Policies

[Sneaks]

My valuation of trees based on VC:

Science:
Rationalism, Freedom, Order, Tradition, Liberty, Patronage, Commerce, Honor, Autocracy, Piety

Culture:
Piety, Freedom, Tradition, Order, Patronage, Liberty, Honor, Commerce, Autocracy, Rationalism

Conquest:
Honor, Piety, Autocracy, Liberty, Order, Commerce, Tradition, Patronage, Rationalism, Freedom

Diplo:
Patronage, Commerce, Freedom, Rationalism, Liberty, Order, Tradition, Honor, Piety, Autocracy

 

[mitsho]

What I dislike rather is that when you go tall, the chance is there that you run out of SP to take because you can't take piety because you want to us rationalism later on. So the choices are rather small and I often end up filling up Tradition either way. Btw. why don't Tradition and Liberty cancel each other out? To allow for reasonable variation of decisions in the early game, right? (because Tall and Wide should cancel each other out as playstyles) But then what gameplay reason is there for Piety and Rationalism to cancel each other out? Would they be too strong together?

Because the Trees and Social Policies are not much more than effects with different names with not much connection to one another, I'd argue for a gameplay approach. Trees that cancel each other out are just unfun. And besides, the SP-System does a poor job to simulate governments and societies anyways in comparison to the Civic-System. Most Players don't know the names of the Policies, but their effects, anyways.

Piety as a whole is not weak, it's just very set on culture... (like Rationalism=Science and Commerce=Money)

 

[Txurce]

My valuation of trees based on VC:

Science:
Rationalism, Freedom, Order, Tradition, Liberty, Patronage, Commerce, Honor, Autocracy, Piety

Culture:
Piety, Freedom, Tradition, Order, Patronage, Liberty, Honor, Commerce, Autocracy, Rationalism

Conquest:
Honor, Piety, Autocracy, Liberty, Order, Commerce, Tradition, Patronage, Rationalism, Freedom

Diplo:
Patronage, Commerce, Freedom, Rationalism, Liberty, Order, Tradition, Honor, Piety, Autocracy

What I found most interesting about this is that Liberty doesn't rate highly for anything, and Patronage almost disappears except for Diplomacy. (I'm not sure how the tree helps to achieve a Diplo victory, by the way.) It also reminded me that Patronage, which used to be one of my favorites, but has been nerfed to the point where at the most I take the left hand side.

 

[Sneaks]

Piety + Rationalism would be WAY too strong. We decided to remove the Tradition/Liberty thing because they are not necessarily exclusive.

I think of Liberty as being ideal for building many cities
Tradition is ideal for building high population cities.
It is very possible to do both during the course of the game.

 

[Txurce]

But then what gameplay reason is there for Piety and Rationalism to cancel each other out? Would they be too strong together?

Because the Trees and Social Policies are not much more than effects with different names with not much connection to one another, I'd argue for a gameplay approach. Trees that cancel each other out are just unfun... Most Players don't know the names of the Policies, but their effects, anyways.

There's more than gameplay involved, although gameplay should trump realism. Piety and Rationalism tend to cancel each other historically. Tradition and Liberty, not so much. But in terms of gameplay, I think the trees that cancel each other should be too powerful if used simultaneously.

By the way, I don't know the names of policies pretty much because the names and/or properties are always being changed.

 

[Sneaks]

What I found most interesting about this is that Liberty doesn't rate highly for anything, and Patronage almost disappears except for Diplomacy. (I'm not sure how the tree helps to achieve a Diplo victory, by the way.) It also reminded me that Patronage, which used to be one of my favorites, but has been nerfed to the point where at the most I take the left hand side.

Patronage = cheap CS influence. The gold it saves is massive. Also, since we have to have all these stupid little CSes taking our gold, it is best to boost their power as much as humanly possible. That is why I have Patronage above, but barely, Commerce.

My valuation of Liberty changes drastically depending on situation. However, my playstyle usually favors a core set of 4-5 cities. I also am strongly of the belief that Tradition and Liberty should always be middle of the pack in terms of strength, as they are generalist policy trees as opposed to specialist. Therefore, the trees for your specialized victory will always be worth more, and those that are unrelated to that victory are always worth less.

 

[Ahriman]

Statistically, it provides a boatload of happiness

From a single policy 5 picks in. Not that great. I mean, free religion is a great policy, but I'm not sure the tree is worth it to get there.

I'm very surprised that you rate Piety as high for conquest.

I find that most of the benefits of Patronage come from the unlock and then from the gold purchase policy. The 20 influence with all CSs is pretty weak, the science is balanced, the extra resources luxuries never seems to help me much.

 

[Sneaks]

Well, new Liberty will probably jump over to #2 behind honor with the latest patch.

 

[bwoww78]

@GamerKG
It's difficult to create entirely new policy effects... mostly we can just adapt existing ones to other policies. I could add a + to defense buildings effect in Piety if that's what you mean by "cultural defenses."

i'd be in favor of this if only for the flavor already established for defensive buildings and their relation to policy trees. i can't imagine a +1 or +2 culture could be overpowered and it might make either the opener (or finisher) more fun.

I think giving the cultural building bonus in Tradition to the first 5 cities is very strange. Shouldn't tradition be encouraging tall? So you add another building for another city? Isn't that wide?

i would agree that 5 cities seems a strange way to buff that policy further, especially considering tradition is supposed to be about small/tall. this makes it too tempting for the liberty-focused to steal away.

i liked it better when you added the border expansion to ceremonial rites. this creates tension inside the tradition tree early. that SP is already on its own after the opener and the free buildings force you to time it well (monuments? temples? opera houses??). It was a no-brainer to go for the tradition opener when the expansion was there and pushing it back to ceremonial rites adds the right amount of tension.

Piety + Rationalism would be WAY too strong. We decided to remove the Tradition/Liberty thing because they are not necessarily exclusive.

I think of Liberty as being ideal for building many cities
Tradition is ideal for building high population cities.
It is very possible to do both during the course of the game.

agreed.

my two cents. thanks.

 

[Atlas627]

I like the changes in 106.8 to happiness and Piety. And tradition. I approve

 

[Ahriman]

I like the changes in 106.8 to happiness and Piety. And tradition. I approve

I'm undecided.... I really dislike how the sources of happiness is increasingly shifting away from buildings and going toward wonders and particularly social policies. My feeling was that happiness should be a little like health in Civ4 (but more so), where if you had decent tech and invested a lot in health buildings then you could cover the problems.
I really dislike the idea of 4 unhappiness per city where the Colosseum provides only +2 happy.

I dunno, maybe I'll get used to it.

 

[Thalassicus]

My thought process is... wide empires more happiness than tall ones, right? So I gave +1 to each colosseum/theatre/stadium for wide empires, as you wanted. I simply omitted it from tall empires, which don't need the happiness.

Colosseums can be up to 4 if we invest in both the Liberty and Honor trees. I know you generally don't like when buildings are buffed by a policy, but there's not many options available for policy effects with the current modding tools. I searched for and hour to see if there was anything else to use in the files.

 

[Ahriman]

My problem is; why would you bother building a colosseum in a tall empire? It just isn't worth it, most of the time. This makes the happiness techs very weak, and it makes an entire building line not worth following. Its not like wide empires don't want to build libraries or markets.

You have now made Representation incredibly powerful, but you have made happiness policies even more important than all the others, because policies are almost the only way to generate significant happiness.

I don't think "there aren't many things that policies can do" is a legitimate reason to make the happiness building very weak unless you had a particular policy. It isn't like universities and public schools aren't worth building without Rationalism, or like banks aren't worth building without Markets.

Buildings are supposed to be important, by themselves, but you're moving too much to the case where buildings are valuable only in conjunction with policies. You're making policies too much of a driving force in the game, rather than a supplement.

 

[Txurce]

Buildings are supposed to be important, by themselves, but you're moving too much to the case where buildings are valuable only in conjunction with policies. You're making policies too much of a driving force in the game, rather than a supplement.

I think this is a trend begun by the last patch or two. It could be argued that eventually requiring both the right policies and the right city improvements in order to achieve happiness (or anything else, for that matter) makes for more elevated gameplay. Of course in this case the balance may have tipped too far. Balancing these elements is what we spend a lot of our time discussing.

Another trend I see in VEM is a general increase in making policies more powerful. In theory, if they're all more powerful, providing equal but different opportunities for success, then the game is all the better for it. But if it's not balanced by weakening something else (like core happiness, or buildings, or something affecting the unit), then it becomes too easy.

Just as policies have been trending toward the more powerful, so has there been a trend toward changing game aspects, as opposed to concluding that they are balanced and not in need of it. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Few if any people play with VEM for its potential - it's as successful as it is because it has created a great alternative to vanilla. I would think that a successful, mature system would be more considered than VEM often seems to me these days.

 

[Ahriman]

It could be argued that eventually requiring both the right policies and the right city improvements in order to achieve happiness (or anything else, for that matter) makes for more elevated gameplay

I don't think this really works when it means that those buildings are barely worth constructing for players who aren't getting that particular policy. Happiness buildings and their techs should be useful to everyone.

Another trend I see in VEM is a general increase in making policies more powerful.

I think this is fine; I think the main effect of this is to make culture more valuable as a yield, which I think is a good thing. But I think this can be done in a way that doesn't reduce the value of core buildings.
For example: Tradition can lean towards food and % yield boosts (which benefit large cities) while Liberty can lean towards +X boosts (which favor wide empires), and Piety can lean towards culture and Rationalism can lean towards science. None of them need to be heavily oriented towards happiness.

This is one reason that Commerce has weakened and Patronage has gone from maybe the strongest tree to one of the weakest; because unhappiness has increased to the level where happiness policies are the most important ones in the game, but these trees give almost nothing in terms of happiness.

so has there been a trend toward changing game aspects, as opposed to concluding that they are balanced and not in need of it. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Few if any people play with VEM for its potential - it's as successful as it is because it has created a great alternative to vanilla. I would think that a successful, mature system would be more considered than VEM often seems to me these days.

This is too abstract, I don't think it is very clear what you are talking about.

 

[Atlas627]

Buildings are supposed to be important, by themselves, but you're moving too much to the case where buildings are valuable only in conjunction with policies. You're making policies too much of a driving force in the game, rather than a supplement.

I think policies should be a driving force in the game. Tech is extremely important, why can't culture be as well?

I have to agree that I don't care for policies enhancing buildings much, but currently policies enhance units, cities, diplomacy, resources, culture, happiness, and tech, so why not buildings? I think if we want to enhance buildings it should be with something cool, not a +2 food on walls type of thing. I still think cultural defenses would be great for that (total culture of the city gives a strength bonus to the city).

 

[Atlas627]

I don't think this really works when it means that those buildings are barely worth constructing for players who aren't getting that particular policy. Happiness buildings and their techs should be useful to everyone.


I think this is fine; I think the main effect of this is to make culture more valuable as a yield, which I think is a good thing. But I think this can be done in a way that doesn't reduce the value of core buildings.
For example: Tradition can lean towards food and % yield boosts (which benefit large cities) while Liberty can lean towards +X boosts (which favor wide empires), and Piety can lean towards culture and Rationalism can lean towards science. None of them need to be heavily oriented towards happiness.

This is one reason that Commerce has weakened and Patronage has gone from maybe the strongest tree to one of the weakest; because unhappiness has increased to the level where happiness policies are the most important ones in the game, but these trees give almost nothing in terms of happiness.


This is too abstract, I don't think it is very clear what you are talking about.

Commerce and Patronage both give you happiness by enhancing city-state acquisition.

I think happiness can come from buildings and from policies, but right now it may come too much from policies. The happiness buildings feel really weak to me.

Other than that I agree with everything you said here.

 

[Thalassicus]

I could reduce the cost of happiness buildings if you'd like.

This is one reason that Commerce has weakened and Patronage has gone from maybe the strongest tree to one of the weakest; because unhappiness has increased to the level where happiness policies are the most important ones in the game, but these trees give almost nothing in terms of happiness.

The commerce finisher gives almost no happiness in your games?

 

[Txurce]

This is too abstract, I don't think it is very clear what you are talking about.

Everyone here has ideas, and it is very easy to fall in love with your own. Their general value requires vetting. The more successful the system, the more the tires need to be kicked before making changes. VEM has been working well enough, for long enough, not to make changes as often as it has been. In my opinion, there is less and less tire kicking every passing month. All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.

 

[Ahriman]

Commerce and Patronage both give you happiness by enhancing city-state acquisition.

City states give very little happiness as compared to other policies.

Representation can be giving 3-4 happiness per city; that is 30-40 happiness in a 10-city empire. Similarly the new Mandate of Heaven and Humanism can be giving +3 happy per city.

City states will give you... 4 happiness most of the time. Often they won't even give you that, because they'll be a duplicate. Even with the happiness boosting policy, that comes to only 6 happiness per ally. So if you're lucky, with the whole Patronage tree and 3 city state alliances you'd be getting 18 happiness (and maybe only 12).