Adding a new "Founding Father Category" [DEAD]

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

currently we have 5 differen categories of Founding Fathers:

• Exploration
• Religion
• Trade
  
• Military
• Politics

These need "Founding Father Points" that are gathered by specific Player actions (e.g. Exploration, Selling Goods and Combat) or simply by generating Yields (Crosses and Liberty Bells).

However we do have game mechanics and Yields in WTP that do not affect Founding Fathers (like Education, Culture and Health) and might even implement further ones that also would not (like "Happiness" and maybe "Inventions").

Thus I suggest to add 1 new category: Society (needing Society Points AND Political Points)
(For which FF points are gathered by Education, Culture, Health and if later implemented also by Happiness and Invention Yield "Ideas" or whaterver it might be called.)

This would give us 3 advantages:

A) We could move some low value FF that are currently quite late in other FF categories to the new FF category. (e.g. FFs that give a bonus on Education)
Thus they would be available earlier in the game when they are still at least a bit more valuable considering the price.

B) We could make more usage of already existing game concepts and currently discussed game concepts for future release.
(Currently it is mainly Education, Culture and Health. Those features would get a little bit more value added to them.)

C) In the future - when we add new game concepts - we could potentially also add new FFs to this new Category without making the existing FF category chains even longer.
(Of course if these new features are added they could also contribute to that new FF Category and thus be a bit more valuable.)

Theoretically we could also have negative impacts of current features:

- Slavery could negatively impact "Society Points"
- Declaring Wars could negatively impact "Society Points"
...

Thus it would add a bit of strategic decisions again.

---

There is some effort needed for this. But it should not be too high actually. (Coding and XML adjustment.)
AI logic should not really be a problem here since it is not really a completely new game mechanic.

For the first step I don't think that new FFs are needed to be created.
But with new features (e.g. Satisfaction or Inventions) we might add one or two new ones.

---

Feedback?

 

[3tag]

Like Sid Meier said:
"A game is a series of interesting choices."
(https://www.azquotes.com/author/47378-Sid_Meier)

I think its the right direction.

 

[Nightinggale]

One thing to consider here is the scope of the effect of "Society Points". We have colonies, players and teams. The yields are in colonies while FF are in teams. Often the difference between players and teams is ignored because by default there is one player on each team. However that might not be the case in custom games and placing two humans in one team in multiplayer is valid.

What happens with more players in one team? They share wars, explored map and FF, but they also share increased prices in Europe (like increase each time you buy a unit) and each player in addition to the first will come with a AI relationship penalty. It works and is somewhat balanced (unless you do something like 4 vs 1 players, which isn't supposed to be fair). A new game mechanic should not break this working feature of the game.

There is some effort needed for this. But it should not be too high actually. (Coding and XML adjustment.)

I don't think implementing this would be difficult. The question is how to implement this in a way, which would make sense for a player. For instance regarding slavery, if we add civics and have a category for slavery, will those civics then generate "Society Points" each turn and if they do, how many? I fear this feature could be very hard to balance without somebody posting a savegame where the balance is way off. Then we fix that and a new savegame reveals another way the balance is broken and it could go on forever.

 

[raystuttgart]

One thing to consider here is the scope of the effect of "Society Points".

They would work just like "Exploration Points" or "Military Points" - "Society Ponts" are just used to unlock the FFs of the new FF Category "Society.
Nothing else. They are not "Yield" in that sense. They are just a calculated value like for other FF categories.

What happens with more players in one team?

It is just the same with all other Types of FF-points.
Only your own actions should influence your own FF-points.

But yes, in the case you are in a Defensive Pact and one of the Pact member is attacked you technically declare War to the aggressor.
So probably we should leave that idea for a negative impact by War Declarion out.

Maybe all other negative impacts as well.
(e.g. the negative impacts from slaves - because you idea for Civics could takle that matter.)

I don't think implementing this would be difficult.

Yes, it really shouldn't be difficult. We just apply the same patterns as for all other FF-Categories.

The question is how to implement this in a way, which would make sense for a player.

If the player understands the current FF-System he should have no problem understanding this category as well.
Otherwise there is Colopedia for Game Concept "Founding Fathers" where we of course also need to explain what influences this new FF Category.
Thus I really don't see any problems explaining this to the players.

I fear this feature could be very hard to balance without somebody posting a savegame where the balance is way off.

It should not be harder than the balancing for all the other new FFs that RaR had added?
But yes, we need to do some test games as well and collect a bit of feedback from community.

I really believe it will improve balancing because we currently really have some very low value FFs (e.g. giving Education bonusses) quite late in other FF categories.
This feature really intends to improve balancing of low value FFs and low value Yields and Features (e.g. Education, Culture and Health). That is the actually the main reason to implement it.

 

[Commander Bello]

we currently really have some very low value FFs (e.g. giving Education bonusses) quite late in other FF categories.
This feature really intends to improve balancing of low value FFs and low value Yields and Features (e.g. Education, Culture and Health). That is the actually the main reason to implement it.

Sorry, bad reason.

If the current FF's are imbalanced, change that balance by reconsidering their respective costs, placement or bonusses.
Adding just a new category just to have a place where to put those FF's will only create even more balancing problems.

"More" rarely means a better game experience, but almost always more problems, more unbalanced features and more hassle. And I have even not mentioned yet the AI which will not really be able to cope with an even more divided FF structure.

 

[raystuttgart]

If the current FF's are imbalanced, change that balance by reconsidering their respective costs, placement or bonusses.

The main reason for their little value is the generally little value of the game feature / Yield compared to others, e.g. Education.

Adding just a new category just to have a place where to put those FF's will only create even more balancing problems.

Seriously it should be relatively easy to balance.

And I have even not mentioned yet the AI which will not really be able to cope with an even more divided FF structure.

It will not create more or less problems for the AI as the current FF system.
AI does not really play strategically anyways to get FFs. It just "accidently" acquires FF-points by using the game features and producing Yields.

Since AI does not really use these game features the required Yields I am talking about (Health, Culture, Education) it will also not acquire those "Social Points"
and thus also not waste its Political Points (which would also be needed) for acquiring FFs it does not profit from.

Summary:
A) It is really easy to implement.
B) It just adds a little bit more value to some low value game mechanics and Yields. (currently only: Education, Culture and Health)
C) It makes some low value FFs cheaper which will thus make it interesting to acquire them. (But since it will also costs "Political Points" you will still consider it.)
D) It is no problem for AI at all. (It should definitely not worsen anything for AI considering FFs.)

Edit:

I adjusted my first post because I had forgotten to mention that Political Points will also be needed in the FF category "Society". (Not only "Society Points".)
All other FF Categories (except Politics) also need 2 types of FF so I accidently thought it was self explanatory.

Thus you will think about "Is this FF really worth acquiring or do I want to keep my Political Points for some other FF?".

 

[devolution]

Yep, currently the AI does not evaluate founding fathers at all and simply chooses the first that is available. This is about to change though: https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/tree/father_evaluation

 

[Commander Bello]

AI does not really play strategically anyways to get FFs. It just "accidently" acquires FF-points by using the game features and producing Yields.

Since AI does not really use these game features the required Yields I am talking about (Health, Culture, Education) it will also not acquire those "Social Points"
and thus also not waste its Political Points (which would also be needed) for acquiring FFs it does not profit from.

Right.
And now you are going to implement a sixth option where the AI can accidentally make wrong decisions.

And in case it really doesn't get any or enough "social" points, that only means you are creating something just for the human player. Just that now he not only has to browse 5 sections of FF's, but 6.

Actually, your statement is a very strong argument against the proposed implementation. And I am taking the liberty to refer to the civics idea which currently is discussed in another thread.
You guys are planning to spend time on "human only" features which will not help, but very likely cripple the AI even more. At least your efforts aren't going to help her in any way.

If the AI isn't making use of "the required Yields I am talking about (Health, Culture, Education)", then teach her to do so. Adding more pitfalls though won't help.

(corrected some misspelling)

 

[raystuttgart]

This is about to change though: https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/tree/father_evaluation

Cool, did not know about that.
Is there an issue for this in GitHub?

 

[Commander Bello]

Yep, currently the AI does not evaluate founding fathers at all and simply chooses the first that is available. This is about to change though: https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/tree/father_evaluation

This only leads me to a general overlook page.

 

[devolution]

Check the commit history. Caution: WIP

 

[raystuttgart]

I added a poll to this as well.

 

[Drunk-Monk]

I don't think this would add much to the game and as others have pointed out it could create more problems. We can just alter the existing Founding Fathers, by adding bonuses to them that boost health etc, rather than creating an entirely new category with all the complexities that entails.

That said, I believe that some of the founding fathers need to be revised, given that some of them have either no connection or a very tenuous connection to the colonial period.

 

[Nightinggale]

I have to say I'm still uncertain about this. I don't feel like I see the point, but at the same time I'm not certain it's bad either. I would however say that I suspect it might not be the worth the time. After all the time spend on this will be time taken from some other task.

 

[raystuttgart]

Since only few people like and just as many (or even more) do not I think we better forget about it.
It is not important anyways. It was really just about improving some currently low value game concepts a bit.

And you are right, there are other more important things to do as well.
(Even though it sould really not have taken too much effort.)

 

[rah]

I'm in the camp of reviewing the current list and maybe improving a few for balance. As pointed out I think this could improve AI play since the're not strategic in their choices. And maybe I wouldn't ignore as many of them as I do and it would create some variety over who I select each game.

 

[raystuttgart]

I'm in the camp of reviewing the current list and maybe improving a few for balance. As pointed out I think this could improve AI play since the're not strategic in their choices.
And maybe I wouldn't ignore as many of them as I do and it would create some variety over who I select each game.

That is what I thought as well and I would thus volunteer to do most of the work for it.
It is actually not much work, since all game mechanics and patterns already exist.

As I tried to explain, current game mechanics Culture, Health and Education would profit from that and some low value FFs could get at least a little bit interesting because they would be cheaper.
Even though it is not really a big game changer. It is really just a minor thing.

Also, this might have potential for future features (e.g. Techs, Happiness, ...) and might even be interesting for modmods if anybody would ever want to do one base on WTP.
But team and community don't like it and until this changes this concept is dead. (The poll result is quite clear on that.)

I can however live with the current decision perfectly.
This is one of the least important concepts I would like to see realized in future releases.

 

[<Nexus>]

It is actually not much work, since all game mechanics and patterns already exist.

If it is really not that much work than why don't you just do it as a modmod and publish it for testing? Maybe players after trying it will change their mind.

 

[raystuttgart]

If it is really not that much work than why don't you just do it as a modmod and publish it for testing?

That is really easy to answer:
A) I don't want to create a modmod. I want to focus my efforts on the main mod WTP only.
B) Maintaining modmods so they stay "long time" compatible to the the mother mod is a lot of work.

At a certain point in time a modmod is usually not compatible to the new releases of the mother mod anymore.
In this concept that might happen in only 1 release because it needs DLL changes as well.

Summary:
Doing a modmod here isn't worth the additional hassle and effort.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I'm not voting because I'm not expert enough to make a judgement.

I remember in the RaR days there was talk about randomizing some of the FFs, which is an idea I liked.

Is this something which is still being considered?