Civics rework

[Kalina]

But some civs have unique social rules, customs or laws, making them very different than other civs. All civs can be theocratic military states, but they are lacking Bannor's fanaticism and commitment to launch full scale crusade. I'm not saying it can't be done via other means (like worldspell or something) but often unique civics are easiest way to show difference between civilizations.

 

[JeffSteel]

I voted for removing all of the unique civics. As has been said, merging the religious civics directly into the religion would be a more elegant solution there, and would free up a category for additional other civics . Presumably a religious category like in vanilla BTS, except not necessarily clones of vanilla. The civ specific civics just turn out to be a civ bonus goody which the civ switches to and never leaves or needs think about again. Incorporating these into the civ would be best I think, if possible. They can remain if no other solution presents itself, but ideally it would be best for them to be axed.

 

[Ahwaric]

It looks like we all agree that doing it via civics is not the best and most elegant solution.
So, if I would be able to just move the bonuses to civs/religions themselves, I think most people would prefer that, yes?

I might be able to do that... Should have some time during Christmas
Especially as I am alomst done with rebuilding art pack for stand-alone Orbis install.

Also, I am almost sure that crusade will no longer be bannor-only civic, but I want to give them some nice synergy bonuses for that civic.

 

[thursday]

To clarify: when I vote for removing civ & religion-specific civs and incorporating them into their respective civs and religions, I assume that their bonuses and other effects will not become unlocked until the tech is research at which they are unlocked in the current build. Having FoL, for example, provide GoN happiness the instant you convert (without having researched hidden paths) isn't what I want at all.

 

[Ahwaric]

So it would be best if the bonuses are part of religious only tech? Like integrating guardian of nature into hidden patchs?
I might try to do it, but it will probably require reducing the modifiers to just a few.

Well, the list is intriguing but I would rather see their effects to comment

Just realized I never answered you. I first posted the list to get some fedback and did not yet have the time to think of specific modifiers. Will try to post them within next week, but all proposals are welcomed.

 

[Valkrionn]

So it would be best if the bonuses are part of religious only tech? Like integrating guardian of nature into hidden patchs?
I might try to do it, but it will probably require reducing the modifiers to just a few.

One way to do it would be an event which adds a trait; Only method I can think of that allows you to keep bonuses fairly similar, without using a civic.

 

[arkham4269]

I find myself without a huge opinion on this. Looking at what Ahwaric is proposing, it mostly looks good to be. However here are some ideas.

Despotism: I'm a bit torn on this one. "Historically" it isn't really the first form of government since under tribal bands and early cities you'd mostly have a leader who is just a front for the Elders. However with the history of Erebus is that the different Civ's came about because each of them had a visionary leader to lift them up to being more than an odd collection of refugees. So having a one, all powerful leader fits here. However, just because a ruler is a dictator (one who has broad powers) doesn't mean they are a tyrant. Having one leader during times of trouble can often be useful. It's why the Romans would elect temporary dictators to deal with certain crises that they realized that factions in the Senate would be unable to agree on the proper course of action in a timely manner.

So I think the default should be "Tribal Custom" or maybe "Tribal Law" which doesn't give much benefit for anything. I think Despotism should come early, perhaps with ritualism since dictators tend to benefit from creating a "Cult of Personality" that is short of falling into the God-King realm. I mean it may seem a slim divide but there is a big difference between being seen as the Father of your country and being seen as the Divine representation of your deity on earth.

Under cultural values I think there needs to be a demarcation between in regard to conquest. Are you being imperialistic like the Romans or the British? Do you just like to fight like the Klingons or the Mandalorians? Are you crusaders, bringing the word of (insert your deity here) to the heretic? I mean you could break it down like so:
A) Conquest: The fight is all. I'm thinking this represents a martial culture that emphasizes that the only true test of oneself is combat. I could see the Doviello trending toward this.
B) Crusade: Bring the Word to the heretic. Here the expansion is to spread a religious ideology. I see the Bannor trending toward this as well as the Malakim.
C) Imperialistic: This can manifest either as "Manifest Destiny" or simply expansion to grab resources. I would think the Scions would go for this. I would also think the Amurites (whole heir to the guy that saved Erebus from Malcaran thing) would fit here.

Now one might argue that Purity and Crusade are similar but then one could argue that Purity and Isolation are too. To me, Purity is a combination of isolation and religion while Crusade would be Conquest and Purity.

Also, I like the change from Paganism to "local cult" - as a Pagan myself, I dislike most people using it to denote a 'basic' default religion which would more correctly be animism or shamanism.

 

[Luckmann]

I voted for removal of all unique civics. While they are vertainly flavourful, I think they are counter productive. Why would you ever use anything but the unique civic? I think civics should be chosen to suit your playstyle and situation, and uniques discourage this.

I don't mind there being some unique civics. I like it. But they shouldn't be sorted all in the same column, like the religious civics are atm.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Personally, I like religion-unique civics. While you could work it into the adoption of the religion itself, I think a civic shows more of a commitment to how deeply you believe.

If you made it impossible to change a religion without changing the civic first (or rather, made the pentaly steeper) as well, you'd be forcing a greater commitment and not any opportunism jumps for the various civics. So say you adopt Kilimorph for Arete, before going with your plan to go evil and get Sacrifice the Weak, you have to change civics away from Arete, then change religions, then adopt the new civic. Whereas if the unique-civic benefits are built into the religion regardless, all you'd have to do is change the religion.

Say you have a Spiritual Creed category, but include all the religious civics/actions. Toss in all the religious-appropriate civics, and make it its own civic category.

 

[arkham4269]

Personally, I like religion-unique civics. While you could work it into the adoption of the religion itself, I think a civic shows more of a commitment to how deeply you believe.

Hmmm, this brings up a good point, having a religion and a civic tied to that religion does a good job of showing the difference between a Civ who follows that religion and one that really follows that religion.

Personally I think it's too easy to change religions; the cost is far to light. I mean it's one thing to have a situation I had in my latest game. I had around 5 cities and only one of them had a religion (RoK) spread from the nearby Khazad. I declined to follow RoK when it entered my lands, but I spread Order quickly after I founded it.

Yet, I've had games where I end up following FoL and have it spread throughout my empire only later to change to something later. Same w/OO - often have it till AV comes along.

However I don't think you should blithely be able to give a imperial edict to change religions w/o more problems. Historically when the King changed the states religion, the previous religion became illegal or at least seen as subversive. I would think there should be more of a penalty for eliminating religions. Probably to hard to code, but I would think that if a religion was a previous state religion, it would have a harder chance of being removed than a religion that is coming in from other Civs.

I know Orbis doesn't really use much of the Rebellion mod, but I would think that religious strife, especially in a world where the Gods are much more active, would be a very touchy subject and one that could really bite you if you aren't careful.

That being said, I think that Humanism needs to give access to some sort of UU benefit. Perhaps something similar to the Grigori Adventurers or maybe a higher rate to accrue Great People. Otherwise it's just another area where it sucks to play an agnostic Civ.

 

[Opera]

I'm planning something that would make you think twice before changing your state religion.

 

[Valkrionn]

Something that I like very much, by the way. Not sure if I mentioned that or not.

 

[Kalina]

So now not only Opera is teasing us, but Valkrionn also ? It hurts !

 

[Calavente]

I come after the battle but :
having religion specific civics was one of the catching things of FFH at the beginning (for me).
I liked to have to chose between the religion civic (sacrifice the weak) or another civic.
I mean, giving the civic bonus directly if you follow the religion would be OP : you won't have to abandon options for the other civics.

I think it is worthwhile to have civics you can get only while following a religion. I think it is also more interesting game-wise that chosing those religion-specific civic be at the cost of abandoning some options.

The only issue in base FFH is that the religion-civic is moslty a no-brainer. Thus you never need to think about following that civic.

My proposal would be that it is better than other civics of the same category (you are restrained to a religion...), but not by much. Or you gain something but lose something vital for this categorie.

ex : GON gives happy/health per forest-grove +another bonus, but loses in : your economy is re-oriented from a -producing civ to a eco-friendly civ. So you have to balance between : do I chose to lose all my ecomomic benefits from civics in order to have big cities or not ?
ex 2: arete : make that all "labor" civics save the default one have a way to rush production "slavery" "gold rush"... a way to make arete not a no-brainer would be to remove gold-rush for arete (you already maximise ) + give arete a bonus to compensate but you'll still lose the ever-important "gold-rush" mechanism.
..Etc

 

[Apeiron]

Just something I don't like in the actual system of civics : some religions need two techs to get their civics (AV, OO, etc.) and other just one (like the order, esus, etc.). Isn't it unfair ?