Feedback: Civics

[Simon_Jester]

As mentioned earlier, I can't actually do this. The tag that should be giving unhappiness is instead removing unhappiness. I can't fix this without the SDK and I can't code it myself because the AI won't understand it. Plus for some bizarre reason there's no change of civic event exposed to Python that I could attach the code to, making the whole thing a pain in the neck to achieve.

I'm sorry; I missed this part.

 

[Mr. Sulu]

Authoritarianism -50% GP points seem like a decent solution to me. In many Authoritarian regimes, those who would be considered gifted Artists are often not tolerated (Ai Weiwei as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_Weiwei) as they sometimes go against what the central government would want, and such things as creativity go hand in hand with free though, which Authoritarian Regimes do not want.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The civic Redistribution currently has "-50% from Trade Routes, and +1G from Camp, Mine".

If I am not wrong, this -50% is being applied as an integer round down to the calculation of the total yield, which already internally uses an integer round down.

So, I read, for example, without Redistribution, in a city of size 14:

2.30 base profit
+50% for harbour
+20% for population
+25% for connection to capital

the gross trade of 2.30 * 1.95 = 4.485 becomes floor[4.485] = 4.

With Redistribution, the 4 becomes 2. Similarly, 3 -> 1, and I'm not sure whether 1->0. In an extreme case, a gross trade of 3.99 becomes floor[floor[3.99]/2] = 1.
​

I presume that the intention was to instead embed the calculation:

2.30 base profit
+50% for harbour
+20% for population
+25% for connection to capital
-50% for Redistribution

the gross trade of 2.30 * 1.45 = 3.335 becomes floor[3.335] = 3.
​

As it is now, the effect is very strong. Only in the earliest part of the game are there possibly enough Camps and Mines to be able to compete with it and make the civic worthwhile. At some point, it is worth reverting to Reciprocity, and it's a long time before any other possibilities become available.


If it's not possible to embed the calculation, the "-50%" could be replaced with "1 less gold, with a minimum of 1", so max[floor[gross]-1, 1].

 

[Xyth]

As it is now, the effect is very strong. Only in the earliest part of the game are there possibly enough Camps and Mines to be able to compete with it and make the civic worthwhile. At some point, it is worth reverting to Reciprocity, and it's a long time before any other possibilities become available.

If it's not possible to embed the calculation, the "-50%" could be replaced with "1 less gold, with a minimum of 1", so max[floor[gross]-1, 1].

For civics I'm mostly limited to using the default assortment of possible effects as otherwise the AI won't understand the value of them. You're right though, the rounding and the multiplicative application of the penalty does seem to make this penalty hit harder than you'd expect. I'm unable to change the way it calculates (and if I could it would also weaken trade route bonuses like Free Market - they use the same mechanic).

I'm not keen to shift the penalty to something other than trade routes, at least for now (Redistribution has been through so many iterations!). I like the way that the penalty has little to no effect early on when your trade network is non-existent or very small, but gradually becomes more and more of a hindrance as you expand and develop, eventually driving you to a different civic. I certainly don't want that different civic to be Reciprocity though (and I'd also like Redistribution to be a valid choice for isolationist playstyles), so I'll do some tests with the penalty at -25% trade route commerce and see how that feels.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I'm at 100BC in a Odyssey-speed game with 85 cities (!), and I want to launch a revolution. This costs 10 turns of Anarchy for one civic, although there is a massive discount with more: only 12 turns for 2 civics and 18 turns for all 5 classes.

Even the 10 turns is so unattractive as to motivate me to wait for a Golden Age before revolting. Ironically, the 16 turns of a standard Golden Age is a shorter period than the Anarchy of a serious revolution would be.

Is this long period because of the size of my empire, or the gamespeed, or both? It seems that only the raw cost of a 1-civic revolution is scaled --- the discount for a multi-civic revolution doesn't scale.

Where are these factors documented?

 

[Xyth]

I'm at 100BC in a Odyssey-speed game with 85 cities (!), and I want to launch a revolution. This costs 10 turns of Anarchy for one civic, although there is a massive discount with more: only 12 turns for 2 civics and 18 turns for all 5 classes.

Even the 10 turns is so unattractive as to motivate me to wait for a Golden Age before revolting. Ironically, the 16 turns of a standard Golden Age is a shorter period than the Anarchy of a serious revolution would be.

Is this long period because of the size of my empire, or the gamespeed, or both? It seems that only the raw cost of a 1-civic revolution is scaled --- the discount for a multi-civic revolution doesn't scale.

Where are these factors documented?

I found this thread explains how it works in BTS: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=342624

For Odyssey the speed factor is 300 and I haven't adjusted the map factors from BTS. Giant and Massive mapsizes follow the progression at 5 and 4 respectively. I've not altered the era factor at all (though it seems strange to me that era should have any effect on anarchy length).

So it seems to be the number of cities that is increasing the base anarchy length so significantly. Incidentally, I'm changing the way that Golden Ages scale with gamespeed. In 1.17 they will be 24 turns long on Odyssey.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I found this thread explains how it works in BTS: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=342624

For Odyssey the speed factor is 300 and I haven't adjusted the map factors from BTS. Giant and Massive mapsizes follow the progression at 5 and 4 respectively. I've not altered the era factor at all (though it seems strange to me that era should have any effect on anarchy length).

So it seems to be the number of cities that is increasing the base anarchy length so significantly.

Thank you! Those calculations agree perfectly with my experience.

Damn! In the meantime I ramped up my game to 105 cities. Perhaps the lesson is that gigantic civilizations should manage their Golden Ages very carefully.

Incidentally, I'm changing the way that Golden Ages scale with gamespeed. In 1.17 they will be 24 turns long on Odyssey.

That's something that I wanted to hear. Good!

 

[Skidizzle]

It is possible to have civics that are bad combinations? Think of the former Soviet Union when Gorbachev tried to institute his Glasnost policy (basically trying to mix freedom of speech and authoritarianism). It didn't really go over all that well.

I also think a combination of the Caste System and Equal Rights wouldn't work out either. Industrialism vs Environmentalism..

 

[Simon_Jester]

With thirty-odd civics, there are a lot of combinations that seem weird or contradictory.

In my opinion, it's best to handle this by simply making it so that 'incompatible' civics provide different bonuses and penalties, possibly ones that cancel each other out. So you get a caste system if you want one thing, equal rights if you want another, and the only way you take both is if you can't decide what you want and are willing to settle for getting a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.

Also, just a thought: having a caste system doesn't have to mean some castes are oppressed. It can, but it doesn't have to.

(not entirely serious about that)

 

[Xyth]

It is possible to have civics that are bad combinations? Think of the former Soviet Union when Gorbachev tried to institute his Glasnost policy (basically trying to mix freedom of speech and authoritarianism). It didn't really go over all that well.

I also think a combination of the Caste System and Equal Rights wouldn't work out either. Industrialism vs Environmentalism..

With thirty-odd civics, there are a lot of combinations that seem weird or contradictory.

In my opinion, it's best to handle this by simply making it so that 'incompatible' civics provide different bonuses and penalties, possibly ones that cancel each other out. So you get a caste system if you want one thing, equal rights if you want another, and the only way you take both is if you can't decide what you want and are willing to settle for getting a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.

Also, just a thought: having a caste system doesn't have to mean some castes are oppressed. It can, but it doesn't have to.

(not entirely serious about that)

I'm quite limited in what I can do with civics. With a few minor exceptions I have to stick to the XML options that BTS provides rather than coding new effects - as the AI is unable to properly understand them. Civics are such a vital part of gameplay that I don't want to risk weakening the AI there. As a result, such changes could only be done by rearranging and tweaking the existing bonuses and penalties. And I suspect that won't really achieve what you're hoping for.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The number of turns of Anarchy during a revolution seems to me to have been reduced since HR1.16. Is this correct? I play enormous-empire, Odyssey, Huge and Massive games, so I may notice this more than others. The current version seems more playable to me.

 

[Xyth]

The number of turns of Anarchy during a revolution seems to me to have been reduced since HR1.16. Is this correct? I play enormous-empire, Odyssey, Huge and Massive games, so I may notice this more than others. The current version seems more playable to me.

Anarchy length scaled in an odd way compared to other aspects of the game. It really didn't suit HR's new game speeds or calendar changes so I changed it to scale in a more consistent manner. Good to hear it feels more playable, hopefully that's true for other game settings as well.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I'm quite limited in what I can do with civics. With a few minor exceptions I have to stick to the XML options that BTS provides rather than coding new effects - as the AI is unable to properly understand them. Civics are such a vital part of gameplay that I don't want to risk weakening the AI there. As a result, such changes could only be done by rearranging and tweaking the existing bonuses and penalties. And I suspect that won't really achieve what you're hoping for.

You'd be surprised. What it comes down to is synergy. My philosophy here is simply that the designer should look at:

1) Which combinations of civics work together well. For example, if several civics in different categories grant bonus production to specialists, then the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts: across a large civilization you have a huge incentive to create specialists.

2) Which combinations of civics are 'neutral' toward each other: having one isn't prejudicial to having the other, but doesn't make the other more desirable. For example, having a civic that bars foreign trade routes but confers a bonus to domestic trade routes, and having a civic that increases happiness... those don't really affect each other. The happiness boost is largely irrelevant to the trade, and vice versa.

3) Which combinations of civics work together badly. For example, imagine a pacifist authoritarian dictatorship. That sounds kind of nonsensical and unlikely... and look what happens in the game when we try that. Pacifism (or whatever you have replacing it) increases unit support cost, and one of the main advantages of authoritarianism is the use of military units to raise happiness- which is extremely expensive to do if all the units cost an extra +1 gold to maintain. For most of the game, you can't easily produce enough gold per citizen to make the extra support cost pay for itself.

Likewise, a civic that lowers happiness will not mix well with civics whose benefits mostly affect specialists or large cities. A civic that increases industrial output will be canceled out by one that decreases industrial output, and so on.

Honestly, I think you've already done this to a large degree. But it's not a critical thing- my point is simply that in an ideal world, most of the really silly combinations of civics (of which there are not many) will not leave you with good reasons to adopt them in-game.

 

[Azoth]

With thirty-odd civics, there are a lot of combinations that seem weird or contradictory.

In my opinion, it's best to handle this by simply making it so that 'incompatible' civics provide different bonuses and penalties, possibly ones that cancel each other out. So you get a caste system if you want one thing, equal rights if you want another, and the only way you take both is if you can't decide what you want and are willing to settle for getting a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.

Also, just a thought: having a caste system doesn't have to mean some castes are oppressed. It can, but it doesn't have to.

(not entirely serious about that)

Actually, civic combinations might sometimes seem weird or contradictory to us because of our limited experience with possible human societies.
In the specific case of Caste System and Equal Rights, I think modern India just about pulls it off.

Let me explain:
The Indian caste system has its origins in antiquity. When modern India achieved independence, its more idealistic founding fathers wanted to abolish the caste system outright. However, the consensus view was that even though caste could be abolished as a legal concept, a billion Indians could not be compelled to forget thousands of years of tradition. Caste identity was too far ingrained in Indian society and culture. So a compromise was reached: caste-based violence and discrimination became criminal offenses, and affirmative action programs for the lower castes were introduced. In time, Indian civil society produced caste-based support groups, cultural groups, even political parties. Of course, it would be foolish to pretend that caste oppression is now a thing of the past. Old prejudices persist. But there is progress, all the same.

(I don't have a particular suggestion for the game in mind, in this case. I just found the discussion interesting and decided to comment.)

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Rationalism seems like an odd civic. It has no religion-related bonuses, yet it doesn't make you abolish state religion. Even its own civilopedia entry makes it seem weird that it doesn't make you abolish state religion.

Oh, and for the legal category, jurisdiction and equal rights are not mutually exclusive. Nor are conscription and standing army, or fundamentalism and organized religion.

And bureaucracy should be renamed to planned economy or something, because bureaucracies are more legal than economic.

 

[Xyth]

Rationalism seems like an odd civic. It has no religion-related bonuses, yet it doesn't make you abolish state religion. Even its own civilopedia entry makes it seem weird that it doesn't make you abolish state religion.

It's entirely possible to have a rationalist society that doesn't abolish state religion, or at least supports a de facto state religion. There are plenty of examples in the world today (Britain, Israel, Greece, Malaysia, UAE, even the US in practice if not in legislation) and in history (Classical Greece, Sassanid Persia, etc). It's not meant to be a 'state atheism' or 'strict secularism' civic because examples of such are relatively rare.

Oh, and for the legal category, jurisdiction and equal rights are not mutually exclusive.

The last three options in the legal category are designed to be progressive, each being a development of the previous one.

Nor are conscription and standing army

Given Conscription is a civic one tends to switch to temporarily, this isn't really an issue.

fundamentalism and organized religion

Organized Religion is being renamed 'Orthodoxy' in 1.18.

And bureaucracy should be renamed to planned economy or something, because bureaucracies are more legal than economic.

Bureaucracy isn't the perfect name, but I've not found anything I like better yet.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

It's entirely possible to have a rationalist society that doesn't abolish state religion, or at least supports a de facto state religion. There are plenty of examples in the world today (Britain, Israel, Greece, Malaysia, UAE, even the US in practice if not in legislation) and in history (Classical Greece, Sassanid Persia, etc). It's not meant to be a 'state atheism' or 'strict secularism' civic because examples of such are relatively rare.



The last three options in the legal category are designed to be progressive, each being a development of the previous one.



Given Conscription is a civic one tends to switch to temporarily, this isn't really an issue.



Organized Religion is being renamed 'Orthodoxy' in 1.18.



Bureaucracy isn't the perfect name, but I've not found anything I like better yet.

Well, the very description of rationalism in the civilopedia implies that it is more strict than Britain. Britain would be classified under free religion for that category, not rationalism.

Okay.

Okay.

Alright.

How about Planned Economy?

 

[Nightstar]

Bureaucracy isn't the perfect name, but I've not found anything I like better yet.

Centralization?

And for Professionalism, perhaps Bourgeois?

 

[Xyth]

There's been a few tweaks and changes to civics in 1.18. most due to the changes in corporations and improvements. Thought I'd better list them before release in case any last minute changes are needed.


--- GOVERNMENT ---

Confederation
Requires Guilds
Medium Upkeep
• No maintenance costs from distance to Palace
• +1 from Harbour

This civic suffered from being entirely focused and it was almost always the better choice over Aristocracy. The trade route is removed and some happiness for coastal cities is added instead. Upkeep lowered to medium.​

--- LABOUR ---

Agrarianism
Requires Calendar
Medium Upkeep
• +1 from Farm
• +1 from Pasture
• +1 from Granary

Upkeep increased and improvements adjusted to suit changes to that system. Should help rebalance early game production vs commerce.


Industrialism
Requires Assembly Line
Medium Upkeep
• Unlimited Engineers
• +2 in all cities
• +2 from Corporations

Social Welfare
Requires Labour Unions
High Upkeep
• +1 production from Village, Town
• Can spend wealth to finish production
• No :unhappy: from Corporations

These two civics now give you a choice between extra production from corporations (even the food or commerce ones) or mitigating the unhappiness they cause.​

--- ECONOMY ---

Redistribution
Requires Record Keeping
Low Upkeep
• +1 from Camp, Mine
• +1 from Granary

Since Camps have been redesigned the trade route penalty is no longer needed here.


Professionalism
Requires Artisanry
Medium Upkeep
• +1 trade route per city
• +1 from Orchard, Workshop
• +1 from Market

Professionalism takes the trade route from Confederation and the unlimited merchants moves to Free Market. Happiness from Market lowered and commerce bonus split between Workshops and the new Orchard improvement. May get renamed.


Bureaucracy
Requires Civil Service
Medium Upkeep
• +1 Foreign Corporations have no effect
• +100% in Capital
• +1 from Watermill, Lumbermill

Upkeep lowered to medium, no other changes. May get renamed.


Free Market
Requires Economics
Medium Upkeep
• Unlimited Merchants
• +50% trade route yield
• +50% faster production of Corporate Executives

Had to be redesigned due to corporate maintenance being removed. May get redesigned again if/when the public/private corporation mechanic is implemented post 1.18.


Environmentalism
Requires Ecology
High Upkeep
• No from City Population
• No from Corporations
• +2 from Windmill, Nature Reserve, Marine Reserve

Also mitigates corporate unhealthiness. I'm a bit concerned that this civic is too health focused, I may review it in the future but this'll do for now.​

--- MILITARY ---

Clan Warfare
Requires Riding
Medium Upkeep
• No war weariness
• Increased from Pillaging and Capturing Cities

At low upkeep this civic made it too easy to wage endless warfare with little drawback. Upkeep raised to medium so it gets harder to maintain too big a conquered empire. I may raise upkeep to high if it the issue still exists later.​

--- RELIGION ---

Orthodoxy
Requires Priesthood
High Upkeep
• Can build Missionaries without Monasteries
• Cities with state religion construct buildings +25% faster

Organized Religion renamed, no other changes.


Pluralism
Requires Humanism
Low Upkeep
• No state religion
• +1 happiness per non-state religion in a city

Formerly Free Religion. Only change is it goes from Medium to Low upkeep to make it a bit more competitive alongside Rationalism.​

 

[Azoth]

The changes look good. I especially like +1 from Harbour for Confederation. I do have some concerns: Free Market and Environmentalism, both of which picked up a third bonus, are now far stronger than Bureaucracy, which lost the hammer bonus for Watermills and Lumbermills. Environmentalism is also too health focused, I agree. I'm not sure how tightly we want to link Industrialism and corporations, either; I rather liked +1 from specialists. I do have some tweaks in mind that address these concerns; but since you'd like to release 1.18 by this weekend and I've already made some proposals in the Feedback: Corporations thread, I'm happy to wait for 1.19. (Unless you'd rather have them now, that is.) I definitely want to revisit the issue of starting civics, and whether we can liven them up, in 1.19.

There is, however, one small change I would hope to see now:

--- GOVERNMENT ---

Democracy
Requires Politics
Medium Upkeep
• +1 per specialist
• +50%
• +1 from Village, Town​

--- RELIGION ---

Rationalism
Requires Scientific Method
Medium Upkeep
• Unlimited Scientists
• +1 per specialist
• +2:happy: from School​

'Unlimited Scientists' moves from Democracy to Rationalism while the science bonus for specialists is split between the two civics. This avoids the possibility of Unlimited Scientists in 4000 BC for Judicial leaders. It's also a better fit for the civics: Rationalist societies invest heavily in scientific research (unlimited scientists, specialist bonus). Democratic traditions promote free inquiry (specialist bonus only). Lastly, it leads to better balance with Pluralism: unlimited scientists become less important as more buildings with specialists slots are constructed.