1.18 Civics Changes

[Leoreth]

The idea is also borrowed from various game developers and modders, which is to adopt a principled preference for buffs over nerfs in pursuit of balance.

I actually consider this to be a rather misguided and cowardly approach to game design, which seems to be directed more towards public relations and community management rather than what is the best result for the game itself.

Of course when you are looking in terms of the end result, choices in the game should be a selection of benefits rather than a selection of mostly drawbacks. Especially with civics I am trying to be mindful of that and avoid negative effects unless they are absolutely necessary or make sense thematically.

However when it comes to balancing and evolving game mechanics over time I don't think this approach is a good idea. I am following professional Starcraft 2 quite extensively and it has for a while followed this balancing approach (especially the initial post LotV era under David Kim) and I hold it responsible for its worst eras of meta and competitive balance. An approach that only relies on buffs will inevitably result in power creep and escalation as every balance change can potentially leave another element of the game unbalanced, which leads to further buffs. I think there should always be an idea of a target state for the game in terms of balance and the choice of buff or nerf should be made based on that, instead of only thinking in incremental steps and what the audience response for it would be.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

I actually consider this to be a rather misguided and cowardly approach to game design, which seems to be directed more towards public relations and community management rather than what is the best result for the game itself.

Of course when you are looking in terms of the end result, choices in the game should be a selection of benefits rather than a selection of mostly drawbacks. Especially with civics I am trying to be mindful of that and avoid negative effects unless they are absolutely necessary or make sense thematically.

However when it comes to balancing and evolving game mechanics over time I don't think this approach is a good idea. I am following professional Starcraft 2 quite extensively and it has for a while followed this balancing approach (especially the initial post LotV era under David Kim) and I hold it responsible for its worst eras of meta and competitive balance. An approach that only relies on buffs will inevitably result in power creep and escalation as every balance change can potentially leave another element of the game unbalanced, which leads to further buffs. I think there should always be an idea of a target state for the game in terms of balance and the choice of buff or nerf should be made based on that, instead of only thinking in incremental steps and what the audience response for it would be.

I believe the French have a word for the thing I wanna say - Touché? Very interesting. Funny as right after I posted my exact thought was "oh crap power creep is a thing".

If anybody wonders why I use such hedged and qualified language ("something to chew on"), this.

 

[1SDANi]

Yugioh is what happens when you never have a target state for your game. Don't even pretend to care about balance, printed "destroy the face-up monster your opponent controls with the lowest attack" 1 month before "destroy all monsters your opponent controls"

 

[Leoreth]

I mean it's a valid question because that idea is out there, so none of this was directed at you (maybe I should have said that a bit more clearly).

But I am really concerned about developers and designers having to pull double duty in representing their community to the customer. It's always important to keep in mind that studios send their people to talk to the public with a goal in mind and that goal is not always being open about their actual design process.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

I mean it's a valid question because that idea is out there, so none of this was directed at you (maybe I should have said that a bit more clearly).

But I am really concerned about developers and designers having to pull double duty in representing their community to the customer. It's always important to keep in mind that studios send their people to talk to the public with a goal in mind and that goal is not always being open about their actual design process.

We're cool, hon. Good talk. If I may applaud your knack for understatement: "that goal is not always being open about their actual design process".

 

[Temüjin VIII]

Is it intentional that there is no civic that provides double Engineer slots?

 

[Dracosolon]

I think so, they're the rarest and arguably most valuable specialist type. I guess the most thematically appropriate civic would be Central Planning since it's the one most directly associated with production and industry but I have a feeling they're just supposed to remain rare.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes.

 

[Apple111111]

Right now, I feel as though the AI seems to be avoiding secularism well into the years when secularism was widespread across Europe and the Americas. I’m my Japan science game, I continued into the 1980’s, but almost every state in Europe remained Catholic or Protestant throughout the game, and East Asia and India had no interest in secularism either.

I don’t know exactly how the AI factors it’s choices into picking civics, but perhaps the removal of the double speed on science buildings is pulling it away from secularism, or maybe even the unhappiness or religion, if that’s a factor.

Overall, I wonder if there’s a way to weight the AI towards picking secularism in the later periods of the game, as it’d be much more realistic than leaving Europe to push secularism well into the 20th century.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Right now, I feel as though the AI seems to be avoiding secularism well into the years when secularism was widespread across Europe and the Americas. I’m my Japan science game, I continued into the 1980’s, but almost every state in Europe remained Catholic or Protestant throughout the game, and East Asia and India had no interest in secularism either.

I don’t know exactly how the AI factors it’s choices into picking civics, but perhaps the removal of the double speed on science buildings is pulling it away from secularism, or maybe even the unhappiness or religion, if that’s a factor.

Overall, I wonder if there’s a way to weight the AI towards picking secularism in the later periods of the game, as it’d be much more realistic than leaving Europe to push secularism well into the 20th century.

I'd agree with giving Secularism a wee bump.

 

[1SDANi]

As far as I'm aware, the AI doesn't consider the diplomacy benefits of not having a state religion at the moment, so it may be worth figuring out how to have that weigh its decision making.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

As far as I'm aware, the AI doesn't consider the diplomacy benefits of not having a state religion at the moment, so it may be worth figuring out how to have that weigh its decision making.

Ah yes I've been slogging through the AI code (as a Total Neophyte - haaaallllp) with that very idea in mind, though my focus has been drawn to Caste System's overwhelming popularity (is more the Free Global Health ). In other words, I agree with considering the AI factor in our great balancing game. Also, yeah, good spot on highlighting the Diplomatic benefits as an unlisted, indirect boon for this civic.

@Apple111111 upon rereading your post your mention of Double Production caught my eye, since I've also observed Citizenship being a slot favorite. It's notable that the two most popular mid-game civics have this effect while Secularism is rare after having lost it.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Minor Tweak Ideas for Double Production Speed:

• Merchant Trade gets Market, Grocer, and Pharmacy.
• Citizenship gets Bath, loses Library in exchange for Arena.
• Thalassocracy gets Customs House.
• Regulated Trade gets Bank and Warehouse, maybe Post Office.
• Library/University - reconsidering from a Thematic perspective, a compelling case could be made for Monarchy or Elective. If we just rattle off some of the oldest and prestigious like Al-Alzhar, Jagiellonian, Salamanca, Ox/Bridge, even several in Italy were born either by Royal Charter, Papal Bull, an equivalent or near to that (e.g. by dominant oligarchical force). In any case, I struggle to make a meaningful connection to what we'd associate with Citizenship at least.

As a general comment Caste System having both Free Global Health and cheaper Health buildings just feels, idk, wrong? (Placeholder! I'll for sure whip that clumsy phrase into something meaningful). The other element to these proposals is to probe the AI, as I've been rather inclined. Lastly, and this is admittedly just a strong personal desire, but I can't resist the urge to put the Forge production speed *somewhere*. Perhaps as an easy, safe buff for one of the struggling civics to experiment with. Thank you all for attending.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

I think the elective may be more suitable for -25% city distance maintenance effect than monarchy.Furthermore, perhaps the elective should gain some bonus for steppe plots?(The steppe plots that are not close to freshwater seem quite useless)

 

[SultanRedSnake]

We need to talk about Caste System. I'm beginning to suspect its present nigh ubiquity has consequences that reach pretty broadly through the game and that a prompt and unsubtle adjustment is called for.

I'll get the simple and easily demonstrated effect out of the way first: African civs *always* (99.9% type thing) take it over Slavery, meaning that the Triangle Trade as a vibrant game feature is currently almost entirely absent.

The other effect is still in the hypothetical stage and is categorically more challenging to demonstrate, so I'm presenting it more humbly as something to toss out for all yous to chew on a bit. The major working premise is that land is simply taking too long to be developed, and of course there is now much more than before. If we take this on, it would follow that the opportunity cost of running CS over Slavery and Manorialism accounts for the proposed deficit. While the player would have no problem working out such a decision in their own game, I and others suspect the AI is severely miscalculating the relative values of each civic's genuine effects, namely the +2 Global Health. For a few civs its the right call, but for the rest, namely almost if not all of Europe, it's unconscionable, it's feeding a cycle that keeps population lower than the civic is designed to address (slower improvement > slower growth > less need for Health). I hesitate to pick on Spain but they're the most egregious case (bruh, your biggest city is like 10 pop). And yeah, Medieval Europe without the Manor is just Curst.

Therefore, I propose a single, easily implemented, and easily retractable change for an upcoming Update: take away the +2 Global Health. (Omg I literally just realized this is a basic enough tweak for me to try out myself - stay tuned). Depending on how that pans out, I'm also inclined to favor restoring Manoralism's previous effect to Worker production rather than improvement build speed, mainly for the sake of observing how the AI might evaluate each.

 

[banzay13]

After lates Isolationism nerf - i never used it. Mostly coz it outdated too early and too much (-9 then you discover all civics tech). I think it shouldn't outdate too early, best sute - Globalism tech, but it way too far in tech line. Maybe with Global era?

 

[Apple111111]

After lates Isolationism nerf - i never used it. Mostly coz it outdated too early and too much (-9 then you discover all civics tech). I think it shouldn't outdate too early, best sute - Globalism tech, but it way too far in tech line. Maybe with Global era?

I agree. If anything, isolationism should provide stability rather than hinder it, at the cost of scientific progress. It could be argued that isolation from western influences held back the Qing dynasty form collapsing, although it meant that Qing failed to modernise, unlike Japan.

 

[Dracosolon]

One possibility I thought of (I don't remember if I already wrote it down on the forums) was to divide the +1 per specialist between the "double specialist slots" civics. Out of the four (Constitution for Statesmen, Egalitarianism for Artists, Free Enterprise for Merchants and Secularism for Scientists), Egalitarianism and Secularism were badly nerfed while Constitution was always "just okay" for such a late game civic. Obviously they would have to lose the double specialist slot effect as compensation, and Free Enterprise could need some additional nerf.

Isolationism could either get the double effect, and/or something similar to its old free specialist effect. Maybe +1 free specialist in capital per culture level, which I think was the effect of Republic in one of the modmods. It depends if Isolationism is supposed to encourage a tall or wide playstyle.

 

[Leoreth]

Regarding the reported AI overuse of Citizenship and Caste System. Is the consensus that these civics are too strong or that the AI merely thinks that these civics are too strong?

I think it is suspicious that the AI is overly focused on the two civics that give production speed for multiple buildings. I am currently looking into the AI impact of this modifier.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

AI merely thinks that these civics are too strong?

This one.