AU mod: Balancing the Governments

[ZargonX]

My apologies for the delay in voting on this one. Now that I've completely read up on all of the relevant discussion (of which there was plenty ), my vote is:

1)Yes
2)No

[nbarclay]

Moving a discussion here from the AU 505 wrap-up thread:

Originally posted by Dominae

The very reasons you prefer a "balanced" government strategy is that there is a best government (Republic) that does everything, and that Anarchy times make switching to and from it inefficient. I think you are confusing "balanced" with "most poweful at a certain stage of the game"; Communism is only "balanced" in the sense that it makes sprawling empires very powerful (and in those games I daresay you've won far before you switched to Communism).

My concept of "balanced" is "able to do everything reasonably well." That is, a government that supports a balanced style of play does not have to be best at research, production, or fighting, but it has to be competitive in each. Republic supports that, being best at research among the early governments, slightly behind Feudalism in production (in the AU Mod, where Feudalism has a corruption advantage), and a little worse than Monarchy for fighting. Communism also fits my concept if (but only if) a civ is large enough: it's best at production, about even with Fascism for war-fighting, and not much worse than Republic or Democracy in research. I am going by objective criteria here, not just arbitrarily labeling whatever government happens to be most powerful at a particular stage of the game balanced.

In contrast, Monarchy, Feudalism, and Fascism fail my balance test pretty badly because they are not competitive in research. They are not designed well for a balanced style of play that mixes lengthy periods of peace with a few bouts of warfare here and there. And because they are designed badly for a balanced style of play, people who want to play a balanced style don't use them - which, in turn, is why Republic is so popular.

Brainstorming a little, one thing that might help that situation would be to eliminate building maintenance expenses from Monarchy, Feudalism, and Fascism. My impression is that building upkeep costs rarely have much impact on people's choices of what to build, in which case damage from a "strategic choices" perspective would be negligible. And eliminating that source of expense would help close the gap created by Republic's commerce bonus. In addition, eliminating builiding upkeep costs from those governments but not from Communism would provide a clear differentiation between Fascism and Communism, making Fascism clearly better in Communism in more situations (and probably a clearly better normal choice for the AIs).

The idea of eliminating building maintenance for war-oriented governments other than Communism is something I just thought of, so I have no clear picture of how well it would work. But if in fact it would work, it would provide a way to close the gap by making the relatively unattractive governments better instead of by nerfing Republic even more than we already have.

[alexman]

IIRC eliminating building maintenance costs would seriously mess up the AI's government selection criteria. That was one of the reasons they removed that property from Feudalism in C3C play testing.

[Dominae]

Yeah, the AI really loved maintenance-free Feudalism (and I mean really loved it!).

[Dominae]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by nbarclay
My concept of "balanced" is "able to do everything reasonably well." That is, a government that supports a balanced style of play does not have to be best at research, production, or fighting, but it has to be competitive in each. Republic supports that, being best at research, slightly behind Feudalism in production (in the AU Mod, where Feudalism has a corruption advantage), and a little worse than Monarchy for fighting. Communism also fits my concept if (but only if) a civ is large enough: it's best at production, about even with Fascism for war-fighting, and not much worse than Republic or Democracy in research. I am going by objective criteria here, not just arbitrarily labeling whatever government happens to be most powerful at a particular stage of the game balanced.

In contrast, Monarchy, Feudalism, and Fascism fail my balance test pretty badly because they are not competitive in research. They are not designed well for a balanced style of play that mixes lengthy periods of peace with a few bouts of warfare here and there.

Not all governments can be "balanced" as you define it, because they would all be the same; there are not enough government variables in Civ3, as opposed to, say, SMAC. If you can do "everything reasonably well" in one government, why would you ever switch? I would just pick the first opportunity to switch to such a government and stay there. This is the story behind Republic.

And because they are designed badly for a balanced style of play, people who want to play a balanced style don't use them - which, in turn, is why Republic is so popular.

I disagree. Republic is so popular because it is so powerful. Make it next to impossible to wage war in Republic, and you might discover than Monarchy is suddenly the most "balanced" government (according to your preference). Even players who are open to experimenting with different governments and do not always employ the "balanced" approach recognize that Republic is the way to go; I have to work really hard to get as much mileage out of Monarchy.

As I alluded to in the other thread, I am not against a best/balanced government per se, I just do not think that Republic should be it - it comes too early in the tech tree. While Republic and Democracy may seem similar superficially, the one huge difference between the two is that one is available 10+ before the other, and the way Civ3 works means that Democracy comes way too late to make or break a game. As you know, I'm not big on the UP concept, and Democracy and Communism are, to me, just examples of "win more" governments. Insofar as I can be objective on this point, I do not think this sitation is condusive to strategy.

[nbarclay]

I just came up with a really wild idea: redefine anarchy to reduce its impact. If anarchy did not have the standard tile penalty and had rampant corruption (like Despotism) instead of catastrophic, changing governments would have a definite cost involved but the cost would not be so high as to be prohibitive. (The main reason for eliminating the standard tile penalty is to avoid creating as many micromanagement hassles.) That would make multiple government changes by nonreligious civs a whole lot more practical. Granted, it's a major change from stock rules, but I think the benefits in terms of enhancing strategic options would be very much worth it.

[Dominae]

Can you go into Anarchy at the beginning of the game (i.e. when Despotism is the only government available to you)? If so, this new Anarchy would be an exploitative way for Agr. (and other) civs to grow their cities quicker than normal.

Interesting idea, though.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Not all governments can be "balanced" as you define it, because they would all be the same; there are not enough government variables in Civ3, as opposed to, say, SMAC. If you can do "everything reasonably well" in one government, why would you ever switch? I would just pick the first opportunity to switch to such a government and stay there. This is the story behind Republic.

It would definitely be possible, if the game mechanics allowed, to have more than one government that is "balanced" by my definition. One government would be a little better at one thing and the other (or others) better at different things, but they would be interchangeable enough that each could be used flexibly.

Not that I consider it necessary for all governments to be balanced. If players want to play a pure warmongering style or a pure peacenik style, having a government available that provides a bit of extra advantage for that style but that restricts other options in exchange could make a game a bit more interesting. But I strongly object to the idea of having the only governments available be oriented toward extreme styles of play, with no government available that is suited to a balanced approach.

As for the question of why switch, why should players have to switch governments every time they switch back and forth between war and peace? I don't see such a pattern of changes in government in real-world history. Do you?

If multiple balanced governments were available, the question of which one to choose would be interesting in its own right without players' having to switch (except perhaps when newer, better governments become available). Unfortunately, Civ 3 does not seem to offer a good way to have multiple balanced governments, especially in the early game. But that doesn't mean I think we should react by turning the balanced early-game government that we do have into an unbalanced one.

To me, the ability to have a government that gives me the flexibility to do different things reasonably well at different times is vastly more important than making the choice of governments more interesting. I don't want to turn Civ into a game where the only practical way to change tactics is to change governments.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Can you go into Anarchy at the beginning of the game (i.e. when Despotism is the only government available to you)? If so, this new Anarchy would be an exploitative way for Agr. (and other) civs to grow their cities quicker than normal.

Interesting idea, though.

Anarchy is not possible until you've researched another government. (I've accidentally hit the change governments button and been told I couldn't.) So the exploit you're concerned about would not be available.

[Modo44]

You must have a new government form researched, to be able to go into Anarchy.

The idea is interesting. But still, Anarchy should be much worse than Despotism. Also, it won't make Republic weaker, it will only make it easier to switch to an even better government.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44

The idea is interesting. But still, Anarchy should be much worse than Despotism.

Ideally, anarchy should be much worse than Despotism but should not last nearly as long as it does in Civ 3 (especially on higher difficulty levels). Basically, what I'm suggesting is a workaround for the fact that the editor provides no way to cut back on the duration of anarchy for the player. Since we can't reduce its duration, we can achieve a similar result by making its impact each turn less severe. The end result is an approximation that, while perhaps less than entirely realistic in its mechanics, is in fact realistic in its cumulative overall effect.

Also, it won't make Republic weaker, it will only make it easier to switch to an even better government.

That "only" is a very important one. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that players should want to switch governments at least twice during the course of a game, once to get out of Despotism and again to switch from an early government to a more modern one. Reducing the impact of anarchy would make that kind of double-switch a lot more attractive. And it would also make additional switches, such as a brief switch to Monarchy if war weariness gets to be a problem or a switch to Democracy in between Republic and Communism, a lot more worth considering.

As for the fact that it wouldn't make Republic weaker, I don't like the idea of weakening Republic further in any case. If we can find good ways to improve Monarchy and Feudalism so they'll be more attactive, fantastic. But if the price of making those governments more attractive is to further erode the flexibility players have in Republic, I view that price as too high.

[Modo44]

What I meant by "not making Republic weaker" was the fact, that your proposal doesn't do much to provide and alternative for this government. In most cases I still won't go for Democracy, if I want to make any wars, and I won't go for Monarchy, if I want my research to keep up with the others. If the other governments can't be strenghtened enough, then nerfing Republic will be necessary IMO. Not that I like it, but still.

I agree that it is a good idea to make Anarchy less damaging, if we can't make it shorter. But be careful, or the Religious trait will become even less worth choosing.

[Risa]

IMO the standard tile penalty should be kept. If Anarchy still means no production, I will agree that removal of STP, which effectively only affect food production, is good for ease of micromanagement. Once it is productive, STP is no longer only to food, but to shield and commerce as well. That means Anarchy is better than Despotism, which is unacceptable by my standard.

BTW, currently culture does not grow during Anarchy. Is this related to total corruption or to its transitive government essence?

[pvzh]

I do not know how culture accumulation is handled, but if we improve Anarchy to make switches less painful it will make anarchy the same or better than despotism.
Anarchy has catastrophic corruption (all production/commerce is lost), notch up is rampant (it is despotic corruption). There is nothing in-between.

Improved corrupction can only be: STP, rampant corruption, free maintaince on units/buildings, no MP.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
As for the question of why switch, why should players have to switch governments every time they switch back and forth between war and peace? I don't see such a pattern of changes in government in real-world history. Do you?

Back to the historical accuracy arguments...YAWN.

But that doesn't mean I think we should react by turning the balanced early-game government that we do have into an unbalanced one.

The very fact that it is so "balanced" to you means that it is imbalanced; Republic is not supposed to do everything well. You have come to love the most powerful government (by a long shot) because it is the most powerful government.

I don't want to turn Civ into a game where the only practical way to change tactics is to change governments.

You prefer a game where you can exploit peace-time advantages while waging war. Your preferred type of game does not involve many strategic decisions, IMO.

Maybe I'm asking too much of Civ3...