Ideologies - Thoughts?

I put my thoughts here in another thread -

https://forums.galciv3.com/452828/page/1/

I do love ideologies, I find it a problem that good still seems to have no real reason to ever act good, in my opinion all three choices should give some tangible if different benefit, not equal perhaps, but at least not non-existent.

I agree.  I like it... but right now it feels more like a concept than anything material.

It kind of feels flat, like they just changed the names from good, neutral, evil.

You can still pick evil choices to get the planetary bonus, but then pick good to get the empire wide bonus.

I imagined it would be more like you actions through planetary choices and diplomacy choices would swing your empire in a certain direction(s).

This direction would dictate which options were available to you.

Only taking a morally different approach would it start to swing the other way(s)

So once you start down the dark side it's difficult to return to the light

I don't think I have been able to get any feel for what it will do. Perhaps it is too early (much is not in the game yet).

In the "Galactic Civilizations III Alpha Available Now" post, Island Dog calls this a "First glimpse at new Ideology screen." I'm not sure if that means this is only a shadow of the ideology tree's full functionality, i.e. there will be more than just the three ideologies with three tiers, or if this "first glimpse" is the unveiling of the screen and it is, more or less, the way it is intended to be.

That being said, I agree that this feels somewhat flat and mostly just a name change--though I really like having the various bonuses and improvements awarded for following different paths.

But as of right now, you can get all of them (as far as I know). But several of them seem like they should be mutually exclusive.

"Enlightenment"--"A benevolent Civilization that encourages it's people to pursue Enlightenment, will reap the rewards of more balanced and peaceful population, often attracting of worlders that wish to find their way to inner peace."

To me, such an enlightened civilization could not, therefore, have "Forced Labor" ("The weak may be nearly worthless, but it is still a pity to let them go completely to waste") and maybe even "Games of Strength," though I think if the description stays the way it is, I could see such "games" as something a benevolent society could possibly integrate.

Another issue is the essentially duplicate entries on each ideology tree, "Life Extension," "High Efficiency Cloning," and "Synthetic Servants." I realize there is a difference between the benevolent option and the other two, namely growth + research as opposed to just growth. But the problem I see is that you could, theoretically have +15% growth from cloning when each one has a very different rationale. I don't think a benevolent civilization that uses cloning (or perhaps, better described as genetic engineering) to increase lifespan will use cloning technology to create subservient workers, since the breakthrough science is meant "to help ensure stable growth, and make sure that future citizens are of the highest quality, and intelligence."

Also, the as yet unavailable "Freedom of Information," "Information Sharing," and "Information Manipulation" seem mutually exclusive, as do the three civil/political ideologies "Egalitarianism," "Interstellar Democracy," and "Hegemony" (the latter of which is especially exclusive, since it is impossible, by definition, to have an egalitarian hegemony or a democratic one).

Some other thoughts:

"Doctrine of Strength"--I think this should convey a slight negative modifier to growth, since the weak are unneeded (i.e. eaten).

"Synthetic Servants"--I think this should add a slight bonus to production, since these clones are engineered specifically for industry.

"Heroic Nature"--I realize that diplomacy isn't available yet, so something like this may already be in the works, but I think that such a "nature" would include some form of diplomatic effect, especially when an "innocent" civilization is attacked unprovoked by an aggressor. A hero, by nature, would be compelled to swoop in to help the underdog.

Overall though, I'm really impressed with and enjoying the new direction ideology is taking. I do feel as though with the way these three trees are structured, the headings may as well be "good," "neutral," and "evil" (as I've posted elsewhere), but I'll continue to reserve judgment.

(A side note: As a professional writer and editor, these descriptions were really hard to copy verbatim  My sole consolation is that they are aware that the text needs to be edited. )

(1) Just return them to Good, Neutral, and Evil.  It's a PC game, but not that kind of PC.  The Benevolent/etc. descriptions are mealy-mouthed and actually not that helpful.

(2) I'd like to have them continue to have multiple options available to "spend" your morality points on.  But I do think that by choosing certain ones, it locks you out of others.  E.g. picking certain Evil options may lose you the ability to pick a couple of Good and Neutral ones.  But I *do* think it's a good idea to have the ability to run a civilization that has a mix of at least some options from each morality track.

it has a lot of the feel of the various tracks in Civ 5, which is good/bad for many. But, overall, I think it's an improvement over GCiv2, because you want to continuously reinforce having to make choices throughout the game, rather than get locked down rather soon.