Feedback: Civics

[Xyth]

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

I'm reducing the GPP of specialists to +2 (from +3) in the next version. This will make Authoritarianism's GPP penalty a bit more significant. Lets see how that plays out first and then if it still feels too strong we can either increase the GPP penalty to 50% or add unhappiness each city as you suggest.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I read another thread where GPP came up.
(One player's commentary on his first two games with HR.)

I think you should get more feedback before you make this change.
(Views will differ based on playing style, difficulty, map style, etc.)

Personally I think it is fine as is.

This change would make it a significantly longer wait for the religions to be founded, which I think is a step in the wrong direction.
(If one made the change then one could also adjust the amounts needed for the first and second great people.)

It would change the balance between working tiles and running specialists, which I think is fine as is.

The problem if any is the strength of the Philosophic trait.
As I have said before, +100% is too strong.
I would try 75% before I went to 50% as you may have mentioned in another thread.
Perhaps +50% would work with some substantial bonus added.

I think the great person rate is fine in the early and middle game and slows down a bit too much for my taste in the later game. Overall, great people are a much less significant part of the last third of the game; maybe that is a good thing.

Finally, I do not see how a change from +3 to +2 would make Authoritarianism's GPP penalty more significant. Cities would get fewer GPP points. By the time Authoritarianism is available, a city that matters for GPP might be generating for example 24 GPP as a base. With the change this might become for example 18. (Only some GPP come from specialists.) Why is a 25% penalty more significant in the latter case than the former?

I'm reducing the GPP of specialists to +2 (from +3) in the next version. This will make Authoritarianism's GPP penalty a bit more significant. Lets see how that plays out first and then if it still feels too strong we can either increase the GPP penalty to 50% or add unhappiness each city as you suggest.

 

[Xyth]

I read another thread where GPP came up.
(One player's commentary on his first two games with HR.)

I think you should get more feedback before you make this change.
(Views will differ based on playing style, difficulty, map style, etc.)

Its something I've been thinking about for some time, in my own games I feel Great People come too fast. It's much more noticeable on faster games. I've added a lot of +X% GPP modifiers to the mod over its lifetime, more GPP generating wonders, plus a lot of specialist slots, free specialists, not to mention a lot of bonuses attached to specialists. In short, specialists and great people are a lot stronger in HR than in BTS and this is a small but simple change to bring them more back in line.

This change would make it a significantly longer wait for the religions to be founded, which I think is a step in the wrong direction.

This is the main reason I haven't made such a change before now. However, as Hotmenhumeis rightly pointed out, I've made shrines a pain to get, and by the time you get them their main benefit (wealth) is less important due to there being several other sources of it available by the Medieval era. (Wealth building will move to Finance for related reasons)

So I'm going to remove the Great Temple requirement on Shrines and allow you to build it pretty much straight away after founding a religion (either from the first or second Great Prophet, still working out which works best). So religions will take a bit longer to found (the new calendar should keep them at reasonable dates), but will be more worthwhile when you do.

(If one made the change then one could also adjust the amounts needed for the first and second great people.)

I'm not sure where this is defined to be honest, I'll see if I can find out.

It would change the balance between working tiles and running specialists, which I think is fine as is.

I disagree, I think its become a bit distorted and will only get more so as new wonders and such are added. As you mention, specialists aren't the only source of GPP so the reduction is less than 1/3 overall. In the games I've played so far with it I've found it a really good pace. If necessary we can tweak the relative GPP rate on different difficulties/mapsizes/gamespeeds.

It will also make wonders a bit more desirable, as now specialists and wonders will produce the same 2 GPP.

The problem if any is the strength of the Philosophic trait.
As I have said before, +100% is too strong.
I would try 75% before I went to 50% as you may have mentioned in another thread.
Perhaps +50% would work with some substantial bonus added.

Philosophic certainly distorts things, even with the change to specialists it may need to be reduced. I'm not sure yet. If it's still too strong with the specialist change then we could try 75% as you suggest.

I think the great person rate is fine in the early and middle game and slows down a bit too much for my taste in the later game. Overall, great people are a much less significant part of the last third of the game; maybe that is a good thing.

Yeah, great people certainly do get pretty far apart by the end of the game. In a way, it's a result of getting too many too soon, exponential curve and such. In the games I've played with the specialist change there were fewer great people overall but the ones you did get were more evenly distributed. In my opinion, anyway.

Finally, I do not see how a change from +3 to +2 would make Authoritarianism's GPP penalty more significant. Cities would get fewer GPP points. By the time Authoritarianism is available, a city that matters for GPP might be generating for example 24 GPP as a base. With the change this might become for example 18. (Only some GPP come from specialists.) Why is a 25% penalty more significant in the latter case than the former?

Just because its making something that's been slowed even slower. It's not something that's easy to measure in terms of the civ's entire economy. I'm not opposed to increasing this penalty or adding unhappiness, I'm just being cautious.

Though I don't know why I'm being cautious about this particular change and less so about others. I guess its because I don't want to tweak too many different but connected aspects at once; I've been trying to not touch civics for this next version (other than the Redistribution fix).

EDIT: Bizarrely there isn't a setting for civics to adjust (un)happiness in all cities. It can be done for X largest cities, for buildings, for garrisoned units, for state religion, and for terrain features.

 

[Caesar Augustus]

Is there an upper limit for the "X" in "X largest cities?" It would end up looking silly in the descriptive text (your largest 1000 cities or something) but it would get the job done.

Regarding the balance between specialists and working tiles, I feel like on balance I agree with Howard Mahler; the relatively drastic increases in tile yield in this mod necessitate that specialists be similarly powerful. I would hope that if you're going to so markedly decrease the GPP value of running specialists, you would compensate with some increase in yield or other utility. Perhaps some strengthening of the civics that support specialist yield would be in order.

I agree that the Philosophical Trait does need to be looked at, but I also think caution is necessary. Philosophical is one of those odd traits that gets weaker and weaker as the game goes on, since the quantity of GPP necessary for a GP goes up and up as you produce them, and % increases to GPP become more and more common. Let's say, for example, that Philosophical will net your civ 10 or so GP's more than some other trait over the course of a game. You'll get those most of those 10 within the first era or two, petering out as the game goes on. By the time you're in the medieval age, your extra GPP is compensated by the extra cost per GP. I'm not sure that's a good thing, especially as GPs are more powerful at the beginning as well, when the yield of settling them is likely to be a much more dramatic increase than it would be later. Some of that is balanced by the fact that you (intelligently, I'd say) put some of the more powerful GP uses (University, for example) further back in the tech tree. You could perhaps balance Philosophical better by, rather than just decreasing their GPP bonus, spreading it by era. So, for example, they get a 25% bonus in the ancient, increasing by a further 25% per era. Or maybe 50% during ancient and +10% per era. Something like that.

 

[Howard Mahler]

The first thought is just what I was thinking.
99 should be enough if you want it to apply to all cities.

There may be an advantage to having it apply to the largest 5, 10, or 15 cities, although this would be better if it could scale by map size.

Yes Philosophical gets relatively weaker over time.
There are other traits whose relative strength varies of time.
For example, I think Judicial is very strong early, and gets relatively weaker over time.

By the way, the shrine is harder to build in HR than in BTS.
However, having no requirement would mean that every time a religion is founded one would have the option to build the shrine right away.
Perhaps it could require some tech such as Divination.

Also no reason why one could not make the shrine somehow better, if that is thought to be desirable.
For example, perhaps it could give +1 experience points to units built in cities with the appropriate religion.
Perhaps it could give +1 culture in cities with the appropriate religion.
It used to have the visibility bonus for cities of the appropriate religion, in Civ III I think, which I thought was pretty cool.

Is there an upper limit for the "X" in "X largest cities?" It would end up looking silly in the descriptive text (your largest 1000 cities or something) but it would get the job done.

Regarding the balance between specialists and working tiles, I feel like on balance I agree with Howard Mahler; the relatively drastic increases in tile yield in this mod necessitate that specialists be similarly powerful. I would hope that if you're going to so markedly decrease the GPP value of running specialists, you would compensate with some increase in yield or other utility. Perhaps some strengthening of the civics that support specialist yield would be in order.

I agree that the Philosophical Trait does need to be looked at, but I also think caution is necessary. Philosophical is one of those odd traits that gets weaker and weaker as the game goes on, since the quantity of GPP necessary for a GP goes up and up as you produce them, and % increases to GPP become more and more common. Let's say, for example, that Philosophical will net your civ 10 or so GP's more than some other trait over the course of a game. You'll get those most of those 10 within the first era or two, petering out as the game goes on. By the time you're in the medieval age, your extra GPP is compensated by the extra cost per GP. I'm not sure that's a good thing, especially as GPs are more powerful at the beginning as well, when the yield of settling them is likely to be a much more dramatic increase than it would be later. Some of that is balanced by the fact that you (intelligently, I'd say) put some of the more powerful GP uses (University, for example) further back in the tech tree. You could perhaps balance Philosophical better by, rather than just decreasing their GPP bonus, spreading it by era. So, for example, they get a 25% bonus in the ancient, increasing by a further 25% per era. Or maybe 50% during ancient and +10% per era. Something like that.

 

[Xyth]

Right, I'm back in (actual) civilization after much fun camping. Time to work my through all the posts made while I've been away.

Is there an upper limit for the "X" in "X largest cities?" It would end up looking silly in the descriptive text (your largest 1000 cities or something) but it would get the job done.

The first thought is just what I was thinking.
99 should be enough if you want it to apply to all cities.

There may be an advantage to having it apply to the largest 5, 10, or 15 cities, although this would be better if it could scale by map size.

That mechanic does scale with map size so it would be the best to use if we decide its needed. I wouldn't give it to all cities, I think having it apply to a certain scaling number of large cities is sufficient and wouldn't penalize the founding of new cities.

I'm willing to give such a penalty a try, though I also wonder if increasing the GPP penalty to 50% wouldn't also suffice. Opinions please.

Regarding the balance between specialists and working tiles, I feel like on balance I agree with Howard Mahler; the relatively drastic increases in tile yield in this mod necessitate that specialists be similarly powerful. I would hope that if you're going to so markedly decrease the GPP value of running specialists, you would compensate with some increase in yield or other utility. Perhaps some strengthening of the civics that support specialist yield would be in order.

Hmm, that's interesting because to me it feels quite different. I've added a lot of specialist slots, free specialists, and bonuses to specialists - considerably more than was in BTS. While there are more resources overall, I haven't added that much more to overall tile yield and where I have its primarily to make certain improvements more competitive with others. Also, a lot of the additions to tile yield can't be had all at once like several of the specialist changes can.

I think this GPP reduction is beneficial though, so if it does turn out that specialists are too weak as a result we can add compensation in some other way later.

I agree that the Philosophical Trait does need to be looked at, but I also think caution is necessary. Philosophical is one of those odd traits that gets weaker and weaker as the game goes on, since the quantity of GPP necessary for a GP goes up and up as you produce them, and % increases to GPP become more and more common.

Yes Philosophical gets relatively weaker over time.
There are other traits whose relative strength varies of time.
For example, I think Judicial is very strong early, and gets relatively weaker over time.

The best way to think about such traits is not that they get weak later, its that they allow more options early in the game which gives you some benefit that lasts throughout the game if used wisely. Because these indirect benefits the direct benefit of such traits needs to diminish later in the game to be balanced.

You could perhaps balance Philosophical better by, rather than just decreasing their GPP bonus, spreading it by era. So, for example, they get a 25% bonus in the ancient, increasing by a further 25% per era. Or maybe 50% during ancient and +10% per era. Something like that.

While a good idea, this would be very challenging to implement, if it's possible at all.

By the way, the shrine is harder to build in HR than in BTS.
However, having no requirement would mean that every time a religion is founded one would have the option to build the shrine right away.
Perhaps it could require some tech such as Divination.

Giving shrines a tech requirement is actually a nuisance and causes some UI issues. Shrines aren't all that strong so I don't think it will hurt to have them available immediately, especially as religions will be a bit slower to found now. I do think religions need to be made a little more desirable and this is simple and effective way to achieve it. Lets see how it feels and we can adjust it later if its too much.

It used to have the visibility bonus for cities of the appropriate religion, in Civ III I think, which I thought was pretty cool.

I think it did this in Civ4 and Warlords but was removed in BTS with the introduction of the espionage system. I don't see any way to re-enable it.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I am not sure why you think religion needs to be strengthened.
It seems plenty strong to me (I play with fewer religions option, although I am not sure how that woudl make religion significntly stronger.) Religion seems approximately of the same importance in HR as in BTS. Religions are currently very desirable.

I think that if you want to make the shrine easier to build, require a Temple in the founding city rather than a Great Temple. (However you had the AI handle one, you should be able to do for the other.) I still think allowing the shrine to be built as soon as the religion is founded is a poor game mechanic and has the totally wrong feel. In addition to or rather than making the shrine easier to build, consider making it stronger.

The average plot is better in HR than in BTS due to among other things:
camp, redistribution (and other civics), reefs, new resources, making jungle better, and perhaps some tech bonuses.
Again, I would keep 3 GPP just as it is; it is working fine.

Right, I'm back in (actual) civilization after much fun camping. Time to work my through all the posts made while I've been away.





That mechanic does scale with map size so it would be the best to use if we decide its needed. I wouldn't give it to all cities, I think having it apply to a certain scaling number of large cities is sufficient and wouldn't penalize the founding of new cities.

I'm willing to give such a penalty a try, though I also wonder if increasing the GPP penalty to 50% wouldn't also suffice. Opinions please.



Hmm, that's interesting because to me it feels quite different. I've added a lot of specialist slots, free specialists, and bonuses to specialists - considerably more than was in BTS. While there are more resources overall, I haven't added that much more to overall tile yield and where I have its primarily to make certain improvements more competitive with others. Also, a lot of the additions to tile yield can't be had all at once like several of the specialist changes can.

I think this GPP reduction is beneficial though, so if it does turn out that specialists are too weak as a result we can add compensation in some other way later.





The best way to think about such traits is not that they get weak later, its that they allow more options early in the game which gives you some benefit that lasts throughout the game if used wisely. Because these indirect benefits the direct benefit of such traits needs to diminish later in the game to be balanced.



While a good idea, this would be very challenging to implement, if it's possible at all.



Giving shrines a tech requirement is actually a nuisance and causes some UI issues. Shrines aren't all that strong so I don't think it will hurt to have them available immediately, especially as religions will be a bit slower to found now. I do think religions need to be made a little more desirable and this is simple and effective way to achieve it. Lets see how it feels and we can adjust it later if its too much.



I think it did this in Civ4 and Warlords but was removed in BTS with the introduction of the espionage system. I don't see any way to re-enable it.

 

[Xyth]

I am not sure why you think religion needs to be strengthened.
It seems plenty strong to me (I play with fewer religions option, although I am not sure how that woudl make religion significntly stronger.) Religion seems approximately of the same importance in HR as in BTS. Religions are currently very desirable.

It's less about making them stronger and more about making one of their benefits (gold from shrines) come earlier when it is more useful.

I think that if you want to make the shrine easier to build, require a Temple in the founding city rather than a Great Temple. (However you had the AI handle one, you should be able to do for the other.)

I've tested a few approaches now and this one felt best. We just need to decide whether it's just a Temple in the holy city itself, or X temples civilization-wide (scaling with mapsize).

Again, I would keep 3 GPP just as it is; it is working fine.

It's a much more noticeable problem on faster gamespeeds. I've made some scaling tweaks so that the change shouldn't affect the slower gamespeeds as significantly.

Any further thoughts on -50% GPP vs. -X happiness in X cities (for Authoritarianism)?

 

[Howard Mahler]

I prefer the X temples.
It is currently 4 temples, which may be OK for a Normal size map, but fewer might also work. (I have been playing on a Huge maps, so someone elses opinion would help a lot.)

By the way, the culture and happiness from religions is very useful early.

I think the reason to go with -X happiness for Authoritariasm is so that you may move the GPP penalty to Redistribution.

The more I have played games with the zero growth for cottages, hamlets, etc. under Redistribution, the less and less it seems to be working as a game feature. (As 50% slower growth it would probably work, but as has been discussed the programming seems to interpret this as zero growth.) The no growth penalty is clumsy, frustrating, and unrealistic. Given how late cottages are available, compared to BTS, and given the other options, cottages are being built way too infrequently.

I think in BTS cottages were somewhat overpowered compared to some other options.
I like the way in HR there are tougher choices between cottages vs other possibilities than in BTS. However, I think with the zero growth penalty the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction.

It's less about making them stronger and more about making one of their benefits (gold from shrines) come earlier when it is more useful.



I've tested a few approaches now and this one felt best. We just need to decide whether it's just a Temple in the holy city itself, or X temples civilization-wide (scaling with mapsize).



It's a much more noticeable problem on faster gamespeeds. I've made some scaling tweaks so that the change shouldn't affect the slower gamespeeds as significantly.

Any further thoughts on -50% GPP vs. -X happiness in X cities (for Authoritarianism)?

 

[Xyth]

I prefer the X temples.
It is currently 4 temples, which may be OK for a Normal size map, but fewer might also work. (I have been playing on a Huge maps, so someone elses opinion would help a lot.)

I'll set to match Great Temples (3 on Standard, 4 on Huge, etc) for now and we can see how that goes.

The more I have played games with the zero growth for cottages, hamlets, etc. under Redistribution, the less and less it seems to be working as a game feature. (As 50% slower growth it would probably work, but as has been discussed the programming seems to interpret this as zero growth.) The no growth penalty is clumsy, frustrating, and unrealistic. Given how late cottages are available, compared to BTS, and given the other options, cottages are being built way too infrequently.

Yeah I'm unhappy with it too, it needs to go.

I think the reason to go with -X happiness for Authoritariasm is so that you may move the GPP penalty to Redistribution.

However, while like the -X happiness in largest cities idea it feels like too easy a penalty to overcome unless it's set punitively high. A warmonger civ is likely to have many units in their cities anyway. I think it's better to have a penalty unrelated to happiness for Authoritarianism. I'll boost the penalty to -50% GPP or even -100% GPP. I think that makes for an interesting choice - large stable cities but few or no great people (suppressed individuality). Feels fairly historical.

As for Redistribution I had an idea: we could give it the old 'no foreign trade routes' penalty that Mercantilism in BTS has. I think this would work well for the civic, early in the game you have few contacts anyway and it isn't a hindrance to growth but later you can usually get much more commerce from foreign trade than you can from your local camps and mines. This is reasonably historical too; although the rulers of such ancient civilizations traded with each other regularly via diplomacy (still possible), there was no merchant class that traded independently.

An alternative penalty could be -50% commerce from all trade routes, domestic and foreign.

 

[Howard Mahler]

As pointed out before, when they go to war, a warmonger may move many units to front line cities and into enemy territory.
Then it is not easy to also keep many units in your biggest cities.
It is possible currently, but requires effort.
With a -X happiness penalty it would require much more effort.

If for example, X were 3, then with 3 units in a city you are only breaking even.
Remembering that other competing civics also give happiness, breaking even is not a reason to take Authoritarianism.

Perhaps -X happiness combined with some other penalty would work well.
This could be the current 25% GPP penalty.
In that case, even X = 1 would make Authoritarianism weaker than currently.

Another possible penalty is a negative to culture such as -25% culture.

-100% to GPP is just no good. I think 25% is about as big as one should go unless there is no alternative.

On redistribution, I would worry about no foreign trade routes.
Absolutes are always problematic.

Also the effect can be huge in some situations, making Redistribution pointless.
For a large stretch, Redistribution is the only civic of its type available (other than the starting civic.) So this could be extremely frustrating to a player.
(Mercantilism was not the only civic of its kind available at that point in the game.)
In other situations, the effect of the penalty can be nothing. (Isolated starts, or where you have one or two neighbors who refuse open borders.)

I think a hit to the trade route commerce would be the better of the two possibilities you mention.
I still think maybe a GPP penalty could be added to Redistribution.

Please keep an open mind, and see if some combination of ideas will work.

I'll set to match Great Temples (3 on Standard, 4 on Huge, etc) for now and we can see how that goes.



Yeah I'm unhappy with it too, it needs to go.



However, while like the -X happiness in largest cities idea it feels like too easy a penalty to overcome unless it's set punitively high. A warmonger civ is likely to have many units in their cities anyway. I think it's better to have a penalty unrelated to happiness for Authoritarianism. I'll boost the penalty to -50% GPP or even -100% GPP. I think that makes for an interesting choice - large stable cities but few or no great people (suppressed individuality). Feels fairly historical.

As for Redistribution I had an idea: we could give it the old 'no foreign trade routes' penalty that Mercantilism in BTS has. I think this would work well for the civic, early in the game you have few contacts anyway and it isn't a hindrance to growth but later you can usually get much more commerce from foreign trade than you can from your local camps and mines. This is reasonably historical too; although the rulers of such ancient civilizations traded with each other regularly via diplomacy (still possible), there was no merchant class that traded independently.

An alternative penalty could be -50% commerce from all trade routes, domestic and foreign.

 

[Xyth]

Well the -X happiness for largest cities idea is out. I just tested it again and it seems that a negative value actually gives -X unhappiness instead. Which is silly. Certainly explains why the AI were switching to Authoritarianism immediately.

I think a hit to the trade route commerce would be the better of the two possibilities you mention.

Yep, after some more thought and testing I prefer this too.

I still think maybe a GPP penalty could be added to Redistribution.

I just feel that this penalty fits Authoritarianism so much better, historically and mechanically. Especially because, as you mention, Redistribution is the first available economic civic with no competitors til the later Classical era. A trade route penalty has little effect initially and slowly ramps up, whereas a GPP penalty sucks at any time. It's much more suited to a situational, optional, and powerful civic like Authoritarianism.

The only thing I don't like about the proposed trade route penalty for Redistribution is that it trades commerce for commerce, but that's probably not too bad in this situation as it's commerce from quite different sources.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Rather than increasing the GPP penalty on Author., why don't you instead try adding a cultural penalty?

P.S.S. It would be so much easier to balance things if one were not faced with the limitations of modding.

Well the -X happiness for largest cities idea is out. I just tested it again and it seems that a negative value actually gives -X unhappiness instead. Which is silly. Certainly explains why the AI were switching to Authoritarianism immediately.



Yep, after some more thought and testing I prefer this too.



I just feel that this penalty fits Authoritarianism so much better, historically and mechanically. Especially because, as you mention, Redistribution is the first available economic civic with no competitors til the later Classical era. A trade route penalty has little effect initially and slowly ramps up, whereas a GPP penalty sucks at any time. It's much more suited to a situational, optional, and powerful civic like Authoritarianism.

The only thing I don't like about the proposed trade route penalty for Redistribution is that it trades commerce for commerce, but that's probably not too bad in this situation as it's commerce from quite different sources.

 

[Xyth]

Rather than increasing the GPP penalty on Author., why don't you instead try adding a cultural penalty?

That might work but, to me at least, a cultural penalty doesn't feel significant enough. The type of civ that adopts Authoritarianism isn't generally the type of civ relying on culture. It's also a case of 'why have two penalties when one will do?' (the -X happiness proposal was different because it was directly mitigating a bonus).

I will rule out -100% GPP though because, as you mention, absolutes tend to be problematic.

P.S.S. It would be so much easier to balance things if one were not faced with the limitations of modding.

Yep, especially when most of these situations could easily be overcome via the SDK. We just have to do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I do not understand what you are getting at.
Adding a 25% culture penalty to Author. would make it weaker than currently.

Removing the espionage bonus would also make it weaker than currently.

All sorts of civs adopt Authoritarianism.
Even if you do not plan to go to war, you have to have a bunch of military units.
These defensive military units would provide happiness under Authoritarianism.

For most civs. there is a role that culture plays, even if not going for a cultural victory. Expanding borders, defense, etc.

Two smaller penalties can work better than one bigger penalty; I believe that is the case here. Some people may be more concerned about one of these penalties than the other, but they both have a potential impact. At the same time, they are not so big that they ruin the fun of the game for the player.

In general, one should have bonuses and no penalties in a well designed game.
The absence of a bonus one would otherwise get is the same mathematically as a penalty, but people react better to bonuses than penalties.

Dealing with a mod, rather than designing a game from scratch, the only way to balance civics is to in some cases have penalties, but one should try to limit their size.

That might work but, to me at least, a cultural penalty doesn't feel significant enough. The type of civ that adopts Authoritarianism isn't generally the type of civ relying on culture. It's also a case of 'why have two penalties when one will do?' (the -X happiness proposal was different because it was directly mitigating a bonus).

I will rule out -100% GPP though because, as you mention, absolutes tend to be problematic.



Yep, especially when most of these situations could easily be overcome via the SDK. We just have to do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Xyth]

I do not understand what you are getting at.
Adding a 25% culture penalty to Author. would make it weaker than currently.

Adding a culture penalty would make the civic weaker but not in a particularly meaningful way. What I'm saying is that while a culture penalty may have significant impact on certain playstyles, the type of playstyle that Authoritarianism is primarily intended for isn't going to be too worried about it. And thus it's not really much of a penalty.

Removing the espionage bonus would also make it weaker than currently.

Yes but I think this suits the flavour of the civic perfectly and complements similar bonuses available elsewhere. I would only remove it as a last resort.

All sorts of civs adopt Authoritarianism.
Even if you do not plan to go to war, you have to have a bunch of military units.
These defensive military units would provide happiness under Authoritarianism.

Let me try and explain how my design of the Legal category works or should work in HR. It has obviously evolved over several versions of the mod but I feel the basic idea is intact, and better defined.

The way the Legal category is structured, most civics are designed to be an improvement on the previous (in most situations, there will always be exceptions). This is different from most other civic categories where things are much more up to preference. Over the course of the game the average civ could be expected to go from Barbarism --> Tradition --> Codification --> Jurisdiction --> Equal Rights.

Authoritarianism is meant to be outside this progression, an alternative to any of the others. Thus, whereas most other civics are all about choosing the bonuses that are going to help you the most, Authoritarianism is deliberately different. It has a very powerful benefit (which we aren't able to mitigate due to technical limitations) that is useful at almost any time in the game - keeping your population controlled and thus your cities large. However, in order to not be the best legal civic for almost civilizations at almost times there obviously has to be some trade off - a penalty that is also a hindrance at almost any time in the game.

The GPP penalty achieves this very well in my opinion, every playstyle relies on great people to some degree or another. A culture penalty doesn't; while culture is useful to everyone, it's degree of value varies considerably between playstyles. That's why I feel that adding a culture penalty (in addition to the current -25% GPP) won't achieve what we want. For many playstyles it's a non-issue rather than a trade off. Authoritarianism needs to be a civic that you only switch to with careful consideration and suitable strategic adjustment.

In general, one should have bonuses and no penalties in a well designed game.
The absence of a bonus one would otherwise get is the same mathematically as a penalty, but people react better to bonuses than penalties.

Dealing with a mod, rather than designing a game from scratch, the only way to balance civics is to in some cases have penalties, but one should try to limit their size.

I think that a well designed game has bonuses primarily but the occasional penalty is still good design as it can create 'tough choices'. I want Authoritarianism to be such a 'tough choice' - albeit a completely optional one. You can ignore Authoritarianism completely or you can eschew the other bonuses in the legal category and take the very strong bonus of Authoritarianism - but at an appropriate price.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Adding a culture penalty would make the civic weaker but not in a particularly meaningful way. What I'm saying is that while a culture penalty may have significant impact on certain playstyles, the type of playstyle that Authoritarianism is primarily intended for isn't going to be too worried about it. And thus it's not really much of a penalty.

I'm not sure I agree- there are strong arguments for Authoritarianism even for a non-warlike civilization that needs high culture to preserve the integrity of its borders and the defensive strength of its cities. Because to be secure, you really do need two or three troops defending each of your major cities, and at that point Authoritarianism is probably offering you +2 or +3 happiness in every major city for free.

The GPP penalty is a good place to start for Authoritarianism, but I think we need some other offsetting penalty to make it a 'tough choice.' The idea of -1 happiness across the board helps, I think. Because if you have only one unit in a city, then you're just breaking even and Authoritarianism does you no good. If you have two it does you some good, but not much; you really need three or more to profit effectively.

And since I think most peaceful players will settle for one or two garrison units per city, that makes it a serious trade-off. To take proper advantage of Authoritarianism you must consciously decide to build many extra units to garrison your cities. You get more happiness this way, but you have to pay for it in other ways; it isn't a freebie.

From a simulation standpoint, this is justified, because the machinery of state oppression and control found in an authoritarian society costs a lot of resources to maintain.

 

[Xyth]

The GPP penalty is a good place to start for Authoritarianism, but I think we need some other offsetting penalty to make it a 'tough choice.'

Or we could just increase the GPP penalty to 50%. Great People are useful to all strategies at almost any time throughout the game. In comparison, a culture penalty is tough choice at some times but not others. Another idea from way back was for Authoritarianism to increase the support costs of all military units.

The idea of -1 happiness across the board helps, I think. Because if you have only one unit in a city, then you're just breaking even and Authoritarianism does you no good. If you have two it does you some good, but not much; you really need three or more to profit effectively.

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.

 

[Howard Mahler]

For example, I am currently playing in a game where I have been under Authoritarianism for a very long time. I am fighting some important cultural border wars, which would be impacted by a culture penalty.

Either a 25% culture penalty or bonus is not a big deal in most situations, but neither is it insignificant.

Adding a 25% culture penalty would weaken Authoritarianism compared to currently, which would be a step in the right direction.

We can agree to disagree.

Adding a culture penalty would make the civic weaker but not in a particularly meaningful way. What I'm saying is that while a culture penalty may have significant impact on certain playstyles, the type of playstyle that Authoritarianism is primarily intended for isn't going to be too worried about it. And thus it's not really much of a penalty.



Yes but I think this suits the flavour of the civic perfectly and complements similar bonuses available elsewhere. I would only remove it as a last resort.



Let me try and explain how my design of the Legal category works or should work in HR. It has obviously evolved over several versions of the mod but I feel the basic idea is intact, and better defined.

The way the Legal category is structured, most civics are designed to be an improvement on the previous (in most situations, there will always be exceptions). This is different from most other civic categories where things are much more up to preference. Over the course of the game the average civ could be expected to go from Barbarism --> Tradition --> Codification --> Jurisdiction --> Equal Rights.

Authoritarianism is meant to be outside this progression, an alternative to any of the others. Thus, whereas most other civics are all about choosing the bonuses that are going to help you the most, Authoritarianism is deliberately different. It has a very powerful benefit (which we aren't able to mitigate due to technical limitations) that is useful at almost any time in the game - keeping your population controlled and thus your cities large. However, in order to not be the best legal civic for almost civilizations at almost times there obviously has to be some trade off - a penalty that is also a hindrance at almost any time in the game.

The GPP penalty achieves this very well in my opinion, every playstyle relies on great people to some degree or another. A culture penalty doesn't; while culture is useful to everyone, it's degree of value varies considerably between playstyles. That's why I feel that adding a culture penalty (in addition to the current -25% GPP) won't achieve what we want. For many playstyles it's a non-issue rather than a trade off. Authoritarianism needs to be a civic that you only switch to with careful consideration and suitable strategic adjustment.



I think that a well designed game has bonuses primarily but the occasional penalty is still good design as it can create 'tough choices'. I want Authoritarianism to be such a 'tough choice' - albeit a completely optional one. You can ignore Authoritarianism completely or you can eschew the other bonuses in the legal category and take the very strong bonus of Authoritarianism - but at an appropriate price.

 

[Xyth]

Either a 25% culture penalty or bonus is not a big deal in most situations, but neither is it insignificant.

Exactly. It's a hindrance sometimes, but often it isn't too bad. And this is why I think it's an inferior solution to increasing the GPP penalty. It's not strong enough to balance the civic how we're wanting, and if we start adding a third penalty then things are getting ridiculous.

We can agree to disagree.

I think we'll have to. -50% GPP isn't the perfect solution but I feel it's the best of the candidates so far. 1.16 is basically finished now so I'll put it in and we can see how it feels.

Though I was skeptical at first, your happiness penalty idea was a good one and it's frustrating that it can't be implemented. Perhaps I can find a workaround in the future.