Policies: The time has come!

You haven't created an argument that % growth is useless by stating that you claim it is useless. It is useful, just not as "useful". It only stops being useful if you stop growing a city at all.

Just a minor note to that before we end this discussion, I said:
I mean honestly growth is the odd one out, being the only one of them that actually becomes completely useless eventually.

Which is exactly what how it works, when your city stops growing %growth becomes useless.

Other than that I stand by my statement that a %food bonus is way more interesting than a %growth bonus. The tradition capital is supposed to be a lot bigger than the honor/liberty/piety capitals and the only thing we have supporting a bigger size right now is +2 food.
 
I'm only for the "X% per policy taken" thing if it's a theme that's going to be applied for every policy. Does everyone else agree it's going to be a thing, or not?
 
I'm only for the "X% per policy taken" thing if it's a theme that's going to be applied for every policy. Does everyone else agree it's going to be a thing, or not?

My thought was for at least the 3 starter trees (4 if piety remains ancient). I think with the later trees we can consider whether to use it or not as conceptually the later trees work a bit differently.
 
I'm only for the "X% per policy taken" thing if it's a theme that's going to be applied for every policy. Does everyone else agree it's going to be a thing, or not?

I think it works, having it linked to the opener allows you to have a big effect in the tree without people getting it instant , it is also fun.

Still would like to point out however that the opener is not a policy. so there are only 5 policies per tree.
 
I think it works, having it linked to the opener allows you to have a big effect in the tree without people getting it instant , it is also fun.
Agreed, in fact, it's a mechanic that somewhat discourages the "must complete tree" OCD urge. By having the percentage increase, it means the finisher can be a bit weaker as part of the bonus is front-loaded. Plus, it means that sticking with a tree isn't an all-or-nothing thing, a 3/5 or 2/5 completed tree is a lot more fun with the percentage boost then when you feel like you're missing the finisher.
Still would like to point out however that the opener is not a policy. so there are only 5 policies per tree.
Hrm, if you look into the CIV5Policies.xml, the openers are coded as "POLICY_TRADITION", "POLICY_LIBERTY", "POLICY_HONOR" etc. and you get them granted for free when opening a branch. I think the finishers are coded similarly, though.

Away from coding, I think that the best way to do it would be front-loaded the bonus a bit, though. For example, if we aim for 15% production bonus, let's have the opener provide 5% and +2% per actual policy for a total of 15% (5% + 5 x 2%). Sweetens the deal a bit and gives the stronger message of "you don't need to finish the tree".

EDIT: I meant "opener" by the last part, not finisher, d'oh! Corrected it for clarity.
 
Hrm, if you look into the CIV5Policies.xml, the openers are coded as "POLICY_TRADITION", "POLICY_LIBERTY", "POLICY_HONOR" etc. and you get them granted for free when opening a branch. I think the finishers are coded similarly, though.
That may be how the code looks, but the ingame is kinda clear on seperating openers and finishers from the social policies. (Viewing AI diploscreen only counts adopted polcies, not opener for example) Also the wording on the finisher makes it kinda clear that the finisher isn't a policy. "Adopting all Policies in the X tree will grant Y effect"

In the end that doesn't really matter, but 5 is a more even number(ironically) than 6 anyways so we should probably stick to that

Away from coding, I think that the best way to do it would be front-loaded the bonus a bit, though. For example, if we aim for 15% production bonus, let's have the finisher provide 5% and +2% per actual policy for a total of 15% (5% + 5 x 2%). Sweetens the deal a bit and gives the stronger message of "you don't need to finish the tree".

That would give almost half the effect from the last policy however (7%) I think there is enough incentive to finish the tree anyways, no need to go overboard like that.
 
That would give almost half the effect from the last policy however (7%) I think there is enough incentive to finish the tree anyways, no need to go overboard like that.
Sorry, brainfart here, I meant the opener should provide the extra bonus, meaning you open with 5%, then go to 7% (1st policy), 9% (2nd policy), 11% (3rd), 13% (4th) and finish with 15% (and similarly for others). Hence, "front-loading".
 
To clarify there are only five (5) 'policies' inside each tree but this is only a semantic issue. You expend one (1) policy selection in choosing the policy so in effect there are six (6) policies in each policy tree.
This has bearing in the overall total of :c5culture: you accrue and expend. Any decisions on the cost of each policy choice should be made with that clear distinction in mind. If 'Policy Branch A' contains a desired policy: 'Policy Z' but you haven't selected that policy branch. Your desired policy costs, in effect, double that of other policies. Of course that is true only if you want just that one (1) policy, if the rest of that branch has desirable policies there isn't as much of an issue.

A similar effect is in place in the vanilla game where there are policies that are '2nd tier', in that they can only be unlocked once one or two '1st tier' policies are chosen. CEP removed those prerequisites and in my mind that made selections less vital. Of course that is just an opinion.
 
If people still can't decide if the opener should count as a policy or not; just change the wording to "each additional policy adopted" and the thing is solved.

So people agree that there should/could be something like that in every opener?
 
If people still can't decide if the opener should count as a policy or not; just change the wording to "each additional policy adopted" and the thing is solved.

So people agree that there should/could be something like that in every opener?

I agree it's a semantic issue, we just need to ensure the user is not confused
 
I want to do Conquest 0.6 but I'm uncertain about what to do with the opener.

I like Honor's opener, I think it's fine. It gives you something a lot of people want (sometimes even need) at the beginning, to the point where I even always take the first point in honor when playing the vanilla game. Is it really necessary to change it?
 
I like Honor's opener, I think it's fine. It gives you something a lot of people want (sometimes even need) at the beginning, to the point where I even always take the first point in honor when playing the vanilla game. Is it really necessary to change it?
I like it, too. It's nice to see a little reward with every barbarian kill and makes barbarian hunting more fun. I really like how it basically rewards you for being aggressive and pushing back barbarian units - that very much fits the theme.

Most of the suggested policy trees here, however, seem to remove culture boosts from openers, though. I don't agree with that direction (openers are somewhat weaker and I like having a way of immediately rewarding you following the "correct" play style), but it seems to be the current trend, so for consistency's sake, the culture buff should probably go.
 
Most of the suggested policy trees here, however, seem to remove culture boosts from openers, though.

This is something I really need people's opinion on.

Should culture bonus be a default part of the opener or not?

Right now, I personally feel that having culture in your opener is a big advantage, as it sets you through that tree much quicker than trees without it. This is one reason that tradition is the best in the base game...not only is the finisher amazing but I can get to it very quickly compared to the other trees.

Now...that said I do really like Honor's opener myself. And considering how active it is to get (and the culture doesn't affect border growth)...could it be the exception to the rule? Would it be okay to allow honor to be the only starting tree that gets culture in its opener?
 
If the openers of the basic trees provide culture (they should), the way they provide it needs to be an active one. The problem with Tradition is that you don't lose anything practically by chosing it as a first policy, but it speeds up your policy pick-up rate considerably. All three* should be similar in strength and require action. Honor killing Barbs, Liberty founding cities and/or building settlers/workers and Honor maybe building Buildings or growing your capital. Depends a bit on how one can balance them to each other.

*If we include Piety as a basic tree, that still holds true. Here, the culture comes from the Pantheon belief chosen, and if one is chosen without culture, then that's a considered decision by the player to foresake policy pick-up rate for more x,y or z.

Though to be fair, the above liberty suggestion wouldn't be faster than the current +1 culture, since it takes more time to build settlers than to get policies 2-5. Thus, one could argue that a hammer bonus to cities works with liberty (new cities need every hammer to get up and running) and a food bonus in tradition (growing population in one city is needed in order to get science and wonders). But if you then put a culture policy in the tree, it gets kinda to be the next logical pick anyways (spend culture to get culture, if you do it early, you get the most and over time, more from the other policies...)

Thus, one proposal:

1) Move the "helps getting culture-policy" to a National Wonder unlocked by the opener of a Tree (Victory Column, Forum Romanum, Monumental Grave - Needs better names).
2) These don't cost too much, but take up valuable time you could instead use on building a scout, worker or Pyramids. Maybe we include food in their construction (similar to settlers) to not punish hammer-poor start areas.
3) You can only build one of them, but still are allowed to open up the other trees. This way, one can make them strong enough without imbalance by someone taking all openers.
4) Piety still wouldn't be affected since a culture-panthen then would be the only way to go "culture heavy" early on, no?

EDIT, since there are new posts now ;): One advantage I see with the above is that the openers then can provide a choice (food, production or gold), but of course it's one more item on the building list which is already choke full in the beginning (but it could really only take 2 turns or so to build...). I really like the idea of losing culture on openers since it seems to make it easier to balance.
 
Balls to it. I'm keeping the opener for now. It's a good opener and I'm not really ok with removing culture from openers.

I'm getting to the point where I feel like I've hit a sweet spot and no more huge changes are needed. I'll soon be able to flesh out "wisdom" so you guys will know what direction I'm going with that.


Conquest v0.6


Opener: Bonus +33% vs. Barbarians, encampment notifications and culture for barbarian units killed and for each conquered city.

Imperialism: No Isolation unhappiness. A Free Settler appears in the capital. (Isolation isn't a huge source of unhappiness, and players always strive to connect their cities anyway.)

Feudalism: Garrisons in occupied cities reduce that city's unhappiness from occupation by 30%, garrisoned puppeted cities gain +30% gold. Requires Imperialism.

Discipline: Units gain +10% combat strength when adjacent to a friendly unit. Killing enemy units heals the victorious unit by 20.

Military Caste: Gold purchase for military units -20%. A free ranged unit spawns with new settled cities. Requires Discipline.

Warrior Code: A free General appears outside your capital. Population reduction from city capture is reduced to 25% and unrest is reduced by 25%. Requires Military Caste.

Finisher: Cities increase the culture cost of policies by 25% less than normal. Whenever you conquer a civilization's capital, start a Golden Age. Great Generals can be purchased with faith at the Industrial Era.​
 
I like it, Wodhann. No Isolation Unhappiness feels pretty strong, but it does taper off as the game goes along, so there's that.

If we are doing 'active culture gain' for openers, what about:

Tradition: Receive a free chunk of culture (based on population) every time your capital grows. Encourages growth (the theme of Tradition) without being a static rate.

Liberty: Every tile acquired by a city through natural border growth grants a chunk of culture (based on the gold value of the tile acquired). More cities = more tiles being acquired, thus the bonus growth with the number of cities.

Honor: as is.

G
 
Imperialism: No Isolation unhappiness. A Free Settler appears in the capital.

I don't understand the free settler part as an aspect of this policy branch. Honour/Conquest is all about force, in my mind, a free settler seems a bit, meh!
 
I don't understand the free settler part as an aspect of this policy branch. Honour/Conquest is all about force, in my mind, a free settler seems a bit, meh!
In my social policy concept, honor is merged with liberty (I've explained a better in previous posts, I'll just be repeating myself if I explain this again). The free settler is a way to give expansive players a head start, without necessarily making settler training easier.
 
I guess that's my point though. About the only part of Conquest that isn't about conquest is the free settler. Seems like it is a bit 'light-on' if it is a combo with Liberty and if it is looked at as just a Honor replacement then the settler seems out of place.

I guess it could work, just to my mind it seems off. Based on my, previously noted, lack of balancing skill though I wouldn't worry too much. What do I know?!
 
Back
Top Bottom