EU3-Style Civics: Good idea or bad?

[Jabarto]

In other words the initial idea you posted in the first post is off?

I don't know how I would implement it, currently. But it's not out of the question; if I or someone else gets some more ideas, I'd be glad to work on it.

 

[2ndimpression]

This is kind of a tengential question, but this entire thread is pretty much a tangent by now so what the hey.

I'm working on my own mod, which I mentioned before in the civics thread back in July, and I'm planning on scrapping the corporatist civic in favor of an earlier economic civic to compete with slavery. Does anyone have any ideas?

There were many states that became powerful because they had a strangle hold on trade - such as the Nabataeans of Jordan (Petra), or the Venetian empire (becoming very rich and powerful from the salt trade).
The Nabataeans started to emerge during the 4th century B.C. and as their power grew, the Nabataeans quickly gained control of the trade routes from the Red Sea to the coast of the Mediterranean.

There may be a way to create a civic that to somehow mimic these, maybe with trade caravans being highly prosperous (compared to normal) or other civic changes... just a thought.

 

[Freakwave]

A framework is needed to work with. How do you see it before you?

Ill just tell you how i see it. A minimum of civic categories preferably one column.
This is achieved by making any imaginable variant/covering history of goverment we know and some for the future era's too. Having all these different gov types makes them very unique and therefore the need for more columns wont be there. For example diff types of monarchy; ancient, feudal, bureaucratic, constitutional etc. On a side note, theycan be spaced out over the civics screen per era/type of goverment.

Having one column also negates the need to link the second column to specific goverment types of the first column. For instance if the second column would be economics, then bureacracy for instance could be linked to monarchy and republic. This doesnt mean it has the same effect since you can couple civics to each other for instance:

A bureacratic monarchy and a bureacratic republic are different because of the gov type of course but you could add to the gov type different effects for when bureaucracy is selected. Or disallow certain civics with certain gov types. No free market with communism for instance. If thats not possible give lots of malussus to a communistic gov with free market selected.

Once again one column would get rid of the need to do this.


Unknowns:

-How will the ai handle it?
-Danger of redundant types that will never be used.
-how many spaces are there in a civic column, but this can be distibruted over the empty area's
-can this be done with XML editing only?


What do you think? and whats your vision?

 

[Jabarto]

Hm...well, I originally intended for there to be one column with everything in it, but that might be a little too simplistic. I mentioned another column to represent NIs, and one for religious policy may not be a bad idea. So I don't know just how it would be done. I haven't put a lot of thought into implementation yet.

 

[Afforess]

I'm not sure why you would want only one column. That seems to remove options and limit choices. Heck, vanilla BTS has more choices than that. I think the more columns, the better, of course, as long as columns all represent different things.

 

[Jabarto]

I'm not sure why you would want only one column. That seems to remove options and limit choices. Heck, vanilla BTS has more choices than that. I think the more columns, the better, of course, as long as columns all represent different things.

Don't get me wrong, I love complexity and choice. It's just that it's much harder with civics because the more choices you have, the more likely you are to end up with combos that make no sense.

Also, I'm glad you're online now because I have a request to make of you. Can I use your "Departments" civic system in my own mod? You'll be credited, of course.

 

[Afforess]

Don't get me wrong, I love complexity and choice. It's just that it's much harder with civics because the more choices you have, the more likely you are to end up with combos that make no sense.

Also, I'm glad you're online now because I have a request to make of you. Can I use your "Departments" civic system in my own mod? You'll be credited, of course.

Well, my goal, in redisgning the civics has been to avoid systems where you could get civic combos that wouldn't make sense. That's why I was going to use Zebra9's Zcivics which allowed you to lock civics (If you change to Civic A, you MUST also take civic B.) to avoid A "Free" Fascist State, etc...

Yes, you can stea..use my Departments platform.

 

[Jabarto]

Well, my goal, in redisgning the civics has been to avoid systems where you could get civic combos that wouldn't make sense. That's why I was going to use Zebra9's Zcivics which allowed you to lock civics (If you change to Civic A, you MUST also take civic B.) to avoid A "Free" Fascist State, etc...

Yes, you can stea..use my Departments platform.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of zCivis before. I think I'll go look it up and learn more about it.

And thank you kindly for allowing my theft of your platform.

 

[Jabarto]

Oh, and Afforess? Since I'm looking at this system in depth, I can organize some detailed feedback for it if you like. Right now the thing that struck me most was the comparison between Subsidized and Socialized Healthcare; a single measly health point isn't worth higher upkeep, a 5% science reduction, and a 15% increase in city maintenance.

 

[cheesemijit]

Im liking the ideas here. Will this become a recommendation to Zappara or its own modmod?

 

[Freakwave]

Hm...well, I originally intended for there to be one column with everything in it, but that might be a little too simplistic. I mentioned another column to represent NIs, and one for religious policy may not be a bad idea. So I don't know just how it would be done. I haven't put a lot of thought into implementation yet.

Well national ideas are something different apart from governments, although you could say that certain ideas would fit well with certain government types. What you would get is another approach to civics. I'n not sure about religious policy. The pope pretty much determined the do's and dont's in europe. An option would be to make religions itself more specific which in turn influences the ideal government to have with that specific religion, just a thought.

Don't get me wrong, I love complexity and choice. It's just that it's much harder with civics because the more choices you have, the more likely you are to end up with combos that make no sense.

My point exactly

I'm not sure why you would want only one column. That seems to remove options and limit choices. Heck, vanilla BTS has more choices than that. I think the more columns, the better, of course, as long as columns all represent different things.

The options and choices in this situation would be lots of types of government to choose for in particular game situation. All types would be destinct with their own effects integrated from all other civic columns.
/reply


If this were to be coupled with the age changes somehow we could have a great evolution of government types. Also what religion you have could play a bigger role. State and church weren't separated until later.

 

[MrAdam]

That's more of a passive thing than having to do with civics. I'm not sure how to implement it though...

Damn. That's what I thought. Would of made diplomacy more interesting.

"It doesn't prevent those unhappy citizens from working..." Do you mean " It should allow unhappy citizens to still produce"?

Yes . Sorry for the confusing sentenced, surprised I typed that

I'm working on my own mod, which I mentioned before in the civics thread back in July, and I'm planning on scrapping the corporatist civic in favor of an earlier economic civic to compete with slavery. Does anyone have any

I just got lazy and decided to make free market enabled with currency and stopped having slavery reduce scientific research

 

[DavidB1111]

Speaking of Civics, I don't think you'll touch on this, but what's the idea behind all religious civics ruining Science output? The sheer amount of technological and other long words gains made by the Muslims throughout history proves Science is not crippled in a Religion. Even a Crusading Religion such as Christianity and Islam
Christianity also helped us learn certain things.

Muslims gave us University of Sancore, Algerbra, etc, etc. I mean really, I think the scienitific penalties was a silly way to balance Rise of Mankind.

 

[Jabarto]

Speaking of Civics, I don't think you'll touch on this, but what's the idea behind all religious civics ruining Science output? The sheer amount of technological and other long words gains made by the Muslims throughout history proves Science is not crippled in a Religion. Even a Crusading Religion such as Christianity and Islam
Christianity also helped us learn certain things.

Muslims gave us University of Sancore, Algerbra, etc, etc. I mean really, I think the scienitific penalties was a silly way to balance Rise of Mankind.

Well, to be fair, the Muslims did some rather...unkind things to Zoroastrian scholars. They were as guilty of book-burning and the like as any other religion.

 

[CivEikka]

Speaking of Civics, I don't think you'll touch on this, but what's the idea behind all religious civics ruining Science output?

Religion explain things by stories, which have none of scientific proof. Like that sun is a god. Rainbow is a sign from god etc.

 

[Afforess]

Religion explain things by stories, which have none of scientific proof. Like that sun is a god. Rainbow is a sign from god etc.

Come on now, that isn't fair, or correct. That's an example of a syllogism, not religion.

Religion has to do with explaining that which, at the time, could not be adequately explained by science. I'm sure you'll find that many stories, even religious stories, have a basis in reality.

 

[os79]

I have to caution that science output of religion had been dependent on loosening of adherence to teachings of that specific religion. For example, when Muslims invented algebra, they were not looking toward Koran but rather was dependent on the culture of their region to develop the concept. And so the list goes. Warfare technology, however, I do grant to you for being rapidly developed out of practical necessity.

Short argument: science advances in larger understanding of the universe and application of these are slower in religious dominant societies while development of warfare technologies developed rapidly by rapid trials and errors.

 

[Afforess]

Short argument: science advances in larger understanding of the universe and application of these are slower in religious dominant societies while development of warfare technologies developed rapidly by rapid trials and errors.

I believe you misunderstood me. I thought his example was unfair. His premise, that religions tend to slow scientific progress, in general, I agree with. I included that myself in my own civic changes.

 

[os79]

I believe you misunderstood me. I thought his example was unfair. His premise, that religions tend to slow scientific progress, in general, I agree with. I included that myself in my own civic changes.

Ah, my apologies .

Actually, I was not specifically referring to you. I was sorta moderating David(whatever)'s statement a bit.

Otherwise, looking forward to a possible releases of your new civic system .

 

[DavidB1111]

So I guess you could say that yes, Science does stagnate, but it's not really an extreme.
Not like money in bad Communism, anyway?