How to fix game-breaker anarchy

[fran]

Smallpoxing with anarchy can be a winning strategy in this ruleset because
a) happiness is independent from city number
b) production waste does not depend on distance from capital and
c) units cost no upkeep in anarchy, which I assume is hard coded.

The straightforward solution seems to impose a city number limit on anarchy only.
Once a certain numbers of cities is reached all cities should fall into disorder which
puts production to zero. Also it might be difficult to end that state because a city
has to be disbanded to respect the limit again.

The number of cities allowed could be computed like

tiles per player / max city area possible * multiplier

where multiplier is how many cities there may be on an area that a city with max radius covers.

Implementation of happiness stuff in freeciv is a little bit awkward.
The ugly solution, which the honorable Caedo probably would call "patching the wrong end"
would imply
a) setting the number of citizens you get content "for free" to a high number
b) setting appearing unhappy citizens to angry
c) specify the city number threshold
d) make a high number of angry citizens appear on first time the threshold is taken.
Frankly, I don't know if the latter is possible, if not, another approach has to be taken.
I'm just brainstorming.

If there would be NO anarchy period for switching govs, the number of free
content citizens could be set to the threshold and with every city built it's reduced
by one. The impact starts if the number of free content citizens you get is lower
than your actual city size, which in smallpoxing usually is 1-3. Otoh, that would
rule out building bigger cities in anarchy. Which is no problem imo, since gov
can be changed.

Since this restriction is for anarchy only and doesn't affect other govs,
it's not that critical to have it thoroughly tested.

[Wahazar]

c) units cost no upkeep in anarchy, which I assume is hard coded.

No, it is not hardcoded, it is in ruleset.
But in normal ruleset each unit have equal upkeep shield and gold, whereas government pick one of them (monarchy gold, anarchy shields, democracy gold x2 etc).
In this realistic ruleset medieval units have no shield upkeep before GP (except of catapult), but Corbeau forgot to fix government upkeep.
Solution is simply - no free gold unit upkeep for Anarchy - your army and bank balance can survive short Anarchy period, but not abusing this
(however lack of funds can be omitted using coinage, but it would decrease productivity of other cities)

[fran]

Of course having upkeep in anarchy is better than not having upkeep.
Maybe upkeep would fix the problem for shields, if they have
to be produced by the home city. For gold you simply take
a part of your cities and make coinage.

The problem is not solely upkeep but mainly the other 2 things
I mentioned.

[Wahazar]

I don't think, that your solution with cities allowed is doable using only rulesets.
Generally I don't follow idea of removing unhapiness based on city number here. What was a reason?
It was working well for other rulesets.

Production waste is flat, because palace is not automagically renewed if destroyed (without palace and with waste depending on distance you would get 0 shields everywhere).
Again, don't understand why Palace effect (less waste etc) was removed, making huge capital is totally hindered now.

[Corbeau]

Let's wait until the game ends to see what happens.

Also, what is definitely going to change is tech_upkeep_free which in LT42 caused no tech upkeep until you discover 3000-worth bulbs of technology. I will probably set it to 1000-worth so that upkeep and the damaging effect from many cities kicks in much earlier. And Anarchy will be far less effective at a lower tech level and fewer cities. Right now, with more than 200 cities and I haven't checked how many citizens, it is relatively easy to make some of the scientists and have almost the same level of researach as some weaker players.

But for now, the idea I like the most is slightly increasing Shield upkeep. But let's sit on it for a bit.

[fran]

From what I see tech upkeep hitting sooner would make it worse, because there are players, even if or because they go to war, that do not strive for better techs despite they didn't run into upkeep. And that clearly has something to do with archers being too powerful. But one should not rely on having mil units perfectly balanced.

[Wahazar]

Archers are not OP, one need to pay 3 gold... unless have Anarchy. Lack of anarchy upkeep is a culprit.
If talking about science, does "Output_Bonus" modify science production of scientific specialists?
If yes, there can be negative modifier applied here, something like -25.

[Corbeau]

I still think we should wait and see how this plays out. I'm going for historical accuracy and this is historically accurate: the Mongol hordes were unstoppable when they came, but the empire then collapsed from within. If this happens here, if it turns out new techs succeeded in bringing victory to civilized nations, I see nor reason to "fix" anything.

And you claim upkeep hitting sooner would be wirse, but don't explain why. What I see here is that the Hordes would have lower tech level than they have now because they'd have to switch to Anarchy sooner, meaning they'd have less cities when they did that... etc. etc.

But, like I said, let's wait and see how it plays out.

Also keep in mind that those two are among the best players here.

[Corbeau]

Oh, I just thought of a solution, but it seems so simple and obvious that I'm wondering what did I miss.

While in Anarchy, cities are in revolt. No production. That would solve ALL problems. Maybe.

So, is there anything I'm missing?

[Wahazar]

What about anarchy if you have units which have shield upkeep (musk etc)?

[Corbeau]

I don't understand what you mean.

[ptizoom]

you can't put all the cities in revolt during anarchy, is this going from one extreme to the other ?

I though maybe going towards the penalties of being is anarchy are

pti-a)-to loose the influence of any palaces?
(just this makes it hard to keep stuff)
(idlers also should loose increasingly the influence of the palaces and increase disorders in cities: deity is gone!).

pti-b)-and waste, corruption, military units food, gold, up-keep consumption could increase by (x + .1) * [10-33]% as from tribalism/despotism.

pti-c)-disorder rules could be kept the same as tribalism ?


that is my take. thx.

[Corbeau]

you can't put all the cities in revolt during anarchy, is this going from one extreme to the other ?

Why not?

Keep in mind that the first extreme is nothing else but an oversight.

Also... Anarchy, okay?

I though maybe going towards the penalties of being is anarchy are

pti-a)-to loose the influence of any palaces?
(just this makes it hard to keep stuff)
(idlers also should loose increasingly the influence of the palaces and increase disorders in cities: deity is gone!).

I don't understand any of this.

pti-b)-and waste, corruption, military units food, gold, up-keep consumption could increase by (x + .1) * [10-33]% as from tribalism/despotism.

None of this applies.

Waste depends on technology and it should keep it that way in Anarchy.

Corruption and gold do not exist in Anarchy anyway.

Increasing food doesn't make sense because the units basically provide for themselves.

pti-c)-disorder rules could be kept the same as tribalism ?

Again, I don't understand what you mean.

[Wahazar]

I don't understand, what do you don't understand, Corbeau.
Your idea with forcing revolting cities in Anarchy leads to immediate disbanding all shield consuming units.
Genesis of your problem is removing shield upkeep from non-gunpwder units + no gold upkeep under Anarchy.
Simply, either add shields upkeep to all units, or add gold upkeep to Anarchy.

[Corbeau]

A revolting city can still pay shield upkeep.

Adding shield upkeep to all units would be beyond all reason.

Adding gold upkeep to Anarchy would remove the main point of it. Anarchy is supposed to be a transitional period between two governments. Period of chaos and disorder. That's what I'm making it.

[ptizoom]

you can't put all the cities in revolt during anarchy, is this going from one extreme to the other ?

Why not? Keep in mind that the first extreme is nothing else but an oversight.
Also... Anarchy, okay?

but anarchy should be still playable in that game.

mainly trades is affected and hardly nothing can be taxed into general gold/science/happiness ?
and army units should "consume" even more food and gold ?

anarchy could be modeled itself to natural governments (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQn1-mLkIHw) and be lesser than tribalisme.

pti-a)-to loose the influence of any palaces?

I don't understand any of this.

I experienced it when I lost my palace in LT42 (.^.) . then science and gold input dived down...
please try it for yourself... if you really still don't understand.

[Corbeau]

but anarchy should be still playable in that game.

Again, why?

Anarchy is supposed to be a short period of disorder between governments. You may be mixing "anarchy" and "anarchism". The one I'm talking about here is a chaotic interregnum with no control by the central government. Yes, the nation still exists, but you are not playing a nation, you are playing a government.

pti-a)-to loose the influence of any palaces?

I don't understand any of this.

I experienced it when I lost my palace in LT42 (.^.) . then science and gold input dived down...
please try it for yourself... if you really still don't understand.

Ok, I understand now. Yes, shit happens when you lose the palace. But still, if you want a certain government with certain properties, create the new government type, don't use something that has another function in the game.

[Wahazar]

Well, you are right about shield upkeep in revolting city: there is no shields accumulation, but payments is done.
It is deliberately if there is lack of sense making shields upkeep for almost every units - repairing all these chain armors need productivity resources,
which weight is of course tiny (if compared to resources used for tank upkeep), but labor intensity to gain these resources using medieval technologies is very high,
but it is up to you.

If you want to drive cities into revolting during anarchy, please use some soft tools, such empire size/step parameters, it would do less harassment for smaller nations
(probably bad_lux effect should also be increased, to make such effect).

[Corbeau]

What do you mean "less harassment for smaller nations"? Firstly, why? Secondly, I could argue that this *is* "less harassment for smaller nations" because they have less cities revolting.

[ptizoom]

well what happens when in genuine gov transition? it does not sound right to put all cities in revolt for x-turns...

[Wahazar]

What do you mean "less harassment for smaller nations"? Firstly, why? Secondly, I could argue that this *is* "less harassment for smaller nations" because they have less cities revolting.

Well, let consider situation, when capital was taken and anarchy due to civil war happen?
How are you managed to rebuild palace, if all cities are revolting under anarchy? Switching to another gov would yield in infinite corruption - your budged would be depleted instantly.
If you are seeking for solution to avoid abuse of anarchy as coin/science printer thanks to the large number of cities, while allowing to survive under this gov for 1..2 turns, use reasonably small Empire_Size_Base and Empire_Size_Step effects and tweak effect_bad_lux_anarchy to ensure, that people unhappy due to empire size would prevail over luxury production.
If you wish to continue devastating your ruleset, force all cities into revolting state

[Corbeau]

Ok, I see an issue with palace not being automatically rebuilt and possible bankrupcy (still, better than civil war), but that has nothing to do with anarchy. You can get out of anarchy any time, just choose a government like Monarchy or Despotism - or even Tribalism - rebuild the palace and you're back in the game.