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

[Jimmy]

SWPIGWANG: It's great to see there is someone who agrees with me! The SE systems that I have seen would literally give even the civ veterans splitting headaches.
A simpler system could have three sliders , that is all you need. A slider for GOVERNMENT, ECON and IDEOLOGY.
If you don't like sliders, I would support the following system:

GOVERNMENT
-totalitarian
-parliamentary
-democracy
-total freedom

ECONOMY
-free market
-planned
-mixed

IDEOLOGY
-power
-wealth
-religion
-ecology
-knowledge
-peace

And that is it, not more complicated than that. Why do you want more choices when they just overlap and make the SE redundant and more complicated?

The combination you picked could determine the name of your government type. For example, totalitarian + planned would give you communism, democracy + planned would give socialism, totalitarian + religion would give you fundamentalism etc... For combinations that the game does not have a name for, the player could name himself/herself.

[The Joker]

Hello there! Untill now i've been hanging out at Firaxis' forum, but since things are getting kinda dead over there, and people (especially Maniac) had told me that this where where it was at, i thought, that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I've tryed to read a bit of your posts, but as i don't really feel like reading 270 something posts, i've just read your summaries. And i must say i'm impressed. you've really come far.

I have some disagreements though:

First of all, why do you need those evolving SE choises. I know it was to avoid having too many choises, but i (and most other people at Firaxis - the forum, not the company) like choises. I would like to spend lots of time in the game trying to figure out how to make the SE most efficient for my leader style and situation.

Second i almost totally disagree with your economics choises. I don't know much about economics before Adam Smith, so you might be right about those choises. I know a lot about modern economics, and i must say that your choises there are really odd. For instance, where's capitalism? It's the system used by virtually every country in the world today and still i can't find it anywhere.

[Maniac]

Nice to read you, The Joker.

I think too my Economy category sucks, so every help is welcome.

If I understand you, you would like the difference between 19th super free and 20th free represented.
Could this be done by the choice
Laissez-Faire which gives +3 Eco (*) but also incredible economical booms and busts
and the choice
Capitalism which gives +2 Eco (*and of course some other factor stuff) and slighter boom/busts?

BTW, is the simple rule the higher your Eco rate, the more significant boom/busts can be?

[SWPIGWANG]

The game should be fun,NOT complex.

[Technocrat]

Hello! Like Joker, I have been posting over at the Firaxis SE forum, but I have decided to follow the reasoning of the esteemed Joker and visit Apolyton. I must say that the ideas here are very extensive, and I have reviewed most of the later ones, and, like Joker, I have a few objections.

Why do you have the "evolving" SE choices? With all due respect, this adds an unnecessary degree of complexity and unrealism to the game. Governments, economies, etc., do not spontaneously change, morphing into some distantly related variant of the previous system. After all, what if the player wants to stay with the old system? What if he/she felt that the "evolved" choice had unacceptable penalties? I agree with Joker that the more choices, the better. That way, the player can stay with whatever model he/she thinks best, just like civilizations can form whatever society they choose to form. The more modern choices should simply be more appealing than the older ones.

Other than that, there are some very intriguing concepts (and debates) that are floating around. Might I recommend that you visit Firaxis to see some different viewpoints? There are some interesting ideas there as well.

Keep up the good work!

Technocrat

[Technocrat]

I am going to be presumptuous and post my SE proposal here at Apolyton in order to advance the discussion...

This is my proposal for Civ3 social engineering, first posted at Firaxis. I have only slightly polished this in comparison to the post at Firaxis; one major thing I will eventually change is my “Industry” factor, as that really ought to be termed “Production”. Also, much of this (particularly the SE modifiers) was inspired by Maniac's proposal post at Firaxis, and as such there are a few references to his proposal.

Some things to take note of before reading would be that I have included the “x10” system, and that I have avoided any reference to religion, and this is because many of the religious proposals (at Firaxis, at least) have been very complex and as such I have decided to resist its inclusion in my admittedly non-exhaustive proposal. Also know that, as this is not an exhaustive proposal, the fact that I have not included things such as a Military Organization category does not necessarily imply that I am opposed to such a category. This extends to the fact that I have not included any future SE options, e.g., there is no transnational economy option here. One final note is that at Firaxis, many agree that there should be a legislature of some type that interferes with the player’s actions in different manners, depending upon the type of government, and that this legislative concept is also implicit in this proposal.

Social Engineering Proposal v1.0

Sections:

I. SE Factors
II. SE “Range Factor”
III. SE Model
IV. Closing


I. SE Factors

I have significantly altered my list of SE factors in response to Maniac’s SE post at Firaxis. The most notable difference, however, is that I have radically different ideas concerning the concept of bureaucracy, which I will address later in the Range Factor section. Here are my thirteen factors:

1) Agriculture (Agr)
2) Economy (Eco)
3) Efficiency (Eff)
4) Environment (Env)
5) Growth (Gro)
6) Happiness (Hap)
7) Industry (Ind)
8) Militarism (Mil)
9) Nationalism (Nat)
10) Police (Pol)
11) Relations (Rel)
12) Research (Res)
13) Steadiness (Ste)

1) Agriculture (Agr)
Food production has been vital to mankind throughout history, and humanity’s social organization has been as nearly central to it as is the weather. This is very close to the food aspects of Maniac’s “Production,” but it has been separated from industrial factors, as I believe there can be highly industrious nations with significant disabilities in their agricultural sectors. Of course, I also think that this social modifier should be changeable through other means than just SE choices; rather, agriculture should be affected by a great variety of factors outside of social engineering, such as tech development or random events (for a particular city).
This modifier should also affect the likeliness of diseases and plagues, as very often the quality of agricultural practices, or rather the lack thereof, is the cause of such occurrences.
…
+2: +10% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles, +2x food per city (a certain number of extra crops should be given per city).
+1: +5% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles, +x food per city.
0: Normal food production.
-1: -5% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles.
…
One other thing: in all of these civilization games so far, if a city has reached its maximum food production and that production is an odd number, the city will starve due to a –1 food shortage (until a food route is established). A way should be worked out in order to avoid such an even-odd problem (or a five-food instead of an even ten-food problem in this x10 system). Do you see what I’m talking about? I'm not sure this is very clear.

2) Economy (Eco)
I agree with Maniac’s economy modifier, but I’ll re-post it here just for comprehensiveness (there are a few slight differences).
Capitals: +10 trade/square

+5: +20 trade/square; +25 trade/square in capital (above previous capital bonus)
+4: +14 trade/square; +20 trade/square in capital (above previous capital bonus)
+3: +12 trade/square
+2: +10 trade/square
+1: +2 trade/square
0: Normal economic activity
-1: -2 trade/square; -5 trade/square in capital
-2: -4 trade/square; -10 trade/square in capital
-3: -6 trade/square; -10 trade/square in capital
-4: -8 trade/square; -12 trade/square in capital
-5: -10 trade/square; -15 trade/ square in capital

3) Efficiency (Eff)
My decision to include an efficiency factor rather than the factor of “bureaucracy” is complicated, and I’ll explain it later when I get to my bureaucracy section. This modifier is the same as the one in SMAC, as is the presumable corruption/waste model. I think that the efficiency equation should be responsive to the actual number, however; i.e., given the equation SMAC used, there should actually be a number at which no waste occurs – in SMAC, that number should have been 4, but that didn’t work for some reason.

+?: No corruption/waste. Paradigm economy!
…
0: Normal governmental efficiency
…
-?: Rampant corruption/waste. There is economic stagnation.

4) Environment (Env)
This factor affects the amount of pollution a civilization produces, the vegetation patterns, and perhaps even the ecological stability of the region that the civilization is in. It should also affect the likelihood of diseases, plagues (like the agricultural modifier), but also natural disaster events and terraforming speed as well.

+?: Nearly no pollution; little ecological disruption, coupled with good vegetation/forestation (insofar as permitted by the terrain). This civilization is not likely to be the cause of any global warming that occurs. Terraforming rates are optimal.
…
0: Normal ecological tension.
…
-?: Disastrous amounts of pollution; vast ecological disruption, coupled with deforestation and desertification. This civilization is a major contributor to global warming. Terraforming rates are dismal.

5) Growth (Gro)
I dislike Maniac’s Growth modifier, with its strange relationship to population-related city improvements and its effects concerning revolutions. For the latter aspect, I think that sparsely populated countries can be just as prone to revolutions as much as populous countries are. Look at Chad, which has a small population but is suffering from a desperate civil war; there are a number of other examples, of course, which could also be advanced. I prefer a more traditional outlook concerning this modifier (namely, speeding up population increases), but I do like how he has an expanded population limit with higher growth numbers. However, I do not think that the population limit should be significantly reduced, as that makes this modifier the most important one – a civilization with a –5 growth factor shouldn’t be limited to size-two cities before aqueducts, or else that civilization is as good as dead. Note that I have differentiated between food production and population growth/population limits – many nations have high populations but poor agricultural capacity.
Population booms should be impossible until the Modern era.

+7: +7 population limit; cities have a population boom every turn if sufficient food is available in your city/region/civilization (depending upon what food system is used).
+6: +6 population limit; population boom.
…
+2: +2 population limit; only eight rows of food need to be filled for there to be a population increase.
+1: +1 population limit; only nine rows of food need to be filled for a pop increase.
0: Normal population limits and normal population increases.
-1: Normal population limit; eleven rows of food must be filled.
-2: -1 population limit; twelve rows of food must be filled.
…
-5: -2 population limit; fifteen rows of food must be filled.
-6: -3 population limit; no population growth.

6) Happiness (Hap)
This is another SE factor for which I disagree with Maniac’s design. For one thing, I don’t think there should be any unhappy citizens caused by increasing the number of cities – after all, if the small countries in Europe unite, will there be a sudden rise in the number of riots there? I think not. I also think that this modifier should affect how expensive it is for your units and cities to be bribed, not how much it costs you to bribe others. Moreover, this rating should also directly increase the number of happy citizens in cities, rather than just simply increasing the maximum luxury rate as otherwise the happiness rate only affects the maximum possible happiness of the citizenry rather than their actual happiness.
My happiness range is much broader than that of Maniac’s; I went through and kept track of the happiness modifiers from my SE options, and I had to have a much wider range to take into account things like “We Love the … Day,” city improvements, and random events.

+9: Luxury rate may be set at 100%; your units/cities may not be bribed; entertainer bonus is doubled; extra happy citizen for every two citizens in each city. No unhappiness for any citizen (unless starving).
+8: Luxury rate may be set at 100%; your units/cities may not be bribed; entertainer give 80% more luxuries; happy citizen/four citizens.
+7: Luxury rate at 90%; bribery costs enemy extra 90%; entertainer +70%; happy citizen/five citizens.
+6: Luxury at 85%; bribery +75%; entertainer +60%; happy citizen/six citizens.
+5: Luxury at 80%; bribery +60%; entertainer +50%; happy citizen/seven citizens.
+4: Luxury at 75%; bribery +45%; entertainer +40%; happy citizen/eight.
+3: Luxury at 70%; bribery +30%; entertainer +30%; happy citizen/nine.
+2: Luxury at 65%; bribery +20%; entertainer +20%; happy citizen/ten.
+1: Luxury at 60%; bribery +10%; entertainer +10%; happy citizen/twelve.
0: Normal
-1: Luxury at 40%; bribery –10%; entertainer –10%; unhappy citizen/twelve.
-2: Luxury at 35%; bribery –20%; entertainer –20%; unhappy citizen/ten.
-3: Luxury at 30%; bribery –30%; entertainer –30%; unhappy citizen/nine.
…
-7: Luxury at 10%; bribery –70%; entertainer –70%; unhappy citizen/five.
-8: No luxuries may be used; entertainers –80%; unhappy citizen/four.

7) Industry (Ind)
I’ve returned this factor back to its SMAC nature (more or less), separating it from agriculture. The more I think about it, this should be named “Production,” but I’ve alphabetized everything already in some Excel charts and other Word documents, and I’m too lazy to go back and change everything.
…
+1: +10% labor (or industrial output or whatever it will be named) for every production order except military units.
0: Normal industrial capacity.
-1: -10% labor.

8) Militarism (Mil)
This is the combination of the Military and Experience modifier that Maniac proposed. Of all of Maniac’s ideas, these proposals were my favorites. I have named it the much broader term “Militarism” to reflect a general warrior attitude of a society, rather than just the military’s battle-experience or the like.
…
+1: +1 Morale/Experience; +10% labor when constructing military units; one less resource necessary for support (out of 10 per unit).
0: Normal societal militarism.
-1: -1 Morale/Experience; +10% labor for military construction; one more resource for support.
…

9) Nationalism (Nat)
I like the idea of a migration model being included in the game, and so I have included this modifier. However, I also think of this as being reflective of nationalist fervor, and as such, a high rating in this area increases the cooperativeness of the legislature (Parliament, Senate, Duma, or whatever). Think of it like this: in nations with a high degree of nationalism have little resistance to governmental actions and have low rates of emigration. On the other hand, nations with low rates of nationalism detest governmental activities and will often have citizens fleeing for their lives. The only other issue I’ll take with Maniac on this one is that this modifier should have no effect upon international sanctions – domestic nationalism hardly affects other nations’ activities, and certainly is not considered by the United Nations when it is delineating punishments for atrocities. Also, I think that this rating, together with the Steadiness rating, should affect the degree of multiethnic strife in a society.

+?: No emigration, multiethnic problems rare, and little legislative interference in executive actions. (Effects on religion?)
…
0: Normal migration patterns, normal legislative willpower.
…
-?: High emigration, multiethnic strife, and high legislative interference in executive actions.

10) Police (Pol)
I like Maniac’s proposal for this, but I won’t re-post it due to its length.

11) Relations (Rel)
Once again, I like Maniac’s ideas for this one. Here they are:

Note that Relations, not Economy as in SMAC gives a trade bonus.
The commerce bonus is the same as in SMAC. A +10 trade bonus for every trade route.
…
+1 : +1 commerce; better diplomatic relationships
0 : normal
-1 : -1 commerce; worse diplomatic relationships
…

12) Research (Res)
I whole-heartedly disagree with the position that there should be simultaneous research in different categories in Civ III for gameplay reasons. Sure, simultaneous research may very well be more realistic, but I hate it. I don’t really know why, but it just isn’t as fun to me.
…
+1: +10% research output; science rate may be set at 60%; scientists’ output +10%.
0: Normal research output; science rate at 50%; scientists’ output normal.
-1: -10% research output; science rate can only be set at 45%; scientists output –10%.
…

13) Steadiness (Ste)
I almost termed this Stability, but as that is a Societal Value that I’m proposing, I decided to name this factor Steadiness. I view this factor as reflective of the general economic and political stability of a civilization, but not the social stability (with the exception of multiethnic problems), as that is dealt with under the happiness social factor. This tying of economic and political stability is justified as the two are extremely closely linked in the real world – economic turmoil inevitably leads to political turmoil (take, for example, Indonesia). The opposite is also true, as political instability is not really conducive to economic prosperity.
+?: No economic busts; the citizenry will never revolt against your government without the player actually “ordering” them to (changing the SE options).
…
+1: Less severe economic cycling; citizens are less likely to revolt than they would normally (including revolts attributable to multiethnic strife).
0: Normal economic and political steadiness.
-1: Slightly more severe economic cycling; “spontaneous” revolutions are slightly more likely than normal.
…
-?: Extremely severe economic cycling; exceptional levels of political instability.


II. SE Range Factor
As I said earlier, my ideas concerning civilization’s bureaucracy are complicated, and it involves turning the bureaucracy into what I call a “range factor,” somewhat like setting the tax/research/luxury rate. Perhaps this should be viewed as a slider that has seven choices.

As is universally acknowledged, bureaucracies are inefficient. However, most bureaucracies also have benefits that reflect the reasons for their creation. For example, in America, the Environmental Protection Agency may not be the most efficient organization in the world, but it does have the benefit that it keeps the USA’s industries in check when it comes to environmental damages that they cause. What I propose is to make the game’s bureaucracy a range of numbers, and with each number having efficiency (or happiness) penalties or bonuses; but, with the higher the inefficiency, the more benefits the bureaucracy brings to the society as a whole. These benefits would take the form of extra positives that the player could add to other SE Factors, such as the Environment rating in the EPA’s case. I recommend that the range of numbers go from 0 to 7, with the availability of the numbers depending upon the centralization choices that the player makes. (For example, if a player decides upon having a Unitary system of centralization, that player would be limited to relatively high numbers of bureaucracy.)

7: If the player chooses to set his/her bureaucracy to this maximum value, he/she is penalized with –5 efficiency and a –3 happiness ratings. However, the bureaucracy allows for additional 8 positive modifiers to be placed in any SE factor with a limit of 3 per SE factor (except for economy, which may only be given a +2 bonus). For example, the player could use these bonuses as +2 Agriculture, +3 Environment, and +3 Militarism.
6: At a penalty of –3 efficiency and –3 happiness, the player receives 6 bonus modifiers. The bonus-limit each SE factor may receive is 2 (economy 1), except for the economy, which may only have 1 bonus.
5: Penalty: -3 efficiency, -2 happiness. Bonus: 5 positive modifiers. Each factor may have 2 bonuses, except for economy, which may not receive any (this is true for bureaucratic levels 0-5).
4: Penalty: -3 efficiency, -1 happiness. Bonus: 4 positive modifiers. Each factor may receive 2 bonuses.
3: Penalty: -2 efficiency, -1 happiness. Bonus: 3 positive modifiers. Each factor may receive 1 bonus (this is true for levels 0-3).
2: Penalty: -2 efficiency. Bonus: 2 positive modifiers.
1: Penalty: -1 efficiency. Bonus: 1 positive modifier.
0: No bureaucratic functions, no penalties.

The inclusion of this system would greatly enhance the realism of the game. Take, for example, China; it has what I would view as an unstable government, namely a dictatorship, but uses its bureaucracy to enhance its political steadiness/stability in such a way to counter any potential political turmoil.

I am undecided whether the bureaucratic bonuses should also be applicable to efficiency and happiness. For efficiency, a bureaucratic bonus applied there would represent an oversight bureau. What would such a bonus, when applied to happiness, be representative of?


III. SE Model
I do not like the idea of having an evolving SE panel; rather, the more modern choices should simply be more appealing than the ancient ones. I have only four categories, but I do think there should be others (such as a Military category where you could choose your military organization). Also, I have not proposed any future society options – there is no Transnational economy option or Cybernetic future society option here, but I am not saying that there shouldn’t be any.

SE Categories:

1) Governments
2) Centralization
3) Economy
4) Societal Values

1) Governments
The governments I suggest are (aside from Anarchy and any possible future governments):
Despotism
City-State
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Republic
Direct Democracy
Absolutism
Representative Democracy
Authoritarian

Despotism: +1 Mil, +1 Pol, -1 Eff, -1 Hap
The most basic of governments, I suggest that this should be one of two defaults (the other being city-state), where the one the player is under in the beginning would depend on what civilization that is selected. I don’t agree that this should be called Tribalism, as tribes are what is abandoned upon the foundation of civilization.

The despot would encourage the military and proliferate domestic enforcement of the new way of life. Of course, such a regime creates economic inefficiency, especially when it comes to religious payments, which siphon off large amounts of the society’s resources. Also, the happiness of the citizenry suffers under the burdened of supporting the despot and his religion.

Centralization options permitted: None or Imperial.

Economic options permitted: Autarky, Commercial Bartering, and Guilds.

Examples: early civilizations, particularly the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Persia, and the Aztecs.

City-State: +1 Gro, +1 Hap, -2 Pol, -1 Ste
Another highly common form for ancient civilizations to take, each city in this model is completely independent. Although this allows for great amounts of local control, which results in better community growth and stability, the civilization overall suffers from internal squabbles and instability.

Centralization options permitted: None (?) or City-State League.

Economic options permitted: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, and Guilds.

Examples: ancient Greece, the Maya, and the Italian city-states.

Monarchy: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, -1 Eff, -2 Hap
A more complicated form of despotism, the monarch rules with the assistance of the aristocracy and occasionally a legislature of some form. The actual substance of this government can vary; in some civilizations, the monarch is simply the executive and judicial political leader, whereas elsewhere the monarch can also own much of the land, either directly or indirectly. The monarch is also frequently regarded as a god. Regardless of particulars, monarchs invariably support strong militaries and strong internal control, but their harsh rule causes unhappiness among the commoners, and the economic self-centeredness of the aristocracy causes economic problems as well.

Centralization options: None, Feudal, Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Guilds, Manoralism, Mercantilism, and Socialism.

Examples: the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the many of the European monarchies.

Oligarchy: +1 Ind, +2 Pol, -1 Eco, -1 Eff, -1 Nat
In this government, a select few exercise governmental power, often with aristocratic support. The oligarchs are not elected, but they are usually supported by a small percentage of the population (namely, the aristocracy/elite), and are invariably members of the elite of that society; as such, this government is often associated with class division and centralized control. As such, this normally is a highly productive society with fierce aristocratic dominance of society. However, such a strong policing of the population stifles not only popular support of the government, but has economic repercussions as well. These consequences would range from managerial inefficiency, especially in the outlying provinces away from the elitist center, and economic difficulties, such as severe class distinctions.

Centralization options: None, Feudal, Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Guilds, Manoralism, Mercantilism, and Socialism.

Examples: Corinth (sixth century BC to 338 BC), Carthage.

Republic: +1 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Ste, -1 Ind, -2 Pol
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a republic as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” Assuming that this is to be accepted as the correct definition, this nominally democratic government excels in administrative tasks, especially concerning areas such as economic management. The (relative) freedom allowed under such a government permits a general well being of the public at large under most circumstances. However, very often the comparative permissiveness of this governmental type translates into disorderliness – even anarchy – which corresponds to a diminished productivity in the working classes.

Centralization options: None, Imperial, Federal, Unitary.

Economic options: Autarky, Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Laissez-Faire, and Regulated Capitalism.

Examples: Republican Rome (sort of), the Spanish Netherlands after the Revolt of the Netherlands (i.e., under the States General).

Direct Democracy: +1 Eco, +1 Gro, +2 Hap, -3 Eff, -1 Pol, -3 Ste
This is the government of ancient Athens; in it, the citizenry directly vote on societal issues, without any intermediary representatives. Although the term “citizen” is invariably defined abnormally narrowly, all citizens may directly vote on all governmental issues, and indeed have an obligation to do so. The openness of such a culture results in fabulous commercial and cultural activity, which naturally allows for a more prosperous citizenry. The drawbacks of such a governmental type is the inherent instability and ineffectiveness that results, especially when it is attempting to govern a large geographic area.

Centralization options: None, Confederal, Imperial (Athenian Empire), and Unitary (central democracy, provinces under an administrative control, perhaps with a few representatives).

Economic options: Autarky, Bartering, Guilds, and Laissez-Faire.

Examples: Athens. Can anyone else think of any others?

Absolutism: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Hap, -1 Rel, -2 Res
Absolute monarchy was a form of government popularized by Louis XIV of France. In this evolution of monarchy, the monarch has absolute authority in all things and any advisory/legislative institutions whither in status, and is naturally characterized by a dramatic centralization of power and a concentration of it in the monarch. Such states have exceptionally strong military and police forces, but these traits are accompanied by unhappiness within the peasantry and a decline in intellectual activity of the nation, which is funneled into the arts that glorify the monarchy.

Centralization options: Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

Examples: France under Louis XIV, Russia under Peter I, and Prussia under Frederick William.

Representative Democracy: +1 Eco, +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -2 Mil, -1 Nat, -2 Pol
The modern form of democracy and a subset of the republic, a representative democracy has popular representatives within its institutions (especially legislative), separation of the three powers of government into three branches, and is controlled by fundamental laws, normally termed Constitutions. This government is often accompanied by a general distrust of powerful centralized institutions and as such the nationalism suffers. A society governed this way does have advantages relating to the freedom it provides to its people, however; the people are both economically and politically free, resulting in commercial prosperity and sizeable population growth. Governments of this form court international peace, and at the same time restrict both the powers of the military and of the domestic police, as both are placed under strict civilian control.

Centralization options: Confederal, Federal, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Guilds, Laissez-Faire, Regulated Capitalism, and Socialism.

Examples: the United States, most western European nations, and some Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea.

Authoritarian: +2 Ind, +3 Mil, +3 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Eff, -2 Hap, -2 Ste
This governmental system, namely the modern dictatorships and totalitarian states, has a highly centralized hierarchy and is very similar to the old absolutist monarchies. It may or may not have a legislature, but if it does, it customarily only has one party, that of the dictator. It emphasizes the “military-industrial complex” in its fiscal and social priorities, and necessarily has an extremely effective domestic policing force. The absence of freedoms and privileges eliminates nearly any possibility of economic growth and prosperity, while the necessity of constant state monitoring of its citizens creates an inefficient government. Needless to say, such an administration renders its population disconsolate and rebellious.

Centralization options: Unitary and Centralized.

Economic options: Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

Examples: Nazi Germany, the PRC, and modern Iraq.

Conclusion
The first thing of note is that I included no religious governments, which is because I wanted to avoid getting into anything pertaining to the religious aspect of Civilization III – it’s just too complicated for me to want to deal with. In order to accomplish this, I excluded theocracies of any form, but this should not be construed to mean that I don’t want them in the game. Another thing I excluded were any future governmental forms, and this is because that is an issue that Firaxis really should take up – it pertains so closely to the story line, the length of the game, etc. Another of issue of importance is that I limited both the economic and centralization options available to the player depending on the government the player chooses. This adds another element of realism, while mimicking the evolving SE panel favored by some people here; as the player chooses more and more advanced governments, the player is thus limited to more and more modern systems of administration and economics.

2) Centralization
An important point to take note of is that I have ordered these options from the most decentralized to the most centralized, forming a continuum of centralization. The choices under this category are (aside from a possible no centralization system):
City-State League
Confederal
Feudal
Federal
Imperial
Unitary
Centralized

City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 Ste, -1 Mil
Only possible under the City-State government choice, this organizational model has no central government, but rather a collection of independent cities that are related through loose, cooperative leagues, but not necessarily a single league. The reason why I included this centralization option was to vary the benefits of choosing a city-state government by allowing either no form of centralized organization or permit some cooperation between the city-states of a civilization. If a City-State civilization decides to form coactive leagues, it increases its stability and helps it economy at the expense of military preparedness.

Bureaucratic range: 0-1.

Examples: the Delian League, the Aetolian League.

Confederal: +3 Eff, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -2 Mil, -2 Nat, -3 Pol, -3 Ste
A confederation is a centralization form in which the authority of the central (or national) government is derived from its political subunits. As such, it is a union of independent states in which its central government or administration handles only those issues specifically delegated to it. This allows for extreme personal freedoms and almost excessive non-regulation; however, such a nation suffers from a variety of handicaps that stem from the decentralization. These countries’ national governments have difficulty raising armies to defend itself, as the local governments distrust centralized power, and there is often such a high degree of protectionism in relation to individual rights that police power is curtailed severely. There is also a general instability that results from a lack of any governmental control.

Bureaucratic range: 0-2.

Examples: America under the Articles of Confederation, the Confederate States in the American Civil War, Commonwealth of Independent States (in the former USSR).

Feudal: +3 Mil, -1 Ind, -2 Nat, -1 Ste
A complex organizational form in which, theoretically, nearly all land is owned directly by the king, and is held by his vassals, who swear an oath of loyalty to him and administer the land on his behalf. Very often, the king’s vassals will have vassals of their own, and who occasionally even have their own vassals, and so on. Frequently these vassals will also swear oaths of loyalty to other monarchs in order to gain more territory for themselves, a practice that can result in conflicting allegiances. The sole purpose of this social hierarchy is the advancement of militaristic power, as each vassal will have an obligation in this system to provide a certain number of soldiers for the monarch in times of war aside from the regular tribute. Naturally, such a system, despite any theories to the contrary, degrades the power of the central authority (the king) and leads to instability and petty localism. Usually there is a decrease in the productive capacity of the commoners in this system, especially when the vassals siphon off their goods and services for their own ends.

Bureaucratic range: 1-3.

Under this centralization form, only Manoralism is permitted as an economic choice.

Examples: medieval Europe.

Federal: +1 Eco, +2 Hap, +1 Pol, -1 Ind, -2 Mil
In this approach to administration, which was developed as a compromise between a confederacy and more centralized organizational forms, authority is divided in a number of ways to ensure the prevention of abuses of power. Some powers are given to the local/regional governments, and others are given to the national government, and this differentiation between powers and their users is usually given by a constitution. Within the central government, power is most often divided between three branches, a legislative, executive, and judicial governments. This complicated division of powers allows for a strong government while also guaranteeing protection of civil rights. As such, the economy prospers, as does the citizenry, who is protected by the regional governments’ police forces – another protection from abuse of power. However, the coexistence of national and regional powers, together with their coexistent regulations, hampers the industrial sector’s ability to comply with the laws and regulations.

Bureaucratic range: 2-6. (Widest bureaucratic range available.)

Examples: the United States, India, and Germany.

Imperial: +1 Gro, +2 Mil, +1 Pol, -2 Eff, -3 Rel
This is a broad category to cover the administrative system employed in governing (normally conquered) territories within an empire. Within the nation “proper,” there is most often a direct rule of the central government, but in the provinces, there are various supervising or managerial positions, such as viceroy, governor or provincial magistrate who administers, sometimes with the aid of a local legislative body or advisors, the territory. Such regional administrations are often corrupt, ineffective, inefficient, and even openly rebellious. Imperial nations are expansionistic and pursue territorial and population growth, especially at the cost of their neighbors.

Bureaucratic range: 1-4.

Examples: the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Roman Empire, and the early Holy Roman Empire.

Unitary: +1 Ind, +1 Pol, +2 Ste, -2 Eff, -2 Hap
Often confused with a federal system, a unitary system of government allows ultimate authority to be located in the national government and any regional governments derive their authority and power from it. Regional and local governmental decisions can be overridden by the national government, and the national government can usually cut off funding to local programs, and governmental functions such as education and the police are placed in the national government’s hands. The single regulatory system that results from this system benefits industry, while also increasing societal stability, especially with regards to economic cycling. Centralized control of most administrative activity frequently leads to society in which there is a faceless central authority that results in dissatisfaction in the populace.

Bureaucratic range: 4-7.

Examples: France, Great Britain, and Israel.

Centralized: +1 Ind, +1 Mil, +2 Pol, -4 Eff, -2 Hap
A decidedly rare form of governmental organization, a centralized government has no regional governments, and local governments exist only on the community/city level. Most appealing to small states, the national government is the only government in the civilization and can establish stringent regulations and rules on industrial activities, but for larger civilizations, the inefficiency and unhappiness caused by a “remote, faceless, and all-powerful” centralized government is highly problematic.

Bureaucratic range: 5-7.

Examples: many principalities in medieval-to-pre-unification Germany, early Muscovy, and the European microstates.

Conclusion
As I said earlier, I ordered these according to the degree of centralization that each choice had, from the least centralized to the most. CormacMacArt (a poster at Firaxis) previously noted, correctly IMHO, that this category concerns how the central government relates to the regional governments in terms of power and authority, just for clarification.

3) Economics
The economic choices I propose are:
Autarky
Commercial Bartering
Manoralism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez-Faire
Fascism
Regulated Capitalism
Socialism

Autarky: +1 Ste, -1 Agr, -1 Eco
One important item of note is that I have used the word “autarky” rather than “autarchy,” as the latter has two definitions – economic self-sufficiency and absolute or autocratic rule. In order to avoid confusion, I have used autarky as that only has the definition of economic self-sufficiency. This primitive economic system has each individual or family vying for its own benefit, with usually subsistence farming and the barest of extra-familial economic activity.

Examples: nearly all very early civilizations, such as Jericho and early Sumer.

Commercial Bartering: +1 Ste, -1 Agr
The natural evolution of autarky comes very quickly in the development of civilization and helps to increase societal commerce and business by establishing early forms of trade and financial activity. The primary distinction it has from later economic forms is that there is no formalized standard of exchange (i.e., currency), and as such it can be viewed, along with its predecessor Autarky, as being a purely non-currency economy.

Examples: nearly all later ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans.

Manoralism: +1 Pol, +1 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Agr
Only possible under a feudal organizational system, manoralism is the system of highly localized economies centered around the manor. In these manors, there is a lord who controls the local serfs, who work on his land and pay him heavy taxes; these serfs are unable to leave the services of the lord and rarely venture outside of the lord’s lands. Such a system thus results in benefits to the political stability of a civilization, but these manors are unproductive and contribute to population stagnation.

Examples: medieval Europe.

Guilds: +2 Eff, +1 Rel, -1 Agr, -1 Env, -1 Hap
Governments using this economic system try to protect consumers and producers by creating monopolies, called guilds, that could be easily regulated. The regulations would be tailored to ensure standards of production and profits for craftsmen, and would standardize the products (for example, having a standard size of bread loaves that could be sold). This regulation did stifle innovation, and, of course, most people in such a system are not actual members of guilds, leaving them impoverished and destitute as they would be unable to compete in any way.

Examples: Renaissance Europe, especially Italy.

Mercantilism: +1 Ind, +1 Nat, -1 Eff, -2 Rel
There seems to be some rather heated disagreements concerning this option, but here are my thoughts on it; hopefully, this definition will be one that everyone can agree with.

There was a period in time in which people viewed wealth not as a product of labor, but rather as the amount of precious metals that could be held or stockpiled. Nations, following this belief, would seek to create national economic independence that would involve having, ideally, no dependence upon other nations for any goods whatsoever and a continually favorable balance of trade. This protectionism benefited the national enterprises (which were often financed through joint-stock companies), but came at the price of antagonistic relations with trade “partners” and an inefficient allocation of capital that resulted from seeking to advance national interests rather than seeking the true development of profit for the investors.

Examples: Western Europe during the colonization era.

Laissez-Faire: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -3 Env, -2 Pol, -3 Ste
The precursor to modern capitalism, a laissez-faire economic system is grounded in a belief in governmental noninterference in the economy, which is based on the competition-driven system first theorized by Adam Smith. The flaw in such a system is that Smith had not foreseen the development of industrial trusts, which were anti-competition in nature but were necessarily allowed due to abstention of government action in the economy. That fact notwithstanding, this economic form permitted a great surge in the creation of wealth and the expansion of industrial capacity, at the cost of environmental protection and social and economic stability – the economic cycling of such a system is extreme. Furthermore, the class disparity under such a system resulted in frequent unrest in the working class.

Examples: industrial America, Europe.

Regulated Capitalism: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Env, -1 Mil, -1 Pol, -1 Ste
The evolution of a laissez-faire economic system, this form of capitalism permitted governmental regulation of the economic sector to preclude the possibility of trusts, among other anti-competition realities. This regulation to increase competition also was extended to help the worker, and included the legalization of unions, minimum wages and other devices to advance the general standard of living, therefore minimizing the drawbacks of the laissez-faire economy. In addition, a nation employing this type of economy always tries to increase its trade through improving its international relations.

Examples: the modern US, Europe, Japan.

Fascism: +2 Eff, +2 Ind, +1 Nat, +2 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Hap, -1 Rel
In this economic system, the state is exalted above virtually all other considerations, accompanied by a severe regimentation of the economy and society, a regimentation that is strictly enforced and does not permit wastefulness on the part of any administrator. Major industries are owned by top government officials and are controlled directly by the dictator, and exist to further the state, especially with respect to its industrial capacity. Conversely, the lack of competition and the single-purpose orientation of industry result in economic stagnation. Moreover, the lack of any prospect of personal advancement and the repression of any form of workers’ rights result in civil dissatisfaction with the government.

Examples: World War II Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Socialism *: +3 Ind, +3 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Agr, -2 Eff, -1 Eco
Socialism is an economic form in which the government either owns industry or regulates it extremely for the theoretical purpose of aiding the working class at the expense of an industrial elite. The government will especially own any infrastructure or primary (e.g., mining or forestry) industries to lower the cost of their products to other businesses. These states are able to achieve remarkably high industrial capacity in comparison to what such states would have otherwise achieved; they are also able to use their virtual economic monopoly to advance internal security and stability areas. Of course, their emphasis on industry normally stifles the farming sectors of the economy, markedly so if those sectors are “nationalized” or collectivized” in some way. Naturally, the efficiency of such an economy is dismal and often leads to a moribund economy.

Examples: the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC.

* Note that I agree with CormacMacArt (again, at Firaxis) that this should be referred to as “socialism” rather than “communism” as communism was never achieved and never will be achievable short of some sort of mass mind control.

Conclusion
The only thing that really needs to be said here is that, hopefully, my definitions of Guilds and Mercantilism will be acceptable enough to resolve the previous disagreements concerning them.


4) Societal Values or National Policy Objectives
Aside from having no societal values, the values that I propose are:
Expansion
Wealth
Stability
Dominance
Knowledge
Humanism
Environmentalism

Expansion: +1 Gro, +1 Mil, -2 Rel
Normally the highest priority for ancient civilizations, territorial expansion was greatly desired by despots, kings and republics alike. When a society is geared to value this, its military will often be primed to the greatest extent possible, especially in light of the increased hostility by any neighboring nations.

Wealth: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -2 Env, -1 Pol
Societies that value the accumulation of wealth and its materialist benefits above all else seek to create vibrant economic and industrial sectors with scant regard to any “minor” social unrest and virtually no regard to the inevitable environmental repercussions.

Stability: +1 Eff, +1 Rel, +3 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Hap
Nations seeking to maintain the status quo will often develop administrative techniques to ensure that no instability occurs, and this is accomplished by increasing efficiency, improving international standing with other nations, and stabilizing the economic and social domains of the civilization. This does, of course, stifle the happiness of the society; whether this social choice results in relative population stagnation or is a result of that (and a more general cultural stagnation) is a debatable matter.

Dominance: +1 Gro, +3 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel, -1 Res
The more modern form of expansion, dominance-seeking civilizations do not necessarily covet more land, but rather international prestige with respect to its militaristic strength and sizeable population. However, their bloated military budgets result in economic and intellectual decline, while the aggressive posturing of these societies harms foreign relations.

Knowledge: +1 Eff, +1 Env, +3 Res, -1 Ind, -1 Mil
Scientific preponderance is unquestionably a highly valuable objective, and often civilizations will pursue knowledge rigorously. Increasing research and educational efforts and pursuits result in side-benefits both to economic efficiency and the environment, as intellectuals will often see the benefits of recycling, resource management and other similar programs. On the other hand, self-glorifying intellectuals disdain industrial and military labor, and these aspects of society, although necessary, are frowned upon.

Humanism: +2 Gro, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, +1 Ste, -2 Mil, -2 Pol
Nations following a humanitarian philosophy value human rights and decent standards of living for not only its citizens, but also other peoples, and as such they habitually will undertake humanitarian projects and international aid. Such values do result in a noticeable contempt for excessive military and police force, however.

Environmentalism: +1 Eff, +3 Env, +1 Res, -1 Gro, -1 Ind, -1 Rel
Environmentalist nations seek to maintain and aid the biosphere and pursue other goals that will reverse the ecological degradation that occurs due to heavy industries. They value efficient resource usage and will pursue scientific activity, particularly in relation to nature. Of course, industry and population growth both suffer as a result of this preoccupation, but there is also the side-effect that these nations dislike other nations’ industrial activities and this will occasionally lead to antagonistic situations.

Conclusion
This isn’t supposed to be exhaustive, but I included all of the important, generalized policy philosophies that I could think of; there might also be some religious options as well. Also, I am undecided as to the name of this category; Joker has objected at the Firaxis board about the idea of having a singular societal value, and resultantly, I am considering names such as “National Policy” or “Administrative Priority” or something.


IV. Closing
In considering my ideas, remember that I purposefully excluded religious SE options as that is a complex section of the game and I don’t want to get into it. Other than that, I think I’m pretty much finished, and I welcome any commentary.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Technocrat (edited September 12, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Technocrat (edited September 12, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

Hello

I find considerable disagreement with your discriptions of socialism and the german nation under hitler

there was no dissatisfaction (until they were losing horribly), particularly with labor (it was labor who put hitler in charge)

I don't know what histories you've been reading but they aren't real

also you have socialsim but the you only put one version of it down

Socialisms goal is social equality

(or for some, more equality)

(you are right in that the soviet and cuban systems were/are not communist though, they were in the intermediate state on Marxs path to commuunism where the nation is supposedly set up for communism, those nations got sidetracked)

socialism is things like public education, public health care, unions

a socialist nation could have all its companies run by the people who work in them for example

the reason why so many people in the US have such a false veiw of capitalism and socialism is that we have been effected by propaganda for it throughout our lives (and by the unfortunate occurance of the mixed up USSR)

communism is: where everybody works in peace and happiness and everybody is provided for (also those who would distroy all government and live in selfsufficient communes)

actually, if peoples values where right (away from the individualism and self centeredness that is common now) socialism and communism would be far more effiecent than capitalism where so much energy and effort is wasted in commpetition
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jon Miller (edited September 13, 1999).]</font>

[Technocrat]

First of all, Jon, I must agree with you about the ideal socialism, for which your description is valid. Ideally, socialism would strive for equality, etc., but there are two points that I have taken into account - socialism has never achieved its ideals, and as I used socialism to also cover "communism," there had to be a balance between those two systems. Therefore, my description of it is valid.

As far as Nazi Germany, for ethnic Germans who weren't regarded as "subhuman," you're right - there wasn't much discontent. However, one must take into account the whole of the nation, not just the favored ethnicity, and when one does so, it is undeniable that there was significant dissatisfaction with the German government of the time.

Also, about your refernces to labor, which I assume is derived from my Fascism modifier. The fact that you would disagree with my comments on Fascism suggests you do not fully understand what that economic system held. Everything I said about fascism was true, and the ideal fascism is often described as the opposite of the ideal of communism. In ideal communism, workers collectively own everything, whereas in the ideal fascism a few dozen elite governmental officials own everything, and they do so without opposition from labor. The fact that WWII Germany (early on, as you said) had no worker discontent was because the Nazi government spent considerable resources in organizations such as "Strength through Joy," which tried to pursue near-socialist worker benefits. Once the government could no longer support such programs the workers fell into the discontent that you referred to. In my SE proposal, such programs could be represented by the bureaucracy factor which I have suggested.

Jon, I realize that this probably will do little to change your opinion, and likewise, there is little you can do to change mine. As such, let's just agree to disagree about this and move on - this actually has little to do with CivIII Social Engineering. If you do want to study the issue, I suggest reading The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 by Michael Burleigh of the London School of Economics and Political Science and co-authored by Professor Wolfgang Wippermann of Freie Universitat in Berlin.

Technocrat

[Technocrat]

Sorry, double post.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Technocrat (edited September 13, 1999).]</font>

[Technocrat]

Well, I’ve been thinking about it for a while, and I have come to the conclusion that it might be helpful to post a summation of my SE model proposal in order to make it simpler for others to understand and digest. If, when reviewing this, you have any questions about the reasoning that led me to any decisions of mine, simply consult my previous post as that has exhaustive explanations of nearly everything.

I. SE Factors

1) Agriculture (Agr)
Positive agricultural ratings increase food production and reduce the chances of plagues and diseases; negative agricultural ratings decrease food production and increase the likeliness of plagues.
2) Economy (Eco)
Positive economic ratings increase the amount of trade that occurs in the civilization, negative ratings decrease it.
3) Efficiency (Eff)
This affects the amount of trade lost to corruption or waste; positive efficiency reduces corruption, negative efficiency increases it.
4) Environment (Env)
A positive environment rating reduces pollution production, and maximizes vegetation growth, as well as reducing the civilization’s contribution towards global warming and reducing the time terraforming takes. A negative rating has opposite effects.
5) Growth (Gro)
Positive growth ratings increase both the growth rates and raise the population limit imposed by a lack of “aqueducts” or the like; negative ratings decrease the growth rate and lowers the maximum population allowed without a certain improvement.
6) Happiness (Hap)
This affects the number of happy people in the civilization as well as their susceptibility to bribes by enemy agents.
7) Industry (Ind)
Positive industry rates increase the production productivity for all non-military production orders, and negative rates reduce that production productivity.
8) Militarism (Mil)
Positive militarism ratings increase troop experience/morale, speed the ease with which troops may be raised, and reduce the support required for each unit. A negative rating decreases morale, increases the expense of troops and raises the required support for these troops. I now think that this should be split into the separate modifiers Support (that affects the support and the troop production) and Morale or Experience (that affects the morale of the troops as a whole).
9) Nationalism (Nat)
A positive nationalist rating reduces emigration and multiethnic strife, and helps to reduce legislative interference in the executive’s (the player’s) actions. A negative rating increases emigration and multiethnic strife and enlarges the legislature’s role in governmental decision making. Looking back at my model, much of my decisions regarding the assignment of Nationalism bonuses/penalties are flawed and I intend to change them in a future version.
10) Police (Pol)
This affects civilian tolerance of the military, your ability to deploy troops in foreign territory, as well as the player’s ability to use units as a police force in his/her cities.
11) Relations (Rel)
This simply affects the diplomatic and economic relations with other civilizations. Positive ratings increase commerce and result in improved diplomatic relations; negative ratings decrease commerce and result in worsened diplomatic relations.
12) Research (Res)
A positive Research rating increases research output and the scientist-specialist output, while a negative rating has the opposite effect.
13) Steadiness (Ste)
Positive Steadiness reduces the economic and political volatility of a civilization; negative steadiness increases the economic and political turmoil present in society.

II. SE Range Factor

This is my section on the concept of a civilization’s bureaucracy, but it’s somewhat complicated and difficult to summate, and as a result, I refer you to the actual section in its entirety. It isn’t that long in any event anyway, so there really is no good reason to summarize it.

III. SE Model
Note that the government selection also limits the available centralization and economic choices that the player may make, and that the centralization choice affects the bureaucratic options available.

GOVERNMENT
Despotism: +1 Mil, +1 Pol, -1 Eff, -1 Hap
City-State: +1 Gro, +1 Hap, -2 Pol, -1 Ste
Monarchy: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, -1 Eff, -2 Hap
Oligarchy: +1 Ind, +2 Pol, -1 Eco, -1 Eff, -1 Nat
Republic: +1 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Ste, -1 Ind, -2 Pol
Direct Democracy: +1 Eco, +1 Gro, +2 Hap, -3 Eff, -1 Pol, -3 Ste
Absolutism: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Hap, -1 Rel, -2 Res
Representative Democracy: +1 Eco, +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -2 Mil, -1 Nat, -2 Pol
Authoritarian: +2 Ind, +3 Mil, +3 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Eff, -2 Hap, -2 Ste

CENTRALIZATION
City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 Ste, -1 Mil
Confederal: +3 Eff, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -2 Mil, -2 Nat, -3 Pol, -3 Ste
Feudal: +3 Mil, -1 Ind, -2 Nat, -1 Ste
Federal: +1 Eco, +2 Hap, +1 Pol, -1 Ind, -2 Mil
Imperial: +1 Gro, +2 Mil, +1 Pol, -2 Eff, -3 Rel
Unitary: +1 Ind, +1 Pol, +2 Ste, -2 Eff, -2 Hap
Centralized: +1 Ind, +1 Mil, +2 Pol, -4 Eff, -2 Hap

ECONOMICS
Autarky: +1 Ste, -1 Agr, -1 Eco
Commercial Bartering: +1 Ste, -1 Agr
Manoralism: +1 Pol, +1 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Agr
Guilds: +2 Eff, +1 Rel, -1 Agr, -1 Env, -1 Hap
Mercantilism: +1 Ind, +1 Nat, -1 Eff, -2 Rel
Laissez-Faire: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -3 Env, -2 Pol, -3 Ste
Regulated Capitalism: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Env, -1 Mil, -1 Pol, -1 Ste
Fascism: +2 Eff, +2 Ind, +1 Nat, +2 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Hap, -1 Rel
Socialism: +3 Ind, +3 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Agr, -2 Eff, -1 Eco

SOCIETAL VALUES
Expansion: +1 Gro, +1 Mil, -2 Rel
Wealth: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -2 Env, -1 Pol
Stability: +1 Eff, +1 Rel, +3 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Hap
Dominance: +1 Gro, +3 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel, -1 Res
Knowledge: +1 Eff, +1 Env, +3 Res, -1 Ind, -1 Mil
Humanism: +2 Gro, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, +1 Ste, -2 Mil, -2 Pol
Environmentalism: +1 Eff, +3 Env, +1 Res, -1 Gro, -1 Ind, -1 Rel

Remember that I decided to avoid the usage of any religion-related options as that is an entirely different thread. I hope this helps in analyzing my SE proposal.

Technocrat

[JamesJKirk]

I just have a few things to say about REpublics and Democracies:

I don't believe they should have special restraints on what they can do (such as war powers), Republics are very old style forms of representative governments, and Democracies can be some of the most war prone nations there are. I understadn they should have some benefits and bad sides, but stay reasonable.

Also, Neither of those governments should have troop unhappiness when they're away, citizens should respond to how the war is going and to whether it's a war of aggression or defense, that's all.

[JamesJKirk]

Sorry for following up my own post, but I remembered one more idea:

You should be able to allow your government to have differences from other civs with the same government type, you could choose whether it is confederal, federal, or unitary, each of which would have its advantages and disadvantages over the others, you could also choose the role of the state in the economy, total communism would have low but steady growth, decent production but fair loss of reasources, and total freemarket could either have extremely fast growth or decline, and could be subject to depressions; you would be able to choose several items inbetween. You could choose to have a constitution or not, having one would limit your power but make the people happier, and it could basically make a monarchy function like a republic or democracy. And there would be similar choices for universal equality and suffrage and whatnot. Oh, and the choices could differ in name and practie in different eras, like in the middle ages, federalism would be feudalism, and socialism would be mercantilism

[Jason Beaudoin]

Here are a few ideas that I have about governments:

First, there should always be a reason why a civ decides to declare war with you.

Beginning: When you don't have any goverment tech, you should not be able to make any agreements of any kind with any civilization. Meaning, you're basically have no status with any CIV. You can attack pillige and plunder at will, but they can do the same to you.

Republics: Before the invention of advanced communications and mobility (telephones, cars, etc), Republics should not be able to function in a large empire. The lack of any viable communication method should break it down, like it did with the Roman Empire. Thus, any CIV that has the republics tech, can only be the size of about 5 cities (just throwing in a number here) before suffering some serious unrest problems in the cities furthest from the empire. There could be exemptions to this rule. For example, if the capital city resides next to a river or ocean tile, any city doing the same would be able to communciate via water.

Monarchy: The problems that monarchy causes should reflect real history, and not necessarily only economic problems. It should be made so that it can reflect what happens in successions and simple family politics. For example, every once in a while, a dialog would appear indicating that a distant cousin of yours... the Duke of Marseille, has declared himself the rightful King of France, and is openly chalanging you in arms for the thrown. Effectively, a civil war breaks out.

Manarchies should be the dominant govenrment style for a great period in the CIV III game. It wasn't used enough in CIV II and it was virtually useless. There was no reason to even have it in the game, but there is so much fun that can be had with this form of government.... so many possibilities with alliances and treaties.

Democracies: You should be able to declare war against another country, however, victory or peace must come in 3 turns or less before severe ill effects begin to happen. History has shone that people are most effected by long, drawn out wars.

Fascism: This should cause severe problems with any country that is not a Fascist country, almost to the point where they automatically declare war against your government.




------------------
Jason Beaudoin
PagePresence
"We will either find a way or make one." -- Hannibal (247 - 183 BC)

[Theben]

Or if there is one post out there that describes exactly whay you want to see in civ3 SE/GOVT, point it out. Include date.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

Theben, you no longer remembr me, I was more involved during the total life of this thread then you

I have been elsewhere most the time, good thing I checked out what was going on before my ideas end up disappeared (I think my combat/unit idea already went that way)

I consider y idea not jonly the most realistic ut the most fun

I am posting my earlier incomplete SE below, since apparenty everybody has forgotten it, then I will perhaps add a little to it below

------------------


ECONOMICS

the economics settings mostly just affect the national values and control like governments but they only affect the control of cities and they have more of there own modifiers than do the governments

it can be looked at that governments modify the national values to get a se modifier and national values modify economies to get a se modifier

for example, if the people are not very individuslistic, shown by how much they value individualism they will work well with communism

the system will be set up like this

in communism increased individualism means increased corruption and decreased happiness

in freemarket increased individualism means increased trade

in freemarket increased wealth means increased trade

in communism increased wealth means increased corruption and decreased happiness

in manorialism increased individualism means decreased happiness (they don't want to be serfs any more)

all the values modify the economics in like manner (in differing degrees)

economics are

(I have not finished writing on any of them)

communist (real communism if you can get it right)
has increased happiness (this can go away with the right values)

free market (real free market)
has some harsh happiness penalties (especially for those groups do not rule), also has increased trade and production increases

socialist (maybe you should be able to choose a slider that goes between socialism and free market)
similar to communism but does not hav as big a penalties for individualism and wealth also increases happiness

manorialism (the feudal system)
those groups that do not rule are unhappy over this

mercantilist (ala Japan last 50 years and colonial britain)

barter (early system)

merchant (I'm not sure about the right word but it is meant to represent early non manorial non barter systems where merchants and small scale craftsmen as did farmers but information did not flow fast enough to make it like modern freemarket and governments did have there hand in it)

------------------------------

POPULACE

first the populace is devided by percentages into different groups of people

you choose which groups of people are in control by checking the boxe(s) when you declare a revolution

these are: scientists, military people, nobles/rich, workers (those that do the work for the nobles/rich), resource producers (like farmers, fishermen, and miners), religious

each group of people will have certain numbers that you can look at

STRENGTH

first is strength which is made up of political, economical, numerical strength

politic strength is based on which of them is in control of the government (one or multiple groups of people can be in control) and they get a number (which is gotten by deviding a set number by their numerical strength percentage) times their numerical strength is added

economic strength is figure via what values the group(s) of people who are in control have and what economic system you are in modified by your numerical strength and this number is added

ie - in communism all groups have equal ammounts of money so there would be a set number times the numerical stremgth to get the economic strength, however in free market the nobles/rich get a very very large number times numerical strength and workers/resource producers get a much smaller number times numerical strength (this economic strength is how the rich maintain control of governments throughout history)

numerical strength is made up by different things for each group and is gotten by taking the raw numerical numbers of all the groups and comparing them to get percentages and then using those percentages on the population (the number) to give numerical strength and is added

the scientists get raw numerical strength from the more libraries, schools, and other places of learning you build, scientist specialists (if they are included), and they also get more strength for the higher up the tech tree you are

military people get raw numerical strength from the more barracks and other military improvement you build, (soldier specialists), and from the ammount of units you have

nobles/rich get raw numerical strength (a small portion) from the overall population, from monetary improvements, tax men specialists (if they are included), and from overal happiness(?)

the workers get raw numerical strength from larger cities (or worker specialists) and more industrial improvements

the resource producers get raw numerical strength from how many squares you use and how improved your terrain is

the religious get raw numerical strength from the number of religious improvements, (cleric specialists), religious techs, and larger population (possibly there would be events called prophets (no names) that would jump up the raw numerical strength of the religious)

(by religious I do not mean that these are the only ones that beleive in a religion, it is just representative of how strong religion is in the civilization, a really low raw numerical strength means that the people are mostly apathetics and atheists)

world wonders like JS bachs cathedral would add to the raw numerical strength of the religious and ones like seti project would increase the raw numerical strength of the scientists

these three things add together to form strength

the group(s) of people who rule must have more strength than all the group(s) who are left out of ruling or else there will be a revolution

HAPPINESS

happiness is what percentage of each group is happy with you (how this is found I will go into farther down)

overall happiness is what percentage of the group(s) that rule are happy with you based on their respective strengths

ie - if two groups rule the civ and one has 60 strength with 60% happy and the other has 40 strength and 40% happy, the overall happiness would be 52%

if overall happiness goes below 50% there will be a revolution

each group get happiness by happiness improvements (of all types), luxuries, increasing that group's strength, and following that group's values

(a note on revolutions, during a revolution each city independently calculates it's overall happiness and if it's overall happiness is below 50% it stands a chance of splitting off and forming a new civ (all cities that break off in a given revolution form into the new civ), the chance being 100% - city overall happiness, this accurately reflects that some areas can be left out of a government and would then revolt)

(another note on revolutions, anytime there is no choice but revolution (if both conditions cannot be met) then the player loses)

(a third note on revolutions, other civs with spies can spend money to initiate a revolution with chance of success like this: chance of success: 25% - (overall happiness - 50%))

(I will put the notes in there proper place when I get to it)

VALUES

values are done by a slider and each group has a slider value for each value

the sliders go between opposite ends of the spectrum and show the group's values

each group starts every game high in some values and low in others

values for each group can be changed by education/propaganda

education has a certain ammount of points awarded per education improvement per turn that can be limited by the national values

propaganda is something else trade can be put into (or production) like luxury rate (or capitalisation) and the civ would get a certain ammount of points per turn

the total of these points can be spent to change a value of a group (if you had enough points, several values could be changed in several different groups)

all points not spent are lost

policies also affect values but they affect all values of the groups that rule

if a civ builds lots of troops for 50 years then it is following a militaristic policy and the slider between power and pacifism gets moved towards power on all the groups that rule

it is harder to move the slider at both ends of each specific value whether policy or education/propaganda is moving it

all the particular values of the groups that rule that added together, weighted by each's strength (as in happiness), gives the national values

the national values affect the civ with modifiers

values:

pacificism----power

antiimperialism (better word?)----imperialism

conservatism (somethhing else?)----knowledge

-------------------------------

the values I'm looking for are ones that have two poles and both might be good like in pacifism----power, they each have bonuses and negatives and how good they are for you depends on how you play and how your government is set up

the values affect how well the se choices of government and economics work, like an individualist people will not do well in communism but will add corruption and other things to it

economy will not be done by a slider (It could be now but before there were lots of choices not between socialism and free market)

if you think about it if those who are not able to be part of controlling the nation are stronger than those that are countrolling it of course there is going to be a revolt

(enough for the preamble)

NATIONAL

the nattional has many things on it's screen

it has overal happiness, strength of the groups that rule, all the other groups combined strength, national values

the choice to declare revolution

and STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, and ECONOMICS

STRUCTURE

in structure a slider would work perfectly between centralized and uncentralized

GOVERNMENT

government is not by slider because there are several different important forms and not all fit by a steady change

governments (and centralization and economics) do not so much have specific modifiers themselves as facilitate how the national values modify (if people had the right values, free market would not do well)

what this means for anybody who missed it is that the governments and economics just affect what different national values do

they are also affected by which group(s) are in control

how much corruption there is depends on the values, government, and economy (like if your economy is communist and your national values are individualest than your corruption is really high)

government and economic choices might modify certain national values one way and others another way depending on what choice it is

there is democracy (this is true democracy for those who want its definition)

it is where the group(s) that rule vote to direct the government

the player has weaker control in this one

democracy affects to make national values modify very strongly (the masses are not hampered from tyranny)

democracy can only be used in really small civs (where the numerical strengths of the groups that rule are very very very small) or after a certain technology (internet or something)

there is republic (represnative government, the difference from modern democracy and old republic is gotten from the groups controlling and national values)

it is where the group(s) that rule vote in representatives who direct the government

control is also limited in this government structure but not as much as in democracy

the national values are more limited in their effects than in democracy

republic is discovered early as it is in civ, arround the time of greece

there is tyranny (greek definition of tyraany (not bad), despotism is just a short term monarchy, both are tyrannies)

this is where the group(s) that rule are the ruling class with a king over them and all other groups as those with no rights below them (like in serfs)

there is much more control in this system than the previous two

national values are overall not as strong

tyranny was one of the earlier government settings (perhaps the first for civilizations which had enough excess to develope a civilization)

there is beaucracy (it is a real life government actually, China used it and meritocracy a few times, I'm going to consider meritocracy a beaucracy with knowledge values, also if you want a discription of one refer to my previous one, or look up chinese history)

it is where the group(s) rule through a civil and military beaucracy

this can have little control or great ammount of control based on national values

national values are overall not as strong

chinese are to my knowledge the first to use beaucracies

there may be more

------------------


often where I used values in this thread I meant something else than each group's values, often I meant national values or I meant something else entirely

I will fix this later (really sorry I got tired at this time)

my idea of having governments and economies mostly just modify the national values which do the actual modifying, is realistic in that governments like democracy would not neccessary make the senate limit you, what if your pepole were hawkish, then the senate in real life would declare war

also a peaceful civ could have high moral and a warlike civ could have low morale if that is what the values are

in some governments you can use police, but they will make those that rule more unhappy the longer they are in place (and it would take a while of not using them for happiness to return)

happiness is gained or lost per turn, you can't do something to piss of your people and have them forget about it the next year can you?


----------------

Control

this is the most hodpodge of my SE model

what it is is that there are AI personalities that you can or are forced (depending on the other parts of your SE structure like what your national economy/government/values is/are) to put in control of different aspects of your country

this is the real advantage of the less free structures

the values would also affect your AIs actions

onething that might make the AI's better is to have governments that are ruled by groups of them and have each have a selection of preprogrammed strategies to use for both city and military management, also make it so that people can program more (this will really please the programming freaks), the computer will always get their managers from a better pool then the player (they will have a better chance) or maybe this will depend on level

everybody would use the same pathfinding and the like algorithim (which would need to be better), I think that set strategies (that can be expanded of course) for different situations is more lieky than an AI that can figure out every situation

some non centralization setting would make it so that you would have to put governors into outlaying provences

freem market or more free market economies means that each city would have its own AI overseeing production and you woul have to buy and order things from them

being an a repulic or democracy would decrease your control over national and foreign affairs

you could just order an AI to attack an opponent not move the troops yourselves

this would also cut down in many games on micromangement late in the game, since democracy and republic are usually more advantageous

some one who likes micromanagement would remain in some sort of tyraanical government

this is the real switch off between governments

y the way, more on how the AI actually works can be found earlier in this thread and in the radical thread

also: another idea

to devide between types of improvment cities will be able to improve terrain in their radius while their will be settlers that can also improve terrain

these will be used more for the national big projects or for military opperations (maybe the engineer unit should be military)

the cities public works bit can be controlled by that city if that is what the AI control settin is (free market, ect)

settlers however would be controlled by the national government (you lose absolute control of them in democracy and republic where your actions must be approved by the senate and the senate can unertake its own actions)

by the way, when the military is an (who) it usually takes away some of your control of your military

different levels of control are reflected in how detailed of levels of commands you can give and what choice in commanders you have (from civ/smac style you tell every individual troop commander to you just intructing large army commanders where to attack)

this idea would also even you more up with the computer because your commanders (when you don't have absolute control over the military) will be picked out of the same place as the computers (and in the higher difficulties you will get worse generals and governors while the AI will get better ones

-------

well I post this and see what I have

this place seems to have died

Jon Miller