C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Johnny Canuck]

I have a few thoughts to put forward on the Society civics:

1. The Bourgeois civic, activated at Aristocracy, appears way too early - if anything, the Bourgeois rose to prominence by displacing the aristocracy. I would suggest moving the Bourgeois civic to Liberalism, as classic liberalism (which matches where Liberalism is in the tech tree) was the core ideology of the Bourgeois.

2. Related to this, Egalitarian should move from Liberalism to Minority Rights. Egalitarian societies are a product of the 20th century, and had nothing to do with classic liberalism (classic liberals did not believe in social equality), whereas sympathy for minorities is a cornerstone of egalitarianism.

3. I don't think Proletariat makes sense as a separate civic, since a society ruled by the proletariat is almost by definition a Marxist society. As such, I'd remove the Proletariat civic.

4. I would add a new 'Aristocracy' civic, activated at the Aristocracy tech. This would cover pre-industrial societies that were not Feudal or Caste, but more advanced than Tribal. Effects could include 1 Free Noble per city, slightly higher 'Distance from Palace' costs, slightly faster military production, lower local rebelliousness (deference shown by peasants to local lords), higher national rebelliousness (aristocracy thinks itself capable of running the country), etc.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I have a few thoughts to put forward on the Society civics:

1. The Bourgeois civic, activated at Aristocracy, appears way too early - if anything, the Bourgeois rose to prominence by displacing the aristocracy. I would suggest moving the Bourgeois civic to Liberalism, as classic liberalism (which matches where Liberalism is in the tech tree) was the core ideology of the Bourgeois.

2. Related to this, Egalitarian should move from Liberalism to Minority Rights. Egalitarian societies are a product of the 20th century, and had nothing to do with classic liberalism (classic liberals did not believe in social equality), whereas sympathy for minorities is a cornerstone of egalitarianism.

3. I don't think Proletariat makes sense as a separate civic, since a society ruled by the proletariat is almost by definition a Marxist society. As such, I'd remove the Proletariat civic.

4. I would add a new 'Aristocracy' civic, activated at the Aristocracy tech. This would cover pre-industrial societies that were not Feudal or Caste, but more advanced than Tribal. Effects could include 1 Free Noble per city, slightly higher 'Distance from Palace' costs, slightly faster military production, lower local rebelliousness (deference shown by peasants to local lords), higher national rebelliousness (aristocracy thinks itself capable of running the country), etc.

1&4. I possibly can agree that Aristocracy should be its own civic and Bourgeois should be moved.

2. Seems reasonable. I jut worry about balance and if it would be too weak later on. Likewise the void of moving so many Civics back on the tech tree.

3. I do not agree. I think it has its place in the mod. I think it has been in since RoM.

----

Some ideas we may want to consider from Affores Rewritten civics.

Nobility (Requires: Aristocracy)
This seems like your Aristocracy idea without using the same name (which weirds out the civpedia)

We should also think about Oligarchy (Requires: Aristocracy). Which would be under Government OR Rule.

 

[VineFynn]

1. The Bourgeois civic, activated at Aristocracy, appears way too early - if anything, the Bourgeois rose to prominence by displacing the aristocracy. I would suggest moving the Bourgeois civic to Liberalism, as classic liberalism (which matches where Liberalism is in the tech tree) was the core ideology of the Bourgeois.

3. I don't think Proletariat makes sense as a separate civic, since a society ruled by the proletariat is almost by definition a Marxist society. As such, I'd remove the Proletariat civic.

Actually, a Marxist society is one without class, ruled by everyone equally. A Proletariat society is one dominated primarily by the working class. I also think the term Bourgeious can be used interchangeably with Aristocracy, seeing as inheritance laws allow families to hold onto capital, land and class regardless of whether or not they are deliberately entitled to it via the law. And remember: the same families did not remain in power for all time, new ones would rise to power based on circumstance. As such, the civic is a suitable abstraction.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

1&4. I possibly can agree that Aristocracy should be its own civic and Bourgeois should be moved.

2. Seems reasonable. I jut worry about balance and if it would be too weak later on. Likewise the void of moving so many Civics back on the tech tree.

True - that's one of the reasons why I was thinking of an 'Aristocracy' civic (though Nobility makes more sense). Adding that & Oligarchy as classical-era civics gives enough variety for that part of the tech tree.

3. I do not agree. I think it has its place in the mod. I think it has been in since RoM.

Fair enough. But when I think of the proletariat, I think of the industrial era, not the classical era. What kind of classical society is the Proletariat civic trying to reflect?

 

[DRJ]

Fair enough. But when I think of the proletariat, I think of the industrial era, not the classical era. What kind of classical society is the Proletariat civic trying to reflect?

In the classic era the plebs in Rome (which were represented by plebeian tribunes like Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) struggled with the nobility/aristocracy for power like the left struggled with the old&new money elites ever since early industrialism (class warfare).

There was a certain time in ancient rome (around 110 BC) when the rich and powerful elite which stole the land from small peasants and veterans to accumulate extremely grand estates (worked by slaves and not the ordinary free roman/italian "proletarian" citizens) actually feared the proletarian rule represented by the powerful plebeian tribunes acting as lawmakers a lot as they were pushing for lawfull redistribution of lands and higher taxes for the superrich and such political claims (sounds familiar?). I would even think of Spartacus as a late, guerilla-like (underground) plebeian tribune - in a time when the aristocracy was, once more, holding the country in a firm repressive grip, while at the same time keeping the plebs calm with the fine tuned reactionary "asynchronous demobilisation" political tactics of free bread and games...

 

[stoferb]

I think the trade civic is way overpowered. Especially in combination with slavery. Basically now, once you have trade you don't need to work a single tile of land for food or commerce and can turn every citizen that doesn't work a 4+ hammer tile into a slave (or with certain wonders an engineer) for maximum production and superfast growth.

 

[DRJ]

... for maximum production and superfast growth.

.. of crime, which will cost you heavily, get it over 300 and suffer -15 for example... I try to have very few slaves in the cities but the hidden AI gov likes to use them so much that from time to time I wonder why my cities are becoming red and why my budget is red as well...

Altering Cato the Elder: "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem slave-autoassigment esse delendam"

 

[Johnny Canuck]

In the classic era the plebs in Rome (which were represented by plebeian tribunes like Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) struggled with the nobility/aristocracy for power like the left struggled with the old&new money elites ever since early industrialism (class warfare).

There was a certain time in ancient rome (around 110 BC) when the rich and powerful elite which stole the land from small peasants and veterans to accumulate extremely grand estates (worked by slaves and not the ordinary free roman/italian "proletarian" citizens) actually feared the proletarian rule represented by the powerful plebeian tribunes acting as lawmakers a lot as they were pushing for lawfull redistribution of lands and higher taxes for the superrich and such political claims (sounds familiar?). I would even think of Spartacus as a late, guerilla-like (underground) plebeian tribune - in a time when the aristocracy was, once more, holding the country in a firm repressive grip, while at the same time keeping the plebs calm with the fine tuned reactionary "asynchronous demobilisation" political tactics of free bread and games...

In that case, maybe just rename it 'Plebeian'? It's just to me the word 'proletariat' seems very jarring when applied to pre-industrial societies.

 

[stoferb]

No I don't get that much crime. 3-4 guards that's superpromoted (-20 crime each) easily get's down crime to tolerable levels and they don't cost that much for what they accomplish and for what they save.

 

[DRJ]

In that case, maybe just rename it 'Plebeian'? It's just to me the word 'proletariat' seems very jarring when applied to pre-industrial societies.

Not in the sense of marxism, as there is a direct historical connection between the two (over the feudal society, of course).

If you haven't already, reading the communist manifesto from 1848 which explains it very good, might be an idea (see spoiler below). Even if you are no marxist, doing so will enrich your general knowledge a lot in terms of identifying references made to the text as well as enjoying a good read, much like aphorisms of Nietzsche in "Thus spoke Zarathustra", reading in the Communist Manifesto is more than just politics, for me its like literature and poetry as well - it gives goosebumps, just like the dub poetry of Linton Kwesi Johnson, for example. It makes you feel the condensed hardships people endured over centuries fighting for their freedoms - their economical freedoms, their freedom of thoughts and their freedom of racism and classism and also, it identifies the 'forces of history' trying to deny the freedoms to the people - in our times, still.

Spoiler :

Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. continuation

No I don't get that much crime. 3-4 guards that's superpromoted (-20 crime each) easily get's down crime to tolerable levels and they don't cost that much for what they accomplish and for what they save.

Which is exactly the reason why I suggest to tweak the civilian units (town watchmen/guards are civilian units) so that they couldn't get the +11 xp from mercenary civic.
You should only have very few highly promoted civilians throughout the game, imo.
Being able to pump out endless numbers of -20 crime units in each city is flawed.

 

[Faustmouse]

Which is exactly the reason why I suggest to tweak the civilian units (town watchmen/guards are civilian units) so that they couldn't get the +11 xp from mercenary civic.
You should only have very few highly promoted civilians throughout the game, imo.
Being able to pump out endless numbers of -20 crime units in each city is flawed.

While I agree with you on this, I think 3-5 Crimefighters per city is the maximum you should need. Crime shouldn't be the primary focus in this game.

 

[stoferb]

Yeah, the xp points for civilians make more sense to come from courthouses and the like, but since it currently works as it does I do abuse it. I would also tweak their city-defending abilities. There are numerous military units and promotions against archers, the more traditional early city-defense that as trained military ought to be better, even without promotions, than civilians of any kind.

Someone thought Aristocracy and Bourgeois was basically the same thing. I have to strongly disagree about that. Bourgeois is rather capitalistic and plutocratic, if you have lot's of money you are fit to rule locally. Aristocracy is about mainly your birth as a noble and usually your ability in the higher ranks of military that makes you fit to rule locally. I'd suggest Aristocracy gives some local stability and some kind of military bonus while Bourgeois gives financial bonuses.

 

[DRJ]

Bourgoisie tends to adapt aristocratic behaviour after a while (New Money becoming the new Old Money). Our ultrariches kids are born into a kind of seperate "nobility" society being raised by avoiding contact to ordinary lower class people as much as possible.

Aristocracy is a way of trying to keep privileges. Once you have enough money you use it to secure your power for example by legitimazing your position in society by more and more aristocratic or otherwise repressive means.

Aristocratic tendencies are there even without "Aristocracy" actually ruling a country.
But can you really imagine a bourgoisie without aristocratic behaviour?

Most of the time the big capitalists unite their ranks against the lower classes, or as Rockefeller said in a 1971 interwiev,"yes the marxists are right, there is a class warfare (going on), but it's our class (the rich) that's winning it" - Aristorichcats.


-- Bourgoisie entails aristocratic structures
As well as capitalism in crisis adapts to more and more fascistic
ones, as some sharp tongues dare to say.

 

[Nimek]

I think Caste system is overpowered

Civic before Caste system (I dont remember its name) have cities require +50% more to grow. Caste system dont have that penalty so it gives big boost in early game.

TO fill this gap i recommend to add +25% more to grow (to caste system)

 

[JosEPh_II]

No the Civic After Caste is too weak. The sooner we can move off the +% to grow the better. So I disagree with you Nimek.

JosEPh

 

[DRJ]

Caste is pretty strong now, taking away all the + 50% maintenance for number of cities and the +100% mainetnance for distance to city.

In my Eternity game I just switched to it and I could instantly take 2 cities out of producing wealth and at the same time keep my research rate.

Following caste are bourgois, proletariat and feudal.
Usually I skip bourgois because I aim for democracy directly. The special proletarian building, the festival can give +6 happiness pretty easily and that's needed if you conquer big cities so they don't starve down too much as well as to avoid rebellions by too many unhappy people over some time.

But I am sure some players would use bourgois more likely cause the many boni are +10% production, +20% culture, while democracy only offers the same +10% production and also some worker speed, one health and one happiness, not really great compared to +20% culture, right?

 

[Nimek]

No the Civic After Caste is too weak. The sooner we can move off the +% to grow the better. So I disagree with you Nimek.

But Iam in ancient 5500 BC and my capital have 17 city size and build 2pcs of every miliary unit per turn (without food bonus) so i thought that the city is too big for their times

 

[JosEPh_II]

City size is very dependent upon Resources in cities Fat X, not just Civics. And 5500BC a size 17 city, again dependent upon Game speed chosen ( like Snail vs Epic), is not too big if played on slower speeds.

Caste seems to be too strong because the 2 preceding Civics have strangleholds on and . If the 2nd Civic was adjusted better it would be a better progression. But as DRJ pointed out the maint penalties on the preceding Civic (released be getting Caste) coupled with the release from the previous strangleholds makes Caste "seem" OP.

Going to Despot has a similar release from these strangleholds too. But going to Monarchy after Despot is a bit of a letdown.

In many of the Civic categories the 1st 2 Civics choke the game too much imo to keep City growth and expansion under a thumbscrew scenario. Once you hit Civics like Caste and Despot the choke collar is removed.

JosEPh

 

[CIVPlayer8]

I have a few thoughts to put forward on the Society civics:

1. The Bourgeois civic, activated at Aristocracy, appears way too early - if anything, the Bourgeois rose to prominence by displacing the aristocracy. I would suggest moving the Bourgeois civic to Liberalism, as classic liberalism (which matches where Liberalism is in the tech tree) was the core ideology of the Bourgeois.

2. Related to this, Egalitarian should move from Liberalism to Minority Rights. Egalitarian societies are a product of the 20th century, and had nothing to do with classic liberalism (classic liberals did not believe in social equality), whereas sympathy for minorities is a cornerstone of egalitarianism.

3. I don't think Proletariat makes sense as a separate civic, since a society ruled by the proletariat is almost by definition a Marxist society. As such, I'd remove the Proletariat civic.

4. I would add a new 'Aristocracy' civic, activated at the Aristocracy tech. This would cover pre-industrial societies that were not Feudal or Caste, but more advanced than Tribal. Effects could include 1 Free Noble per city, slightly higher 'Distance from Palace' costs, slightly faster military production, lower local rebelliousness (deference shown by peasants to local lords), higher national rebelliousness (aristocracy thinks itself capable of running the country), etc.

1&4. I possibly can agree that Aristocracy should be its own civic and Bourgeois should be moved.

2. Seems reasonable. I jut worry about balance and if it would be too weak later on. Likewise the void of moving so many Civics back on the tech tree.

3. I do not agree. I think it has its place in the mod. I think it has been in since RoM.

----

Some ideas we may want to consider from Affores Rewritten civics.

Nobility (Requires: Aristocracy)
This seems like your Aristocracy idea without using the same name (which weirds out the civpedia)

We should also think about Oligarchy (Requires: Aristocracy). Which would be under Government OR Rule.

Yeah, I agree with your ideas. You make some good points, like the Bourgeois being too early. I agree. And Egalitarian used to be Liberalism, but I renamed it to Egalitarian. I see your side, however, and I will probably move Egalitarian, to represent its real life connotations. I'll also readd Liberalism, if I were to do that. And actually, I was planning on removing Proletariat, when I got around to doing Society civics. And also, I'm adding an Aristocracy civic. It'll be under the new category, "Administration." I do think we need more ideas for Society civics though.

I think the trade civic is way overpowered. Especially in combination with slavery. Basically now, once you have trade you don't need to work a single tile of land for food or commerce and can turn every citizen that doesn't work a 4+ hammer tile into a slave (or with certain wonders an engineer) for maximum production and superfast growth.

If it is still too bad, I guess I could reduce it again.

I think Caste system is overpowered

Civic before Caste system (I dont remember its name) have cities require +50% more to grow. Caste system dont have that penalty so it gives big boost in early game.

TO fill this gap i recommend to add +25% more to grow (to caste system)

City size is very dependent upon Resources in cities Fat X, not just Civics. And 5500BC a size 17 city, again dependent upon Game speed chosen ( like Snail vs Epic), is not too big if played on slower speeds.

Caste seems to be too strong because the 2 preceding Civics have strangleholds on and . If the 2nd Civic was adjusted better it would be a better progression. But as DRJ pointed out the maint penalties on the preceding Civic (released be getting Caste) coupled with the release from the previous strangleholds makes Caste "seem" OP.

Going to Despot has a similar release from these strangleholds too. But going to Monarchy after Despot is a bit of a letdown.

In many of the Civic categories the 1st 2 Civics choke the game too much imo to keep City growth and expansion under a thumbscrew scenario. Once you hit Civics like Caste and Despot the choke collar is removed.

JosEPh

Ah, which raises the important question: Should civics take a part in the curbing/buffing of excess/lack of aspects of this mod? For example, if theres not enough maintenance, should civics in general add more? Or if there's too much gold, should civics in general cost more? I still am not sure on the answer to this question, I have days when i think both ways. And Joseph is correct: the first 2 civics are generally restrictive, so the third civic in a category almost always seems OP. So when comparing Caste, compare it to later Society civics, not necessarily the first two.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Ah, which raises the important question: Should civics take a part in the curbing/buffing of excess/lack of aspects of this mod? For example, if theres not enough maintenance, should civics in general add more? Or if there's too much gold, should civics in general cost more? I still am not sure on the answer to this question, I have days when i think both ways. And Joseph is correct: the first 2 civics are generally restrictive, so the third civic in a category almost always seems OP. So when comparing Caste, compare it to later Society civics, not necessarily the first two.

Civics should not be the solution to game balance problems. If they are then they will need to change every time the balance is fixed or moved, They should just focus on their area and how that area evolves and changes over time.

In my opinion the civics should provide extra flavour to the game and there should not be one correct civic option for every occasion.

The first civic should be bad. Then there should be 0-3 per era giving the different flavour of play options. I miss the Patriarchy/Matriarchy options for the prehistoric era. I used either as my needs dictated, they were both good options for the time.

I do wonder if we could have solved many of the problems we are having by changing the number of food consumed by a citizen to 4 rather than 3.