1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[R&F] Are governments too similar?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by The googles do nothing, Oct 18, 2018.

Tags:
  1. The googles do nothing

    The googles do nothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    300
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Are governments too similar? It doesn't seem like what government I pick doesn't have any effect on the result of the game, as opposed to where I put my cities, which districts I build or if I keep my promoted units alive.

    I can count on going oligarchy if playing MP, or Classical Republic in SP, follow by a rather obvious second choice based on if I have more faith or gold.

    I would not mind if they brought back anarchy as a penalty when you change governments and the government type give you a distinct boost in some category - war, science, fath, gold, growth. etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2018
    SelmanV likes this.
  2. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    No doubt, government type ranks way below the other factors you mentioned (although I'd also argue that how many cities you have is far more important than where you put them).

    I find the relative bonuses and policy slot selections fine as distinguishing features, personally. The idea of boosting some districts is interesting, but in practice I fear it would turn the government choice into too simple a choice between "if going science, then X, if going culture, then Y".
     
  3. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,582
    No, I don’t think they are too similar. The abilities and card distributions are different and have open up different strategies. Tier 2 and 3 governments also have different tech requirements.

    They need some similarities so you can compare them and keep them feeling coherent. I think RnF gets the balance between similar and different really well.

    There are really only two shortcomings to my mind. First, I like Legacy Cards, as these add another dimension to Government choice, but having just one Legacy Card per Government feels a bit weak. There should be (a few) more legacy Cards, which together with Governors would help recapture a bit of the feel of Social Policies (without bringing back their inflexibility). That would also help address the “every government can slot every card” complaint, although I don’t really by into that issue more generally.

    Second, Monarchy is a bit weak, but not because of the Government per se. Instead: Hugh population isn’t valuable enough; Walls are not quite valuable enough either particularly Medieval and Renaissance Walls; and, well, there’s maybe not quite enough Military Cards for 3 Military Card slots (although there are some good Military Cards).
     
    Rup likes this.
  4. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,528
    Gender:
    Male
    T1 governments are pretty distinct; Oligarchy is for combat + economy, Autocracy is well rounded, and Classical Republic is crap for peace.

    T2 governments are sorta lame atm, since we moved Faith Purchasing to the Grand Master's Chapel and both Theocracy/Merchant Republic are indeed kind of the same.

    T3 governments aren't bad but Democracy and Communism have too much overlap.

    I think it'd be cool if governments came with advantages or disadvantages that could be magnified in a golden/dark age. For example, Democracies can't declare Surprise Wars or have to wait 10 turns after denouncing and Communism could have reduced Great People generation, Fascism would have less loyalty. And of course, government specific wonders.
     
    cinattra and Trav'ling Canuck like this.
  5. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,582
    I’m not a huge fan of the “+ and -“ model of balancing or design. I really like that Civ’s main downside to any government, building etc. is just opportunity cost. Hence my comment about Legacy Cards - having a few more unique cards for say Tier 2 and 3 Governments would increase the potential opportunity costs.

    I’d also like dedications to be more influenced by Government. Say, you choose between five dedications each era instead of four. The first four would be the same dedications we currently have, but the fifth would be determined by the government you’re currently in when the new era starts. ... but I think I’ve suggested these things before...

    One thing I think is interesting about Tier 2 Governments is that you basically just naturally research Monarchy, but have to make an effort to get Merchant Republic or Theocracy. I think that’s a nice touch.
     
    Archon_Wing likes this.
  6. Arent11

    Arent11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    944
    It's the wildcards. You can either run an oligarchy & use the wildcard for economy or run a republic & use the wildcard for military. You don't really have a government for "peace" or "war", you can tailor any government to any situation.

    If you would want to make distinct goverments:

    Oligarchy - military:
    stronger units/free promotions
    2 military slots
    0 economy slots
    1 diplomacy slot
    0 wildcards (these are for "advanced" governments, special traits or wonders)

    republic
    cheaper settlers & builders
    0 military slots
    2 economy slots
    1 diplomacy slot
    0 wildcards

    autocracy
    wonder building/additional production for building buildings
    1 military slot
    0 economy slot
    2 diplomacy
    0 wildcards
     
  7. ezzlar

    ezzlar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,606
    I think they are different. However, not distinct in any meaningful way. All governments can run all the cards and no government carry a specific penalty in something. You basically get to pick between different numbers of bonus multipliers in different areas.

    Blue government gives more military bonuses. Yellow government gives a wonder boost. Purple government gives great person points etc

    Edit: when the senate met behind my back I was sure reminded that I ran a democracy.
     
  8. kaltorak

    kaltorak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    Madrid
    /cries in spanish
    This is so sad. Goes far beyond wide vs tall. Even with wide beeing better, they could make city placement important. Sure, do 20 cities, but not crap cities.

    Finding good land and chosing awesome spots for my cities has been one of the most fun things for me since civ1. In civ6 I just count how many cities I can place in the room I have
     
  9. Mesix

    Mesix One of Porg

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,358
    Location:
    Ahch-To
    I like the idea of having a dedication for the government you are in at the start of the era. If you change government, perhaps you also lose the dedication. This would attach an opportunity cost to any benefit which is gained by switching government without imposing an anarchy period or other mechanics from previous games.

    I think it would also be cool of the Government Plaza buildings were different depending on the government (or perhaps the dedication you have chosen) at the time they are built. This would have a lasting effect for the rest of the game.

    Perhaps some of the wonders might also be tied to certain types of government. This would create an interesting dynamic to the game which involves trade-off choices to be made by the player.
     
    cinattra likes this.
  10. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,016
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm okay with governments, but they would be more unique if you couldn't slot free market while in communism and can't slot the collective card (can't remember name) giving food on internal trade routes with Democracy, and I'm sure there are other examples like New Deal with Fascism.
     
  11. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair to the development team, Infinite City Spam (ICS) has been something the game has struggled with since the beginning, and is every bit as powerful in Civ 1 & 2 as it is in Civ 6.

    The problem starts right with the most fundamental aspect of the Civ production system: the Population as worker-in-the-field. For each new city, the first Population is actually 2 Population, one in the city centre, one in the field. Civ 6 exacerbates the issue by giving each city an effective +1 Amenity, which in effect means 3 Population generating yields (counting the extra Population working th city centre) without needing to invest in Amenities. It doubles down on this issue by giving the first Population in the city it's own district. And to top it all off, Population both grows more quickly in small cities (smaller food basket to fill before the next baby) and has access to free housing if there's a water source (although you shouldn't let the lack of water prevent you from placing a city due to all it's other benefits). Oh, one more thing: more cities equals more territory, making it more likely that you have easy access to a hidden resource that shows up later in the game.

    I think the development team expected that the district placing system and adjacency bonuses would encourage you to find the best city sites, but it doesn't work after your first couple of cities for the following reasons. First, any great natural adjacency site, say a campus with 4 mountains, will provide the same adjacency bonus no matter what city it falls into (pre Rationalism, but by the time you get that card even a desert city can be grown to Pop 10) (exception: Harbour adjacency bonus for being next to the city centre). So as long as you've covered your territory with cities, at least one city will be able to place a district in that space. Second, other than the first tier, tiles can be swapped amongst cities, so if you have a great production tile, say a grassland hill with Iron, if you have densely packed cities, you can swap it ack and forth between the cities based on which one needs the production most at any given time. That's better than having a single city hogging all the good tiles. Finally, more cities = more districts and the closer together those cities are, the more district adjacency bonuses you get.

    The only offset provided by Civ 6 against ICS is the escalating Settler cost. But that doesn't offset all ICS, just peaceful ICS.

    To my mind, the population as worker-in-the-field system needs to go. It's outlived its usefulness and could be made irrelevant in an economic system that uses scarce Builder charges to create Improvements . Farms, Mines, etc. can work themselves (bump up the Builder charge cost to lay them, of course), and Population can represent solely the population of the city core. Then buildings could be capped by population (so a pop 3 city gets only three buildings to place between the centre district and the other districts) while still being arranged in tiers as they are now (Market -> Bank -> Stock Exchange for example) so you have to lay a foundation building before higher level buildings.
     
    kaltorak and acluewithout like this.
  12. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,582
    @Trav'ling Canuck I mostly agree, but I’d be a bit sad to lose assigning workers to tiles even though I agree the system has limitations. I hope the next expansion makes capturing cities much harder, which would help with ICS. Loyalty was a move in the right direction, but the fact captured cities aren’t intrinsically actually harder to hold stops loyalty really biting. There is just so much more that could be done with loyalty.
     
  13. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,994
    Location:
    Toronto
    To me, wildcard spots are just too strong, and the individual government bonuses aren't better than policy cards, that I would agree there's not a huge difference between the types.

    To me, I think the best solution to this would be to remove the power from wildcard slots, and change them so that you can only run wildcard, dark age, or legacy policies in those slots. Done this way, probably a few of the other cards should switch to wildcards to open it up a bit, but to me, that would be a huge change. Right now, I know that I can run a classical republic, and if I need to go to war, I can still slot in a unit building bonus card to the WC slot and build up my war machine. But if that wasn't allowed, then I would certainly think twice about my choices, and would be more willing to change if I noticed a neighbour threatening.
     
  14. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Location:
    Lucerne
    I too think that governments are too similar.

    I wish for restrictions for certain policy cards in certain governments, for example.
    I further wish for unique units and unique building options outside the government plaza.
    I wish for different historical moments depending on the government (or at least different scores).

    Imho it should feel different for the player to have a different government, not just some bonus that you can take advantage of or not and the number of cards you can slot in. It doesn't have to go as far as unique mechanics, but this would also be a possibility - although not very civ-like.
     
    SelmanV likes this.
  15. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    The differences between governments were much more pronounced in early versions of Civ. You couldn't even declare war in a Democracy unless the Senate approved (although you could still assign jobs to your population on a person-by-person basis: Civ has always struggled to present a consistent "level of decision making" authority to the player).
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  16. shaglio

    shaglio The Prince of Dorkness

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,383
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lawrence, MA, USA
    Oh god, I vaguely remember in Civ 2 I would always choose Fundamentalism. I'd crank the slider as high as I could get away with and fly through the tech tree, either on the way to a quick Science Victory or to crush my enemies with superior forces.
     
    Siptah and Trav'ling Canuck like this.
  17. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    There's been some improvement in Civ game mechanics over the years! Not as many as I think there should have been given the evolution of board game mechanics over the same period, but some.
     
  18. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,994
    Location:
    Toronto
    It wouldn't be too hard, either. Even without having unique buildings or unique rules, just simply restricting which policy cards can/cannot be used by each government type could allow you a variety of strategic decisions. If, say, you weren't allowed to use Serfdom while in a Merchant Republic, but Triangular Trade wasn't available in a Theocracy, then you have to decide between the two - do you want better builders, or better traders? Or, if you don't care about those cards, then don't worry and choose them for their other bonuses.
     
    SelmanV, Siptah and Trav'ling Canuck like this.
  19. liv

    liv Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,393
    I also find them too similar. As it is the most important choice for me when it comes to the first governments is what kind of legacy card I want to create. Usually if I think I will warfare with cavalry I will create the legacy card for republics, if I will use a lot of melee units the legacy card for oligarchy. But Autocracy is my favourite since I can use two military cards and skip the rather weak diplomacy cards. I don't make the legacy card for them though

    In the end there should be more consequences for these choices since overall yeah they do not matter much.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
  20. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,127
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    If governments in Civ 6 are too similar, it's because, by and large, no matter when they occur in the game, they are all based on 20th-21st century governments and their interactions with their population. Historically, government types were much more distinctive, but the distinctions were as much in what they could NOT do, or do well, as in what they could. That makes a more distinctive depiction of them pretty problematic from a game design standpoint: nobody wants to be told that having a God King Theocracy means that your economy is going to suck big time, or having a completely democratic-assembly-type government like Classical Athens means that you can't move the same unit twice without asking permission.

    Gamers want Positives and Bonuses, not, as a rule, Restrictions and Limitations.

    For me personally, the biggest drawback to the governments is the almost complete Freedom of Choice they give the gamer. I can switch from Monarchy to Republic/Democracy/Communism and then back to Absolute Monarchy (if I so desire) without any major and/or lasting effect on Loyalty, Economy, or Diplomacy.
    WTF?
    It should be hard, disruptive, and potentially violent (civl war, revolution, etc) to change governments. In fact, some kind of internal strife should be almost a certainty when you change government types, and so it should be a major decision when and to which, if you are playing well, and should require some preparation to accomplish. And a major disruption to your Civ, like losing cities in a war, or suddenly expanding your influence by colonizing a whole new continent, or changing/having it changed for you your religion in most of your cities, should result in, potentially, a change in Governments Not Of Your Choosing.

    And the governments you can choose should much more limited by the government you already have, and the Social Policies and how long they've been in place, and even the size of your population. Try creating an Absolute Monarchy and its centralized decision-making in a multi-continent-spanning multi-ethnic (as in, lots of conquered cities and city states) Civ: can't be done, or at least, cannot be maintained for more than a few decades/turns without Unrest, Corruption, Revolt, and all the other historically interesting but game player frustrating Events.

    But again, the problem with My Personal Perfect Civilization Game is that too many restrictions and negatives might make a fascinating set of realistic, historically accurate problems in Civ/Government management, but also, and I fear for too many people, make for a massively frustrating and unpleasant game...
     
    SelmanV, cinattra, Siptah and 2 others like this.

Share This Page