So a quick thought or two on Ideology points. I know that with the Crusade changes Ideology is getting a rework, and I've been thinking about how the ideology system could be more deeply integrated into the game.
First off, I would like to point out that the Ideology system in GC3 far surpasses the good/neutral/evil in GC2, and that the general trend of making ideology choices meaningful gameplay-wise, rather than the more mechanical process of choosing an alignment in GC2, is the right direction.
Here are my baseline assumptions for Ideology, and possible changes to Ideology:
Here is what I currently view as limitations with the current ideological systems:
There are more bullets in both columns, but these are a good place to point out why the current ideology system would benefit from more than an iterative "replace all the circles" balance pass, but rather a slight upgrade of the system while keeping what's good about it.
Recently, the tech trees were changed such that they weren't Racially-defined, rather they are now defined by Civ Abilities, and Race Type. While players were a little apprehensive about these changes (understandably, this is a change to a pretty core-system), I have yet to hear anyone say that they don't like the new way that the tech trees work. And I will be the first to say that this change with the right one, it makes so much more sense, and is better in every way.
I think a similar change should happen to the Ideology system. There should be 'core' components, that are modified or completely different depending upon the Civ Abilities and Race Type; and the tiles themselves could be further tweaked by Civ Traits.
For example: instead of there being 5 bene/prag/mal choices one can make, this could maybe be whittled down to 3 of each (in a simplistic world: one for race type, and one for each Civ Ability), and the bonuses of the choice could be modified by Civ Traits. So, in the case of 'Xenophobic' 'Cybernetic' 'Synthetics' that have civ traits that favor tourism and research; each of the bene/prag/mal columns could have a Xenophobe, Cybernetic, and Synthetic choice that emphasize effects for tourism and research. (In a more complicated world a single choice for each racial type or ability is boring, it would be more interesting to have them amalgmated together - but this is an exponential feat of design work, unless it can just be procedurally generated somehow.).
What this accomplishes:
I realize that this would entail some fairly big changes and a lot of work. But on the other hand, maybe these types of changes should be on the roadmap. Further down the road, perhaps the expansion that deals with diplomacy, politics, etc could consider these types of changes..
Thoughts?
-tid242
The ideological system is just messed up in my opinion.
The game asks us three questions and we choose, not what we think, but the choice that gets us to the right ideology tree. I think they should offer us choices of the various benefits in all of the trees and let our ideology position be determined by our reward choices instead of the 3 questions. In GCII I was often leaning toward or totally evil. In GCIII I have found myself automatically choosing the pragmatic choice because I am most familiar with what I will get for that choice. If I was given a choice of all the rewards I might choose differently.
Bottom line, your choice should be based on the available reward and not the repetitive ethical choices that I stopped reading after the 3rd game I played.
IMHO you should have to choose your Ideology in the game setup - it's part of 'who' your race is, along with all the other setup options.
Then during the game, making choices that match your ideology should give rewards that improve over time - boosts to morale, productivity etc - your people are pleased their leaders choices reflect the values of their race as a whole. Making a choice that goes against your race's ideology should have significant penalties - you might get those 3 constructor ships, but morale and productivity are going to take a hit.
There needs to be incentives for staying 'true' to your vision of your race, and disincentives for hopping all over the Ideology tree just to grab the best options, which is what happens now.
Does that mean I am not actually focusing hard on Benevolent? Because I sure thought I was. The Benevolent choices make sense to me, both as roleplay and game choices. One of us must be confused about how many ways there are to play this game.
I also would like to see Ideology become more integrated, possibly with the next big expansion.
I dislike that one can, with enough grinding and all the ideology point-production buildings, gather ALL of the ideology perks.
They should be mutually exclusive to an extent.
...And pragmatic is not neutral, it's not between good and evil. It's rather it's own point on a triangle than a middle ground.
Double ideology is fine. Would be nice to have another five tier ideology perk path or two for each combination. So, paths that require X benevolent and Y pragmatic points to unlock the perks. Flush this out with event choices that have Ideolgy Point penalties as well as rewards and it becomes more interesting. (choice A +25 Benevolent, -10 Pragmatic, - 10 Malevolent, choice B +15 Pragmatic +10 Malevolent, -10 Benevolent, Choice C +20 Malevolent -5 Benevolent) The rewards do not need to be mirrored in any way. Better that they reflect the flavor text of the choices as subjectively accurately as possible.
Would you like the choices to be more immersive? I would. At the cost of fine control over your civ"s development? I would be willing to sacrifice that. If there were no stats in the choices, just + this and - that, with some RNG so the bonuses weren't all hardcoded, then Ideology would be more immersive for me, though I think many players would riot and we'd have the wheel wars on the forum all over again.
Good riddance Wheel. You've been uninvented. GC3 rides on repulsorlifts now.
Well i liked the wheel, but crusade has a good idea. Didnt like coercion.
I don't like the ideology point buildings, myself. It automatically lets you get points for free even if you're not that ideology/don't go any further down that tree.
Surely, once elections are brought into the game, ideology will get the makeover it needs and there will be serious negative repurcussions for changing your chosen ideology - revolution, other races attack etc...
I see one huge problem with this... namely, if you choose one ideology from the start, you loose the ability to adapt to the situation and the map you get. Currently, ideologies are leaning towards a certain victory type. It is easier to go for research or influence if with benevolent, early domination with malevolent, while pragmatic might get you a head-start on ascension, and getting ahead economically.
Now, say, I rolled a map where a couple of my nearby planets have some bonus to influence, there is an have an influence relic nearby and I dont have the drengin sitting on my doorstep... I'd go benevolent ideology right here and there, regardless of my starting race. Assigning ideology prior to that, limits my choice, and may or may not limt victory conditions I can go for later. At least with the way ideology works right now.
double post, sorry!
I believe in the concepts of primary Ideology and Ideology purity. As you accrue Ideology Points, whichever major Ideology has the most of your points is your primary Ideology. That is how you get diplomatically labelled. The ratio of your primary ideology to your total points is your purity ranking. This raises your diplomacy rating with factions of the same ideology and lowers the diplomacy rating with the two opposing factions. Amount of that shift is weighted with purity ratings.
Changing primary ideology should not be free. Empire wide -10% Raw Production -50% Approval for 5 turns.
Going crazy and getting all the Ideology choices makes you nobody's friend at all, not even the other agnostics. Don't build Ideology buildings you don't need.
I said long ago that I think the Ideology system would be better with like one choice per turn that does something small.. but the choices add up over time to have effect....Example turn. "there was a radiation leak on planet x what do you do?"Choice1 "Clean it up spend 10bc credits" +1% moralChoice2 "eh.. quarentine the area and clean it up slowly" 1bc credits loss of 1% moral"Choice3 "who cares? Seed the world with Radiation loving bacteria and see if we can develope a super plague" +1% research -2% population growtheach choice is worth 1 point... But if this happens EVERY turn the net effect of the choices add up way more than the current system.My other thought is that there should be more choices in each event.. say 6 choices... and make them less obvious which is which.. On a third point... I missed the tech tree differences from GCII I think the Ideologies should open up some research branch options in the tech trees... either way the whole system should be a much bigger part of the game.. rather than this... side thing that lets you just get stuff... almost at random.
I second this.. I have always thought there needed to be some penalty for grabbing everything. Both in the ideologies and the tech trees. Specialization should be special...
Your first paragraph gets the idea of how I think it should work. There shouldn't be a predefined Ideology Title, imo. If I spend more ideology Points in one of them, and fewer in the other two (on number of selections) than that should give me Diplomacy pluses with all races who have done the same, and minuses with those who went a different way. If during play I start making more choices under a different heading I should start losing my current pluses and start gaining them elsewhere. Why have a cost? Why have categories at all. Just a continuum based n choices.
Hi. First time poster.
I agree with the original poster that ideology needs to be tweaked. However, pleases don't restrict the choices of the ideology as the game develops. The changing situation may dictate that we need to adjust our ideology. Besides, restricting us to one ideology takes away interesting choices.
Some suggested changes:
Make the ideology unlocked features more interesting. Some of them have little impact, especially late in the game.
For example, on the benevolent ideology track top row move the "each new colony starts with two additional tiles" to the left. By the time it is unlocked most of the colonisation is over so it isn't very helpful.
The biggest problem with the system, as it relates to me, is that it does not make any consideration for the player (me) that prefers the rare planet choice.
I am 150 turns into my current game and I have made 5 choices. As for the point producing buildings, at 1 point per turn, if I have the building taking a very valuable hex on every planet in a 10 planet empire, I will get 1 point per turn. By mid game, that means it will gain me about one choice every 50 turns. I am sure you see the dilemma. BTW before 2.30 it was working fine for me. They seem to have slowed down the galactic events.
I have always thought that your choices should be made from three rewards, each tied to a different ideology. You would earn your ideology by however many choices you make (much like GCII) and your ideology would only be disclosed at the end of the game.
I know this doesn't go over well with the majority, who like the 100 colony game. It is just my feelings. I will live with whatever it is or becomes.
I also don't like tons of planets. I like keeping my empire manageable, until such time as I influence or invade planets, at which point my planet total goes into double digits.
IMO, the biggest draw of Crusade is that Tall is now viable.
I keep events on high, so that I can use Ideology points more, and agree that they should be rebalanced for tall empires with low events.
Whoa, if you change your ideology to suit whatever situation you find yourself in, its not a freaking ideology! " I don't believe in murder, ever, under any circumstances, but if that guy walking down the street has a cheeseburger and I'm hungry, then I think it's fully justified and I'm OK with it".
The current Ideology system is just another tech tree, and there is no reason not to grab as much of it as you can. I like the "purity' idea from a previous poster - the more choices you make from one ideology path, the more powerful the benefits should be, and the more excluded you should be from changing paths - if you're good, many malevolent options should be blocked, and actually taking one should incur harsh penalties.
Otherwise, don't call it an ideology system - doing whatever you want, whenever you want to get immediate or long term benefits for your civilisation is not ideology.
Well, unlike individuals, whole societies can be a mixture of ideologies and can evolve over time. Besides, you don't need a software update to stick with one ideology, just pick one and do it. As for the rest of us, leave us "interesting choices" to make. Isn't that what Crusade is about?
Hi,
Surely the point is that this is a game and you make the choices to optimise your chances of success. In this context, ideology is rather an emotive word though I haven't thought about an alternative - perhaps I will later and others might too?
In the base game, it was relatively easy very early on to generate raw production through Durantium refineries and raw science through Thulium data archives. (These could be rushed on specific planets if you didn't rush too much else).
Now the raw quantities are much harder to obtain - or rather take longer. And you definitely need asteroids for early production unless you go two notches into the Malevolent "ideology" to get +10 on your home world.
In many ways, I'd prefer not to do this and indeed I do have a strong aesthetic aversion to the idea of a "Benevolent" race building a death furnace, even though this might well be optimal game play. But in any case I normally go those two notches along to promote a colony rush and in the fairly sparsely populated galaxies I prefer (ie not so many other races that it's horribly crowded) then try to work my way along the bottom line of the Benevolent tree to get research, sometimes stopping off to get three free constructors too.
In doing so, I am indeed jeopardising my ideological "purity" as put earlier. I wouldn't hugely object if there were a game mechanism to penalise this though it would certainly radically change the game again and probably lead to the need for further rebalancing. But purity is another very emotive word and perhaps consistency or inconsistency would be more neutral.
Cheers,
Jon
It is an ideology. It's called Pragmatic.
First pragmatic is the only ideology up there the other is still good vs evil.
As to your first point, it is not alright, and this is the reason governments exist. They prevent the anarchy to which you subscribe. Of course there is another solution. The guy should stay off the street with his cheeseburger until he can afford a bodyguard. This is known as rational anarchism and my preferred ideology.
I agree with you second point. If purity is the way the game should be played, why allow any ideology choices? Just have the player choose his ideology at the start of the game and give him a periodic choice of rewards based on the choice.
Individuals or societies can't choose an ideology. The ideology chooses them.
Sounds boring. Which is best argument to leave ideology choice as it is.
This is a good discussion, as if there was one system that feels like a "sore thumb" to me its the ideology system.
My general take is the following:
1) Ideology needs to be separated from expansion. It scales poorly both due to player styles (tall vs wide type play) and map size. Its just a bad way to generate such a core mechanic.
In its stead I think Taslios' idea is a good one but I would actually mirror it with the citizen system. Every 10 turns give me a situation to decide that gives a concrete bonus and a ideology points. I think every turn is way too much, but since I am making a big choice in the form of a citizen, making an ideology choice as well feels like a natural fit.
2) Ideology buildings should be separated from policy choices. I think these buildings should be removed entirely, treated as a wonder, or just incorporated as a super building that people can eventually build if they choose to.
Tying the buildings to specific policies just creates a very weird balance dynamic, and makes balancing the ideologies much more difficult.
3) I like the OP's idea of tying in race stats to what types of ideologies in general. I think it makes balance more difficult but if it can be done well I support it.
4) The ideologies need both a strong balance pass....and a "make it interesting" pass.
Balance wise, some ideologies are laughably better than others. But more so, some policies are just plain boring. I would love to see a good review and revamp of the policies in general.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
