What government model do we want in Civ 3?

[Sandman]

I have to say that I don't really like the idea of sliders being contrived dichotomies; peace/war, religion/science, etc.

EU2 had things like aristocracy/plutocracy; high aristocracy meant cheap cavalry and diplomats, high plutocracy meant cheap warships and a better economy.

Besides, how many truly 'pacificist' civs have there been?

[Trifna]

The point is not to get ANY civ be entirely on one side. The most extreme of a slider is perhaps more "as pacifist/else as it gets"...

For dichotomies, I think that sometimes there is a little detail that makes the slider "fake". As with religion and science which are not necessarily opposed, while it would rather be dogmatism vs rationalism (wether religious or secular). So I think that it is possible to not get such dichotomies.

[Max Sinister]

@Sandman: There've been several nations who were, esp. on islands in the Pacific. On these islands, where you're guarded by the ocean against potential enemies, it is indeed no problem to be absolutely pacifist.

[Optimizer]

That's not why it's called the Pacific, isn't it?

I'm excited abou the voting results. I hope it is not to late for attention...

[Adagio]

I wonder how many of the people who didn't vote for the SMAC or the EU option actually have played any of those...

[Wittlich]

Well, I have played both SMAC and EU....but I still voted for option #2 - Classical government model but with a ton of government types....which I guess would be like what the CTP series was based upon. For some reason, I really liked it. Too bad CTP2 was never properly fixed.

[Shogun Gunner]

Hey Witt!

Have you looked at the CtP2 source code project and the Poly mods for CtP2?

I'm starting to really like CtP2.

[Wittlich]

Actually, I have Shogun. But the project is far from being completed. If I had the time available I would assist in its testing, but since I don't .... well, I don't.

[Cyclotron]

Nah. Just go Hobbesian: There's only Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and there's not much difference between any of them.

Though sliders arguably amount to the ultimate in customization, I would wonder if they don't overlook some of the more intricate features that have made governments interesting in the past. For example, exactly where do you have to be on the dogmatism vs. rationalism slider before you can, say, build a "fundamentalist" unit? And even then, that unit might not make sense depending on exactly what kind of government you had. Maybe a unit is a bad example, but it seems like it would be difficult to really show different and special governments and situations with an all-slider interface.

On another note, Siro's post above brings up the question of whether religion and socio-econo-political (new word!) factors should, in fact, be seperate. One could mix and match a slider-based government system with "named" religions, which would have various effects and strain against (or synergize with) the slider-government in various ways.

[LDiCesare]

Did anyone of you check the Clash model?
The religion part is considered by deciding who holds power (power distribution): It can be the people, the military, the clergy, the (absolute) ruler, or a combnation of these through sliders.
And then there are other sliders that let you decide of other policies like tax rates, ethnic and religious discrimination, etc.

[Toby Rowe]

The current Labour Government in the UK is both what the Yanks would call "left-field" as if a dirty word, whilst being authoritarian.

My mum at 60 seemed quite shocked at how authoritarian the Labour Goverment is, whilst I always knew they were both (Left and Authoritarian), 20 years of the Tories might have dimmed her memory, but the left wing (my vote) has always been so- It's only America that has a problem with the Democrats- to us lot in Europe the US is right-wing full stop: the Democrats begin where the British Labour Party stops, although they are changing,

If you want to see another social nation, look to Sweden or Denmark, but the US is so off the European political scale, I doubt they'd understand either nation.

A couple of anarchists mates in Sweden used to say "know how you say Big Brother is watching you?" (in Britain), In Sweden it's "big mother is watching you" Fine by me.

Both Sweden and Denmark are two of the most successful nations in Europe, "despite" the fact they actually care about the population, rather than use it.

Governments exist when a point in history demanded them- central control, things like a universal postal system helped to gel a nation, along with a national clock within it, which the invention of the railways ensured happened.

I think the US political system is the only democracy now owned by companies, not the people- although all can still vote, it's merely a choice of pockets in the election- the left or right pocket, business owns the jacket anyway.

Toby