Reversal of dominance and tribute has crippled the authority tree

[Epaminondas II]

Combined with the scarcity of early tech in the most recent version, the reversal of dominance and tribute has gutted the authority tree at high difficulty levels.

Throughout the CBP development I have mostly played Shaka+Authority games at immortal or deity difficulties and despite complaints about the strength of authority I have found it to be quite strong on deity until the most recent version. Authority has consistently been fairly weak and inconsistent early on but in previous versions where tech was more available early it could get past these early issues and make it into classical and medieval era warfare where the tree truly starts to shine.

Now that early tech is so scarce the early developmental problems authority faces are drastically exacerbated and the reversal of dominance and tribute means you either give up your early settler (not really an option) or face a huge number of turns sitting at 8 science with no bonus to assist you getting over the early hump.

I would implore these be swapped or the early game consistency and tech of authority be looked at it so I can once again enjoy my favorite play-style of true total war.

Further thoughts:
-On-kill bonuses are fun and dynamic for the game but having a tree rely on them early on makes for inconsistent and frustrating starts, especially on high difficulties where the ai's sometimes kill almost every encampment before you have a chance to get there. It seems like on-kill bonuses are much more suited for a mid-game tree or, perhaps, the later policies in authority so that the tree can have the same consistency in early development as the others.

-On the one-hand, authority is really the tree you want if you are going to play a warmongering style yet, on the other, its slow start means you miss many timings to go to war as opposed to a progress opener putting authority in a very awkward place. It seems to me authority is not a "starter" tree in the same way the other two trees are. Its bonuses are extremely significant later into the game, especially the healing promotion and the ability to purchase the merc line of units, yet fall short early. It might be a good idea to buff it early on and maybe tone down its later bonuses a bit, perhaps only 10hp on kill for example. If authority does get off its feet it can be truly terrifying.

Possible solutions:
-border expand granting science instead of gold (maybe op?)
(will add as I think of more)

 

[Funak]

And here I was sad over having to pick that crappy dominance policy on my way down the right side. I guess different playstyles.

 

[Epaminondas II]

If you have strats for getting authority off the ground, let me know I might be missing something. Dominance before could consistently get 100+ science in the early game from doing what you were already going to be focusing on. To get early skirmishes with ai's started you need spears/archers but you also have to get eco techs like pottery. Before the swap it didn't seem to be a huge problem but now it is a bit of a catch-22 for authority where you need tech to fight but you need to fight to get tech. Setting up any sort of early skirmishes against the deity ai seems completly unfeasible now.

What adds insult to injury for authority is that now that brutes get bonuses against barbs the ai's snipe even more encampments than before (seems like ai can kill encampment in two turns with a single brute meaning you have no chance to snipe with scout) of all of this combines to leave you with no window for classical warfare and very little for medieval.

 

[IcyAngel]

I do assume it hurts early-game science.

Tribute's culture gain is irrelevant early game because tributing city-states is nigh impossible, whereas the on-kill science was a consistent boon. In the end, though, Authority was massively buffed. The tree is much stronger than before, including early with the addition of raw production. Dominance into Imperium would be simply insane I think.

--------------

What adds insult to injury for authority is that now that brutes get bonuses against barbs the ai's snipe even more encampments than before (seems like ai can kill encampment in two turns with a single brute meaning you have no chance to snipe with scout) of all of this combines to leave you with no window for classical warfare and very little for medieval.

That we can agree on. Since the warrior buff I never get camps.

 

[Funak]

I do assume it hurts early-game science.

Tribute's culture gain is irrelevant early game because tributing city-states is nigh impossible, whereas the on-kill science was a consistent boon. In the end, though, Authority was massively buffed. The tree is much stronger than before, including early with the addition of raw production. Dominance into Imperium would be simply insane I think.

I agree that the culture from tribute was pointless, but the yields from border-expands into the +3 culture in all cities most have been way superior to going for science from barbs into imperium.

 

[Atlas627]

Ok so Authority needs 4 things to get going:

Culture on barb hunt
Science on kill
Yields on border expand
Free settler and yields on founding

These are the 4 things that let it compete with the other trees while transitioning into the +happiness and culture on garrison and free units.

But you can't take 4 policies that quickly, and you need them all! Like, desperately need them!

I recommend putting the science on kill into the opener and give some other effect in its place. How about all units gain +10% vs cities? I find that's an area where Authority needs help. It wouldn't prevent someone from defending themselves so its fair, but it does help the Authority player actually take cities.

 

[IcyAngel]

I agree that the culture from tribute was pointless, but the yields from border-expands into the +3 culture in all cities most have been way superior to going for science from barbs into imperium.

Perhaps. The few times I played authority, though, the free science was massive. Not from barb-hunting, but from declaring war on AIs near their cities and waiting for their masses of warriors to get crushed on your archers.

Whereas, by rushing discipline, you get what now... +2 culture in two, three cities (the happiness is irrelevant at that point)? I'd prefer to rush a settler, get tons of science in the process, then go for discipline when I actually have a sizable number of cities up. You have enough culture with the AI and barb killing too to satisfy the early game. Can even feed on city-states units if you want.

Rarely play-ed- Authority however, so I could be wrong.

 

[hokath]

On-kill bonuses are fun and dynamic for the game but having a tree rely on them early on makes for inconsistent and frustrating starts, especially on high difficulties where the ai's sometimes kill almost every encampment before you have a chance to get there. It seems like on-kill bonuses are much more suited for a mid-game tree or, perhaps, the later policies in authority so that the tree can have the same consistency in early development as the others.

I think this is the salient design point.

Relying on barbarians to get your science and culture scales poorly with difficulty, other civs, map size and type.

 

[Gazebo]

I think this is the salient design point.

Relying on barbarians to get your science and culture scales poorly with difficulty, other civs, map size and type.

That's the trade-off, though, of going Authority. And you don't have to kill barbs to get the Culture or Science. DoW a nearby CS, or a nearby Civ, and be at war. Kill things. That's the whole point of Authority.

G

 

[Epaminondas II]

That's the trade-off, though, of going Authority. And you don't have to kill barbs to get the Culture or Science. DoW a nearby CS, or a nearby Civ, and be at war. Kill things. That's the whole point of Authority.

G

The problem with this is--at least with how I am playing right now--is that this is sometimes simply not an option very early on in the game when the bonuses are most crucial and it is precisely the early bonuses that give you the opportunity to fight early skirmishes on deity. Authority can be very strong, it is just very weak early on, exactly when a starting tree needs to be powerful. I don't think a significant change is needed but it would feel much better to play if the first few policies you choose were not based on on-kill bonuses.

While I think swapping tribute and dominance back would put authority in a very good place Icy might be right that farming hoards of AI warriors early could be too strong if you got a settler after it as well.

 

[Gamewizard]

The change was necessary because it was ALWAYS go left side first, right side second. Now, you have to decide if that free settler is worth all that lost early science.

 

[IcyAngel]

The problem with this is--at least with how I am playing right now--is that this is sometimes simply not an option very early on in the game when the bonuses are most crucial and it is precisely the early bonuses that give you the opportunity to fight early skirmishes on deity. Authority can be very strong, it is just very weak early on, exactly when a starting tree needs to be powerful. I don't think a significant change is needed but it would feel much better to play if the first few policies you choose were not based on on-kill bonuses.

While I think swapping tribute and dominance back would put authority in a very good place Icy might be right that farming hoards of AI warriors early could be too strong if you got a settler after it as well.

To be fair, Policy trees do not have to be equally strong in every situation.
I'm fine with Authority being situational - aka fantastic when you plan to war early and make use of the on-kill bonuses, and average to weak the rest of the time. (Though the recent buffs have made it -more- worthwhile during peace too.)

 

[Epaminondas II]

To be fair, Policy trees do not have to be equally strong in every situation.
I'm fine with Authority being situational - aka fantastic when you plan to war early and make use of the on-kill bonuses, and average to weak the rest of the time. (Though the recent buffs have made it -more- worthwhile during peace too.)

It just feels very strange to me to start a game as Shaka and, despite knowing that i intend to pursue a domination victory and be at war for most of the game, pick progress anyway because of how flimsy authority can be early.

 

[hokath]

DoW a nearby CS, or a nearby Civ, and be at war. Kill things.

Ok, well if that is the solution then that is fine. This is how I was playing, picking off the AI's warriors and scouts when they got too close and not worrying about the diplo modifier. Seems very different, but hey this is CBP

Slightly off-topic. Sometimes the AI will DoW me out of the blue early on. If they are doing this to kill a unit or two for authority type bonuses then that makes sense, but whenever this happens their units are usually several turns from my borders. Any ideas? Perhaps they were bribed?

 

[Gazebo]

Ok, well if that is the solution then that is fine. This is how I was playing, picking off the AI's warriors and scouts when they got too close and not worrying about the diplo modifier. Seems very different, but hey this is CBP

Slightly off-topic. Sometimes the AI will DoW me out of the blue early on. If they are doing this to kill a unit or two for authority type bonuses then that makes sense, but whenever this happens their units are usually several turns from my borders. Any ideas? Perhaps they were bribed?

Bribery, or if their marching army bumps into you they'll DoW. The AI is much more likely to take a bribe to DOW you if they are already planning on it or marching on you (much like a player will do the same for the AI).

G

 

[Funak]

The change was necessary because it was ALWAYS go left side first, right side second. Now, you have to decide if that free settler is worth all that lost early science.

Where does this madness originate from?

Going for the right side gave you food and production from border-expansions as well a massive +3 culture form every city and +1 happiness from every city. The +3 culture was pretty much necessary to keep up your policy-progression with progress and tradition.
Going for the left side gave you a flimsy science-bonus from killing units, something that you pretty much have no control over at all, you need to overproduce soldiers and find barbcamps to clear, completely unreasonable to rely on that. Other than that you get one free settler, which saves you around 8 turns of production in your capital.

I don't see why anyone would ever go for the left side in this choice.

 

[BenchBreaker]

instead of 'on kill' bonuses, would it possible to give smaller 'on victory' bonuses? i.e when you have a favorable engagement by doing more damage, or maybe even as an addition.

should make the tree more consistent

 

[Gazebo]

instead of 'on kill' bonuses, would it possible to give smaller 'on victory' bonuses? i.e when you have a favorable engagement by doing more damage, or maybe even as an addition.

should make the tree more consistent

Nope.


G

 

[Gamewizard]

Where does this madness originate from?

Going for the right side gave you food and production from border-expansions as well a massive +3 culture form every city and +1 happiness from every city. The +3 culture was pretty much necessary to keep up your policy-progression with progress and tradition.
Going for the left side gave you a flimsy science-bonus from killing units, something that you pretty much have no control over at all, you need to overproduce soldiers and find barbcamps to clear, completely unreasonable to rely on that. Other than that you get one free settler, which saves you around 8 turns of production in your capital.

I don't see why anyone would ever go for the left side in this choice.

Well, you could go right side and fall behind in techs, or you could go left and fall behind in culture. Going right though and that free settler loses a lot of value. Like G said, declaring war on nearby CS and Civs is a good way to keep that science income more constant.

And just because my point does not agree with yours does not make it "madness".

 

[Funak]

Well, you could go right side and fall behind in techs, or you could go left and fall behind in culture. Going right though and that free settler loses a lot of value. Like G said, declaring war on nearby CS and Civs is a good way to keep that science income more constant.

Falling behind on culture can't be recovered at all, as there are no culture catchup mechanics. There are like a ton of science catch-up however. Not to mention that +3 culture and +1 happiness per city was massive enough that you'd pick up the dominance within turns of it.

And just because my point does not agree with yours does not make it "madness".

Your point didn't leave much room to disagree with

because it was ALWAYS go left side first

By a statement like that you're pretty much calling out anyone not playing the same way you do as being wrong. You're also doing it without any form of explanation that goes beyond you assuming it's obvious, leaving even less room for disagreement.