SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver 2.0): Hosted by Bell

[Maniac]

I finally got some free time to think about my SE model. I made one! It's off course only a blueprint and it is open for alteration. Only testplaying can verify if the model is good.

First of all you should know that I want to multiply everything in Civ3 by ten to allow more precision.
If you do that you can allow technologies(eg Crop Rotation, Horse Plowing(before the Renaissance oxes were used to plow)) to increase food production in a terrain by 10%(grasslands produce 22 instead of 20 food). That similates the continual search for better food production.

In SMAC Industry made things cheaper or more expensive to build. I would let it increase or decrease the Labor(see Economy thread for more info about Labor).

I think you should be able to research technologies simultaneous. One of each category à la explore, discover, build, conquer. There should also be a window where you can edit how much of your research points you put in every category.

"That increases the time between discoveries." you say. No, because I find the tech tree should be enlarged to 300 techs and therefore the price for each tech reduced so research speed is the same.

How can you find 300 techs?
Take a look at all the historical Civ2 scenarios on the web and you've got them.

Why 300 techs?
More realism and precism.

I know all the above shouldn't be on the SE thread, but it's necessary to know because I based my model on it.

So, let's first introduce the SE factors.

[Maniac]

Police.

First this : There are 5 types of citizens.
Aristocracy/Elite : other name for happy citizens, produce 50% more food,labor and trade than normal.
Plebs/Workers : other name for content citizens
Proletariat/Drones : other name for unhappy citizens, produce 50% less
Revolutionaries : other name for very unhappy citizens, produce nothing
Specialists : Entertainers, Taxmen,...

Cities riot when there are more proletarians than aristocratians. Revolutionaries can cause revolting and creating another (minor?) civ.

Declaring martial law means all people become workers for ten turns, similar to nerve staple.

In all Civ versions I wundered why airplanes caused unhappiness. The reason a manual gave me was that it was because the pilots had to do practice flights. That caused unhappiness. Is that a reason??????
I think airplanes cause less unhappiness.
As long as a democracy(Western countries) is bombarding another nation(Serbia, Iraq)no problem. It's only when they want to send ground troops, there comes trouble. That's why I think Air units should cause less unhappiness.

With allies I mean simple allies
With pact nations I mean civs that are in your multistate-coallition(eg NATO, probably possible in Civ3). There should be at least 4 civs in a coallition.

There should be a council proposal à la SMAC possible to or not to allow nuke use.

Police rate can effect population happiness.

+3 : 3 units can act as police. Police effect doubled.
+2 : 3 units can act as police, each keeping one proletarian content.
+1 : 2 units can act as police
0 : 1 unit can act as police
-1 : 1 police; can't declare martial law(=MW).
-2 : no police and no MW( also no MW for all lower police rates)
-3 : every unit, except the first, out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone.
-4 : every land or sea unit out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone; every air unit beyond the first out of your or your allies' territory cause one drone.
-5 : land or sea units out of your territory two drones; all air unit beyond the first out of your territory cause one drone; all land/sea units out of an allied city but in their territory cause one drone.
-6 : land/sea out of your territory= two; land/sea/air out of an allied city but in their territory = one
-7 : land/sea/air out of your territory or allied city= two drones( also for all lower police rates)
-8 : you (or your senate,depends on Morale rate; later more about this) must ask permission to your pact nations to send ground or nuclear(if allowed by some agreement)units to an enemy. 1/2 must agree.
-9 : same blah. 3/4 must agree
-10 : same blah. all but one member must agree
-11 : Everyone must agree!!!!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

To flavor dave:

I have a confession to make. I AM a perfectionist. I am the one who picks the psilon at moo, the guys who build the super-armies at SC ( but get swamped by rushes ), the one who likes to mend it cities in civ.
So, I KNOW but you mean about winning with 8 good cities.
This method would be very hard however, against human players. But, that's not what I mean.

You need to understand, flavor dave that I am not talking about a civ for 5-8 cities. NOT AT ALL. That civ is maybe not big, but neither is it small.
Nay, when I say "little" civ I mean a civ of one or two cities ( maybe three is VERY big maps ). Thats it. And you have to admit, that winning with one city against HUMAN players ( and AI, if they were good ) is very hard.

About the player who won with one city at 1821 AD. I can tell you one thing: he played at easy level. How do I know? Beacause I did, several times, a similar thing at moo. I became to good at that game ( always won even with 8 players, impossible ) so I did the following thing: set the game to easy level and begun playing the entire game without leaving my home solar system. I won, btw.

BUT, there are some problems with that:
A. You need to be a very good player, and not everyone are that good.
B. We both know you can't really win at a hard level.
C. That method would NEVER, EVER work against human players, mainly when you start to build the space ship.

But lats leave that behind. We talks about realism and playability.
Well.
Small civ, we all agree, are better orginised. You can effect and shape your populas easily, and you can direct your economy into much narrower regions more effiecently.
Big nations can't offord to specilize in one thing like smaller nations can. Nor, even if they try, can they do that with the same success.
This is true in real life. Adding this to the game would make it too realistic.
Even if the bonus would be very small ( usless, as you say ) we added another side of realism into the game. So, add a simbolic bonus to minor civ. Doesn't have to be very big: a +50% to the value bonus and no SE minus from the value ( the other still give a minus ) to a one or two cities civ ( no more! ).
Hardly big, and it will:

A. Encourge trade and diplomacy.
B. Increase game ballance.
C. Allow perefectionist players to play easier.
D. All more realism.

To Maniac:

About the Minouns.
The "old" egyptain empire lay "south" of Thebes, many many kilomters along the river nile and very far from the ocean.
A trade between the two nations is hard to imgine.
The minoun hardly took over Athenas as the greek culture was created years after the minoun pitfalls. However, the greek used the minoun relics for the source of culture, architecutre and social structre.
Our entire wested civilaztion derives from the minoun, not the greeks.
The minoun were a peaceful nation and hardly knew off combat. They had almost no troops.
Check with diodorus scilus, he is the historian

[Cartagia the Great]

It has been segested, recently, that instead of you choosing to change governments, if you would, instead, have to go through and amke changes to prepare for the government switch.

For instance, to go from a Monarchy to a Democracy, one would need to make social and economic changes before being able to change the government. I found this to be a good idea, but would also like to add a few ideas to the fray.

For instance, what is society demanded changes? Let us say that I am a Monarchy, who is a medium sized power. My people are growing un happy, and I don't have the resources to make entertainers, without killing off my people. I go to the Social advisor who tells me that they are demanding more say in government. In responce to this, i call a parliment into existence. Being just created, and having been a token gesture, I would set the Parliment's influence to Little or none.

Over time this might happen over and over again with people demanding more and more controll in the government and, more or less, forcing you to grant it to thme, until the Parliment would be a major factor in the game. It could stop you from doing certian things and take over certian functions of government.

You may not like this, wantign dirrect control over every aspect of the game, or you may allow it, wanting them to be able to pick up certian functions, and allowing you to turn your attention towards other things.v If you do NOt like it, you could attempt to limit the power of the PArliment, but you might suffer some large scale un happiness.

there would, of course, be other options, perhaopse cahnging to a Fachist government or something else, or changing into a Democracy *shrugs* I don't have ALL of the details worked out.

Likewise, if you DO attempt to change govenrment,s people might not enjoy it. Let us say you try to go from a Monarchy to a Democracy, but it happens far to soon. your people may not know how to function under this new system and it would collapse.

[Maniac]

Hare : In 3000 the Southern Egyptian Empire under Menes Narmer conquered the Northern Egyptian Empire. The two Egyptian kingdoms became united, so that means access to the sea.
The old Egyptian empire lasted from 3000 to 2130 BC.
The middle empire lasted from 2000 to 1640(Hyksos attack Egypt and bring the wheel and chariots with them).
The new empire is from 1550 to 1080.

I said the Minoan civ lasted from 3000 to 1500 BC, so I think there's plenty of time for trade.
You're right. I don't think the Minoans conquered Athens.
About that army, I'm not sure, but they were a sea people with a fleet!
Because they didn't build city walls, does that mean they didn't have an army.
Why don't we invite Diodorus Siculus?
Or do you get your information about Crete from him?

Cartagia : What does the world 'amke' mean?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

2)Next Social factor : Support

First I want to say that decide a normal level of support is difficult. That's why I didn't determine one. Perhaps after playtesting... BTW Firaxis has to do something!

Secondly I think every unit should have a different support. With the everythingx10 system this easy to do. For example a transport or an explorer unit should have a smaller transport than a battleship or a knight.

Thirth I think support should be a matter of regions, just as food distribution and resources(but not labor and trade)

What is support? : every unit needs a certain amount of food and resources(see Economy thread for the difference between labor and support)
+10 Support : a city/region can support every unit free up to city/region size.
+9 : Support decreased with 90%
...
+1 : -10%
0 : normal support level
-1 : +10%
...

As you can read I can't write much about support.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]</font>

[Koyaanisqatsi]

***THREAD CLOSED*** ***THREAD CLOSED***

This thread is continued at <a href="000178.html">SE/G 2.1</a>