What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[SupremacyKing2]

Communism is a consequence of a philosophy and then a party born out of the industrial revolution and heir to French Jacobinism, Robespierre's and Saint Just's, and fourier's in the 1800's and starts with the English lelellers in the 1600's revolution and continues up to Saint Simon , fascism and a reaction to communism in Italy to the non-annexation of territories considered part of Italy in Germany to the crisis of the Weimar republic and the inflation of 1929 are separate phenomena that must be simulated as an eventual crisis of society loss of a war and social and cultural changes

Thanks for the history lesson. But I fail to see how this really applies. Civ is not a history simulator. You are not going to experience these events exactly in a game. Civ has always been more abstract. So for example, in civ6, you unlock the communism government with the "class struggle" civic. You don't have to experience peasant revolts because of the collapse of russian feudalism and social changes from industrial revolution, unlock a great writer "Marx" and then lose world war I to unlock communism. You just spend culture on a civic called "class struggle". Likewise, in my proposal, civics could unlock the socialism choice. And maybe another civic unlocks the secular choice. And you can abstract becoming communist by switching to despotism+socialism+secular. And remember that civ is also very much about alternate history.

 

[luca 83]

Thanks for the history lesson. But I fail to see how this really applies. Civ is not a history simulator. You are not going to experience these events exactly in a game. Civ has always been more abstract. So for example, in civ6, you unlock the communism government with the "class struggle" civic. You don't have to experience peasant revolts because of the collapse of russian feudalism and social changes from industrial revolution, unlock a great writer "Marx" and then lose world war I to unlock communism. You just spend culture on a civic called "class struggle". Likewise, in my proposal, civics could unlock the socialism choice. And maybe another civic unlocks the secular choice. And you can abstract becoming communist by switching to despotism+socialism+secular. And remember that civ is also very much about alternate history.

If a revolution happens, it must necessarily pass through a revolt any revolution almost always passes through a revolt from dispositionalism to democracy, from monarchy to communism, or from communism to democracy, and a social group to make a revolt then perhaps become a revolution: by introducing politics and classes, the player will be forced to manage realistic revolts and revolutions

 

[SupremacyKing2]

If a revolution happens, it must necessarily pass through a revolt any revolution almost always passes through a revolt from dispositionalism to democracy, from monarchy to communism, or from communism to democracy, and a social group to make a revolt then perhaps become a revolution: by introducing politics and classes, the player will be forced to manage realistic revolts and revolutions

Sure, there could be a revolution mechanic like anarchy in civ4 when you switch governments.

 

[luca 83]

Sure, there could be a revolution mechanic like anarchy in civ4 when you switch governments.

No, the revolution cannot be planned or chosen by the player should be faced at times and inevitsbile

 

[SupremacyKing2]

No, the revolution cannot be planned or chosen by the player should be faced at times and inevitsbile

A revolution could trigger when happiness drops too low. But you seem to want civ to be historically realistic. I would remind you that civ is not a history simulator. Civ is a strategy game. The player needs to be able to control their civ and make strategic decisions. And it would not be a very fun game if history just happened to the player with no control. Revolutions should not be inevitable. That would make for a bad strategy game if revolutions wrecked your civ and forced you to change governments, even when the player makes the right decisions, just because it is realistic in history. In a game like civ, revolutions should happen based on the player's decisions.

 

[luca 83]

A revolution could trigger when happiness drops too low. But you seem to want civ to be historically realistic. I would remind you that civ is not a history simulator. Civ is a strategy game. The player needs to be able to control their civ and make strategic decisions. And it would not be a very fun game if history just happened to the player with no control. Revolutions should not be inevitable. That would make for a bad strategy game if revolutions wrecked your civ and forced you to change governments, even when the player makes the right decisions, just because it is realistic in history. In a game like civ, revolutions should happen based on the player's decisions.

It is not boring if it becomes a political simulator and revolutions and events are not always predictable and a touch of the unexpected makes the game more interesting

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It is not boring if it becomes a political simulator and revolutions and events are not always predictable and a touch of the unexpected makes the game more interesting

And that is precisely the problem. IF you want a 'political simulator' I suggest you apply to some university's Political Science Department for a grant. This Forum is for Civ the commercial 4X historicalish GAME.

And, frankly, the only thing more boring than a political simulator would be an economics simulator, but that's just my opinion from having to sit through classes on both political science and economics while trying with only medium success to keep my eyes open . . .

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It is not boring if it becomes a political simulator and revolutions and events are not always predictable and a touch of the unexpected makes the game more interesting

What you have been describing in your wants isn't just a touch of the unexpected though. Plus, Civ has never been a simulation game, so I don't understand why you keep trying to change that notion?

 

[BuchiTaton]

About Revolutions. Civilization is a game were the players must be allowed to choose the path they want and the concept of CIV also include change history and succeed even better than any historical nation so be forced to fail significative colapses is something players would not find entertaning.
Still I offer an option were social changes have immersive and natural reason to be that also represent a manageable challenge.

The emergence and spread of Ideologies could be abstracted easily under a population (Denizen) based core system. One example:
1- The Steam Engine technology is researched, this allows you to build the Industrial Zone district with all kind of Factories. These factories produce both synthetic versions of regular resources (Dye, Nitrate, Rubber,..) plus new unique luxuries like Cars, Electronics, Plastics, etc.

2- These produce a boom of industrialization that provide a lot of avaible slots for Laborers. When these Laborers working in Industrial Zones represent at least 35%*(happines and others ideologies could affect this) of your Laborers it trigger an event about "Laboral Rights" with a setting about a strike in an Industrial Zone. This have some decision options:

A- Suppress the strike by the use of police forces.​

B- Support worker's movement.​

C- Intermediate in the negotiations.​

Say you pick A, gaining favor with the Trader and Warrior classes, but also the discontent of the Laborers.

3-Then if Laborers already have some negative factors this will pull down their loyalty to the limit to start an uprising a "Revolution" that creates the ideology Socialism.
When a revolution start the side you didnt support would produce certain number of rebels units based from the percentage and places were the population of such identity are, so you must fight those rebel units. Whatever the rebelion is succesful or not, the Socialism ideology would start to spread.
To disencourage players to allow rebels to win and change to the society they want, you also would lose yields, prestige, diplomatic favor and the technological advance in progress at the moment of the revolution.

Now for the other options if you side with the labourers (B) the ones that could start a uprising are reactionaries from Trader and Warrior classes (a coup) being in the case of Warrior that some of your armies could turn into enemies, but at least you also get support from loyal irregular labourer units. Still remember that if your affected classes are quite happy the hit to their loyalty would not be big enough to start the uprising.

For the option C) there are no major changes beyond gain the "minor" ideology (civic/doctrine*?) Unionism/Syndicalism that reduce the struggle between workers and owners. Remember that Socialism would be a "main" ideology that imply way more effects, bonuses and own mechanics.

4- There are multiple factors that influence in the rate of propagation of Ideologies, for example some social classes have affinity (in this example Laborers have a high positive bonus), population happines, open trade routes, immigration, tourism, cultural products, diplomatic relations, same religion, great people, other ideologies already embraced, etc.

Additional Note*: To make it even more under player control when putting the mouse cursor over the options of the decision event they would explain the effects included an alert if the loyalty was already low enough to trigger the revolt. So the player would be conscious of the risk from that selection.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It is not boring if it becomes a political simulator and revolutions and events are not always predictable and a touch of the unexpected makes the game more interesting

As I have tried to tell you, civ is not supposed to be a political simulator. Trying to turn civ into a political simulator is the wrong approach.

 

[luca 83]

As I have tried to explain and instead pmigliore talk about the' armor of Alexander the great or the thong of monteczuma , the policy and the only solution for a modern game that contemplates every aspect of the story with programs such as chat cpt could be a solution I try to have new ideas you have the same patterns of the 1991 game do not need some new animation. And an idea for a modern 2024 game

 

[GeneralZift]

If we're talking revolutions, I think the best way they did it was Civ5's Ideological pressure system. It makes a lot of logical sense, it's fairly predictable, forces the players to consider each other in the world. In terms of disadvantages, it might have too much agency, forcing players to use an ideology which they really don't want to.
This is reduced by the fact that Civ5 Ideologies are quite open ended, suitable for various victories.

There should not be any "invisible magical revolutions"... It's just not fun. Random events to me are not fun anyway. Not unless they're in the guise of something like a Tribal Hut.

Civ6 "revolutions" were based on Loyalty and the loyalty system, with it's whole host of problems, including magical fully armed militias spawning instantly without warning and pillaging everything.

I could live with a Civ game without any sort of these effects really, so I don't mind. What Civ games should really focus on instead of Revolutions is some other comeback factors for losing Civs

 

[Evie]

Yes, amazingly enough we want a game series that has been ongoing for thirty years to...remain relatively similar to its base.

You want a whole new game, which is fine (although I wouldn't play it), but for some mysterious reason you insist that it should hijack the name of a thirty-years-old series. That's the part here that is completely unnecessary and make no sense: your insistence that your brand new game should be Civilization.

And then insult everyone else because they actually want the next civilization game to be...well, a Civilization game.

(Also, ChatGPT? ChatGPT at last count cannot even properly play a game with relatively simple rules like chess (it says things that sounds like chess moves, but that make absolutely no sense for the actual game), so asking it to run an in-depth historical simulation is simply lackdaisical)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Funny thing Millennia have three exploration thematic National Spirits for the first time you can pick one that are quite similar to my Pastoral/Agrarian/Maritime options. Those are Wild Hunters, Naturalists and Ancient Seafearers, they also provide bonuses and uniques related to kinds of terrian. And people in Paradox forum are talking about they as a way to adapt to your starting point instead of reroll the game like in CIV, that is one of the main reasons for mine also.

That is exactly the kind of things I want, historical based but still gamey with a narrative value but also real gameplay options, not just "this is a new civic that turn obsolete the previous ones". I think the real problem is not have goverment based in "deterministic eurocentric" Eras, the problem is that those civics are also mechanically and gameplay linear. For me is way more valuable to have three early different options of society since very early game that make you accumulate culture to replace policies one after other until reach something like Industrial society that is not a real option, there is a whole era about it and is obviously a forced "option" to advance and win the game.

Also National Spirits are supposed to be selected every two eras like I have addtional main social levels each two eras.

 

[dagriggstar]

Everytime I look at anything Millenia or Ara are doing I nope out after about 5 seconds realizing that those games are too complicated compared to what I want. I think the design goals will be to be able to complete a game faster and to appeal to as many people as possible. Both of those goals are achieved with simplifying the game.

RPG tree kinda sounds like the civic tree functionally. Or like, instead of having one civic tree it's like ten different ones based around different themes. An issue I have with civ 6 is that the leader abilities and civilization abilities are the same. Like if I ask if +50% production towards ranged units is a Nubia or Amanitore bonus do you know off the top of your head ? Like if you take the name out of it, what would the difference be between a culture (part 1) bonus and a government (part 2) bonus ? Can you make the difference easily identifiable for a new player ?

 

[pokiehl]

I think the design goals will be to be able to complete a game faster and to appeal to as many people as possible. Both of those goals are achieved with simplifying the game.

I disagree.

I don't think most fans are asking for this to be a realistic history/politics simulator. But I definitely don't think the core fanbase is asking for the game to be simplified even further than it already has been in Civ 6.

I certainly don't want that, and I don't think making a game easier is a way to appeal to a wider fanbase anyway.

 

[GeneralZift]

What being around the gaming fanbases has made me realise is that often the Devs actually know what they're doing compared to the players

 

[Naokaukodem]

But I definitely don't think the core fanbase is asking for the game to be simplified even further than it already has been in Civ 6.

If anything, I do think that Civ6 is, early/middle game, and potentially late too, far more complicated than for example Civ5 where everything is built in the cities. I happened to pause my last game because I didn't know what to do, it was kind of a puzzle nightmare. Civ6 gives me headaches pretty much every time I play it. In multiplayer I make bad decisions because I don't have enough time to think. No, IMO Civ6 is the most complex Civ game ever up to date.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I would like to see governments be more unique and more impactful on gameplay. Civ6 does do a decent job with the government bonuses and the different policy card slots to make governments different. But I would like to go even further. I think the gameplay differences should be deeper.

I would propose something like this. Instead of getting to change policy cards for free when you get a new civic, you would get to change civics differently based on the government types. Also, keeping your population happy and avoiding revolutions could be done differently.

- Democracies: you could only change policy cards every 6 turns (representing elections). Policy cards would have a popularity rating. Changing cards that are unpopular would cause a loss in civ happiness and possible riots. Increasing amenities, housing, not being at war, choosing popular cards, would increase your civ happiness. The opposite would lower civ happiness. If a city's happiness drops too low, it riots and you lose production and gold.

- Monarchy: You can only change policy cards every 10-20 turns (when you get the "coronation" event). There would be a chance of getting the "no heir" event and triggering a succession war. A random city would rebel. You could let the city form a separate kingdom for fight to take it back by force.

- Despotism: you can change policy cards anytime you want (you have absolute power). But military units can revolt (military coup) if your civ happiness drops too low. Civ happiness is based on keeping the military happy. So wounded units lower civ happiness. Losing units or losing battles lower civ happiness. Building military districts, winning battles, declaring war, choosing military policy cards would raise your civ happiness.

Anyway, these ideas could be balanced better. I am just brainstorming. But hopefully, you get the idea. I think this would make the gameplay for governments more interesting and more immersive.

 

[luca 83]

If want a modern game, politics is as inevitable as introducing ideologies. For example, instead of fiyouxed leaders and animations, the choice of ministers, the interests of factions and the demands of the people