Discussion: What do some Civics represent?

[Videosyncratic]

With regards to the proposed 1900 starting date scenario I have been thinking about what different civics each civilisation should have, however, I have also realised that I am not entirely sure on what some of the civics are meant to represent. With that in mind, I would be very interested to hear what everyone else thinks they represent!

Some specific examples of this:

1. I take Despotism to represent anything from ancient monarchies with extremely centralised (albeit somewhat ill-defined) power structures to more modern military and presidential (i.e. "non-ideological") dictatorships. Was that the intention? Why do people think that China and Russia mostly run Despotism instead of Monarchy for most of the game?
2. Do Republic and Elective have any more modern forms of government they are supposed to represent? I have always taken Republic to represent a loose confederation of small and often highly autonomous states. These include anything from the Ancient Greek City States to the Dutch Republic and, for more modern states, the Boer Republics and (arguably) even the 1st Brazilian Republic.
3. At what point do people think that democratic nations generally began switching over to Egalitarianism? I have previously taken it to represent the move towards equal universal suffrage (i.e. for both men and women with no property requirements or weighting imbalances) but the later civil rights movements that emerged in multiple countries could also be used as a benchmark too.
4. Do Redistribution or Merchant Trade have any modern parallels at all? Does Redistribution only represent ancient Palace Economies?
5. Is Regulated Trade supposed to represent more modern protectionist heavy economies as well or is that better represented by Central Planning or another civic? For specific examples, I'm thinking of the general move towards protectionism that took place during the interwar period and also, to some extent, the attempts made to move towards autarky in several countries.

 

[Videosyncratic]

I will also say that this is the first ever thread I have opened so I am very sorry if I have done something wrong or if this belongs somewhere else!

 

[Orbii]

For now I'll comment only on my interpretation of the economic civics you've noted:

• Redistribution, Regulated Trade, and Central Planning all represent centralized economic structures of some sorts.
  • Redistribution is basically full-on re-direction of resources from the outskirts to the capital. The resources come in (either from external trade or domestic production) and then get funneled to the capital to be used and remain there.
  • Regulated Trade is as it says - trade is regulated. Meant to model mercantalist structures of the Early Modern European Colonial Empires. Since most of the companies and structures in mercantalism are associated with the central government due to the need for patronage, the capital gets a bonus.
  • Central Planning has the central structure or politique direct where all resources go. I think the main distinction between this and Regulated Trade is what industries are being managed and to what extent, with Central Planning managing more things and to a great extent. Compared to Redistribution the resources don't necessarily have to go through the capital, and certainly don't remain in it; all that happens is the capital decides where resources go. Likewise with Regulated Trade.
    • In the modern context, Regulated Trade is basically tariff-heavy trade policy and politically influenced monetary policy. See Peronist Argentina. Central Planning is obviously associated with the command economies of Communist countries and modern China.
• I see Merchant Trade as being almost entirely obsoleted by Free Enterprise*, with my impression of the former basically being a more personal and small-scale version of the capitalist doctrine that private self-interest is the best way to distribute resources.

Edit: Corrected Free Market to Free Enterprise.

 

[Leoreth]

Free Market is not a civic, conveniently.

 

[Finbros]

With regards to the proposed 1900 starting date scenario I have been thinking about what different civics each civilisation should have, however, I have also realised that I am not entirely sure on what some of the civics are meant to represent. With that in mind, I would be very interested to hear what everyone else thinks they represent!

Some specific examples of this:

1. I take Despotism to represent anything from ancient monarchies with extremely centralised (albeit somewhat ill-defined) power structures to more modern military and presidential (i.e. "non-ideological") dictatorships. Was that the intention? Why do people think that China and Russia mostly run Despotism instead of Monarchy for most of the game?
2. Do Republic and Elective have any more modern forms of government they are supposed to represent? I have always taken Republic to represent a loose confederation of small and often highly autonomous states. These include anything from the Ancient Greek City States to the Dutch Republic and, for more modern states, the Boer Republics and (arguably) even the 1st Brazilian Republic.
3. At what point do people think that democratic nations generally began switching over to Egalitarianism? I have previously taken it to represent the move towards equal universal suffrage (i.e. for both men and women with no property requirements or weighting imbalances) but the later civil rights movements that emerged in multiple countries could also be used as a benchmark too.
4. Do Redistribution or Merchant Trade have any modern parallels at all? Does Redistribution only represent ancient Palace Economies?
5. Is Regulated Trade supposed to represent more modern protectionist heavy economies as well or is that better represented by Central Planning or another civic? For specific examples, I'm thinking of the general move towards protectionism that took place during the interwar period and also, to some extent, the attempts made to move towards autarky in several countries.

1. I don't think that any modern society should run Despotism at 1900 AD or later, even totalitartian one, mostly because of its feature of sacrificing population (though Democratic Kampuchea..).
3. I think that some democratic nations certainly should have Individualism instead, representing early capitalism.
4,5.
For me:
- Redistribution is "Palace economy" of ancient times. If someone really want modern analogues - it can be short periods of "war communism" in RSFSR and wartime rationing at WWII.
- Merchant Trade is extinct completely.
- Regulated Trade is protectionist policies of modern times, but pre-Keynesian ones: Keynes will fall into Public Welfare.
- Central Planning is socialist planned economy. It could also represent state capitalism, but here we get a gameplay limitation, adoption of Central Planning is also a trigger for changing civ name and leaderhead to communistic one.

 

[TJDowling]

I think state capitalism would be State Party plus Free Enterprise?

 

[Enyavar]

I think state capitalism would be State Party plus Free Enterprise?

That's describing chinese capitalism pretty well, so yes?

Instead of asking which civics represents what in a general sense, this thread should rather ask which civics make sense for which country to have in the scenario, and when. Just my 2€c.

For example, Germany took the way monarchy/democracy/totalitarianism/democracy; with totalitarianism lasting differently long in the West and the East.

 

[Videosyncratic]

That's describing chinese capitalism pretty well, so yes?

Instead of asking which civics represents what in a general sense, this thread should rather ask which civics make sense for which country to have in the scenario, and when. Just my 2€c.

For example, Germany took the way monarchy/democracy/totalitarianism/democracy; with totalitarianism lasting differently long in the West and the East.

I agree that it is easier to take a historic polity and then see what civics can be applied to them, it was just that I was struggling to work out what exactly the economic civics represented. However, with everyone's feedback I am much closer to understanding them and I'm glad to hear that everyone seems to largely be on the same page as me regarding the fact that Redistribution and Merchant Trade have virtually entirely been replaced by later civics.

1. I don't think that any modern society should run Despotism at 1900 AD or later, even totalitartian one, mostly because of its feature of sacrificing population (though Democratic Kampuchea..).
3. I think that some democratic nations certainly should have Individualism instead, representing early capitalism.

Thank you for your reply, it was very useful, especially regarding the economy civics! With your stance on Despotism, how would you represent military and presidential dictatorships? To me, I would say they are best represented by Despotism + Constitution but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Also, did you have any examples in mind regarding Individualism?

 

[Finbros]

Thank you for your reply, it was very useful, especially regarding the economy civics! With your stance on Despotism, how would you represent military and presidential dictatorships? To me, I would say they are best represented by Despotism + Constitution but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Also, did you have any examples in mind regarding Individualism?

Most problem with Despotism is gameplay: firstly, it heavily penalized by stability mechanic for modern times, secondly, as I said, its key feature with sacrificing doesn't really correspond to any modern practice.

I think, military/presidential dictatorships can be represented with State Party+Ideology/Centralism + Nationhood. Ideology for military, Centralism for presidential.
It can cause problems with representation of non-affiliated strongmen, but it isn't a very common case, I think: something like Sanacja Poland (or modern Belarus), where leader is a strongmen of its own, and local parliament consists mostly from independent candidates. Though Democracy+Centralism will work well for such cases.

Other civics:
- Society may vary: Individualism (right-leaning, from Pinochet Chile and various dictablandas to Indonesia under Suharto), Egalitarianism (populist or left-leanining), Totalitarism (crazy-leaning from both ends) or even Manorialism (conservative ones)
- Economy: any modern civic, Central Planning - Public Welfare - Regulated Trade - Free Enterprise, correspoding with left-right affiliation.

Also, did you have any examples in mind regarding Individualism?

I think, Individualism corresponds to classical liberalism, and Egalitarianism - with social democracy and civil rights movement (and some European countries at 1900 AD can use Manorialism, representing old landed nobility).


For 1900 AD: Individualism definitely should be set for USA, Britain, Netherlands and Germany, Egalitarianism for France, Manorialism for Austria and Russia (pre-1905).
Later most of European countries should pass to Egalitarianism, and Individualism should be passed to USA, right-wing regimes in Latin America and neoliberal governments of late XX century.


Also, my thoughts for representation various countries in hypothetical 1900 AD, 1935 AD and 1970 AD scenarios:

1900 AD
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Colonialism
- France: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Colonialism
- Germany: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Colonialism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Isolationism
- Russia (pre-1905): Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Monasticism, Conquest
- Austria: Monarchy, Constitution, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Ottomans (pre-1908): Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Theocracy, Vassalage


1935 AD:
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Colonialism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Nationhood
- USSR: State Party, Centralism, Totalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Nationhood
- Germany: State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Public Welfare, Secularism, Nationhood
- Italy: State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Japan: Monarchy, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Regulated Trade, Deification, Nationhood
- Poland: Democracy, Centralism, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood


1965~1975 AD:
- USSR: State Party, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Multilateralism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Multilateralism
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Multilateralism
- France: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Spain: State Party, Ideology, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Indonesia: State Party, Ideology, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Nationhood
- PRC (cultural revolution): State Party, Centralism, Totalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Isolationism
- Argentina (dirty war): State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Nationhood

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Most problem with Despotism is gameplay: firstly, it heavily penalized by stability mechanic for modern times, secondly, as I said, its key feature with sacrificing doesn't really correspond to any modern practice.

Yes, because clearly there has been no regime in modern history which systematically worked people to death.

1935 AD:
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Colonialism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Nationhood
- USSR: State Party, Centralism, Totalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Nationhood
- Germany: State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Public Welfare, Secularism, Nationhood
- Italy: State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Japan: Monarchy, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Regulated Trade, Deification, Nationhood
- Poland: Democracy, Centralism, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood


1965~1975 AD:
- USSR: State Party, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Multilateralism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Multilateralism
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Multilateralism
- France: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Spain: State Party, Ideology, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Indonesia: State Party, Ideology, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Nationhood
- PRC (cultural revolution): State Party, Centralism, Totalitarianism, Central Planning, Secularism, Isolationism
- Argentina (dirty war): State Party, Ideology, Totalitarianism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Nationhood

The civics I put in bold I find very strange.They should clearly be Ideology for the most part.

 

[Orbii]

Yes, because clearly there has been no regime in modern history which systematically worked people to death.
...
The civics I put in bold I find very strange.They should clearly be Ideology for the most part.

I'd second both of these observations. Despotism continues to reflect the more blatantly cruel dictatorships, and even if its bonus is not used can model modern strongmen regimes (Despotism + Constitution, for example). For the PRC, I'd say that Centralism is most appropriate for when it modernizes away from full 'Communism', but you could still argue Ideology is the appropriate civic. I would put the modern PRC as State Party/Centralism/Totalitarianism/Free Enterprise/Secularism/Nationhood.

1900 AD
- Britain: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Colonialism
- France: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, Colonialism
- Germany: Monarchy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Colonialism
- USA: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Isolationism
- Russia (pre-1905): Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Monasticism, Conquest
- Austria: Monarchy, Constitution, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood
- Ottomans (pre-1908): Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Theocracy, Vassalage

Of these, I find the USA the most problematic. Use of Regulated Trade and Isolationism for the USA at the turn of the century is inappropriate. They are literally at the height of the Gilded Age at this point (perhaps the greatest example in American history of capitalism left unchecked, only rivaled by the Roaring 20's) and are just about to embark on massive shipbuilding and intercontinental engagement and 'liberation' under Presidents McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Free Enterprise is appropriate for modeling the former, and Colonialism the latter - during this timeframe, the US conquers the Philippines and Cuba, and makes significant inroads into Latin America to an extent that Isolationism is not an appropriate moniker.

For Germany, Constitution should certainly be replaced with Centralism. While there was a representative body and a Constitution in the German Empire, it was effectively toothless and most power was vested in the monarch and his immediate ministers. Same issue with Austria, although more debatable due to the greater decentralization in Austria-Hungary.

Russia's use of Conquest is interesting. Tributaries or even Colonialism I believe is more appropriate, but I understand why you chose Conquest.

As for the Ottomans, I would debate whether Theocracy is ever appropriate to model their religious model, but I am not well-versed in Ottoman history (perhaps this is meant to model the claiming of the Caliphate?).

 

[Jipsu]

Early history is not my forte but I don't think Despotism should have any presence after Monarchy and Elective Monarchy appear. A despot gets legitimacy from having an army and extracts tax in exchange for protection. Monarchies of different sorts have consolidated forms of legitimacy. State Party encompasses most forms of government in the 1900s as it can reflect a modern democracy, semi-democracy or military dictatorship. Civilopedia refers to internationalist Soviet Union, nationalist Fascist Italy and post-colonial states. Most of them are portrayed as independents in the game but there's at least South Korea, Indonesia, Brazil and Pinochet's Chile. Democracy differs from State Party by stability and is characterized by multiple parties negotiating for power. Drawing a line between Democracy and State Party is not clear cut but a democracy has a proven and functioning system of checks and balances. A couple of Monarchies left like the Saudis.

Finbros nailed it with Individualism and Egalitarianism, former being a bourgeois movement against the nobility in politics and merchant leagues in trade and enterprise, and latter the idea of equalizing differences between citizens or people in general. Negative freedoms vs. positive freedoms. Egalitarianism being reflected in Public Welfare and Central Planning (social democracy, socialism, fascism, anarchism) and Individualism being reflected in Free Enterprise (liberalism, neo-liberalism). State capitalism as Central Planning (as Civilopedia states), Free Enterprise or Centralism is indeed tricky, especially as I'm not sure Centralism as a Renaissance tech should be advocated here. Is the question relevant though? Besides China, what other examples are there? East Asian Tigers maybe.

 

[Videosyncratic]

Russia's use of Conquest is interesting. Tributaries or even Colonialism I believe is more appropriate, but I understand why you chose Conquest.

As for the Ottomans, I would debate whether Theocracy is ever appropriate to model their religious model, but I am not well-versed in Ottoman history (perhaps this is meant to model the claiming of the Caliphate?).

I agree with most of your points and I will also admit that I find assigning the Territory civics to historical polities the hardest as they often don't fit neatly into just one category, instead fitting several different ones and therefore requiring you to choose which one best fits.

Regarding the Ottomans and Theocracy I would advocate that civic for them too for the latter part of their existence; as far as I understand it a great deal of the Sultan's authority and legitimacy came from the fact that they claimed the Caliphate. While I agree that it is a bit unfortunate as the civic in-game conjures up ideas of religious intolerance whereas the real-life Ottomans were (comparatively) quite tolerant, I still think it is the best fitting religious civic for the ca. 1900 C.E. Ottoman Empire.

As it happens, I also think that the Russian Empire would also have been running Theocracy in ca. 1900 as the Tsar ruled by divine right, being (in theory) accountable only to God and, due to the long-standing tradition of caesaropapism, completely in control of the Russian Orthodox Church. For their Territory civic I would be tempted to give them Nationhood as the preceding 19th century saw an enormous growth in the Slavophile movement and other Russian nationalist movements. Finally, while I agree that Manorialism would best reflect the reality experienced by many working people at the time, I think that actually Individualism could also represent the aftermath of the liberation of the serfs by Alexander II and the crash-course industrialisation began from the 1890s onward.

For the record, my proposal in ca. 1900 is:

• Russian Empire: Monarchy, Centralism, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Theocracy, Nationhood

Early history is not my forte but I don't think Despotism should have any presence after Monarchy and Elective Monarchy appear. A despot gets legitimacy from having an army and extracts tax in exchange for protection. Monarchies of different sorts have consolidated forms of legitimacy. State Party encompasses most forms of government in the 1900s as it can reflect a modern democracy, semi-democracy or military dictatorship. Civilopedia refers to internationalist Soviet Union, nationalist Fascist Italy and post-colonial states. Most of them are portrayed as independents in the game but there's at least South Korea, Indonesia, Brazil and Pinochet's Chile. Democracy differs from State Party by stability and is characterized by multiple parties negotiating for power. Drawing a line between Democracy and State Party is not clear cut but a democracy has a proven and functioning system of checks and balances. A couple of Monarchies left like the Saudis.

Finbros nailed it with Individualism and Egalitarianism, former being a bourgeois movement against the nobility in politics and merchant leagues in trade and enterprise, and latter the idea of equalizing differences between citizens or people in general. Negative freedoms vs. positive freedoms. Egalitarianism being reflected in Public Welfare and Central Planning (social democracy, socialism, fascism, anarchism) and Individualism being reflected in Free Enterprise (liberalism, neo-liberalism). State capitalism as Central Planning (as Civilopedia states), Free Enterprise or Centralism is indeed tricky, especially as I'm not sure Centralism as a Renaissance tech should be advocated here. Is the question relevant though? Besides China, what other examples are there? East Asian Tigers maybe.

I certainly agree with a lot of what you're saying and your explanation of the difference between State Party and Democracy is very close to mine (i.e. a one-party or dominant party state vs. a "true" multi-party democracy), just put much more succinctly! However, where would 19th century dictatorships (e.g. many in South America, arguably even Napoleon) fall? Would some combination of Democracy + Centralism or Ideology work? I tend to find that many of these developed before powerful parties arose and so they tend to revolve more around individual leaders; in my mind the difference between Despotism and State Party was the former being "person-orientated" while the latter is "party-orientated".

I understand the difference between Individualism and Egalitarianism but I am also curious as to when people think different polities began adopting them. In a similar vein, when do people think Secularism started to be adopted, if at all for some civilisations?

 

[Finbros]

Yes, because clearly there has been no regime in modern history which systematically worked people to death.

Okay, but Khmer Rouge just need eighth civic "Bathorsehocky maoist insanity" in all six columns.
Speaking seriously, limitation of sacrificing its own population doesn't allow to represent Third Reich correctly, and gulags is far better represented by hammers from angry pops with Totalitarianism.

The civics I put in bold I find very strange.They should clearly be Ideology for the most part.

Here is gameplay over historicity. Ideology with its bonus to Great General generation for me is definite feature of militaristic polities.
Okay, I can put it to pre-war USSR for other features, but definitely not for post-Stalinist.
Same for Maoist PRC.

Constitution for post-Stalinist USSR is mostly for GPP ponus and representation of decentralizing (dismantling of huge ministries) reforms of 50s-60s.

Of these, I find the USA the most problematic. Use of Regulated Trade and Isolationism for the USA at the turn of the century is inappropriate. They are literally at the height of the Gilded Age at this point (perhaps the greatest example in American history of capitalism left unchecked, only rivaled by the Roaring 20's) and are just about to embark on massive shipbuilding and intercontinental engagement and 'liberation' under Presidents McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Free Enterprise is appropriate for modeling the former, and Colonialism the latter - during this timeframe, the US conquers the Philippines and Cuba, and makes significant inroads into Latin America to an extent that Isolationism is not an appropriate moniker.

For Germany, Constitution should certainly be replaced with Centralism. While there was a representative body and a Constitution in the German Empire, it was effectively toothless and most power was vested in the monarch and his immediate ministers. Same issue with Austria, although more debatable due to the greater decentralization in Austria-Hungary.

Russia's use of Conquest is interesting. Tributaries or even Colonialism I believe is more appropriate, but I understand why you chose Conquest.

As for the Ottomans, I would debate whether Theocracy is ever appropriate to model their religious model, but I am not well-versed in Ottoman history (perhaps this is meant to model the claiming of the Caliphate?).

Okay, I was in doubt with America too. Regulated Trade was mostly for its protectionist period, but Free Enterprise is more iconic for USA, I agree.
Isolationism was for Monroe Doctrine, but Nationhood works better, probably.

Agree with Germany.

Conquest at Russia is sort of ahistorical. It should be Nationhood: modern universal conscription was adopted at 1874, and somewhen in this time ideology turned to nationalistic from monarchist and religious, but I think that some obsolete civic is good for representing bad shape of 1900 AD Russian Empire, and Nationhood is too popular.

Yes, Theocracy is for Caliphate and playing with political pan-Islamism in last years of Ottoman Empire.

As it happens, I also think that the Russian Empire would also have been running Theocracy in ca. 1900 as the Tsar ruled by divine right, being (in theory) accountable only to God and, due to the long-standing tradition of caesaropapism, completely in control of the Russian Orthodox Church. For their Territory civic I would be tempted to give them Nationhood as the preceding 19th century saw an enormous growth in the Slavophile movement and other Russian nationalist movements. Finally, while I agree that Manorialism would best reflect the reality experienced by many working people at the time, I think that actually Individualism could also represent the aftermath of the liberation of the serfs by Alexander II and the crash-course industrialisation began from the 1890s onward.

For the record, my proposal in ca. 1900 is:

• Russian Empire: Monarchy, Centralism, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Theocracy, Nationhood

I certainly agree with a lot of what you're saying and your explanation of the difference between State Party and Democracy is very close to mine (i.e. a one-party or dominant party state vs. a "true" multi-party democracy), just put much more succinctly! However, where would 19th century dictatorships (e.g. many in South America, arguably even Napoleon) fall? Would some combination of Democracy + Centralism or Ideology work? I tend to find that many of these developed before powerful parties arose and so they tend to revolve more around individual leaders; in my mind the difference between Despotism and State Party was the former being "person-orientated" while the latter is "party-orientated".

About Russian Empire: definitely not Theocracy (don't think that there is a place for it after the times of Peter the Great).
Religious politics of Russian Empire was sort of harsh for 1900s Tolerance (and, again, too much Tolerance for civs here and there), but other confessions wasn't persecuted (except for pogroms), and society was pretty secular.

I agree about Individualism for early capitalism, but I also thought that starting at 1900 AD Russia should have some civic change, representing revolution of 1905, so we should have something like this:

Starting, pre-1905 Russia (absolutist): Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Monasticism/Clergy, Conquest/Nationhood
Post-1905 Russia (constitutional monarchy): Monarchy, Centralism/Constitution, Individualism, Regulated Trade, Tolerance, Nationhood

About Democracy+Centralism: I'd assign this combination to "leaked democraties" like some interbellum semi-dictatorships (most notably Poland) or even strong unitary republics, especially presidential ones (early, Gaullist Fifth Republic?).
Democracy+Ideology..don't know. Probably Peronist Argentine or other military dictatorships from the most sane ones?

 

[8ha8ha]

I think Despotism is the leader said "Build XXX AT ANY LIFE COST AT ONCE!!". E.G. Qin Shi Huang Built the Great Wall, Mao built the nuclear power (He said China need Nuclear rather than Pant, just like Mr. Kim now, right?). It is much more use by the eastern region as too many people in the country = The Price of Life is low enough to Sacrifice

For State Property said "According to the year plan from the party meeting, we need to build xxx", It still need some agreement/compromising within the Party.
For Democracy said "According to the vote, our citizen need xxx, so we build it now" The vote is my political life and I can ignore it, right?

Actually I think Centralism is too weak in the game. It only give benefit if your country is small enough. Russia 1700AD Centralism is just hurting their economic instead of boosting.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Come to think of it, I would also disagree with classifying modern PRC as Free Enterprise. Regulated Trade imo fits better, as they do maintain significant state control even over the operations of foreign corporations within their territory.

Actually I think Centralism is too weak in the game. It only give benefit if your country is small enough. Russia 1700AD Centralism is just hurting their economic instead of boosting.

The idea is, I believe, that Centralism should be used together with Regulated Trade and either Colonialism or Tributaries to boost your capital for controlling lots of colonies or vassals. Whether or not this works in practice as it is intended is another story of course. Imo Monarchy's current effect should be replaced with extra commerce in your capital for each city you directly control to drive the point further home.

 

[Orbii]

The idea is, I believe, that Centralism should be used together with Regulated Trade and either Colonialism or Tributaries to boost your capital for controlling lots of colonies or vassals. Whether or not this works in practice as it is intended is another story of course. Imo Monarchy's current effect should be replaced with extra commerce in your capital for each city you directly control to drive the point further home.

As far as I recall, there is also a very generous stability bonus prior to the Industrial Era from such a combination (Monarchy + Centralism + (Meritocracy) + Regulated Trade + Clergy + (Isolationalism) providing the best possible bonus, although Meritocracy and Isolationalism will not be used with European powers).

 

[Fresol]

Meritocracy is just pointless, its bonus is next to nothing.

 

[Crimean Lord]

Come to think of it, I would also disagree with classifying modern PRC as Free Enterprise. Regulated Trade imo fits better, as they do maintain significant state control even over the operations of foreign corporations within their territory.


The idea is, I believe, that Centralism should be used together with Regulated Trade and either Colonialism or Tributaries to boost your capital for controlling lots of colonies or vassals. Whether or not this works in practice as it is intended is another story of course. Imo Monarchy's current effect should be replaced with extra commerce in your capital for each city you directly control to drive the point further home.

I think culture bonus to Сapital (+1 or 2 per every non-capital city) will be actual in Monarchy Civic - it will simulare cultural hegemony of Royal Center;

 

[Crimean Lord]

Meritocracy is just pointless, its bonus is next to nothing.

It combines really well with current CHINA as I know