Civics Improvements Suggestions

[Sock Thing]

I had one other idea for a name for the theocracy civic building. How about calling it Chapel. Many castles had chapels and so do military bases and the word chapel and chaplain are related and chaplains travel with the military.
So you could say that the theocracy civic builds a bunch of small chapels at every garrison or fort to small for a proper church and brings tent chapels along with their armies in the the field to inspire the faithful.

 

[Vokarya]

I had one other idea for a name for the theocracy civic building. How about calling it Chapel. Many castles had chapels and so do military bases and the word chapel and chaplain are related and chaplains travel with the military.
So you could say that the theocracy civic builds a bunch of small chapels at every garrison or fort to small for a proper church and brings tent chapels along with their armies in the the field to inspire the faithful.

I still don't think that's militaristic enough to carry the concept with just the name. A proper building name should give you a good idea of what it does without having to look further. (Wonders excepted. There you have a historical name and then we come up with a good effect.)

 

[Vokarya]

I think Unmanned Warfare doesn't need any additional tinkering.

Volunteer Army has two questions. First, how good should VA be at reducing War Weariness compared to Unmanned Warfare. We have Mercenaries at -25%, VA at -50%, and UW at -50%. The second is does VA need its +25% GGeneral points. I think we can take off the Great General bonus and reduce the war weariness to -25%. With these two factors reduced, VA winds up with the following:

• +3 XP (now unique)
• -25% War Weariness
• -15% military production
• Recruitment Center (+25% military production, 5% more food for city to grow)

I don't think that would be a bad civic. Can we test it this way?

 

[Vokarya]

MAD is another civic that I would really like to put under the scalpel. It has a lot of negative effects.The really appropriate effects that it has are:

• Can build Warhead Factory/Missile Lab. The Warhead Factory is required for any nuke with a bigger blast than the A-Bomb/Tactical Nuke.
• +100% production speed of Missile units. Even if nukes are disabled by UN resolution, you can still build non-nuclear missiles.
• -1 happiness in each city of each other civilization not running MAD. I think this is totally appropriate for the specter of nuclear annihilation.
  
• -2 relations with other leaders not running MAD, -4 relations with leaders running Pacifism. This is also appropriate. Even having the weapons is a threat.
• Can use the MAD console to set targets for nuclear weapons. I have actually never tried to use this myself, but I think it's a fit part of the civic.

This seems like it is enough to count as a full civic, with 5 positive traits (counting the 2 buildings separately) and 1 negative, with the Warhead Factory balanced by its meltdown possibility. The rest of it seems unnecessary.

• +30% Great General emergence. I think this mechanic has proliferated way too far and on this civic is especially ill-fitting.
• -1 happiness in largest cities. This is logical but seems unnecessary. If we need this penalty, I would prefer raising the unhappiness of the Warhead Factory to -3. This would make it painful in the cities actually doing the work of building these weapons.
• -10% commerce and -5% culture in all cities. Especially the culture penalty seems trivial. Either it should be large enough to be meaningful or be cut completely, and there are a lot of civics that affect culture already. Losing these wouldn't be bad.

 

[Fozman]

+30% Great General emergence. I think this mechanic has proliferated way too far and on this civic is especially ill-fitting.

Indeed. One suggestion about re-focusing it, though... it seems like it would be most appropriate for use during mid-game (late Classical to Industrial) when tactics on the battlefield really made the difference between victory and defeat. As such, it should be constrained to civics modeled for use in those eras.

Other than that, VA has always been a good one for me because it is one of the few Military civics that don't have a big drawback and/or happiness penalty. I think it's role as an effective (training to +3XP at the cost of more time to build) and civilized (non-compulsory service) means of raising an army reflects as much.

 

[Vokarya]

Indeed. One suggestion about re-focusing it, though... it seems like it would be most appropriate for use during mid-game (late Classical to Industrial) when tactics on the battlefield really made the difference between victory and defeat. As such, it should be constrained to civics modeled for use in those eras.

At the moment, Fealty is the only military civic that I'm planning to give +Great General points. It's a Medieval Era civic, but I think it can compete against other military civics by letting you support a larger army in the field. Since it gives a +defense bonus to cities, it should allow you to keep less defenders in your cities, and it also decreases your supply costs for distant units. Fealty doesn't help you build an army quickly (use Conscription/Mobilization/Standing Army for that) and doesn't make your army better (Warrior Caste/Mercenaries/Volunteer Army covers that side) but you could run it with the proposed Junta civic to still be able to draft up a small amount.

 

[Fozman]

At the moment, Fealty is the only military civic that I'm planning to give +Great General points.

That might be too limited, but let's see how it plays out. The civics seem to be scoped tightly and not trying to do too much, as intended. You can always make adjustments later if things turn out to be under-powered or over-powered.

 

[Sock Thing]

I still don't think that's militaristic enough to carry the concept with just the name. A proper building name should give you a good idea of what it does without having to look further. (Wonders excepted. There you have a historical name and then we come up with a good effect.)

Okay How about Militant Sect?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I've read the last pages of the thread quickly, I've been busy for some days now. But doing something to trim down big empires is something I'd like to do. Maintenance was one of my targets, because in my view you can't simply expand indefinitely and always get better and better. Somehow managing a huge empire must be almost impossible above a given size. I have very little time lately, but I hope I can get back to work in a few weeks.

 

[Vokarya]

I've read the last pages of the thread quickly, I've been busy for some days now. But doing something to trim down big empires is something I'd like to do. Maintenance was one of my targets, because in my view you can't simply expand indefinitely and always get better and better. Somehow managing a huge empire must be almost impossible above a given size. I have very little time lately, but I hope I can get back to work in a few weeks.

I think you should be able to pull this off in the Transhuman Era, but not before. Part of this game has to be you really can control the world if you work at it enough.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Just don't take it too far. It'd be really cruddy if on larger maps there was still plenty of unclaimed land around by the time you hit the Renaissance simply because it's unsustainable.

 

[Vokarya]

Right now I think Despotism is a little too harsh in terms of unhappiness. If we want it to stay viable longer, I think we should soften it a bit. If we reduce the extra unhappiness from 1/2 citizens to 1/3 citizens, then a small garrison will be more able to keep a population under control. My garrisons are generally 4 units per city, so 1 unhappiness/3 citizens would break even up to size 14. Even if you are using 6-8 garrison units per city, those are still units you have to train and support.

 

[Vokarya]

I haven't really looked at the Welfare civics yet, but I know Private/Subsidized/Socialized need to be better focused. As a start, I would like to remove the Science bonuses from Socialized and Paradise.

Right now, all of Private, Subsidized, Socialized, Superhuman, and Paradise have science bonuses. I don't like this; you may as well just fold the bonus into the general science pace at that point. So as to especially distinguish Socialized from Subsidized, Subsidized can have a science bonus while Socialized does not. Socialized cares more about making sure everyone is cared for. Subsidized provides a safety net and funnels money where it can do the most good.

Paradise just needs a trim. It's a powerful civic for health and happiness, so if it doesn't give science, that might slow down the Transhuman a little.

We have 12 civics overall that affect Science for good or bad, and I'd like there to be less. It's very easy to do, and that makes it less valuable every time it appears.

 

[Vokarya]

Here's another idea. How many abilities does Secular need to be viable? I think it's overstuffed. It has several abilities and almost all of them are good.

• No State Religion is the only negative. It counts as a negative only because it cuts you off from the benefits of having a state religion and the diplomatic bonuses you can get.
• +1 happiness per religion. This has the potential to be a lot more powerful than BTS because there are many more religions.
• No Inquisitions. I don't know the Inquisition mechanics very well. There are a lot of constraints on when you can use them and so far I've never had to come up. Especially, I don't know if you can conduct an inquisition in a city that isn't yours. But I don't think you would want to have an Inquisition without a state religion. So this works out to a minor positive.
• Can build religious buildings of non-state religions. I think this ability is actually very strong.
  
• Can build Universal Church after Globalization. This is okay. The +10% culture is nice,
• +25% GPP generation.
  
• +33% culture. This is the ability that I think is unnecessary. On a Standard map, you can build 1 Cathedral per 3 Temples of a religion. Except for Confucian Academy, Cathedrals give +50% culture. That equates to +16% culture per city per religion, but you can concentrate the bonuses if you need to, either to reach Legendary status or to shore up a border city. Just 2 religions is +100% culture for 1/3rd of your cities. Also, we have many civics that play with culture and I'd like to cut those down.

 

[Vokarya]

Talking about civics, I'm still attracted by the idea of adding the code for the "active senate", where you might be prevented to go to war or you might be forced to it by the senate. Maybe this could be applied to other civics as well (Senate, Parliament, maybe Junta and Theocracy). Of course as an option. What do you think Vokarya? Maybe it would be possible to make it work differently for different civics, meaning that for example Parliament would probably have an increased chance to force peace while for example Junta might have an increased chance to force you to go to war. And we might have some other civics overruling the senate's overruling, like for example Personality Cult overruling the Senate. Opinions?

Out of sheer curiosity, are there plans to have the game text reflect the civic you are running? Because I thought it would be really funny to have this also work with the Corporations rule civic, but instead of a senate or parliament, you get overruled by the Board of Directors. The whole nation is a corporation!

 

[Fozman]

Can build religious buildings of non-state religions. I think this ability is actually very strong.

+33% culture. This is the ability that I think is unnecessary. On a Standard map, you can build 1 Cathedral per 3 Temples of a religion. Except for Confucian Academy, Cathedrals give +50% culture. That equates to +16% culture per city per religion, but you can concentrate the bonuses if you need to, either to reach Legendary status or to shore up a border city. Just 2 religions is +100% culture for 1/3rd of your cities. Also, we have many civics that play with culture and I'd like to cut those down.

Agree. I crank out Cathedrals as needed when using Free Church. By late Industrial, I have more available than I know what to do with. I'd imagine the same could be done here with Secular. Lose it.

Speaking of these two civics, I don't see a huge difference between what they do. Honestly, I just stick with Free Church for the extra GPP and easy Missionaries (especially after Computers). I'm usually limited by not at this stage of the game, so there is very little incentive for me to switch over to Secular. I see an opportunity for you to try some different mechanics to differentiate these two civics.

 

[Vokarya]

They are very similar. Both have free religion, happiness, and GPP. Any suggestions? Science is out; that belongs to Atheist.

 

[Fozman]

TL;DR version:
Secular should be the go-to civic for production because it is the most tolerant. Boost to 40%? Add 1 or 2 general points to the Civic Building. Keep the if desired. Suggest a reverse course on the previous posts. Maintain nationwide high culture boost, but eliminate allowing religious buildings. Buildings can still work, but if players want to actually spread and build the buildings, they use Free Church instead. This civic should be a tolerant extreme and also be a middle ground between Free Church & Atheist.

Free Church should maintain , but lower than Secular. Possibly allow unlimited priests? (if not deemed redundant) Keep easy Missionaries, keep allowing all religious buildings. Lower to +1 or eliminate it entirely. Priests could offer a bonus instead of , what about +0.5 OR +1 like State Church?

Spoiler In-depth analysis :

With most of the civic lines, there is a spectrum of one extreme to the other extreme in choices... the trade-off being freedom vs. order, wide vs. tall, etc. The Religion line is no different. In fact, I postulate this line is a 2-dimensional spectrum and that the curve follows that of a semi-circle or a horseshoe...

The above chart is mostly subjective numbers, but I think most everyone will agree this is fairly close to accurate. For example, Intolerant and Atheist are both low tolerance, but complete opposites regarding theology.

It follows then that the mechanics in place for tolerant civics should be different from intolerant civics (and the same for theological vs. non). The existing civics are fairly close already, but here are some guidelines for discussion:

• Tolerant vs. Intolerant...
  • 
    • Tolerant = +% People with differing ideas are allowed to exist openly. OR
      
    • Intolerant = -% Great People lost by exile or execution.
  • - Similar to . Vibrant culture, art & ideas flourish in Tolerant societies.
    
  • 
    • Oppression increases
    • Lemming effect increases
    • Strike a balance based on the civic, but it should be focused on this axis of the spectrum.
  • Revolutions mechanics should reflect all of the above.
• Theological vs. Non...
  • Priests should be primary focus for Theological civics. Increase quantity of or output per. For example:
    • Allowing non-state allows more religious buildings which allows more Priests.
    • + OR + to Priests in Theological civics represent tithes or community outreach to build the city.
  • Non-Theological can be based around science, so +. (Atheist does this already.)
  • Otherwise, in Non-Theological, special effects occur with .
• Civics with one dimension at Center of Spectrum
  • Should avoid going too heavily on effects bounded by the spectrum. For example:
    • Secular isn't extreme on the Theological axis. All religions are allowed, but the State is hands-off. Focus should be on mechanics for maximum Tolerance.
      • +% bonus should be the largest of all the Religion civics.
    • State Church is middle of the road on the Tolerant axis. It doesn't explicitly forbid non-state , but doesn't exactly reward it either.
      • Focus with State Church should be on boosting Priests and collection of & for the State. (Mostly does this already).

.

 

[Vokarya]

I'm not going to pull the "free religion" ability off of Secular. I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't want to push the GP mechanics too much.

Free Church is not exactly "free religion" (to go back to the BTS civics). I see it as a post-Reformation religion that still has a civic role but no longer focuses on influencing government policy, preferring to appeal to the people directly. That's how you get the +happiness. With the dropping of the political angle, it loses the exclusivity demand, so now you can build non-state-religion buildings. I'm thinking the civic name should probably be either Reformed Church or Reformation. Reformation is shorter but maybe a little vague. Reformed Church as a name isn't any longer than Unmanned Warfare or Interventionism.

Perhaps Free Church would be enough with just +2 happiness, ability to build monasteries/cathedrals, and missionaries without Monasteries, and maybe keep the +0.50 culture per Priest.

 

[<Nexus>]

Free Church is not exactly "free religion" (to go back to the BTS civics). I see it as a post-Reformation religion that still has a civic role but no longer focuses on influencing government policy, preferring to appeal to the people directly. That's how you get the +happiness. With the dropping of the political angle, it loses the exclusivity demand, so now you can build non-state-religion buildings. I'm thinking the civic name should probably be either Reformed Church or Reformation. Reformation is shorter but maybe a little vague. Reformed Church as a name isn't any longer than Unmanned Warfare or Interventionism.

Maybe Syncretism?