new government types

[HAND]

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark


So everybody would still use Despotism?

No, they would change to Military state when possible to get massive unit support without upkeep, but at the expense of research, finance, corruption etc...It would be a warriors government- nothing more...

[Panag]

Originally posted by HAND


No, they would change to Military state when possible to get massive unit support without upkeep, but at the expense of research, finance, corruption etc...It would be a warriors government- nothing more...

hi ,

sounds like a modern day type of dictorship , ....

their chance of having great leader's should be lower

have a nice day

[HAND]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

sounds like a modern day type of dictorship , ....

their chance of having great leader's should be lower

have a nice day

Yes good idea...Also the ability for units to become Elite should be inhibited to some extent too...Maybe 50% chance compared to normal, to slow down such numbers. Masses of Veteran units is still a force to be feared.

[hahntsak]

Originally posted by hzm
The main thing seems to be everyone wants more control of what kind of government they have. The answer? Bring back the alpha centarai government system.

Russian Communism=Police State + Socialism

European Socialism=Democracy + Socialism

Chinese Communism=Police State + Free Market (???)

I've probably just show my ignorance but I do not understand why this system wasn't used for civ3.

my wish:
add:
Fascism
Theocracy
Papal State
Radical Islamic State
Socialist [sweden?]
Maoist [china during cultural revolution.. also shining path could be abrutal regime]
1 country 2 systems [china now]
Federal republic - like germany more than u.s.
Marxist [communism lite?]
Oligarchy [rule of few = rich ones only]
Military dictatorship
Imperial [more than monarchy - ghengis khan, napolean, etc
Technocracy
Meritocracy [ ethics based - no corruption]
Merchantilism
Zionism [not just isreali, but mormon/evangelical beyond normal theocracy - commercially enhanced
Sultanate
Tribal Agrarianism


change democracy to direct democracy [ancient greece]
change communism to totalitarian Comunism

just some ideas...

[hahntsak]

Originally posted by Caliban


I agree... We NEED Fascism in the game.

If we do not get social egineering...

and some form of theocracy

for turks/arabs

socialismwould be a nice bonus.

[Ambrose Groan]

I don't see the necessity of having both communism, whether Maoist or Marxist-Leninist, and fascism for while on opposite sides of the political spectrum, both forms of government used the powers of the state as well as certain elements of capitalist practices to get what the state desired: quiet people, vast production quotas, and fancy digs far from the proles and potential assassins. Firaxis should have just had the good sense to have labelled "Communism" "Totalitarianism" and have left it at that. Fascism was in no way better or more effective, it just tended to occur in states that already had comparatively modern infrastructures.

With regard to religion, it is poorly considered in Civilization. In previous suggestions for Civ3, someone or some people noted the importance not only of type of religion (monotheist or polytheist, for example) but also the deity or deities being worshipped (the example used being 'Zoobism'). Though this concept is probably too difficult to implement, the present system is facile by comparison.

If any political system should be added, it ought to be theocracy. However, one might easily just lump it into totalitarianism, although it should be able to produce a fair quantity of cannon fodder (i.e., weak foot units) to be of some use. Such units alone should be exempt from maintenance costs, and only when the government is theocratic. (Tanks still run on gas, rifles need bullets, and guns need shells.)

A system of social engineering as used in SMAC would have been best, for most states both past and present had or have aims to produce specific visions of society (isolationist vs. commercial, libertarian vs. conservative, etc.). Unfortunately, it won't happen.

Oh well...

[des-esseintes]

I think all the govt. changes PtW needs is:

When you discover Nationalism, Despotism stops being despotism and is turned into Fascism.

This would be partly due to Despotism being so sucky in the mid-late game that it's not really a choice. If nobody's gonna pick it, then why should it pop up everytime you get a revolution?

Fascism (or Dictatorship, Totalianiarism, whatever) should be pretty much like commies in that it's useful for waging war in Industrial and Modern ages: No restrictions on tile production, without the representative commerce bonus, and without the "Communal" corruption. It needs something to set itself apart from Monarchy, however (which i btw think should be renamed to Feudalism, cos even Ancient Age "despotisms" were infact monarchies).

How about, in a fascism, there is no limit on the amount of MP you can have in a city. But Temples and Cathedrals have no effect. You can draft 4 citizens. And you can support a ridiculous amount of units per city. Corruption is determined by the amount of MP in the city (if you have like 10 units in a city the waste is minimal, if you have only 1 it's rampant).

BTW, someone said that "Democracy" in the game is a future type of government where all the citizens in a state give their vote on every matter. This is bull, why should such a government exist in the game when it doesn't even exist today.

I think the difference between Democracy and Republic is that Republic is the Ancient-age style of democracy. Rome, Greece and so on. Civ3 Democracy is Modern Democracy, as in most Western nations today. Makes sense too, as you invent it at the end of the Middle Ages (Give me liberty or give me death '1779).

[Ambrose Groan]

Fascism and communism were equally corrupt historically. Italian fascists, the Nazis, the Japanese militarists, and Latin American juntas were no better in terms of pilfering production at the local or regional level than the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union or present day China. If the Soviets and Chinese faced or face greater extremes of corruption, it is simply due to the limited infrastructure available to the state to monopolize the corruption for itself: that is, communism is in no way inherently more corrupt or inefficient than fascism. Despite the old myth, Mussolini didn't make the Italian trains run on time, and the only reason he got rid of organized crime was that he and his party didn't like the competition.

For both fascism and communism, the number of units that can suppress the population should be fairly high, but free units should not be permissible except as cannon fodder (weak foot units usable primarily as police) because it would cost just as much and likely more to train and equip elite units - ones to which the most fanatical would like to belong - than regular infantry, armoured, etc., units.

The state capitalist economies of communist countries can be as efficient as the capitalist owned but state-directed firms under fascist regimes partly because the fascists will demand some graft and the state frequently does what's politically convenient rather than what's in its or the people's best interest. If it happens under a democracy, just imagine how bad it must be in a one-party state. Considering also that active members of the ruling party often only make up a small minority of the population (around 5-10%), there's plenty of opportunity to be wicked without getting caught.

Republic refers to an oligarchy similar to the Roman Senate, somewhat moderated by the tribunes, or the Venetian Republic. Democracy, as witnessed by the little picture of the Capitol dome in the technology tree, refers simply to representative democracy, whether republic (no sovereign) or constitutional monarchy (with sovereign possessing little to no power). If everyone gets a chance to make their opinion known, you have Anarchy (not to be confused with chaos resulting from revolution, but a state of government without government). This direct democracy or Anarchy could only be made possible with the advent of computers and the internet. The player choosing such an option would have to conform to the decisions of the majority each and every turn, and the majority of citizens in each and every city within his or her territory in turn, in order to avoid revolution or the secession of those cities and their surrounding territories from the greater whole. It would be impossible to wage an aggressive war, and almost impossible to play because of the ensuing frustration resulting from becoming the computer's pawn.

Theocracies should not have regular-strength units free of charge after completion, but partisan-style units suitable for policing and as cannon fodder. Remember the radical Reformers during the sixteenth-century in Germany: most of the soldiers fighting for the more radical Reforming sects were peasants, i.e. cannon fodder. Religious improvements (temples, cathedrals, religious wonders) should produce more culture and more happiness, libraries and universities should produce the same level of culture (but only a portion of the scientific research), and entertainment-related improvements (colossea) should produce no culture - the common people should derive enough pleasure from the holy word rather than dissolute entertainment - should require no upkeep (probably only used for demonstrations anyway), and should not produce as much in the way of happiness.

Socialism (by which I actually mean a social democracy as the Soviet Union was a socialist state, not a communist one) would be a worthwhile addition as a follow-up technology to Communism/Totalitarianism that would minimize communal corruption apparent in Communism and some of unrest typical in a democracy. Aggressive war would be received as poorly in a social democratic state as it would in a democratic state, and a social democracy would otherwise be pretty similar to a representative democracy.

[Panag]

hi ,

there is at least room for 4 new types , but should we not make a kind of choice on those ones , .....

some people would like to see 10 new ones , but is that no a bit to high to aim for , .....

have a nice day