Civilization Creation - disadvantages!

I think its an interesting idea actually- though I wonder if it would be possible to code this into the AI well; ie, for it to be able to take advantage of de-allocating points from an area (negative in an area) and increasing in another...

Very interesting, I like it... you could make for example the 'Ferangi's', cowardly but with mucho trade... or the 'Klingons' huge courage, military advantages but reeaally low deplomacy

This game has always struck me as a "glass is half-full" type thing. They always want to make numbers bigger, not make them smaller.

M

The real problem I can see is some guy adding together some expensive abilities that are powerful on their own but might be a too unbalancing if allowed to be merged into the same empire. I like the idea of disads (like say 5 points of disads max), but the team might think that it would throw game balance far out of whack and it would probably force the reassigning of ability costs to try and rebalance it.

I created a pol party that included negative values into the bonus column- worked quite well, but still too appealing because all the AI's picked the same thing. but I'm working it.

For those interested, the bonuses were good pluses on war making and waging attirbutes (i.e. hitpoints, weapons, repair, etc etc.) but had negative values on morale, pop growth, creativity, diplomacy, etc etc.

One negative I used WAY to much was Sensors; the value I gave it made scouts nearly useless (would only reveal area IMMEDIATELY around it!

I'm wokring on others and may have a fun pol. party pack up soon.

-HrK-

The problem with negative picks is that they can allow you to leverage too much power into the 'main' attributes. I mean, who cares if they have -creativity? And if I'm not planning on a ground invasion game I can load up on -soldier and -courage. Toss in some -hitpoints too, then dump all those bonus attributes on the 'power' picks and turn into a holy terror.

The reason variety works so well on the attribute list now is that it's not efficient to dump all your ability points into many of the picks because of diminishing returns (e.g. +20 tech for 2 points, but only +30 for 4 instead of +40). So people tend to spread their points around. But if you had a whole bunch more points to spend (which is really what negative picks are about, a sideways way of getting more ability points) then this balancing no longer applies.

Good points...

Thinking about this after hearing your feedback, I think it would only work if the AI were able to 'see' your weakness (-courage, -soldier) and exploit it.

When they have disadvantages in rpgs, you can only make certain ones disadvantages. And you have a base set of attributes that you can't go below.

Does this imply the same may be considered here?

M

Well, coming from a RPG background [GURPS], I was thinking along the same lines as CariElf.

I see the choices you can make in 1.02 as 'advantages'. You can't choose the exact number/% of courage you want, you pick a 'package' (i.e. 1 point for +5%, or what have you).

Same can go for disadvantages. Likewise, every advantage doesn't have to have a disadvantage.. they could even be different. Although I'd like to see ones like:

Cowardly
Xenophobic (this may be an advantage in this game)
Slow Population Growth

I wouldn't mind seeing an option to pick some disadvantages but it would have to be kept to a very low number, for the reasons stated above. It'd make it too easy to abuse certain ability combinations to their maximum extent if you could pile on the negative picks.

Would it be possible to include it on a trial basis? Perhaps have it that you can pick one ability to have a -10% at the start and gain a 1 point bonus, giving you a total of 11 points to allocate? I don't think 1 point would be unbalancing, but there may be only one way to find out?

~SDC~

To get those extra points for positive picks, maybe the player should be *heavily* penalised - something like -50% diplo or HP to get a *single* extra attribute point.
It might not be so extreme, but it would have to be balanced properly.

I really like the idea, but as someone has suggested, you just have to be careful what choices for disadvantages you have. The ones you can choose have to be meaningful. Also, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a maximum number of advantage points you could receive in this way. If you want to take further disadvantage points beyond that for role playing purposes, maybe get a bonus to your score or something. You know, since you took the extra handicap.

Having made, and modified RPGs for over 20 years it is always a struggle to keep flexibility while discouraging people trying to take advantage of it. Here is some general thoughts on the subject.
One thing that can be done is make it a matter of diminishing returns or even more so (this is already done to some extent). Go too far up or down is “inefficient” and VERY costly for both the advantages and disadvantages. Also the amounts needed to raise a bonus are figured by the TOTAL bonus a civilization ends up with and not just the amount of bonus given at that point. (this will stop the double dipping problem)

For example, there does not have to be a one to one relation to the extra points you get from disadvantages so picking them could be made as always a last resort “less efficient then just using the points given” to getting the next notch up on a wanted bonus. So in the end picking allot of small disadvantages or even one very big one is “wasting” some points making the process less inviting and mainly for people wanting to really customize and mot minding a slight disadvantage (they might gain that back in play style, or may not, but massive deviations always end up with less total bonuses)

Also if your political group already gives you a bonus in a ability then you are already at that level when you start picking additional bonuses. So a +20 in tech from your political group means you already at that “level’ of bonus and it will take 4 more to add 10 more points right off that bat which is the max. (note that after writing this and not playing around with the bonuses too much I realized that I really have not tested if this was the case or not . . so, please bear with me )

Also don’t allow beginning bonuses pick totals to be raised or lowered past an unbalancing or ridiculous amount. (ie. The nearly useless scout with a scanner range of 1 or a crazy one of 40)

Very good points are being brought up... neat discussion...

I agree that the amount of disadvantages should be limited (say -5 points worth, or something). I'd also like to add that you shouldn't be able to take a disadvantages (e.g. -10% diplomacy) if you already have a similar advantage (be it chosen, or given by your political party).

I know many of us have brought up the fact they like to play against "smart" AI. Perhaps a major difference that can be made between the "Intelligent" AI and the "Sub-Normal" AI is that the Sub-Normal's are overloaded with disadvantages. Again, human players should have a limit to which disadvantages they can take (5 extra points worth, for example) and they shouldn't be able to take dissad's for attributes they already have advantages for.

Another crippling factor could be that if you have a disadvantage (i.e. 'Racial Biggotry' -50% diplomacy) you shouldn't realize as much gains from bonuses you recieve in the game. So someone starting with a -50% diplomacy shouldn't turn into Winston Churchil after a few lucky events.

Not all disadvantages have to be % related. Some can limit your tech, or which units/social improvements you see. A race which is cowardly would never research 'Super Soldiers' and not build the Tai-Kwan training (or whatever its name is) wonder.

A neat way to handle disadvantages is to make them cost more and more: To get 1 additional good pick costs 1 disadvantage, the second costs 2 disadvantage points (total 3 disadvantages needed), etc. That way if you want +4 picks, you need 10 disadvantages.
That works well in RPGs. This said, I don't think it would be very interesting in GalCiv because it would be too unbalancing.

I'm not sure this could really be implemented and keep play balance.

MOO2 example: I would take (Environmental)Intolerant and Lithovore. This required 10pts of disadvantages. I simply took penalties in areas that I rarely used (like espionage). The result was a race that could out produce the Klackons (No farmers=more workers+no polution penalty) and could nearly out research the Psilons (again, no farmers=more scientist available). I found it almost impossible to lose with this combination.

I'm not against the idea in theory. If balance issues could be addressed, then I'm fine with it.

Again, there should be a Max on total bonuses at the start this would stop all problems with people stacking them and going crazy adding them in one catagory. Also The MOO2 example does not really apply here becouse that changed a basic "rule" of playing, ie "No farmers" that was the big problem there, in GalCiv we are only talking bonuses not rule changes so they are much easyer to control. IE a Max and Min cap . .

Balanced disadvantages
1 pick
-20% Economy
-20% Military Production

2 picks
-10% PQ
-1 Speed

Who want some?

~SDC~

It would also be interesting if the advantage (at least where applicable could be a small range to add some uncertainty. (research +18-22% instead of 20% for an example). Some of the events have a + or - in them (they may be mods, I installed a few)--makes you think a bit more.

My point was that I simply took disadvangages in areas of the game that I generally ignored anyway to gain a huge advantage in areas I did use. So I effectively had no disadvantages... Which was unbalanced.

I like the idea myself, but since it would require a lot of balancing I don't think we'd do it any time soon.

It might work to have the points "freed up" by disadvantages be 1/2 the points it would cost to gain said advantage. If Speed +1 is 4 pts, the speed -1 is -2 points. Also, I'd only allow 1 level of disads.
hmm
+20% defense is 2 point, -20% defence would be -1.
Diplomacy, same. Influence, same. Loyalty, same (I could see taking this disad). Military production, same. etc.
+10% economics is 2 points, -10% economics is -1.
You'd basically be losing 2 advantages to gain 1.

Of course, everyone would pick -30% espionage for an extra point, but so what?

How about a pick that does -100% Diplomacy (never can ever talk to anyone and always at war) that gives a substantial boost to planet quality? That would be interesting . . . no diplomacy or trade in exchange for better planets.

Alternatively, you could offer "packages" that offered both benefits and penalties for a net change of zero points.
Eg: 0 points for +20 something -25 something else.

You could offer themed "packages" this way. Eg: -20 soldiering, -20% hit points in exchage for +20% economy and +15% diplomacy. Or whatever.