Policy Discussion: Honor

[Stalker0]

Based on our initial discussion, here is the current draft of the Honor tree (renamed Conquest in this proposal). I will go ahead and give it the 1.0 version designation for our discussion purpose (its v.9 from the other thread)


Conquest v1.0
Opener: Bonus +33% vs. Barbarians, encampment notifications and culture for barbarian units killed and for each conquered city.

Imperialism: No Isolation unhappiness. A Free Settler appears in the capital.

Feudalism: Garrisons in occupied cities reduce that city's unhappiness from occupation by 30%, garrisoned puppeted cities gain +20% to all yields. Requires Imperialism.

Looting: Gain gold for each unit killed. Killing enemy units heals the victorious unit by 20.

Military Caste: Units gain +10% combat strength when adjacent to a friendly unit. A free ranged unit spawns with new settled cities. Requires Looting.

Warrior Code: A free General appears outside your capital. Population reduction from city capture is reduced to 25% and unrest is reduced by 25%. Requires Military Caste.

Finisher: Cities increase the culture cost of policies by 25% less than normal. Whenever you conquer a civilization's capital, start a Golden Age. Great Generals can be purchased with faith at the Industrial Era.

 

[Funak]

Conquest v1.0


Opener: Bonus +33% vs. Barbarians, encampment notifications and culture for barbarian units killed and for each conquered city.

Fine, maybe add culture from barbcamps aswell?

Imperialism: No Isolation unhappiness. A Free Settler appears in the capital.

Extremely frontloaded with almost no lasting benefit. But I guess that works.

Feudalism: Garrisons in occupied cities reduce that city's unhappiness from occupation by 30%, garrisoned puppeted cities gain +20% to all yields. Requires Imperialism.

I would go back to the just gold idea, all yields is too powerful.

Looting: Gain gold for each unit killed. Killing enemy units heals the victorious unit by 20.

Would this work for ships aswell? Does it even work for ranged units? all other on kill heals are melee from what I remember.

Military Caste: Units gain +10% combat strength when adjacent to a friendly unit. A free ranged unit spawns with new settled cities. Requires Looting.


If it works for ships then I'm fine with it.

Warrior Code: A free General appears outside your capital. Population reduction from city capture is reduced to 25% and unrest is reduced by 25%. Requires Military Caste.

Fine

Finisher: Cities increase the culture cost of policies by 25% less than normal. Whenever you conquer a civilization's capital, start a Golden Age. Great Generals can be purchased with faith at the Industrial Era.

Still think the GApoint thing was cleaner. Also you should mention that it only works once per capital (because othervise it would be stupid OP)

 

[Stalker0]

My general thoughts are where we are at:

Opener: I think to make the culture comparable to tradition, we do the following:

1) Double the culture provided (so x2 strength).
2) Provide 25 culture per Barb camp sacked.
3) Culture from cities (already included, but we should consider how much this would be).

Imperalism: This one is solid and fun, I think its ready to go as is.

Feudalism: My least favorite policy in the tree currently. Though I don't like puppeted bonuses myself...I can respect that people do, and as one part of a policy I don't mind it. I think I would like to do something else for other part of this...as we have 3 happiness policies in the tree currently.

Looting: This one I think is pretty good. Its got a nice warring bonus...and a nice warrior bonus. This a a policy that just makes warring more fun.

Military Caste: I'm a big fan of the ranged unit in every new city. A good combination of the passive expansion meets aggressive tone this tree has taken.

The +10% combat strength is...okay. I personally still really love the +5 XP to Barracks, Armory, and Military Academy idea...for a couple of reasons:

1) Its less tactical. While the AI is okay at keeping units adjacent, a straight up promotion bonus they will always be able to use.

2) Its good for peaceful expansion builders and warriors. The bonus helps when I am building units, and when I put them in action.

3) Promotions are more fun. Higher promotions is one of the aspects of war I find a lot of fun, I love tier 3 and 4 promotions. Things that get us to those faster add to teh fun.


Warrior Code: This unrest bonus is a good happy bonus. The rest of the policy is...just okay. My issue right now honestly is that I find the Great General a poorly designed unit.

Citadels aren't that great a Great Improvement, you don't need a lot of Great Generals to get the key bonus to an army. This means that after 1 or 2 GGs you often don't need more. So the free GG is not that big to me.

If GGs were cooler I would be more in favor of this. Or if this policy made GGs cooler somehow.

Finisher: This one is a cool enough that I would like to see it in action and find out how good I really find it.

 

[mystikx21]

Looks fine this way. We can play around with the specific numbers (barbarian bonus/culture/conquest culture/gold per kill) for balance within this framework.

The only strident objection I had from before was that the garrison puppets should be more focused in yields (gold makes the most sense) rather than all yields, as there should remain some incentive to annex cities rather than perma puppet. The puppet bonus is more to help early conquest (and the tedium of later game conquests) while also providing a benefit for conquest. I could see gold for sure. Maybe culture. Maybe tourism. I would not bonus food, production or science or faith. I don't know if we have decided what golden ages should do, but the CEP model was 20% yields already. If you are going for a domination win, you would get 20% yields in all cities as it is for significant portions of the game that this isn't necessary to provide an all yield bonus in puppet cities.

I don't really understand why we need to rename it either. Most of its advantages still relate to combat and aggressive expansion. I don't think all users of a game at this point would be stupid and assume that we goofed and put a liberty function in honor. Perhaps I trust the average intelligence of the civ5 gamer too much.

I could see using a GA points value for GGs or citadels here as a way to make generals better (instant GA points per GG generated or flat rate per general, etc)

 

[Funak]

I don't really understand why we need to rename it either. Most of its advantages still relate to combat and aggressive expansion. I don't think all users of a game at this point would be stupid and assume that we goofed and put a liberty function in honor. Perhaps I trust the average intelligence of the civ5 gamer too much.

I could see using a GA points value for GGs or citadels here as a way to make generals better (instant GA points per GG generated or flat rate per general, etc)

Agreed, I don't see this as a merge, I see it as moving 2 things from one tree to another. (two things, not even two full policies)

Honor as a name is fine. And I have a somewhat solid idea for GGs later on in Exploration/imperialism/whateveryouwanttocallit. (I think it's solid which means it's probably stupid and poorly balanced)

Feudalism: My least favorite policy in the tree currently. Though I don't like puppeted bonuses myself...I can respect that people do, and as one part of a policy I don't mind it. I think I would like to do something else for other part of this...as we have 3 happiness policies in the tree currently.

Warrior Code: This unrest bonus is a good happy bonus. The rest of the policy is...just okay. My issue right now honestly is that I find the Great General a poorly designed unit.

Citadels aren't that great a Great Improvement, you don't need a lot of Great Generals to get the key bonus to an army. This means that after 1 or 2 GGs you often don't need more. So the free GG is not that big to me.

First of all, my main problem with Feudalism is that it doesn't do anything for anexed cities other than reducing the unhappiness you get before building a courhouse by 30%. That unhappiness is usually not that high in the first place so 30% probably isn't going to make a big difference.


On the other point I disagree with you completely about citadels, they are extremely powerful, they would be even more powerful if you actually needed help defending yourself, but that's not really the citadels being at fault.

Planting a citadel can do the following:
1 Steal luxuries/strategic resources
2 Easily defend a chokepoint
3 Placing one next to the enemy capital gives you full heal in the area and makes grabbing the city childsplay. (Also synergies with fighting in your own territory bonuses =D)

Honestly the biggest flaw of the citadel atm is that you can defend and attack easily without it anyways so you don't feel like "wasting a GG" to do so.


On that note I would like to see a return of the "earn GGs 50% faster" policy.

 

[Wodhann]

With feudalism, I'm ok with changing "yields" to anything you guys see fit.

I don't really understand why we need to rename it either. Most of its advantages still relate to combat and aggressive expansion. I don't think all users of a game at this point would be stupid and assume that we goofed and put a liberty function in honor. Perhaps I trust the average intelligence of the civ5 gamer too much.

When you have to assume whether an unknown group of people is intelligent or not in order to do something, always assume they're not.

And it's not a question of just intelligence. Names and images are symbolic, they burn into your head and are charged with a certain kind of feeling or information. By changing the names, we make sure people know they're not the same policy trees conceptually speaking from the get-go, instead of them having to figure that out themselves or reading about it on a readme.txt, which is just an added annoyance.

 

[Funak]

With feudalism, I'm ok with changing "yields" to anything you guys see fit.

Good, gold makes more sense since the puppies are focused on gold by default anyways. Also if it is possible I'd prefer it if we removed the puppet-penalty to gold instead of adding a bonus. Would probably end up with about the same result in the end but it would look cleaner.

We could probably also remove the maintenance on the courthouse for the policy aswell(If that still is there). Would atleast have some benefits towards anexing.

And it's not a question of just intelligence. Names and images are symbolic, they burn into your head and are charged with a certain kind of feeling or information. By changing the names, we make sure people know they're not the same policy trees conceptually speaking from the get-go, instead of them having to figure that out themselves or reading about it on a readme.txt, which is just an added annoyance.

I find it somewhat funny you're so hellbent on changing the name of honor when most of the core concepts remain while you don't seem to want to change the name of Tradition when nothing in your tradition actually looks/feels like the old thing =D

Honestly keeping the name just makes sense to me.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Would probably end up with about the same result in the end but it would look cleaner.

As far as I know, there isn't a gold penalty, only on culture and science (probably to compensate for not impacting your culture/science costs).

Honestly keeping the name just makes sense to me.

Yeah, people already know that Honor is the "military tree", the new Honor tree still does the same, but better.

Also, "conquest" just sounds... a bit too aggressive for me and for the theme Firaxis seemed to be going for. Most policy trees are about what a culture values, things like tradition, liberty, honour and so on are things I could see people liking. "Conquest"? Makes you sound like a bad guy.

In the same vein, I'm also not a massive fan of "Looting". "Imperialism" just feels a bit like an anachronism (as it's a lot more associated with the age of imperialism and would feel more at home in the Exploration tree). I'd go for something like "War Trophies/Prize of War" and "Expansionism".

 

[mitsho]

One could move the "Cities increase the costs of policies less" into Feudalism. It'd fit thematically and provide a bonus for annexed cities as well. Might be too strong though.

The Finisher however is fine with GA points per captured city, Faith Generals. Finishers don't need to be as powerful, maybe add faster great generals to have a bonus not only triggering on conquest. Where would we expect a Conquest/Honor player to go after this tree? Piety for religious civs, Patronage for alliance players, but the "normal conqueror". Commerce is a bit off, Aesthetics seems wrong, so they dip into Liberty?

I don't really care about the name though..

But I'm fine with this tree as it is

 

[Wodhann]

Tirian: The specific policy names are placeholders, feel free to change them. I do like Conquest though. I think it's your impression from someone who if I'm not mistaken (I think I read you say this, correct me if I'm wrong) tends to not be an expansionist player, to think that Conquest sounds too aggressive. From a conquering player's perspective, Conquest is quite flattering and accurate.

Plus, Honor says nothing about expansionism. Honor is about personal and social values, it doesn't say anything about how the rulers of a certain nation or empire manage their territory. Now, you might say the same about Tradition and it's true; but to be completely honest, despite what Funak thinks, I wouldn't actually be opposed to a name change for that as well, I just don't advance such a move because it's not as necessary as it is for the other cases.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Heh, you pegged me right there, so you're making a good point there, plus, I guess "conquest" can also work in a non-military context as "conquest of a new world" and so on.

Regarding the policy names: Just want to raise it, because code names tend to have the tendency to "stick" because you just get used to it when you discuss them. There's a reason many code names are deliberately silly - so you don't get tempted to use them after development. But if I proposed that we call the policies with code names like "SETTLE TIME!", "Om nom nom" or "Hulk Smash!" people would probably be annoyed!

 

[Wodhann]

Sorry, I didn't mean placeholder in that sense. I meant as in, "here's what it could be, but if you have a better suggestion, please feel free to replace it".

 

[mitsho]

CEP used "Spoils of War" for Looting. I think one could take that.

Feudalism seems out of place a bit as well, one could have Colonies -> Imperialism instead for the two policies. I looked around a bit but there's not any different "terms" for Greek colonization though...

 

[Funak]

Heh, you pegged me right there, so you're making a good point there, plus, I guess "conquest" can also work in a non-military context as "conquest of a new world" and so on.

Yes because that was sooooo peaceful =D

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

most of the tree seems lots of fun so far. I'd move Imperialism to Liberty since it's really out of place in a warmongering tree imo, and replace it with a policy that gives a tech boost when you conquer a city ( similar to Korea UA ) .

I'd also move the free ranged units to Liberty and replace it with +XP to military buildings. If I'm looking to go to war, I'll be building units anyway and getting them out of the gate with more promotions is very welcome. otoh, if I'm REXing ( Liberty ) I know I will NEED units to defend, but that's not my primary focus. So again that effect would be very useful for that tree.

 

[Stalker0]

Should we consider adding in some more unit production bonuses?

Right now Tradition gains free hammers with its free buildings and aqueducts. The current updated version gets a straight up hammer bonus.

Current Honor version gets its extra hammers from the free settler and the free units in new cities.

Is that enough or do we need some more? I will run a little math later on to see how many free hammers honor is getting now and we will see if its competitive.

 

[Funak]

As mentioned before we could replace the free setler with something unitproduction-related if people feel the whole liberty-integration was silly (I know a few people felt that way and I'm not really too keen on it either)

We could also throw a unitproduction%/policy taken thing into the opener. but that would make the opener pretty damn strong.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Feudalism seems out of place a bit as well, one could have Colonies -> Imperialism instead for the two policies. I looked around a bit but there's not any different "terms" for Greek colonization though...

Yeah, when I suggested "feudalism", it was more about the idea of having provinces led by a warlord of your choosing, so to speak. But "provinces", "fiefdoms"," vassalage" or "client states" all sounded a bit odd and clunky. "Hegemony" would also fit somehow.

Regarding the colonies, diaspora would fit, but I'm afraid the term has too many other different connotations... "expansionism", I thought, was fairly neutral, if a bit bland.

 

[Hawawaa]

Warrior Code- Also add +1 movement and +1 LOS to GG. Citadels- +3 science and +3 production total. (yep still shouting about that from CEP haha) Haven't played in a few months. Feels good to play again.

I have to agree with Stalker on bonus xp for xp buildings. More promotions is more fun. Maybe put this on with the finisher too.

 

[Funak]

Still think honor could have given som unique promotion like extra strength when attacking cities (and probably replace statue of zeus, never really liked that one honestly)