Genius Design in Civ5 should come to Civ7

[pokiehl]

You said you didn't understand the whole notion, pretty much (which I can't fathom, and is a claim that really makes you look lacking, not me, especially because no one else commenting on it showed such a lack of a grasp of what I was saying)I and said didn't explain my point, at all, but just said, "it was so," which is clearly not true.

Why do you need to include some attack on me the person with each reply? Can’t you just stick to discussing ideas?

No one else responded to you so that doesn’t prove anything about grasping anything.

At any rate, go ahead and assume I am stupid like you’re implying and that I’m “lacking” in being unable to understand you. Now with that assumption, can you please go back and refer to my post and answer the questions I posed so I can understand you? Thanks.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Reminds me of "As per my last email..."
Anyway - I don't quite understand either to be honest.

 

[Patine]

Why do you need to include some attack on me the person with each reply? Can’t you just stick to discussing ideas?

No one else responded to you so that doesn’t prove anything about grasping anything.

At any rate, go ahead and assume I am stupid like you’re implying and that I’m “lacking” in being unable to understand you. Now with that assumption, can you please go back and refer to my post and answer the questions I posed so I can understand you? Thanks.

Calling out inexplicable and disingenuous ways of dismissing my ideas in a belittling or absurd way is not a personal attack, though you call it such everytime, which is just as disingenuous. I'm will to focuus on ideas, and prefer it. However, you're intentioon is highly dubious. And, saying I think you're, "stupid," rather than what I'm addressing, further digs into the problem. And I was responded to by others, but you didn't carefully look. I have brought this up before. These noxious habits need to retired.

 

[pokiehl]

Calling out inexplicable and disingenuous ways of dismissing my ideas in a belittling or absurd way is not a personal attack, though you call it such everytime, which is just as disingenuous. I'm will to focuus on ideas, and prefer it. However, you're intentioon is highly dubious. And, saying I think you're, "stupid," rather than what I'm addressing, further digs into the problem. And I was responded to by others, but you didn't carefully look. I have brought this up before. These noxious habits need to retired.

That’s a whole lot of words to just say “No, I can’t answer your questions or defend my point.”

 

[Patine]

That’s a whole lot of words to just say “No, I can’t answer your questions or defend my point.”

No, that's ot what I'm saying. That's what you want me to be saying.

 

[vorlon_mi]

At least from my part (and think some others also) the discussion is not really about realism but about the possibility of use a CIV5's Ideological Presure like system for others topics beyond contemporary socio-economic ideologies. The presented real world examples do not mean realism per se but the justification to abstract those others historical phenomena in a similar gamey way.

I may be one of the handful of people here who is a fan of Beyond Earth: Rising Tide, but that game (based on the Civ5 engine) took an interesting spin on "ideology."

First, the renaming... social policies became virtues, ideologies became affinities.

Like Civ5 social policies, virtues were earned using culture. Unlike Civ5, one could earn synergy bonuses by adopting them across categories and by going deeper within a category. Like Civ5, once a virtue was adopted it could not be "un-adopted" as the Civ4 civics could. Unlike Civ5, the pathway through the virtues had branches, both "and" and "or" conditions.

The affinities in BERT were mostly driven by tech/science, not culture. They were available throughout the game, not waiting until mid- to late-game as in Civ5. Affinities mostly served to buff your military units; each of the 3 affinities also enabled a victory condition if the player chose to go deep into that affinity.

Did the affinities set up blocs and potential end-game conflicts? Sort-of, and yes. I noticed a few AI (who were oriented to a different affinity) give me a diplomatic message, "Our cultures differ too greatly, this makes things difficult." It was still possible to trade with them and earn their respect.
As a player -- human or AI -- begins to fulfill the final conditions for an affinity victory, other players strongly object. This objection is nearly always followed by a declaration of war and invasion. My personal project is to win each affinity victory with each leader. Based on the data I've collected, the objectors are nearly always following a different affinity than I am.

Bottom Line: Yes, one could use a different concept to underpin the game mechanic and provide some more interesting game play in the late game.
It need not be tied to the word "ideology" nor the historical concept/definition of ideologies.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Although, "Ideologies" are quite understandable by a general audience.
I think people understand that people who rule by democracy tend to agree with each other, and others who rule by dictatorship tend to team up... you know... it makes sense.
People also look at real history and go. Ah man, I wish I could be the "Communist USA"... and this way you can, and it makes sense, and the bonuses make sense, and the game mechanic that pits players in alliances make sense - it all works very effectively, that's why I call it genius

 

[Patine]

I think people understand that people who rule by democracy tend to agree with each other, and others who rule by dictatorship tend to team up... you know... it makes sense.

No, this is not really how it goes, in the broad scope of things.

 

[AffineConstant]

No, this is not really how it goes, in the broad scope of things.

Most notably, WW2 itself, with Germany and Russia being almost indistinguishable in a lot of practical ways: autocratic, mass killings, largely state directed economy with an entirely hypothetical focus on "the good of the common folk", happy to snatch up power territory from others by use of force. Went to all out war anyway and Russia ended up teamed up with democracies America and England.

 

[Arcaian]

Most notably, WW2 itself, with Germany and Russia being almost indistinguishable in a lot of practical ways: autocratic, mass killings, largely state directed economy with an entirely hypothetical focus on "the good of the common folk", happy to snatch up power territory from others by use of force. Went to all out war anyway and Russia ended up teamed up with democracies America and England.

I don't think that a state with such infamous private-public partnerships as WW2 Germany (see: the history of just about every German company that was around in WW2)'s economy should be described as 'almost indistinguishable' from the Soviet economy of WW2 - that seems a stretch to me. It also seems like a stretch to say that both used propaganda of being 'for the good of the common folk' counts as a relevant similarity here - not that there's no similarity, just that it feels like that could equally apply to just about anyone involved in WW2 (and many other conflicts as well).

 

[GeneralZIft]

No, this is not really how it goes, in the broad scope of things.

Not always, not in the real world, I mean its subject to a very broad set of circumstances, right
- but that doesn't mean its not something a common player might think and understand (which is irrelevant to its validity, but very relevant to its inclusion in the game)

 

[Patine]

Not always, not in the real world, I mean its subject to a very broad set of circumstances, right
- but that doesn't mean its not something a common player might think and understand (which is irrelevant to its validity, but very relevant to its inclusion in the game)

The fact, I (and several other demonstrated posters) find it didasteful in potrayal and application, and that such a cliche has not aged well since Civ5.

 

[Evie]

I mean, using WW2 to disprove the three ideologies system is more than a little silly since the three ideologies system is ALL about simulating the perceived Communism-Fascism-Capitalism (not Democracy, the third side was never democracy, plenty of autocrats) tensions of the 1939-1963 period. In that perspective, the Soviet and Allies working together in WW2 is just two ideologies ganging up on the third.

Mysteriously, the fact that Communist China had split the Communist Countries in two blocks by the sixties already never quite seem to register, tho.

 

[GeneralZIft]

The fact, I (and several other demonstrated posters) find it didasteful in potrayal and application, and that such a cliche has not aged well since Civ5.

You're frying my nuts.
Explain in very simplistic terms, to me, an absolute buffoon, why this 'cliche' has not aged well.
Is it because it's unrealistic? Does the idea that countries of a certain political leaning may be more likely together than with alternative or opposing political leanings the problem?
Or is it the 'ideologies' themselves that is unrealistic?

What makes it a cliche?
Is that it's "based on" events that you perceive as not being a war of ideologies, due to propaganda, and instead it's more a war of something else?
Because if this is the case, why does it matter? A system is not supposed to be reality, just mirroring potential reality.

Do you think Ideologies in the way they are represented don't exist? What is it??

 

[GeneralZIft]

Let me just clarify: Just because the Ideology system "pits opposing Ideologies against each other" and "aids similar Ideologies" does not mean that it suggests that players of opposing ideologies are immediately and instantly enemies, and players of similar ideologies are immediately and instantly friends.

You can be opposing ideologies in Civ5 and Allies, and similar ideologies and Enemies, just like the real world.

All it does is give a tourism bonus, diplomatic bonuses, tension to the game world, and adds general immersion and customisability.
Maybe if you try Civ5...

 

[pokiehl]

Let me just clarify: Just because the Ideology system "pits opposing Ideologies against each other" and "aids similar Ideologies" does not mean that it suggests that players of opposing ideologies are immediately and instantly enemies, and players of similar ideologies are immediately and instantly friends.

You can be opposing ideologies in Civ5 and Allies, and similar ideologies and Enemies, just like the real world.

All it does is give a tourism bonus, diplomatic bonuses, tension to the game world, and adds general immersion and customisability.
Maybe if you try Civ5...

It’s really silly to rail against it so hard without ever having even played the game…

 

[Patine]

You're frying my nuts.
Explain in very simplistic terms, to me, an absolute buffoon, why this 'cliche' has not aged well.
Is it because it's unrealistic? Does the idea that countries of a certain political leaning may be more likely together than with alternative or opposing political leanings the problem?
Or is it the 'ideologies' themselves that is unrealistic?

What makes it a cliche?
Is that it's "based on" events that you perceive as not being a war of ideologies, due to propaganda, and instead it's more a war of something else?
Because if this is the case, why does it matter? A system is not supposed to be reality, just mirroring potential reality.

Do you think Ideologies in the way they are represented don't exist? What is it??

I have made my point very clear, and I can't understand, for the life of me, how it is respnded to as though utterly unfathomable. You are the second poster in the last two or three day to make this inexplicable claim, and accuse me of not explaining my viewpoint. I figure, at this point, it's a matter of, "refusing to accept explanations."

 

[Zegangani]

I think the (or A) Solution to this problem could be: adding a small layer of depth to gear Things in one direction or the other. A System that allows Ideologies to opposite any other Ideologies, as well as give you the possibility of Ideologically opposing Civs to ally against a common Enemy/Rival. A System that would even give you more Agency on convincing other Players of your Ideology even, or to badmouth another Player's Ideology. And you already mentioned that System yourselves: Propaganda and Placating.

 

[pokiehl]

I think the (or A) Solution to this problem could be: adding a small layer of depth to gear Things in one direction or the other. A System that allows Ideologies to opposite any other Ideologies, as well as give you the possibility of Ideologically opposing Civs to ally against a common Enemy/Rival. A System that would even give you more Agency on convincing other Players of your Ideology even, or to badmouth another Player's Ideology. And you already mentioned that System yourselves: Propaganda and Placating.

There’s no need for this. Nothing in the civ 5 ideology system is predicated on “convincing others of your ideology”.

This is unrealistic and would just make it go down the same tedious path as religion.

 

[Patine]

There’s no need for this. Nothing in the civ 5 ideology system is predicated on “convincing others of your ideology”.

This is unrealistic and would just make it go down the same tedious path as religion.

Of course, copying and pasting this Civ5 mechanic into Civ7, or adopting it at all, is not a unanamously agreed upon idea, here, in case that wasn't apparent.