Ideology is making a comeback in Civ7?

[Vitruvian Guar]

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.

I think the choice of ideology by AI actually depended on diplomatic relationships. I can clearly remember my allies picking the same ideology I did, even if picking a different one would give them extra free civics. Everything always felt pretty organic to me.

For example I had good relationships with A, B and C. Meanwhile, B hated A, and was neutral with C. When I selected an ideology, B joined me. C also joined me. But A selected a different ideology, and was joined by other civs who disliked B. The world was dividing into blocks, exacerbating the existing contradictions and therefore shaking things up a bit - I wasn't able to maintain good relationships with A anymore, while B and C became close friends.

 

[Krajzen]

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

See, not only I have no problem with it, a
I actually liked the fact ideology had little to do with what happened earlier in the game, because:
1) It is historical. Industrial revolution is "the singularity" in that it breaks a lot of previous processes and continuities of history. State ideologies in the 20th century were not something determined by the course of centuries and millenia, though past history nudged certain societies in certain directions. India had zero republican history before 1947 and had very collectivist cultures yet it created stable, succesful liberal democracy at the first take (well initially with very statist planned market economy but after few decades they ended up with hard liberalism). Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Germany with their hurr long ancient legacies of republics and parlisments had periods of fascism. And sure it was "arbitrary" this way, and thank God for it, because I there is no way to break endgame tedium is late game is not allowed for some chaos and disruption.

2) Regarding gameplay, I liked how it was this chaotic process which dyjamically disrupted previous super stable webs of alliances and friendships - see also the above, it is historical too. It is a fantastic method to distrupt static boredom of the endgame, by flipping diplomacy on its head and causing "diplomatic revolutions". Again, imagine how boring real history would be if in the 20th century we'd have AGAIN wars of England vs France and Italy vs Austria and Ottomans vs Austria and Bulgaria.

and there wasn't much in the way of actual interactions with the system.

It did lack active internations (the bane of civ5 diplomacy) but it did not lack impact - the ideological pressure could completely tank and paralyze empires with unhappinness, hence it was actually useful to invest in culture/tourism and various bonuses to counteract; it reforged alliances like I mentioned; and also

There were the tenets (additional social policy essentially), but even that was just an an extra - if slightly bigger - government / social policy tree.

Tenet trees were somewhat different from the social policy trees in that you had a lot of freedom in choosing which should be taken when, and they could be very powerful, offering a ton of help towards any type of victory. They worked for the endgame much better than the previous "simply ordinary social polocy trees" since their size and freedom allowed the player to pursue any victory with any ideology tree (though iirc autocracy was significantly less universal than the other two, being focised too much on the military, so there was a balance issue there)

But I think the Civ4 Corporations system is fundamentally more interesting, more dynamic, and player driven

Corporations can't replace diplomatic revolutions and diplomatic blocs, literal revolutions, world wars and cold war.

I also actually dislike corporations in that they enforce certain economic system on the entire world of civ, which again is the allure of ideology system - what if I want to try some mixture of economic nationalism or domestic capitalism or socialism and to not allow you corporations on my lawn, and yes I want the game to give me some gameplay ressons for doing this alternative style?

 

[UWHabs]

See, not only I have no problem with it, a
I actually liked the fact ideology had little to do with what happened earlier in the game, because:
1) It is historical. Industrial revolution is "the singularity" in that it breaks a lot of previous processes and continuities of history. State ideologies in the 20th century were not something determined by the course of centuries and millenia, though past history nudged certain societies in certain directions. India had zero republican history before 1947 and had very collectivist cultures yet it created stable, succesful liberal democracy at the first take (well initially with very statist planned market economy but after few decades they ended up with hard liberalism). Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Germany with their hurr long ancient legacies of republics and parlisments had periods of fascism. And sure it was "arbitrary" this way, and thank God for it, because I there is no way to break endgame tedium is late game is not allowed for some chaos and disruption.

2) Regarding gameplay, I liked how it was this chaotic process which dyjamically disrupted previous super stable webs of alliances and friendships - see also the above, it is historical too. It is a fantastic method to distrupt static boredom of the endgame, by flipping diplomacy on its head and causing "diplomatic revolutions". Again, imagine how boring real history would be if in the 20th century we'd have AGAIN wars of England vs France and Italy vs Austria and Ottomans vs Austria and Bulgaria.



It did lack active internations (the bane of civ5 diplomacy) but it did not lack impact - the ideological pressure could completely tank and paralyze empires with unhappinness, hence it was actually useful to invest in culture/tourism and various bonuses to counteract; it reforged alliances like I mentioned; and also



Tenet trees were somewhat different from the social policy trees in that you had a lot of freedom in choosing which should be taken when, and they could be very powerful, offering a ton of help towards any type of victory. They worked for the endgame much better than the previous "simply ordinary social polocy trees" since their size and freedom allowed the player to pursue any victory with any ideology tree (though iirc autocracy was significantly less universal than the other two, being focised too much on the military, so there was a balance issue there)



Corporations can't replace diplomatic revolutions and diplomatic blocs, literal revolutions, world wars and cold war.

I also actually dislike corporations in that they enforce certain economic system on the entire world of civ, which again is the allure of ideology system - what if I want to try some mixture of economic nationalism or domestic capitalism or socialism and to not allow you corporations on my lawn, and yes I want the game to give me some gameplay ressons for doing this alternative style?

Yeah, I mean it's a pain when you might have thousands of years of shared alliances break down when you get to the end, but the fact that something could come in and shake up the system was a good thing. In theory, it means you might have to change focus, because your little friend next door who you never cared about might suddenly turn on you.

I do think in VII, Ideologies make a lot of sense as a mechanism. It fits well with the age system, everyone will be starting and unlocking them at around the same times, and the world goes through major shifts between each era anyways so it might be more natural for alliances to change.

Corporations are a system that works in the modern age, but agreed as well that they really can't have much of an impact on diplomacy. I mean, maybe they could in terms of "my corporation needs raw materials which I can only get from XXX, so I need to make sure I stay friends with them so they will keep trading it to me". I do think they make for a fun gameplay mechanism when done well, and at least in past civ games was a great way to make use of resources that otherwise were more or less obsolete. But they're a lot more a useful way to handle trade or industry in the modern age rather than something really for diplomacy.

 

[chaosprophet]

That's actually a very interesting idea I didn't think of before. Especially how in modern days ideology not only works similar to religion, in many places it even merges with them creating thing like X Nationalism (where X could be almost any religion that is strong on a region). Now it will probably have some similarities with 5, I would expect them to design it in a way that works better with this game mechanics. I could even see it being similar to pantheon and religion in that you would start with a basic one and pick option to make your own version of bonuses of an ideology.

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)

Yeah, it would make sense for it to be important for some victories but not being a victory by itself.

Corporations are a system that works in the modern age, but agreed as well that they really can't have much of an impact on diplomacy. I mean, maybe they could in terms of "my corporation needs raw materials which I can only get from XXX, so I need to make sure I stay friends with them so they will keep trading it to me". I do think they make for a fun gameplay mechanism when done well, and at least in past civ games was a great way to make use of resources that otherwise were more or less obsolete. But they're a lot more a useful way to handle trade or industry in the modern age rather than something really for diplomacy.

Corporations can affect diplomacy at the end game when you unlock the social media tech-

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Especially how in modern days ideology not only works similar to religion,

Religion seems to get its own Civic Tree... perhaps Ideology would as well?

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

I loved Ideologies in 5! It was the main thing that made the late game interesting (2nd maybe to an AI that could attack and defend well). (I've never understood people who say you could only go Tall in 5 - did they never make it to Ideologies? Did they never mix Tradition and Liberty?) Anyway, I loved discovering new power blocks and where I might fit in later in the game, and whether it might be worth it to change my goals. Very immersive and added just the right amount of tension in my decision-making...