Policies

[Txurce]

No it doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
Central authority wasn't really justified by organized religion. Legalism is fairly secular as a concept (given the time), it is pretty much the opposite of Divine Right of Kings.

Excuse me for not providing my source: Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion

I'll let someone else put our dueling references on a scale.

 

[Seek]

My 2 cents: Policy names are an abstraction (game) of an abstraction (idea) of reality and unless they become so far removed (an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction, etc) where it becomes jarring in it's incredulity, I don't think it really matters what the names are. After my first couple games I stopped paying any attention to the SP names altogether and it wouldn't surprise me if that was true for many of us. (Oddly this never happened for me with Governments in civ4..)

I'm sure we can all agree that gameplay is much more important- and it's more interesting to discuss to boot!

 

[Txurce]

My 2 cents: Policy names are an abstraction (game) of an abstraction (idea) of reality and unless they become so far removed (an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction, etc) where it becomes jarring in it's incredulity, I don't think it really matters what the names are. After my first couple games I stopped paying any attention to the SP names altogether and it wouldn't surprise me if that was true for many of us. (Oddly this never happened for me with Governments in civ4..)

I'm sure we can all agree that gameplay is much more important- and it's more interesting to discuss to boot!

...Agreed!

 

[Thalassicus]

I think policy names are forgettable because we click a policy once, then basically ignore it for the rest of the game. This is different from Civ-2 style governments or Alpha Centauri style social engineering.

 

[Ahriman]

Excuse me for not providing my source: Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion

I'll let someone else put our dueling references on a scale.

Uhh... you know your reference doesn't mention Legalism, right?
How can you claim that your link provides justification for the effects of Legalism when it doesn't even mention Legalism?
I proclaim my reference the winner by TKO!

I repeat: the central authority of legalism wasn't really justified by organized religion. Legalism is fairly secular as far as governing philosophies go (for the pre-Enlightenment era). So it does make sense for Legalism to give boosts in the capital (though certainly it could also make sense for Monarchy or Oligarchy to gives boosts in the capital), but it wouldn't make sense for Legalism to give free religious buildings.

If there is a strong gameplay need for something, then I agree that should dominate. If there are multiple gameplay benefits that all work fine, then we should go with the one that is most flavorful. Gameplay is important, but in a game about history it isn't the only thing.

 

[flounder]

I'm still getting policies far too often. About 1 every 9 turns with only monuments. Prince difficulty.

Can anyone tell me what xml file(s) I need to edit to change the the culture/policy rate?

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I'm still getting policies far too often. About 1 every 9 turns with only monuments. Prince difficulty.

Can anyone tell me what xml file(s) I need to edit to change the the culture/policy rate?

I just noticed there was an official hotfix this morning, and this is probably why:
- Policies: Fix an issue that was causing policy finishers to count against the cost of the next policy (should be free).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

He Thal, just got a quick question-for Republic you have (IIRC) +1 per city & +2 towards defensive buildings, & for Landed Elite you have +2 from defensive buildings. Is this accurate, or is it a typo? Also, did you consider my idea of having Monarchy requiring Legalism & Aristocracy as prerequisites?

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

for Republic you have (IIRC) +1 per city & +2 towards defensive buildings, & for Landed Elite you have +2 from defensive buildings

I don't think I understand this; Republic and Landed elite each give +1 yield and +2 more from defensive buildings, for production and food, defensively. Don't they?

Also, did you consider my idea of having Monarchy requiring Legalism & Aristocracy as prerequisites?

I don't see a reason for this. The wonder policy now only gives a 10% wonder production boost (and the happiness), so there is no huge advantage to having it early; the great engineer effect is gone. The policy is one that is useful over the course of the game (from the happiness) but it doesn't really give any particular short-term advantage that means it needs to be delayed.
The culture-building giving policy very deliberately isn't a requirement for anything, because doing so makes it too weak. Getting 4 free monuments is not very strong; the policy is a lot more valuable if you can hold back on it and use it to get free temples; it is hard to do that if it is a pre-req for something else.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think I understand this; Republic and Landed elite each give +1 yield and +2 more from defensive buildings, for production and food, defensively. Don't they?

Either way, I don't entirely understand the rationale for this-can someone explain it for me?

I don't see a reason for this. The wonder policy now only gives a 10% wonder production boost (and the happiness), so there is no huge advantage to having it early; the great engineer effect is gone. The policy is one that is useful over the course of the game (from the happiness) but it doesn't really give any particular short-term advantage that means it needs to be delayed.
The culture-building giving policy very deliberately isn't a requirement for anything, because doing so makes it too weak. Getting 4 free monuments is not very strong; the policy is a lot more valuable if you can hold back on it and use it to get free temples; it is hard to do that if it is a pre-req for something else.

I only meant it from a Realism perspective-having Monarchy require Aristocracy & Legalism just kind of makes sense to me-in the same way that certain techs have certain pre-requisites!

BTW, +5 happiness per National & World Wonder feels a *little* overpowered. I'd either go +5 for World Wonders only, or +1/+2 Happiness per wonder-National & World.

Aussie.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's +3 happiness per wonder, not +5.

The defense building bonuses do a few things:

• Improve these buildings in a unique way for each of the three playstyles (tall, wide, conquest).
• Become better over time as more buildings are unlocked.
• Reduce the ICS-friendly base city bonus, instead giving a bonus for developed cities.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It's +3 happiness per wonder, not +5.

The defense building bonuses do a few things:

• Improve these buildings in a unique way for each of the three playstyles (tall, wide, conquest).
• Become better over time as more buildings are unlocked.
• Reduce the ICS-friendly base city bonus, instead giving a bonus for developed cities.

That's cool-as long as I understand the reasoning behind it ;-). As to the +3 happiness, I still think that might be a tad over-powered, but will wait until I've done a full play-through before reaching a conclusion.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

Either way, I don't entirely understand the rationale for this-can someone explain it for me?

Oh, I'm opposed to the rationale for it (I don't really like forcing walls through social policies, or having policies that are very weak without defensive structures, and many of the benefits seem low flavor - what does a Republic have to do with walls?. And I don't think it makes sense to push walls in Wide and Conquest strategies; if you have a lot of territory, why should you be encouraged to build walls in non-border cities? If you have a big army, why should you be encouraged to build walls?)
I'm just saying that they are working as intended.

I only meant it from a Realism perspective-having Monarchy require Aristocracy & Legalism just kind of makes sense to me-in the same way that certain techs have certain pre-requisites!

I don't think that Monarchy logically would require Legalism. Legalism in part is about equality before the law, something most monarchies most definitely did not have.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think that Monarchy logically would require Legalism. Legalism in part is about equality before the law, something most monarchies most definitely did not have.

Ah, by legalism I was referring simply to the idea of a Centralized Legal System. So an Aristocracy + Centralized Legal System = Monarchy. Equality before the Law is something I'd expect in the Liberty or Freedom Branches ;-)!

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

Ah, by legalism I was referring simply to the idea of a Centralized Legal System.

I think the Legalism policy is mostly trying to represent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
which certainly makes sense in Tradition; it isn't quite equal protection for all, it is equal treatment of the ruled (by the ruler).

It is interestingly different from monarchy though; in monarchy the law is basically whatever the ruler says it is, whereas in legalism there is a requirement for a strict codified rule of law.

 

[Txurce]

The changes to Tradition may be too capital-centric, but I like the increased focus on tall empires. Reducing the effect of Representation is a definite improvement, yet still leaves the policy in very strong position.

I don't think the added happiness to Socialism will affect the game much, but did want to comment that my own sense of happiness having become easier with the new patch has been echoed by some of the better players on other forums.

The Chichen Itza buff will definitely add interest to that Wonder.

 

[Ahriman]

The changes generally look sensible.

A agree about maybe being capital-centric, but it is worth a try. I think the flat bonuses are nice in that they are proportionally larger in the early game, so they make the tree more early-game oriented.

I suspect with Socialism that I would make it also apply to the Workshop, and then drop the science bonus.

 

[Thalassicus]

Instead of +4 on the capital with Landed Elite, I could make it an empirewide surplus food bonus. I think either one would be useful in the early game. I picked the capital bonus because it's only useful to tall empires - surplus food could be helpful to wide ones too.

I'm hesitant to give bonuses to the flatland building, since its main purpose is just to balance the 25% +1 bonus of hills.

I don't really like [...] policies that are very weak without [X]

Something to point out is most policies are this way:

• Oligarchy - no value without garrisons
• Landed Elite - defense buildings
• Monarchy - wonders
• Meritocracy - defense buildings
• The Honor tree - war
• Patent Law - villages
• Merchant Navy - coastal cities
• etc...

If we fill in X with "defensive buildings" the question that comes to mind is... how are those different than warfare, wonders, and so on? Those can also be rare or absent from a game.

 

[Ahriman]

Instead of +4 on the capital with Landed Elite, I could make it an empirewide surplus food bonus.

Maybe. I think it is worth testing the capital bonus first though.

I'm hesitant to give bonuses to the flatland building, since its main purpose is just to balance the 25% +1 bonus of hills.

Understood, but it is a weird way to balance it that feels funny both in terms of realism (why no workshop or windmill on a hill?] and because it comes in so late (it is late midgame).
Another alternative; maybe you can't build an aqueduct in a city on a hill? [How do you get the water to flow uphill?]

Something to point out is most policies are this way:

Not really. There are the defense buildings ones, which in general I don't like.
War is something inevitable, you are going to have to build military units every game. You are going to have trading posts every game. You are already have good incentives for wonders; the bonus is just a cherry on top, and the policy helps you to build them.

The defense buildings ones are different, because they're forcing you into building something that generally isn't worth building on its own, particularly in non-border cities.

Those can also be rare or absent from a game.

Not really, no.

Merchant navy is somewhat similar, but in a coastal city the coastal buildings were really worth building anyway. [Or at least they were, until you nerfed the harbors. What happened to the design principle of making coasts valuable? Now coasts are only 3 food 1 gold even with all structures built, and coastal cities are weak again. The Harbor and seaport nerfs really hurt!]

 

[Txurce]

Instead of +4 on the capital with Landed Elite, I could make it an empirewide surplus food bonus. I think either one would be useful in the early game. I picked the capital bonus because it's only useful to tall empires - surplus food could be helpful to wide ones too.

This makes sense to me.