More Government Discussion

[JosefGiven]

Many of my fears about how Civ III is going to turn out have been laid to rest, thanks to the Firaxis site. Apart from a few cosmetic details, the only worry I have left is about how the governments system in Civ III is going to work.

I have just been reading a few of the threads in the 'Governments' section in Darkcloud's Related Threads page. It surprised me how few threads relating to government discussion made it through to be catalogued there. So I hope the good people of Apolyton won't mind me throwing open the Pandora's box of this issue again.

I think the government types of Despotism, Monarchy and Republic are well represented in Civ II. I have grumbles about the others, though: Communism, Fundamentalism and Democracy.

-Communism: There SHOULD be massive corruption under this government, although there should be means and ways of dealing with it. Also, I think a player choosing Communism as a government form should get various industrial bonuses.

-Fundamentalism: No way could a fundamentalist state produce so much capital. Even a communist state, whose 'god' is industrial productivity should be economically better off than a fundamentalist state. I cannot think of many pros that a fundamentalism could enjoy...military bonuses, perhaps? This is one for those who like religious discussions, I feel.

-Democracy: This should remain the best choice for science. However, I think there should be some representation of government de-centralisation (I know that particular topic has been flogged to death). Plus democracies should be subject to corruption.

Of course, there is the possibility of Alpha-Centauri style social engineering.

Take this example, this gave me food for thought: On Nov 24th, 2000. Christantine the Great wrote:

quote: Governments: Start: Tribal | Despotism | Monarchy | Republic | Democracy | Theocracy | Dictatorship Economy: Start: Simple | Feudalism | Capitalism | Communism | Eco-Friendly Values: I would think that "Values" would translate into "Religion" which is a very hot topic around here. Be careful!

(The 'number' for the page where this thread can be found, is: 001909)

Now, I think that these 'Values' could be determined by the player's civ population, and be something that is out of his/her control. It would be a factor that the player would have to respond to.

For instance: The population demands greater religious freedom, greater economic freedoms, freedom from oppression in the workplace, etc.

Right, I've said enough. There's enough here to go on, and I hope this thread starter is open-ended enough to get some healthy discussion going. The government system is the one meaty issue that Firaxis haven't finalised yet, and it would be nice to think that we could still make a difference

[Sabre2th]

I agree that governments should be reworked a bit, you have some good ideas.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[JosefGiven]

Thanks, mate

Here's a few more thoughts I've had during me tea.

I was wrong when I said I was satisfied with the Republic govt. type. There should be more representation of the 'city state' effect which has been discussed in depth, within this forum.

I would like to elaborate on this 'Values' idea, too, if I may. I recently made a post in which I rambled on about how it is the general populace who cause revolution, not the head of state. I think this is how the 'values' system could come in to play.

If the populace presses for one, dominant religion to become part of the state, then the player should choose Theocracy/Fundamentalism.

If the populace demands greater civil liberties, then the player should go for democracy.

and so on.

Of course, I appreciate that players won't like being rail-roaded into decisions by their civs, so there should be simple, accessible mechanisms to help 'steer' the populace in a given direction. Any thoughts?

[wittlich]

Josef, you've made some valid points...and I too agree with them. I'm just wondering how one would go about molding "a government dictated by the whims of the general populace" into the CIV model?

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 03-03-2001 12:27 PM Many of my fears about how Civ III is going to turn out have been laid to rest, thanks to the Firaxis site. Apart from a few cosmetic details, the only worry I have left is about how the governments system in Civ III is going to work.

So far Firaxis has indeed described the game exactly as I would like it to be. Governments are also my concern, but most importantly I am worried about the resource system.

PS.
I think they will use an equivalent of Social Engineering in Civ 3, just like you describe above, but that is only a guess (or hope?).

[Sean]

-Communism: There SHOULD be massive corruption under this government, although there should be means and ways of dealing with it. Also, I think a player choosing Communism as a government form should get various industrial bonuses.

Why should they get indusrial bonuses? Communisms production has been historically crap compared to Capatilists countries. Not to mention off a terrible standard; have you ever driven a LADA?

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Sean on 03-04-2001 04:10 AM Communism's production has been historically crap compared to Capatilists countries. Not to mention off a terrible standard; have you ever driven a LADA?

???? ????

While your statement is true as far as luxury goods are concerned, in Civ2, these were counted as luxuries not industrial production. Heavy industry and the arms industry (which is what counts as industrial production in Civ 2) were very developed under communism. In fact despite the innefficencies in the system and despite the fact that the Soviet economy was much smaller than that of the USA, the Soviet Union did produce more heavy industrial commodities such as steel, cement, coal, etc. than the USA.

[Chaos Warrior]

Are you talking about static governments here? I'd rather go for an SMAC-like model, just with NAMES FOR EACH COMBINATION.

what do you think? something like Civil - Police State for both Fascism in the NS sense and Communism in the Stalin sense, but both are diferent in their economic, social and politic regard. OK?

another example: you're in the 17th century (technologically spoken);

so far you were using a political system with you as a King and several guys doing the work for you... and now, you switch the political option to "single person rules" and the economical one to "merkantilism"... voilà, your new government's name is "Absolutism", whereas before it was "Baroc Monarchy" or whatever... "Single Person Rules" + "Barter Economy" would be the "Tyranny" government... OK?

In the end ofthe day, all I want is to find a compromise between the very good SMAC government model (SE) and the frequently stated argument that CIV is a hisorical game where there should be historical presets... I hope everyone got my points...

[Chaos Warrior]

same about military units, btw.

[JosefGiven]

I appreciate your point, Sean, that the quality of luxury goods in the USSR was poor to say the least. But the rate of industrial growth, especially in the military sector cannot be denied. (Even if it was down to the inhumane schemes of Josef "Evil Bastard" Stalin).

There is no reason why in Civ, you cannot have a 'benevolent' dictator who could make communism work. (I wouldn't suggest it in the real world, the potential for more abuse of, and loss of life is too great).

OK, back on topic before this thread unravels into yet another capitalism vs. communism rant.

I am prepared to accept that communism should not experience the industrial bonus phenomenon that I mentioned earlier. However, I think that more free systems, like your democracies, or your republics, should experience massive swings in this 'values' concept I'm on about. After all, a democratic government rules at the will of the people, so the people ought to have a say in how the player's civ is run.

Here's an example I thought of for belligerent public opinion. Say my empire has been at war with the Babalonians several times, and each of those times, the wars have been long and extensive. Therefore there is very much a casus belli for war against the Babs. Under these conditions, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the populace to harbour war-like feelings for the Babs, and this could come through in the 'values' department.

So say I ignore public feeling, and start signing treaty after treaty with the Babs. Or even worse, appear to directly betray my empire by agreeing to pay substantial reparations and yield territory to the hated enemy. Under these circumstances, I could start to experience penalties on trade, production and happiness. (Not food, because the people are still going to want feed themselves! )

On the other hand, should I listen to democratic public opinion, and take the fight to Babalon itself, then I could experience military bonuses...even production bonuses as the people gleefully skip to the factories in order to support the war effort!!

To finish, I must again point out that I understand how some people may resent having 'unknown elements' in the game force them to make decisions that they might otherwise not have done. To this I say: Aren't the AI civs unknown elements? If a player can handle events from outside his/her civ, then there's no reason why some domestic affairs should be beyond his/her control, especially in more liberal societies.

No, I have never driven a LADA

[JosefGiven]

Oops, Chaos Warrior got in before I finished my last post...So inconsiderate

quote: Are you talking about static governments here? I'd rather go for an SMAC-like model, just with NAMES FOR EACH COMBINATION.

Yes, that's what I'd like to see, absolutely. Although, you could still include a 'values' concept in a static government system. It would just be a separate entity.

[Sean]

I accept that production of heavy goods was substantial, even if crap. Butit wasn't just luxuries communist countries are short on. Brooms weren't made by the USSR, so people had to make do. Socialists countries really do suffer from an "economic information problem". I agree that we should avoid at all costs a capatilism vs communism debate (or other non civ politics for that matter). The Values option sounds good to me! And it is better to call it that than "social enginering".

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Sean on 03-05-2001 05:04 AM But it wasn't just luxuries communist countries are short on. Brooms weren't made by the USSR, so people had to make do. Socialists countries really do suffer from an "economic information problem".

This is certainly true. My mistake, I should have used the words "consumer goods" rather than "luxury goods". The "economic information problem" was only part of the issue. This did account for some of the inneficiency, but the main reason for lack of consumer goods was that the government did not care about the life of the people. It was only interested in weapons production and large scale construction works. For both of these activities it needed heavy industrial production, so that's what it concentrated on. Now the shields in Civ 2 represent this heavy industry, not consumer goods, which are represented by luxuries. Shields in Civ 2 don't give happiness bonuses or anything like that. They are merely used for unit (weapons) production and construction of city improvements. These two activities are undoubtedly heavy industry and therefore communism should have large bonuses for this. However, I completely agree that inefficiency should occur under communism unlike in Civ 2.

[airdrik]

Here is my idea of how gov's should be set up, kind of a mixture of all the ideas I've seen:

You can choose 2 systems for your government: Gov head and economic style plus the amount of religion in the gov.

Gov head: Authoritarian<------>Absolute Democracy
Military bonuses vs. Happiness bonuses

Economic Style: Communist<------>Capitolist(,barter)
Sheild production vs. Luxury production (N/S)

Religion: no religion,theocracy,1 state religion<------>freedom of religion
Affects depend on the 'values' of the civ, theocracy cancels out Gov head

Examples are: generally Authoritarian+generally Communist+(1) state religion=China (though slowly moving away from the Communist side of the scale)

half-way between Authoritarian and Absolute Democracy+Capitolist+freedom of religion=most of today's democracies

Authoritarian+Communist+no religion=Dictatorship