Rule with Faith
Holy ****, I want to kiss you guys. Any plan on recreating events & decisions ?
In a manner. Events will be more reactive to your Policy choices than strictly random. Decisions meanwhile will tie into a Legitimacy system. These both won't be started until after Gathering Storm, though.
Great mod! Is there a way how to change Vanilla T3 (so T4) governments to give their original bonuses? Thanks a lot for information
Minor issue: Government screen doesn't scroll left/right, so I can only see the edge of Suffrage/last tier governments. It is enough to select them, but is annoying. Don't know if this is a RwF thing or some other mod causing issues.
Definitely not an issue in the base mod.
Fair enough. I'll see what else I find.
First off, this is an amazing mod I was extremely excited when I read that there was an updated release; however, the big issue is incompatibility with CQUI. I couldn't continue a game past earning my first governor because the governor window wouldn't open. Aside from that, the worst I've encountered is the diplomacy screen displaying resource icons and also unloading sections of the map - which are purely visual bugs. I know that the community QUI is a bit of a mess, but if I'm picking between playing a version of Civ VI which feels fundamentally better to play and a version of Civ VI which is mechanically better, I'm probably picking the former. It's an equally essential mod so it's a shame that it isn't working together currently.
Do you have any intention of re-uploading the prior, stable R&F release? It remained functional for a few weeks after it was removed from the Workshop, but it finally disappeared this week. Personally, I know there are people who would like to revert to the prior version while they watch this release develop.
Thanks for all your work.
CQUI and RwF are incompatible because of the many UI files that the two overwrite. They cannot and will not be made compatible as a matter of feasibility. I work on RwF in my leisure time, to fulfill my interests and my vision for the game, and CQUI simply doesn't fit within that vision. With a mod that makes as much a radical overhaul to the UI as CQUI, compatiblity is not a simple fix that can be incorporated for a few extra minutes of my time, so trying to do so would take too much of my already limited time - especially because it'd be a constant job, needing to be amended as I change my own UI files. I tried this with the Enhanced User Interface and my equivalent Rise to Power in Civ V and the workload was simply unbearable. So I'm afraid that one will just have to choose between the two mods.
And unfortunately, because of the way in which Civ VI formats its mod projects (there is no .civ6mod file to keep track of), I do not have the original R&F copy. I believe there is a vanilla copy of RwF in my google drive, but I'm not sure - you can check from the link in the description. But perhaps someone else has a copy. That said, I am generally opposed and recommend against using old versions unless you absolutely know what you're getting into - that any attempt to receive help would be folly since the differences in the old and new versions are too vast, and there were many issues with the prior-to-re-release version of RwF as it was.
I see, thanks for explaining. I understand how time-consuming and challenging it can be to work around others' work. I've already replaced a lot of CQUI's functionality with individual UI mods, but I'll miss being able to right click out of the city view - and the sleek, sexy production window. Really, I wish Firaxis themselves would implement some of the changes we've seen in UI mods so this wouldn't continue to be an issue whenever there's a big game update.
I'm really interested in playing a few full games with all the new policy cards and additions to governing. So far I've only experienced up to the Medieval Era, and it's radically different from even the prior release of RwF.
@JFD I'm curious what your reasoning is behind making each of the Medieval Era governments the one it is (and also the way in which the Policy Card Slots change throughout the Eras).
It seems like Theocracy should be Absolutist (since it bears a lot of resemblance to the governments of both the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphates), Feudalism as Oligarchic (since most Feudal Societies essentially represented a symbiotic relationship between Overlord and Subjects), and Merchant Republic as Democratic (since Merchant Republics actually literally democratically elected their rulers as opposed to Feudal Societies which tended mostly to be truly dynastic).
The way in which policies of the Religious, Cultural, and Scientific slots seem to come and go between Governments of the same type also struck me as a little weird.
There seems to be some confusion. There is no Absolutist class. Feudal Monarchy as anything but Monarchic would be nonsensical, since it as the prototypical medieval monarchy is literally and conceptually the point. And the prototypical Merchant Republic - Venice - had an electoral system that was limited to only the patrician classes, and thus was far more aristocratic in nature than democratic. That leaves Theocracy, which admittedly is more a case of its the only one left, but its not a stretch to say in a theoretical theocracy all persons have equal power before God.
I'm a huge fan of Rule With Faith and have enjoyed it in many single-player games. However, when a friend and I try to play Simultaneous-turn Internet multiplayer with Rule With Faith (and no other mods) activated, we have constant problems with desyncing, sometimes as soon as the first government change.
Has anyone managed to get it working with multiplayer?
EDIT: I should note that the previous RWF *worked* with Simultaneous Turn multiplayer, so the desync may have something to do with the major new features, like the government screen.
Rule with Faith updated. As I don't play MP, it's sort of a use at your own risk scenario - if you can tell me how to fix it, I will, otherwise I can't do much about it.
Hey, first of all: That's a pretty awesome mod, as far as I've been able to check it out! I play Civ6 exclusively in hotseat MP with my wife, and we were getting a little bored with the standard R&F (and a few small mods). We started using RwF a few days ago, just started a new map today and were excited about discovering all the new stuff when - bam! - suddenly the game wouldn't load anymore.
After a bit of testing (turning off all other mods, restarting the PC, un- and resubscribing to the RwF mod on Steam workshop) I have to say that the version published today (Dec 8th) keeps the game from starting on my setup. I always get an error saying "Error starting game ... Error -3045188730". This happens in Single Player with standard options as well as in Multiplayer-Hotseat. The only active mods were the Aztec DLC, the R&F Expansion, and RwF itself. Logs are attached.
If a fix proves difficult, is there any chance you or any other user here might still have the old version (pre-December 8th) lying around for a direct install?
Ah, it seems theres an inadvertant dependency on the Persia DLC. I'll fix this, but in the meantime, you can use this file
Copy and overwrite the existing in the Core folder. This will be somewhere in Steam\steamapps\workshop\content\289070 if you subscribed via Steam (you'll have to search for the folder, Steam doesn't name them properly), or in your Mods/JFD's Rule with Faith folder if you downloaded manually.
Consider this a submission box request then!
Theocracy as a government - which could possibly have a better name as "Imperial" - are not only not theoretical, but were commonplace! As aforementioned, both the ERE and the Caliphates (as well as Imperial Persia before Mohammad, and Imperial China throughout history) exercised heavyhreligious control and were by far more centralized, matching with the theme of your monarchist class. The types of governments represented by Feudal Monarchy was never so centralized as your other monarchist governments, matching up more closely with the relatively more oligarchical state of countries in West Europe, North Africa, and India, where Kings, Rajas, and Sultans most often relied on the tribute and loyalty of relative equals to maintain their power, and dynasties changed often. In addition, while it is true that the processes used to select a Doge mostly involved the Patricians, all of Venice had involvement in his ultimate success, and on more than one occasion, criminal or unpopular Doge's were overthrown not by a military coup, but by popular support. That's my argument, and you can take it or leave it, but I thought it was worth sharing.
I wanna clarify that this is my only real beef, and otherwise, I totally adore this mod.
"Imperial" would have completely different connotations compared to Theocracy, not least completely removing the religious aspect from the government. Empire has no inherent religious affinity, the two simply happen to coincide in your examples because the majority of human history has been played out by theists. Making Imperial a Medieval government would also do an injustice to all the later empires that would come after the Renaissance, many of which had a much weaker religious affinity than your examples.
Certainly in my perspective Theocracy has to be viewed primarily in its theoretical form as the vast majority of examples you'd think of - including Byzantium, Caliphates, China, and probably Persia if Zor. Persia is anything to go by - have very strong and predominant feudal aspects to their rule as well. In an example such as Egypt, Pharaoh is of divine descent but still has his country devolved into nomes; even though Pharaoh is the catalyst for the gods' influence over Egypt, he still nominally rules to protect the people of Egypt from chaos. Categorising things is rarely a worthwhile pursuit in my eyes since it forces details such as these to be blurred, but since categorisation is needed abstraction should be used to make things best fit, and since the category of Theocracy should be in the name of the belief of the people it works well enough in the category it is placed in.
Feudal Monarchy is of course by definition a Monarchy resting atop vassals, but even in your explanation you make a clear distinction on how the King took tribute from people below him; it's the King who holds the majority of the power, and it is the King who will lead other vassals against revolting vassals. Given that none of these vassals are legally on equal footing as the King, and would at most act as advisers, it simply isn't Oligarchic as an Oligarchy implies a number of people with equal authoritative power.
Arguing that a Merchant Republic isn't an Oligarchy because the public overthrew them a couple of times is a very flawed argument given that public forces have overthrown many types of government; was Bourbon France really an Oligarchy? Was South Korea? Was Romanov Russia? The ability of the public to overthrow a government in my experience has been more a function of the army's strength or alignment than the degree to which the ruler is dependent on public support, as your argument supposes that the army would simply allow the public to overthrow a democratically elected leader. I can't say I know much about Venetian domestic politics but I'd expect that a good part of the navy would also be the citizenry, and so therefore besides one oligarch using the navy to seize control from another what differs a public revolt from a military one?
Overall Jifford has the final say over his mod, and he's thought long and hard to come to his own conclusions as to which categories what governments come under. Disagreement is inevitable, but as ever if you disagree you have the power to edit the text file or code for yourself to make it as you wish.
Probably, the influences of Flavius Josephus' categorization of governments is something I've taken for granted here, because you're absolutely right. I think that Feudal Monarchy as is cannot be made anything but monarchic without losing intuitiveness (if for no other reason than because that's the one with monarchic in the title; but indeed you're right, the feudal monarch depends on his lordly subjects such that it basically renders his government aristocratic rather than truly monarchic), but reconfiguring Theocracy to cover those imperial states that depended on sacralizing themselves is a worthwhile idea. I think Imperial Monarchy would be appropriate here; calling it Imperial alone raises the dissonance around Feudal *Monarchy* being not-a-monarchy, and none of the other Governments are adjectival anyway. And whilst I do think Merchant Republic can fit comfortably as an aristocratic class, I also agree it can sit comfortably enough as democratic (at least as much as Theocracy can but really more so); connotatively because of elections but also politically because of the participation of the proto-middle classes. So, thank you for perservering; this is something I will definitely contemplate to change.
And to clarify, Theocracy always was the outlier; it never settled well within the three classes (naturally, given the Josephus influences in which it is distinctly outside those classes). But shifting it elsewhere always raised problems because of its deeply religious connotations; God as sovereign is neither truly monarchic nor democratic nor aristocratic. Of the three, I still feel that democratic is the most appropriate - if God is sovereign, then all else are equal in government, but that in itself is not exactly intuitive, and indeed depends heavily on a view of theocracies that I took for granted when figuring out its place (tbf though Theocracy is a default Government and I had no reason to really think it couldn't remain so ). But here reworking Theocracy to be a bit less theoretical and Judeo-Christian-centric is the best option. Besides which, its terribly Western to overlook the early centralization of such states as China, which was most certainly neither a feudal monarchy nor a merchant republic. The God-is-sovereign Theocracy is better served in whatever State Religion mechanic may come.
Re. Chrisy, I do still think Imperial is the way to go. Imperial and Empire are notoriously conflated; definitions are terribly blurred. Imperial as the supremest form of power, however (rather than say someone ruling over an empire or over empire-like polity), necessarily and indeed historically includes spiritual power, and so still imo fits the religious card focus - though the card compositions as a whole may not favour this. It's something I need to stand back and look at again.
Well I'll give it some more thought anyway. There's more than just political theory for me to consider - there's the level of intuitiveness given to the apolitical player, there's the line of card compositions and how they progress (mechanically), there's the appropriateness of the art and the First Minister system already in place, how badly such a change will affect mod support, etc.
Exiting new update JFD. looking forward to starting a new game
I took a look at the code and noticed that there seems to be a mismatch between the code (+ faith/gold for wonders) and text (+era points) for Royal tombs - or is it just me?
Seems so, yeah. Will fix, thanks.
Separate names with a comma.