Government types

[tokyochojin]

Bit of an odd one this but do people ever approach a game with the mindset of adopting a particular set of beliefs or government type like Communism or Democracy. I ask because for me in Civ 4, playing as a communist regime really felt like you were a communist regime, you had particular buildings such as the Kremlin and units like spies, and it enabled you to you to control happiness and have a higher population and military focus. It would always be interesting seeing the democratic civs going against the communists.

Yet, for me the government types in Civ V don’t really seem to mirror the real life systems that well, coming across as more interchangeable with less unique features and special abilities. Do you think it worked better when they were techs that allowed for specific units, buildings features etc?
​

 

[Blitz Spearman]

I tried that in my very first games. As soon as I grasped more control over the game mechanics to reach higher dificulties, the strategy aspect got my attention more than the roleplay, and I stopped caring about roleplay and focused more in honing my strategy skills.

For this kind of roleplay I usually play a bit of Tropico. Nothing like the ability of making food, housing, entertainment, transportation, health care and some other stuff free for everyone, but paying everyone the smallest salaries in the world

 

[Silverman6083]

Absolutely! I almost always do and even impose some "demands" from the people or government depending on how my government would be structured, based on my policy choices, also I haven't played previous civ versions but they sound fun.

 

[Redaxe]

It would be good if the type of government was a bit mote defined but BNW largely fixed this problem with ideologies. Governments in Civ 5 are seen as a sum of their social policies and ideology. Liberty or Honor, well you're going to be a warmongering expansionist tyrant...

That said, I wish that some social policies particularly ideologies would carry a bit of a cost-benefit trade-off.
Take an example like the freedom policy Universal Healthcare. This is really a luxury policy that only the wealthiest nations have been able to afford and even then it comes with a huge financial and political burden. 2 exampkes, the Obama administration is having trouble selling its policy and the Australian government is realising that it is currently unaffordable in the long term.
I feel like such a policy should function something like this...
Universal Healthcare: Adds +1 happiness and + 1 food for every 6 population in a city. Costs 2 gold per turn for every 3 population per city.
So its very expensive so only the richest civs can afford it but it is quite beneficial too.

 

[Barghaest]

I do this pretty much every game. All Social Policies and my Ideology are determined by which civ I'm playing and how I feel about playing them. There's only slight adjustment in game based on random factors otherwise I remain within my chosen theme.

 

[lindsay40k]

I prefer to let the story of my Civ's place in it's world unfurl in front of me as I steer. Ideological choices generally follow from matters like what Beliefs and Wonders are in my lands or within invading distance.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I did like in earlier versions of CIV where you picked a government, and shaped your growth in that light. The only thing I did not like is that it seemed to easy/fast to change government types:

- want to go to war, get out of democracy. War over? go back to democracy to maximize science.

- need culture? Jump to monarchy for a few turns.

Goverments do change, but not that quickly. That is the advantage of the new system - some policies cannot be picked once you choose another.

 

[soldier2975]

I agree, ideologies should be inside of a government, not a government.

 

[vivalamexico]

more options for ideologies would perhaps be nice

 

[Helmling]

Bit of an odd one this but do people ever approach a game with the mindset of adopting a particular set of beliefs or government type like Communism or Democracy. I ask because for me in Civ 4, playing as a communist regime really felt like you were a communist regime, you had particular buildings such as the Kremlin and units like spies, and it enabled you to you to control happiness and have a higher population and military focus. It would always be interesting seeing the democratic civs going against the communists.

Yet, for me the government types in Civ V don’t really seem to mirror the real life systems that well, coming across as more interchangeable with less unique features and special abilities. Do you think it worked better when they were techs that allowed for specific units, buildings features etc?
​

I could see where that would hold true before BNW, but now with the late game ideologies, I always feel like the defender of liberty in a world overrun with autocrats and fascists.

 

[Barghaest]

I agree, ideologies should be inside of a government, not a government.

They are. Your "government" is the sum total of all your ideology and policy choices. A Monarchy would be comprised of any of the three ideology + either Tradition or Honor (depending on how you viewed the Monarch as being formed and maintained) and perhaps a combination of Piety/Patronage (relative to the religious and diplomatic stance)

A Representative Democracy would likely be Liberty + Freedom but Order would fit for a more socialist approach (you could even argue Autocracy for protected democracy like early America - both shortly after Revolution and even including Civil War period since the right to bear arms could mean more experienced and easier to train militia)

Doing away with the government system from Civ IV made way for a more customizable system in Civ V. Limiting yourself to seeing Democracy = Freedom is a personal choice.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Barghaest - yes, it gives you more freedom, but that is not necessarily accurate. When a country chooses a government, they are limited by that choice. The same argument could be made that just ideologies are TOO free. A country is bound by its choice of goverment, unless it wants revolution.

As an American (and constitutional attorney), I see this all the time. People say that things should be done because "it is the right thing to do", but we are limited by our written constitution - the rulebook, so to speak.

 

[Barghaest]

As an American (and constitutional attorney), I see this all the time. People say that things should be done because "it is the right thing to do", but we are limited by our written constitution - the rulebook, so to speak.

There are two alternatives to revolution to address that issue - Constitutional Amendments and a Constitutional Convention by the states.

In a more authoritarian style of government, the rules could be changed by those in power much easier (although it might lead to discontent among the population and even spark a revolution).

 

[NukeAJS]

It would be good if the type of government was a bit mote defined but BNW largely fixed this problem with ideologies. Governments in Civ 5 are seen as a sum of their social policies and ideology. Liberty or Honor, well you're going to be a warmongering expansionist tyrant...

That said, I wish that some social policies particularly ideologies would carry a bit of a cost-benefit trade-off.
Take an example like the freedom policy Universal Healthcare. This is really a luxury policy that only the wealthiest nations have been able to afford and even then it comes with a huge financial and political burden. 2 exampkes, the Obama administration is having trouble selling its policy and the Australian government is realising that it is currently unaffordable in the long term.
I feel like such a policy should function something like this...
Universal Healthcare: Adds +1 happiness and + 1 food for every 6 population in a city. Costs 2 gold per turn for every 3 population per city.
So its very expensive so only the richest civs can afford it but it is quite beneficial too.

I know what you mean, but I think the devs wants social policies to be beneficial and never detrimental. A little different, but look at India's UA which is arguably the worst in the game.

 

[Barghaest]

I know what you mean, but I think the devs wants social policies to be beneficial and never detrimental. A little different, but look at India's UA which is arguably the worst in the game.

Only to those who fail to see it's potential. After a certain point, with all the Local Happiness that can be accumulated, a city can be unhappiness neutral to a population of 15-16 (on average, more with the right policies/tenants while slightly less with others). With India this becomes population of 30-32.... and local happiness is only restricted by population of the city (not unhappiness generated by it) so it's entirely possible with India to have smaller cities that generate enough extra happiness to support more cities despite the unhappiness from number of cities being doubled.

India's ability was intended to encourage them to go tall, but it is also a boon if they go wide as well.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Barghaest - yep - those are the options to change the rules, but obviously not as easy as how in the prior games, you could make major changes in how you run your goverment. And with policies, it is kind of wishy washy. In the real world, you have to pick something and stick with it, or go through major upheavals (we see how seldom the constitution has been changed, especially recently, depite both political sides complaining about the restrictions, or lack or them).