I hope this is the right forum to post this, if not, then could someone kindly move this to the relevant forum?
Okay, this is obviously not the biggest matter in the world, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Out of the relatively few issues that exist for the Feudalism policy, there are some which have nothing to do with serfdom, yet the assumption by users and through the description of the actual policy is that there is serfdom in the nation which has it. Those other issues often have to do with older political and social practices, real or imagined, of (usually European) aristocracy. I have the policy on my nation to simulate the existence of the latter, but I do not actually have a system of economy which is based on tied-to-the-land serfs. Surely there is ground for further nuance there, no?
This matter is especially perplexing when one considers that Feudalism is classified under the "government" category of Policies and not the economic one, which is where it should belong if it is just describing a sort of medieval Manorial economy. It also doesn't conflict either with Socialism or Capitalism, both systems which are broadly understood to have overtaken it historically.
I believe that either:
A) the description of the policy ought to be more vague as to account for all the other practices under its umbrella
or, better yet,
B) Feudalism should be split between itself (now an "economic" category) and a new policy called "Aristocracy", taking Feudalism's place in the "Government" category. The former could also either be a replacement to or fully compatible with both the socialism and capitalism policies (depending on how broadly or specifically those policies are interpreted). The two of them could share some of the same issues as well, and aristocracy could even share some issues with Monarchy, so long as this "sharing arrangement" doesn't require them to be re-written (I haven't looked at them in as much detail to say).
or
C) A policy for "serfdom," similar to the slavery policy, could be added, with "Feudalism" then becoming purely a matter of Aristocracy having political and social power in the nation, much like the "Aristocracy" policy suggested above.
To complement suggestion B, here is a potential Aristocracy description: "The nation's political and social system affords considerable power and influence to a limited number of title-holding [note: "office-holding" could work too] families, through which they shape policy".
I am personally partial to option B. I was around (as another nation) back when Policies were first introduced and I've been wondering these past few years as to why they have not been utilized more, for purposes of nuance and uniqueness, since their first few initial "expansions". Obviously the intention is for users to express themselves in factbooks, but I would say that if there were more policies and the policies had more complex relations between them, less users would be forced to make "Canon policy" factbooks and add "ignore policies" to their signatures. Regardless, let us leave the generalized policy discussion aside and consider the specific suggestion I am making here.
