Policies: The time has come!

[Gazebo]

I don't know that it is possible to add a specialist slot to a building that already exists, as you can't currently modify a building's core via policy. We can spoof it with a unique Tradition building that only gives an engineer, though.

Let's also strive to keep policies as 'simple' as possible. Building diminishing returns and/or factored values into policies and yield management gets really code-heavy very quickly. The key to policies for the CBP isn't to completely revolutionize the way that each tree works, but rather balance them against each other. The trees don't have to be game-changing or utterly novel to be good or interesting. Also, remember the AI. If the AI can't understand it (easily), I'm not adding it in.
G

 

[Funak]

I don't know that it is possible to add a specialist slot to a building that already exists, as you can't currently modify a building's core via policy. We can spoof it with a unique Tradition building that only gives an engineer, though.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it done, could possibly have been a policy replacing the palace with another building called palace that is identical except with a specialist-slot.

Let's also strive to keep policies as 'simple' as possible. Building diminishing returns and/or factored values into policies and yield management gets really code-heavy very quickly. The key to policies for the CBP isn't to completely revolutionize the way that each tree works, but rather balance them against each other. The trees don't have to be game-changing or utterly novel to be good or interesting. Also, remember the AI. If the AI can't understand it (easily), I'm not adding it in.
G

Think the AI is capible of using 2 internal traderoutes from the same city if it was an option?
Other than that our traditiontree isn't really that weird, except for the added specialistslot I guess but the AI knows how to work those.



Also, can someone please give me some feedback, I'm way too stupid to be able to balance this by myself. I need dialog and people to tell me when something is too powerful.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the diminishing return concept from wodhann, and it's something i could see us using somewhere in the trees.

And his version doesn't step on any toes, our goal is to get the best work possible so more ideas is not a bad thing.

That said, I do like how the current tradition version is shaping up so I want to try and finish it.

On the +3, it is one of those bonuses that seems so innocent but is actually very powerful. By the time you get it...it can mean a 15~20% increase in your production speed.

It may seem boring...but there is nothing boring about more buildings, more units, more wonders.

For legalism, the gp idea had a lot of support, but I will agree it is not my favorite concept. If we go with a specialist model honestly the only one I am comfortable with is culture. Food and hammers I think would be too strong. But I say in the interest of getting this moving lets stick with the yield and ga bonus improvements for now...and if something strikes out fancy later on we can change it.

And important thing to keep in mind...these trees will not survive testing unscathed...I guarantee we will adjust numbers and concepts after testing.

On the internal trade route. I really want an internal trade route policy but it screams liberty to me. Itrs lets you build up your cities and infrastructure...which sounds like a match made in heaven for liberty.

Lastly, I do want to stress that leader balance should not factor in to policies too strongly. It is the fact of the game that certain leaders will default to certain trees. Siaham loves patronage, monte gets a lot benefit from honor, etc.

To me mind it is okay if certain trees are taken by certain leaders as a default...some leaders are bust built that way.

 

[Funak]

On the internal trade route. I really want an internal trade route policy but it screams liberty to me. Itrs lets you build up your cities and infrastructure...which sounds like a match made in heaven for liberty.

I completely and utterly disagree, I don't think liberty should have any room to run internal traderoutes. Their economy should imo force them to use all traderoutes for gold to keep up with building/unitmaintenance to keep up with a bigger empire.

And even if liberty were to have internal traderoutes i doubt they would have much use for the ability to send multiple ones between the same cities. (it's something that's barely needed for tradition imo)

With that in mind:

Tradition Version 1.3

Opener: +3 culture in the capital. +1 food in the Capital for each policy of Tradition taken (including this one).

Aristocracy: +15% bonus to wonders, +1 Happy for each National Wonder

Legalism: Palace gains +2 science. Science buildings in the capital generate 5% more science.

Landed Elite: Borders expand faster. <+1 culture from every specialist (In capital?)>

Oligarchy: Palace gains +3 hammers and a specialist slot (engineer). Requires Legalism

Monarchy: +1 Gold per Pop in Capital, Capital provides +1 happy per 5 citizens. Requires Legalism

Finisher: Can buy Great Engineers with Faith. Great Person +25% in capital <Ability to send 2 internal traderoutes to the same city from the same city?>

 

[Lord Tirian]

I agree that Tradition is the best spot to boost internal trade routes. Due to having less cities, internal trade routes are less powerful for them since they can have less of them, a sufficiently wide empire has a lot more wiggle room to use them.

While I still like the GA points, this could actually be a good policy for the Landed Elite you find so problematic, Funak, something like "Faster border expansion and internal trade routes (to the capital?) produce +50% yield".

I don't like the double internal trade route thing. Not sure why, but it just feels clunky - I'd rather see the existing ones being better than having to use more on internal ones.

The "+1 culture/yield/something per specialist" could live in the finisher then.

 

[Funak]

I agree that Tradition is the best spot to boost internal trade routes. Due to having less cities, internal trade routes are less powerful for them since they can have less of them, a sufficiently wide empire has a lot more wiggle room to use them.

While I still like the GA points, this could actually be a good policy for the Landed Elite you find so problematic, Funak, something like "Faster border expansion and internal trade routes (to the capital?) produce +50% yield".

I don't like the double internal trade route thing. Not sure why, but it just feels clunky - I'd rather see the existing ones being better than having to use more on internal ones.

The "+1 culture/yield/something per specialist" could live in the finisher then.

50% yields from internal traderoutes is a level 3 tenent in Order(I think) however, might be a bit too powerful for tradition?

But I'm open for any switches. So should the specialist thingie be global or only in the capital?
Also if it's culture it makes sense having it with the border expand policy, no?

 

[Wodhann]

Well, you guys know me well enough to know I'm not throwing away my ideas that easily.

(Alt) Tradition v0.2​

Opener: Barbarians get -25% and must expend 1 extra movement per tile while inside your territory. +3 in your capital. (I actually love this now, it has a good "opposite to conquest" theme going on of defending better against barbarians, rather than going after them)

Sanitation: 20% of the is carried over after a citizen is born. Whenever a citizen is born, gain points towards Golden Ages equal to the amount of population in that city.

Autarky: The amount of food or production trade routes that may be directed to the same city is increased by one. A free Caravan appears in your capital.

Timocracy: +6 for each city. This amount is lowered by 2 if you control another city besides the capital, and by 1 for each city beyond the second one, with a minimum of 1 for each city. Needs Sanitation and Autarky.

Monarchy:: Free defensive building in your first [4 at standard] cities. Forts are built twice as fast and improvements that replace forts are built three times as fast. (I still want to make forts relevant to tall players, especially considering they're the ones who can make the most use of it.)

(?): Your Capital gains +33% Ranged Combat Strength and can attack 1 tile further. Garrisons in your Capital cost no maintenance and give you +2 . Requires Monarchy.

Finisher: Borders expand faster. A Great Person of your choice appears in your capital.​

Your version of Honor (Conquest) doesn't really exist in a different universe and was integrated within other ideas. Why does this?

Because you guys are using things in tradition that in my concept belongs to "wisdom" (like wonder building), not to mention the whole buy engineers with faith thing which I'm also saving for it.

Also, if we're going with my concept of merging honor and liberty, I would advise against leaving "honor" and "liberty" as names, as they would confuse players used to the old concepts.

 

[Lord Tirian]

50% is very strong for internal trade routes, that's why I put in the (capital?) there. If it's global, it shouldn't be more than 20%-25%, I think.

Culture makes sense thematically if the specialist bonus is on Landed Elite, but... I think it would be really unbalanced to put that there: the culture bonus is meaty enough to just go Opener->Landed Elite for any play style, as you easily get 4+ culture without too much trouble. In fact, considering the +3 culture opener, I'd be hesitant to add any other culture bonus!

If it's a global bonus, even more so - I think if you want a global bonus, it should be pushed back to the policies with requirements or the finisher to discourage quick "dipping" into the tree. I think making "dipping" useful if you have a particular strategy is fine, but making it the norm is bad.

 

[Funak]

Culture makes sense thematically if the specialist bonus is on Landed Elite, but... I think it would be really unbalanced to put that there: the culture bonus is meaty enough to just go Opener->Landed Elite for any play style, as you easily get 4+ culture without too much trouble. In fact, considering the +3 culture opener, I'd be hesitant to add any other culture bonus!

You're completely right about that, honestly I'd prefer food or production (and only in the capital). I'd rather have culture from buildings get pumped up a bit than pushing culture into every policytree just to keep it balanced.

Also I'm not sure it would even be possible to limit buffs to internal traderoutes to just the capital (and even if it was possible it would probably still be too strong) so I'll add it as 25% to all instead.

Tradition Version 1.3

Opener: +3 culture in the capital. +1 food in the Capital for each policy of Tradition taken (including this one).

Aristocracy: +15% bonus to wonders, +1 Global happiness for each National Wonder

Legalism: Palace gains +2 science. Science buildings in the capital generate 5% more science.

Landed Elite: Borders expand faster. 25% increased effects from internal traderoutes.

Oligarchy: Palace gains +3 hammers and a specialist slot (engineer). Requires Legalism

Monarchy: +1 Gold per Pop in Capital, Capital provides +1 Global happiness per 5 citizens. Requires Legalism

Finisher: Can buy Great Engineers with Faith. Great Person +25% in capital <+1yield(Production or food) from specialists in capital>

Voice your opinions on the specialistbonus, Food or production, could still be culture I suppose, but there you have it.

 

[mystikx21]

Wodhann,
if it was stepping on liberty, you should have posted your version of liberty, or outlined some way in which the effects we are using don't belong in a growth and capital-centric tree.

I don't think your concept of honor is sufficiently merged with liberty that we need to rename them. It basically moved one or two policy effects over. Honor is fine. Liberty may be fine as well (though there's a more arguable case that it needs a rename as it will be less obviously about expansionism). We haven't really established that we are using your balance concepts in full so much as mining fresh ideas from them.

In order to make forts relevant you would need to make forts a worthwhile improvement first. And they just aren't. Barbarian combat bonus as a penalty isn't really a strong incentive either. You may like the symmetry, but it's basically a useless effect still.

 

[Funak]

Wodhann,
if it was stepping on liberty, you should have posted your version of liberty, or outlined some way in which the effects we are using don't belong in a growth and capital-centric tree.

I don't think your concept of honor is sufficiently merged with liberty that we need to rename them. It basically moved one or two policy effects over. Honor is fine. Liberty may be fine as well (though there's a more arguable case that it needs a rename as it will be less obviously about expansionism). We haven't really established that we are using your balance concepts in full so much as mining fresh ideas from them.

In order to make forts relevant you would need to make forts a worthwhile improvement first. And they just aren't. Barbarian combat bonus as a penalty isn't really a strong incentive either. You may like the symmetry, but it's basically a useless effect still.

Seconded. Now please criticize the current tradition-tree so we can get on to more exciting stuff.

 

[Stalker0]

I completely and utterly disagree, I don't think liberty should have any room to run internal traderoutes. Their economy should imo force them to use all traderoutes for gold to keep up with building/unitmaintenance to keep up with a bigger empire.

And even if liberty were to have internal traderoutes i doubt they would have much use for the ability to send multiple ones between the same cities. (it's something that's barely needed for tradition imo)

I was thinking along the lines of +25% internal trade routes, or just a +1 yield on ITR for liberty.

I don't see why wide empires would have more gold problems than tall...they have road networks, and can build markets and the like.

I personally use ITR a LOT when I go wide. Its a great way to get that fledgeling city off the ground. Heck, this would encourage me to pick up a little tradition to go with my liberty because of its advantage for wide.


But I have to compromise just like anyone else, and I will say that Funak's 1.3 landed elite looks meaty and strong. So if people like it, I'm willing to go with it.


That said, I don't think the finisher needs any help. +25% to GP is just plain awesome on its own, that is the equivalent of an ideology...which you don't get until very late game.

 

[Stalker0]

Seconded. Now please criticize the current tradition-tree so we can get on to more exciting stuff.

Policies is not the sprint, its the marathon of this balance patch. I've gone through the CEP policy debates, believe me!

Keep in mind that there are plenty of other topics to debate, like wonders and armies. Those are probably going into the patch first anyway. Policies as a whole are going to take a while!


In fact...please debate the wonders!

 

[Stalker0]

Sanitation: 20% of the is carried over after a citizen is born. Whenever a citizen is born, gain points towards Golden Ages equal to the amount of population in that city.

The main reason I went with the +1 food per policy idea (besides Funak's PR campaign for food% )was it has a hidden extra balance component.

With percentages...the stronger the capital's start...the even stronger the bonuses are. A capital that has a lot of food...will have EVEN MORE FOOD when all is said and done.

The static food bonus are great for all capitals...but they help the weaker food capitals just a little bit more. Since Start Balance is something we care about somewhat (though I don;t think to level Thal in CEP did) this seems like an elegant way to help it.

 

[Wodhann]

Wodhann,
if it was stepping on liberty, you should have posted your version of liberty, or outlined some way in which the effects we are using don't belong in a growth and capital-centric tree.

I will, but I'm not gonna saturate our discussion with another policy tree just yet.

In order to make forts relevant you would need to make forts a worthwhile improvement first.

Then let's. Is this or is this not the balance patch after all?

Barbarian combat bonus as a penalty isn't really a strong incentive either. You may like the symmetry, but it's basically a useless effect still.

Considering the extra 3 culture per turn is already a fair bonus by itself, I disagree. Plus, it does help to get rid of those annoying barbarians that want to take all of your workers.

The main reason I went with the +1 food per policy idea (besides Funak's PR campaign for food% )was it has a hidden extra balance component.

I don't like encouraging people to go all the way down the policy tree. Going down the policy tree should be a strategical decision; balance-wise, it should be neutral.

 

[Funak]

Policies is not the sprint, its the marathon of this balance patch. I've gone through the CEP policy debates, believe me!

I believe you, but we have been sitting with an almost finished tradition for 4 pages now, not really getting much done. The conversation have somewhat stagnated and I would like to just finish tradition so we can move on to liberty and piety.

Also I can't really stress enough how the ideology bonus is in all cities, this one is just in the capital

 

[Stalker0]

Also I can't really stress enough how the ideology bonus is in all cities, this one is just in the capital

And my counter is that for many games the majority of your GP come from the capital, especially if its a super city...so there isn't a massive different between 25% to teh cap, and 25% to all.

But I am fine making it 25% to the first 4, that should cover the majority of cities that produce GP.

 

[Funak]

And my counter is that for many games the majority of your GP come from the capital, especially if its a super city...so there isn't a massive different between 25% to teh cap, and 25% to all.

But I am fine making it 25% to the first 4, that should cover the majority of cities that produce GP.

Really dislike those X cities only things for already mentioned reasons and I think 25% in the capital is too weak to stand on its own.

 

[Stalker0]

Well in the interest of completing the tree as you said, I will compromise a bit on the ITR but I will hold on the finisher. I think this a version that can go into balance testing, and it can always be tweaked.

Tradition Version 1.4

Opener: +3 culture in the capital. +1 food in the Capital for each policy of Tradition taken (including this one).

Aristocracy: +15% bonus to wonders, +1 Global happiness for each National Wonder

Legalism: Palace gains +2 science. Science buildings in the capital generate 5% more science.

Landed Elite: Borders expand faster. 25% increased effects from internal traderoutes.

Oligarchy: Palace gains +3 hammers and a specialist slot (engineer). Requires Legalism

Monarchy: +1 Gold per Pop in Capital, Capital provides +1 Global happiness per 5 citizens. Requires Legalism

Finisher: Can buy Great Engineers with Faith. Great Person +25% in first 4 cities.

 

[Stalker0]

Since this thread has gotten so long, I am going to make a new thread to finish up the Honor (Conquest) tree.