Govt balance

[alexman]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Alexman: Yeah but how many units do you have including workers circa 500BC? And you need some defenders.

Of course each game is unique, but I would say that typically in 500 BC I have 20 towns, 20 Workers, and about 20 units left over from my first war (mostly attackers), and a bunch of slaves. That's 2 units per city.

At this point I am usually starting to build horsemen for a Knight or Cavalry upgrade, so the Republic will become worse and worse, but that's a good thing IMHO. If you want to go to war in the middle ages, use some other form of government.

[alexman]

Originally posted by DrSpike
And does the proposed 1-2-3 mean that people will switch to democracy late game. In my opinion, no. You'll get 50 odd units free late game, making the break-even point 100 units.

That's true, hence the 20-30 empire-wide free unit, with no free units per city suggestion.

[Jon Miller]

right now

republic has
better unit support (up to cities*(6-8) units)
better war weariness

democracy has
better corruption
better work rate

(didn't remember what mp stands for, republic has 2, democracy has 4)

for any civ on the go, unless the corruption difference is massive, republic is better

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

hmm

what about making it 1-2-2?, with 2 cost per unit after

that really weakens it late game, but leaves it as good for the mid game big pop center peaceful player

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by alexman


That's true, hence the 20-30 empire-wide free unit, with no free units per city suggestion.

the only way this would work would be if it scaled per map

because otherwise republics usefulness woudl change per mpa

JKon Miller

[DrSpike]

Alexman: That has more chance than the current implementation. We seem to agree on the late game issues at any rate. I am amazed that after 2 years of Super Republic they couldn't come up with something better than 1-3-4, which buffs Republic late game compared to democracy.

Ideas based on tweaking 1-3-4 to 1-2-3 or whatever seem almost as foolish to me.

[alexman]

In the early game, where this flat 20-30 gpt is improtant, the map size doesn't matter.

[Jon Miller]

1-1-1?

but I think that republic should be good for the big city person who is not very warlike midgame

which suggests at least 1-2-?

midgame you have the choice between towns (and expansionistic/militaristic) and cities(builder)

lategame you have the choice between cities and metropolises (really you want metropolises)

with 1-2-2 you would have a late game democracy better if you need more units than cities*4

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I guess I consider

early game - despotism
middle game - republic/monarchy/feudalism
late game - democracy/communism/facism

at least that is how it should be

ages wise
early game - ancient era
mid game - end of ancient/medevil era
late game - industrial/modern era

maybe you think differently?

the size of the map matters a lot for the mid game I have found (it determines how long you just focus on city making before you decide between building up your citiies or destroying a neighboring civ)

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

I agree with the late game problem (that there is no point in switching to demo). In PTW, I often did switch, though in a really tight game I probably wouldn't. Couldn't afford the anarchy.

Maybe it's Demo that needs changing, fellas. What about that "empire wide" free unit support for DEMO, not republic?

-Arrian

[TechWins]

How about 1.2.2 free units for Republic then upping Democracy to something like 0.1.1?

For every third unit in a Republic city/metro will cost the same as 3 units in a Democracy city/metro. Then after the third unit Democracy becomes even increasingly better.

I don't see much of a problem with Republic in the early ages, so it still has it's advantages then.

[pvzh]

I would like to point out one thing that left out of the picture: time it takes to switch. If you have a medium sized empire 20+ cities on standart map as a non-religous civ you are looking into 6-8 turns of anarchy. Thus, democracy has to a resonable choice for religious civ's only. Otherwise, current religious atribute will be overpowering. Besides, with amount of WW for Demo it would be really unwise to switch to as non-religious civ.

My observation on AU mod.
I played several games with AU mod 1.17 where Republic has a "monarchial" corruption level. 1 turn switch to demo with Rel Civs gives ~10-15% improvment in un-corrupt commerce. However, I must admit that in those games FP palace was placed non-optimaly (built ~ 10-15 tiles away), i.e. overlaping cores.

I would propose
(1) give 2/2/2 flat free unit's to improve it as early choice and 2 gpt for extra units, but humper significant millitary build up under this goverment.
(2) Republic has corruption the same as monarchy (Rampant will be too harsh) to give some incencitive to chose Democracy later in some case.
(3) give Demo free unit support too: the same or slightly better overall, so this factor will no longer be a stopper for a switch (with current WW it would not be much harm), and 1 gpt for extra units.
(4) give Demo some center tile bonus if possible to sweeten a deal because difference in corruption takes long time to pay off.
(5) Demo's woker speed stays (it is not much of a factor at this stage of the game).

This will give reasons to switch to Democracy if you are religious or control your continent and do not plan to go for millitary win (10-15% gain in corruption will need 40-60 turns to pay of for 6 turns anarchy).

[korn469]

In order to make democracy a better choice, you need to alter the two things republic has over democracy, war weariness and unit support

I think that switching to a flat 20-30 free unit support with 0 free support for cities/towns/metros and 2 support cost, compared to either a flat 0 support cost 1 or a 0-0-1, 0-1-1, 0-1-2 free scheme at cost 1 for democracy would be the best

that way smaller empires would benefit in republic while larger empires would benefit in democracy

also you could increase republic's war weariness to high, which might make democracy worth the switch

[player1]

2 units per town or less? Repulbic is better then Democracy.
6 units per city or less? Repulbic is better. (!!!)
8 units per metropolis or less? Repulbic is better. (!!!)

See the problem?


My suggestion: 1/2/2

Then:
2 units per town or less? Repulbic is better then Democracy (like before).
4 units per city or less? Repulbic is better (sound fine for me).
4 units per metropolis or less? Repulbic is better (no need for more bonuses for metros and we need to encourage switching to Democracy).

[enderw]

I know this is more of a coding fix that something you can mod, but I think it would be ideal if any nation can have a revolution to democracy with less anarchy in between. Something of a "current government enacts democratic reforms that will take 2 turns of (anarchy)." Then even though dem is only marginally better it is not so painful to get into.