Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I've had some feedback Liberty doesn't have enough happiness, so if we need to add more, I'd prefer to do it there. Honor does get quite a bit of happiness... up to +6 per city. 
Policies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Txurce
Deity
No more happiness. Please.
Ahriman
Tyrant
The problem arguably lies with Honor, not with Liberty.I've had some feedback Liberty doesn't have enough happiness, so if we need to add more, I'd prefer to do it there. Honor does get quite a bit of happiness... up to +6 per city.
The Honor finisher is too strong.
I don't like the current design where some finishers are super-policies. A finisher should be weaker than most policies, it comes free.
I actually disagree with you there, I like how committing to 1 policy rewards you as it is often difficult to do so. You may be forced to make policy choices that aren't of great benefit to you now (a great example would be the Liberty golden age, you are almost never really ready for a GA but if you want the finisher you have to take the policy in an untimely matter). Having strong finishers provides great tension imo, do I spread myself out taking policies that are good for me now, but leave it difficult to achieve said finishers, or do I stick to 1 tree, taking a policy or two that isn't great for me, in order to get to that really special finisher.
T.L.D.R. powerful finishers are excellent at creating tension and strategy in your policy choices.
I'd rather not get into a discussion about changing Honor until we see how the new city capture mechanics (pop, res times, happy, %science and gold, etc) play out a bit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Committing to a policy does reward you, it gives you the finisher. That isn't an argument that the finisher should be more powerful than an entire policy.
The bonuses are also very uneven; some trees have much better finishers than others. Compare the Honor finisher to the Patronage finisher. In Patronage, many of the benefits are frontloaded; the opener and the gold gift % increase are arguably the most useful policies in the tree, and the finisher is incredibly weak.
The Honor finisher is arguably worth two policies. The benefits of Honor are too backloaded. The opener is very weak (~+6 culture from a kill is almost nothing), the military production policy is solid as is Professional Military, but the others are modest.
The bonuses are also very uneven; some trees have much better finishers than others. Compare the Honor finisher to the Patronage finisher. In Patronage, many of the benefits are frontloaded; the opener and the gold gift % increase are arguably the most useful policies in the tree, and the finisher is incredibly weak.
The Honor finisher is arguably worth two policies. The benefits of Honor are too backloaded. The opener is very weak (~+6 culture from a kill is almost nothing), the military production policy is solid as is Professional Military, but the others are modest.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
I think we've been through this before in this thread.
Finishers are balanced according to the overall quality of the tree. That's part of the flavour. It'd be very boring if all policies were 'equal', as it would be if all techs were 'equal'. As long as they are balanced, and in the end, each policy tree is as rewarding as another, it's good.
Finishers are balanced according to the overall quality of the tree. That's part of the flavour. It'd be very boring if all policies were 'equal', as it would be if all techs were 'equal'. As long as they are balanced, and in the end, each policy tree is as rewarding as another, it's good.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I strongly disagree with this. It is *not* ok to just try to balance trees overall, and not balance actual policies. For example, after 2-3 picks into Patronage, it is really very low priority to keep taking more picks in that tree, because the remaining policies are weak compared to choices you could have elsewhere. Overall tree balance is important, but you can't *just* balance overall trees, because we don't pick trees, we pick policies.
When the late-tier polices and finisher in a tree are weak, then they're not going to get picked.
I don't see at all how there is any flavor value in some trees being weak at the top.
And yes, when there are big balance differences between techs or tech-paths, then that is a problem too. It isn't as much of a problem with techs because you'll get them anyway in the end and it just shifts prioritization, but it is a problem.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
Aside from Patronage (which I agree is very frontloaded*) I think Albie's view is valid, and one that many if not most feel to be true about SP trees. It gives it more variety - if I'm going tradition, the finisher is strong enough that I'll go through the whole tree for it even if I don't need Oli or want Ceremonial Burial early; otoh, if I'm going Rationalism, the policies are each strong and worthwhile, so it makes sense the finisher is weak because I'm going to get all the policies ASAP anyway. The need for all finishers to be standardized into "weak" or "strong" or whatever is a non-issue in my mind.
*Re: Patronage. The issue with it is the Diplo Vic - if it were a more interesting and challenging goal, the back half of the Patronage tree would hold more importance.
*Re: Patronage. The issue with it is the Diplo Vic - if it were a more interesting and challenging goal, the back half of the Patronage tree would hold more importance.
Ahriman
Tyrant
The Piety, Patronage, and Autocracy finishers are pretty weak.
The Tradition and Honor finishers are very strong.
Its not just a one-tree issue.
The Tradition and Honor finishers are very strong.
Its not just a one-tree issue.
Txurce
Deity
The "finisher" issue, or more broadly the "tree" issue, isn't much of an issue to me. Why should a finisher be weak just because it's a bonus? In all games except Cultural ones, who cares? If it's worth your while, go for it. If it's not, don't.
I see only one thing potentially wrong with cherry-picking: if it results in only a couple of paths being followed, to the exclusion of others. From my experience and what I've read of others, that is presently not the case. But making the strength of finishers more uniform (and by logical extension, the strength of each tier), would not result in more varied policy choice. (It would also be quite difficult to balance - we have a hard enough time agreeing on the balance of overall trees, or basic concepts like happiness.)
If trees are balanced enough that I would consider finishing a weak-starting one over a strong-starting one because the payoff to the former is so much greater, then the game has created strategic tension for me. That's what I want.
I see only one thing potentially wrong with cherry-picking: if it results in only a couple of paths being followed, to the exclusion of others. From my experience and what I've read of others, that is presently not the case. But making the strength of finishers more uniform (and by logical extension, the strength of each tier), would not result in more varied policy choice. (It would also be quite difficult to balance - we have a hard enough time agreeing on the balance of overall trees, or basic concepts like happiness.)
If trees are balanced enough that I would consider finishing a weak-starting one over a strong-starting one because the payoff to the former is so much greater, then the game has created strategic tension for me. That's what I want.
I agree that there is a good amount of strategic tension atm between solid 1 policy picks and weaker, fill out a tree picks. Tradition is a great example. That being said, I do agree with Ahriman in that the Honor opener gives the player basically nothing after turn 50 in a standard speed game. I mean, maybe you pick up a few culture points, but if you don't open honor, taking the opener as a later pick is so hard to justify as it does almost nothing for you. Im really not interested in changing the Honor finisher, as previously stated, for the sole reason that we haven't tested the new conquest mechanics enough to know whether or not the Honor finisher needs rebalancing at all.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The variety Seek describes is the reason why finishers aren't uniform in strength. A few months ago I got a lot of feedback the policy trees felt too similar, which people said made the game less interesting. Since that time, one of my goals has been to give each tree more of a distinct "personality," if that makes any sense.
Txurce
Deity
Unless it really screws up gameplay, this goal is probably a core dictum for putting together a successful game.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Personality/flavor is great, but personality is achieved by having interesting and different effects across trees and across tree branches, rather than by front-loading or back-loading the benefits.
No personality is added by having a weak Honor opener, or a weak Patronage finisher.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
What about double or triple culture from each barbarian kill, but a lower combat bonus against them? Or we could just leave the combat bonus alone - it isn't particularly important either way.
I'd on the other hand, would like to see more stronger effects deeper in the policy branches, and weaker in the front. So that you'd really want that property, but need to really commit to it. Professional Army is a great example imo. The tension is palpable whether to go honor for the early gold bonus from combat to really help your economy get up, or whether to pick Tradition or Liberty for the clear-cut economic modifiers. If you could pick a little bit of each, it'd be much more bland in the end.
Though I might consider tweaking the Honor tree so that Discipline and Professional Army, the strong points here, would both be three picks in (so, say, move Military Caste to be prereq of Discipline). Discipline is somewhat too fast, and Professional Army somewhat too hard to get, imo. But, eh, not really sure whether that makes PA too much a no-brainer then...
Though I might consider tweaking the Honor tree so that Discipline and Professional Army, the strong points here, would both be three picks in (so, say, move Military Caste to be prereq of Discipline). Discipline is somewhat too fast, and Professional Army somewhat too hard to get, imo. But, eh, not really sure whether that makes PA too much a no-brainer then...
Txurce
Deity
I agree the combat bonus is not a big deal. Honor is a very strong tree, so I don't have a problem with its relatively weak start and strong finish. This goes along with the pro-variety argument.
Stronger effects later in a tree is a good rule of thumb, but you would lose the tension you seek if every tree followed this approach.
The qualifiers and back-and-forth here are usually indicators for me that we're better off leaving things as is.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Tlaurila brought up some good points. There's tension between going for PA early or liberty/tradition, and this tension is something I've been doing my best to encourage. There's also choices within the Honor tree itself. Professional army first, or the combat bonuses? It depends on circumstances... if facing an enemy with powerful UUs the combat bonuses can be better to get before PA, but otherwise PA is usually better to prioritize.
