Column #96; WHY SE DOES NOT BELONG IN CIV3

[tanis]

Matthevv,
I'm afraid you contradict yourself: first you lament that there were too many options in SMAC, then you comment the government choices in civ2 for adding to gameplay diversity. I would think that 'more' adds to diversity and thus, in this respect, is 'better'.
Moreover, I don't think that the SE screen & concept were overly complex (as opposed to 'simple'). I might add that for those who dislike the complexity (!) of it, there is always the possibility of ignoring the economic, value & society choices, and only making a political choice, which amounts to roughly the same as in civ2 (hey I said roughly .

As for the relevance of SE in ancient civilisations, it should be clear that this would work like in civ2, meaning that in the humble beginnings of your empire, you nearly have no choices to make since you haven't developed those more advanced ideologies yet.
Moreover, I think the idea that the rulers in those times didn't concern themselves with the form of society they ruled, is overly romantic. Of course they considered it, from the idealists who wanted to shape/change that society, down to the conquerors or crazy despots who just needed a cash cow for their army or vices, they all made a conscious decision in that respect.

I say you can kill me, but not my ideas!!!!
I say pro-choice, SE will prevail!!!!

[The Joker]

I think I agree most with Theben. First, SE effects should be added/substracted from the effects given by city improvements.

Second the people should have a mind of it's own. I think this could be done by having some categories (like Individualism and Militarism) in which the pop had a rating between 1 and 10. The SE effects by each SE choise should partly/entirely be based on these numbers. With a high Individualism rating people would be unhappy with a nondemocratic gov or a planned economy, but with a low Individualism rating a democratic gov would give a lot of corruption and a capitalist economy would not give very much trade (resembling Russia after the revolution). The SE choises would also effect these ratings. A democratic gov would increase the Individualism rating with time, a destructive war would decrease the Militarism rating etc. These effects could be influenced and influence loads of things. A high Militarism rating would reduce/eliminate the unhappyness caused by units away from the city etc.

On top of this each city could have it's own rating. This way in a huge and polarised civ it would be very hard to manage it efficiently, as what caused happyness in some parts of the civ could create unhappyness and corruption elsewhere.

This would make it much harder to make SE changes, as it could take up to decades to get the bonuses you want.

[NoviceCEO]

quote: Originally posted by Matthevv on 02-02-2000 11:18 AM I also don't see the relevance of "social engineering" to ancient civilizations. It might be an appropriate concept for a futuristic game, but I can't empathise with the idea of the emperor of an ancient empire, or even one prior to the 20th century, being involved in "social engineering". The feel of the game is vital for me (and Civ2 did this excellently), so the way that the ruling of your empire is done must be appropriate to the era.

Man, at least in SMAC you only have access to new options in the SE when you get to discover new techs. Many games end before you have all the options.

[raingoon]

Myself not having -- at least I hope -- a closed mind, I find myself agreeing with the Joker that Theben seems to be onto something (see above). I'm glad the column was somewhat thought provoking.

[The diplomat]

I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I thought that SMAC's SE was a pretty cool feature. Obviously, it can be improved and should be adapted to civ3. But I think there are three conditions that must be met no matter what SE system civ3 uses:
1) your people must be involved so how in the SE process. If you try to switch to a very unpopular choice or try to leave a very popular choice, there should be a real revolt. No just two turns of anarchy like in civ2, but maybe a couple cities declare independance and you have to reconquer them, something like that. Also, your people should request a certain SE choice. For example, if you are a totalitarian, your people might start demanding democracy.

2)the SE choices should have significant impact on gameplay. Not just +/- modifiers like in SMAC. For example, if you switch to democracy, you have to face a senate that might question your decisions.

3)have shades. For example, most countries are not 100% free market or 100% planned, but somewhere in between.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[S. Kroeze]

I fully support the ideas posted in this thread by the Joker and by the Diplomat; giving the people a will of their own would make the game much more interesting and realistic. Different regions/cities having an individual identity would be great too! And the concept of ratings from 0% to 100% is essential to the whole structure. When for example the militarism rating of your society would drop below 20% you would always be forced to make peace, even in the most tyrannical, totalitarian form of government. Only massive brainwashing, not prevalent in ancient societies apart from the organized church, would help.

I would at least introduce three new elements in the SE ratings/choices:
Conservatism/Experimentalism, Religiosity/Secularism and War/Peace. War/Peace should be linked to your foreign policy and only offer two possibilities, no gradations here. The default settings of society would be: 100% conservative, 100% religious, Peace. Man is by nature a conservative animal; change becomes only possible when society becomes less conservative.

I know my last remarks actually belong in the SE thread. I want to apologize to the Joker for abandoning this most interesting of threads for the time being. The problem is I'm much to busy. I hope all is well?

[The Joker]

I like the idea of having the conservatism rating too. And the secularism is nice too (did you know that Denmark is the most nonreligious country in the world?), although it would only effect the relationship with the religion (would need a religion model for Civ3). But I don't quite understant the war/peace rating. Would it simply decide whether you were at war or at peace with the other civs? I would then like to add that there should be several kinds of relationships you could have with the other civs (war, cease fire, peace, non-agression pact, alliance, pact, protectorate, confederation etc).

So we have Individualism (my favourite), Militarism, conservatism and secularism (not including the war/peace thing as I don't quite know what it means). What else do we need? Enviromentalism? Any suggestions?

And how excactly should they effect your society? I am hoping for some responce.

BTW it would be nice to get some of that SE thread debate back, S. Kroeze.

[subspace]

It won't be Civ3 without SE...

[KhanMan]

I have to agree with the pro-SE faction:
1. There are 256 (4*4*4*4) possible combinations in SE, as opposed to civ2's 2 governments.
2. How many people have tried the Fascist Patch, and liked the idea of more flexavility of government?
3. If you want a "behind-the-scenes, computer controlled economy and political system", you can kiss strategy goodbye.

EX. What to declare war on someone? Sorry, your civilization has drifted into a pacifist democracy, which you cannot change, and you get to sit out the game...Do you really want a demonstratably lame AI calculating what government is forced on you? Or do you want to control your civ?

4. If you want a system where all the factors are included, but you have control, then what you basically are asking for is a social-political simulation requiring a masters' degree in economics and political science to understand.
IMHO, the best things of civ are the freedom to choose, and the ability of person under IQ-125 to play...

-KhanMan

[S. Kroeze]

Since I still owe the Joker a reply and I think this is a quite interesting thread I bring this to everyone's notice again.

I still believe in one radical SE choice: a War/Peace button linked to foreign policy. War would mean you are waging at least one war, Peace the absence of any such war. Because war in real life has a far greater impact on society than suggested by CivII or SMAC; it heavily influences all aspects of society. It might even be the most important SE choice!

It puts a tremendous strain on public finances: a major war can result in budgetary deficits for years. This was one of the main causes of the French Revolution! And of course the economy will nearly always suffer a lot: soldiers can't gather the harvest, which could cause famine and peasant revolts, trade routes will be disrupted, soldiers often loot their own country, epidemics have a greater chance to be spread, refugees add to confusion, taxes will inevitably rise, etc....

War is also the ultimate test for the loyalty of its citizens. The army at the front can't put down a rebellion at home. It is of course no accident that during World War I three long-standing monarchies (in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia) toppled down. Republican France was also passing through a major crisis; it only narrowly escaped.

So if CivIII tries to add more realism to the game wars lasting two millennia will become impossible. Civilizations should break down under such never-ending stress! The Peloponnesian War, lasting only thirty years, definitely ended the 'Golden Age of Greece', destroying both Athens and Sparta. Only very militatistic societies like the Assyrian or Roman empire can endure the tension of almost continuous war. And it is of course no accident that the Roman Republic went down in civil wars. A really brilliant politician like Augustus was needed to restore order, at the same time fixing the borders and creating the pax Romana.

On the other hand war has a tremendous influence on the mind of people. Generally democracies are more peace-loving than autocratic regimes. But during a war this can change radically: I think a democracy once engaged in a war might prove to be far more fanatical to win it at all costs than most other governments. Usually democracies demand unconditional surrender, something unheard-of during Europe's 'Ancien Regime'.
It is public opinion which often will force politicians to make irrational choices, like interfering in Bosnia. After the French Revolution warfare has become much bloodier. The American civil war -between two more or less 'democratic' regimes- is considered the first modern war.

It would be very interesting to be forced by your own people to wage a war against your wishes and best interests!

[beyowulf]

Hmm..posible effects of social choices.

Conservatism - Longer this maintained, happier the people are..Lower amount of research though.
Experimentalism - Exact opposite of conservatism. More unhappiness, higher amount of research.

Religious - Less corruption. Lower economy maybe.
Secularism - More corruption. Higher economy.

[The Joker]

I guess late is better than never, Kroeze!

I am happy to read your responce, though.

I agree that wars should be far more destructive to a civ than they are in Civ2. But I think that they should be so because the war FORCES you to do things that are expensive to your budget etc. I don't think that just because you are at war your people should automatically revolt against you or food shortages should emerge. All these things should happend in some wars, but not automatically. I wouldn't want to be at war with some pathetic island on the other side of the world with just a few units over there, and this causing my civ to collaps. I therefor do not think that the war issue should be goverened on this macrolevel, but in stead on a microlevel.

I am not sure how to make this workable, but it should definately include giving units some new features:

Units should be much cheaper, especcially before the ind. rev. This way you could build LOADS of units if you really needed them during a serious war.

At the same time units should require both money (which could be a serious thread to your national budget), production and in modern times energy for support. The two latter could seriously hurt your homeland productive capabilities.

Units should also take pop away from the cities in which they were built. If done well this could give the food shortage we want in wartimes.


Beyowulf:

I don't think the effects should be that simple. In stead the SE ratings should work together with the SE choises you have made. I think Conservatism should determine how long your people stayed upset (and how upset they would get) after you had made SE changes. Secularism should determine how much power religion had over people's lives. I think that the religions of the world should be independant AIs, that had their own agendas. They could ask the civs to do things for them. If the civs didn't obey the religions would cause unhappyness (and possibly revolts) among the people worshipping that religion. The more secularized the believers of the religion were, the more unhappy they would become. This way you could end up having to totally obey the religious leaders, if you had a very religious pop that all belonged to the same religion. It would be like Europe in the Medieval times.

[Biddles]

I think that war should have a slightly different effect. I agree that it should drain your treasury and almost everything else that has been proposed for the war setting, but it should also raise your economy level. While war might be costly for the country, private enterprise does quite well, selling weapons, rescources etc. to their government. Actually, if anyone you have diplomatic contact with is at war, you should get a small bonus in this area.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 05-07-2000 12:03 AM While war might be costly for the country, private enterprise does quite well, selling weapons, rescources etc. to their government.

Exactly.It wasn't government peacetime policies that REALLY got the U.S. out of the depression,WWII did.The American economy got a tremendous boost from WWII,and it never had it's economy reach near-collapse or total collapse from foreign armies laying waste to everything in sight.
My point is,fighting a war on someone else's soil should'nt necessarily affect you adversely.