Do you think CIV 6 should be ideologically biased

[Wojciech_R]

Hi,

Do you think that CIV 6 should promote western ideas?
CIV 5 does rather bad job with that (whole tradition>liberty -> order+autocracy>freedom thing).

In CIV 1 & 2 democracy was to go gov, then things started to spiral out of control (CIV 4 state property:/).

I am not advocating for historical accuracy anymore (this is lost cause in game where Hammurabi can launch manned mission to different solar system), but some good western values could use some promotion.

 

[Kriogen]

1. No. It's a game not a political discusion. What's next, religion, football, mobil OS wars, Star Trek vs Star Wars?

It's a game. You expect it has rules and rules are balanced.

2. Its a moddable game. You don't like, mod it.

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[Redaxe]

Hi,

Do you think that CIV 6 should promote western ideas?
CIV 5 does rather bad job with that (whole tradition>liberty -> order+autocracy>freedom thing).

In CIV 1 & 2 democracy was to go gov, then things started to spiral out of control (CIV 4 state property:/).

I am not advocating for historical accuracy anymore (this is lost cause in game where Hammurabi can launch manned mission to different solar system), but some good western values could use some promotion.

What makes you think that Liberty/Freedom is going to win out in the long term? The actual proportion of time that human civilisation has been under those ideologies is very small. The system is already showing major cracks. Every liberal western democracy is on life support because of debt. And virtually none of these countries have the means or the willpower to get themselves off debt. The only reason it can continue is because of credit, we just fabricate money out of nothing.

The system worked until people realised they could vote in the government that promised them things the country can't actually afford. There are many arguments that universal suffrage should never have been introduced see how social media is full of social justice warriors - these people move from trendy issue to the next trendy issue like fashion, yet they are too naive to understand how the world actually works. Westerners have become complacent, lazy and entitled. People vote that have no understanding of economics or how a society should function. How many politicians have you seen elected because they look like movie stars, or they have good hair, or they speak well and then end up as absolute disasters.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Removed

Moderator Action: Please do not accuse others of trolling. That also is trolling. If you have a problem with someone's post, you can report it, or ignore it, or respond substantively.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Sorry this was misunderstood. The troll in my mind is the discussion, not the OP or anybody else (In French we use the word troll for discussions as well). I give it 99% chance to degenerate. I thought this little troll picture was cute enough to avoid being taken too seriously. Guess i was wrong.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Once you start 'promoting' ANY ideas, you are immediately faced with the decision of which ideas to promote. 'Western Ideas' include Liberal Democracy, Personal Freedom, Genocidal Warfare, Totalitarianism, and Ideological and Religious Fanaticism. The fact that 'The West' (a pretty amorphous term, actually) At This Point In Time seems to largely have decided to try Personal Freedom (in varying degrees) and Liberal Democracy (ditto) doesn't mean they won't also try the Other Western Ideas in the future (again).

What is needed in Civ VI is to show the various Western AND 'Eastern' and other Ideas AND all of their Advantages and Disadvantages. That requires a lot more historical knowledge than the Civ programmers and designers have shown so far throughout the series, but it is not impossible. Just for starters, you have to differentiate between Advantages and Disadvantages inherent in the ideology or 'Policy' and those due to other factors.
For one example, Civ V assumes that the Autocracy Ideology is synonymous with an excellent military. This is not historically true. If it were, the Fascist Autocrats controlling Italy, Rumania and Hungary during World War Two would have all fielded excellent military forces. I won't bother waiting while you dig up examples of the excellence of Fascist Italy's military, it would be too long a wait...
Fascist Germany fielded an excellent military, but it was because the German military had specific institutions that made it excellent, not because the society and government behind it was Autocratic (not saying Autocratic Ideology, and the habit of obedience to higher authority inherent in it, didn't help, but it was by no means the Cause of military excellence). Once you identify and separate the results from the policies and ideologies, I think you will have a much better game, and a much better set of decisions for the gamer to make as to how he/she wants his civilization to develop.

 

[KevinLandwaster]

Or, apply ideology with a historical context. Earlier eras were more conducive to Autocracy, but as the world evolved, and people became more educated, concepts like liberty and democracy became more advantageous for developing nations. Maybe ideology could be more flexible, and you could choose tenets from various ideologies the same way you do from different social policy trees. You could also have a constitution and make amendments as public opinion changes.

 

[GenjiKhan]

When the whole Freedom/Order/Autocracy ideology system gets carried over to CIV 6, the only change I expect is a stronger "peer pressure" system for civilizations to follow one or other ideology, based on the choices of the civilizations that they have the closest links

 

[meatpardle]

Hi,

Do you think that CIV 6 should promote western ideas?
CIV 5 does rather bad job with that (whole tradition>liberty -> order+autocracy>freedom thing).

In CIV 1 & 2 democracy was to go gov, then things started to spiral out of control (CIV 4 state property:/).

I am not advocating for historical accuracy anymore (this is lost cause in game where Hammurabi can launch manned mission to different solar system), but some good western values could use some promotion.

Why should it promote any set of ideals, least of all 'good Western values' (whatever they are)?

Civ has been (and has probably had to be) pretty diplomatic when approaching the terminologies used to describe ideologies, I doubt very much that they're ever going to open up an accusation of being biased against or negative toward a certain ideology. It's a game with a global market, they arenlt going to risk alienating some of that.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You shouldn't promote ideas... instead you should Balance them.

Ancient Oriental despotism should be balanced with Ancient Occidental republics
Modern Liberal states should be balanced with Modern Totalitarian ones

Now they should probably be balanced differently (ie certain situations should favor one over the other, but ideally players should find them balanced most of the time)

Now it Won't be balanced.... but they can strive to get it close, instead of striving for X to be the best/worst.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As in everything remotely 'historical', there should be Positives and Negatives in everything.

Greek 'democracy' resulted in an explosion of art, philosophy, and technology, but the Greek cities were, in game terms, individual City States that fought each other as often as they fought anyone else. Persia produced a massive, multi-cultural Empire which, however, could not harness a fraction of its own population or material resources.

Modern Totalitarian states may be able to produce armies of very disciplined troops backed by a precisely controlled industry, but Democracies (at least in WWII) could produce an entrepreneurial industry that by orders of magnitude outproduced the totalitarian states - and also produced technological advances over the totalitarian states in the process.

IF the game shows both sides of every development, gamers can choose realistically which path they want (or, in a given game, need) to pursue. IF the game simply shows all the 'Positives' of one path, then that is the only path to pursue in the game, and you've removed large areas of potential decision-making and play from the game.

This is NEVER a good thing in game design.

 

[nimling]

Absolutely not. There is a line between someone designing the game to favor Democracy, and someone beating the player over the head to pick a particular form of government.
I remember plenty of situations where I wanted Commy or Fundy in Civ2 anyway. Police powah.

 

[Rusty Edge]

This reminds me that I really miss the civics approach. The way I could change to adapt to a new reality, like discovering a Shaka dominated New World, and changing my plans for achieving victory through domination to something else, like a space race. It seemed so full of potential. Sure, it could have used more options. I would welcome them.

To me the V policy tree is a maze of tunnels with no turning back. I feel like I'm locked into a victory condition based on the draw of the leader at the game set-up rather than feeling like I can adapt. Really, isn't a multi-millennial civilization one that can adapt?

The Civ series has been about making a series of interesting decisions, not discovering the magic pathway. That is the secret to it's replayability.

 

[epicivfreak]

As in everything remotely 'historical', there should be Positives and Negatives in everything.

This. I've been spouting that line for what feels like ages. And I'm not talking about build this thing that grants a bonus vs that other thing that grants a bonus type of "positive and negative." I mean every building should have a maintenance (because that's only logical, it's not a disadvantage), and an advantage (maybe a +25% production), and a disadvantage (maybe +10% larger food bucket). That way, you have to make an actual decision - is the production bonus worth the larger food bucket? And the only possible answer to that decision-question should be - maybe, depending on your situation.

Ditto for units, all have strengths and weaknesses
Ditto for wonders, all have advantage and disadvantage
Tech advances, policies, whatever, all of em...

To me the V policy tree is a maze of tunnels with no turning back. I feel like I'm locked into a victory condition based on the draw of the leader at the game set-up rather than feeling like I can adapt. Really, isn't a multi-millennial civilization one that can adapt?

Yeah, I quickly grew to dislike the policy junk. The Civics approach was better, but it could have still used a lot of work, from what I recall of the BtS version.