Yield value discussion (food vs others)

[Tomice]

I don't like to employ the 'trust me' argument very often, but this is one of those times. Trust me.

I do trust you.

Still, some science from population is realistic in the early game. Keeping it but reducing it's importance rapidly would be an alternative that would prevent having to reinvent the wheel invent artificial sources of science for the early game. See my earlier post (about removing per-population bonuses from library and research lab).

I also trust you to keep tall and wide balanced.

I'm undecided about finisher wonders. I both understand your reasoning and the scepticism of Acken. Creating 3-4 new wonders could alleviate the concern of reduced choice.

 

[Atlas627]

I think Authority should get Angkor Wat as its finisher, while Progress could keep Parthenon (with perhaps a buff?). Authority really needs the tile acquiring boost for their infrastructure policy (the Food and Production boost one). Since the other ancient era trees are getting synergistic Wonders, Authority should have the same thing.

If you want to say that Angkor Wat should be Authority's Opener, I could see an argument for it. But I definitely don't see it being the finisher. And the Parthenon doesn't synergize with Progress at all. And you don't think the Statue of Zeus and Terracotta Army synergize with Authority? And Angkor Wat synergizes super well with Progress since you'll have more workers, faster workers, faster working workers, and you're encouraged to build and upgrade cities faster than they'll expand...which is where Angkor Wat comes in.

Then it is a playstyle thing, but the more I think about it, the less I'd ever pick any of the other policy trees at that point. Even when I don't focus on culture, Aesthetics brings more to the table than the other two medieval choices in most situations. But whatever, my opinion seems to always be the minority and my playstyle gets shafted in every mod lately, so I just don't care anymore.


Can we at least make it an option to switch back to the current distribution of wonders to policy trees, if this goes through?

Even though I typically play the culture game, I find Aesthetics to be the weakest of the three trees. You also don't have to complete trees all the time. I find it very hard to believe this change would make Aesthetics suddenly a must-complete.

The thing I can see in your argument is that attaching more Wonders to culture will encourage investing in more culture, which will strengthen Aesthetics by virtue of people having more culture to enhance in the first place.

 

[Daya]

Wouldnt it be better to tie (more) wonders to the number of policies in general instead of specific policy trees?
I.e. Great Library requires 6 policies (in total, no matter what tree/trees) to be taken in order to build (just an arbitrary number for the examble).
Building wonders would rather be an accomplishment of culture than science and wouldnt reduce the choice.
Possibly wonders could be moved a tech or so earlier in the tech tree; with an according restriction regarding number of policies to build specific wonders, a high-culture/low-tech strategy might be a seriously viable option.

Aesthetics (as a culture to gain more culture tree) would become the go-to tree if you plan on building wonders.

 

[Tomice]

@Daya: interesting thoughts.

We could theoretically give each world wonder a minimum policy number requirement in addition to its tech requirement.

It would achieve the goal of strengthening high culture and (relatively) low science strategies without reducing choice as much as the finisher unlocking concept would.

 

[Crisp]

Wouldnt it be better to tie (more) wonders to the number of policies in general instead of specific policy trees?
I.e. Great Library requires 6 policies (in total, no matter what tree/trees) to be taken in order to build (just an arbitrary number for the examble).
Building wonders would rather be an accomplishment of culture than science and wouldnt reduce the choice.
Possibly wonders could be moved a tech or so earlier in the tech tree; with an according restriction regarding number of policies to build specific wonders, a high-culture/low-tech strategy might be a seriously viable option.

Aesthetics (as a culture to gain more culture tree) would become the go-to tree if you plan on building wonders.

This is the most intelligent solution I think. Wonders are wondrous on the basis they give unique benefits and that other players are excluded from them, if you however exclude players from selecting certain wonders from the outset you also alleviate risk. The above also fits neatly with the culture consolation prize, you didn't get that wonder but here is a boost to get the next one.

Or similar but alternate system rather than a number of policies to access a wonder, each wonder has a value say 1-4 that is a social policy cost. If you have 5 policies you can have 3 wonder that costs 1 and one that costs 2. Higher tech more powerful wonders require more policies but can be afforded by neglecting earlier wonders. This also translates to more dynamic choice and competition rather than being put on rails by you social policy choices.

And as a foot note to this whole topic of course wonder hoarder strats would maybe have to be re-balanced eg. Egypt the wonder pantheon etc.

Crisp

 

[Crisp]

To the wider discussion of science and population, I believe the base value should be removed as Gazebo endorses.
This is on the basis of strategic diversity. Population was holding to much importance and hence food was too.

To have strategic diversity you need choices that are generally equal but individually stronger in beneficial circumstances these circumstances in Civ are brought about by map terrain and a Civilizations individual strengths.

A comparison of yields and values to one another is paramount while also having stable identification of what makes them individual in their strength and utility.

Most yields represent a rate and/or the ability to change a rate. The strategic choices we make are which rate to maintain over others and at what cost do we increase our rates. Each resource also has a number of limiting factors.

Food production in any city has a floor requirement: to reach stagnation. Beyond that the question is how much do I grow or how much do I produce now? If i grow I can produce more later. But at the same time infrastructure I produce can also help me increase my rates. So I must intelligently chose what to prioritize.

Happiness is the limiter for growth, growth is less valuable when happiness is low. in this case we must substitute growth for production and alleviate unhappiness allowing more growth. These are choices, choose one or the other where optimal.

Production decrease in value the less choices of things I have to produce as I can be less optimal in my choices. Science provides choices.

Likewise Science becomes less valuable if i can not produce what i have already researched infrastructure wise why choose it over another rate.

If population gives science for free 2 possible choices are married together so you do not need to choose between them.

Your suggested forge changes are a lesser example of a marriage of choice production and science being married.

Marriages of choice are not bad as long as all marriages are created equal, and that they represent a increase in the number of valid choices that are more optimal in different circumstances.

The forge would yield strong science in a hill surrounded city. Perhaps a market or some such building could yield strong science in a trade hub.

Strategic diversification is king.

Crisp

 

[crdvis16]

Why would a player choose to go Tall versus Wide? It seems that every incentive to play Tall is being stripped away.

Tradition/tall is much better at generating GPs and running specialists than wide. Wide is typically hovering around 0 happiness so taking the unhappiness hit from running specialists is often a problem. Wide is also often poorer as it has higher building maintenance and has to build more roads for city connections. Wide gets more hate from other civs for over expanding or territorial disputes leading to worse relations and more war.

IMO tall science and tall culture will always be a preferred strategy for a number of civs (Korea, Brazil, come to mind). I really doubt lessening the tech cost penalty of additional cities will make wide suddenly broken, at least on standard style maps.

 

[pandasnail]

So I don't really have an opinion on the food growth science stuff, I trust y'all to work that out. Sounds like it'll make the game harder for bad city micromanagers like myself, but that's probably a good thing. Right now, my main city strategy is build enough farms to work enough production tiles to build growth buildings. I don't rush lib or unis, I try to hurry to water mills, aqueducts, and grocers instead, and then pass by the tech leader that way. Sounds like that'll have to change.

So one of the reasons I'm also hurrying to Grocer is that the same tech has my favorite wonder, Leaning Tower. Not sure if I love it because its actually great or if GPs are just fun. But, what I'm trying to get to is that I really don't like 6 more wonders being closed off to each player. I just think that removal of choice isn't fun, that setting in stone of a plan from the start isn't fun. If it were six new wonders, then whatever, but they're aren't THAT many currently to afford to remove six like that imo. And third policies are often not finished before ideologies, so I guess its really seven almost. Even similar grand strategy games should have a nuanced variety with different options available.

The idea above where its number of polices, not specific policies, could be fun maybe. Would make Poland the wonder gods tho instead of Egypt. The idea about each wonder 'costing' a policy sounds like it would hard to teach the AI to operate, tho I don't actually know.

 

[Legen]

Wouldnt it be better to tie (more) wonders to the number of policies in general instead of specific policy trees?
I.e. Great Library requires 6 policies (in total, no matter what tree/trees) to be taken in order to build (just an arbitrary number for the examble).
Building wonders would rather be an accomplishment of culture than science and wouldnt reduce the choice.
Possibly wonders could be moved a tech or so earlier in the tech tree; with an according restriction regarding number of policies to build specific wonders, a high-culture/low-tech strategy might be a seriously viable option.

Aesthetics (as a culture to gain more culture tree) would become the go-to tree if you plan on building wonders.

Really interesting, just keep in mind that we may need to leave free policies out of this count (Poland's UA, Oracle, Ideology wonders, world congress proposals), as they have no connection to one's culture output.

I suppose the social policy tree's opener/finisher could give a small discount for a specific wonder (e.g. Hanging Gardens requiring one less policy if you open Tradition) if we still want a wonder to favor that tree.

 

[Gazebo]

@Daya: interesting thoughts.

We could theoretically give each world wonder a minimum policy number requirement in addition to its tech requirement.

It would achieve the goal of strengthening high culture and (relatively) low science strategies without reducing choice as much as the finisher unlocking concept would.

I dig it. Much more interesting solution.

G

 

[supracseduch]

I don't like the idea of removing wonders completely from the tech tree. As someone mentioned, we don't want having to lookup wonders in the Civilopedia from the Policies popup. I do like adding a policy count requirement for wonders on top of the current tech requirements. The Policy count requirement should be equal to the tech's column number. The Wheel is a column 1 tech so we need 1 policy to unlock Stonehenge, Writing is a column 3 tech so we need 3 policies to unlock The Great Library, etc. (Openers should count towards the # of policies requirement. Ideological tenets should not.)

To illustrate further: We expect the average civ to reach the Medieval Era (5th and 6th column) by the time they've completed their first policy tree (6 policies). Scientifically advanced civs would reach this Era with fewer policies completed so they might not be able to immediately construct the wonders. Culturally sophisticated civs may want to beeline directly into this era to catch up with its wonders, since they'd certainly have the required number of policies.

Cultural civs might complete their third policy tree (18 policies total) during the Industrial Era (9th and 10th column), allowing them to adopt their ideology, and with more than enough policies to build the wonders for the rest of the game (There are 17 tech columns total, 19 if you count Agriculture and Future Tech). At the same time scientific civs might reach the Modern Era (11th column) with just two completed trees (12 policies). They'll be adopting their ideology but they have the choice to adopt more non-tenet policies to build the subsequent wonders.

 

[Legen]

I believe and have been discussed quite thoroughly. It's quite enough that population basically adds to everything, but to add to science as well, with no buildings, even?

But few talk about those loser yields , , and . Why?


Is it my imagination or does the AI never seen to have as many policies as the player (unless they happen to be Poland)? Mousing over the civ's diplomacy icons mid-game will virtually always reveal the AI as being several techs behind the player. Perhaps this is because of strange way culture yields work - the AI can't understand them.

The first issue arrives with culture buildings. Most culture buildings give lousy amounts of culture. Let's look at the amphitheater for example - 1 culture for every 6 citizens. That means a size 20 city will give 3 culture. Yippie. Also, the scaling formula of culture basically means that building a monument early is essential, while later cultural buildings are basically pretty strands for your great works. Mabye this is all done to keep culture artificially low so that tourism can catch up? Regardless, better courses of culture would be nice, if only for the AI's sake.

(...)

The thing about culture is that the 3 early trees provide most of your culture output for quite some time, and are often your primary source of culture. All the following trees provide little culture in comparison, and not in the amount needed to compensate for the increased culture cost for the next policy.

Also, the 3 early tree provide you culture by following their theme: Tradition focus your capital and fills it with culture specialists, Progress rewards you for technologies and buildings (could as well reward for completing improvements), Authority rewards you for expanding and using your military might (kill, conquer, tribute, garrison).

Meanwhile, other trees provide a small generic culture bonus ("building provide +X "), rather than rewarding actions appropriate to their theme. You don't get more culture from Piety by, for example, converting more cities or getting more followers. Nor from Statecraft from completing city-state quests and rigging elections.

The exception for low culture output is if the civ has a good source in its uniques, like Brazilwood camp.

 

[Dallandra]

@Daya: interesting thoughts.

We could theoretically give each world wonder a minimum policy number requirement in addition to its tech requirement.

It would achieve the goal of strengthening high culture and (relatively) low science strategies without reducing choice as much as the finisher unlocking concept would.

Oooooh, that's a neat idea. I can get behind that.

 

[BenchBreaker]

Im glad to see the discussion moving towards wonders associating with culture rather than science, science was the be all and end all of yields and there is little logical reason why science should unlock wonders, cultures actually makes more sense. Its cool that my little tangent turned out to become part of the main discussion

 

[Wario Mario]

I dig it. Much more interesting solution.

G

Minimum policies required for wonders, huh? Interesting idea.

The thing about culture is that the 3 early trees provide most of your culture output for quite some time, and are often your primary source of culture. All the following trees provide little culture in comparison, and not in the amount needed to compensate for the increased culture cost for the next policy.

Also, the 3 early tree provide you culture by following their theme: Tradition focus your capital and fills it with culture specialists, Progress rewards you for technologies and buildings (could as well reward for completing improvements), Authority rewards you for expanding and using your military might (kill, conquer, tribute, garrison).

Meanwhile, other trees provide a small generic culture bonus ("building provide +X "), rather than rewarding actions appropriate to their theme. You don't get more culture from Piety by, for example, converting more cities or getting more followers. Nor from Statecraft from completing city-state quests and rigging elections.

The exception for low culture output is if the civ has a good source in its uniques, like Brazilwood camp.

Good observations. I hadn't paid attention to the drop off in culture generated from policy trees - I was too focused on the "cultural buildings" crappy base generation of culture (they're effectively tourism buildings).

Yes, the AI always seems to be behind several policies. Even the deity AI doesn't actually get a policy discount in CBP - which is fine with me, I just think cultural AIs should be able to keep pace with a cultural human, and culturally stomp a scientific or militaristic human.

I imagine it would be easier to buff cultural buildings (or possibly, to *add* some cultural buildings, changing the current line to pure "tourism buildings") then to add effects to most of the policy tree. Still, your solution is more appealing.

 

[tu_79]

So, some wonders will need a social policy requirement, but the tech is still required. Good.
Just try to tie the wonder with a social policy that is likely to happen when the tech required is discovered, not just the finisher.

I don't see a problem if so many wonders are excluded for a match. The idea is that technological leaders don't build every wonder just by discovering them first. Additionally, that every play style has its reward. If flexibility is wanted, choose piety. It also may encourage players to try other play styles.

I am getting the point of the "always add" civ5 policy. That's you focus on what you want and fall behind in what you aren't focusing. Penalties aren't needed. That's an opportunity cost. The thing is being able to focus on anything (map wise) and win.

 

[tu_79]

Im glad to see the discussion moving towards wonders associating with culture rather than science, science was the be all and end all of yields and there is little logical reason why science should unlock wonders, cultures actually makes more sense. Its cool that my little tangent turned out to become part of the main discussion

Actually it is related. Too much importance of food comes from too much importance of city pop size that comes from being too rewarding to be technologically advanced.

 

[Atlas627]

One problem I see with making all Wonders require both tech and culture is that you run into a "rich get richer" issue game-wide. Snowballing is a thing, but comeback mechanics should be too. Diversification should be encouraged. Having all wonders require both science and culture and be a race seems like overkill. Completely removing some Wonders from tech seems like a wonderful idea to me.

 

[Gazebo]

One problem I see with making all Wonders require both tech and culture is that you run into a "rich get richer" issue game-wide. Snowballing is a thing, but comeback mechanics should be too. Diversification should be encouraged. Having all wonders require both science and culture and be a race seems like overkill. Completely removing some Wonders from tech seems like a wonderful idea to me.

I don't think any wonders should require a # of policies alone. Requiring a mix of techs and policies means that getting to a wonder first, either via policies or science, doesn't guarantee being able to build it. Essentially techs, culture, and faith (because some wonders require a holy city) would each serve as a hurdle that you have to cross to gain access to the wonder.

Removing branch-specific wonder requirements and shifting to a '# of policies' requirement also feels a bit more interesting. Encourages shifting priorities and/or cherry-picking policies as desired.

G

 

[Atlas627]

I don't think any wonders should require a # of policies alone. Requiring a mix of techs and policies means that getting to a wonder first, either via policies or science, doesn't guarantee being able to build it. Essentially techs, culture, and faith (because some wonders require a holy city) would each serve as a hurdle that you have to cross to gain access to the wonder.

Removing branch-specific wonder requirements and shifting to a '# of policies' requirement also feels a bit more interesting. Encourages shifting priorities and/or cherry-picking policies as desired.

G

As always, I'm happy to try it! This still sounds like a 'rich get richer' scenario to me. You need culture, science, and production to build Wonders. Its better than everything being tech all the time, but I don't think this is as good as removing some Wonders from tech entirely.