Genius Design in Civ5 should come to Civ7

[Hellenism Salesman]

I'm the type of the person where the realism in the system doesn't really matter to the game.
It needs to be only "fairly believable" and "immersive" but not necessarily realistic or historically accurate.

gonna agree here.

We should always strive for greater accuracy, especially as the game reaches more and more people. However, with a game as complex as Civ with so many different production requirements (art, UI, design, sound, music, and then the history on top of that), I'd imagine Firaxis might give themselves a "realism quota" and just try to meet that across the board. That means that the individual systems might not be perfectly accurate, but when put together they give the impression of accuracy. Verisimilitude and all that.

Even though I doubt that's how they actually see things, I at least feel confident that we'll never get a 100% accurate Civ game. We can strive for things to be better and better, but little mistakes, intentional disregard, and just plain old ignorance keep it out of reach.

I fully admit I'm rambling a bit (it's late as I'm writing this- forgive me ), but the core question I want to ask is this: if we can't have everything in the game be fully accurate, what do we prioritize? When it comes to the systems, which systems should be the most accurate? Is ideology one of those systems?
As for now my sleepy head doesn't have an answer but I can tell there's some fun decisions to be made in the balance between fun gaminess and realism.

 

[BuchiTaton]

At least from my part (and think some others also) the discussion is not really about realism but about the possibility of use a CIV5's Ideological Presure like system for others topics beyond contemporary socio-economic ideologies. The presented real world examples do not mean realism per se but the justification to abstract those others historical phenomena in a similar gamey way.

 

[GeneralZift]

At least from my part (and think some others also) the discussion is not really about realism but about the possibility of use a CIV5's Ideological Presure like system for others topics beyond contemporary socio-economic ideologies. The presented real world examples do not mean realism per se but the justification to abstract those others historical phenomena in a similar gamey way.

For example..?

 

[pokiehl]

At least from my part (and think some others also) the discussion is not really about realism but about the possibility of use a CIV5's Ideological Presure like system for others topics beyond contemporary socio-economic ideologies. The presented real world examples do not mean realism per se but the justification to abstract those others historical phenomena in a similar gamey way.

Uh…Why?

Have you actually played Civ 5? There’s literally nothing special about the ideology system except the fact that all civs are forced to choose one of a few options, creating end-game conflict via diplomatic modifiers. That’s why it’s so important and matters so much, and political ideology is the most relevant theme for something like that. What good does that do for other “topics”?

The bonuses and selection of bonuses themselves aren’t unique or special; it’s just an extension of the social policy tree. The spread of ideology isn’t special; it’s just like cultural pressure in Civ 5 or loyalty in Civ 6.

 

[AffineConstant]

Uh…Why?

Have you actually played Civ 5? There’s literally nothing special about the ideology system except the fact that all civs are forced to choose one of a few options, creating end-game conflict via diplomatic modifiers. That’s why it’s so important and matters so much, and political ideology is the most relevant theme for something like that. What good does that do for other “topics”?

The bonuses and selection of bonuses themselves aren’t unique or special; it’s just an extension of the social policy tree. The spread of ideology isn’t special; it’s just like cultural pressure in Civ 5 or loyalty in Civ 6.

I find "political ideology" to be overrated here. Rulers seem to tend towards machiavellianistic narcissism no matter where they are. We tend to think of it because of the 20th century, Fascism versus everyone, Communism vs Capitalism. But what was Germany in WW2 really, was "fascism" actually driving much there? Germany tried much the same thing 30 years earlier without fascism, Napoleon even closer in the (very) supposed name of Republicanism over a century prior to that. By the 70's China had broken so cleanly with the USSR that they had more open trade and diplomatic relations with the US than the USSR did, but weren't both "Communist" on the same "side"?

Conflict is great,but I don't find "ideology" necessary for conflict to be had at any point in history. That rulers themselves tend towards extreme narcissism, why else would they want to rule, seems enough for conflict in itself. Civ already has that with only one Civ being able to "win" and everyone else being the losers. Better AI that could actually concentrate on the win conditions more seems like it'd be enough for late game conflict without any explicit game system needed.

 

[BuchiTaton]

For example..?

Most of the CIV5's Ideologies model could be used in CIV7 for religions, since the idea that religions should be founded by a civ to be victory relevant dont need to be replicated in CIV7. Of course be the founder of a religion could provide a powerfull permenent Devotion bonus but what if we can claim the title of "Protector of the Church" or "Defender of the Faith" that make you into the leader of that religion despite you didnt found it.
After all we are talking about Ideological Blocks, while Religious Alliances and more broadly religion based diplomatic actions are badly underused in CIV. I mean what about things like The Crusades and the Wars of The Reformation? And just think about the many christian, muslim and buddhist kingdoms that patronaged missionaries and conversion by conquest despite they didnt founded their religions. Of course somebody could said "they have their own particular modifications" but your pantheon already cover that, meanwhile the diplomatic advantages of nations that share the same religion are mostly unused. Any additional customization could be accessible once you claim the title as the leader of the religion.
Then some examples of sources of Devotion to claim the leadership of the religion:

* Being the historical founder.​

* Every controled Holy Site.​

* The percentage of your religion's global population.​

* Active Missionaries and Inquisitors.​

* Conversion of heathens.​

* Owned Relics.​

* Number of own whorship places.​

* Being a Theocracy.​

* Each enacted religious policy.​

* Defend any coreligionist main civ and CS from atacks of heathens.​

So once your Devotion is higher than the founder's you can claim the leader of the faith title and make that religion yours.

Also, as CIV5 ideologies are directly related to culture and the change between ideologies could become into a nasty issue for your gameplay. Then excuse me but religion is way more deeply related to culture that contemporary socio-political ideologies.
There is also complety posible to portrait diplomatic, economic, espionage and militar action directed to change others nations political ideologies like sponsor coup d´etat, guerrillas, blockages, intrusive propaganda, magnicides, boycotts, etc. After all neither USA or USSR designed their interventionist agendas mainly around tourism, they used mostly less "cultured" ways.

 

[pokiehl]

Conflict is great,but I don't find "ideology" necessary for conflict to be had at any point in history. That rulers themselves tend towards extreme narcissism, why else would they want to rule, seems enough for conflict in itself. Civ already has that with only one Civ being able to "win" and everyone else being the losers. Better AI that could actually concentrate on the win conditions more seems like it'd be enough for late game conflict without any explicit game system needed.

Nope. This presupposes that we agree what a good civ AI will do: play the game to win like a human opponent or roleplay in the player’s world believably.

An end-game conflict spurred by ideology is actually the perfect vehicle to merge these approaches.

 

[Patine]

Nope. This presupposes that we agree what a good civ AI will do: play the game to win like a human opponent or roleplay in the player’s world believably.

An end-game conflict spurred by ideology is actually the perfect vehicle to merge these approaches.

But it's based on a bad propagadist cliche that has become growingly less savoury with people, in general, in retrospect, even than it was when Civ5 was released. There are more reasons than mechanics it should not be revisited, but moved on from.

 

[pokiehl]

But it's based on a bad propagadist cliche that has become growingly less savoury with people, in general, in retrospect, even than it was when Civ5 was released. There are more reasons than mechanics it should not be revisited, but moved on from.

It’s not based on propaganda and it’s not a cliche. World War 2 was a battle of ideologies and so was the Cold War.

 

[Patine]

It’s not based on propaganda and it’s not a cliche. World War 2 was a battle of ideologies and so was the Cold War.

The portrayal of it is based on propaganda and a cliche, not the reality of it. I made a dissertation of the sharp difference in Post #29, above. And, to add to that, the simplified statement that, "World War 2 was a battle of ideologies and so was the Cold War," misses the point of a lot of the big reasons these monstrous conflicts truly happened.

 

[pokiehl]

The portrayal of it is based on propaganda and a cliche, not the reality of it. I made a dissertation of the sharp difference in Post #29, above.

I don’t understand. How is simply representing ideology “based on a propaganda and cliche?” What propaganda and cliche? What’s propagandistic and cliched about categorizing different political frameworks?

And, to add to that, the simplified statement that, "World War 2 was a battle of ideologies and so was the Cold War," misses the point of a lot of the big reasons these monstrous conflicts truly happened.

I didn’t say “ideology was the only factor” so this is a non sequitur.

 

[Patine]

I don’t understand. How is simply representing ideology “based on a propaganda and cliche?” What propaganda and cliche? What’s propagandistic and cliched about categorizing different political frameworks?

I explained it in Post #29. I'm not sure why my viewpoint is being decalred so oblique by you. No one else responding or reacting to it is having such difficulty. You seem to like to claim a whole notion is unfathomable as a tactic to discredit it without actually addressing it seriously - a tactic of yours I've brought up previously.

 

[Zegangani]

I like the Concept of Ideological Power Blocs leading into World-Wide Conflicts (in Gameplay not IRL lol), and World War 2 may have been a battle of Ideologies, but I don't want it to be the sole "End-Game" Conflict. As People here have noted or hinted at, there was more to WW2 Conflicts than just Ideologies, and since then a lot has been changed anyway. It's no Wonder that we don't see as much Ideological Conflicts since the Cold War. So, in Gameplay Terms, I'd like an Ideologcal Conflict Mechanic to be the Focus of 1-2 Eras (Modern+Atomic), but from Information Era onward there should be a shift in that Paradigm. Maybe as a Result from that, the Civs with most Power could lead in Diplomatic Power, and influence other Civs (with Diplomatic Influence replacing Ideological Pressure), and we see more diplomatic Mechanics that help achieve a Diplomatic Victory. With Ideological Conflict leading to Wars and Aggressive Gameplay, I think the next Stage should be more Peaceful and Prosperous, where Conflicts are more Political and Diplomatic, leading into a Diplomatic Victory.


Note: Ofc that requires having an actual "good" Diplomacy in the Game, with better World Congress, Alliances, Influence/Leverage and other Diplomatic Actions. And also a balanced/well paced Game that you can't finish before the modern Era so easily.

 

[pokiehl]

I explained it in Post #29. I'm not sure why my viewpoint is being decalred so oblique by you. No one else responding or reacting to it is having such difficulty. You seem to like to claim a whole notion is unfathomable as a tactic to discredit it without actually addressing it seriously - a tactic of yours I've brought up previously.

Your explanation in that post was the same as your other post: you just made a declaration. I’m asking you to clarify what you’re saying since it doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve asked specific questions in fact which should indicate to you I’m trying to engage with you and not simply dismissing you. Ironically, you’re the one being completely dismissive and “discrediting without actually addressing” by yet again going back to personally addressing me rather than the topic.

 

[Patine]

Your explanation in that post was the same as your other post: you just made a declaration. I’m asking you to clarify what you’re saying since it doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve asked specific questions in fact which should indicate to you I’m trying to engage with you and not simply dismissing you. Ironically, you’re the one being completely dismissive and “discrediting without actually addressing” by yet again going back to personally addressing me rather than the topic.

I did not just, "make a declaration." I explained signiificantly more than that. What specifically is not understood?

 

[Zegangani]

That got me thinking.

What if you can win multiple Victory Conditions in a Game? But you also can't easily focus on all Victory Types at once, maybe at times you could only focus on 1. And your Strategy from the start of the Game may have an impact on your Pursuit for Victories. And the actual Win Condition for the Game is to have earned at least X Victories, or have the most Victories earned by Turn Y.

With that, we could have specific Eras focusing on a specific Victory Condition to earn higher score than the others. For example: Ancient and Classical Eras could be just Eras to build and grow your Empire, but in Medieval Era the Victory Focus could be the Religion Victory, in the Renaissance and Industrial Era it would be the "Culture" Victory, and Modern+Atomic Era would have the Domination Victory, and Information Era and beyond would have the Diplomatic Victory to focus on.

Ofc the Victories wouldn't be locked to those Eras, but earning a Victory in them will grant more Score, and maintaining them afterwards (your Religious Prominence, Military Dominance, Political Power, Economic Prosperity...etc. - maybe that's what should give Golden Ages?) also increases that Score. You could still earn a Domination Victory in the Medieval Era, but it wouldn't earn you as much Score as if it was in the late Game. Heck, we could even have "Regional" Victories (larger Maps are required) for early-to-mid Game.

Some of you may think this isn't much different than the Score Mechanic, and similar to the Old World Victory Conditions, and maybe that's true. But if we have mechanics and gameplay dedicated to specific Victories in certain Eras, then it wouldn't be a generic score Victory. We would finally have a Civ Game that you can play from start to finish (with no late-game boredom), and with a unique Victory path in each playthrough.

EDIT: all that is just an idea on how to keep the game interesting and going until the late game, so that you can actually have and interact with Ideological Conflicts and Diplomatic Influence in the late Game. As a response to my own Post above.

 

[GeneralZift]

I am quite literally confused at the conflict here.
Civilisation is very surface level... in the real world... there was what appeared to be battles of ideology.
It doesn't matter if there were other factors involved in the Cold War, WW2, etc.

Isn't it simple? The game deserves an end-game system to force players to butt heads and make alliances, play with the UN system, diplomacy and city states.
Why are people against that?

Actually, whether or not its based on propaganda should be totally irrelevant?
Someone please tell me if I'm confused, it is 4am here

 

[Patine]

I am quite literally confused at the conflict here.
Civilisation is very surface level... in the real world... there was what appeared to be battles of ideology.
It doesn't matter if there were other factors involved in the Cold War, WW2, etc.

Isn't it simple? The game deserves an end-game system to force players to butt heads and make alliances, play with the UN system, diplomacy and city states.
Why are people against that?

Actually, whether or not its based on propaganda should be totally irrelevant?
Someone please tell me if I'm confused, it is 4am here

I explained clearly why I'm against it. You make it sound like it's objectively wrong and inexplicable to be...

 

[pokiehl]

I did not just, "make a declaration." I explained signiificantly more than that. What specifically is not understood?

I explained it in post #51.

 

[Patine]

I explained it in post #51.

You said you didn't understand the whole notion, pretty much (which I can't fathom, and is a claim that really makes you look lacking, not me, especially because no one else commenting on it showed such a lack of a grasp of what I was saying)I and said didn't explain my point, at all, but just said, "it was so," which is clearly not true.