AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

Also, I would like Feudalism to be between Monarchy and the Republic for both war and economy. Monarchy is the best for war, Republic is the best in terms of ecomomy, Feudalism should be between those two, perhaps having an advantage in production for uniqueness. That's why I like the minimal corruption solution.

To me, an orientation toward small towns does not seem at all compatible with a builder economy. Feudalism seems more like the kind of government you'd want if you were too busy building troops to get around to building aqueducts, or perhaps on a nasty archipelago start where many cities will be held to size six or under by the terrain (at least until Electricity or until irrigation from a very distant water supply is complete). Another use would be if a serious warmonger keeps conquering cities faster than his established ones grow so there are always plenty of small towns to provide free unit support. But the small-town orientation of Feudalism strikes me as antithetical to anything resembling normal builder operations.

Nathan

[alexman]

All of these suggested uses for Feudalism are nice, but the situations where that government is better than Monarchy in practice are extremely rare.

The main reason is that Feudalism is not available until the Middle Ages, which is the time when you usually have enough cities to make unit support not a problem, both for Monarchy and for Feudalism.

Reducing corruption for Feudalism is not an attempt to change this government's character, but rather the only way I see to improve Feudalism while keeping its current unit support model and retaining the balance of Republic versus Monarchy.

That way, you could still take advantage of the the 'traditional' advantages of Feudalism, listed by Nathan above, but in addition you would have some extra cases where Feudalism might make more sense than before.

For example, a typical builder (with a 'normal' city size and placement) might choose Feudalism over Monarchy if he has relatively few units so that he's under the free limit with either government, but enough units (or lack of luxuries) so that Republic is not the best option.

Another example might be a slow starter who wants to build up his infrastructure and unit count before turning warmonger. The lower corruption will help a faster build-up than either of the other governments.

[ducki]

main reason is that Feudalism is not available until the Middle Ages

Why not just move it to the Monarchy tech to see if this is indeed the main reason? If it were available at around the time of either Monarchy or Republic, then it would be more used/useful is the logic as I understand it, so perhaps we could try an earlier timing to see if that is so.

Feudalism as a government is new to C3C, so this would not be as radical as, say, moving Monarchy and/or Republic to the Middle Ages.

Any support for trying it out as an Ancient government to see if it's just the timing that kills it as a viable option for most players?

[Theseus]

1. DECBA

2. CBAD

3. CBAD

4. A (nerf Republic)

/me chants: "Two government switches! Two government switches!"

[alexman]

As a reminder, it's better to rank all options (preferably after the voting period starts ) even if you don't like some of them at all, otherwise the system doesn't work.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by ducki

Why not just move it to the Monarchy tech to see if this is indeed the main reason?

I was just going to say that, and then saw your post!

Better still...move it to Monarchy and make it a required tech, then move monarchy to Theology.

ducki, I agree with your comments on the PoF game. I never finished it off because I didn't feel it made sense to push forward in Feudalism at a time when Monarchy was clearly a better government in every sense.

Conclusion: Feudalism currently becomes available at precisely the same time as you want to move from size 6 towns to size 7 cities, and so is exquisitely mis-placed in the tech tree based on its intended (?) niche of being a semi-warmonger government for low-pop and possibly cramped empires.

[ducki]

then move monarchy to Theology.

No, this undermines the experiment. We want to find out if it is avoided _because_ it comes too late. We don't want to transfer the problem to Monarchy, we just want to see if there are enough "typical" game situations that the government would be "good" for were it not delayed in availability.

On Feudalsim's "intended" niche, someone quoted a Firaxian as saying it was good if you were behind in expansion(I assume in a big, bad way.) I imagine on Demigod/Deity where the AI outexpands you and the only way to field a large enough army without killing your economy is Feudalism, that makes sense to me. Otherwise, I don't understand it as explained, 3rd or 4th hand information though it is(coming from me, that is).

[Theseus]

First, sorry, I thought voting had started.

Second, I guess I don;t understand the options for #4. A&B are the same? C, while intellectually cool, is too big a change for me, at least for now. D is... too strong for Demo when compared to other late game govs. So I just voted A (prematurely, I guess).

[Ision]

Just a question:

When I posted the suggeston about 'low' WW for Demo - I knew that it would probably be considered too great a departure or radical in concept.

However, just for my own purposes - I would be greatly interested on your opinions of what the effects would be in game terms?

Personally I believe it would;

1. Delay the standard AI impoverishment that occurs in early Industrial by virtue of the AI vs AI wars that commonly occur, or those world wars that the human player (peaceful builder OR warmonger) usually manipulates the AIs into. IMO it would do so by greatly delaying the point at which the AIs will be compelled to go Commie/Fascist. The AI unlike the human player is usually going Commie/Fascist because they 'have to' in order to survive and avoid riots. The Human usually is going totalitarian by 'choice' as a matter of pursueing a Dom/Conq victory - Usually - not always. I know that KAIs do spring up from time to time.

2. I could also foresee those AIs that managed to stay out of the wars or had limited participation would become far more viable opponents late into the game. The exception being a Commie/Fascist AI that is a threat because it has managed to become a KAI. Also, it may even make the ToE race 'slightly' more competitive for the human playing severe catch-up.

I suppose that the bottom line for me is that I know that no matter what, 90% of the AI Civs will go Democracy Government - that being the case I am trying to find a way to make that change of a greater value to the AI. I realize that the immediate objection will be that it may benefit the human more than the AI- perhaps so? I believe it would greatly benifit the AI. Personally, even under the old PTW Republic model (with its 1 gpt, trade bonus, and low WW)- I still always used Monarchy-Commie when I was serious about dominaton/conquest victory. Republic was my 'balanced of power' warmonger/builder combo gov - Demo for the pure peaceful games of culture or space race. I do not see that changing even with a Demo with low WW. The only difference being that Demo would replace the role formerlly held by Republic in PTW. Except now, unlike before, one would have to switch Govs at least twice and an early Republic Government may be replaced with Monarchy. A commitment by a human player in Demo to a long aggressive war of total conquest or survival - will still require him to go Com/Fas at some point.

Okay, - please feel free to agree-disagree, rip apart -support.

Help me out Nathan, Alex, Dominae and the rest of the gang! If nothing else, I would like a heads up for any personal modifications I would make to my personal version of the AU Mod.

Thanks Gentlemen - any comments will be appreciated.

Ision

[alexman]

Originally posted by Theseus
I guess I don;t understand the options for #4. A&B are the same?

They are the same only if we don't change the free unit support of the Republic in #3 (1/2/2). Otherwise they will be different. By the way, don't be sorry for voting - I was just giving you a hard time. It's fine if you vote early, and you can always change your vote if you change your mind during the discussion period.

Ision, with Communism so good, and if we boost Fascism, I don't think an AI switch to a war time government due to war weariness is such a bad thing. Also, the AI anarchy period is much shorter than that of the human above Regent.

The idea to give low war weariness to Democracy is a good one because then you ensure that Democracy is always better than the Republic. I just feel that having special war governments for war is better for forcing the player to make choices, and for keeping the original flavor. That's why I prefer to nerf the Republic instead.

[alexman]

By the way, it seems the AI currently likes Fascism much better than Communism. I have never seen an AI in Communism when it knows the tech of Fascism. This will likely be even more true if we strengthen Fascism.

Any ideas on how deal with that? Just let them be Fascists?

[ducki]

I'd have to go look at your chart again, but outside the realm of a human empire going for domination(far beyond the OCN) isn't Fascism "better" anyway? Since the AI doesn't tend to get massive, wouldn't they be within the part of your chart where Fascism is slightly better than Communism, or am I misremembering the chart?

[alexman]

The chart assumes a good FP placement, which is not usually the case for the AI. AI Fascist empires will be less efficient than human Fascist governments, on average. But even with a good FP placement, Communism is better than Fascism by the time the map OCN is reached. The AI usually reaches that number unless it's being beat up.

[ducki]

Hmmm, ok.
I thought the new FP made the typical AI FP comparable to the human. Back to reading, I guess.

I wonder if there are certain hardcoded triggers that determine which govt is "better" for the AI or if it just picks the "highest" form of govt depending on "mode", war=fascism, peace=demo.

If Fascism got a SPHQ, that would push back on the crossover point between it and Communism, right? Hmm..

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
If Fascism got a SPHQ, that would push back on the crossover point between it and Communism, right?

For sure, and so would reducing corruption. That's kinda the reason for wanting to stengthen Fascism.

But remember that adding another FP (SPHQ) to a non-communal government type will usually help the human more than it will help the AI, although you're right that the difference under the current corruption model is not as great as it was in PTW.