Policies

[Ahriman]

I find MilCSs more arguably useful in a peaceful game; in a game where I want a big army, I'm going to have to build barracks/armory/etc in at least 1-2 cities if I want a proper army, whereas in a culture game sometimes I won't bother building any of those at all, and will rely entirely on MilCS's.

 

[Zaldron]

My guess about that the source of the feeling would be the contradiction there: Militaristic CSs don't provide anything of much use when your game is peaceful. Sure you need some garrison, so you don't look like too easy a bit for the AI, but units are more useful when warring.

I love Militaristic CSes when I'm playing peaceful tall....I never have to build a unit and can keep cranking out buildings and wonders!

 

[mitsho]

My argument - and I feel like I am supposed to provide a reasoning since it was me that brought it up - is pretty similar. Militaristic City States provide Units and even a few additional ones can sway a AI from not attacking, I think. Besides from freeing myself to actually build those units, I do get better units than I could ever build, because I am not going to build a Barracks and Heroic Epic and the other experience buildings, also rarely a blast furnace.

@Thal It's not the amount of time it takes or whatever that makes the Militaristic city states a Surprise Egg, it's that you don't know which units you will get when. And there's no way to program a logical unit type giving order as it is nearly impossible to compute what kind of units the player actually would need right now. Or would you just make it give one unit type? That's then unfun, even if it is predictable. So I guess there's really no way in improving that randomness and it isn't really broken or anything. It's just like I was a bit annyoed in receiving two chariot archers after each other in a wet forested regions with hills and rivers. Question: Do gifted units take up Ressources?

 

[EsoEs]

Question: Do gifted units take up Ressources?

Yes they do, and you can sometimes use this to your advantage. In the example you gave, I would have been selling all my horses as soon as I got them, unless of course I had a horse UU. So, by limiting your strategic resource availability, you can limit the options a militaristic CS has when gifting you units.

 

[Zaldron]

I could normalize the random unit. Normalization basically means once an event happens, it's less likely to happen again for N amount of time. It's used for many games... like some WoW combat effects have "procs per minute" instead of "per hit."

Most WoW combat effect procs are PPM (procs per minute) but that *does not* mean that they happen a certain number of times per minute (as you seem to imply). Instead, it's used with the weapon speed to determine a chance *per hit* of the proc happening. For example something with 2 PPM would be expected to occur every 30s. If you have a weapon with a swing every 3s then that means you have 100% / (30s / 3s) = 10% chance per swing.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ah, it must have changed in recent years. You do get the point though - the general concept is to reduce the likelihood of an event for a short time after it's occurred.

 

[Thalassicus]

I've received substantial feedback lately that Patronage is front-heavy, with the last 3 policies and finisher somewhat less important than the first 3 policies. Version 108.6 therefore buffed the bottom-right policy (Educated Elite), and reduced the top-left policy to 20% (was 25%). If we're allied with 75% of the citystates on a standard map:

• Vanilla - 5 great people in 150 turns.
• Vanilla Enhanced - 10 GP in 150 turns.

What do you think a good rate would be?

 

[Txurce]

Those changes seem moderately good in terms of balance.


Keeping in mind the caveat that science in vanilla is different due to RA's, and there should therefore be fewer GS at least in vanilla, I would split the difference. An extra GM every 50 turns, for example, is pretty attractive.

 

[mitsho]

I think Patronage has been buffed already versus Vanilla a lot (units/GP at capital; various buffs to City states). It's just that mostly the bonus of finishing Patronage versus opening another Tree/getting another Policy is too small. Meaning by the time I am about to finish Patronage, I'd rather have a Rationalism or Freedom policy.

What about rearranging the order in the Tree? The science policy in Patronage seems to be strong and unique as it is the only Science outside of Rationalism so what about making that the Finisher or a tier 3 policy?

 

[Txurce]

The science policy in Patronage seems to be strong and unique as it is the only Science outside of Rationalism so what about making that the Finisher or a tier 3 policy?

Patronage isn't nearly as appealing to me as it once was. Making this change would lead me to skip it altogether unless I was playing with Siam or Greece.

 

[mitsho]

Well, but that's the problem with a one-system-tree like Patronage as opposed to a one-gameplay-style tree like Tradition/Liberty. Either you need the city states for your victory and then you best fill it up completely or you don't. If you just have one or two alliances at all, you mostly are better off selecting other trees.

Rearranging was actually the main proposal as I'm not the most balance-savyy guy around here Then what about making Patronage "flatter" as the Commerce tree f.e. meaning there are only tier two policies so you can easier chose just two policies? Would be a buff as well if you can get the Great Persons without having to invest 3 policies (right?).

 

[Thalassicus]

I do like variety between the trees: some broad, some deep. Patronage was originally the best tree in the game when we started out one year ago, so I don't think it needs any major changes. Mostly I'm just making the tree more fun, but not much more powerful:

• Aesthetics isn't useless for citystates above 20.
• Educated Elite has a progress bar and sends great people to the capital.
• Bottom-left policy will (coming next) provide happiness based on the # of citystates we're friends/allied with, like how the United Front policy in Order now works.

 

[myclan]

I don't like the idea that we can adopt Order/Autocracy before entering Industrial Era.

Ancient: Tradition VS Liberty VS Honor
Classical: Piety
Medieval: Patronage VS Commerce
Renaissance: Rationalism
Industrial: Freedom VS Order VS Autocracy

As later policies is often stronger than former policies (or it will make no sense why it has to be unlocked in later eras), and deeper policies is often stronger than starting policies. It will make a lot of fun to choose from 2 or 3 policies tree during an era. And it also encourage players to boost their technology so stronger policies tree can be unlocked.

What I think is more important is to make piety a little strong. It is not so useful if we don't go for a cultural victory, and on the other hand, rationalism is a bit too strong. If we have to consider more before choosing from these 2, the game will be more of fun.

 

[Txurce]

When to make policy trees available is tricky. On the one hand, the very names of the SP's in Order (and to some degree Freedom and Autocracy) belong in the Industrial era. On the other hand, it should be possible to complete any single targeted tree, even if not going for a cultural victory. Thal, do you have a pov on this?

 

[Thalassicus]

In vanilla Order and Autocracy may as well not exist, since they have so little influence on the game. This is a big problem for me. I know of two solutions... A) disable the policy-saving ban B) unlock the last two trees an era earlier. I like A more, but it doesn't seem to be very popular. If anyone can think of a third possible solution I'm open to suggestions.

 

[myclan]

In vanilla Order and Autocracy may as well not exist, since they have so little influence on the game. This is a big problem for me. I know of two solutions... A) disable the policy-saving ban B) unlock the last two trees an era earlier. I like A more, but it doesn't seem to be very popular. If anyone can think of a third possible solution I'm open to suggestions.

Actually I think Order has played a very important role during a game. It's the most valuable policy tree after entering industrial eras, and it's useful whether you are at war or not. Order make you need to enter Industrial Eras faster. Even without Sydney Opera, it's not difficult to adopt 4~5 policies of the Order tree.

 

[Seek]

In vanilla Order and Autocracy may as well not exist, since they have so little influence on the game. This is a big problem for me. I know of two solutions... A) disable the policy-saving ban B) unlock the last two trees an era earlier. I like A more, but it doesn't seem to be very popular. If anyone can think of a third possible solution I'm open to suggestions.

Well, there is the third option which I suggested originally (and I think inspired the change?): Let Freedom unlock at Industrial. Rationale: Freedom is so powerful that I think it will still see a lot of use, and the decision whether to go for it or Autocracy will be more difficult to make.

Also, perhaps some of the more powerful policies in Order should be nerfed given it's new position? (I'm specifically thinking the trade route bonus, the production on Villages and -maybe- the happiness on production buildings could all be halved.)

 

[Thalassicus]

The main problem is ever since Firaxis instituted the policy-saving ban in March, I've received feedback people run out of policies, and are pressured into ones they don't want. The goal is to increase our options for strategies and decision-making. Balance is not the focus right now, since numbers can be adjusted later, once a broader solution is in place.

 

[Jaybe]

The main problem is ever since Firaxis instituted the policy-saving ban in March, I've received feedback people run out of policies, and are pressured into ones they don't want.

Like going the piety route and being forced into rationalism??
I LIKE it! Social turmoil has always been a part of the human condition periodically, something Civ5 has been sorely lacking in -- no dark ages, catastrophes, etc.

Give me MORE!!

 

[Txurce]

Well, there is the third option which I suggested originally (and I think inspired the change?): Let Freedom unlock at Industrial. Rationale: Freedom is so powerful that I think it will still see a lot of use, and the decision whether to go for it or Autocracy will be more difficult to make.

Also, perhaps some of the more powerful policies in Order should be nerfed given it's new position? (I'm specifically thinking the trade route bonus, the production on Villages and -maybe- the happiness on production buildings could all be halved.)

The main problem is ever since Firaxis instituted the policy-saving ban in March, I've received feedback people run out of policies, and are pressured into ones they don't want. The goal is to increase our options for strategies and decision-making. Balance is not the focus right now, since numbers can be adjusted later, once a broader solution is in place.

It's worth remembering that this is a VEM problem largely created by the desire to make SP's an even bigger part of the game. As a result, their acquisition rate is now often out of whack with the rest of the game. The simple answer would be to slow down culture.

That said....

I equated Freedom with Order and Autocracy, and think moving it back makes conceptual sense. The main arguments against this are running out of choices early and (more importantly) often not being able to acquire two of these trees in non-Culture games. Solutions that theoretically split the difference make these policies available in the Renaissance, but:

• backload all three (nerfing the early policies if need be) so that the trees' main benefits often aren't realized until the industrial era or later
  
• restore and/or add exclusions among the three
  
• strengthen Rationalism to better compete, or backload it and move it to the Medieval era

I would take one of these two paths: all three in Industrial, or in adjusted in Renaissance. Either ought to increase choice.