Civics Balance Discussion

[Imperator Knoedel]

While you're at it why don't you just give Central Planning -50% Food, Production and Commerce in all cities. Can't swing the nerf hammer hard enough eh?

 

[Leoreth]

Also, David Hasselhoff shows up in front of a random city to sing "Looking For Freedom" every five turns.

In the meantime, deltas to the above set of civics:
- Dynasticism: removed wonder production, upped happiness limit to 6
- City States: moved to Alphabet
- Capitalism: removed trade route modifier, added +10% commerce again
- Naval Supremacy: removed extra production for Harbor, Lighthouse
- Multilateralism: added +25% trade route yield with defensive pacts

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Really though, am I the only one who sees that Central Planning is perfect the way it is (except for the extra food for watermills maybe)? It's all the other economy civics that suck!

 

[Kewlipo]

Really though, am I the only one who sees that Central Planning is perfect the way it is (except for the extra food for watermills maybe)? It's all the other economy civics that suck!

I too think it is fine the way it is.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Thank you, person who isn't obviously just me with a second account, but who I am sure is totally handsome and brilliant in every which way.

 

[ezzlar]

Defensive pacts are the fastest way to end up in war. Strange that multilateralism would support it.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Defensive pacts are the fastest way to end up in war. Strange that multilateralism would support it.

They aren't as much of a deterrence to the AI as they are to the player.

 

[Panopticon]

Well, multilateralism is more like NATO than pacifism, right?

 

[ales_]

But the thing is that there is no way to distinguish between farms on resources and ordinary ones, they're the same improvement.

Can't you apply the reduction to resources directly?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Can't you apply the reduction to resources directly?

Quit giving Leoreth ideas on how to nerf Central Planning even further already!

 

[Leoreth]

Can't you apply the reduction to resources directly?

Not without changing the source. Also this would seem kind of awkward in the civic description.

 

[NerfCothons]

Also, David Hasselhoff shows up in front of a random city to sing "Looking For Freedom" every five turns.

In the meantime, deltas to the above set of civics:
- Dynasticism: removed wonder production, upped happiness limit to 6
- City States: moved to Alphabet
- Capitalism: removed trade route modifier, added +10% commerce again
- Naval Supremacy: removed extra production for Harbor, Lighthouse
- Multilateralism: added +25% trade route yield with defensive pacts

Why did you revert the dynasticism and capitalism changes? Were they too weak or strong in practice?

 

[Leoreth]

I'm inclined to agree with the opinions that Capitalism might be too weak without it.

For Dynasticism, it's more of an overall problem with possible unintended consequences, such as greater and quicker availability of wonders. Not too invested into the buff it got in return, but couldn't think of anything else.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Extra happiness from Palace?

Anyway, sudden epiphany: Give Free Market food and production from trade routes! Then there's no need to nerf Central Planning, I'm happy, that guy obsessed with slandering collectized agriculture is happy, everybody is happy!

 

[Publicola]

I could definitely get behind that. I'm not sure if a food bonus is necessary (since this is the game period when biology, and farms, and more health resources are used and traded, and re-balancing all of that could be a nightmare), but I'd definitely support a slight bonus.

Currently, the 'Free Market' civic provides +1 trade route and +25% corporation commerce. I have no idea how it'd be calculated or what the ideal rate should be, but "Trade Routes now generate Production" would suffice as a one-line descriptor.

If we're worried about overlap with 'Industrialism,' I'd suggest boosting the productivity of that civic while also added an unhealthiness penalty.

Also, back to the 'Free Market' civic, might I suggest that (rather than boosting corporate commerce) the civic reduce corporate maintenance instead? The key difference is that boosting commerce requires access to the needed resources to be useful, whereas reducing maintenance would increase the generic usefulness of corporations even for smaller countries with less access to such resources.

 

[Leoreth]

There is no corporation maintenance in DoC though.

 

[Hojsimpson]

I could definitely get behind that. I'm not sure if a food bonus is necessary (since this is the game period when biology, and farms, and more health resources are used and traded, and re-balancing all of that could be a nightmare), but I'd definitely support a slight bonus.

If you want to support production bonus for free market I'd also want to support more production bonus for farms for agrarianism, and production for environmentalism, and production for capitalism and commerce for central planning.

 

[NerfCothons]

Central Planning - I suspect this will incur the wrath of Knoedel (admittedly, that's one of the reasons I'm posting) but it occurs to me that in their current suggested state central planning cottage progression goes 1,2,4, and 4 commerce. Central planning should also penalize villages by -1 to smooth out this progression. This will effectively mean that central planning wipes out the benefits from researching printing press. This prevents a game where it doesn't matter when your village becomes a town (or visc versa) and retains the same incentive structure to protect and grow your domiciliary improvements.

That said, I disagree with any food nerfs to central planning improvements. One of the points of emphasis for the civic is more food from industrial improvements which will result in building workshops and watermills where a farm might otherwise be. This effect should already capture any population loss we might want to model into the civic. Central Planning is supposed to represent both mid-century China and Russia (central-planning/industrialism) as well as modern Sweden and modern China (central-planning/capitalism). If any civic should threaten food production it should be industrialism but I don't think we want to implement anything like that. If you are looking for a historical counter-example to the great leap forward, just look at what happened to Russia's population upon abandoning communism.

Dynasticism - Sounds like we're looking for a single supplementary buff that wouldn't be the reason you choose the civic but is still an asset. If 20% wonder improvement was game-breaking, maybe the 10% originally suggested would be appropriate. It was only abandoned because it was perceived to be too small to make a difference. Certainly there must be a level between inconsequential and game-breaking. Another possibility is +X% great general growth, the logic being that when a dynastic society is at war, war becomes the family business and royal children are trained from birth to some day lead their nation in battle. Yet another possibility could be double production speed of castles for vassalage synergy. You could also move the double production speed of barracks/stables hear and potentially add a single draft slot to standing army.

Environmentalism - One of the biggest problems with environmentalism is that forest preserves are kind of meh to begin with and so environmentalism gives them the commerce necessary to become ok, but not good. Preserving a forest late enough into the game to use environmentalism is downright difficult and involves major sacrifices throughout the game. Maybe it would be appropriate to buff forest preserves a bit either with environmentalism or even generally. An extra commerce even without environmentalism would probably be appropriate, either in addition to or in lieu of the awkward +1 commerce on rivers, which frankly doesn't make sense and also doesn't seem to affect all river fronts (is it because preserves on river fronts allow for recreational boating?).

Additionally, much of the map is covered in jungle or rainforest rather than forest. The difference between a raw forest and a raw jungle is -1f and -1p (not to mention the health effects). If a preserve is placed on a jungle it should probably be about as effective as a forest preserve. Perhaps forest preserves should also add one food and one production to jungles and rain forests.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I suspect this will incur the wrath of Knoedel (admittedly, that's one of the reasons I'm posting)

I knew it! You are so on my Gulag list now!

That said, I disagree with any food nerfs to central planning improvements. One of the points of emphasis for the civic is more food from industrial improvements which will result in building workshops and watermills where a farm might otherwise be. This effect should already capture any population loss we might want to model into the civic. Central Planning is supposed to represent both mid-century China and Russia (central-planning/industrialism) as well as modern Sweden and modern China (central-planning/capitalism). If any civic should threaten food production it should be industrialism but I don't think we want to implement anything like that. If you are looking for a historical counter-example to the great leap forward, just look at what happened to Russia's population upon abandoning communism.

I know there is this myth going around that Sweden is socialist, but how exactly is Sweden's economy a planned one? I'd honestly file them under Public Welfare/Environmentalism.

Environmentalism - One of the biggest problems with environmentalism is that forest preserves are kind of meh to begin with and so environmentalism gives them the commerce necessary to become ok, but not good. Preserving a forest late enough into the game to use environmentalism is downright difficult and involves major sacrifices throughout the game. Maybe it would be appropriate to buff forest preserves a bit either with environmentalism or even generally. An extra commerce even without environmentalism would probably be appropriate, either in addition to or in lieu of the awkward +1 commerce on rivers, which frankly doesn't make sense and also doesn't seem to affect all river fronts (is it because preserves on river fronts allow for recreational boating?).

The riverbend issue is a bug we inherited all the way from Vanilla Civ4 I believe. Also of course preserves should provide one commerce next to rivers, all that does is negate the fact that forests remove the natural river commerce in the first place.

Honestly I think preserves should provide +1 food with irrigation, carry irrigation, and be moved to Biology. Throw in +1 Commerce and they actually become worth building. 1F1H1C makes them preferable to farms unless you want max food, and with a little extra from Environmentalism it might just make sense to not instantly chop every jungle in sight.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I just had another epiphany: Why don't we move the hammer for specialists or the double production for factories and Coal Plants from Central Planning to Industrialism, and remove all or most other effects of the latter?