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

[Jon Miller]

quick post

Harel, the USSR said they were atheistic

they tought there people to be atheists and were no tolerance to religion

just like the spanish inquisition

Jon Miller

[SnowFire]

I've been reading this thread, but have had no time to add my own responses.

Maniac: For the most part, I agree with your model, but you'll gain no friends with a post like that.

Harel: Let's face it, some of your ideas are silly. If anything, Dynasty should be a primitive Monarchy (like China before the Han) and Monarchy should be a sophisitcated system of royalty and succession (like England and most of Europe from 1400-1800). But no intelligent person in this age is going to accept someone as a ruler because he was the old ruler's son.

*To be added to later*

[Maniac]

First answer the small posts. That's easier.
Means Theben :

"It is possible to attempt to combine ideas rather than fight over whose is best. Ember & I have done this with our combat system ideas."

Our effects we gave to our SE choices are so different that I don't see any similarities.

"I have a question about your new SE choices: have you defined what they do elsewhere? If you have, could you point to where? I'd like to see them."

You're lucky. I have just this night posted some kind of a summary of my religion ideas on the Religion thread.

"Ah. I forgot to explain that in my system there would be no "happy" or "unhappy" citizens, just citizens. The HAPPINESS indicator (one set for the national level, and another in each city) would tell you how happy the city is overall, and the production bonus/penalty would be affected by that. It also affects growth, and immigration/emmigration would be assumed in the growth."

A happiness indicator? Good idea. Much easier than that stupid predetermined happy/content/unhappy/very unhappy citizens!

That production bonus/penalty would be easily done by the x10 system, also growth.

It would also be easier to determine when a city goes into riot or into revolt (then it forms a seperate civ). Just have a fix number.

It would also be easier to present the different religions with each 2 (m/f) independent icons.

If Firaxis had to create different icons for each religions, different icons for each happiness state + all it's combinations, you would get a _lot_ of icons.
Your idea would make it simpler.

Now to...
HAREL :

Small Civs :

I'm not gonna argue about that. The same for me. Do what you like.
Only concerned about this.
Suppose you choose a tiny map with 70 to 90% oceans. Then every civ should have the bonuses cause no one has many cities and then the jump from 5 to 6 cities(wasn't that when you didn't receive any bonuses?) would be too much.

Military Industry :

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Mil Ind itself. I'm only concerned about that cheat.

Well OK, let's use Mil Ind again.
In my model I would give it to Power, Practical (would decrease the many Sup bonuses)as bonus and to Humaniterian as penalty. Perhaps also a penalty for a Value. Knowledge? Wealth? Pacifism???
And of course don't forget to give it to the CTP Military Readiness system.

And if you think you can turn around an army in 3 years, then I suggest you come here and I'll inlist you as a cadet of mine: cause you sure need some army background.

Er... rather not . Draft has been canceled here in Belgium several years ago, now proffesional army. I don't think my decadent weak body wouldn't survive a year of hard military service.
BTW, I can't stand strong authority and orders.

Fish Sticks

Don't you think that all that polluting western countries have a good understanding of biology?
Sure there's nothing wrong with some genetic engineering, but still those green guys are against it. Not likely they will use it.

I have nothing against the idea itself. It would certainly make Environmentalism better. Plus it would make Centralization a more normal factor. It is quite overpowered with food AND labor bonuses. But I just don't see why Env should increase food.

Square roots

Sorry sorry sorry. Of course I know square roots. I just didn't lay the link between the English word and the Dutch word 'vierkantswortel'. Quite different as you see.
The word square made me think of map tiles.
The word root made me think at a tree.
I was quite confused...

But now about SE switching.
8 turns!!!!!!! Come on. You would loose all your cities by revolts. And I don't see why 8 turns of waiting should be more bearable when you're big.

Special bonuses

Wow. I convinced you.

Three levels

Yea I know I know. I was nitpicking. I really got in an annihilator mood.

Balance

It's very hard to understand your model for outsiders Maniac: just how should I know how much +2 eco is balanced by -support? -2? -4? Maybe if you could have a chart of some sort.

How to start that??
First tip. Huge Economy bonuses mostly have penalties that reduce your military capacity, such as Police, Support and Morale.

But I'm not done yet.

Did I scare you?

Conclusion : Your model sucks.

Somehow, I still don't understand why.

I'll give it another try (probably unsuccessful).

Police too much positive rates. Your max is 5, while the max that my Police post allows, is 3. Then you get choices that give you little positive effects because you already have the max police rate.

Too less negatives. My post allows to -10.
You HAVE TO give +2 Eco's Police penalties.
Even -5 Pol (kind of Civ2 Democracy) isn't used.

Corruption is perhaps your biggest lack. Did you just forget it or what? Perhaps it's because you play perfectionist.
You can't rule even 40 cities with only +2 Corr.
And then you gave it to Socialist (I think) which gives you -2 Eco (I think, I don't have your model before me cause it stands on the 50->100 part of the thread). That really makes large empires unlivable.
When making a model, consider all strategies, not just your (perfectionist) one.

Urbanization that much penalties. Have you something against children? It would slow growth too much.

Morale. The Morale rates and system would have to be expanded a lot to allow such positive and negative rates.

Economy. Again that much positives. I can't make up that much rates. Can you? If so, feel free to do so.

And then -4 Eco! Jon Miller is complaining cause I have ONE Economy negative choice. But you have two. Double problems...

Rest is within allowable borders (although I don't have so high and low rates for some).

Still 6/15 factors suck, when I am a bit more free in complaints.

Government

Monarchy is no evolution of Anarchy and Anarchy is never available as a Government choice (just look). That's why it's between parentheses. I also made a small remark about it in a post to Jon Miller.

The SE choices you automatically have in the beginning of the game are :
Despotism/Barter/Survival/Tribal/Animism/Wise Men/None.

Beside, I still don't understand how you can give Monarchy "no pos, no neg". Can you explain that reasoning?

As you should know, in the beginning of Civ2 you are stuck with Despotism, a very bad government. It is the intention that you get a better gov as fast as possible.

I tried to simulate that by letting the first SE choices not be 'no pos or neg' as in SMAC, but let them be very negative choices.
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
To simulate increased 'martial law' and much corruption.
Barter/Animism : -2 Tax/-2 Res
To simulate that you can set your taxes and science only at 50%.
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
To simulate free units up to city size and to simulate that any resource of 3 and more gets -1.
This how I simulated Civ2 Despotism.

So your goal in the beginning of the game is to get the 'no pos or neg''s as fast as possible, as it was your goal in Civ2 to get to Monarchy as fast as possible.

So I assumed Despotism as bad and Monarchy the good gov you have to reach, just as in Civ2.

Monarchy is the most used gov system in history. So I assumed that as normal 'no pos or neg'.
If I would have to give it effects, I guess +1 or +2 Pol. I can't really think of anything else. Monarchy is the 'normal' gov and all other govs are extremes in a certain thing.

Should I give Monarchy +1 Pol?

Good for SMAC. Never liked the game that much. Did play it from a long time, thought. We don't need to copy SMAC at all. And it was YOU, remember, that said that some people love to use the "no pos, no neg" options. Therefor, it the other options are not powerful enough, it's a low chance they ever will, right?

Indeed I said so. My intention is to make sure I have enough good strategies to make sure they don't want to use 'no pos or neg'.
If someone uses 'no pos or neg' it's because there's something wrong and deficient with that category.

Ha, I just realized I have good reason to include more than 4 options. People need it!

Control Govs

Ding dong! Wrong! You are still not clear between the two destinctions I made: control gov's and absloute power gov's. The difference is not that big.

Ha, now you are contradictious.
You say you want four different strategies, but now you say yourself the difference is not big!
So I say again, they are the same. Delete one of the two. Unite them.

Free Will Govs

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy? In republic, the citizenship is in the hands of a selected group, and in a democracy it's in the hands of everyone. Therefor, due to this small power-difference,

Do you call the difference between a selected group and the entire population small?????

I thought Ayatollah Khameini was the leader of the Iranese Sji'its.
BTW, it may be my personal view, but I think the religious cult gives some power to the democracy.
I don't think Khameini would allow democracy further if the president tried to rob his power.

I don't call the Vatican a country.

Never heart of the Sahandrin.

My view of theocracy...
Pffff... eh... I think something like the power of the pope after some agreement signed at Worms after having some trouble with the Roman/German emperor. Don't remember much details, only fragments.

Absolute power Monarchy is Monarchy-Protectionism.
Monarchy with power of the nobles is Monarchy-Feudalism.
I reask my question. Do you know anything about European history?

So differences in some govs can be showed by including other choices out of other categories.
But I can't do that to show the difference between Republic-Democracy.

The idea of True Democracy is good, but I don't like the effects you give it.

Monarch Govs

I read your comments, Harel. I just find that future unlikely.

Controlled

It's vassals, btw.

In my language it's with 'z'. And if I wrote down all the mistakes you make, I would have the longest post of all forums (now you're pissed).

Hahahahahahah!!!! Oh please. A planned economy uses computers to predict rise of stocks and market shifting and best utalize it to improve industry. Last time I heard, you don't have market shifting and stocks in a communist market.

So every country with a stock exchange is a planned economy?

BTW, ever heart of the Russian 5 year plans.
Duh, if that isn't a planned economy...

No comment on Utopia?

Again I don't like the effects you give it.

Social

I just think Planned and Socialist should melt together.

But I never liked sliders

Could you please repeat that a bit louder to Theben?

Free

And, in the real world and for game balance, you can't give a nation both an economy bonus and an industrial bonus. Either it's very commercial or very industrial, or somewhere in between, but it's CANT be very good at both.

So according to you, Japan, Europe and the USA have a bad industry? Economy and Industry go hand in hand.
About that game balance, you may be right...

Army

In here I have to disagree. A contract that it's army takes very small part of it is much more free and happy.

Debate-able

I can see limited cyborgs in 25 years, myself. in that i mean people with implanted poly-carbon armor to protect them, and perhaps some enhanced-vision to replace eyes.

Wow, are you revealing some Israelian or American secret project?

Religion

You presume that USSR was Athiest. Who sad i was? Atheism is the belief that there is no god. USSR didn't promote it, it just went ahead and charge against ANY religon. There is a BIG difference between religos un-sensativity and Athiest. As an Athiest, you should know the difference.

I don't see Atheism as a religion. The word 'religion' has a peiorative sound in my ears.
Atheism is a (the) belief. Now I'm begin to sound as an atheist fundamentalist...

I gave then -3 Hap because fundemnatlist religon is an oppresive one, which ruthlessly imprision the people.

consider fundemntalist as your "prosecution" idea

No no no.
Prosecution is when the government forces a certain religion.
In Fundamentalism the people want it themself.
In most Islam countries it's the opposite. Fundamentalists are bugging the Religious Free Govs. In that case the fundamentalists are the prosecutors. eg Egypt, Algery...

State Religion

Have you read the Religion thread?

Well, you're right it isn't real SE. But it's kinda waste of screens and boxes to make a special box where to choose your state religion while you can just put it also on the SE screen.

Value

Once again, that was SMAC. This is CIV III. I see no need to reflect the people tendacy toward enviromtalism with more then one option. Besides, it's logical to presume every nation that select enviromantlism as a value will also select naturalistic. Double choise isn't nessecry: it's redundant.

Only one option to improve your Environmentalism or any factor lessens your strategies. And that's what you want right? Strategies.
I get the feeling that I have the model with the most strategies.

Why not simulate SMAC? Firaxis invented SE. So they know what makes a good model. They know which strategies must be included in a model.
And 2 choices to improve a factor is one of them. You can clearly see that when studying the model.

So my model is more likely to be accepted by Firaxis than yours, cause it follows their SE ideas.

Before you think: "Is that the reason why he does it, the 2 bonuses?"
No, I agree with their vision on SE. It's as simple as that. Making Social Engineering Models is an art. And I know the art.(now I'm perhaps a bit overexaggerating with that art stuff)

Socialist value : do we agree on that one?

Research

Another +2 Economy!

Conclusion

Oh, it got good reasoning beyond it, I give you that.

Yes indeed, every bit is thought out well. That's why it is almost perfect.

Your post proved to me that your model is even more un-balanced then I thought.

But, the section where you started to compare the SE max/min against SMAC proved to me you don't understand the most fundemnatical thing about the SE option which SMAC had.

Please continue. You were just gonna say why you find my model unbalanced. And you were starting to give your vision on SE.

You said you played SMAC a lot, used it as a starting point for your model. Is that true?

I used that model to understand the art of Social Engineering. And a few things are pretty much the same eg Totalitarianism(Police State), Free Market, my original Cyborg idea(Thought Control), Power.

Than I took of some things the same bonuses but changed the negatives cause they didn't fit on earth or were placed into something else. Or I split up things.
eg Fundamentalism -> Fundamentalism and Theocracy
Knowledge
Environmentalism
Wealth

And off course new things or serious adaptions.
eg ...

I don't have StarCraft. I'm not blessed with all your computer games.

"Ok, maybe the numbers need changing to obtain more balance: that's fine details.

Numbers details !?!?! The names are details. The names I made up in ten minutes. The numbers and balancing is the real work.

That's what you all miss. You seem to forget the big picture when suggesting something.

M@ni@c
Annihilator at your service
Again owner of the longest post?

[Theben]

You don't see any similarities? The only 2 things that are irreconcilable are the buttons/slider bars. Everything else has potential common ground. FE, the happiness indicator?

RE, The people icons-
I envision 2 things: 1) That the icon would be indicative of the civ it came from, by race and a style of dress; 2) each one's religion woukd be shown by a symbol over the heads of the icons: crosses, Stars of David, 1/4 moon & star, the tyrwiewhatever symbol, etc.

[Theben]

Maniac,
Having read the religion thread, you didn't answer my question. My question is regarding the actual SEs. Urbanization, your Happiness, Diplomacy, Culture, etc. What exactly do they do?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

OK, here's the deal.

The last day of posts to be included in this version of the summary will be on August 23 (with a little bit of give to compensate for that whole time zone thing.) That will give me a week to summarize, assimiliate, and then clean up the mess that's left over, before I have to send it off to our fearless leaders. My (current) plan is to do the summary the week of the 23rd, then post it by that weekend, so that everybody is given a couple of days to complain about it before things are set in stone. In my current optimistic mood, I'm planning to both assimilate the systems into a list of ideas, and include a seperate section of the summary which has the integrated systems listed in their entirety.

Now, what would be really nice is if the final versions of each system (assuming they haven't been merged or discarded by then) could be reposted the weekend of the 21st and 22nd. If you don't want to, hey, that's fine, but it would certainly be helpful to me. You, as the engineers of these systems, know them better than I do, since I've just been reading along. If you don't, that's fine, I can do it, but it would reduce my confusion as to what's currently in and what's been tossed out to have a complete version staring me in the face when I do the summary. The detail level on this version is far greater than the last one, so things will be confusing enough as is . . .

Anyways, that's the plan, as it currently exists in my head. If you want to repost the complete systems, that'd be great, but if not, that's fine too. Up to you. If you have problems with this or the timeline, well, this is where to find me. Let me know and we'll try to find something more to your liking.

[yin26]

Bell:

You are a brave man indeed. Fearlessly staring down perhaps the longest post-reply sessions in forum history!

This is really fun to watch. One of the reasons I love Civ is that it tends to draw impassioned feelings from intelligent people. Right or wrong, you guys have some great ideas, and with the dedicated Bell working with you, Civ3 might just be great despite itself.

Yin

[Theben]

As long as you're amused.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited August 11, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

M@ni@c, I do not disagree so much with communisms -2 econ, it is just unballanced with what mercantilism, commonwealth, and wealth allow (+2 econ and an expanding and/or warlike country)

After reading Bells post I think I might need to leave off critiqueing your setup for a bit and work on my own

please read through my critiques though (they should be useful even though I was tired when I wrote them)

POPULACE

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

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

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

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

STRENGTH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these three things add together to form strength

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

HAPPINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VALUES

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

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

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

values for each group can be changed by education/propaganda

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

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

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

all points not spent are lost

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

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

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

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

the national values affect the civ with modifiers

values:

pacificism----power

antiimperialism (better word?)----imperialism

conservatism (somethhing else?)----knowledge
____________________________

I am tired, to be continued

Jon Miller

[Harel]

Once more, I have many comments on your posts Maniac. But I just don't have enough strenght to argue with you.

You and I think it two oppisite ways: I belive the goal is first to establish solid, balanced SE options that represnt a balance historial and game-play details.

( One little thing about goverements: The dictatorship/totalirist are govermenets were all power is centred into one person. That gov is not neessercly despot ( vicious ), or oppresive. Some tryants were kind: just look at some of the roman emperators. Despotism, by Oxford, is "Vicous, ruthless, Despot, a tyrant". Despotism is an oppresive goverment regiem, which limit and control the populce by brute force: like SMAC police state. Clear now? )

The numbers derive from the names. They are not the important thing: beta testing will always find flaws in every system which will need mending. You can't get the perfect balanced system in one go. You need to change and adapt the numbers.

You, however, think the numbers are the critical thing. But a good SE is more then numbers: it's several distinct possiblities.

Yes, Indeed, a republic isn't that different from a democracy. We of a westren, democratic states see the difference. But thats because of who we are. The people of a police state probaly won't see the "fine" difference.
And no, in Iran the democraticaly elected president holds quite a lot of power. If you don't like the Vatican, try Tibet. And I can give you a historial explantion of the Shandarin over e-mail if you want.
Saying the Feudalsim, can be "monarch+feudal market" is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's ok if are using broad-term declartion of what is monarchy. But by including the republic you show you include gov types when the power-shift is differernt ( all the people, upper class ).
Feudalsim isn't just a market type: the power balance is more in favor of the lords and dukes then the king. Several times in feudal states the upper class over-ruled the king desicison ( like a senate ) to go to war. If you know a bit about england history, you know what happened there.
Therefor, since the power shift between a true monarchy and a monarchy where the king gives economical/geographical and militarical power to the upper class is atleast as big as the power-shift between a democracy and a republic, you will need to include that too.

Wow, sorry, got side-tracked. I am not here to argue: if you don't agree with what I just said, ignore. I am here to offer a proposition.

Settlement

I have an idea which can benefit as all:

1. I can understand more on how to balance the social modficators of your model.
2. You, or I, might change our minds about each other models.
3. We might just well get one model, and help poor bell.

My idea? You don't have to agree with my model. I only ask for one thing: try to take the SE options I presented, without changes, and give them balanced numbers.
You might change your opinion about my model. If you won't, and you probaly won't anyway, we both learn some new things and maybe find a way to bridge the difference.

[will I]

Thank you for the responses to my post. I think they miss my main point -- all of the systems I have seen are too darn complex. Thirteen or fourteen factors, with seven or eight SE categories is an immense amount of variation. (Adds up to 15,000 different combinations. Although that's lessened by making some of the choices mutually exclusive, it's still a huge number.) My point is that some of these variables can be handled outside of the SE menu. For example, taking M@ni@c's list as an example, I would delete army from the SE categories. I would delete religion, and make it part of whatever screen is used to interact with the various religions. I would probably also delete the "research" category, thus slimming the list of categories down to four.

As for factors, I was perhaps too eager in axing some categories. Diplomacy is probably worthwhile if it affects how diplomat units are able to operate. Morale probably makes sense, too.

However, on reflection, I think all issues of religion should be handled by a single religious conversion factor. Perhaps different value choices could have a stated effect on the conversion factor, but I see no need for a separate culture or evangelism factor among the SE factors. Happiness also seems to me to be the effect of the SE choices rather than a separate SE factor, so I'd delete it. Ditto on urbanization -- the rate and limits of city growth seem like things that the computer can handle adequately without player intervention.

I would also delete taxes as an SE factor, since I always thought it was unrealistic to think that particular forms of government limited a civ's ability to determine where it spent money, and also lessened the fun of playing the game.

On second thought, I also think we could dispense with nationalism. The computer could generate emigration/immigration rates based on relative happiness and wealth levels. In history, these have been far more important determinants of emigration than "nationalism." Indeed, periods of extreme nationalism in Japan and Italy coincided with high levels of emigration. Success of diplomats is, I think, better handled in the diplomacy factor, and religious conviction makes more sense as a religious factor. Again, look to history. Mexican and French nationalism are in many ways strongly anticlerical.

But too sum up my point -- find ways to simplify the SE options. All of the systems are just too bulky. And, as a beneficial side effect, we may cut down the length of the posts.

(It took me a while to write this, so I may not have hit all of the most current points.)

[Maniac]

JON MILLER :

"so a plus 2 or minus 2 (or 3 or 1) hap means nothing?"

Do I really explain everything that bad?
No that +4 and -4 Hap are just added bonuses for reaching that rate.
This is the real Happiness :

Happiness affects the addition of extra unhappy people because a civ has exceeded a certain number of cities.
The Happiness formula works as follows :

City Limit : (8 - difficulty) x (6 + Happiness) x MapRoot / 2

Where :
Difficulty : Player's difficulty level (0-5)
Happiness : SE Happiness rate
MapRoot : Square root of # map squares / Square root of 3200

For each city a civ builds or conquers in excess of this number, one additional unhappy citizen (or in Theben's system a %?) will appear at some city somewhere in your civ.

"you have not addressed my point about protectionism being far better than communism (the -2 econ makes it so it can never have a lot of trade (which comes at +2 econ)"

I wouldn't know what to say about it. Replace that -1 Corr by -1 Eco?

"also I would like to point out that you weakend some modifiers by splitting there effects into 2 while feeping others at the same great strength (ie econ)"

Efficiency was too powerful in SMAC. That was together with Economy the single most important factor. So I split up Efficiency. Very simple cause it has too very distinct uses. But I don't see something alike in Economy. It affects trade. Point. Believe me, if I could split up Economy somehow, I would.

"remember I want research section out, but I am using it in my critique since you have it in your system"

For me it's the same. I wouldn't regret if it's out. I wouldn't regret if it's in.
The only problem if I do away the Research section is that I would have too less Environment factors. But that is easy to solve. I would give +2 Env to Utopia.

Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -1 Corr, -2 Tax?

Note about True Democracy. I have given some thought about uniting Republic and Democracy. How about this?

Republic : +2 Corr, +1 Centr, -2 Mor
->Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup

I refused to unite Republic and Democracy because the difference between them was too big and I would rather have +2 Centr than +2 Hap.
Cause I lessened that Centr bonus and making Republic a bit worse, I would prefer +2 Hap over +1 Centr. So now they can be united.
And cause I give the +1 Eco to True Democracy and that is available late in the game, +2 Eco is a bit harder.

And if I add Utopia :

Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Eco
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Corr

So, what does everybody think of the changes?

Hmm, a second penalty for Commonwealth... Add a Nationalism penalty?

And then the shortage of Nat penalties is solved and can I change the penalty of Confederate from -1 Centr, -1 Nat to -2 Centr.

So :
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1/2 Nat
Confederate : +2 Hap, +?, -2 Centr

"like the econ places that matter are -1, 2, 5"

Better than in SMAC. There was it -1 and 2 only.

"I think that to determine your modifiers in a ballanced way you need to say what every group of se choices is and make sure that real bonuses are paid for by real penalties"

You're right. But doing it is more difficult than saying it.

Ah, finally some good constructive criticism to respond to.

Despotism :
That's what it's meant to be fore.

Totalitarianism :
IMHO this is a useless choice.
The police is necessary to control the extra drones and the support is needed to maintain the extra police units.
But SMAC included it, Harel wants some different strategies (though most suck), so I might as well include it.

Monarchy :
that's indeed the only use.

Theocracy :
I would rarely use it, but SMAC included Fundamentalism...
Besides not that bad, look at the following :

Republic/Power : +2 Corr, +4 Sup, -1 Centr

Theocracy/Knowledge : +2 Hap, +1 Corr

Since I don't care about Support and I care a lot about Centralization, and Happiness and Corruption are the most important factors the second choice could be better.
To win some Happiness (eg by Confederate) Republic would have to get a serious Centr penalty, while for Theocracy it just has to choose Federal for less Corruption, resulting in better Corr rate than Republic...

Heck, Theocracy is good...

Republic :

Wow wow, the senate a minor hassle?
Unless I wanted an atrocious reputation, I had to listen to that senate.
In my democracy games, the wars were in slow motion : one city per 15 turns.

democracy :

Democracy and Republic changed...

"I think that republic and democracy could be fixed by adding some sort of penalty to both and decreasing republics corruption bonus to at least 0"

Than there wouldn't be any ancient gov decreasing corruption. That would be unbalancing.

Manorialism :

Before neglecting Manorialism, consider this.
In the beginning of the game, a large portion of my shields go always to unit support due to phalanx and settlers support.
So I think that +3 Sup certainly offsets the bad effects of -1 Centr.
I think I would choose that in the early games until Banking appears.

Mercantilism :

The combination Mercantilism-Wealth gives you unhappy people, bad morale and an annoying senate.
So getting +2 Eco on that way isn't that easy as you say.

Protectionism :

Glad to hear it's balanced. I feared no one would choose it.
Would it be too bad if I replaced -1 Corr by -1 Eco?

Communism :

Nationalism can be found easily? The penalty of Federal is severe and about Fundamentalism, it's the job of Firaxis to make Diplomacy important.
BTW, Diplomacy has more uses than simply affecting other civ's mood to you.

"also diplo, cult, mor(to some extant), tax, hap can all be made to mean little (not give important negatives) while the se choices that have these for negatives have good positives"

Diplomacy : Firaxis' job
Culture : Religion threaders' job; working on it.
Morale : I find it pretty important
Taxes : You're right. on this one. I use it to give a small bonus and to have a difference between an increased economy and increased taxes.
BTW, there is a research factor. Why then no Taxes factor?
Happiness : Very important!

SNOWFIRE :

"Maniac: For the most part, I agree with your model, but you'll gain no friends with a post like that."

Just got sick of all Jon Miller's critique and Harel's unbalanced system.

So Snowfire agrees with me...

BELL :

System support :

1) Harel, Dinoman2
2) Theben, Jon Miller
3) M@ni@c, Snowfire

You see Bell. I have as much support for my model as everybody else.

repost my whole system? Does that also mean all my 14 SE factors? Now THAT will be a long post.

THEBEN :

"You don't see any similarities? The only 2 things that are irreconcilable are the buttons/slider bars. Everything else has potential common ground. FE, the happiness indicator?"

Oops. I thought you were talking about the 'similarities' between Harel's and my system. You have to admit these models can never be united.

"1) That the icon would be indicative of the civ it came from, by race and a style of dress"

That would again lead to endless combinations.
eg 30 civs and 4 religions +1 Animist 'religion' = 150 icons. Plus male/female = 300.
Plus let's say 4 time epochs = 1200.
Don't think Firaxis will do that.
(And if you would include specialists...)

Icons for each religions and for each sex = 5x2 = 10.
Four time epochs = 40.

For the sake of Firaxis I would choose the latter.

Having read the religion thread, you didn't answer my question. My question is regarding the actual SEs. Urbanization, your Happiness, Diplomacy, Culture, etc. What exactly do they do?"

Oh, you mean the SE factors? Simple.
Police and Support are in the last day or so of the SE thread v2.0.
The edited Support and all other factors are within the first 20 posts of the v2.1 thread. You can't miss.

And again to JON MILLER :

POPULACE - STRENGTH - HAPPINESS

If you use that system of Theben of a general Happiness indicator, this could be great.

Wouldn't workers and resource producers be the same?

Only don't want to link it to a 'who' system.

I stay with my point it is good represented by :

Scientists want Knowledge, Religious Freedom.

Military want Despotism/Totalitarianism, Power
Nobles want Monarchy, Feudalism.

Rich want Republic, Banking/FM/Trans, Wealth.

Workers want (True) Democracy, Communism/Utopia, Environment

Religious want Theocracy/ any Religion choice except Religious Freedom

Your SE choices could anger or make happy some of the groups by the way described above.

VALUES

Sorry. Don't agree with that.
A Value some don't like could anger them, but they can't force you to choose something.
They can only revolt as you described if their Hap is too low...

[Jimmy]

Too many choices !! SE has got to be as simple as possible.
I propose sliders for :
- government (from tyranny to anarchy)
- economy (from total free market to planned)
- religion (from agnosticism to fundamentalism)
- each value (power,wealth,knowledge,ecology,peace)
That should be enough to represent any type of society but most importantly it would encourage incremental change. The bigger the change the more unhappiness so a player would have to change the settings gradually to avoid a riots. It would not be possible to change SE choices suddenly just to fit the situation.
Last, the computer would hve pre-scripted descriptions for different settings for each section, and would combine them to make a description of your civ. For example, if I have 20% for gov, 10% for econ, 60% for religion and say 50% for power and knowledge, 0 for the other, the description might read:
"The Roman civilization is governed by a strong despot. His political decisions are not questionned. The economy is left however to the individual producing a minority or rich powerful individuals and the majority are struggling to rise the social ladder. Religion is encouraged and most people have a strong faith. They believe that the pursuit of knowledge and strength leads to a satisfying life."

[Harel]

First off Maniac I guess you accepted my offer since you posted a united republic/democracy threadn used Utopia.
First off, let's agree I am on your side. I like your SE modifcators and I belive they should be used. I also belive your numbers are balanced: I differ with you that balanced numbers are not enough, you also need balanced options, "names". So, I am trying to adapt your numbers with my naming system.
Just keep commenting and I'll just keep editing this post till we can both agree on it.

Military industry

I think you missed a key thing I said to snowfire: I belive that Mil should give a percent bonus to military, not reduce cost to not allow any cheating. So, what i propose is: cut Centraliazation into two section: centr which gives +% to civic industry, and Mil which gives +% to military alone.

Now, for the model:

Goverments

Now that it's clear whats the difference between absloute power and control gov, I am attentive to your suggestions.
I still belive that a Monarchial system is not fitting for "no pos, no neg" but the control section, since monarchs should give a big tax bonus.

Anarchy: -3 Hap, -3 Tax, -3 Nat
->Despotism: No pos, no neg
-->Police state: +1 Pol
Republic: +2 Corr, +1 Centr, -2 Mor
->Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup
( Tell me what you think about monarchy. The Tax bonus is clear enough. )
Monarcy: +2 Tax, -2 Urb
->Empireship: +2 Tax, +2 Centr, -2 Urb, -2 Eco
-->Dynasty: +3 Tax, +2 Centr, +2 Mil, -2 Urb, -2 Eco, -2 Cult
Dictatorship: +2 Pol, -2 corr
->Totalarism: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Dipl, -2 corr ( Hap minus is wrong )
-->Brain-washed: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, +2 Nat, -2 Dipl, -2 corr, -2 Res ( ok? )

Maybe Theocracy could replace or be added? 5 gov types is ok. What would you suggest as Theocracy 3 stages as SE bonuses?

Market

Marcentalism, by defination is just "trade". Therefor, I belive it's a natural development from a barter system, to a currency system to a trade system.
The thing I don't understand at all is just how you like Protectionism to Communism.
I would like more debates on planned.

Barter: -2 Tax
->Currency: no pos, no neg
-->Marcantlism: +1 eco
( Tell me what you think about controlled. Good corruption cause it's effiecent )
Feudalism: +1 Corr, +2 Sup, -1 Eco (?)
->Protectionism: +2 Corr, +2 Tax, -2 Eco (?)
-->Planned: +3 Corr, +2 Urb, -3 Eco (too big eco minus? )
Socialism: +1 Centr, +2 Hap, -2 Eco ( ok? )
->Communism: +2 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia: +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 corr
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Army

Now with Mil sorted out, I think that with fine-detailing the numbers for balance it's a better system then CtP. And no, no secret plan just more confidandt in Technology.

Basic: no pos, no neg.
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
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
Mercenery: +2 morale, -2 Sup
->Trained: +3 morale, -2 sup, -1 mil
-->Cyborg: +4 morale, -2 sup, -2 mil

Structre

Tribal: +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City state: no pos, no neg.
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate: +2 Hap, +2 ?, -2 Centr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1 Nat

Religoun

Best of all worlds. Tell me what you think.

Animism: -2 Res
->Polytheism: no pos, no neg
Loose monotheism: 2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Fundementalism: +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Religous freedom: +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Urb
Prosecution: 2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap

Values

Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr ( I belive +2 Mor, +2 Mil, -2 Centr to be better )
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

Research

Wise Men : no pos or neg
Nature : +2 Env, -1 Urb, Economic Science is +25%
Humanitarian : +2 Cult, -1 Mor, Social Science is +25%
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, Military Science is +25%
Explorer : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic Science is +25%
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 11, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 11, 1999).]</font>

[will I]

Theben:

I can't verify the number of SE options under SMAC, as I'm at work, but I think there were four categories with four options each for a total of 16 options with 9 factors that mostly ranged from -5 to +5. The two main systems under discussion here seem to have somewhere between 20 and 30 options with 12-14 factors that range by a somewhat greater amount. I fear that the result of so many factors will be lots of micromanipulation and confusion. Therefore, my main suggestion for these otherwise well reasoned systems is to cut them down in size. I've made a few suggestions based on M@ni@c's system, which is the one outlined most thoroughly in this thread. (It's outlined so thoroughly that I beg him not to outline it again.) I haven't seen your system, so I can't comment on that.

[Jon Miller]

quick post

M@ni@c, one of the biggest differences there is is that between those that work in factories/office buildings (workers) and those that work the land as farmers and miners (resource producers)

my structure not only makes it more fun to govern your own people it is also realistic

of course it is the who model as you call it

it is my plan

the values of a nation are defined by those who rule it

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Hi M@ni@c again

your change to protectionism might be ballanced

tell me what other se choices are available in that tech range

thanks for explaining happiness (is more worth while now)

but with a mercantalist - wealth selection you will not be forced into -3 police with its 1 unhappy person per unit, this would be a lot worse for a warring country than your -2 happiness factor which can be fixed by the great amount of trade the civ would have

in civ republic did not have better corruption, it was the only reason to go to democracy

in smac fundamentalism had a probe and military bonus (forgot which)

this makes it viable

yours just has a wimpy happiness value

you cared about reputation

I tried once, no matter how good your reputation at the end of the game if you are winning they all gain up on you any ways

got to go

Jon Miller

[Zorloc]

Geez. I seem to be one of the few to propose something that M@ni@c overlooked in his posts (unless I missed it). But Theban did respond.

Oh just to remind people, I proposed that the effects phase in starting with the penalties:

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

Theban proposed that they should phase in equally plus a happiness penalty.

I agree that Theban's proposal would work, and probably work better with his system of slider bars, but the advantage of my system is that the penalty instead of just being a standard happiness penalty is that the penalty is directly related to the change that is being made in your civ. This not only creates greater variety it also is more realistic. Take Eastern Europe's move from a totalitarian gov't with planned economy to democracy and a free market. It took a while for the reforms to generate the benefits that could be derived from these SE choices, but many of the inequities/disadvantages of the system were quite clear, which led to unhappiness. Thus with my scheme unhappiness can result, but not just as some mysterious unsettlement, but as a result of a real impact on the society.

There is an additional problem with just penalizing happiness. It can be bought off. With some proper prep, it is easy to maintain some reserves with which to buy off your citizens, be it through more food, less work, or less taxes (if the CTP system is used). And since the effect is directly on happiness you can use whichever factor you are strongest in. But with my system if you are under an industrial penalty, you would have use other means.

jbw

[Theben]

Zorloc,
I agree that such a system would work if button selection is used; I even posted a very similar idea in the CHEAT thread (July 23). However, it's awkward to use with slider bars, thus the happiness penalty.

[Zorloc]

Agreed

[Maniac]

Harel :

"Once more, I have many comments on your posts Maniac. But I just don't have enough strenght to argue with you."

What do you mean, not enough strenght?
1) You can't beat my arguements?
2) You don't have enough time?

OK, let's assume we have 'evil' and 'enlighted' despots.

All the evil despots have to rule by strong police. So always the same effects.

But that enlighted ones are nasty guys, cause none acts the same as another.
That one wants to make the people happy; another wants to improve the economy; a thirth wants to give his nation power.
Well, yes this can all be represented by other choices.
But my point is, I don't see any special extremes those guys have in general.
BTW, most enlightend despots still have to use police to keep in control.

"The numbers derive from the names. They are not the important thing: beta testing will always find flaws in every system which will need mending. You can't get the perfect balanced system in one go. You need to change and adapt the numbers."

Yes, I know that. In the meanwhile, while we can't playtest (and never shall), we can try and make the best of it. Give Firaxis guidelines.

New proposal to Firaxis : all the ones giving advice may playtest their advice.

"You, however, think the numbers are the critical thing. But a good SE is more then numbers: it's several distinct possiblities."

I have distinct possibilities.
In government I have 4 different strategies.
->Monarchial
->Absolute
->Free
->Theocratical (does that word exist?)

In Economy I have a wide range of options from very closed (Communism) to very open (Free Market).

"And I can give you a historial explantion of the Shandarin over e-mail if you want."

How long would it be? Haven't got all time, but I am very interested in history.

BTW, Feudalism is renamed Manorialism. That is the economy.
So Feudalism is Monarchy - Manorialism.

"Several times in feudal states the upper class over-ruled the king desicison ( like a senate ) to go to war. If you know a bit about england history, you know what happened there."

England with Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights, Petition of Rights is a perfect example of a Monarchy evolving to a Republic.

"My idea? You don't have to agree with my model. I only ask for one thing: try to take the SE options I presented, without changes, and give them balanced numbers."

How can I give it effects if I think some choices of you are the same?
Socialist, Happiness...

Will :

"Thank you for the responses to my post. I think they miss my main point -- all of the systems I have seen are too darn complex. Thirteen or fourteen factors, with seven or eight SE categories is an immense amount of variation."

Don't worry. You'll get used to it.
I began with this model 20 days back and I know everything out of my head (is the expression 'out of my head' English?).
Why wouldn't you be able to?

BTW, variation, isn't that good? Better than SMAC where you had seen all possibles strategies with the model after three games.

Deleting Army is no problem.
Deleting Research is opional.
Without Religion my model is unbalanced, then I would rather delete Structure.

"Happiness also seems to me to be the effect of the SE choices rather than a separate SE factor,"

???????

"Ditto on urbanization -- the rate and limits of city growth seem like things that the computer can handle adequately without player intervention."

Have you got SMAC? Don't you know what Growth does?

With your way of thinking, you could say : "The computer can handle everything without player intervention. Let's delete SE."

"since I always thought it was unrealistic to think that particular forms of government limited a civ's ability to determine where it spent money,"

Does my Tax factor affect where you can spent money? I didn't think so.

"On second thought, I also think we could dispense with nationalism. The computer could generate emigration/immigration rates based on relative happiness and wealth levels."

The most important effect of Nationalism is Spy things. Should I rename Nationalism to Reconnaissance.

BTW a high diplomacy for communism doesn't sound right.

Will and Theben :

10 factors and 16 choices.
BTW, in my first long post to Harel, I have a beautiful list of the maxima and minima of each model, also SMAC's.

"-Nationalism should be a social tech. As far as our history has shown, once you get nationalist sentiment in your people it's there to stay."

Now I definitely have to find another name for it.

Theben, have you found the factor posts?

Harel :

MONARCHY

"I still belive that a Monarchial system is not fitting for "no pos, no neg" but the control section, since monarchs should give a big tax bonus."

Wrong! That big tax bonus is inherent to Feudalism/Manorialism.
When I first began my model, I was too thinking about giving Monarchy +Tax. But it's not monarchy that has the bonus! After a while you will realize you can't give Monarchy real bonuses.

That Urb penalty is for Manorialism.

In general, you gave all the bonuses that belong to Manorialism to Monarchy.

TOTALITARIANISM

"->Totalarism: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Dipl, -2 corr ( Hap minus is wrong )"

Hap minus wrong?? Would you be happy to live in an oppressive regime?

MERCANTILISM

"Marcentalism, by defination is just "trade"."

With Mercantilism I mean the English and Dutch trading systems.

CONTROLLED

"Tell me what you think about controlled. Good corruption cause it's effiecent"

Russian Communism was controlled and it had very large corruption.
I thought from the fields to the state shops, there was a waste of 70%!

"Religoun

Best of all worlds. Tell me what you think."

In that list Prosecution is redundant because it's no religion type. It's a behavior against certain religion.

Jon Miller :

"M@ni@c, one of the biggest differences there is is that between those that work in factories/office buildings (workers) and those that work the land as farmers and miners (resource producers)"

Sure I know. But how are gonna represent that difference when all the people in CivX work on the fields?

"in civ republic did not have better corruption, it was the only reason to go to democracy"

It had much better corruption rates. Perhaps you don't really notice it when you are playing perfectionist, but if you have a large empire of 50 cities, the difference is big, believe me.
But yes, you're right. The corruption jump from democracy to republic is much bigger than the one of republic to monarchy.

"in smac fundamentalism had a probe and military bonus (forgot which)"

That option is now in the religion category.
Somewhere in a far past ( a week or two weeks ago?) I explained why I made a difference between Theocracy and Fundamentalism.

"yours just has a wimpy happiness value"

Wimpy? Happiness is very important when you have a large empire. You're right. When you're perfectionist, it isn't that important.

"I tried once, no matter how good your reputation at the end of the game if you are winning they all gain up on you any ways"

I remember that in the year 1000 AD every civ's reputation worsened drastically. If they would change that, reputation and diplomacy in general would become more important.
Perhaps we should ask Harel with his Civ2 to recheck my AD 1000 story.
And if trade becomes dependent on how a civ likes you, as in real life, all diplomacy will increase in importance.

Ancient :
Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Barter, Currency, Banking, Survival, Power, Knowledge, Wealth, Tribal, City State, Animism, Natural, Practical

Middle Ages :
Theocracy, Feudalism, Federal, Establishment, Fundamentalism, Prosecution

Renaissance :
Mercantilism, Protectionism, Humanitarian, Explorer

Industrial Revolution :
Totalitarianism, Communism, Confederate

Modern :
Democracy, Free Market, Environment, Commonwealth, Religious Freedom

Near Future :
True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational

Updated List :

Government :

Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
->Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +1 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
->Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup

Economy :

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
Manorialism : +3 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor
Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Eco
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -1 Corr, -2 Tax
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Value :

Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

Structure :

Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City State : no pos or neg
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +?, -2 Centr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1 Nat

Research :

Wise Men : no pos or neg
Nature : +2 Env, -1 Urb, Economic Science is 75%
Humanitarian : +2 Cult, -1 Mor, Social Science is 75%
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, Military Science is 75%
Explorer : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic Science is 75%

Religion :

Animism : -2 Res
->with the invention of Polytheism the Research penalty disappears, resulting in 'no pos or neg'.
Establishment : +2 Cult, +1 Urb, -2 Tax
Fundamentalism : +1 Mor, +2 Nat, -2 Dipl
Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap

[Maniac]

AAAARRRGGGGHH!!!! I forgot something. How terrible. I'll kill myself.

Serious.
On exactly the 50th post of this v2.1 thread, Theben said that he found SE switching too easy in SMAC.

1) So I suggested this :

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

2) You suggest this :

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

3) Harel suggested a fix penalty for each category.

Wonna know what I think?
I don't care. Everything is good as long it's 3 turns and it has something negative.
Your and my idea are very similar, so no real problem.
That second turn (neither the first) isn't important to me. Do what you please.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

M@ni@c: Yup, the whole proverbial ball o' wax.

[Theben]

Jon Miller, wow, those are some great ideas. I like the the varying strengths, differing happiness per citizen type, and using education/propaganda to change values. I'm not sure if I agree completely with how they work, and I prefer my ideas for how happiness functions, but the concepts are valid.

Harel (and Maniac),
For now actually providing numerical bonuses to any SE is pointless, IMO. It is enough to say that "X gets a bonus to ECONOMY, and a penalty to EFFICIENCY" w/o going into details that will be altered in playtesting. Any detail should be limited to "gets strong [x] bonus, and weak [y] and [z] penalties."

Will,
SMAC currently has 9 or 10 factors with 12 SE choices, though each faction is limited to 11. By your standards this is too complex? As for simplifying, I always try to do this when I post ideas, as micromanagement is a great concern of mine. As to your points:

-I also would delete army, as this is covered by MORALE/EXPERIENCE
-Religion should be limited to a single value; whether the civ has strong or weak religious beliefs
-I'd keep Research
-Happiness is the backbone of my idea, so no way!
-Not knowing what Urbanization is supposed to do, I can't say. If it affects city growth, it would be covered under HAPPINESS and GROWTH.
-Taxes. This should also probably go; taxes should be raised/lowered on the main screen, and maybe in each city's screen.
-Nationalism should be a social tech. As far as our history has shown, once you get nationalist sentiment in your people it's there to stay.

That's what I'd do. I can't speak for anyone else.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

another responding post

USSR tried to do communism, it did not acheive it rather it had a planned economic system

no M@ni@c all people do not work in the fields

this is shown in civ by the population of a city

1 pt - 10000
2 pt - 30000
3 pt - 60000

the 10000 population diferrence between 1 and 2 pt represents the greater number of workers in the city and the increasing ammount shows that more and more workers are neccesarry in a city the larger it gets

you did't think that all 10000 people of the first pt worked one square and in a 2 pt city the 20000 difference works the other square did you?

the thought is frankly hilarious, civ shows the difference between an agrarrian/resource producer civ (one with a bunch of small cities) and an industrial civ (one with large cities)

I am a profectionist expansionist (expansionist before profectionist and that expansion is peaceful), I usually build 60 + cities and place them close together to get more use from them, I am profectionist in that I do not like to go to war until every city has built everything and all my land is improved

how many theocracies were in the middle ages

happiness is easy to fix

done responding

Jon Miller

[Diodorus Sicilus]

I am going to offer comments on the last version of M@ni@c’s SE system with a list of my alternatives and a discussion of my reasoning. This is going to make a long post, so I’ll put off until later laying out my alternatives to the system of + and - factors that seem to have become the sole basis for discussion in this Thread. In a nutshell, I think there are far too many factors attributed to various elements, while the Special Characteristics of social, economic, and political systems are underestimated. Along with that,I think the idea of having a Slider Scale so that you could precisely ‘tweak’ factors to your content is only partially applicable. It assumes, for one thing, that governments or rulers have the capacity to apply such precise calculations to themselves and their countries, and there is no evidence in history or current events for that. To take another view of an example that was used, current economic forecasting in the stock market by computer analysis is so unprecise that over the past 10 years, buying stocks completely at random would have given you a better return than 80% of the Mutual Funds did with all their analysis (Consumer Reports study) and last week a report indicated that 70% of day traders lose money - and this is in a generally rising stock market!
On to the discussion and commentary. In each case I’ll give M@ni@c’s complete listing as of his 1 August post, then a discussion of it, then my suggested alternate Categories or Titles and a discussion of them. I will not include plus and minus factors for my alternates here, because as stated above I’m taking a somewhat different approach to the whole thing and want to lay it out all at once in one place to make it easier for the vultures to rip into its carcass all at once...
M@ni@c’s Government:
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
->Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
(Anarchy : -4 Corr, -3 Nat, -4 Hap)
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Sup, -2 Mor
Discussion:
Despotism isn’t actually the earliest government system around in 4000BC: the earliest is the Tribal Assembly, a very ‘direct’ form of Republic or Democracy. Despotism is a Strong Man rule not backed by Law so that the government’s actions are subject to whim of the ruler. It either turns into a Monarchy or other form of ‘legalist’ government or it disintegrates in a generation - by definition, there is no way to legitimize the Despot’s successor, so civil war usually breaks out as soon as he/she dies.
Theocracy is sanctified as a government type by SMAC’s model (sorry about that, but I couldn’t resist!) In fact, what does it mean? The priests or even the archbishops have never, to my knowledge, directly ruled in any society: they influence, sometimes dramatically and decisively, through secular rulers such as monarchs or despots. To use a modern example, the Vatican City is a theocracy in that the entire city is a religious foundation, but it is ruled by a bureaucratically-administered despotism: the ruled have no say or selection in who rules them (the Pope is selected by non-natives of Vatican City!), but they are happy with it because they share the Values of the ruler, and those values happen to be predominantly identified with religion. For another (modern) example, the Ayatollah Khomeni was both a religious and political leader in Iran, but in game terms he was a Charismatic Leader who led an overthrow of a Monarchy. His successors have been elected by an Iranian Democracy, ruling a country with a Value System which is religious.
By modifying government types with the category State Organization, we can represent all the types and variations of government with about 50% fewer ‘governments’. In addition, each government has Special Characteristics that have to be addressed.
My List
Governments
Tribal Assembly Default Start Option
Republic Ancient type, limited franchise
Democracy Modern, extended franchise
Despotism Alternate Start Option, possible Default at any time (Charismatic Leader!)
Monarchy Destabilizes to Anarchy if Random Event = No Heir
Totalitarian Can be based on Secular or Religious Ideology
Discussion:
The Tribal Assembly is the most Direct Participation Government: everyone in the Tribe has a say, so it keeps everyone involved (+ Happiness), but requires that the political unit remain small. It CANNOT be used with a State Organization other than City State until Instant Communication (Internet, Telepathy, etc) turns it into what has been called Virtual Democracy. Democracy, as defined here, is Representative Democracy, the ‘full blown’ version of Republican government with a much wider franchise than the ancient Republics, which were actually oligarchies (in Rome and Athens both, the actual percentage of the population that had a vote that counted was less than 20%, and voting was restricted by class). Despotism requires that the Despot keep everything under his own control, so increases the centralization of state organization and police power, but unravels fast if the subjects (other cities) are far away, unless modified by Bureaucracy and State Organization (see below). Monarchy should have modifiers if we adopt a system similar to CtPs, based on the following: the monarch provides a personal figure to identify with the State (+ Nationalism), he also has to keep a personal eye on things (+ Centralization), his court sucks off tax money for its maintenance (- Taxes) and, in a Flavor thing I can’t resist, Monarchies have a + Diplomacy factor ONLY with other Monarchies - because they can offer state dynastic marriages with other Royal Families to cement diplomatic ties - something no other form of government can offer to another!
The government types are listed as Primitive to Advanced Representative and Primitive to Advanced Controlled. The tendancy, heavily modified by other events, is for Primitive Representative to evolve to a more advanced form of the same representative type, and same for Control Freak governments.
M@n@ic’s Structure (State Organization)
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City State : no pos or neg
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate* : +2 Hap, +?, -1 Centr, -1 Nat
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol
Discussion:
Tribal is really appropriate only for nomadic or barbarian players. As soon as folks moved into cities, the Tribal organization broke down in practice even when it was still used as the basis for ancient republican organizations (the Athenian ‘demes’ and tribes and the Roman Tribal Centuries). The City State is the earliest (Default) setting for cities, replaced in historical practice by the Imperal organization: control by governors or satraps sent out from the center, very centralized in theory. Confederate is the next step towards Centralization from City States, which are totally decentralized. The Leagues organized by Greek City States in the 3rd century BC are an example of early Confederations. Why Confederate should get more cities in any area than another type escapes me. Commonwealth is really another term for Confederation: essentially independant political entities which let a central power handle some things for them, but are ready to pull out at any time. Federal, with the structural power now tilted towards the central power, is the next step from Confederate. In addition to Imperial, also left out is Fuedal, in which the entire state organization is based on Personal Privilieges and Relationships between the ruler and local leaders.
My list:
Tribal Default Start Option for Nomadic Civs and no city starting positions
City State Default Option after first city is founded
Fuedal Can develop from either social or military factors
Confederation Develops from City State or Fuedal
Federal Develops from either Confederation or Imperial
Imperial Earliest ‘advance’ for central control of multiple-city civs
Discussion:
Tribal or City State are the Starting Defaults, but are utterly unsuited to any large state if you intend to actually control that state - the first Empires (Egypt, Assyria, China, Persia) all used the Imperial structure. City States naturally evolve into Confederations if they aren’t conquered first, while Tribal evolves into City State or Fuedal. Federal or Imperial are actually the most common structures in the modern world, but much modified by Bureaucracy, Literacy, and other technological and social advances. In fact, the structure of the government in many cases is less important than other factors, such as communication technology and resources (especially population density) and Values shared by the civ.
M@ni@c’s Economy :
Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
Feudalism/Manorialism : +3 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor
Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Corr
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor
Discussion:
Just a nomencalture note: let’s try not to use the same term or word for a Social Factor and for a Technical Advance, Improvement, Unit, or Wonder: it’s a recipe for confusion. Therefore, Currency should not be used for an Economic system type if Currency is also a Tech Advance. With the invention and spread of coinage/currency the major development was that of the Market Economy. Unfortunately, we got Markets in the City Improvements so I suggest that we use Commercial, since it also fostered long distance Commerce. Banking is also not a good title for an economic system. When banks were developed the major result was to allow the movement and use of Capital. The resulting economic system is, you guessed it: Capitalism. Classic Mercantilism of the 17th-18th centuries in Europe was Protectionism: protecting your own economy and trade while trying to take Trade and $ away from other economies and amassing wealth to finance wars. It is, therefore, big on Centralization, Trade, and Taxes, but bad for Growth - Mercantilism assumed that Trade and Income was a fixed sum, and that anything someone else got therefore took away from what you could have. Definitely not conducive to growth! Transnational is simply the result of Capital flowing beyond State Boundries, made possible by Trade and unstoppable by Electronic Commerce. I suggest, therefore, that the same result can be obtained by Modifying Capitalism (or other forms of Economics) by the Technical Advance of Internet or Electronic Banking.
My List:
Barter Default start option
Manorial Decentralized economy not requiring any tech advances
Commercial Varying amounts of government involvement: money without capital transfer
Capitalism Development of Commercialism with free use and abuse of Capital
Mercantilism First System of Government-controlled economics
Communism Most developed system of Government-controlled economics
Discussion:
Until coinage/currency is developed, the economic decisions are simple: you got Barter, under which you can still Trade but without getting any cash out of it (strictly goods for goods), or you have Manorialism, in which every economic unit (city in the game) is virtually independant economically: deadly for trade and collecting taxes by any centralized government. With currency markets and long distance financially lucrative Trade developed: the first Commercial Empire was Athens, whose coinage (obols or ‘Owls’) were spendable from the Crimea to Italy. Banks (Capitalism) allowed the relatively easy transfer of capital and its concentration for large economic projects: bankers financed wars, the openning of major new trade routes, and explorations. Mercantilism was the first formulation of a theory of how governments could control the economy for their own purposes - which were defined as collect lots of money to finance wars by fomenting your own trade, sabotaging everybody else’s trade with tariffs and price-fixing, and encouraging industries that would make a profit or supply the state with what it needed (like gold and weapons). Communism is complete government control of the economy, and unless modified by a combination of extreme need and major resource allocation (USSR in WWII) it has severe productivity and growth penalties.
M@ni@c’s Values:
Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
Discussion:
Survival has definite Positives and Negatives: it leads people to invest in military armed strength to defend themselves! The ultimate Survival Value is the pursuit of Power, in which Survival is equated with Being Bigger and Badder Than Any Possible Opponent, so both those Values can be combined. In addition to Growth, Wealth, Knowledge, and Environment, which correspond to increased interest in Population, Money, Research growth and lowering Pollution, you left out the major ultimate goal of most people: Happiness. the advantage of including this is that the pursuit of that goal frequently leads in a ‘spiritual’ direction, so picking Happiness as a Value can lead to increased interest in Religion, and possibly to Fundamentalism or Theocratic values in government.
My List:
Survival Default starting option
Growth Primarily Population increase, but also includes geographic spread
Wealth Increased wealth, if distributed, also increases Happiness
Environment Not available to city-building states until Very Late
Knowledge A luxury option: will not be selected if survival of civ or population is at stake
Happiness Once survival is assured, this is the next Default Option: includes religion
Discussion:
Values aren’t always a Choice: if your civilization is getting destroyed in war, Survival will become the Value regardless of the player’s desires: cultures are not, by nature, suicidal even if individual leaders might be! Likewise, if the overall Happiness level of the population drops far enough, they will turn to Happiness as a Value because that’s their chief concern - and you may end up with a Theocratic government or an essentially Fundamentalist one as a result. Finally, if the population totals drop suddenly, as for instance if CivIII includes Plague and other natural disasters (which have been suggested elsewhere), then (population) Growth will automatically become the principle Value of your population.
One option to consider is to provide only one modifier for each Value. That is, they would each affect one thing, and you would not pick a Value but prioritize your values: assign each a value of 1 through 6 in order of Importance. This order could be changed at any time, but the more radical the change ( 6 to 1, for instance) the longer before any change actually takes place, and the more possibility that your people disagree with such radical thinking and revolt. As a corrolary of this, certain government types and structures would be more amenable to change: Republics, Democracies, Tribal Asemblies can change because the people themselves are deciding to change, to some extent - you might have to expend resources to ‘campaign’ for the change, but they aren’t likely to revolt against it, just accept it more slowly. Despots and, to a lesser extent, Monarchs could decree a change, but are more likely to have open revolt on their hands and much slower (grudging) response from the population.
M@ni@c’s Research:
Wise Men : no pos or neg
Nature : +2 Env, -1 Urb, Economic Science is 75%
Humanitarian : +2 Cult, -1 Mor, Social Science is 75%
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, Military Science is 75%
Explorer : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic Science is 75%
Discussion:
You already have a Research modifier, so what’s the point of this? If you do want to slant research in a given direction, why not use SMAC’s system of defining research categories by the major goals of the game: Conquer, Build, Discover, Explore? Alternately, use whatever categories the Tech Tree is divided into. There has been considerable discussion in other Threads about ‘blind’ research or using a SMAC-type semi-blind system. This set of modifiers appears to be simply adding complexity where none is required. If you want to increase research, build research infrastructure and perhaps use the infamous Slider Scale to specify percentage of research resources going into each category.
M@ni@c’s Religion:
Animism : -2 Res
->with the invention of Polytheism the Research penalty
disappears, resulting in 'no pos or neg'.
Worshiping : +2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Evangelism* : +2 Cult, +?, -2 Dipl
Fundamentalism : +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap
Discussion:
This is a mess! Animism is a primitive religion. Evangelism is from ‘evangelize’ which means specifically to convert to Christianity. Worshipping is an individual or group action, Religious Freedom or Prosecution are government policies, and Fundamentalism is a religious reaction to Rational Humanism (see below). In other words, this is a hodge-podge, neither a good set of modifiers to religions or descriptions of social or government reactions and relations with religions
M@ni@c’s State Religion:
Atheism
Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
Discussion:
This is absolutely and completely a Bad Idea. First, it is wretchedly incomplete. With the exception of Hinduism, none of these religions existed when the game starts, so what State Religion does the Roman Empire or Egypt get? And please don’t tell me the God King Pharoah of Egypt and the Pontifex Maximus of Rome had no religious component! In addition, it ignores the major differences among sects of the major religions. Some of the deadliest religious wars were waged among Christian Catholics versus Protestants or Islamic Suni versus Sufi. Also, Atheism, to nip a ridiculous discussion in the bud, is not a religion. What numerous posters and postees have dribbled about in the threads is Humanism: the belief that Man and His Works are the measure of all things. Sometimes called Rational Humanism, although like most belief systems, it is seldom very rational. It develops with the Rational Philosophers of the 18th century, gathers speed as scientific advances lead to the belief that Man can accomplish anything, and is the direct cause of the Fundamentalist reactionary movement in Religion - in Christianity as well as Islam today.
Finally, and I’ve said this before in the Religion Thread: DO NOT use actual religions in the game. Read some of the other posts in Religion: people cannot even discuss religion with each other without getting into arguments - put their religions into a game and Firaxis is asking for major trouble.
Besides, it’s not necessary. What we really want to simulate is the Effects of Religion on cultures, societies, governments, and their development. The specifics of religious belief are, in most game terms, Totally Irrelevant. What is important is how the religion affects the population and its leaders. Therefore, all religions can be defined as follows:
Religious Types:
Animism Default starting religion
Polytheism Can develop spontaneously, through conquest, or trade
Monotheism Developed historically by Charismatic Leaders - random events
Humanism Develops after Advances lead to Rationalism philosophies
Religion Characteristics:
Proselytizing Seeks converts from other religions
Passive Not actively seeking converts
Tolerant Able to coexist with other beliefs
Intolerant Demands exclusive allegience: required for ‘Theocratic’ states
Religious Events:
Schism a random event= charismatic leader or new philosophy ‘splits off’ a new sect of
the same type as your old religion, but possibly with a different Characteristic. Can lead to
revolt, separatism, and other government problems.
Fundamentalism a reaction to Humanism, triggered by lowered Happiness due to Advances and
other events. Religion becomes extremely Intolerant of all other religions and advances.
Discussion:
You NEVER research religion. Everyone starts with Animism, and new religions develop or start as Random Events, sometimes triggered by specifics such as Charismatic Religious Leaders or contact with another civilization and its religion. A Proselytizing religion of any kind, Polytheistic, Animistic, or Monotheistic, will lead to Clerics or Missionaries going out to religiously convert or conquer other religions. If strong enough, it should also allow you access to ‘religious’ units such as Crusaders or Conquistadores: invaders fortified by their fanaticism. A Passive religion will not try to convert others, and will tend to be replaced by other religions unless (random event) it has a High Culture or Philosophical rating (Buddhism) which gives it more staying power.
Government Reactions to Religion:
Symbiotic (Theocracy, Divine Right Monarchy)
Proscribing (Religious Persecution)
Supportive ("One Nation, Under God")
Tolerant (Religious Freedom)
Discussion:
Not all of these are choices all the time. An aggressive, proselyting religion with a strong organization (Bureaucracy) may become Symbiotic with your government unless you take active steps to avoid it! Being Tolerant of religions when your own ‘native’ religion is a very Passive one could result in major upheaval in your civilization when outsiders start converting your people right and left. Supportive is a good compromise (Example: Church of England) but the tendancy will be for an aggressive religion to try to swing or convert that policy into Symbiotic, while as Humanism develops as a belief system there will be pressure to convet government policy to Tolerant.
M@ni@c’s Army:
First, a bad term since it should include air and sea units.
Military:
CTP Military Readiness system
Don't know specifics.
Don't know the CTP names.
Off guard?
At Alert?
At War?
Discussion:
CtP made a scrabbling attempt to model something better than CivII/SMAC, but its model was far too limited to show all the historical patterns of military forces. Specifically, it didn’t begin to show the range of mobilization and readiness patterns of actual historical military systems. I posted the basics and backgorund to this elsewhere in another Thread, so here are just the Military Forms:
Levee in Mass
The army is raised from the population based on who can supply their own weapons and equipment. This is the standard pattern for all barbarian, nomad, and most ancient city states.
Professionals
The army consists entirely of those who make it their business. This is the Roman legion in the Imperial period. This was also the pattern for the 18th century European armies, based on the fact that the long drill required to make a good musket unit was considered too time-consuming for ‘amateurs’ to have a chance to master it. This is the most expensive army to maintain, because they have to be paid all the time
Military Caste
The army consists of those who have the weapons and know how to fight in the population, but they are only called up as needed. This is the classic fuedal system, in which knights had (ostensibly) no other profession than to carry arms. Even then, it was usually supplimented by ‘calling up’ a portion of the (amateur) peasentry as footmen. This is slightly less expensive than paying the Pros all the time, but since they have to be supported while they train on their own, it still makes a deeper hole in the economy than any system other than No.2 above.
Draft
The conscript army consists of Everybody who can possibly serve. However, most of them serve only for a couple of years, then go into the Reserves which can be called up in case of war. This requires a large standing army to train everyone, but allows a huge army to be quickly mobilized from the trained reservists. This is the European system common since 1815, and modifications of it persist in virtually all armies today. By providing a ‘sliding scale’ of % called up and training time, you can adjust the size of the standing army, and reserves available to the economic resources you want to spend on the military. In Democracies the Happiness will also vary (sometimes dramatically) with the % called up each year and the amount of time they have to spend in uniform.
Equipment for the Host is provided by the troops in Systems 1 and 3, must be provided by the State in System 2, and must be provided and stored for the reserves in System 4.
all navies and air forces will fall into the same patterns as the armies: usually nos 2 or 3.
Discussion:
Support and Morale are peculiarly military concerns, and frankly do not belong as modifiers to government, economics, or structural systems. Men don’t fight better because of their government type. The best armies of WWII were formed by countries with Government Systems and Structures of Democratic-Federal (USA), Despot-Imperial (USSR and Germany), Democratic-Confederate (Great Britain - constitutional monarchy is indistinguishable from Democratic and Commonwealth is virtually same as Confederate). What makes a military good, bad, or indifferent is the training and leadership of the individual soldiers and units, and that is a factor (in the game) of Military System (see above) abd Morale of the unit. Starting Morale (the base-line for a civilization’s units) should be set by the Military System primarily, and by the resources devoted to the military by that civ. If you spend enough to keep a large professional army, you will also have a large professional career group of officers and NCOs to train other people up to standard. Add Military Academies, Barracks, and other Enhancements, and you can also raise the base line and possible high level Morale. Ancient Sparta, for example, had high morale military units because the state had a No.1 priority value of Survival and put most of its resources into the military: kept most of the male population under arms virtually all the time and had an extensive system of barracks and training time.
Military Industry is not required as a specific model. Countries get high levels of military production by allocating resources to it and taking them away from somewhere else. The classic modern case is Germany and USSR in WWII: Hitler was so worried about German civilian morale that he didn’t start converting industry to full military production until 1942 - consumer goods were considered a requirement to keep the people supportive (keep Happiness Levels up, in game terms). In the USSR, all production went completely to military goods, with a combination of high Police (250+ regiments of NKVD troops) and Survival (Germany’s stated aim was "lebensraum" in Russia, making it pretty obvious that a lot of Russians were going to be removed first) to keep the population in line. Even so, The USSR ended up dependant on US Lend Lease aid for trucks, special alloys for industry, protein supplement foodstuff (meats and fats), and electronic gear (we sent them 1200 radar sets, among thousands of other items of signal equipment).
So, if you want a Military Industry at high levels, just start producing military units and goods and figure out another way to keep the rest of your civilization going: it’s the classic tradeoff, and there ain’t no shortcuts around it.

Well, now that I've posted this I see that Manny has an update of the 1 Aug post posted already. Most of the above comments still apply, with one additional proviso for everyone:
A lot of arguments in this thread seem to me to arise because people are using nomenclature that is not understood the same way by all concerned. Remember, in the bottom line, the game will use terms that are easily understood and recognizable by the mass of gamers. Therefore, while they may or may not use Manorialism or Mercantilism, you can bet that Communism, Fuedalism, Capitalism, and Democracy will be used, even if the game definitions and usage isn't exactly the same as the historical model. Thems the rules of marketing, and all the historians and semanticists in the world aren;t going to change them.
Therefore, although the USSR never, in fact, had pure Communism as an economic or political system, that's the term that will be applied to describe it in the game!
I urge everyone to make certain of your terms and if you are using a recognizable term for game purposes, define it for us. It'll save a lot of postie toasties back and forth...

[Theben]

Well, that's it, I fold...

DS,

Actually I do very much like my HAPPINESS system and it affects many other categories, so I won't give that up yet...

Another thing is your stated reason for not having sliders, that rulers had little control over the fine-tuning of their empire. I agree, as would sofar as to say that they had almost no control over how things were run except in the most tyrannic systems. However, months ago I proposed a system that would only allow players to attempt to influence changes in the SE choices, and that idea didn't last very long. Whether or not it's realistic, people like to have control over their games.

Another problem I have with buttons is that the SE effects are static and often wildly varying, even in the same categories.

I do agree with the SEs you said were unnecessary, such as religion & 'army'.

[Jon Miller]

quick post

Historian guy

you got communism wrong (you may have got the USSR implementation of it but the USSR seriously messed up, that is why it collapsed)

I am sure, you being an historian and familiar with classical literature, that you know where to look to fix your misconceptions of communism

Jon Miller, ex-communist

[Jon Miller]

another quick post

historian, what do you think of the beginnings of my se idea (in particular the value portion)?

communism is the perfect and most effecient social structure if the citizens are not very individualistic/selfish

historian, what time period are you am historian of may I ask

a note, add in my values portion a value slider between individualistic and socialistic (better name?)

historian guy, I like how you look at religion by far the best of any heard yet also like what you say about the millitary

historian guy, perhaps take back earlier comment on communism but I still say that I want to try theoretical systems of government

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

back again this time to post on my system

I am continueing into government although my populace systems values part has not been completed yet (if the est needs tweaking please inform me)

I am still trying to think of the perfect values, please suggest

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

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

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

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

(enough for the preamble)

NATIONAL

the nattional has many things on it's screen

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

the choice to declare revolution

and STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, and ECONOMICS

STRUCTURE

in structure a slider would work perfectly between centralized and uncentralized

GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the player has weaker control in this one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

national values are overall not as strong

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

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

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

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

national values are overall not as strong

chinese are to my knowledge the first to use beaucracies

there may be more

ECONOMICS


________________________
end for tonight

I got tired earlier tonight so I am stopping sooner, government will have a lot more work done to them and i have not even started economics yet

I know I need to do a lot of fleshing out, especially of values and I will work on it later

(I am vacationing the 16th-20th so my posting time is limited any way)

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

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

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

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

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

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

i still have to do economics and finish government

Jon Miller
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jon Miller (edited August 13, 1999).]</font>