Republic in fire

Well in a way we have balanced the hunter with the addition of two mechanics--
ore system (axemen become useable without copper at the same strenght as hunters, so you can upgrade your already experienced warriors)
and seperate attack defense, so the archer is now 2/4 with +25% city defense(i think), the best defensive unit of the t2s.

That doesn't solve the problem at all unfortunately. The problem is not really with the units themselves. It's with the tech tree and techs that give those units. If I can choose between researching hunters or axemen first, considering that researching towards hunters takes much less time and considering that without copper axeman are in almost every way inferior to hunters, the choice is simple. And while hunters and axeman are not the best defensive units, they can do the job just fine and can do many other things on top of that, so the incentive to research archery (or even more: bowyers)is really low.
 
Maniac, do you base these observations on playing against the AI or playing against other people? I can tell you that we usually play on Balanced in multiplayer, and on that map you can be reasonably sure to have Copper somewhere near you (unless you got very unlucky AND never expanded). And seeing how Bronze Working is very important for other reasons (chopping, forge, prereq for smelting) and that hunting isn't, I'd say it all balances out.

In MP I'd surely go for BW first unless I had some ivory, deer, or fur around.
 
I personally don't see a problem with Republic. There's still the option of sticking with civics you prefer more, it just becomes tougher as the game goes on. Each game you have to ask yourself: what's better for my empire? Negating a few unhappies in my cities by switching to Republic, or sticking with [instert civic here] because of the other benefits?

Now, the unhappies (or the benefits of Republic) could probably be turned down a little, especially with the emphasis on the late game in Fire, but the mechanic itself is far from being a gamebreaker.


You aren't considering the AI, which always switches to Republic.
Also, the bottom line is that Republic is already appealing as it is, and doesn't need incentives to be chosen. This feature in vanilla is applied to a civ that doesn't give any other bonuses (if I'm not wrong, haven't played vanilla in ages), and most of all, it makes sense logically.
 
Thats been my reason all along is that the effect of republic on the late game with an AI (not al of us a re good enough or have enough friends who play civ to do multiplayer). By the end game the majority of AI civs are republic because the computer just takes the easier path to solve the happiness problem.
 
I've never really had a problem with republic, but religious restictions do seem like a good idea. Specifically for The Order-how can you have a Republic with Unquestioning Obedience.
 
I've never really had a problem with republic, but religious restictions do seem like a good idea. Specifically for The Order-how can you have a Republic with Unquestioning Obedience.

You get to vote on who you should obey without questions... isn't it obvious?
 
Republic IS annoying me atm actually.

I played a game where I was doviello, picking off each civ one by one on my way to a conquest victory. And low and behold! suddenly all my people start rioting..... because some random civ on another continent has republic >.<

All other civs then changed to republic and so I did too or lose my productivity.

this makes NO sense.... as a warmongering race why the hell would I or my people care about the government of another country? And more importantly, why limit an entire civic line in lategame in this manner?
 
Republic IS annoying me atm actually.

I played a game where I was doviello, picking off each civ one by one on my way to a conquest victory. And low and behold! suddenly all my people start rioting..... because some random civ on another continent has republic >.<

All other civs then changed to republic and so I did too or lose my productivity.

this makes NO sense.... as a warmongering race why the hell would I or my people care about the government of another country? And more importantly, why limit an entire civic line in lategame in this manner?

Yeah well, players that understand just a tiny bit of strategy (let apart logic) keep wondering that, but it seems the majority is not concerned by the problem, dismissing it as unexistant or worse commenting with silly jokes like the one above. I would consider it funny if this problem wasn't around from many months, but it is and I think it's about time that it attracts the devs' attention.
 
In the Design a Civ thread I proposed a civ that would fit perfectly for Republic in a fantasy mod, but yea, this still would not fix the desire of others to switch to it. The AI should not be so eager to switch to it when it is accepted some were in the world.

Also the mechanics should be changed that only the civs that have contact with you get the negative modifier. Why would anyone want to get a vote if they never have heard of it in the first place? [the awearnes is represented here by the technology, should be also by cultural contact, not just presents in the world]
 
The pain of having to keep your people happy is very often a valid strategic concern if you want to be warmongering, witness the concerted daily efforts of Fox 'news'. My comment about the Russian people resenting their oppression was Not purely frivolous.

Still, it might make for a more broadly enjoyable -game- if a checkbox could be added to nerf/disallow Republic to satisfy those who don't feel it is beneficial.
 
I like the flavor of emancipation/republic type civics in their originality, but I would tend to agree that they really create a situation of universality - that is everyone pretty much is required to adopt that civic as soon as possible given one person does. I feel this detracts from strategy, so perhaps the republic should be altered to a form of only effecting the player using the civic rather than a global effect (which in this case would require a complete overhaul of the civic, unfortunately).
 
What is the version number for FfH2 right now? 0.20? From the sounds of it, you think it was at 1.20.

BTW, if you think you can just "balance the old stuff" while new stuff is getting added, you are dreaming. This is a beta people, stop spazzing out because the mod isn't finished.

On a side note, I have never had a problem with Republic. The morale of your citizens is a very important aspect of vanilla Civ and FfH. If you are aware of this, as you should be, you won't have a problem with it either. It is a problem if the AI switches to it unilaterally though. However, it is appropriate to let the team know and let them deal with it in their own time. Even when the mod hits 1.0, you are still not in a place to "demand" anything.
 
You confuse 'demand' with 'propose' and 'suggest':)
 
My comment about the Russian people resenting their oppression was Not purely frivolous.

I'm just guessing here, but the only things you probably know about the resentment of russian people come from Fox news or the like. So I think that comment is inherently frivolous, let alone the fact that it is off topic.

[NWO]_Valis;5176722 said:
You confuse 'demand' with 'propose' and 'suggest':)

Yep, plus in this thread I don't see anyone dreaming for a staff that adds new stuff while balancing existing features, we are asking to balance important elements of the mod before adding new stuff. We do it because we like the mod and we want to contribute for its better. If we were to demand we could instead just edit Republic in something like 15 seconds, which is less than what it took to write anything on the forum.
 
Yep, plus in this thread I don't see anyone dreaming for a staff that adds new stuff while balancing existing features, we are asking to balance important elements of the mod before adding new stuff. We do it because we like the mod and we want to contribute for its better. If we were to demand we could instead just edit Republic in something like 15 seconds, which is less than what it took to write anything on the forum.

And adding to that some of our suggestions get accepted, ba, get fixed in hot-fix patches :) You do not get that kind of response anywhere in the game market. :>

Here, even our Gods [Kael and the devs] speak to us :please:
Ha! You don't get that in church very often :>

:crazyeye:

Can the republic be rem'ed out for now till there is no other solution? Can it be rem'ed out by hand?
 
Open Civ4civicinfos.xml in FFH's Assets\xml\gameinfo folder. Search for Republic, then search for this line:
<iCivicPercentAnger>400</iCivicPercentAnger>
and modify it as you see fit. I put 0 (no anger). And I wouldn't be totally sure what percentage it is referring to.
 
The suggestion about making it only available for civs with no state religion sounds very appealing to me. I always thought that some mechanic should be found to make the "No State Religion" button on the religion screen be a choice, rather than a temporary state 'till you get your hands on your religion. It just feels like a waste to me.

Now, if No State Religion civs can get a powerful civics which causes sad faces on other civs, that compensates for the fact that they themselves have less happy faces (No state religion, no temples, etc.), while simultaneously acting as their weapon in the struggle with religion. That way, worshipping no one becomes a cause in and of itself, and a strategic choice.

Already-agnostic civs would probably like it a bit too much, though...
 
Back
Top Bottom