Policies

[mitsho]

I did a recent late start conquest game and I do think Autocracy is a bit lackluster atm: Firstly, you do need to fill up honor first in any way ("adjacent units get bonusses" and "cheaper upgrade cost are pretty much a must), but then for example the +unit training of the opener and the cheaper buying policy are opposite to each other (I either build them or buy them - and mostly when conquering I do not need to build too many units in the Industrial era), the courthouse happiness policy needs you to have conquered and kept as puppets, strategic ressources may be needed strongly or not at all*.

Am I totally wrong with that assesment? I just think it's too much focussed on war/units alone. Or respectively on building up an army from scratch when mostly I do have already a sizeable army and just need a few replacements?

Why not split the money you receive from professional army and add the second half to the -% purchase cost. Or exchange it with a totally new effect? Like more power for ships and air units, because modern army are better at that? Keeping with the theme, strategic ressources could get an extra gold yield with one (not too big a buff). Or thinking of the iconography and ideology of Nazi Germany, barracks, farms or whatever could give culture, etc. ...

Of course, all of those might be too much, no, they certainly would be too much.

*may be make the +x% bigger but reduce the rate in total, making the policy a must for wide and conquest, but not needed for tall? (exception: the city state policy)

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree Autocracy is very focused on conquest victories, but that's the same situation as Honor. I'd like to avoid combat bonuses for ships/planes. If you can think of non-combat bonuses, I'm open to ideas! Creating a new building bonus is generally the most feasible approach.

the courthouse happiness policy needs you to have conquered and kept as puppets

I don't understand what you mean by "kept as puppets"? It increases happiness of annexed cities, including cities annexed before the policy is adopted.

 

[mitsho]

Right, that last quote was stupid... ;-) Not sure what I was thinking...

It's not that it is focused on conquest victories. It is focused on getting new units at the moment, as I see it.

And you already edited your post, right? As I see in my mail account another response where you talk of giving all existing units the experience bonus, that would be more intriguing.

I think much can be helped by rearranging. F.e. cheaper buying cost is situational, less upkeep helps everytime, but to get less upkeep, you need to take the first policy, even if you never intend to use it...

Also, I dislike the buying units cheaper policy (I really need to learn names), but how do other people think about that?

Would it be possible to give units an ability like the Romans Legions have (building roads and forts?). Or is it possible to add a new unit a la the Fundamentalist from Civ2. Like a Policy allows you to build "Storm Troopers"/a SS-like paramilitary group. Practically every fascist-like dictatorship has one.

 

[Thalassicus]

I'm a colossal perfectionist so I tend to revise things like posts a lot.

I generally organize policy trees in an order from weakest to strongest. The resource and unit-buying policies are weaker than the second-tier polices. Adding new units/improvements through a policy are outside our capabilities.

 

[Txurce]

Both trees seem much better balanced right now. I'm looking forward to testing them en masse before mentioning any further options.

 

[Seek]

Just off the top of my head a policy that removes the culture penalty from puppets or gives a percentage bonus to culture on Courthouses would be tremendous. It could help overcome the inherent opposition that exists in the tree - if I want to start annexing cities en masse there's a good chance I won't be able to see the end of the tree due to rising culture costs. RL Rationale: The totalitarian regime forces conquered populations to adhere to it's cultural dogma.

Edit: @Txurce - Sorry man, I proposed another idea. I agree with your sentiment though, and it's funny we both used the phrase "en masse" in concurrent posts. Are we developing a psychic connection?

 

[mitsho]

Txurce and Seek, I agree with you both even if you offer opposite advice

A Policy that lowers the cost of annexed cities gives more culture without giving more culture. Additionally, it has great synergy. I do like that a lot.

And regarding the strategic ressources policy, I don't think it's very weak. It's very hit or miss though. Either you have enough ressources already or you desperately need more... it's also map dependent. A minor buff for further updates could be to give each strategic ressource one or two gold. Very minor, and gold is useful all the time...

 

[Thalassicus]

In a prior version of the mod Spoils of War awarded culture from captured cities. The code is still there, so it would be easy for the Autocracy tree. I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. I'm not sure it'd be feasible to alter the culture cost of annexed cities, but adding a culture modifier to courthouses is feasible. I'm just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[Ahriman]

As another alternative, Police state could boost the Governor's Palace building that pre-courthouse cities get, rather than the Courthouse, or both.

 

[mitsho]

Well, I think we could wait for the next beta to test the changes already implemented. Otherwise I would prefer the culture bonus to Governor's Mansions/Courthouses over a sudden amount on city capture because the first one does also extend to all the already conquered cities and it can be explained easily with Nationalization programms of the Fascist regimes.

 

[Atlas627]

What are the finishers?

I think Freedom is weak now. The opener is really weak. The concept is good, but the percentage is practically nothing. When I was first playing CiV (back when this policy was in Piety), I would purposefully spread out my wonders just for this policy. And build few cities so it was easy to spread out my wonders amongst them. With the previously low GPP generation from specialists, a proportionally higher amount of GPP had to come from wonders, and so I now had to stack them to get GP. I think it should be situational, so this policy should be stronger.

The CS ally one seems out of place. Potentially strong, but out of place. Do you want to put the GP from city states here and place the production from CS in Patronage? (with further balancing of course)

The City Strength and Specialist building production bonus one seems both weak and awkward.

In Autocracy, do you also want to make courthouses half cost to buy? Or no?

EDIT: I am talking about Thal's proposed beta on the last page.

 

[Txurce]

Just off the top of my head a policy that removes the culture penalty from puppets or gives a percentage bonus to culture on Courthouses would be tremendous.

As another alternative, Police state could boost the Governor's Palace building that pre-courthouse cities get, rather than the Courthouse, or both.

These seem worth trying, either this round or on the next, if still needed.

I think Freedom is weak now.

I think it's just about impossible for a tree generally regarded as a near no-brainer to become "weak" with one set of changes derived by Thal. Let's try it and see.

 

[Thalassicus]

@GamerKG
As Txurce mentioned there's been substantial feedback the Freedom tree was overpowered, so I reduced its strength in several ways. If it turns out it's too weak now, we can easily adjust a few numbers here and there to improve it again. I want to wait until the next beta cycle to make any further major adjustments.

Free Trade
Freedom tree
Citystate friends and allies increase Production in your cities.

My thoughts behind this are:

• It's logically realistic for Free Trade in the Freedom tree to increase economic productivity with our trading partners.
• Freedom is a tree for small empires, which can benefit more from the distributed-production bonus than Order empires.
• Freedom players are more likely to ally with citystates than Order players, since Freedom directly opposes Autocracy, and Autocracy/Order have synergy.
• Freedom enhances self-creation of Great People, while Patronage gives us the capability to do so through alternative sources. I enjoy tension such as this between divergent policy paths. It means there's no "best" choice to always go for... it gives us strategic options.

 

[Ahriman]

It makes sense realistically for Free Trade in the Freedom tree to increase economic productivity with our trading partner

I'm not sure that favoring Freedom would necessarily make trade more profitable. Real world modern Order/Autocratic China seems to make trade pretty profitable, and arguably you can extract more benefits from client states through an imperialist/colonialist strategy than you can through a liberal/human rights approach.

Freedom is a tree for small empires, which can benefit more from the distributed-production bonus than large empires.

+X production per city is more valuable in a wide empire with many cities, not a tall empire.

Freedom players are more likely to ally with citystates than Order players, since Freedom directly opposes Autocracy, and Autocracy/Order have synergy.

I don't understand this. It sounds like you're arguing that Autocracy players will necessarily prefer to conquer city states than ally with them, but I don't see that this is true; if you're going for a conquest victory, then it is more advantageous to attack and conquer other players, rather than city states.

Freedom enhances our capability to produce Great People ourselves, while the policy in Patronage gives us the capability to do so through alternative sources. I like this tension between the two paths.

True, but I don't really understand the relevance. I don't think anyone has complained about the +50% GPP Freedom policy.

* * *
I'll try to come up with an alternative proposal for policies tonight, so as to be more constructive.

 

[Thalassicus]

The policy is now done the same way as the food and culture bonuses, with +3 per ally distributed among all cities. It's no longer +X per city.

It is more effective to conquer citystates in a conquest game than ally with them, for the following reasons.

Citystates are more weakly defended than major civs. Capturing CSs provides higher rewards than a major civ city, and with a lower diplomatic penalty. It's also important to get started with conquest as early as possible. As outlined on the Strategy forum a few months ago, in most circumstances the best approach is to start the game by capturing nearby citystates. Diverting resources to ally with them in the early game is a significant delay on the path to victory.

In the late game I do spend gold allying with citystates too distant or inconvenient to conquer, but that's not enough to make an investment in Patronage worthwhile. Better trees to supplement Honor are Liberty, Piety, Commerce, Order, and Autocracy.

 

[Ahriman]

with +3 per ally distributed among all cities. It's no longer +X per city.

Ah! Sorry, my mistake.

But I still don't like that to finish freedom you're forced to either be using a city-state oriented strategy or to have a dud policy.

Citystates are more weakly defended than major civs

True, but....

Capturing CSs provides higher rewards than a major civ city

Not quite true. Much of the reward from conquering a major civ city is that you are taking it away from your enemy. Conquest is valuable because it weakens your enemies as much as it is valuable for its own sake.
If you are pursuing a conquest strategy, then in general you should prioritize attacking other civs, so that you can either win a domination victory or so that you can prevent them from getting a culture or science victory.

As outlined on the Strategy forum a few months ago, in most circumstances the best approach is to start the game by capturing nearby citystates.

I disagree. I find this is almost never valuable. It is much more profitable to build new cities than to conquer city states, particularly given how long it will take you to build a courthouse in the early game. And my chances of winning are increased more by taking cities from other civs than it is by taking city states.

In the late game I do spend gold allying with citystates too distant or inconvenient to conquer, but that's not enough to make an investment in Patronage worthwhile

Relevance?

You have a really weird argument here. You say that it is ok for Freedom to rely on city states, because Order players might also get Autocracy, and Autocracy players will have Honor, and Patronage doesn't work well with Honor, and so a Freedom player might be more likely to use city states than would an Order player.
That is a pretty bizarre reason for putting a city-state related policy in Freedom.

As I've said elsewhere, I think city state policies should be limited to Patronage. I don't see any need for a +hammers per city state policy in some other tree.

 

[Thalassicus]

Thanks for pointing out I forgot to list the tree finishers.

But I still don't like that to finish freedom you're forced to either be using a city-state oriented strategy or to have a dud policy.

This is the same as when it was in Order. Merchant Navy is also similar for landlocked empires, and Free Religion for non-cultural empires. These trees have powerful finishers to counteract the "dud policies." I'm in the process of rearranging Freedom to better reflect this.

 

[Ahriman]

This is the same as when it was in Order.

Yes, and I disliked it in Order too. It didn't hurt quite as much in Order though, since Order is late game and you often won't finish it, so you could just leave that policy until last.

Merchant Navy is also similar for landlocked empires

Few empires are landlocked except on rare mapscripts.

 

[Ahriman]

Anyway, here are some thoughts.

I think Liberty looks fine for now, as does Tradition.

I don't really like how Honor is all about Colosseums, that doesn't really make sense to me, but it isn't broken.

On Piety: I would switch the position of the Mandate of Heaven policy (happiness from buildings) and the Reformation policy. This is a bit unfortunate in a flavor sense, but I think it is important that it not be too easy to cherry-pick a +3 happy per city policy. I would also remove the artist and landmark bonus from free religion, and move it back to 2 free policies.

Commerce is reasonable at the moment. I think guilds is boring; how about replacing it with a domestic trade income bonus? That way factions that sensibly use harbors for trade or Incas or Iroquois that don't pay for lots of roads don't get screwed?

Patronage I need to test more, but I think it is ok. I think the +happy from city states was a good idea, much simpler and easier to use. There is a typo in the tooltip text on cultural diplomacy (an errant M at the start).

Rationalism seems fine for now.

Freedom:
Even +25% culture from cities with wonders is low value, I would increase further.
I would get rid of Free Trade, and change it to Free Speech with +1 culture per artist, +2 culture per landmark, and some other small bonus. I would increase the constitution bonuses to 15%; 10% just feels too low.
Civil society says -1 food in the tool tip, but your notes changes it to -0.5 food consumed by specialists. I think -1 food is much too strong, not sure if this is a tooltip error or a bug?
I would change the finisher. Golden Age length is a weird boost here. It has very weak strategic synergy. Just because I have specialists doesn't mean I'll have golden ages. I prefer the old finisher, that boosted the yields from great person improvements.
Alternatively, put the engineer boost effect back into Freedom, and split the benefits of whatever it replaces over the unlock and finisher. You could remove the manufactory bonus from the policy, and move that to communism.

Autocracy, I think militarism is too weak, I'd boost it to ~75%.

Order, the engineer boost makes little sense, specialists have little synergy in a wide empire.

I would rename United Front to Nationalism. Nationalism makes sense for a domestic military bonus, United Front really doesn't (the flavor idea of United Front was the comintern - international solidarity/brotherhood).
Communism was good at +2 production per village, but it is weak at +1 production per village, given how late-game.
For a replacement Order policy, maybe +1 production from industrial buildings; smithy, blast furnace, workshop, factory? It could be Solidarity, or Unionism?
Or maybe +1 production per farm? You could call that Planned Economy, and then rename the -upkeep to Industrialism or Corporatism.

 

[Atlas627]

I agree with Thal that spreading out the policies is not such a terrible thing. You do not have to go through the whole tree, especially if it is laid out in a way that is convenient for cherry picking only the policies you want. You should only bother filling out the whole tree for 3 reasons:
1.) Culture VC
2.) I actually want the whole tree!
3.) You think the finisher is worth whatever waste comes from the policies you wouldn't have taken normally

And this is fine. It creates different strategies that can all be successful in the right situation, and the best part is you can alter your play to make those situations occur. I think placing all of the specialist bonuses in Freedom, all of the CS bonuses in Patronage, all of the Science bonuses in Rationalism, and all of the Culture bonuses in Piety, would be stupid. But Piety should still be mostly about culture (and perhaps happiness?), Rationalism should be mostly about science, etc.

For example, you can totally have policies in Patronage that help with VCs other than Diplomacy right? Not only because CSs are good for any VC (every resource can be converted into every resource), but because you can create policies that help other paths but involve city states.

On the other hand, if you had a tree that was entirely about science (Rationalism), you could have a policy that gives you science for every CS ally you have. Now should that policy belong in Patronage or Rationalism? It could go in either!

But when you have a policy like production from CS allies, where does it go? Well its production per city, which suggests it should go in a wide empire with CS allies. That means it could go in Order or Patronage (I don't mention Liberty because that is taken too early to have CS allies), not Freedom. It just doesn't belong in Freedom. Now if the bonus were +2% production per CS ally or something like that, then it belongs in Freedom or Patronage, and then there would be no problem in my opinion.

If you don't want to pursue a CS strategy, then don't take the policy. And if you really want the pick that comes afterward, then either deal with the fact that you can't get that policy and go spend 2 somewhere else, or take the policy for CS and make the best of it. You don't want to make every choice easy to make. If everything is Freedom was a no-brainer (even within a specialist strategy!) then it is TOO coherent.

EDIT: Of COURSE I post this just as Thal tells me not to

Can I get a moderator to move this over to policies? Or maybe I should just copy paste...