Currently, the availability of ethic edicts and council ethic agendas depends on the ethics of the empire. But what if, instead, the availability of ethic edicts depended on the ethic of the ruler and the council ethic agendas depended on the ethics present in the council?
This could make the individual personalities of leaders more tangible, making them feel more alive. They would not just be a set of skills that get assigned to a job; every time you use an ethic agenda that is unlocked by their presence on the council, it could feel like it is they who are pushing their own agenda (which, incidentally, also suitably promotes their own ethic in the empire, via the ethic attraction bonus already included in the agenda effects).
Edicts could do the same for rulers. In reality, edicts are mostly associated with rulers, so it would make sense that the ruler's personality would determine the edict that gets pushed. Ruler (s)elections would become more politically consequential; if a democracy elects a xenophobic ruler it could start seeing fear campaigns, or if it elects an authoritarian ruler it could start experiencing information quarantines / overwhelming information noise, or if it elects a pacifist ruler the next 10 years could become one long celebration of peace (and in all these cases, the empires would also experience the substantial boost to ethic attraction that goes with the ethic edicts).
An implication of a change like this is that it would introduce a slippery slope of ethic seduction: having the right ethic on the council, or even in the ruler position, could be very useful depending on the current circumstances - but it would also increase the ethic attraction of that ethic, via the bonuses attached to the agenda/edict.
Another implication is that gameplay could become more varied, since two empires with identical government, ethics and civics could still get different edicts and agendas based on their leaders.
A third implication of this is that ethic edicts would be better balanced between fanatic and moderate ethics. Currently, empires that pick three moderate ethics get one more ethic edict than empires with a fanatic edict, and can potentially run them all at the same time. With this change, empires would only ever use one ethic edict at a time, meaning that fanatic ethics would be at a lesser ethic edict disadvantage relative to moderate ethics.
A fourth implication is that new ethic edicts would need to be added for the ethics without edicts (militarist, materialist).
What are your thoughts? Does the above seem like a reasonable assessment? Would the game be better and more enjoyable if ethic-based ruler edicts and council agendas were based on the ethics of the ruler and the council, rather than the ethics of the empire? Is there any third alternative that would be even better?
This could make the individual personalities of leaders more tangible, making them feel more alive. They would not just be a set of skills that get assigned to a job; every time you use an ethic agenda that is unlocked by their presence on the council, it could feel like it is they who are pushing their own agenda (which, incidentally, also suitably promotes their own ethic in the empire, via the ethic attraction bonus already included in the agenda effects).
Edicts could do the same for rulers. In reality, edicts are mostly associated with rulers, so it would make sense that the ruler's personality would determine the edict that gets pushed. Ruler (s)elections would become more politically consequential; if a democracy elects a xenophobic ruler it could start seeing fear campaigns, or if it elects an authoritarian ruler it could start experiencing information quarantines / overwhelming information noise, or if it elects a pacifist ruler the next 10 years could become one long celebration of peace (and in all these cases, the empires would also experience the substantial boost to ethic attraction that goes with the ethic edicts).
An implication of a change like this is that it would introduce a slippery slope of ethic seduction: having the right ethic on the council, or even in the ruler position, could be very useful depending on the current circumstances - but it would also increase the ethic attraction of that ethic, via the bonuses attached to the agenda/edict.
Another implication is that gameplay could become more varied, since two empires with identical government, ethics and civics could still get different edicts and agendas based on their leaders.
A third implication of this is that ethic edicts would be better balanced between fanatic and moderate ethics. Currently, empires that pick three moderate ethics get one more ethic edict than empires with a fanatic edict, and can potentially run them all at the same time. With this change, empires would only ever use one ethic edict at a time, meaning that fanatic ethics would be at a lesser ethic edict disadvantage relative to moderate ethics.
A fourth implication is that new ethic edicts would need to be added for the ethics without edicts (militarist, materialist).
What are your thoughts? Does the above seem like a reasonable assessment? Would the game be better and more enjoyable if ethic-based ruler edicts and council agendas were based on the ethics of the ruler and the council, rather than the ethics of the empire? Is there any third alternative that would be even better?
- 1
- 1
