Favorite Civic by Era

Because RFC is more based on states than leaders, I thought that it will be a good idea to have a favorite civic of the civ, not the leader. now, because every civ has changed it's civics over the years I think there should be a favorite civic for each era. example:
Netherlands:
Medival: vassalage (vassal of the Holy Roman Empire)
Rennaisance: resettlement (Dutch colonial Empire)
Industrial: free religion (current favorite civic)
Modern: free speech (Netherlands is one of the most liberal states in the world)

Japan:
Classical: hereditary rule (first Japanese Emperors)
Medival: vassalage (samurais)
Rennaisance: mercantilism (isolated Tokugawa)
Industrial: occupation (aggresive Japanese diplomacy after Meiji's restoration)
Modern: universal suffrage\ nationhood (after WW2 or before WW2)

What do you think?

France:
Medieval: HR and vassalage (took till 1400's until the whole country was united)
Renaissance: Resettlement (New France)
Industrial: Universal Suffrage (French Revolution)
Modern: State property (the modern welfare state )

Not necessarily historical, but Khmer was never meant to be just one big modern state:
Medieval: Pacifism (get those GA cranking)
Renaissance: commonwealth (combat the economic instability)
Industrial: resettlement (colonizing Australia)
Modern: Free religion

What'd be the effects? Do the AI use their favourite civics much? What are the changes for diplomacy (boni mali due to civics)? Technically possible and worth the effort? Or would it just be flavour? (Then, do you want te fav civics to be modelled after history or after gameplay?)

m

AnotherPacifist said:

France:
Medieval: HR and vassalage (took till 1400's until the whole country was united)
Renaissance: Resettlement (New France)
Industrial: Universal Suffrage (French Revolution)
Modern: State property (the modern welfare state )

Not necessarily historical, but Khmer was never meant to be just one big modern state:
Medieval: Pacifism (get those GA cranking)
Renaissance: commonwealth (combat the economic instability)
Industrial: resettlement (colonizing Australia)
Modern: Free religion

Click to expand...

I think that the French revolution was more about Emancipation than Universal-Suffrage.

mitsho said:

What'd be the effects? Do the AI use their favourite civics much? What are the changes for diplomacy (boni mali due to civics)? Technically possible and worth the effort? Or would it just be flavour? (Then, do you want te fav civics to be modelled after history or after gameplay?)

m

Click to expand...

The effects will be a more historical gameplay, Portugal and Vikings will be less monarchists, Spanish won't be theocratic in the Modern age and Turkey won't ask you to have Vassalage. Some favorite civics are really annoying- France and Britain have nationhood as their favorite civic (De-Gaulle and Churchill) when they need to be free democracies (free speech), some forms of states don't happen at all: police state Germany, very liberal Dutch, pacifist India, Theocratic Persia. The AI uses their FC's almost every time and they ask you to join them, which is quite annoying to have Joao asking you to be a Monarchist in the modern age. the FC's should be both for gameplay and historacly.

Lokolus said:

Because RFC is more based on states than leaders, I thought that it will be a good idea to have a favorite civic of the civ, not the leader. now, because every civ has changed it's civics over the years I think there should be a favorite civic for each era. example:
Netherlands:
Medival: vassalage (vassal of the Holy Roman Empire)
Rennaisance: resettlement (Dutch colonial Empire)
Industrial: free religion (current favorite civic)
Modern: free speech (Netherlands is one of the most liberal states in the world)

Japan:
Classical: hereditary rule (first Japanese Emperors)
Medival: vassalage (samurais)
Rennaisance: mercantilism (isolated Tokugawa)
Industrial: occupation (aggresive Japanese diplomacy after Meiji's restoration)
Modern: universal suffrage\ nationhood (after WW2 or before WW2)

What do you think?

Click to expand...

hi ,


one hundred percent behind you

it would lead to a totally different gameplay , ...

so whats the list of mali for example and some other civs ?

enjoy your day

Some more civs:
Mali:
Medival: Organized religion (Islam)
Rennaisance: Slavery (slave trade during colonial age)
Industrial: Free Market (current)
Modern: Commonwealth (poor economy)

Persia:
classical: Oraganized religion (Zoroastrianism)
Medival: Vassalage\viceroyalty (Arabian vassals)
Rennaisance: Occupation (Timurid Empire)
Industrial: Nationhood (remained independent for a long time)
Modern: Theocracy (Iran)

Germany:
Medieval: HR/Vassalage (HRE + feudal states)
Renaissance: Bureaucracy (Prussian state)
Industrial: Nationhood/Occupation (Franco-Prussian war, unification of Germany)
Modern: Police State/Occupation (WW II)

Russia:
Medieval: HR/Vassalage/serfdom (Tsars/khanates/beginning of serfs)
Renaissance: Bureaucracy (Russian state under Peter the Great)
Industrial: Emancipation (of the serfs)
Modern: Police state/communism/Nationhood/Occupation (first occupied by Germany then they occupy the satellite states)

Rome:
Classical: HR/slavery (emperors/gladiators)
Medieval: theocracy (the Pope and inquisitions)
Renaissance: free economy (Venice) or representation (city states with some representation)
Industrial: Nationhood (unification of Italy)
Modern: Police state

ENGLAND
Medieval: Representation (magna carta)
Renaissance: Resettlement (of America)
Industrial: Free Market (Britain pioneered Free Market economics in the 19th century)
Modern: Commonwealth (the Commonwealth)

Úmarth;6881083 said:

ENGLAND
Medieval: Representation (magna carta)
Renaissance: Resettlement (of America)
Industrial: Free Market (Britain pioneered Free Market economics in the 19th century)
Modern: Commonwealth (the Commonwealth)

Click to expand...

Pretty sure Constitution will get you into the Renaissance era, so no dice on Representation as a medieval civic. I would go Hereditary rule for that one. Yes it was a constitutional monarchy with a legislature, but it was still a monarchy.

Industrial could just as easily by representation, but it would be a tough call between the two.


Additionally, this is a great idea, though it may be hard to do. I also wonder about some of the more ancient civilizations that never really made it to modern eras, like Aztec, Inca, Maya, Babylon, or Carthage. While some could be replaced by the modern states that control their areas, as the RFC mod already does.

Maybe an easier (though admittedly less cool) thing would be to remove favorite civics after they really become obsolete, or reducing their effect on game play or something.

I would go for England having emancipation also in Industrial age (after all it was one of the first countries to free slaves).

The way commonwealth is represented in RFC does not really represent the Commonwealth of Nations (it certainly has a great economy). Commonwealth doesn't really mean a whole lot except as a loose confederation of states not even necessarily ruled by the same body. It would be nice to introduce a small city maintenance benefit to commonwealth to encourage more use of it, and to allow large empires to use that instead of communism (which has a fairly significant penalty to switch out of).

Britain had all but collapsed economically after the Second World War, the Commonwealth was a way to dismantle the Empire while saving some face (or in RFC terms, mitigate loss of stability). I've always seen the Commonwealth civic as reflecting that, a way for empires past or at their zenith to keep stability high.

I feel quite strongly about Free Market as the industrial civic. During the 19th century we were a trading empire and so much of our foreign policy was dictated by the need to "keep markets open" (the entire Partition of Africa, for one). Britain was the first European nation to fully commit to Free Trade under Peel and remained committed to it as America and the other European nations returned to Protection in the Long Depression. More importantly, Britain always advocated free trade on the world scale and diplomatic relations with Protectionist powers often suffered as result. This is a model of the way favourite civics work in civ.

I don't think Representation is appropriate because Britain's Parliamentary system was really shaped before the Industrial era, in the 19th and 18th centuries we if anything lagged behind the rest of Europe in implementing democratic reform (ie. widening the franchise). It was also never an idea that shaped our diplomatic relations that much either. Nor do I think emancipation is appropriate, yes, there was the emancipation of the slaves but "Equality" in the French Revolutionary sense was an idea that didn't really take hold until the late 19th century.

I think the point of favorite civic is the fact that one leader will stick to that for the whole game and will be pleased towards others who do the same. This is pretty much the only meaning I can give to "favorite civic". Now, if we make a fav. civic for each era, even this point fails...

onedreamer said:

I think the point of favorite civic is the fact that one leader will stick to that for the whole game and will be pleased towards others who do the same. This is pretty much the only meaning I can give to "favorite civic". Now, if we make a fav. civic for each era, even this point fails...

Click to expand...

Yes, but what relevance does this have in the terms of this mod? RFC is all about being a reasonably accurate historical sim. Having Civilizations demand in the 1900s that America go back to a Monarchy or even slavery just doesn't make sense.

onedreamer said:

I think the point of favorite civic is the fact that one leader will stick to that for the whole game and will be pleased towards others who do the same. This is pretty much the only meaning I can give to "favorite civic". Now, if we make a fav. civic for each era, even this point fails...

Click to expand...

Yes, but a Nationalist England and France, Monarchist Portugal and Vikings and a Vassalage Turkey, all in the Modern Era does'nt make sense. som more examples:

Aztecs:
Classical: Slavery (you know...)
Medieval: Bureaucracy (Tenochtitlan was the center of the empire)
Renaissance: Theocracy (under Spanish rule)
Industrial: Nationhood (independence war)
Modern: Universal Suffrage (they fought a lot of wars to gain Democracy)

Greece:
Classical: Slavery (salvery was common in the Ancient Mediterranean)
Medieval: Organized religion (Christianity in Greece)
Renaissance: Representation (Athens was the first Republic)
Industrial: Emancipation (Greek independence from the Turks)
Modern: Free Market (Greece is very Capitalistic)

Lokolus said:

Aztecs:
Classical: Slavery (you know...)
Medieval: Bureaucracy (Tenochtitlan was the center of the empire)
Renaissance: Theocracy (under Spanish rule)
Industrial: Nationhood (independence war)
Modern: Universal Suffrage (they fought a lot of wars to gain Democracy)

Click to expand...

Renaissance: Theocracy (under Spanish rule)
This is why I don't think this is a good idea, what if the Aztecs weren't conquered or vassalaged by Spain (happens a lot in RFC).

Favoured civic is leaderbound, and alltough I realy dislike the use of old civics in modern times, this isn't the solution. (even HR, witch many people see as modern monarchies to, as i see it, it is only the old despotic monarchy)

My very first post on this forum was to change the civic system in a way the using old civics gave less advantages than newer, so the newer would be more used, even if it meant not using you favoured civic. Rhye didn't want this, so I'm not gonna start on it (to many old treads back already).

Adding more leaders with a modern civic for there age is the solution, and I'll start working on the MODCOMP soon.

This is all well and good. But surely this would mean more civic changes for the AI.

How would this affect stability ? Would be get a lot more civs collapsing ?

I tried it before and it was not really a problem. Look at some civs now, many have 3 leaders and its working out nice, so, adding leaders for civs that have early game leaders only wouldn't do much harm.

kbk said:

Yes, but what relevance does this have in the terms of this mod? RFC is all about being a reasonably accurate historical sim. Having Civilizations demand in the 1900s that America go back to a Monarchy or even slavery just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

the relevance is that if it doesn't make sense then it shouldn't be used, just like leaders traits.

onedreamer said:

the relevance is that if it doesn't make sense then it shouldn't be used, just like leaders traits.

Click to expand...

I think we both agree that favorite civics as they stand are flawed. I prefer having these change by era to give different civilizations different flavors that describe how they grew and adapted. But if that is too difficult or unrealistic, then removing them would also be an option.