Plot culture cost reduction too good?

[pineappledan]

So in general cost reduction mechanics are stronger than positive % modifiers, even at the same power.

example:
If something made units cost 25% less production. That is 0.75 hammers for every 1 hammer you used to spend
Ie. 1 / 0.75 = 1.33 therefore a 25% cost reduction is equivalent to a +33% production modifier.

the problem really becomes apparent when you have multiple cost reductions, because two -25% cost reductions are much stronger than two +33% modifiers:
1 - (0.25 + 0.25) = 0.5
1 / 0.5 = 2
Ie. two -25% cost reductions is equivalent to a +100% modifier

in comparison, two +33% modifiers is only +66% stronger.

The main place where cost reduction is used is traits/beliefs/policies that increase border growth

• Russia gets -25% culture cost in her UA
• Mongolia gets -25% culture cost on his UB
• God of the Expanse pantheon is -25%
• Angkor Wat also gives -25% cost reduction.

there is also a tradition policy that alters how plot culture cost scales, but it uses different math.

Ignoring the tradition policy, this means all civs can get +100% border growth, and Russia can get a max of 400% border growth.

there’s a few problems this creates:

• There is 1 pantheon that gives 41 civs borders that grow 33% faster, but gives 2 civs borders that marginally grow 67% faster. ((1 / (1-0.5)) - (1 / (1-0.25)))
  • This makes it hard to find a balance for this 1 pantheon, because you have to consider that it can spike to double strength if the right civ takes it
  • Likewise, it feels bad to play Russia or Mongolia and have God of Expanse denied from you. So bad in fact, that we have many reports of players just rerolling their starts until they get this pantheon, because it supercharges their UA so dramatically.
• I don’t think having the combined potential to double, or even quadruple the effect of these bonuses is intended. they are solid bonuses individually, but extremely potent when combined
• To my knowledge, there is only gold cost reductions on that works similarly, but the abilities that combine for powerful cost reductions only start with late game Industrial or ideology policies. All of the plot culture cost reductions are unlocked by Classical.

It’s my opinion that these bonuses could work better if they made it so culture was converted to Border Growth Points at a rate of 1:1.33.
In other words, these policies could increase Border Growth by +33% each. Individually they would all be almost* as powerful as before, but they would combine additively instead of to multiplying each other’s power.

* increasing the rate that culture is converted to Border growth would make pure BGPs from things like forts slightly weaker

 

[stii]

This seems reasonable, having it be multiplicative risk some new thing breaking the game in unexpected ways.

 

[pineappledan]

I forgot two things in my previous post:

Mongolia also gets -25% culture cost on tiles very early with their Ger. The Ger gives Faith as well, so they are very competitive for snagging Expanse and running away with it.

The Monument has a further -25% plot culture cost on it (and the Stele has -33%). This means Mongolia and Russia can get -50% culture cost very early, and -75% culture cost with God of the Expanse. I am not sure what the floor for culture cost is, because taking GoE and building Angkor Wat doesn't just make all tiles free for these two civs (four -25% culture cost reductions = -100% culture cost, which is zero).

This is a bit deceptive, it makes Russia and Mongolia stronger than their bonuses would suggest. All civs functionally only pay 75% culture cost, because monuments are the first thing built in many cities. That means all civs have -25% plot culture cost, but Russia and Mongolia start with -50% culture cost. Put another way, the russia's UA suggests it is expanding its borders 33% faster than other civs, but it's expanding its borders 67% faster.

 

[pineappledan]

Ran a test with Mongolia.

For the first plot culture costs:
With the following buildings/pantheons in the city:
Nothing / Ger / Monument / Ankor Wat / God of the Expanse
This is how much the next plot cost:
__20__/_15__/___10___/____5_____/______3

So it appears culture cost plot modifiers bottoms-out at 85% cost reduction, or +667% border expansion rate.

Spoiler Test :

 

[Stalker0]

If it bottoms out as you show, then that mitigates a lot of my concerns. It just means certain civs are really good with Expanse, so is China with WLTKD bonuses, Japan is good with protection, Indonesia with the different lux pantheon I just can't think of right now, Inca with Nature, etc etc.

 

[pineappledan]

The problem I see is that I don’t think it’s particularly balanced that all these bonuses are attainable in the first 40-or-so turns. WLTKD bonuses are with founding and medieval policies and later.

re: Japan/protection etc, this would be like if Japan got 4faith from walls and barracks, up from the regular 2. That is the difference between Russia/Mongolia getting expanse and some other civ getting it. Mongolia and Russia have a combined -75% plot cost with monuments and GoE while another civ gets -50%; that is equivalent to +400% and +200% plot expansion, respectively. That means GoE gives double yields with russia/Mongolia for a long time. Japan or Inca synergies which is just “I was going to do that anyways”, not “this works at double power when I take it”

At the end of the day, It’s probably not very balanced that if Mongolia (very likely) or Russia (less likely) get this combined -75% cost reduction, that they will have more than 3x the expansion speed than other civs (-25% vs -75% equivalent to +33% vs 400% speed)

but, if the plot culture bonuses worked as modifiers instead of cost reductions, it would work like Japan+Protection. And be more balanced as a result. Japan gets 31 which is their bonus plus the pantheon bonus. Straight addition, not some situation where Japan doubles or triples bonus yields on Barracks.

 

[Stalker0]

So lets look at Russia and/or Mongolia, for at the end of the day that's what we are really looking at here..... none of the other civs have bonuses that would make this kind of stacking a concern.

So then we break it down into 2 fundamental questions:

• Is Russia OP when it gets Expanse?
• Is Russia UP when is does not get Expanse?

To the first, I have certainly played Russia with Expanse....and its a great civ, do I think its top tier...I don't. Russia is great because its very solid and can flexibly go in many directions. Though with Expanse you are getting more faith, science, and hammers earlier.... it also means your border engine runs out sooner. Is it a net positive, it absolutely is....is it so strong that I think Russia dominates other civs when it gets this belief, I really don't.

I think the second question is more interesting, is Russia underpowered without this belief? I also don't think so, again mainly due to Russia's flexibility. Russia has a nice solid core that lets her do what she wants to do, so I think she can religiously synergize with many options if Expanse is not available. Do I think a Russia without expanse is a harder play....I generally do, same as if China failed to get synagogues. While yes the Expanse bonus is really good, that synagogue synergy is very strong and lasts all game, as opposed to Expanse which tends to taper as borders fill up. Do I think Russia becomes weak without the belief...no, Russia's flexibility can overcome that loss with various other adjustments and playstyles.

So in summary, I don't think the synergy between Russia and Expanse is so tight that you need to change the border growth calculation to correct any balance issues.

 

[pineappledan]

So then we break it down into 2 fundamental questions:

• Is Russia OP when it gets Expanse?
• Is Russia UP when is does not get Expanse?

Your response is very interesting. You've seen the math, and you've seen the in-game calculation that verifies it. What you are telling me is that Russia is still within acceptable balance even when her UA is at 2x power. that means that, if GoE didn't exist and Russia's UA was increased to either -50% plot cost reduction or +40 when her borders expand, and she could just take any other pantheon, that would still be within decent balance.

... But how could doubling a civ's UA from what it is now be balanced still? Surely if you did something so dramatic you must have made them far too strong to be balanced, or they were far too weak in the first place? If Maya got to pick 2 GPs every Baktun, would that still be balanced?

My own opinion is that Russia specifically is OP when she manages to get GoE. It didn't feel fair having my entire 3rd ring, and all the science that implies, my turn 120. How could it be any other way though? It has far less impact on Mongolia, but Mongolia is already OP for other reasons.

 

[CrazyG]

The math here is extremely misleading. Russia does not ever truly have"+400% border growth", she doesn't get 5 tiles for every 1 a normal civ would get. If you count actual growths (which is what you should), she'll still have less than +100%.

Here's the equation:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/calculating-border-growth-speed-bugs.663825/

I plugged that into excel and asked the question: If I've earned 2,000 points of border growth so far, how many tiles will I have gained?
Monument only (-25%) gets 13.
-50% gets 15 (this would be Monument + Russia/Mongolia or Expanse or Angkor Wat)
-75% gets 20 (Monument +2 of the above)
-85% gets 24 (monument + all 3, note that it caps at -85%)

I'm using monument as a base case, because every city builds one pretty quickly. Even if you stack every possible cost reduction (but not sovereignty) you still haven't even doubled the amount of tiles you will gain.

Now, if you repeat the above, but you have Sovereignty.
-25% gets 17
-50% gets 20
-75% gets 26
-85% gets 33

Note that sovereignty scales much better moving forward, a tradition capital will claim all the way to it's 5th ring if other cities don't block it. I'll note that as Russia, missing God of the expanse hurts much less than not taking tradition. Now, if there is a problem here, I think it's 100% the God of the Expanse pantheon, but that's a view I've held for a long time.

 

[pineappledan]

That does add some very helpful context, and a fuller picture of the math. Thank you.

I'll note that as Russia, missing God of the expanse hurts much less than not taking tradition. Now, if there is a problem here, I think it's 100% the God of the Expanse pantheon, but that's a view I've held for a long time.

If there is one big problem, it is GoE. With GoE and Ankor Wat, you can hit cap on this 1 metric very early into a game. In GoE's case, it's so early, there is little time wasted in just rerolling.

Ankor Wat's bonus could probably stand to be moved 1 or more eras back, but GoE is certainly the main offender.

 

[CrazyG]

If there is one main offender, it is GoE. With GoE and ankor wat, you can hit cap on this 1 metric very early into a game. In GoE's case, it's so early, there is little time wasted in just rerolling.

Ankor Wat's bonus could probably stand to be moved 1 or more eras back, but GoE is certainly the main offender.

I don't think Angkor Wat needs a change. It's overall worse than Parthenon or Oracle in my opinion, even in the ideal situation it's probably about even with an ideal Parthenon or Colossus.

I tend to forget that GoE exists because I've house-ruled myself into banning it + tradition. I think most people view authority as what you use for a border blob strategy, which is why they find it balanced, but really tradition is just vastly superior (or you take both).

Been a while since I tested it, but at one point a tradition capital alone can get a religion on Deity from Expanse (that means 0 shrines in new cities). I've tried to change it like 3 times before and I wasn't able to persuade people. Similarly I don't Russia is that flexible, she's at her best by far with tradition. If you really want authority/progress you should mix the trees.

 

[Grassland Farm]

I feel like it's not that much of a balance concern (aside from GodofE being kinda reliably good/strong), but I sure woud like Border Growth to be standardized into clearer numbers.

 

[stormfallen]

Should Sovereignty's 20% tile cost discount perhaps be reworked into another 25% faster border growth ability?

 

[andersw]

Fired up a Mongolia game and went God of E+authority.
Grabbed Angkor Wat.
Hard to say how much was pantheon and how much the Mongol tribute but holy crap Im running away.

 

[azum4roll]

Burghers already gives +100% border growth during WLTKD. Other sources can use this kind of bonuses too, instead of cost reduction.

 

[andersw]

How does Epona (celt pantheon) compare , I assume it doesnt have a similar scaler since its +border growth and not %cost reduction?