Genius Design in Civ5 should come to Civ7

[GeneralZIft]

I have made my point very clear, and I can't understand, for the life of me, how it is respnded to as though utterly unfathomable. You are the second poster in the last two or three day to make this inexplicable claim, and accuse me of not explaining my viewpoint. I figure, at this point, it's a matter of, "refusing to accept explanations."

I just asked you to explain it to me in a simplistic way because I don't understand this kind of historical lingo, I didn't tell you I refuse to accept explanation, just that I literally don't understand what the exact problem is.

As someone who has a dour, dubious, sceptical view of WW2 and Cold War propaganda, and see the Cold War as the dirty war of backing tinpot Third World despotisms against each other by exigency, not ideology, and, as I said, the definite nuances in those, "blocs," that are often overlooked, and that, "liberty and democracy," and the, "worker's revolution," usually, effectively, took a backseat, I couldn't get behind it with any sincerity.

I read this, and it's so far removed from a gameplay discussion that I don't quite understand why you took it from the textbook it must have been copied from (joke).

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the historical wars of ideology were never about ideology. Hence, you can't back a system that suggests war by ideology could ever exist. Even though that's not really what the system does?

 

[pokiehl]

Of course, copying and pasting this Civ5 mechanic into Civ7, or adopting it at all, is not a unanamously agreed upon idea, here, in case that wasn't apparent.

Stop strawmanning. That’s not what I suggested or said.

I thought you were done responding to me as you’ve dramatically announced like 3 times already.

 

[Zegangani]

There’s no need for this. Nothing in the civ 5 ideology system is predicated on “convincing others of your ideology”.

This is unrealistic and would just make it go down the same tedious path as religion.

I'm not suggesting it on the basis of a Civ5 Ideologies System. Ideologies in Civ5 were good, that's for sure, but I want more Agency in it, I want it to be more involving. Maybe that's not everyone's cup, but why is it unrealistic?

 

[Patine]

I just asked you to explain it to me in a simplistic way because I don't understand this kind of historical lingo, I didn't tell you I refuse to accept explanation, just that I literally don't understand what the exact problem is.



I read this, and it's so far removed from a gameplay discussion that I don't quite understand why you took it from the textbook it must have been copied from (joke).

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the historical wars of ideology were never about ideology. Hence, you can't back a system that suggests war by ideology could ever exist. Even though that's not really what the system does?

I have already explained. What specifically are you confused by?

Stop strawmanning. That’s not what I suggested or said.

I thought you were done responding to me as you’ve dramatically announced like 3 times already.

Well, that's what it sounded like you were saying. Did it occur to you your presentation may be suspect?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Did the Civ5 ideology system actually have a significantly meaningful impact on the game world? Admittedly I haven't played a lot of Modern Era Civ5, but I don't remember civs with the same ideology ganging together

 

[vorlon_mi]

My experience gives a qualified "yes." I would choose an ideology that fits well with the VC I'm going for. If that's similar to the one chosen by my large neighbor, fine. If it's different, the ideology pressure combines with the happiness challenge I have from expanding and conquering. I'm usually compelled to change ideologies, enduring some loss of productivity. Then I find a way to pursue my VC using the "second choice" ideology.
I've not had a neighbor declare on my because I'm running the "wrong" idelology. On the other hand, I've not played Civ5 in more than a year, since I find it less fun than Civ6 and other games in the franchise.

 

[pokiehl]

100%. It essentially forces conflicts.

 

[GeneralZIft]

100%. It essentially forces conflicts.

Feels organic too. Because the ideo that you select depends on your circumstances and victory goal. So obviously if you want lots of friends and money and science because it works well with your Civ, you pick freedom. And you might have to fight for that ideology because nearby people have ideologies that totally don't work for your Civ that well

 

[Patine]

Feels organic too. Because the ideo that you select depends on your circumstances and victory goal. So obviously if you want lots of friends and money and science because it works well with your Civ, you pick freedom. And you might have to fight for that ideology because nearby people have ideologies that totally don't work for your Civ that well

But the conflict forced is in a cliched pastische, that is overly simplistic, almost cartooish, it seems. Not only it is ahistorical, disasteful to a more and more growing number of people than even when Civ5 was released, hamfisted and arbitrary, it also forces a geo-political conflict every game that makes it to that level that wasn't inevitable, and that what-if's of a Civ game should be able be avoid and allow other paradigms.

 

[pokiehl]

It’s not ahistorical at all. The Cold War is a thing that happened. Ideologies influenced much of the conflicts of the 20th century.

It’s not distasteful. I’ve only ever seen that criticism come from you. On top of that, you haven’t even played the game.

Given that you haven't played the game and that you weren't even aware of the actual mechanic (revealed by your posts here), how would you know that a "growing number of people than even when Civ5 was released" find it "distasteful?" First of all, it was part of Brave New World, not the base game, so Civ5's release has nothing to do with it. Second of all, that statement you made implies you've kept your finger on the pulse of the community's reception to the mechanic (otherwise, how would you know there's been a supposed "growing number?"). That makes no sense given that you weren't even aware of the mechanic until this thread. So it just sounds like you're making stuff up.

It's strange to me that you're this up-in-arms about something that you haven't even played.

 

[Patine]

It’s not ahistorical at all. The Cold War is a thing that happened. Ideologies influenced much of the conflicts of the 20th century.

It’s not distasteful. I’ve only ever seen that criticism come from you. On top of that, you haven’t even played the game.

The Cold War happened, yes, but not nearly in such simplistic terms, or following the propaganda-line labels. And a couple of others have showed disaste, even if not using the specific word, and the general mood of society has drifted away from the old superficial tropes of viewing it in, so it's not, "just me," and that flimsy attempt to say I have isolated opinion, and thus easily dismissed and without validity, has failed again, like all of your transparent and disingenuous ploys.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

100%. It essentially forces conflicts.

Besides the relationship malus, what else does it do? Are civs with different ideologies more likely to go to war with each other? Do you get a special benefit from being at war with or defeating civs of a different ideology?

 

[pokiehl]

The Cold War happened, yes, but not nearly in such simplistic terms, or following the propaganda-line labels. And a couple of others have showed disaste, even if not using the specific word, and the general mood of society has drifted away from the old superficial tropes of viewing it in, so it's not, "just me," and that flimsy attempt to say I have isolated opinion, and thus easily dismissed and without validity, has failed again, like all of your transparent and disingenuous ploys.

Who has shown distaste and when? How would you know the trend of a community's thoughts towards a mechanic from a game you haven't played that you weren't aware of until a few days ago?

Besides the relationship malus, what else does it do? Are civs with different ideologies more likely to go to war with each other? Do you get a special benefit from being at war with or defeating civs of a different ideology?

The Civ 5 wikia page for the mechanic describes it pretty well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It’s not ahistorical at all. The Cold War is a thing that happened. Ideologies influenced much of the conflicts of the 20th century.

It’s not distasteful. I’ve only ever seen that criticism come from you. On top of that, you haven’t even played the game.

I don't think it's any more 'distasteful' than some of the cockamamie 'agendas' we regularly put up with in Civ VI.

But that doesn't make it Good.

And while Ideology influenced many conflicts of the 20th century, it didn't influence all of them by any means, and I would argue that the primary 'Ideology' influencing the greatest 20th century conflict, World War Two, was the personal 'ideology' of one man, Adolph Hitler, while his opponents, from violently opposed ideologies, found it quite possible to cooperate (with difficulty, to be sure - I could give you a list from both US/British and Soviet sources) against him.
And you would be stretching to impose an Ideological motivation on the Italian-Ethiopian or Sino-Japanese conflicts before WWII or the numerous Middle East conflicts from 1949 to 2001, or the Falklands Conflict, or the India-Pakistan Wars or the shooting wars between China and the USSR in the early 1960s or China and Vietnam in 1979.

Ideology was never entirely absent, but making it the prime late-game motivator and manufacturing a certain Ideological conflict for the late game based entirely on it is a very simplified Game Mechanic. That may have made it very useful in Civ V, but does not make it a necessary addition to any other game without debate.

 

[pokiehl]

I don't think it's any more 'distasteful' than some of the cockamamie 'agendas' we regularly put up with in Civ VI.

But that doesn't make it Good.

And while Ideology influenced many conflicts of the 20th century, it didn't influence all of them by any means, and I would argue that the primary 'Ideology' influencing the greatest 20th century conflict, World War Two, was the personal 'ideology' of one man, Adolph Hitler, while his opponents, from violently opposed ideologies, found it quite possible to cooperate (with difficulty, to be sure - I could give you a list from both US/British and Soviet sources) against him.
And you would be stretching to impose an Ideological motivation on the Italian-Ethiopian or Sino-Japanese conflicts before WWII or the numerous Middle East conflicts from 1949 to 2001, or the Falklands Conflict, or the India-Pakistan Wars or the shooting wars between China and the USSR in the early 1960s or China and Vietnam in 1979.

Ideology was never entirely absent, but making it the prime late-game motivator and manufacturing a certain Ideological conflict for the late game based entirely on it is a very simplified Game Mechanic. That may have made it very useful in Civ V, but does not make it a necessary addition to any other game without debate.

This entire thread is just going back and forth on everyone's opinions of the validity of 'ideologies' and how accurate that lens is to view history or whatever. That just completely ignores the points about how it benefits the late game vs Civ 6's lack of anything similar.

Call the Civ 5 ideology system a "pizza preference" mechanic and divide it into people who like cheese, people who like pepperoni, and people who like pineapple. I don't care. The point is the mechanic makes the end game more fun.

If you haven't played it, you should try it. And also try to remember that perfect should not be the enemy of good.

 

[Patine]

Who has shown distaste and when? How would you know the trend of a community's thoughts towards a mechanic from a game you haven't played that you weren't aware of until a few days ago?

Evie certainly, and several others agreed the cut-and-dry, hamfisted, and cliched way of forcing it wasn't best, even if not as strongly opposed as Evie as I. And, you seem not to grasp what I was saying about the second part (or perhaps disingenuously distorted it). I was saying that viewpoint on the Cold War, retrospectvely, has drifted, in society, as a whole, on average, from the more typical cliche to a more nuanced, cynical, and dour view in the time from when Civ5 was released until now, which would affect the player base's attitudes going into Civ7. Clear?

 

[pokiehl]

Evie certainly, and several others agreed the cut-and-dry, hamfisted, and cliched way of forcing it wasn't best, even if not as strongly opposed as Evie as I. And, you seem not to grasp what I was saying about the second part (or perhaps disingenuously distorted it). I was saying that viewpoint on the Cold War, retrospectvely, has drifted, in society, as a whole, on average, from the more typical cliche to a more nuanced, cynical, and dour view in the time from when Civ5 was released until now, which would affect the player base's attitudes going into Civ7. Clear?

You and Evie aren't really representative of the Civ 5 community (I don't think either of you have played it?) which is what I thought you were referencing before. Like I said, being this critical of something you have no experience with is pretty silly.

You've named 2 people who disagree, including yourself. Me and a few others disagree with you, and I think there are at least 3 of us. Does that mean we win? Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Patine]

You and Evie aren't really representative of the Civ 5 community (I don't think either of you have played it?) which is what I thought you were referencing before. Like I said, being this critical of something you have no experience with is pretty silly.

You and Evie are 2. Me and a few others disagree with you, and I think there are at least 3 of us. Does that mean we win? Is that what you're getting at?

But if we are talking about taking a feature from Civ5 and reviving it in Civ7, when the notion has aged poorly in the general attitude of society, which would greatly affect new, and a notable number of returning, players, then Civ5 alumni are certainly not the only ones whose views, "matter, or are relevant," and saying so is disingenuous, ridiculous, and insulting, even by your standards.

 

[pokiehl]

But if we are talking about taking a feature from Civ5 and reviving it in Civ7, when the notion has aged poorly in the general attitude of society, which would greatly affect new, and a notable number of returning, players, then Civ5 alumni are certainly not the only ones whose views, "matter, or are relevant," and saying so is disingenuous, ridiculous, and insulting, even by your standards.

But you've not proved anything about it aging poorly, and you've been criticizing how the mechanic works without ever experiencing it.

What you've done is tell me that there's this nebulous amount of people who don't like it, and that matters, and that the number of people matters. But you seem to disregard the larger number of people who like it? I don't get the logic. It seems disingenuous, ridiculous, and insulting.

 

[Patine]

But you've not proved anything about it aging poorly, and you've been criticizing how the mechanic works without ever experiencing it.

What you've done is tell me that there's this nebulous amount of people who don't like it, and that matters, and that the number of people matters. But you seem to disregard the larger number of people who like it? I don't get the logic. It seems disingenuous, ridiculous, and insulting.

In case I haven't made it clear (and I think it's you disingenuously pretending not to grasp it, what they call, "playing dumb"), I am not criticizing mechanic, but the ideological and historical framework it's built on. I was clear on that, and clarified several times. So, continuing to argue against my point as though it were on one notion, when I am clearly arguing on another, is not really a clever debate diversion. It's quite transparent.