What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[dagriggstar]

I'd rather build from the start of the game than play the switching game. So along the lines of civ V Ideologies but from the start of the game (instead of after the Industrial Revolution).
Need to adopt 4 policies from the "tier" below to unlock the policy options for the next tier. Something like
Tier 1 - Bonuses for specific tiles (Think pantheon belief style "Stone crafts" - +1 culture per stone resource")
Tier 2 - Small bonuses that apply everywhere (Think +1 production in every city)
Tier 3 - Conditional bonuses that apply everywhere (Double a specific district adjacency)
Tier 4 - Unconditional empire wide bonuses (Percentage modifiers)
Tier 5 - Influence/counter other empires (Generate more "culture pressure" under certain conditions)
Culture pressure is generated based on the number of different policies (It can also be affected by tier 5 policies).
You can opt for a "revolution" to change all of the policies you have adopted so far. Have some downside (Civil War / lose 2 policies / anarchy period etc). (Meant to be for situations where you are under so much culture pressure you have to basically adopt the lead players policies. Could also be used in situations where you want to drastically change the direction of your game eg super peaceful to super warlike).
If any faction adopts every policy adopted by every other faction they win a culture victory.
No explicit "you are a monarchy" button. Work it out based on what policies have been adopted. Hereditary Rule + Representation = Constitutional Monarchy. Hereditary Rule + State Property = Incan Empire.

 

[Evie]

I don't think I would enjoy that very much. A game that locks you into a playstyle or approach based on early choices no matter what happens later just outs far too much weight on your early game decision, and sounds distinctly unfun to me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think I would enjoy that very much. A game that locks you into a playstyle or approach based on early choices no matter what happens later just outs far too much weight on your early game decision, and sounds distinctly unfun to me.

It is also too much of a Fantasy for me. Does anyone actually think that the political, cultural, religious, military decisions made in Sumer in 2500 BCE had any effect whatsoever on the composition of modern Iraq? Everything about a Starting Civ should be subject to massive change throughout the game - even the cultures identifiable from archeology in the area of modern China show little or no similarities with either modern or traditional Chinese culture except that some of them (and only some) were already eating rice . . .

The hoary old Constant Progression from a fixed base which has been the hallmark of Civ games since the beginning needs to be rethought: it's not only a completely false model of the history, for what that's worth, but more importantly also makes for a duller game ovcerall and contributes enormously to the Late Game Boredom when there is no chance of anybody upsetting the steamroller set up in previous Eras.

 

[luca 83]

I don't think I would enjoy that very much. A game that locks you into a playstyle or approach based on early choices no matter what happens later just outs far too much weight on your early game decision, and sounds distinctly unfun to me.

We must keep in mind the ideologies of the civ century in the civ iv police state and generic, Pinochet's Chile is a police state, but it is not fascist, Franco's Spain is also a police state but it is not fascist, Stalin's Russia is a police state but totalitarian, like Hitler's Germany, a one-party regime, militarist, with state public works highways, and economies, planned towards military rearmament, it is a militarized population this is missing in the iv!

 

[Evie]

That's because they're - all together now - COMBINATIONS OF CIVICS. (Militarized population, for the record, would usually be represented with the Nationhood civic).

Bluntly, there are over three thousand combinations of civics - and thus ideologies - possible in Civ IV. Most other games offer maybe around 10-12 government types (much more in VI if you count policy, but they are too easily changed to really count).

Also, how does your response have anything to do with the post you quoted? We're not even talking about Civ IV, yet you drag it back to your delusional search for a 1:1 equivalency

 

[luca 83]

That's because they're - all together now - COMBINATIONS OF CIVICS. (Militarized population, for the record, would usually be represented with the Nationhood civic).

Bluntly, there are over three thousand combinations of civics - and thus ideologies - possible in Civ IV. Most other games offer maybe around 10-12 government types (much more in VI if you count policy, but they are too easily changed to really count).

Also, how does your response have anything to do with the post you quoted? We're not even talking about Civ IV, yet you drag it back to your delusional search for a 1:1 equivalency

No even Russia is nationalist a proletarian nationalism but it is nationalism for a correct simulation we need a regime specifically one-party: with communist or fascist characteristics and above all that ai chooses raztionally

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No even Russia is nationalist a proletarian nationalism but it is nationalism for a correct simulation we need a regime specifically one-party: with communist or fascist characteristics and above all that ai chooses raztionally

No we don't. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were one-man Tyrannies - a single charismatic Leader at the top, a massive coercive apparatus to keep people loyal and because people would not and will not voluntarily work for the State or Party, and a social apparatus based on a feeling of resentment and fear of anyone outside the country and complete government control of any foreign contact.
In fact, every 'Communist' of 'Fascist' state of the 20th century has devolved into a Charismatic Leader supported by a massive police apparatus and State control of information regardless of their 'ideology'. Whether they are Nazi, Fascist, or Communist is merely a matter of spelling.

And Russia today is exactly the same system except that Putin has managed it without benefit of any over-riding political apparatus to speak of, so the same type of government is possible outside of the meaningless labels of Fascism or Communism.

As has been repeatedly posted, the way to actually show the Effects of governments rather than their Labels is to separate their components into different policy/civic/cultural inputs so that the variations can be modeled from 4000 BCE to 2020 CE rather than try to limit the process to a few examples specific to a few decades of the whole time period.

 

[luca 83]

No, non lo facciamo. Sia la Germania nazista che la Russia sovietica erano tirannie individuali: un unico leader carismatico al vertice, un massiccio apparato coercitivo per mantenere leali le persone e perché le persone non volevano e non lavoreranno volontariamente per lo Stato o il Partito, e un apparato sociale basato su un sentimento di risentimento e paura verso chiunque sia fuori dal paese e completo controllo da parte del governo su qualsiasi contatto straniero.
In effetti, ogni stato “comunista” o “fascista” del 20° secolo si è trasformato in un leader carismatico sostenuto da un massiccio apparato di polizia e dal controllo statale dell’informazione indipendentemente dalla sua “ideologia”. Che siano nazisti, fascisti o comunisti è semplicemente una questione di ortografia.

E la Russia oggi è esattamente lo stesso sistema, tranne per il fatto che Putin l’ha gestito senza il beneficio di alcun apparato politico dominante di cui parlare, quindi lo stesso tipo di governo è possibile al di fuori delle etichette insignificanti di fascismo o comunismo.

Come è stato ripetutamente pubblicato, il modo per mostrare effettivamente gli effetti dei governi piuttosto che le loro etichette è separare i loro componenti in diversi input politici/civici/culturali in modo che le variazioni possano essere modellate dal 4000 a.C. al 2020 d.C. piuttosto che cercare di limitare il processo ad alcuni esempi specifici di alcuni decenni dell’intero periodo di tempo.

Dimentichi sempre la politica, la rivoluzione continua di Trotsky, le lotte per il potere dopo la morte di Lenin, l'ascesa di Stalin, il fascino. E le sue origini agrarie e antibolsceviche, i veterani della prima guerra, la presa del fiume, chiamare questi eventi dittature personali è molto riduttivo, anche l'antisemitismo di Hitler esisteva prima di lui

 

[BuchiTaton]

I know people dislike some of the labelling and era fixing of governments in CIV, as the tripartite Communism/Fascism/Democracy in CIV6. Still things like that are likely to be needed for a game like CIV since those are matter of player recognition, setting, ballance and gameplay. I mean we can still have at the same time:

* Main ideologies that have central role in terms of unique mechanics and setting.​

* Multiple and different aspect of our society to customize. These are about specific topics with mutually exclusive options.​

* Additional free policies that add an extra level of specialization.​

Some aspect to improve from previous CIV could be for example that instead of replace "obsolete" forms of government you add a new layer to your government specialization so for example you can mix...

Theocracy	Monarchy	Republic
Autocratic	Oligarchic	Democratic
Nationalist	Capitalist	Socialist

Then you can have for example a civ that is a Capitalist Democratic Monarchy or a Socialist Autocratic Republic and any combination from those options.
People can say "why only three options?", or "why is Nationalist with economic options like Capitalism and Socialism?" and the reasons are gameplay and recognition. We can be picky about proper terminology but after all these year we can guess that Firaxis do things like this not because ignorance but because they want something like this for recongnition even if they are tropes.
Also these are not the only elements, and there are also the free/wild card policies/civics/doctrines or whatever we could name them. For example each option for the main civics from the chart can have their own "deck" of policies cards, being some common for all the options, others exclusive or incompatible with some options for example Autocratic can add an extra level of oppression with the Totalitarism policy but Democratic is incompatible (also you can mix Autocratic+Nationalism/Socialism + Totalitarism for the full dictatorial experience).

So we can have the best of both visions, customizable multiple elements of our society plus the abstract gamey main civics with their own flavor and mechanics (something hard to ballance and develop for a more open system).

 

[luca 83]

To deny communism and fascism is to deny the aut century autocracy as governments and too generic, fascism and much deeper as ideology: emancipation of the working class and collective property , one of the reasons for the birth of fascism , and one of the causes of the Second World War and 50 years of the Cold War : autocracy and an inadequate term: Tsarist russia was an autocrasy

I know people dislike some of the labelling and era fixing of governments in CIV, as the tripartite Communism/Fascism/Democracy in CIV6. Still things like that are likely to be needed for a game like CIV since those are matter of player recognition, setting, ballance and gameplay. I mean we can still have at the same time:

* Main ideologies that have central role in terms of unique mechanics and setting.​

* Multiple and different aspect of our society to customize. These are about specific topics with mutually exclusive options.​

* Additional free policies that add an extra level of specialization.​

Some aspect to improve from previous CIV could be for example that instead of replace "obsolete" forms of government you add a new layer to your government specialization so for example you can mix...

Theocracy	Monarchy	Republic
Autocratic	Oligarchic	Democratic
Nationalist	Capitalist	Socialist

Then you can have for example a civ that is a Capitalist Democratic Monarchy or a Socialist Autocratic Republic and any combination from those options.
People can say "why only three options?", or "why is Nationalist with economic options like Capitalism and Socialism?" and the reasons are gameplay and recognition. We can be picky about proper terminology but after all these year we can guess that Firaxis do things like this not because ignorance but because they want something like this for recongnition even if they are tropes.
Also these are not the only elements, and there are also the free/wild card policies/civics/doctrines or whatever we could name them. For example each option for the main civics from the chart can have their own "deck" of policies cards, being some common for all the options, others exclusive or incompatible with some options for example Autocratic can add an extra level of oppression with the Totalitarism policy but Democratic is incompatible (also you can mix Autocratic+Nationalism/Socialism + Totalitarism for the full dictatorial experience).

So we can have the best of both visions, customizable multiple elements of our society plus the abstract gamey main civics with their own flavor and mechanics (something hard to ballance and develop for a more open system).

 

[BuchiTaton]

To deny communism and fascism is to deny the aut century autocracy as governments and too generic, fascism and much deeper as ideology: emancipation of the working class and collective property , one of the reasons for the birth of fascism , and one of the causes of the Second World War and 50 years of the Cold War : autocracy and an inadequate term: Tsarist russia was an autocrasy

The in paper ideals that difference Communism from Socialism had never been achieved, in practice there are not modern nations were there are true collective property or abolition of market mechanisms . What we have are Autocratic or Oligarchic regimes with state control over the key means of production/market, while they pretend to protect laborers.
The ideals of social justice are that, ideologies. The practice of them is another thing and the historical governments that you care about to represent had Socialist ideals but that is not all what their government was, in practice the Autocratic regime was also an element that characterize them, this could be highlighted by an additional Totalitarian element.
If you care to represent very specific governments as their own we can make a case for the differences of the URSS and PRC. Also under those termsTsarist regime was not just an autocratic monarchy, it would be their own specific form of government, Tsarism!

Meanwhile keep the ideologies as separated element allows to represent not only the historical authoritarian governments but also things like a Democratic Socialist nation or any other combination.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know people dislike some of the labelling and era fixing of governments in CIV, as the tripartite Communism/Fascism/Democracy in CIV6. Still things like that are likely to be needed for a game like CIV since those are matter of player recognition, setting, ballance and gameplay. I mean we can still have at the same time:

* Main ideologies that have central role in terms of unique mechanics and setting.​

* Multiple and different aspect of our society to customize. These are about specific topics with mutually exclusive options.​

* Additional free policies that add an extra level of specialization.​

Some aspect to improve from previous CIV could be for example that instead of replace "obsolete" forms of government you add a new layer to your government specialization so for example you can mix...

Theocracy	Monarchy	Republic
Autocratic	Oligarchic	Democratic
Nationalist	Capitalist	Socialist

Then you can have for example a civ that is a Capitalist Democratic Monarchy or a Socialist Autocratic Republic and any combination from those options.
People can say "why only three options?", or "why is Nationalist with economic options like Capitalism and Socialism?" and the reasons are gameplay and recognition. We can be picky about proper terminology but after all these year we can guess that Firaxis do things like this not because ignorance but because they want something like this for recongnition even if they are tropes.
Also these are not the only elements, and there are also the free/wild card policies/civics/doctrines or whatever we could name them. For example each option for the main civics from the chart can have their own "deck" of policies cards, being some common for all the options, others exclusive or incompatible with some options for example Autocratic can add an extra level of oppression with the Totalitarism policy but Democratic is incompatible (also you can mix Autocratic+Nationalism/Socialism + Totalitarism for the full dictatorial experience).

So we can have the best of both visions, customizable multiple elements of our society plus the abstract gamey main civics with their own flavor and mechanics (something hard to ballance and develop for a more open system).

I quite like this idea. I would go as far as to separate them into 3 different categories and each category offers some sort of bonus or attribute and potential policy spots:
First category is your government which you can unlock the first one early game:
Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Theocracy etc.
Second category is economic system which the first one can come mid-game:
Feudalism, Capitalist, Mercantilist, Socialism, Corporatism
And finally, the third category would be ideology which would unlock late game:
Nationalism, Fundamentalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Secularism

(I realize that some of these ideas, like Socialism and Communism, could go into either economic system or ideology).

Edit: I changed around some ideologies like getting rid of Fascism and Communism and added Nationalism, Fundamentalism, and Secularism. I realize that Communism was sort of redundant if you have Socialism as an economic system and Nationalism as an ideology was better name and encompasses more groups of people through history.

 

[luca 83]

I quite like this idea. I would go as far as to separate them into 3 different categories and each category offers some sort of bonus or attribute and potential policy spots:
First category is your government which you can unlock the first one early game:
Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Theocracy etc.
Second category is economic system which the first one can come mid-game:
Feudalism, Capitalist, Mercantilist, Socialism, Corporatism
And finally the third category would be ideology:
Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism

(I realize that some of these ideas, like Socialism and Communism, could go into either economic system or ideology).

It is revolutionary even just the creation of the collective property of the colchoz like the French revolution it was revolutionary in the beheading of the king and in the establishment of the republic then Robespierre, the thermidor Napoleon, etc but the ideology at the base is important

 

[BuchiTaton]

(I realize that some of these ideas, like Socialism and Communism, could go into either economic system or ideology).

Yes this is something that happen a lot, many ideologies can be portrayed in many different categories and ways since they overlap in their concepts and thematics. So is hard get a "correct" classification or even be contented with one, way worse achieve one model that everybody could agree with.

Because that is why I think that gameplay should guide the final selection even if we take some "liberties" in the classification, naming and effects in-game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes this is something that happen a lot, many ideologies can be portrayed in many different categories and ways since they overlap in their concepts and thematics. So is hard get a "correct" classification or even be contented with one, way worse achieve one model that everybody could agree with.

Because that is why I think that gameplay should guide the final selection even if we take some "liberties" in the classification, naming and effects in-game.

Based off the definitions alone Socialism is an economic system, while Communism is a political system influenced by a single economic system, which is why I put them in those categories. I realize that may create an absurd combination of a hybrid Capitalist/Communist society though, unless by default they are incompatible.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Some ideas for the different options from the main elements of your society:

LEGITIMACY

- Theocracy, from each enabled religious doctrine you get a Commandment that must be keeped to unlock an additional bonus, however if any Commandment is not keeped it will show a turn timer to receive loyalty penalties from it. Most of their positive effects are directed to the population of your official religion, including a huge boost to loyalty.​

​

- Monarchy, every certain number of turns you can choose a Consort from a list of Royal Houses that at the beginning are one from each owned city, plus one from every friendly civ that is also a Monarchy. Each time is generated a new set of Consorts with random bonuses, then the selected homecity would gain a powerful loyalty boost plus a title, up to three levels (1-Barony, 2-County, and 3-Duchy) for a total of 4 bonuses. Then if you keep selecting the same House you would need to grant them others cities but from here the more you keep doing it the bigger the chance of a revolt from all the cities of other houses (based on % of cities). Meanwhile Consorts from foreign Houses replace the basal loyalty bonus with a diplomatic bonus.​

​

- Republic, here every kind of class, heritage or belief whose denizens represent at least 5% of your empire's total population would gain a Senator representative that provides a loyalty bonus. Also you can pick three Senators (one of each type) to provide empire wide bonuses. If the percentage for some representation is lost it raises an alert and its effect expires in 3 turns.​

AUTHORITY

- Autocracy, players can make Decrees, powerful bonuses for a specific topic to select, but only one can be in effect at once. Even if a decree can be replaced by a new one any turn the player wants, when enacted it causes a generalized loyalty malus for X number of turns, so two consecutive decrees before cool down would accumulate their negative values.​

This option also has a default loyalty penalty to any population with a value below average.​

​

- Oligarchy, depending what combination of legitimacy and/or ideology the player has, certain kinds of citizens would be assigned as elites, this could be for example the clerics for Theocracy, the warriors for Monarchy, the traders for Capitalism, etc. Then every elite class would have their Pacts, a set of bonuses that can be unlocked by their level of loyalty, so the happier they are the better bonuses they provide. But to secure this you would need to invest in favors and privileges that would mean spending yields and sometimes affect the other kinds of citizens.​

​

- Democracy, every certain number of turns Elections will be held. When an election is held every kind of citizen whose average loyalty is at least X level would provide their own special bonus. Here the individual bonuses are more modest but there are way more identitarian groups, so the balance of the interests of our whole population would boost every aspect of our empire.​

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

- Theocracy, from each enabled religious doctrine you get a Commandment that must be keeped to unlock an additional bonus, however if any Commandment is not keeped it will show a turn timer to receive loyalty penalties from it. Most of their positive effects are directed to the population of your official religion, including a huge boost to loyalty.

What would exactly a Commandment be in game? I don't want to make it overly complicated. I was thinking of just using faith, instead of gold, to change policies. and having access to build a "Grand Master's Chapel".
Though if a Commandment is basically like a "permanent policy" then I like that too.

Edit: I'd probably make a Commandment a new kind of Great Work exclusive to a Theocracy. These also act as a "permanent policy" and may be placed in a Grand Master's Chapel/Apostolic Palace.

- Monarchy, every certain number of turns you can choose a Consort from a list of Royal Houses that at the beginning are one from each owned city, plus one from every friendly civ that is also a Monarchy. Each time is generated a new set of Consorts with random bonuses, then the selected homecity would gain a powerful loyalty boost plus a title, up to three levels (1-Barony, 2-County, and 3-Duchy) for a total of 4 bonuses. Then if you keep selecting the same House you would need to grant them others cities but from here the more you keep doing it the bigger the chance of a revolt from all the cities of other houses (based on % of cities). Meanwhile Consorts from foreign Houses replace the basal loyalty bonus with a diplomatic bonus.

Again, an overcomplicated approach to my Royal Marriage idea, but I like it. However, I was thinking of sending royal consorts to other civs to form diplomatic relations, instead of sending them to your own cities with bonuses.
They could also come back with information for you, so in a way they are more like a safe way to play an espionage game.

 

[luca 83]

Some ideas for the different options from the main elements of your society:

LEGITIMACY

- Theocracy, from each enabled religious doctrine you get a Commandment that must be keeped to unlock an additional bonus, however if any Commandment is not keeped it will show a turn timer to receive loyalty penalties from it. Most of their positive effects are directed to the population of your official religion, including a huge boost to loyalty.​

​

- Monarchy, every certain number of turns you can choose a Consort from a list of Royal Houses that at the beginning are one from each owned city, plus one from every friendly civ that is also a Monarchy. Each time is generated a new set of Consorts with random bonuses, then the selected homecity would gain a powerful loyalty boost plus a title, up to three levels (1-Barony, 2-County, and 3-Duchy) for a total of 4 bonuses. Then if you keep selecting the same House you would need to grant them others cities but from here the more you keep doing it the bigger the chance of a revolt from all the cities of other houses (based on % of cities). Meanwhile Consorts from foreign Houses replace the basal loyalty bonus with a diplomatic bonus.​

​

- Republic, here every kind of class, heritage or belief whose denizens represent at least 5% of your empire's total population would gain a Senator representative that provides a loyalty bonus. Also you can pick three Senators (one of each type) to provide empire wide bonuses. If the percentage for some representation is lost it raises an alert and its effect expires in 3 turns.​

AUTHORITY

- Autocracy, players can make Decrees, powerful bonuses for a specific topic to select, but only one can be in effect at once. Even if a decree can be replaced by a new one any turn the player wants, when enacted it causes a generalized loyalty malus for X number of turns, so two consecutive decrees before cool down would accumulate their negative values.​

This option also has a default loyalty penalty to any population with a value below average.​

​

- Oligarchy, depending what combination of legitimacy and/or ideology the player has, certain kinds of citizens would be assigned as elites, this could be for example the clerics for Theocracy, the warriors for Monarchy, the traders for Capitalism, etc. Then every elite class would have their Pacts, a set of bonuses that can be unlocked by their level of loyalty, so the happier they are the better bonuses they provide. But to secure this you would need to invest in favors and privileges that would mean spending yields and sometimes affect the other kinds of citizens.​

​

- Democracy, every certain number of turns Elections will be held. When an election is held every kind of citizen whose average loyalty is at least X level would provide their own special bonus. Here the individual bonuses are more modest but there are way more identitarian groups, so the balance of the interests of our whole population would boost every aspect of our empire.​

autocracy does not adequately represent the Soviet government and its political evolutions , the polit buro , the presidium or fascism ,Italian where monarchy and fascism coexisted , nor Germany where the chancellor was merged with the president . then you always forget . lideology

 

[BuchiTaton]

autocracy does not adequately represent the Soviet government and its political evolutions , the polit buro , the presidium or fascism ,Italian where monarchy and fascism coexisted , nor Germany where the chancellor was merged with the president . then you always forget . lideology

From your replies to @Evie and me It seem like you are not understanding what these systems about multiple elements of government/society are about.
It was already said that on these kind of system you can be BOTH the Monarchy + Nationalist and not just that, you can also define other elements like if you are Autocratic, Oligarchic or Democratic.

The Politburo can be represented by being Oligarchic like at the same time you are a Republic with Socialist ideology, additional "wildcard doctrines" like Totalitarism would represent the repression of political dissidents.

 

[BuchiTaton]

What would exactly a Commandment be in game? I don't want to make it overly complicated. I was thinking of just using faith, instead of gold, to change policies. and having access to build a "Grand Master's Chapel".
Though if a Commandment is basically like a "permanent policy" then I like that too.

Edit: I'd probably make a Commandment a new kind of Great Work exclusive to a Theocracy. These also act as a "permanent policy" and may be placed in a Grand Master's Chapel/Apostolic Palace.

There are other elements and bonus that can be added, but talking about Commandments the idea is to be a "to do and keep" list of missions. For example if you have the religious doctrine Proselytism the Commandment that provides being a Theocracy is to have at least one Missionary working in a city (own or foreign) by each four cities you have, while this is fulfilled you get a x2 conversion bonus for all your missionaries, but when not this cause a loyalty penalty.
Other example is Monasticism, its Commandment is to build Monasteries in at least 50% of your cities giving you and extra +3 culture and +3 science from each one when achieved.

So the idea is to make Theocracy players to really devote themselves to keep their religious doctrines, earning bonus when achieved and malus when not.

Again, an overcomplicated approach to my Royal Marriage idea, but I like it. However, I was thinking of sending royal consorts to other civs to form diplomatic relations, instead of sending them to your own cities with bonuses.
They could also come back with information for you, so in a way they are more like a safe way to play an espionage game.

I had to look for a more inner politics centered design because others civs having non-monarchy governments would decrease the value of their diplomatic gameplay. Still the diplomatic options is still there since you can send the Consorts to others monarchies for huge diplomatic bonuses. What I think can be changed is the need to be friendly beforehand. I suppose would not be nice to be a Consort send to an unfriendly kingdom, but for gameplay sake improve the diplomatic relation was the real point after all.