What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[BuchiTaton]

The idea of Society as the first element of your government system is to cover the main differences of pre-classical governments. We can see from the earliest historical records the characterization of sedentary kingdoms vs pastorial "barbarians" plus constellations of thalassocratic city states.
- The agrarian, sedentary, bureaucratic, highly stratified, centralized kingdoms ruled by hereditary god-like figures supported by the diversity of pantheons and tutelar divinities. In gemeplay terms production and food yields are their strong element.
- The pastorial, semi-nomadic, descentralized, slighty stratified nations where multiple clans are needed to make consensus and leadership was prestige and skill based.
So the gameplay focus here is military.
- The maritime city states often organized in leagues, moderately stratified and centralized with local leaders that share cultural, economic and familiar ties.
Their gameplay advanteges are naval and trade.
Of course one industrialization is achieved this titles could sound obsolete but we can look at them as legacy bonus representing our civ traditional origins.

Further aspect of your government do not replace or turn obsolete your previous elements, instead they add to them. For example the current real America government could be represented by choosing Republicanism, Constitutionalism, Capitalism, Federalism and Multilateralism. You can have also Monarchism, Constitutionalism and Capitalism for UK and for WW2 Japan have Monarchism and Fascism, while the Feudal model could be covered by the mix of Monarchism, Elitism and Vassalism.

 

[pokiehl]

Doesn’t really make much sense to me to 100% conflate “society” (way of life) with government…

 

[BuchiTaton]

Doesn’t really make much sense to me to 100% conflate “society” (way of life) with government…

Agree, lets better use the naming of CIV4 were the system was straighly named Civics, with Government, Religion and Economy as just one of the multiple types of civics (also similar to Technologies).
After all what players can do in CIV is way beyond what a simple mortal governor can do, not for nothing civ leaders are the avatar of a civilization.

By the way thinking about the free civics, there is a chance to have different categories for them like Theology, Economy, Military, etc.

 

[luca 83]

surely in the iv there is not much difference between fascism and communism : as a system of government there is only a police state that is too generic as a state-run economic system , I would like a more political system , a sociast , communist , liberal , fascist , or more extreme Nazism , a monararchy , liberal , absolutist, a classical , oligarchic republic . a mass democracy, a parliamentarism , or a parliamentary monarchy, should be bound by a parliament : you should not declare war as you wish, and in any case more bound to parties, or factions, or the people

 

[Evie]

In IV, and in any game like it where you build your government through a selection of civics, your actual government form is made up of the total of all your civics.

Yes, Soviet Communism and German Fascism/Nazism would both, in fact, be Police States. Because, in term of how they governed people, that's what they were: states ruled by a single party using the threat of state violence to enforce adherence to the party's rules and decision.

The difference between Soviet Communism and German Fascism isn't that. It's in everything else: what do they rely on to operate the state on a daily basis (appeal to nationalism vs an extensive system of economic redistribution and control; ie nationhood vs bureaucracy) ; how their economic population is arranged (a system where everyone performs labor determined by the State, in the ways determined by the state, in the fields chosen for them by the state, vs a system that is built around the exaltation of an in-group, the national people, and the consequent oppression of those who are not pure members of that group, best represented in-game by Serfdom vs Caste System), their economic system (State ownership of all means of production, vs a close alliance between oligarchic economic elites and the party to channel the national economy to the benefit of the Nation, best represented in-game by State Property vs Mercantilism).

Had all of these together, and you end up with completely different countries. In peacetime, German Fascism vs Soviet Communism probably look like Police State / Nationhood / Caste System / Mercantilism vs Police State / Bureaucracy / Serfdom / State Property.

And that's precisely the entire strength of IV and systems like it: that when you put together all possible combination of the five civics categories each with five choices, there are a few thousands possible governments to chose from, instead of being stuck with a single choice from a single list.

It just doesn't hold your hand with labels.

 

[dagriggstar]

My issue with civics in 4 was that early game it kind of felt like the only real "choice" you got to make was between Organised Religion and Theocracy. Then you get to a point in the game where suddenly everything else opened up with emancipation being kind of mandatory. You can add more civics (for earlier in the game) but then we're kind of getting back to just having civ 6 policies under a new name....

I was toying with the idea over the last few days - what if governments adjusted the limits on traders/spies/military etc. For instance
Oligarchy - 2 military, 0 trade, 1 diplomatic, 1 religion (Can build 2 military units per military building, 0 trade routes, 1 city-state ally, 1 preferred religion)
Autocracy - 1 military, 1 trade, 1 diplomatic, 1 religion (Can build 1 military unit per military building, 1 trade routes, 1 city-state ally, 1 preferred religion)
Republic - 1 military, 1 trade, 2 diplomatic, 0 religion (Can build 1 military unit per military building, 1 trade route, 2 city-state allies, 0 preferred religion)
(I've not thought about balance beyond vague concepts like cities support 2 military units on their own and needing a way to expand your military without switching governments which is where the "per building" thing comes in. City-states could be allied with multiple parties but would remain neutral if two such parties go to war)
Kind of trying to get a more simple way to define how your society is structured.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I always felt like the best version of policy cards would be if you took the government legacy bonus system from the base game and applied it to the cards themselves. For instance, for every turn you have slotted agoge in, you gain +1% production towards ancient/classical infantry units. That would leave you with having to choose between fewer more powerful bonuses or lots of small bonuses.

Civ 5 is the only one trying to simulate building a culture with culture points. Something like feminism, it doesn't really belong as a government choice, it's more of a social/cultural choice. Same with code/case law. Should the rich be looked up to as role models or are they simply greedy ? It's more about what your society believes. It's kind of bottom up rather than top down like the other games.

Which brings up something for me - does it actually make sense for culture (as a yield) to unlock government stuff ? Do great works of music lead to government reform ? Should there be some kind of political power yield ? Should the ability to change government peacefully be locked behind keeping your people happy (And face a civil war if unhappy) ?

Best idea right here

 

[BuchiTaton]

Society, Government, Civics, Economy, Culture, Religion, etc. All overlaps at some point. Also the player in CIV (either human or AI) are not a regular leader governing a nation, they are inmortal figures that control aspects of a civilization (that by that name can also be a groups of entities with common elements) that a mere governor could not control.
That is why is difficult to put limits or categories to these concepts, they have not been "properly" represented and probably would never be since CIV is a game that abstract things for gameplay reasons.

Being aware about all these, I also agree that the way culture>civics>policies relate is kind of wonky. Are even worse other aspects of culture like the toursim based victory. That is why I want a new system that change many aspects of the game but through common related core systems. So not more different flavors of the same yields. For example science and culture should not be just two different kinds of "currencies" to spend in their respective trees. In my suggestion Science is about Progress so civs accumulate science by researching technologies (and other activities like expeditions) not spended it (like when was a technical advance being done by destroying the acumulated knowledge ) and the global accumulation of knowledges is the one that allow you to reach the milestones to advance each Era. Meanwhile Culture is about Influence similarly to CIV4, so again each civ have a cultural Heritage that compete with others (both main and minor civs) becoming stronger from not only cultural districts, tourism, wonders and great artists, but also by trade routes, cultural products (like ceramic, textiles, jewelry, cuisine, media, etc.) and population migration.

Of course the values and ideologies that each culture exalts in their traditions, customs and esthetics can be a way to influence others cultures, so a prestigious and charismatic culture can export their ideologies about religion, government and economy an any other kind of philosophical matter. This is the reason I think cultural, religious and diplomatic victory are kind of the same, the "turn others to think like i think" victory a victory about make your ideologies the dominant ones.
Meanwhile as explained before "government" or better civic changes would be related to your decisions about certain events related to the management of your population triggered by clear mission like actions. These civic changes are less but way more significative, distinctive, exclusive, flavorful and narrative justified than just have dozens of mostly progressively better upgrades to spend culture yield or even worse a new "political power" yield.
Like seriously we dont need even more yields that mechanically would be just different colors. Like other game mechanics for example Loyalty or Happiness that could be merged in some aspects as a way of control over your population/cities, and with cultural influence for the later.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Honestly, I want something that feels more natural and organic. Say, your civ could evolve into it's socio-political system over time, rather than having to choose from a laundry-list of pre-approved ideologies that become useless once you enter the next age. This could be accomplished via something similar to the civics system, but probably much more expansive and modular. Just imagine all of the crazy ideologies that you could potentially invent during a game.

same here

 

[luca 83]

same here

How does the change of government accord with the immortal leader? The change of ideology presupposes a change of leader,!

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

How does the change of government accord with the immortal leader? The change of ideology presupposes a change of leader,!

Leader is actually the immaterial spirit of the nation. As long as the nation survives, the leader will.

in other words as long as your civilization keeps living you can play. even if everything changes about it

 

[pokiehl]

How does the change of government accord with the immortal leader? The change of ideology presupposes a change of leader,!

You are assigning way too much importance to the “leader” that the average player simply doesn’t even think about.

The immortal leader in these games is simply an avatar to add personality to diplomatic interactions. That’s really it. No one cares or is bothered by the fact that you play as Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC and can choose to have an autocratic government.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How does the change of government accord with the immortal leader? The change of ideology presupposes a change of leader,!

In your game we would have to have a leader/governmental change at least every 3 to 5 turns in the Ancient Era, on Standard, if each turn is equivalent to 20 years. That doesn't sound fun.

 

[luca 83]

We replace leaders with factions and then in the modern era with political parties, I repeat every era has its own ideology and leaders, leaders as representation are outdated

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We replace leaders with factions and then in the modern era with political parties, I repeat every era has its own ideology and leaders, leaders as representation are outdated

What exactly do you mean by factions? How would you represent the autocracies of the Ancient world, or the monarchies and empires of the Middle ages etc. if there are no leaders represented?
All I can see is what you essentially want to do is take out the playable characters of a game. Because that's in essence what the leaders of civ are.

 

[luca 83]

One could create a leader for each change of government depending on the ideology with its own characteristics , but without animation : ine in the end is not important. The animation!

 

[pokiehl]

One could create a leader for each change of government depending on the ideology with its own characteristics , but without animation : ine in the end is not important. The animation!

Then this would become historical fantasy for every single faction . A strange suggestion for someone so hung up on realism.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

trying to imagine Luca 83's version of Civ and I can only imagine the most painful and tedious game ever. Surprisingly I would love it

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I'm torn between liking the Civ6 style where you can change your government at will when discovering a civic where government types have some inertia and thus a penalty for changing types. I also think about if within government types should there be more instability. Autocracy could be rock stable for a while and then have a period of instability or civil war when picking a new leader. Of course, in Civ don't have leaders dying... I miss the Democracy of civ 2 which was the most powerful government but you could not declare war (or something like that, it's been a while since I play and I may have rose colored glasses).

One one hand I enjoy the policy system because it give me a lot of 'choices' when playing. But on the other hand i'm guessing there are 'optimal' choices for each civ and i'm just not good enough at this game to know what those are, and thus there really is not much choice as I think there is. I do think that policies are backward - having a building allows you to implement a policy, instead of a policy enhancing a building.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think the developers should put the gameplay at the forefront of designing their political system rather than the realism.

Within that gameplay consideration should also be reasonable payoff and also reasonable flexibility. Players shouldn't be pigeonholed into one particular playstyle just for one choice at the start of the game - nor should they be able to restructure their entire Civilisation at an instant for free.

What I propose is not too complicated for beginners and not so simple for veterans.

Part 1:
Replace the Culture tree with an expansive RPG style tree. Not too dissimilar from Civ 5 (or maybe 4 I've not played that).

Players would be able to expand their core cultural beliefs in particular directions, for boosts towards military, economy, etc.

Part 2:
As players accumulate Culture, they unlock new slots. Slots can be filled with policy cards unlocked via the tree. There's a small amount of slots, and a bunch of powerful cards.

These act not like policies but more like Agendas. This lets you customise your current political structure for your desired goals.


I came up with this rather quick, but I think a mix like this would be for the best. In terms of balance and immersion.