The first Civ game without governments?

[m15a]

If Firaxis wants to assure that all players are doing nothing but playing a game, much like playing Chess or Checkers -- that is, nothing more than manipulating some very mechanical mechanics, then by all means, leave the governments out. But if they want to immerse the players in a mindset of imagining what it is like to develop a small population into a globe girdling empire, they really need to put in a government selection and development system.

I can't tell if you are just exaggerating to try to express that you really want government (choice) in the game. But, from what we've seen so far, the notion that the designers don't really care about immersion is ridiculous to me. Affinities, virtues, and quests are three different new (or semi-new) ways of tying the game mechanics to the story. They're just (possibly) interested in looking at different aspects of the story. I'm not saying government choice wouldn't be important in such a future, but they have to choose some story elements to be in the game and some to leave out.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Not necessarily germane, but this governments/no governments debate reminds me of the several Star Trek TV shows. (Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine) Overall, I was a fan of all things Star Trek. The quasi-Science, the action, the combat, the inter-empire diplomacy, et al. That is, up until it was revealed in DS9 that the Federation doesn't use money. Totally mind-blowing. No wages. No price tags on anything. No need for HUGE amounts of materials to construct space ships. Apparently EVERYTHING was provided freely for EVERYONE, and everybody adhered to the honor system. An entire interstellar empire, that didn't use money, for anything. The absurdity of it just totally ruined all things Star Trek for me.

And now Firaxis is suggesting entire empires with no governments.

It's a good thing that I do occasionally enjoy a game of Chess now and then.

 

[redfern]

Wow, a lot of interesting comments. The lack of differing governments to hoose from suggests either:

A: All the empires have the same type of government (probably authoritarian, think Dune)

B: Government is considered unimportant

Option A I could maybe, sort of see - though it's depressingly dystopian. Option B is a sign of poor writing (that's not to say the entire game would be written poorly, just that this element is).

As for the Star Trek thing, hate to expose my nerdiness (who am I kidding, I'm posting on Civfanatics ) - but the 'no money' thing was revealed in The Next Generation. The crew find a bunch of 20thC humans cryogenically frozen, and Picard reveals to them they don't use currency. Yeah, that one would be difficult to organise, but I don't think impossible - pure old ego is enough motive for humans to do things, and people are still motivated by power and fame. Democracy was considered a utopian impossibility by most Europeans before the American revolution.

Anyhow, back on-topic. Firaxis, it's not too late! Bring civics back!

 

[stealth_nsk]

The single-government choice system of Civ I-III was always a bit weak gameplay-wise (you'd unlock your preferred government type, usually democracy, and never change it), but I thought the civics system of Civ IV worked very well... there were genuine choices and tradeoffs, and situations in which changing civics made sense. I would like to see a return to that sort of model someday. I don't think the Social Policies tree of buffs was ever a strong design decision.

I wouldn't say it worked very well. The actual choices were not that big. Generally the only questionable civics were in Economy and Religion, depending on your success with founding corporations and religions.

In contrast, in Civ 5 you have to make important choice nearly every time you choose a policy.

Generally I like Civic system more for immersion, but to make it work well it sould be much deeper connected with variable game parameters, etc. to make different options viable.

 

[CaptainPatch]

I can't remember which Roman numeral it was, but in one of the Civs government evolved as a effect of tech advances. Develop a tech in a certain period, and you can then adopt an era-correct government. Like discover Pottery and you can have your first Monarchy. Further along, and with Industrialization you can access Fascism. Etc. Later government types offered certain advantages, but usually added some significant restraints. Like with Democracy, productivity goes up, but the citizens really, really don't like it when the nation goes to war.

With BE, pretty much EVERY government type would be available. And you can be certain that whoever foots the bill for constructing the ship and recruiting the colonists will insist that the colonists adhere to the patron's chosen government model. (Now whether or not the colonists stick to that model once they arrive at Earth's New Hope remains to be seen.)
*****
Hmm. I just realized something. If Earth is dying, then there is a VERY large probability that whoever controls the financing of the project would pull strings to make sure that they and their families got a preferential suite accommodation on board the colony ship. That puts them right there, demanding that their preferred governmental form is enforced. For example, the Prez of the US would make sure his family was on that ship, along with a contingent of Marines and detail of Secret Service, to "keep order and provide protection for the mission."

 

[Ailure]

The single-government choice system of Civ I-III was always a bit weak gameplay-wise (you'd unlock your preferred government type, usually democracy, and never change it), but I thought the civics system of Civ IV worked very well... there were genuine choices and tradeoffs, and situations in which changing civics made sense. I would like to see a return to that sort of model someday. I don't think the Social Policies tree of buffs was ever a strong design decision.

Civilization II had fundamentalism, which was probably the most broken government form that's been in a civilization game.

And I agree that amongst the games, I probably like the Civic system from Civ IV and Alpha centauri. Social policies were neat for the longterm planning, but i really miss being able to change civics/goverment when it was necessary.

 

[m15a]

And now Firaxis is suggesting entire empires with no governments.

Wait, what!? . . . Am I missing something? I thought this thread was about no gameplay options for choosing governments. Actually, looking back at the thread, it looks like you (CaptainPatch) were the one that brought up the idea of the BE colonies actually having no government.

Some people are talking about the general idea of having no governments in the future, and that's a discussion that could be had (but not here, according to the mod). But as far as the game goes, there's nothing to suggest that there are actually no governments in the story of the game. For one thing, the colonies have leaders, and not vague symbolic versions like in the other civ games - actual characters that fit into the timeline at the start of the game. Those leaders are at least some sort of governors at the start of the game.

Wow, a lot of interesting comments. The lack of differing governments to hoose from suggests either:

A: All the empires have the same type of government (probably authoritarian, think Dune)

B: Government is considered unimportant

I think possibility C could be that each colony has the same form of government throughout the course of the game (but not necessarily the same as each other). I don't think it'd have to be authoritarian. Different types of governments could persist if the colonists come into it believing very strongly in that form government.

And I guess option D could be that government choice is built into the quest system in some way.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Not necessarily germane, but this governments/no governments debate reminds me of the several Star Trek TV shows. (Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine) Overall, I was a fan of all things Star Trek. The quasi-Science, the action, the combat, the inter-empire diplomacy, et al. That is, up until it was revealed in DS9 that the Federation doesn't use money. Totally mind-blowing. No wages. No price tags on anything. No need for HUGE amounts of materials to construct space ships. Apparently EVERYTHING was provided freely for EVERYONE, and everybody adhered to the honor system. An entire interstellar empire, that didn't use money, for anything. The absurdity of it just totally ruined all things Star Trek for me.

That's nothing; the original Star Trek had Americans and Russians living together in peace and an African-American woman as a fully capable Officer. Talk about absurd and stretching the bounds of credulity . . .

P.S. Yes, this was sarcasm.

 

[redfern]

I think possibility C could be that each colony has the same form of government throughout the course of the game (but not necessarily the same as each other). I don't think it'd have to be authoritarian. Different types of governments could persist if the colonists come into it believing very strongly in that form government.

And I guess option D could be that government choice is built into the quest system in some way.

Those are both very good points. Sadly C wouldn't allow for great enough flexibility - I liked that in Alpha Centauri, though the different factions had fixed ideologies, they would manifest in different ways: Dierdre might have a green democracy, or a crazy green fundamentalist state, for example.

D would be interesting, though that leads to two further problems: either the same quests would come up each time to determine government, which would get tedious on repeated playthroughs - or the issue might not come up, meaning that in some games it would be lacking.

I remember a previous version of a Civ5 mod - Community Calltopower, I believe - had the best of both worlds re: civics and social policies. There were different tiers to choose from (government, value, and something else I forget) and each tier could be upgraded as with regular social policies. It was a sort of hybrid Civ4/5 model that was pretty damn cool. Sadly it was removed with the BNW update.

Here's the thing: having browsed Civfanatics and Apolyton for a long time, it's clear that the Civ4/AC model was the most popular - so why not bring it back?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Those are both very good points. Sadly C wouldn't allow for great enough flexibility - I liked that in Alpha Centauri, though the different factions had fixed ideologies, they would manifest in different ways: Dierdre might have a green democracy, or a crazy green fundamentalist state, for example.

D would be interesting, though that leads to two further problems: either the same quests would come up each time to determine government, which would get tedious on repeated playthroughs - or the issue might not come up, meaning that in some games it would be lacking.

I remember a previous version of a Civ5 mod - Community Calltopower, I believe - had the best of both worlds re: civics and social policies. There were different tiers to choose from (government, value, and something else I forget) and each tier could be upgraded as with regular social policies. It was a sort of hybrid Civ4/5 model that was pretty damn cool. Sadly it was removed with the BNW update.

Here's the thing: having browsed Civfanatics and Apolyton for a long time, it's clear that the Civ4/AC model was the most popular - so why not bring it back?

I think there are two key differences between Virtues and SMAC/Civ4 style government

1. Gameplay-permanent v. switchable... this would be an interesting gameplay situation, they seemed to combine those a little bit with Ideologies in BNW.. something that expanded on that would be interesting

2. Presentation feel/names (this is where Social policies in civV worked different from the Virtues)
That is also where I feel the Quests might come in

The quests will not be totally random, so perhaps
discovering certain techs (collaborative thought... do you start plugging all your people into one large brain or keep private/individual minds)
getting certain virtues
certain gameplay events... you conquer a city and annex it for the first time... perhaps the first time a quest pops up for how you r society handles annexed territory in general
You start a particular national security project... you get a quest to put limits on it OR let the police state run free
The options offered depends somewhat on your previous choices. (ie are your intelligence agents plugged into the multibrain or do they just monitor it)

And every so often you get the opportunity to reverse the effects of multiple previous quests at once (revolution)

 

[GeoModder]

Hmm. I just realized something. If Earth is dying, then there is a VERY large probability that whoever controls the financing of the project would pull strings to make sure that they and their families got a preferential suite accommodation on board the colony ship. That puts them right there, demanding that their preferred governmental form is enforced. For example, the Prez of the US would make sure his family was on that ship, along with a contingent of Marines and detail of Secret Service, to "keep order and provide protection for the mission."

Well, since at the very least the biggest sponsors seem to launch several Seeding missions, the ruling elite can't be on board every one of them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, since at the very least the biggest sponsors seem to launch several Seeding missions, the ruling elite can't be on board every one of them.

Not to mention,
1. They aren't evacuating Earth..billions will remain behind
2. Earth will be a perfectly fine place to live for the forseeable future for anyone who is elite...just progress slows down/stops

 

[CaptainPatch]

Wait, what!? . . . Am I missing something? I thought this thread was about no gameplay options for choosing governments. Actually, looking back at the thread, it looks like you (CaptainPatch) were the one that brought up the idea of the BE colonies actually having no government.

....For one thing, the colonies have leaders, and not vague symbolic versions like in the other civ games - actual characters that fit into the timeline at the start of the game. Those leaders are at least some sort of governors at the start of the game.

There's a difference between government and leadership. Leadership is nothing more than, "I'm in charge; do what I say." It's little more than an absolute dictatorship if you want to think of that as being a government. Government, otoh, is a format that defines the relationship and interactions between the rulers and those that are ruled. Importantly, it defines the transfer of power from the current ruler(s) to the next generation of rulers. (Beyond the presiding dictator designating who shall replace him when the time comes.)

All I have seen thus far is 1) Sponsors, 2) Affinities, and 3) Virtues. None of that says "government type" to me.

Well, since at the very least the biggest sponsors seem to launch several Seeding missions, the ruling elite can't be on board every one of them.

Think about it for a bit. If one of the sponsors was the US government, how many spaces would be required to accommodate the entire government (and their families)? If it was a major corporate conglomerate like any of these: http://www.therichest.com/business/top-10-biggest-conglomerates-in-the-world-based-by-revenue/, how many spaces would be required?

If looming Death is on the horizon, whoever foots the bill WILL demand that space be made for themselves and their loved ones. It's not like a project of this scale can be crowd-funded by a KickStarter.

Not to mention,
1. They aren't evacuating Earth..billions will remain behind
2. Earth will be a perfectly fine place to live for the forseeable future for anyone who is elite...just progress slows down/stops

According to comments by others that project an aura of "in the know",
1. Earth is dying. It's demise is imminent, probably within a generation or two.
2. In order to prevent the possibility of later Earth-Colony interaction, Earth MUST collapse or be totally destroyed with Humanity there rendered extinct or reverted to the Stone Age. This prevents things like the possibility of followup waves of colonization. Or even as a possibility, while the colony ship is tech stagnant for the 400 years of the voyage, back on Earth a FTL drive could be developed, allowing for a later wave of migrations to arrive at the target planet before the first colony ship arrives.

 

[m15a]

D would be interesting, though that leads to two further problems: either the same quests would come up each time to determine government, which would get tedious on repeated playthroughs - or the issue might not come up, meaning that in some games it would be lacking.

My guess (really, total guess - I didn't even read through all the known quests) is that the quests won't replicate the choice of government mechanically like in earlier Civs but will just give you the sense that the government may or may not change. Like, say, some crazy dictator starts gaining some power in one of your cities (which is always happening in planet-settling sci-fi) do you (a) use them as a puppet, (b) assassinate them, or (c) ignore them and see what happens. The mechanical result would probably be relatively small, but it still gives the sense that the government can change.

There's a difference between government and leadership. Leadership is nothing more than, "I'm in charge; do what I say." It's little more than an absolute dictatorship if you want to think of that as being a government. Government, otoh, is a format that defines the relationship and interactions between the rulers and those that are ruled. Importantly, it defines the transfer of power from the current ruler(s) to the next generation of rulers. (Beyond the presiding dictator designating who shall replace him when the time comes.)

All I have seen thus far is 1) Sponsors, 2) Affinities, and 3) Virtues. None of that says "government type" to me.

I might have misunderstood your post up there. Got confused with the Star Trek talk, but I thought you were suggesting that the colonies in BE would be anarchic, which I don't think has a basis in what we've seen about the game so far. There certainly might be no government choice - that sounds like a deal breaker to you, which is of course fine. I just don't think it means that no one else can be immersed in the game (by either speculating about the form of government or just focusing on other details).

 

[Lord Shadow]

No, Earth doesn't need to collapse nor be totally destroyed to stop or severely slow down its rate of advancement. Sometime after the Seeding launches, it can easily be assumed to just run out of the resources required to maintain a modern, 23rd century society, likely before off-world mining matures enough to produce sustainable returns. Humanity can adapt to the shortage without imploding, sure, but it has to cope with the technological stagnation. And with that in consideration in mind, the homeworld can plausibly be overtaken, from the scientific standpoint, by colonies with access to the required materials to fuel progress. I just don't see any way Earth could avoid falling behind on advancement.

As for government types, well, Civ has never been much of a political simulator, so I can live without them. It'd be a nice feature for an expansion, but I'm not losing sleep over it. And of course, the lack of the explicit mention of government by no means implies it doesn't exist in the background.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

According to comments by others that project an aura of "in the know",
1. Earth is dying. It's demise is imminent, probably within a generation or two.
2. In order to prevent the possibility of later Earth-Colony interaction, Earth MUST collapse or be totally destroyed with Humanity there rendered extinct or reverted to the Stone Age. This prevents things like the possibility of followup waves of colonization. Or even as a possibility, while the colony ship is tech stagnant for the 400 years of the voyage, back on Earth a FTL drive could be developed, allowing for a later wave of migrations to arrive at the target planet before the first colony ship arrives.

All you need is Earth tech advancement to slow/stop.. the planet is far enough away that radio contact is not an issue.

No, Earth doesn't need to collapse nor be totally destroyed to stop or severely slow down its rate of advancement. Sometime after the Seeding launches, it can easily be assumed to just run out of the resources required to maintain a modern, 23rd century society, likely before off-world mining matures enough to produce sustainable returns. Humanity can adapt to the shortage without imploding, sure, but it has to cope with the technological stagnation. And with that in consideration in mind, the homeworld can plausibly be overtaken, from the scientific standpoint, by colonies with access to the required materials to fuel progress. I just don't see any way Earth could avoid falling behind on advancement.

This... also

If Earth totally dies off, then the Emancipation and Promised Land Victories don't make sense.

They DO make sense if Earth continues on as highly populated, resource starved tech stagnant society. Because that means if I (as either Purity or Supremacy) can unite Earth's population with the new high-tech society that I have built on a resource rich planet, then I effectively dominate all other civs on the planet (same as if I make the planet itself or hyperadvanced aliens my ally)

 

[CaptainPatch]

No, Earth doesn't need to collapse nor be totally destroyed to stop or severely slow down its rate of advancement. Sometime after the Seeding launches, it can easily be assumed to just run out of the resources required to maintain a modern, 23rd century society, likely before off-world mining matures enough to produce sustainable returns. Humanity can adapt to the shortage without imploding, sure, but it has to cope with the technological stagnation.

For the entire length and breadth of History, what do masses of people do when there isn't enough to go around to assure everyone's survival? The Have Nots tear down the existing system and try -- but inevitably fail -- to redistribute what resources are available. Also inevitably, countless people die in the turmoil. (Which, ironically, reduces the strain on available resources.)

You also have to take into account human mindset concerning population growth. Unless there was a universal concerted effort to control population growth, the population WILL continue grow -- and that would hasten that worldwide turmoil as the resources per person ratio just keeps getting worse. [Excellent book to read on this specific topic: The Population Bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb] Something has to reverse the population growth trend, or in the next 400 years, Earth WILL implode.

And with that in consideration in mind, the homeworld can plausibly be overtaken, from the scientific standpoint, by colonies with access to the required materials to fuel progress. I just don't see any way Earth could avoid falling behind on advancement.

Keep in mind that from launch to Landfall is _400 years_. During that entire time, NOBODY with an inclination towards Science will even dabble on improving the tech that they already have? The same tech that the colonists left Earth with?

About the ONLY way you can avoid these two things entirely is if, after the space ship launches, Humanity stops being Humanity and become an entirely different species. Where people are not inclined to procreate and NO ONE has any kind of Scientific curiosity.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

For the entire length and breadth of History, what do masses of people do when there isn't enough to go around to assure everyone's survival? The Have Nots tear down the existing system and try -- but inevitably fail -- to redistribute what resources are available. Also inevitably, countless people die in the turmoil. (Which, ironically, reduces the strain on available resources.)

You also have to take into account human mindset concerning population growth. Unless there was a universal concerted effort to control population growth, the population WILL continue grow -- and that would hasten that worldwide turmoil as the resources per person ratio just keeps getting worse. [Excellent book to read on this specific topic: The Population Bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb] Something has to reverse the population growth trend, or in the next 400 years, Earth WILL implode.

Keep in mind that from launch to Landfall is _400 years_. During that entire time, NOBODY with an inclination towards Science will even dabble on improving the tech that they already have? The same tech that the colonists left Earth with?

About the ONLY way you can avoid these two things entirely is if, after the space ship launches, Humanity stops being Humanity and become an entirely different species. Where people are not inclined to procreate and NO ONE has any kind of Scientific curiosity.

You realize that most of the developed world is dying off... ie they aren't currently having enough babies to replace themselves before they die... and the entire world is expected to be dropping in population by the year 2100... we might not Ever hit 10 billion people on Earth... not because of resource limitation but because of social conditions.

I think the issue with science in the lore is they won't have the resources to do science (at least not the science of the 23rd century).

Sure they will dabble around with ideas, and make improvements... but they don't have the easily accessible resources that allowed them to develop 23rd century technology

Plus, FTL IS developed by Purity and Supremacy...using science done with materials not naturally occurring on Earth, Floatstone and/or Firaxite (possibly some of that Xenomass)

 

[CaptainPatch]

You realize that most of the developed world is dying off... ie they aren't currently having enough babies to replace themselves before they die... and the entire world is expected to be dropping in population by the year 2100...

Since when? http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/population-rankings/world-population-by-year/
The growth rate has slowed down, but that still means that population continues to grow, albeit at a slower speed.

About the only times that overall population noticeably goes negative is because of something like a worldwide pandemic (e.g. the Black Plague) or there is massive wide-scale warfare (WW1 and WW2) happening. But pretty much invariably, afterwards there is a HUGE baby boom as the survivors celebrate the fact that they survived.

Can't rememeber where I saw the quote; probably Paul Ehrlich in PB: "If there ever is the slightest danger of negative population growth, there will be no lack of volunteers to do their best to reverse the trend." Something like that anyway.

I think the issue with science in the lore is they won't have the resources to do science (at least not the science of the 23rd century).

The thing about Science and scientific discoveries is that they work with what they have. Science works with whatever is available. If "lack of resources" was an absolute limitation, we would never have developed nuclear energy. That's because at the start of the research, no one even knew that nuclear reactions were even possible. The scientists found new resources where none were known before. Once things like fission and fusion become available, all manner of Energy research became available. There's absolutely no logic to the conclusion that someone is going to flip the OFF switch and ALL scientific research will ground to a halt.

 

[Sonereal]

But pretty much invariably, afterwards there is a HUGE baby boom as the survivors celebrate the fact that they survived.

No. There's usually a baby boom because they're better off. Post-war Europe wouldn't had a population boom having won the war if every city in Europe was still rubble and no Marshal Plan happened, and it took Europe nearly two centuries to recover from the Black Death.

Relavant Ted Talk


Link to video.

You realize that most of the developed world is dying off... ie they aren't currently having enough babies to replace themselves before they die... and the entire world is expected to be dropping in population by the year 2100... we might not Ever hit 10 billion people on Earth... not because of resource limitation but because of social conditions.

I'll just point out that the separation of social and resource constraints aren't nearly as rigid as you're making it out to be. The populations of industrial and post-industrial countries have leveled off and grown older largely because the need for excess children, and the general cost of raising a kid in an industrial or post-industrial society compared to a developing economy, is a lot higher.

The fact that population growth in the US started to dip below 1% in 1970 around the same time worker wages began to stagnate makes perfect sense. The cost of raising children, which is limited by resources, is going up, while wages are remaining the same. Looking at this chart shows during the last recession birth rates fell off, and during the Great Depression growth rates also fell off severely.

In the context of Beyond Earth, this makes perfect sense. The cost of raising children in vast swathes of the world, which likely developed between the PoD and day the colonists left, have probably gone up while medical care has made the chance of a kid making it to adulthood sufficiency high enough parents aren't scrambling to create backups.