State of Civics Poll

SultanRedSnake

Warlord
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
187
Location
Philadelphia
Just want to see where the community is on the current state of Civics. Please only respond if you think any changes would be conducive to better gameplay as well as specific proposals if you have any yet.

I have only one tentative idea for consideration: trade "At least one slot for Artist, Stateman, Scientist Merchant" from Republic with "Can Spend Gold to Finish Military Unit Production" from Citizenship.

Special apology to Leoreth: Hope I'm not driving you too crazy with my recent flurry of activity. I'm just overcome with excitement for the biggest overhaul in DoC history!
 
>Tangentially related, but what do you think about a mechanic wherein switching to wartime civics while at (global) war doesn't give you anarchy? I've always found it hard to justify some of the later game wartime civics with how strong free enterprise and democracy are, and losing two-three turns around then can hurt. Might make them slightly sweeter.
From a previous thread.
 
Great idea for a thread. I'll contribute, with the caveat that I'm partly approaching this from a flavor standpoint.

GOVERNMENT
Despotism: Could do with a bit of a nerf. Due to the way it benefits from slower game speeds, it could have a less advantageous ratio on Epic and Marathon.

LEGITIMACY
Revolutionism: Needs to be buffed. I don't know if this is possible but maybe it could reduce anarchy length? That'd be fun. More generally the problem is that it's a civic that is all over the place and doesn't really have a clear focus.

SOCIETY
Individualism: It's fine as it is, I'd just like to point out that in its current state this civic (and cottage economies in general) have a very strong synergy with civs with a lot of time to develop (like China), while younger civs (like America) do not have the time to use it properly. Giving it a boost from immigration mechanics would help with that, with maybe a different nerf to compensate.

ECONOMY
Central Planning: Has the opposite problem of Individualism. Its main appeal is stronger Watermills (and to a lesser extent the boost to specialists). Strongly attractive to civs like America, Canada and Brazil with a lot of rivers without resources on them, no time to grow cottages, and a need for :hammers: and :food:. It's pretty good for Russia too (and with the new terrain changes its mediocre terrain tiles will welcome the +1 :food:), but other historically communist civs have trouble making use of it. China in particular has the problem that, despite being another large civ with lots of rivers, it can build a powerhouse of a capital, so Regulated Trade+Individualism is hard to beat (arguably this isn't a problem since it can still be communist from State Party+Regulated Trade).

Public Welfare: Really needs a buff, and also some explanation on what strategy it's supposed to encourage. I think it could have an interesting and flavorful synergy with the :culture: and/or :science: sliders, granting :health: and :gp: to symbolize public services boosts to a healthier and more educated population. This would also synergise with the extra :commerce: from :) you get from Arenas, etc. OTOH, this directly conflicts with the "can spend :commerce: on :hammers:" aspect, so maybe the opposite should be true? At the same time, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for Public Welfare to conflict with the multipliers you get from libraries, universities, etc. by running a full :commerce: slider.

RELIGION
I'll plug back again this idea I had a while ago. Largely unnecessary but I think it could be fun:
Just for fun, but I always found Priests' jack-of-all-trades nature a bit odd as far as Specialists go, so I thought it might be flavorful if they were a more flexible type, receiving a minor bonus depending on your religious Civic:

-Animism: :culture: (oral tradition, etc. and as a flexible lever of expansion before Artists really show up),
-Deification: :hammers: (great projects to the leader's glory),
-Clergy: :gold: (the growing assets that tend to flow from the church's ties to secular society),
-Monasticism: :science: (though maybe in this case this should instead be tied to Monasteries somehow),
-Theocracy: :espionage: (should be self-explanatory),
-Tolerance: not sure, maybe a generic bonus to :gp: growth?
-Secularism obviously doesn't get anything.

The idea is that all of these should be mediocre compared to other specialists, but constitute a supplementary strategy for civs witth a lot of Priest slots.

Clergy: Could have some synergy with Paganism actually, since pagan societies often had elaborate clergies and weren't all about Deification. Why not "+1 Priest slot from Pagan temples" or something like that?

Theocracy: Usually a bit overshadowed by other religious civics. I've suggested before giving it part of the effect of the current Arab UP by having state religion spreads to conquered cities. Alternatively, double/remove the limits on the number of Missionaries and Persecutors you can have at the same time (which is a massive pain if you play religion-focused victory goals).

TERRITORY
Just some idea I had to give more complexity to your relationship with Independents:
As it is how you interact with Independent civs is extremely limited (justifiably so, they're not like city-states in later games). It could be a neat thing to receive some small bonus in your interactions with them depending on your Territory civic:

-Sovereignty, Conquest: Nothing.
-Tributaries: +1 :commerce: from neighboring Independent cities.
-Isolationism: Faster peace following a declaration of war.
-Colonialism: No city unrest when conquering Independent, Barbarian or Native civs.
-Nationhood: Faster :culture: spread on Independent tiles.
-Multilateralism: Open Borders with both Independent civs, additional trade route yield with Independent cities.
 
I've got a lot of thoughts rattling around in my head on this subject. Here we go:

Government:
  • Despotism: S-Tier. Peaks in Ancient/Classical era, while things are still cheap enough. Awesome for rushing out infrastructure and a military. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Monarchy: C-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance/Industrial. The best part of the civic is double production speed of Jails, as it helps recoup your economy after a period of rapid expansion. Constabularies are forgettable. The extra :) isn't as important because your expansion should be acquiring luxury resoruces for your core cities, so the extra :) is just there to plug the gaps. Verdict: To buff civic, maybe buff Constabulary, and give double production speed of something else (Settlers?) to emphasize the expansionism/colonialsim.
  • Elective: B-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. Unlike other government civics, this civic really does have an "end" date attached to it, once you get your empire filled with enough improvements. Still, running Elective in conjunction with Tributaries is the best way to keep a decent economy while you are building your military in the medieval era (depending on if you have Pastures/Camps) Verdict: Great as is.
  • State Party: S-Tier. The best civic in the game. The best way to expand your economy in DoC is to capture other cities, and State Party insures that the only thing that will stop you from expanding isn't your economy, but your Expansion stability. Coupled with the +3:espionage: per specialist, this civic is also really the only way to get consistent use out of espionage. Verdict: Nerf espionage from +3 to +1 per specialist (or possibly remove it altogether...?), and maybe introduce other ways to increase espionage from specialists/statesmen in the mod that don't require a civic. Statesmen provide a fraction of the :espionage: as the spy does in vanilla.
  • Democracy: C-Tier. Peaks in Global era. Unfortunately, this civic suffered a bit of a nerf when Egalitarianism was pushed to the end of the Industrial. Now you can no longer easily pick/choose the specialists/Great People you want for most of the Industrial era. Unfortunately again, by the time you unlock Egalitarianism, you are about to unlock State Party, which is the superior civic. Still, this civic is especially good for newborn civilizations, to spam out a bunch of Great People in their opening turns, allowing for a lot of flexibility. Verdict: Maybe buff the :gp: birth rate even more, or perhaps the :gp: increase can be further increased by :culture: level in cities, emphasizing the peaceful playstyle of the civic, in comparison to State Party.

Legitimacy:
  • Citizenship: B-Minus-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. Situational, but when the situation calls for it, is very strong. Rushing mercenaries is the best part of the civic. Double production speed of infrastructure is nice, but the double production of markets is the second best part of the civic (helps economy after rapid expansion from your mercenaries). Verdict: Fine as is. Maybe add the Levee as another building it increases production of.
  • Vassalage: A-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. Not as situational as Citizenship, so it inches ahead scorewise. You will save a lot of :gold: if you have a strong military, not to mention the extra :hammers: on farms. (In the Medieval era, all your regular tiles should be farms. Run with Manorialism.) The extra happiness is the cherry on top. Verdict: The extra happiness is too much for this already strong civic, and should be removed.
  • Meritocracy: D-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. A very situational civic. I only used this while playing as China, Korea, and briefly Japan (after I conquered China). This civic is just too all over the place for me to fully understand its place. For the civilizations I mentioned, it also competes with the very strong Vassalage civic. Verdict: I'd honestly like to see this civic replaced with another civic that isn't so specific to East Asia. I'd like to see a City State civic make a comeback, something for Greece, Maya, Swahili, etc. to enjoy.
  • Centralism: F-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. This civic boosts the :hammers: and :gold: of your capital. However, it also competes against Vassalage, which boosts :hammers: on every farm in the empire and saves you a lot of :gold: on your military. Centralism also arrives a full era after Vassalage. Centralism is High upkeep vs the Low upkeep of Vassalage. It is outcompeted in everyway compared to Vassalage. The Dutch are honestly the only civilization I like to use Centralism with. Verdict: Boost the yields to +75%, or maybe even +100%.
  • Revolutionism: C-Tier. A bit situational. Super important for cutting down Draft/Whip :mad: if you have abused your population a lot. Great Generals are nice to have but not so important that I would switch to the civic to get them. The other bonuses are a bit random. Verdict: The civic needs more "Oomph!". Clean up the other small bonuses in the civic and instead move the "-25% xp needed for unit promotions" from Meritocracy to here. Or maybe a boost to spies instead.
  • Constitution: A-Tier. Free specialist. Double production of courthouse. What's not to love? Verdict: Fine as is.

Society:
  • Slavery/Manorialism/Caste System: B-Tiers. Peaks prior to Individualism. The first few entries in this category of civics are very strongly decided by the geography of the civilization you are playing as. Slavery is good for Middle Eastern/Mesoamerican civilizations. Manorialism is good for European civilizations. Caste System is good for South and East Asian civilizations. I can't really rate these, because they are so strongly tied to your geography. Verdict: Fine as is.
  • Individualism: B-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. The main strength of this civic is the double growth of the Cottage line improvements. It peaks in Renaissance because you're ready to move away from Manorialism/Vassalage farms, and you want to have Towns by the time you get Nationhood. Unfortunately, with the amount of :food: resources, and therefore specialists, in the mod, Individualism is generally outclassed by Egalitarianism once that's available. Especially once most of your cottages are Towns anyways. Verdict: Needs another slight buff to keep it competitive with Egalitarianism. Maybe the Town gives +3:commerce: instead of +2.
  • Totalitarianism: C-Tier. Admittedly, my experience with this civic is limited. The military bonuses are nice. The two most interesting things about this civic for me are: 1.) It's the only civic in the Society category that is largely dependent on playstyle, rather than the geography of your empire. 2.) It's the only civic in the mod with No upkeep. It's hard to gauge when it becomes economical to adopt this civic over, say, Egalitarianism, but I still respect Totalitarianism for it's uniqueness, even if it's only good for a Domination/Prussian Historical Victory. Verdict: Fine as is.
  • Egalitarianism: A-Tier. The DoC map has a lot of food resources, especially in Asia and Europe. Constitution (+1 free specialist) is also usually the obvious choice in the Legitimacy category. This leads to many specialists for your cities, who stand to benefit from +2:science:. And of course, the added flexibility of double Scientist and Engineer slots (the best specialists in the game) bumps this up to A-Tier. Meshes well with Democracy, especially when going for Golden Ages. Verdict: Fine as is.

Economy:
  • Redistribution: B-Tier. Peaks in Classical era. Meshes well with Despotism, with the double Granary production and extra :food: in Capital. Verdict: Fine as is.
  • Merchant Trade: D-Tier. Peaks with large empires. You're better off running Redistribution until you get roughly 6-8 cities. The extra trade route is a nice way to give your economy a boost if you have done a lot of expanding. But at this stage of the game, trade routes typically don't net much :commerce:, especially because it's very likely these extra trade routes will end up being Domestic. Verdict: Fine as is. Hopefully with the big map, more foreign cities will translate to more foreign markets, boosting this civics value a bit.
  • Regulated Trade: C-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. Pairs nicely with civics that boost :commerce: in the capital, or even Individualism, but unfortunately suffers stability wise when paired with the latter. In my experience, it usually ends up being outclassed by Free Enterprise once that's available, especially with a colonial empire that earns International trade routes. Verdict: Maybe throw in another building it boosts production of, to keep it more competitive with Free Enterprise. Like the Bank, or Post Office.
  • Free Enterprise: A-Tier. Peaks in Industrial era. All around a solid civic. Only thing keeping it from S-tier is that it competes with Central Planning and Public Welfare, which both give ways to boost :hammers:, and Free Enterprise doesn't really offer that. You can run Multilateralism with it to give :hammers: from trade routes, but that is very late game. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Central Planning: A-tier. Peaks in Global era. You choose Free Enterprise when you want :commerce:, and Central Planning when you want :hammers:. Really dependent on your playstyle, and I think the dichotomy between these two are really great. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Public Welfare: C-Tier. This civic tries to give the commerce bonus of Free Enterprise and the production capabilities of Central Planning in a single package, but fails to be really competitive with either one. Rushing buildings is a strong ability, but unfortunately it is very costly. At a ratio of 3:1 :gold:::hammers:, it ends up being used sparingly. Furthermore, buildings that receive double production speed with another civic (ie Courthouse with Constitution) don't receive this discount when rushing buildings. The :commerce: for :) is neat, but can struggle to produce enough gold for rushing buildings. Verdict: Civics that boost building production should have that discount apply for rushing with gold. Lower the :gold:::hammers: ratio of rushing buildings from 3:1 to 2.5:1, or 2:1.
Religion:

  • Deification: B-Tier. Peaks in Ancient era. Is a nice civic for very early civilizations, but loses it's appeal fast, especially with Clergy. Verdict: Fine as is.
  • Clergy: A-Tier. Peaks in Classical era. Very powerful. Helps with constructing wonders too. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Monasticism: A-Tier. Peaks in Classical era. The dichotomy between Monasticism and Clergy is the best civic decision to make in the game. Both are very powerful, and the choice always makes me stop and really consider my goals when choosing between the two. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Theocracy: C-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. Competes with the very powerful Clergy and Monasticism, and Conquest is already available if you want more military xp. Verdict: It'd be cool to see Theocracy remove the cap on the :gold: income of the shrine of your holy city. To really give a way to play a religious economy.
  • Tolerance: F-tier. Peaks in Industrial era. Worst civic in the game. And now with Secularism being moved to the tech column just behind Tolerance, there is even less reason to go for this civic. Verdict: Buff: All religions give +1 :) a la Free Religion in vanilla Civ 4.
  • Secularism: A-Tier. Peaks in Global era. Boosts science and doubles production of some important buildings. Introduces a strong third contender to the Clergy/Monasticism choice. Verdict: Great as is.

Territory (The best balanced civic category IMO):
  • Conquest: A-Tier. Peaks in Classical era, when the extra gold from conquest is more valuable. Help fuel your conquests with more :gold:. Train more experienced soldiers. What's not to love? Verdict: Great as is.
  • Tributaries: A-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. Converts :food: into a military, without the added :mad: of Despotism. Extra :commerce: and stability from Vassals keeps this civic potentially relevant the entire game. Verdict: Great as is.
  • Isolationism: C-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. The most situational civic in the mod, but there are definitely situations where it's needed. If you are warring with the world, and your foreign stability is suffering, and your foreign markets are closed to you, you may as well run Isolationism. Verdict: Change the +50% :espionage: in capital to "Double experience for spies", to give us a civic for fun espionage play.
  • Colonialism: C-Tier. Peaks in Industrial era. +1 :commerce: per colony is okay, but not too special (unless you're England). Capturing slaves, buffed slave plantations, and +4xp for Naval units probably won't be what pulls you to this civic, either. Verdict: Buff to +1.5 :commerce: per colony (round down). Allow slaves to construct a "Slave Mine" plantation on Gold/Silver/Gems resources (the Spanish did this a lot in Latin America), and give Colonialism a buff to that.
  • Nationhood: B-Tier. Peaks in Industrial era. Draft units and buffed Town improvements. Not too flashy, but that's okay. Verdict: Fine as is.
  • Multilateralism: C-Tier. Double war weariness, the chaotic nature of Defensive Alliances, and the hard limit on the number of Alliances you may keep are what keep this civic in C-Tier. Not to mention it's unlocked very late game, and it's hard to make much use of the civic at this point (and perhaps hard to justify a revolution for it). Production from trade routes meshes well with Free Enterprise. Verdict: I've heard of plans to incorporate some version of Civ 5's ideologies to the mod. I hope more can be done with this civic when that happens. It's fine until then.
 
Monarchy: C-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance/Industrial. The best part of the civic is double production speed of Jails, as it helps recoup your economy after a period of rapid expansion. Constabularies are forgettable. The extra :) isn't as important because your expansion should be acquiring luxury resoruces for your core cities, so the extra :) is just there to plug the gaps. Verdict: To buff civic, maybe buff Constabulary, and give double production speed of something else (Settlers?) to emphasize the expansionism/colonialsim.

Yesss I got a second on rethinking monarchy. As of past few versions I've come to favor Elective for a few notable European civs that don't fit historically. Otherwise I think you nailed it: if you need Monarchy, you're doing it wrong. Double settlers? I think that's kinda brilliant for gameplay and seems justified to me (The King Says fudge Off, You fudge All the Way Off!)
Vassalage: A-Tier. Peaks in Medieval era. Not as situational as Citizenship, so it inches ahead scorewise. You will save a lot of :gold: if you have a strong military, not to mention the extra :hammers: on farms. (In the Medieval era, all your regular tiles should be farms. Run with Manorialism.) The extra happiness is the cherry on top. Verdict: The extra happiness is too much for this already strong civic, and should be removed.

Ugh, as much as it hurts to nerf my beloved Vassalage, I have to agree that the extra happiness is too much. As a silver lining, taking it away would help make the necessary decision time to finally transition from the +Manoralism combo and modernize already.

Centralism: F-Tier. Peaks in Renaissance era. This civic boosts the :hammers: and :gold: of your capital. However, it also competes against Vassalage, which boosts :hammers: on every farm in the empire and saves you a lot of :gold: on your military. Centralism also arrives a full era after Vassalage. Centralism is High upkeep vs the Low upkeep of Vassalage. It is outcompeted in everyway compared to Vassalage. The Dutch are honestly the only civilization I like to use Centralism with. Verdict: Boost the yields to +75%, or maybe even +100%.

Hehe see above. Perhaps we could broaden the scope of Centralism beyond the capital. Sure, the concept itself does indeed focus on and always back to the Metropol, but as a consequence further effects then reverberate back out across the empire. Hehe sorry best I can do right now are generalized platitudes like that. Meanwhile I agree that at very least 100% boost.

Colonialism: C-Tier. Peaks in Industrial era. +1 :commerce: per colony is okay, but not too special (unless you're England). Capturing slaves, buffed slave plantations, and +4xp for Naval units probably won't be what pulls you to this civic, either. Verdict: Buff to +1.5 :commerce: per colony (round down). Allow slaves to construct a "Slave Mine" plantation on Gold/Silver/Gems resources (the Spanish did this a lot in Latin America), and give Colonialism a buff to that.

Slave Mine: 🔥🔥🔥. Heck I say let's try +2!

Tolerance: F-tier. Peaks in Industrial era. Worst civic in the game. And now with Secularism being moved to the tech column just behind Tolerance, there is even less reason to go for this civic. Verdict: Buff: All religions give +1 :) a la Free Religion in vanilla Civ 4.

I'd also add that the bonus to capital culture seems quite out of place. Neither relevant nor useful.

🏆🏆🏆🏆 for your Ideas and Formatting!
 
I'd just like to remind participants that there are stability effects of certain and various civics/combos that we should try to account for. Many of these aren't apparent from Civic Advisor hovering and can be found in the Stability Influence Factors section of Pedia. I can think of one that isn't even in the Pedia (Free Enterprise expands range of Economic stability both positive and negative) and there might be more.
 
Is this thread to discuss playability, historicity, or whether the naming of the civics fits within the broader scholarly literature?

Only the three that Hickman calls "F-tier" really need any overhauls. Even the ones called "C-tier" or "D-tier" above are valuable situational pieces for specific civs/regions. (Medieval meritocracy for China, Korea, and [sometimes] other parts of Asia? Sounds right.) You're also drastically underselling some of those "C-tier" civics like monarchy that are absolutely essential for small militaristic civs like Germany. (Although the constabulary could use a buff, there's no real reason for any more buffs.)

1. Vassalage: Vassalage should let you maintain large armies but only to fight quick short wars before you go broke.

Needs a nerf because when my European civ (Portugal and the Netherlands excepted) should be switching to centralization, vassalage is still better. I would remove the free unit support during wartime, add "no domestic trade routes" (from nobles running mini-economies in my territory), and remove the hammer from farms (never made much sense). During campaign, nobles wouldn't fund logistics, and kings often had very few revenue sources so campaigns were kept short.

2. Centralism: The the whole point of why 16th, 17th, and 18th century European kings centralized power was to draw on tax (normally tariff) income to fund the creation of larger standing gunpowder armies and navies.

While adding modifiers to the capital makes sense in the strict definitional sense of the word "centralism"--rulers didn't really centralize power in the 17th and 18th centuries to make their capitals hyper productive :p. (I would change it to +50% commerce and +50% wonder production [e.g. Versailles] in the capital.) Centralism should tie maritime trade route income to gunpowder and naval unit support in some way to allow for the huge standing armies and global wars of the 18th century. It probably should also produce extra unhappiness (represents revolutions in Europe, dissolution and re-unification cycles in China) and + commerce on mines and plantations (monarchs in Sweden and some non-European places that didn't have overseas colonies began to centralize control over other revenue sources, often mining and cash crops). Centralism should definitely synergize with colonialism (encourage you to go found colonies) and monarchy (necessary to combat the extra unhappiness).

3. Tolerance: This needs an entire overhaul to be viable. I would add having it allow you to receive persecuted immigrants from neighboring civs that are not running tolerance or secularism and that are in the same region/religious group. That's how Protestant civs such as Prussia and the Netherlands used it in real life to grow their populations fast, and that would give it more synergy with America which spawns with it (for some inexplicable reason).

This makes it extremely powerful for a short time, but also puts a hard time cap on its usefulness once other civs in your culture group go tolerance/secular.

I do also think "Despotism" -> "Personalism" should be changed to bring it more in line with generally accepted scholarly convention. Most dictators don't use violence as their go to. That is true today and was true in ancient times. I think this is a hold over from base civ naming.
 
Last edited:
Is this thread to discuss playability, historicity, or whether the naming of the civics fits within the broader scholarly literature?

Only the three that Hickman calls "F-tier" really need any overhauls. Even the ones called "C-tier" or "D-tier" above are valuable situational pieces for specific civs/regions. (Medieval meritocracy for China, Korea, and [sometimes] other parts of Asia? Sounds right.) You're also drastically underselling some of those "C-tier" civics like monarchy that are absolutely essential for small militaristic civs like Germany. (Although the constabulary could use a buff, there's no real reason for any more buffs.)

1. Vassalage: Vassalage should let you maintain large armies but only to fight quick short wars before you go broke.

Needs a nerf because when my European civ (Portugal and the Netherlands excepted) should be switching to centralization, vassalage is still better. I would remove the free unit support during wartime, add "no domestic trade routes" (from nobles running mini-economies in my territory), and remove the hammer from farms (never made much sense). During campaign, nobles wouldn't fund logistics, and kings often had very few revenue sources so campaigns were kept short.

2. Centralism: The the whole point of why 16th, 17th, and 18th century European kings centralized power was to draw on tax (normally tariff) income to fund the creation of larger standing gunpowder armies and navies.

While adding modifiers to the capital makes sense in the strict definitional sense of the word "centralism"--rulers didn't really centralize power in the 17th and 18th centuries to make their capitals hyper productive :p. (I would change it to +50% commerce and +50% wonder production [e.g. Versailles] in the capital.) Centralism should tie maritime trade route income to gunpowder and naval unit support in some way to allow for the huge standing armies and global wars of the 18th century. It probably should also produce extra unhappiness (represents revolutions in Europe, dissolution and re-unification cycles in China) and + commerce on mines and plantations (monarchs in Sweden and some non-European places that didn't have overseas colonies began to centralize control over other revenue sources, often mining and cash crops). Centralism should definitely synergize with colonialism (encourage you to go found colonies) and monarchy (necessary to combat the extra unhappiness).

3. Tolerance: This needs an entire overhaul to be viable. I would add having it allow you to receive persecuted immigrants from neighboring civs that are not running tolerance or secularism and that are in the same region/religious group. That's how Protestant civs such as Prussia and the Netherlands used it in real life to grow their populations fast, and that would give it more synergy with America which spawns with it (for some inexplicable reason).

This makes it extremely powerful for a short time, but also puts a hard time cap on its usefulness once other civs in your culture group go tolerance/secular.

I do also think some names should be changed to bring them more in line with generally accepted scholarly convention:

1. "Despotism" -> "Personalism" (Most dictators don't use violence as their go to. That is true today and was true in ancient times. I think this is a hold over from base civ.)
2. Also, is there a 6th gov't that is missing above? Generally, autocracies are classified by political scientists into "monarchies," "personalist regimes," "single-party regimes," and "military regimes."

If there are only 5 governments I would re-orient state party away from conquest and focus it solely on espionage which is already very useful. (Make Lubyanka require state-party to build.) Then I would create a new "military regime" (name it something more creative) government that is synergistic with revolutionism but is not conquest-oriented (kind of a nichey small modern civ govt like revolutionism is for Latin American civs). I leave the details to men and women smarter than myself.
I think it’s just a thread to talk about how we view the current state of civics.

Every civic in the mod is good in a specific situation. I rated them both on the bonuses that the civic provides, as well as the competition it is up against in that category. For example, Meritocracy is both a very niche civic, and also competes against Citizenship/Vasslage, even for China/Korea/Japan. That was my reasoning for rating it low. The bonuses for Monarchy are good, but it has some strong competition in the Government category, netting it a C-Tier overall (IMO).

I think Centralism adding production and gold to the capital does a good job of showing kings centralizing their tax authority to increase their standing armies.:rolleyes: Keep it simple, if possible. I like your idea of Tolerance encouraging immigration.

Yeah, I somehow forgot about Republic. :crazyeye: I would give it a B-Tier overall. Helps with expansion, and is the “go-to” civic when playing “tall”. Very versatile civic.
 
Individualism: It's fine as it is, I'd just like to point out that in its current state this civic (and cottage economies in general) have a very strong synergy with civs with a lot of time to develop (like China), while younger civs (like America) do not have the time to use it properly. Giving it a boost from immigration mechanics would help with that, with maybe a different nerf to compensate.
Just want to chip in on the discussion, I think Individualism as it is represents the only way one could possibly run a cottage economy with the US. I think the extra turns coming with the new map might help with the timing, but in general running individualism is the only viable way to grow cottages fast. You can make lots of gold with a cottage-filled US. Without Individualism, don't even bother running them. And I feel like if you want to remain tech leader in this mod is pretty much necessary. I tried to swap to Egalitarianism early and avoid cottages but it simply isn't nearly as efficient.
 
Just want to chip in on the discussion, I think Individualism as it is represents the only way one could possibly run a cottage economy with the US. I think the extra turns coming with the new map might help with the timing, but in general running individualism is the only viable way to grow cottages fast. You can make lots of gold with a cottage-filled US. Without Individualism, don't even bother running them. And I feel like if you want to remain tech leader in this mod is pretty much necessary. I tried to swap to Egalitarianism early and avoid cottages but it simply isn't nearly as efficient.
Off-topic but I'd like to see someone more skilled than me do a detailed guide on America because I feel like it'd be a good example of how to make late-game civics really shine.
 
Off-topic but I'd like to see someone more skilled than me do a detailed guide on America because I feel like it'd be a good example of how to make late-game civics really shine.
I'm gonna pass on that :crazyeye: I've been trying countless times to win U.S. Scientific victory and every time I fail by 5-10-20 turns. Importantly, conditions I set up are to win *historically*, that is only keep my historical territory, and don't cheese with say, building Oxford in NY with England prior to spawn. Once I ended a run with 10k research points per turn and still lost.The historical victory isn't too complicate tho. Best strat is to collapse England asap and you're essentially done.
 
Off-topic but I'd like to see someone more skilled than me do a detailed guide on America because I feel like it'd be a good example of how to make late-game civics really shine.
I don't know about "more skilled," but I've played >20 America games and know the ins and outs. I'll do a regular speed run and write up a guide when I have some free time :)
 
I've played a few games as America and from a mechanical standpoint alone, I would never consider using Individualism beyond the year 1875. Even if you cottage everything that can possibly be cottaged (apart from resources), I suspect Egalitarianism would still win. I do think that Individualism is fine as it is, but Egalitarianism is way too powerful.
 
I've played a few games as America and from a mechanical standpoint alone, I would never consider using Individualism beyond the year 1875. Even if you cottage everything that can possibly be cottaged (apart from resources), I suspect Egalitarianism would still win. I do think that Individualism is fine as it is, but Egalitarianism is way too powerful.
I don't think you're wrong that egalitarisnism is really strong, I just don't think the choice is as clear cut as you're making it out to be once you dig into the numbers. Egalitarisnism is "appropriately powerful." Let's think about the America case which is special because of the Statue of Liberty...

In general as America you'll run 100% science in the first half of the industrial era at a loss, 70--80% in the second half (80% if you poach Westminister Palace which you should be able to do), and 90% once you get to the global age and pioneers can build jails for reduced maintenance. That means that every village/town = +1.8 science. Assuming no Detroit, Miami, or Austin, and only one inter-Denver/West Coast city, your cities can average 3 to 3.5 villages/towns (roughly +5.4 to +6.3 science from individualism per city; let's round to +6). That means that after about 1880 you need roughly 3/3.25 specialists per city to make egalitarianism equal to individualism (b/c individualism comes with side perks) and 3.5/3.75 or more to make it clearly better. You'll always do that eventually (no later than the early 1900s), but without isolationism, it's not a given depending both on your city settlement configuration and growth. I think that forces short-term trade-offs on the part of the player, which is what civ is all about.

**Full disclosure: I've tried it many different ways and find isolationism + egalitarianism to be best, so I actually agree with the rough 1875--1885 date range, but the point that I'm trying to make is that it is not obviously or way better than individualism + nationhood--especially since espionage from the (actually broken) Lubyanka can eventually be used by the Americans to achieve catchup in technology under any civics strategy. Egalitarianism is certainly not too powerful even in this extreme (b/c of the Statue of Liberty) case.
 
The secondary effect of Individualism, "100% growth rate of Cottage, Hamlet, and Village", generally has an end date attached to it. (Unless you are continuously expanding your territory and continuously planting more Cottages to justify the civic.) Sooner or later, all of your Cottages will mature into Towns. The secondary effect of Egalitarianism, ("Double Slots of Scientist, Engineer and Artist") however, can be enjoyed in perpetuity. Not to mention Scientists and Engineers are the best specialists to run.

With Egalitarianism now pushed to the end of the Industrial era, I think the meta play is to run Individualism throughout the Industrial era, while your Cottages are growing, and then adopt Egalitarianism at the end of the era, once all of your tiles are now Towns.

The one advantage Individualism offers, is that it gives :commerce:, not :science:, giving you a bit of flexibility if you want it. But it is still hard to justify, as science is still the king of the four commerce types.
 
The secondary effect of Individualism, "100% growth rate of Cottage, Hamlet, and Village", generally has an end date attached to it. (Unless you are continuously expanding your territory and continuously planting more Cottages to justify the civic.) Sooner or later, all of your Cottages will mature into Towns. The secondary effect of Egalitarianism, ("Double Slots of Scientist, Engineer and Artist") however, can be enjoyed in perpetuity.
When I was talking about secondary effects as America I meant the +2 happiness. It's not a ton, but it's the equivalent of a free arena in every city at a time when every production slot is precious.

I forgot about the double specialists, but I don't think it matters too much for America because you'll normally get industrial parks (the +15% aluminum, +15% oil building, forget the name) before civil rights? I'm trying to recall from my experience if it ever made a difference, and I don't think it did. Once you have industrial parks you can more or less guarantee a Great Engineer or (at worst) Scientist every time anyway.
 
Last edited:
Slavery/Manorialism/Caste System: B-Tiers. Peaks prior to Individualism. The first few entries in this category of civics are very strongly decided by the geography of the civilization you are playing as. Slavery is good for Middle Eastern/Mesoamerican civilizations. Manorialism is good for European civilizations. Caste System is good for South and East Asian civilizations. I can't really rate these, because they are so strongly tied to your geography.
Do you have a take on the worker aspect of these civics? Your comment is mostly about the improvement aspects.

In particular, I feel like Slavery's worker capturing and Caste System's improvement construction speed have clear benefits depending on your situation. However on first glance it seems like Manorialism is a lot weaker here - cheaper workers are useful but usually you build the appropriate amount of workers and then you no longer benefit from it. Should it be changed?
 
Do you have a take on the worker aspect of these civics? Your comment is mostly about the improvement aspects.

In particular, I feel like Slavery's worker capturing and Caste System's improvement construction speed have clear benefits depending on your situation. However on first glance it seems like Manorialism is a lot weaker here - cheaper workers are useful but usually you build the appropriate amount of workers and then you no longer benefit from it. Should it be changed?
Manorialism - is key for stability, it very useful in Middle Ages and early industrial. I think it's powerful as is
 
Manorialism is also very strong economically alongside Tributaries and either Feudalism or Meritocracy, depending on whether you want your hills to have mines or windmills on them. The worker aspects are okay, but I mainly choose them for their yields.
 
But what about the worker effect? Is it useful or could it also just be removed?
 
Top Bottom