more governments

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Optimizer
Why should a government type be tied to a specific religion?

Because some governments are.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

An obvious example that springs to mind is Communism and its industrial focus. Perhaps we could have a tweak that allows Communist states to produce one extra shield icon for each square already producing one?

Unfortunately, we only have 2 settings to work with, one for the trade bonus, and 1 for the tile restrictions like you have in Despotism. However, since gov specific buildings are supposed to be working now there is some possibilities along those lines that way. There's a thread going where a few of us are discussing some ideas if you're interested.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42194

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Can't you guys just stop the fascism-discussion? Every intelligent poster knows fascism is an evil thing. It's pointless to try to convince those who don't see it. You won't convince eachother, just accept it.

Hey, don't blame me, I was just minding my own business when he decided to jump down my throat.

[belchingjester]

Re: State of Being

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Actually I LIKE the idea of an Islamic State, I getting tired of the quasi christian generic RELIGION being promoted. People don't worship generic gods (except possibly the Unitarians). When you research Religion or Philosophy, you should get or be able to choose a particular religion or philosophy.

Actually, individual Unitarians believe in various specific types of deity (or non-deity); as a group, however, there is no particular "god" that is advocated.

The Simpsons had Ned Flander's kids playing "Billy Graham's Bible Thumpers" or some such game - you throw bibles at the heathen to convert them. One of the kids said "Darn, I winged him - now he's just a Unitarian!"

On the subject of gameplay , however, I don't see how adding different religions really does much, especially when you consider (IMO) medieval Islam was more enlightened/tolerant than medieval Christianity. I could see adding some general categories for type of theocracy (pacifist, belligerent, etc.) but these are too much like personalities.

What I could see adding is a "peace-time mobilization" (after discovering Free Artistry?) similar to the war-time mobilization. Maybe it should not get as much of a bonus (maybe 25 or 50%), and maybe you should be allowed to build only defensive units (and not upgrade to offensive units either). Exit once you attack another civ's units/cities, can't reenter for 10 or 20 turns?

Sorry, random thought. Is it any good?
-belchingjester

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Willem
Hey, don't blame me, I was just minding my own business when he decided to jump down my throat.

I don't blame you for anything. I agree with every word you said, but I just think it's pointless to continue the discussion about it.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
An obvious example that springs to mind is Communism and its industrial focus. Perhaps we could have a tweak that allows Communist states to produce one extra shield icon for each square already producing one?

This would also have pollution side effects, which strikes me as being quite close to the grey and dreary picture that Maoist China and Stalinist Russia call up to mind...

And communist cities should prodfuce less food. Stalin's agricultural plans all failed, and the same goes for Mao's. In fact, those plans even caused starvation.

So it's a shame we can't edit the game that way...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

I don't blame you for anything. I agree with every word you said, but I just think it's pointless to continue the discussion about it.

Well then why are you?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

And communist cities should prodfuce less food. Stalin's agricultural plans all failed, and the same goes for Mao's. In fact, those plans even caused starvation.

So it's a shame we can't edit the game that way...

Maybe Mao's plans failed, but the current policies in China haven't. They've actually been producing surpluses for awhile now, which is quite an accomplishment for them. And last I heard, they're still a Communist government. That's why I think there should be 2 communal govs, Socialism as well as Communism. And good point about the Stalinist policies, that could be included by adding the tile restriction like in Despotism. Then create a gov specific building that allows a 25% boost in production to compensate for the loss of shields.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Willem
Well then why are you?

If you prefer thinking I'm blaming you for something you can't help, fine.

Maybe Mao's plans failed, but the current policies in China haven't. They've actually been producing surpluses for awhile now, which is quite an accomplishment for them. And last I heard, they're still a Communist government.

They are in name communists, yes. But practically they are just a despotism with elements of a limited free market.

That's why I think there should be 2 communal govs, Socialism as well as Communism.

If you use the term 'socialism' for a specific kind of communism, what do you do with the real socialism?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

If you use the term 'socialism' for a specific kind of communism, what do you do with the real socialism?

OK, you lost me there, please explain. Right now there's only Communism, no Socialism. And as for the Chinese being more like Despots, that's what my few of Communism implies. Socialism is a more cooperative form, more along the lines of some the European nations, such as Sweden, or even Cuba. Utopian Socialism would be a better way to describe it. It hasn't really happened yet, just various experiments in that direction.

[Fresno]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Chinese government would be socialism and the Soviet-Russian government would be communism.

Comparing Cuba and Sweden....

What do you mean? Sweden is a democracy, you know. They might have had many socialist cabinets, but that doesn't make them a socialist state.

In my country, till eight years ago the christian parties always were in government. Does that mean I live in a fundamentalist state?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Chinese government would be socialism and the Soviet-Russian government would be communism.

Comparing Cuba and Sweden....

What do you mean? Sweden is a democracy, you know. They might have had many socialist cabinets, but that doesn't make them a socialist state.

In my country, till eight years ago the christian parties always were in government. Does that mean I live in a fundamentalist state?

Actually Holland is along the lines of what I have in mind as well, maybe even more so. I hate to use the term welfare state, but that's the best that I can think of at the moment. For instance, here in Canada we have a public health care system whereas the US doesn't. The socialism I have in mind is a blend of public and private enterprises, much like you have in your country. I realize comparing Sweden and Cuba doesn't do the concept justice, but those were the only examples that popped in my head at the time.

BTW, do you by chance live in s'Hertogenbosch? I was born there.

[Fresno]

So you mean that those countries take more care for their poorer citizens as the USA does? The American government is very different from the European governments indeed, but it hasn't got anything to do with socialism. It has more to do with the fact that in Europe, people generally tend to be politically more progressive as the Democrats, not to mention as the Republicans. But calling that 'socialism' is too simple, because also conservatives, liberals and christians are more progessive here.

If you want to stress the difference between the 'welfare state' and other democracies (like the USA) by making it two different governments, I would suppose you name the European model 'Democracy' and the American model a 'Corporate Republic,' like it was in CtP.

About Den Bosch: because of your first name I already thought you must have some connections with the Netherlands (sorry, I hate it when they call it Holland). I don't live in Den Bosch, I live in a place you probably don't know, it's in the province of Drenthe.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
So you mean that those countries take more care for their poorer citizens as the USA does? The American government is very different from the European governments indeed, but it hasn't got anything to do with socialism. It has more to do with the fact that in Europe, people generally tend to be politically more progressive as the Democrats, not to mention as the Republicans. But calling that 'socialism' is too simple, because also conservatives, liberals and christians are more progessive here.

If you want to stress the difference between the 'welfare state' and other democracies (like the USA) by making it two different governments, I would suppose you name the European model 'Democracy' and the American model a 'Corporate Republic,' like it was in CtP.

Yes, yes, I know I'm using poor examples. Like I said, the term Utopian Socialism would be more appropriate, it hasn't really occured in the world, at least not yet. Unless you consider some of the hunter-gatherer tribes like the Kalahari Bushman, which doesn't really work in terms of a modern society.

What I'm looking for is something that fits in the game using the communal corruption model, with some of the aspects of a Democracy. And calling it Socialism is the easiest thing to call it. It's simpler than calling it Social Democracy, or some such thing.

[Spiffor]

Maybe we could have a choice between "democracy" (the currently centralized one, French or English-like) with "federative democracy" (USA, German-like) where corruption is slightly higher but communal, then better for large civs, but less adapted to small ones.
Just trying to help finding a name for this low/communal corrupt gov.