 |
|  |
 |
|
Barchan
|
 |
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
Well, one of the ways Civ used to balance it out was that when democratic units (republic and democracy) left their cities, they generated unhappy citizens (1 for republic, 2 for democracy). However, if they were garrisoned in the city, everyone was happy.
That seemed to be a fairly reasonable arrangement, since democratic governments are usually less likely to send troops abroad than autocratic ones are. I think it'd be a useful balancing tool in CivIII if democratic governments could only have X number of military units outside their borders at any time or suffer 1 unhappy citizen in each city. The penalty could become increasingly severe with more units (i.e. 2X = 2 citizens, 3X = 3 citizens and so on). Also, X could be modified based on the difficulty level.
This would allow democracies to build a large standing army to deter aggression and to defend their borders, but would impose a penalty for wars of conquest and aggression. Personally, I think this would be a good thing, as I think there are not enough penalties to waging offensive war with democratic governments. It’s just not that easy for a democracy to send a huge army across the world to conquer or raze someone else’s country. Just ask president Bush. You know, if he was King (or commissar) and didn’t have to answer to congress or country, I’d imagine that Iraq would be just another colonial possession by now....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Barchan
|
 |
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
Well, FWIW, I still think that unhappiness is the key, not cost. True, you could argue that a volunteer army is more expensive to pay than a conscript one, but many democracies today still have compulsive military service anyway. Besides, there's still the cost of developing and building the machines and munitions, and they're relatively fixed for similar types of weapons. Let's face it, modern armor costs a bundle to build, regardless of whether you're elected or not.
But unhappiness would be the key. I know, vmxa1, that in previous games the unhappiness could be extraordinarily harsh. I think in CivI if you were simply outside the city you suffered the penalty, whereas in CivII at least they let you roam the 21-tile city limits. I think that if they extended that to your Civ's borders in CivIII, they'd strike the right balance between flexible defense and deterring imperialism.
And yes, the old "home city" system of support was a flaming pain, I'm glad it's gone and am *not* suggesting it be brought back. Still, I think democratic governments should only be allowed to send a limited number of units (say 10-20?) outside their borders before additional units cause unhappiness. Want to wage a huge war of conquest? Fine, switch to monarchy or communism. Want to engage in peaceful trade and growth? Go republic or democracy. But, frankly, if you can't have both in monarchy or communism, why should you be able to do so in republic or democracy?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
Good suggestions, Barchan. But I think, this thread is not about what would be nice to have, but rather what really can be done, given the power the editor offers us. Unfortunately, we have no possibilities to cause selective unhappiness, based on unit location. So even though it would be more realistic to get the Civ2 system back (without the home city concept), we probably have to stick to upkeep cost to cause changes in gameplay.
Here's my second, refined proposal. The mentioned one (2 upkeep in republic, 3 in democracy in return for free units per city) would probably in an unfair manner favor republic. This is why I would like to refine it.
Republic: 0 units per town, 1 unit per city and metropolis for free, 2 gold upkeep otherwise.
Democracy: 1 unit per town, 2 units per city and metropolis for free, 3 gold upkeep otherwise.
For example, let's assume:
- an empire of 20 core or near core cities (FP built) and 10 marginal, more corrupt cities. Let the core cities till hospitals have 7-12 pop ("city"), and the marginal cities 1-6 ("town"). After hospitals, let the core have 13+ ("metropolis") and the marginals finally have built aqueducts ("cities").
- we have 4 units per settlement. That is 1 worker, 1 defender and 2 extra units. These contain extra defenders for border cities, defenders for resources, bombardement units and a quick response team. This is what I'd call a small, adequate army without being able to warmonger a lot. Peace time.
- we increase our units by 50% (+60 units, all military), to wage an offensive war.
Current system, Republic and Democracy:
| Total units | 120
|
|---|
| - 10 x 0 | -0
|
|---|
| - 20 x 0 | -0
|
|---|
| - 0 x 0 | -0
|
|---|
| Units to upkeep | 120
|
|---|
| Peace time upkeep | 120 gpt
|
|---|
| 50% more units | 60 gpt
|
|---|
| War time upkeep | 180 gpt
|
|---|
Case 1: Republic, pre hospitals:
| Total units | 120
|
|---|
| - 10 x 0 | -0
|
|---|
| - 20 x 1 | -20
|
|---|
| - 0 x 1 | -0
|
|---|
| Units to upkeep | 100
|
|---|
| Peace time upkeep | 200 gpt
|
|---|
| 50% more units | 120 gpt
|
|---|
| War time upkeep | 320 gpt
|
|---|
Case 2: Republic, post hospitals:
| Total units | 120
|
|---|
| - 0 x 0 | -0
|
|---|
| - 10 x 1 | -10
|
|---|
| - 20 x 1 | -20
|
|---|
| Units to upkeep | 90
|
|---|
| Peace time upkeep | 180 gpt
|
|---|
| 50% more units | 120 gpt
|
|---|
| War time upkeep | 300 gpt
|
|---|
Case 3: Democracy, pre hospitals:
| Total units | 120
|
|---|
| - 10 x 1 | -10
|
|---|
| - 20 x 2 | -40
|
|---|
| - 0 x 2 | -0
|
|---|
| Units to upkeep | 70
|
|---|
| Peace time upkeep | 210 gpt
|
|---|
| 50% more units | 180 gpt
|
|---|
| War time upkeep | 390 gpt
|
|---|
Case 4: Democracy, post hospitals:
| Total units | 120
|
|---|
| - 0 x 1 | -0
|
|---|
| - 10 x 2 | -20
|
|---|
| - 20 x 2 | -40
|
|---|
| Units to upkeep | 60
|
|---|
| Peace time upkeep | 180 gpt
|
|---|
| 50% more units | 180 gpt
|
|---|
| War time upkeep | 360 gpt
|
|---|
Analysis:
Upkeep in peace time has been increased by about 50-60%, but is almost even in all cases. That is affordable, but hurts the trade ability and makes one think about every extra unit he builds.
War time upkeep has been about doubled, less in republic, more in democracy. Especially rampant it is now in democracy, pre hospitals. Could make it impossible to make a cavalry rush under democracy.
Massive wars are almost unaffordable pre hospitals in republic and democracy, because the economy isn't yet so strong to pay the upkeep for long. After hospitals, war gets slightly cheaper, but other factors gain importance, like MPPs, draft unhappiness and metropolis defense bonuses.
Conclusion:
It's harder to build military, especially a large one, at least in Republic and Democracy. The AI will handle this well, because it always listens the moronic military advisor ("Until we get more gold, we can't afford...").
What do you think? And who would help to test this?
Last edited by Sir Ralph on 24-09-2002 at 13:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999 time: 23:22
|
|
I think people who want Monarchy and Communism to be more competitve in general are missing a key strategic factor that exists in the current design. The fact that Democracy and Republic are clearly superior during peacetime makes it valuable to stay in them as much as possible. But you can't stay in them and fight long, protracted wars (unless you do so on a purely defensive basis). Thus, the very fact that the governments aren't equally good forces some interesting strategic choices onto the player.
I also have no problem with the idea of Republics and Democracies adopting a philosophy of "manifest destiny" on a global scale if they have the firepower to back it up. (Ask any Native American how inherently peaceful democracies are.) But with the war weariness mechanism, you do have to have the firepower to back it up, or you'll have to call off the war halfway through or change governments due to war weariness. That adds a dimension to war planning that would not exist if one of the goals were not to stay in Republic/Democracy.
As for the idea of increasing military upkeep costs, I think it's a horrible idea until around the industrial era. As far as I'm concerned, in a republic's early years, even one gpt per unit is enough to discourage large standing armies and doing a lot of pre-building for a war thirty or forty turns in the future. But I do think that from the industrial era on, increasing the cost to two would make sense to offset the compounding effect of marketplaces and banks on representative governments' extra gold. (Unfortunately, I'm guessing the editor doesn't support something that selective.)
I'll grant that, the fact that I like a style of play that's mostly peaceful with occasional quick, decisive wars gives me a certain amount of bias. That's the style of play that fits the current rules best. (Of course the fact that it works so well probably has a lot to do with why I like it so much.) But I also think it's realistic that that style of play should be what works best; purely peaceful nations don't get big enough to be world powers, while too much fighting can drain a nation pretty seriously.
A couple last thoughts:
(1) The idea of having to change governments out of Republic/Democracy to fight effectively gets a bit ridiculous given the length of anarchy for non-religious civs. A lot of my wars last ten turns or less, so the anarchy on the two ends of a war could add up to as long as the war itself! (Of course I'll grant that when I'm in attack mode, I'll often fight multiple wars back to back, but that's not always the case.)
(2) Democracy simply doesn't offer enough advantages over Republic to justify higher unit upkeep costs. My impression is that war weariness alone provides enough reason for more than a few players to regard Republic as preferable. And that's in spite of the fact that as a significantly more modern development which requires not one but two optional techs to get to, Democracy certainly ought to be clearly superior overall (albeit not in every nuance).
Nathan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Barchan
|
 |
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by player1
The point is that if you want large military and world conquest you should stay in Monarchy & Communism.
Even in peace time (since you'll have too much big military to support it in Republic).
And if you want peace gold and science that you should be in Republic and wage defensive war (since you big military won't be an option).
|
Yes, but isn't it the large standing military that discourages the AI (and soon to be humans as well) from taking liberties with your civilization in the first place? If you're "weak", the AI will bully you into giving away concessions or simply declare war on you. Generally, when in a republic or democracy you have a smaller army to begin with. Making it more expensive will only make matters worse.
I know *we* can’t modify happiness. But there are those who can, and you never can tell when they might choose to implement a good idea. Therefore, I have to stick to my guns when I say that leveling factor for balancing growth bonuses and conquest ability should be increased extraterritorial unhappiness, and not standing military cost.
Perhaps, in the final analysis, there’s not much that can be done about this in SP games. If you make republic or democracy too expensive, the AI will just soldier on in endless monarchy anyway. Even if it doesn’t, the religious trait will become way too powerful as the need to jump back and forth between governments becomes ever greater.
Anyway, I think in that in MP this will resolve itself, since just about the only way you can wage extended warfare in republic or democracy (especially democracy) is to be fat with luxuries. Even if you’ve got all the right structures in your cities, you really need maximum luxuries to fully combat war weariness for a long time. When those 5th through 8th luxuries get to market, you can really calm the people down. The AI can’t grasp this, but human players can and will isolate trading partners, bombard roads from luxuries cut off cities to induce civil disorder and the eventual government shift or collapse. Frankly, I envision a lot of people playing “democratic spoilers” by simply declaring war on a democracy just to watch it slowly unravel as war weariness drags it down.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
Here is the test BIC (v1.1).
It's same as original BIC with following changes:
Republic & Democracy have following changes: all units have upkeep cost doubled (2gp per unit), but you get 2 free units per town, 3 free units per city and 4 free units per metropolis.
I suggest testing it with Religious civ, in order to easily compare different govenments.
Post commnents in this thread.
EDIT:
Free support per town/city/metrop. is changed to 2/3/4
Testing BIC file can be found on second page of this thread.
Last edited by player1 on 25-09-2002 at 00:41
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BillChin
|
|
I think Monarchy, Republic and Democracy are already fairly well-balanced. Communism needs a boost. The tweak I suggest is to increase unit support for Communism. Maybe 3 per town, 6 per city, 12 per metroplex. That way a Commie, could field a huge low tech conscript army which is historically accurate.
I vote against the idea of free units for Republic or Democracy and/or the idea of 2 gold per unit. As I said, I see the problem with Communism being too weak, especially because it is the last tech available for government.
- Bill
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999 time: 23:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by player1
The point is that if you want large military and world conquest you should stay in Monarchy & Communism.
|
Why? Democracies are just as capable of supporting large militaries as other forms of government, actually more so. And the fact that in our world, the most powerful democracy's taste for expansion ended far short of world domination doesn't necessarily mean that another democracy in other circumstances would feel the same way.
In a situation like the real world where the major nations are all at roughly the same level of technology, it IS hard for a Democracy in Civ 3 to engage in large-scale warfare - so hard that more than a few players favor Republic in spite of Democracy's corruption advantages. And even a Republic can have major war weariness problems against an opponent with an equally large, equally modern military.
On the other hand, if you have a mismatch where a Democracy or Republic has modern armor, jet fighters, and mechanized infantry, and all the others just have unmotorized infantry and cavalry or maybe (if they're lucky) World War II style tanks, there is very little to deter the Democracy or Republic from voting to take over the world if that happens to be its whim. In Civ 3, if you want to fight a lot as a Democracy, achieving that kind of technological mismatch is important.
Nathan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
-
Last edited by player1 on 25-09-2002 at 06:17
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BillChin
|
|
The change, 2/3/4 free units, and 2 gold per units additional seems to make Republic and Democracy stronger. Monarchy looks even weaker as a peace time government. Most human players that switch to Republic have 1 or 2 units per town/city, to deal with barbs or for safety. With free unit support, the gold advantage and tech advantage becomes even stronger for peace time Republic. Is that the desired result?
Again, my vote is against the mod. I don't have to play test it. I can see that with my play style, the new rules make Republic even stronger, Monarchy weaker. Democracy is still kind of weak because of excessive war weariness. Communism still looks next to useless.
Again, my proposal is to give a small boost to Communism (3/6/12 unit support or maybe even 4/8/16), and leave the other governments the same. Maybe add 1 free unit per city(0/1/2 unit support) for Democracy to make it worthwhile for non-religious civs to switch to Democracy and to give Democracy a slight gold advantage over Republic.
Under the default rules, many experienced players go for Republic and stay there the entire game. On higher levels the 7 to 10 turns of anarchy make further switching unwise. With the Universal Suffrage wonder, a player can stay in Republic, war or no war.
The mod seems to increase the tendency to Republic over Monarchy. Most players do not build a huge army under Republic. Two per town is plenty of units to launch a war, especially with Knights or Calvary vs. lesser defenders.
- Bill
|
|
|  |
 |
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BillChin
The change, 2/3/4 free units, and 2 gold per units additional seems to make Republic and Democracy stronger. Monarchy looks even weaker as a peace time government. Most human players that switch to Republic have 1 or 2 units per town/city, to deal with barbs or for safety. With free unit support, the gold advantage and tech advantage becomes even stronger for peace time Republic. Is that the desired result?
|
Who knows,
Maybe it does needs to be tweaked a litle.
Maybe 1/2/3.
Or just 1/1/1
quote: Originally posted by BillChin Again, my vote is against the mod. I don't have to play test it. I can see that with my play style, the new rules make Republic even stronger, Monarchy weaker. Democracy is still kind of weak because of excessive war weariness. Communism still looks next to useless.
|
I just hope somebody else will.
I added free units just in order not to make Republic bad choice fore moderate army.
Maybe I got too far.
Who knows.
quote: Originally posted by BillChin
Again, my proposal is to give a small boost to Communism (3/6/12 unit support or maybe even 4/8/16), and leave the other governments the same. Maybe add 1 free unit per city(0/1/2 unit support) for Democracy to make it worthwhile for non-religious civs to switch to Democracy and to give Democracy a slight gold advantage over Republic.
|
That doesn't work.
As you said you can be pretty muich more effective with smaller army. So having even more free units for Communism won't help you.
On the other hand, you get much more gold, just being in Republic (trade bonus).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999 time: 23:22
|
|
I actually agree that the gold bonus for Republic/Democracy is too big. If the gold advantage could be set to fractions, that would make it practical to address the problem directly. But I don't think upsetting the balance in other areas of the game is a good solution to the problem in that area.
With a unit support cost of 2, at 1/2/2 unit support or higher under Republic, players like myself who use Republic to research with a lean military would have a significantly bigger advantage than we do now. For that matter, even at 1/1/1 unit support, I'd probably come out ahead more often than not in the critical late ancient/early medieval period.
Conversely, at anything under 1/2/2, I strongly suspect that the implications for AI research could get nasty due to the relatively large standing armies AIs maintain. Try to compensate for that by giving the AIs extra free unit support and you give the AIs an extra advantage under Despotism, Monarchy, or Communism, and especially against human Republics that follow military stategies similar to what the AIs use.
So unless I'm missing something, what we end up with is a situation where either human civs that run a bare-bones military get a significant advantage or AI Republics are faced with a major disadvantage. I regard both of those possibilities as cures that are worse than the disease, even aside from my distaste for upsetting the balance among possible Republic-based strategies human players can choose from.
Nathan
Last edited by nbarclay on 25-09-2002 at 06:07
|
|
|  |
 |
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by nbarclay
With a unit support cost of 2, at 1/2/2 unit support or higher under Republic, players like myself who use Republic to research with a lean military would have a significantly bigger advantage than we do now. For that matter, even at 1/1/1 unit support, I'd probably come out ahead more often than not in the critical late ancient/early medieval period. |
Hmm...
Let's try with 1/2/2 for start, and then modify it after some platesting?
quote: Originally posted by nbarclay
Conversely, at anything under 1/2/2, I strongly suspect that the implications for AI research could get nasty due to the relatively large standing armies AIs maintain. Try to compensate for that by giving the AIs extra free unit support and you give the AIs an extra advantage under Despotism, Monarchy, or Communism, and especially against human Republics that follow military stategies similar to what the AIs use. |
By the way, at Monarch and higher levels, AI civs do get extra free units to support (look in editor diffculty settings).
Of course, there is a question, how does AI choose which govenment is better.
Does he know which govenment in the moment would give more gp/per turn?
quote: Originally posted by nbarclay So unless I'm missing something, what we end up with is a situation where either human civs that run a bare-bones military get a significant advantage or AI Republics are faced with a major disadvantage. I regard both of those possibilities as cures that are worse than the disease, even aside from my distaste for upsetting the balance among possible Republic-based strategies human players can choose from.
Nathan |
Yes, pretty probelmatic.
That's why I put it in BIC file for playtesting.
I don't know how much is it good, or how good AI is with it.
Still, don't forget.
If your military is weak, AI will attack you.
P.S.
I updated BIC file with 1/2/2 free suppot.
Last edited by player1 on 25-09-2002 at 06:23
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|