Decentralization vs Centralization

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Let's say in Civ VII the difference between decentralized and centralized governments is a matter of control. The more centralized your government is, the more direct control you have over everything. The less centralized your government is, the more its functions are left to the A.I. For instance, a feudal government would mean just about every tile is managed by an A.I instead of you save for a few tiles.

Why would one choose a decentralized government over a centralized government, or vice versa?

 

[pokiehl]

Giving up control of your empire is too literal an interpretation of "decentralized." If you're looking at it that way, why is giving control from one entity (the human player) any more "centralized" than giving control to another singular entity (the AI)? In both cases, one entity is controlling everything.

I also don't think managing on a tile-by-tile basis makes any sense...

I think there are a lot more logical ways to interpret this dichotomy in a Civ game context (and more fun ways...giving up control to the AI shouldn't be a gameplay effect, but rather a quality of life tool to speed things up). One example is having different bonuses or maluses in your capital city vs far-away cities.

 

[Evie]

I like the idea of representing centralization vs decentralization, but I agree with pokiehl: making decentralization equivalent to handing over part of your country to the AI it’s unlikely to be a good approach. If past trends are any indication, that would result in players always trying to max out centralization to increase their control over the game.

The idea that decentralization means player loses control also reflect the bouton that the player is the government or ruler, which has generally not proven a great way to interpret the game.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

The idea that decentralization means player loses control also reflect the bouton that the player is the government or ruler, which has generally not proven a great way to interpret the game.

What if the player is a spirit (god) of a civilization splitting itself into many autonomous pieces?

But yeah. Still not a good idea.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Maybe Centralisation could be a scale, where low amount gives you high happiness, high amount gives you higher... profit?
Not sure what is exactly realistic or historically accurate, but definitely don't include "downsides", I think a vague bonus thing like this would be cool
You maybe would control it via the government you chose or something, or by actions you made.