Suggestions and Requests

[calad]

Religious civics are controversial by default and they fit very poorly in game. Most of their bonuses make no sense anyway in historical context.

 

[ezzlar]

This isn't that unrealistic, the glorious Soviet Union was plenty scientifically advanced thank you very much.

Thanks to espionage and heavy spending. I wouldnt think anything outside the military sector ever was outstanding.

 

[AdrienIer]

Thanks to espionage and heavy spending. I wouldnt think anything outside the military sector ever was outstanding.

Yeah Russia is known for being particularly bad at maths

 

[calad]

Yeah Russia is known for being particularly bad at maths

Issue was not ability of people but politics of government aka civics.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't know if this line of argument is going to be very productive.

Civ game mechanics are an extreme abstraction of real life economics. This is just one thing the game does not represent accurately at all, because it is more concerned with being a functioning game in this respect. By extension, the relationship between the real life effects of forms of government and society and the effect of the corresponding civics will be equally abstract. It can't work any other way.

It's better to look at civics being "themed" after what inspired them, to make their effects roughly intuitive. I've also tried to group the effects of related civics in ways that make them synergize and imply an overall strategy, i.e. capitalism = cottage economy, socialism = specialist economy, totalitarianism = espionage economy.

Of course there are limitations and you will always find counters in the varied list of historical examples.

I tentatively agree that the religious column is weak right now. I wouldn't necessarily say inaccurate, but in general it's really just an uninteresting choice: "so we have a religion now, do we want more buildings, units or GP?". But I think we can live with it until I have put things in place to replace it. Extra science for Secularism is the least of its issues in my opinion though.

 

[Alexius08]

Can hwachas be turned into iron-free Bombard replacements instead of Catapult replacements as they currently are? It doesn't make sense for them to show up while Korea doesn't have access to the Gunpowder tech.

 

[ezzlar]

A strength 5 replacement to Bombards? Sounds like a bad trade. Korea has access to iron.

 

[agentxorange]

On top of that, you should be done the Korean UHV before you even have access to Gunpowder (or use it anyway).

 

[Shadow Warlord]

A strength 5 replacement to Bombards? Sounds like a bad trade. Korea has access to iron.

They should probably be revamped if they are to replace bombards, but looking at when they were developed it doesn't make sense for them to be available way before gunpowder.

 

[Alexius08]

A strength 5 replacement to Bombards? Sounds like a bad trade. Korea has access to iron.

It would keep the strength of regular bombards, but you won't need any resources to build it.

 

[Fresol]

But isn't that pointless? Korea has iron in its core.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Then just make it cost less hammers.

 

[Sgt. Bears]

Could you make it so that if you select multiple cities, instead of randomly selecting 1 of the cities production choices as it does now and therefore being unable to train sea units if a land city was randomly selected. Instead, when you select multiple cities could it show you all the production choices that any of your cities can make. It will make it easier to make empire wide production choices.

 

[Leoreth]

Huh? How do you expect the interface to handle that?

 

[need my speed]

In the F1 screen, he presumably means. I'd really like that change, too.

 

[Leoreth]

You mean selecting production from the F1 screen?

 

[calad]

Leo is thinking of removing religion civic bar completely because it does not fit very well in game and bonuses are not that sensible. What I recommend is to replaced it with ideology/ambition/driving power and so on bar that would present on what civ is focused on and/or what is driving power behind civ.

They would be:

• Survival
• Religion
• Freedom
• Order
• Autocracy

Ancient civs would be survival civs: they are constantly treated by barbarians and other civs (like Rome!) who wants to conquer them. Later religion will replace it and instead of killing everybody around you, civs would focus of spreading religion and then border areas like Levant and Al-Andalus would be hotspots. Also with religion civic religion URV is enabled only because it does not make sense that in late game when time of great religion struggles are over URV is still possible.

In later game there are three very civ5 like civics: democracy, socialism and fascism. New victories would be an ideological victory. Also this would make civics much more important in diplomacy and would make late game more logical and divided into certain "camps".

Comments?

 

[Leoreth]

I think ideologies should be emergent as some sort of meta civic based on your normal civic choices.

For the moment, I think it is sufficient to remove the religious column without any replacement.

 

[need my speed]

Those five categories seem too limited anyway. Something like 'imperialism' should be included at the very least, but even that can be split between 'spread our glorious empire far and wide' and 'we must uplift those primitive savages and give them a better life'.

And 'survival' could be both defensive and offensive ('let's invade everyone else before they can become a threat'; Rome's modus operandi). And so on.

What is the difference between 'order' and 'autocracy' here?

But I don't think such a value system will really work; civics + the actions you do in-game are a better representation.

 

[Leoreth]

Rome's modus operandi was more like "paying our soldiers in land was quite the great idea except that means that we can never stop conquering land now".