Republic in fire

[[NWO]_Valis]

I knew that but i want it to remove it out of the game even for the AI. Is there a simple procedure? Delete more lines?

 

[chocmushroom]

I thank most of you here, keeping this thread going, even after we have been told how to correct it for ourselves, we are trying to help with the game mechanics. I think that we need to have some other mechanice for Republic so the team have as little work as possable to do

It should not have a negative effect for not having republic, but give a postitive effect on that civ for having it. This could be modified for other civs that you are freindly with also having it
so, my thoughts about the new republic

1st. An extra per open border with another republic.
2nd. An extra +10% gold per trade route with other republics.
3rd. An extra per republic you are at war with.
4th. You get a for 15 turns after switching from republic.
5th. -10% if at war with a non-republic

This all seems to be fair to me. It benifits people for having a republic, but only in respect to other republics. It helps keep people with republic, as leaving it hurts, but it also makes it hard to goto war with other republics but not so hard if you are trying to teach them the better way of living.

What do you think?

 

[Go Boks]

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.

Don't you get it? Once you add the new stuff, it unbalances the old stuff... I completely understand that the dev team does not want to waste cycles constantly rebalancing things when you can save that until the end.

...and in response to some other posts:

I put the word "demand" in quotation marks for a reason

The devs respond to bug reports and fix those. This thread is concerned with balance, not a bug.

In the end of the day, all I'm saying is drop the sense of entitlement and don't act so mortified when the devs defer balancing aspects of the mod to a latter date. I know they balance stuff in the interim as well, but I am not a fan of the "rusty gate" method of getting what you want.

 

[katika]

It should not have a negative effect for not having republic, but give a postitive effect on that civ for having it. This could be modified for other civs that you are freindly with also having it
so, my thoughts about the new republic

I would like this very much, but it doesn't seem to be something that could be easily changed. The specifics would have to be balanced carefully, especially considering map size, but it seems much more satisfactory than simply removing the civic choice. Choices are good if they are all valid choices.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

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...

1) Yes! I like this idea. Not that I think there's a problem with Republic the way it is now.

2) Cassiel is pretty weak in the economic sector as things are. I can't really see Auric adopting this, though...

3) Also, something would have to be tweaked in the AI so that they don't all lose their religion as once they can adopt Republic (like in Vanilla Civ).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That shouldn't be too hard. Instead of using the Vanilla "Free Religion" coding that forces the civ into "no state religion," simply require "no state religion" in order for the civic to be adopted -the same way Arete requires Rok, Guardians of nature requires FoL, ect. I don't see a real conflict between Republic and FoL or RoK, but this impementation is probably easiest.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

That shouldn't be too hard. Instead of using the Vanilla "Free Religion" coding that forces the civ into "no state religion," simply require "no state religion" in order for the civic to be adopted -the same way Arete requires Rok, Guardians of nature requires FoL, ect. I don't see a real conflict between Republic and FoL or RoK, but this impementation is probably easiest.

Yeah, that seems like a good way to do it.

 

[onedreamer]

The suggestion about making it only available for civs with no state religion sounds very appealing to me. [cut]
Already-agnostic civs would probably like it a bit too much, though...

Definitely. It would make of Republic an almost forced (or at least obvious) choice for agnostic leaders. Not good for strategy.

I knew that but i want it to remove it out of the game even for the AI. Is there a simple procedure? Delete more lines?

I'm not sure what you mean. The xml files of configuration apply to all civs, not just to human players...

It should not have a negative effect for not having republic, but give a postitive effect on that civ for having it. This could be modified for other civs that you are freindly with also having it
so, my thoughts about the new republic

1st. An extra per open border with another republic.
2nd. An extra +10% gold per trade route with other republics.
3rd. An extra per republic you are at war with.
4th. You get a for 15 turns after switching from republic.
5th. -10% if at war with a non-republic

This all seems to be fair to me. It benifits people for having a republic, but only in respect to other republics. It helps keep people with republic, as leaving it hurts, but it also makes it hard to goto war with other republics but not so hard if you are trying to teach them the better way of living.

What do you think?

Honestly, I don't like it at all.
1st. I don't see any reason why this should only work for the Republic gov. It would actually make more sense for Aristocracy, but in any ways, it should work for all gov., much the same as it does with religions. Since there is already such a feature for religions I wouldn't add it to governments too...
2nd, 3rd and 5th why, why and why ?
4th there is already anarchy to represent this aspect.

In short I think Republic already has cool bonuses, and in any case I wouldn't force players to make strategic choices based on the strategic choices done by other players, which is the result of your proposal. It's highly exploitable in coop. multiplayer and kinda annoying in single player.

 

[chocmushroom]

Honestly, I don't like it at all.
1st. I don't see any reason why this should only work for the Republic gov. It would actually make more sense for Aristocracy, but in any ways, it should work for all gov., much the same as it does with religions. Since there is already such a feature for religions I wouldn't add it to governments too...
2nd, 3rd and 5th why, why and why ?
4th there is already anarchy to represent this aspect.

In short I think Republic already has cool bonuses, and in any case I wouldn't force players to make strategic choices based on the strategic choices done by other players, which is the result of your proposal. It's highly exploitable in coop. multiplayer and kinda annoying in single player.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you don't like my idea as it would force people to adopt a strategic choice! I think that you getting four or five just due to a civ that other players have taken IS forcing others to change and don't give people the choice.
I don't think that in a world where gods, demons and magic are real, the people should all want to have a republic or riot, when the Big Demon walking down the street say's he's in charge.

Now, reasons behind the changes I put forward.
Me: 1st. An extra per open border with another republic.
You: 1st. I don't see any reason why this should only work for the Republic gov. It would actually make more sense for Aristocracy, but in any ways, it should work for all gov., much the same as it does with religions. Since there is already such a feature for religions.

I was just putting a surgestion in how to change republic, currently you gain for having a republic and others for not having it. I think this penalises the people not having it to much, so this was a way to gain the benifit without penalising anyone else.

2nd. An extra +10% gold per trade route with other republics.
Benifits to republic for having relations with other republics. The citisens are happy to have trade routes with other like-minded people.

3rd. An extra per republic you are at war with.
To get into real-world a bit here, people who have a say over their govenments don't goto war with other countries with the same govenments type (ok, GB & either Norway or Sweden only case)

Me: 4th. You get a for 15 turns after switching from republic.
You: 4th there is already anarchy to represent this aspect.
But the anachy is just short-term or none. what I'm saying is that if people have a say in how they are govenend, and then suddenly loose it, they will be very unhappy, and it will take them a long time to come to terms with fact new govenment type is the right way to live.

5th. -10% if at war with a non-republic
Along same lines as part 3, you don't have as much of a political upheaval when you goto war with the people who don't goven same as you.

In all, I thought this would be a more fair way to apply the republic civ. Overall when at peace it greatly benifits you, but it does not help when you are at war. It also leaves the way free for other civs to operate without a republic, which is the main thing I complain about in this game where all options are meant to be open to all players

 

[onedreamer]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you don't like my idea as it would force people to adopt a strategic choice!

Nope, not exactly. It would force people to adopt a strategic choice based on the strategic choice of others. Because your proposed Republic would give real advantages only if OTHERS also adopt Republic.

I think that you getting four or five just due to a civ that other players have taken IS forcing others to change and don't give people the choice.
I don't think that in a world where gods, demons and magic are real, the people should all want to have a republic or riot, when the Big Demon walking down the street say's he's in charge.

Fully agree. I've been saying this should be removed accross five pages of this thread...

 

[Go Boks]

3rd. An extra per republic you are at war with.
To get into real-world a bit here, people who have a say over their govenments don't goto war with other countries with the same govenments type (ok, GB & either Norway or Sweden only case)

Democratic Peace Theory is a fallacy...

 

[chocmushroom]

Nope, not exactly. It would force people to adopt a strategic choice based on the strategic choice of others. Because your proposed Republic would give real advantages only if OTHERS also adopt Republic.



Fully agree. I've been saying this should be removed accross five pages of this thread...

Ok, I admit that I got it wrong here as the dynamics are wrong.
There should be for having republic, as the people are happy that they think they have say over their govenment, but this way is pushing it a bit to far into the current state of needing to have republic. How about

+ in all cities with republic.
+ in your biggest 6 cities.
An extra +10% gold per trade route.
An extra per republic you are at war with
You get a for 15 turns after switching from republic.
-10% if at war with a non-republic

Is that a better system?

 

[onedreamer]

uhm, the one in act now is already better than that. You get happyness, culture and GPP.

 

[chocmushroom]

uhm, the one in act now is already better than that. You get happyness, culture and GPP.

Ok, let's add the GPP back in, and culture, we just don't want the just as other civs have it but you don't

 

[onedreamer]

there you go, now we agree

 

[chocmushroom]

Yeap, 0.21 is linked in the first post. It contains following changes:

0.21 Changelog:

Balance changes:
28. Halved the amount of anger caused by not having Republic.

Seems like they do pay attention to us here, Thanks

 

[onedreamer]

We'll see how will this affect the AI. Unfortunately, my suspect is that there won't be any change...

 

[chocmushroom]

Maybe, but as long as it does not hinder players who Don't want to play the republic so much they can't play the game I'll be happy

 

[Sureshot]

Republic being No-State-Religion-Only would be nice, it would give some late game benefit to agnostics and stop all the AIs from doing it together

 

[Nimbus]

Republic being No-State-Religion-Only would be nice, it would give some late game benefit to agnostics and stop all the AIs from doing it together

i like that suggestion