Tweaks to Fealty

[tu_79]

Ok, so it looks like Fealty is missing a few yields (or Statecraft has too much).

What would you increase/decrease?

I think part of the problem is that Fealty used to be for the religious inclined, and religion was stronger a few patches back. Now there are more religious contenders.

Edit. I personally would like Fealty to be able to do these things consistently:
1. Work on more tiles (increased population, flat happiness, better tile improvements).
2. Overcoming any religious neighbors (more faith, more pressure), so it gets more yields from a broader religion.

 

[Stalker0]

I think part of the problem is that Fealty used to be for the religious inclined, and religion was stronger a few patches back. Now there are more religious contenders.

I don't see it. Religion is a bit weaker than before, but the bonuses that Fealty provides hasn't really changed. Fealty has always been a strong tree, and its not like we have had major changes to Artistry and Statecraft all of a sudden.

I think it just means that people are spreading out and realizing that all 3 trees are useful, but I would need to see a lot more argument to be convinced Fealty is suddenly underpowered.

 

[Mad Madigan]

Honestly, the only things I would change for Fealty would be:
- Monasteries: 1 , 3 , 3 becomes 2 , 3 , 2
- Serfdom: per every 5 non-specialist buffed to every 3 or 4, and/or buffs to pastures extended to more tiles (notably: farms)
- Divine Right: per every 2 net global buffed to 1-to-1 (especially since is currently over-buffed and overall net should decrease in the coming updates)

Fealty is the growth, infrastructure, and faith policy tree and its output should be very limited. It's is decent and based on factors that make good "fluff" sense, but needs to be more reactive to these factors (non-specialist and positive ). And finally, there needs to be a better reason for Fealty to want to work tiles with its bigger population of serfs so the yield increases to tiles needs to extend beyond just Pastures. If +1 / is too much for Pastures and Farms, then maybe make it +1 OR +1 for Pastures/Farms/Mines/Logging Camps/Lumber Mills/Work Boats? After all, not all of your cities are going to have all of these improvements, especially Pastures, and as some Civs (Shoshone/Inca/Huns/Polynesia/Iroquois/Brazil/France/Maya) I have cities with little to no Farms. Alternatively, Serfdom could be "+1 / to Pastures, Farms, and Unique Improvements".

 

[YukiN]

I agree fealty seems a little weak. I don't have access to my laptop while writing this so I'm refering to the version on the wiki for details. Feel free to point out if any of my points are now outdated.

Looking at the components, the opener seems fine and has good power and identity. The scaler and finisher on the hand are really lack luster. Compared to the science and golden age points of Artistry and the gold of Statecraft, food and city defense feels really feels weak by this point in the game. It has negative scaling since the required amount for more pop increases quickly, compared to gold which converts to more hammers as you go up the tech tree, and the naturally strong yields of Science and GAP. Food past the early game is used to feed specialists, which is anti-synergistic with other bits of fealty. The extra defence just doesn't matter all that much once you get castles (which you will and quickly) and gets worse from there. I suggest the defense portion of the scaler be adjusted to be % or replaced. I personally think production or happiness would be a good fit here.

As for the closer, I have previously expressed my opinion that Taj Mahal is weak. Artistry does golden ages better and I dislike the sacrificing units aspect as it encourages what would otherwise be bad play. While it could be argued that it is a fine fallback wonder, it really compares poorly with both the Artistry and Statecraft ones. The yields per city is nice and appropriately rewards wide play. The tourism modifier feels pretty unimpactful next to the huge scalers from techs and many other percentage modifiers available. The requirement for shared religion in particular makes it quite meaningless since the stronger civs probably have their own religion.

The extra yields on tiles should not be just pastures. Being that specific on terrain type feels really unusual for a policy tree. I would prefer just adding more yields to non-specialists or to improved tiles in general.

I think Spain's immense synergy with fealty has warped the tree and the general perception towards it. Spain has more places to meaningfully spend the extra faith and their UB is a castle. No other civ benefits from it nearly as much, and this needs to be addressed before we can balance the tree for other civs.

 

[chicorbeef]

I don't think Fealty is that bad. It gives +11 Food per City, that's a lot, and is strong at direct wide happiness. The Religious bonuses are strong too (Monasteries are +2 Faith btw).

I do think the Taj could use a tweak ( I understand a free Order isn't very realistic, but it isn't very realistic on Basil either and would be more fitting gameplay wise). I think Taj could maybe use +3 Art/Artifact slots as well and be themeable. I wouldn't mind dropping the Culture/GA on unit death, it's cheesy and abuseable.

I wouldn't be opposed to making the +1 Prod/Gold on Pastures into +2 Prod./+1Gold and buffing Divine Right to be 1 per 1 or even 1.5-2 per 1.

 

[Enginseer]

Nobility: +1 Gold to Monastery.
Organized Religion: +1 Faith to Monastery.
Serfdom: +1 Food to Monastery.
Divine Right: +1 Culture to Monastery [if happiness is getting nerfed, their bonus is getting an indirect nerf ]
Burghers: +1 Production to Monastery

Easy peasy. Fealty made great again.

 

[tu_79]

I still think that having more religions is a nerf to religious play. You can disagree, but it makes a whole lot of sense to me.

That said, I prefer to give Fealty a more focused serfdom approach. It has the food, it has the bonus to non specialists. But it's hard to pass on specialists. 1 every 4 non specialists is a first step. More direct happiness is another. That would allow for bigger cities. Buffing farms is not needed when Fealty is directly giving food.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Maybe Fealty should buff internal trade routes? Like, +3 and +3/+4 depending on route type. It'd help you develop a conquered city faster. Besides that, maybe some small adjustments like stuff mentioned by guys above is in order.

Taj Mahal should also stop being so gimmicky. It encourages bad play or cheesing with stuff cheaper than the Culture you gain. I think the buffs on unit loss should go or be heavily reduced and just a part of what it provides.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think Taj Mahal could use a redesign. It has never been good and the Golden Age has been awkward because Artistry is the GA tree. The Culture/GAP on unit death is kind of cheesy/abuseable. I think we should scrap the Golden Age (Gazebo mentioned there being too many Golden Ages anyway) and come up with something else.

My proposal (no, it doesn't have to be this exactly, but I do think the Golden Age/GAP should be scrapped and this wonder started over):
-Add 3 Art slots, and have them provide +10 / when themed
-Move the free Order from Basil to here. I get that it's not historical but it's equally unhistorical on Basil and would make sense gameplay wise and with Fealty's overall theme.

This would provide clear synergy with the ability to buy Artists and with Artsy warmongers like France/Japan, the wonder will provide solid yields and be consistent with its artistic reputation.

Beyond that, the Pasture buff could become +2 /+1 , the per non-Specialists bumped to 1 per 4, and Divine Right becoming 1 per 1 . As compensation, the +2 scaling / from trading with civs with more policies/techs can be dropped (buffing the weak policies while nerfing the stronger ones).

Also, the Finisher is a little unfocused. I say to change it to +4 // per city following Religion (get rid of the /)-it more clearly emphasizes Religion/Infrastructure, doesn't step on Artistry's toes and would be better for Puppets.

I might be overdoing it with my propositions, but whatever

 

[Gazebo]

The Taj gets the award for 'thing most often talked about in the negative around here for the past few weeks.' I think it is due for another look. Changing it (and buffing it) and a small bump to some policy values is all that is needed here IMO.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

The Taj gets the award for 'thing most often talked about in the negative around here for the past few weeks.' I think it is due for another look. Changing it (and buffing it) and a small bump to some policy values is all that is needed here IMO.

G

Might I ask what particularly you're planning for Taj/Fealty?

 

[CrazyG]

I actually think the Taj Mahal is really good, I just don't really enjoy intentionally allowing units to die. Its such a gimmick.

 

[Gazebo]

Might I ask what particularly you're planning for Taj/Fealty?

I actually think the Taj Mahal is really good, I just don't really enjoy intentionally allowing units to die. Its such a gimmick.

Removing said gimmick. I liked the idea at the time, and it is 'thematic,' but it is also absurd.

Hey, I'm not perfect.

G

 

[Favorius]

Adding %100 construction rate for a few pre-renaissance buildings can polish infrastructure aspect. For example stables (nobility) and workshops (burghers) fit into theme of fealty.

Also trade route bonus science and culture may be scaling with era.

 

[Legen]

Maybe Taj Mahal is the wrong wonder for Fealty? This tree has no synergies towards golden ages. I think a defensive wonder like Red Fort or Himeji Castle would make more sense. Or Sistine Chapel, whose theming bonus provides faith and is filled by Great Artists, in line with the finisher.

I think Spain's immense synergy with fealty has warped the tree and the general perception towards it. Spain has more places to meaningfully spend the extra faith and their UB is a castle. No other civ benefits from it nearly as much, and this needs to be addressed before we can balance the tree for other civs.

I'd argue Japan is comparable. Their UB is an Armory, their UA attaches yields to both Castles and Armories and gives them a good shot at founding. And since this civ has strong incentives to build walls and castles everywhere, Fealty's scaler can leave it with 50+ CS cities in Medieval in all cities, which fits with the defensive aspect of the civ.

 

[YukiN]

I'd argue Japan is comparable. Their UB is an Armory, their UA attaches yields to both Castles and Armories and gives them a good shot at founding. And since this civ has strong incentives to build walls and castles everywhere, Fealty's scaler can leave it with 50+ CS cities in Medieval in all cities, which fits with the defensive aspect of the civ.

Good points. However I would still argue Japan doesn't benefit nearly as much from the faith bonuses, which is a major calling card for the tree. I also do not consider defensive bonuses particularly important for offensive warmongering civs, especially after the discounted castles. Tradition's 50%'s city shots is more powerful than all the defense from the scaler in Fealty and also in a much more appropriate tree in terms of intended playstyle.

The Taj gets the award for 'thing most often talked about in the negative around here for the past few weeks.' I think it is due for another look. Changing it (and buffing it) and a small bump to some policy values is all that is needed here IMO.

G

Sounds good to me. For the value bumps I would like to direct your attention to the scaler and non-specialist bonuses.

I would also request a reconsideration of the pastures bonus since that stands out to me as inelegant design. Pastures is a far narrower terrain requirement than in any other policy. I would prefer to remove it entirely and give buffs elsewhere(better flexibility for civs not starting on grassland/plains) or to expand the selection to include farms (consistent flavour and everyone builds some farms). The yields should be non-food for the terrain bonus.

 

[tu_79]

Could be +1/+1 on any improved resource too strong? This would synergize with a few pantheons and make the land valuable. Late game, my tiles are rarely worked. It also counter synergizes with GPTI, unless the bonus is extended to resources with GPTI as well (but they ruin pantheon bonuses).

 

[YukiN]

Could be +1/+1 on any improved resource too strong? This would synergize with a few pantheons and make the land valuable. Late game, my tiles are rarely worked. It also counter synergizes with GPTI, unless the bonus is extended to resources with GPTI as well (but they ruin pantheon bonuses).

Seems pretty strong. How about to improved tiles without resources and/or only for bonus resources?

I don't think you'll get enough GPTIs for the GPTI portion to really matter all that much in a Fealty civ.

 

[tu_79]

Seems pretty strong. How about to improved tiles without resources and/or only for bonus resources?

I don't think you'll get enough GPTIs for the GPTI portion to really matter all that much in a Fealty civ.

Bonus to improvements without resources only synergizes with the forest pantheon and most of the bonus will be lost, since I probably won't work on a normal tile, even with a little bit more of production, over a specialist slot if I can help it.

Bonus to resources, no matter what improvement they get, could solve the problem with planting GPTI over resources. But this means boosting more tiles. I like to plant a couple of factories and 3-4 academies, plus a few early towns. They are always planted on resources, normally on would be pastures when not taking Fealty.
Having the bonus just on normally improved resources will benefit more large empires, given that in secondary cities there are not many GPTI.

If 1food+1prod is too strong (which I'm not convinced, since the late game is hard to see those tiles worked), then leave it at just +1 production. Replacing the pasture bonus, if it wasn’t clear.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think you guys are overthinking this. I just think the Pasture buff could brought up to +2 /+1 and that's all that's necessary. Tile improvement buffs right now are spread between Rationalism, Industry, Imperialism and Fealty and the only improvement not improved by an Industrial policy tree is the Pasture so that's why it makes sense for Fealty to buff Pastures. Changing it to all improved resource tiles would be a little too much I feel. Other than that, when the Culture from Serfdom/Divine Right are bumped up a little bit, Fealty should be fine.

However....I wouldn't mind changing the Finisher (+2 Prod./Culture/Science/Faith per city following Religion) into +1 / from improved Resources, that would be something.