Civics: need modification?

[ToV]

for police state add +2 happiness to all cities but also have a -50% culture because people are afraid to protest but they are also afraid to express themselves.

I actually have something for this, the reduction of Great People Points. I will consider it, though. I do not know if it is balanced. I would have to do testing.

 

[ToV]

I have made a few changes for balance.
1) Pacifism's war wariness reduced to +50%
2) State Prpperty's free specialists reduced to one.

I am considering restorong the free religion civic back to normal. It does not neccissarily reduce culture since all religions are free to express themselves.

Also, I need to know if the civics are balanced without the elements that need python. At the rate I am going, I will not get those elements.

 

[ToV]

Hi. I have some trouble clearing out my cashe so I can load my mod. How do you do this. I tried holding down the shift key, but that does not seem to work.

EDIT: NEVER MIND! I got it to work somehow. As a not, I placed the -1 happiness in tribalism, for these reasons;

1) So you can switch out of it earlier. (Slavery comes much earlier than vassalage)
2) The reason for unhappiness was, according to the city screan, "we long for the open country."

 

[Optimizer]

I have started to experiment again. I use no more than 5*5 civics - more will just be confusing. Also, I try to make all civics useful during some phase of the game, even the default ones.

 

[Dryhad]

I recently discovered this fascinating early economic school and thought it would be nice to include it in a mod. Making farms produce commerce seems a fairly logical effect. I'm just not sure where to put it on the tech tree. Everything seems either too early or too late. At the moment I've got it at Paper, but even that doesn't really fit. Any suggestions?

 

[Optimizer]

Physiocracy is an interesting idea indeed, but it seems it has had very small impact on economic history.

 

[dh_epic]

The tricky thing about including various civics choices is that you have to balance between what they HOPED they would do, and what they actually did.

For example, the physiocrats THOUGHT agriculture was the main source of wealth -- but it didn't make it true. So the effect ought to reflect the emphasis, not the hope. Hence, maybe increasing the amount of food produced on certain tiles -- not necessarily increased wealth.

The big challenge with economic civics, too, is that economic thought was basically impossible until the advent of the banking system. Hence, nearly all economic theories occur passed the halfway point in Civilization 4. This DOES have an interesting side effect in a game where the most important action is in the first half.

 

[Optimizer]

I agree, dh_epic. A general problem with combination of strategic depth with realism is, more broadly, that the concept of social progress was unknown until some time during the 17th century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progress

 

[dh_epic]

Well, just because it was unknown didn't mean it didn't happen. Just that progress before then was based on the idea that what came before was bad, and what we're trying to do now is good. Back then, there was progress -- there was just no ideology like "progressivism" which suggested that we might not have the best way now, but we'll keep learning until we get there.

And even with the whole ideology of progressivism, there is an opposite ideology which tells you that we have already found the 'natural law' or 'divinely ordained way of life'. And we must preserve this way of life, and fight those who suggest that the system is not yet perfect.

As a side note, I think a gender column is a neat idea. Wanted to offer a few insights into what I think is one of the best ideas I've seen for a new civics column.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152909 <-- endorsement

I think you've made the right call in having two early game civics and two late game civics. Other columns, like religion, were set up to have a few early game choices with one big late game choice (which tends to be the favorite). Since it's hard to imagine three different civics before some kind of gender equality, it only makes sense that you have two and two.

I also think that the latter pair makes sense in the context of Civ. Both "Gender Equality" (e.g.: females as productive members of society, rather than baby machines) and "Sexual Freedom" (e.g.: full access to birth control and child care services) play off one another quite well. Implementing something like "Controlled Families" wouldn't make sense in a game where more population is generally a good thing (the same way that "Atheism" wouldn't make sense in a game where more religions are generally a good thing.)

The other choices -- "Polygyny" versus "Recognition" -- I think this is a fundamentally sound trade off... even if "Recognition" kind of sounds a bit tricky. I think Patriarchy might be a better fit, name wise, since it suggests that the state recognizes the 'nuclear' family as the main unit... the default might be better renamed to "Unplanned" or "Tribalistic".

The effects are trickier. Sexual freedom tends to lead to LESS population growth. hence the health benefit may seem logical but actually creates the wrong effect in Civilization 4. Also, in general, I think contrast is usually better for civics. (My personal preference, for game play.)

Unplanned: Default (There are some traditions that guide gender roles, but it largely depends on the individuals.)
Polygyny: +20% food. (Wealthier men take on multiple wives, resulting in large and prosperous families.)
Patriarchy: +3 , No Upkeep. (The state only recognizes a one-man-one-woman family, resulting in fewer poor single men.)
Suffrage: +25% production. (Women take on a significant role in the workforce.)
Sexual Freedom: +100% Great People. (With a liberal child care and contraceptive policy, women are no longer forced to choose between their career and their children.)

Just my two cents. Take them and run with them, or criticise them, or ignore them.

 

[Leif]

So do we need to find people to start making the mod itself?

 

[Panjandrum]

Regarding a gender category, it would be better to use terms that reflect the attitude, rather than the legal conventions, of sexual discrimination. thus, perhaps:

Polygamy (Code of Laws/ Low) +2 happy
-the lower gender is completely underutilised, often being denied even the most basic rights. Not only are they unable to protest thier position, but the huge benefits that accrue to the dominant gender lead to high levels of satisfaction.

Chauvanism (Theology/ Low) +25% culture
-the lower gender is considered inferior, and is denied its own voice. in this absence, a romaticised view of the gender becomes prevelant, often leading to great artistic expressions.

Deferential (Scientific Method/ Low) +2 health, -25% support costs
-the lower gender is utilised in low-prestige support occuptaions, such as nursing and social work.

Equal (Communism/ Low) +100% GPP

These would reflect, in turn, primative notions of the 'ownership' of the oppressed sex, notions of chivaliric over-protectiveness, Victorian ideas of the fragility of the oppressed sex, and modern (or near-future) ideas of true sexual equality.

 

[ToV]

I have found that often is best to keep it simple. I tryied to do a complicated thing, but I eventually went back to a simple system.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm curious to see where you've ended up, ToV

 

[tdb]

(slightly off-topic) You forgot Feminism, where women supposedly want equal rights, but in truth can play the feminism card every time a judgement is made against them, thus actually having more rights than men.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think that's a realistic suggestion -- can't think of a single country where that's ever been the case... sort of like Communism, it sounds interesting on paper, but never works out how they describe it.

 

[tdb]

Okay, forgot the sarcasm tag. That's just what happens way too often when officials fuss about equal rights for minorities, be it women, black people or whatever. That minority gains access to a powerful trump card to be used in disputes.

 

[dh_epic]

Still haven't seen a real world example of a country where the rights of minorities trump the rights of the majority. Maybe on some other planet???

 

[Optimizer]

Still haven't seen a real world example of a country where the rights of minorities trump the rights of the majority. Maybe on some other planet???

Old South Africa was such a country...

I keep experimenting. Right now I am trying a City-states civic which eliminates the number of cities upkeep cost. What should the offset be?

 

[Dryhad]

Old South Africa was such a country...

But not for the same reasons. This refers to rule under the guise of oppression. I believe the intent is satirical, and speculative of a possible future.