Announcement

**Maniac** · August 12, 1999, 17:09

Diodorus Sicilus :

To form a historical SE model, the knowledge of a historian is greatly needed. But since you didn't appear it's not kind of fair to blame me some historical mistakes.

My model is kind of stagnated. I don't change it much anymore. So becaues model building has become some kind of a hobby, I'm willing to rebegin from scratch and rebuild a model. It probably won't get ready until the next summary, then my present model should appear in it.
But together with a historian we can build a new one.

BTW, will we use my SE factors. They seem more accepted by everyone than my model itself.
Will we use the same?

I may seem positive now about DS' ideas, but this may change when he gives factors to it.

Comments on your model :

Government :

Sounds OK. But only it's not really much choice, is it?

Perhaps make 4 categories.

1) Absolute one person ruled governments
2) Noble/elite influenced one person ruled monarchy
3) Partial democracy = nobles/elite has franchise.
4) True democracy = all the people have franchise

Perhaps some distinction between representative and direct types.

"the monarch provides a personal figure to identify with the State (+ Nationalism),"

Now I certainly know I have to change the name.
Monarchy may increase Nationalism, but it doesn't affect your spy abilities. And that's what Nationalism affects.

In the light of the coming summary, I think I will rename some Factors and repost everything in one large (the largest ever) post. That will make it easier for some people to understand the things I'm saying cause some people(Theben), although my factor posts are very easy to find, don't seem to find them.

"Monarchies have a + Diplomacy factor ONLY with other Monarchies - because they can offer state dynastic marriages with other Royal Families to cement diplomatic ties - something no other form of government can offer to another!"

Gee, I don't know if that Diplomacy bonus has to be that big.
Charles V didn't doubt to attack his own family's countries!

Structure :

List looks good.

Economy :

I have 2 questions for you.

How would you call and give factors to the Dutch economy system?
You know (or should as a historian), things like the 'Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie'.

And how would you call and give factors to the French Colbert Protectionism and to the English Cromwell Mercantilism?

Your answers may explain the difference between my and your effects you give to some SE choices.

Values :

I just couldn't think of any value for starting civs, so I just took the SMAC name Survival.

You seem to be for automatic Value choosing = the player doesn't choose the value.
Good be realistic, but I like to decide things like that myself.
To quote Theben :

Whether or not it's realistic, people like to have control over their games.

I agree completely with that sentence.

Wouldn't it be better to rename Happiness to Socialism?

"Growth Primarily Population increase, but also includes geographic spread"

"But also includes geographical spread". Then I would rename Growth to Imperialism.

"and perhaps use the infamous Slider Scale to specify percentage of research resources going into each category."

I am in favor of a slider scale and simultaneous research. Read my Research factor post.

Religion :

"This is a mess!"

I won't give comment on this cause religion has changed a lot. And I just invented the idea, so it's normal it wasn't good yet.

State Religion :

Why don't you go to the Religion thread?
Cause this problem...

none of these religions existed when the game starts, so what State Religion does the Roman Empire or Egypt get?

...hasn't been mentioned in the thread.

"Finally, and I’ve said this before in the Religion Thread: DO NOT use actual religions in the game. Read some of the other posts in Religion:"

When did you last read the Religion thread. With the present ideas, real-life religions are possible, cause we don't give them effects.

Army :

You're right.

Some other comments. You seem to be in favor of a lot of random events, resulting in new SE choices.
May be good for religion, but not for Feudalism.
So "Fuedal Can develop from either social or military factors" isn't a good idea IMHO.

BTW, if you use the theoretical model of Communism, it would be a super choice and a utopia to live in.
Better industry, efficiency, nationalism, research, happiness...
But in real life Communism sucks because of the reasons Jon Miller said (people are too selfish and too individualistic).
So I would use the historical effects with the theoretical names. So give Communism bad happiness, efficiency, research...

**Harel** · August 12, 1999, 17:14

Repost-updated model

Version 2

Maniac, I would like your useful suggestion on the current model. No comment like "your model suck". If you don't agree with the numbers I chosed, then propose a new ones. Please tell me if everything I wrote next to it ( balanced? ) is ok, or does it require modifaction.
Solid critism about the suggested options ( names ) themselfs will be taken heartfully: but I took the time to recheck facts ( make sure I didn't miss-translate protectionism, for example ) and history. I took great care in explaining in depth why I propose every item here. Ofcourse, it's my logic, not a universal one: but nothing is "silly" ( I took those out ). So think you will finds the options I list here balanced and historicaly correct. Take the time to read my explantions.

General comment

I am glad you accepted my "evolving SE" options ( -> ) and use it quite frequantly. However, you don't seem to realize that if you use it for one SE option in a section, you have to use them for all. For example: compare theocracy to your republic. Theocracy has one level, republic has 3 ( democracy -> True democracy ). Theocracy is balanced compared to either republic or true democracy. If it's balanced to Republic, then in the late game Theocracy is useless: no one will pick it. If it's balanced with True democracy, then in the early game Theocracy is too powerful. I think you see my point: in order to balance things, you need to have the same ( or near ) amount of levels for every option.

Military industry and centralization

For everyone, Military industry gives +10% for every +1 to the shield output when producing military units.
Centralization gives a similar bonus when constructing buildings, wonders and civilian units.

Model: version 2

Goverements

Control

I changed this model, so you will better understand the difference it has with Absloute power gov.

From:
Anarchy -> Despotism -> Police state
Too:
Anarchy is stand alone. Despotism -> Military autocraty -> Police state.

Do you understand now? It's not "Bad despost" vs "good despot". Control goverments aren't about absloute dictators: it's about control. In early days, a single despot ( as ruler of a single tribe or city ) controled the populce with the use of force. Then, regular army was used to that matter, and in modern-close future days a standard police force control the public ( think 1984 ). It's oppresive but not evil: those goverements describe a goverment that it's only function is too keep the public in order. It has no further aim or goal: just order. Now you see that it's more fitting to be the "no pos, no neg" option.

Anarchy: -3 Hap, -3 Tax, -3 Corr

Despotism: +2 Sup, -2 Hap
->Military autocraty: no pos, no neg.
-->Police state: +1 Pol
? Facism: loyality to the state and leader as a form of cult/religon. Is this fitting?

Absloute power

A single ruler isn't nessecrly oppresive or bad. Neither is he good. He is no more good or bad then a King. But a king rules with the power of blood line: a dictator rules by power, by mainly Charisma. Some dictators were aweful: Hitler, Neron. But, just like we had good kings, we have good rulers: Ceaser, Augstus, Claudius. Diodorus here can tell you how many times single rulers, which weren't kings, ruled nations but not nessecrly by oppresive forces and vicousness. The public is neither happy or unhappy with a single ruler: how he acts decide that. This form of goverment is very safe against intelligence but has problems rulling over large societies.

Dictatorship: +2 Pol, -2 Corr
->Totalarism: +2 Nat, +2 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Corr, -2 Cult ( balanced? )

Monarchial

First thing, I scrapped Dynastry. I still think it's a logical conclusion to monarchy ( after all, it IS about blood lines ) but it is "wierd" and probaly too "hi-tech" for civ III. You made a point that the +Tax from monarchy is simply feudalism, and if I will think about it I will silly that monarchy itself shouldn't get a tax bonus. I am sorry, but you are not reading your history. We both agree that Banking is the first-form of free market. But in the Renaissance era ( not old! Are you crazy or something? First banks were created after the invention of paper money in the 15 centaury, not in the old days! ) states like France used a free-market system ( banking ) with a monarchy: but the taxes where still very big! Think about it. In democracy, you can't have high taxes: you won't get re-elected. A dictator can't raise taxes too much, he rules by his Charisma ( as much as Stalin and Lenin were brutal, people adored them then. Same with Mao Cha tong [ did I get the name right?] ). A control gov won't either because they want the people orderly. Only a king which rules with the power of older times and tradition can raise taxes without worrying about it too much. Don't mention the france revoultion: he both took too many taxes ( more then a monarchy can sustain ) and it was a revoultion like in Civ.
A monarch is just like a dictator, but he rules with tradition, with the power of the ones who came before him: a dictator rules by the power inhimself.

Monarchy: +2 Tax, +2 Centr, -2 Eco, -2 Urb ( balanced? Maybe -2 Hap is better? )
->Empireship: +3 Tax, +2 Centr, +2 Sup, -2 Eco, -2 Cult, -2 Urb ( balanced? )

Religos

First off, Diodorus got it right. We didn't have a true theocracy in the world. Religon, and the church, always hold great power: sometimes they were the power de-facto. But they never really ruled.
So, I thought to just thought we shouldn't use it: he is right after all. BUT, civ is also about what CAN. Alternative histories. And frankly, it's very logical to see a scenario where the religon insitute take over. In Iran the Aitollas rules for some time until they had democratic elections. Think about a civil up-rising in old europe: the king is thrown out, killed. The church allready holds great pieces of land and money: the church even had it's own hired army. They take over, starting a new goverment ruled directly, not indirectly, by the religous master. It's a logical scenario in my eyes.
* Lordship ( better name? ) is a religos country ruled by a the pope, or any other title of the high-offical of the religon. * Theocracy is the rule by a concuil of the religos elders, with delegated power of regions in local "holy mans". Very similar to what the Shandarin did when they had weak kings ( still want details maniac? ).
Iran isn't a theocracy, it's a democracy with a strong religon.

Lordship: +2 Urb, +2 Cult, -2 res ( balanced? )
->Theocracy: +2 Urb, +2 Hap, +2 Cult, -2 Res, -2 Dipl ( balanced? )

Free-will

Finally! You agreed with my point that in the broad-term defenitions we use republic should be united with democracy. Just proves to you we can comprimse. So, no further need to explain how it works.

Republic: +1 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
->Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup

Market

Controlled

About protectionism
First off, we need to settle down your biggest historical mistake. Maybe it's because you don't understand what communism is about ( but how you kept saying it's a controlled market I got it ). Your mistake it about Protectionism. Now, I understand how you could have done this mistake. Let me make it clear what Protectionism is: economical shield policy. Meaning? Certain items are forbided, or limited in export to further increase the profitability of items made in the nation. There is no connection to communism! None what so ever! Please, trust me. I rechecked with a dictionary and an Encyclopdia just to make sure I am not making a huge mistake, and indeed I don't know what Protectionism is. Turns out I did all along.
I will give you an example. When I said that communism is from socialism, you said oh no! Belgium just got a social market and we are a free-market. By this I figure out you don't agree to put beligum with communism. Therefor, you suggested:

Protectionism->Communism->Utopia

But What if I tell you that belgium, just like its part socialist, is part protectionist? True. Every country, even the captilast US, has limited exports in a certain commodity. Beligium, for example is very strong in the sharpened diamong industry. Since Israel is a power in this field ( was first, lost it to India, not second ) I know you have limited export of diamonded cutted in Israel ( or everywhere else ). Same with Taxitles: beligium has a ridiclus high Taxtile limiting laws. That it protectionism.
True, a full Protectionist market limited much more then just diamonds and cloths, but I made my point. Protectionism has nothing to do with communism.

About feudalism
Have Feudalism ( manoralism? Why not castlism? Or maybe Citadeling? ) as a major option ( available thourth all the game ) shows you don't have a clue about Feudalism. This system cant stand one day in modern world. For starters, the trade which base this entire industry: farmers give food, lords give army protection can't work today as a single missile can wipe out the localized base of the lord: so why should the vessals work for the lord? People belive they were forced too: but most of the time the treatment to the plebs by the lord was a normal, healty relations of landlord/renter. The farmers couldn't go anywhere: they needed the protection gotten from the lord knights. In those pre-nation days, raid attacks where very common. Secondly, Urbanization and modern big cities would give the de-centelized system. Therefor, feudalism must become obselte and be replaced by something else.

Historical accuracy and CHANGES

I scrapped planned. No one could agree to it, including myself. Insteed, I picked a much more historicaly correct option: Colonization. Think about how europe market changed over times. First, where nations were dis-orginzed the king passed power to the lords and dukes to allow better control on his too-big nation. Then, protectionist were the market option when dealing with other european powers. When they start explorting the world, they used colonization to control the new resources.
When England took over lands, it didn't take over the resoruces by the name of the country: it did it by the name of companies. The british indians company was the power that took over India and the far-east: not england herself. When the spanish explored the world, beside the military leader you have the trader, the owner of the vessel, right there with him. Hoan de le cose was the owner the vessels that Colombus sailed across the seas: he was a part of the expdetion. Therfor, colonization is the logical and most historical connection.
Diodorus: I got it right, correct? That was the evoultion of europe monarchial markets in the middle ages?
All those systems hold big corruption bonuses: allows the nation to expand. That was the reason beyond Feudalism: the king couldn't control his land, it was too big. He delegated power to the Dukes, which delegated power to the Lords, etc, etc...

Feudalism: +3 Sup, +2 Corr, +1 Tax, -2 Centr, -2 Urb ( balanced? )
->Protectionism: +2 Centr, +2 Corr, +1 Tax, -2 Dipl, -2 Eco ( balanced? Not too different from Feudalism? )
-->Colonization: +3 Centr, +2 Corr, +2 Tax, -3 Dipl, -2 Eco, -2 Hap ( balanced? )

Simple

I really don't know what to do with Mercantlism. In the previous model, I used it as an evolution to currency. I know it's wrong. It's a economical strategy, no doubt about that. But frankly, considering it's problems and the short time-span it was used, I am not so sure we need to even use it. Now, let me see I got it right ( I hate translting concepts, you never could be sure you know what you are talking about ) mercantlism was the system used in europe to maximze export over import, and use the difference in coin ratio to accumalte profit. This system can really be used only in old times: in todays modern economy, with linked stocks, such "cheating" will probaly not work. Therefor, I "killed" Mercrantlism. Even if it will return somehow, this system must become obselte by something else.
Stocks exchange was an advance in trade. The stock system greatly enhanced trading with properity.

Barter: -2 Tax
->Currency: No pos, no neg.
-->Stock exchange: +1 Eco

Social

Social markets are for the people. Your second mistake Maniac was to say that Communism was "controled". In Marks original idea about Communism, the goverement really doesn't have any control over the public. You may work at whatever you like, you have companies, and you may even start your own company. Simple, you may choose whatever path you like. Only rule is: the goverment collect all the money and distribute is equalliy. So, you may be a CEO, a farmer, or a worker, you get the same pay.
Well, it's true it didn't work that way. The five-stages plan ( not five-year! ) main push was to de-nationalize farms, and give major insentive to the farmers and land-owners. Therefor, Communism is only a limited form of this goal, a market system in which the goverment took more control. However, it's still a social market, not a controled market.
About Utopia is clear enough I hope. We talked about it enough.
About the social market: remember, when I mean free-markets is a free market. No govermenrt intervention in any way. If you want a free market with social tendencies, like belgium, sweden and Israel for example, use Free market + Wealthfare as a value. No, a social market is when all the critical products are made and controled by the goverment. Farms, electricty, water, all of those are provided by national companies owned by the goverment and where every citizen may work and get a decent job. It's an extream of social market: we never had a true social market no more then we had a true free market. However, this is what I mean by social market: where most the industry in controled by the govermenet, by the concept of "cash" and "salary" still exist.
The main bonus is not for industry, is for Happiness.

Social: +2 Hap, +1 Urb, -1 Eco, -1 Tax ( balanced? )
->Communism: +2 Hap, +2 Cult, +2 urb, -2 Eco, -2 Tax ( balanced? )
-->Utopia: +3 Hap, +2 Cult, +2 Urb, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -2 Pol, -1 Corr ( balanced? )

Free

Copy and paste.

Banking: +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market: +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational: +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Structure

I really don't know what to make about Diodorus comment. He is right, confedarte and commonWealth are almost the same, and Feudal is more fitting to be a structure option then a market. But I would let you sort it out Maniac. I just post your own suggestion.
Just one comment: a distributed goverment is always more efficent to deal with large empires then a centeral ones. Shouldn't confedarte get the +2 corr bonus, not Federal?

* Tribal: +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City State: no pos or neg
* Federal: +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
* Confederate: +2 Hap, +?, -1 Centr, -1 Nat
* Commonwealth: +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol

Religon

Ok, about prosecution. If we have religous freedom, we olso need to have the difference. Religous intolerance. The USSR was Athiest, it was Religous intolerant. Athiesm is both the belief there is no god and in-difference to the question. Therefor, since he doesn't care, a TRUE Athiest will never forcebly opress his friend religous thinking. He would just let him go wrong all his life.
BTW Maniac. Religon is not the belief in god, or gods, is "a belief system, a code, in which a person or a group work out there lifes." Athiest IS a religon. I am sorry that sounds "peiorative to your ears", that just your problem. That what religon means.

* Animism: -2 Res
->Polytheism: no pos, no neg
* Loose monotheism: +2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
* Fundementalism: +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
* Religous freedom: +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
* Religous intolerance: +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap
* Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Urb

State religon

Scrap, and with zeal! I allready told you why.

Army

Well, diodorus hate the CtP readness concept as well. I note that his suggested SE options and not very far from mine. However, in the interst of "unsilliness" I dropped cyborg army option ( the +4 morale was too big anyway ).
Maniac! I need some help to balance this out. Even if you still prefer CtP system, please tell me what numbers you would use if you would have liked this system.

* Basic: no pos, no neg.
* Militia: +1 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale
->Volunteer: +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup
-->Reserve: +3 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup, -1 mil
* The people army: +3 Mil, +3 Sup, -3 Morale, -3 Hap
->Drafts: +3 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 Hap
-->Civic duty: +2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale
* Mercenery: +2 morale, -2 Sup
->Trained: +3 morale, -2 sup, -2 mil

Values

I conceed that Knowladge is a worthy value and deserve a double usage ( ala SMAC ), with research. However, Enviromtalism is a too modern value ( late 20th ) and the suggested values suppose to be universal. Beside, enviroment isn't as important in civ III as in SMAC ( atleast it shouldn't ), so I see no point to not settle with naturalistic.
Wealthfare is the suggested happiness/pacifsm/Socialism value.
I changed power cause I don't like how he is now. Tell me if it's good.
I accepted Diodorus reasoning that we need to change Survival.
I will include my updates suggestion on how to augmant the value bonus for minor civ in a later date.

Survival: +2 Mil, -2 Urb ( balanced? )
Power: +2 Mil, +2 Mor, -2 Centr ( ok? )
Knowledge: +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth: +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Wealthfare: +2 Hap, +2 Cult, -2 Mor ( balanced? )

Research

Your selected research type shouldn't limit your research option Maniac! What was that 75%? It should give you extra research when getting technologies in that field! For example, you pick Pratical with it's -2 res because it +bonus to military only gives you a bonus to military science! ( the rest would suck, ofcourse ).
Without further waiting, I present the research options.

Wise Men: no pos or neg
Nature: +2 Env, -1 Urb, Economic Science is +40%
Humanitarian: +2 Cult, -1 Mor, Social Science is +40%
Practical*: +2 Sup, +1 Mil, -2 Res, Military Science is +40%
Explorer: +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic Science is +40%

* Prototypes in the workshop are for free.

The end

Comments will be taken gladly.

**Harel** · August 12, 1999, 17:16

Double post.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 12, 1999).]

**Maniac** · August 12, 1999, 17:25

Hey, Harel and I are both on internet on this particular moment.

I haven't read your post yet, but I've seen it's about your model.

I propose we forget both our models and rebegin with the wise advise of a historian.

So, to start again. What SE factors would you like?

If, as Diodorus suggested, Support and Morale are only affected with the Army category, there has to be a new (or just another existing) factor that affects how warlike your senate is. What?

**Harel** · August 12, 1999, 17:41

Quick post to Maniac:

First off, regardless, I would still would like to ask you to read and comment on my large post since I spend 2 hours to write it and re-edit it.

I have tons of respect to Diodorus. And I would always love to use his concuil and advice about how to make our models more historacily accurate.

But, and there is a but, First: I am no fool with history either, Secondly: history, and cultures, are sometimes more in the eye of the beholder then just facts.

For example: I don't agree with Diodorus on his post about military industry: the differene in some countries size and cost of armies can't be justified by merely saying that a bigger portion of the resources is spent on the military.

I will give an example. I said that China's army is much bigger then her industry suggest. You replied it was because it's mostly rifleman ( a cheap unit ). Thats not what I ment.

When I ment china's army was big, I didn't mean it just have tons of cheap units, which sums up to a low amount. First, china has the biggest air force in the world. Secondly, if you add up all of china army, boat, man, and planes and calculte them in cost ( GNP worth in the real world, shields worth in civ ), then china has a more expensive army then even the united states.

But, the US GNP is 8 times bigger then of China! So, do we presume that the portion china spend on military on the budget is more then 8 times bigger then that of the US? The US spends 3.3% of it's budget on military. So China should spend atleast, and even more, then 26.4%. I really don't think thats how much china spend.

No, because china has built great military infra-structre and got a large, willing labor, it builds military units cheaper and faster then there wester conterpart.
I still think we need to have military industry.

About what models I would like to use: personaly, I like your model and modifactors. I would keep them all, but maybe change the names.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 12, 1999).]

**Maniac** · August 12, 1999, 18:02

Damn, my model sucks... and my factors too...
And in a week the summary must be ready...
So I won't make it to the summary...

M@ni@c
depressed

**Harel** · August 12, 1999, 18:10

Maniac, can I kill you?
When Jon miller and I pointed out flaws in your model, you laughed at us. Even due, I was on your side: I just didn't accept your suggested options.
I had to almost strike you to accept points about uniting republic and democracy, accepting Utopia and True democracy...
And now someone says your entire model sucks and you accept? Blimey man! I just wanted you to fix some things and you yelled at me! Now you want to let go the entire thing?

Look, Diodorus has his opinions and I have mine. IMHO, my model is, relativity, historacly accurate. I like it more then Diodorus suggestion.

Now, look here. You started this and you will finish this. It's your social modifactors and I need help to balance them out. At least help me with my model, even if you want to quit yours.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 12, 1999).]

**Maniac** · August 12, 1999, 18:39

I like your model more this time. Good choices, some unbalanced, but I'll say more about it tomorrow (or tonight if I don't get tired (I only slept each 6 hours last two nights. not used to that anymore)).

The problem with my (modi)factors is, that when there is an Army category, the Morale overthere also affects the warlikelyness of the senate. So my Morale (modi)factor sucks... The balance of my model is gone... My model sucks...

And you have to admit Structure is bad.

And if there's an Army category, it is true that Support and Morale are only affected by that.
More unbalance...

So, could you help me find a solution to Morale?

Begin to comment your post. What I didn't like already by the first time I read it was that -2 Eco for Colonization.
Want to clear something.
With my Mercantilism I meant what you see as Colonization!!!
You know, West-East-Indian Companies etc...
And about Protectionism. Could you search in an encyclopedy Colbert? Perhaps his protectionist system is mentioned over there. I could provide you with a _bit_ of information.
BTW, I didn't find that Sahandrin in my encyclopedy nor on Encarta.
And what the **** happened in 1984??? (did I forget something critical)

Yea yea, I know perfectly that Feudalism and Mercantilism aren't possible in these times. That's just why I didn't give them modern evolutions!
And about Protectionism. I know it's different from Communism. But you were hammering on using that ->, and they had a +Centr in common.
So that +Centr is the only reason I fused them.

More later or tomorrow.

Hmm, perhaps uniting our models becomes possible.

**Harel** · August 12, 1999, 19:10

Well Maniac, ofcourse you have to give them a modern replacement, or it will just never be used in modern times ( limiting the real options to utopia and transnational only ).

I will explain what Protectionism, Colonization and Mercantlism are.

Protectionism

Protectionism is not a specific market strategy. Protectionism is a name for a policty of "economics shield". A protectionist is a person who is pro lots of protectionist effects.
In this system, Imports are heavly limited by high taxes and certian maximum quata. For example, Belgium only allows a certain quata of import of Cutted diamonds. After this quoata, you pay an extreamly high taxes on importing it into belgium. Therefor, local customer are more likely to buy the local product other then import it, making the local markets stronger.
Every nation in the world has some pro-protectionist segements, but a pure "protectionist" market is one who highly limit all imports, making industry stronger but harming the economy.

Colonization

Colonization is a harsh form of early "transnational". The govermenet doesn't direct the market personaly, but thourth "strew companies", like the british india company. That was like a "puppet" company, mostly controled by the goverment other then the CEO and mangement. It was very ruthless market, which cause lots of profit but a great deal of pain to the naitive populce.

Mercantlism

Mercantlism was a system used by the france and british on one another by in the 16th and 17th centaury. You would export mass amount of items, and cause the local market to crash. By using quick actions, you gain a large profit by selling and buying different coin types and making a profit of the currency trade ratio.
Can't be done in today age as wired money transferens and instantous transacation don't allow this kind of "cheating".

About morale

This is a strange though: how about limited the senate warness to the level of diplomatic realtions you have with the side you wish to declare war with? We all know you have a relaltion scale with other AI: why not have a scale with human players and that level decided how warlike the senate is to that specific AI.
And who said that morale need to effect the senate anyway? Who said anything should affect the senate?

Army

Noway! Army should also effect military industry. I am still sure we need one modifator to reflect that also.

Shandrin

That was the jewish religos concuil that existed in the time between the destruction of the first temple and the second temple ( 500 BC to 0 AC ). While old Israel had kings then, in most times they were so weak that the Shandrin ruled over the peope de-facto. In that time the Orthodox stream took over in a very violent manner over the shandrin and enforce it's religon ( consider moving from loose montheism to Fundemnatalism ). This uprising, which transformed jewdish into an orthodox, hard-headed stream is that Jeasus preached against and in the long run caused the creation of Christenaty, which started as a new stream of loose monotheism that drifted apart from jewdism after some time.

1984

Hehe. 1984 is a famous sci-fi book, very famous. It describe a truely oppresive police state: modern prisons, survlleince carmea watching people in corridors, badrooms, everywhere. A single dictatorial being, Big Brother, is the center of the nation. A perfect example of my suggested futuristuc "police state". I suggest reading it.

Sleep

Once more, I suggest that you hop and one plane and come here and I could give you some training. Six hours is a lot of time Cadet! Try dealing with three of four every day for two weeks.
But then again, since my posting changed, I am more awake in the nights righting big, silly posts other then really doing something important

And told we could mold our models toghter.

I only request that you give new numbers to every item I written next to it ( balanced? ).
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 12, 1999).]

**Theben** · August 12, 1999, 20:11

Maniac,

"That would again lead to endless combinations.
eg 30 civs and 4 religions +1 Animist 'religion' = 150 icons. Plus male/female = 300.
Plus let's say 4 time epochs = 1200. Don't think Firaxis will do that. (And if you would include specialists...)

Icons for each religions and for each sex = 5x2 = 10.
Four time epochs = 40."

Actually, the religion icon would be small & independent of the citizen bust. Thus you have 30 civ icons plus 5 (or more) religion icons, for 35. x2 for women, you have 65.
And most of the picture would be racial, so we have white caucasian, dark caucasian (Indian-pakistani), asian, african, and native american (caucasian-asian mix). So it's 5x2+5=15, not including dress styles to diffentiate between civs (cut n' paste ain't hard). And as times modernize dress styles tend to blend. So at most you're looking at:

5 races * 2 genders
5 religions (probably more though)
up to 120 styles of dress if 30 civs & 4 epochs, but there will be some that overlap
So at max 5*2+5+120=135 icons. Probably closer to 100. Right now there are 44 icons in civ2. And I wouldn't include specialists in the citizen icons.

I don't think that would overwhelm Fireaxis.

**Diodorus Sicilus** · August 13, 1999, 00:36

Geez, M@ni@c, don’t assume that I have the Word, even the Historical Word, on this stuff. For one thing, there is no historical word on the effects and affects of Social, Economic, and Political factors and systems on population. Lots of historical examples, but also lots of historians arguing over what was important and what factor caused which and to whom. On the one hand, this means no squirrel can crawl out of cyberspace to tell us (or Firaxis) that the historical SE model is all wrong, but on the other hand whatever we and they come up with is going to be, in part, purely opinion - hopefully, opinion with something to back it up, but arguable in any case.
Second thing: I’ve been involved in writing boardgame and historical miniatures rules, but my focus here is on getting something sort of historical into the game. When I do suggest specific numerical factors THEY ARE ONLY SUGGESTIONS because, on the one hand, there ain’t no historical numbers and on the other hand, all my experience with rules and games tells me that only playtesting will tell us what numbers really work the way we want them to. I guarantee no matter how carefully we crunch the numerical values for playability, balance, and historical effects, one week after the game is released some Fiend in Human Form will post a play strategy based on the numbers with reslts that we never foresaw.
So don’t sweat it, it’s all subject to change without notice.

Some comments on the posts since my last Opus.
M@ni@c:
Charlie V is only one of many who were perfectly willing to go to war on his relatives, and the gamer or AI may do that as well when the situation warrants it. The Dip factor is a plus for those occasions when the situation doesn’t warrant it, and you really, really want that Trade/Peace/Alliance treaty. See below for more discussion on this.
The various forms of national mercantilsim, like the Dutch, English, and French models you mentioned, are bound up between the Economic and Trade systems in the game. Mercantilism as gamed must include bonuses for the civ in openning new Trade Routes (the ‘India Companies’ of the Dutch, English, French, and others) as well as manipulating Trade Routes between their country and others, which was the way the game should show Protectionist policies. As my first whack at Governments will show below, my approach is less +/- factors and more Special Attributes of the various systems.
Absolutely didn’t intend for Value choices to be automatic most of the time. Your population will choose automatically if you let the situations get to extremis: basically, letting any value and its effects drop too low without compensation may result in the population of your civ trying to compensate. Example: while Survival is a Default, if you have no contact with any other civ and no barbarian threat, no one in your civ cares about it, and you can set it low and concentrate on something else. If there is no pollution anywhere, Environment is not a concern. But, if you’re down to 3 cities surrounded by barbarians and 2other militant larger civs at war with you, setting Survival to 6th place and Knowledge to 1st should cause a reaction in your civ, because even though you know you have a chance to research Gunpowder or Catapults or whatever, the people don’t, and they are seriously worried about their own physical survival. Values get changed on you when you try to lead people in illogical directions without persuading them frst - like making peace with the civs and buying off the barbarians...
The theoretical model of Communism is indeed close to Utopian, but then the 1937 Constitution of the USSR was a marvelous document. Trouble is, the constitution was never followed in practice and neither are any of the precepts of theoretical Communism by human beings. By Communism we have to use the commonly recognized ‘real world’ model of a centrally planned economy and I thoroughly agree, it will have defects of Happiness and Efficiency.
Sigh, now I’ve got to go catch up on the Religion Thread. Also the Wonders, Combat, Units, etc, etc. Boy, you go away for a couple of weeks to wargame conventions and people just refuse to stop ideaing on the web!
Harel:
I agree, as you’ll see below, that individual rulers may be either good or bad. However, I disagree that Despotism doesn’t work well for large civilizations. It worked fine for two of the most absolute Despots in this century: Hitler and Stalin, since they were working through Totalitarian governments. As you’ll see below, I give despotism some very specific and peculiar disadvantages related to the fact that the despot has no legal basis for his rule and his succession.
As for monarchs and taxes, in addition to the French revolution you’d also have to include the English Civil War, started when Charles I went to Parliament for more money and got demands for reform of his government instead. Taxes were also a factor in the Peasant’s Revolt in Germany in the 16th century. High Taxes arepossible in a Democracy: European tax rates run up to 40% or more of income, but because the money is obviously being spent on Happiness improvements (game term for the socialist retirement, medical, vacation plans and infrastructure improvements) the governments get away with it. In other words, use the resources in ways that make the people happy, and they will pay for it. As always in history, fail to balance the Happiness ratings and the people get violently unhappy with you!
The problem with direct Theocracy is that it is an Alternate Historical scenario only without human beings as they are. The church administers to the soul. When it also gets involved in administering to the body (government) it winds up administering to neither. The same people can very seldom do both well, and all too often they concentrate on that which is immediate and obvious - political power - rather than that which is subtle and distant - religion or salvation. Look at the history of the Christian Church in Europe, which entered the Middle Ages with a huge administrative infrastucture and a lot of political clout: then read up on the history of Martin Luther and why he did what he did. A Church running government becomes too much government and not enough church, and gets thrown out of both. Better stick to the Influence model for Theocrats, it’s far more believable.
For a science fiction game, though, all bets are off!
I firmly believe that most of the SE options should be heavily modified by Advances and Improvements and interact with them. For example, Markets can be built even if you have a Barter or Manorial economic system, but they will not have much effect on immediate wealth. Enough markets will make it easier to change the Manorial to a Capitalist economy once Banking/ Instruments of Credit are developed. Banks and Stock Exchanges will modify greatly the wealth generated under Capitalism or Mercantilism, but have almost No effect under Communism. And so on - the details of all the modifying Improvements and Techs I haven’t even worked out yet, because the Tech Tree and Improvements still seem to be in open discussion, or at least they were last time I checked the Threads (more $@#*&% catching up to do!)
On Military Industry and the China example. Harel, China builds military units cheaper than the USA because its units are both smaller and have much less capability. It also has much less strategic lift and reach, less basic military research (name a completely new Chinese military weapon developed lately) and has concentrated almost exclusively on tactical air and land power - last I looked (several years ago admittedly) its navy was a 1960-style joke. Result: it avoids the big expenses the USA pays, and still has to use a greater percentage of its GNP to support the military. Also, a final point, it uses a Draft army instead of an expensive (in personel support costs) Professional Army.
I still don’t see a need for a separate Military Industry factor: you want to play China (or the USSR in WWII, which model China is following almost exactly) it can be done without it.

And now to stir the pot again; commentary on Governments...

Governments:
Tribal Assembly
+2 Hap*, -1or more Centr (see notes)
Republic
+ 1 Hap, -1or more Corr , war effects (see notes)
Democracy
+2 Hap, war effects: +1 Morale*, -1 or more Corr (see notes)
Despotism
+ 1 Centr, 0 to -2 Corr, 0 to -2 Hap (see notes)
Monarchy
-1 Tax, + 1 or more Dipl*, 0 to -1 Corr, +1 to -1 Hap (see notes)
Totalitarian
+2 Pol, +1 Centr, - 2 Hap, Purge Effects (see notes)

Notes for Government Types:
Tribal Assembly
Is the Default Starting Option for all Civilizations. Can only be used with Tribal or City State organizations. In those, has +2 Happiness modifier. If Civ has 2 or more Cities or Tribes, - Centr modifier equal to number of cities over 2. Means that breakaway cities are virtually certain as you grow.

Republic
This is the ancient type of limited franchise representative government, in which only a small portion of the population has the vote, but the illusion of participation is higher than any other form of government except Democracy and Tribal Assembly. If Republic declares war, +1 Happiness because ‘people’ are behind it. To get the senate or assembly to declare war, however, requires Survival as a Value Priority of 3 or less (less is better), an opponent who is either same size or much smaller, and/or diplomatic provocation (stealing secrets to refusing trade/peace treaty). In peacetime has +1 Happiness normally. If Value = Wealth priority of 3 or more, Corruption factors go up (bribing elected officials, buying elections) as follows: Wealth = 3, Corruption = -1, Wealth = 2, Corruption = -2, Wealth = 1, Corruption = -3. (Assuming - is always Worse, so -3 Corruption is More Corruption than -1)
A Republic can be converted into Despotism or Totalitarian government by Charismatic Leader random event, but it requires very low Happiness levels in the population, and usually results in a period of Anarchy first.

SIDE NOTE: Charismatic Political Leaders won’t come along that often: in fact, at low levels of difficulty you shouldn’t have to worry about Random Events at all. I emphatically Do Not want to turn the game into a conflict between the gamer and Random Evil Events!

Democracy
This is the modern, near-universal franchise form of representative government. Same declare war situation as with Republic, except +2 Happiness (larger franchise, more involvement) if enemy attacks first. If enemy larger by 50% population/cities or more and Survival Value has 2 or less priority, may also get +1 Morale modifer (‘backs to the wall”). This is not certain, but % possibility getting better as enemy gets bigger and Survival Value priority gets lower. Democracy has same Corruption/Wealth relationships as Republic, except that Happiness is -1 at Corruption levels lower than -2. Democracy has the most severe Happiness penalties for Recruitment, dependant on the type of military system used:
Levee in Mass -3
Professional -1
Military Caste -1
Draft -2
These are in addition to the modifiers in the military system itself (see that section)
A Democracy can be converted by Charismatic Leader random event into Totalitarian or Despotism, but either requires very low Happiness levels in the population, and usually results in a period of Anarchy first.

Despotism
This is an alternative Starting Option (random chance or pre-game selection). Every turn in Despotism, computer will check % chance of Despot dying (old age, accident, disease, etc). Result can be Anarchy (no successor) lasting X turns or another Despot, or anarchy followed by conversion or reversion to representative government: Tribal Assembly, Republic, or Democracy. A Despot who maintains high Happiness levels (by allocating resources, building improvements, winning wars, expanding the civ) may transform into Monarchy (founding Dynasty) on his death. Ordinary modifiers under Despotism depend on the Despot’s character, range from 0 to -2 Corruption, 0 to -2 Happiness, but always +1 Centralization. Character is randomly selected by computer and changes everytime Despot dies.Despotism can also come about through Charismatic Leader random event at any time in the game ifcertain other factors (low Happiness) are met in a Republic or Democracy.

Monarchy
Same problem of king dying as with Despot dying, except that Anarchy is triggered only if Random Event=No Heir. This anarchy is ended after x turns with new Dynasty or civ dissolves into Civil War over the succession. Civil War is higher % under Fuedal and Confederation State Organizations, less under Imperial or Federal, neutral under City State or Tribal BUT those two may lead to Separatist (breakaway) cities during the Anarchy period. Character of the Monarch is less important than Character of the Despot since Monarchy is modified by inherent Law, Custom, and Tradition. A Monarch who invests heavily in kingdom, wins wars, constructs Wonders, etc can be rated as Good King with +1 Happiness. This rating carries over a turn or two (up to 10 years) after his death if dynasty is the same (fond memories of Good King X). Monarchy has + Diplomacy with any other Monarchy. Amount of + factor depends on size of Royal family to provide dynastic marraige proposals. If treaty signed using marraige, result may increase Civil War chances on death, since Foreign Heir may show up, splitting the kingdom. Monarchy also requires maintenance of a Court, which sucks off a minimum of -1 Tax. Increasing this can give monarchy a +1 Happiness (Grandeur effect) and +1 Centr if under Fuedal Organization, but after X turns this changes to -2 Happiness (resentment of high taxes to support fops!)

Totalitarian
Totalitarian states can be based on secular (economic) or religious systems of belief. Totalitarian requires Police Support, so gets automatic +2 Police, -2 Happiness, because of stifled initiative and resources going into Police. Totalitarian can change Values or Economic System (even ‘Communist’ Russia toyed with semi-Capitalist economics in Lenin’s New Economic Policy) but may cause Revolt or Anarchy. These can be automatically eliminated with Purge, unique to Totalitarian. Purge automatically returns entire Civ to Good Order, but at cost of X Resources and Population (actual numbers based on random factor plus number and type of Changes attempted and number and size of cities/regions in Anarchy/revolt). Totalitarian also has Centralization effect due to constant stream of orders from the Center.

That's all for now, folks. Back later in the weekend with more...

**Jon Miller** · August 13, 1999, 01:21

Hi all

I've added more to my government post

I think this thread will be over 200

so can anybody help me with values

I'm thinking about having religious, wealth, and knowledge be a three way value

it would be a pie thing that would devide into diffreent portions with 100% total into the three parts

if the number is totally on the power side the value is 100% power or power extremism

so what do people think of my pie idea

it probably should be (following my older slider idea)
knowledge----- (?)
religious-----noonreligious (?)
wealth-----acseticism

maybe a pie that can be divided among all the values (just thought of it)

Jon Miller

**Stefu** · August 13, 1999, 07:20

This is my view of goverment choice Utopia:

It is a high-tech choice. When you discover it, and change to it, you can determine you own favorite soc.eng. You get 4 positive points, which you can set to any choice you wish. For instance, you can get +2 Mor +2 Urb choice. Even better would be if you could name it yourself. Because this is Utopia, it doesn't have negative aspects. Anyone could set it to be their pesronal Utopia.

**Harel** · August 13, 1999, 08:11

Version 3, partial anaylsis

If version 2 was made because of Maniac critizm, then version 3 is a perfection of ver.2 for Diorodus. Mainly, the need to make structre more realisitc is the goal of this version.

Controled market and CHANGES

One more change to this option, mainly because I accped Diodorus critiria and moved Feudalism to Structure. Therefor, it's not a valid market option any more. In ver 2, the controled market options looked like this:

Feudalism->Protectionism->Colonization

And I change it to:

Local markets->Protectionism->Colonization

This can accurtly show how the European power approroch to market changed over the years ( Diorodus, verefication? ). In the 13th they used "Local markets", of feudalism. People belive that in a feudal states the lord ruled over the land, but kept giving taxs and troops to the king. Not true! The king had almost no power. Only when needed, did the lords give tribute and soldiers to the king, like in the time of the Crusades. "Local market" were used when there was no nation, and each market ( city ) was a local, standalone market. ( 13th and 14h mainly, but also before that )
As the nation grew and connection to other nations was firmed, the Kings used a different economic way to keep control over their markets. Because forgien trade invaded the land, uniting the local markets of wide-spread cities and villages, the king started using extreamly high import taxes to keep trade at bay, strengthen the local industry and maintain order of the markets. ( 15th and 16th mainly ).
When you consider colonization, you need to think "transnational with an attitude" in mind. The kings, seeing how the Protectionist method ( which limited trade ) harmed them, and as local companies gain extream power by trading with other european powers, simply decided to go into the company buissness. "National" companies were created, that were controlled in-directly by the goverment and financed quite directly by the goverment. Think about a world that "Microsoft" and "IBM belong to the goverment. This was acctully used to supress and break the spirit of controled lands, like India and africa. ( 17th and forward, died out in the early 20th ).

Maniac! Tell me please if those bonuses and minuses are balanced.

Local Markets: +2 Sup, +2 Corr, -2 Eco ( balanced? )
->Protectionism: +2 Center, +2 Sup, +2 Corr, -2 Eco, -1 Urb ( balanced? )
-->Colonization: +3 Center, +2 Sup, +2 Corr, -2 Eco, -2 Hap, -1 Urb ( balanced? )

Structure

First off, Diodorus is right Maniac. Your current Structure sucks. Confedartion is far too similar to CommonWealth, and you need Feudalism is a structre option.
At first, I thought he was wrong. Empire seems wierd to me. "Why not just pick federal and a monarchy!" I thought. I was wrong. I belive diorodus ment by "Empire" to how the old, large empires took over other nations and appoionted an over-seer to rule over them directly. This is, without a doubt, a structure option.
So, let's consider that I suggest:

Feudalism/City state
Confedartion/CommonWealth
Empire
Federal

First off, tribal is silly. Only useful in the first X turns of the game, then uselss. Chunk it out.
Feudalism is a form of nation where, simply put, there is no centeral command. The king in feudal nations was extreamly weak and was mainly for show off. Each area stood alone, ruled by the lord and responisble to only himself. You can see the similariry to city state: either you have a stand-alone city or a stand-alone castle with adjacment areas, it's almost the same. In a feudal state, every region stands-alone, and hold only a limited alligence to the central govermenets. And yes, you can have a democratic/feudal option. I thought about it. Every such small area ( city ) would be a tiny democracty of it's own, electing it's mayor to rule over them. This structre was used in: The older greek empire, where every city was only limitly conntected to Athenas ( until the more powerful goverments came ), Europe in the 13th-15th centaury, and more.

Condfedartion is somewhat similiar to feudalism: every city/region stand by it's own. But the center fedral power is strong, and the local govermenet mass pass taxes and report to the central leader. Consider USA structure, where every nation has it's own goverenor but still needs to pass taxs to the federal goverement and second-in-command to all Federal beauarus ( like the FBI or IRS ). This structure is also fitting to describe the old roman empire, where some elected nations were giving autonomical power but still needed to pass tribute to the rome.

Empire: a strong federal power that delegted the responisbly of every city/region to an appionted over-sear that reports directly to the central command.

Federal: clear enough.

Now, look how those options complete one another:

Feudal: localized power, no central power.
Confedartion: localized power, reports to central command.
Empire: limited localized power, reports to central command.
Federal: no localized power, all power belongs to the goverment.

If any section is best describted with a Slider bar, this is it, when feudal: +Hap, +Corr, -Tax, -Pol, Federal: +Tax, +Pol, -Hap, -Corr.
Reasoning is simple: the more power the local power holds, the happier the citizen will be since it's local problems are more likly to be sorted out. Also, with delegated power it's much easier to control over large empires. But, the more distinct the local area is from central gov, the less likly he would like to pay taxes or accept their authority: thats why the -Tax, -Pol.

But since Maniac doesn't like slider bars, this is what I suggest:

City state ( Feudal ): +2 hap, +2 Corr, -2 Tax, -2 Pol
Confedartion: +1 Hap, +1 Corr, -1 Tax, -1 Pol
Empire: +1 Tax, +1 Pol, -1 Hap, -1 Corr
Federal: +2 Tax, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -2 Corr

**CormacMacArt** · August 13, 1999, 09:11

OK, I know that I said I wouldn't be posting here anymore, but a couple of people asked me to and the Firaxis forum is down right now, so...

I haven't gone through ALL FOUR PAGES of posts, but I will try. I put this outline together when I was looking at a post by The Joker. It approaches SE from the outlook that a change in government means a change in power. I know that all of us would like total control of our civs, so don't flame me on that point. The schema needs some work, so I would ask you to take a look at it and tell me what you think.

MAJOR REVISION 1.1

A note before I go on, I am of the opinion that each city should be taken as being composed of a single culture and religion. Dividing up a city into different cultures and Religions adds a level of complexity that IMO does not add to game play. I also believe that government (organizational and economic) forms should actually CHANGE how we govern our civilizations and not be changes in name only.

Definitions:
Culture - the attitudes of militaristic, perfectionistic, etc, on a -10 to 10 scale instead of -1 to 1
Assimilation - the slow change of a conquered city's attitudes to match that of the empire's.
Discontent - a cumulative measure of the unhappiness of a city

I may need to add different definitions as I see people's comments.

There would be three parameters related to the governing of the civ:

Government Form - how I interact with the people
Organizational Form - how I interact with my cities
Economic Form - how I manage my economy

GOVERNMENT FORM: TRIBAL; MONARCHY; REPUBLIC; COMMUNIST; THEOCRACY; DEMOCRACY

TRIBAL - You are the Lord of your civilization and control:
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
Diplomacy
Military (restricted by Organizational Form)
Direction of research
taxes
Organizational Forms: Restricted to Tribal only.
Economic Forms: ???
Benefits: little corruption when composed of one civilization;
Restrictions: finances are unsure, cities may withdraw money at will for their own projects;

MONARCHY - You are absolute ruler of your civilization and control:
diplomacy
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
military (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
direction of research
taxes (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
Organizational Forms: all
Economic Forms: ?????
Benefits: increased cohesion of empire, compared to Tribal; central treasury
Restrictions: discontent may develop in conquered civilizations

REPUBLIC - You are Speaker of your civilization's Parliament and control:
diplomacy (Parliament must ratify treaties and declare wars)
military
Subject to Parliament's approval
direction of research
values
religious attitude
Parliament controls (but considers proposals by the Speaker):
taxes
Organizational Forms: Feudal, Provincial, City-state
Economic Forms: ?????
Benefits: central treasury; happiness +1; discontent slower to develop
Restrictions: loss of total control; discontent increases each time the Speaker acts as Tiebreaker in a vote, goes down in majority votes

THEOCRACY - You are the religious head of your civilization and control:
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
diplomacy (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
military (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
direction of research
taxes (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
Organizational Forms: all
Economic Forms: ????
Benefits: central treasury; corruption minimal in "loyal" cities; happiness +2 in all loyal cities;
Restrictions: You must choose a religion and that AI becomes your "parliament" if you
choose the Centralized Organizational Form, otherwise only those cities with that
particular religion are represented in parliament; parliament may usurp control of any area
if it appears that you are not being true to the cause; happiness -2 in all "other" cities
in your empire

DEMOCRACY - You are the President of your civilization and control:
diplomacy (Parliament must ratify treaties and declare wars)
military
Parliament controls (but considers Presidential proposals):
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
direction of research
taxes
Organizational Forms: PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL; FEUDAL; CITY-STATE; TRIBAL
Benefits: central treasury; happiness +2; discontent slowest to develop
Restrictions: military actions that are not declared wars, will lower happiness temporarily

COMMUNIST - You are chairman of the communist assembly and you control:
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
diplomacy (assembly must ratify treaties)
military
direction of research
taxes
Organizational Forms: Feudal, Provincial, City-state
Economic Forms: SOCIALIST - all existing corporations are liquidated first.
Benefits: If another communist country goes into REVOLT moving military units into that country, to quell the rebellion is allowed and not an act of war.
Restrictions: All food is distributed equally to each city w/waste and corruption level.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORM: CENTRALIZED; PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL; FEUDAL; CITY-STATE; TRIBAL

CENTRALIZED - No representation by the people.
Benefits: assimilation of conquered/absorbed peoples fastest; centralized military; perceived strength in diplomacy +1;
Restrictions: corruption increased upon increasing distance from capital, but can be
controlled with Governor's Residences;

PROVINCIAL - One representative per city a population over 10.
Benefits: centralized military; happiness +1 in represented cities; corruption slope lower than in centralized form; corruption in non-represented cities depends upon distance to nearest represented city
Restrictions: discontent in unrepresented cities can turn into a full-blown civil war;

FEDERAL - Each population point has a representative in Parliament.
Benefits: no possibility of city revolt during wartime; corruption slope lower than Provincial;
Restrictions: vulnerable to revolt from city discontent; city may hold militia separate from central military;

FEUDAL - One representative in Parliament per city.
B: very alluring to minor civs; corruption level in all cities (except the capital, which is lower)
R: the autonomy (control of trade, production, military & payment of taxes) and assimilation of each city depends upon the relative strength of the capital to each city; corruption moderate; each city can independantly control its military

CITY-STATE - One representative per population unit.
B: most alluring to minor or small civilizations; corruption low near the capital
R: as Leader of the civ, you may put items on the city's (other than the capital) production que, but the city governor can delay production indefinitely; assimilation stagnant; corruption starts going up after 10 squares (large map, Civ II) distance from capital; each city can independantly control its military;

TRIBAL - One representative per population unit.
Benefits: corruption low as long as the civ is homogeneous, increases with each additional conquered city and then decreases to a new (higher) low;
Restrictions: cities past 5(civII large map) units distance from capital can be lost to independence; each city can declare war without Leader's approval even on another member city (loss of the capital costs the treasury, not actual loss of the city in these situations);

ECONOMIC FORM: MERCANTILISM; SOCIALIST; FASCIST; KEYNES'; FREE MARKET

Economic Structures:
Barter, Currency, Manoralism, Banking, , Corporate, Labor Union, Communism

MERCANTILISM - internal and external trade is controlled by the state

SOCIALIST - production and trade are controlled by the state
the state dictates what is controlled, either by corporations or by the city

FASCIST - production is controlled by the state, production done within the civ is dictated by the state

KEYNES' - production and trade are monitored and only controlled by the state when necessary (ie. war)

FREE MARKET - the government has no say in production(by corporations) or trade

I don't know a lot about economics, so any suggestions here are welcome. I am working on an idea that works in various suggestions in the Economics thread.

Note: this idea is partially based upon the idea that if a civ is conquered it can attempt
to found a Government in Exile in a friendly civ. The government in exile prevents the
assimilation of its former capital and lasts until all former cities have been assimilated
and the capital is razed.

Below are Society Types that were suggested. I wanted to comment that they appear to me to be more descriptions of what kind of society results from a government choice than something to choose. One can hardly immagine an Absolute Monarchy (MONARCHY/CENTRALIZED/SOCIALIST) that could be described as an "open" society.
Society Types:
Police State, Open, Corporate, IngSoc, Welfare

Below are some forms of government that were suggested that I wanted to comment on in looking at my government sckeme suggestion.

Despotism - (MONARCHY/CENTRALIZED/SOCIALIST)
Fascism -MONARCHY/CENTRALIZED/FASCIST
Totalitarianism - see Despotism
Dictatorship - see Despotism
Feudalism - MONARCHY/FEUDAL/MERCANTILISM
Darwinistic/'Pure' Aristocracy - I have absolutly no idea how this would fit into this skeme. I suspect that this would fit in well with the CivII method of government.
Virtual (Technological True Democracy) - this is what I was attempting to approach in my design of DEMOCRACY.

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment