Modcomp: Historical Favourite Civics

[lumpthing]

Ive deliberately avoided making expansion civics into preferred civics because I think its important that the AI chooses expansion civics purely in terms of game mechanics. With the other civics, they all have advantages and disadvantages, whatever your situation, but with the expansion civics, you only want the civic that maximises your stability accoding to game situation.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Lumpthing: Very nice idea. I too am tired of seeing for instance Mao's China turn into a theocracy and almost every government in Hereditary Rule as late as the 20th-21st century. I think civics should play a more prominent role in the game so that political alliances can be formed based on what policies your government advocates and not just on proximity to your borders or state religion.

What would really be great if each civ had a LEAST favorite civic as well as a favorite one so we could avoid situations where it is painfully obvious that a certain civic simply just does not fit it either with the leader's style or the historical epoch that the world is now in.

Your leader traits are pretty much on target except that for Caesar and Pericles, Representation is already well past the ancient era. Disappointing that there wasn't an Early Republic civic in the game for that era.

I agree with not having Lincoln's fav civic be Emancipation; Nationhood might also be a possibility you might wanna consider.

Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.

Nice work!

 

[Úmarth]

Regarding Caesar: the only early civic I think remotely fits is slavery. Since he, you know, enslaved half of Gaul. I also thing Bureaucracy would be much more appropriate for Augustus, since he created the foundations of rule by an Imperial equestrian bureaucracy over senatorial offices. I wasn't aware he put more emphasis on military service than any other Roman leader either.

Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.

That doesn't change the fact that the Caliphates were an explicitly Islamic institution; claiming legitimacy from their 'descent' from Muhammed, in the same way the Pope claims legitimacy from his descent from St Peter, and governed by Islamic law. Perhaps the real issue is that in modern times theocracy is rightly or wrongly automatically thought to be an overly repressive system of government.

 

[lumpthing]

Lumpthing: Very nice idea. I too am tired of seeing for instance Mao's China turn into a theocracy and almost every government in Hereditary Rule as late as the 20th-21st century.

Unfortunately this modcomp won't stop modern China from going theocratic (that would require proper hacking, beyond my knowledge) but it should drastically reduce the number of monarchies in the modern age.

Your leader traits are pretty much on target except that for Caesar and Pericles, Representation is already well past the ancient era. Disappointing that there wasn't an Early Republic civic in the game for that era.

You're quite right, don't know why that didn't occur to me. Do you have any suggestions for replacements?

I agree with not having Lincoln's fav civic be Emancipation; Nationhood might also be a possibility you might wanna consider.

Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.

I did hesitate on making Arabia like theocracy for precisely the reason you mention. In the end though I felt theocracy was more appropriate for Arabia's 'historical mission' in RFC because of the XP bonuses to units. After all, Arabia did have a very formidable army and was very expansionistic, and both traits were inspired by its faith. Theocracy is obviously the best civic for simulating that. Of course its true that the Caliphate was also the home of many great buildings and universities and so forth, so Organized Religion would also fit. But I think overall, RFC Arabia should be focussed more on military expansion than peaceful building.

Regarding Caesar: the only early civic I think remotely fits is slavery. Since he, you know, enslaved half of Gaul. I also thing Bureaucracy would be much more appropriate for Augustus, since he created the foundations of rule by an Imperial equestrian bureaucracy over senatorial offices. I wasn't aware he put more emphasis on military service than any other Roman leader either.

Okay I really need to make this clearer because people keep misunderstanding it. This modcomp is not meant to be about particular leaders, but about the civ during the entire era in which it is, in RFC, led by the leader. So Julius's favourite civic does not represent Julius's favourite civic but rather that of the early Roman Empire while Augustus' favourite civic does not represent Augustus' favourite civic but rather that of the later Roman Empire. With that in mind, do you still think that the civic preferences should be changed? I only have a vague awareness of Roman history so I'm very open to suggestions from people who are more clued-up on it than me.

 

[onedreamer]

Vassalage for Rome (or Viceroyality) is just plainly wrong, that you apply it to leaders or to civs. Bureocracy for the Augustian age is much better, and for Julius Caesar the only one that makes sense is Despotism (since Representation is not available). I also think that you could give some kind of bonus to Despotism, this was the most widely used "civic" in the ancient age by the mediterranean civs (except Egypt), and putting it on the same level of Barbarism or Paganism is not very accurate.

 

[lumpthing]

I'll happily change Rome-Augustus to bureaucracy but I'm not going to make Despotism anybody's favourite civic, because it makes no sense in game terms and I don't want to do any modding beyond favourite civics. I prefer to think of civ-'Despotism' as meaning rule by a single person but without all the ritual, respected traditions and balance of power of 'Hereditary Rule' which makes the latter a more stable and effective form of government. I know that's not the historical meaning of the word 'Despotism' but I think it makes more sense like that in the context of what it is in civ. Any other suggestions for Rome-Julius? I could just make it bureaucracy as well.

The main reason I chose vassalage for Rome is that Rome should be an uber warmonger civ - able to control a vast, elite army. So although the term 'vassalage' may not be appropriate for Rome, the effects certainly are.

 

[onedreamer]

Subjugation may work better, but I forgot when is it availabe. Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

 

[scu98rkr]

I guess for Ceasar your going to have to do hereditary rule.

I know this doesnt fit the republic from 500 BC to 50ish BC, but it does fit the Roman kingdom from 750BC to 500BC and rise and fall starts Rome at 800BC.

Also its fits Julius the Character although I understand this is nt what your aiming for.

I dont see that any of the other traits are likely to be usable by Julius.

I also dont like the Emancipation for Ragnar, the Vikings/Scandinavians really need another leader here. But i suppose it fits the countries and it obviously doesnt have any effect till later in the game.

 

[scu98rkr]

I also think nationhood would suit Napoleon better. Surely the French revolution had a huge effect on the modern idea of a nations. Also Napoleon the conscripted vast armies to help in his conquests of Europe.

Surely this would fit this period of the game better and help give Napoleon some teeth.

 

[scu98rkr]

also you've got 4 bureaucracies and only one nationhood so far.

 

[scu98rkr]

Also I agree with keep Kublai as vassalage. Although it might not fit his personality the Mongols were first and for most conquerors. The timeframe between Genghis and Kublai is also very small. So it makes to try and help the mongols keep a large army so they can continue their conquests.

 

[Jinnai]

Japan should have a few more. After Europeans came it went through some dynamic situations


Japan-Kamakura: Vassalage (Ancient, Classica, Feudal and Early Sengoku ages)
Japan-Tokugowa: Caste System or Mercantilism (Late Sengoku and Tokugowa Age)
Japan-Meiji: Theocracy (Meiji Restoration age)
Japan-Showa: Pacifism

I had thought to add:
Japan-Fujiwara: Mercantilism (for Ancient & Classical ages) to represent the more isolationist policy, but Japan already would have 4 leaders with this, more than some larger civs.

Tokugowa: Both represent appropriate aspects. Caste system does better since Japan did still trade somewhat, however Caste System allows scientists which is not what happened in this era.
-----------
Turkey-Mustafa: Representation (End of Ottoman Empire)
-----------
Vikings: Sorry, emancipation is not what they should have. They captured others to make slaves, not those born as a Viking.

Viking-Lief: Nationhood
Viking-Canute: Free Market

Lief is used as one of the more world-reknown vikings. This would be early era exapansionist, pludering vikings. Canute represents the age after great pluderings.
----------
Carthage: Free Market. They were the trade empire before Rome took them out. Only though if they can actually achieve the prereq.
----------
Portugal-Garcia: Nationhood
Portugal-Henry: Mercantilism
Portugal-Salazar: Representation

Each of these represents 4 major points of Portugese history as best as the Civis allow. Nationhood is when they were still fighting to establish their right to exist against Spain and Moors, Mercanltiism is when they began to discover and become an empire. Portugal Charles represents the period of modern portugal (save for Charles monarchy) in the aftermath of their crumbling empire.
-----------
Spain-Alfonso: Herditary Rule
Spain-Isabel: Organised Religion
or Theocracy
Spain-Phillip: Theocracy

Alfonoso represents the Castiltian timeperiod during which time, like Portugal, Castile had to fight a lot of the time for it's right to exist. Isabel represents the formation of Spain itself and more stable period. Both OR and Theocracy are appropriate for this era, so not sure which is best. They wanted to have tight control on religion, but at the same time, they also wanted to spread it easily to pagans.
-----------
Egypt-Fatimid: Theocracy

After arab conquest, incase eqypt survives it has a more representative civic.
-----------
USA-Washington: Representation
USA-Lincoln: Emancipation
USA-Rosevelt: Nationhood or Bureaucracy
USA-Eisenhower: Free Market

Washington is fine. Lincoln is known for Emancipation, even though nationhood would be better. Rosevelt (I assume you mean Franklin) was known for wartime efforts and Great deal to bring the USA out of the Great Depression. Eisenhower is best to counterbalance Stalin which is what the Cold War was based upon, at least superficially. If you mean Theodore Rosevelt, then Environmentalism should be used, though it's not appropriate really for his reasonings.

 

[say1988]

Umm, the idea here had no leaders being added, just ones already in use by RFC.

 

[The Q-Meister]

That doesn't change the fact that the Caliphates were an explicitly Islamic institution; claiming legitimacy from their 'descent' from Muhammed, in the same way the Pope claims legitimacy from his descent from St Peter, and governed by Islamic law. Perhaps the real issue is that in modern times theocracy is rightly or wrongly automatically thought to be an overly repressive system of government.

But in Civ a part of the theocratic civic is that "no other religions are allowed to spread" which implies that there is a degree of oppression going on. OR still gives a strong religious connotation and gives the civ a bonus for building which might reflect the the rapid growth and development of influential cities that fell to Islam and the inspiration it gave to many people.

 

[The Q-Meister]

You're quite right, don't know why that didn't occur to me. Do you have any suggestions for replacements?

I think HR might be a good fit to represent the monarchies of the Roman Kingdom during the early era if you want to represent a specific epoch plus Caesar did represent the fall of the Republic in many ways so this is arguably accurate on two counts.

I did hesitate on making Arabia like theocracy for precisely the reason you mention. In the end though I felt theocracy was more appropriate for Arabia's 'historical mission' in RFC because of the XP bonuses to units. After all, Arabia did have a very formidable army and was very expansionistic, and both traits were inspired by its faith. Theocracy is obviously the best civic for simulating that. Of course its true that the Caliphate was also the home of many great buildings and universities and so forth, so Organized Religion would also fit. But I think overall, RFC Arabia should be focussed more on military expansion than peaceful building.
.

That makes sense; Arabia was very expansionist and although their appeal was not because of arms alone (early Islam, like early Christianity had a powerful social justice message that appealed to many people. Also, it contained more rights for women than was permitted in many cultures. Of course this doesn't mean equality; obviously men were still viewed more favorably and given more rights.) it does undoubtedly help them in achieving their UHV.

 

[kravixon]

Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

What this man says.

 

[Jinnai]

Umm, the idea here had no leaders being added, just ones already in use by RFC.

Okay...thought that was the idea.

Anyway, even if that's the case, Carthage and Japan should be changed.

Carthage was first and foremost a trade empire and it should be reflected by that.

Japan wasn't really mercantilistic except in response to European pressure. Most of it's civilization's history it was more profiteering than anything, and trade, along with piracy, brought profit.

Caste System works best for Japan except modern times (post WW2-era). Vassalage works well until Meiji Restoration as well.

USA is also still not good as well. Washington is fine. Represenation is okay. Lincoln should change to Emancipation as that is what the war ultimately brought about and was his legacy. Rosevelt...I think Rep or Free Religion is best.

Vikings: again, they did not abolish slavery for everyone. They often took women when raiding to use as personal sex slaves to bear stong Viking warriors. Nationhood or Free Market is better.

Portugal: Mercantilism is better. Religion was important, but not so much as in its history as finding and securing trade routes.

 

[lumpthing]

Subjugation may work better, but I forgot when is it availabe. Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

Possibly, but in my experience RFC civs are not nearly as fixated on their favourite civics as they are in standard civ. I think Rhye has made it so that they will only switch civics if it is safe stability-wise to do so.

 

[Cethegus]

I think HR might be a good fit to represent the monarchies of the Roman Kingdom during the early era if you want to represent a specific epoch plus Caesar did represent the fall of the Republic in many ways so this is arguably accurate on two counts.





That makes sense; Arabia was very expansionist and although their appeal was not because of arms alone (early Islam, like early Christianity had a powerful social justice message that appealed to many people. Also, it contained more rights for women than was permitted in many cultures. Of course this doesn't mean equality; obviously men were still viewed more favorably and given more rights.) it does undoubtedly help them in achieving their UHV.

Too bad the religion didn't develop much after Mohammed's death.

Also, how about Nationhood for Japan? What effect the term favorite civic often has is political benefits (when two civs share a common policy) and figuring in its time Vassalage is probably the only Legal civic available, this would instabilize the political world around the Japanese. Although Japan is isolationalistic as it is, I think Vassalage would make all the other civs appear too "approachable" to Japanese when there are no other choises for any other legal civic available.
And regarding Mercantilism, it just kills Japan's economy in the long run and fails to change in the modern times - probably because Japan never develops far enough.

So how about Nationhood? It would portray the isolationalistic nature of Japan until the later times and would encourage it to build its military in the times of Hirohito. I think Japan should have at least two leaders because of its vast political difference in the feudal times and after the Meiji restoration, and right now only one leader can represent Japan. Worse yet, he's probably the most known shogun of the feudal times.

Even though this belongs to the Changes You've Made To The XML thread, anyone know how to make Tokugawa religionally less stuck up? Most often Tokugawa is either Confucian or Buddhist and will disregard every other religion, which destroys most chances for any politically rewarding relations he might have. Japan has had "heathen" allies before and after Tokugawa's time, no?

 

[Jinnai]

nationhood isn't good one for Japan if we take the large scope. It took a threat as great as an overwhelming invasion to unite Japan and did not occur until very late in the game. Japan's feudal era lasted longer than any other.

As for religion, both of those seem fine, although they should sometimes embrace Taoism and lesser Christianity. Don't know how to do that though.