Well, there is a stability mechanic, perhaps that can be used to replicate some of the things you want? If it is low enough you can get revolutions?

You are aware that the marxist understanding of history are kinda... outdated right now?

We can have revolts and revolutions without having to rely on a, let's say controversial, society model. Like Dinode said, there's a stability mechanic that could emulate that. I would add that different social conflicts have different causes and different manifestations that can also be done through events or simply certain features (like a governement system).

Obviously Humankind isn't a simulation, meaning that we can't have a "changing society in a constant flow of time". The game is divided into eras, meaning that a lot of changes will be abrupt.

I'm a big fan of the "rises and falls" feeling in strategy games, with countries evolving through all kinds of events, but I don't really see a lot of potential for that in a game where you pick different  "cultures" at different eras. We will have some choices with consequences that deal with social conflicts (like you could get an event to become a democracy), but I doubt it will actually be part of the gameplay (as in, at some point you'll have your population revolting and killing the king).

Dinode wrote:

Well, there is a stability mechanic, perhaps that can be used to replicate some of the things you want? If it is low enough you can get revolutions?

There was a stability mechanic in Civ IV "Rhye's and Fall..." mode, which could turn empires into dust if mismanaged and I found it very interesting at that time, because you always had an inner threat that could not be managed with a giant army. But Civ IV's paradygm mechanics were just awful.

I think that it can be implemented on economy-based classes, progressing through ages

Once you settle down and start making food from farms, slaves, slaveholders and peasants appear. As you build state, your economy grows, there are more and more slaves, you need to control them from rebelling. If there is too much, their production loweres at the point you get a crisis. 

And end of this crisis is seen in turning into feudal state, and making peasants out of slaves. Peasants will automatically generate a small amount of knights out of them, which could be made into landlords to help in governace and improve stability. For time being, landlords will become too much, peasants will become a limiting factor in production, while new trade roots, banks and giant guilds in new cities will generate bourgeois that will boost economy and make new stuff like factories, but will conflict with former aristocracy etc etc etc. I mean, it can be automated I guess and it will make game extremelly dynamic

Ezumiyr wrote:

You are aware that the marxist understanding of history are kinda... outdated right now?

We can have revolts and revolutions without having to rely on a, let's say controversial, society model. Like Dinode said, there's a stability mechanic that could emulate that. I would add that different social conflicts have different causes and different manifestations that can also be done through events or simply certain features (like a governement system).

Obviously Humankind isn't a simulation, meaning that we can't have a "changing society in a constant flow of time". The game is divided into eras, meaning that a lot of changes will be abrupt.

I'm a big fan of the "rises and falls" feeling in strategy games, with countries evolving through all kinds of events, but I don't really see a lot of potential for that in a game where you pick different  "cultures" at different eras. We will have some choices with consequences that deal with social conflicts (like you could get an event to become a democracy), but I doubt it will actually be part of the gameplay (as in, at some point you'll have your population revolting and killing the king).

Sorry, but I wont argue on Marxist understanding since I want to keep everything civil and I get too furious when debating politically-wise. 

I mean, I'd like to see it because, paired with stability and cultures it can make awesomely dynamic societies, which will provide cool stories, enormous replayability etc etc. 

i doubt that this will be in release version of the game, perhaps with some dlc or modes your idea will come to live, but surely not in closest future. Mostly because dev need to develop algorythms which woild simulate mentioned mechanics, then they should make this algorythm, stable, and after that controllable. 

As for the topic, i belive your idea not bad, but it feats more stellaris rather then Humankind, but i belive that ur idea could appear in different shape but still.

As alternative, there could be specific goverment tab, which will allow you to create laws policy's and other levers which will allow you to controll your pops (slaves, peasatnts, cityzens, priests, nobles) and split them in manner you do like

well by controll with laws, i meaned not full controll, but like number of possitive and negative effects, like if you give your peasants freedom in feudal society, that will most likely force u to confront with nobility, etc. But in anyway, all thoose mechanics should be optional, because some peps could find it to complex to figure out how all this work.

invesua wrote:

well by controll with laws, i meaned not full controll, but like number of possitive and negative effects, like if you give your peasants freedom in feudal society, that will most likely force u to confront with nobility, etc. But in anyway, all thoose mechanics should be optional, because some peps could find it to complex to figure out how all this work.

I don't like optionality of mechanics, because that turns the monolithic experience from game into a pile of "that guy used that option and that guy didn't". I mean, they should be one and together. Better to put sweat into proper explanation and UI, and Amplitude are absolutely great in those two. 

you got me wrong, by "optional" i meaned that player will be able choose to play "with" such mechanics or "without"

invesua wrote:

you got me wrong, by "optional" i meaned that player will be able choose to play "with" such mechanics or "without"

That kinda is what he meant I think. If one player is playing a super complex social simulator and the other is playing a simpler 4X, can you really say they are playing the same game? I know a lot of the DLC for the Endless games include new mechanics, and in that sense you could have "optional" mechanics, but there comes a point where it's more like a mod than the same game.

well, i think complexity should be chosen in same way as map size etc, so it will sort of a game rule, and think if made in such way, most will happy, coze not all peps playing at max difficulty

invesua wrote:

well, i think complexity should be chosen in same way as map size etc, so it will sort of a game rule, and think if made in such way, most will happy, coze not all peps playing at max difficulty

The issue with that is that things like map size and difficulty are on a slider, while whether you have a mechanic that adds one more thing to keep track of seems like a binary choice. Frankly, I think having events themed around these parts of history and utilizing the "civ myers briggs" that we already have (nation vs world, authority vs liberty, etc.) would be more likely and fit better.