How Firaxis can balance the Expansionist Civs and weaker Governments

[monkspider]

Expansionist Civs- This was a feature I implemented in a mod a long time ago and was quite innovative at the time. Implement a unit called the Pioneer or Colonist and give them the same abilities as a Settler but give them 2 movement points. This will actually allow expansionist civs to EXPAND quickly at the beginning of the game. This is actually very fun, and would make expansionist as desirable as the rest of the traits.

Governments
Democracy- Remove it's immunity to intiate propaganda, give units support cost of two, this would reflect the modern tendency to have small, but high-tech armys. Next give Democracy veteran diplomats.
Republic-Increase it's corruption rate to that of Monarchy, reduce it's spy and diplomat levels to conscript. This should make it no longer so obviously the best government in the game.
Communism- Increase assimilation percentage to 8%, which would reflect a growing world-wide proletariot revolution, change it to paid labor, which would make it more useful and at the same time make Despotism more distinct, as the the only government with the ability to pop-rush. Next give it Veteran diplomats in addition veteran spies.
Monarchy- Should be pretty balanced as it is now.

Fortunately, for those who don't want to wait for Firaxis this can all be accomplished in the editor! Just transform the useless explorer unit to the new Colonist until Firaxis gets around to letting us add new units. The rest of the governmental changes are relatively easy to pull off.

[monkspider]

also, I reccemend that Firaxis triple all naval movement rates, *greatly* increase the power of bombard/air units, and cut the costs of Nuclear Weapons by one-third.

[Hurricane]

I think the expansionist trait got enough a boost in the v1.17 patch. Actually, I often play expansionist already.

[BillChin]

The two move settler is a good idea. Another interesting idea is to give Expansionist civs a free Army at the end of each age. Gives them a much needed boost after their initial rush stage is over and a free Army is roughly equivalent to a free tech (Scientific).

I do not like your proposed changes for Democracy. It is already fairly weak and paying two gold per unit makes it almost worthless, unless you give it a much higher corruption reduction or some other additional bonuses. Even a player with a relatively small army will go broke transitioning from Republic to Democracy. With the modest changes to Republic, Republic is even more clearly superior to Democracy.

The changes for Communism seem to make it weaker in some ways because Commies they have no gold and with the proposed change, probably can not rush buy anything.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by monkspider
also, I reccemend that Firaxis triple all naval movement rates, *greatly* increase the power of bombard/air units, and cut the costs of Nuclear Weapons by one-third.

Now you got something going!

But why do you think Republic is the best it the game? Maybe I've missed something. Please enlighten me.

Salve

[monkspider]

"I do not like your proposed changes for Democracy. It is already fairly weak and paying two gold per unit makes it almost worthless, unless you give it a much higher corruption reduction or some other additional bonuses. Even a player with a relatively small army will go broke transitioning from Republic to Democracy. With the modest changes to Republic, Republic is even more clearly superior to Democracy. "
Well, It's not so much that Democracy is terribly over-powered, it's just that all other governments are very weak compared to the "big two". Under my proposed changes I think it would be a tough choice between Democracy and Republic
Democracy
Pros: Increased worker rate (very useful for laying railroads), much lower corruption, much better diplomats , increased chances of assimilation
Republic
Pros: lower unit cost, lower war-weariness

-I think that is a real tough choice there, which is what we are aiming for.

"The changes for Communism seem to make it weaker in some ways because Commies they have no gold and with the proposed change, probably can not rush buy anything."

-Most players haven't played Communism too much, but they actually tend to have about the same ammount of gold as Republics/Democracys since they don't have to pay unit costs.


"But why do you think Republic is the best it the game? Maybe I've missed something. Please enlighten me."

-It is generally seen as the best since it has the same trade benefits as Democracy and lower war-weariness. So if you ask most players what they think the best government is, they are likely to say Republic.

[notyoueither]

Man, my cities at 40% *Give Peace a Chance* in 1040AD during my first war don't seem very different from Democracy to me.

Just what the h*ll are those WW mechanics anyway? Anybody?

Salve

[monkspider]

good question notyou

[BillChin]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Man, my cities at 40% *Give Peace a Chance* in 1040AD during my first war don't seem very different from Democracy to me.

Just what the h*ll are those WW mechanics anyway? Anybody?

Salve

With Democracy, your government would probably already be overthrown. War Weariness is about double with Democracy vs. Republic. Republics never get overthrown into Anarchy, though War Weariness can bring production to a halt.

As for the original post, it is a no brainer to stay with Republic with the proposed changes. You make the choice easier not tougher, by giving a major downgrade to Democracy and a minor change to Republic. You say much less corruption, but the difference between Monarchy and Democracy in corruption is small in game terms with the current rules.

No player wants two gold unit support if all they get is better diplomats and faster assimilation. No player will transition from Republic to Democracy if their gold and research take a big hit. Even a small army of one unit per city makes a huge difference with the proposed rules. Just give Democracy the better diplomats and dump the two gold per unit idea. It is a game breaker unless you give Democracy some other huge bonus, not fluff stuff like better diplomats.

I already see Communism as weaker than Monarchy as a war time government. The proposed changes make it even less desirable. If you get rid of pop rushing, maybe increase unit support to four per small town, seven per city, 10 per big city, so they do have some gold, and they have a clear advantage over Monarchy and Despotism for unit support.

What do you think of the idea of free armies at the end of each age, for Expansionist Civs? Seems to fit their personality and gives them a much needed boost after their initial bonus is used up.

[Pius Popprasch]

I haven't spent much time under Republic yet. Playing a religious tribe I can play Democracy. If you don't attack your WW will be very restricted. I have had 100 turns of war under Democracy w/o WW. Monarchy is always better than Communism so that the Commies could have less corruption.
I have already increased the bombard power of artillery units.

What do Veteran diplomats do what Conscripts cant?

[chiefpaco]

So, judging by your suggestions, you're proposing that the "Peace" governments Democracy & Republic are too powerful & the "War" governments aren't. I mightily disagree with your opinion, from my experience. 95% of the games I've played above Regent were won because of a time at war in a government with no war weariness (Despotism, Monarchy, Communism). I don't see how the peace-time govts are overpowered.

Your proposed changes easily makes Monarchy (or maybe Communism) the best govt. Since the difference in corruption levels is marginal, Monarchy is so similar to the others (especially Republic) except for the 0 war weariness (it's best advantage, period!).

Democracy
Pros: Increased worker rate (very useful for laying railroads), much lower corruption, much better diplomats , increased chances of assimilation
Republic
Pros: lower unit cost, lower war-weariness
-I think that is a real tough choice there, which is what we are aiming for.

Not a tough choice at all. Unit cost & war weariness are much bigger factors that the corruption.

Your changes already disrupt an already balanced system, IMHO. The govts you propose are easily rankable:
- Monarchy
- Communism
- Republic
- Democracy (way down there)