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

[Maniac]

This is a long expected post where I will try to annihilate, utterly destroy and crush any futile rebellion resistance to my model.

Introduction

First, Harel. It isn't 7 categories; it's 8.
Of that eight one is State Religion. It has no SE effects.
Of that eight one is Army, using the very good CTP system of military readiness. It only affects Support and perhaps Morale.
That makes 6. If you still find that too much, the first one to fall off should be your Research category. Admitted, it is a good idea, but it is added after the rest of my model was made. So if it would disappear, it wouldn't cause harm to the rest of my model.
That makes 5/6.

Now, you say 8 to ten types of government.
???????? Learn counting, Harel.
At any time in the game there can only be :

5 government choices
5 economy choices
5 value choices
4 structure choices
5 research choices
6 religion choices
(5 state religion choices)
(3 army choices)

And before you say, still more then four, keep this in mind. There are 4 more SE factors. In SMAC there were 10 factors, now 14 or even 15 with your Military Industry.
So there are 40% more factors. Likewise I may have 40% more categories and choices.
4x4 = 16, so 5.6x5.6 = 31.36.
I may have 31 SE choices.
So if you don't take the categories Army and State Religion into account, I have 30 SE choices.
I am within the limit.

Small Civ

I have given the City State Structure choice 'no pos or neg'.

Military Industry

First let me quote Snowfire :

As for the Mil stat, perhaps there should be an asterisk next to power saying that centralization penalties don't apply to military units while using the Power SE? But see, that would probably make Power too good. What's more likely the reason China, etc. have huge armies is because that's what they're building, not structures for their people (the equivalent of buildings in CivII/SMAC). So I'm in favor of no asterisk and no Mil stat. I'm sure Bell can stick your ideas in the summary, though.

"The fact is could be used to cheat is not a consideration: what about the "morale" cheat? Switch to good army and power, get a +4 morale for X turns, win all the wars and then proceed to better option. So what now? Also scrap morale?"

Stupid comparison, I hope you realize that yourself. Winning all the wars takes a lot longer than one turn as with the Industry cheat.
Besides creating a good morale army in three years (the time necessary for a SE switch) is much more realistic than building a good industry.

"They still need to BUILD them. China has a poor industry but still huge armies. Why?"

Because their army consists mostly out of simple riflemen. That's why.

Environment

Hopefully there will be a disease model that makes Environment more powerful.

"Since it's not important now, I suggest that you transfer the food bonus from center to enviroment."

Food bonuses have nothing to do with Environment ! In fact, they are opposite. Biological farming may be good for the environment, but it certainly won't increase the food production. It will decrease it. No pesticides, so possible failed harvests. No genetically manipulated food, so less production...

SE switching

Please explain this sentence something better.
"The basic time is the square root of then number of cities, rounded up."
What do you mean with the square root?
But what I get is that the more cities, the more turns it takes.
16 cities 4 turns? How long will 60 cities then take, 12 turns?
Because you are perfectionist, you forget to take large civs into account.

About that fixed minus, sounds OK, but there is already a good way of SE switching problems.

The Model
==========

Introduction

Special bonuses

Stupid, cause some of them are represented by a SE factor. Sometimes you even give twice the same bonus cause the factor that is improved by your special bonuses, is also improved by your choices themself. eg :

Double votes in UN council : Diplomacy
Twice as hard for an enemy to bribe your cities : Nationalism
Twice more effective in reducing unrest : +3 Police
All units start as veteran : +3 Mor
One extra happy citizen per city : Happiness
One less proletarian in every city : Happiness

Three levels

You claim them to primitive, old to modern, fututistic.
First, what time frame do you mean with old to modern and with futuristic?

Police State futuristic?
Mercantilism futuristic?
Feudalism primitive?
Socialism primitive?

Balance

Before talking about each category individually, look at this. You see the maximum and minimum rate of each factor in the SMAC, my and your model.

SMAC

Economy : +5, -0
Efficiency : +7, -4
Support : +4, -5
Morale : +5, -4
Police : +4, -8
Growth : +6, -2
Planet : +4, -3
Probe : +4, -2
Industry : +4, -2
Research : +4, -2

Mine

Police : +4, -10
Support : +17, -6
Centralization : +6, -5
Corruption : +7, -2
Urbanization : +4, -3
Culture : +4, -2
Nationalism : +6, -3
Morale : +4, -5
Research : +5, -3
Economy : +6, -2
Environment : +4, -3
Happiness : +8, -9
Diplomacy : +2, -3
Taxes : +4, -2

Yours

Police : +5, -4
Support : +7, -7
Centralization : +5, -4
Corruption : +2, -2
Urbanization : +4, -6
Culture : +4, -4
Nationalism : +4, -2
Morale : +8, -7
Research : +6, -4
Economy : +8, -4
Environment : +4, -2
Happiness : +11, -9
Diplomacy : +2, -5
Taxes : +7, -6
Military Industry : +7, -3

Analysis

My model is very balanced and quite similar as the SMAC balance.
The important factors like Efficiency/Corruption and Economy have significantly more pluses than minuses. The police factor has more -'s than +'s. Most other factors have almost the same amount +'s as -'s, but in general a bit more + than -. All the same as the SMAC balance.
The only problems I see no with my model is Support and Diplomacy.

The high numbers are because the Support factor is totally different than the SMAC one. That's not the problem. But with a Support rate of ten most units are free of support.
This is because my original idea was to let your gov choice eliminate certain other SE choices, eg Totalitarianism and Feudalism don't match together (Feudalism decentralized, Totalitarianism centralized).
Then high Support rates could be avoided. But cause everyone was against that, the idea was not accepted. So that is not my fault.

Diplomacy has too little rates. Cause I had to change Religious Freedom +1 Dipl to +1 Res, there were to little +'s.

But now your 'balance'.

Police has too little negatives and too much positives.
Corruption has MUCH too little rates.
Urbanization has too much negatives. Pop growth would be too slow and pop limits too low.
Morale has too much rates.
Economy has too many +'s and -'s.
Happiness a little too much + and -.
Diplomacy too many -.
Taxes too many + and -.
Military Industry too many + compared to the small amount -.
So 9/14 sucks.
Conclusion : Your model sucks.
But I'm not done yet.

Government

Introduction

"Maniac, you did a mistake. Not monarchy should give the +0/-0 bonus. That bonus is only for the starting goverement, the basical one."

Obviously you don't understand my model at all.
As you should know, in the beginning of Civ2 you are stuck with Despotism, a very bad government. It is the intention that you get a better gov as fast as possible.

I tried to simulate that by letting the first SE choices not be 'no pos or neg' as in SMAC, but let them be very negative choices.
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
To simulate increased 'martial law' and much corruption.
Barter/Animism : -2 Tax/-2 Res
To simulate that you can set your taxes and science only at 50%.
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
To simulate free units up to city size and to simulate that any resource of 3 and more gets -1.
This how I simulated Civ2 Despotism.

So your goal in the beginning of the game is to get the 'no pos or neg''s as fast as possible, as it was your goal in Civ2 to get to Monarchy as fast as possible.

Want to say something first about your effects so I don't have to say it again later.
In most cases you seem to give a SE choice as much bonuses as penalties.
No! It is obvious that you haven't got SMAC. In SMAC most choices have 2 bonuses and 1 penalty. Cause if you would give it as much penalties as bonuses, what is the benefit of changing govs? Then you would better stick with 'no pos or neg'.
No! Every choice should always have bigger bonuses than penalties.
My suggestion is that you play SMAC for six months and then perhaps you could say something decent about SE.
Now you are a blind one in a country where everybody sees, you could express it.

Control Govs

Anarchy is never available as a SE choice.
The evolution of Despotism is Totalitarianism.

Free-will Govs

I have explained several times why Republic isn't the same as Democracy. Besides the difference (+2 Centr) between them is too big.

Monarch Govs

Dynasty????

Absolute Power Govs

Please explain difference with Control Govs.

Economy

Controlled

I begin to wonder if you know anything about (European) history.
Come on, linking Feudalism to Protectionism shows limited understanding of what Feudalism is. Ever heart of feudal lords and vazals?
BTW, with Feudalism I mean actually Manorialism, very decentralized.

Planned must be Communist.

Social

"And Maniac, I agree the socialism is also a value, but a free-market is left without goverment control: in a social market I mean that the goverement uses big subsidies and large funding, to improve the the living conditions of the lower classes."

I lived (recently changed by elections) in a Socialist Free Market and yes the government uses big subsidies to improve the living conditions of the lower classes.

Please explain why Communism is not under Controlled.

Free

"BTW, since the eco bonus is much lower then it was in SMAC, no need to balance it out with such a huge -support ratio,"

?????????????????

And why do you give it Centralization penalties?
You say yourself the power is centered. You even gave the penalty to Transnational and since you also read the book, you have to know that under Transnational the power is VERY centralized.

Army

The readiness system is a very good idea and I stick to it.
If it wasn't for their stupid diplomacy, combat system, unconventional combat, future, victory conditions, government choices I would have bought the game.
All the other new ideas (Public Works, Military Readiness) in CTP are very good.

Just hypothetical, I would always choose small army. This is category is even more balanced than the previous one.

"However, a small army drains much less for the economy."

Indeed they do, that's why I wouldn't give it a economy penalty, but that doesn't mean it must have an economy bonus. The economy won't do better just cause you have a small army.

Same with happiness. It wouldn't get a hap penalty, but therefore it doesn't need a Hap bonus.

Isn't +4 Mor a bit overexaggerated?
Besides I don't see Cyborgs in the next 100 years, even not partial cyborgs.
I included the option cause I wanted Civ3 to go to 2200.

Religion

"However, since I have a hard time visioning a nation which ENFORCE atheism,"

On which planet did you live the last USSR decades?

Fundamentalism -3 Hap? I don't think that Muslims are unhappy cause they have a strong belief in the Islam. In theory it would get a Hap bonus.

Value

"First off, I scrapped enviromentalism. You can simple used naturalistic on research."

Shows again your limited understanding of SE.
In SMAC each factor had at least two choices that gave you a bonus.
Knowledge and Cybernetic for Research.
Green and Cybernetic for Planet.
Police State and Thought Control for Police.
Fundamentalist and Thought Control for Probe.
Police State and Power for Support.
Power and Thought Control for Morale.

I tried to continue that tradition and it worked except with Diplomacy.

So that remark of you gives me the feeling that you find one bonus enough. Completely wrong.

"However, since you can pick philosphical in research ( res bonus ), you have no need to knowladge value."

Same remark as with Environmentalism.

BTW your Happiness Value is very alike as what I would give to a Socialism Value.
+2 Hap, +1 Urb, -2 Tax.

Why give Wealth a Centr penalty?
Under Wealth the power is in the hands of an elite = +Centr.

Research

In your Research category with BTW as usual totally unbalanced choices you are assuming that there will be 3 kinds of technologies.
1) Biology
2) Mathematics and Social
3) Military

I played on safe and gave my 4 tech kinds the names of Civ2.
Military, Academic, Economic and Social. So my adaption of your Research category is much better.

Conclusion :

Your model is totally useless and unbalanced.

"I find your current model ( mainly market and goverment, and I still have the CtP readiness idea ) very chaostic, un-balanced and with no real attitude of stratigical depth."

So before you try to write this again, remember the numbers I gave you in this post that show my model is very balanced. Next time you or anyonewrite my model is unbalanced, I will laugh at you.

I could begin discussing every effect you gave to your SE choices, but this crap simply isn't worth wasting my time.

The only things I learned from this post :

1) I gave City State 'no pos or neg' and made it the evolution of Tribal.
2) I deleted Space Exploitation.
3) Thinking about making a Socialism Value, but of course you would be against that cause you want only 4 choices.

M@ni@c
Model Annihilator/Destroyer/Crusher.

[Maniac]

Ha, Harel, I have the longest post!!!!!
Try to beat this.

Dinoman2 : HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jon Miller :
Isn't it curious that you have comment on my Communism, but not on Harel's SE choices with -2 Eco?

You loosers, don't you get how unbalanced that model is?

Bell : As Harel requested, I have an almost complete and perfect model. Just smooth Support and find a bonus for that nasty Confederate and Evangelism.
BTW, I hope you don't think everyone accepts Harel's model cause some mutation between human and dinosaur agrees with him.

M@ni@c
Just seeing there is again lots of post waiting for me (and then Jon Miller doesn't get why it sometimes takes a while for me to respond his comments).
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Oh nice, now I am done, Theben comes with his ideas.

Jon Miller :

"M@ni@c, my point about Harels Army and research system and your research system is that it is double counting, not only do you get a bonuses for valueing knowledge, you also get a bonus if your research values knowledge, see what I mean?"

The reason for that is mentioned somewhere in the large post.

"Bell I expect you to post all the ideas here (even my who/method idea that M@ni@c seems to dislike and M@ni@cs original religion idea) just also put the problems of those ideas (as we have posted)"

Why should Bell have to post my original religion idea if I don't stand behind it anymore?
And it's you that think there are problems, but there aren't any.

I refuse to say anything on that Communist remark cause I already gave an answer.

"I do not want to be forced into being millitaristic just because I have communism (And it does not even help you military a whole lot, you could have good military and have ok econ with other choices)"

Jeeze, then don't choose Communism.
(for the moment I am laughing at Jon Miller)

"your structure is faulty in that it has selections which would not make since for veteran players ever to use"

Oh, has it? Well, I can't say anything about it CAUSE YOU DON'T SAY WHICH SELECTIONS. Real typical. He says there's something wrong, but never WHAT's wrong.

[Maniac]

Sorry if I insulted anyone.
It's just everyone is so funny today.

[Theben]

You okay, Maniac?

Just because you have your own ideas does not nullify everyone else's. And as I said, had you read my earlier posts you would have seen these. I'm just clarifying those ideas. I have ideas for almost each thread so it's taking a while to clarify them all.

Hopefully Bell will accurately post yours and everyone else's ideas. Then it's up to Firaxis to choose which they like best.
You don't own this thread.

[Harel]

Oh pls Maniac
You killed my ideas thousands of times. If I was going to hate you for it, I would have despised you eons ago

My model is too machnical, true. However, I find your current model ( mainly market and goverment, and I still hate the CtP readiness idea ) very chaostic, un-balanced and with no real attitude of stratigical depth.
My own model might be lifeless and unaccurate, but atleast it posses, like SnowFire put it, "four cookie-cutter" approch. Meaning, 4 distinctive stratigical ideas. I urge you to consider in the same line: it's important that the SE options would be reduce to a minimal ( can you vision a SE page with 7 sections and 8 options per section? My head is reeling at the thought ). What is republic beyond "democracy lite"? Does it really offer a new dimesnion of strategy? Is it's inclusion nessecry?
I am sure I ered in several ways when I tried to "over-simplify" the SE options. However, I am admanat that the options in every section should be fixed at a max of 4 ( 5 is negationable ) and that every option would offer an important and stratigical SE options.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

Thanks for the comments M@ni@c

My computer broke down over a month ago and it is getting repaired and my posting time is limited (I consider reading all the threads more important than researching one post)

however, the person who owns this computer (that I am using right now) is asleep and (since it is early morning and works been long today) if I don't get to tired I will give you what you want

despotism is an older tech while communism is newer so I will not included it in my analysis (I am using as most recent 8/8 18:11) also I am not including older animism

this will be a long post

Totalitarrianism-Communism-Survival-City Sate-Wiseman-Animism: +4 sup, +2 pol, -2 hap, -2 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, +3 centr

This is: (by the way, I don't get is - sup good or bad? I'll assume bad) 4 less resources support, 10 minerals for founding city, 3 units can act as police, each making one proletarian content, one extra proletarain every 8 citizens (am I understanding this right?), -2 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

Lowdown: good support, good police, bad happiness, bad corruption, bad commerce, good morale, good production

Analysis: militaristic low tech low money producer, since late in the game others will be able to have good military tech and would be able to trounce any civ that uses this government, will not have money to buy things or keep up lots of building, will not have tech advances and will not have trade to throw into luxuries, it relies on troops for all its needs

Alternative: Republic-Manorialism-Wealth-Commonwealth-Practical-Worshiping: -2 pol, +2 econ, +2 centr, -2 hap, +2 corr, -2 mor, +5 sup, +2 tax, +2 nat, -2 cult, -1 res, +2 diplo, +1 urb

Lowdown: good support, bad police, good economy, good production, good corruption, good taxes, bad happiness

Analysis: large military, all the military units can be used for fighting instead of having to keep 3 in each city, because of the good corruption and economy and taxes a nation with this set up has so much trade (from smac and civ we know that +1 trade per square more than triples how much trade you have) that it can buy the production difference plus make up the happiness minus and be better at tech (practical even further increases military tech) even with the decrease of overal reseach (by only 10%), cult does not matter because if you are taking over a civ what do you care for what religion they are?

communist alternative: totallitarian-communist-wealth-confederate-practical-worshiping: -1 econ, +3 nat, +3 centr, -2 hap, +2 pol, -2 corr, +6 sup, -1 res, +2 urb, -2 cult, +?

lowdown: bad corruption, good police, good morale, good support, bad hapiness, good growth, good production

final comparation: the alternative is still better than any totalitarrian-communism setting, it still has a higher tech army, more money, happier citizens, and only slightly less growth (not enough so that it matters), the communists better morale would not make a difference because the alternative could by more higher tech troops and moral does not make as much difference as tech or ammount (actually because units moral can be increase via buildings, which the alternative could have more of too because of having more money, the difference between the twos troops would not be very much because the communists units would quickly reach the ceiling of moral)

if you have any better communist alternatives please post them and I will respond

Anarchy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: -5 corr, -2 econ, -1 nat, -4 hap, +3 centr

This is: one extra proletarian every four citizens, -5 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, -1 Morale, -25% enemy cost, +25% your cost, slightly lower succes rate, -12% conviction, + 30% food and resources production, 1 in 4 citizens is mad

since anarchy is a wholely negative government I will not continue with it

Monarchy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, -1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat

This is: - 1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

I am no longer going to do This is, just the lowdown (some are stopped midway)

lowdown: good production, bad economy, good moral

analysis: many of the same benifits of the totalitarrian-communist system except this has slightly better corruption, does not have to build all the units to keep its people content and the army is a lot smaller: good producer, small well trained army, bad money/luxuries/research

alternative: republic-currency-wealth-commonwealth-explorer-worshiping: +3 centr, +2 econ, +2 diplo, -3 hap, -2 pol, +2 cor, -2 mor, -2 cult, +2 urb, +2 nat, +2 res

lowdown: good economy, good production, bad hapiness, bad police, good corruption, good growth, good research

Analysis: once more the troops aren't as well trained (but not by much) but are far better teched and the happiness probels can be taken care of by the strong use of luxuries

communist alternative: monarchy-communist-wealth-city state-explorer-religious freedom: +4 centre, -1 econ, -1 corr, -1 hap, +3 res, -1 cult

lowdown: good production, good research

final analysis: this is a very close one but the alternative still wins with more money and more growth (and still more research too)

Theocracy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, -1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, +2 hap, +2 tax, -2 res

This is: one extra aristocrat every 8 citizens, -1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

lowdown: good production, good moral, bad economy, good happiness, average taxes, really bad research

analysis: good production and well trained troops and nice happiness and ok taxes, except for research which is at a crawl this is a good set up, but of course tech is the name of the game, maybe tries to use nat bonus to steal tech

alternative:

Republic-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +5 centr, +1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, -2 mor

This is: +1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 50% food and resources production

Democracy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, +1 corr, -1 econ, +2 nat, +2 hap, -2 sup, -2 mor

This is: 2 more resources support needed per unit, one extra aristocrat every 8 citizens, +1 corr (?), -1 trade in capitol, -1 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

I also think anarchy should have a happiness bonus

I am surprised you don't have any corruption disadvantages in the religion area

by the way, your morale doesn't have a -5 but it is possible, also I don't really understand what you mean by "positive combat modifiers halved"?

I really dilikes that to have a plus in police you have to have a corresponding minus in happiness

for everything: if you have any better communist alternative please respond

I'm taking a break (its 5 am where I am at), I should be back and finish it, basically, the fact that a SE choice can always get similar to one with communism in it btut have a plus 2 econ makes it so that communism is never viable (especially if you can choose protectionism instead, I would choose it instead every time)

In fact I would rather use your protectionism then your communism (there would be many more ways to make better systems than any communist system if I used protectionism)

also many of your modifiers are unbalanced, like + in nat are better than those for mor and +/- cult means hardly anything, as does a -2 in pol

Jon Miller

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Now now, folks, lets just chill a bit. I'm going to summarize all the ideas in the thread, just like I always have. If necessary, I'll just editorialize a bit to differentiate between what we (as a group) think are good ideas and what we think aren't.

M@ini@c: No, you don't have a perfect system, you have a system, which (unless it gets more support than it seems to have now) is no better than anyone else's. It (along with everything else) will be assimiliated into the summary. Resistance is futile . . .

[Maniac]

Jon Miller :

- is always bad.
+ is always good.

Happiness : no, you aren't understanding it right.
Happiness would be just as in SMAC efficiency that your happiness rate determines how much cities you can have before additional unhappy citizens appear.
The +4 and -4 Hap bonus and penalty of one additional happy/unhappy citizen per 4 citizens is just as in SMAC the Peacekeepers/University.
So if you have +3 Hap, you don't get additional Happy citizens.

Anarchy is never available on the SE screen.
I just included it so that we could determine which effects Anarchy should get.
You can only be in Anarchy while switching your government.

"from smac and civ we know that +1 trade per square more than triples how much trade you have"

??????

Positive combat modifiers halved is just as SMAC Morale. I thought you had SMAC.
From my Morgan games I played with Green-Wealth I think it's this.

Rocky = +50% defense -> pos combat modifiers halved = +25%
Elite Morale = 50% -> 25%
Negative penalties are not affected, so Green -12% stays -12%.

Simply all positive bonuses halved. I don't know how to explain it else.

Why do you compare Morale with Nationalism?
If you think the factors affect both unit Morale you're wrong.

Nationalism affects probe team/diplomat/spy morale.
Morale affects all other unit's morale.
Just as in SMAC...

Is -5 Mor the minimum and is -5 Mor not mentioned in my Morale post?
I can't keep track of everything, you know. Before Harel's Research section was added, the minimum was indeed -4 Mor, as in my Morale post.
It's because Research-Humaniterian and other things was added that some minima don't fit anymore.
Don't forget that my model is changed a lot compared to the original one.

So basically you are against that -2 Eco for Communism?

But it still surprises me that you nitpick about my model and don't seem to see the faults in Harel's one. He has more things decreasing Economy. And in his model it is even easier to get +2 Eco, but still you are in favor of his model.

+/- Culture means anything? Perhaps. Then it's our job on the Religion thread to make Religion and Culture worth our while.

-2 Pol ? Do you mean that -2 Pol in general means anything or do you mean the penalty for Commonwealth is too less?

Totalitarianism-Communism not viable. Probably. But more viable than in SMAC Police State-Planned. That was impossible.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

BTW Bell, it's kinda hard to determine which system is supported if there are only 5/6 people on this thread(Me, Harel, Jon Miller, Snowfire, Theben and occasionally you).

[will I]

I'll jump at M@ni@c's challenge. I think that there's just too much detail in the two dueling systems. Thirteen or fourteen separate types of statistics is just too much! I would strike out the following:

1. centralization: this seems to be quite similar to corruption. I would combine the effects into one factor called "corruption," like it was in Civ1/2.

2. nationalism and urbanization seem to track similar types of behavior. Indeed, urban civilizations in history seem also to have attracted high levels of immigration. Therefore, I would propose striking nationalism. If you would like to separate civ-to-civ migration and urban growth potential, I would suggest that immigration levels be determined by the available food surplus and the comparative levels of happiness of two civs. I think this is realistic -- after all, it's really the potential for improvement that fosters immigration, not government/societal policies. (After all, all the immigrant-friendly policies in the world couldn't have made the old USSR a bid immigrant destination.) I think this would have the added effect of giving happiness a greater role in the game. As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days.

3. morale and diplomacy seem to reflect mostly the civ's reputation. Again, that seems to me to be better handled by the computer in the form of how other civs view your actions toward them. I'd strike both categories.

4. I might also combine police and support, which often seem to go hand-in-hand.

I also think there are too many SE options. I'd knock out "army" and replace it with a computer-generated adjustment to overall happiness that depended on the ratio of armed forces to total population. I'd also replace the different religion choices with the following:

tolerance: +2 res, +1 urb, +1 pol, -2 cul
established church: +2 cul, +1 sup, +1 hap, -2 cor
caesaropapism: +3 cul, +2 sup, -2 cor, -1 hap

I think this would mesh well with the treatmen of religion under the proposal currently on the religion thread, which I find quite intriguing.

[Maniac]

Will :

Centralization and Corruption the same? What makes you think that?

Nationalism and Nationalism similar? Now I really don't understand it.

Urbanization doesn't affect migration at all and Nationalism can only prevent emigration.

"As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days."

Yea I know. That's why happiness should affect im/emigration.
That's also why I suggested that happy citizens should produce 50% more food/labor/resources/trade.

No, certainly not. Morale determines primarily your unit morale.

Yes, sometimes they go hand in hand. But not always. Besides wouldn't a combined Police-Support factor be too powerful?

I would also knock out Army.

That 3 religious choices only cover a small part of what religion actually is.

I find the religion ideas of the threadmen over there also quite intriguing (of course, I'm one of them).

Besides Caesaropapism is as far as I know a term used for the Byzantines. Doesn't really covers much.

Jon Miller :

Why should there be corruption penalties in Religion?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

I want some annihilation of my own Maniac

Small Civ

I am glad you accepted my opinion. What about the size of the bonus for small civ?

Military Industry

Stupid comparison, I hope you realize that yourself. Winning all the wars takes a lot longer than one turn as with the Industry cheat.
Besides creating a good morale army in three years (the time necessary for a SE switch) is much more realistic than building a good industry.

Same thing when you create an army. Changing the army SE only to get a few units faster is still a small foot-note in the way to get a really big army. And btw, centering all your units into one big strike, then switching to get +3 morale is a big cheat also. And if you think you can turn around an army in 3 years, then I suggest you come here and I'll inlist you as a cadet of mine: cause you sure need some army background.

Enviroment

Food bonuses have nothing to do with Environment ! In fact, they are opposite. Biological farming may be good for the environment, but it certainly won't increase the food production. It will decrease it. No pesticides, so possible failed harvests. No genetically manipulated food, so less production...

Oh fish sticks! An enviromentalist nation had good understand of biology and therefor have better botony and better organic food-growing. And btw, nothing wrong with using a bit of genetic engineering even if you are an envirmentalist.

SE switching

Please explain this sentence something better.
"The basic time is the square root of then number of cities, rounded up."
What do you mean with the square root?
But what I get is that the more cities, the more turns it takes.
16 cities 4 turns? How long will 60 cities then take, 12 turns?
Because you are perfectionist, you forget to take large civs into account.

Don't know your math Maniac? A square root of 60, rounded up, is 8, not 12. I think you can handle 8 turn waiting if you are that big.
Special bonuses

Stupid, cause some of them are represented by a SE factor. Sometimes you even give twice the same bonus cause the factor that is improved by your special bonuses, is also improved by your choices themself.

Ok, I am hooked. Take the special bonuses out.

Three levels

I can trust you to be so tidious. Ok, so it's not an harmonic cataogrizing. It's just three levels, when most of them represent past, present and future.

Balance

It's very hard to understand your model for outsiders Maniac: just how should I know how much +2 eco is balanced by -support? -2? -4? Maybe if you could have a chart of some sort.

Conclusion : Your model sucks.

Somehow, I still don't understand why.

But I'm not done yet.

Oh goody.

Government

No, it's more clear that you don't understand my model at all. You start at anarchy, not Despotism ( just look ) and it gives you a minus. I used the concept of "evolving SE", meaning that Anarchy turns into something that gives you +0/-0 ( like you said, take the simple options from SMAC and give them minus ). I can't see how Monarchy is an evoultion of Anarchy. Beside, I still don't understand how you can give Monarchy "no pos, no neg". Can you explain that reasoning?

No! It is obvious that you haven't got SMAC. In SMAC most choices have 2 bonuses and 1 penalty. Cause if you would give it as much penalties as bonuses, what is the benefit of changing govs? Then you would better stick with 'no pos or neg'.

Good for SMAC. Never liked the game that much. Did play it from a long time, thought. We don't need to copy SMAC at all. And it was YOU, remember, that said that some people love to use the "no pos, no neg" options. Therefor, it the other options are not powerful enough, it's a low chance they ever will, right?

Control Govs

Anarchy is never available as a SE choice.
The evolution of Despotism is Totalitarianism.

Ding dong! Wrong! You are still not clear between the two destinctions I made: control gov's and absloute power gov's. The difference is not that big. However, a totalirist ruler shape it's country in it's image. A despost simply rules and maintain order, if indeed hurshly, over his country.
Also, a totalirst country it's not always "evil". A totalirst/dictatorship state is created when one ruler takes over the managemant off the entire country ( not the people: freewill, or the ruler and the upper class: monarchy ). In time of ceaser, Augustos, and the likes the goverment was a totalirist one, not a republic. But it was not "evil", or "opressing", like you vision all dictatorship. The "Control gov" is the one who uses brute power to maintain order: A despost, by defination, it's an evil, heartless trynat. That IS control gov.

Free-will Govs

I have explained several times why Republic isn't the same as Democracy. Besides the difference (+2 Centr) between them is too big.

The problem with you, Maniac, it that you don't think things into there final conclusion. What is the difference between a republic and a democracy? In republic, the citizenship is in the hands of a selected group, and in a democracy it's in the hands of everyone. Therefor, due to this small power-difference, you want to have two options. BUT, if you include two options because of this difference, then how much other options would you have to add?
A theocracy. Is it a sort of a democracy which still gives massive power to the religous cult ( Iran )? In the hand of one asbloute bishop ( Vatican )? Or in the hands of an elderly group of older religous masters, like the Sahandrin in old Israel days? Toughty, huh? So what, have 3 kinds of theocracy?
Monarchy: does the king have absloute power or does the lords gain massive power. We also need to include Feudalism as a form of goverement too...
Think about this. One rule applies to all. Include both republic and democracy, fail to unite then, and you will have to include the major streams in every sort of goverement exist.
What about virtual/true democracy?

Monarch Govs

Dynasty????

Try to read my comments Maniac. I noted that a logical step for a futursitic monrachial goverment which lines up an eternal line of kings/queens to rule over the people will use genetic engineering and cloning to establish perfect kings.

Controlled

I begin to wonder if you know anything about (European) history.
Come on, linking Feudalism to Protectionism shows limited understanding of what Feudalism is. Ever heart of feudal lords and vazals?

It's vassals, btw. I won't even comment more.

Planned must be Communist.

Hahahahahahah!!!! Oh please. A planned economy uses computers to predict rise of stocks and market shifting and best utalize it to improve industry. Last time I heard, you don't have market shifting and stocks in a communist market.
No comment on Utopia?

Social

I lived (recently changed by elections) in a Socialist Free Market and yes the government uses big subsidies to improve the living conditions of the lower classes.

Economy lesson: it subdies exist, then the goverment influnce the market. If the goverment influnce the market, it's not a free market, is it?
I know, I know: Israel is also very social. And every country in the world, even the USA the captlist empire, has some social market. HOWEVER, if the goverment take major control over the market by financing a lot of food, for example, then the conecpt of free market in it's pure form ( and that's what we are dealing in civ III: no country is 100% democracy or 100% power value. Sliders are the only way to realisticly show the difference. But I never liked sliders ) it's not a free market anymore. Free market in civ III it's the impossbile free market where the goverment take NO INTERST WHAT SOEVER in the market.

Free

And why do you give it Centralization penalties?
You say yourself the power is centered. You even gave the penalty to Transnational and since you also read the book, you have to know that under Transnational the power is VERY centralized.

Quite simple: centeralization is a name, first and formost. It's an SE option which gives +% to industry. And, in the real world and for game balance, you can't give a nation both an economy bonus and an industrial bonus. Either it's very commercial or very industrial, or somewhere in between, but it's CANT be very good at both.

Army

I still abhor the CtP readiness option. It's really doesn't reflect Just hypothetical, I would always choose small army. This is category is even more balanced than the previous one.

Indeed they do, that's why I wouldn't give it a economy penalty, but that doesn't mean it must have an economy bonus. The economy won't do better just cause you have a small army.

Debate-able.

Same with happiness. It wouldn't get a hap penalty, but therefore it doesn't need a Hap bonus.

In here I have to disagree. A contract that it's army takes very small part of it is much more free and happy.

Isn't +4 Mor a bit overexaggerated?
Besides I don't see Cyborgs in the next 100 years, even not partial cyborgs.
I included the option cause I wanted Civ3 to go to 2200.

I can see limited cyborgs in 25 years, myself. in that i mean people with implanted poly-carbon armor to protect them, and perhaps some enhanced-vision to replace eyes. I don't think it's that futuristic. And yes, +4 morale is a bit high: maybe it should be balanced by more minuses.

Religion

On which planet did you live the last USSR decades?

You presume that USSR was Athiest. Who sad i was? Atheism is the belief that there is no god. USSR didn't promote it, it just went ahead and charge against ANY religon. There is a BIG difference between religos un-sensativity and Athiest. As an Athiest, you should know the difference.

Fundamentalism -3 Hap? I don't think that Muslims are unhappy cause they have a strong belief in the Islam. In theory it would get a Hap bonus.

I gave then -3 Hap because fundemnatlist religon is an oppresive one, which ruthlessly imprision the people. However, maybe it shouldn't be another name for strict monotheism ( consider fundemntalist as your "prosecution" idea ).

State religon

About State religon: if it doesn't have any SE effect, it should go. I don't care if that's your way to enter our beloved Athiesm from the back-door. If it's just name-picking, it's not SE. It's like you pick names for cities: surely you don't go to the city thread and suggest city titles as an idea, do you? Because it is the same thing. No meaning? Just name? Take it out, or to somewhere else. It's not a SE.

Value

Shows again your limited understanding of SE.
In SMAC each factor had at least two choices that gave you a bonus.
Knowledge and Cybernetic for Research.
Green and Cybernetic for Planet.
Police State and Thought Control for Police.
Fundamentalist and Thought Control for Probe.
Police State and Power for Support.
Power and Thought Control for Morale.

Once again, that was SMAC. This is CIV III. I see no need to reflect the people tendacy toward enviromtalism with more then one option. Besides, it's logical to presume every nation that select enviromantlism as a value will also select naturalistic. Double choise isn't nessecry: it's redundant.

BTW your Happiness Value is very alike as what I would give to a Socialism Value.
+2 Hap, +1 Urb, -2 Tax.

Read what I said to Jon miller. I agree that happiness is nesscery, and it could either by called Socialism or Passficm.

Why give Wealth a Centr penalty?
Under Wealth the power is in the hands of an elite = +Centr.

Read what I said on free markets.

Research

I agree to your comments, more research options. Let's try:

* Wise man: no pos, no neg.
* Naturalistic: +2 Env, +2 Cult, -2 center
* Philosphical: +2 Hap, +2 Dipl, -2 Urb
* Academical: +2 Res, +2 Eco, -2 Nat
* Pratical: +2 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Res

My Conclusion

First off, the number of SE section is meangless. We can have some sort of scroll screen or split screens: the more sections the merrier. I only want to limit the number of SE options per section.

Your post proved to me that your model is even more un-balanced then I thought. Oh, it got good reasoning beyond it, I give you that. You spend lot of time and thought about it. I admire your efforts.

But, the section where you started to compare the SE max/min against SMAC proved to me you don't understand the most fundemnatical thing about the SE option which SMAC had.

You said you played SMAC a lot, used it as a starting point for your model. Is that true?

SMAC options might have been limited, but they all were different then one other. democracy was another, opposite side to Police state in SMAC. Every SE selection was off stratigical depth.

Your model, and I will say it a thousand time till it will register into your mind, your model has NO STRATIGICAL DEPTH.

Balancing the SE is more then balancing the numbers! Democracy differ from Republic by +2 center. YES, it's a big difference. But is it really big enough to justify to have two options? They are almost the same thing, offering the same stratigical idea.

When you think SE maniac, you need to think about StarCraft. You really should. 3 sides, all different, not one thing similar, but compeltly balanced in every way. That's how the SE section should be. Maybe we should have more then 3: four or five options. But every option should be different. Is Mercantlism that different from free market in your system? Is Evanglism that different from Fundemntalism? Is republic that different from Democracy?

In some points here I am wrong: maybe some of those SE are indeed distinct enough.
But say what you like about my model, it HAS stratigical depth. Every side is a different strategy then the other. Ok, maybe the numbers need changing to obtain more balance: that's fine details. First, we need to create a gem-stone that every side is opposite to the other one, but all still sides of the same thing.

I hope I got pass.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Maniac:
It is possible to attempt to combine ideas rather than fight over whose is best. Ember & I have done this with our combat system ideas.

I have a question about your new SE choices: have you defined what they do elsewhere? If you have, could you point to where? I'd like to see them.

will: Centralization & corruption, as I see them, are different in that centralization modifies corruption(efficiency) as one of it's tasks. Other tasks would be to modify happiness, and possibly other things outside of SE, such as:
1)player's level of control of cities
2)supply efficiency, and the ability to move supplies/money/production between cities (this has historical precident)
3)The ability to modify tax/lux/science on a city by city case instead of on a nationwide level only
4)A pre-requisite to other SEs, i.e. the combination of monarchy+decentralized=feudalism, which gives you it's own bonuses/penalties

I can see combining MORALE(EXPERIENCE) & ARMY, since they are the same. However, I'd severely limit the ability to add much of a bonus/penalty to it.

If DIPLOMACY modifies how receptive the AI is to your diplomatic actions, I'd keep it separate.

"As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days."

Maniac's response:"That's why happiness should affect im/emigration. That's also why I suggested that happy citizens should produce 50% more food/labor/resources/trade."

Ah. I forgot to explain that in my system there would be no "happy" or "unhappy" citizens, just citizens. The HAPPINESS indicator (one set for the national level, and another in each city) would tell you how happy the city is overall, and the production bonus/penalty would be affected by that. It also affects growth, and immigration/emmigration would be assumed in the growth.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

no M@ni@c, I don't find Harels system perfect, I just have not gotten to really critiqueing his yet

so a plus 2 or minus 2 (or 3 or 1) hap means nothing? then why was I worried about it, you just gave a free negative so that I can use -2 hap se structures with no cost (I will revise my alternatives and communist-alternatives if you wish)

you have not addressed my point about protectionism being far better than communism (the -2 econ makes it so it can never have a lot of trade (which comes at +2 econ)

thanks for pointing out the difference between morale in mor and morale in nat (I thought nat was a super modifier)

I do have smac (isn't multiplayer on that awesome?), now that you mention it I do remember

so nat is like smac probe

I am not saying that smacs system (police state planned) is any better than your system (it is not), I just don't want any more problems like that (which will just grow with have more selections you can make)

also I would like to point out that you weakend some modifiers by splitting there effects into 2 while feeping others at the same great strength (ie econ)

remember I want research section out, but I am using it in my critique since you have it in your system

I like how you did pol in freemarket, banking, and transnational - making sure that they had real negatives

what I mean by -2 pol is that it is not to different from 0 pol (I admit that when you get to -3 pol pol starts gettimg serious and a +3 pol is good) and so is a cheap negative factor, what is wrong with your system (and unbalanced, probably true with Harels as well) is that you can get good bonuses at the cost of cheep negatives

like the econ places that matter are -1, 2, 5

I think that to determine your modifiers in a ballanced way you need to say what every group of se choices is and make sure that real bonuses are paid for by real penalties

your way could be good if you had it ballanced (not the best, I think my way and possibly Thebens is better, Harels I consider similar to yours)

for now I will not continue revising the other thread unless someone asks me to (shudder), instead I will just look at every selection (if I have time I will go back to my previous work of doing every single combination (shudder, that was my plan)

Despotism: (first government, not meant as a good one) - from smac and civ we all know the importance of having a low ammount of corruption is key to having a good large nation but since there is no numbers it is hard to find where it is unballanced, the difference between 1 unit and three acting as police is significant but not as significant as the corruption loss a big civ would have; useful only for small/early civs; conclusion: not particularly unballanced

Totalitarrianism: worse corruption (probably not good for a big civ then) good support (large army) and ok police stuck with a happiness negative that just limits it from having to more happiness minuses; useful for medium or small war like cives; conclusion: not particularly unballanced

Monarchy: balanced of course, useful only for civs until something better comes along

Theocracy: the happy bonus does not really matter (unless it is added to other like environmentalism or religious freedom) and the plus 2 tax with minus 2 research is overall bad because reseach is better than money (money is better gotten other ways); not really useful, taxes are not needed very much in the beginning (research or growth is) and it has no real bonuses since the neg in research out does the positive in taxes; unballanced, I would recommend adding more bonuses to it (like in nat, cult, ?), its bonuses are not comparrable to those of totalittarian, republic, or democracy

republic: production and corruption bonuses make this good with only a slight negative in the abillity to make war (everybody who has played civ knows that the senate is only a minnor hassle); useful for growth civs of all types/sizes and all civs in general even warlike ones; unballanced, is too good (at least compared to other se choices) and most likely the clear choice for government (with democary sometimes edging out in certain situations because of its econ bonus)

democracy: corruption bonuses and econ bonus are its only real bonuses (and the econ bonus is only useful in getting to -1, 2, or 5 econ) since +2 hap means nothing and it has basically the same negative as republic (adding or subtracting small amounts of support mean nothing); useful in the same ways that republic was useful (every way) but only is better in certain situations since in many situations the +2 centr is better than +1 econ; this is more ballanced then republic but still is unballanced

I think that republic and democracy could be fixed by adding some sort of penalty to both and decreasing republics corruption bonus to at least 0

you have to have good corruption in order to run a large civ meaning that (because a large civ has always been the best strategy in the past) any civ choice that makes more corruption will not be good in the later portion of the game

(I would choose green in smac just for the effiency bonus)

barter: of course is bad

currency: ballanced same as monarchy, use same as monarchy

manorialism: decrease in production and growth, increase in support and taxes, the better support is ofset by the bad production and growth and plus in taxes does not matter to much in regards to the other choices; semi useful for millitary civs, only worthwhile for them until a setting comes that has more bonuses then negatives (protectionalism is a far better choince for these types of civs), the decrease in production and growth will means that it will not be good for expanding civs and they are almost always the ones fighting; unballanced, will never really be chosen, doesn't really have a bonus

mercantilism: plus in economy means that it would work well with democracy or wealth or commonwealth to get to +2 econ, good growth is also a bonus to peaceful and expanding civs and the negative morale does not mean much; useful for a militaristic civ (totalitarrian government) that will take commonwealth or wealth for value system or for a peaceful civ with a democratic government (but banking/freemarket/transnational would be better in this cawse); not particularly unballanced

protectionism: good production taxes are a non factor diplomacy is not real serious and there is some corruption; useful for expansionistic/militaristic civs of small to maybe medium size; not particularly unballanced

communism: good production good nationalism bad economy and some corruption the bad economy singles this choice out as the only choice that cannot get the cheap wealth and commonwealth choices to get an easy +2 econ and the extreme benifits it has: not useful since nationalism can be found elsewhere cheaply and the production is not that much better than pritectionalism and the -2 econ is ruining as already mentioned; unballanced

I got to go now, I will try to work on this post more, basically in M@ni@cs system it is just to easy to get +2 econ and there are many choices that have no real benefit and there aare many choices with no real negative

in order to get +4 pol one would have to get -4 hap meaning that the extra good police would spend there time fixing extra unhappiness, of course this is all good in that it makes it hard to get transnational down to decent police settings

me saying that a choice is not unballanced does not mean that it is perfect or that it meshs well with the others, just that it is fine by itself

also diplo, cult, mor(to some extant), tax, hap can all be made to mean little (not give important negatives) while the se choices that have these for negatives have good positives

Jon Miller