What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[vorlon_mi]

Selling to a wider audience is a good thing. I think it should be encouraged. I don't find it absurd.

To be honest, the mobile devices today -- iPad Pro, Galaxy Tab S9 -- have more compute power than the computers where I first played Civ2 and Civ3. I can't see any reason to exclude them from the Civ franchise. In addition, more profits for the studio and publisher.

 

[AffineConstant]

There's a lot of talk of "dueling ideologies" here. But how do you translate that into game mechanics? So far as I can tell every country is just as Machiavellian as ever, ideological differences being for nothing more than popularity contests for democracies, sheer economic/diplomatic (power) self interest for plutocracies (E.G. the UAE), and sheering into narcissistic lunacy for autocracies.

Thus maybe the three "modern" ideologies should be those 3 (fascism and communism all but died off after all). Democratic ideology tree could have a lot of bonuses and the most potential for generating resources and winning, but be heavily dependent on happiness. I.E. If your Civ trades a lot of culture with another civ, then your pop could have a "positive" view of that civ, and if you do something bad diplomatically to them you lose happiness . Suddenly just like modern democracies the player has to pay attention to what makes their citizens happy or not all the time.

The plutocracy branch could offer options that have money give happiness bonuses, or have luxuries replace dissatisfaction or etc. The more money you have, the less you have to worry about what you're doing diplomatically, and of course there's the "police station" building or etc. that keeps an unhappy citizen or two working, and keeps rebellions at bay. Just keep the money going, and some police stations and policies around, and you're mostly good! This branch would be the "balance", it's less complicated than the Democracy branch to keep production up, and that gives you more freedom to switch up diplomacy how you see fit, but it isn't entirely free of tradeoffs.

The autocracy branch could just offer heavy handed repression. Internet censorship policies, "secret police" units, all stuff that forces even unhappy citizens to keep working, counters any rebellions that are brewing, and manipulates what civs they like and don't like directly. Now you the player doesn't have to care about your citizens happiness, you're the one in charge! This branch doesn't give you any production bonuses, but you have great autonomy in how you want to do diplomacy and deploy resources and etc. Go ahead, declare a surprise war against that neighbor that has a huge culture bonus versus you and is causing your citizens to be unhappy and consider rebelling, with autocracy you can afford it.

 

[luca 83]

Selling to a wider audience is a good thing. I think it should be encouraged. I don't find it absurd.

To be honest, the mobile devices today -- iPad Pro, Galaxy Tab S9 -- have more compute power than the computers where I first played Civ2 and Civ3. I can't see any reason to exclude them from the Civ franchise. In addition, more profits for the studio and publisher.

No game should be based on simulation bases and historical possibilities and most users in the forum and potential players have neither knowledge, historical, basic, nor simulation,: so I prefer a more specialized audience to the mass

 

[luca 83]

There's a lot of talk of "dueling ideologies" here. But how do you translate that into game mechanics? So far as I can tell every country is just as Machiavellian as ever, ideological differences being for nothing more than popularity contests for democracies, sheer economic/diplomatic (power) self interest for plutocracies (E.G. the UAE), and sheering into narcissistic lunacy for autocracies.

Thus maybe the three "modern" ideologies should be those 3 (fascism and communism all but died off after all). Democratic ideology tree could have a lot of bonuses and the most potential for generating resources and winning, but be heavily dependent on happiness. I.E. If your Civ trades a lot of culture with another civ, then your pop could have a "positive" view of that civ, and if you do something bad diplomatically to them you lose happiness . Suddenly just like modern democracies the player has to pay attention to what makes their citizens happy or not all the time.

The plutocracy branch could offer options that have money give happiness bonuses, or have luxuries replace dissatisfaction or etc. The more money you have, the less you have to worry about what you're doing diplomatically, and of course there's the "police station" building or etc. that keeps an unhappy citizen or two working, and keeps rebellions at bay. Just keep the money going, and some police stations and policies around, and you're mostly good! This branch would be the "balance", it's less complicated than the Democracy branch to keep production up, and that gives you more freedom to switch up diplomacy how you see fit, but it isn't entirely free of tradeoffs.

The autocracy branch could just offer heavy handed repression. Internet censorship policies, "secret police" units, all stuff that forces even unhappy citizens to keep working, counters any rebellions that are brewing, and manipulates what civs they like and don't like directly. Now you the player doesn't have to care about your citizens happiness, you're the one in charge! This branch doesn't give you any production bonuses, but you have great autonomy in how you want to do diplomacy and deploy resources and etc. Go ahead, declare a surprise war against that neighbor that has a huge culture bonus versus you and is causing your citizens to be unhappy and consider rebelling, with autocracy you can afford it.

communism and fascism can vary in many variations trotskimo , hence permanent revolution and communism. d export Chinese communism, Maoist, communism, modern Chinese with semi-capitalist economy, but total control, on the pilitica, fascism, Nazism,, Franco authoritarian military dictatorship in Spain, hort Ungheria in Hungary, and badgered to say that fascism and communism are Moderna: in a game like civilization where simulation and sovereign can be victorious

 

[vorlon_mi]

No game should be based on simulation bases and historical possibilities and most users in the forum and potential players have neither knowledge, historical, basic, nor simulation,: so I prefer a more specialized audience to the mass

You're welcome to your opinion. Your first sentence comes across as very harsh, very unfriendly in English. I'm not sure if that was your intention. People who buy games and people who play games have a wonderful variety of backgrounds, of expertise, and personalities. I have found this forum to be one of the most encouraging on the web, especially for new players and for people just learning about 4X games.

 

[luca 83]

And a Question of logic: revolutions and changes of government are historical movements that must be simulated so you create kings , governments , revolts , revolutions : and needless to say names and civilizations to speak civilizations and governments are children of events can not be pre-ordered , especially in a game like civ. Where governments and the economy are not pre-ordered as in victoria but evolving

 

[Caesar of Bread]

No game should be based on simulation bases and historical possibilities and most users in the forum and potential players have neither knowledge, historical, basic, nor simulation,: so I prefer a more specialized audience to the mass

Now that’s just insulting

 

[pokiehl]

I think we get your point by now

And a Question of logic: revolutions and changes of government are historical movements that must be simulated so you create kings , governments , revolts , revolutions : and needless to say names and civilizations to speak civilizations and governments are children of events can not be pre-ordered , especially in a game like civ. Where governments and the economy are not pre-ordered as in victoria but evolving

Of course the gamepla is important but also the internal and external dynamics, which provoke the events and which must be simulated , the French revolution , or Russian can not be provoked by the player but must be a series of events and probability even with a dose of chance, make the game less predictable

It is absurd to think of a civilization at its peak when you are a single settler ! The rise and fall must be simulated during the game, also influences, cultural, a variety of consequences to brought to England the empire and victory on the throne

The intense period was between 1500 and 1800 among the African population the anti-slavery movements come from that era and a phase that must be simulated

Communism is a consequence of a philosophy and then a party born out of the industrial revolution and heir to French Jacobinism, Robespierre's and Saint Just's, and fourier's in the 1800's and starts with the English lelellers in the 1600's revolution and continues up to Saint Simon , fascism and a reaction to communism in Italy to the non-annexation of territories considered part of Italy in Germany to the crisis of the Weimar republic and the inflation of 1929 are separate phenomena that must be simulated as an eventual crisis of society loss of a war and social and cultural changes

then even the war should not be simulated! and the history everything must be simulated peace, war, famine, civil war, epidemics, natural disasters everything affects the history and nations, even racism and discrimination and genocide

the triangle of slaves and existed therefore must be simulated : not the same as it has been in our history but in an economic and political key , and with their consequences the events may be different but the economy is similar if not equal

In colonies a Europe after Roman empire no other state has reached hegemony. But legemony, the collapse. and the change are dynamics that must be simulated

 

[luca 83]

And the fallacy of simulation games: thinking of controlling everything by the player: from sim City where you can plan a city out of nothing , to civilization zion where you can control every aspect of society , change the government at will from a monarchy to a communist government without public opinion without popular support . History is made of endless roads, if Hitler had died on the Somme how would the history of Germany have changed? Was Hitler inevitable? Hitler was a product of the First World War of the errors of the Treaty of Versailles, and of the Great Depression of the 29th there are microscopic things of history not controllable, in the section on spoken civilizations of an Italian civilization, without understanding that. Italy is a product of various Risorgimento wars , and example of the evolution of history , : from. Odoacer, to Charlemagne, to the empire - church struggles, to the free communes, to the lordships, to the Renaissance, to the wars Spain France, to Napoleon , to the restoration ,

 

[FishFishFish]

The game should also simulate whether or not the planet is habitable.

Then it should simulate whether or not life evolves.

Then it should simulate whether or not intelligent life evolves.

All of these things are necessary for having a proper simulation!

 

[BuchiTaton]

And the fallacy of simulation games: thinking of controlling everything by the player: from sim City where you can plan a city out of nothing , to civilization zion where you can control every aspect of society , change the government at will from a monarchy to a communist government without public opinion without popular support . History is made of endless roads, if Hitler had died on the Somme how would the history of Germany have changed? Was Hitler inevitable? Hitler was a product of the First World War of the errors of the Treaty of Versailles, and of the Great Depression of the 29th there are microscopic things of history not controllable, in the section on spoken civilizations of an Italian civilization, without understanding that. Italy is a product of various Risorgimento wars , and example of the evolution of history , : from. Odoacer, to Charlemagne, to the empire - church struggles, to the free communes, to the lordships, to the Renaissance, to the wars Spain France, to Napoleon , to the restoration ,

Do you realize that you want a game where players never gonna see Italy anyway?
When X or Y historical event is the result of a specific sequence of events it turn very improbable to get something remotely similar to real history in a game where the player have a minimum of control over plenty of factors with a lot of variables.
You should not even care about Soviet Communism of Italian Renaissance when these are locked behind over 5000 years (starting from the traditional 4000BC) of events that the player would barely have any form of control.

No game should be based on simulation bases and historical possibilities and most users in the forum and potential players have neither knowledge, historical, basic, nor simulation,: so I prefer a more specialized audience to the mass

Again, do you come talking like this when by your rejection to suggestions from others more complex and specialized games is obvious that the "game"or *simulator* you want dont have any profitable market to appeal and invest into.

The more complex games that neither please you like great strategy ones from Paradox are limited to specific historical eras with a fixed world setting, mechanics and chain of events to keep their thematic flavor, but even despite this there are plenty of possible results in matter of few in-game decades. Then just think a moment about how a game with 6000 years of history and a random generated world would end each match.

If you want something complex start talking about enviromental factors and world generation, the more basic societies and their necessities. Anything beyond that is pointlest to discuss under your own expectations if you dont have a fundamental system to simulate the starting point.

 

[luca 83]

Do you realize that you want a game where players never gonna see Italy anyway?
When X or Y historical event is the result of a specific sequence of events it turn very improbable to get something remotely similar to real history in a game where the player have a minimum of control over plenty of factors with a lot of variables.
You should not even care about Soviet Communism of Italian Renaissance when these are locked behind over 5000 years (starting from the traditional 4000BC) of events that the player would barely have any form of control.

Again, do you come talking like this when by your rejection to suggestions from others more complex and specialized games is obvious that the "game"or *simulator* you want dont have any profitable market to appeal and invest into.

The more complex games that neither please you like great strategy ones from Paradox are limited to specific historical eras with a fixed world setting, mechanics and chain of events to keep their thematic flavor, but even despite this there are plenty of possible results in matter of few in-game decades. Then just think a moment about how a game with 6000 years of history and a random generated world would end each match.

If you want something complex start talking about enviromental factors and world generation, the more basic societies and their necessities. Anything beyond that is pointlest to discuss under your own expectations if you dont have a fundamental system to simulate the starting point.

And a much broader discourse sure environmental factors matter but and resources horses for example . But the events large or small many are not controllable, the war of 1914 and was an escalation difficult to control in terms of diplomacy and public opinion that many wanted the war I repeat: the player is not god is not omnipotent, the rulers are children of events as ordinary people can only affect events there are historical , economic ,social , climatic factors, which must be taken into account

 

[luca 83]

And a much broader discourse sure environmental factors matter but and resources horses for example . But the events large or small many are not controllable, the war of 1914 and was an escalation difficult to control in terms of diplomacy and public opinion that many wanted the war I repeat: the player is not god is not omnipotent, the rulers are children of events as ordinary people can only affect events there are historical , economic ,social , climatic factors, which must be taken into account

having preordained civilizations is a mistake because every civilization is the result of historical events . political . invasion . italy is a classic example

 

[Evie]

Yes. You said that already, too.

Sadly as you've astutely concluded, we are illiterate in the ways of history and therefore unable to understand your Great Wisdom.

It seems, then, that your attempts to enlighten us benighted fools are doomed to failure. Perhaps you would find a better use of your time among an audience capable of understanding you?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No game should be based on simulation bases and historical possibilities and most users in the forum and potential players have neither knowledge, historical, basic, nor simulation,: so I prefer a more specialized audience to the mass

Ironically, the ones that you are having disagreements with are the specialized audience.

 

[luca 83]

A solution to solve the problem and focus on politics dynamic political and economic systems . In Italy for example there have been hundreds of different political systems from imperial cities to ladies, Renaissance, monarchies, maritime republics, to medieval principalities

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Okay, here's something to chew on: does a game like civilization actually need a political system in the first place?

Ever since the first game, other civs would judge you depending on if you had the same form of government as them; that to me, has always come off as the primary purpose of the political systems mechanic, and I can't help but feel that Sid & Co only implemented it because the tensions of the cold war were still fresh in their memories; perhaps it was even a way to justify including nuclear warfare. And, well, that's a pretty surface-level reading of history and geopolitics, to be honest. In the contexts where you would think religion, forms of government, political ideology etcetera were what determined or even partially influenced diplomatic relations, it pretty much always turns out be whatever the ruling class happened to find the most convenient for themselves, to be what was actually tipping the scale. The crusades, the thirty year war, world war one & two, the cold war, the war on terror; dig beyond the propaganda and pop history, and you'll find the truth to be a lot messier than as simple "our beliefs vs their beliefs". Just to give an example, during the first world war, both the US and the UK would in propaganda frame their participation as "a fight for democracy", but neither US Congress nor UK Parliament really had that much more influence over their respective countries as the Reichstag had over Germany; heck, none of those countries had universal suffrage yet. And that's not even getting into if the Soviet Union was ever as socialist as the ruling party ever claimed it to be (yes, the state owned everything, but the economy was still largely run with a 'profit over people'-mindset)

Anyway, if political systems are to be depicted, I'd like to see them more influenced by diplomacy than the other way around. Less "I picked democracy, but the French didn't, so now I hate the French" and more "I picked democracy because the French didn't, and I hate the French"

 

[BuchiTaton]

Okay, here's something to chew on: does a game like civilization actually need a political system in the first place?

Ever since the first game, other civs would judge you depending on if you had the same form of government as them; that to me, has always come off as the primary purpose of the political systems mechanic, and I can't help but feel that Sid & Co only implemented it because the tensions of the cold war were still fresh in their memories; perhaps it was even a way to justify including nuclear warfare. And, well, that's a pretty surface-level reading of history and geopolitics, to be honest. In the contexts where you would think religion, forms of government, political ideology etcetera were what determined or even partially influenced diplomatic relations, it pretty much always turns out be whatever the ruling class happened to find the most convenient for themselves, to be what was actually tipping the scale. The crusades, the thirty year war, world war one & two, the cold war, the war on terror; dig beyond the propaganda and pop history, and you'll find the truth to be a lot messier than as simple "our beliefs vs their beliefs". Just to give an example, during the first world war, both the US and the UK would in propaganda frame their participation as "a fight for democracy", but neither US Congress nor UK Parliament really had that much more influence over their respective countries as the Reichstag had over Germany; heck, none of those countries had universal suffrage yet. And that's not even getting into if the Soviet Union was ever as socialist as the ruling party ever claimed it to be (yes, the state owned everything, but the economy was still largely run with a 'profit over people'-mindset)

Anyway, if political systems are to be depicted, I'd like to see them more influenced by diplomacy than the other way around. Less "I picked democracy, but the French didn't, so now I hate the French" and more "I picked democracy because the French didn't, and I hate the French"

I think it should be more "I picked democracy like the French and now we both have something more to bond over". The problem is the part about "hate" anything, whatever is because political ideologies, religious beliefs or any of the annoying leader agendas.
Civs (leaders) should not intransigently hate others without ponder others factors, for example even under the WW2 and Cold War "wars of ideologies" western capitalist democracies cooperated the same with socialist regimens, absolute monarchies, zealot movements and fascist dictatorships. The "lesser of two evils" and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" should take in consideration which is the main obstacle to achieve the prime objetive.

Now, form "teams" is not the only reason to have ideologies/politics/governments in game, these are mechanisms to personalize your civ. After all if we can not have something like this to customize our gameplay why we would even care about exagerated mechanics like artifacts, great works or tourism?

 

[pokiehl]

Ever since the first game, other civs would judge you depending on if you had the same form of government as them; that to me, has always come off as the primary purpose of the political systems mechanic, and I can't help but feel that Sid & Co only implemented it because the tensions of the cold war were still fresh in their memories; perhaps it was even a way to justify including nuclear warfare. And, well, that's a pretty surface-level reading of history and geopolitics, to be honest.

I don't think this is true. Conflict is definitely not the primary purpose. Government as implemented in Civ are primarily ways for the player to customize and build on their civ, and in Civ 6, to serve as a boon for a specific victory type.

In the contexts where you would think religion, forms of government, political ideology etcetera were what determined or even partially influenced diplomatic relations, it pretty much always turns out be whatever the ruling class happened to find the most convenient for themselves, to be what was actually tipping the scale. The crusades, the thirty year war, world war one & two, the cold war, the war on terror; dig beyond the propaganda and pop history, and you'll find the truth to be a lot messier than as simple "our beliefs vs their beliefs".

This feels like a very simplistic and cynical way to paint all of history with a very broad brush. There were very much "true believers" at the levers of power in all of the listed conflicts. If you're going to dismiss all of that as "pop history" then I think you need some more convincing evidence.

Just to give an example, during the first world war, both the US and the UK would in propaganda frame their participation as "a fight for democracy", but neither US Congress nor UK Parliament really had that much more influence over their respective countries as the Reichstag had over Germany; heck, none of those countries had universal suffrage yet. And that's not even getting into if the Soviet Union was ever as socialist as the ruling party ever claimed it to be (yes, the state owned everything, but the economy was still largely run with a 'profit over people'-mindset)

This is absolutely not true. The same lense (fight for democracy) was a huge part of World War II. In that conflict, the legislative bodies of the US and UK were in no way comparable to the Reichstag. Nazi Germany was a uniparty autocracy; the Reichstag was simply another arm of Hitler. In contrast, can find many examples of Congress stymying various initiatives of FDR, including his attempt to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Democracy has never been equated with universal suffrage, and that has nothing to do with the power of the legislative bodies anyway. I just don't understand the thought in this quoted section at all.

Anyway, if political systems are to be depicted, I'd like to see them more influenced by diplomacy than the other way around. Less "I picked democracy, but the French didn't, so now I hate the French" and more "I picked democracy because the French didn't, and I hate the French"

This just doesn't make any sense to me. Where in history has any nation ever picked a form of government to spite another nation? In the context of the game, why would I choose a government because I hate someone, rather than focusing on what specific benefits it would give my civ? To me this is a bizarre notion.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Across the franchise, the choices about governments have allowed the player to modify/optimize the empire to meet certain goals (set by the player). We've seen different impacts of those choices into diplomacy, relationships between factions. Both Civ3 and Civ4 included the choice of government/civics into international relations, as one of many factors. "Those people over there are doing something we dislike, so we won't trade with them. We might even declare war on them." And the reverse. Can't overlook religion in Civ4, and its impact on diplomacy.
In Civ5, differences in late-game ideologies had huge impacts on empires. I didn't have the sense that the AI factions cared much about which social policies I adopted in the early game; mostly I remember them denouncing me because I declared war, on them or on others. In Civ6 (GS and later), the dominant factor seems to be grievances. Breaking promises is a mildly bad thing, but it rarely results in the AI declaring war on me.
Except for limited interactions -- war weariness in Civ3, whip unhappiness in Civ3 and Civ4 -- the behavior of your citizens did not significantly influence the player's choices about how to govern. Much to the dismay of a certain verbose contributor to this thread ;-) . The politics within the player's empire has not played a huge role. Keeping citizens happy -- luxury slider in Civ3/4, amenities in Civ6 -- will smooth over any political unrest. I would often pursue a "We Love the King Day" celebration in my cities (earlier games) for the productivity benefits.

For me, having more choices to customize my empire is more fun. It aligns with Sid's original vision, to "give the player interesting choices." It is FAR less important to me that those choices correspond with actual, real life history. Indeed, it is *fun* to run the USA as a monarchy, or Russia as a classical republic, or Canada as communist. Alternate history is FUN!