I hope Firaxis improves governments in civ7

[SupremacyKing2]

The government system in civ7 feels very half-baked to me. You only get 3 government choices per Age. You cannot switch governments during an Age (WTH!?!). Governments don't have passive abilities, they just provide one of two bonuses during celebrations. Also, governments don't determine the number of policy cards per category (military, economic, diplomacy and wildcard) like civ6. This was a feature in civ6 that I think made governments more interesting as they made some governments better at military and others better at peaceful while some had wild cards which allowed to be flexible. In civ7, policies have no category and you just add an extra policy per celebration instead of having to decide which military or economic or diplomatic or wild card to slot in.

I defintely hope that Firaxis expands on the government system maybe in a future expansion:
- More governments.
- Governments get passive abilities.
- Governments could have a unique building that could give you extra abilities or generate unique civilian units, like great people.
- Ability to change governments during an Age, maybe at a cost of losing a policy slot or getting a period of anarchy. Switching governments during a celebration could be free.
- Bring back different types of policies like military or economic.

 

[ehecatzin]

I do miss policy types, and yes, it could be interesting to differentiate governments more.

- Ability to change governments during an Age, maybe at a cost of losing a policy slot or getting a period of anarchy. Switching governments during a celebration could be free.

I think there's an event for Rome that allows general to take over the government and change it. We could use a few more, maybe tie it to building certain wonders?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think there's an event for Rome that allows general to take over the government and change it. We could use a few more, maybe tie it to building certain wonders?

I did not know about the Rome event. But yeah, we need more. I still think that the player should have more freedom to be able to change governments albeit at a cost. It should not just be when a unique narrative event happens.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I do miss policy types, and yes, it could be interesting to differentiate governments more.


I think there's an event for Rome that allows general to take over the government and change it. We could use a few more, maybe tie it to building certain wonders?

Or losing wars.
A War end diplomacy option should be to force the opponent to adopt the government (and later, the Ideology) that you prefer.

-And, of course, have them renege on the deal as soon as they feel able.

Quite agree that right now Goverenments are too few, too unimportant, and too rigid. They should also have more effect and be more related to other mechanics in the Ages: Religion, War Weariness, Culture, Gold expenditure, Ideology, etc.

Basically, there should be constant differences in the way governments affect the rest of the Civ, not just during 'Celebrations'

As examples, When will this or any other game realize that a basic component of both Fascism and Communism Ideologies/Governments is major Security Forces which cost enormously in Gold and other resources, and without which neither Ideology or their totalitarian governments are stable?

- or that Feudalism, an earlier Ideology/Culture type means free units from your Aristocracy, but also an Aristocracy that regards the king's orders as merely Suggestions?

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

- or that Feudalism, an earlier Ideology/Culture type means free units from your Aristocracy, but also an Aristocracy that regards the king's orders as merely Suggestions?

I cannot believe how, despite its centralizing role in the progression of several Civ games, the franchise has never portrayed it correctly.

It gets some surface details right (in Civ VI it unlocked the "Serfdom" policy card which encouraged producing a larger Working Class), but makes no attempt at modeling how the system actually worked.

And it's not like it would be impossible. We've had Governors and free Units appearing out of thin air for certain gameplay triggers, vassals and the ability to "levy" troops. There's the makings of a functional Feudalism model there.

But they just never did it.

I think the core issue with the Civ franchise's portrayals of governments is that- currently- it lacks any measure of political power. You as the omniscient immortal god-leader have almost complete control over everything but when your people are born. You can micromanage to your heart's content. What Civ is missing is a resource, a yield, a set of tokens, a stat, Old World-style Orders, anything that reflects how governments have varying levels of control.

The issue seeps into far corners of the game. The Government Plaza in Civ VI was reduced to a vehicle for bonuses that had little to do with government. The Diplomatic Quarter and the bureaucratic buildings inside of it just existed to give you extra yields. Shouldn't devoting city space to the structure of my government and diplomacy give me finer control over the happenings in my state?

And of course, it makes some of the governments very, very strange. Why does a divine right monarchy where a king rules by horse, sword, and God have the political power to exercise roughly the same amount of policies as a Venetian-style merchant republic? Why does my Theocracy hold any power when I haven't founded a religion, nor have I put any effort into converting my people to a singular religion? Why does embracing Corporate Libertarianism of all things result in the same amount of control as my AI-led Synthetic Technocracy where, to quote the Civilopedia, there is "full state control over political and economic issues"?

It also leads to problems of bureaucratic strain, or lack thereof. A Soviet-style planned economy requires a lot of management from the state. So where in the game is this cost reflected? Extra Food and Production on trade routes????

I think Civ VII has the potential to fix- or at least alleviate- this issue with the introduction of the wonderfully broad and vague yield of Influence. "Influence" spans everything from diplomatic leverage to, potentially, inner control. I would love to see certain actions such as converting a Town to a City, building a road, establishing a trade route, etc. cost Influence, because, of course, these things don't happen magically. I'm not asking for nitty-gritty details, but I want some difference in political power between my Ancient era chiefdom and my fascist dictatorship, because if history tells us anything, one of these two is capable of more change.

Would such a system require new sources of Influence and careful balancing of the new Influence costs? Yes. But I think it would not only resolve a long-standing issue with the franchise* but it would also create another interesting avenue for Influence spending. Do I try and cozy up to my neighbors, major and minor, sanction my enemies, or turn my focus inward to enact reform?

I don't know. Just some ideas.

*to my knowledge, anyway- I joined at Civ VI, and to be fair, 10 years is a long time for most franchises!

 

[Krikkit1]

I cannot believe how, despite its centralizing role in the progression of several Civ games, the franchise has never portrayed it correctly.

It gets some surface details right (in Civ VI it unlocked the "Serfdom" policy card which encouraged producing a larger Working Class), but makes no attempt at modeling how the system actually worked.

And it's not like it would be impossible. We've had Governors and free Units appearing out of thin air for certain gameplay triggers, vassals and the ability to "levy" troops. There's the makings of a functional Feudalism model there.

But they just never did it.

I think the core issue with the Civ franchise's portrayals of governments is that- currently- it lacks any measure of political power. You as the omniscient immortal god-leader have almost complete control over everything but when your people are born. You can micromanage to your heart's content. What Civ is missing is a resource, a yield, a set of tokens, a stat, Old World-style Orders, anything that reflects how governments have varying levels of control.

The issue seeps into far corners of the game. The Government Plaza in Civ VI was reduced to a vehicle for bonuses that had little to do with government. The Diplomatic Quarter and the bureaucratic buildings inside of it just existed to give you extra yields. Shouldn't devoting city space to the structure of my government and diplomacy give me finer control over the happenings in my state?

And of course, it makes some of the governments very, very strange. Why does a divine right monarchy where a king rules by horse, sword, and God have the political power to exercise roughly the same amount of policies as a Venetian-style merchant republic? Why does my Theocracy hold any power when I haven't founded a religion, nor have I put any effort into converting my people to a singular religion? Why does embracing Corporate Libertarianism of all things result in the same amount of control as my AI-led Synthetic Technocracy where, to quote the Civilopedia, there is "full state control over political and economic issues"?

It also leads to problems of bureaucratic strain, or lack thereof. A Soviet-style planned economy requires a lot of management from the state. So where in the game is this cost reflected? Extra Food and Production on trade routes????

I think Civ VII has the potential to fix- or at least alleviate- this issue with the introduction of the wonderfully broad and vague yield of Influence. "Influence" spans everything from diplomatic leverage to, potentially, inner control. I would love to see certain actions such as converting a Town to a City, building a road, establishing a trade route, etc. cost Influence, because, of course, these things don't happen magically. I'm not asking for nitty-gritty details, but I want some difference in political power between my Ancient era chiefdom and my fascist dictatorship, because if history tells us anything, one of these two is capable of more change.

Would such a system require new sources of Influence and careful balancing of the new Influence costs? Yes. But I think it would not only resolve a long-standing issue with the franchise* but it would also create another interesting avenue for Influence spending. Do I try and cozy up to my neighbors, major and minor, sanction my enemies, or turn my focus inward to enact reform?

I don't know. Just some ideas.

*to my knowledge, anyway- I joined at Civ VI, and to be fair, 10 years is a long time for most franchises!

I think part of what makes this confusing is that in civ the player is not the government.

If a Brickyard is built in Rome that doesn’t mean the emperor commissioned a brickyard… it may mean a bunch of individual rich Romans started constructing brickyards for their glorious projects, or hundreds of poor workers started getting better brick firing tools.

Now when you talk about military units that’s pretty typically government…but everything else the “civ” does is what everyone in that civ does.

All of the bureaucracy/corruption/working at cross purposes, etc. is why that Brickyard adds 1 production instead of 2 or 3.

A civ “government” that has a decentralized economy is just a bunch of modifiers….and that is fine because whether the building is built/used because of government decree or a cultural movement of individuals…doesn’t affect whether it is built or used only what the costs and benefits are.

A civ “government” that has decentralized military…that is a lot harder because of the level of detail involved in unit movement.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think part of what makes this confusing is that in civ the player is not the government.

If a Brickyard is built in Rome that doesn’t mean the emperor commissioned a brickyard… it may mean a bunch of individual rich Romans started constructing brickyards for their glorious projects, or hundreds of poor workers started getting better brick firing tools.

Now when you talk about military units that’s pretty typically government…but everything else the “civ” does is what everyone in that civ does.

All of the bureaucracy/corruption/working at cross purposes, etc. is why that Brickyard adds 1 production instead of 2 or 3.

I think @Hellenism Salesman's point is still valid, in that the player, as the Supreme Foobah of the Civ, to get anything done in the Civ, has to work through some kind of government mechanism with all its imperfections, and the game has done a really mediocre job of depicting those imperfections.

IF the player is simply a Deus ex machina, omnipotent in all things, then there is no need to depict any government at all - or, for that matter, to play the game at all.

And note, when the game supposedly is depicting government-types over a 6000 year span, there are a great many variations available besides the hoary old Democracy, Communism, Fascism triad.

For one thing, under some governments, providing military units was NOT "typically government" - see feudalism for example, or the Greek Hoplite array that was not provided by most Greek city-states, but by their citizens - only Sparta for most of the classical period actually provided 'government' support for the provision of hoplite soldiers.

The variables in obtaining military units alone could provide a much wider range of 'governmental' variables than the game has provided so far and could make the choice of government for your Civ have much, much more impact than it does now.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the point is the player does Not work “through” the government. But the type of government determines how well society works at doing different things. (which shows up as bonuses)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

For one thing, under some governments, providing military units was NOT "typically government" - see feudalism for example, or the Greek Hoplite array that was not provided by most Greek city-states, but by their citizens - only Sparta for most of the classical period actually provided 'government' support for the provision of hoplite soldiers.

This reminds of the SUPPORT modifier in Alpha Centauri. In that game, units had a maintenance cost of 1 production until you get the clean reactor ability. The SUPPORT modifier would determine how many free units you get. In a civ game, SUPPORT could represent how many units are supported by the population and are therefore "free" for the government. Feudalism could provide higher support, granting you more free units since they are supported by the local population.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I think that whether or not there needs to be some measure of “bureaucratic control” like I suggested, the Civ VII governments sorely need more depth.

They can even keep them as a one-and-done choice at the start of the age so long as they become something more than yield bonuses during Celebrations. Maybe there’s a passive ability that gets strengthened during Celebrations? I don’t know. But there’s a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think that whether or not there needs to be some measure of “bureaucratic control” like I suggested, the Civ VII governments sorely need more depth.

They can even keep them as a one-and-done choice at the start of the age so long as they become something more than yield bonuses during Celebrations. Maybe there’s a passive ability that gets strengthened during Celebrations? I don’t know. But there’s a lot of room for improvement.

I do agree that adding more effects would be good…possibly some social policies have different versions..or are stronger/weaker for certain governments.

 

[Krikkit1]

This reminds of the SUPPORT modifier in Alpha Centauri. In that game, units had a maintenance cost of 1 production until you get the clean reactor ability. The SUPPORT modifier would determine how many free units you get. In a civ game, SUPPORT could represent how many units are supported by the population and are therefore "free" for the government. Feudalism could provide higher support, granting you more free units since they are supported by the local population.

Except in a civ game the government doesn’t support the soldiers, the civ does. It doesn’t matter whether soldiers are paid from a royal treasury, they rely on donations, or corporate sponsorships.

In any case, your “civ” pays the money…(now those different methods may be more/less efficient or have different other effects….but less tax spending doesn’t mean less or more money is being spent)

 

[j51]

I cannot believe how, despite its centralizing role in the progression of several Civ games, the franchise has never portrayed it correctly.

It gets some surface details right (in Civ VI it unlocked the "Serfdom" policy card which encouraged producing a larger Working Class), but makes no attempt at modeling how the system actually worked.

And it's not like it would be impossible. We've had Governors and free Units appearing out of thin air for certain gameplay triggers, vassals and the ability to "levy" troops. There's the makings of a functional Feudalism model there.

But they just never did it.

I think the core issue with the Civ franchise's portrayals of governments is that- currently- it lacks any measure of political power. You as the omniscient immortal god-leader have almost complete control over everything but when your people are born. You can micromanage to your heart's content. What Civ is missing is a resource, a yield, a set of tokens, a stat, Old World-style Orders, anything that reflects how governments have varying levels of control.

The issue seeps into far corners of the game. The Government Plaza in Civ VI was reduced to a vehicle for bonuses that had little to do with government. The Diplomatic Quarter and the bureaucratic buildings inside of it just existed to give you extra yields. Shouldn't devoting city space to the structure of my government and diplomacy give me finer control over the happenings in my state?

And of course, it makes some of the governments very, very strange. Why does a divine right monarchy where a king rules by horse, sword, and God have the political power to exercise roughly the same amount of policies as a Venetian-style merchant republic? Why does my Theocracy hold any power when I haven't founded a religion, nor have I put any effort into converting my people to a singular religion? Why does embracing Corporate Libertarianism of all things result in the same amount of control as my AI-led Synthetic Technocracy where, to quote the Civilopedia, there is "full state control over political and economic issues"?

It also leads to problems of bureaucratic strain, or lack thereof. A Soviet-style planned economy requires a lot of management from the state. So where in the game is this cost reflected? Extra Food and Production on trade routes????

I think Civ VII has the potential to fix- or at least alleviate- this issue with the introduction of the wonderfully broad and vague yield of Influence. "Influence" spans everything from diplomatic leverage to, potentially, inner control. I would love to see certain actions such as converting a Town to a City, building a road, establishing a trade route, etc. cost Influence, because, of course, these things don't happen magically. I'm not asking for nitty-gritty details, but I want some difference in political power between my Ancient era chiefdom and my fascist dictatorship, because if history tells us anything, one of these two is capable of more change.

Would such a system require new sources of Influence and careful balancing of the new Influence costs? Yes. But I think it would not only resolve a long-standing issue with the franchise* but it would also create another interesting avenue for Influence spending. Do I try and cozy up to my neighbors, major and minor, sanction my enemies, or turn my focus inward to enact reform?

I don't know. Just some ideas.

*to my knowledge, anyway- I joined at Civ VI, and to be fair, 10 years is a long time for most franchises!

The only times I can remember the Civ series trying to model different levels of control in government is all the way back in 1 and 2, where republics and democracy would often force the player to make peace when they didn’t want to and maybe even prevent them from declaring some wars. It was really frustrating and I never used those governments lol.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't have more to add than the OP, whom I agree with completely, just to say I really haven't a clue why this was missing from the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think the point is the player does Not work “through” the government. But the type of government determines how well society works at doing different things. (which shows up as bonuses)

Government, and the non-government "culture" of a society are both a measure of how well things get done, but also whether they can be done at all, and how easily (or at all) the Grand Farquart can access and deploy the resources of that society/Civ.

That should make both the 'amount' and type of culture and the type of government far more important in how you run and organize your Civ than they are now.

And yes, that also makes them restrictions on what the gamer can do as much as providers of Bonuses of any kind. In fact, if legitimately modeled, every government type would come with trade-offs: things it does better, things it does worse than other government types, and areas where it interacts with the culture in both positive and negative ways.

Personally, I find the idea of having to choose a government both for its bonuses and for the way it interacts with my Civ's Culture as it develops and the potential advantages/disadvantages I will have to work around far more interesting and exciting than simply picking the one that gives me +2 of X during a celebration and is otherwise ignored for the rest of the Age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This reminds of the SUPPORT modifier in Alpha Centauri. In that game, units had a maintenance cost of 1 production until you get the clean reactor ability. The SUPPORT modifier would determine how many free units you get. In a civ game, SUPPORT could represent how many units are supported by the population and are therefore "free" for the government. Feudalism could provide higher support, granting you more free units since they are supported by the local population.

SUPPORT - fond memories of some very elegant game mechanics in SMAC . . .

Something like that would be another Currency (alongside Gold, Culture, Science and Influence in the game now) to mark how anything is done, and so the question is do we need another specific Currency in the game?

Right now, Gold is the 'support' currency for units, and simply changing the amount required based on the Culture and/or Government might serve the same purpose: a Feudal Monarchy gets cheaper units because a percentage of them are supported by the various feudal retainers rather than directly by the State as a whole. An emergency-raised Militia is 'free' in direct support terms, but might (in the Modern Age) cause a sharp drop in Productivity the longer you keep all those workers in uniform and away from the farms and factories.

A Thought: in addition to direct costs, some units and types of units might have another 'cost' in terms of how they affect other elements of the Civ. As in the cost to production of recruiting too many units of any type, a cost that affected feudal levies even more than modern mass armies (on average an early medieval king could only keep a peasant Fyrd or set of knightly retainers in the field for a few months out of the year or risk a failed harvest and famine). OR the ease of recruiting certain types of units could depend on the rest of the society, as in a free (no maintenance cost) Archer unit for every Camp, representing experienced Hunters hired without needing training at their skills.

This sort of mechanic could automatically modify the type of army your Civ fields based on the resources, culture, government, and terrain affecting it. IMHO that would be Very Good, because it swings the game towards modeling the old, old, military history adage: "An army reflects the society that produceed it.", which is simply not the case very much now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with most of the complaints here. Governments in this game feels like a regression from the previous iteration. I was hoping they would have expanded on the way governments worked in Civ 6. Having certain governments containing more military policies over diplomatic policies was a nice touch.
I echo the ideas that certain governments should have their own unique building, units, projects, policies etc. which might make them stand out from each other more.

And of course, it makes some of the governments very, very strange. Why does a divine right monarchy where a king rules by horse, sword, and God have the political power to exercise roughly the same amount of policies as a Venetian-style merchant republic? Why does my Theocracy hold any power when I haven't founded a religion, nor have I put any effort into converting my people to a singular religion? Why does embracing Corporate Libertarianism of all things result in the same amount of control as my AI-led Synthetic Technocracy where, to quote the Civilopedia, there is "full state control over political and economic issues"?

I don't personally mind the fact that a Divine Right Monarchy and Merchant Republic have the same number of policies, because being in the same tier if one had one less policy then that would immediately never get picked. In fact, Monarchy was usually never picked because it originally had 3 military slots and I'm glad they at least changed one of them to a wildcard slot. I always skipped over it and went straight to Merchant Republic, or Theocracy if I had a religion/faith heavy civ.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think civ should avoid just giving governments a bunch of small modifiers like +2 food. The problem with that is that the governments play the same way and it is hard to always see the effect of the bonus. I think a good way to make governments feel more unique is to actually change the game mechanics a bit for each one.

For example: a government might change policy cards by spending influence, gold or faith. A government might change policy cards only on certain pre-determined turns, you get a random selection of 3 cards and you pick one (election). A government might let you raise military units but at a cost of a population point. A government might not let you directly control what gets built in cities (AI would control your cities) but instead you get more gold and can rush buy in the capital. A government might let you reduce unhappiness by garrisoning units in the city center tile. etc... Hopefully, you get the idea. I think something like this would make governments actually unique to play because they change how you play.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think civ should avoid just giving governments a bunch of small modifiers like +2 food. The problem with that is that the governments play the same way and it is hard to always see the effect of the bonus. I think a good way to make governments feel more unique is to actually change the game mechanics a bit for each one.

For example: a government might change policy cards by spending influence, gold or faith. A government might change policy cards only on certain pre-determined turns, you get a random selection of 3 cards and you pick one (election). A government might let you raise military units but at a cost of a population point. A government might not let you directly control what gets built in cities (AI would control your cities) but instead you get more gold and can rush buy in the capital. A government might let you reduce unhappiness by garrisoning units in the city center tile. etc... Hopefully, you get the idea. I think something like this would make governments actually unique to play because they change how you play.

We are on the same sheet here.

Governments should NOT play the same, and making government types actually affect how you play would be a long step towards balancing other aspects of the game.

Actually changing the amount of control you have over what each Settlement builds or the amount and type of units permitted/desired/supported between a set of City States, a Feudal Monarchy, a God-King or a Republic (Antiquity), Merchant Oligarchy (Exploration), or Democracy (Modern) would be a huge positive step.

Changing not the amount of Civic/Social Policies, but the types and speed with which they can be 'traded out' would make the gamer think long and hard about what type of government will allow them to do what they want in the Age.

And if losing a war also meant losing your type of government and all or most of its Social Policies/Civics (at least temporarily), it would make Hummie the Gamer think much longer and harder about any 'war of convenience' they started.

 

[Krikkit1]

Government, and the non-government "culture" of a society are both a measure of how well things get done, but also whether they can be done at all, and how easily (or at all) the Grand Farquart can access and deploy the resources of that society/Civ.

That should make both the 'amount' and type of culture and the type of government far more important in how you run and organize your Civ than they are now.

And yes, that also makes them restrictions on what the gamer can do as much as providers of Bonuses of any kind. In fact, if legitimately modeled, every government type would come with trade-offs: things it does better, things it does worse than other government types, and areas where it interacts with the culture in both positive and negative ways.

Personally, I find the idea of having to choose a government both for its bonuses and for the way it interacts with my Civ's Culture as it develops and the potential advantages/disadvantages I will have to work around far more interesting and exciting than simply picking the one that gives me +2 of X during a celebration and is otherwise ignored for the rest of the Age.

The point is the player is not the Grand Farquat. perhaps the Grand Farquat can't get anything done because of an incredibly weak government filled with yes men.... but stuff still gets done, just against the Grand Farquats orders... the Grand Farquat wants to build great pyramids in his honor... but that doesn't matter because the civ is going to be building libraries, because that's what the "people that do things" ie the player wants.... sometimes the player works through the Grand Farquat (when the player is building Pyramids.. and GF the 3rd of his dynasty is finally able to get his dream...although there may be penalties or bonuses to it being done.)


I agree with bonuses and penalties that are strong for governments than what we have... but there should be a lot of customizability in the government... apparently there can be a Modern Democratic Autocracy.... but that sounds interesting so it is a good thing.