Ideological wars

[tu_79]

Following current discussion in the beta thread, I think we should look at ideology distribution as a whole. It works in three phases.

1. CHOOSING AN IDEOLOGY
First one to pick an ideology just takes whatever suit him better. But, because we want ideologies to be spread out, the followers are given incentives for picking something different. Recent problem was that the incentive (2 free tenets) was not enough to overcome the difficulties of having a different ideology in terms of happiness, caused by phase 2. Even in current state (50 turns without ideological pressure), if the game is going to last, it's still a good idea to stay with the most followed ideology, because being forced to switch is quite punishing.
In my opinion, the first three adopters don't need any reward. They are going to build an unique wonder the first. They are already ruling the world. Other than the ideological pressure, the penalties for not sharing ideologies are: opinion, decreased tourism. If I'm second to choose I'm not afraid of being influenced by the leader, but I might want to avoid the opinion malus. In the long run, the whole world is going to follow the leader, and I'll have no friends by then, so better avoid the problem now.

2. FIGHTING FOR YOUR IDEOLOGY
Right now, the only way to force others to switch to your ideology is by influencing them, so it's a matter of increasing tourism, giving open borders, sending musicians, all that stuff. In the current beta, there is a period of 50 turns without ideological pressure, iirc.

3. ONE IDEOLOGY TRIUMPHS
When the follower civs can't stand unhappiness anymore, they switch to the cultural leader ideology. If there are still blocks, they may fight, but usually it's a matter of who can stand unhappiness better.

Phase 1 is very influenced by phase 2. The problems that arise for not following the civ that is influencing you the most cannot be overcome with the sugar of a free tenet or two. I think this problem needs phase 2 to be different.


So here is my quick rough suggestion:

Phase 1. First adopter gets nothing. Picking the least followed ideology gives 1 free tenet. Small comeback mechanic for the three major contenders. Now, you won't be holding your writers for just one free tenet, won't ya?

Phase 2. Ideological pressure is moved to phase 3. Switch ideology is done through the trade window. It can be bought (giving them back their cities, for example), but mostly forced through war, the same we force vassallage. Many tenets have good bonuses for sharing ideologies, so forcing an ideology on another civ is a goal in itself. After switching ideologies, opinion is restored (new government), and then it suffers 3 turns of anarchy and loses 2 tenets (prevents abusing).

Phase 3. Ideological pressure starts when enacting a World Ideology at the UN. Those not following this ideology will suffer unrest, and if they are completely influenced by a civ with the world ideology, they will revolt. If the world stays peaceful, those without unrest will improve their economies better and cause unhappiness by indirect means to those not following.

This opens an interesting way of wining diplomatically, since World Ideology can be enacted sooner when enforced. Encourages diversity at the beginning and homogeneity at the end, involves fighting, diplomacy and some tourism. Civs interested in diplomatic and cultural victories will be the most involved in ideology wars.

 

[Dawnpromise]

I'll agree that Ideology conflicts need to be made more active. Ideologies are basically the modern worlds version of a Holy war and should be just as contested and active as religious spread is.

I think a lot of the ideology issues arise from the fact it's so linked to tourism and cultural influence which I've always found to be the most passive aspects of the game overall.

Personally I think the 'unhappiness from ideology' aspect should be moved to the 'world ideology' resolution as tu suggests. Part of why everyone plays follow the leader is due to the HEAVY penalty the game forces on you for being independent. If the penalty was moved to the resolution then the unhappiness would at least make sense as there would actually be a REASON for the unhappiness due to global censure for following what is viewed as an 'uncivilized' form of government, rather then simply being a 'grass is greener' effect.

 

[CrazyG]

I think the issue is that by this stage of the game, someone who has made very few investments into tourism can still easily have familiar tourism with all civs. In my opinion, for levels lower than familiar should generate no pressure at all. Familiar, popular, and influential should generate less than they currently do.

 

[tu_79]

I think the issue is that by this stage of the game, someone who has made very few investments into tourism can still easily have familiar tourism with all civs. In my opinion, for levels lower than familiar should generate no pressure at all. Familiar, popular, and influential should generate less than they currently do.

You heard G. There are only 3 possible states. They have unrest or they are revolting, basically.

 

[CrazyG]

You heard G. There are only 3 possible states. They have unrest or they are revolting, basically.

Actually I didn't hear him, where did he say that?

 

[Gazebo]

You heard G. There are only 3 possible states. They have unrest or they are revolting, basically.

4 states:
Content, Dissident, Resistance, Revolution

 

[tu_79]

4 states:
Content, Dissident, Resistance, Revolution

Well, I wasn't counting content as it is not a damaging status, thanks for the quick answer.

What effect can have what CrazyG is proposing, increasing the level you need to be influenced for a dissidence status to begin?

 

[Stalker0]

I think the issue is that by this stage of the game, someone who has made very few investments into tourism can still easily have familiar tourism with all civs. In my opinion, for levels lower than familiar should generate no pressure at all. Familiar, popular, and influential should generate less than they currently do.

I like this concept. Let the highest levels of tourism still have the usual impact but overall its less.

Otherwise, I think removing the ideological pressure for the most part and the initial early adopter tenents is a good idea. Different civs will generally pick different ideologies anyway....no need to force that diversity.

 

[Txurce]

I like this concept. Let the highest levels of tourism still have the usual impact but overall its less.

Otherwise, I think removing the ideological pressure for the most part and the initial early adopter tenents is a good idea. Different civs will generally pick different ideologies anyway....no need to force that diversity.

I just wrote about this in the current-version thread. Given that Gazebo can't adjust passive ideological pressure, I don't think CrazyG's pressure proposal will work. But removing passive pressure altogether (easy for Gazebo to do) takes away a leader's edge, encourages diversity, and of course makes the game less frustrating.

I like the idea of a World ideology having some effect, but would prefer it be solely a boost to the ones who have it, without hurting the ones who don't. I say this because it often comes down to a crap shoot.

And I prefer CrazyG's tenet proposal over tu_79's, because the latter threatens to become "game-y." The advantage to the leader isn't that big.

None of this takes away from a civ's efforts to win a CV. It just may take longer.

 

[Gazebo]

I think the issue is that by this stage of the game, someone who has made very few investments into tourism can still easily have familiar tourism with all civs. In my opinion, for levels lower than familiar should generate no pressure at all. Familiar, popular, and influential should generate less than they currently do.

I agree with this. This shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

[Funak]

I think the issue is that by this stage of the game, someone who has made very few investments into tourism can still easily have familiar tourism with all civs. In my opinion, for levels lower than familiar should generate no pressure at all. Familiar, popular, and influential should generate less than they currently do.

Well, if getting familiar is a non-factor, then shouldn't everyone have familiar right back with that guy and negate that pressure that way?

I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea, I'm just questioning the logic behind your reasoning.

 

[Gazebo]

My plan:

Cultural Influence (ideologies) works a bit different now:
Influence below Popular has no effect on other civs (for the purposes of ideological pressure calculation)
The trend (rising, static, falling) modifies your influence level:
Rising uses the full influence value, static the full value minus one, and falling the full value minus two
So, if a civ is popular+ with you but their influence is waning, your people will not clamor for ideological change so willingly.
This also makes passive tourism (i.e. great works, etc.) much more valuable, as static tourism controls your trend.

 

[Txurce]

My plan:

This looks like a good baseline to modulate the effect of ideologies. It should transform the late game, and make it not just more enjoyable, but more addressable by the player. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[CrazyG]

Well, if getting familiar is a non-factor, then shouldn't everyone have familiar right back with that guy and negate that pressure that way?

I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea, I'm just questioning the logic behind your reasoning.

I might not fully understand how the pressure works. I was under the impression that if we both had familiar with each other, we both got pressure with each other (not that we negate each other)

@G

Fantastic idea. It will be great to see a benefit to tourism, but not from event tourism

 

[Grabbl]

I think your influence level is compared to that of your enemy, the one with lower influence over the other gets ideological pressure.

 

[Gidoza]

You heard G. There are only 3 possible states. They have unrest or they are revolting, basically.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept. Many countries in our world do not share ideologies while still being culturally influenced by others, and I don't see revolts because of this. The idea doesn't even strike me as a valid form of design. The world ideology point makes sense for pressure, but within some context, e.g. - if you're fighting the dominant ideology and winning, your pressure from it should either away, because you're proving the value of your own ideology through your success.

 

[Dawnpromise]

My plan:

I like it. Rolls Ideology pressure into an easier to understand yield and makes it more active by forcing players to 'keep up the pressure' by keeping up the influence pressure. Easy to understand and far less damning than the previous "I'm influenced already so I may as well follow the leader" system.

 

[Bridger]

I fundamentally disagree with the concept. Many countries in our world do not share ideologies while still being culturally influenced by others, and I don't see revolts because of this. The idea doesn't even strike me as a valid form of design. The world ideology point makes sense for pressure, but within some context, e.g. - if you're fighting the dominant ideology and winning, your pressure from it should either away, because you're proving the value of your own ideology through your success.

I believe he means that it is not something he can mod.