What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[BuchiTaton]

No,in the Marxist theory foresees first a bourgeois revolution, then a class struggle between the exploited and the exploiters, the revolution , the dictatorship of the proletariat and then a classless society , but in the game realism you will have in the game a communist one-party society with a bureaucratic system and state ownership of the means of production factories , land, shops , houses

By the way Communism is already a regular government type in CIV, so what are the gameplay implications and mechanics of your idea of Communism on game?
Time for you to actually aport something with form instead of throw vague and disconnected ideas without a meaningfull aplication.

Political ideologies should be in civ VII very much defined especially fascism and communism : with advantages and disadvantages . Monarchies should also be called absolutist,? Liberals, mps,? Totalitarian ? A monarchy with a pmosle primo prime minister, republic, oligarchy , parliamentarian, dictatorial? Aristocrat ? Example Lithuania, presidentialist? by universal suffrage?

Again Communism is an ideal model for political parties not a government applied in reality, even the so called "communist" countries are officialy Socialist not Communist. I dont have problem with CIV using the name Communism but under your own complains there are big differences between Soviet Russia and North Korea that in practice have a "divine-like" dynasty of leaders (something you keep ignoring).

For example the popular image of the USSR can be represented by a mix of:
- REPUBLIC (main civic) + Federalism (minor civic)
- OLIGARCHY (main civic) + Authoritarian (minor civic)
- SOCIALIST (main civic) + Bureaucratic (minor civic)
So we get the Socialist socioeconomic ideals, the union of republics, a Politburo of the unique party with a Premier, the oppresive militar/police/inteligence apparatus. Same could be done with the many forms of Monarchy, and the best part is that this is from my suggestion for a system with actual mechanics with their own flavor for every main aspect of your society, something that can be used in game.
Of course is far from be ideal but at least is not just a demand to put something more complex that Vic3 in CIV.

 

[luca 83]

By the way Communism is already a regular government type in CIV, so what are the gameplay implications and mechanics of your idea of Communism on game?
Time for you to actually aport something with form instead of throw vague and disconnected ideas without a meaningfull aplication.

Again Communism is an ideal model for political parties not a government applied in reality, even the so called "communist" countries are officialy Socialist not Communist. I dont have problem with CIV using the name Communism but under your own complains there are big differences between Soviet Russia and North Korea that in practice have a "divine-like" dynasty of leaders (something you keep ignoring).

For example the popular image of the USSR can be represented by a mix of:
- REPUBLIC (main civic) + Federalism (minor civic)
- OLIGARCHY (main civic) + Authoritarian (minor civic)
- SOCIALIST (main civic) + Bureaucratic (minor civic)
So we get the Socialist socioeconomic ideals, the union of republics, a Politburo of the unique party with a Premier, the oppresive militar/police/inteligence apparatus. Same could be done with the many forms of Monarchy, and the best part is that this is from my suggestion for a system with actual mechanics with their own flavor for every main aspect of your society, something that can be used in game.
Of course is far from be ideal but at least is not just a demand to put something more complex that Vic3 in CIV.

No communism is a system in which there is no property private property and economy and planned , five-year plans , kolcoz in Swedish or Nordic socialism there is much welfare state but the private property are respected. Oligarchy, what kind: economic in the case of mercantile state Venice for example , in a communnist state burecracy High , dictatorship as government, common property, as legal law centralized economy, under government section single party government, ideal communism: internationalism collectivism work system ,

 

[AffineConstant]

No communism is a system in which there is no property private property and economy and planned , five-year plans , kolcoz in Swedish or Nordic socialism there is much welfare state but the private property are respected. Oligarchy, what kind: economic in the case of mercantile state Venice for example , in a communnist state burecracy High , dictatorship as government, common property, as legal law centralized economy, under government section single party government, ideal communism: internationalism collectivism work system ,

That's the communist "ideal". In reality everyone has their own stuff, it's just the same money (it was called the Soviet Ruble during Soviet times, still just money) their own private property (registering villages as communal property in Communist China didn't make one house any less someone's just because it was officially otherwise) and instead of free markets you get mostly state control and state companies. Economists don't even talk about communism as such, it's just who runs the markets and how many laws the markets have. EG "communism" wasn't "public property", instead it might be "your house is yours but you just can't sell it to anyone", thus a law governing how markets operate. But any and all attempts to stop a market system have ended miserably as it's just how people operate, given the opportunity and enough people they just set this system up themselves.

Which is why it'd be helpful to reflect such in Civ VII, economics is probably the most undertaught subject in schools world wide. It's a science with a nobel prize but people are left to speculate wildly on the same failed systems over and over again as it's just a subject that's not taught, those who don't learn from history and all that. If economics and politics is to be separate branches in VII an effort to reflect reality would probably do more to educate players than most any public school they've ever received.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's the communist "ideal". In reality everyone has their own stuff, it's just the same money (it was called the Soviet Ruble during Soviet times, still just money) their own private property (registering villages as communal property in Communist China didn't make one house any less someone's just because it was officially otherwise) and instead of free markets you get mostly state control and state companies. Economists don't even talk about communism as such, it's just who runs the markets and how many laws the markets have. EG "communism" wasn't "public property", instead it might be "your house is yours but you just can't sell it to anyone", thus a law governing how markets operate. But any and all attempts to stop a market system have ended miserably as it's just how people operate, given the opportunity and enough people they just set this system up themselves.

Which is why it'd be helpful to reflect such in Civ VII, economics is probably the most undertaught subject in schools world wide. It's a science with a nobel prize but people are left to speculate wildly on the same failed systems over and over again as it's just a subject that's not taught, those who don't learn from history and all that. If economics and politics is to be separate branches in VII an effort to reflect reality would probably do more to educate players than most any public school they've ever received.

"If all the economists in the world were stretched out in a line, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion."

There's a reason it's called "The Dismal Science" - it makes an equally dismal class, as I discovered by sitting through several.

A great deal of the Soviet "Communist" economy ran on what is called elsewhere the Black Market. For instance, the paid workers on the State and Collective Farms were allowed to have a small garden plot that they could plant and work on their own time (which was minimal: in the 1940s Collective Farmers were required to work well over 50 hours per week with only one day off, and then only if planting and harvesting were over). Those little garden plots produced over half of all the vegetables in the Soviet food system, mostly sold by individuals from the Collectives taking them into the nearest town/city and hawking them from carts or trucks. It was so useful that all the authorities simply ignored it, because it was, after all, purest capitalism and embarrassing evidence of the abject failure of Sovietized agriculture - but it was also, at times, the difference between starvation and survival for the towns.

 

[luca 83]

That's the communist "ideal". In reality everyone has their own stuff, it's just the same money (it was called the Soviet Ruble during Soviet times, still just money) their own private property (registering villages as communal property in Communist China didn't make one house any less someone's just because it was officially otherwise) and instead of free markets you get mostly state control and state companies. Economists don't even talk about communism as such, it's just who runs the markets and how many laws the markets have. EG "communism" wasn't "public property", instead it might be "your house is yours but you just can't sell it to anyone", thus a law governing how markets operate. But any and all attempts to stop a market system have ended miserably as it's just how people operate, given the opportunity and enough people they just set this system up themselves.

Which is why it'd be helpful to reflect such in Civ VII, economics is probably the most undertaught subject in schools world wide. It's a science with a nobel prize but people are left to speculate wildly on the same failed systems over and over again as it's just a subject that's not taught, those who don't learn from history and all that. If economics and politics is to be separate branches in VII an effort to reflect reality would probably do more to educate players than most any public school they've ever received.

Back to the game. the collective property system refers to Marxism Leninism to the class struggle and to the theory of world revolution , not to the proto , communism, therefore is not compatible communism of Marxist mold , with the theocracy and monarchy classes according to Marx to be overthrown

 

[Evie]

Dismal Science is only a misnomer in that it still has Science in it. In most ways Economics is a humanity more concerned with pretending to be a Science than with actually producing quality scholarship. Verifiable experimental predictions are not their forte.

And while we're at it, they don't actually have a real Nobel prize - not one of the prizes created by Alfred Nobel. There are five of those: Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature and Peace, and for seven decades after his death that's all there was. The so-called Economics Nobel only appears at the end of the sixties, was created and funded by the Swedish Central Bank "in memory of" Alfred Nobel, and its full name is the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Some living relatives of Nobel were rather less than happy about the use of their ancestor's name and memory.

Now back on to Luca: I tend to actually agree that if there was a civic or policy or ideology called Communism, you probably shouldn't be able to have a monarchy at the same time.

But Civ IV doesn't have monarchy, either. It has Hereditary Rule. And the Kim family would like very much to point out that, yes, you can have Communism and Hereditary Rule at the same time.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The real relevance in game terms of the inflexible deffinition for Communism that @luca 83 wants is that it would mean a fixed set of civics, so your whole government would be defined by a politic faction in disregard of player preference or strategy and obviously without any natural narrative development of your macht.
It is again a deterministic "how we simulate X historical event..." demand. And excuse me but I think more people here are asking for a customizable government/social system not the the imposition of your whole civics by an inescapable historical force.

 

[Evie]

Yeah. I'm open to religions/ideologies (two sides of the same coin still to me) requiring one specific mandatory civic, or punishing one or two specific prohibited civics, but that's about as far as it should go. Doing it that way still gives over a hundred specific combinations each ideology can use, not counting the default civics. (1x3x3x4x4).

An ideology dictating your entire selection of civic would render civics entirely useless, and bring us right back to the Civ I-III scenario of having only a limited selection of governments with no customization options.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My enduring memory of economics as a 'science' is the professor declaiming that 'this rule applies-" only if you ignored all reality and every reality-based variation from a strict and limited set of criteria. Two classes was all I could stand of that without running from the room screaming . . .

Religions/Ideologies, both being dogmatic in their application and argument, should be precisely defined by a single civic/policy - and changing them should require adopting a brand new civic/policy and require a lot of work and potential Upset in your Civ.

Where those dogmas infect Government/politics, however, Variables abound. National Religions or Ideologies, no matter how they advertise themselves, tend to develop 'tics' - witness the differences among so-called Monolithic Communist states like Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. They were so monolithic that China fought wars with both Vietnam and the Soviet Union, so there is ample evidence that Ideology should be modified by individual policies or civics in each civilization/state/faction. The number of variations in religions is even more stunning, even when they supposedly have a single hierarchy - the actual working structure of the French Catholic church was and is not at all the same as that of the Spanish, Austrian or any of the German Catholic churches, and even among the major divisions of Islam into Sunni, Shia and Sufi there are dozens of variations. - And I remember a Comparative Religion professor covering two blackboards with different sects and types of Buddhism: every religion branches, it seems, everytime it changes countries or cultures . . .

 

[dagriggstar]

Start in the ancient era with 2 policy slots for your government.
Use culture points earnt during the current (example ancient) era to unlock more policy slots for the next (Classical) era. For example for every 100 culture points earnt, you get 1 policy slot for your government for the next (Classical) era. This does not stack with slots already earned from previous eras (For the classical era, if you 'advance' with 101 culture points for the entire classical era you will have only 1 slot)
To progress into the next era, you "click up" yourself, with like a "societal reform" button. This is when you will be able to use the slots you have earned in the previous era.
The culture cost of unlocking slots varies based on era/empire size etc.

You cannot progress through eras with technology. Instead each era has many (like 40 ?) technologies per era with the expectation you will not research all of them. There is however (strong) Tech diffusion, but it only applies to civs in the same era.

So you can advance more quickly but with less bonuses for the next era. Tactically, it could be smarter to delay era advancement to unlock more policy cards and slingshot past those that advanced before you. By delaying, you also get the tech diffusion boost towards anything that the 'more advanced' factions have researched, but they don't get tech diffusion towards anything you researched from the previous era while they were 'ahead' (For example, you might go through 8 technologies and unlock ocean going vessels in the ancient era BUT an opponent that advanced eras earlier than you will have to research a similar technology later in the game to unlock that ability).

Optional stuff (That I'm on the fence about myself)
You can only change policies at the start of a new era (after hitting the reform/age up button).
When you reform you pick a government and that determines the pool of policies you can implement
Replace leader abilities with leader favourite policy mechanic. When you play as a certain leader if you implement that leaders favourite policy you get double the benefit from that policy and extra yields from trade routes with other factions with that policy.

 

[luca 83]

The real relevance in game terms of the inflexible deffinition for Communism that @luca 83 wants is that it would mean a fixed set of civics, so your whole government would be defined by a politic faction in disregard of player preference or strategy and obviously without any natural narrative development of your macht.
It is again a deterministic "how we simulate X historical event..." demand. And excuse me but I think more people here are asking for a customizable government/social system not the the imposition of your whole civics by an inescapable historical force.

communism is dogmatic by its very nature after the period of wartime communism it went to nep a more liberalized economy but then under stalin it went back to a harder communism . but under nep however the party was single maybe there was more internal debate more factions but still single party . explain to me instead how monarchy , state property , theocracy . can they coexist? you can't understand or you don't want to understand ideologies wars in the twentieth century were fought mostly on ideology , fascism -COMMUNISM first capitalism - COMMUNISM then . for the last time north korea is not a monarchy , kim the sung is still the president for life although dead kim jong un is head of the commission , military , and central committee , maybe north korea is permeated with confucian ideology but it is not a monarchy ,

 

[pokiehl]

i ttuly

communism is dogmatic by its very nature after the period of wartime communism it went to nep a more liberalized economy but then under stalin it went back to a harder communism . but under nep however the party was single maybe there was more internal debate more factions but still single party . explain to me instead how monarchy , state property , theocracy . can they coexist? you can't understand or you don't want to understand ideologies wars in the twentieth century were fought mostly on ideology , fascism -COMMUNISM first capitalism - COMMUNISM then . for the last time north korea is not a monarchy , kim the sung is still the president for life although dead kim jong un is head of the commission , military , and central committee , maybe north korea is permeated with confucian ideology but it is not a monarchy ,

I have read a lot of your posts and I don’t have a clue as to how you see your ideas being implemented in the game. It seems like you just keep insisting that the game should “simulate” political ideology but I can’t follow your thoughts beyond that.

I think it’d be helpful if your posts stopped being a blanket prescription (the game should do this…the game must do that) and instead you took the time to show us how your ideas would play out.

 

[Evie]

No, North Korea is not a monarchy.

But it has hereditary rule by the Kim family, and the civic in Civ IV is *hereditary rule*.

It's no one's fault but yours that you insist on falsely equating civics to specific real world governments.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Start in the ancient era with 2 policy slots for your government.
Use culture points earnt during the current (example ancient) era to unlock more policy slots for the next (Classical) era. For example for every 100 culture points earnt, you get 1 policy slot for your government for the next (Classical) era. This does not stack with slots already earned from previous eras (For the classical era, if you 'advance' with 101 culture points for the entire classical era you will have only 1 slot)
To progress into the next era, you "click up" yourself, with like a "societal reform" button. This is when you will be able to use the slots you have earned in the previous era.
The culture cost of unlocking slots varies based on era/empire size etc.

You cannot progress through eras with technology. Instead each era has many (like 40 ?) technologies per era with the expectation you will not research all of them. There is however (strong) Tech diffusion, but it only applies to civs in the same era.

So you can advance more quickly but with less bonuses for the next era. Tactically, it could be smarter to delay era advancement to unlock more policy cards and slingshot past those that advanced before you. By delaying, you also get the tech diffusion boost towards anything that the 'more advanced' factions have researched, but they don't get tech diffusion towards anything you researched from the previous era while they were 'ahead' (For example, you might go through 8 technologies and unlock ocean going vessels in the ancient era BUT an opponent that advanced eras earlier than you will have to research a similar technology later in the game to unlock that ability).

Optional stuff (That I'm on the fence about myself)
You can only change policies at the start of a new era (after hitting the reform/age up button).
When you reform you pick a government and that determines the pool of policies you can implement
Replace leader abilities with leader favourite policy mechanic. When you play as a certain leader if you implement that leaders favourite policy you get double the benefit from that policy and extra yields from trade routes with other factions with that policy.

The 'Ages' are an artificial game construct to begin with: the whole world never went into the same 'age' at the same time, no matter how you define the ages/eras. Therefore, making more artificial restrictions on age progression is just a recipe for frustrating the gamer: giving them more artificial hoops to jump through and artificial 'progress' to an artificial goal.

So, rather than say 'you cannot progress through eras with technology" say that Each Era you are aiming for will require different paths and accomplishments. It is inane to have an Iron or Bronze Age without having the technology of bronze or iron working. Equally, it would require a convoluted bit of logic to require some Technology to reach an Age of Philosophy, Faith, or Enlightenment. None of those are, so to speak, "technology driven".

Rather than give the (human) gamer some tactical advantage to manipulating the Era progression, make each Era also come with a certain amount of Upheaval: new Faiths, Technologies, Philosophies are not comfortable for those going through a re-arrangement of their industry, economy, church and state, and that discomfort is frequently expressed violently or with some other negatives towards their leadership that got them into This Mess - even if the leadership had little to do with it. In other words, every transition in Eras/Ages should come with a Social/Civic/"Happiness" Cost. Likewise, many technologies should come with similar Costs, because, as examples, an Iron Age is going to upset all the bronze and brass workers, an Industrial Age will change the entire set of skills required in the workforce, and new philosophies/faiths can be guaranteed to upset everyone satisfied with the old philosophies/faith.

This base concept ties in with some of your thoughts:
Governments don't change voluntarily, as a rule: change of government, then, would be made necessary by the disruption caused by adopting new Technologies, Civics, Faiths, Philosophies, and especially by engaging a new Era which embodies several of those.
Policies/Civics should be, in many cases, specific to certain types of governments: expecting a civic of Universal Suffrage under an Absolute Monarchy requires 1984-type Doublespeak (or the 1937 Stalinist Soviet Constitution, an extremely liberal document that was, of course, utterly ignored by Stalin and his government!)
Leader abilities have become a Core Part of Civ, but leaders can also have a preferred Civic/Policy (or several) that gives them extra goodies. A goal, perhaps, should be that every Leader in the game could have a Unique Unit, Building, Improvement, District or a bonus to special circumstances regarding those (perhaps 2 - 3 out of the total of possibilities?) and certain Wonders, and a Favorite Policy/Civic. A government that combines a Unique (or more than one) and a Favorite for the same Leader would be especially powerful for that Leader - like a Royal Palace unique Wonderous Improvement and Civic of Central Control all under an Absolute Monarchy type of government - Louis XIV, the French government as organized by Richelieu, and Versailles anyone?

 

[luca 83]

No, North Korea is not a monarchy.

But it has hereditary rule by the Kim family, and the civic in Civ IV is *hereditary rule*.

It's no one's fault but yours that you insist on falsely equating civics to specific real world governments.

You do not understand the ideology instead they explain to you: collective property and connected to politics the public ownership of the means of production and the first phase of the construction of communism , the dictatorship of the. Proletariat led by an elite of people the vanguard party of the proletariat, this system areadegenerated into bureaucracy , and cult of personality under Stalin . But it is inconceivable a hereditary monarchy with a sovereign chosen to inherit , as a theocracy : under Stalin the churches were destroyed : the soviet communist system , central committee , Politburo , How can it be equated with a system where according to Marx the bourgeoisie and capitalism rule?

 

[Evie]

Does North Korea have hereditary rule, or not?
Does North Korea have state ownership of the means of production, or not?

Two yes-no questions. Two simple answers. Can you provide that, or will you once again ignore reality to deliver a wall of text on your notions of ideological purity?

 

[luca 83]

Does North Korea have hereditary rule, or not?
Does North Korea have state ownership of the means of production, or not?

Two yes-no questions. Two simple answers. Can you provide that, or will you once again ignore reality to deliver a wall of text on your notions of ideological purity?

no, North Korea is not a monarchy and a Maoist-style bureaucratic state with many Confucian influences such as the class system for those who are more faithful, but it is not a monarchy like. England and Spain, and Sweden with a ruler who rules from father to son and a formal dynasty, and an imposed dictatorship,

 

[Evie]

The question did not say "monarchy".

It asked whether North Korea has hereditary rulership. These are not the same words.

But your refusal to answer the actual question speak for itself. This is not a court of law, and inferences can be drawn from your choice to remain silent.

 

[luca 83]

The question did not say "monarchy".

It asked whether North Korea has hereditary rulership. These are not the same words.

But your refusal to answer the actual question speak for itself. This is not a court of law, and inferences can be drawn from your choice to remain silent.

Yes but it is not automatic and formally recognized , the Kim family and recognized as head of state by the authority of Kim the sung as a fighter and especially put in power by the Soviets, nothing more than a puppet state

 

[luca 83]

even the republic of Florence which before Alessandro de Medici was a republic even if the Medici were always in power or the Empire of Rome where Augustus' successors were in power. I am talking about a true monarchy recognized as a monarchy, not a fictitious monarchy.