AND 1.75 Civic Changes

[Killtech]

Good start, though when you set up a new city you definitely need to send at least 4 units. I usually send three archers as a start. And my concern is when two of them "city defend" away from the city. Otherwise, good start.

one point on this one: at least one citizen should always be content - no matter the unhappiness. thus a size 1 city is never unhappy. in a size 5 city only 4 citizens can rebel leaving you always a small frame to build something - even if very slowly. this should be implemented i think.

Lesser angry but still a major concern in subsequent cities. Though the fact you have the next city produce barracks faster is nice. Problem is Despotism come at Military Training, and so does the barrack. I only use two cities for land military unit training. So that make other cities 'ouch ouch'.

don't you get something like +1 happy per for barracks too? or was that for another civic? anyway this could be a default for fescism and despotism.

[...]Though you should cool down the anger per military unit . But with three happinesses, that should not be a problem. I'll playtest to see if I can adapt to it. If I have enough happiness buildings to compensate, then sure. My largest concern about anger per military unit is when I conquer a city. There will be about 10-20 turns when I have to train up the city's garrison units in my capital city, then send them on to the conquered city. Well, while that city is waiting, it have these 30-40 military units sitting there and defending it. Ouch, ouch! Bye bye go the production of that city until it is taken over by a smaller standard garrison units.

imagine you conquer a city after a bloody battle and tell the inhabitants they are free citizen with full rights to express their opinion and protest. if they came form another democratic system don't expect them to like your army.
but true, there should be a happiness cut off for both positive and negative effects. obviously you have one when you have a UPT limit. but otherwise... 50% of city size? or an absolute of 10?

 

[Afforess]

i find this view a bit naive. a really deep crisis for the US with an unemployment rate of over 20% and a large crowd of angry people is enough to see how fragile a democracy can be. especially if there is an evil genie agitating the crowds and someone to blame for all the problems. after the 9/11 attacks you could even see how fear alone was enough to make the first steps away from democracy.

But even if the US installed a dictator, the country would fracture. It would turn into at least 5-6 sovereign states at best, 50 at worst... The original dictatorship wouldn't work.

also i think democracy is not about the money. it is much more about the spirit of the people. the more wealthy they become the more rights they start to demand. note that in the french revolution the peasants didn't fight for democracy and such things. they starved and fought just for food. on the other hand there were many citizen that became wealthy merchants. but despite of their wealth they were view as 3rd class citizens by law having no possibility to become nobility. they utilized the poorer folks for their ideas. after all only these people read philosophy and new the concept of democracy. and after the revolution the financial problems didn't disappear. they became even greater.

Considering that the right to property == wealth, we are talking about the same thing here...

 

[Killtech]

But even if the US installed a dictator, the country would fracture. It would turn into at least 5-6 sovereign states at best, 50 at worst... The original dictatorship wouldn't work.

probable but not necessary. hard to predict in general. after all it would be just another president with a 'extended rights and power' to solve the problems. not sure most people would notice the difference.

Considering that the right to property == wealth, we are talking about the same thing here...

wealth of the citizens != wealth of the state. a state can be unbelievably rich but most of its people could live in bitter poverty. like in a feudal system.

but that's going off topic and isn't that much of importance.

edited my above on-topic post btw.

 

[Killtech]

I'm wondering if Power Civics aren't redundant with the existing Government civics? Generally speaking, the government type dictates how the power is balanced. You don't see Junta-Democracies....

oh hell they are. this is why reorganized them in the first place. well, i tried...
i still tried to keep both civic categories sperate. but in the end it might have been not a good option (problems with stats for the different civics arose as each needed an unique stats characteristic). to melt power and government civics may be the best way. however then i really would consider some renaming - i.e. some two word civics like parliamentarian republic (for republic + parliament) and presidential republic instead of plain republic...

now i remember why i didn't do that: deleting civics causes lots of problem - especially so many. overwriting them does not.

however as i browsed my alternative civics thread i've saw my 'single party republic'. you might consider readding this but under a less technical term: 'peoples republic' overwriting communism tag. though it is true that the government of stalins soviet republic and hitlers germany didn't differ much, there is a big difference between these and nowadays chinese government. it is not represented by any existing government civic so far i think although you might call it close to being a republic.

 

[xartah]

1. What's the difference between despotism and monarchy? Does monarchy represent a constitutional monarchy? If not then what else is there other than that one has a clear line of succession?

2. Why are oligarchic systems so inefficient while democracies are efficient? There have been several large and successful empires (Rome, China, Russia) and I'm not sure if they were completely crippled economically. Despotic nations suffer from large swings depending on the quality of the leader and this is evened out in a democracy but they can also have periods where the government collapses several times a year or parliament is unable to form a government. While gameplay is the most important factor I'm not sure I like a system where you always switch to the newest civic except during war when you switch to fascist.

3. Could the anger from military units be changed to something else? I consider it a bit annoying to have to station units in a tile next to the city and then have to move them inside the city before the city is attacked. It also feels a bit weird to have the citizens get angry that the army is coming to protect them from an enemy force.

 

[Iceciro]

I like the new Despotism, actually. Might actually use it.

Facism slows city growth, ouch... but probably necessary.

 

[Killtech]

3. Could the anger from military units be changed to something else? I consider it a bit annoying to have to station units in a tile next to the city and then have to move them inside the city before the city is attacked. It also feels a bit weird to have the citizens get angry that the army is coming to protect them from an enemy force.

it would make sense to deactivate the penalty if enemies are nearby - it est you get a warning of enemy forces near city so and so.

 

[Afforess]

3. Could the anger from military units be changed to something else? I consider it a bit annoying to have to station units in a tile next to the city and then have to move them inside the city before the city is attacked. It also feels a bit weird to have the citizens get angry that the army is coming to protect them from an enemy force.

What if units inside the inner radius of a city, the 9 surrounding tiles, counted towards it too?

 

[xartah]

What if units inside the inner radius of a city, the 9 surrounding tiles, counted towards it too?

Would that really matter? They will be able to move into the city from further away in a single turn thanks to roads anyway.

I'm not quite certain I like the happiness changes to these civics. The early civics require a large army to be stationed in any new cities, the units cannot be actively hunting barbarians without causing unhappiness while later civics require you to micromanage your forces so that they only enter the city when it is threatened and thereby causing unhappiness only when they are defending a city from enemy forces.

 

[Killtech]

Would that really matter? They will be able to move into the city from further away in a single turn thanks to roads anyway.

I'm not quite certain I like the happiness changes to these civics. The early civics require a large army to be stationed in any new cities, the units cannot be actively hunting barbarians without causing unhappiness while later civics require you to micromanage your forces so that they only enter the city when it is threatened and thereby causing unhappiness only when they are defending a city from enemy forces.

ok, the negative effect won't as intended because it can be avoided through unit micro. although one still has to consider that moving units into a city implies they are not fortified and thus lose defensive capabilities. surprise attacks will still be more harmful. however although this stat has at least still some effect but in general this option seems less an option anymore.

my initial suggestion would be to get an anger cut off (so a garrison of 50 units doesn't mean 50 anger) and deactivate the anger effect if enemy units are nearby is maybe still a solution to it. also limit the max anger thus at least one citizen in a city is always workable (for the anger of chiefdom so size 1 cities can be founded without falling directly into anger).

other alternatives: make the anger unavoidable - i.e. an angry face in every city if your army exceeds a certain size (similar to gold upkeep you get a anger upkeep...); or no fortification bonus for military units in cities for certain civics; or an enforced UPT in cities for military for certain civics.

but in the end the effort might not be worth the result. so something different may be considered. people in a democracy could get angry from unhealthiness too or something (though this better fits into health civics).

of course if someone can suggest some stats that are realizable with the current civic tags this would be good.

 

[Snofru1]

Why not divide the total numbers of military units by the number of citities and then give this number of angry faces to every city according to its size?

An example:

You have 10 cities and 20 units, gives an "angriness factor" of 2.
When the standard city size is 10 (could be defined differently), then each city sized 10 or less receives 2 angry faces, 20 or less 4 and so on.

I hope someone was able to understand this ...

 

[Cyrus_the_Great]

The United States is a Federal Republic with limited democracy through representation.

This is not available in the civic changes but understandable.

On another note, I was thinking about how "Propaganda" could be used to lower the number of angry people in any form of government.

This is a cool project, many ideas bubbling up in my mind.

 

[Cyrus_the_Great]

Something else crossed my mind. Oligarchy is what most governments will turn into over time.

Some say the US is an oligarchy now, being run by an elite controlled by rich families.

 

[os79]

Finally got to most of Government civics, so my opinions on them so far in Revision 408.

Chiefdom:
Of course it is a starting civic and supposed to be lousiest choice, but it is not crippling because by the time I get to Bronze Working, I can switch over to Despotism. So leave this one as is.

Despotism:
Good one until I get a religion so I can switch to Monarchy plus advanced religion civic.

Monarchy:
I don't see much bonuses here except for Noble specialists (what they do anyway?) and least maintenance costs. It is OK until I get Republic. Nothing exciting. Maybe it is as intended.

Republic:
Similar to Monarchy in excitement, but I get Agora like another commenter said, so it is all good.

Democracy: (next beta will have Democracy dropping tax anger)
Better compared to Republic but not that exciting.

Federal: (in later beta version, tech required is moved forward to Rifling)
A very strong late game, but very competitive with Fascist. It give most happiness but with balanced costs in military placement and tax rates. So that is good.

Fascism:
Had not arrived its tech yet but from what I saw in Civic Advisor, it look very competitive vs. Federal, so good move, I believe.

 

[Killtech]

as discussed above the '+1 anger per military unit' in cities might cause some controversies among players. thinking on it i find the most proper replacement for this is '-1 or -2 gold per military unit' which is very fitting because the civics that have this penalty (democracy, federal) also lower the maintenance cost. thus there should prevent a too high gold surplus with these civics.

but i haven't play-tested this so far, so what do you think, os97 (any all others who already played with these civics?)


so in general the government civics should have an easy order of purpose depending of how war orietented your are:
from despotism which gives the best boost for warmongers, then fascism, monarchy, republic, democracy to finally federal which will be rendered most peaceful government civic.

 

[os79]

I fight with Federal on. I just don't garrison ENTIRE army in my captured city. I just separate away three of my units and put them in the city until my default garrison units arrive. Then reunite my three units with the main force outside of the city and send them on their merry ways.

Right now, I'm not warring, but I'm very confident that wars will be very manageable. You just need to be smart with how you manage your economy in the first place. Ain't my fault that some people are way too aggressive for their own good.