{The List -} Government & Social Engineering

[filix]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I like the system Trifna & co is proposing. As for tax, I'd like to see some limitations based on the economic part of the system. So that a capitalistic system can't have it's tax rate higher than say 50 %. What do you think?

I like it too, but there should be something like ration, workingday and wages like in ctp.
And the advantages and disadvanteges must be dikussed. What is the advantage (for example) to use wealth state instead of moderate capitalism?

Or is it too complicated?

[Fosse]

I agree that things like rations and work day being on a central government screen (but NOT city by city, as in CtP.... micromangement nightmare). I would leave out rations, actually, except perhaps as an option in totalitarian states.

But I picture a number of possible "laws" that could be passed, such as work day, minimum wages, yes/no to slavery (which could be made internationally illegal in UN! SO if you do it after that, watch out!), tax rates... all kinds of things.

[Trifna]

I don't think we should start micromanaging, like laws. It's the whole point of having the ENTIRE system described in few aspects. Each aspects has certain effects, like in SMAC. This way, all the domestic policy is arranged in a few clicks, in a complete AND macro way.

[Kramerman]

(sorry in advance for my bad grammer and typing in the post and all my other ones... im typing really fast because i dont have much time for this due to finals )

I have another idea to add yet another dimension to controling your gov and society type.

so far i like the ideas of combining choosing from a wide list of governments and social engineering. ontop of that you could do something like this:

Once you have a type of government (and perhaps influenced by your social engineering too), you should be able to hire and fire a from a pool of government officials that apply to the government type (not specific people tho, just general type of leader like a defensive military minister vs an offensive one).

And as new techs are discovered, depending on your cultural group, and perhaps many other factors including randomness, new leaders would be added to the pool (once you fire a leader hes lost for ever, tho a duplicate of his type could come along). Each leader type has advantages and perhaps disadvantages too to balance them if need be. for the example i already started, you may have a pool of military ministers for your republic that contains a defensive doctrine minister, offensive doctrine minister, naval minister, tank minister, etc. The offensive minister woul give a bonus to building offensive units, but defensive based units would build a little more slowly, air unit leader would have some sort of bonus to air units, and etc.

for an economic minister you could have a minister that would provide a gold bonus to roads, but another that provides a bonus to rivers and resources, and stuff like that.

an environmental society, despite its government type could have some sort of environmental minister that would have some advantages in cleaner industry, or slowing global wrming, etc.

A theocratic society would have some sort of religious leader that has his bonuses and stuff, etc, etc

It is then your job to select a type of leader from the pool to fill the spots available in your government and social engineering path.

a democracy would have things like a secretary of state, secretary of defense, etc. Also freer governments (like democracy) should maybe not let you choose (some or all) ministers, but instead they are 'elected' by your people and are replaced every 10 or 20 turns or something like that.

for someone who doesnt want to micromanage this, the whole process could be made automatic, with the computer picking ministers that most apply to your recent history of production and tech path, and government and social engineering and other factors that could be used.

but a fascism would have a minister of secret police or minister of propoganda or something like that that is unique to that government, tho it would have an equivalent minister of economy and stuff.

anarchy governments would have no ministers, obviously, and despotism would be very limited.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Stefu
I'd like a sort-of-social-engineering system, but only limited to a choice of government and a choice of an economic system, and some other, simpler choices. With government, you get your usual Despotism - Monarchy - Theocracy - Democracy - Totalitarianism thang, with Economics you'd get Autarchy - Mercantilism - Capitalism - Socialism - Communism or something like that. Then there'd be a number of smaller choices. Some depend on the form of government you have.

The smaller choices would be something like "Slavery yes/no", "A feudal system yes/no" (only if you're a monarchy", "How do we treat the minority X persecution/assimilation/multiculturalism" (persecution not available to democracies), "Who gets the vote? Landowning majority-population majority-religion men [ ] and non-landowners [ ] and minority populations [ ] and minority religions [ ] and women [ ]" (democracies only, if you check everything you're giving the vote to everyone) and so on.

In democracy, there could be an elected assembly with some limited powers - mainly deciding on going to war, the smaller issues and the economic choices, as well as have some influence about the tax rates. And they could occassionally decide to build something somewhere. They shouldn't complicate being a democracy too much, though - the player should get veto powers, to a degree, though using it too much will eventually lead to the people getting pissed off. You could have different parties - Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists and what have you.

i love this idea as well. throw this into the mix (extensive list of governments to choose from, elaborate but simple social engineering, and government leader positions) and you have a very cool system of desiging your dream society and watching it grow or fail

[Az]

ideas edited.

Btw, what do you think of my editting so far? Feedback will be appreciated.

[Cras]

I would like the ability to deeply customize the form of governent instead of just picking one from a list of generic types. For example weather to have the government partisan, in a democracy how many branches are there, how the executive is chosen (president or parlimentary prime minister), who has suffrage, and if your government is democracy or republic you should stand for election on a regular basis. This would require you to explain and be responible for your actions. I know that standing for re-election may become annoying, so then have an option where your government could be like Rome, where you are an emperor for life with no fear of removal and an openly elected government underneath you. then you would have to work and compromise with the elected officials. The way the government is now there is no distinct difference between the goverments because in each case you are still an absolute ruler, you can declare war and negotiate treaties at will with no ratification, and you can never be removed unless by force from an invading nation.

I also wouldn't mind having a detailed government tree like the diplomacy tree where there are distinct people holding the various jobs and that you can negotiate with political rivals in order to pass laws or gain political allies to ensure political survival. I know this would require a massive engine, i think it has the potential of adding massive amounts of reply value.

Another point, it would also complicate and create a challenge in terms of changing the government. Now you just decided to have a revolution with no fear that you will lose that revolution. If the gov. engine is more complex with people with their own ambitions in the mix, it would cause for strategy and have substance to the overthrowing of the establishment. If you control the military and have a massive presence in the capitol you can hold the senate hostage, assasinate opposing members, or even expell the body itself, each act of course having appropriate consequence.

[Kuciwalker]

Please use paragraphs.

[Cras]

I did.

[Nikolai]

No, you didn't. It would be easier to read if you used a line between where it's "natural" to have a pause, if oyu understand what I mean? It would be much easier to read then.

[Cras]

Placeing a line in between paragraphs is gramatically incorrect but if it would make it easier to see then I will put them in.
Besides, paragraphs are only used to seperate main ideas. You do not start a new paragraph when you expect a natural pause, you start a new paragraph when you change focus of what you are talking about.

[Lorizael]

Government changes should generally not be up to the player. I think that when the people want a change in the government (based on social advancement, stability, happiness, culture, etc...) then there should be a popup saying that a revolution is stirring. Now you could attempt to supress this revolution by some means (military police, entertainers, luxuries), or you could just ignore it.

Eventually, however, there should be some sort of ultimatum from the people. Either change the government, or fall into anarchy. If you submit to the will of the people then your government changes automatically and everything's okay. Otherwise your government falls and there is a period of anarchy in which you would try to reclaim the throne somehow. Don't know how that would work.

Now you could also voluntarily change your government, but this should not be an automatic thing. Depending upon how much your people want it, there needs to be a political struggle of some sort to determine how long/difficult it is to institute the new government.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cras
Placeing a line in between paragraphs is gramatically incorrect but if it would make it easier to see then I will put them in.
Besides, paragraphs are only used to seperate main ideas. You do not start a new paragraph when you expect a natural pause, you start a new paragraph when you change focus of what you are talking about.

Placing a line between paragraphs is in fact grammatically correct if you can't indent.

Plus, who cares about the grammar of it? The whole point is for others to read what you post, which they won't do if it requires lots of effort.

[Cras]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Government changes should generally not be up to the player. I think that when the people want a change in the government (based on social advancement, stability, happiness, culture, etc...) then there should be a popup saying that a revolution is stirring. Now you could attempt to supress this revolution by some means (military police, entertainers, luxuries), or you could just ignore it.

Eventually, however, there should be some sort of ultimatum from the people. Either change the government, or fall into anarchy. If you submit to the will of the people then your government changes automatically and everything's okay. Otherwise your government falls and there is a period of anarchy in which you would try to reclaim the throne somehow. Don't know how that would work.

Now you could also voluntarily change your government, but this should not be an automatic thing. Depending upon how much your people want it, there needs to be a political struggle of some sort to determine how long/difficult it is to institute the new government.

I don't know about the whole ultimatum thing as this is never formally done in real life. What I am asking for is to have political enemies inside your own government along with enemies outside your nation. It would be a challenge to have to please the people, please the senate, please other party leaders, and go about your own personal ambitions.
Now government changes should be able to be done by the player because say if one of the political enemies is gaining too much momentum and support a quick but consequential solution would be to overthrow the whole system and run the government through your military.
I really feel that if you had to fight for your own political survival would add a very welcome challenge and add a whole new dimension to the game that has never been touched before.

[Jamski]

I'd like a chance for any government change to trigger a civil war, depending on general happiness levels, state of war, tax rate and how severe that change is. Changing from Democracy to Communism in the middle of a war with high unrest (because of war weariness) should be about a 75% chance. In a civil war you would get a pop-up saying "side with the rebels(new government) or side with the old guard (stay with the same gov) You would then have to bring some of your cities back into the empire. Rebel cities should keep your culture for x turns, and slowly become a new nation.

-Jam

[Cras]

Originally posted by Jamski
I'd like a chance for any government change to trigger a civil war, depending on general happiness levels, state of war, tax rate and how severe that change is. Changing from Democracy to Communism in the middle of a war with high unrest (because of war weariness) should be about a 75% chance. In a civil war you would get a pop-up saying "side with the rebels(new government) or side with the old guard (stay with the same gov) You would then have to bring some of your cities back into the empire. Rebel cities should keep your culture for x turns, and slowly become a new nation.

-Jam

I like this, but I would add that civl war is not only triggered in time when the government is overhauled. If you are a leader that completley neglects the infrastructure or public happiness, then I think there should be a movement to unseat your rule.

[Kirastos]

I don't know if this is the right list to post this, but I have a word to say about corruption. OK the idea is nice, but I think that the designers exagerated a bit on that part in Civ 3.
It was absolutely impossible to sustain a great empire, all the cities at the periphery of my empire would stagnate for centuries because all of their production shields were swallowed by corruption but one.
We don't have that kind of problem in any of the other Civs (well not to that extent).
We could keep it this way of course, but we should have a chance to mend things. For example having a "federation" type of state would help better control over outlying cities, or the possibility to build several palaces, etc... what's the use of having a huge empire if you can't use it's potential ?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
I agree that things like rations and work day being on a central government screen (but NOT city by city, as in CtP.... micromangement nightmare). I would leave out rations, actually, except perhaps as an option in totalitarian states.

But I picture a number of possible "laws" that could be passed, such as work day, minimum wages, yes/no to slavery (which could be made internationally illegal in UN! SO if you do it after that, watch out!), tax rates... all kinds of things.

yay... a spreadsheet game a la moo3

[DarkCloud]

Government changes should generally not be up to the player. I think that when the people want a change in the government (based on social advancement, stability, happiness, culture, etc...) then there should be a popup saying that a revolution is stirring. Now you could attempt to supress this revolution by some means (military police, entertainers, luxuries), or you could just ignore it.

Loraizel- I think that perhaps, that's one of the best ideas I have heard so far in this thread!

It's fun... it's challenging... it doesn't really ruin the player's control of the game and it increases immersion! I like it!

[Az]

List edited.

Kirastos: I very much agree with you.

Personally, I think that empire management ability should be influenced much less by the type of government, and much more by information technology available to the player. a fully fledged ancient age democracy would suffer from very similar problems as the monrachy, While an ultra-modern autocracy may be rather streamlined.

[Trifna]

I also think that technology should change alot of things here... some techs can bring happiness, while some can do just the opposite if you keep certain political settings. Technology may bring its advantage for rulers, but it doesn't always does so...

[Az]

yeah, technology should change society and government much more than just the individual government techs ( though those will still be powerful! )

[Az]

a bump for the glory of the empire.

[Zevico]

Kirastos--definitely a good idea. Yet how to implement it without being overpowered-that's the problem. I think that in order to plan all these Civ ideas properly, we need to have a good grasp of the fundamentals of the game's design (not the actual programming). Otherwise all of this is really a waste of time for the most part--all we can do is ask for something very generalistic about the game to be improved, not the more specific things everyone is talking about now. So, I would suggest that we ask Firaxis to give out what the general "gist" of the game's design will be, and then from there things that are more specific which are suggested by us would have a much greater effect on the game. Otherwise we'll be left with what we had with the "Future Civ3 Game Ideas" Forum-lots of talk and little else.

[Trebuchet]

I wholeheartedly agree with the person who brought in the ministers idea (Stefan? Something like that...). It would work well, I think, with an idea I had.

Instead of the Forbidden Palace, have a new improvement called County Seat (or something along those lines). They should be limited to one per five cities or soemthing, sort of like an army, and reduce corruption similar to a FP. Eliminate Courthouse. Now, you'll have several County Seats in your civ once it gets to a decent size. When created, the game would give you a default minister, sort of like choosing the name/title of your civ's ruler, it would pull the name from a list somewhere and add the appropriate title, so you'd have American Governors, Persian Satraps, Roman Proconsuls, Japanese Daimyos and whatnot. Under autocratic governments, you can choose some traits and fire such underlings whenever you want, like the other poster said, but under democracies/republics they'll be elected every so often, and under feudalism they'd come with some random assortment of traits you can't change as long as you were under Feudalism, to represent the semi-independence of the nobility.

If you let regional unhappiness get too extreme, that region could rebel. It would be nice but probably unweildly from a game production pov if you had a preset list of 'rebel civs' for each civ, like Great Leaders currently have instituted, so that an American rebel civ would be called Confederate, etc. Maybe they could just use a directional name (so a region that rebels west of Paris becomes West France).

That would be fun... and make you keep a close eye on the happiness meter. You'd also want to be ready to jump in and support the breakaway faction if an AI civ gets embroiled in a civil war.

[TheBirdMan]

I would like to have some "natural lines" of development in government and society. Changing from one to another in the same "lines" causes little or no loss of production/science/happiness, but changes between lines should cause trouble.

There should be some benefits and some negative elements for each line fx "business should allow a higher profit in trade, religious extra bonus for temples, better morale in combat if there was a priest(or whatever) present in a battle.... pls fill in yourself.

I have played a little with names for the governments, but I am sure some could come up with better names for some of my suggestions:

0 GOVERNMENT_ANARCHY

1 GOVERNMENT_TRIBAL_CHIEF
2 GOVERNMENT_ANCIENT_CITY_STATE
3 NO GOVERNMENT KINGDOM
4 NO GOVERNMENT EMPIRE
5 GOVERNMENT_SHAMANISM
6 NO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

1 GOVERNMENT_TYRANNY
2 GOVERNMENT_CITY_STATE
3 GOVERNMENT_ANCIENT_KINGDOM
4 GOVERNMENT_ANCIENT_EMPIRE
5 GOVERNMENT_THEOCRACY
6 NO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

1 GOVERNMENT_FEUDALISM
2 GOVERNMENT_BUREAUCRACY
3 GOVERNMENT_ENLIGHTED_MONARCHY
4 GOVERNMENT_MEDIEVAL_EMPIRE
5 GOVERNMENT_MONOTHEISM
6 NO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

1 GOVERNMENT_PEOPLES_REPUBLIC (a lá Paris in the mid 1800.
2 GOVERNMENT_REPUBLIC
3 GOVERNMENT_ENLIGHTED_MONARCHY (no changes)
4 GOVERNMENT_WORLD_EMPIRE
5 GOVERNMENT_FUNDAMENTALISM
6 GOVERNMENT_DEMOCRACY

1 GOVERNMENT_COMMUNISM
2 GOVERNMENT_FACISM (police state)
3 GOVERNMENT_CONSTITUAL_MONARCHY
4 GOVERNMENT_WORLD_CORPORATION
5 GOVERNMENT_FUNDAMENTALISM (no changes)
6 GOVERNMENT_DEMOCRACY (no changes)

1 GOVERNMENT_COMMUNISM (no changes)
2 GOVERNMENT_ONEPARTY_STATE
3 GOVERNMENT_CONSTITUAL_MONARCHY (no changes)
4 GOVERNMENT_WORLD_CORPORATION
5 GOVERNMENT_ECOTOPIA
6 GOVERNMENT_VIRTUAL_DEMOCRACY

1 GOVERNMENT_PLANETARY_EMPIRE
2 GOVERNMENT_ONEPARTY_STATE (no changes)
3 GOVERNMENT_VIRTUAL_REPUBLIC
4 GOVERNMENT_THECNOCRACY
5 GOVERNMENT_ECOTOPIA (no changes)
6 GOVERNMENT_VIRTUAL_DEMOCRACY

[Kuciwalker]

That's way too many govs.

[Jamski]

Its only 6 govs, which improve with tech, if I understand it correctly.

I really like the idea of leaders that can be assigned to regions, like the planetary and ship leaders in MoO2. I like the fact that som of them could rebel too

-Jam

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Fosse
You make a good point. In fact, I have always wanted this decrease in value, and increase in amounts. It allows for more distinction in tiles that way.

With Civ 3 we get tiles with 0 shileds, 1 shield, 2 or 3 shileds. Why not make it 10, 20 and 30, so that we can have more terrains with real differences in productive capability?

Good point Roman, and I think that it is the way to go.

Good plan for extending the game, global warming could slowly degrade the biosphere as in subSaharan Africa.

[POTUS]

I agree with that, but, of course, everything would cost more.