Policies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Well, a couple hundred gold in the long term from a given policy isn't really that big a draw.
Yes, its sometimes useful post-war, and sometimes not.
I have always found it quite weak, in part because I often already have many of my long-term allies before I get 2-3 picks deep into Patronage, and if I'm already above 20 then the policy does nothing.
Yes, its sometimes useful post-war, and sometimes not.
I have always found it quite weak, in part because I often already have many of my long-term allies before I get 2-3 picks deep into Patronage, and if I'm already above 20 then the policy does nothing.
would swapping the 30 friendship mechanic to a higher tier make a difference? i rarely use the patronage line, but i'm curious if it's that OP or just too easy to achieve w/o investing in the tree.
Txurce
Deity
I just saw this interesting change. Patronage had lost a lot of its appeal for me, mostly because of what I view as the "arms race" problem with Policy adjustment (they tend to get stronger, thereby creating an imbalance somewhere else). Buffing Aesthetics this much would make me consider taking it instead of the left-hand side, and of course consider taking the entire tree. So that's a good thing (arms-race issue aside). But out of context, permanent Friendship strikes me as clearly OP.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yeah, Patronage has gotten weak - in particular because it provided too little happiness in a game where unhappiness is high high now and where it mostly comes from social policies. Also, the fact that the AI is now much more willing to spend on City states (which is a good thing!) makes them rather less valuable and more expensive to maintain alliance.
I agree with you though, permanent friendship is too big a boost, it is too much to load all of the power onto a single policy.
Is there some way we could boost the happiness provided by the tree? Maybe a flat +1 happy per friend/+2 per ally in addition to the resource/luxury benefits? Or change the luxury benefits into flat +X/+Y per friend ally?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I do plan on eventually redesigning the free great people from the bottom-right policy to a system similar to Militaristic citystates. Something to point out about the tree is:
- The opener has no effect if we invest in Aesthetics and stop.
- If we invest heavily in citystate allies, Aesthetics has no further effect.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
One solution would be to keep Aesthetics as is, but add another +10
to the finisher. But even so, it strikes me as extremely powerful.
Does the bonus happiness from imported CS luxuries stack with multiples of the same type? That's usually the limiting factor with happiness from CSs - they all have the same 2-3 luxuries!
to the finisher. But even so, it strikes me as extremely powerful. Does the bonus happiness from imported CS luxuries stack with multiples of the same type? That's usually the limiting factor with happiness from CSs - they all have the same 2-3 luxuries!
Ahriman
Tyrant
This is not true.
I might choose to invest in 2-3 allies, while keeping another 12 CS friendships going. It is easy to still benefit from both, and indeed this would be the norm. Aesthetics would only have no further effect if you kept every single CS at alliance state.
If Aesthetics gave free friendship with every CS, then every game no matter what strategy I was doing I would invest 2 picks into Patronage for Aesthetics, that effect would just be so incredibly powerful.
No, I don't believe so.
Precisely. I'm lucky if the happiness policy gives me 6 happiness, more likely it gives 2 or 4.
As compared to some of the happiness policies elsewhere, which at 3 per city might end up giving 18+ happiness.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I either invest in a few citystates, or get Patronage and invest heavily in them all, because it's a positive feedback loop:
from a surplus luxury we block it from our rival.
- Allies make the bribery policy more important.
- Allies + the bribery policy makes the science policy more accessible and valuable.
- The bribery and science policies increase the benefit of more allies, looping back to #1.
from a surplus luxury we block it from our rival.
Txurce
Deity
This is how I used to play, and may play again.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I find at the high difficulty levels that it is not possible to invest in maintaining alliances with all ~16 city states (standard map) in a sensible fashion. You will have to devote your entire economy to gold production, and even then the AI will outbid you. I find that this is not an effective way to play, you will end up having to get up to 200 influence or more to keep some alliances. You would be better off spending those thousands of gold buying economy boosting buildings in your cities.
But again, I think the main problem with Patronage is how little happiness it gives you compared to the other trees.
*edit* For reference, at 500 gold every 70 turns (less from the happiness opener, but more because some CSs are hostile) you would have to invest 115 gold per turn in CS alliances to keep 16 allies going, and that is assuming you are never overbid by any AI.
But again, I think the main problem with Patronage is how little happiness it gives you compared to the other trees.
*edit* For reference, at 500 gold every 70 turns (less from the happiness opener, but more because some CSs are hostile) you would have to invest 115 gold per turn in CS alliances to keep 16 allies going, and that is assuming you are never overbid by any AI.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Those are the expenses, but what matters is the net value, after the food, culture, and free unit income are factored in.
Txurce
Deity
It has definitely become harder to sustain CS relationships. However, lack of happiness is a non-factor in my opinion of the tree. For me Patronage is about CS alliances and how they gave me the additional pop, culture or units I wanted. What happiness it gave from alliances and one specific policy has always seemed appropriate.
rf900
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 194
I am having a bit of a problem with the 6 policy trees needed for utopia an policy restrictions... As someone else commented:
Anyway, I know that VEM gives more culture and you need 6 instead of 5. Problem is when going culture with Piety/Freedom, there are really few more choices for rest of policies. Yes you can pick the restricted ones, but loosing the benefits from the previous ones is not really a good option. So I don't know, how about completely remove restrictions, from gameplay point of view is having Piety and Rationalism at the same time a game breaker?
Anyway, I know that VEM gives more culture and you need 6 instead of 5. Problem is when going culture with Piety/Freedom, there are really few more choices for rest of policies. Yes you can pick the restricted ones, but loosing the benefits from the previous ones is not really a good option. So I don't know, how about completely remove restrictions, from gameplay point of view is having Piety and Rationalism at the same time a game breaker?
mitsho
Deity
I also dislike a standard 30 Influence with Aesthetics, Permanent Friendships would be way too powerful. If someone thinks this is too weak, I rather advocate a 20 permanent influence plus +10 influence right with the adoption. This would bump you to a Friendship with every citystate for one turn and save you some gold/delay a bit.
The thing i see with the 6 tree requirement is that it's not really flexible at all.I have been told Piety and Rationalism are too strong, so I guess removing the restriction is out of the question without heavy rebalancing and I don't think massive changes would be a good thing to do now. Could there be a more creative way to make the Culture victory more challenging and interesting? For example instead of one Utopia project have three or so to be built? But that would be tedious? What about filling each tree unlocks one project which needs to be built separately and they've have different conditions as well (Tradition needs a capital of size X, Piety needs x temples, Patrionalism needs 4 CS allies, Commerce needs x luxuries)? Would that be possible and feasible? Or too far from the scope of VEM? Together with that you could drop it back to 5 and thus allow some more flexibility.
The thing i see with the 6 tree requirement is that it's not really flexible at all.I have been told Piety and Rationalism are too strong, so I guess removing the restriction is out of the question without heavy rebalancing and I don't think massive changes would be a good thing to do now. Could there be a more creative way to make the Culture victory more challenging and interesting? For example instead of one Utopia project have three or so to be built? But that would be tedious? What about filling each tree unlocks one project which needs to be built separately and they've have different conditions as well (Tradition needs a capital of size X, Piety needs x temples, Patrionalism needs 4 CS allies, Commerce needs x luxuries)? Would that be possible and feasible? Or too far from the scope of VEM? Together with that you could drop it back to 5 and thus allow some more flexibility.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Worth considering. You could make it 20 permanent with +20 one-shot too, to boost it a bit further.
Dunkah
Emperor
I love this idea. It would give you a pretty good idea of who is going for culture victories and give you the oportunity to capture Utopian projects via warmongering to slow up the VC.
Txurce
Deity
Info Addict gives you an earlier warning.
Dunkah
Emperor
Yes as far as who has a lot of policies. However that could simply mean they have not started to expand yet, not that they are going for a Culture victory per se.
However if they were required to build a Utopian project for each policy tree you could see each of those built and have time to to react.
If the Utopian Projects had no or little power other than allowing you to have the Culture Victory then no one would build them unless they were specifically going for that.
However if they were required to build a Utopian project for each policy tree you could see each of those built and have time to to react.
If the Utopian Projects had no or little power other than allowing you to have the Culture Victory then no one would build them unless they were specifically going for that.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The global politics window does show how many policies each leader has acquired in each policy tree.
