{The List -} Government & Social Engineering

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Trifna,

I did read your post before, but felt it a too complex (for players) and application.

My idea to give an example is:

Milartistic......1........2........3...........4.. ......5.........Pacifist

When you choose to set the slider, it will mathmatically, and in the gaming world, effect another slider (and nations) thus; but not always, as the following slider would not be effected;

Free Trade....1......2......3......4....5.......Closed Economy

How the other nations decide to deal with you if a belligerent nation but free trader could be further determined by a slider witin diplomacy;

friendly......1........2........3.........4....... .5.......hostile

This would make individual wars harder if the slider is set to friendly, but deprive you of greater wealth by trade when it came to the "running the nation" sliders.

These are just my thoughts, but I see no need for any governmental type within the above examples, as you are making the nation by policy decisions- although the citizen sliders could help to alleviate the more stroppy choices;

Treasury.......1.....2.....3.....4.....5...6....7. ...8 etc..luxuries
Military Service.....1.....2....3....4.....5.....complete freedom
education(none)....1.....2....3......4.....5..... University level

I haven't yet thought about the tools for citizens within the land, and the above three examples are "off the cuff". or "on the hoof" (instant thoughts) examples.

Finally, all versions of the game have all nations hating you if you control too much of the land, or are too advanced (two tech advances!) I'd love to see "allies" being properly implemented, allies are currently so fickle, I want to see a real allied pact- wherein it actually means something- to attack an ally would forever grey out some of the numbers (choices) on the diplomacy sliders, whilst renewal of the pact would be negotiated every X years, non renewal might effect trade etc.

See what I mean about the maths

Toby

[Quezacotl06]

I think the largest reason Civ3 didn't keep the SMAC social engineering style was because of the nature of the games.

SMAC was futuristic, creating new societies on new worlds, endless possibilites could arise. But in Civ3, we already know what happens in history, so governments are based on social archetypes rather than things that technically could have happened.

[Quezacotl06]

I think the largest reason Civ3 didn't keep the SMAC social engineering style was because of the nature of the games.

SMAC was futuristic, creating new societies on new worlds, endless possibilites could arise. But in Civ3, we already know what happens in history, so governments are based on social archetypes rather than things that technically could have happened.

[Trifna]

Toby, I think that one disadvantage of your system is that it is not visual enough for players. Players (me included) like to see what it means in their mind. Puting a name on it helps.

About my system, there is no need to bring ALL these factors, since there may be a way to simplify this and still use the same global system. What I showed as an example was pretty much its complete version without alot of simplification.


Quezacotl06:
Yes, I almost agree... We are basing ourselves on the past. And I really think that the past has its infinite nuances. In what I showed, there were NO inventions, all had been seen throughout history.

[Max Sinister]

I think that certain values for the sliders should only become possible after you research certain techs. Scientific progress f.e. wasn't always valued that much as it is today.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by 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 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 ?

Another solution would be loss of control of the builds in outlying cities as an empire got too big. This would kill 2 birds with one stone, since you can't micromanage a city you can't control.

[Toby Rowe]

Trifna,

Were you the original chap that first mentioned sliders?

I was asked to elaborate on a concept I didn't think of in the first place- but any discussion on governance that gets away from the tired stereo-typing of the above would be welcome.

I would like to be a democracy by choice, 1000bc, the Greeks managed it, they also had severe conscription, as did the Romans.

set governmental "stereotypes" are silly- Britain abandoned Conscription for instance in the 1950's and went professional only- The US followed two decades later, and I think even the French are now professional only, yet I'd like to be highly defensive (Mongols on the border, but pacifist in attitude in diplomacy and trade- I normally crush all. simply as the game is built this way.

But wouldn't it be great if diplomacy and trade really (for the first time) meant something?

Toby

(ps, prior to belated conscription in WWI in the UK, dropping "the King's shilling" into your beer in a pub was an unwelcome form of conscription for his Majesty in desperate times for the government, mainly for the Navy, the "Press gangs" that roamed British towns is another example of governance, but extreme.

(We didn't care for our governments wars, so no one "signed up"- hence the government thought it fine to knock someone over the head in a pub, to ensure they woke up on a Frigate, not in their bed).

After the Spanish Armada was beaten, all Sailors were kept on board the ships for 1 year, once 50% of the sailors were dead from disease, the treasury finally allowed them to go onshore, and paid the survivors finally- what type of government fits this British factual model?

[jordie]

Hello, I would like to propose an idea for political selection. Its a spectrum/mapping system where players can visually select a pre-determined political stance, or choose their own (unlocked at a certain tech advance).

Here is the basic image, with explanation below:


http://jordie.revolutiontech.com.au/civ4/spectrum.jpg

Note: Those political ideologies on the image at the moment are not proposals for inclusion in the game, rather are just there as examples. Also please note, that some ideologies lie on the lines. That can mean either that is their stance, that they dont' have a set stance for those directions or I just wasn't sure :P

In the beginning of the game, there would only be certain basic government structures allowed, such as tribal council or a despotism. As you advance, and research new technologies, such as in Civ 3, new government types are unlocked and available for selection.

The grid also plays a purpose. (Note: Grid not properly scaled) Every point on the grid would be one point, so on this grid, Stalinism is at (Using x,y) (-20,15) while Liberal Democracy is at (4,-11). This would assist in deciding civ relations. The higher the point difference between two civs, the more aggressive and hating they will be of each other. While civs that are polar opposites can live in co-existence, they would still hate the hell out of each other, for example the Cold War. Although two civs may be the same government type, they can still hate each other for reasons other than government, but are more likely to work together if one if attacked by a civ with a government they both hate.

In additon to civ relations, it also determines the amount of time between government transitions. The further away the desired new governemnt type is, the longer the transition period for it will be.

This spectrum has been highly simplified from what I initially had so it is not as daunting for casual players (with pre-defined), but it also allows a certain type of depth for the hard-core players (choosing their own unique ideology). As you can see there are four main parts to it. Authority vs. Liberty and Left vs. Right. Left vs. Right I’m sure you all know, but the standard modern spectrum from left to right goes: (Communism (left), Socialism, Liberalism (centre), Conservatism, Fascism (right)). The other element, Authority vs. Liberty is there because there can be many variations of a type of ideology. As true communism doesn't believe in a single authoritarian figure, but Stalin was exactly that, so those two can not be considered the exactly same, even though they may share some core features.

Each direction has its positives and its negatives. For example, having more authority allows more direct control and less resistance and protest during wars, but it is harder to generally keep your people happy all the time. While more liberty means more freedom for your people and so they are generally more happy, but may resist actions that go against human rights, or other things such as the excessive building of factories. Left is more to do for working for the community or state as a whole, while right is more individualist and more conservative. While the right can be nationalist (nazism/fascism), this is not the same as the left's community idea.

I think this would be perfect for Civ 4, because it is visual and simple yet has a degree of complexity about it that would be uniquely civ.

I've just done all this just quickly now and might be able to expand on it some more. If there are any questions on this idea I’m more than happy to answer.

[Max Sinister]

Why is the absolute monarchy more on the left than republic? This spectrum seems to be very crude...

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Trifna,

Were you the original chap that first mentioned sliders?

I was asked to elaborate on a concept I didn't think of in the first place- but any discussion on governance that gets away from the tired stereo-typing of the above would be welcome.

I would like to be a democracy by choice, 1000bc, the Greeks managed it, they also had severe conscription, as did the Romans.

set governmental "stereotypes" are silly- Britain abandoned Conscription for instance in the 1950's and went professional only- The US followed two decades later, and I think even the French are now professional only, yet I'd like to be highly defensive (Mongols on the border, but pacifist in attitude in diplomacy and trade- I normally crush all. simply as the game is built this way.

But wouldn't it be great if diplomacy and trade really (for the first time) meant something?

Toby

(ps, prior to belated conscription in WWI in the UK, dropping "the King's shilling" into your beer in a pub was an unwelcome form of conscription for his Majesty in desperate times for the government, mainly for the Navy, the "Press gangs" that roamed British towns is another example of governance, but extreme.

(We didn't care for our governments wars, so no one "signed up"- hence the government thought it fine to knock someone over the head in a pub, to ensure they woke up on a Frigate, not in their bed).

After the Spanish Armada was beaten, all Sailors were kept on board the ships for 1 year, once 50% of the sailors were dead from disease, the treasury finally allowed them to go onshore, and paid the survivors finally- what type of government fits this British factual model?

Toby, give a look at the second post from http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...0&pagenumber=6 (which is the 6th page of this thread)

It seems more complete to me, while also more visual for players (thus fun-factor and immersion).

[jordie]

Max Sinister: It was merely an example... I'm sure most of those plotted there aren't exactly right. lol More research and such would have to go into it.

I don't think it is crude. I think it is simple enough for casual gamers to understand, while adds a bit of depth for the hardcore gamer, and as I understand it, that is what they are looking for in Civ 4.

And on the idea of sliders, I like them as well. I think they are also a nice, simple yet complex method. Perhaps have an additional drop down list that has famous predefined government types for the casual gamers... So like Stalinism, or American Democracy, or Nazi Fascism....etc. etc.

[Quezacotl06]

I see I've arrived rather late in discussion, hehe.

Well, I'm going to borrow concepts form civ3 and smac, cause those are the only games I know for tbs.

The multiple settings idea is quite good. You could have 3 variable things: government, mobilization, and religion. Two of which are in Civ3 already (and could easily be expanded upon), and one which could easily be mixed into the game concept

--Government--

The Civ3 model works quite fine. The biggest thing I want changed is to have democracy available in ancient time (as it was in real history), and have republic be later on in medieval time. The way I see it, the republic should be a more realistic alternative to demo than it was in Civ3. Also, there always were governments that were obviously supperior or better.

I've suggestions that could fix that. Changes to...

Democracy: Reduce vulnerability to propaganda, not immunity. Also, make cities support units individually, making support costs part of corruption (reducing effectiveness of libraries/banks etc with larger armies). This makes democracy much less desirable in war-time

Republic: Make support 1/3/5 per vil/cit/met, costing 1 gold per unit. Veteran diplomats would be nice, too. The Republic should also be switched with democracy in the tech tree. This makes it much more reasonable in war-time than democracy.

Feudalism: Halve the shield wastage they suffer. make support 6/4/3 free per vil/cit/met, and have elite diplomats. Support should cost individual cities, and they pay in shields, not cash. Feudalism is now the ultimate government for rapid expansion (as the barbarians did after Rome fell), and technological catch-up. This is fairly balenced, considering the democracies are on top with their cashcow orgy.

Communism: 1/8 of shields in cities should be taxed and redistributed, and they should also have halved shield wastage. And a Commerce cap of 3 would be good too. Communsism comes too late in the game to be benificial to expansion, but now the redistribution of shields allows greater productivity all-around in more established nations.

Monarchy: Halved cash wastage. This one change makes monarchy the best economic war-government out there. It provides degrees of balence, just like the republic does.

Fascism: Halved shield wastage, and increase corruption to problematic.

Basicaly, all the governments should have unique things that make them stand out, so theres no CLEARLY RIGHT CHOICE.



-- Mobilization --

This was a really interesting concept that I came across in Civ3. Normalcy and War-Time seemed too polarized, though.

Normalcy- Normal everything

Wartime--
Bonus- Shield in every square producing military units
Forbidden- Non-military facilities
Penalties- Commerce cap of 3
Other Effects- Can draft 1 extra citizen
Ends by- Peace Treaty

Globalization-
Bonus- Shield in every square producing wealth and wealth facilities. Bonus commerce for every happy face generated from luxury goods. Bonus commerce in every city.
Forbidden- Pollution-prevention facilities
Peanalties- Food cap of 3
Other Effects- Halves the impact of war-weariness reducing facilities.
Ends by- Revolution

Globilization is a choice for industrial revolution civs. It's a extra punch of wealth, and it's good for civs that have reached the point of stable growth rates. Also, it makes a gov change indirectly become forced near end-game with the pollution improvement restrictions taking a harsher toll.



--Religion--

Lastly, I think you should be able to customize ur civ by ur religion, they change over time. Since religion changes much less often than government or mobilization, special events should trigger religions.

Mysticism (Pantheism)- Veteran diplomats (or elite if already veteran), barbarian villages are more friendly, 1 less unhappy person
Triggers: Discovering Mysticism, and building 4 temples gives you the oppertunity to change it

Polytheism (Paganism)- -3 pollution all cities, living bonus tiles disappear with global warming at half the rate, 70% spending cap on science
Triggers: Discovering Polytheism, and having 8 temples

Monotheism (Fundamentalism)- # of free units is increased by 10% and 10, 20% offensive bonus, 50% spending cap on science
Triggers: Discovering Monotheism, someone builds the Knights Templar

Pluralism (Theology)- Religous buildings are preserved after conquering a city, 40% defense bonus against monotheism
Triggers: Discovering Theology, Someone builds the Knights Templar, having 8 libraries

By refusing to change ur religion as soon as you get the oppertunity, 1/3 of your religous facilities should be randomly destroyed in your nation when you eventualy do decide to change it, as happens with religous scisms (becoming xian made the romans destroy a lot of their pagan temples).