19 themes/skins available for your browsing pleasure. A variety of looks, 6 AC2 exclusives - Featuring SMACX, Civ6 Firaxis, and two CivII themes.[new Theme Select Box, bottom right sidebar - works for lurkers, too]
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Does swapping Growth for Morale on Fundamentalism/Democratic make thematic sense? In more modern societies Fundamentalist has high population growth from big families. Democratic, I don't think Morale would be a real stretch either. But its a bit strange to give Morale to a SE with -POLICE. I suppose Democratic would then fight well but only defensively?
Quote from: Nexii on September 24, 2013, 01:34:13 PMDoes swapping Growth for Morale on Fundamentalism/Democratic make thematic sense? In more modern societies Fundamentalist has high population growth from big families. Democratic, I don't think Morale would be a real stretch either. But its a bit strange to give Morale to a SE with -POLICE. I suppose Democratic would then fight well but only defensively?The flavor of Morale is better-trained soldiers. While that doesn't fit perfectly with Fundamentalist (much more with Power and Thought Control), it doesn't fit at all with Democratic. Growth wouldn't be a bad bonus for Fundamentalist, but Morale and Probe make more sense IMO, especially as Fundamentalist has to fill the early offensive warfare niche. (Power comes too late for that.)For Democracy, I think -5 Police is just too devastating to balance without using Talent. If you're using Talent, that's fine, and you could do ++GROWTH, ++EFFICIENCY, ++TALENT, -----POLICE. I think I'd like to avoid Talent and try to balance the SE choices in different ways (because it doesn't show up, and also for the reasons Kilkanon stated), in which case anything more than ---POLICE is probably too much for Democracy. I think the other -2 could be worked into Wealth without trouble, though (over Support or Morale, and restoring its +INDUSTRY).One thought on Free Market: What if the Efficiency penalty were switched from Planned to Free Market, and Planned were given an Economy penalty instead? That definitely makes thematic sense with Planned, better IMO than an efficiency penalty (Planned economies should be no worse off being large, but overall lower-achieving than Free Market or Green economies). The efficiency penalty in Free Market then reflects the difficulty of redistributing resources in a market from wealthy bases at the center of your empire to poorer bases on the periphery and of controlling market failures. Flavorfully it's not perfect, but it could work.Thus:Simple, None,Free Market, IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, --EFFICIENCY, ---PLANETPlanned, PlaNets, ++GROWTH, ++INDUSTRY, --ECONOMY (added another Growth because --ECONOMY is really bad)Green, CentEmp, ++PLANET, ++EFFIC, --INDUSTRY
Hitting Free Market with an efficiency penalty like that is sort of counterproductive though, since the main issue with negative efficiency is that it cuts into your income the larger your empire gets. +Economy and -Efficiency almost offset one another.A better option if you don't want a Police penalty is negative Support. The philosophy behind Free Market's penalties is that it makes you incredibly productive at the expense of your ability to field an army. This version would make it serve the same purpose in a different way.