Policies: The time has come!

[Funak]

I get what you are saying but actually we don't disagree on the main thing:

ME: make honour improve puppet empires because at the moment they are crap, and the other policies are already better for the other two types of empire (cap-centric & wide).

YOU: no! puppet empires are crap and no-one would make one so that's a waste.

lol.

More like "ME: Puppet empires were nerfed into the position they are now because it is a boring automated playstyle"

Venice?

Venice isn't really the same thing they atleast have somewhat control over their puppets (with the ability to buy things in them). Also they get a huge bonus to their traderoutes to compensate for their puppet empire. (Also even with that huge goldbonus aswell as their ability to pick and choose which cities to grab they aren't really considered a strong civ)

 

[mystikx21]

They weren't considered strong in CEP where other leaders received major adjustments helping them out. I think they are in default considerations considered on the good side of the line.

We can probably have some effects that give puppets a little more flexibility (for instance allowing the focus to be set instead of "gold"). But my main agreement is probably more toward you here that puppets aren't really fun or desirable and they are usually a temporary status while courthouses aren't yet an option, happiness would take a big hit, etc. I typically raze cities like jt myself but this is less necessary with the AI settling a little smarter.

 

[jacktannery]

More like "ME: Puppet empires were nerfed into the position they are now because it is a boring automated playstyle"

I hadn't realised it was an intentional decision. Personally I really love the concept of having a huge empire of puppeted cities slaving away for my (Aztec!) capital. I don't think it is boring at all. I find managing production in 100 cities boring, and I find having puppets exhilarating (in theory).

If making puppet empires a non-viable choice is something which is an aim of CiV V, I agree with you that this has been achieved. However, I would love to make it viable, and am proposing that the honour tree is a place to make it so, providing the game with a third avenue of early expansion besides capital-centric (tradition) and settling/expansion/annexing from conquest (liberty).

Also, I feel that the new happiness mechanic makes pupetting cities even less feasible than before.

 

[Wodhann]

I agree immediately there's little reason to "merge" liberty into honor. Both trees can remain as default but have a more focused role.

The reason I created Conquest is because I believe people who want to go belligerent not only almost invariably go expansionist (and often vice-versa), but people who want to pursue a more warmongering strat preffer, and rightly so, to take the wiser path of focusing in a social tree that helps them with building their empire up than one that simply allows them to "be stronger" military, which is just a matter of easily compensating that with producing more and getting more techs.

By merging liberty into conquest you create a strong theme of expansionism and military power, allowing players who go domination get the best of both worlds. You don't need to take the "expansion" policy and then the "military" policy, which is what conquering civs generally desire, now you have both in one.


I'll throw a gazebo-style list in for easy understanding:


Ancient

• Tradition: Growth, Safety and Centralization
• Liberty → Wisdom*: Infrastructure, Wonders and Yields
• Honor → Conquest: Expansion, War and Production

*: Needs better name? It's supposed to represent good leadership.

Classic

• Piety: Faith and Religion
• Patronage → Statecraft: CS influence, WC votes, Diplomacy

Medieval

• Commerce: Economy, Trade Routes, Happiness
• Exploration: Sea Power, Fringe Settling, Map Management, City Connections*

*: Needs fleshing out - I admit it's a bit all over the place so far.

Renaissance

• Aesthetics: Tourism, Great Works/Artifacts, Theming
• Rationalism → Enlightenment: Science, Culture

 

[mystikx21]

Right, but I don't see how that is a distinct role from the existing liberty tree.

 

[Wodhann]

Right, but I don't see how that is a distinct role from the existing liberty tree.

Liberty doesn't help you with conquest, it's more tailored towards copious settling.

In fact, if you think about it, Liberty as it is is actually a really shallow tree. It's just about "settling more", with policies just straight up giving you settlers and workers.

What I'm looking for is a more "have more cities, and have more military power" approach. It is much more conceptually robust, and kills two birds with one stone, which are usually really close to each other anyway.

I'd dare to say even that Conquest is probably the change I'm most interested in making a reality, of all of my suggestions.

 

[mystikx21]

No I don't see how the "wisdom" tree differs from liberty as a role.

 

[Wodhann]

No I don't see how the "wisdom" tree differs from liberty as a role.

Quite a bit. Wisdom has nothing to do with either settling less or more. It's an infrastucture, building and yield centered tree; and the possibilities with it are quite exciting. We can go completely out of the box on this one, it's practically a blank page, if we decide to go with it.

 

[mystikx21]

Liberty already has infrastructure, buildings, and yields. So.....

 

[Funak]

The reason I created Conquest is because I believe people who want to go belligerent not only almost invariably go expansionist (and often vice-versa), but people who want to pursue a more warmongering strat preffer, and rightly so, to take the wiser path of focusing in a social tree that helps them with building their empire up than one that simply allows them to "be stronger" military, which is just a matter of easily compensating that with producing more and getting more techs.

By merging liberty into conquest you create a strong theme of expansionism and military power, allowing players who go domination get the best of both worlds. You don't need to take the "expansion" policy and then the "military" policy, which is what conquering civs generally desire, now you have both in one.


I'll throw a gazebo-style list in for easy understanding:


Ancient

• Tradition: Growth, Safety and Centralization
• Liberty → Wisdom*: Infrastructure, Wonders and Yields
• Honor → Conquest: Expansion, War and Production

*: Needs better name? It's supposed to represent good leadership.

Classic

• Piety: Faith and Religion
• Patronage → Statecraft: CS influence, WC votes, Diplomacy

Medieval

• Commerce: Economy, Trade Routes, Happiness
• Exploration: Sea Power, Fringe Settling, Map Management, City Connections*

*: Needs fleshing out - I admit it's a bit all over the place so far.

Renaissance

• Aesthetics: Tourism, Great Works/Artifacts, Theming
• Rationalism → Enlightenment: Science, Culture

I really don't understand why you would spread them out like that at all. There is no point to having Piety at classical because no one is going to interupt their traditon to pick it up and no one is going to pick piety over a tree that actually helps them with their victorycondition after they are done with tradition.
Also why would Aesthetics be moved back? and if the culture VC tree is at renaissance why is the Diplo VC tree at classical?

 

[Anastase Alex]

While we are on the subject of policies, may I ask if we could get the functions for policy costs that CEP had?

Here is some spitballing based on the thread so far:

Tradition

Opener: +1 food from farms in the capital
Aristocracy: +25% bonus to wonders, each wonder reduces borredom unhappyness by 5%
Legalism: +2 culture on GP improvements and 10% bonus to GP birth in the capital.
Oligarchy: +1 Pop in the Capital. Palace gains a free engineer specialist slot.
Landed Elite: Border Expansion increased, Tile Buying Costs reduced by 15%.
Monarchy: +1 Gold per 2 Pop in Capital, and +5% GP growth on National wonders
Finisher: Can buy Great Engineers with Faith. +25% growth in the capital.

Other possible ideas: can work an extra ring in the capital,

Liberty

Opener: +1 production per city, connected cities get +0.5 science/era
Collective Rule: Each city you found will increase the Culture cost of policies by 50% less than normal. Settlers production +25% per source of local unhappyness in a city.
Citizenship: 1 free Worker appears next to each city you control
Republic:+1 happiness per city connected to the Capital -15% vulnerability unhappyness in non-occupied cities.
Representation: -10% poverty unhappyness, connected cities have +2 food
Meritocracy: +20% production when constructing buildings that exist less than 4 times in your empire.
Finisher: Can buy buildings already existing in at least 4 of your cities with faith.

Other possible ideas: Give bonuses depending on the non-existance of specific types of unahppyness in your empire. No illiteracy? +1 science / city as a national income (not tied to a city therefore not affecting the average) No problems of piety? +1 faith. etc etc

Honor

Opener: Reveal babrabrian camps, +30%vs barabarians, culture from barb kills = 2*destroyed unit's strength, free Barracks in your 3 first cities
Warrior Code: Pillaging tiles or trade routes gives you more money, Killing a unit gives you 2 gold per strength of the defeated unit
Discipline: +15% combat strength for military Units which adjecent to another friendly military Unit , 2 units free of mentainance
Military Tradition: Barracks, Armory, Military academy give +1, +2 and +3 science respectivelly. Citadels give +2 culture + 2 science
Military Caste: Guarisonned units give +1 gold, +1 science for every 2 levels they have, level 4+ units can plant forests (see reforestation mod), build farms.
Professional Army: Gold cost of buying and upgrading Military Units reduced by 33% and -30% vulnerability unhappyness.
Finisher: Buy great generals with faith, -50%pillaged tiles unhappyness, Great Generals grant their bonus and the March promotion to friendly units within 3 spaces of them

Other possible ideas: make pillaging farms give food to nearest city, mines give production, trading posts extra gold, GP improvements MASIVE amounts of resources of the corresponding type. Removing the connection of a city to the empire could also deal damage to the city?

Piety (would need a new name and new names for the policies)

Opener: Shrines give +2 gold, golden ages last 5 turns more
1. Gain (Era+1) * 200 gold instantly, Buying buildings adds 10% of their production cost to the current production
2. Temples +25% gold, luxury resources happyness threshold reduced by 20%
3. -30% faith unhappyness, -20% purchase cost for all buildings, +25% gold from city connections
4. Buildings have their upkeep reduced by 1 gold. Triggers golden age
5. Cities without poverty have +10% production
Finisher: Excess happyness is also added as gold to your treasury,

Other possible ideas:

 

[Wodhann]

There is no point to having Piety at classical because no one is going to interupt their traditon to pick it up and no one is going to pick piety over a tree that actually helps them with their victorycondition after they are done with tradition.

... You just make an argument for pushing it to classical. If everybody is just going to go tradition (or any of the other early trees), then there's even less point to keep it in ancient. Also, what's the point with piety in ancient, when people got mostly pantheons? Either way or the other Piety isn't getting picked at ancient.

I like spreading them out so you get 2 policies every era (it's a neat progression), when they become relevant to that era. At classical, religion and CS start becoming relevant. In medieval, you start developing more impactful economical decisions and exploring/settling around the map more. And in renaissance, tourism starts becoming relevant, which is why it starts in that period.

Also why would Aesthetics be moved back? and if the culture VC tree is at renaissance why is the Diplo VC tree at classical?

Gazebo was the one associating trees with victory types. The only tree I associate directly with a victory type is Aesthetics; and it comes in the renaissance because tourism only starts becoming relevant later in the game. Sure, statecraft (patronage) helps you with diplomacy victory, but it's city state and player relationships start much earlier in the game which is why it starts in classical.

 

[Funak]

... You just make an argument for pushing it to classical. If everybody is just going to go tradition (or any of the other early trees), then there's even less point to keep it in ancient. Also, what's the point with piety in ancient, when people got mostly pantheons? Either way or the other Piety isn't getting picked at ancient.

You're not making any sense at all. If the piety tree was actually viable people might pick it instead of tradition/liberty/honor, but no one is going to open tradition/liberty/honor in ancient (because there is nothing else to open) pick 2 policies in it and then switch to piety when you get to classical because that would be ******** design. And seriously stop bunching piety up with religion, it is a stupid idea and it is never going to work.

Gazebo was the one associating trees with victory types. The only tree I associate directly with a victory type is Aesthetics; and it comes in the renaissance because tourism only starts becoming relevant later in the game. Sure, statecraft (patronage) helps you with diplomacy victory, but it's city state and player relationships start much earlier in the game which is why it starts in classical.

Patronage is still tied to the diplomacy victory condition, just like Asthetics is tied to the tourism victory condition, and just like rationalism is tied to the scientific victory condition. Sure you can go for a VC without going for a related policytree but that works for any VC, and it is plain stupid. And why in hell would tourism get relevant in renaissance? You get your first guild is classical? Also use science from the start so the same thing goes for rationalism.

Opener: +1 food from farms in the capital

That must be the most powerful policy ever =D going to be worth like 20 food

 

[Wodhann]

You're not making any sense at all. If the piety tree was actually viable people might pick it instead of tradition/liberty/honor, but no one is going to open tradition/liberty/honor in ancient (because there is nothing else to open) pick 2 policies in it and then switch to piety when you get to classical because that would be ******** design.

If you follow that kind of logic then there's no reason to place any other policy in any other era other than ancient ("what's the point with patronage in classic, people will never pick 2 policies then switch to patronage, that's ******** design"). Besides, there is no reason should be forced to finish a policy tree before going to the next one. If you feel religion is more important at the moment, then stop your current tree and move to piety. That's always been the way with social policies.

And seriously stop bunching piety up with religion, it is a stupid idea and it is never going to work.

Look, I personally don't have a problem with your tone, but you might want to watch out and read the forum rules. This forum is really strict about politeness, and it's not the first time I've seen you adopt this kind of approach.

 

[JFD]

There seems to be two ways of looking at the resolution to the problem with Piety (which is that it doesn't compete fairly as it currently stands, alongside Tradition, Liberty and Honour); either retain it's association/dependency upon religion and move it to the Classical Era, wherein it need not compete with other trees (as it holds a unique purpose, like Patronage), or redesign Piety for general purpose and keep it in the Ancient Era, in which case it must be brought to compete with Tradition (and Liberty) - which might demand more change to Tradition than to Piety itself. It's a matter of how far from the vanilla design is deemed necessary before the design goal is accomplished, really.

There seems to be a general leaning toward the latter, but I thought I'd lay it out succinctly.

 

[Funak]

If you follow that kind of logic then there's no reason to place any other policy in any other era other than ancient.

Which was the exact reason why Gazebo split them into 2 groups Ancient era trees for starting your empire and Renaissance era trees to go for your victory condition. You could place them all in medieval aswell if you want, main thing is that they should be in the same place since they have the same purpose (working towards a VC)

 

[Wodhann]

I agree with JFD's first proposal: Piety being a more niche policy tree for that helps those going heavy on religion. I don't see a need for a 4th "general" policy honestly. In my suggestion, I outlined three already - tradition, wisdom and conquest. The rest of policies from classic onwards can be about as niche as we like.

I disagree with Gazebo's proposal. I dislike the idea of the game trying to cater to the general player's OCD needs to finish a policy tree before going to the next one. There's no need to force them to this ancient/renassaince dichotomy; just give the players the option to go with the newest one as the eras pass, or stick with their current one. 2 per new era is a fine number for me.

 

[Funak]

I agree with JFD's first proposal: Piety being a more niche policy tree for that helps those going heavy on religion. I don't see a need for a 4th "general" policy honestly. In my suggestion, I outlined three already - tradition, wisdom and conquest. The rest of policies from classic onwards can be about as niche as we like.

I disagree with Gazebo's proposal. I dislike the idea of the game trying to cater to the general player's OCD needs to finish a policy tree before going to the next one. There's no need to force them to this ancient/renassaince dichotomy; just give the players the option to go with the newest one as the eras pass, or stick with their current one. 2 per new era is a fine number for me.

No one NEEDS to finish anything but it is not FAIR that diplo VC get a headstart.
Also why would anyone pick a backloaded religionfocused piety tree over something that actually helps them win the game? You talk about not needing to finish a tree off before starting on the next one when piety is by definition something you NEED to fill out because of the reformation belief. When was the last time you ever picked piety up anyways?

 

[JFD]

No one NEEDS to finish anything but it is not FAIR that diplo VC get a headstart.
Also why would anyone pick a backloaded religionfocused piety tree over something that actually helps them win the game? You talk about not needing to finish a tree off before starting on the next one when piety is by definition something you NEED to fill out because of the reformation belief. When was the last time you ever picked piety up anyways?

Well, not everyone plays to win. That aside, a powerful religion is a flexible tool in accomplishing other victories (especially Cultural and Domination). Although I would concede that Piety is unique in that it's greatest prize - being that it is unattainable otherwise - is the Reformation belief (but then, that's not entirely absolute, for Patronage and Exploration share similar - though arguably weaker - characteristics). But perhaps that alone is the only issue that needs addressing with the overall focus of the tree. Either a redress of the power of Reformation Beliefs, or the relocation of its unlocking; neither of which requires touching Piety's religion-dependent design.

 

[Wodhann]

No one NEEDS to finish anything but it is not FAIR that diplo VC get a headstart.
Also why would anyone pick a backloaded religionfocused piety tree over something that actually helps them win the game? You talk about not needing to finish a tree off before starting on the next one when piety is by definition something you NEED to fill out because of the reformation belief. When was the last time you ever picked piety up anyways?

*Sigh* You do realize we're changing policies altogether, and not just shifting places around the era thresholds right? The whole "piety is crap" argument falls flat when the whole point of this is that we can just make it better, and make it worth for someone to get religion. It's like saying you don't like beige wallpaper to someone who's redecorating the entire room.

About diplomacy victory headstart: What? First of all, you do realize world congress comes quite late in the game, regardless how early patronage is right? The "head start" someone will get is virtually the same whether in ancient or renaissance era, considering WC usually comes by at atomic-information.

And second, in my outline I said patronage is too fixated on helping with CS influence and perhaps too good at it. My suggestion was to make that tree (in my suggestion, now Statecraft) also good at player diplomacy, perhaps even giving one or more additional diplomatic options.