Unpopular civics

[Ekolite]

Interesting, although I prefer the idea of an Industry civic.

+1 unhealthiness
+2 commerce to workshops and mills
+20% production of buildings.

This combines with my changes to the mills and worshops that I was talking about in the other thread to make them very competitive improvements under this civic. 50% speed of cottage development could be a little overpowered, especially in the hands of the bannor or kuriotates.

 

[Humakty]

It's not agrisocracy that is the problem in my book, but agrarianism. Early on, being able to work one more cottage/mine/whatever is most precious, and the more your cities grows, the more usefull it is. Sanitation tends to be the switching point when you can choose another civic without pain. But if you're able to raise your happy cap at this point, you'll probably keep it. I think agrarianism needs a clear flaw, and not the -1 prod on farms which can be too easily worked around. (I mean, who relies on his farms for production ? And you'll surely have some grasslands/floodplains in your cities BFC, most of the time. If you're not in Agristocracy mode, the production hit will be minimal, and only ever happen if you've got only plains (remember you only need 3/4 farms!))

 

[Senethro]

Ekolite: What tech were you thinking of attaching that to? What about Cottages +33% upgrade speed? (8 instead of 10, 30 isntead of 40)

The BAnnor and Kuriotates are two civs I would have said are not at risk of becoming overpowered!

Humakt: You don't think Agrarian building Libraries for 132 (-10%) while their neighbours build them for 96 hammers (+20%) would do it? I guess it wouldn't stop them switching back afterwards.

 

[seizer]

One simple adjustment could be to increase the civic upkeep from medium to high. Maybe add a penalty to culture and/or military unit production? Or a penalty to commerce?

 

[Humakty]

Senethro :It would be OK, as switching back and forth from agrarianism is quite the hassle indeed( I'm rather a warmongerer, and having to check my 20+ cities is a pain!). But I wouldn't mind an overall -10 % prod, dropping the (mostly harmless)-1 on farms.

Putting the penalty on only one building would lead to exploits, sure. (but what doesn't ? For some gaming is finding exploits, but I'm different )

My idea of a prod penalty comes from Orbis, but I find it too harsh in this mod (-20% prod).

 

[Ekolite]

Ekolite: What tech were you thinking of attaching that to? What about Cottages +33% upgrade speed? (8 instead of 10, 30 isntead of 40)

The Bannor and Kuriotates are two civs I would have said are not at risk of becoming overpowered!

Humakt: You don't think Agrarian building Libraries for 132 (-10%) while their neighbours build them for 96 hammers (+20%) would do it? I guess it wouldn't stop them switching back afterwards.

I haven't really thought about which tech it would be attached to, although Machinary sounds likely. I would actually disagree with the Kuriotates who are production monsters, and can have huge potential for commerce with a couple of Enclaves. The Bannor when played effectively are certainly strong although not quite comparable to the Kuriotates and other top-tier civs. Although in my game I make a small change to the Bannor which makes them easilly placable in that group which seems to be the aim of the civic you suggest.

What about providing a boost to cottage development at a certain tech? I would suggest Engineering but it's already very strong as it is, what about Machinary?

The increase to cottage development could be nice as a civic bonus, but I don't think its neccessary to make a whole new tech for it. It could be attached to something fairly weak like liberty or republic?

I think the penalty for agrarianism is ok but for some reason it doesn't quite feel right. How about -1 hammers from mines and workshops to represent the lack of industry? That way it stops agrarianism from being such a strong early production civic, allowing you to mine that one extra hill, in the early game. This I think has the same general effect that you're aiming for but I would suggest is more interesting then a simple penalty.

EDIT: besides, I think the tech Sanitation represents urban development very well as it is. It provides a (relatively) massive boost to city size through public baths, and an opportunity to switch away from Agrarianism with the +1 food to farms. In my mind this represents the growing focus on large cities, and the movement away from a rural, agricultural society.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

The most important buildings are built in the first 150-200 turns, and many cottages blossom into towns by that point too, especially if you stop building them and go with aristofarms instead. A building production boosting civic attached to a tech as late as machinery would blow, and so would a cottage growth boost.

Agrarianism needs to lose steam and get competition midgame, not endgame.

I agree that 50% cottage growth at construction is overdoing it and that the Kuriotates are one of the biggest reasons why, but toning down the value would do fine, no need to scrap the idea altogether.

Most civics don't have penalties and those that do have minor ones. Don't attach something like a commerce or universal production penalty to something that's going to compete with ing agrarianism. That's just crazy.

 

[Ekolite]

The main punch of the industry civic is supposed to be the bonus to workshops and windmills, which I have already made improvements too. I'm aiming to create a mid to late game ''Industrial Economy''. It might be better to have 20% production in general so it applies to wonders and units too. Afterall I agree you will have built all the important buildings way before machinary is reached.

What if Industrious leaders could use Industry from the start of the game? That would seriously improve a quite boring trait in a pretty unique way.

 

[Emptiness]

What if Industrious leaders could use Industry from the start of the game?

The problem is that this civic would then become a targeted boost to Beeri Bawl, who already needs to research Construction, and for whom Workshops would then produce 4 (5 riverside). If Industrious needs a boost then it's best to do it in a way that doesn't get even stronger with Financial, because although other Industrious leaders may not be particularly strong, Beeri Bawl is powerful enough already.

 

[Senethro]

Good points from Monkeyfinger. I'm thinking Agrarian is the civic that just will not die.

Refinement of Urban Development Civic proposal:
Available with Construction
High Upkeep
+1 Unhealthiness
+20% Production for Buildings
+25% Cottage upgrade speed. (If I Excelled correctly then it amounts to about 13 extra commerce in the first 100 turns of the cottages life.)

Accompanying this new civic, Agrarian would get a -10% Production to buildings. Should probably be in addition to the -1hammer per farm penalty.


Aside - Possible improvements to Foreign Trade: Remove the -10% Gold AND...
1) +1 happiness with Dyes, Silk and Jewels (Kuriotate resource). It would encourage players to trade for these items.
2) +4 Naval XP

 

[Emptiness]

#1 I like. #2 is just free xp for the Lanun (who are inclined to use the civic anyway); I don't think it will be a substantial draw for anyone else.

 

[SurahAhriman]

Its not wrong that Mercantilism should be less useful where lots of trade opportunities are present.

If you change Mercantilism so that the loss of foreign trade is made up by some domestic trade improvement, thats not a choice - its an upgrade that everyone would choose. I'm sure you don't mean to do that.
If you change Mercantilism so that the loss of foriegn trade on a 12 player, 3 continent Large map is compensated for by some huge bonus, then thats going to adversely affect balance in the Economy column on Standard, 7 player maps. I'm sure you don't mean to do that either.

Mercantilism losing income from foreign trade is a feature, not a bug. It is working correctly. Tone down the crazy 20%s or get some perspective on the kind of return Trade routes give on other map sizes.

That's precisely what irks me about mercantilism, though. The actual economic system of mercantilism is all about foreign trade, namely you selling to other nations and not buying their goods in return.

How about this for a general idea. Change mercantilism to a bonus to foreign trade routes (either a % bonus to yield, or bonus routes, the former seems more thematic), but balance it out with a happiness penalty?

Edit: I initially didn't add this in because I assumed it would be a coding issue, but what the heck. The best solution, imo, would be to have trade routes other players get from you count as domestic, rather than foreign, to demonstrate how you sell far more than you buy. Perhaps disallow the player running Mercantilism from acquiring resources through trade as well?

 

[Emptiness]

A civic that boosts trade already exists (Foreign Trade). The Mercantilism civic in FfH2 fills another niche. I don't think there's a need for two trade-boosting civics (especially two in the same category, thus being mutually exclusive), and retooling Mercantilism as a trade-boosting civic will destroy its current function.

 

[SurahAhriman]

A civic that boosts trade already exists (Foreign Trade). The Mercantilism civic in FfH2 fills another niche. I don't think there's a need for two trade-boosting civics (especially two in the same category, thus being mutually exclusive), and retooling Mercantilism as a trade-boosting civic will destroy its current function.

Fair enough. It just irks me a little bit as an economist.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Besides inconveniencing people to re-adjust strategies, is there a reason switching mercantilism and foreign trade wouldn't be a good start? Mercantilism, after all, was an economic philosophy that largely came before a foreign trade philosophy (what we now know as free-trade and it's pre-runners).

In the early game when Foreign Trade is currently available, Mercantilism is most useful: you're less likely to have many trade routes in general, let alone an explored world map to trade with, and tend to more dependent on home-grown commerce, whether cottages or plantations. You're also less interested in accelerated culture growth in general at that point.

Meanwhile, late game is when you'd go to Mercantilism to get the Liberty civic anyway; a culture-boosting economic civic would works well with the sudden infusion of artists, but that boon is less valuable if you aren't going for the culture victory anyway. Foreign Trade would also represent that advancement in economic thinking as people realize they can get more money out of others than just themselves. It's also more reasonable if you're going for a liberty civic anyway: if you're Liberty, it's unlikely you're going for conquest, which generally implies more neighbors to trade with in general. (While Liberty-ideas is also a decent cover for the culture-boosting effect of foreign trade as well).

Past switching the two, you could make little adjustments between the two.


Feel free to tear into that and spend pages explaining why it's a horrible idea, of course.

 

[Senethro]

Besides inconveniencing people to re-adjust strategies, is there a reason switching mercantilism and foreign trade wouldn't be a good start? Mercantilism, after all, was an economic philosophy that largely came before a foreign trade philosophy (what we now know as free-trade and it's pre-runners).

In the early game when Foreign Trade is currently available, Mercantilism is most useful: you're less likely to have many trade routes in general, let alone an explored world map to trade with, and tend to more dependent on home-grown commerce, whether cottages or plantations. You're also less interested in accelerated culture growth in general at that point.

Meanwhile, late game is when you'd go to Mercantilism to get the Liberty civic anyway; a culture-boosting economic civic would works well with the sudden infusion of artists, but that boon is less valuable if you aren't going for the culture victory anyway. Foreign Trade would also represent that advancement in economic thinking as people realize they can get more money out of others than just themselves. It's also more reasonable if you're going for a liberty civic anyway: if you're Liberty, it's unlikely you're going for conquest, which generally implies more neighbors to trade with in general. (While Liberty-ideas is also a decent cover for the culture-boosting effect of foreign trade as well).

Past switching the two, you could make little adjustments between the two.


Feel free to tear into that and spend pages explaining why it's a horrible idea, of course.

Its as reasonable as any other earnest suggestion. Its maybe not a good idea to try to use factual history to justify a ficitonal one.

The big problem with it is that it doesn't solve Agrarian.

 

[Demus]

a decrease in commerce would imo still be the best bet of bringing agrarian down to size: More people working farms means less people being able to do research or trade. This would still allow it to give the kick-start people expect from the civic, but would allow it to become sub-optimal midgame.

 

[Senethro]

Theres no hope for me. I've extended my excel spreadsheet.

The margins for Agristocracy are surprisingly small. In terms of pure commerce income a Cottage breaks even with a Ag-Farm making 2 commerce after 40 turns, Ag-Farm making 3 commerce after 100 turns, Ag-Farm making 4 is complicated but >100 for sure, and a Financial Malakim Flood plain Ag-Farm 100 turns after researching Taxation. (and the farm makes food)

I'd noticed I couldn't get off the ground with Auric Ag-Farming because his snowy farms only make +2 commerce, but this is the first time I've crunched the numbers. I couldn't even make it to Sanitation. Makes sense now.

If you decrease the rewards of Agristocracy then it'll become a Financial civ only strat, or a Malakim gimmick.

So how do you kill Agristocracy in the mid-game? Do you apply a -XX%age to beakers, gold or commerce?
Beakers is a tricky one. If its -10% then thats low enough that everyone will use it before turn 100 but Financial Agristocracies will continue to use it and tolerate the penalty quite happily. If its -20% then noone will use it at all.
Gold could work. Negative gold %age means nothing if you're running close to 100% beakers as you might in the early game. Depending on the costs of your empire this might be a big penalty or not much of one at all. Wouldn't hurt Sage specialist economies much.
Commerce has the same problems as beakers.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Its as reasonable as any other earnest suggestion. Its maybe not a good idea to try to use factual history to justify a ficitonal one.

The big problem with it is that it doesn't solve Agrarian.

I'll leave the nerfing of that to others, but once you do you'll want to fix the other economic issues.

 

[Neomega]

Mercantilsm was not about foreign trade. It was about colonialism. Your colonies are to send you raw goods, and you in turn sell them manufactured goods. You make sure your colonies do NOT sell their raw goods to competitor nations. That is the philosophy of mercantilism.