When do you open with the honor tree?

MP aside, Honor should come online about the time you are ready to attack with a UU. If you arent going to attack, you dont need honor. You almost always have to fight on Immortal +, so it makes sense to work it in. Below that its optional.
 
Honor could use some sort of gold boost in addition to finisher, and it wouldn't be a bad tree to open with. My struggle with Honor as starter is that the tree implies you are going to have a massive army (not only full garrisons, but more for hunting out barbs and conquering enemies) and yet no policies to help support this army. It is like Tradition giving you growth bonuses without any happiness to support it.
True, there's not any direct discount on unit maintenance, but I see various ways where the Honour policies can help out financially:
  • Starter; 25% combat bonus makes it easier to grab that barb camp gold.
  • Warrior Code; your free general can be used to grab a lux and/or strategic resources (typically from a nearby CS), and those you can sell for money.
  • Military Caste + Professional army; happiness from garrisons + defensive buildings may enable you to sell luxes.
  • Professional Army; upgrade your units for 2/3 of the full price.
  • Finisher; gain gold from killing units.
Somebody also mentioned you can extort money from CS's, but that's only marginally the effect of a specific Honour policy. It still is a decent list.
The trickiest thing with Honour I find is that you don't know in advance how your game will pan out. With Tradition and Liberty it's easier to plan your game in a way to get the most out of your policies.

It's like with civs; some or trickier to play than others. There's thread about the Byzantines going on at the moment, some players find them weak, others strong, but it's clear that civ is a bit trickier to play with than most civs.
A policy tree like Tradition is very strong and dependable the way it is now. Honour isn't as dependable as that, but I hope it's being kept the way it is. There's a lot of cutting edge to it in the right situations.
Maybe also Honour gets underestimated a little because so many players are builders now.
 
Back in vanilla, I would run honor opener for most typical NAME UNIT rush just because of the (back then 50%) PA would allow me to field 2-3 more units+upgrades. LS/UU muskets or even rifles rush for bad iron start were working great with it. Could be done with 1-2-3 city opener.The overhaul to tech bulbs and RAs has killed those spam upgrades rushes.

The rare scenario where I would run a honor opener is if I find myself on a small continent with 1-2 enemy civs at most. PA is still "game breaking" for naval warfare so I know it wouldn't be a complete waste in the long run given these setups. Naval upgrades are so pricy...
 
Here is what is wrong with Honor. In this patch 6 cbows + 1 warrior = win. But the first part of Honor is for melee which is broken. A real life ancient king would not field 6 times as many archers as warriors. He would lose the battle, but not in civ. Therefeore because range is OP Honor is no good.
 
Interestingly enough, I had a recent start where an honor opening just fell into my lap. I started coastal and decided to move my settler inland, because I'm not a huge fan of coastal starts. Turns out I ended up right beside Darius's capital. So, I said to myself: "If this isn't the ideal situation for opening honor, there isn't one." I hit him with 1 spear (upgraded warrior from hut), 2 warriors, 3 archers, 1 scout, and 1 great general at turn 28. His capital went down no problem and he was gone 2 turns after dow. Annexed the capital to build more units.

Then I looked around at my surroundings. I was surrounded by CSs and had Hiawatha further to my south below a row of about 3-4 CSs. Turns out Celts were to my SE in the fog and I found them later, but they were a non-factor early.

So, I said to myself: :shrug: "I have a huge army and no money to befriend these CSs, I might as well attack them." I conquered 3 of them (and was surprised I didn't end up in perma-war with the rest -- when was this changed???). The last one I took was very close to Hiawatha's 2nd city. So, I used my 2nd GG as a citadel and declared on him. He had *just* took over largest army, which I had, had up until that point. He had swords and I didn't, but I had CBs. I took his 2nd city and whittled down his army until he gave a generous peace deal, which I took so I could upgrade 4 warriors to swords to finish him off. It was at this point that I discovered Celts, who were weaker than me (I was back up to largest army) and saved and stopped. Hiawatha would fall. Celts would fall. Other CSs would fall (there were still quite a few on a fairly large continent). I would end up with somewhere between 10-20 cities without ever building a settler. I would own my continent.

Observations:

1) On top of largest army, I also ended up with largest empire, most production, highest gdp. The first CS I conquered had Mt. Fuji, which I used to get a religion going. I took god of craftsmen, which helped with production, especially courthouses. Definitely good for early warmongering, can't complain there. I built warriors/melee and bought archers. However...

2) I also ended up with lowest population and very poor science. Combined with 1, to me, this means that as long as you can steamroll your continent without encountering someone who has out-teched you and can defend themselves (i.e., the brick wall), you're golden, as you can recover your economy once you've cleared your continent. However, if you hit the wall, you're screwed imo, as you have no infrastructure to fall back on really. So, I can see where this is pretty problematic at immortal/deity. However, on levels below that (I play at emperor), you can be ok.

3) I went full honor and didn't mix with anything. Oligarchy would be nice at some point, as I was bleeding gold pretty bad a lot of the time, though bullying a CS at one point for 100 bucks made all the difference. Happiness was also difficult. I just aimed to stay above -10 and targetted the CSs first who had unique luxes. Hiawatha's second city and capital both had unique luxes and Darius's had 2 unique luxes as well, so I was generally ok, especially once the 1 :) per garrison sp came online, which also helped push culture. The cheaper upgrades across a large army like that are great, though I find they come too late for CBs. Great for swords and onward though. I hadn't run into enough happiness problems yet (nor did I have a ton of spare production) to start putting in walls, though I would eventually, which would be nice. Honor really does offer a lot to a wide empire in terms of :) I really like the idea of building melee and buying ranged, but you do have to get yourself some workers and trading partners before you start bleeding gold too bad though.

4) Never built a worker. Every city/CS that I captured had one, so I was golden there. Never needing to build a worker nor settler means you can focus pretty much exclusively on producing military and your most-needed buildings (i.e., courthouses, markets, libraries).

Overall, I would say that honor is only lacking some kind of economic benefit in the first half of the tree. If there was any kind of economic benefit to either help with infrastructure or unit maintenance, honor would be pretty powerful in the right circumstances, at least up until emperor. Can't really speak to immortal/deity, since I don't play at those levels, but I can see how honor would really pale compared to tradition/liberty as it does run out of steam once you realize how little science you are pushing out.
 
Yeah, on Emperor, a sub-turn-40 GL will often get it. From there, spam iron-less unique swordsmen and go a conquerin' Very, very likely sub-optimal compared to the usual CB spam, but could be fun for a change.

BTW I'm in the midst of another honor romp very similar to my writeup above. Rolled Songhai as random leader. Moved slightly inland off the coast. Monty appeared very close by. I knew it was him or I with no compromise. Songhai's UA strongly supports rushing, so I figured I'd go for it. Took out Monty's capital, guarded by 2 UUs and an archer, sub turn 40. From there, Babylon was further south, Ottomans SE of that, and Byz in the far E. Figured it was to be domination. So, I took out Babylon's units and guarded his capital while waiting for 4-5 catapults. Took him out. From there, I took out a CS just W of Byz (haven't been able to fully scout Ottomans yet). Used that as a launching point to take Byz's first city and will now push toward the cap. That'll just leave Ottomans on the continent and there are quite a few other CSs that I could either decide to take for a huge empire or play peaceful with them for the bonuses. Not sure yet. Went full honor and will either go commerce (if I attack CSs) or patronage (if I am peaceful with them) next before hopefully moving into autocracy.

Same observations as before. I took god of craftsmen and will easily end up with the largest empire, best gnp, best production, best food, but lowest population and science. However, knowing that, this time I just puppeted Babylon and built libraries in Monty's former cap and my own and got the NC in my cap. That at least helps a little bit.

I completed the honor tree and this time was able to benefit from the cheap upgrades on my archers to CBs. That was handy.

However, although the game is in really good shape, I can't help but feel like I'm the king of a fairly underdeveloped continent. But, once the conquering is done, I should have my hands on quite a large swath of land that could become productive quite quickly. With honor complete and Songhai's UA, I should be swimming in gold to start dropping in universities and markets everywhere. From there, my econ could spike up...if all goes well...
 
i have been playing pure honour starts, filling out the tree first. altho ur not going to have the benefits to growth from tradition or the bonus to production from liberty honour has some very good synergys within itself. here are some interesting things i have noted. ( i play emp difficulty atm)

- honour makes puppets worth having, and lets u get thos puppets very fast with fewer troops required. if u have a uu in ancient,classic,or medieval then it realy makes them shine. and military caste makes ur cultural boarders grow, even in puppets.

- the culture gain from barbarians early on is substantial enuf to let u get the first 3-4 policy's quite fast. i have toyed with completely skiping a monument early on in favour of other buildings like shrines, barracks and windmills/grainery's while focusing on scouting ruins for the first policy early, then into military caste so i can garrison units for +1 happyness +2 culture

- a interesting side effect of honour is troops with better promotions, and more of them, resulting in u being able to run ur early economy thru demanding tributes from cs. letting u fund ur early settlers that way.
 
Here is what is wrong with Honor. In this patch 6 cbows + 1 warrior = win. But the first part of Honor is for melee which is broken. A real life ancient king would not field 6 times as many archers as warriors. He would lose the battle, but not in civ. Therefeore because range is OP Honor is no good.

Many armies did well emphasizing archery heavily. The mongols, for instance. At any rate, Civ is anything but a realistic game.

Personally, my beef is that A) the research path for iron units doesn't get you much until metal casting, B) spearmen have a dumb upgrade path now, so I'd rather not field too many, and C) horse units die to spears and pikes.

So, ranged units just happen to be the least hassle.
 
I hate pikes to lancers. They gave guns to the common soldier, not horses.
 
Had a very juicy duel game(with barbs, whatsoever), i played carthage and rushed the general(warrior code in honor) and massed forest elephants.

My opponent was surprised how vulnurable his cities actually were to attack of mountain-forest-elephants-WTH-GENERAL?-GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH_THEY_SLAUGHTERED_MY_SWORDSMEN:(
Like one of very few cases when honor really payed off in all of it's beauty.

People here already mentioned monzi - these were the rest of successful attempts :)
 
Here is what is wrong with Honor. In this patch 6 cbows + 1 warrior = win. But the first part of Honor is for melee which is broken. A real life ancient king would not field 6 times as many archers as warriors. He would lose the battle, but not in civ. Therefeore because range is OP Honor is no good.

that sums it up pretty much. comp-bows (archers in general realy) just dominate the start, i will be surprised if they dont balance this out somehow in the "expansion" one world.
 
Here is what is wrong with Honor. In this patch 6 cbows + 1 warrior = win. But the first part of Honor is for melee which is broken. A real life ancient king would not field 6 times as many archers as warriors. He would lose the battle, but not in civ. Therefeore because range is OP Honor is no good.
In vanilla swords/longswords rush was The thing. How many times did you open with Honor? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom