How about if you only get the free swap when you unlock the new card, ie when you finish a civic you're allowed to swap the cards you just unlocked in for free but any other changes require paying the gold cost (or a turn of anarchy, etc). I much prefer a system that you can change as you're playing rather than the civ 5 method, but at the moment there's a little too much freedom. Civ 4 was good with the government system, although that also had balance issues.
My biggest gripe is only that you can use any available card under every government system, for example, if you go class struggle, you can still use laissez-faire from capitalism, or if you go democracy, you can still use collectivization, that's just not entirely plausible. At least one ideologically incompatible card should be unavailable under a certain type of government, a bit like it was in SMAC: e. g., in social engineering, Gaians (ecological faction) couldn't pick Wealth (high profit but pollution generating policy), and University guys (science oriented) couldn't just turn on their heels and go Fundamentalist.
I agree with what you guys say. I did laugh the first time I realised that capitalism was available to all government types.
Then...you do get blurring at the edges. My country (New Zealand) is one of the oldest democracies in the world; yet from the 1930's til the mid 1980's we were also just about the heaviest regulated country outside of the Communist block! Ironically Communist China started to embrace capitalism five odd years before we did! Though yes...China still tries to control their economy in ways that make it tricky to call them capitalist. Then again, so does NZ So the current set up does reflect reality to a degree.
On the other hand, I think there is ample room to make the different government types feel more unique. I like the idea of legacy bonuses, but it's a very passive system. Adding some powerful policy cards that can only be unlocked by reaching certain legacy thresholds might be a way to help that. An example off the top of my head might be something like:
Landed Aristocracy
Required Government Type: Monarchy
Required Legacy Bonus: 15%
Policy Type: Wildcard
Effect: Every three farms within a city's radius adds +1 amenity in that city.
Getting into authoritarian v libertarian on both social and economic axes would solve some of the issues I note above; yet I think Bactrian is probably onto a better way to improve the uniqueness of governments without over complicating them as that would. I think you maybe should be able to take that card you have earned into other governments too.
How about if you only get the free swap when you unlock the new card, ie when you finish a civic you're allowed to swap the cards you just unlocked in for free but any other changes require paying the gold cost (or a turn of anarchy, etc). I much prefer a system that you can change as you're playing rather than the civ 5 method, but at the moment there's a little too much freedom. Civ 4 was good with the government system, although that also had balance issues.
I don't think less frequent swap options will make it more fun. Quite on the contrary, this will just make it more frustrating when you forget to switch out a card. But better balancing and less cards that you want to swap in for a single turn, reap huge benefits, and then swap out again, will come a long way.
This is genius. Once a card has been swapped out, it can't come back in until you change government. This keeps the flexibility and variety of the current system, while getting rid of the dull micromanagement. Stuff like timing civic research such that you only have the -50% upgrade cost card active at one time. Or having lots of builders finish on the same turn so you can use the feudalism policy for one turn only.
But how many do those optimizations? If it's just a style of play why block it? I wouldn't be able to play like this if I wanted (I just forget to switch). If someone can play like this and thinks it worth the tediousness let them do it. If you think it does not worth it you can play very well without it. For me it will mean that if I accidentally swapped out a card too soon I'm stuck. I can't wait a few turns and fix that mistake (well, I think I'm done with upgrading the archers I'll swap it out, next turn discovers gunpowder. damn ).
I agree. Not only would it help balance the opportunity cost of choosing to stick with one form of government, but it allows for more longterm play. In the example I provided, I imagined it being used to construct ultra high-pop cities in very fertile regions. But to keep those kinds of cities from crashing, a player would have to stay with Monarchy for the rest of the game just to keep Landed Aristocracy. If players can carry it forward then that doesn't become a problem. I think it would also help civs develop particular identities over the course of the game. One civ with the democratic government maintains its historical landed aristocracy (Britain, maybe), and does not because it never developed it (the U.S., perhaps).
On a side note, it could also become fodder for the diplomatic system. I imagine civs with the Communist government having a particular distaste for those using Landed Aristocracy, and those sharing the policy might have an affinity for each other.
I'm sorry, but that's a terrible argument. We are in agreement that the optimal strategy (swapping some cards carefully for max gain) is tedious. You are saying "then simply don't do it". But this is a strategy game, finding and implementing the optimal strategy is the purpose of the game. It being tedious to do this makes this a dull or bad game. The correct thing to do as an element of game design is to make the optimal strategy fun to do (the opposite of tedious) or, equivalently, to make the tedious things not optimal.
As an extreme example, imagine you could give a unit +1 strength by typing in a long 10 digit code every turn. The optimal strategy is to type in this code every turn, but that is the epitome of tediousness. Better to remove this feature altogether or to make it something fun (+1 strength from adjacent bonuses for example)
No. The purpose of the game is to have fun. You can have it while not optimizing anything. But anyway blocking the option to optimize this way will not make it more fun. It will just make it less fun to people like me. It won't be easier and less tedious to optimize, it would be impossible. So those who enjoy optimization in spite of the tediousness - will lose a fun aspect of the game. Those who like me play just to pass the weekend will have less fun because the game will be less forgiving. Those who optimize but find it tedious also would not gain anything they cannot gain by making a rational assessment of 'does it worth the bother'. The goal of the optimal or not-so-optimal strategy is to win the game (perhaps in less turns and with higher score). If the +1 does not tip the balance in a way that will contribute to your victory you should not use that code.
Now - you can decide you want to collect every bonus whatever the cost even if it's unnecessary . That's your business. I don't think game designers should make the game less fun for most just to accommodate those whims (which blocking changing policies won't do anyway).
More generally - I believe that a trade-off between optimization and fun is good. It allows many ways of playing the game. Optimization has some positive value (to some, at least) but there should be room for those that value it less and want to play in a more free style.
The ability to optimize/micromanage isn't the downfall of card based mechanics. The downfall is having too many minor, single turn, irrelevant cards to choose from. This leads to a subset of the cards being the ones that get used most of the time, and when that happens, the timing of being able to use the cards likely gets thrown off. Minor effects are great kinds of things to switch out often; major ones are not (in general).
They seemed to have wanted to down the route of lots of cards, but you're able to swap them out frequently. Unfortunately, they did make a lot of cards, but many are repeats and many others have little to no use in most games. I personally can't think of how to do lots of little bonus cards for this game, so I think they should switch to having fewer, more powerful cards, but have the opportunities to switch them out be fewer.
I think the system as-is is fine, the cards need to be overhauled. Making these cards is hard; I went through it while designing a board game of my own.
One of the oldest continuous democracies may be more accurate. Ahead of us stands the U.S. and the U.K. and a handful of others. Other existing countries like Greece (who has a clear claim to being the oldest democracy) have spent much of their existance since under various forms of government, enough of which was not democratic to put them lower than NZ in this list.
The ability to optimize/micromanage isn't the downfall of card based mechanics. The downfall is having too many minor, single turn, irrelevant cards to choose from. This leads to a subset of the cards being the ones that get used most of the time, and when that happens, the timing of being able to use the cards likely gets thrown off. Minor effects are great kinds of things to switch out often; major ones are not (in general).
They seemed to have wanted to down the route of lots of cards, but you're able to swap them out frequently. Unfortunately, they did make a lot of cards, but many are repeats and many others have little to no use in most games. I personally can't think of how to do lots of little bonus cards for this game, so I think they should switch to having fewer, more powerful cards, but have the opportunities to switch them out be fewer.
I think the system as-is is fine, the cards need to be overhauled. Making these cards is hard; I went through it while designing a board game of my own.
Agree with everything here. With the cards as is, it would be helpful to have a "deck" that you can just throw the cards in that you feel that you are unlikely ever to use, which would reduce the cluster of a screen that they make. Instead, the screen is just the four or five other cards per type that you aren't currently using but likely would swap in. Of course, the fact that there are cards that you'll never consider using indicates one of two things: either some of the cards are more applicable to going for a different victory condition or just utilizing a different strategy, which honestly does account for some of it, but the other reason is that the cards that are never used need to be stronger (or the ones you always use need to be weaker, balancing needs to be done.)
Stronger may be too strong a word. More necessary may be better.
You may need the +2 gold per trade route more than the campus adjacency but I would not call it stronger
On Red cards, I just looked through the deck and can confirm I hve used every red card apart from Military Research wish is too little too late, another Raj card. The rest of the red cards have their place.
Not sure I can add much that hasn't already been said, but I think it's great, just maybe needs some tweaks so some decisions aren't too obvious and strong, but the fun part is that there's often 2-3 choices that are really good, and like a few have pointed out, almost all the cards are usable in some fashion.
Only thing that annoys me is the UI and ordering of things. The one turn wonder cards are the source of most of my problems. Talking about the cards that you effectively only need active for one turn but have crazy strong effects you can't really ignore. Like upgrade cost reduction, extra builder charges or free envoys. It's great that it rewards good planning, but you jump around like 5-6 menus just to get the information you need to do so. Maybe if they had a category of card of their own as to not directly compete with the cards with powerful but more passive effects. A typical turn might have me deciding on my government only to close the window then go check 4-5 things, then I have to remember to come back when I've made my decision. Maybe not something needed to be done now, but certainly something to consider if they expand on the systems.
The idea is great, the execution is poor. There are very few cards that matter, but thats more an effect of there being only two real strategies that matter.
There are some categories of cards that are better than others; Red is pretty decent, while gold, for me, has only a few cards I ever use.
The purple cards could probably just be removed entirely. Most of them are the same bonus towards a different great person type. The game already allows you to specialize in great people - you can choose to build more or less of buildings and districts and earn more or less points per great person that way. The cards give you a little boost, but since they are essentially the same card, add micromanagement (and clutter up the card UI) for very little benefit or variety.
For me, there are very few cards that I haven't found useful at some point. Sometimes even +2 faith or tech per turn is enough to win a wonder or great person race. Some of the cards appear underwhelming, but can really be a boon when you are maximizing or working a specific angle. The one card I know off hand I haven't tried (and I'm certain its not the only one) is the card that I believe adds amenities but costs you minus gold per city. Or maybe it offers housing... I forget.
There are certainly frequent fliers, but most of the cards have their place.
I suggest playing some games and make a point of trying cards you normally don't, and growing your strategy going forward around the strengths of those cards and any synergy you notice. You might be surprised... or even discover a devious and brilliant new path to victory!
edit: I have been forced to use and won great person races with those purple cards.
Remember, the best engineers and merchants all come around the same time... even stockpiling and preparing, its easy to be caught in a tenuous situation... and the ai *will* purchase GP with faith and gold.
The one card I know off hand I haven't tried (and I'm certain its not the only one) is the card that I believe adds amenities but costs you minus gold per city. Or maybe it offers housing... I forget.
System is very good. Just not enough spaces for cards Especially best governments have too many military spaces comparing to the same governments in the era (I know - balancing )
I think that even in a strategy game you can allow something that have a small benefit to be a bit tedious, so some players can develop mastery by doing things other people don't bother. Timing policies has a small effect on the game so in my opinion could be a bit tedious. If it was needed to win the game I would have said that the game is tedious (which, by the way, is why civ is not a pure strategy game. You can play and win it without paying too much attention to strategy).
Now - how to make cards more fun - there are many ideas and opinions here. I don't like the suggestion to lock cards until you change government because it will make the game less forgiving and less fun for a forgetful player like me, while not actually make selecting policies more fun. It will block an optimization that the few people who use do probably because they enjoy it. Having fewer cards with more impact I think is good. I think the "economic" category is too wide. I also think governments should have more impact on what you can choose, and more impact on the game in general (but less negative impact on diplomacy).
I really like the government system. As many said, there needs to be balancing - between the card types and also between the cards. But the system itself is cool.
Some thoughts I have:
- don't penalize people that are ehead in culture compared to tech. Those "+Production to units from era1 and era2" should also include always earlier eras.
- Give some more meaningful military cards. I mean cards aside from the +unit-production cards there are not many other types of military cards. If you get to have a government with 5 or mor military slots... there aren't many nice cards.
There is already plenty opportunities to change a card. What about limiting the amount of card changes each time a civic is finished? For example you can only change 1 card each time for the first 4 government types, 2 cards for the next 3 government types and 3 cards for the last three. For each additional card change 1 turn of anarchy could be introduced. Makes the anarchy system more present in the game too.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
So the current set up does reflect reality to a degree.
).
[+4 housing, +2 amineties, -8 gold to all cities with three specialty districts]
Especially best governments have too many military spaces comparing to the same governments in the era 
(I know - balancing 
