Improvements & civics rebalancing - again

[Kalina]

There was civic mod for LENA, and as far as I remember all civics there were created anew. There was much more civics there, but every was weaker then normal civics, so it was more about combinations of civics then individual ones.

 

[Valkrionn]

I was planning to use this as a base: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=319109

 

[Opera]

Which is the point: combination of civics.

I say: scrap the current design and start anew. It's more work but less contrained thus more creative and more fun.

 

[Valkrionn]

Agreed. The link I posted is the general guild-lines I'll be using: Each group of civics has a defined job, unlike now. Multiple civics interact with each other, rather than individual civics being strong.

 

[Opera]

Hmhm. I think two starting civics may be a good idea. This needs us to throw away the 'dummy starting civics' effect which I hate, even though some will say: their effect is that they don't have any effect. Starting civics shouldn't ALWAYS be a 'switch away from it asap'.

If you ask me, we should also redesign the tech tree because dumping the new era on it isn't quite fitting and seems really 'distorted'. As 'ancient' era is quite short then you have mega-huge 'classical' and 'medieval' which are respectively mid- and end- game. Then you have tiny 'renaissance' which is... after-game? Some techs just haven't any use, so I say: scrap them, shorten the tech tree so we can get to renaissance techs.

But, well, I'm kinda feeling like needing to break from the main mod. May not be such a good idea

 

[Bootsiuv]

I would be for a complete rework of civics.

The orbis civics, while better balanced than base in my opinion, try to do too much in too many different areas.

Streamlining some (or better yet starting from scratch) sounds like a good idea.

 

[Cadaveres]

My two cents on this topic:

- I am in favor of more civics with less effects for each of them, with great possibilities of combination.
- I am against restricted civics: if a civic must be used by a specific civilization I would add the mechanic directly to the corresponding civilization, not the civic. The same with religions: if a civic can be used just by following a specific religion then the corresponding mechanic can be added to the religion itself, not to a civic.
- I am in favor of civic uniqueness and personality, whatever that means
- Also categories should be re-structured somehow, I believe that they've lost the meaning. More categories with less civics would be cool...

Now some fast brainstorming (that most probably is crap, but at least might give some inspiration as a bad idea):

Category: Religious power
- Aconfessional: No state religion. Religions spread normally.
- Traditional: Pagan Temples UB and elder councils effect is doubled. Religious buildings effect is "halved". The effect of the state religion in the city is "halved".
- Official religion: +1 if state religion is present in the city. +1 per non-state religion present in the city.
- Monasticism (temples act as monasteries, preserving knowledge above all): All temples (pagan and religious) get +25% . Prophets and Great Prophets get +1 , +25% war weariness. The rest of the effects of the temples is "halved".
- Atheist: No state religion. Religions less likely to spread. +1 per religion on city. Cannot build temples. -30% number of cities maintenance. -30% distance to palace maintenance. +2 per specialist
- Crusade: +1 if state religion is present in the city. +2 per non-state religion present in the city. Can draft 2 units per turn. Must be at war with at least one civilization with a different state religion. Several free units per city. New units start with the "morale" promotion. -25% war weariness

This schema gives at least 3 options for agnostic civilizations regarding religions (Atheist, aconfessional, traditional). At the beginning, the two options would be aconfessional and traditional. Notice that crusade does not give experience to new units, nor make them build faster. You don't get better resources nor better training for being on a crusade, do you? that would correspond to other civics.

I think the main point is: try to give always several choices, try to make each civic feel unique (not very similar effects), try to make each category feel conceptually unique, try to avoid obvious combos (military state + conquest).

Ouch this was a looong post . Thanks for reading if you reached this point
Regards

 

[Ahwaric]

Overall the balancing of yields and the arrangement of the early worker techs looks really well thought through for me. Two minor suggestions:
- maybe allow for pastures on any non-forest temperate tile for 1 food, gaining 1 commerce with trading and a chance to discover appropriate food resources. This makes non-forest, non-water tiles at least workable early on.

I want that niche filled by yurt line.
In general, I try to deifne improvements to fall into one of the categories: base, resource, advanced
Base ones are easy to get and have chance to discover resources, resource are for resources and advanced are special ones for late game.
That makes handling both yields & art easier.
So, farm, forester's lodge, quarry, yurt are base improvements. Plantation, camp, mine & pasture are respective resource improvements. Lumbermill and windmill are advanced ones. As you can see there is no strict "base improvements do not provide resources" or "every line has advanced version", but I still try to keep to it.
SO, maybe we should adjust yurts to fill the role you described?

- Mother Lode gives 25 Gold per Quarry improvement. Description still says "per Mine" improveement. Should it better be for both?

It is actually 35 gold per mine and 20 per quarry, but the help text needs updating. I will do it while preparing Orbis stand-alone install.

+2 food early on would lead to the supercharged city development presently seen in RifE, especially with the abundance of health and happy resources in Orbis.

yes, that change was already tried and is out of question. SO the only option is to limit lodge later bonuses.
Also, I am ok with foresters being good early option. I just want them to be less so later.

Which is the point: combination of civics.
I say: scrap the current design and start anew. It's more work but less contrained thus more creative and more fun.
Hmhm. I think two starting civics may be a good idea. This needs us to throw away the 'dummy starting civics' effect which I hate, even though some will say: their effect is that they don't have any effect. Starting civics shouldn't ALWAYS be a 'switch away from it asap'.

First sentence, agreed.
I agree that starting civics should have bonuses. They should probably not be that great, and make changing them for bigger empires a priority, but should not be dummy.
I am not going the total rewrite route.
I thought on the current system a lot and do not think I would make that much better anyway. But big changes are needed.

If you ask me, we should also redesign the tech tree because dumping the new era on it isn't quite fitting and seems really 'distorted'. As 'ancient' era is quite short then you have mega-huge 'classical' and 'medieval' which are respectively mid- and end- game. Then you have tiny 'renaissance' which is... after-game? Some techs just haven't any use, so I say: scrap them, shorten the tech tree so we can get to renaissance techs.

Ancient age contains a lot of techs, but it is tempting to get a tech or two from classical, so it ends quickly while you still research ancient age techs.
Renaissance perhaps needs expanding. I also had an idea that being in renaissance tech grants a small bonus to science output. But that is probably better added to civics, as it is impossible to display era tech bonus.
Regarding cutting techs, can you be more specific?
Like: "Optics - it sucks, so move celestail compass to x, black citadel to y and sight bonus to z" Or propose what to add to such techs...
Also, I like techs granting final upgrades to do just that (in most cases at least)

- I am against restricted civics: if a civic must be used by a specific civilization I would add the mechanic directly to the corresponding civilization, not the civic.

Agreed. I try to limit it as much as I can, but still much to be done. Maybe more buildings then...

- I am in favor of civic uniqueness and personality, whatever that means

Yeah, whatever that means...

Now some fast brainstorming (that most probably is crap, but at least might give some inspiration as a bad idea):

Not at all. I really need specific proposals "do x to y". Consider such category added, especially as I have been thinking of it for a long time

So, some decisions:

• religious civics category in current shape will be gone. New, redesigned in spirit of Cadaveres proposal (and BtS religion category) will be added. Of course I will twist it to to be recognizible any more
• starting civics no longer dummy ones (ideas please )
• remove some effects from existing civis and spread them to new ones.

Questions:

• what to do with religious civics - should be redistributed (Arete to labor, purity to religion/social values, slumbering coven to government)
• what to do to values category?
• with despotism being a normal civic, should god king be kept? Or should it be split into despotism & theocracy, with a religious civic reflecting that the despot is divine, or at least people think so

I will update second post with my view of new civics soon. First, what do they represent, then we can talk about specific modifiers

 

[Ahwaric]

Ok, I have completed the list. Take a look and tell me what do you think.
Things I need the most is your opinions on cultural values, religious civics category, civics requiring religions/civs (should they stay or should they go? ). Also, how do you like the economy category...

Once the corrections are made we shall start to talk about specific bonuses.

 

[tokala]

I want that niche filled by yurt line.
In general, I try to deifne improvements to fall into one of the categories: base, resource, advanced
Base ones are easy to get and have chance to discover resources, resource are for resources and advanced are special ones for late game.
That makes handling both yields & art easier.
So, farm, forester's lodge, quarry, yurt are base improvements. Plantation, camp, mine & pasture are respective resource improvements. Lumbermill and windmill are advanced ones. As you can see there is no strict "base improvements do not provide resources" or "every line has advanced version", but I still try to keep to it.
SO, maybe we should adjust yurts to fill the role you described?

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Then what about making yurts buildable for all Civs on tundra/plains/grassland. Change yield to 1 food, growth to Aul after 20 turns for 1 food 1 commerce. Aul can gain further bonus with appropriate techs: horseback riding +1F, stirrups +1C, Hippus get +1H for Yurt and Aul. Aul and Yurt can pop animal resources.
So everyone can get by on pastoralism, but it needs some dedication along the mounted line. And only the Hippus can thrive on it.

Edit: After some playtesting toned down the tech boni. ATM Rhoanna with a riverside plains start can rather effortless outproduce AND outtech everything but a FoL Forest economy.

 

[Cadaveres]

what to do with religious civics - should be redistributed (Arete to labor, purity to religion/social values, slumbering coven to government)

I'd rather eliminate all of them and try to add the effect either to the religion itself or to the corresponding temples / buildings. I have the feeling that almost always you switch to a specific religion and when you discover the adequate technology you switch to the religious civic and that's all you think about religious civics.

For instance, when Arete is discovered all your RoK temples get "+1 on each mine/quarry if state religion is RoK". The same with Guardian of Nature, all FoL temples get "+1 per forest and +2 if state religion is FoL".

Also, if the new religious civics affect the temples (like increasing or reducing the effect of temples) this new yields per temple would be affected.

what to do to values category?

I like some of the civics there, although the category itself does not make a lot of sense. Maybe try to reorganize civics into new categories and preserve the best ideas from "values"?

with despotism being a normal civic, should god king be kept? Or should it be split into despotism & theocracy, with a religious civic reflecting that the despot is divine, or at least people think so

My idea would be to create two different categories:
- one related to the authoritarianism that would have (basically, how is the governing power distributed):
- Despotism / absolutism
- City states
- Aristocracy
- Republic
- Maybe some new idea?

- another one related to the justification of the power itself (basically, why do the people that hold the power have this power):
- Theocracy (gods)
- Magocracy (magic)
- Military state (weapons)
- Humanism (people)
- Maybe some new idea?

If you want god king, you go for absolutism + theocracy, If you want something like a council of mages you can go to aristocracy + magocracy. If you want a pure elective democracy you go for humanism + republic. And if you want SPARTANS you go for military state + city states. There are plenty of combinations

 

[Luckmann]

I can't wait to try Absolutism/Humanism.

 

[Valkrionn]

Plenty of justification for that, actually. Many different groups of people have selected from amongst themselves one supreme ruler, who has all the power he wants.... Until he pisses them off. Generally only seen with small groups/tribes, but there are larger examples too. Could consider the original definition of Dictator: A man elected to supreme power in times of need, but with a limited term.

 

[tokala]

You should remeber one thing - forester's lodge needs forest. Which has to be there or be planted.
And I ma fine if early cities live on hunting and few food resources. But I want farming be the best way to gain food in late game. Unless you are running FoL, in that case it should be ok to have lot of forests.
But I might cut the bonuses forester's get a bit. Suggestions?

ErebusContinent and Mountain Coast provide plenty of forest.
In any case, you should not be screwed if you don't get a forest start.

I think the fundamental problem is that the change to 3 food (3F) consumption per pop made the tradional yield relations go haywire.
In FFH you can use the +2F of one farm with agrarianism to run for example a plains mine (+4H) or a specialist. In Orbis you need THREE Farms for the same effect. You need sanitation to get again to +2F. But due to the 3F per pop you would need 1 1/2 farms to run a specialist.

So the maximum yield of a riverside farm is 5F/2C, and it can be used to work either 2/3 of a specialist, a grassland quarry (1F/3H/1C) or two towns for 2F/0H/6C (taxation). Therefore a farming economy with focus on hammers has a sustained output of 1.5 hammers and 1.5 commerce per tile (!). With slavery and RoK 2H/2C. Still not very impressive.

Cottage economy gets 4 2/3 commerce per tile if ignoring cottage growth, on average probably 4C.
Specialist Economy is pretty much pointless (2C) .
On top of that you get the 20% production penalty for agrarianism.

Now the forest economy:
Basic riverside grassland forest with lodge: 3F/1H/1C. But you will be running survival, won't you?: 3F/2H/1C thats already alomost as good as a full-fledged farming/quarry production. And let's face it, you will also run FoL until a significant part of your forest has become ancient. So you end up with:
4F/2H/2C or 3F/3H/2C (plains or hill).
Even when not running survival und not on a river, you get a sustained output of 2 hammers and 1 commerce per tile.


The tl;dr version:
For a fraction af the research investment, a basic FoL forest economy is at least as good as a mid game (almost maxed out) farm economy

Suggestions:
In any case scrap the hammer for lodges.
As a basic elven forest economy is better balanced atm, reconsider the elven citizens mechanic, suggestion either scrap it or tone it down ( -10% food / +2XP ?)

If codable, change survival to provide an additional 2 food per city, with slight culture and hefty science penalty ( -10% culture / -25% science ). This makes it suitable for small cities/bad starting locations, accordingly make survival the default economic civic. To reduce the effect of bad starts in any case, I suggest to change the palace commerce to 12, as in FF.

To make farms worthwile, they need another 1 food rather early in the tech tree (construction?). This gets you 6 food out of farms, with a 20% hammer penalty you still get slightly more production out of a FoL forest economy, but for commerce/specialists farms are superior.

Further balancing suggestion: Due to the "3 food system" river tiles are even stronger than in FFH. The "per tile" effect of Levee and River Port are making them ridiculously OP. Change to fractional bonus (10% Port, 20% Levee)

(steps down from soapbox)

 

[Bootsiuv]

I play on smaller maps with fewer civs, so I usually enjoy Erebus, as there usually aren't any oceans dividing the civs, only mountain ranges with the occasional pass.

Forests are also quite abundant on these maps, as are rivers flowing through the various canyons, making river ports/levees possible in almost all major cities.

I almost feel obligated to go FoL to get a forest economy going (although I tend to run quite a few cottages as well), regardless what civ/alignment I decide to play. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the rare desert start, but even tundra forests with a lodge can become strong tiles when the aforementioned buildings are built in the corresponding cities.

Perhaps, instead of toning down the lodge, tone down the river buildings. They should really work more like markets i.e. they give a percentage bonus to the final outcome, not changing the base tile yields.

I still think the farm economy is too weak, even in the late game. I generally only farm grain resources (wheat, flax, etc.).

I like the idea of giving farms another +1 at some point in the tech tree, even if it's after sanitation.

 

[Ahwaric]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Then what about making yurts buildable for all Civs on tundra/plains/grassland. Change yield to 1 food, growth to Aul after 20 turns for 1 food 1 commerce. Aul can gain further bonus with appropriate techs: horseback riding +1F, stirrups +1C, Hippus get +1H for Yurt and Aul. Aul and Yurt can pop animal resources.
So everyone can get by on pastoralism, but it needs some dedication along the mounted line. And only the Hippus can thrive on it.

That is preety much the case now. But some adjustments are needed as to where the yurts are buildable. Damned Malakim ruin my every plan...

I'd rather eliminate all of them and try to add the effect either to the religion itself or to the corresponding temples / buildings.

I quite like some of them (sacrifice the weak, guradian of nature, arete, slumbering coven). But if more people say so, that might solve my civic dillemas.

I like some of the civics there, although the category itself does not make a lot of sense. Maybe try to reorganize civics into new categories and preserve the best ideas from "values"?

Most of them do not fit any other category, and I do not want to mix too much. That is usually bad idea
Values fit FfH (or any dark fantasy) universe quite well. So why not?

My idea would be to create two different categories:
- one related to the authoritarianism that would have (basically, how is the governing power distributed)
- another one related to the justification of the power itself (basically, why do the people that hold the power have this power)

I do not think it is realistic. If mages rule, they do not allow other people to vote. Same with theocracy - people do not vote on religious dogmas. Military state is rule by the army, and quite authoritarian by definition.
In general, I think it is both unrealistic and too complicated.

Plenty of justification for that, actually. Many different groups of people have selected from amongst themselves one supreme ruler, who has all the power he wants.... Until he pisses them off. Generally only seen with small groups/tribes, but there are larger examples too. Could consider the original definition of Dictator: A man elected to supreme power in times of need, but with a limited term.

If someone is dictator, people usually do not vote for reelections. See Hitler - the election he won was the last one before his death. The last fair one at least.

I think the fundamental problem is that the change to 3 food (3F) consumption per pop made the tradional yield relations go haywire.

There is a reason I have introduced 3food per population. First, some improvements were too good in Orbis. But more important is flavour - food was too easy to get, and that was not the case in medieval world.

Cottage economy gets 4 2/3 commerce per tile if ignoring cottage growth, on average probably 4C.
Specialist Economy is pretty much pointless (2C) .

There was a long talk (with plenty of calculations) that specialist economy is clearly superior to cottage economy in orbis. Only a slight change was made, and I think the two are quite balanced now.
Farms are the best food source if you do not count resources. True, they are not that great. But you need them to get opther improvements.
But I will probably cut some bonuses for forester to make it less good in late game. As I said, I am fine with it being good early. But I want cutting ancient forests to build farm a viable (and different) option.
I really like the suggestion to make survival good for small cities and bad for big ones, or if you have many

Perhaps, instead of toning down the lodge, tone down the river buildings. They should really work more like markets i.e. they give a percentage bonus to the final outcome, not changing the base tile yields

River port currently is nice and has a lot of flavour (the longer the river, the more you get) but is probably too good to be true. Not sure about levees (And tehy grant exactly the same bonus as in BtS).
Also, I want rivers to be good and desirable as founding location. Rivers are important, and were even more so. Please show me a big city without a river in it. I do not count Constantionople, it is a special case (narrow straits).
Also, you get fresh water with aqueducts in Orbis, even if there is no lake or river. So one less river bonus.

 

[Kalina]

I quite like some of them (sacrifice the weak, guradian of nature, arete, slumbering coven). But if more people say so, that might solve my civic dillemas.

I think they should stay, redistributed to different categories. Ones that are enabled with different tech than one founding religion are especially nice, as you have to decide if you should go for generic tech or religion specific ones. This way, you can get religion benefits in steps instead of getting them at once. It's good for early religions. Btw, all civics you listed are enabled by different tech than religion founding ones

Most of them do not fit any other category, and I do not want to mix too much. That is usually bad idea
Values fit FfH (or any dark fantasy) universe quite well. So why not?

I like values. At least, most of them, with Isolation being one exception.

 

[Valkrionn]

If someone is dictator, people usually do not vote for reelections. See Hitler - the election he won was the last one before his death. The last fair one at least.

Which is why I said it's usually only reliable in small groups and tribes. If they don't like you, they'll just bash you over the head.

 

[tokala]

There is a reason I have introduced 3food per population. First, some improvements were too good in Orbis. But more important is flavour - food was too easy to get, and that was not the case in medieval world.

I didn't want to suggest that 3 per pop is inherently bad. But the implications of this seemingly minor change are really far-reaching.
Generally I really like the flavor/simulation approach you are taking with Orbis, LOTS of stuff done in this regard. I especially appreciate the changes to the early techs, had been asking myself often how to make them more "logical".

There was a long talk (with plenty of calculations) that specialist economy is clearly superior to cottage economy in orbis. Only a slight change was made, and I think the two are quite balanced now.

May I ask humbly for directions? Edit: found it See follow-up post.

Farms are the best food source if you do not count resources. True, they are not that great. But you need them to get opther improvements.

My point was that you cannot consider the the surplus of a farm (or other improvement) in isolation, but rather what other tiles this surplus allows to work for //gpp as food in itself gets you nothing but more worked tiles.
For mature cities only your production and commerce output matters in the end (OK minus settlers/workers/conquest) not how much food you need to fuel this output.

Also, I want rivers to be good and desirable as founding location.River port currently is nice and has a lot of flavour (the longer the river, the more you get) but is probably too good to be true. Not sure about levees (And tehy grant exactly the same bonus as in BtS).

From a simulationist PoV, the port is a point source of income, depending on the wealth of the region and multiplying it via cheap long-range transport/trade (hence %). The length of the river is already incorporated in the +1 per tile, which would also get increased by a % bonus.
What makes the levee (and rivers in general) stronger in Orbis is again the 3 system, which increases the overall / and / ratios, so and especially are rather scarce.
Again I really really like the flavory fact that river tiles are stronger compared to FFH, and so you are pretty much forced to settle on rivers, but levee and port are just too strong.

 

[tokala]

There was a long talk (with plenty of calculations) that specialist economy is clearly superior to cottage economy in orbis. Only a slight change was made, and I think the two are quite balanced now.

I think the aforementioned thread illustrates my comment about 3 p.pop making the "traditional yield relations go haywire"
I don't want to be disrespectful, but if i haven't missed something (like discussing a floodplains world ), for most people the consequences of the 3 system had't really sunk in. The discussion is based on improvement yields not on total yields, but it is not taken into consideration that the base yield of an unimproved grassland tile is 2, and consequently effectively -1. Therefore most calculations presented there are flawed.

Example: +3 from a maxed out farm are not sufficient to run a specialist, as +1 gets consumed to reach the breakeven point of 3 , yielding an effective +2 surplus.

+2 per farm tile (Max. without agrarianism) accordingly is sufficient to run 1/3 of a specialist or one cottage. Seems not very balanced

Might I suggest to consider some variant of the "elven citizen" growth limiter to provide the mechanism for slow city growth instead of the 3. In my experience this is working quite well for the stated purpose of avoiding "super city sprawl". This way the tried and tested yield relations can be kept, and you have only one easyly tunable parameter to adjust.
Technological advancement then could provide changes to the global growth limiter. Makes also sense flavourwise that a fraction of the harvest is eaten by vermin/gets embezzled by corrupt officials/rots away. (Anyone remember Kaiser for the C64 )