Politics in CIV.

[Darth Balrog]

Hi,

Preamble: I enjoy play CIV.

But...

Something I real didn't like in CIV is the menagement of the politics.

This are the reasons:

1. Production: Why with the democracy people produce more shield and grain? I mean this would been better it depends by technology, not by politics!

2. Corruption: Why with democracy there is less corruption? Maybe because the USA are a democracy? I'm not so sure that in USA there is not corruption... Or, I don't belive that in the USA there is less corruption than in the first years of Rome (monarchy or dictatorship that was it...).

3. Spy ability: Why with communism the spy are best? Did they look too 007 films? The ability of an army or a spy wouldn't depend by politics, but by others things: thecnology at first.

I'm not communist, or for monarchy for sure, but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

[georges bonbon]

Re: Politics in CIV.

Originally posted by Darth Balrog

I'm not communist, or for monarchy for sure, but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

I do not agree with you at all.

Whatever mapsize you are playing on, big empires only produce under communist rule.

[Kuciwalker]

Heck no. With COMMUNAL corruption, communism is really bad for big empires.

[M. le Comte]

Re: Politics in CIV.

Originally posted by Darth Balrog

..., but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

I always wondered whether the programmers had no kwnowledge at all in politics or whether they just had choosen politically correctness.

Probably both.

They all mix together.

They call "governments type" things so much different as communism and monarchy. Communism is an ideology, monarchy is a government where the state's leader is one man, for is entire life, and often with hereditarian rules. For example, you can have a democratic monarchy (UK) or a communist one (North Corea).

And of course, in civ, democracy must be economicaly liberal, communism is always a sovietic "stalinist" government, there is no fascist despotism, etc.

I am not communist neither. I don't think at all that sovietism is a solution, neither enlighted despotism and so on...

I just say this because I am not sure every one can get the nuances of what I have written.

[Azeem]

I modded the governments a bit to be more sensible. There is NO "communism" but rather, I had it divided into "Bolshevism" (which evolved into "Stalinism" in the Soviet Union and then "Maoism" in China) and "Democratic Socialism".

The government system really lacks depth and is over-simplified. If I can get a decent graphics program, I would mod the governments further so they can each have unique "edicts" and buildings.

[dexters]

M. le Comte , Firaxis has said repeatedly they want Civ to be an experience in reliving history and not so much a laboratory in social engineering.

I think it would have been obvious for them to separate religion from political institutions and political institutions from ideologies/economic systems, and allow people to mix and match.

That's been on the wishlist for a long time, and an argument can be made for it, since it can be said the way Civ is played by most people, we are re-writing history. Who is to say that a communist monarchy wouldn't be possible in some alternate universe ?

Anyways, maybe in Civ4.

[ktaek]

The bad naming is because the 2 major real world models for what govts they were using called themselves those names, even though they had little to do with the actual principles.

A true democracy would work feasibly only for small states. In Washington state we have what could be called a democracy since citizens vote on major bills, not the legislature. Even for just washington it's a nightmare.

A true communist state, well i have no idea what that would be like on a nation scale.

Since Civ3 is more about history and less about theory (for that go play Alpha Centauri), those names get associated with their HISTORICAL examples vs their THEORETICAL examples.

[Kuciwalker]

The thing is that with the number of options for governments, creating very specific governments would be pointless, as they'd be indistinguishable from an in-game point of view

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azeem
I modded the governments a bit to be more sensible. There is NO "communism" but rather, I had it divided into "Bolshevism" (which evolved into "Stalinism" in the Soviet Union and then "Maoism" in China) and "Democratic Socialism".

The government system really lacks depth and is over-simplified. If I can get a decent graphics program, I would mod the governments further so they can each have unique "edicts" and buildings.

hi ,

huh , what country would you say fits under " social democraZy " , .....

have a nice day

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, actually Panag, he said Democratic Socialist-which is VERY different from a Social Democracy!! There are NO truly Democratic socialist governments that I am aware of, though the local governments of some left-leaning nations do fit that mould!! Social Democracies, on the other hand, tend to be identified by a Centre-left government, usually as a coalition! They also can be identified by their "High-Tax, High-spending" policies! Most Central and Northern European governments fit into this mould-eg Sweden, Norway and Germany!

Hope this helps, Panag.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[CrONoS]

Hi
Canada can be fit under Social Democracy (free health care, social assistance, strong central government, higher taxes.... )
Here there is a strong social-democracy tradition, maybe all political party in Canada, are left-centrism or right-centrism... we do not have real right-wing or left-wing political party...

It has been say before, but, I will suggest that some aspect of your government can change after doing some action or taken some decision, your government evolving not by clicking on the Revolution button but when taken some decision...

We can separate Government, by having an Economic and Political aspect of our government. If we do not want this too complex, we just have to add an Economic aspect and a Political Aspect for your government in Civilization(4?)... I think it will be quite simple and better...

see ya

Dom,

[Agathon]

The effects of the various government types should alter with the tech level increases.

Democracy just isn't going to work until a certain level is reached. I mean, look at Athens, what a disaster.

[ktaek]

We can separate Government, by having an Economic and Political aspect of our government.

Alpha Centauri did something very similar, they had 4(?) separate aspects to your government and you could research and choose which mix of 4 aspects. It was awesome.

But i think someone else said it best, Civ3 is mainly about replaying history not inventing the future. So those govts that never really came about (such as a true socialism) aren't in the game.

[bobbo008]

"But i think someone else said it best, Civ3 is mainly about replaying history not inventing the future. So those govts that never really came about (such as a true socialism) aren't in the game."

i wouldn't say "replaying history", as, you know, the Aztecs never really learned how to create Pikeman, which contradicts the Aztec stealth bombers currently flying overhead in my game...

[Azeem]

How is my playing as the Iroquois conquering all of America "replaying history"? This game absolutely IS "inventing the future" because you're supposed to "recreate" and "alter" the course of history.