What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[Evie]

I mean, as unusual for me as this is, what Luca is asking for here, where the population is subdivided in groups that have varying levels of happiness, is not actually in the game, and is not a mechanic the game has where all citizens are one and the same for happiness.

And even more unusual, I actually do think that happiness being affected by certain very limited demographic factors, with different citizen units having different demographic characteristics and different happiness, is not actually a bad idea.

 

[luca 83]

I mean, as unusual for me as this is, what Luca is asking for here, where the population is subdivided in groups that have varying levels of happiness, is not actually in the game, and is not a mechanic the game has where all citizens are one and the same for happiness.

And even more unusual, I actually do think that happiness being affected by certain very limited demographic factors, with different citizen units having different demographic characteristics and different happiness, is not actually a bad idea.

And logic instead: the population in the game must play a role in being happy or unhappy, rich or poor, and be an active part in the game and in creating riots or revolution

 

[Evie]

I agree with three quarters of that sentence (up to "riots").

The population being the ones to start revolution, while realistic, does not, in my opinion, agree with the kind of game Civilization is. It is not a government simulator.

 

[pokiehl]

Population mechanics could use fleshing out but I can’t see something as in-depth as Victoria has or something working out well with Civ.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Civ3 had a simplified, abstracted version of nationality for each pop point. When a player (A) conquered a city of player (B) for the first time, all of the citizens were tracked as nationality B. Depending on the choice of government, the pop points in that city had a percentage chance to be assimilated into A. Any new citizens (as the population grew) would be A. The local happiness in the city would be affected if player A continued the war against B. And yes, if the city was eventually conquered by another player (C), they would find a mix of A and B citizens.

But the part of this game mechanic that I liked was: given enough turns of player A owning the city, all of the citizens would eventually be A. Indirectly, it reflects that new pop points -- or their children / grandchildren -- would grow up under the A regime and would consider themselves as loyal to A.

 

[Evie]

Oh indeed, we don't want Victoria.

Though Civ of course already essentially has (simplified) pop in the form of citizens that represent a discreet group of the nation's population. It would not be hard and would require very little alteration to what has already been done to give each of the citizen a nationality (Civ III did it), a religion (which would make tracking conversion much simpler), a profession (Laborer for people working tiles, or assorted specialists otherwise) - all within the contexts of the game. And then while luxuries and the like would still generate happiness as normal without regard to demographics, it would not be hard to have certain civics that make certain type of citizens happier or less happy. Riots likewise are something that were in Civ as far back as I as the opposite of We love the King Day.

Most of the groundwork for a simple and straightforward game are already there to add a lot of depth at relatively little complexity costs. They could also be turned into a much more in-depth feature that much of the rest of the game circle around (and some have proposed that), but I don't think the game benefits from going that far.

 

[luca 83]

Oh indeed, we don't want Victoria.

Though Civ of course already essentially has (simplified) pop in the form of citizens that represent a discreet group of the nation's population. It would not be hard and would require very little alteration to what has already been done to give each of the citizen a nationality (Civ III did it), a religion (which would make tracking conversion much simpler), a profession (Laborer for people working tiles, or assorted specialists otherwise) - all within the contexts of the game. And then while luxuries and the like would still generate happiness as normal without regard to demographics, it would not be hard to have certain civics that make certain type of citizens happier or less happy. Riots likewise are something that were in Civ as far back as I as the opposite of We love the King Day.

Most of the groundwork for a simple and straightforward game are already there to add a lot of depth at relatively little complexity costs. They could also be turned into a much more in-depth feature that much of the rest of the game circle around (and some have proposed that), but I don't think the game benefits from going that far.

You continue to underestimate ideology and revolution, revolutions define eras, technology, and forms of government, a revolution must start from the people not from the government and not from the player, the government can make reforms, not the revolutions that are made for the most part by the mass.

 

[luca 83]

Civ3 had a simplified, abstracted version of nationality for each pop point. When a player (A) conquered a city of player (B) for the first time, all of the citizens were tracked as nationality B. Depending on the choice of government, the pop points in that city had a percentage chance to be assimilated into A. Any new citizens (as the population grew) would be A. The local happiness in the city would be affected if player A continued the war against B. And yes, if the city was eventually conquered by another player (C), they would find a mix of A and B citizens.

But the part of this game mechanic that I liked was: given enough turns of player A owning the city, all of the citizens would eventually be A. Indirectly, it reflects that new pop points -- or their children / grandchildren -- would grow up under the A regime and would consider themselves as loyal to A.

Yes a conquered territory becomes ethnically closer to the conquered country ,. but ethnic minorities remain and in the long run can bring unrest for example in Tibet, or in Catalonia ,, or in Belgium, or in trilingual Switzerland

 

[Evie]

I don't misunderstand these things. I understand perfectly well that in reality population matters.

I just don't mistake reality for good game design, or Civ for a government simulator. It is a game, and a game is not limited to reality.

 

[luca 83]

I don't misunderstand these things. I understand perfectly well that in reality population matters.

I just don't mistake reality for good game design, or Civ for a government simulator. It is a game, and a game is not limited to reality.

A good game design simulates a revolution or revolt as a war politics is linked to the government of a nation and the revolution has never been controlled in civ not provoked by the player, such tricks would make the game deeper, more dynamic, more intelligent

 

[Evie]

A good simulator design does this.

Games that aren't simulators don't need to simulate anything. You misunderstand this very badly.

 

[luca 83]

A good simulator design does this.

Games that aren't simulators don't need to simulate anything. You misunderstand this very badly.

It is not about simulating events yes but socio political movements in the population that creates events
revolutions, wars ,

 

[Evie]

That is what simulation is.

 

[luca 83]

That is what simulation is.

Simulation of specific events French , Russian revolution, non-specific social simulation does not necessarily arrive at a revolution and are inderminate, the historical simulation is more determined because it simulates precise events, and preordained

 

[Evie]

That is not how simulator is generally defined. At lesst not in the way english is normally used.

A software that aim to realistically simulate the cause, effect and real ways something works is, by definition, a simulator.

Flight simulators, for example, attempt to replicate all the conditions and variables that affect flight to create as close to a realistic experience of flying a plane as possible. They do not attempt to replicate specific flights.

 

[dagriggstar]

I have made a 'hard dark ages' mod where one of the potential debuffs (for being in a dark age) was to limit amenities from luxuries to 3 cities (making them 25% less effective). In game story terms this represents corruption during a dark age. Part of the idea was that you might have to take an amenity producing policy to compensate. War weariness as a concept is fine but its implementation in 6 is weak, ineffective and nonsensical (It ramps up when you lose units, putting the civ that is already losing the war at more of a disadvantage). In terms of internal revolutions that's the extent of what I'd like to see in game.

I did also enjoy civ 5s endgame play with tourism being able to force revolutions. A system of external pressure causing a revolution I could see as well. I'm toying with an idea to combine diplomatic favour and tourism into the same yield (diplomatic capital ?) that would be the relevant yield for espionage (Bribery from civ II for instance), congress, winning cultural victory etc.

However a revolution driven by the people does not make sense to me in the context of the computer game civilization. We play as the entire civilization, all at once. We do not play as the government, by itself. I play as the people and the government at the same time. Therefore the people always want the thing that I want them to want.

 

[luca 83]

An improvement of the game and AI should have new dynamics first of all the revolutions not made by the player and the overcoming of fixed leaders as representation , no a civilization does not belong to you not and a monolith but something always evolving

 

[Evie]

You said that already.

Many, many, many, many times.

I cannot say the repetition has somehow convinced me, though.

 

[dagriggstar]

a civilization does not belong to you

The name of the game is civilization. You want to play a different game at this point.

Also, if we are not playing as the civilization itself, what are we playing as ?
We obviously aren't the government, because when the government changes we are still in control
We obviously aren't the people, because apparently they drive revolutions against our own wishes
... I'm not sure what else you can say we are playing as ?

 

[luca 83]

A revolution since the times of Romulus and Remus foresees social classes , landowners , peasants, plebs ,middle class , constantly changing between them , 2 a revolution and unpredictable ,both as a result and as an ideology mixing different factors , 3 the government the player is forced or must anyway follow the results of this revolution can also provoke or influence it 4 types of revolt urban , peasant revolt , social, revolution , consequence anarchy and collapse government and state , unpredictable results , 5 dynastic crises , military coup ,