7.7 general thoughts

[Thalassicus]

I disliked the defensive structure policies, I just fundamentally think these are the wrong way to go. They make no logical sense. What does a Republic have to do with industral production from fortifications? Why does Professional army give you happiness from fortifications?

1. Gameplay: It's one of the few options we have available for policies and is effective at specializing different playstyles.
2. Realism: A Republic with walls can have fewer guards and patrols, and therefore use that extra manpower on more productive tasks. People also feel safer behind sturdy walls, increasing happiness.

I've kept Trade Unions somewhat weak because it leads to 2 strong policies, plus the very powerful Commerce finisher.

I don't have enough experience with the Piety tree yet to comment on that.

It's important to be careful with United Front because it scales with map size, and can provide a potential of 5 per city on a normal sized map (16 citystates, 1/3 usually conquered by AIs). This is as powerful as the old Communism.

Science victories will typically be wide empires since wide ones research faster. Order is a wide empire tree, so science boosts make sense in it to me.

I'm not sure what the best approach to take is with Communism. It's not a big concern for me, however, since I've never seen it in games where the policy ban is in effect. Late game policies are just much too hard to get with the ban.

It makes sense to me that nationalism improves domestic trade.

 

[Ahriman]

Realism: A Republic with walls can have fewer guards and patrols, and therefore use that extra manpower on more productive tasks. People also feel safer behind sturdy walls, increasing happiness.

Replace Republic with X; your statement is entirely generic for any government type. There is nothing special about a Republic here, there is no connection to a Republic government. A Republic should arguably give some kind of happiness benefits (people are less likely to rebel when they have some say in the matter), and Meritocracy should arguably give some kind of commercial benefit (when high skill people make the decisions, the outcomes are better).
Why is a Republic more likely to have fortifications than a Monarchy?

It's important to be careful with United Front because it scales with map size, and can provide a potential of 5per city on a normal sized map (16 citystates, 1/3 usually conquered by AIs). This is as powerful as the old Communism.

Not it isn't; Communism just gave you the benefit. This gives you the benefit if you happen to have *10* city state alliances. That is incredibly unrealistic. The only way you will have lots of city state alliances is with patronage, and even then, the AI will tend to compete for them pretty hard.
Most of the time even a fairly pro-city state strategy you will have 4 alliances, for +2 hammers per city, which is very weak.
More to the point though, we already have a city-state policy tree; Patronage. You shouldn't have to be using city states to get benefits from Order.

Science victories will typically be wide empires since wide ones research faster. Order is a wide empire tree, so science boosts make sense in it to me.

Gameplay effects aren't enough, we are supposed to be playing a game about history. We need there to be some logical connection between the policy names and the benefit. Why would socialism give a science boost to factories?

The benefit is also weak, and the synergies are all wrong. You will want factories in your productive powerhouses; these aren't your science cities. +20% science in a production city is very weak. And you will probably only have ~3 factories.

It makes sense to me that nationalism improves domestic trade.

How?
All trade in Civ is domestic. How does Nationalism make trade more profitable?
Nationalism is jingoistic fervor, I don't see how being pro- Your Kind and anti- Other Kind would improve the economy.

 

[Ahriman]

2. Cultural victory is too easy to achieve for the AI in comparison to other victory routes

Yes, which is why it needs to be make more difficult.

3. I like the early growth Tradition provides.

Its not the early growth that bothers me, it is the late-game growth. Long after the unlock bonuses for Honor have become useless, the Tradition unlock keeps giving a big benefit.
Just tweak the modifier back a bit.

4. Again, my experience runs counter to this - mainly because I am having no problem at all maintaining happiness post-patch.

Maintaining happiness is not enough; the issue is keeping *excess* happiness. Suppose you manage to have +15 positive happiness (which is an expensive proposition). 15 culture per turn is very weak by the late midgame.

6. I'm against any changes based on statements like "Order is the opposite of creativity."

I'm against any policy design that doesn't take seriously the idea that we are trying to capture realworld logical benefits. We're playing a game about the history of humanity, the policies need to feel like historic ones, and the policy trees need to feel different from each other. We already have a science-boosting tree.

7. All of these proposals are reasonable,

If you think the proposals are reasonable, then why not support them? If two systems both work from a gameplay perspective, then go with the one that has better flavor.

 

[Txurce]

1. Gameplay effects aren't enough, we are supposed to be playing a game about history. We need there to be some logical connection between the policy names and the benefit. Why would socialism give a science boost to factories?

2. You will want factories in your productive powerhouses; these aren't your science cities.

3. Maintaining happiness is not enough; the issue is keeping *excess* happiness. Suppose you manage to have +15 positive happiness (which is an expensive proposition). 15 culture per turn is very weak by the late midgame.

4. We're playing a game about the history of humanity, the policies need to feel like historic ones, and the policy trees need to feel different from each other.

If you think the proposals are reasonable, then why not support them? If two systems both work from a gameplay perspective, then go with the one that has better flavor.

1. We loosely associate factories with Socialism/Communism. If we want to give these empires a science boost - and there's no historical or game-play reason why we shouldn't - then linking it to factories makes sense to me.

2. My factory cities are my science cities are in literally every game where I go tall.

3. I meant what you call "excess" happiness. In my last conquest game, I had 25-35 happiness. The latter was before gaining any of Autocracy's Courthouse boosts, and without any Piety policies. Again, I just don't have the same happiness issues that some others do.

4. I'm neutral about them because I didn't think they had a clearly "better flavor.' While I wholeheartedly agree that Civ's historical corollary is an essential part of its make-up, defining it is highly subjective. Any two people would probably define terms like "socialism" and "order" and "nationalism" differently. If your definition doesn't improve on the status quo in my opinion, then I'd rather have Thal focus on something else.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
"Realistic" policy names are subjective since every language has multiple meanings and connotations for words. We can all interpret things like the word "Nationalism" in slightly different ways. In something subjective like this, it's not possible to simultaneously match every viewpoint, so eventually I have to settle on one point of view, and those are the ones I chose.

These rationalizations for each policy do make logical sense to me. Eventually I have to decide something is "good enough" and move on to other things or I'd never get anything done.

 

[Ahriman]

If we want to give these empires a science boost - and there's no historical or game-play reason why we shouldn't

This seems bizarre to me. You don't assign effects and then look to see if there is a strong reason why they don't fit; you try to pick effects that *do* fit.

2. My factory cities are my science cities are in literally every game where I go tall.

I do not observe this. My factory cities have lots of mines.
My science cities tend to be GP factories, with lots of farms.
Particularly in a wide strategy, which is what Order is supposed to support.

In my last conquest game, I had 25-35 happiness

Others don't seem to be observing this in the midgame. What difficulty level are you playing on?

so eventually I have to settle on one point of view, and those are the ones I chose.
These rationalizations for each policy do make logical sense to me

This argument would be easier to deal with if you actually presented what your logical sense was. What is the logical flavor you are trying to capture with Republics giving production with walls? The only answer you gave was one that would work equally well with any other government type instead of Republic. To me, that is the very definition of something that has no historic flavor.
What is the logical reason for nationalism giving trade benefits? If you have in mind something like mercantilism or protectionism, that doesn't really fit in this tree; that would make more sense in the commerce tree, but those names would fit better with a trade route boost than would Nationalism.

Obviously it is your mod and you can do what you like, but I suspect I am not alone in feeling that these things don't make much sense, so I proposed one that fees like it makes more sense and is better value. A production boost from specialists or trading posts would be powerful, flavorful and fun; much more so than a small science boost from factories. +1 hammer per trading post (or per farm) would be a valuable bonus for the 3rd tier Order policy. A bonus for Manufactories would also be nice.
If you have a happiness booster, make it a big one; a late-game policy happiness booster should give more happiness than Meritocracy or Aristocracy.
So I suggest getting rid of the science bonuses, and giving happiness bonuses to smithies, workshops and factories.

I also urge you on a number of the policies to move away from two weak or mediocre effects and have a single strong effect instead. Weak modifiers (10% of this or that) just aren't much fun, because the player can barely notice the difference.

 

[Txurce]

1. This seems bizarre to me. You don't assign effects and then look to see if there is a strong reason why they don't fit; you try to pick effects that *do* fit.

2. I do not observe this. My factory cities have lots of mines.
My science cities tend to be GP factories, with lots of farms.
Particularly in a wide strategy, which is what Order is supposed to support.

3. Others don't seem to be observing this in the midgame. What difficulty level are you playing on?

4. This argument would be easier to deal with if you actually presented what your logical sense was.

1. Thal assigned the effects - I'm noting how they make sense to me, obviating any need to change them.

2. All my cities have farms and mines. Different strokes.

3. I play on Emperor.

4. There's not a lot of logic in subjectivity.

 

[Thalassicus]

How?
All trade in Civ is domestic.

Trading for luxuries, open borders, and such is domestic trade?

Nationalism is jingoistic fervor, I don't see how being pro- Your Kind and anti- Other Kind would improve the economy.

What is the logical reason for nationalism giving trade benefits? If you have in mind something like mercantilism or protectionism...

I can think of at least two examples where nationalistic sentiment went hand in hand with domestic wartime economic boosts.

• The US economy of World War 2. War bonds, rationing, victory gardens, women entering the workplace for basically the first time... all supported by nationalistic wartime propaganda breaking down social and political barriers, and widespread mobilization pulling the domestic US economy of the Great Depression.
• France's economy was similar for several decades after the revolution. It had little international trade for the simple reason the monarchies declared war on France and vice versa. It's harder to have international trade when you're at war with neighbors instituting blockades! France's economy was largely dependent on domestic wartime production for a generation or so.

This is why it makes sense, to me, for military and economic bonuses to go together with Nationalism. It basically represents periods like World War 2. It's also why I said it's all subjective. For me a "nationalistic" sentiment can coincide with encouraging "our nation's" trade over international trade, but not everyone might see it that way because words have multiple meanings.

These nationalistic economies are different from mercantilism or protectionism.

• In general the mercantile principle was there's a fixed amount of resources in the world, so we need to cheat, colonize, and conquer others to get their resources.
• Protectionism is using tariffs, taxes, and subsidies to promote one economy at the expense of another.

I try and have similar reasoning behind most of the policy changes I make. It just takes a long time to go over it all in detail. Writing up this post to describe 1 policy took half an hour, so I usually summarize.

 

[Ahriman]

Trading for luxuries, open borders, and such is domestic trade?

Trade pretty clearly refers to trade routes. All trade routes are domestic in Civ5, unlike Civ4.

The US economy of World War 2. War bonds, rationing, victory gardens, women entering the workplace for basically the first time... all supported by nationalistic wartime propaganda breaking down social and political barriers, and widespread mobilization pulling the domestic US economy of the Great Depression.

How do these show an increase in trade? Just the opposite, there was a decline in trade. There was an increase in industrial production for the war effort (if you wanted to model increased female labor force participation with a production increase, that would make sense), but a big decline in the private economy and consumer goods and wealth generation. Private/commercial production was crowded out by the war effort. Rationing and victory gardens were a sign of a lack of goods for domestic consumption. War bonds were a means of suppressing the private economy in order to increase military production.

France's economy was similar for several decades after the revolution. It had little international trade for the simple reason the monarchies declared war on France and vice versa. It's harder to have international trade when you're at war with neighbors instituting blockades! France's economy was largely dependent on domestic wartime production for a generation or so.

Blockades cut off international trade routes. That didn't make domestic trade *more* profitable. It just meant there was no alternative.

Nationalism being good for the private sector economy is the opposite of true.

In general the mercantile principle was there's a fixed amount of resources in the world, so we need to cheat, colonize, and conquer others to get their resources.

Not really; mercantilism was just a super-advanced form of protectionism, whereby foreign trade was controlled and restricted by the state; high tariffs, export subsidies, etc. State-driven export-oriented trade policy, basically.
Even countries with no colonies at all and no particular conquest goals often practiced mercantilist policy. Merchantilism was a form of domestic policy, not a form of colonial policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

Oh, and:

Actually, about half the policies don't jive with their effects.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10672223&postcount=645
I agree, and I think this is a problem. But I think it is important to be honest about this, rather than just saying that "real logic is subjective".

 

[Txurce]

1. How do these show an increase in trade? Just the opposite, there was a decline in trade. There was an increase in industrial production for the war effort (if you wanted to model increased female labor force participation with a production increase, that would make sense), but a big decline in the private economy and consumer goods and wealth generation.

2. Blockades cut off international trade routes. That didn't make domestic trade *more* profitable. It just meant there was no alternative.

3. Nationalism being good for the private sector economy is the opposite of true.

4. Not really; mercantilism was just a super-advanced form of protectionism, whereby foreign trade was controlled and restricted by the state; high tariffs, export subsidies, etc. State-driven export-oriented trade policy, basically.
Even countries with no colonies at all and no particular conquest goals often practiced mercantilist policy. Merchantilism was a form of domestic policy, not a form of colonial policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

5. Oh, and:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10672223&postcount=645
I agree, and I think this is a problem. But I think it is important to be honest about this, rather than just saying that "real logic is subjective".

1. Here's a source other than Wikipedia that disagrees with your conclusion about a big decline in wealth generation (and other points as well):

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

Civ5 is not a sophisticated economic model. In this case I will settle for an economic boost brought about by Nationalism being represented by 20% in domestic trade.

2. That's what Thal wrote, except for the part about blockades making domestic trade more powerful. I have no idea where that came from.

3. No one said anything about nationalism being good for the private-sector economy... although now that you bring it up, it was good for Nazi Germany's.

4. I think you're splitting hairs here, and missing what struck me as the key point: "I try and have similar reasoning behind most of the policy changes I make. It just takes a long time to go over it all in detail. Writing up this post to describe 1 policy took half an hour, so I usually summarize." Maybe it's time to quit beating a dead horse.

5. "Real logic is subjective" doesn't mean remotely the same thing as "There is no logic in subjectivity." If you're going to quote people, please get it right.

 

[Ahriman]

Here's a source other than Wikipedia that disagrees with your conclusion about a big decline in wealth generation (and other points as well):

It does no such thing. You are failing to distinguish between production (including production of weaponry and war materiel) and consumption.

GDP is a measure of production. It is not a measure of consumption of consumer goods. GDP was up because of massive spending on the war. Consumers were not better off (relative to what they would have been without the war), trade of regular goods and services was not very good.

From the article:

according to some economists, the national living standard barely stayed level or even declined (Higgs, 1992).

A sustained constant standard of living over several years is not a good thing, relative to the counterfactual of what would have happened without the wartime spending. [Other than the depression, the US saw sustained increases in living standard throughout the rest of the period.]
The original argument was that you were modeling wartime rationing, liberty bonds, and victory gardens. All of these are related to a reduction of civilian trade and consumption goods, in order to divert resources to the war effort.
So, there is a good logical argument for a production or a military production bonus. +X% military production would definitely make sense for Nationalism. Trade route bonus really doesn't.

I also think if you're looking for a guide to Nationalism, the 19th and early 20th century European nationalist movements should be the main source for inspiration; German and Italian Nationalism around unification, US jingoistic nationalism surrounding the Spanish-American war, Imperial British Nationalism and volunteerism at the start of WW1, and then maybe anti-colonialist 20th century nationalist movements in India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Africa, etc.

except for the part about blockades making domestic trade more powerful. I have no idea where that came from.

The existing policy increases the value of trade routes. This makes no sense. That is my entire point. The example being cited is not a demonstration of Nationalism increasing trade profitability.

No one said anything about nationalism being good for the private-sector economy...

? The private economy is exactly what trade routes and gold income are modeling. If Nationalism is boosting trade route income, then it is boosting the private economy. The game is modeling a Civilization, not just a set of government accounts.

Maybe it's time to quit beating a dead horse.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, then you are free to stop posting. Please don't tell me what I can or can't comment on.
I hardly think that the horse is dead; the policies are clearly still in a state of flux.
If Thal wants to ignore my suggestions he is free to do so.
And I'm not just sniping, I'm proposing alternatives.

"Real logic is subjective" doesn't mean remotely the same thing as "There is no logic in subjectivity." If you're going to quote people, please get it right.

"Real logic is subjective" was unclear, I should have written that differently. I was aiming to paraphrase (any direct quotes I will put in quote tags) but I did a bad job.

Nonetheless "there is no logic in subjectivity" also strikes me as missing the point. Clearly some effects make more logical sense than others, and interpreting this is not purely subjective. It makes sense that Scientific Revolution gives new technologies; it would not make sense if Scientific Revolution gave extra culture from granaries. It makes sense that Free Speech increases culture generation; it would not make sense for Free Speech to reduce military maintenance costs. It makes sense that Discipline boosts military strength; it would be weird if Discipline provided extra food.

Certainly there is a degree to which the degree of flavor fit is subjective, and certainly there can be a tension between gameplay value and historic flavor, but equally there is clearly a degree to which real logic can be applied in mapping gameplay effects to real history. The latter should not be abandoned.

 

[Ahriman]

A related thought: why not swap the names for Republic, Representation and Meritocracy.
So Meritocracy gives extra production everywhere (better governance), Representation gives happiness (people with political power are less likely to rebel), and Republic gives cheaper social policies (better institutions).

Also, consider dropping Trade Unions from Commerce and replacing it with Mercantilism or Protectionism, which gives a trade route bonus (and could also lower road maintenance if needed). And then Trade Unions would be a good name for a policy in Order (drop United Front which is hard to fit) which gives happiness from production buildings (smithy, workshop, factory).

 

[Thalassicus]

Trade pretty clearly refers to trade routes. All trade routes are domestic in Civ5, unlike Civ4.

This is what I'm referring to about the subjective nature of words. I'm guessing you're thinking of trade from an economist's perspective, but it does have broader meanings. It's important to avoid getting too caught up on one particular meaning of the words trade or nationalism. Many people would probably think of giving a luxury to an AI in exchange for one of their luxuries as "trading resources."

Trade
The act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: domestic trade; foreign trade.

synonyms:
buying and selling, barter, business, clientele, commerce, contract, custom, customers, deal, dealing, enterprise, exchange, industry, interchange, market, merchantry, patronage, public, sales, swap, traffic, transaction, truck

Buying and selling of resources to make tanks, business involved in war mobilization, the commerce it spurred, contracts signed, deals made, enterprises started, industry improved, markets created... and so on. The way I'm using the word fits the definition and half the synonyms for trade.

The policy involves domestic trade, and World War 2 is widely credited as pulling the US domestic economy out of the Great Depression. This was all spurred by a nationalistic propaganda. This is why it makes sense to me for nationalism to improve combat and the domestic economy. It wasn't even my idea... an economic bonus on Nationalism was suggested by someone else. There's my logic behind it.

 

[Ahriman]

This is what I'm referring to about the subjective nature of words. I'm guessing you're thinking of trade from an economist's perspective, but it does have broader meanings. It's important to avoid getting too caught up on one particular meaning of the words trade or nationalism. Many people would probably think of giving a luxury to an AI in exchange for one of their luxuries as "trading resources."

This is semantics that is largely irrelevant from the point at hand. It is pretty clear IMO what the trade route mechanic is trying to simulate: general private sector commercial activity, trading goods between cities. Both of us agree that there is no need to make Nationalism affect the diplomatic options of open borders or luxury/strategic resource deals.

Buying and selling of resources to make tanks

Physical infrastructure and military production are pretty clearly modeled by Production (hammers), not by trade. If you want a military production boost (which I think would make sense) then give a military production boost.
I think you have an overly broad sense of inter-city trade; if you define trade routes as making anything, then what is production? What is gold income?
A trade route bonus would have much better thematic flavor in Commerce, and would be more useful/fun than the road maintenance reduction (particularly if you are playing on a naval map, where you mostly use harbors).

The policy improves domestic trade, and World War 2 is widely credited as pulling the US domestic economy out of the Great Depression. This was all spurred by a nationalistic propaganda.

That isn't really correct. [And yes, I am a phd economist.]
Yes, increases in government spending for the war effort and for rearmament did reduce unemployment and increase total output (GDP). This was in no way "caused" by nationalism or propaganda, it was caused by the government deciding to spend lots of money. It is historically inaccurate to claim that Nationalistic propaganda caused an increase in trade or trade goods. Nationalism did arguably increased the public tolerance for massive deficit spending, but that deficit spending wasn't trade in any kind of conventional sense in which we think about trade, it was on military-related items, armaments, tanks, and supplies that were exported to UK and Russia or were used by the US military.
[And keep in mind; all the things like victory gardens and increased female labor force participation weren't really increasing production, they were partial compensation for the loss of production caused by sucking lots of able-bodied men out of farm and industrial employment, to have them go serve in the military. There was a huge negative labor supply shock from mobilization, these things just partially offset the decline.]

It wasn't even my idea... an economic bonus on Nationalism was suggested by someone else.

If you want to give an economic boost, then fine, but make it a production or military production boost. It doesn't make much sense for this to give a trade route boost. If you wanted it to be a bonus for connected cities, then how about a hammer boost for each city connected to the capital? If you want to model greater volunteerism and military service and military production, then how about a military production boost?

 

[Ahriman]

My general point is; I think it is important to keep a thematic separation between industry and trade. If you wanted an Order policy to boost trade: how about Corporatism? It could give trade route boost, or increased gold production from industrial buildings; higher corporate profits.

The Corporation is hugely important, but is missing from Civ5.

 

[Thalassicus]

Physical infrastructure and military production are pretty clearly modeled by Production , not by trade.

What about purchasing units with money that comes from domestic trade?

 

[Ahriman]

What about purchasing units with money that comes from domestic trade?

This has always been one of the weakest realism aspects of the Civ series. It requires that there is some kind of set of productive capacity left totally outside of the actual modeled economy, but that doesn't really make sense. Are there really roving bands of mercenaries waiting to be hired? Wilderness factories that can instantly deliver infrastructure? It doesn't make sense for there to be a separate private economy outside that modeled by the civilization and its income, because it doesn't really make sense that these people would have the ability to contribute to defense but wouldn't lift a finger to do so as the city was captured and burned to the ground.

And the whole idea of instantly purchasing something is bizarre.

But it is a fun mechanic and it is a way of making economic yields actually valuable.

 

[Txurce]

"Real logic is subjective" was unclear, I should have written that differently. I was aiming to paraphrase (any direct quotes I will put in quote tags) but I did a bad job. Nonetheless "there is no logic in subjectivity" also strikes me as missing the point. Clearly some effects make more logical sense than others, and interpreting this is not purely subjective.

That isn't really correct. [And yes, I am a phd economist.]

All interpretation is subjective. This is particularly true when it comes to defining real-world terms in a game. That's why consensus exists. "That isn't really correct. [And yes, I am a phd economist.]" doesn't do much to convince me of anything.

 

[Ahriman]

All interpretation is subjective. This is particularly true when it comes to defining real-world terms in a game.

This is not true. There is such a thing as logic. Certainly many things are subjective, but many things are *not* subjective. There is an established record of historic fact. There are areas where reasonable people can disagree; there are also beliefs that cannot be held by a reasonable person; not all beliefs are equally valid.
As above:

Clearly some effects make more logical sense than others, and interpreting this is not purely subjective. It makes sense that Scientific Revolution gives new technologies; it would not make sense if Scientific Revolution gave extra culture from granaries. It makes sense that Free Speech increases culture generation; it would not make sense for Free Speech to reduce military maintenance costs. It makes sense that Discipline boosts military strength; it would be weird if Discipline provided extra food.

"Everything is subjective" is a recipe for nonsense.

"That isn't really correct. [And yes, I am a phd economist.]" doesn't do much to convince me of anything.

Nothing I say will ever convince *you* of anything, because you have decided that I am Always Wrong.
But if you asked any economic historian, they would tell you that propaganda didn't make the economy boom, and that Nationalism doesn't tend to increase economic growth.

But don't tar me with making a pure appeal to authority; I wrote a paragraph explaining why it wasn't correct.

 

[Thalassicus]

I realized where some of our recent misunderstandings might come from...

• I think with associations and relationships. Did a and b happen together?
• You think with one-to-one exactness. Does a = b or directly lead to b?

Professional Army

• Me: Safety is associated with happiness.
• You: Walls do not equal happiness.

Nationalism

• Me: World War 2 is associated with rising nationalism and stronger GDP.
• You: Nationalism does not equal a better economy or military.

This is why I used phrases like "supported by," go together with, hand in hand, coincide, synonym, and so on. These things happened together historically, so for me, it makes sense for them to be together on a policy ingame. I'm not saying A actually equals B or C.

Does this make sense? I think we're just approaching the topic differently.