C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[CIVPlayer8]

I reported 3 bugs with your SVN update 4418 here, and your SVN update 4424 fixed one of the three bugs. The remaining two bugs are listed here.
Yes, I meant to removed Politics, because the civics in it din't make much sense. Patriarchy and Matriarchy are not political forms. You can see my full list of planned civics in the first post of this thread. As for the Junta one, it only "grants you it" because you currently have it. The game won't kick you off of Junta. If you were to switch away from Junta, and try to switch back w/o Bronze Working, you couldn't. I hope I answered you're concerns.


The save game posted here shows excessive maintenance once your SVN update 4418 is applied. My maintenance increases by about 27 GPT and I'll be bankrupt in about 5 turns. I can't drop my research rate since I'll incur tax rate unhappiness. So I've just started the Ancient Age and my empire of 6 cities is too large.

"Build an empire to stand the test of time" - as long as your definition of "empire" is Liechtenstein.

For my tastes I'm going to hold the Civics part of the SVN at 4417 while you work on this a bit more. I love what you've done with Civics but I think your latest work needs a bit more testing.

Thank you for the save game I'll take a look, and use it.

@CIVPlayer8

Looks like you got your work cut out for you. Balance is never easy, especially with things like Civics, which players are very passionate about. Good luck!

Oh believe me, I've found out.

+1 to this.

There is an extra challenge in that changes to Civics can invalidate a strategy that was useful under the previous Civics. Changes to Buildings or Wonders or Combat rarely have that global effect. When there is a material change to the Civics in some cases the strategy being followed is now invalid, as my save game mentioned above demonstrates.

If you're lucky you might be able to recover with N turns of anarchy while you swap Civics. If you're unlucky your game is toast. Your empire will collapse under unhappiness or go bankrupt. I recall a few weeks ago when the city limit was added to Democracy. Suddenly my 45 city Democratic empire was invalid with raging unhappiness, both in my cities and also in me!

And this is the reason why passions on Civics can seem so high; hundreds of hours invested in a current game can be wasted. No doubt some of the new Civics are just fine for a new game where I can plan and adapt as my empire grows. But for games in progress, where the player has invested 100's of hours to build their empire, to see it all blown away by an SVN update, THAT is what generates so much

I'm sorry I can't think of an elegent recovery to this but hopefully you can appreciate why so many responses will be so passionate.

Yes, I have learned some lessons over this. This is part of the reason that I wanted to release the civics all at once, to get proper testing.

This I totally understand and agree with. That's why I was so about the inclusion of Crime in the middle of a version cycle.

I personally think that the time of wholesale changes needs to be reconsidered and held back. We've went thru 3 seemingly innocent changes that have in fact made massive disruptions to gameplay over the last several versions of C2C. And that is a big factor in my current dissatisfaction with the Mod. I have not played C2C for 2 weeks now. I start up my ongoing game and after 2 turns shut it down. I'm updated to SVN 4417 but won't go past that till the brokenness/unfinished business is made playable.

So to CIVPlayer8, I really won't have any feedback to give till all the Civics are either in place or made workable as the parts are added. And please understand this, if you individually and C2C as a Team, make the Civics/and other additions in the light of "everyone" plays this way (Uses REV, City Limits, DP, Fixed Borders, Limited Religions) then you've painted yourself into a corner. Because you cut out the other ways to play. And cut out a segment of your fan base.

JosEPh

It is very hard to balance civics with multiple playing ways in mind. I can make the drawback of a civic have high Rev instability, but without Rev turned on, the civic will seem to have no downside. I think for now on, I will test the new patch before releasing it.

:|

Democracy (now Republic again; these keep flip-flopping) dropped from 25 to 20 in City Limits as of yesterday evening's latest SVN. Monarchy dropped from 35 to 20.

Monarchy being higher and allowing a larger empire was one of its signature advantages over (what is once again) Republic. It still kinda-sorta does that through the way they handle maintenance, but not to the same extent.

More, 35 made Monarchy occasionally viable in the lategame so there were choices OTHER than Republic (now once again Democracy) and Corpor-nation (now gone in favor of Technocracy, a change I do like). Since Technocracy only becomes available in the future era, everything from the discovery of Representative Democracy on is now basically locked to Democracy if City Limits are turned on. It feels like the others are lowered, too, but I don't remember them exactly so it could just be my shock at what happened to these two.

I will unquestionably turn them off every game until this changes back.

I kind of miss Patriarchy and Matriarchy, if only because they were the earliest civics to offer a meaningful choice to the player instead of just being upgrades.

Do you think anyone will ever want to run Subsistence? It's basically trading 1C on Cottages for 1F on Farms, and -75% Production from trade routes for +25% Food from trade routes. Maybe I've just never played on a map where this would be beneficial.

On the maintenance front, I break even at 85% Science in my current save, but with only 7 cities that seems awfully low. (My low number of cities is just due to the geography of the map.)

I hear you. Patriarchy and Matriarchy added a bit more choice to the early game. Other than that, i think the first "choice" with civics you have to make is Barter or Subsistence. I'll figure something out for early game, I'll try.

I know a lot of people are upset with my maintenance changes, and I apologize. From this point foreward, I will make my updates to the civics, and test them on saves you guys provide. Criticism is tough, but in the end, I know it'll make things better. So thank you to those who take the time to post here, I listen to each voice, but many times I have to pick a path and stick with it. An example is Hydro wanting to rename the first "democracy civic Republic, and the second one "democracy", but some others liked the way I had it. I know I can't please everyone, but I'll try to do that and add my new planned civics.

 

[Taxman66]

Sorry to be a broken record but I feel I must repeat my earlier question: Why can't the city limits be adjustable for map size? The city limits don't mean as much on smaller maps, and conversly absolutely kill expansion on the larger ones.

 

[strategyonly]

Sorry to be a broken record but I feel I must repeat my earlier question: Why can't the city limits be adjustable for map size? The city limits don't mean as much on smaller maps, and conversely absolutely kill expansion on the larger ones.

I want to hear Koshlings, thought on the City Limits, he knows more about that kinds of coding and stuff than me. and what it actually does or doesn't do.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

Sorry to be a broken record but I feel I must repeat my earlier question: Why can't the city limits be adjustable for map size? The city limits don't mean as much on smaller maps, and conversly absolutely kill expansion on the larger ones.

Unfortunately, I only work with civics and their buildings. Believe, I would most definantly have them scale with map size, but the option isn't out there.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sorry to be a broken record but I feel I must repeat my earlier question: Why can't the city limits be adjustable for map size? The city limits don't mean as much on smaller maps, and conversly absolutely kill expansion on the larger ones.

It can be done and I wouldn't mind setting it up. All I need is a solid proposal as to what should be done to scale it.

Personally, for this, I'd suggest that we establish the map standard size being 'assumed' on the current values. Then its as simple as adding or subtracting 1 to the city limit value based on map size variation with a minimum of 1 (though for extremely small map sizes it could be problematic if we assume to high a map size and have too constrictive values to start.)

But I'm open to other numeric scheme suggestions.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

The save game posted here shows excessive maintenance once your SVN update 4418 is applied. My maintenance increases by about 27 GPT and I'll be bankrupt in about 5 turns. I can't drop my research rate since I'll incur tax rate unhappiness. So I've just started the Ancient Age and my empire of 6 cities is too large.

I'm sorry, I can't access your save game. Must be a version too late, I assume.

Edit: Updates:
-Tweaked civic maintenance for government, Power, and Rule
-Tweaked city unhappy limit
-Mind Control center now gives Rev stability

 

[Taxman66]

It can be done and I wouldn't mind setting it up. All I need is a solid proposal as to what should be done to scale it.

Personally, for this, I'd suggest that we establish the map standard size being 'assumed' on the current values. Then its as simple as adding or subtracting 1 to the city limit value based on map size variation with a minimum of 1 (though for extremely small map sizes it could be problematic if we assume to high a map size and have too constrictive values to start.)

But I'm open to other numeric scheme suggestions.

I'd suggest settings a value for a Standard (or maybe Large) size map and have that be the minimum. Maps smaller than standard (or large) aren't really going to matter too much what the # of city values are unless you are heading for a very early domination win. Making the number of cities too small will either make the game unplayable, or not matter (e.g. Duel map)

From the determined minimum (whatever it may be), I'd increase the values for each map size based on the increase of territory. However, % bigger each map is multiply that by the # of cities (e.g. If a map is 50% bigger add %50 more cities). Subject to adjustment via play testing.

I'm thinking the %costs for # of cities & distance from capital should also be modified for map sizes. Those don't depend on the city limits but are a signifanct factor on . As the map size increases (and the number of cities owned increases) these costs become more and more oppressive on Civs, even if their size is proporitionally the same (to the map) as on smaller maps.

 

[ls612]

I'd suggest settings a value for a Standard (or maybe Large) size map and have that be the minimum. Maps smaller than standard (or large) aren't really going to matter too much what the # of city values are unless you are heading for a very early domination win. Making the number of cities too small will either make the game unplayable, or not matter (e.g. Duel map)

From the determined minimum (whatever it may be), I'd increase the values for each map size based on the increase of territory. However, % bigger each map is multiply that by the # of cities (e.g. If a map is 50% bigger add %50 more cities). Subject to adjustment via play testing.

I'm thinking the %costs for # of cities & distance from capital should also be modified for map sizes. Those don't depend on the city limits but are a signifanct factor on . As the map size increases (and the number of cities owned increases) these costs become more and more oppressive on Civs, even if their size is proporitionally the same (to the map) as on smaller maps.

There's an easier way to do this. In the WorldSizeInfos, it has a 'target city number' for each map size, which is how many cities you expect each player to have. If we really wanted to city limits could be based off of that. That is probably not the worst idea. I could throw that together if we agree on it.

Of Course, City Limits would remain Optional. If they aren't for some reason I'll go and fix that ASAP, but as far as I know they still are disabled if the option is checked to do so.

 

[Taxman66]

The %costs for cities should also be modified for bigger maps as well (for the reasons I explained above), not just the #of cities. Additionally, and obviously, the %costs are not optional.

 

[WimpyTheWarrior]

I'm sorry, I can't access your save game. Must be a version too late, I assume.

Note that I play on Ultimate maps now, so they will not load without Viewports. My current settings are 130 x 72, and I have a very beefy computer.

Edit: Updates:
-Tweaked civic maintenance for government, Power, and Rule
-Tweaked city unhappy limit
-Mind Control center now gives Rev stability

Your SVN release 4433 seems to be OK. I now understand Politics was intentionally dropped, and the issue of being granted Junta on current games before Bronze Working is minor.

Thanks for your work on the Civics, I do think it adds value to C2C.

On the topic of Map size and number of cities

I'm in favour of adjusting city limits by map size. Larger maps are more difficult for each setting, as there is a bigger field of competitors.

What do folks think of this idea?

I always thought it would be cool if distance maintenance and unrest were based on travel time to the capital, not just geographic distance. As you improved transport and communications, you could manage a larger empure. Could the AI pathing routine be used instead of the current straight distance calculation when assessing Maintenance and unrest?

 

[Thunderbrd]

There's an easier way to do this. In the WorldSizeInfos, it has a 'target city number' for each map size, which is how many cities you expect each player to have. If we really wanted to city limits could be based off of that. That is probably not the worst idea. I could throw that together if we agree on it.

Of Course, City Limits would remain Optional. If they aren't for some reason I'll go and fix that ASAP, but as far as I know they still are disabled if the option is checked to do so.

I'd considered that too but don't the limits vary by civic? I suppose if there was a % modifier value in the WorldSizeInfos that helped to scale the limits as established by civic then that would be the best way to make it simple along these lines.

Is that something you'd be wanting to work on then? I don't feel very well versed in the City Limits concept enough to do it without a lot of analysis in that area (not just the code but the intent and manner in which the mechanism affects a player's game is somewhat iffy to me.)

 

[ls612]

I'd considered that too but don't the limits vary by civic? I suppose if there was a % modifier value in the WorldSizeInfos that helped to scale the limits as established by civic then that would be the best way to make it simple along these lines.

Is that something you'd be wanting to work on then? I don't feel very well versed in the City Limits concept enough to do it without a lot of analysis in that area (not just the code but the intent and manner in which the mechanism affects a player's game is somewhat iffy to me.)

I could do that quite easily. Whether or not I want to depends on many things, but it is a one-day task.

 

[Lyrrix]

Personally, I like the city limits by civic. But if it was a variable number for each civic option, it could also be modified by technologies. (anything with a road type for example, or the 'allows trade over x terrain type' techs.)

I'm not on the SVN (I'm playing v27release at the moment.) so I don't know what's up there, but in v27, Republic doesn't have a limit, and neither does Rep.Democracy, so when I hit Republic, my expansion starts to skyrocket to as high as my income and landmass will allow (until I start getting ocean-worthy vessels to colonize the New World!)

I can agree with Republic not having a limit like that because it makes sense to me that if the people know that their interests are being seen to in the government, they mind less and less about the size of the country, because they know they will not end up being favored over another region of their civilization.

Perhaps keeping the base numbers (making them scale via map size) but have them improve with the type of technology I mentioned?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can agree with Republic not having a limit like that because it makes sense to me that if the people know that their interests are being seen to in the government, they mind less and less about the size of the country, because they know they will not end up being favored over another region of their civilization.

This is kind of an odd view, and certainly ahistorical. In an (absolute) monarchy you have exactly as much input into the government if you're one of a thousand citizens or one of a billion. In a republic you have 1/1,000,000 as much impact in the government in the latter case than the former. Indeed, "pork spending" is epidemic in large Federal Republics even today, and is nothing but one region being favored over another due to political gamesmanship.

Unsurprisingly, there was all of one large republic prior to the 18th century, Rome, and its period of expansion beyond was followed by its transition to what in Civ terms was a (sometimes constitutional) Monarchy or even Dictatorship. All the others were geographically restricted, usually only a single city (as in Greece) or a comparatively small and close-knit community (like the Netherlands). In the late 18th and 19th centuries you can add exactly one that was large and stable, the United States, and even it suffered what Civ would term a Revolution.

 

[GT Ranma]

Well, America was created through a revolution, England expanded to far, so the colonies were like "F this Jazz" and left.
The subsequent one was because of sociopolitical changes.
I always play with Revolutions on, I love it when the computer expands to far, and now there are 2 countries there instead of one ^^ So neato. (Though I usually end up with like 50 civs running around.)
Anywho, there are still examples of each type of government in the world today. So I almost feel as if they should be allowed to evolve, so that there is no 1 type of government that is better then the rest, so everyone does not feel like they should be XX.
That is one of the reasons I am on board with making the differences between governments more... subtle, so that they color or flavor your game play, not force you into it.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@CIVPlayer8

I agree ALL the numbers have been disgust and re-disgust before, so they are correct the way they were.

I agree with ls612 and strategyonly. City limits should be left the way they were.

How's this:
-Anarchism: Limit: 3 unhappy: 2
-Chiefdom: Limit: 8 unhappy: 1
-Monarchy: Limit: 35 unhappy: 1
-Despotism: Limit: 25 unhappy: 1
-Democracy(used to be Republic): Limit: 20 unhappy: 1
-Theocracy/Republic/Technocracy: No limit

-Federal will be returning in a new category. Corporatocracy might come back to government. Fascism won't return, as it is basically Despotism+ Nationalist.

Ok that's way too much. I tracked down the old agreed to numbers and they were ...

- Anarchism: Limit: 3 unhappy: 4
- Chiefdom: Limit: 6 unhappy: 3
- Despotism: Limit: 10 unhappy: 2
- Monarchy: Limit: 12 unhappy: 1
- Republic: Limit 20 unhappy: 1
- Theocracy: Limit: 20 unhappy: 1
- Democracy: No Limit
- Technocracy: No limit

Please put them back to the way they were agreed upon.

EDIT: I also think it was better when there were more later game choices besides Democracy and Technocracy. Fascism should return as a no city limit alternative to Democracy. I do not agree that its "Despotism + Nationalist".

EDIT2: These were good ...

- Anarchism
- Chiefdom
- Despotism
- Monarchy
- Republic
- Theocracy
- Democracy
- Confederacy
- Federal
- Totalitarianism
- People's Republic
- Digital Democracy
- Technocracy
- Corporatocracy

Why did you take these out? You had around 8 different choices that had unlimited cities. If Democracy was the unrestricted version of Republic than Totalitarianism was the unrestricted version of Despotism.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

- Anarchism: Limit: 3 unhappy: 4
- Chiefdom: Limit: 6 unhappy: 3
- Despotism: Limit: 10 unhappy: 2
- Monarchy: Limit: 12 unhappy: 1
- Republic: Limit 20 unhappy: 1
- Theocracy: Limit: 20 unhappy: 1
- Democracy: No Limit
- Technocracy: No limit

Please don't.

Monarchy being lower than Republic is utterly ahistorical, bordering on nonsensical, and pulls directly against what those civics are supposed to be for - Monarchy helpful for expansionist and military civs, Republic for tech-rushing, commercial civs.

Those Limits are also outrageously low. They mean ALL civics except Democracy and Technocracy are UNUSABLE lategame except on Small or smaller maps, which is incredibly boring gameplay and, once again, utterly ahistorical. It's already impossible to have a country like the Soviet Union or still extent and highly successful People's Republic of China in C2C unless you remove City Limits, you'd make it impossible to have a British or Russian Empire, TOO.

With Limits like this, the option should NOT be on by default because it's unplayable, and frankly silly.

EDIT: I do agree that there needs to be a civic that represents "modern dictatorships," which are quite common and have led some fairly successful countries, like the aforementioned Soviet Union and People's Republic of China. Fascism specifically seems like a strange fit, though, since a majority of the largest ones have been Communist. "Totalitarianism" would probably be better since it covers various ideologies and refers more to the structure rather than the rhetoric.

EDIT AGAIN: What size maps do you play on? If those are the sizes for Small (I'd say for Tiny) maps then aside from switching Republic and Monarchy (because man what.) it would be fine. On Standard it's not enough, on Large it's grossly insufficient (you'd be hitting the cap in early Medieval without trying that hard), and on Huge or larger you could easily get that many cities before MONARCHY, much less before Representative Democracy.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@MoogleEmpMog

I play on Large or Huge (depending upon my game).

The limits are made for the early game were you nation doesn't know how to maintain a larger empire. In fact I think for awhile we had Republic with unlimited cities but that seems over powered.

We also like I said in my edits need more than just Democracy and Technocracy at the end. Fascism (aka Totalitarianism) was perfect if you wanted to play with a "modern dictatorships".

And its still possible to expand past 12 or 20 cities if you can keep your happiness in check. Remember its not a "hard" limit anymore. But you have to work at it if you want a large empire before the unlimited cities civics.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

@MoogleEmpMog

I play on Large or Huge (depending upon my game).

The limits are made for the early game were you nation doesn't know how to maintain a larger empire. In fact I think for awhile we had Republic with unlimited cities but that seems over powered.

We also like I said in my edits need more than just Democracy and Technocracy at the end. Fascism (aka Totalitarianism) was perfect if you wanted to play with a "modern dictatorships".

And its still possible to expand past 12 or 20 cities if you can keep your happiness in check. Remember its not a "hard" limit anymore. But you have to work at it if you want a large empire before the unlimited cities civics.

Welp.

Off goes that option forever.

I'm very sorry to hear it's going to be reverted from its very fun 35/25 Monarchy/Republic state, but the game works fine without it so I guess that's that.

 

[WimpyTheWarrior]

@CIVPlayer8
Ok that's way too much. I tracked down the old agreed to numbers and they were ...

- Anarchism: Limit: 3 unhappy: 4
- Chiefdom: Limit: 6 unhappy: 3
- Despotism: Limit: 10 unhappy: 2
- Monarchy: Limit: 12 unhappy: 1
- Republic: Limit 20 unhappy: 1
- Theocracy: Limit: 20 unhappy: 1
- Democracy: No Limit
- Technocracy: No limit

Please put them back to the way they were agreed upon.

I agree with MoogleEmpMog, these limits are very small for larger maps. Currently I am playing on an Ultimate map SVN 4439; I am at 12 cities with Despotism and there are larger AI empires at Despotism. However for my tastes the current (SVN 4439) limits are a bit too lax. One thing I liked about the agreed to numbers above is that it did make things a challenge through the Medieval Age, trying to squeeze out just a little more happiness to add just one more city. But yes once you got to an Unlimited Civic you NEVER went back.

Could it be a BUG option so everyone can just play the way they want to? I wonder how many SVN players end up tweaking the XML files to their personal tastes? I've certainly done that when an SVN change broke my current game from City limits.