Can I just say I really appreciate Civic design like this because it changes so much about playing the game. Now Globalism is the better civic in this case, these aren't balanced and isolationism should provide something of its own (maybe allowing internal trade routes/better internal trade like in civ or endless games) but I really like the concepts on display here.

https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/206-opendev/threads/40084-population-buyout-or-working-to-death-ideological-compatibility?page=1#post-316761

I also think it'd be a good idea to tie disabling forced labour to a civic rather than a tech as it is now.

I liked the civics and how they were played in general. For example the categories make sense.

I think there could be some improvements, though:

- If you have influence from another culture in your empire, then there should be interaction between the civics. Like the Osmosis but stronger: If the neighbor is strong (large territoriy, rich, ahead in tech tree, treaties or alliance between both players maybe, etc. and have different civics, then there should be a disire of my people to adopt civics the neighbours have. the higher the difference they strive for, the bigger the discomfort of my people, resulting in stability malus.

- I would like to see what triggers the civic cards. It will be clear anyways at some point when people played enough, so it could be made transparent from the beinning.

- You can get higher fame scores by staying longer in the old culture. Maybe there could be an advantage in changing early (except having more cultures to chose from) like being granted an additional civic card you can chose yourself on the change of coultures.

I like overall the ideologies bonus changes, but i feel like Authority isnt good.

Authority is only aobut delaying being converted, and feel like a 'loser' ideology, and plain influence just seems better.

One alternative i see could be instead to make it more resistnat to culutre conversion, not just delaying it but making other require more influence to convert you. So liberty could still be plain influence but authroity for example receive -X% influence from foreign empire on YOUR territories

It would keep the protection aspect and bee less effective to convert others or build wonders but make it feels more long term viable.

The satibility for middle is a good idea but maybe it makes it too perful when everything stay in the middle the stab is still to easy, maybe other stab balcne could handle that however

Laliloluhla wrote:

Can I just say I really appreciate Civic design like this because it changes so much about playing the game. Now Globalism is the better civic in this case, these aren't balanced and isolationism should provide something of its own (maybe allowing internal trade routes/better internal trade like in civ or endless games) but I really like the concepts on display here.

Yes - I think this is the right way to do civics

I would only effects like this (that change, enable, disable game functions) and would remove or change any civics that provide modifiers

These are impactful changes that can drive narrative and are not available anywhere else in the game giving civics a unique flavor

Overall, I liked the civics themselves. I found that each choice coul be valuable for different playstyles. Granted, some of them are overpowered. The one (procession?) that basically allows you to ignore stability should be nerfed heavily: maybe give a flat +20 or +30 stability? That way it is still useful in the early game but you quickly need to find other sources of stability. I also find civics that give influence per territory in the very early game (is that a civic? I remember seeing one like this in religion, another along the ideology axis, but I can't remember if a there was an actual civic with this effect) very powerful: I was able to quickly become influent over the Olmecs, which are supposed to be good at the influence game thanks to this, and then I encircled them pretty easily, because I made a whole lot of influence combining these 3. 

Another problem are the civic points: at the beginning, in the ancient and classical, you unlock civics fast enough, so that you can use your points for the ones you liked the most, whereas from the medieval era onward, I unlocked very few civic and quickly foun myself buying civics I had no interest for, just to optimize the ideology axis, and then to make stocks of civic points because I had nothing to buy. Maybe reduce the generation of civic points, or increase the number of civic you unlock in these later era? I don't know if it is tied to somme actions you do, but if it is the case, the fact that we have no idea what to do to unlock more civics is not helping. Also, speaking of civics unlocking, irrelion arrives way too early (I often got it as the second religious civic to unlock) and is not very clear about what it does.

But overall, I like the civics as they are.

One thing that disappointed me, however, are the ideology axis. They do not feel very important, and in my opinion they should be very important. I did not know where to share it, so I will leave it here because they are strongly tied to civics. Some thoughts:

- One part of the problem is that we can't really see the impact it has on diplomacy. I did not see any difference between civilisations that distrusted me because of ideologies and those who didn't. Maybe it has a real  impact though, it was just not visible enough. Maybe add a line in the breakout of their opinion? (for exemple something like "They dislike your political opinions"). I also did not found how to check the ideologies of other empires, which limits to what extent I can use ideologies in diplomacy.

- Another thing are that the boni are not significant: they are small additions to your empire, and surely 10% is not game changing. I would have made the boni significantly stronger. Of course, if the boni were stronger, the 10 stability won't be any useful to push players towards the center. That's why there should also be some drawbacks to every ideology, and strong drawbacks. It also seems more natural and makes sense for the gameplay: by going far towards a side, you specialize yourself: you become really good in one field but very weak in another. If you want to be good at both, you stay in the center. Right now, since there are no drawbacks, the only reason to stay in the center is to keep the 20 stability, but at one point percentage-based boni will necessarily become way more important than flat stability, because for exemple 2 additionnal research quarters would not outweigh the 10% more science if you generate enough science. An exemple of great bonus with a strong malus would be something like: "+50% science, applied after the other multipliers, but -4 stability per technology researched unless you have adopted irreligion" for progress: 50% more science is insane, but you know that if you go to this point, you will have to either commit a lot of ressources to keep stability going or to give up your religion. It really impacts how you will play the game.

- If you make the boni greater, it might be a good idea to add more steps on each axis, rather than just two on each side.

- Also, another way to push players towards the center would be to make the drawbacks increase more rapidly than the advantages. If I have already decided that 10 stability, -20% money and +20% industry are better than 20 stability, I will probablly also think that -40% money an +40% industry are better than 10 stability, -20% money and +20% industry, if I can afford it with beiing broke. However, if the more extreme point on the axis is -50% money fro +40% industry, it makes me consider if I favour industry that much or not.

- Finally, I think that right now you can choose the exact ideology you want pretty easily: if you want to become authoritarian (although right now it is very bad), you only have to choose the answers in the events that will push you towards this and to take the right civics. One way of solving this problem is to make the event reactions tied to more than one axis, so for exemple you may have to sacrifice some authority because you want to stay on the way of progress. Another way, which I think would be awesome, is to make some of your actions influence the ideologies. For exemple, each time you make an agreement, purchase a ressource or forgive a grievance towards another player, it could shift you slightly towards "World". On the other hand, if you do not do anything in diplomacy, you could decay over time towards "Homeland". Same thing, each time you make a demand or something that implies that you put the interest of your people above the friendship with other nations, you go towards "Homeland". That way, if you want to benefit from the "World" bonus, you must really be open to the world and not just make the right answers to some events. It could be amazing.

On Ideology

While I do think the ideology system is great, some of the choices are a bit unbalanced and heavily favor one side or the other. I'd suggest changing it as such:

Collectivism (+ % industry) vs Individualism (+% money) is fantastic and I think it is the model we should strive for. I would not change it at all.

Homeland (+% food) vs World (+% food per alliances) is a pretty bad one IMHO. Both focus on the same resource and homeland, due to its reliability, is simply better than world in most circumstances. I'd change that to Homeland (-% unit upkeep) vs World (+% trade routes income). This would pivot this choice into a money related pick for different gameplay orientations - either the homeland one helping you with maintaning large armies or the World one helping trade-oriented players. It would give other players a more concrete reason to choose one or the other depending on their playstyle.

Liberty (+ influence per territory) vs Authority (+ turns before being culturally converted) is another one that is heavily skewed towards one side - Liberty's effect is much stronger than the Authority effect (+influence even helps against cultural conversion) so there's no reason to go Authority at all. I'd change it to Liberty (+ faith per territory) vs Authority (+ %food). My proposal for it to play with the religious game helping you to grow it either by exporting it to other places with the faith bonus or by growing strong with your own populace. The religion already have a strong synergy with food and population growth, so having the player need to choose between faith or food can make for a more interesting scenario. Thematically, I'm neutral to which should be which, so IMHO Liberty (+%food) vs Authority (+ faith per territory) would be an equivalent choice. 

Tradition (+ faith on territory) vs Progress (+%science) is another that is skewed towards one direction, favouring Progress in this case. While I do think it is the most balanced of the three problematic ones, science outputs are much more important than faith outputs overall, so I'd change it to Tradition (+ %influence) vs Progress (+%science). This would make this decision much harder, as both resources are crucial, and put it on a similar dilemma to the Colectivism vs Individualism choice. 

Suggestion instead of having the refund: When you research the following technologies you can choose one civic from the appropriate branch and 'switch' a decision you made previously.

MERCANTILISM: Economy Civics, civics related to public spending and investment.

CONQUEST: Army Civics, civics related to military and martial matters.

CENTRALIZED POWER: Justice Civics, civics related to the treatment of criminals and other civil issues.

NATIONHOOD: Government Civics, civics related to the organization of your ministry and politics.

FOREIGN OUTPOSTS: Society Civics, civics related to day-to-day life in your Empire.

TYPEFACE: Culture Civics, civics related to cultural issues and art.

THEOLOGY: Religion Civics, civics related to beliefs and what is acceptable or not.

Children's Rights makes me uncomfortable as it. Since it's a civic that defacto results in the children being exploited. It's not rights, it's CHILD LABOR. Which I mean yeah ... that's still a legitimate 'macro' question you can ask of your government but uhm, don't pretend it's something it's not.

I think I agree with both @waper and @doctorkain 's suggestions. I think I like the stability being more in the middle but if that's how it's going to be I might lower that to 12% in the center and 6% when in the first margins and only 3% when at the extremes. I had this idea that whenever you reach an ideological extreme you trigger an event... but that could become annoying and repetitive.