Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Moi Magnus, Jan 26, 2018.
Wouldn't it make a too obvious choice for Japan?
Ye, but keep in mind that normally thrift and ascetism are better options for Japan (unless you rush Order and terracotta army at the same time, like i did in my game). And it's not like 2 faith -> 1 culture changes too much in the moment you get the faith building.
It's just a small buff
Too much synergy makes stuff OP. No change needed, they're really well balanced right now imo.
Autocracy's Iron Fist yields are so powerful that it trivializes the game whenever I take it. In my last game, I was receiving 1500 science, 1200 culture, 900 faith, and 40 happiness from 2 vassals. This doubled my science, culture, and happiness, and 4x my faith income. I think this is too much for just one policy. Iron Fist is probably good enough with no yield bonuses. Just the ability to stop vassals from starting inconvenient wars is worth a policy point.
I make this post just to say that I don't agree with you. I played games with many vassals and I have never had two vassal which were giving me as much. Usually you have crushed the opposition in order to make them capitulate. So they usually don't come back in the game, at least not enough unless I play with tech trading and I give them enough technologies to catch me up.
I'm playing standard standard. If you are playing epic or marathon, maybe the AI has got more time to expand once again and come back in the game. But in standard, usually, my vassal's contribution are a joke before iron-fist.
ps : moreover you didn't give us any context. if they give you 1500 and you are generating 1000 or 5000, it's not the same.
OK, here some suggestions:
1. Swap partially the scaler from fealty with artistry.
Fealty already have 2 buildings, which give additional food (6) and get one extra food for every fealty policy picked, makes total of 11 food per city. People which pick artistry are dependend on working specialists but with the recent changes, working those is getting harder and the tree doesnt help in working those specialists. All other people which dont want to go for DV or CV normally pick fealty, cause the other 2 are dependent on directed play. So I want to suggest, we swap the science component from artistry to fealty and the food component from fealty to artistry. Cause fealty is the universal pick, it doesnt "need" the food from the scaler and science is nice too, while nearly all people going for artistry really need any food.
2. Yield by follower-belief:
Those beliefes doesnt look very balanced and while 37,5% of follower beliefs are yield-by-follower, I never or extremly rarely see them be picked by AI. Some beliefs gives their maximum amount with only 10 follower, which is easily to reach, but others need 30 follower to reach their maximum which is extremly difficult to reach, if you have any neighboring religion with some pressure.
Iam open to any discussion, but would suggest a change in this:
Faith, science, culture stay with 1 yield by 2 follower, maxed at 12, but get a flat 1 yield for every city.
Food, production, gold is now 2 yields for every 3 follower, maxed at 16, but get a flat 2 yield for every city.
The necessary follower to reach maximum is now 24, something you can achieve even with some other religion pressure. You get the local yields faster than the valuable global yields, but not as fast as in previos versions. Also, the amound of produced yields is more relative to their amount you normally generate in lategame.
3. Production cost:
The production cost for buildings and units feel a bit too high in the early game, while it gets easier in the lategame. I would suggest a decrease of 10% hammer cost in the first 3 ages and maybe 5% increase starting with modern age.
4 Growth in early game:
With reduction of food by buildings and the increased food consumption of specialists, its now much harder to support specialists. I think, its less the pure food, missing from buildings, but more the reduced size of cities in the midgame, when specialist buildings are more and more available. This makes it harder to support specialists and sustain a healty grow of the city and enough production to keep in pace with the technological advance.
My suggestion: Reduce the necessary food to grow a city by 5% on all stages but go back to exponential calculation for big cities (past 30). This would help to have bigger cities, if the specialists get worth to work and stay online with building things.
I like that fealty is an option even for tall civs. I like statecraft, it allows tall to play diplo, and rewards wide civs that have a natural advantage in diplo. I like artistry going tall, because you can work the specialists. Artistry going wide is not that good, the only thing supporting wide is the scaler, and the university bonus, but it might be something I'm missing.
It really only hurts Tradition, slowing the first great people. By medieval you should be able to work those specialists that you need more. And I think it is a good thing that you cannot work all of them.
I disagree with all of those. In short:
1- Artistry should have weaknesses. I think it could be made a bit friendlier to wide, but just giving it food is a really lazy solution.
2- They may not look balanced, but they ARE balanced. The low limit is means to be a downside, while you're normally not supposed to reach the high limits. (there just to avoid being too insane)
Every single follower belief is good, and I pick them often, even if the AI doesn't like them as much.
3- If anything I feel the opposite. I don't see a need to change anything though.
4- Ditto Tu's comments.
I have to add something more, picking Fealty after Authority is going to suck so much if we do this change, same for Progress Fealty. Wide empires need that food from Fealty, mostly because Progress and Authority are good policies for Science / Production, they need some food to get past - 13 - 14 population and work specialists.
Right now Fealty is fine, and people going for Artistry normally are tradition people, they don't need more food.
That's strange... Ever since it was introduced I've only gotten incredibly (gamebreaking) high yields from Iron Fist. I made a bug report about it a long time ago because I thought it was a bug. The yields were cut in half, but I believe it is still gamebreaking.
The context for my example is there. I said it doubled/quadrupled my current yields. I was basically a middle-of-the-pack civ but grabbing Iron Fist made me a leader across the board by far.
The difference is, statecraft helps you getting the CS allies and increases its value.
Fealty is the option for everyone which dont want CV or DV. They would pick it nevermind which scaler it has. There is no real goal fealty. It works good for faith generation, but all the other policies gives you a wide spread of yields and nothing special. And you dont think 6 food is enough for this tree?
People playing tradition dont need more food? The growth modifier is only applied after consumption, if you have no surplus food, its kinda weak. Ive seen a lot of complains, they are unable to work the specialists and their cities dont grow.
And why should only progress or authority need more food? Progress already have additional food without any effort. If you want to go past 13-14 population, build farms and work them.
Then, you seems to be very good at having vassals. I'm not: In my game, I only have vassals after destroying them, so they rarely give me more than 10% of my yields (before iron fist), sometimes less...
But I'm curious to know what are the usual health of your vassals.
I wish I had a save to check but I feel as if vassals after Iron Fist give way more than they should. My vassals pre policy actually do give a small amount of yields -- it's just the policy that drives to ridiculous levels.
I don't have much to say about the health of my vassals as I've had ones that were hopeless and others that were not much weaker than myself. Though even if I only have healthy vassals I don't think Iron fist should give the yields it's capable of giving.
I'm genuinely surprised that others aren't experiencing this? It's absolutely immersion/gamebreaking for me.
Looking at a few religious beliefs:
1) Evangelism: The science is really poor in general, especially compared to council of elders (and enhancers to me are supposed to be better than founders). The missionary strength to me is much weaker than the 30% reduction in cost from pacifism.
2) Stupas: The base tourism isn't nearly as important as the historical events tourism, which I believe comes a lot from your culture. So I think one of the other culture enhancing beliefs will actually net you more tourism. This building just doesn't have a lot going for it.
3) Churches: Overall the new model is working well. Overall 50% stronger missioners have the advantage of converting faster (especially if you don't have open borders). I think the 3 conversion missionares were stronger overall because of inquisitors. With 3 conversion missionaries I could out pop the inquisitors, whereas the stronger initial pop just gets taken out. I wouldn't mind seeing just a little something on the church, maybe 35% spread (instead of the base 25%), or like a +1 gold on it...just a touch.
4) Way of Transcendence: I agree this needs a buff. It doesn't scale well enough early game even if you can possibly get a big bomb late game.
1, 2, 4 have been on my radar for a bit. Let's let Churches air out a bit more, though.
Agree on all four from your pov. I've yet to choose churches since the change, but weigh it every time, and decide I don't need the extra muscle, or alternately wouldn't use it, and go a different way.
Am I the only one who still believes the AI is too difficult to keep up with policy-wise?
Should get either get less culture or we should increase culture from trade-routes, or add another culture catch up mechanism.
I've noticed that the AI tends to pull away more with culture lately as well -- I mentioned it last version, too.
And no, I don't buy the "gitgud" line. The AI didn't git noticeably gud culturally all of a sudden. Much more likely that they got an unintended (or intended) boost.
Separate names with a comma.