Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    Hello, I'd like to take some of my time to explain my ideas of ethniticity in this game. Feel free to comment on them, after I'm done

    First of all, what would ethniticity be? It would be differant ethnic groups living in the cities of your Empire, that are not of your people. They would be Celts, Egyptians and Carthegians living under Roman rule in differant cities.

    These citizens would arrive in those cities in many differant ways. The first of these ways, and the most ovious, would be through conquest. When taking a city, your governers would take power, but the citizens would not magically become part of your people. They could retain their cutural identity inside your boarders.

    This would not have to be forever true, ethniticities could disappear over time, after all, how many Babylonians do we see walking the streets of Ney York these days? Over time these populations would assimulate into your Empire. How quickly? well that would defend upon certian factors in the cities. If, in the city, let us call it Rome, there are 6 Roman citizens when your American army marches in, it would take much longer to assimualte them into your culture than it would be there were only 2 Roman citizens. Also your tolerance of these minorities woudl affect assilumation. More toerance means happier relations, but slower assimualtion, lower tolerance might mean expelling them, with a medium setting showing that you tolerate, but also try to assimualte. You could also build structures to quicken the time it takes for this to happen, but they might have negative facotrs in other areas, depending.

    Another way to pick up an ethniticity in a city is through migration. If other governments are percuting a sertian group, some may flee from that Empire. By accepting them, you would get certian bonuses, as well as disadvantages.

    What would be the big deal of ethniticiy? how would it affect this game? For one thing, you would need to keep relations with these ethniticities. A city that is rebelling, that has a alrge ethnic population, muight just decide to rebell and take other cities with it, to rejoin it's old nation, or to reform it. On the other hand, these minorities would be able to offer you several bennifits for keeping them happy. Such as increased production, science and money

    Now lets say that the Romans in the American Empire are not doing quiet so well. They were unhappy, causing the Americans to try to percecute them slightly, but this only increased the anger. What can the Americans do to get rid of the problem once and for all?

    Well it should have tried to absorb the population sooner. If you flood a city with your own settlers, and tip the ethnic scale of that city in your favor, assimulation goes quicker. Or, they could have expelled the citizens of that city into settlers and sent them to other cities, scattering the ethnic group, and making assimulation easier.

    The Americans didn't do any of that, however. they allowed the Romans to remain largly holed in many of their former cities. They also neglected relations, and, when the Romans showed the first signs of disobediance, over reacted. They lowered their tolerance scale to the Romans(there woudl be an Ethniticity screen which would allow you to set your tolerance to these differant groups as well as set special programs for a cost) hoping that it would shut them up. It idn't, and so a downward spiral began between the Americans and the Romans, each one getting angrier and angrier at the other.

    The final stray came when the Celts, the American's arch-enemies, attempted to set the Romans off into a rebellion. Four cities broke away, which the Amerians had to retake and crush the new nation. By this time, the Americans have grown sick of the Romans and feel they msut be taken care of. How can they do this? Well it would be possible to put an entire ethnic group into slavery in your Empire. With would decrease happiness in your cities as well as, later in the game, cause a major diplomatic incidnet, but production would sky rocket. The Americans could also evict the Romans, setting them fleeing to theh ills as refugees. This would take away large parts of those cities populations, as well as give other nations which brought them in a few bonuses. Finally, that idea would, like the previous one, be a diplomatic incident in late game. Or, finally, they could begin to attempt to kill the Romans off in those cities, perhapse with a concentration camp building. If kept secret there woudl be no diplomatic event, but if it's found out......it might nto be pretty.

    As I said, it would be possible for a new nation to spring up from an ethniticty. If things got bad enough, the Romans in this American Empire might try to rebell and recreate their old nation. This might be hlped by funneling arms to dissidents by other civilizations. Or, an invading army toliberate these ethnic cities and recreate the nation. this would add a whole new side to diplomacy

    Finally it would be possible for there to be more than one ethnic group in a city. Now thism ight be good, or it might be bad, if the two groups despise one another (the Americans took over the Romans, but the Romans had taken over the English so the Romans and English bitterly hate one another) there would always be the chance of riots between the two sides, with the third part stuck in the middle.

    Comment


    • #17
      There should be more catastrophe /unforeseeable consequences in the game. I would like to see more civil wars/revolutions triggered or triggerable. I would also like for techs to be more double edged, have good and bad effects, and if you studied them in the wrong sequence for this to really bugger up your civ - lead to political or economic chaos. Civs should regress as well as progress. In Civ I and II, once you know the ropes, you get this sort procession through time which is very predictable - history isn't like that. In fact when your doing well is probably when your at most risk - Wall Street this coming October may be the next big example.

      Comment


      • #18
        This thread doesn't seem popular . I had to dig 20 days back to find it!
        To the point. My SE wishes.

        Government: Despotism, Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Theocracy, Republic, Democracy

        Economic: Barter, Currency, Banking, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Protectionism, Communism, Corporate, Transnational

        Values: Survival, Power, Knowledge, Wealth, Environment

        Structure: City State, Federal, Confederate

        Army: Militia, Reserve, Professional

        Religion: Animism, Loose Polytheism, Strict Polytheism, Loose Monotheism, Strict Monotheism, Multitheism, Atheism

        ------------------
        M@ni@c-SMAniaC
        depends on what site I am.

        Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
        Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

        Comment


        • #19
          I think your Government choice should eliminate some other choices.

          The first thing I wrote are the SE choices in the beginning= Despotism, Barter, Survival, City State, Militia, Animism. They are always available, whatever your SE Government may be.
          Here a list which government should have which SE choices
          I'm sorry if you don't get my abbrevations.

          Army SE Choices should be available to everyone, so I won't type them.

          Despotism: Curr/Po,Kno,Wea,Env/NoStructureChoices/LP,SP,LM,SM
          Monarchy: Curr,Feu,Merc(I'm not sure about this one), Prot, Corp/P,K,W,E/Fed/LP,SP,LM,SM/
          Totalitarianism: Cur,Prot,Comm/P,K,E/Fed/SP,SM,Ath
          Theocracy: Cur,Feu,Merc,Comm,Corp,Ban,Prot/P,K,W,E/Fed,Conf/SP,SM
          Republic: Cur,Merc,Ban,Comm,Corp,Prot/P,K,W;E/Fed,Conf/AllReligiousChoices
          Democracy: ALL CHOICES

          Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
          Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

          Comment


          • #20
            I think there's one big problem in balancing the types of goverments, and all that other stuff, that is the fact that in real life they aren't balanced. One type fo goverment is better then another, one institutional organisation is better then another IN THE END.
            Look at real life, Soviet type communism may have had it's advantages compared to American democracy/capitalism, but at the end it was proven that the last one was stronger.
            In real life it's not a case of a certain organisation fighting with other but equal weapons, in real life one always wins.
            The reason why there are dictatorships today is the factor of power, a certain person can have much more power over his country as dicator then as democratically elected president who has to leave after several years, but it's very important not to confuse the power of a leader over a country with power of that country over the world.
            There should be a factor of internal power, of the amount of control youy can have of your own country, while taking in consideration that that may damage the country's power in the world.
            DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

            Comment


            • #21
              That amount of power is represented by your Police rating. For example in a Democracy/Corporate Society the people won't allow you to send lots of troops to war.

              Good oppurtunity to introduce my Social Factors :
              Economy
              Corruption ( a part of SMAC Efficiency)
              Support (supply in list1.0 renamed)
              Morale (except the morale of your military I think it should also determine your senate's willingness to use military force. In Civ2 Republics/Democracies were always against a military action, but the Roman Republic doesn't seem pacifist IMO)
              Police
              Growth
              Environment(= SMAC Planet)
              Fanaticism(= SMAC Probe)
              Industry
              Research
              Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
              Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

              Comment


              • #22
                I would like to introduce a brand new Social Factor : Culture

                Effects of Culture :1) A strong culture allows you to control more cities before additional unhappy citizens appear due to empire size. In SMAC this was a part of Efficiency. I would split EFFIC in Corruption and Culture.
                2) How bigger your culture rate, the less it costs you to bribe enemy cities. Note this isn't the same as Fanaticism. That makes enemies bribing your cities more expensive.
                3) If your Culture is stronger than that of nearby civilization, his cities become gradually and automatically converted to your Culture. The converted cities have your city stile, so you can know which are converted. If that other civ declares war at you, the citizens of the converted cities become more unhappy.
                4) If the capital of another civ is converted, you have a better diplomatic relationship.

                Culture should be particularly determined by your Religion. See my previous posts.

                In my next posts I shall begin to give Social Factors to the SE choices.

                ------------------
                M@ni@c-SMAniaC
                depends on what site I am.


                <font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 20, 1999).]</font>
                Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
                Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Maniac, I'm afraid you misunberstood me, I explecitly said that having more power over you country does not equal more power for the country as whole.
                  And police rating is rather simplistic to respresent to whole internal affiars policitics. I'm talking about internal politics as a separate thing from external, and gaining more power over your country can be very bad for the power of a country because of the effects surpression and lack of freedom. You can hardly say that the totalitarian rule of the Tsar benefitted Russia in any way, but it was "fun" for the Tsar to have that amount of control over it's population.
                  And as I said, in real life things aren't balanced, certain organisation types are better then others, don't forget that either.
                  <font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Colon (edited July 20, 1999).]</font>
                  DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Colon :
                    In your first post you said something about installing a parliament and choosing if the people or the aristocracy choose the members.
                    A parliament chosen by the people is in CivX represented by a Democracy.
                    A parliament chosen by the aristocracy is in CivX IMO represented by a Republic for example Rome.
                    I agree a radical choice should require some time. How about this. A SE Government change causes a revolution just as in Civ2(for example Monarchy to Republic), but a change in another category doesn't. For example I don't think the people would revolt because you change priorities from Wealth to Knowledge.

                    In your thirth post you said :
                    I explicitly said that having more power over your country does not equal more power for the country as whole.
                    Again I agree. Let me translate your sentence in SE language.
                    Having a higher Police rate does not equal a higher Economy rate.
                    You're right that Totalitarianist rule doesn't mean a better country.
                    This is my suggestion for Totalitarianism :
                    +2Police, +2Support, -2Efficiency(=a lot of Corruption) or -2Economy
                    Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
                    Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In civ3, I would like to really get a feel that my civ is what the SE choices are. So my suggestion is for each SE choice to have a WoW-type effect that changes gameplay rather than the SMAC system of + and -. (The SMAC system is good, I just feel that civ3 can do better) Here are some examples of what I am talking about:

                      - despotism: same as in civ2 except that you would face "pro-democracy riots" escpecially in the latter part of the game.
                      - communism: same as despotism except that ressources would be pooled.
                      - democracy: Breaking treaties, committing atrocities, using weapons of mass destruction would cause major riots. There would be a senate that would have to ratify treaties, SE changes, construction of WoW. The senate would also propose things that you could pass or veto.

                      - free market: computer would control city production. The player could change production but it would increase unhappiness ( a free market society does not like gov intervention). There would be no maintenance costs. (this would represent private corporations supporting the maintenance of infrastructure)
                      - planned: player has complete control over production.
                      - green: pollution would increase unhappiness. "high industry" type facilities would not be allowed. A new facility, the "state park" would be allowed to be constructed which would increase happiness.

                      - power: 1 out of 3 citizens would automatically become a free "militia" unit, similar to the partisan but more powerful. It would be upgradable when you got new weapons technologies.
                      - knowledge: 1 free tech every X turns
                      - wealth: +50% more income. more unhappiness.

                      - cybernetic: a free facility is built at random every X turns. small chance that a facility would be destroyed instead of built. ( The free facility would be because industry is much more innovative and more efficient since intelligent conputers do the work and people are free to think. The random loss of a facility would be because even smart computers can crash)
                      - eudaemonic: spontaneous "golden ages" at random. small chance that a military unit would disband (go AWOL because the society is very pacifist)
                      - thought control: you could spend money to get X amount of turns "drone" free. It would cost a lot because it would be expensive to control the minds of an entire civilization.

                      Some of your military units would revolt and try to take your capital if as a democracy you tried to revert back to a totalitarian sytem. if they succeeded, you would stay a democracy, if they failed you would become the totalitarian system you picked. This is realistic (a democratic leader could not switch the gov to a dictatorship without a revolution), and it would make it harder to switch to communism from democracy just to fight a war ( a common civ2 strategy that is not right).

                      I just think that these types of effects for the SE choices would bring deeper gameplay. A free market economy would feel like one with the unhappiness everytime you tried to switch production ( when you had a riot, you would get a popup window saying "The people took to the streets today chanting "ECONOMY MUST BE GOVT FREE") and the stronger economy (no maintenance costs meens more income and more facilities can be built), a society that believes in "power" would look like one with the free "militia" units moving around etc...


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Harel--I see many, many problems with your idea. First, it doesn't fit with Civ. I mean, if you ranked all the nations in the world for "power," where would Israel rank? Way down the list. Even if Civ3 allows 20 civs, you wouldn't have a civ as insignificant as Israel is in the world. For Pete's sake, it's a one city civ!!!

                        2nd, to put it in Civ terms, Israel isn't a civ at all, it is an American colony (now, don't get riled, this is in Civ terms). If the US wasn't giving billions to Israel every year, and didn't provide certain military guarantees, the Arab states would have wiped out Israel long ago. Israel is a de facto American city. It projects our values, gets its weapons and the money for those weapons from us, etc.

                        3rd, you said that a US-Israeli war would entail many US casualties. No, it wouldn't, in civ terms. The US would just drop a nuke. Or, use spies to knock out the coastal fortress and then it would sit off the coast and shell Israel's one city (in civ terms) until all defenders were gone, and then offload marines. Or, the US' engineers would just offload from the transport, build an insta-fortress, and then the howies would come in and wipe out the defenders. There'd be no civ casualties, at all. Not one dead American civ soldier. So, your supposition is false. In Civ.

                        4th, you are forgetting that the object of real life politics is not to conquer every other nation, or be the first to colonize AC. In real life, any mission as large as going to another solar system would be a multi nation project. So in civ terms, what your saying is nonsensical. And in real life, conquering the world is utterly impractical for one nation.

                        5th, as far as small civs being harder to conquer, that is ALREADY THE CASE, at least when I choose to play perfectionist. I never lose a city, and almost never lose a unit. Why? Because I never have cities that aren't well protected. And I'm so rich, I'm immune to bribery, even if the AI were able to get a spy to one of my cities.

                        If you're talking about the AI having small civs, well, that's a whole 'nother issue. But remember, how much did Isreal actually discover itself??? Darn little, since the wheel and mapmaking and...were all discovered before Israel's founding.

                        6th, your small civs ALREADY get a bonus, in that a 7 city civ of mine is maxed out on improvements. When I'm expansionist, I don't have universities or stock exchanges in MOST of my cities.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Jimmy :
                          Your ideas sound acceptable, except this.
                          Your idea to not be able to set production in a Corporate(=Free Market) Economy is bad.
                          Whenever I tried to set on the Advisor in Civ2, he wanted to produce something I wouldn't. I would hate it if that stupid AI decides my production.

                          Your green idea has a point. You shouldn't be able to build Nuclear Plants.

                          About your Power idea. You said 1 on 3 citizens become Militia. That would seriously decrease population growth.

                          Further I don't think the Future Societies Cybernetic, Eudaimonic and Thought Control will be in Civ3

                          ------------------
                          M@ni@c-SMAniaC
                          depends on what site I am.

                          Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
                          Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Huh?
                            First off, Flavor, I used Israel as an example. It wasn't ment to show the entire reasoning. Even if you rule out Israel, the idea itself is still intact.
                            HOWEVER, In the interst of Israel I will answer your accusution.

                            First off, America tribute to Israel is 1.5% of our total production. Do you truly think such a small figure can make such a big difference?
                            Secondly, America started funding Israel in 1978, AFTER ISRAEL HAVE WON EVERY BIG WAR WITH THE ARABS. On our own. If anything, France helped us.
                            Third, you are aware Israel have nukes also?
                            Fourth, with Israel up-coming anti-missile defence, it's a long shot the missile would hit anyway.
                            Not that America won't have any other nation on it's tail after it.
                            Fourth, we DON'T use your values, don't like them and more Israelies don't like you either. Myself Included. I belive the us to be a simple-minded fool country, we no regard for TRUE democracy or human life. You lots would have never given up hard-earned land for peace, you butched thousand of Indians. We are not a colony of america. We earned our right way before you came.
                            Besides, Israel air force is ( and no, I am not making this up ) the fourth in it's size in the world, and FIRST in quality ( since Israel aeronotics supress those of america by far ). So, I won't guess america "bombing ships" would survive for long.
                            Not that Israel navy is very weak. It's very small, true, but it does carry the world three first clock-technology ships.
                            Beside, Israel develop most of it's weapons. If anything, America buy weapon designs FROM US.

                            But, you did you "civ-terms". Well, then civ terms are false. Civ should better reflect reality. In real life, america can't take over Israel that easily. Therefor, a civ that takes "power" as goal ( like Israel ), should get a much bigger spy-defence and morale bonus to refelct the fact that it's indeed harder to take over that civ. Surely you don't belive the "insta-fortress, multi-howitzer" idea can work in real life.

                            And last, Israel is considered the world leader is several key technologies, such as rocketry, semi-conductors, molecularic biology and plasma physics.
                            ( I can back that up, btw. )
                            I don't think that can be explained by the miger help of 2 billion a year.

                            But, don't consider Israel alone.
                            Taiwan, Singapore, Monaco...
                            All of those tiny nations hold great economical power as they sell ( hi-tech, tourrism, or anything else ) exceptional power. Their hold of the world market far supress thier real size, and thier politcal power ( vote's in civ terms ) are also much bigger.
                            Also, there is no "no-causlties" war today so civ model is un-realistic anyway.
                            Even in desert storm america lost troops, and that war was as "play-safe" as you can get.

                            AND LAST AND NOT LEAST, never, never under-estmaied Israel. Very big nations learned that lesson after great pain.
                            <font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 21, 1999).]</font>
                            "The most hopelessly stupid man is he who is not aware he is wise" Preem Palver, First speaker, "Second Foundation", Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Harel :
                              I totally disagree with you. Though it is true that small countries aren't that behind that much in the world, your ideas don't represent that in Civ3. Actually small countries already have benefits in Civ.
                              1) As you said yourself small countries don't get behind due to trade and tourism. A Democracy/Transnational/Wealth SE Choice would deliver enough money to make it livable.
                              2) Small countries can sign trade and science pacts(probably possible in Civ3) so they don't get behind. Examples : EU, GOS, MERCOSUR, OPEC...
                              Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
                              Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Israel has won all the wars against the Arabs because a developing country can not possibly defeat an industrial country in a war. Why then? If an Israeli tank is damaged in battle, the soldiers read the manual and repair it. If an Egyptian tank is damaged, it cannot be repaired because the soldiers are illiterate.

                                I believe that progress should depend more on physical/intellectual infrastructure than on population.

                                ------------------
                                The best ideas are those that can be improved.
                                Ecce Homo
                                The best ideas are those that can be improved.
                                Ecce Homo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X