1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We have selected the winners of the Old World random draw and competition. For the winning entries, please check this thread.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Old World has finally been released on GOG and Steam, besides also being available in the Epic store . Come to our Old World forum and discuss with us!
    Dismiss Notice

Policy Discussion: Honor

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    Authority, as designed in CBP, is not merely for conquest. It's also for asserting your rights to settle where you please. It might be good to switch Imperium and Dominance in the policy tree though, as you're correct in saying we can't really conquer anything very early, so focus on expansion first.

    But if you were to make it a Medieval policy tree, where would valuable bonus vs barbarians go? It's most useful in the ancient era. Also, the "Mercenary Army" makes most sense as a Finisher in a pre-Medieval branch since Landsknechts are available early in the Medieval era. (I guess this was the reason why Mercenary army was moved from an Imperialism policy to the Authority Finisher. The Landsnecht was unlocked too late!)

    Anyway, if it were really up to me, I'd make 3-2-2-2 policy branches available in the early eras, instead of the current 3-0-3-3. Aesthetics and Statecraft simply scream like classical policies rather than medieval ones, but meh, I can live with the current model.
     
  2. Taikavarpu

    Taikavarpu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Is early game conquering intentionally so difficult? Right now it's pretty much impossible without iron -> catapults. The reliance on siege units also hurts civs like Rome, who'd like to conquer and thus can't really build their unique unit because all their iron is going into catapults.
     
  3. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Cities are range 1 until Mathematics. An archer + spearmen (or even archer + warrior) rush is very possible. I've seen the AI do it.

    G
     
  4. Taikavarpu

    Taikavarpu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Immortal/deity AI gets to mathematics so quickly, that it's a miracle to get enough units to take even a small city before that.

    EDIT: And even if it's possible, it doesn't help with the classical era conquering at all.
     
  5. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    Actually, archers don't do anywhere near enough damage to kill a city anymore.


    I'm actually kinda with Purple Mentat here, if we can't find a way to balance this without heavy overlapping (which the +6 production is), we're probably better off moving the tree or completely changing it.
     
  6. Taikavarpu

    Taikavarpu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    This as well.

    I think biggest part of the problem lies in the fact that early warmongering is not viable. Instead of moving authority to medieval era, I would rather see ancient/classical era conquering made possible without catapults. Right now it simply isn't.
     
  7. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    We aren't moving Authority or Piety. Authority is in a very good spot right now, and the fact that you and others are repeating this line is indicative that you haven't looked at the pros and cons of the two trees.

    All three branches give growth of some kind. Is that overlap? Authority gives it from border growth. But wait, don't Tradition and Progress cities also expand their borders? Yes, but only Authority gets a knock-on bonus for doing so.

    All three branches give culture of some kind. But wait, doesn't that mean overlap? No, because the sources of culture come from different means, and at different times.

    All three branches give some kind of production bonus! Doesn't that mean overlap? No, because production is a means to an end. For Progress it means more buildings, which means more bonuses from constructing buildings. You can grab Authority to build, sure, but you'll be missing out on all the bonuses of Progress (and the % modifier to boot).

    So no, there's no overlap. Everyone needs reliable yields early on. Authority lacked this, and now it has this. It is the only ancient-era tree with production as a scaling bonus, and it is the only ancient era tree that doesn't directly benefit from more specialist slots and/or constructing buildings. It can do these things, but all of its bonuses otherwise come from constructing units, garrisoning units, expansion, conquest, and bullying.

    G
     
  8. PurpleMentat

    PurpleMentat Videographer

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Arrakis
    An Archer with 3 levels of Accuracy is CS 9.6 vs Cities (6*(1+.3+.3)) A low pop city with a Warrior garrison is CS 8. Add Walls and they are CS 14. You need a couple Warriors to screen your Archers from enemy attacks, and a few Archers to outdamage the city's healing before the AI researches Mathematics or Bronze Working.

    Seeing the AI do something is not the same as seeing a player pull it off. The AI can do things we can't thanks to difficulty level bonuses. Either the enemy AI does not have the advantages they would, or the AI you're watching has bonuses we don't.

    I'm off the 'move trees' wagon. It's too much work, then it's too much work. However, saying conquering cities is possible due to archers is not a reality in player vs ai games. In it's current incarnation, Authority is a tree you pick when isolated (so barbarian kills are possible) with plans to go conquering later, or if you are a civ with early game war bonuses.
     
  9. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    You know what the difference between Progress and Tradition is?
    Tradition have capital-based yields and bonuses around great people.
    Progress have yields in all cities and bonuses to building up cities.

    That's a big difference, both trees are good but they aren't in any way like each other. Authority just doesn't have its own unique place now, it gives yields in all cities, and enough production to build up your cities.
     
  10. IcyAngel

    IcyAngel Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    544
    With the 3/17 archer RCS buff, I'd expect early conquering to be realistic again.

    Three archers + one warrior could down most ancient-era cities pre-nerf. They now have, what, one less RCS than before? Four archers + one warrior should do it.
     
  11. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Dropping the iron requirement on catapults/trebuchets might be worthwhile. Keep it for cannons (as land units requiring iron disappear in the renaissance). I've considered adding one more tech to the ancient tree (themed around war) and dropping archers and catapults into it, though I don't know where I'd put it, exactly.

    Generally, dropping ancient/classical/medieval iron on siege units, moving the catapult into the ancient era, and dropping the ballista in as a classical siege unit between it and the treb has been on my mind lately. Thoughts?

    Authority lacks a place? It is the only policy branch that directly relates to conquest until the Renaissance, and - even then - only one policy in Imperialism directly relates to conquering someone. Sorry, Funak, but your arguments just aren't making sense today.

    G
     
  12. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    I support this idea. I don't see the need to move this policy to the medieval era. The ancient era tends to last a bit longer nowadays thanks to the revised science system, so more action would be appreciated. We can't have much action if catapults are necessary for it.

    The simplest, though not necessarily best way is to reduce Cities' base strength. At least it would add value to early walls.

    @Gazebo: Were the city strengths adjusted to account for the general reduction of unit strengths? I think I've been having more difficulty conquering cities in the recent patches. Cities with a Garrison are especially brutal to take on.
     
  13. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    I meant in the subject you brought up, the yields. Tradition and Progress are clearly different in that, but authority is a copy of progress. Yes, you need to keep a unit in each city, that's the difference.
     
  14. Gokudo01

    Gokudo01 Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,043
    Location:
    Toulouse(France)

    so if i follow your logic, tradition is supposed to be the growth and specialist police, right?
    so why does progress have food bonus in each city ? is it all about infrastructure ?

    you have narrowed your mind alone. flat production/food/science/gold is good for everybody, tall, wide, peaceful or warmonger. And we have no way to give flat conditional bonus ( +5 production for units for exemple, you can only give scaling bonus, 5% or 10%)
    in this situation, explain me why flat production should be liberty monopoly and why food shouldn't be tradition monopoly?

    I don"t think that adding free production is the best solution but I think it's the one that doesn't require neither new methods in the dll nor new lua functions. But seeing this kind of arguments from you, I don"t think I've ever seen so much bad faith from you.

    you declare early war to get culture/science from CS warriors with progress ?
    you built chariot archers or horsemen with progress?
     
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Ilteroi fiddled with the DLL backend and it may have affected garrison CS on the front end. I'll take a look. In any case, as I noted above, I'm also open to the idea of an ancient siege weapon.

    G
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Authority is a copy of progress. :lol:

    This is an absurd line of reasoning, sorry. They're nothing alike.

    G
     
  17. PurpleMentat

    PurpleMentat Videographer

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Four archers is 360 hammers, and at RCS 6 can only do decent damage to a city without a Garrison.
    I'm not sure another tech in Ancient is needed. Slide Catapults from Mathematics to Military Theory. Ballista on Engineering or Metal Casting, Trebuchet on Machinery, Cannons on Metallurgy, move Cuirassier to Gunpowder. Siege unlocks on a Military path tech in the second half of the Era through Industrial (and then doesn't upgrade until early Modern). Mounted Range unlock on a first half tech each era until Renaissance.

    Removing Iron requirements would allow everyone to roll out early siege, and having siege units made mostly of wood require Iron has always seemed odd. The issue then will be balancing numbers (hammer costs, combat strengths, etc) which is a lot easier to math. Authority still seems awfully gambly because so many bonuses require your neighbors to behave themselves properly, but there's no getting away from that in Ancient and keeping the bonus yields on kills.
     
  18. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,357
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    It is worth looking into, definitely. I'll keep this idea in my pocket as we move forward. Conversely, some adjustments to early city-strength and the removal of iron from catapults/trebs (and removing their free cover I bonuses) may be all we need. I'll probably try the latter first, seeing as it is much less involved.

    Authority can be risky, but that risk is ameliorated quite a bit now that it can reliably generate culture from garrisons, and production for anything else it might need. It will be outdone by Tradition/Progress if it tries to play like Tradition and Progress, but at least it is a gamble with some payout now.

    G
     
  19. IcyAngel

    IcyAngel Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    544
    Indeed, four archers represent 360 hammers. Are 360 hammers too high a price to make any civilization -bar one or two- disappear from the map forever?

    I'm giving you my experience on deity. Stay outside city-range with your archers until the AI suicides all its warriors, move in, and wittle down the city every turn. If there's a garrisoned archer, rotate your units to let the injured heal.

    It works, I'd say, 90% of the time.
     
  20. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    Catapults were definitely classical antiquity technology. I'd prefer it that way. A few Archers can still do a pretty decent job against cities, though they're by no means easy to produce that early.

    No, Tradition is about Great People and impressive capital. It does provide minor bonuses to other cities, but it's mainly about the capital. This does not suggest a monopoly on growth.

    Progress, on the other hand, should have nationwide city development as its strong suit. Flat production (or flat yields in general) per city is best fit for this policy branch. Flat production per city is indeed useful for Tall and Militaristic civilizations, no one is denying that. But it doesn't fit their theme.

    Example: +2 food/production/science per city isn't nearly as much if you only have 4 cities up to the end of the game. These extra yields are certainly "nice" to have. Why not? But the point is it doesn't fit the theme. Tall Tradition empires would prefer more focused yields that are spread thinly among their satellite cities. Wide empires are perfectly fine with having the same small yields to all of their cities.

    Similarly, flat production does not fit Authority's theme. It's certainly a "nice bonus to have", and no one is denying that. But it's almost as though it's just added to the tree to balance it out, without regard for whether it's in keeping with the theme. The production could have been replaced with gold, and it would still be a nice buff to Authority. I find its implementation quite tasteless. This is the biggest reason why I don't like it. The fact that an Authority player's infrastructure can match or exceed that of a Progress player in the first three eras of the game if he so chooses. The Progress player would later catch up, for sure, and it can balance out in the end. But balance is not the only reason.
     

Share This Page