New Version - August 23rd (8-23)

[Enrico Swagolo]

Am I the only one who dislikes how Statecraft is tall-only pretty much? Even as Germany and other CS maniacs I find no reason to go there if I go wide, and I always go wide because I cannot resist unclaimed lands. Even Aesthetics is now wide-friendly more-or-less, why is Statecraft purely for tall?

I also got 180 influence for building 2 forges.

I'm constantly getting quests like
"Build 5 herbalists, +100 influence +150 production"
"Obey Ken, destroy Barbie. +100 influence, +90 GG points"
"Send trade route. +90 influence, +100 food"
"Give me your religion. +90 influence, +150 faith"

The previous versions were a bit too cheap and lacked generosity (except some random bully quests, that got me 15-25 XP on previous patches which is good), but now it's too much I think. Only Irrational CSs remain their own old self as they keep on giving me +20 Science and nothing else for finding out where the Mongols live. It's better it's too high than too low as it was previously, but something more in the middle would be welcome.

 

[Enginseer]

Am I the only one who dislikes how Statecraft is tall-only pretty much? Even as Germany and other CS maniacs I find no reason to go there if I go wide, and I always go wide because I cannot resist unclaimed lands. Even Aesthetics is now wide-friendly more-or-less, why is Statecraft purely for tall?

Because getting city-state alliance is basically better if you are wider(that is if you are active in getting those city-states). Statecraft isn't tall-friendly as direct as people think. A maritime city-states can produce more food for a wide civ than a tall civ. Heck even Authority Wide Venice loves Statescraft because it gives their capital city and trade routes so much potential in devastation and bonuses.

 

[bigcat88]

Guys - I think this patched nerfed authority a little )
1.Now u must think, demand tribute or not demand. Cause if u demand tributes without quests u can skip nice cool quest reward.
2.Demanding tributes is very difficult now, if CS has an ally. With those 4-5 units that CS have u must have a strong army near CS lands to demand tribute.
3.Now CS can solo clear some barb camps that are near. So u must be much quicker then before to hunt those barb camps.

 

[Bromar1]

Because getting city-state alliance is basically better if you are wider(that is if you are active in getting those city-states). Statecraft isn't tall-friendly as direct as people think. A maritime city-states can produce more food for a wide civ than a tall civ. Heck even Authority Wide Venice loves Statescraft because it gives their capital city and trade routes so much potential in devastation and bonuses.

I think the biggest hindrance for Statecraft going wide right now is the lack of consistent happiness. It really should go back to +1 happiness per chancery. Relying on trade routes for happiness is too weak (about ~5 or 6 happiness by the time you unlock the happiness policy, scales very poorly) and unreliable (a random barbarian looting your trade routes, war declared on you...)

 

[Ziad]

I don't mind the massive increase in quest rewards. I like that City State alliances are more frequent and much more powerful in the early game. I'm still in the Medieval Era (Marathon) so I'm not sure how the scaling works but I just picked up Statecraft and the rewards can be quite generous.

In fact it may be a little too generous.

Most quests gave a LOT of influence and that's fine, but I had two bully quests that rewarded a whopping 300 exp in total during the Classical Era, and that was before the statecraft 50% quest increase kicked in. I realize the AI can get that too, but super troops basically trivializes some of the mechanics of the game from Barracks to Assyria's UA.

Influence decay also seems constant and does not increase the higher your influence is. That can be problematic as influence values become increasingly higher. Wasn't it supposed to decay above 100? Again, I haven't reached later eras yet so I'm not sure if that's the case.

In summary, perhaps:

1) Bully quests need to have the experience rewards reduced
2) Influence decay seems to be buggy

 

[Workerspam]

I think the biggest hindrance for Statecraft going wide right now is the lack of consistent happiness. It really should go back to +1 happiness per chancery. Relying on trade routes for happiness is too weak (about ~5 or 6 happiness by the time you unlock the happiness policy, scales very poorly) and unreliable (a random barbarian looting your trade routes, war declared on you...)

I kind of get why happiness on chanceries was removed; it gets a little repetitive if each medieval policy has a "each x building provides 1 happiness", particularly on buildings you'll want to build anyway. Happiness from number of trade routes is limited but scales with time (since you get more routes). I'd guess the intent is that since you get happiness from CSs (both directly from Mercantile CSs and through luxuries) and you should be able to maintain more CS allies through Statecraft, that should make up any deficit you have. Wider empires should (in theory) more easily produce additional diplomatic units to maintain more allies.

Because getting city-state alliance is basically better if you are wider(that is if you are active in getting those city-states). Statecraft isn't tall-friendly as direct as people think. A maritime city-states can produce more food for a wide civ than a tall civ. Heck even Authority Wide Venice loves Statescraft because it gives their capital city and trade routes so much potential in devastation and bonuses.

The problem is that allied maritime city state rewards my wide Fealty empire just as much as the one that went Statecraft. Every one of Statecraft's bonuses appear to work just as well or better for an empire with fewer cities (with outside chance of the CS Monopoly bonus activating a monopoly that benefits a wide civ). This could create an interesting dynamic with how much to expand since wide empires are generally better at pumping out diplomatic units. But since the other two medieval policies have aspects that benefit both tall and wide it seems odd for Statecraft to appear so heavily slanted toward a small empire.

 

[Enginseer]

The problem is that allied maritime city state rewards my wide Fealty empire just as much as the one that went Statecraft. Every one of Statecraft's bonuses appear to work just as well or better for an empire with fewer cities (with outside chance of the CS Monopoly bonus activating a monopoly that benefits a wide civ). This could create an interesting dynamic with how much to expand since wide empires are generally better at pumping out diplomatic units. But since the other two medieval policies have aspects that benefit both tall and wide it seems odd for Statecraft to appear so heavily slanted toward a small empire.

Except...

The adopter is basically huge on wide already. +50% Rewards is a lot especially when given to all cities on some rewards as it could mean an additional promotion or a turn shave off your next tech or policy. The CS huge reward was just an experiment to see how powerful it was if people actually did the quest instead of trying to oh what a coincidence guess I'll do the same and get a side-reward. So far, the CS quests that are won passively(most culture, most faith, etc) are rewarded less than CS quests won actively(construct this building within 30 turns, trade with us, or conquer this city!)

Foreign Service is a supplement to your additional paper when going wide. Each CSD units cost more and more paper which means 4 "tall" cities aren't exactly going to support 1 ambassador when you want to support a huge city-state league. The tourism modifier bonus also helps with wide as you tend to be producing -75% Tourism when super wide and you want all the tourism you want to squeeze that out.

Trade Confederacy is great for bolstering huge food and production to your border cities and also provides an incentive on why you should form a holy religion somewhere that is not your capital so you can benefit from two cities or more in sending trade routes from there.

Shadow Network is self-explanatory strong already regardless if tall or wide. 4 free spies is fantastic when attempting a revolution, rigged elections, coups, or even more intelligence.

Consulates is questionably situationally in a cultural victory or diplomatic victory. Pending whether you have my WCR mod, bonus delegates always make your life better in the global politics.

Exchange Markets is probably ok and fine, although I would prefer if you got +1 Happiness if a civilization does trade with you as the wider you are, the better your opportunities that an AI will trade with you.

Even if you do disregard all of this, you have to remember that Authority is meant for the widest, progress is meant for thick, and tradition is meant for tall which syncs with the medieval tree where fealty is meant for the widest, artistry for the thickest, and the statecraft for the tallest. Same goes for the industrial tree as well where wide Imperialism, thick Industry, and tall Rationalism is preferred as well.

 

[doublex55]

what is your definition of thick?

 

[Enginseer]

what is your definition of thick?

It's a broad definition depending on users, but all users will have to abide by this definition in the early game.

Wide is promoted as a way to grab monopoly resources, religion, and as much land as possible with just your settlers. In exchange they lose early social policies and technological gains.

Tall is promoted as a way to build up your cities and allow as much specialists allowing earlier social policies and technological gains. In exchange they lose vision, map control, and an earlier chance at a religion.

Thick combines both of the play style where they are encouraged not to grab land, but to rather grab necessities and overlap cities as to avoid rural workers and urbanization as much as possible. In exchange they lose early social policies, technological gains, vision, and map control as well but not as bad as the rest since later if properly developed can have great resource control and specialist additions while also having a somewhat impactful religion

 

[doublex55]

Rural workers? Urbanization? Dunno how i can handle immortle as such a noob.

 

[glider1]

It's a broad definition depending on users, but all users will have to abide by this definition in the early game.

Wide is promoted as a way to grab monopoly resources, religion, and as much land as possible with just your settlers. In exchange they lose early social policies and technological gains.

Tall is promoted as a way to build up your cities and allow as much specialists allowing earlier social policies and technological gains. In exchange they lose vision, map control, and an earlier chance at a religion.

Thick combines both of the play style where they are encouraged not to grab land, but to rather grab necessities and overlap cities as to avoid rural workers and urbanization as much as possible. In exchange they lose early social policies, technological gains, vision, and map control as well but not as bad as the rest since later if properly developed can have great resource control and specialist additions while also having a somewhat impactful religion

I could be wrong but "Thick" could be a new concept in the history of the civilization series thanks to the community patch. Well done Enginseer for thinking I don't think "avoiding rural workers and urbanization" is quite the right analogy though but I can't think of the alternative.

 

[tu_79]

I don't think it can be so easily labeled. There are, in my opinion, three factors regarding a settling strategy:

1. Expansion rate. This related to 'when' to settle or conquer next city. It may change during the game.
1a. Fast. The player tries to forward settle, and produces settlers non-stop until there is no more unsettled land. The army is mostly defensive until the cities are developed or pacified.
1b. Normal. The player focus on army first, cities later. The early expansion rate is slower than 'Fast', but it doesn't stop when reaching neighbours borders.
1c. Slow. The player develops cities first, assures workers and protection and grabs additional land (peacefully or by force) once everything else is cared for.
1d. Stop. No more cities for a while.

2. Density. This is the distance between cities, what we usually are thinking when we say tall or wide, where tall means very populated cities. It doesn't need to be homogeneous, as needs may vary during the game.
2a. 3 tiles. Extremely dense, this cities cannot grow too much in the long run (except for a tradition capital), they have low population and more buildings. This kind of settling gives much power early but it's feble late game if the advantage is not taken in time.
2b. 4-5 tiles. Normal, there is some overlapping among cities, but overall there is enough room for decent population, even late game. Not as strong as the above in the early game, but stronger in the long run.
2c. 6-7 tiles. Sparse, no overlapping, this maximizes each city potential and happiness, but it's very weak early game and risks being settled in the middle by foreigners.

3. Final size. This is how large is your empire in the end game.
3a. Large. Suitable for domination and diplomacy, the larger the empire the more resources, production and units.
3b. Normal. Suitable for anything, this means controlling 25-35% of the map.
3c. Small. Suitable for culture and science, this means taking few or none cities other than the starting ones.

It's completely doable a strategy for slow settling (tradition or authority) with normal city density (4 tiles distance) and conquering slowly but non-stop (piety-imperialism-anything) until the whole world is puppeted (large empire). What would you call this? Tall? Wide? Dynamic?

 

[Paramecium]

what is your definition of thick?

I think he/she means that your cities are packed together without that much space between them.

 

[ashendashin]

what is your definition of thick?

Strong infrastructure across a wide, but not necessarily massive area. There's fattening your armies and influence through war, then there's strengthening sensible acquisitions through a robust infrastructure.
@tu_79 , Thick is a good label, as the type of cities is what defines it, and thick is a sort of middle ground between the centralized power in tall and the thinned cities in wide. All options allow mass expansion one way or another at certain points.

 

[bigcat88]

City state island. No players will pass!

 

[Beniito]

View attachment 476527
City state island. No players will pass!

are you playing on the continents map ?

 

[Gazebo]

what is your definition of thick?

I know my definition of thick.

And it is exactly as Enginseer described (what, did you think I was going somewhere else with that joke?).

 

[tu_79]

Strong infrastructure across a wide, but not necessarily massive area. There's fattening your armies and influence through war, then there's strengthening sensible acquisitions through a robust infrastructure.
@tu_79 , Thick is a good label, as the type of cities is what defines it, and thick is a sort of middle ground between the centralized power in tall and the thinned cities in wide. All options allow mass expansion one way or another at certain points.

If it's a middle ground between wide and tall, I would have said 'balanced height', but I guess 'thick' is more marketable.

I wonder how the height is changed when using puppets. If I control 4 cities and have 6 puppets, I still can produce lots of GP and have social and technological gains. Is it tall because I can still focus on specialists or is it wide because I own 10 cities that grab resources and produce tons of faith? Is it 'thick' because I mixed heights?

 

[bigcat88]

are you playing on the continents map ?

Planet Simulator

Guys if most CS are friends - I will not receive "tribute" quests? Cause didn't get any tribute quest for an full era...

 

[Workerspam]

The adopter is basically huge on wide already. +50% Rewards is a lot especially when given to all cities on some rewards as it could mean an additional promotion or a turn shave off your next tech or policy. The CS huge reward was just an experiment to see how powerful it was if people actually did the quest instead of trying to oh what a coincidence guess I'll do the same and get a side-reward. So far, the CS quests that are won passively(most culture, most faith, etc) are rewarded less than CS quests won actively(construct this building within 30 turns, trade with us, or conquer this city!)

Even if you do disregard all of this, you have to remember that Authority is meant for the widest, progress is meant for thick, and tradition is meant for tall which syncs with the medieval tree where fealty is meant for the widest, artistry for the thickest, and the statecraft for the tallest. Same goes for the industrial tree as well where wide Imperialism, thick Industry, and tall Rationalism is preferred as well

Just to be clear, I don't think Statecraft is necessarily lacking in power. It has a of good things going for it, as you've pointed out, and I envy rival Statecraft civs that force me to work harder to maintain alliances, steal away my CS allies through coups, and have an extra edge in the World Congress. My issue was it seems to be the only Medieval tree where nearly all the benefits are more potent for smaller empires.

Good point on the bonus to rewards. While the experienced gained reward is the only one (I believe) that actually benefits a large empire over a small (since more troops will experience the benefit), wider civs will tend to win more of the "produce most x in 30 turns" quests. The active quests still tend to either be relatively size neutral (conquer this city, trade) or benefit small (I've never been asked to build more buildings than I have cities).

So Statecraft does have a couple bonuses that a larger empire can potentially benefit more from. It still seems like a bit of an oddball compared to the other two, which while oriented toward a given style both have effects that directly scale with your number of cities.

Though I'll admit the issue may be more that I find Fealty to be a wonderfully constructed tree that fits a wide range of game play and the other two Medieval trees more narrowly focused and limiting.