Civilization Types (Societies) for Civ 7

[Jhappy77]

Governments are notoriously difficult to represent in Civ games. For one, many civilizations do not fit the rigid categories that civ games provide (a ton of countries in the modern era are neither liberal democracies nor fascist dictatorships nor communists). Another issue is that civ as a whole is very Eurocentric and no matter what, your gameplay in civ will resemble a classically European idea of 4X expansion. What if there were a better way to represent how humans across the world have organized throughout history?

I propose a new mechanic for Civ 7: Civilization Types or Societies. These would represent broader categories of historical human societies and they would be designed to be inclusive of non-traditional societies across the world. Each society type would feature major alterations to gameplay, including unique bonuses, units, buildings, and even mechanics. Each society type would also include a focus tree (like Paradox games) where you could further specialize into specific areas, representing how they exist on a spectrum and not necessarily rigid categories. As you progress through the technology/civic tree, new society types would become available to you.

Any civilization can choose to become any society type. Usually you would stay as the same society type for around 2 eras, although you would be free to change at any time (incurring some cost).


Here are some examples of Society Types, along with what their bonuses could be:

------ Available in the ancient era ---------------

Empire (Examples in history: Rome, Qin, Achaemenids, Aztecs, Inca)

Spoiler :

Represents societies with a focus on expanding, conquering, and maintaining a large empire. They would have bonuses related to infrastructure and offensive wars (many unique buildings, promotions, siege units, etc). The focus tree would also allow you to develop a very strong core and capital powered by your expansion.

Playing as an empire would allow grant you unique abilities related to puppeting cities in the periphery of your empire, extracting tributes from city states and other civs, and creating vassals. However, you would be vulnerable to conquest from barbarians!

League of Cities (Examples in history: Ancient Greece, Sumer, Mayans, Pyu, Phoenicians)

Spoiler :

Represents societies where power was not always enforced by a central state, but rather distributed among competing city states sharing a common culture. Would have lots of diplomacy bonuses and unique options for interactions with city states, and they would also be very good at generating science and great people.

When playing as a league of cities, you may also fight civil wars between your cities, rewarding your civilization with bonus yields upon conclusion. Leagues of Cities are usually “Tall Civilizations”, focused on a few populous and powerful cities, and you would have less direct control over them and gameplay would include managing the competing needs of your cities.

You could also create colonists which may found new city states that are automatically allied to you. The focus tree includes paths which specialize in naval power/commerce as well as culture/religion.

Tribal Confederacy (Examples in history: Gauls, Cree, Bedouin, Inuit, Tupi, various indigenous peoples)

Spoiler :

Represents decentralized and tribal societies which form loose confederacies in pursuit of common goals. Playing as a tribal confederacy would be radically different from typical civ games. Your cities would be very small and have limited growth, but you would be exceptionally good at settling vast expanses of land. Despite their small size, your cities would be good at producing basic units and buildings, and you would have a ton of defensive bonuses that make you a pain in the ass to conquer. You would have bonuses to unimproved resources, and you could even convert your cities into nomads which may move to settle a different location.

As a tribal confederacy, your focus tree would allow you to specialize in a certain environment and become an extremophile that is well-adapted to one particular environment (like desert, or jungle, or tundra, or something else). Specializing in an environment would unlock unique buildings, improvements, and/or units that make that environment more hospitable to your culture.

Kingdom (Examples in history: Ancient Egypt, Armenia, Gupta Empire, Mississippians, Goguryeo)

Spoiler :

Represents societies with less of a focus on war, conquest, or expansion, and more of an insular focus. They would have large bonuses to religion, culture, and wonder construction. Their gameplay would be flexible and similar to classic civilization gameplay. Their lack of military bonuses would make them vulnerable to conquest from others.

Also I couldn't think of a better name for this one, any ideas?

Others?

---------- Available at classical era -------------------

Horse Culture (Examples in history: Huns, Xiongnu, Mongols, Gokturks, Mapuche, Sioux)

Spoiler :

Represents nomadic pastoral societies centered around the horse as a way of life. They get access to powerful unique horse units, and are even better at moving cities nomadically than tribal confederacies. They are fearsome conquerors, and although they’re weak at producing traditional yields they can leech them from their competitors through raids, razes, and conquests.

• Others

--------- Available in medieval era -------------------

• An evolution of the “league of cities” concept, this time with a greater focus on maritime trade? (Italians, Swahili, Hanseatic League)
• An evolution of the empire concept, but with more focus on religion? (Byzantines, Umayyads)
• Others

---- Available in renaissance ----------------------

• An evolution of horse culture, focused on the successor states to various khanates like the Yuan which lost their nomadic character and became more focused on cities while maintaining some horse bonuses?
• Others

At this point I haven’t fully fleshed out most of the society types for later eras, but I’d love to hear your ideas.

I think this would be a fun way of diversifying gameplay while also making civ more inclusive of different cultures from across history. You could choose different society types based on strategy and your intended playstyle. For example, if you spawn next to an annoying neighbor that you want to conquer, you could become an empire. Or, if you start in the vast expanses of the frozen north, you could become a tribal confederacy to effectively live off the land and repel any attempted invaders.

Thoughts?

 

[Naeshar]

Thoughts?

I think you did a very good job.
Governments are tough to portray in a game where an immortal player leads a homogenous empire. I feel they were always a mechanic rather than a depiction of historic governments, and as such didnt really push our imagination towards your representation.

A few points from me:
1. Civilization series have in their DNA, that they allow us to create Empires. They didnt allow us to form a nomadic horde or fall down into a bunch of city-states. In some cases we were able to do an OCC, but that wasnt the intended gameplay. Even then it was about the same, just limiting your civilization. Governments should bring new playstyles, and sometimes they did, as you couldnt declare war on anyone, for example. But a more radical approach could do well. Civilizations changing radically and their focus shifting from conquest to growth or wealth and back... I fear it might interfere with the approach of continuous improvement, which is prevalent now. After all, Civ games are not a history simulation but rather a strategy games with clear destination.
2. The change from one government to another was never easy or spontaneous. Greek city states were not democracies, for most of the time, and always had internal struggles. The Roman Empire emerged from an institutionalized republic after a series of civil wars, even though they were still growing at the time. Usually in games there was a time of anarchy, which was mostly mild penalty, but Civ6 stripped that away with the free policy changes. On the other hand, overstaying in an old government form was usually a disadvantage overall. Which is why absolutist monarchies gave way to constitutional ones, I believe. Or keeping the roman imperial structure around as Byzantium when facing invasions.
3. I wonder if the way to change a "society" should be forced on to player (periodically?), encouraged (per advisor or as soon as researched) or voluntary (free to choose at any time)? I agree with you on the point that similar societies had different approaches and improved over time, though not really continuously - ancient greek polis -> Hanseatic League -> confederation in Dutch Republic. Instead of Historic Moments Civ series might have some Revolutionary moments, for times of societal change. Each government would have their own development (such as quests) that could contribute to stability or need for change.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Boris Gudenuf should check this out

 

[Jhappy77]

2. The change from one government to another was never easy or spontaneous. Greek city states were not democracies, for most of the time, and always had internal struggles. The Roman Empire emerged from an institutionalized republic after a series of civil wars, even though they were still growing at the time. Usually in games there was a time of anarchy, which was mostly mild penalty, but Civ6 stripped that away with the free policy changes. On the other hand, overstaying in an old government form was usually a disadvantage overall. Which is why absolutist monarchies gave way to constitutional ones, I believe. Or keeping the roman imperial structure around as Byzantium when facing invasions.
3. I wonder if the way to change a "society" should be forced on to player (periodically?), encouraged (per advisor or as soon as researched) or voluntary (free to choose at any time)? I agree with you on the point that similar societies had different approaches and improved over time, though not really continuously - ancient greek polis -> Hanseatic League -> confederation in Dutch Republic. Instead of Historic Moments Civ series might have some Revolutionary moments, for times of societal change. Each government would have their own development (such as quests) that could contribute to stability or need for change.

Good points- I especially like the idea of quests in order to prompt change.

For example, to become a "medieval religious empire", you would need to convert a certain percentage of your cities to a religion, build a number of temples, and build a religious wonder. Or, if you're a Horse Culture, and you completely conquer another civilization, you would receive a bunch of points towards transitioning to the "advanced horse empire" (Seljuqs / Yuan). Or, if you wanted to become a communist society, you would have to fight a civil war for your communist revolution to seize power, which would conclude with a cultural revolution where you get a bunch of free social policies/tenets to make it worth your while.

Overall, since civ is a strategy game, I like mechanics that empower players to make choices rather than make them passively at the mercy of their game's circumstances.

 

[mitsho]

You‘re on the right way, but I think you set it up too complicated.

Either go with Tribes -> Empire where staying into the medieval era as a tribe is an accomplishment but allows you to go full mongol.

Or do ~3 distinct forms that are taken from gameplay. Ask, what makes them special and/or fun to play at this stage of the game. A tribal confereation would allow you to go wide and claim a large, but thinly populated area, while an Empire allows for larger cities to be used either for wonders or conquest. But what niche then do City States (or „Republic“) fill? You need a gameplay niche and making them distinct, but logical for casual players. Otherwise don‘t bother. This system needs clear boni, otherwise the distinctions don‘t matter.

The challenge though is that some maps just don‘t make sense for some of these societies. Can you be a nomadic one when you don‘t have space to move around in? Which is why I tend towards the second solution, but still with the mantra of less-is-more. For example, only include a „explore-the-world-and-colonialize-it“ society from the late medieval era onwards, if it makese gameplay sense to chose it, while it still allowing for a variation between going Portugal (commercial posts), Spain (conquering people) or England (bringing settlers over). But I don‘t think this warrants then a new society in the industrial era of „Imperialism“. Sure, there‘s a difference, but it‘s mainly in numbers. I can‘t see a big gameplay variation requiring it.

So my main point is: YES, that‘s the logical next step, but think of the gameplay first

 

[The Civs 6]

Would the societies converge over time? Or are there modern societies that are distinguishable using these criteria?