New Government Types

[Indignator]

This topic was probably beaten to death before, but I'm new to this forum, and the few pages of threads that I browsed didn't have include new governments. Anyway, here are my ideas:

Theocracy:
Better unit support than monarchy, but corruption on the level of Despotism.

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy:
Same as Democracy, except has limited unit support, but workers work normally.

Socio-Democracy:
Unit support on the level of Constitutional Monarchy, but corruption is same as Communism. Other than that, same as Democracy.

Fundementalism:
Units and/or improvments are FREE, but has the production penelty of Despotism, and cannot mobilize for war.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM, MONARCHY AND DESPOTISM:
Despotism is a form of government where the leader has absolute control through his army. Normal Monarchy involves a leader who is recognized by the people and (most of all) by the nobility as the one chosen by God. Feudalism is an entire social system, with a social ladder with the King at the top, who gives land to the Barons (in exchange for defense), who give land to the Peasants (in exchange for all that they grow on it).

[Thrawn05]

I like it... good job.

[ThePlagueRat]

I liked it too... but Socio-democracy should be renamed Social-democracy. (or just Socialism?)

[Mikhail]

One thing: Fundamentalism is a state of mind/being, not a government type. Israel and Saudi Arabia have, for the most part, fundamentalist governments, but they exist within a democracy and a monarchy

The United States is one of the most fundamentalist countries in the world, though not their government, but the general people. There was a poll that came out several years ago, that had less than 10% of the US's population believing in evolution.

Theocracy is okay I suppose, but Fundamentalist is just a status.

Personally, I'd like to see such statuses implemented.

I'm envisioning

Society: (society type) Government: (existing governent that's in the grame)

You could have the base governments we have now, all that could be combined with Society Types:

Capitalist (economic bonus)
Socialist (happiness bonus)
Fascist (military bonus)
Fundamentalist (corruption reduction)

they'd need to be balanced a bit more (Capitalist and Fascist are obvious, but I can't think of anything good for Socialist and Fundamentalist)

Thus, you could have a Fascist Communism (such as the Soviet Union, creating a war machine that's not good for much else), or Socialist Democracy (similar to current Western Europe governments, a peace time combination), or Fundamentalist Monarchy (as we see in the mid east), etc.

I realize that Fundamentalism and Socialism are pretty weak, but consider them to come early in the game, like Monarchy and Depotism are now. Though, if you're having problems with corruption or happiness (as Democracys often do during war), switching your society to Socialist or Fundamentalist would still have a purpose.

I much rather that kind of system, adding a lot of variety and possibility, but not cluttering up the number of governments there are (CTP had just too many, that were obviously in a 'ladder of usefullness', instead of all being useful in different situations)

[Darkworld Ark]

Sounds good, just add Clerics as a 'UU' for Theocracy (look at CTP Cleric for blueprint), Facism (higher, or even unlimited unit support, Democratic curruption level, allways mobolized for war, has bad relations with Republic, Democracy, & maybe even Communism).

[notyoueither]

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic

You've got Feudalism and Monarchy backwards. Established monarchs (absolutism) are more 'advanced' than primitive feudalism, and are better for trade due to central authority. Monarchs also have to employ mercenaries more often than feudal lords.

[Indignator]

Established monarchs (absolutism) are more 'advanced' than primitive feudalism, and are better for trade due to central authority

Lack of central authority is exactly what makes the Republic and Democracy better for trade. The people just do what they want. And under Feudalism because the lords have a free hand they engage in trade more. Maybe not historically accurate or realistic, but few things in the game are.

As for unit support, just what makes units free anyway? Why all units under Democracy require support? Because they are a profesional army? Many Democracies in the world still conscript troops in peace time. Unit support is just a game concept, to give different governments pros and cons.

In any case, I just wanted to include an early game alternative to the Republic, and I thought that Feudalism would be a good candidate.

EDIT: Some minor punctuation changes.

[notyoueither]

I would simply swap the places of Feudalism and Monarchy.

Democracies and Republics are better at trade due to the rule of law. Monarchies (absolute) are much better at central control than pure feudalism. Monarchs grew out of feudalism in Europe.

It is difficult to trade when you are being taxed by every tin pot feudal lord through whose territory you must travel.

As for unit costs... feudal lords would be able to rely on regular drafts of peasant fodder as well as subordinates in the feudal system as knights. These forces cost nothing. Service to the liege lord is a condition to continued living.

Whereas later monarchs, even absolute ones, are often cut off from these levies. Many monarchs relied on paid soldiers to maintain their realms. A feudal lord would lack the cash.

[Indignator]

I would simply swap the places of Feudalism and Monarchy.

Does it really matter what it's called? You can always edit "Democracy" to "Kitty Rule." But the point is, do you like the gov pros and cons?

[Nubclear]

Re: New Government Types

Originally posted by Indignator
This topic was probably beaten to death before, but I'm new to this forum, and the few pages of threads that I browsed didn't have include new governments. Anyway, here are my ideas:

Theocracy:
Better unit support than monarchy, but corruption on the level of Despotism.

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy:
Same as Democracy, except has limited unit support, but workers work normally.

Socio-Democracy:
Unit support on the level of Constitutional Monarchy, but corruption is same as Communism. Other than that, same as Democracy.

Fundementalism:
Units and/or improvments are FREE, but has the production penelty of Despotism, and cannot mobilize for war.

After which civilization advances would these various governments become avalible?

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Mikhail
Personally, I'd like to see such statuses implemented.

I'm envisioning

Society: (society type) Government: (existing governent that's in the grame)

You could have the base governments we have now, all that could be combined with Society Types:

Capitalist (economic bonus)
Socialist (happiness bonus)
Fascist (military bonus)
Fundamentalist (corruption reduction)

they'd need to be balanced a bit more (Capitalist and Fascist are obvious, but I can't think of anything good for Socialist and Fundamentalist)

Thus, you could have a Fascist Communism (such as the Soviet Union, creating a war machine that's not good for much else), or Socialist Democracy (similar to current Western Europe governments, a peace time combination), or Fundamentalist Monarchy (as we see in the mid east), etc.

I realize that Fundamentalism and Socialism are pretty weak, but consider them to come early in the game, like Monarchy and Depotism are now. Though, if you're having problems with corruption or happiness (as Democracys often do during war), switching your society to Socialist or Fundamentalist would still have a purpose.

I much rather that kind of system, adding a lot of variety and possibility, but not cluttering up the number of governments there are (CTP had just too many, that were obviously in a 'ladder of usefullness', instead of all being useful in different situations)

This would be sort of nice, because it more acurately reflects the differences between the government form, and the socio-economic structure. Though to be most accurate, it should be modelled by three seperate selections, reflecting goverment type, economic system and social order.

Which would be quite like SMAC, and something people have asked/hoped for in Civ once they saw and liked the SMAC system. Unfortunantly, I would hazard that while Sid and company might like to take Civ in that direction, this is one of those aspects of the game where they feel continuity is more important than making major adjustments, or they might have done it already.

Now, if in terms of balancing for Fundie and Socialism, you mean the negative aspects, I can give a few suggestions.

For fundie, one potential balancer is reduced research levels. Most societies throughout history that would be considered fundimentalist, also tend to be hostile to scientific research that may potentially upset the apple cart as it were. They also tend to be a little rough on free thinkers. Could you imagine Darwin trying to propose his theories in the Rome of Galileo's day? He would have been lucky to get put in a permanent house arrest like Galileo. He probably would have been killed.

For socialist, I would think a combination of slight reductions in commerce and industry or maybe just a reduction in commerce would be good balancers. One reason is that the main method by which socialist goverments would have that increased happiness is from their heavy taxation of the populace to support the government programs that are making people happy in the first place. That heavy taxation means that while the government is able to help provide the basics of health care, housing, and education to people, it also means that there is less money in the economy for people to freely spend on commerce and/or capital investment. The tendency of strongly socialist societies towards dissociation of the level of wage earned from the nature/perceived importance of the job could also similarly affect commerce and industry.

I do have a couple of questions though.

First, why would you say socialism would come early? I would see it as more of a late-game thing, being that it has a lot of relation in its origins to Communism, which is in a certain respect as much or more a matter of socio-economics than as a matter of government. I'm not really sure any society before the late 1700s could really be said to be socialist in nature, except maybe some of the smaller tribal societies of North America, Africa, Australia and Polynesia.

Second, socially how would you classify some of the early cultures in history, like the Romans or Greeks? I'm not sure they really fit the four choices you have, and suspect there may be a fifth choice you're missing, and just can't think of what it would be called myself at the moment.

[Imp. Montezuma]

2 Mikhail

Add society:
- Slavery from Begin
- Feodalism with Feodalism tech
BTW Fascism with Fascism tech
Governments:
- Dictatorship with Nationalism

2 Bleyn

Seems Fundamentalism tech are redundant with Monotheism.

Ancient Israel with Monotheism and Medieval monotheistic Christian ALL are Fundamentalist. Early Islam (during Arab Khalifat) aren't Fundamentalist. But later (during Ottomans) are.

Communism not yet exist as society. And Communism theory exclude every form of government.
Just society without classes, without government.
Communist Anarchia!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Indignator


Does it really matter what it's called? You can always edit "Democracy" to "Kitty Rule." But the point is, do you like the gov pros and cons?

You want a better system, right?

You want it more realistic, right?

Then get it right!

[Dinner]

There most certainly should be additional government types because the current scarecity is appaling. A few suggestions for the PtW team would be:

* Facism-No explanation need here.
* Virtual Democracy-a 5th age future version of democracy.
* Theacracy-ruled by priests.
*Some sort of modern military dictatorship-this gov would suck but be better then despotism.
* Corporate Republic -a 5th age version of Republic where the state works mainly to promote and assist big business.

[Duddha]

I doubt any new governments will be added in PTW because it could become controversial for govs like Fascism(damn PC) and because it's the simplest thing to change. Why bother if the people who want it will add it on their own anyways?