I'd like to get a working Tradition out the door, guys. Let's compromise on something, at least for now. Please?
G
G
... What? Really, it's that high in vanilla? Where did you get this?
I'd like to get a working Tradition out the door, guys. Let's compromise on something, at least for now. Please?
G
... What? Really, it's that high in vanilla? Where did you get this?
I don't think it's a good idea to "compromise" on anything just to get something out. I don't see the hurry. As we say in my country, haste is the enemy of perfection. I'm sure there must be other things to work with, code-wise.I'd like to get a working Tradition out the door, guys. Let's compromise on something, at least for now. Please?
G
Going global!!!
Tradition Version 1.7
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 all cities.
I don't think it's a good idea to "compromise" on anything just to get something out. I don't see the hurry. As we say in my country, haste is the enemy of perfection. I'm sure there must be other things to work with, code-wise.
Conquest is in a much better place right now in terms of agreement, and even then I don't think we need to implement it just yet.
Plus rushing to put something into code just ends up being more work if you have to redo it afterwards.
Not sure punishing expansion is the right way to encourage staying compact to be honestOpener: +3 culture in the Capital. +1 food in the Capital for each policy of Tradition taken (including this one), -1 food in the Capital for each additional city(?).
I think the happiness-bonus makes more sense here since there is actually synergy between the two effects, but it hardly matters.Aristocracy: +15% production bonus to wonders, +2 (+4 from sea) yields from domestic Trade Routes.
Not sure what the thematic point of illiteracy is, also the number seems pretty high(that is adjustable however). From playing RnR I can tell that the extra aqueduct effect is way too unstable to be used, without an aqueduct it is close to useless, with an aqueduct it is awesome and when you get a medical lab it is downright overpowered. I would take it really easy with those effects.Legalism: -50% unhappiness from literacy. 10% food carried over after a citizen is born. (Should require prereqs)
I'm still not convinced why Tradition would need more defensive policies than Liberty, in RnR they both have one each (which is completely fine to be honest) but if every tree have defensive bonuses then no one have defensive bonuses, if you get my drift.Landed Elite: Borders expand faster. Units receive a 15% defensive combat bonus in own lands.
Honestly not sure why this would benefit compact play over wide play.Oligarchy: +3 Gold per 5 citizens in a city, and +1 Global happiness per 10 citizens in a city.
I would be very careful with placing bonuses on world wonders in the ancient era trees. It is one of those effects that scale extremely badly with game-difficultyMonarchy: +1 culture from culture buildings and World Wonders. +1 global happiness from World and National Wonders.
No, the GE was not MOVED to Liberty, it was added there aswell because not having a GP to buy for faith was hurting the tree, removing it from here would do the same but probably worse.Finisher: Choose a free Great Person. Great Person rate +25% in all cities. (Great Engineer faith purchasing moved to Liberty, no?)
He is going to hate you for saying thatGazebo, at the end of the day, you are the ultimate judge, so please implement some policies to match your new happiness system.
Not sure punishing expansion is the right way to encourage staying compact to be honest
I think the happiness-bonus makes more sense here since there is actually synergy between the two effects, but it hardly matters.
Not sure what the thematic point of illiteracy is, also the number seems pretty high(that is adjustable however).
From playing RnR I can tell that the extra aqueduct effect is way too unstable to be used, without an aqueduct it is close to useless, with an aqueduct it is awesome and when you get a medical lab it is downright overpowered. I would take it really easy with those effects.
I'm still not convinced why Tradition would need more defensive policies than Liberty, in RnR they both have one each (which is completely fine to be honest) but if every tree have defensive bonuses then no one have defensive bonuses, if you get my drift.
Honestly not sure why this would benefit compact play over wide play.
I would be very careful with placing bonuses on world wonders in the ancient era trees. It is one of those effects that scale extremely badly with game-difficulty
No, the GE was not MOVED to Liberty, it was added there aswell because not having a GP to buy for faith was hurting the tree, removing it from here would do the same but probably worse.
By the way if I sound extremely dismissing, this is not supposed to be the case I'm just judging your ideas based on my experience.
Other than that, welcome to the discussion.
All in all you removed a lot of effects and made the rest empierwide, and while that is nice I don't really see how this would encourage compact play, except the opener hurting expansion I guess.
It is honestly very hard to make a tree that actually encourages compact play instead of just disencourage wide play by giving it penalties.
One way of doing it is boosting the base-penalties for expanding and having something remove that or add other benefits combating that in the 'wide-focused' trees.
And while our current supercapital tree isn't really a fun concept for everyone it does actually encourage compact play mostly by only having bonuses in the capital, meaning that every new city is going to put a drain on the capitals resources. Since you don't get any actual benefits in your non-capital cities you're in theory not going to want to settle that many of them UNLESS you find extremely good locations (which is imo exactly what compact gameplay is about)
Edit: You moved some things around, but I think my point pretty much stands anyways so I'm not going to bother rewriting it.
So I would ask everyone (especially Stalker, or anyone else who fundamentally disagrees with me) to please indulge me and explain exactly why "buffing the capital" is a better way to enhance Tall gameplay (and if you disagree that the very concept that tradition should be about this, you have an even bigger burden of explanation to do
We could also add more effects to excess happiness here to promote tall play if desired.
Honestly though its a bit of an offense to me. If we are losing people to the discussion because of that...its a problem.(And I appreciate your concern, a big reason I haven't posted here much earlier is because of the overly heated nature of much of the discussion, no offense to anyone, it's just a turnoff for me.)
Ninjaed by Seek!
I just personally think these policies feel like they are punishing expansion ("I could expand but I would lose 1 food in all cities if I do that").Hmm, yeah, it's a little heavy-handed. I was thinking of making it a pool of food that gets distributed to cities, but it got a little wordy. So how about this:
Each Tradition policy selected (including this one) generates +1 food for the capital, but each additional city gets one food from this pool.
This would encourage tall play without penalty.
I'd be cool with adding more effects like this to the tree, too, if that's something people would be interested in.
It was really fine either waySure, no biggie so switch it around again. My thinking was this: the happiness fits with the culture on WWs in the other policy, and the bonus to domestic TRs here helps with wonders (send prod or food to work prod tiles) and makes the policy useful for those not going for wonders.
Good point. Still not really a fan of having those specific unhappiness-reductions in the openertrees mostly because they are weak and not needed early and extremely powerful later on (something that we are supposed to avoid)I was actually rather pleased with the thematic tie-in here: the disenfranchized illeterate won't get sh*t upon as much with a legal code, and the bonus to growth from happiness illustrates that fewer people are discontent and are therefore not getting beheaded for committing crimes.
Mostly thinking out loud, had a city working 22 unemployed citiziens last time I played RnR because it outgrew all tiles and all specialists available.I hesitate to balance anything against Med Labs - they are so late and require the supremely mediocre Hospital. Once building changes are in it might be a different story, ofc.) But I'd be fine with changing this to growth if there's an issue (just looking for different food effects, mostly).
Fewer cities also means your defense would be more focused aswell, and considering the cities in liberty would be better developed it would be more impactful losing one of those. If tradition needs a defensive policy then one should probably be added to liberty aswell, but in my opinion the AI is bad enough that people should be punished for not building enough of a defense by themselves.Many people seem to have an issue with the old Oligarchy effect (I don't) so I went with RnR's effect. It's thematically fitting with the policy name and the other effect here, too. I do think Tradition should have a defensive policy since the fewer cities the player has the more impactful it is to lose one.
Not really sure my growthplan would change much if I had 3 or 6 cities, liberty would probably have a bigger population in fact considering it takes less work to grow 6 cities to 10 pop than growing 3 cities to 20. Also personally not a fan of making that big of a jump between rewards for a policy.It promotes tall play vs Liberty's happiness from all citizens. The numbers can be adjusted, I almost put +6 gold for every 10 citizens, would that be more fitting?
Not weak, just hard to balance, it is going to be worth maybe 40culture/happiness on settler and 8 on deity.That's why I made the policy affect culture buildings and National Wonders too. It seems like a potent policy to me, do you think it's weak overall?
From what I've been gathering people want the faithpurchase buildings to stick in the religion or piety. Personally don't see a problem with your idea as long as it is well executed. But then again I don't see a problem with letting both trees have great engineers from faith.Ah, I missed that somehow (been trying to catch up on everything the last couple days, boy you guys are quick!). What about adding industrial faith-purchasable food buildings to tradition? (and remove free GP?)
I generally have never seen this being a thing either in vanilla or CBP, usually really hard to outgrow your happiness (not counting CBP lategame because that just murders my happiness nomatter how many cities I have)I think the growth focus disencourages wide play by it's very nature. Excess food is useless with the inevitable low happiness of a wide empire.
So your idea is to replace the supercapital with another supercapital?We could also add more effects to excess happiness here to promote tall play if desired. Something else that could be added is a bonus to resource tiles in the capital - in my experience, having a quality capital makes Trad more enticing than Lib so buffing that qualification might have some value here.
ExactlyLastly, Liberty and Honor are shaping up to be more useful to wide empires, so I'm not sure this is really a concern.
Honestly though its a bit of an offense to me. If we are losing people to the discussion because of that...its a problem.
I honestly didn't mean any offense with that comment (I was on the fence about posting it at all, maybe I shouldn't have..) to anyone that was offended, I apologize!
I just personally think these policies feel like they are punishing expansion ("I could expand but I would lose 1 food in all cities if I do that").
I guess it could work but I'm not a fan of it myself.
Good point. Still not really a fan of having those specific unhappiness-reductions in the openertrees mostly because they are weak and not needed early and extremely powerful later on (something that we are supposed to avoid)
Good god, I've never had that - perhaps it could be too powerful, then.Mostly thinking out loud, had a city working 22 unemployed citiziens last time I played RnR because it outgrew all tiles and all specialists available.
Fewer cities also means your defense would be more focused aswell, and considering the cities in liberty would be better developed it would be more impactful losing one of those. If tradition needs a defensive policy then one should probably be added to liberty aswell, but in my opinion the AI is bad enough that people should be punished for not building enough of a defense by themselves.
Not really sure my growthplan would change much if I had 3 or 6 cities, liberty would probably have a bigger population in fact considering it takes less work to grow 6 cities to 10 pop than growing 3 cities to 20. Also personally not a fan of making that big of a jump between rewards for a policy.
Not weak, just hard to balance, it is going to be worth maybe 40culture/happiness on settler and 8 on deity.
From what I've been gathering people want the faithpurchase buildings to stick in the religion or piety. Personally don't see a problem with your idea as long as it is well executed. But then again I don't see a problem with letting both trees have great engineers from faith.
I generally have never seen this being a thing either in vanilla or CBP, usually really hard to outgrow your happiness (not counting CBP lategame because that just murders my happiness nomatter how many cities I have)
So your idea is to replace the supercapital with another supercapital?
Honestly think the Supercapital idea will work out, was somewhat skeptical to it from the start but it does promote compact gameplay (by making other cities less useful)
One should also keep in mind that going tradition into liberty or liberty into traditon should be a viable option
Men don't get offended, yes if you get offended by this statement you are not a man, and yes that was even more offensive, and yes this is a joke.
Now this was offtopic, but if it is on-topic I really don't think you should let the fear of offending someone stop you from posting relevant information/suggestions