Poll: Founders vs. non-founders, a few ideas to discuss

[LifeOfBrian]

What about a building that converts faith to science at the local level, and only works if the city has no majority religion?

Intriguing idea, if only non-founders could build it, it'd be great! If also founders could build it, then I'd "abuse" it through my pagoda-syncreticism combo where I leave all my non-capital cities without a majority religion.

@Gazebo , can you confirm that no founder beliefs or enhancer beliefs apply to non-founders who have had the religion spread to their cities?

 

[LifeOfBrian]

@CrazyG , thanks for the post! I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to re-balance things, either by nerfing religious elements or buffing non-founders!

 

[CrazyG]

What about a building that converts faith to science at the local level, and only works if the city has no majority religion?

When are you thinking it would unlock?

I don't think that really does the job. If you don't get a religion your faith per city will be pretty low, and by the time your faith gets higher something will probably spread to you.

@CrazyG , thanks for the post! I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to re-balance things, either by nerfing religious elements or buffing non-founders!

I like your idea of a wonder that only civs without a religion could build a lot.

For religious beliefs there are several founders that need nerfs. I'd consider reducing a few faith sources too (such as the Grand Temple or Scrivener's Office) because they allow you to create a really powerful religion for a low investment.

 

[Fluffball]

The more i find out about the 'none-founder' game the more i feel the biggest issue is the removal of inquisitors from none founders as it also seems that if you capture a holy city you still can't build inquisitors?

I like that the lack of inquisitors for none-founders means you can actually continue to convert later in the game which was impossible before but this really has made gaining a religion a all or nothing factor as being a none-founder is so much worse than being a founder even just with the lack of control you have over which religion you adopt therefore i think it is reasonable that if you own a holy city (founder or not) you should be able to use inquisitors and there should be a policy in fealty which gives none holy city owners the ability to train inquisitors so you only get the option if you 'own' a religion or a zealots at least.

 

[Fluffball]

So the consensus seems to be that if they don't found one the civ is going to be behind. Is this so bad?? ..

It may be interesting in certain 'challenge' situations but it is not really a interesting gameplay situation overall where such a game changing event can really go a huge way to deciding a game in the space of 5-10 turns (most religions tend to be founded in a 5-10 window time span in most of my games) around 1/3 way through the game. This is made worse when the ability to gain a religion can be quite random such as do you or do you not have religious city states around you for extra faith, do you get faith ruins, can you get a good faith generating pantheon which suites your terrain, do find yourself near a faith based wonder, do you have faith based luxuries, do you find yourself in close proximity to a warmonger thus have to commit to building troops early etc.

The nearest equivilent is going for a wonder where if you fail you at least get some production and culture for your long term effort or social policies where there is generally at least something for everyone in each policy or in the worst case move to another policy tree so you can pick a policy path but adapt it if it looks like it won't fit you intended outcome.
If you fail to found a religion you get nothing and find yourself at a large disadvantage for the rest of the game. If you could use inquisitors you could at least make the best of a bad situation by utilising other religions as best as can be or spend resources, time, effort and political capital (the other civs will hate you) you capture a religion so all is not lost.

The best gameplay mechanics are engaging and i feel the removal of inquisitors was probably to make religion engaging throughout the game rather than it all being settled in the first half but it looks like a lot of people now just see that change as meaning if you don't get a religion then just reroll and start again unless you looking for a 'challenge' game.

I don't think there is anything wrong with 'challenge' games but they should be a choice not a consequence.

 

[Gazebo]

When are you thinking it would unlock?

I don't think that really does the job. If you don't get a religion your faith per city will be pretty low, and by the time your faith gets higher something will probably spread to you.


I like your idea of a wonder that only civs without a religion could build a lot.

For religious beliefs there are several founders that need nerfs. I'd consider reducing a few faith sources too (such as the Grand Temple or Scrivener's Office) because they allow you to create a really powerful religion for a low investment.

TBH this is the easiest solution. No quirks, no quips, just nerfs.

G

 

[tothePAIN]

There’s one other thing that should be nerfed hard - trading of strategics. It’s been reduced a tiny bit this patch but the most broken thing in the game right now is trading strategics for gold with the AI. I think it warps valuations of buildings and beliefs alike. @CrazyG says Scriveners Office is broken. I think this is true for him because he maximizes gold from the AI and buys emissaries in classical for allied CSes. But otherwise, I disagree that Scriveners Office is broken.

It also devalues production and gold, because the huge gold from the AI substitutes for it.

@CrazyG had 100+ Gold from the AI on a recent play through.

I’d honestly nerf strategics to 1 gold from the AI, with era scaling. Otherwise every horse and iron tile is worth 8-24 gold right now. Or ban them all together.

 

[Bryan317]

There’s one other thing that should be nerfed hard - trading of strategics. It’s been reduced a tiny bit this patch but the most broken thing in the game right now is trading strategics for gold with the AI. I think it warps valuations of buildings and beliefs alike. @CrazyG says Scriveners Office is broken. I think this is true for him because he maximizes gold from the AI and buys emissaries in classical for allied CSes. But otherwise, I disagree that Scriveners Office is broken.

It also devalues production and gold, because the huge gold from the AI substitutes for it.

@CrazyG had 100+ Gold from the AI on a recent play through.

I’d honestly nerf strategics to 1 gold from the AI, with era scaling. Otherwise every horse and iron tile is worth 8-24 gold right now. Or ban them all together.

Yeah at this point it's practically a viable strategy to sell your horses indefinitely. I wouldn't even worry about those type of units until land ship. Maybe lancer

 

[pineappledan]

Belief nerfs need to be tempered by the fact that there is a civ whose UA is just a guarantee that they will get a religion and +1 belief

Byzantium's ability to choose +1 belief from any category except Reformation seems to argue that the Pantheons/Founders/followers/Enhancers should all more or less be of equivalent power. Right now, the majority of Byzantium players opt for a 2nd Founder over any other choice. On the other hand, I haven't seen many complaints that Byzantium's UA is too powerful overall, even if they get to pick 2 of the most powerful kind of belief

So nerfing some beliefs is fine as far as I am concerned, but you have to keep in the mind the lower limit that they still have to good enough that a UA can be built around them.

 

[Gazebo]

There’s one other thing that should be nerfed hard - trading of strategics. It’s been reduced a tiny bit this patch but the most broken thing in the game right now is trading strategics for gold with the AI. I think it warps valuations of buildings and beliefs alike. @CrazyG says Scriveners Office is broken. I think this is true for him because he maximizes gold from the AI and buys emissaries in classical for allied CSes. But otherwise, I disagree that Scriveners Office is broken.

It also devalues production and gold, because the huge gold from the AI substitutes for it.

@CrazyG had 100+ Gold from the AI on a recent play through.

I’d honestly nerf strategics to 1 gold from the AI, with era scaling. Otherwise every horse and iron tile is worth 8-24 gold right now. Or ban them all together.

Let's stay on-topic.

 

[Stalker0]

TBH this is the easiest solution. No quirks, no quips, just nerfs.

G

i agree. If the founders are in a Reasonable place than not having a religion is not the end of the world

 

[pineappledan]

If founders were to be nerfed to the level of followers, I think Byzantium would need 2 extra beliefs in its UA to compensate. It’s not just Byzantium, any religion-focused civ would be nerfed very hard by founders being made as weak as followers. Byzantium’s just the clearest example.

 

[Stalker0]

If founders were to be nerfed to the level of followers, I think Byzantium would need 2 extra beliefs in its UA to compensate. It’s not just Byzantium, any religion-focused civ would be nerfed very hard by founders being made as weak as followers. Byzantium’s just the clearest example.

buzantium has plenty of tricks beyond “always acquire the strongest founder belief”. I really don’t think such a massive boost to their UA would be necessary.

 

[tothePAIN]

Let's stay on-topic.

Eh, I think it matters to religion that beliefs that give gold or production are unnecessary right now because of gold trading.

 

[pineappledan]

I must eat my hat on my assumption that local bonuses on Founders can be used by non-founder civs. I tested Theocratic rule, and that is not the case. Non-Founders cannot benefit from it.

This strengthens my support for nerfing Founders, relative to Followers, but I remain resolute in my opinion that non-Founders should not be handed "consolation prizes" for failing to found.

• Any building/wonder/bonus you try to create will inevitably benefit some civs a little more than others, by virtue of their different tech paths, abilities, and victory emphases.
• The idea of removing Pagodas from beliefs, and therefore reducing the follower belief pool is particularly odious, because the lack of follower beliefs is already a major constraint on larger games. In fact, I have to wonder if this complaint was only raised in the first place because founding a religion is made artificially less likely on larger maps.
• I fail to see how giving any kind of bonus to not founding wouldn't result in a situation where players could situationally plan on not founding, and taking advantage of non-founder abilities, as part of their overall strategy.

As I said before, I really do fear for civs that have, as a large basis of their abilities, a greater chance of founding a religion (Byzantium, Ethiopia, India, etc.). If we make religions overall weaker then we are making founding worth less, thus we make these civs weaker overall. None of these civs are really considered top tier right now anyways.

Perhaps a nerf to founders should be accompanied with an overall buff to Followers, so that the overall strength of Religions remains overall consistent, but Non-Founders can benefit more?

 

[Stalker0]

Perhaps a nerf to founders should be accompanied with an overall buff to Followers, so that the overall strength of Religions remains overall consistent, but Non-Founders can benefit more?

I could get behind this. The question is the degree, I think for founders we can just tweak the top ones to be closer to the mid tiers. As for followers, are in the same boat? (just upgrade the weaker ones), or do we think they would need a general boost across the board?

 

[InkAxis]

I fail to see how giving any kind of bonus to not founding wouldn't result in a situation where players could situationally plan on not founding, and taking advantage of non-founder abilities, as part of their overall strategy.

Well... Why not?
Not like every person is destined to found a religion or fail.
If you have a religious civ, or a religious CS nearby or something else, it could change your playstyle. Currently you just always try for a religion and if you don't get it... well then restart i guess.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm not sympathetic to the idea that players should uniquely rewarded for just "diving" on a specific yield type. shall we discuss special abilities to give players that didn't found ideologies next?

 

[InkAxis]

Well everyone gets an ideology, and yeah, we did. We made it so that the people that get an ideology first don't get two free policies.

It's not really "diving", as it's guaranteed a certain amount won't get it. And some playstyles just don't need a religion (also the fact a lot of "religious" nations today aren't actually founders...). I'm not saying they should be "uniquely rewarded" but at the very least you shouldn't have to completely rely on it.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sympathetic to the idea that players should uniquely rewarded for just "diving" on a specific yield type. shall we discuss special abilities to give players that didn't found ideologies next?

So funny enough.... we did do that...sort of. Only the first person to get an ideology used to get the free policy, VP made it so that all players get one when they adopt, and then the wonders add in an extra one. Since the wonders take some time to get to tech wise, it gives a player who is slower to get their ideology a chance to actually beat the player who got it first.