[MOD] Civics 'n' Stuff

First of all, I'm confused about the thematics for Oligarchy. Why extra food and gold? Actually technically Oligarchies don't function any different from Monarchies, except they are far more corrupt.
It's about time someone called me on that! :). Look, I'll level with you. I had an idea for a civic mechanic and I had an idea for a civic concept. The fact that they don't really fit together is just bad luck.

Allow me to suggest a kind of City States approach - decentralized government. You might want to change the name, but what you'd get was increased maintenance from number of cities, but a little extra science and culture, with No Upkeep. Naturally this has no bearing on the civic itself, but I guess it's ok - even if it doesn't make much sense.
Makes sense. I'll consider it.

Thought control is a little weird, but it gives a lot of bonuses. I'm shocked, really. Either tone it down or make a Super-High Upkeep to balance it.
Do you really think so? I suppose adding in the unlimited spies might tip it over the edge, but it never struck me as inherently broken. Which effect would you remove?

Cybernetic should be high upkeep. It seems a little powerful, but then one recalls the unhappiness penalty from non-Emancipation. However, when you have civics like Thought Control and Hereditary Rule, then that point is rendered moot. I don't see why at all it should give +100% culture, and I kind of understand the +100% science*.

*This is actually a much greater bonus than you might think.
If I get a civic at Robotics, it had better be overpowered. I'm well aware of how powerful +100% :science: can be (memories of an earlier draft of Atheist State, *shudder*) but what are you going to be using it for at this stage of the game? Future Technology? As for the culture bonus, it's a nod to the pedia entry (which some might notice is taken from SMAC).

Corporatism - I mean, the idea of corporatism - seems a little biased. It's kind of like feudalism thematically, but I digress. In practice you've balanced it best of all your new civics, as it is kind of the polar opposite to Environmentalism. But as of BTS Environmentalism is the superior economic civic, so to give Corporatism a little more leverage I'd suggest a large decrease of corporate maintenance, like -50% or -75%.
Ah Corporatism. A relic of an earlier age. This was really my way of independently filling the "hole" that was later filled with, yes, corporations. It's fitting, therefore, that BTS would render it obsolete. I didn't want to make it reduce corporate maintenance, because it's already basically Free Market with other stuff tacked on. Ideally it would give some benefit to corporations, but there's no way to do that without SDK modding. So yeah.

Atheist State is a great idea, and I kind of like how you did it. It's got some good designs, HOWEVER, it doesn't seem to me like it's at all worth it. I mean, there's no way to get rid of religions, so you get all the blazing unhappiness plus the major culture vacuum for - for what? - a measly +25% science. It's rather jarring to see you make such an unbalanced civic as Cybernetics and then counter it with a civic which I would never want to have. Free Religion gives approximately the same bonuses, with the all-important happiness. I suggest you zap the -50% culture, because first of all that is an unbased bias, and second of all it makes the civic wholly worthless.
I assure you, removing the culture penalty will make it unbalanced. I've tried it. I could perhaps reduce it, but I spent so much time balancing it that I'm loath to change it now. Remember what you said earlier about the power of :science: boni, +25% is a lot more than it seems. Even +15% (the difference with Free Religion) is hefty.
 
Get rid of atheist state and add atheism as a religion; that way you could have a "theocracy" or "organized religion" of atheism, which would pretty much be an atheist state anyway.
 
Get rid of atheist state and add atheism as a religion; that way you could have a "theocracy" or "organized religion" of atheism, which would pretty much be an atheist state anyway.

But come on, that's like shooting yourself in the leg. USSR didn't go for atheist society for nothing and I don't think any AI government in Civ IV is going to adapt Theocracy + No State Religion. Replacing some other religion with Atheism is not going to make it any better, just change the flavor a bit. This way, having an atheist (read: religion-persecutive) society might be fun for a change. I really digressed how you can be an expansionist dictator in Civ (Police State, Nationalism, Slavery, State Property) but still go to church like everyone else, or at least give them that possibility. While even the most corrupt dictators are people like everyone else, I think there should be the option of religious persecution, in some way that you might benefit from it.

All in all I like the idea of State Atheism (I like to call it that way). With Inquisitor modcomp thrown in, it'll be wonderful. I'm not sure if I agree with all the aspects of it, but it's a religious civic I've longed to have. Banning religions isn't the same as going fundamentalist no-state-religion. Great addition. Oligarchy though, I never understood why people want to add the +50% Food in capital bonus. Even if that was historical, it was off from somewhere else. And that food didn't go to the peeps, it went to the oligarchs themselves and whoever was in their favor. Civilization doesn't really reflect this with these features. But hey, how could it? Oligarchy is just corrupt aristocracy. Power of the few, oppression of many.

Crezth's City States government suggestion was great in my opinion. It would make sense and replace Representation in regular game (I'm making a personal civic modcomp myself) in a way that seperates it from Universal Suffrage. Good idea. :)
 
Religion - Atheist State. Req Scientific Method. High Upkeep, no state religion, -2 happy for each non-state religion, +25% science, -50% culture.

Do you have a civic for no religions but still believing in creation. I noticed that Atheist State requires scientific method. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in creation. Scientists believe in creation. The Big Bang Theory is the most popular theory among scientists.
 
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in creation.
What?

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God or a similar higher being who is responsible for the act of creation of the universe. This has nothing to do with the Big Bang. A scientist would be perfectly fine as an atheist - just because we are pretty sure that there was a Big Bang, it says zilch about a divine driving force behind the Big Bang.

Cheers, LT.
 
Do you have a civic for no religions but still believing in creation. I noticed that Atheist State requires scientific method. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in creation. Scientists believe in creation. The Big Bang Theory is the most popular theory among scientists.

What are you on, and why aren't you sharing?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any spiritual ideologies. This could be a God(Abrahamitic religions among others), multiple Gods(Such as the Greek and Germanic Pantheons), a spiritual ascendancy or afterlife(Heaven, Nirvana, Negura, etc). To them, what is comprehensible for those on Earth(or possibly elsewhere in existance) is all that matters.

As far as creation goes, anyone who doesn't believe the universe was created somehow is just an idiot. There is an overwhemling amount of evidence that the universe was created at some point, we just don't know how it was created.
 
Instead of an atheist state, I'd prefer just to see "Secular Society". This would indicate a society where religion's role in the society is restricted (perhaps as a result of oppression, or perhaps just as a result of general disinterest) and most of the population is non-practicing or outright atheist.

This may or may not be a result of religious oppression, depending on other factors. If it's also State Property/Police State/Slavery, then perhaps you could imagine it that way. If it's Universal Sufferage/Emancipation/Environmentalism then it might be more like the Scandinavian societies (I think some 80% of Swedes are atheist, but there is no religious oppression). Things like governments based on a personality cult and all that aren't specifically religious developments (nor are they restricted to atheistic societies) and fit better in other categories of civic, like Government and so on. Likewise, atheistic societies aren't necessarily religiously oppressive.

As far as creation goes, anyone who doesn't believe the universe was created somehow is just an idiot. There is an overwhemling amount of evidence that the universe was created at some point

Bit off-topic as it has nothing to do with atheism, but this isn't exactly true. Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle have proposed a "no boundary universe" with no start point at all, in order to explain evidence that contradicts the notion of a finite universe. Instead, Big Bang is just a change of state rather than the beginning of everything. Is Stephen Hawking an idiot?
 
Instead of an atheist state, I'd prefer just to see "Secular Society". This would indicate a society where religion's role in the society is restricted (perhaps as a result of oppression, or perhaps just as a result of general disinterest) and most of the population is non-practicing or outright atheist.

This may or may not be a result of religious oppression, depending on other factors. If it's also State Property/Police State/Slavery, then perhaps you could imagine it that way. If it's Universal Sufferage/Emancipation/Environmentalism then it might be more like the Scandinavian societies (I think some 80% of Swedes are atheist, but there is no religious oppression). Things like governments based on a personality cult and all that aren't specifically religious developments (nor are they restricted to atheistic societies) and fit better in other categories of civic, like Government and so on. Likewise, atheistic societies aren't necessarily religiously oppressive.
Would everyone please stop reading "state" as "society"? It's not an atheist society. When I said Atheist State I meant Atheist state. I didn't mean a society in which most of the population is atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with the government and therefore nothing to do with the game. A secular government is Free Religion. An oppressive, anti-religion government is Atheist State. It is not a slight against atheism, it does not in any way suggest that this has something to do with personal atheism, and CIVICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

To elaborate on that last point, because it's an important point and my view of what the civics system represents factors heavily into my mods (especially, for obvious reasons, this one). The entire point of civics is that they can be mixed and matched. If you think a civic represents one thing when paired with one set of civics and something else when paired with another, you've completely and tragically missed the point. It is perfectly possible for a democratic government to ban religion, as well as all manner of civic combinations. If you believe otherwise then the fundamental assumptions of this mod are irreconcilably incompatible with your own.
 
If you believe otherwise then the fundamental assumptions of this mod are irreconcilably incompatible with your own.

Hey, now, be nice. :) He's not like the Optimizer guy on the first page.
I'm half surprised you didn't scream and yell at the person earlier, named Some Guy.

Now I'll probably play with this mod as soon as you can tell me if it works with 3.19.
OH, and I totally understand the concept of an Atheist State, trust me. I know what you were going for.
 
If you believe otherwise then the fundamental assumptions of this mod are irreconcilably incompatible with your own.

Hey, now, be nice. :) He's not like the Optimizer guy on the first page.
That is me being nice. If you don't like it, it's not for you. There's nothing I can do about that. I'm certainly not going to move my mod away from what I believe just so it'll be closer to what some necromancer believes. And that was the nicest way I could think of saying that.

I'm half surprised you didn't scream and yell at the person earlier, named Some Guy.
I figured anyone who posted what he did clearly was unwilling or incapable of reading the posts before him and therefore probably wouldn't read a reply.

Now I'll probably play with this mod as soon as you can tell me if it works with 3.19.
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. It's just an XML mod, so it ought to work. The only problems I can see are some changes in 3.19 not being present because they alter the same files as this mod, but I don't think they do. Try it out and post any problems you might have.
 
I'll give it a whirl. No promises that I'll play it more than I played Morrowind or anything, (100+ hours and counting) but I will give it the old college try.
 
The entire point of civics is that they can be mixed and matched ... It is perfectly possible for a democratic government to ban religion, as well as all manner of civic combinations.

Sure, its possible. But it would be more conceivable to have an atheistic society and then determine the nature of the state via other civics.

Free religion isn't quite the same thing. A civ running free religion could be highly religious (and in fact, the civic encourages you to spread many religions in order to enjoy its maximum benefits, so we're not really talking about an atheistic society at all here).

What I'm thinking of is a society where religion simply doesn't play a very big role and you trade off the benefits of religion for other benefits. It's just a name change, but it adds more flexibility, because the reasons behind and nature of the reduced role is undetermined. Less suspension of disbelief required to mix and match. It lets you have Sweden or a similar country, not religiously oppressive, and not having a really vigorous multifaith bonanza, but simply not very focussed on religion. But it also lets you have the USSR. Thus, it has expanded utility.
 
But he's talking about and making an Atheist State, not an Atheist Society. Sigh.
There is a significant difference here.
It's comparing Apples and oranges.
 
But he's talking about and making an Atheist State, not an Atheist Society. Sigh.
There is a significant difference here.
It's comparing Apples and oranges.
^ This.

Read the first paragraph of my post again, frekk. I think it's more important to what you're talking about than the second.
 
I'm just saying it would be more generic and could apply to a wider range of possibilities if it wasn't restricted to that one particular circumstance. Easier to mix and match if it can be any sort of atheistic culture, whether it's a state or not. As a state, it doesn't work well for a culture like Sweden, and neither does Free Religion (since in FR you actually have missionaries running all over the place - it's a religious bonanza, not a religiously disinterested society). Its scope is restricted, therefore, its utility in the game is restricted. As a society, though, it can apply to a religiously intolerant state, as well as to other things.

I know that he's talking about a state. I'm saying that in general, this isn't how civics are done. Most civics cast a wide net, aiming to be as unspecific as possible. Emancipation can happen in a theocratic police state, and slavery can happen in a pacifist democracy. The state is, generally speaking, defined under "Government" and the character of the legal system under "Legal", and the categories are supposed to be discrete to one another.
 
And yet, I don't care at all about Sweden. :)
Sorry, sticking with what was said. That is all.
 
Well, it isn't like I don't get it. A state where religion is banned, not very complex is it? But it is restrictive, allowing for fewer possibilities and defying the general tendency of the way the civics in the game work.

What I'm trying to get across is that this doesn't fit under the "Religion" category. It's a legal or governmental matter.

That's why, in the game, you could have a theocracy in a universal sufferage democracy where you have many different religions. Because it's not necessarily constitutionally theocratic; it might just be that most of the decision-making classes happen to belong to one particular religion and tend to be hawkish about it. It's a theocracy, in that these persons dictate the decisions for the society but see themselves as working for a "higher power", even though you may have formal separation of church and state, and even though large portions of the population might belong to other religions. It's not exclusive of that kind of possibility. This is how the civics work - they are general, and the categories are discrete. "State" does not belong in the religion category.

The kind of society you're talking about can still be represented if "state" is dropped. All you do, is have a police state or other repressive legal/government civic along with an Atheism religious civic. USSR for instance could be Police State/Bureaucracy/Slavery/State Property/Atheism, and I think that pretty much gets it across perfectly well. There's just no need to have "state" in the religion category.
 
I seem to have lost the war. Your turn, Dryhad.
Maybe you can explain it better. After all, it is your mod.

<facepalm>
 
I completely agree with DavidB1111. Absolute facepalm. An Atheistic State in the Religion category makes absolute perfect sense. The bonuses make perfect sense. Why people care so much about it I have no idea.


By the way, a "Secular Society" is nothing like an Atheist State.
 
Well, it isn't like I don't get it. A state where religion is banned, not very complex is it? But it is restrictive, allowing for fewer possibilities and defying the general tendency of the way the civics in the game work.
As I said earlier if you believe that one civic can have two different meanings depending on nothing more than other civics choices then you don't understand the "general tendency of the way the civics in the game work"

What I'm trying to get across is that this doesn't fit under the "Religion" category. It's a legal or governmental matter.
All the civics are legal or government matters! What the hell do you think theocracy is?

That's why, in the game, you could have a theocracy in a universal sufferage democracy where you have many different religions. Because it's not necessarily constitutionally theocratic; it might just be that most of the decision-making classes happen to belong to one particular religion and tend to be hawkish about it. It's a theocracy, in that these persons dictate the decisions for the society but see themselves as working for a "higher power", even though you may have formal separation of church and state, and even though large portions of the population might belong to other religions. It's not exclusive of that kind of possibility. This is how the civics work - they are general, and the categories are discrete. "State" does not belong in the religion category.
This is so wrong that I'm not sure where to start. I normally like to respond to individual points but that's not possible here because this entire paragraph is based on so many faulty premises. I'm just going to try to define what the religion category is.

The religion category represents not how society feels about religion or whatever you think it is, it represents how religion interacts with the government. Free religion is church state separation, theocracy is the government run by religion, atheist state is religion being banned. I'm not sure what kind of madness led you to believe that church state separation is inextricably linked with democracy, but such a sentiment defies the general tendency of the way the civics in the game work! Once again I stress that civics are independant and self-contained. The whole point of civics is so that you can have a democratic government without freedom of religion, or a police state with it. And, once again, I stress that if you will not accept this then we have nothing to discuss. I am not about to move my mod away from my own view just to move it closer to yours. In my view your view is wrong!

The kind of society you're talking about can still be represented if "state" is dropped.
If you believe that then you have not understood a word I have said.

All you do, is have a police state or other repressive legal/government civic along with an Atheism religious civic. USSR for instance could be Police State/Bureaucracy/Slavery/State Property/Atheism, and I think that pretty much gets it across perfectly well. There's just no need to have "state" in the religion category.
That's not how civics work, that's not have religious civics work, and that's certainly not how my mod works.
 
Top Bottom