Ability to choose primary ethic for government name

[BrokenSky]

In 1.5, the name of your government is now auto-generated based on your civics, ethics and authority, with some civics giving a specific name (subject to other requirements), and with others increasing the weighting of one ethic for the generic version of that ethic+authority name.

The suggestion is to allow the player to change the primary ethic in case of a tie for equal weighting, for example:
An Authoritarian, Spiritualist, Militarist Empire with generic civics (e.g. Efficient Bureaucracy + Aristocracy) defaults to spiritualist government names. In this suggestion, the player would be able to change the government names to militarist ones, given the same ethics and civics. (Basically what I think is happening is that spiritualist breaks tie between militarist and spiritualist).

 

[Rationalsanity]

Yes please. I created an Egalitarian, Xenophile, Militarist democracy, with Parliamentary Systems and Beacon of Liberty civics. The militarist ethos means that they get saddled with a "Military Commissariat" that even the game calls only "nominally" democratic. I'm just trying to create an empire that's democratic with a prominent military, not a state dominated by it.

At the very least, I think my choices of civics should shift the weight back towards Representative Democracy.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The one big issue is that the spiritualist factions actually get happy or mad at you based on if you have a spiritualist government or not. So it actually matters which you pick. Arguably that shouldn't be the case, both because you can't control the type and because then some government forms you should always take.

 

[Teutonizer]

Or even better if we could (like with ruler titles, description of the race at whole) make it ourselves

 

[BrokenSky]

The one big issue is that the spiritualist factions actually get happy or mad at you based on if you have a spiritualist government or not. So it actually matters which you pick. Arguably that shouldn't be the case, both because you can't control the type and because then some government forms you should always take.

To be honest with spiritualists I think they should just change it to caring about having the spiritualist/fanatic spiritualist ethic.

 

[trybald]

The one big issue is that the spiritualist factions actually get happy or mad at you based on if you have a spiritualist government or not. So it actually matters which you pick. Arguably that shouldn't be the case, both because you can't control the type and because then some government forms you should always take.

That's stupid, to be honest. They should like other governments more than blasphemers who believe the wrong way.

 

[G-Flex]

Another option here would simply be a larger and more complex name list, so that those combinations of ethics, authority, and civics can have their own unique names. So, instead of Militarist taking precedence over Spiritualist or vice versa, just implement some new name for if you have both. More government names in general would be nice; only a small amount of civics seem to affect it.

 

[Teutonizer]

It would be too hard
Yep, should get the job done anyway

 

[TheDarkMaster]

To be honest with spiritualists I think they should just change it to caring about having the spiritualist/fanatic spiritualist ethic.

I think having spiritualist civics might fit better, it could even be a two part thing. Say they're upset if you don't have spiritualism as an ethos, neutral if you do, and are happy if you also have a spiritualist civic. That way you don't automatically fulfill it just from having a specific government ethic and are rewarded for going further in on spiritualism.

There could even be the option of a religious civic that doesn't require spiritualism, just that the government not be materialist, so that you can still partially fulfill the demands of the spiritualist faction without needing to be spiritualist.

 

[grommile]

I think having spiritualist civics might fit better,

Once certain tweaks are made.

Y'see, at the moment? There is no Democracy-compatible spiritualist civic - yet there exists a democratic Spiritualist government form.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Once certain tweaks are made.

Y'see, at the moment? There is no Democracy-compatible spiritualist civic - yet there exists a democratic Spiritualist government form.

Yeah, forgot to mention that since I actually brought that issue up in the civic suggestion thread.