Suggestions and Requests

[LacsiraxAriscal]

What is the difference between 'order' and 'autocracy' here?

In Civ V, Order represents a centralised planned - implicitly communist - state. Autocracy is a fascist, one man/woman helming a nation kind of idea.

 

[need my speed]

Well, that too, but that came later.

 

[Leoreth]

I admit I've only read the Tom Chick review of BNW, but the ideology thing in it always struck me as a poorly thought out game element anyway.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I admit I've only read the Tom Chick review of BNW, but the ideology thing in it always struck me as a poorly thought out game element anyway.

As someone who picked up Civ5 some weeks ago I have to say that I actually like ideologies. Not sure how it would work with 4's civics system though.

 

[calad]

I admit I've only read the Tom Chick review of BNW, but the ideology thing in it always struck me as a poorly thought out game element anyway.

I proposed it because there should be more difference between eras. Also civics should matter more is modern era. More difference civics are more worse relations there should be. This would simulate ww2 and cold war well in my mind.

What is the difference between 'order' and 'autocracy' here?

Autocracy is Fascism and Order is Socialism. Difference is that Socialism boost production while Autocracy boost military units/production. Democracy would boost commerce/GP/science. While Autocracy is clearly offensive Order can be peacefull or hostile like in history.

 

[Leoreth]

I proposed it because there should be more difference between eras. Also civics should matter more is modern era. More difference civics are more worse relations there should be. This would simulate ww2 and cold war well in my mind.

I agree in principle, I would just use a different mechanic.

 

[need my speed]

Autocracy is Fascism and Order is Socialism. Difference is that Socialism boost production while Autocracy boost military units/production. Democracy would boost commerce/GP/science. While Autocracy is clearly offensive Order can be peacefull or hostile like in history.

Isn't that extremely silly? The economic policy of socialism has nothing to do with 'order' - indeed, one could very well argue that it's more logical for 'capitalism' to be tied with 'order' (oligarchic / corporatist powerstructure) and 'socialism' with 'freedom') - and Civilization V is just doing this because we had WWII and the Cold War.

I do like something ideological, something more than a civic combination, but I am at a loss how. Perhaps simply a nation-specific triangle of 'care about religion' and 'care about ideology (civics)', that can gradually increase or decrease depending on 'things'. So in the ancient era, both would be low, in the medieval era, 'care about religion' would be high, and in the modern era, 'care about ideology' would be high (it shouldn't be a scripted value though; let it be influenced by a variety of factors, and let the game push relevant players towards these factors, much like the game pushes England towards colonising North America and all.

There already are diplomacy bonuses and maluses for religions and civics, so...?

One problem; how do we determine ideology? A combination of civics, categorising each possible combination? So 'vassalage' would contribute to 'feudalism', as would 'serfdom', while 'universal suffrage' would detract from it, and 'hereditary monarchy' would be neutral. You can establish various ideologies through that. But, I fear that the civic system is way too limited for this; 'totalitarianism' only has one relevant civic. The same is true for 'monarchism' (hey, a WWII / Cold War analogue between republics, monarchies, and other totalitarians (theocracies, fascism) could be fun? But that would be outside the scope of this mod), to name a random example.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I agree in principle, I would just use a different mechanic.

Maybe we could add a separate modifier for each civic column? So if Civ A were running Republic, Capitalism, Free Market and Naval Dominance while Civ B is running Autocracy, Industrialism, Central Planning and Standing Army but they share the other two civics, they would get a -4 modifier towards each other from different civics and a +2 one for the same, adding up to -2 overall. Civs that don't share even one civic would hate each other's guts with -6 while civs that have the same make up get +6 with each other. Here's how it would work out for all possible combinations:

Civics equal:
6: +6
5: +5-1=+4
4: +4-2=-2
3: +3-3=0
2: +2-4=-2
1: +1-5=-4
0: -6

To spice things up we could double the modifier if it's a leader's favorite civic and for good measure add a most hated civic for every leader which gives a bonus just for not running it (+1) and an even bigger malus for running it. (-2)

To compare it with reality, let's pull out the ever popular '40s 'Murrica, Nazis and Soviets triangle assuming the following leaders and civics:

Roosevelt - Favorite Civic: Republic; Hated Civic: Totalitarianism
Republic
Universal Suffrage (or Representation, no matter what I put here someone's probably gonna have a problem with it)
Capitalism
Free Market
Secularism*
Naval Dominance

Hitler - Favorite Civic: Totalitarianism; Hated Civic: Universal Suffrage I guess (Egalitarianism if that one was still in)
Autocracy
Totalitarianism
Capitalism (or Industrialism, but not even touching that one)
Mercantilism (I guess?)
Secularism (unless you are a Jew, but touching that one even less)*
Standing Army

Stalin - Favorite Civic: Industrialism; Hated Civic: Free Market
Autocracy
Totalitarianism
Industrialism
Central Planning
Secularism (unless you smoke some of that filthy opiate of the people you poor deluded soul, let's wash that dirty brain in a Gulag shall we?)*
Standing Army

Let's see, Roosevelt has for Hitler the following modifiers:
+2 for Capitalism and Secularism
-3 for Autocracy, Mercantilism and Standing Army, -2 for Totalitarianism
Overall: -3

Hitler for Roosevelt:
+2 for Capitalism and Secularism
-3 for Republic, Free Market and Naval Dominance, -2 for Universal Suffrage
Overall: -3

Roosevelt for Stalin:
+1 for Secularism
-5 for Autocracy, Industrialism, Central Planning and Standing Army, -2 for Totalitarianism
Overall: -6

Stalin for Roosevelt:
+1 for Secularism
-5 for Republic, Universal Suffrage, Capitalism and Naval Dominance, -2 for Free Market
Overall: -6

Stalin for Hitler:
+4 for Autocracy, Totalitarianism, Secularism and Standing Army
-1 for Capitalism, -2 for Free Market
Overall: +1

Hitler for Stalin:
+3 for Autocracy, Secularism and Standing Army, +2 for Totalitarianism
-2 for Industrialism and Central Planning
Overall:+3

In conclusion, according to my handy dandy flow chart Hitler and Stalin were the bestest of friends while both hated Roosevelt's guts, and the feeling was mutual.

... Well erm... maybe I still need to tweak some numbers. But the idea itself is sold, even if that one specific example from real life might not have been the best one.

*Yes I know the Religion column is probably gonna go away, and with the examples I picked I can clearly see the merit in that, but let's leave it in for the purpose of this thought experiment.

 

[need my speed]

Yeah, that sounds like an easier variant of what I was going for, although I'd support a system to alter the 'weight' of these modifiers (as well as those of having a different religion).

 

[Leoreth]

That's rather complicated imo, and you would need to pay attention to every foreign civic to align your diplomacy.

I'd rather like the idea of ideologies replacing religions as dominant factor in diplomacy, with icons in the diplo menu and all. I could see the following:
- Monarchist / Conservative
- Liberal
- Communist
- Fascist
- maybe Theocratic

These categories basically already exist for dynamic names and I think for good reason, and the criteria behind them should be similar (although Monarchies with more progressive civics should probably fall under Liberal, see the British Empire for instance). Also, I have Conservative on the list for republican states that definitely do not represent Liberalism, for instance post WW2 Spain or Portugal, or "strongman" states in general that do not fully qualify for Fascism.

 

[calad]

Isn't that extremely silly? The economic policy of socialism has nothing to do with 'order' - indeed, one could very well argue that it's more logical for 'capitalism' to be tied with 'order' (oligarchic / corporatist powerstructure) and 'socialism' with 'freedom') - and Civilization V is just doing this because we had WWII and the Cold War.

I do like something ideological, something more than a civic combination, but I am at a loss how. Perhaps simply a nation-specific triangle of 'care about religion' and 'care about ideology (civics)', that can gradually increase or decrease depending on 'things'. So in the ancient era, both would be low, in the medieval era, 'care about religion' would be high, and in the modern era, 'care about ideology' would be high (it shouldn't be a scripted value though; let it be influenced by a variety of factors, and let the game push relevant players towards these factors, much like the game pushes England towards colonising North America and all.

If naming is the biggest issue I dont want to argue of it. Order simply suggest that state is organised for production.

China and USSR are the best examples of order states that were dictatorships as well. Nordic welfare countries are democratic examples of order states. Sweden even has a monarchy civic.

Autocracy states classically were Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Todays Russia clearly is Autocracy state with democratic civis. Then there are other dictatorships.

Freedom civics countries are US, GB and so on. Actually better name for freedom would be capitalism or commerce because there are freedom nations that are anything but free.

Then there is an oddball nation Saudi-Arabia that clearly still uses old religion civic.

 

[borhap88]

In my three last 600AD games, last SVN update, England settled first of all Durban and Brisbane, completely ignoring North America or other spots. It's very ugly.

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe it's a language issue but when I hear Order I'm thinking 1984 Oceania and law and order politics, i.e. totalitarianism if anything. Similarly, I would reject equating fascism and autocracy. In my mind, the second is a much larger category.

And I might be jaded by modern politics, but I can't take the word Freedom seriously anymore in terms of political ideology. It's just a cheap soundbite these days.

Why not stick to terms that are already established in political science and history?

 

[Panopticon]

That's rather complicated imo, and you would need to pay attention to every foreign civic to align your diplomacy.

I'd rather like the idea of ideologies replacing religions as dominant factor in diplomacy, with icons in the diplo menu and all. I could see the following:
- Monarchist / Conservative
- Liberal
- Communist
- Fascist
- maybe Theocratic

These categories basically already exist for dynamic names and I think for good reason, and the criteria behind them should be similar (although Monarchies with more progressive civics should probably fall under Liberal, see the British Empire for instance). Also, I have Conservative on the list for republican states that definitely do not represent Liberalism, for instance post WW2 Spain or Portugal, or "strongman" states in general that do not fully qualify for Fascism.

Why should ideological civics dominate diplomacy? I can understand religion, and different leaders feel it with different intensity. But I can't think why two monarchies should prefer each other over a theocrat or a non-ideological state, and this will be the most important facet because most of DOC's played turns are pre-1848.

Perhaps it should cause strong positive relations in the late game like trading blocs, but it shouldn't get in the way of realpolitik like the second world war.

 

[AdrienIer]

But I can't think why two monarchies should prefer each other over a theocrat or a non-ideological state, and this will be the most important facet because most of DOC's played turns are pre-1848.

Revolutionary France was attacked by most of its neighboring monarchies : the point here is that after you discover let's say nationalism tech and unless you're a particularly religious leader you're going to be more interested in other people's civics than their religion. And if you're playing pre-nationalism you won't see the difference.

 

[Leoreth]

Why should ideological civics dominate diplomacy? I can understand religion, and different leaders feel it with different intensity. But I can't think why two monarchies should prefer each other over a theocrat or a non-ideological state, and this will be the most important facet because most of DOC's played turns are pre-1848.

Perhaps it should cause strong positive relations in the late game like trading blocs, but it shouldn't get in the way of realpolitik like the second world war.

Sorry, I sort of messed up while composing that post. I meant to write "replace religion as dominant factor in diplomacy from around the Industrial era onward". I agree that the effect should not be as high as religion (although it might be worth considering to reduce its impact anyway), but the more important aspect is that the effect of religion should be replaced by ideological motivations in the late game.

As AdrienIer mentioned, the French Revolution is a good case in point for liberal vs. monarchist tension, the Cold War and even WW2 are others. I don't quite get why you consider this a counterexample, especially in light of the fact that before the war the western liberal powers decided not to check the growing influence of fascist states because they hoped to turn them against the supposedly bigger threat of communist Russia.

The animosity between ideologies should probably vary by pairing though, and maybe also by era.

 

[citis]

Maybe this mechanic is better:

*state property givs +1 relation boost with each other communist state
*totalitarianism gives +1 boost with other totalitarian states.

These will have the wanted effect (civics affect diplomacy like religion in industrial era).
And it will ease the russian 3rd UHV a bit.

 

[calad]

That's rather complicated imo, and you would need to pay attention to every foreign civic to align your diplomacy.

I'd rather like the idea of ideologies replacing religions as dominant factor in diplomacy, with icons in the diplo menu and all. I could see the following:
- Monarchist / Conservative
- Liberal
- Communist
- Fascist
- maybe Theocratic

These categories basically already exist for dynamic names and I think for good reason, and the criteria behind them should be similar (although Monarchies with more progressive civics should probably fall under Liberal, see the British Empire for instance). Also, I have Conservative on the list for republican states that definitely do not represent Liberalism, for instance post WW2 Spain or Portugal, or "strongman" states in general that do not fully qualify for Fascism.

After thinking a bit this sounds like a good idea.

Conservatism:

• a class society
• maybe military and culture boost
• more happiness

Liberalism:

• cottage grown boost
• great people
• individualism
• no state religion

Socialism:

• communism is militant socialism, so thats why different name
• production boost
• more equal society
• culture?
• no state religion
• double slot for engineers

Fascism:

• high upkeep, since all fascist states had rather poor economy
• significant military production boost
• more happiness from barrack and broadcast towers
• no state religion?

Theocracy/religion:

• double production speed of religious unit and buildings
• unhappiness from non state religion
• enables URV goal
• enables persecution

 

[Leoreth]

Well as I said, I don't think there should be any effects associated with these except from the civics that trigger them. Their impact would be limited to diplomacy and dynamic names.

 

[calad]

Why no benefits? Too controversial perhabs?