Politics in CIV.

[Paulypav]

Governments are thousands of times more complex than anything that we can have in civ. I have always felt that the traits of the governments were intended to mirror the theoretical foundations of these governments with some of the pratical mixed in. In a democracy, because of the fact that people are supposed to be involved in the decision making of the country they will be more willing to work increasing productivity and commerce, and because people made the decisions together there will not need to be as much theft and corruption. In theory, corruption and waste would dissapear in a democracy, since this is not the case in reality, it is not the case in the game.

In response to the thought that democracy having its beneficial traits being the result of a pro-american bias, I think it's garbage. I am sure that if you asked any american and in many cases american programmers in particular you would find that most of us felt there was a great deal of corruption in our great democracy. All politicians are believed to be liars and crooks, and we feel the same about many of our corporate officers. Democracy does not eliminate corruption but it does reduce it.

[GePap]

It would have been very nice if Cv3 had kept SMAC's social enginnering scales, in which different types of ecomics and politics could be mixed to create more varied forms of governemnts and societies.

It would have been great for the civ line to incorporate this very smart addition (which is slightly different from exisst in Europa Universalis).

[Chilean President™]

In C3C they are going to include more governments but I think that the ones included in the mod Double your Pleasure (by Kal-el) were very good and should be a must in the next XP.
Facism, Federal Republic, Absolut Monarchy, Chiefdom, Social Democracy, etc...

they should add also the parliamentarian monarchy and the parliamentarian democracy, used commonly in Europe.

[Panag]

Originally posted by 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.

hi ,

it does not matter what he said , there aint a single country that comes close to it , ......

have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chilean President
In C3C they are going to include more governments but I think that the ones included in the mod Double your Pleasure (by Kal-el) were very good and should be a must in the next XP.
Facism, Federal Republic, Absolut Monarchy, Chiefdom, Social Democracy, etc...

they should add also the parliamentarian monarchy and the parliamentarian democracy, used commonly in Europe.

There is basically no difference in how the last two work, and what thier effects could be, not on trade, porduction, espionage, drafting, or anything else. The biggets porblem in civ is that "government" comes to also include values and economic systems, as if those two were inseperable form a form of government, which is not true.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

This game, while it would be great to be some complex for some of us, the general populous majority needs simpler rules with simpler ideas. The more complex the ideology behind the game, the fewer they sell.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
This game, while it would be great to be some complex for some of us, the general populous majority needs simpler rules with simpler ideas. The more complex the ideology behind the game, the fewer they sell.

While this is true, there should be some catering to their hardcore audience while thay still have one. Civ3 Advanced? It apparently isn't impossible if it has been modded already.

[johncmcleod]

I wrote a thread on what I thought would be a better idea for an economic system. In it was the idea of choosing a government and an economic system. There are two sliders you have. One is the economic slider. To the right would be capitalism (I mean extreme capitalism, General Pinochet style), in the middle would be socialism, and to the left would be communism. Of course there'd be lots of notches in between. The US would be just to the left of capitalism. Then there'd be the government slider. Each notch would be a government. To the right would be fascism, to the left would be anarchy, and other stuff would be in between.

[lord of the mark]

iiuc some of the inspiration for the Civ2 political system is from Francis Fukayamas "The end of history and the last man" a Hegelian work that posits late capitalist democracy as the culmination of history (dont ask me why, go read the book if youre interested) This would match the Hegelian view that Reynolds (an undergrad Phil major, IIUC) designed into the game, in which despotism, monarchy, democracy etc are not opposites, but stages which dialectically evolve into each other - the earlier stage is necessary for the later stage, and the later stage is the solution to the contradictions presented by the earlier stage. Republic and monarchy represent two alternate paths to Demo, and Commie and fundie represent alternate responses to particular historical conditions, which are both however beaten by the most fully developed Demos. Commie must be included, as the last great ideological battle is that of leninism against capitalist demo. Fundie is in as this is discussed by Fukayama as a potenial rival to demo, but one he expects to lose. Fascism is not included - post-1945 right wing despotisms are seen by Fukiyama as having no real ideology - real fascism, 1922 to 1945 is to short an episode. Social democracy is not included, because Fukiyamas view of capitalist democracy is broad - youre still a capitalist democracy with nationalized healthcare, high taxes, etc. Those are "details" - again see the book.

Civ2 uses historical govt types for the historical atmosphere, and to play out the above historical narrative. SMAC is a sci-fi game, where different combos seemed more appropriate. IIUC there are gameplay problems with them in SMAC though - they add to the complexity of a very complex game - with problems for mass appeal and also for the AI.

I havent played Civ 3, but my sense is they no longer have the philosophical orientation Brian had.

For more on philosophy and Civ2, see my column, Civ2's Hegelian tech tree. I dont know SMAC well enough yet to discuss its philosophical issues, but clearly Brian was having philosophy fun in that game.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


There is basically no difference in how the last two work, and what thier effects could be, not on trade, porduction, espionage, drafting, or anything else. The biggets porblem in civ is that "government" comes to also include values and economic systems, as if those two were inseperable form a form of government, which is not true.

i think to fukiyama, they are inseperable. You cant have democracy without the private space made possible by private property and freedom to contract (note that capitalism is seen broadly - a well developed welfare state, progressive taxation, some govt ownership of the means of production, etc are still possible within a broadly capitalist economy) And fully developed industrial capitalism is NOT possible in the long term without democracy - Pinochet's Chile, post-1980 China, etc are temporary expedients, and generate contradictions that will lead to change.

[Aramis]

There is little point, I've come to realise, in caring a whit about the name of the government type I choose. In CIV all that seems to really matter in the govt types are what they do for production and corruption. My experience has been seeing all the AI civs eventually become Democracies (unless hopelessly losing a war--then they turn Communist). This is to take advantage of the increased production and decreased corruption. I'm not getting into effect on unit costs or spy experience, as they are relatively minor.
I've yet to see the preferred govt type of any civ become their long-term govt. They always wind up as Democracies. Me, as well. I can't even see any purpose to the preferred govt types except (and I'm not completely sure) in determining the length of turns a civ is in anarchy while changing govts.
In short-- the names of govt types in CIV mean nothing. They're just a tool in dealing with production and accumulating gold and might as well be labelled A B C D and E. A very useful game tool, but they don't resemble much of anything in history.

[johncmcleod]

Cronos mentioned Canada having a strong central government. Isn't Canada more of a confederation?

[Kuciwalker]

Canada is Canana. 'nuff said

[Jon Shafer]

I think the way governments work in Civ 3 is pretty cool (despotism can only produce so much, support costs, etc.), though I wish they would refine some things. For example, Monarchy and Communism are both nearly worthless unless you're fighting a big war.

As Rob said, there's not much connection between government type and its Civ (3) reflection, aside from a couple things like forced labor and such.

[Panag]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Cronos mentioned Canada having a strong central government. Isn't Canada more of a confederation?

hi ,

yeah , but one thats part of the commonwealth , ......

now there is something that might be intresting , .....

look at the french , they have the overseas dept , the brits have canada , australia , etc , ...... the US the marshall island , etc , ......

it would be nice to see this reflected in the game , .....

have a nice day