Ehh CK3's version of feudalism is rather shallow and presents it as a strict hierarchal structure when it was really a web of relationships and contracts. A king for example could be a vassal for a lower noble and of course only contribute what was required by the feudal contract between them.
suggestions for civ 7
- Thread starter luca 83
- Start date
Ehh CK3's version of feudalism is rather shallow and presents it as a strict hierarchal structure when it was really a web of relationships and contracts. A king for example could be a vassal for a lower noble and of course only contribute what was required by the feudal contract between them.
CK3's realism falters when you start to look closely. Another issue is that it overlooks that Eastern Christian clergy are not celibate, nor were Western clergy at the game's earliest start date. Some of its religions are straight made up, while it lacks several prominent Christian heresies like Hussitism (despite including Lollardy, which TBH was the less significant of the two). At the moment, playing outside of Western or Central Europe also feels very...underdeveloped. I tried playing a Central Asian shah, and it was...frankly quite dull. Like the devs included it for completeness but never gave it any real love. (Still, CK3 feels like a solid foundation; I'm hopeful it will keep getting better. I say this as someone who bounced hard off of CK2 and EU4.)
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Feudalism is hard for laymen and historians both to get a handle on. Personal oath-bound relationships among leaders at various levels and fighting men go back to the 'comitatus' structures of the Neolithic and elements of a 'feudal' or oath-bound social structure are found from Central Asa and India to Imperial Persia to tribal Germany to classical Greece - in a wide range of versions and cultural backgrounds.
Now try isolating the factors (if any) that made European Medieval Feudalism exceptionally different - or different at all - from all the other versions and examples. I don't know of any game that has even attempted it, let alone succeeded. Yet if a broad 4x game like Civ is going to represent culture and its effects on the military of a Civ even a bit right, it will have to be tackled sooner or later, and in much more detail that CK3 or anyone else has ever attempted.
iis worth to try crusader king, europa universalis have tried to simulate but always fail but repeating again you need first an innovative artificial intelligence t
I believe the prevailing theory is that feudalism isn't a time period but a process in which a central government is rebuilt after the previous central government utterly collapsed. I am sure say the intermediate periods of Egypt would look pretty similar to Medieval Europe or the Sengoku Jidai.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
That definition is far too narrow to cover all the historical instances of governments and societies on the 'feudal spectrum'. Just for two examples outside of any 'government collapse' model, both the Achaemenid Dynasty of the Persian Empire and the Argaed Dynasty of Macedon were based on personal oaths of loyalty from great nobles in return for their support of the King (or King of Kings). In both cases the central authority usually had more power than many of the later 'medieval' European feudal monarchs, but it was a matter of degree, and the multiple rulers and civil wars and satrapal armies that bedeviled the Persian Empire during the last half of the 5th century BCE shows how less than absolute the Persian king really was. The fact that Alexander had to be acclaimed by the Macedonian Army before he could become king even though he was the natural heir of the previous king also illustrates how much the Argaed Macedonian king's position was based on his personal relationship with the nobles and their followers who made up the army, rather than any 'right' to rule.
Feudalism was a social/military system which occurred whenever Central Government of any kind for whatever reason was weak: it is an opposing political system to absolutist tendancies of central government, and also a prolonging on a national scale of a system of personal relationships in contrast to 'impersonal' bureaucracies - which also tend to favor centralist governments.
civilizationfanatic2000
Prince
have a.i make the game. they never tire, never complain about money, water, or food, and they can be built from the ground up to make extremely complex games
What? You wanted Paradox + Civ + Total War. It's the only way you can do this.
What? You wanted Paradox + Civ + Total War. It's the only way you can do this.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I had a few ideas.
Occupying/Annexing Territory
When you are at war, your units would automatically push your borders to tiles that they occupy. So when you invade with your units, your units would push your borders. The tiles would be considered "occupied" until you make peace and the enemy cedes the tiles to you. The idea would be twofold:
1) Right now, the only way to expand your borders in war is to take cities. This would create another mechanism for expanding your borders through war, to take areas without cities, like maybe a valuable area with resources.
2) I think visually, it would be great to show your war progress. I am playing Age of History II that has a political map that color codes regions that you have taken or annexed. It is great to see your borders shift each turn as you attack or the enemy counter attacks. Other games like EU and HOI do something very similar. Visually, it's just a nice way to see the war progress, especially if there is a replay where you can watch the war as the territory shifts. I think it would be great in civ, to see borders expand back and forth as armies attack or counter attack.
Governments
I would like governments to have more flavor and uniqueness. In addition to bonuses, I think governments should change more how you play the game. For example, despotism would let you build whatever you want, and you could one-turn rush build but at a happiness cost. Republic would require you get senate approval for certain things but the senate could pass laws on their own that give you bonuses. So maybe after 15 turns, you get a pop up that the senate has passed a law that boosts population growth by 5% or a law that allows you to build units 10% cheaper. Democracy would have elections every x turns. The player would pick their candidate (each candidate would have traits and bonuses) and before the election, could spend gold to boost popularity. If their candidate wins, the player would get those bonuses. While in office, the player's actions would boost popularity and cause popularity to drop. When reelection comes up, the player could spend gold to boost popularity as needed to try to win. If the player's candidate loses, the player would be stuck with the bonuses of the other candidate. Again, the ides is for governments to change the flavor and playstyle of the game.
Unique Leaders
In addition to a special ability, civ leaders would have character traits that would give positive or negative bonuses. For example, George Washington might have "military leader" and the "honesty" trait. These traits would also affect diplomacy as some leaders would have affinities for certain traits. I would also let the player customize their leaders if they want or play with a stock leader. So they could pick from a pool of traits. For example, you could pick a historic leader and change their traits to play a game with that leader but with different traits.
Thoughts?
Occupying/Annexing Territory
When you are at war, your units would automatically push your borders to tiles that they occupy. So when you invade with your units, your units would push your borders. The tiles would be considered "occupied" until you make peace and the enemy cedes the tiles to you. The idea would be twofold:
1) Right now, the only way to expand your borders in war is to take cities. This would create another mechanism for expanding your borders through war, to take areas without cities, like maybe a valuable area with resources.
2) I think visually, it would be great to show your war progress. I am playing Age of History II that has a political map that color codes regions that you have taken or annexed. It is great to see your borders shift each turn as you attack or the enemy counter attacks. Other games like EU and HOI do something very similar. Visually, it's just a nice way to see the war progress, especially if there is a replay where you can watch the war as the territory shifts. I think it would be great in civ, to see borders expand back and forth as armies attack or counter attack.
Governments
I would like governments to have more flavor and uniqueness. In addition to bonuses, I think governments should change more how you play the game. For example, despotism would let you build whatever you want, and you could one-turn rush build but at a happiness cost. Republic would require you get senate approval for certain things but the senate could pass laws on their own that give you bonuses. So maybe after 15 turns, you get a pop up that the senate has passed a law that boosts population growth by 5% or a law that allows you to build units 10% cheaper. Democracy would have elections every x turns. The player would pick their candidate (each candidate would have traits and bonuses) and before the election, could spend gold to boost popularity. If their candidate wins, the player would get those bonuses. While in office, the player's actions would boost popularity and cause popularity to drop. When reelection comes up, the player could spend gold to boost popularity as needed to try to win. If the player's candidate loses, the player would be stuck with the bonuses of the other candidate. Again, the ides is for governments to change the flavor and playstyle of the game.
Unique Leaders
In addition to a special ability, civ leaders would have character traits that would give positive or negative bonuses. For example, George Washington might have "military leader" and the "honesty" trait. These traits would also affect diplomacy as some leaders would have affinities for certain traits. I would also let the player customize their leaders if they want or play with a stock leader. So they could pick from a pool of traits. For example, you could pick a historic leader and change their traits to play a game with that leader but with different traits.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
treaties: should be very specific, include reduction of armaments. in the contemporary period exchange territories war payments, not gold tributes. imposition of government by the winning nations. military creation of supranational bodies such as nato or warsaw pact. restoration of old units of call to power: slavery, ecoterorist, telepreacher. government: as in call to power each government has the production of quantities of food, gold. labor corruption, restore forms of governocracy, technocracy, ecoterrorism, theocracy
Saxo Grammaticus
Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
- Messages
- 921
This is the idea of yours I can most get behind. Territory seems funky in Civilization VI, and, barring other unseen developments, it would be a good idea to introduce something akin to occupied territory. For one, this might help temper the pillaging shenanigans. On another level, it could allow for redrawing lines in peace negotiations as opposed to ceding entire cities, as you point out. Some problems may include how to handle healing/supply (may need to highlight occupied as distinct from de jure territory) and how to balance against the messiness of developing campaigns, especially if the conflict is prolonged.
I agree governments could add more distinct flavor and play style. As for character traits, this reminds me most of Civilization IV's leader traits, but the series seems to have moved away from personal traits. In general, I am open to how leaders and civilizations are given traits but probably less in favor of character traits on the whole.
Yes.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Have leaders is the most important thing in Civilization.
I agree should be fun to play Civilization with a lot of leaders, one leader for era, but some civs don't have that amount of leaders to do it
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I think Call to Power II did this and it made diplomacy very bland IMO because diplomacy was just a pop up screen with an offer. Yes, leaders that live 6000 years or having George Washington lead the Americans in 2000 BC does not make sense historically but leaders give the game more flavor and are a big part of the civ experience IMO. This is a case of gameplay over realism.
revolutions: revolutions are unpredictable, and it is anti-historical for a movement that wants to overthrow a state to start with a player! I would like the change of government not to be a player's choice but influenced by external factors.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Yes I like that idea. One way to simulate it would be how Humankind does. You start with a "nomad" unit and you collect food or get food by killing wild animals. You can also collect science. As you get more food, you get more units which increases your starting population. When you collect enough science from artifacts, you are allowed to found your first city. You could do something similar where barbarian units can wander and collect food to grow and collect sicence from goodie huts and then at some point, they are allowed to found a city. you could also have a system where players can trade with barbarian camps and then those barbarian camps can change into cities.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Another thing that I think would make civ more interesting would be having "missions". EU4 has this where you have missions like annexing a region or increasing trade. When you complete a mission, you get bonuses. Players could pick missions from a pool for each era.
I think this could be very cool for civ for several reasons:
1) Having specific goals that you are striving for makes the game more engaging. I think it could help with the mid to late game boredom. Working towards a specific goal and getting that reward when you complete it, makes you want to keep playing.
2) Missions could help the player keep track of their goals and strategy since they would have something in writing to look back to that shows them what they are trying to do in the game. Missions would be like that to-do list that we make to remind ourselves what we need to do during the day or week.
3) Missions could also be tied into the diplomatic system. The missions could affect the "agenda" that the civs have. The missions could also create opportunities for cooperation or conflict. So missions could influence who your friends and enemies are.
I think this could be very cool for civ for several reasons:
1) Having specific goals that you are striving for makes the game more engaging. I think it could help with the mid to late game boredom. Working towards a specific goal and getting that reward when you complete it, makes you want to keep playing.
2) Missions could help the player keep track of their goals and strategy since they would have something in writing to look back to that shows them what they are trying to do in the game. Missions would be like that to-do list that we make to remind ourselves what we need to do during the day or week.
3) Missions could also be tied into the diplomatic system. The missions could affect the "agenda" that the civs have. The missions could also create opportunities for cooperation or conflict. So missions could influence who your friends and enemies are.
aieeegrunt
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,660
I think that just about every time you change government types this is basically a player started revolution.
I have wanted the ability to annex tiles for a long time
was thinking of the barbarian camps managed by the ai which over time are added to civilizations
I'd like something similar this as well. However I would just call them tribes/clans and have them separated between more hostile "barbarian" tribes and more peaceful "goodie hut" tribes. The "goodie hut" tribes would be easier to befriend and trade which could grow into a city-state faster.
