Policy Cards vs Social Policies vs Civics

[Xandinho]

For you, what is the best way to represent the cultural and political advances of your civilization? What path should Civ7 take to be more realistic in representing civic advances?

Policy cards, as everyone here is used to, are policies that you adopt to customize your system of government. These policy cards are unlocked as you progress through the civic tree. It's an interesting approach to representing changes in government over the course of history and how the same systems of government can be distinguished from one another. However, due to a lack of balance, you will find yourself adopting almost always the same political cards. Plus, given the complexity of the system, you'll see AI making pretty silly decisions here.

In Civ5 we had social policies, which are unlocked as you get enough culture and, once adopted, you can't undo them. This means that the more culture you have, the more social policies you will adopt. This allows a good civic customization of your empire making it distinct from the other ones in the game. However, the impossibility of revoking the adopted social policies is not realistic.

In Humankind we have Civics, which can be decreed spending influence to do so. When a civic is unlocked, you will have two choice options to answer a given issue at that time, these choices will reflect how your empire will handle certain issues. As you make your choices, you will ideologically position your empire. All the decisions you make during the game lead to a customization of your empire very similar to the Civ5 social policies, but here you can go back on a decision already made.

For me, a system that blends Humankind's civics with Civ6's policy cards would be ideal. With civics being unlocked as you get more and more culture and with political stability costs to be adopted. As you customize your empire with decisions made by civics, you will be led to a specific type of government that suits your decisions. The more you make decisions that focus on freedom and commerce, the more you will be led to governments like the Merchant Republic and Democracy. The more you make decisions that focus on central state control, the more you will be led to Monarchy and then to Communism. Decisions that favor traditionalism and nationalism will lead you to Theocracy and then to Fascism.
When adopting a government, you will be able to fill it with some policy cards that you obtained based on the decisions of the civics. For example, you can only have a market economy if you made number enough of decisions that favor the market. And some of these politicy cards depend on your scientific progress. Market economics cannot be adopted until you research Capitalism, which will now be in the scientific tree.

 

[criZp]

I do hope they don't choose to represent policies as "cards" again, way to add an immersion breaker for absolutely no reason (except the devs like to pretend that they make a board game)

 

[Krajzen]

Social policy trees had an awesome RPG sense of progression, difficult choice and identity across ages, but the downside was unability to radically change the course. Also it was very weird how they combined cultural traditions and vague 'governments' into one substance.

Policy cards are exactly opposite. They are customizable on the fly and very nicely separated from and integrated with governments. But they give no sense of progression, identity and difficult choice.

(it's very similar to civ5 being way too much into Tall and painful happiness sytem and civ6 way too much into Wide and menaingless happiness sytem)

So here's my suggestion. Find a middle ground between those two, that will combine their strengths and minimize weaknesses. For example, retain government types from civ6 (unlocked by tech), and each of them has a civ5 style 'social policy tree' attached to it. You can change governments, but it is a significant investment of yields and stability (maybe even civil war) so you can do that, but not very often and easily. Also there could be a distinction between 'soft' transition between gov types, when most of old social tree bonuses are retained but transition takes some time (evolution, reform) and 'hard' transition when you change govs quickly but most of old bonuses are lost (revolution, coup d'etat).

An example of gov types through game

Spoiler :

Every civilization begins with tribal gov type, which has no social tree because it is unorganized and how many tribal urban civilizatiins do you know? but only has some blanket bonus for stability or whatever. So everybody wants to leave this system but there may be some benefit in waiting a while with it. Then in the ancient era you unlock for examole Despotic Monarchy, Theocracy and Oligarchic Republic (Phoenicians had those iirc). In the classical you unlock for example Empire, Khanate and Classical Republic. In medieval - Feudal Kingdom, Divine Empire (like China, Byz, Caliphates) and Merchant Republic. In early modern Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy and Republic.

But then, I also love civ5 system of lategame clashing ideologies. So the system could get a twist similar to that one, so in the late industrial or modern era you choose between three much bigger ideologies, with each one having several branches, and them all having special interactions and massive impact in diplomacy. Those three would be:
Liberty (democratic and capitalist branches)
Egality (communist and socialist branches)
Fraternity (nationalist autocracy and religious autocracy branches)

I'm really proud of figuring out this naming system btw , honestly I'm surprised devs didn't do that in civ5

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. First thing. Government system comes first. First transitions from chiefdom to proper 'Imperial Governments' can be smooth and seamless, Shiftings between two different governments of the same era (let's say transitions from Early Monarchy (the Pre-medieval 'monarchy' is called 'Despotism' or (in civ6) Autocracy. Both of which came from Old Rome, but Monarchy is much older) to , Early Republic (they were simply referred to as 'republic' or 'commonwealth') has a violent transitions.
RULE: Transitional period
Ancient - Medieval: 1 -turn transition (Government system changes takes effect next turn with random social unrest cleaning ups to do)
Early Modern - Industrial: Between 2-3 turns
Industrial era onwards: 3 - 5 turns

All of which can generate rebellions (Rising fist symbol) that must be suppressed. (depending on game rules. if Complete kills is used then you must defeat EVERY rebellion elements. By this time rival players not only can 'grab' cities but can 'recruit rebellions' as well)
2. Yes find a middle ground between the two. But i'm more on RPG ish social progress and less on cards. But if changeable policies is to be chosen. slots should reflect number of 'Ministers' one can have (begin with 4, ends with 8).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't mind the idea behind putting policy cards into a government, personally. The thing that I would want to change is the structure of the civics tree to more of a civics web to show that not all civilizations progress the same culturally.

For example once you found your first city, and build a monument, you will gradually generate enough culture to unlock the "Code of Laws" civics which can be similar to what it is now: have the basic chiefdom tribal government with some policies that you can choose from.

From there you might have up to 8 different branches to choose from with each branch based off of the social policies of Civ 5. The difference is you still have to unlock wonders, districts, buildings, governments, and policies in the certain civics.

What I'm suggesting is for a civilization that isn't going for religion it's completely normal to not go down a "piety" branch and therefore never unlock all the religious policies, district and buildings and of course theocracy form of government.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the scientific tree could also follow this model of progress in different branches of sciences: biological/chemical, astronomical, military, physics, economic... although I don't know if it would work so well, but it would be nice that the progress of civilizations wasn't so linear.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Some Policy cards should come with a logical downside to them, and certain cards should be mutually exclusive

Serfdom for example should lock you into a very despotic scientifically backwards situation

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the scientific tree could also follow this model of progress in different branches of sciences: biological/chemical, astronomical, military, physics, economic... although I don't know if it would work so well, but it would be nice that the progress of civilizations wasn't so linear.

I considered this but I don't think it would necessarily work out. My main concern is what happens to civs that end up never discovering things such as iron or gunpowder and will never have the chance to upgrade their units, let alone unlock them in the first place?

For those reasons I think a linear tree still makes sense for technologies.

 

[Xandinho]

Some Policy cards should come with a logical downside to them, and certain cards should be mutually exclusive

Serfdom for example should lock you into a very despotic scientifically backwards situation

100% this. I also think that some policy cards should only be available to specific governments.

I considered this but I don't think it would necessarily work out. My main concern is what happens to civs that end up never discovering things such as iron or gunpowder and will never have the chance to upgrade their units, let alone unlock them in the first place?

For those reasons I think a linear tree still makes sense for technologies.

I think it could work if there were limitations. You could advance in the biological sciences branch until there comes a time when you need to have researched some military science to move forward. There should also be a mechanism for scientific dispersal through trade routes and diplomatic agreements.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think it could work if there were limitations. You could advance in the biological sciences branch until there comes a time when you need to have researched some military science to move forward. There should also be a mechanism for scientific dispersal through trade routes and diplomatic agreements.

Yeah there is always the possibility of trading resources with friends or allies, but that might not always come up. I'm just not completely sold on the idea because to me it seems like everyone will still end up with the same technologies in the end game. That's which is what I don't necessarily want to happen with the civics.

On the flip side I do think there should be some integration between the technologies and civics. For example you can't progress down the educational civics branch until you research writing. Then you have the option to start down that branch with either Drama and Poetry or Philosophy.

 

[Zegangani]

I think a good Solution to the Tech Tree would be a combination of both, Linear Progression AND having some different branches. The Linear Techs that can be researches have to be comprehensible to be researched by everyone, like Writing and Construction, and the branched off Techs can only be researched if the Player fulfills a Criteria, like you can only research Naval Techs if you have a Coastal City.
This way a Player who has all of its Cities inland and wouldn't profit from those Techs, wouldn't have to research them. But there is always the option for the Player to get Tech via Trade/Diplomacy, like a Player who doesn't need to research Horseback Riding, upon meeting a Civ with Horses he/she may see the need to have an armee of horseman, so he/she would wan't to buy that Tech.

On the flip side I do think there should be some integration between the technologies and civics. For example you can't progress down the educational civics branch until you research writing. Then you have the option to start down that branch with either Drama and Poetry or Philosophy.

That's something I would really love to see implemented in Civ 7. I like Civics having their own Tree, but they shouldn't be disconnected from Technology. Some form of Boosts between Techs and Civics would also be nice.

 

[Zaarin]

Serfdom for example should lock you into a very despotic scientifically backwards situation

That wouldn't really make historical sense. The tech boom we're experiencing now started in the Middle Ages; the rate of technological development in the Middle Ages would have astonished the Romans. I do like the idea of limitations and downsides to policies, but I'm not a fan of perpetuating the "Dark Age" myth.

 

[mitsho]

I‘m suprised nobody mentioned the system of Civilization 4 yet. I liked that its simplicity made it easy to get while still allowing for lots of theoretical combinations. Basically, you had 5 categories with 5 options that you would unlock over the course of the game, and switching one incurred anarchy for a turn. Their effects were bigger - Slavery gave you the option to rush by sacrificing your population for example - and you had a certain pressure to modernise - other empires adopting the Proclamation of Emancipatin gave your Slaver Empire Unhappiness Points.

I‘d want governments to have similar big effects changing your gamestyle: Tribal Confederation versus Godking Empire versus City State Republics for a start or so - and making Nomadism an option for a long time. If you see it isn‘t going well, pack your tents and invade somewhere. But you really should need to pack your tents and that requires f.e. Climate change happening.

I‘d secondly want a Social Policy Tree that spreads out like a web from a center into different ideological corners, doubling as a „political compass“ like visual representation of your empire. You can activate or deactivate the nodes, instead of chosing between options as in Humankind - and I don‘t like their slider system as well as it‘s too confusing to me. These nodes may be called „Edicts“ or „Laws“ and should be as explicit as their Humankind pendants. It needs to help roleplay which the Civ6 policycard simply don‘t since they all look alike and there‘s too many of them. (Instead of replacing nodes with new ones - Insulae to Medina - techs could upgrade them if necessary)

So these would be my two pillars with Governments having a special gameplay effect and pushing you into some areas of the Social Web and away from others.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That wouldn't really make historical sense. The tech boom we're experiencing now started in the Middle Ages; the rate of technological development in the Middle Ages would have astonished the Romans. I do like the idea of limitations and downsides to policies, but I'm not a fan of perpetuating the "Dark Age" myth.

I think reducing amenities or happiness makes more sense than reducing science.

I feel that the majority of the population won't be too happy if you basically turn all of them as serfs while you end up living your best life in the palace.

 

[Zaarin]

I think reducing amenities or happiness makes more sense than reducing science.

I feel that the majority of the population won't be too happy if you basically turn all of them as serfs while you end up living your best life in the palace.

I feel like a policy like serfdom is one that should start out with a very minor penalty--when it was instituted, I imagine a great many peasants were grateful for the protection the feudal system afforded them and never dreamed of the possibility that they could be freeholders anyway--but over time the penalty should increase. If you're still using it in the Industrial age, Russia, then there's a good chance your peasants are going to throw a bomb at your carriage, even though you were the reforming tsar.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think reducing amenities or happiness makes more sense than reducing science.

I feel that the majority of the population won't be too happy if you basically turn all of them as serfs while you end up living your best life in the palace.

Serfdom basically requires you keep your serfs as illiterate and ignorant as possible. Wouldn’t want them getting or sharing ideas like “why are we doing all the work so this oppressive scumbag can Lord It Up?”

It’s not a coincidence that as overall education levels rose, so did the desire for liberty and the means to pursue it.

Certain policies absolutly should be mutually exclusive with certain others (and certain governments). I recently had Liberalism and Serfdom slotted side by side and just shook my head

 

[Zaarin]

Serfdom basically requires you keep your serfs as illiterate and ignorant as possible. Wouldn’t want them getting or sharing ideas like “why are we doing all the work so this oppressive scumbag can Lord It Up?”

It’s not a coincidence that as overall education levels rose, so did the desire for liberty and the means to pursue it.

Certain policies absolutly should be mutually exclusive with certain others (and certain governments). I recently had Liberalism and Serfdom slotted side by side and just shook my head

This is why I really think Civ7 would benefit from emphasizing individual units of population. The Middle Ages was a booming time for science, but it wasn't John Smith doing the science and for that matter it wasn't usually Sir John or Lord John or King John doing the science, either--generally speaking it was Brother John or Father John. As you say, as education became more widespread in the Late Middle Ages, dissatisfaction grew. (Coincidentally this is also when you see schismatic movements like Lollardy, Hussitism, and Waldensianism spreading, as well as heterodox movements like the Modern Devotion. Interestingly, the schismatic movements tended to take on a very local flavor--Lollardy and Hussitism, in particular, are inextricable from local English and Czech identities--while the Modern Devotion spread all over Northern Europe, causing churchmen to cock an eyebrow without being divergent enough to bring on cries of heresy.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Serfdom basically requires you keep your serfs as illiterate and ignorant as possible. Wouldn’t want them getting or sharing ideas like “why are we doing all the work so this oppressive scumbag can Lord It Up?”

It’s not a coincidence that as overall education levels rose, so did the desire for liberty and the means to pursue it.

Certain policies absolutly should be mutually exclusive with certain others (and certain governments). I recently had Liberalism and Serfdom slotted side by side and just shook my head

To be fair serfdom was still in place in a lot of different European countries past the Middle Ages into even the 19th century, such as France not officially abolishing it until the revolution of 1789, and it's not like they had no shortage of scientific advancements before during the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. Russia is in a similar situation too.

All I'm saying is if I had to choose I like the idea that @Zaarin suggested the best is to where serfdom starts to have an amenity/happiness penalty after once you reach the Renaissance Era and continues to get worse with each continuous era you still have it.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Certain policies absolutly should be mutually exclusive with certain others (and certain governments). I recently had Liberalism and Serfdom slotted side by side and just shook my head

But I was told that this kind of things are the ones that give "flavor" to CIV games, like built St. Basil Cathedral as a Shinto Nubia so why bother?

The game only need some famous (western-history based preferably) names, on this case about social organizations or political ideals and give it some bonus. By the way this Policies Cards should be linked to their own historical figures.

 

[Zaarin]

But I was told that this kind of things are the ones that give "flavor" to CIV games, like built St. Basil Cathedral as a Shinto Nubia so why bother?

The game only need some famous (western-history based preferably) names, on this case about social organizations or political ideals and give it some bonus. By the way this Policies Cards should be linked to their own historical figures.

Don't you think you're taking people's criticism of your generic Great People idea a little over the top?