Better RoM

[Afforess]

Isn't -50% growth rate = twice slower? -100% looks like a total stagnation.

No, it works the other way around. In game, it's actually called Food Threshold Rate, so 100% faster city growth would mean cities only need 1 food to grow, whereas 100% slower growth doubles the food needed to grow.

 

[fox456]

But if you Don't use REV (like me), it's getting hard to acquire tiles and neighboring AI cities thru Culture. Don't take it away from those of us that use it and don't use REV.

I agree -- I don't regularly use Revolutions either and would like to revitalize the culture city-flipping feature.

 

[szemek77]

With Slavery's new buffing, I may give that ability to coinage.

Good idea. As far as you have currency, you should be able to buy stuff

Hmm, how would you signal to use it? I don't really understand the concept...

As simple, as you have the "hurry up production" button, but you will use gathered instead of .

 

[Retrospect]

No, it works the other way around. In game, it's actually called Food Threshold Rate, so 100% faster city growth would mean cities only need 1 food to grow, whereas 100% slower growth doubles the food needed to grow.

I think that alot of us here have misconceptions about slavery. First of all the word slave is derived from the medieval latin word sclave meaning slavic.

As for the Helots, indeed that word means prisoner of war. They came from when sparta conqurered the lands in messina during the peleponesian war. The people in those lands were treated as slaves, so while being part of spartan lands the indigenous people did not have the same status as those who were true spartans. So the population as a whole was captured and subsequent generations were born into slavery. I believe this was the most common form of slavery through the ages as whole.

Whereas i think some of you are focusing too much on the soldiers captured in battle side of slavery and slaver business that was much more insignificant compared to entire populations that were born into bondage.

My point is that each civilisation and age treated their slaves differently. Some groups of slaves indeed were treat almost like family but the majority were not, albeit with varying degrees of brutality innequity.

My thoughts on it are that production/income etc should be raised but free thinking should be lowered, so there should culture/ science/GP penalties due to a portion of your population being slaves. Also this shoiuld incurr a happiness penalty or revolutions penalty as no population enjoys having their liberty taken from them/ this should offset the happiness gained from the population that benefit from the slaves. There should also be a health panalty to simulate the poor living conditions.

As it stands now i think the slavery civic is pretty good but i would like to see more reason for the player to change when more modern civics become available. Is it possible to make revolutions more likely the longer you run slavery? This way you could make slavery more overpowered but you run the risk of revolt the longer you run it. Sounds like the most realistic way of doing it in my opinion.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here I just dont want to see the player restricted to running slavery everytime for thousands of years, choice is everything to me in this game

Edit: Ooops don't know why it quoted you there Afforess! The post wasn't aimed in any particular direction.

 

[Killtech]

I think that alot of us here have misconceptions about slavery. First of all the word slave is derived from the medieval latin word sclave meaning slavic.

the ethymology of the word is not certain jet. that it derives form slavs is one theory. another possibility is from greek 'skyleúo' meaning 'makeing spoils of war'. an arabic heretige is possible too.

As for the Helots, indeed that word means prisoner of war. They came from when sparta conqurered the lands in messina during the peleponesian war. The people in those lands were treated as slaves, so while being part of spartan lands the indigenous people did not have the same status as those who were true spartans. So the population as a whole was captured and subsequent generations were born into slavery. I believe this was the most common form of slavery through the ages as whole.

Whereas i think some of you are focusing too much on the soldiers captured in battle side of slavery and slaver business that was much more insignificant compared to entire populations that were born into bondage.

soldiers are not the only prisoners of war - at least not along the thinking of prior ages. they are just people from nations that one was at war with. the spartans even declared formally each year war to the Helots keep their status as prisoners of war.

My point is that each civilisation and age treated their slaves differently. Some groups of slaves indeed were treat almost like family but the majority were not, albeit with varying degrees of brutality innequity.

True. and what i wanted to point out is that slavery in the early ages strongly differs form the slavery during the colonization phaze which most might think of. in the classic ages slaves were mostly understood as people form defeated nations or became slaves by debt bondage. therefore they were not seen as inferior in any sense and could fully regain their citizen status. they could even buy themselfs free.

As it stands now i think the slavery civic is pretty good but i would like to see more reason for the player to change when more modern civics become available. Is it possible to make revolutions more likely the longer you run slavery? This way you could make slavery more overpowered but you run the risk of revolt the longer you run it. Sounds like the most realistic way of doing it in my opinion.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here I just dont want to see the player restricted to running slavery everytime for thousands of years, choice is everything to me in this game

this is why i do object to restric 'capturing' to slavery civic only and chose the term prisoner instead of slave.

 

[Afforess]

I think that alot of us here have misconceptions about slavery. First of all the word slave is derived from the medieval latin word sclave meaning slavic.

As for the Helots, indeed that word means prisoner of war. They came from when sparta conqurered the lands in messina during the peleponesian war. The people in those lands were treated as slaves, so while being part of spartan lands the indigenous people did not have the same status as those who were true spartans. So the population as a whole was captured and subsequent generations were born into slavery. I believe this was the most common form of slavery through the ages as whole.

Whereas i think some of you are focusing too much on the soldiers captured in battle side of slavery and slaver business that was much more insignificant compared to entire populations that were born into bondage.

My point is that each civilisation and age treated their slaves differently. Some groups of slaves indeed were treat almost like family but the majority were not, albeit with varying degrees of brutality innequity.

My thoughts on it are that production/income etc should be raised but free thinking should be lowered, so there should culture/ science/GP penalties due to a portion of your population being slaves. Also this shoiuld incurr a happiness penalty or revolutions penalty as no population enjoys having their liberty taken from them/ this should offset the happiness gained from the population that benefit from the slaves. There should also be a health panalty to simulate the poor living conditions.

Agreed. People can not seem to decide what we want slavery to represent.

As it stands now i think the slavery civic is pretty good but i would like to see more reason for the player to change when more modern civics become available. Is it possible to make revolutions more likely the longer you run slavery? This way you could make slavery more overpowered but you run the risk of revolt the longer you run it. Sounds like the most realistic way of doing it in my opinion.

There is a pretty big reason in the Revolution effects, Slowed City growth and Bonus happiness to non-slavery nations. If I made the Revolutions effects much higher, it would be useless, and not all players use Revolutions, which makes it an imperfect balancing tool.

 

[konradcabral]

The reason we cannot find a consensus about slavery is because slavery should not be a economy civic, despite it has effects on it. We could have coinage or mercantilism or free market with or without slavery. I suggest recreate the Labor Civics column, with: Soft Slavery (the greek one), Hard Slavery (colonial), Serfdom, etc.

 

[MisterBenn]

I think I'd agree that now we have some early Economy Civic choices, that Slavery could safely be moved elsewhere. I like the new proposed changes.

Now a couple of suggestions which are not slavery related:

1) I find that in the early game (i.e. up to medieval era) I only build farms over the food resources that require them - in all other cases I build cottages. The food output is the same with both farm and cottage but cottages of course have the commerce. Even the extra one food from Caste doesn't seem worth the disadvantages that the civic brings. Perhaps cottages should yield one less food, so there is a choice to make? Most of my games have come to a conclusion before the high tech additional yields from farms have ever made me consider making large scale use of them.

2) I wonder if you'd be so bold as to remove the "(S)" set of Warlord General units from the game and perhaps just make them an option. They seem to be very unbalancing. The promotions available to units lead by a Great General are superb (Heroic, Tactics, Leadership, Siege Master, Bezerker etc) and these Warlord General (S) units make it possible to have them throughout your attacking stacks. The cost is to have a city queue dedicated to producing them, but you will end up with a stack of super-units once you combine them all, and it is also efficient in terms of army maintenance cost. It is easy to produce stacks that can roll over enemy cities without siege weapons or incurring losses, and the AI does not know how to replicate this tactic or defend against it. I think they devalue any traits / civics / wonders you'd consider which boost the great general rate as you can get the vast majority of the benefits on a wide scale from elsewhere. I think just the regular Warlord General units are fine (and they obey the national unit limit), is it possible to have just these available by default?

 

[Retrospect]

Agreed. People can not seem to decide what we want slavery to represent.



There is a pretty big reason in the Revolution effects, Slowed City growth and Bonus happiness to non-slavery nations. If I made the Revolutions effects much higher, it would be useless, and not all players use Revolutions, which makes it an imperfect balancing tool.

I suppose it will come down to a general consensus of what the word 'slavery' means. Shame about about the revolutions part although I understand why it would be inpractical.

I think I'd agree that now we have some early Economy Civic choices, that Slavery could safely be moved elsewhere. I like the new proposed changes.

Now a couple of suggestions which are not slavery related:

1) I find that in the early game (i.e. up to medieval era) I only build farms over the food resources that require them - in all other cases I build cottages. The food output is the same with both farm and cottage but cottages of course have the commerce. Even the extra one food from Caste doesn't seem worth the disadvantages that the civic brings. Perhaps cottages should yield one less food, so there is a choice to make? Most of my games have come to a conclusion before the high tech additional yields from farms have ever made me consider making large scale use of them.

2) I wonder if you'd be so bold as to remove the "(S)" set of Warlord General units from the game and perhaps just make them an option. They seem to be very unbalancing. The promotions available to units lead by a Great General are superb (Heroic, Tactics, Leadership, Siege Master, Bezerker etc) and these Warlord General (S) units make it possible to have them throughout your attacking stacks. The cost is to have a city queue dedicated to producing them, but you will end up with a stack of super-units once you combine them all, and it is also efficient in terms of army maintenance cost. It is easy to produce stacks that can roll over enemy cities without siege weapons or incurring losses, and the AI does not know how to replicate this tactic or defend against it. I think they devalue any traits / civics / wonders you'd consider which boost the great general rate as you can get the vast majority of the benefits on a wide scale from elsewhere. I think just the regular Warlord General units are fine (and they obey the national unit limit), is it possible to have just these available by default?

I like the new warlord units but i do agree with you. I think its just the fact that you can make so many of them. I think a lower unit limit would probably be better.

 

[Afforess]

I think I'd agree that now we have some early Economy Civic choices, that Slavery could safely be moved elsewhere. I like the new proposed changes.

I think it would be an interesting early society civic, but the society civics are more broken than any other civic class... Proletariat is way too OP.

1) I find that in the early game (i.e. up to medieval era) I only build farms over the food resources that require them - in all other cases I build cottages. The food output is the same with both farm and cottage but cottages of course have the commerce. Even the extra one food from Caste doesn't seem worth the disadvantages that the civic brings. Perhaps cottages should yield one less food, so there is a choice to make? Most of my games have come to a conclusion before the high tech additional yields from farms have ever made me consider making large scale use of them.

An Interesting thought.

2) I wonder if you'd be so bold as to remove the "(S)" set of Warlord General units from the game and perhaps just make them an option. They seem to be very unbalancing. The promotions available to units lead by a Great General are superb (Heroic, Tactics, Leadership, Siege Master, Bezerker etc) and these Warlord General (S) units make it possible to have them throughout your attacking stacks. The cost is to have a city queue dedicated to producing them, but you will end up with a stack of super-units once you combine them all, and it is also efficient in terms of army maintenance cost. It is easy to produce stacks that can roll over enemy cities without siege weapons or incurring losses, and the AI does not know how to replicate this tactic or defend against it. I think they devalue any traits / civics / wonders you'd consider which boost the great general rate as you can get the vast majority of the benefits on a wide scale from elsewhere. I think just the regular Warlord General units are fine (and they obey the national unit limit), is it possible to have just these available by default?

'

I can make them a game option, but what should the name of the option be? Is there an existing option they should be tied to?

I get the general feeling that the RoM Civics are just too broken to continue repairing them. Would you prefer that I include my new Civics in with Better RoM and toss out the old civics completely?

 

[Retrospect]

The reason we cannot find a consensus about slavery is because slavery should not be a economy civic, despite it has effects on it. We could have coinage or mercantilism or free market with or without slavery. I suggest recreate the Labor Civics column, with: Soft Slavery (the greek one), Hard Slavery (colonial), Serfdom, etc.

Perhaps it also has a place in the miltary civic in the way that vassalage is duplicated now?!? That way everyone can have their cake and eat it................ Mmmmmm cake

 

[civ_king]

scrap the whole thing AND start anew

 

[Retrospect]

I get the general feeling that the RoM Civics are just too broken to continue repairing them. Would you prefer that I include my new Civics in with Better RoM and toss out the old civics completely?

I'm afraid I'm not very good at looking at this sort of thing on paper. I tend to to have to play test. Although I do think a rewrite might be needed

 

[winthrowe]

I get the general feeling that the RoM Civics are just too broken to continue repairing them. Would you prefer that I include my new Civics in with Better RoM and toss out the old civics completely?

Yes Please. I read them a month or so ago and quite liked the idea. I don't have time to review recent changes right now, but the concept seems perhaps easier to balance overall.

 

[os79]

Yeah, go ahead and replace the old civic system for the new one you created.

 

[Kaleb]

My thoughts on it are that production/income etc should be raised but free thinking should be lowered, so there should culture/ science/GP penalties due to a portion of your population being slaves. Also this shoiuld incurr a happiness penalty or revolutions penalty as no population enjoys having their liberty taken from them/ this should offset the happiness gained from the population that benefit from the slaves. There should also be a health panalty to simulate the poor living conditions.

I agree with all of the above if we are including slaves among our population. What I'm suggesting though is that slaves are treated as an extra population aside from the main population as generally nations didn't enslave their own people but rather foreign peoples that were either conquered or imported originally, even if over future generations they lived alongside the free population.

I agree on the health penalty but more indirectly as the poor living conditions of the slaves can also affect the conditions of the free population.

I think we generally agree on the fact that having a large percentage of the population living in your lands as slaves means they are living in misery and it is no picnic and you're not likely to get many tech breakthroughs or cultural advancement from them. My suggestion is that by excluding them from the counted population as I am suggesting they are effectively contributing nothing to great people growth or science other than the bonuses to the tiles they work. But this in turn comes at a price.

One concern I have though is that if the 100% slower growth is the main penalty for running slavery if your cities are already running at their happy cap/food limit then this slower growth rate isn't really much of a penalty. I also agree with the poster that often I don't run farms so the food bonus from farms isn't going to be present in many cities. Should we also add +1 to pastures? I wouldn't add it to camps as you don't want your slaves running around with bows and spears do you?

Oh and of course cottages do boost food but only until they become a village so it's not too wise to base all your food surplus on cottage tiles!

 

[Killtech]

I get the general feeling that the RoM Civics are just too broken to continue repairing them. Would you prefer that I include my new Civics in with Better RoM and toss out the old civics completely?

Oh huh, that's a big step. and certaily you should open a new thread to dicuss that. or better a thread for each departament.

Ok, looking through the link i like your classification. but: there too many departaments IMHO and way too many civics and configutations to choose from making each less special. i think that the departaments of executive, legislative, juristicion, religion, defense and economy are fundamental while the rest seem to go too deep into detail and should partially be merged into other categories. but one category that i miss is the social structure of your empires society (communism should be in this category since it a social model together with caste, slavery or surveillance society). maybe call it departament of social affairs.

let's go into some detail about some of 'minor' departaments:
1. agriculture: the policy in this sector is mostly dependant on the society model and the economy you run. therefore i don't think we need a distinct departament for this.
2. commerce: i'd call it economy departament.
3. energy: public & private? this rather belongs into economy.
4. homeland security: sounds strage, at least for not US citizens. ok but you think of it as a 'secret service' departament which is indeed not covered by the other groups. i don't think we need this as long as there aren't more factors its civics can influence (like increase cost for enemy esionage, spy stating xp, detection probability...)
5. housing: it's covered by economy, society and executive.
6. labour: from what i see in your list it's what i'd understand under the term social model.
7. immigration: well it could be intergrated into another catagory (slavery is based on slave immigration i think) but it could be discussed as an own group for the later epoches.
8. waste: better named 'departament of ecology'. parts of it this could be merged into economy but i think it's worth an own departament when it's competence would cover more than waste.
9. health: a proplematic topic for me. it's hard to talk about the health system of the ancient greeks. and untill now and weren't that relevant in RoM. so maybe wait with this until AND balaces health that it becomes an issue.
10. i see that a lot of your civics deal about how your empire interacts with others - not only on economic level. therefore one could take a departament for foreign affairs/policy into consideration that explicitly handles such issues.
11. in executiv departament: communism isn't a goverment but a society model. if you think of the soviet union it's dictatorship. or when you think of what it should be ideally it's 'council republic' or soviet republiic ('soviet' rus. = council) which is one of the most democratic system ever know.

i agree on NBAfan
VVV

 

[NBAfan]

I think you should release Better ROM before you toss out the old civics completely.

 

[konradcabral]

I think you should release Better ROM before you toss out the old civics completely.

Me too, and in the meanwhile open a thread to discuss the departments.

 

[MisterBenn]

I like the new warlord units but i do agree with you. I think its just the fact that you can make so many of them. I think a lower unit limit would probably be better.

I like the gameplay mechanic too but it seems hard to balance. The "S" units are already a national unit with limit of one, but when they are attached the unit can always be rebuilt again. If the Warlord "S" units were out of A New Dawn by default and available as an install option I'd be very happy, and I'd suggest that option were called "Attachable Warlords" ! The regular Warlords are still of good use with a naturally high strength when they arrive, and superb potential from the Lead By General promotion they come with.

Regarding the possible Civic overhaul, I would be very much for seeing Afforess' suggestions as an option for testing out. You can guarantee a couple of threads will go mad once it's out there - civics are always a hot topic!

Ah - and another minor thought. (I haven't yet seen what the tweaks are to the arctic buildings in the latest 1.54 patch as I have a game in progress.) I was going to suggest though that the Arctic buildings be dependent on having ice within the city BFC rather than being a certain latitude, and to perhaps apply bonuses to ice tile yields such as perhaps one food and/or commerce. Depending on map options you might not find ice and the north/south extremes or perhaps you will see ice all over with the cold climate map gen options. With these suggestions you will definitely only see igloos / ice palaces where ice actually exists regardless of the map type.