# [vanilla] Social Policy: Liberty (vanilla)

Social Policy: Liberty

1. ### slobberinbearUrsine Skald

Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
Messages:
1,657
Location:
slobberinbear submitted a new resource:

Social Policy: Liberty - Social Policy: Liberty

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2016
2. ### EllyeWarlord

Joined:
May 13, 2008
Messages:
243
I find it also worth mentioning that Representation works retroactively, contrary to what the policy text might seem to imply (i.e. it reduces the additional policy cost even for cities settled before you pick up the policy).

Joined:
Jan 28, 2011
Messages:
4,554
It's less 'retroactive' and more 'dynamically adjusted'.

You never get culture back, but the cost of every new policy will be reduced, including the current one.

Joined:
Apr 18, 2011
Messages:
385
Location:
Paris
5. ### mr_happyguyChieftain

Joined:
Sep 16, 2011
Messages:
9
Thank God it's not exponential - forget about aquiring new policies with more than two cities

Joined:
Dec 24, 2010
Messages:
2,668
7. ### KiffeLesBifflesDo you like dogs?

Joined:
Apr 18, 2011
Messages:
385
Location:
Paris
Really, you mean x->x² = x->exp(x) ? You are revolutioning all math!

More seriously, exponiantial would be "increase the next policy cost by 10% compare to the current post". For instance, if P is the number of the policy,
Cost = Constant*(1+0,1)^P is exponential

contrary to that :
Cost = (Constant1+constant2*P)^2.01 is polynomial (ok almost quadratic)

8. ### vexingknows

Joined:
Dec 24, 2010
Messages:
2,668
you're correct mathematically, but i was using the non math definition of exponential, ie "involving an exponent." i don't think anyone says "polynomially increasing."

Joined:
Oct 22, 2008
Messages:
32,859
Location:
DE/NL/FR

10. ### weregamerGandhi of the Mongols

Joined:
Sep 6, 2006
Messages:
252
Location:
San Jose, CA
Sadly, not a nitpick. The question of whether the increase was exponential (adding a city multiplies the previous total by 1.3, each policy costs 1.3 times the previous policy) vs linear (adding a city increases the amount by which the original total is multiplied by .3, each policy costs an additional .3 of the original policy cost) was a burning one in early strategy discussions, because it makes an enormous difference in what strategies work.

If policy costs were exponential, culture wins would be basically impossible with more than 2-3 cities. As they only increase linearly, the number of cities you want becomes part of a larger strategic calculation. I forget whether it was here or at Apolyton, but there was a lovely post analyzing the turns-to-next-policy affect of founding a new city based on all the variables - current number of policies, current number of cities, average culture per current city, culture output from the new city.

11. ### ggmoyangKing

Joined:
Aug 25, 2011
Messages:
993
Location:
Rep. of Korea
Obviously he is saying policy cost is exponentially increasing with #of policy adopted.

If he thought it was exponential it would be 152.1% -> 133.1%, about 12.5%, or 1/8 - so he would rather wrote as 'about 10% at 3 cities'

So OP wrote nothing wrong. Plz read again carefully. (no sarcarsm)

Btw I think this is nitpicking - this is not a math class and people usually use term 'exponential' as 'skyrocketing' or similar terms.

12. ### elprofesorPluri-editing poster

Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
Messages:
773
Location:
(hint: I can type "Ñ")
I don't think discussing whether *trying to correct someone using "exponentially" in an inappropiate way* is nitpicking will move this conversation anywhere, so let's just stop discussing it.
As ggmoyang said, Slopperinbear refered to the cost of successive social policies, which do increase exponentially, so he used the term correctly in the mathematical sense.

13. ### vexingknows

Joined:
Dec 24, 2010
Messages:
2,668
the finisher should have [set_anchor=Finisher] instead of what it has.

14. ### The_JSay No 2 Net ValidationsRetired ModeratorSupporter

Joined:
Oct 22, 2008
Messages:
32,859
Location:
DE/NL/FR
Thanks, fixed .

Joined:
Nov 2, 2006
Messages:
488
Sorry for perhaps a stupid question, but does conquered cities with courthouses get the decrease in policy cost from representation? Thanks for the clarification that it works retroactively.

16. ### mintcandyKing

Joined:
Apr 10, 2012
Messages:
609
I understand that Gods and Kings placed a prerequisite Social Policy for Collective Rule...any chance that this article could be updated to reflect that change?

17. ### scheva007Prince

Joined:
Aug 8, 2007
Messages:
561
Location:
Belgium
Question/dilemma. I always do the following: i go for citizenship and representation, to minimize the effects on policy costs when i found a new city. downside of this is that i achieve collective rule rather late, and so miss out 1-2 times on the 50% bonus when making settlers, and found cities not as early as i could have (missing out on hammers and gold)

so which is the best option of the two? go for citizenship-representation? and getting the free worker along with a golden age and reduced policy cost?
or go for the republic-collective rule? being able to expand quickly but with increased policy costs?

thanks

18. ### vexingknows

Joined:
Dec 24, 2010
Messages:
2,668
representation only causes minimal differences in early policy costs so go for the settler first. also having more established cities prior to popping the golden age increases the benefit of that

19. ### Carl5872Prince

Joined:
Sep 3, 2008
Messages:
787
Location:
Mentor, Ohio
Any ETA on when these War Academy articles will be updated for Gods and Kings?

20. ### ArchyDarkyWarlord

Joined:
Aug 16, 2012
Messages:
116
Location:
Swamp
I've overlooked this so long . I need to make it a habit to pick the free settler first.