Policies that match History

Cao Cao Mengde

Warlord
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
101
This is actually a thread of both historical and strategy and tips- what in your opinion would be the best policies for all the civs based on their historical development?

For example, in my opinion I think Rome's 5 would be: Tradition, Liberty, Piety, Honor and Order.

China might be: Tradition, Honor, Piety, Patronage and Commerce or Order.

etc. etc.

Your thoughts?

PS- First post!
 
uuh I would think Aztec could be:

Tradition: they had kings
Honor: they killed people and war a lot, and their UA is almost like Honor opener ability
Piety: they sacrifice for their gods, even though they would never go all the way down Piety tree to Reformation or Free Religion. (maybe possible but their civ died)
Patronage: there were lots of tribes around Central America at that time
Autocracy: Aztec might do this if they actually didn't get wiped out.

China is definitely

Tradition: monarchy until just some years back
Honor: again with China ability to war and Great Generals, in history they fought a lot too
Commerce: China has lots of things to trade, ie: Silk road, and USA wanted to trade with China back in the days
Rationalism: Chinese are smart people, and it fits their UB paper maker
Order: Communist....

I don't think China can be Pious because they really never were that religious like Islam people. China was not Patronage because they would invade city state Hanoi multiple times instead of giving $ to them. Same thing with Tibet?
 
I feel that you're equating China too much with Communist China, which are very different animals. I disagree with giving the Chinese commerce quite simply because of this:

While the Chinese are a naturally mercantile peoples throughout their history until recently the merchant was considered the lowest status of society. Even poor peasant farmers were considered more important in the Confucian model. In Maoist China, it was the merchant and the middle class that was destroyed. It's only recently that China has embraced what is really western style capitalism.

I also feel that Pious is more appropriate and chose that instead of Rationalism. It is true that China has never become as religious as say Europe or the Arab world, but based on the individual track on the policy tree, many of them make more sense for China than Rationalism. Piety for example has the policies: Organized Religion- The establishment of the Confucian literati as the dominant force in Imperial China, for almost 2000 years. Mandate of Heaven- Well that speaks for itself, the mandate of heaven theory was THE political theory that justified the changes of ruling dynasties. Finally, Free Religion- China, of almost all the Empires of the world until recently was the only one that tolerated various religions with very little strife because of it- from whence came the saying in reference to Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism, "One truth three ways."

Now that's not to argue that the Chinese weren't scientific, that'd be a stupid assertion. They were highly scientific, and highly advanced as we well know. However based on the policies in the Rationalism policy tree, China never really had anything similar to a Scientific theory, or revolution, or an embrace of secularism or even humanism. While they never had religion to the sense of blind worship- they still paid a great deal of attention to Heaven, and various cosmic and metaphysicals aspects of the Universe- as can be seen in the Neo-Confucian theories of the Song scholars.

I definitely agree with Order- beyond just the shallow comparison with Communism, China was never a militaristic or warlike state- and China's modern aggression should not be equated with all of Chinese history which has actually been fairly non expansive. I'm not saying they NEVER invaded anyone which is not only naive, but down right stupid- but they lacked the same level of rampant imperialism as say, the Romans, let alone a state organized for war- except for the Qin, of course.

I chose patronage, and I believe that it is fitting for China because while China did dominate Vietnam and recently invade Tibet (although I don't want to get into that argument) China has for the most part again, been fairly non-expansive. Chinese culture inspired various other civilizations, and much of Chinese history and geopolitical manuevers have rarely been direct conquest or control over other nations, as opposed to turning them into puppets. For example, the way the Chinese fought the Xiong Nu during the Han dynasty many times involved them turning barbarian against barbarian. The Han dynasty also promoted the enthroning of friendly kings and princes as opposed to direct rule. In Korea as well, while the Sui did attempt to conquer Korea, many other Chinese rulers and dynasties instead promoted cultural diplomacy, or puppeted various kingdoms and nations instead- again, you can look at the history of Tibet during the Tang Dynasty for example.
 
Most civs have been pious at some point in their history, so the mutually exclusive policy tracks wouldn't fit actual development for the most part.

England for example.
Honour. Very turbulent early history.
Tradition: The most obvious monarchy in the world probably.
Piety. Like every european nation in the middle ages.

But then suddenly.
Rationalism. Royal society? Darwin? Yeah.
Freedom.

The game won't let you take piety and rationalism, but this is what happened to a lot of countries. Rome for example, if you choose to extend Rome into Italy then they go from Honour and Liberty into Piety, and then Rationalism again. Pretty much the same with Spain.

The Germans would go from Autocracy to Freedom which doesn't work in game.

Obviously its agame mechanic and can't represent actual history. Perhaps if it allowed you to switch your policies in one tree to another, but that would be OP.
 
I think it's better to take specific policies instead of whole trees. To stay with the China example: They invented Legalism and even when it was repalced with Confucianism as a state doctrine and officially went out of favor, Legalist methods were still used to run the empire. Monarchy is also obvious, while Oligarchy was frowned upon and associated with scheming eunuchs.
And then we have their administrative system where birth officially didn't count and the son of a peasant could become a minister in the capital, if the peasant could afford an education for a studying and non-working son (and sometimes they could, when families had enough children to work the fields they would groom their youngest son to become a bureaucrat).
So we have this civilization that is big on Tradition and values the family and the state over the individual (in that order!) but strongly prefers Meritocracy over Aristocracy and should also have some points in Piety and Rationalism.
I think the only tree they might have maxed out is Patronage.
 
uuh I would think Aztec could be:

Tradition: they had kings
Honor: they killed people and war a lot, and their UA is almost like Honor opener ability
Piety: they sacrifice for their gods, even though they would never go all the way down Piety tree to Reformation or Free Religion. (maybe possible but their civ died)
Patronage: there were lots of tribes around Central America at that time
Autocracy: Aztec might do this if they actually didn't get wiped out.

China is definitely

Tradition: monarchy until just some years back
Honor: again with China ability to war and Great Generals, in history they fought a lot too
Commerce: China has lots of things to trade, ie: Silk road, and USA wanted to trade with China back in the days
Rationalism: Chinese are smart people, and it fits their UB paper maker
Order: Communist....

I don't think China can be Pious because they really never were that religious like Islam people. China was not Patronage because they would invade city state Hanoi multiple times instead of giving $ to them. Same thing with Tibet?


China isn't a agressive country it just had have many wars. It had to defend against a lot of civilization barbarians mongols japan and so on... Thats why a lot of people thinx they are a agressive country but they actually are more protective
 
Back
Top Bottom