I would support +1 culture all amphitheaters. Temples are really heavily buffed by Piety, so I would rather not have the Parth buff them too. (wedon't want Piety to always follow Progress)
Parthenon
- Thread starter Starrynite120
- Start date
Starrynite120
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 472
That's a good point. Could make it just amphitheaters, but also give a free one.
I'm sorry, but when did this vote occur?
I think people here do underestimate how powerful 8 flat tourism per turn actually is, probably a bi-product of the belief that tourism-victory can only be done by going tradition->aesthetics. I also really think that people overestimate how long time it will get to gather your next great work of art, I mean you can get one 2 policies into either Piety or Aesthetics or you could use that free GP event to take one, even if that usually procs before you actually finish the Parthenon.
Starrynite120
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 472
I mean by vote that out of everyone to comment, you are the only person to disagree. By vote I just mean comment.
The fact of the matter is, people don't go progress for an (intentional) cultural victory. Maybe some people do, but way more often than not, people don't. Regardless of whether people can do it, people don't, because tradition will always suit it better. And as it should, each policy tree shouldn't be optimal for every victory option.
Also, even if you do get that second great work, its still not a very good wonder, and you seem to be the only person to disagree with this.
Each of the ancient era policy trees should definitely be viable for every victory-condition.
Dawnpromise
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 422
Emphasis on 'viable'. One thing I've noticed is that the ancient era policies often mirror the ideologies you take. So while all the ancient era policies should be viable to achieve victory conditions, they still set bias towards certain wins over others, similar to ideologies.
You can certainly go progress for a culture victory, or authority. I find its the 2nd policy tree where you really choose what kind of victory you want to pursue.
With that said, the problem is that the Parthenon is only decent if you choose to pursue tourism, which makes a bad choice for an ancient era policy tree wonder.
Exactly, the first policy-tree is about how you start your empire, second one is focused on victory-condition and the third on how you want to finish the game. Ideologies are somewhat tuned towards different victory-conditions, but they are mostly a matter of flavor, and how they complement the rest of your choices.
As for the Parthenon only being decent if you choose to purpose tourism, I still don't agree to this, and I know Gazebo don't, he have been going through a whole lot of work to make sure tourism is a viable yield outside of culture-victory, and making tourism a part of the game you shouldn't really afford to ignore (kinda like science, military, culture and to some lesser degree city-states).
I see your point, the growth on trade routes for having tourist influence is significant and often overlooked. To be clear, I don't think the Parth is really good even if you want a tourism victory, its just that it doesn't do enough. Here I mean the Parthenon specifically, not progress as a whole. I actually wouldn't mind seeing tweaks to boredom, I rarely get it after my initial expasnions, that global unhappiness reduction would be really valuable if it had more impact.
tu_79
Deity
Why is boredom so rare? I would have thought that AI invest less in culture than the player, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Agreed. Just because words are spoken in the minority does not make them wrong.
To Funak's argument, I will admit that I underestimate the theming bonuses of certain wonders, i feel its not the most reliable way to get bonuses....but it can't be discounted.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I personally think that a free culture on amphitheaters and a free amphitheater would be perfect.
Starrynite120
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 472
Yes, perhaps I was too harsh when saying only Tradition is good for CV. Your second point encapsulates part of the problem well.
I never meant to imply that Funak's opinion was inferior or anything. I clearly don't agree with him, but his opinion of course is valid and contibutes to discussion.
Past early game and new cities I almost never see bordeom. Or illiteracy for that fact. It seems to me happiness could use a bit of a rebalance. Gold and even more so city strength right now are the big offenders, whereas bordeom and illiteracy are almost a non-factor (religion too, but I don't think that needs a change). It wouldn't be bad to make crime and poverty less common, and boredom and illiteracy more common. Though to be fair I usually play peaceful empire building games. What I am saying may not represent everyone.
ElliotS
Warmonger
Hanging Gardens is great. Not only does it give you a free garden (which comes much later and costs more than the hanging gardens to build) but it's yeilds are really good and combo well with everything tradition does.
Terracotta Army is an awesome hammer saver. It can give you 200+ free hammers and then a bunch of culture and other stuff on top of it. It even saves gold in the sense that all the troops come out at the same time and thus you don't pay upkeep waiting for your army to be ready.
Meanwhile Parthenon gives a little bit of culture, takes your boredom unhappiness from 0 down to 0, and gives you the ability to theme if you go piety or get an art guild.
It's clearly much weaker than the others, which are both very good early.
tu_79
Deity
If I had to make a guess, Gazebo always said that unhappiness comes from the difference between your city yield and mean global yields, but here we have usually poverty when gold is in greater numbers than beakers and culture. And crime, which I think uses total city strength (walls, pop and garrison) seems much higher with smaller figures. Actually, crime I could understand that being a smaller number results in more noticeable differences.
Could be the reason for uber poverty incoming trade routes to our capitals? It would increase highly the income of the capital, thus making the mean very high for normal cities.
I'm supposing that each unhappiness is factored as: threshold * (mean yield - city yield) / mean yield
Could be the reason for uber poverty incoming trade routes to our capitals? It would increase highly the income of the capital, thus making the mean very high for normal cities.
I'm supposing that each unhappiness is factored as: threshold * (mean yield - city yield) / mean yield
tu_79
Deity
If it is the median, that would make yields from capitals irrelevant, once every civ has three cities. We will be looking at the first city from the second colonizing wave for most of the time. That city that doesn't have guilds on it. And this is counted globally. So if a wide player has 10 cities, and a tall player only has 5, this will take still the 7th best city, and that city is not going to have guilds for sure. This could explain why boredom is so low, even when falling behind in policies.
Trade routes won't affect either, since most of them goes to the same 2-3 cities in each empire, but here there's a chance that the 5th or 7th city is settled in the coast, with some gold rich resources, so land based low populated cities without gold resources are the ones suffering poverty.
There are very few science resources, so illiteracy is only going to affect once 50% of the cities have built scientific buildings that you don't have. The same goes for crime, but for some reason AI seems to build walls quite often.
If all the above is true, and we wanted that illiteracy and boredom were more significant, the reference value has to change and use the mean value. Problem with using the mean is that unhappiness will rise everywhere even with proper infrastructure, particulary in smaller cities, because capitals are so different and the biggest cities use to have guilds and trade routes. If the mean is used, then the unhappiness should not be directly proportional, as this would punish them too much. A logarithmic function of the deviation rate from the mean could be appropiate (1-2 unhappines for each concept can be common and 3 unhappiness be rare, using the right base). This is also thematic, as feelings use to be logarithmics.
This way, unhappiness will be so common for non-capitals, that any building lowering thresholds will be very appreciate.
Trade routes won't affect either, since most of them goes to the same 2-3 cities in each empire, but here there's a chance that the 5th or 7th city is settled in the coast, with some gold rich resources, so land based low populated cities without gold resources are the ones suffering poverty.
There are very few science resources, so illiteracy is only going to affect once 50% of the cities have built scientific buildings that you don't have. The same goes for crime, but for some reason AI seems to build walls quite often.
If all the above is true, and we wanted that illiteracy and boredom were more significant, the reference value has to change and use the mean value. Problem with using the mean is that unhappiness will rise everywhere even with proper infrastructure, particulary in smaller cities, because capitals are so different and the biggest cities use to have guilds and trade routes. If the mean is used, then the unhappiness should not be directly proportional, as this would punish them too much. A logarithmic function of the deviation rate from the mean could be appropiate (1-2 unhappines for each concept can be common and 3 unhappiness be rare, using the right base). This is also thematic, as feelings use to be logarithmics.
This way, unhappiness will be so common for non-capitals, that any building lowering thresholds will be very appreciate.
Do you get boredom? Your wording sort of implied this, just curious. I almost always have crime. Poverty varies a lot based on empire size and religion. Illiteracy and bordeom rarely happen after my initial expansions, and even if they do I rarely get more than 2 or 3 points of unhappiness from them
