Civics Balance Discussion

[Imperator Knoedel]

Seriously though, can't I offer you the watermill up as a sacrificial lamb in order to save Central Planning? I'd do it in a heartbeat!

 

[NerfCothons]

Guilds - Technically the behavior you are getting at is called oligopoly by economists. And this covers medieval guilds as well as Oil Cartels. Another nominalization of the concept would be "Unionization".

Multilateralism - I'm not sure it makes sense for multilateralism to get a trade route boost. Gameplay-wise that would be two powerful economic bonuses (one much more so but still) for a military civic. What should make multilateralism appealing should be just as much diplomatic as economic so while I agree that it could use more than the specialist bonus, it should be a diplomatic bonus not another economic one. Historically I'm also not sure that nations pursuing more multilateral foreign policy necessary traded more. As for the trade bonus, if capitalism loses that bonus, it seems like it would be much weaker than the later game options in the labor tree. However I do think that thematically, the bonus fits better in free market. maybe trade the corporation boost from free market with capitalism's trade bonus.

Central Planning - I don't really share Knoedel's dire outlook on the civic. Generally speaking a single food is better than a single production which is better than a single commerce. Central planning combines a powerful building modifier, with a powerful specialist modifier. Then to boot several improvements are able to trade up on their yields from commerce towards food. Even under the status quo, watermills, which for much of the game do not produce extra commerce, and therefore only have the one commerce given by the river. Many players are happy to sacrifice the entire commercial output of those tiles for the extra food. Meanwhile the greatest liability for workshops is that default food penalty which central planning negates at the low price of a single commerce that would only exist of you put a workshop on a riverside or on a resource in the first place, which is just poor central planning. Given how favorable the former two trades are losing a single commerce off the final form of the cottage, the town, which will either default at 5 or 7 commerce (by the time central planning is available) seems like a minimal trade off if a player is interested in the production and food benefits offered by central planning. And if they aren't, what are they running central planning for anyway?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Spare me your bourgeois propaganda! This change will ruin Central Planning and you know it!

 

[Hojsimpson]

Does anyone use Agriarianism? In what cases?
Slavery is too good when you have too many food/population and such a low production and you need to hurry those military units or buildings or wonders for whatever purpose you have in mind that I've never used agrarianism. I only build farms on resources at the early game, and may build farms after biology, but by the time I have biology I wouldn't use Agriarianism and this makes the farms +1 commerce not that good, and also many cities can't even work a pasture. The workers bonus is good, but I can sacrifice a worker too.

About Central Planning you can try a test with a Russia filled with farms and workshops vs one filled with watermills and whatever else. If you are really choosing Central Planning you want a superproductive civ, and workshops + farms gives more production than watermills + whatever.
If you make a superproductive civ your research will depend upon building research, and you build more research with more production.

To get the full benefit of capitalism + free market you build towns everywhere, to get the full benefit of industrialism + central planning you build farms and workshops everywhere.
Balanced things like windmills and watermills are weird.

And why does it take so many turns to build a watermill or a lumbermill or a forest preserve?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Agrarianism is nice for Russia, because it has so many plains.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Here are my detailed thoughts on the civics as Leoreth posted them:

Dynasticism should have its upkeep increased to Medium if you really want to give it that wonder modifier. I know I originally suggested that one in the first place, but I have since changed my mind. At one hand it would make sense that a monarchy can more easily allocate resources towards grand build projects than something more decentralized, but on the other hand what kinds of governments really did build the wonders in this mod? Greece as a bunch of city states is the most obvious counter example, and once we get past the Medieval era most great wonders were built by 'Murrica. How about just making it give extra production for pre-Renaissance wonders and adjusting Greece's UP a bit?

Is City States still enabled by Literature? It really should be unlocked with Alphabet so Greece and Phoenicia will actually run it.

Autocracy and Republic should have their upkeeps bumped down to low and medium respectively to make them more attractive in the lategame versus the older civics.

Imo Republic should come between Representation and Egalitarianism chronologically, as it is you can have an absolutist republic before a representative monarchy, which just makes no sense. Either move Republic to Constitution and Representation to Liberalism or, which might make more sense, change the tech costs and requirements so that Liberalism comes later and Constitution earlier.

Huh, it seems some disgruntled conservative made some edits in the Wikipedia article on Liberalism:

Spoiler :

Disregarding that, if we take John Locke as anchor point Liberalism should come around in the 17th century, with Constitution a bit earlier depending on how much you want to fudge the definition and base it on the Magna Charta.

Vassalage should have its upkeep increased to medium to make it more unattractive in the late game.

Maybe Absolutism could get that one extra happiness from Palace you removed from Dynasticism?

Egalitarianism should have its upkeep decreased to medium to make it more attractive in the late game.

Ho boy, Slavery, whatever will we do about you? Couldn't you just decrease the amount of hammers per pop you get from whipping to 20?

Agrarianism should have its upkeep increased to medium or high to make it more unattractive in the lategame.

Capitalism should have its upkeep decreased to low to make it more attractive in the lategame, but do decrease the extra commerce from towns to +1.

Did you rename Industrialism to Industrialization? I liked the first name better. At any rate it should have its upkeep removed, along with the extra hammer for watermills and maybe workshops.

Public Welfare should have its upkeep decreased to medium make it more attractive in the lategame.

Mercantilism should remove colony upkeep.

Free Market should either give +1 Gold per Specialist or +10% Gold in all cities to buff it versus Central Planning and make it synergize even more with Capitalism.

You know my thoughts about Central Planning. Don't add arbitrary penalties, make the other options more attractive! The loss of commerce from Workshops doesn't even make sense, why would it be worse to place an industrial complex next to a river than in the middle of nowhere? All this does is encourage gamey strategies.

Come on, give +1 Food to Forest Preserves with Environmentalism, what's the worst thing that could happen?

Maybe recheck your wording on the description of Scholasticism.

Fanaticism should have its upkeep increased to medium to make it more unattractive in the lategame.

I suggest removing Scholasticism and instead replacing it with state atheism or some such, so I can finally get rid of all those silly superstitions the Soviet Union, PRC etc. can be accurately represented in that regard. Not sure about the name, State Atheism, Ideology? At any rate it should give +1 Unhappiness in all cities for every religion, give extra happiness from Broadcast Towers, Jails, Intelligence Agency and Security Bureau, have no upkeep and remove number of cities maintenance. Combined with Totalitarianism this means you pay nothing for your cities! Isn't it great? Obviously it should allow inquisitions. The tech unlocking it should be Nationalism (French Revolution anyone?), Communism (opiate of the people) or Fascism. (Führerkult)

I'm already drooling from my mouth at the thought of the ever expanding totalitarian atheist communist utopia I could create...

Why would Mercenaries help build walls? This makes no sense. Also decrease its upkeep to low, you already pay enough for the units and it's not a civic that should ever really go out of style.

Levy Armies should have its upkeep increased to medium to make it more unattractive in the lategame.

Standing Army needs either ability to draft or a bonus to unit production if you don't want to decrease its upkeep.

Naval Supremacy is overpowered, either increase its upkeep or remove one of the economic boosts.

 

[Leoreth]

Imo Republic should come between Representation and Egalitarianism chronologically, as it is you can have an absolutist republic before a representative monarchy, which just makes no sense. Either move Republic to Constitution and Representation to Liberalism or, which might make more sense, change the tech costs and requirements so that Liberalism comes later and Constitution earlier.

With its position in the tech tree, I take Firaxis liberalism as the political manifestation of general Enlightenment thought. Republic should precede Representation, see for instance the Dutch Republic. The Dutch also make its placement at Liberalism fitting.

Huh, it seems some disgruntled conservative made some edits in the Wikipedia article on Liberalism:

Spoiler :

It's always funny when conservatives don't realize that conservatism is also a liberal ideology.

Maybe Absolutism could get that one extra happiness from Palace you removed from Dynasticism?

Thematically fitting, but Absolutism is already too strong imo.

Did you rename Industrialism to Industrialization? I liked the first name better.

I didn't, mistake during the write up.

You know my thoughts about Central Planning. Don't add arbitrary penalties, make the other options more attractive!

That's the David Kim school of game design. It is already ruining one game and I won't have any of it.

Maybe recheck your wording on the description of Scholasticism.

?

Why would Mercenaries help build walls? This makes no sense. Also decrease its upkeep to low, you already pay enough for the units and it's not a civic that should ever really go out of style.

The idea is that Mercenaries are connected to states that don't have a regular army and rely on walls and well, mercenaries for defense. Think medieval Italy.

More generally, I don't think upkeep is the right lever to control a civic's late game adoption. First off, it kind of rests on the assumption of boundless expansion. Secondly, civic costs should really be judged on their own merit. Third, if expansion means you have to regress in suboptimal older civics than that is a good thing.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Thematically fitting, but Absolutism is already too strong imo.

Why don't you lower one of the yield boosts then?

That's the David Kim school of game design. It is already ruining one game and I won't have any of it.

So you'd rather just nerf everything that stands out into the ground? You know who also did that? The Civ5 team! There!

?

It says "allows building missionaries with monastery".

Third, if expansion means you have to regress in suboptimal older civics than that is a good thing.

I'm not sure I understand that. Also what large post industrial empires went back to Feudalism? Russia and China are many things today, but they aren't agrarian monarchies. Neither are the USA or Canada.

 

[Leoreth]

Why don't you lower one of the yield boosts then?

Because that dilutes what the civic is about. And there is enough happiness on civics already. Want happiness from Organization? Use Representation.

So you'd rather just nerf everything that stands out into the ground? You know who also did that? The Civ5 team! There!

Except that I'm not doing that.

I'm not sure I understand that. Also what large post industrial empires went back to Feudalism? Russia and China are many things today, but they aren't agrarian monarchies. Neither are the USA or Canada.

I don't think there are historical examples for the sort of empire size we are talking about.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Except that I'm not doing that.

Yes you are! Need I remind you of Agrarianism a few versions back, or Watermills in 1.12? With every new version you seem to single out a feature that you assume is overpowered, and bash it with the nerf hammer until nobody in their right mind would use that feature anymore! Don't you want to break out of this infernal circle?

I don't think there are historical examples for the sort of empire size we are talking about.

The Mongols, British and Russians are at least close. Have you ever played Russia on Marathon speed in the lategame? I have, and let me tell you that if you have to purposely failbuild spaceship parts just to stay afloat as the Soviet Union Central Planning doesn't need further penalties to money.
To me it is pretty clear that to keep a global empire together you need to have a sophisticated system of governance, which is represented by running late game civics. Whether wheter wether GOD DAMN IT SPELL CHECK WHY DO I EVEN HAVE YOU I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A SECOND THOSE ARE ALL CORRECT SPELLINGS If that is the totalitarian approach of the Soviet Union or the loose alliance method of the Commonwealth (this is as good a time as any for me to mention that I am against Canada as a civ) I don't care, but you certainly won't be keeping a bazillion peoples under your thumb in the 20th century with an agrarian economy.

This reminds me, do the default civics still have low upkeep? Because it really should be high for all of them.

 

[Leoreth]

What do you think about +25% trade route yield with defensive pacts for Multilateralism?

 

[Leoreth]

Guilds - Technically the behavior you are getting at is called oligopoly by economists. And this covers medieval guilds as well as Oil Cartels. Another nominalization of the concept would be "Unionization".

How about Trade Leagues? Not entirely the same concept but imo fits well within a medieval context without being too tied into the era, and contrasts well with Mercantilism and Free Market.

 

[NerfCothons]

How about Trade Leagues? Not entirely the same concept but imo fits well within a medieval context without being too tied into the era, and contrasts well with Mercantilism and Free Market.

Eh, it seems to work fine, doesn't really get used as a phrase that I'm aware of though.

As for trade bonus with defensive pacts that doesn't seem to be such a big buff that I am bothered by a military civic being so economically beneficial, but only because I don't imagine that would have much of an effect. Maybe that's because I'm not playing trying to build defensive pacts with large countries with a lot of cities to trade with. It certainly incentivizes the sort of play you are trying to encourage with multilateralism though. Would the AI be able to comprehend such a buff?

 

[Leoreth]

As for trade bonus with defensive pacts that doesn't seem to be such a big buff that I am bothered by a military civic being so economically beneficial, but only because I don't imagine that would have much of an effect. Maybe that's because I'm not playing trying to build defensive pacts with large countries with a lot of cities to trade with. It certainly incentivizes the sort of play you are trying to encourage with multilateralism though. Would the AI be able to comprehend such a buff?

It's easy to make it comprehend that the civic is worth more when it has defensive pacts with good trade partners. Having it sign defensive pacts based on that is probably not worth the effort though.

 

[Publicola]

Central Planning (high): +1 production per specialist, +1 food from Workshops and Watermills, -1 commerce from Workshops, Watermills and Towns, double production for Factories and Coal Plants

I know there's been some controversy over this, but I just had a thought. If you look at the instances of an actual communist regime over the last century, virtually every one of them has done something horribly destructive to the agricultural system they ruled over. Stalin had the Holodomor (natural famine or not, his policies undeniably made it worse), Mao had the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot had his collective farms, Kim Jung Un had the famines of the 1970's, Hugo Chavez did a number on Venezuelan farming, etc.

Instead of penalizing commerce, why don't we modify the civic effect to penalize food? Specifically I was thinking an effect of "-1 food per Farm." In most cases, this would make farms pointless, causing the player to replace them with other improvements. They'd only be valuable when placed on food-producing resources -- which also reflects Soviet policy of using Ukraine (resource-rich) as a breadbasket and prioritizing non-agricultural industries in the other SSRs.

In short, this change would incentivize the use of improvements that Central Planning gives bonuses for, while balancing it with a drawback that also reflects the historical consequence (reduced population) that accompanies centrally planned economies whenever they've been put into effect.

 

[Publicola]

What do you think about +25% trade route yield with defensive pacts for Multilateralism?

I'm a big fan of this. Multilateralism's "big idea" is that it's the only military civic that isn't really about the military itself. It's about foreign affairs, it's about diplomacy, it's about when and how to use that military. Giving this civic certain effects that incentivize good diplomatic behavior by the player and AI fits perfectly into what this civic is trying to accomplish.

 

[Leoreth]

I know there's been some controversy over this, but I just had a thought. If you look at the instances of an actual communist regime over the last century, virtually every one of them has done something horribly destructive to the agricultural system they ruled over. Stalin had the Holodomor (natural famine or not, his policies undeniably made it worse), Mao had the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot had his collective farms, Kim Jung Un had the famines of the 1970's, Hugo Chavez did a number on Venezuelan farming, etc.

Instead of penalizing commerce, why don't we modify the civic effect to penalize food? Specifically I was thinking an effect of "-1 food per Farm." In most cases, this would make farms pointless, causing the player to replace them with other improvements. They'd only be valuable when placed on food-producing resources -- which also reflects Soviet policy of using Ukraine (resource-rich) as a breadbasket and prioritizing non-agricultural industries in the other SSRs.

In short, this change would incentivize the use of improvements that Central Planning gives bonuses for, while balancing it with a drawback that also reflects the historical consequence (reduced population) that accompanies centrally planned economies whenever they've been put into effect.

Not sure, -1 food is a strong disincentive, and communist agriculture seems to have worked fine after the initial shake ups from collectivization.

 

[Publicola]

Not sure, -1 food is a strong disincentive, and communist agriculture seems to have worked fine after the initial shake ups from collectivization.

Err... where? Just looking at the Soviet Union, agriculture suffered so badly under Lenin that he had to revert to a quasi-capitalism just to make quota, Stalin presided over the Holodomor, Khrushchev tried and failed to introduce corn (and agricultural reform more generally) in the USSR, and Brezhnev was forced to import food to make up for low production. Moreover, it's estimated that, under Brezhnev, private farms, which cultivated only 4% of the land, accounted for around 30% of the national food production.

Likewise, we don't have exact figures for North Korea because it's such a closed society, but we do know that the height standards for North Korean soldiers have been consistently reduced over the last decades -- which is only explicable if there were systemic food shortages.

Everything I've been able to find indicates that food collectivization was a disastrous policy. That's why so many Soviet jokes are about food shortages ("Comrade, where are you going?" "To Krakow, to get bread!" "But I thought only Warsaw had bread?" "Yes, but the line starts in Krakow!")

On the other hand, I understand the argument that -1 is a major disincentive, and I wasn't entirely pleased with it myself. So instead of applying it to all farms, I'd like to revise my suggestion to apply it to only tiles that provide food resources. This means that a farm on wheat, instead of producing +3 , would only produce +2 . The same for a pasture on cows and pigs -- the effect shouldn't apply to the tile but only to the improvement that gives a resource (so a watermill on a pig resource wouldn't have its food reduced at all).

In short, rather than reduce the total agricultural output of the entire territory, this would only reduce the potential for growth on the most productive tiles.

 

[Hojsimpson]

There was a time in which switching from Central Planning caused economic crisis. If you want to still represent something like that -2 pop per city or -1 level of town-village or something similar when switching to CP represents the initial shakyness. I dont like it though. Neither I like how central planning changes improvements. -x% commerce is better and easier to balance(imo) than -1 commerce to workshop is just the same as -0 commerce to workshops in non river tiles...
Also Workshops and rare pepes can be totally fine with +1 food without the civic, rare pepes helped making bread and food so it made sense for it to give food. Farms.. +1commerce?

 

[Leoreth]

On the other hand, I understand the argument that -1 is a major disincentive, and I wasn't entirely pleased with it myself. So instead of applying it to all farms, I'd like to revise my suggestion to apply it to only tiles that provide food resources. This means that a farm on wheat, instead of producing +3 , would only produce +2 . The same for a pasture on cows and pigs -- the effect shouldn't apply to the tile but only to the improvement that gives a resource (so a watermill on a pig resource wouldn't have its food reduced at all).

Okay fair enough. But the thing is that there is no way to distinguish between farms on resources and ordinary ones, they're the same improvement. Pastures would work though.