Governments

Anybody from Civ3 that are tired of complicated 'civics' that just complicate things? Anybody from Civ4 that want more options, but less decisions?

I may have a solution!

There are three government 'types': Democratic, Authoritarian, and Socialist; each have different properties. Right now you're thinking "Yes, this simplifies things, but too much". Don't you worry, because you do not 'choose' what type you want, your people do.

Each civ has a certain amount of 'drift' towards a certain type of government. For example: America is historically democratic, so they will naturally drift towards the Democratic area. While Germany, traditionally an authoritanian rule (no, not just WWII), will naturally drift towards the Authoritarian side.

You cannot directly control this drift, but it is affected by many different factors:
A) Proximity to a civ with that type
B) Natural drift
C) The election of different types of officials (Democratic and Demo/Soc only)
D) The placement of different types of officials (Authoritarian and Soc/Auth only)
E) Wars with a civ of a different type (negative direction)
F) National crisis (drift towards Auth or Soc)

I have not completely thought this out, but it is a start.

And now I begin.

1. I like civics. It adds depth and customizability and it's not terribly complicated.

2. Democratic, Authoritarian, Socialist? You clearly haven't thought this out. There's all different kinds of flavors of each of these, and they are not in opposition. Democratic socialism is not only not a contradiction in terms, it is dictatorial socialism that is the contradiction in terms. If you're going to do this adequately, you're going to need to have several different axes at least. I can think of Democratic/Authoritarian, Egalitarian/Hierarchical, Populist/Elitist, Centralized/Decentralized, Theocratic/Secular/Laïque (secular being a middle position), Economic Isolationism/Economic Openness, Economic Freedom/Economic Egalitarianism (or something along those lines), etc.

3. The point of Civ is to rewrite history. There is nothing inherent in, say, Americans to make them democratic, or in Germans to make them "authoritarian" but rather it is the history of their society that has led to differences in the way people in those countries think about what is right and just in government, as well as providing or denying the circumstances for one kind of regime versus another: absolute monarchy existed in Germany, but never did in the United States. (Constitutional monarchy is another story).

That said, you do gesture at something interesting, which is the potential implementation of a system for gradual change of government over time in a manner not directed by the player. This might potentially make the political differences actual, especially if combined with a decent economic model (I like Wimsey's, mostly).

If we do end up doing something like this (which I'm not particularly keen on, but am willing to entertain), the various axes I was speaking of above would be influenced by the characteristics of your empire: the number, distribution, and size of your cities, the level of economic development (i.e. worker improvements and certain buildings such as markets, banks, factories, etc.), your level of technology, pervasiveness and diversity of religion, diversity of ethnic composition of your empire (if you've been conquering), the amount of time since the last war, how many lives your empire lost (relative to its size) in the last war, what your focus has been in the computer's determination (i.e. develop an algorithm to see to what extent you have been conquering or building or trading or researching or whatever), and so on. And of course, there would still have to be state policy decisions, which boil down to civics: Are you a theocracy or not?

So, in short:

1. Civics of some kind are here to stay.
2. Essentialism=bad.
3. We can have changes in the form of government be driven by social and economic conditions within your civilization, but the idea of a "natural drift" is codswallop.

Before anyone calls me out on it, I recognize that what I am proposing will sound to some suspicious folks on the right and excitable folks on the left that the alternative I propose is a version of Marxist historical materialism. It is and it isn't.

I'm not going to argue about the differences in governments, but I would highlight the fact that Civ is about re-writing history. I don't want to discourage you from your original idea however, or tear it down. I also agree that the non-control of your government type would be an interesting concept. The citizens decide what government you have based off how you play your empire would be a tricky mechanic, but just because it's hard doesn't mean it couldn't be tried.

An idea would be to have ethical dilemmas occur from time to time with several decisions available on how to handle the incident. Sort of like the events system now but instead of a clear "you do this you get this" there's no clear answer with these dilemmas about what answer leads to what Civilization 'personality', and government.

Please note that I'm merely using the term 'ethical dilemmas' for lack of a better term. I don't mean to imply that one government type is more ethical than another just because of a few prominent examples in history. I know for a fact that a representative democracy is just as capable of evil as a bunch of Fascists. Maybe a better term will just be 'dilemmas'.

So the second challenge with a dilemma system is that you would have to decide what decisions are representative of what government types. That may be easy in some obvious circumstances such as:

The restrictive minor Imperialistic nation of Naboo has undergone Revolution, the rebel faction demands universal suffrage! The former Emperor is courting your favor, as are the alliance of Rebels! To which side do you cast your support?

I know I suck at Star Wars referrences but u get the point. Support the Emperor and you lean towards a Imperalist rule, support the rebels and you may lean towards a democracy.

Faced with a slew of these over the course of the game could make your citizenry dynamic and you might change governments several times depending on how you handle situations. Also these events could lead to interesting diplomatic twists and turns, and cause some physical consequences in your empire or the world.

For those that don't like this concept then an option to turn it off (just like random events) should be available.

It's a neat idea though Argetnyx

i want more options and more decisions. popping windows with buttons (choices?) on random turns are not the way i foresee enriching the decision-making process in civ.

secondly, adding features, out of control of the player, is a bad design decision, since it will inevitably frustrate players from time to time.

somewhat artificial example:
your people lean toward democracy, when there is a world war going to break out soon. will this behavior frustrate the player beyond belief (assuming democracies are more pacifist than other government types) ?

probably you have not read, nor will ever read the great document 'A Big Vision for Civilization 4' that can be found here as an attachment. a must read

however! turning your idea the other way around would produce some great results.
example:
a fascist government [and therefore the people] is rather bloodthirsty. they call it 'Lebensraum' and it's enlargement is a major priority in their foreign policy. however, a democratic government is quite pacifist. gameplay wise it would mean that, not warring under fascism will induce unhappiness, and obviously waging war [and hopefully enlarging 'Lebensraum'] will make your people happy. for a democracy, it's the other way around

Civics system is good but need to be expanded.

I actually liked the current civic system, and I preferred more civic options.

Sorry, I must add my vote to the ++critics (otherwise known as ++civics) crowd.

It is too simplified. There are only three options. I don't want less civic options. I don't want less civic decisions. Not only do the three choices you offer overlap each other and hence contradict each other, but it also makes no sense for the populace to control what civics are used, particularly when you consider authoritarianism. There could perhaps be some sort of happiness bonus worked into this (as there is with emancipation in Civ 4; you get an unhappiness penalty if you don't use it), or maybe even something with civ stability (if that were to be implemented), but the populace should not actually be able to decide what form of government you have. Because you are in charge and they are not. This would take control away from you, the player, which is not a good thing.

I am disappointed at the negative feedback, but nevertheless...

You don't only have three choices, you have many, any type is possible. If you are inbetween Democratic and Authoritarian, it would be something like the English monarchy with the parliament. I you were inbetween Socialist and Authoritarian, it would be something like Stalinist Russia.

You would have different government positions which, depending on what type of goverment is currently in power, you may be able to place, or not. Such as: Head of State (Authoritarian), Head of Government (President/Prime Minister), Foreign Minister, Minister of Intelligence (effecting Espionage), Cheif of Staff (Military), etc. Each would have their own ideology, and will contribute towards drift in a certain direction.

Each government type would allow different elections to take place, or none. Depending on the amount of control allowed to you. Civics would still survive, in the form of different laws. Such as: Open society, limited restrictions, repression, and a totalitarian system. All would have different effects like increased dissent, greater production, or more control. Conscription laws would help build your army, but in democratic societies, my cause dissent. Economic laws would allow more or less control of your economy to the people, or to the government. Press laws would allow for more control of the opinions of your populace towards a certain enemy, or potential enemy, but may cause more dissent.

Diplomacy is also affected by this system. Democratic nations are more inclined to help another democratic nation in need than ones of another ideology. Socialist nations may trade resources and supplies with little to no cost with another socialist nation. Authoritarian nations may call other authoritarian nations to help them in a war, or they may declare a 'limited war' so that they can invade another country without missing out on any spoils of war to any of their allies that would otherwise join in.

Revolt may also play into this, the farther from your ideology the country you conquered, the more likely a certain city will revolt. To reduce this, you may change your hold on their lands:
Total Exploitation: full control, using extreme repression to get the maximum amount of production possible. This causes the most dissent.
Full Occupation: Military takes total control, it is a little less repressive, and causes a little bit less dissent.
Military Government: The highest position is filled by a military commander, while most of the rest of the civil administration is left in place, causing much less dissent, but a lower amount of production.
Collaboration Government: The former government is still in place, but they are totally under your control. This lowers the dissent considerably, but provides the least amount of production.

There is also another option, which is to create a 'puppet state', that is the 'kindest' form of occupation, and will be seen in a better light in diplomatic relations. The puppet state would immediatly have the same ideology and diplomatic relations as you, if you declare war, it does too. If you place an embargo, it does too.

Argetnyx said:

I am disappointed at the negative feedback, but nevertheless...

You don't only have three choices, you have many, any type is possible. If you are inbetween Democratic and Authoritarian, it would be something like the English monarchy with the parliament. I you were inbetween Socialist and Authoritarian, it would be something like Stalinist Russia.

You would have different government positions which, depending on what type of goverment is currently in power, you may be able to place, or not. Such as: Head of State (Authoritarian), Head of Government (President/Prime Minister), Foreign Minister, Minister of Intelligence (effecting Espionage), Cheif of Staff (Military), etc. Each would have their own ideology, and will contribute towards drift in a certain direction.

Each government type would allow different elections to take place, or none. Depending on the amount of control allowed to you. Civics would still survive, in the form of different laws. Such as: Open society, limited restrictions, repression, and a totalitarian system. All would have different effects like increased dissent, greater production, or more control. Conscription laws would help build your army, but in democratic societies, my cause dissent. Economic laws would allow more or less control of your economy to the people, or to the government. Press laws would allow for more control of the opinions of your populace towards a certain enemy, or potential enemy, but may cause more dissent.

Diplomacy is also affected by this system. Democratic nations are more inclined to help another democratic nation in need than ones of another ideology. Socialist nations may trade resources and supplies with little to no cost with another socialist nation. Authoritarian nations may call other authoritarian nations to help them in a war, or they may declare a 'limited war' so that they can invade another country without missing out on any spoils of war to any of their allies that would otherwise join in.

Revolt may also play into this, the farther from your ideology the country you conquered, the more likely a certain city will revolt. To reduce this, you may change your hold on their lands:
Total Exploitation: full control, using extreme repression to get the maximum amount of production possible. This causes the most dissent.
Full Occupation: Military takes total control, it is a little less repressive, and causes a little bit less dissent.
Military Government: The highest position is filled by a military commander, while most of the rest of the civil administration is left in place, causing much less dissent, but a lower amount of production.
Collaboration Government: The former government is still in place, but they are totally under your control. This lowers the dissent considerably, but provides the least amount of production.

There is also another option, which is to create a 'puppet state', that is the 'kindest' form of occupation, and will be seen in a better light in diplomatic relations. The puppet state would immediatly have the same ideology and diplomatic relations as you, if you declare war, it does too. If you place an embargo, it does too.

Click to expand...

Some of this I like, and some I dislike.

I will start with what I dislike:

1. You put far too much emphasis on ideology. Ideology is but one part of government; at least as important are economics (extremely important), culture (as distinct from ideology), demographics, and so on.
2. Essentialism on the part of ideologies. In particular, the Democratic Peace Theory, which you allude to, has not been definitively proven, and the observed effect of "modern liberal democracies don't generally fight one another" can be adequately addressed by other social factors: it isn't necessarily true that democracies don't fight one another, but in a democracy popular opinion matters, and in stable liberal democracies popular opinion generally holds sympathy for other liberal democracies. Younger liberal democracies and illiberal democracies, however, are historically actually more likely to go to war, as they tend to have a surge of national pride and popular empowerment that most easily lends itself to lashing out at neighbors.

Things I like:

Levels of occupation. Interesting, though details would have to be hashed out.

Things I think are missing:

A clear system of determinants of social (and thus governmental) change. I think I can handle that, tho.

Without further ado:

The structure of the governmental and social system rest on the character of your people, which in turn is defined by the conditions within your empire. The conditions are both material (economics, demographics, geography, etc.) and non-material (cultural/religious elements, mostly). These I term the determinants of your society.

The determinants determine the social character of the people: their social prejudices (or lack thereof), their political preferences, and their ideological convictions. These in turn shape the sort of government you rule over, but not without input from you. You get to make policy decisions that affect the determinants, meaning that the genius of the people represents your own particular spirit.

In more detail, the determinants could be any number of the following:

Material determinants
1. Land area: How big your empire is, counting land and fresh water lakes only.
2. Population: For purposes of population, Towns are equivalent to a city of size 1, Villages 0.75, Hamlets 0.5, and cottages and all other improvements (save Roads and Railroads) 0.25. Rather unrealistic, but it works well with most of the economic models I've seen.
3. Demographic factors: Age, health, and so on could be modeled and have an effect.
4. Rural/Urban distribution of population
5. GDP/intensity of development: How much you extract from the environment, or in other words, how many things your workers built and your citizens are harvesting, or are being directly produced in the cities (e.g. with Markets, Forges, Banks, Factories, and so on).
6. Rural/Urban distribution of wealth generation: The proportions of where your GDP is being produced. Hammers and food count towards GDP as well as commerce.
7. Economic openness: How much (trade route) trade you do with other civilizations, both in how much gold you get from cross-border trade and how many civilizations you have trade links with.
8. Technology: How much you use which technologies to extract resources.
9. Proximity: How close your neighbors are to your average citizen.
10. Material History: Have your neighbors been constantly attacking you, or have they been nice? Does trade with them favor you or them? Have you been the one doing the conquering?

Non-material determinants
11. Cultural openness: How much exposure your average citizen has to foreign culture, including how many and how widespread foreign religions are in your empire.
12. Cultural dominance: Does your culture dominate your neighbors or do they dominate yours? Measured by the prevalence of foreign religions vs. the prevalence of your religions abroad, as well as the size of the foreign population in your empire vs. the size of your population abroad.
13. Ideas: Perhaps coming from Great People, definitely from the ideological technologies. If you are the first civ to discover Liberalism, that would probably have an effect on your people.

These determinants are linked to various sliding scales, reflecting the genius of the people (to use James Madison's phrase); I'd go into that, but I'm afraid I have to go.

Thank you, I think you handled that quite well. I cannot go into the extreme details of the system until I have more confidence that it will not be completely forgotten. I am just voicing an idea, and it doesn't need to be completely filled out.

Now that you have proven that it won't...

Argetnyx said:

Anybody from Civ3 that are tired of complicated 'civics' that just complicate things? Anybody from Civ4 that want more options, but less decisions?

I may have a solution!

There are three government 'types': Democratic, Authoritarian, and Socialist; each have different properties. Right now you're thinking "Yes, this simplifies things, but too much". Don't you worry, because you do not 'choose' what type you want, your people do.

Each civ has a certain amount of 'drift' towards a certain type of government. For example: America is historically democratic, so they will naturally drift towards the Democratic area. While Germany, traditionally an authoritanian rule (no, not just WWII), will naturally drift towards the Authoritarian side.

You cannot directly control this drift, but it is affected by many different factors:
A) Proximity to a civ with that type
B) Natural drift
C) The election of different types of officials (Democratic and Demo/Soc only)
D) The placement of different types of officials (Authoritarian and Soc/Auth only)
E) Wars with a civ of a different type (negative direction)
F) National crisis (drift towards Auth or Soc)

I have not completely thought this out, but it is a start.

Click to expand...

Does 'the road to war' mod ring any familiar bell?

Argetnyx said:

Thank you, I think you handled that quite well. I cannot go into the extreme details of the system until I have more confidence that it will not be completely forgotten. I am just voicing an idea, and it doesn't need to be completely filled out.

Now that you have proven that it won't...

Click to expand...

That it won't what? I'm just getting started!

The various determinants are responsible for changing the sliding scales of social attitudes. These reflect prevailing societal opinions within your empire, and shape the form of your government.

I haven't exactly thought out how the various determinants affect the sliding scales, but I'm sure it can be figured out. And of course recall: these are prevailing societal opinions, and as such you can ignore them. You ignore them at your peril, but ignore them you can.

Sliding scales are arranged by category:
Political. How your society views government.

1. Polity: Whether your society believes government should be in the hands of the Many, the Few, or the One, along a scale of Democratic/Autocratic, with Oligarchic in the middle. As an example, most contemporary liberal democracies would lie between Democratic and Oligarchic.
2. Political Legitimacy: Where your society thinks the legitimate source of power lies. Along a scale of Popular/Authoritarian (i.e. does power lie in the people, or does it come from some other source, like God?). A fascist regime would be a Popular Autocracy; modern Iran could be an example of a Democratic Authoritarian regime (to a degree).
3. Legitimate Authority: The pattern of trust put in the government, or why your people obey you. Along a scale of Institutional/Personal, "Institutional" roughly corresponding to the Rational/Legal Weberian ideal type, and Personal roughly corresponding to the Charismatic Weberian ideal type (Traditional authority doesn't really fall clearly here, and can show up at either end of the spectrum).
4. Centralization: How attached your people are to local control of important decisions. Falls along a Centralized/Decentralized scale.

Social and Cultural: Your society's values.

1. Social Stratification: How unequal your people think the classes should be in terms of rights. On a scale of Egalitarian/Hierarchical. This is differentiated from...
2. Deference: How much trust your society puts in its elites, especially their educated/expert ones; can translate into "how much your people likes/hates the Establishment." On a scale of Populist/Elitist.
3. Individualism: How much your society focuses on the needs of the Individual versus those of the Community. Hence the scale is Individualist/Communitarian.
4. Religiosity: How religious your people are. On a scale of Highly Religious/Highly Irreligious.
5. Secularity: How high your people think the wall of separation between church and state ought to be. On a scale of Theocratic/Secular. Note that it is quite possible to be Highly Religious and Secular (as in the United States) or Highly Irreligious and Theocratic (the Soviet Union and, especially, pre-1989 Albania are prime examples; in such a case, the state pushes atheism and persecutes all religions). The middle ground is of course Tolerance.
6. Practicality: Whether your society focuses on nuts and bolts or big ideas. Along a scale of Pragmatic/Idealistic, this is the most tenuous one and the most likely to be gotten rid of.

Economics: How your people views economic matters.

1. Ownership: To whom should most property--particularly capital, i.e. the stuff you use to make stuff--belong? Along a scale of Individual/Communal, Individualist/Communist (or Communalist), or Private/Public; all are good names.
2. Regulation: Ownership besides, what degree should the state interfere with the operations of commerce and industry? Along a scale of Laissez-faire/Dirigiste. This should have similar determinants to Ownership, so that they never get too far out of whack.

Foreign Affairs: How your people view other civs.

1. Openness: Whether your people are open to foreigners or hate them. Along a scale of Xenophobic/Cosmopolitan.
2. Attitude: Whether your people, in general, feel superior or inferior to foreigners. Along a scale of (what else) Superior/Inferior. Possibly fine-tunable to each civ, but that would be difficult...
3. Militarism: How your people view the military and its purpose. Along a scale of Aggressive (or Offensive)/Defensive. Note that low Militarism =/= pacifism: Israel arguably has a quite Defensive perspective on what the military is for, but it has historically not hesitated to act offensively in the name of national defense. Think about it as a scale between "War is glorious" and "War ensures security;" the differentiation is thus between materialist/realist and non-materialist views of war.
4. Isolationism: Their liking for and attitude towards foreigners aside, how much your people think your civilization should get involved in world events. Along a scale of Isolationist (duh)/Interventionist (perhaps).

These scales could have direct effects on gameplay (for instance, a high Individualism score could make conscription harder), thus guiding you towards different civics policies. I don't know quite how I would change Civics, but I do envision that the sliding scales would interact with the Civics to give you your Form of Government, which would be available as a readout. So it might be that although you have Universal Suffrage, your sliders say that you are still a Monarchy (albeit a constitutional one) because your people are highly Elitist (or whatever) and like having a king.

I'd like to ask the posters in this thread, setting aside issues of historical accuracy and/or ideology for a moment, what you see as the gameplay purpose of different governments, be they fixed or civics-based, in the game ?

To my mind there are two dimensions to that; having a range of flexibility of governments suited to different strategies, and having that range improve over time as one's Civ develops.

I am trying to think of what the different governments should actually optimise for that is not at the general level of "flavour". Dimensions of variation I can see are; better for peace/better for war; optimisation for productivity/optimisation for commerce/optimisation for food(depending on how rush-buying units and/or whipping citizens works)... I'm at a loss for any other major strategic factor, short of oddities like the way Civ III feudalism is specifically optimised for a whole-nation culture victory run out of something close to ICS. Would anyone who has played more Civ IV to me care to talk to the large-scale strategic axes arising from the variability in the civics system in your experience ? I can appreciate the historical accuracy of being able to play the Hanseatic League exactly, as Antilogic mentioned in a previous version of this discussion, I'm just not off the top of my head seeing where that could be a means to something rather than an end in itself.

Downvoted. I want civics and micromanagement. Have as many governments as possible! Remember that the developers are almost as simple-minded as the AI, so, if there are only 3 governments then they'll put a government cap, so that you can't mod away to your heart's content.

...if there are only 3 governments...

Click to expand...

THERE ARE NOT ONLY THREE GOVERNMENTS!!! I think I have established this already.

Yes, you have, but the idiots at game development are very likely to put a cap on them if it gets into their minds.

i think you need to have sliding fileds as your 'goverment', civics should be kept too but here are a couple of ideas to throw in and think on.

i think you need to make choices, tehre has always been 'left and right wing' and indeed middle ground and these are to some expent portrayed in civ but not enough.

some fields should in my view be:

fear of god-people will either me more worldly minded/scientific or more concerned about living a good life to go to heaven (hope this doesnt offend anyone, its not intended to)
fear of goverment/military(will the population risk being butchured if they dont like the war etc)
fear/freedom press management-basically freedom of the press or managed to the your whim?
forced labour/captitalism-self explanatory
beaurocracy(cant spell it)-corruption comes with more management but less management leads to less production and more mistakes (in theory!)
entreprenuerism/totalitarium-more individual thought (faster tech) or more focused drones?

no doubt many more than this but this may be something to get the ball rolling, obviously with a sliding bar it would allow you to gain something of your own goverment out of civ and perhaps certain techs would allow more options between left/right (such as liberalism, paper, republic, internet etc)
rob

How about the player continues to pick the civic, but if that civic is incompatible with the "drift" or natural tendencies of the population, it increases unhappiness a la war-weariness? Couple this with a "preferred civic" setting for each leader (rather than the nation), so if you don't properly "role-play" the leader, you get more unhappiness. It also allows for leaders like Augustus and Julius Caesar to be properly differentiated within the same nationality, since Julius would tend to be more warlike.

SM Alpha Centauri did something like this, where many leaders/factions would have a civic option completely unavailable to them (like the UN not being allowed to use "Police State"), and the AI would have a "preferred" civic in one of the 4 bands of civic control.

One question would be how to handle the influence of adjacent players. In some circumstances, proximity to a belligerent player like Monty might engender nationalism and reduce war-weariness. In other cases it might cause the population to embrace their own less-warlike culture more tightly and increase war-weariness, but also increase culture production at the borders (for example). A lot of this could be based on the cultural make up of your city. If your city was 50% Aztec and 50% Egyptian (say), it would be more warlike than one that was only 10% Aztec (assuming Monty was the leader). In this case the national composition of the city serves as a proxy for the characteristics of the leader.

A lot of the game mechanics for this "drift" could be handled similarly to the way religion and diplomacy interact. The calculation for the unhappiness due to drift could be made similar to the relationship modifiers for "you have chosen your civics wisely" in the diplomacy screen. But instead of it being a diplomatic mod, it would be a happiness mod.

rysmiel said:

I'd like to ask the posters in this thread, setting aside issues of historical accuracy and/or ideology for a moment, what you see as the gameplay purpose of different governments, be they fixed or civics-based, in the game ?

Click to expand...

Yeah. I hate to say it, but the OP's suggestion sounds like a serious violation of KISS to me. Lockesdonkey's elaboration, even worse.

Civics make up a good, solid, approachable system, and while I'm eager to see more of this "civ tree" that Firaxis has hinted at, the improvements that I can think to make are superficial rather than fundamental. Stuff like clarifying the difference between the Government and Legal columns, harmonizing the categories so you can't do stuff like run a Police State with Free Speech (or at least, making this a Very Bad Idea), and avoiding "black hole" options like Emancipation that practically eliminate all other possibilities. Oh, and integrating the system more with diplomacy and morale.

rysmiel said:

To my mind there are two dimensions to that; having a range of flexibility of governments suited to different strategies, and having that range improve over time as one's Civ develops.

I am trying to think of what the different governments should actually optimise for that is not at the general level of "flavour". Dimensions of variation I can see are; better for peace/better for war; optimisation for productivity/optimisation for commerce/optimisation for food(depending on how rush-buying units and/or whipping citizens works)... I'm at a loss for any other major strategic factor, short of oddities like the way Civ III feudalism is specifically optimised for a whole-nation culture victory run out of something close to ICS. Would anyone who has played more Civ IV to me care to talk to the large-scale strategic axes arising from the variability in the civics system in your experience ?

Click to expand...

The big axis you missed is probably optimization for a small vs. a sprawling empire. I can also see axes for favored terrain improvements, quality vs. quantity in the military, and religious homogeneity vs. diversity, though that last won't be a factor in Civ5.