Governments

[Christantine The Great]

I don't think that the Social Engineering model should be used in Civ III because of one important reason. In SMAC there were not civilizations but factions. A faction is run by one common ideology. A civilization is created when a group of people live and grow into one singular culture, usually sharing one religion. Since there is no ideology guiding the civs in Civ II than there is the possibilty that the stupid AI would chose an incompatiable way of life (A Republic under a communist economy) since it does not know what it should do. In SMAC you are starting out on a fresh world but not a fresh culture. In Civ III you will be cleaning the slate of the entire history and rewriting it your own way, limited only by the tech tree so it would be very hard to make a social model different from the one history presents us. I hope you see my point.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[Napoleon I]

Christantine:

Actually, the example that you gave can be implemented perfectly. I think that you are falling into the trap of considering Communism to be a political system that existed or continues to exist in certain countries. In reality, that is not so. Communism was designed as an economic system that was intended to be used in republics, specifically England and France.

There is, however, a very important reason why the SE system of SMAC should not be used in Civ3. That reason is the fact that this system is entirely unrealistic. After all, you are given the power to instantly change the attitudes of your people from militaristic to green or something. If we want a game that will do a better job of immitating the way real world works, then a system such as SE should be banned entirely. Government effects should be bundled together in some way, so as to forbid such creations as a nature - loving, wealth oriented, fundamentalist state, for example.

Let us not forget that most transitions from government to governmnet have ended up as very bloody and dividing affairs and I'm afraid that the upheaval cost in SMAC doesn't quite cover it.

Now I'm just going to crawl under the table, and wait for the rotten apples from all the SE lovers to start flying towards me.

------------------
Napoleon I

[Par4]

I don't see why we can't have SE. Countries can have different kinds of economies. Why can't a monarchy have socialist, or free market, or green economy?? Just make it so the people have to choose.

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Deathwalker]

Myself, I am not sure what sould go into Civ 3's goverment section, though I would Like to see more choice and facters that effect it's success. Because not all comunist or republic goverment operate the same. So this should be taken into account.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Stefu]

I think that there should be kind of SE, but only with two categories - Goverment and Economic. Goverment having such as Despotism, Monarchy, Totalitarianism and Democracy, Economic having Mercantilism and Communism and so on. I agree with Napoleon I that changing values is unrealistic - however, economic and goverment styles change.

Also, goverments should be more than bunch of modifiers - there should be some special rules for some goverments (like no unhappy citizens under Fundamentalism in Civ2, for instance.)

[The Joker]

Great once again to see some interest in SE.

To everybody here: Check out the SE Model's thread in the ideas for Firaxis forum. There you will find any idea you could think of debated to death.

I hope that you guys will actually start making SE models yourselves, as we did back in our days (about 9 months ago).

Personally I have now moved beyond the SE level, as I feel that the people should have a mind of their own, with you having to take their wishes into thought when doing things.

Check out the Alternative Civs forum (at the bottom of the list of forums) a few weeks back - the "Clash and OC3: Governments" thread for information.

Of cause if you really want to have your ideas be taken into consideration for a Civ game you should post some ideas or comment on those already present in the Alternative Civs forum. Me and some others are trying to actually develop our own Civ game (OpenCiv3), which we want to make the ultimate civ-type game. Of cause this is a somewhat wild goal, but although we're all volunteers we do have some professional programmers and us designers have a lot of revolutionary ideas. The game will be completely open and completely free.

Well, ciao!

[Az]

oh man ..... never played SMAC .....

[phunny pharmer]

Par4: this is a test =

Hey, I just want everyone to know that I do not mean to single out communism. With my "Atlas Shrugged" capitalism, I voluntarily will attack any form of government I want. And for that matter, I would attack all governments. However, as this thread seems to be focused on communism and SE, I will save my comments on the other governments (ones that are and are not in the game) for another thread.

Modular governments are both good and bad. They are unrealistic (because governments can be created that are paradoxes, eg fundimentalist-knowlege based governments. However, they allow players to combine strengths and weaknesses to fit their styles. For that reason, I want to see SE choices.

However, choices made in the new SE should be much more binding. The AI should 'average' the government changes that you have made in the past, and treat that like a reputation. Thus, if you were in a police state for seventy years but changed to a democracy ten turns ago, Lal should not deal with you as kindly. In short- stop the human from running in circles around the AI.

Also, make the computer use the SE intelligently. For instance (from a real game that I played): Lal, the computer AI, was getting whipped by Yang, another computer AI. The two wouldn't talk because neither would change their respective social engineering (I had infiltrated both of them). Lal was destroyed. Lesson for the computer to learn: If another faction is kicking your ass, well change your ideology to one that they agree with. The first rule in civ3 should be survival.

[Shadowstrike]

Generally, some of SMAC's modular choices were totally impossible ie. funamentalism and knowledge. This should change for Civ 3. Basically, some governments won't go with some module and some modules won't go with others.

Napoleon: I think the bloodless revolution problem is addressed in the "Revolutions" thread in this forum

[Father Beast]

Christantine,
Thanks for starting this thread. here's my take on Fundamentalism, which I think is too powerful. (as those who frequent the civ2 gen forum know)
I think Fundamentalism should take a trade hit. I.E. no tithes, and despotic like limitations on trade generation. maybe cut revenue from trade routes in half. this would simulate the resistance to outside ideas (already accounted for by the science hit) and items (it's sort of unfaithful to buy imports made by infidels).
keeping everything else the same, that sould balance it out. right now the only hit is in science, which I don't care about after I've discovered everything, or can get it by conquering.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Generally, some of SMAC's modular choices were totally impossible ie. funamentalism and knowledge. This should change for Civ 3. Basically, some governments won't go with some module and some modules won't go with others.

That should be easy to fix up.

Also, I haven't read the aforementioned other thread on SE (am really pushed for time), but I've got to say, even if it is a tad unrealistic, it's a very fun additon to the gameplay. It realy spices up the game.

(And why can't civs have specific ideals - just like the Mongols of the ?12th? century were hell-bent on conquest, the 16th century British/Spanish/Portugese/etc were focused on exploration, and the US of now is focused on $$$ , civs in civ3 should be able to have SE.)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Evil Capitalist]

Here are my suggestions:
govt form:
Autocracy, oligarchy, democracy, fundamentalism
market economy:
Primative, Communist, Capitalist, Mercantilist
ideology
Military, Financial, Intellectual, Industrial

This should cover most governments. Obviously contradictions would exclude one another, eg fundamentalist intellectual, communist oligarchy

[UltraSonix]

Evil Capitalist's list of SE choices above was excellent. The only minor gripe is that I think there should be a gove type between "Autocracy, oligarchy, democracy" and "fundamentalism". Maybe it could be a religion-cross-democracy, a bit like, say Malaysia, where the Islam has great influence, and yet the country is not fundamentalist.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 07-22-2000 09:43 AM Maybe it could be a religion-cross-democracy, a bit like

You're right, I only thought of fundamentalism to make up the numbers. Perhaps there could be a group of yes/no choices, of which fundamentalism could be one. Public health could be another. That would exclude the other sections.

[The Joker]

Sorry. Double post.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited July 22, 2000).]