C2C - Civics Discussion Thread
- Thread starter EldrinFal
- Start date
CIVPlayer8
Prince
You're right, I just forgot. I'll change it back.
I wasn't planning on them interacting with Guilds. How should they, in your opinion?
Don't worry Joseph, I know people like their options.I agree.
City Limits "The War" occurred during version 17. It was agreed upon that Any City Limits would be an Option at Game set up. To try and put City Limits in and by pass the Option Breaks that agreement.
Do what you want with REV itself, add City Limits to it or not. As Long as REV is a Game setup Option as it is now.
The Civics as a whole has to keep this in mind while being built/rearranged/whatever.
JosEPh
No, that is not possible.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I suppose it could be done... a category prereq tag would need to be developed.
CivPlayer8 - if you want this functionality you'll need to let me know.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I made the Guild National Wonders more appealing with the right techs ...
- Guilds civic now builds all Guild National Wonders 25% faster.
- Apprenticeship civic gives all Guild National Wonders +10% science to the city they are built in.
Note these have been pushed to the SVN.
- Guilds civic now builds all Guild National Wonders 25% faster.
- Apprenticeship civic gives all Guild National Wonders +10% science to the city they are built in.
Note these have been pushed to the SVN.
CIVPlayer8
Prince
For this, no thanks, but thanks for offering.
However, I'd like to know if it's possible for a building to give bonus yields to specialists in that city. Right now it's only possible for a bonus yield to be given to all of the cities.Thank you Hydro.
This is a good update.BTW, I'm currently testing a possible new update, one that significantly increase rev instability and maintenance in the early era. This way, there is still a "limit" for cities, but not so artificial.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Actually it may already be possible there are already PrereqGameOption and NotOnGameOptiontags defined in other schema files. It ignores the object if the game option is not correct. It is part of RoM:AND's extension to WoC. It is not on the civics XML however it may just need the options added to the schema as the code for reading of the XML will probably handle it with no work needed. At least I assume that the bit of code that does this would be at the WoC part which decides if a bit of XML is to be used ie same place andDependancies.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm not sure how it works on other game objects, but on promos, it simply makes the promo impossible or selectively possible for any unit to select by disabling or enabling it across the board based on the option.
Options really can't manipulate the LOADING of the data and that's the rough part (well... they COULD but if they did they'd require a reload of the game if you wanted to make a change and expect the data to change with it as a result).
Options really can't manipulate the LOADING of the data and that's the rough part (well... they COULD but if they did they'd require a reload of the game if you wanted to make a change and expect the data to change with it as a result).
I believe that's one of the higher priority building tags that need to be done. After some further work on the combat mod I plan to knock a significant list of new building tags out and I'm pretty sure this is one of them
CIVPlayer8
Prince
Good to hear.I believe that's one of the higher priority building tags that need to be done. After some further work on the combat mod I plan to knock a significant list of new building tags out and I'm pretty sure this is one of them
@ Everyone
I'm waiting to release a huge update, because I want to hear your opinions. This update basically adds a lot of maintenance/rev instability for the early eras, so you can play without "Civic Limits" on. Also, it makes many of the middle currency civics give "-20%
", in an effort to curb mid game humongous treasuries. Also, it adds 2 new buildings for Gold Standard and Paper Money. These new buildings will add +5% and 15% . And I tried to make the currency civics feel a bit more unique.So to sum it up, 1/5 less gold per turn, and harder early game expansion. I'll release exact details of some changes if requested. I plan to release it Sunday evening.
Good to hear.
@ Everyone
I'm waiting to release a huge update, because I want to hear your opinions. This update basically adds a lot of maintenance/rev instability for the early eras, so you can play without "Civic Limits" on. Also, it makes many of the middle currency civics give "-20%
So to sum it up, 1/5 less gold per turn, and harder early game expansion. I'll release exact details of some changes if requested. I plan to release it Sunday evening.
I'd say absolutely not for the -
on Currency Civics. I added the Tech Commerce Tags to make it so that we could apply these penalties more reliably and gradually if we so wanted to, so if that is an issue (and it is past Medieval) it should go on Techs, NOT on Civics. Other than that I would like to know what the exact numbers are for the maintenance on early civics (it may be too much, but I've been working on this for a year now so I can at least give a rough estimate about how good it is).
*nodnod* I agree with ls612, the money tweaks should be done with the tech/building balance, not with the civics (currently).
I feel that the surplus of gold comes from the lack of balance that the game has in general, people keep throwing in more and more +this or +that buildings and it adds up quickly.
Also, I still agree with the previous sentiment, there should be no limiting of how big your civ can be without REVs turned on. That is the whole point of that mod, why circumvent it and thrust it upon people who do not want to play with that limit?
I still want a way to turn Domination off (not the win, the one where if you have +25% more(orwhatever) people then the average, you get +unhappiness. This REALLY ticks me off towards then end when there are 2 or 3 nations left, I like playing Conquest and beating the game in Conquest is almost impossible with that on -..-)
I feel that the surplus of gold comes from the lack of balance that the game has in general, people keep throwing in more and more +this or +that buildings and it adds up quickly.
Also, I still agree with the previous sentiment, there should be no limiting of how big your civ can be without REVs turned on. That is the whole point of that mod, why circumvent it and thrust it upon people who do not want to play with that limit?
I still want a way to turn Domination off (not the win, the one where if you have +25% more(orwhatever) people then the average, you get +unhappiness. This REALLY ticks me off towards then end when there are 2 or 3 nations left, I like playing Conquest and beating the game in Conquest is almost impossible with that on -..-)
This is actually a new capability I added for techs a week ago, but yes, the balance fix would be better on techs than civics.
Really? I've still no idea what a tech does to money. I just think it would be better to do it that way, rather then drop all civics -20%. If it is done in civics it makes the player feel like your are penalizing them, if it is done to everyone in X tech, then it is just part of the game, and they don't even know it is happening.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I agree.
It seems to be another attempt at killing off the eXpansionist play style and also adversely effects any eXpansionist Leader.
Have you noticed how overburdened with
penalties the Civics are now? It seems every category now carries an unhappiness "tax". 
JosEPh
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
It is getting to the stage where it is becoming very difficult to figure out what the civics do as some do/change too much.
I'd say that if you are going to give clear penalties for choosing some Civics then those Civics should also be compensating for said penalty with clear bonuses too.
It's not only -%, it's also all the various Maintenance increasing Civics currently, especially when using the option to have building maintenance be set in the City Maintenance as it's impossible to get a clear picture of what any increase or decrease in City Maintenances will do to the economy.
For instance I'm not certain that going from Despotism to Monarchy is really worth it. A little less City Maintenance but no idea how much really, but a bunch higher Unit Cost, and moving from ALL cities getting +
to only the Capital getting a little 
and espionage. If going for then yes as you lose the -15% , but if you are strained for economy it's barely or not at all worth it.
And all the later Government Civics ADD to City Maintenance for number of Cities, and most also to Maintenance for distance to Capital. This is keeping costs up, or increasing them, without giving clear benefits to doing so.
Welfare Civics at least can give something for the extra cost though I feel it should be slightly more. Charity, at -2%, I feel should also give something like -1 disease per pop in all cities.
Public Works, at -8%, I feel should give more for the increase in cost. +1 in 12 cities and +25% worker speed is the only clear bonus, the rest is added to buildings so not always even a benefit.
The others look al-right though.
Currency has a few weird upgrades too; Metals to Coinage is not always a better thing to do. If my economy can take the -10% from Metals and I have a bunch of Mines everywhere then Metals is better than Coinage. The same goes for both Metals and Coinage to Banknote. I get less in Maintenances but I lose the +10%
in the Capital from Coinage, or all the +1 on all my mines.
Paper Money costs more in Maintenance than Banknote for a mere +5% in all cities AND a loss in Foreign Trade Routes. A bigger empire would do well to stay on an earlier Civic than Paper Money.
After that with changes to Maintenances it's again difficult to see what does what in terms of monetary gain without trying them out.
Well, enough ranting for now.
Cheers
It's not only -%
, it's also all the various Maintenance increasing Civics currently, especially when using the option to have building maintenance be set in the City Maintenance as it's impossible to get a clear picture of what any increase or decrease in City Maintenances will do to the economy.For instance I'm not certain that going from Despotism to Monarchy is really worth it. A little less City Maintenance but no idea how much really, but a bunch higher Unit Cost, and moving from ALL cities getting +
to only the Capital getting a little and espionage. If going for then yes as you lose the -15% , but if you are strained for economy it's barely or not at all worth it.And all the later Government Civics ADD to City Maintenance for number of Cities, and most also to Maintenance for distance to Capital. This is keeping costs up, or increasing them, without giving clear benefits to doing so.
Welfare Civics at least can give something for the extra cost though I feel it should be slightly more. Charity, at -2%
, I feel should also give something like -1 disease per pop in all cities.Public Works, at -8%
, I feel should give more for the increase in cost. +1 in 12 cities and +25% worker speed is the only clear bonus, the rest is added to buildings so not always even a benefit.The others look al-right though.
Currency has a few weird upgrades too; Metals to Coinage is not always a better thing to do. If my economy can take the -10%
from Metals and I have a bunch of Mines everywhere then Metals is better than Coinage. The same goes for both Metals and Coinage to Banknote. I get less in Maintenances but I lose the +10% in the Capital from Coinage, or all the +1 on all my mines.Paper Money costs more in Maintenance than Banknote for a mere +5%
in all cities AND a loss in Foreign Trade Routes. A bigger empire would do well to stay on an earlier Civic than Paper Money.After that with changes to Maintenances it's again difficult to see what does what in terms of monetary gain without trying them out.
Well, enough ranting for now.
Cheers
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Isn't that the goal of civics? I think it's meant to make you think if a new civic is really better than the old one. If you just need to switch to ne newest civic for the best results, you could just make them normal techs.
But I do agree on the statement that there are civics that just have too many or "invisible" effects.
Regarding the Welfare Civics, it would be really cool if over time they decrease diseases and unhealtyness more and more but also cost more. In a way you could decide how much welfare you could afford.
Some Civics are for me clearly an upgrade while others I do think should be a choice of what to take. The ones I've mentioned as not being clearly "better" are the ones I think should be better than the ones before while others mentioned and not mentioned could very well be a strategical choice. I also have not mentioned all the different Civics that are, for me any way, weird with the update/strategical part. Yet others are just not really clear what they actually give for benefit.
In my opinion any Civic should have an intended benefit. The greater the benefit the more it might cost in Upkeep of that Civic. Adding various City Maintenance additions to them seems to me to be redundant. You already have an increased cost for your amount of cities and Population count in them due to Civic Upkeep. If you want a civic to cost more I'd suggest increasing the base values for those, or upping the Civic one level of upkeep cost, rather than adding City Maintenance costs to them.
I would also like to see more clearly defined Civics. Of course I have not been around to read all the discussions about them these past few months or so but it does seem to me that the changes to the first Civics 2.0 have gone in the wrong direction somehow.
For instance: What are the strategic differences between choosing Democracy, Theology, or Republic?
All three give; + Great Person Growth; + some; + either or ; increased in some form; City Maintenance cost modifiers of approx equal value (R:50%, T:60%, D:25%); and people for either other religions or for War (why Republic has that, and that HIGH too, I have no clue).
Differences are;
Democracy doesn't like defending itself with +1 per military unit
Theocracy has slightly faster build rate of units and buildings
Republic is a slightly worse for than Democracy as it's only in Capital the bonus counts rather than the whole nation.
All three allow different extra buildings (which isn't where any real difference should be I think).
If I missed anything I'm sorry but I can not see how those three really differ that much from each other.
Cheers
In my opinion any Civic should have an intended benefit. The greater the benefit the more it might cost in Upkeep of that Civic. Adding various City Maintenance additions to them seems to me to be redundant. You already have an increased cost for your amount of cities and Population count in them due to Civic Upkeep. If you want a civic to cost more I'd suggest increasing the base values for those, or upping the Civic one level of upkeep cost, rather than adding City Maintenance costs to them.
I would also like to see more clearly defined Civics. Of course I have not been around to read all the discussions about them these past few months or so but it does seem to me that the changes to the first Civics 2.0 have gone in the wrong direction somehow.
For instance: What are the strategic differences between choosing Democracy, Theology, or Republic?
All three give; + Great Person Growth; + some
; + either or ; increased in some form; City Maintenance cost modifiers of approx equal value (R:50%, T:60%, D:25%); and people for either other religions or for War (why Republic has that, and that HIGH too, I have no clue).Differences are;
Democracy doesn't like defending itself with +1
per military unitTheocracy has slightly faster build rate of units and buildings
Republic is a slightly worse for
than Democracy as it's only in Capital the bonus counts rather than the whole nation.All three allow different extra buildings (which isn't where any real difference should be I think).
If I missed anything I'm sorry but I can not see how those three really differ that much from each other.
Cheers
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
@ BG/GT Ranma/Yudishtira, thx for taking a very very good outlook at what is going on in the Civics area, nice to see SOME outside ideas/suggestions other than the modders here (recently), looking out for everyone else's interest in this mod 
Also i'd like to hear what you mentioned here: BG "I also have not mentioned all the different Civics that are, for me any way, weird with the update/strategical part. Yet others are just not really clear what they actually give for benefit." BG
EDIT: @ CIVPlayer8: I need you to get ahold of DH and find out why the Civics are holding BACK the progress of the Barbarians with their city growth, he stated it someplace, but i cant find it now, thx. I cant release the next version WITHOUT this FIXED, sorry.
Also i'd like to hear what you mentioned here: BG "I also have not mentioned all the different Civics that are, for me any way, weird with the update/strategical part. Yet others are just not really clear what they actually give for benefit." BG
EDIT: @ CIVPlayer8: I need you to get ahold of DH and find out why the Civics are holding BACK the progress of the Barbarians with their city growth, he stated it someplace, but i cant find it now, thx. I cant release the next version WITHOUT this FIXED, sorry.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
I too looked at Monarchy (and Sovereignty btw) when they were first available to me and thought - yeah right, like anyone would be stupid enough to change-up to THEM.
A very few turns later, I have gone to Monarchy, and now I've scheduled a revolt to Sovereignty at my earliest convenience. I have no idea what changed (or whether anything did). I may have been missing something before (or may be missing something now lol). Bottom line is, I am going to be thinking twice in future before writing a civic off as unusable/pointless/etc...
Thanks SO - very good of you to include me in this. I'm blushing because my contribution to date really was so itsy-bitsy. (I have now made a slightly more substantial contribution - I'm not blushing as much anymore)
CIVPlayer8
Prince
Ah, I had forgotten about the the new tech commerce!I'd say absolutely not for the -
Other than that I would like to know what the exact numbers are for the maintenance on early civics (it may be too much, but I've been working on this for a year now so I can at least give a rough estimate about how good it is).
Okay, I will change the currency civics back. And here are the changes: Spoiler :
I had sort of taken it upon myself to use civics to reduce some of the excesses of this mod. Maybe civics are the right place for that, maybe they aren't, I'm not sure. But if you guys don't want me doing this, then of course I'll stop.
I'm not sure what you're talking about domination, where it adds unhappiness. Are you talking about civic limits?Right now, a tech does not directly affect your
or , but we now have the ability to change that, thanks to ls612. And you're right about
It's just it wasn't an option until now to use tech commerce.
Like I have said, it was an attempt to curb excess happiness, and make the players build some of those +I agree.
It seems to be another attempt at killing off the eXpansionist play style and also adversely effects any eXpansionist Leader.
Have you noticed how overburdened with
JosEPh
buildings. Everyone has their own opinions about that, but some of those + civics, they have that because they needed another con/downside to those civics.Dancing Hoskuld, remember back when I had my own modmod? And you suggested that I do a "Basic Civic" option, for those who don't want too advanced civics? Should I do this?
The problem with the upkeep cost is that it doesn't allow me to change the cost of the civics enough. There are only 4 categories, Low, Medium, High, and Extreme. There are so many civics in this mod, I need to make them stand out from each other more. I hear you though, I do have + or - maintenance in some places where perhaps it doesn't belong. Garbage comes to mind. I will go back and try to reduce some of the excess maintenance, though. As for the Welfare, yes. They should decrease the disease rate, and maybe even the crime rate, based on your civic. And about the currency, I think it is, for the most part, balanced. Some options that might be terrible in one game might be decent in another.I'd say that if you are going to give clear penalties for choosing some Civics then those Civics should also be compensating for said penalty with clear bonuses too.
It's not only -%
For instance I'm not certain that going from Despotism to Monarchy is really worth it. A little less City Maintenance but no idea how much really, but a bunch higher Unit Cost, and moving from ALL cities getting +
And all the later Government Civics ADD to City Maintenance for number of Cities, and most also to Maintenance for distance to Capital. This is keeping costs up, or increasing them, without giving clear benefits to doing so.
Welfare Civics at least can give something for the extra cost though I feel it should be slightly more. Charity, at -2%gold, I feel should also give something like -1 disease per pop in all cities.
Public Works, at -8%gold, I feel should give more for the increase in cost. +1
The others look al-right though.
Currency has a few weird upgrades too; Metals to Coinage is not always a better thing to do. If my economy can take the -10%
Paper Money costs more in Maintenance than Banknote for a mere +5%
After that with changes to Maintenances it's again difficult to see what does what in terms of monetary gain without trying them out.
Well, enough ranting for now.
Cheers
I tried to make Democracy an upgrade of Republic, and Theocracy is only good if your civilization is religious, and doesn't have many different religions. What government civics do you usually use? I feel like I use them all a fairly equal amount, but thats just one person.I would also like to see more clearly defined Civics. Of course I have not been around to read all the discussions about them these past few months or so but it does seem to me that the changes to the first Civics 2.0 have gone in the wrong direction somehow.
For instance: What are the strategic differences between choosing Democracy, Theology, or Republic?
All three give; + Great Person Growth; + some
Differences are;
Democracy doesn't like defending itself with +1
Theocracy has slightly faster build rate of units and buildings
Republic is a slightly worse for
All three allow different extra buildings (which isn't where any real difference should be I think).
Is it the civics that are holding them back? I think BlueGenie recommended awhile ago to increase the Handicap Infos or something... I don't know what that does though,
but I'll look at it.Similar threads
