More music

Ok, mutually excluding civics isn't that easy now that I'm looking into it, but it's probably doable with some effort. There could be some problems because it's not just a matter of which civic is blocking some other civic, but also some connected problems like demanding to switch to a certain civic via diplomacy, forcing a civic via UN vote and similar issues which might be affected by mutually excluding civics.
Also @ZN, have you considered some other forbidden civics combination? I mean, from your sheet it looks like I can run Intolerant and Liberal because your sheet only shows Government choices (or even an Intolerant Liberal Despotism or an Atheist Theocratic Republic). Is this because the sheet is still incomplete or do you need this change only for Government civics? The problem is that for every civic I need to list all the civics that are incompatible: for example Intolerant might not only be incompatible with Chiefdom, Republic and Democracy (government civics), but also with Atheist, Liberal or whatever.

Another issue is: do we really want it this way? I mean, if I really want to run an Intolerant Democracy, should it really be forbidden? Or should we just put some heavy penalty for running 2 incompatible civics (for example big happiness penalties for running Liberal/Intolerant or Atheist/Theocracy or some big stability hit for those playing with Revolutions)?

If you're going to do the latter for incompatible civics, why not do the reverse for compatible civics? i.e, Democracy and Liberal, for an example?

45°38'N-13°47'E;14440780 said:

Ok, mutually excluding civics isn't that easy now that I'm looking into it, but it's probably doable with some effort. There could be some problems because it's not just a matter of which civic is blocking some other civic, but also some connected problems like demanding to switch to a certain civic via diplomacy, forcing a civic via UN vote and similar issues which might be affected by mutually excluding civics.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't think of that...
Can UN resolutions require other resolutions? Like Democracy before Liberal?
Also what happens if a resolution is passed but some civs don't have the tech to access the civic? Never tried.
Also @ZN, have you considered some other forbidden civics combination? I mean, from your sheet it looks like I can run Intolerant and Liberal because your sheet only shows Government choices (or even an Intolerant Liberal Despotism or an Atheist Theocratic Republic).

Click to expand...

Haha! Good point!
...but right now even weirder combos are possible, like Democracy - Single Party - Nobility - Warrior Caste - Atheist - Church (Welfare) - Slavery

Is this because the sheet is still incomplete or do you need this change only for Government civics? The problem is that for every civic I need to list all the civics that are incompatible: for example Intolerant might not only be incompatible with Chiefdom, Republic and Democracy (government civics), but also with Atheist, Liberal or whatever.

Click to expand...

I focused on Governments only because I wanted to keep it simple, not to have too many restrictions that are hard to remember. This way you would only have to check the government civic to see what are allowed.
But that sheet is not carved in stone.

Another issue is: do we really want it this way? I mean, if I really want to run an Intolerant Democracy, should it really be forbidden? Or should we just put some heavy penalty for running 2 incompatible civics (for example big happiness penalties for running Liberal/Intolerant or Atheist/Theocracy or some big stability hit for those playing with Revolutions)?

Click to expand...

My idea is to make Despotism a civic always viable by allowing dictators to do more than other governments.

My current problem is that it's easy enough to code something to stop you from switching to intolerant while running democracy. It's much harder to code something to prevent you from switching to Democracy and Intolerant at the same time. Hence the idea of allowing it but giving it some heavy penalty.

45°38'N-13°47'E;14441216 said:

My current problem is that it's easy enough to code something to stop you from switching to intolerant while running democracy. It's much harder to code something to prevent you from switching to Democracy and Intolerant at the same time.

Click to expand...

How about the other way? Civic not blocked by an other civic but civic requiring an other civic, just like a tech?

Hence the idea of allowing it but giving it some heavy penalty.

Click to expand...

Well, a heavy penalty is still better than nothing. And maybe it's easier for the AI too?

But if we go that way, can we have more options editable in the XML files?
What I think of bonus/penalty changes when running a civic with an other civic are

• change
• change
• and change
• and change
• maintenance change

Is that doable?

Zeta Nexus said:

How about the other way? Civic not blocked by an other civic but civic requiring an other civic, just like a tech?

Click to expand...

It's the same or maybe even harder: you need Democracy to run Liberal and it's easy to code, but you might run both Democracy and Liberal at the same time and what happens when you switch out of Democracy? Do you also lose Liberal? And to what other civic?
I think that I might code running a civic to block another one (for example Liberal blocking Intolerant and vice versa); as I've said, it's harder to code to stop a possible civics change to 2 incompatible civics at the same time (switching from Feudal Prophets to Liberal Intolerant). I suppose it must be coded partially in python because it's an interface thing but I'm not sure how to do it. Or I could find a way to simply make the revolution fail when you switch to incompatible civics, leaving you with the old ones. Maybe this last solution is easier.

Zeta Nexus said:

Well, a heavy penalty is still better than nothing. And maybe it's easier for the AI too?

But if we go that way, can we have more options editable in the XML files?
What I think of bonus/penalty changes when running a civic with an other civic are

• change
• change
• and change
• and change
• maintenance change

Is that doable?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I'm still brainstorming. My idea was something like: you want to run Liberal and Intolerant or Atheist and Theocracy? Fine, but you get a huge happiness penalty and instability penalty because "there's no harmony in our civilization because of conflicting civics". This might be easier. Maybe. Vokarya, opinions about my proposal?

Try and make it so if you are unable to initiate a revolution if you try to switch from say, Feudal-Prophets to Liberal-Intolerant. Make the system straight up refuse to allow you to make the change. That is, if it's possible.

45°38'N-13°47'E;14442049 said:

It's the same or maybe even harder: you need Democracy to run Liberal and it's easy to code, but you might run both Democracy and Liberal at the same time and what happens when you switch out of Democracy?

Click to expand...

Could there be a check when switching out of Democracy to see if there is any "civic conflict"?

Do you also lose Liberal?

Click to expand...

Yes, we should if the new government choice does not allow it.

And to what other civic?

Click to expand...

#1 Switch to the newest civic available and allowed in that category.
or
#2 Have a popup window that forces you to chose one of the civics allowed.

At least that's the dream

I think that I might code running a civic to block another one (for example Liberal blocking Intolerant and vice versa); as I've said, it's harder to code to stop a possible civics change to 2 incompatible civics at the same time (switching from Feudal Prophets to Liberal Intolerant). I suppose it must be coded partially in python because it's an interface thing but I'm not sure how to do it. Or I could find a way to simply make the revolution fail when you switch to incompatible civics, leaving you with the old ones. Maybe this last solution is easier.

Click to expand...

I see.

Hmmm... Maybe a total reform... Just another idea, as we're still brainstorming...

What if we'd change the whole civic-change mechanic? Make a button: "Change Civics". When clicking on it popup windows loop over all civic categories starting with Government than Rule than Society etc.
Example #1 (presuming I'm in the transhuman era having acces to all civics)

1. I choose Democracy as gov.
2. In next window for Rule I'm offered only Senate, Bureaucracy and President.
3. Next for Society I can choose Proletariat, Liberal, Communalism and Hive. I choose Liberal.
4. When I get to Religion Intolerant is already blocked by Democracy.

Example #2

1. This time I choose Despotism.
2. All Rule and Society civics are available. I pick Liberal.
3. When getting to Religion Intolerant is blocked by Liberal.

Well... It may be much harder to code... I don't know. I'm a noob in this area
Just an idea.

Civic idea: Syncretism (Religion)

Definition:
Syncretism is the combining of different beliefs, while blending practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Syncretism also occurs commonly in expressions of arts and culture (known as eclecticism) as well as politics (syncretic politics). (Wikipedia)

Idea:
An early religion civic that helps to cope with many religions present in your cities.

Effects:

• High Upkeep (it's expansive to satisfy many religions)
• No bonus for state religion
• No penalty for non-state religions
• Can build buildings of non-state religions
• Small local and national stability bonus
• +25% war

Opinions?

Doesn't seem to give much of a bonus, unless you can build wonders that are specific to a certain religion.

Tolni said:

Doesn't seem to give much of a bonus, unless you can build wonders that are specific to a certain religion.

Click to expand...

Remember that most civics only allow temples of non-state religions. No monasteries, cathedrals or wonders iirc.
In Chronicles you also get 1 for non-state religions for most civics (Prophets and Secular are exceptions).

Yeah, but temples and monasteries get weaker and weaker as game goes on, especially if you don't invest into wonders that affect them. How would this civic handle effects of such wonders, anyway?

Tolni said:

Yeah, but temples and monasteries get weaker and weaker as game goes on, especially if you don't invest into wonders that affect them. How would this civic handle effects of such wonders, anyway?

Click to expand...

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but this would be an EARLY (classical era) civic, something like the religious freedom of Pax Romana (the Roman Empire wasn't always running Divine Cult). So no change about wonders (that requires dll coding) but at least you can take advantage of more monasteries an cathedrals.

Right, not poking at your idea, but with the recent changes in religion spread, I usually find myself with 1-2 religions per city max in the Classical Era, and, well, by Medieval Era there's not much reason not to run State Religion (unless you're relying on Divine Cult to keep happiness which is !!fun!!)

Tolni said:

Right, not poking at your idea,

Click to expand...

I didn't take it so.

but with the recent changes in religion spread, I usually find myself with 1-2 religions per city max in the Classical Era, and, well, by Medieval Era there's not much reason not to run State Religion (unless you're relying on Divine Cult to keep happiness which is !!fun!!)

Click to expand...

Yes. I find it annoying to have 4 or 5 religions in a city. I find that both unrealistic and unbalanced. Thus I made the change that most civic have a penalty for non-state religions to encourage players choosing Intolerant and purge the heathens

Since Vokarya updated the mod extensively, care to adapt Chronicles to be compatible with the latest SVN (1039 as of writing)?

thegreekweegee said:

Since Vokarya updated the mod extensively, care to adapt Chronicles to be compatible with the latest SVN (1039 as of writing)?

Click to expand...

It is ALWAYS a goal to keep Chronicles updated with latest SVN... a goal and a challenge
However I hadn't had any time to update my folder to latest rev yet, so please be patient

Zeta Nexus said:

It is ALWAYS a goal to keep Chronicles updated with latest SVN... a goal and a challenge
However I hadn't had any time to update my folder to latest rev yet, so please be patient

Click to expand...

Hey, the spirit is there at least!

I'll wait as long as you need.

I have some ideas about the new civics introduced in Vokarya's newest update.

Cosmopolitan
While I partly understand why Vokarya created it, I believe it has no real place in Chronicles. Open Immigration covers the idea. I'm leaning to ax Cosmopolitan from Chronicles.

Shadow War
This not a real Military civic. Military category is about "how you recruit your soldiers" but no civ ever relied only on spies. I may ax it or at least move to Stance category.

Virtual
With 45's new tag it is possible to limit it to Democracy only. I considering that.

Opinions?

Zeta Nexus said:

I have some ideas about the new civics introduced in Vokarya's newest update.

Cosmopolitan
While I partly understand why Vokarya created it, I believe it has no real place in Chronicles. Open Immigration covers the idea. I'm leaning to ax Cosmopolitan from Chronicles.

Shadow War
This not a real Military civic. Military category is about "how you recruit your soldiers" but no civ ever relied only on spies. I may ax it or at least move to Stance category.

Virtual
With 45's new tag it is possible to limit it to Democracy only. I considering that.

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Axing Cosmopolitan would be of no issue with me. Shadow War could be renamed to "Duplicity" and moved to Stance, while limiting Virtual to Democracy instead of downright axing it would be a good idea.

Don't see anything wrong apart from what I said.