C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Hydromancerx]

Looks fine and all, but as they say "looks can be deceiving at times."

The only thing i am concerned then about is there is (and i might be wrong here) but way too much and in the beginnings of the games, if that was toned down some it would be better, (IMHO)

Note this only is the number of cities before you start getting . I am guessing the amount of when you go over the limit should stay the same.

 

[JosEPh_II]

+1 with SO on the Game Start and .

JosEPh

 

[ls612]

+1 with SO on the Game Start and .

JosEPh

I agree too. In my current test version of New Horizons I've removed 2 from start Civics and have given Homeless a prereq of Shelter building (so another less :yuck and ), and it seems to go much better.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

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?

Personally, I like this idea the best. Cities should get more unhappy the further they are from the Palace (With early civics), while roads and trade routes decrease this maintenance and unhappy. However, I also like the idea of scaling with map size. Either one will do fine, IMO, but I don't like setting a solid "20 cities" as the limit for a civic, because I know some people now play on immense, and some people might play on small.

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.

This is why I removed Republic's "no limit", because they basically have less of a say in the government.

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.

Yes, that is my ultimate goal. Playstyle > Necessity. C2C is about removing restrictions, not creating them!

@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.

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.

Well, I gotta agree with you on that issue. I think I will put Totalitarianism back in. Corporatocracy might find itself back in. I removed "People's Republic" because there is a "Single Party" civic which reflects this. And Federal and Confederacy were moved to Rule. You have seen my planned civics in the first post, right?

... There are so many governments to choose from, I don't see why we are pigeon hole'ing our selves into only have 1 or 2 to choose from at any one point in time. For example this is just option on Democracy it's self:

Direct Democracy:
Representative Democracy:
Deliberative Democracy:
Demarchy:
E-Democracy:
Athenian Democracy:
Liberal Democracy:
Totalitarian Democracy:
ect ect.

Governments are as unique as the back of a person's hand.

The only way to make options like this a reality, is to go in the way Civ is heading and make the specific parts of the government be options in the Civic section.

So to make say, Japan, you would to take Power: Unitary, Executive Branch: Parliament, Power Source: Democracy, Political Power: Constitutional Monarchy.
ect ect.

Having stuff like Digital Democracy in the government section seems redundant when you can make it already through the options in the Civic panel.

I mean seriously, there are only 3 modern political systems, Authoritarianism, Monarchy and Democracy. That is it, every thing else is just a modification of those 3 things. (Now, Anthropological forms, there are more of them, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_system if you are interested)

This is the reason why I removed many civics, because I was trying to create a system like that, X + Y = Z. But I don't really understand your example of Japan

I really feel CivPlayer8 should post the changes here before he posts it to the SVN, so we can have a discourse on proposed changes before they go live, so that there isn't an explosion of angry people that something is different

...Maybe. My schedule is a bit difficult, however. If I were to do this, it would basically just push the day the patch is expected back a day.

|Duel|Tiny|Small|Standard|Large|Huge|Giant|Gigantic|Enormous|Immense
Anarchism|1|1|2|2|3|3|4|4|5|5
Chiefdom|2|2|4|4|6|6|8|8|10|10
Despotism|6|6|8|8|10|10|12|12|20|20
Monarchy|8|8|10|10|12|12|20|20|30|30
Republic|10|10|15|15|20|20|30|30|40|40
Theocracy|10|10|15|15|20|20|30|30|40|40

What do you think?

Something like that, yes. Mine would have to be:
Anarchism|1|1|2|2|3|3|4|4|5|5
Chiefdom|2|2|4|4|5|5|6|7|8|8
Despotism|6|6|8|8|10|12|14|17|20|23
Monarchy|8|8|10|10|12|16|20|25|30|35
Republic|10|10|15|15|17|18|23|25|28|30
Theocracy|10|10|15|15|17|18|23|25|28|30

+1 with SO on the Game Start and .

JosEPh

Personally, I haven't had a big problem with this. Just research Language and my unhappiness is solved. BTW I play on Deity.

 

[MaXimillionZero]

|Duel|Tiny|Small|Standard|Large|Huge|Giant|Gigantic|Enormous|Immense
Anarchism|1|1|2|2|3|3|4|4|5|5
Chiefdom|2|2|4|4|6|6|8|8|10|10
Despotism|6|6|8|8|10|10|12|12|20|20
Monarchy|8|8|10|10|12|12|20|20|30|30
Republic|10|10|15|15|20|20|30|30|40|40
Theocracy|10|10|15|15|20|20|30|30|40|40

I feel Anarchism should stay at 2 for every mapsize, that way it allows you to get that first tribe settled before you have to switch to chiefdom. I would also prefer for the limits for later civics (from despotism upwards) to grow with tech advantages as well as map size, but proportionally so that for example a republic will always have twice the cap of despotism.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

In Civplayer's list, why is Monarchy lower than Republic at smaller map sizes but higher on larger map sizes? (8 at Duel, 35 at Immense, compared to 10 at Duel, 30 at Immense for Republic.)

Regardless of where the numbers are set, Monarchy needing to be higher than Republic is one thing I'm not going to stop harping on. From a gameplay perspective it reflects what the civic is good at, and from a historical perspective it reflects that, well, every republic before Representative Democracy was tiny, except Rome, which was only a Republic for people in Rome itself and adopted (semi-)hereditary rule for a majority of its time as a great power.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

In Civplayer's list, why is Monarchy lower than Republic at smaller map sizes but higher on larger map sizes? (8 at Duel, 35 at Immense, compared to 10 at Duel, 30 at Immense for Republic.)

Regardless of where the numbers are set, Monarchy needing to be higher than Republic is one thing I'm not going to stop harping on. From a gameplay perspective it reflects what the civic is good at, and from a historical perspective it reflects that, well, every republic before Representative Democracy was tiny, except Rome, which was only a Republic for people in Rome itself and adopted (semi-)hereditary rule for a majority of its time as a great power.

Oops, that one slipped. And yes, I agree with you on Monarchy better at controlling large empire than Republic, heh. Republic is better for the more peaceful startegy, while Despotism/Monarchy fit the more agressive bill.
Updates to SVN:
-Readded Totalitarianism
-Presidential Monument can be built with Democracy

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well, I gotta agree with you on that issue. I think I will put Totalitarianism back in. Corporatocracy might find itself back in. I removed "People's Republic" because there is a "Single Party" civic which reflects this. And Federal and Confederacy were moved to Rule. You have seen my planned civics in the first post, right?

My point was more that we need more than just Democracy and Technocracy. Totalitarianism and Corporatocracy would be good to have back in. I also forgot that Confederacy and Federal moved. And "People's Republic" I did not really care either way. This leaves Digital Democracy. I am unsure if it should be added a a 3rd stage of Democracy.

Republic -> Democracy -> Digital Democracy

|Duel|Tiny|Small|Standard|Large|Huge|Giant|Gigantic|Enormous|Immense
Anarchism|1|1|2|2|3|3|4|4|5|5
Chiefdom|2|2|4|4|5|5|6|7|8|8
Despotism|6|6|8|8|10|12|14|17|20|23
Monarchy|8|8|10|10|12|16|20|25|30|35
Republic|10|10|15|15|17|18|23|25|28|30
Theocracy|10|10|15|15|17|18|23|25|28|30

I don't know it seems like the biggest maps should have more if we are scaling up. I also would like Large/Huge to have at least the agreed upon stats. Which were ...

Chiefdom = 6
Despotism = 10
Monarchy = 12
Republic = 20
Theocracy = 20

Mainly because they are now the "middle size" maps.

I feel Anarchism should stay at 2 for every mapsize, that way it allows you to get that first tribe settled before you have to switch to chiefdom. I would also prefer for the limits for later civics (from despotism upwards) to grow with tech advantages as well as map size, but proportionally so that for example a republic will always have twice the cap of despotism.

I think that one is trivial so I would not care if it was even set to 1.

 

[ls612]

The City Limits scaling the way I envision it would be based off of the numbers in the 'recommended city size' tag in the WorldSizeInfos. I'm thinking that Anarchism would get 1/5th that number for its limit, Chiefdom would get 1/2 that number, Despotism would get 3/4th that number, and Monarchy would get 1.5 times that number. Theocracy and Republic would have no limits.

 

[Hydromancerx]

The City Limits scaling the way I envision it would be based off of the numbers in the 'recommended city size' tag in the WorldSizeInfos. I'm thinking that Anarchism would get 1/5th that number for its limit, Chiefdom would get 1/2 that number, Despotism would get 3/4th that number, and Monarchy would get 1.5 times that number. Theocracy and Republic would have no limits.

What would the numbers look like on your chart?

Also Theocracy definitely needs a limit. And Republic is highly recommended to have one so people don't all chnage to it just because its the only early civic that has no limit. Not to mention we already went over why historically it would not make much sense either when compared to the other early civics.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't know it seems like the biggest maps should have more if we are scaling up. I also would like Large/Huge to have at least the agreed upon stats. Which were ...

Chiefdom = 6
Despotism = 10
Monarchy = 12
Republic = 20
Theocracy = 20

If you switched Monarchy and Republic I think these would be fine for Large. They seem a little tight for Huge, especially for the AI, which badly wants to spam cities if it can.

I'll admit that even with a shiny new computer I've never had the guts to see if it can handle a larger map.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@MoogleEmpMog

Remember that at one point Republic was unlimited and since Republic comes after Monarchy it should at the very least be the same or greater.

@ls612

So looking at you numbers and then looked at the map sizes. And tweaked some a bit and here is what I come up with ...

|Duel|Tiny|Small|Standard|Large|Huge|Giant|Gigantic|Enormous|Immense
Anarchism|1|1|2|2|3|3|4|5|6|8
Chiefdom|2|3|3|4|5|6|8|10|12|16
Despotism|4|5|6|8|10|13|16|20|24|30
Monarchy|8|10|13|17|21|26|32|40|48|60
Republic|10|13|16|21|26|32|40|50|60|75
Theocracy|10|13|16|21|26|32|40|50|60|75

Map Size Multipliers
Duel = 1.0
Tiny = 1.3
Small = 1.6
Standard = 2.1
Large = 2.6
Huge = 3.2
Giant = 4.0
Gigantic = 5.0
Enormous = 6.0
Immense = 7.5

Base Civic Values
Anarchism = 1
Chiefdom = 2
Despotism = 4
Monarchy = 8
Republic = 10
Theocracy = 10

While I am not as happy with the Large and Huge values it is much more balanced since it based on math. Note that the map values were based on map base with such as Duel was 10, Standard was 21 and Immense was 75.

 

[GT Ranma]

Ok, well, just off the cuff, but how exactly are you going to have 75 cities b4 you research a limitless one? Even on Marathon speed on Huge, it takes waaay to long to make a settler to be able to have that many.

 

[Kreatur]

many complains about the huge mainetance costs of republic and democracy. But thats the way how democracy works. in opposite to a dictatorship where one person can react very fast, in a democracy everything is slow and needs time. For example, the government wants to pass a new law. First there is a debate in the parlament where every political group gives a statement. After that the parlament comes to a compromise which is normaly the lowest common denominator. After the law is done a working group consists of politicans, bureucrats and specialist have to make the new law functional and the Federal Constitutional Court have to sheck if the law is conform with the constitution. all of this need time and the game can represent this only trough maintenance. and i dont even speak about the money you have to spent for elections. the other aspect is the city limit factor. As already mentioned, during history democratic nations where relativle small nations ore even citty states. with just a smal population every vote counts, so every person has the feeling his ore her opinion is representet. when the nation gets bigger and population grows the system gets more and more undemocratic for a reason. i mean just try a direct democratic system with a population bigger than a few thousand you will end into caos. SO you need to start with a representative democratic system. But the question is, is every persons opinion really representet into governement than ? Maybe if you have proportional representation where every person can choose a party that represent his ore her in the parliament, (which can end in a parliament consists of dozens of minor partys blocking the political progress if you don't have restrictons like a 5% barrier which means that a party need at least 5% of the total number of votes). if you have to be more and more undemocratic when your population grows, people lose the belief in democracy which is representet as unhappyness from number of citties in civilisation. So extra unhappyness from every city over a limit makes perfect sence for democracy

 

[JosEPh_II]

And Republic is highly recommended to have one so people don't all chnage to it just because its the only early civic that has no limit.

@Hydro,
Why do you fear players all changing to Republic if it had no limit on it? That very statement tells volumes on how arbitrary and artificial City Limits are.

Do you really think it's going to break the game? Give an unfair advantage?

The Real question is with the limits removed from Republic how many AI will change to it?

JosEPh

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

@MoogleEmpMog

Remember that at one point Republic was unlimited and since Republic comes after Monarchy it should at the very least be the same or greater.

Why does it have to be the same or greater? Are you saying that any player would always want the limit to rise for the situation she'd find herself in at that point in the game?

Republic caters to different strategies. A civ that expands only by building settlers and then building up the resulting cities will struggle to hit 12 cities by the time it can research Democracy (unless played with a dedicated eXpand playstyle like Joseph's). Building up as a city-state or small collection of city states, you can benefit immensely from the windfall of Great People and commerce under Republic.

By contrast, a civ that grabs territory from other civs can easily have dozens of cities by that point (without city limits, anyway). Monarchy suits this civ better. It needs to be able to support more cities and the troops to both take and defend them.

Republic also tends to give more base happiness to combat exceeding your City Limits, so the practical size of your civ is probably the same anyway.

Ok, well, just off the cuff, but how exactly are you going to have 75 cities b4 you research a limitless one? Even on Marathon speed on Huge, it takes waaay to long to make a settler to be able to have that many.

Conquest?

 

[GT Ranma]

I am playing Marathon right now, and I am about to learn democracy... On a Huge Map, with Noble difficulty, and I have 13 cities...

I almost feel as if the people who want to play with Revolutions on WANT revolutions to happen, but with such HUGE amounts of cities before you get any penalty for having cities, it almost makes the Revolutions mod useless. Right now I can't build faster then the cap, and it is 20, not 75. And don't even pretend Conquest is a viable option, the computer has 5-7 Archers with 125% defense or more on each city, without good siege engines you aren't going to be able to take over 62 cities before you learn Democracy.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Who is talking about having 75 cities before the Democracy tech, which unlocks the Republic civic (which is currently, and should remain, a lower limit than Monarchy)? O_o

75 cities before Representative Democracy, a late-Renaissance tech, which unlocks the first unlimited civic, is not out of the question if that's your priority.

With that said, I'm starting to see sense in lower limits. The AI is still really bad at conquest in C2C, since while they've gained more ability to interface with its unique features they've never received the K-Mod upgrades to their basic combat ability. As such, only the player has a serious chance to break the cap early, and City Limits acts as at least a mild, awkward, rubber-band mechanic.

If the AI was capable of pursuing a Conquest victory, not just against the player but against other AIs, then I would be opposed to them because there's no need for such a rubber-band, but as it stands a conquest-oriented player is virtually guaranteed to win the game anyway.

Mind, now that the AI can handle Revolutions, I would be much happier if the City Limits penalty were Instability rather than Unhappiness.

 

[civhelp121]

It seems like earlier civics have more production bonuses, so when you start switching to new civics in renassiance and later there is a relative decrease in production (slavery and caste have a fair mount of production bonuses). Later civics do provide more gold, but I have more than enough gold by the time they roll around.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Who is talking about having 75 cities before the Democracy tech, which unlocks the Republic civic (which is currently, and should remain, a lower limit than Monarchy)? O_o

75 cities before Representative Democracy, a late-Renaissance tech, which unlocks the first unlimited civic, is not out of the question if that's your priority.

With that said, I'm starting to see sense in lower limits. The AI is still really bad at conquest in C2C, since while they've gained more ability to interface with its unique features they've never received the K-Mod upgrades to their basic combat ability. As such, only the player has a serious chance to break the cap early, and City Limits acts as at least a mild, awkward, rubber-band mechanic.

If the AI was capable of pursuing a Conquest victory, not just against the player but against other AIs, then I would be opposed to them because there's no need for such a rubber-band, but as it stands a conquest-oriented player is virtually guaranteed to win the game anyway.

Mind, now that the AI can handle Revolutions, I would be much happier if the City Limits penalty were Instability rather than Unhappiness.

Koshling and karadoc swapped a lot of AI work. There is K-mod AI work in this mod (and there is some C2C in K-mod)

Do you use just (only) the Conquest Victory condition to make that statement about the AI?

Or do you use the "Mastery " Victory condition ( ) ?

JosEPh