people are using on the Arabia patch notes, it would be. It still gives +50% GA length, but there was no need to put it in a changelog because it didn't change.

 

[chazzycat]

France & America are the two I'm most excited about for my playstyle. Germany & Ottomans become usable now.

Something that has been overlooked is the +1 to embarked movement in Commerce. Spain, England, Denmark & possibly Polynesia should find ways to take advantage of this.

The strengthening of the honor tree buffs civilizations that would go for early war often, such as Mongols, Aztecs, Songhai, etc.

Civs with longsword UUs have taken a pretty bad hit, what with the extra tech, no research agreements, no early GS from meritocracy, and the nerf to the unit itself. So Japan loses a bit of ground, although they do make up for it a bit by having air units gain experience from barracks. Berserkers will also come out later but should still pack a punch (especially with extra embarked movement from commerce), they were probably a bit OP to begin with. Civs with sworsdman & musket UUs are strenghthened in comparison, Rome's legions should be powerful for longer, and jannissaries/minutement/musketeers should be more competitive.

Rome is actually one of the more intriguing civs, there are many changes to the cost of buildings that could have an impact on their UA. I also like the the new autocracy bonus of +3 per courthouse for Rome. Since you have to control the production to get the most of their UA, they are the best civ for annexing IMO. The UA might make honor-->piety very attractive as well, for all those cheap happiness buildings.

I could go on and on and on....there are so many changes! Honestly it'll probably be some unplanned side effect of something that ends up changing the game.

 

[Randall Turner]

i suspect france will be the only civ that will be able to complete the liberty tree at a critical time to gain the free great person for say hagia sophia and porcelain tower. we'll see though, it really depends on how much lower the early costs are.

Do the people that play France really settle extra cities b/c of their UA?

I was pushing some numbers around, and it seems to me that they'd benefit from limiting their growth regardless. Maybe one extra city is indicated, but not more.

(of course the benefit from puppets is just "free".)

 

[vexing]

Do the people that play France really settle extra cities b/c of their UA?

i guess you have to define extra. if you mean as in more cities than they would otherwise, maybe?

there's going to be some breaking point where you shouldn't continue expanding, but regardless france will get their 3 - 5 initial cities up faster than any other civ, and each city won't be a penalty culture wise.

 

[Randall Turner]

waitaminnit, what exactly is the per-city expansion cost for acquiring new policies?

I just hooked up the tuner and gave myself 3000 gold to buy settlers. Then I went out and settled five cities. (As Arabia, it was first alphabetically.) I get...

25 cost for first culture
30 after settling 2nd city
40 after settling 3rd
45 after settling 4th
55 after settling 5th

Obviously that's not a constant percentage cost increase like I was expecting, ie, it's an additional "X" percent per city that breaks down as + 0, .2, .33, .11, .22.

What the hell is going on here? Has someone written a strategy article on expansion social policy cost?

(and I'm hijacking a thread again, god i'm bad.)

ps - boy, if I could just hook up the tuner every game I would kick butt.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The game rounds each policy's cost to the nearest 5 . This can make a large difference in the early game and quits mattering quickly. I believe it always rounds down, but I'm not certain about that.

 

[Randall Turner]

The game rounds each policy's cost to the nearest 5 . This can make a large difference in the early game and quits mattering quickly.

Oh, very interesting. What's particularly of interest is that, after rounding down, the game just drops the mod-5 remainder forever. (testing that here...)

After adopting policies, my SP cost goes...

55->100->200->350

Comparing to a baseline (one city, starting at 25), it goes...

25->45->90->160

Same (within error margin) percentage increase, so those mod-5 remainders are just gone. Hard to exploit b/c it takes awhile to get settlers, but expanding early (while SP cost is low) when the dropped remainder is significant can give you a large relative advantage.

(what the heck, do these guys not have a floating point processor?)

Good to know. (Your aorta is in your chest.)

Edit: I'd note that the fourth city expansion giving a SP bump from 40 to 45 doesn't fit, ie, .3 * 40 == 12, should have gone from 40 to 50 vs. 40 to 45. Still calling mild shenanigans here.

 

[vexing]

I believe it always rounds down, but I'm not certain about that.

it does.

Still calling mild shenanigans here.

check out the number crunching thread. the modifier is on base cost, not modified cost. it's 1 + .3 * number of cities... base cost for policy 1 is 25, so each additional policy adds 7.5 but the flooring makes it alternates from adding 5 to 10

 

[Randall Turner]

check out the number crunching thread. the modifier is on base cost, not modified cost. it's 1 + .3 * number of cities... base cost for policy 1 is 25, so each additional policy adds 7.5 but the flooring makes it alternates from adding 5 to 10

That's a good thread. Your formula is wrong , ie, cost is (7 + 3n)/10, not your (10 + 3n)/10. And that explains it. (ie, there's an explanation, and it doesn't involve losing remainders, which would be silly.) Edit: well, if "number of cities" is really, "number of additional cities after the first", it fits.

 

[bryanw1995]

Patronage was reduced "directly" about the same amount the others were, wouldn't you say?

(ie - Scholasticism was dropped by a quarter - you'll need four vs. three City-State allies to get the same amount of beakers. About the same as RA's and universities. Close enough for government work.)

I think the biggest changes will be implicit, from the changed political landscape. "Indirectly", ie, secondary effects, the net effect of the patch mitigates towards richer, friendlier AI opponents and longer games. More RA opportunities, but I suspect outbidding strong AI economies for city-state allies will get harder. (More gold overall increases City-State competition while decreasing RA scarcity.) Net effect could be that an RA strategy will be less random, Patronage strategy more so.

Edit: to be clear, I think a Patronage civ, or even just one without some Porcelain Tower acquisition advantage, should concentrate on Patronage. But I think we might need a little luck vis a vis competition, too.

All this talk about patronage has gotten me thinkin': If my nice neighbor, let's call him "Ramabackstabby", decides to fill out the patronage tree and I accidentally kill him and burn his civ to the ground, does his negative CS influence modifier disappear?

Its been so long since I didn't do a NC start as any Civ I sometimes forget there is another way to play

Moving/nerfing the NC to philosophy could be the best change that they've made. Now it will go from "almost 100% of the time" to "situational".