C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[GT Ranma]

2 Points I want to hit on:

First, I always go open borders, the +1 trade is butter then any of the other options in my opinion. And the negative stability is laughable with how much +stability buildings are in game now.

Second, is it possible to 'evolve' a civic? For example, when the 'Republic' of Greece was made, it no doubt had completely different +/-'s to it's country then a Republic does now, even with the event of the internet, we can now have ballets turned in and counted THAT DAY. The 3 month wait for the pres's inauguration was because they needed time to count the votes by hand, then deliver the results to the capital by horse... As a country, America has changed a lot, even though we are still using (IRL), Democracy(Republic), Federal, Constitutionalism, Presidential, Closed Borders(Though, not as closed as other countries).


So I guess the second question can be boiled down into this: Do we want civics to evolve, or do we just want to add more civics to make it feel like the player has more options then just Democracy and Monarchy?

Edit: @Hydro:
Where do you want Meritocracy to be? I'm not sure what civic category that it should go under... Definitely not 'Government', maybe 'Power'? Even though it sounds like it might be more 'Society', yeah, that sounds like where it should go.

Even though, one could argue that (and they do in the wiki) it is just a theoretical philosophy, because in real life people in power tend to give power to their friends. Ala every president ever, they give Cabinet positions based on who's their friends, or who they own favors to. It is not based on merit. Even though in theory it is suppose to be.

Also, it appears to be an obsolete civic, as all the citations are either historical countries, or in the early 1900's. It has been replaced by plutocracy in every example. You could blame corruption for this of course, and just say that it is a future tech and in the future we are progressive enough to go back to this system...

 

[Hydromancerx]

Edit: @Hydro:
Where do you want Meritocracy to be? I'm not sure what civic category that it should go under... Definitely not 'Government', maybe 'Power'? Even though it sounds like it might be more 'Society', yeah, that sounds like where it should go.

Even though, one could argue that (and they do in the wiki) it is just a theoretical philosophy, because in real life people in power tend to give power to their friends. Ala every president ever, they give Cabinet positions based on who's their friends, or who they own favors to. It is no based on merit. Even though in theory it is suppose to be.

Yeah Society is what I was thinking as well.

 

[GT Ranma]

Hmm, is there any way we could 'force' some of these on people?

Just hear me out for a second.

Some options, like Plutocracy, Bourgeoisie, ect will never be taken. People have 1 civic they want, and they always play with that one. Now, with this being said I see we have 3 options available to us. (Again, just trying to hammer down which direction we want to head, not telling anyone to change anything).

First: Leave it like that.

Second: Keep tweeking the civics until there is enough difference between them to flavor how you play the game, but not enough that there is 1 best way to do it.

Three: Make some of the civics based on decisions made during events.

For example, say when you have X tech and Y tech, event 00123A happens, if you pick A, your ruling class is N, if you pick B the ruling class is O, ect ect.

I'm not to big on #3, I like #2 the best, but since it is a discussion, I'd like to discuss things

 

[JosEPh_II]

If you make Democracy have a face for every 10% tax rate you will drown this Civic in angry citizens. None of the Gov't Civics should have the tax rate/ at less than 30%.

We've also discussed and pointed out that 50% WW is Too High. It should never be above 25%.

Now throw in a per Mil Unit!

Your +1 happy in each city and +1 happy in 6 largest is Chicken squat too even think of countering the sea of you are creating with this Civic.

It's not a even a Civic choice to use with all that .

My Thoughts: Aside from reducing maintenance modifiers and War Anger, I will make this civic focus less on , and more on . I like this civics revolution tweaking. It should be a stable civic.

You're gonna need to do more than just reduce WW.

JosEPh

 

[CIVPlayer8]

If you make Democracy have a face for every 10% tax rate you will drown this Civic in angry citizens. None of the Gov't Civics should have the tax rate/ at less than 30%.

We've also discussed and pointed out that 50% WW is Too High. It should never be above 25%.

Now throw in a per Mil Unit!

Your +1 happy in each city and +1 happy in 6 largest is Chicken squat too even think of countering the sea of you are creating with this Civic.

It's not a even a Civic choice to use with all that .



You're gonna need to do more than just reduce WW.

JosEPh

Joseph, Joseph. These are the current pros and cons of the civics. We're discussing on ways to change them.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Here is a rough outline of Meritocracy.

Meritocracy
Type: Society
Req Tech: Meritocracy
Upkeep: High

Pros

• + Since the people in power deserve their jobs.
• + Relations with other Nations who have Meritocracy because they are playing by the same rules.
• + Since the more competent people are in charge.
• + Since the whole concept is based upon the society.
• + Stability since people are confident that who is in charge deserves it and they can achieve more merit too.

Cons

• - /Maintenance Since it takes a lot of money to keep such a system running. Having the best and most worthy doesn't come cheap.
• - Since there tends to be less privacy if we know everything about your merit.
• - Since you must constantly test who has the most merit.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Well you have my input in a roundabout way.

WW 25% or less
Tax rate /35% tax
No per Mil unit.

Then you won't need the +1 Happy for city and 6 largest either.

Makes for a cleaner Civic with less clutter.

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

We've also discussed and pointed out that 50% WW is Too High. It should never be above 25%.

You're gonna need to do more than just reduce WW.

JosEPh

I would have to agree here, even if it doesn't work correctly, but only for GAMEPLAY (GP) wise, meaning WW almost always "staggers" the AI/Barbarians completely "ingame." So i'd have to say for the sake of GP that that it be either less than 15% or less than 5, what do you'll think??

 

[mykeedee]

snip

It should have -1 relations with leaders not running Meritocracy because they see it as a threat to their way of running things.

 

[Yudishtira]

Hmm, is there any way we could 'force' some of these on people?

This sounds like a good idea. There are a number of 'civic choices' that sound good to just about everyone in theory, but never get put into practice (talking about irl) for very long.

Examples:
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Meritocracy
Shared Ownership

Democracy in general is also really an example, because it seems to be extremely prone to devolve into oligarchy ie. only two viable parties and they have indistinguishable policies.

It would be good if there were certain civics (not necessarily with huge in-game benefits) that were hard to maintain. If you did not maintain a high standard in certain demographics, say, a civic change would be forced on you in a mild kind of revolution.

This has got me thinking that forced civic changes is perhaps a good way to handle moderate levels of national instability.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I would have to agree here, even if it doesn't work correctly, but only for GAMEPLAY (GP) wise, meaning WW almost always "staggers" the AI/Barbarians completely "ingame." So i'd have to say for the sake of GP that that it be either less than 15% or less than 5, what do you'll think??

I wanted to post it lower too, WW that is, but figured I get too much resistance. Of course not everyone was here for v16 and 17 when it really got out of hand.

On the flip side the (used to be) 2 Gov't Civics that reduced WW also had too big of a %.
And with -25 to -50 have way too much of an advantage. They too need to stay in the -25% to 0% range, preferably not to far below 0 (-10 or -5).

JosEPh

 

[Yudishtira]

Here is a rough outline of Meritocracy.

Meritocracy
Type: Society
Req Tech: Meritocracy
Upkeep: High

Pros

• + Since the people in power deserve their jobs.
• + Relations with other Nations who have Meritocracy because they are playing by the same rules.
• + Since the more competent people are in charge.
• + Since the whole concept is based upon the society.
• + Stability since people are confident that who is in charge deserves it and they can achieve more merit too.

Cons

• - /Maintenance Since it takes a lot of money to keep such a system running. Having the best and most worthy doesn't come cheap.
• - Since there tends to be less privacy if we know everything about your merit.
• - Since you must constantly test who has the most merit.

I don't mean to be difficult but (playing devil's advocate) I can see a converse restatement of most of those.

+ Since the people in power deserve their jobs.

+ for all the people who don't deserve the jobs, but covet them anyway

+ Since the whole concept is based upon the society.

...and yet, often the best of the best are not exactly team players ie. can have a subversive/iconoclastic bent that "muddies the waters" culture-wise (as in the term counter-cultural)

+Stability since people are confident that who is in charge deserves it and they can achieve more merit too.

As with happiness, those who don't deserve the jobs will still covet them...leading to instability

- /Maintenance Since it takes a lot of money to keep such a system running. Having the best and most worthy doesn't come cheap.

...then again, you won't have incompetents paid to do nothing paying their incompetent friends to do nothing as well, and spending taxpayers' money on all the most inappropriate/wasteful projects. You have also already factored this in with the high upkeep.

- Since there tends to be less privacy if we know everything about your merit.

Isn't less privacy more espionage anyway??? (Plus don't forget we are getting a better class of spy/counterspy)

- Since you must constantly test who has the most merit.

Yeah but having the best people doing the job in all cases will almost certainly mean they are more productive

 

[Thunderbrd]

+ for all the people who don't deserve the jobs, but covet them anyway

True, but its the kind of anger that society would direct those folks to focus on being better, more competent citizens, which is almost always within their control to do and easier than trying to overthrow the system so I'd side with the happiness on this.

...and yet, often the best of the best are not exactly team players ie. can have a subversive/iconoclastic bent that "muddies the waters" culture-wise (as in the term counter-cultural)

I'd think it'd be negative culture due to everyone being so competitive with one another that the less productive 'dreamers' that lead to the best among artists would be a lifestyle approach that would be frowned upon.

As with happiness, those who don't deserve the jobs will still covet them...leading to instability

Again... my response to happiness applies here too.

...then again, you won't have incompetents paid to do nothing paying their incompetent friends to do nothing as well, and spending taxpayers' money on all the most inappropriate/wasteful projects. You have also already factored this in with the high upkeep.

Agreed.

Isn't less privacy more espionage anyway??? (Plus don't forget we are getting a better class of spy/counterspy)

Absolutely!

Yeah but having the best people doing the job in all cases will almost certainly mean they are more productive

Definitely! I would think all yields would benefit greatly from this kind of system but culture would be quite low in such a highly competitive arena.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I don't mean to be difficult but (playing devil's advocate) I can see a converse restatement of most of those.

I actually had this to begin with ...

Meritocracy
Type: Society
Req Tech: Meritocracy
Upkeep: High

Pros

• + Since the people in power deserve their jobs.
• + Since people are more competent to get things done.
• + Relations with other Nations who have Meritocracy because they are playing by the same rules.
• + Since the whole concept is based upon the society.
• + National Stability since people are confident in their leader.

Cons

• - /Maintenance Since it takes a lot of money to keep such a system running. Having the best and most worthy doesn't come cheap.
• - Local Stability since people have jealousy for those who have the jobs but they don't

+ for all the people who don't deserve the jobs, but covet them anyway

As with happiness, those who don't deserve the jobs will still covet them...leading to instability

I switched from above since if it really is a Meritocracy then the carrot of success should keep people in line to strive to get more merit even if they don't currently have enough. Which is why I have the and stability.

The rest with and were just added on after I through the production should be a negative. But like I said it could have been a positive as well.

I guess the big question is which factor is there more of. Both sides are valid but if one is stronger than the other then it should be a factor. If equal then it should not be listed. Since they would cancel each other out.

 

[Hydromancerx]

So here are some historical examples from wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Historical_examples

Confucianism

In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes. (Analects XV, 39)

The main basis of his teachings was to seek knowledge, study, and become a better person.

Although Confucius claimed that he never invented anything, but was only transmitting ancient knowledge (see Analects VII, 1), he did produce a number of new ideas. Many European and American admirers such as Voltaire and H. G. Creel point to the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with nobility of virtue. Jūnzǐ (君子, lit. "lord's child"), which originally signified the younger, non-inheriting, offspring of a noble, became, in the works of Confucius, an epithet having much the same meaning and evolution as the English term, "gentleman". A virtuous plebeian who cultivates his qualities may be a "gentleman", while a shameless son of the king is only a "small man". That he admitted students of different classes as disciples is a clear demonstration that Confucius fought against the feudal structures that defined pre-imperial Chinese society.

This new idea, of the meritocracy, led to the introduction of the Imperial examination system in China. The system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position which would bring wealth and honour to the whole family. The Chinese Imperial examination system seemed to start in 165 BCE, when certain candidates for public office were called to the Chinese capital for examination of their moral excellence by the emperor. Over the following centuries the system grew until, finally, almost anyone who wished to become an official had to prove his worth by passing written government examinations.

What I get from reading this is +, + and +honor (whatever that converts into for civ4).

Han Feizi

In addition to Confucius, another ancient Chinese philosopher of the same period (that of the Warring States) advocated a meritocratic system of government and society. This was Han Feizi who was famous as the foremost proponent of the School of Law, otherwise known as the philosophy of Legalism. This had, as its central tenet, the absolute rule of law, but also contained numerous meritocratic elements. Another Legalist, Shang Yang implemented Legalist and meritocratic reforms in the state of Qin by abolishing the aristocracy and promoting individuals based on their skill, intelligence, and initiative.

This led to the armies of the Qin gaining a critical edge over the other nations that adhered to old aristocratic systems of government. Legalism, along with its pro-meritocratic ideals, remained a key part of Chinese philosophy and politics for another two millennia, although after the Qin Dynasty it was heavily diluted. Meritocratic governance within the bureaucracy, however, remains a nominal keystone of Chinese government all the way to the present. This may be seen most clearly in the use of standardized "imperial examinations" to determine entry into the official class, which began in the Sui Dynasty.

What I get from reading this is + anti-crime, + and + military.

British India

Under Chinese influence, the first European power to implement a merit-based civil system successfully, was the British Empire, in their administration of India. To avoid corruption, "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.

What I get from reading this is + anti-crime and +.

Napoleon

Napoleonic (Revolutionary) France is considered to have been meritocratic. After the revolution of 1789 most members of the former elite had been removed. When Napoleon rose to power in 1799, there was no ancient base from which to draw his staff and he had to choose the people he thought best for the job. This included officers from his army, revolutionaries who had been in the National Assembly, and even some former aristocrats such as prime minister Talleyrand. This policy was summed up in Bonaparte's often-quoted phrase "La carrière ouverte aux talents", careers open to the talented, or as more freely translated by Thomas Carlyle, "the tools to him that can handle them". A clear example is the order of the Légion d'honneur, the first order of merit, admitting men of any class. They were judged not by ancestry or wealth but by military, scientific, or artistic prowess.

What I get from reading this is - , + military., + and + .

Singapore

Singapore describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.

There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population. Defendants recall the ancient Chinese proverb "Wealth does not pass three generations", suggesting that the nepotism or cronyism of elitists eventually will be, and often are, replaced by those lower down the hierarchy.

What I get from reading this is + but then this looking more like Caste System with the Elite on the top and the rest on the bottom.

----

So what do you guys think the stats should be then? Should military or anti-crime be included?

 

[Faustmouse]

Depends where you want it. If you want to create an uber-lategame-civic you should include this, if not I would leave it and keep it a peacefull civic.

Overall, do you have a general idea how the civic system should look like? I really liked the idea of having several choices and NOT just switch to the latest researched civic. I have something in mind like this:

first civic - available at start, weak

(2nd civic - available at an early tech, definetly stronger that the 1st) #maybe you don't need this)

3rd civic - stronger than the 2nd, specialised on science, stability, military, espionage, kulture, gold (not commerce) or GP (or anything else you can think of)

4th civic - tie with 3rd, focusses on something else than 3rd (same list)

5th civic - tie with 3rd, also focusses on something from the list

6th,7h,8th, etc... same

(last, if at all, a super late game uber civic that is a little bit weaker in every point on the list than the specialised civics, but as them all included)

I think this would be a good concept.
Note that I don't say that you have a spec. civic for EVERY point on the list, some would fit together (i.E. espionage and military) and others you don't want as a society civic for example. Also, don't make i.E. the 2nd civic in every category focus on science, but the 2nd gov civic and the 4th society civic... alternate this how it fits naturally at best!

But if you'd add a system with REAL choices, make sure the civics are keeped simple enough so that you can understand their influence on your game very good before you switch to them.

This system won't work for the language civic or Military civic and maybe some others. Those civics should ALWAYS give their main bonus (or malus at the beginn) to the feature (science, military) they focus on. But maybe you can add a secondary effect the those civics. Like +10% research and +20% culture, the next would be +15% research and +5% Commerce or +20% research and +10% espionage. Same for the military civic, they can also add something to stability, happiness, science, espionage....


What do you think?

 

[CIVPlayer8]

2 Points I want to hit on:

First, I always go open borders, the +1 trade is butter then any of the other options in my opinion. And the negative stability is laughable with how much +stability buildings are in game now.

Second, is it possible to 'evolve' a civic? For example, when the 'Republic' of Greece was made, it no doubt had completely different +/-'s to it's country then a Republic does now, even with the event of the internet, we can now have ballets turned in and counted THAT DAY. The 3 month wait for the pres's inauguration was because they needed time to count the votes by hand, then deliver the results to the capital by horse... As a country, America has changed a lot, even though we are still using (IRL), Democracy(Republic), Federal, Constitutionalism, Presidential, Closed Borders(Though, not as closed as other countries).


So I guess the second question can be boiled down into this: Do we want civics to evolve, or do we just want to add more civics to make it feel like the player has more options then just Democracy and Monarchy?

Edit: @Hydro:
Where do you want Meritocracy to be? I'm not sure what civic category that it should go under... Definitely not 'Government', maybe 'Power'? Even though it sounds like it might be more 'Society', yeah, that sounds like where it should go.

Even though, one could argue that (and they do in the wiki) it is just a theoretical philosophy, because in real life people in power tend to give power to their friends. Ala every president ever, they give Cabinet positions based on who's their friends, or who they own favors to. It is not based on merit. Even though in theory it is suppose to be.

Also, it appears to be an obsolete civic, as all the citations are either historical countries, or in the early 1900's. It has been replaced by plutocracy in every example. You could blame corruption for this of course, and just say that it is a future tech and in the future we are progressive enough to go back to this system...

Open Borders is a really good civic, but in the future I'll probably go back and give some of the other Border Civics a bit more "buff". And yes, in a way, it is possible to evolve a civic. You can make a civic give a "free building" in each city, and those buildings can be modified by techs. So in a way, yes. BTW wouldn't America have, in CIV terms, Secure Borders? And to answer your question, a little bit of both. I would like to make civics evolve a little, but also make many other choices, while keeping them "fresh". I think the Government category has a pretty good number of civics in it, though. And I would say Meritocracy is a Power civic? Power in this mod means "how power is divided", and with Meritocracy, it would be divided by peoples natural talent.

Hmm, is there any way we could 'force' some of these on people?

Just hear me out for a second.

Some options, like Plutocracy, Bourgeoisie, ect will never be taken. People have 1 civic they want, and they always play with that one. Now, with this being said I see we have 3 options available to us. (Again, just trying to hammer down which direction we want to head, not telling anyone to change anything).

First: Leave it like that.

Second: Keep tweeking the civics until there is enough difference between them to flavor how you play the game, but not enough that there is 1 best way to do it.

Three: Make some of the civics based on decisions made during events.

For example, say when you have X tech and Y tech, event 00123A happens, if you pick A, your ruling class is N, if you pick B the ruling class is O, ect ect.

I'm not to big on #3, I like #2 the best, but since it is a discussion, I'd like to discuss things

I actually rather like Option C, to an extent. Here's the scenario I'm imagining: Every 10 or so turns, your people keep demanding "We want to become industrialized! We demand more 's!". "Hah!" you say, and you ignore your peoples requests. However, after this has gone on for 50 turns, your people have had enough! They remove the Free Market, and put in place the "Planned" civic, so that they may have more 's!
With Option C, these "demand events" wouldn't often force a civic, but the possibility is there, so you would be wise to agree with them.
And currently, thats where I'm working to, with Option B. Make civics more..."diversified".

@ All, should Fixed Borders only have to do with the Borders Category? This way, the only civic that would receive Fixed Borders would be "Closed Borders", "Secure Borders", and maybe "Skilled Workers Only".

And for Meritocracy, those are some good points! Maybe it can be:
Pros: + 10%, +15%
Cons: -15% , - Stability

This could be a good choice for the leader that isn't very expansionist, but still wants to keep up with the world. + helps the leader keep an eye on the world, but the - makes its borders more susceptible.

 

[BlueGenie]

Fixed Borders is where Culture has a lesser impact on the sway and moving of borders and military might has more impact. For that reason I don't think it should be under the Border Civics but rather in the Government, Power, and Military Civics and maybe a few in the Religion Civics and Rule Civics.

Civics I think would fit the bill are:
Government: Despotism, Monarchy.
Rule: Vassalage
Power: Sovereignity, Legislature, Divine Right, Single Party
Military: Conscription, Vassalage, Volunteer Army, (not sure of the later ones, what they are or represent)
Religion: Divine Cult, Intolerant

Cheers

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

What do you think?

I agree your ideas would put back some decision making into civic selection.

 

[strategyonly]

OK after going through a fair amount of starts, i believe the city limits need to be raised in each civic that has them by 1. What do you'll think??