Idea about balancing Monarchy vs Democracy

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by player1
Still, don't forget.
If your military is weak, AI will attack you.

Not necessarily true. A lot more goes into the "Is he a good victim?" calculation than just military strength. A big nation with strong technology is often (though not always) viewed as a poor target even with almost no military.

On Monarch level, unless I'm planning to pick a fight, I routinely leave things at half a dozen military units or so for my entire nation until sometime in the medieval age. Offhand, I only remember one occasion when an AI took advantage of my doing so with a big enough force to do significant damage, and they paid when I transformed my size advantage into a military one. So "lean military" tactics are definitely viable if you handle them correctly, especially on maps where the border area is relatively small.

By the way, I thought of another unwelcome side effect of a higher upkeep cost. Since non-industrious civs need almost twice as many workers to do the same work, increasing upkeep costs gives industrious civs a bigger advantage. And since Industrious is already one of the most powerful traits, that's not great for balance.

Nathan

[player1]

Of course there is always an option of making higher upkeep cost for all gfovemnets, but to give more free units for all govnment too.

But that would be even more painfull to test and balance.
(and noone even TRIED to test this BIC file at all!!!)

[BillChin]

Originally posted by player1
Who knows,
Maybe it does needs to be tweaked a litle.
Maybe 1/2/3.
Or just 1/1/1

I just hope somebody else will.
I added free units just in order not to make Republic bad choice fore moderate army.

Maybe I got too far.
Who knows.

That doesn't work.
As you said you can be pretty muich more effective with smaller army. So having even more free units for Communism won't help you.

On the other hand, you get much more gold, just being in Republic (trade bonus).

The new change gives the same result--more gold for human players under Republic. This makes Monarchy even less desirable for me. Nathan also has the excellent point that 2 gold per unit cripples the AI because they always have large standing armies.

For multiplayer the modified rules might be okay and worth a look. However, for single player, the change makes Republic stronger, not weaker overall. I do not see a way to fiddle with the values you are looking at to give the desired result of making Republic a weaker peace time government.

You have done nothing to address the glaring weakness of Communism. I believe with huge unit support for Communism, a player can try some new strategies, such as a human wave attack with masses of conscripts. If more unit support alone is not enough, maybe increase the military police option from 4 to 6, so even more units can be drafted. For multiplayer and single player it is an interesting idea that lets a player behind in tech try something different. It is also historically accurate, as Communists states such as the Soviet Union and China both fielded huge armies of bare-bones units.
- Bill

[Theseus]

Guys, please remember that for the AU Mod, at least, we are trying to keep relatively close to stock Civ3, while making tweaks primarily to units, buildings, and AI build preferences.

Changing the features of governments, luxuries, food, specialists, etc., strikes me as being a bit much.

(That's not to say these aren't great ideas for *other* mods!)

[Theseus]

Oops, sorry, I was in the wrong thread... carry on as you were.

[Tuberski]

QUOTE] Originally posted by Barchan



Still, I think democratic governments should only be allowed to send a limited number of units (say 10-20?) outside their borders before additional units cause unhappiness. Want to wage a huge war of conquest? Fine, switch to monarchy or communism. Want to engage in peaceful trade and growth? Go republic or democracy. But, frankly, if you can't have both in monarchy or communism, why should you be able to do so in republic or democracy? [/QUOTE]

With this setup I could STILL wage a war of conquest.

How?

It's simple, every town you take from an enemy, automatically becomes part of your territory,hence, after you take the town your units around that town are, once again, within your borders.

If you send just enough to take a town, then leapfrog the rest of your army, even 80+ units, to the newly conquered town, you can then use that town as a stging area for your next conquests. All the while leaving your huge army within your borders.

I already do this with regards to movement, send one unit at a time to the city I'm attacking(meaning not in stacks). once the city is take those roads and railroads are no mine to advance my army faster to the border of the next enemy town.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Tuberski
With this setup I could STILL wage a war of conquest.

How?

It's simple, every town you take from an enemy, automatically becomes part of your territory,hence, after you take the town your units around that town are, once again, within your borders.

If you send just enough to take a town, then leapfrog the rest of your army, even 80+ units, to the newly conquered town, you can then use that town as a stging area for your next conquests. All the while leaving your huge army within your borders.

I already do this with regards to movement, send one unit at a time to the city I'm attacking(meaning not in stacks). once the city is take those roads and railroads are no mine to advance my army faster to the border of the next enemy town.

True enough, unless you're attacking a more developed, mature Civ with deep cultural borders. It's pretty tough to send forces of 1s and 2s to take down a mega-city defended by infantry. You need artillery or cruise missiles to soften things up as well, and these frequently have to leave your territory to get close enough to the target. A newly captured city will only have a 1-square border, while the next enemy city could be three or more squares away (plus a border crossing). Unless you move the stack-o-conquest in at once, you've got to be either a master planner or very lucky to avoid taking multiple turns to take the city.

But you're right; it would still be possible to go on the warpath as a republic or democracy. I think the extraterritorial unhappiness would make this more difficult, though, since you’d have to plan very carefully and work to limit the number of forces you have outside your border at any given time. Note that I’d propose that all forces, land, sea and air, outside your borders would cause unhappiness. I think this would very effectively curtail intercontinental invasions, since you’d have several turns of pain as the forces made their way to the target.

Anyway, I’m not saying we need to bring back the old “Overruled by the Senate” option for republics and democracies, but as it is it’s a bit too easy to initiate and wage perpetual warfare with them, and this really diminishes the viability of the other forms of government. I guess you could make a real-world argument that communism isn’t actually viable anyway, but if it’s in the game it should at least be playable. I mean, geeze, if Sid for some reason or other didn’t like Germans and ordered that all they could build were warriors and temples, who’d play them?

P.S. Tuberski, I miss Triumph! Where’d he go???

[nbarclay]

My favorite times to fight come when I have units with a movement of three that have an attack value higher than the defense value of what I'm fighting against (e.g. cavalry against pikemen or musketmen). A lot more often than not, such units can end their turn in one city and attack the next city down the line the next turn. (On railroads, they can even strike several cities deep the same turn.) Occasionally, there are exceptions, but two stacks of ten could typically handle two of those exceptions simultaneously.

Nor would a limit in the twenty range truly cripple intercontinental invasions. My last such invasion only involved twenty units plus the galleons to carry them in its first wave. And once airports are available, all the first wave has to do is grab one city and hold it long enough to rush an airport and airlift in reinforcements.

Nathan

[vmxa1]

You do not get the 0 move benifits of their RR, only yours or unowned ones.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vmxa1
You do not get the 0 move benifits of their RR, only yours or unowned ones.

You're missing the obvious solution. By the end of the turn, their railroads ARE my railroads.

[Arrian]

I really do think that Monarchy, Republic & Demo are well-balanced. Communism does, in fact, suck monkeyballs. I think the idea of uniform corruption empire-wide is pretty good, but it should probably be lower, or unaffected by # of cities.

I often use Monarchy, because I do a lot of fighting. There was one game where I never used anything but Monarchy (after switching from Despotism, clealry) - the game of "Ultimate Power." After my early medieval golden age, I never waited more than 5 turns for a tech, and finished the game 2 techs into the modern age. More importantly, the AI was reduced to 1 city on an island surrounded by privateers and my battle fleet.

I consider a total lack of war weariness, mil police, and free unit upkeep to be valueable compensation for the loss of the commerce bonus. The corruption/waste difference between Demo, Rep and Monarchy really isn't all that much. The extra worker speed of demo is nice, but 50 slaves will take care of that.

If you emerge from the ancient age in a powerful position, you can use Monarchy to essentially wreck the world (except for your part of it, of course).

Consider what your proposed changes to unit upkeep will do to the AI. Honesty, I think having units cost 2gpt/3gpt under the representative governments might cripple the AI further in the later stages of the game.

-Arrian

[BillChin]

Okay, proposed government tweaks:

Despotism - no change

Monarchy - add four free units to close the gap with Republic. Not enough to unbalance the game, but a nice bonus early when the first switch is usually made. Four more gold per turn is noticeable early, but becomes next to nothing in the mid-game and later so Religious is not so super powerful. Think of the these four units as an Imperial guard. This also helps small Monarchies to field some kind of offensive army.

Republic - as on the AU thread, give it same corruption level as Monarchy (problematic in the editor). Might make a difference of 1 to 5 gold early in games. The difference does become bigger as the empires expands, making Democracy more desirable for large peaceful empires.

Democracy - add unit support 0/1/2. Gives Democracy a bigger gold and tech edge over Republic, but only for advanced empires with a lot of aqueducts and hospitals. This is a balance tweak not based on historical or other considerations.

Communism - allow six military police (up from four). This allows a player with size 12 cities to stay in WLTKD at all times, further reducing corruption in very large empires. Increase unit support to 4/8/16 (from 2/4/8) so that the empire can support so many military police. Also add ten free units so small empires can field a decent army late in the game when this government is available. These are good for game balance and also follow the historical tendencies of the largest Communist empires.

For human players these changes make Monarchy slight more desirable, especially for the first switch. Republic a tiny bit weaker. Democracy noticeably better in tech and gold than Republic. Communism gets a significant boost, especially for really large empires. The changes are similar for the AI. Nothing game breaking, nothing that radically changes game balance.
- Bill

[vmxa1]

Not the one in the next city you want to go to. If the city has only two tiles worth out you can reach with one move left if you are using 3 move units. All I am saying is at some point you will be on their land and can not use the rails for free. I am sure you are aware of that and was only mentioning for clarity.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Barchan


True enough, unless you're attacking a more developed, mature Civ with deep cultural borders. It's pretty tough to send forces of 1s and 2s to take down a mega-city defended by infantry. You need artillery or cruise missiles to soften things up as well, and these frequently have to leave your territory to get close enough to the target. A newly captured city will only have a 1-square border, while the next enemy city could be three or more squares away (plus a border crossing). Unless you move the stack-o-conquest in at once, you've got to be either a master planner or very lucky to avoid taking multiple turns to take the city.

But you're right; it would still be possible to go on the warpath as a republic or democracy. I think the extraterritorial unhappiness would make this more difficult, though, since you’d have to plan very carefully and work to limit the number of forces you have outside your border at any given time. Note that I’d propose that all forces, land, sea and air, outside your borders would cause unhappiness. I think this would very effectively curtail intercontinental invasions, since you’d have several turns of pain as the forces made their way to the target.

Anyway, I’m not saying we need to bring back the old “Overruled by the Senate” option for republics and democracies, but as it is it’s a bit too easy to initiate and wage perpetual warfare with them, and this really diminishes the viability of the other forms of government. I guess you could make a real-world argument that communism isn’t actually viable anyway, but if it’s in the game it should at least be playable. I mean, geeze, if Sid for some reason or other didn’t like Germans and ordered that all they could build were warriors and temples, who’d play them?

P.S. Tuberski, I miss Triumph! Where’d he go???

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you.
But the limit on the amount of units should be slightly different than what you suggested, seems to me it should be based on the number of cites, just like Army production, i.e. 1 unit outside your territory for every 4 cities.

Bill the Cat was my original custom avatar and more people seemed to miss him, but triumph will return at times......

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Not the one in the next city you want to go to. If the city has only two tiles worth out you can reach with one move left if you are using 3 move units. All I am saying is at some point you will be on their land and can not use the rails for free. I am sure you are aware of that and was only mentioning for clarity.

I said myself, "Occasionally, there are exceptions," and the same exceptions generally apply whether you're using railroads or not. The main difference is that railroads let you strike however deep you can reach before running into an exception in a single turn. (On one occasion, my farthest-reaching modern armor went practically accross an entire continent in a single turn, with cities from four civs captured along the way although each civ also had harder-to-reach cities.) In any case, the point is that with 3-movement units, most attacks can be conducted from starting within your own (albeit recently acquired) territory.

Nathan

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Tuberski
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you.
But the limit on the amount of units should be slightly different than what you suggested, seems to me it should be based on the number of cites, just like Army production, i.e. 1 unit outside your territory for every 4 cities.

That sounds like a good idea, but I think you'd have to allow a certain base number of units regardless of empire size or you'll either really neuter smaller empires or larger empires will still rampage. Perhaps the "standard map" default would be 10 units +1 for every 3 cities?

If this sounds like it'd be tough to wage war, that's the point. I'd try to make it a real choice between democracy and autocracy; if you want growth and low corruption, go democratic, but if you want war go autocratic. IMHO, it's too easy to have it all with republic.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by alexman
It's a good idea because Communism is still too weak, but I'm afraid that it would unbalance the Religious trait, which is already one of the best.



I stay in Republic and conduct Oscilating wars to keep WW from getting out of hand, with Universal Sufferage and Police Stations I don't have to switch to Communism until the Modern Era (16 civs, HUGE map) I also attack My technological competitors until they go Communist, well before I have to choose between Communism and peace and my tanks and Modern Armor will keep them out of the Space Race.

Democracy has to have several free units per city to compete. With Communism, all my units are free well into the Modern Age (Ive built a lot of Hospitals), but for someone who doesn't making all units free would make Communism viable earlier.

[BillChin]

A new post on this interesting thread. Alexman and the cast of thousands has these changes slated for the next version of the AU mod:
1) Monarchy - three free unit support (Imperial Guard).
2) Republic - increase corruption level one notch.
3) Democracy - 0/1/2 unit support (0 per town, 1 per city, 2 per metropolis).
4) Communism - free maintenance on all buildings (ironic side effect is that Adam Smith Wonder becomes useless for Commies). 50% faster workers.

These changes help even out Republic, Monarchy and Democracy without changing the overall feel of each government. Monarchy becomes more competitive as the first government. Democracy gets a measurable tech and gold edge over Republic, especially for large empires. Communism still looks weak, but is considerably stronger with free maintenance on all buildings. I believe all of these changes strengthen the AI, while also making human player choices less clear. The governments are distinct enough that Religious does not become superpowerful with the one turn switches.

For large empires a late game switch to Democracy becomes attractive. I'm still not sure where Communism fits, especially in multiplayer, but it is definitely up two notches with free maintenance on all buildings. Perhaps a pop-rush wasteland with a bunch of cities with many buildings and no population is the best case for a Communist. (Can you say yuck.) Unfortunately, this is a common enough sight when the AI switches and is losing.
- Bill

[gsmoove23]

ugh, a harder Demo would be difficult for me to bear. I'm not an expert player and I usually go staight to republic and then demo throughout the game so I don't know how hard it is to be commy. Demo is always a struggle for me, keeping up with scientific achievement and trying to stay out of wars because they tend to screw up my whole economy and set me back tech-wise.

When I do go on the offensive it always has to be short and quick or it ends up being Vietnam. The fact that I usually have a small army(cause I usually expend a huge effort imroving my cities to capitalize on the trade benefit) means my standing army is small, which limits my offensive capabilities. I see an objective that is worth attacking(a resource, a strategicly placed city) and I have to spend many turns to mobilize my forces at which point the situation has usually changed, limiting my ability for effective military action. Sometimes I wish I could go on a rampage but I always seem to gravitate towards demo. Maybe I'm a pacifist at heart.

The way I see it though, Communism or Fascism(what it really is with a few modifications) is not viable in the long term anyway, I'm talking real-world, except perhaps in the short-term where military conquest is the aim. Perhaps the answer is to make regime change a little less drastic, back to the game-world. Improve anarchy or make the period shorter so its a viable option to have a military coup followed by rapid mobilization and then a long string of wars. Later when cooler heads prevail a switch back to republic or demo.

-or just make commies better.