AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It actually makes Republic better than even under the standard rules (which have Republic 1/3/4) until a civ grows six cities to size seven or higher, and better than 1/2/2 until a civ grows twelve cities to size seven or higher.

This does not concern me very much, because the Republic has been weakened quite a bit as an initial government in C3C. The main reason for the AU mod changes to the Republic has been to weaken this government's position as the best late-game all-purpose government in C3C.

Having said that, I do like the 0/1/1+18 proposal a bit better as well. It seems like the smaller of the two changes, compared to the current version of the mod.

I suggest we put that proposal (0/1/1+18) under consideration now, so that if it is voted in, we may package it with the Cavalry change for version 1.07.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

This does not concern me very much, because the Republic has been weakened quite a bit as an initial government in C3C.

That depends on the strategy being used. For example, a civ with one and a half workers and half a military unit per city breaks even with earlier versions of Civ 3 under the default C3C rules even with all its cities size 6 and under. Granted, the heavily builder-oriented opening game I generally favor is almost certainly a bit atypical, but it and C3C's new version of Republic can fit together very well.

In CivFanatics' C3C GOTM 4 (the September game), I completed the transition to Republic in 1125 BC. (Since the game was on Monarch, with an Agricultural civ and a relatively good starting position, I had no difficulty researching Code of Laws before Philosophy and then getting Republic as my free tech.) At the time, I had 18 units: two warriors, 14 workers, and two settlers. I also had eleven towns, providing free support for eleven units. So even with an earlier transition to Republic than would have been possible prior to C3C, at that point, I was four gpt ahead of where I would have been in the older versions of Republic.

Jumping ahead to 630 BC, which is more like the traditional time to switch to Republic (and the next save I made after 1175 BC), I had 36 units: 25 workers, 8 warriors, 2 Javelin Throwers, and a galley. For those 36 units, I was paying a grand total of eight gold per turn in upkeep. That's a savings of 28 gpt compared with what I would have paid prior to C3C.

So while the C3C changes to Republic can make Republic more expensive as an initial government than in previous versions, they can also provide a significant advantage for a player who is willing and able to cut the number of units to the bone to take advantage of the new support cost model.

By the way, looking at how I would have done in free support in that game in 630 BC with the cost models currently under discussion, I had six cities size seven or higher and fourteen size six or under.

1/3/4: 32 units (Stock rules)
1/2/2: 26 units (Original AU Mod change)
0/1/1 + 12: 18 units (Current AU Mod rules)
0/1/1 + 18: 24 units (My current proposal)
1/1/1 + 12: 32 units (pvzh's proposal)

[Theseus]

/me shuns Republic (but 0/1/1+18 would be a little better).

[nbarclay]

Okay, 0/1/1 + 18 free support (for both Republic and, by extension, Democracy) is now officially under consideration. Voting in a week (or we may shave a little off that on a provisional basis if we're otherwise ready to start the next AU game before then).

[player1]

My personal opinion, is that every government with fixed free unit support (like AU Repuiblic), is not well balanced on all types of maps.

Fixed suppost cost favors smaller maps, but are inadequate for bigger maps.


Anyway, I see some inflation of power in govenments.
First, you make Feudalism better, then you make Repuiblic better.

And what to do poor Monarchy?




IMHO, if I look at original govenments, in pre-modern era I used Feudalism as often as Republic as government of choice.
Lots of towns --> Feudalism rules, lots of cities & lux --> Republic rules.

Only balance problem was late Republic (and Democracy inferiority if not Religious).


Anyway, if you ditch free fixed support cost and have original 1/3/4, only way to town it down for later era is to lower support.

But, there is a small problemt.
1/3 town/city support helps in transition era when entering Republic. 1/2 town/city usually makes enetering really harsh.

But on the other hand when you get just cities and metros it's way to easy.

Possible option would be adding 2/2/2 support, but that would favor Feudal lots of towns aprouch and would relativly weaken Fedualism as chocie.

Anyway, I don't have solution for this question.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by player1
My personal opinion, is that every government with fixed free unit support (like AU Repuiblic), is not well balanced on all types of maps.

Fixed suppost cost favors smaller maps, but are inadequate for bigger maps.

That's true to some extent, but keep in mind that the number of civs on a map scales with map size. As long as players play with a normal number of civs for their map size, the amount of territory a player can claim REXing doesn't vary as much with map size as one might think just from looking at map sizes themselves.

Also, I hadn't thought about it before, but Republic's advantage from its commerce bonus is itself something that is more potent on larger maps. For any given number of cities, corruption is not as big a problem on big maps as on small ones. Thus, on bigger maps, corruption does not eat away at the commerce bonus as much as it would on smaller ones. That's in addition to the possibility of having more cities to get the commerce bonus from on a bigger map. So while free support might be more of a problem on a big map, the greater advantage from the commerce bonus means players can afford to pay to make up the difference. Similarly, on a big map with relatively few civs, the combination of greater advantage from the commerce bonus per city and more cities to get the commerce bonus in makes the relative lack of extra support per city not such a big deal.

I wouldn't be surprised if 0/1/1 + 18 does make Republic a little better than we want it to be on smaller-than-standard maps, at least in the short term. (In the longer term, a civ only needs nine cities size seven or higher before 0/1/1 + 18 becomes no better than the 1/3/4 of the standard rules.) But I don't remember our ever having an AU game on a smaller than standard map, and my impression is that most people around here don't play on the smaller map sizes much except maybe in PBEM games. (By the way, for that plus other reasons, we might want to go with 1/2/2 or even back to 1/3/4 free unit support for Republic in the PBEM version of the Mod. In PBEM, it's a lot harder to get away with keeping one's military small and cheap.)

I certainly wouldn't want to switch part of the free support over to a fixed model for a government without a commerce bonus. But for Republic, with its commerce bonus, I don't think scaling to larger map sizes is a problem.

Anyway, I see some inflation of power in govenments.
First, you make Feudalism better, then you make Repuiblic better.

And what to do poor Monarchy?

Keep in mind that what we're making Republic "better" relative to is itself a LOT worse for Republic than the standard support model. In the standard rules, Republic's free support is 1/3/4. Our current AU Mod rules have it at 0/1/1 + 12, which a lot of us think has weakened it too much. Taking the free support up to 0/1/1 + 18 is really just intended to give back a small part of what we've taken away. Monarchy will still be significantly stronger relative to Republic than it is under the standard rules.

IMHO, if I look at original govenments, in pre-modern era I used Feudalism as often as Republic as government of choice.
Lots of towns --> Feudalism rules, lots of cities & lux --> Republic rules.

If you used Feudalism a lot under the standard government designs, you're the only person I remember hearing from who did so. Most of us view Feudalism under the standard rules as having only a small niche where it's worth using, with either Monarchy or Republic (if not both) being better in the vast majority of games.

Only balance problem was late Republic (and Democracy inferiority if not Religious).

In my view (and that of most of the other long-time AU regulars), there is also a serious imbalance between Monarchy and Republic under the standard rules. Republic's commerce bonus can easily pay to make up the difference in unit support plus the cost of an extra notch on the luxury slider to make up for the lack of military police. And with the power of bombardment units in C3C, a good player can do a lot of fighting in Republic without war weariness becoming a serious problem. The end result was that for a lot of us, using Republic instead of Monarchy became essentially a no-brainer. So we weakened Republic's free unit support to make Monarchy (and Feudalism) more interesting.

Anyway, if you ditch free fixed support cost and have original 1/3/4, only way to town it down for later era is to lower support.

But, there is a small problemt.
1/3 town/city support helps in transition era when entering Republic. 1/2 town/city usually makes enetering really harsh.

If you have so many units that it's that serious a problem, why are you choosing Republic over Monarchy or (depending on city sizes) Feudalism?

We actually tried a 1/2/2 free support model for Republic for a while (I think AU 601 was the only AU game we played under that model) but found that it still left Republic stronger as a warmongering government than we wanted it to be (thereby cutting into Monarchy's proper role). The problem is, every town conquered means free support for one additional unit, growing to two free additional units when the town grows into a city. So a large empire can have a fairly large military while paying very little in support costs.

The reason for the 0/1/1 + 12 (or + 18) support model is that it cuts very heavily into the advantage Republic can provide in extra free support when a civ conquers a lot of territory. Once the conquered areas get over (or back over) size 6, they can provide support for a small garrison to defend them, but that's about it. Which, in turn, gives players a lot more reason to consider using Monarchy if they want to do a lot of fighting.

[pvzh]

BTW, why not improve monarchy somewhat in terms of unit support: switch it to 4/4/6 instead of 2/4/8 like in stock.

[alexman]

Monarchy is already well-balanced as an early war-time government, IMO. Improve it and you will have to improve Feudalism, and we start the cycle all over again!

[player1]

Actually, my game play experience shows that Feudalism is superior to Monarchy in every game that doesn't depend from long war wearines.

Why?

Beacuse if you have smaller cities it leads to great gold gain.
On the other hand if you have large cities, then why aren't you in Republic already?

And pop-rushing is good when war-mongering.

[alexman]

Beacuse if you have smaller cities it leads to great gold gain.

The problem is that in most games people do have large cities by the time they get Feudalism.

On the other hand if you have large cities, then why aren't you in Republic already?

You might not have enough luxuries, so you need the extra MP, or you might have too many units, so you want to avoid paying 2gpt for each of them above the limit. You might also be suffering from war weariness.

[player1]

Well, it's pretty much a thing of style.

In some games, when I have room for peace development, I don't use Feudalism.

If on the other hand I'm pressed early, which means no aquaducts and lots of units, Feudalism just rules.


Anyway, i think that Monarchy lost some appel in C3C since Republic got stronger with larger cities.

[pvzh]

Since we gonna try Fascism for next AU game, why not attempt to fix it up before the game?

I will suggesst to remove forced resettlement flag, and reduce slightly unit support (to 4/6/8 from 4/7/10), so AI will not be lured in by free unit support. Lowered unit suport will not be a problem for humans because they do not build that many of defensive units. Plus, to make sure AI stays in democracy unless they experience heavy war weariness why not up free units for Democracy to stock republic 1/3/4 or thereabouts (1 gpt for excess units). Humans unlikely will benefit much of that anyway: if they peaceful it is slight increase in revenue, if not they will not be a democracy in the first place.

[nbarclay]

I strongly oppose the idea of making changes to the rules solely for one particular game. Doing so would significantly undercut our ability to apply lessons learned in that game to other games. And in any case, I see no reason why we should rig "Power of Fascism" to make AIs more likely than normal to choose or stay in Democracy.

Regarding the "Forced Resettlement" flag, it looks like removing it was included in the proposal Alexman placed under consideration but not in what we ended up voting on. A quick search for references to that flag reveals no trace of a reason why it was excluded from the voting, but it's possible that I missed something. Therefore, I suggest that we go ahead and vote on that change unless someone can come up with a reason not to in the next day or two. (Alexman, do you remember anything about why that flag ended up being excluded from the vote?)

[Theseus]

I don't even remember what "Forced Resettlement" is...

[nbarclay]

The Forced Resettlement flag is what causes civs to lose pop points when they switch to Fascism. Eliminating that flag would make Fascism a little less costly for AIs and a little less unattractive to human players.