Policy Discussion: Liberty

[Stalker0]

We will discuss liberty in this thread.

Again the rating system!

A - Policy is often the reason you choose a tree, generally a powerhouse policy no matter how you are playing.
B - Strong policy, often a key to a playstyle, but perhaps a bit too specific to be considered an A.
C - Solid policy. You like it, your happy to take it, but its not game altering, just nice to have.
F - Weak policy. You take it only when you have used up better choices, or because its a prereq for a good closer or a much stronger policy. However, you never like taking this policy.

I'm also using a new acronym: CFCS (culture for culture's sake). This refers to policies that simply give you the ability to get more policies. I personally hate this type of design, especially now that policies aren't win conditions.

Liberty

Opener: F. Its a weak bonus early game and CFCS, and i find the pyramids one of the weaker wonders to go for. So meh all around.

Republic: F If it wasn't a prereq i would probably never take it.

Citizenship: C A solid bonus, certainly helps early game improvements take off.

Collective Rule: B Probably the key reasons to take liberty. However, the fact that its so deep in the tree really takes the shine off of this policy and its power tends to taper off towards the midgame.

Representation: B A key need if you want to have a wide civ but still maintain a good policy rate. The golden age also makes it so the policy is not CFCS.

Meritocracy: C A nice bonus to keep happiness with the wide style.

Closer: B A great person is a solid bonus, especially when you have the flexibility to pick. There are key strategies that are based solely on the ability to pick this up. That said, the one time nature of the bonus prevents it from being an A.

 

[Tomice]

I fully agree to you, it's just as if I had written it!
(though Meritocracy is rather a B)

I just love the free settler and worker. The opener and republic (1 prod per city) are just to weak to make a difference.
And I never build the pyramids. By the time I could get them most important tiles are improved anyway.

 

[mystikx21]

Opener: C would be improved if Pyramids was improved somewhat (settler rather than two workers). I don't mind CFCS because culture has many uses besides getting other policies (city expansion, tourism defence) and the bonus is modest, and early culture bonuses are more useful for the CFCS policy line anyway. I could see adding something else here though (happiness?)
Republic: F Pretty bad. More useful for tall empires.
Citizenship: B. Solid
Collective Rule: A. I'd rather it went in the +20% anywhere rather than +50% in the capital model, but that's about the only change. It's very useful for any play style to have an extra city somewhat early and the ability to get more easily.
Representation: A. Very good for wide.
Meritocracy: B. Solid, very good wide but okay tall.
Closer: B, Seems fine even at one time because of how quickly you can get it.

GEM style approaches that could be useful: lump sum of gold, per city specialist production (not per specialist), free "walls". I would not favor bringing back bonuses on "walls" here or the palaces.

 

[Wichtel]

There are two things I really dislike about the tradition/liberty policies. I hope it is ok I post this here.

The first is that the pyramids are tied to liberty and all the useful plocies for egypt as a wonder building civ are in tradition. Furthermore if you get faster workers and a free worker do you really want to work on a wonder to get even more?

The second is that I dont get why they choose to make liberty for wide empires and traditon for tall ones. It should be the other way round. The Greek city states and the early roman republic were centered around one city. Rome build an empire and turned into a Monarchy, Alexander build an empire and conquered the greek city states. Liberty could stand for a decentralized government, but it is still weired to me.

 

[mystikx21]

A system of independent republic city states united by trade and mutual defence is likely to be wider and more "liberal" than a peaceful monarchy with unified control. The examples used are militarized conquerors, which is more where the honor tree comes in.

Pyramids is more a problem with the wonder than the tree. (and no, it's not a problem to post that here. A tree's inherent philosophy is important).

 

[ExpiredReign]

The first is that the pyramids are tied to liberty and all the useful plocies (sic) for egypt as a wonder building civ are in tradition. Furthermore if you get faster workers and a free worker do you really want to work on a wonder to get even more?

That was exactly the thought that went through my mind when I was playing a couple of nights ago.

Also, and this is probably off topic a bit, I still have to stop myself from trying to complete each policy the way I used to. I haven't yet changed the mindset of getting policies filled completely to win!

 

[EricB]

I haven't used the Liberty tree all that much yet. I do find the opener useful. +1 culture in every city is pretty strong if you have a lot of cities.

One thing that the designers have done I've noticed is put weaker policies early in the tree and stronger ones later in the tree where the weaker ones are prerequisites for the stronger ones. The AI play is strongly tied to this style of play which encourages you to finish trees before starting new ones. I think we should be hesitate to significantly alter the design of the social policy trees by removing all prerequisites allowing us to jump straight to the stronger policies first.

Should we decide to remove those prerequisites then we'd need to make sure that all the policies in the tree have equal strength relative to each other or it would make it too easy for human players to game the system.

 

[mystikx21]

I think it is fair to keep most pre-reqs in place or to reset some of our own by swapping some policies in the order.

The question is whether they improve the weak policy that is the pre-req or weaken the good policy that requires a dud to get it. If the weaker policies are too weak, it's probably the latter. They need to be able to stand up on their own at least.

 

[EricB]

yeah there shouldn't be any dud policies. Early policies should be things that are helpful to just about anybody but later ones are more specialized to a specific playstyle but more powerful.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

We will discuss liberty in this thread.

Again the rating system!

A - Policy is often the reason you choose a tree, generally a powerhouse policy no matter how you are playing.
B - Strong policy, often a key to a playstyle, but perhaps a bit too specific to be considered an A.
C - Solid policy. You like it, your happy to take it, but its not game altering, just nice to have.
F - Weak policy. You take it only when you have used up better choices, or because its a prereq for a good closer or a much stronger policy. However, you never like taking this policy.

I'm also using a new acronym: CFCS (culture for culture's sake). This refers to policies that simply give you the ability to get more policies. I personally hate this type of design, especially now that policies aren't win conditions.

Liberty

Opener: F. Its a weak bonus early game and CFCS, and i find the pyramids one of the weaker wonders to go for. So meh all around.

Republic: F If it wasn't a prereq i would probably never take it.

Citizenship: C A solid bonus, certainly helps early game improvements take off.

Collective Rule: B Probably the key reasons to take liberty. However, the fact that its so deep in the tree really takes the shine off of this policy and its power tends to taper off towards the midgame.

Representation: B A key need if you want to have a wide civ but still maintain a good policy rate. The golden age also makes it so the policy is not CFCS.

Meritocracy: C A nice bonus to keep happiness with the wide style.

Closer: B A great person is a solid bonus, especially when you have the flexibility to pick. There are key strategies that are based solely on the ability to pick this up. That said, the one time nature of the bonus prevents it from being an A.

Republic + Seaport Infrastructure is important for mid-game expansion, IMO. Four extra hammers and a trade route of incoming food help a new city get up and running in a goddamn hurry. If you're Rome, this bonus is an extra point of production stronger.

 

[mystikx21]

I tend to use the commerce tree instead and just buy up tier one buildings at -25/40%. That seems more powerful for mid-game expansion. Usually by then numerous buildings are possible at 50% discounts as well (culture and religion especially) where the extra production doesn't do nearly as much as the discount.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I tend to use the commerce tree instead and just buy up tier one buildings at -25/40%. That seems more powerful for mid-game expansion. Usually by then numerous buildings are possible at 50% discounts as well (culture and religion especially) where the extra production doesn't do nearly as much as the discount.

My trading partners all tend to be on fire or shooting at me by then.

 

[mystikx21]

The commerce tree isn't for trading.

 

[Drakir89]

The first is that the pyramids are tied to liberty and all the useful plocies for egypt as a wonder building civ are in tradition. Furthermore if you get faster workers and a free worker do you really want to work on a wonder to get even more?

Egypt actually has a very strong wide game. I find the +2 happiness per city and no-horse chariots are more significant for wide empires than +20% wonder production is for tall empires.

 

[mystikx21]

Egypt's CEP plan doesn't have the 2 happiness temple replacement. It has a high growth/river aqueduct replacement.

No horse chariots are pretty useful for tall empires as you are more likely to not have (many) horses and they can form a mobile defence force or pillage army.

 

[Stalker0]

Egypt's CEP plan doesn't have the 2 happiness temple replacement. It has a high growth/river aqueduct replacement.

Why change Egypt, as far as leaders go they seem pretty decent as is.

 

[mitsho]

As pointed out, to move it from wide to tall more and it makes more flavour sense. Also, it doesn't require you to go for Religion as the Burial Tomb does. Now if the Burial Tomb would come with a free mummy artifact (it'll still be incredibly wide civ )

As for Liberty in general, I dislike the Free Great Person, it's quite a powerful finisher effect, Settler earlier has been proven to be better and the opener is what it is, now probably stronger with the lower culture income overall (without Great Works).

 

[Seek]

I find unmodded Liberty quite useful in certain situations (ie, when Rexing), I think we should leave it as is with only small tweaks if necessary.

To this end, I think Republic needs a little boost: increasing the SP's hammer bonus to 2/city or 10% would be fine.

As for Liberty in general, I dislike the Free Great Person, it's quite a powerful finisher effect, Settler earlier has been proven to be better and the opener is what it is, now probably stronger with the lower culture income overall (without Great Works).

If the free GP is strong, why do you dislike it? I don't think it's too strong since post-G&K it increases the cost of the next of that GP. Also want to point out that in BNW you can't get a Prophet here any more (good move imo).
Settler earlier removes choice - it'll be a no-brainer to get it every time. As it is now, it's a strategic decision whether to get the early fast worker or go down the line to the settler imo.
Agree the opener is fine; it's there so that Rexing empires don't see their policy rate completely tank.

 

[mystikx21]

I've been able to get a prophet from BNW Liberty.... I'd like to think that would be a good change if it was actually in place though as it would increase the value of the piety tree.

Agreed, Settler policy should be a pre-req one. Agreed, the tree probably needs the least work, at least out of early trees (I tend to pick the tradition opener, and then fill this one out completely, pop a prophet/scientist, and then go back for other picks in other trees).

 

[Seek]

I've been able to get a prophet from BNW Liberty.... I'd like to think that would be a good change if it was actually in place though as it would increase the value of the piety tree.

Agreed, Settler policy should be a pre-req one. Agreed, the tree probably needs the least work, at least out of early trees (I tend to pick the tradition opener, and then fill this one out completely, pop a prophet/scientist, and then go back for other picks in other trees).

Huh, I heard Prophets weren't available from Liberty any more, haven't tested it myself. I guess whoever said that was mistaken. Agree it shouldn't be available here to increase Piety finisher's value.

To me, Honor is the only Ancient tree that really needs adjustment/buffing - all the others are very viable, but Honor doesn't do nearly enough to reward early military strength to make it competitive with the others (see my recent post in the Honor thread for ideas). From the Piety thread it sounds like many don't like it as much as I, and Tradition definitely doesn't need any big changes; it's the go-to tree for almost all the top players.