What leaders and/or nations do you want in Civilization VII?

[Patine]

Good point: graphics have more impact than game mechanics and will spark a reaction every time.

On the other hand, no Nationalist/Guard unit should be an upgrade or conversion of a regular military unit. In every case they were derived from non-military organizations and created to supplement or supplant the regular military because the fascists wanted armed groups utterly loyal to their movement rather than the state - before, of course, they gained control of the state themselves. Even after becoming the state, though, they kept much of their 'guard' independent of the regular military - Mussolini's army even had separate 'Black Shirt' fascist units alongside its own infantry in the infantry divisions, while of course the German SS were kept separate in administration and control from the German Wehrmacht.

So, no 'upgrades', just Additional Units. As @Alexander's Hetaroi posted, maybe make the graphic unit icon a combination of, say, a police-type armored car and marchers with banners and Chartreuse, Puce and Vermilion uniforms to indicate their distinctly non-military, street thug origins.

They could be done like, "Fanatics," for the, "Fundamentalism," Government type in Civ2. They aren't an upgrade, but an extra slot with no upgrade to or from. They aren't that high quality, at all, but their benefit is much more favourable in terms of cost to support while you keep that form of Government.

 

[Evie]

Yes, I couldn't help but think of the Civ 2 fanatics while all this discussion was going on.

And I agree, ideological UUs, if they exist at all, should be truly unique units, (of which there are already quite a few in Civ 6 - Maryannu, War Cart, Saka Horse Archer, Varu, Crouching Tiger, Keshig, Malon Raider, Mountie...), not replacement units.

Nor do they all need to be military units.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

On ideologies in the next game, i can see these:
Chiefdom
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Republic
Theocracy
Capitalism
Colonialism (does this work?)
Communism
Fascism
Socialism
Democracy
Technocracy
Anarchy

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Patine and @Evie, to answer you both at once:

The Ideological Uniques, as stated, don't have to be very good, but could be generated by political/civic choices rather than Production, so would have the great advantage of being 'free' (or at least, Cheap) in normal military Production terms.

And even ideological Unique military units should all also have a Security Function - in Civ VI terms, enforcing Loyalty in both regular military units and cities (civilian population).

In fact, a primary characteristic of any ideology that desires to change people's actions and motivations - and that includes both Fascism and Communism in virtually all their forms - is a large and pervasive Security Apparatus. People do not labor happily for the good of the State or the Great Leader without constant and explicit reminders of the alternative to Willing Loyalty.

The Soviet Union's NKVD (Ministry of Internal Security) forces at the beginning of WWII numbered over 500,000, and at full mobilization during the war, the NKVD comprised up to 10% of the armed troops in the country, almost all aimed against their own citizens rather than the enemy.

Both ideologies should carry with them the great Malus of having to support such security forces just to remain in existence for any length of time.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Fascism

Why isn't a error represent fascism as a game mechanic?

 

[Patine]

Why isn't a error represent fascism as a game mechanic?

What exactly are you asking as being an error? Having Fascism as a Government type or Policy is NOT necessarily an error (though, like a couple of other posters, I believe such a portrayal should be generic, and not specific to how it manifested in one specific country - and it's most infamous manifestation by far). What IS the problem is having a unique unit attached to it that is an objective upgrade and portrays some objective quality of superior method of waging war that is is intrinsic to Fascism as an ideology or Government form, especially centred on it's most infamous manifestation, singularly. That is, a romaniticization of the concept, almost, and a highly unrealistic and inaccurate one, at that. The same philosophy I would say should definitely be applied to portrayals of Communism and Theocracy.

 

[Starina]

What exactly are you asking as being an error? Having Fascism as a Government type or Policy is NOT necessarily an error (though, like a couple of other posters, I believe such a portrayal should be generic, and not specific to how it manifested in one specific country - and it's most infamous manifestation by far). What IS the problem is having a unique unit attached to it that is an objective upgrade and portrays some objective quality of superior method of waging war that is is intrinsic to Fascism as an ideology or Government form, especially centred on it's most infamous manifestation, singularly. That is, a romaniticization of the concept, almost, and a highly unrealistic and inaccurate one, at that. The same philosophy I would say should definitely be applied to portrayals of Communism and Theocracy.

Deep. This makes one wonder: what is fascism really? Its causes and consequences. How to apply it to the game?
There is no clear generally accepted definition and different researchers give their own definition. Personally, I find these conclusions at the end to be the most reasonable (English subtitles are available)

Spoiler :

Italian fascism. Mussolini and the corporate state.
02:19:01

 

[Patine]

Deep. This makes one wonder: what is fascism really? Its causes and consequences. How to apply it to the game?
There is no clear generally accepted definition and different researchers give their own definition. Personally, I find these conclusions at the end to be the most reasonable (English subtitles are available)

Spoiler :

Italian fascism. Mussolini and the corporate state.
02:19:01

In current socio-political rhetoric and polemics, both Fascist and Communism are very often labels for name-calling and mudslinging, unfortunately.

 

[Henri Christophe]

What exactly are you asking as being an error?

I was wondering, if have slavery as a game mechanic is something wrong, why isn't also wrong have fascism as a game mechanic.
all cases of human history where had fascists at the power was an evil thing.

 

[Patine]

I was wondering, if have slavery as a game mechanic is something wrong, why isn't also wrong have fascism as a game mechanic.
all cases of human history where had fascists at the power was an evil thing.

Slavery in any implicit form as a game mechanic is also something I'm against. I mean, obviously it's assumed to be folded into worker units and labour and building infrastructure and gathering resources in earlier epochs, but it shouldn't be marked, in-game, as something of it's own, mechanically, as I see it.

 

[pineappledan]

Still think this ought to be a different thread, or its own thread.

 

[Patine]

Probably. I was going to let it drop, but was answering @Starina and @Henri Christophe's specific questions. I have no vested interest in carrying on with this, myself.

 

[Evie]

Answering the question *in the context of this thread*, Henri, the obections have always been to making specific civilization and their unique unit/buildings out of of *slavers*. Specifically, the objection have largely been to using slavers, the Bandeirantes, as Brazilian UU, and to including a kingdom as a civ whose principal claim to power was their role as slavers in the trans-atlantic trade.

"Don't glorify slavers by building a civ around them" and "don't mention slavery at all" are two very different things.

 

[pineappledan]

Which is weird, because literally every member of the triangle trade except the African nations has been in multiple titles. Portugal’s history in particular is about as defined by the Atlantic slave trade as the Congo’s is. Actually Portugal is probably most guilty of any party involved, since they basically invented and then ran the bulk of the transportation for centuries. If I recall, the original Atlantic slave plantations were set up in São Tomé and Principe by the Portuguese using their own Jewish population, and only switched to importing Africans after they had worked the Jews to death.

Also, if being slavers was disqualifying, why would they keep making slavers an Ottoman unique component (UU in civ 6, UA in civ 5), using limited slots specifically to depict the Barbary coast slave trade? There’s a lot of other Ottoman history, yet they keep doing that.

Edit: yup, Jewish children were the OG plantation slaves after a policy of family separation from the inquisition. Kicked the parents out of the country and then shipped their kids to an Atlantic island to work them to death.

Edit edit: I forgot that the Aztec UU in civ 6 is also depicting slave labor.

 

[Evie]

But Portugal as a civ can be represented in a way that doesn't focus on being slavers.

Given its shorter, more limited history, representing Dahomey without including slavery is much harder, whereas finding less slavery-focused West African nation is considerably easier. Especially so when the argument made for including Dahomey often actually *includes* "we should have them because representing the slaver states is good". (The rest of the time it"s "amazong as UU")

All that said, I'm okay with Dahomey if we get a design that does not refer to their role as slaver in any part of the civ.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But Portugal as a civ can be represented in a way that doesn't focus on being slavers.

Given its shorter, more limited history, representing Dahomey without including slavery is much harder, whereas finding less slavery-focused West African nation is considerably easier. Especially so when the argument made for including Dahomey often actually *includes* "we should have them because representing the slaver states is good". (The rest of the time it"s "amazong as UU")

All that said, I'm okay with Dahomey if we get a design that does not refer to their role as slaver in any part of the civ.

Thanks for remember about Dahomey, I have it in mind when talk about slavery as a game mechanic.
Since Dahomey was also know as the slavery coast, make a lot of sense it have some sort of ability related with slavery.
But, as Portugal, Dahomey could be design without any slave correlation if the community really decided slavery should be a taboo at this game.
In my personal opnion an ability of sell population of it's own city it's more then enought to represent slavery. It's population retain it's faith, it should be a cool way to tell how african religions spreads on Americas.
Speaking about religion, a civ as Dahomey (or even Haiti) should be desegin around Voodoo elements, since it's very unique of theses people.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Deep. This makes one wonder: what is fascism really? Its causes and consequences. How to apply it to the game?

I don't think we should make it anything more than a late game ideology/government that is primarily geared towards a domination victory.

Thanks for remember about Dahomey, I have it in mind when talk about slavery as a game mechanic.
Since Dahomey was also know as the slavery coast, make a lot of sense it have some sort of ability related with slavery.
But, as Portugal, Dahomey could be design without any slave correlation if the community really decided slavery should be a taboo at this game.
In my personal opnion an ability of sell population of it's own city it's more then enought to represent slavery. It's population retain it's faith, it should be a cool way to tell how african religions spreads on Americas.
Speaking about religion, a civ as Dahomey (or even Haiti) should be desegin around Voodoo elements, since it's very unique of theses people.

Instead of making a pro-slavery civ like Dahomey, why not make an anti-slavery civ like Haiti, with those same religious elements?
Similar to Abraham Lincoln in Civ 6, slavery is referenced with the loyalty malus from plantations, without giving it actual positive elements.

 

[Patine]

The thing about slavery is it's FAR MORE pernicious and ubiquitous in human history than just the Atlantic Triangle chattel slavery by an IMMENSE margin. Virtually no society in history with need for cheap, mass, unskilled labour - for real projects or luxuriant living - has not had it as a legal and economic institution at some point in their history under some guide or mechanism. It is a despicable underpinning of most of the human species, and focusing on the Atlantic Triangle as though it were the only relevant example is misguided, at best. Avoiding making more of it than an implied folding into workers of past ages is the best way all around in Civ. Almost all of us in this world have the proverbial ancestral whip in our hand - including most of more or less pure African descent...

 

[FishFishFish]

But, as Portugal, Dahomey could be design without any slave correlation if the community really decided slavery should be a taboo at this game.

It would be rather difficult, Dahomey cannot be separated from Slavery like other civilizations. The rise of the Dahomey directly coincided with the growth of the slavery in region. Dahomey was essentially built on the slave trade; kings used profits from the slavery to get guns, which in turn were used to expand their kingdom by conquest and incorporation of smaller kingdoms.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Instead of making a pro-slavery civ like Dahomey, why not make an anti-slavery civ like Haiti, with those same religious elements?
Similar to Abraham Lincoln in Civ 6, slavery is referenced with the loyalty malus from plantations, without giving it actual positive elements.

Why not both?

It would be rather difficult, Dahomey cannot be separated from Slavery like other civilizations. The rise of the Dahomey directly coincided with the growth of the slavery in region. Dahomey was essentially built on the slave trade; kings used profits from the slavery to get guns, which in turn were used to expand their kingdom by conquest and incorporation of smaller kingdoms.

Yes, you are right the rise and fall of Dahomey is linked with slavery.
But I still thinking is possible to do a Dahomey empire avoiding this thema, but, don't will be a bad thing to speak about slavery at this game and the transatlantic slave trade was the most famous and most influent on West hemisphere and should to have a place at this game.