[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[acluewithout]

I love the Policy Card system in terms of gameplay. More constraints on swapping cards would be sad.

Where I think PCs are lacking a bit is around the Legacy Cards. I think the idea of unique cards is quite cool. The “problem” is just that Firaxis haven’t done much with that idea.

What Is like to see is this:

- Instead of each Government having two abilities, it should have one ability and then it’s second should be a unique policy card. You’d have access to that unique card while you’re in that government or it could be permanent if you turned it into a Legacy Card.

- First Tier Government Buildings should also give you a unique Legacy Card (ie in addition to the one you get from your government), perhaps themed around Tradition, Liberty and Honour.

- Lastly, I’d like to see: (1) unique policy cards become available when you complete certain objectives or missions (eg “unify” your continent, or build x factories), and or (2) Alliances unlocking certain policies, and or (3) Civs having unique policies - I don’t think every Civ could have different unique policies, instead maybe certain unique cards would be available to a group of similar Civs; eg England, Spain, Norway etc. might have access to a unique Naval Card.

- I think if you had more unique policy cards, you might have to give Civs an extra card slot at some point. Perhaps they could gain an additional WC slot from the Government Plaza or some building, and perhaps only after some criteria is fulfilled, eg 3 cities with population X.

 

[Disgustipated]

yeah I don't think the system is designed to limit swapping cards. If you look at when certain cards become available, it is clear they intended us to institute them in a certain way at a certain time. Yeah they give us choices, but it seems clear that they figured we'd use god king and discipline to start off with. Then switch to urban planning and agoge. And then agoge to conscription or maybe the one that gives cavalry production if you want cavalry units or the naval one. And they obviously intended for us to switch diplomatic league in and out.

 

[Rosty K]

And now for something completely different.

Does Peter have multiple approval messages for his agenda? I'm already used to the 'arts, sciences, and blablabla', but he's just informed me that 'your nation is a model I'll build the New Russia on' (I won't be sure these are exact words, but something like that).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm going to laugh and laugh if the patch buffs and nerfs a bunch of UUs right as the UU elimination thread winds down.

 

[DWilson]

It most certainly will. And then everyone will be upset they get rid of the mighty khevsur so quickly!

 

[Mojo85]

Had a good game going with the Khmer but while at war 2 different barb camps spawned beside 2 different cities. No way in hell I'd get a unit to kill them so they both exploded units. Neither took a city but both cities were essentially useless to the point where all fun in that game was gone.

 

[acluewithout]

I'm going to laugh and laugh if the patch buffs and nerfs a bunch of UUs right as the UU elimination thread winds down.

That would be a nice problem to have!

 

[God of Kings]

I'm going to laugh and laugh if the patch buffs and nerfs a bunch of UUs right as the UU elimination thread winds down.

The Sumerian war-carts would easily be the recipient of numerous nerfs.

 

[acluewithout]

I’d be very sad to not be staring down the barrel of those bad boys. Spawning next to Gilgabro gives you a whole new enthusiasm for diplomacy...

“Here Mate, take my luxes, take my iron! Just don’t take my cities!!”

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

While I am on the subject of the UU elimination thread (and because you can't discuss anything in that thread beyond contributing to the game), why are so many people citing a lack of strategic resource requirements for various unique units? NO unique units require strategic resources. Not a single one. While that may be more relevant to UUs that replace generic units which require them, no one ever states it that way.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

While I am on the subject of the UU elimination thread (and because you can't discuss anything in that thread beyond contributing to the game), why are so many people citing a lack of strategic resource requirements for various unique units? NO unique units require strategic resources. Not a single one. While that may be more relevant to UUs that replace generic units which require them, no one ever states it that way.

Natural mental bias when thinking about UUs that replace a standard unit. Rather than thinking in absolutes - which UU has the greatest positive impact on the civ's ability to win the game - it's natural for our brains to think in terms of relatives - this UU is the best because compared to the standard unit it replaces it's X% more powerful, has cool effect Y, and doesn't require a strategic resource.

 

[acluewithout]

Being able to access certain unit types without a strategic resource is a big deal.

For example, Swordsmen replacements are very powerful, because a Swordsmen rush is so strong - if you’re opponent doesn’t have iron they are really out of luck.

Nubia’s archer doesn’t require a resource - but then, big deal, because archers don’t anyway. Likewise, Spain’s musketman replacement isn’t that strong just because it doesn’t need niter - because musket rushes aren’t as strong anyway.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Being able to access certain unit types without a strategic resource is a big deal.

For example, Swordsmen replacements are very powerful, because a Swordsmen rush is so strong - if you’re opponent doesn’t have iron they are really out of luck.

Nubia’s archer doesn’t require a resource - but then, big deal, because archers don’t anyway. Likewise, Spain’s musketman replacement isn’t that strong just because it doesn’t need niter - because musket rushes aren’t as strong anyway.

This was exactly my point. People see more value in a unique swordsman because it lets them do something they can do for other civs - swordsman rush - more consistently (no Iron required). And that's what our minds gravitate to. That seems like more of a bonus than a UU that replaces a unit that doesn't require a resource.

But I think this is a trick of the brain. The real question is which is the more powerful combination: Nubia unique Archer + regular everything else (including Swordsmen) or Rome's unique Swordsman + regular everything else (including Archers).

I'd argue that Nubia's unique allows it to win more quickly and easily than any Swordsman unique, even accounting for a percentage of games when Nubia doesn't spawn near or conquer Iron and thus can't build any Swordsmen.

 

[UWHabs]

yeah I don't think the system is designed to limit swapping cards. If you look at when certain cards become available, it is clear they intended us to institute them in a certain way at a certain time. Yeah they give us choices, but it seems clear that they figured we'd use god king and discipline to start off with. Then switch to urban planning and agoge. And then agoge to conscription or maybe the one that gives cavalry production if you want cavalry units or the naval one. And they obviously intended for us to switch diplomatic league in and out.

My biggest flaw with the policy cards is that over time, you end up getting an awful lot of policy cards sitting around, and if I tend to use the same cards, then it can become a little tedious.

As much as it would suck, I would almost rather have policy cards be "one time use", or maybe like the governments. So, for example, if you swap in a policy card, as long as it's there, you keep the full bonus for it. But if you swap it out, you either permanently lose it, or maybe to swap it back in you need a 5 turn waiting period before it becomes active again? That would certainly change the strategy, since, for example, to use the +50% settler card, you basically get one chance in your empire to do a settler rush, and once it's used up, you can't use it again.

That would obviously limit things, but in some ways, it would increase strategy, and could result in you using more cards than you would otherwise use before. And it would in some ways force you to plan for the longer term - I can't simply swap in the 50% upgrade card for a turn to upgrade my entire army, since if I do that, then maybe it's gone for the rest of the game if I swap it back out.

Could also imagine variations on this - maybe some cards have multiple uses as above, or maybe you can pay to revive an old/expired card. Or maybe each card would have a min 10 turns once it's swapped in before you can swap it out? I just know now there's some strategies that are almost boring, so adding some potentially limited actions or uses could make the decisions a lot more exciting. Like, do I give up my campus adjacency for the rest of the game to run the settler production policy now, or do I wait to optimize that further? Do I use a card now, or wait until a few more cities can benefit from the card?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

My biggest flaw with the policy cards is that over time, you end up getting an awful lot of policy cards sitting around, and if I tend to use the same cards, then it can become a little tedious.

As much as it would suck, I would almost rather have policy cards be "one time use", or maybe like the governments. So, for example, if you swap in a policy card, as long as it's there, you keep the full bonus for it. But if you swap it out, you either permanently lose it, or maybe to swap it back in you need a 5 turn waiting period before it becomes active again? That would certainly change the strategy, since, for example, to use the +50% settler card, you basically get one chance in your empire to do a settler rush, and once it's used up, you can't use it again.

That would obviously limit things, but in some ways, it would increase strategy, and could result in you using more cards than you would otherwise use before. And it would in some ways force you to plan for the longer term - I can't simply swap in the 50% upgrade card for a turn to upgrade my entire army, since if I do that, then maybe it's gone for the rest of the game if I swap it back out.

Could also imagine variations on this - maybe some cards have multiple uses as above, or maybe you can pay to revive an old/expired card. Or maybe each card would have a min 10 turns once it's swapped in before you can swap it out? I just know now there's some strategies that are almost boring, so adding some potentially limited actions or uses could make the decisions a lot more exciting. Like, do I give up my campus adjacency for the rest of the game to run the settler production policy now, or do I wait to optimize that further? Do I use a card now, or wait until a few more cities can benefit from the card?

I think this would make for more interesting decisions and a more interesting game for the player.

My concern is whether this would negatively impact the AI, which would be hard pressed to assess when best to make use of certain policies.

 

[crouchy]

It seems all of my games follow the exact same cycle and it's starting to really bug me:

1. Some civ denounces me
2. They declare war once the required turns have passed
4. War goes on for a while, I crush them thanks to poor AI
5. They offer peace
6. After ~20 turns, go back to #1

Repeat for the entire game.

This is especially stupid when the other civ is an era behind and has no military worth talking about.

 

[DWilson]

It sounds like you're hardly trying at diplomacy. It's really not hard to bribe positive relations with neighbors. Small trades in their favor, open borders, and attempting to meet at least one of their conditions is usually sufficient unless you have massive warmongering penalties. Even better if you can get them to be a declared friend.

 

[Disgustipated]

So I'm getting a diplomatic hit because I occupy one of their cities when I actually don't. I did occupy their capital for a while, but I lost the capital due to loyalty. I'm pretty sure I'm taking the diplomatic hit for having their capital when I don't. This seems to be a bug. Now I do own another one of their former cities they lost due to loyalty and it went to me peacefully, but I'm pretty sure that's not what's causing them to denounce me every couple dozen turns or so.

 

[crouchy]

It sounds like you're hardly trying at diplomacy. It's really not hard to bribe positive relations with neighbors. Small trades in their favor, open borders, and attempting to meet at least one of their conditions is usually sufficient unless you have massive warmongering penalties. Even better if you can get them to be a declared friend.

I didn’t try the trades in fairness.

Is there any way to get civs to get over the grudge of holding one of their cities? Does this eventually go away?

He even ceded it to me at one point but constantly denounced me for it (civ was Ghandi)

 

[DWilson]

If you capture a city, to get them to forget it you usually need to send one back. What has worked well for me is to capture the city I want and one I don't, let the one I want rebel and retake it, then return the one I don't want. @Victoria could give a better description of how to handle it, though, as our resident diplomacy expert.