What governments is CIV III going to have?

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by Solver
But there could well be more. Anyway, I want more future in the game.

True that Solver,
Civ3 in general need more modern and future. I would like to see:

-Technocracy
-A seperation of Democracy (as in Greek Democracy) and Capitalism/Free Trade Representation
-Utopia
-Theocracy

I didn't get much past 3/4s the way down the first page, and excuse me if this was mentioned, but from what I heard, Nationalism is not going to be a government, its a tech that gives you more armies.

[tniem]

korn,

The biggest difference I remember in the two government structutes is that in Civ I you would build the Pyramids to gain all government choices. Immediately putting you way ahead of all competition. Civ II got rid of this loophole/cheat.

Oh and of course adding fundy was another loophole for the wargamer to take advantage of especially in SP in Civ II.

[korn469]

tniem

Oh and of course adding fundy was another loophole for the wargamer to take advantage of especially in SP in Civ II

it sounds like you think the civ2 government system is worse than the civ1 government system...i think if we are going to use a government system they should use the one from the original civ (without the Pyramids giving you access to all government choices of course)...it would be easier to balance, it would be less of a "lets try to make a list of every know government ever" and without the fundy crap i think it would be more fun, though just as tedious, and almost as inferior as the civ2 government when compared to SE

but basically i wanted to hear what Ralf thought...because if he feels that the civ2 system is better than the civ1 government system then i think there is hope we may one day convince him that the civ2 government system is an inferior subsystem that is in need of an upgrade...and that is my entire point, that firaxis should have taken the time to overhaul the government system and make it a worthy component of civ3 instead of taking that long dead government system from civ2 and trying to make it seem like it is still viable

it is all the more depressing to me since they already had an improved system in SMAC that could have easily been transplanted to civ3...for them to regress...it's just frustrating, and i'm glad that the other subsystems didn't get the same treatment

now if there is somekind of complete upgrade of the government system that we don't know about yet then i would be very very pleased...but if it is the exact same thing from civ2 then oh well i guess maybe next time

[tniem]

korn,

Yeah, I think minus the pyramid cheat, Civ I had a better government system than Civ II.

However, I am hazy on how wars in democracy worked in Civ I. I know in Civ II it was so easy to get around the 50% senate thing, but what was it like in Civ I. I usually used Communism, so I have forgotten that aspect of the system.


My overall vote and it has been said before in this thread is that a Social Engineering system would be by far the best way to go. I like your suggestion of having the system evolve so that each choice could become more radical the more you play and the more your tech allows you to do. It makes sense, it just would be hard to implement.

Until that can be pulled off S.E. with some decrees would have been the best government system for Civ III. To bad that it will not be featured in the game.

[korn469]

tniem

it's been a while since i have played civ1 i remembered which governments were in it but i don't remember exactly how they work, but i think it is very similar to the civ2 system

one of the slight problems of civ2, and one of the major problems of SMAC, army laundering to get around happiness penalties will most likely be an even worse problem in civ3 since it uses gold as support...i really hope they bring back the senate though, it was one feature (along with partisans) that i really missed in SMAC

while any improvement to the government system might be impossible for civ3 there is always the expansion, and i would like to hammer out a set of improvements for the government system that virtually all players could agree with then we could bother firaxis till they agreed to put it in the expansion...since it seems like Ralf is one of the strongest voices in support of the government system i'd like his feedback

although i can't prove it and any poll on here is both useless and annoying it does seem like the great majority of people who have played SMAC prefer SE over the government system...and i do think if civ3 presented players with a better system (SE or something else that's even better) that nobody would want to go back to the bad old days...i don't even hate the government system when you consider it as part of civ2, but i think that if civ3 comes out without any improvements to a very important subsystem then basically they are trying to hurry the game to ship it by christmas, which will be bad for them in the long run

conservative sequal or not, the government system deserves more improvements than just the possible deletion of fundamentalism for nationalism

[Ralf]

Korn469 - Civ-1 and Civ-2 government-system are identical in princip.

In both games you choose between a limited given set of govern-platforms. The Civ-2 team tried of course to squash the loopholes found in Civ-1, while also enhancing the system within above principal design-approach.
By the looks of it, the Civ-3 team tries to do the same: avoid design-loopholes and unbalances found in previous versions, and also rearrange and refreshing things (replacing fundamentalism with nationalism, for example).

But they stick to the tried-an-tested given set of govern-platforms in Civ-3, as well - which is wise. A quote from Jeff Morris in that recent Apolyton-interview springs to mind:

"New features must seamlessly integrate with the existing system, and that's tough the more radical the change. At first I wasn't a fan of a conservative sequel, though I'm a complete convert now"

Above was about learning from CTP 1-2, but one can also se it as a general Civ 1-2-3 design guideline: Stay near your roots and evolve; add; improve from there.

Heres a draft from an Sid Meier inteview at Gamespot UK by the way:

GameSpot UK: The Civ series is still rated one of the best strategy games of all time - is it possible to improve on perfection? Sid: Yes! We're taking the "light-hearted" fun elements of Civ, the depth of Civ II and the technological advancements of Alpha Centauri, refining and improving them, and adding many new features and ideas we've gathered from years of Civ player feedback, to make Civ III the best Civ experience ever.

Now what does he mean by "technological advancements of Alpha Centauri?" Is it game-design solutions (like the SE-system, the unit workshop and so on) of SMAC? No, I dont think so - read on...

Sid: It costs a lot of money to make games unique and exciting for today's gamers and it's more difficult getting the attention of consumers because of the number of titles out there. And technological advancements have presented more opportunities to create better looking and playing games than ever before.

My underlining. It seems pretty clear to me that he with "technological advancements" means the advancements in hardware and developing-tool that make SMAC and games beyond possible. Not even a hint of overtaking big design-elements (like SE) from SMAC.

Good. I really prefer the limited set of given government-types in Civ-3 also! They can tweak and enhance these how much they want - hell, they can even add a few Sim City style ordinances (max 5-6 checkbox options) to each of the 6 government-types (I dont think they had though - anyway didnt you suggest this idea long ago?). But thats about it.

No SE in Civ-3!!! I simply dont like the SE-model because risky government-related "overthrows" and "revolutions", with pure anarchy in between become reduced to easy step-by-step governmental fine-tweaks. Also, I belive that its more overviewable and more challenging to play around with a limited and clearly defined setup of government-types. In this case less really IS more.

One thing about the traditonal government-system I think Firaxis should improve further however (if they havent done so already - we certainly havent access to the whole picture yet) is the way government-switching is handled. Changing governments should be much more of a risk-calculating gamble-decision, in Civ-3. Not as drastic as religion-switching in "Europa Universalis" perhaps. But it should be harder then it was in Civ-2. I quote a MOO-3 game-developer getting interviewed on an unrelated feature in the game he was part of developing:

"A civilization is not a sports car you can turn on a dime," said Emrich. "It's a submarine that takes a lot of planning to plot a course".

This is what I think government-switching should be about in Civ-3. Especially switching from a "happy democracy in perfect order" to nationalism/communism + war-declaring - all within 4-5 turns at best. That just doesnt make any sense, and it invites for missuse.

Perhaps gov-overthrow related anarchy only should be rescinded gradually - from pure anarchy to gradually lesser corruption/waste; which in turn only is possible the more you strangle science-allocation (in favour of domestic affairs - like in EU). One should NOT enjoy all the advantages of a more advanced government immediately after anarchy. Also, your combat-units should become substantially weaker under pure anarchy. The problems corruption/waste/revolts increases depending on how drastic jump you want to make. Under certain ideal conditions under democracy the senate simply refuses to let you go ahead with any such gov-switch maneuvers all together.

I just want to be forced to plan ahead a little more in order to "plot my submarine course", so to speak. Also, I want to feel that Im taking a risk. I want to be able to ask myself; Can I get away with it, or not? Can I go ahead with "overthrow", without that strong foreign AI-Civ suddenly exploits my temporary weakened position? Or shall I pacify him in advance some how, just to be sure? Also: what will happen on the domestic front? Have I prepared enough so things dont spiral out of my control?

[korn469]

Civ-1 and Civ-2 government-system are identical in princip.

In both games you choose between a limited given set of govern-platforms. The Civ-2 team tried of course to squash the loopholes found in Civ-1, while also enhancing the system within above principal design-approach.
By the looks of it, the Civ-3 team tries to do the same: avoid design-loopholes and unbalances found in previous versions, and also rearrange and refreshing things (replacing fundamentalism with nationalism, for example).

while they are close in principle i think that the civ1 system is more elegent, it seems that civ2's system was more unbalanced because of fundy than it was if they had of not added it in the first place...at least you agree that they system does need improvement...but you really think that replacing fundy with nationalism is all it needs?

in your opinion how many forms of government could they add before it was no longer the same principle in civ3? could they double the number of governments and it be the same principle?

But they stick to the tried-an-tested given set of govern-platforms in Civ-3, as well - which is wise.

i wouldn't exactly call SE untried, or experiment or even radical...it has already been seemlessly intergrated in a civ style game which sold hundreds of thousands of copies and was well recieved by most critics

most people on these forums who have played SMAC agree that SE is an improvement over the civ2 government system

GameSpot UK: The Civ series is still rated one of the best strategy games of all time - is it possible to improve on perfection? Sid: Yes! We're taking the "light-hearted" fun elements of Civ, the depth of Civ II and the technological advancements of Alpha Centauri, refining and improving them, and adding many new features and ideas we've gathered from years of Civ player feedback, to make Civ III the best Civ experience ever.

even sid agrees that they can make civ3 better, and luckily they really focused on a few areas and seemed to have added real improvements to them, however the government system wasn't one of those subsystems...if firaxis had of treated every subsystem the same way they did governments then civ3 would be little more than a Test of Time plus...to keep TBS games alive there has to be innovation...culture sounds very innovative, while diplomacy is so much more refined than either civ2 or SMAC that makes it a worthwhile improvement, trade has evolutionary changes along with some revoltuionary changes from the resource system...the improvements in the conquest side of the game, stacked combat, great leaders, a completely new support system all of those areas have gotten significant improvements

do you really call exchanging fundy for nationalism a major change? it sounds little more the fascism patch for civ2...which replaced fundy with fascism...i don't think that even the best mod makers can add in special resources that are required for units...i don't think that even the best mod makers can add in all of the advanced diplomatic options that civ3 is supposed to have...i don't think that even the best mod makers using the most advanced scenario engine can even come close to implementing culture into the game...yet years ago they achieved as much advancement with civ2 as what civ3 is supposed to achieve

Good. I really prefer the limited set of given government-types in Civ-3 also! They can tweak and enhance these how much they want - hell, they can even add a few Sim City style ordinances (max 5-6 checkbox options) to each of the 6 government-types (I dont think they had though - anyway didnt you suggest this idea long ago?). But thats about it.

yea i suggested that idea long ago...but when you say tweak and enhance, what would be an enhancement? and i don't consider being able to support four units per city in communism an enhancement, so how would you suggest enhancing the system? also more than likely firaxis will not include any ordinances or anything new except for nationalism, that is what all current information leads me to believe

No SE in Civ-3!!! I simply dont like the SE-model because risky government-related "overthrows" and "revolutions", with pure anarchy in between become reduced to easy step-by-step governmental fine-tweaks. Also, I belive that its more overviewable and more challenging to play around with a limited and clearly defined setup of government-types. In this case less really IS more.

less being more...it sounds like you too agree that the civ1 government system of having fewer but better defined choices between governments is better than the civ2 system...interesting

now i disagree with you equating SE to government fine tweaks without anarchy...this doesn't have to be the case at all...i for one was part of a group of people who asked firaxis to improve the SE switching system because it was certianly a flaw...it was much too easy to do, and where some effects took place immeadiately it opened the game to MAJOR abuse...one could build a supply crawler in SMAC (which is basically the same as a caravan) then they could switch their SE choices, going from a +4 industry (meaning it took 18 shields to build a supply crawler) and then switch things around so that they had -2 industry (meaning it took 36 shields to build a supply crawler) and then cash in their supply crawlers for 36 minerals instead of 18 shields, then switch back all in the same turn...if they did this on a normal wonder...it would cost 300 shields to build a 500 shield wonder at +4 industry; if you cashed in eight supply crawlers you could add 288 shields to the wonder, eventhough it only took 144 shields to build them this was an utter and complete flaw of SE

also in SE what government you had effected the other leaders, if you had a form of SE they disliked they would dislike you, if you had a form of SE they liked, they would like you...since you could SE switch during a turn you could make them artifically like you...also it was altogether to cheap to switch SE choices...on the hardest level it cost 40 gold to switch one SE choice throughout the entire game, and it didn't matter how large your empire was it always cost the same amount

now all of these things are rather easy to fix

*when you switch an SE choice it doesn't go into effect until the next turn (this would solve the industry problem)
*while it should cost some gold to change SE choices there should be an unhappiness cost associated with the change (civil disorder, and if you switched a large amount of SE choices in one turn this should increase the unhappiness penalty)
*if you switch SE choices in the same category (like politics for example) in a five turn period then there should be an increased unhappiness penalty
*the larger your empire the more it should cost to switch SE choices
*the longer your people stay in an SE choice the larger the unhappiness penalty should be
*if the unhappiness penalty gets to large then there should be a chance for civil war in your civ

this would basically mean that the people would like stability and that they would be resistant to change, also quick change tricks to get in turn benefits would be gone

One thing about the traditonal government-system I think Firaxis should improve further however (if they havent done so already - we certainly havent access to the whole picture yet) is the way government-switching is handled. Changing governments should be much more of a risk-calculating gamble-decision, in Civ-3. Not as drastic as religion-switching in "Europa Universalis" perhaps. But it should be harder then it was in Civ-2

i agree with you completely on this ralf, and i think that my above suggestions could be applied to a government system as well as an SE system

I just want to be forced to plan ahead a little more in order to "plot my submarine course", so to speak. Also, I want to feel that Im taking a risk. I want to be able to ask myself; Can I get away with it, or not? Can I go ahead with "overthrow", without that strong foreign AI-Civ suddenly exploits my temporary weakened position? Or shall I pacify him in advance some how, just to be sure? Also: what will happen on the domestic front? Have I prepared enough so things dont spiral out of my control?

agreed...states that are constantly being overthrown are very unstable and many times they are likely to slide back into a previous form of gevernment...there should be a risk involved when you switch governments, and if you are not prepared for it then there should be penalties

[The Joker]

Hey M@ni@c!

Enough said!

And not only did you make a reference to me (It's GGS, not FreeCiv, BTW), but to my countryman Niels Bohr! I'm impressed.

Good to see a post made by you again. It has been too long.

And it's good to see you too, Korn. It's been a while, huh?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Just thought I would add my two cents to the mixing pot that this thread is:

I was very impressed by SMAC's SE choices, because it allowed for more or less 4^4 different types of government. I still don't think it was quite perfect (the numbers adjudicated to each choice struck me as being slightly arbitrary - and certain ratings were impossible to achieve) but the sheer range of governmental subtleties that you could have was amazing.

I thought CTP's approach was still just a stop-gap measure - let's keep distinct separate absolute do-or-die governments, but let's just make a few more of them instead. Whilst this may be an improvement in versatility over Civ2's choice, it still is not as mature as SMAC's SE choices.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the view that SE choices are applicable to modern and past world history. To take an example from today's systems, compare the few remaining Communist governments - there's a great difference in between the ways Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and China are individually run. They may all have certain elements of a collectivist rule, but they each differ from it in their own ways. China for example has currently distanced itself from the Maoist and Stalinist views of purer Communism, and has moved closer to a Free Market/Wealth model, even if it still maintains a strong Police presence (to use SMAC terms) whereas North Korea and Vietnam are still running closer to the ideological roots of socialist doctrines.

That's just an example of the variety the SE choices could give. In my opinion, although Civ2's government choices scheme was adequate to its task, a SE table would have made Civ3 immeasurably more sophisticated, and I think it's a substantial loss to the game that Firaxis are taking it out.

[d_dudy]

hey i think Alinestra Covelia has a point. you could say that in SE terms china is a police state, planned economics, wealth. wheras the soviet union valued power. america is like democracy, free market wealth. some eroupean countries are leaning toward green democracy, like the gains.

i think SE could work in civ3. but i still don't think they'll use it. too bad, because it allows for truly diverse societies.

[Maniac]

Korn469:

Personally, I have a double opinion about SI. On one side, I think it would be very fun to have to deal with certain factions in your civilizations, but on the other side I think it’s a game-in-a-game. It could overload the already long civ-game. So as long as it would somehow represented in the game who is in power (which of course it won’t in Civ3), it would be ok with me. That could be by The Joker’s great SI idea, or by some abstract SE category, such as Values or Government. Values could, as said, include options such as Environment, Wellfare, Power, Knowledge, Wealth, Religion. Government could include similar options such as Environmentalists, the large Populace, the Military, Scientists, Merchants and Priests. Same effects, just other names for the choices.

Btw, I’m interested in that game, Tropico. Though I’ve never heart of it before. Is it some recent game or is it something very old, available for free download?

Your proposed SE categories seem ok. If I understand well what you’re saying (please correct if I don’t), your ‘Economic systems’ section is similar to my ‘Economic Freedom’. Your ‘Freedom’ resembles my ‘Political Freedom’, and ‘Focus’ could have the same effects as Government or Values. But I must say I do wonder what effects you would give to your ‘political systems’ category. Because, in my humble opinion about politics, it doesn’t matter how many people are ruling. Because as I said:

Surely dictators can follow and have followed a liberal course. So can people democratically elected be totalitarian (Hitler is a fine example, or all modern right conservative parties for that matter).

It does matter what political course the rulers decide to follow, but that is represented by all the other SE categories. So in real life I personally think the only benefit about democratically chosen rulers over despots is that a democracy is more stabile in the sense that superbad leaders won’t stand long. Opposed to despotism, where leaders can be very good, or be very bad. Democracy is system of mediocracy, while despotism is a system of extremes.

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

Ah yes, good point about not being able to choose the size your economy will be. You’re absolutely right. As a consequence, the ‘Manioralist’ choice is total bull**** from my part. However, it is a set of policies to choose whether your economy is protectionist or open. But then again, you’re also right that it can be handled in diplomacy. The problem however is we have no clear view how trade or diplomacy will be handled in Civ3. I’m actually getting the impression trade will be limited to resource exchange. And that there won’t be trade routes that give you extra trade arrows. But even if that should be included, it would make trade be represented too simple. Then it would seem trading with other nations brings nothing but benefits. To be realistic, if you’re free market it should also create unhappiness in some cases to represent lost employment in your civ. Summarized, in the perfect Civ3 I agree with you my ‘Economic Structure’ category is redundant.

Regarding your comments about (con)federal – centralist. First of all, China and France are indeed very different. China is in the totalitarian-planned half of the ‘politic-economic freedom’ spectrum and France is in the democratic-free market half of the ‘politic-economic freedom’ spectrum. However, they do resemble each other, as you say yourself, regarding state structure. This is only reinforces my opinion my ‘political structure’ category is valid.

Regarding your second point about confederacy. In the hypothetical perfect Civ3 I see the confederal–centralist duo only as extremes of a range of options to pick from. In a centralist state everything is decided from one capital, while in the other extreme, a confederacy, the centers of decision making are more diverse. I would draw the line between a confederacy and a multistate alliance as following: a confederacy must have a permanent unified foreign diplomacy and national army. Everything below that are just temporary alliances. The fact that previous civ versions didn’t represent that difference doesn’t decrease the value of this idea. Btw, several people proposed the idea that two civs could merge into one during a game. This could go well with my take on what a confederacy is.

Regarding feudalism. Feudalism is a good system when you have a large empire (such as China) or one with low technology and infrastructure due to barbarian invasions (like medieval Europe). In such a system, there are multiple power centers, thus confederate. It does not equal anarchy or something.

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...

What do you mean with values? Do you mean the effects of the various SE choices? And are you saying that, as technology increases, there should appear new SE choices with greater effects? To take a SMAC example, a new more extreme Police State SE choice, called Totalitarianism for example and available with Neural Grafting, which has +3 Police instead of +2? If that is what you mean, then I must say I am against it. Because that was exactly how I created my SE system in 1999. The result was a whole number of slightly different choices and the whole became really disorderly. However, you are right when you say technology has an influence over the amount of control a state can have over its citizens. But the opposite also counts. To create a state where everyone has a lot of freedom, there’s need of the same technology to increase your control, more specifically transportation and communication technology, such as Writing, Code of Laws, Seafaring, Railroad, Computers, Internet, etcetera...

Having that in mind, you inspired me to a possible solution for the above problem. Please say what you think of it!

Let’s take my Political Freedom category as an example. In the perfect Civ3 it would be a kind of slider with several choices to pick from, ranging from absolute totalitarianism to political liberalism or democracy – whatever you want to call it. Something like:

Liberal : <- 3 – 2 – 1 – 0 – 1 – 2 – 3 -> : Totalitarian

The default standing would be 0 and it would have no special effects. Just standard things eg ‘normal research speed’ and ‘1 citizen can be made content by a military unit’. Totalitarian1 would then have effects like ‘research speed slowed by 10%’, ‘2 citizens can be made content...’, ‘units and cities more difficult to bribe/spy on’. Totalitarian2 would have increased effects and Totalitarian3 even more.

However you wouldn’t be able to choose freely Totalitarian3 for example. There would be a condition. That would be that every citizen requires one technology point for the positive effects of Totalitarian1 to take effects. Totalitarian2 would take 2 tech points per citizen. Tot3 3. The same would count for Liberal1/2/3. In the beginning of the game you would only have say 10 tech points. That amount can be increased by techs such as those mentioned above: Writing, Computers... If you wouldn’t have enough tech points for the setting the player chose, the citizen for which there aren’t points available acts as a default0 citizen. Or perhaps should the amount of corruption just increase, I don’t know, whatever seems best. So, to increase your control (or freedom) over/of your citizens, such as in your Nazi example, you would need more technology. Furthermore, it would be harder to have eg a Totalitarian2 setting in a large empire than in a small one.

The same could be done with the ‘Political Structure’ category. For example:

Confederal : <- 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 -> : Centralist

In the beginning of the game you would have a limited amount of centralization points. Your points would increase with the number of transportation & communication techs. Now, you would need one centr. point per city per centralization level. For example, if you have 10 centr. points, you could have 2 cities with centralization level 5 and the accompanying benefits, or also 10 cities with centr. level 1. If you would have insufficient points, there would be increased unhappiness and corruption, ultimately leading to a part of your empire splitting off. This would promote gradual expansion in favour of ICS like early game expansion.

Just an idea I got. Comments are welcome!

The Joker:

Hello! It’s nice to read you again! So it is Guns, Germs and Steel you’re working at? Good book, huh? And a fitting name for a civ game. Judging from that title and the fact you’re in the team making this game, I’m sure it will be a great.

I’m glad you like my Bohr signature. It represents the similarities between western quantum-relativistic science and eastern philosophy. Though I must say I’m a bit surprised about your signature. George W. Bush?? Kinda strange, unless of course you’re in favour of a multinational dictatorship.

Anyway, I hope we can talk much more,

M@ni@c

[korn469]

M@ni@c

you've never heard of tropico before? it's advertised on chips&bits here on apolyton all the time...i think it came out in febuary and costs about $33

you can find out more about it here

http://www.poptop.com/Tropico.htm (that is the developer's site)
http://www.cafetropico.com (it is a fan site)

here is the description of tropico

As the newly installed dictator of an obscure Caribbean island, build a path of progress for a nation mired in poverty, civil unrest and infighting. Oh, and uhh… stash a few million in your Swiss bank account just in case you need to take early retirement.

Tropico takes the addictive building-oriented gameplay of hits such as SimCity 3000 and Railroad Tycoon 2, combined with a healthy dose of Latin American political intrigue, and bundles it up in an easy-to-learn, hard to master, utterly addictive package.

Tropico is first and foremost a builder. Tropico provides over 85 structures to build, from hotels and spas for tourists to banana groves, sugar plantations and bauxite mines for food and basic exports, to rum distilleries and cigar factories for basic industry. Industry, mining, agriculture, or tourism, you choose to shape the economy to your vision. And don’t let your lust for Yanqui dollars overcome your concern for the plight of your people. (or they’ll overcome your palace guards and teach you a lesson in mob justice) As a precaution against such unpleasantness, may we suggest paying off the radio stations and educating your citizens to the, um, true benevolence of your rule?

Your island’s inhabitants are fleshed out individuals, most of whom support you as their leader (at least initially). They go about their daily business striving for happiness under your enlightened rule. They have homes, jobs and identities, and they like being safe, well-fed, employed and spiritually enriched. Plan your growth well, and you’ll have plenty of money to buy your people’s favor. Plan your growth poorly, and, well, there’s always martial law…

it really basically an economic simulator and an SI simulator, but that is pretty much the entire game...if you think you'd like SI then this is the game to play

as for your comments i'm getting ready to leave, so i cannot give a detailed responce right now but i will later...but here are a couple of points

So in real life I personally think the only benefit about democratically chosen rulers over despots is that a democracy is more stabile in the sense that superbad leaders won’t stand long. Opposed to despotism, where leaders can be very good, or be very bad. Democracy is system of mediocracy, while despotism is a system of extremes.

i think that you are completely wrong here...when one person is the state without checks on their power throughout history that one person has for the most part caused destructions and choas...the 20th century alone...hitler, stalin, mao zedong, pol pot, mussolini, saddam hussien, kim il jong, jean bedel bokassa, ceausescu, alfredo stroessner...yes they might have done some good for their countries but on the whole they are evil...elected leaders such as bush, blair, clinton, chirac, thatcher, carter, treaudo(sp?), majors, fox...while they have all had their flaws very few of them could be considered evil meglomaniacs who murder their own people with reckless abandon and are a threat to all of those around them

so why there can be enlightened despots...most rely more on their army, propaganda, and intelligence agencies, than they do on charity, free expression of their people, and their general goodness

monarchy's usually have a parliment or some check on their power...and when they don't you have things like the french revolution, unless all dissent is crushed

i'll type more later

hey joker!!! how are you doing?
like i told M@ni@c you should try tropico

[Wittlich]

Just a quick side-note

Happy Birthday M@ni@c!!!

Ok, continue the discussion.

[Ecthy]

I still think SMAC's SE was the best and should be applied in CIV 3. and I KNOW that crap 'historical development' argument is complete bullsh!t because SE doesn't violate that idea yet is more flexible and just better than that silly method of giving us 4 or 5 different governemnt forms with extremely little historical accuracy

[SerapisIV]

Ecthelion, I completely agree. The flexibility of SE choices outweigh the historical problems IMO