Here is just my personal deduction. We have had confirmations that Pantheons will only exist in Antiquity, and Religions will replace them in Exploration. Although we haven't had confirmation that Religions will go away after Exp, but according to the Town specialization screen, a Religious town is only available in Exp, making me think that after Exp, Religions may be replaced with Ideology in modern, a system not unlike the Ideology system in Civ5. What do you guys think about this? Is there a possibility in the expansions to have a new victory type, like Political Victory/Ideological Victory as a replacement for Religious Vic from Civ6?
I doubt it will be it’s own victory, but I see it being key in the “Military” and “Culture” victories, like religion in the exploration age. Probably with their own civic trees (like civ5, and the theology tree from exploration age)
I really damn hope so, ideology was one of my favourite systems of civ5, with an enormous potential, only to be inexplicably axed in civ6
Ever since civ5 has done that I can't imagine 20th century in civ-like games without some simulation of a global struggle between "liberalism", "socialism" and "nationalism" (I put "" to warn anybody to not take those labels seriously and please don't waste eons arguing on your personal definition of those ideologies, it's just a game)
Also I have never understood why devs haven't named those three ideological blocs Liberty, Egality and Fraternity (instead of Liberty and inexplicably "Order" and "Autocracy") I mean...come on. I mean come on, it would be so ******* cool
Because many players would then want to have all three at the same time
I hope Ideologies make it back, but that you don't have to go for extremes. E.g., your actions put you on theee sliders with associated bonuses (and unique unlocks if you go extreme in one direction). So, you can mix and match these axes to your liking. And actually not make it a choice that you don't care about but forcing you to play in that way. E.g., giving up control of resource allocation in capitalism for extra profit, but if you reassign too often, you slowly move backwards on the slider.
Here is just my personal deduction. We have had confirmations that Pantheons will only exist in Antiquity, and Religions will replace them in Exploration. Although we haven't had confirmation that Religions will go away after Exp, but according to the Town specialization screen, a Religious town is only available in Exp, making me think that after Exp, Religions may be replaced with Ideology in modern, a system not unlike the Ideology system in Civ5. What do you guys think about this? Is there a possibility in the expansions to have a new victory type, like Political Victory/Ideological Victory as a replacement for Religious Vic from Civ6?
Having never played civ 5, do you expect it to be the same implementation, or something different? It seems logical they would bring back old features like they did Religion in 7 where it seems to be like 6 but "simplified".
Honestly (and it looks like I'm in a minority) I never understood why "ideologies" of the 20th century were so different than ones of previous times where they needed their own mechanic. I don't see anything about them that couldn't have just been replicated using existing systems. We know that there will be mechanics in the game unique to the modern era, but I hope it's something new.
Honestly (and it looks like I'm in a minority) I never understood why "ideologies" of the 20th century were so different than ones of previous times where they needed their own mechanic. I don't see anything about them that couldn't have just been replicated using existing systems. We know that there will be mechanics in the game unique to the modern era, but I hope it's something new.
Ideologies of the second half of XX century had generally the same role as religion before - automatically improving diplomatic relationships with those sharing your views and lowering with those who don't. But in both cases it wasn't a strict driver of diplomacy - there were military conflicts between communist governments, for example. Whether this needs to be in the game or not totally depends on the rest of the gameplay, as with any real world thing. It should be simulation for gameplay purposes not simulation for the sake of simulation.
In Civ 5 it was a good driver for creating alliances, but those alliances were quite inflexible and I can't say brought enough value to the game.
Honestly (and it looks like I'm in a minority) I never understood why "ideologies" of the 20th century were so different than ones of previous times where they needed their own mechanic. I don't see anything about them that couldn't have just been replicated using existing systems. We know that there will be mechanics in the game unique to the modern era, but I hope it's something new.
There's a couple of reasons why "ideologies" are different in the 20th century, and they can trace their origins to the 1600 and 1700s. One, the rise of nationalism and its knock-on effects. Strong local identity led to demands for self-rule, and this was a threat to established monarchies, who were attempting to achieve absolute power. Monarchs even felt threatened by when self-ruling nation-states broke away from neighboring monarchies, fearing it would spread to their own. So the nature of a nation/kingdom's sovereignty began to effect international politics. Democracy is threatened by Totalitarianism and vice versa, and both are threatened by Anarchy (But usually the third thing is just masked Totalitarianism with a Communist economic system).
Second, colonialism gave way to spheres of influence where major powers felt that they could dictate the terms of lesser powers' governments, usually prioritizing whatever local option was the most cooperative. Where the major powers engaged in military action to usurp a hostile government in order to place a friendly one, the rationale was typically addressed as an ideological concern (even if it were more likely an economic or military one). Usually, a major power would give the lesser power a form of government similar to their own, but there are infamous instances where a major power would usurp a hostile government similar to their own and establish a puppet that is remarkably different.
I could perceive a way that this could be set up as new mechanics in the Modern Age. You could have something like the vassalage of old games, where you can go to war and force another civ to change its government as part of the terms of peace and make it subordinate to you under the auspices of an Axis, Alliance, or Bloc. The military victory could involve making your Axis/Bloc/Alliance the majority or supermajority among other similar alliances.
There's a couple of reasons why "ideologies" are different in the 20th century, and they can trace their origins to the 1600 and 1700s. One, the rise of nationalism and its knock-on effects. Strong local identity led to demands for self-rule, and this was a threat to established monarchies, who were attempting to achieve absolute power. Monarchs even felt threatened by when self-ruling nation-states broke away from neighboring monarchies, fearing it would spread to their own. So the nature of a nation/kingdom's sovereignty began to effect international politics. Democracy is threatened by Totalitarianism and vice versa, and both are threatened by Anarchy (But usually the third thing is just masked Totalitarianism with a Communist economic system).
Second, colonialism gave way to spheres of influence where major powers felt that they could dictate the terms of lesser powers' governments, usually prioritizing whatever local option was the most cooperative. Where the major powers engaged in military action to usurp a hostile government in order to place a friendly one, the rationale was typically addressed as an ideological concern (even if it were more likely an economic or military one). Usually, a major power would give the lesser power a form of government similar to their own, but there are infamous instances where a major power would usurp a hostile government similar to their own and establish a puppet that is remarkably different.
I could perceive a way that this could be set up as new mechanics in the Modern Age. You could have something like the vassalage of old games, where you can go to war and force another civ to change its government as part of the terms of peace and make it subordinate to you under the auspices of an Axis, Alliance, or Bloc. The military victory could involve making your Axis/Bloc/Alliance the majority or supermajority among other similar alliances.
Another key point is the Pax Atomica which meant that those disputes between major powers couldn't be resolved through direct force, they needed proxy wars and propaganda wars. Ideology provides both a diplomatic tool and a political tool to allow "reaching around" the nuclear defense to hurt your enemy.
But gameplay-wise what was nice about ideologies in Civ 5 was the elegant little system by which you had to pick one of three, but got negative pressure from the other two of three. It was difficult to game that system, and it could make for a meaningful happiness hit. It did add a little interest to the late game.
It seemed to me that Ideology in Civ5 was just another excuse for the AI civilizations to be angry at you (along with religion and agendas), which you had very little control over. The diplomatic interactions were so shallow that the tension between ideologies never felt organic or immersive. Beyond that it was just another set of bonuses that didn't really impact how you played the game.
It seemed to me that Ideology in Civ5 was just another excuse for the AI civilizations to be angry at you (along with religion and agendas), which you had very little control over. The diplomatic interactions were so shallow that the tension between ideologies never felt organic or immersive. Beyond that it was just another set of bonuses that didn't really impact how you played the game.
I thought it could have interesting consequences. E.g., I remember a particular game of Civ5 in which I had been friends with Brazil the entire game based on a shared religion but had had very few interactions with Arabia (despite also sharing a religion). In the modern age, Arabia and I chose the same Ideology, while Brazil chose a different Ideology. My friendship with Brazil cooled (it didn't result in war, just a lapse of friendship), while Arabia and I grew closer. Not to say it couldn't be handled better, but it sometimes created an interesting dynamic.
I know some people are not big fans of Civ5 Ideology system because of how punishing it can be, and how it forces you to adopt Ideology you don't want just to survive, but for some reason, I always think Civ6 lacks a way for late game empires to meaningfully interact with one another outside of straight on wars. If you pursue a Cultural victory, most of the time, it is just a waiting game for all the behind-the-scene mechanics to work in your favor to give you the win, after you have done everything possible to maximize your tourism modifiers. Now that Happiness is making a comeback to replace Amenities once more, maybe it is time for Ideology to be back as well.
With the modern era so "early", is this really likely? And I know we are still speculating when the modern era ends, but if it ends when we think it does, it seems too early for ideologies to really be thing.
With the modern era so "early", is this really likely? And I know we are still speculating when the modern era ends, but if it ends when we think it does, it seems too early for ideologies to really be thing.
Ideology in the modern sense began in the mid-to-late 18th century, blossomed in the 19th century, and bore fruit in the early 20th century so I think they fit, however the Modern Era is defined.
I thought it could have interesting consequences. E.g., I remember a particular game of Civ5 in which I had been friends with Brazil the entire game based on a shared religion but had had very few interactions with Arabia (despite also sharing a religion). In the modern age, Arabia and I chose the same Ideology, while Brazil chose a different Ideology. My friendship with Brazil cooled (it didn't result in war, just a lapse of friendship), while Arabia and I grew closer. Not to say it couldn't be handled better, but it sometimes created an interesting dynamic.
The underlying problem was, I think, a lack of meaningful diplomatic interactions. It's fine to have mechanisms to drive diplomatic tensions, but if there are no meaningful mechanisms to resolve this tension outside of warfare, then it's kind of a waste of effort. The only purpose of even talking to other leaders was to trade resources or declare war.
A perfect example is city-state suzerainty in Civ6. Hey, Alexander is attacking a city-state that I'm suzerain of! City-states supposedly exist to drive diplomatic interactions, but there is no diplomatic mechanism to do anything about it -- I can't ask him to stop, bribe or cajole or threaten him, or even offer support to the city-state short of declaring war. I get a few grievance points so that if I let him conquer the city-state, declare war and take it back, I take slightly less of a relationship hit with the rest of the international community, but the only resolution is military -- there is no actual "diplomacy" within a mile of this interaction.
Diplomacy in Civ7 is still a black box to us at this point, but from what I've seen of the influence system, it looks much Civ6 in that the only use for it seems to be in how it affects warfare -- to mitigate war weariness or relationship penalties, or to aid or hinder someone else's war. I still haven't seen any actual "diplomatic" mechanisms.
Civ 5s late game was a lot more interesting than 6s imo with idealogy being one of the main reasons why. Hopefully it can come back in some interesting form.
My problem with ideology, not that I recall it too well, is that it was a fairly arbitrary way of dividing the world into 3 blocks. It had little to do with what happened earlier in the game, and there wasn't much in the way of actual interactions with the system. Sure, it impacted diplomacy, but that's the same old game system with extra modifiers. There were the tenets (additional social policy essentially), but even that was just an an extra - if slightly bigger - government / social policy tree.
They might do the same thing in Civ7, we've seen that there's a theology civic tree in the exploration era, so an ideology civic tree in the modern era could work. I hope it works differently though. For example: if anyone of a given ideology learns an ideology civic, everyone of the same ideology gets it for free. Not only does that sort of capture the idea (no pun intended) of great powers leading the way and giving ideologically motivated aid to the weaker powers; it also raises interesting questions. Do I invest my hard won culture in this, if others also benefit from it? Do I join the ideology of the strongest culture civ so I get civics for free? Or do I deliberately stay away so they don't benefit from my investment? It's not particularly exciting, but at least it's slightly different. But looking at what the devs did with religion, they might go with one-civ-one-ideology which would be utterly boring.
But I think the Civ4 Corporations system is fundamentally more interesting, more dynamic, and player driven, and more in tune with CIv7's "make yield go up" design. The main downside of the mechanic in Civ4 was that the game was almost always decided by then, so trying to maximise yield gain that late rarely felt like it was worth the effort. Civ7 should (hopefully) be slightly more competitive at the start of the modern era. Which is another advantage of corporations: it could include things like the East India Companies which were alive and well way before 1700. Ideology would have to wait (roughly) a hundred years longer for the French revolution to start, another 70 years for Communism to become a theoretical idea and so offer an alternative, and then another 60 for fascism to come along. Of course Civ7 could break RL chronology, but not having to do with corporations is surely a plus.
My problem with ideology, not that I recall it too well, is that it was a fairly arbitrary way of dividing the world into 3 blocks. It had little to do with what happened earlier in the game, and there wasn't much in the way of actual interactions with the system. Sure, it impacted diplomacy, but that's the same old game system with extra modifiers. There were the tenets (additional social policy essentially), but even that was just an an extra - if slightly bigger - government / social policy tree.
They might do the same thing in Civ7, we've seen that there's a theology civic tree in the exploration era, so an ideology civic tree in the modern era could work. I hope it works differently though. For example: if anyone of a given ideology learns an ideology civic, everyone of the same ideology gets it for free. Not only does that sort of capture the idea (no pun intended) of great powers leading the way and giving ideologically motivated aid to the weaker powers; it also raises interesting questions. Do I invest my hard won culture in this, if others also benefit from it? Do I join the ideology of the strongest culture civ so I get civics for free? Or do I deliberately stay away so they don't benefit from my investment? It's not particularly exciting, but at least it's slightly different. But looking at what the devs did with religion, they might go with one-civ-one-ideology which would be utterly boring.
But I think the Civ4 Corporations system is fundamentally more interesting, more dynamic, and player driven, and more in tune with CIv7's "make yield go up" design. The main downside of the mechanic in Civ4 was that the game was almost always decided by then, so trying to maximise yield gain that late rarely felt like it was worth the effort. Civ7 should (hopefully) be slightly more competitive at the start of the modern era. Which is another advantage of corporations: it could include things like the East India Companies which were alive and well way before 1700. Ideology would have to wait (roughly) a hundred years longer for the French revolution to start, another 70 years for Communism to become a theoretical idea and so offer an alternative, and then another 60 for fascism to come along. Of course Civ7 could break RL chronology, but not having to do with corporations is surely a plus.
I definitely would hope corporations are in the modern age. (and we don’t know it starts in 1700, they could easily start in 1800 and ideologies could be going strong by the second column.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
