Which government is the "continuation" of which government?

[almughavar]

My guess:

Classical Republic => Merchant Republic => Democracy => Digital Democracy.

Autocracy => ? => Communism => Synthetic Technocracy.

Oligarchy => ? => Fascism => Corporate Libertarianism.

 

[Starina]

According to the precepts of Ilyich:
slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism

In the game, I take the government that is beneficial right now
Most often they are: Oligarchy -> Merchant Republic -> Democracy -> Synthetic Technocracy

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'd say Autocracy -> Monarchy and Oligarchy -> Theocracy. For two reasons.

First, from a roleplay perspective, monarchies are often autocracies and seems the natural evolution of the government, while a theocracy is just another form of oligarchy (rule of a few, here the clergy).

Second, we can see a pattern. We can see two main "focus" in governments: a militaristic one, and a diplomatic/economic one. Classical Republic is the diplo/econ one, as they are the one with the less military card slots in all era. Autocracy is the militaristic one, and Oligarchy take a middle and balanced approach, being equally distributing among every card types. Fascism is also the same (4 military slots), and Communism is balanced between economy and military (while Democracy is full econ/diplo). In Middle-Ages, Monarchy is the one with the most military cards, while Theocracy is balanced between econ/mil.
So it would give:

Autocracy-Monarchy-Fascism-Corporate Libertarianism (focus on military card slots and on domination victory)
Oligarchy-Theocracy-Communism-Synthetic Technocracy (balanced card slots with usually equal between economic and military and helping for science victory)
Classical Republic-Merchant Republic-Democracy-Digital Democracy (focus on diplomatic card slots then economic but not military at all and helping for a diplomatic or cultural victory)

For the same reasons (and as you can see), I would have put Corporate Libertarianism in the Autocracy-Monarch-Fascism line, because it has the most military card slots and its bonuses (additional productions from encampments, quicker strategic resources) lean towards a military gameplay and a Domination Victory, something Autocracy-Monarchy-Fascism do too for their military card slots (knowing that a lot of economists say that late stage capitalism lead to fascism, it makes sense to see corporate libertarianism following fascism).
It also makes more sense for me to have Synthetic Technocracy after Communism because both are helping you towards science victory: Communism gives you +10% science, and Technocracy gives you additional power (helping for the Lagrange Laser project) and additional production for projects (and the Science Victory is, at its end, just a serie of different projects).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I would like they revamp the government system in Civ to be more accurate and flexible. You would have 5 scales like this:

Liberal T3 < T2 < T1 <- IDEOLOGY-> T1 > T2 > T3 Conservative
Free Market T3 < T2 < T1<- ECONOMY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Interventionism
Autoritharian T3 < T2 < T1<- SOCIETY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Democtatic
Centralized T3 < T2 < T1<- SOVEREIGNTY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Decentralized
Clericalism T3 < T2 < T1<- CHURCH -> T1 > T2 > T3 Secularism

Each tier has buffs and downsides and each is unlocked in the civic tree

 

[acluewithout]

The breakdown is:

• The Wide Governments (ie Liberty). Classical Republic-Merchant Republic-Democracy-Digital Democracy.

• The Tall Governments (ie Autocracy). Autocracy-Monarchy-Communism-Synthetic Technocracy.

• The Domination / Military Governments (ie Facism). Oligarchy-Theocracy-Facism-Corporate Libertarianism..

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I would like they revamp the government system in Civ to be more accurate and flexible. You would have 5 scales like this:

Liberal T3 < T2 < T1 <- IDEOLOGY-> T1 > T2 > T3 Conservative
Free Market T3 < T2 < T1<- ECONOMY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Interventionism
Autoritharian T3 < T2 < T1<- SOCIETY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Democtatic
Centralized T3 < T2 < T1<- SOVEREIGNTY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Decentralized
Clericalism T3 < T2 < T1<- CHURCH -> T1 > T2 > T3 Secularism

Each tier has buffs and downsides and each is unlocked in the civic tree

You're just describing the ideology system of Humankind here, aren't you?
Also I like having government, but it's more for roleplay. Mechanically, I like it, but it could always be improved.

 

[EgonSpengler]

From a historical perspective, I don't know if modes governance follow an "upgrade" pattern. I think they often undergo radical change when the current system stagnates. People in power usually want to hang onto that power. They end up going down with the ship, so to speak, because any change to the system threatens the lifestyle they enjoy, and almost nobody does that voluntarily. Conversely, people at the bottom of the current system, whatever it might be, don't want that system improved, they want it gone.

From a roleplay perspective, any time I hit a Dark Age, I feel like I should switch my government to something radically different. Almost by definition, if I've hit a Dark Age, the existing system has failed, or at least reached its limits.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

You're just describing the ideology system of Humankind here, aren't you?
Also I like having government, but it's more for roleplay. Mechanically, I like it, but it could always be improved.

Perhaps. I don't know how it is solved in Humankind. From a game design perspective (not just RP) this system would be much more flexible in my opinion. And yes it has to be improved. What I described here is just a sketch of course.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Perhaps. I don't know how it is solved in Humankind. From a game design perspective (not just RP) this system would be much more flexible in my opinion. And yes it has to be improved. What I described here is just a sketch of course.

In Humankind they have four axes which represent the "ideology" of your empire, what are their values, what are the thing your empire consider more important (additional to Civics which represent more specific laws about specific subjects, and civics influencing your ideologies; for example, if you decided land is a collective property, then you lean towards collectivism, while if you decide they must be inherited, then you lean towards individualism).
The four axes are:
Collectivist economy <-> Individualist economy (communism/capitalism simplified)
World <-> Homeland (if you're more open or if you value exceptionalism for ex)
Liberty <-> Authority
Tradition <-> Progress
I think it's a good system (made me think about the Ethics system of Stellaris) and I'm eager to see how everything will be put into place.

From a historical perspective, I don't know if modes governance follow an "upgrade" pattern. I think they often undergo radical change when the current system stagnates. People in power usually want to hang onto that power. They end up going down with the ship, so to speak, because any change to the system threatens the lifestyle they enjoy, and almost nobody does that voluntarily. Conversely, people at the bottom of the current system, whatever it might be, don't want that system improved, they want it gone.

From a roleplay perspective, any time I hit a Dark Age, I feel like I should switch my government to something radically different. Almost by definition, if I've hit a Dark Age, the existing system has failed, or at least reached its limits.

I think the purpose of the post was more: if a government had to evolve "naturally" (instead of during a revolution), what would be the continuity?
And it's a valid question. For example, if we suppose that Athens maintained its democratic system for a long time; once arrived through the Middle Ages, it's easy to imagine than, under this system, rich merchants would began to hold the positions of power and encourage free/maritime trade (especially with the advantageous position of Athens in the Egean Sea and the Mediterranea). So, naturally and gradually, Athens would become a Classical Republic (where all citizens would have the right to vote) towards a Merchant Republic (where the institutions are factually hold by wealthy merchant families, who will then legitimize their rule through some legal systems).
An religious oligarchy during the Ancient and Classical Time, especially considering the importance of religion in some part of the world, could naturally evolve into a Theocracy, where the priests who were the de facto rulers of the country just legitimize their rule.
The biggest fracture would occur between Midle-Age governments and Modern governments, because the world came through incredible changes at this time so here I don't see a "natural" evolution (especially from Theocracy towards Communism for example). But it's an interesting thought experiment.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think the purpose of the post was more: if a government had to evolve "naturally" (instead of during a revolution), what would be the continuity?
And it's a valid question. For example, if we suppose that Athens maintained its democratic system for a long time; once arrived through the Middle Ages, it's easy to imagine than, under this system, rich merchants would began to hold the positions of power and encourage free/maritime trade (especially with the advantageous position of Athens in the Egean Sea and the Mediterranea). So, naturally and gradually, Athens would become a Classical Republic (where all citizens would have the right to vote) towards a Merchant Republic (where the institutions are factually hold by wealthy merchant families, who will then legitimize their rule through some legal systems).
An religious oligarchy during the Ancient and Classical Time, especially considering the importance of religion in some part of the world, could naturally evolve into a Theocracy, where the priests who were the de facto rulers of the country just legitimize their rule.
The biggest fracture would occur between Midle-Age governments and Modern governments, because the world came through incredible changes at this time so here I don't see a "natural" evolution (especially from Theocracy towards Communism for example). But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Yeah, I didn't really explain my point very well. What I mean is that I think types of government don't "evolve." They coast until they experience a shock. By definition, mostly, people who have power don't want anything to change, because everything's working just fine for them, and they're the ones in charge of deciding. But I haven't done any research, I'm just going from memory. Are there any examples of a Classical Republic "naturally evolving" into a Merchant Republic? That kind of like-for-like change, an "evolution" from one to the next, might in fact be the exception.

p.s. I would say this type of organizational chart would be handy for what I'm describing, because you'd want to know which types of government are too similar. During a moment of dramatic change such as a Dark Age, I'd want to avoid a type of government that's too close to the one I'm abandoning.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Are there any examples of a Classical Republic "naturally evolving" into a Merchant Republic. That kind of like-for-like change, an "evolution" from one to the next, might in fact be the exception.

Most of Italian merchant republics went through this process, actually. At the beginning, they were only cities governed through a "republican" process (as opposed to monarchies: the power lies into the city in itself and its inhabitants, not some dynasty), often under the domination of someone else (but the local governments were republicans) and, through trade, they gather power (until, eventually for those concerned, gaining their independance) and wealthy influential families began to expulse poor people from the institutions. Venice is actually a good example of it: they as the Golden Book (or something like that) in which were referenced all the old families that had the right to be part of the Great Council, and a lot of the wealthy merchants were furious because poor families, that just happened to be present at the beginnings of the republic, still had their say in the Great Council and the laws of the republic, until, gradually, they were no more part of it or that wealthy families just bribed them to vote for what they wanted. As far as my memory goes, only the Hanseatic League began their history already as true merchant republics.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

In Humankind they have four axes which represent the "ideology" of your empire, what are their values, what are the thing your empire consider more important (additional to Civics which represent more specific laws about specific subjects, and civics influencing your ideologies; for example, if you decided land is a collective property, then you lean towards collectivism, while if you decide they must be inherited, then you lean towards individualism).
The four axes are:
Collectivist economy <-> Individualist economy (communism/capitalism simplified)
World <-> Homeland (if you're more open or if you value exceptionalism for ex)
Liberty <-> Authority
Tradition <-> Progress
I think it's a good system (made me think about the Ethics system of Stellaris) and I'm eager to see how everything will be put into place.

I like it. I think the more you can define your empire the more the game gets some additional flavor. In the end, it is all about point generating. But good euro games should always leave you some space for Role Play and cover the generic race for points with a sense that the player can make a personal mark on their empire/civilization. Preferably if this mechanic also helps to deepen the game from its mechanic point of view. That's why I always support these small things like graphical distinction or asymmetrical way of play that helps you feel a unique experience. I remember back in Civ IV units could speak its langue. Marked german worker who was saying "Ihre Befele?" or a french one with "Oui Monsieur" was super climatic. I miss it.

 

[8housesofelixir]

There is a clear match between the 1st tier and the 3rd tier governments, and an obvious match between the 3rd tier and the 4th tier.

We can roughly divided these matches into 3 categories:
Wide and Diplomacy = Classical Republic - Democracy - Digital Democracy
War = Oligarchy - Fascism - Corporate Libertarianism
Tall and Production = Autocracy - Communism - Synthetic Technocracy

However this categorization doesn't work for 2nd tier.
The card slots arrangements and bonus of Merchant Republic does look like a proto-Democracy.
Although Monarchy is clearly War-focus, it has a wall housing bonus, which corresponding to Tall.
Theocracy is the real wild card. It's ability and bonus doesn't fit the the above category at all. If anything, it is a government for Religion and Culture Victories, but doesn't correspond to any specific playstyle like Wide and Tall.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Imperialistic: Oligarchy > Theocracy > Fascism > Corporate Libertarianism

Centralization: Autocracy ---> Monarchy. Basically the same thing.

Liberty: Classical Republic ---> Merchant Republic ---> Democracy ---> Digital Democracy

Collectivism: Communism ---> Synthetic Technocracy.

Communism has no precursor, but I guess it kinda replaces Monarchy as that's how most revolutions went.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

According to my plays( seems most time I'll follow this route)

Autocracy--> Theocracy --> Communism --> Digital Democracy

 

[Ivan Hunger]

The way I look at it, there are two default paths.

Economic Path: Classical Republic → Merchant Republic → Democracy → Synthetic Technocracy

Military Path: Oligarchy → Monarchy → Fascism → Corporate Libertarianism

The third set of governments aren't so much a path as they are a random collection. I call them the Specialist governments.

Now some civs will want to chose one of the two paths and stick with it for the entire game. But most will want to switch back and forth between the two paths or choose one of the specialist governments, depending on what synergizes best with their unique bonuses.

Take Pericles of Greece for example. His priority is city-state diplomacy. So the path he'll usually follow is: Economic → Military → Economic → Specialist

Now look at Magnificence Catherine of France. She wants as much production as possible so she can spam world wonders. Her usual path will be: Specialist → Economic → Specialist → Military

How about Saladin of Arabia? He wants to spread his religion as aggressively as possible. His path will usually be: Economic → Specialist → Economic → Economic

 

[Red Adept]

I would like they revamp the government system in Civ to be more accurate and flexible. You would have 5 scales like this:

Liberal T3 < T2 < T1 <- IDEOLOGY-> T1 > T2 > T3 Conservative
Free Market T3 < T2 < T1<- ECONOMY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Interventionism
Autoritharian T3 < T2 < T1<- SOCIETY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Democtatic
Centralized T3 < T2 < T1<- SOVEREIGNTY -> T1 > T2 > T3 Decentralized
Clericalism T3 < T2 < T1<- CHURCH -> T1 > T2 > T3 Secularism

Each tier has buffs and downsides and each is unlocked in the civic tree

This would be interesting.

I'd do this with:
A system of policy placecards provided at certain techs (i.e., when you get Code of Laws, you get three and you can place them wherever). You can choose any of the 5 placeholders to get the true benefit of any card placed in it. You could choose a 'wildcard' slot which gives you flexibility, but a reduced benefit from the card. (i.e., instead of 50% cheaper builders, they're 40%.)

The cards would also increment dependent on how far up/down the ideological slider you are. A theocratic card would offer minimal benefit if you're at +3 on the Church scale.

At some trigger, you can change your sliders, whether it be a dark age, a civil war, or whatnot.

But... this is all taking Civilization away from the 'board game' feel, which I feel is holding the game back.