No, because if you have 100% growth earlier, then you get Towns earlier, which means CE is further improved. It's already strong enough, is it not?
Emancipation's ability is fine. People do, occasionally, Pillage things, right? Air Strikes happen?
Saying that Emancipation should have its punishment effect is like saying Blue shouldn't be a color in Magic. Or, to bring in another thread filled with argument, saying that playing with Aggressive AI is the only way to go. Hell, if you were arguing for Aggressive AI but against Emancipation, you have some pretty hefty internal contradictions going on.
No, because if you have 100% growth earlier, then you get Towns earlier, which means CE is further improved. It's already strong enough, is it not?
Emancipation's ability is fine. People do, occasionally, Pillage things, right? Air Strikes happen?
Saying that Emancipation should have its punishment effect is like saying Blue shouldn't be a color in Magic. Or, to bring in another thread filled with argument, saying that playing with Aggressive AI is the only way to go. Hell, if you were arguing for Aggressive AI but against Emancipation, you have some pretty hefty internal contradictions going on.
[off-topic]
Aggressive AI isn't the only way to play; it's just the best
All kiding aside, the Normal AI and Aggressive AI options exist to suit various playstyles, and I don't think Civ requires any changes to make the Normal AI more like the Aggressive AI or to make the Aggressive AI more like the Normal AI, but I'll continue to argue that Aggressive AI is better cause that's how I like to play. Just like how I like to argue that SE is more complex and interesting than CE despite it being clear CE is stronger down the stretch.
[/off-topic]
I don't like Emancipation but it's tolerable, but I don't see it as a good thing as far as a game feature based on how it's implemented, and I would like it if in future versions of Civ, they would stay away from implementing Civics in the same manner as Emancipation i.e. primarily punishment.
Actually, to balance the Labor category only one thing needs to be done.. Serfdom-> No Maintenance
Caste+Slavery are both good production +output boosters
Serfdom+Emancipation would be the development/lower input boosters
And I think it is OK that the labor category 'loses options' because it gets options very fast.. and it loses options at the same time many other categories are gaining options. [Government, Economy]... with Emancipation, Universal Suffrage is the new Slavery rush, and State Property the new Caste System production.[or all the buildings available.. by the time of Democracy you can have 4 Merchants, 3 Scientists, or 2 Artists + 3 more of one in your GP farm with Wall street or Oxford or Globe]
Legal and Religion are the only ones that have many options available for a lot of the game.
From the looks of it, only 1/3 of the people in this post are trying to improve it. The other two thirds are either whining or trying to put down the whiners.
I think improving it means making its penalties even stiffer by adding your suggested diplomatic penalites as well as exclusion from the United Nations for not running it.
The penalty seems realistic to me, because even IRL, people have gotten upset and revolted over being in slavery or restricted by religious and political castes.
I tend to agree with the carrot vs. stick view of Emancipation, though, because it really is a weak civic with no real basis for choosing it unless in the process of making the SE-to-CE switch or to prevent from piling up.
IMHO, though, the isn't difficult to deal with and shouldn't be reduced unless other penalties are compounded.
That being said, from WW has no place in a discussion over Emancipation. "War is hell" ... any compounded penalties due to WW have no bearing on whether Emancipation is broke or not.
I agree with what you say. But realistically, a diplo penalty against civs with emancipation makes sense as well. Perhaps put a cap on the in cities which increases with the era you are in. (3 for renaissance, 4 for industrial, 5 for modern) and put diplo penalties. It makes sense in BTS's juiced up planetary diplomacy.
Serfdom is a totally different subject, but in my opinion, is actually worse than emancipation. I pretty much never use it. It would be an excellent tech if it came a bit earlier. If I gained the option at about the same time I discovered slavery . . . then it might be useful as is.
But slavery comes very early in the tech tree. You can beeline to Bronze Working almost from the very start of the game. At that point almost every tile is unimproved.
Getting your infrastructure up and running at that point either by opressing your citizens (serfdom) or capturing some slaves (slavery) makes sense. If I'm the first one to get silver that's a lot of science output, if I'm the first one with a ton of mines all that production will build me a nice military, etc . . .
Serfdom remains useful for a good number of turns, but it starts to obsolete itself once I get my initial core cities on their feet. At which point other civics start to pull ahead. Which is great. It's even realistic.
Ancient despots used forced labor to build and maintain public works such as irrigation systems, great walls, roads, and more. The problem is that they made it a feudal, rather than an ancient civic.
My suggestion is to leave it alone, but move it back in the tech tree.
Put it next to slavery on the bronze working tech. That way at the point when your standing army is strong enough to oppress the people you can choose exactly how best to do it. Either by making them slaves, or serfs. Or if that is too much add a new tech requiring masonry and the wheel and set it there.
This is just plain wrong. The bonus from serfdom stacks with steam power/hagia sophia.
By running serfdom (in a normal game) you can add roads to a standard tile with one worker in a single turn. I personally find this useful when rebuilding pilliaged lands that i have conquered. It also has the same low upkeep cost as emancipation
I don't think emancipation has a postive 'I'm happy' side. It has a 'I'm not free, how sad' side. The negative boost is what Emancipation does. It inspires reform in others. Most revolutions spread from one nation to the next, because of jealousy.
If Emancipation inflicted a penalty on non-adopters and was desirable in itself, chosing it would be a nobrainer. That doesn't sound like good design to me: chose one or the other.
I agree with the suggestion Emancipation should have no upkeep.
It is literally releasing slaves/serfs with no real system to upkeep, unlike the 3 other civics. It’d be analogous to Pacifism in that way.
Functionally it would have a concrete benefit different than its other pieces. Since the 2 other strongest labor civics are medium upkeep, this would give a stronger contrast (2 steps, not just 1). Likely felt more in the larger empires of the mid/late-game.
Seems desirable gameplay for the latest civic in a category to be on par at least as an option with 2 civics from so early in the game. Cost-benefit would still be open to any civic, and that is more balanced. Seems backward for people to feel they have to use basic civics all game to win on high difficulty levels.
I'm happy someone else super necroed that for me, so I can give my 2 without feeling too bad.
Some thing stroke me in my late teens playing civ 3. I wondered :
What should be the goal of society? The answer was an obvious : "to maximize general utility and happiness"
What is my goal in Civ (and other strategy game)? Again obvious answer : "to maximize my power". Sure, happiness is in the game, I could try to make more than the minimum to keep m citizen happy, but even secondary goals are best fullfilled after expanding your powers.
So the striking truth is that the interests of the masses are inherently and wildly divergent from the interests of their leader. Civ 3 felt a bit insipide on that matter, where citizen are little more than machines processing food and luxury ressource into more food, shield and gold, and who are less productive during wartime under peaceful regime.
So even if it is quite a small mechanism (compared to revolution mods), I love emacipation, despite and even because it is a punishment. It represents the progress of your closest ennemy : your people.
By the way, it is not the only punitive mechanism in the game : there are inflation and maintenance too. Both aim to restrict unlimited growth in a much less frustrating way that corruption and waste did. They are less frustrating because they are counterable, with the correct expansion path. But since they are counterable, they need to have unbounded effect to remain relevant. Same with emancipation (can go up to pop/2). If we cap it to 3,4 the effect is too small to be noticeable, you just build one or two more temple the same way you build aquaduc and hospital everywhere after the industrial revolution if you want to avoid environementalism. And there are unbounded solution to this unbounded issue too : future techs.
By the way, it is not the only punitive mechanism in the game : there are inflation and maintenance too. Both aim to restrict unlimited growth in a much less frustrating way that corruption and waste did. They are less frustrating because they are counterable, with the correct expansion path. But since they are counterable, they need to have unbounded effect to remain relevant. Same with emancipation (can go up to pop/2). If we cap it to 3,4 the effect is too small to be noticeable, you just build one or two more temple the same way you build aquaduc and hospital everywhere after the industrial revolution if you want to avoid environementalism. And there are unbounded solution to this unbounded issue too : future techs.
To which I’d add: is actually even a natural consequence here, not as some as hoc punishment. Like many things that cause unhappiness or unhealth or cost money, etc. When you abuse people or they live in squalor they uh don’t like it. And that comes back on any society / leadership (unless they repress it). So it’s smart game logic.
That said, I do think it’s smart to have some positive benefits that aren’t merely relative - to other civs and/or to your civs’ improvement status (e.g. towns). I guess Wonders expire and so can preferred civics’ viability. But building in a few smaller, positive contrasts with Slavery, Caste, and even Serfdom seems smart for diversity.
No upkeep is one. Also, just started a post suggesting an empire-wife benefit +1 / +1 at Communism to represent various Labor Movements that transformed societies, apart from revolutions into State Property. Was suggested perhaps it made most sense to tie this to only Emancipation for game balance and historical logic: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/communism-mods-techs-benefits.643942/
Mercantilism is another. It works a little differently though, in that it compensates the adopting nation with a free specialist per city for eliminating their foreign trade routes, so the overall effect is it just a deprivation gambit against a nation's rivals (they lose all their trade routes with the adopter, but the adopter gets compensated somewhat). Somewhat accurate to the real-life practice and its adherence to a zero-sum model of trade.
Emancipation's adoption impetus is conformity, by contrast. You get penalized for not playing by the same rules as the ones who adopt it, so the incentive is elimination of that penalty by joining them. This seems pretty unfair just stopping at this point alone, but the cottage growth speed is another incentive to conform -- it allows you to develop into end-game tiles and "catch up" to the same level of Towns faster than normal, which is coincidentally how the AI tends to run its empire, very cottage heavy. Taking this while picture into account, I think the civic serves its purpose (conforming to a standard) well enough, even if it tends to suck compared to almost every other civic in that catagory except the basic
The most annoying aspect is it's not a very powerful civic for post-developmental empires; what is a happiness penalty when you are already running your highest economic output and have the culture slider? Health is a much bigger issue in the late game, as it cannot be artificially generated. Yet you get goaded into using it for no gameplay-relevant reason (the AI just arbitrarily favors it, which pressures all non-adopters) or it gets LOCKED because it happens to be the UN civic.
You could also argue that the culture mechanics are punitive, in certain ways. Border wars are one way I see it as this.
I would not call mercantilism a punitive mechanism. If anything, the drawback is totally optional, as there are econ civics without any. Like many civics, mercantilism comes with drawbacks. Unless you mean most of your rivals adopting it, but it is rarely a long lasting situation as it is not really pushed by any game mechanic. And it is more of a game theory thing, other players maximize their own utility, not yours. Same can be said about culture mechanic, it's not a punition, it is competition.
Health is a much bigger issue in the late game, as it cannot be artificially generated.
Environementalism. Aquaduc. Hospital. Transportation system. Genetics. Ecology. Fresh water. Forest. Futur tech. Health is a very minor problem late game, if any (even when it is -1 is much less of a problem than 1 completely unproductive citizen).
what is a happiness penalty when you are already running your highest economic output and have the culture slider?
[...]
Yet you get goaded into using it
When industrial era kicks in, city become so big productive slavery become obselete. So there's a real incentive to let your cities grow, magnifying the usefulness of happiness. Serfdom and caste also lose most of their utility as your infrastructure developps. Theoretically, we could all happily run caste, but one cottage builder is enough for it to be beneficial to every one to flip (or detrimental not to flip). Heck it needs even less, it just needs one player who would benefit less than the other from other labor civics.
From my limited experience, the switch from the AI makes perfect sense.
Minmaxing your own empire in vaccum is not the only gameplay relevant matter, wrecking others economy or avoiding having your economy wrecked is not inherently bad gameplay for a game with multiple players. It's perfectly reasonable to be against punitive gameplay, but calling it irrelevant is a bit too far I think.
I would bet you in an all human players game, we would switch as fast as the AI if not faster, as a way for small FEUSS cottage spamming peacemongers to leverage their tech advantage versus large Commies Watermill warmongers for example, and other would mostly have to follow, even if they, unlike said peacemonger, could still benefit from slavery or caste for some times.
Unless you mean most of your rivals adopting it, but it is rarely a long lasting situation as it is not really pushed by any game mechanic. And it is more of a game theory thing, other players maximize their own utility, not yours.
I mean, Emancipation is a penalty to everyone not adopting it in exactly the same way among all parties...there's no real upshot to utilizing Emancipation itself unless you really want to grow cottages. It's just the other civic options are better incentivized than mitigating an enemy-imposed happiness penalty at a point in the game that you don't need to grow cottages anymore -- they're either mostly done growing or being replaced by then. Mercantilism is a penalty in the same way, except it's only imposed on the nation's trade partners instead of everyone indiscriminately. Hence the comparison.
Maybe I don't understand why you feel Emancipation anger at behest of a rival is a punishment but losing friendly trade routes at behest of a rival isn't?
It's funny that that you feel adopting Mercantilism is an arbitrary action of the AI, since that's exactly why they adopt Emancipation too -- they are just coded to favor it. It's not the "best" civic (not that it couldn't ever be, it's just not how the metagame falls out in practical terms), it's just the one they are pointed at, like any of the UN civics or their Favorite Civic.
Also, when you reach that mass-adoption-of-Mercantilism point, you will definitely feel it the same way as Emancipation, limited window or not. The biggest difference is the Emancipation penalty will never go away
Environementalism. Aquaduc. Hospital. Transportation system. Genetics. Ecology. Fresh water. Forest. Futur tech. Health is a very minor problem late game, if any (even when it is -1 is much less of a problem than 1 completely unproductive citizen).
Genetics, Ecology and Future tech are largely irrelevant because they are Space Age techs and come too late to matter unless you are in fact going to space (I shut off Research after Industrialism all the time when warring to victory). Enviromentalism, uh.. well it just sucks unless going for UN, SP or Free Market corps are always better, and if you HAVE to adopt it, it's as bad as Emancipation, hah.
The reality is there is a very real soft cap from health after assembly line + combustion, and it can only be addressed so much without Corp use; typically you'll need to get all the way to Supermarkets to fully eliminate shrinkage. Happiness is virtually unlimited by comparison with just a couple way earlier techs and the slider.
Perhaps we just aren't gonna see eye to eye on this and it's just subjective, but when I want to grow cities after factories and I get stuck at 15pop because of health while they have over 25+ happy space, I'd say health is indeed the bigger issue. It's not always prudent to delay Assembly Line until one has Medicine/Combustion(a major detour!)/Refrigeration and possibly Biology either
If the emancipation penalty is incentivizing you to use the slider, something you wouldn't normally do by choice, that's called being goaded You either use the slider or adopt if it's enough to be a problem, but it's emancipation hate that is driving the decision.
When industrial era kicks in, city become so big productive slavery become obselete. So there's a real incentive to let your cities grow, magnifying the usefulness of happiness. Serfdom and caste also lose most of their utility as your infrastructure developps. Theoretically, we could all happily run caste, but one cottage builder is enough for it to be beneficial to every one to flip (or detrimental not to flip). Heck it needs even less, it just needs one player who would benefit less than the other from other labor civics.
Slavery is still very powerful even at this point. Using something other than Slavery only catches up because of +2 or +3 workshops and Factories. It's not like you have to stop whipping even into the Modern Era, its just larger cities are more economically lucrative and by Assembly Line can keep up productively with Slavery.
Also, I don't think one rival flipping to emancipation even starts the anger on normal (7 player) maps. I'm admittedly ignorant of the formula for Emancipation anger (other than I know it's based on pop and city numbers worldwide) but that's mostly because I know in practical application, it takes multiple flips for it to even start adding up to "worry about it" levels. It's just not that powerful of a mechanic. I have seen play from Deity players where it's brutal, but that seems to be more about how early the AIs start mass-adopting it and how much bigger they are for most of the game than anything.
Minmaxing your own empire in vaccum is not the only gameplay relevant matter, wrecking others economy or avoiding having your economy wrecked is not inherently bad gameplay for a game with multiple players. It's perfectly reasonable to be against punitive gameplay, but calling it irrelevant is a bit too far I think.
I don't feel like it's in a vacuum, especially if I haven't "won" yet (i.e I still need to dominate the AI to secure victory). And believe me, I;m not trying to portray myself as that elite -- I still lose or ragequit a lot of games on my difficulty. The emancipation anger just so easily managed by late game methods it may as well not exist in many games. You need extreme situations such as a large negative disparity in your size/resource trades vs everybody else, or playing on maps with more opponents (18, etc) with EVERYBODY adopting it for it to be as relevant as the health issues in the same era it comes about. Larger opponent fields also have a built in cushioning effect against it: every vassal you own gives you +1 happy in every city, there are more opportunities for luxury trades, etc.. I find defying resolutions, especially the UN, to be much more problematic.
I would bet you in an all human players game, we would switch as fast as the AI if not faster, as a way for small FEUSS cottage spamming peacemongers to leverage their tech advantage versus large Commies Watermill warmongers for example, and other would mostly have to follow, even if they, unlike said peacemonger, could still benefit from slavery or caste for some times.
It would be interesting to see how it plays out in a multiplayer game. Dynamics are so different there and I haven't personally read anything where they got that far, so it would be a treat to see.
The only problem with this is that nothing keeps those warmongers from just whipping down their cities into units, sidestepping the penalty and killing those small guys un the same stroke, or just ignoring it with the slider if already in Caste/SP as hammer economy is comparable to US/Free Market + Cottage spam unless Corps factor in (making the latter stronger).
I can tell you my mentality in that situation would be similar to somebody trolling with the AP abusively: go over there and take him out. If the emancipation users aren't already ahead enough it just paints a picture of their empire ripe for attack: not hammer focused, not using the whip, and trying to run away economically. This is why I think it can seem to be a good idea from the AI's perspective when sitting around on Mech Inf and going for Culture/Space when the closest rival is only at Infantry, but otherwise the threat of being torn down in a war is just too great to justify forgoing a better setup like SP+Caste or Corp spam.
I think a lot of the contention between our views is how I keep looking at the situation from a mechanical standpoint and experiences in my time with the game.
Ok, I concede, mercantilism, when used by your neighboor, is punitive in the same fashion as emancipation, though most of the time not to the same extent.
No, it doesn't.
Environementalism is +2 more specialists all over the board (1 pop consumes 2 and one ), and initially up to 6 more to get there. Up to twice as good as mercantilism without the drawback. The benefit depend a lot of the demographics of your empire, but if you have a large shallow empire, health is not a concern yet anyway (there are situation where env is blatently bad, but it is blatant). Two more pop in your big cities is also about as good as one extra trade route, often slightly better IMO.
It's not always prudent to delay Assembly Line until one has Medicine/Combustion(a major detour!)/Refrigeration and possibly Biology either
The good thing with is that you can live with it. No need to fix it preemptively, you can wait for the issue to be there. So you usually beeline Assembly Line, and while factories and coal plant are being built you can go for medicine, if you haven't catched it by trades already. Combustion is not a healthy tech, quite the opposite, but if you need it otherwise, transportation system becomes a thing.
Genetics, Ecology and Future tech are largely irrelevant because they are Space Age techs
When I want to avoid environementalism civic, which I often do, I end up building Aquaduc and Hospital right after most factories (and power plant if I haven't snatched the big Dam), and sometimes an other health building. So that's typically a 300 to 450 in my big cities just to keep growing in the 20+ while keeping an "advantageous econ civic". That's a big investement, but on the long run, cities are just as big as they would be under Env, and you get benefits.
I think many strategies are legit, but one idea of using environementalism, is to skip these 300+ per city altogether by eventually switching back to free market or whatever after these space Age tech are researched. So no, they are not irrelevant : if not for them, Env would be weaker because short term minded.
300+ represent some nice infra structure (5+turns of building) to help reach these space tech earlier, but it can also mean 2 tank per city and DoW, leveraging an early assembly line at its maximum (preferably getting medicine by trade). Without Env, you have to choose between building health infra and waiting 5-10 turns, or DoW as soon but supporting the war effort with cities stuck at 15+ instead of 20+.
I get stuck at 15pop because of health while they have over 25+ happy space
I don't know how you do. Market, temple, even theater to some extent are at the very bottom of my priority pile, definitely below forge and factory, and I almost never build a collosseum. They are really expensive for what they do beside happiness. I only build them when they become necessary, not before. A bank is much better than a Market if you have enough , a university is often even better ; I might end up building both, but I definitely won't have many markets by the time I reach industrial except in my most peaceful playthrough. By that time, most my and come from ressources, and I have nearly all of them (with trade). And they are about balanced and not much above population in any of my city.
Spoiler:
cereals + granaries, up to 6 (and granary is a super strong building even /wo boost)
grocer + groceries, up to 5
Harbor + seefood, up to 6
Livestock : up to 4 before supermarket
So that's up to 22 from difficulty level and ressources alone. Add 2 for fresh water and forest (keeping a single one is sufficient, and lumbers mill, if late, are on par with mines), and 2 from aquaduc, and at size 15 you should not have issues fighting the 7 or so from forge/factory/coal plant. (ofc, most missing building are to be built after the, forge, factory and powerplant).
So 15 pop to me sounds like where starts kicking, not where I get stuck. Assumings no Env. With Env and lands to work, it's more like 21. Either way, +6 max pop, not too bad of a civic is it?
Slavery is still very powerful even at this point.
No, slavery becomes obselete after the industrial revolution.
Slavery is very powerful because :
A size 5 city with a granary can convert into at a rate at least 1 for 2, which is absurdly strong
The typical marginal citizen is working a 2 1 forest at best, so you don't lose much by whipping him
with ressource or HR, is irrelevant Even better, slavery helps controlling population which is helpful if is lacking.
But after industrial revolution :
A size 15 city with a granary can convert into at a rate about 1 for 1, which utterly unimpressive
The typical marginal citizen is working a 1 4 mine, magnifyed into a 1 7 through buildings.
is relevant even more so with emancipation. Even when it is not, the size 15 city has a production typically exceeding 30 and building/units cost in the 100-200, so either way, it's hard to whip citizens one at a time, magnifying point 2.
If you whip a single (railroaded, power plant) miner in a size 15 and only delay its growth by only 3 turns (a strong +10 city), you lost 21 , pulling the effective conversion rate at a terrible 3 for 1. Sure, it's not as important if you're at pop cap already, but keep in mind you don't whip citizen 1 by 1, as explained in point 3. And very few big city regrow in 3 turns (and if they can, they could be much bigger and much more productive). Whipping 3 or more citizen at a time, even in a city at max pop +1, is very likely to cause big net losses.
Bottom line, if you are whipping big cities in the modern era, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, you might still have some small cities, or some coastal cities which might greatly benefit from slavery, but they weight really little in you economy. Additionally, US, if less efficient, does exist (and is much faster, especially as the ratio devellopped city/potentially good but undevelopped city rises).
So IMO, ignoring Cristo Redentor, slavery is useful at most up to the whipping of Forges, Levees and Factories. Past that, it only has niche application and is not even worth the upkeep cost.
Also industrial cities don't merely "keep up" with medieval slave cities, they utterly crush them. My typical low prod (higgh wealth) city still porduces close to 1 citizen worth of whip per turn. My typical Ironwork city produces in the 7+, so still in the 4+ citizens per turn if for whatever reason you want to compare that with whipping a city with power plant. Try keep up with that.
The only problem with this is that nothing keeps those warmongers from just whipping down their cities into units
The warmonger definitely has their chances and in most situation, I would favor them - though in that case I can see it go both ways depending on the difference in advancement (typically post industrail vs preindustrial is huge) and distance between players (too small the warmonger wins, too big, warmonger can peacefully boom and become totally dominating). My point is that emancipation would still be included in the best strategy available to a peacemonger (who may have not even chosen to be a peacemonger in the first place, but was in semi isolation, surrounded by decently tough opponents).
It's funny that that you feel adopting Mercantilism is an arbitrary action of the AI, since that's exactly why they adopt Emancipation too -- they are just coded to favor it.
AI obviously don't do anything more than what they are coding to do. Civ AI at least. You may feel that Emancipation is not their best try, and it might objectively not be, but I don't think the programmer made it so for a malicious or a role play oriented reason. I think Emancipation and late cottage spamming almost no matter what is the safest way to avoid being screwed by emancipation, and one AI seems to favor (though not universally, I do see some spam workshop and farm even by that era). The same way putting 2 archers in your city is a really bad way to expand fast early on but the one AI chooses to so as to be less resilient to rush.
So again, I don't think AI's change to emancipation is arbitray, I think it makes perfect sense from a gameplay prespective.
It makes a lot of sense for a limited AI to avoid economies harder to play like mercantilism specialist heavy econ, where you can easily be screwed by emancipation, with big towns close to happines cap and more specialist than building to host them if you're not careful.
Likewise, I don't think the AI arbitrarily choses mercantilism. It makes a lot of sense to do so, somteimes even after free market, sometimes the default eco civic would be better. In my game, I rarely am in a situation where every body around me is using it and I am not, but if I guess if one gets economics early and doesn't trade it away, it can happen.
I think we both look at the mechanics but have a very different experience, probably due to game settings (I play noble-monarch on big maps with decent coast line) and playstyle (I favor big cities, even at the cost of running environnement and saving a few forest tiles, and I build as few happy building as possible).
An early emancipation hinders that free religion and free speech given through liberalism because they're not labor and because they don't follow the same tech path as democracy does. Not to feel dumb but democracy takes awhile sometimes, 6-7 turns and 3 or 4 more turns with constitution. Not only that but military technologies get hindered too (cuirassers, rifling, etc.). However, once you get and adopt emancipation with democracy because other people adopt democracy, you don't have to worry about other unhappiness but then you do have to worry about defense if AI finally attacks with more advanced stacks of units. Its useful because other people that don't have democracy yet will have unhappiness. I remember I used to go through that but now I just bee line to democracy and then continue to liberalism and economics to have the 3 free civics ,free religion, free market and free speech.
Universal Suffrage with financial towns and a large empire to astronomy for more technology and Representation for smaller empires for more research.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
penalty seems realistic to me, because even IRL, people have gotten upset and revolted over being in slavery or restricted by religious and political castes.
without feeling too bad.
/ +1
at Communism to represent various Labor Movements that transformed societies, apart from revolutions into State Property. Was suggested perhaps it made most sense to tie this to only Emancipation for game balance and historical logic:
is much less of a problem than 1 completely unproductive citizen).
is that you can live with it. No need to fix it preemptively, you can wait for the issue to be there. So you usually beeline Assembly Line, and while factories and coal plant are being built you can go for medicine, if you haven't catched it by trades already. Combustion is not a healthy tech, quite the opposite, but if you need it otherwise, transportation system becomes a thing.
in my big cities just to keep growing in the 20+ while keeping an "advantageous econ civic". That's a big investement, but on the long run, cities are just as big as they would be under Env, and you get benefits.
