Civics Changes Discussion

[ales_]

the transition from a system where only a minority is represented, too full suffrage.

Suffrage can never be too full

 

[Ani Taneen]

Let me first address the new list,

GOVERNMENT
Chiefdom
Despotism (Property)
Apotheosis (Divination)
Oligarchy (Writing)
Dynasticism (Generalship)
Autocracy (Nationalism)
Republic (Statecraft)

I like Apotheosis, but question if it is applicable to a lot of civs outside the ancient age.

ADMINISTRATION
Governors
Bureaucracy (Politics)
Vassalage (Nobility)
Absolutism (Heritage)
Parliament (Representation)
Authoritarianism (Sociology)
Democracy (Civil Rights)

Bureaucracy, is the one I have the biggest problem. When I picture the civic, what comes to mind are the way we envision Imperial China and Europe as Tolstoy and Kafka would write about. An army of civil servants trying to keep the state moving for another day. I'd feel more comfortable if either governors was viable for western civs in the classical period OR if Tribal replaced governors and governors replaced Bureaucracy

RELIGION
Ritualism
Imperial Cult (Ceremony)
Institutionalism (Priesthood)
Syncretism (Philosophy)
State Church (Clergy)
Religious Tolerance (Civil Liberties)
Secularism (Sociology)

I feel like it's missing the fanatical/military

Trying to describe every system, these civics have a lot of overlap. Autocracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism at the same time. Republic, democracy and representation at the same time. Apotheosis and imperial cult, despotism and dynasticism, Institutionalism and state Church, Syncretism and religious tolerance and secularism. Citizentship (as used here) and oligarchy, absolutism and bureaucracy...

Different combination of civics can lead to different types of society-governance and so on. It would be better to minimize overlap instead of increasing it.

The other, the one Leoreth seems to be favoring now, is that there should be a larger variety of civics, even if some have massive overlaps or are barely more than the modern equivalent of an older civic in the same category. For example, there should be two separate civics for ancient palace economies and for USSR style planned economies and two for ancient despotism and modern dictatorships etc. This allows a greater variety of civic options in the early game without sacrificing even more options later on or vice versa. The problem with this is that it leads to many civics being very similar to each other, and the greater number of civics overall leads to more possible contradictions between categories, such as the accursed secular theocracy.

My solution to the overlap is and remains the establishment that each tree Only affects one (or two) areas of play. That way there is no "overlap" but rather harmony/symbiosis

GOVERNMENT (Happiness and great people)

ADMINISTRATION (Stability, Empire size, management, compliments the government)

LABOR (Improvements, buildings)

ECONOMY (Trade, hurry construction, buildings)

SOCIETY (Military, great people)

RELIGION (duh)

 

[citis]

- I deliberately divided Monarchy into Despotism, Apotheosis and Dynasticism because if we are honest, most historical civilisations were monarchies. I intentionally wanted to provide some variation for the historically most common government civic, just look how many civs start with Dynasticism in the current 600 AD scenario.

If most civilisation in reality used monarchy, then I expect to see that most game civs run a monarchy civic.

 

[Leoreth]

They are all monarchy civics. Are you missing the point on purpose?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

The point is that there shouldn't be several monarchy civics, especially one that's better represented as the combination of plain monarchy and a specific civic in an entirely different category. Based on your logic, why not just add Constitutional Monarchy as its own Government civic? Sure it overlaps with another category, but hey apparently there is a need to have half a dozen civics represent more or less the same thing. We keep hitting bullseyes on the point, you are the one who put it in our crosshairs. Or something. Figures of speech are hard when you've been awake for 28 hours.

 

[citis]

Are you missing the point on purpose?

Why do you destroy conversation by conducting personal attacks? You have done this again.

 

[Leoreth]

Ive been playing this mod for a while but haven't done much on its forum until recently; however I have lots of thoughts on this particular subject and I would like to contribute to the discussion.

Everyone else seems to be more knowledgable about the religion civic tree so I'll keep my opinions on this one brief. I think in the version of the mod I'm currently playing-- though this may have changed-- that this tree is one of the weirder ones in terms of its composition.
It seems as though there are too many civics representing the same sort of historical phenomena lumped into this tree, and none of them are so different as to justify their own selections based on merit of gameplay. In particular the "pantheon" and "animism" civics seem to historically differ in that pantheon seems to be more state-endorsed or centralized-- but in this case the only difference between pantheon and organized religion is that organized religions refer to the various major religions. Furthermore scholasticism is oddly placed in that it seems to more represent a social phenomena than a state policy towards religion, while fanaticism is closer to a value of a culture than a religious policy as well.

The conversation about this civic tree is getting along nicely, however, and so I won't go into my own ideas about this, though I like Leo's idea for treating pantheons.

Yeah, you summarise pretty well what I didn't like about the Religions section. Pantheon was more a solution to a design problem than an attempt to model something that I considered worth representing, and all the other inconsistencies are also the product of an interative process that didn't take the greater picture into account.

As to military I think the decision to eliminate it is not so good. Its current incarnation, essentially describing the way an army is composed (mercenary, levy, standing, naval) seems wrong however. Instead I propose it deals with the way the military is derived from the society and economy of the Civ. In keeping with a seven-civic system, I would put forward the following proposal:

-Maybe call the starter War Bands or something
-Militia: Unlocked in the ancient era; though not as historically accurate in its commonness, this would represent early agricultural communities simply defending themselves from nomadic war bands
-Professional Army: Unlocked in the classical era; used to represent the early imperial system in Rome, Han China, Assyria, etc during the Iron Age
-Military Caste: Medieval Era; I'll get more into how I think caste systems ought to be dealt with later on, but this would represent feudal nobility systems like in Japan, Europe, and India
-Unnamed: Here id put something in the medieval era that represented both the nomadic movements in Central Asia and Eastern Europe as well as in the early Islamic world, because in all these societies war was a part of life in a very unique way, quasi-spiritual while also communalist. Not sure what to call it though
-Conscription: Renaissance and Industrial Era, to represent the "modern army" of the western powers and eventually the entire world. This is where most countries are today, and it would be considered the system that has been the composition of everything from colonial militaries (I.E. British Redcoats, French Legionairres) to early modern militaries (Prussian system, Ottoman & Japanese reforms) to contemporary warfare
-Total War: Though this was mostly used during the twentieth century for mass mobilization in the great wars, I would argue it exists today in the Middle East and in African civil wars. This would be unlocked in the modern era and would give huge production bonuses but perhaps deficits in gold or science

If we leave military in we have room for 5 more trees for: Religion, Government, Administration, Labor, and Economy. I think that social values are better derived from the combination of the other trees. For example, the idea of honor in European and Japanese feudal societies as a "value" is in reality moreso a combination of a feudalist economy, a military cast, a centralized hereditary ruling class, and religious fanaticism (though this is arguable in Japan). Likewise, nationalist "values" can be represented through the combination of their military civic and their governmental/administrative civic. Overall I feel that civics ought to come together to describe the society of the civilization they govern. I'd even say that this is the purpose of civics. For these reasons I'd say it seems more reasonable here to leave out values than military.

As I said above, the problem with military is that it is too narrow a focus for a civic category, and creates a situation where effects of a specific domain are concentrated in the same column. I don't think a situation where you always get one military bonus and it's a choice of which one is not so interesting compared to having to give up another bonus to get a better military. Like Ani Taneen suggests below, if anything I would inverse your statement and say that military forms of organisation are derived from social or governmental values and not the other way around.

Moving on to economy, I might compose the civics more along the line of realistic composition than governmental policy. For example, "palace economies"-- actual, real world control over economy beyond taxation in an ancient imperial system-- are extremely rare in history. A much more accurate representation of the economies of ancient Assyria, Egypt, and China is a barter system of exchange.
In fact the only governmental policy that realistically applies to an economy is the central planning economy.
Similarly, the exact MEANS of exchange, such as paper currency, are much less of a realistic gauge on an economy than its productive composition. For example, both protofeudal China and modern America use state-subsidized paper currency. However the two economies are drastically different.
The specific names of civics are iffy so far but I know the following framework would be the basis for my system for economic civics:

-Classical Era: A civic referencing the competitive agricultural land ownership in Rome and China. In Rome, this system led to large estates growing cash crops, while in China it also led to large estates. Perhaps Leoreth's "Manorialism" refers to this.
-Medieval Era: This one would probably be called agrarianism, it refers to the actual systems of production in place in feudal societies. The term "feudalism" should be used in the labor tree.
-Renaissance Era: In Europe during this time there were essentially two economies: the protocapitalism in the coastal regions of Northern Italy, the Baltic Sea, and Northern Germany; and the protoindustrialism of milling and iron smithing in the inland regions of France and Germany. Agrarianism was still more widespread but following the plague there was a shift in the economics of Europe. These systems were reflected in southern China a few centuries earlier, and so there should probably be a term for their union.
-Also Renaissance: Something here to refer to the unique economic system of colonialism, though mercantilism shouldn't be it as this was more of a regulatory policy than an economic phenomena. The plantation economies of the Indies (east and west), Brazil, the British colonies, and parts of Africa, as well as the tributary mining systems of Spanish America as well as much of the rest of Africa under Europe ought to be represented together as exploitative colonial economies with some civic here
-Industrial Era: A civic here to represent the industrial revolution and early industrial capitalism/the rise of corporations and monopolies. Probably "industrialism" is fine for this one
-Modern Era: And finally something here to represent modern consumerism of western countries.

First off all, quick comments:
- Manorialism is more about the opposite of this, as sort of a generalised take on Serfdom, i.e. agrarian production that is characterised by social stratification and little economic autonomy on part of the workforce. I'm actually still looking for a word that describes what you mean!
- Agrarianism is a bit too general to be contrasted with something else that is also agrarian, which is why I'm trying to avoid that term now. It's similar to the monarchy example I put out above: the majority of societies for the majority of history were agrarian, so we need to provide choice within that category or the civic system becomes pointless.
- I'm trying not to use Feudalism, which is too overarching of a concept imo, which is why I've used it as a tech name.

More generally, I think this era progression kind of thinking is somewhat problematic, and another thing I don't like about the current military column. It leads to situations where there is little choice thematically but to pick the most modern civic.

Anyways this is all I'm going to get into for tonight. I'll expand on my thoughts for labor, government, and administration tomorrow.

Looking forward to it.

Let me first address the new list,

I like Apotheosis, but question if it is applicable to a lot of civs outside the ancient age.

Probably not. I'm not sure if that's because of the name (which is very evocative of the classical era) or because of the concept itself. Considering the overlap with the Imperial Cult idea it's probably better to cut it and leave the representation of the idea to the religion column.

Bureaucracy, is the one I have the biggest problem. When I picture the civic, what comes to mind are the way we envision Imperial China and Europe as Tolstoy and Kafka would write about. An army of civil servants trying to keep the state moving for another day. I'd feel more comfortable if either governors was viable for western civs in the classical period OR if Tribal replaced governors and governors replaced Bureaucracy

I would also associate it with the later Roman Empire for instance, and what the idea has going for it its applicability throughout all of history, which seems to emerge as A Good Thing according to this thread.

I am also deliberately trying to get rid of the primitive, almost pre-civilisation (in the classical sense) names for starting civics. Even 3000 BC Egypt and Babylonia are past Tribalism, so it doesn't make sense to have it as a starting civic. I'm not to happy with the Governors name myself, what I am getting at is mostly that rulers have no specific apparatus to exert their power and either rule directly or appoint one person to rule in their stead. If someone knows a better name for this concept I'm happy to include it, but this does seem to me to be the most simple form of administration for something that can actually be considered a state. Another tentative name I had for this was Authority (as in, ruling only through personal authority), which I chose not to use because of the contention with Authoritarianism. If the latter is removed that becomes an option again.

I feel like it's missing the fanatical/military

We can still have a military religious effect somewhere. I thought Fanaticism was too extreme to characterise an entire society, and I don't think anyone in the game was accurately described by it.

My solution to the overlap is and remains the establishment that each tree Only affects one (or two) areas of play. That way there is no "overlap" but rather harmony/symbiosis

GOVERNMENT (Happiness and great people)

ADMINISTRATION (Stability, Empire size, management, compliments the government)

LABOR (Improvements, buildings)

ECONOMY (Trade, hurry construction, buildings)

SOCIETY (Military, great people)

RELIGION (duh)

But that's kind of too narrow a focus for many of them to offer interesting choices. There are only so many things you can do with great people,for example. And again, I don't think it's a good idea to give you a say "great people bonus" slot and then allow you to choose what kind of bonus you want. Civics should allow you to specialise your civ in specific areas, instead of being balanced across all areas no matter what you choose.

The point is that there shouldn't be several monarchy civics, especially one that's better represented as the combination of plain monarchy and a specific civic in an entirely different category.

If there is only plain monarchy, and the most historically accurate choice is monarchy most of the time, then playing historical becomes boring and devoid of choice and strategic option. You are either confined to one civic or forced to make ahistorical choices, if you are even given any choice at all at that point. That is not very satisfying. Conversely, it makes little sense to use all the other options for a comparatively narrow slice of history both in space and in time.

It makes sense to use abstraction and more generic terminology as an umbrella for phenomena that are otherwise too specific to represent. But I don't see what is gained to do the same for terms that are so bland and universal that they cover almost everything.

Based on your logic, why not just add Constitutional Monarchy as its own Government civic?

I actually considered that! Instead of asking lazy rhetorical questions, could you humor me by actually explaining why this is A Bad Thing, like I am trying to do?

Sure it overlaps with another category, but hey apparently there is a need to have half a dozen civics represent more or less the same thing.

Same here, why do you have to make up an imaginary example to criticise me for, when you haven't even given an actual example of where your criticism manifests itself? That would make this conversation much more constructive, because we can talk about actual specific civics and try to make things better. It's hard to even agree OR disagree with you when your point is so unsubstantive.

We keep hitting bullseyes on the point, you are the one who put it in our crosshairs. Or something. Figures of speech are hard when you've been awake for 28 hours.

Nah, I acknowledged this point when you originally made it, and replied with a couple of counterarguments for why I decided otherwise despite it. Instead of addressing my answer, you keep repeating your original point. It's not on me that the conversation is not progressing.

Why do you destroy conversation by conducting personal attacks? You have done this again.

The conversation ended when you demonstrated you hadn't even read or made the effort to comprehend what I wrote in my last response to you. I'm talking to several people in this thread and try to give everyone a detailed response that addresses what they were talking about. Typing up replies like this takes a lot of time. In turn, if it becomes clear that people (in this thread, only you) are wasting my time, I will stop doing so. In fact, even replying to your original post was a mistake because there really wasn't enough substance in it to actually form an answer to, but I tried my best to reply to the most favourable interpretation I could come up with anyway despite better knowledge.

I will consider any further discussion of what you do or do not consider the acceptable way of replying to your posts off topic for this thread, take it to PM if you have to.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm talking to several people in this thread and try to give everyone a detailed response that addresses what they were talking about. Typing up replies like this takes a lot of time.

After rereading this, just to make sure people don't misunderstand my point: I'm not complaining, I'm taking this time because I think these are conversations worth having and will result in a better set of civics that I would've been able to come up with otherwise. If I seem unconvinceable because I reply to an argument by pushing back with a different perspective, then that is because I consider it a good argument, and want that kind of good reasoning applied to other aspects of the problem I consider relevant or important. This discussion is changing my take on the problem with every post that is made, even if I don't always explicitly acknowledge it here. And the more specific a point is, the more actionable knowledge I can usually take out of it.

 

[Ani Taneen]

I'm not to happy with the Governors name myself, what I am getting at is mostly that rulers have no specific apparatus to exert their power and either rule directly or appoint one person to rule in their stead. If someone knows a better name for this concept I'm happy to include it, but this does seem to me to be the most simple form of administration for something that can actually be considered a state.

The vanilla name for that was decentralized. I think it applies here

 

[Leoreth]

It was an economic civic back then, but you're right, it fits well here.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

It makes sense to use abstraction and more generic terminology as an umbrella for phenomena that are otherwise too specific to represent. But I don't see what is gained to do the same for terms that are so bland and universal that they cover almost everything.

Historicity, duh.

I actually considered that! Instead of asking lazy rhetorical questions, could you humor me by actually explaining why this is A Bad Thing, like I am trying to do?

...Because it is literally the same thing? If you managed to come to the conclusion that Constitutional Monarchy is not a good idea for a civic by your own logical reasoning, I don't see what's so hard making the jump to the same line of thinking for Apotheosis.

But apparently this point is moot because

Considering the overlap with the Imperial Cult idea it's probably better to cut it and leave the representation of the idea to the religion column.

you already conceded it to someone who is not a redheaded stepchild of yours like I or citis.

Same here, why do you have to make up an imaginary example to criticise me for, when you haven't even given an actual example of where your criticism manifests itself? That would make this conversation much more constructive, because we can talk about actual specific civics and try to make things better. It's hard to even agree OR disagree with you when your point is so unsubstantive.

Fine then, let's play your game:

- I deliberately divided Monarchy into Despotism, Apotheosis and Dynasticism because if we are honest, most historical civilisations were monarchies. I intentionally wanted to provide some variation for the historically most common government civic, just look how many civs start with Dynasticism in the current 600 AD scenario.

How many civs would start with Apotheosis or Despotism instead of Dynasticism in the new 600 AD scenario then, hm?

Nah, I acknowledged this point when you originally made it, and replied with a couple of counterarguments for why I decided otherwise despite it. Instead of addressing my answer, you keep repeating your original point. It's not on me that the conversation is not progressing.

Why do you have to be such a hater?

Edit: The one somewhat reasonable alternative to Dynastic Monarchy that would see some actual regular use in gameplay and couldn't just as well be represented by a combination with a civic in another category would be something like Elective Monarchy.

The government civics roster would then be:

(Chiefdom?)
Despotism
Dynastic Monarchy (but with a better name)
Elective Monarchy (but with a better name)
(City States/Federation?)
Oligarchy
Autocracy/Dictatorship
Republic/Democracy

 

[inthesomeday]

It seems to me that all the following points tend to be important to some/most people in terms of civics:

-Knoedel's Principle:
Every civic ought to have representation throughout history, AND no civic should overlap with another civic
There should be no combinations of civics that are nonsensical (secular theocracies, republican autocracies)
-Leoreth's Principle:
Every society throughout history ought to have its particular composition properly represented through a combination of civics in each category
-General Considerations:
Every civic should be unique enough that they have unique applications and justify their own inclusion
Every civic tree should have an equal number of civics
Every aspect of a society ought to be represented in the civic trees, or as close as possible

The first point of Knoedel's Principle was reinforced by Leoreth's commentary on my prior analysis of economic/military civics.

Given all of these agreed upon parameters of discussion, it seems that the idea of 6 civic trees with 7 civics apiece makes it extremely difficult to appease every point. I propose keeping the 6x6 configuration; however, as to what the trees ought to be I think there should be a slight change to the direction of the current conversation.

I concede that the military civic section is obsolete with the same logic of a "values" tree. I think it would be cool to have a Total War function represented in gameplay though that's a subject for another thread.

Meanwhile my proposals for the six civic trees are as follows:
-GOVERNMENT
-ADMINISTRATION
-ECONOMY
-LABOR
-TRADE
-SOVEREIGNTY

I have removed the religion category as it is confusing and difficult. My system keeps Economy, Labor, Government, and Administration, while introducing the new trade and sovereignty categories to clean up the explanation of government and economy. It seems like describing culture with the civic system is rather moot, as the culture of a society is a product of its economy and its systems of stratification. For this reason I am remaining opposed to a "value" tree, and considering Leo's admittance that Religion as a tree is washy I've omitted it.

On to my trees.

GOVERNMENT refers to the de facto composition of the highest authority in the civilization. ADMINISTRATION refers to the way the government itself is run, and how much power it has. ECONOMY refers to the way the society produces its wealth and resources, while LABOR refers to the way that the workforce is organized/where its subservience derives from. All of these ideas are fairly well established even in the current incarnation of the civic system. However, in removing "religion" and "military" as they are realistically moreso a development of the other aspects of a society, there have been two vacancies created, and I have filled them with two further descriptions of the ideas already established.

TRADE describes the way that the economy flows both within and without the society being built, while SOVEREIGNTY describes the origin of the government's power.

Before expanding on each category's historical synergy, I'll put forward my proposed civics for each tree, as it will make historical examples easier to discuss.

Government
Starter
Monarchical
Oligarchical
Parliamentary
Democratic
Bureaucratic

Administration
Starter
Federal
Confederal (Will perhaps need better name for contrast with federal)
Imperial
Totalitarian
Unitary

Sovereignty
Starter
Despotic
Religious
Popular
Meritocratic
Hereditary

Economy
Starter
Agricultural
Manufacturing
Pastoral
Commercial
(Term describing both plantation economies and estate economies of imperial Rome/China)

Labor
Starter
Communal
Tributary
Voluntary
(Term describing feudal labor relationships)
Artisan

Trade
Starter
Nomadic
Capitalist
Mercantile
Socialized
Regulated

Now I'll be back tomorrow for further discussion about this model but I'd like to propose a challenge to everyone: come up with a civilization/society from any part of the world or time in history and I'll try to find a way to describe it using these civics.
Now I will say that so far this system has a few issues with passing the three parameters, but for the most part these are individual civics as opposed to entire relationships.
Like I said I'll be back tomorrow to discuss in depth the meaning of the trees and their civics, as well as solutions for inevitable problems people will have with the system. I'm also interested in discussing the tree types because I imagine people will be displeased with my exclusion of religion as a tree.

 

[merijn_v1]

Now I'll be back tomorrow for further discussion about this model but I'd like to propose a challenge to everyone: come up with a civilization/society from any part of the world or time in history and I'll try to find a way to describe it using these civics.

Talossa
(Good luck on that one )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossa

 

[inthesomeday]

Micronation? Oh please.
Despotic Totalitarian Monarchy with a Voluntary Commercial Capitalist economy.

 

[need my speed]

To inthesomeday:

Is a democratic government a direct democracy, while a parliamentary government is an indirect democracy? You might be referring to medieval England here, but... I don't know, it seems too specific. Can you provide a list for countries that would have these two governments?

What would a bureaucratic government be, and why would it not be any of the other governments?

What would a totalitarian administration be? Like a hegemony (all the other options fit nicely in the Power Structures section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government )? And if not that, then why could an empire or a unitary state - or anything - not be totalitarian?

What would a hereditary totalitarian democracy be, to take the first weird combination that I see?

Your economical options seem to be independent from eras.

That also goes for your labour category. And why can't artisans be voluntary? What is voluntary anyway? I had thought artisans referred to, for example, the renaissance, but perhaps you intend it to refer to the modern world?

What is the difference between socialised and regulated trade? I assume socialised would be 'communist', but I don't see how this makes sense.

 

[inthesomeday]

To inthesomeday:

Is a democratic government a direct democracy, while a parliamentary government is an indirect democracy? You might be referring to medieval England here, but... I don't know, it seems too specific. Can you provide a list for countries that would have these two governments?

What would a bureaucratic government be, and why would it not be any of the other governments?

What would a totalitarian administration be? Like a hegemony (all the other options fit nicely in the Power Structures section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government )? And if not that, then why could an empire or a unitary state - or anything - not be totalitarian?

What would a hereditary totalitarian democracy be, to take the first weird combination that I see?

Your economical options seem to be independent from eras.

That also goes for your labour category. And why can't artisans be voluntary? What is voluntary anyway? I had thought artisans referred to, for example, the renaissance, but perhaps you intend it to refer to the modern world?

What is the difference between socialised and regulated trade? I assume socialised would be 'communist', but I don't see how this makes sense.

1. Democracy here does in fact refer to a direct democracy, while parliamentary would be used to describe many modern republican states like the US and the U.K. Essentially my thinking was that democracy would refer to a system in which the entire eligible populace participated in government while a parliamentary system refers to representative governments. The keyword here is eligible. Democratic states: Today there are few but a common example in western thought is Switzerland; I might also consider Vietnam, personally. Meanwhile Parliamentary States make up most of the world's governments today, especially western governments.

2. In terms of bureaucratic governments I applied this term to a few things historically: imperial bureaucracies (I.E. Han China, Ottoman Empire) and, in the modern world, nations that are neither parliamentary nor oligarchic, such as debatably the modern Chinese or corporatic Nordic states. They differ from parliamentary or democratic governments in that their political systems place less power in a single entity-- though the Communist party technically has total control in China, realistically the government is more controlled by the different governmental organizations.

3. I figured a question about the difference between totalitarian, imperial, and unitary administrations would come up. I'll go into the larger definitions of each administration off of this question. The Federal state is a collection of substates (provinces, states) like the US or, for an older example, something like the Abbasid Caliphate, while the Confederal state is composed of smaller, autonomous or semi-autonomous states (Greece, HRE, today the UK or perhaps the EU). I was thinking and maybe League would be a good word here. Now as to the others: Imperial states have a developed center that has subjugated others, such as... Well, empires. In the modern day I could very, very contentiously apply this label to Russia. Unitary states are composed like a single, unified country. It's hard to expand on this idea, but there are numerous examples today; systems by which the central government directly governs every region but evenly and equally. The difference between this and Totalitarianism is that the latter is a system in which the federal government controls the regions but is not quite imperial. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and maybe modern China are totalitarian, while Imperial Rome, Japan, Britain, Assyria, etc are all imperial, and then many modern states are unitary, from Iran to France to New Zealand.

4. Now, as to my definition of hereditary. By this term I meant, quite simply, hereditary. As opposed to meaning within a specific family, however, it refers to the heredity of anything from one group to a single person. The Indian caste system is, here, hereditary, when we ignore the religious implications. Most monarchies were hereditary. As to hereditary democracies, parliamentary systems, and oligarchies, this means a hereditary political class. A hereditary democracy would allow only people with certain traits to participate; a hereditary parliament would have certain families or individuals composing the body of the legislature, and a hereditary oligarchy is probably the best descriptor for the Brahmin ruling class, if, again, we ignore the religious aspect of the caste system. Now I don't think we've seen a historical example of a totalitarian hereditary democracy, but I think one is wholly possible, especially today with the rise of right wing populism. Imagine if Trump restricted voting to American-born white males and expanded state power to a fascist degree as well as dissolving congress and making voting direct. Now of course this is unlikely, and these systems of government would probably have some stability issues, but, hey, you asked and that's probably how it would look. The fact that no historical precedent for a political system exists probably means it's a terrible idea.

5.Yes, independence from eras was the intent, Leo said that's preferred.

6.Voluntary here refers to systems of labor basically equivalent to wage labor. Artisan labor I agree needs a better term, but it refers to homestead labor, or handcrafting. It represents fairly decentralized labor systems in which people mostly work out of their own home or within small economic communities (guilds). I'd call the Puritan societies of 17th century New England "artisan", as well as Renaissance post-plague european communities, as well as the urban labor of many early agricultural civilizations like Mesopotamia.

7. Yes, socialized trade is trade completely conducted by the government, whereas "regulated" trade is a more moderate form, like in the "palace economies" Leoreth and Knoedel referred to, like Assyria, as well as the Nordic system.

In answering these questions I've come to like my system more and more.

 

[ozqar]

In reply to inthesomeday and building on their proposal:

I like how you defined and explained the different types of civics and I really like that you have pretty much kept to single dimensions for each of your categories. Other proposals mix different dimensions for each. Here each civic option is more of a policy or state and not so much a system by itself. To give a quick example, a hereditary monarchy (one of the earlier government civics) describes the transfer of power (hereditary), the consolidation and residency of power (a single ruler), and implicitly the source of sovereignty (the crown, probably as a divine intermediary), in a way that is historically relevant and synergic. I mean, this existed or exists and this combination of institutions worked together well. In inthesomeday's proposal, and also here, these functions are separated and the player would have greater flexibility to mix and match them.

I like how you explained the different types of administrative civics and I really like that you have pretty much kept to single dimensions for each of your categories. Other proposals mix different dimensions for each of the categories. While this adds consistency, it also leaves many potential civic options out of the game. I'll point out some examples in my post, as I discuss my observations and proposals on it.

A general comment might be that I don't like the generic "starter" civic for each category, especially because system does not follow a linear chronological progression, but rather choses different dimensions to distinguish types.

--------------------------------
Political System
You have broken down the political system (of the State, not of society) into three parts: administration, government, sovereignty.

About Government
You defined government as "the de facto composition of the highest authority" and include monarchy, oligarchy, parliament, democracy, and bureaucracy, but these rather seem to be different structures of power consolidation, different levels of power sharing, or we could even define it as the institution where power/sovereignty reside (where they reside finally, not necessarily where they comes from).

Here I find bureaucracy to be the odd one out, as a bureaucracy is the State apparatus, the institution by which administration is carried out, regardless of the form of government. With the exception of ancient Greece, I can't think of any real direct democracies. Switzerland today acts in some cases through referenda, but normally it has an representatives making decisions. Moreover, democracy as we use the word today rather defines the source of the power, not its final place of residency. So perhaps replacing it with "Presidentialism" is a better word choice. In this sense, Parliament I'm assuming stands for Parliamentary Republics, where parliament/congress is superior to the executive, with Presidentialism being the opposite. This gives the following: Monarchy, Oligarchy, Parliamentarism, Presidentialism... with one empty slot. Some form of pre-monarchical rule could be the option here?

About Sovereignty
You defined sovereignty as "the origin of the power" and include despotism, religion, popular, meritocratic, hereditary. I agree with your definition for the category.

However, I don't think meritocracy fits with the others. The term is normally associated with the election of state officials. In this sense merit is not the source of power, but a means of receiving power from the recognition of existing power structures. So power is not inherent to merit. Hereditary is also not a source of power, but just a mechanism to transfer it. In the case of monarchies, the source of power remains the Crown, not the family lineage itself.

Actual sources of sovereignty can be: Force (we can think of military governments or perhaps the leadership of the khanates), the Divine (including most monarchies, but also theocracies, and perhaps islamic republics), and the People (which technically includes communist and democratic regimes), but at least now I can't think of any other... perhaps what's left out is economic means, including everything from land to wealth? However, it's not as well fitting as the other three, as these economic means are usually converted to force (paying for armies) or used to corrupt, but they're not themselves sources of sovereignty. In any case, there would be two empty spot.

About Administration / Territory
I think that here you don't mean how the government is run (as you said), but rather you describe the power relationship between the component territories of the political entity - maybe the category should be renamed to "territory".

Here I find the inclusion of totalitarianism not very worthwhile. Empires, Confederations, Federations, and Unitary States are all distinctive forms of government that describe the relationship between the territories. I agree that Imperialism fits well to Russia, and I'd extend that to China. To replace totalitarianism, we could think of something that describes Colonial empires that had viceroyalties, like the Spanish Kingdom, or like the Commonwealth - where the viceroyalties where not entirely on par with the main state, but also had some degree of autonomy and where subservient to the crown (the head of state) but not to the government itself..

A fourth category: Administration
With former "administration" renamed to territory, we could think of how the government is run - the use of appointed officials, favoritism, professional civil service, etc., comes to mind as potential ideas here, but more thought is needed there.

--------------------------------
Economic System
You also have broken down the economic system in three parts: labor, trade, and economy (the latter could be renamed to production, but perhaps should be changed).

About Labor
You defined labor as the way the workforce is organized, but you seem to refer exclusively to the organization vis a vis the elites (ie, not internally), so for clarity we could talk about the type of contract between the workforce and the elites (or, as you say, where subservience comes from). You have: Communal, Tributary, Voluntary, Feudal and Artisan.

I understand communal as collective organizations (where there's joint ownership of the means of production). I find some conflicts between voluntary wage labor and artisanship (as you defined it), as they're basically both voluntary labor with money as a means of exchange. In one case money is exchanged for labor itself and in the second for the products of labor. I find a similar conflict between tributary and feudal systems, in both there is an allegiance or moral duty / debt that makes for the exchange to happen. If these distinctions are enough to merit these being separate civics, I guess that's fine, but I'll also try to think of other possibilities.

A proposal: "Self-employment" (including self-subsistence farming) should replace artisanship. The word "employment" should replace "voluntary", and "collectivities" should replace communal (as this way it includes agricultural collectivities, but also worker ownership). We should add "slavery" (forced labor) as a category, and servitude (by which I mean indebted servitude, including serfdom).

About Trade
I note that you define trade as the way wealth flows within and outside the society. Although the definition overlaps entirely with the one for labor (as the contract between the parties already defines the way wealth flows and in the economy category, the creation of wealth also defines how it flows). Your proposed civics are: nomadic, capitalist, mercantile, socialist, organized, regulated.

I'm having trouble identifying the dimension used to distinguish between these. Nomadic, for example refers not to how wealth flows, but rather to unsettled life. Most civs in game aren't nomadic, but for the few exceptions where some part of the population was clearly nomad (Tibet, Mongols) wealth flows were either tributary or voluntary (barter, market exchange) mechanisms. Mercantilism is as much about industry as it's about trade, with both policies geared towards autarky or self-sufficiency. You also described socialist and regulated as a continuum of regulatory intervention where I imagine capitalist is the other end, but I don't know what you mean by "organized". So I see 3 (possibly 4) civics as the most consistent here: socialist, regulated, capitalist, with mercantilism being on a different axis (contrasted to open trade), and nomadic belonging to a completely different category (it seems more like a "social" civic). Within the first three, better words could be found: perhaps Controlled, Regulated, Free, could do it, these apply both to domestic and international trade. "Socialism" and "capitalism" as concepts rather describe ownership of wealth and/or means of production, not so much their flow.

I also note that your definition of trade excludes the means of exchange (so banter / money are out of the question as potential civics) and the ownership of the trade system (who decides what to trade? - a self-employed merchant class, the State itself even if through intermediaries, and large corporations and trading companies could be a third option here).

About Economy
You define the "economy" category as the way society produces its wealth and resources, renaming it to production could make more sense (as labor and trade are technically also "economy"), although I think we should scrape this off, I'll explain next. Your categories: agricultural, manufacturing, pastoral, commercial, and plantations.

It seems the guiding principle of classification is the state of development in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary activities - you can also say the state of industrialization. Agricultural and pastoralism are basically on the same level here, with plantations next (it's implied that this is large scale agriculture geared towards trade), next manufacturing, and finally commercial. The main problem I see is that these aren't civics per se, they're definitely not policies that can be chosen by governments, but rather states that result of the comparative share of economic activity going to each sector. In this sense, I can see the game calculating your degree of industrialization in the stats page, but not so much it being a civic. I suggest to remove these civics altogether.

Instead, we could perhaps think of Ownership as a third economic category. It would determine the favored ownwership (and consolidation) of the means of production. How are land, capital, technologies, etc., owned? Options can be: Small companies (incl. family owned and smallholder farmers), Private Entities (in a capitalist way, companies in the Western sense, medium sized, etc), Corporations (also in a capitalist way, but referring to the more neoliberal way including modern corporations and even trading companies), Collectivities (incl. farmer associastions and worker unions) and State-owned.

Another option, closer to what you had in mind, would be the relative appreciation for specific economic activities, or in other words, what's the most "noble" role in society or the one placed at the center of it all. I can think of options: agrarianism (farmers), industrialism (workers), capitalism (entrepreneurs), consumerism (consumers), militarism or martialism (the army), name? (the priesthood and monks), name? (educators and scientists), name? (social workers including doctors, charities). This would definitely be a social and not an economic civic, but I would find it interesting for the game. And the civics themselves would have to be curated a bit to reduce overlap and reach 5 options to be consistent with other categories.

--------------------------------
Society, Culture, Religion
I'll talk about social civics in another post

 

[inthesomeday]

Thanks for the contribution! I'll have a lengthy response sometime tomorrow

 

[Leoreth]

Just dropping in to say that this is exactly the sort of discussion I had hoped for when making this thread. I'll comment on a couple of excerpts later.

 

[Leoreth]

What do people think about starting out without a starter civic in certain categories? Assuming we have six civics with effects per category, is 6x7 with starters preferred to 6x6 without starters?