Civics Improvements Suggestions

[Vokarya]

Removing unhealth from population is not Superhuman's only selling point, but I do get what you are saying. I like to break existing rules in the Transhuman Era. Health is one of them.

The first thing that I think needs doing is removing the science bonus from Socialized and Paradise. When all Welfare civics from Private on have a science bonus, that is a problem. Also, Superhuman should probably have the Great Person bonus, not Paradise.

 

[Urza1234]

Can we have the new Slave specialists add Unhealth rather than cost food? Health/Unhealth is a little more flexible of a resource, it interacts with Rev, and its a bit more flavorful.

 

[PsychopathicWarmonger]

Anyone have any idea why this is happening?

No numbers for the local and national rebelliousness?

 

[Vokarya]

Can we have the new Slave specialists add Unhealth rather than cost food? Health/Unhealth is a little more flexible of a resource, it interacts with Rev, and its a bit more flavorful.

I was trying to simplify Slaves. They used to be -1 health and -0.5 happiness. The -1 food makes it more of a cost to use Slaves. I rate -1 health as -0.5 food since it means -1 food if you are already unhealthy and 0 food if you are not. Since the +3 hammers from Slaves come before any % bonuses, I thought that Slave specialists could use a bigger check so they won't be preferable to Engineers, which are available in only a small quantity early on (1 slot per era).

 

[Vokarya]

Anyone have any idea why this is happening?

No numbers for the local and national rebelliousness?

Your "Show Detailed RevIndex Values" option is turned off. It's in the BUG menu, A New Dawn tab, center column, 5th from the bottom.

 

[PsychopathicWarmonger]

Your "Show Detailed RevIndex Values" option is turned off. It's in the BUG menu, A New Dawn tab, center column, 5th from the bottom.

Oh. XD
Silly of me, I assumed that meant RevIndex values in the city bar.
Thanks.

 

[Urza1234]

I took a look at comparing Slavery to Caste and I think we can do some adjusting here.

First, reducing the Slave Market:

• Remove the production and gold bonuses.
• Add flat +3 gold/turn. I think +3 is okay, but I would rather have gold here rather than commerce.
  
• Possibly add an additional -1 health.
• That leaves 1 free Slave, +3 gold/turn, and -1 happy.

Second, boost Caste a little:

• Remove the largest city unhappiness. I think the GPP penalty is the more appropriate drawback, and Caste doesn't need two different negatives.

Third, for Revolutions only:

• Slavery should not grant a stability bonus for switching to. If anything, the sign should be reversed and should increase instability.

How does this look so far?

I've been playing around with this a bit. I think one change that might help balance these civics a bit would be to increase the Upkeep for Slavery. The Slavery bonuses are just so powerful, with or without the Slave Market. However the civic feels flavorless without them.

I'm not sure about that change to the Slave Market. It's pretty clear that you want the Slave Market and slavery in general to be early-game only, but if anything giving it flat +3 is actually too strong early on. A city would need to be generating 30 base /turn before the old slave market would outpace the suggested new one, and thats not even accounting for the fact that all other early +% economy buildings are +% only, like Bazaar from Trade. No early game civ requires that much .
Slave Market is already one of the strongest buildings to build first in any new city, considering that the free specialist can double a young city's output, and the suggested change would only enhance that. It would essentially make all new cities immediately profitable, allowing slaver civs to expand like mad with essentially no economic penalty while still running a massive slider.
I think we need a different approach to the Slave Market than that. I do think I agree with you though that the +15% to Slave Market could be removed. That bonus doesnt really make sense to that building, unless I'm missing something, and it is a very large part of what makes Slavery flat out superior to Caste at the moment. Perhaps the +% on slave market could be replaced with a small +% to the production of workers?

I also very strongly agree with you that we need to be looking at a direct comparison between Slavery and Caste, considering their relative position as competing Civics via their position in the Tech tree.

Personally, I'm not really sure that any of the bonuses or penalties for the Caste civic fit at all, but I dont consider myself particularly educated about any of the social systems that westerners retroactively called caste either. Modern scholars seem a bit divided on what Caste systems in fact meant in different places at different times in history. Perhaps this is because the word Caste is a touchy political issue contemporarily in the Indosphere, I dont know. Civ4 is a game though, and has traditionally been perfectly willing to ignore historical realities in favor of dealing in essentially History Memes (ie 3-5 sentences that could be used to explain a broad topic to a 3rd-grader), since such memes are easier to translate into a game. I would love discussion on the subject, what should/does this Civic provide in terms of game-sense, what historically should this civic reflect?

 

[Vokarya]

I've been playing around with this a bit. I think one change that might help balance these civics a bit would be to increase the Upkeep for Slavery. The Slavery bonuses are just so powerful, with or without the Slave Market. However the civic feels flavorless without them.

What I currently have for the Slave Market is +1 free Slave, +3 gold, and -1 happiness. If we bring Slavery up to Medium upkeep (it's currently at Low) I think that will be worth a try at seeing if it is balanced.

 

[Vokarya]

For the Caste civic, I am really considering the unlimited specialist approach, like what vanilla Civ4 does. Unlimited specialists of particular types seems interesting but is kept in check by every specialist needing a population point. It is also a benefit that somewhat phases out in the late-game as the number of specialist slots from buildings increases. For example, if you are at the tail end of the Industrial Era and can get 6 Artist specialist slots from buildings (1 from Advertising Agency, 1 from Photographer's Studio, 2 from Broadcast Tower, 2 from Opera House), how much do you actually need additional Artist slots #7 and up? And can you afford to feed them?

Also, keeping the GPP penalty means you get part of the benefits for lots of specialists (the production/commerce) but not all of it, which is a further plus in my book. I would like to have one other benefit for specialists, but I'm not sure what. I would rule out free specialists (not yet) and I would also drop the unhappiness penalty (it's already slated to be removed). Slavery can take that particular drawback.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I was reading some high fantasy fiction and a thought struck me about slavery is that the slavery civic gives benefits not through the having of any one slave, or of even having the slaves, but instead the lives of individuals who are not slaves, enriched as they are by being minus all the labour that no one pays for. Getting money from Slavery is appropriate; receiving a short-run intensification of the products of economic activity, or even fine art, is appropriate. Getting hammers is less so.... As they say, slave labour isn't good labour. It's just cheap. And as I've said above, food seems more realist if impaired under Slavery, but that makes the A.I. stupid. (I would wish that the civic's effects could be buffed in such a way that its own advantages would be an appreciable alternative to growing before 0 A.D.)

It is also, in this same private insight, important to me to see "Slave specialists" be restricted, then, to just the benefit of the Slavery civic building, if not reconcepted a tad further. Society using slaves, as say Rome did, or Egypt, is different from the encouragement of private selling and buying of those lives - being increasingly likely to come from increasing enterprises of slaver ships, abductions, xenophobic activities, and violence - not to mention what a profit motive can do to the already poisoned structure of a population that consumes its own. The Slave Market is a capstone to the game choice of Slavery, perhaps for just a tiny gain in absolute terms, but going the furthest in closing the door on anything resembling emancipatory reform.

Sorry if I sound self-obsessed with this.

 

[Urza1234]

For the Caste civic, I am really considering the unlimited specialist approach, like what vanilla Civ4 does. Unlimited specialists of particular types seems interesting but is kept in check by every specialist needing a population point. It is also a benefit that somewhat phases out in the late-game as the number of specialist slots from buildings increases. For example, if you are at the tail end of the Industrial Era and can get 6 Artist specialist slots from buildings (1 from Advertising Agency, 1 from Photographer's Studio, 2 from Broadcast Tower, 2 from Opera House), how much do you actually need additional Artist slots #7 and up? And can you afford to feed them?

Also, keeping the GPP penalty means you get part of the benefits for lots of specialists (the production/commerce) but not all of it, which is a further plus in my book. I would like to have one other benefit for specialists, but I'm not sure what. I would rule out free specialists (not yet) and I would also drop the unhappiness penalty (it's already slated to be removed). Slavery can take that particular drawback.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Vokarya]

This leaves two questions regarding Caste:

First, what specialists should be unlimited? BTS had only Artists, Merchants, and Scientists. I feel Engineers and Priests were left out because Engineers would both speed up production (+2 hammers each) and contribute to producing Great Engineers that would eat up Wonders, and Priests would lead to religions getting snapped up by bulbing and Shrines faster. With GP production reduced under Caste, I think it would be safe to allow unlimited Priests.

Second, does Caste need another benefit to specialists? The immediate benefit to Caste is looking like it simply gets you out of Tribal's -50% growth penalty, and then gives you maybe one specialist you can use. Do city populations increase fast enough to make the unlimited specialists the sole benefit? Without Caste, specialist slots accrue at 1/era up to the end of the Renaissance, then 2/era after that. For this to be a real benefit, I think you would have to have cities populous enough to be worth running 2-4 specialists of the same type before you get them through buildings.

 

[<Nexus>]

It seems obvious that Caste should be doing something with Specialist but I'm not sure about unlimited specialists. I just don't find that enough appealing to choose Caste. In the early game cities are small and there isn't much free population to specialize (the majority of the population still has to go producing ). And in the late game it also doesn't matter as Vokarya explained. I really like the idea of a bonus that fades out by time but I think this would be faint from the start.
I'd rather suggest some bonus to Specialist. Which ones?

I made a quick research about Caste systems:

Spoiler :

India

• Brahmins (teachers, scholars and priests),
• Kashatriyas (warriors and nobles),
• Vaishyas (farmers, traders and artisans) and
• Shudras (labourers/service providers).

Indonesia

• Brahmanas - priest
• Satrias - knighthood
• Wesias - commerce
• Sudras - servitude

Ancient Egypt

1. the royalty and nobles
2. artisans, craftworkers and merchants
3. workers
4. slaves

Iran
Pre-Islamic Sassanid society was immensely complex, with separate systems of social organization governing numerous different groups within the empire. Historians believe society comprised four social classes:

1. Priests (Persian: Asravan‎)
2. Warriors (Persian: Arteshtaran‎)
3. Secretaries (Persian: Dabiran‎)
4. Commoners (Persian: Vastryoshan‎)

Europe
Medieval Europe's caste system had the following order:

1. Nobility, royalty
2. Knights, squires, pages, clergy
3. Artisans
4. Peasants, slaves, serfs

So a "universal caste system" could look something like this:

• Teachers
  
  • Priest (+1 and +1) +0.5 and +0.5*
  • Scientist (+2) +1*
• Knighthood
  
  • Noble (+1 and +1) +0.5 and +0.5*
• Skilled laborers
  
  • Artist +1
  • Merchant +1
  • Engineer +1
  • Magistrate +1
• Commoners
  
  • Citizen: +1

The higher classes gain a greater benefit as you can see.
The "fading out" effect would be also there in some way: In the early game +1 or 2 or can make a difference but not so much in the later game. On the other hand e.g. with 10 Engineers it's +10 but also -10 . In this way Caste would make specialists more powerful in one area (yield and commerce) and weaker in an other ( production). I think it would be an interesting trade.

*EDIT: After a second thought I think it is better to only add an average +1 yield or commerce, despite the fact that +1 worth more than +1. Seeing that Caste is adding +1 something to all specialists is less confusing for the players.
And of course Spies are left out intentionally. I cannot imagine them as a social class.

What do you think?

 

[zoob]

I really like the idea of having a civics that boosts certain specialists in a well thought manner.
Would really fit into Caste with heavy GP production penalty as a tradeoff.

 

[Urza1234]

Zeta's idea is interesting.

I forget though, do fractional increases to yields work?

Also, though Tiering the specialists is interesting, is incentivizing Religous and Scientific GPP that much a good thing? There would be essentially no reason to use specialists other than Priests or Scientists.

I have a thought in an alternate direction as well, I might as well throw it into the pot; what about simply making the main specialists produce roughly +1. This would allow you to have a few more of your pops as specialists without throwing the entire Special economy out of whack.
It would be nice if we could make them just cost 1 less food, but I dont know if there is an effective way to do that.

 

[<Nexus>]

I forget though, do fractional increases to yields work?

Yes, I am/was using it in Chronicles that way.

Also, though Tiering the specialists is interesting, is incentivizing Religous and Scientific GPP that much a good thing? There would be essentially no reason to use specialists other than Priests or Scientists.

That's right. I was editing my post the same time as you commented

I have a thought in an alternate direction as well, I might as well throw it into the pot; what about simply making the main specialists produce roughly +1. This would allow you to have a few more of your pops as specialists without throwing the entire Special economy out of whack.

I see your point but I don't think it would very good.
3 specialists could feed a 4th one.
9 could feed +3, and that would feed an 1 extra.
That would be an interesting snowball effect but I'm not sure we want a such one.

Also some players would start arguing about realism (including me): "Why does my nobles and priests produce ? Can't imagine them working in the fields. That social class was never involved in such lowly work."

 

[Samson]

"Why does my nobles and priests produce ? Can't imagine them working in the fields. That social class was never involved in such lowly work."

One could make the argument "The whole of society is set up to allow certain classes to be nobles and priests, so is more efficent in getting food to them, represented by this decrease in the food consumed". I quite like the idea, but could be a bit overpowered when combined with multipliers. For example a Hittite city with the temple that gives you 25% food (?) and Iron Forge (10% food) 3 specialists would give 4 food.

 

[Vokarya]

I think the +1 food per specialist is also the most straightforward; I thought of it myself yesterday but I'm not sure if the XML can handle flat +yields to all specialists. I really want to stay away from effects that proliferate bullet points, especially in the early game, so different bonuses for different specialists is not something that I would like to pursue. It might be realistic, but walls of bullet points bother me. (Air promotions right now have the same problem. I think they need to be totally rebuilt.)

The other problem I have with increasing the gold of Merchants is that this will trample on Bourgeois, which I would like to refocus as the "money civic" of the Society category.

 

[<Nexus>]

but walls of bullet points bother me.

Me too, if those are different bonuses and I have to think "So it does this and that and... While this other civic is doing this and that and..."
But in this case it's just a look and you see: "Ah! So it increases the stuff off specialist in their area."
I'll try it in Chronicles anyway.

 

[Urza1234]

Also some players would start arguing about realism (including me): "Why does my nobles and priests produce ? Can't imagine them working in the fields. That social class was never involved in such lowly work."

Yeah, the idea was just to make specialists cost slightly less food with Caste, except I dont think there is an easy way to do that, the +1 is just an inelegant workaround, but I wanted to at least bring it up.

The problem is that unless you're going for GPP, specialists just arent that strong early on. Your cities will almost always have workable tiles that produce far more than a specialist would.

What exactly is Caste supposed to do than? It cant do specialist economy efficeintly and early on the flexibility of unlimited specs is unneeded.

I think Zeta's revised bonuses to specialist output might be the most elegant and fair thing so far.