Policies

[Polycrates]

I like this policy. It fits nicely with an overall military strategy, in that it makes a large military a useful thing to have during peacetime.
During peace, its often a much better happiness booster than any of the other happiness boosters.

Yeah I like it too, for the same reasons. Also really gives a sense of having some control over happiness levels, and it has the nice side effect of making sure I actually bother to keep my sprawling empires properly guarded
I wouldn't change that one.

 

[Ahriman]

So this would be based only on one (the most used or most important) tree?

In the current system, I *think* it comes from the most recently purchased policy.

 

[Maxii]

Thal,

I'm a first time poster and absolutely love your mods. I've been playing your combined for months now, the only way I play CiV. I've used your 2.0 beta combined over the last few days and think I've discovered a couple of bugs.

1. I've tried the Liberty policy that gives 2 workers by the capital in 2 separate games now and haven't seen the workers show up in either case. In one case I believe an extra settler may have showed, but in the other, nothing showed up.

2. I've also started a few games with your 2.0 beta mod while also using a few other mods that you play with. In particular, I've found that when I use the Liberation boost mod with it, the unit action UI doesn't show up for the first turn. Kind of makes it difficult to issue commands...

Anyhow, wonderful work. It's made CiV playable for me.

 

[Thalassicus]

Welcome!

1. Thank you, I'll check it out and see what the problem might be.
2. It's a compatibility issue between Seek's balanced free research mod and Liberation Boost. We're trying to find a way to solve it.

 

[jacyp]

Edit: nwm, I cleared all mods and reinstalled and the problem was solved.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm finding the core tree unlock ability for Tradition tree to be too powerful.
Its pretty much a no-brainer every game, and its far more powerful than the unlock for most other policies, particularly Honor.
I'd tone the bonus down slightly; as it stands, in the early game it leads to very rapid capital growth, and a big science advantage.
Anyone else experiencing this?

 

[rhammer640]

Its always the first one i choose as well and i think its way stronger then the other unlocking ones, not sure whether i would nerf that one or make the other two more useful. I'm a fan of having strong policies that make us choose rather then having them all suck just so they are even, but then again if they are too strong....

Basically im agreeing and saying there is a disparity between them in my opinion as well

 

[Ahriman]

I'm a fan of having strong policies that make us choose rather then having them all suck just so they are even, but then again if they are too strong....

I do tend to think that the earlier policies should be weaker than later policies; I'm not sure we still have that. Commerce feels a bit weak for example.
But I like policies being generally valuable.

Perhaps the solution is a buff to the unlock for Honor and the unlock for commerce?

But I'm also of the feeling that the unlocks should be weaker than the policies, to reward players somewhat for focusing and getting down to the bottom of a particular tree rather than skipping around over multiple trees.

 

[rhammer640]

the unlock for honor defiantly needs a boost. I hardly ever go with that tree now because the unlock seems like so much of a waste due to how poor barbarians are currently (which i actually think should be changed hence my latest post in the combined thread). I agree the unlocks should be weaker for sure, its a fine line to make them more powerful without being too strong.

I still like the growth to the capital policy so maybe it could either be reduced to 30% growth or switched with another policy in the tree so that you cant get it right away. It is a very important policy for smaller empires i would assume.

 

[Thalassicus]

But I'm also of the feeling that the unlocks should be weaker than the policies, to reward players somewhat for focusing and getting down to the bottom of a particular tree rather than skipping around over multiple trees.

I think of it as each tier deeper in a tree should be stronger than the one before (sounds better than unlocks should be weaker ). This is one of my guiding philosophies in policy balance, which is why I put such powerful policies at the bottom of trees like the 2/ Monarchy version I had for a while.

I haven't messed with the Honor tree much because until this point, it was the strongest early tree in the game, so I prioritized my time to work with the others. I think the others are balanced sufficiently well I could work on Honor now too.

Actually, my favorite method is Blizzard's new one with a powerful, fun unlock right away, but gotta invest in the tree to the end before moving on to another one (so it's not possible to just get all the super initial unlocks). It feels very rewarding right away. This is obviously not feasible in CiV though, with the tiny trees and no lockout.

 

[Ahriman]

I think of it as each tier deeper in a tree should be stronger than the one before

Agreed. But trees that require higher tech eras should also be stronger than those with lower requirements.

which is why I put such powerful policies at the bottom of trees like the 2/ Monarchy version I had for a while.

This policy is unfortunately overpowered in the current version.
The policy adds the gold to the tile of the city square, so it comes as base income, that then gets multiplied up by gold yield multipliers.
So, a size 20 city with market and bank is giving 60 gold per turn from this policy.

 

[Thalassicus]

Unless I'm missing something, the current version is 45 gold per turn...

1.5 * 20 * (1 + .25 + .25) = 45

It's a max-tier policy in a small-empire tree, so I don't have a problem with it being powerful.

 

[Gamewizard]

Monarchy still says it gives 2 gold/pop...it should be 1.5 right?

 

[Thalassicus]

Thank you for pointing that out, it's a tooltip error. It actually gives 1.5.

 

[Seek]

Antdog in the combined thread recently brought something up that I've been thinking needs tweaking for a while:

*Nerf Ankor Wat from 75% less culture needed for border expansion to 40%. I think 75% provides too great a benefit especially when combined with Tradition-Landed Elite policy.

I don't agree that the wonder should be nerfed, but maybe the SP should be taken down to 40-50%. It seems pretty pointless to go for the wonder while going down Tradition since the cap is at 85%.

I'm finding the core tree unlock ability for Tradition tree to be too powerful.
Its pretty much a no-brainer every game, and its far more powerful than the unlock for most other policies, particularly Honor.
I'd tone the bonus down slightly; as it stands, in the early game it leads to very rapid capital growth, and a big science advantage.
Anyone else experiencing this?

To some degree. I'd support a move of this policy to a later point in the tree over a nerf though. Switch it with the capital happiness boost SP, perhaps?

Agree that Commerce could use some love as well.

Still finding that the hammer policy in Liberty is not very desirable, and the lack of a happiness booster in that tree feels strange given that every other tree has one.

 

[Ahriman]

Thank you for pointing that out, it's a tooltip error. It actually gives 1.5.

Ah, ok, that's not so bad then.
It is hard to tell because its not clear how much of the gold actually was coming from the capital tile itself.

Switch it with the capital happiness boost SP, perhaps?

I dunno, that would make the unlock bonus really useless when you get it. You don't have unhappiness problems when you get your first policy of the game.

and the lack of a happiness booster in that tree feels strange given that every other tree has one.

Meritocracy?

 

[Seek]

I dunno, that would make the unlock bonus really useless when you get it. You don't have unhappiness problems when you get your first policy of the game.

Agree; the reason I suggested that is because it's the weakest in the tree. Upon further reflection, maybe the cultural expansion modifier (nerfed?) or the gold/pop effects could work well here.

Meritocracy?

Not sure what you mean here. Meritocracy gives 1H/city now - earlier in the thread I suggested that some happiness in addition to the hammer could work if not too powerful. For me, the problem with the 1H/city is that it looses significance really quickly (at around 3-4 population) so it seems like a good place for an additional bonus.

 

[Ahriman]

Yeah, some of the Liberty changes are odd. I don't see what the problem was with Meritocracy as a happiness booster.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I'm not a fan of the 2 free workers policy. There are several policies in that tree that have there biggest effect during the early game, but this one is feels particularly fleeting, and rather dull.

 

[Seek]

I'm not a fan of the 2 free workers policy. There are several policies in that tree that have there biggest effect during the early game, but this one is feels particularly fleeting, and rather dull.

Really? I find it's the best policy in the tree!

@Ahriman: Thal thought the .5 happiness per city weak, which I'm apt to agree with.