Announcement

**Koyaanisqatsi** · May 23, 1999, 20:33

And, as always, if I've missed or horribly disfigured something, let me know and I'll fix it . . .

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 23, 1999).]

**NotLikeTea** · May 23, 1999, 21:42

I'll just argue what I've been arguing in every forum

Government/Social enginering choices should make other choices more or less difficult, but never impossible.

A despotic, capitalist, fundamentalist state should be possible, if very difficult. A democratic, communist, religious state should be possible, if very difficult.

The game should never force the player into making certain choices. All combinations should always be possible. Some would be more possible than others, of course.

**wheathin** · May 24, 1999, 13:35

S.E. choices should allow for more than just the broad strokes of the society. They should force a player to deal with the factions that constrain his power. Early on, there would be nobles and military elites, and religious powers. Then, guilds, traders, and merchants would become powerful, followed by industrialists and workers. Always would be the threat of a peasant revolution.

These factions can be played off against each other, and they can act to limit the ruler's power. The underlying theme is to make Civ reflect more of the pressures on a leader. Historically, even the most advanced or far-thinking leaders were limited by the entrenched power of other groups.

The most important factor in this would be taxes and pacification. A ruler needs to keep the masses happy, or they will revolt. To do this requires the support of the strongest factions in society. But at the same time, the ruler needs money. Money can come from the elites, which infuriates them, or from the masses, which retards growth and fosters discontent.

Once SE has set the outline of a civ, a player should have several ‘special actions'. These would be like Nerve Stapling in SMAC: they would last for various lengths, and have effects on a given faction. They would also vary with the government. Examples:

Crusade: increases military strength, reduces population pressure, but angers target (a foreign power).
Purge: reduces military strength and science, but pacifies masses thru terror.
Enclosures: angers masses, pacifies elites.
Grant Fairs: increase taxes, pacify merchants, grows cities (but thus angers nobles)
Grant city charters: enhance city growth, anger nobles
Increase Feudal Levy: increase taxes, anger nobles
Grant Serfdom: anger populace, pacify nobles
Sell Offices: increase corruption, pacify nobles
Conscription: increase military, anger masses

...you get the idea. Additionally, an important SE choice should be Individual Liberty, on a sliding scale, like a percentage. Taking some actions would decrease it, taking some would increase it. If the IL score dropped too low (or got too high), it might force a revolution. As IL increases, the ability of the government to do certain things (like raise taxes or go to war) would decrease. However, higher IL would lead to faster scientific and economic growth.

thoughts?
wheathin

**Harel** · May 24, 1999, 16:42

Well, I think we also need to discuss the specific effects of every social modifier.
Democracy, for example, had a very odd advantge in SMAC ( Effiecency? In a DEMOCRACY?! Huh? That was very strange. Dictatorships are much more productive. Democracy should give a bonus to economics and research ).
However, I would like to add to the SMAC model another tablet: Army.
You will have several options:
Volunteers ( High-pay, high-quality army, and very small. Good happines. Allows democracy to send more units away from home. )
Selective drafts ( low-pay, good-quality, medium army. Can cause revolts ).
Mass army ( a poor army, both in cost and in quality, but huge in size. Cause lots of unrest )
Brainwashed ( requires high-tech. Zero-cost, good-quality and huge sized, but only in non-democratic countries ).
Thats it.

**Kropotkin** · May 24, 1999, 16:53

Just wants to point out a small detail... You hav 3 types of regional govt. Federal, confederation and city-state. But what about a normal, ordinary one-state state (i don't know what the correct term is in english but you know what i mean), it's the most common one you know...

**Trachmyr** · May 24, 1999, 17:58

National Goverment Types:
After rethinking this through he is my revised opinions:

Independant - As city-state, but also with nomadic populations.

Regional - This is the one state state asked about, if you have several regions it is a Confederacy.

National - As Federal, but with a less Western title.

P.S. Bell, actually that is a pretty good summary of my "Culture" system with 2 clarifications:
1) Many Culture choices are available at GAME START without need for tech discovery.
2)Almost all ancient wonders and many modern ones will ONLY provide CULTURE, though in very large amounts. The reason is that most wonders are just a tribute to the buildin civ, helping define that civ.

P.S.S. I do not agree with giving civs certain bounuses to S.E. like SMAC, however I do believe that civs should begin with some S.E. choices already made. This will give a bit of uniqueness to each civ, but not tie them to any sterotype.

**Diodorus Sicilus** · May 24, 1999, 18:51

- First Post in this Thread-

Culture, Economics, Politics, Military System, and Religion seem to be getting mixed together here. In fact, they do get mixed together in history, but to incorporate them properly in a game system, we'd better be able to define what we mean in game terms...

The "one state state" is the classic Nation State (see Treitschke and other 19th- early 20th century Political Scientists), in which the state controls certain borders within which lives a homogenous population that shares a common set of cultural, personal, and political values and a common language. It is the basis for the Most Common Factor in 20th century international relations, which is nationalism: your Patriotisim factor.
Some slightly different definitions, by effects:
Fascism and Communism, as practiced in this century, are both forms of Totalitarianism - complete government control of the state and population for specific Higher Purposes or Goals. At the other end of the political scale is Direct Democracy, in which every citizen votes on everything - ancient Athens (which admittedly defined 'citizen' pretty tightly) was about the last one. Economically the opposite of the Totalitarian controlled economy (and note that the Nazis in Germany didn't even achieve total control until forced to by wartime) is classic laissez-faire capitalism - every man for himself and the government on the sidelines. That economic form doesn't last long, because it (so far, historically) quickly polarizes the population into a small number with wealth and a large number without: revolution or reform follow every time, and the growth of Labor Unions and Social Democracy are two direct results.
One thing I think is necessary to make both a more interesting game and a more historical one, is to drastically reduce the precise control the gamer has in all political - economic - social forms. Most rulers in history, as stated in a previous post here, were less like the Lord of All He Surveys on the Screen than like a man riding a Tiger and hoping not to fall off at the wrong moment. It is also the internal juggling act that leads to variety in the civilizations, as the juggling fails and revolutionary types or regions split off, governments fall and change radically, or new social forms (Fuedalism, for instance) radically change the form of economics and social systems, and the governmental (you the gamer) options.
Just for a start, instead of the gamer getting all the Gold and distributing it as He Sees Fit, I'd like to see each economic system defined to include a level of Economic Growth and Wealth Production. Then, the government type would have modifiers as to what % of that wealth they could tap in taxes. Certain Advances (Bureaucracy a classic example) would change that %, and Happiness or other social factors would be directly affected by that % - as would things like Growth.
The % left untapped would not be wasted: individuals and non-government agencies (the Church, furinstance) have always 'invested' $$$ in the society, and with the right system you could have cities building their own infrastructure, Fuedal Barons supporting large parts of the army without central government paying a dime, and merchants setting up Trade Routes on their own. Of course, not all of this might be what you, Joe Joystick, would want, but them's the problems and opportunities of a real historical ruler...

**Freddz** · May 25, 1999, 00:00

How special abilities could be implemented (I dunno if this is a radical idea...):

I think the Civs should have a chance of GROWING special abilities depending of HOW the Civ is governed and or WHAT government choices your people have lived with for a long time. Those choices breed traditions, not too unlike the real world. You, as a player, grow these traditions through your choices.

Two clarifying exmples:

1/ A nation which is constantly warring and/or have the power choice for a long time could get Morale bonuses after a time. Maybe production bonuses on units too. They could also get a negative modifier on something else if unlucky since their people has had a strong tradition on putting violence first.

2/ A peaceful nation could get science bonuses if lucky, and could be well liked by other peoples making it harder for other leaders to make war "on those friendly neighbours". Civil disorders could erupt easier in those nations when someone declares war on them. They could also get negative morale modifiers and so on.

Comments: The civilizations would become more individual after time with a system like this, and the changes would force a player to consider new tactics when faced with a change that affect the entire nation. New government choices could be neccessary, new tactics and so on.

**Depp** · May 25, 1999, 00:50

Freddz F***in AYE!!!!!

**CormacMacArt** · May 25, 1999, 11:50

Here here!
What about the CORPORATION advance allowing a corporation to start in your civ (independant AI)? Its headquarters are in your richest city and it grows along the richest trade routes. Then the I.I.C. (International Irish Corp.) would be your contractor for all your military needs (or you could switch to the I.A.C., if the price is better). If a country turns commie, all the co's assets are turned over to the gov.

**Koyaanisqatsi** · May 25, 1999, 11:56

I think the thing to remember is that this is a game, not a simulation. Taking control of critical game functions (including city infrastructure) out of the player's hands may be realistic, but in my opinion it doesn't make for a very good game.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

**NotLikeTea** · May 25, 1999, 18:25

I was thinking about governance on the bus today.

How about a scale, for all categories, from Top to Bottom. Top being full control, bottom being least control

Representation (from top to bottom) would be Despotism -> Monarchy -> Democracy -> Full Democracy (vote on everything)

Regions: Unitary (one level of governemnt) -> Federal (provinces/states) -> City States -> Anarchy

Economy: Planned (communism) -> Regulated -> Capitalist -> Totally Free Market

Religion: Fundamentalist -> Official state religion (including athiesm) -> Unofficial state religion (state holidays, but not enforced beliefs) -> All religions accepted, none favoured

Millitary: Drafted army -> volenteer army -> emergency army (reserve like, maybe)-> unregulated millitias

-

Each would have plusses and minuses, and room to work within each (what kind of official religion, what kind of economic regulation, etc)

Early civs would be at the Top for representation (despots) and at the Bottom for all others (unregulated economy, no real control over regions, only millitias as defence, etc).. more choices with discovery.

**Spartan187** · May 25, 1999, 19:27

I have one problem with the Governments suggested. They are governments that have been used in the past or are being used right now, and none are from the future. CtP is the only game I've seen which provides future governments. I think that all of the future CtP governments except Ecotopia should be included in Civ. 3.
I also have a disagreement with the culture points. If it would be like fundamentalism provides 70 culture points and secularlism provides 50 culture points, than I think it really needs to be revised. It should be like the other SE choices, for instance secularism could provide less culture points but provide a bonus for research or something like that.

**CormacMacArt** · May 26, 1999, 00:26

May I suggest that we agree to disagree? Yes, this is a game, but it is a game that simulates the growth of the many civilizations on the planet. My suggestion may not be a good idea, but why not? What problems do you see? I see my idea as allowing for the possibility that another civ may try to overthrow my gov to end my protectionistic stance. Which I may have to respond by seizing assets.

Announcement

SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver1.1): Hosted by Bell

SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver1.1): Hosted by Bell

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment