AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[ducki]

I think I'd like to suggest us only making one change to any given government in any single release of the mod. If Communal Corruption is as good as posts are making it sound, lower unit support may be overkill, especially when you get 5 free units per Town.

I feel kinda funny writing a plea to take it slow and reading your sig while doing it. Teehee!

[nbarclay]

One possibility would be to defer communal Feudalism until our second C3C AU game and then have a game focused specifically on testing that change. If the change works out, that would give us all experience with what the revised Feudalism is like for consideration in future AU games. If it doesn't, the experience might still help us in considering what else we might want to do with Feudalism.

[ducki]

I'd rather see communal feudalism over a change in unit support. The "backwards" support rules for Feudalism make sense to me and if communal corruption makes the government competitive, then we wouldn't need to change support costs.

At least, I'd rather see the corruption change first. That's just my opinion, though.

[alexman]

Since the reduced unit maintenance cost has been under consideration for a while, we will vote on that change first.

We will then have another vote (after the first AU game) to see whether to change the corruption type to communal.

If the reduced unit maintenance cost passes this time, we might vote to restore it back to the stock value of 3gpt. It may be that communal corruption is powerful enough to make the reduced unit cost an unnecessary change.

[donZappo]

Sounds like a good plan to me, Alexman. I'd also be all for the second AU game focusing specifically on the "Power of Communalism" or something like that. With a change to feudalism and the new and improved communism it sure sounds like a fascinating game to me!

-donZappo

[alexman]

Here's a crazy idea for those who want to tempt builders into Republic-to-Democracy switch.

Give communal corruption to Democracy!

Keep the trade bonus, of course. Then Democracy would be better than Communism in science, and better than the Republic for empires greater than about OCN cities.

It would also satisfy those who complain that corruption should not depend on distance in a modern Democracy.

[sabrewolf]

i'm anyway in favour of getting rid of concentric distance corruption and prefer the newer corruption model (as soren wants it implemented).

however, without sliders i think this idea may be too crazy. we've got 4 levels of concentric corruption (minimal, nuisance, problematic, rampant), but just 1 equally distributed corruption model (communal). with sliders for the corruption percentage and a switch for the model (communal, centric, maybe something new???) this would be an option.

and for point of realism: classical democracies are centralistic. if we were to introduce an additional goverment ("federalistic democracy"), coming at the same time as regular democracy, your suggestion sounds great

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
and for point of realism: classical democracies are centralistic. if we were to introduce an additional goverment ("federalistic democracy"), coming at the same time as regular democracy, your suggestion sounds great

Thinking about the distinction between "Republic" and "Democracy," the best way of conceptualizing it may be to consider who has the vote. In Republic, you have a situation where large numbers of slaves, people of conquered territories, and perhaps just even average citizens have no real say in the government in spite of its nominally republican nature. In Democracy, the right to vote is much more universal, especially in regard to social and economic class.

On a conceptual level, I think communal corruption in Democracy would make perfect sense. Even to the extent that democracies centralize power in a single capital, power is still distributed in the sense that the representatives who vote come more or less equally from all parts of the nation. The fact that Los Angeles is several times farther from Washington D.C. than New York City is does not mean that the vote of a person in Los Angeles has any less weight in setting policy in the federal government. Communal corruption would reflect the fact that in a Democracy, the central government is just as answerable to people who live far from the capital as it is to those who live nearby.

But however much sense I think the idea of changing Democracy to have communal corruption might make on a conceptual level (and would make for inclusion in Civ 4), I think it's a bad idea for the AU Mod. For one thing, where Feudalism is a new government that most people seem to ignore under the standard rules to a point where it almost might as well not exist, Democracy is a long-standing part of the game that a lot of us are used to. Thus, violation of the goal of preserving the feel of the stock game is a vastly greater problem if Democracy is so completely transformed. I'm also concerned about the issue of trying to balance Democracy against other governments if we did such a thing.

[alexman]

Time to vote.

My vote: YES (Reduce unit maintenance cost to 1 gold per unit per turn for Feudalism)

Better than stock, but I definitely prefer a communal Feudalism instead of this change.

[lockstep]

YES.

(And I still think that communal corruption AND 1 gold per unit may be quite balanced. This is a government without trade bonus, but with war weariness.)

[Dominae]

A hesitant Yes for me too.

[Theseus]

Yes. One thing at a time.

[Stuie]

YES.

[Nor Me]

Yes.

If we don't give communal corruption to Democracy, then we certainly shouldn't give it to Feudalism. Communism is potentially the best goverment for a builder with a large empire. The disadvantages of Feudalism compared to Communism wouldn't really affect the builder much. It might be easier to end the game in Feudalism than to research the 2 or 3 optional techs needed for Communism and the SPHQ.

[Nisku]

I hope I can post here, I don't know the rules!

Since I've been playing with Conquests I've almost always used feudalism, I've been playing Monarch-Demigod level, I've played about 6 games all using feudalism as my only early government. Feudalism is a great government if used right, I just think a lot of players haven't given it a go yet.

Decreasing the unit cost for feudalism in my opinion is something that would make a very, very limited impact. In my games my unit support with feudalism is so high that I almost never hit the cap. Having communual corruption or no war weariness might make feudalism more attractive to other players, as it is now I do just fine.

I have some saves of my games in both feudalism and communism, if anyone is intrested.

[vmxa1]

No rules other than the ones the site uses. I admint I have not used Feudal and only took a cursory look at it, but I could not find any compelling reason to use it.

So what do you see as the value. IOW I would like to hear why I am missing a good bet and when I should be advised to use Feudalism.

[ducki]

IMO, Feudalism is good when you have lots of Towns - lots and lots - and don't plan on building aqueducts any time soon, but want to build up a big invasion force. At least, that's my opinion, though I've rarely used it outside of planned "I wonder what Feudalism is like" games.

I would imagine skipping over un-required techs could be a big boost as well, both in terms of time and money, moreso with the AU Mod and optional Philo.

[Dominae]

I've been tinkering with Feudalism in my current pet project (someday I'll post all the details, but for now it's a secret!).

As Nisku alludes to, Feudalism's real weakness is the War Weariness. Let's face it: if you're going to build enough units to make Feudalism worthwhile, you're going to want to be at war for a large portion of the Medieval era. It makes no economic sense to build up zounds of units then unleash them all in one big go, as Republic is still better for that.

Granted, there are times when Feudalism does not suck. But "not sucking" is rarely worth a government switch for a non-Religious civ. Most of the time, you have to be pretty confused in your game plan to choose Feudalism over Monarchy and Republic. Want to wage war? You'll have to get out of Feudalism at some point. Want to build a strong economy? You're better off with a Commerce bonus than free unit support.

What's left that's good about Feudalism? Poprushing, although synergistic with Feuadlism's other traits, is nonetheless not an efficient way to build things (especially not 80+ Shield things). And that leaves, um, the removal of the despotic tile penalty. But hey, Monarchy and Republic get those too.

So, I once againt suggest the following:

1. Set Monarchy's War Weariness to Low.
2. Set Feudalism's War Weariness to None.

If we're afraid that this would cause Feudalism to be strong (I seriously doubt it, though) we could also:

3. Set Feudalism's Military Police Limit to 2 or even 1 (from 3).

---

What we really need is for Feudalism to be a strong warmonger government, Monarchy to be the middle ground, and Republic to be the peacenik government. By default, Monarchy would be "the best" for a typical game, while Republic and Feudalism would be for more focused strategies. This is the only balance that makes sense for what are the game's three main governments.


Dominae

[Aqualung71]

I've said this before and I still believe it. I think both Republic and Democracy should come later, forcing players into other forms of governments (and not necessarily the existing alternatives, but perhaps some new ones too). I also agree that Feudalism should be improved over Monarchy.

Based on its timing of availability, I presume the Republic in Civ3 is meant to represent the "Senate based" Roman Empire system. It doesn't. It more closely represent the post revolution French Republic. War-mongering was part and parcel of the Roman Empire - that's why they controlled most of the civilised world at the time (duh!).

I think the basic concept should be that a later form of government provides a "better" choice in terms of productivity/commerce or WW/unit support/MP, or provides a better government choice for a particular play style at the expense of some other benefit. It seems that the current setup of Feudalism does not stick to this principle, nor does Fascism or Communism, hence their rare use by the human player.

Bottom line is, most players will be able to prosecute a war in Republic for at least 20 turns with sufficient luxuries/happiness buildings/slider use, without having to look towards a more warmonger-friendly government. And Dominae's point also is that in any case, that alternative in the middle ages would be Mondarchy, not Feudalism.

For me at least, once I'm in Republic the decision-making process for governments just disappears. The only exception is if I'm playing a Religious civ (which I used to do regularly in the early days, but rarely now), I will probably switch to Democracy at some point.

[Nisku]

Ok, here is how most of my games have gone. I've only lost one emporer level game out of the six I've played and that was because I was a little inebriated during the game play. OK, I was a lot inebriated.

I pack my towns very close together for a quick start. I designate certain towns as my "permanent" towns and other towns as my "camp" towns. In my camp towns I build a barracks and military units or I build a granary and workers/settlers. My first 3-4 cities will be these camps set up around my palace. Occasionaly I will build a temple in one of my camps just for some cheap culture. In my permanent towns I build up like I would a regular city. My civ is always low on corruption/waste with this set up. The big drawback is not much territory but that can be compensated for by destroying your enemies and capturing theirs.

I start warfare early, usually shortly after I meet my first opponent. I try to extort a tech or two during the ancient age with peace treaties. I skip through the optional techs and head straight for feudalism. Before I switch to the feudalism government I get peace from all my enemies because of the war weariness I will undoubtebly suffer. I then research chivalry, in all my games but one I've played with a knight UU. After I get chivalry I amass a huge army, Ansar warriors are especially good for this since they are cheaper. I also amass a huge army of workers. I can easily get unit support of 100-200 with feudalism in most games. Once my force is built I attack. War weariness can be a factor if I'm not able to capture all my objectives quick enough but it isn't a huge factor. When my war is over I rinse, wash and repeat the above.

After a few good wars I'll switch over to democracy or communism, both excellent governments. By the time I get hospitals I'll have slowly disbanded my "camps" and turned them into workers and settlers. I then add these to my permanent cities or I use them for building rail.

[ducki]

What we really need is for Feudalism to be a strong warmonger government,

I'm not sure I agree with this push.
I think Feudalism's strength IS in unit support.
It gives you enough units to :
a) fight a multifront war
b) demolish a civ in short order
c) fight oscillating wars for later pruning than normal
And all with no rivers or aqueducts to grow past size 6 in all but your most important of cities.

And again, it allows you to skip at least 2 Ancient techs.

I'd suggest that certain map settings will make Feudalism more worth it - arid, hot(or cold), overloaded # of civs, pangea.

I'm all for tweaking it a bit, but I'd rather weaken Monarchy AND Republic - if Feudalism is too attractive, we end up in the same boat as before - one government switch very early.

I desperately want to see a majority of players looking forward to Democracy, Communism or Fascism on a regular basis. Any improvement of the Ancient governments makes this even harder. Let's continue adjusting Republic and Monarchy downwards until two things happen - Feudalism is widely viewed as a good option and none of the three is viewed as an end-game government.

That's my pie in the sky anyway.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by ducki
I desperately want to see a majority of players looking forward to Democracy, Communism or Fascism on a regular basis.

....which is what I'm also advocating ducki. The "end-game" governments just come way too early. Try pushing Republic or Democracy back to the early Industrial Age for example, when you are building Factories/Plants/ToE/Hoovers and see who switches now!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
a) fight a multifront war
b) demolish a civ in short order

The best way to do this in Civ3 is just to build a bunch of units, upgrade them and launch a decisive sudden strike (possibly against multiple targets). The best government for this, despite unit supports costs, is still Republic. Where Monarchy and Feudalism fit in is when you need to be fighting (or are fighting) right now.

c) fight oscillating wars for later pruning than normal

Feudalism does not really help here, due to the War Weariness. Hence my above post.

And all with no rivers or aqueducts to grow past size 6 in all but your most important of cities.

You're making it sound as though this is an advantage. Let's say you do manage to prune back a couple of of neighbors with your zounds of units and small cities to support them: what do you do then? You're in pretty bad shape economically; not only to do you need another goverment switch to get back on track, but you need to grow your cities to respectable levels for the late-game and catch up on improvements (including, most pertinently, Aqueducts). Small cities is a prerequisite for Feudalism, not a feature.

And again, it allows you to skip at least 2 Ancient techs.

Waiting for Feudalism to get rid of the despotic tile penalty is certainly a disadvantage.

---

As you can see Feudalism has it's fair share of problems. Increased supports costs alone is simply not enough to base a goverment around. Here's another stab at describing my vision:

Feudalism: bad for building, good for warmongering
Republic: good for building, bad for warmongering
Monarchy: average for both

Monarchy therefore becomes the default government choice, as it should be (both for gameplay and historical reasons). In terms of gameplay, as the closest tech from Despotism it provides quick rewards, but suffers from neither warmongering or building particularly well. Feudalism and Republic are more difficult to attain, but benefit from being more focused. Democracy replaces Republic; Fascism replaces Feudalism. Communism is just weird.


Dominae

[ducki]

Good points, but I just have to harp on one...

not only to do you need another goverment switch to get back on track, but you need to grow your cities to respectable levels for the late-game and catch up on improvements

Yes. Yes, yes, yes yesssssssss.

Now let's make the other two Ancient governments that "bad". Let's make two switches the standard.

Either that or the late game governments are going to need boosting so much that it won't fit the mod.

[vmxa1]

Dominae using the term "zounds" makes me ask if you were/are a Heroes fan.

I see Feudalism the same way you do and no case has been presented to make it attractive to a non religious civ IMO, in its current form.

[Cryptor]

Theres one thing that people never seem to mention in regard to feudalism, and thats the whip. The power of the whip can not be ignored. Feudalism is the only ancient government without the tile penalty and with the whip. These two factors combined make otherwise corrupt and useless outling cities in republic or monarchy reasonable produces of units if they are in a area of reasonably high food, due to the lack of a tile penalty. (Despotism rarely gets these high food cities unless they're in a field of cows, due to the tile penalty). This, combined with the free unit support of towns in fuedalism, makes feudalism very powerful in situations where you have lots of high food producing towns. If this is combined with extra unit support of 1, it makes the government one that provides run away victories for strong sprawlling civs.

Admitedly, feudalism is weak in some situations due to its war weariness and low city support, so I've reduced its unit support cost to 2, on par with republic. Anything lower extremely overpowers the government in certain situations, and whats worse is that it over powers the government in favour of the stronger civs.

[Aqualung71]

Cryptor, I think people know that the whip is there, but perhaps discount it substantially because of the lasting unhappiness it causes, which can be quite counterproductive. I've used the whip on many occasions under despotism, but will only do so now when absolutely necessary.

BTW, do you know whether there is any difference in the despotism whip and the feudalism whip? Do they both result in the same amount of "we cannot forget the cruel oppression" type unhappiness?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Dominae using the term "zounds" makes me ask if you were/are a Heroes fan.

I was never a big fan, but that's definitely where I picked up the term.

[alexman]

It seems to me that if you add war weariness to Monarchy, it will become an ancient-only government for the special case where you don't have access to enough luxuries. As a result, people will choose Republic as their first government even more often than they do now.

[ducki]

will become an ancient-only government for the special case

You know that feeling you get when the AIs get out of despotism before you do and you just can't wait to be able to revolt and get up to speed? How can we duplicate that feeling for the last 3 governments?

Yes, there are the special cases where staying in Despotism a bit longer makes sense, but you still switch as soon as you can, and those are special circumstances.

How can we make staying in Republic/Monarchy after Demo/Com/Fasc become available the "special case" and the desire to change to a modern government as strong as the desire to leave despotism?