Policies

[Atlas627]

Ah! I misunderstood this statement. By "entire game" I thought you meant all victory types, and didn't know you were still referring only to culture victories. Secondary effects are unavoidable in a game as complex as Civ.

The same effects are still all there in the tree, just rearranged. I do like having the + on science buildings effect at the start of the tree since it's useful for more players than a Great Scientist. Scientists speed up research, which is not useful if our research is already too fast. Gold on science buildings has better synergy since it makes them improve both construction and science. Do you have a suggested arrangement for the effects which would accomplish the various goals while moving the GS earlier in the tree? Alternatively, we could increase the effect of the opener to buff the tree.

I think it does make all victory types easier, because of the synergy I pointed out above. I think the changes made to Enlightenment are fine, as it is perfectly ok for people to not bother with the finisher. Its a finisher for a reason! But if this finisher is too weak, how about add a short golden age to it?

 

[Txurce]

No, do not nerf Piety. There should be a reason to take Piety beyond culture games, just as there is a reason to take Enlightenment for non-science games. Now you are doing the same thing the other way.

I would rather nerf Piety than Enlightenment for the same reason that you don't have a problem with the changes to Enlightenment - because of my style of game play. In other words, if forced to choose, that's how I would go. But frankly I care much less about the P/E combo making the game too easy than I do about Enlightenment being nerfed and messed up when no one had complained about the tree.

It's a finisher. That's the point.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Thalassicus]

Some strategies were reduced in power, while other strategies were improved. This is different from a nerf. It's like squeezing part of a balloon... the helium shifts around. I do not feel any of the trees were nerfed by recent changes. My instinct says combining the two trees is not overpowered, either. Investing in both has the opportunity cost of missing out on policies we would have acquired elsewhere.

There were complaints about the +1 sci buildings policy a few months ago. I don't ever forget feedback, it sometimes just takes a while to get around to it because of the huge number of tasks on the todo list.

I think the Freedom-Patronage swap was a good idea, but does this make the CS gift GP too often for the policy? Its much easier to reach now.

The CS-GP policy previously unlocked in the Medieval era, and now it's delayed to the Renaissance with an Autocracy exclusion. I think this balances out the lower tier placement.

Any thoughts about this below?

I've seen a lot of feedback people feel the + on science buildings effect is very weak, so this would be a good opportunity to buff it. Perhaps +3 on science buildings? I do like having the effect at the start of the tree since it's useful for more players than a Great Scientist. Scientists speed up research, which is not useful if our research is outpacing construction. Gold on science buildings has better synergy since it makes them improve both construction and science.

Do you have a suggested arrangement for effects in the Science tree which would accomplish the goals while moving the GS earlier in the tree?

• Each tree is somewhat useful for most people, and mostly useful for some people.
• Early policies weaker than later policies.
• Powerful finishers balance situational policies.

 

[Txurce]

I think the changes made to Enlightenment are fine, as it is perfectly ok for people to not bother with the finisher. Its a finisher for a reason! But if this finisher is too weak, how about add a short golden age to it?

I think I'm starting to understand why you don't think the change to the Enlightenment finisher matters. Do you ever play for a Science Victory? If so, what's your tech end game?

 

[Txurce]

Some strategies were reduced in power, while other strategies were improved. This is different from a nerf. It's like squeezing part of a balloon... the helium shifts around. I do not feel any of the trees were nerfed by recent changes.

How many people do you think finish the Enlightenment tree by not taking the last two techs for SS parts? My guess is very few, if any. This makes distinguishing between strategies and nerfs effectively pointless.

My instinct says combining the two trees is not overpowered, either. Investing in both has the opportunity cost of missing out on policies we would have acquired elsewhere.

They're OP in that they allow you to cover two bases (science and culture) relatively early in the game. Removing the exclusion is a big change. My intuition tells me there was a good reason why the devs created the exclusion, and why so few (if any) of our many voices ever advocated doing so.

There were complaints about the +1 sci buildings policy a few months ago. I don't ever forget feedback, it sometimes just takes a while to get around to it...

I use Enlightenment a lot of the time, and accepted this weak policy as part of the tree's overall balance. Gold is not what I'm looking for in this tree. I am, however, looking for a free GS that I can actually use. That would mean putting it anywhere except in the finisher slot.

 

[Seek]

In months past there was substantial feedback the trees were becoming too alike.

I think these proposed changes (and the already-implemented removal of the Piety/Enlightenment exclusion) are doing exactly that. I really didn't see a need for this massive overhaul of so many trees - I only saw a need to take Freedom down a bit in power, and the way I thought was best was making it an Industrial unlock.

The tension between Piety and Enlightenment added flavor and decision-making; in a non-culture game one could take piety early to get some easy happiness for expansion, but would lose out on Enlightenment which is more powerful. By removing limitations one often removes the fun and creativity one gets from making meaningful decisions. I agree with Txurce that the removal of the exclusive trees will absolutely make the game easier and faster in almost every situation: Cuture VCs will be easier because Enlightenment will allow one to tech up to culture buildings faster, Science VCs will be easier because happiness will be a non-issue wrt expansion and allow one to ICS, Diplo ... ICS = gold, 'nuff said, Domination: Tech, culture and happiness all aid Domination. I guess the Time victory won't be any faster or easier...

The gold on science building finisher was perfectly fine in terms of balance because the rest of the tree was so useful, but on the opener it's just bleh - if the intent is to make Enlightenment less alluring because of the opener, then it works. I disagree with Ahriman that every tree should be the same: weak opener/early SPs, more powerful late SPs and a weak finisher. That's fine for some trees, but it's boring. We had this discussion a long time ago, and I thought it was understood that the trees need to be looked at as a whole (that's why finishers were added! To make finishing the tree worthwhile.) Apparently Thal has decided to side with Ahriman here, and that's a shame.

(Sorry not very eloquent today, I'm in a rush.)

 

[Thalassicus]

How many people do you think finish the Enlightenment tree by not taking the last two techs for SS parts?

Oh, I see what you mean now! I generally pursue conquest victories, so I have to rely on you explaining how the late game plays out with other victory types. I'll swap the 2 techs and free Great Scientist so people can finish the tree with the free techs.

The science tree is not particularly early in the game... it doesn't come around until the half way point.

@Seek
The reason for the overhaul is I recognized the new goal, #1 on the list. In the long run I'm confident that philosophy will improve our policy choices. Some similarity between the trees is unavoidable because our options with policy effects are very restricted with the current modding tools.

How does this look? Based on feedback from each of you I've made the following adjustments:

1. Moved the GS earlier.
2. The 2-free-techs is last, so it can cap off the tech tree for science victories.
3. Moved the happiness later so it's more difficult to combine with other happiness policies.
4. Doubled the from sci effect.

Compare the -on-sci to Landed Elite and Meritocracy. Those policies give +2 yield on defense buildings, while this is +2 yield on science buildings, generally a more important type of structure.

 

[Txurce]

Oh, I see what you mean now! Remember I only play conquest games, so I have to rely on you explaining how the late game plays out with other victory types. I'll swap the 2 techs and free Great Scientist so people can finish the tree with the free techs.

If you accept the premise that most Enlightenment entire-tree users are going for a Science victory, the GS just before the finisher is an improvement, but still problematic. That's because if that GS doesn't put me over the top on the third-to-last SS tech, then I'm going to squander one of the two free ones finishing it. I would put the GS no later than third level...

But speaking more broadly, I agree with Seek, and fear that the game as a whole may have lost some of what makes it fun - exclusionary choice - as a result of these major changes. We'll see.

 

[Thalassicus]

The changes are mainly just rearranging effects within their trees. The goal is more important and flexible choices - the same philosophy as VEM in general, but rarely perfect on the first try.

Any suggestions for how to arrange the effects of the Piety tree? I've attached the file I use to arrange the diagrams in open document graphics format.

 

[Atlas627]

Sooo many things to reply to. I'm gonna miss some stuff, so forgive me if I screw up my responses.

First, I think the easiest and best solution to the problem of boring cultural victories with no choice is to change the conditions for a cultural victory.

The Piety-Enlightenment exclusion did have an excellent opportunity cost that Seek pointed out. And that is what I was saying about the strong synergy. Because they were exclusive, they had to do similar things to fill the gaps of the other, so if you were allowed to pick both it would be painfully strong together.

Enlightenment did not need to be nerfed. Neither did Piety. Some change had to be made that would weaken the synergy but not the trees as a whole. If this is too difficult to achieve (as evidenced by the fact that everybody is getting worked up over the changes) then perhaps we should just go back to what we had before.

@Txurce: Yes, we are both aware of why we are pushing in opposite directions here. But I certainly don't think that the Enlightenment tree should be only for Science wins, all VC types benefit from tech (though culture the least I would say). And I don't see a problem with changing the optimal strategy you are envisioning. The AI can't even handle basic synergies, let alone these massive slingshots you are planning to use the Enlightenment tree for. When I said its a finisher, thats the point, I meant that a finisher is not the point of the tree. You say that putting a GS at the end of the tree gives primary users a useless finisher, and I disagree. I also think that, since its a finisher, thats not a terrible loss. They already got the whole tree, isn't that enough?

I think the Enlightenment tree looks even better in Thal's current proposed model on this page.



Thal, please take my comments lightly. I am just trying to explore the possibilities. I haven't been playing VEM lately, I've gone back to vanilla. This is mostly because the AI still sucks, and everything feels overpowered in VEM. Which is a design goal, and I honestly agree with that goal. I just feel like its either too easy to roll the AI, or I move up one difficulty level and get rolled. So instead I've been playing hotseat against myself, and am noticing many differences from VEM, some that I like and some that I hate. So I have much less experience with the changes you make, and am basically only talking about theoretical stuff. So if you want, feel free to ignore me.

I'm sure I will come back to VEM at some point, and I still check these forums multiple times a day to see what's going on.

 

[Txurce]

How does this look? Based on feedback from each of you I've made the following adjustments:

1. Moved the GS earlier.
2. The 2-free-techs is last, so it can cap off the tech tree for science victories.
3. Moved the happiness later so it's more difficult to combine with other happiness policies.
4. Doubled the from sci effect.

Compare the -on-sci to Landed Elite and Meritocracy. Those policies give +2 yield on defense buildings, while this is +2 yield on science buildings, generally a more important type of structure.

As an Enlightenment user, I'm happy. I would be fine switching the opener with Sovereignty, if you want to avoid Piety-requiring warmongers from picking off the free GS as an opener (the way you moved the free GM in Commerce).

That's how I rearranged it with the program you uploaded for us. I enjoyed fiddling around with both Enlightenment and Piety, and found that I liked Piety as it was. I won't bother uploading now that you've revised the tree order, but found that CFC wouldn't take the .odg file. Any advice there for the future?

 

[Thalassicus]

I do find things much easier to rearrange in a graphical format. It's a pain trying to figure out what to edit in the files without visualizing it first!

CivFanatics accepts any files contained within a zip archive, so just drop atypical files in a ZIP to upload. Some services like gmail scan zips and block certain types of files (such as batch scripts), so in those situations I use 7z. Few services scan 7zip format because it cannot be read without unpacking the entire archive. Civilization 5 uses 7zip format (civ5mod files are simply renamed 7z files).

 

[Seek]

@Seek
The reason for the overhaul is I recognized the new goal, #1 on the list. In the long run I'm confident that philosophy will improve our policy choices. Some similarity between the trees is unavoidable because our options with policy effects are very restricted with the current modding tools.

I'm not sure what list you're referring to here - the Goals list? The first entry there is game balance; I don't see how removing the exclusivity fulfills this goal. The exclusion removal (which is the main thing I object to) makes Piety and Enlightenment inherently more similar to the other trees because the exclusivity gave the trees flavor and interest, and now they will feel like "just another tree". By removing limitations like this we are giving more options to the player but removing more meaningful decisions - these are not the same thing. Increasing meaningful decisions is, from my understanding, one of the core tenets of the mod and one of the things I love about it.

 

[Txurce]

I'm not sure what list you're referring to here - the Goals list? The first entry there is game balance; I don't see how removing the exclusivity fulfills this goal. The exclusion removal (which is the main thing I object to) makes Piety and Enlightenment inherently more similar to the other trees because the exclusivity gave the trees flavor and interest, and now they will feel like "just another tree". By removing limitations like this we are giving more options to the player but removing more meaningful decisions - these are not the same thing. Increasing meaningful decisions is, from my understanding, one of the core tenets of the mod and one of the things I love about it.

This nails my own view of options.

 

[Thalassicus]

• Each tree is somewhat useful for most people, and mostly useful for some people.
• Early policies weaker than later policies.
• Powerful finishers balance situational policies.

Sorry for the ambiguity; I'd posted the list a few times and didn't want to seem like I was repeating myself too much. The recent changes focus on improving goal #1, by moving "general" effects early in trees, and "specialized" effects late in trees. I've posted some examples in the new Policy Goals thread on the strategy forum.

 

[Txurce]

• Each tree is somewhat useful for most people, and mostly useful for some people.
• Early policies weaker than later policies.
• Powerful finishers balance situational policies.

Sorry for the ambiguity; I'd posted the list a few times and didn't want to seem like I was repeating myself too much. The recent changes focus on improving goal #1, by moving "general" effects early in trees, and "specialized" effects late in trees. I've posted some examples in the new Policy Goals thread on the strategy forum.

I agree with this as the guiding principles for the make-up of the various trees. I suppose you could extrapolate from it that if all trees are generally useful in the early stages, then there's no reason to exclude any... and that the more powerful elements are deep enough in the trees that gaining undue synergy from, say, Piety and Enlightenment will incur a cost elsewhere. I still prefer the character-defining aspect of exclusions, even more than I do the era-based exclusions - but can see how this approach may also work. With so much choice, as Seek put it, the pressure is on for policies to be neither OP nor too similar to each other.

By the way, your philosophy seems to call for Sovereignty to be the Enlightenment opener.

 

[Thalassicus]

The reason I avoided putting the Great Scientist as the second policy is that's the same place as the Great Merchant in Commerce, making the two trees more similar. We could replace the free GS with a new effect... any ideas?

 

[Txurce]

The reason I avoided putting the Great Scientist as the second policy is that's the same place as the Great Merchant in Commerce, making the two trees more similar. We could replace the free GS with a new effect... any ideas?

The GS could go in the third level and still be very useful to a tree-committed player... but not so much for a policy sampler. I'm not sure to whom you want to steer this. Putting it first makes it about as much of a no-brainer as the GM was when it was an opener. And of course you can put it second, in that Enlightenment isn't particularly similar to Commerce, and both having a free GP on the second level isn't worse than the free GG in Honor or, for that matter, the free Settler on Liberty.

As an alternative to a GS I would say a free Academy, but it comes too late in the game for that to be worthwhile. (I quit building them after T125.) Maybe something along the lines of the Tradition's four free buildings?

 

[Thalassicus]

The free buildings can be applied to any building type and # of cities, similar to how the Liberty finisher gives free defensive structures.

 

[Txurce]

The free buildings can be applied to any building type and # of cities, similar to how the Liberty finisher gives free defensive structures.

This would come on the late side, as opposed to the monuments-unless-you-wait policy in Tradition. But it could still easily get you universities, or public schools for those who want to save it. I'm not sure what the appropriate number would be at this stage, in comparison to a GS' one-shot beaker boost.