Please fix the Democracy ideology

[Black Gate]

Like what is 'elective republic' supposed to represent if it can be combined with fascism or communism?

Actual communist governments, for one. The Soviets utilised elections as a popularity vote. If a candidate didn't get over a certain amount, they weren't elected even though there was no opposition - after all, something must clearly be wrong if a large chunk of voters refuse to vote for the only option available. In China, local elections can even have independents or members of other political parties (in practice, they're interfered with and all candidates are otherwise preapproved by the CCP) but even when they don't, there are still multiple candidates to choose from. Once again, elections are a good way to remove truly terrible candidates from positions, even if you don't allow the populace to vote for more important roles (like members of provincial or national congress).

 

[JNR13]

It also doesn't specify universal suffrage with general elections for the entire citizenry. Here it just means that leadership is chosen, presumably for limited terms, by a body of people legitimized to do so. This is contrasted with a monarchy where the position is inherited and held for life and I suppose "authoritarianism" here really means more something like a military junta, where brute force is used to seize office, instead of all forms of dictatorship.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I've tuned out of ideologies a bit, so I might have missed useful info.

It feels weird to me that what I've seen of the democracy ideology is so America heavy and so mid 20th century heavy though.

If the modern era is supposed to take us from the industrial revolution to WW2, that's about 200 years to represent, and for most of that period America was isolationist, developing, and not the predominant democratic force in the world.

I would have expected a bit more inspiration to have come from the Whigs and Tories of the UK (especially since America emerged out of the British democratic tradition).

It's also going to feel a bit odd having a democracy Vs fascism Vs communism theme running through an era that for the most part was defined by nationalism and revolution as the predominant ideological conflicts, especially given the era is going to end before the climactic cold war that was the biggest manifestation of competing ideologies. WW2 was still really a conflict born of nationalism and empire building rather than ideology.

 

[Krikkit1]

I've tuned out of ideologies a bit, so I might have missed useful info.

It feels weird to me that what I've seen of the democracy ideology is so America heavy and so mid 20th century heavy though.

If the modern era is supposed to take us from the industrial revolution to WW2, that's about 200 years to represent, and for most of that period America was isolationist, developing, and not the predominant democratic force in the world.

I would have expected a bit more inspiration to have come from the Whigs and Tories of the UK (especially since America emerged out of the British democratic tradition).

It's also going to feel a bit odd having a democracy Vs fascism Vs communism theme running through an era that for the most part was defined by nationalism and revolution as the predominant ideological conflicts, especially given the era is going to end before the climactic cold war that was the biggest manifestation of competing ideologies. WW2 was still really a conflict born of nationalism and empire building rather than ideology.

well I think those ideologies are particular expressions of nationalism/ empire building. they justify
why we should be independent
and
why others should follow us

Also, we only saw the Democracy tree, the fascist one may have proto fascist elements to move it earlier.

They could probably find some ones that are from uk/france (the other big democracies pre1950)..but most are universal.
There are only 2 us specific ones
New Deal/Fireside chats
and one uk specific one

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

well I think those ideologies are particular expressions of nationalism/ empire building. they justify
why we should be independent
and
why others should follow us

Also, we only saw the Democracy tree, the fascist one may have proto fascist elements to move it earlier.

They could probably find some ones that are from uk/france (the other big democracies pre1950)..but most are universal.
There are only 2 us specific ones
New Deal/Fireside chats
and one uk specific one

It's ahistorical, whichever way you want to stretch it is my point. That's fine in and of itself, I like ahistorical, but when the Devs have gone so out of their way to split to game into more historical periods that reflect the world in those periods, it's an odd decision.

It's not game breaking, it just stinks a bit of a lack of historical knowledge of the period that they've relied so heavily on WW2, or possibly even forcing in concepts from previous games that don't fit so well given the way this game is set up and where it ends, and I feel they could have themed it better, and brought something new and different to the franchise. I'm sure this will still be a fun way of recalibrating alliances from a gameplay perspective.

 

[Siptah]

I'm surely biased from my personal experience living in a half-direct consensus democracy in which women couldn't vote until the 70s, but I would actually wish that democracy in civ VII would also have policies that references different democratic systems, most notably direct democracy. It's a concept that was known and practiced since antiquity, although not widely adapted in the modern age. I think such more fundamental changes in a democratic alignment (representative vs. direct, ethnical/religious/gender-dependent/bourgeois right to vote vs. universal vote, consenus vs. majority rule, etc.) would be better suited for policies than the oddly-specific policies of fireside chat or new deal that make more sense as US traditions.

And on another note, I hope the same is true for communism and fascism as well. Not every fascist policy and civic should be modeled after 1942 Germany, and not every Communist country's civics and policies after the 1920 Soviet Union. Then again, many salient facets of fascism and communism only surfaced after the period of the game in the 1950-80s, which shouldn't play a role in the game's modern age. But even in the game's time frame, there are the takes on fascism from parties in Brazil, Egypt, South-Africa and Japan, which differ a lot from Germany's and Italy's (and Spain is again very different from these). The unifying elements are ultra-nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-marxism (which could be the fascism civics), but then there's quite a spread (which could be modeled in different policies). But... my hope for any non-super-cliché-we-only-know-3-countries-in-the-world take on these is even lower than for democracy, for which I would assume most educated people are familiar with at least a few different takes.

 

[King Flevance]

I feel like this tree should branch if anything, including for communism and fascism. But that is a lot more work than simply renaming things, which is merely cosmetic anyway. Ideologies are such big concepts that to represent them in a linear fashion on a progression track is a bit strange. Like "Oh good I have learned how to objectively implement my democracy better now." seems nonsensical. I will say I think I prefer cards or points investment on which particular path of that ideology you will go down is better than a tech system of "unlocking more democracy".

All that said, this is a minor abstract aspect of the game and it isn't a government but merely path within whatever government you choose. It would be nice if it was more adaptable with options to reflect the ideology better, but I don't think this is going to impact my games hardly at all. And I don't care much about what they named it. I understand the argument presented but this feature of the game is so minor that it will probably only be recognized by people with a political opinion or knowledge anyway, who will simply dismiss it as abstract game design. I don't think it will in anyway do an actual disservice to anyone or anything.

 

[UWHabs]

I'm surely biased from my personal experience living in a half-direct consensus democracy in which women couldn't vote until the 70s, but I would actually wish that democracy in civ VII would also have policies that references different democratic systems, most notably direct democracy. It's a concept that was known and practiced since antiquity, although not widely adapted in the modern age. I think such more fundamental changes in a democratic alignment (representative vs. direct, ethnical/religious/gender-dependent/bourgeois right to vote vs. universal vote, consenus vs. majority rule, etc.) would be better suited for policies than the oddly-specific policies of fireside chat or new deal that make more sense as US traditions.

And on another note, I hope the same is true for communism and fascism as well. Not every fascist policy and civic should be modeled after 1942 Germany, and not every Communist country's civics and policies after the 1920 Soviet Union. Then again, many salient facets of fascism and communism only surfaced after the period of the game in the 1950-80s, which shouldn't play a role in the game's modern age. But even in the game's time frame, there are the takes on fascism from parties in Brazil, Egypt, South-Africa and Japan, which differ a lot from Germany's and Italy's (and Spain is again very different from these). The unifying elements are ultra-nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-marxism (which could be the fascism civics), but then there's quite a spread (which could be modeled in different policies). But... my hope for any non-super-cliché-we-only-know-3-countries-in-the-world take on these is even lower than for democracy, for which I would assume most educated people are familiar with at least a few different takes.

The issue is that at a level like civ, the difference between individual setups is pretty minor, in the grand scheme of things. The finer points are probably more policy card oriented, but at the same time, policy cards in theory seem like items that should be more malleable and subject to change. It's not like governments give and take away the right to vote for all people vs land-owners every 5-25 years. Especially when you treat it at an ideological level, having them more or less modelled after a specific version of government that plays to the gameplay narrative isn't a big problem.

I mean, yeah, it would be nice to have a form of Communism that could vary a little whether you want 1920s Soviet Union vs Cuba vs Modern China vs Modern Vietnam, etc... which all have slight differences in how they were run, what rights citizens had, and so on. But like we don't have 200 modern civs to potentially play as, I don't necessarily think that I need to debate whether my modern Democracy is run more like Canada or the USA and the slight differences in setup between them, to figure out what bonuses I want.

 

[j51]

I think the three ideologies should have broader names to better reflect the 19th century: like liberalism, nationalism, and socialism, or some such.

 

[Patine]

I think the three ideologies should have broader names to better reflect the 19th century: like liberalism, nationalism, and socialism, or some such.

I think three is to few and to narrow of a choice, and reflects bad, cliched narratives, strictly.

 

[j51]

I think three is to few and to narrow of a choice, and reflects bad, cliched narratives, strictly.

Yeah good point

 

[Siptah]

I think the three ideologies should have broader names to better reflect the 19th century: like liberalism, nationalism, and socialism, or some such.

Renaming them to broader concepts would also have much more sense to it for the game and age. It‘s really strange that the three ideologies kick in at the start of the age, when they were only really taking off in the last 30 or so years of the age, and a lot of their heyday is outside the current game‘s scope.

I actually take this as evidence against a fourth age. If they had a separate age that includes the Cold War planned, the current ideologies seem a better fit for this age than for one that’s primarily about industrialization, modernization, great game, race for artifacts, etc. None of these were driven by the current ideologies, but nationalism or socialism would make sense for these as ideologies.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Renaming them to broader concepts would also have much more sense to it for the game and age. It‘s really strange that the three ideologies kick in at the start of the age, when they were only really taking off in the last 30 or so years of the age, and a lot of their heyday is outside the current game‘s scope.

I actually take this as evidence against a fourth age. If they had a separate age that includes the Cold War planned, the current ideologies seem a better fit for this age than for one that’s primarily about industrialization, modernization, great game, race for artifacts, etc. None of these were driven by the current ideologies, but nationalism or socialism would make sense for these as ideologies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Communism started by making reference to Karl Marx philosophy, which would put in earlier. But yes, these ideologies are essentially: nationalism, socialism, and liberalism, just with modern ideology names of fascism, communism, and democracy. I think the latter resonates more with the general public.

 

[Caprikel]

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology. Frankly having a bunch of traditions focused purely on FDR's policies seems way too narrow of a scope for something that's supposed to represent Democracy as a whole rather than just American Democracy.

 

[Phrozen]

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology. Frankly having a bunch of traditions focused purely on FDR's policies seems way too narrow of a scope for something that's supposed to represent Democracy as a whole rather than just American Democracy.

There should be a libertarian path which would diverge the Anglo and Continental European versions of Democracy with the Anglo being on more individualistic libertarian side and the Continental more on the social welfare side. They are united in elective government and fairly free market economies.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's ahistorical, whichever way you want to stretch it is my point. That's fine in and of itself, I like ahistorical, but when the Devs have gone so out of their way to split to game into more historical periods that reflect the world in those periods, it's an odd decision.

It's not game breaking, it just stinks a bit of a lack of historical knowledge of the period that they've relied so heavily on WW2, or possibly even forcing in concepts from previous games that don't fit so well given the way this game is set up and where it ends, and I feel they could have themed it better, and brought something new and different to the franchise. I'm sure this will still be a fun way of recalibrating alliances from a gameplay perspective.

The naming could definitely be better (maybe Fascism’s first Civic is Enlightened Despotism instead of Fascism itself), and I could see how he ideology mechanic is better for later.

I think part of the problem is the Third age is too small. It shouldn’t have been Steam to atom (1750-1950), it should have been steam to the future (1750-2050)
That way
the WW fit right in the middle (you would probably need to smush them together…basically skip the separate WW1 units)
Ideologies could be clearly important for it (Cold War)

There should be a libertarian path which would diverge the Anglo and Continental European versions of Democracy with the Anglo being on more individualistic libertarian side and the Continental more on the social welfare side. They are united in elective government and fairly free market economies.

That is based on what social policies you actually choose to implement

Suffrage, Avant Garde, Free Press…more libertarian style
Wefare state, New Deal, Fireside chats…more social welfare style
Finest hour (military)

(both of those have one town boosters and one city booster)

 

[Siptah]

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology. Frankly having a bunch of traditions focused purely on FDR's policies seems way too narrow of a scope for something that's supposed to represent Democracy as a whole rather than just American Democracy.

I agree that the policies shouldn‘t be so specifically tied to a state or leader. But I disagree on your example. The welfare state was first introduced by Bismarck in the west, and became a feature of almost all European countries over the next decades (and is nowadays a core feature of most western democracies). It‘s not necessarily tied to FDR just because he was the one to introduced it in the US.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology. Frankly having a bunch of traditions focused purely on FDR's policies seems way too narrow of a scope for something that's supposed to represent Democracy as a whole rather than just American Democracy.

Though basing it entirely on FDR makes sense if you're just trying to simulate WWII, which it seems like the Ideology system and the Ideology win condition are doing.

 

[moondog385]

Makes quite a bit of sense to place Liberalism/Progressivism in opposition to Fascism and Communism in the context of the game. I see no issue with how the ideologies are set up.

I actually take this as evidence against a fourth age. If they had a separate age that includes the Cold War planned, the current ideologies seem a better fit for this age than for one that’s primarily about industrialization, modernization, great game, race for artifacts, etc. None of these were driven by the current ideologies, but nationalism or socialism would make sense for these as ideologies.

From your mouth to God’s (Sid Meier’s?) ears.

I do find it odd to see Welfare State under Democracy, considering that redistribution of wealth fits much better under the Communism Ideology. Frankly having a bunch of traditions focused purely on FDR's policies seems way too narrow of a scope for something that's supposed to represent Democracy as a whole rather than just American Democracy.

Welfare state as in social democracy (the economies of Scandinavia and frankly, most of the “west” prior to the 80s and 90s and the emergence of the Third Way).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

At the risk of simplification, because "liberal" and "conservative" have conveyed a lot of different nuances over the years and were understood to mean somewhat different things from country-to-country and decade-to-decade, in broad team I would characterize the two as follows:

Liberalism tends to promote social change, usually changes intended to remove perceived inequities and promote policies that they believe will be a "fairer" society

Conservatism tends to oppose those changes or to want to roll-back prior changes and policies that they feel have gone too far or have taken society in the wrong direction

In one form or another, these general distinctions have been part of the political landscape of every modern democracy. If Civ 7 wanted to capture this, one possible solution would be to structure the Democracy ideology tree such that:

Liberal choices introduce new civics policies that can be slotted into existing policy slots

Conservative choices create additional policy slots, but ones where you can only slot in old existing traditions