Civics Balance Discussion

[Leoreth]

I didn't intend for this to get this big, but I've seen some weaknesses in the current civics balance that I want to set straight. The problem is that at some point small adjustments do not really cut it anymore.

That's what I have already changed locally:
- Autocracy: reduced drafts to 2, removed espionage modifier
- Vassalage: reduced Castle happiness to 1
- Industrialism: reduced upkeep to low
- Capitalism: removed commerce modifier
- Standing Army: removed land production modifier
- Militia: removed all effects
- Scholasticism: increased GP modifier with state religion to 40%

I'm considering as well:

Dynasticism:
Remove +1 happiness from Palace, add +10% wonder production (gets rid of more happiness in the game, and I think the wonder production is actually quite interesting)

Mercantilism:
Still awkward and needs a buff I think. Maybe replace no foreign trade routes with -1 trade route or -25% trade route yield? Also considering inheriting plantation commerce from Slavery, could lose capital gold modifier in turn (what's the opinion on that by the way?)

Egalitarianism:
Needs something to make it more useful, but I can't think of anything that isn't taken by another civic, so that would mean some shuffling around is required. Thematically switching double specialists and largest city happiness with Public Welfare seems appropriate, but I don't know if it's good enough? My other idea is getting gold hurry from Capitalism, but then we need something else there. Other possibilities?

Warrior Code:
Not sure how useful it is actually. What is the general thought on military civics before Standing Army becomes available?

Everything else open for discussion as well of course.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I still don't think straight up removing the production modifier from Standing Army was necessary.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm generally wary of unit production modifiers, mainly because the late game already has such high unit counts anyway.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

That's what I have already changed locally:
- Autocracy: reduced drafts to 2, removed espionage modifier
- Vassalage: reduced Castle happiness to 1
- Industrialism: reduced upkeep to low
- Capitalism: removed commerce modifier
- Standing Army: removed land production modifier
- Militia: removed all effects
- Scholasticism: increased GP modifier with state religion to 40%

The majority of these make sense, though i'm not sure how the change to Capitalism will work out. I also see changing Militia makes it like all the other starting civics (though to be fair, Animism still gives +1 for non-state religions and has no upkeep).

Dynasticism:
Remove +1 happiness from Palace, add +10% wonder production (gets rid of more happiness in the game, and I think the wonder production is actually quite interesting)

The 10% wonder production could be interesting. If anything it may encourage more civs to keep dynasticism for a while. It may also affect the timeline for UHVs which could be interesting too. I think the only downside is that losing the +1 from palace and castle means that Medieval civs will need to rely more on units for happiness rather than using castles and other buildings while having a minimal garrison.

Mercantilism:
Still awkward and needs a buff I think. Maybe replace no foreign trade routes with -1 trade route or -25% trade route yield? Also considering inheriting plantation commerce from Slavery, could lose capital gold modifier in turn (what's the opinion on that by the way?)

You need trade routes to have a decent tech rate, i think that's why the majority of AI stay away from this civic. Otherwise, if you combine it with Absolutism and build your capital right, then your economy will be strong for a long time (The Netherlands, using these with their UP, can get strong from this).

Would Slavery and Mercantilism share the commerce from plantations or would it jump from Slavery to Mercantilism? I guess that could work, but not sure.

Egalitarianism:
Needs something to make it more useful, but I can't think of anything that isn't taken by another civic, so that would mean some shuffling around is required. Thematically switching double specialists and largest city happiness with Public Welfare seems appropriate, but I don't know if it's good enough? My other idea is getting gold hurry from Capitalism, but then we need something else there. Other possibilities?

My main understanding of Egalitarianism is that it represents a democracy that has abolished slavery (although that doesn't necessarily make it an egalitarian society). I think someone would need to list the major complaints with Egalitarianism, I don't see an issue with the current bonuses except for what the name implies. I think Capitalism should keep the Gold rush bonus, unless you can find a trait that is better there (civs that spawn late like America really need that gold rush to build up and get on even footing with Europe and Asia).

Warrior Code:
Not sure how useful it is actually. What is the general thought on military civics before Standing Army becomes available?

My thoughts on the civics and their bonuses:
Militia: great if you're turtling in your homeland or not expanding. If the bonuses are removed then this is moot.

Warrior Code: for expansive, conquering civs like Rome and Persia in the early game, or Mongols in the middle game. a boost to Barracks and Stables is already pretty useful to get heavily promoted units out quickly, and the stability boost will help a civ expand if its core is small. -50% war weariness will help with constant war, though maybe it can go under Totalitarianism or Autocracy since those civics promote warring.

Mercenaries: really helpful for UHVs where you need to rush out an army quickly and conquer (like Phoenicia and the Dutch). Also a decent substitute to Warrior Code if you don't want to build units on your own.

Levy Armies: this allows civs low in production but high in food to be competitive military wise (i'm thinking Italy here). the free unit boost helps a little too, and i think it accurately represents the use of armies in Medieval Times.

Standing Army: the standard civic everyone should adopt unless they're a naval power. The experience boost is needed if you're not using Vassalage, Theocracy, military instructors, or the Pentagon. With how productive the late game is, I could see the production modifier being removed, although when you can first get it before the Industrial era it's not like your production is all that great then either.

Naval Dominance: a must if you're a naval civ like England, the Dutch, Indonesia, even the Vikings (I'd believe America would also probably adopt this civic as well. The lost experience from Standing Army can be compensated by building the Pentagon, thus giving you true lategame military superiority). The boost to naval buildings also really helps. Would you remove the naval production modifier as well if Standing Army loses the land production modifier?

This might not be needed since they come so late in the game, but maybe Air Units should get a experience boost as well under either one or both of Standing Army and Naval Dominance? Otherwise they only get the 3 EXP from Airports while Air and Land Units can get boosts from the civics.

 

[calad]

Nothing about planned economy? It is simply OP.

 

[Leoreth]

The majority of these make sense, though i'm not sure how the change to Capitalism will work out. I also see changing Militia makes it like all the other starting civics (though to be fair, Animism still gives +1 for non-state religions and has no upkeep).

Animism is that way because it's the easiest way to model non-state religion unhappiness, and how it is not present under Secularism.

The 10% wonder production could be interesting. If anything it may encourage more civs to keep dynasticism for a while. It may also affect the timeline for UHVs which could be interesting too. I think the only downside is that losing the +1 from palace and castle means that Medieval civs will need to rely more on units for happiness rather than using castles and other buildings while having a minimal garrison.

I think both the need to rely on Dynasticism and garrisons in the Middle Ages are a good thing.

You need trade routes to have a decent tech rate, i think that's why the majority of AI stay away from this civic. Otherwise, if you combine it with Absolutism and build your capital right, then your economy will be strong for a long time (The Netherlands, using these with their UP, can get strong from this).

Yeah, encouraging combining it with the Absolutism was the intent there.

Would Slavery and Mercantilism share the commerce from plantations or would it jump from Slavery to Mercantilism? I guess that could work, but not sure.

I thought about moving, but giving Slavery +1 production on slave plantations could also work alongside this.

My main understanding of Egalitarianism is that it represents a democracy that has abolished slavery (although that doesn't necessarily make it an egalitarian society). I think someone would need to list the major complaints with Egalitarianism, I don't see an issue with the current bonuses except for what the name implies. I think Capitalism should keep the Gold rush bonus, unless you can find a trait that is better there (civs that spawn late like America really need that gold rush to build up and get on even footing with Europe and Asia).

That's a bit too narrow. In my view it represents any modern form of government that includes and protects all social groups, including elements such as equal rights and universal suffrage. That is not the case for Representation, which is more about Enlightenment era parliamentarianism where social privilege is still firmly in place and legally codified.

My thoughts on the civics and their bonuses:
Militia: great if you're turtling in your homeland or not expanding. If the bonuses are removed then this is moot.

Warrior Code: for expansive, conquering civs like Rome and Persia in the early game, or Mongols in the middle game. a boost to Barracks and Stables is already pretty useful to get heavily promoted units out quickly, and the stability boost will help a civ expand if its core is small. -50% war weariness will help with constant war, though maybe it can go under Totalitarianism or Autocracy since those civics promote warring.

Mercenaries: really helpful for UHVs where you need to rush out an army quickly and conquer (like Phoenicia and the Dutch). Also a decent substitute to Warrior Code if you don't want to build units on your own.

Levy Armies: this allows civs low in production but high in food to be competitive military wise (i'm thinking Italy here). the free unit boost helps a little too, and i think it accurately represents the use of armies in Medieval Times.

Standing Army: the standard civic everyone should adopt unless they're a naval power. The experience boost is needed if you're not using Vassalage, Theocracy, military instructors, or the Pentagon. With how productive the late game is, I could see the production modifier being removed, although when you can first get it before the Industrial era it's not like your production is all that great then either.

Naval Dominance: a must if you're a naval civ like England, the Dutch, Indonesia, even the Vikings (I'd believe America would also probably adopt this civic as well. The lost experience from Standing Army can be compensated by building the Pentagon, thus giving you true lategame military superiority). The boost to naval buildings also really helps. Would you remove the naval production modifier as well if Standing Army loses the land production modifier?

This might not be needed since they come so late in the game, but maybe Air Units should get a experience boost as well under either one or both of Standing Army and Naval Dominance? Otherwise they only get the 3 EXP from Airports while Air and Land Units can get boosts from the civics.

Okay, sounds as I suspected. I think Naval Supremacy can keep the water production, the navy is more niche in use and therefore the civic can be a bit more powerful. No idea where the air domain experience could come in then though.

Nothing about planned economy? It is simply OP.

What exactly is OP about it?

 

[Publicola]

The 10% wonder production could be interesting. If anything it may encourage more civs to keep dynasticism for a while.

Which would certainly be more historically accurate -- how many early civilizations in the real world were city-states vs. dynastic empires? My concern would be that 10% wouldn't make much of a difference at all -- if you're trimming the happiness completely, I'd suggest something more like a 25% bonus, like an early Forge.

Would Slavery and Mercantilism share the commerce from plantations or would it jump from Slavery to Mercantilism? I guess that could work, but not sure.

This made me realize: in the real world, mercantilist countries relied on the slave trade or on plantation slavery quite extensively. Mercantilism itself was focused on extracting as many material and resources as possible from a colony to send to the imperial homeland, which meshes quite well with the idea of a slave-enabled civic.

I suggest that, whatever changes we make to the modifers, we make sure that the Mercantilism civic keeps whatever slaves and slave plantations left from the Slavery civic. Perhaps a civ can only create slaves under Slavery, but keeps them under Mercantilism as much as it does under Agrarianism.

This might not be needed since they come so late in the game, but maybe Air Units should get a experience boost as well under either one or both of Standing Army and Naval Dominance? Otherwise they only get the 3 EXP from Airports while Air and Land Units can get boosts from the civics.

This is one of the weaknesses (in my opinion) of DoC, though really of BtS itself: air superiority just doesn't seem to translate in the game to real-world military superiority. Maybe I'm missing something, but any time I get to the end game, I find it far more worth my while to build a Modern Armor or other powerful land unit than an air unit, especially given how the land unit experience bonuses compound on each other.

All that to say: if we're going to make an 'Air Superiority' civic, the bonuses need to be sufficient big to make it worthwhile. This would need to include at a minimum a bonus to production as well as extra Exp. points (+2 at least, though +3 or even +4 might be better). I'd also suggest buffing the air unit promotions tree -- there just isn't the same degree of flexibility for air units as I see with most other units available to build.

 

[Leoreth]

Which would certainly be more historically accurate -- how many early civilizations in the real world were city-states vs. dynastic empires? My concern would be that 10% wouldn't make much of a difference at all -- if you're trimming the happiness completely, I'd suggest something more like a 25% bonus, like an early Forge.

Yeah ... 25% feels like more than it probably actually is in effect.

This made me realize: in the real world, mercantilist countries relied on the slave trade or on plantation slavery quite extensively. Mercantilism itself was focused on extracting as many material and resources as possible from a colony to send to the imperial homeland, which meshes quite well with the idea of a slave-enabled civic.

I suggest that, whatever changes we make to the modifers, we make sure that the Mercantilism civic keeps whatever slaves and slave plantations left from the Slavery civic. Perhaps a civ can only create slaves under Slavery, but keeps them under Mercantilism as much as it does under Agrarianism.

That is already the case, you need the Slavery civic to create slaves, but buying and using them is possible under any civic except Egalitarianism.

This is one of the weaknesses (in my opinion) of DoC, though really of BtS itself: air superiority just doesn't seem to translate in the game to real-world military superiority. Maybe I'm missing something, but any time I get to the end game, I find it far more worth my while to build a Modern Armor or other powerful land unit than an air unit, especially given how the land unit experience bonuses compound on each other.

All that to say: if we're going to make an 'Air Superiority' civic, the bonuses need to be sufficient big to make it worthwhile. This would need to include at a minimum a bonus to production as well as extra Exp. points (+2 at least, though +3 or even +4 might be better). I'd also suggest buffing the air unit promotions tree -- there just isn't the same degree of flexibility for air units as I see with most other units available to build.

I agree, but the civics system is not the best point to start addressing that. But I definitely won't get to units before release.

 

[Power_of_Beer]

- Capitalism: removed commerce modifier
- Scholasticism: increased GP modifier with state religion to 40%

Not sure about the nerf of Capitalism.... some civs don't have the land for many towns but decent production (Ethiopia, Mexico etc...) which makes the civic basically useless for them (one cannot purchase buildings on a larger scale anyway).

Another suggestion for Scholasticism: remove the penalty from foreign religions (representing a more tolerant religious society, like many Asian ones, or the Caliphate of Cordoba). Another one could be something like + 1 from spectialists or religious buildings - a nice little bonus but nothing too big.

Egalitarianism:
Needs something to make it more useful, but I can't think of anything that isn't taken by another civic, so that would mean some shuffling around is required. Thematically switching double specialists and largest city happiness with Public Welfare seems appropriate, but I don't know if it's good enough? My other idea is getting gold hurry from Capitalism, but then we need something else there. Other possibilities?

The problem is that Representation has a really strong effect, making it superior in most cases. How about giving it the effect of the vanilla BtS civic: penalty for each civ with Egalitarianism if you have not adopted it (i always found this concept pretty cool)

 

[Leoreth]

Not sure about the nerf of Capitalism.... some civs don't have the land for many towns but decent production (Ethiopia, Mexico etc...) which makes the civic basically useless for them (one cannot purchase buildings on a larger scale anyway).

Another suggestion for Scholasticism: remove the penalty from foreign religions (representing a more tolerant religious society, like many Asian ones, or the Caliphate of Cordoba). Another one could be something like + 1 from spectialists or religious buildings - a nice little bonus but nothing too big.

I'm not happy with the religious civics either, but reinventing the entire column is a little bit too much right now. That is something for later.

The problem is that Representation has a really strong effect, making it superior in most cases. How about giving it the effect of the vanilla BtS civic: penalty for each civ with Egalitarianism if you have not adopted it (i always found this concept pretty cool)

Egalitarianism already has that effect, which is why I asked if there are AIs that adopt it. Maybe Egalitarianism should swap with Representation instead?

 

[Power_of_Beer]

Egalitarianism already has that effect, which is why I asked if there are AIs that adopt it. Maybe Egalitarianism should swap with Representation instead?

Hmm, is the description of the civic a bit off then? It says: " Penalty for Slaves in civs without Egalitarianism", so it only applies for cities with slaves/slave plantations (unless it was changed in the most recent SVN)? Anyway, if the AI is more inclined to choose the civic, the effect, if applied to all cities, might be strong enough to nearly be forced to adopt it. A simple increase in numbers (e.g. +3 in 7 biggest cities) might also be a good start.

 

[Hojsimpson]

The special thing about merchantilism is that if someone uses it its not only bad for him, it is also bad for their opponens. For example at the 1700AD scenario nearly all Europe uses merchantilism and your trade routes give 1 or at most 2 commerce, and if you switch to another civic, it still gives 1 or 2 even i you have open borders with Europe civs. But if you pay them to switch away from merchantilism to Guilds, your trade routes improves improve by a 100%-300% (sustained peace also counts when trading with foreign guys).
Its a lot of commerce per city and Merchantilism is never worth unless you have shrines on your capital and the slides set to gold.
The idea about the civic is to cause harm to you and your opponents economy as well.
My sugestions

Probably too complicated
Merchantilism: Only foreign trade routes(or national trade routes give less?). -50% from foreign trade routes, Civs which you have open borders with have -50% commerce from your trade routes. Main problem is that there is a minimum of 1 commerce and the number of cities is probably small.

Merchantilism: +1 gold for each silver/gold resource? New slave mines improvement allowed, more profit from mines?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Ceterum censeo Mercantilism should remove or reduce distance or colonial city upkeep.

 

[Leoreth]

Hmm, is the description of the civic a bit off then? It says: " Penalty for Slaves in civs without Egalitarianism", so it only applies for cities with slaves/slave plantations (unless it was changed in the most recent SVN)? Anyway, if the AI is more inclined to choose the civic, the effect, if applied to all cities, might be strong enough to nearly be forced to adopt it. A simple increase in numbers (e.g. +3 in 7 biggest cities) might also be a good start.

... you're right. Didn't read my own civic descriptions with more than a glance and forgot about changing it. That's a good point.

Ceterum censeo Mercantilism should remove or reduce distance or colonial city upkeep.

While keeping no foreign trade routes?

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, so a stab at trying to solve everything at once:

Representation:
- +2 happiness in the 6 largest cities
- +1 gold per specialist
- (maybe: double production for Courthouse)

Egalitarianism:
- +1 free specialist
- +1 production for Town
- Unable to use Slaves
- Unhappiness in civilizations not running Egalitarianism

Mercantilism:
- -50% trade route yield
- +50% gold in capital
- +1 commerce from Slave Plantation
- -50% city distance maintenance

Slavery:
- +1 commerce from Plantation, Slave Plantation
- Can Hurry Production with Population

 

[Publicola]

I really like the changes, but...

Mercantilism:
- -50% trade route yield
- +50% gold in capital
- +1 commerce from Slave Plantation
- -50% city distance maintenance

As much as I hate to say it, this might almost be too powerful. I can't imagine a game in which Mercantilism would not be immensely useful and worth switching over to as soon as it becomes available, or a game where I wouldn't actually target the required tech on my research path.

I've pulling a blank on what could be removed, since all of these elements work thematically and fill a needed role in-game. The maintenance thing is needed because mercantilism is the major 'empire' civic, the capital gold bonus balances the negative trade route yield and fits the historical motivation for the mercantilist system in the first place, and the bonus slave commerce fits the historical reality that mercantilist empires almost always exploited slave labor on their colonies.

If I had to, I'd probably suggest removing or reducing the line for city distance maintenance. That should definitely be a feature of a civic -- ever since the 'stability' category was removed, we've needed something for large intercontinental empires -- but I'm not sure a civic in the 'economics' category is the best fit. Remind me, what are the civics in the 'Government' or 'Organization' category? Maybe one of those could be changed to fit?

 

[NerfCothons]

Dynasticism - I like the idea of a wonder production buff. Reminds me of Egypt in Civ 5. Maybe 20% is appropriate. I wonder if the buff will make it harder or easier to accomplish wonder UHV's as most opponents will also be running the civic. Maybe it should have an era limit.

Capitalism - Capitalism competes with some other very powerful civics. Slavery's on use is mandatory for most early and mid civilizations. Industrialism has the same 10% bonus just to a different stat. Finally, public welfare is an enormous amount of science when you finally get there. If you feel that capitalism still needs the nerf perhaps the bonus town commerce should be dropped to one from two. After all, min/maxing strategies typically involve cottaging over numerous resources; towns are probably powerful enough without the two extra commerce from Capitalism.

Slavery - Slavery is just so powerful that most civilizations will use it in the early and mid game. The commerce to plantations is just icing on the cake. Even if Mercantilism is not changed, the plantation commerce should probably be removed from slavery. After all, the benefits of combining slavery with plantations should already be represented in slave plantations. Someone above suggested slave mines, which would probably make the slave colony game more interesting. I wonder if there would be an issue because you can build mines without a resource though. The same idea could be expanded in a logically sound manner to quarries as well and would not create the potential mine problem.

Mercantilism - I never know what to suggest on Mercantilism. It is true that mercantilism is not a hard ban on international trade. After all exporting finished goods is the end game of mercantile policy. I think the -1 trade routes is probably a better capture of the policy effect. With such a change it would also be possible to have mercantilism double the production speed of customs houses (as custom houses would actually benefit mercantile civilizations). This supports mercantilism's role as a building civic that gets dropped once the civilization's economy has matured.

Stealing slavery's plantation commerce bonus also makes sense because of mercantilism's focus on raw resources. However, this has the effect of improving the commerce produced throughout the empire, which isn't really appropriate as mercantilism focuses on enriching the core and not the colonies of an empire. The fact that mercantilism permits the use of slave plantations even without slavery is probably enough of a buff to plantations.

I also feel like the +1 gold from specialists was a concession after the guilds buffs but doesn't really fit the civic. Would it be possible to have mercantilism double trade routes that include your capital, or empower custom houses to have such an effect? This would be a more organic capital buff that would still synergize with absolutism but not be as easily exploitable as the 50% gold bonus.

So I guess all told I would suggest the new mercantilism being:
-1 trade routes
Double the value of trade routes that go through your capital
Double production speed of custom house
reduced expansion penalty for overseas colonies

Free Market - I know you didn't bring it up but I also think free market could use a buff since corporations now produce so much unhappiness and unhealthiness and free market magnifies this problem. Meanwhile free market must compete with central planning which is so effective at improving a civilization's production. Perhaps markets, grocers, and supermarkets should get +1 happiness with free market. I also don't think it makes sense that free market has a medium upkeep. As it stands additional corporation resources almost create more trouble than they are worth, so a civic built around that bonus will not fare well.

Egalitarianism - I do not think shifting public welfare's buff over would be a good change. The labor tree has such strong options that getting the enormous buff from public welfare actual incurs a substantial opportunity cost. The same would not be true if the science from specialists buff was in the organization tree. Maybe egalitarianism should provide a diplomatic bonus. Democracies tend not to fight democracies and totalitarian societies tend not to get along with everyone else. Perhaps totalitarianism should also incur a diplomatic penalty.

Military Civics - The current state of military civics is generally uninteresting. I kind of like the idea of militia improving wall build speed more for non-player civilizations getting a better shot at defense.

The problem with warrior code is that, while it is useful to gets your barracks and stables up, it does not actually help a civilization build more or better units. It is however balanced with mercenaries because you either want to make use of mercenaries which require a very specific civilization situation to want, or you'd just rather have the marginal benefit of warrior code.

I end up using levy armies most of the time once I get access to it because whether I'm militant or not it is the first civic in the tree that actually helps me build more or better units. Whether the food->units buff is one I want to make use of, it's the only tool I'm really being given. Levy armies is fine as it is so long as warrior code gets a buff and helps you build more or better units. My instinct is a complete remake of warrior code. Roll the parts of militia and warrior code that you like into militia and Rename warrior code Legion or Phalanx and move it to mathematics. Buffs to production or experience are kind of boring though. Would it be possible to give a promotion like shock or cover to all melee units (for example) that would disappear in the event of a civic change? If we're stuck with choosing between experience or speed I would choose +2 experience for new melee units. Or you could stick with warrior code and add +2 experience to new cavalry units.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

While keeping no foreign trade routes?

Exactly.

 

[calad]

What exactly is OP about it?

+1 production from a specialist. It really explodes production in late game specially when workshops and watermills also provides extra production.

 

[Leoreth]

Dynasticism - I like the idea of a wonder production buff. Reminds me of Egypt in Civ 5. Maybe 20% is appropriate. I wonder if the buff will make it harder or easier to accomplish wonder UHV's as most opponents will also be running the civic. Maybe it should have an era limit.

I'm against era limits here. Wonder UHVs might need adjustment if they are deadline based, the only thing I'm worried about here though is that it might encourage America players to use it. But the UP should counterbalance that.

Capitalism - Capitalism competes with some other very powerful civics. Slavery's on use is mandatory for most early and mid civilizations. Industrialism has the same 10% bonus just to a different stat. Finally, public welfare is an enormous amount of science when you finally get there. If you feel that capitalism still needs the nerf perhaps the bonus town commerce should be dropped to one from two. After all, min/maxing strategies typically involve cottaging over numerous resources; towns are probably powerful enough without the two extra commerce from Capitalism.

You have a point there, although I'm currently looking into things to replace the plain modifier on Industrialism as well. But I keep it in mind.

Slavery - Slavery is just so powerful that most civilizations will use it in the early and mid game. The commerce to plantations is just icing on the cake. Even if Mercantilism is not changed, the plantation commerce should probably be removed from slavery. After all, the benefits of combining slavery with plantations should already be represented in slave plantations. Someone above suggested slave mines, which would probably make the slave colony game more interesting. I wonder if there would be an issue because you can build mines without a resource though. The same idea could be expanded in a logically sound manner to quarries as well and would not create the potential mine problem.

That's an interesting idea. We could easily do slave quarries and slave mines, it's perfectly possible to allow slave mines only on resources. And I agree that with the Slave unit, extra Slavery effects aren't really necessary and can easily move to Mercantilism entirely without replacement.

Free Market - I know you didn't bring it up but I also think free market could use a buff since corporations now produce so much unhappiness and unhealthiness and free market magnifies this problem. Meanwhile free market must compete with central planning which is so effective at improving a civilization's production. Perhaps markets, grocers, and supermarkets should get +1 happiness with free market. I also don't think it makes sense that free market has a medium upkeep. As it stands additional corporation resources almost create more trouble than they are worth, so a civic built around that bonus will not fare well.

Okay that's fair. I don't think Economy civics in general should provide happiness, and I want to reduce happiness from civics overall as previously explained. Instead of changing the civic again, reducing corporation unhappiness/unhealthiness instead is the better indirect buff to it.

Egalitarianism - I do not think shifting public welfare's buff over would be a good change. The labor tree has such strong options that getting the enormous buff from public welfare actual incurs a substantial opportunity cost. The same would not be true if the science from specialists buff was in the organization tree. Maybe egalitarianism should provide a diplomatic bonus. Democracies tend not to fight democracies and totalitarian societies tend not to get along with everyone else. Perhaps totalitarianism should also incur a diplomatic penalty.

Agreed on the bolded part, that wasn't very well thought out.

Military Civics - The current state of military civics is generally uninteresting. I kind of like the idea of militia improving wall build speed more for non-player civilizations getting a better shot at defense.

The problem with warrior code is that, while it is useful to gets your barracks and stables up, it does not actually help a civilization build more or better units. It is however balanced with mercenaries because you either want to make use of mercenaries which require a very specific civilization situation to want, or you'd just rather have the marginal benefit of warrior code.

I end up using levy armies most of the time once I get access to it because whether I'm militant or not it is the first civic in the tree that actually helps me build more or better units. Whether the food->units buff is one I want to make use of, it's the only tool I'm really being given. Levy armies is fine as it is so long as warrior code gets a buff and helps you build more or better units. My instinct is a complete remake of warrior code. Roll the parts of militia and warrior code that you like into militia and Rename warrior code Legion or Phalanx and move it to mathematics. Buffs to production or experience are kind of boring though. Would it be possible to give a promotion like shock or cover to all melee units (for example) that would disappear in the event of a civic change? If we're stuck with choosing between experience or speed I would choose +2 experience for new melee units. Or you could stick with warrior code and add +2 experience to new cavalry units.

Yes, the general problem with the Military column is that the civic system as set up doesn't provide many opportunities to differentiate the options.

When analyzing the column it's best to look at it before and after Standing Army becomes available. At that point, it's usually preferable to the older civics, mostly competing with Naval Dominance for naval oriented civs. That's pretty historical, and extra experience is an appropriate bonus to only get late in the game, so that is okay. In general I think the late game situation here is alright.

Before that, we have four civics to choose from. I think thematically the previous situation was lacking in that there was no "default" civic to go to. As you say, if you want its effect you choose Mercenaries. Otherwise you choose Levy Armies because it at least does something.

I'm fine with Levy Armies as it is, because it's appropriate for the period it is available, and I like the distinct effect. On the other hand, Warrior Code seems to lack the clear purpose that Mercenaries has. Also, I think it's not entirely clear what it is supposed to represent. I introduced it thinking of more war oriented societies (Mongols, Vikings ...) as well as Feudal societies with an emphasis on a warrior class like Knights or Samurai. The idea behind that was to have a civic that represents the "normal way" of doing war as opposed to Mercenaries.

Thinking about it now, I don't see why the starting civic shouldn't fill that role, and why it shouldn't be normal for most early civs to keep it before Levy Armies. In that case, given that both the effects and thematic background have no clear direction, I think it's best if Warrior Code is removed and replaced with something else. At the same time, the starting civic should probably get a more generic name.

I'll think about that some more, and am welcome to ideas in the meantime.

[replies to Mercantilism in a separate post ...]

+1 production from a specialist. It really explodes production in late game specially when workshops and RARE PEPEs also provides extra production.

You mean food? Is it the combination that makes it too strong?