1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Civics Improvements Suggestions

Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by os79, Jul 17, 2014.

  1. os79

    os79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    Eastern USA Coast
    I think the civics are over-complex and maybe hurting AI. So I'm making few suggestions. They are generalized for now. I'll be more specific as the discussion evolve.

    1. I think Government and Power categories should merge because separately they looks really weird.

    2. I like Afforess' idea for limiting Republic's powerful bonuses as more useful for smaller civs.

    3. I think Slavery should be axed and Caste made stronger because it better describe the representation that civic is trying for. Slavery is just plain weird as Civic label in my opinion. Caste, now, will be better fit because it actually fit the history. Even though the societies of history didn't name it caste as India did, it was a caste system into Middle Ages. Even then feudal system had a strong similarity to caste system as make no differences.

    4. I wonder if it is possible to require one civic before activating other civic? If yes, would that be cool? Just an idea. If not enough interest, forget it.

    Again these suggestions are just my opinions.

    However I believe AI can be improved so that they can value civics for long enough between changing civics because of Anarchy and Upkeep costs can hurt AI if they change too often (scaled to gamespeed obviously.) Here I'll let Afforess and other coders discuss this because the AI logic is not my strong suit.
     
  2. Lord Bigfoot

    Lord Bigfoot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    830
    Location:
    My secret lair
    I'd say making MAD have a higher maintenance cost would be a good idea. Even though it's already at high it still seems to low compared to the RL expenditure to maintain such a policy.
     
  3. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    The goal isn't to make civics realistic, its to make them balanced.
     
  4. os79

    os79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    Eastern USA Coast
    That.

    Oh, by the way, there's a game option turning off Nukes. Is there a way for that civic to vanish if that game option is clicked? Just curious.
     
  5. Lord Bigfoot

    Lord Bigfoot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    830
    Location:
    My secret lair
    It'd also offset the fact that MAD is the best of all the military civics.(That 100% great general emergence is insane!) Also why does MAD need to be active to require the ability to pre-target ICBM's?
     
  6. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Because MAD as a policy is insane.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
     
  7. Spirictum

    Spirictum Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,942
    Location:
    Brazil
    I don't think Power and Government should be merged, it's good the way it is. What should be changed lies in the 4 last options of government: Republic, Democracy, Federalist and Fascist.

    As Afforess had said, Republic and Democracy are almost the same, but Democracy is a better version. Republic being the equivalent of early republics seem a good way of remodeling it. It would be a new nice mechanic of making small nations compete with bigger nations. Also it would prevent the republic spamming on AND late classic and middle ages.

    Federal IMO doesn't fit the place it is. I can't see it being a different option from any other in the same column. I know Democracy is also sharing the same problem, but it's intention seems to qualify for government column (or even power). But Federal seems completely out of place. But I have no idea what could be done here.

    And Fascist seems to have the same problem of Democracy: a bad name for an appropriate placed civic.

    IMO for the government column:
    - Tribal Council can remain as it is;
    - Despotism should be regarded as early despotism, and so revolution idx changers should be worse;
    - Monarchy OTOH shoud have less stability penalties (by now Despotism is better in terms of revolution then Monarchy);
    - Republic should follow the path Afforess has proposed, and be considered early republic;
    - Democracy should be regarded as Modern Republic (Democratic or not depends on other columns)
    - Federal I have no idea
    - Fascist should be considered modern Autocracy

    About the Power column, I think everything is fine, except that a new should be added: Official Party. Power can be on the hands of a Junta that has a provisory government or an early government. In the hands of the Patricians if families still play an important role in the society, enough that the government must have the trust of the patricians. In the nobility if somehow nobles are made and then are made necessary to govern. In the bureaucracy if having its support is the only way to do the administration (Russian Tsardom and Empire are good examples). In the Senate (representative body), and I don't think it needs an explanation. In the President, as the supreme leader of the State (Oliver Cromwell, North Korea, Cuba, Pinochet's Chile, Vargas's Brazil, Peron's Argentina). Technocracy I won't mind saying anything because its futuristic. And the Official Party (USSR, Brazilian Military Dictatorship, China).

    I think this could solve some issues with communism, fascism and democracy. About the bonuses I have no idea.

    And once again I'll defend realism because I think people here who criticize it are rather exaggerated on what they say. Civics are to be balanced toward gameplay and realism. E.g.: Realism dictates that some civics are meant to be left aside when the game advances, because they are supposed to play a role in earlier ages (like Tribal Council, Prophets, Folklore, Slavery, Caste). When balance towards gameplay-realism is too overweighted to any of both sides it becomes bad: civics can't be overly realistic, while also they can't be all game-balanced.

    So using gameplay as an excuse over realism isn't appropriate IMO, but rather the balance between them.

    Even though I agree that Bigfoot's argument isn't the best to see if MAD should have an even higher upkeep. But I never reached that point in the game, so I have no idea about it being balanced or not.
     
  8. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,526
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    I think I totally agree with Spirictum.

    About MAD: I never understood why it has the +100% GreatGeneral? :confused:
     
  9. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    24,986
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    It should not presuppose that any country with that civic has a president, so I think Democracy is the better name.
     
  10. Spirictum

    Spirictum Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,942
    Location:
    Brazil
    Why would a Modern Republic presupose that there is a President? And even though if civic Senate is used this doesn't mean there isn't a President.

    I just think Democracy, with this name, standing alongside Monarchy and Republic is weird because both those Governments can be Democratic, and being a Monarchy with President/Senate or a Republic with President/Senate doesn't mean it's democratic.

    Maybe Democracy as the concept itself (not its hybrid existence in AND as both Modern Republic and Democracy) should be moved elsewhere as well, but I'm not sure. It just doesn't feel right to be Or Monarchy Or Republic Or Democracy. Maybe it could go to power as well?

    I like the Power Column because it's not excludent. It just shows which of the constituent bodies of the nation is the source of power.
     
  11. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I'm still considering a lot of possible ideas for civics, but one thing I have decided on is to change the name of the POWER column to "Legislature".

    I don't want people to be confused and think Legislature means a governing group with representation. Any group of people (even a group of size 1) that issues laws and decrees is technically a legislature.

    The change is purely aesthetic, but I think it helps clarify the goal of the civic category.
     
  12. Spirictum

    Spirictum Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,942
    Location:
    Brazil
    I agree with this, it sounds better (power can have many meanings and because of that makes things confusing)
     
  13. os79

    os79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    Eastern USA Coast
    I'm fine with leaving Government and Power separate if they made even better sense.

    On Government column:

    Chiefdom is just there for game play reason.

    Why have Depotism? If Government column represent the public labeling of the civ, then Depotism is just plain weird. I don't play with Revolutions on but if you do, then how your monarch manipulate the people, either as a gentle ruler or an iron ruler should suffice. The monarch can be a despot if he or she want to be. Monarchy should suffice as the government with just one head of the state, at least publicly. Then represent one person absolute power in Power civic.

    Then leave Republic in Government column and Democracy moved to Power. Republic should be more useful for smaller civs. Either Afforess' idea of high maintenance for large number of cities or city limit of 15 is my suggestion.

    Federal should work as replacement for Republic but useful for a really big civs.

    Power column:

    There are different types of Power sharing throughout the history.

    One Person rule. That can be a chief, a king or a president. It doesn't matter, the important thing is the power is vested in just one person as an absolute authority. They just have different names throughout the history.

    Elite or Nobility or Oligarchy rule. Small group who are powerful enough to band together to rule the other people unluckily enough to be caught under their thrall. Again the labeling differs through the history. Again it doesn't matter because the small elites rule with an iron fist, whether with velvet gloves on or not.

    The representative rule. That can be like Senate or Parliament where there is representatives for people making rules. The earliest example known is Rome obviously. Senate proclaimed to represent other Romans but had enough power to make rules if not always representative. It is somewhat similar to Elites rule described above but the people in power here does try to represent, some.

    Direct people rule. Should only work for small civs with Republic civic until the Internet and Personal Robotics come along, then it can work with Federal civic well for larger civs.

    These are my suggestions.
     
  14. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,638
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    That's something I always wanted to do. I had some plans to rework civics but since we're talking about it, I'll propose some changes myself when I have some free time (I had some busy days lately, I need to take care of my little boy while my wife is studying for an exam to get - hopefully - a new job). :)
     
  15. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    I really don't like the name Legislature. It sounds straight out of a textbook, and if I wanted a textbook, I would read a textbook. How about Rule instead?
     
  16. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Random Idea: Make the government category names update based on the civic currently active?

    Good, Bad, Maybe?
     
  17. Spirictum

    Spirictum Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,942
    Location:
    Brazil
    I like it
     
  18. os79

    os79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    Eastern USA Coast
    I like that better. Because some civics are not really legislating, just plain doing what please the rulers.
     
  19. os79

    os79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    Eastern USA Coast
    You mean if we have Monarchy on, then have President on, call it Constitutional Monarchy, for example? If that's what you mean, then why not? It's just labeling.
     
  20. Noyyau

    Noyyau Privateer Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    Italy
    How would that even work?
     

Share This Page