Civics in FfH2

[Nikis-Knight]

Oh. Interesting. I had assumed that 5 was the limit for interface reasons, or that it would be a particular hassle to make more than 5 categories.

Nope. The civics have been through many, many iterations.

 

[Tacgnol]

Yeah, the old civics were fun but were very imbalanced and repetitive (theocracy priesthood and religion were almost the same thing). I do think the Welfare ones weren't a bad idea, but they would probably still be pretty imbalanced if they hadn't been removed. I do agree that the civics do not make sense with what they are supposed to do, but I think they're perfectly well balanced right now.

 

[Vehem]

It's an interesting set of points made - though I'm going to choose to skim over the arguments on the basis of semantics or name of civics - a rename or two may be in order, but I'm more interested in the balance/gameplay issues.

====

In fact, I'm actually more interested in what you'd suggest as a better system for one or more of the Civic Categories. Posting that would be more likely to create the debate you were looking for, as we'd have something to compare the existing system to. If it is decided to be better - then you may even have just made a difference to the game (or at least to the modmods...)

 

[TheJopa]

It's an interesting set of points made - though I'm going to choose to skim over the arguments on the basis of semantics or name of civics - a rename or two may be in order, but I'm more interested in the balance/gameplay issues.

====

In fact, I'm actually more interested in what you'd suggest as a better system for one or more of the Civic Categories. Posting that would be more likely to create the debate you were looking for, as we'd have something to compare the existing system to. If it is decided to be better - then you may even have just made a difference to the game (or at least to the modmods...)

I support the idea of less 'percent' changes and introducing more unique effects - like Population rushing, drafting, eating less food per pop...

General goal would be to alter the way a game plays - slavery is a good example IMO - capturing slaves from your wars and treating population as production resource makes you feel the difference between playing slavery nation versus freemen nation.

Along the same lines, playing extremely centralized empire with absolute power should feel different than playing decentralized city states.

My mechanic of choice would be giving consumption happiness per resource you own and unhappiness for each resource you don't own. Then you would actually play in a different way- colonizing to get exotics, maybe a war or two to get more happy, and you'd pay a good attention to trade deals and relationships.

Another mechanic - let cities under city states actual degree of self-government - maybe they would automatically build or reassign citizens (maybe not- ai is crap)

Republic could add additional, third trait that would change based on election results every 10 or 20 turns (religious group seizes power-gain spiritual, militaristic group takes power- trait switched to aggressive)

 

[Imuratep]

I support the idea of less 'percent' changes and introducing more unique effects - like Population rushing, drafting, eating less food per pop...

General goal would be to alter the way a game plays - slavery is a good example IMO - capturing slaves from your wars and treating population as production resource makes you feel the difference between playing slavery nation versus freemen nation.

Along the same lines, playing extremely centralized empire with absolute power should feel different than playing decentralized city states.

My mechanic of choice would be giving consumption happiness per resource you own and unhappiness for each resource you don't own. Then you would actually play in a different way- colonizing to get exotics, maybe a war or two to get more happy, and you'd pay a good attention to trade deals and relationships.

Another mechanic - let cities under city states actual degree of self-government - maybe they would automatically build or reassign citizens (maybe not- ai is crap)

Republic could add additional, third trait that would change based on election results every 10 or 20 turns (religious group seizes power-gain spiritual, militaristic group takes power- trait switched to aggressive)

These ideas are fantastic especially for consumption and republic. The last could be extended by using special events: The reigning group puts pressure on you and if you ignore all of their demands you gain the weak trait...

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I think it is a horible idea.
The entire point of a republic is to have the goverement be pupets and play out a mock up of democracy to your people, while still making the desisions your self.
That is the only way to logicly explain why all civs end up runing it.

The city states idea is not that horible, but it would require the AI to be much smarter than he is now.

 

[Vehem]

My mechanic of choice would be giving consumption happiness per resource you own and unhappiness for each resource you don't own. Then you would actually play in a different way- colonizing to get exotics, maybe a war or two to get more happy, and you'd pay a good attention to trade deals and relationships.

Sounds like it would work, though might need to weight in favour of happiness a little (each new resource provides +1 whilst it takes 2 absent resources for +1 ).

Also sounds a little like the old Civ3 Market mechanic as I remember it. Each resource provides happiness, but the third and fourth provided an extra one, the fifth and sixth provided two extra and the seventh and eight provided three extra each (allowing a total of 20 happiness from all 8 luxury resources - have I remembered it right?)

Another mechanic - let cities under city states actual degree of self-government - maybe they would automatically build or reassign citizens (maybe not- ai is crap)

Dangerous to take too much control away from the player - but perhaps you could trade a small reduction in overall production (-10% ) you control in exchange for the city randomly creating buildings and units from a "safe list" (nothing game-changing, just useful city-boosters/defenders such as courthouse, market, archer etc) at no additional cost from time to time (the governor has used the resources you allow him to direct himself to produce the new unit/structure). The chance of free production would be tied to the actual production of the city on a given turn.

Republic could add additional, third trait that would change based on election results every 10 or 20 turns (religious group seizes power-gain spiritual, militaristic group takes power- trait switched to aggressive)

Should all be possible through the events system - could even incorporate an element of campaigning on the part of the player (choosing which group you favour, increasing their chances of winning, but with a downside if they still lose). What could the benefit be however if the "Republic Trait" matches the "Leader Trait"? An Aggressive Leader leading an Aggressive Republic for instance...

 

[Kyroshill]

I actually really like the City State idea.... if it gave a meaty tangible bonus in exchange for allowing city governors to make many of the decisions for you.... the AI is gonna screw some decisions up for sure, so there has to be a GOOD reason to allow it.

I definitely would like to see a return of welfare civics. Protect the Meek and Public Healers especially really felt like a sea change in how you run a society. Their removal has made FfH seem more like a war game. The civic choice seemed to be streamlined so you can pick how you are going to finance and train your armies more than how you are going to deal with the populace.

In other words, the only reason to finance the creation of butter is so it can be used as a lubricant for the guns!

OK....so maybe all such peace-loving civs will be crushed under the wheels of the juggernaut... but that should be an option for me, as a leader, to choose.

As another thought: It does seem like civics like Liberty and Guilds, while strengthening your society, should in theory also weaken your control over the people. Don't know how that would translate into gameplay, but it was a thought.

Bear in mind, that even Dark Fantasy and Sci Fi writers tend to hold as their core belief that humans, with all their warts and foibles, always fall back on some spark of goodness and come through in the end.

 

[Jules.lt]

I went mostly by the game mechanics, because that's what interests me.

The government line is a good one.
- God King is great early game
- City-States is great to control costs
- Aristocracy is good to control costs, and the change to farm yields differentiates it from CS perfectly
- Theocracy is good when you're doing the altar, but I find that it lacks some punch to compare with the cost-control civics. I'd like to see it getting stronger bonuses from the state religion, maybe getting events destroying temples from other religions and cities losing religions and maybe a pop point because of pogroms to compensate. That would be *dark*.
- Republic I don't use much, but I guess that it's because I don't finish my games. It seems good as it is

The values line is mostly the "what makes people happy" line
- Religion could be renamed "Faith" if you like, but its mechanic is fine as it is
- Pacifism as it has been reworked is great when you need it
- Nationhood is good. I could see it getting +1 from the Palace, Summer Palace and Winter Palace, though. That would make it more on par with Religion as well as being thematic.
- Sacrifice the Weak has been badly nerfed when it was moved to the values line, because it is now *instead* of the happiness-giving civics. It allows you to grow fast but at the same time it limits your options to get the happiness that will make this population work. I'd like to see it moved to the Economy line, which isn't very interesting right now.
- Social Order. Meh, I guess this potentially infinite happiness can be useful, but I like Religion better. That's probably due to my playstyle.
- Consumption: I never use it; those 3 seem harder to reach than those from Religion, and the 20% gold increase apply to a share of my revenue that I try to keep at a minimum. I'd find it interesting to have duplicate luxury resources give extra happiness under consumption, and maybe add 1 base yield to markets, taverns and theatres, rather than a % change.
- Scholarship is powerful with a specialist economy. I didn't use it much but I can see it being used to great effect. I don't know if I'm right about that, you tell me.
- Liberty is great for cultural victories, but I don't see it being used for much else, because of the competition in this civic line. An interesting mechanic could be that specialists do not count against the unhappiness from population, rather than a free specialist. This might need some counter to prevent it from being too powerful, but remember that it is a very late game civic. It *should* be powerful. Maybe change it to +100% war weariness.
- Crusade seems fine. It has its unique mechanic and some happiness to make sure that switching to it doesn't cost you too much.

The labor line, with the various ways to rush production:
- Apprenticeship: a staple. Useful but not overpowered
- Slavery: many applications. Simple and interesting.
- Arete: great to get when you can have it, which justifies the effort. Rename it if you will.
- Military State: focused and efficient, I'd say. Except that I'm a builder so I don't have much experience of it.
- Caste System: good, considering the lower average power of this line's civics
- Guilds: slightly underpowered, considering that when it arrives in the game you probably have most of the specialist slots you need. Maybe add 1 per specialist to make it clearly different (and usually better) than Caste System.

The Economy line:
Edit: Senethro made me think again: this line is dominated by agrarianism. I don't see how to make agrarianism less powerful yet still as simple and interesting, so the other civics need a big boost.
- Agrarianism: simple and interesting. Not obligatory, but often the best solution.
- Conquest: I'm still a builder type, but I guess that this can be pretty useful.
- Mercantilism: Considering the opportunity cost of not having trade routes, the 20% on gold only (which share you usually keep as low as possible) is insufficient. Especially for such a late game civic, on a tech that doesn't give much else. The increase should be something like 40% instead, which would encourage people to play around with money, with low tech % and lots of rushbuying stuff.
- Foreign Trade: the staple if you don't go for the specific mechanics of the other civics. well balanced, in my opinion.
- Guardian of Nature: one of the many reasons to go FoL. What else to say?

 

[Senethro]

Point: Sacrifice the Weak mustn't clash with Slavery or it can't be used to whip its starving population constantly.

Also, Jules was doing well until he got to the Economy line. Agrarian is obligatory and Foreign Trade is terrible.

 

[Jules.lt]

Point: Sacrifice the Weak mustn't clash with Slavery or it can't be used to whip its starving population constantly.

Which is why I'd like to see it in the Economy line instead.

Also, Jules was doing well until he got to the Economy line. Agrarian is obligatory and Foreign Trade is terrible.

You're probably right. Foreign Trade needs a boost.
I was going by my instinct built from all of my early games, but I realise that I hardly ever switch out from Agrarianism nowadays.

 

[Earthling]

Thanks for the summary there Jules, probably will help focus discussion. I agree with Senethro that Agrarianism dominates its category (except guardian when you use that) and Sacrifice the Weak is ok where it is Edit: Sacfrice the Weak would definitely work in the Economy line; Conquest is a bit weak right now so I wouldn't worry about the competition unless it was changed. However the rest of the values category is still a mess - for instance I don't think Crusade belongs in their, the Bannor already often run Social Order and Crusade should be something on its own. This category suffers a bit from having too many options such that some almost never see use - Consumption usually is just suboptimal and scholarship/liberty are almost like civ-specific civics too - never used outside of a certain setup/victory.

About suggestions proposed here: I absolutely love the idea that Consumption changes how happy from resources work - whether it's something like civ3, "more resources add more happy" or anything else. I also like the idea of republic holding "elections" every so often - adding a whole new leader trait may be a little powerful but it can be balanced and this is a great idea regardless.

 

[KillerClowns]

Foreign trade has exactly one use: Cultural Victory. If I'm not trying to pump your cities for every last drop of culture, I usually give it a miss.

 

[Sephi]

Foreign Trade rocks with Lanun! If you manage to build the Great Lighthouse which is possible you get 6 trade routes from every new coastel city you build.
Conquest is a nice civic if you lack production. Spamming some farms is often possible.

 

[retro V]

Conquest + Sacrifice the weak = sick (no, not the unhealthiness, the production capabilities). Run the outlying cities past unhappiness limits to get a few hammers towards barracks (just as an example), then pop-rush and stagnate growth while spamming units until the unhappiness wears off. You can repeat this method under the right circumstances to great effect. Loosely equates to a 100% food bonus, rather than the 25% you get from Agrarianism.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

Would removing "membership" and redefining that category in xml cause any problems? Specifically, is there anything in the dll or python that is going to kill the game if the councils go away?

 

[Valkrionn]

I don't think it would actually break anything, but it should be much simpler to just add a new category. Only python you have to change is one value, on one line, in CvCivicsScreen.py.... Change self.HEADINGS_WIDTH from 195 to 165. It will now fit 6 sections rather than 5, like when we had the compassion civics.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

I don't think it would actually break anything, but it should be much simpler to just add a new category. Only python you have to change is one value, on one line, in CvCivicsScreen.py.... Change self.HEADINGS_WIDTH from 195 to 165. It will now fit 6 sections rather than 5, like when we had the compassion civics.

Thanks. Part of my motive was dislike of the councils...but I'll try it both ways.

 

[Tacgnol]

The griping about Membership and about Crusade led me to come up with something. How about, rename Membership to Allegiance or something, and move Crusade there? Bannor are not exactly overpowered now, and as Crusade is pretty much their only unique feature giving them the civic for almost free would help both the feel of the civ and the practice. There would be the penalty of losing council diplo bonuses and votes, which does fit in with the idea of a fanatical crusade that leaves the nation unwilling to compromise at all, and it would give the civic category an actual use. Thematically, it seems really good, with the Bannor's only allegiance to their own crusade, and I don't think it would be too overpowered given the general blahness of Bannor and the high upkeep cost from Crusade that replaces no upkeep from other memberships.

Kills two birds with one stone. Kind of. Okay, maybe just hits them, but it sounds good on my end of the internet.

 

[xienwolf]

Personally what I would aim for is to attribute a "Compassion Index" to rule over all civics. Each one contibutes a certain value toward your overall Compassion Index, and each one requires that you are within a certain range. This allows you to make things like Liberty and Sacrifice the Weak incompatible with each other, unless each other Civic is chosen perfectly to fit your final index in a tiny interval where they might overlap their allowed ranges.


Do that, and you can aim to have some civics be notably superior to other ones within each category, but make it so that high Compassion Index civics and Low Compassion Index civics have a roughly equal number of categories in which one is superior to the other.

It would be a pain to set the numbers up EXACTLY how they would be best, and to design the civics themselves to ensure that the ones you think should be best really are. But it would be enjoyable to create a synergy between one High Index civic in one category and a Low Index Civic in another category, then ensure that you must follow an exact set of pretty horrible civics in each of the other categories in order to balance yourself into the narrow overlap which allows both of the powerful civics.


Basically: This model would allow you to have some civics which are, without ANY argument, horrible civics. But still have people argue that they are worth following (due to being neccessary to combine other civics with interesting synergies)