What DOC civics would historical civilizations have used?

[Just an idea]

There has been some discussion on this forum about leaders' favorite civics. I thought it would be fun to try to assign civics to case examples from civilizations.

I try to have case examples according to civs leaderheads so this might be also helpful for favorite civic discussion. Feel free to comment how mistaken I am or to make similar analysis of your own. I'll be starting with the Vikings.

Ragnar Lodbrok (legendary, 700s-800s?), Viking Age Sweden
GOVERNMENT
During the time period Sweden was made up of multiple petty kingdoms. Exact information about their customs of succession is scarce. Ancient Norse had gatherings called Things. Apparently Things were at least occasionally used for electing a new king. Elective
LEGITIMACY
Ancient Norse didn't really use vassalage in a sense that king would give someone landholdings in exchange for military service. Kings weren't considered above the law and Things, in which every free man could participate, were used for creating and enforcing laws. As weird as it sounds, Citizenship
SOCIETY
Norse had a thrall class that made up of about 25% of their society. Thralls were slaves that were usually acquired from raids. Slavery
ECONOMY
In addition to raiders, Vikings were also merchants. Trade routes they established, like one from Baltic Sea through Russia to Black Sea and Constantinople, continued existing even after Viking age. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
Norse paganism didn't have any full time religious leaders. Animism
TERRITORY
Viking Age got its name from Norse raids and conquests. While Tributaries could make sense since Danegeld was actually tribute paid to Vikings to avoid raids, I'm still leaning towards Conquest

Gustav II Adolph (1611-1632), Swedish Empire
GOVERNMENT
During the time of Gustavus Adolphus Sweden was a hereditary Monarchy
LEGITIMACY
During his reign, he reorganized Sweden's administration so central government had more influence. Centralism
SOCIETY
Gustavus Adolphus forced nobility to grant peasants more autonomy and improved education. Individualism
ECONOMY
Even during its Great Power phase Swedish economy relied heavily on foreign trade. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
During early 1600s Catholics were still persecuted in Sweden in wake of Reformation so Tolerance doesn't fit. Reformation made King of Sweden official leader of Swedish Church, so Theocracy
TERRITORY
Sweden's organizational changes were largely so that it could field an army able to compete with great powers. Conquest

Einar Gerhardsen (1945-1965, not continuously) Post- WW2 Norway
GOVERNMENT
Norway is constitutional monarchy so, Monarchy
LEGITIMACY
Constitution
SOCIETY
Gerhardsen played major role in turning Norway to Social Democratic welfare state. Egalitarianism
ECONOMY
Public Welfare
RELIGION
Before I did research for this I would have guessed that Norway would be secular state, but it was only in 2017 that Church of Norway became separate organization from Kingdom of Norway. King of Norway is also legally required to be a member of Church of Norway. Gerhardsen himself actually resigned his membership with Church in 1918 for his Socialist sympathies. Tolerance
TERRITORY
Norway is one of the founding members of NATO. Multilateralism

Sorry last one is a bit shorter, but I thought these were fairly self-explanatory.

 

[Just an idea]

Let's try same thing with Turkic civilization. I'm mostly using Wikipedia as my source, so make of that what you will.

Bumin Qaghan (551-552), First Turkic Khaganate
GOVERNMENT
First Turkic Khaganate's leaders were from Bumin's family. In terms of early monarchies, metric I'm primarily going to use whether they were running Monarchy or Despotism is their stability. First Turkic Khaganate lasted just a little over 50 years. Despotism
LEGITIMACY
Turkic Empire consisted of dynastic Ashina clan and their subordinate clans. Vassalage
SOCIETY
Selling of slaves to Islamic nations was significant source of wealth for Turkic tribes 8th century onward. There are also text from First Turkic Empire referring to people of defeated political entities with words that translate to either slave or servant. Slavery seems likely.
ECONOMY
Turkic Empire used their military power to protect trade along the Silk Route. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
Main religion in Khaganate was Tengrism, which researchers consider as animistic prior to 12th century. Turks also incorporated elements of Buddhism to their religion. Animism
TERRITORY
Göturks used their military power to rapidly build an empire. Conquest

Alp Arslan (1063-1072), Seljuk Empire
GOVERNMENT
Seljuk leadership was dynastic and lasted significantly longer than First Turkic Khaganate (over 150 years). Monarchy
LEGITIMACY
Seljuk Empire used military fiefs ruled by Seljuk princes to support their army. Vassalage
SOCIETY
During Alp Arslan's reign he used fief system to establish nomadic Turks to agricultural area. Later Seljuk Empire's armies transformed from using mainly nomadic cavalry warriors to Mamluk slave armies. Manoralism or Slavery
ECONOMY
Trade on the Silk Road was important for Seljuk economy. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
Seljuks were Muslims. They founded large amount of madrasas. Monasticism
TERRITORY
Again, rapid military Conquest to build an empire.

Tamerlane (1370-1405), Timurid Empire
GOVERNMENT
Timurid Empire broke to civil war after death of Timur and even after it ended government had very little influence in certain parts of empire. Despotism
LEGITIMACY
While Timur held scholars in high regard, for the governance of his empire he appointed his relatives. Vassalage
SOCIETY
During Timur's invasion of Armenia and Georgia over 60000 locals were captured as slaves. Slavery
ECONOMY
Timur tried to actively encourage trade on the Silk Route. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
Timur's own approach to religion seems to have been rather pragmatic. He used Islamic religion when it was advantageous while using steppe traditions on other times. Timur held scholars in high regard and was quite tolerant to them. Monasticism?
TERRITORY
Timur tried to recreate the Mongol Empire. Conquest

 

[Gritzeldrei]

Cant wait to see someone make the civics for American leaders and see a comment warzone

 

[Dracosolon]

FRANCE

Charlemagne (768-814)
GOVERNMENT - Monarchy
At this point in time the French monarchy was well established, with the Carolingians constituting its second dynasty.
LEGITIMACY - Vassalage
SOCIETY - Manorialism
Charlemagne was one of the leading figures in codifying the feudal system.
ECONOMY - Merchant Trade?
Somewhat by default, there aren't a lot of appropriate options for the medieval period. His economic policies mostly centered around standardizing currency.
RELIGION - Clergy?
I think the difference between Clergy and Monasticism is very relative since medieval Christianity had elements of both. Charlemagne's reign was marked by closer ties to the church and more involvement of the latter in secular society so I'm willing to give Clergy the edge though.
TERRITORY - Tributaries?
Conquest is arguable but seems more appropriate for the older Frankish gains in Gaul. Tributaries to me seems to better reflect the need for diplomatic legitimacy that Charlemagne sought with the papacy. Anyway, lots of conquests, lots of tributaries.

Louis XIV (1643-1715)
GOVERNMENT - Monarchy
Still the Ancient Régime.
LEGITIMACY - Centralism
The medieval French monarchy had a relatively weak hold on many of its vassals; the Renaissance era was a slow process of centralisation of power around the king and the burgeoning bureaucracy at the expanse of the provincial nobility, culminating in the Sun King's absolutism. From this era onward France has been a very centralised country, with politics and economy heavily focused on Paris at the expense of the province (even if Louis XIV famously built his palace outside of Paris, in the neighboring village of Versailles).
SOCIETY - Manorialism
In spite of the development of some industries like textiles, France remained for long an overwhelmingly agrarian society.
ECONOMY - Regulated Trade
The economic policy of Colbert, then minister of finances, was distinctly mercantilist and protectionist.
RELIGION - Theocracy
Louis XIV abolished the Edict of Nantes (1598-1685) which gave some limited religious rights to Protestants, leading to persecutions and exiles. Absolute monarchy itself was firmly rooted in the divine right to rule.
TERRITORY - Colonialism
The 17th century saw the development of France's first colonial possessions and participation in the slave trade.

Napoleon Bonaparte (1799-1815)
GOVERNMENT - Despotism?
His later Empire had dynastic ambitions but Despotism fits the kind of strongman leadership of which he is one of the most iconic examples.
LEGITIMACY - Revolutionism?
The central paradox of his reign is that it claimed to follow the ideals and fervor of the preceding Revolution, even as it shedded most of its changes in favor of an authoritarian and relatively conservative regime.
SOCIETY - Individualism
ECONOMY - Regulated Trade?
Revolutionary France and the Empire were largely dominated by the ascendant bourgeoisie, reflected in their broadly liberal outlooks on property and individual rights. However, the slow industralisation of France and the permanent conflicts with other European powers meant that its conversion to Free Enterprise capitalism was still in progress.
RELIGION - Tolerance
Following the Revolution Napoleon renewed ties with the Catholic Church with the Concordat of 1801, a compromise that only partially restored some of its old privileges. The Revolution and the First Empire were also periods of relative tolerance toward Jews and the few remaining Protestants.
TERRITORY - Colonialism or Nationhood?
You could probably make an argument for both. The French Revolution was one of the most important examples of replacing monarchist legitimacy with nationalism, and the Napoleonic Wars were a key part in the spread of these ideas and in new forms of mass warfare. But while the French colonial empire shrinked under these same wars, it didn't disappear, and one of Napoleon's most controversial decisions was his reinstitution of slavery in overseas territories.

Charles de Gaulle (1940-1969)
GOVERNMENT - Democracy
Outside of the interruption of the Vichy regime France has been a democratic Republic since 1870.
LEGITIMACY - Constitution
Following WW2 France adopted a brief parliamentary Fourth Republic with its own Constitution, before De Gaulle replaced it by a different, more President-centered Fifth Republic and another Constitution.
SOCIETY - Egalitarianism?
While De Gaulle himself was of a conservative sensibility, post-war French society doubled down on several 20th century trends such as more independence for women and various forms of militantism over minority rights. Most notably women gained the right to vote in 1944.
ECONOMY - Public Welfare
The rebuilt of post-war France involved the development of various measures of social democratic inspiration such as more power to trade unions and the creation of an ambitious social security system.
RELIGION - Secularism
20th century France had been secular thanks to various reforms of the previous Third Republic.
TERRITORY - Nationhood or Multilateralism?
While France was from the start part of what would become the European Union De Gaulle resisted some of its developments and most of its extensions happened under later presidencies. He also had France leave NATO in 1966 and sought to ensure a relative degree of strategic autonomy from American influence.
Regarding colonialism, his presidency underwent with partial reluctance the progressive dismantlement of the colonial empire, most notably with wars in Vietnam and Algeria concluding with independence for both countries. Subsaharan colonies acquired independence more peacefully, though a lot of these still have to deal with overt economic ties and not-so-overt corruption and clandestine operations on the part of modern France, so YMMV on whether French colonialism still exists in some form.

 

[Just an idea]

Next in line, Tibet. This was quite difficult.

Songtsen Gampo (c. 618- 650), Tibetan Empire
GOVERNMENT
Tibetan Empire was ruled by Yarlung dynasty. Monarchy
LEGITIMACY
Some sources tell that Songtsen Gampo modeled his administration after Second Turkic Khaganate. Chinese sources on the other hand claim that after his war against Tang in 637-638 he sent Tibetan nobles to imperial schools. Vassalage or Meritocracy
SOCIETY
At this point in Tibet's history, most Tibetans were still nomadic. Slavery in Tibetan society appears to be on very limited scale. Traditionalism
ECONOMY
On this one there was very little information. It seems state took very little role in trade. Merchant Trade? Maybe Reciprocity
RELIGION
Buddhism first arrived to Tibet during Songtsen Gampo's reign, but it is considered unlikely that Buddhism would have spread much beyond foreigners at court at this point. Tibetan Buddhism is monastic religion. Animism or Monasticism
TERRITORY
Tibetan Empire was built on its military success. Conquest

5th Dalai Lama Lobsang Gyatso (1642-1682), Ganden Phodrang
GOVERNMENT
On this I'm quite unsure. What civic should be used to represent reincarnation based monarchy. When Dalai Lama dies, monks seek for his reincarnation. If they find multiple candidates they draw lot between them. Argument could be made for Monarchy, Elective or Republic
LEGITIMACY
During his reign, 5th Dalai Lama centralized Tibetan governance. Centralism
SOCIETY
Tibetan society was divided to three classes; high (nobility and monks), middle (farmers and merchants) and low (slaves, servants and certain occupations considered unclean like butchers and smiths). Classes weren't as strictly hereditary as in Indian caste system because of high importance of monks. Within middle class one's status was largely dependent on land ownership. Caste System or Manoralism
ECONOMY
During 5th Dalai Lama's reign Tibet started using coins, but otherwise there was little change in economy. Merchant Trade
RELIGION
5th Dalai Lama made Dalai Lama supreme authority in Tibet in both secular and religious matters. Theocracy
TERRITORY
5th Dalai Lama's foreign policies don't fit as Isolationism or Tributaries. Also unification of Tibet relied on military power. Conquest.
I'm starting to think that I give everyone Conquest as their Territory civic.

 

[Logoncal]

Probably because you chose to try to define civics on quite hardcore conquerors (Vikings, Timur, early Tibetans)

 

[Dracosolon]

Bumping this thread since people seem interested in discussing civics again.

A lot of members of this forum must have a deeper understanding of America's history than I do, but I get the impression its civics didn't change much. The American Dream UP's civics (Democracy/Constitution/Individualism/Free Enterprise) seem straightforward enough, with maybe Individualism where you could quibble a little. One could see the Civil Rights movement as a switch to Egalitarianism, but that has the obvious problem that equality is a very relative thing across history and even today. Civics represent broad tendencies that are often present in some form concurrently with others, and that's doubly true for something as immaterial as Individualism or Egalitarianism. Still, The most recent American DoC leader predates this era, so this doesn't really matter for this thread.

Slavery's another interesting case, with an especially dramatic transition in the country's history. I think this is better represented by a switch to a Territory civic that doesn't allow Slaves, specifically Nationhood. America's political Isolationism lasted quite a bit longer than that but since it's a very relative term I think this can be used (and the more interventionist 20th century turn can be represented by Multilateralism I guess, unless this is specifically intended to represent political alliances like the EU).

For Roosevelt, Public Welfare vs Free Enterprise is another case of relativity. Keynesian economics and the general increase in social services seem like they fit the former better, even though America is famously dedicated to FE. You could maybe make a case that Roosevelt would have Public Welfare, thent the later neoliberal turn would be a return to Free Enterprise.

Secularism is a bit subjective but more straightforward - America isn't exactly a non-religious society but its a secular one. Prior to Leoreth changing Secularism's tech to Secularism I was scratching my head at what dramatic turn in America's history would fit with a revolution (presumably from Tolerance to Secularism). This is less of a problem now, though maybe some of you can still come up with something.

So, in resume:

Washington: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Secularism, Isolationism

Lincoln: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Secularism, Nationhood

Roosevelt: Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise/Public Welfare?, Secularism, Multilateralism

 

[1SDANi]

Guess a good first step would be getting an agreement of what various civics even mean, as we saw with the debate over whether Republic and Democracy are divided by scale or by suffrage. Here's my current understanding of the civics and my reasonings:

Chiefdom: The Civopedia basically describes this to a T, it's a system of kinship where seniority is the main source of authority within the family unit.

Despotism: This is one of the fun ones. The Civopedia describes it as a system where "a ruler" wields absolute power, though this is in part a bit of a misnomer. While it does include absolute monarchies and despotates as you'd imagine from that description, the fact that Mexico and Colombia spawn with it means it also represents military juntas.

Monarchy: This one is probably the one has eluded me for the longest. It obviously represents traditional monarchies, or in other words, monarchies where the power of the ruler is limited by the tradition of society and the ruling class, but it's also the civic that Brazil spawns with. It took me way longer than I'm comfortable with admitting to realize it also represents parliamentary constitutional monarchies. The civopedia backs this up in stating it includes scenarios where the monarch is "little more than a figurehead". This is where it starts to rapidly become apparent that this game doesn't just throw all forms of modern democracy under the Democracy civic. Also somehow at some point I convinced myself that Alexander's favourite civic was Monarchy. No clue how or why that came about, maybe cuz I tended to use Monarchy more than Despotism when playing as Greece?

Republic: This one is... confusing. Even the Civopedia seems to be confused as to what it means. It describes that "In a republic, the head of state is not a monarch and there are no legal privileges for the nobility" but goes on to say that it varies "from absolute despotism to direct democracy". The head of state is not a monarch but can be an absolute despot? Is it dividing monarch and despot by succession? There is a head of state, but direct democracies are included? I'm not even sure what it's trying to say here. The final line says the most important distinction between Republic and Monarchy is the "diminished role of family and lineage", so I think it is dividing by succession, and I think it might be using head of state to just mean whatever body has a position of leadership, even if it just generally means someone a lot of people respect in a direct democracy. In terms of solely in-game descriptions, Republic seems to specifically describe classical republicanism, but Leoreth's comments regarding the Maya have lent that it also includes Oligarchies, and his comments regarding the Scandinavians have lent that it also includes forms of democracy with wider inclusion of the populace. I'll touch more on this with Democracy.

Elective: Straight off the bat, in doing research for this, I learned that it's included in the IsRepublic check. Went years without realizing this was a thing. While the research was more a response to Dracosolon here to ensure I have evidence to back up my claims than a response to TsimTsigal, it'd be remiss not to mention that TsimTsigal was the person who brough to my attention the possibility of Elective representing confederative republics. Elective's civopedia entry is... well it's not great. It solely mentions its role as representing elective monarchy with no mention of the nature of the civic in representing confederations and personal unions.

State Party: Finally another straight forward one. This represents scenarios where there is only one legal party. It's basically democracy without the democracy.

Democracy: Last but not least, the civic that confuses everyone including myself. When I first looked at it in 11th grade, I thought it just represented modern democracies, but apparently parliamentary constitutional monarchies, confederative republics, and direct democracy aren't included. It's really the civic that gets the most carved out of it by other civics. It doesn't represent Universal Suffrage, as the Civopedia makes clear, and the fact that the USA spawns with it means it's highly unlikely to represent societies where all people can vote regardless of their ethnicity, gender, whether they own land, follow the state religion, etc. If it did, it'd make it contradictory to be able to run, say Democracy and Slavery, Theocracy, Manorialism, any Society Civic that isn't Egalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Caste System, etc. While there are stability penalties for many such combinations, the fact that the combinations themselves are possible implies that they are not mutually exclusive. This argument also applies for Republic and Egalitarianism, which, notably, while there is no stability bonus for the combination, there also isn't any stability penalty, in fact, the only society civic penalty any government civic has is Democracy with Totalitarianism.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the broad categorizations of most of the other civics. Most of note I think would be that I'd say Slavery and Manorialism are what draw the distinction in Rome and Greece's disinenfranchisement of less privileged classes, and I personally have no clue what Egalitarianism means, none of our societies are actually egalitarian, but if Egalitarianism does represent egalitarianism, that means it's the only civic where none of the in-game Civilizations can be used as historical examples. Cardenas' favourite civic is Egalitarianism, which helps the argument that it broadly represent Universal Suffrage, though maybe Egalitarianism does in fact represent egalitarianism and favourite civics don't always represent changes that leaders accomplished. Tolerance is an odd one as well, does it represent de jure secularism or de facto secularism? Does Isolationism require economic isolationism, or is that just an odd result of the civic pulling double duty as both a representation of foreign trade and foreign diplomacy?

In terms of the USA's civic history specifically, it spawns with Democracy, Constitution, Individualism, Free Enterprise, Tolerance, and Isolationism, which I'd say is an accurate description, Washington's favourite Civic is Constitution which is fitting, Lincoln's is Nationhood which as Dracosolon described represents emancipation, and Roosevelt's is Individualism which I'd agree is accurate. I absolutely would not describe any of the USA's forms as running Public Welfare, I'd sooner describe Canada or the UK as such, and the lack of Public Welfare leaderheads for them proves the civic isn't as simple as just "social security + universal healthcare". I don't believe the USA is running Egalitarianism for the reasons described above. Multilateralism fits very well for the post-world war USA, and I wouldn't say the USA is secular quite yet, protestantism still has a strong hold of its national identity as events in recent years have attested.

 

[Hickman888]

My two cents on Civics, regarding America...

I hear some people are puzzled by America starting with Isolationism. I think this is meant to represent things like the Embargo Act, as well as the period of high tariffs/protectionism that characterized the first half of American history. Also, from a gameplay perspective, historical America in this mod needs to war with Britain, France, Spain in order to free North America of European influence. This may also trigger defensive pacts, so you may end up at war with several countries. So running Isolationism to prevent any foreign stability malus, as well as giving a free specialist for not having foreign trade, makes sense.

America starting with Tolerance makes some sense, since all of the original 13 states either had an official church, or required officeholders to be of a certain faith in 1776. However, as is known, the Federal Government via the First Amendment has never had an established religion, and Massachusetts was the last state to abolish its state church, in 1833. So, with the Secularism civic now being accessible to America-at-spawn (moved back from the late-Industrial era, to late-Renaissance), and with the Federal government never having an established church, I think there's a strong argument that America should, by default, start with Secularism.

Washington with a favorite civic of Constitution, and Lincoln with Nationhood is perfect. however, Roosevelt with a favorite civic of Individualism is strange to me, because his New Deal programs were the strongest repudiation of Individualism that America has seen. I think a favorite civic of "Democracy" makes much more sense... Seeing how he was America's only four term president. Clearly, the man enjoyed the democratic process. Also, it better represents America's 20th century quest, continuing now into the 21st century, to make the world safe for democracy.

I'd also argue that virtually the entire Western world has been running both Public Welfare and Egalitarianism since the 20th century, with things like extensive welfare states, emphasis on civil rights, and discrimination laws being the norm. But that's the nice thing about Civics in Civ4; They're vague enough that an argument could be made one way or the other, and the real world is grey enough that we can all have different interpretations of that reality.

 

[Dracosolon]

For favorite civics I think they're also supposed to represent their respective era, so Roosevelt gets it because he's America's Global Era leader.

 

[1SDANi]

My two cents on Civics, regarding America...

I hear some people are puzzled by America starting with Isolationism. I think this is meant to represent things like the Embargo Act, as well as the period of high tariffs/protectionism that characterized the first half of American history. Also, from a gameplay perspective, historical America in this mod needs to war with Britain, France, Spain in order to free North America of European influence. This may also trigger defensive pacts, so you may end up at war with several countries. So running Isolationism to prevent any foreign stability malus, as well as giving a free specialist for not having foreign trade, makes sense.

America starting with Tolerance makes some sense, since all of the original 13 states either had an official church, or required officeholders to be of a certain faith in 1776. However, as is known, the Federal Government via the First Amendment has never had an established religion, and Massachusetts was the last state to abolish its state church, in 1833. So, with the Secularism civic now being accessible to America-at-spawn (moved back from the late-Industrial era, to late-Renaissance), and with the Federal government never having an established church, I think there's a strong argument that America should, by default, start with Secularism.

Washington with a favorite civic of Constitution, and Lincoln with Nationhood is perfect. however, Roosevelt with a favorite civic of Individualism is strange to me, because his New Deal programs were the strongest repudiation of Individualism that America has seen. I think a favorite civic of "Democracy" makes much more sense... Seeing how he was America's only four term president. Clearly, the man enjoyed the democratic process. Also, it better represents America's 20th century quest, continuing now into the 21st century, to make the world safe for democracy.

I'd also argue that virtually the entire Western world has been running both Public Welfare and Egalitarianism since the 20th century, with things like extensive welfare states, emphasis on civil rights, and discrimination laws being the norm. But that's the nice thing about Civics in Civ4; They're vague enough that an argument could be made one way or the other, and the real world is grey enough that we can all have different interpretations of that reality.

I personally very much disagree on the Public Welfare and, assuming you're using Egalitarianism to represent egalitarianism, Egalitarianism, front(s). Western societies are still massively based on capitalism, with any elements of cooperativism or unionism being an exception more than anything, and welfare generally is implemented in nowhere near as large of scales as we saw in Brazil and Scandinavia, the only two Civilizations with Leaders for whom Public Welfare is their favourite Civic, and egalitarianism especially is just not in the slightest a modern western standard, universal suffrage sure, but one look at any government will show you how egalitarian it is. Secularism meanwhile I think largely depends on whether you think a state is secular when its policy just so happens to always align with its majority religion and where a not-insubstantial number of policy decisions are justified using that specific religion and no other policies are ever justified using that religion.

 

[Logoncal]

I would go Tolerance for America, but Secularism? Nah, religion still plays some role in the country.

Also isn't Vargas's civic Free Enterprise in the mod? He literally bought excess coffee to light it on fire.

 

[1SDANi]

I would go Tolerance for America, but Secularism? Nah, religion still plays some role in the country.

Also isn't Vargas's civic Free Enterprise in the mod? He literally bought excess coffee to light it on fire.

Nope, Vargas' civic is Public Welfare, Gerhardsen's too.

 

[Hickman888]

I personally very much disagree on the Public Welfare and, assuming you're using Egalitarianism to represent egalitarianism, Egalitarianism, front(s). Western societies are still massively based on capitalism, with any elements of cooperativism or unionism being an exception more than anything, and welfare generally is implemented in nowhere near as large of scales as we saw in Brazil and Scandinavia, the only two Civilizations with Leaders for whom Public Welfare is their favourite Civic, and egalitarianism especially is just not in the slightest a modern western standard, universal suffrage sure, but one look at any government will show you how egalitarian it is. Secularism meanwhile I think largely depends on whether you think a state is secular when its policy just so happens to always align with its majority religion and where a not-insubstantial number of policy decisions are justified using that specific religion and no other policies are ever justified using that religion.

Well, let's first try to find common ground. I think we can both agree that the West in the 19th century was, by and large, running Free Enterprise? This was when government spending on social programs was near 0% of GDP. If we fast forward to the present time, yes, different countries have different levels of spending, but we can see most major Western countries fall approximately within 20-25% of GDP on social spending. (I was looking at this website.) My point is that while not all countries are playing the "welfare" game as well as France is, they're still clearly playing that game. And they're no longer in the business of getting anywhere close to a social spending level of 0-1% of GDP, as it was in the 19th century. So that was my reasoning behind saying Public Welfare was ubiquitous in the West.

For Egalitarianism, yeah, the Civilopedia is a little vague on its description, and what countries would be examples of it. Which I like, by the way. It lets us use our imaginations, and see our own interpretations of the world through our civ games. I will say, I don't see the Egalitarianism civic as necessarily representing something against capitalism. I see it as representing the laws and rights that the individual has in relation to the rest of society, i.e. emphasis on civil rights and discrimination laws that I mentioned earlier.

 

[1SDANi]

Well, let's first try to find common ground. I think we can both agree that the West in the 19th century was, by and large, running Free Enterprise? This was when government spending on social programs was near 0% of GDP. If we fast forward to the present time, yes, different countries have different levels of spending, but we can see most major Western countries fall approximately within 20-25% of GDP on social spending. (I was looking at this website.) My point is that while not all countries are playing the "welfare" game as well as France is, they're still clearly playing that game. And they're no longer in the business of getting anywhere close to a social spending level of 0-1% of GDP, as it was in the 19th century. So that was my reasoning behind saying Public Welfare was ubiquitous in the West.

For Egalitarianism, yeah, the Civilopedia is a little vague on its description, and what countries would be examples of it. Which I like, by the way. It lets us use our imaginations, and see our own interpretations of the world through our civ games. I will say, I don't see the Egalitarianism civic as necessarily representing something against capitalism. I see it as representing the laws and rights that the individual has in relation to the rest of society, i.e. emphasis on civil rights and discrimination laws that I mentioned earlier.

I was talking about capitalism for Public Welfare. Not really sure how it's relevant for Egalitarianism. I wouldn't say going from 0% to 25% GDP on social spending is a similarly massive change to say, a free market becoming a centrally planned economy or a market trade economy being locked down with various forms of mercantilism or a mercantile economy being opened up to become a free market or so on. Public Welfare just being Free Enterprise with an asterisk doesn't really sound very interesting for a civic. Egalitarianism representing a broad affirmative effort to improve society would work much better than representing universal suffrage or egalitarianism now that you mention it, though I'd say it has the asterisk issue even more than Public Welfare representing programs like the New Deal does. Totalitarianism, Caste System, Slavery, Manorialism, and Individualism are all massively distinct from each other. Having Egalitarianism be Individualism with less institutional racism and sexism seems odd.

 

[Logoncal]

Nope, Vargas' civic is Public Welfare, Gerhardsen's too.

Ah so it was changed. Either that or i Mandela'd myself