SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver2.1): Hosted by Bell - Page 3

Jon Miller · August 2, 1999, 04:56

Hi Monioc,

some names may not be perfect (I know I spelled beaucracy wrong) and monarchy is of course the wrong word but you still do not have a representative government (republic) run by the scientists or a meritocracy of the scientists (or religious or any of the rest), merritocracy is just the ablest in that way, can you not imagine a meritocracy of the military?

sure with virtual democracy, democracy, and republic you have three of the settings covered but where are the rest, I would (I guess) be happy if each combination was allowed as a government setting

also, I pictured the values as sliders, you can have more than one value going at once

what it disallows is for you to say "well my current policies will cause my tech to fall behind so I will choose knowledge values", which is bad for gameplay and is not realistic (choosing is not realistic anyway

yes, communism is a form of socialism and socialism is planned, but jusy because your a socialist (or your economics is socialist) does not make you or your economics a communist (I am not a communist, I am however a socialist) there is a very important difference, if I could find my resources I could email them to you (might take a while for me to get to it)

yes the AI needs to improve a whole lot, otherwise it will not be fun to play against, this is the biggest thing for civ3

it is distasteful for those that do not agree with the pluses or minuses attached to them (I am a strict monotheist(and a pacifist because of that), I am sure others are strict atheists, animists, pantheists, ect.(probably even the nonstrict)), it might be OK, I just say BEWARE

also you make it so that certain governments are only useful for certain techs (IE theocracy)

Also ou have not addressed my other ideas for values even if they do not come about in the system I described

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

one more thing, I think the way you went about giving your settings their pluses is messed up

look at smac, they made the econ jump in the negative numbers small and from 0 to 1 small but the jump from 1 to 2 is really good so they have it set that you have to be Morgon, freemarket, or eudamia in order to get the big benefits

in other words, your modifiers are linear and they shouldn't be, otherwise you would get the funny and nonsencial results you can

for example: you can have less then -4 corruption by "city state structure protectionist Totalitarrianism) with a negative 5, and by the way, city state totalitarrianism was used quite frequently in history to success

with so many settings it is even more important to make sure the results of different groupings come out

that is what I say, take a group of social choices, determine how they will effect

when you have done so with everybody (and made it ballanced) then go to making the modifiers (+2 res -2 corr etc.)

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · August 2, 1999, 14:00

Hi all

Snowfire, you have not addressed my issue of trying new and exciting governments

history did and we got communism, constitutional monarchy, and a new type of republic (what people here call democracy)

feudalism is not an economy, it is a goverment structure; manorialism is the economy in feudal europe (and we need to devorce the two and be able to have different types of feudalisms with other economic choices), learned this not long ago in economics

I think confederate should get a much larger centralization penalty (since it is veryy uncentralized)

(I am proreligious freedom, I am also a monotheist, still don't see how the religion suggestions work out)

I still say that we should work out the affects of every grouping (with how they should be) and figure the exact modifiers from that (so unintended results don't come up)

also I would like to point out that any selection of se choices in M@ni@c's system (even the not so great ones) would give high bonuses, because there are so many more choices and each gives bonuses it should be realitively easy to get se structures that enhance your civ to a great degree

Snowfire, it would be realitively easy to set up a virtual democracy within 2 years, the only reason this will not occur is that society fights a change out of the path it is on

also true democracy should be choosable by small enough civs without the need for virtual

maybe they could call it true democracy instead (this is using M@ni@c's plan) and make it so that until secure internet tech comes around its corruption is so high that all is lost outside of the capitol

my method of control takes far more in and maybe should be called something different, it is how the (who) control the government, are setup (who of the (who) are in control?), and how the government controls the populace

the structure of government setting is for confederate, federal, city state, commonwealth, ect. (I haven't totally decided on this yet), I know this is also how the government controls the populace but this is a part of that that is not included in the previous setting

I think perhaps feudalism is a better word than monarchy, whats good about my plan is that it is not based on times, these are govrenments and if not for the accident of technology, the good governments now would not be so good (the funny thing is is that the technnology came from the hard work of other governments)

I will say it again, I want a republic where scientists are the only ones to get the vote and everything else that could be done (with no specialsituations like time travel, or techs that aren't possible, or aliens)

what does everybody say to my AI idea, should I post it elsewhere?

Jon Miller

Maniac · August 2, 1999, 16:03

Jon Miller :

A government ruled by scientists is 'any government choice/Knowledge or Atheism'.
There is no need for a new government choice to represent scientists ruling. Cause the scientists still have to rule by Totalitarianism, Republic or Democracy...

Same thing with meritocracy. The most able still have to rule by a government choice I already included. The most able can be chosen by the people(Democracy); they can come in power by natural selection and become the elite of the society(Republic) or they can take power by force(Totalitarianism, Monarchy, Despotism).

My politics in Civ2 were knowledge based. My politics never made my tech to fall behind.
Knowledge SE is only an enforcement what I would do anyway : try to prosper in technology.
I never play a green game, I play anti-pollution games. So I am no green guy, I am a scientist in Civ2 terms.

Choosing is realistic. It is the aristocracy who chooses the Value, not the people. Only in a democracy the people decide the Value a bit. So I want to choose Value.

Socialism is a Value, not an Economy. You can be a Free Market and socialistic at the same time.
That's also the reason why I made Environment a Value. I'm willing to make a Socialist SE Value if you provide me with effects.

With Strict Monotheism I meant christianity during the Crusades and Islam now. So in my SE model strict monotheist religions are fundamentalist. I renamed it by the way.
Perhaps you could provide me with a pacifist SE Value...

"also you make it so that certain governments are only useful for certain techs (IE theocracy)"
Please explain. Do you mean that Theocracy has not reached it full potential until you've discovered Crusaders? Crusaders become available at the same time of Theocracy.

Read my '10) Economy' post again and you shall know why I changed the negative and +1 positive Economy.

I gave City State such a big Corruption and Happiness to avoid it being used by large civs.
The name speaks for itself. I made it only profitable for small civ-city states.

"with so many settings it is even more important to make sure the results of different groupings come out"
They come out!
In SMAC they didn't come out. A +5 Planet, +5 Probe, +6 Science, +5 Pol, -4 Probe was perfectly possible (and useless).
I made that much less frequently by providing more positive and negative rates.
Factors like Sup, Centr, Corr, Urb, Cult, Res, Env, Hap, Dipl, Tax can go into pos or neg at infinitum.
Only Pol, Nat, Mor, Eco need a finite pos and neg.
You definitely have to read my 14 Factor posts.

Snowfire :

Diplomacy

"The Diplomacy stat: This will be totally useless in multiplayer. Make it also affect the cost of building Diplomatic improvements like the UN, and also make embassies give less information if you have a low diplomacy rating. Spy moves are slightly easier as well if you have high diplomacy. It should not affect relations/warlikeness of enemy powers."

Good idea.
I agree it should affect the cost of building Diplomatic improvements like the UN, and also make embassies give less information if you have a low diplomacy rating.
I disagree it should affect your spy freedom and not affect the relations with the enemy powers.
New idea.
Perhaps it should affect your votes in your multistate-coallition(read police post on SE thread v2.0).

Nationalism

"Nationalism: An interesting idea. However, the game should keep track of conquered cities and whether they assimilate or not. If you have high nationalism in your government, your conquered cities will chafe at their foreign rulers acting like gods in their cities."

This is affected by your Culture rate.

Corruption

Who wants a high Support rate as in SMAC ?

Atmosphere

"On Atmosphere: The descriptions that went with the values should be the default, though the number can be there as well. In other words, I want to see a name for "+2 Economy.""

Is values = factors?

@ao

I find it disturbing that Jon Miller uses "o". Perhaps he does that cause I seem to have insulted him.
I have nothing against the use of "a".
Everyone seems to use that. If I could I would change my username.

Government

Fascism is included under Religion - Fundamentalism.

With your Republic SE effects, it would be an early form of Democracy.
I have explained several times how I see Republic. If you want to know, read some of the earlier posts.

If it depends on me, Virtual Democracy isn't necessary. It was an idea of Harel.

Economy

Feudalism is already weak. If you make it even more weaker, no one will choose it.
GAME BALANCE.

Utopia was again Harel's idea. No need to exist if it depends on me.

Value

I had expected critique on that -2 Urb.
I did it because Wealth assures the flow of power from the weak to the strong as Morgan would say it.
This makes the poor even poorer. Thus, more starving people thus slower population growth.
If you had read my '5) Urbanization' post, you would know I don't want pop limit to completely stop pop growth. Cities would even grow further if they haven't a necessary building like Aquaduct.
But as a drawback all people beyond the pop limit should be Revolutionaries(read my '1) Police' post on the SE thread v2.0). Thus Wealth creates quicker unhappy people. This is the best historical simulation of Wealth. Not that -2 Mor of SMAC.

I don't know much about Prussia and the Confederacy(do you mean the South in the Civil War?). My historical interests is primarily ancient times to the Roman age(? to 1 AD) and also the Renaissance, so I can't say if that -2 Urb reflects Prussia and the Confederacy.
I can tell you this. Army - Professional has -1 Urb reflecting many adult men not having children( unless their wives-hookers of the Roman legionnaires moving along with the army, but I wouldn't generalize that).
And Power has -2 Centr reflecting that many food and resources go to the army.

Everyone seems to be against Space Exploitation. Perhaps if you read my recent posts on the Space Exploitation thread, you coulc be a bit less negative about it. Good if you want to go for winning by colonizing and terraforming Mars.

Structure

I gave City State such a big Corruption and Happiness to avoid it being used by large civs.
The name speaks for itself. I made it only profitable for small civ-city states.
I also told it to Harel. Don't begin to overexaggerate with your bonuses and penalties.
Limit it yourself to the most obvious 2 or 3. In this case I think 3 is too much.

In a Federal system nationalistic groups will try to gain autonomy, causing unhappiness.

Oh thanks for saying Confederate is uncomplete. Type error. In a civ Confederate system there are several regional capitals, means less corruption of cities far away of your real capital.

Army

Military Industry was Harel's idea.

Religion

Loose Monotheism and Atheism have already a research bonus.
I don't know how you guys (also Technopile) got the idea that Atheism has something to do with Confucianism/Buddhism!
Theos or deus means god. 'A' you could in this case translate as 'no'.
Atheism is no religion! It's the opposite. A civ that swears off religions.
They get a research bonus because they goal is logic research and they don't let superstition interfere.

New Questions

On what Technology thread did you post your ideas? On the most recent or one of the older?

I want Civ3 to go to 2200. I don't care about the Sweep of Time Trilogy. You shouldn't be forced to end on 2060.
I hope you're not the guy suggesting that at the end of the game there pop up terrorist groups like the Spartans or a nuclear war must take place.
someone suggested that in the List v1.0.
I am strongly against that. I don't want to see everything I built being destroyed by terrorists. You shouldn't be forced to win by going to AC.
Look at the Space Exploitation thread.

I want predetermined effects.
I already said a few times that the solution for the problem "What if the Phoenicians with a predetermined bonus begin in the middle of the desert?" simple is. Don't let them start in the middle of the continent.
Let the Phoenicians always start near the Ocean.
The Egyptians near a river.
Incas near large mountain range.
...

You could turn around the way the game chooses the starting locations.
Instead of just giving random civs random starting locations, do it otherwise.
First the game determines a few starting locations and THEN the game searches for every staring location the civ that corresponds most it.

Just for the record I want also minor civs.
Perhaps minor civs would always be forced to have Structure-City State not allowing much expansion.

Maniac · August 2, 1999, 16:58

Bell :
Are you waiting for decisions from us or from Yin26 and Shining1?
If you are waiting for decisions from us, you may wait forever. Perhaps you could make a temporal summary/update of all the suggestions and possiblities as Harel did.

Everyone :

If there are presented good ideas by other people I edit my posts about it. eg I edited Support, Diplomacy, Culture. So you have always a good view what the factors do.

Koyaanisqatsi · August 2, 1999, 22:17

M@ni@c writes:
Are you waiting for decisions from us or from Yin26 and Shining1?

I'm waiting for the Yin/Shining hybrid to decide what we want for summaries, and where we want them to go.

SnowFire · August 3, 1999, 00:13

Hello all... I've actually been following this thread, and have had lots of suggestions to make but never quite had time to write 'em up. Here are the ones I remember at the moment.

The Diplomacy stat: This will be totally useless in multiplayer. Make it also affect the cost of building Diplomatic improvements like the UN, and also make embassies give less information if you have a low diplomacy rating. Spy moves are slightly easier as well if you have high diplomacy. It should not affect relations/warlikeness of enemy powers.

Nationalism: An interesting idea. However, the game should keep track of conquered cities and whether they assimilate or not. If you have high nationalism in your government, your conquered cities will chafe at their foreign rulers acting like gods in their cities. On the other hand, foreign spies can cause nationalist feelings to get inflamed again in conquered nations in the age of nationalism, and cause all sorts of problems that way as well.

Corruption: I like SMAC's name for it, efficiency, better. I mean, who wants a high corruption rating?

On Atmosphere: The descriptions that went with the values should be the default, though the number can be there as well. In other words, I want to see a name for "+2 Economy."

Bell & M@ni@c: I don't see a problem with hacking ideas up into component parts. Which is what I would suggest for this summary, by the way, no reason you can't digest each part individually. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

Jon Miller: If you aren't going to use that @'s, spell Maniac's name "Maniac." And putting your posts into MS Word and looking at the spell check is never a bad idea, I do it with mine all the time.

Government :
->Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
I'm not sure... I guess this is an accurate depicition of China, but what about fascism? The facists were happy nationalists. If such a government was included, I would give it +2 Sup, +2 Pol, +2 Nat, -1 Res, -3 Dip (except with other fascists), -2 Urb (Not exactly true, but to represent the purging of undesirables).

"But Germany was a strong research power!" By no fault of Hitler's. It already had a strong scientific background, Hitler just was lucky enough to pick the right country. And he didn't quite fund it enough, so the research penalty is justified.

Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
I'd kill the centralization bonus, and give it a +1 Culture and +1 Economy bonus instead (to make it more Democracy Lite).

->Virtual Democracy : ?
I'd kill the VD. I'd like the game to end by 2100, unless a nuclear disaster occurs before the Unity is launched, in which case it should be the equivalent of rewinding the clock a bit.

Economy :
Feudalism : +4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
Make this even weaker. Sure, armies are easy to support and you really rob the peasants, but not only do the nobles steal 20% of your production, you should definitely get -2 Urb for people not being allowed into cities since they're serfs and stuck on manors, and perhaps even a -1 Research for free thought being supressed.

-->Utopia : ?
I suggest you get rid of this as well. If you must stick it in, massive morale and police penalties.

Value :
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Urb
I must dissent... wealth brings people to the cities, and even creates the cities. Instead, I suggest -1 Env -1 Nat in place of the Urb penalty- some polluting as well as your citizens being easier to buy off.

Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Considering the feudal nature of Prussia and the Confederacy (two classic Power oriented societies), I'd go for more -2 Urb stolen from Wealth rather than a centralizaion penalty. Or perhaps a -2 Urb -1 Centr.

Space Exploitation* : +2 Urb, +1 Centr, -2 Tax
I'd kill this.

Structure :
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
City State* : +2 Centr, +2 Tax, -3 Corr, -3 Hap
Why wouldn't City States be happy? Just +2 Centr, +2 Tax, and -3 Corr would be fine. Perhaps +2 Nat as well.

Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Why would people be unhappy in a federal system (aside from some minorities)? Unfortunately I can't think of any good penalties to give. So how about +2 Corr, +1 Nat, -1 Hap?

Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Corr,
This seems to be incomplete. First of all, there should be a Corruption penalty, I think -1 would work. Secondly, there should be a centralization penalty. So +2 Hap, +1 Dip, -1 Corr, -1 Cent would be very accurate I think.

Army :
First of all I oppose the idea of a "Military Industry" Stat. So most of my ideas have a version with it, and without it. So I can't comment on these.

Religion :
Multitheism : +2 Dipl, +1 Hap, -2 Nat
How about "Religious freedom" instead, as a name? That would also give a research bonus...
On Atheism, do you mean something along the lines of Confucianism/Buddhism that's more a philosophy, or East German style persecution? I can't think of any benefits of the latter, but if you mean the former, I can see a research and urbanization bonus at the expense of a centralization bonus (too much time spent philosophizing, giving to the poor, etc.)

And again, if you mean persecution, you're talking about a research penalty, since all the freethinkers are going to leave.

Research :
Looks good to me!

My suggestion is that during the three turns of switching, both the negative effects of the previous and the next SE choice are in effect. This should make regular switching inadvisable.

For the record, I agree.

New Questions

What should cause a city to revolt and form a new civ?

Depends. If you conquer cities early in the game, like before 500 BC, this should not be much of an issue. They'll be unhappy for awhile, but eventually if you move out the imperial garrisons and trust them, they'll assimilate.

However, the greater the difference in SE (especially in religion- hence the reason the Hebrews survived for many years while lacking a civ), the longer the assimilation takes. You can grant concessions to them to make them happy, but even further slow the assimilation ("Sure, Athens, you can have your democracy, just don't trouble us Perisans now that we've conquered you in this alternate history...). Also, units who form out of cities that are distinctly yours are loyal, but cause invisible unhappiness in the city when they institute martial law. On the other hand, "native" units you decide to build will instantly join the rebels should the city try to revolt, but they usually don't like to perform martial law on their own citizens. However, if you keep them happy and let them defend themselves with their own home-grown army, they will assimilate.

In the age of nationalism, this all gets 10 times tougher. If you're Austria-Hungary, countries on your borders that have similar nationalities inside yours (doesn't even have to be conquered; could be from emigration) like Serbia will agitate for those cities to revolt and be less productive. Spies can stay in cities and incite nationalism (not a one turn operation! They stay there and slowly do this!). Quashing revolts is easier said than done: The catch is, enemy freedom fighters are invisible in the right type of terrain. So suppressing Indians in the Andes or Americans in the Forest is almost impossible, but getting rid of Hugenots is slightly easier.

And oh yes, cities ridiculously far away who aren't kept in line by your own troops may start developing their own democracies, much like the Americas. They will be more productive, but if you try and raise taxes or something, they might revolt...

What should be the effects of Virtual Democracy and Utopia(no money society)?

Kill 'em both. I have my proposal for an end-game scenario in the Technology thread myself. Besides, I doubt that Firaxis would want to steal from C:CTP (VD).

Which technologies are needed to discover which SE choices.
Good question. Depends on what technologies are included. I think this is best left to Firaxis.

I am in favor of giving Civs predetermined SE effects as in SMAC.

I'm against it. I can see the location-dependent specialty where you get a speciality based on the area around your capital, but nothing pre-set. I'm also in favor of the minor civs idea. But this is sorta off-topic, no?
[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited August 02, 1999).]

Maniac · August 3, 1999, 10:01

Snowfire :

"wealth brings people to the cities, and even creates the cities."
This is represented by Mercantilism.

You're right about Structure - Confederate and the Centralization penalty. I'll give it
+2 Corr, +2 Hap, -1 Nat, -1 Centr.

I will also change Value - Environment to
+2 Env, +2 Corr, -1 Urb, -1 Centr.
Earlier it had a huge -2 Centr penalty. Therefore I would never choose Environment. With this change I might consider it.

Jon Miller :

You're right Manorialism is the right name.

I know 7 categories is very much.
Research has been added later. It can be eliminated without further consequences for my model.

Army primarily determines your Support, Military Industry and Morale rate. It can be eliminated and I know solutions for the imbalance it would cause in my model.

That makes 5 categories, one more then in SMAC.
But keep this in mind. There are in SMAC three categories giving 2 bonuses and 1 penalty.
1 category giving 3 bonuses and 1 penalty.
There are several Secret Projects eliminating the penalties for certain SE choices.
In most late-games I am Democracy/Green/Power/Eudaimonic.
I always have the Cloning Vats.
Means 9 bonuses and 3 penalties.

Now let's say in my model I am
Virtual? Democracy/Free Market/Knowledge/Confederate/Atheism.
Means 11 bonuses and 7 penalties.
Even if I would insert Professional/Nature(which I want, I don't want to delete that categories) I would still get 15 bonuses and 10 penalties, reduced 3/2.
This seems more balanced than SMAC where it was reduced 3/1.

You just made me realize that my model is MUCH better than that primitive SMAC model.

New Questions :

1) What SE choices would you never consider using?
This poll is necessary to know what has to be enhanced.
I hope some more people than Jon Miller and Snowfire will answer on it.

2) Do you want your government choice to restrict you from choosing some other SE choices?
For example it should be forbidden to choose Theocracy and Knowledge at the same time.
This is to avoid unintended results as Jon Miller said. It also solves the problem that in the modern age there are too many SE choices per category.

3) Some want Virtual Democracy, some not.
A suggestion.
Normal Democracy has +2 Corr, +2 Cult, -1 Mor, -1 Sup.
In that case I think everyone will choose Republic above Democracy. There should be found a solution for that. Democracy could be the only government allowing all SE choices, but I doubt that is enough benefit to choose Dem above Rep.
Virtual Democracy should come available with the technology Internet and it would get
+2 Corr, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup.

SnowFire · August 3, 1999, 10:14

Who wants a high Support rate as in SMAC ?

I miss the connection... I just think a high efficiecny rate sounds better than a high corruption rate. And yes, I want a high support rate (though I usually don't make the SE choice for it though).

Is values = factors?

Not sure, what I mean is my Nationalism is "Weak," "Standard," "Patriotic," and "Fanatical," instead of simply -2, 0, 2, and 4. The numbers remain at a quick glance, but the descriptions SMAC used should be more prevalent.

Government

Fascism is included under Religion - Fundamentalism.

Good point, you get almost the exact same effect... Bell, make sure you put a note in that this doesn't neccesarily apply to religion per se, but also to fanatical support of a leader or cause...

With your Republic SE effects, it would be an early form of Democracy.
I have explained several times how I see Republic. If you want to know, read some of the earlier posts.

Trust me, I have.

Feudalism is already weak. If you make it even more weaker, no one will choose it.
GAME BALANCE.

I'll give you that. Still, to balance it more, how about a +1 Pol as well as a -1 Urb added to it?

I had expected critique on that -2 Urb.
I did it because Wealth assures the flow of power from the weak to the strong as Morgan would say it.
This makes the poor even poorer. Thus, more starving people thus slower population growth.
If you had read my '5) Urbanization' post, you would know I don't want pop limit to completely stop pop growth. Cities would even grow further if they haven't a necessary building like Aquaduct.
But as a drawback all people beyond the pop limit should be Revolutionaries(read my '1) Police' post on the SE thread v2.0). Thus Wealth creates quicker unhappy people. This is the best historical simulation of Wealth. Not that -2 Mor of SMAC.

So basically, you're doing this to create more revolutionaries, indirectly. Instead, I suggest a simple happiness penalty: -2 Hap, perhaps? Because even if the people still came, the Urb penalty would slow them down...

I don't know much about Prussia and the Confederacy(do you mean the South in the Civil War?). My historical interests is primarily ancient times to the Roman age(? to 1 AD) and also the Renaissance, so I can't say if that -2 Urb reflects Prussia and the Confederacy.
I can tell you this. Army - Professional has -1 Urb reflecting many adult men not having children( unless their wives-hookers of the Roman legionnaires moving along with the army, but I wouldn't generalize that).
And Power has -2 Centr reflecting that many food and resources go to the army.

Perhaps... yes, I do refer to the South in the Civil War. Both nations were warrior states that started in mostly backward farming areas with fewer people (than the surrounding areas and countries) in the cities. -2 Centr works, but -1 Centr and -2 Urb would work better I think.

Structure

I gave City State such a big Corruption and Happiness to avoid it being used by large civs.
The name speaks for itself. I made it only profitable for small civ-city states.
I also told it to Harel. Don't begin to overexaggerate with your bonuses and penalties.
Limit it yourself to the most obvious 2 or 3. In this case I think 3 is too much.

I'm just saying that -3 Corr is plenty to deter people from using a city state government with more than 3 cities. The happiness penalty is unneeded and uneccesary.

In a Federal system nationalistic groups will try to gain autonomy, causing unhappiness.

But what if there are no national groups? This should be a function of other civ's cities and people in your territories who are unassimilated and causing problems. I mean, the Union had a federal system after the Civil War, and for the most part people were happy... and it was composed entirely of immigrants. Unfortunately, it's hard to think of any good penalties for this other than happiness, which is why I suggested reducing the happiness penalty to -1 and the Nationalism bonus to +1.

Oh thanks for saying Confederate is uncomplete. Type error. In a civ Confederate system there are several regional capitals, means less corruption of cities far away of your real capital.

No need to get offended, I had to mention that. So what is your system for it? Mine is +2 Hap, +1 Dip, -1 Corr, -1 Cent, just to restate. I realize what you're saying about regional capitals, but it just doesn't work that way. If the City State is so inefficient, why should the Confederacy be so much better? In the Civil War, each state in the Confederacy had different supply lines, because Alabama people didn't want Alabama hospital goods and Alabama food going to Georgia's boys. So there was a big organization mess at the front as all the supplies were sorted by state. The CSA's economy was a shambles from the start (which wasn't helped at all by the Northern blockade). And with so much emphasis on "State's Rights," the CSA's Congress was a totally ineffective shouting match that couldn't get anything done at all. Jefferson Davis said that if the Confederacy died, it would have on its tombstone "Died of a theory." That theory is state's rights.

A Confederacy should not have a corruption bonus.

By the way, the Commonwealth Structure should allow you better relations with former colonies and minor nations (a la English Commonwealth).

Loose Monotheism and Atheism have already a research bonus.
I don't know how you guys (also Technopile) got the idea that Atheism has something to do with Confucianism/Buddhism!
Theos or deus means god. 'A' you could in this case translate as 'no'.
Atheism is no religion! It's the opposite. A civ that swears off religions.
They get a research bonus because they goal is logic research and they don't let superstition interfere.

Sigh... I know what atheism means. We aren't idiots here. However, you should know that in strict Confucianism and Buddhism, there is no mention of a God! (later forms of Buddhism added a ton of spiritual beings, but not the first kinds). So we have even reason to suspect it might be that way.

And yes, we know why Atheism might give a research bonus, but now I'm thinking Atheism and Multitheism should simply be scrapped and "Religious Freedom" be put in place of it. Because you must remember, this is Earth, not Alpha Centauri: Forcing an entire people to forget their beliefs is not something easily done! (On AC, you could simply take people of like minds with you in your faction). Just ask the communists who ran the USSR and the Societ Bloc. And if this is state enforced atheism, you're talking about a terrible violation of freedom of thought that will drive away all the good theistic scientists. Science is best done by people who simply don't take into account religion when they do their work: Atheists, Theists, whatever, just don't let it interfere. And that is exactly what would happen in a Religious Freedom Society. It will do research far more effectively than any oppresive atheist nation researching.

Proposed Stats: +2 Res, +2 Dip, -2 Nat

On what Technology thread did you post your ideas? On the most recent or one of the older?

Most recent. It's in the summary.

I want Civ3 to go to 2200. I don't care about the Sweep of Time Trilogy. You shouldn't be forced to end on 2060.
I hope you're not the guy suggesting that at the end of the game there pop up terrorist groups like the Spartans or a nuclear war must take place.
someone suggested that in the List v1.0.
I am strongly against that. I don't want to see everything I built being destroyed by terrorists. You shouldn't be forced to win by going to AC.
Look at the Space Exploitation thread.

Everyone seems to be against Space Exploitation. Perhaps if you read my recent posts on the Space Exploitation thread, you coulc be a bit less negative about it. Good if you want to go for winning by colonizing and terraforming Mars.

Oh, I'm "that guy." I agree it shouldn't be overly random or it'd feel forced; but I'm going to say right now that the chance of SM extending the game past 2100 is unlikely at best. And to be honest, I'd prefer it wasn't extended past 2100, since then either the game gets ridiculously long (in which case most people will have already won by this sequence in the game) or the rest of history has to be condensed even more.

I mean, I'm sorry, but there needs to be some continuity with SMAC here, despite what you'd like... and no, I haven't read the Space Exploitation thread in ages, I quickly left after I saw what people were proposing there.

Maniac · August 3, 1999, 15:13

Snowfire :

Factor names :

" who wants a high corruption rating?"
My response :
Who wants a high Support rate as in SMAC ?
The connection is I think a lower Support rate sounds better than a high one.
I'd rather have an army requiring low support than one requiring high support.

I don't care that much about the names. But I am afraid certain people would confuse efficiency with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not the same as Corruption.
For example Democracy has low corruption(=high corruption rate) but low efficiency/high bureaucracy(then people could think Democracy needs a corruption/bureaucracy/efficiency penalty).

Factor rate names :

I have nothing against giving names to factor rates, but I would let Firaxis do that.

Feudalism/Manorialism :

First I when giving bonuses and penalties I limited me to the two most important bonuses and most important penalty. I don't think Urbanization is the most important penalty.
Besides -2 Centralization already gives a slower population growth.

Wealth :

No, I had two reasons to give it -2 Urb.

First to make people in big cities unhappier.

Secondly to make pop growth slower because there die more people.

-2 Hap would only make people unhappier in all cities. It doesn't give a growth penalty.

Power :

Ah, I see you want to give Power a -2 Urb penalty because Prussia and the Confederacy didn't have a large population.
I want to ask you a question.
Was that smaller population really a consequence of their lust for Power or had it other causes?
I'm no expert in the Civil War and Prussia, but I don't think that their Power Value was the reason they had a small population.

City State :

Yes I do think the Hap penalty is necessary.
Otherwise with a Democracy/Free Market/Environment SE setting it is possible to get +4 Corr and that makes it perfectly possible to rule a large civ.

Same thing if you would only have a Hap penalty and no Corr penalty.
Than you could choose Value - Knowledge, resulting in +0 Hap.
Makes it again possible to rule a large civ.

So unless you give it 2 penalties there are loopholes that make City State a too good SE choice.

Note that City State is perfect for small civs.
The Corr penalty doesn't affect the civ because all cities are close to the capital, so no big corruption.
The Hap penalty doesn't affect it cause the civ hasn't got much cities.

Federal :

"I mean, the Union had a federal system after the Civil War, and for the most part people were happy... and it was composed entirely of immigrants."

The Union is a bad example. All that immigrants migrated voluntarily to America. No wonder they were all happy.

I mean a federal system with native population, no voluntarily immigrants, where several groups want autonomy.

Confederate :

"No need to get offended, I had to mention that."
I am not offended. Why did you think so? I was glad you told me I had forgotten the penalties.

My original Confederate system was quite similar as yours.
+2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Corr, -1 Cult
I gave the Corruption penalty for the same reason you did, but then I came on the idea that regional administration is much more efficient than one federal administration.

My Confederate plan is +2 Hap, +2 Corr, -1 Nat, -1 Centr.

[b]Commonwealth :[:b]

"By the way, the Commonwealth Structure should allow you better relations with former colonies and minor nations (a la English Commonwealth)."

My Commonwealth already has a +2 Diplomacy bonus.

Atheism :

I am willing to recall Multitheism Religious Freedom, but I don't want Atheism scrapped.

"Forcing an entire people to forget their beliefs is not something easily done!"

In West Europe regular church visites are even less common than in the USA. The Church has VERY little influence on daily life.
So I think in modern western countries there won't be a lot of people protesting if the state would cease paying priests their salary.
Practically you could say Europe already is Atheist.

About enforced atheism in USSR.
I know it didn't actually stimulate research, but you must know that that was the goal of the original ideology communism/atheism.

Sweep of Time trilogy :

"but I'm going to say right now that the chance of SM extending the game past 2100 is unlikely at best."

I know that, but I also know they will loose a lot of customers when they ignore the future.

"And to be honest, I'd prefer it wasn't extended past 2100, since then either the game gets ridiculously long (in which case most people will have already won by this sequence in the game) or the rest of history has to be condensed even more."

If Firaxis make spaceship a little later on the tech tree (it is very unrealistic that you can build a spaceship after the Apollo program), people won't have already won.
In my eyes it is much more realistic that humanity first builds colonies on Mars before trying to go to AC.

"and no, I haven't read the Space Exploitation thread in ages, I quickly left after I saw what people were proposing there."

If you mean that guy suggesting maps for the whole solar system, I disagree also with that idea.
I want only two maps : Earth and Mars.

Jon Miller · August 3, 1999, 17:51

Hello All

M@ni@c, I was not trying to insult you back by using os instead of @s, I just thought that was the closest without the additional ket strokes of the @, also you did insult me about that whole assuming I was playing warlord when I said I was playing the second hardest difficulty level, even neophytes know more than that

nobody has made any comment in relation to my AI personalities idea, I think that this would be interest, realistic, and fun besides urging firaxis to new heights for the AI

I also agree with Snowfire that civ should not go into future tech, both ctp and smac lost that realistic/historical feel that was part of what made civ such a great game, let other games in the sweep of time go into the future (which is fun in its own way) but leave civs timeframe alone

Why do you assume that atheism is proscientist, freedom of religion is (I am agreement with Snowfire in this)

sure in the US more scientists are atheist than the general public (about 45% of all scientists) and this figure has remained the same for a hundred years according to polls, showing that scientists are more inclined to be atheists than the general public (even a hundred years ago when there was no theory that even allowed for the nonexistance of God) but that is still only 45%, not a majority

(If your interested agnostics made upt about 10%, a hundred years ago there were 6% more agnostics and less atheists, also back then biology had the largest number of atheists, now physics does)

As has been mentioned the USSR actually had some scientific problems from supporting atheism only and hurting other religions (and it is now one of the biggest growth areas in the world for religions of all types)

Europe as a whole is not very religious but that is more from apathy then atheism (even though atheism is stronger in Europe than elsewhere)

why do you use the words strict monotheist to reflect the harsh policies of nations like Iran implying that we monotheists that do differently are somehow worst monotheists

Monotheists in the middle ages were even more apathetic religiously than many who aren't in Europe are now, the church was in many ways more interested in temporal power than religion and it showed

ok, off that

M@ni@c (sorry if I insulted you by messing up your name) there is a difference between a people that value knowledge (have lots of schooling, highly literate, etc) and scientists (I'm not neccesarily saying that scientists are better, I just personally think that any government overstructure can work well given the right situation, be it communist, city state, or any other and who ever is in control, I have at least read several sf horror tales of regimes of scientists gone bad and being arround some I can beleive it and see that it would be much different, as different as a monarchy and true democracy, then one where the military or masses were in control)

A Beaucracy is like the IRS, imagine a whole nation ran like the IRS, with those senior getting promoted until they are the top and everything is handled by beaucracy

A Meritocracy would be similar except the positions would be determine by the most able of the particlular click

Much Science Fiction has been written about the terrors of these two governments and I think it could work differently and would like to try them out, also I have read fiction and history that tells how a democracy run by miliatry would be and it is far different then are own

I can imagine the other mixture of (who) and (control) that I have not read about, do you have imagination enough?

just because they didn't occur in history doesn't mean they couldn't

(I don't want weird things like aleins or other stuff that has not been posible yet, in other words somebody could start up one of those governments I described now or in the past but it has not been in the realm of human possibility for Aliens to come, that is not a choice humans made)

M@ni@c, by playing antipollution you might inspire your people to take on the green value though

NO, aristocracy does not always choose the value and those that rule do not always choose what the aristocracy does

why were vietnam and ww2 different? because the values of the citizens were different, the US government structure did not change

in history sometimes people are behind the war and sometimes they are not, no matter whether those that rule and the aristocracy want it or not

this is just in example of power value, the same is true for all the rest

I am still suprised that you continue to ignore my inperialism value despite what a big part it played in history

maybe there would be propaganda points that would allow you to change your values to a limited degree, they could come from other se choices or be built by city industry

socialism is an economy and a value, read More's Utopia, Plato's Reublic and all the other great works on socialism and communism

some short deffinitions (not very good, I have still not been able to find my old papers)

sociamism: the producers have the means of producing and distributing goods

communism: absence of classes, common ownership of the means of production and subsistence

similar but not the same and if the communism is marxist they are even more different with a dictatorship of the Proletate (spelling error) and violent overthrow

these are poor deffinitions and somewhat false but they were what I found on the fly

Once my computer comes back from the shop I will have my papers and can email them to everybody with better deffinitions, those were found from a dictionary

planned economics was in practice in ancient society long before modern communist and socialist thought

what I mean with theocracy is that once crusaders become out dated it loses one of its big bonuses and I think any government has the possibility of working, I don't want bonuses that only occur for a certain time

I questioned the city state limitations but than I thought that that would be useful later on but for small civs so I let it be

I wasn't saying smac was perfect I was just pointing out the good way the economies were limited so that to get the big bonus you either had to have the big negatives of free market or the big negatives of Morgan or be so future tech (eudamia) that it would not matter as much

yours needs to be the same way and you have not mentioned the example I came up with

I think virtual democracy could be done in a short time, probably before we can control fusion

smac was set up so that you got a littke more total then you lost and you lost and gained in different areas

your system allow for a bigger change is se effects then smac (not including the future choices since nothing like that should be included in civ)

Jon Miller

Maniac · August 3, 1999, 20:14

Jon Miller :

AI

"nobody has made any comment in relation to my AI personalities idea, I think that this would be interest, realistic, and fun besides urging firaxis to new heights for the AI"

"what does everybody say to my AI idea, should I post it elsewhere?"

I don't know a thing about programming or AI (yet).
In the List there was a short summary of an AI thread. I suggest you post it there. Don't know if it still exists. Look 50 days back and then you should find it. I too had to look 20 days back to find this thread. And look now, we have almost the biggest v2.1 thread! Only have to beat Civilizations...
Perhaps you could do the same to AI?

Atheism

Oh damn, everybody seems to be against Atheism. Is this because you and Snowfire don't want anything futuristic?

"Why do you assume that atheism is proscientist"

Perhaps you don't know that cause you are strict monotheist/religious freedom(thought you told that once), but almost every atheist 'beliefs' in science. So as you would say it, the people choose to neglect religion and embrace science as their value, so the government does it too.

I am a convinced atheist and a fervent 'believer' in science. And I am convinced that many atheists are in favor of science.

Perhaps this Atheism discussion is just a reflection of our religious conviction.
Perhaps I want to make Atheism good and you bad.

BTW, in the List - Religion there were many people demanding an atheist religion choice and there were too many people suggesting +science and -happiness. So I did that.

Perhaps we could ask in the Religion thread how they would describe Atheism in SE factors?

Are there only 45% of the scientists Atheist in the USA???? And in the general public even less?
Wow, you live in a religious country!!!!!

"As has been mentioned the USSR actually had some scientific problems from supporting atheism only and hurting other religions (and it is now one of the biggest growth areas in the world for religions of all types)"

Yea, I know that.

"Europe as a whole is not very religious but that is more from apathy then atheism (even though atheism is stronger in Europe than elsewhere)"

What do you mean, apathy? Please explain. I would like to know your vision.

"why do you use the words strict monotheist to reflect the harsh policies of nations like Iran implying that we monotheists that do differently are somehow worst monotheists"

I renamed Strict Monotheism a while back to Fundamentalism/Fascism.

Meritocracy and Beaucracy

First a question. What does IRS mean?

Sure, meritocracy and beaucracy could be interesting. You haven't even made a definite list of the (method). I only know 'direct' and 'representative'. And do beaucracy and meritocarcy belong to 'who' or 'method'?

Another problem, perhaps the main problem.
I can't really think any SE factors inherent to meritocracy and beaucracy. I haven't read your literature. I don't think you should blaim my imagination.
I am sure that if you would read Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson you would stand more positive against my Mars terraform victory condition.

New form of government : Military Junta
who : military
method : direct

For the record, I don't want aliens either.

You seem to have opposite opinions on certain things.
First you say :
"I also agree with Snowfire that civ should not go into future tech, both ctp and smac lost that realistic/historical feel that was part of what made civ such a great game, let other games in the sweep of time go into the future (which is fun in its own way) but leave civs timeframe alone"
Then I think you like Civ to be a historical game.
But then you say :
"just because they didn't occur in history doesn't mean they couldn't"
So then civ would include not-historical elements...

Values

"NO, aristocracy does not always choose the value and those that rule do not always choose what the aristocracy does"

You're right.
Aristocracy does not *always* choose the value, but they do it sometimes.
I hope you don't think the Roman(value : power) peasants went voluntarily to war. No, they were forced by the senators = aristocracy.

You're right.
Those that rule do not always choose what the aristocracy does.
I just gave aristocracy as an example.
If it is Monarchy, then the king will decide.

If it is Democracy, the people will decide...
So I think Democracy should be the only government that disallows you to choose your own value. Under all other governments the player would decide.

"why were vietnam and ww2 different?
WW2 began as a defensive war.
Vietnam was pure offensive and interference.
Nothing to do with values.

"I am still suprised that you continue to ignore my inperialism value despite what a big part it played in history"

You're right imperialism is important, but I think it is another name for Value - Power. I am willing to change the name.

"socialism is an economy and a value, read More's Utopia, Plato's Reublic and all the other great works on socialism and communism"

Again you're right. I already told you you may give me SE effects for Value - Socialism.

Planned

"planned economics was in practice in ancient society long before modern communist and socialist thought"

Heck you're right again.
The medieval version of communism/planned is Protectionism. There no problem. But I don't have an ancient version. Will have to ponder about that one.

Fundamentalism

"what I mean with theocracy is that once crusaders become out dated it loses one of its big bonuses and I think any government has the possibility of working, I don't want bonuses that only occur for a certain time"

No problem. Just let Firaxis make up a modern version. Or perhaps we could move the free Crusader support to Strict Monotheism er... sorry Fundamentalism.
So the ancient benefit of Fundamentalism is Crusader and the modern one Fanatics.

Economy

"I wasn't saying smac was perfect I was just pointing out the good way the economies were limited so that to get the big bonus you either had to have the big negatives of free market or the big negatives of Morgan or be so future tech (eudamia) that it would not matter as much"

Now you have again opposite opinions.
In an earlier post you said you found Democracy too powerful and the other gov(ernment)s too weak. Then I answered I solved that problem by making +2 Eco easier to get and making not-democracy govs more viable.

And now you are protesting that +2 Eco is too easy. Jeeze, you have to know what you want.

BTW, Mercantilism is available in renaissance, so in the early game you have to be Banking with it's negative side-effects.

"and you have not mentioned the example I came up with"
Do you mean this example?
"for example: you can have less then -4 corruption by "city state structure protectionist Totalitarrianism) with a negative 5, and by the way, city state totalitarrianism was used quite frequently in history to success"
I have answered on it :
"Factors like Sup, Centr, *Corr*, Urb, Cult, Res, Env, Hap, Dipl, Tax can go into pos or neg at infinitum.
Only Pol, Nat, Mor, Eco need a finite pos and neg."

"your system allow for a bigger change is se effects then smac (not including the future choices since nothing like that should be included in civ)"

Do you mean it allows higher and lower positive and negative rates?
They all come out. For example the maximum for Probe is +3 and -2. My Nationalism is +6 and -3(I think).
See no problem there.

Conclusion :
1)Please make a list of methods.
2)Make suggestions for Value - Socialism and Economy - Planned(in ancient times).
BTW, perhaps you could count an ancient planned economy under simple Currency. So I am not so sure about that.

SnowFire · August 3, 1999, 22:40

--To Be Added to Later--

Maniac, take a trip over to my Technology thread and look at the futuristic technologies I suggest. I want futuristic technologies, but near futuristic. Which as far as I'm concerned includes things like AIs, nanorobots, fusion drives... I do not want aliens or futuristic SE choices though.

Bell: How will you do the summary? I mean, I have no problem with, say, "agreeing to disagree" on some points but it would be nice if you wrote something like

Wealth: +1 Econ, +1 Cent, -2 Urb. Some dissent and think that -2 Hap would be more appropriate over -2 Urb.

If you don't have dissents, then I'm basically forced to hammer my points in and whine a lot, and I don't want to do that.

Jon Miller · August 4, 1999, 05:48

sorry if I confused everybody

M@ni@c, I believe the AI thread was killed for list 2, maybe I should post in radical (also I am not a programmer, felt out of my mileu)

I don't think atheism is the future

I think, as USSR showed, that having atheism as the state religion has the same problems as all state religions, as SnowFire stated

Instead of exact religions (or even types), how about the se choices just reflect how the state reacts to religions

like religious freedom, state religion, tolerance, I am sure there are others

science and religion are not incompatable

science has made mistakes in the past (the whole reason of that flat earth thing was because the Catholic Church believed Aristotle, a scientist, in everything)

by apathy I mean that many are not actual beleivers in atheism, they just no longer consider religion important

I didn't catch the name change

IRS is well known US beaucracy (Internal Revenue Service)

I think beaucracy and meritocracy are diffinite method (maybe meritocracy is a who with beaucracy)

sorry, read part of Mars (would have read more but had to leave library) was good, not favorite, plan to read more

Military Junta good

What I mean that you seem to think I have opposite ideas of is that I want to be able to do things socially that were thought of but never tried (in other words possible)

we have no idea that aliens even exist or that the intersteller distances are viable for more than colonisation

The Roman aristocracy were the Who and they did have that value caused by being war like from early on, the masses of course did not have that value (perhaps every who would have its value and strength, you can only revolution to put a who in power if it has the strength)

The US was basically with the Allies from the get go (lend lease and all that)

there could be free market protectionalism, the US did it a few times (we call it isolationalist periods)

olds style planned: communism, the way Plato planned it

socialism/planned/communism has been arround for a long time in a variety of guises

if there is the different forms of free market there should also be the different forms of socialism ending in Utopia (In More's time he figured that everybody could live comfortably, and the whole of society gain wealth, working only six hours a day, that was back when they were mostly serfs)

you have Corr -4 being complete corruption (maybe you revised it and I could not find it?)

example of problem +1 economy far better than + 1 to any other stat

Power is to fight wars, Imperialism is to expand (they are different)

Imperialism would have increased pollution (don't care about the environment, just want to exploit), decreased diplomacy, increase support (make supporting easier), increase nationalism, more corruption (neg), increase morale, thats all

your right, socialism is a value too (and an economy), but so is capitalism (and another important one is individualism)

methods are diffinitely: direct, representative, beaucracy, maybe meritocracy and dictatorship (some other name?)

Jon Miller

SnowFire · August 4, 1999, 11:17

One more issue: Perhaps Protectionism should get an asterisk to indicate that income from foreign trade goes down when you use that as an economy. Or better yet, perhaps this should become part of the Dip stat as well (and make Protectionism -2 Dip)? Low Diplomacy reduces foreign trade? Another good change to Diplomacy would be that a high diplomacy increases the "happiness cost" for another nation to declare war on you (unless they have spent a lot of money on propaganda).

" who wants a high corruption rating?"
My response :
Who wants a high Support rate as in SMAC ?
The connection is I think a lower Support rate sounds better than a high one.
I'd rather have an army requiring low support than one requiring high support.

Okay, so then -Corr's should be good and +Corr's bad. But you have +Corr's as good. I can understand that, but either reverse your signs or change the name to efficiency to keep it consistent (And Efficiency is better, since we're used to wanting positives in categories not negatives).

I don't care that much about the names. But I am afraid certain people would confuse efficiency with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not the same as Corruption.
For example Democracy has low corruption(=high corruption rate) but low efficiency/high bureaucracy(then people could think Democracy needs a corruption/bureaucracy/efficiency penalty).

I'm confused. Could you explain what you mean by this? And Bureaucracy isn't a stat…

Wealth :

No, I had two reasons to give it -2 Urb.

First to make people in big cities unhappier.

Secondly to make pop growth slower because there die more people.

-2 Hap would only make people unhappier in all cities. It doesn't give a growth penalty.

Remember, the issue isn't people dying, but people coming in from the countryside to the big city. And let's face, though many died, they did that in droves during the Industrial Revolution. And if the cities grow slower, then that gives me more time to insure they're happy when they become big cities. A good city manager can easily circumvent the problem.

Power :

Ah, I see you want to give Power a -2 Urb penalty because Prussia and the Confederacy didn't have a large population.
I want to ask you a question.
Was that smaller population really a consequence of their lust for Power or had it other causes?
I'm no expert in the Civil War and Prussia, but I don't think that their Power Value was the reason they had a small population.

No, I'm reversing the cause and effect, but you get the same result (In SimEarth, Earthquakes caused the direction of magma flow to shift for instance, when in reality shifts in magma flow caused earthquakes). And it wasn't really small populations: It was feudal, countryside, not in the city populations. This reflects a low Urb. And because of that, many Junkers and sons of plantation owners went off to military school, already experienced in hunting at home.

I mean a federal system with native population, no voluntarily immigrants, where several groups want autonomy.

Again, that should be taken care of by extra unhappiness in conquered cities and nationalism/culture, not by your government structure. Perhaps there can be an asterisk for "exacerbates conquered cities discontent," but this unhappiness should already be in the game. A happiness penalty goes to all cities, minorities or not, causing the haves to be as unhappy as the have-nots. Or more specifically, the Confederate structure increases happiness since people self-rule more, but Federal shouldn't decrease it.

Confederate :

"No need to get offended, I had to mention that."
I am not offended. Why did you think so? I was glad you told me I had forgotten the penalties.

My mistake, the way you typed it, it sounded sarcastic.

My original Confederate system was quite similar as yours.
+2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Corr, -1 Cult
I gave the Corruption penalty for the same reason you did, but then I came on the idea that regional administration is much more efficient than one federal administration.

Hmm… I still maintain that a Confederacy should be bad for Corruption. 50 state bureaucracies, each different, is much less fun than one unified bureaucracy with one set of rules. See previous comments on supply lines in Civil War.

Plus, your old system seems perfectly balanced.

My Confederate plan is +2 Hap, +2 Corr, -1 Nat, -1 Centr.

The Centralization penalty is nothing compared to a Happiness and Corruption bonus, two of the most important stats I would want to maximize. So it's a bit unbalancing to the game as well.

they will loose a lot of customers when they ignore the future.

Who says they have to do that? We've got 60 years stretching ahead of us to discover and explore. <a href="http://singularity.posthuman.com/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html">This site</a> says that history will end somewhere from 2025-2035 when superintelligent AI's improve themselves in a massive positive feedback loop, and all of us will upload our brains into computers. There's a LOT of cool stuff we can discover.

Atheism :

I am willing to recall Multitheism Religious Freedom, but I don't want Atheism scrapped.

"Forcing an entire people to forget their beliefs is not something easily done!"

In West Europe regular church visites are even less common than in the USA. The Church has VERY little influence on daily life.
So I think in modern western countries there won't be a lot of people protesting if the state would cease paying priests their salary.
Practically you could say Europe already is Atheist.

About enforced atheism in USSR.
I know it didn't actually stimulate research, but you must know that that was the goal of the original ideology communism/atheism.

Atheism

Oh damn, everybody seems to be against Atheism. Is this because you and Snowfire
don't want anything futuristic?

As said before, I want futuristic stuff. But I don't agree with this as a choice: Look, be happy, in most countries that have allowed religious freedom, atheism has steadily gained ground. More on the stuff above in a second. I will say that Europe is a religious freedom society: The fact that most people are atheists doesn't count. East Germany was an atheist society, from my point of view, because the governments strongly enforced such a policy, despite the fact much of the population continued to practice in secret.

"Why do you assume that atheism is proscientist"

Perhaps you don't know that cause you are strict monotheist/religious freedom(thought you told that once), but almost every atheist 'beliefs' in science. So as you would say it, the people choose to neglect religion and embrace science as their value, so the government does it too.

I am a convinced atheist and a fervent 'believer' in science. And I am convinced that many atheists are in favor of science.

Well, atheism is proscience. And I'm sure most atheists are believers in science. Good for you, but I believe in science too, and I'm a believer. Should the USA turn violently atheist, I'm outta here. The country would lose a substantial quantity of good researchers.

You must be consistent. You said the Union wasn't a very good example of a Federal government. Yes, if you started a society of immigrants who were all atheists, like the University in SMAC, I can give you a research bonus since a far higher percentage of atheists believe in science. But the University isn't a very good example of an atheist government, since everyone joined voluntarily. Try and do that with an ordinary group of humans, and you might get a research bonus 200 years later, but I'm not even sure about that: There were still religious minorities making trouble routinely in the USSR.

Perhaps this Atheism discussion is just a reflection of our religious conviction.
Perhaps I want to make Atheism good and you bad.

Don't get paranoid. I want to make a balanced, realistic game: and Right now atheism is simply too good. And quite ahistorical. Just combine it with religious freedom…

Are there only 45% of the scientists Atheist in the USA???? And in the general public even less? Wow, you live in a religious country!!!!!

Sort of, most of the population are apathists: "There's probably a God, but I really don't care, and I sure as heck aren't going to church."

"As has been mentioned the USSR actually had some scientific problems from supporting atheism only and hurting other religions (and it is now one of the biggest growth areas in the world for religions of all types)"

Yea, I know that.

"Europe as a whole is not very religious but that is more from apathy then atheism
(even though atheism is stronger in Europe than elsewhere)"

What do you mean, apathy? Please explain. I would like to know your vision

They don't care whether there's a God or not: It simply doesn't matter to them. Alas, it's the easy way out for stupid people who don't want to take a stand on philosophy. And if you know that forcing atheism on long-time religious people backfires… just take a look at all the loony cults that have popped up in Russia recently. It's like the world capital for psychics now as well, always a bad sign.

1) What SE choices would you never consider using?
Government's pretty well balanced. I'd only use Feudalism if I was in a hot and heavy early war where I had deployed a lot of units, wasn't interested in growing my cities at the moment, and the decrease in support would make up for the loss in centralization, but since I want to add MORE penalties, I suppose it's balanced as is between history and game. I'd only consider using Mercantilism with Commonwealth or Democracy (how very English), since it's got a fairly big negative and +1 Econ is not half as useful as +2 Econ. I'd be most hesitant to move up the bridge from banking (to FM & Trans-Nat), the main usefulness, the +2 Econ, isn't added to much and the penalties get huge farther up. Power and Environment are good, but the overpowering bonus of knowledge or wealth (with another +1 Eco choice) I doubt I would choose them much, and you seem intent on making sure that every nation has to choose Space Exploitation as their value in the endgame phase to survive. Perhaps knowledge's happiness bonus could be reduced to +1 (or make it an efficiency bonus, like SMAC)? I'd never choose Federal and always be a Confederacy under the current system (another reason why I protest it not just as unhistorical, but bad play balance) unless I need +1 Eco in which case I'll take Commonwealth. I'd probably stick to City Militia a lot in terms of armies, though Professional seems to be the best choice. In religion I would always choose Atheism as soon as possible, in the meantime I'd be loose monotheism or religious freedom (or strict polytheism, if nothing's available). Heck, they're all good choices except my continuing dispute with the last two: It's unbalancing and unfair. Research is balanced, though I personally would rarely use Practical (but I'm sure others would, so it's definitely balanced).

2) Do you want your government choice to restrict you from choosing some other SE choices?
No.

3) Some want Virtual Democracy, some not.
You know my opinion: No. Considering that on Chiron, they're still using good 'ol Democracy...
[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited August 04, 1999).]

Koyaanisqatsi · August 4, 1999, 14:00

Snowfire writes:
Bell: How will you do the summary? I mean, I have no problem with, say, "agreeing to disagree" on some points but it would be nice if you wrote something like

Wealth: +1 Econ, +1 Cent, -2 Urb. Some dissent and think that -2 Hap would be more appropriate over -2 Urb.

If you don't have dissents, then I'm basically forced to hammer my points in and whine a lot, and I don't want to do that.

I'd been thinking about it, and this is the direction I was leaning (although it's a departure from the older summaries.) When we were just doing conceptual-level suggestions, throwing everything into the pot was fine, but I think the more detailed suggestions require more structuring and editorializing than the old list did.

Maniac · August 4, 1999, 15:22

Snowfire :

Summary

"Bell: How will you do the summary?"

I think that Bell will have the hardest job of all thread managers.
How will he summarize all my SE factors?...
Will he just make a short explanation like
"Happiness : affects people happiness"
or will he do it like more detailed like
"+4 Hap = one extra aristocratian on every 4 citizens."
I think the latter is the best and even necessary to fully understand my model, but it will probably require too much space.

Technology

"Maniac, take a trip over to my Technology thread and look at the futuristic technologies I suggest. I want futuristic technologies, but near futuristic. Which as far as I'm concerned includes things like AIs, nanorobots, fusion drives... I do not want aliens or futuristic SE choices though."

I don't think that nanorobots will be discovered near 2060 or even 2100. So I want Civ3 to go some further.

Protectionism

"One more issue: Perhaps Protectionism should get an asterisk to indicate that income from foreign trade goes down when you use that as an economy. Or better yet, perhaps this should become part of the Dip stat as well (and make Protectionism -2 Dip)? Low Diplomacy reduces foreign trade?"

I mentioned shortly in my Diplomacy post that the player should have lower trade if he has a bad relationship/diplomacy rate. So this is already covered.

"Another good change to Diplomacy would be that a high diplomacy increases the "happiness cost" for another nation to declare war on you (unless they have spent a lot of money on propaganda)."

This is covered by the Culture rate.

Efficiency

Well in SMAC your efficiency rate represents the efficiency of your bureaucracy.
So I think if you recall corruption to efficiency, people will confuse corruption with the efficiency (of your bureaucracy). And that's not the same as I showed with Democracy.

Wealth, Feudalism, Confederate

OK, I am willing to give Wealth -2 Hap.
First because you are partially right and also because Jon Miller is right that Mercantilism/Wealth is too easy to get +2 Eco.

But that brings two other problems.
1) Too many Happiness penalties
2) Too little Urbanization penalties

My solution :
Tell me if you agree. It is VERY important to keep everything in balance.

If I give Feudalism/Manorialism -1 Urb and -1 Centr, the problem of too less Urbanization penalties is solved. That would also better simulate Feudalism/Manorialism. + your problem of Prussia/Confederacy is solved, cause I think they had a smaller pop because they were feudal, not because they were Power.
However then there would be too little Centralization penalties.
Therefore I should give Confederate -2 Centr instead of -1 Centr and -1 Nat.

So, there are 3 problems solved.

Power/Imperialism

Sorry, I stick with my point.
Power has -2 Centr.
I gave Manorialism/Feudalism -1 Urb.

Federal and Confederate

I am willing to delete the Happiness penalty(there are too much anyway if I give Wealth -2 Hap) if you come up with another negative penalty.
Until then I stick with -2 Hap.

I gave Confederate -2 Centr.
I am willing to delete +2 Corr, IF you give me another benefit, since I think the +1 Dipl makes no sense.

Atheism

I propose we move this question to the Religion thread.

Old questions

1)
Gov good. Glad to here it.

Feudalism
I reduced the Centr penalty, so it's a better option now, I think.
You're right. Two days ago when I was wondering how to make Feudalism worth the while, I came also on the idea that the Support would certainly make up for the Centralization loss, that is, in the early game.
Now I reduced the Centr penalty, I wonder if I shouldn't decrease the Sup bonus to +2.

Mercantilism
Perfect. It is meant to be used at the same time with Wealth (Democracy and Commonwealth are only available in late game).

Banking - Free Market
Yea I know the jump from Banking to FM is big.
Therefore I gave FM the Corruption bonus. That is necessary if you have a large empire at the end of the game (I think FM should be available with the Corporation technology).

Transnational
Keep this in mind before ignoring Transnational.
+5 Eco gives +20 energy per square!
20 = don't forget I'm using the x10 system.
So Transnational +3 Eco gives you a good jump in the right direction.
Plus I don't think the +2 Centr bonus is to be ignored.

Power

Yea, I would too avoid Power, but there seem to be people (like Jon Miller) that think Power as a good SE choice.

Environment

I know Environment is the weak brother of the Value choices.
Therefore I think the Environment factor/stat should have a new use : disease control.
There is a thread about it in Civ3-General/Suggestions, but I am still waiting for some concrete ideas (and I don't have good ideas for a disease model).

Space Expoitation

Well, I don't want to force the civs, but I think this should be a good choice if the player wants to win by terraforming Mars.
Also the +2 Urb should be good to avoid pop pressure, cause your pop limit is higher.

To know more about population pressure, I redirect you to my posts on the Space Exploitation thread.

Knowledge

Keep in mind that the Efficiency factor of SMAC is now split in Corruption and Happiness.
So just a +1 Hap or Corr as in SMAC is too less I think.

Army

Yea I know Army is unbalanced. Harel's idea. I'm thinking about reverting to my original Army idea.

Religion

I would also choose Multitheism or Atheism as soon as possible, but keep in mind Multitheism is a modern SE choice (it's available late in the game) and Atheism is a near-future choice.

Research

I think I'll use practical in times of war.
Besides if the Military Industry SE factor/stat is eliminated, how would you feel about giving
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, 75% Military Science ?

3) I don't want Virtual either. Democracy is good enough.

THANKS

You're the only one giving real good advise about my SE model.

New Questions

1) Should Feudalism be :
+4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
+4 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
+2 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

2) Should Wealth be :
+1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Urb
+1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap

3) Should Federal be :
+2 Nat, +2 Cult, -2 Hap
+2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
+2 Corr, +2 Nat, -fill in yourself

4) Should Confederate be :
+2 Corr, +2 Hap, - 1Nat, -1 Cult
+2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Centr
+2 Hap, +fill in yourself, -2 Centr
+2 Hap, +fill in yourself, -1 Centr, -fill in yourself

5) Should I change Army?
I don't really like the Army category right now.
Cause the Morale bonuses and penalties can affect the senate.
Cheaters could develop tactics like
"Hmm, I have -2 Mor right now. Means 50% Senate interference. Oh, I'll change Army to professional(= +2 Mor) for a while to sneakattack that civ."
I like the idea of Army Readiness as in CTP.
That system affected the Morale(but it doesn't affect the Senate), the Support and the maximum number of hit points a unit can have.
For example when you are at 'off guard' status, you can maximum have 80% of your hit points.
Only at 'at war' status you can have your full potential of HP.

To everyone :

I'll change Support.
As in SMAC every Support rate higher than -2 gives newly found cities for free 10 labor or resources.

Don't mind the following, just reminders what I still have to do.(it's a lot of work keeping my SE factor and model posts updated)

EconomyCulture, ReligionAtheism, Technology
Power, Manorialism
Confederate, Federal, Wealth, Feudalism, HP
Support, Corruption
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 04, 1999).]

Maniac · August 4, 1999, 16:54

How was I supposed to know what IRS means if I live in Europe???

I'm sorry, but I don't get why beaucracy and meritocracy are a method.
Beaucracy is the senior and meritocracy the most able. IMO these are clearly who's.

"The Roman aristocracy were the Who and they did have that value caused by being war like from early on, the masses of course did not have that value (perhaps every who would have its value and strength, you can only revolution to put a who in power if it has the strength)"

So now you're saying the who chooses the Value.
With that I completely agree. My suggestion is that only under a Democracy(who = people) you don't choose your Value, but under every other gov you do.

"there could be free market protectionalism, the US did it a few times (we call it isolationalist periods)"

In the Economy thread they are talking about certain levels of foreign trade going from embargo to open market.
I think protectionist is a bit leaning to the embargo side of the scale.

Again (I already said it to Harel)with Protectionism I mean the French Colbert protectionism under Lious XIV, not some modern one.

"you have Corr -4 being complete corruption (maybe you revised it and I could not find it?)"

I revised after reading your post.
BTW, perhaps '-4 Corr = no trade in every city except the capital' forces the City State to choose Corruption bonus SE choices.
So maybe I'll rerevise the post.

'example of problem +1 economy far better than + 1 to any other stat'

Do you mean that you'd rather have +1 Eco than eg +1 Env?
That was also in SMAC.
I'd rather have +1 Eco in SMAC than +1 Sup.
Don't you?
It's unavoidable that that happens. Everyone has his/her preferences.

"Power is to fight wars, Imperialism is to expand (they are different)"

Then why are/were there so many Imperialist states fighting wars? I think it's the same.

dictatorship is
who : one person
method : direct

raingoon · August 4, 1999, 21:26

M@ni@c, Bell, Jon Miller, Snowfire, and others reading this thread... Without being disruptive of your discussion here, I invite to join the religion thread "next door", where a new religion model is quickly taking shape.

You can read the original proposal there. You've all been putting a lot of thought into an over-all SE model. This new idea is just that. It envisions religion as something separate from the SE model, and belongs on the "religion" thread only. Your comments there are welcome, and needed.

raingoon

p.s., m@ni@c I have responded to your post there of 8/4.

raingoon · August 4, 1999, 21:28

M@ni@c, Bell, Jon Miller, Snowfire, and others reading this thread... Without being disruptive of your discussion here, I invite to join the religion thread "next door", where a new religion model is quickly taking shape.

You can read the original proposal there. You've all been putting a lot of thought into an over-all SE model. This new idea is just that. It envisions religion as something separate from the SE model, and belongs on the "religion" thread only. Your comments there are welcome, and needed.

raingoon

p.s., m@ni@c I have responded to your post there of 8/4.

SnowFire · August 5, 1999, 11:10

I think the latter is the best and even necessary to fully understand my model, but it will probably require too much space.

I'm sure BR has an attention span. He can read longer posts explaining everything.

I don't think that nanorobots will be discovered near 2060 or even 2100. So I want Civ3 to go some further.

Check out http://www.foresight.org/ , http://nano.xerox.com/nano/ , or http://www.zyvex.com/ .

Efficiency

Well in SMAC your efficiency rate represents the efficiency of your bureaucracy.
So I think if you recall corruption to efficiency, people will confuse corruption with the efficiency (of your bureaucracy). And that's not the same as I showed with Democracy.

But corruption and efficiency are the same thing. I looked back in the old threads, and still couldn't find the difference (If there is one). They both reduce the amount of trade lost. I also am still missing your allusion to Democracy. Help me out here.

You say about Knowledge that Efficiency is separated into Happiness and Corruption now, but why not rename Corruption simply the old Efficiency?

Atheism

I propose we move this question to the Religion thread.

We should still have a "How religion fits into SE" thing here, though.

Transnational
Keep this in mind before ignoring Transnational.
+5 Eco gives +20 energy per square!
20 = don't forget I'm using the x10 system.
So Transnational +3 Eco gives you a good jump in the right direction.
Plus I don't think the +2 Centr bonus is to be ignored.

Good point, I had forgotten about the dramatic jump from 2 to 5. I figure I'll aim for my economy to either be at 0 or below, 2, or 5 to maximize my return.

Environment

I know Environment is the weak brother of the Value choices.
Therefore I think the Environment factor/stat should have a new use : disease control.
There is a thread about it in Civ3-General/Suggestions, but I am still waiting for some concrete ideas (and I don't have good ideas for a disease model).

Sounds good to me. Or perhaps your spies "Posion Water Supply" option gets more powerful? Or you have some other new attack with your spies when you switch to Environment values? It'll take 3 turns with the new value before you can use it of course, to insure switching for just one instance isn't so effective…

Knowledge

Keep in mind that the Efficiency factor of SMAC is now split in Corruption and Happiness.
So just a +1 Hap or Corr as in SMAC is too less I think.

Don't forget that me, like many other players, play very techno-centric games: Get the most technology the fastest. That +2 Research is very powerful. Add that to a happiness bonus… plus, the happiness bonus doesn't really fit. Unfortunately many people are technophobic, and plus, the "callous elitism" of the University could just as easily create a happiness penalty (not that it has to be that way: this is often merely grasping at possible penalties). To be honest, a straight +2 Research -2 Tax would be perfectly balanced right there, thought the inclusion of a slight efficiency bonus wouldn't hurt.

Research

I think I'll use practical in times of war.
Besides if the Military Industry SE factor/stat is eliminated, how would you feel about giving
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, 75% Military Science ?

Sounds okay to me.

And thank you by the way, you're the one who came up with this thing… some very interesting ideas in it you have.

New Questions

1) Should Feudalism be :
+4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
+4 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
+2 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

How about either +3 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Urb, -1 Centr, or +4 Sup, +2 Tax, +1 Pol, -2 Cent, -1 Urb. I suppose BR can deal with two options.

3) Should Federal be :
+2 Nat, +2 Cult, -2 Hap
+2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
+2 Corr, +2 Nat, -fill in yourself

I'm really not sure anymore… Perhaps +2 Corr, +2 Nat, +1 Cult, -2 Hap would be balanced?

4) Should Confederate be :
+2 Corr, +2 Hap, - 1Nat, -1 Cult
+2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Centr
+2 Hap, +fill in yourself, -2 Centr
+2 Hap, +fill in yourself, -1 Centr, -fill in yourself

See… this is a really difficult one. You need to have a reason for people to choose this… America under the Articles of Confederation, 1780-1789 was a mess. Different state currencies, trade wars between states, a Congress with no power, almost no national taxes at all, debt problems, rebellions from unhappiness… it just didn't work. The Balkans in America, with each kingdom becoming a state.

Perhaps simplest is best. +2 Hap, +1 Dip, -1 Centr.

5) Should I change Army?
I agree, readiness is plenty to simulate for the army. I don't like the army category much either.
[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited August 05, 1999).]

Zorloc · August 5, 1999, 14:06

Just a quick comment on changing your SE ratings. It has been put forward that it should take 3 turns for the change to be made. The delay is nice but it does not account for the negative consequences of change. My suggestion is to phase in the new SE conditions:

Turn 0: Old SE benefits/penalties
Turn 1: Old SE benefits/penalties + New SE penalties
Turn 2: New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE benefits and penalties.

For example: Changing from Wealth (+2 ind, +2 tax, -1 nat, -1 env) to Knowledge (+2 sci, +2 env, -1 nat, -1 tax).

Turn 0: +2 ind, +2 tax, -1 nat, -1 env
Turn 1: +2 ind, +1 tax, -2 nat, -1 env
Turn 2: -1 nat, -1 tax
Turn 3: +2 sci, +2 env, -1 nat, -1 tax

This will make changing your SE a bad thing in the short term, and SE will be a long term factor as it should be.

jbw

Zorloc · August 5, 1999, 14:07

Woops double post.
[This message has been edited by Zorloc (edited August 05, 1999).]

Maniac · August 5, 1999, 15:14

Snowfire :

Efficiency

The allusion is :
Real life democracy has less corruption but a lower bureaucratic efficiency.

How religion fits into SE

This is a post I made in the Religion Thread.

Quote:

Raingoon, I have also read the Religion thread and I have a good and simple way to spread religion.
Here two extracts from my Culture post.

"2)If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture. Cities converted to your culture get your city stile. If two civs already have the same city stile, I don't know yet what should represent the conversion. If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate."

So, I think my Culture SE factor can also be used to simulate the spread of religions. A high Culture rate would mean you have a strong religion and as a consequence the closest cities of other civs become converted.

"5) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ."

So, if you have a high Culture (=strong religion), the citizens of the conquered city assimilate faster.
But if you have a low Culture, they never assimilate (= they keep their own religion).

BTW, just rename my Religion names to the way the civ interacts with a religion, and religion can still be SE.

Animism stays the same.
Loose Monotheism -> Evangelism
Strict Polytheism -> Worshiping/State Religion
Strict Monotheism -> Fundamentalism
Multitheism -> Religious Freedom
Atheism -> Prosecution

I forgot to mention the penalty of Strict Polytheism/Worshiping/State Religion. It's -2 Culture.

Environment and Knowledge

I don't think Environment based civs are willing to poison water. Perhaps they should have an increased defense against poisoning?

OK, Knowledge gets +1 Efficiency.
Then there would be too little Happiness bonuses.
Therefore I should give Environment +2 Hap instead of +2 Corr.

Technology

Although I would like things like nanorobots, fusion drives I don't think they will add it to the tech tree, cause it's only available somewhere in mid-SMAC game. So unless somebody can convince them to neglect the Sweep of Time Trilogy, we won't have nanorobots; hell we won't even have normal robots.

Changes

Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Feudalism : +3 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Urb, -1 Centr
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, 75% military

Army : deleted, CTP army readiness system.
New problem : too less Police improving things(Cyborg had +2 Pol).
Give Feudalism/Manorialism +1 Pol or create new SE choice eg Fascism, Imperialism?
If I give it to Feudalism, wouldn't 3 bonuses be too much?

Confederate : +2 Hap, +?, -?Centr
I'm sorry, but I see no reason why it should get +1 Dipl.

Loose Monotheism/Evangelism has -2 Diplomacy, but I think that is a bad penalty.
What should it get?

Jon Miller · August 5, 1999, 17:04

Hi All

Wow, a lot of posts to respond to

In smac the +1 econ was good but was best only moving from 1 to 2

also I only use Power in Smac when my units would otherise be to weak against mind worms (during a part of my expansionist phase), usually I use knowledge, occassionally wealth

with no mindworms/psi attack, moral and therefore power would not be as good

the roman aristocracy did not choose power values, instead they were forced to war in the Roman infancy and took on power values

Confederacy should definitely be bad corruption and bad effeiciency

M@ni@c, I like how your religious se choices went (It is what I support), however, you need to put on the modifiers to them again, the old modifiers won't work since the arguments have changed

Japan used Mercantilism to get to the place it is in the world economy, its still useful now and in some ways better than freemarket and transnational (otherwise they would not have become on of the worlds economic powerhouses)

On Chiron I always assumed they were using true democracy because it is a scifi game and there is no reason for them not to, I always thought that what they called democracy there really was democracy, not a republic

They deffinitely had the technology for it

virtual democracy is just a way to defferentiate a true democracy (that is allowed by the internet) from our present false named one

as I said, we basically have the technology for it now, there are already companies that are having voting (serious, not do you plan to buy smacx) on the internet and virtual democracy just is that combined with people willing to try true democracy

of course thye still have not triumphed over the hackers

I think that nano could come about in the next hundred years, we might hit a roadblock in science, we might not, but at our current rate nano is deffinitely a possibility

It is very important to keep everything ballanced (I agree with this statement), smac made pluses in econ hard to come by, you should too

sorry M@ni@c, I did not realise back when I first mentioned IRS that you lived in Europe, you must have something similar (that creates similar frustration)

Here I will give a short description of a beaucracy

imagine a government made up of different departments, the (who) can enter these departments at the lowest level, then, as those above them die, get fired, or get promoted, the ones at the lower levels with the most seniority move into the higher possition vacated (get promoted)

each department works like this to the very top of the department, each of the departments then work in the way that they choose is best for the country with the most senior of the department heads (the one longest at his post) lays the commanding policy

the departments could be education (surprisingly lacking from your se choices considering that it is the MOST important thing in a government), foreign affairs, internal developement, etc.

(this is not how all would be, rather it is just an example of a beaucracy)

education is like the only way besides propaganda that a nation can effect its peoples (the whos) values

a single city could easily have a true democracy, it is only when a nation gets more spread out that it becomes impossible to have true democracy (however, with the internet, I can be anywhere I want, including in a big forum where everybody has one vote (the moderators could be voted on, they would not have votes, rather they would make sure things ran smoothly) and every person was known by there DNA (so that everybody who voted would have to be citizens and could only vote once), the special voting computers(which would be available to everyone) would have DNA readers so that the person who is sitting at it must be the person they say they are at the voting forums (this could also all be done withh retinal scans), the moderators would make a forum for a specific subject once a certain percentage of those at the voting forums petitioned it, that forum would remain open for N# days to hammer out a perposal and then, after the N# days, those at that forum could could vote to set it before the big form (a quorum would have to be in the proposal forum), over 50% would pass and then the proposal would be open to debate and voting for another N# days whereupon with over 50% vote (and above a certain minimum of votes) it would become law, for proposals that change the constitution it would have to be a 66% or 75% vote (not sure)

I have probably got to specific but that is a vritual (and true) democracy and if we so choosed we could do it now (It would take a year or two to setup though)

Imperialist countries often fight wars because they are expanansionistic, power fights war because they are militaristic

an imperialistic country does not have to have an army, it is just expanding

the religion ideas at the religion thread are interesting, I just have so much time to post in a day and unfortuately that means I have many ideas that die forgotten

most eveybody is some form of tech expand and population expand, there really is no other way to win (some have complained about this) and the population expand is often used to just get more tech later

here is a proposal: add many more turns into the game (but not time) and slow down tech learning, as it is I often (at some points in the game) outdate my troops before I ever use them, this needs to change

In order to keep the games from getting to long I think we need the previous ideas of gaining points per turn (and totalling them at the end) and choosing starting and ending times, so that you can play just a certain tech time if you wish

I still think that policies come mostly from your policies as a nation and secondly from propaganda and education

by the way I think the pacifist value choice would make it harder to support your armies and they would have less moral, but they would have less corruption too and be happier

enough for now

Jon Miller

Maniac · August 5, 1999, 18:27

Jon Miller :

In the beginning of the game, +1 Eco was good.
In the end of the game, +1 Eco meant nothing cause it affected only the base square.
I fixed that by giving +1 Eco a fix number.

Yea, I know. Without Mindworms Morale and Environment won't be assumed very important.
It would be great if Firaxis found a duplicate of MW, but I don't think that is possible.

To make Morale a bit more useful, I also made it affect your Senate. So one could comprehend Morale also as how warlike a civ is.

So I think Power could be a good choice in certain circumstances.eg Republic/Banking/Power, so then I don't have interference of the Senate.
This is BTW how I see Rome. Perhaps no Banking, but Currency.

After the Romans conquered Italy, there was no need to further expand. I don't think they were forced to attack Sicily, isn't it?

Yea, I know I'll have to adapt some Religion effects.

With Protectionism and Mercantilism I mean the Renaissance French, English and Dutch economies, not the modern(Japanese) explanation of it.

Let's set this straight.

Ancient : Barter, Currency, Banking
Medieval : Feudalism
Renaissance : Protectionism, Mercantilism
Industrial Revolution/Modern : Communism, Free Market
Near Future : Transnational

Perhaps I should begin with making a list of what SE choices require which technology.

I believe you Virtual/True Democracy is possible.

Maniac · August 5, 1999, 18:43

Wow, half of my post is disappeared! Let's try again.

Strange nano so late in SMAC tech tree.

Thanks beaucracy explanation. What effects would you give it?

How simulate Education? SE category, SE factor, Value points to change Value?

BTW, education is a modern concept. Didn't exist earlier. So I stick with my point that only in a modern democracy the people determine your Value.

I know I have to adapt religion. Suggestions?
Cause now +2 Research for prosecution/atheism totally sucks. Perhaps +2 Police to simulate increased control and prosecution of certain believers?

Quickly outdated troops are a curse. Therefore there should be a building, called Military Academy. Every unit spending an entire turn in a city with that building is updated to the most modern version.
To avoid it being built in every city( and to simulate the high cost of upgrading) it should have a big maintainance cost. Best is increasing cost like Barracks.
+2 in ancient times
+4 from Gunpowder
+6 in modern times

Jon Miller · August 6, 1999, 15:10

Hi All

hey M@ni@c, what did you think of my Pacifist value choice?

+ research, should be in religious freedom

my point is that + econ is equivilant to the other pluses in social engineering and a 2 econ is set up so that you have to have a number of negatives (more then just a linear relationship) to get it

I don't know any equivilant of MWs in real life, don't think they are possible, we could make pollution more important

like three steps of pollution so that if you have bad pollution it is going everywhere

make pollution have a big affect on happiness, on industry

what would Japan's economy be then?

Roman aristocracy took on that value (power) when fighting in Italy, then they wanted to continue fighting

I'm not sure with Education, maybe just make it that every learning building adds to the allotment of value points per turn?

any other ideas on how to handle it

by the way, some have understood the value of education, Plato (very famous, I'll assume you know of him) beleived it strict education, even miseducation to guide its people, others have agreed

Hitler used education to create his values as did the communists, some beleive in conspiracies some don't, about whether the US government guides its citizens values by education or not

maybe education could be another modifier to figure in like support or research

this limits government, but government is already limited (like feudal not making since now (I think someone could make a valid feudal government now)

Prosecution would have similar bonuses to state religion (and similar negatives) but they would be more pronouced

state religion would have bonuses in having a strong state but would have negatives in things like happiness and research (I'll have specifics later)

Jon Miller

Maniac · August 6, 1999, 16:16

Jon Miller :

Have I missed a post of you where you gave effecs for Pacifism.

Japan = Democracy/Free Market/Wealth

In ancient times education was rare.
State organized education is a thing that appeared in the last century.

Religion - beginning a list of SE Religion effects

Animism : -2 Research(should stay the same)

Evangelism : increased culture(take a look at the Religion thread), lower diplomacy(other civs don't like it if you convert their citizen)

State Religion : increased urbanization(people gather around holy cities)

Religious Freedom : +Research, +Happiness, -Nationalism

Prosecution : +Police, -Happiness

Jon Miller · August 6, 1999, 18:16

Here is Pacifism:

by the way I think the pacifist value choice would make it harder to support your armies and they would have less moral, but they would have less corruption too and be happier

Jon Miller

Harel · August 6, 1999, 19:58

My post

Hey, Maniac. I been thinking about your model: it a good one, no doubt, but I think the options still need some tweaking.
So, I will now write how I think the list should be: ofcourse, it's your model and I probaly got everything un-balanced.
Ofcourse, what I post here are my ideas and opinions, not a summary of everything yet suggested ( hey, thats bell job!

).

First off, as you can see, I been away from quite some time: and since the post are SSSOOO long ( and mine would probaly take the ticket ), I am probaly returning on several things. My pardon in advance. By this post, and your response to it, I might understand what the hell is going on here

. So, if we could all just use this post as some sort of harbor, a main reference ( that section is good, that one sucked, change this, etc... ), i would much appreicte.

Beside, I think that the only way Bell can post your SE model is that if we will create a finished model. In that case, Bell can say ( some people suggest a new sort of SE manual, and here it is... ).

BTW, SnowFire, the research section was originaly my idea

.
And, also, I plan to defend the two things you wanted to delete: V.Democracy and Utopia. Now, I hated CtP but I think those two make a lot of sense. Just read on.

About how many options you should have: the evoultion of Se ( -> ) should be used much more freely. Having 8-10 types of goveremetns is a big no-no: this way, we might just keep old civ II option, were you picked from a variaty of goverements option. No, if we have a SE screen with multiple options, we need a small amount of options. The difference between a republic and democracy can be shown by other SE options: no need to have 2 types of such goveremtns. We need to shorten the list, greatly.
I think that SMAC had it right: we should only have 4 SE options per section. True, SMAC model was limited: but if we will have 7 sections ( not 4, like SMAC ), and most of the options would evolve over time, i think we have enough options to go around.
Besides, having too many options hamper strategy. Try to compare total annihilation to StarCraft. In TA, it didn't really matter if you pick a missle Kbot or a missle vechile, but in SC every unit had a critical role. So, every SE should offer a unique view and expreince. This is why i gave every SE option a special bonus.

Small civ:

I alborate what bonus I wish to give smaller civ on the value section. However, I would scrap city state. Time and time again, I explain that forcing certain SE on a civ ( if they want to compete, they have to select A+B, etc. ). The city state only fit, by it's name, smaller civ. Therefor, it's not fitting. All SE options should be universal.

Military industry:

The Mil SE modifator HAS to be added. Militarstic countries usally have poor indsutry but still make huge fleets, because they have a good military industry. The fact is could be used to cheat is not a consideration: what about the "morale" cheat? Switch to good army and power, get a +4 morale for X turns, win all the wars and then proceed to better option. So what now? Also scrap morale?
It's silly to think that you can define the military-pro apporch with only support and morale. Well, yeah they got a good support ratio so that they can support lots of units. They still need to BUILD them. China has a poor industry but still huge armies. Why? Because they got good militarial indstry infrastructre.
But, maybe it's better that mil would give +X% to indudstry, other then reduce cost. That would reduce the ability to cheat the system by switching SE. However, the CENTER modifactor won't give any bonus to military production.
For example, if you have +2 mil / -2 center, and your city produce 10 shields, you would produce 12 shields when you build military units and 8 shields when you build building.

About the enviroment modifactor:

Since it's not important now, I suggest that you transfer the food bonus from center to enviroment.

Changing SE:

I suggest the time it takes to switch SE relies on how many cities you got: we allready agreed that in big empires changes take more time.
The basic time is the square root of then number of cities, rounded up. Therefor, if you have 16 cities the change would take 4 turns.
In this time, you would get no bonus, but a fixed minus, depand on what SE you changes:
Market: -2 Eco, Army: -2 Mil, Strcutre: -2 Urb, Value: -2 center, Research: -2 Res, Religoun: -2 Hap. Changing govermenets would cause you, for the X turns, to be on Anarchy.

The model:

All SE sections have only 4 options ( which evolve ), and every item gives a special bonus. Every SE options have 3 levels: primitive, old to modern, and futuristic. I also alborate why I choosed those SE and while I think we should have the futuristic options ( like V.democracy and Utopia ). I think you will find that I thought a lot on this, and indeed every futuristic option is a logical improvment.

Goverments:

No Fundemnatilist govermenets: select a dictatorship and a strong religoun.

Control goverments:

Maniac, you did a mistake. Not monarchy should give the +0/-0 bonus. That bonus is only for the starting goverement, the basical one. Control goverments relay on creating the basic infra-strcutre for control. Those govermenets usally have no special direction or goals.
Despotism is clear enough. Police state is a control goverements with modern espionge system to make sure the people act like they should. Something like 1984.

Anarchy: -3 Hap, -3 Tax, -3 Nat
->Despotism: No pos, no neg.
-->Police state: +1 Pol

Free-will goverements:
Double votes in UN concuil

Gov's that give the power in the hand of the people, increasing happiness but makes war diffuclt. Republic better reflect old Athenas and Rome: only a limited fraction of the public hold "citizenship", and every such member is a part of the senate which grant the elected president ( or several tribons ) almost dictatorial power. Modern democracy ( first one, the new republic of France ) is one which gives every citizen citizenship and right to vote, but they are not part of the senate: those are elected officals that are chosen but the citizen. The senate hold most power, unlike republic.
Virtual democracy is the direct connection of this process. SnowFire, it's not some futuristic thing, it can even be created today. I don't mean it like in CtP, where everyone live in virtual worlds. No, in V.D, every citizen is again part of the senate. All the people vote toghter on the suggest laws. You have no senate and no president. Every citizen may offer to vote on a law, which needs to pass some prelimintary votes before it's presented to the entire nation. And thanks Jon Miller for supprtong the V.Democracy.

Republic: +2 Hap, -2 Sup
->Democracy: +2 Hap, +2 Cult, -2 Sup, -2 morale
-->V.Democracy: +3 Hap, +2 Cult, +2 Res, -2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 Nat

Monarcial govermenets:
+25% bonus to prodction when building wonders

Goverements which spawn an entire line of leaders from a certain blood line. Monarcy is clear enough, and empireship is achived by diverting power from the upper class ( lords, dukes, and such ) into the hands of the ruler, giving him even more absloute power. Dynasty is a far-future option which is based on genetic engineering and cloning to create a line of perfect kings.

Monarcy: +2 Tax, -2 Urb
->Empireship: +2 Tax, +2 center, -2 Urb, -2 eco
-->Dynasty: +3 Tax, +2 center, +2 mil, -2 urb, -2 eco, -2 cult

Absloute power goverements:
Twice hard for enemy bribe your own cities

Simple enough, those tyrant goveremnets are the process of brute control over the public. It is not police state from SMAC, or even despotism, those are the tyrant control goverements of Castro, Lenin, etc.
Brain-washed goverements IS the direct link to the tyrant goverement: technology used to keep the people in order.

Dictatorship: +2 Pol, -2 dipl
->Totalarism: +2 Pol, +2 Nat, -2 Dipl, -2 corr
-->Brain-washed: +3 Pol, +2 Nat, +2 Hap, -2 Dipl, -2 corr, -2 Res

Market:

basic:

From simple barter economy, to currency, to marcantlism ( simple trade ).

Barter: -2 Tax
->Currency: no pos, no neg
-->Marcantlism: +1 eco

Controled:
City building take one less gold to support

A controlled market is under direct survlience of the goverments. All, or most comapnies belong to the govermenets, and only very few people may freely buy and trade goods and stocks.
The primtive feudalism does it by creating classes. Protectionism is a direct link to it, when the govermenet over-see all trade.
Planned market is a critical thing: high-power computers are used to optimize industry. All goverment control is done automaticly.

Feudalism: +2 center, -2 hap
->Protectionism: +2 center, +2 Urb, -2 eco, -2 hap
-->Planned: +3 center, +2 Urb, +2 Sup, -2 eco, -2 cult, -2 Hap

Social:
One less drone in every city

Social market is when the goverment shape the market is better benefict the lower level of the public. While socialism and communism need to explanation, i would explain what I mean by Utopia. A Utopia market is very possible: just place old USSR in USA furtile and rich lands, and walla. While we never had pure communism ( China is not even close, and the soviets DID gives grants to important jobs, like farmers, etc ), a Utopia is communism with enough technology to be a TRUE communism. A utopia system is a no-money system, a lot like StarTrek. Every one gets the same wages, enough food to live, etc. It could be done, and SHOULD NOT be scrapped, like SnowFire suggested.
And Maniac, I agree the socialism is also a value, but a free-market is left without goverment control: in a social market I mean that the goverement uses big subsidies and large funding, to improve the the living conditions of the lower classes.

Socialism: +2 Hap, -2 eco
->Communism: +2 Hap, +2 corr, -2 eco, -2 Tax
-->Utopia: +3 Hap, +2 corr, +2 env, -2 eco, -2 tax, -2 pol

Free:
Free caravan for in every city the size of 10 or more

A free market is created when the goverment lives it in the hands of the public.
Banking markets were the first to do this: all control of the markets was in the hands of the banks, which worked equally well with every sector and class. While the power was centered, it was free to be exploited by every person ( with enough cash ). Free market is obivous, and transnational is when communction and transportion allow multi-nation unions.
BTW, since the eco bonus is much lower then it was in SMAC, no need to balance it out with such a huge -support ratio,

Banking: +2 eco, -2 center
->Free Market: +2 eco, +2 dipl, -2 center, -2 sup
-->Trasnational: +3 eco, +2 dipl, +2 cult, -2 center, -2 sup, -2 Nat

Army:

I been hearing troubling thoughts. CtP readiness? CtP?! Have we lost our minds? Can readiness truly descripe the balance in the quality, quanity and diversity of armies along history? While the description of the army options along history change a great deal, they all stay true to the need.
Read my updates army options. I think you would agree it's best the readiness.

Basic: No pos, no neg.

Small:
Twice more effective in reducing unrest.

Small armies are by no mean good armies. No, small armies are used by countries that have no need for a large standing army. The small armies are usally even at a every poor level. However, countries like denemark, Singapore, and other commerical countries tend to select this option. However, a small army drains much less for the economy.

Militia: +1 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale
->Volunteer: +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup
-->Reserve: +3 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup, -1 mil

Big:
Get a free infantry in every city larger then 10

Big armies are created by mass allocation from the entire public. In old days forced drafts requires every able person to serve. As culture develop, and people are less prone to agree to forced drafting, it relies more and more on public acceptence. In first, it evolves to drafts ( in which you gain proper treatment, training and sallary ), and finished by creating a civic duty order in which every person serve.
BTW, Maniac, I guess you got mixed up because of the name "the people army". I didn't mean China modern army. The people army is a name to a brute, barbatic system in which entire villages and cities were raiding for able men,

The people army: +3 Mil, +3 Sup, -3 Morale, -3 Hap
->Drafts: +3 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 Hap
-->Civic duty: +2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale

Expert:
All unit start as veteran

This army option is dedictated to the creation of a qualified army. The size varies on how much you are willing to spend, ofcourse. It may be as small or as big as you wish. However, it's quallity remain the same.
The cyborg option is not that "hi-tech". It could be achived in the near-future. I don't mean full cyborgs: maybe some neural connections, a hidden bland/pistel and some armor plates. Full, cybernatic persons are really too much in the future.

Mercenery: +2 morale, -2 Sup
->Trained: +3 morale, -2 sup, -1 mil
-->Cyborg: +4 morale, -2 sup, -2 mil

Structre:

First off, I would like to point out the lack of a "no pos, no neg". Therefor, I suggest that we scrap tribal, and put "city state" as "no pos, no neg". Each city stands by it's own.

City state: no pos, no neg.
Federal: +2 Tax, -2 Hap
Confederate: +2 Hap, -2 Tax
Commonwealth: +2 eco, -2 pol

Religoun:

Once again, I say that fundemnatislm, facism, and the like can be descriped by selecting the proper SE options. However, since I have a hard time visioning a nation which ENFORCE atheism, religoun freedom should be atheism.

Polytheism: no pos, no neg.
Multi-ethism ( loose monotheism ): +2 Hap, -2 Dipl
Fundementalism ( strict monotheism ): +2 Pol, +2 Nat, +2 Morale, -3 Dipl, -3 Hap
Atheism ( religoun freedom ): +2 Res, -2 Urb

Values:

First off, I scrapped enviromentalism. You can simple used naturalistic on research.
Space explotion is just silly.
However, since you can pick philosphical in research ( res bonus ), you have no need to knowladge value. Therefor, I added a new value: Happiness. The common good of all citizens.
In here, I describe my suggestion to increase the bonus to minor civ. Every value contains 3 levels of bonus: for tiny nations, small nations and normal.
Civ size in relevence to map size:

Small map size: tiny: 1 city, small: 2 city, normal: 3 and mup.
Normal map size: tiny:1 city, small: 2-3 cities, normal: 4 and up.
Large map size: tiny: 1-2 cities, small: 3-4 cities, normal: 5 and up.
Huge map size: tiny: 1-2 cities, small: 3-5 cities, normal: 6 and up.

Survival: no pos, no neg.
Wealth: +1 gold per city.
Tiny: +3 eco, +3 Tax, -1 env, -1 center
Small: +3 eco, +2 Tax, -2 env, -1 center
Normal: +2 Eco +2 Tax, -2 env, -2 center
Power: needs old half the exp. points to upgrade level.
Tiny: +3 mil, +3 morale, -1 Cult, -1 Hap
Small: +3 mil +2 morale, -2 cult, -1 Hap
Normal: +2 mil, +2 morale, -2 cult, -2 Hap
Happiness: one extra happy citizen per city.
Tiny: +3 Urb, +3 Hap, -1 morale, -1 Tax
Small: +3 Urb, +2 Hap, -2 morale, -1 Tax
Normal: +2 Urb, +2 Hap, -2 Morale, -2 Tax

Do you all agree with those bonus? Are they too big or too small?

Research:

Not many changes here, but any suggestions would be taken heartfully.

Wise-man: no pos, no neg.
Naturisitc: +2 Env, -2 Urb: +25% for biology techs.
Philoshpical: +2 Res, -2 morale: +25% for mathemhatical and social techs.
Pratical: +2 Sup, -2 Res: +25% for combat-oriented techs.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 06, 1999).]