No never. I use 2-3 archers for turtling, my idea would make the right hand policies more appealing to me to take for that purpose. It would also make Honor the best choice for anyone doing an early rush, which is what the policy tree should actually be viable for.
Tradition-Honor; How often are they used on Deity
- Thread starter JamesCivFan
- Start date
No never. I use 2-3 archers for turtling, my idea would make the right hand policies more appealing to me to take for that purpose. It would also make Honor the best choice for anyone doing an early rush, which is what the policy tree should actually be viable for.
snarzberry
Emperor
Maybe we're spending too much energy talking about a non-existent policy 
I archer rush whenever there is a rival civ that spawns close to my starting position, say within 5 or 6 hexes of separation. I think it'd only be good to have an early policy that gives 2 free archers if it was an almost hopeless task to archer rush without them, which isn't the case now. If early city strength was buffed or the combat rebalancing changes things then that's another story.
I archer rush whenever there is a rival civ that spawns close to my starting position, say within 5 or 6 hexes of separation. I think it'd only be good to have an early policy that gives 2 free archers if it was an almost hopeless task to archer rush without them, which isn't the case now. If early city strength was buffed or the combat rebalancing changes things then that's another story.
JamesCivFan
King
@Snarzberry, I think that sometimes, threads such as this might be read by some CiV developer or something, and give him/her an idea to change something. Remember what Dennis Shirk said on Sunday PAX? That many players called Diplomatic Victory an "Economic Victory",they just bought out all the CS's one turn before the UN Voting and won the game.
So he needed to change that. Well, if many people complain about Honor and Tradition to get buffed, because Liberty's bonuses usually are better (no matter from what angle you see it, it gives you 3 important free civilian units!), someone might actually change them in a future patch. You never know.
@Bhavv, yes, from what I saw, you don't need to declare anymore. Bullying CS's seems to be different from declaring war.
So he needed to change that. Well, if many people complain about Honor and Tradition to get buffed, because Liberty's bonuses usually are better (no matter from what angle you see it, it gives you 3 important free civilian units!), someone might actually change them in a future patch. You never know.
@Bhavv, yes, from what I saw, you don't need to declare anymore. Bullying CS's seems to be different from declaring war.
The Pilgrim
Deity
You think in completely wrong direction. 2 free archers should allow you to build all early wonders without the need to waste time and hammers on defense.Maybe we're spending too much energy talking about a non-existent policy
Seriously though, it's rather funny to take Honor for defensive play.
Given current Liberty superiority to encourage the player to take Honor it will have to double strategics or something like that. Which doesn't make sense. IMO, nerfing Liberty will be easier than buffing both Tradition and Honor.
BTW, did someone ask 2k guys about rebalancing the first policy trees? G&K is overflooded with info.
basicly yeh it looks like it.
JamesCivFan
King
I didn't see anything about Policies yet. Can anyone confirm if they said anything?
The thing is the middle right policy in Honor is already brilliant for defensive play, but Discipline is meh.
No one is ever going to spec Honor because liberty and tradition are better. Buffing discipline to something very useful would make the right side very attractive to take.
No one is ever going to spec Honor because liberty and tradition are better. Buffing discipline to something very useful would make the right side very attractive to take.
Kaosprophet
Warlord
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 244
Because power-creep, where everything gets pushed to keep up with the stuff that already borders on excessive, is better than nerfing things to reasonable levels...
If they took the free settler out of Liberty, Liberty and Tradition would be reasonably comparable (would at least require serious number crunching to determine which is better, it might still be Liberty but not by much, as that is the strongest benefit in the whole branch), and Honor would still be very far behind.
In order to balance Honor against the other two, you'll have to either nerf BOTH of them, or buff Honor. Honestly, I think Honor is the weakest policy tree in the whole game.
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
More than commerce?
Patronnage is even worse.
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
Well, there are arguments for both. At least you get extra science and random GP from patronage (although certainly getting a GE 20 turns away from your civilization is a bit bothersome).
JamesCivFan
King
Commerce and Patronage aren't too bad for what they're supposed to do, but they're really situational for any type of victory (except Patronage being almost a must for a Diplomatic one). Well, I agree with Drawmeus that Honor is the weakest of the first 3 Trees, which is what the topic is about here...
Kaosprophet
Warlord
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 244
Or meet in the middle: buff Honor and nerf Liberty so they meet about where Tradition is right now, instead of trying to buff both up to meet Liberty. I'd rather see that, than push Honor to where it allows for potentially game-breaking early rushes.
Tho in my (admittedly somewhat noobish) opinion, Honor isn't terrible in itself; it's just dismissed because Discipline is rather underwhelming and Liberty is flat out better.
What I would do, is re-order the tree so Discipline comes at the end and either of the 'happy boost for military' policies come earlier - making it more viable as a (happiness) management tool for early conquests, and pushing the token unit-boost to later where it's both more noticeable (due to higher unit strengths) and can serve as the unlock for the finisher - instead of being a roadblock to the policies I'd rather have sooner. Then see where we are after that.
The problem is not with liberty, its a good tree but its not op. The others are just underpowered.
If you play with liberty it feels just right. Tradition on the other hand has 2/5 completely useless policies, and no short term/instant benefits. Same with Honor, alltough honor could be a lot better if they swaped around some of the policies.
The defining facter should not be 'which is better', cause thats how it is now. It should be 'which one is better for the playstyle i choose'. Tradition is for small empires, but even for small empires liberty is just better.
If you play with liberty it feels just right. Tradition on the other hand has 2/5 completely useless policies, and no short term/instant benefits. Same with Honor, alltough honor could be a lot better if they swaped around some of the policies.
The defining facter should not be 'which is better', cause thats how it is now. It should be 'which one is better for the playstyle i choose'. Tradition is for small empires, but even for small empires liberty is just better.
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
The damage formula is based (or at least was before G+K) on the ratio of the fighting units' strength, so the boost is just as noticeable at the beginning of the game as in the end.
Strange, I actually feel the opposite. All of Tradition policies are good, but legalism suffers from being a pre-requisite for its two most versatile policies, while being itself stronger when used for opera houses, so a simple policy swap would help a lot (I'd swap oligarchy/aristocracy, monarchy/landed elite and legalism around, so that you can still use legalism for monuments, if that's what you want).
On the other hand, honour just suffers from giving you boni that simply aren't needed in SP (discipline), or are a bit awkward (extra happiness from defensive buildings for example), or don't help your early game much (cheaper upgrades, faster XP gain). It's a nice SP tree in a vacuum, but in practice it's just cute for a bit of roleplay, and pales in comparison with liberty or even tradition.
I think the problem here is that you are playing singleplayer, and im playing multiplayer.
In multiplayer you only pick the best, most bang for the buck. Thats why id want tradition and liberty to be equal, which they are not (in context of multiplayer).
Not sure we should balance the game around singleplayer. The AI will never give you as much of a challenge as a real player. Singleplayer does not require different tactics, but it allows them. you can get away with a lot more there.
In multiplayer you only pick the best, most bang for the buck. Thats why id want tradition and liberty to be equal, which they are not (in context of multiplayer).
Not sure we should balance the game around singleplayer. The AI will never give you as much of a challenge as a real player. Singleplayer does not require different tactics, but it allows them. you can get away with a lot more there.
Similar threads
