RFC Europe: Civics Discussion Thread

[Disenfrancised]

So far I haven't touched the "food goes to produce military units" tag in the XML. I've played a few mods with a civic that does that, and I have very mixed feelings about it.

Is it possible to split the food going to units - so only half the food surplus goes to production and the rest still goes towards growth?

Well, not quite -- we do have a fair number of civs (Bulgarians, Magyars, Franks, maybe Arabs) who start off as fairly "tribal" in the conventional sense of the word. But I have suggested something similar -- making civs start with different "default" values (this is very easy to implement) so that we can start some civs in manorialism and some in "decentralized" or "nomadic" economies and reflect that bit of history.

Yeah but personally I'll switch out of Manorialism pretty quick if decentralised is available - I think it would be best if the neutral 'decentralized' option was removed altogether so civs would have to wait to market economies turn up in either manorialism or however the nomadic warrior society gets implemented.

Another idea - we could have cottages and mines start off much worse and only accrue benefits later on to make the early game ManSerfFarm an attractive improvement. Say at the beginning Mines only give +1h and only gain a second hammer with gunpowder (maybe a third with civil engineering), and the cottage chain starts off -1/0/1/2 g, but gets two +1g from each of two early 'commerce' techs.

Or even adapt the cottage chain to -1/0/2/4 and have on early tech give +1 to the cottage and hamlet and the other to the cottage/hamlet/village. This makes the preplaced towns on the map much more valuable, and helps the Byzantines suck less badly in relative tech rate.

 

[sedna17]

Is it possible to split the food going to units - so only half the food surplus goes to production and the rest still goes towards growth?

Not with pure XML. That would require DLL stuff.

Another idea - we could have cottages and mines start off much worse and only accrue benefits later on to make the early game ManSerfFarm an attractive improvement. Say at the beginning Mines only give +1h and only gain a second hammer with gunpowder (maybe a third with civil engineering), and the cottage chain starts off -1/0/1/2 g, but gets two +1g from each of two early 'commerce' techs.

Or even adapt the cottage chain to -1/0/2/4 and have on early tech give +1 to the cottage and hamlet and the other to the cottage/hamlet/village. This makes the preplaced towns on the map much more valuable, and helps the Byzantines suck less badly in relative tech rate.

I really don't want to get into re-balancing all the improvements. That sounds like (a) a lot of work and (b) very difficult for new players to adjust to. Changing one improvements (farms) early on in the game is a more limited change. I guess we will be strongly de-valuing farms if you aren't in serfdom+one of the early economic systems...

Didn't Charlemagne had something seasonal about his army, i.e. he waits fro the farmers to gather the crops and then he drafts them to go on a campaign (I don't recall the history lesson entirely).

Most armies were seasonal in fact. I agree that the idea (people have to join the military instead of work the farms) is historically appropriate, it's just a question of play balance. If I can find the time to run a quick check I'll see how the AI reacts. Often if the AI all chooses the same civic it's an indication that it's overpowered.

 

[FakeShady]

Right, looks like things are starting to get really complicated here xD whichever the case, please list the changes down on the civics/civilopedia page when the next alpha/beta comes out so that new players do not get an unfair disadvantage.

I suggest work be done on the expansion civics too

 

[BurnEmDown]

OK I changed the lines you told me and at first I ran into some problems, the farms still gave 1 food and no commerce, so I changed a couple of 0's and 1's and it seems that not only do I need to change

Spoiler :

<PrereqNatureYields>
<iYield>1</iYield>
<iYield>0</iYield>
<iYield>0</iYield>

to

Spoiler :

<PrereqNatureYields>
<iYield>0</iYield>
<iYield>0</iYield>
<iYield>1</iYield>

But also do the same in <IrrigatedYieldChange> below it.
Now, you forgot about changing Manorialism to only give 2 commerce and no -1 food , but I managed to find that in XML/GameInfo/CIV4CivicInfos I can change Manorialism to only change farms to give 1 extra commerce, however first I'll run a test game with 2 extra commerce (which means 2/1/4 & 1/2/4 on riverside farm with civics, grassland & plains respectively).
Oh and, I'm not too good at giving reports of my game, so I'll post 5 saves and describe the major events in each, and I hope you could understand what you need from those saves
BTW, how can I change it so that the names of civilizations that I see on the relations page (like West Francia or Burgundy Peoples) will be displayed on the scoreboard?

 

[BurnEmDown]

Here are the saves, from what I can see there isn't much change, except that the Europeans are generally weaker than usual. It seems they cant get to Arabic Knowledge fast enough, and some stick with Manorialism and Serfdom since without them Farms are useless. So if it's possible that the +1 food be available from an earlier technology, while also available to the Islamic civs at the start, I think it will make everything more balanced.
Oh and be sure to do the changes I did in the XML before you load the saves because I think they won't work without them.

 

[Disenfrancised]

If we make a new tech for the bonus food from farms I'd recommend a 'Hydraulic Irrigation' tech in the space on the tree after Plate Armor, requires (Calender AND Philosophy) OR Arabic Knowledge. The Cordobans should start with it definiately. Takes 11 techs to get if you beeline straight for it, so there's a good window for Serfdom and Manorialism

We could also have a farm food bonus from biology to show the 4-field rotation revolution.

 

[sedna17]

Thanks for the saves BurnEmDown.

I ran some of my own tests, and it seems that the AI doesn't understand civic combinations well. In particular, the +1 from serfdom and +2/-1 from manorialism isn't enough to tempt them to actually build farms. Could be mostly the new penalty to serfdom (-GPP) that makes them avoid it. Anyway, the net result is that they don't build any farms, which sucks.

So I'm strongly leaning for the simple solution -- drop the whole food/farm penalty and just limit city growth with unhealth.

 

[El Bogus]

I will necro this decade-old thread! Because why not use it, when it's there.
While the existing civics work well, I have a few suggestions.
1. Slavery
How I imagine it in the game:
It should obviously not be as broken as in Vanilla Civ BtS. You would have a chance to capture slaves when winning a battle or when sacking a city. These slaves could be used to be sold in one of your cities with a market. Maybe the could depend on the city's trade routes similar to a Trade Mission of a Great Merchant. They could be used to hurry production (maybe like 15 to 20 ). And you could decide to free your slaves for a similarly small bonus. I don't think they should be able to improve your tiles as in Fall from Heaven II.
Other than enabling you to capture slaves (and free upkeep for a few slave units) it should give plantations a higher yield and maybe quarries. This would make it an appealing civic for the Arabs and maybe the Byzantinians.
Why should it be in th game:
It existed in Europe in the early Middle Ages and in Islamic countries until the 19th century. It's also fitting gameplay-wise for every combat centered early civ like the Vikings, Bulgarians, Arabs, maybe even the Franks. It could also be used by Merchant Republics with their high income through Trade Routes.

2. Religious Tolerance or at least Acceptance
The Arabs should be presented to tolerate Christians and Jews in conquered cities. Right now, the Arabs get punished for different religions in their cities more than the other civs.
A suited civic should probably be added.
Also, it should be questioned if civs that are not in Religious Tolerance should be able to build the corresponding religious buildings.

3. Free switches for small changes
I think it would give the player more freedom if small civic changes (i.e. a change in only one column) didn't cost a turn of Anarchy. As of now, I'm in Militarism asap in all of my games until I win. This change could make your game more dynamic. Obviously, the wait between civ changes should stay.

4. City number limits of civics
Those limits are way too restricting. No civ stays at six, let alone five, cities when played by a human. Take Scotland for example: The perfect candidate for Bureaucracy, right? Only two cities in Scotland required. Well, settle all the isles, conquer Wales to aquire the stone for your castles. There you are at 6 cities. But you have to protect your now split territory from England so you conquer Northumbria. And what's that island over there? Ireland? I take it! And then you're already at 10 cities or more.
Not to mention Genoa and the Merchant Republic.
Of course, you don't collapse as soon as you found your 7th city. But it's the question why this civic exists in the game. When it's there just to be used by the AI, maybe some changes are to be made.

5. Trade related civics
It's a little limiting that you have to stay in Decentralization as Norway or Denmark just to keep your island Trade routes. Why shouldn't Trade Economy become available earlier? Wouldn't that help Genoa and Aragon, too?

6. Farms and Serfdom/Feudalism
This is probably a problem that will never be solved. Historically almost all of Europe should be farmed throughout the game. The landscape didn't become industrialised with watermills, windmills, lumbermills and workshops in the 12th or 13th century all of a sudden when the player can switch to Apprenticeship and Guilds. Gameplay-wise, the only problem I see here, that all of sudden your cities will probably be smaller than before, with some of the of the farms gone. And at roughly the same time the plague arrives and you actually want your farms back so that your cities can grow faster.

 

[Swarbs]

1. Slavery

I can see the argument for slavery, but the main question is what should be removed to incorporate it? Also, should it be a labour civic, and if so can you have slavery but not serfdom?

2. Religious Tolerance or at least Acceptance

The Arabs tolerated dhimmis, but there were still tensions and unhappiness there, depending on the region and the ruler. Also the more tolerant you are towards the religious minorities, the more unhappy the majority gets - many Muslims in the Arab caliphates were unhappy with how rich some of the dhimmis were able to become. So I think the unhappiness should still remain, up until religious tolerance.

I do agree that tolerant civs shouldn't be able to build wonders of all religions tho', particularly the more obviously religious ones. Muslim civs wouldn't have built the Sistine Chapel to venerate a Christian god just because they had developed to fully tolerate Christians after all!

3. Free switches for small changes

I'd agree with this, provided the civ is stable. I think you should be able to switch one civic without anarchy every five turns, provided you have at least +10 stability. The switch then results in a -10 swing stability malus, rather than anarchy,

4. City number limits of civics

The point of these is that you don't stay in those civics when you get big. Merchant Republics and Bureaucracies are for smaller civs to give them a boost. Scotland shouldn't be able to keep the bonuses from a bureaucracy if it grows to cover most of the British Isles. Similarly, Genoa and Venice should have a stability penalty if they want to hold a huge empire as a Merchant Republic.

The point of these civics is to boost the player when they are small, then either be dropped or managed as they grow larger. Rather than just going 'right, those are my civics for the game', you actually have to think and plan for the future. Want to be an MR with 10 cities? Then you're going to need courthouses and a stability focus, maybe even deal with some revolts, as the price for the huge economic boost you get.

5. Trade related civics

It's not limiting to stay in decentralisation until you get guilds, it's a choice. A balance between the trade benefits versus the farming benefits of manorialism. You can't have them both so you have to choose until you develop guilds. Making trade economy available too early would just take that choice away.

6. Farms and Serfdom/Feudalism

Not sure what the problem is here tbh? Farms aren't optimal for all civs, even with the extra hammer from serfdom, as you lose the commerce from having developed towns in the late game. Also the happy and health caps are lower earlier on, so farming like mad just risks instability from overly large cities. As you lose the food from all the farms, so you gain the happiness and health from aqueducts, lighthouses and theatres so your cities will still grow larger.

 

[El Bogus]

I can see the argument for slavery, but the main question is what should be removed to incorporate it? Also, should it be a labour civic, and if so can you have slavery but not serfdom?

Does there really have to be a 5 civic limit? I know, it looks untidy with different numbers of civics in each column but I could accept it. In Fall from Heaven some civic columns have 3 civics while others have up to eight or more. It doesn't look beautiful but it certainly doesn't lower the fun.
If I had to choose which civic had to go it would be Tribalism as it doesn't do anything. Why should the first row of civics not have an effect? Tribalism looks a little forced in the Labor column anyway.

The Arabs tolerated dhimmis, but there were still tensions and unhappiness there, depending on the region and the ruler. Also the more tolerant you are towards the religious minorities, the more unhappy the majority gets - many Muslims in the Arab caliphates were unhappy with how rich some of the dhimmis were able to become. So I think the unhappiness should still remain, up until religious tolerance.

How is it justified that the Christian civs don't get this penalty, then? It just doesn't seem to accompany the historical develepmont of a slow assimilation of Christians and Jews in Arab cities when you have to purge them asap to prevent unhappiness and instability. The Arabs start with a inferior civic combination anyway. This just limits them even more.
BTW, sorry if this sounds a little angry. Obviously, English isn't my mother tongue so I didn't know how to argue more politely. I don't mean the above to be an attack - just an argument.

I do agree that tolerant civs shouldn't be able to build wonders of all religions tho', particularly the more obviously religious ones. Muslim civs wouldn't have built the Sistine Chapel to venerate a Christian god just because they had developed to fully tolerate Christians after all!

I meant more like when you're not a tolerant leader you shouldn't be able to build other monasteries and so on. For example, Christians - while tolerated - were forbidden to build churches in Muslim governed cities.

I'd agree with this, provided the civ is stable. I think you should be able to switch one civic without anarchy every five turns, provided you have at least +10 stability. The switch then results in a -10 swing stability malus, rather than anarchy,

Yeah, that's a good prerequisite.

The point of these is that you don't stay in those civics when you get big. Merchant Republics and Bureaucracies are for smaller civs to give them a boost. Scotland shouldn't be able to keep the bonuses from a bureaucracy if it grows to cover most of the British Isles. Similarly, Genoa and Venice should have a stability penalty if they want to hold a huge empire as a Merchant Republic.

The point of these civics is to boost the player when they are small, then either be dropped or managed as they grow larger. Rather than just going 'right, those are my civics for the game', you actually have to think and plan for the future. Want to be an MR with 10 cities? Then you're going to need courthouses and a stability focus, maybe even deal with some revolts, as the price for the huge economic boost you get.

I totally see your point. Maybe with the free small civic changes those limitations wouldn't feel so bad.

It's not limiting to stay in decentralisation until you get guilds, it's a choice. A balance between the trade benefits versus the farming benefits of manorialism. You can't have them both so you have to choose until you develop guilds. Making trade economy available too early would just take that choice away.

I have to agree again. Maybe my discontent came from the emptiness of Decentralisation and that it has the same upkeep malus as Manorialism. Why is that, by the way?

Not sure what the problem is here tbh? Farms aren't optimal for all civs, even with the extra hammer from serfdom, as you lose the commerce from having developed towns in the late game. Also the happy and health caps are lower earlier on, so farming like mad just risks instability from overly large cities. As you lose the food from all the farms, so you gain the happiness and health from aqueducts, lighthouses and theatres so your cities will still grow larger.

It's not really a problem - maybe just flavour as it feels weird for me to have so much fewer farms in my empire after I switch to Guilds/Apprenticeship. It feels like I'm industrializing which would be ahistorical as this doesn't happen in the timeline of the whole scenario.

 

[Swarbs]

Does there really have to be a 5 civic limit? I know, it looks untidy with different numbers of civics in each column but I could accept it. In Fall from Heaven some civic columns have 3 civics while others have up to eight or more. It doesn't look beautiful but it certainly doesn't lower the fun.
If I had to choose which civic had to go it would be Tribalism as it doesn't do anything. Why should the first row of civics not have an effect? Tribalism looks a little forced in the Labor column anyway.

No, there doesn't have to be a five civic limit or a balanced list. Although I think there maybe should be a default civic which doesn't have an effect, as not all the effects are positive - not all civs benefit from the serfdom hammers as you lose cottage growth which reduces economy.

How is it justified that the Christian civs don't get this penalty, then? It just doesn't seem to accompany the historical develepmont of a slow assimilation of Christians and Jews in Arab cities when you have to purge them asap to prevent unhappiness and instability.

I thought all civs get an unhappiness penalty for foreign religions? Only Poland and the Ottomans have this reduced. I suppose if we add another civic we could add one which reduces the stability penalties from foreign religions, and as a result you forego the benefits from the other choices.

Also I don't think the Arabs do start with a inferior civic combination? They get trade economy, which is arguably the best economy civic, and theocracy is great for avoiding the need to build stables and archery ranges to get L3 units. Religious law is the only potential issue, and can easily be dumped on turn 1.

I meant more like when you're not a tolerant leader you shouldn't be able to build other monasteries and so on. For example, Christians - while tolerated - were forbidden to build churches in Muslim governed cities.

Ah yes, agree with that. Perhaps civs without religious tolerance should be allow to build quarters for all religions which function like the Jewish quarter, reducing instability without the need to purge the religion? Then they can only build religious buildings of their own religion.

I totally see your point. Maybe with the free small civic changes those limitations wouldn't feel so bad.

It would also make the game more strategic, as you need to plan ahead to switch if you want to avoid the anarchy. If you wait too long to leave bureaucracy or MR then you will be too unstable and have to take the hit.

I have to agree again. Maybe my discontent came from the emptiness of Decentralisation and that it has the same upkeep malus as Manorialism. Why is that, by the way?

Probably because otherwise manorialism is outright inferior. With the high upkeep and -1 trade route you need a manor house and couple of farms worked per city to make it worthwhile in my experience. So if decentralisation had lower maintenance costs then manorialism would be pretty much always worse.

It's not really a problem - maybe just flavour as it feels weird for me to have so much fewer farms in my empire after I switch to Guilds/Apprenticeship. It feels like I'm industrializing which would be ahistorical as this doesn't happen in the timeline of the whole scenario.

I dunno - wind, lumber and watermills were pretty widespread by the 12th and 13th century. Personally I see it not as industrialisation but a different form of agricultural specialisation.

A windmill or watermill doesn't mean the land isn't farmed, it just means that the farm is using wind or water power to be more productive, whilst a 'farm' improvement is more like a pure focus on crops. Both improvements still create food, so there is some farming happening there, it's just not the only thing happening in that tile. Similarly, a town doesn't mean the entire tile is urbanised, it just means there's a developed market town in the middle of all the farms which is trading wool, fruit etc rather than just a farm churning out corn.

It's hard to represent historical Europe when you can only have one improvement on a tile which is around 50km square after all, so some degree of imagination is required!

 

[AbsintheRed]

First of all, I absolutely agree that civics are in need of further updates.

The Arabs should be presented to tolerate Christians and Jews in conquered cities. Right now, the Arabs get punished for different religions in their cities more than the other civs.

How is it justified that the Christian civs don't get this penalty, then?

I'm not sure, what do you mean with more punishment/penalty?

Does there really have to be a 5 civic limit?

No, there doesn't have to be a five civic limit or a balanced list.

We can extend some of the categories to 6 civics, where it's better for gameplay.

Probably because otherwise manorialism is outright inferior. With the high upkeep and -1 trade route you need a manor house and couple of farms worked per city to make it worthwhile in my experience. So if decentralisation had lower maintenance costs then manorialism would be pretty much always worse.

Indeed, that was the idea behind it.

I dunno - wind, lumber and watermills were pretty widespread by the 12th and 13th century. Personally I see it not as industrialisation but a different form of agricultural specialisation.

A windmill or watermill doesn't mean the land isn't farmed, it just means that the farm is using wind or water power to be more productive, whilst a 'farm' improvement is more like a pure focus on crops. Both improvements still create food, so there is some farming happening there, it's just not the only thing happening in that tile. Similarly, a town doesn't mean the entire tile is urbanised, it just means there's a developed market town in the middle of all the farms which is trading wool, fruit etc rather than just a farm churning out corn.

It's hard to represent historical Europe when you can only have one improvement on a tile which is around 50km square after all, so some degree of imagination is required!

I agree with this, and I also imagine improvements similarly.
And yeah, a tile is somewhere around 2000-2500 km2 in most regions.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Religious law is the only potential issue, and can easily be dumped on turn 1.

Religious law is that bad in your opinion? It has multiple benefits, and the only drawback is the unhappiness for foreign religion.

 

[Swarbs]

Religious law is that bad in your opinion? It has multiple benefits, and the only drawback is the unhappiness for foreign religion.

Not bad in general, only bad for the Arabs as they get so much extra unhappiness from foreign religions as a result of flipping and conquering Byzantine cities, and their UP negates the missionary benefits.

 

[El Bogus]

I thought all civs get an unhappiness penalty for foreign religions? Only Poland and the Ottomans have this reduced. I suppose if we add another civic we could add one which reduces the stability penalties from foreign religions, and as a result you forego the benefits from the other choices.

I'm not sure, what do you mean with more punishment/penalty?

There is generally no unhappiness for non-state religions. The only punishment for foreign religions that exists for every civ is the -1 faith point.

Also I don't think the Arabs do start with a inferior civic combination? They get trade economy, which is arguably the best economy civic, and theocracy is great for avoiding the need to build stables and archery ranges to get L3 units. Religious law is the only potential issue, and can easily be dumped on turn 1.

It is inferior stability-wise. And especially as Arabia you need a good stability to conquer all the stuff you for UHV 1. And as you mentioned Religious Law is a bit redundant for Arabia. To add to that it's probably worse than Tribal Law as the unhappiness from non-state religions counteracts to the -25% war weariness The latter also just benefits when there is actually war weariness.
As for Theocracy, I'm not saying that it's a bad civ especially because of the +2 experience points. I just would argue that State Religion is better because you have to build the infrastructure in your cities to maintain a good stability to support your conquest and you already have a ton of horse archers at your disposal.
Trade Economy is a great civic - for civs that have trading partners. Arabia doesn't have those in the beginning. You just have to build two Manorialism farms to pull even with Trade Economy. As the game progresses even as Arabia you will build more farms (especially if you're able to build the Garden of Al-Andalus) so I wouldn't say Trade Economy is the best economy civic per se. Manorialism can be way better but that obviously depends on the number of your farms. Of course, as Arabia the +25 % maintenance cost will be problematic once you capture Tripolis and Tunis.
To reiterate: The high stability boost that the feudal civic combination gives can be reason enough to switch to those.

 

[Swarbs]

There is generally no unhappiness for non-state religions. The only punishment for foreign religions that exists for every civ is the -1 faith point.

There's the stability penalty (not unhappiness penalty, my typo) of -2 for the 1st religion and -1 for every 2nd one after. That definitely doesn't help the Arabs.

It is inferior stability-wise.

It's not that inferior stability-wise. RL + Theocracy gives +5 stability, you need to research all the way to feudalism to get the maximum +10 from the feudal combination, and then you will have a poorer economy as a result. Not as good, true, but you get the benefits of trade economy, and can still go Feudal Monarchy, RL, Serfdom, TE, Theocracy and Vassalage for +10 stability.

I can see the argument for SR over Theocracy, although you don't have that many horse archers considering you need to take walled Antioch and attack west, whilst also defending against Bedouins. The 25% unit production bonus is more valuable imo, particularly as you'll probably have to build settlers for Crete and Cyprus.

I also disagree with your assessment of manorialism - with the 1st Arab UHV you have to expand quickly, so the +25% maintenance costs and higher civic costs will outweigh any benefits of manorialism for them. TE gives you two more trade routes, lower maintenance, lower civic costs and +10% gold (+2 gold for Dimashq once you and Cordoba spread Islam).

You need an average of three farms per city, even before the trade routes become worth 2 commerce, and you can make contact with Cordoba once you attack Tunis. The Arabs don't have that many good sites for farming without throwing away the good cottage sites they'll need for UHV2.

 

[El Bogus]

I just realized why unit production for Cordoba and Arabia feels worse than for the feudal civs despite having Theocracy: It's the boost to unit production of Feudal Law. Having that kind of obsoletes Theocracy and makes State Religion better.

Maybe Religious Law could be made from scratch ditching the unhappiness. Instead, temples (of the state religion) could grant reduced maintenance cost for the city it's built in - like 25% or so. That would also go great with the Arabian UP. The -25% war unhappiness could be moved to Theocracy or also ditched entirely.

I'm also not convinced about the current state of Divine Monarchy. I kind of undertand the reason of the bonus happiness but it comes so late in the game that happiness isn't an issue anymore - it's health. My suggestion is that DM raises your Faith Point cap to 150 and gives you +10 Faith Point while you are in it.

 

[El Bogus]

I played Cordoba again which is one of the best civs (if not the best civ - at least before Education) at the moment imo by the way. Admittedly, I was playing on Emperor but I could only succeed the first UHV when switching to Tribal Law and State Religion. With Tribal Law I had no problems with Judaism and Catholicism in Toledo which is unusable for your early game when staying in Religious Law. Same basically goes for Tangier.
I feel that it shouldn't be so hard to handle your core cities in the beginning especially when it the historical approach with other religions seems to have depended on the administration of the reigning caliph. (I only read that on wikipedia - so take that with a grain of salt.) From what I read, Christians were tolerated in the very beginning and even kept their places in the efficient formerly byzantine administration. The repressions increased not until the 8th and 9th century.

 

[El Bogus]

No.

Guilds suck, it really needs a buff, but not this way. Just make it reasonable. I never ever used it.

It's not a buff for guilds, it's nerd for the whole game.

Replying in the right thread. I'm also using guilds mainly for the stability buff with Apprenticeship. +1 per specialist is really underwhelming. Maybe Absinthered wanted to avoid an OP civic like Representation in Vanilla Civ BtS. I'm also guessing it's because there are so many wonders that buff specialists, already.

Also, sorry for triple post but nobody replied.

 

[gilgames]

Replying in the right thread. I'm also using guilds mainly for the stability buff with Apprenticeship. +1 per specialist is really underwhelming. Maybe Absinthered wanted to avoid an OP civic like Representation in Vanilla Civ BtS. I'm also guessing it's because there are so many wonders that buff specialists, already.

Also, sorry for triple post but nobody replied.

Honestly I do not use guilds at all. I rather just switch to apprenticeship and later to mercantilism. About FL: as I understand the "land owner" made the law, and a single city represents a region or county. So FL should be based on tiles. In my book this means, that every tile a city is working on, should provide law and order. If I translate it to gamplay: a city should get bonus stability and maintainence for worked tiles. That would be more historical and realistic. Instead of unit production from food.