Virtues, what was the issue?

[ZTZaorish]

So, I hear quite a few mentions of virtues, and how people were discussing their disappointment with them.

What were these disappointments? I know that they aren't exactly exciting or anything, but I personally don't see anything majorly wrong with them.

Could you guys explain yourselves here?

 

[Halbbruder]

I don't see any major problem with them, but for some players, the main issue is that virtues provide too great a proportion of health bonuses in the game. This leads to Prosperity and Industry virtues being core virtues while Might and Knowledge come out 2nd rate because you have to rely on other means to address health if they are your starting virtues.

In a sense they are right, but CivBERT seems to have added some incentives for picking the other trees now, besides health bonuses.

 

[Galgus]

My number one issue was that they removed Applied Aesthetics and replaced it with Applied Metasocialogy.

Applies Aesthetics gave energy equal to 50% of the player's Culture output, and combine with Technoartisans made a heavy Culture focus somewhat decent.

(Though nowhere near optimal for a quick win.

Applied Metasocialogy is a next to useless virtue that makes Spies reduce intrigue faster. This already happens quickly, and is very rarely needed anyway.
___________________________________

The second issue is all of the "pay Culture for Culture" virtues in the Knowledge tree that don't pay for themselves in time to make a difference.

The point of investing in Culture is to gain useful bonuses for the Empire, not to see bonus sections light up.
___________________________________

The third problem is related, that many Virtues feel like useless filler in the way of something worthwhile.

Homesteading, Military Industrial Complex, Creative Class, and Enterpreneurial Spaceflight are all offenders here due to having a very minor effect, an effect that is rarely active, or both.

In contrast some Virtues are incredibly strong, but players should not need to wade through garbage to get to them.
________________________________

My final and most minor issue is that one-time bonuses do not feel properly impactful enough early game to compensate for being completely irrelevant come mid-game.

These include Field Research and Scavenging, though generally I think a one-time bonus should be stapled to some kind of lasting effect.
____________________________________

Edit: I agree that Health often feels too Virtue reliant.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The problem is that they are poorly balanced. Prosprtity and Industry are too strong and just concentrating on one of them can solve your health problems. Knowledge has some good ones on the left track, but the rest isn't worth it, and Might isn't worth the opportunity cost. Even a warmonger will be better off with the economic, science, and health bonuses of the other trees.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

In short: They still have big balance problems. Some virtues are completely pointless fillers (e.g. "Get 30% of your excess health as culture", "+1 Science from Academies", "+25% production for Orbital units", "+1 pop in new cities"), while others are so strong that they completely define strategies (e.g. "Free Settler").

The health system is strongly linked to virtues, so Prosperity and Industry are, more often than not, way more powerful/useful than Might or Knowledge.

With BERT, it's also obvious that diplomatic capital is a way more interesting mechanic that could have replaced that old system (imho).

Lastely, there is still the old issue that virtues feel awkward for me because they are completely static. I still prefer CIV4's civics because they gave a more organic feeling for the development of my civ. I wish they had designed something like that to model the ideology of your civ and used virtues to customize your affinity instead. But, oh well...

 

[Galgus]

I'd prefer to bring all virtues up to, or at least closer to the level of the strong virtues rather than nerf them, but I agree that the balance is lacking.

Virtues have great potential, and it would kill the Culture style of progression to limit it to a set few Traits - they can coexist well in my opinion.

Personally I prefer Virtues to be vague to allow broader roleplaying, but it's a mater of taste.

I would love Affinity Traits or Virtues, though.

 

[omniclast]

There are a lot of problems with them. A lot of the virtues are pretty poor and rarely worth taking, and they end up serving as roadblocks that make whole branches of the trees useless. Knowledge and Might are underpowered compared to Prosperity and Industry, largely because there are no global sources of health other than virtues. And Prosperity free settler is too strong, it's never not worth taking.

Overall it just ends up being a very boring, staid path through them every game. Assuming you're playing MP or an AI difficulty that is remotely challenging, your options are to either push all the way through Prosperity, or you go to free Settler then switch to Industry. There's no flexibility, no adapting to the situation or experimenting with neat synergies like there is when choosing your path through the tech web. Honestly I don't even think about which virtues to take anymore.

 

[Galgus]

Ideally I think all the Virtues should offer something flashy in the early game to give players a boost.

Combined with buffing or replacing the filler virtues, players would have more freedom in which virtues to start and to complete.

 

[VCrakeV]

Has anyone thought of a creation/customization thread where the community can create and contribute to a virtue overhaul? One already exists, but it is disappointing.

 

[aguliondew]

I find the free settler out of the way, when I go for prosperity I get to the final 5 virtues asap. Still I prefer industry over prosperity because of trade routes and the production bonus. I only start in Might and knowledge for a few things aliens kills for science, the expeditions for science (with the see all artifact Spacecraft) or I am ARC and focusing on spies.

Also the 30 virtue synergy bonus are not that good for any virtue tree except might. Those bonus are what you get around late-mid game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I would point out that in Rising Tide, the prosperity tree won't be quite the "must have for health" since players will be able to get health from traits instead. So this indirectly makes the other trees more worthwhile, since players can opt to get health from traits and focus on the other virtues.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Homesteading, Military Industrial Complex, Creative Class, and Enterpreneurial Spaceflight are all offenders here due to having a very minor effect, an effect that is rarely active, or both.

Don't forget that idiotic Might virtue that makes you take enemy outposts that you want to destroy. That's not a useless bonus, it's a penalty.

These include Field Research and Scavenging, though generally I think a one-time bonus should be stapled to some kind of lasting effect.
Edit: I agree that Health often feels too Virtue reliant.

Scavenging is one of the few useful Might virtues. If if didn't require and lead to mostly useless stuff I would take it more often.
Field Research is actually one of my favorite openings. Three expeditions are practically a free Tier 1 stem and if you get more you can grab Computing and start spying very early. It's quite easy to leverage this early research boost into perpetual tech superiority. I think it might become even more useful when stem techs give affinity points.

I would point out that in Rising Tide, the prosperity tree won't be quite the "must have for health" since players will be able to get health from traits instead. So this indirectly makes the other trees more worthwhile, since players can opt to get health from traits and focus on the other virtues.

Health from traits will tip the balance a bit from Prosperity to the tech track of Knowledge, but it doesn't solve the general weakness of Might or the power of Industry.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Health from traits will tip the balance a bit from Prosperity to the tech track of Knowledge, but it doesn't solve the general weakness of Might or the power of Industry.

I don't think Might is that bad. Adaptive Tactics gives you more XP from combat. You can fight a bunch of aliens for some quick promotions which will give you a stronger army for an early war. Survivalism helps you kill more aliens which will in turn help you get more XP. Military-Industrial Complex helps you build your army quicker so it is useful for the warmonger who needs to build a big military quickly or rebuild after losses. Public Security gives the warmonger a little heath help which is always welcome. Scavenging is fantastic if you are near a lot of alien nests because you can get lots of extra science. And with the change in Rising Tide, where moving onto an alien nest does not automatically destroy, players can now keep nests around to spawn units for free science. Adaptive Sciences is also amazing, even better in Rising Tide because of how more spread out affinity points are. It will add up over time and give you hybrid units faster. And if you get to the end of the tree, you will net some additional combat strength to your units which is always welcome for the warmonger. Obviously, Might is only useful if you are planning a warmonger strategy but if you are, there are some nice virtues in there if you know how to use them.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I don't think Might is that bad.

It's not, it's just too narrow, while Prosperity is so flexible. It's a bit like the problem with Honor in Civ5, but larger, because the tree is so much deeper: it's a great tree when you're at war. It's a bit of a dead investment when you're not.

If it had more virtues like Adaptive Sciences, it would be a great tree but at the moment, it just - overall - cannot compete with the flexibility and always useful bonuses of Prosperity.

 

[kipwheeler]

My impression of Might is that's it's pretty situational. As Supremacy pointed out above, if you are near a lot of nests, you can take advantage of it earlier and more effectively.

In general, Might starts looking good to me if I wind up in a game where there's a nearby enemy faction I need to bum-rush militarily early in the game, when I'm already playing as Brasilia for military bonuses, and when I'm playing a militant version of Harmony.

Under those specific conditions, I think Might holds its own, and even shines above the rest. However, if any one of those conditions is not the case, it starts looking lackluster. Then, I tend to toss Might out and the window and start with Prosperity (four-of-the-top five traits in the column), then hop over to Industry (get all five-of-the-top five traits), and then hop back to Prosperity to plow down all the way to the really good Prosperity bonuses at the bottom of the column.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

it's a great tree when you're at war. It's a bit of a dead investment when you're not.

Well but isn't that the whole point of the Might tree? It is specifically tailored to be a tree for warmongers, who will fight a lot of wars, and presumably going for a domination victory.

If it had more virtues like Adaptive Sciences, it would be a great tree but at the moment, it just - overall - cannot compete with the flexibility and always useful bonuses of Prosperity.

As I see it, each virtue tree is designed for a specific play style:
Might- warmonger empires
Prosperity - rapid expansion wide empires
Knowledge - tall science empires
Industry - wonder production empires

The issue seems to be that players consider Might, Knowledge and Industry to have too narrow a focus and therefore not as useful as Prosperity which can be useful for a wider range of strategies. With high health, you can have more cities, and thus more of everything. Perhaps, this is an issue between tall and wide in BE rather than the virtues themselves? If a tall strategy were more useful in BE then I think the Knowledge and Industry trees would be more useful.

 

[kipwheeler]

\Perhaps, this is an issue between tall and wide in BE rather than the virtues themselves? If a tall strategy were more useful in BE then I think the Knowledge and Industry trees would be more useful.

That's a good point. I think you may be onto something there.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The problem with Civ 5 and thus BE is the fact that

Food = Science.

A wise leader/sponsor will simply aim for that if they want to outtech the other leaders. I think the game's subtle desire to be a expanded nation which produces massive amount of Science which thus result in need for Health/Happiness kind of creates this undesired effect. Anybody who uses the "strategies" for higher difficulties will prioritize both Food and Happiness and thus Focus regardless of the other things.

 

[GenEngineer]

Perhaps Knowledge could be improved on by changing some of the Culture bonuses so that they work more with Diplomatic Capital? That way, rather than culture buying culture (at a poor exchange rate), you get culture buying more diplomatic capital, allowing it to be a much more flexible tree.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The problems with virtues are also directly related to the game speed and health progression. As long as the game ends around turn 200-250, the balance is shifted heavily towards Industry as the extra production efficiency provides a pretty big snowball effect.

Prosperity can't really shine because the game is usually over before you can make use of all these extra cities it enables during the early game. If it wasn't for the settler there would be little reason to pick the tree at all. The mid virtues are all terrible and the tier 3 stuff is "nice", but way weaker than the benefits from Industry.

Knowledge doesn't work because it requires you to be at positive health early on - which is impossible because it doesn't have any early health virtues. During the midgame it is outclassed by Industry, because the extra production and food there actually generates more science via bigger and well developed cities.

I guess if the game would take 350-400 turns it would be more of a competition.