Governments

[Lorizael]

Looking at the Civ III editor screen it looks like Governments will effect more then they used to. Two things I want to discuss.

What does everyone think each government should be like?

and

Anyone have suggestions for new types of government?

I'm hoping that the tax sliders will be the opposite of what they were. Under despotism, you have absolute control. But in a democracy you can't do want the people don't want.

(And I hope the senate isn't random anymore...)
"Ok guys, they've surrounded our capital with tanks and howitzers and bombers that can stay in flight for years at a time. We most launch a pre-emptive strike!

"Sorry, prezzz, it's tails. We stay at peace!"

[The Templar]

My only real complaint with the Civ2 government system (I prefer SMAC SE style myself) was that idiotic thing in Democracy where some Fundamentalist Zealot has just seized your major city and your frelling senate signs a peace traty even though you have the military to take it back. I mean the senate forcing you to stop at a parallel or something I can see, but not allowing you to retake your city?!

As for new government types, I might use the editor to add some of the ones from CTP in. I might add fascism (of course how to make this distinct from communism is a good question). Probably add Corporate Republic from CTP also.

[Lorizael]

Haha you said frelling... What show do you watch?

Anyway, yah some from CTP might be good. I would also want to add a Democratic Republic, what the US is. Because it is neither Democracy or Republic as presented in Civ II. Don't know what the differences would be though... Maybe also a Theocratic government which would be different from Fascism.

[Mars]

If you are going to add to the govs already in civ 3 i would put in; Facist, Fundamentalist, Corporate Capitalism (Pure Market Economy), Hive

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Haha you said frelling... What show do you watch?

Anyway, yah some from CTP might be good. I would also want to add a Democratic Republic, what the US is. Because it is neither Democracy or Republic as presented in Civ II. Don't know what the differences would be though... Maybe also a Theocratic government which would be different from Fascism.

frelling... Can you say - Farscape!? Yes, I like it too.

As far as CTP governments go, I've always been partial to the "Technocracy"

[Lorizael]

Yah see but Technocracy is one of those governments that goes into the future. Something that was bad in general for the Civ series (thank you Activision )

[Wittlich]

I agree that CTP's Technocracy went to far into the future, but I believe the premiss behind the "concept" of a Technocracy-type of government is still sound.

[The Templar]

I agree, the idea of a technocracy is pretty sound. Webster's says the word entered the language around 1919 (check here ). I think I'll include that as well. Big thing of course is giving the goovernments sufficient differentiation to keep them interesting.

Besides, I was thinking of extending the game a little into the future (Civ3 - the CTP that works!)
I wonder if the editor allows you to add new ages?

[Yoleus]

A bunch of "berries"

Anarchy (and later military Junta)

Tribal (default)
Theocracy (egiptian. An ancient monarchy)
Dictatorship (Ellenistic Greece, in war time Rome)
Republic (late Greece, classical Rome)

Feudalism
Monarchy (absolutistic)
Empire (classical China, India, ottoman Turks, Austria. Different corruption than monarchy. better for larger states. Worse reserch and happyness)

Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away)

Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military)

[The Templar]

Re: A bunch of "berries"

Originally posted by Yoleus
Anarchy (and later military Junta)

Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away)

I don't know. The Nazis at least were technology happy. I might go with better military and tech under facism and better production under communism.

Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military)

Ahh, I like these ideas. Arguably, technocracy might just be the perfect bureacracy. The term itself means expert-rule - I guess as opposed to rule by the people (or 'masses' to be derogatory). It could also mean rule by scientists after a fashion with massive social engineering initiatives and great respect for science and expertise over all else (doesn't sound so bad really . . . ) Perhaps production suffers and happiness suffers as luxuries and material goods are de-emphasized in favor of science. Perhaps production increases due to the efficiency of expertly planned economies (in practice, of course, expertly planned economies never looked all that expertly planned). Yeah, Technocracy is going into my personal mod.

Federation? Maybe a name for the trade blocks that have emerged? Sort of a post nationalist nation - NAFTA and EU type stuff? If so, that's a neat idea. Democracy in civ might represent a national form of government, made obscelete when nationalism gives way to new ideology. How very Hegelian! Damn Yoleus, that's some swift thinking.

[Faboba]

Re: A bunch of "berries"

Originally posted by Yoleus
Anarchy (and later military Junta)

Tribal (default)
Theocracy (egiptian. An ancient monarchy)
Dictatorship (Ellenistic Greece, in war time Rome)
Republic (late Greece, classical Rome)

Feudalism
Monarchy (absolutistic)
Empire (classical China, India, ottoman Turks, Austria. Different corruption than monarchy. better for larger states. Worse reserch and happyness)

Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away)

Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military)

Why would this not work you ask? Because your last two are super-govs.

That's not civ at all. Civ is about balance and realises that the older govs still have advantages in SOME areas over the modern ones. For example in democracy the people were a lot more 'gyah' ( they would celebrate or revolt at the drop of a hat ) and with communism your income was too low to sustain yourself for very long.

Fudementalism is the example of a well balanced super-gov. It had incredible benifits ( no support, no unhappiness, vast ammounts of money ) which were tempered with the abominable science rate ( and had it been in Civ 3 they'd have prolly given it weak diplomats )

What you're suggesting is actually become a recognised condition called 'power-gaming' ( i.e you get Baldurs Gate and use the editor to make yourself a living god just cause of the cheap power trip you get. ) Having govs with vast advantages without substatial disadvantages goes against the whole point of what they're trying to do.

Mind you, you'll get an editor. Do as you please.

[The Templar]

Re: Re: A bunch of "berries"

Originally posted by Faboba


Why would this not work you ask? Because your last two are super-govs.

That's not civ at all. Civ is about balance and realises that the older govs still have advantages in SOME areas over the modern ones. For example in democracy the people were a lot more 'gyah' ( they would celebrate or revolt at the drop of a hat ) and with communism your income was too low to sustain yourself for very long.

Fudementalism is the example of a well balanced super-gov. It had incredible benifits ( no support, no unhappiness, vast ammounts of money ) which were tempered with the abominable science rate ( and had it been in Civ 3 they'd have prolly given it weak diplomats )

What you're suggesting is actually become a recognised condition called 'power-gaming' ( i.e you get Baldurs Gate and use the editor to make yourself a living god just cause of the cheap power trip you get. ) Having govs with vast advantages without substatial disadvantages goes against the whole point of what they're trying to do.

Mind you, you'll get an editor. Do as you please.

Congrats! You are the only person I've ever seen say that Fundy was well balanced!
Seriously though, it depends how much Federation and Technocracy got cranked up whether or not its power gaming. I mean, democracy was a significant step over republic in civ2, but I wouldn't say democracy was a super government.
As for being unciv . . .
I think a "third wave" of governments could be balanced, and since civ DOES go a bit into the future (spaceships, fusion power, solar plants that CAN power a city the size of DF) I see no reason to exclude them. Of course, you don't have to use the editor you get.

[Be Quicker]

PS i have the impression that the Sid/Civ Communism is a sort of an idealistic/utopian Communism rather than the totalitarian and burocratic monster that it is most often has incarnated as in most of it manifestations. I mean no corruption in Communism? WTF If I talk to my east german and russian collagues here they would not exactly agree... That said, the whole "facism" government is basically also totalitarian. Moreover not many countries ever had this government. Maybe indeed some tweaking of the available governments would be better. Like suggested an Empire as something which is better at handling large civilizations than monarchy (the difference between an emperor and a monarch in europe at least was supposed to be very indicative IMHO of how big and important you are with support of the pope etc.). So in this respect maybe also a more totalitarian form of communism (stalin) and a more capitalistic form of communism/totalitarism (present day china ) can be implemented?

[Lorizael]

I definetely like the idea of some of those techs, but I don't want anything too powerful as was also said. And I think Fundamentalism in Civ II was too powerful. I would often switch to it after I got all the techs, set my science to zero, taxes to 80 and luxuries to 20, and went on a conquering spree. It was just too easy. And yah I always thought that Civ Communism is what Communism is supposed to be. What the Soviet Union had was Fascism.

How would Tribal government differ from something like Despotism?

And how would Dictatorship differ from Feudalism and Monarchy?
I think Feudalism would have few unhappy people but also few happy people. Dictatorships would be more prone to revolt but you would have absolut control over tax rates and the like.

[Mars]

Technocracy could be balanced with Lassiez-Faire style government (i would call it Corporate Capitalim), Fundamentalism, and something like the hive

Technocracy - High tech bonuses, barely any corruption, low esponage due to freeedom of knowledge

Corprate Capitalism - High Economy, Medium Corruption, High Espionage, Low Happiness

Fundamentalism - High Happiness, low science, medium corruption

Hive - High Production, Moderate Corruption, Low Science, Low Happiness, High military