New Version - July 18th (7/18)

[BazaarJack]

Nobody asked me, but my vote is with tu_79. (progressive tax)

The first adopter already has an advantage, and typically this is a crucial point in the game where your lead starts to gain on others exponentially - which I think is not intended. The spirit of the change was to reign that in. Would it be possible to change the free tenets to a linear culture bonus that favors late/diverse adoption? I would try to scale it that so that it doesn't generally result in free tenets for the first couple adopters (to avoid creating a scenario where you avoid adopting), but make the diversity bonus valuable enough to influence the AI.

e.g.
1st adopter = no bonus.
2nd adopter = 5 turns of 10% culture growth + [bonus turns for picking less popular ideology]
3rd adopter = 10 turns of 10% culture growth + [bonus turns for picking less popular ideology]
...

 

[Funak]

The problem here is that people are trying to solve two fairly unrelated problems at the same time, and that seems to create a whole lot of confusion.

Here's the deal, the current adopter thing, everyone gets 1 tenet for free, works. It does not randomly punish people for focusing culture or encourage people to unassign all cultural specialists when they're up to 17 policies, it also does not give an unnecessary bonus to the culture leader once he adopts the first ideology which he definitely doesn't need.

What remains a problem is that there's no (or very little) incentive to pick another ideology compared to the culture-leader, which means most civs just stack on top of one ideology and that can get kinda boring I guess.
Currently the only real incentives you have to pick a certain ideology is getting your favorite unique unit, getting your favorite tenet and getting your favorite wonder.
The only real incentive there is to pick an unpopular ideology is getting the ideology-specific wonder. I mean yeah sure if you're a tourism powerhouse, you could join an unpopular ideology and use your influence to weaken your rivals, but in reality if you're a tourism powerhouse, you probably picked an ideology fairly early.


So what can be done to solve this?
More ideology-locked wonders? Would probably help, but I kinda doubt someone would risk revolt just to pick up a wonder
Make certain ideologies more geared towards certain VCs? If you're going for diplomacy and order is way better at diplomacy than the other ideologies you might risk revolt for it... maybe?
Make penalties from ideology-pressure less potent? Honestly, would that really be fun?
'Founders' of each ideology gets some bonus that is delicious but still negligible somehow? No idea how one would pull this off, maybe just making it something that's not culture-related would be enough? Extra world congress votes? Seriously I'm really drawing a blank here.

 

[wobuffet]

So what can be done to solve this?
More ideology-locked wonders? Would probably help, but I kinda doubt someone would risk revolt just to pick up a wonder
Make certain ideologies more geared towards certain VCs? If you're going for diplomacy and order is way better at diplomacy than the other ideologies you might risk revolt for it... maybe?
Make penalties from ideology-pressure less potent? Honestly, would that really be fun?
'Founders' of each ideology gets some bonus that is delicious but still negligible somehow? No idea how one would pull this off, maybe just making it something that's not culture-related would be enough? Extra world congress votes? Seriously I'm really drawing a blank here.

My earlier proposal is a form of making penalties from Ideology pressure less potent:

• "First to adopt" bonus is a -25% reduction to Unhappiness from Ideological Pressure.
• If the first Civ to adopt a particular Ideology switches to another one, this bonus transfers to the second Civ that adopted that Ideology.

Other ideas:

• First to adopt each Ideology gets a free Golden Age.
• For the duration of this Golden Age, the Civ receives -50% Tourism from any Civs who have adopted different Ideologies.
• First to adopt each Ideology gets immunity from Unhappiness caused by religious divisions, as the world's thought battles turn to Ideology.

First adopters are the ones causing the rest to switch.

The idea is to
(1) encourage Civs after the first to pick different Ideologies by making doing so a more feasible option) and
(2) slow down or prevent "everyone ends up with the same Ideology".

Reducing Unhappiness from Ideological pressure if you're the first to adopt gives the 2nd- and 3rd-strongest Culture/Tourism Civs more room to adopt a different Ideology by giving them a better chance at resisting that 1st Civ's Ideological influence.

 

[CrazyG]

You get 1 policy for adoptiong, unless that ideology already has more civs following than another option, in which case you get none.

Short, simple, and to the point. Doesn't punish founding first, or founding last. It will create awkward situations but that is part of the design

 

[Txurce]

Funak, the tenet issue caused the adopting issue, so they are definitely connected.

Gazebo explained why ideological pressure can't be adjusted, so we can either go back to the last version (early adopters pull ahead, pressure warps choice), or stay where we are now: no one pulls ahead, just about everyone picks the same ideology.

CrazyG, your suggestion is good, as a pared-down version of what we used to have: one instead of two for the first adopter, zero instead of one for the rest. What's less than ideal about it? It doesn't allow ideological pressure (waiting 50 turns is too long, and lowering it will suck if you hit the threshold).

A more radical alternative would be to offer bonus tenets to early adopters (the original ratio, or Crazy G's pared-down version), not allow ideology switching, and remove ideological pressure from the equation. This guarantees ideological diversity, at the price of ideological pressure, which Gazebo has effectively eliminated anyway.

 

[CrazyG]

CrazyG, your suggestion is good, as a pared-down version of what we used to have: one instead of two for the first adopter, zero instead of one for the rest. What's less than ideal about it? It doesn't allow ideological pressure (waiting 50 turns is too long, and lowering it will suck if you hit the threshold).

Its not zero instead of 1 for the rest. Everyone can get a free policy with that rule. If I'm the 8th to get a policy, and there were already 3 freedom, 2 order, and 2 autocracy, I would get a free policy with order or autocracy (but not freedom). Say I picked order, the next civ could get a free policy only from autocracy (because it now has the fewest followers). If you get to choose when its all tied, you get a free policy from any path. Its designed to encourage civs to spread out the choices

And that suggestion isn't meant to be exclusive to ideological pressure changes, which I am in favor of

 

[tu_79]

Its not zero instead of 1 for the rest. Everyone can get a free policy with that rule. If I'm the 8th to get a policy, and there were already 3 freedom, 2 order, and 2 autocracy, I would get a free policy with order or autocracy (but not freedom). Say I picked order, the next civ could get a free policy only from autocracy (because it now has the fewest followers). If you get to choose when its all tied, you get a free policy from any path. Its designed to encourage civs to spread out the choices

And that suggestion isn't meant to be exclusive to ideological pressure changes, which I am in favor of

It's a weakened version of my first proposal, so I'm in favor.

I think first adopters don't need anything. Just a little incentive to not switch, that's already at work (losing tenets, anarchy). They are the followers who need some reasons for picking something different. I'm afraid just one free tenet might not be enough.

 

[ElliotS]

What if picking the most popular ideology (unless they're all tied) gave you a "Uninspired culture" status for ~25 turns where you got -50% culture per turn? Same route as CrazyG's suggestion, just a different implementation.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Something different, about Austria. I remember that in some previous versions, Austria received 50% more influence from killing a barbarian near a city state. In my current game, I'm only receiving 15 influence for each barbarian I kill for a city state. Has this been changed?

 

[Funak]

My earlier proposal is a form of making penalties from Ideology pressure less potent:

• "First to adopt" bonus is a -25% reduction to Unhappiness from Ideological Pressure.
• If the first Civ to adopt a particular Ideology switches to another one, this bonus transfers to the second Civ that adopted that Ideology.

Other ideas:

• First to adopt each Ideology gets a free Golden Age.
• For the duration of this Golden Age, the Civ receives -50% Tourism from any Civs who have adopted different Ideologies.
• First to adopt each Ideology gets immunity from Unhappiness caused by religious divisions, as the world's thought battles turn to Ideology.

The idea is to
(1) encourage Civs after the first to pick different Ideologies by making doing so a more feasible option) and
(2) slow down or prevent "everyone ends up with the same Ideology".

Reducing Unhappiness from Ideological pressure if you're the first to adopt gives the 2nd- and 3rd-strongest Culture/Tourism Civs more room to adopt a different Ideology by giving them a better chance at resisting that 1st Civ's Ideological influence.

Those are all too powerful, except maybe the one removing happiness from religious division, which seems borderline pointless and kinda out of place.

You get 1 policy for adoptiong, unless that ideology already has more civs following than another option, in which case you get none.

Short, simple, and to the point. Doesn't punish founding first, or founding last. It will create awkward situations but that is part of the design

I think that punishes people way too much. Essentially the first adopter and every 3 guys after him got a pick of his choice while everyone else has to adapt or suffer.

What if picking the most popular ideology (unless they're all tied) gave you a "Uninspired culture" status for ~25 turns where you got -50% culture per turn? Same route as CrazyG's suggestion, just a different implementation.

Same deal here, you're giving more power to the first adopter and punishes the ones following him.


What is needed is incentive, not threats. You should feel like "You know what? I could break this freedom-trend and go for Autocracy" not "fudge, Germany adopted last turn, now I have to go for Autocracy, FML".

 

[infidel88]

I've missed couple of last updates, but read there has been some changes to navy and archer promotions and here is something that defies logic. Fully upgraded x-bow with xtra damage against below50 is doing LESS damage than fully upgraded above50 :|

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Huh, that is weird!

 

[balinte]

Wow, I wonder now how It's calculated, I always thought dmg was additive
Also the "your strenght" doesnt seem to correlate with anything either
Anyone care to explain it pls?

 

[Bromar1]

I've missed couple of last updates, but read there has been some changes to navy and archer promotions and here is something that defies logic. Fully upgraded x-bow with xtra damage against below50 is doing LESS damage than fully upgraded above50 :|

Post to GitHub

 

[Jarula]

MINE is the only true solution to the great equation...

x turns of resistance per free policy. first one 3 second one 4 then zero 2 if all ideologies have been chosen twice...

First adopter gets free dummy policy building -50% ideological pressure... called "Birthplace of ideology X

For Order -10% Poverty -10% illiteracy
For Freedom -10% policy costs
For Autocracy -10% Crime -10% Boredom

This rewards the top 6 civs similar to the way that ideology is supposed to reward the top tiers. But for the others it does reward them because... they will most likely choose relating to friendship.

 

[Txurce]

Its not zero instead of 1 for the rest. Everyone can get a free policy with that rule. If I'm the 8th to get a policy, and there were already 3 freedom, 2 order, and 2 autocracy, I would get a free policy with order or autocracy (but not freedom). Say I picked order, the next civ could get a free policy only from autocracy (because it now has the fewest followers). If you get to choose when its all tied, you get a free policy from any path. Its designed to encourage civs to spread out the choices

And that suggestion isn't meant to be exclusive to ideological pressure changes, which I am in favor of

I didn't get exactly what you meant, but agree with that approach, as far as it goes.

But there's still the issue of ideological pressure. The old free-tenet rule didn't help the leaders as much as having the necessary culture to make their ideology dominant. I think that the effects of that pressure (which Gazebo says won't change, for good reason) is too unbalancing. And putting it off for 50 turns just delays the same result.

I just finished my first game that broke the 50-turn grace period. At that point, it was as brutal as ever and -- worse -- the AI's dipped out of their existing ideologies without a pause, taking on a 5-turn anarchy. So in effect, being on the short end of the stick was worse than ever (just 50 turns later).

This is why I'm proposing that we eliminate ideological pressure altogether. It can't be modulated, and the effect is too extreme. Dropping it wouldn't screw any individual civ as much as it unbalances the overall game right now, and would make the game a lot more enjoyable. And of course, then each civ would have every reason to gravitate to the ideology that makes most sense for it.

If this is too much, though, I like your proposal as a means of addressing half the problem.

 

[tu_79]

I didn't get exactly what you meant, but agree with that approach, as far as it goes.

But there's still the issue of ideological pressure. The old free-tenet rule didn't help the leaders as much as having the necessary culture to make their ideology dominant. I think that the effects of that pressure (which Gazebo says won't change, for good reason) is too unbalancing. And putting it off for 50 turns just delays the same result.

I just finished my first game that broke the 50-turn grace period. At that point, it was as brutal as ever and -- worse -- the AI's dipped out of their existing ideologies without a pause, taking on a 5-turn anarchy. So in effect, being on the short end of the stick was worse than ever (just 50 turns later).

This is why I'm proposing that we eliminate ideological pressure altogether. It can't be modulated, and the effect is too extreme. Dropping it wouldn't screw any individual civ as much as it unbalances the overall game right now, and would make the game a lot more enjoyable. And of course, then each civ would have every reason to gravitate to the ideology that makes most sense for it.

If this is too much, though, I like your proposal as a means of addressing half the problem.

I'm proposing this same thing in another thread (check balance folder). Instead of forcing players to switch ideology via tourism, it could be done the same as we enforce vassallage, traded or forced by war (you don't take their cities, just gather war score and demand it, or you bully). Ideological pressure would only begin once there is a World Ideology enacted, at two levels: one level for not following the world ideology and one level for being influenced by a civ that follows world ideology.

Either way, CrazyG proposal is also part of this mechanic rework.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

Hey G, did you make pantheons be able to re-pick when everything got picked? I was playing 43 civs and AI picked pantheon I already picked. If so, it's brilliant! XD

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

In one of my last games, I saw barbarians with embarkment on turn 12, seems too soon?

Also, still seeing games with only 1 marble. It's vexing when Alex gets a marble monopoly on turn 30.

 

[ElliotS]

Hey G, did you make pantheons be able to re-pick when everything got picked? I was playing 43 civs and AI picked pantheon I already picked. If so, it's brilliant! XD

If it's just one couldn't it be Byzantium?