Govt balance

DrSpike · November 18, 2003, 20:40

So I don't ruin Alexman's thread I'll continue my musings on all things governmental here.

Traditionally, Republic has been an overpowered govt. There is rarely a justification to spend turns in anarchy, just to get quicker workers and slightly less corruption. War weariness is also much worse in Democracy.

The changes implemented in C3C IMO fail to address this point. The change whereby there is 2 gold support (with limited free units) per turn nerfs republic, but only in the early game. A sensible solution would make republic feasible earlier in the game that it is now with the new support rules, but not as good as democracy later on in the game.

There needs to be a neater progression in the govts. I feel that Republic needs higher corruption than at present, so that democracy gets a boost in comparison. This would also remove the need to nerf republic early on compared with Monarchy. We could then drop the 2 gold support for most units and return to 1 gold support for all units. I feel the system as a whole is much more balanced the way I suggest than the way we have at present, or indeed the way in PTW.

vmxa1 · November 18, 2003, 21:17

I think the whole concept of governements is useless as it is now. This is because they come too close together and are not distinct enough. If you are not a religious civ, you can not be changing govs and they do not give you a compelling reason to do it.
I would like to see them done so we can justify using different ones. Make it less costly to switch for non religious civs, you can give religious civs a different bonus.
I leave it to others that want to spend time on coming up with a workable plan, but as it is, it is of little value to most civs.

Nor Me · November 18, 2003, 21:32

That might make sense. Rampant(Despotic) corruption in Republic would mean more variety. There would be a choice between trade and shields.

I'd then expect Monarchy to be the favorite first goverment with Republic only really useful for smaller empires. Democracy would generally be the final goverment choice unless you have to be really aggressive.

I would be worried about Republic being underpowered then.

The best alternative I can think of is leaving the corruption the same and removing free units for cities and replacing them with some empire-wide free units. You'd still be left with Republic eventually being the best goverment.

alexman · November 18, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me
The best alternative I can think of is leaving the corruption the same and removing free units for cities and replacing them with some empire-wide free units. You'd still be left with Republic eventually being the best goverment.

I like this better, actually. We implemented an increased corruption Republic in the last version of the AU mod (same as Monarchy), and while I personally think it was an improvement, there was at least one experienced player that complained that it hurt builders because there was no longer any good way to fight corruption until Democracy.

To get the appropriate number of empire-wide free units, you can try to make it so a typical ancient-age switch has approximately PTW-level unit support: you switch to Republic with 15 cities, one native Worker per city, and one unit per city. That makes 30gpt that you would have to pay for support in PTW. So you would need a flat 15 maintenance-free unit allowance to have the same level with a 2 gpt support in C3C.

Edit: I guess that 30 gpt support for the above example would be also currently the case with C3C, so you would probably want to increase the free support to between 20 and 30 free units if you wanted to make the Republic at all tempting in the early Middle Ages.

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

I like this (Nor Me's suggestion) better, actually. We implemented an increased corruption Republic in the last version of the AU mod (same as Monarchy), and while I personally think it was an improvement, there was at least one experienced player that complained that it hurt builders because there was no longer any good way to fight corruption until Democracy.

To get the appropriate number of empire-wide free units, you can try to make it so a typical ancient-age switch has approximately PTW-level unit support: you switch to Republic with 15 cities, one native Worker per city, and one unit per city. That makes 30gpt that you would have to pay for support in PTW. So you would need a flat 15 maintenance-free unit allowance to have the same level with a 2 gpt support in C3C.

Edit: I guess that 30 gpt support for the above example would be also currently the case with C3C, so you would probably want to increase the free support to between 20 and 30 free units if you wanted to make the Republic at all tempting in the early Middle Ages.

Any solution must address both early viability (right now Republic is not viable early on) and the late game superiority of Republic which has not changed under the new method. Presumably the 2 gold support in Republic was meant to nerf Republic as compared to Democracy. However, it does not make a large enough difference in practice. Even if it did it is clumsy to nerf Republic late game in such a way that removes its viability early game.

The idea of limited free units could work, and, as things stand is probably the easiest way of making republic viable again early on. However I remain convinced that that structure (free units, 2 gold as compared to 1 in demo) is not the best overall way of proceeding.

The trick lies in getting the level of corruption right for Republic. I don't support Rampant corruption, which would probably kill builders. What level did you try in the mod? I would have thought the Monarchy level might function better as a benchmark. Then hopefully there would be a reason to switch to democracy, and no need to try and nerf republic early since it wouldn't be overpowered. Hence support could be 1 per unit.

Right now you are in despotism for around 4000 years then switch once, to republic. That cannot be a well balanced govt system.

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 10:13

how about switch it to 1 2 3 for unit support

to have two units per town would cost the same as previously

to do better, you would need (for the ancient age at least) better cities, which I thinks works well with the idea of republic

old governments
monarchy - medium cities, war
republic - large cities, trade
feudalism - small cities, war
new governments
democracy - big empire, trade
communism - big empire
facism - medium empire, war

probably you can add more things to this, and I might be wrong about facism, but the general idea is to have the three governments handle different type of playing strategies and positions

and republic I think should be for a bigger city player

Jon Miller

Nor Me · November 19, 2003, 10:54

DrSpike, we tried Monarchic level corruption for Republic in the AU Mod. The problem is that there is little difference between the two levels. Republic was still generally the goverment to switch to first and stay in.

Arrian · November 19, 2003, 11:19

1/2/3 support with 2g/turn cost above that might be reasonably effective. Why not start with a minor change like that and test it out - see how it feels - before making more drastic changes (like increasing corruption).

-Arrian

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 11:29

Arrian how does that address the early game problem? If that tweak is to work some additional free units would have to be used, which would hopefully be able to be implemented in such a way that it didn't undermine the nerfing of republic compared to democracy.

Once I again I stress the need for whatever action is taken to nerf republic against democracy without removing the viability of republic early on.

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me
DrSpike, we tried Monarchic level corruption for Republic in the AU Mod. The problem is that there is little difference between the two levels. Republic was still generally the goverment to switch to first and stay in.

I can see it would be the first govt still. But still no incentive to switch to democracy corruption levels from a republic with the monarchy corruption? That seems odd, though obviously it would need to be tested, which I haven't yet.

alexman · November 19, 2003, 11:36

It has been tested already.

The only difference between Republic and Monarchy in term of corruption is a 10% OCN increase. Democracy offers a reduced distance corruption in addition to the OCN increase.

By the way, there is no early game problem for the Republic if you don't have many units! As Jon Miller pointed out, the Republic in C3C requires the same amount of support as in PTW when you have 2 units per city (assuming all towns). If you have fewer units than that, or if you have some cities, the C3C version is better. So if you want more units, use Monarchy. Now how to tell that to the AI ...

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 11:39

see

I guess I don't see how in the early game republic is weak?

Republic should be just as strong as monarchy in the early game, just less war focused and more trade focused

minimum unit needs are in the neighborhood of 2 per pop center

this costs the same now as it did previously

to have enough units to wage war is costly

but it should be in republic

and republic should deffinitely favor having bigger pop centers, which 1, 2, 3 would do

Jon Miller

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 11:47

Alexman: Yeah but how many units do you have including workers circa 500BC? And you need some defenders.

Arrian · November 19, 2003, 12:35

I think republic is fine in the early game, honestly. It forces real strategic choice. If you want a strong military at that time you either need: lots of size 7+ cities and some marketplaces, or you need to use Monarchy (or Feudalism, depending on your situation).

-Arrian

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 13:04

Well we can agree to disagree on that for now.........I want to play a little more. I think the fact that others are kicking around ideas for free units shows that we aren't completely at odds here.

And does the proposed 1-2-3 mean that people will switch to democracy late game? In my opinion, no. You'll get 50 odd units free late game, making the break-even point 100 units. Factor in turns of anarchy (and no real gap in corruption) and you need a vast number of units for a republic to have the incentive to swap.

I think that after 2 years of Despotism-Republic (for spaceship/diplo) or Despotism-Monarchy (for conquest/domination) people have just lost the desire for a well-balanced system of govts.

Hopefully I've made the case well enough for people to think about these issues some more.

alexman · November 19, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Alexman: Yeah but how many units do you have including workers circa 500BC? And you need some defenders.

Of course each game is unique, but I would say that typically in 500 BC I have 20 towns, 20 Workers, and about 20 units left over from my first war (mostly attackers), and a bunch of slaves. That's 2 units per city.

At this point I am usually starting to build horsemen for a Knight or Cavalry upgrade, so the Republic will become worse and worse, but that's a good thing IMHO. If you want to go to war in the middle ages, use some other form of government.

alexman · November 19, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
And does the proposed 1-2-3 mean that people will switch to democracy late game. In my opinion, no. You'll get 50 odd units free late game, making the break-even point 100 units.

That's true, hence the 20-30 empire-wide free unit, with no free units per city suggestion.

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 13:11

right now

republic has
better unit support (up to cities*(6-8) units)
better war weariness

democracy has
better corruption
better work rate

(didn't remember what mp stands for, republic has 2, democracy has 4)

for any civ on the go, unless the corruption difference is massive, republic is better

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 13:14

hmm

what about making it 1-2-2?, with 2 cost per unit after

that really weakens it late game, but leaves it as good for the mid game big pop center peaceful player

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

That's true, hence the 20-30 empire-wide free unit, with no free units per city suggestion.

the only way this would work would be if it scaled per map

because otherwise republics usefulness woudl change per mpa

JKon Miller

DrSpike · November 19, 2003, 13:15

Alexman: That has more chance than the current implementation. We seem to agree on the late game issues at any rate. I am amazed that after 2 years of Super Republic they couldn't come up with something better than 1-3-4, which buffs Republic late game compared to democracy.

Ideas based on tweaking 1-3-4 to 1-2-3 or whatever seem almost as foolish to me.

alexman · November 19, 2003, 13:16

In the early game, where this flat 20-30 gpt is improtant, the map size doesn't matter.

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 13:19

1-1-1?

but I think that republic should be good for the big city person who is not very warlike midgame

which suggests at least 1-2-?

midgame you have the choice between towns (and expansionistic/militaristic) and cities(builder)

lategame you have the choice between cities and metropolises (really you want metropolises)

with 1-2-2 you would have a late game democracy better if you need more units than cities*4

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · November 19, 2003, 13:25

I guess I consider

early game - despotism
middle game - republic/monarchy/feudalism
late game - democracy/communism/facism

at least that is how it should be

ages wise
early game - ancient era
mid game - end of ancient/medevil era
late game - industrial/modern era

maybe you think differently?

the size of the map matters a lot for the mid game I have found (it determines how long you just focus on city making before you decide between building up your citiies or destroying a neighboring civ)

Jon Miller

Arrian · November 19, 2003, 15:13

I agree with the late game problem (that there is no point in switching to demo). In PTW, I often did switch, though in a really tight game I probably wouldn't. Couldn't afford the anarchy.

Maybe it's Demo that needs changing, fellas. What about that "empire wide" free unit support for DEMO, not republic?

-Arrian

TechWins · November 19, 2003, 17:03

How about 1.2.2 free units for Republic then upping Democracy to something like 0.1.1?

For every third unit in a Republic city/metro will cost the same as 3 units in a Democracy city/metro. Then after the third unit Democracy becomes even increasingly better.

I don't see much of a problem with Republic in the early ages, so it still has it's advantages then.

pvzh · November 19, 2003, 17:04

I would like to point out one thing that left out of the picture: time it takes to switch. If you have a medium sized empire 20+ cities on standart map as a non-religous civ you are looking into 6-8 turns of anarchy. Thus, democracy has to a resonable choice for religious civ's only. Otherwise, current religious atribute will be overpowering. Besides, with amount of WW for Demo it would be really unwise to switch to as non-religious civ.

My observation on AU mod.
I played several games with AU mod 1.17 where Republic has a "monarchial" corruption level. 1 turn switch to demo with Rel Civs gives ~10-15% improvment in un-corrupt commerce. However, I must admit that in those games FP palace was placed non-optimaly (built ~ 10-15 tiles away), i.e. overlaping cores.

I would propose
(1) give 2/2/2 flat free unit's to improve it as early choice and 2 gpt for extra units, but humper significant millitary build up under this goverment.
(2) Republic has corruption the same as monarchy (Rampant will be too harsh) to give some incencitive to chose Democracy later in some case.
(3) give Demo free unit support too: the same or slightly better overall, so this factor will no longer be a stopper for a switch (with current WW it would not be much harm), and 1 gpt for extra units.
(4) give Demo some center tile bonus if possible to sweeten a deal because difference in corruption takes long time to pay off.
(5) Demo's woker speed stays (it is not much of a factor at this stage of the game).

This will give reasons to switch to Democracy if you are religious or control your continent and do not plan to go for millitary win (10-15% gain in corruption will need 40-60 turns to pay of for 6 turns anarchy).

korn469 · November 19, 2003, 17:27

In order to make democracy a better choice, you need to alter the two things republic has over democracy, war weariness and unit support

I think that switching to a flat 20-30 free unit support with 0 free support for cities/towns/metros and 2 support cost, compared to either a flat 0 support cost 1 or a 0-0-1, 0-1-1, 0-1-2 free scheme at cost 1 for democracy would be the best

that way smaller empires would benefit in republic while larger empires would benefit in democracy

also you could increase republic's war weariness to high, which might make democracy worth the switch

player1 · November 19, 2003, 19:35

2 units per town or less? Repulbic is better then Democracy.
6 units per city or less? Repulbic is better. (!!!)
8 units per metropolis or less? Repulbic is better. (!!!)

See the problem?

My suggestion: 1/2/2

Then:
2 units per town or less? Repulbic is better then Democracy (like before).
4 units per city or less? Repulbic is better (sound fine for me).
4 units per metropolis or less? Repulbic is better (no need for more bonuses for metros and we need to encourage switching to Democracy).

enderw · November 19, 2003, 20:49

I know this is more of a coding fix that something you can mod, but I think it would be ideal if any nation can have a revolution to democracy with less anarchy in between. Something of a "current government enacts democratic reforms that will take 2 turns of (anarchy)." Then even though dem is only marginally better it is not so painful to get into.