Open borders with a civ that uses different civic choices to you (free exchange of ideas that your choices would regard as subversive) is a reasonable rationale for this IMO. Ideally the mechanic would be more subtle, and would give instability only if those players you had open borders with DID have 'subversive' (relative to yours) civics. However, that would introduce a layer of extra AI requirements I'd rather not open up right now (but in the future we may be able to introduce such subleties)
C2C - Civics Discussion Thread
- Thread starter EldrinFal
- Start date
Open borders with a civ that uses different civic choices to you (free exchange of ideas that your choices would regard as subversive) is a reasonable rationale for this IMO. Ideally the mechanic would be more subtle, and would give instability only if those players you had open borders with DID have 'subversive' (relative to yours) civics. However, that would introduce a layer of extra AI requirements I'd rather not open up right now (but in the future we may be able to introduce such subleties)
Il Principe
Prince
I agree on the subversivness ( and also the long term goal of making it more precise as to whoom you open your borders to). Those thigns why I alwys advocate making civics itneract with each other. In a liberal , federal, free church society are so many ideas freely expressed by your own citicens.. how much subversion is there from outside? I wouldn´t say non. Open borderswould also allow dangerous radicals of any colour. But it is nowhere near as bad for your satbility as when you choose to repress your subjects. Then outside ideas are of course much more dangerous.
That said... there are of course other more important thigns to do ;9 Like smoothign out the cobat mod and viewports, getting multimaps soemday, your constnat figth to make the AI keep up with whats already in the mod...
I was thinking maybe the industrial/modern++ civics should get a new category of civic maintenance cost, not just HIGH, but astronomical! 
I think civic costs are a really good way to help balance the game and reduce excess
. It scales with difficulty level and forces the player to think twice about certain civics. Forcing the player to make hard choices is good for the game, so they can't just always get the best unit, best building, best civic etc etc.
I think civic costs are a really good way to help balance the game and reduce excess
. It scales with difficulty level and forces the player to think twice about certain civics. Forcing the player to make hard choices is good for the game, so they can't just always get the best unit, best building, best civic etc etc.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I was thinking maybe the industrial/modern++ civics should get a new category of civic cost, not just HIGH, but astronomical!
I think civic costs are a really good way to help balance the game since it changes with difficulty and forces the player to think twice about certain civics. Forcing the player to make hard choices is good for the game, so they can't just always get the best unit, best building, best civic etc etc.
I agree that with our current financial system the civic upkeep rating makes a very small impact overall it seems and could be due for some increased severity, and potentially a new higher rating as well for the later end. The original scheme worked for vanilla but we've got a longer timeframe and curve to consider here.
I would rather wait until my Building and Unit
cost modifiers are implemented. I have some plans for those but am waiting on posting them until after the Build Cost changes are added.This image is the game im currently playing, its deity and giant size. Keep in mind I added +20% to +40% civic upkeep on a lot of the traits while ago, so I have probably like +80% civic costs. As you can see its my largest cost, (my army is pretty small tho, about half the AI's). Yet I still can run 100% science (no cities are building wealth), and im still making a profit.
*Edit* Looking at this image, its kinda obvious that $313 income from buildings is clearly too much. Too many buildings with +
Spoiler :
*Edit* Looking at this image, its kinda obvious that $313 income from buildings is clearly too much. Too many buildings with +
Was that game begun before my Gamespeed updates?
No only started it yesterday, but I edited the marathon to <iResearchPercent> to 450 and l lowered ancient <iTechCostModifier> to 40 for example. Also gave AI some extra advantages and stuff.
Nothing that should effect
too much though.No only started it yesterday, but I edited the marathon to <iResearchPercent> to 450 and l lowered ancient <iTechCostModifier> to 40 for example. Also gave AI some extra advantages and stuff.
Nothing that should effect
OK, good, I thought you were using my new gamespeeds and was very concerned about you being in the Classical Era in 4000 BC.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
And we just went thru all this 3 months ago or less and Koshling made serious adjustments. Sgtslick plays with an altered version. Take that into consideration please.
313 gold from 278 bldgs is not excessive, it's reasonable.
JosEPh
313 gold from 278 bldgs is not excessive, it's reasonable.
The problem as I see it is that im running a 0% tax.
I tell you what would be awesome if your income from these buildings depended on your taxation. So if your running 0% it actually costs you money but as you increase the tax it changes.
And we just went thru all this 3 months ago or less and Koshling made serious adjustments. Sgtslick plays with an altered version. Take that into consideration please.
313 gold from 278 bldgs is not excessive, it's reasonable.
JosEPh
I agree with you at least through the Classical Era things are more or less balanced
wise. However, SgtSlick is almost into the Medieval era in that pic, and so at that point I think that there starts to be some runaway gold, which should be curbed. But I'm against making any more major changes to the gold through the early eras.I agree. It would be interesting and easier to balance if some of the gold income on buildings depends on the slider.
Taxman66
King
Or maybe change the for 
in some/many of the buildings. That could at least force a change in the science/taxation rate.
for in some/many of the buildings. That could at least force a change in the science/taxation rate.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I was thinking maybe the industrial/modern++ civics should get a new category of civic maintenance cost, not just HIGH, but astronomical!
I think civic costs are a really good way to help balance the game and reduce excess
Some already use Astronomical. Such as Off Planet Dumping uses Astronomical cost. Same with Mind Control, Time Drafting, Time Travel Education and Universal Translator.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I was thinking more about the later game than this when agreeing there should be civic upkeep levels higher than what we have.
@Slick: Do you have a religion with a shrine bringing in gold in this breakdown? If so, how many?
@Slick: Do you have a religion with a shrine bringing in gold in this breakdown? If so, how many?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I don't want to argue with you or even disagree since I just wanted to mention my civic idea thingy, but I don't know how you can say with a straight face that +31
How is only 31 gold/turn even on Deity unbalanced? Yes you have 0% tax because you've kept the research slider at 100% and have allocated absolutely nothing to the Espionage slider not even 5%. Do that and some "Tax" will show up.
Look of those 278 buildings how many, Like Jewelery, produce more than 2 gold? Of the 10-15 buildings that do this, they skew this building costs, and it's not a fair representation of balance at all. Break the buildings down and make adjustments there not on Everything. That's whats wrong with the picture and the suggestion. Your throwing the baby and bath water out cause you don't like the soap. These generalities have messed with this Mod in the past. And as I posted early Koshling spent valuable time working this over and you want to do it again? That's what is incredulous.
JosEPh
Similar threads
