What governments is CIV III going to have?

[Ralf]

Korn469

IF I for a moment really believed that Firaxis still was in a process of deciding whether they should include the Smac-style SE-system, or whether they should stick to the Civ-2 style government-system instead - then I would answer with a rather lengthy reply, arguing for the traditional Civ-government model.

But we both know that all indications already tells us that the trusty Civ-2 model really is by an owerwhelming degree, the most likely one in Civ-3. Even the guys at Civilization III Fanatics Center have arrived to the same conclusion, based on all the official/unofficial information pre-released so far:

Civ-3 will have the exact same government-types as Civ-2 had, with the exception of fundamentalism that gets replaced by nationalism. Period!

[Maniac]

What do you think of my categories, korn469? Your economic systems seem to be a mixing of my economic structure and economic freedom categories. However, some of your ideologies (similar to my values) are economic or political systems of their own. Doesn't seem right to me. What do you think? Your government section has the similar purpose as The Joker's SI.

Personally, I think the biggest mistake I did back in 1999 when I was frantically trying to make a SE system, was that I was seeking the differences in each different system, leading to vast numbers of political and economic systems. Instead, now I searched for the similarities, which led to a minimum of factors by which every political and economic system can be explained: structure and freedom. It's simple (one of the biggest complaints of the anti-SE people back then was the complexity) and still explains the most.

[korn469]

M@ni@c

i don't really have time to look at your ideas in depth right now because i'm going out the door...and the same thing goes for my ideas that i posted...it was just something quick to show that SE doesn't have to be SciFi based

but from what little i did look over it your idea seemed good

Civ-3 will have the exact same government-types as Civ-2 had, with the exception of fundamentalism that gets replaced by nationalism. Period!

Ralf don't be so smug yet...althought the game is either in QA right nor or very close to it they could still make changes to some of the subsystems...

but even more importantly than that...i have read all of the previews a number of times and not only are they completely superficial for the most part...i have also came to the conclusion that the people doing the previews are softcore civers...there could easily be an SE system that had

gov
dem
rep
mon
des

econ
comm

idol
nation

and from some of the rather vauge, and just poor in general recounting of facts from the previews i wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet

you might(most likely) even get your beloved government system...but it is still a poor imitation of SE

if every single subsystem had of gotten the government treatment civ3 wouldn't have trade or diplomacy at all...it would have been way worse than the original civ

[Az]

It's a shame shame shame they don't get SE ....but instead of an amount of energy paid , we could have revolutions , if you change governments , or reforms if you change economical values ... these all cause chaos in there respective departments .

about centralized-decentralized , after I've done my share of conquering , could I make the melting pot go faster ? I would invest if I had the choice to do so....

[tniem]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
about centralized-decentralized , after I've done my share of conquering , could I make the melting pot go faster ? I would invest if I had the choice to do so....

I think that is what a high culture rating is going to allow you to do, assimilate faster.

[lockstep]

Civ-3 will have the exact same government-types as Civ-2 had, with the exception of fundamentalism that gets replaced by nationalism. Period!

As far as I remember, neither Firaxis nor any Prewiew stated anything about the number of government types.

[Maniac]

As far as I remember, neither Firaxis nor any Prewiew stated anything about the number of government types.

Yeah, but one can assume that, if they had changed something in the government system, they would have certainly made it public. After all, with all the comments here about Civ2.5 going to be bad, they need everything they've got to convince us Civ3 is more than just an updated Civ2.

[korn469]

M@ni@c

what i have came to believe is that the Joker's social interaction scheme will not work for civ as we know it...basically he designed tropico, and i hope that he has played that game, because while it does not do every little thing he suggested it is almost like they read his SI thread and then made that into a game by itself, in it every person belong to one or more of five factions which are military, communist, capitalist, intellectuals, and green...i suggest that if you haven't played tropico, and if you support the idea of SI to go and play it now

however that being said, i think that civ should evolve the idea of SE to where it basically becomes an abstract SI...that is the reason that i am against the SI system as proposed, it is not abstract enough

using the philosophy that SE determines who gets what i think a suitable system could be designed

political systems

none (default)
rule by one
rule by a few
rule by many

economic system

none (default)
state determines most production
state determines some production
state determines little production

focus

none (default)
state's primary focus is defense
state's primary focus is religious
state's primary focus is public welfare

freedom

none (default)
state ruthlessly crushes any opposition
state has a few checks on its power
state has great checks on its power

also unlike in SMAC i do not think that all values should be set in stone from the begining of the game till the end...advances in facial recognition software would make a totalitarian state all the more like orwell's big brother...just imagine if nazi germany had the power of today's database software at their disposal then i am sure thing would have been even worse

basically before writing was invented it would be impossible to maintain a widespread secret police force to exist because no records could exist (much less classifed files), and for any information to get passed along would require more and more people to know the secret...thus kgb methods would be impossible to use in those situations

the same goes with propaganda, communications, logistics...as advances in technology occur certain area should get upgrades over time

i know that my system isn't perfect, but i think it addresses some of the limitations of your system M@ni@c

here are the limitations i see in your system

economic structure and economic freedom go hand in hand in my opinion, for one thing SE is a set of policies, so you cannot choose what size your economy will be, and trade pacts is better handled in diplomacy

also i don't think that confederate, federalist, centralist is a good way to divide how states operate...both france and china are centralist states but they have little in common, and for the most part confederations are just collections of states...in effect in most instances they are only unified in certain instances and they don't operate as a unifed state but instead a close alliance...right now the european union is a confederation in my opinion, but in civ terms it would be better represented by a very close multiparty alliance, instead of all of them picking confederation in the SE menu...also has there ever been a confederation that lasted for a significant period of time as a cohesive state? possibly ancient greece...but wouldn't that be more of an alliance than a government?

as for the feudal age in europe...it seems that china too had a feudal age, as did japan, but i don't think that early civilizations in greece, or rome, or egypt had a feudal system...also i wouldn't call the native american system a feudal system either...so it seems that the european feudal age was more like the entire government collapsed and fell into anarchy when it was conquered by barbarians...at the same time the Byzantine empire wasn't going through a feudal period

so possibly when a civ falls into anarchy orders the player can only issue orders in their capital

i would suggest you consider tweaking your system some M@ni@c and then seeing how close (or far apart) we are

another point i want to bring out about SE is that it does need improvement, and i think that ordinances would be the best way to make those improvements...if you use SE i think that each SE choice should have a small number of ordinances tied to it, and that each one of these ordinances would give that SE choice special abilities and they would each have a certain technology you would have to discover before they you could choose them, so even after you discovered one of your SE choices you might get an ordinance with that tech or you might have to discover something else...M@ni@c do u have any ideas (besides ordinances) which could improve SE? i think it is much better than the civ2 government system but it still needs a little more

i also support many of the ideas for changes in how you determine SE i think Dalgetti was onto something...maybe when you switch SE besides the money there is a chance that it will cause anarchy, and the more SE choices you change at once the longer the anarchy will last and the greater the chance that part of your civ will try to break away in a civil war

but the probablity of civ3 going back to the civ2 government system was certianly one of my biggest disappointments with the game

[korn469]

Ralf

i have a question for you and all of the government supports like you...

Which government system was better? The one in the original civ or the one in civ2? Please explain your answer in detail.

i would really like for you to reply to that...i would like to see your thinking on the matter...

[d_dudy]

korn, i like your SE ideas but i'm pretty sure SE isn't going to be in civ3.

i think fascism should be in the game if communism is. communism is basically left wing modern day dictatorship and fascism is modern day right wing dictatorship. (communism-worried about the people, welfare fascism-worried about power, military power especially)

there's still fascists around too.


about nationalism, people. i swear i remember reading several times that natianalism isn;t a goverment typeor anything like that. it's something new in the game. if i remember right when you get the nationalism advance and if you have enough cultural points then you can became a nation. a modern day nation-state. when you do this you can begin making army stacks without a leader unit. that's what i remember anyway.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by d_dudy
(communism-worried about the people, welfare fascism-worried about power, military power especially)

Please concentrate on whats best for gameplay & game-balance. Otherwise we have yet another endless political discussion about that communism & nationalism is & isnt.

Originally posted by korn469
Which government system was better? The one in the original civ or the one in civ2?

I have played Civ-1 many times, but damn if I remember the government-related difference compared with Civ-2. Luckely I have a copy of Civ-1 that I can play to refresh my memory. Or perhaps you can give me some memory-juggling facts?

[Admiral PJ]

perhaps theres a third way, as my prime minister tony blair says,
to doing goverments which civ3 is using (or should) governments and SE systems both had good points, SE suffered from not having set governments , just disaallowing a couple of options maybe.. its nice to have specific commusit governments though maybe real governments are mixes.
You could have a government system based on culture , afterall government is basically the way the people mostly feel like their country should be run.. it takes a couple of generations at least before another type of government can be accepted and run smoothly (like with russias problems becoming 'democratic' older people etc still stick to communism there as they haven't seen quick improvements with democracy, though the fault was communisms destruction of their economy building up MIG airforces and nukes/space)
Maybe if you try to government from say monarchy to democratic , you'd need your people to be ready for it.. have the right kind of culture, needing a more higher civil culture (literate, many poor workers wanting freedom - in more quantity than upper class powerhungry barons) perhaps with other things like universitys and newspaper presses to spread information around.

Information exchange is a vital part of goverment too, horses, telephones, airmail, satellite internet comms all improve communications between central government and the world(s) -
mediaval churches priests etc acted as good government information sources with monarchism especially.
A government can't rule and give orders without have information and facts on which to make them.

Also, does anyone have ideas about futuristic style governments?
i'm making a sci fi game starting from modern times, using a SE style law and government structure system.. hopefully using minor rule trees if i can.
Things like New Feudalism could be used for interplanetary governments (like in the Dune books) with lords on planets acting as leaders, to control planets harshly as if rebellions occured in small colonial cities it would take ages for reinforcements to come a few light years away.

Within civ3's gamescope there could be some future type of goverment.. like Scientific Democracy which i think would be good.. rules and decisions based on science and logic, not just mob rule which tends to happen with current democracies, though i suppose its a problem of poor education of the public nowadays that results in obscene things such as Mass Assured Destruction(?) nuclear weapon arm races.

AdmiralPJ
Head Philosopher of the metaplanet sphere

[Admiral PJ]

what would be so cool would be to have Vietnam /Korea cold war type battles, where communists fight against democracies.
Alpha centauri tried to do this with leaders liking/disliking certain SE choices so allying closer with similar ethoses.

Maybe a civ style game concentrating on a smaller area of time like from 1950-2020 would be better than a weaker game trying to simulate so much historical issues.

time for a bath.. can't lead the Chinese being smelly

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Within civ3's gamescope there could be some future type of goverment.. like Scientific Democracy which i think would be good..

I dont. Anyway, Civ-3 is confirmed to end 2020 AD.

rules and decisions based on science and logic,

Sounds a little naive to me. ( no offense ) At least if you mean science and logic as it appears in 19-20:th century materialistic science.

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
not just mob rule which tends to happen with current democracies,

Well, the historic alternatives to democracy (like aristocracy = elit ruling) havent proven to be so brilliant either. Look at history. I suspect that our current civilization isnt finished yet. Still "half-baked", so to speak.

though i suppose its a problem of poor education of the public nowadays that results in obscene things such as...

Intelligence is just a neutral tool. Its not a moral quality by itself. Rotten eggs appears regardless education, social status and personal wealth.

Nevertheless, I dont say: "Scratch a little on the surface, and everybody is just as rotten". That would both cynical and false. There really IS a difference between "sheeps" and "goats" amongst people. That can easily be spotted in extreme situations, like in civil wars, world-wars, catastrophes and so on. But my point is that there are no non-contradictive exact correlation between "wise sheeps" and scientific- & cultural education, economical wealth, social status or even religious believes for that matter. None whats so ever.

The invisible dividing line seems to go vertically; slicing right through social, economical and educational class-differences instead.

[korn469]

ralf

civ one had the following government system (iirc)

despotism
monarchy
republic
communism
democracy

notice it did not have fundamentalism

the main reason that i asked you this question is because i wanted to get your view on if the civ2 system was superior to the the civ1 system

a yes or no answer please and why you feel like this

the reason i want to know your opinion on this is because of the next questions i am going to ask you...

is the civ2 system perfect? could it be improved in any way? how you suggest improvementing the civ2 system(if that is possible)?