Govt balance - Page 2

vee4473 · November 19, 2003, 21:14

well, to be real, I really don't think any modern republic would degenerate into "anarchy" if democratic reforms were enacted.

That is one aspect that I think is wrong with the gov't switches.

Sure, anarchy can be enabled for a dramatic switch from despot or monarch to higher forms , but to think that any modern civilization would fall into total, chaotic, burn the house down anarchy if reforms were made from repub to demo is just, well , stupid i think.

bad aspect of the game.

joncnunn · November 19, 2003, 22:42

I'm thinking that under Republic, you should have the most free unit support for type 2s and the same amount of support for type 1s and type 3s.

Don't increase type 2 though, just reduce 1 and/or 3. This should provide an incentive to get out of the Republic when you build Hospitals.

vmxa1 · November 19, 2003, 22:58

enderw they can if they are religious. I think the cost of swithcing is too high and it makes having all those governments moot.

Alexander's Horse · November 19, 2003, 23:57

there is no balance

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 00:52

I think 2/2/2 solves both problems with Republic, maybe.

2 free units per town makes Republic viable for the early game builder who gets stuck without rivers.

2 free units per city knackers the Medieval/Industrial war monger who is riding Republic with higher commerce, low war weariness, and high support limits for cities/metros to global domination on land and in science.

I'd have to play it out though.

Alexander's Horse · November 20, 2003, 00:53

good idea

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 00:59

Good thing someone else proposed it earlier.

Alexander's Horse · November 20, 2003, 02:01

ya

player1 · November 20, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think 2/2/2 solves both problems with Republic, maybe.

Although 1/2/2 should be OK too (to promote some use of Feudalism.

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 02:13

Builders don't want to go a war monger govt path.

Jon Miller · November 20, 2003, 03:31

but feudalism doesn't have to be war monger

it just enables you to do some better

and it saves a tech

and certain strategies should be weaker in different circumstances (like builder when there are no rivers or lakes)

Jon Miller

Alexander's Horse · November 20, 2003, 03:57

good point

player1 · November 20, 2003, 04:11

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Builders don't want to go a war monger govt path.

War monger path?

Feudalism has war warrines you know?
And 3pg per unit support.

Free unit support just helps it to earn some money without trade bonus of Republic.

P.S.
Although when we are at Govt balance, I think that Feudalism could get unit cost switched back to from 3gp to 1gp (while keeping WW) and still stay balnced.

Because, Monachy would still be better when having mostly cities (higher upkeep, no WW), Republic would still be better with trade bonus (if having not to many units).
And Despotism would still keep some small use, if in need to get rid of WW and still have great number of free units (4 units per town, no WW).

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 04:46

For every city I conquer and starve down to 6 pop, how many more free units do I gain?

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 04:47

It's very rewarding of conquest.

Jon Miller · November 20, 2003, 05:07

yah

but I still don't think that you should have a 'most rewarding strategy' if you don't have access to fresh water

if you look at history resources (including water) dictated what the nations were like (what is the bst way for a civ to be)

and whlie you can be a builder with out water, you are not picking the best response (the best response would be to seize some water)

Jon Miller

gunkulator · November 20, 2003, 14:46

My $0.02 on Republic: Leave WW and unit support the way it is now, however taking a page from the CivII book, charge 3gpt for each military unit not stationed in a city of fortress and 4gpt for each military unit outside your borders. That way, warmongers who hide in Republic are penalized for actively pursuing a war beyond their borders.

Leave Democracy as it is: no additional support penalties but bone crushing WW. The goal is to force warlike Republics to reduce science to pay for maintenace and likewise force warlike Democracies to reduce science to pay for luxuries.

As for Anarchy: Duration should be 1/3 as long when going "upwards" (despo->anything), 1/2 as long when going "sideways" (rep<->monarchy, comm<->democ). Full penalty for moving backwards.

TechWins · November 20, 2003, 15:20

None of that is even possible, gunkulator.

I still like the thought of changing the Republic to 1.2.2 then Democracy to 0.1.1 Realistically you should have enough towns turning into cities from being next to a river or with an aqueduct by the time you are a republic that making the rep. a 2.2.2 wouldn't make a huge difference. It would obviously be more beneficial but still not necessary.

Feudalism still needs more perks, though, I think.

notyoueither · November 20, 2003, 18:03

My first game of C3C. Stuck in a corner of the map with hostile Hittites very close. I had one river and squeezed 4 cities on river out of it, however, with the C3C distribution of luxuries could not get more than 1 lux.

Try waging wars (you being attacked) maintaining an army big enough to have a chance to win, and having size 7 cities with only 1 free content citizen (Emp level) and going Republic given what I described.

I don't think it can be done, and it is not that uncommon a start. 2/2/2 would have made it playable, but Feudalism still would have kicked more ass as a war monger strat in that situation. Lots of towns and lots more to be gained through conquest.

DrSpike · November 20, 2003, 19:11

I feel your pain. Most starts you need to take some land, and it anything the incentive is to do is quickly so you can make a nice transition to republic reasonably early. I think 500BC with 15-20 cities, with some 4/5's makes Republic just about doable if you disband some old military police. Go easy on the worker production.......just get enough to lay down lots of roads before the transition.

Jon Miller · November 20, 2003, 21:28

but if you are going war you should have more trouble with republic than feudalism

Jon Miller

Kuratko · November 21, 2003, 03:55

I have tried more extensive changes in my personal mod. I do not see much sense in the Feudalism government and at the same time I miss an ancient government with communal corruption (City States). Also, from the historical point of view, Feudalism as an economic system was mostly used in Monarchies. So I did the following:

Monarchy technology renamed "City States". Monarchy government now moved to Feudalism. Feudalism government renamed "City States" and requires
City States technology.
City States stats: Communal corruption, Forced labor, low WW, units free 4/2/1, 3gold-unit, 1 Draft, 3MP, Worker 100%, Assimilation 3%
Republic: Nuisance corruption, paid labor, low WW,
units free 1/2/2, 2gold-unit, 1 Draft, 0MP, Worker 100%, Assimilation 2%
Monarchy: Problematic corruption, paid labor, no WW,
units free 2/4/8, 1gold-unit, 2 Draft, 3MP, Worker 100%, Assimilation 2%
Resistance modifiers changed generally to make resistance more of an issue.

It needs a lot of playtesting to balance properly but I personally like this better.

Jon Miller · November 21, 2003, 04:17

I like feudalism

there was a big difference between strong centered monarchies and feudal societies

but feudalism was the best, particularly when nations were more spread out and population centers were smaller

Jon Miller

player1 · November 21, 2003, 07:46

I just don't think that Feudalism has any need to have unit cost of 3gp anymore.

I think that primary reason for it was a free maintaince of buildings which could make it pretty powerful, even with cities (6+), if having no higher unit upkeep then 1gp per unit.

But, now, it's just something not needed at all.

joncnunn · November 22, 2003, 13:31

I'm now thinking that Republic have have 1/2/0 support.

Combined with it's 2X cost of units, this should result in a strong incentive to switch out of Republic and into Democracy whose 0/0/0 but only 1X cost of units would result in saving money even ignoring the reduced corruption/waste for a Democracy.

donZappo · November 22, 2003, 13:36

I think it would be really cool if Feudalism had communal corruption instead of what it has now. This would add a very distinctive feel to this early government to set it apart from the other governments at the time, and allow the small cities that exist under it to still produce quite well as the empire spreads. Then, with changes to republic (I favor a flat unit support) you'd have a peaceful government, a large expanding goverment, and a small war-time government based on a core of cities. I don't know if this would be balanced without testing it, but it sounds like an interesting idea. Any thoughts on if this would make the government too powerful? I'm going to open up a debug game with this mod and see what happens with the AI.

EDIT: I do in fact like the new government of Feudalism and have used it a couple of times to good success. I was just thinking that this might make it even more fun and less of a highly specialized form of government.

player1 · November 23, 2003, 18:49

I don't like flat support much.
Too map dependent (at least for AI, if not for smart player).

Chemical Ollie · November 24, 2003, 07:47

I like the way it was in Civ2, where Democracy was more or less free from corruption while Republic was not. Now I only use Democracy if I play a religious, non-industrious tribe and want to build railroads fast.

statusperfect · November 24, 2003, 08:39

How about:

Republic: 0/2/2 unit support. Problematic corruption (same as monarchy)

player1 · November 24, 2003, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
How about:

Republic: 0/2/2 unit support. Problematic corruption (same as monarchy)

With 2gp units?
Too severe in early game when you have most towns.

1/2/2 sounds better (towns as in C3C, but cities and metros toned down).