DarthGoogle

Join Date 03/2014

My thoughts on ideology system

And suggestions

Other threads:

https://forums.galciv3.com/461008/

After playing with ideology a while and reading a forums. i came up with idea.

Currently, many players agree on few issues with ideology:

1) It scales badly with map sizes. Colonization events influence it too much, or rather there is little to no other ways to change your ideology.
2) Cross-ideology is too easy, counter-intuitive and in some cases even immersion-breaking
3) The ideology policies themselves are poorly balanced. No one would take 3 free constructors instead of 100 turns of "cant touch this".

The suggestion here is as follows:

UI on ideology system can change. Instead of three different tabs, we could use three columns.

Policies themselves would be split up on groups, sharing the same theme but different approach from ideologies.

Now, the current five choices in each branch would show up in drop-down menu.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mr_Zff3Pf_rUPDTJg4IdExLk_BAasCWVdHdezbNy-NE/edit?usp=sharing

Idea behind it that all civilizations pursue ultimately the same goals, but with different approach. When malevolent civilization tries to expand, it conquers. When benevolent does, it sends out colonists and seeks out a new opportunities on existing planets.

Now, to make choices between playstyles more meaningful, i propose two things:

First, to make cross-pathing a little more difficult and emphasize on different approaches, we could make choices in the same branch (Expansion, Relations and so on) cost more points depending on the approach. If you picked Pragmatic first, than Benevolent and Malevolent policies in that branch only would cost you more. It could or could not scale on total number of policies in other Approaches, so for example, if you have 4 points in Benevolent expansion and 2 in Pragmatic, it would make your Malevolent expansion choices cost notably more. This WOULD NOT affect other branches, as Influence or Efficiency.

Second, to make commitment in one branch more appealing, i suggest to make each consequent choice in certain branch (for example, Benevolent expansion or Pragmatic influence) more powerful than previous. Policies already do that, but to some degree, and certain branches are lacking compared to others. Besides, bonuses for finishing branches could be added. For example, if you finish abeforementioned Benevolent expansion, it would give you some significant bonus in addition to all policies.

I could make breakdown on branches, like Development or Efficiency, if needed. Overall, this gives us from 75 to 90 different policies.

Now note that English is not my native language, so i could try to explain some of suggestions and ideas if we get some issues here.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yup lots of discussions & ideas on this topic

Good re-cap of issues 1,2,3. Foe me especially #2. But.. "No one would take 3 free constructors instead of 100 turns of "cant touch this".".. I do if its is early in game.

I do not have a problem with the current UI and need to think some more about your suggestion.

Second, to make commitment in one branch more appealing,

Completely agree with this comment and there should be some downside to selecting policies in a different ideology.

Now note that English is not my native language

Your doing good

Successfully updated karma reason!

>>I do not have a problem with the current UI and need to think some more about your suggestion.

I suggest new Ideology UI not because current one is bad, but because it is good on representing those "approaches" from different ideologies on the same subject. So you, for example, still can be Agressive and Enlightened, as Ori in Stargate tv show, without limiting your choice as hard as just hard-capping players to one tree of three.

Its just more fluid system than "you picked one policy from benevolent, now every single one that is not benevolent going to cost you more".

Successfully updated karma reason!

BuckGodot

Join Date 11/2009

+73

To show that there are different playstyles, I always take three free constructors early on and wait till around turn 80 to 130 before playing the "Can't Touch This" card. Mostly because being declared on super early is hella rare, near as I can tell, while getting three constructors in my home system can be a great boost when I'm building other things.

The other reason I like taking the three free constructors early is because that gets me closer to the all important (for my style at least) Double Constructors. In fact, I will often get to Double Constructors before getting to the No War trait.

Admittedly, playing on maps without enough opponents helps (I still maintain most ideology complaints will go away when there are the "right" number of opponents on a map). Still, that Double Constructor bonus is a siren song I can't usually ignore.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, in current build you can ignore all military and focus on eco, and just buy every single ship from AI when they declare war. Little to no competiotion on early game adds. But i believe this is going to change. 100-no-wardec is nobrainer actually.

I also like the early expansion, but sadly, AI just cant compete at this stage, at all as it is now

Comparing those two policies was an example. Another one could be. Benevolent - free colony ship or +50% approval on capital? Colony ship every single time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lavo_2

Join Date 05/2010

+112

Speaking of ideologies, how exactly do the "free" planets work for the Benevolent Outreach line? I'm probably blind and not seeing them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

BuckGodot

Join Date 11/2009

+73

Quoting DarthGoogle,

reply 4

Just to point out, I ignore military early on even without the exploits mentioned. So I disagree pretty strongly that getting Cant Touch This as early as possible is a "no brainier". Just the opposite, actually. Maybe it will be different as the AI matures. But even in GC II (which the AI should end up as fairly similar), I rarely got DOWed within the first year or two (which is the same as 50 to 100 turns currently).

Maybe I can see getting the trait as soon as, oh let's say, turn 30 or 60 on very crowded maps with aggressive opponents. OTOH, on a crowded map one might want to beeline to the per-turn traits to assure that one will continue to accumlate ideology once planets are gone.

===

Despite my statement above, I do agree that most of our opinions here are very tentative with an incomplete AI and feature set. Even so, I still think it comes to playstyle.

For instance, "Free Colony Ship or +50% Approval on Homeworld" I agree with you. I would always choose the former before the latter. EXCEPT, that's mostly due to my playstyle of 'growing wide'. If someone is 'growing tall' and keeping their homeworld at a high population for various reasons (and there are in fact valid reasons to do so), getting a 50% boost can be useful to keep the planet at full 100% bonus.

Quoting Lavo_2,

reply 5

Speaking of ideologies, how exactly do the "free" planets work for the Benevolent Outreach line? I'm probably blind and not seeing them.

A previously dead world or gas giant will turn habitable near your home system and auto-join your faction. It's a bit buggy right now though (the starting population/planet class values aren't working as intended), so the exact mechanics will probably change in the next beta.

The easiest way to find it, if one is having trouble, is after the message appears that you found a planet/it has joined you, is to go to the top of your planet list. It should be the first first one, as it was the last one to join you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Lavo_2,

reply 5

Speaking of ideologies, how exactly do the "free" planets work for the Benevolent Outreach line? I'm probably blind and not seeing them.

They just appear colonized somewhere in your ZOI. ATM i managed to get just first one, class 10 near your homeworld. But i think logic stays the same, game picks one of the unhabitable planets, gives it class 10 or 16 depending on policy and boom, its instacolonized.

Quoting BuckGodot,

reply 6

Cant think of a reason now that tax slider is gone. What is the point in keeping a high pop in GCIII?

Besides, if you go tall, most likely your capital is going to be your main production center for quite a while, until you find THAT perfect planet with high class, manufacturing bonus, preferrably good hex bonus and overall suitable for placing industry capital there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

BuckGodot

Join Date 11/2009

+73

Quoting DarthGoogle,

reply 7

. What is the point in keeping a high pop in GCIII?

Production, production, production. The production system is radically different in GC III than it was in GC II.

In GC II most of it was down to what buildings/starbase modules one has affecting a planet and the galactic population one possessed (via the sliders).

However, in GC III production is greatly influenced by the population of the planet itself and not the galactic population.

It's the difference between assigning galactic tax revenues to each planet equally and depending on local 'revenues' instead. In GC III each planet has to depend on itself and not the galactic whole. Well, outside of galaxy wide techs and starbases and the like.

To put it another way, in GC II, a new colony that started with 500 million people and a new colony that started with 5 billion people had the exact same production upon settlement (presuming everything else was equal). That's because it was depending on galactic revenues. However, in GC III, that 5 billion planet will produce things faster than the one with 500 million starting out (again, presuming everything else was equal).

Others have looked into this far more than I, but according to the devs, the "sweet spot" is around 45-50 billion people per planet. After that, the law of diminishing returns comes into play and one should instead of building more farms, should instead focus on buildings that do manufacturing/research/wealth/whatever.

I am still mastering it so I can't comment on it fully, but while one will probably want to build production stuff to kick some planets into gear, getting its population up ASAP (relatively) will help greatly in all areas.

And that's not even getting into "perfect play"/micromanagement hell (which I refuse to engage in, I will hasten to add ). Even if one just cranks up the population to 40 billion or so and then slacks on building the 'perfect' placement of buildings/starbases, one will still be doing far better than if one left planets in the low population zone.

Population and the Production Wheel being set per planet is probably the single biggest and most radical change between GC II and GC III. And one that isn't apparent at first glance. Especially since one isn't limited to 16-20 billion people per planet anymore.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In galactic civilizations two i kept my taxes low to grow my population. I had no money, but what good is money if you don't spend it. Let's see a serious boost to approval which translate to high population, or a replacable colony ship. If i have one extra colony ehen let's say i have 48 colonies is moot. This is actually a hatd decision. Go with approval bonus.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting admiralWillyWilber,

reply 9

We were discussing a first picks in ideology trees. But thats another reason why policies should increase in power with their level.

Successfully updated karma reason!