開發人員在官方討論區回應玩家關於政體DLC的大致方向:
Obligatory I-don't-make-these-decisions caveat but: I'd actually disagree a
little. We've got two big modular mechanics at the moment, faith and culture.
Culture generally works pretty well, faith is far too static and player-lead,
but in both instances a complaint we get a lot is that the differences
between this or that doctrine, cultural tradition, or tenet don't feel
meaningful enough, that playing in this part of the map is too similar to
that part of the map.
目前我們有兩大自訂機制：信仰和文化。
文化大致運作良好，不過信仰過於被動且受玩家主導，
在這種情況下，我們受到很多抱怨，
即教義、文化傳統或信條之間的差異不夠明顯，
各區域的遊玩體驗太相似了。
If we made governments into a modular system in the same way as faith and
culture, we'd be forfeiting one of our major remaining static tools for
dictating gameplay. :) I would prefer to see more of what we're doing with
the clan rework: leave governments relatively static (feudal means feudal,
clan means clan, etc.) but focus on giving them seriously differentiated play
from one another. I'd also like to see more types of government, potentially
sub-types of existing types, but I'd want each of those to have an excellent
reason to exist and a strong style of play associated with them first and
foremost.
如果我們照信仰和文化將政體做成自訂機制，
我們就會失去我們僅存用於決定遊戲玩法的重要靜態工具之一。
我更願意看到我們對氏族重做所做的更多事情：
讓政體相對地壁壘分明（封建就是封建，氏族就是氏族，等等），
專注於讓它們彼此之間存在大幅差異的遊戲。
我還希望看到更多類型的政體，可能是現有類型的子類型，
但我希望每一種都有一個很好的存在理由，
並且首先也是最重要的是差異明顯的遊戲風格。
In short: we have two big modular systems we can already use'n'improve, I
don't necessarily think a third would be the best approach.
簡而言之：我們已經有兩個大型自訂機制，
我們可以使用和改進，我不一定認為多第三個是最好的方法。
重點:
1.不會有EU4那種拼裝式自訂政體
2.會更區分各政體間的差異性,就像我們看到的氏族制
3.會有分支政體(可能汗國變成部落的分支政體?)
4.這樣設計的目的是要避免重現換湯不換藥的自訂信仰與文化
(差異明顯大概指的是Stls企業與寡頭間,甚至集體意識與獨裁間的差異程度,
而不是民主與君主間這種只差Civic及起源的程度)