AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[ducki]

Ok, here's the most recent save mentioned.
I was about to switch from Feudalism to Republic so I could reap greater GA rewards.

Tile improvements, however, are geared toward shields for the most part, or even mostly non-existent in the most corrupt cities, aside from roads. No aqueducts anywhere, as I wanted to stay below 7 pop for max unit support. THere are, IIRC 3, maybe 4 cities 7+ pop - two on purpose for wonders, and one or two by accident and in need of bleeding.

Please, someone with better knowledge and love for numbers/mechanics, feel free to use this to illustrate in-game differences.

The game is not very well-played/developed, as my initial goal was to see what happened with a neighbor AI left undisturbed to amass ACavs. I didn't realize Samurai cost 120 gold from horses - I was thinking more like 70. /shrug
Anyway, it's not a good example of how to play, but it's probably not a bad example of Feudalism, since I kept my cities small with pop-rushes, settlers, workers, and a lack of water.

Also, there are currently, IIRC, 6 luxes due to trades, so Republic shouldn't be too unhappy.

Have at.

(P.S. Once I dig up the older save, we can look at AC vs Horses/Swords/Spears and small towns instead of Samurai/Pikes/MI, but that'll show up in the other thread.)

[donZappo]

There's an interesint post over on the Conquests forum concerning the pop-rushing of AI civs under modern governments and how it can cripple an empire. I haven't looked into this issue myself, but from watching the AI in a couple of debug games I could see how this debilitating habit could transfer over from the ancient era to a fascist government later in the game. I have noticed that fascist governments seem to fall behind when the game reaches that point, and this might actually be a big reason why. Maybe the ability to pop-rush should be removed from communism and fascism to help the AI out if this is an issue. Does anybody have more extensive experience with watching advanced civilizations to know if this is a problem or not?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that modern governments will hardly ever benefit from pop-rushing as the loss in production is just a bit too high. I don't think that removing the ability for these governments to hurry production would hurt them as much comparitely, but I guess cash-rushing could be added if something was needed. I wish that pop-rushing could be made cheaper so that it wouldn't hurt as much, but I don't think that this is available in the editor.

Anyways, here's the link to the post:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106712

-donZappo

[alexman]

The problem with AI civs collapsing under Communism has been around for a long time. It's not as bad as it once used to be, but it's still there. In any event, I think Communism would become much too powerful if it used cash for rushing, instead of population.

Also, the major problem is that the AI drafts too much, not that it pop-rushes. You see the dramatic effect in Communism and Fascism because heavy drafting happens at wartime, which is when these governments are used.

So the idea to remove rushing from Communism/Fascism is interesting, but I don't think it would help the draft-happy AI.

[alexman]

Since Communism has been improved so much in 1.15, I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to give Feudalism communal corrupiton after all.

This would give players three very different options as their first government: A Warmongering government, a peaceful government with a trade bonus but no MP, and a REXing government with communal corrupiton and a penalty for large cities or many units.

Feudalism would be worse than Communism, as there would be no Secret Police, there would be war weariness, and units would require 3gpt to support.

For a 'bad' FP placement, Feudalism would have less corruption overall than Monarchy/Republic, but for an empire with around the OCN and a well set up second core, non-communal governments would be better off. Of course, the Republic would get the benefit of the trade bonus.

It even makes sense in terms of realism, as cities in feudalism are more independent and decentalized, being run by their feudal lords.

[ducki]

It even makes sense in terms of realism, as cities in feudalism are more independent and decentalized, being run by their feudal lords.

This actually makes the case that the further you get from the "High King", the worse corruption would be, as he can't see as well that far away, so to speak, realism-wise.

Gameplay-wise, however, I agree that communal corruption _might_ be a good idea.
Has anyone compared feudalism to other governments in-game? I think my save posted above can give a good idea of what "real" differences there would be, as I specifically built with an eye towards Feudalism - no aqueducts, only a couple of big cities, tight spacing.
And I used Japan, so doing a comparison should be much quicker than a non-Rel civ.
I'd do it, but I just go all bleary-eyed trying to figure out which numbers are important, where the differences are coming in, etc. I don't "work" at the game that hard - well, unless I can get +5 food per turn.

Anyway, the main point was, realism-wise, communal corruption doesn't fit, but gameplay-wise, it may be a good distinguisher, though being able to pop-rush in your second government is a pretty big bonus if you have lots of food.

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki

This actually makes the case that the further you get from the "High King", the worse corruption would be, as he can't see as well that far away, so to speak, realism-wise.

Not to get into a realism debate here, but maybe it helps if you imagine that the King gets his tribute from the feudal lords anyway, no matter how far away they are. Feudal lords can get away with considerable stealing no matter how far they are from the palace, because the King is hands-off with the affairs of each city. And it is in the best interest of the feudal lords to oversee the building of units and improvements in their own cities, so waste does not depend on distance from the capital either.

[donZappo]

Originally posted by alexman
Since Communism has been improved so much in 1.15, I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to give Feudalism communal corrupiton after all.

*blinks* And here I was thinking that every time I made that suggestion everybody thought I was crazy since I was summarily ignored! Thanks for bringing this up, Alexman, since it is something that I would really like given some thought. It strikes me as an interesting idea and I can't see how it could possibly make feudalism any worse. I know one of their original ideas was to make feudalism a communal government so do you know why the developers decided against that? That might give us some insight for initiating this debate.

-donZappo

[ducki]

I didn't think feudalism was that bad. I enjoyed it im my Japan experiment, but I also knew from 4000 BC that I was going to go straight for Feudalism, so I planned ahead and you have to do a lot of things much differently than if going for Monarchy/Republic.
You have to _avoid_ building on rivers.
You have to _not_ build Aqueducts.
You should really cram the towns in there, since you'll be capping most at size 6, there's no need for a lot of space between them

It really is different from how I plan if I know I'm going for Republic. Small is better.

Also, good point alexman, I hadn't considered it that way. The King gets X amount no matter what. Good catch.

[lockstep]

A downside of communal corruption in the middle ages is the lower chance to build wonders on Monarch and Emperor - you don't have the option anymore to develop your capital or a nearby city into a high-shield-city.

[alexman]

Very true. However, Feudalism seems to be designed for an empire with small towns, which is not the best for building Wonders anyway. Feudalism is meant to be a government that allows you to catch up, if the middle ages find you behind in your territorial expansion. I think communal corruption goes well with the intended spirit of that government.

[alexman]

Originally posted by donZappo

I know one of their original ideas was to make feudalism a communal government so do you know why the developers decided against that?

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because communal corruption was not very good compared to the non-communal corruption model in initial playtesting. The new FP in patch 1.15 has changed this, big time!

[ducki]

I think lockstep does have a point, though, alexman. In my posted save above, I carefully kept small towns, but I also bit the bullet and let two cities grow for the express purpose of developing the larger improvements and hopefully a wonder or two. I was glad to give up the 5-unit support in each for, what is it, 1? 2? so that I could do so.

Feudalism seems to be designed for an empire with small towns

I think it's designed for a largish empire primarily composed of small towns.
Under communistic feudalism, would there be any compelling reason to grow any of your towns to cities or would it be a specialist-type government, tailor-made for ICS and Oscillating War and very little else?

Currently, it is worth it to grow a small number of them specifically for wonders and improvements. At least in my opinion, which may be wrong.

And I actually think it's ok for an empire that did well in territorial expansion but is going to be stuck(voluntarily or otherwise) with a buttload of small towns.
If you did poorly in the expansion stage, then you probably don't have much corruption at your outskirts anyways, since by doing poorly, you either have low Rank corruption or low Distance corruption or, just as likely, both. Toss in a FP if you qualify and your underexpanded empire might just be a builder's powerhouse with enough military to keep the wolves at bay.

I dunno. Is the Slider O' Corruption in the editor yet? Maybe we could tweak on that in conjunction with communal corruption to make the larger feudal cities still Wonder-competitive but not top o' the line and make the outlying towns a bit more productive at the same time?

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep
A downside of communal corruption in the middle ages is the lower chance to build wonders on Monarch and Emperor - you don't have the option anymore to develop your capital or a nearby city into a high-shield-city.

Hey, wait a minute! This is no longer true in C3C 1.15.
Your capital and FP cities have minimal corruption, even under communal corruption. Another boost to communism...

[ducki]

Err... well... ummm....
okaaaaay...
So much new stuff to try out, so little playtime.
I hope I finish my current game before AU starts so I have some idea what to expect later on at this level with this patch... NOT that I want to see it delayed, ha!

Anyway, back on topic...
Wow. Well, uh, communal corruption looks pretty nice, especially if you get your FP built early enough.

Now the dilemma of the early MGL - Army or FP and skip two optional techs and use communal corruption to crank out lots and lots of units and buildings.

Aaaarrrrghhh!!!!!!!!!
This is good. No longer is the first MGL an Auto-Army, methinks. At least not for everyone in every situation.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Hey, wait a minute! This is no longer true in C3C 1.15.
Your capital and FP cities have minimal corruption, even under communal corruption. Another boost to communism...

I didn't use 1.15 until now, but I actually wanted to suggest this change for further patches. If this is true (again: ), communal corruption for Feudalism may actually be a great idea, and is certainly worth testing. (BTW, I think that lowering unit support costs to 1 or 2 would still be in order.)