New Version - September 9th (9/9)

[Stalker0]

It's +10% growth not +10% food, as mentioned earlier.
And again that still is not the point

Well it is one of the points. I mean we have been arguing monopoly bonuses as a major part of the balance of resources....so if 10% growth is too weak (or just fine) it definately plays into the balance discussion.

 

[Funak]

Well it is one of the points. I mean we have been arguing monopoly bonuses as a major part of the balance of resources....so if 10% growth is too weak (or just fine) it definately plays into the balance discussion.

Yes 10% growth is too weak, I'm just saying you shouldn't compare it to the +3 yield on tile monopolies, and instead compare it to the other 10% yield monopolies. And out of those the 10% growth one is the weakest by far.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Should we make the 10% Growth into 5% more Food?

 

[Strigvir]

Yes 10% growth is too weak, I'm just saying you shouldn't compare it to the +3 yield on tile monopolies, and instead compare it to the other 10% yield monopolies. And out of those the 10% growth one is the weakest by far.

What is the logic behind this post? For some reason +3 food on tile can't be compared to 10% growth, but the growth, apparently, is a weak bonus. Does it mean +3 food is weaker than 10% growth? As if corporations care if you get to them through a percentage monopoly or a flat one.

 

[Funak]

What is the logic behind this post? For some reason +3 food on tile can't be compared to 10% growth, but the growth, apparently, is a weak bonus. Does it mean +3 food is weaker than 10% growth? As if corporations care if you get to them through a percentage monopoly or a flat one.

The logic between this is that the monopolies are split into +3 yield on tile and +10% total, comparing between them is stupid as the split is already made.
It doesn't change the fact that I think the +3 food monopoly bonus is way stronger than the 10% growth one or the fact that you think the +10% growth one is stronger. They just shouldn't be compared in the first place.

No matter how you see it, the +3 food is one of the strongest of the +3 monopolies and the +10% growth is the weakest (not counting +10% GA) out of the +10% ones.

Should we make the 10% Growth into 5% more Food?

That or bumping the growth% up to 20% would make the most sense. I guess 15% would work as well but at that point it would still be the weakest out of all the +10% ones.

 

[Strigvir]

The logic between this is that the monopolies are split into +3 yield on tile and +10% total, comparing between them is stupid as the split is already made.
It doesn't change the fact that I think the +3 food monopoly bonus is way stronger than the 10% growth one or the fact that you think the +10% growth one is stronger. They just shouldn't be compared in the first place.

By the same logic you shouldn't compare 10% growth versus 10% culture because they are different yields and thus serve different purposes.

 

[Funak]

By the same logic you shouldn't compare 10% growth versus 10% culture because they are different yields and thus serve different purpose.

Just no, you are just plain wrong. And since arguing with you about anything as usual is pointless, let's just wait for G to sort it out.

 

[Finarvi]

[...]
Not completely you meant? I guess that explains my 100 pop capital and 3 other 80 pop cities without using a single internal trade route.

Spoiler :

[...]

Could you check how many citizens you have in demographics screen? I'm curious how game functions handles that If it is exponential as I assume then it could be really ennormous.

 

[Finarvi]

[...]
I would buff or change the 10% GA-duration monopoly and probably the base yields of the ivory resource (it really suffers from the other camp-resources spawning in forest/jungle) and/or possibly the bonus ivory gets from the circus.
[...]

For me this +10% duration is very powerful.

It may sound weird but I find it really useful. By the time you get GA monopoly you can have your first golden age. After that you can focus on your happiness and GA bonusses from policies, beliefs and wonders.

In my last game I had golden age all game long (with only few breaks). That could be because of enormous happiness and GA policies. I admit that it was before recent happiness changes but I'm OK with current bonus.

Although, it may be useless if you're not going for synergies it with other things.

 

[Funak]

For me this +10% duration is very powerful.

It may sound weird but I find it really useful. By the time you get GA monopoly you can have your first golden age. After that you can focus on your happiness and GA bonusses from policies, beliefs and wonders.

In my last game I had golden age all game long (with only few breaks). That could be because of enormous happiness and GA policies. I admit that it was before recent happiness changes but I'm OK with current bonus.

Although, it may be useless if you're not going for synergies it with other things.

I'll try putting it in some perspective.
Since it is a 10% bonus I'm going to compare it to the +10% yield monopolies.
First of all, there is a policy where part of it's ability is +25% GA duration, that's 250% of the monopoly effect, there is also a wonder and a UA that each provides +50% GA duration, that's 500% of the monopoly effect.
Other than this there is a decision in E&D that is pretty much free and provides +25% GA duration. Sure, E&D is kinda out of whack and not recommended, but that decision have never really been considered overpowered.

Comparing to the other +10% yield monopolies (-growth, because I think that one is garbage as well) the closest wonder comparison is the Sistine chapel providing +15% culture in all cities, sure that's 150% of the +10% culture monopoly, quite a lot, but nowhere near close to the 500% of Chichen itza.

For policies there are a few to choose from. There is a +10% science boost in rationalism and there is a +15% gold in piety. Those however are both scalers, which are generally more powerful than policies, and that's all they provide, compared to the tradition policy which also grants a pretty powerful building in the capital.
It is also worth mentioning that they are tied to requirements, pretty easy requirements but still requirements, positive happiness for the science and a temple as well as your majority religion for the gold. Both the gold and the science bonus are also from later era policy trees.

For the UA there really isn't anything to compare to I guess, but let's go back to the original point with some context:
If there was a UA or a wonder that provided you with a +50% extra global production or culture, you would be raging your face off (with good reason), simply because that isn't balanced.



I'd also like to point out that In my last game I had a 100 turn long golden age as well, and that was with my only actual GA bonus being the E&D decision.

 

[Apostremo]

For me this +10% duration is very powerful.

It may sound weird but I find it really useful. By the time you get GA monopoly you can have your first golden age. After that you can focus on your happiness and GA bonusses from policies, beliefs and wonders.

In my last game I had golden age all game long (with only few breaks). That could be because of enormous happiness and GA policies. I admit that it was before recent happiness changes but I'm OK with current bonus.

Although, it may be useless if you're not going for synergies it with other things.

A side question; GA's were never really part of my game plans. In Vanilla i had 2,3 natural GA in a playthrough. Now in my latest play in CBP I'm in Modern and never had any natural GA. Somewhere in Industry i started bulbing Great Artists instead of creating GW, but never from happiness.

So i wonder, what your strategy was?
Was it revolving around GA?
What are the priority policies, wonders etc.?
And most important how many GA are natural (from happiness)?

Also interested in opinions of others regarding GA in CBP! Are they more seldom than in vanilla? Edit: Are GA more seldom than in vanilla without investment in them?

 

[Funak]

Also interested in opinions of others regarding GA in CBP! Are they more seldom than in vanilla?

You can land a few of them pretty easily by picking the founderbelief that gives you GAP when you spread your religion. Other than E&D pretty much kills any natural GA progression earlygame by repeatedly handling me the -GAP event (I swear I get that one on average 5 times per game) Other than that, the liberty policy that gives you GAP for popping great people is a fine source as well.

Along with a few free GAs from policies and easier access to faith-purchased GArtists, I'd say I have way more GAs in CPP than in vanilla.

 

[Strigvir]

Could you check how many citizens you have in demographics screen? I'm curious how game functions handles that If it is exponential as I assume then it could be really ennormous.

Spoiler :

For me this +10% duration is very powerful.

It's not, there are no other sources of GA duration less than 20%.

 

[Enginseer]

It's not, there are no other sources of GA duration less than 20%.

That feel when you are not Persia building Satrap's courts.

 

[Finarvi]

Spoiler :

Hmm it looks OK I was afraid that game won't handle that.

Well, Funak, good point with Chitzen Itza. Even Porcelain Tower gives only +25% (and only in city where it was built) if I remember it correctly.

I'd tweak GA bonus to 15% or 20% and maybe reduce Chitzen Itza bonus to 40%. Golden Ages are even better in vanilla as you get bonus which is awesome. And there are almost only flat bonusses what makes % bonuses from golden ages even better.

I still think that GA bonus is very good but only with synergies. In worst scenario it can do nothing, in average it's rather minor.

 

[Funak]

That feel when you are not Persia building Satrap's courts.

That's the main reason why Persia is on my list, those satrap courts makes no sense

Well, Funak, good point with Chitzen Itza. Even Porcelain Tower gives only +25% (and only in city where it was built) if I remember it correctly.

Porcelain tower gives you +50% effect from research-agreements

I'd tweak GA bonus to 15% or 20% and maybe reduce Chitzen Itza bonus to 40%. Golden Ages are even better in vanilla as you get bonus which is awesome. And there are almost only flat bonusses what makes % bonuses from golden ages even better.

I still think that GA bonus is very good but only with synergies. In worst scenario it can do nothing, in average it's rather minor.

I'd probably say 25%, that's a number the game uses. But honestly I'm not really a big fan of GA from monopolies in the first place, mostly because a GA-bonus isn't going to be useful (or at least equally useful to everyone). +10% production/culture/science/gold is always going to useful, because you pretty much need those yields to win the game (there were production-less strategies in vanilla, but the investment system have pretty much killed them), while GAduration is only useful if you go on golden ages, a system that is completely skip-able with no real harm to the player.
I guess one could argue that culture isn't really needed either but between you pretty much needing policies to not fall into unhappiness and culture being the only defense against against tourism I don't think so.


Also I wouldn't really touch Chichen itza, it is one of the best wonders in the game right now, but don't change it over something I said, debate it some other place.

 

[Atlas627]

+10% growth is pretty bad, I agree. However, changing it to +10% food would probably make it a lot better than all of the other +10% monopolies. Changing it to a bigger amount of growth would ruin the elegance. How about +10% growth and +1 happiness? The same could be done to the Golden Age monopoly.

The other golden age modifiers are huge because 1) they are rare, 2) golden ages are rare and 3) golden ages are themselves a small percent boost of yields. +10% GA length is pretty much useless. -10% GA cost would be much more reasonable while also feeling more impactful (since you notice when you get a GA but not the extra turn or 2 if youre lucky)

You can't compare the +3 yields with the +10% yields because one is dependent on the resource's presence (smaller empires get more out of +3 yields) while the other is not (+10% affects everything, so bigger empires get more benefit). They are different. That doesn't make one better than the other, that makes them both situational (just like how having different yield types is situational). It is still possible for one to be worse than another though (hammers are easy to come by, so +3 hammers might be worth less than +3 culture. On the other hand +3 hammers is more versatile and could someday equate to +3 culture and then some)

 

[Funak]

+10% growth is pretty bad, I agree. However, changing it to +10% food would probably make it a lot better than all of the other +10% monopolies. Changing it to a bigger amount of growth would ruin the elegance. How about +10% growth and +1 happiness? The same could be done to the Golden Age monopoly.

+10% growth and +1 happiness would ruin the elegance as well, it also steps on the +3 happiness monopoly's territory.

Speaking of which, what do you guys think of the +3 happiness monopoly?

The other golden age modifiers are huge because 1) they are rare, 2) golden ages are rare and 3) golden ages are themselves a small percent boost of yields. +10% GA length is pretty much useless. -10% GA cost would be much more reasonable while also feeling more impactful (since you notice when you get a GA but not the extra turn or 2 if youre lucky)

Pretty much exactly my point, one extra turn of GA is extremely meh, could probably be valuable if you go for a strategy based around golden ages, but for most people it's not going to do anything.

You can't compare the +3 yields with the +10% yields because one is dependent on the resource's presence (smaller empires get more out of +3 yields) while the other is not (+10% affects everything, so bigger empires get more benefit). They are different. That doesn't make one better than the other, that makes them both situational (just like how having different yield types is situational). It is still possible for one to be worse than another though (hammers are easy to come by, so +3 hammers might be worth less than +3 culture. On the other hand +3 hammers is more versatile and could someday equate to +3 culture and then some)

Yeah. Also +3 yield on tiles is a lot more powerful early game, especially as you mentioned in a smaller empire. I personally however rate the +3 production pretty high, just behind food and culture probably, the science and gold resources aren't terrible either, but they fall off a lot quicker than the other ones.

There also exists a weird balance between the +3 yield monopolies and the +10% monopolies, that I really shouldn't compare, but I'll do it anyways.
Since hammers are present on just about everything and is needed for a city to function, the 10% hammers catches up with the +3 pretty quickly. Same thing goes for the gold, because the 10% gold also counts trade-routes, which usually stand for the most of your income (worth mentioning however, at the point where gold matters the most, the +3 gold on tile totally kicks the +10% golds behind).
Culture on the other hand isn't that common of a resource, so the +3 on tiles are usually better than total +10% for a good while, not counting specifics, like culture UIs or the inspiration belief.

 

[Edaka]

Speaking of which, what do you guys think of the +3 happiness monopoly?

I wanted to write something about it, but then I realised that my feelings are too mixed, so I'm afraid I won't contribute anything useful to the discussion other than saying: 'I don't like it'.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Quote:

Speaking of which, what do you guys think of the +3 happiness monopoly?

It's good only early on, until you notice it doesn't scale