Civics Improvements Suggestions

[jackelgull]

ok then, I never noticed while I was playing, it either must be a new addition or i just can't read.

 

[Vokarya]

ok then, I never noticed while I was playing, it either must be a new addition or i just can't read.

I think some of the civics text needs cleaning up. One of the problems I have with revolution is the sheer number of different effects. It's probably a little too complex for its own good.

 

[Pongui]

There should be just enough penalties to push you out of (starter) civics at the first opportunity.

How about making them... maybe a little worse... so at least we have the pleasure of considering what to do?

I think some of the civics text needs cleaning up. One of the problems I have with revolution is the sheer number of different effects. It's probably a little too complex for its own good.

Someone suggested a divider to consolidate effects.

***

Reflecting on health bonus recently, I realized it's intended (in Vanilla, BtS) to offset some (other) unhealth penalty. So, wherever possible, I think, it just shouldn't exist. Not for it's own sake. Green gets an "extra-healthy" bonus. But what for? For forsaking all kinds of pollution and heavy industry, mainly. So why give the bonus when Green may actually in-game forsake all kinds of pollution and heavy industry, losing the associated un-health penalties? As is, the Green player takes the health bonus for, "Oh, now I can enjoy Lead because I'm Green." See, the bonus has the reverse effect.

Reverse effects could happen in other civics. For example if Pacifists get enough happiness (because they're supposedly peaceful) that could offset war weariness... perversely we'd exploit the "peaceful" happiness bonus to offset war weariness.

Sorry I'm just newly skeptical of how these sometimes redundant bonuses actually affect players' and AI decisions. I know you're trying to prune them, Vokarya. Yes, please.

That may leave some civics kinda bland. I really like the foreign policy civics. They're simple, unique, decisive.

 

[Vokarya]

We haven't done very much yet with incompatible civics. The only currently forbidden pairing is Liberal/Intolerant. I would definitely like to add Liberal/Slavery as a forbidden pairing, and I'm leaning strongly in favor of Planned (Economy)/Private (Welfare). It doesn't make too much sense to me for a planned economy to not cover health care as well.

As far as forbidden Government/Rule pairings go, I have a sense that there are a lot of incompatible ones. Part of me wants to just rip away the entire Rule category, and make Bureaucracy, Single Party, Technocracy, and Virtual into pure Government civics, but I don't think anyone else would like that. I'll have to think about this in detail.

 

[aggri1]

I, for one, wouldn't mind one fewer Civic category.

 

[Vokarya]

To be honest, the thing that the Rule civic category does do well is handling nuances like absolute monarchy vs. constitutional monarchy or parliamentary democracy vs. presidential democracy. I'm not so sure that this is really worth the effort and the complexity. Afforess said somewhere that he wanted separate civics for legislative/executive/judiciary, but I'd have a hard time with a separate judiciary category that wasn't just a required civic for a building. We currently have 6 government civics and 8 rule civics. That means 48 combinations, and there are places where that results in clunky workarounds, such as the "Crossing the Rubicon" event that has to change both Republic to Monarchy and Senate to Nobility. Even if we added 6 more government civics, that would still only be 1/4th the number of possible civic choices.

 

[Vokarya]

In the meantime, I really don't understand why President has -1 happiness. It just seems stuck on. I was thinking of removing that penalty and Democracy/Federation's +1 happiness. It would mean a little less happiness in non-Presidential democracies, but I think that might be a good thing if it helps check city growth.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

In the meantime, I really don't understand why President has -1 happiness.

Really?
Looking a famous incumbent President perhaps might help...
Just kidding of course.

 

[GreedyManul]

To be honest, I'd rather not have government and rule splotched together either. It'd wipe out a big assortment of unique combos you wouldn't be able to get otherwise.

 

[Vokarya]

How many of those government/rule combos actually work? I feel like if I start to write out the combos, some of them just seem completely wrong. For example, Nobility only works well with Monarchy. I think it could work a little with Republic (oligarchic republic), but not with any other government civic. Single Party seems to me to be bound to Despotism regardless of the actual government structure.

A few of the rule civics are "the leader is a figurehead, this is where the real power is" so those I would keep as government civics: Bureaucracy, Single Party, Technocracy, and Virtual would be good candidates. Nobility could overlay on Monarchy, Senate on Republic, and President on Democracy/Federal, and then that eliminates the entire category.

That's where my current thought patterns are.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Would that mean Bureaucracy would get buffed? Otherwise, it'd be a pretty weak Civic.

 

[GreedyManul]

Personally, I'd go with those forbidden combos:

Despotism - Nobility/Virtual
Monarchy - President/Single Party/Technocracy/Virtual
Democracy/Federation - Junta/Nobility/Single Party

Ignoring starting civics (Tribal and Oligarchy), you have 6+4+8+5+5=28 combinations, 12 less than the previous 40.

So yeah, Republic's lucky enough to get all the Rule civics under the sun. Unless you have alternate ideas, like Republic not getting Virtual to prevent an OP synergy, in which case it goes down to 27, or less.

 

[Vokarya]

Personally, I'd go with those forbidden combos:

Despotism - Nobility/Virtual
Monarchy - President/Single Party/Technocracy/Virtual
Democracy/Federation - Junta/Nobility/Single Party

Ignoring starting civics (Tribal and Oligarchy), you have 6+4+8+5+5=28 combinations, 12 less than the previous 40.

So yeah, Republic's lucky enough to get all the Rule civics under the sun. Unless you have alternate ideas, like Republic not getting Virtual to prevent an OP synergy, in which case it goes down to 27, or less.

My forbidden list would be:
Barbarism[renamed Junta]: Everything except Chiefdom.
Nobility: Chiefdom, Despotism, Democracy, Federation
Senate: Chiefdom, Despotism.
Bureaucracy: Chiefdom. Despotism is questionable.
President: Chiefdom, Monarchy. Despotism/President would be "President For Life".
Single Party: Chiefdom, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Federation. I'd probably make one of the latter civics possible.
Technocracy: Chiefdom, Despotism. Monarchy is questionable.
Virtual: Chiefdom, Despotism, Monarchy.

I'd also consider Monarchy/Senate to be questionable up until the Renaissance Era, but that would be very difficult to do.

 

[Vokarya]

While I was looking at civics, I noticed several leaders could use a change of favored civic and a few leaders need a favored religion.

• Atotozlti: Change State Church to Divine Cult and add Naghualism as favored religion. Divine Cult fits better for rulers whose heyday was in the Ancient-Classical Eras. Medieval and later rulers with a more formalized religion can use State Church. State Church was acceptable when it was Ancient Era (Monotheism), but now it's Medieval Era.
  
• Augustus Caesar: Add Hellenism as favored religion.
• Boudica: I don't think Federation fits here. In BTS, her favored civic is Universal Suffrage, but I would go with Warrior Caste.
  
• Gandhi: Is there a reason Gandhi's favored civic is Proletariat and not Pacifism? I can't think of a better poster character for Pacifism. But I could leave it where it is.
  
• Hatsheput: Like Atotozlti, change State Church to Divine Cult.
• Leonidas: Add Hellenism as favored religion.
• Marcus Aurelius: Add Hellenism as favored religion.
• Napoleon: Change Republic to Monarchy. Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor, after all, and wanted to found a dynasty.
  
• Nebuchadrezzar II: Has Green as a favored civic. I don't why this one is here, unless it's a nod to the Hanging Gardens. I'd go with Monarchy or Divine Cult.
  
• Pericles: Change Democracy to Republic. I think it fits better.
  
• Stalin: Change Despotism to Single Party.
  
• Victoria: Change Republic to Senate. Constitutional monarchs currently fit under Monarchy+Senate, not Republic.

 

[<Nexus>]

• Nebuchadrezzar II: Has Green as a favored civic. I don't why this one is here, unless it's a nod to the Hanging Gardens. I'd go with Monarchy or Divine Cult.

Monarchy sounds better. All the looks good.

 

[Samson]

My forbidden list would be:
Barbarism[renamed Junta]: Everything except Chiefdom.

Would this mean that you could not change out of Chiefdom until you can also change out of Barbarism / Junta?

 

[<Nexus>]

In my modmod I used this principle:

Some civics get obsolete by newer ones in the same category. For example I made Chiefdom forbidden for all the other government civics, so you can switch out of Chiefdom to Despotism (or anything else) but not beck. I used this on most of the starting civics (Folklore, Barter, etc) and sometimes even on the second civic - in Media category the 1st civic is Oral Tradition, the 2nd is Chronicles: from OT you can change to anything, from Chronicles to anything but OT and from the newer ones to any other in the category except the first two ones.
I know some people may like this approach and some may not, but the point is: The code set up by 4 works marvelously

 

[GreedyManul]

My forbidden list would be:
Barbarism[renamed Junta]: Everything except Chiefdom.
Nobility: Chiefdom, Despotism, Democracy, Federation
Senate: Chiefdom, Despotism.
Bureaucracy: Chiefdom. Despotism is questionable.
President: Chiefdom, Monarchy. Despotism/President would be "President For Life".
Single Party: Chiefdom, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Federation. I'd probably make one of the latter civics possible.
Technocracy: Chiefdom, Despotism. Monarchy is questionable.
Virtual: Chiefdom, Despotism, Monarchy.

I'd also consider Monarchy/Senate to be questionable up until the Renaissance Era, but that would be very difficult to do.

I can see Senate and Despotism not meshing together, but I have doubts for separating Republic and Single Party, alongside Technocracy and Despotism. In the case of Technocracy and Despotism, you could say those scientists and engineers who have control of the nation exercise absolute control upon its subjects, even though between themselves, they can be more democratic with each other. And I can't see Monarchy with Technocracy, to be honest. What is your rationale?

 

[<Nexus>]

In the case of Technocracy and Despotism, you could say those scientists and engineers who have control of the nation exercise absolute control upon its subjects

For me Despotism is the No1 partner for Technocracy: a mad scientist rules the country with high technology.

 

[GreedyManul]

For me Despotism is the No1 partner for Technocracy: a mad scientist rules the country with high technology.

Doesn't have to be necessarily mad, just ruthless and callous for the lives of others enough. In fact, I made the mind control center to require both despotism and technocracy for it to be built and operated. After all, it IS the perfect tool for the technocrat who doesn't want rebellious populaces at all.