C&C universe civs

[<Nexus>]

I am not sure what to do here. Part of me wants it to be some sort of civic to represent the late game use of robots, cyborgs and cloned units.

Religion / Ideology
I do not think this category needs to change much. Things need to be renamed but that's about it for now at least

I can't imagine it in game. Religions and ideologies are very different. I can't imagine any government without a state ideology.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I can't imagine it in game. Religions and ideologies are very different. I can't imagine any government without a state ideology.

That's what modern pluralistic society is supposed to be. The equivalent of free religion only for all thought. Now, I say supposed to because frankly it isn't. But that's the ideal anyway.

I'll leave it up to you if that's a good ideal or not.

Also, there is the option of not having an official ideology because your official ideology is something unique, nation specific, a personality cult etc. Basically things that don't fit in the available ones. Which gives me ideas...

 

[pecheneg]

By forms of government
1. The default form of government as of 1850 will be just the monarchy. Just rename vanilla despotism.
2. Dictatorship can be renamed authoritarianism, but for most players, such terminology is a dark forest, so you can leave it as it is. The power that ensures loyalty with bayonets is just about Latin American and other Iberian dictators (caudilism).
3. At the same time, the "natural" upgrade of authoritarianism is the police state/totalitarianism. In vanilla, it "lies" in the forms of government (the first column) and this is logical.
4. Federation is a term with a big catch. . Both in the 19th century and now there were and are monarchical federations, for example. Now these are the Emirates and Malaysia, then German associations, Austria-Hungary, etc.
If you do not create a separate line of territorial structure, you can simply call the vanilla representation a national representation, and the federation a federal representation. Federation is an additional degree of freedom, so that the principle fits into a ruler describing the degree of tightening of the nuts.
But with difficulty, because the configuration of power and territorial structure in one bottle is strange.
5. At the same time, vanilla "suffrage", for some reason providing an additional hammer on the town and accelerating production through centralized investments, is clearly about the economy, and specifically regulated. Roosevelt's New Deal, Keynesianism and other options for state intervention without a large public sector of the economy. In vanilla, it turned out to be in the forms of government, obviously simply because there was nowhere else to put it. At the same time, functionally (acceleration of production) it replaces slavery.

In economics.
1. The default economy in the middle of the 19th century is precisely mercantilism. However, the forms are already compromise, so it can be considered a zero option.
2. Mercantilism has been "rebooted" as protectionism since the 1840s.
3. At the same time, he was opposed by the policy of free trade – free trade and free flow of capital.
4. The military economy can be renamed the mobilization economy.

Аlthough I would put the territorial structure, the levels of mobilization (in tens of percent of production) and taxation in separate "lines".
The obligation follows

 

[PPQ_Purple]

By forms of government
1. The default form of government as of 1850 will be just the monarchy. Just rename vanilla despotism.

Monarchy or republic of some sort. Both were roughly equally prevalent from what I can tell. I mean, France, America and the South American countries were all republics of some sort. So we need some sort of name for a generic non modern societal structure.

2. Dictatorship can be renamed authoritarianism, but for most players, such terminology is a dark forest, so you can leave it as it is. The power that ensures loyalty with bayonets is just about Latin American and other Iberian dictators (caudilism).

3. At the same time, the "natural" upgrade of authoritarianism is the police state/totalitarianism. In vanilla, it "lies" in the forms of government (the first column) and this is logical.

As far as that one goes the situation is simple. I want to mechanically have the Monarchy civic because it's a powerful and useful one to have. And I figured that the lore to attach to that would be "generic authoritarian dictatorship" to represent everything from Tsarists Russia to Stalinism, Fascism etc. Basically literally any dictatorship that uses the military, police or some other force of oppression to keep the people in line. I also always felt that the from troops mechanic represents a dictatorship far better than a bonus to . But I do want to have a civic that gives you a bonus to so the logical move was to shift it into one of the now vacant slots in the Legal category.

Plus it lets us have interesting combination like a democratic police state (modern day america) or liberal dictatorship.

4. Federation is a term with a big catch. . Both in the 19th century and now there were and are monarchical federations, for example. Now these are the Emirates and Malaysia, then German associations, Austria-Hungary, etc.
If you do not create a separate line of territorial structure, you can simply call the vanilla representation a national representation, and the federation a federal representation. Federation is an additional degree of freedom, so that the principle fits into a ruler describing the degree of tightening of the nuts.
But with difficulty, because the configuration of power and territorial structure in one bottle is strange.

Fundamentally the reason I included it is that I needed to fill out the slot and mechanically I like the city states civic from FFH because it provides a direct inverse to representation, one being designed for going tall (few cities) and the other for going wide (large empire). I think that mechanically it would be a good idea to have it. And "federation" or some equivalent concept (maybe commonwealth?) represents such a system where the constituent entities have a lot of devolved power.

Basically its one step short, but still distinctly short of making the outlaying territories into full on vassal states like the British eventually did with their commonwealth.

So I think that mechanically the civic has merit (either here or maybe in some other category?) But I am open to discussion on the topic as you do bring up a fair point. So do you disagree? Or do you disagree on the name and lore?

5. At the same time, vanilla "suffrage", for some reason providing an additional hammer on the town and accelerating production through centralized investments, is clearly about the economy, and specifically regulated. Roosevelt's New Deal, Keynesianism and other options for state intervention without a large public sector of the economy. In vanilla, it turned out to be in the forms of government, obviously simply because there was nowhere else to put it. At the same time, functionally (acceleration of production) it replaces slavery.

Honestly I newer could understand what it was about. Universal Suffrage was always one of those civics that felt like it was in the game more because of its lore than about having its mechanics really well thought out. Lore vise it represents a proper modern democracy that extends the vote to all citizens as opposed to previous models. But that to me does not really work well with its mechanics.

Really overall it's my least favorite civic from that category. And it's my second least favorite in the game, second only to emancipation which I hate because of the dumb .

Speaking of emancipation, what do we do about that one? Like, the bonus to cottage growth mechanic is a powerful one that I might want to keep. But at the same time I do not want the and I honestly do not think that the name or lore of "not slavery and not serfdom" fits in the setting. Well it kind of does what with dictatorships technically being bad and stuff. But like even Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany didn't outright turn their entire population into slaves or serfs. And "people get to vote" is already covered by the government civics.

So maybe if we moved that cottage growth mechanic to Universal Suffrage?

In economics.
1. The default economy in the middle of the 19th century is precisely mercantilism. However, the forms are already compromise, so it can be considered a zero option.
2. Mercantilism has been "rebooted" as protectionism since the 1840s.

Protectionism isn't really mercantilism proper. Although I admit to have been considering that name for it as well.
I am just not sure how well it would fit because there is a big difference in degrees. Protectionist economies still trade with outside powers, and often do it a lot. They just choose to tilt the scales by imposing tariffs and the like to make sure said trade benefits them and their economy as opposed to foreigners. A good example of a modern protectionist economy would be China.

That is why I went with Autarky which is a policy of complete economic self sufficiency (which newer works and always devolves into grudgingly trading with ones allies or vassals anyway) espoused during the middle of the 20th century by such centers of sound economic policy as Nazi Germany and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

But there is an argument to be had that the word is much, much more familiar to people. And that should NOT be understated. I will admit to being conflicted on that.
What does everyone think? Should it be Protectionism because of the familiarity? Or maybe some play on Self Sufficiency?

I am leaning heavily toward just calling it protectionism at this point.

4. The military economy can be renamed the mobilization economy.

I like the term War Economy because it is as far as I understand the actual technical term for the concept of a temporary mobilization of the entire economy to serve the needs of the military during a state of Total War.

Also, just in case people are unfamiliar with FFH I am going to do the thing I should have done in the first place instead of being lazy and paste the actual description of what I want to do.
The Crusade civic in FFH is unique to the Bannor civilization that has the following features:

• Can only be adopted if you are at war.
• You have to switch out of it if you want to make peace. It literally locks you out of diplomacy with enemies entirely via mechanic until you switch out.
• You can't build any units or buildings other than military ones.
  
  In exchange you get several bonuses to war including:
  
  
• Bonus to the number of upkeep free units.
• +25% to military unit production.
• Bonus in all cities (to compensate for the loss of being able to build buildings)
• -75% War Weariness.

Аlthough I would put the territorial structure, the levels of mobilization (in tens of percent of production) and taxation in separate "lines".
The obligation follows

Honestly I think that would be a bit too much. Remember that this is a one man project with two advisers. I can't really aim for something with the complexity of CtoC. At least not if its going to be done before we actually colonize the cosmos. Also I personally prefer streamlined projects with few well designed features over ones that add a million things. That is why I am placing such a large emphasis here on mechanics over lore.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Also for purposes of full transparency here is my entire development plan for phase 1:

1. Establish a list of units
2. Establish all civics
3. Establish all the Pre-Tiberium "religions"
4. Establish all buildings
5. Assemble these into a tech tree that makes sense mechanically
6. Assign lore to the tech tree
7. Finalize tech tree and begin XML work on pre-alpha.

I am currently mostly done with step #1 and we are half way through step #2 here. Once the civics are done I will be moving to step #3.

 

[<Nexus>]

Monarchy or republic of some sort. Both were roughly equally prevalent from what I can tell. I mean, France, America and the South American countries were all republics of some sort. So we need some sort of name for a generic non modern societal structure.

Why can't be there 2 starting civics unlocked by 2 starting techs? So some civs could start with Monarchy and others with Republic.

Speaking of emancipation, what do we do about that one? Like, the bonus to cottage growth mechanic is a powerful one that I might want to keep. But at the same time I do not want the and I honestly do not think that the name or lore of "not slavery and not serfdom" fits in the setting. Well it kind of does what with dictatorships technically being bad and stuff. But like even Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany didn't outright turn their entire population into slaves or serfs. And "people get to vote" is already covered by the government civics.

Replacing Slavery: Forced Labor or Penal Economy were a thing and can do the same lore.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Why can't be there 2 starting civics unlocked by 2 starting techs? So some civs could start with Monarchy and others with Republic.

Primarily because I would personally find it to be an unnecessary addition of lore over mechanics. And I don't want to differentiate civs at the game start either. At least not at this stage.
I might be open to that sort of thing later on in development though once we get to the embellishment stage.

Replacing Slavery: Forced Labor or Penal Economy were a thing and can do the same lore.

That would be true, yes. But basically the entire C&C universe is designed around the idea of Hitler being erased from the timeline and all his evils being wiped clean. And I think that having any sort of civic evocative of those evils would be a grim departure from the overall tone of the universe.

 

[ramzay1945]

Well, I've been looking for a long time, and I found a way to convert at least some models from cnc:tw to nif

Spoiler :

I didn't think it would be so difficult

 

[pecheneg]

Monarchy or republic of some sort. Both were roughly equally prevalent from what I can tell. I mean, France, America and the South American countries were all republics of some sort. So we need some sort of name for a generic non modern societal structure.

The fact is that in the 1850s this was not the case. There is exactly one republic in Europe after 1851 - Switzerland. France – Empire in 1852-1870. There are still many independent monarchies in Asia and Africa. Republics predominate in America, but one of the two clearly playable countries (Brazil) was a monarchy before 1889.
Another thing is that monarchies are very different and most Western monarchies are parliamentary. England has been out of this category for a very long time, however
1. Formally, the English kings still have very large, albeit dormant powers.
2. Even Vicky believes that the final transition to a constitutional monarchy occurred only during the reign of Victoria, and very far from immediately. The Queen retired in the 1860s.
3. In the elections in Britain, 14% of men voted.
4. At the same time,
4.1) The powers of the hereditary-appointed House of Lords made it possible to block any law.
4.2). The king could bypass the veto by stupidly appointing the necessary peers. And this scheme existed at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Some kind of dubious representation.
5. That is, the only "strong" problem remains the United States, where a qualified majority of white men voted and, possibly, Mexico + Argentina (?). At the same time, there is actually a civil war in formally republican Mexico, a confederation in Argentina (each hut has its own toys), and in 1854 the capital separated from its own country.
It seems to me that such exceptions are bypassed by issuing the appropriate technology at the start. The USA immediately has a "representative", for example.

I also always felt that the from troops mechanic represents a dictatorship far better than a bonus to .

Logically, yes. But, to be fair, totalitarian regimes in "working with the population" also rely on special services, mass ruling parties and propaganda. That is, it is done correctly and is considered a qualitatively different level of dictatorship. And it is assumed that a police state is automatically built into them.

Plus it lets us have interesting combination like a democratic police state (modern day america) or liberal dictatorship.

Moreover, the police state is a rather old format, quite characteristic of later monarchies.

Then the suggestion is as follows. The totalitarian regime as an advanced dictatorship. At the same time, one of the factors of advancement may be the ability to create cheap garrison units with high efficiency of suppressing rebellion. In the ХML of promotions, it is quite possible to increase the garrison efficiency of the unit as much as you like.
The price of the issue is probably also problems with population growth in addition to the high cost.
The police state as such, yes, remains a separate civic. Which, in principle, can enhance the effect of totalitarianism – the latter also varied in rigidity.

That is why I went with Autarky which is a policy of complete economic self sufficiency (which newer works and always devolves into grudgingly trading with ones allies or vassals anyway) espoused during the middle of the 20th century by such centers of sound economic policy as Nazi Germany and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

In fact, the Germans were even "smarter". As a result of the officially declared policy of autarky, their imports have sharply increased and exports have fallen at the same time (progress, yes). As a result, the hole in the trade balance has reached epic proportions. Even the USSR could not carry out a real, not a declarative policy of autarky. However, the Soviets were smart enough not to set it as a goal at all.

The Crusade civic in FFH is unique to the Bannor civilization that has the following features:

I like. Although, it seems to me, it would look better in the form of several civics, differing in radicalism and in a slightly modified form. At least because Stalin won the Second World War, who began the mobilization of industry before the war and lost to Hitler, with whom they not only did it in a limited mastaba, but also philosophically justified the uselessness of mobilization. The Germans, the great country of Kant, Hegel and other slag.

Honestly I think that would be a bit too much. Remember that this is a one man project with two advisers. I can't really aim for something with the complexity of CtoC. At least not if its going to be done before we actually colonize the cosmos. Also I personally prefer streamlined projects with few well designed features over ones that add a million things. That is why I am placing such a large emphasis here on mechanics over lore.

Yes, this is radical and, in general, is a rather abstract theory – at least in its full form.
Although the mechanics are pretty simple. Tax civics give a "mechanical" increase in gold in exchange for fines to the growth of cities and the growth of discontent. Let's say -10% growth and 2 misfortunes for every 10% of gold. You can also add pollution.
Mobilization is an equally mechanical reduction of civilian production in exchange for military production. Let's say +5% for every 10% civilian lost + 2 misfortunes. Etc..
The civics of the territorial structure (unitary state, autonomy, federation and confederation) vary the penalty for remoteness + resistance of cities.
At the same time, it is possible (not the fact that it is necessary) to introduce "territorial civics" into the mod simply for the sake of convenience and historical authenticity. 1848 in Europe is the "spring of peoples", the growth of national self–awareness with all the entertaining consequences. And so on until the peak of nationalism in the 1930s. By the way, two of the largest empires have switched to the federal regime. Even further, half of the history of Latin America after independence is the struggle of Unitarians with federalists outside of any national context.

 

[pecheneg]

Primarily because I would personally find it to be an unnecessary addition of lore over mechanics. And I don't want to differentiate civs at the game start either. At least not at this stage.

The problem is that the alternative is attempts to single out some "primitive form of government" uniting the USA of the 1850s with China during the Qing Dynasty. IMHO, unreal.
At the same time the vanilla version already assumes 2 different starting technologies for civilizations. Moreover, mysticism in almost every fifth civilization gives an epic bonus in the religious race. Meanwhile,
1. in the case of the Americans and Co., you can do with little blood, just giving them one starting technology instead of two, which compensates for the effect of the growth of research at the initial stage.
2. At the same time, in order to observe the minimum historicism, the representation will have to be made available to everyone early enough.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The fact is that in the 1850s this was not the case. There is exactly one republic in Europe after 1851 - Switzerland. France – Empire in 1852-1870. There are still many independent monarchies in Asia and Africa. Republics predominate in America, but one of the two clearly playable countries (Brazil) was a monarchy before 1889.
Another thing is that monarchies are very different and most Western monarchies are parliamentary. England has been out of this category for a very long time, however
1. Formally, the English kings still have very large, albeit dormant powers.
2. Even Vicky believes that the final transition to a constitutional monarchy occurred only during the reign of Victoria, and very far from immediately. The Queen retired in the 1860s.
3. In the elections in Britain, 14% of men voted.
4. At the same time,
4.1) The powers of the hereditary-appointed House of Lords made it possible to block any law.
4.2). The king could bypass the veto by stupidly appointing the necessary peers. And this scheme existed at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Some kind of dubious representation.
5. That is, the only "strong" problem remains the United States, where a qualified majority of white men voted and, possibly, Mexico + Argentina (?). At the same time, there is actually a civil war in formally republican Mexico, a confederation in Argentina (each hut has its own toys), and in 1854 the capital separated from its own country.
It seems to me that such exceptions are bypassed by issuing the appropriate technology at the start. The USA immediately has a "representative", for example.

You definitively have me convinced that the best way to go here is to have representation be available as a 1st age Tech that some civs start with. Putting it and Dictatorship in the 1st age as early techs is something I've been thinking off anyway. So that's settled.

But I still think we do need a "default" of sorts like the vanilla game has for purely mechanical reasons. As in, even if we assume that every civ starts with one of the two unlocked the game has to have a default to fall back to for the 1st turn before you switch into which ever of the two you got. The only alternative to this would be to completely divest both from technologies and make both available for free at the start of the game. Which is an option as well. It would certainly make the thing more historical. But even if we did that I would have to assign one of the two as the default starting tech and I don't think I can vary that by Civ.

Logically, yes. But, to be fair, totalitarian regimes in "working with the population" also rely on special services, mass ruling parties and propaganda. That is, it is done correctly and is considered a qualitatively different level of dictatorship. And it is assumed that a police state is automatically built into them.

It's a matter of mechanics at this point. I like the from military mechanic and think it needs to be in the game. And we also need at least one civic that boosts in there as well. But we can't have both combined as it would be too powerful. And we need to fill out the Legal category slots as well. So the thought process was that it just sort of fit that way.

Moreover, the police state is a rather old format, quite characteristic of later monarchies.

Then the suggestion is as follows. The totalitarian regime as an advanced dictatorship. At the same time, one of the factors of advancement may be the ability to create cheap garrison units with high efficiency of suppressing rebellion. In the ХML of promotions, it is quite possible to increase the garrison efficiency of the unit as much as you like.
The price of the issue is probably also problems with population growth in addition to the high cost.
The police state as such, yes, remains a separate civic. Which, in principle, can enhance the effect of totalitarianism – the latter also varied in rigidity.

I am weary of putting too many mechanics all at once into a single civic. But this does sound promising.
If it is not too much to ask could you provide me with more specific details. Basically design the civic in terms of stats and descriptions so that I can see how it works out and balances and tell me which category you'd put it in and what (if anything) it would replace in that category.

I like. Although, it seems to me, it would look better in the form of several civics, differing in radicalism and in a slightly modified form. At least because Stalin won the Second World War, who began the mobilization of industry before the war and lost to Hitler, with whom they not only did it in a limited mastaba, but also philosophically justified the uselessness of mobilization. The Germans, the great country of Kant, Hegel and other slag.

In terms of realism yes. In terms of confusing the player by having a myriad of different options that all seem very similar to one another not so much. At least that's my view.

Yes, this is radical and, in general, is a rather abstract theory – at least in its full form.
Although the mechanics are pretty simple. Tax civics give a "mechanical" increase in gold in exchange for fines to the growth of cities and the growth of discontent. Let's say -10% growth and 2 misfortunes for every 10% of gold. You can also add pollution.
Mobilization is an equally mechanical reduction of civilian production in exchange for military production. Let's say +5% for every 10% civilian lost + 2 misfortunes. Etc..
The civics of the territorial structure (unitary state, autonomy, federation and confederation) vary the penalty for remoteness + resistance of cities.
At the same time, it is possible (not the fact that it is necessary) to introduce "territorial civics" into the mod simply for the sake of convenience and historical authenticity. 1848 in Europe is the "spring of peoples", the growth of national self–awareness with all the entertaining consequences. And so on until the peak of nationalism in the 1930s. By the way, two of the largest empires have switched to the federal regime. Even further, half of the history of Latin America after independence is the struggle of Unitarians with federalists outside of any national context.

I will respond to this later when I get back to my PC.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yes, this is radical and, in general, is a rather abstract theory – at least in its full form.
Although the mechanics are pretty simple. Tax civics give a "mechanical" increase in gold in exchange for fines to the growth of cities and the growth of discontent. Let's say -10% growth and 2 misfortunes for every 10% of gold. You can also add pollution.
Mobilization is an equally mechanical reduction of civilian production in exchange for military production. Let's say +5% for every 10% civilian lost + 2 misfortunes. Etc..
The civics of the territorial structure (unitary state, autonomy, federation and confederation) vary the penalty for remoteness + resistance of cities.

Ok, I am back home so can respond to this now. And if I understand you correctly you are basically suggesting I introduce an entire new set of game mechanics centered around some sort of taxation and mobilization slider. This while interesting and potentially fun is I feel beyond the scope of this project which is ultimately meant to simulate the Command and Conquer games and universe. It is also somewhat beyond my skills as a modder at this time.

I am not ruling it out as an expansion feature for when I finish up the base mod and get more familiar with modding CIV4 and the DLL in general.

At the same time, it is possible (not the fact that it is necessary) to introduce "territorial civics" into the mod simply for the sake of convenience and historical authenticity. 1848 in Europe is the "spring of peoples", the growth of national self–awareness with all the entertaining consequences. And so on until the peak of nationalism in the 1930s. By the way, two of the largest empires have switched to the federal regime. Even further, half of the history of Latin America after independence is the struggle of Unitarians with federalists outside of any national context.

What must be kept in mind is that my goal here is not to simulate the 19th century and its intricacies which could indeed fill a whole mod in their own right but rather that the first two eras of the game are just a stepping stone toward the actual main gameplay content that is the century between 1940 and 2040 as covered by the Command and Conquer games. The first two eras are really just space for the world to grow and set the stage for the real content much like the stone age is in vanilla CIV. So by necessity they, and especially the 1st era are going to gloss over a great many things.

 

[pecheneg]

And if I understand you correctly you are basically suggesting I introduce an entire new set of game mechanics

Well, as I said before, this is basically a theory, not for the short and not for the medium term. I will then make a sub-mod and see how it will work. At the same time, the setting is very militant.

some sort of taxation and mobilization slider.

Yes, this is just the simplified equivalent of a slider. However, revolutions during the transition to a new level of mobilization to some extent reflect the costs, and the necessary pauses between "revolutions" reflect the inertia of the system. Although the remaining opportunity to jump immediately to the upper levels of mobilization and back spoils the picture.

What must be kept in mind is that my goal here is not to simulate the 19th century and its intricacies which could indeed fill a whole mod in their own right but rather that the first two eras of the game are just a stepping stone toward the actual main gameplay content that is the century between 1940 and 2040 as covered by the Command and Conquer games. The first two eras are really just space for the world to grow and set the stage for the real content much like the stone age is in vanilla CIV. So by necessity they, and especially the 1st era are going to gloss over a great many things.

Well, historicity is secondary here. It seems to me that a scheme with territorial civics is simply more logical and gives more opportunities for recognizable combinations.
At the same time,
1. a unitary state is just a default state without effects,
2. a democratic federation is still planned to be added. Thus, there are really two additional civics.
At the same time, putting them in a separate column / list gives dozens of additional combinations at once. Profit, and cheap.

Now I'm thinking about how to distribute totalitarian-police options and fines between totalitarianism and the police.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well, as I said before, this is basically a theory, not for the short and not for the medium term. I will then make a sub-mod and see how it will work. At the same time, the setting is very militant.

The way I see these things going is that if the base mod balance pans out I can always add new layers of complexity on top of it later. But it's better to have something playable out as soon as possible and than to add to that. As a professional software engineer who has run projects in my experience that is the best approach to project management. If you start with too broad a scope in the beginning rather than going to the minimum viable product and expanding from there you just end up in development hell. This is going to be a multi year project either way so when I say I am filing things for later I literally am filing them for later.

Yes, this is just the simplified equivalent of a slider. However, revolutions during the transition to a new level of mobilization to some extent reflect the costs, and the necessary pauses between "revolutions" reflect the inertia of the system. Although the remaining opportunity to jump immediately to the upper levels of mobilization and back spoils the picture.

Keep in mind that revolutions hurt, a lot. Really skilled players try their best to always avoid them as much as possible and for good reason.

Well, historicity is secondary here. It seems to me that a scheme with territorial civics is simply more logical and gives more opportunities for recognizable combinations.
At the same time,
1. a unitary state is just a default state without effects,
2. a democratic federation is still planned to be added. Thus, there are really two additional civics.
At the same time, putting them in a separate column / list gives dozens of additional combinations at once. Profit, and cheap.

I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting I add an extra civic category or something? I think this idea is interesting enough that you might want to step back and put it into a paragraph or two.

Now I'm thinking about how to distribute totalitarian-police options and fines between totalitarianism and the police.

That's one of the reasons why I wanted police state to be its own civic in the legal category next to free speech and what ever else I'd add in there. It makes the whole thing much easier to parse for development.

Also, do you have any suggestions on how to fill those missing slots in the labor and legal categories?

 

[<Nexus>]

That would be true, yes. But basically the entire C&C universe is designed around the idea of Hitler being erased from the timeline and all his evils being wiped clean. And I think that having any sort of civic evocative of those evils would be a grim departure from the overall tone of the universe.

I don't agree. Einstein removed only Hitler and therefore the nazis. But Stalin also had a the gulags. Forced labor of political prisoners in socialist countries were quite common.


BTW, I think that this project may deserve its own thread now. I don't want to kick you out from here but we are in the New Civilizations category. You may also find it useful to control and be able to edit the opening post(s) of the thread.

 

[pecheneg]

If you start with too broad a scope in the beginning rather than going to the minimum viable product and expanding from there you just end up in development hell.

Yeah. At the same time, the mechanics are quite radical, it is necessary to attract a crowd of potential victims of inhumane experiments, etc. In general, as I said, these are just notes for a possible bright future. Just a vanilla "oak" economic model, where you can't even play with the tax burden – it's very much for an amateur. I would even say a fan.

I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting I add an extra civic category?

Yes. "Territory" along with the "army", "religion", "labor", etc.That is, we take out a federation there, add a confederation, autonomy and a zero option (unitarianism).

Also, do you have any suggestions on how to fill those missing slots in the labor and legal categories?

Of course there is . But it did not come to the full filling of the categories. There are nuances in the remaining categories in general – for example, the default armies on the 1850th are just professional (recruits and volunteers), and progressive ones are mass, based on universal military service. At the same time, there is also a territorial format (in fact, the National Guard, weekend soldiers). And it is decidedly unclear whether any sense will come out of the historical version within the framework of strictly vanilla mechanics.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yes. "Territory" along with the "army", "religion", "labor", etc.That is, we take out a federation there, add a confederation, autonomy and a zero option (unitarianism).

I see. That is worth considering. We shall get back to that.

Of course there is . But it did not come to the full filling of the categories. There are nuances – for example, the default armies on the 1850th are just professional (recruits and volunteers), and progressive ones are mass, based on universal military service. At the same time, there is also a territorial format (in fact, the National Guard, weekend soldiers). And it is decidedly unclear whether any sense will come out of the historical version within the framework of strictly vanilla mechanics.

The way I see it I basically have 2 slots in both the Labor and Legal that need filling and that takes priority over the rest.

I don't agree. Einstein removed only Hitler and therefore the nazis. But Stalin also had a the gulags. Forced labor of political prisoners in socialist countries were quite common.

Prison labor, even on a relatively large scale isn't really comparable to organized slavery. And the Soviets newer really reached even the same order of magnitude as the Germans nor the dependency on them. Plus honestly the Red Alert universe just isn't that grim if you exclude Yuri and his Grinders.

And honestly the mechanic of sacrificing population for hammers is something I want to exclude from the mod because it is far too good of a mechanic. Like, there is a reason why high level players don't ever switch out of slavery. So I want to shake things up by not having it. Although I might find a way to include it back later in some way, shape or form with a more significant drawback.

BTW, I think that this project may deserve its own thread now. I don't want to kick you out from here but we are in the New Civilizations category. You may also find it useful to control and be able to edit the opening post(s) of the thread.

You are absolutely right. I'll do that tomorrow after work.

 

[need my speed]

If not the Soviet Union, then Yuri is definitely an argument for the slavery mechanic.

I also feel like saying that, as an outsider looking in, it seems that this thread is getting bogged down in 'how to simulate history before C&C even happens'. Why not take the C&C civilisations, and extrapolate from there? For example, maybe you could have a 'Globalism' civic that would fit both GDI and the Soviet Union (desiring to spread communism internationally), while the Allies are more isolationist (not exactly isolationist, but more 'live and let live', see also how the campaigns progress with not all Allies immediately joining the war). What are all the differences between these civilisations? To what civics do they lead? Then fill in gaps with what seems logical (i.e. Nod and Yuri call for a Fanaticism or Divine Cult civic, the Soviet Union perhaps for a State Atheism civic, but while no other civilisation really does anything religious-y, something like State Church, Free Religion, or who knows what, still makes sense).

 

[PPQ_Purple]

If not the Soviet Union, then Yuri is definitely an argument for the slavery mechanic.

He is indeed.

I also feel like saying that, as an outsider looking in, it seems that this thread is getting bogged down in 'how to simulate history before C&C even happens'. Why not take the C&C civilisations, and extrapolate from there? For example, maybe you could have a 'Globalism' civic that would fit both GDI and the Soviet Union (desiring to spread communism internationally), while the Allies are more isolationist (not exactly isolationist, but more 'live and let live', see also how the campaigns progress with not all Allies immediately joining the war). What are all the differences between these civilisations? To what civics do they lead? Then fill in gaps with what seems logical (i.e. Nod and Yuri call for a Fanaticism or Divine Cult civic, the Soviet Union perhaps for a State Atheism civic, but while no other civilisation really does anything religious-y, something like State Church, Free Religion, or who knows what, still makes sense).

That is what I would wish to do as well. The eras before Red Alert should really just be an abstracted stepping stone rather than our focus. But I am having much difficulty steering the discussion that way.

People need to remember that everything before 1930 is going to be like 10% of the finished product and not 50%.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Also note that my preferred start date for the mod is not 1850 but 1900.

Also also. I took roughly 1.5 hours today to beat Red Alert 2 on Brutal again for research purposes. So I am a bit fresher on the units there.