Imperalism Change Discussion

[usadefcon1]

"Colonists found Puppet Cities" as an Imperialism bonus is a great idea. Finisher, opener, or where?

 

[hokath]

In the situation I describe, it would be a general change, independent of Imperialism.
The policy tree just naturally synergizes with using them.

 

[Bruhmoment]

Unless you're playing on a sizeable map, you're not even gonna be settling anymore by the time you open Imperialism, as either all the land has been settled or you get abhorrent available positions to settle in, such as tundra/desert/ one tile islands. It's really difficult to kickstart such cities so I'm not even sure if the colonist change would do anything that late
Removing the restriction on courthouses/puppeted cities would be nice, not too invasive of a change and plays well with authority.
I'm conflicted on yield changes though - at what point do we differentiate between Imperialism and Industry if both trees start producing similar yields? Industry's made for production and gold so why wouldn't you just pick that to go settle wide and afar? But if we buff imperialism too much then there's no reason to even go Industry as Imperialism would yield the same if not more than Industry (talking about the monopoly change) in terms of production science culture and gold alike

 

[FinMc]

I find great Admirals pretty awesome as is to be honest.

Roughly around the time you get field guns is when I go full mask off total war. Before diving into what will inevitably be WW1, I gather 7 ranged ships that are closest to logistics, and 7 ~field guns that are closest to +range, or any musketmen who are close to +range or logistics and I pop every single Great Admiral I've been saving all game for this moment.

With my newly elite army of ranged units, I then begin the stomping.

I wonder if saving a few Great Admirals to pop on carriers with full air wings would be effective. I'll try that next game lol.

 

[Solic]

I find great Admirals pretty awesome as is to be honest.

Roughly around the time you get field guns is when I go full mask off total war. Before diving into what will inevitably be WW1, I gather 7 ranged ships that are closest to logistics, and 7 ~field guns that are closest to +range, or any musketmen who are close to +range or logistics and I pop every single Great Admiral I've been saving all game for this moment.

With my newly elite army of ranged units, I then begin the stomping.

I wonder if saving a few Great Admirals to pop on carriers with full air wings would be effective. I'll try that next game lol.

Great Admirals don't give Exp in base VP as far as I know.

 

[Stalker0]

I also don’t think colonist as puppet should be an imperialism bonus…as mentioned above it’s often too late.

Thst mechanic is either better straight up or as a modmod.

 

[CppMaster]

Colonists as puppets on imperialism could be useful even for bad economical city spots, as long as they give access to resources or are in strategic territory, like a spot for healing.

It's a great flavor for imperalism, it matches even it's art and history.

 

[azum4roll]

The topic of Industrial Era trees has come up again. Of the 3 trees, the only one I am a bit disatisfied with is Imperalism. And Its not the balance of the tree per say....when Imperalism is leveraged to its fullest, its quite powerful. But I think the tree has a few flaws we can address.

What is the purpose of this tree?
Always a core important question. I see Imperalsim as having 2 strong niches, and one minor one.

1) Either continue an Authority war play into a total war domination style. Or pivot into a late game power warring faction.
2) Support a wide civ sprawled across various land masses and islands (aka lots of water).

3) Give benefit on big lux/monopoly plays. (more minor than the first two).

What is the issue with the tree?
Ultimately, as a war tree I think Imperalism is fine (aka niche 1). It lets you war powerfully with your GGs/GAs and big navy. Gives you lots of war benefits, as well as benefits for all of the puppets you conquer. In terms of war, the tree is fine, and no changes are needed.

Its really niche 2 and 3 I want to look at:

1) The tree doesn't provide enough support for a more peaceful water expansion (ala through pioneers in the age of sail).
2) The Colonialsm policy is too swingy in power (and therefore creates a massive swing in the power of Imperalism's economy). In some games, it can give you +10% in 3 yields if you play it right. In other, its a small handful of yields barely worth discussing.


Changes to Discuss
Here are some of my thoughts on changes around those areas:

1) Civilizing Mission: Remove the restriction on Puppets/Courthouses

A small change in mechanic that has a big impact in game. For warring civs this does almost nothing, but it represents a big boost to players doing peaceful expansion in the mid to late game....giving them a large production bonus to help new cities "catchup" in infrastructure to older ones. Imperalism allows new cities to develop quicker vs Industry generates big yield bonuses for infrastructure....so its a key difference to decide how you want to play it. This solidies Imperalism as not just a "war tree", but gives it a real purpose for players wanting to go Age of Sail big expansion.

2) Colonalism: Change "+10% to exisiting monoloy, +3 to monopoly" to "Give +5% Science, Culture, and Gold for every monopoly you possess".

Now for this one, the % bonus and which yields I am very open to debate. The crux though is that the bonus moves away from the type of monopoloy you get (which is largely RNG related) and shifts into the amount of monopolies. More monopolies = more bonus, but the bonus is always good and meaty....never crazy, but its consistent.

This gives a very niche bonus for players who get a lot of monopologies, but doesn't overpower some monopoly play and underpower others. This creates a lot more consistency in the Economic benefit of the tree.



(I am not as gung ho on this change, I think it would be good, but its a bit more outside of the core needs).

3) Martial Law: Add "+2 defense for every water tile touching a city"

The idea here is....though Imperalism has a bigger navy than most civs, supply is a very big limitation, and its hard to have a "real navy" everywhere in the world. Island cities are PAINFULLY hard to defend, so much so it can remove otherwise great city options because its simply not possible to hold spots from any passing navy before you come to intercept.

The idea here is to give a bit more defense to island going cities. Your land cities won't see much difference, but an island city gets a nice boost of defense to at least stall out an enemy force to give you navy time to respond. Once again this help augment niche 2 of a large island based civ that is one of the tenents of Imperalism.

These are pure buffs on a tree that's not in need of one.

1) Yes, this will help later settlements and it's fine.
2) The policy is already really good. It's common to underrate flat yields over % yields, but they complement each other - yield modifiers make base yields better and vice versa. I'd say +10% of a yield is better than +3 of the same yield (times 6-8), but only slightly.
Now the issue lies in the other monopolies you acquire through City-States, or smaller monopolies (e.g. getting 1/3 of a luxury and then building Chartered Company to gain the monopoly). Flat yields for these are going to do nothing.
Since what you suggested is new code anyway, what about making it add a bit of both? +5% yield/GA length AND +3 yield on tile for each monopoly (not type of monopoly). Sugar monopoly is going to get +5% and +3 on each tile.
3) The policy currently focuses on garrisons. If supply is an issue for defending islands, we can make garrisons supply-free instead of maintenance-free.

 

[paul_soryu]

Unless you're playing on a sizeable map, you're not even gonna be settling anymore by the time you open Imperialism, as either all the land has been settled or you get abhorrent available positions to settle in, such as tundra/desert/ one tile islands. It's really difficult to kickstart such cities so I'm not even sure if the colonist change would do anything that late

I think settling bad spots is exactly the point of Colonists as Puppets, if a spot was good you would simply create a non-Puppet city, they can be quickly grown with food and prod Internal TRs if you have some spare. AI usually doesn't settle tundra/snow on the edges of the map and one-tile islands at all, so these spots are up for grabs even in late game.

I recently played Venice which has natural settler-puppet mechanic, and besides settling 3 cities close to my capital on normal land, I settled every edge of the map with puppets, grabbing a lot of different resources (especially late game strategics), and having a lot of places to buy and heal my ships, and to trade with everyone. In this case I also went Industry and Freedom and had some -1 Urbanization wonders, so even new puppets had all specialist slots filled, and they were much better than any tile a city could work. Stacked specialist bonuses can make even one-tile puppets very good. With Airports you can teleport your armies all around the globe.

Last game I played with Japan and used the modmod for colonist-puppets, there were two separate tiles in the ocean near Poland's shores (my only competitor in this game, on different continent), I settled two puppets there and used them to great effect upgrading and healing my ships. Puppets, especially new ones, consume very little Happiness, so they are essentially free in late game. Other people have said they eat too much gold, but I never had problem with this in my games (both times full world domination victory)

 

[paul_soryu]

I'd say +10% of a yield is better than +3 of the same yield (times 6-8), but only slightly.

I think it depends on the number of cities you have. If you only have ~5 cities with 8 monopoly resources, then both bonuses are probably equal, but if you have ~15 cities with 3 different monopolies, then +3 is only applied to each ~5 of them, while +10% applies to all 15 cities, three times. Imperialism tends to be a pick for wide gameplay, so I think in this case +10% is always better.

Since what you suggested is new code anyway, what about making it add a bit of both? +5% yield/GA length AND +3 yield on tile for each monopoly (not type of monopoly). Sugar monopoly is going to get +5% and +3 on each tile.

Yes I suggested the same, my reasoning is that making the bonuses generic removes a lot of personality and uniqueness from each game played, and removes some interesting strategic decision making.

3) The policy currently focuses on garrisons. If supply is an issue for defending islands, we can make garrisons supply-free instead of maintenance-free.

I never had problems with supply in late game, in fact I think it is way too big currently, so on one hand I don't mind spending 10-20 supply on +4 Culture and +1 Happiness bonus, but on the other hand it really bothers me psychologically that 10-20 units, which I will probably never use and not even upgrade them, are constantly using 10-20 supply which seems more valuable to me than gold. Though, it should be noted that when going both Authority and Imperialism, Authority's supply-free-until-upgraded units are best fit for using as useless garrisons, so making garrisons maintenance-free in Imperialism will remove this synergy.

 

[ElliotS]

Though, it should be noted that when going both Authority and Imperialism, Authority's supply-free-until-upgraded units are best fit for using as useless garrisons, so making garrisons maintenance-free in Imperialism will remove this synergy.

I mean that can be solved as simply as making it "Cities with a garrison give +1 military supply." so it works for both authority and non-authority.

 

[FinMc]

Great Admirals don't give Exp in base VP as far as I know.

Fair point, I play with so many mod-mods I have forgotten which features come from where

 

[Stalker0]

Ok so based on the feedback so far, we consider this idea for Colonialism:

Luxuries that are a under a monopoly grant you +3 of their improved yield, and a +5% bonus to that yield.

So that means that sugar gives +3 food and +5% food. Lapis Lazuli gives +3 science, +5% science. Tea gives +3 prod, +5% prod.


Note that this is the reesource boost, not the monopoly boost. No silly boost to GAP or happiness that is completely unneeded.

 

[Bruhmoment]

Ok so based on the feedback so far, we consider this idea for Colonialism:

Luxuries that are a under a monopoly grant you +3 of their improved yield, and a +5% bonus to that yield.

So that means that sugar gives +3 food and +5% food. Lapis Lazuli gives +3 science, +5% science. Tea gives +3 prod, +5% prod.


Note that this is the reesource boost, not the monopoly boost. No silly boost to GAP or happiness that is completely unneeded.

Percentage based tile resources boosts? How would that work

 

[paul_soryu]

Note that this is the reesource boost, not the monopoly boost.

Not sure what you mean by that, I thought +3 yield goes to resource tiles, and +5% yield goes to all cities

 

[Stalker0]

Not sure what you mean by that, I thought +3 yield goes to resource tiles, and +5% yield goes to all cities

Yes that's what I mean. What I was specifying though is the +X and the +x% are not necessarily the monopoly bonus but the actual resource bonus from the resource.

An example: Lapis Lazuli gives science when you improve it, but its monopoloy bonus is GAP. In this example I am saying they would give Science boosts not GAP ones.

 

[azum4roll]

Yes that's what I mean. What I was specifying though is the +X and the +x% are not necessarily the monopoly bonus but the actual resource bonus from the resource.

An example: Lapis Lazuli gives science when you improve it, but its monopoloy bonus is GAP. In this example I am saying they would give Science boosts not GAP ones.

How do you determine which yields to boost then? Lots of luxuries have 2 different yields when improved.

 

[paul_soryu]

An example: Lapis Lazuli gives science when you improve it, but its monopoloy bonus is GAP. In this example I am saying they would give Science boosts not GAP ones.

Oh okay now I understand, but I don't know if it should be that way, it's not intuitive, and there are things like Copper and Silver giving +1/2, while Gold gives +1 and Gems give both +1 and +1. Most of the time yields from improving a tile and a monopoly bonus are not the same, so would taking Colonialism effectively create a "secondary" monopoly for a resource? I just don't think about what this tile gave me at the start of the game when I'm thinking about monopolies. I would rather have my monopoly improved to stack some big bonuses instead of a yield I have no idea about why it was chosen to be there (as far as I understand they usually go in pair with bonuses from resource enhancing buildings like Amphitheater for Dyes, so not sure if we should blend together this non-monopoly part of the game with what is now a monopoly enhancing policy, they are two different things to me). And I don't know if the spread of different monopoly bonuses won't be messed up (it feels rather equal currently).

I thought the problem was with how +n is unbalanced compared to +n%, not with how current monopoly bonuses shouldn't be enhanced more by Colonialism. If your concern is monopolies like Furs and Gold, then I think there should be a separate discussion about them, I don't like them either, especially the Happiness ones. +3 to Happiness from Colonialism is a total joke, and +GAP/GA length monopolies overall are kinda okay (+2.5 turns of GA is not great, Chichen Itza gives more), unless you're playing Tradition+Aesthetics or civs which have easy access to Great Artists (like Japan), because in mid-late game you're easily achieving perpetual GA and this monopoly becomes non-existent.

 

[Anarcomu]

What about something like this :
The Imperialism policy replicate the monopoly bonus by adding an hybrid yields bonus :

• For each monopoly that gives science(/prod/gold/culture/GAP), either to tiles or to the empire (%), the policy add +2 to the resource's tiles and +5% to all cities ;
• Every monopoly that add +6 happiness, now also provide a +1 happiness to all resource tiles.

 

[paul_soryu]

What about something like this :
The Imperialism policy replicate the monopoly bonus by adding an hybrid yields bonus :

• For each monopoly that gives science(/prod/gold/culture/GAP), either to tiles or to the empire (%), the policy add +2 to the resource's tiles and +5% to all cities ;
• Every monopoly that add +6 happiness, now also provide a +1 happiness to all resource tiles.

I am good with that, but GAP monopolies make it awkward to write a good policy tooltip, because I think they need to recieve a bigger buff from Colonialism like +3 GAP and +15% GA length. +5% GA length is nothing. Unless the % buff goes to GAP generation, which:
1) is inconsistent with monopoly
2) there is currently no way to see how much GAP a city produces, only total GAP across an empire divided into "GAP from excess Happiness" and "GAP produced by cities"
3) I am not sure if 5% would be a noticable enhancement to GAP generation (even assuming this will enhance GAP from excess Happiness too, not just tiles and buildings). Maybe it will