I did a search for this on the forum and didn't find anything, which means I'll have to start a thread about it. I'll start with a definition: Even though (and because of) the player is a dictator, he should be able to shape the idealogy and policy of his, err, nation. Civics are the in-game system that represents the 'spirit' and direction of the nation.
I am familiar with three ways to implement civics.
Hard-coded: Like in Master of Orion 2 or MoM, your race/nation has a certain path they must tread. Personaly, I don't like it.
Global: Like in early Civ games, you can research and then choose a specific civic to have. Be it despotism, democracy or monarchy. Each have it's own pros and cons. This is only slightly better, since the choice isn't hard. A certain civic will trample the rest.
Specific: Like in Civ4 and Alpha Centauri, you can choose specific civics for different aspects of your government. Again, each with their cons and pros, which are added up across the various fields.
Example: What's your view on civilians using magic*? If you allow it, you may find yourself fighting a crime-family of necromancers. If you don't allow it, gifted citizens would go to other places where they're abilities are being appreciated, which would make it harder for you to recruit caster units. A third option could be to regulize it (like Athkala in BG2, where you need to buy a permit to use magic inside the city).
Admittedly, it's just a matter of the desired level of micro-management. Personaly though, I can't think of a way to implement civics which I would think to be overly complicated. In this case (well, in most other cases as well), I would say that the more complicated the system, the better.
*I am not sure if the lore of Elemental allow for non-player magic-users. A possitive response for this would make the game a lot more interesting (and realistic).
I was thinking about this too. I don't think it really represents the 'spirit of the nation' as much in some games than others, but I know what you mean. Its another feature that makes different civilization subtly different.
I figured that it would be hardcoded and the civics are what would make the different factions different. If you recall we know there are two main races, the men and the fallen, but these 2 races are divided into 12 different factions. The only way I can imagine this being possible is with hardcoded or mostly hardcoded civics.
I can see maybe a few options being available per faction, so like the military heavy faction 1 would have access to civic options A,B,and C. Where diplomacy and defensive heavy faction 2 has access to civics B, E, and F, while slow but strong and aggressive faction 3 has access to A, C, and F civics. So that is what I mean by mostly hardcoded, since its not compeletly open the way it is in say, Civilization. like civilization, they would have to have something special like certain building restrictions, or a special unit, or some other bonus that maket hem different that is completly hardcoded. Like faction 1 might have +1 to attack on new units, reguardless of civic. Where faction 2 may have cheaper but stronger walls, towers, and forts, reguardless of civic.
I really liked how SMAC did it, which is pretty much as you described (assuming I'm understanding you correctly) landi as being mostly hardcoded. You could choose a bunch of different civics for different categories (government type, culture type, economy type etc I forget the precise names) altering productivity, environmental impact of production, police power etc but you'd have certain choices ruled out or in depending on your faction choice. For instance the dictatorial hive mind chappies couldn't select democratic as a government model and if I recall correctly the environmentalists had to choose green economy (although I could be misremembering that).
Also each faction had various inherent bonuses/weaknesses in their stats which generally worked best with the types of civics inkeeping witht he theme of the faction (eg totally negating the cons of some civic choices). I think this was a great way of giving some interesting variety and strategic decision making options to the player while at the same time keeping a unique feel to each individual faction.
I'd love to see some anti-magic nutjobs out there who would go attack mages yelling Bad Magiks the whole time as a random NPC.
Would have some buff abilities they could give- provided you didn't let anyone other then your channeler use magic.
Civics don't really fit with what we know of the lore.
So your people have a witch hunt and ban magic. Don't they realise that magic is what lets them live at all in this crapsack world?
I am sure (there had better be) there is at least 1 anti-magic faction. I know thats not exactly what you mean (as you specifially described an NPC crazy old mountain man or something), but I'd be interested to see a faction that embodied that idea. I love in warhammer the crazy anti-magic characters and the extremes they go through to avoid magic (much of what you describe arstal). I'd also like to play such people, also it would prevent me playing the same way everytime (In MoM I am also magic heavy, very rarely do I rely on my actual units until very late game (at which point I sometimes mass palidins, wyvern riders, or whatever. And that's only with factions that have especially awesome end game units. Otherwise I use mostly upper-level summons)
IMHO, the more granularity and nuts and bolts, the better. Too much simplicity leads to balance issues between traits/civics/etc... Make everything nuts and bolts and it's easier to make small adjustments to the game play and achieve a decent game balance. Game balance = replayability = good thing. If the nuts and bolts look ugly to the player, allow them to customize a set of traits/civics into a pretty meta-form.
OTOH, like Tamren said, civics might not fit into the theme of the game. The values of the people are likely to be simpler than most political philosophies that might be at home in Civ4. If anything, the moding of Civ4 civics in the Fall From Heaven 2 mod is probably closer to what a map of a medieval fantasy society's values. Things like the degree of social grace, importance of religion, choice of religion, importance of magic, castes relations, are probably going to be more significant in a medieval fantasy than most economic and political philosophies.
And if Elemental is like GalCiv2, it'll probably be more about getting bonuses from teching, than optimizing social memes turn by turn. There might not actually be a need for a civics system then. A good compromise to Civ4ers then might be a simple social focus system analogous to GalCiv2's planetary production focus, perhaps expanded, but still kept simple. Maybe even one based on castes---e.g. Merchant, Peasant, Mage, Military, etc... so the dominant caste extends production bonuses.
SMAC had both hardcoded and specific civics. You chose a leader with an overall agenda (survival, economy pure research), and during the game you could choose your governments outlook on specific issues. I think it's a much better system than '60% science/30% money/10% culture' Civ insists on having...
Don't bother with the search function. I haven't tried it in a while, but it doesn't appear to work. I remember some other thread where the issue of Civics were discussed, but I don't think it was a dedicated thread.
For what it's worth, I'd love to have a SMAC/Civ4 system, but obviously a lot more biased and without the whip of political correctness. I loved how Fascism actually was a viable system of governance in Civ3 instead of the "That's not democracy, boo! -40 Happiness!" that comes with the post-modern "the best of all possible worlds" & "Eurasia have always been at war with Oceania. Eurasia will always be at war with Oceania" trails of thought.
I want all possible kinds of civics, all mostly viable under a vast amount of specializations or situations.
Edit: https://forums.elementalgame.com/328989/page/4/#1939498
I don't know who you quoted, but he forgot to mention the most obvious thing... Magocracy, a society based around arcane studies. It is ruled by a council of the most powerful casters, usualy three from each order.
Also, this is the first time I see Orwell mentioned in this kind of fantasy discussion...
The subject of Magocracy could be a dodgy one, though, since the only real holder of magic is the Channeler. Also, nice to see someone that recognizes Orwell 'on the fly'.
Lol the only person worth quoting
Or so we must assume, given the fact that all the dev journal posts since site launch have been mostly about mundane mechanics and not magical ones.
As I've come to understand it, that's why the Channeler is a 'channeler' and not just a mage of massive power.
Any chance you can share a link to that? I try to catch all the dev journal entries, and I don't recall any significant detail about how essence will work other than that it is separate from mana, possibly never increases during the game, and is required both to make blasted lands arable again and to transform 'regular' units into heroes. Even there, I'm paraphrasing and dredging from my sloppy excuse for a memory.
Also, even if no one can wield magic without being imbued with essence, until we know more about the essence system, it isn't safe to assume that the imbuing channeler will have any lasting connection to the imbued hero. It seems plausible that a channeler would 'own' every wizard he or she created and be able to 'cut the thread' at will, stripping them of the powers. It seems equally plausible that a wizard, once imbued, is an independent magical entity and the imbuing channeler would need to use charisma and/or fear to hold that wizard's loyalty. The latter context leaves plenty of room for a 'magocracy' founded by a channeler who wanted to found something like a meritocratic oligarchy.
yeah that is where I sit too. Like, several people around the forum seem to get the impression that the channelers are the only people to use magic, and I don't know where they got it. I understood that the channelers were just so wildly better at it that they had to be given a different name. I was also under the impression that the magic being channeler went all over, bringing life, magic, and everything back to the entire world (where a regular mage would just use the magic that has already been returned to the world)
Edit: They REALLY need to fix quoting on these forums. Especially since there's no preview function, and you have to go back, and back, and back, editing, trying to fix it, until finally giving up and opting for a second-rate junkyard solution. PFEH!
I'm one of those people that just 'catch' things as I'm running through life, but just by backtracking a bit and looking over the sections, I found this.
If that is true for heroes, I see no reason why it wouldn't be for politicians and plebes.
Yes, of course. It would just mean sacrificing a small amount of essence in order to found a council. This is where I bring up the Red Wizards of Thay and how much I absolutely love them. I'm all in favor of a Magocracy civic - I just meant to say that the issue is somewhat dodgy.
That, though, is entirely possible. There's nothing to suggest that, in time, there will be plebes born with magic talent - simply from the Channeler returning magic to the world, infusing his people au naturelle.
Question is if he wants to bring it back to his people, after we saw what eventually happened to the last world, before the cataclysm. Maybe it's better if we have some kind of order, where only the best are invited. Where the magic is restricted from the common man. Where only mages have power over those that lack the power to control themselves. Where mages are continously controlled by other mages.. oh, wait! MAGOCRACY!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
