C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Raven Destroyer]

Money civic's i find a bit weird to read and pick i usually stick with the Coinage one due to the fact it gives the ability to buy out production (not that i use it that often but still the idea of having it comforts me)
the only Civic not confusing me enough to stick with simple concepts like XP is the Language one as it is simple minded step for step

Probably will need to dive up a guide on Civic's because i do feel like i'm reading over things i would like

 

[strategyonly]

How are "we" doing on a newer set of Civics?

 

[CIVPlayer8]

I am on board with the 'nothing over 25%' rule. Maybe, in an extreme case, a little over.

But it goes back to balance, if it is balanced right, we don't need huge bonuses and huge disadvantages. The civics should be coloring game play, not defining it.

I completely agree with you on that last statement. Civics aren't for shaping the gameplay. They should be more of a tool to play to your personal strengths as a leader, while keeping the negatives at a minimum. I'm sorry that I have let civics grow a little out of control, it has started to shape the game more than it should. Okay. After I release this update, I'm going to do things a little different. Not sure how exactly I'm going to do this, but here is the plan. I'm going to go through all the civic categories, through all the civics. I'm going to layout what each civics strength and weakness is, and we can agree on the effects of the civics. Here is an example:

Spoiler :

Despotism:
Pros: Bonus , + 1 military unit, + Great General, Free military units, Less War ,
Cons: Less , High Maintenance, all cities, High Instability

With this, we can agree on whether this civic has too much power, too little power, etc. I will start this discussion on the first 3 government civics, Anarchism, Chiefdom, and Despotism, tomorrow.

How are "we" doing on a newer set of Civics?

I'm working on the finishing touches right now

 

[strategyonly]

I'm working on the finishing touches right now

Now thats the best news i have had in days, thx. . . SO

 

[CIVPlayer8]

Okay guys, this is the start of the new discussion I mentioned yesterday about the civics. Here, we will discuss the civics, one by one, to help get to where we want to be with civics. I will see things I didn't know before, and we will make appropriate changes. First on the list is the first 3 Government Civics, Anarchism, Chiefdom, and Despotism.
Start of New Discussion:

Anarchism: No Upkeep, No Tech Prereq
-Pros: No Upkeep
-Cons: 200% Distance maintenance, 300% # cities Maintenance, 2 Local Instability, 3 National Instability, 100 instability for adopting, 50% more unstable from distance issues, -20% National Stability, 100% War , +3

My Thoughts: As the first Government civic, it is important to keep it as undesirable as possible, so all civilizations adopt away from it ASAP. However, I'am thinking I might have gone a little overkill. We need to keep maintenance and instability, for difficulty expanding in early era. However, maybe we could afford to lose extra war .

Chiefdom:Low Upkeep, Chiefdom Tech Prereq
-Pros: Free military units for 15% of population, 15% Great General Emergence, -20% War
-Cons: Low Upkeep, 150% Distance/# of cities Maintenance, 2 Local/National Instability, 50 Instability for Adopting, 40% more unstable from Distance issues, -10% National Stability, +1 per 20% Taxes (Running Gold on the science slider)

My Thoughts: Similar to Anarchism, this is an early civic that we want civilizations to, in general, move away from. However, with this civic, the player often starts to acquire more cities, so it is important to keep some positives on this civic. Overall, I think this is a good civic.

Despotism: Low Upkeep, Bronze Working
-Pros: +20% Great General Emergence, Free Military Units for 20% of population, +1 per Military Unit, -30% War , +5%
-Cons: Low Upkeep, 30% Distance Maintenance, 50% # of cities/Overseas Cities Maintenance, 3 Local/National Instability, 60 instability for adopting civic, 35% more unstable from Distance issues, -30% National Instability, +1 for 20% Taxes, +3 , -15%

My Thoughts: personally, and I'm sure most of you guys too, want to see this as the "military" option of the Government Civics. I think this civic has too many cons, with too little pros. I see myself making military units cheaper and possible increasing , and reducing # of cities/overseas maintenance.

Well that is all for today. Remember to post what you feel about these 3 civics, and I might post more tomorrow, probably the next day though.

 

[Mouthwash]

Despotism: Low Upkeep, Bronze Working
-Pros: +20% Great General Emergence, Free Military Units for 20% of population, +1 per Military Unit, -30% War , +5%
-Cons: Low Upkeep, 30% Distance Maintenance, 50% # of cities/Overseas Cities Maintenance, 3 Local/National Instability, 60 instability for adopting civic, 35% more unstable from Distance issues, -30% National Instability, +1 for 20% Taxes, +3 , -15%

FIVE percent? Why even have production bonuses at all if you're going to make them useless? Assuming I indulge in a twenty turn building or wonder, that shaves one turn off of it. In the grand scheme, that's less than nothing.

 

[strategyonly]

OK, finally with the newer ones now, the Barbarians have gone from POP 1 to 2 in about 50 turns, on Marathon. Still a little slow. But its a start from the ones before, whereas not getting any POP. And i am in the Industrial Era. Also there is NO carrying of troops from continent to continent going on, does this also factor into the Civics with the POP going on here??

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'll say it again NO WW should Ever be more or less than +/-25%.

100% WW to -20%WW to -30%WW is too big of a swing, period. Now throw in +3 on 2 of the 1st 3 coupled with a +1 per every 20% of "tax" (Research Slider, "tax" is sooo inappropriate), and it's just plain overkill on .

As I stated before on Anarchism the 200% and 300% maint. costs are ignorable, neither the Player nor the AI will stay with Anarchism. And all this is doing is causing the Barb cities to stay at pop 1.

Here's my proposal based on preceding versions discussion and debates:

Anarchism: No Upkeep, No Tech Prereq
-Pros: No Upkeep
-Cons: 100% Distance maintenance, 100% # cities Maintenance, 2 Local Instability, 3 National Instability, 50% more unstable from distance issues, 25% War , +1

Chiefdom:Low Upkeep, Chiefdom Tech Prereq
-Pros: Low Upkeep, Free military units for 33% of population, 15% Great General Emergence, 10% War
-Cons: 50% Distance/# of cities Maintenance, 2 Local/National Instability, 50 Instability for Adopting, 40% more unstable from Distance issues, +1 per 33% Taxes (Running Gold on the science slider)

Despotism: Low Upkeep, Bronze Working
-Pros: Low Upkeep, +20% Great General Emergence, Free Military Units for 20% of population, -10% War
-Cons: 30% Distance Maintenance, 50% # of cities/Overseas Cities Maintenance, 3 Local/National Instability, 60 instability for adopting civic, 35% more unstable from Distance issues, -30% National Instability, +1 for 25% Taxes

And even this maybe too much for Despotism.

Edit: These Civics do not need to be this complicated. Just causes confusion and is unfocused.

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

I'll say it again NO WW should Ever be more or less than +/-25%.

100% WW to -20%WW to -30%WW is too big of a swing, period. Now throw in +3 on 2 of the 1st 3 coupled with a +1 per every 20% of "tax" (Research Slider, "tax" is sooo inappropriate), and it's just plain overkill on .

As I stated before on Anarchism the 200% and 300% maint. costs are ignorable, neither the Player nor the AI will stay with Anarchism. And all this is doing is causing the Barb cities to stay at pop 1.

Here's my proposal based on preceding versions discussion and debates:

Anarchism: No Upkeep, No Tech Prereq
-Pros: No Upkeep
-Cons: 100% Distance maintenance, 100% # cities Maintenance, 2 Local Instability, 3 National Instability, 50% more unstable from distance issues, 25% War , +1

Chiefdom:Low Upkeep, Chiefdom Tech PrereqJosEPh

Is there anyway to keep Anarchism the way it was before all the changes, it worked OK to me then, is that close to what you have here then JosEPh? I need the Barbarians to POP (UP) as fast as they can, as well as maintaining the AI to the standards a little higher.

Chiefdom needs to be a very important change YOU are finally being able to spread your cities, which MAY be a good thing?

 

[Mouthwash]

I'll say it again NO WW should Ever be more or less than +/-25%.

100% WW to -20%WW to -30%WW is too big of a swing, period. Now throw in +3 on 2 of the 1st 3 coupled with a +1 per every 20% of "tax" (Research Slider, "tax" is sooo inappropriate), and it's just plain overkill on .

As I stated before on Anarchism the 200% and 300% maint. costs are ignorable, neither the Player nor the AI will stay with Anarchism. And all this is doing is causing the Barb cities to stay at pop 1.

Here's my proposal based on preceding versions discussion and debates:

Anarchism: No Upkeep, No Tech Prereq
-Pros: No Upkeep
-Cons: 100% Distance maintenance, 100% # cities Maintenance, 2 Local Instability, 3 National Instability, 50% more unstable from distance issues, 25% War , +1

Chiefdom:Low Upkeep, Chiefdom Tech Prereq
-Pros: Low Upkeep, Free military units for 33% of population, 15% Great General Emergence, 10% War
-Cons: 50% Distance/# of cities Maintenance, 2 Local/National Instability, 50 Instability for Adopting, 40% more unstable from Distance issues, +1 per 33% Taxes (Running Gold on the science slider)

Despotism: Low Upkeep, Bronze Working
-Pros: Low Upkeep, +20% Great General Emergence, Free Military Units for 20% of population, -10% War
-Cons: 30% Distance Maintenance, 50% # of cities/Overseas Cities Maintenance, 3 Local/National Instability, 60 instability for adopting civic, 35% more unstable from Distance issues, -30% National Instability, +1 for 25% Taxes

And even this maybe too much for Despotism.

Edit: These Civics do not need to be this complicated. Just causes confusion and is unfocused.

JosEPh

Why don't you separate Pros and Cons in the in-game description? It would be a lot less confusing that way...

 

[JosEPh_II]

Why don't you separate Pros and Cons in the in-game description? It would be a lot less confusing that way...

What are you talking about?

JosEPh

 

[CIVPlayer8]

FIVE percent? Why even have production bonuses at all if you're going to make them useless? Assuming I indulge in a twenty turn building or wonder, that shaves one turn off of it. In the grand scheme, that's less than nothing.

Note that these are the current civics, and we are discussing changes to the civics. I'm thinking more of +10% . And, IMO, it does make a difference. Over time, if you queue up many buildings, it can make a difference. Still a small one though.

OK, finally with the newer ones now, the Barbarians have gone from POP 1 to 2 in about 50 turns, on Marathon. Still a little slow. But its a start from the ones before, whereas not getting any POP. And i am in the Industrial Era. Also there is NO carrying of troops from continent to continent going on, does this also factor into the Civics with the POP going on here??

I think it was getting rid of tax for Anarchism that allowed the Barbarian cities to grow a bit. And when you say "NO carrying of troops from continent to continent", do you mean the Barbarians, or the other civilizations? Also, that is not a civic issue.

I'll say it again NO WW should Ever be more or less than +/-25%.

100% WW to -20%WW to -30%WW is too big of a swing, period. Now throw in +3 on 2 of the 1st 3 coupled with a +1 per every 20% of "tax" (Research Slider, "tax" is sooo inappropriate), and it's just plain overkill on .

As I stated before on Anarchism the 200% and 300% maint. costs are ignorable, neither the Player nor the AI will stay with Anarchism. And all this is doing is causing the Barb cities to stay at pop 1.

Here's my proposal based on preceding versions discussion and debates:

Anarchism: No Upkeep, No Tech Prereq
-Pros: No Upkeep
-Cons: 100% Distance maintenance, 100% # cities Maintenance, 2 Local Instability, 3 National Instability, 50% more unstable from distance issues, 25% War , +1

Chiefdom:Low Upkeep, Chiefdom Tech Prereq
-Pros: Low Upkeep, Free military units for 33% of population, 15% Great General Emergence, 10% War
-Cons: 50% Distance/# of cities Maintenance, 2 Local/National Instability, 50 Instability for Adopting, 40% more unstable from Distance issues, +1 per 33% Taxes (Running Gold on the science slider)

Despotism: Low Upkeep, Bronze Working
-Pros: Low Upkeep, +20% Great General Emergence, Free Military Units for 20% of population, -10% War
-Cons: 30% Distance Maintenance, 50% # of cities/Overseas Cities Maintenance, 3 Local/National Instability, 60 instability for adopting civic, 35% more unstable from Distance issues, -30% National Instability, +1 for 25% Taxes

And even this maybe too much for Despotism.

Edit: These Civics do not need to be this complicated. Just causes confusion and is unfocused.

JosEPh

I like a lot of these ideas. Especially for Despotism. However, I think we may need to keep Anarchism high maintenance. Reason being, we have to also keep Chiefdom relatively high maintenance. So, when the player begins to expand other Chiefdom, they don't have free reign to expand, and I feel 50% is too little for Chiefdom. And if Chiefdom has more maintenance than Anarchism, people won't make the switch.

Why don't you separate Pros and Cons in the in-game description? It would be a lot less confusing that way...

Are you confusing Joseph to be a civic designer? He's just posting his ideas.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I originally thought about Chiefdom being at 90%, then 75% maint., but even then by taking it to the level I did post the AI Will change from Anarchism to Chiefdom.

And where does Chiefdom have more Maint. in what I posted than Anarchism?

Player/AI eXpansion should Never be dictated by Civics. I've fought that battle before and got a compromise in City Limits by Civics to be an Option. Now you are trying to Circumvent that compromise. Please, why reinvent the wheel, again??!!

JosEPh

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Player/AI eXpansion should Never be dictated by Civics.

I was under the impression that civics described how your nation worked. As such I would expect it to have a large affect on how much you could expand. Although mostly through economics which is done through maintenanec.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I was under the impression that civics described how your nation worked. As such I would expect it to have a large affect on how much you could expand. Although mostly through economics which is done through maintenanec.

Okay if I need to spell it out (this should really not be necessary but for clarity), Civics should not have Arbitrary City Limits, ie, Chiefdom can only have 3 cities, Despotism can only have 6. That's Unrealistic and is a strong arm tactic on game play.

An Empire's choice of Civics, with their associated cumulative economic, social, and cultural impacts, will produce an effect on how fast or well an Empire expands. And That is what makes for good game play not arbitrary limits. And as an aside does not negate a type of play style nor a type of leader as arbitrary limits do also.

JosEPh

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

So civics should be the major limiting factor on expansion - as I said. But it should not be arbitrary in that I agree. The aim should be for those city limits to be the natural expansion with those civic options rather than being specifically defined any where. We should be defining Chiefdom in a way that a normal economy can support 3 cities either when you change to chiefdom or soon afterwards and so on for the other civics. If you economy is stronger or gets stronger then you will be able to support more than 3 cities with Chiefdom.

 

[ls612]

@CivPlayer8:

I agree with Joe, we should be careful about the extreme negatives on civics, the 25% rule sounds reasonable enough. Other than that I don't have much opposition to the current proposal.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@DH,
Yes. And if crafted properly would flow with the changes in Tech and Era. That's the way I play C2C and why I fight arbitrary limits.

But we have also used food, bad health and unhappiness to curtail "city spamming" or as it's really called expansionism. Not to mention that we have also placed things like food per pop and total food for 1 pop growth into it as well. Not even mentioning all the hidden modifiers to Gold and commerce. The list of inhibitors to growth is quite long.

Why?Here's one reason imo, because a segment of users/developers does not want to manage but a handful of cities nor do they want to face an AI that can manage more than a handful of cities (this is a real key and why REV is perceived as to be so popular). The same segment also does not like to micro manage and so look for means to place arbitrary limits to reduce this type of management. It's the now classic Micro vs Macro conflict. And that is a whole 'nother discussion! Because 4X Turn based Tactics and Strategy games are made for management of details, down to the smallest and not just for only the largest.(stepping down off soapbox now )

JosEPh

 

[hotrodlincoln]

From a personal standpoint, the city limits on some civics seems very ah...random. Republic and Monarchy is where it really starts to fall apart. Republic has a limit of 20 cities, and Monarchy has a limit of 12 cities. Other than the Roman Republic, Republics throughout history have always been very, very small. Monarchies, on the other hand, have represented the lion's share of massive empires, like the British Empire, Russia under the Tsars, The Spanish Empire, etc. I think what would help to make some sense of all this would be to have more than one form of monarchy. How a monarch ruled changed quite a bit from the days of Sumeria to the early modern era. A later monarchy would have a larger city limit, to make those massive colonial empires possible without having to run bizarre civics (I feel odd running republic with most civs, maybe it's just me. The Republic of Babylon and the Republic of China just feels off...and yes, I am aware that there is a Republic of China, which governed China from the fall of the Qing Dynasty to the Communist takeover, and currently administers Taiwan.)

 

[CIVPlayer8]

From a personal standpoint, the city limits on some civics seems very ah...random. Republic and Monarchy is where it really starts to fall apart. Republic has a limit of 20 cities, and Monarchy has a limit of 12 cities. Other than the Roman Republic, Republics throughout history have always been very, very small. Monarchies, on the other hand, have represented the lion's share of massive empires, like the British Empire, Russia under the Tsars, The Spanish Empire, etc. I think what would help to make some sense of all this would be to have more than one form of monarchy. How a monarch ruled changed quite a bit from the days of Sumeria to the early modern era. A later monarchy would have a larger city limit, to make those massive colonial empires possible without having to run bizarre civics (I feel odd running republic with most civs, maybe it's just me. The Republic of Babylon and the Republic of China just feels off...and yes, I am aware that there is a Republic of China, which governed China from the fall of the Qing Dynasty to the Communist takeover, and currently administers Taiwan.)

Before, I tried to make it so Republic had the tightest city limits. Something happened, I can't really remember though. And I recently released a patch, so you could play without civic limits. You still can, it's a greater challenge, but just thought it's worth mentioning.

@Joseph, it seems to me, that you are of the opinion that civics should have a minimalistic effect on the game, and that other factors, not civics, should decrease excess gold/city building/happiness/etc. It's just that civics need to do some of this decreasing, we can't rely entirely on other stuff, such as crime. They can certainly afford to have less cons, but to take away too many of their downsides would lead to great excesses. I hope I explained it well, and that you keep this in mind.