A change to feudalism.

[Theryman]

Any cultural building which has been in existence for 1000 years generates twice the original culture. That's what makes your capital expand after 10 turns...the palace is 1000 years old. A temple built at, say, 1750bc will go from 2cpt to 4cpt at 750bc. A lib built at 10ad will double from 3cpt to 6cpt at 1010ad. The latest you can build anything for doubling would be 1040ad because the game has to end at 2050ad.

An important thing to note is that because of this, it is best to get as many cultural buildings up as early as possible, since each turn is 50 years in the beginning, so it takes only 20 turns to double culture, as opposed to 100 in the later years.

Well there is the single town cultural win as well.

Unless I am very much mistaken, a republic would be best for that- whipping would do no good in a 20k game, because you need the population to be able to produce the expensive wonders, which you generally do not need in 100k.

So you don't think feudalism has a extremely specialized use? Or you prefer it to be specialized and not useful for more circumstances/goals? Or were you not listening to what I was saying as well?

We've all been listening to you the whole time! We've been polite and nice this whole thread (hell, I think othniel apologized quite a few times) and you accuse us of ignoring you! Every post has been directed towards you and your idea.

This thread is for the feudalism side of things. I also have ideas for democracy but I'm waiting on making that thread for resolving the feudalism first.

I'd like to make feudalism useful not only for 100k cultural situations but others as well. But not too useful because its a tech you get anyways and you get early on. You don't think thats a worthy goal? Assuming you did think that was a worthy goal for a moment, do you think my ideas could do that? Any suggestions for modulating my ideas to get closer to that goal?

Ahh, now we are talking, now we can get down to the nitty gritty. First off, think government specific wonders should be a no-no. Perhaps a food bonus would increase the power of feudalism? Such as, every tile already producing one food gets another... although this would be incredibly powerful.

 

[TruePurple]

No you've been telling me stuff I already knew and you would know I knew if you read my post. Trying to convince me of the value of feudalism in 100k victories. Not been replying to the ideas I posted.

Only Othniel responded to any ideas I posted. Only once. And that was a misunderstanding anyways! Well that government specific wonder was a response to a idea. But thats not very specific. Whats so bad about a single government specific GW? Got anything more detailed then "government specific GW's bad"?

I got answers to questions. But not so much to the ideas I posted. This is factual, not something to offend or be offended.(though some frusteration)

Bonus food is not a option in the editor. Even if it was, why that? If feudalism is awesome for 100k cultural victories(still not entirely sold on that) then that will just make it too useful for that. What about the ideas I suggested?

 

[Theryman]

Making unit support free in feudalism would not really do much, because towns already give so much support. Making unit support 5/5/5 and 1 per unit would again give a whole lot support, which feudalism already does. On top of that, it would be historically innacurate- only the little landowners gave troops to fight, not the big cities which did not have a single owner.

As for Civ-specific wonders, I would not argue if you added a wonder to the game that was useful and worth getting- Knights Templar is lackluster, and certainly not worth switching governments for. Or, perhaps you could add an improvement to the game, called a Manor, which would increase production and happiness.

 

[Mazeura]

There is only one gov-restricted wonder that I can think of, and its a SW. Communism and Secret Police HQ.

Making the Knights Templar into a gov-restricted GW, seems to me, kinda of pointless. If you made it into a SW, decrease culture, and increase the turns it takes to produce a templar, and possibly change cost, it might become balanced. Maybe make it so that if you are not in Fuedalism that you do not recieve the bonus that KT provides.

Now increasing the number of free units. It makes sense to keep the regressive unit support, due to the fact that a more urban area would have more people working business than the fields (which the lords would own). It makes sense that a small town would have mroe people willing to go fight, so that they might gain riches and a better life, while people in a larger town might be more settled into their lives, that they don't want to go risk their lives.

 

[TruePurple]

Making unit support 5/5/5 and 1 per unit would again give a whole lot support, which feudalism already does.

Only in specialized situations does it give a bunch of support. I'm trying to make it more generically useful. Its fine if its still a bit better for 100k victories then other governments, but I want it useful for other situations too.

perhaps you could add an improvement to the game, called a Manor, which would increase production and happiness.

I don't think its reasonable to say "manor" increasing production and general population happiness is "historically accurate" Mansion/castles were the sponging concentration of wealth by the ruling elite. They made the ruling elite more happy, but noone else.

Knights Templar is lackluster, and certainly not worth switching governments for.

Not by itself. But if the government is something you plan to switch to anyways and you suspect another is going to switch too. You might switch earlier then you plan to or what not to try to get the knights templer wonder. Makes for a interesting situation/race no? Better then zeus wonder and ivory since anyone has a shot.

Plenty of people in large towns who are dirt poor who might join armed service in any time really. Its actually less likely to find troops in rural area since many rural people tend to be farmers. Farmers need to work their field at specific times or lose their crop. So for them to be available to fight at any time other then winter... Plus more people means more people to recruit.

Anyways I'm not too concerned about "historical accuracy" civ3 is deeply flawed for the purposed of accuracy in anything other then maybe the contents of civipedia.(and really, how often does anyone read that stuff?)

And mostly translating said history to civs flawed in accuracy mechanics is a nearly impossible challenge I have no inclination to tackle anyways. Plus such things would be too impossible to find too much census on anyways.

Any game mechanics reasons to not give it unlimited free units or 5/5/5 &/or +1 for every extra unit?

 

[Othniel]

Only in specialized situations does it give a bunch of support. I'm trying to make it more generically useful. Its fine if its still a bit better for 100k victories then other governments, but I want it useful for other situations too.

I wasn't going to reply anymore to this thread, but I've got to ask: Why are you so motivated to make Feudalism a more generically useful government?

I mean, that's why there are seven (not counting anarchy) other government types in the game! No single government is a one-size-fit-all sort of solution for any in-game situation, nor was it ever meant to be that way.

Also, I think Knights Templar is a pretty worthless wonder compared to the other uses for shields during it's era.

 

[Empiremaker]

If you have a Poor Man's Army, and you are going to for some horses, KT can be good, 5 attack is more than any unit (except berserks) until Cavalry. I do agree that usually KT is a waste, and in some high level games, Chivalry is a waste since knights are 70 shields. In fact, this is when Feudalism works well; lots of small towns pumping out cheap units.

Not every gov't is supposed to be good for everything. Every government has its use, some are strong in specialized circumstances (Feudalism), others are good in almost all games (Republic).

 

[TruePurple]

Knights templer costs 300 shield. Its units are worth 70 gold. Even reducing that to say 50 (medieval infantry and longbowman cost 40) You produce 6 and its payed itself off(its 70 cost means decent disbanding shields too) Your going to produce much more then that by steampower. It requires no iron or horses. Plus produces culture. We could make it never expire if it was truely so worthless, but I need more then you saying its worthless to be convinced.

Theres republic, maybe monarch if at war. But you can use republic in war too. Eventually theres communism,.. possibly in the right situation. The rest are far too specialized. Feudalism only for 100k victories, democracy.. maybe peace only games. Facism .. well not many situations thats really useful. Despotism doesn't count since thats the tile cap government you aim to escape from.

No single government is a one-size-fit-all sort of solution for any in-game situation, nor was it ever meant to be that way.

Talk about a straw man arguement (straw man arguement is where you invent the other persons side then argue against it)

I'm talking about it becoming more generically useful. Not one size fits all which is something entirely different. It would still have a somewhat specialized use with my ideas of change. Just not to the point where its mostly only really useful with 100k victories.

With free unit support it could be really useful if your nations not very big. Not many cities for what ever reason, but you still need to amass a army or a army of workers to dig you out of a jungle etc. Not any governments useful for that really. All require massive town build up for affordable units. Feudalism could fill this role. But with despotism corruption it wouldn't be useful in many a situation still. Which is the idea, sorta useful but not too useful. It would still also be useful for 100k cultural victories just maybe a bit less.

 

[Diviner]

hm you guys made me look on feudalism a little less harshly. that "keep-pop-low with whip" strat combined with ics seems pretty useful, though i have never ever revolted to feudalism.

the only one flaw i see is feudalism is a little late in the game. monarchy is available way earlier (usually some AI develops it, then trade ofc) and it seems to be pretty balanced (warmonger-builder), more balanced then feudalism. if waging war, feudalism gives 5/town, monarchy 4/city which i think is more than enough, if one use ICS. and by pop-rushing you sentence growth to death, which is pretty painful when you come to the end of middle ages and face some well-built AI republic. additionally 5 turns of anarchy when get in it, and get out of it, so 10 that seems pretty much if you lack the religious trait.

well the only option i see is despot-monarch-feud government order, despot-feud seems to be a little brutal and feud is so expensive to trade and researching it is also long.

so what is so efficient in it or how do i use it efficiently? when should i choose that over republic/monarchy?

 

[MAS]

@Diviner
In addition, feudalism also has WW...

 

[fishjie]

thanks for explaining feudalism usefulness for 100k. i heard it a lot but it makes sense now. any good guides for 100k victory?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Does anyone have any feedback for the ideas and suggestions I made for feudalism?

Surprise...free unit support is exactly the way Feudalism was originally intended to work. This was revealed after release of C3C, so it's not like I'm telling you a secret from the beta-testing. And, anyone who ever tried something similar in modding will tell you the same...

Sadly, it doesn't work .

Why? Because the AI will never ever leave a Gov with no unit support. So, such a Gov is fine in RaR for example, where the most advanced Gov is support-free.
But it does not work if the AI is supposed to switch again; they'll stay in Feudalism until end of the game. And while this would be a fine Gov for mid-game, it is clearly inferior to Republic or Communism once you have RR and metros.

So yes, your idea sounds fine at first sight - it simply doesn't work with the Civ3 AI.

 

[TruePurple]

Ok, then 5 support no matter city size and 1 per extra?(with perhaps no change to corruption level?) Thoughts on that? Yes it would have little/no effect in a game where your spamming cities and pop rushing temples etc. But the point is to make it useful for other stuff too. AI problems with that?

Maybe I can make a separate mod for online games. Thanks for the information.

Whats RaR? Is it possible to make the government give X extra free units above city number? If so would that cause AI problems?

 

[Empiremaker]

RaR stands for Rise and Rule. Rise and Rule is a mod that greatly expands the basic civ3 game. I play RaR at least 50% of the time. Download RaR here.

 

[Lord Templar]

The reason for the backwards unit support is that in the middle ages more people lived in towns than the citys. so you know!

 

[TruePurple]

Well by civ3 definition more people live in cities. Anyways it kinda puts into question the definitions of such terms.

No feedback for the idea?

 

[MAS]

No, the backward unit support is because in RL, it where the feudal lords (land lords) who provided military for the king. Cities had a separate status, they where not under the control of land lords.

 

[Nergal]

Thanks for the 100k Feudalism guide, I'll have to try it.
I agree with the comments on Knights Templar, its pathetic, too late in the game so units become redundant too fast. I'd prefer to see it giving the option for the controlling civ to build crusaders.

 

[MAS]

You know, the main problem with feudalism in civ3 isn't feudalism itself, but rest of the game mechanics.

In civ3, players seek to grow their cities to max size as fast as possible for maximum power. In RL, settlements remained small for a long, long period of time, all the way until the industrial age started to kick in, thats why feudalism makes more sense in "RL" than in civ3.

An other problem is the unbearable penalty for pop-rushing.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

But really, whats wrong with the idea I came up with? That is, all free units but despotism corruption. Might i get some feedback on that please?

I think that's a great idea, it seems much more realistic.