Which is why I didn't preclude authoritarian civics from making a given civ being considered communist by the game.
If I was talking about what civics an actual communist society would run it pretty much would have to be City States/Republic, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Central Planning/Environmentalism, Secularism and... umm... Militia I guess? However such societies have so far not only been very rare, but also of negligible impact to world history, which is what this mod focuses on. The myriad degenerated workers' states on the other hand, which are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes associated with Marxist thought tradition, claim to have abolished classes or are working on it, and often call themselves People's or Democratic Republics, have taken together been quite influential on the world stage in the past century, hence it makes sense to represent this phenomenon in this mod.
I kind of regretted replying in such facetious way, but apparently you interpreted the post in exactly the way it was intended.
I'm more concerned with finding a mechanism that captures (all) the sorts of state that have a nominally socialist/communist name in the real world. That's a real world phenomenon people would expect in the game. What communism is actually about as an idea almost doesn't matter.
So I agree with your general point in the sense that the current set of rules is probably too inclusionary, assigning "communist" names even too states where it's not appropriate even by the loose popular meaning of the term. But right now I don't really want to get into the details of forming a decent set of criteria. Excluding some obviously religious or feudal government forms should already suffice though. I'll think about it.
Communist societies implement a system of trade unions rather than private organisations. That's what "central planning" and "state property" represent, although both names reveal a part of the system.
Does Saudi Arabia uses trade unions, like USSR or PRC? If it does, then is a communist state in DoC terms, else it doesn't run the civic central planning.
Beyond that it is true that the civic system allows some extraodrinary combinations, an aspect of it that I don't like much.
*Vassalage+anything else than dynasticism or theocracy
*Absolutism+anything else than dynasticism
*Central planning+anything else than republic or autocracy
*Vassalage+anything else than agrarianism
*Vassalage+anything else than levitary armies
*Capitalism+guilds
*Egalitarianism+slavery
*Egalitarianism+fanaticism
*Fanaticism+anything else than theocracy
*Totalitarianism+anything else than autocracy
*What's the difference between representation and egalitarianism in organisation concern?
*What's the difference between theocracy and dynasticism in government concern?
Search my previous posts on this matter, they shouldn't be hard to find as I feel there are literally dozens of them. Some of them probably even in reply to you.
*Vassalage+anything else than dynasticism or theocracy
*Absolutism+anything else than dynasticism
*Central planning+anything else than republic or autocracy
*Vassalage+anything else than agrarianism
*Vassalage+anything else than levitary armies
*Capitalism+guilds
*Egalitarianism+slavery
*Egalitarianism+fanaticism
*Fanaticism+anything else than theocracy
*Totalitarianism+anything else than autocracy
*What's the difference between representation and egalitarianism in organisation concern?
*What's the difference between theocracy and dynasticism in government concern?
I suppose Vassalage with Republic, Autocracy or City-States could represent ridiculously widespread corruption and cronyism.
Absolutist Theocracy could work, as would an absolutist Autocracy, in absolutist republics the people elect an absolute ruler for life whenever the previous one died? Absolutist City States all have their own local absolute king or queen.
Centrally planned theocracy/Dynasticism is Saudi-Arabia, central planning city states would be anarchism I guess.
Vassalage and Slavery can reasonably work, with the later civics it's extreme cronyism.
Vassalage can work with Warrior Code and Mercenaries, with Standing Army and Naval Dominance it's again extreme cronyism and corruption.
No clue on Capitalism and Guilds.
Egalitarianism and Slavery is everybody has a chance of becoming a slave and slaves have good chances of becoming free, or mandatory forced labor for EVERYONE at least for some time.
Egalitarianism and Fanaticism is Tumblrism everybody is equal before God, nobody has any special privileges and everybody is equal in their shared devotion to a divine being, because all the non believers are either killed or converted ASAP. It's still egalitarian because the infidels can become equal immediately when they renounce their false gods.
Fanaticism plus any government civics can work on a similar premise as with Egalitarianism, or it's not a problem at all with Autocracy and Dynasticism.
Totalitarian Dynasticism is where North Korea is headed, totalitarian city states is the 1984 setup with Oceania and two other superpowers at constant fake war with each other while really only oppressing their own respective people on an extremely localized scale. (ATHENS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH SPARTA) Totalitarian Theocracy doesn't really stretch the imagination much. Totalitarian Republic is arguably where the US of A is headed if stuff like overt patriotism and mass surveillance get more extreme, McCarthyism?
Now that's easy, Egalitarianism obviously involves more direct voting for issues and mass participation while with Representation the people have only an indirect say in matters by voting for representatives.
Theocracy is Byzantium, Holy Rome and the various caliphates, Dynasticism are most monarchies.
I'm honestly surprised you didn't mention the most obviously problematic combination of Theocracy and Secularism.
Vassalage is corruption? No, vassalage represents that there are local lords that are in charge. This system has a point only under dynasticism, serfdom and levitary armies.
Again, does Saudi Arabia have trade unions that lead its economy? No.
Egalitarianism and Slavery refer to human rights, thus they should be in the same coloumn.
The interprentation of Fanaticism and Egalitarianism works for every combination with fanaticism.
Totalitarianism means the government controls everything, thus it is autocracy.
No it's not. Both mean there is a parliament. From organisation perspective there is no difference.
Byzantium, Holy Rome and Caliphates had dynasties. You can check wikipedia on that. Theocracy should be in religion coloumn.
Vassalage is corruption? No, vassalage represents that there are local lords that are in charge. This system has a point only under dynasticism, serfdom and levitary armies.
Again, does Saudi Arabia have trade unions that lead its economy? No.
Egalitarianism and Slavery refer to human rights, thus they should be in the same coloumn.
The interprentation of Fanaticism and Egalitarianism works for every combination with fanaticism.
Totalitarianism means the government controls everything, thus it is autocracy.
No it's not. Both mean there is a parliament. From organisation perspective there is no difference.
Byzantium, Holy Rome and Caliphates had dynasties. You can check wikipedia on that. Theocracy should be in religion coloumn.
What if the government is elected? I think one could make the point that the Soviet Union post-Stalin and PRC post-Mao was a Republic, not an autocracy.
Not necessarily, Egalitarianism could also mean workers' councils, and Representation would cover systems which have very unequal suffrage, e.g. only for property owning men.
Holy Rome had de facto dynasties, but de jure the Emperor was elected by a bunch of lords and clerics.
Well you didn't mention it in your post, but of course it probably was brought up often already, considering it is the single most contradictionary combination possible.
Edit: Figures I'd overlook that Theocracy plus Secularism was brought up in the very post your post was an reply to.
City States + Vassalage: encapsulates European merchant republics.
Republic + Vassalage: PLC, early Netherlands.
In general, if you take the misguided approach to reduce civics to such simplistic ideas it's no wonder you end up with impressions like Autocracy and Totalitarianism being the same thing in different columns.
City States + Vassalage: encapsulates European merchant republics.
Republic + Vassalage: PLC, early Netherlands.
In general, if you take the misguided approach to reduce civics to such simplistic ideas it's no wonder you end up with impressions like Autocracy and Totalitarianism being the same thing in different columns.
So I was just about to fall asleep when I suddenly shot straight up and grabbed my tablet to write up this post, for I thought of an elegant solution how to properly determine a civ's dynamic name based on its civics.
Let's first of all postulate that there are about four broad government categories into which a given civ can fall:
Monarchic (dynastic?)
Liberal (democratic, no planned economy)
Fascist (authoritarian, no planned economy)
Communist (planned economy, can be either democratic or authoritarian but not monarchic/dynastic)
I'm pretty sure that's how it currently works for dynamic names more or less, that is every civ has at least four dynamic names based on their civics, even if there are a ton of extra names for special cases, e.g. some monarchies having several names based on dyansties like Rashidun Caliphate, Song or Tang Empire.
I do not have a problem with this categorization, in fact I fully support it, however I am not satisfied with the way the game currently determines in which of these categories a given civ falls.
I already wrote quite a bit about this matter regarding nominally communist/socialist states specifically, but now want to propose a complete do-over for how any dynamic name is determined.
Basically, every civic should be assigned a certain score for each of those broad categories mentioned above.
Those scores are added across all civic categories, and the government type with the largest cumulative score is the one this civ is considered to be running.
So for example Dynasticism, Vassalage and Absolutism could add points for Monarchy, while Autocracy and Totalitarianism add some for Fascism.
Here is my first draft for which civics should add to what government type:
I'll just leave out the religious and military civics for now, as they are relatively inconsequential for determining a dynamic name.
With those numbers in mind let me run some examples:
Stalin's Soviet Union
4F+6F+1C+10C=10F+11C
11>10 hence communist
Kinda close in that example between fascism and communism, without Industrialism it would have been a tie.
Hm, 'Murrica and Nazi-Gemany look alright too from just glancing at the table, but those are clear cut examples so let's look at Bismarck's German Empire instead:
10M+2L+2L+1M=11M+4L
Yep, monarchic, working out well so far. How about Napoleonic France?
4F+2L+2L+1M=4F+4L+1M
Oh dear, we got ourselves a tie. Gotta revise those numbers I guess.
For now let's look at the culprit that started it all, Saudi Arabia:
10M+5M+0+10C=15M+10C
Working as intended again.
Finally, let's look at some of those nonsensical combinations the AI like to run just for fun:
Autocracy+Absolutism+Capitalism+Central Planning
4F+5M+2L+10C
... Urgh, so the Russia I saw running that would be communist in the new system too. Well I guess it kinda works.
Maybe I could add several values per civic, some of them negative, so Autocracy could give:
-2M, -2L, +4F, 0C
Alternatively, while writing up and calculating all of the above stuff I thought of an even simpler solution:
Dynasticism: Always M
City States: Always L unless also Central Planning
Theocracy: Always M unless also Totalitarianism, in which case it is F independent of Economy
Autocracy: Always L unless also Totalitarianism or Central Planning
Republic: Always L unless also Totalitarianism or Central Planning
Totalitarianism: Always F unless also Central Planning
Central Planning: Always C unless also Dynasticism or Theocracy
Eh, I'm pretty sure I forgot something or maybe threw in an endless loop, but I'm tired and just wanted to get my thoughts out.
I suggest we further improve the Xinjiang region to make it more inhabitable and worthwhile keeping despite of the constant barbarian harrassment.
Xingjiang now has more than 20 million inhabitants, which is close to the total population of Australia(which allows an unrealistic amount of population in game) and almost 2/3 the population of Canada. Certainly we can have more than just a gems and a cotton resource over there--a sheep and a wine resource come to mind to represent the herding and the various fruits grown there-- in addition to some grassland and plains tiles in the richer regions(even Scandinavia and Greenland have quite a few grasslands so why be so harsh on Xinjiang?). In this way the China player is more encouraged to try to control the region because of all the exotic resources, in spite of the high maintenance and suppressed Silk Road company appearance.
Texas is larger than France but can't manage more than 1 city and it could be fun with a more favorable/bigger area for the US and Mexico to fight over. I'm not saying more food resources but maybe enhanced size, like in the northeast, that area by the way is amazing now!
That's not a bad point, but keep in mind that some parts of the map, especially Europe, are out of proportion for game play balance. Texas is indeed quite large, but that alone isn't a good enough reason to expand it on the map, especially since the US has such a large area already. Ultimately though, Leoreth will have a better idea of how it would effect the game.
I agree that a Texan city should be viable, the US doesn't feel right without Texas. However, the way American colonization plays out with the common presence of New Orleans makes this hard to actually occur.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
