What kind of Government System would you like to see in Civ 7

[_hero_]

Changes should be expensive but they should also be possible. The fact is that most countries in reality massively change their policies over time, but it usually involves major internal conflict. Things like the Bolshevik Revolution or the French Revolution being represented in-game through this would add some depth to the Civ universe. The Civ 4 anarchy system was hinting at that but it was ultimately just too simplistic and not impactful enough to capture the idea.

If they wanted to go in-depth with the idea, they'd need to add a faction system to the game. Each faction would have things they cared about and when you make changes, you risk angering one of the factions. If you anger a faction enough, you can potentially trigger a rebellion or civil war. From the player perspective, you would usually just avoid angering factions but if you really wanted something badly enough you'd have the option to make the change and deal with the fallout.

Adding this sort of internal conflict to the game could also help combat the problem of the game getting boring once you've snowballed to a superpower. I'm not sure if this is the type of nuance they want in a Civ game, but plenty of strategy games have had something similar so it's not that outlandish IMO.

 

[ColtSeavers]

How about policy cards (maybe less in number than Civ VI had) which slowly level up while you have them running? You would be flexible, but you would get the most benefit if you committed to a few central policies suited to your empire.

I'm really surprised that there is acctually someone who really wants to keep the concept of policy cards, since it always made me feel more like playing an generic excel calculator, than a real history simulation (no offense ) I dont think, just reducing the number of cards or leveling them up would accutally change that, since the respective bonusses just feel too random and not embedded in a larger concept, in my point of view.

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t really want to see policy cards return. Whatever system we get, I hope it’s more immersive and impactful.

Government in Civ 6 just became too gamey. Governors made it even worse….there’s nothing fun to me about min-maxing governor bonuses by constantly shuffling them around my cities.

 

[Krajzen]

How about policy cards (maybe less in number than Civ VI had) which slowly level up while you have them running? You would be flexible, but you would get the most benefit if you committed to a few central policies suited to your empire.

I don't like the format of cards to begin with, it's too arcadey board game aestethic and approach

But your idea that "governments" and "policies" level up is very cool one, it would offer interesting tension between using new untested gov forms and keeping to the old traditional ones

Though I still maintain that those games need mainly serious internal dissent, rebellions and revolutions in order to make gov stuff interesting challenge

 

[criZp]

Governments did level up in vanilla civ6 but for some reason the leveling was made so slow that nobody would ever notice it had happened

 

[Xur]

I hope there isn’t a single card system in the game. It’s a stupid system from physical board games. It’s a cop-out and clear sign that a “designer” lacks ideas.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I liked policy cards but, if they do return, I would like to see them be more limited, both in how many there and what governments can use them. I really liked that tier 3 governments had unique cards that only they could use and would like to see that expanded on. I think that there should be government "types" like militaristic, diplomatic, economic, and so on that have unique cards that other government types can't use. So, for example, you use a tier 1 militaristic government and unlock its related cards but then switch to a economic tier 2 government, you can no longer use your militarist government cards. However, you if you switched to a militaristic tier 3 government, you would have access to the militaristic policy cards you unlocked previously since you are once against using that government type. There would also be some universal cards along the lines of Civ6's Serfdom or Colonization. I would also like to see when you change policies reduced in frequency and have to commit to a certain government "build" for a period of time instead being able to change everything every X turns. Maybe have a set number of locked policies that you always have to use one you choose them and maybe one or two free slots that you can occasionally change.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Split the game into two sections for governments. The first part is from the start of the game until the begins of the 'modern' era. Your typical civ government system where you choose a government. You accumulate assigned 'government type' points for decisions you make, policies you use, buildings your build, wars your wage, religions you build, etc..

The second part beginning in the modern era you are assigned a government type based on the points you have accumulated You still accumulate points and your government type can change based on your point total.

Modern government types:
Dictatorship / Fascism. You did not have enough points to get any of the better governments, you were a warmonger, or mismanaged a better government. No bonus and penalties to getting great people. No restrictions on what kind of wars can be started. Nuke away.
Kingdom. Need Religious points. Bonus to Trade and can have religious tourism. Military penalties. Needed for Religious Victory (maybe..)
Democracy. Must maintain equal mix of points of all kinds. Bonus to Science and Military. Can start certain types of wars and penalties for being at war.
Communism. Need Industrial Points. Get choice of bonus to science, military, or trade. Can start certain types of war, no penalties for being at war
Socialism. Need cultural points. Bonus to Trade and Culture. Can't start wars, penalties for being at war

 

[uppi]

I'm really surprised that there is acctually someone who really wants to keep the concept of policy cards, since it always made me feel more like playing an generic excel calculator, than a real history simulation (no offense ) I dont think, just reducing the number of cards or leveling them up would accutally change that, since the respective bonusses just feel too random and not embedded in a larger concept, in my point of view.

I don't see Civ as a history simulation, because ... it does not simulate history. It is not history when I meet America on turn 5. I want to play a game first and a game needs meaningful choices.

I do agree that links between policies could be nice so that there is more coherence (and restrictions in the decision space). Similar to SMAC, each policy could have a value attached (in addition ot their main effect, e.g. liberal vs authoritarian) and the combined sum of all of these also has an affect.

I don't like the format of cards to begin with, it's too arcadey board game aestethic and approach

But your idea that "governments" and "policies" level up is very cool one, it would offer interesting tension between using new untested gov forms and keeping to the old traditional ones

Though I still maintain that those games need mainly serious internal dissent, rebellions and revolutions in order to make gov stuff interesting challenge

What do you object to? The flexibility or the representation as "cards". In the end, pretty much anything where you need to make a choice can be seen as slots, the question is just whether there are any of the same type.

I don't like the pressure to constantly swap out policies for optimal play, so I would welcome some kind of dissent mechanic. For example a cooldown until a switched policy actually has an effect

 

[Krajzen]

Split the game into two sections for governments. The first part is from the start of the game until the begins of the 'modern' era. Your typical civ government system where you choose a government. You accumulate assigned 'government type' points for decisions you make, policies you use, buildings your build, wars your wage, religions you build, etc..

The second part beginning in the modern era you are assigned a government type based on the points you have accumulated You still accumulate points and your government type can change based on your point total.

Modern government types:
Dictatorship / Fascism. You did not have enough points to get any of the better governments, you were a warmonger, or mismanaged a better government. No bonus and penalties to getting great people. No restrictions on what kind of wars can be started. Nuke away.
Kingdom. Need Religious points. Bonus to Trade and can have religious tourism. Military penalties. Needed for Religious Victory (maybe..)
Democracy. Must maintain equal mix of points of all kinds. Bonus to Science and Military. Can start certain types of wars and penalties for being at war.
Communism. Need Industrial Points. Get choice of bonus to science, military, or trade. Can start certain types of war, no penalties for being at war
Socialism. Need cultural points. Bonus to Trade and Culture. Can't start wars, penalties for being at war

That's an incredibly interesting idea I have never seen before.

My main problem is that it makes modern political regimes emerge too fluently, as a "peaceful natural evolution" "predetermined by culture" as opposed to real life coups, revolutions, civil wars, people's agency, leaders etc. Especially regarding communism.

Maybe we'd do it slightly differently: the points accumulated make some of those regimes very easy to accept in the modern era, while others require far greater "price" to pay, up to "if you want to make this radical change you can, but soon you'll have obligatory civil war to deal with".

 

[Naeshar]

I see a clear design intent behind policies as they exist in Civ6 right now.

How about policy cards (maybe less in number than Civ VI had) which slowly level up while you have them running? You would be flexible, but you would get the most benefit if you committed to a few central policies suited to your empire.

And this is absolute oposite of what they offer - flexibility, immediate and strong effect, showing and leading player intent. With policies starting weak and levelling player will be discouraged to ever change them according to needs/situation, like sudden but inevitable war, and will focus the whole government and policy system right from the start according to his game plan. Swapping out a leveled policy will feel bad, unless the new policy is stronger right from the start, which can be strong powercreep. Also, how would you level additional worker charges?
The accumulating bonus was tried with government legacy bonuses, but abandoned in the first expansion. Perhaps it was in the wrong location, but shows the point that their ramp-up was either invisible or irrelevant.

I like how the policy system works. It facilitates bonuses or modifiers that suit your current needs (tactical). The presentation as cards is clear, as either tablets with laws or books of decrees. Players engage with the system almost subconsciously.
But the criticism that it is wrong to simply swap out significant laws with a sweep of hand is correct.

What if the government had its long-standing laws that would become stronger each turn, but keeps minor policies (decrees) that grant temporary bonuses and perhaps get gradually weaker instead? Suggesting system corruption and the need for change of focus regularly?
Imagine this as having a long-lasting training focus that increases your military production by 1% each turn (as a choice between military, culture and wonderbuilding), while having additional policy that increase cavalry production by another 50%, but each unit produced reduces this by 10% down to 10%.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don't see Civ as a history simulation, because ... it does not simulate history. It is not history when I meet America on turn 5. I want to play a game first and a game needs meaningful choices.

I do agree that links between policies could be nice so that there is more coherence (and restrictions in the decision space). Similar to SMAC, each policy could have a value attached (in addition ot their main effect, e.g. liberal vs authoritarian) and the combined sum of all of these also has an affect.

I disagree on this, just look how popular the World Maps/ TSL are, they have even included them in the base game by now. And even if you see Civ "only" as a form of alternative history, immersion was and is always key element. Switching generic policy cards back and forth however, just doesn't cut it.

 

[nakzox]

I'd like government choice to have effects beyond just bonuses. Traditionally, more democratic governments have given bonuses on trade or diplomacy, and non-democratic governments have given bonuses to military. In either case though, no matter how 'democratic' you are, you are still the immortal god-emperor of your nation controlling every aspect of it. I'd like the different governments to actually play differently. Like if you choose a democratic government you deal with some loss of control. If your government has a federalism component, perhaps your cities can no longer be directly managed, the AI governor does it. Or every X turns there is an election and the new 'government' changes policies and priorities around. Different parties will have different agendas, and you can try to influence the election, but ultimately you have to deal with the results (or if you are tired of letting the plebs boss you around, then dissolve the republic and go back to a dictatorship to take full control).

I'd also be interested in seeing some popular sentiment when it comes to government. Like after you invent the printing press you receive a happiness penalty under non-democratic forms of government, etc. Though if you suffer a few military defeats or have problems with the economy, then the people will start clamoring for dictatorship.

Changes should be expensive but they should also be possible. The fact is that most countries in reality massively change their policies over time, but it usually involves major internal conflict. Things like the Bolshevik Revolution or the French Revolution being represented in-game through this would add some depth to the Civ universe. The Civ 4 anarchy system was hinting at that but it was ultimately just too simplistic and not impactful enough to capture the idea.

If they wanted to go in-depth with the idea, they'd need to add a faction system to the game. Each faction would have things they cared about and when you make changes, you risk angering one of the factions. If you anger a faction enough, you can potentially trigger a rebellion or civil war. From the player perspective, you would usually just avoid angering factions but if you really wanted something badly enough you'd have the option to make the change and deal with the fallout.

Adding this sort of internal conflict to the game could also help combat the problem of the game getting boring once you've snowballed to a superpower. I'm not sure if this is the type of nuance they want in a Civ game, but plenty of strategy games have had something similar so it's not that outlandish IMO.

I like these ideas, but I don't know if they are right for a game like Civ, where the player is essentially the god-emperor and essentially in control of everything. These ideas seem more suited to a Paradox-like grand strategy game. All in all, I would love for governments to be more than just clicking one and assigning the best cards or just following a policy tree, but I am unsure what the best solution is.

 

[uppi]

I see a clear design intent behind policies as they exist in Civ6 right now.

And this is absolute oposite of what they offer - flexibility, immediate and strong effect, showing and leading player intent. With policies starting weak and levelling player will be discouraged to ever change them according to needs/situation, like sudden but inevitable war, and will focus the whole government and policy system right from the start according to his game plan. Swapping out a leveled policy will feel bad, unless the new policy is stronger right from the start, which can be strong powercreep. Also, how would you level additional worker charges?
The accumulating bonus was tried with government legacy bonuses, but abandoned in the first expansion. Perhaps it was in the wrong location, but shows the point that their ramp-up was either invisible or irrelevant.

I like how the policy system works. It facilitates bonuses or modifiers that suit your current needs (tactical). The presentation as cards is clear, as either tablets with laws or books of decrees. Players engage with the system almost subconsciously.
But the criticism that it is wrong to simply swap out significant laws with a sweep of hand is correct.

What if the government had its long-standing laws that would become stronger each turn, but keeps minor policies (decrees) that grant temporary bonuses and perhaps get gradually weaker instead? Suggesting system corruption and the need for change of focus regularly?
Imagine this as having a long-lasting training focus that increases your military production by 1% each turn (as a choice between military, culture and wonderbuilding), while having additional policy that increase cavalry production by another 50%, but each unit produced reduces this by 10% down to 10%.

In my opinion, the government options should be more strategic than tactical and should follow a game plan. Which does not mean there is no place for a few tactical options as well.

A bit of power creep as you go along the (cultural) tech tree is not a bad thing. Ideally, the game would be balanced in such a way that early game policies (even leveled) need to be replaced at some point, but you should be reluctant to do so because you could milk them for just a few more turns.

I disagree on this, just look how popular the World Maps/ TSL are, they have even included them in the base game by now. And even if you see Civ "only" as a form of alternative history, immersion was and is always key element. Switching generic policy cards back and forth however, just doesn't cut it.

It is not even alternate history. Even on a TSL map, there will be nothing remotely similar to history. History is the flavor for the game. Which is good and important, but it is more important that the game is good.

But to each their own. I am not a huge fan of TSL maps, but if other people enjoy them, they are free to do so.

 

[Leyrann]

I would like to see a real existing system of governments, of which there are only two types: Monarchy, Republic. You choose your government, and then throughout the game you develop your government. Development could occur through the choice of one of the parameters, divided into groups. Over time, the number of parameters will increase. If you want to subsequently change the parameter selection to another (for example: from Plutocracy to Meritocracy), you need to perform a Reform.

For example:

For the monarchy:

Legitimacy: Divine right (known as theocratic monarchy), or Laws (known as a constitutional monarchy) , or Charisma.
Succession of Power: Succession to the Throne or Elections
Territory: Unitarism or Federalism
And other parameters.

For the republic:

Form: Stratocracy, or Plutocracy, or Theocracy (known as theocratic republic), or Meritocracy, or Democracy
Core of power: Leader (known as presidential system) or Parliament (known as parliamentary system)
Elections: Universal Suffrage or Census Suffrage
Territory: Unitarism or Federalism
And other parameters.

Also, governments will definitely influence each other as Ideologies in Civilization 5. And if your country is more successful than another, the people of the other country will want your type of government.

Things aren't that simple though. For example, the Netherlands are a monarchy... but also a democracy. Which isn't possible in your suggestion.

In either case though, no matter how 'democratic' you are, you are still the immortal god-emperor of your nation controlling every aspect of it. I'd like the different governments to actually play differently. Like if you choose a democratic government you deal with some loss of control.

Actually, Civ II (and maybe also I and/or III?) did this. And. It. Was. Awful.

If you were a democracy, whenever your enemy would ask for peace, your parliament would overrule you if you refused, and forced peace anyway. Have fun trying to run a military campaign.

And no, "democracies don't want war" isn't an argument. Like, just look at what the USA has been doing the past century.

-

Personally, I'd like to see a system at it's core inspired by Civ IV. Obviously, twenty years of advances in game development would add quite a bit of sophistication to such a system, and I think that'd work out really well.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

If they keep policy cards, an idea I just had is to make certain universal cards either weaker or stronger depending on the government type, instead of making them unavailable.

Also, there should be more unique cards per government.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

So I'd say something that has more long-term implications than 6 does would be useful, but at the same time, probably not as rigid as those earlier versions.

100% agree, perhaps the legacy cards should automatically be part of your government.

 

[OzzyKP]

Things aren't that simple though. For example, the Netherlands are a monarchy... but also a democracy. Which isn't possible in your suggestion.



Actually, Civ II (and maybe also I and/or III?) did this. And. It. Was. Awful.

If you were a democracy, whenever your enemy would ask for peace, your parliament would overrule you if you refused, and forced peace anyway. Have fun trying to run a military campaign.

And no, "democracies don't want war" isn't an argument. Like, just look at what the USA has been doing the past century.

-

Personally, I'd like to see a system at it's core inspired by Civ IV. Obviously, twenty years of advances in game development would add quite a bit of sophistication to such a system, and I think that'd work out really well.

Obviously they could go in that direction and do it better than Civ2. More nuanced and not just a blunt hammer.

 

[Heinage]

I'd like government choice to have effects beyond just bonuses. Traditionally, more democratic governments have given bonuses on trade or diplomacy, and non-democratic governments have given bonuses to military. In either case though, no matter how 'democratic' you are, you are still the immortal god-emperor of your nation controlling every aspect of it. I'd like the different governments to actually play differently. Like if you choose a democratic government you deal with some loss of control. If your government has a federalism component, perhaps your cities can no longer be directly managed, the AI governor does it. Or every X turns there is an election and the new 'government' changes policies and priorities around. Different parties will have different agendas, and you can try to influence the election, but ultimately you have to deal with the results (or if you are tired of letting the plebs boss you around, then dissolve the republic and go back to a dictatorship to take full control).

I'd also be interested in seeing some popular sentiment when it comes to government. Like after you invent the printing press you receive a happiness penalty under non-democratic forms of government, etc. Though if you suffer a few military defeats or have problems with the economy, then the people will start clamoring for dictatorship.

Agree with all of this. Would be very interesting to see your government type fundamentally changing certain mechanics of the game for you

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Personally, I feel there needs to be more customization. Maybe make standard governments that give legacy bonuses that are basic, while making other alternative versions with much stronger abilities that gimp the player in other areas, make it so that there is a government that gives the player a bonus for going tall, but gives them penalties for going wide (and a malus to settler production).