1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Social Engineering for BE

Discussion in 'CivBE - Mod Development' started by lilgamefreek, Apr 8, 2015.

  1. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Forgive me for being dense. I want to understand your feedback but am having a little trouble.

    - I'm not quite sure what is meant by "adding virtues from building another resource". Do you mean culture yields itself when you say resource or do you mean investing things like production and research into better cultural buildings and improvements?
    - Is your next statement about how penalties that hurt the resources you use to earn virtues make selecting virtues not worth it, even if they give you a benefit (ignoring the strength of the benefit for now) in another area?

    - I don't have a full understanding of the problem you are describing, but I'm also having trouble understanding the solution you've given. Is the idea that, having all players select the starts of their 4 SE choices puts everyone on the same foot in a similar way to selecting an opening loadout?

    - When you say open, do you mean having all 84 virtues available to select from the start or all 12 trees open to select from the start?

    - I just want to point out that this is the current intention. The 84 selectable virtues are entirely bonuses, some short-term, some long-term. The penalties are deployed through the game's current virtue-synergy system, where you earned additional bonuses for heavily investing in one tree or one tier. The bonuses have been changed to penalties instead so that as you select more bonuses from a tree, you'll receive stronger and stronger penalties, but your bonuses should always supersede the penalties.

    - Can you give more thoughts on this? Your feedback sounds most like mechanical concerns that can be fixed by changing the implementation, but this sounds more like a fundamental problem. I'd love to get more thoughts if that is the case.


    As for Diplomacy, I agree it's not social engineering. Honestly, the system I'm implementing is closest to government policies, edicts, and tenets. The name Social Engineering is used to underscore the huge influence Alpha Centauri's system has on this project. Diplomacy is used to replace Future Societies which I feel has been largely superseded by Affinities. I thought the diplomacy trees would help better illustrate the type of police-state/dominance/free-market/etc. the player practices, and help offload virtues that would otherwise have to fall into one of those trees. I'd love to hear alternative areas that Social Engineering can cover as a topic that might make a better replacement for diplomacy. I did have plans to have the diplomacy category be the most fluid of all the categories, making them very tempting to switch between depending on the global situation.

    As nice as the illustrations are, I am probably going with the stars. It is a lot clearer, especially if I go in and tweak some of the highlight behaviors for selected trees and their brightness.
     
  2. edingess

    edingess Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    215
    I vote for the illustrations.:goodjob:

    I get that but keep in mind its' not like it was bad for BNW. I think the illustrations don't really destract.
     
  3. Ampharos

    Ampharos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    New Jersey
    The BNW Policy Screen

    Notice that the illustrations fade to black(ish) a third of the way down and that the icons are gold with white borders which contrasts with the black background.

    There needs to be contrast between the icons and the background and emphasis on the icons over the background, which the BNW has but this does not.

    The illustrations are doable, but the icons themselves would probably need to be redrawn since, again, they need to be the center of attention with the illustrations as flavor.
     
  4. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,068
    I agree with that. Should be rather easy to do though - and I think if that's done properly, then the illustrations will look a lot cooler than just the stars.
     
  5. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    Canada
    My awkwardness arises from wanting to refer to the yields, currencies, measures, and resources you obtain without specifically using their names prior to adaptation. I meant 'culture', but that doesn't sound like what ought to describe the thing involved in Social Engineering, and it may not be what you call it after the mod.
    Also I say "yields, currencies, measures, resources" because those terms aren't standardized and unfortunately picking one of them might cause misunderstanding, too. I mean stuff that you have.

    Culture yields themselves. I have a certain kind of economic strength, an income, in all the yields turn after turn. My strategy and the sum rules of the game make up the spending power of my colony in total. At each time, I take an option that expends one thing to give me another, but I am also continually building all of them, right?
    Sometimes, or at least it's logically possible, that just as in market economies, saving might be better than spending, because the returns from nonspecific investment or inaction could be greater than investing. Sure, I could divest my yields and actions toward building beakers, say, and of course pulling ahead in any yield makes nice opportunities available that exchange the difference in Time between my colony and the others, differences that can become a kind of spending power that overtakes all alternatives (including inaction).... or there might be no such divestment that is better than just letting everything build up at the rate that it is, taking advantage of reaching some particular next milestone, exploiting that, and then later, using a certain yield at another threshold "on-time" because I didn't go and kill its unmolested trajectory.


    Now, you can view this as a designer in many ways. Maybe you can design the game so that there -always- is one investment that is better than inaction. But until that condition is not true, you have an issue where adopting one of these "social artifacts" can be bad.
    And in that case....

    ... Picking up a virtue when the game makes you do so is a penalty. And by extension, things awarding you culture are now bad. And by extension, certain buildings and improvement features and technology changes to buildings (the ones that add culture) are now bad, just straight up bad. The Old Earth Relic is now entirely bizarre, for instance, and the culture yield sprinkled on everything else is not a bonus. . . but it's not a limiter either*. It's lost its sense of coherently being anything.
    *See, like, in old Civ games, certain techs or developments would "obsolete" wonders. You can view that as a penalty, but with guarantees about the specific thing that triggers the obsolescense, it adds up to a net positive - it's just something that the designers couldn't let you , erm, couldn't write any denotable bonus to award at that stage which wouldn't be too much, say, too much in combination with certain wonders. So it is "written" as "Gain X. Lose Y" but it is deliberately balanced as a kind of (almost)-all upside, . Plus the wonder loses that bonus at that point and you know this when you start, so it's okay - the wonder may or may not be right for you, it (with obsolescence) depends on how you calculate the integral under the value-adding function for that wonder up to where you take that tech.
    Another example is 'rage' in fighting games, a kind of comeback mechanic. Not all comeback mechanics actually reward losing. If they satisfy certain properties, they overall just act as a kind of tempo control, a kind of slowing down and levelling off of advantages. Being ahead is still good, and being more ahead -must- be better, and at any point, doing something to get ahead has to work out to be better than playing worse , getting a handout, and then playing on. But if that is true - as, say, with increased damage on a low health bar - it just stretches out the last few hit points. It's still better to have more hitpoints, and good to take them away from your opponent; it is merely a manner of implementing the overall "function" for the hitpoint dynamic the designer wanted


    I meant trees.


    Still, there is a limit point , practically it won't happen but it's there, of having many of the buttons picked, and then you gotta add another one, and now for some reason you have to take a penalty. Same objection applies.
    I guess you could design synergies right into them (emergent or literally "+2/-1 and -1/+2 is now +1/+1"), so that "just in time" , at the point where virtues in one branch would be a downside, and virtues in another tree are either that, or irrelevant (according to your value estimates /strategy), the bonuses from the alternative branches have themselves eliminated the penalties.... no, that still wouldn't work. Compared to the status quo, you're still being made to take a loss. Same objection

    Those are my thoughts. If something is a penalty, then what -causes- you to get it must receive an entirely different conception in the design stage.

    A radical option for you would be, to go, "yes, social engineering becomes tradeoffs at a point - that is how I am modelling the anthropological facts about the citizens I am leading in this colony." Just as designing particular discrete options in Civ games of old are implicitly a statement that "this is naturally how people will be able to act and associate under your direction: In a monarchy, or a wide flat empire, or e.g. as people who need the riches of certain terrain for luxury to put up with empire stability; as opposed to literally everything conceivable you could tell them to do." However, that modelling choice burdens you to make culture awards into an appropriate concept. Something that animates yet polarizes the people. Culture is now, it seems to my rough 10 minute speculation, something like a demand for change, but a willingness to evolve. The colony has gained a kind of confidence, yet forward-lookingness, to become more something in particular.

    It can't go around like a bonus anymore. But it isn't strictly a penalty of course. It's a thing that happens. You need to put culture awards in the right place so that the change it triggers look like the right causes of that 'thing' happening.

    Asymmetries are killer. You'll be more hobbled in streamline balance knobs, your A.I. will be more confused, and how could the gameplay not become overcentralized? If one branch acts different, people will want one region for how it acts, over and above what it does.

    I think something called an 'alpha layer' is what can create that lighting effect.
    Maybe a mix of all. Use stars at base, import in the picture once you unlock a branch, but mask the picture (and all unlocked pictures) when not mousing over actual buttons. Put the shadow lightning over the specific branch at the mouse pointer.
    That could be horribly ugly, I'm just offering to break any frames you trapped yourself in.
     
  6. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Thanks for the explanations. I understand better now and you've given me a lot to think about. I can see how such a system can cause dissonance in the player's experience at a variety of point and I'll look into what should be done about it.

    As for the illustrations, I've been playing around with emulating Civ5's method of display since I lasted posted. As Amphoros pointed out, there's quite a lot tricks done by that game to make the player NOT notice the images during gameplay. Trees that are adoptable have full color, trees that aren't are grayed out, and trees that are adopted have that gradient. Unless the player has unlocked a tree, it's icons are actually hidden unless the player mouses over it, so player's have a much better idea what the full background image looks like and that memory is retained after they adopt the tree and much of the image is blocked by icons. I'll give it one more day of effort, but I don't see it panning out even if I copy civ5's method verbatim. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it matches the style nearly as well.
     
  7. Ampharos

    Ampharos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    New Jersey
    If you need to, you could revisit the idea of non-mutually exclusive branches.

    You can have a government that is simultaneously democratic and authoritarian or democratic and totalitarian. These are referred to as authoritarian democracies and totalitarian democracies, respectively. Similarly, you can have an economy that is both market and planned. That would be a mixed economy where industry is owned by publicly and privately and there may or may not be central planning on behalf of the government. Meanwhile, you can emphasize multiple values at once. If you prioritize intelligence and wealth, then you have a technocratic plutocracy, and if you prioritize progress and wealth, then you have meritocratic plutocracy.

    Plus, if you brought back non-mutually exclusive branches, then you can bring back the "tall versus wide" synergy bonuses from vanilla.

    It's something to consider if you hit a roadblock; the combinations are not all that paradoxical.
     
  8. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    FYI, I'm writing all of this not to dismiss hybrid trees because I like the idea from a thematic standpoint and I want the idea. It is cool for players to take a step back and look at the society they've made for themselves and analyze the implications, and hybrid trees would go a long way in enriching that. However I feel like I have not come upon a solution that is better than what I currently have, and am frankly out of ideas on that front as well.

    The scheme I've liked best with regards to hybrid trees is one where players can freely adopt virtues in competing trees up to the level below that of their dominant. So that if players reach the third level of pluralist, they can adopt up to the first and second levels of police state. Adopting a virtue of the same level as your dominant in a competing tree forces a switch, however, causing you to lose the highest virtues of your dominant in order to acquire the virtue in the competing tree, making it the new dominant.

    Problems I ran into were multiple. First is finding out a good way to communicate this system to the player. All or nothing is much easier to understand, especially when I am realistically limited to talking through the tooltips of the game. It's not that it is technically hard to implement or even write a tooltip, but it's a much more complicated relation that player's must figure out on their own when asking the question "When does this tooltip show up? Is it safe to adopt this virtue now? Why can I adopt this virtue now and not before?" It's something I don't quite trust most players doing as there are several other, reasonable alternatives they might consider, such as the relation being total number of virtues adopted in the dominant tree rather than the level, or the number of virtues adopted in other categories vs. the hybrid one.

    The second consideration is how I had planned shortcomings to work. One cool consideration with this system is that a category never really gets "smaller". Yes when you switch dominant trees, you lost some policies, but it's up to a maximum of three. It gets around the unreasonable model a fully formed green economy throwing EVERYTHING out the window and turning into a free market. However, it has always been my intention that the player's decisions be informed by not just the potential bonuses they'll receive in that tree but the shortcomings they will lose by abandoning their current one. With the hybrid scheme I tried above, it could become impossible to lose that first level shortcoming. Some might see this as perfectly reasonable thing in the system, that becoming so heavily invested in a tree should disallow you from dropping it's bad habits, but that was never my intention. That's not to say my intentions are set in stone, but being able to leave your shortcomings behind was always quite important to me.

    The third was how some of the policies were planned to work. In the game there are policies the give rewards that are one time bonuses and are irreversible. Things like free settlers/workers. With the idea of switching trees, it must be kept in mind that policies can be re-earned and thus possibly abusable. Certain ones like the free worker and settler I was relatively fine with, as it was prohibitively expensive to burn policies to re-earn them, even when quite low on the tree. I have a few in mind that are a good deal stronger, and the current mechanic of forcing an investment of up to 4 consecutive policies in order to re-earn them I felt was a good balancing factor. This issue is conjecture at this point as I have not implemented any of the virtues in-game yet, but the system above would've allowed for players to re-earn any policy in the tree at the "waste" of only 1 policy by structuring their trees correctly. Those policies would need to be reworked, which is fine, but I'm reticent because they seem to be quite fun (though whether they're more fun than hybrid trees is a valid question).

    The final point is a simple design idea. I wanted to avoid the gameplay scenarios where players win the game with 15 virtues all in politics and like 4 virtues in other places. Admittedly this is a very inorganic, ham-fisted way of doing it. Things like the shortcomings work to encourage players to invest in different trees, but I would need to implement a new system if I wanted it to extend to categories (the current breadth kickers can't be reworked to be limited to a single category). The current system allows me to make designs such as the politics tree, where one helps you grow population and build cities fast (pluralist), one helps you manage the unhealth from large empires (police state), and one gives you bonuses that scale with your total population (fundamentalist). Obviously players are most powerful having all three, but they can only have one and must make up for the others through other means.

    EDIT: I might not have really liked the illustrations, but eventually you reach the point where rule_of_cool>rule_of_usability.

    wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee



    I could watch this for minutes.
     
  9. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
  10. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    Canada
    "Progress shortcoming"

    Civ V used some prog tech to make oneshot policy effects only happen once. I'd prefer just to design away any oneshot effects, but there 's no reason to see this as a technical limitation.
     
  11. Ampharos

    Ampharos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    New Jersey
    If you go with a non-hybrid system, then I would go all the way and not allow access to other trees in the same category. Otherwise, you make the game unnecessarily complicate, which may turn players away.

    It's also why I advocate a hybrid system. Going into entirely one category isn't all that unrealistic. It just means that a faction emphasizes their political system, economic system, or foreign policy over things. If we're choosing which is most realistic, I think locking players into one choose is more unrealistic than allowing them to put culture into just one area.

    It's up to you how you want to do it, but I'd either go one or the other. Having both, in my opinion, makes things convoluted and can be difficult to understand.

    That said, I definitely think you should go for the stars. As a player, if I downloaded a mod and had trouble reading the interface, regardless of how good that mod was, I would probably uninstall it immediately. Usability is probably the single most important thing in a game alongside the gameplay itself. If you have trouble understanding the game and its interface, you aren't going to play it, similar to how you aren't going to play a game if it's just not a fun game to play.

    I highly, highly recommend using the stars instead of the illustrations, though, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use the illustrations at all. Like I said, if you integrate them in a way that maintains emphasis on the virtues, you're in the clear since they no longer detract from somebody's ability to play the game.

    In summary, being able to play the game and understand it takes priority over literally everything else. If the interface is difficult to read, players won't play, and if the system is too complicated (in your words, trying to hamstring a hybrid system together) then they're just going to find something else to play.
     
  12. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    I've been keeping those points all in mind this whole time as well as soliciting some advice on the interface from some people I know in person, so they can play around with it and give me their opinions. I'm busy working on a separate, sort of equally-sized project at the moment to help me take a break from it. I'll be switching between the two so that I don't get too burnt out over either.

    @Horseshoe_Hermi: That table entry for the "reward only once" (which I think was used exclusively by volunteer army), is removed in BE. I'm unaware if the code backing it in-engine is still present. It would require some testing and would likely not extend to other one time policies like the free-affinity level (not that this will necessarily make it in).
     
  13. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,674
    First off, I really like where you are going with this! :goodjob:

    Second, have you considered adding in a derivation of the Civ V ideology system, except with affinity-specific "ideologies"? That may be a way to increase the number of policies available to the player, and may add an additional layer of customization to each affinity.
     
  14. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    I had put some thoughts into a culture system that more strongly affects affinities. Currently I'm a little unhappy about there are only affinity specific techs and quests exp. rewards at the moment. I brainstormed with some people the possibility of a culture system that relied on three long trees, similar to the current system, only each tree characterizes a particular affinity. Adopting virtues in either affinity earns you bonuses that better characterizes your state as well as acts as an alternative source of Affinity exp. This way, you can work towards the victory wonders through both science and culture. Hybrid affinities would evolve fairly naturally from a system like this, as it already does with tech.

    Affinities don't really obey the same rules I've set for the Social Engineering however, so I don't plan for any explicit tie-ins. Any synergies should evolve naturally from gameplay.
     
  15. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,674
    I see - although I was talking more about the Ideology system, which is an addition to the standard culture system and panel.
     
  16. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    I did in fact consider a system very similar to ideology for a long time, but it is too specifically coded for Civ5 to work with Beyond Earth's system. It would have pretty poor support for hybrid affinities and the like. I've actually been drafting and playing around with many different systems for the past 6 months. There have been some really interesting ones I might like to try out at some point, but they either weren't technically feasible, poorly designed, or didn't quite meet my goals.
     
  17. Yama951

    Yama951 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Once this mod goes out, are you going to add preferences and aversions to the Unity Project sponsors/civs?

    Edit: Follow up question, since the Alien Crossfire sponsors have an aversion/preference in the removed Future Society choice. Will you change it or leave it empty? Same with Garland. I imagine him having no preference nor aversions, given how he's the moderating voice of the radical crew before he got killed.
     
  18. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Yes, the current system is easily leveraged by other mods and is still flexible enough to support factions with no aversions/preferences or multiple.

    As such, the Unity Project sponsors will be updated, and some of the branches are being designed with them in mind. I want things like Yang to have no real penalties from police state to remain and for Miriam to have a large motivation to go fundamentalist, just things like that. With their being twelve Unity Project sponsors and twelve engineering choices, I've already mapped them all, 1-to-1 with varying degrees of success. This does go against the grain of a few of the factions such as the Pirates, but I think I have okay justification for my choices. I can't remember if Garland was mapped or not. It may have been Garland that was mapped to a choice and the Pirates were left with no aversions to keep in line with their original design. I would have to check my notes.

    That said, neither mod will require the other. There will just be some cross pollination in design.
     
  19. lilgamefreek

    lilgamefreek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Hey everyone. I figured I'd post an update on account of the work I've gotten done over the last 4 days or so. There's been two big changes. The first is I think I've found a decent balance between how much you gain vs. lose when switching your choices. The second is that I've started slowly implementing and testing the new virtues in game and would love to hear feedback on their usefulness and balance, as I not an experience game designer by any means.

    So the way changing your choice of Social Engineering works now is that you still lose all the effects of your previous tree, but rather than losing each individual virtue itself they become "deactivated" or abandoned. The next time you have a free virtue to spend, you can use it to readopt the tree if you'd like, at which point all previously acquired virtues in the tree are reactivated, but you do not acquire any new virtues. Here are some screenshots of it in action.

    Spoiler :

    Spoiler :


    Abandoned virtues are hidden from the player when there are no virtues to choose similar to un-acquired virtues. Mousing over the tree will still show which virtues are de-activated vs. un-acquired.

    Spoiler :

    Spoiler :


    On another note. Social Engineering categories with no choices made are highlighted while those with choices made are dimmed.

    A happy accident of this system is that policies can be re-activated but NOT re-adopted. This means I have a lot more freedom with policies that give one-time bonuses and otherwise do nothing at all. Players can't continuously readopt them for massive gains.

    But you probably want to talk more about the virtues each tree is going to get. I've only gotten the three politics categories into the game so far, but the make a good first step. The virtues as they stand are (from top-down, left-right on the tree).

    Police State



    1. Security Program (opener):
      The Capital generates +1 science for every 2 population.
    2. Relocation Permits (req. Security Program):
      -25% negative health from city count
    3. Surveillance State (req. Security Program):
      +2 Science and Production from Spy Agency. +1% Science and Production per spy in HQ (max 10%)
    4. Brute Squad (req. Security Program):
      6 free marines
    5. Community Watch (req. Relocation Permits):
      -15% negative health
    6. Secret Police (req. Surveillance State):
      +1 health from Surveillance Webs
    7. Military Police (req. Surveillance State or Brute Squad):
      +0.5 health per military unit
    8. Suppressed Population (Shortcoming):
      -25% bonus from positive health for each level (up to three)

    Pluralist


    1. Fluid Politics (opener):
      +2 production in all cities
    2. Individual Initiative (req. Fluid Politics):
      Free colonist and +30% outpost growth
    3. Inalienable Rights (req. Fluid Politics):
      +10% growth in every City
    4. Representative Government (req. Fluid Politics):
      -33% culture needed for border expansion
    5. Settler Claims (req. Individual Initiative):
      +3 population in newly founded cities
    6. The Fourth Way (req. Inalienable Rights):
      Half negative health and food consumption from specialists
    7. Public Works (req. Representative Government):
      -33% Energy to building purchase costs
    8. Conflict Indecisiveness (Shortcoming):
      -10% military production for each level (up to three)

    Fundamentalist


    1. Essential Doctrine (opener):
      -10% culture needed for virtues
    2. Dogma Distribution (req. Essential Doctrine):
      -40% science and culture penalties from numer of cities
    3. Venerated Monuments (req. Essential Doctrine):
      +15% wonder production. +4 culture from wonders
    4. Proselytize (req. Essential Doctrine):
      Choose 1 free affinity level
    5. Disciples (req. Dogma Distribution or Venerated Monuments):
      +1 food, culture, energy, and production for every 4 pop in a city.
    6. Combat Conviction (req. Venerated Monuments or Proselytize):
      +10% production towards a unit for each upgrade it has.
    7. Crusade (req. Proselytize):
      Killing units of sponsors with rival affinities earns you 1 point in your dominant affinity
    8. Obstinance (Shortcoming):
      -10% science per level when researching non-leaf techs (up to three)

    That's what I've got working in the game at the moment. Keep in mind that there are 9 more trees left to fill out, and while I have lots of ideas for them, I've through implementing these first three that things rarely go as expected when actually implementing them. Let me know what you think about what I currently have because game design is not my forte.

    Current Thoughts:
    - I can't tell whether Pluralist is useful enough in the late game to keep players from switching away from it 100% of the time. Similarly, I can't tell whether Police State and Fundamentalist are useful enough early game where anyone would want to pick them over Pluralist.

    - Secret Police could probably use more bonuses apart from just Surveillance Webs give health, but I'm not certain what else.

    - The current way Crusade works is that it requires both parties to have dominant affinities, so picking on someone who has nothing or when you have nothing won't do anything. Any kill counts, including workers. I am debating whether to require the kills be on foreign soil only or not (it would make sense, but limiting it to a virtue that is only useful offensively I'm not sure about and could use advice on).
     
  20. MasterEcabob

    MasterEcabob Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2015
    Messages:
    114
    I've been a huge fan of your Unity mod, because of how game changing the various abilities and downsides are. I'm seeing the same thing here with the Brute Squad policy! Like, wow that will be insanely good for early game. Here are some of my thoughts and suggestions:

    If you change trees, will freebies like the marines or the colonists stay or will they be abandoned?

    I like that the Fundamentalist tree gets a wonder boost, and is more culture focused since the penalty is so harsh.

    I think you could probably replace the lowered science penalty from cities, as that doesn't really fit the overall theme. I would replace it with Tradition's opener from Civ5, in this case giving free Relics in your first four cities instead of monuments. The interesting thing about this policy is you can gamble on not building a Relic and get the culture for the policy from resource pods instead.

    I really like the bonus yields from pop virtue, as this goes great with the Believer's massive growth boost at the start of the game.

    As for pluralist, I would like to see more focus on the specialists, perhaps one of the first virtues giving a free Artist, Scientist, and Engineer in the capital and the second virtue giving the health boost as well as a flat +1 yields boosts to all specialists to compliment the Peacekeeper's playstyle.

    Moving on to police state, I think the spy virtues could definitely use a boost. I think the first policy should reduce the cost of researching computing, to make ARC's Spy Agency rush strategy even sweeter. As for the second virtue, you could have webs promote up to 3 spies for free.

    Finally, given the huge health boosts already in the tree, I'd replace the +health from military virtue with a bonus movement point for marines virtue just to make brute squad even more useful.


    Let me know what you think of these ideas, as I'm not a modder and have no idea how feasible implementing them would be. I've also been giving some thought to the other trees, and have some thoughts about shortcomings for the Economic virtue trees. Looking forward to the completed project!
     

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop