Found Corporations while running SP?
- Thread starter Bhruic
- Start date
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
As indicated in the other thread, I vote no:
1.) The AI might not be smart enough to realize that it doesn't really get much benefit out of the corporation if it's running SP.
2.) It seems counter-intuitive that SP should block most of the benefits from corps while, at the same time, allowing them to be founded.
1.) The AI might not be smart enough to realize that it doesn't really get much benefit out of the corporation if it's running SP.
2.) It seems counter-intuitive that SP should block most of the benefits from corps while, at the same time, allowing them to be founded.
Yet a civ with the spiritual trait can do this with ease anyways. Run Free market to found a corp then return to SP.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
And perhaps that's a benefit to having a Spiritual civ? (Weren't people complaining that it was nerfed anyway?)
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
that's why i voted no. benefits like this one are part of why spiritual is my favorite trait, so i'm biased against sharing them.
but before voting, i did a bit of digging
to find out if this would confuse the AI logic. it doesn't. i'll quote what i found in case anybody else wonders:
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
True, but there's no civic that specifically blocks the benefits of religions. Religions are a benefit in your cities regardless of which religious civic you're running. It is different with Corporations -- State Property specifically blocks the benefits from them.
@KMad: heh, Bhuric posted that right after I posted my own message here.
Still, it seems a bit of a kludge to argue that the AI can understand that it CAN found corps under SP, but it won't ever, because that's a silly thing to do. Either (1)founding a corp under SP might be a good idea sometimes (once in a long blue moon), or (2) it's silly, and should never be done. If the first, then the AI should understand those conditions under which it's okay to found a corp while running SP...if the second, then you might as well just block it from ever happening (just as you should block a great spy from being able to INFILTRATE your OWN cities....)
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
oops! i didn't even realize you'd basically asked the same thing. i put the
on digging simply because i'm in a goofy mood and had just been reading that thread. my digging was just going back to check what i'd read a few minutes earlier. wasn't meant as a poke at you 
. i blame the (doctor-prescribed) drugs i'm on atm. they make me about as smart as the AI farming over a town with one worker and cottaging a farm with another (hmmz, i hope that got fixed in BtS). if i was playing instead of surfing forums, i bet i'd lose even on settler 
!but this part is teasing a bit:
just because something is silly doesn't mean it should never be done! and yes, that's my attitude even when i'm not on these drugs *giggle*
White Elk
99 > 1
Why not? --> yes
I think arguments towards realism don't apply in this case (where would you draw that line) so for me its a question of gameplay. And so I think that if a player finds a reason/need to found a corp while under SP they should be allowed to. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple reasons why a player might want to do it. Why limit gameplay options like this when there is no exploit involved. Allow ingenuity and the like, don't restrict it unnecessarily.
I think arguments towards realism don't apply in this case (where would you draw that line) so for me its a question of gameplay. And so I think that if a player finds a reason/need to found a corp while under SP they should be allowed to. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple reasons why a player might want to do it. Why limit gameplay options like this when there is no exploit involved. Allow ingenuity and the like, don't restrict it unnecessarily.
Roland Johansen
Deity
There is no strong gameplay reason that I can think of to allow civilisations which are using state property to found a corporation. So in this case, I think real life or realism arguments should take precedence. The state property civic symbolises a civilisation where the state controls every aspect of the economy and thus that doesn't leave a lot of room for corporations. I won't say that it would never happen in real life, but whenever a state property using civilisation is using corporations, then they are going against the principles of the state controlled economy.
I vote no.
I vote no.
No, it should not be permitted, for the reasons previously stated.
As a side note, the Organized Religion civic should only allow universal missionary building of your State Religion missionaries. I feel dirty building others to prepare for Free Religion, or to enable building their monastaries.
As a side note, the Organized Religion civic should only allow universal missionary building of your State Religion missionaries. I feel dirty building others to prepare for Free Religion, or to enable building their monastaries.
White Elk
99 > 1
Laying the groundwork for a corporate franchise while not immediately suffering from adverse economic effects would be a reason for doing it. Such as just as a major inter-continental war is drawing to a close right before the Forbidden Palace or Versailles is built.. and just before the new cities stop revolting and the newly acquired resources come into play which might justify the founding of that corporation. With some micromanagement a player could conceivably save themselves from economic ruin by delaying the effects of corporation which would have compounded the effects of the extra maintenance costs of a bunch newly acquired distant cities. Being under the economic protection of SP while the cities infrastructures are being rebuilt is very helpful. And having the opportunity to set up corporations during that time would also be helpful. The corps would have no effect yet, but once the cities are back on their feet then WHAM you switch civics and the corporation is ready for business in a big way.
Timing of Wall Street, resource acquisition through Capitulation and more.. are other reasons why a player might want to found a corp while under SP. And what about those times when a Great XXX unexpectedly spawns with >10% odds.. if you just changed civics or cannot afford to.. and if a delay might mean losing the opportunity for founding a corp... why not found it under SP if you know you will gain future benefit from it?
I don't think real life can be realistically compared here. Where would you draw that line of how State Property effects the games commerce? Its just a fun model nothing more. So realism can't take precedence over gameplay since gameplay trumps realism in this entire game. The game is modeled in reality but it is based on pure gameplay.
Timing of Wall Street, resource acquisition through Capitulation and more.. are other reasons why a player might want to found a corp while under SP. And what about those times when a Great XXX unexpectedly spawns with >10% odds.. if you just changed civics or cannot afford to.. and if a delay might mean losing the opportunity for founding a corp... why not found it under SP if you know you will gain future benefit from it?
I don't think real life can be realistically compared here. Where would you draw that line of how State Property effects the games commerce? Its just a fun model nothing more. So realism can't take precedence over gameplay since gameplay trumps realism in this entire game. The game is modeled in reality but it is based on pure gameplay.
Make the game "easy & flexible," or maintain the game's concept of "strategic (or 'interesting') choices." My favoring the strategic choices (even if I DO only play at Noble difficulty) is why I favor no founding of corps. while in SP civic.
Having already read other threads and so on, I didn't really have opinions for or against - until I read KMadCandy's post. So I voted "no" - Spiritual can keep the benefits and it won't affect others except in rare cases (in which they should just wish they were spiritual).
Roland Johansen
Deity
Sorry, but I don't consider these valid gameplay reasons. All of the above reasons are reasons why it could be useful to build a corporation in state property, but that isn't the same as a gameplay reason to add this ability to the state property civic.
A gameplay reason is a reason why a game rule would enhance gameplay. For instance, someone might argue that it is nice if theocracy would also give the ability to build missionaries and that organised religion should stop foreign non-state religions from spreading into your cities. Both rule changes would make the civics more useful and more powerful. But in my opinion it would be bad for gameplay as the differences between these civics would be lessened and thus the game choices more shallow.
Or for instance, one could argue that it should be possible to lay down railroad tracks without having coal or oil. It wouldn't improve the speed of units until you got coal or oil, but once you got these resources, you would directly benefit from the faster movement rate. There is of course a realism argument against this change in game rules, namely that no nation would ever build railroad tracks without the ability to use them. But there is also a gameplay reason against this as it would diminish the value of having coal or oil. It would remove a part of the difference between a nation with oil or coal and a nation without these resources.
In the same way, I would see the addition of the ability to found corporations to the state property civic a way of making the game more shallow. It would reduce the effect of the choices that you make. It would matter less what civic you would be using.
If you want to give a gameplay reason, then you should give a reason why it would improve the game: more interesting choices in the game, the various different strategies which could improve the game. In the case of allowing founding corporations to every civic, I would say that it would remove a choice from the game namely the one about whether you want to use a civic that allows founding corporations or a civic which doesn't allow this. It's an important choice which you will have to make at that point in the game and it will determine various other paths to victory from that point on.
jray
King
Was it possible to found a corporation under State Property in 3.02?
If so, then I'd just chalk it up as one of the many accidental side effects in the 3.13 patch and vote "YES!" After all, there is no mention of this in the 3.13 changelog. If not, then I'll grudgingly vote no. Either way, my motivation is to preserve unaltered gameplay, especially because this poll will influence the outcome of Bhruic's unofficial patch. I think the intention of that patch should be to restore the intended vanilla, as well as we can ascertain it.
If so, then I'd just chalk it up as one of the many accidental side effects in the 3.13 patch and vote "YES!" After all, there is no mention of this in the 3.13 changelog. If not, then I'll grudgingly vote no. Either way, my motivation is to preserve unaltered gameplay, especially because this poll will influence the outcome of Bhruic's unofficial patch. I think the intention of that patch should be to restore the intended vanilla, as well as we can ascertain it.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I say no, corps are different than religions,
If you found a non-state religion
1. It still allows you to build Temples, Monasteries, Cathedrals
2. you can get shrine income from your cities
3. You can build Missionaries to spread it
The Equivalent of those is NOT true for Corps and state Property
If you found a non-state religion
1. It still allows you to build Temples, Monasteries, Cathedrals
2. you can get shrine income from your cities
3. You can build Missionaries to spread it
The Equivalent of those is NOT true for Corps and state Property
Similar threads
