Hit a gharial, got a golden age, tons of free units!? WTF is this!?

[Yudishtira]

I would definitely call this a bug.

Yes that probably is. I meant the 55 turns wasn't.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I would definitely call this a bug. However some kind of "aligned civics" system where certain civic combinations work better together would be quite interesting. e.g. its way more difficult to turn your democracy into a dictatorship if you don't also switch to militarized policing or something (dunno if these are real civics, its just an example).

In extreme cases of very high values its possible that due to the decreases in anarchy time cost per additional change could reduce the total more than the additional selection adds. Very unusual but perhaps that particular civic doesnt add more so by adding it to the list you are adding no more time but benefitting from the reduction to the total for having another selection in the batch.

 

[billw2015]

In extreme cases of very high values its possible that due to the decreases in anarchy time cost per additional change could reduce the total more than the additional selection adds. Very unusual but perhaps that particular civic doesnt add more so by adding it to the list you are adding no more time but benefitting from the reduction to the total for having another selection in the batch.

Probably the equation needs fixing if this can happen! It should be proportionally reducing each additional civics time like A + 0.5B + 0.25C, not the total like (A + B + C)/3. And the civics need to be sorted by unmodified anarchy time from greatest to least so you can't game the system by just selecting them in a different order or something!

 

[Thunderbrd]

Probably the equation needs fixing if this can happen! It should be proportionally reducing each additional civics time like A + 0.5B + 0.25C, not the total like (A + B + C)/3. And the civics need to be sorted by unmodified anarchy time from greatest to least so you can't game the system by just selecting them in a different order or something!

Feel free to review the formula of course.

 

[Snofru1]

Is it just me thinking that Anarchy is totally un-fun? No new units, no new buildings, no research, so boring. Anything more than 10 turns is totally unacceptable in my eyes and just bad for gameplay. If you think that this is realistic you should also stop control of your existing units as that would be true Anarchy.
Anarchy in the real world never lasted so long or the nation collapsed quickly. And Anarchy usually didn´t hit all of the nation but only parts.

 

[raxo2222]

55 turns of anarchy is way too much even on Eternity, especially with turn times of 2 - 4 minutes in late game.

Anarchy should reduce all forms of productivity in cities instead, just like complex traits directly change tech costs.
Anarchy length could scale like square root of game speed scaling.

 

[billw2015]

Well I added an issue feel free to comment, and we can workup what the limitations and formula ought to be https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/issues/163

 

[Thunderbrd]

55 turns of anarchy is way too much even on Eternity, especially with turn times of 2 - 4 minutes in late game.

Anarchy should reduce all forms of productivity in cities instead, just like complex traits directly change tech costs.
Anarchy length could scale like square root of game speed scaling.

Given the scaling factor on eternity plus numerous modifiers from many sources what does that equate to on normal? 5 rounds?

 

[raxo2222]

Given the scaling factor on eternity plus numerous modifiers from many sources what does that equate to on normal? 5 rounds?

I think game speed modifier is purely multiplicative.
So 5 turns of anarchy on Normal (2000 turns) would be 50 turns on Eternity (20 000) with 1:1 scaling.

 

[Toffer90]

Anarchy should reduce all forms of productivity in cities instead, just like complex traits directly change tech costs.

I like the idea of changing what anarchy fundamentally is.
Not a total stop in all progress, but a reduction like a 75% reduction or something, this would make 50 turns of anarchy acceptable on eternity gamespeed.

Anarchy length could scale like square root of game speed scaling.

No, that makes absolutely no sense for anarchy. How is 50 turns of anarchy on eternity a bigger setback than what 5 turns of anarchy is on Normal gamespeed. It would destroy the wholer point of longer gamespeeds. The point of longer gamespeeds is to have a game where you have to think 100 turns ahead because building an army can take 100 turns.
You can't switch civics while there's a threatening neighbour civ around if you don't have a defensive army you could trust to keep you alive for 100 turns without building a single unit more.

 

[billw2015]

How is 50 turns of anarchy on eternity a bigger setback than what 5 turns of anarchy is on Normal gamespeed.

Because the cost of anarchy for the player is measured in real time the have to sit around bored, as well as game time. That doesn't apply to the scaling of other aspects because when not in anarchy there is always something to do each round. If you are in anarchy for 50 rounds, and you aren't at war, what do you do for the 2 hours you will be clicking next turn?

It would destroy the wholer point of longer gamespeeds.

You really think that? My guess is that breaking this specific scaling constraint for game speed would make the game a lot better. After all we already don't scale everything linearly with game speed: specifically unit movement.

 

[Toffer90]

Because the cost of anarchy for the player is measured in real time the have to sit around bored, as well as game time. That doesn't apply to the scaling of other aspects because when not in anarchy there is always something to do each round. If you are in anarchy for 50 rounds, and you aren't at war, what do you do for the 2 hours you will be clicking next turn?

Not if we changed anarchy to be a viable mechanic, as it is now it should either be removed completely or changed so that it can be scaled properly without becoming boring.

You really think that? My guess is that breaking this specific scaling constraint for game speed would make the game a lot better. After all we already don't scale everything linearly with game speed: specifically unit movement.

I don't see what anarchy has to do with unit movement, anarchy is all about influencing production and tech progress which are the most linearly scaled components of gamespeed options.
If it takes 5 turns to build a wonder on normal speed then it takes 50 turns to build it on eternity.
5 turns of anarchy on normal should thus take 50 turns of anarchy on eternity. so that the risk of loosing out on the wonder due to a revolution is comparable on both gamespeeds.
If you can build 50 units for defense in 5 turns on normal then it would take 50 turns to build 50 units for defense on eternity.

In 5 turns on normal a player may build 100 units; and it would take 50 turns on eternity.
Therefore longer gamespeeds are all about building the units one need long before one need them, thinking far ahead, preparing for the war that may come in 100 turns instead of the war that may come in 10 turns.

If you don't have enough unit to last 50 turns of anarchy on eternity without loosing heavily in a war then you probably wouldn't be able to build enough units during those 50 turns to really turn the war around, and you made a strategical error in choosing to do a revolution and a strategical error in not training more units in the 50 turns before even considering the revolution.

The whole point of gamespeed changes is to shift the balance between how much can happen on the map (unit action) compared to how much the situation (production and tech advancement) can change in the same timespan.
That city production and tech progress are slowed down compared to action on the map.
The whole point of anarchy is to reduce a player ability to change the situation for a timespan.

I like the idea of changing what anarchy fundamentally is.
Not a total stop in all progress, but a reduction like a 75% reduction or something, this would make 50 turns of anarchy acceptable on eternity gamespeed.

 

[billw2015]

Not if we changed anarchy to be a viable mechanic, as it is now it should either be removed completely or changed so that it can be scaled properly without becoming boring.

Yeah of course, I'm talking about how it currently is implemented.

I don't see what anarchy has to do with unit movement, anarchy is all about influencing production and tech progress which are the most linearly scaled components of gamespeed options.

My point was that unit movement is not currently scaled in any way to match game speed (units can move once per turn, the same distance, regardless of game speed), thus there is precedent for game mechanics that do not just scale linearly with game speed, in this case a much more impactful one than anarchy length.

5 turns of anarchy on normal should thus take 50 turns of anarchy on eternity. so that the risk of loosing out on the wonder due to a revolution is comparable on both gamespeeds.

Why does it need to be comparable between both game speeds? All players in the same game experience the same game speed, there is no reason it needs to be balanced between game speeds in this case. In *some* cases things need balancing between game speeds such that balancing of inter-related systems is maintained, however I don't see any systems that rely on anarchy length, it is just an arbitrary cost we apply to anarchy.

edit: The feeling of risk of losing out almost certainly doesn't scale linearly with number of turns of anarchy, as the human brain doesn't tend to work like that (see Kahneman and Tversky for the relevant and interesting research).

 

[JosEPh_II]

Well I added an issue feel free to comment, and we can workup what the limitations and formula ought to be https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/issues/163

At one time we had No Anarchy for the Preh era Civics. Then as the Eras advanced the period of anarchy would start with 1 turn and build from there. And Not all Civics after Preh Era gave anarchy either. Only select categories gave anarchy.This obviously was changed by the author(s) of the current system.

Also, at that time (att), we did not have a 20,000 turn Eternity Game speed to deal with. Old old Eternity was 14,000 turns. Then Shortened to 8250 turns. I can only recall 1 player who ever made it to 8,000turns, Talin something. And that game was decided long before he made it to the 8K turn point. (We also did not have 4 Extra Eras at the end game att either). But he wanted to see if he could actually make it to that point. It took him months to do so. And was an exercise in will power. And a testiment to his beast of a computer.

If my interest and will power stays steady I plan on making a Modmod with New Game Speeds. That is what I should have done with my Original set that was replaced here in the Mod for Toffer's set, the current set.

If our late game was sufficiently streamlined then 10-20 turns of Anarchy would be tolerable. But as it stands now the Late Game is basically uncharted waters for the vast majority of C2C players. Impho I think we over reached on the Late Game. Now IF we ever make it possible to start in Any Era then the Late game would be better tested and smoothed out gameplay wise. But that has not happened. Even starting in Ancient Era iirc still causes AI and Player problems. Much less starting in the Ren or Industrial Eras.

The need for extended Anarchy is a player playstyle driven mechanic. In this case Toffer's play style. Just tellin' it like it is Toffer.

 

[billw2015]

The whole point of gamespeed changes is to shift the balance between how much can happen on the map (unit action) compared to how much the situation (production and tech advancement) can change in the same timespan.
That city production and tech progress are slowed down compared to action on the map.
The whole point of anarchy is to reduce a player ability to change the situation for a timespan.

I don't think either of those are the whole point of those mechanics. For gamespeed some people just want to play a longer game generally, with all things made more granular. It just happens that we *can't* make unit movement more granular without making the map bigger, because you can't move a fraction of a tile (although that might be interesting and could certainly be done, e.g. EUIV/CK2 style).

For anarchy the point is to give the player disincentive to changing civics regularly so they have to think about their choices and integrate them into their future plans. I'm fairly certain that when anarchy was designed it was to provide this disincentive, and the fact that it stops you playing is just an artifact of the limitations placed on how it made sense to implement it (i.e. it has to be a cost any player can afford to pay at any time).

 

[Toffer90]

My point was that unit movement is not currently scaled in any way to match game speed (units can move once per turn, the same distance, regardless of game speed), thus there is precedent for game mechanics that do not just scale linearly with game speed, in this case a much more impactful one than anarchy length.

If we were to scale unit movement so that it may take 10 turns to move a unit from one plot to another on eternity gamespeed then I would feel that gamespeed as an option was broken as it in my opinion is meant to shift this balance, all gameoptions are meant to change the game balance one way or another.

The whole reason why I prefer longer gamespeeds is that there is more risk and reward to all aspects of the game simply because units can move more than the situation can change per turn.
There should be a much greater risk to start a long revolution on eternity gamespeed than on normal gamespeed. (To be honest, I rarely see anarchy times above 20 turns on eternity)
That is part of what makes longer gamespeeds interesting imo.
Picking a slower gamespeed is like increasing the resolution of an image, increasing the accuracy of the simulation, increasing the strategical element of the game.
The consequences of your choices become greater as a lot more action will happen on the map between each choice.

Why does it need to be comparable between both game speeds? All players in the same game experience the same game speed, there is no reason it needs to be balanced between game speeds in this case. In *some* cases things need balancing between game speeds such that balancing of inter-related systems is maintained, however I don't see any systems that rely on anarchy length, it is just an arbitrary cost we apply to anarchy.

The amount of tech and production progress lost during the anarchy should be the same for each gamespeed. If not then anarchy time will be a relatively smaller setback in tech progression and construction progress compared to how many turns have passed on slower gamespeeds than on faster ones. So if we made it so that eternity have relatively shorter anarchy times than normal gamespeed then the anarchy time would mean less on slower gamespeeds. So during anarchy time on eternity those you are at war with would not be able to get as big an advantege during your anarchy than what they would have gotten on normal gamespeed.

An exagerated example of how this would make anarchy less of a relevant game mechanic on slower gamespeeds.
e.g. scenario A and B are at war. A has 600 military units, B has 500 military units.

Player A enters an anarchy period.

We don't care how many units each player lost during the anarchy, so let's pretend they lost none.

After anarchy is over for player A:
On normal gamespeed player A has 600 military units, player B has 600 military units
On eternity gamespeed player A has 600 military units, player B has 550 military units.

The anarchy gave player B a bigger advantage on Normal gamespeed than on Eternity gamespeed, so anarchy has smaller impact and relevance to the strategy on slower gamespeeds when it doesn't scale linearly.

 

[billw2015]

The anarchy gave player B a bigger advantage on Normal gamespeed than on Eternity gamespeed, so anarchy has smaller impact and relevance to the strategy on slower gamespeeds.

Yeah but you are just begging the question. All you are describing is how they wouldn't be the same cost between different game speeds. The question is why does it matter if they aren't the same cost between game speeds?
My current opinion is that it doesn't matter at all, and in other aspects of the game you agree with that, e.g. unit movement speed. So if it isn't necessary for unit movement to bear exact proportional cost between game speeds, why should it be necessary for anarchy cost to do so?

I'm mostly just arguing for the sake of it, to try and work out what how you are thinking about this as a design problem, I think we agree on the premise that anarchy where you can't do anything is bad for game fun, and gets worse on longer game speeds, so we should fix it some how.

 

[Toffer90]

Yeah but you are just begging the question. All you are describing is how they wouldn't be the same cost between different game speeds. The question is why does it matter if they aren't the same cost between game speeds?
My current opinion is that it doesn't matter at all, and in other aspects of the game you agree with that, e.g. unit movement speed. So if it isn't necessary for unit movement to bear exact proportional cost between game speeds, why should it be necessary for anarchy cost to do so?

Because anarchy time is directly related to production and tech progressions ability to change the game situation per turn, it is in no way related to units ability to change the game situation per turn. Units are not affected by anarchy.

 

[Toffer90]

We should implement anarchy such that it is an amount of turns where hammers, gold, culture, espionage and beakers are reduced by 75% (set in globalDefines xml).

That would allow us to make civic change transitions a more meaningful mechanic for C2C, current mechanic is too harsh, it is so harsh that most modders don't want most civics to have any anarchy cost at all on any gamespeeds.

 

[billw2015]

Because anarchy time is directly related to production and tech progressions ability to change the game situation per turn, it is in no way related to units ability to change the game situation per turn. Units are not affected by anarchy.

I'm not in any way saying units are related to anarchy. I'm using them as an example of a game system that does *not* scale linearly with game speed, but *does* effect the game, way more than anarchy length does. The point being that this refutes any argument that anarchy needs to scale linearly with gamespeed as a matter of course, and necessitates a stronger argument for why specifically its important that anarchy has the same relative cost *between* game speeds.

Maybe you think you gave reasoning for this here:

The amount of tech and production progress lost during the anarchy should be the same for each gamespeed. If not then anarchy time will be a relatively smaller setback in tech progression and construction progress compared to how many turns have passed on slower gamespeeds than on faster ones. So if we made it so that eternity have relatively shorter anarchy times than normal gamespeed then the anarchy time would mean less on slower gamespeeds. So during anarchy time on eternity those you are at war with would not be able to get as big an advantege during your anarchy than what they would have gotten on normal gamespeed.

However this just explains what happens if anarchy is different between game speeds, it doesn't give an argument as to why it matters. Maybe you think that argument is too obvious and I must already know it, but I don't. Anarchy length is fairly arbitrary in my eyes. Just a few days ago I think someone casually halved all anarchy times. This to me indicates that it isn't considered a carefully tuned amount of time that if changed suddenly ruins the balance of the game, and this being the case, it shouldn't ruin the balance if it is changed in one game speed relative to another. So anarchy doesn't have as high mathematical cost in eternity as it does in normal game speed? So what?

We should implement anarchy such that it is an amount of turns where hammers, gold, culture, espionage and beakers are reduced by 75% (set in globalDefines xml).

You will need to also reduce all costs in the same proportion, or people will go broke straight away! But if you do this, anarchy might become a desirable thing in some cases (maybe that isn't bad?).