AG's Ideology Mod

amateurgamer88 · Mar 30, 2020

pineappledan said:
IMO I don't think you'll be able to differentiate monarchy from Theocracy/Autocracy, as those are both strongly authoritarian, centralized ideologies.

I would suggest you take a look at corporate statism as an option instead. I think you'll find it's fertile ground for lampooning a lot of dystopic literature, libertarian and utilitarian philosophy, and weird realities in our current political systems where money enters politics, etc.

You could really blow the top off corporations as a tier 3 policy as well.

You are probably right about those. Like I said before, I'm not extremely familiar with ideologies (or have sufficient knowledge at that) and will make plenty of mistakes along the way. I will definitely look into other ideologies as I'm sure there's plenty of ideas there. As for Theocracy, I guess my focus is just making faith and religion still very relevant late game. Maybe the ideology won't even be called Theocracy later on. For now, it's just an alpha and mostly a brainstorming sessions. However, my current ideology does indicate the direction I want it to go.

Thanks for all the suggestions though!

pineappledan · Mar 31, 2020

Some ideas for a Corporatocracy ideology:

Prosperity
Economic Victory (Have a global monopoly on more than half of all resources on the map, and build some associated Economic Wonder (like the CV wonder))
Diplomatic Victory (be voted world leader in the World Congress)
Science Victory (Go To SPAAAAAAAAACE)

overall ideas: Lots of raw :c5science:

/

on empire or only in the capital (oligarchical/plutocratic centralization of wealth). little/no mitigation of :c5unhappy:

unhappiness on empire. Effectively the Anti-Order
Land grabbing mechanics for snapping up that last little bit of unowned property on the map.
Trade and Corporations

Spoiler :

Edit:

Spoiler revised Devotion tenet Proposal :

Drakle · Mar 31, 2020

pineappledan said:
Tier 3:
Millenarianism
A Great Prophet is born and a Permanent Golden Age Begins (crank the golden age length modifier to something ridiculous).

Not sure if this would be a must-have for Persia or Autocracy for the 3 happiness per city from Courthouses. Thought Brazil might get screwed over since they need to fire multiple golden ages.

pineappledan said:
Administration of Savagery
Followers of your religion in Foreign Cities generate 1 Religious Unrest in that City. 1 Additional Spy, and Spies in Enemy cities are much more likely to trigger rebellion.

This seems like it would be detrimental for any civ following your religion. And I find religious unrest doesn't really come up much as an issue most games and is usually offset by the Temple flat reduction.

Maybe instead of one unrest, it is further ideological pressure for civs not following your ideology, that has your religion, and perhaps maybe also extra strength in couping city-states that follow your religion (like spies operate as one level higher).

But still, religion is not a major guiding issue for real-world powers, the real winning civilisations. There are still religious states, but they are often trying to fend off secular pressure, more than they are bowing to religious pressure. Iran is a fairly rare example, and are struggling to eke out a small sphere of influence. The Saudis are just a degenerate elite of grifters hiding behind religion and propped up by a Superpower. There aren't really any major modern-day conversions, barring to non-state controlled cults and religions. Which could be interesting to have as an issue, but I doubt any new mechanics like that would be introduced.

I think Idelogies really just need a wider range of tenats, some of which are mutually exclusive to have more differentiation. For example with religion, there could be stuff like

Freedom
Prosperity Gospel
Secular Rule

Order
State Atheism
Tolerated Faith
Religious Communism

Autocracy
Pagan Roots
State Dominance
Religious Police

Not really sure it could be coded. Perhaps instead it would happen through the events system, where after picking an ideology you get one-off events that lock you into a particular path.

amateurgamer88 · Mar 31, 2020

With all of these great ideas from @pineappledan , I'm starting to wonder if we want to make changes to Freedom, Order and Autocracy as well. Maybe we won't have a drastic change where we completely overhaul those ideologies but I think we can add more tenets to the existing ideologies. I will need to check if it's possible to add more tenets to each level. If so, then we can have more options available but the total number of tenets is still limited as usual. This makes sense if we have more victory conditions whereas the existing ideologies don't account for those.

pineappledan · Mar 31, 2020

Drakle said:
Not sure if this would be a must-have for Persia or Autocracy for the 3 happiness per city from Courthouses. Thought Brazil might get screwed over since they need to fire multiple golden ages.

You can still trigger additional golden ages if you just make the golden age length modifier really long, so Brazil wouldn't be affected. Persia isn't a strong religious civ, so they would be better off with Autocracy anyways, most likely. Holding out for a tier 3 tenet to tip the scales wouldn't be a good investment.

Drakle said:
This seems like it would be detrimental for any civ following your religion. And I find religious unrest doesn't really come up much as an issue most games and is usually offset by the Temple flat reduction.

The point would be to make religion an effective offensive tool for late game, yes. Religion deprecates as a game mechanic after Industrial for most civs, so it would have to take on a lot more utility if an ideology were to be built around it.

Drakle said:
But still, religion is not a major guiding issue for real-world powers, the real winning civilisations. There are still religious states, but they are often trying to fend off secular pressure, more than they are bowing to religious pressure. Iran is a fairly rare example, and are struggling to eke out a small sphere of influence. The Saudis are just a degenerate elite of grifters hiding behind religion and propped up by a Superpower. There aren't really any major modern-day conversions, barring to non-state controlled cults and religions. Which could be interesting to have as an issue, but I doubt any new mechanics like that would be introduced.

The ink isn't dry on all of that. I also pulled ideology ideas from Imperial Japan (who deified the emperor in State Shinto), Zionism, and Evangelical Christian Eschatology.

Legen · Mar 31, 2020

pineappledan said:
IMO I don't think you'll be able to differentiate monarchy from Theocracy/Autocracy, as those are both strongly authoritarian, centralized ideologies. I also notice that your name choices have a lot of overlap with existing Tradition/Fealty policies.

I would suggest you take a look at corporate statism as an option instead. I think you'll find it's fertile ground for lampooning a lot of dystopic literature, libertarian and utilitarian philosophy, and weird realities in our current political systems where money enters politics, etc.

You could really blow the top off corporations as a tier 3 policy as well.

Libertarian groups understand corporate statism as Fascism, meaning Autocracy already represents that.

One possible "ideology" could be "Non-aligned". It is one of the four possible options in Hearts of Iron IV (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Ideology#Non-Aligned) that represents your nation not actively taking part in the conflicts leading to the Second World War. This can encompass ideas representing both monarchism and theocracy.

pineappledan · Apr 1, 2020

Legen said:
Libertarian groups understand corporate statism as Fascism, meaning Autocracy already represents that.

Syndicalism, a form of corporate statism, is commonly understood as an outgrowth of fascism, yes. I guess I was trying to direct the ideology into a mixture of corporatism, plutocracy, and state capitalism.

The reason I took a jab at libertarianism is because Libertarianism is a slippery concept often used to justify grift and cronyism. Avowed Objectivist/Libertarian politicians buckling to the interests of corporations and the rich is, depending on your views on libertarianism, either obscene hypocrisy or perfectly consistent with rational self-interest. It's very easy to see how Libertarianism and Objectivism's focus on ethical egoism is used as self-justification for defrauding the public. These two philosophies provide the framework through which even an elected official could argue that he has no responsibility to the public or the common good, because those are best pursued through his own personal gain.

that philosophy has a history of being trotted out to defend things like regulatory capture and as justification for the ultra-rich to have undo, plutocratic influence in democratic politics.

Legen said:
One possible "ideology" could be "Non-aligned".

Coming up with 17+ tenets for non-alignment sounds difficult.

pineappledan · Apr 1, 2020

Also, do you have ideas for what wonders each of the ideologies would unlock?

Some ideas for theocracy:
The Kaaba
Bodh Gaya

Some ideas for Corporatocracy
The Peace Palace
EPCOT

amateurgamer88 · Apr 1, 2020

Legen said:
One possible "ideology" could be "Non-aligned". It is one of the four possible options in Hearts of Iron IV (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Ideology#Non-Aligned) that represents your nation not actively taking part in the conflicts leading to the Second World War. This can encompass ideas representing both monarchism and theocracy.

pineappledan said:
Coming up with 17+ tenets for non-alignment sounds difficult.

Considering that we are on the brainstorming stage, I wouldn't mind giving it a try. For the moment, I'm just combing through the code to see various things we can work with. Some of those ideas might work for non-alignment but we will have to see. It's too early to write this off right now, especially when we added more victory conditions which opens up more ideas overall. I think we might get some cool ideas to work, hopefully more so when I do learn how to work with the dll files someday.

pineappledan said:
Also, do you have ideas for what wonders each of the ideologies would unlock?

Some ideas for theocracy:
The Kaaba
Bodh Gaya

Some ideas for Corporatocracy
The Peace Palace
EPCOT

I haven't thought about the specific Wonders themselves yet. Just trying to polish the tenet ideas so I can figure out what the Wonders should provide. Currently, I'm looking at your list of Corporatocracy tenets and modifying them to what I like to see. Of course, these are all rough drafts so changes to still to be expected.

Legen · Apr 1, 2020

pineappledan said:
Syndicalism, a form of corporate statism, is commonly understood as an outgrowth of fascism, yes. I guess I was trying to direct the ideology into a mixture of corporatism, plutocracy, and state capitalism.

The reason I took a jab at libertarianism is because Libertarianism is a slippery concept often used to justify grift and cronyism. Avowed Objectivist/Libertarian politicians buckling to the interests of corporations and the rich is, depending on your views on libertarianism, either obscene hypocrisy or perfectly consistent with rational self-interest. It's very easy to see how Libertarianism and Objectivism's focus on ethical egoism is used as self-justification for defrauding the public. These two philosophies provide the framework through which even an elected official could argue that he has no responsibility to the public or the common good, because those are best pursued through his own personal gain.

that philosophy has a history of being trotted out to defend things like regulatory capture and as justification for the ultra-rich to have undo, plutocratic influence in democratic politics.

That sounds like Utilitarianism to me, and more likely to be done by Classic Liberals following John Stuart Mill. Libertarians reject Utilitarianism and consider it what killed Classic Liberalism. The more radical groups also consider the state itself an ethical violation, making them anarcho-capitalists, with the idea of a libertarian politician being a contradiction to them.

A note, Libertarianism can have a different meaning depending on the country. In Brazil, Libertarianism is practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalist; if you defend a Night-watchman state in Brazil, you're at most considered a classic liberal instead. From what I heard, in the USA, liberal refers to the Democrat party for historical reasons and isn't tied to whether the person actually defends Liberalism; the actual american classic liberals renamed themselves as libertarians to address this dissociation with Liberalism. I'd like confirmation of that, and to know how it is in Canada and other countries.

As I understand, "responsibility to the public" and "common good" are collectivist concepts, meaning an ideology grounded on Individualism rejects them from an ethical stance; if violation of an individual's humanity (Liberalism highlights life/liberty/property among them) can be justified on the grounds of either of those two concepts, then those two concepts are inherently inhuman within an individualistic framework. Libertarianism derives from Individualism, meaning a job/position revolving around either of the two collectivist concepts is considered unethical - this is the ground that the more radical libertarian groups reject the validity of a libertarian politician. It doesn't prevent some politician from advertising himself as libertarian, though, regardless of what the politician actually defends.

pineappledan said:
Coming up with 17+ tenets for non-alignment sounds difficult.

Merely starting as a fusion of what you planned for theocracy and monarchism is already a start. You could also look for diplo modifiers to address the penalties from having a different ideology, as the conflicts leading to the Second World War revolved mainly around the ideological incompatibilities between Liberalism, Communism and National Socialism; nations that weren't invested in any of those ideologies had relatively little in stake diplomacy-wise from an ideological stance. Assuming the code allows for that, anyway.

pineappledan · Apr 1, 2020

Legen said:
. In Brazil, Libertarianism is practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalist; if you defend a Night-watchman state in Brazil, you're at most considered a classic liberal instead. From what I heard, in the USA, liberal refers to the Democrat party for historical reasons and isn't tied to whether the person actually defends Liberalism

Yeah, this is the problem with Libertarianism. Its meaning changes based on the country, frame of reference, century you're talking about, etc. Nozick, who is considered one of the most important 20th century Libertarian thinkers, is all about the nightwatchman state. Anarcho-capitalists set themselves up in opposition to him, and consider themselves either objectivists or anarchists. I guess you could call Nozick a minarchist, but most people in North America who claim to be Libertarians are exactly that: Minarchists.

Legen said:
As I understand, "responsibility to the public" and "common good" are collectivist concepts, meaning an ideology grounded on Individualism rejects them from an ethical stance; if violation of an individual's humanity (Liberalism highlights life/liberty/property among them) can be justified on the grounds of either of those two concepts, then those two concepts are inherently inhuman within an individualistic framework.

This is why North American Libertarian thought is used as a justification of fraud and selfishness. An individualist Libertarian framework is antithetical to the proper functioning of democracy. Libertarian 'f*** you, got mine' ideology explicitly defends bribery and cronyism; it cannot be reconciled with with the duty of care which is the basis for a lot of American/Commonwealth law. If someone rejects "common good" on ethical grounds, they have either never met someone who is truly destitute, or their only political motivation is gaining power. Either way they are unfit for government office in a representative democracy, because they have already failed the first criteria of a mandate from the masses.

The libertarians I have encountered aren't interested in big government, regulation, or social welfare because they don't benefit from them. Because they are already rich. My experience of Libertarians is they only believe in minimizing/dismantling the government insofar as they can set up their own little fiefdoms. They aren't interested in paying into a system that helps the poor, because they believe, with all their heart, that a properly run government would only concern itself with protecting their own wealth and interests.

Legen · Apr 1, 2020

pineappledan said:
See, this is the problem with Libertarianism. Its meaning changes meaning based on the country, frame of reference, century you're talking about, etc. Nozick, who is considered one of the most important 20th century Libertarian thinkers, is all about the nightwatchman state. Anarcho-capitalists set themselves up in opposition to him, and consider themselves either objectivists or anarchists. I guess you could call Nozick a minarchist, but most people in North America who claim to be Libertarians are exactly that: Minarchists.

What changes with time and country is what is perceived as libertarian, not the theory itself. Libertarianism is just a more radical version of Liberalism, especially when it comes to Utilitarianism (complete rejection) and minimal state (anarchism). Since "radical" refers to a certain frame of reference, what can be seen as libertarian in one country or time may be seen as classic liberal in another.

Note that Libertarianism and Liberalism actually share the same theoretical basis, meaning that, when we exclude popular perception, they are in essence the same thing, regardless of country and time. This also means that minarchist authors can be studied by anarcho-capitalist proponents, just with reservations on the parts of the author's works that treat the word "mininal" as "not actually zero". Curiously, even the authors themselves sometimes call former liberal/libertarian writers as "socialists" when referring to the parts that defends a larger state than defended by the author.

pineappledan said:
This is why North American Libertarian thought is used as a justification of fraud and selfishness. An individualist Libertarian framework is antithetical to the proper functioning of democracy. Libertarian 'f*** you, got mine' ideology explicitly defends bribery and cronyism. If someone rejects "common good" on ethical grounds, they have either never met someone who is truly destitute, or their only political motivation is gaining power. Either way they are unfit for government office in a representative democracy, because they have already failed the first criteria of a mandate from the masses.

North American terminology is a mess. People that defend a big state can be called liberal, people that defend media regulation can be called democrat, it's no surprise that someone that defends political activity can be called libertarian. I think the political language in North America is so contradictory that it does more to confuse than to clarify and, as such, the actions of the politicians there rarely reflect the label they attribute to themselves (or have attributed to them).

You're not wrong to say that the individualistic framework of libertarians is antithetical to a democracy, and the libertarians don't consider that an offence. In fact, the anarcho-capitalists here consider that democracy is still a mild version of a dictatorship, but still a dictatorship, and defend a society of private laws instead (which is a much larger topic, maybe a possible Ideology in the mod).

The statement of rejecting "common good" translating to not meeting someone truly destitute isn't accurate, as rejecting "common good" doesn't mean rejecting philanthropy; libertarians understand that people can be philanthropic for egoist reasons (personal satisfaction of helping someone, that's actually considered egoist in the most technical sense). What they are against is trying to be philanthropic with the money of others by force, which is how the state operates and which the libertarian theory rejects as a valid form of philanthropy.

pineappledan · Apr 1, 2020

Legen said:
In fact, the anarcho-capitalists here consider that democracy is still a mild version of a dictatorship, but still a dictatorship, and defend a society of private laws instead (which is a much larger topic, maybe a possible Ideology in the mod).

Delving into Anarchist/Libertarian philosophy is best kept to a private conversation, and is going to pollute poor AG's thread.

The last thing I will mention is that you keep bringing up is utilitarianism as though I had conflated it with Libertarianism. I did not, and I am aware that they are competing moral frameworks.

Legen · Apr 1, 2020

The concern was that the proposed Corporatocracy ideology would have tenets referring to a libertarian theme, hence the debate. Either way, if something seems wrong on the ideological proposals, I'll inform that.

amateurgamer88 · Apr 1, 2020

I used @pineappledan 's Prosperity idea and modified things to where I think it's a bit more balanced. Note that this is still rough draft so things are likely to change still. I also removed one of his Tier 3 tenets since it doesn't quite fit as the Ideology needs something that can help it win Diplomatic Victory.

Spoiler AG's Prosperity rough ideas :

Legen · Apr 1, 2020

The tier 3 diplo tenet could just be an effect on city-states that have a franchise of your corporation, like influence per turn and increased quest rewards.

amateurgamer88 · Apr 2, 2020

Legen said:
The tier 3 diplo tenet could just be an effect on city-states that have a franchise of your corporation, like influence per turn and increased quest rewards.

I'm hesitant to add that since the AI normally have a lot of Great Diplomats and these don't necessarily give you enough influence to secure alliances.

Drakle · Apr 2, 2020

amateurgamer88 said:
Regulatory Capture
Free Stock Exchange in the Capital. +5 Production and to all Stock Exchanges.

amateurgamer88 said:
Fast-Track Construction
Gold maintenance of buildings increase by 5%. All cities gain +5 Production.

Why would anybody pick Fast Track construction, particularly when another tenant also gives 5 production (attached to a stock exchange, but you are already going to build that anyway)? 5 Production is fairly meagre by the end game anyway particularly when compared to other tenats, but there is an inbuilt downside. Which nearly all normal tenats lack, bar Order's Nationalization. It isn't a major downside since you are likely swimming in gold by that point. But still.

amateurgamer88 said:
Adventurism
Can Purchase Colonists with Gold. +5 Citizens to new Cities.

This I think is a bit too similar to Order's Resettlement, but far weaker. Since that benefits existing cities and conquering cities, while this only helps to get new cities. Settling new cities by ideology time is somewhat niche, and really depends on game style and the map mode, let alone a second tier one with so many others that are better as alternative choices.

amateurgamer88 said:
Can construct the building "Independent Entity" (up to 5 in the Empire) that doubles the Luxury Resources worked by a city.

Would this stack with the East India Company? Based on how most starts end up, two sets of doubling of the capitals luxury resources would be more luxuries than the civs in most games for the primary luxury. Most starts have like 3-5 of a primary luxury and maybe 1-2 of another one or two luxuries. Depending on the resource settings. Maybe have it be mutually exclusive with the East India Company so that the AI wouldn't stack uselessly, and to spread out the doubling.

Not sure where it would go, but maybe something Monopolistic, giving bonuses to holding monopolies, since this ideology is all about crony capitalism.

Other ideas.

- Arts and artifacts black-market - Buying and selling of artifacts, with criminal elements. A bonus to stealing great works, and perhaps a large gold boost for each completed archeologist expedition. Not sure if this would be possible to code, but maybe a way to purchase unique great works or to sell them.

-Prosperity Gospel - Could go with the religious ideology, but the capitalist-religious blending works with the rest of the set. Faith turns into gold, and some other bonus. Like faith purchases also generate gold, as well as faith generated from building like stadiums and Broadcast towers.

-Talent headhunting - Recieve GPP based on a percentage of the points generated by cities you have trade routes with OR cities you have spies/diplomats in. Essentially your civ outbidding for top talent. No idea which option or what percentage would be balanced.

amateurgamer88 · Apr 2, 2020

Drakle said:
Why would anybody pick Fast Track construction, particularly when another tenant also gives 5 production (attached to a stock exchange, but you are already going to build that anyway)? 5 Production is fairly meagre by the end game anyway particularly when compared to other tenats, but there is an inbuilt downside. Which nearly all normal tenats lack, bar Order's Nationalization. It isn't a major downside since you are likely swimming in gold by that point. But still.

These numbers can change for certain if they are too weak. My train of thought was that this will be the build-up the Tier 3 tenet (Space Tourism) where you want to maximize the amount of production in your capital so you can produce Spaceship parts much faster. Of course, these are ideas right now so the numbers likely will be tweaked to find a sweet spot.

This I think is a bit too similar to Order's Resettlement, but far weaker. Since that benefits existing cities and conquering cities, while this only helps to get new cities. Settling new cities by ideology time is somewhat niche, and really depends on game style and the map mode, let alone a second tier one with so many others that are better as alternative choices.

This became an idea because there's a good chance of more victory conditions. One of them requires you, though this could change, to have one copy of every luxury. This tenet is meant to make use of that victory while using your most abundant resource to capitalize on it. We'll see if other changes will be necessary.

Would this stack with the East India Company? Based on how most starts end up, two sets of doubling of the capitals luxury resources would be more luxuries than the civs in most games for the primary luxury. Most starts have like 3-5 of a primary luxury and maybe 1-2 of another one or two luxuries. Depending on the resource settings. Maybe have it be mutually exclusive with the East India Company so that the AI wouldn't stack uselessly, and to spread out the doubling.

Not sure where it would go, but maybe something Monopolistic, giving bonuses to holding monopolies, since this ideology is all about crony capitalism.

I do plan on making it exclusive to the East India Company. The purpose of this is to make strategic choices to obtain more monopolies than your enemies. Maybe that can be how victory is achieved where you control a certain percentage of monopolies. As for bonuses for monopolies, I feel that Imperialism already does a pretty good job and more bonuses might just be difficult to balance. Honestly, more monopolies give you a nice boost already depending on the luxury.

Other ideas.

- Arts and artifacts black-market - Buying and selling of artifacts, with criminal elements. A bonus to stealing great works, and perhaps a large gold boost for each completed archeologist expedition. Not sure if this would be possible to code, but maybe a way to purchase unique great works or to sell them.

-Prosperity Gospel - Could go with the religious ideology, but the capitalist-religious blending works with the rest of the set. Faith turns into gold, and some other bonus. Like faith purchases also generate gold, as well as faith generated from building like stadiums and Broadcast towers.

-Talent headhunting - Recieve GPP based on a percentage of the points generated by cities you have trade routes with OR cities you have spies/diplomats in. Essentially your civ outbidding for top talent. No idea which option or what percentage would be balanced.

The black market idea is an interesting one. It will require new code that I currently cannot write (but I hope I can do so one day). The Prosperity Gospel seems more fitting with religious ideology as there isn't enough faith generated for this ideology to make full use of it. The headhunting is also new code but it's a pretty cool idea too. I appreciate the suggestions! Time will tell when some of these will be implemented though.

Drakle · Apr 2, 2020

amateurgamer88 said:
This became an idea because there's a good chance of more victory conditions. One of them requires you, though this could change, to have one copy of every luxury. This tenet is meant to make use of that victory while using your most abundant resource to capitalize on it. We'll see if other changes will be necessary.

I forgot about the extra victory condition. However, I think it still needs an extra boost. 5 citizens is all well and good, but well that is an extra 5 unhappiness in many cases, as a city with just base infrastructure of building and no improved tiles.

Maybe spawn a worker upon settlement and a tile improvement boost. Not as strong as Autocracy's Iron Fist, but good for quickly getting luxuries online.

amateurgamer88 said:
I do plan on making it exclusive to the East India Company. The purpose of this is to make strategic choices to obtain more monopolies than your enemies. Maybe that can be how victory is achieved where you control a certain percentage of monopolies. As for bonuses for monopolies, I feel that Imperialism already does a pretty good job and more bonuses might just be difficult to balance. Honestly, more monopolies give you a nice boost already depending on the luxury.

It doesn't have to be an actual boost to the monopoly bonus, maybe just an extra gold bonus for every monopoly held, either as a flat bonus, or attached to each resource tile. Maybe a base rate, as well as an extra boost to trade route gold for resources of the city, that you hold a monopoly in.

amateurgamer88 said:
The Prosperity Gospel seems more fitting with religious ideology as there isn't enough faith generated for this ideology to make full use of it.

The boosts I was talking about, don't add any new faith sinks, just gold from faith, and a bit of extra faith from some late buildings tied around televangelism.

But yeah it could go either way.

Finally, while I know PineappleDan doesn't think there should be any happiness involved, I think at least part of the tree needs something. Maybe the removal of urbanisation, for merchant specialists (if that is possible), or just attached to a few gold buildings.

AG's Ideology Mod

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Similar threads