What governments is CIV III going to have?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
...more flexible and just better than that silly method of giving us 4 or 5 different governemnt forms with extremely little historical accuracy

There are six of them, you know. History should adjust to whats best for gameplay - not the other way around.
Besides, SE just isnt Civ - it is just to SMAC'ish.

[Ecthy]

well, I don't even see any historical problems with SE, you can have everything, even similar things with smaller differences.... I've explained it several times, and always got the same silly responses... well, I'm glad at least a few think like I do

[Maniac]

Thanks Wittlich!!

korn469

Hitler is democratically elected. Strictly speaking, he isn't a dictator. And to be honest, I consider Berlusconi ( democratically elected prime minister of Italy) and Bush (democratically elected president of the USA) a threat to all those around them. So really, both dictatorships and democracies create dangerous figures.

And you say dictators usually rely on the army, propaganda and intelligence agencies. Perhaps the army isn't valid in the case of democrats, but they certainly depend on intelligence about political rivals and they extensively use propaganda - in fact, these days, the one with most capital and most access to (or monopoly on) the media, not the one with the best program, will most certainly win the elections, not the most charitable, good and freedom-of-speech-promoting. Again Bush, Berlusconi and also the Russian president Poetin are great examples of that.

However, you're right, though it doesn't work all the time as you can see in the above examples, democracy is a sort of safeguard against really bad politicians, because they depend on the people and all other sorts of groups for their power. That's the strength of democracy. However, it is at the same time its main flaw. Because in general, individuals are irrational beings who have no clue about politics and only care about their own short term interest. So to stay in power, a politician must make decisions that give those individuals short term benefits, for example lowering the taxes and cheap energy by oil drills in Alaska. A politician who does that is in my eyes a bad one. A good one should make decisions which have long term benefits for the entire society, for examples energy taxes to protect the environment and better public shooling. However, that requires money and doesn't bring immediate benefits, so a politician who is in favour of that doesn't has a large chance to get much support.

A dictatorship doesn't have that problem. So under the condition that the dictator is enlightened, a dictatorship is a better government. So what if propaganda and intelligence agencies is needed? As long as the decisions of the dictator have the long term benefit of society as a goal, there's no problem. However, no human is perfect. So indeed, there have to be some power checks.

So I guess representative democracy is best. It has power checks, which eliminates the problem of dictatorships. But those power checks aren't as great as in direct democracy, so inpopular decisions can be taken by people who (hopefully) actually know something about politics.

M@ni@c

[d_dudy]

you heard it here first, people: George W. Bush is an expansionist loony along the lines of Hitler and Mussolini. he's just waiting to invade mexico and canada annd start world war 3

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by d_dudy
you heard it here first, people: George W. Bush is an expansionist loony along the lines of Hitler and Mussolini. he's just waiting to invade mexico and canada annd start world war 3

uhhhh.... Can we say no? Even if W wanted to, it couldn't happen. Besides, he's not smart enough to invade anything. He doesn't even know where Canadia and Mexicoco are. (yes, I know those are spelled wrong)

[SerapisIV]

I'm sure Bush can find both Canada and Mexico. Mexico is where you go for cheap beer and the best drugs during college and Canada was where he was going if Dad didn't get him into the National Guard.

[Sabre2th]

[lockstep]

Something interesting from the MoO3 website ... (http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official...s1_061101.html)

Governments: I hope we'll be able to put out a full data dump sometime soon, but here's the list of governments. Before all the howling starts (and it will, I've been here long enough to know that), keep in mind that governments in MOO3 are more a structural thing than a Flavor of the Week. We've eliminated some (like Communism and Fascism) because you can emulate them perfectly well by setting government policies on the economy, religious and political freedoms, forced labor, state security vs. individual liberty, and other items (over 50 items, by the way).

Here's the list, official at this point but subject to change if we find a *really* good reason to do so:

(Unique Series)
Unique (i.e. some very strange structure)

(Tribal Series)
Kin-based
Group-based

(Absolutist Series)
Despotism
Monarchy

(Transitional Series)
Oligarchy
Constitutional Monarchy
Corporate

(Representative Series)
Democracy
Parliamentary
Republicanism

(Collectivist Series)
Hive
Unification

Well, I wouldn´t start howling if Civ3 featured a similar government system. I especially like the idea of "setting government policies". Sounds like Korn469´s "ordinances" ...

There are six of them, you know.

You´re probably right about governments, Ralf, but nothing has been confirmed so far. (As for the civfanatics website: They also confirmed "still seven civilizations in one game" till Firaxis revealed the number of eight. Good site, but sometimes a little rash.)

[korn469]

lockstep

the MoO3 system does sound interesting, and i'd like to see how they implement it into the game...the over 50 government policies should make it have a varied and detailed system that would basically let the people develop their own governments...i would say that the perfect SE system would have many many many government policy choices, and to keep them managable they should have default settings that would like the SE menu in SMAC or the government menu in civ2 and these setting would have predefined packages of policies...for the newbies they would just choose democracy, or monarchy, or republic (civ2), or democratic/free market/wealth, police state/planned/power (smac)...but then if you an advanced player and really wanted to create your own system then they could let the player edit existing government packages...like a democracy could have several choices

*free elections
*free press
*private ownership of land
*volunteer military
*checks and balances
*bill of rights


as could a communist dictatorship

*no elections
*government controlled media
*state ownership of property
*compulsary military service
*one party system
*secret police

and a monarchy could be

*elected parliment
*free press can be suspended in a state of emergency
*private ownership of property
*compulsary military service
*parliment can only make suggestions
*divine right of kings

this would be like fully extended SE, where the player could make a choice (and have several items to choose from) for everything...possibly have like 25-30 categories with four choices apiece

it would be like my ordinance idea on steroids...

however i think that most likely ralf will get the government system in civ3, so far in the tech tree for the ancient and middle eras the techs monarchy, republic, and democracy have shown up...since firaxis hasn't made any comment on the SE/government debate then most likely if SE or some improvement will be in civ3 then we will find out soon (most likely when the website comes online or shortly thereafter)...and in the interview on apolyton, jeff morris used the words "conservitive sequal"...but i'm keeping my fingers crossed

the only thing we have heard so far is from a preview that came out in may that said the government system was the same except that fundy was out and a new type of government called nationalism was in...while this might prove to be correct not only has enough time went by for firaxis to change this, but many of the previews have gotten facts wrong, or worder their previews in such a way that the facts sound like firaxis has implemented features in a certain way, when in reality it was just poor wording on the part of the preview

i find the tech tree is the most convincing evidence that the government system will be in civ3, but there could have been under the hood changes, like support will change things for sure

(As for the civfanatics website: They also confirmed "still seven civilizations in one game" till Firaxis revealed the number of eight. Good site, but sometimes a little rash

civ2 also had a max of 8 civs, 7 civs (1 player, 6 AI) and barbarians...so civ3 will have the same amount of civs as civ2 did, so civfanatics was right, just their wording was lacking

Ecthelion

I don't even see any historical problems with SE, you can have everything, even similar things with smaller differences.... I've explained it several times, and always got the same silly responses... well, I'm glad at least a few think like I do

i agree with you...Ralf and others have presented many arguments against SE, most of which i think we have refuted, though on some issues they do have points that we haven't addressed in a completely satisfactory way...however the one line of argumentation that really gets me is

"its not civ"
"its scifi"
"did you hear me? it's not like civ"
"it's too much like SMAC"
"if it is part of SMAC it must be scifi"
"not that scifi crap again"
"since it wasn't in civ they can't add it in now"
"didn't you hear me? for the last time it's not civ damnit! "

but besides that they do have alot of good points...but the SE side has even better ones though

M@ni@c

Hitler is democratically elected. Strictly speaking, he isn't a dictator.

yes he was elected, however after his election the president hindenburg appointed hitler chancellor then after the reichstag burned hitler convinced hindenburg to basically allow him to declare martial law...then when hindenburg died in 1934 hitler assumed all power (once hindenburg allowed hitler to declare martial law hitler was the de facto dictator of germany anyways)...no further elections were held, hitler never ran for office again, and then nazi propaganda and the gestapo quelled all opposition to hitler

so hitler was a dictator...although he was democratically elected, he was never elected to the position of Fuhrer...he seized power

I consider Berlusconi ( democratically elected prime minister of Italy) and Bush (democratically elected president of the USA) a threat to all those around them

sadly i know little about current italian politics, so i cannot comment on Berlusconi

however, although Bush did win the election he is not a democratically elected leader in the classic sence

the US is a republic, and because of arcane electorial proceedures Bush neither won a majority or even a plurality of the votes in the election...however he won the most important vote of all...the 5-4 supreme court vote...which in my opinion those five votes counted more than the millions of votes cast by the people...more people voted for another candidate than they did either Bush or Gore, which is sad...to decide a game of backyard ball we always "you gotta win by 2" rule...so i think a president should have to get 52% of the vote before they become president (i voted for Nader, not because i support the majority of his left wing policies but because i think i live in a corrupt nation and i would like for the people to have choices)

And you say dictators usually rely on the army, propaganda and intelligence agencies. Perhaps the army isn't valid in the case of democrats, but they certainly depend on intelligence about political rivals and they extensively use propaganda - in fact, these days, the one with most capital and most access to (or monopoly on) the media, not the one with the best program, will most certainly win the elections, not the most charitable, good and freedom-of-speech-promoting. Again Bush, Berlusconi and also the Russian president Poetin are great examples of that.

However, you're right, though it doesn't work all the time as you can see in the above examples, democracy is a sort of safeguard against really bad politicians, because they depend on the people and all other sorts of groups for their power. That's the strength of democracy. However, it is at the same time its main flaw. Because in general, individuals are irrational beings who have no clue about politics and only care about their own short term interest. So to stay in power, a politician must make decisions that give those individuals short term benefits, for example lowering the taxes and cheap energy by oil drills in Alaska. A politician who does that is in my eyes a bad one. A good one should make decisions which have long term benefits for the entire society, for examples energy taxes to protect the environment and better public shooling. However, that requires money and doesn't bring immediate benefits, so a politician who is in favour of that doesn't has a large chance to get much support.

A dictatorship doesn't have that problem. So under the condition that the dictator is enlightened, a dictatorship is a better government. So what if propaganda and intelligence agencies is needed? As long as the decisions of the dictator have the long term benefit of society as a goal, there's no problem. However, no human is perfect. So indeed, there have to be some power checks.

i think you have pointed out some huge flaws in at least the US political system...it is true that special interest groups monopolize the media, and the vast sums of money going into washington to finance campaigns must have some effect on the actions of politicians once they get elected...not only this voter apathy, and the disproportional numbers of minorities that are barred from voting because of criminal convictions (ie they are in prison or they are barred from voting after getting out of prison) hurt the entire system

there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in jail in the US right now who cannot vote right now, these people hardly have a voice at all (and in alot of those cases this might be a good thing!)...then you have certain industries that hold a tight grip on congress and the presidency because of campaign contributions...so one large group has no voice, while another much larger group thinks the entire thing is a sham so they don't use their voice at all, while another group that is smaller than either of the first two groups has a large powerful voice...that certainly isn't a description of a perfect republic, and certainly not the description of a perfect democracy

the other flaw that you implied by saying Bush is a threat to those around him...that flaw is the United States went from being a nation with a very small standing army to being a nation with the most powerful standing army on earth (at least arguably but that's another topic)...while the united states couldn't win a war in which the rest of the world turned against them, there probably isn't a country that could stand up to the US in a fullscale 1v1 conventional war...at one time congress needed to declare war so the US could raise an army to fight...now basically all congress does is give the nod to fight...the US bombs iraq everyday, congress provides the bombs, because building those bombs creates jobs, saddam is the bad guy, and a pilot is more likely to fly into the side of a mountian than get shot down by an iraqi anti-aircraft position, however there was a treaty signed and this isn't a war, but it gets very little press coverage and most people neither know nor care and congress has more important things to worry about...but i doubt the founding father's wanted a military infrastructure that could make war on any part of the globe at a moment's notice...most were cautious of having a large standing army, because this is a tool of an autocrat, patrick henry damaged his political career because unless there was a bill of rights he didn't want the constitution...i'm sure he would have a problem with the current US military complex...not because he is a pacifist, but because of the possibility for abuse...if the US didn't have a standing army (note: i'm not advocating this), and the people had more checks over the government, and had a less biased press then i doubt anyone would feel threatened by the US

however even with all of those problems, the US is less of a threat to cuba than china is to taiwan...granted the US is a huge military threat to cuba, and instead of embracing castro like the long line of other autocratic figures in the caribbean we have strangled their economy and tried to isolate them from the world...no super power protects cuba now, but the US isn't about to invade cuba, if the united states declared taiwan a rouge state and cut off relations with it, china would almost certainly give taiwan one chance to join china peacfully, and if taiwan refuse their ultimatum then china would move against them...so the point i'm trying to make is that a despotic regime is much more likely to use force against another country mainly because the leader's ambition is only contained by powerful outside forces or because his people can only take so much...in a democratic country the people can despose of a leader through elections and this usally keeps them trying to appease the people

M@ni@c i also disagree with the concept of an enlightened despot...not because a "good person" couldn't become a dictator, but because eventually the despots views will clash with the majority, even if the despot has the right idea, and then the only way to stay in power will be for the despot to oppress the people

lets say you have a small imaginary dictatorship, and the dictator is a kind, honest person who loves small animals and children, who lives on a very modest stipend, and who is very wise...this dictator always considers the following before making a law "what action would benefit the most people while not harming anyone?"

so after five years of rule all of the people think he is doing a good job, and then after years of careful consideration he decides to ban the nation's favorite lunch...the potted meat sandwich

for those of you who don't know, potted meat is a pinkish grey meat paste made out of left over animal parts (i know that at least beef hearts and mechanically seperated chicken is in it) and this really quite disgusting...it comes in little round cans and it is very cheap

the dictator sees that other countries look down on his because of their love for potted meat sandwiches, also potted meat is fattening and certain study shows that it might increase colon cancer...the dictator wants to replace the potted meat sandwich with the turkey sandwich which is better for the people, and is known as the distinguished sandwich the world over

well as soon as he bans the potted meat sandwich and bars anymore from being imported to his country a potted meat resistance front raises up, and a famous sandwich historian leads the movement...six months later only 75% of the people think the dictator is doing a good job, all because of the potted meat question...now 25% of the people want to hold elections and replace the dictator, who has virtually wiped out all of the social problems of his country while at the same time has cut taxes and created high paying satisfying jobs for his people

two more months go by and the potted meat resistance has picked up momentum, and 45% of the people think they should hold elections and vote the famous sandwich historian into office because he promises to bring back potted meat sandwiches, the remaining 55% of the people are wavering and in a few months time months time everyone will turn against the dictator...he knows that potted meat sandwiches are bad for the people, he knows that by eating turkey sandwiches more countries will look favorably upon his country...and the dictator has a grudge against the potted meat industry...as a child, they stole his pet llama from him, mechanically seperated it and turned it into potted meat...he knows that by jailing the famous sandwich historian and spreading anti potted meat propaganda "put potted in the potty!" that the potted meat resistance front would collapse...not only that, the jails are spacious and there are no other prisoners in the country, the guards would treat the famous sandwich historian well

so what will this dictator do? what would you do? to stay in power the dictator only has one choice and that is to jail the famous sandwich historian and spread anti potted meat propaganda...although that might not be so bad, it is still violating the will of the people...in a years time the turkey sandwich could go out of style...and the people of this country eat well except for potted meat sandwiches so the fat doesn't really hurt them, plus other studies have shown that potted meat doesn't cause cancer...the dictator might be an enlightened despot, but he is still manipulating the people and crushing his opposition just to enforce his will...and it could all come down to the potted meat industry turned his pet llama into a sandwich that could be biasing his rather astute and caring opinion

this is an imaginary example...i think catherine the great was one of the so called "enlightened despots" how would you have liked to be a serf living in russian then? the real world enlightened despot is much less kind to the opposition...plus for a despot to stay in power they almost always have to resort to some form of oppression...i think for the most part despotic governments while they may be highly effective at times do not conform to the wishes of the people and they totally violate the principle of "by the people for the people" which is how i think government should work...yes most so called democracies fail to live up to that, but i (as most people) would much rather live in a free state than a police state any day, even if the amount of freedom is only relatively greater

note
i started typing this before the civ3 website came up, and from the sounds of it

Are the units going to be supported by the city they where produced from, or will they be supported by the entire civilization?

Units are no longer supported by the city that produced them, they are now supported by your civilization as a whole. Depending on your government type, you can support a certain number of units "for free"; after that limit is exceeded, you must pay maintenance per turn for additional units.

and with the other available information i'd say civ3 will have the government system instead of the SE system...well hopefully next time we will get something better

[fluxcapacitor]

Wow...quite alot here. Some maybe even above my level. But what the hell, I may as well throw in my two cents.

I support SE. I've played many hours of Civ2 and SMAC, and I never felt like SE was too 'SciFi'. But that seems to be its major criticism. What I don't like about the civ2 govt system is that [in spite of the fact that we're after gameplay before realism] its not realistic. Like say the Babylonians drop nukes on me and I'm running a Democracy. According to the civ2 model, your 2 citizens per turn are still going to get pissed for every unit away, regardless of the fact that a rival nation obliterated X amount of your empire. If that happened in the United States today, I'm certain the vast majority of the public would support retaliation. So maybe, [if we do in fact get the civ2 govt model again] there could be 'extenuating circumstance' rules added to the govt system, like the aforementioned example not causing unhappiness due to military units away from the city. That way, you couldn't run a Democracy and enjoy all its production and scientific benefits and trounce on someone, but if a rival nation F's w/ you, they could damn well expect to be paid back.

The other thing is, also along the lines of realism, why should I have to actually switch govt's TYPES to go to war, produce at acceptable levels, etc? Stable govts. gon't overthrow themselves just because they're current agenda changes...

[Juggernaut]

This is where I think a Propaganda Engine would be appropiate. The more you brainwash you people, the less unhappy they become if having military units away. The propaganda would be something you spend a specific procent of your gold on. Certain city improvements could also help the effeciency, like printing presses, cinemas, etc.

A retaliation motive would also improve the efficiency.

Under Nationalism, the propaganda would always be 100% and at no cost.

[tniem]

Just to get my two cents in once again, I played CtP again this weekend. And while there are a lot of things I like (the PW and city happiness engine mostly), I hate their government system. All governments are static but there are so many. Hardly balanced - there is no reason to ever use half of them. You find the best ones and use them.

On the other hand a SE would allow you to pick which beliefs and elements that you thought you would need at the time. Or even a small number of governments like Civ I would be preferable. Each one could be used at various stages effectively.

[TechWins]

I'll say it again, to solve the problem of base govs. and SE just simply include both. You will have your base gov. then you can make some changes to it with the SE. You get the best of both worlds. I'm really surprised Firaxis didn't think of this and implement it. (I haven't read this thread since the first page sorry).

[The Joker]

Maniac,

Actually I was trying to show the total idiocy of the man by using this completely ridiculous quote as my signature.

I would really like to take part in this discussion, but I'm afraid I don't have too much time right now.

Looking forward to talk to you.


Korn,

Hey man! It's been a while since we've met on ICQ. I hope that will change soon. See you!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
I'll say it again, to solve the problem of base govs. and SE just simply include both. You will have your base gov. then you can make some changes to it with the SE. You get the best of both worlds. I'm really surprised Firaxis didn't think of this and implement it. (I haven't read this thread since the first page sorry).

I think Firaxis wanted to return to the uncomplicated straighforwardness of the original Civ-1 game. Mix-and-match SE-values easily gets an cluttered number-excercise - also the small increments between each change becomes uneventful.

In the upcoming Civ-3 you have your six fixed government-types (wich easily can be fine-tweaked with editors, though), and changing between then becomes (hopefully) more risky & eventful. This in return helps marking the timeline = add a sense of timeflow and attachment to the game.

I say, keeping the idea of six fixed government-types was a good and sound idea. They can perhaps add some very few cost-weighted Sim City-style checkbox-ordinances to each Gov-type, but thats about it for fancy modifications. I dont think they have though.