C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[JosEPh_II]

<snip>
@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.

I think you failed utterly to understand my point.

What is the purpose of Civics?

Why did Sid and team keep Civics few and simple in Civ's development?

Neither Civics or Leader traits (for example) should dominate game play. They should help shape the experience not command it.

My point was about arbitrary limits and over complexity. If you fail to see that then what can I say to enlighten you?

JosEPh

 

[GT Ranma]

*rubs chin* Hmmm...

It really seems as if we need to steam line this conversation back to just this civics, there is a little to much argument over the direction of the REV mod.

Ok, there is a thread just for REV, so we can hammer out exactly what we want it to be doing without mucking up this thread for CIVPlayer8.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12135686#post12135686

So, this way we can let CIVPlayer8 and the people who do not play with REV on argue in this thread about the expansion limits they want put on, and people who DO play with REV on can argue about what they want REV to do in the REV thread, and then CIVPlayer8 can add in the tougher REV limits once they are hammered out as well?

Sounds good?

 

[hotrodlincoln]

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.

City Limits by Civic is a game option, anyway. A game option I rather like, as it keeps civilizations from ballooning into absurdly large territories right after researching tribalism. I just wish it gave you more options. The way it is now, you would have to be a complete lunatic to keep monarchy when republic is available.

 

[strategyonly]

I just wish it gave you more options.

I agree also, but what do you think would be a great contributing factor for YOU then to have there?

 

[hotrodlincoln]

I would make monarchy more complex than just 'monarchy', for starters. Something like 'Early Hereditary Rule', 'Imperial Rule', 'Feudal Monarchy', 'Elective Monarchy' (Holy Roman Empire), 'Absolute Monarchy', 'Parliamentary Monarchy'

Early Hereditary Rule would be a very bare bones form of kingship. Think of the early kings of Sumeria, when mankind was still figuring this whole 'civilization' thing out. Lines of succession aren't so clear, and the king's authority is often challenged by his subjects. This would be a step-up from Chiefdom, but would still be plagued by revolution issues and the inability to make large empires.

Imperial Rule, Feudal Monarchy, Elective Monarchy would be able to exist concurrently, in that they would all be equally as useful, though Imperial Rule would come first. Imperial Rule would allow the largest civilization, Feudal Monarchy would provide military advantages, and Elective Monarchy would be more stable.

Absolute Monarchy would come in towards the end of the medieval/early rennaisance. Think of Louis XIV's France, where much of the power was taken from the nobles and transferred to the king. This would be a powerful civic, though it would have unhappiness issues associated with it.

Parliamentary Monarchy would be the last, and would be intended to be useful enough that it could be used from the late Rennaisance on through the entire rest of the game if you so desired.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

I think you failed utterly to understand my point.

What is the purpose of Civics?

Why did Sid and team keep Civics few and simple in Civ's development?

Neither Civics or Leader traits (for example) should dominate game play. They should help shape the experience not command it.

My point was about arbitrary limits and over complexity. If you fail to see that then what can I say to enlighten you?

JosEPh

Yes, this is what I said, in a way. Minimalistic meaning a lot less effect then currently. And I agree about artificial limits, but I don't want to reduce to the simpleness of vanilla. I will probably make a "Simple Civics" game option in the not too distant future though.

I would make monarchy more complex than just 'monarchy', for starters. Something like 'Early Hereditary Rule', 'Imperial Rule', 'Feudal Monarchy', 'Elective Monarchy' (Holy Roman Empire), 'Absolute Monarchy', 'Parliamentary Monarchy'

Early Hereditary Rule would be a very bare bones form of kingship. Think of the early kings of Sumeria, when mankind was still figuring this whole 'civilization' thing out. Lines of succession aren't so clear, and the king's authority is often challenged by his subjects. This would be a step-up from Chiefdom, but would still be plagued by revolution issues and the inability to make large empires.

Imperial Rule, Feudal Monarchy, Elective Monarchy would be able to exist concurrently, in that they would all be equally as useful, though Imperial Rule would come first. Imperial Rule would allow the largest civilization, Feudal Monarchy would provide military advantages, and Elective Monarchy would be more stable.

Absolute Monarchy would come in towards the end of the medieval/early rennaisance. Think of Louis XIV's France, where much of the power was taken from the nobles and transferred to the king. This would be a powerful civic, though it would have unhappiness issues associated with it.

Parliamentary Monarchy would be the last, and would be intended to be useful enough that it could be used from the late Rennaisance on through the entire rest of the game if you so desired.

these are really good ideas, but the problem is, in a way, you could already have those forms of Monarchy. Monarchy + Feudal = Feudal Monarchy. Monarchy + Sovereignty/Divine Right = Absolute Monarchy. As for Imperial/Elective Monarchies, I'm not sure. What's the difference between a Elective Monarchy and a Republic?

 

[ls612]

these are really good ideas, but the problem is, in a way, you could already have those forms of Monarchy. Monarchy + Feudal = Feudal Monarchy. Monarchy + Sovereignty/Divine Right = Absolute Monarchy. As for Imperial/Elective Monarchies, I'm not sure. What's the difference between a Elective Monarchy and a Republic?

This is very true. All of these sub government types are really combinations of existing civics. I think we have plenty of civics to balance for now.

@JosEPh:

I think part of the reason (and a very good part IMO) that growth is limited in the earlier eras is to make it so that more civs last through the early eras to become major powers. This helps to a certain extent to restrain the steamroll effect and keep more AIs in the game for a longer period of time.

 

[GT Ranma]

... I'm not sure. What's the difference between a Elective Monarchy and a Republic?

*sigh* The American school system really needs to teach Government better....

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. (wiki)

A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch).(wiki)

Now, in the case of Rome, the Monarch was elected by an Assembly, so it wasn't a true republic, as the normal people were not allowed to vote, only the people in the Assembly.



Note: I think the issue lies in the 'Republic', a republic is a VERY broad term. It just means a government where the people elect the ruler. As per the definition above, it is very quite general and crosses into other categories as well. You can even have a Monarchy that is a Republic, Brittan springs to mind. There are many Republics in the world today, like China, even thou they are Communist, it is still a republic. (Mexico is a Republic)

Edit: The United Kingdom is only arguably a Republic, and it is NOT an Elective Monarchy, they do not vote for who the Monarchy is, it is hereditary. But the common people do elect the Prime Minister, who is allowed to execute executive powers by the Monarchy.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

*sigh* The American school system really needs to teach Government better....

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. (wiki)

A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch).(wiki)

Now, in the case of Rome, the Monarch was elected by an Assembly, so it wasn't a true republic, as the normal people were not allowed to vote, only the people in the Assembly.



Note: I think the issue lies in the 'Republic', a republic is a VERY broad term. It just means a government where the people elect the ruler. As per the definition above, it is very quite general and crosses into other categories as well. You can even have a Monarchy that is a Republic, Brittan springs to mind. There are many Republics in the world today, like China, even thou they are Communist, it is still a republic. (Mexico is a Republic)

Edit: The United Kingdom is only arguably a Republic, and it is NOT an Elective Monarchy, they do not vote for who the Monarchy is, it is hereditary. But the common people do elect the Prime Minister, who is allowed to execute executive powers by the Monarchy.

I haven't taken Government yet. But I didn't know

A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual

I thought a Monarch had to be a hereditary leader. Guess we learn something new everyday? So basically, an "Elective Monarchy" is, in sorts, what we have by Democracy?

 

[hotrodlincoln]

I haven't taken Government yet. But I didn't know I thought a Monarch had to be a hereditary leader. Guess we learn something new everyday? So basically, an "Elective Monarchy" is, in sorts, what we have by Democracy?

A key difference here is that an elective monarchy has no process by which the ruler is removed from power, except by death (perhaps with some help ) or abdication. An Elective Monarchy also has a very limited franchise compared to a democracy. In the Holy Roman Empire, the best example of an elective monarchy, the Prince-Electors were the only ones who could 'vote' for the new Holy Roman Emperor.

Let's compare this with a contemporary polity, the Serene Republic of Venice. Venice was ruled by the Doge, who's position was also for life. However, the Doge enjoyed far less power than the Holy Roman Emperor, as the Doge's power was checked considerably by the council which elected him. As you can see, the names that states choose to give themselves often mean little, as both of these polities are ruled by elected monarchs. The only difference is that the Doges simply were not powerful monarchs.

 

[GT Ranma]

I like this quote from Wiki best about democracy: "A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[3] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements."

Democracy and Republic are very broadly defined civics, thus there is a lot of interplay between it and other forms of government.

For example, if the people elected the Monarchy, and it was a Constitutional government, you could say it was a Constitutional Monarchy, which is a Democracy, but most Monarchies are elected by an elite portion of the population, not the whole population. These Monarchies that are elected by the elite would then be Elected Monarchies, where if they were elected by the people, they would be a Democracy. - "Three elective monarchies exist today. The pope of the Roman Catholic Church (who rules as Sovereign of the Vatican City State) is elected to a life term by the College of Cardinals. In Malaysia, the federal king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("Paramount Ruler") is elected for a five-year term from and by the hereditary rulers (mostly sultans) of nine of the federation's constitutive states, all on the Malay peninsula. The United Arab Emirates also has a procedure for electing its monarch.(wiki)"

Edit: ^ What Hot said, one could argue that the difference between Prime Minister and President is just the word they choose to use. There is so much interplay between governments because what word one country used to describe something isn't always what a different one did. And some differences are merely academic.

 

[hotrodlincoln]

There is so much interplay between governments because what word one country used to describe something isn't always what a different one did. And some differences are merely academic.

and some differences are the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Out of those four words, only 'Korea' accurately describes the country.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Wow great civics class guys! But what have you done to clarify and simplify the current set of civics under discussion? Umm......nothing.

@JosEPh:

I think part of the reason (and a very good part IMO) that growth is limited in the earlier eras is to make it so that more civs last through the early eras to become major powers. This helps to a certain extent to restrain the steamroll effect and keep more AIs in the game for a longer period of time.

@ls612,
I know the Intent very well. It just doesn't come thru in practice or gameplay for multiple reasons.

Can any of you in this discussion tell me how many times the Civic sets have been changed since C2C's inception? How many of those discussions and debates were you a part of? Any of them? Do any of you remember Eldrinfall? And how long did he work on them? Who worked on them before him? What was changed and added? What worked what didn't?

@CivPlayer8,
As the "current" Civics maker I think it behooves you to go back and research some of this to get a grasp on the flow and transition that Civics have taken during C2C's tenure. Or you can repeat previous mistakes.

To be blunt and very frank, it was Dead wrong for the Team to have allowed your Modmod to become The Civics Model as quickly as it was. It was Not tested enough nor played with by enough C2C players to warrant ripping out the old model (Eldrinfall's) for your new model. Problem was not all the quirks had been worked out of Eldrin's set to make it a finished product either. So the Team rips it out and in comes your new set. Now, tell me, what version is your set now on? How many revisions have you had to make since it's inclusion?

And the debates are still rolling on too. You go to change a category and you have a Team member breathing down your neck saying Don't change X Y Z it makes A B C work, etc. This mod has become the Rubick's Cube of all Civ Mods.

Back to the Civics in question; Streamline Anarchism, Chiefdom and Despotism. They do not need laundry or grocery lists to be effective. This is Not minimizing or marginalizing them either. Just making them effective and not overburdening to the AI.

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

Wow great civics class guys! But what have you done to clarify and simplify the current set of civics under discussion? Umm......nothing.

Spoiler :

@ls612,
I know the Intent very well. It just doesn't come thru in practice or gameplay for multiple reasons.

Can any of you in this discussion tell me how many times the Civic sets have been changed since C2C's inception? How many of those discussions and debates were you a part of? Any of them? Do any of you remember Eldrinfall? And how long did he work on them? Who worked on them before him? What was changed and added? What worked what didn't?

@CivPlayer8,
As the "current" Civics maker I think it behooves you to go back and research some of this to get a grasp on the flow and transition that Civics have taken during C2C's tenure. Or you can repeat previous mistakes.

To be blunt and very frank, it was Dead wrong for the Team to have allowed your Modmod to become The Civics Model as quickly as it was. It was Not tested enough nor played with by enough C2C players to warrant ripping out the old model (Eldrinfall's) for your new model. Problem was not all the quirks had been worked out of Eldrin's set to make it a finished product either. So the Team rips it out and in comes your new set. Now, tell me, what version is your set now on? How many revisions have you had to make since it's inclusion?

And the debates are still rolling on too. You go to change a category and you have a Team member breathing down your neck saying Don't change X Y Z it makes A B C work, etc. This mod has become the Rubick's Cube of all Civ Mods.

Back to the Civics in question; Streamline Anarchism, Chiefdom and Despotism. They do not need laundry or grocery lists to be effective. This is Not minimizing or marginalizing them either. Just making them effective and not overburdening to the AI.

JosEPh

WOW you are absolutely correct, looking at it in this stance is really eye opening, nice job here JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

And the debates are still rolling on too. You go to change a category and you have a Team member breathing down your neck saying Don't change X Y Z it makes A B C work, etc. This mod has become the Rubick's Cube of all Civ Mods.

THIS is why I usually stay out of tech and civic discussions. I KNOW it requires a lot of background research to understand 'the way things are' enough to really suggest much in the way of change and adjustment. I'd like to say I like some of the new ideas, yes. But messing with civics is something to take GREAT care with and I'm getting the impression it's a bit chaotic over here. I've gotta admit it disturbs me a bit to have the guy making choices about our civics and civics categories saying he is unclear on differences in common governing models. (Please don't take offense CP8! It's said in hopes that it motivates you to learn and apply what you learn to your thinking on civics.)

I admit, everything I do tends to get just as much of a challenge from critics and... perhaps it often should. I'm not being a naysayer, nor even really a critic per se as my experiences with the new set have been too limited to say much. But I AM begging for some care to be taken in this arena as, more than anywhere in the mod, Civics needs it.

 

[rightfuture]

WOW you are absolutely correct, looking at it in this stance is really eye opening, nice job here JosEPh

In my opinion, every major change should be playtested, temp made optional, until proven to fit in with the direction, and stable.

As much as possible new features and changes should be somewhat isolated and modular into mostly proven. Experimental release.

 

[JosEPh_II]

WOW you are absolutely correct, looking at it in this stance is really eye opening, nice job here JosEPh

Thanks SO. It's just what black critics do!

I do not intend to dishearten but to enlighten and get ppl thinking. We have forgotten some of the trails (and the trailblazers) that C2C has traveled over these past few years.

JosEPh

 

[ls612]

Thanks SO. It's just what black critics do!

I do not intend to dishearten but to enlighten and get ppl thinking. We have forgotten some of the trails (and the trailblazers) that C2C has traveled over these past few years.

JosEPh

I agree with you on most of these issues. And I agree, redoing civics every few months is bad for stability and balance, I did like the eldrinfal ones (but I also like some of CivPlayer8's new ones too, so it is really a matter of taking the best of everything).

But I do disagree with you on City Limits, and that is why they are an option. You don't use them and so it should not be that much of an issue. The changes to the early civics I think are extreme, but the way they were before was underwhelming without city limits, so I think a middle ground would be best.

 

[Sgtslick]

CIVPlayer8 is doing an OUTSTANDING job! I for one am very grateful he took over the civics and is making such terrific changes/additions
Its appreciated

 

[GT Ranma]

But I do disagree with you on City Limits, and that is why they are an option. You don't use them and so it should not be that much of an issue. The changes to the early civics I think are extreme, but the way they were before was underwhelming without city limits, so I think a middle ground would be best.

I think, in that aspect we have to decide upon a middle ground. People who want to expand and play an expansionist style game where they are racing the computer to see who can make the most cities should play with REV off. I know there are more then one person, me including who want to play this way sometimes. And then, when they turn REV on it should be an almost different game. (Currently REV is so flaccid that the computer and I are WAY over the limit, and don't care in the slightest)

Now, with that being said, could someone please code in an option at game creation that turns off the Domination Limit? I REALLY want to play and get the Conqueror end, but with that on your civilization explodes once you are down to 1 or 2 opponents. Your civ has so much 'expansion' anger that your cities' unhappiness goes through the roof ; ;