Design: Civics

[loki1232]

Did you know that both the raider and scorched earth traits started out as proposed choices in a proposed "Military Doctrines" civic category?

I think that blitz works especially nice for magic. It enables you to have a bunch of spellcasters supporting just one powerful unit with Orthus' axe, just a healer defender and siege unit thrown in.

 

[Sureshot]

orthus axe also has a strength bonus, so its not quite the same as giving someone blitz
using commando would be the same as blitz promotion-tree wise (need combat 5 for both i think)

still, i think commando for recon units should be removed from Raiders trait, given that recon units can't "raid" or pillage, so Raiders trait giving Recon units Commando (i.e. bonusing a non-raiding unit) doesn't make sense. but it would make sense for formlessness to give commando to recon units (thus it would be separate from Raiders trait). (though by my logick i think horsemen should be given the commando promotion for raider trait leaders)

i agree with QES on it not being too crazy to give them blitz.
i do however feel the commando promotion for recon units from Raiders trait makes no sense, but that Formlessness giving commando promotion to recon units would make the most sense.

 

[Sareln]

* Soldiery available at start <no upkeep>
* Formlessness available with stirrup <medium> All units get Flanking I, -30% city Strength, +3 XP for Calvary and scout units; Hidden units get the blitz promotion.
* Drilled Dicipline available with warfare <high> 1/2 upgrade costs, +3 Experience to Melee, Ranged units produced. Units get drill I and drill II. ( I don't think any of these civics should give free units, though especially this one, since you're spending all your free time training/drilling)
* Stalwart Defense available with masonry <low> +50% defence from walls, Cottages provide +25% Defence, Villages +50% and Towns +75%, Towns/villages/cottages have -1 commerce.
* Sigecraft available with mathematics <high> new units get a free city raider I promotion, bombarding units get the +bombard damage, -30% social production
* Sphere Domination available with sorcery <High> -30% military production, Adepts and Disciple units gain +4 experience, upgrading casters costs 1/3. Disciple units get Evangelism for free.

Sphere domination looks cool, but it feels like a clunky combination of divine and arcane. Perhaps we can take the Evangelism bonus and attatch it to an appropriate religious tech (like theocracy?)

 

[QES]

Sphere domination looks cool, but it feels like a clunky combination of divine and arcane. Perhaps we can take the Evangelism bonus and attatch it to an appropriate religious tech (like theocracy?)

It DOES seem clunky, your right. But then again clunky might be the only answer to -30% military production (ouch). Your rendition looks very palpable, I strugle to know what we can alter change at this point - other than tech tree adjustments. I wonder if formlessness should require a different tech, but what?

And Maybe Drilled Disapline should be Military Strategy?
-Qes

 

[Jono]

How about:
Stealth <High Upkeep>: All ground based units can be devided into smaller parties (are now hidden and strength is devided by 2, heroes and hidden units can not be devided), heroes can be hidden within small parties partes (some kind of effect), units obvious to the naked eye can no longer be created (e.g. fire elementals).

 

[QES]

How about:
Stealth <High Upkeep>: All ground based units can be devided into smaller parties (are now hidden and strength is devided by 2, heroes and hidden units can not be devided), heroes can be hidden within small parties partes (some kind of effect), units obvious to the naked eye can no longer be created (e.g. fire elementals).

How would this be done?
-Qes

 

[Jono]

I'm pretty sure the division part can be done, I don't know about the rest ^^

 

[QES]

I'm pretty sure the division part can be done, I don't know about the rest ^^

I think we need to best keep to the KISS montra if we can. Just boosting hidden units should be insentive enough to build them and maintain them INSTEAD of a huge assortment of other units.
-Qes

 

[Jono]

Heroes should be able to hide within units (of the same type/race) at the least (like Great Commanders do now).

 

[QES]

Heroes should be able to hide within units (of the same type/race) at the least (like Great Commanders do now).

Not sure if that's really a Civic though, more of just a cool notion.
-Qes

 

[Jono]

It could be a situation specific civic. Maybe a real powerful civic for when you've no cities left on the complete kill option?

 

[Halancar]

I've been playing a game as Calabim/Veil/Sacrifice of the Weak (and wondering why other civs hate me, must be all that death and entropy magic ), and I think that Sacrifice of the Weak need a little more help. Sure, being able to use population to rush build something is occasionally useful, but not that useful. And meanwhile my cities are usually limited by health before being limited by happiness.

So, my suggestion : when you sacrifice your population, you get an happiness malus for a number of turns. Could it be coded so you get a health bonus for the same number of turns ? After all, you just sacrificed the weak, those most prone to disease anyway, so rp-wise it makes sense. And if you do it regularly, you might even get what amounts to a health bonus (and happiness malus, of course, but that is another problem).

And balance-wise, it means that you get your population back faster, making the civic better (you can use it more often).

 

[loki1232]

I really like that balancing idea.

 

[Jono]

Shouldn't followers of the Ashen Veil agree with the sacrifice, anyway?

 

[Sareln]

Shouldn't followers of the Ashen Veil agree with the sacrifice, anyway?

Or be too scared to say anything? I never quite got the unhappiness penalty for "scrificing the weak" either...

 

[Grey Fox]

I think that aristocracy should be boosted somehow, atm its only usuable when you get sanitation, and even then I rarely even use it.

 

[QES]

I avoid/ignore forieng trade unless i care a good deal about culture. The money issue alone makes me yearn for mercantilsm. Peronally I think foriegn trade would be more interesting if it provided -10% production instead of -10% economy. Right now the trade route bonus "sorta" equals out the economy negative, except that the trade routes themselves are AFFECTED by the economy crunch. And really, who wants thier economies to be reliant on foreign sources?

The richest civs should be the ones with a HEAVILY invested forieng market. My thoughts are that foriegn trade perhaps should be +20% culture,+1or2 Trade routes per city, and +100% Trade Route Yeilds, and -1 gold per cottage, village, hamlet and town.

This would represent funding coming in from outside, not inside the civ. Peace would still be prefered because you only trade with countries your at peace with... is it possible to require open boarders (or is that already true?) for trade? Traditionally, the openness of foriegn trade encouraged peace (to make money) and made most civs richer. Mercantism made the "in house" merchants happier, but not the civ as a whole. I like the 10% boost for "in house economies" but it shouldnt be superior economically to foriegn trade. Conversly, foreign trade should be more unstable. The unhappiness modifier is a good start, another add to this should be something like an increase in war weariness. Foriegn trade is more "Free nation" civics, and mercantislim is more "empire" civics. Depending.

Also, on Sacrifice the week, perhaps the technology should itself provide a +1 hammer per town. The civic could provide +1 hammer per village, and +1 Hammer for Town (cumulative of 2 for towns). This would represent the strength of the populace. But maybe also cottage-type improvments would grow at half the rate of normal.

This would boost heavily the sacrifice option. And represent "good strapping lads" who survive do most of the work. Ashenvale towns then, would become some of the strongest, but slowest growing, Pillaging them would be very harmful to the civ.
-Qes

 

[Grillick]

I have never, ever...Not even once, seen my net gold income go down because I adopted Foreign Trade. Maybe if you have a very small empire it would, but the +1 trade route per city has always, in my experience, made up for the -10% gold which, by the way, is substantially different from -10% commerce.

 

[QES]

I have never, ever...Not even once, seen my net gold income go down because I adopted Foreign Trade. Maybe if you have a very small empire it would, but the +1 trade route per city has always, in my experience, made up for the -10% gold which, by the way, is substantially different from -10% commerce.

If i ride the line between the red and green in terms of maxing my science, and im currently ANYTHING other than foriegn trade, and i switch to it, i immediately go into the red. Now, it may be that im actually earning more? But i dont get that impression, i get the impression im taking an economic "hit" in exchange for culture and less unhappiness. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is always how it's felt.
-Qes

 

[eerr]

If i ride the line between the red and green in terms of maxing my science, and im currently ANYTHING other than foriegn trade, and i switch to it, i immediately go into the red. Now, it may be that im actually earning more? But i dont get that impression, i get the impression im taking an economic "hit" in exchange for culture and less unhappiness. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is always how it's felt.
-Qes

if you're riding really low on the line, it makes a much bigger diffrence in lost gold-but if you're riding high on the line with a high science rate(like the 60% reccomended in vanilla) then you should actually be gaining some science in the process