What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[Naokaukodem]

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 popular 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.

- 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.

Someone came up with truly different gameplays with each government, in a topic I lost track off. If I didn't "liked" his post, I would feel ashamed.

 

[luca 83]

Governing a nation and already a political act means being political, war and politics, the economy and politics for the different economic systems who does not understand this condemns the game to stand still to 30 years ago

 

[pokiehl]

No, IMO Civ6 is the most complex Civ game ever up to date.

I just don’t agree at all. Civ 6 is boringly simple. Settle more cities and put down more districts. The most “complex” thing is keeping track of adjacency bonuses, but that’s not depth, it’s just arithmetic and a boring knowledge check.

There is very little to consider and very few interesting decisions to be had. Maluses for over expansion are practically nonexistent, and yields are generally flat rather than percentage based so they don’t require much thought or foresight to ramp up.

Civ 5 and 4 are both way more complex and have more depth to their gameplay. Civ 6 is the most solvable Civ game to date.

 

[GeneralZift]

Civ 6 has a lot of busywork. Its not really about difficulty. I was going to say this in the Great Person threat but it's just as applicable here

 

[Naokaukodem]

Its not really about difficulty.

Well if thinking if not difficult, probably. I've come in a number of situations where i was embarrassed by choices. I don't know if they were as meaningful as I presumed they were, but seeing players beating Deity everytime and me not, I was like "hmm those choices have to be meaningful" ; after all, there must be a difference in our gameplay schemes if that's it.

 

[luca 83]

For example, one should take into account a leader as a great personality the fact that it can die or be removed : so it is normal. The replacement of leader, over time

Well if thinking if not difficult, probably. I've come in a number of situations where i was embarrassed by choices. I don't know if they were as meaningful as I presumed they were, but seeing players beating Deity everytime and me not, I was like "hmm those choices have to be meaningful" ; after all, there must be a difference in our gameplay schemes if that's it.

 

[dagriggstar]

I consider 6 to be more complicated but the AI is worse at playing it. Get a good difficulty mod and you'll have a hard time. I guess it depends if you consider "play the perfect game" or "win the game" as your definition of complicated.

6 has corps/armies and support units
6 has unique great people that you want to keep track of
6 has policy switching. And like even within your own turn you might want to time it (eg upgrade your units switch in plot buy discount and buy tiles on the same turn)
6 has inspirations and eurekas
6 has more specific wonder requirements
6 has weird government culture win mechanics. If you want to win culture, you should keep track of ALL your opponents governments and adopt whatever the majority has, sometimes even if it's less 'advanced'. 5 is the reverse, due to ideology pressure (which is intuitive)
6 I feel has more strict 'theming' rules
6 has more faction bonuses (with leader bonuses being a thing, oh also the "personas")
6 has housing
6 has loyalty

I don't think all of those need changing but definitely policy switching is the most frustrating.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I consider 6 to be more complicated but the AI is worse at playing it. Get a good difficulty mod and you'll have a hard time. I guess it depends if you consider "play the perfect game" or "win the game" as your definition of complicated.

6 has corps/armies and support units
6 has unique great people that you want to keep track of
6 has policy switching. And like even within your own turn you might want to time it (eg upgrade your units switch in plot buy discount and buy tiles on the same turn)
6 has inspirations and eurekas
6 has more specific wonder requirements
6 has weird government culture win mechanics. If you want to win culture, you should keep track of ALL your opponents governments and adopt whatever the majority has, sometimes even if it's less 'advanced'. 5 is the reverse, due to ideology pressure (which is intuitive)
6 I feel has more strict 'theming' rules
6 has more faction bonuses (with leader bonuses being a thing, oh also the "personas")
6 has housing
6 has loyalty

I don't think all of those need changing but definitely policy switching is the most frustrating.

Just a few comments:
*Corps/Armies and Support Units are a product of 1UPT: have really concentrated armies of multiple units on one tile, and Support Units and Corps structure take on entirely new meanings and emphasis: they allow better control over the army , rather than being just 'loopholes' to the rigid stacking rules.
* Policy Switching: not a bad idea, but there should have been some penalty for rampant shuffling of cultural and civic traits. The system as it stands now is like throwing your Civ into an automatic deck shuffler in a casino rather than playing a game.
*Specific Wonder Requirements - still aren't specific enough, which is why we still get a half-dozen Civs all trying for the same Wonder, despite having utterly different Governments, Civics, and Cultures.
* Theming, though, is related to rigidly-defined District types and execrable terrain bonuses also all related to Districts. Drop the level of theming and bonuses down to individual buildings and at the same time city patterns get a lot more in line with history and you can still theme to your heart's content. Right now we end up with Districts scattered all over the landscape seeking out 'bonuses' and resembling some kind of Urban Sprawl that never cold have existed until the railroad and automobile.

 

[luca 83]

A question what happens to the fixed leader in the event of a revolution? Is it replaced? . How is ideology represented, as political choices ? How do you choose ideology in a revolution where there is chaos, and ideology is unclear?

 

[vorlon_mi]

I may have written this before, but here's my summary.

• Civ3 (and Civ2) has monolithic governments. Due to the anarchy which resulted in changing, most players only changed ONCE per game.
• Civ4 has civics, finer grained to affect different aspects of the government. Players changed these civics 5-10 times per game, often aligned with Golden Ages.
• Civ5 has policies which, once adopted, can never be un-adopted. My favorite description is a ratchet, that clicks forward never backward.
• BERT reinvented the whole system, using personality traits that are mostly improved/buffed but can also be swapped out. Affinity development affects the economy more than politics or international relations
• Civ6 swung back towards Civ4, where policy cards can be swapped very often (for free) and have finer grained choices. Cards can expire, can be swapped in and out; governments may be changed 3-6 times per game, not usually backwards.

Given the successful sales of Civ6, I expect that Civ7 will have a political system more similar to Civ4 and Civ6 (many choices, may be changed many times) rather than like Civ3 or Civ5 (adopt once, keep forever). Lots of great ideas here about how granular the choices will be, along with how they might be grouped.

 

[luca 83]

The Political system in civ iv is horrible , : it is not developed at all, even inconsistent : there is state property as an economic system, but monarchy as a political system, modern political systems are not developed, such as communism, fascism, absolute monarchies, parliamentary monarchies, liberal economies, protectionist, and economic policies Modern

 

[Naokaukodem]

• Civ6 swung back towards Civ4, where policy cards can be swapped very often (for free) and have finer grained choices. Cards can expire, can be swapped in and out; governments may be changed 3-6 times per game, not usually backwards.

Maybe to counter the too high flexibility of policy cards change according to some, we should pay some gold in order to make the changes, even when we discover a new social evolution ?

 

[Evie]

How the heck is the fact that state property is an economic civic and monarchy a political system a bad thing?

Monarchies just mean having a king. It says nothing about whether the king owns everything in the country or whether there is a system of private property. Monarchies with private property and non-monarchies with state property both exists.

Modern political systems are more developed in Civ 4 than any other genres in the series, provided you understand that governnments in civ 4 are represented by a COMBINATION of civic, not by individual civics.

Which is painfully obvious when you actually play the game.

 

[luca 83]

I may have written this before, but here's my summary.

• Civ3 (and Civ2) has monolithic governments. Due to the anarchy which resulted in changing, most players only changed ONCE per game.
• Civ4 has civics, finer grained to affect different aspects of the government. Players changed these civics 5-10 times per game, often aligned with Golden Ages.
• Civ5 has policies which, once adopted, can never be un-adopted. My favorite description is a ratchet, that clicks forward never backward.
• BERT reinvented the whole system, using personality traits that are mostly improved/buffed but can also be swapped out. Affinity development affects the economy more than politics or international relations
• Civ6 swung back towards Civ4, where policy cards can be swapped very often (for free) and have finer grained choices. Cards can expire, can be swapped in and out; governments may be changed 3-6 times per game, not usually backwards.

Given the successful sales of Civ6, I expect that Civ7 will have a political system more similar to Civ4 and Civ6 (many choices, may be changed many times) rather than like Civ3 or Civ5 (adopt once, keep forever). Lots of great ideas here about how granular the choices will be, along with how they might be grouped.

Yes, but it does not simulate the revolution that for its characteristic and uncontrollable,: we should stop considering civ as a game controllable at 100 for 100: history is not so for this reason civ bon is a sinulator of history but a simulator of civilization

 

[luca 83]

How the heck is the fact that state property is an economic civic and monarchy a political system a bad thing?

Monarchies just mean having a king. It says nothing about whether the king owns everything in the country or whether there is a system of private property. Monarchies with private property and non-monarchies with state property both exists.

Modern political systems are more developed in Civ 4 than any other genres in the series, provided you understand that governnments in civ 4 are represented by a COMBINATION of civic, not by individual civics.

Which is painfully obvious when you actually play the game.

It is called communism, and a system where the working class controls the means of production ,factories and land by exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat that would lead to the abolition of classes and laws in theory , in the communist you do not foresee a king , only the dictatorship of the proletariat and its proletarian vanguard the party is elementary that you do not know such things , feudalism is different : the king gives lands to the nobles who divide it between. Others , but the process with time became hereditary

 

[Evie]

No, state property is not "called communism."

State property is a tool that communism used, but it is not a tool that's exclusive to communism, nor is it the point of communism. The idea that only communists would have state property is a fantasy you made up because you insist on not avowing that modern ideologies correspond to combinations of civics, rather than to individual civics.

 

[luca 83]

No, state property is not "called communism."

State property is a tool that communism used, but it is not a tool that's exclusive to communism, nor is it the point of communism. The idea that only communists would have state property is a fantasy you made up because you insist on not avowing that modern ideologies correspond to combinations of civics, rather than to individual civics.

Because state property requires communism so it refers to communist ideology, tell me what other civilisation uses state property without communist ideology? And in IV how is fascism represented? In Call to Power was there fascism and communism as an ideology in IV?

 

[Evie]

Again, ideologies are meant to be represented by combinations of civics.

I even gave you a list the other day of which civic combinations would represent fascism and communism.

If you continue to look for individual civics that represent individual ideologies, at that point it’s willful denial on your part.

And I will add that there is NO way a system where each ideology and government system has to be modeled separately can ever be as detailed as a system where you combine civics to represent governments. Civ 4 has more than three thousand possible governments. You’re never getting that many.

In short civ 4 is actually the better system at modelling diversity, you’re just blinding yourself to reality.

 

[luca 83]

Again, ideologies are meant to be represented by combinations of civics.

I even gave you a list the other day of which civic combinations would represent fascism and communism.

If you continue to look for individual civics that represent individual ideologies, at that point it’s willful denial on your part.

And I will add that there is NO way a system where each ideology and government system has to be modeled separately can ever be as detailed as a system where you combine civics to represent governments. Civ 4 has more than three thousand possible governments. You’re never getting that many.

In short civ 4 is actually the better system at modelling diversity, you’re just blinding yourself to reality.

the class system is an ideology of Indian origin where there are diverse social classes: warriors, priests, merchants, peasants non centra nulla with fascism, idem the mercantilistic system, fascism and more a corporative, militaristic system, posso essere d accordo sul mischiare i governi: ma devono essere piu politici e il 4 non lo lo e, il conputer poi non li usa; usa solo, l emancipazione come sistema di laboro: e troppo sbilanciato mettere il bonus i cittadini sono scontenti e sbagliato

 

[Evie]

Many societies had caste systems, etc, etc, etc. The civics are broad representation of categories of policies that, not hyperspecific representation of a handful of systems.

Your clinging to each civic being a very specific representation of one very specific historical system won't make it true. Pretty much everyone who played Civ IV understood that except, apparently, you.

I'm afraid my Italian is a little limited, and I don't trust Google to accurately reflect your intent, so the second half of your post will have to be ignored for now.