SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver1.1): Hosted by Bell

Koyaanisqatsi · May 23, 1999, 19:30

Social Engineering and Government

Wherein we shall discuss various methods of keeping the people firmly under our heels. This is a summary of the posts in <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000002.html>Social Engineering ver1.0</a> and <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000548.html>CIV3: Starting a list for social choices</a>. (Note: I haven't included any of the religious discussions in this summary, since religion has its own thread now. All future discussion on that topic should probably go there.)

<a name="se-sections">Sections:</a>
<a href="#se-choices">1. Social Engineering Choices</a>
<a href="#se-effects">2. Social Engineering Effects</a>
<a href="#se-concepts">3. Related Concepts</a>
<a href="#se-issues">4. Issues for Discussion</a>

<hr width="150" align="center">

<a name="se-choices">Social Engineering Choices</a>
The general consensus seems to be to move Civ to the SMAC model of social engineering. Within that broad statement . . .

Categories for social engineering: Government, Society, Economic Structure, Values, Religion, Regional Government

Government Types:
Despotism, Monarchy, Fascism, Totalitarianism
Republic, Democracy, Tribal, Dictatorship
Feudalism
(Note: Choice of government type restricts your choices in other areas.)

Society Types:
Police State, Open, Corporate, IngSoc

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

Values:
Knowledge, Power, Mores, Wealth

Regional Governments:
Federal, Confederacy, City-State
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name=se-effects>Social Engineering Effects:</a>
SE choices can have effects on the following areas:

Growth, Happiness, Economy, Gregariousness
Environment, Pride, Control, Fanaticism
Ego, Materialism, Vengeance, Curiosity
Industry, Distribution of Wealth, Corruption, Conservatism

Game Effects:
SE Effect -- Game Effect
Growth -- Rate of population growth
Happiness -- Happiness of the populace
Economy -- Tax and trade income
Gregariousness -- Maximum size of cities
Environment -- Pollution rate
Pride -- Resistance to subversion
Control -- Police
Fanaticism -- Resistance to SE change
Ego -- Modifier to foreign relations
Materialism -- Duplicate of Economy?
Vengeance -- Holding a diplomatic grudge
Curiosity -- Research rates
Conservatism -- Combination of Fanaticism and Pride?
Distribution of Wealth -- Duplicate of Happiness?
Corruption -- As in CivII
Industry -- Production rates
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name="se-concepts">Concepts:</a>
<ul>[*]SE settings should have an effect on gameplay. For instance, a setting of Laisse-Faire Capitalism should prevent you from micromanaging your economy, while Communism would force you to do more tweaking to be efficient.[*]National and ethnic character: Should each Civ start with inherent pluses and minuses like in SMAC? How to assign them without starting a race war?[*]Discovery of some techs should have an immediate impact on your SE effects, i.e. plastics gives you a minus on environment.[*]Culture Points: (Trachmyr, this was my interpretation of what you posted, but after looking back over your post I don't think it's right. Could you clarify for me please?) This system separates the discovery of a society tech from its implementation. Instead, after you discover a tech you have to spend a certain number of "culture points" to actually make the change in the social engineering window. Culture points are gained automatically as time passes, through (positive) diplomatic relations, Philosophers (which are like entertainers) and Wonders.[*]Depending on your regional government structure, you should be able to make a few SE choices for regions as well as the entire empire. Tax/Lux/Sci rates may also be set down to the city level, but the interface must allow you to set levels in multiple cities at once.[*]Revolutions should cause large splits in the empire. Also, if different regions have very different SE settings, this should increase the chances of a revolution. Revolutions create new civ that you are immediately at war with, but they can be reintegrated with the original civ if they surrender or ally within a given amount of time.[*]Dynasties. Every once in a while, your government destabilizes as the line of succession is debated/argued/murdered over.[*]Generals, like the officers of MoO2.[*]Civ-specific units and buildings, but instead of assigning the units to a specific civ, the first civ to discover a given tech gets them, and that tech is no longer available to other civs.[*]Preset government "templates" that set all the SE choices for you, and which you can then modify from there.[*]Laws: Laws are like SE settings, only with less effect and not mutually exclusive. They're sort of like city ordinances from SimCity. Possible laws include mandatory military service, child labor/education, legalized drugs, etc. that all have small effects on your empire. We'd need a lot of these to get it to work.[*]Economies should go through boom/bust cycles, the strength of which depends on your SE settings.[/list]<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name="se-issues">Issues for Discussion:</a>
<ul>[*]Slavery is something nobody can seem to agree on . . . in or out, and if in, how?[*]Instead of making SE choices directly, we make them by supporting certain structures or groups, which then create pluses and minuses on their own. So, instead of picking "Police State: +2Police, -1Economy" you beef up your police and military and they eventually give you +2 Police and -1 Economy.[/list]<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

Contributers: Zorloc, JT, anachron, Trachmyr, Ecce Homo, mhistbuff, the Octopus, Fuji the Great, Shining1, Freddz, Mark_Everson, Frank Moore, kmj, 23 Skidoo, Depp, Singularity, NotLikeTea, Armageddon, LordStone1, HolyWarrior, Lancer, primetime000, JamesJKirk, RINCEWIND_HAS_RETURNED, darkgrendel, Spartan187, Bell.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 23, 1999).]

Koyaanisqatsi · May 23, 1999, 20:33

And, as always, if I've missed or horribly disfigured something, let me know and I'll fix it . . .

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 23, 1999).]

NotLikeTea · May 23, 1999, 21:42

I'll just argue what I've been arguing in every forum

Government/Social enginering choices should make other choices more or less difficult, but never impossible.

A despotic, capitalist, fundamentalist state should be possible, if very difficult. A democratic, communist, religious state should be possible, if very difficult.

The game should never force the player into making certain choices. All combinations should always be possible. Some would be more possible than others, of course.

wheathin · May 24, 1999, 13:35

S.E. choices should allow for more than just the broad strokes of the society. They should force a player to deal with the factions that constrain his power. Early on, there would be nobles and military elites, and religious powers. Then, guilds, traders, and merchants would become powerful, followed by industrialists and workers. Always would be the threat of a peasant revolution.

These factions can be played off against each other, and they can act to limit the ruler's power. The underlying theme is to make Civ reflect more of the pressures on a leader. Historically, even the most advanced or far-thinking leaders were limited by the entrenched power of other groups.

The most important factor in this would be taxes and pacification. A ruler needs to keep the masses happy, or they will revolt. To do this requires the support of the strongest factions in society. But at the same time, the ruler needs money. Money can come from the elites, which infuriates them, or from the masses, which retards growth and fosters discontent.

Once SE has set the outline of a civ, a player should have several ‘special actions'. These would be like Nerve Stapling in SMAC: they would last for various lengths, and have effects on a given faction. They would also vary with the government. Examples:

Crusade: increases military strength, reduces population pressure, but angers target (a foreign power).
Purge: reduces military strength and science, but pacifies masses thru terror.
Enclosures: angers masses, pacifies elites.
Grant Fairs: increase taxes, pacify merchants, grows cities (but thus angers nobles)
Grant city charters: enhance city growth, anger nobles
Increase Feudal Levy: increase taxes, anger nobles
Grant Serfdom: anger populace, pacify nobles
Sell Offices: increase corruption, pacify nobles
Conscription: increase military, anger masses

...you get the idea. Additionally, an important SE choice should be Individual Liberty, on a sliding scale, like a percentage. Taking some actions would decrease it, taking some would increase it. If the IL score dropped too low (or got too high), it might force a revolution. As IL increases, the ability of the government to do certain things (like raise taxes or go to war) would decrease. However, higher IL would lead to faster scientific and economic growth.

thoughts?
wheathin

Harel · May 24, 1999, 16:42

Well, I think we also need to discuss the specific effects of every social modifier.
Democracy, for example, had a very odd advantge in SMAC ( Effiecency? In a DEMOCRACY?! Huh? That was very strange. Dictatorships are much more productive. Democracy should give a bonus to economics and research ).
However, I would like to add to the SMAC model another tablet: Army.
You will have several options:
Volunteers ( High-pay, high-quality army, and very small. Good happines. Allows democracy to send more units away from home. )
Selective drafts ( low-pay, good-quality, medium army. Can cause revolts ).
Mass army ( a poor army, both in cost and in quality, but huge in size. Cause lots of unrest )
Brainwashed ( requires high-tech. Zero-cost, good-quality and huge sized, but only in non-democratic countries ).
Thats it.

Kropotkin · May 24, 1999, 16:53

Just wants to point out a small detail... You hav 3 types of regional govt. Federal, confederation and city-state. But what about a normal, ordinary one-state state (i don't know what the correct term is in english but you know what i mean), it's the most common one you know...

Trachmyr · May 24, 1999, 17:58

National Goverment Types:
After rethinking this through he is my revised opinions:

Independant - As city-state, but also with nomadic populations.

Regional - This is the one state state asked about, if you have several regions it is a Confederacy.

National - As Federal, but with a less Western title.

P.S. Bell, actually that is a pretty good summary of my "Culture" system with 2 clarifications:
1) Many Culture choices are available at GAME START without need for tech discovery.
2)Almost all ancient wonders and many modern ones will ONLY provide CULTURE, though in very large amounts. The reason is that most wonders are just a tribute to the buildin civ, helping define that civ.

P.S.S. I do not agree with giving civs certain bounuses to S.E. like SMAC, however I do believe that civs should begin with some S.E. choices already made. This will give a bit of uniqueness to each civ, but not tie them to any sterotype.

Diodorus Sicilus · May 24, 1999, 18:51

- First Post in this Thread-

Culture, Economics, Politics, Military System, and Religion seem to be getting mixed together here. In fact, they do get mixed together in history, but to incorporate them properly in a game system, we'd better be able to define what we mean in game terms...

The "one state state" is the classic Nation State (see Treitschke and other 19th- early 20th century Political Scientists), in which the state controls certain borders within which lives a homogenous population that shares a common set of cultural, personal, and political values and a common language. It is the basis for the Most Common Factor in 20th century international relations, which is nationalism: your Patriotisim factor.
Some slightly different definitions, by effects:
Fascism and Communism, as practiced in this century, are both forms of Totalitarianism - complete government control of the state and population for specific Higher Purposes or Goals. At the other end of the political scale is Direct Democracy, in which every citizen votes on everything - ancient Athens (which admittedly defined 'citizen' pretty tightly) was about the last one. Economically the opposite of the Totalitarian controlled economy (and note that the Nazis in Germany didn't even achieve total control until forced to by wartime) is classic laissez-faire capitalism - every man for himself and the government on the sidelines. That economic form doesn't last long, because it (so far, historically) quickly polarizes the population into a small number with wealth and a large number without: revolution or reform follow every time, and the growth of Labor Unions and Social Democracy are two direct results.
One thing I think is necessary to make both a more interesting game and a more historical one, is to drastically reduce the precise control the gamer has in all political - economic - social forms. Most rulers in history, as stated in a previous post here, were less like the Lord of All He Surveys on the Screen than like a man riding a Tiger and hoping not to fall off at the wrong moment. It is also the internal juggling act that leads to variety in the civilizations, as the juggling fails and revolutionary types or regions split off, governments fall and change radically, or new social forms (Fuedalism, for instance) radically change the form of economics and social systems, and the governmental (you the gamer) options.
Just for a start, instead of the gamer getting all the Gold and distributing it as He Sees Fit, I'd like to see each economic system defined to include a level of Economic Growth and Wealth Production. Then, the government type would have modifiers as to what % of that wealth they could tap in taxes. Certain Advances (Bureaucracy a classic example) would change that %, and Happiness or other social factors would be directly affected by that % - as would things like Growth.
The % left untapped would not be wasted: individuals and non-government agencies (the Church, furinstance) have always 'invested' $$$ in the society, and with the right system you could have cities building their own infrastructure, Fuedal Barons supporting large parts of the army without central government paying a dime, and merchants setting up Trade Routes on their own. Of course, not all of this might be what you, Joe Joystick, would want, but them's the problems and opportunities of a real historical ruler...

Freddz · May 25, 1999, 00:00

How special abilities could be implemented (I dunno if this is a radical idea...):

I think the Civs should have a chance of GROWING special abilities depending of HOW the Civ is governed and or WHAT government choices your people have lived with for a long time. Those choices breed traditions, not too unlike the real world. You, as a player, grow these traditions through your choices.

Two clarifying exmples:

1/ A nation which is constantly warring and/or have the power choice for a long time could get Morale bonuses after a time. Maybe production bonuses on units too. They could also get a negative modifier on something else if unlucky since their people has had a strong tradition on putting violence first.

2/ A peaceful nation could get science bonuses if lucky, and could be well liked by other peoples making it harder for other leaders to make war "on those friendly neighbours". Civil disorders could erupt easier in those nations when someone declares war on them. They could also get negative morale modifiers and so on.

Comments: The civilizations would become more individual after time with a system like this, and the changes would force a player to consider new tactics when faced with a change that affect the entire nation. New government choices could be neccessary, new tactics and so on.

Depp · May 25, 1999, 00:50

Freddz F***in AYE!!!!!

CormacMacArt · May 25, 1999, 11:50

Here here!
What about the CORPORATION advance allowing a corporation to start in your civ (independant AI)? Its headquarters are in your richest city and it grows along the richest trade routes. Then the I.I.C. (International Irish Corp.) would be your contractor for all your military needs (or you could switch to the I.A.C., if the price is better). If a country turns commie, all the co's assets are turned over to the gov.

Koyaanisqatsi · May 25, 1999, 11:56

I think the thing to remember is that this is a game, not a simulation. Taking control of critical game functions (including city infrastructure) out of the player's hands may be realistic, but in my opinion it doesn't make for a very good game.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

NotLikeTea · May 25, 1999, 18:25

I was thinking about governance on the bus today.

How about a scale, for all categories, from Top to Bottom. Top being full control, bottom being least control

Representation (from top to bottom) would be Despotism -> Monarchy -> Democracy -> Full Democracy (vote on everything)

Regions: Unitary (one level of governemnt) -> Federal (provinces/states) -> City States -> Anarchy

Economy: Planned (communism) -> Regulated -> Capitalist -> Totally Free Market

Religion: Fundamentalist -> Official state religion (including athiesm) -> Unofficial state religion (state holidays, but not enforced beliefs) -> All religions accepted, none favoured

Millitary: Drafted army -> volenteer army -> emergency army (reserve like, maybe)-> unregulated millitias

-

Each would have plusses and minuses, and room to work within each (what kind of official religion, what kind of economic regulation, etc)

Early civs would be at the Top for representation (despots) and at the Bottom for all others (unregulated economy, no real control over regions, only millitias as defence, etc).. more choices with discovery.

Spartan187 · May 25, 1999, 19:27

I have one problem with the Governments suggested. They are governments that have been used in the past or are being used right now, and none are from the future. CtP is the only game I've seen which provides future governments. I think that all of the future CtP governments except Ecotopia should be included in Civ. 3.
I also have a disagreement with the culture points. If it would be like fundamentalism provides 70 culture points and secularlism provides 50 culture points, than I think it really needs to be revised. It should be like the other SE choices, for instance secularism could provide less culture points but provide a bonus for research or something like that.

CormacMacArt · May 26, 1999, 00:26

May I suggest that we agree to disagree? Yes, this is a game, but it is a game that simulates the growth of the many civilizations on the planet. My suggestion may not be a good idea, but why not? What problems do you see? I see my idea as allowing for the possibility that another civ may try to overthrow my gov to end my protectionistic stance. Which I may have to respond by seizing assets.

Koyaanisqatsi · May 26, 1999, 00:59

CormacMacArt writes:
May I suggest that we agree to disagree?

Never said otherwise. I'm putting everything in the summary, that was just my personal opinion on what makes a game good and what takes away from it, which means no more than anyone else's. Firaxis will make all the final decisions.

My suggestion may not be a good idea, but why not? What problems do you see?

I wasn't speaking to you in particular, but to Diodorus Sicilus about the suggestion that the game auto-builds structures for you. That seems to be taking a very critical game function and decision out of the player's hands, which I think takes some fun out of the game. Your suggestion I'm not sure about, since I didn't really get the gist of what you suggested.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

Stefu · May 26, 1999, 07:37

Army models:

1. Mercenary army. Costs lot of gold, but units tend to be better. Mercenaries have got bad habit of switching sides.

2. Volunteer army. It takes 2x production to build armies, but they don't have the happiness penalty of democracies.

3. Draft army. The normal model.

NotLikeTea · May 26, 1999, 07:44

I was surprised to find out that a lot of european countyries, considered to be left leaning, employ draft armies.

The reason is that it is assumed that a volonteer army will atract the kind of people who enjoy fighting, and shooting things. However, a draft army will be composed of people from all groups equally, and would be less likely to commit atrocities if ordered to do so by a general. Less perfect discipline, but more likely to do what the people like.

How to implement? Perhaps would generate more unhappiness in peacetime, but more happiness in wartime? I don't know...

Isle · May 26, 1999, 08:26

Hmm. I surprised to see, that the proposed social engineering model still cant model north european countries. Although it might since I have no idea what you mean by Open or IngSoc.

If we look at f.x. scandinavian countries the society would be something like this:

Government type: Democracy(Multi parti unlike the common two parti systems)

Society Type: Wellfare(Free education, free medical care and economic support for the less fortunate)
Advantages: Better research/verylow crime and corruption
Disadvantages: More military unhappiness/less gold income and less benefit from trade (High taxes make it less attractive to start own company)

Economic Structure: Labor Market(Labor unions vs. corporate)

Values: Humanitarism/Ethics
Advantages: Even lower crime and corruption
Disadvantages: Any attrocity by the government will result in anarchy, automatic declaration of war on nations that commit attrocities.

Shouldnt be that hard to implement.

[This message has been edited by Isle (edited May 26, 1999).]

Diodorus Sicilus · May 26, 1999, 10:56

Just to clarify, then to comment...

NLT was closer to what I meant than, apparently, I was. I never intended that the gamer lose all control over City Improvements, builds, army, etc. I simply would like to see the amount of direct control related to the type of government and society. You as the government always have the option of building or encouraging the building of certain infrastructure or improvements: the trick is to include the realistic (historical) trade-offs.
A Totalitarian government type gives the gamer total control over everything built or done, but he also has to pay for everything (government is the only source of laboer, material, controls all wealth) and has to deal with lousy Growth factors (stifles initiative).
An economic system of Capitalism gives the possibility of other agenices than the government (Corporations, City Fathers, etc) doing and building things that the central government (you, da gamer) doesn't have to pay for. BUT if you really, really want a Harbor or Airport in a given city, you can provide the funds and have it built - and maybe convince the locals to pay for some of it (levies, bonds, etc)
A Fuedal society will have most of your military 'paid for' by the Barons or other 'local' government: you have less direct control, but also less cost, and no cost for upkeep until you "call them up" - at which point you discover that you haven't kept the Barons' Happiness level high enough and some of them don't come, or revolt. The social and political structure simply doesn't allow you the kind of direct control other government forms would.

BUT I thoroughly agree, that to make a playable and enjoyable game, the gamer always has to have a 'back door' - a way he can control or influence game events rather than being a helpless spectator. I just want to see more options as to how he does that, and more historical problems presented to the Gamer As Central Government.

In reference to the previous post, let's be careful not to define everything in modern terms - they don't always apply to earlier periods.
For instance, the Imperial Roman Army was neither precisely Draft nor Mercenary: they were long-term professionals who volunteered and then made a lifetime out of soldiering. The most common historical forms have been either the Military Obligation, in which part of the population 'owes' military service, or the Military Businessman, in which someone fights for pay. If he's a native of the country, he's a Professional Soldier (Roman legions, British 17-20th century army, etc) if he's a foreigner, he's a mercenary.
If the part of the population owing Mil Ob is large, then it's the modern Draft (conscript) Army, but that form also includes primitive nomadic societies in which, essentially, every man and boy defended the tribal grounds when necessary. If the percentage owing Military Service is defined small enough, you have the classic Fuedal military system, because them with the weapons will eventually become them giving the orders to everyone: a military dictatorship or, in earlier times, a military aristocracy.

Galen · May 26, 1999, 13:12

Okay, here are my ideas:

There ought to be ALOT of SE choices! One thing I think was bad with SMAC was the limited SE choices. Let there be like 5*5 or 6*6, 46656 possibilities!
And perhpas, where if you are one type of thing you may not be another in a different economy, like a free market economy could not be a despotic government, nor a democratic feudalistic, or a fanatic want knowledge.
Degrees, such as if you want a socailistic soceity, but not too much. You would choose along a sliding scale or from WEAK, NORMAL or STRONG levels.
Becuase if you just want to be kind of Knowledge focused, becuase you want to use a religion other than agnostism, atheism, deism or secularism? Or want an emphasis on Knowledge AND Wealth, or a Monotheistic soceity that allows Secular interests?
So you could be a Democratic/Socialistic/Atheist,Secular/Kowledge,Wealth soceity?
And a suggestion for a Government: Republican Aristocracy, where only the smartest CAN rule, but the normal people pick, so you get extra economy and knowledge, but less happiness.

Galen

NotLikeTea · May 26, 1999, 14:06

<NLT begins his same chant>

Nothing should be impossible! La la la! Nothing should be impossible! La la la!

Point being, combinations should be impractical, or very difficult, but never force limits on the player. Why not have a despotic freemarket? You're the despot... you can make your society the way you like it! (Forcing someone to be a free marketeer is stupid, but not impossible)

CormacMacArt · May 26, 1999, 16:12

Does that mean that here (in the U.S.) we live under a Republic Plutocrasy?

Ecce Homo · May 26, 1999, 17:10

Weren't fascist Italy and Germany despotic free markets? They did very well economically until they came at war against the rest of the world.

CormacMacArt · May 27, 1999, 00:44

My apologies to Bell; bad day yesterday.

I agree with the model that Diodorus Sicilus presents. My suggestion was simply adding complexity to it. In the modern era, democracies/republics usually do not directly manufacture tanks, fighter aircraft and the like. They are purchased from defence contrators. So, why not have CORPORATIONS in the game that would each have their own agenda, leaders, and compete with eachother.

Harel · May 27, 1999, 15:45

I started posting the idea of an army section, and people come up with good ideas i didn't think off in the start.
So let me summerize everything, with numbers and details.

Volunteer army

The army is based loosely upon free members of society deciding to join the army. This is a full pay job, so it's costly. The quality however, isnt very good cause there is no selection, and people ( don't take the wrong way, I am serving in the army ) who choose to go to the army are mostly people how are un-fitting for any other work.
Require: Democracy.
Cost: 150% of normal unit.
Support: 150% of normal unit.
Quality: -10% to morale.
Advantages: Cause no penalty in democracy, twice is effective in reducing unrest.

Requirtment army

Not the same as a full fledge drafting, this army praise upon signing the best people into active duty to the state ( see Israel and Switz as roll models ). This army is based upon service in honor and willingly for the state, but requires good support and treatment to the soldiers.
Require: The republic.
Cost: 100% of normal cost.
Support: 125% of normal cost.
Quality: +25% to morale.
Advantge: Cause half the democratic penalty.

The peoples army

A massive drafting army, with forced labor and even kids joining in. This army is supported only by tyrants and kings, but it's easy to eracte a huge army this way.
Requires: Dictatorship.
Cost: 75% of normal cost.
Support: 50% of normal cost.
Quality: -25% to morale.
Disatvantage: cause massive unrest.

Reserve army

Based only for emergencies, the reserve army
is extreamly easy to maintian. The troops morale is always high, as they fight for their home-land.
Requires: The right to bear arms.
Cost: 200% of normal cost.
Support: 10% of normal cost:
Quality: +10% of morale.
Special: units may only leave home city in case of war, else they are always fortfied.

Mercenry army

The mercenry army is based upon hired thugs and trained units to battle it out with the enemy.
Requires: Trade.
Cost: May only "rush-bay", not make any units. Cost 75% of normal "rush-bay".
Support: 200% of normal cost.
Quality: +50% to morlae.
Advantage: Units are always in veteran status.

Thats all for now. Hope I covered it all. If I forgot something, NoLikeTee, stefu, let me know.

Harel · June 2, 1999, 14:44

Hmm... ah... hm...
a week?
oh well... I'll do it, have no fear Yin

-=B U M P=-

yey. I bumped.

Spartan187 · June 2, 1999, 15:15

There should also be a draftee army for democracy. You should only be able to call up the army only in wartime. Probaly greater support than the People's Army but also greater morale.

Harel · June 2, 1999, 15:42

Read my post Spartan... Reserve army. The cost of production is great, but support is very low ( probaly took it too-far with 10%, maybe 25% is better ), cause you don't need to upkeep the forces all the time.
May only attack at war.

Flavor Dave · June 2, 1999, 16:41

"You will have several options:

Volunteers ( High-pay, high-quality army, and very small. Good happines. Allows democracy to send more units away from home.)

Selective drafts (low-pay, good-quality, medium army. Can cause revolts ).

Mass army ( a poor army, both in cost and in quality, but huge in size. Cause lots of unrest)"

Umm, the happiness is already taken care of in democracy. I conceive of riflemen sitting in a city as being reserve/National Guard units, fighting only when attacked. You can have a Swiss-style army, large relative to the population, but home based--and no unhappiness. If you want to have a large army in a democracy, but not home-based, then you have happiness issues.

I like the idea of volunteer vs. draft armies, with the former being more expensive in some way, but causing less unhappiness when outside of a city or fortress. Whether they should cost more shields or $$ upkeep--well, it's got to be one or the other. More $$ is more realistic. Volunteer units can only be certain, non-specialist units--cavalry and armor and riflemen, but not alpines or paratroopers.

How would volunteer units cause less unhappiness? The obvious is to have them cause one less redface. Another would be that anytime they're in a fortress, or on a transport, they don't cause any unhappiness--no matter how far away. This would be realistic. Think foreign bases. It would also be strategic--do you leave the volunteers in their fortress in the enemy territory, absorbing assaults, or is it time to try to take that city?