Civics make no sense

[MxM]

Originally posted by RadeonZero

So, you are exactly as old as I am

In you're poor and communist origin country:
- Children took weapons to school (as in USA)?
- There was death penalty ?
- Don't say me the police was brutal (as in USA)
- How you explain your sons (if you have them) the revolts of 1992 in USA?

You're talking about extremes. Everything in extreme is bad.

I lived in USSR and I was also 18 in 1989 . So as I remember it:

1) No, I personally did not see children having guns. But how many children in USA see it? The thing is in USSR, even if it happened no one would know it. However, if you include knifes, then yes.
2) Yes, there was a death penalty. And Stalin really used it!
3) The police here in US are angels compared to what I remember in USSR.
4) You probably mean how a parent would explain revolts in Soviet block countries? Easy, just repeat whatever communist party is saying. Because if you do not do it, your son may say something to other people, and then you will have problems, BIG problems.

[QuantumPion]

I really like the idea of changing state property to give some sort of minus to wealth or happiness but a plus to rushing projects or building wealth/research/culture.

Also I think serfdom should make workers cheaper, not more productive! In Civ3, it was democracy that made workers more productive, lol!

Other then that, and maybe free markets getting a small boost to maybe 2 extra trade routes, and everything would be set. I think mercantilism is accurate as it is, if you are isolated or at war the free specialists are a plus. But otherwise, not having any foreign trade can be a giagantic setback. In my current game most of my cities are making 50-100 gold per turn with harbors, free market, and the great lighthouse.

The only other change I think would be to make it so going backwards in civics, i.e. from free religion to theocracy or emancipation to slavery should cause proportional amounts of anarchy. Like the former would take 5 or even 10 turns of anarchy. That way you can't just willy nilly go back to police state/vassalage/theocracy because you feel like beating up a neighbor or he feels like dropping by your capitol. It would force you to actually be prepared beforehand. And one you pick the peaceful booming civics it's not easy to go back.

[Mace]

Originally posted by QuantumPion
I really like the idea of changing state property to give some sort of minus to wealth or happiness but a plus to rushing projects or building wealth/research/culture.

Also I think serfdom should make workers cheaper, not more productive! In Civ3, it was democracy that made workers more productive, lol!

Yes, good points you make...

Originally posted by QuantumPion The only other change I think would be to make it so going backwards in civics, i.e. from free religion to theocracy or emancipation to slavery should cause proportional amounts of anarchy.

I don't know if that would be easy to implement or not. Not a bad idea though, something that should be thought about for sure.

Originally posted by QuantumPion And one you pick the peaceful booming civics it's not easy to go back.

That may be the whole idea that Firaxis had though--the idea that, free market is superior to say, Mercantilism, and that no-one would WANT to go back to Merc once they could do Free Market. Kind of like in Civ3, once you got Republic or Monarchy, why go back to Despotism? Same with Feudalism in Civ3. It was kind of an "era-specific" govt that only served it's purpose for part of the game, and after that, the player moved on to bigger and better governments.

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by Mace
That may be the whole idea that Firaxis had though--the idea that, free market is superior to say, Mercantilism, and that no-one would WANT to go back to Merc once they could do Free Market. Kind of like in Civ3, once you got Republic or Monarchy, why go back to Despotism? Same with Feudalism in Civ3. It was kind of an "era-specific" govt that only served it's purpose for part of the game, and after that, the player moved on to bigger and better governments.

The problem is rapidly switching to police state/vassalage or nationalism/theocracy gives massive miltiary bonuses while the other civics give massive peace time bonuses. If you could switch to whichever one you needed at the moment, the game would be less strategic. If you knew it would take 5 turns to switch back you'd think twice about going to war. 5 turns of anarchy in the industrial age can really put you behind.

This would also have the added advantage of making the spiritual trait actually useful. No one cares about 1 turn of anarchy now, but 5 turns, hmmm

[AoA]

The Civics not fitting reality.....well, they're just recognizable titles for concepts of government that Firaxis thought would be balanced. No one would want to play a game that has you research "Goldrushonomics" or "Sixfreehealthpointalism". Just like no one would want to play a game that had "40HP2MP" losing to a "3HP1MP"
Having recognizable names makes the game more realistic even though the names they pick may seem to make it unrealistic.

However, I do agree that the bonuses could be tweaked and made more exciting. Some Civics I never use and I almost always end up with the same exact configuration at the end.
That, sir, is unrealistic that all roads lead to the bottom row of civics.

[Henrik]

Having been sneaked attacked I've now come to appreciate slavery as a means of rushing units.
Especially as those units will come to be imidietly and are thus able to defend the same turn!

[Robert]

Can people stop claiming why something makes no historical sence?
It's a game in which you can create a NEW history. YOUR history.

It's YOUR turn to create history, to be one of the leaders that creates history. And that's OF COURSE not historical correct.

If it would be the game would be VERY predictable and boring.

[kimmygibler]

Slavery can be devastating early on for building armies

[Mace]

Originally posted by QuantumPion
This would also have the added advantage of making the spiritual trait actually useful. No one cares about 1 turn of anarchy now, but 5 turns, hmmm

The more I play Civ4, I too am beginning to think that there is not enough of a penalty for "quick-switching" between civics. I think it deserves more thought though, Firaxis and beta testers I am sure went through this issue hundreds of hours.

They could increase the anarchy time, to make it less nice to switch all the time. But then again, the pace of Civ4 (even epic) seems very "fast" and I think they would have to tweak and lengthen the game if the longer anarchy was put in.

[Mace]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Can people stop claiming why something makes no historical sence?
It's a game in which you can create a NEW history. YOUR history.

Well everyone is entitled to their opin. I'll quote what I said earlier:

In the little I've played, I think the civics are balanced; and I agree with gameplay/balance as a priority design goal--that was good.

As I play more, I do think the civics could be re-examined at some point--IMO the principle of modding to better reflect real-world scenarios --whether you think that's possible or proper in a "game" or not--has always been something I've been interested in. This implies that the stock Civ4 civics are not historically accurate. Actually I think most of them are fine, or are in the ballpark. The earlier comment about state property giving more food is an interesting comment, however...

I think the civics could be modded in such a way as to be just as balanced and fun as they are now, while being a little more accurate as to their effects. I understand how in the game design compromises for balance and fun factor had to be made, but they were designed the whole game and not just a civics system...so given time and experience, I think worthwhile civics mods will appear...I'll probably do one if I can figure out how to do it.

[player1]

The thing is that most civics are made specialized in one area or another, so that it would be more fun to try diffierent combinations.

Otherwise you would get something similar like old governments when every option would have dozen effects.
And it that case it's easy to get unbalanced and have some civics weaker then others.

Here on the other hand, every civic has some unique benefits, so every civic is useful in some conditions.

[player1]

As for state property, I think food bonus for watermills and workshops are added, to represent such societies bigger focus on "industry" instead of "farming".

Otherwise it's impossibe to get lots of hammers without having lots of farm improvements too. Ergo, state property states will actually be low of farm land, and would eventually after they switch out of it get food crisis.

[Drachasor]

Anarchy seems just about right in the game. 1 or 2 turns is how much it should be. Spiritual Civs do gain a lot of benefit. First they gain the switch the same turn they select the new civics. So if a Spiritual leader is getting invaded, then he switch to Nationalism and make 3 of his best infantry units immediately. Or switch to slavery (if in an earlier era) and pump out some units or defenses.

One thing to consider is that while 1 or 2 turns doesn't seem like much, over the entire game it adds up to 6-12 turns of anarchy easily. That's 2 or so modern techs, and quite a bit of production (especially considering production in earlier ages has a magnified effect as time goes on in terms of cities built and other benefits gained).

The benefit from Spiritual is subtle, but it is there. They are the only people that can switch to Police State/Feudalism/Theocracy when warring and then back to Universal Sufferage/Emancipation/Freedom of Religion (or Organized Religion) when at peace. They can do this a lot during a game which can reap great benefits for them. The AI doesn't seem to take much advantage of this, however.

-Drachasor

[Mace]

Originally posted by Drachasor
One thing to consider is that while 1 or 2 turns doesn't seem like much, over the entire game it adds up to 6-12 turns of anarchy easily. That's 2 or so modern techs, and quite a bit of production (especially considering production in earlier ages has a magnified effect as time goes on in terms of cities built and other benefits gained).
-Drachasor

Good point; the fact that you make 6 or 7 switches per game, (maybe more) that adds up to a lot of turns of anarchy anyway...

Plus since stock Civ4 games are so fast-paced, 6-12 turns is a lot of turns.

[EscapedGoat]

player1, that's a good way of looking at it I think. You don't generally get more food from state property, it just makes it more viable to focus on the industry buildings, which are kind of a bad deal otherwise and you probably wouldn't build these under other circumstances.