SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver2.1): Hosted by Bell

[Jon Miller]

hi M@ni@c

by the way the rich/nobles make less than the workers

in fact many do not produce anything at all, instead spend all there time partying

just looking at history tell you this: the rich are supported by those who do the actual work

Jon Miller

[Maniac]

The faces are used up. My social factors too. If you have new CONCRETE ideas for other SE factors, tell them.

Some other time I'll begin to post my actual SE choices. All this was a prelude.

Jon Miller : Democracy doesn't give a Happiness bonus in my SE model.

I agree small civs should tend to the big civ SE choices. That also counts for the human player if he is the weak one. Civs with similar SE choices should have increases trade and diplomacy.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

M@ni@c writes:
Bell, I've already posted the Police and Support SE factors on the previous thread. I find it stupid that they would be separated from the others I'm going to post here. Isn't there a way to transfer them to here.

Not that I have. I don't know if the moderator(s) can do it or not, though . . . just go ahead and copy those two over if you want.


Is it already time for a new summary? The only idea that was terminated well is about small civs.


Well, not a big one, just an upkeeping summary, like the ones between v1.0 and 1.1. Like I said, I don't know how the formats are going to work in the 2.x threads, but that's how it was in the 1.x, and I'm just assuming it won't change. I don't know that, though.


How are you gonna summarize my posts? I included many ideas from other threads in my SE model.

I'm not sure yet. I posted a complete tech system to the Technology thread a while ago and had it hacked apart into its component ideas, which I really didn't like, but I didn't have any better suggestions for dealing with it either. It's hard to maintain it as an entire system, though, without really putting it forth to BR & Co. as the system that all have decided to use, which it isn't. I'm going to have to think about it . . . and of course, I'm open to suggestions, as always.

[Maniac]

With the riches/aristocracy/elite/happy people I mean the people possessing much, including many lands(Food), mines(resources and labor) and all kinds of money delivering things(trade).

If you possess many things, you automatically get more stuff than the simple civilian workers who only have their house and one job.

You should count all the people working for the Aristocracy, also as Aristocracy. The people working for the aristocracy are producing more, not the aristocracy itself.

If you only count the real aristocratians to the 'happy people' in civ, you would never have one happy citizen in any city in your empire.
Even in Rome, the best city of the Roman Empire and living place of the aristocracy(if they weren't in some villa on the countryside), there were only 1.5% nobles.

[Flavor Dave]

"3) Having a city is better than not having a city. That was always true in CivX."

No, sir, you are wrong. Have you ever conquered a city, and had other cities of yours go into revolt? Of course you have. Have you ever founded a city and had the same thing happen? Yes. Do you ever wait until you've got Mike's or JSB before founding cities? Of course. Do you ever use settlers/engineers to build roads, irrigate, and mine? Of course you do. So, you must not agree with your own statement, or else you would only use settlers for immediately founding cities.

Harel:

"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."

You, sir, are also wrong. It was 1861, and it was at deity. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't. Go to the strategy boards on this site, and follow the discussion of one city challenge.

You follow up by saying that you want to be able to win with one or two cities at multiplayer. Ask yourself honestly--how drastic will the bonuses you propose have to be to make this feasible, for your 2 cities to defeat other humans' 8 or 10 cities, let alone another humans 20 cities. Is that what you want to do, just so you can win at MP?

I give up--you aren't thinking like a Firaxis employee, you're thinking only about what you want. It ain't gonna happen, that they'll change the game enough that even the best human player can win with 2 cities against other good humans. Go ahead and live your fantasy.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Flavor Dave (edited July 25, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

1)Flavor Dave, you're right I sometimes had cities revolting after conquering or founding cities. But if that happened, I just created an extra entertainer while I switched production to a happiness producing building or rushbought the building when it already was in construction. So happiness didn't keep me from conquering and founding cities. If it did to you, then 1) I'm an expert in city happiness management or 2) you're bad in it. I hope for both of us the first.

2) Again I didn't wait until JSB or Mike's to expand. Until I got them I used Phalanxes to keep the people firmly under my heals as Bell expresses it so good(thanks for your answer Bell. I don't think I will type Support and Police again though. I almost lost track of my own complicated negative police rate and I don't want to experience that again.). It did keep from switching to Republic until I had Mike's and to democracy until I had JSB(without it was totally insane to maintain a democracy).

About that settler stuff. Actually the first millenia I didn't use settlers for terrain improvement. Mostly it was building one Irrigation and Road and then go to a place to build the next city. When that happened production of the next settler was complete. Until I had 30 to 60 cities (dependent on how big my continent was and how early I was surrounded by other civs) my entire civ was a settlers producing organism. This tactic kept my cities small anyway, so I never had happiness problems. When the last cities were build and the others growing(the only time I had real hap problems), back in one of my first cities Mike's was getting ready. Then I switched to republic and sometimes I lost a few settlers due to food shortage! I remember almost in every game 5 settlers running for the last available spot. The others condemned to road building to their previous home cities(or starving of hunger). The good old Civ2 days...

[Maniac]

Flavor Dave, I forgot to mention what I was trying to say. My point is it didn't keep me from conquering. If it did to you and all other civplayers I apologize, but until I know that sure, I'll try to make conquest less desirable and trade a better option.

Small civ stuff : I'll reveal a tip of the curtain. The rest I will reveal tomorrow. My plan for City State Structure is +2 Centralization, +2 Taxes, -3 Corruption, -3 happiness. The corruption and happiness penalties make sure this is a dumb choice for every civ except the really small ones. Plus I should give a +50% Value bonus for the City State and perhaps a immunity for it's negative values. Plus a commerce bonus if they have at least +2Economy. This makes them stronger but not unbeatable. It certainly isn't my intention to make them invincible.
We can discuss this point to eternity but actually only playtesting can say what's the best way to let the small ones prosper.

Live long and prosper.

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

[Communist_99]

Hi all, I am sorta new here, but I have a few suggetions for the gouverments. There should be a few new gouverments, such as:

Fascism, -50% Trade, +10% science, +25% Gold
Notes:
-Every unit beyond the 3 is free support
-3 units in a city can eliminate unhappiness through fear.

Aristocracy, +50% Trade, -25% science,
+50% Gold
Notes:
-The people become unhappy due to the difference in social status.
-Every unit must be supported.
-Good for small growing empires, bad for large empires.

More to come

[Harel]

Flavor dave:

First, if the guy pulled if off by 1861 at Diety, then bravo to him. I couldn't do it, I admit. And I am a GOOD civ player, I assure you.
Secondly, you assume I would like to play the game with one or two cities. Hardly. While I DO play perfectionist, I usally use 8-10 cities and mend them too perfection.
Third, I never said you should WIN with one or two cities. However, I assume that Firaxis would add "shared victory" condition, so that you can win with your allies. So, a small civ could help the war effort.
Fourth, no human player, regardless how good he is can win at multiplayer with one city. You know that just as well as I do. No bonus in the world could change that. The AI doesn't KNOW he should attack the smaller civ ( cause, as we all know, he only likes to strike at the bigger opponenets ). But the human players knows that. In the prospect of taken over a rich, lush city ( mainly when he is going for AC! ) every human player would attack and kill the small civ.
Five, the perfectionist way should be available and encourged just like the real world. You can't win, but you can float.
Six, what about my point for realism? It's more realisitc to add this feature.
Seven, you keep saying "what if the bonus would be too big". Well, I set my mind, finally on the size of the bonus. Tell me if this is too much:

Bonus only applies to the Value attribute. Every value gives +2 something, -1 something.

For one city, +4 and no minus from any SE at all ( the grand total of everything, with market and goverment, can't be a minus ).
For two cities, +3 and no minus from the value only ( +3/+0, the others work as normal ).
For three cities, +2 and no minus ( +2/+0 ).
Four cities and up, Value bonus as normal.

This is hardly a huge and drastic effect.

To maniac:

No, I don't get my info from Diodorus, but he IS the historian. Maybe we should check with him.
About the police state SE: again, I tell you, you can't force a certain SE model on a kind of civ! A SE should be good for everyone, big and small. A democracy can hardly pick "police state". Taiwan and Israel are no "police states", while true police states in the real world can't pick that SE cause it's huge in-effinecy makes it only useful for smaller civ.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 26, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Communist_99 : You definitely need to read some of the previous threads. Probably there will be Social Engineering in Civ3. And not fully determined governments like you suggested.

Besides that : Why would a fascist government get a science bonus and an aristocracy a penalty.

Aristocracy government is represented by Republic = the elite of the country/city rules.
Examples : Rome(senators,nobles), the Dutch(traders had influence), Renaissance Italy(the bankers) and the Cromwell republic(not the king, but the high classes)

I don't see a republic as a government with a president. That is only a recent development and I count that under democracy.

Fascism is not really represented in my SE model. You could count it under Totalitarianism or Theocracy/Strict Monotheism( the people adore their leader as a god).
Perhaps I should rename Strict Monotheism, cause I gave it the same benefits as I would give to a fascist government.

[Maniac]

Harel, what are you blah-ing about Police State? I can't remember saying anything about police states.

1) I haven't included Police State in my SE model. It's called Totalitarianism.
2) If it's about City State. It's kinda strange for a small civ to have a Confederate structure. So the most logic choice should be City State.
3) You can't be Democracy and Totalitarianism at the same time, cause they're both Government choices.
4) Why are dragging Israel and Taiwan in to this. I know also they aren't a police state.
5) Small police state : Sparta
Large police state : China
6) SE immunity for everything if you have only one city is a huge and drastic effect.
7) In SMAC there is a cooperative victory condition.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

1)Ok, this is the first of the 39 SE posts I'll make. Again, don't flame if my model sucks and is full of mistakes and loopholes. I'm not a historian like Diodorus and I can't playtest my model since it's based on things I can't edit in SMAC.

Some nitpickers might notice that I have included more positive and negative possibilities in my SE factors than my SE choices allow. This is because I want civs to have also SE adjustment and other benefits even in the beginning of the game. Otherwise it is pointless to include 30 civs.
Some might say : "What if the Phoenicians with a sea movement bonus start in the middle of a continent?"
My answer is simple : don't let them start in the middle of a continent. Let them always start near the ocean. Or let the Incas with some mining bonus or labor bonus start near a mountain range.

1) Government
1.1) Anarchy

This isn't a government actually. It's the period between switching government types. This is too used when a city is in a riot.

Social factors :
-4 Corruption : no trade is gathered at all
-3 Nationalism : if you are revolting, this is because you are unsatisfied with what your country is doing, so less nationalism. It also means that anarchy is the perfect time for other civs to bribe your cities.
(-4 Happiness) : means one extra proletarian on every 4 citizens.
I put it between brackets. -4 Happiness would mean that there could appear very unhappy citizens(=revolutionaries). A SE change costs one turn to take effect. So the second turn a city is in anarchy, it would form a new minor or maior civ.
I put in brackets because I only want that -4 happiness penalty to count for a city riot and not for a government switch. Otherwise you would loose a big part of your civ because you just installed a Democracy eg. That discourages government switching.

Special :
No labor is done during anarchy.
Other SE categories may not influence the -4 Corruption and Happiness. Otherwise trade would be generated by the rioting cities.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

I don't feel like posting 38 other threads, so I'll post all my SE choices here. After that I will post the reasons for certains things and the problems/inaccuracies in my model. Also I will post the special advantages for some SE choices, for instance City State.
The first choice in every category is the one you automatically have in the beginning of the game.
The last of every category is a futuristic choice. Cause I want Civ3 to go to perhaps 2200 AD. I don't care about Sid Meier's Sweep of Time Trilogy. You don't ruin a game because you want it to be a prequel to another one(SMAC).

Government :
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
Anarchy : -4 Corr, -3 Nat, -4 Hap
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Sup, -2 Mor
Ecotopia : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -2 Urb

Economy :
Barter : -2 Tax
Currency : no pos or neg
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Sup
Feudalism : +4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor
Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Corr
Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Values :
Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Knowledge : +2 Res, +2 Hap, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Urb
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Corr, -2 Centr
Space Exploitation : +2 Urb, +1 Centr, -2 Tax

Structure :
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
City State : +2 Centr, +2 Tax, -3 Corr, -3 Hap
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Cult, -1 Corr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol

Army :
Draft : no pos or neg
Reserve : +3 Sup, -2 Mor
Professional : +2 Mor, -2 Sup, -1 Urb
Cyborg : +2 Mor, +2 Nat, -4 Sup

Religion :
Animism : -2 Res
Loose Polytheism : no pos or neg
Strict Polytheism : +2 Urb, +2 Sup, -2 Cult
Loose Monotheism : +2 Cult, +1 Res, -2 Dipl
Strict Monotheism : +2 Nat, +2 Mor, -2 Dipl
Multitheism : +2 Dipl, +1 Hap, -3 Nat
Atheism : +2 Res, +2 Corr, -2 Hap

[Harel]

Maniac, now i notice you ment "structure - city state". That make's more sense.

About the suggestion themselfs:

Theocracy should give a morale bonus.
Democracy should increase research ( free thinking ) but decresse effiency ( beucracy ).
Atehism should not decreese happiness, maybe morale?

More suggestions:

One thing: I belive you need to add a new factor: 15: military industry. A bonus to production that only applies to military unit construction. ( aka Mil ). Works like Industry.

I'll probaly think of more up, but right now I revert to my original army post, with using your ( very good one! ) SE model:

The people army - forced drafts to create a mass army. Very useful in times of war.
( China, Soviet union ).
+2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 happiness

Civilian duty army - using drafts, but with public acceptence and rigid training. Costly but effeicnet troops.
( Switzerlend, Israel ).
+1 mil, +2 morale, -2 support

volunteer army - soldiers volunteer for a full-pay service. However, since it's open to all groups the over-all military quaility tends to be poor.
( USA )
+2 happiness -1 morale

professinal army - volunteering army, by using very expensive training.
( Britian, Japan, France )
+1 morale, +2 happiness, -1 mil, -2 support

mercenry army - using hired proffesinal to do the work for you. Tends to be way too costly for big civ.
+3 morale, +2 Nat, -2 mil, -3 suport

brain-washed army - quite obivious. A cheap way to get a powerful army, but has drastic implications.
+2 morale, +4 nat, +2 mil, -2 support, -2 happiness

BTW, Maniac I ment no minus is the final calculations. For example, -3 support from free market and +2 support from goverement. So, the final figure is -1 which is then turned to +0. Not simple eliminting the minus to get +2 support.
Besides, that is only for a one city civ.
BTW, it was your idea

[Jon Miller]

Hello all

I think that Moniac's system is too pro aristocracy, democracy, and free market

also his system is to hierarchial in that people will only use one or two sets of se choices at any time in the game (there seems to be a best for every step along the way, unlike smac where they were more ballanced)

for one thing aristocracy and the democratic ideals of freedom are mutually exclusive and putting them together shows a limited understanding of how things work because the aristocracy takes control

I see se choices being in the areas of
(who) is in control
method of (control)
method of (economics)
what those in control (value)
(division) of control

maybe a few more

multiple things would be under value and each could be checked (even some might not allow others)

each would also have pluses and minuses

past value and se choices would make future value choices occur

maybe value choices would not be choices you make but would instead be based on how you play the game, if you have been at peace for a while you will atomatically get the pacificist value choice at its corresponding pluses and minuses, if you have been expanding for a while you will get the manifest destiny value choice, if you have been building improvements to lower pollution (or if pollution is really bad) you will get the green choice

unlike the other se choices you cannot choose value ones and you can have multiple value chcoices in affect at once

examples of value are: green, wealth, power, knowlegde(I would consider space as part of this), manifest destiny, pacificism, individualism(this would come from being in something like democracy or republic for a while), human rights, religion, maybe others?

who is in control is only changed when a revolution occurs, if who changes all previous values are wiped

examples of who are: military, king(you, a single person), aristocracy(nobles/rich), religious, scientists, masses, maybe others?

when you declare revolution you can only put as who those groups that think you are doing a good job

each group has value choices they start with

the different groups become available at different times (starting with one person rule), religious would come early and scientists would come late in the tech

got to go more later (as well as specifics on what se will affect)

Jon Miller