Feedback: Civics

[Azoth]

My last word on the Military civics:

Here's my thoughts on each bonus:

• +25% culture in all cities: flavour, suits Warrior Code only.
• -50% upgrade costs: strong, only makes sense for Standing Army
• +100% Great General: strong, makes sense with either civic
• +25% unit production: moderately strong, gets weaker the later in game it is, makes more sense with Standing Army (able to mobilize new troops much more effectively)
• New units receive +2 experience: strong, makes sense for either civic as both have a strong focus on training and expertise
• +2 happiness from Barracks: moderate. Suits either civic though 'Barracks' does seem more appropriate to Standing Army. It's tricky to imagine noble knights/samurai/tarkan/etc stationed in barracks.​

You know, the more I think about it the more I feel that the problems I'm having with these two civics are because we moved Standing Army so much later in the tree.

I'm not sure the problems have anything to do with positioning in the tech tree. I think they reflect an imbalance in the bonuses themselves. As you say: +25% culture and +2 happy Barracks are primarily flavour bonuses. +100% Great General emergence and -50% upgrade costs are equally powerful. But +2 XP is very strong across all eras while +25% unit production is just "nice to have." (Units don't cost all that many hammers.)

The distribution of these bonuses in your latest proposal is fine. (I would probably swap +2 XP for +25% unit production, but that's about it.) I do think Standing Army should remain at Military Conduct, though. It is rather anachronistic for the Ancient Era, especially as Simon Jester describes it:

As nations grow large and prosperous, it is natural for them to expand their permanent cadre of armed forces into a continuous, professional organization which is paid for service on much the same basis as civilian employees would be. The rise of a professional military is usually accompanied by the rise of a dedicated bureaucracy or staff, which makes management of manpower and the military-industrial complex more efficient. Easy access into a volunteer military from citizens of all classes also makes the military an organ of social cohesion.

 

[Xyth]

I've decided to leave them at Steel Working and Military Conduct after all. I'll make the xp and production bonus swap, a little bit of flavour is lost but balance is much better.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Eh. That civilopedia draft could describe the Roman legions without too much of a stretch; you can't have everything.

 

[Xyth]

Discussion moved here from another thread:

With the changes to the Economic category recently, it might be helpful to look at how the goals for the category have (or haven't) evolved. I'd sum it up like so:

• In the Ancient era Redistribution is the only option.
• In the Classical era Professionalism becomes a viable alternative to Redistribution
• In the Medieval era Redistribution should become less viable, especially once you've got the infrastructure for Bureaucracy. Professionalism should remain a reasonably viable alternative.
• In the Renaissance Free Market is available and should be competitive with Bureaucracy and supplant Professionalism
• In the Industrial era it's still Bureaucracy vs Free Market though the latter is probably going to win out in most cases.
• In the Modern era Environmentalism becomes a strong competitor with Free Market, probably supplanting Bureaucracy completely.
• As always there may be some situations where an earlier economic civic is still the best choice for a player (including the AI)​

Reminder that this is idealized and not necessarily the reality, nor is it plausible to achieve this perfectly. From the discussion so far it seems that Professionalism is possibly weakest factor. It needs to be reasonably competitive with both Redistribution and Bureaucracy, though it's fine if it's a bit specialized.

We should consider this before we make any decisions on Redistribution's GPP penalty.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Based on one game.
Update as of 1800 AD: 1 AI in Redist. 7 AI in Bureaucracy.
(only one would be able to be in Free Market. Too soon to see how Free Market stacks up.)

So eventually Bureaucracy has become much more popular than Redist.
In 1700 AD they were approximately equally popular.
Professionalism was never popular; I suspect no AI was ever in Professionalism.

I have not been in Professionalism all game, but that may just be my playing style.
(I have had unlimited scientist or priests at various times, so passed on unlimited merchants.)

Discussion moved here from another thread:

With the changes to the Economic category recently, it might be helpful to look at how the goals for the category have (or haven't) evolved. I'd sum it up like so:

• In the Ancient era Redistribution is the only option.
• In the Classical era Professionalism becomes a viable alternative to Redistribution
• In the Medieval era Redistribution should become less viable, especially once you've got the infrastructure for Bureaucracy. Professionalism should remain a reasonably viable alternative.
• In the Renaissance Free Market is available and should be competitive with Bureaucracy and supplant Professionalism
• In the Industrial era it's still Bureaucracy vs Free Market though the latter is probably going to win out in most cases.
• In the Modern era Environmentalism becomes a strong competitor with Free Market, probably supplanting Bureaucracy completely.
• As always there may be some situations where an earlier economic civic is still the best choice for a player (including the AI)​

Reminder that this is idealized and not necessarily the reality, nor is it plausible to achieve this perfectly. From the discussion so far it seems that Professionalism is possibly weakest factor. It needs to be reasonably competitive with both Redistribution and Bureaucracy, though it's fine if it's a bit specialized.

We should consider this before we make any decisions on Redistribution's GPP penalty.

 

[Azoth]

With the changes to the Economic category recently, it might be helpful to look at how the goals for the category have (or haven't) evolved. I'd sum it up like so:

• In the Ancient era Redistribution is the only option.
• In the Classical era Professionalism becomes a viable alternative to Redistribution
• In the Medieval era Redistribution should become less viable, especially once you've got the infrastructure for Bureaucracy. Professionalism should remain a reasonably viable alternative.
• In the Renaissance Free Market is available and should be competitive with Bureaucracy and supplant Professionalism
• In the Industrial era it's still Bureaucracy vs Free Market though the latter is probably going to win out in most cases.
• In the Modern era Environmentalism becomes a strong competitor with Free Market, probably supplanting Bureaucracy completely.
• As always there may be some situations where an earlier economic civic is still the best choice for a player (including the AI)​

That's a good framework for discussion. At the moment, I would say:

1. Professionalism is not a viable alternative to Redistribution or Bureaucracy on most maps because Workshops are not a particularly desirable tile improvement. As it is, much of your production comes from the Labour civics, between Agrarian hammers, Slavery rush production, Industrialism engineers, and Social Welfare rush production. Beyond that, you rely on Redistribution Mines (available early) and Bureaucracy Lumbermills and Watermills (no health penalty), leaving Workshops as a last resort. That said, Professionalism is handy on production-poor maps such as Archipelago. It is also ideal for Renaissance- and later era starts, for which production is more important than commerce.

2. Bureaucracy, Free Market, and Environmentalism are competitive at a slightly later date than ideal. In the case of Bureaucracy, this is not surprising: it takes time to build Lumbermills and Watermills across the empire; and to move the palace to an high commerce city. However, Free Market and Environmentalism should be unlocked earlier, as I've suggested before.

3. In the end game, Bureaucracy (high production), Free Market (high commerce), and Environmentalism (high food) are all viable choices. That's the mark of excellent design.

 

[Howard Mahler]

In version 0.9.4 Codification is weaker than Author.
They each have one minor and one major bonus.

Author. is available earlier in the game.

Their minor bonuses are very similar and of roughly equal strength, so that is approximately a wash.

Author. gives +1 happiness per military unit in a city.
Cod. gives +5 happiness in your five largest cities.

Regardless of playing style, by time Cod. is available, most of the time one will have at least 3 or 4 military units in each of your largest cities. (Assuming you do not wish to be attacked out of hand by the AIs.)
Thus, Cod. might give you one or two extra happiness in some of your 5 largest cities compared to Auth.

In practice, if one needs an extra one or two happiness in a particular one of your five largest cities, usually you can just move an extra military unit there from somewhere else, or build an extra unit.

Unlike Cod., Auth. is not limited to +5, and is not limited to your 5 largest cities. (Quite often one is concerned with happiness of recently conquered cities. Quite often one could use more than +5 in your capital and/or biggest city.) So in many situations, Auth. is about as good as Cod., while in many other situations, due to its flexibility, Auth. is significantly better than Cod.

Bottom line: we have two very similar civics, and one is significantly stronger than the other.

It would be good to weaken Author.
It would also be good to have their major bonuses not be so similar to each other.
It would be good if one could come up with a different interesting major bonus for Author., or one switched that for Cod. to Auth. and came up with a new one for Cod.

One way to weaken Author. would be to have a penalty to culture and/or a penalty to great people. (Redistribution already has the latter.) I think either penalty would fit with the theme of the civic.

Note: This is a comparison of these two similar civics. There are situations where one does not need extra happiness, and therefore, the major bonus of each of these two civics is not worthwhile.

 

[Xyth]

Let me know what you think of this:

Authoritarianism
Requires Law
High Upkeep
• +1 happiness per military unit stationed in a city
• +1 espionage per specialist
• -25% Great Person birth rate

Redistribution
Requires Record Keeping
Low Upkeep
• +1 commerce from Camp, Mine
• +1 happiness from Granary
• No growth of Village, Hamlet

This change would allow Authoritarianism to be viable at any time (as intended) but with a drawback that is also relevant at any time. Redistribution changes its penalty for one that is no hindrance when Redistribution is most useful but restricts commercial growth later when other civics are available.

Professionalism probably still needs to be improved a little.


EDIT: Turns out I can't exclude Cottages from the no growth penalty after all. Back to the drawing board.

 

[Azoth]

Let me know what you think of this:

Authoritarianism
Requires Law
High Upkeep
• +1 happiness per military unit stationed in a city
• +1 espionage per specialist
• -25% Great Person birth rate

This change would allow Authoritarianism to be viable at any time (as intended) but with a drawback that is also relevant at any time.

Hmm. I'm not sure Authoritarianism needs a penalty beyond its High Upkeep costs.
Contra Howard, I feel the choice between Authoritarianism and Codification depends heavily on play style and map parameters.

When playing on Archipelago maps, it might make sense to keep three to four units in your largest cities;
moving troops around on transports is a logistical nightmare and reinforcements might not arrive in time to stave off a surprise attack.
The High Upkeep costs and unit support costs are a minor issue because commerce is so plentiful:
most trade routes have a +100% overseas bonus; most cities are coastal, for another +150% from Harbours and Custom Houses;
and all coast tiles, including most Seafood resources, produce 2 commerce.
Also, espionage missions have a higher rate of success since Spies are safe from capture on Caravels.

On other maps, such as Highlands and Inland Sea, commerce is harder to come by and thus more valuable.
+1 gold/specialist is suddenly much more useful than +1 espionage/specialist, especially in defraying civic costs.
At the same time, surprise attacks are very uncommon because empires have clearly defined borders and armies cannot hide on ships.
As it is, most units are out defending the front lines and the largest and oldest cities in the empire are often garrisoned by a single Warrior.

In short, I do not think Authoritarianism is inherently stronger than Codification.
Certainly, the BtS Monarchy and Representation civics were reasonably well balanced with very similar bonuses.
Still, if you do decide to attach a penalty, -25% GPP is ideal: just strong enough to make a difference and a good fit thematically and mechanically.

Redistribution
Requires Record Keeping
Low Upkeep
• +1 commerce from Camp, Mine
• +1 happiness from Granary
• No growth of Village, Hamlet

Redistribution changes its penalty for one that is no hindrance when Redistribution is most useful but restricts commercial growth later when other civics are available.

EDIT: Turns out I can't exclude Cottages from the no growth penalty after all. Back to the drawing board.

A penalty to cottage growth instead of GPP is a good idea.
Could you code -50% cottage growth?
That way, Cottages, Villages, and Hamlets would take twice as long to mature, as opposed to half as long, as under Jurisdiction and Progressive leaders.

 

[Howard Mahler]

"Certainly, the BtS Monarchy and Representation civics were reasonably well balanced with very similar bonuses."

Hereditary Rule had +1 happiness per military unit. Nothing per specialist.

Representation had +3 happiness in 4 to 6 biggest cities, and +3 science per specialist.
So the happiness bonus was less than Codif. in HR, while the specialist bonus was very, very significant. Representation was definitely popular among those who ran a lot of specialists.

 

[Xyth]

I'm going to go with the GPP penalty for Authoritarianism. There's just too many situations where it trivializes happiness for my liking.

Redistribution will work with -50% Cottage/Village/Hamlet growth too. I was thinking that it wasn't possible but I was confusing it with war weariness mechanics.

Any suggestions for Professionalism?

 

[Azoth]

Redistribution will work with -50% Cottage/Village/Hamlet growth too. I was thinking that it wasn't possible but I was confusing it with war weariness mechanics.

Any suggestions for Professionalism?

Now that Redistribution has a cottage growth penalty, Professionalism is automatically more viable.
If you want to add something extra, it should be small: how about pairing +2 happy on Markets with +2 health on Grocers?

 

[Xyth]

Now that Redistribution has a cottage growth penalty, Professionalism is automatically more viable.
If you want to add something extra, it should be small: how about pairing +2 happy on Markets with +2 health on Grocers?

Whatever we decide it needs to also make it more competitive with Bureaucracy. +4 happiness too much and inappropriate for a Economic civic in my opinion.

 

[Azoth]

Whatever we decide it needs to also make it more competitive with Bureaucracy. +4 happiness too much and inappropriate for a Economic civic in my opinion.

Except it's +2 health from Grocers.
Maybe +25% culture would be better?

 

[Xyth]

Except it's +2 health from Grocers.
Maybe +25% culture would be better?

Whoops misread. Still, I don't think either health or culture fits the civic. Personally I'm tempted to just raise the workshop bonus to 2 commerce.

 

[Howard Mahler]

1. Professionalism: Maybe add +1 culture per specialist.
Or one could switch the +1 coin per specialist here.
Some additional happiness bonus for a building would be another possibility.
(I do not think the happiness bonus for market fits particularly well.)

2. Both Codification and Authoritarianism have as their major bonus a plus to happiness.
As I have mentioned, I think this is poor game design for civics in the same column.
It eliminates some tough choices for the player, as opposed to when taking one civic in a column requires not getting some advantage in a different area from some other civic in the same column.
Perhaps, Codification can get the decreased or no cost for number of cities, while the happiness bonus could go to Aristocracy.
If so, I suspect some rebalancing would be needed.

3. I am still somewhat uncomfortable with the no cost for either number of cities or for distance from palace, as opposed to decreased cost. If these could be revised to decreased cost and things rebalanced it might be better.

4. I believe that none of the civics affect inflation; I thought this was an idea that was floating around at some point. Maybe it will be useful somewhere.

I'm going to go with the GPP penalty for Authoritarianism. There's just too many situations where it trivializes happiness for my liking.

Redistribution will work with -50% Cottage/Village/Hamlet growth too. I was thinking that it wasn't possible but I was confusing it with war weariness mechanics.

Any suggestions for Professionalism?

 

[Xyth]

1. Professionalism: Maybe add +1 culture per specialist.
Or one could switch the +1 coin per specialist here.
Some additional happiness bonus for a building would be another possibility.

Whatever we choose I think it needs to improve or replace one of the existing bonuses.

I do not think the happiness bonus for market fits particularly well.

The Professionalism civic is meant to represent the rise of the merchant/middle class. I view the happiness from the market as social stability achieved by people being allowed to take control of their own economic destiny for the first time in history.

2. Both Codification and Authoritarianism have as their major bonus a plus to happiness.
As I have mentioned, I think this is poor game design for civics in the same column.

I disagree. The Economic category is primarily about commerce and wealth, the Labour column is primarily about production and so on. The Legal column is about stability, primarily achieved through happiness. Each column has other bonuses too of course but that's what they are at their core. We aim to fit as much variation and flavour in as possible but ultimately we can't deviate too far from that design. It's important to do it this way because otherwise you can select combinations of civics that synergize and scale too well.

Perhaps, Codification can get the decreased or no cost for number of cities, while the happiness bonus could go to Aristocracy.
If so, I suspect some rebalancing would be needed.

That would allow you to get both the distance and number of city bonuses at once, which we definitely want to avoid.

3. I am still somewhat uncomfortable with the no cost for either number of cities or for distance from palace, as opposed to decreased cost. If these could be revised to decreased cost and things rebalanced it might be better.

It works because you cannot have both at once, they're both in the Government category. Thus it is no more or less powerful than in BTS.

4. I believe that none of the civics affect inflation; I thought this was an idea that was floating around at some point. Maybe it will be useful somewhere.

We were discussing it as an idea for traits I believe. It can't be done for civics, the AI won't understand it. We're very limited in what bonuses we can give to civics.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I understand the idea of a theme for each group of civics.
Sometimes there is a tension between design themes and playability.
I still think Codif. and Auth. are too similar for interesting choices.
An example where this is not the case is Organized Religion and Fundamentalism.
We can agree to disagree; it is your mod.

A little circular with respect to reduced city maintainence.
We can't move either one to another column because then one could get both and it would be too gross.
No need to reduce bonus from 100% because they are in the same column.
Seems a little rigid.

In any case, in my opinion the current Confederation is on average significantly stronger than Aristocracy. (As usual, depends on map and playing style.)

Whatever we choose I think it needs to improve or replace one of the existing bonuses.



The Professionalism civic is meant to represent the rise of the merchant/middle class. I view the happiness from the market as social stability achieved by people being allowed to take control of their own economic destiny for the first time in history.



I disagree. The Economic category is primarily about commerce and wealth, the Labour column is primarily about production and so on. The Legal column is about stability, primarily achieved through happiness. Each column has other bonuses too of course but that's what they are at their core. We aim to fit as much variation and flavour in as possible but ultimately we can't deviate too far from that design. It's important to do it this way because otherwise you can select combinations of civics that synergize and scale too well.



That would allow you to get both the distance and number of city bonuses at once, which we definitely want to avoid.



It works because you cannot have both at once, they're both in the Government category. Thus it is no more or less powerful than in BTS.



We were discussing it as an idea for traits I believe. It can't be done for civics, the AI won't understand it. We're very limited in what bonuses we can give to civics.

 

[Xyth]

I understand the idea of a theme for each group of civics.
Sometimes there is a tension between design themes and playability.
I still think Codif. and Auth. are too similar for interesting choices.
An example where this is not the case is Organized Religion and Fundamentalism.
We can agree to disagree; it is your mod.

That's partly because Authoritarianism needs to be reasonably competitive with all the civics in the category whereas Codification is designed to almost always be replaced by Jurisdiction and then Equal Rights. Codification only needs to be a viable choice for the Classical and Medieval eras which it definitely is, depending on playstyle and maptype as always.

A little circular with respect to reduced city maintainence.
We can't move either one to another column because then one could get both and it would be too gross.
No need to reduce bonus from 100% because they are in the same column.
Seems a little rigid.

Well, we could make both 50% and have them in different columns, indeed I had it that way in earlier versions of the civics. The problem though is that the civics that have them need additional bonuses to make them sufficiently strong. Given we've pretty much used every feasible bonus available to civics already we'd need to repeat bonuses and that just makes the whole scheme less interesting.

In any case, in my opinion the current Confederation is on average significantly stronger than Aristocracy. (As usual, depends on map and playing style.)

Yeah Confederation would definitely be the better choice on an Archipelago. Aristocracy is stronger in other situations though so it's all good.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Setting aside the issue of the current strength of Authoritarianism, I had an idea for a way to weaken it.

-1 happiness per city, or -2 happiness per city, etc.

The idea is that citizens are grumbling about the Authoritarian government.
If it were -1 happiness per city, then one military unit in a city would be just enough to put things back to normal.

The larger this penalty, the weaker the civic.

This may be useful to either balance the current Authoritarianism, or to move the GPP penalty elsewhere such as Redistribution and then rebalance Authoritarianism.

Personally I think the current Authoritarianism is still a bit too strong.
I think adding -1 happiness per city would be an improvement.