Idea for an anarchist/libertarian civ

[JoglanicWeirdo]

The basic idea is that it would be a civ confined to one city (like Venice) but, if it liberated a city, that civ becomes the suzerain of that city forever as well as being able to set that specific city’s government type (so each city state you’ve liberated can have its own different government) and having open borders with that city state.

Is that a good idea?

 

[awesome]

Would capturing a city before liberating it violate the NAP?

 

[Phrozen]

Closest historically would be Iceland during the Commonwealth era.

 

[JoglanicWeirdo]

Would capturing a city before liberating it violate the NAP?

It's not necessarily anarcho-capitalist especially since each city can have it's own form of government or economic system.

 

[JoglanicWeirdo]

Closest historically would be Iceland during the Commonwealth era.

The Hashashins or the Cossacks would also work.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We talked about this on Reddit already.

America is the only civ that would work as a libertarian civ, and it is already in the game and would never be developed with that particular exceptionalist bent.

The Romani are the only civ that would work as an anarchist civ since they actually claim nationhood. And although I think they are extremely culturally interesting and have the potential for some wild mechanics, the fact is that any anarchist civ will carry problems of coinciding with a high crime rate. Anarchic peoples are kind of destructive *******s and although VI wants to portray the best of everyone many have pointed out that a cheery whitewashing would be disingenuous in the case of certain anti-establishment cultures.

And, again, for you have a civ to achieve this mechanically, it almost by necessity to maintain ludonarrative harmony requires that the civs be freed through non-Portugal subversion. Cultural flipping with traveling troupes. Conversion with religious units. Economic liberation with traders. The mechanism has to circumvent politics because it would make no sense for a culture to exert political pressure on anything only to not absorb it into the empire.

 

[JoglanicWeirdo]

Anarchism does not dictate a lack of rules but a horizontal unhierarchial form of governance. Instead of the government being structured vertically it would be structured horizontally or, in other words, be more akin to a federation rather than a government.

This does not mean that an anarchist civ would have a high crime rate or be inherently destructive. Such notions are based upon a lack of understanding of anarchism. Anarchism does not mean chaos, it means a lack of rulers.

Regarding what civs would represent an anarchist civ, I have already suggested the Hashashins and the Cossacks which were structured in a similar manner to the gameplay proposals I have made in the OP (indeed they were the chief inspiration for my ideas). If you want a civ that could fully represent Anarchism, the CNT-FAI or Anarchist Catalonia would work as well but that may not work due to political considerations as well as Spain already being present.

If you would like to know why an anarchist civ would inflict political pressure but not take the city the answer is obvious. It's anarchist. It has no government or ruler which could supervise or administrate the taken city. All they could do is just place it under their sphere of influence.

 

[Phrozen]

Well the commonwealth period of Iceland had no real direct rulers except for chiefs that filled a variety of roles between the people who were their followers and other chiefs. Judge, lawyer, arbiter, representative, champion etc were all jobs the chiefs did and the chiefs only power came from the people who willingly followed them. The allthing was really the only thing we would recognize as a government and it was simply a gathering of the chiefs every year to set some basic ground rules and to bring big disputes in front of all the chiefs to rule on.

 

[JoglanicWeirdo]

Well the commonwealth period of Iceland had no real direct rulers except for chiefs that filled a variety of roles between the people who were their followers and other chiefs. Judge, lawyer, arbiter, representative, champion etc were all jobs the chiefs did and the chiefs only power came from the people who willingly followed them. The allthing was really the only thing we would recognize as a government and it was simply a gathering of the chiefs every year to set some basic ground rules and to bring big disputes in front of all the chiefs to rule on.

I know but I think that other periods of Iceland would be far more better suited for representation than in the form I am suggesting like the Kalmar Union which, in my opinion, is very interesting. I have some ideas on how such a civilization would play like as well.

 

[JoglanicWeirdo]

OH YEAH I HAVE A REALLY GOOD IDEA FOR A CIV TO REPRESENT THIS!

The Hanseatic League!