Government

+Despotism
Upkeep: Low

+City States
Upkeep: Low
-80% distance maintenance
-25% Gold
-10% Culture

+God King
Upkeep: High
+1 Happy from State Religion
+50% hammers, +50% Gold in capital
+10% distance maintenance

+Aristocracy
Upkeep: Low
+2 Gold from Farms
-1 Food from Farms

+Monarchy
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Happy per military unit stationed in city
Allows the building of the Royal Guard

+Republic
Upkeep: Medium
+3 Happy in 5 largest cities
Unhappiness penalty for all Civs without Republic
+10% Culture

Cultural Values

+Naturalism
Upkeep: Low
-1 Happy

+Religion
Upkeep: Low
+1 Happy in cities with the state religion

+Social Order (The Order only)
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Happiness from Courthouse, Palace, Forbidden Palace, Winter Palace and Basilica
+10% Military Production

+Nationhood
Upkeep: Low
Can draft 3 units per turn
+2 happy per Barracks
-25% War Weariness
-10% Culture

+Liberty
Upkeep: Medium
+100% Culture in all cities
+50% War Weariness
-2 Happy per Dungeon
Unlimited Artists

+Consumption
Upkeep: Medium
+10% Gold
+1 Happy from Market, Tavern and Theatre

Labor

+Tribalism
Upkeep: Low

+Slavery (Octopus Overlords only)
Upkeep: Low
Can sacrifice citizens to finish production in a city
-1 Happy
25% of defeated units are captured as Slaves

+Arete (Runes of Kilmorph only)
Upkeep: Medium
+20% Great Person with State religion rate
Can spend gold to finish production

+Military State
Upkeep: High
+15% Military Production
-25% Culture
20% Population in Free Military Units
Can spend gold to finish production

+Serfdom
Upkeep: Low
Workers build improvements 50% faster
+10% Hammers
-10% Gold
Can spend gold to finish production

+Caste System
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Free specialist in every city
+2 Culture per specialist
Can spend gold to finish production

+Guilds
Upkeep: Medium
Unlimited Merchants
Can spend gold to finish production

Economy

+Decentralization
Upkeep: Low

+Conquest
Upkeep: Low
+2 XP
Food produces military units
Grants a bonus 25-75 gold when cities are captured

+Agriculture
Upkeep: Low
+1 Health in each City

+Mercantilism
Upkeep: Low
No foreign trade routes
+10% Gold
+1 Happy from Market
-2 Happy from Thieves Guild

+Foreign Trade
Upkeep: Low
+1 Trade routes per city
-10% Gold
+20% Culture
Unhappiness penalty for all Civs without Foreign Trade

+Guardian of Nature (Fellowship of Leaves only)
Upkeep: High
+5 health in all cities
-10% Military Production
+1 happy from jungle, forest
+2 Happy from Grove

Religion

+Paganism
Upkeep: Low

+Organized Religion
Upkeep: Medium
Cities with state religion construct buildings 25% faster

+Theocracy
Upkeep: Medium
+2 XP in cities with state religions
No non-state religions spread

+Pacifism
Upkeep: Low
+50% great person birth rate in cities with state religion
+25% War Weariness
+1 gold support cost per military unit
-2 Happy per Colosseum
-2 Happy per Hippodrome

+Free Religion
Upkeep: Low
No state religion
+1 happy per religion in a city
+10% research in all cities
Can use all religion specific civics

+Crusade (Bannor only) (Loki)
You can only enter a crusade when you are at war.
+25% Military production.
-75% War Weariness.
-100% Great People rate modifier
While in the crusade the units they can make are limited (no settlers or workers).
While in the crusade the buildings they can make are limited (no elder council, market, obelisk, moneychanger, theatre, aqueduct, public baths, herbalist, carnival, courthouse, gambling house, granary, smokehouse or brewery).
5 turn anarchy period to start a crusade.
You cant initiate diplomacy with a civ you are at war with during a crusade (you have to wait for the AI to ask for peace or keep fighting).
Disciple units made during a crusade gain the Evangelist promotion.
Crusade only units:
[tab]Demagog
[tab]Flagbearer

Compassion

+Sacrifice the Weak (The Ashen Veil only)
Upkeep: None
-20% Great People rate
-2 Health per City
Can sacrifice citizens to finish production in a city
+10% Gold

+Fend for Themselves
Upkeep: None
-1 Health per City

+Basic Care
Upkeep: Low

+Protect the Meek
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Health per City
+1 Happy per Herbalist
+1 Happy per Infirmary

+Public Healers (Good only)
Upkeep: High
+1 Happy per Herbalist
+2 Health per City
+2 Happy per Infirmary

Education

+No School System
Upkeep: None

+Apprenticeship
Upkeep: Low
+2 XP for all units
-10% Military Production

+Military Discipline
Upkeep: Medium
+10% Military Production

+Religious Discipline
Upkeep: High
+10% research in all cities
-1 Happy from non-state religions
+2 Happy from State religions
Unlimited Priests

+Scholarship
Upkeep: High
+1 Happy per Library
+10% research in all cities
+20% War Weariness
Unlimited Scientists

Crusade (Bannor only) (Loki)

So we create a new "mode" the Bannor can use that represents the Crusade. That mode will probably be a Bannor specific civic option:

[tab]1. No great people (-100%).
[tab]2. While in the crusade the units they can make are limited (no settlers, no workers, etc).
[tab]3. While in the crusade the buildings they can make are limited (no non-military buildings).
[tab]4. +25% Military production.
[tab]5. A long anarchy period to start a crusade.
[tab]6. A long anarchy period to end a crusade.
[tab]7. You cant initiate diplomacy with a civ you are at war with during a crusade (you have to wait for the AI to ask for peace or keep fighting).
[tab]8. You can only enter a crusade when you are at war.
[tab]9. Crusade only units:
[tab][tab]Crusader only maceman that is half cost, -1 icombat, cant be upgraded and goes away at the end of the crusade
[tab][tab]Flagbearer that boosts all units within 1 tile
[tab][tab]Medic that can turn into an immobile medical camp and back
[tab][tab]Priest that pushes its religion on any city it takes (Loki)
[tab][tab]Mounted crusader unit (Loki)
[tab]10. -75% War Weariness.

What if you changed city states to not give the -10% gold. Instead the specialists incerased maintenance to symbolize the curroption found in a decentralized governmetn.

Personally I thinkt hat you shoul add many more civics, and have most of them be special for certain civilizations.

There are so many civics that I never use so I don't know if more is the answer or just more useful choices. Personally I like the Super religious civics so maybe loki's idea about civilization civics would work better as well.

Here's a suggestion for a new economy civic, not sure if it's balanced though:

Base metals into Gold(available with Alchemy):
Medium Upkeep
+10% gold, +10% gold with copper, +10% gold with iron
-50% military production.
-10% hammers
1 unhealthiness

Here's a suggestion for a new economy civic, not sure if it's balanced though:

Base metals into Gold(available with Alchemy):
Medium Upkeep
+10% gold, +10% gold with copper, +10% gold with iron
-50% military production.
-10% hammers
1 unhealthiness

I turned this concept into a divine earth spell. Turns a copper resource into a gold resource and vise versa.

Military discipline seems a bit weak. How about an additional +5% military production per specialist.

New religious civic(there aren't that many of them, and all of them are more or less copies of vanilla civics):

Asceticism(available with Meditation):

Monastery gives +6 happy faces(perhaps more)
+2 xp to military units
No happiness bonus from luxury resources
-30% growth rate

New religious civic(there aren't that many of them, and all of them are more or less copies of vanilla civics):

Asceticism(available with Meditation):

Monastery gives +6 happy faces(perhaps more)
+2 xp to military units
No happiness bonus from luxury resources
-30% growth rate

I like the penalties of this a lot but not the bonus's. Is there something else we could give as a positive benifit? Maybe unlimited or a greater number of Monk units?

Unlimited monks might work, and perhaps give monks some kind of free promotion as well.
I just think it might be quite crippling for a civilization to be completely devoid of luxury bonuses, and I don't really see ascetic societies as something with many unhappy citizens, but I guess they wouldn't be particularly happy either. More akin to the Buddhist ideal of escaping any kind of emotion. Too bad "content citizens" doesn't exist anymore.

Unlimited monks might work, and perhaps give monks some kind of free promotion as well.
I just think it might be quite crippling for a civilization to be completely devoid of luxury bonuses, and I don't really see ascetic societies as something with many unhappy citizens, but I guess they wouldn't be particularly happy either. More akin to the Buddhist ideal of escaping any kind of emotion. Too bad "content citizens" doesn't exist anymore.

There is one. Called No Unhappy Population that is settable on civics. I will use that.

There is one. Called No Unhappy Population that is settable on civics. I will use that

Great! That will work nicely. But you might have to increase disadvantages a bit more to balance it out.

Great! That will work nicely. But you might have to increase disadvantages a bit more to balance it out.

Oops, I misremembered, its No Unhealthy Population so it doesnt help us.

There is that wonder, tower of complacency, that does this. Would it be possible to modify monastaries to give a similar effect while under this civic?

There is that wonder, tower of complacency, that does this. Would it be possible to modify monastaries to give a similar effect while under this civic?

I can spawn a building in the capital that does this, then clean the building up if they change civics. It would accomplish a similiar effect.

No, tower of complacency makes there be no unhappiness at all. We need just no unhappiness from population. What if we changed it to "unhappy citizens still work?"

The effect of the civic, as I understand it, is to remove happiness bonuses from luxuries, but also to remove unhappiness itself as long as there are monasteries. Smiley faces were deemed too uncharacteristic. Removing all unhappiness might be a bit too powerfull. But it's balanced by th decreased growth rate, so I couldn't be certain without testing it. Perhaps it could remove a set percentage of unhappiness, but I'd try removing all, and seeing what that does first.

Unhappy citizens still at work asthetically seems better, but it might be harder to code. As long as the effect is the same, either works for me.

The effect of the civic, as I understand it, is to remove happiness bonuses from luxuries, but also to remove unhappiness itself as long as there are monasteries. Smiley faces were deemed too uncharacteristic. Removing all unhappiness might be a bit too powerfull. But it's balanced by th decreased growth rate, so I couldn't be certain without testing it. Perhaps it could remove a set percentage of unhappiness, but I'd try removing all, and seeing what that does first.

Unhappy citizens still at work asthetically seems better, but it might be harder to code. As long as the effect is the same, either works for me.

Yeah, if I had my preference (and as Corlindale quite correctly first suggested it) it would take away the luxary happiness and stop a certain portion of the unhappiness. We just have to figure out a way to do it.

Perhaps it could make sense to have actual unhappiness in the civ. Even if asceticism is an honored ideal, all of the population might not agree entirely, and they'd be quite unhappy to have material pleasures, as well as pleasures of the flesh, denied to them to great extent by the priests.
Although I still would prefer to have an "indifferent" population, who doesn't resist work, but who doesn't get We Love the Whoever Days either, but that might be too hard to make.

Going with the first suggestion, we will have some heavy disadvantages. It will be much harder to make people happy, and growth rate will be low.
It'd need some quite good advantages to be balanced. Unlimited monks and free promotions for them was suggested, but I'm just afraid it will encourage a too homogenous army, even if it would fit the concept well. Going to battle with 50 monks would not be that fun. Perhaps the civic would allow new types of monk units with certain special abilities.
It should also improve Monasteries in some way, though probably not through a happiness bonus.

I really think that aristocracy should increase the chance of civil wars.

Combine Humanism and Arete?

I would like this. No one uses humanism anyways.

I have a question about foreign trade. Does it allow deficit spending? The little pop-up says it does, but then when are the pop-ups ever accurate?

I have a question about foreign trade. Does it allow deficit spending? The little pop-up says it does, but then when are the pop-ups ever accurate?

I dont know the answer to this. I dont see anything that would allow/disallow this.

I think that Gaurdian of Nature should also give +1 food per jungle. Otherwise I'll end up just cutting down all the jungles and the jungle happiness bonus seems meaningless.

Well, it's pretty easy to upgrade jungles to forests for a nature oriented civ, so that might not be a problem, really.

As for deficit spending, yes it works. I've had games where I was running -154GPT, funded entirely by conquest. Though that was in 1.0. The GNP graph looks pretty funny when civs you've wiped out score higher than you.

Right Now the Slavery Civic is the only one that allows to sacrifice Population for Production. As only the OO or free religion civilizations can acquire it that part is kept from many evil civilizations. Can we give that possibility to one other Civic as well?
Or maybe a different version that allows Population to be sacrificed for gold or reseach.

What if AV allowed sacrificing population for research?

How about a labour civic called Fel Industry? Basically, imagine enormous furnaces fueled by human flesh, the air filled with dark and poisonous smoke, labourers being worked to death in workshops, only to become fuel for the forges afterwards. Something like the view you get of Saruman's production facilities in the LotR movies, only worse and more inhuman.
I think this would especially fit a religion like the Veil very well, as a late-game civic, but perhaps we could make it accesible to all evil civs. A set of brutally efficient and cruel ways to enhance production capabilities.

It might go like:
Allows sacrifice of population for production
+2-4 unhealthiness
+2-4 unhappy faces
+xx% to production
Medium Upkeep

EDIT: It should also boost the production of workshops. These doesn't really see much use as it is right now.

What if it gave +1 production per demon stationed in city? Limit of 5.

I think Guardian of Nature should include Ancient Forests in the happiness. I noticed my cities were getting very angry with me, but only after my normal forests were changing to Ancient ones.

I think Guardian of Nature should include Ancient Forests in the happiness. I noticed my cities were getting very angry with me, but only after my normal forests were changing to Ancient ones.

Ill add ancient forests to the bonus list.

And they need to be added to health as well if they aren't already. My elven cities seemed awfully unhealthy.

+Slavery
Upkeep: Low
Requires state religion of Octopus Overlords
Can sacrifice citizens to finish production in a city
-1 Happy
25% of defeated units are captured as Slaves

Slavery doesn not allow to sacrifice Population to finish Production it seem.
How about introducing a low compassion civic that does (maybe low upkeep, and only available for neutral/bad civs?)

Liberty seems to be a bit overpowered when going for cultural Victory. When combined with caste system its incredible.

Unlimited Bards, + 100% Cluture seem ok
but the two free specialists per City are a bit strong.

I would propose turning it down to one free specialist or even removing the free specialists.

Liberty seems to be a bit overpowered when going for cultural Victory. When combined with caste system its incredible.

Unlimited Bards, + 100% Cluture seem ok
but the two free specialists per City are a bit strong.

I would propose turning it down to one free specialist or even removing the free specialists.

K, turned down to 1 free specialist.

May I ask for what reason people use the Aristocracy civic?
If you want gold instead of food, wouldn't you just build cottages?

a) Later in the teech tree: One farm is +1 Food and +2 Commerce
b) Your empire is poor of course of recent expansion and you need cash now. A cottage takes some turns to give +2 commerce, and if you plan on replacing those cottages later one again with farms you need the worker twice. Aristocracy so allows you to get a lot of money for a while and return to lots of food later on.

Its usually not a civic you use for longer periods of time.

ok thanks :)

Also if you have the financial trait aristocracy is just insane.

Damn, I never thought about that! Trading one food for 3 gold? MmmmmMMMmmm...

Also if you have the financial trait aristocracy is just insane.

Even then it's 1 food and 3 commerce versus 1 hammer and 5 commerce. I'd know what to pick! :D

Btw I'm wondering about the Arete civic. For all the other religion-specific civics I feel they're really good to run. But Arete... only 20% increase in great people points? When you're running Caste System, you can usually get much more by a free specialist per city. The few extra gold you have to pay for troop is also easily compensated by all the extra gold and beakers you get from the extra specialists.

I'm also wondering about Ancient Forests. If a non-Fellowship civ conquers Fellowship land, they can still profit from the bonuses ancient forests give. I was therefore wondering, how about ancient forests standard giving only the usual +1 hammer, and only giving an extra food when you're running Guardian of Nature?

I'm not liking the Basic Care civic, especially as a starting civic. Fend for themselves seems much more natural a default. Why not simply remove the -1 dip modifier to Fend for themselves. Providing basic care to its people seems like something that a civ would need to research some techs to be able to do, and then it just becomes a watered down version of public healers philosophically.

- feydras

I'm not liking the Basic Care civic, especially as a starting civic. Fend for themselves seems much more natural a default. Why not simply remove the -1 dip modifier to Fend for themselves. Providing basic care to its people seems like something that a civ would need to research some techs to be able to do, and then it just becomes a watered down version of public healers philosophically.

- feydras

The reason it is added is to give a "neutral" compassion option. Before it went in the you would start at 'Fend for Themselves' and all of the good civs would have a negative attitude modifier towards you.

There were 2 possible solutions, dont apply the fend for themselves modifier until later on (when the judging civ increased his compassion option or some other setting) or to add a 5th compassion option that wanst judged.

I didnt want to just make 'Fend for Themselves' neutral because that would only leave one "evil" compassion option and that was only available to veil civs.

So I like haveing the 5 with you starting in the middle. What could sue some improvement is what the 5 do and what they are called to distinguish them a bit from each other.

I've been playing the mod for awhile, have followed the discussion and understand your reasoning. It just seems to me that fend for themselves feels more like the natural law type state of affairs at game beginning. I like the -1 health, it fits well. It just doesn't seem evil so much as maybe a bit neglectful. I can see how a morally advanced civ would see this as callous -1 rep but enabling Basic care right from the getgo leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In our real world - just to get to basic care required major worker organizing during the industrial revolution.

Maybe the solution is adding another evil civic. Here are two ideas off the top of my head...

Flesh farming - with a bonus to production via allowing a building? and minuses to health and happiness. Possibly add some other benefit. The idea would be that you enslave the powerless (weak or strong) and farm them for body parts.

Eugenics - forced breeding. A more advanced form of Sacrifice the weak. Grants a Str promo to all new units. I wouldn't grant XP here as that is too boring and it also would give you more specialized troops when eugenics would do the opposite.

- feydras

Is there a reason why crusaders cannot be build during a crusade...

I was about to launch a vast holy crusade across the whole world against the vile vale civs after getting fanaticism but then couldn't build crusaders as the state religion is scrapped.

I didn't mind losing the order hero, but was kind of annoyed that I couldn't use crusaders in a crusade

Gasp!!!!! A big mistake. You should be able to keep your state religion durign crusades!!!!!

Is there a reason why crusaders cannot be build during a crusade...

I was about to launch a vast holy crusade across the whole world against the vile vale civs after getting fanaticism but then couldn't build crusaders as the state religion is scrapped.

I didn't mind losing the order hero, but was kind of annoyed that I couldn't use crusaders in a crusade

Yeah, crusaders need renamed. They were named long ago before we had the crusdade civic. They require you to have the Order religion to be built, which crusade removed (bug, it will be fixed in the next version). Crusade allows you to build Flagbearers and Demagog's.

Nationhood gives +2 happy from barracks. This is a vanilla holdover, and doesn't quite fit, since there are frequent situations where cities won't want barracks--namely no applicable resources or it's specializing in a diferent unit type. The FfH barracks equivalent is the trainig yard, anyway, though I think it is cheaper. Maybe change it to +1 happy from TY, +1 from barracks?

Also, I think sac the weak was weakened a bit much. I used to use it fairly often when i could. But with a great people hit as well, just for a hurry possibility, it doesn't seem worthwhile anymore.

Proposal.

A, "Help! We're being Oppressed," civic. It's game implementation would be as a rubber band mechanic. The only way to choose this civic is if your civ is doing badly...ie bottom 33% of civs. Think of it as the Endangered Civilizations Act.

It would give say +10% Research, +10% Production...or allow easy spy mechanics, or something along these lines.

Q: Why? The adventurer already does this, and it's a unit?

A: The AI would use the civic better than the unit, and also adventurers are fun...all civs should have them in a Fantasy game. Not just the loser civs.

Cool idea. It would be nice to have some sort of boost to failing civs to give them another fighting chance or at least forestall their eventual collapse.

Noone liked my two new civic proposals? Eugenics and Flesh farming? Ah, well, that's why i don't get paid as much as you guys ;)

- feydras

Proposal.

A, "Help! We're being Oppressed," civic. It's game implementation would be as a rubber band mechanic. The only way to choose this civic is if your civ is doing badly...ie bottom 33% of civs. Think of it as the Endangered Civilizations Act.

It would give say +10% Research, +10% Production...or allow easy spy mechanics, or something along these lines.

Q: Why? The adventurer already does this, and it's a unit?

A: The AI would use the civic better than the unit, and also adventurers are fun...all civs should have them in a Fantasy game. Not just the loser civs.

Would be interesting in something along this lines.... would be more interesting if, whether as a civic implementation, or otherwise, you could, as a "losing" civ offer your civ as a perm alliance/vassal of another civ that gives you the bonuses instead. This way

As the "losing" civ you would have to follow the rules/tax & production orders of the controlling civ (or declare a civil war)...

I'm not really a fan of the revamped Sacrifice the weak civic, it just doesn't seem like it has enough of an upside to it. I understand the unhealthiness, that makes sense from a story POV but the benefits of a 10% cash influx and rush seem a little weak to me.
I agree that maybe the great people penalty is probably too much. If anything I would imagine a small great person or production bonus, as in sacrifice the weak...for the benefit of the strongest.

Just throwing the ideas out there

Would be interesting in something along this lines.... would be more interesting if, whether as a civic implementation, or otherwise, you could, as a "losing" civ offer your civ as a perm alliance/vassal of another civ that gives you the bonuses instead. This way

As the "losing" civ you would have to follow the rules/tax & production orders of the controlling civ (or declare a civil war)...

Warlords, judging from an old screen shot, has a vassal diplomacy option. I'm curious what it does.

Why is Public Healers only for Good Civs? And why is Protect the Meek NOT Good only? Seems to me that Protect the Meek sounds more good than public healers. Also, Public Healers allows other alignments to switch when they first discover medicine and get the popup to switch, but not afterwards (much like crusade was doing as well).

Why is Public Healers only for Good Civs? And why is Protect the Meek NOT Good only? Seems to me that Protect the Meek sounds more good than public healers. Also, Public Healers allows other alignments to switch when they first discover medicine and get the popup to switch, but not afterwards (much like crusade was doing as well).

Public Healers is available to everyone. Most good civs like you treating your people well, some evil civs appreciate you treating your people poorly.

One of the compassionate options is good only (order) and one of the non-compassionate options is evil only (veil).

Public Healers is available to everyone. Most good civs like you treating your people well, some evil civs appreciate you treating your people poorly.

One of the compassionate options is good only (order) and one of the non-compassionate options is evil only (veil).

It says on the first post of this thread that Public Healers is Good Only. I assume that's why I haven't been able to choose it after the initial popup when medicine is discovered (I usually play neutral).

I think its a good idea to make public healers only good civs.

Help! I want to adopt nationhood as the dwarves but can't benefit from the happiness bonus from barracks as I cannot build them! Pehaps giving a bonus from sculpting studios as well is in order.

Re the City States civic. It offers -80% city distance maintenance, but has a penalty of -25% of all your gold. That's a huge penalty!

Eg currently I'm in a crazy game where my distance maintenance is double as much as my number of cities maintenance. But I'd still be losing money if I'd run City States.

So I'm wondering, how about reducing the penalty to -10% gold? Then I think it would still be rare circumstances where City States is better than the other civic you usually can have at the same time: God King.

Im here to do a little complaining (sorry). I have never liked the fact that some civics, namely Republic and Foreign Trade, cause unhappiness in other civs...

I feel like i am forced into adopting those civics so that my cities can reach full potential.

Plus it almost always results in games full of foreign trade republics for me, which admittedly can help with the AI's mood towards you but i still would like to be able to choose the other civics without a negative happiness modifier. Its just not fun.

I actually read the code for this today, and after rading the code i would like it if there were two civics in one row that had this penalty. The funny thing is that the penaly goes up the more civs (cities) have the according civic...

So there would be kind of fight between the two civics :)

How about a cultural values civic called of Travel, that gives galleons +1 movement, harbors +2 happy, and city walls -1 happy? Would help setting up cities on archepelagio maps.

Civic battle would be much more interesting and realistic actually with the whole cold war thing and all (capitalism vs communism).

How about a cultural values civic called of Travel, that gives galleons +1 movement, harbors +2 happy, and city walls -1 happy? Would help setting up cities on archepelagio maps.

Decreased maintenance cost due to distance from capital too, perhaps. I like the flavor of that, and it'd help the problem with the Lanun (forced to spread out on the coastline) that was brought up in the other thread.

So there would be kind of fight between the two civics :)
It would make the game even harder for people who want to use other civics though. If you do this, the penalty for each of them should be lower than the current Republic/Foreign Trade penalty.

I always thought the global unhappiness from the "goody two shoes" civics was inappropriate, myself. I'd rather it was unhappiness vs other civics. For example in vanilla, Emancipation should really only give unhappiness to civs running Slavery and maybe Serfdom (and conversely Slavery might give an unhappiness penalty or diplomatic penalty to Emancipation civs - the people there should be wanting to free to oppressed from other countries).

I always thought the global unhappiness from the "goody two shoes" civics was inappropriate, myself. I'd rather it was unhappiness vs other civics. For example in vanilla, Emancipation should really only give unhappiness to civs running Slavery and maybe Serfdom (and conversely Slavery might give an unhappiness penalty or diplomatic penalty to Emancipation civs - the people there should be wanting to free to oppressed from other countries).

That wouldn't be an happiness penalty, i.e, unrest at your own civilization. Actually running slavery civic would reduce war weariness for your good enemies.

That wouldn't be an happiness penalty, i.e, unrest at your own civilization.

Sure it would. People would be unhappy that you were on good diplomatic relations with a people that still practiced slavery.

ah, well okay... but that'd need a different mechanic to make sense, as the emancipation ones are always on, even if the other civs are fighting you over it.

I dislike how in late game wars your civic choices are almost dictated by the unhappiness penalties on some civics and the WW mods on others. It's much worse than regular Civ in this respect and I find it frustrating to play non-Spiritual civs.

The civic unhappiness penalties and WW are the main thing I really dislike in an otherwise great mod. They add nothing positive to the game experience as they just force the player to work around an indiscriminate penalty, and seem out of place in a medieval/fantasy setting.

I am curious about the rubberband mechanic? Are you still thinking of implementing one, and are you still planning on that being a unit?

I wanted to bump this suggestion...I'm playing a game right now, and getting thrashed. Due mostly to a bad starting position, and some rotten battle luck. Not complaining, I like playing the underdog, and trying to come back. I just need a little help for that to be feasible, and not reset. A rubberband civic only accessible to the dregs might increase playability.

Proposal.

A, "Help! We're being Oppressed," civic. Ok maybe not this name, but I'm sure you could come up with something. It's game implementation would be as a rubber band mechanic. The only way to choose this civic is if your civ is doing badly...ie bottom 33% of civs, pointwise. Think of it as the Endangered Civilizations Act.

It would give say +10% Research, +10% Production...or allow easy spy mechanics, or something along these lines.

I dislike how in late game wars your civic choices are almost dictated by the unhappiness penalties on some civics and the WW mods on others. It's much worse than regular Civ in this respect and I find it frustrating to play non-Spiritual civs.

The civic unhappiness penalties and WW are the main thing I really dislike in an otherwise great mod. They add nothing positive to the game experience as they just force the player to work around an indiscriminate penalty, and seem out of place in a medieval/fantasy setting.

What does everyone else think? Are these nessesary mechanics or should they be removed?

I am curious about the rubberband mechanic? Are you still thinking of implementing one, and are you still planning on that being a unit?

I wanted to bump this suggestion...I'm playing a game right now, and getting thrashed. Due mostly to a bad starting position, and some rotten battle luck. Not complaining, I like playing the underdog, and trying to come back. I just need a little help for that to be feasible, and not reset. A rubberband civic only accessible to the dregs might increase playability.

Proposal.

A, "Help! We're being Oppressed," civic. Ok maybe not this name, but I'm sure you could come up with something. It's game implementation would be as a rubber band mechanic. The only way to choose this civic is if your civ is doing badly...ie bottom 33% of civs, pointwise. Think of it as the Endangered Civilizations Act.

It would give say +10% Research, +10% Production...or allow easy spy mechanics, or something along these lines.

I still like the theory of a rubber band mechanic, but im not sold on any particular implementation yet.

I guess my core question is, would I rather the AI set upon and destroy weak players, or do I want to encourage them to stick around?

What does everyone else think? Are these nessesary mechanics or should they be removed?

They limit one's freedom of choice for the civic options, which is pretty unfun in my view. Then again, they can be used as weapons against other players, which is again fun. Tough call.

I still like the theory of a rubber band mechanic, but im not sold on any particular implementation yet.

I guess my core question is, would I rather the AI set upon and destroy weak players, or do I want to encourage them to stick around?

If you do include a rubber band mechanic be careful not to simply give it to the weakest civs. That can cause games where noone can get ahead, because the bottom is getting the bonus allowing them to catch up, making the former middle civs bottom allowing them to catch up and so on. Meaning how you're doing doesn't really matter unless you're doing exceptionally well or bad. It should only be given when really needed if at all.

Personally I use the weak to make myself more powerful, allowing me to take on the next in line. I think the AI should do the same. Either that or I less able to do it. Right now it's a too good strategy for the AI not to use it imo.

Personally I use the weak to make myself more powerful, allowing me to take on the next in line. I think the AI should do the same. Either that or I less able to do it. Right now it's a too good strategy for the AI not to use it imo.
"all" of the warlike civs should do that
(assuming nobody would gang up on them for it)

rubber band mechanic... if a civ is very friendly towards another civ (permenant alliance-ish if they were the same size)
it should give X% of it's beakers(in techs) to it's buddies,
especially if they're good civs

The word "caste system" doesn't feel right... I think it would be better if it was called "Elitism" or something like this...

What does everyone else think? Are these nessesary mechanics or should they be removed?

Republic penalty shoud remain. But WW, trouble with it is that shooting firebals causes war wearines, as they count as killed units. That is why WW is so high later on. There are plenty of WW reducing civics and buildings anyway. (Military discipline, nationhood, dungeon...)

What does everyone else think? Are these nessesary mechanics or should they be removed?
yeah I think war weariness penalties is too high. If it's Dark Fantasy, dangerous and savage world, people must be ready to some fight.

WW for Summons will be removed so it should be massively smaller.

About the Civics that cause Anger.
i will check how the Ai determines if it chooses such if it simply chooses the because they give Anger to others i'll change that one. Because if only one Civ has such a civic the effect is rather small. It gets bad when most civs have the civic (yes the effect scales with the number of civs that adopt that civic).

I have no problem with that anger. But foreign trade... why it reduces gold? And if it will reduce gold, then make it give more culture than now.


I like early strategic choice between conquest and agriculture. Health and developement or money from conquering, more xp and quicker building of military units? But unfortunately, only drawback of conquest is one step higher upkeep than agriculture, and no +1 health benefit.

My sugestion:
Reduce agriculture to no upkeep
Increase its health to +2
Make it give +1 gold or hammer from farm

Two of these 3 would do the job very well

Agreed about Agriculture - I only use it until I can develop something better, then switch and never change back. TheJopa's suggestions are good, though I'm a bit hesitant about the +1 gold or hammer. Still, I don't think I'd use Agriculture very much without that - Conquest is still very strong compared to it.

What about for Agriculture it adds +1 health per farm in the city radius? (not +1 health for the civ, just for the city, like the way forests add +1 health for a city) And then remove the general +1 health of the civic (keep the low upkeep since its better if its not unilaterally better than the basic one).

I'll expand on my comments a bit and why I think these mechanics shouldn't have been ported over from the basic game.

I think you really have to look at the emancipation unhappiness penalty in civ4 from which the anger mechanics were derived. It creates a snowball effect as more and more civs adopt it, making the penalty for not complying prohibitive. As a historical representation of slave revolts and the worldwide abolition of slavery, it works very well. As a game mechanic, it reduces player choice and isn't fun. Clearly, it's the realism/flavour aspect that kept the mechanic in. So, we should ask whether the flavour makes a good fit with the changed setting in FFH.

From a medieval/fantasy perspective, most citizens are happy with the concept of monarchy. In a world dominated by religion and the struggle of good versus evil, I think most citizens would be likely to prefer a strong monarch. Indeed, in most fantasy literature where a bad monarch is overthrown, the heroes replace them with a good one, rather than abolishing the monarchy altogether. So I think republic unhappiness is really out of flavour for the setting.

Foreign Trade - The name of this civic doesn't really fit, because the default behaviour of cities is foreign trade with anyone with open borders anyway. If the regular civ4 name of 'Free Market' is considered out of context, something like 'Open Markets' or 'Free Trade' would fit better. Again, here, I don't see a convincing roleplaying reason for this to cause unhappy citizens. Consider the silly situation of having closed borders with everyone and the citizens getting worked up about whether they officially have foreign trade or not :)

WW - Removing WW from summons is a good call. I still think it would be a better game with WW removed or massively scaled back in the late game though. It's one of the few things that were badly designed in the base civ4 game. Persistent war weariness where you inherit the unhappiness penalties from a war that took place generations ago definitely should go; it's more likely after all in a medieval setting that the next generation would be brought up to learn 'these are our enemies, and one day we will have to fight them again.'

Just commenting on the WW:

WW is reduced during peacetime but at a very slow rate. I think increasing the speed with which it decreases should solve most of the problems.

Anychance WW can be removed in "Always War" scenarios? I check that "Always War" box to make things more interesting, but my original city had 22 unhappiness just from WW by the year 380 O_o

You know: You get only WW if you are loosing units.. so the solution is: Do not loose. ;)

ya, I'll tell the three deity AI civs to go easier on me next time lol

Magocracy......I dunno what tech......but a civic where wizards rule over everyone or a least control a voting council of some kind!

You know: You get only WW if you are loosing units.. so the solution is: Do not loose. ;)

Are you sure?

If I interpret this right, you get less WW if you win, but you still get some no matter what.

<Define>
<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_ATTACKING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_DEFENDING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_DEFENDING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_ATTACKING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_UNIT_CAPTURED</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_UNIT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_CITY</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>6</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_HIT_BY_NUKE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_ATTACKED_WITH_NUKE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>12</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_DECAY_RATE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

I often get +2 WW capturing cities in the late game even if I don't lose units killing the defenders. Thanks for looking into this.

I'd say increase the decay rate and eliminate the penalties for winning battles.

If looked closer and its a bit stupid.
You are right you can get WW even if you win, but it depends whether you fight in their or your territory or territory of others.

If the Attacker dies then
a) the defender gets WW when the combat was not in a tile possessed by the attacker.
b) the attacker gets ww when the tile not belonged to the defender

so as attacker you get no ww when you die in their land.

when the defender dies
a) and the tile does not belong to the defender then the attacker gets WW
b) and the tile does not belong to the attacker then the defender gets ww

so basically that means there is no ww when you do only fight in the land of the enemy.
WW appears only if the combat is in your land or in neutral land/land not belonging to the respective Enemy.

Good to know i'd say.

Maybe you should reverse it for good civs, or at least the Elohim. So that they get upset dying in enemy lands, but don't mind fighting to the last man in their own. (It could be tied to the defender trait.)

Actually i would say even increase the WW in your lands for the leaders whit Defender trait, they like so much of their homeland they dont want it full of blood and carnage !

:hmm: Maybe you should reverse it for good civs, or at least the Elohim. So that they get upset dying in enemy lands, but don't mind fighting to the last man in their own. (It could be tied to the defender trait.)
:hmm: ...unless the war was started by the enemy and then they shouldn't recieve the penalty in either.......maybe a New Civic could allow that for anyone.......Just War type of stuff..........maybe just as you say I dunno....I would hate for them to recieve such problems for taking it too the enemy when the other guy starts it.....otherwise he could sit on your border and still recieve that better heal rate and get you war weariness whenever he is recieving it and less bonuses when he recieves weariness........I do agree with you and according to the story write up you have a straight up point...

Actually i would say even increase the WW in your lands for the leaders whit Defender trait, they like so much of their homeland they dont want it full of blood and carnage !
wouldn't that overlimit to defend their homeland and shouldn't they be better at defending it.......if war weariness increases they will need serious bonuses elsewhere or it isn't a good thing to defend your homeland it is too much a bother for your people to want to defend it............instead of "don't mess with my home." Its"OH NO, not again!" < there has to be a solution that is good for illistrating this.

H.GrenadeFrenzy: well, a bit of War weariness doesn't make it impossible to go to war. If it's important, I'll put up with it.

H.GrenadeFrenzy: well, a bit of War weariness doesn't make it impossible to go to war. If it's important, I'll put up with it.
I get that...Maybe I am being unclear.....war weariness has generally one effect it is bad for your peoples happiness,slows production and eventually the people can revolt, right?.........But what about when people get so tired of a war that they become More Serious about ending it not by causing problems at home but going ape---- on the enemy or frighternly ingernious?....I guess I can see wear alot of that is up to the player but maybe a different thing than WW could be implemented especially if it is their cultural enemyies like Culture Wrath is up or something.........just thinking after looking at the last couple days of Headlines and seeing how Israel is tired of things......and thought about situations in other places throughout time........trying to squeeze some fruit for the game while I'm at it.

I have another - not thougth to the end - idea about war weariness. How about increasing war weariness if you attack someone where you had good relations before and decreasing it for guys with bad relations.

So for example you had open Boarders with someone, your people are happy trading. If you now go to war your peaople will get upset as you kill their firends. Same with shared religions and alignments.

I have another - not thougth to the end - idea about war weariness. How about increasing war weariness if you attack someone where you had good relations before and decreasing it for guys with bad relations.

So for example you had open Boarders with someone, your people are happy trading. If you now go to war your peaople will get upset as you kill their firends. Same with shared religions and alignments.
Yeah, there should most definitely and unarguablily be increased WW for going at it with allies especially strong allies,but the one who starts the war should suffer even more........to prevent AI from abusing the rule......and sour pus greedy non-friends should most definitely have less WW because the people are like"Yah, we hate them, kill them all!"....sooo:agree: :goodjob:

I don't think you need to repeat it with aligment and religion similarities, as this is already accounted for in diplomacy.
Is this value even calculated? Your diplo modifier with the AI, I mean, not vice versa.

So anyhow, what's the use of Fend for Themselves? Unless someone really wants to get an evil modifier and -1 health, it's pretty much useless.

So anyhow, what's the use of Fend for Themselves? Unless someone really wants to get an evil modifier and -1 health, it's pretty much useless.

It has no upkeep cost.

Government

+Despotism
Upkeep: Low

+City States
Upkeep: Low
-80% distance maintenance
-25% Gold
-10% Culture

+God King
Upkeep: High
+1 Happy from State Religion
+50% hammers, +50% Gold in capital
+10% distance maintenance

+Aristocracy
Upkeep: Low
+2 Gold from Farms
-1 Food from Farms

+Monarchy
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Happy per military unit stationed in city
Allows the building of the Royal Guard

+Republic
Upkeep: Medium
+3 Happy in 5 largest cities
Unhappiness penalty for all Civs without Republic
+10% Culture


Maybe instead of calling it "Government" calling it "Justification of Rule?" Thats just artistic but when it comes down to it, the "rest" of the government does squat. :egypt:
-QES

Government


+Monarchy
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Happy per military unit stationed in city
Allows the building of the Royal Guard


Education

+Military Discipline
Upkeep: Medium
+10% Military Production

Unlimited Scientists


Why not switch this up a bit. Give Monarchy +100% Great Person in Capital, and 25% In all cities. And boost Military Discipline by giving it the +1 Happy per Unit in city. - People being TAUGHT that the army is good. The Monarchy Taking an interest in great people.
Keep the Royal Guard unit with Monarchy.

-QES

A though On crusades for the bannor.

Perhaps another benifit of the crusade, is that if you (or anyone your at war with) have the founding city of that religion, There would be a % chance that units (actual units) in foreign cities with that religion might instantly be gifted to you. So if your going order, and announce a crusade on the blaggard who took your holy city by conquest from another civ, all cities (in the world) that have Order would have % chance to give you some units. After all crusades are pan-national. They are epics of war.
-Qes

As a player, I'm not sure I would appreciate losing (actually, the game would say "giving", but I'm sure I would read "losing" anyway) units to the bannor just because they found it fun to wage war on some clueless/distant civ.

I'd consider it the other way : increase the diplo bonus for giving units to the bannor when you have the same religion and they are on a crusade. This way, you take benefit from giving units, you get a chance to choose the actual units that are given to the bannor, and more importantly you get a chance to decide wether your civ is gonna help them at all (if they were already strong, you could prefer the bannor to spend a lot of energy during the crusade so you can stab them in the back* later... and I'm sure you wouldn't want to give them perfectly usable units in this situation :nono:)

* it's not like there was any other way of stabbing the bannor anyway... with those shiny armors they keep wearing, you would hardly find a spot to stab when facing them.


edit: that said, I do like the idea of giving the crusade a snowball effect of some sort... IRL, they actually did involve several countries on each side.

edit2: btw, why not allow the same effect for the attacked civ ? Say the Bannor decide to launch a crusade against the bad-bad overlordish Balseraph, on a side, the bannor would be given units by order civs for the diplo bonus, but on the other side the Balseraph could also be given units by other OO civs for the same bonus (possibly a little lower). The snowball effect could even be increased by making unit-giving give a diplo bonus towards the friendly civ and a diplo malus towards the ennemy civ. Il I give the bannor a couple of units, I would get a +n modifier to the Bannor, and a -n modifier to the Balseraph, while their parteners get bad diplo with the bannor for helping their ennemy. All in all, that could help making crusades real world-wide events (I have a feeling that it is currently mainly a two-civs issue, but I must say I think I only watched two of them before, and was involved in none).

edit2: btw, why not allow the same effect for the attacked civ ? Say the Bannor decide to launch a crusade against the bad-bad overlordish Balseraph, on a side, the bannor would be given units by order civs for the diplo bonus, but on the other side the Balseraph could also be given units by other OO civs for the same bonus (possibly a little lower). The snowball effect could even be increased by making unit-giving give a diplo bonus towards the friendly civ and a diplo malus towards the ennemy civ. Il I give the bannor a couple of units, I would get a +n modifier to the Bannor, and a -n modifier to the Balseraph, while their parteners get bad diplo with the bannor for helping their ennemy. All in all, that could help making crusades real world-wide events (I have a feeling that it is currently mainly a two-civs issue, but I must say I think I only watched two of them before, and was involved in none).

If this would be included as an option, i dont think it should be voluntary, i think units should just (of their own will, i.e. randomness) be given to the crusading nation. There would be exceptions. If you happened to be the one at war with the bannor, you would be immune.....i would think. Also, i do like the idea that the country your at war with gets the same benefit, but what if your at war with several countries? That sort of effect doesnt sound plausible. Remember, that the crusade would only get this added benifit if the holy city was involved. You have to own it, or "for a better % of troops joining you" they have to own it. Therefore, troops from foriegn civs would only really be garnered when "their" holy city was on the line. I like the idea of people being pissed at the bannor becuase they're always going on crusade, and leigons of their own people, go off and leave home and country to join them on religious quests. IRL it did happen, but i think the "feeling" should carry over to this Fantasy realm too...religion IS important after all.

-Qes

CITY STATES.

Not city enough, not independant enough. And does anyone ever use it?

THis is my beef, the main benefit to using it, is the reduction in maintenance. And it still has "low maintenance" But the only reason you'd seek this is for cash flow and perhaps culture, which it directly harms.

So the only reason youd lower your maintenance costs, is immediately nullified by the choice. Also, if you want to reduce your maintenance costs, you could alter OTHER civics to reach the same aims.

The Thing about city states is that historically (in fiction as well) it was thier independance and vitality that gave people purpose to know of them. Some cities were ignored, and others were considered the center of the world (gotta love them greeks). Most of the time each city was ruled differenetly, but they all belonged to a universal culture. Perhaps city states should increase cultural effects, as well as reduce maintenance, and the negation should be more militarily based - since its hard to convince cities to join together to defeat any kind of common foe. Cities (trade city state empires especially) thrived financially.

My suggestions:
City States - (low upkeep) -50% maintenance, +20% culture, +1 gold per city (intra-national trade, sort of works like internal trade routes), and -20% military production, -10% building production (hard to organize cities to do what you want)
-Qes

Re the City States civic. It offers -80% city distance maintenance, but has a penalty of -25% of all your gold. That's a huge penalty!

Eg currently I'm in a crazy game where my distance maintenance is double as much as my number of cities maintenance. But I'd still be losing money if I'd run City States.

So I'm wondering, how about reducing the penalty to -10% gold? Then I think it would still be rare circumstances where City States is better than the other civic you usually can have at the same time: God King.

QFT! City States is a useless choice at the moment.

QFT! City States is a useless choice at the moment.

So what do you think of my proposal?
-50% Maintenance, +20% Culture (% so only cities actually making culture benefit) +1 Gold per city (like Inter-city trading) -20% Military and -10% building production. (Hard to tell cities what to do)
-Qes

Problem with giving City States +20% culture would be though that Republic already gives that.

Personally I think City States having a malus on military stuff fits though.

But it's not me you need to convince. ;)

Problem with giving City States +20% culture would be though that Republic already gives that.

Personally I think City States having a malus on military stuff fits though.

But it's not me you need to convince. ;)

I try to convince everyone.......The team might listen to Everyone.....there is little reason to listen to me if im all alone in my crazy thoughts.

Your right about the culture. Not sure what to replace it with, if anything. Is there a way to Enhance what trade routes yeild? Maybe a +25% trade route yeild? That way your getting +1 gold from internal trading, and +25% from external, with low maintenance. Economically quite powerful, but with production penalties in both military AND buildings...your not going to be fighting very many successful wars.
-Qes

Is there a way to Enhance what trade routes yeild?

<TradeYieldModifiers>
</TradeYieldModifiers>

The civics XML file has this in it. Not sure what it does though.
If this tag doesn't increase trade yield though, Impaler has a mod included in CCCP - the Universal Building Mod - which can add a building to each city with a certain civic. So it's certainly possible to code this.

<TradeYieldModifiers>
</TradeYieldModifiers>

The civics XML file has this in it. Not sure what it does though.
If this tag doesn't increase trade yield though, Impaler has a mod included in CCCP - the Universal Building Mod - which can add a building to each city with a certain civic. So it's certainly possible to code this.

There ya go. City states could have the "city throne" or "city bazaar" or something that so named depicts both independance and economics. And it'd yeild trade route goodness. This would make me at least CONSIDER using city states.
-Qes

Ok, recently playing as the Malakim, i founded the order, and stomped on the calabim with realative ease - (The barbarians left me generally alone for once? it was wierd).

I have come to some of the following conclusions on civics.

GUILDS and CASTE SYSTEM are too similar. And frankly, it makes me generally not want to use GUILDS.
Stats as is:
Caste System
Upkeep: Medium
+1 Free specialist in every city
+2 Culture per specialist
Can spend gold to finish production

Guilds
Upkeep: Medium
Unlimited Merchants
Can spend gold to finish production

Here's the Thing. WHen you get a free specialist per city, that can be ANYTHING, not just merchants. And while you ahve to have "specific buildings" to get merchants normally, you also have to sacrifice a tile of work space to use/get a merchant.

I dont think That "unlimited" is equal to "one freebie" So yes, this makes it difference. But considering that they BOTH have the options of using gold to rush work, it comes down to that being the only real difference. With the extra 2 culture for caste system its pretty easy to NEVER use guilds.

I see two possible solutions to this.

A) "Drastic Change" Is give Caste system Unlimited specialists, AND 1 free specialist, AND +2 culture per specialist. In this, Caste system is your "specialist" based labor. GUILDS, should/could be more about the town workers. I sort of miss from vanilla civ hammers from villages and towns. Guilds can get +1 hammer per village, +1 Hammer +1 Gold From Towns (Therefore Guild based Labor would have slightly more potent towns and villages) -- The major consequence of this, and I believe this will happen anyway, is that villages will have to be built less often to maintain balance. I think this is going to happen anyway, with each race begining to get "different" improvements other than villages for their race. Dwarves i think will concentrate on mines and the like, the elves will have tree top cottages (weaker than normal cottages) etc. But your average "landlover" will then get a bit more "powerful" compared to his contemporaries if he has guilds. On the down side, no "specialist" love.

B) The Less drastic Change, is to let guilds have unlimited "any specialists" and perhaps a "hurry" bonus. like -40% cost to hurry production. Or something of this sort.

Thoughts?
-Qes

Since it's late and I'm still up, I feel like providing my input on the civics. This comes from only a few games (about 6), though, so I'm not sure if some civics would be better suited for the civs I haven't yet played. For what it's worth:

Government

City States
Tried it once, and it sucked. Every time I get the chance to use it, I do some quick math and realise it will lose me too much money to be any benefit. Based on my experience to date, I feel this one could use a change - though I'm reserving my opinion until I play the Kuriotates.

God King
Used to like this one. Now, with the Khazad, I love it.

Aristocracy
Always scoffed at the idea of reducing food yield, but it fit really well with the Ljosalfar (I really only had farms on food resources and small number of other tiles) - at least until I got other civics. I would have considered it for the Khazad if not for my love of God King right from the beginning, and if I had the financial leader instead of Thorne.

Monarchy
I used to use this regularly in Vanilla or Modded Vanilla Civ. Haven't yet used it in FfH II, though, as my need for happiness hasn't been so great to warrant the cost. I think this civic could use a tweak.

Republic
I really like across-the-board culture boosts, so unless I'm in love with another of these Government civics, I'll naturally progress to this one.

Cultural Values

Religion
A good upgrade from the base civic once you get religion, of course.

Social Order (The Order only)
Not bad for a militant Order nation.

Nationhood
I've never used it. I don't like culture drains and drafting troops is not that important to me. However, I have yet to have a problem with war weariness, so I understand as soon as I get into military trouble this civic would warrant a try.

Liberty
+100% Culture? You betcha! I almost think the upkeep is too low, but you didn't hear it from me.

Consumption
I don't think I've had a game where I didn't use this one at some point. I think it's a good, balanced civic.

Labor

Slavery (Octopus Overlords only)
A well balanced civic for the OO, in my opinion.

Arete (Runes of Kilmorph only)
I'm not big on GP, but I'll use this if I'm worshipping Kilmorph - until a better civic comes along.

Military State
Same comment as for Nationhood

Serfdom
I love speeding up workers. Isn't the penalty -10% food, though... I can't remember.
However, I haven't used this much because Caste System typically comes first for me.

Caste System
Free specialist and extra culture per specialist? You betcha! I really like this civic, and also think the upkeep is too low for what you get. Or it needs more drawback (unless this is part of the double-win theme).

Guilds
Same upkeep as Caste System, but you don't get anything from it. I don't consider unlimited merchants as getting something, as QES mentions above.
I've never even considered using this civic, not even for a merchant-like empire.

Economy

Conquest
A decent civic for war-like empires.

Agriculture
Simple, and a good stand-by.

Mercantilism
I'm not a fan of this one. In Vanilla, at least you got the free specialists to make it somewhat beneficial. The loss of foreign trade would be a huge hit unless you've been completely ostracized by your opponents (which hasn't yet happened to me, so...).

Foreign Trade
I really like it. And, as with all civics I really like, I feel it may be overpowered slightly.

Guardian of Nature (Fellowship of Leaves only)
Every elf's goal! I feel it is well-balanced with the High upkeep.

Religion

Organized Religion
One of my favourites, but one I actually think is balanced well.

Theocracy
I used to use this one often in Vanilla, but with FfH, the +2 XP is really nothing. Perhaps that is because I always have raging barbs and they don't attack very smartly so my troops get XP easily.

Pacifism
I've used this when trying to get a prophet for my religion's shrine, but that's it. I'm not big on the GP, as mentioned before.

Free Religion
I have yet to use this (I'm too happy with the religion in FfH), but I see nothing wrong with it.

Crusade (Bannor only) (Loki)
Hmm, I look forward to using this someday, but I've got no input to give other than it looks like fun.

Compassion

I think all of these are fairly simple and well-balanced.

Education

Apprenticeship
I use this sometimes, but only until I can afford one of the last two. Again, I'm not too concerned with 2 XP.

Military Discipline
It doesn't appeal to me, perhaps for the same reasons as the other military civics.

Religious Discipline
Not bad. Used it for the Khazad to help get a Great Prophet. The extra happiness helped, too.

Scholarship
My favourite of the bunch, if I don't just stick with Beavis and Butthead for the whole game.

- Niilo

QES, I like your ideas on Caste System vs Guilds (both drastic and less drastic) and City States (though, why not increase War Weariness instead of decrease Military production?).

- Niilo

QES, I like your ideas on Caste System vs Guilds (both drastic and less drastic) and City States (though, why not increase War Weariness instead of decrease Military production?).

- Niilo
Because there are a lot of other civics that do that. It seemed like a "tired" responce. Plus civilians in city states dont "hate being at war" more than other types of nations, what they hate is having a centralized authority tell them what to do. When the greeks fought the persians, it was a B@#% to get them to cooperate together, but none of them were really "anti-war" with persia. It was more of a question of "how" not if/why. Athens finally won out with its ideas of using the Sea's and devoting their resources to shipbuilding, instead of fighting on land. They won the war because of it, but it was a hassle to convince people to do it.

The Negative production is a representation of this "sort" of hassle. The "ill do it but i wont like it" mentality.
-Qes

Ah, I see. Good explanation.

- Niilo

Just FYI: I've read QES and Vorshlumpf's posts and Im noodling on making changes. Its excellent feedback but I haven't decided what I am going to do yet.

Just FYI: I've read QES and Vorshlumpf's posts and Im noodling on making changes. Its excellent feedback but I haven't decided what I am going to do yet.

I think the easiest thing to change immediately is Monarchy and Military Disapline: Maybe for .15

Monarchy could have 100% GP growth in Capital, and 25% GP growth in all other cities (Monarchy taking a personal interest in great people)

And then Add the "Each unit provides one happy person" benefit to military disapline. (People being taught to accept the military presence)
-Qes

P.S. I'd use both A LOT more often if this change was made.

Arete (Runes of Kilmorph only)
I'm not big on GP, but I'll use this if I'm worshipping Kilmorph - until a better civic comes along.

Same here. Arete is the only religious civic I haven't used the entire game. Is this intentional? Weakening Caste System would keep Arete more attractive though.

I still think the Pyramids should be changed from labour back to goverment. The problem was that AI always went for Republic, but now you can change how the AI thinks... You see where I'm going with this? And there are the religious labour civics (Arete is underpowered though).

I liked being able to get Caste System in my last game when I built Pyramids. I'm not saying this is reason to keep it the same - just sharing my limited experience with the thing.

An update to my previous, super-long review of civics: I finally used some that I hadn't before in my last game. The main one was Mercantilism. I found out first-hand that I could actually make more money over Foreign Trade since I had no one who would open their borders to me. It then just became a choice between the extra money from Mercantilism and the extra culture and non-angry people from Foreign Trade.

As well, being the Order and having all war break out with no end in sight, I switched to the militaristic civics: Social Order, Military State, Theocracy, and Military Discipline. They all seemed to combine fairly well. I chose against Conquest as my Overloaded vault allowed me to pump out troops whenever I needed them and I decided to keep some cash flow in exchange for the +2 XP.

One thing that's kinda bothered me since starting FfH, though, is the unhappiness caused by Foreign Trade. I don't quite see the justification and would appreciate someone providing me with something to explain it. I can understand the unhappiness caused by Republic. Your people find out there is some empire out there that actually allows the citizens (if only the richest citizens) have a say in government, and decide they'd like to have the same say in theirs. But, Foreign Trade? They are unhappy because they are not allowed to trade with foreigners? Seems weak. I can maybe understand if the merchant class of citizen had considerable power, and influenced people to be unhappy, but at the beginning of the game when I'm still trying to research Agriculture (the AI typically gets Trade by this time) I find it hard to believe foreign trade is much of a concern for anyone.

Thoughts?

- Niilo

Ya, the foreign trade thing bothers me all the time, it makes me dread the Trade tech, and i avoid getting it.

I can see some justification for it, by saying "no foreign trade" you're basically forcing your people to remain isolationist. But it makes me not like getting Trade. Plus it usually causes me to lose gold.

Ya, the foreign trade thing bothers me all the time, it makes me dread the Trade tech, and i avoid getting it.

I can see some justification for it, by saying "no foreign trade" you're basically forcing your people to remain isolationist. But it makes me not like getting Trade. Plus it usually causes me to lose gold.

I like this little function, its a True "choice". Do i want happy people and culture? Or do i want money. Normally i want money, but i may not be able to afford the general uprisings that would follow with mercantilsm or some other form of economy. Foreign trade is a WONDERFULLY balanced civic, especially considering other options. An unusual combo is the foriegn trade and sacrifice the weak, you get your money to equal out, with a culture boost (of evil?) but have generally unhealthy (but happy) citizens. It seems a "rough and tumble" sort of life, arrrr, the pirates life for me.
-Qes

I disagree that FT is balanced. FT gives you culture, money (extra trade routes), and makes other people deal with unhappiness. All of that for Low upkeep? Whenever I like something a lot, like FT, I think long and hard about its balance.

The only time I go for anything else is when I'm elves and Fellowship, making Guardian worthwhile (and appropriate), or if everyone in the game has closed their borders to me, making Mercantilism useful.

But, perhaps FT is part of the double-win theme? It would just seem odd to have such a civic so early in the game.

Ya, the foreign trade thing bothers me all the time, it makes me dread the Trade tech, and i avoid getting it.
Are you saying that you don't experience unhappiness if you haven't researched the appropriate tech, yet? I'm sure that I was getting the unhappiness in my last game, and it was before I had the tech . . .

- Niilo

I disagree that FT is balanced. FT gives you culture, money (extra trade routes), and makes other people deal with unhappiness. All of that for Low upkeep? Whenever I like something a lot, like FT, I think long and hard about its balance.

The only time I go for anything else is when I'm elves and Fellowship, making Guardian worthwhile (and appropriate), or if everyone in the game has closed their borders to me, making Mercantilism useful.

But, perhaps FT is part of the double-win theme? It would just seem odd to have such a civic so early in the game.


Are you saying that you don't experience unhappiness if you haven't researched the appropriate tech, yet? I'm sure that I was getting the unhappiness in my last game, and it was before I had the tech . . .

- Niilo

Yeah the unhappiness results from someone elses use of the civic, it has nothing to do with the tech.

I dont often use foreign trade, because of the hit to the economy. THe "trade routes" do NOT make up for a -10% gold in all cities. A trade route MIght bring in 5 gold if its a good route. But this is not often the case, and when your losing 1 gold for every two routes (gross, not net) it can hurt. Whenever i switch TO forien trade, i am earning less than i had previously. Foriegn trade for me, is only used when i want culture, and/or less unhappiness. If i want money, mercantilism or even agriculture are better.
-Qes

Trade routes don't only yield gold. They yield commerce, so even though your gold may get down, your science actually goes up. That is, unless it makes you decrease the slider by 10%, but then it usually balances itself.

Trade routes don't only yield gold. They yield commerce, so even though your gold may get down, your science actually goes up. That is, unless it makes you decrease the slider by 10%, but then it usually balances itself.

Yeah, i hate moving my slider :P. Its actually quite hard to know what the "best possible yeild" is. It feels like the higher the slider the more research that's done. But if i boost research, then drop the slider, does it equal out? I feel like it might ALMOST equal out, but the slider is still the best source of ANY generation (culture included)
-Qes

Are you saying that you don't experience unhappiness if you haven't researched the appropriate tech, yet? I'm sure that I was getting the unhappiness in my last game, and it was before I had the tech . . .

- Niilo
If you're the first to discover it it causes the trouble. I don't think its:
You get unhappiness if someone has the civic chosen and you don't.
I think it's:
You get unhappiness if the tech is researched (by anyone) and you don't have it chosen.

I usually always play Deity|RagingBarbs|NoTechTrade|Classical so Trade is pretty much available right off (and on brief examination looks like it'd improve my economy - but sadly no, since it usually adds an unhappy person and forces me into FT, which lowers my income), and the AI's don't usually pick it right off so many years pass before it comes up, and then i accidently pick it thinking its good :(


Also, -10% gold is worse than the gains i think, since +1 trade route per city (is that what it gives?), usually is worth less than 10% of your gold even on 100% science output. It probably depends on how many routes and such you have to other civs, but i usually still have rampaging barbs destroying all my improvements and my trade routes aren't too impressive.

Changelog:
Halved culture garrison in city states.
Good but it wont solve problem, in fact it makes them weaker...
I suggest removing culture penalty, changing to -25% gold instead commerce and remove distant maintenance completely (-100% instead -80%)

Changelog:
Halved culture garrison in city states.
Good but it wont solve problem, in fact it makes them weaker...
I suggest removing culture penalty, changing to -25% gold instead commerce and remove distant maintenance completely (-100% instead -80%)
I like that idea, i can't say i've ever chosen city states without immediately regretting it.

Changelog:
Halved culture garrison in city states.
Good but it wont solve problem, in fact it makes them weaker...
I suggest removing culture penalty, changing to -25% gold instead commerce and remove distant maintenance completely (-100% instead -80%)

I also removed the -25% gold, I will update the changelog. I want to keep the culture penalty, I just dont see that a city states government could project as unified a culture as other government forms.

The culture issue is a hard one to decide. In city states I imagine each city would have its own culture, and unique culture would increase a cities culture rate. But, I can see how then cities culture within the empire would compete with each other (in the same way different civilizations compete culturally).

So, I could understand culture being less or more, to tell the truth. More because of unique city culture (like the way a palace gives culture, there'd be a mini-palace in each city so to speak), and less because of cultural competition between cities. Ideally it'd be more but with competition, but that would be more complicated then it's worth and less culture seems the best fit solution.

Maybe there could be a great person % increase? something just seems a little wrong about less culture for city states, when in some ways you'd expect more ingenuity in the city given it's self governed status.

If you're the first to discover it it causes the trouble. I don't think its:
You get unhappiness if someone has the civic chosen and you don't.
I think it's:
You get unhappiness if the tech is researched (by anyone) and you don't have it chosen.
Are you sure? When you mouse-over the civics, the game lists the benefits and detriments of them. One of the benefits of FT and Republic is that it causes unhappiness in all other civs (i.e., "+1 Trade routes per city, -10% Gold, +20% Culture, Penalty for all Civs without Foreign Trade"). If it was just the tech being researched, then why doesn't the description of the appropriate techs list an unhappiness modifier?

Maybe if I'm motivated later, I'll find out for sure what the situation is. Heck, I'll do that now.

Hmm, interesting. In CIV4CivicInfos.xml each civic has a iCivicPercentAnger value to set this sort of unhappiness. First, I'd have to say that this confirms the unhappiness is caused by adopting the civic, and not by researching the tech.

Second, I find it interesting that Republic is set to 100% and Foreign Trade is set to 200%. Two hundred?! Yikes, no wonder the FT unhappiness is so rampant. Is this on purpose? If so, there is even more need to have an in-game explanation for it.

- Niilo

Hmm.. i might have been misled due to the fact my experience with it involved a team game with AI's and one of them must of have chosen it when we discovered it.. i'll kill them!!!!!!!11

Are you sure? When you mouse-over the civics, the game lists the benefits and detriments of them. One of the benefits of FT and Republic is that it causes unhappiness in all other civs (i.e., "+1 Trade routes per city, -10% Gold, +20% Culture, Penalty for all Civs without Foreign Trade"). If it was just the tech being researched, then why doesn't the description of the appropriate techs list an unhappiness modifier?

Maybe if I'm motivated later, I'll find out for sure what the situation is. Heck, I'll do that now.

Hmm, interesting. In CIV4CivicInfos.xml each civic has a iCivicPercentAnger value to set this sort of unhappiness. First, I'd have to say that this confirms the unhappiness is caused by adopting the civic, and not by researching the tech.

Second, I find it interesting that Republic is set to 100% and Foreign Trade is set to 200%. Two hundred?! Yikes, no wonder the FT unhappiness is so rampant. Is this on purpose? If so, there is even more need to have an in-game explanation for it.

- Niilo

Vanilla civ uses 400% anger on the one civic (Emancipation) that grants it. In FfH we have 2 civics, one which gives 100% and one which gives 200%. They used to both give the same as vanilla (400% each) but have been knocked down in recent versions so even if they are both in use the aggregate effect is still less than vanilla civ.

I guess it might compromise overall game balance, but anyway I'll suggest swapping the values for Republic and Foreign Trade. From what I gathered of the discussion above, many people find the penalty for Republic more understandable, and therefore acceptable, than the penalty for FT. Aside of any overall balance issue that could possibly incurr (including Republic becoming even more powerful), I think the happiness penalty from Foreign Trade would be less annoying that way.

I understand the foreign trade penalty in theory--these civs have goods that they are eager to trade to your people (as evidenced by them using this civic) but since your leader values the gold in his castle more, he denies you the oppurtunity to buy these strange things!
But that's kinda undermined by the fact that you are trading luxuries already potentially. I'd guess the FT penalty represents all the 'minor luxuries' that your people want but must trade for.
Maybe better would be a happiness bonus to your people based on how many other civs are using it? But that'd be a drastic change in the other direction at the moment.

Might make sense that foreign trade only gives you a penalty if someone you can actually trade with (i.e. are connected via routes or coastal cities) has the civic selected and you don't.

I never had a problem with the unhappiness caused from foreign trade before the new tech tree was introduced. You had decent sized cities, enough happiness resources and the -10% gold was done for by high trade route yield or consumption. I think the problem now is that it comes far too early (even before conquest when i'm not going for the melee unit branch, which was my first choice then) when you just aren't ready for it.

Some suggestions (on civics generally - not just foreign trade):

- Move foreign trade up two or three techs in the trade branch.

- Move fend for temselves to way of the wicked or trade (as replace for foreign trade.) Gives +5% or +10% gold yield (the powerfull people as the leader collect money) and +1 unhappines +2 unhealthiness (the normal people are left alone and just try to survive the opression). That would give an economic boost (despised by the good nations) with an unhappines modifier that you get yourself and not from other nations.

- God king is so powerful that it is the only viable option (so by Kaels words: "No option at all") by far till the late game (at least for those of us that have automated workers on who refuse to build farms for agriculture :) ). I really like the flavour of your capital beeing very powerfull but i think the maintainance penalty needs to be far higher (like +50% at last - so that it will only work for smaller contries.)

- In the same way I would suggest to further decrease the maintainance cost for city states. Hmmm.... or maybe leave it as it is - it could be a viable option when god king gets plain weaker.

Another thing: I thought i read here somewhere that free religion should give acess to all the religion specific civics. In the new tech tree they all come with the religion specific tech so you can get only those from religions you had sometime in the game (or arete with the pyramids). The promblem is that the agnostic leaders never had a chance to research any of those techs so they a stuck with the normal civics.

Ya, i know Kael made some changes to City states, so it'll be nice to try it out with the changes. Personally i'd like to see it -100% distance maintenance.

Another thing about civics that has really been bothering me, the rounding!
With a creative civ you get +2 culture, but with a lot of civics that reduce % culture, they do small amounts, like -10% culture. Doesn't sound too bad, EXCEPT that its going to take away ATLEAST 1 culture because it rounds up the amount is takes away. In beginner cities -10% culture becomes -50% O_o if the city has 3 culture it still takes 33% o_o (such that currently the amount they take away if the subtracted amount is in the range 0.001 to 1.0 it takes away 1.0; if its in the range 1.001 to 2.0 it takes away 2.0).

It'd be nice if it rounded in the favour of the city, or atleast worked by scientific rounded (0.0 to 0.5 goes to 0.0; 0.5001 to 1.4999 goes to 1.0; 1.5 to 2.5 goes to 2; 2.5001 to 3.4999 goes to 3.0; etc.).

- God king is so powerful that it is the only viable option (so by Kaels words: "No option at all") by far till the late game (at least for those of us that have automated workers on who refuse to build farms for agriculture :) ). I really like the flavour of your capital beeing very powerfull but i think the maintainance penalty needs to be far higher (like +50% at last - so that it will only work for smaller contries.)

I dunno, not really. For one, God King is basically the same as Bureaucracy in Vanilla, and I haven't seen people complain about that as being too powerful. Sure, it's great in small empires, but City States is probably pretty good now that the gold minus got cut, and I've heard people mention that they like using Aristocracy. Monarchy is also good if you have happiness trouble. Republic is the only one that seems a bit weak to me.

the aristocracy one doesn't make any sense to me, why would you give up 1 food for 2 gold? you're better off building cottages. only use is if you have sanitation, but even then it seems a waste.

Yeah I'd just scrap the Aristocracy civic.

if it was +1 gold and no food decrease itd be interesting atleast, don't really see what use it is as is though.

I asked the same question before. See post #37 to #42 in this thread. Personally I wasn't convinced by Chalid's reply though. ;)

it seems like you could potentially find some use after you have sanitation and if you're financial and want the 1 food badly enough (to not get cottages).
it would be nice if there was some other benefit though, like +1 trade routes (since the reason you're prolly getting gold and losing food is because the aristocrats are selling the food?)

I want to keep the culture penalty, I just dont see that a city states government could project as unified a culture as other government forms.

Isn't America essentially a glorified City States government? All of the states are semi-autonomous entities tied together by a loose federal government. Yes, it's a "Democracy" (actually a Republic, but w/e), but the actual organization of the nationwide governing bodies is pretty close to being city-states.

what about +2:commerce: -1:food: for villages and towns under aristocracy?

guild is pretty weak compared to caste system, maybe needs +1:commerce: per specialist?

and how about a reduced # of cities upkeep for fend for themselves? (maybe -35%)

Oh, and an even better example of cultured city states: Ancient Greece. Pure City-State form of government, but Greece and its culture still has impact on our world thousands of years later.

Isn't America essentially a glorified City States government? All of the states are semi-autonomous entities tied together by a loose federal government. Yes, it's a "Democracy" (actually a Republic, but w/e), but the actual organization of the nationwide governing bodies is pretty close to being city-states.

America is quite quintessentially a Republic. WE oooooze republic. We boarder on oligargicahy aristocratic republic, but we are a republic none-the-less. One who studies history, and takes a look at the ancient roman republic, cannot but help noticing subtle, and sometimes terrible similarities.

The Idea:
City-states are violently independant. The sort of independance that im sure Texas occasionally wish it had (Just kidding fellas), but much more than we can hope to witness in our time. People belonged to their Polis, and without a polis you were no one. THis was true in ancient china as well. Specifically, were we to be living in a quasi-city-state situation, then when california didnt want to do what the national government thinks it should do, it wouldnt. And war would likely ensue quickly thereafter. The confederacy of the states during the civil war was closer in concept to city-states than we have ever been. Instead of city-states, it would have been state-states. Effectively an alliance, culturally and militarily of seperate nations joined to defend against foreign aggression. Luckily they lost, and a Republican system was maintained. Though i must admit, much of the south does not appear to realize they lost. Anyway the Union preserved, we avoided such independant sectors, and can move forward with some cohesion. While each state does have laws, none of these laws may supercede federal law. Our federal republic is based on the federalist doctorines "made up" back at the time of the revolution. Were these doctorines not have been established, the USA would have been carved up a long time ago by larger economic, military and cultural powers.
City-states function, in the times they do, because there is generally no outward pressure for there to be change. If there is such pressure, the city-state system typically does not function very well for very long. After the war with Persia, the Greek city-states had long periods of inter-city conflict, and eventually a war over the matter. And despotism and empire were the eventual ramifications of such events.

I feel I'm rambling, and im going to stop, and put spoiler tags as to limit the size of this post.
-Qes

Spoilered so people don't have the see the quasi-political nitpicking if they don't want to.

City-states are violently independant.

No, they aren't. City-states, by definition, are a coalition of cities that govern themselves independantly but have a unified cultural or legal presence. If they were "violently independant" by requirement, there would be and never would have been anything like a city-state.

Specifically, were we to be living in a quasi-city-state situation, then when california didnt want to do what the national government thinks it should do, it wouldnt.

This does happen, though - for instance, California is fighting to legalize certain "recreational drugs" because it doesn't agree with the national government about it. They actually legalized certain drugs directly against Washington's wishes. If that's not doing what the government doesn't want them to do, I don't know what is.

While each state does have laws, none of these laws may supercede federal law.

True, but federal law is VERY limited. For the most part it only concerns inter-state matters. States are, by and large, allowed to govern themselves.

Random thought - GPP bonus to Aristocracy? Might be fitting, considering how scientists and philosophers usually came from among the more wealthy.

Needs something. Aristocracy is the one civic I've never used--if I wanted cottages, I'd build them. Although I can see it moderately useful if your gold suddenly plumets for some reason and you had alot of farms about, as it's an empire wide change.

Isn't America essentially a glorified City States government? All of the states are semi-autonomous entities tied together by a loose federal government. Yes, it's a "Democracy" (actually a Republic, but w/e), but the actual organization of the nationwide governing bodies is pretty close to being city-states. Actually, that was probably true under the Articles of Confederation, but not quite today.

ya, that (GPPbonuses) seems like a bonus that could apply, i thought about that too.. problem is it means you stifle a large junk of the population at the same time (forcing them into manual labour so that the rich don't have to do anything and can be so literary).
but then again, suffering breeds character lol

don't wanna crowd thread either, so:
it could be called a representative democracy (the closest claim to democracy it can make), if it actually represented the populace. but it doesn't, two choices isn't reflective of the populace, and most of the population doesn't even vote for the side that wins (51% for majority, of 65% who actually vote, of those older than 18, who have citizenship, isn't exactly representative).

it's a republic that promotes its status quo and uses immigrants as its workforce (back in the day they called cheap labour slavery). they made immigrants willing participants by making them feel like they don't deserve to be there ("immigration reforms coming, they will be forced to leave and are criminals"), but if they manage to stick around, one day, they'll better their situation (its called castize and dangle an apple, they'll stay but they'll be on their tip-toes)

given that the country was founded by immigrants who murdered and germ warfared its original inhabitants, you'd think the country would be more receptive.. but the status quo requires cheap workers when you want the few to rule

i have a very difficult time differentiating it with the empire of rome, and i always remember that hitler was democratically elected (way to go republics!), the key to rome and nazi germany was broadcasting "we are your friends, we will improve your way of life" before you conquer them

I don't think it's worth getting into here, but suffice to say we disagree.

its definately a matter of perspective, in which most people have very concretely defined beliefs (which consequently breeds much disagreement and offense usually), so the whole topic is a bad one to discuss (did