Emancipation buffed in BtS?

Just a quick thought before I go to lunch, because this post continues to interest me ...

A couple responses have referred to Emancipation using phrases like "only civic" and "doesn't fit". That argument seems unfounded to me, because Civ 4 is far from a homogenous game ... not everything has to be the same or "fit" (nor does it now in many aspects).

There are other civics which have unique aspects when compared against the other civics:

  • Police State is the only civic that affects War Weariness.
  • Organized Religion is the only civic that allows a city to build a unit without regard to its requirements.
  • Serfdom is the only civic that is made entirely worthless by both a Wonder (The Hagia Sophia) and a technology (Steam Power).

And there are also other civics with a corresponding punishment:

  • Pacifism increases unit maintenance.
  • Mercantilism eliminates foreign Trade Routes and foreign Corporate effects in your cities.
  • State Property nullifies all Corporate effects in your cities.
  • Environmentalism increases Corporate Maintenance.

So the way I see it, the only valid argument really left against Emancipation is that it's weak. IRL, nations really did go into turmoil over Emancipation when the world began abolishing slavery and castes; and what's more, it escalated as more and more of the world accepted Emancipation.

If anything, the penalty should be removed from Emancipation and instead added to Tribalism, Slavery, Serfdom and Caste System as ":mad: penalty when other civs are Emancipated". I bet if Firaxis had done that in the first place, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Good point. You make me proud.
 
Emancipation represents a vital part of the modern human experience and is in fact central to the idea of modernity itself. Even though civilization the game is only inspired by civilization the reality, it would be a gross oversight on the part of the developers of the game if they did not recognize the huge advancements in thought that occurred during the Enlightenment which led to such 'troublesome' ideals like emancipation.

It is during the Enlightenment that the use of reason led to the increasing development of scientific ideas and liberal ideals. Individuals became equal under the guard of reason, a faculty which could be used to guide individuals and humanity to perfection. Ideas of 'progress' appeared, fueled by reason and its ability to evolve ideas to ever-greater levels of complexity, which propelled humanity on a teleological path towards a much brighter future. Soon revolutions started occurring, including the Industrial, and before long the entire look of 'the West' had changed forever. Somewhere in the mix of all this the concept of the nation-state emerged where individuals came to be grouped not by their family, religion, or tribe, nor, incidentally (and in contrast to liberal universalism), as members of humanity, but as individual citizens within the broader context of a national identity.

Giving political significance to an individual as a self-contained entity within a nation-state is the most concise definition of modernity one can arrive at, at least modernity defined in the Western sense. The problem is that as soon as individuals start to recognize their own political significance, governments have much less control over them and so are forced into recognizing the power of the people and their demands.

Newly enlightened folks of this sort, much to the consternation of the US government, continued in a very unhappy way to press for the enlightenment of all, including those under bondage, because that is the logical conclusion of Enlightenment ideals. We could get into a dissection of the causes of the very bloody and unhappy American Civil War, for which there were many, but slavery was inextricably intertwined with all of that. The US payed a heavy price for emancipation and is not a price the government or monied society wanted to pay for at the time, but no 'enlightened' person can doubt that we are much better off as a society having undergone emancipation whatever the cost, even if we have so much progress yet to make in terms of social justice.

As is evidenced by the people on this forum, we the Civ players come from all over the world. The fact is however that it was developed in the main by Americans, and it is in America where emancipation became so clearly necessary. Every nation has their own unique experience, and most societies seem reluctant to renounce bondage or castes or whatever, but eventually they get around to it because at some point there is no other choice. Civ the game reflects that beautifully. The choice is a hard one to make, because economically especially in the short term the choice of emancipation is usually a bad one and hurts those with power and money because foundational economic change of this sort is bound to be painful, but as in the US experience the choice eventually becomes a non-choice as social disorder dictates the outcome.

I think the outcry like the one we see on this thread would be much greater if there were no negative incentive to adopt emancipation. Civ is not real life but it surely represents aspects of real life in a game-play experience. Emancipation was hugely important to humanity and emancipation hurts the status quo, thus the thread.
 
If anything, the penalty should be removed from Emancipation and instead added to Tribalism, Slavery, Serfdom and Caste System as ":mad: penalty when other civs are Emancipated". I bet if Firaxis had done that in the first place, this thread wouldn't even exist.
I tend to agree. . .
 
Right,

My view is that Emancipation and Environmentalism are 'weaker' Civics in term of raw power -- however, they greatly increase health and happiness.

To be honest, I don't see the difference (in pure game terms, I'm not talking about RL here) between Environmentalism and Emancipation, except one creates a negative and the other produces positives, but they are the same to me.

So, I find (I usually play on Monarch) that when cities get big, if I want to build a factory, industrial park, coal plant, maybe a drydock, and a lab, that with a big, powerful city, I can be at -7 health or so. So, I have choices, I can build smaller cities, I can whip citizens, I can decide not to build these buildings, or I can take a 'bad' civic like Environmentalism to use these buildings with large, powerful cities. or I can have planned early and not cut as many forests. I can avoid coal plants but try to get the three Gorges Dam.

I think Emancipation is the same. Here, however, the cities produce negatives themselves, so I have the same choices. Move to the 'bad' emancipation, much worse than the other civics, but this allows me to keep a large city. Instead, I can use other 'bad' civics (like Hereditary Rule) instead, can use a lot of money on the cutural slider, etc and keep caste system or slavery.

Basically, I think the game leads to large cities late in the game, and to use their full power of the size happiness and health are problems. Solutions are given in adopting these civics.


Bottom line: If the happiness benefit weren't there, there would be no or little reason to use it. The happiness benefit is a function of the city size and game time expansion. If cities are large, then, it becomes the BEST choice, possibly to the exclusion of the other civics. But, as usual, its a choice. If you build overlapping cities which don't grow a lot, or use the other ideas stated above, it isn't 'forced' on you.


So, say they changed the parameters, and said that as population grows enough, beyond a certain point, you get two unhappy people instead of one as size gains. Then, they change emancipation so that it eliminates this effect. To me, this change is pretty much the same as the game is now, and the issue of whether it 'reduces a negative' or produces a positive becomes appropriately moot.


Best wishes,

Breunor
 
echoing breunor to some extent, the previous versions of civ made late game population mangagment way too easy, except in the case of war weariness. from another thread today i was reminded of another thread from back in '02 when civ 3 was still fairly new and we were discussing how we would like civ 4 to be improved if and when it came out. this is the second time i am quoting myself today, so it is kinda weird and seems a little self promoting, but it is relevant and sheds some light on my perception of a general sentiment in the civ community back then about the easiness of late-empire management. the url:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=33910

and my quote (i was me4peace back then):

"for more depth in the later game (sometimes i get bored once every thing is developed, but that was the case in all three games) i think social issues could come into play a little more for a twist on managing population. you know things like riots and poverty and human rights groups influencing you.

and if we are an empire, how come we can't have client states? puppet regimes would be a great addition, and so would multi national corporations.

i don't like the war weariness factor, a bit too vague, civ4 would need to have something much more facinating, like the 60's.

anyway, i just wanted to say that i like civ3, a good improvement over civ2, it sounded like some were disappointed. definately there is room to grow though, the last 1/4 of the game is, imho, empty, needs something, always has.

and one last thing, can any of you make a graphic mod to bring back the dancing cleopatra from civ2? she was hot

also, as i alluded to up above in the other post, i love the first most of the game (i am a builder at heart, but have been discovering the military aspect lately, and am finding it totally engrossing) , it is just when the modern era is reached, there is not alot to do, you either wait around to build up a military to wipe someone out, or you build a spaceship, which i have yet to even set that as one of the ways to optain victory.

by the time you have a developed empire in civ (all three versions) controlling the happiness of the population is much too easy.

with these multi-nationals that could be broght in, they could throw in a random chance of exposing a sweat-shop, perhaps resulting not only in a restless public, but also a DECREASE in culture borders, even if not as a result of an increase in another civ's culture.

random revolutions would be cool, triggered by mis-management, forcing you to fight your own defected military units to quell the rebellion. they shouldn't have to defect to an already existing civ, they could start their own (i.e.--a civil war)."

so, (back in '07 now) i for one have been pleased with many of the late game improvements in civ4 generally and bts in particular. i also anticipated great people, omg its like i am psychic. seriously, read the linked thread...okay enough bragging for one life.
 
as you see in my latest account incarnation, i have become a different person since then, as no peace monger would consider himself a malfeasant. please don't report, i'll blow something up to prove it, anything.
 
What I find interesting in this debate is that many are complaining about Emancipation because of how much it hurts their game. That's exactly why I love it. I get to it first and adopt it immediately because it's the one civic which can hurt all my opponents. What a great deal! On top of that, I never have significant production Or happiness, etc.) problems, even after Emancipation because I prepare for it by using the tools the games gives me. I may not play at the highest level, but I play at both Prince and Monarch.

If you can't tolerate Emancipation it suggests to me: (1) You're behind; and/or (2) your game is much too dependent on civics like slavery. Civ is a very, very complex game. It seems to me, the goal is to try to embrace the complexity and develop a civilization which is not so dependent on things like slavery or a workshop/caste system society. Similar to points made (and made well) earlier, one could argue that civics which become archaic in the game (e.g., slavery and caste system) are the very antithesis of "civilization." It makes a great deal of sense to me that, as time goes on, the game penalizes those who hold onto uncivilized notions.

Slavery may have worked fine for the ancient Romans and Serfdom for 19th Century Russia. But, when you look at modern times, all the great civilizations were (and are currently being) essentially forced to give up their old "civics" in order to move forward. It's much the same in the game. The game is replete with ways to prosper after the advent of Emancipation. It seems to me that if you're having trouble winning because you won't progress, that's exactly what the makers of the game intended.
 
as you see in my latest account incarnation, i have become a different person since then, as no peace monger would consider himself a malfeasant. please don't report, i'll blow something up to prove it, anything.
Too late I reported it just after I said I would. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :mwaha:

oops, uh, i mean, I am sorry.

BTW I reported directly to Thunderfall, so it might take a while for him to get to it. Make all the good posts you can until then.
 
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

BTW I reported directly to Thunderfall, so it might take a while for him to get to it. Make all the good posts you can until then.

lol, will do...

on the more serious side of not breaking rules, i gave civ up for a couple or several years and picked it up again late spring this year and found i like civ 4 much more than civ 3. when i realized i forgot my password (and at the time i couldn't remember my user name as i think you need an account to search) i created a new account and went for something a little more alter-egoish this time around. just for fun of course. :woohoo:
 
What I find interesting in this debate is that many are complaining about Emancipation because of how much it hurts their game. That's exactly why I love it. I get to it first and adopt it immediately because it's the one civic which can hurt all my opponents. What a great deal! .

another excellent point, beeline democracy, not only will you get the SoL, but the others will be ages away until they can remedy their unhappiness giving you a tremendous increase in relative power and production.
 
How does emancipation make your OWN civilization happier? All I see it doing for me is growing cottages faster, and usually by the end game (I'm not a war player) I've gotten large ancient cottages throughout my civilization, I may even have been DESTROYING some to build other improvements such as workshops or water mills that have become useful to my strategy later in the game.

If people want to leave the punishment aspect in, thats fine. Just make the civic something I'd want to use. As an american I firmly believe Emancipation is an awesome thing, with many positive benefits. As a Civ player I see Emancipation as something weak and mostly used to annoy other players.

You could get rid of the cottage growth aspect and it wouldn't effect me at all, it comes too late in the game. Even if I'm conquering I tend to try and leave grown towns alone, the wealth helps me pay for the war once I take their cities.

One positive and realistic effect I'd like to see for emancipation is to make the lowly "citizen" a more valuable specialist. Perhaps they could produce :hammers: :commerce: :science: instead of just :hammers:. That would make emancipation able to compete with the other civics in it's tree, and it would be realistic. A free citizen works harder and is more prosperous than a slave.
 
And there are also other civics with a corresponding punishment:

  • Pacifism increases unit maintenance.
  • Mercantilism eliminates foreign Trade Routes and foreign Corporate effects in your cities.
  • State Property nullifies all Corporate effects in your cities.
  • Environmentalism increases Corporate Maintenance.

So the way I see it, the only valid argument really left against Emancipation is that it's weak. IRL, nations really did go into turmoil over Emancipation when the world began abolishing slavery and castes; and what's more, it escalated as more and more of the world accepted Emancipation.

If anything, the penalty should be removed from Emancipation and instead added to Tribalism, Slavery, Serfdom and Caste System as ":mad: penalty when other civs are Emancipated". I bet if Firaxis had done that in the first place, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Which is my point entirely, the MAIN benefit of Emancipation is to avoid punishment. The other civics involve a tradeoff. I lose trade routes but I gain specialists etc. I lose access to slavery, caste system, and serfdom and I gain... faster growing cottages?

Right now the only reason to run Emancipation is to punish other civs, to avoid the punishment yourself, or to grow cottages fast with the last option rarely being useful and the other 2 based around punishment.

The game doesn't force the use of Emancipation but it does strongly encourage it, and I'd rather it encourage it through benefits rather than punishment.

At the end of the day, it's a minor issue unlikely to be changed, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or encourage a similar approach in future Civ games.
 
In my analysis: (this is post Democracy.)

Running an SE, Emancipation is NOT an attractive option. Caste System is better, straight up. Even Slavery, which I have never been sold on, would be better for your purposes. That being said, Emancipation provides an inherant "happiness bonus" by not having to put up with the crap you get from not running it.

HOWEVER, look at a CE. So, your never going to have to cottage anything after Democracy, huh? That's an odd statement. What about captured/pillaged lands? what about new cities? what about the cross-over from a hybrid/SE to a CE late game? The bonus of Emancipation is there for that type of situation. Meanwhile, you get to sabotage the enemy (and it IS sabotage, I too, suspect that the effect was buffed in BtS.) Meanwhile, Emancipation, like Serfdom, is Low upkeep, and is at LEAST as useful in it's base effect as Serfdom (at least at this point.) IMO, Free Speech needs to have +100% culture, no other bonuses, and it's +2 :commerce: needs to be given to Emancipation, but for me that's really a question of realism and the balance of Free Speech, not the balance of Emancipation.

IMO, to balance the labor category, it needs to look like this:

Slavery: Bronze, medium, same effect as usual, plus one hammer mines.

Serfdom: Feudalism, low, +50% worker improve speed, stacks with Steam/Hagia Sophia, +2 :commerce: from farms. This would make it compete quote well with Caste System, especially if you change the workshop bonus from it to :food: and the bonus from SP to hammers.

Emancipation: High upkeep, same effects as before, +2 commerce per town.

What say you?
 
Zhahz sig says it best: Civ IV is just a game - not a simulation of reality

And what part of interfering with your opponet's strategy isn't part of a game?

"They're close to finishing the space ship? Well, I'd better not invade, that'd really mess with their strategy!" In the immortal words of Detective John Kimball: STOP WHINING.
 
It would be OK if the bonus was something other than 100% growth to cottages. That bonus should really be in an earlier civic and Emancipation should give a bonus to happiness based on extra Luxury resources or maybe just swap the civic that gives +2 commerce/town with 100% growth.
 
Top Bottom