What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[luca 83]

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 ?

I suggest ideas suitable for a new, modern type of ai, I do not speak of the color of monteczuma's thong or I suggest obscure pre-Columbian civilizations as a new civilization where and the novelty Moderna? In this ! Mine is Modern , rational game, in line with the new technology of ai brought to smarter and more dynamic choices

Moderator Action: Please stop the trolling. leif

 

[luca 83]

Council Post: The Impact Of AI On Strategy Games

Here are four key ways AI technology will impact the future of strategy game development.

www.forbes.com

 

[pokiehl]

I do not speak of the color of monteczuma's thong

No one has discussed leader appearances in this subforum in quite a while.

You, however, have used that exact same exaggerated example over and over again while repeating the exact same proclamations about politics and revolutions with the exact same rationale and the exact same examples and the exact same lack of any suggestion as to how this might fit into the game.

Your posts just make me feel like I’m on the receiving end of a very superficial lecture about history. All I get out of it is that you strongly feel the game “must” simulate this or that aspect of history. You’ve ground your axe here so thoroughly for months on end, yet I am still clueless on what your ideas could even mean in the game. You don’t engage with anyone’s challenges or questions about your ideas—you just repeat the same thing. And on top of it all, posts like the one I’ve quoted have an unpleasant, condescending attitude.

We’re in an Ideas subforum, but frankly your style of communication is not conducive to sharing and discussing ideas.

 

[luca 83]

Council Post: The Impact Of AI On Strategy Games

Here are four key ways AI technology will impact the future of strategy game development.

www.forbes.com

With new technologies, it will probably be possible to simulate aspects of warfare, diplomacy, and popular movements more deeply: thus more choices, and many more combinations and possibilities with an improved ai will hopefully be all the better,

A revolution always creates different scenarios: so it never gets boring, the internal politics make the game more realistic and deeper, and educational, and beautiful

No one has discussed leader appearances in this subforum in quite a while.

You, however, have used that exact same exaggerated example over and over again while repeating the exact same proclamations about politics and revolutions with the exact same rationale and the exact same examples and the exact same lack of any suggestion as to how this might fit into the game.

Your posts just make me feel like I’m on the receiving end of a very superficial lecture about history. All I get out of it is that you strongly feel the game “must” simulate this or that aspect of history. You’ve ground your axe here so thoroughly for months on end, yet I am still clueless on what your ideas could even mean in the game. You don’t engage with anyone’s challenges or questions about your ideas—you just repeat the same thing. And on top of it all, posts like the one I’ve quote have an unpleasant, condescending attitude.

We’re in an Ideas subforum, but frankly your style of communication is not conducive to sharing and discussing ideas.

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 ready mypost

No one has discussed leader appearances in this subforum in quite a while.

You, however, have used that exact same exaggerated example over and over again while repeating the exact same proclamations about politics and revolutions with the exact same rationale and the exact same examples and the exact same lack of any suggestion as to how this might fit into the game.

Your posts just make me feel like I’m on the receiving end of a very superficial lecture about history. All I get out of it is that you strongly feel the game “must” simulate this or that aspect of history. You’ve ground your axe here so thoroughly for months on end, yet I am still clueless on what your ideas could even mean in the game. You don’t engage with anyone’s challenges or questions about your ideas—you just repeat the same thing. And on top of it all, posts like the one I’ve quoted have an unpleasant, condescending attitude.

We’re in an Ideas subforum, but frankly your style of communication is not conducive to sharing and discussing ideas.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

When it comes to Industrial Era. there came political forks, 'which system should we use next'... even 'Democracy' at this time doesn't use Universal Suffrage. So when did Universal Suffrage trumps over limited enfranchisements? is there any political events at any point that prove or disproves the notion 'only those contributed to society can vote, and only quality voters vote towards prosperious nation, poor voters vote for national impoverisations'? a notion that backs 'Apartheid' system (which 'The Whistlers' faction in Thailand proposed a Neo-Apartheid system to be used here).

 

[luca 83]

When it comes to Industrial Era. there came political forks, 'which system should we use next'... even 'Democracy' at this time doesn't use Universal Suffrage. So when did Universal Suffrage trumps over limited enfranchisements? is there any political events at any point that prove or disproves the notion 'only those contributed to society can vote, and only quality voters vote towards prosperious nation, poor voters vote for national impoverisations'? a notion that backs 'Apartheid' system (which 'The Whistlers' faction in Thailand proposed a Neo-Apartheid system to be used here).

It was a gradual process from the census to only educated people to universal suffrage but it does not have to be so , for example the electoral system counts a lot the so-called system of putrid villages changed the electoral composition , in Italy the scam law of the 50s was a scandal, because considered a trick to give the majority to the Christian democracy



player cannot arbitrarily choose peace and war or political choices even in an absolutist regime the game desperately needs internal political dynamics popular movements, public opinions that create events oppurtinita, or misfortunes the division among the population there is always been hunters, gatherers, patricians, plebeians, bourgeois, merchants, nobles in the Middle Ages, it is the bourgeois who contributed to making the revolution: the player cannot arbitrarily choose the government. But it is influenced by events, ideologies, individual actions of men, this naturally contradicts the player's will to govern for centuries, which is why historical dynamics and internal dynamics are needed

How could a modern AI simulate a revolution? that can simulate the greatest number of possibilities?

 

[luca 83]

How can a revolution affect the player? Creating a movement that forces the player to execute the form of government , formed by the revolution? Can the player control it ? Or modify it? And how does it reconcile with the player's eternity ?

 

[luca 83]

wish to know how a fundamental historical dynamic and constant how the revolution must be dealt with in the game, since the revolution, in escata by the player and unrealistic because the revolution is unpredictable and uncontrollable of whatever kind it is and precedes and even defines an era and creates or destroys political systems,: the French revolution destroyed the monarchy, and created the republic, then became empire ,the English revolution created the Commonwealth , it created Moderna English constitutional monarchy

 

[vorlon_mi]

OK, I'm re-entering the discussion. I had an idea to bridge the gap: an idea to try to implement what Luca keeps talking about (over... and over... and over) using game mechanics that are similar to what we've seen in Civ games before. It doesn't give him everything he wishes for, but perhaps it's worth talking about.

Disclaimer 1: I personally would not find this proposed game much fun. I'm offering it as a possibility. Judge for yourself whether *you* would find it fun, in a 4X game.
Disclaimer 2: Earlier in my career, I wrote computer programs to solve problems in my job. Even earlier, I studied engineering at university, where I learned about approximations, building models, and the compromises and tradeoffs which MUST happen in every project.

First, the old ideas I would like to reuse:

1. In Civ3, individual pop points (citizens) in a city were tracked with certain attributes. What nationality they were, whether they were happy/content/unhappy/rebelling, whether they were a specialist or not.
2. In Civ4, the tiles on the map were tracked with certain attributes,including a nationality or mixture of nationalities. Ownership of the tile might shift due to cultural pressure.
3. In Civ4, production of Great People was influenced by the presence and identity of specialists in a city, as well as the construction of certain buildings or wonders. The probability of producing a particular GP varied. Indeed, players were frequently surprised when a Great X appeared when they were expecting/hoping it would be a Great Y.
4. In Civ5, as Krajzen wrote (way back in post 212), the sentiment of the the people for one ideology can be influenced by the actions of neighbors who follow another ideology.

My proposal is to model the beliefs of the pop points in the civilization to include their religion, their nationality, and some approximation of their class (field worker/merchant/landowner/ruler) and eductation. To work towards Luca's vision of a next gen AI, the net value of each pop point could be an average of sub groups. If each pop point "represents" 1000 individuals, give them non-integer / floating point numbers to represent those attributes. Their happiness, or conversely their desire for change, could reflect a number of internal and external factors. For example, building something like a Commercial Hub with multiple buildings could lead to more merchants in a city; more tendencies towards free market civics; less favorable to heavy taxation. One can think of similar examples if the player builds many mines and something like an Industrial Zone with its buildings.

Here's my new idea: the rebellion index. Think of the per-city happiness in Civ3 (where sometimes riots/disorder happened) or the per-city happiness and healthiness in Civ4 (where rebellion or sickness could occur). Now INVERT that -- the individual pop points (or the finer grained averages) will start getting grumpy over time. They will eventually ask for change in a civic, policy, or government attribute. The tendency for *which* change they will request will depend on a blend of factors (Civ4 GP, Civ4 tiles) and may include some suprises. If the player has a whole bunch of factory workers in the Industrial Age, with insufficient representation, they may agitate for some form of socialism or collectivism. If the player has engaged in many miiitary operations, not always succeeding, the population may agitate away from fascism. If the player has many foreign citizens who follow a different religion, the population may demand religious reform.
Lastly, the grumpiness / anger / possiblity of rebellion increases as the city size grows larger.

The player would need to respond to these challenges by either: changing the policies/civics, constructing certain buildings or improvements, adopting a different religion (as in Civ4), or diplomatic measures -- signing treaties, trade agreements, or alliances. The challenges would vary be era and the evolution of the civ. The numbers that go into the calcuation of the rebellion index would change with era, with techs researched, with cultural devices adopted. Depending on how they're balanced, more than one source of discontent could arise at the same time.

Approximations: No, it's not true machine learning. It's not modern AI. It's a potential method of abstracting culture, ideologies, and attitudes which is more multivariate than we've had before. Numerical calculations are still pretty fast, so the impact on turn times should be tolerable. Sorry, Luca, I can't think of a way to get *all* of what you asked for. But it's a path to get there.

 

[luca 83]

OK, I'm re-entering the discussion. I had an idea to bridge the gap: an idea to try to implement what Luca keeps talking about (over... and over... and over) using game mechanics that are similar to what we've seen in Civ games before. It doesn't give him everything he wishes for, but perhaps it's worth talking about.

Disclaimer 1: I personally would not find this proposed game much fun. I'm offering it as a possibility. Judge for yourself whether *you* would find it fun, in a 4X game.
Disclaimer 2: Earlier in my career, I wrote computer programs to solve problems in my job. Even earlier, I studied engineering at university, where I learned about approximations, building models, and the compromises and tradeoffs which MUST happen in every project.

First, the old ideas I would like to reuse:

1. In Civ3, individual pop points (citizens) in a city were tracked with certain attributes. What nationality they were, whether they were happy/content/unhappy/rebelling, whether they were a specialist or not.
2. In Civ4, the tiles on the map were tracked with certain attributes,including a nationality or mixture of nationalities. Ownership of the tile might shift due to cultural pressure.
3. In Civ4, production of Great People was influenced by the presence and identity of specialists in a city, as well as the construction of certain buildings or wonders. The probability of producing a particular GP varied. Indeed, players were frequently surprised when a Great X appeared when they were expecting/hoping it would be a Great Y.
4. In Civ5, as Krajzen wrote (way back in post 212), the sentiment of the the people for one ideology can be influenced by the actions of neighbors who follow another ideology.

My proposal is to model the beliefs of the pop points in the civilization to include their religion, their nationality, and some approximation of their class (field worker/merchant/landowner/ruler) and eductation. To work towards Luca's vision of a next gen AI, the net value of each pop point could be an average of sub groups. If each pop point "represents" 1000 individuals, give them non-integer / floating point numbers to represent those attributes. Their happiness, or conversely their desire for change, could reflect a number of internal and external factors. For example, building something like a Commercial Hub with multiple buildings could lead to more merchants in a city; more tendencies towards free market civics; less favorable to heavy taxation. One can think of similar examples if the player builds many mines and something like an Industrial Zone with its buildings.

Here's my new idea: the rebellion index. Think of the per-city happiness in Civ3 (where sometimes riots/disorder happened) or the per-city happiness and healthiness in Civ4 (where rebellion or sickness could occur). Now INVERT that -- the individual pop points (or the finer grained averages) will start getting grumpy over time. They will eventually ask for change in a civic, policy, or government attribute. The tendency for *which* change they will request will depend on a blend of factors (Civ4 GP, Civ4 tiles) and may include some suprises. If the player has a whole bunch of factory workers in the Industrial Age, with insufficient representation, they may agitate for some form of socialism or collectivism. If the player has engaged in many miiitary operations, not always succeeding, the population may agitate away from fascism. If the player has many foreign citizens who follow a different religion, the population may demand religious reform.
Lastly, the grumpiness / anger / possiblity of rebellion increases as the city size grows larger.

The player would need to respond to these challenges by either: changing the policies/civics, constructing certain buildings or improvements, adopting a different religion (as in Civ4), or diplomatic measures -- signing treaties, trade agreements, or alliances. The challenges would vary be era and the evolution of the civ. The numbers that go into the calcuation of the rebellion index would change with era, with techs researched, with cultural devices adopted. Depending on how they're balanced, more than one source of discontent could arise at the same time.

Approximations: No, it's not true machine learning. It's not modern AI. It's a potential method of abstracting culture, ideologies, and attitudes which is more multivariate than we've had before. Numerical calculations are still pretty fast, so the impact on turn times should be tolerable. Sorry, Luca, I can't think of a way to get *all* of what you asked for. But it's a path to get tr

They should have a basic ideology of the factory workers towards socialism or conuninism the traders towards liberalism or capitalism even an indefinitely apolitical or white population would not be bad, I am sorry for all those who think it is victory but it is the only solution if you really want a government to influence the population and vice versa . The real problem is in my opinion how to reconcile the fact that you, the player, governments 1000 years and more while evolving civilization and governments and ideology , you can not be monarchical and then an uncompromising communist, or Democratic, in games like tropico lose the elections , even in the Sim Cit. You can do below a certain popularity lose the game but it does not justify the immortality of the leader :: how can a leader only live millennia? But a less personalized game? Where you don't check everything in detail : after all, what does a housekeeper know about a market in a small town? One could indrodudre ministers who deal with individual problems, transport, industry, military , economy, and let the people manage the rest , port is not managed by the state directly, even improvements can not be made only by the state cevun limit to the management of the state or always thought that the limit of management is that. Take for example an economic management system the aim of the player is to make money, but with complete management games you, the player manage everything economy, military, politics, etc
They should have a basic ideology of the factory workers towards socialism or conuninism the traders towards liberalism or capitalism even an indefinitely apolitical or white population would not be bad, I am sorry for all those who think it is victory but it is the only solution if you really want a government to influence the population and vice versa . The real problem is in my opinion how to reconcile the fact that you, the player, governments 1000 years and more while evolving civilization and governments and ideology , you can not be monarchical and then an uncompromising communist, or Democratic, in games like tropico lose the elections , even in the Sim Cit. You can do below a certain popularity lose the game but it does not justify the immortality of the leader :: how can a leader only live millennia? But a less personalized game? Where you don't check everything in detail : after all, what does a housekeeper know about a market in a small town? One could indrodudre ministers who deal with individual problems, transport, industry, military , economy, and let the people manage the rest , port is not managed by the state directly, even improvements can not be made only by the state cevun limit to the management of the state or always thought that the limit of management is that. Take for example an economic management system the aim of the player is to make money, but with complete management games you, the player manage everything economy, military, politics, etc

 

[luca 83]

as with the colonial revolutions of the 18th century in North America and South America, dynamics must be created where the population for various reasons decides to rebel against the mother country, I accept suggestions and a fundamental dynamic

 

[vorlon_mi]

In post 250, where you quoted my thoughts, I believe that you accidentally double-pasted the same text twice.

Let me focus on a few passages to respond -- you wrote
but it is the only solution if you really want a government to influence the population and vice versa

I agree with you, mostly. If the goal is to have people respond to the government, and the government respond to the people, then we must use some in-game tools for tracking what the population points think, feel, and favor.

Next, you wrote ...
The real problem is in my opinion how to reconcile the fact that you, the player, governs 1000 years and more while evolving civilization and governments and ideology

In my opinion, that's not a problem. The human player, in a video game, will be the driving force throughout the whole game. In every game in the franchise, starting from Civ1, the goal of the human player has been "to build an empire that will stand the test of time." The human player, from start to finish, is responsible for making decisions for the empire. It's the very soul of the game. The human player has different tools for managing the empire, different ways of organizing that empire, different military tactics to use. These tools are drawn from history, but they will always be used by the player, for good or for ill.

This idea of a single, immortal leader really seems to bother you. You wrote ...
You can do below a certain popularity lose the game but it does not justify the immortality of the leader :: how can a leader only live millennia?

For me, this is not a huge issue. The "leader" has been chosen to be an avatar, an abstracted version of certain traits, to give flavor to the civilization that the human (or AI) has chosen to play. If the human player intends to play the game through all the eras, Ancient Age through Industrial to Information and Future, then the human will need an avatar or "public face" for the whole game. It's a requirement.
For example, take Hammurabi of Babylon. To me, it makes no difference whether the avatar is called Hammurabi in all the ages, or whether the name changes every 80 years, because the leader has died. What additional fun is provided by saying that the Babylonian leader "Hammurabi the 12th has died and is succeeded by Hammurabi the 13th"? That would need to be repeated approx. 80 times, to cover the game period of 4000 BCE to 2050 CE. Where's the benefit?

Here's a really interesting point you made ...
One could introduce ministers who deal with individual problems, transport, industry, military , economy, and let the people manage the rest

This question -- how much is automated, how much is managed by the human player -- has been around since the earliest games in the franchise. Multiple games have offered a tradeoff between automation and human player micromanagement. Many humans who are just learning a Civ game will choose an automated option. Many experienced players -- especially on these forums -- love to learn how to be MORE effective or efficient than the automation. Which option is better, meaning more fun? BOTH!! The game needs to appeal to both groups of people, since both will spend money to buy the game.
Taking the automation even further, one could think of the population points in a city who are merchants deciding *on their own* to build a Market or Bank in their Commercial Hub. Some players would find that fun. Some players would not want to give up their role as empire builder to let that happen.

For that to be fun, the human player would still need to be able to give high-level, less-specific guidance to the ministers. "Defense minister: begin a buildup of our forces. I want to invade neighbor X so that we can secure additional coal and oil. Culture minister: trade some of our great works with neighbor Y, so our people will be happier. Economy minister: conserve cash, so that we can afford a larger army. Avoid trading with neighbor X, so they will be weaker." And it would need to work! My past experience with automation is that it is much, much less effective in delivering results than the human player making those decision.

Summary: Yes, the ideas of grass roots uprisings, or people driven innovations, is attractive. I'm not sure that it would make Civ7 more fun to play.

 

[luca 83]

In post 250, where you quoted my thoughts, I believe that you accidentally double-pasted the same text twice.

Let me focus on a few passages to respond -- you wrote
but it is the only solution if you really want a government to influence the population and vice versa

I agree with you, mostly. If the goal is to have people respond to the government, and the government respond to the people, then we must use some in-game tools for tracking what the population points think, feel, and favor.

Next, you wrote ...
The real problem is in my opinion how to reconcile the fact that you, the player, governs 1000 years and more while evolving civilization and governments and ideology

In my opinion, that's not a problem. The human player, in a video game, will be the driving force throughout the whole game. In every game in the franchise, starting from Civ1, the goal of the human player has been "to build an empire that will stand the test of time." The human player, from start to finish, is responsible for making decisions for the empire. It's the very soul of the game. The human player has different tools for managing the empire, different ways of organizing that empire, different military tactics to use. These tools are drawn from history, but they will always be used by the player, for good or for ill.

This idea of a single, immortal leader really seems to bother you. You wrote ...
You can do below a certain popularity lose the game but it does not justify the immortality of the leader :: how can a leader only live millennia?

For me, this is not a huge issue. The "leader" has been chosen to be an avatar, an abstracted version of certain traits, to give flavor to the civilization that the human (or AI) has chosen to play. If the human player intends to play the game through all the eras, Ancient Age through Industrial to Information and Future, then the human will need an avatar or "public face" for the whole game. It's a requirement.
For example, take Hammurabi of Babylon. To me, it makes no difference whether the avatar is called Hammurabi in all the ages, or whether the name changes every 80 years, because the leader has died. What additional fun is provided by saying that the Babylonian leader "Hammurabi the 12th has died and is succeeded by Hammurabi the 13th"? That would need to be repeated approx. 80 times, to cover the game period of 4000 BCE to 2050 CE. Where's the benefit?

Here's a really interesting point you made ...
One could introduce ministers who deal with individual problems, transport, industry, military , economy, and let the people manage the rest

This question -- how much is automated, how much is managed by the human player -- has been around since the earliest games in the franchise. Multiple games have offered a tradeoff between automation and human player micromanagement. Many humans who are just learning a Civ game will choose an automated option. Many experienced players -- especially on these forums -- love to learn how to be MORE effective or efficient than the automation. Which option is better, meaning more fun? BOTH!! The game needs to appeal to both groups of people, since both will spend money to buy the game.
Taking the automation even further, one could think of the population points in a city who are merchants deciding *on their own* to build a Market or Bank in their Commercial Hub. Some players would find that fun. Some players would not want to give up their role as empire builder to let that happen.

For that to be fun, the human player would still need to be able to give high-level, less-specific guidance to the ministers. "Defense minister: begin a buildup of our forces. I want to invade neighbor X so that we can secure additional coal and oil. Culture minister: trade some of our great works with neighbor Y, so our people will be happier. Economy minister: conserve cash, so that we can afford a larger army. Avoid trading with neighbor X, so they will be weaker." And it would need to work! My past experience with automation is that it is much, much less effective in delivering results than the human player making those decision.

Summary: Yes, the ideas of grass roots uprisings, or people driven innovations, is attractive. I'm not sure that it would make Civ7 more fun to play.

And a matter of historical vision :the player can not choose to be communist or fascist or monarchist because he wants or because he believes in that ideology , arethe historical processes the events to lead to different choices the events lead to name the eras the game should be less personalized and more focused on events , however remains the problem of the player as Deus and mach machina , the leaders already explained them : Peter the great not and Lenin , Frederick II. Not and Hitler and too personalized, Peter the Great represents, the Romanov dynasty, Lenin Bolshevik communism, you can not unite them into one leader these ideology serves to make the game less personalized by introducing ideologies and. Forcing the player to make political , economic , cultural choices in the course of the game

 

[vorlon_mi]

And a matter of historical vision :the player can not choose to be communist or fascist or monarchist because he wants or because he believes in that ideology , arethe historical processes the events to lead to different choices the events lead to name the eras the game should be less personalized and more focused on events

That's your opinion. In the reality of the game, the player CAN choose to follow whatever ideology the player wishes. That is player agency. It is part of the game. Players are not forced to conform to specific choices or policies or governments.

Each player may build their empire to follow their own choices. Indeed, it is a core feature of the Civ franchise to allow the player to make different choices each time they play. It is both possible, and encouraged, to play Mali to pursue a Science victory one time, or a Domination victory another time, or a Diplomatic victory another time.

 

[Evie]

Player agency is not just part of the game, it is essential to the very concept of *a* game. If players don't have agency, then they aren't playing the game: they're just reading a vaguely interactive encyclopedia.

You can make the steps to get there more complicated, and require more work from the player, but you cannot simply say "the player cannot chose what happens". If the player cannot chose what happens, then what you have isn't a game.

 

[luca 83]

Player agency is not just part of the game, it is essential to the very concept of *a* game. If players don't have agency, then they aren't playing the game: they're just reading a vaguely interactive encyclopedia.

You can make the steps to get there more complicated, and require more work from the player, but you cannot simply say "the player cannot chose what happens". If the player cannot chose what happens, then what you have isn't a game.

A more impersonal view with limited choices but you can still influence events like the suzerians a good strategic game: it is not enough to choose a government, monarchical , communist, fascist, you have to explore all the dynamics of these systems, but in a political not personal way, a tree of technologies like Heart of iron and a possibility but limited and does not solve - widespread government in every aspect, in every single city , for example I do not agree that you choose how many citizens, have, how many, merchants, scientists , you as a government give a percentage of the budget for science and then, the ministers the governors , the universities, take care of the distribution, through all political politics

 

[Evie]

Nowhere near enough player agency to even qualify as a game.

You have a reasonable grasp of history, but you still fail to see what the very notion of a *game* is about.

 

[luca 83]

A more impersonal view with limited choices but you can still influence events like the suzerians a good strategic game: it is not enough to choose a government, monarchical , communist, fascist, you have to explore all the dynamics of these systems, but in a political not personal way, a tree of technologies like Heart of iron and a possibility but limited and does not solve - widespread government in every aspect, in every single city , for example I do not agree that you choose how many citizens, have, how many, merchants, scientists , you as a government give a percentage of the budget for science and then, the ministers the governors , the universities, take care of the distribution, through all political politics

No and wrong the total control of civilization the player cannot be free to choose communism because he wants it revolution progress, science, philosophy are historical processes, many of which are not controllable, a government a state controlled by the player and absurd if civilization and a game on the evolution of a civilization a minimum of historical process must have it!

 

[Evie]

The player can and should be free to chose communism, although there may be steps or difficulties involved. That's what agency is.

What you propose is a hyper detailed simulator, which, fair enough, but it remains far too limiting of the players role to be meaningfully considered a game. Having players stuck on railroad and only able to chose one direction over another at railroad switch is not agency, it's work.

 

[luca 83]

The player can and should be free to chose communism, although there may be steps or difficulties involved. That's what agency is.

What you propose is a hyper detailed simulator, which, fair enough, but it remains far too limiting of the players role to be meaningfully considered a game. Having players stuck on railroad and only able to chose one direction over another at railroad switch is not agency, it's work.

the choice of governments ele causes of a revolution are historical processes8 causes and effect the march on rome was a set of events and decisions , for example the king's rfifiuse to sign the decree of emegency , which would have prevented the fascists from marching on rome , a god player who chooses governments at his will is ridiculous . railroads were built by private and state funds in france and italy france . , germany , england and then nationalized in part . there is also a lack of national and local private entrepreneurship the theater in palermo was built by the florios the statue of liberty by private funds the mit in boston was built by private , in the middle ages it was the rich and nobles who built churches , universities , museums there is a lack of private initiative

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)the choice of governments ele causes of a revolution are historical processes8 causes and effect the march on rome was a set of events and decisions , for example the king's rfifiuse to sign the decree of emegency , which would have prevented the fascists from marching on rome , a god player who chooses governments at his will is ridiculous . railroads were built by private and state funds in france and italy france . , germany , england and then nationalized in part . there is also a lack of national and local private entrepreneurship the theater in palermo was built by the florios the statue of liberty by private funds the mit in boston was built by private , in the middle ages it was the rich and nobles who built churches , universities , museums there is a lack of private initiative