AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

That's because I used exclusively terrain with 1 commerce, which becomes 2 commerce with the trade bonus. I figured that's an average between coast, roaded plains, and no commerce at all.

Don't forget rivers and resource tiles that increase commerce. By the time Democracy becomes available, tiles that do not generate at least one commerce should be virtually nonexistent in a civ's core and rare elsewhere, so the average should be noticeably higher than one commerce per tile.

Further, governments with a commerce bonus get that bonus only on tiles that generate at least one commerce. So Republic and Democracy look a lot better with one commerce on each tile than they would with some tiles having two pre-bonus commerce and other tiles having no commerce at all for an average of one pre-bonus commerce.

Taking those two factors into consideration, I think the graphs overstate the advantage Republic and Democracy get from their commerce bonus a bit. That also means Communism would catch up with Republic and Democracy in commerce a bit better than the first graph implies.

[alexman]

Here is another graph showing the effect of the SPHQ, Rampant corruption givernment with a trade bonus (fascism?), and minimal corruption without trade bonus (feudalism?).

Edit: After Nathan's observation about using only 1-commerce tiles, these new curves are for terrain with half 1-commerce and half 2-commerce tiles.

[alexman]

I actually like the idea of giving Fascism a trade bonus plus rampant corruption a lot! It gives a nice alternative to Communism as a war time government.

Besides the large/small empire distinction, Fascism would get the advantage in cash and research, while Communism has the advantage in production.

Edit: of course we would have to make sure the AI doesn't choose trade-bonus Fascism as a peace time government.

[ducki]

of course we would have to make sure the AI doesn't choose trade-bonus Fascism as a peace time government.

With the worker speed boost, poprushing, and soon Replaceable Parts worker speed boost, and other features I haven't taken the time to learn about, would Fascism really be that bad for a peacetime or a warbuilder AI?

Also, doesn't SPHQ also work for Fascism? If so, extrapolating the effect of the SPHQ on Communism to Fascism, I think it would cut the Republic advantage in ~half until about 300%OCN(which granted, the AI is unlikely to reach).

With the AI anarchy capped, sure, it wouldn't make sense for a truly peaceful techleader AI to stay in Fascism, but for a borderline warmonger-builder AI, this doesn't look too shabby, maybe even better w/ SPHQ.

Surely I am missing something or misinterpreting the graph or underestimating my predicted SPHQ+moddedFascism curve's closeness to Republic.

So what did I get wrong?

[MqsTout]

SPHQ is communism only, isn't it?

Ducki, the one thing you forgot in your analysis of rampant+trade bonus is that it'd be bad for a large builder. Sure, it might trade and research well, but shield production will be really bad (at despotic levels). It would require major police/civil engineer use to build much.

[ducki]

Well, that doesn't make it a very good wartime government either, does it?

And I thought SPHQ was for both Commies and Fascists, but I haven't looked that deeply at Fascism, so I believe you, though with the shield waste from rampant corruption, maybe the SPHQ would be good for Fascism too?

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, MT.

[MqsTout]

Govt-specific buildings only work for one government by the way it looks in the editor. It would have to be two separate small wonders with the same effects, each one set for the different government. I don't think adding buildings was within the scope of the AU mod, either -- so that's out.

Fascism did have production problems. Hitler quickly fell behind in industrial capacity (though I wonder how much of that was due to bombing), even as the Soviets were increasing tank building capabilities in the east. Hitler did have a few pipe dreams in research, particularly with his rockets. A trade-bonus, but highly-corrupt government might fit not only a nice gameplay niche, but it might also have the odd bonus of (*GASP!*) working historically.

[ducki]

Ack, make it stop!
doublepost.

[MqsTout]

Thinking about feudalism. I'm wondering how it might look with lower corruption levels (minimal or nuisance), but still having the despotic tile penalty? Unfortunately I'm at work so I can't test it, but it does sound quite interesting to me.

[alexman]

I updated the last graph to include minimal corruption without a trade bonus, as well as half 1-commerce tiles and half 2-commerce tiles to better represent the value of the trade bonus. It's a few posts up.

It looks like a good solution is:

• Monarchy: No change. This is the standard Ancient/Medieval warmongering government, or the government to use when you don't have access to many luxuries and you expect to be in that situation throughout the middle ages.
• Republic: No change from AU mod 1.03b, which means reducing free unit support to 1/2/2. A flexible government to be used most of the time when unit support and luxuries are not a problem.
• Feudalism: Reduce corruption level to minimal. Middle ground between Republic and Monarchy for building/warmongering. Better production than both Monarchy and the Republic. Better income than Monarchy, and better unit support than the Republic.
• Democracy: Change corruption model to communal, and remove the free unit support we added in AU mod 1.03b. The builder's ultimate government. Worth the switch from Republic, even for non-religious civs, for a large enough empire. Awesome production.
• Communism: No change. A great Industrial/Modern government for war and production, especially for large empires.
• Fascism: Add trade bonus and increase corruption to rampant. The best warmongering government for research and income, especially for small empires.

Any comments, before we mark the above as a proposal under consideration soon?

[ducki]

Wow, that looks stellar, I hope the panel goes for it.
I think it will definitely give the player better/more options over the "usual" Republic-or-Monarchy Forever tendency.

Thanks alexman!

[Dominae]

Yet again, alexman, you're putting under consideration what you consider to be the best solution. Other than your graphs (which are cool and informative), I see no more support for your changes than mine.

Republic: No change from AU mod 1.03b, which means reducing free unit support to 1/2/2. A flexible government to be used most of the time when unit support and luxuries are not a problem.

Republic is a problem government in terms of game balance.

The most important parts of the game are played when Republic is a front runner. The focus for balance changes should be on Monarchy and Feudalism, not Fascism.

The word 'flexible' in your quote should actually replaced with 'powerful' or "the best". Any player can trade for Luxuries, and go to war at times of his or her choosing. The only thing C3C does to Republic is delay the logical time to switch to it until you've got enough cities (or large enough ones) not to cripple yourself with unit upkeep costs.

A civ in Republic should not be good at warfare. Warmongering 15-20 turns in Republic without ill effect (other than possible use of the Luxury slider) should not be possible. Unit upkeep costs and War Weariness should be a major problem relative to Monarchy and Feudalism, not something easily mitigated.

Pretty good rant, eh?

At the very least I would like to see Republic's free upkeep reduced to 1/1/1. A logical next step would then be to play with Monarchy and Feudalism a bit, but I'm not ambitious enough to re-open that can of worms.

Edit: I think 0/1/1 makes even more sense, but let's see how we do with 1/1/1 first.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Oh, and Democracy is not supposed to have Communal Corruption, that reserved for Communism. The Democracy/Communism hybrid you're suggesting is a little too far from stock for my taste.


Dominae, trolling with a purpose

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
Yet again, alexman, you're putting under consideration what you consider to be the best solution.

Originally posted by alexman
Any comments, before we mark the above as a proposal under consideration soon?

[Dominae]

Any comments, before we mark the above as a proposal under consideration soon?

Yes.

(Sorry...)