Unbalanced Civics

[Ex Mudder]

I think there is another thread about this somewhere, but I can't find it.

Some Civics seem to be horribly unbalanced. Take Free Speech for example: +100% culture (which I can accept, there are several +100% culture wonders in the game). AND

+2 gold per Town AND no upkeep. Talk about over powered. Most cities I've seen have at least 5 towns in their city radius - thats +10 gold per city, at no upkeep cost.

WTH? Why, exactly, does free speech make small towns generate more wealth? And why in the world add this to a civic that is already plenty powerful?

Compared to Vassalge (2 XP = free promotion) or Bureaucracy (+50% hammers, gold from capitol), this is a no brainer.

Other civics seem more balanced. Serfdom (+50% worker speed) vs Caste system (unlimited specialists) vs Emancipation (double growth rate of cottages, hamlets, and villages) for example. Each fits a different play style.

Or mercantilism (+1 specialist per city, no foreign trade routes) vs Free Market (+1 trade route per city, can trade with other civs). More gold or a specialist to increase gold / hammers / happiness / culture / science / health? With Environmentalism elimiated health concerns by eliminating unhealthiness caused by population.

And the wierd thing is that Representation (Republic) is BETTER than Universal Sufferage (Democracy) according to several reviewers. More happiness in large cities and more research from specialists? How does representation cause that? At least Democracy (+1 hammer from town, more gold in cities) makes sense (women in the workforce).

I think we may need to see a few patches before there are, in fact, 3125 equal options available, instead of 2: One for peace, and One for war.

Overall, I like the game, but I am beginning to wonder if my pre-order was such a good idea.

 

[remconius]

Even if unbalanced, everyone can get it to balance things.... And maybe it only comes available right at the end... The ultimate civic let's say... If you can get there first, you'll have the benefit until the rest gets there. There is probably an ultimate civics or two for each of the five.

And what are you giving up with free speech? Without knowing all the alternatives it's tough to see if it's unbalanced.

 

[CivFan91]

Just like in Civ II: Democracy is the best trade-producing government ever, but you give up your ability to fight, for the most part.

 

[Sullla]

"I can't believe how unbalanced these civics are! I better cancel my pre-order before I get a chance to play the game and find out for myself just how unbalanced they really are!"

(Sorry - but I couldn't resist. Speculating about games can be fun, but there's simply no way to know what's balanced and what isn't without actually playing a game. It's just not possible! )

 

[JeBuS27]

Is it +2 gold per town or per village? If town, it may refer to the cities themselves, not the suburbs.

 

[Aks K]

It is +2 gold town. Towns is an tile improvement and has nothing to do with cities. (Cottage -> Hamlet -> Village -> Town)

Aks K

 

[Louis XXIV]

IIRC, sufferage makes other civs want sufferage and be more unhappy. It might not be better than representation, but it has advantages in hurting other people.

 

[Leto]

.

And the wierd thing is that Representation (Republic) is BETTER than Universal Sufferage (Democracy) according to several reviewers. More happiness in large cities and more research from specialists? How does representation cause that? At least Democracy (+1 hammer from town, more gold in cities) makes sense (women in the workforce).

what's wrong with a Republic being effective? the United States is a Republic and it seems to work fairly well.

and to answer your question, my guess would be that "happiness in large cities" could represent that people aren't having to worry about governing themselves (the elected officials get that job) - the populace simply seeks after their own personal prosperity; the "research from specialists" could represent a larger government which provides research and development funding.

 

[Ex Mudder]

IIRC, sufferage makes other civs want sufferage and be more unhappy. It might not be better than representation, but it has advantages in hurting other people.

That's emancipation, actually.

Universal sufferage comes available with Democracy, and it's what the US and most of the western world has been since we let women, minories, and poor people vote.

 

[remconius]

Plus 2 gold to town might not be that overpowered. It's the last stage of the terrain improvement. It could actually take a long time before it has evolved 3 times. This means only your oldest and most developed cities (top 5-10) will benefit.

 

[Aks K]

Plus 2 gold to town might not be that overpowered. It's the last stage of the terrain improvement. It could actually take a long time before it has evolved 3 times. This means only your oldest and most developed cities (top 5-10) will benefit.

True but with emancipation your cottages, hamlets and villages growth double speed. So Universal Suffage, Free Speech and Emancipation work best together. This means that 4*4*4 = 64 is reduced to 3*3*3 = 27! Meaning that eventhough there are options some civics should be used together. This is a shame.

Aks K

 

[Martinus]

what's wrong with a Republic being effective? the United States is a Republic and it seems to work fairly well.

and to answer your question, my guess would be that "happiness in large cities" could represent that people aren't having to worry about governing themselves (the elected officials get that job) - the populace simply seeks after their own personal prosperity; the "research from specialists" could represent a larger government which provides research and development funding.

Actually, in terms of Civilization series, modern day US is a democracy, not a republic. Republic, in this meaning, is something like the US in the 19th centure, before the ACW and the universal suffrage, or Swiss Confederation in early 20th century. I.e. "everybody" is represented in the government, but this does not include women, slaves, assorted religions, etc. Democracy (and in CivIV Universal Suffrage) means everybody has the same and equal vote, irrespective of gender, race or religion.

And happiness in five biggest cities to me means that they simply are happy because they get a bigger share of the pie, when it comes to governing the nation (as there is no absolute equality in voting etc., bigger cities were able to secure better terms of their rule, e.g. self rule, whereas smaller ones are ruled by appointed governors, etc.)

 

[Obark]

I agree Free Speech seem absurdly powerfull.

+ 100% culture alone is already great but the +2 gold per Town and no upkeep make it totally broken versus other civics.

 

[Martinus]

True but with emancipation your cottages, hamlets and villages growth double speed. So Universal Suffage, Free Speech and Emancipation work best together. This means that 4*4*4 = 64 is reduced to 3*3*3 = 27! Meaning that eventhough there are options some civics should be used together. This is a shame.

Aks K

I don't see how this is a shame.

If you choose the "peaceful development" (Universal Suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation, Pacifism, Free Market/Environmentalism) options across the board, you get extra bonuses and synergies, but at the same time you totally eschew the militaristic/isolationist options - which may have negative consequences. Whereas, if you go a more balanced route, you do not get as many options, but at the same time you do not neglect anything.

The same was a case in SMAC really - it made more sense, depending on your style, to have Democracy AND Free Market or Police State AND Planned Economy, but you could have either choice, if it fitted your style better.

 

[Calsan]

True but with emancipation your cottages, hamlets and villages growth double speed. So Universal Suffage, Free Speech and Emancipation work best together. This means that 4*4*4 = 64 is reduced to 3*3*3 = 27! Meaning that eventhough there are options some civics should be used together. This is a shame.

Aks K

Isn't this the deffinition of a modern day Democracy, and since most of the western world has this. And since it's a bit western orientated (or an American game) Its logical that the things work so good

Anyway that's I the way see it.

 

[Aks K]

I don't see how this is a shame.

If you choose the "peaceful development" (Universal Suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation, Pacifism, Free Market/Environmentalism) options across the board, you get extra bonuses and synergies, but at the same time you totally eschew the militaristic/isolationist options - which may have negative consequences. Whereas, if you go a more balanced route, you do not get as many options, but at the same time you do not neglect anything.

The same was a case in SMAC really - it made more sense, depending on your style, to have Democracy AND Free Market or Police State AND Planned Economy, but you could have either choice, if it fitted your style better.

I agree it is a peaceful build. But I just dont see the negative consequences. Free Speech: no upkeep, Emancipation: no upkeep and Universal Suffrage: medium upkeep (makes more sense). This is simply to low upkeep for my taste. Sure your units dont get free upgrades, but hey with wise combat and superior units you should get some xp to your units.

Aks K

 

[Mr. Blonde]

It seems indeed to be very powerful at first sight.
However the upkeep cost for civics is imo relatively low (neglegible at late game). +2 gold per town seem really powerful. Concerning the +100% culture - I think it will only double the culture output from luxury rate and entertainers (it will be similar to an additional theatre? in every city).

I hope this boni are bought with increased unhappiness/ war weariness (unrealistic but gameplaywise balancing) and a more costy army (in relation to other civics).

One should not forget that other civics have also powerful boni and that US is a late game civic and should naturally be slightly better than older civics (additionally you have to invest an anarchy period for changing). Otherwise what would be the point in a revolt?

 

[holy king]

in former civs you had governments, that were always better than the ones before... in modern times you had democracy for peace and communism for war, that was it.
now you really can decide what you want.
slavery in the modern world? you can afford a war against a stronger nation with that for some limited time (of course your people will soon get too unhappy and you would have to change it)

 

[kolpo]

A choice where one option is the best, is not a choice but is instead tendious work. Choicing between civics should be dilemma and the playerbase should NEVER reach consensus on which are the best civics or even which are the best war/peace civics.

You already get "more variety" as reward for researching modern civics so their is no need for more rewards. Quite every single civic of civ4(except serfdom maybe) still exists in some form in the modern world so civ4 should reflect this.

Civics are NOT like weapon technologies. No modern army uses sword anymore, but you still have nations who use slavery, representation(=woman can't vote), caste system, police state, monarchy. You have even many examples of nations who went from those so called "modern" civics back to the older ones, like Iran went from a western state to a more theocratic state. China had more free trade before then after Mao. Iraq was more democratic before then after Sadam. And Argentinia went from a democracy to one of the most brutal regimes ever and after that again to democracy.

 

[Masquerouge]

My reasoning is this : if we can tell just by looking at what a civic does that it's overpowered, then surely Firaxis must have seen it too.
In that case, either a. they don't mind it being overpowered because they are stupid or b. it's actually not overpowered because Firaxis did its job.

Yeah, I'm stretching it a bit, but still.