Government with communal corruption plus trade bonus?

[Predator145]

Alright, well in that case, leave it as it is. However, do note that other AIs may also very well end up changing into them, which in most cases nerf them by quite a bit bc of the very high unit cost. For that reason, I'd personally recommend to lower the unit support cost for balancing as mentioned, but in the end it's your mod and your game.

I agree that the anarchy phase in the stock game is far too long. I've been working on a realistic rebalancing mod for many years, and I'm about 80%+ done, and one of the changes needed was bringing the max anarchy period back to 6 turns. I can't get rid of it entirely, first because I do think anarchy periods are realistic, but most importantly bc religious civs actually have 2 turns rather than 1 turns (like non-religious have on Sid difficulty). So I'd end up making one of the religious trait effects weaker than non-religious ones, which is something you don't want for balancing. Therefore, I think anarchy periods for non-religious civs are fine in between 3 and 6 turns.

However, I do strongly disagree that communism isn't worth the switch in the stock game, even if you're religious. Maybe that's the case on smaller maps (for several reasons), but not on larger ones. I was Republic before switching to Communism in my 40% standard map game. I was producing 1030 uncorrupted shields, generating (2907 gold from cities - 1368 corruption and 314 maintenance) = 1225 uncorrupted gold and 3042 total productivity (787 excess food). I had 356 specialists, which were all either engineers or scientists, which would equate to another 1068 beakers, or 712 uncorrupted shields. However, without use of exploits, engineer shields only count to city improvements, not units. Didn't quite name how many of both, but was rather equal. So that's another 356 uncorrupted shields and 534 beakers. So adding beakers to uncorrupted gold, that equals 1386 uncorrupted shields, 1759 uncorrupted gold and 787 excess food. I had no units over the unit support limit.

After I switched to Communism, few turns later I was producing 1952 uncorrupted shields (and still rising due to many factories I was still producing in many former non-core cities), generating (2030 gold from cities - 517 corruption and 457 maintenance) = 1056 uncorrupted gold and 3922 total productivity (964 excess food). I had 282 specialists, of which 167 policeman (which already count towards the stats found in the demographics), and the remaining 115 either engineers or scientists, which would equate to another 345 beakers, or 230 uncorrupted shields. They were about equal as well, so that's another 114 uncorrupted shields and 174 beakers. So that equals 2182 uncorrupted shields, 1230 uncorrupted gold and 964 excess food. Also no units over the unit support limit (duh).

In total, that's a 57%+ increase in uncorrupted shields, a 30% decrease in uncorrupted gold and 22% increase in food. With surplus gold, I was still teching the last Industrial Era tech (Motorized Transportation) in 5 turns from start to finish as Communism, so it was a very welcome change. But most importantly: first of all, my shield production was still drastically increasing, since now all my former non-core cities would soon be producing factories, increasing shields by far more than it already was. And second: uncorrupted gold is about 3.5 as less valuable as uncorrupted shields anyway. That's because wealth is an absolutely worthless thing to be producing at your cities (produce units and conquer enemies instead), and your gold should only go towards teching (which I had enough from), upgrading units (3 gold per shield), or hurry production (4 gold per shield). Also, despite me having a far tech lead, Communism has veteran spies as stealing tech as a back-up anyway, which is actually a more cost-effective method to teching yourself from the mid-Medieval Era. Using that as a base, we get the following stats:

Republic: 1386 + (1759 / 3.5) + 787 = 2675, increasing only marginally
Communism: 2182 + (1230 / 3.5) + 964 = 3497, and shields still rising significantly

So in conclusion, even with a 2-turn anarchy period as I had, you would get your 2 x 2675 = 5350 loss back within 3497 - 2675 = 822, so 5350 / 822 = 6.5 turns. I could lower it to 6 turns as my uncorrupted shields kept increasing significantly.

The problem with switching to communism in stock game is that if you've played republic/monarchy to its max potential you've farmed the heck out of your non core cities. And that means having a buncha ICS farm cities that are ill suited to becoming communist core cities with courthouses, police stations, factories and powerplants. So when you switch into communism, you need a while to develop them. Most people are already on their path towards winning by that stage of the game. Switching would just slow their finish time down. But yes, if the game is still competitive and you wish to fight non stop to win, communism is worth it.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

The problem with switching to communism in stock game is that if you've played republic/monarchy to its max potential you've farmed the heck out of your non core cities. And that means having a buncha ICS farm cities that are ill suited to becoming communist core cities with courthouses, police stations, factories and powerplants. So when you switch into communism, you need a while to develop them. Most people are already on their path towards winning by that stage of the game. Switching would just slow their finish time down. But yes, if the game is still competitive and you wish to fight non stop to win, communism is worth it.

Getting max potential out of Rep/Mon most certainly doesn't instantly mean using a ICS strategy. Assuming a high tech rate or going out of your way to obtain them, even if you would play very aggressively on high difficulties, you wouldn't reach OCN before the very late Ancient Era/early Middle Age. Specialists towns/cities only start becoming useful from that point forward earliest.

Even on Sid difficulty without using exploits, you can already win domination/conquest victories on smaller sized maps, or are about to by this point of the game. Given how many bad and unnecessary techs the Medieval Era has, many players wanting to win this way would and should end teching after obtaining Chivalry. The Celts don't even need Chivalry at all, and the Iroquois may not as well. This would therefore make ICS completely redundant. Making all those settlers to produce scientist or tax collector cities would only severely hamper your ability to close out these types of games quickly. Even under domination you would simply be better off either taking their cities, or razing and building cities in a CxxC or CxxxC formation, rather than a CxC formation.

Instead, let's say you want to win by a different victory, or want to win domination/conquest on larger sized maps. Then it's neccessary to go to the Industrial Era and beyond, and thus specialist farms do become essential. However, even then ICS isn't more often the best strategy to take. Usually under Republic, you already want to obtain or trade for at least 6 luxuries. With marketplaces in your core cities, and assuming Emperor+ difficulty, no WW or war happiness, GWs, entertainment buildings, entertainers or 10%+ luxury slider, you can now have 6 happy, 1 content and 5 unhappy laborers in them. Also, throughout the Middle Age it's usually best to build some workers or settlers in your non-core cities first to irrigate/road the surrounding territory, thereby reducing the population and not yet making full use of the specialists. This is relevant when we will now take a closer look at ICS.

Most importantly first is that compared to agricultural trait civs, ICS isn't even more efficient than using a wider city placement. Let me demonstrate using some math under Republic:
- ICS: 1 town per 7 tiles, rather than 1 city every 13 tiles. So needs about x1.86 the amount of settler factory cities compared to a wider city placement. However, this amount of efficiency you will never achieve, so a 1:2 ratio is more realistic. So that's twice the amount of settlers and granaries. However, granaries cost little maintenance, and won't pop out infinite amount of settlers. So a 1/6 division of its production cost is fair = 10 shields. A settler is needed for every town (duh), so that's 30 shields, plus 20 food if you have a granary, which you should have. 20 food is about equal to another 20 shields (forced labor is about a 1:1 ratio). Every town will also have +1 unit support.
Given 91 tiles, that's 13 towns, equaling 13 unit support. In total that's 60 shields per town. Given 91 tiles, that's 13x60=780. That's a 8.57 per tile shield cost. Even though you likely have +6 uncorrupted shield production under ICS compared to a wider spread (due to 90% corruption of all remaining shields), you will also likely lose out on a few food since railroaded irrigated tiles generally give 3-5 food (only not for tundra/hills/mountains or non-agri deserts, which are rather sparse), compared to the standard 3 of city center tiles. So this cancels each other out. The amount of beakers will be in between 1 (assuming higher science expenditure) + 6-9 beakers (depending on tile underneath) = 7-10 beakers total per town. Times 13 we get 91 to 130 total beakers.

- Wider spread: 1 city per 13 tiles, rather than 1 town every 7 tiles. Now you need half the amount of settler factory cities, but you will need an aquaduct (as long as not placed along a river/lake/sea). But lets assume there aren't any rivers/lakes/seas, so every non-core city needs an aquaduct. You don't need Temples since a general CxxC or CxxxC spread will already bring you to 12-13 tiles. But just to be 100% sure for particular CxxxCs, let's throw in one temple for every 6 cities. There's no need for marketplaces since even without them, no war happiness/WW, military police, no entertainers, no city improvs/GWs and 0% luxury/entertainment slider, you should already have 6 luxuries for your core cities as mentioned earlier. This is enough happiness to be making use of 7 laborers per city. As mentioned, you're better off producing some workers/settlers first, so by the time you hit size 12 in these cities, you will already have teched Steam Power. Assuming size 12, you need at least 5-8 laborers (depending on the type of tiles underneath) to make full use of the specialists. Only for nearly complete desert/plain tiles (desert under agri traits), which already would be rare to have, you need one extra happiness, which you could and should already have through some war happiness, a GW, or even a single Temple. So that's 50-100 (depending you're agricultural or not) + 5-10 for Temple (whether you're religious) + half the amount of settler factory cities compared to ICS (=30), which equals 85-90 for agricultural + relig/non-relig per city, and 135-140 for non-agricultural + relig/non-relig per city. Every city has +3 unit support.
Given 91 tiles, that's 7 cities, equaling 21 unit support. And given 91 tiles, that's 7x85 to 90=595 to 630 for agricultural civs, and 945 to 980 for non-agri civs. That's a 6.54 to 6.9 per tile shield cost for agricultural civs, and a 10.4 to 10.77 per tile shield cost for non-agri civs. The amount of beakers will be in between 1 (assuming higher science expenditure) + 12-18 beakers (depending on tile underneath) = 13-19 beakers total per town. Times 7 we get 91 to 133 total beakers, which is just slightly more, but lets just say its pretty much the same.

So ICS is about 25% to 30% more expensive than a wider spread for agricultural civs for the same amount of beakers/gold/shields, and about 20% cheaper for non-agricultural civs. And a wider spread even has a small benefit of having a bit more unit support.

Beyond that, ICS also has other significant certain drawbacks which can't be overlooked:
1) First, even on Sid difficulty without using exploits, you can obtain a tech lead by the mid-Industrial Era, no matter what map size you're playing on, or city spread you're using. This would make the largest benefit of ICS redundant.
2) Second, ICS is antagonistic to Communism later in the game. You would now need twice the amount of factories, power plants and offshore platforms (and if you're playing on very large maps with conquest/domination in mind, even manufacturing plants as well). This also not only requires twice the amount of shields, but also twice the amount of maintenance. And as shown in my previous comment, Communism is absolutely worth the switch, where each turn in Anarchy is earned back by 3 turns in Communism. Even if you're playing as a non-agricultural civ, the initial 20% increased earlier shield cost is earned back in a rather short while. It's about 10 more shield cost per build city per used tile, so assuming a fair 50-turn period, that would amount to 500 shields difference per town/city. Where under ICS Rep towns would be producing a mere 1 shield per turn, this would be about 20-25+ uncorrupted shields (checked this in my game) under Communism for those former Rep towns. And these 20-25 uncorrupted shields can still be raised even higher with a nuclear plant and a manufacturing plant. So that's a return investment within 500 / 20 to 25 = 20 to 25 turns for non-agricultural civs, which would be even lower with additional buildings as mentioned. For agricultural civs a non-ICS city placement will already be beneficial.
3) Third, I completely forgot to mention activating wartime/mobilization in my former reply (I could mention a Golden Era as Germany/America as well to buff Communism even further, but that is rather rare, so I won't mention it as a seperate point). As if Communism isn't already powerful enough, every single of your cities that's done building aquaducts, factories, power plants and offshore platforms (and perhaps a few marketplaces, harbors, granaries, hospitals, courthouses and police stations here and there), can now start producing a ridiculous amount of extra shields on top of what it already produces. ICS towns can never do that, and never to the same potential as wider spread cities can under Communism. If every city would be producing a unit or building mobilization has an effect on, that would net me about another 1000-1200 uncorrupted shields. Under ICS Rep this would only be about 200 uncorrupted shields, tops.
4) Fourth, as mentioned earlier ICS is also antagonistic to winning conquest/domination games early, even on Sid difficulty. This can usually only be done on tiny and small maps, and particular smaller standard maps.
5) Fifth, rather self-explanatory, but ICS should never be used for your core or semi-core cities as long as you haven't even yet reached the OCN. Not only through corruption, but also by giving you control over less territory in the beginning expansion phase of the game, thereby limiting yourself essential strategic and luxury resources.
6) Sixth, even over the OCN as Communism, corruption and waste ranks up very slowly. In my 40% Standard game, where OCN was 108 and I was at 117 cities, every 10 new towns/cities would only gain me about 1% for both corruption and WLTKD-discounted waste. That means that every new city will still be around 35% corruption, and 23% waste with a marketplace.
7) Seventh, given point 6, ICS may actually however be beneficial for tundra/mountainous/deserts as non-agri under Communism. On one hand the benefits aren't that great to begin with, and these tiles usually only serve as taking up territory to prevent other civs from taking them, but long-term it may still lead to a small benefit regardless. Do note that towns on tundra/mountain closer to your capital shouldn't be used as ICS, since it would only end up ranking up corruption for your core or semi-core cities.

So when might ICS actually be more useful? Perhaps if you're a non-agri civ that is able to close the game somewhere in the Industrial Era, or the early Modern Era, where the benefits of a non-ICS Communism can't be benefitted from yet. On higher difficulties only Diplomacy victory comes to mind, or very particular domination/conquest victories that fit just within the right timeframe (like mid-sized maps). That is off course, once again, assuming not using severe exploits like the Great Library elevator, trade route pillaging, or ridiculous amounts of armies the AI all can't use themselves.

 

[Fergei]

I think what has to be kept in mind is, despite what some people might claim, I think we've all seen zero evidence that a government type can be balanced equally for the AI and human preferences. The AI will favour unit support, corruption, war weariness and trade bonus considerations over all other considerations regardless of the situation and cannot think ahead 20 turns (and select the government in response to that future scenario).

In contrast, the human player is usually much more flexible and may favour different governments based on both current and future anticipated scenarios. So it makes sense that no goverment type can be equally balanced for a human and the AI.

I break down government types into the following categories (and some governments can be in more than one category):

1) Optimised for the AI (will switch to it 10-90% of the time during the course of a game if the AI accesses it before any other government type in the era) - will probably also be a viable option for the human player - think Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Fascism (in Conquests default settings).

2) AI rare option (will switch to it <10% of the time during the course of a game once it is accessible) - doesn't always have to be a credible option for the human player, but adds to the player experience by giving more variety in its opponents. Communism in Conquests settings ends up here in terms of the AI (but not the human). Perhaps not at the intention of the developer and, I would argue, to the detriment of the game.

3) Human favoured (e.g. viable for the human in some situations (however limited) but the AI will either not select it or leave it as soon as it can) - think Despotism, or Feudalism if brought forward in the tech tree to be easier to access than Monarchy and Republic. Communism (in Conquests) could be argued to be in this category for AIs that are not runaway killer AIs.

4) Perfectly balanced - both the human player and the AI will sometimes select it and sometimes not select the government based on the game situation. I don't think any government type in Civ 3 meets this criteria, mainly due to the simplicity of the AI's decision making process in selecting a government. Maybe the closest is Monarchy after Republic has become available as the AI and the human can sometimes pick Monarchy over the Industrial era governments with no trade bonus (albeit quite rarely in the case of the AI).

5) Totally broken (the AI will shift to it 0 or 100% of the time) - again Feudalism. Republic, Democracy and Fascism (in the very frequent event of a late game world war) are all close to this category in my opinion, but unlike Feudalism are not quite fully broken. It would be highly unusual for a human not planning war or an AI not at war, to leave Democracy or Republic in order to revert back into Monarchy. Or to leave Democracy to revert back Republic with no current or anticipated war. The game fails if you introduce a similar government type later in the tech tree that isn't a bit stronger. I do actually have an intentional 'totally broken' government type extremely late in the modern era to reward a Civ with a tech lead. It was originally communal corruption until I realised the AI will avoid that corruption level at almost any cost.

Get to the point!

So this raises challenges to keep Social Democracy from entering category 3 or 5 here, unless you somehow introduce it earlier in the tech tree than Democracy appears. Or make Democracy a mandatory tech and Social Democracy an optional tech.

So if you were going to introduce Social Democracy, I think you'd need to identify which of the first three categories you intend the government to be made for, and tailor the settings accordingly. It would be quite the challenge to make such a government good enough to enter category 4. Assuming Social Democracy appears later than Democracy in the tech tree, the AI will simply accept completely or reject completely this government type compared to Democracy based on its calculated unit support and corruption costs (if war weariness and trade bonus settings are the same).

Its not a government type I think is particularly desireable from an AI standpoint. I think you'd have to make it a mandatory tech that the AI will likely discover prior to Democracy for it to not be ignored 100% of the time by the AI. It might even have to appear before Republic in order for the AI to consider it. You can test this by starting a game in the industrial era and removing conventional Democracy as an option.

 

[timerover51]

Just a note to the two previous posters. When I see a post that is as long as the previous ones, I do not even start to read it. You are responding to someone's post, and I am not interested in going back to try and read that one as well. You could always private message each other. Against that maybe someone else might be interested. You are welcome to go your way, and I will go mine.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

I think what has to be kept in mind is, despite what some people might claim, I think we've all seen zero evidence that a government type can be balanced equally for the AI and human preferences. The AI will favour unit support, corruption, war weariness and trade bonus considerations over all other considerations regardless of the situation and cannot think ahead 20 turns (and select the government in response to that future scenario).

In contrast, the human player is usually much more flexible and may favour different governments based on both current and future anticipated scenarios. So it makes sense that no goverment type can be equally balanced for a human and the AI.

I break down government types into the following categories (and some governments can be in more than one category):

1) Optimised for the AI (will switch to it 10-90% of the time during the course of a game if the AI accesses it before any other government type in the era) - will probably also be a viable option for the human player - think Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Fascism (in Conquests default settings).

2) AI rare option (will switch to it <10% of the time during the course of a game once it is accessible) - doesn't always have to be a credible option for the human player, but adds to the player experience by giving more variety in its opponents. Communism in Conquests settings ends up here in terms of the AI (but not the human). Perhaps not at the intention of the developer and, I would argue, to the detriment of the game.

3) Human favoured (e.g. viable for the human in some situations (however limited) but the AI will either not select it or leave it as soon as it can) - think Despotism, or Feudalism if brought forward in the tech tree to be easier to access than Monarchy and Republic. Communism (in Conquests) could be argued to be in this category for AIs that are not runaway killer AIs.

4) Perfectly balanced - both the human player and the AI will sometimes select it and sometimes not select the government based on the game situation. I don't think any government type in Civ 3 meets this criteria, mainly due to the simplicity of the AI's decision making process in selecting a government. Maybe the closest is Monarchy after Republic has become available as the AI and the human can sometimes pick Monarchy over the Industrial era governments with no trade bonus (albeit quite rarely in the case of the AI).

5) Totally broken (the AI will shift to it 0 or 100% of the time) - again Feudalism. Republic, Democracy and Fascism (in the very frequent event of a late game world war) are all close to this category in my opinion, but unlike Feudalism are not quite fully broken. It would be highly unusual for a human not planning war or an AI not at war, to leave Democracy or Republic in order to revert back into Monarchy. Or to leave Democracy to revert back Republic with no current or anticipated war. The game fails if you introduce a similar government type later in the tech tree that isn't a bit stronger. I do actually have an intentional 'totally broken' government type extremely late in the modern era to reward a Civ with a tech lead. It was originally communal corruption until I realised the AI will avoid that corruption level at almost any cost.

Get to the point!

So this raises challenges to keep Social Democracy from entering category 3 or 5 here, unless you somehow introduce it earlier in the tech tree than Democracy appears. Or make Democracy a mandatory tech and Social Democracy an optional tech.

So if you were going to introduce Social Democracy, I think you'd need to identify which of the first three categories you intend the government to be made for, and tailor the settings accordingly. It would be quite the challenge to make such a government good enough to enter category 4. Assuming Social Democracy appears later than Democracy in the tech tree, the AI will simply accept completely or reject completely this government type compared to Democracy based on its calculated unit support and corruption costs (if war weariness and trade bonus settings are the same).

Its not a government type I think is particularly desireable from an AI standpoint. I think you'd have to make it a mandatory tech that the AI will likely discover prior to Democracy for it to not be ignored 100% of the time by the AI. It might even have to appear before Republic in order for the AI to consider it. You can test this by starting a game in the industrial era and removing conventional Democracy as an option.

If governments are well-balanced in of themselves, it doesn't matter anymore what gov the AI will choose. Because they will be about as well for either, whether it be for the human player, or the AI.

I don't agree there is ''zero evidence a government type can be balanced equally for the AI and human preferences''. The mod I'm working on has balanced the standard in-game govs for many different situations. Rep is nerfed a bit, Monarchy is buffed a bit (to make an early switch from Desp to Mon more often worth it, which was lacking), Fascism and Democracy buffed even more to make those worthy options later in the game (as you also mentioned: ''The game fails if you introduce a similar government type later in the tech tree that isn't a bit stronger''). And Feudalism buffed most of all, which it absolutely needed.

But you know what, it's actually perfectly fine if some govs are better for the AI, compared to the human player. Normally, and even in my balancing mod, Fascism usually isn't that much of a great gov for the human player to pick by the Industrial Era, bc even on larger maps you would have had enough time to expand your civilization beyond the OCN. Therefore, by that point in the game, for human players non-communal govs aren't as great a choice as they used to be. But that's fine, bc even my modded form of Fascism still suits the AI perfectly fine. The AI usually is only slightly over the OCN, so it suits them far better than the human player. Now they can build even more units than they could before, which they tend to do on higher difficulties.

''So this raises challenges to keep Social Democracy from entering category 3 or 5 here, unless you somehow introduce it earlier in the tech tree than Democracy appears. Or make Democracy a mandatory tech and Social Democracy an optional tech.''
All one would have to do is lower the unit support cost from 5 to 3, and likely also increase draft rate to 1, and it's very much balanced. Both for human players and AI. So that in of itself would already be more than 'zero evidence.' All the other numbers are well as they are. If you disagree, then lay out your arguments/math. And these numbers absolutely matter. Off course, I haven't seen the resistance and propaganda modifiers (even though propaganda is useless in the stock game), so I can't comment on those. Now only the remaining in-game govs need some rework.

And with all due respect, you couldn't have been more wrong on Communism and Fascism in the base game. Please read my prior comments on Communism and pick those apart using arguments and math if you tend to disagree with those.

 

[Fergei]

If both government types were available at the same time then there is simply no way the AI will select a Communal Corruption Government type with high war weariness and a unit support cost of 3 and a draft rate of 1 over default Democracy, ever. Your arguments are also not "evidence". They are opinion. Apologies if I have read you wrong and that is not what you are claiming.

Similarly, saying you have an amazing mod you've been working on for a decade but haven't posted for public access for is not "evidence". It is not possible to take you seriously until such time as your settings are posted alongside and can be tested in debug mode. For now, Cortez48s game settings remain a mythical Great Wonder of the World accessible only in a future tech. To deprive such knowledge from humanity is simply too cruel!

 

[Fergei]

Just a note to the two previous posters. When I see a post that is as long as the previous ones, I do not even start to read it. You are responding to someone's post, and I am not interested in going back to try and read that one as well. You could always private message each other. Against that maybe someone else might be interested. You are welcome to go your way, and I will go mine.

My post was not a response to the previous poster, ICS isn't something I do so its not something I'd post about. It was a response to the OP after having gone away and thought on the matter more.

I am keen on the concept of a Communal Government with a trade bonus but find it very challenging to be worthwhile as it errs towards being completely shunned by the AI AND overpowered for a human - which is a terrible combination. If anyone has implemented something like the government outlined in this thread and found the AI sometimes selects AND its not overpowered then it would be very interesting to see what settings were arrived at.

 

[timerover51]

Since I live near Chicago, I am considering making corruption for Democracy possibly as high as Rampant, because that best describes Chicago and Illinois, which are technically Democracies, but Chicago has been run by the same political party for just short of 100 years. The city and state are both technically bankrupt. Sid was quite optimistic when it came to Democracy and corruption.

 

[Predator145]

Since I live near Chicago, I am considering making corruption for Democracy possibly as high as Rampant, because that best describes Chicago and Illinois, which are technically Democracies, but Chicago has been run by the same political party for just short of 100 years. The city and state are both technically bankrupt. Sid was quite optimistic when it came to Democracy and corruption.

That's why I've renamed "democracy" to "constitutionalism". It is the checks and balances and the rule of law that helps combat corruption. Having a proper constitutional gov is what separates the late medieval tech from ancient age monarchy and republic (both of which I've given problematic corruption lv).

 

[C0rTeZ48]

If both government types were available at the same time then there is simply no way the AI will select a Communal Corruption Government type with high war weariness and a unit support cost of 3 and a draft rate of 1 over default Democracy, ever. Your arguments are also not "evidence". They are opinion. Apologies if I have read you wrong and that is not what you are claiming.

I don't know if the AI would switch to the government in that case or not, as I haven't tested it. But personally I think it's less important if the AI will switch to it, if the governments are all pretty well balanced in of themselves. If all govs are decently balanced, why would if matter if the AI would switch to one over another?

But primarily I think balancing matters most to human players, since human players can actually make good use of them, compared to the AI. F.e., do you know that a heavy war weariness bug exist in the stock game? AI players always get the same WW penalty as the human player (f.e., will gain WW points if they conquer a human city), and only one of two AI will gain WW penalty in a war, whereas the other one does not. I don't even know what determines which one of the two attains war weariness, and which one does not.

This matters because I've seen AI civs stay in Republic with severe WW, where they don't switch to a non-WW gov instead. On the other hand, the AI that doesn't rank up WW can benefit from all the benefits of Republic correctly, or doesn't utilize this bug and switch to Republic instead. And I'm not sure if this AI WW bug is patched in C3X.

Similarly, saying you have an amazing mod you've been working on for a decade but haven't posted for public access for is not "evidence". It is not possible to take you seriously until such time as your settings are posted alongside and can be tested in debug mode. For now, Cortez48s game settings remain a mythical Great Wonder of the World accessible only in a future tech. To deprive such knowledge from humanity is simply too cruel!

Lol I had to chuckle reading this. If I wanted to I could already post most of what is done, about 80+% atm, but I really want to have worked out nearly everything before I post it, and I'm not there yet unfortunately. It's a 214 page, 96560 word document currently. It's this long bc I had to do quite a lot of research to back up a lot of my reasons for why I made specific changes (if people wanted to know, and to increase my credibility).

Let me give some random examples of things I had to research, just to come to satisfiable conclusions:
1) Just to make a choice for what the embassy or spy level was per government, I had to dig up information how embassies actually can launch such projects (and which), or how effective governments (like Fasicm) were in spying, and then write all of this information down to come at realistic conclusions, all while keeping the balancing aspect of the game in mind as well. And then I had to also link my sources, just for if people wanted to look this up, or learn a thing or two. I think spend a few days worth only researching this information before I was satisfied. Luckily, ChatGPT has been a great additional source for me to double-check information.
2) Today for example, I spent time taking a closer look at all different forms of Ironclads. The Civ 3 monitor (based on the USS Monitor) is merely a particular form of ironclad called a 'casemate ironclad', which only accounts for about 15% of all global ironclads ever built. The 'broadside ironclad' was the most built type (like the HMS Warrior or La Gloire), and accounted for about 40% of all ironclads. Essentially, a broadside ironclad was simply an upgraded Ship-of-the-Line. This also means I have to change the in-game Ironclad sprite into something more representative. This is something the Civilization franchise has had pretty much wrong from the beginning, it's somewhat a-historical.
3) Talking about Ship-of-the-Line: I had to take a closer look at what the most common rate was, just to come at realistic values. I had to research how many cannons such rates most commonly had (and of what poundage the projectiles are), I had to take a closer look at the speed of these vessels, measured in knots, I had to take a closer look at the average thickness of the hulls, and even do some Physics calculations just to find the amount of damage such projectiles would do (like kinetic energy, blast energy, angle of impact), and then double-cross all this information using different sources. And when these were conflicting (which they were here and there), I had to dig even deeper to explain these differences away.
4) I had to take a closer look at the evolution of weaponry and armor. F.e., dig up information on horse barding and how common it was, what the common forms of armor and weaponry were throughout time, how effective each unit would be in combat, see how the rate of fire increased throughout time, look at historical records how many casualties a machine gun can inflict within a given short timeframe, all while not losing track of the in-game balancing. I even had to take a closer look at the stock game, and do many calculations what the casualty-per-shield ratios were. And these matter, since I want to make all units relevant, not just only swordsman, knights, cavalry, infantry, artillery, tanks, bombers, nukes and such. Based on these, I could give new shield costs to each (unique) unit, just so I could make them balanced and make many relevant again.
5) I had to take a deep look at how air combat works in Civ 3, and also dig information on how effective specific generations of fighters are against newer/older forms. Luckily, some sources already have great information, like Binkov's Battlegrounds on YouTube.
6) I had to take a look at the global historic markets of the many different in-game resources, take a closer look where they are located on Earth, to what degree different nations are dependent on importing these, just to come at realistic 'appearance ratios.' And I had to evaluate the total global market value over-time, also to assign more realistic commerce and shield bonuses, all while keeping the in-game balance aspect in mind.
7) I had to not only redo the tech tree here and there to make it more historically accurate, I also had to make them more balanced. Even though my mod isn't focused on adding new things into the game, I had to add a few tiny things here and there in the game. F.e., as of now I've added the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty to the Steel tech.
8) And fun fact: I think I'm actually the first one who has ever taken a closer look at the 'inititiate propaganda' system, and has reassigned many different values, just to make it an actual rebalanced, realistic, intricate, fun part of the game. There is a lot of fun math that goes behind it, and I actually found out there exist only some inaccurate information on it on CivFanatics/the War Academy.

The same goes for changes made to terrain values, espionage, plagues, taking a closer look at the in-game return-investment value of all city improvements and Wonders, taking a deeper aspect in many hard-coded game aspects, and read tons and tons of CivFanatics threads. I also actually had to play the game over and over, just to see how the in-game mechanics worked, observe AI behavior, get to understand all kind of exploits (in order to work those out of the game), do in-game experiments myself, be able to win Sid games without using any exploits, etcetera etcetera. I think I've easily calculated days worth of me trying out the civ 3 combat calculator (v1.36).

Talking about this, this mod has been a bit on hold though for the last half year, since I've focused more on defeating Sid difficulty on larger maps without exploits like the Great Library elevator, trade route pillaging and large amounts of armies (the AI can't exploit all of these). I am thinking of playing and posting my first HoF game. But I'm still working on it then and now, the last days I've been for example.

My mod however mostly represents realism and rebalance. I think I only plan on adding one single unit, perhaps a city improvement or two, and a few Great Wonders. That's about it for new content. The main purpose is to rebalance the stock game, and make it more historically accurate.

And when I say 80% of 100%, I'm not yet even talking about rewriting all the .txt civilopedia files. But if will be out some day, don't worry lol.

In total, I've easily sunk thousands of hours into this project, and now it's far larger than even my bachelor thesis was, lol. All just a labor of love, since I love learning. And why not also put the numbers and information I find in a game, just because I like to make a somewhat accurate simulation of the world around us?

So sorry if it takes so long, but it will all be worth it in the end. This is a massive, massive undertaking for just one person, and has taken me many, many years to come this far!

 

[C0rTeZ48]

Since I live near Chicago, I am considering making corruption for Democracy possibly as high as Rampant, because that best describes Chicago and Illinois, which are technically Democracies, but Chicago has been run by the same political party for just short of 100 years. The city and state are both technically bankrupt. Sid was quite optimistic when it came to Democracy and corruption.

Also had to chuckle reading this, I'm not even from North-America and I've heard and seen many ill things about Chicago.

 

[Sakharov]

So which specific settings you suggest for Social Democracy? No support, 2-3 gold per unit? I also think that military police should be 0 because you can't apply pressure to citizens this way and also to engage player using luxury slider.
What do you think about replacing Communism with Social Democracy?

 

[Predator145]

So which specific settings you suggest for Social Democracy? No support, 2-3 gold per unit? I also think that military police should be 0 because you can't apply pressure to citizens this way and also to engage player using luxury slider.
What do you think about replacing Communism with Social Democracy?

What are you trying to do? Create a new, niche but fun gov that requires thinking and planning to use or a overpowered late game no brainer for a peaceful victory?

Social Democracies are democracies, so no using the military to intimidate citizens into shutting up. The lux slider actually represents welfare. You keep them happy by having a big welfare state funded by your productive capitalist economy with that commerce bonus.

Military spending is shunned by both the citizens and the elites as it takes away from the welfare state. Whatever military there is costs a lot to support due to both being a democracy (can't force cities to support, pay and house your troops) and extensive bungling bureaucracy. Look at how real life modern social democracies struggle to even modestly rearm in the face of a resurgent threat. You have due to communal corruption the shield output to raise a large army if you have a sprawling empire. But your citizens want none of it so maybe start with -2 per unit. WW is as high as can be.

If you want a peaceful victory condition but need a strong military to ensure survival then Democracy (or what I've renamed Constitutionalism) is the way to go. But if you can afford to skip military spending (or if there is no point in contesting when the run away AI would crush you if it comes to that anyway and you just rely on diplomacy to stay alive) then Social Democracy would be the better choice.

Communism is a completely different animal to SD. It's a totalitarian regime that that central plans the economy, so no commerce bonus, no high living standards generated by the lux slider. But you can intimidate your citizens all day. It's able to generate immense shield output in a large, sprawling empire and force the people to support all these troops. The USSR's material output in WW2 dwarfs Imperial Russia's WW1 output. WW2 Germany which combined the industrial output of the former 2nd German empire and the Austro Hungarian empire (mostly in the Skoda works) could not match it. It's the end game gov for a player that has been warring all game and created an empire outstripping the OCN.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

So which specific settings you suggest for Social Democracy? No support, 2-3 gold per unit? I also think that military police should be 0 because you can't apply pressure to citizens this way and also to engage player using luxury slider.
What do you think about replacing Communism with Social Democracy?

Was this question addressed to me? Personally, I think no unit support per town/city/metro fits the government type well. 2 gold per unit would be too low, and make the government too strong. A 3 gold per unit seems to be more fair. 5 is definitely too high from what I calculated. In combination with a draft rate of 1, a 4 gold per unit may also be acceptable, which I think advanced players would be able to utilize the draft-disband option to get some extra shields out of food. But that won't do for AI, since they can't even utilize it. It may perhaps even be seen as an exploit for that reason (I think it's gray area, because it's not overpowered at all). Therefore, I think a 3 gold per unit fits it well.

Also, given how 0/0/0 is Democracy unit support in the stock game, I think it should fall in order for balancing. I however have raised Democracy's unit support to 1/2/3 in my mod, which is now on par with Republic's modded 1/2/3 unit support.

For realism, I think it (as well as Republic and Democracy governments) should deserve both a military police limit of 1, as well as a draft rate of 1, since the military can and will be used to quell riots. Some recent real life examples being the National Guard in 2020 in the USA, and the gendarmes in the France during the Yellow Vest protests. Also, every modern (social) democracy has a framework to call upon the military at times of civil unrest. F.e., the UK and Norway military operate under the MACA, the Netherlands has the Marechaussee, Finland has the 'Act on the Defence Force' framework, and Denmark and Sweden can call upon the military when there are riots with parliamentary approval.

As for draft: all Scandinavian nations currently have a draft in place, so that is as simple as it is. A draft rate of 1 should suffice. I think only Fascism and Communism deserve a draft of 2 per turn. These numbers are most certainly historically accurate.

Do I think military police limit of 1 for these governments has an impact on game balancing? Absolutely not. Long before you get to Social Democracy, you should already be able to have all luxuries in your territory, or at the very least to trade for them. And in times of war, they are actually a little handy as a small back-up.

I wouldn't replace Communism with Social Democracy though. One reason for it simply being too much of an intricate part of Civilization Conquests. Has Communism ever successfully been implemented? No, even China and the USSR admitted to that, since they described themselves instead as being in a transitional Socialist form of government. But that doesn't stop Communism from just being a cool, fun part of Civ 3.

 

[timerover51]

Communism is a completely different animal to SD. It's a totalitarian regime that that central plans the economy, so no commerce bonus, no high living standards generated by the lux slider. But you can intimidate your citizens all day. It's able to generate immense shield output in a large, sprawling empire and force the people to support all these troops. The USSR's material output in WW2 dwarfs Imperial Russia's WW1 output. WW2 Germany which combined the industrial output of the former 2nd German empire and the Austro Hungarian empire (mostly in the Skoda works) could not match it. It's the end game gov for a player that has been warring all game and created an empire outstripping the OCN.

By 1944 the United States was producing as much military material as the entire rest of the world, outproducing the UK, Nazi Germany, the USSR, Japan, and all of the rest. The U.S. was also feeding a large portion of the allied civilian population. Through the Lend-Lease program, the U.S. was arming a fair portion of the globe.