Tweet
Narrowminded civilizations
Have you noticed that in Civ, the player and the AIs are always encouraged to acquire new knowledge?
It's almost always positive to explore new frontiers, to discover new techs. As leaders, we are to lead mankind on its road to progress.
Yet, in history, there have been many, many narrowminded rulers, and even narrowminded regimes. Sometimes, that was because these rulers were morons. Sometimes, that was because they just couldn't imagine there was something different than the already-known.
But more often than not, it was for a very good reason: A deep societal change can seriously hurt the very fabric of society. The stability, which is indispensable for a leader to effectively rule, is threatened. Many people oppose the change per reaction. Many people oppose the change because they stand to to lose something from it.
And more importantly, traditional societies generally rest on a "to each his role" mindset, which is stable because people are born and dead into it. When society changes, then change simply looks possible to the ones getting the short end of the system, and there can be revolt.
Finally, any change is bound to divide society between those who stay true to tradition, and those who embrace change. In this regard, many rulers in history have preferred to be very cautious about supporting new ideas, as to not divide their subjects, and ultimately their kingdoms.
Yet, this is barely represented in Civ. There is no rational reason not to embrace technology and new civics. Sure, there's the anarchy period, but unless you're in a war or in a close wonder/space race, that's a price you'll gladly pay (especially if you're spiritual).
Sure, there's the obsolescence of wonders and luxuries, which can encourage you to delay a tech if you are over reliant on one in particular.
But those are very small hindrances against the player being firmly on the path to progress. There is never a full stop on progress, that will last many turns.
----------
In Civ, the typical choice is butter vs guns. It pervades the whole game. I like it, but I'd like there to be more choices as well. There was some of it in Civ2 and in SMAC with the Fundamentalism civics, which had dramatic effects on your happiness (positive) and science (negative).
However, I found that approach to be heavy handed, and fundamentalism in Civ2 was broken anyway. IMO, civics isn't the way to go, because innovativeness vs narrowmindedness can apply to every regime:
A democracy might be tempted to stagnate, if the society feels everything is like it should be. As well, a ruler might want to defend tradition to maintain stability, even if its not particularly for religious reasons (the Tokugawas).
As such, instead of having "science vs stability" being only a matter of civics, I'd like a different model for it.
An idea that pops up would be to give an unhappiness-malus when you discover specific techs, or when you change your civics (i.e, everything that constitutes a "radical change": the discovery of philosophy, of liberalism, well, make that any new religious/political doctrine, and quite a few economic doctrines).
This unhappiness would disappear over time. However, for the time it lasts, it is cumulative. If you underwent no "radical change" in a long while, you could get happiness bonuses because of that.
What do you think about it?
It's almost always positive to explore new frontiers, to discover new techs. As leaders, we are to lead mankind on its road to progress.
Yet, in history, there have been many, many narrowminded rulers, and even narrowminded regimes. Sometimes, that was because these rulers were morons. Sometimes, that was because they just couldn't imagine there was something different than the already-known.
But more often than not, it was for a very good reason: A deep societal change can seriously hurt the very fabric of society. The stability, which is indispensable for a leader to effectively rule, is threatened. Many people oppose the change per reaction. Many people oppose the change because they stand to to lose something from it.
And more importantly, traditional societies generally rest on a "to each his role" mindset, which is stable because people are born and dead into it. When society changes, then change simply looks possible to the ones getting the short end of the system, and there can be revolt.
Finally, any change is bound to divide society between those who stay true to tradition, and those who embrace change. In this regard, many rulers in history have preferred to be very cautious about supporting new ideas, as to not divide their subjects, and ultimately their kingdoms.
Yet, this is barely represented in Civ. There is no rational reason not to embrace technology and new civics. Sure, there's the anarchy period, but unless you're in a war or in a close wonder/space race, that's a price you'll gladly pay (especially if you're spiritual).
Sure, there's the obsolescence of wonders and luxuries, which can encourage you to delay a tech if you are over reliant on one in particular.
But those are very small hindrances against the player being firmly on the path to progress. There is never a full stop on progress, that will last many turns.
----------
In Civ, the typical choice is butter vs guns. It pervades the whole game. I like it, but I'd like there to be more choices as well. There was some of it in Civ2 and in SMAC with the Fundamentalism civics, which had dramatic effects on your happiness (positive) and science (negative).
However, I found that approach to be heavy handed, and fundamentalism in Civ2 was broken anyway. IMO, civics isn't the way to go, because innovativeness vs narrowmindedness can apply to every regime:
A democracy might be tempted to stagnate, if the society feels everything is like it should be. As well, a ruler might want to defend tradition to maintain stability, even if its not particularly for religious reasons (the Tokugawas).
As such, instead of having "science vs stability" being only a matter of civics, I'd like a different model for it.
An idea that pops up would be to give an unhappiness-malus when you discover specific techs, or when you change your civics (i.e, everything that constitutes a "radical change": the discovery of philosophy, of liberalism, well, make that any new religious/political doctrine, and quite a few economic doctrines).
This unhappiness would disappear over time. However, for the time it lasts, it is cumulative. If you underwent no "radical change" in a long while, you could get happiness bonuses because of that.
What do you think about it?
Comment