1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Removing Rule Civics

Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by Vokarya, Jun 18, 2017.

Tags:
?

Would you want to see the Rule civics category deleted?

  1. Yes. Get rid of the Rule civics and make some of them Government.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No. Keep the Government and Rule civics as separate categories.

    13 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,538
    The subject of whether or not we really need the Rule civics has come up more than once. I'm posting a poll to get everyone's thoughts on this.

    I'm becoming more convinced that having both the Government and Rule civic categories is unnecessary and adds complexity without a lot of value. The Rule civics feel to me to be subsets of the Government civics (like Aristocracy -> Monarchy, Senate -> Republic, President -> Democracy) and having an extra category adds an entire level of possible interactions with other civics that have to be checked for issues. It also seems very difficult to find truly distinct mechanics for the Rule civics. The other civic categories definitely have their own boundaries to play within.

    So I'm considering removing the whole category. The other option is to keep the status quo. I could live with that. But I've been thinking about this, so I'd like to at least explore the idea.

    This is what I would most likely do if I were to remove the Rule civics:
    • Barbarism, Nobility, Senate, and President would have their Revolution effects merged with the appropriate Government civics but would otherwise disappear.
    • Bureaucracy, Single Party, Technocracy, and Virtual would become Government civics. The actual statistics would need to be worked out.
    • Aristocracy as a tech would probably be deleted. There isn't much need for it without the Nobility civic.
    Let me know what you think.
     
  2. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,476
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    I am completely against the removal of Rule category. :nope:
    ...but was also thinking of simplifying (in Chronicles) the Government category based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
    • Anarchy (starting civic)
    • Oligarchy (power of few): a merge of Despotism, Monarchy and Republic
    • Autocracy (power of one): a merge of Despotism and Monarchy
    • Democracy (power of many): a merge of Republic and Democracy
     
  3. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    24,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    I don't think I'd want to see the Rule civic deleted, but I might be persuaded otherwise if you could demonstrate what the "new" Government civics would look like.

    Why would you want to simplify those, Zeta? Isn't the point of Republic vs. Democracy one of the main tall vs. wide decisions?
     
  4. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,476
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Yes, and I like, REALLY like the idea behind it.
    I was referring to my modmod which has more civic categories and different approaches. The 3 main categories would basically be "bags" for all the other civics and I would solve this wide vs. tall thing in other categories.
     
  5. Fozman

    Fozman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    128
    Gender:
    Male
    Against, unless a persuasive argument can be provided (similar to Arakhor).

    The way I see it, Rule is simply the next "layer" down from Government. Government being "What" and Rule being "How" or "Who". It could also be thought of as another branch of government (Executive vs. Legislative).

    There is enough of a nuance between enough cases that it shouldn't be done away with entirely. Could it use some work? Sure. From an ease of balance POV, I understand lopping off an entire category, but let's keep as many of the unique options in play on the consolidated category as possible.

    If anything, I think there is more overlap in the Society, Economy & Welfare categories. Lots of useless civics there.
     
  6. LittleBoots

    LittleBoots The Bloody Banner

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,979
    FWIW, the separation between Rule and Government is one of my favorite little things about the mod. To my mind, Rule is the answer to the question "Who has authority?" and Government is the answer to the question "How do they exercise authority?" An noble/aristocratic republic (say, Sparta or pre-1832 UK) is not the same as a democratic republic (Athens or the US), nor is it the same as an aristocratic/feudal monarchy--nor is an aristocratic monarchy (or a constitutional monarchy with a senate) the same as the ancient Chinese monarch who ruled through an imperial bureaucracy. To oversimplify, in post-Magna Carta England, you could say that the nobility have political authority, but they permit a monarch to rule (Noble/Monarch/Feudal), whereas in ancient Rome the Patrician nobles ruled through the Senate (Noble/Republic) until they were forced to admit plebeian influence (Senate/Republic). In Renaissance France, King Louis XVI has centralized things (Noble/Monarch/Nationalist or maybe Bureaucracy/Monarch/Nationalist). The UK post-1832 reform but still 19th century might be Senate/Monarch/Bourgeois. Oligarchic/mercantile Carthage would be Noble/Republic/Bourgeois to my mind.

    So I would also defend the Society category as a way to further specify the shades of "Who has authority?"--e.g., a martial/agricultural nobility does not have the same character as a mercantile/thalassocratic nobility. You could also look at it as "To what end?"--e.g., money, liberal freedom, martial virtue/aristocratic freedom (feudal), etc. Ditto Welfare and Economic policies.

    The individual civics don't always make perfect sense to me as they stand (hard to represent, say, Machiavelli's idea of the popular prince, or a democratic monarch, aside from maybe running President and Monarch at the same time), but the various categories are spot on IMHO.

    Uh, I might should admit that I'm a political science professor, so this stuff is kinda my nerd-jam. From a gameplay perspective, it might be better to simplify (personally, I rarely use many of the civics in the game, perhaps because my playstyle favors only a few of the civics and lost turns/anarchy irritate me so I don't experiment as much as I might like), but I would absolutely defend them from a simulationist perspective.
     
  7. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,621
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    I also think we could rework a bit some civics, but I don't want Rule to disappear; ZN has some good ideas in his modmod but I don't have time to elaborate very much lately.
     
  8. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,827
    I also like the way civics are right now. They just let you customize the feel of your nation much more and that's fun.
     
  9. Horseshoe_Hermi

    Horseshoe_Hermi 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,004
    Location:
    Canada
    It's the Society category I'm against. Don't axe Rule.
     
  10. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    I'd like civics to be more simplified.I don't like the fact that the majority of them affect many aspects of the game because makes it very difficult and complicated for the player to focus on a certain aspect ,production for example.Production is affected by civics in different civic categories.Someone could say:"OK,just choose the civics that maximize production".Yes, but these civics don't affect only production.They affect also other aspects so finally you can't estimate if you gain or you lose.
    I don't know guys if you understand exactly what I mean but I think that I prefer the simplicity of civics in vanilla BTS.So I wouldn't mind removing some of them.
     
  11. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,827
    I understand exactly what you say and feel the exact opposite. Personally I always hated how simplistic the regular BTS civics were and am in love with the complexity inherent in the balancing act imposed upon you by the civics in AND. The fact that you have to stop and think long and hard about if that extra 10% hammers is worth the loss of the +1 :) from walls etc. is what really makes the civic system here enjoyable for me rather than a chore.
     
  12. Slarki

    Slarki Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    200
    I am rather for a complication instead of simplification if I have to decide. That what makes this mod great are impactful additions to the game with a wink to realism. If you make the civics simpler, there is no real fun anymore in specialization. And I like with the all the possibilites to have something more niche, I fear if you remove some options then well, we have less options to play with and experiment.
     
  13. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,476
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    I also prefer complexity with realism (but not over-complication). The problem can be if 2 civics in the same category are too similar and you can't see clearly which serves your goals better. Having too many civics in fewer categories is much harder to balance than fewer civics in more categories.
     
  14. Slarki

    Slarki Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    200
    if you have fewer civics with more personality which still covers a range of playstyles (espionage, trade, cottages, etc) I'm for it
     
  15. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,827
    To be perfectly honest I find that the system is perfect as is. I would literally change nothing.
     
  16. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,538
    I suppose I got what I asked for, even if it wasn't what I wanted to hear.

    I think I'm possibly too concerned about our "complexity budget" -- that is, how much more complex AND is over vanilla BTS. I totally understand AND can be more complex than BTS, or else we wouldn't be making this mod. But there is a point at which it goes too far. I have very strong ideas about what I don't want this mod to become. Let's just say I have more than one mod in mind and leave it at that.

    What I'm hearing here is that the complexity budget is not completely spent yet. That's OK. However, I wouldn't want to see any new civic categories in the base AND mod. I feel that civic categories should be relatively equal in importance. So I would be very much against adding, for example, immigration civics. (Those seem to come up from time to time.) I don't think they are very good. I don't think they really add anything; there's only about 5 of them you can make; and immigration doesn't feel like it is nearly as important as religion or military.
     
  17. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    That is a good point about civics generally.
    Ok, they don't need to be fewer but surely they should cover discrete playstyles.
     
  18. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,827
    As far as complexity goes I feel that you have it the wrong way round. What matters is not how many options you have but how meaningful each of them is. And if you get that right a more complex game is always, and I say this categorically, going to be more fun than a less complex one because every added layer of complexity will, when done right, add a new level of achievement to the player that masters it.

    The reason I personally like this mod is in fact because it is very complex. And I would love to see it become even more complex. You just have to make sure that each new layer of complexity you add actually impacts the game in a meaningful way.
     
  19. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    Personally, I like the variety of options too.It's one of the reasons I play Civilization series and I love this mod.Maybe I'd like even more options and features but I think that some bullet points -as Vokarya has said in civics thread- should be reduced for some civics.
     
  20. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,827
    Basically what I'd do is get rid of some of the redundancy, as in civics that do the same thing. But that's about it.
     

Share This Page