What government model do we want in Civ 3?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem

I think it is already the case in Civ3, look at Democracy that can't fit to a warmonger so much.

Actually, I kind of disagree.
Democracy is really great because it offers you maximum productivity and efficiency with minimum corruption and waste, and as far as warfare goes, it just means you have to plan your wars well to keep them from lasting too long. Even under democracy, it does take a while for that war weariness to really kick in, and once you make peace everybody's instantly happy again. Then you can take a break, regroup and redeploy your forces, and you're all set to go again! As long as you prepare well and stick to blitzing one or two enemies at a time, you shouldn't have a problem in the world!

This from a guy who does NOT wish to be considered a warmonger - although certain AIs may disagree. War IS part of the game, though...

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Guardian


it just means you have to plan your wars well to keep them from lasting too long. [...] blitzing one or two enemies at a time, you shouldn't have a problem in the world!

That's why i think that Democracy is not a government for war, because you have to blitz it... Of course if you are well prepared and have plenty cities, under those two conditions only, Democracy can be "efficient" for war, but you would have to stop it some times yet. But if you don't have plenty cities and/or are not prepared for war, it is to say that you can't control the time it will remain, Democracy can't be considered the governement for war, can you? This is why I say that Democracy have already some tweaks that define it like already a non-war government.

[Guardian]

Well, okay, you're right on that one. You have to be large and strong to begin with, and you have to be well prepared, preferably with most of your forces already in position before the outbreak of war. (Or with railroads all over the place so you can move them into position within a single turn.) If you are not by far the larger civ and/or you're not ready to walk all over your enemies from turn 1, then I agree, democracy and war is not a very good combination.

Personally, I'm one of those people who like to switch to democracy as early in the middle ages as possible and stick with it for the rest of the game, no matter what happens. I have had problems with this on a few occasions and had to strip back production in order to provide more entertainment to keep my cities from going into civil disorder when a war lasted too long. It appears we do not disagree on this after all.

[Naokaukodem]

Plus you have to be technically superior on your opponent preferably to make Democracy war efficient, or the war will be too long. Finally, Democracy is not that more efficient than Republic corruption speaking, and you do not benefit from city unit support what is important also, say you have plenty cities and 100 units, it will be no use in Democracy. Really, if you want to make war and/or have an army, i advise you to switch on Republic.

[orrery]

i've been here before advocating that a "Constitution" be made a 'small wonder' to form a Federal government.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

Very pleased that you mentioned Europa Universalis- Policy sliders in EU II make the argument for government types a non-starter: as you are the government!!

How many sliders are there?- very few, the system is excellent and I commend it to the producers of Civ 4.

They also (Paradox), as they must in order to produce historical reality between 1400-1815 offer the option to make a nation a vassal of yours- something that would fit very well into the Civ model.

A nation ramdomly declaring war upon you, from 8,000 map miles away should know that there are certain consequences if they fail- but at least they will continue to exist once defeated. Programming this in might allow for the jovial attitude distant nations currently have about war with you- a mate until then, whilst we can leave them as an intact nation, but as a vassal to remind other nations of the same fate should they choose to also attack you. (you can of course annex them as well)

Of course, I'm only thinking from the deeply flawed Civ 3 perspective.

Toby

[Sirotnikov]

i've regrouped and joined some categories:


international doctrine
militarism ------ pacifism
expansionism ------ perfectionism

economic structure
free market ------ planned economy
bussiness ------ manufacturing

administration
totalitarian --- oligarchic --- democratic
centralized ------ decentralized
liberal ------ authoritarian

internal values
religion ------ science
nobility ------ equality
universalism ------ nationalism

religion
banned --- free --- theocracy


there's a conflict that religion appears twice, which i need to solve.

[Adagio]

religion ------ science

These are not contradicting. IIRC the Arabs where very religious while at the same time also being the leading nation in science...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
i've regrouped and joined some categories:


international doctrine
militarism ------ pacifism
expansionism ------ perfectionism

economic structure
free market ------ planned economy
bussiness ------ manufacturing

administration
totalitarian --- oligarchic --- democratic
centralized ------ decentralized
liberal ------ authoritarian

internal values
religion ------ science
nobility ------ equality
universalism ------ nationalism

religion
banned --- free --- theocracy


there's a conflict that religion appears twice, which i need to solve.

Replace "pefectionism" with "isolationism". Also, get rid of the religion category and replace "religion ----- science" with "theocracy ----- secular" under internal values.

[Max Sinister]

And where's the difference between totalitarian-democratic and liberal-authoritarian? Are there any authoritarian democracies or liberal totalitarianisms?

[Trifna]

there's a conflict that religion appears twice, which i need to solve.

As Adagio, I would bring that "religion ------ science" are not opposed. What is opposed though, is:
- Science vs an all-englobing mystic/dogmatic religion (everything is only mystic/dogmas including natural world);
- Religion vs an all-englobing rationalistic science (everything is about "rational laws" including the spiritual)

Thus, the contradiction is, on the one hand, between religion and extreme-rationalism and, on the other hand, between science and extreme-mysticism/dogmaticism. One could thus simplify w/o the former contradiction:
"mysticism / dogmaticism ------ strict rationalism"

So this is not anymore only a religion / science slider, but covering all system of thoughts (including magic beliefs, positivism or rastafarianism).

Anyone to disagree?



Also, I would not replace perfectionism by isolationism. It goes together as a doctrine: isolationism is by concentrating on oneself rather than exterior. It is a "mood" (as classic China, or as the post-Civil War USA).

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Adagio

religion ------ science

These are not contradicting. IIRC the Arabs where very religious while at the same time also being the leading nation in science...

And why is that?

Because the Arabs were ahead in everything.

A nation with 100 total resources split 50/50 between religion and science (or whatever) will have more of both than a nation with only 50 resources and an 80/20 distribution.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Trifna
Anyone to disagree?

Me.

As Adagio, I would bring that "religion ------ science" are not opposed. What is opposed though, is:
- Science vs an all-englobing mystic/dogmatic religion (everything is only mystic/dogmas including natural world);
- Religion vs an all-englobing rationalistic science (everything is about "rational laws" including the spiritual)

Thus, the contradiction is, on the one hand, between religion and extreme-rationalism and, on the other hand, between science and extreme-mysticism/dogmaticism. One could thus simplify w/o the former contradiction:
"mysticism / dogmaticism ------ strict rationalism"

This is exactly what a slider is supposed to represent.

If you swing far to the religion side then you get "an all-englobing mystic/dogmatic religion," and swing far to the science side and you get "an all-englobing rationalistic science." Put the slider in the middle and you get a balance (like the Arabs).

[Trifna]

Well I do not believe that mysticism / dogmatism is specific to religion, or that rationalism couldn't be entirely religious. It is independant from religion-rationality even if it MAY tend to be linked together. It is rather a matter of ideological system. Rationality could be held as religion, and dogmas without religions was already seen (Marx... anyone?).

Marxism shows well enough how it is dissociated.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
sliders would be cool. that way we can have a libertarian govt.

So I can laugh when your citizens revolt against the capitalists and ask my Empire to come and restore "Order".