Most Universal Policy Trees

[SgtCiv]

I agree with wobuffet for the name change - ( wobuffet's post - How about "Political Asylum"? )

 

[Thalassicus]

I was also thinking of the name "Political Asylum", though it's a more specific topic than immigrant rights. "Civil Rights" is also a good name, since prejudice against minorities and immigrants is often connected. One phrase is more specialized, the other more broad, and I think both could reasonably represent an increase in great people.


@Seek
Most feedback indicates tall empires have too much happiness in late game. Freedom used to have one happiness policy: -0.5 per specialist. Removing this should reduce the happiness problem. If it turns out to be too big a change we can try somewhere inbetween. I do want to try Freedom without that effect for a while.

If testing reveals the national wonder boosting effect is too strong, we can easily reduce the numbers. I placed the Great-Wall-style policy on the finisher because it has a fixed, unchangeable effect, and I suspect it will be quite powerful for tall empires defending against late-game military advances.

I think something like "+10% in all cities with a National Wonder" would provide nice boosts while keeping specific multipliers in check. Or maybe just (+15%.)

Both of these ideas are good, would encourage spreading NW's around, and should be easy to implement.


@wobuffet
A bonus to specialist policies is in the v131.15 beta patch notes.

 

[Seek]

@Seek
Most feedback indicates tall empires have too much happiness in late game. Freedom used to have one happiness policy: -0.5 per specialist. Removing this should reduce the happiness problem. If it turns out to be too big a change we can try somewhere inbetween. I do want to try Freedom without that happiness policy.

Well, as I said earlier in the thread

Going from one of the best happiness policies in the game to no happiness policy at all is quite a leap however!

By suggesting the vanilla 1/10 effect I was trying to aim somewhere in between - and I thought it worked well given the aim of the tree is now explicitly at large cities. Additionally, since Tradition, the other small/tall tree, saw a happiness reduction, mid/late game overhappiness may be less of an issue.

But fair enough, I am happy to test the tree without any happiness policy when the beta is released.

 

[Txurce]

]But fair enough, I am happy to test the tree without any happiness policy when the beta is released.

I have similar concerns, but came to the same conclusion - with a few egregious exceptions, there's no point in trying to balance something untested with so many changes.

 

[mitsho]

After one game, I'd say Order is too much focused on production. It only adds production. Maybe a opposition would be nice where Order adds commerce or culture to Strategic Ressources, while Freedom improves Luxuries. Or just add the order bit

I was hesitant to open up the Order Tree because Great Engineers are quite easy to get by this late in the game and they are not even enough to finish one wonder most of the time (Emperor Quick Speed), so there was the risk that those darned Babylonians Babylonians build the wonder before me Maybe the Engineer is too weak with finishing the wonder, or else it needs a different effect? not sure...

 

[albie_123]

I disagree with Mitsho about Order being too production based, but I definitely agree with him on a single Great Engineer being underwhelming by the Industrial era. Maybe there should be a permanent increase in the production of Great Engineers?

I also think Autocracy needs to be a little stronger, simply because you get it so late, and if you ARE going for a Conquest victory - which I did last game - you're pretty much finished by the time it opens up to you. I don't know how to fix this really, since Conquest victories are always done and dusted by the Industrial era, especially on the slower speeds. Happiness is simply not an issue in the endgame, unless you've been purposefully ignoring it!

 

[Zaldron]

I disagree with Mitsho about Order being too production based, but I definitely agree with him on a single Great Engineer being underwhelming by the Industrial era. Maybe there should be a permanent increase in the production of Great Engineers?

What if Order gave you a free statue of liberty or pentagon or sidney opera house? Would *that* be too weak? Sometimes a free GE can be the difference between such a wonder and missing it.

 

[Txurce]

I disagree with Mitsho about Order being too production based, but I definitely agree with him on a single Great Engineer being underwhelming by the Industrial era. Maybe there should be a permanent increase in the production of Great Engineers?

I also think Autocracy needs to be a little stronger, simply because you get it so late, and if you ARE going for a Conquest victory - which I did last game - you're pretty much finished by the time it opens up to you.

Agreed on Order - it's supposed to be about production, and I'll take all I can get. With regard to Autocracy, strengthening it wouldn't help if you've already won. My feeling is that if you're blowing through conquest so quickly, raise your level or (if impractical) make conquest tougher.

What if Order gave you a free statue of liberty or pentagon or sidney opera house? Would *that* be too weak? Sometimes a free GE can be the difference between such a wonder and missing it.

That's exactly why I like the idea of a GE then - to slam one of those GW's home.

 

[albie_123]

You're right about Autocracy. The issue however isn't so much difficulty - I do find conquest challenging; the difficult part of conquest always seems to be over before the Industrial era.

 

[Txurce]

I know what you mean. Lately I've been trying to focus on what can make the end game better - that is, more competitive - as opposed to just longer. I want to get a few games under my belt with all the new changes, then try to come up with something.

 

[Thalassicus]

I've started a new thread for the topic of improving late game conquest.

 

[wobuffet]

Is there any easy way we could make Courthouse maintenance effectively increase with the city's population size? Something like
Courthouse: gives +3, -0.5 per

 

[wobuffet]

Quick question about the Commerce tree, Thal (I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the Policies thread): the opener (+10% gross Income) appears to only apply to income from Cities, not Trade Route income. Is this intended?

 

[Thalassicus]

The commerce opener alters the Policy_YieldModifiers table, which does appear to only affect cities. It's very difficult to alter income in any other way with our current modding tools. Once I have the capability to do so, I intend to directly change the player's total income.

 

[mitsho]

What about copying the old Arab UA, giving one gold per trade route. That's probably not "putable" on a building, I guess But I don't think there's anything wrong with Commerce atm.

 

[wobuffet]

I find the Commerce opener a bit weak, but I'm always behind on Gold development anyway. I'd suggest bumping the building Gold bonus to 15% (and clarifying the SP tooltip) or, if feasible, adding in an invisible building giving a 10% bump to Trade Route income.

 

[Thalassicus]

Somehow I completely overlooked the fact the "yield modifer" table doesn't affect trade route income. Thank you for bringing that up. There's actually a "TradeRouteModifier" field for policies and I will add that now.