C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Lawrie]

It's weird seeing C2C with so many of the suggestions I made that were incorporated into RoM. (Kinda cool and funky - like the Power column etc.) I mean now it's what it is and I'd like to contribute towards the discussions for it in case it's useful.

In general I think while the civics (and number of them are cool, do feel a bit all over the place conceptually) - caught up between describing 'what my civ is', 'why my civ would like to strive for' and 'my policy towards x is.' I also think the civic choices could better reflect a more interesting 'narrative' to the civ (inferring greater ideology/prejudice and assumption.) Rather than seeing to 'describe' every eventuality. That's just a general and I admit abstract perception!

Would it ever be possible for a civic interface screen to create a graphical divide between 'civics' and 'policy'?

Incidentally here is some of the original icon civic art I did for RoM

Intro
The civic columns are there to produce an impression, almost an impressionist painting as it were, of what a civ looks like. No civic choice is absolute, no 'democracy' is completely democratic for example. They are steeped in political and social definitions, they are not anthropological and are primarily concerned with the representation of dominant ideas and theories, not 'every' theory, and only the causes of circumstance - and not to reflect every concievable circumstance a player can imagine in their civ (thus requiring its own civic choice...)

Government
The ideological basis for the civ, the executive power.

Power
The dominant sphere of power behind the 'government' choice, sometimes a class of citizenry, sometimes a political institution.

Society
The leading sphere of influence within society - sometimes a belief (such as caste) - sometimes a system as in Vassalage, sometimes a social class, proles/bourgeious, sometimes a political preference. They are all based on the evolution of social dyanmics in our history.

Economy
System of economics

Religion
The political and social basis for your civ's church and religous institutions.

Welfare
The system of welfare provisal, is it personal responsibility? Private enterprise, the church - all have social political repercussions.

In case its amusing/useful, these were the original definitions/rationale behind the later ROM civic columns.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Most of those are used for C2C civics since we inherited them from RoM/AND.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Would it ever be possible for a civic interface screen to create a graphical divide between 'civics' and 'policy'?

It's possible and its something we are dipping our toes into here and there to create another mechanism outside of civics to represent policies. Policies being basically a list of boolean determinations rather than a package of societally sweeping determinations such as we know civics to be.

I'm planning some dll to make policies a new game object class entirely. However, at the moment policies are implemented through national wonders, generally built by special units. These policies, like slavery and cannibalism are called worldviews.

What I plan to do is work off of this basis. I'm really liking how units are used to turn on and off these policies - makes it feel like the nation's leader isn't the only source of power and decision making even if you still command the special unit to perform its missions.

But I would like to also make it have sweeping overall player effects that would enable a number of things that buildings alone cannot do right now. Things that civics and traits tend to be able to do where buildings can't. This is entirely possible and actually won't be much work to setup. What WILL be a lot of work to do for this would be if we want a python screen to let the player view all their policies. That's beyond my modding knowledge base to do so I'd need to get a lot of help from DH on that I think.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Lawrie

We have some redundant icon/buttons for civics. If possible could you make new icons/buttons for the following civics?

Power
- Sovereignty
- Divine Right
- Single Party
- Separation of Power

Rule
- Obedience

Military
- Militia
- Tribal Warfare

Economy
- Subsistence
- Trade

Education
- Time Travel Education

Currency
- Guilds
- Banknotes
- Paper Money
- FIAT Currency

Thanks!

 

[Lawrie]

Yeah I reckon so I mean, if we could double triple quadruple check those civics to make sure that they will be staying (just so i don't burn time making em' if there gonna be tweaked)

I mean I know most aren't but are some of those power civics (like seperation of power?!) or (banknotes/papernotes ?!) gonna be staying etc.

I'd like to maybe raise a few ideas and then if there er shot down haha (confirming those civics) then I can do them. Some of the others - sure!

Can I ask btw, what is the rule column supposed to reflect exactly?

 

[Hydromancerx]

I would say currency is probably going to stay for a long time. Time Travel Education seems likely to stay too. The rest could or could not.

As for what they represent you would have to ask CIVPlayer8 since he is the most recent architect of these civic categories. The ones I did (with inspiration from Afforess) were Education, Garbage, Immigration, Agriculture and Language. Those seems self explanatory.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Education needs some tweaks but I think CivPlayer8 is unavailable at the moment.

 

[Lawrie]

Would it be welcomed to look at some of the categories? I appreciate that CivPlayers8 will have put work and thought into it but I wonder if discussion might not lead to some refinement here and there? Maybe even in terms of the names some of these have at the moment.

The currency civics for example seem to refer to a mixture of ideology, practical method, policy etc with some slightly peculiar names/descriptions (paper money - I'm looking at you hehe) just a little mishy mashy? We're also missing what might be superior more interesting economic theories (in relating to currency/economics) such as Monetarism, (I assume the 'regulated' economic civic still relates to Keynesian theory?)

Admittedly I come from a historical/political science background not an economic theory one though it plays a big interest. I'm sure others do too (as CivPlayer8 probably does.) Maybe a 2nd look wouldn't hurt?

 

[LumenAngel]

The currency civics for example seem to refer to a mixture of ideology, practical method, policy etc with some slightly peculiar names/descriptions (paper money - I'm looking at you hehe) just a little mishy mashy? We're also missing what might be superior more interesting economic theories (in relating to currency/economics) such as Monetarism, (I assume the 'regulated' economic civic still relates to Keynesian theory?)

Agree, Currency have some problems. I think having some building/ressource to represent coins, billnotes, creditcards and all are better than civics. With some autobuild building, like a Money (No Currency), replace by a Money (trinket) with beads or seashell ressource, replace by Money(Coins) with some Coins ressource replace by ...
And the -30% gold -> -15% gold -> 0% gold gap are too strong.

 

[Lawrie]

It's good to reconsider sometimes - conceptually what the columns are trying to represent. We spent a lot of time with that on the later RoM civics discussion (not all the suggestions were implemented but most.)

The problem is that without a clear concept it can be hard to have a kinda intellectual basis linking the different options. So for example with Currency you end up with a scatter gun approach that simply tries to 'represent everything' that happened or happens!

On the current basis of Currency you could probably include 'postal note' and 'cheque' hehe. So yeah, looking at it (and the economy civic which largely looks fine imo) we should examine them both together.

That way the civics options could have a basis in economic theory and the history of economics. That's where folks with a special interest (or those without, but are willing to do a bit of research) can be so useful!

I mean we can proceed a bit with this if its cool by the mod team as suggesting the odd thing here or there is one thing but doing it a bit more in depth really requires permission. Don't want to trample on anyones toes opening this up etc.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Lawrie

While I did not design Currency civic, from what it looks like to me is that milestones in currency were added. As new technology was invented each new type of currency was introduced. And I think its less about economics and more about the currency type. Since we do have an Economic civic too. Basiclly currency is giving you the choice as a player to choose if you want to have the latest and greatest currency or stick to more traditional ways.

At first I was not sure of CIVPlayer8's civics but over time I have grown to like them. However some could use some balance.

If you have ideas how it can be done better then post all the stats you think they should be. Then we can review them.

 

[Lawrie]

@Hydromancerx

Well to me it looks like CIVPlayer8 made a list of 'changes to occur in civilization' from a historical timeline perspective then came up with some bonuses here and there. That's its it etc... Like first came this... then that... then that... etc.

It should not be a choice imo

of a player having the latest greatest currency or stick to more traditional ways

Rather it should be a choice of competing contrasts, choices that will lead your civilisation in different paths (subtly) rather than getting the latest. There is so much political importance to currency as well that isn't reflected (Just ask the Byzantines) Technology will have all stepladder implications for currency it needs, (without the magical civic switch) being necessary for folks to dump sea-shells for gold, or gold for credit etc.) This all happened organically.

That's not to say that civic currency choices can't drive attention towards certain resources (like metals over say credit) as a foundation for determining wealth. But I think it should be more a matter of policy (which expands as civic choices based on technology as usual.)

I'll try and take a look, if I were to do so, I'd probably consult with a chum or two that works in the academic economic field for their verdict. It's good to consult with experts on this stuff too as plenty goes outwith my brain's remit. I'm happy to take a look at this IF there is a desire from the mod boss/crew for me to do so and to lead an open discussion on it here. If not I'll maybe just produce a mod-mod or check out vids of nude midgets etc. (Whatever constitutes ordinarily online activity hehe)

 

[Hydromancerx]

I would not say "magically" but that's the nature of civ4. Each turn covers many years. Sometimes in early game thousands of years. So its not like they just changed over night. Likewise you do go through a period of anarchy (unless in a golden age). I imagine during this anarchy period that they were changing over their currency after declaring a new system.

 

[Lawrie]

@Hydromancerx

The civics work best when they reflect changes that are not already represented by the evolution of your civilisations other attributes, its culture/technology/religion/buildings imo.

So for example you can switch policies/governments etc, but deciding to switch between a value currency (of bank note over fiat currency or gold or back to sea-shells) are unrealistic. For the simple reason that you cannot fathom it being credible, not dissimilar to the criticism leveled recently against the Atheism civic in the religious column!

I think there are better options for the currency civics to reflect distinct choices rather than gradual evolutions as they so happened. To me that's just masking inevitability as choice imo.

It also depends on how seriously you take any intellectual foundation for the civic options. Are they just things to fill in gaps/make more options/ or should they be grounded in reality? If so shouldn't that perception of reality be tested with some evidence and open discussion?

after declaring a new system.

It's not that common! It's always linked to economic theory (which in turn is linked towards political objective) so its rather the 'economic that waggles the currency tail hehe' What they are not are progressive technological milestones...

 

[Lawrie]

Government

Kinship (to replace Anarchism. Rename only. 1.)
Chiefdom
Despotism
Monarchy
Republic
Theocracy
Democracy
Communist
Fascist

(Removing Technocracy on the basis that it's applicability is served by the science focus and construction of science buildings by the player. As a hypothetical form of government it is one defined by 'how it is seen to operate' by others rather than a practiced political ideology.)

Communist and Fascist options allow for the most extreme left and right wing ideologies of each civilisation to be explored with a range of interesting units, buildings and or ideological monuments. They provide for exciting potential (villains or heroes) to the player and add to the sense of narrative. The 'generic and politically correct' term of totalitarianism is devoid of narrative or political context and may be used to in such a range of contexts as to make its application in the civic tree meaningless or devoid of ideological context.

In my opinion the government column should serve to represent either the foremost governmental institution (eg. Republic or Monarchy) or ideology (Communism or Democracy) dominating the governmental state apparatus.

1. Wilson Woodrow, The State: The Probable Origins of Government, 1889

I'm going to have a look at the Rule and Power categories, (along with the power/rule/economy/currency/society and religion columns.)

Was there a clear idea of what the Rule column was supposed to reflect? EDIT// found it.

Power: How the power of leadership is "shared" with other people/branches.
Rule: Basic structure of governing your citizens.

So the Power column changed from its original meaning from (abstract cynical expressions of where the real power lies behind the government) to 'how you share your power...' Today I'll pick city states... or today we'll become a confederacy etc. Very policy-ish and at present with civics such as meritocracy or magistrates? Just seems a bit wiki -ism/cy-ish. Meritocracy is for example a kinda ancient historical quasi political philosophy (taught as a means one should lead etc... particularly in the Greek/Confucious tradition) but it's not an official policy or ruling ideology that could be implemented. It would be like making a civic out of Machiavelli's 'The Prince.'

At the risk of sounding cheeky (cos I understand a lot of work has gone into it from a lot of individuals) it really seems like such a mish mash of mixed up civics and ideas. Lots of cooks coming and going over time adding a bit here and a bit there. Scouring over wikipedia to find a new 'ism' that can be added etc. To the point where if you look at some columns, a lot of it doesn't really tell you anything - at least with any kinda consistency.

 

[Randomness]

Technocracy has nothing to do with a science focus. It is a hypothetical form of government which is ruled by the "technical elite" (engineers, scientists, technologists).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

That being said, it may fit better in the Power or Rule category, but I think it describes an interesting future government type and should be represented in the game.

Edit:
Also, aren't Facism and Communism forms of single party states.
Facism would be a nationalist party state, Communism a socialist one.

 

[Lawrie]

Yeah well actually... I partially agree with regards to shifting Technocracy but basically its pure and unadulterated idealism. Who is really going to have a technocratic state? It's not such a definitive form of ideology that you can examine its pros/cons, it's idealism and then reality as you can with other types of government.

I'm not suggesting that the civics in the government category should simply be a list of 'government types.' There to describe isms etc.

Point being that Fascism and Communism are prevailing ideologies and I think the government column

should serve to represent either the foremost governmental institution (eg. Republic or Monarchy) or ideology (Communism or Democracy) dominating the governmental state apparatus.

Because technically you could have an entire list of accurate isms from wikipedia hehe. It's not what makes its more credible historically or even interesting to play. Would you rather be engaged in a war against the Fascists? Or Communists (or play as them) or instead be... *drum roll* The Technocracy hehe or behooold! The Anocracy etc etc.

There are times where a political ideology is so influential - so epic that it rough shods over the particularities of state. By your point, totalitarianism would suffice by mere yawnsome technicality.

Which doesn't mean your wrong imo technically, but I don't think my suggestion is either and is in fact more interesting (imo.)

 

[Randomness]

I think you may want to look into Dynamic Civ naming. This is, IMO, where the flavour for civics should be. So, Totalitarianism should be a civic, but France under Totalitarianism shouldn't be called, French Totalitarianist State. This would be boring. If, however, the civ was called Fascist France or People's Republic of France depending on the specific combination of civics. I think that getting flavour this way is better because it allows the game to represent more complex government types without making the civic system overly complicated. For example, if Fascism and Communism are government civics, it is possible to be under Liberalism and Facism, or Free Market and Communism. So, you either find a way to make this impossible, or you allow it. This, IMO, ruins immersion far more ticking a box labeled Totalitarianism instead of Communism or Fascism.

On Technocracy, yes it's an ideology, it has never been implemented, which is why it is a future tech, like Post-Scarcity and Super Human.

That being said, it really is your/the dev teams opinion that matters here.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Lawrie

Kinship (to replace Anarchism. Rename only. 1.)

I like Anarchism (I added it BTW). I am not so sure if Kinship belongs in this category.

Communist
Fascist

I believe Fascist was moved and renamed to "Totalitarianism" (Government). However it was also split up into related categories too such as "Martial Law" (Rule) and "Single Party" (Power).

And Communist I am not sure where it went, however "Planned" (Economy) and "State Run Agriculture" (Agriculture) have Communist-like features.

You would have to search through the threads to see why CIVPlayer8 did what he did. I hate for us to undo all his hard work without know why he made it the way he did.

Technocracy

Technocracy is too awesome to be removed! I love that civic even from the RoM/AND days.

 

[Lawrie]

I think you may want to look into Dynamic Civ naming. This is, IMO, where the flavour for civics should be.

Dynamic civ names are cool but I don't think they should substitute superior civic choices (obviously that's a matter of opinion.) But relating to communism and fascism these as civic choices capture the imagination. They also allow for exciting unique units/buildings. None of the other civics touching on these themes do so explicitly or in an imaginative or particularly fulfilling way.

So, Totalitarianism should be a civic, but France under Totalitarianism shouldn't be called, French Totalitarianist State. This would be boring. If, however, the civ was called Fascist France or People's Republic of France depending on the specific combination of civics. I think that getting flavour this way is better because it allows the game to represent more complex government types without making the civic system overly complicated.

Agreed mon amie with the exception that I think if anything a myriad of civics all a bit mushy and iffy (martial law?) is complicated. You know what you're getting with the two I've mentioned.

For example, if Fascism and Communism are government civics, it is possible to be under Liberalism and Facism, or Free Market and Communism. So, you either find a way to make this impossible, or you allow it. This, IMO, ruins immersion far more ticking a box labeled Totalitarianism instead of Communism or Fascism.

We had about 30 pages of discussion about this for ROM. What it comes down to is this: Do you see the civics as perfect implementations of how they were envisaged... ie. literally what they are supposed to be? If so then you get caught up with this 'stick the shapes through the right holes' mentality. A pile of technical definitions that fit despite the blaring contradictions of real politik/Machiavellian nightmares we behold. A communist government with free market as an example, doesn't really stretch the 21st imagination, it's there already in the shape of China. Neither is the free market really free... it's not coincidence that it was a policy pursued by the most powerful trading nations (as was mercantalism in fact... until too many of the minor trading rivals adopted it too effectively...) Free trade means - you do not have the power to refuse our goods.

A capitalist nation, or a communist nation could quite cheerfully adopt that mantra and call it free trade.

We don't have liberal as a society civic (replaced by egalitarianism) and I think in a way that might be an improvement. As such, it is perfectly feasible for a fascist society to have such a society. It's possible for advanced Fascist ideology to incorporate what appears to be progressive cultural values precisely because they do not threaten the manifest destiny/ideology/cult of the party/nation/state/racial politics etc. Egalitarianism can be very much a case of equals among equals except for the inequals... After all, no civic should be perfect in it's implementation, there are always winners and losers.

On Technocracy, yes it's an ideology, it has never been implemented, which is why it is a future tech, like Post-Scarcity and Super Human.

Yeah I know, (I think I came up with Post Scarcity and Super Human? Did I? I think so... I'll have to check - Zappara can correct me hehe) As regards to Technocracy it's as much a 'real' ideology as the 100 hundred other fanciful ideologies on wikipedia!

It's a bit like the 'perfect atheism' civic where everyone just becomes smarter overnight. Here we have a choice that makes a civ just well... pick all the smart people to run the country. As if that would ever happen, and if it did happen, it would only happen in name only.

That said... I think it should stay, but I'd suggest that it doesn't live in the government civic column. Instead it might be more interesting in another altogether more futuristic political column. I'll elaborate on that later...

That being said, it really is your/the dev teams opinion that matters here.

Damn right and there doing a great job. I'd love to help with the team actually.