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

[Harel]

I realy don't think the concept of civil duty is that hard Maniac.
Yes, ofcourse, Switzerland is a great example. A splendid one.
Serving the army is mandetory, but since it's considered your national duty, the regular anti-army feelings are gone. Most army recruits do it gladly.

About army, I cut it to four options:

Basic:

Small-standing ( low size, high happiness )
Large-standing ( large size, poor quality )
Expert ( good quality, poor size )

Mercenary
->Military caste
-->Trained
Show the evoultion of expert armies. In the old days, expert armies were almost competely hired merecnaries and pirates. Empires couldn't and woudn't spend the resources aimed to properly train the people.
When they wanted an elite group, they hired them.
I hope that the evoloution to military caste and trained is explained now.

About my large post: no, not yet. I am going to spend several hours on it tommorow. Since I want bell to just copy and paste it, I will include very detailed explantions of the options, what they are and why they are here.
And ofcoruse, the modifactors, the concept of "evoloving SE" ( we use it all the time we keep forgeting that Firaxis doesn't know what it is ), how and how long it takes to shift SE ( each by it's own model ), the idea beyond giving small civ a bonus ( in my model, atleast ), etc, etc, etc.
That will take time Maniac.

For Bell: When I do post my complete model, I request you do honor with my hard spend works ( I allready wrote many notes on pieces of paper ) and quote is competly.

About the +2 Eco gotten from free markets: if you refuse to belive that guilds had a free reign ( almost ), and that existed in the roman era, I see no option to have a ancient SE option that gives you +2 Eco. You also need to rememeber that economy was second-hand in those times to production.

[Maniac]

Hi Harel, did some research in my 22 part encyclopedy. You're right about the guilds. They already existed with the Babylonians and Aztecs. But I am also right about banks. Their first form already existed too with the Babylonians.

Can't you really find a way to give all the modern (Army) choices 2 bonuses instead of giving one +3 bonus?

Bell, I think that I'm gonna wait on Harel's model before considering if I'll post a summary post. Is Sunday OK? Probably not, sorry...

New Questions :

100 or 150 posts back or so, I posted a proposal about the effects of a Golden Age/We Love The Day. No one responded. Which effects should it have?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Harel: Like I said, there is going to be a part of the summary that contains the completed systems. I have no problem with quoting you directly (hey, it makes my job easier) with one exception. I want the summaries to contain the ideas and some of the reasoning behind them, not to bash the other possible systems. I reserve the right to remove mudslinging, bashing, trashing, and general shooting down of other ideas. The point is to present a lot of ideas, not to present one idea over another. I think I've been saying this pretty consistently all along, and don't see a reason to change my position now.

M@ni@c: Whatever time frame is good for you. I gave my plans earlier, and if you want to do a complete summary, waiting an extra day or two for it reduces my workload enough that I'll certainly take it...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Bell (edited August 19, 1999).]</font>

[Diodorus Sicilus]

M@ni@c: Reference to your 17 Aug 18:58 post:

Environment or Environmentalism is perfectly acceptable as a Value, but only a Late Game value: there’s no evidence any human society paid much attention to it before the late 20th century unless they were facing immediate environmental disaster. I suggest, therefore, that it be included, but tied to a late Advance or triggered by some level of Pollution.

Greek city states and Autarchy. The problem with the City State is that each individual city state can have a different political and economic structure. The Greeks were bound by a common language and most of a common culture, but while most of the cities were economically self-sufficient, not all were: Athens was importing food from at least the 5th century BC on, and Corinth was also a great trading city, while Thebes and Sparta were notoriously self-sufficient. Politically, governments ranged from Athens’ ‘democracy’ to Sparta’s military monarchy, the Tyrants (Despots) of Thessaly and Syracuse, and various forms of city councils and assemblies. If you define Autarchy as self-sufficiency not requiring Trade, then how is it different from Manorialism?
+2 Urb for Colonialism? Someone will have to explain the reasoning...

Harel: 18 Aug 14:55 post:

Under Environmentalism there is no intrinsic increased food output. In fact, the first stage would see same or less food output. If Environmentalism leads to increased Research in Bio Engineering, Genetic Manipulation, etc, then a masive increase in food production could be expected. It appears that you are putting the Tech Advances connected with Hybrid plants, genetic engineering, Bio Engineering, etc and their effects and lumping them all under the Environmental label.

Governments:
Military Junta!? No military junta has lasted long enough to be applicable to the game. Every ‘coalition’ of military or quasi-military politicos always devolves into One Man Rule very, very quickly, or into Civil War and then into One Man Rule of some kind: Dictator, Despot, or (starting) Dynasty. Ax it, it isn’t needed.
Monarchies come in several varieties.
Warrior King: This is actually the earliest, because the Indo-European tradition is a king who has to be ratified by the warrior/military class of the society. Historical vestiges of this are the aclamation of the Macedonian kings (like Philip and Alexander) by the Macedonian Army and the Witan or Widan assembly ratifying the early Germanic kings. The vestiges of this ‘non-absolute’ but hereditary monarchy are part of the reason fuedal kings in the middle ages were less than perfectly obeyed.
God-King: This is the next earliest, when a ruler needed a legal background for his authority over other than his immediate tribe or group, and turned to religion for it. The early Middle Eastern Empires, Egypt the most obvious but also the Assyrian and Persian, had these, and it also defines the traditional Japanese and Chinese Imperial systems. For our game purposes it can appear as the start of the Theocratic government string.
Absolute or Divine Right Monarchy: This is the ‘classic’ European monarchy, but it only dates from the end of the renaissance, when Absolutism philosophy, encouraged by the church’s example, took hold. As opposed to the God King, in which the king is special because he is a God, the Absolute Monarch is special because he has a special relationship with and favor from God. He is a secular monarch backed by God. This can be linked very specifically to the Absolutism Advance, but it is also vulnerable to Revolution when Rationalism (Age of Reason) starts men questioning the religious speciality of the king’s position.
Constitutional or Parliamentary Monarchy: When the monarchy is strong and centralized, this is indistinguishable from the Divine Right or Warrior King, depending on the rest of society’s structure. When the Parliament is strong, it is indistinguishable from Republic or Democracy.

Markets (Economy?)
Fairs are not ancient, they were a product of the middle ages, the beginnings of the ‘break out’ from a strictly local to a regional and international trading system. Similar ancient institutions would be the Agora or Forum, the central market of Greco-Roman cities, or the Bazaar market center of the middle eastern cities.

Structure.
Actually, the ‘slider’ from decentralized to centralized structure would be:
City State - Confederation - Federal - Imperial

Army
Too many ‘systems’ here, and I think it’s because you are confusing the effects of military technology with the structures affected. See the end of this post for more details of my suggestions...

The single ancient system is Levee in Masse which I'm changing the name of) everybody in the tribe who can carry a rock fights.
When weapons become specialized, the fighters become more specialized. Bronze, being a relatively expensive and rare commodity, resulted in Military Castes or aristocracies wth bronze weapons doing the fighting while the rest of society supported them. Homer calls bronze the ‘noble metal’ because swords/armor is made from it, while iron is the ‘common metal’ because it was used strictly for tools (in his day, they hadn’t learned how to temper and anneal iron for swords/armor, but it was much cheaper than bronze for everything else). When the society develops a prosperous middle class, the weapons diffuse or the society of a central state provides the weapons, and you get the civic duty or Citizen-Soldier. This is the classic Roman or Greek phalangist: a large number of citizens who can afford the panoply of weaponry or who have the ‘leisure’ time for training on the state-supplied weapons.
Once weapons get so sophisticated/expensive that the state has to supply them, the state also hires people for pay to use them, and gets professional soldiers OR it drafts/conscripts a percentage of its citizens.
Thus, the real breakdown is:
Tribal Levy (prehistoric)
-> Citizen Militia (city state, republic)
--> Conscript Army (industrial to modern times)
Military Caste (Bronze-Working, Fuedalism)
-> Mercenaries (paid soldiers: Roman to renaissance)
--> Professional Army (18th-20th centuries)

In parentheses are the developments, governments, and eras associated with each type.
The exact conditions of each military force will depend a lot on technological advances and other elements of the society. A Value of Survival /Power will take to Conscript Army or a larger percentage of its citizens in the militia than a society with a Value of Wealth.

M@ni@c: Post of 18 Aug 18:42 hrs.

Your system. Based on the comments above, here are some suggestions/comments:
First, a general comment: you and Harel both seem to be adopting a Linear design for all of the various elements. Unfortunately, this is both oversimplified and over complicated. The progression of government, government structure, economic systems, and military forms is and was not linear at all, but branched depending on specific changes in the cultural and technical milieu. I’ll try to give specific instances in the following comments.

Government.
Trying to reconcile your terminology with my structure of Monarchial types given above, how about this?

Control

Despotism: +2 Pol,-1 Hap, -1 Corr
Available from the Start
Warrior-King: +1 Pol, +1 Sen, -1 Hap, -1 Corr
Available from the Start
-> Dynastic Monarchy: +1 Nat, +1 Pol, -1 Tax
Develops from either of the above
After Advance: Absolutism, becomes:
--> Absolute Monarchy: +2 Nat, +1 Pol, -2 Tax
Totalitarian: +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Develops after Advance: Communism or Fascism from any type of government

Representative:

Tribal Assembly: +2 Hap, -2 Corr
Available from the Start
May develop into either Warrior King or Despotism (see above)
-> Republic: +2 Corr, +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
Develops after Advance: Republic
Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
Develops after Advance: Age of Reason/Rationalism from Republic, Warrior King, Dynastic or Absolute Monarchy: may require Revolution for change of government.
True Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, - 2 Mil, -2 Sen, -1 Pol
Develops after Advance: Digital Communications & Wonder: Internet established

Religious:

God-King: +1 Hap, +1 Sen, -1 Res
Develops from either Despot or Warrior King after State Religion established
-> Theocracy: +2 Eva, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Develops from above after Advance: Bureaucracy and State Religion established
--> Fundamentalism: +2 Eva, +2 Nat, +1 Exp, - 2 Res, -2 Rel
Develops after Advance: Rationalism when Civ Happiness drops below (X)

In the economic model, you have 11 different forms, and I just don’t see the need for that many. Autarchy, for instance, seems to be a new buzz word in SE, but in fact ancient economic structures were not that controlled. They were either socialistic/tribal or, after coinage appeared, very Free Market. Ancient Athens had speculative markets in the olive (money) crops, forms of insurance and speculation on overseas shipping, and currency speculation - none of it regulated in any way except by the occasional angry mob of creditors or ‘ostracism’. Colonialism was simply a European search for markets under a Mercantilist economic philosophy. Specific Advances and conditional situations can account for most of the peculiarities that you’ve put into special forms here.

Value

Knowledge: +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Exp
Available after Advance: Age of Reason or Rationalism
Wealth: +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -1 Sen, -2 Hap
Available after Advance: Coinage/Currency
Socialism(Happiness): +2 Hap, +2 Urb, -2 Tax
Available at Start
Survival/Power: +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +2 Sen, -2 Pro
Available at Start
Environment: +2 Env, +1 Hap, -1 Urb
Available after Advance: Environmentalism/Ecology

Army (Military)

Harel: (19 Aug 16:28 post)
“In the old days, expert armies were almost competely hired merecnaries and pirates.”
Dead Wrong! Arguably, the most Expert armies of the ancient world were Alexander’s Macedonians, Imperial Romans at their peak, and the Spartans at theirs. None of them Mercenaries or pirates. Mercenaries were used in only two instances:
1. When you had more money than people, as in the small Greek city states who didn’t have the population to support the size armies they wanted to play with. Imperial Rome at the end of its days when there was a serious labor shortage throughout the empire, and Carthage, which was a commercial empire very short of citizenry to recruit;
2.When you wanted a specific troop-type that you couldn’t raise and train yourself. Best examples: Greek heavy infantry hired by the Persians, who had no citizen class to raise good infantry from, and Scythian horse archers, Baleric slingers and Cretan archers, all specialist troops very hard to train (took years and years to make a good slinger or archer)
As for your four basic types, they are worthless:
Small-standing ( low size, high happiness )
Large-standing ( large size, poor quality )
Expert ( good quality, poor size )

Mercenary
->Military caste
-->Trained

Small and Large standing relative to what? The size of the Civ, the population level, The Cash available to support them? Expert is another relative term, it defines the quality of the unit-soldier, not the structure of the army. Military caste doesn’t come from Mercenaries, they come from a social and technical situation where military skills are required and are too expensive in time and money for the entire population to receive them. Trained is a quality of units again - all armies are trained to some degree, otherwise they are simply mobs.

Both Harel and M@ni@c: I think the basic problem is that you want to set up specialized ‘army types’ to define military forms that are strictly situational. Example: There is no dictionary difference between ‘draft’ and ‘conscription’ (see Oxford English Dictionary). The real difference between your draft and civic duty models is that civic duty represents a state in which the Survival value is linked specifically to service in the army. In your example, Switzerland, it survives as an independant only by being uninvadable because of its terrain and army, which is huge for its size (500,000+ when mobilized). Before it had that system, note that Switzerland fought with or was invaded by Romans, French, Austrians, Germanic states, Burgundians, and Russians (1799-Suvorov).
In addition, most of the military values relating to the units themselves have little or nothing to do with the structure or origins of the military unit, they relate to its training, discipline, and morale. A well-trained force, which has spent lots of time on active duty training and had lots of time and money spent on it for training resources, will be better than a unit without training, no matter how enthusiastic and supportive the population/state behind that untrained unit is.

Therefore, since I don’t precisely understand how you are defining your modifiers any more (I don’t have time to keep up with 200+ pages of posts anymore and, frankly, the definitions appear to be circular, going ‘round and ‘round but never changing much) I’ll just comment on the characteristics of each of the Military Structures:

Volunteers/Citizen-Soldiers
Better term than Levee en Masse. Basically, the population takes up arms as needed. The result is loss of production and economic power since workers/producers are in the military, but a lot of support and no loss of happiness because the ‘nation is in arms together’. Ancient nomadic or barbarian groups use this, also ancient city states. It evolves into Military Caste, but representative governments (republics, etc) may keep it, reducing the percentage of the population ‘called up’ so that, usually, the bulk of the producers keep producing. Positives: Good Support, low direct costs. Negatives: small happiness penalty (but it increases the longer the army is kept on active duty), loss of production/economic srength getting worse as the army is enlarged or kept on active duty for any length of time, units make take some time after ‘forming up’ to become effective, depending on amount of weapons-skill built into the population and lifestyle (nomads, barbarians very good, settled cities usually very bad)
Military Caste
Only a certain percentage of the population bears arms, but they do it all the time. This reduces apparent income (Taxes) because they have to be supported constantly, but as a rule they have a good level of training and there is no loss of happiness because the rest of the population is unaffected by any calls for warriors/soldiers. Positives: no happiness penalty, automatic support, good experience levels. Negatives: small size of military (as % of total population), loss of Tax revenue.
Professionals
The government hires troops, pays them all the time, trains them and equips them. This is very expensive in ‘up front’ costs, but gives potentially the best-trained most constantly available force. In early modern Europe (17th - 18 centuries) the way to reduce costs when you weren’t fighting a war yourself was to hire out your professionals to someone else: many small German states based much of their economy on that! (The ‘Hessians’ in the US Revolution were only some of a long list). Positives: normally little or no happiness penalty, good experience levels. Negatives: High costs; some societies (Republics & Democracies) have high happiness penalty due to distrust of professional soldiers as a group.
Draft/Conscript
This is a modern, or early modern (late 18th century) form, in which a portion of the population is called up every year, trained, then returned to civilian life. When war starts, these Reservists can be recalled, vastly expanding the effective military. The percentage called up each year and the percentage retained permanently as a Professional training cadre are variable. At one extreme,a tiny cadre and a huge ‘draft class’ approaches the Swiss system, while for most of the 19th and early 20th century, the peak of this system, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total active military were trainees each year, and the numbers were adjusted to train virtually every male reached ‘military age’ each year (roughly, 1% of the total population) and keep all the men of military ages (roughly, 10% of the population) in either the active or reserve forces. Therefore, these percentages should be adjustable, with costs and effectiveness of the basic training (experience levels) changing as the % on active and reserve status changes.
Positives: Largest possible military in size relative to population, but only % paid for on active duty. Negatives: Happiness, Tax penalty based on % called up and length of time (size of active military), experience penalty if too small % as cadre, major cost increase when entire army is mobilized and, unless Survival/Power value high, major Happiness penalty when all reservists called out of population to active duty.

Most of the other forms that have been kicked about are variations of these. Mercenaries are simply Professional or Military Caste types with nothing to do at home. Brain Washed or Cyborg simply methods of motivating or training men raised by voluntary, conscription, or cash inducement (professional). All of the above types are modified by the type of society and its values that they are from. In general, high Survival/Power value will raise the level of enthusiasm, support, and recruitment of the military. Almost any other value will lower support and happiness vis-a-vis the military, since resources ‘wasted’ on the army are not available for Growth, Wealth, Happiness, or Environmental concerns.

[Maniac]

Damn, you didn't post the Economy section. The one I wanted to read.

Have you something against it if I say in my summary "For an explanation on blah, see Harel's summary Chapter 18, Section 5"?
That would seriously decrease the amount of time I have to put in a summary of me. Besides, you can write English better than me, so your explanation for certain things is better.

But I have some questions...

Since when do military units require that much gold as support. There are suggestions that they would need some gold, but the largest part of the support still is resources/shields.
And since when do citizens automatically produce taxes/gold? The tax income has to do with the trade income. Are you sure you aren't confusing Civ2 with some other game?

And when has Global Morale been discussed?

In the Diplomacy thread I have stated a problem with that war bonuses and penalties.
What if I am officially at war with someone but not in full combat because the other civ is on an island on the other side of the world, or simply because I don't attack him and the only thing I do is defending against his pittiful attacks on my territory?

[Harel]

Post 1 of 2

I am not sure just how long a single post can be ( 64K? ) so I will split my model to two posts. No, I am not done yet, still working on the market: the rest is very easy and fast to write.

[<u>Proposed finished model: version 4.0</u>
By Harel Eilam

This model tries to give a solution to a very large problem: how to adapt Alpha Centaury unique Social engineering screen in the more "primitve" era of the earth-bound civilazations. While almost everyone agreed that the Social Engineering screen ( for now on, called SE in short ) is a better system that Civ I & Civ II goverement options, the methods in which we hope to achieve this are widely differ from one another.
So, in a nutshell, my own opinion.

<u>Sections:</u>

A. Concepts that are used in the model
B. List of social modifactors
C. The model itself
D. Summary of the model ( numbers )

<u>A. Concepts that are used in the model

This section contains:</u>

1. Evolving SO, or "->"
2. the X10 factor
3. Changing SO, Harmong modifactor and small civ vs. Big civ
4. Taxation ans unit support
5. Global morale
6. Leaders
7. Wars

1. Evolving SO, or "->"

Right from the start the thread, it became quite clear that the total amount of SO will be dramticly huge. For example, people didn't approve of the too-generic "democracy" defenition from Alpha Centuary. They wished to devide it to Republic and Democracy, and some to even more options. The end amount of options became un-managable. Not only that they were simply too many, the entire conept of "stratigic balancing" ( that every option has a unique bonus that shows a valid gameplay strategy ) was dead.
Therefor, I proposed to use the concept of Evolving Social options. Meaning, that as history and technology move on, certain options became obselte and are replaced by a newer system that still share the same principle and concept.
For example, Banking ( which had a free reign of economy ) was a form of free markets in the Renniense era that was replaced by the true Free market in the industrail era. Therefor, it will show like this: Banking -> Free market. Meaning, the second that Free markets are researched, Banking become obselte and is replaced by Free markets which gives a slightly bigger bonus. The transformtion is instantious, and cost no money or time.

2. The X10 factor

Since each SO gives a small bonus to a certain key product ( such as +10% ), the current number system in Civ I/Civ II/SMAC makes it nearly impossible. A +10% food bonus to a farm which produce 3 food units means nothing. Therefor, it's recommanded to move from a 8-bit byte variables to a 16-bit byte integer ( I think it can be done with current technolgy ). So, the same farm would produce 30 food units, and then a +10% food bonus would mean something.

3. Changing SO, Harmony modifactor and Small civ vs. Big civ

It been said over the forums that the most reknown small nations in history and the modern world do much better, realitivy to thier size, then thier bigger conterpart.
For example, Singapore posses an economical power that is bigger then what can be expected in her size. Israel and Taiwan, for another example, posses a military might that also is far bigger then what could be expcted by such tiny nations.
Therefor, it was proposed to give them some sort of bonus. Small nations have much better control over thier state and can shape the people far more easily. They also act like more like a single social group. People are closer to one another.
Then how to reflect this bonus?
The answer didn't not came easily. At first I thought that augmanting the bonus gotten from the selected value was in order: since the goal of the society is better felt in a small nation then a big one. But, how to balance it out?

The answer came from the debate on how long, and how costly, should a change to the SE screen take. In Alpha centuary, a certain "cheat" became infamous: people would change thier market to Planned to gain a critical cut in cost of units and wonders, get the required unit/wonder in that turn, and change the SO option on the second turn. People wanted, by giving minuses, restrain it with and money, to prevent this.
But I have been thinking: why not just let small nations do that? Only a tiny nation can reshape her self that quickly.
So, this is what I propose. On my list of modifactors ( see below ), I have the modifactor Harmony. The higher the harmony rating, the faster you can change your Social options. The smaller the nations ( in amount of cities ), the bigger the bonus to harmony, while big nations would gain a minus.
Therefor, small nations would get the advantge that only they could "cheat" and have a very flexitve society.

4. Taxition and unit support

In according to the X10 factor rule, if in the past a certain unit cost 2 gold per turn to support, it would now cost 20 gold units to support.
The recommanded amount of Taxs gotten from citizens ( 50% tax/50% luxaries - zero unrest ) is 50 gold per popultion unit.

<b >5. Global morale[/b]

This model also assume that events in every turn would give a minus, or a bonus, to production in the next turn. For example, lose some units and gain a certain production minus in the second turn. win a battle or ally with a friendly nation, and get a small production bonus.

6. Leaders

Every X turns ( around 50, but it should be randomizeed ), your leadership change as the old ruler dies, and a new one takes it place. Leaders may also be killed by spies. When a leader is changed, there is a chance of an all-out revolution. The chance of an uprising, and how many turns it will last ( when you move to anarchy ), is decided by the people happiness, harmony rating, and the goverment type you had before the change.

7. Wars

In order to show the damage to the economy by prolonged wars, some sort of reward and punishement system is in order. While wars always boost military industry ( more then more financing, the people are more eager to help the war effort ), and your morale, while you are at the state of war, you automaticly get +2 Mil, +2 Exp ( see below ). However, the civilain industry takes a beating by this. Therefor, for the square-root ( rounded down ) of the duration of the war, you get a - to Producation and economy, ( see below ). For example, if are at war for 16 turns, they you get a +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -4 Prod, -4 Eco. The bonus to war disappear when you sign a peace treaty: the production minus shrink by one every turn. So, if you fought for 28 turns ( 5 sqaure-rooted, rounded down ), it will take you 5 full turns until the minus compelty disappears.
( Maximum minus is -5 Production, -5 Economy ).
You can also have a limited form of war: Strike. In strike you gain no minuses and no bonuses, but the public/senate will not be happy about long strikes: after several turns, expect a lobby to bequest you to end the strike.

<u>B. List of Social modfiactors</u>

My proposed model used a different list of Modifactors then SMAC ( that used police, economy, planet, etc. ). Ofcourse, lots of what was in SMAC is here: but this models also controls many other factors. However, there was no beta-testing and game play balancing. The numbers and actual bonus the modifactors and options grants would be, naturaly, competly un-balanced. I only try to give by this model the sense of direction.
So, here are my suggested 13 modifactors. They inform you of what advantges a high value gives you per +1 bonus ( in a general sense ). For example, if it's said that "get a +10%" bonus, then for +2 modifactor level you gain +20% bonus. Ofcourse, a negative amount would give the exact oppisite. For example, a -2 would give a -20%.

<u>The modifactors:</u>

1. Order
2. Military
3. Expreince
4. Production
5. Enviroment
6. Harmony
7. Loyality
8. Happiness
9. Tax
10. Relations
11. Beucracy
12. Research
13. Economy

Elborate explantions:

1. Order ( Ord )
Describe the level of order you gain over the populace. A high ratings allow you to activie many more police units to supress unhappy emotions and make the citizens less unhappy if military units are outside your terratory.<list>[*]Use +1 extra military unit as police.[*]police units get a +10% to thier effectivness.[*]Less unhappy citizens cause of faraway military units.[*]Negative morale effects are lessened ( see "Global morale" ).
</list>

2. Military ( Mil )
This modifactors reflects and compare the size of your military industry and infrastructre to the cost of producing and maintiaing your army. A big, cheap army would have a military bonus, while and expensive, quilified army would get a military minus. A good military rating boost your production and support.<list>[*]Get a +5% bonus to production of military units and buildings ( like barracks ) alone.[*]Support cost of every unit is reduced by -1.[*]Cost of espionage operations are reduced by 10%.[*]Reduce increased cost of prototypes by +25%.
</list>

3. Exprience ( Exp )
Show the level of experty by your military forces and quality of training.<list>[*]Unit start by one higher expreince level.[*]Exp. points required to attain a higher level is reduced by 10%.[*]+1 morale rating to all military units and spies.[*]All spy operations gain a +10% success.[*]All military units gain a +10% to comperimse ( probe teams ).
</list>

4. Production ( Prod )
Show the level of your industry, and the rate in which your workers labor away.<list>[*]You gain +10% to shield production when producing wonders, buildings and civilain units ( not military ones ).[*]Worker persona ( on the city menu ) get a +10% bigger bonus.
</list>

5. Enviroment ( Env )
Can be compared with SMAC planet modifactor. The link of your society to nature, how they treat it, etc. While it does not hold the level of power like in SMAC, and the options that shape it are scarse, it still hold some very potent powers ( mainly in the modern era ).<list>[*]Polloution ratings are reduced by 10%.[*]Cleaning pollution is 10% faster.[*]Food tile improvments ( irrigations, farmlands, etc. ) gives a +10% larger bonus.
</list>

6. Harmony ( Hrm )
Define the link between your society members, how well they act as one. A high harmony ratings means that the people will back you up more, and are more likely to support the your plans.<list>[*]Changing your SO takes less time.[*]A city is less likely to revolt.[*]Cost of bribing your cities by the enemy is +10% larger.[*]Senate/Public/Lords are less likely to interving in internal policies.
</list>

7. Loyality ( Loy )
Not to be mistaking with Harmony. Loyality measured is the citizens obey your orders. Harmony measured if the citizen accepts your orders. Loyality can be achived by force and fear: harmony can't. A high loaylity to the state and ruler grants:<list>[*]Enemy espionage attempts gets a -5%.[*]Conversion of your cities is -10% harder.[*]Emmigartion off your cities is -10% lower.
</list>

8. Happiness ( Hap )
Measured the basical happiness of your people. Any happiness may be further increased, or lowered, by allocating luxaries: but a high happiness ensured your people are happy.<list>[*]For every +2: one extra happy citizen ( -2 gives one extra unhappy citizen ).[*]One less unhappy citizen.[*]Increased the growth rate in your cities by +10%.[*]Positive morale bonus are increased ( see "global morale" ).
</list>

9. Tax ( Tax )
Show the public acceptance of taxation. In some goverments/market options, a high tax rates is either well accepted or gravely spoken againt. In a nutshell, a high tax would allow you to get more taxs without causing more unahppiness.
You may increase your Tax by +5% without any negative result. For example, if 50% tax/50% luxaries gives you zero unrest, and 60%/40% gives you mild unrest of 2, then if you have +2 Tax you can have 60%/40% for zero unrest and 70%/30% for mild unrest of 2. ( -2 Tax would give you 40%/60% for no unrest, 50%/50% for mild unrest of 2, and 60%/40% for high unrest of 4 ).

10. Relations ( Rel )
Defines how well your nation interacte with other civ's, how well do they understand them, trade with them, etc.<list>[*]+10% to all profit gotten from trade routes.[*]Increased diplomatic relations.[*]The AI is more likely to accept your proposels.
</list>

11. Beucracy ( Beu )
Defines the effiency of your goverement body, and how well they preform your orders. A high beucracy cut's thought the slack and allow you to manage a large empire with almost zero money lost.
They are several forumals going on right now: some relate to lost of money in direct distance to the capitol ( like civ II ), and others according to the amount of cities ( like SMAC ). Others try to combine. I hold no opinion, as long as this modifactor exist and give a large stratigic bonus ( not too small it's meangless ).

12. Research ( Res )

Measure how open your societies is to technology and science.<list>[*]+10% to research output.[*]Science buildings ( universties ) and wonders, get a +10% to thier research bonus.[*]Scientist persona ( on the city menu ) get a +10% bigger bonus.
</list>

13. Economy ( Eco )
Defines the importance of economy in your society.<list>[*]Trade buildings ( market place, banks ) gives a +10% bigger bonus.[*]Clerks persona ( on the city menu ) get a +10% bonus to gold bonus.[*]All cities give 10 extra gold coins.[*]All tiles produce +1 extra gold unit.
</list>

<u>C. The model itself</u>

This model shows all the options the player may select on the SE screen. The concept of evovling SO ( see above ) is used many times, and is designated by a -> Arrow.
The model contain 7 parts ( against 4 parts on SMAC ):

<u>List of SE sections:</u>

1. Goverement
2. Market
3. Value
4. Structure
5. Religon
6. Army
7. Research

1. Goverments:

Anarchy ( throw back when in revoultions )
Control ( Despotism -> Military autocraty -> Police state )
Absloute ( Dictatorship -> Totalatirsm )
Monarchial ( Dynasty -> Monarchy -> Parlimental )
Religous ( Priestship -> Emmisary -> Popedom -> Theocracy )
Free ( Tribal assembly -> Republic -> Democracy -> True democracy )

<u>Anarchy</u>

Anarchy is by no means a valid option: you can't select Anarchy nor do you start with it as your first option. Anarchy is the lack of any orginized goverement, cause by revoultions and over throw of the current administartion. It may apply to single cities that reel out of control, or to all your society in the duration of a praticly hard SO change ( change of goverment, or several other options, or both toghter ). Many societies expreinced anarchy at some point: France after the france revoultions, The roman after barbarians herald the empire destruction, and so on.
However, leader change holds no effect in Anarchy ( not that you have anywhere deeper to fall into, anyway ).

Anarchy*: -3 Hap, -3 Prod, -3 Loy

* You allocate no taxs at all.

<u>Control</u>

Despotism -> Military autocraty -> Police state

Logic: The control goverment are all involved in order, fear and loyality as the backbone of thier leadship. It's how they gain power, how they hold it and how they justify it. While any other form of goverement use military units as police force some time, the control goverment base it's reasoning competly around it. It's not about the control of a single dictator, evil or benevolent. It's a single person, group or orginization that builds it's entire power around the control and oppresion of the public.
Strategy: boost order over citizen happiness.
Leader swap: On military autocraty and Police state the swap is quite easy, but you always fall to anarchy for several turns when a despot dies.
<list>[*]Despotism dates back to the very core of humanity. You gain this goverement type right on the start of the game, and it's your automatic first selection. Despotism is the rule of a single dictator that makes the entire people cow before him. However, real despots are lost in the backwater of time: when we think about despots we usally think about bad dictators, such as Hitler or Lenin. But while they were petty and cruel, the german and russian people adored ( most of them ) thier evil rulers at that time. Same thing about evil kings. Another difference between a despost and a dictator ( or kings 0 that a dictator can delegt power to his select minions ( again, hitler and lenin ), a king also delegt power to his lords and advistors, but a despost always rule alone. While the dictator and king may choose the keep all the power in thier hands, a depost had no other option. Deposts are best described as small warlords or mayors that rule over thier small piece of land. It was quickly replaced as an in-effiecent sort of ruling.[*]Military autocraty popped up somewhere in the days of the greeks as a publicly accepted form of goverment ( or occuipiness ). In this form of ruling, the army is the protective, ruling and managing body of the state. The top generals concuil vote and rule about the buissness of the state, sub-officers are granted the ruling of cities beyond that of troops. As a goverement type, it survived for quite a long time. Even today, mainly in Africa, the military is a the valid ruling body. In time of war and revoultions, many nations ( even democraticies ) revert back to this old option.[*]Police state replaced Military autocraty, with the help of modern technoloy. The possibly of George Eurwel novel "1984" is all to likely. The rule of the army can only stretch so far: the most logical step is the creation of a single, unified force: ruling intelligence, goverment, army, foreign affairs and the police. Police state can be describe the soviet unions ( when not having a dominant ruler, such as Lenin and Stalin which were oppresive dictatorship ) and some other options.
</list>

Despotism: +2 Ord, +3 Mil, -2 Beu, -2 Hap, -2 Loy
->Military autocraty: +2 Ord, +1 Mil, -2 Hap
-->Police state: +3 Ord, +2 Loy, -3 Hap

<u>Absloute power</u>

Dictatorship -> Totalatirsm

Logic: While the control goverments revolved around control as the center of thier power, the absloute power goverement type is about the almost cult-like adortion of the leader. The ruler gain it's power by Charisma, and hold and justfie it's reign by it. They are neither "good" or "bad. The distinction is meangless for the public. Hitler was an evil dictator, hated by the world and the future german generations: but most german, at that time, adored him. Same for Lenin and Stalin. But all of those were evil dictators. History also show several benevolent rulers: Ceaser, Claudius and Augustus, all of them were dictators that put the best interst of the public before thier eyes.
Since the power base of the dictator is much more firm then a despost, he can create his own hierachy. He can delegt power, and have a closed group of friends ( a party, priests, generals, etc ). While the ruler, most of the time, needs to use extensive police forces to control the public ( hence, the bad name gotten for all dictators ) he's rule is based by public acceptence. Many times, the ruler was selected and raise into power by the people themselfs. Therefor, he is much more then a petty despot.
Stategy: Absloute power goverments boost loyality to the state, but since most power is centalizied, is quite in effiecent on a large scale. While large dictatorship empires existed, they DID get very corruptive and in-efficent after reaching some maxium level. After the ruler died, the land got was almost instantoutly lost. Examples: Roman era, Soviet union, etc.
Leader swap: quite problemtic in both, as it's about the admiration of the ruler. Good chance for anarchy.

The first true dictatorships were raised in the roman era. the distinction between dictatorship and totalatrism is not great: simply the evolution of dictatorship into a more structred, orignized form of single-person rule, in the industrial era.
Personal note: by no means do I wish to present any acceptance to dictatorship reigns or any system in which a single person assume power, for good or for bad. However, I do try to look at it objectivly. Dictatorships don't HAVE to be bad, and sometimes they weren't. They used forces many times because of high taxation. Same with kings.

Dictatorship: +2 Loy, -2 Beu
->Totalatirsm: +3 Loy, +2 Mil, -3 Beu

<u>Monarchial</u>

Dynasty -> Monarchy -> Parlimental

Logic: Monarchial is yet another form of single person rule ( like Despotism and Dictatorship ). But like Despotism is based on control, and Dictatorship on Chrisma, Monarchy is based on Tradition. The king rules by the power granted to him by his ancestors. He didn't earn the power intrasted into him. He didn't raise to power. It's a stable form of goverement that survived longer then any other type in history existance. Power is transfared from one leader to the other with out faults. Bad kings are considerably less bad then bad dictators: the public is always more eager to support the king that a dictator with no chrisma. The king is belived to be a presenation of the gods, or sent by the gods. He also symbolize the state itself. The revolutions against the kings were only when thier high taxs rose so high that the people couldn't not afford it. If the british king was not so greedy with his colonies, it's possible that America was still british right now.
Strategy: considering the stablity and acceptance of monarchial goverments, the king can tax his people more then any other ruler could get away with. Even when you date back to the old days of ancient egyptian empires, of old Maia and Inca kings, and the old Chi emperators, kings allways took preety big coffers from the people. As long as they didn't go TOO far, they got away with it. However, the high taxs take thier tole from the economy: and the high difference in classes ( the lords and the citizens ) cuts apart the society.
Leader swap: very low chance anything will happen, excpet parlimental which has a low chance of uprising.
<list>[*]Dynasty was the old form of Monarchy, that date backs to almost pre-historic dates. It should be among the first things you can research. A blood line that date back to one, unique charcter. The rulers, or kings, are raised to the level of gods: Parroh was said to bring the sun up when he rose. ( which quite explain why they were in a very big hurry to make a new parroh the same day ). Dynsaties lasted for thousands of years, more then any democracy or future monarchy king. The egyptain empire spanned, in all it's glory, for almost 1800 years. The Dynsaty kings also ruled alone, or alone with the help of some advisors. [*]Monarchy was a required evoultion of Dynasty. The belief of kings as gods ( or demi-gods, by most old south american cultures ) could not last for long. The concept "king" refer to the Monarchy. We translate the description of the parrohs to "king", but for the people they were gods, not kings. Therefor, Monarchy is the evolution of dynasty that cancel the concept of "king as god". While the king is everything, and many times considered the state ( Loui XIV... ), religon is separted from the goverment. The monarch also delegt many duties to lords and dukes, unlike dynasty.[*]Parlimental type of monarchy was required for the continution of the public acceptance in the modern era. As technology and civilazation improved, people were more and more attunded with what is coming to them. Also, the long rivalies between the distinct classes in a monarchy system ( lords and plebs ), must reach a catastrohpic maxima sometime. In parlimental, the lords grow powerful enough to oppose the king. It's not ment here for modern parlimental monarchy ( such as england ), which is considered a democracy, but more of the time of british struggle, such as the time just after the signing of the "Magna Carta". The "house of lords", or any other suiting title, has the power, legallity and economicly, to over-rule the decision of the king itself, much like a senate. However, the king still posses more power then any republic or democractic president, and the lords hardly reprsent society. But still, the "house of lords" will still hazard the king would be accustomed from before.
</list>

Dynasty: +2 Tax, -2 Eco
->Monarchy: +2 Tax, +2 Prod, -2 Eco, -1 Hrm
-->Parlimental: +3 Tax, +3 Prod, -2 Eco, -2 Hrm

<u>Religous</u>

Priestship -> Emmisary -> Popedom -> Theocracy

Logic: while very few religous goverements truly existed along history, the religon community always held so much power that thier was no clear distinction who rules and who isn't. Many times, the religous insitute was the ruling body de-facto. And some other times, so simply gain control from thier powerful spot and hold it was no problem at all ( mainly, see Emmisary description below ). While the rule of the religous head can be quite straining and oppresive at times, they don't have to be either the Zealous war maniacs or the oppresive reign as sometime thought of all religos goverment. That is decided by the religoun section ( see below ). Even a Athiest theocracy is possible ( even due it's quite hard to imagine ). A powerful religon would get them the morale bonus ( like in SMAC fundemtalism ), while intolerance would get you the church control inquiestion.
Strategy: a good harmony rating would allow you to flux your SO options greatly, but expect a severe damange to external relations.
Leader swap: Theocracy had a very low chance, Popedom and priesthip have only a slightly higher chance of unrest, but Emmisary almost ensure an unrest.
<list>[*]Priestship is one of the oldest form of goverements, and is available right from the start of the game. When one comes to define Priestship, he must keep shamanism in mind. The roots off all religons on Earth are the tribe Shaman/Wise man/priest. It is he who "knows" how everything works, he how put the idea of god, or gods, into the mind of the people. He invented the ceremonies, the tradiations, that were needed to make peace with the mighty elements. Many times those priests thought they were doing the right thing, using the right tools to help thier people. But more often then not, those prehistoric sharlatens use lies and tricks to gain control over the public. The priest was, many times, the head of the tribe and his tiny civilazation.[*]Emmisrial were used in the times were religon was sepearted from goverements. Since other form of goverements, such as Monarchy and Dictatorship proved the better hand in reigning the country, the religos insitue very content to mend the human soul, but not his body. But with wide support, those orignizations blosmed with economical power. During the Middle-ages, the church had more economical power then most kings. A few times along history, in times of turmoil ( most of the time after a king dies ), the high priest siezed control of the nation.[*]Popedom as an institue was created in the last days of the middle ages. The popedom is almost a throwback to priesthip: a single priest rules over the entire land, uniting body and soul. However, the religous orginization is much more orginized and hiercahial. This is internal order in the originzation, and the religous laws and code of conducts are much more civilizaed and clear to the simple person. Consider the Vatikan in the final days of the middle ages and it's vast economical and cultural power.[*]Theocracy is a even more structured from of Popedom, that consist of a group of priests from various streams and locations, that act much like a senate in the ruling of the goverement. Those bishops are elected in open voting by the members of the local church, and are a part of the concuil for the entire life time ( unless expeled for Heracy ). A good example is the Hebrew Shanadrin, the ruled over old Israel for many years, between the descrution of the first temple and the second one. In the modern world, it could repesent Iran ( since the religous cult, the Iatolas, hold the most power ).

Priestship: +2 Hrm, -2 Rel, -1 Res
->Emmisary: +2 Hrm, +2 Tax, -2 Rel, -2 Res
-->Popedom: +3 Hrm, +2 Tax, +1 Loy, -3 Rel, -2 Res
--->Theocracy: +4 Hrm, +2 Tax, +2 Loy, -4 Rel, -2 Res

<u>Free</u>

Tribal assembly -> Republic -> Democracy -> True democracy

Logic: From the dawn of man, to the most powerful empires on human cultures, goverements that are based on freedom of choise and that the right place for power effecting the people is in the hands of the people. In theory, atleast. For many years, the right to be a influnacing member of society, a citizen, was reserved to a certain portion of society. Most of the time, is was the portion with the most money and power. However, in every such reigm, regardless of just how many people could vote, the people reserved themself the right to choose and expel at will thier ruler, and always made sure thier opinion was clearly heard ( in case of Tribal assembly, usally with a very big stick ). Beyond many nations today, the greek and roman also used free democracies, the minoun, some city states along the middle ages and many early tribes.
Strategy: by giving the people freedom, they become very happy and productive, but it does tend to hamper on national security and intrests.
Leader swap: every 10 turns, not random, but very unlikely anything will happen.
<list>[*]Tribal assembly is another SO option available right from the start of the game. In old nomadic tribes, and early cities, in the pre-culture era, the tribe was ruled by an assembly that comprimsed every adult able male. While it was not complete form of democracy ( no right of vote for females and slaves ) it was still the first step into recongizning the importance of every person. The assembly voted on many things. It comprimised off the hunters ( all the able male ), the elders ( a smaller group, an inner concuil consist of the oldest members of the tribe who could veto everything ), and the elected tribe leader. However, since every person could vote, it made large empires almost impossible to manage. The Aborjians are the most famoused, long standing tribe that used this system. [*]Republic was almost a throwback from the equaly thinking tribal assembly. The roman and greek republics granted right of vote to only a very narrow broad of people. Mainly, only the upper class could vote. This excluded women, slaves ( which they had a plenty ) and the lower class. But the republic did intreduced a concept that allowed free govermenets to exanpd: the Senate. The idea of publicly chosen senators ( which were selected every few years by the entire inhabitnants of Rome/Athenas
), and delegating power to them allows the empire to expand. People from all over the nation didn't have to come for every major vote: only once every few years they would select a single concuil member they would trust the most to do thier biding for them. The senators, in return, delegated most of thier power in the hands of the president. A republic president had much more power then the leader of the tribal: the president could declare wars single-hand, if he wanted. But while the republic was almost dictatorial on it's status, it did allow the free thinking goveremnet to exapand.[*]Democracy: And a good thing it expanded: since the roman and greek empires were the hall marks of civilazation for years after, and when the evil reign of monarchs start to lift from Europe, they returned to it. But a democracy was a step up from the republic: first off, every citizen could vote. Women could, slaves were freed, everyone. Also, the senate in a democracy holds more power then the president ( in comparsion to the republic ). Due to all of this, the people had a great deal of control over thier lifes. Modern democracy becomes available in the reinneanse era. Natuarly, it reflects the USA, britian, Jpan, etc. The first modern democracy was France.[*]True democracy is, in a way, the return of Tribal assembly with technology. In an on-line world, there is no need for any power delegation. The senate and the senator are gone, and so it the president ( consider the player as the repesntation of what they people want ). Budgets, declartion of war and alliances are offered to a global voting by every citizen. New rules and suggestions can be lobbied to the public by going to a series or smaller votes ( a random 100 people need to approve it, then a bigger vote of 1000, and so on ) till is passes enough votes and is suggested to the entire public. This is only slightly futuristic, and should be available very soon after computers.
</list>

Tribal assembly: +2 Hap, +2 Hrm, -2 Ord, -3 Beu
->Republic: +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Ord, -1 Hrm
-->Democracy: +2 Hap, +2 Eco, -2 Ord, -1 Mil
--->True democracy: +2 Hap, +2 Hrm, +2 Eco, -2 Ord, -2 Mil
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 21, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Hi Bell and Harel.
In Harel's post with using things like "It been said" or "it was proposed", Harel creates a feeling that everyone agrees with what is written in his summary post. However most of it is only his personal opinion.
Eg "The answer came from the debate on how long, and how costly, should a change to the SE screen take." gives a feeling that there was discussed a long time about the duration of SE switching. However Harel is the only one that has said that it would depend on the size of the civ. All others agree it should be 3 turns for every civ.
So Bell, don't forget to say that this personal summary posts sometimes only contains the opinion of one person, the writer. This, of course, also must be said about my summary post (it won't be as big as Harel's one).

M@ni@c
Working further on my large post...

[Harel]

To maniac:

first off, about my second post which include the markets... I am truly sorry, but I have been delayed. In all honesty, it starts to bore me to right about SO so much.

I DID say on the start of my post, that it's my opinion alone. And yes, some of the ideas are all mine: the global morale was something that I saw on Birth of the federation and thought it would be very nice to implamnt in my model. It IS my model, in the end.

About quoting me:
first off, check that indeed we both mean the same thing.
But, we forewarned that it would reflect poorly on your own model. Now, my model is just a suggestion: yours could be much better. I trust that Firaxis will pick the best options ( or best ideas out of the options ). However, if your own model will just "rip-off" my own explantion ( I am not saying that you will rip-off, but it WILL look like it! ), Firaxis could think less on your own model. I could be wrong, thought.

BTW, Diodorus, I took your army remarks to heart: i hope that the new army model will be to your liking.

I hope to post the rest of the model late tonight, or tommorow. They just dropped a pick inspection on me so I am very tight with time... sorry everyone.

I even put the model before my own thread, which will probaly not get a new summary for the new list... unless don don will make a new appearence... sorry everyone.

[Maniac]

Harel, I won't quote THAT much. I think Tribal Assembly, Democracy and True Democracy.

Diodorus, I was also planning to adapt the Army category.

And about the Government suggestions, I think I will provide several names for some choices, so Firaxis will know what I mean. Something like :
Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King
or
High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King

[Harel]

First, to Diodorus, tell me what you think about those army options:

Regular ( roman age, use by roman empire. Volunteers are served into an orginized and well equiped army, and gain some good training ). +1 Exp

Citizen militia
->National guard
-->Civlian duty

Non-expert army that relies on trained civilians. It's bonus that it makes the people happy.

Tribal levee ( everyone fight )
->Forced drafts ( raiding villages for able men and boys, train them brief and send them over )
-->Recruitment ( like most democracties in wars )

Easy to obtain cheap troops, but the exp level isn't very high and the people resent it.

Military caste
->Mercenaries
-->Proffesional

Highly trained, high cost warriors.

and for Maniac:

I just finished markets. I am now sure I can finish the entire model for tommorow dead-line ( like before, Bell, I ask that you will quote my two posts compelty ).

So, I will post markets just for you, since you wished to see it. However, it's not open to discussing anymore, sorry. I might accept your opinions, but it's too late, I am not changing anything more now.

Bell, do not quote this post, since my second part of my model will be posted tommorow and will include this.

b>2. Market

Simple[/b] ( Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange )
Closed ( Autaracial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned )
Directed ( Protectionism -> Mercantlism -> Colonial -> Nationalazation )
Social ( Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia )
Free ( Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational )

<u>Simple</u>

Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange

Logic: The simple markets reflect the "Basic" option at SMAC. This market option boost the belief that the goverement simply select the most widely accepted form of trade, and then allow the people to use it at will. It's not, however, free economics as they dis-originzation and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvert the revenue gotten from an almost free market.
Strategy: means to serve the people who don't wish any direction of their market, and wish to have a no-effect bonus.
<list>[*]Barter as a form of economy is your first option in the game. Barter is the concept of item trade: you give me X cows, and I shell give you my own Y stones. The lack of any accepted trade ratio between the items cause many problems, mainly to the ruler taxe collectors, that when in doubt tended to take too much of the owner items.[*]Currency replaced bartering somewhere in the pre-greek era. Many of the big ancient empires had currency, like the Pheonican, Minoun and Egyptains. The national coins were not always valuable as they contains very low amounts of gold. They did represent a fixed amount of value, set by the goverement. Very quickly, fixed exchange ratio between foreign currency was also established, which gave a big boost to extrenal trade as well as the internal one.[*]Stock exchange was first established in the early Reinessance. It represent a step higher the currency: items and companies were represented by "stocks", a fictional, arbitery value that it's actul current value shifted according to demand. While currency were very static, and many times didn't represntive the true state of the market, the flexise stock exchanges offer quick and easy trade in any resources or holding.

Barter: -1 Eco
->Currency: no effects.
-->Stock exchange: +1 Tax

<u>Closed</u>

Autarcial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned

Logic: Closed markets existed along most of human culture. Those markets rarely dealth with external trade, and tended to be competly self supportive. This is true to the most early and primitive tribes, all along to middle age europe, and proceeding to numerous modern nations. Even due that trade and economy takes such a key rule in the modern world that no nation is foolish enough to ignore the many benefits, many rulers tended to stay on thier own, fearting for spies and drop in industry.
Strategy: closed markets boost powerul industry over commerence and relations with other nations.
<list>[*]Autarcial markets are one of the oldest markets in history, and is available right from the start of the game. Autarcial ( self supportive ) markets are compelty cut off from outside markets, including thier own. Every market ( city ) tends to her needs along, and produce everything the local markets needs by him self. Thier is no, or very little, trade and relations between the different markets of the civilazation. Since the citizen of one city almost never travel outside thier town and see the rest of the city, they hardly feel citizen of the nation.[*]Fairs were introduced before the ancient empires, but were most popurly used when civilzation dropped to a brinking halt in the early middle ages. An important improvemnt over the isolated autracrial markets: annual, or half-annuls ( twice a year ), a fair was sent to the near town or several close cities. The fair moved from town to town, introducing rare items create in every standalone market to the inhabitants of the entire reigon, and even the entire nation. The fairs were a critcal link between the isolated cities. With pirates and barbarians, a large fair was the only way to safely travess the distance between two isolated cities. The fairs linked the nation, boosted commerece by introducing rare items, and generated enough revenues to pass a poor family for many monts after the fair.[*]Manorlism was first introduced as a large-spread system on the 12th centaury. It was a much more orginized form of closed markets. While fairs were created indenptantly by a few local cities, any real direction of the market was non-existant. The king, or ruler of the fair market had almost no control over the markets, beside sending a few tax collectors to bring him whats due. Thier was no central market. Manorilism is a system of indenptant markets ( cities ), that all directly report to the goverement ( king/ ruler/ president ). The trade between the markets is much better established: instead of fairs, goods kept coming and going between the various cities. The manorlist market was still close to external trade and kept him self-supportive: but with better regulation and control, each market assisted each other by reugulating the required resources amounts between the near by cities. Many local barons signed pacts with other barons to share certain resources each other needs, and both assisted the federal goverement when time arrised ( by troops, money and any resources required ).[*]Planned economy is the pinnacle of evoultion of any market that wish to be competly self supportive. All cities act like one, huge unified market. With the help of powerful computers, and programs that forsee future resources demand, the resources of the entire nations can be adjusted and regulated to perfection. While many nations use such programs today, thier is still a few years needs to pass to reach a technology advanced enough to intrast the entire market planning in her hands.

Autarcial: +2 Prod, +2 Hrm, -2 Loy, -3 Rel
->Fairs: +3 Prod, +1 Hrm, -1 Loy, -3 Rel
-->Manorilism: +3 Prod, +2 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel
--->Planned: +4 Prod, +2 Beu, +1 Mil, -2 Eco, -3 Rel

<u>Directed</u>

Protectionsim -> Mercantalism -> Colonial -> Nationalzation

Logic: As the empires on Earth grew bigger and bigger, many nations found the closed market system un profitable. Trade with other empires has become a vital resource of free cash: some nations even based thier entire economy on trade, like the pheonicans. But, needless to say, that mass amount of money trading hands between empires with no supervision of the empire made the king/ruler very uncomfertable. Traders were a path for espionage and terrorism, not to mention that external imports tended to harm national products. When importing goods becomes a cheaper and better option that buying the local goods, the home industry suffers. And no ruler wanted that. So, while some kings choosed to let the market shape it self, many kings choose to take several measured that will insure the continual of thier state. Most european powers along this millennia used one system or the other to shape all external trade, imports and export, to a form best fitting thier vision.
Strategy: boost effeiceny and allows you to build very large empires, but economy takes a dive.
<list>[*]Protectionism is the name for a economical shield policy. On this systems, the goverement set quota to certain key resources. Any imports that exceed that quota pays a very large import fine. By this system, the goverement kept regulting the market, gains a nice dividand, and insure the proftiably of local products. While every nation uses protectionist rules to some extent ( the US limits textile export, for example ), many middle ages nations uses protectionist market plans for many years to keep tabs on the market. However, protectionism as a system dates back to the roman era.[*]Mercantlism is more of a economical strategy then an option. It was the hallmark of the economical model suggested by the French economist Colbert in the 16th centaury. Mercantlism is an evoultion of protectionism, a "cheat" that was used in the 16th and 17th to gain free money out of helpless nations. With the development of Stock excahnges, smart brokers "swamped" the forgien stock with a huge amount of items: timbers, wool, what ever it took. While the cost dived for zero, a quick buck was made by quickly selling and buying different currency, and make a fortune with the currency ratio.[*]Colonial was ment to replace protectionism and Mercantalism. As the import quota proved far too limiting to trade when used so widely, goverements choosed to cancel the import fines and try to direct the market by other means. As the conquest of the new lands proved to be more and more lucrative, in the 17th centaruy, the goverements choosed to sponsor "formal-companies", that by them the ruler shape the market according to his liking. The british, for example, did not conquer India for the crown or the land: they conquered it for the British India company. It was the company that ruled over the far east, not the crown. But the king financed all those companies and controled them in-directly. In our modern world, try to vision IBM and Microsoft peons in the hand of the American goverements.[*]Nationalzation is both a more free market, and a more controled one then Colonial, at the same time. While in the colonail era the king financed the companies and directed them by messages, in this market options most major companies are nationalized. The goverement does not spend money on the companies, which makes the company more free to choose her heading, but in contrast, the board of directros and CEO are selected by the goverements and are subject to immdiate changes at will. Nationalzation should be available in the late modern era.

Protectionism: +2 Beu, -2 Eco
->Mercantalism: +2 Beu, +2 Rel, -2 Eco, -2 Tax
-->Colonial: +3 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Mil, -3 Eco, -3 Hap
--->Nationalazation: +4 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Tax, -3 Eco, -2 Rel

<u>Social</u>

Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia

Logic: A social market is one who attunes himself to the need of the public, not the industry or the economy. The happiness of the people comes before any other consideration. There should be a very clear distinction about "psuedo" social markets and true social markets. A free market with social tendenacies is NOT a true social market: it's best described with free market and "wealthfare" as value ( see below in Values ). When a goverement choose to embark on a social market option, it attunes all it resources to better fead and cloths the entire people.
Strategy: while social goverements usally takes high amount of taxes, most of them are returned in the form of luxaries: so in fact the actul amount of social Tax is preety low. In contrast to the lower taxes, you get a very happy bunch of people.
<list>[*]The first social market were used allready in the roman era, but they were never very popular. In many ways, socialism is a form of primtivie nationalazation. But while a nationalize market ( see above ) is just the goverement way to achieve control and high effiency, a social market nationalaize the main industaries to insure that every citizen gets the bare minimum to surive. Farms belong to the goverement, and so those the food transportion. Food is quotered so that every person get atleast what he needs to live. The main companies, such as water, communiction and electricty all belong to the goverement. Large subsidies ensure that every person can buy those nessecaties. Job in the nationalaize companies is free to all and sponosored by everyone. Can't find a job? The goverement will always find room for in a farm of gov factory, earning a good wage. Child upkeep is heavly sponsored, and so those health care and operations. It widely differ from social free markets, that only keep loose watch on key items. And more, no social free market every nationalaized the food production: that was left to free enterprise.[*]Labor union is an industrial imporvement over social markets. While social goverements always take care, generaly, of the worker class, a large, solid, goverement supported labor union insure the workers gets those little things that the goverement can't remember, or doesn't care to remember. Wages are fairer, and while hampering the industry, strikes always, in the end, benefit the entire society.[*]Communism markets were first developed in the modern era. While communism, at it's pure form, never existed in the world: equal wages, equal conditions, equal people, some nations really came very close. However, as the industry slackened in a pure communism market, the goverement took preliminary steps to insure the loyality of the people. Farmers got benefits to insure the food supplies, and acadamic and militarial centeral people got better conditions and treatment. The goverement still inforced the shared wages to all: a general would get the same wage as a privite. But the general got more alcohol provision, for example, bigger flats, more food and better school for his childern. It was not the perfect society it should have been: the human greed is a mighty force, and without a cash insentive the people became lazy. But it was a good step in the right direction.[*]Utopia is a futuristic option, the most advanced SO in the game, but in close observation is more and more probale. With fusion power and nano robots the future holds infinite power and wealth. Any item, food, buildings, cloths, could simply be created with no cost, just time. With time, every item you require could be provided. The transformation of decade minerals would make any element frequent enough to lose it's value. All material possesions become meangless: you only pay for things that can be duplicates, man power. See a movie used with actors? Pay credit. Resturant with real waiters, learn in school with real teachers, you pay for those items. In fact, the only reason you will need to work at all is to earn some luxary credits. While this may seem futuristic, it's not the case. It's more the possible. All ready modern robots and computers show us a future where most man-made work is redudenant. ( Personal advice: The SF book "Forver peace", the hugo winner of 98' by Joe Haldeman is a PERFECT example of what I have in mind ).

Socialism: +2 Hap, +2 hrm, -2 Tax, -2 Mil
->Labor union: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, -3 Tax, -1 Mil
-->Communism: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, +2 Loy, -3 Tax, -3 Rel
--->Utopia: +3 Hap, +3 Hrm, +3 Loy, +2 Env, -3 Tax, -3 Eco, -3 Rel

<u>Free</u>

Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational

Logic: when someone comes to the concept of free markets, he must remember they are never competly free. It was the lack of any minimum and maximum to certain key items, no set minimum wages, the concept of income tax, all of those things used by capatlist nations to keep some tabs on what on what is going on the market that led to the world-wide crash of 1923. Free market types before that were when appointed offices and/or orginization had a mandat from the crown to deal with the trade more or less as how they so fit. While free markets are the most popular market type in the modern world, it was not really the case in the past. Indeed, many ports and other small polis ( city-state ) used trade guilds and later originzed banking to trade freely with the rest of the world. Even the roman empire, another the benevolent rule of some kind dictators, in the height of her evolution, gave guilds enough power that - for that brief time - it could be considered a free market.
Strategy: Boost a powerful economy, but loose control and order on your nation.
<list>[*]Guilds date back to the origin of many ancient empires: even to the Aztec and the Egyptain. But in those times, they hardly controled enough power to be considered a valid market option. Guilds exprienced a brief glance of power in the roman era. But only in the middle ages did the guilds truly blossmed. Guilds, as a general rule, are a group of members that had gain a formal permission for the state to control freely, and further carry the interst, of a specific craft. The ship-wrighter guilds, the oldest of all in the known history, was used by the goverement many times in consturction contract of ships ( for example, the Athenaian league ). The guild had a free reign, an almost compelte autonomy on the buissness of that craft. While the power was not equally distributed, and reserved soley for the guild members, those few gained free rule of trade, as guilds usally created prolonged pacts with other guilds. Togther, they could almost by-pass the goverement competly, trading commodities from one another freely, and export and importing whatever they wished, for wherever thier buissness took them. Later, as trade guilds and alliances grew stronger ( Jeneboze, the trade city from which columbus came, the Hansa - a trade alliances that used trade guilds to sail the far seas, the venosian city-states ), the use guilds were the only way that one could freely trade items.[*]Banking also dates back to the depths of history, to the Babylonians, but only in the reinessance did banking became such widly spread that they transformed the entire economy. The invention of paper money, the growing economical power of the cities ( when before the distributed system of manorilism was used ), all contributed to the need to create a solid market place in the cities. Banks safe-guarded money, but they did more then that: you could buy bonds, stocks, everything via the banks. The banks were a source of free, unlimited wealth, and everyone could use it. The old system distibuted power in the hands of the nobel ( or the guild members, in another case ). Banks allowed anyone, with a buck ofcourse, to trade. Ofcourse, that banks hold a formal permission of the crown to do so, and only a very few ( but very big ) banks were created. It lasted as a system till the days of the industrial era ( eh, Mr. lorry, the eternal banker... one should only read the description of the Tellson bank to have such a keen picture of the entire escapde! )[*]Free markets, formerly estbalished in the industrial era, was created when banks no longer needed the formal permission of the crown to build, create and deal with money: and so the buissness of making money from money thrived. So numerous those banks became, that each hold very little power ( not the federal bank, ofcourse ), that thier power structre crushed and tumbled, moving power in the hands of enterprisers and companies. Very soon, companies changed the market as they saw fit. However, the goverement ( after some fatal incididents ), did set some laws.[*]Transnational is the evolution of free markets. From companies, evolved coporations, and from them, unions. And very soon, those unions started to branch to every other free market nation ( and some who aren't ). The idendity of companies became competly separted. Most of the time, is just doesn't matter. Is IBM truly an american company? And honestly, does it matter? Transnational is a modern option, that even further enhance commerence, but does open the room of espionage.

Guilds: +2 Eco, -2 Ord
->Banking: +2 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -1 Mil
-->Free markets: +3 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -2 Env
--->Transnational: +4 Eco, +3 Rel, +2 Prod, -3 Ord, -2 Loy, -2 Env

[Maniac]

Thanks for your Market section, Harel.

Diodorus, this is my Army :

Tribal Levee (as you told)
1)->Citizen-Soldier/Civic Duty (as you told)
-->Draft/Conscription (eg every man a year in the army)
2)->People Army (as Harel's Forced Draft)
-->Recruitment (as in the Civil War)

Military Caste
->Mercenary
-->Professional


Bell, is tomorrow the dead-line of summary posts?!? I didn't know that.

M@ni@c
Has only just begun with the Economy category

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[double post. Ignore, if you will. If you won't, hey, I can't stop you. You will only suffer for your curiosity.]
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Bell (edited August 22, 1999).]</font>

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Bell writes (back on page 3):
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.

I'd still like to hold fairly loosely to this schedule, but like I said, if you want to write a summary then that reduces my workload enough that I'll certainly wait for it.

[Maniac]

Then no summary post, I guess. To me it isn't that important anyway to broadly explain every choice. Explaining the factors is more important to me (as you can see). My only worry is that if I don't give a large explanation, Firaxis will look to Harel's post to be sure what I mean. However, although sometimes we use the same name, what we mean with it is totally different.
Eg I disagree with Harel's explanation of Autarchy, Fairs, Manorialism, Mercantilism, Colonization and Guilds.
For fairs and colonization I don't mind since I don't use them in my model, but the others I do.

Fairs did not exist in the ancient empires. They arose in the middle ages.

Autarchy is only used by a city states and sometimes their colonies if they have any (did Thebe and Sparta have colonies?). So there are no 'different markets of the civilization'.

And Manorialism is totally NOT what Harel says it is. It arose in the 6th and 7th century after trade stopped because of the lower population and vital necessities. Trade was impossible anyway since the Islam controlled the Mediterranean Sea and later the Vikings brought also more trouble.
In fact Manorialism is just Autarchy in a larger nation. No interaction or trade between the cities and no industry and handicraft in the cities.

Mercantilism is also totally wrong. First of all, Colbert lived in the 17th century. And explaining colbertism-mercantilism now would take too long. But it isn't some kind of a cheat. I don't know where Harel got that. I wonder if he has even looked in an encyclopedy to be sure of what he writes.

And I agree with Diodorus that Colonial isn't an economy. Eg colonial Spain can be well represented with Mercantilism-Feudal or something like that.

And with Guilds I don't mean the ancient ones, but in the middle ages the craft guilds in the city.

So, if Firaxis think Harel's explanations are also valid for my model, some evolution of me don't seem right.

So, my 'summary'. I stopped writing it since I can't get it finished anymore. Today I had no time. Tomorrow neither...
Possible problems are the big differences in the Autarchy track and my Army category sucks. There is a lack of military SE factors since Support and Military Industry are united.

Temporary model, always open for discussion

By M@ni@c

This model tries to give a solution to a very large problem: how to adapt Alpha Centauri’s Social Engineering screen in the more complex earth societies. While almost everyone agreed that the Social Engineering screen ( for now on, called SE in short ) is a better system than Civ I & Civ II goverment options, the methods in which we hope to achieve this are widely different from one another.
So, in a nutshell, my own opinion.

Sections:

A. Concepts that are used in the model
B. List of SE Factors
C. The model itself
D. Other SE related topics

A. Concepts that are used in the model

This section contains:

1. Evolving SE choices, or "->"
2. The x10 system
3. SE switching

1. Evolving SE, or "->"

After I posted my first complete SE model, which is now replaced by a new one (this one), people said that in the modern age, there would be too many SE choices. Therefore, Harel proposed to use the concept of evolving SE choices. Meaning, that as history and technology move on, certain options become obsolete and are replaced by a newer system that still shares the same principle and concept.
For example, Capitalism ( which has a free reign of economy ) was a form of free markets in the early history that was replaced by the true Free Market in the modern era. Therefore, it will show like this: Capitalism -> Free market. Meaning, the second that Free Market is researched, Capitalism becomes obsolete and is replaced by Free Market which gives a slightly bigger bonus and sometimes a bigger penalty. The transformation is instantaneous, and costs no money or time.

2. The x10 system

When trying to find a solution for the Industry cheat in SMAC, I came up with the solution of doing everything in Civ3 x10. That means that now a grassland would produce 20 food instead of 2, but citizens should also need 20 food every turn. Same for shields/resources and trade. Trade x10 means also taxes, science and luxuries x10…
After a while it became clear that x10 can do much more than just solve the Industry cheat problem. For example you can have techs that increase your overall food production of squares with 10%.
Or you can give units a different support, so you can show the difference between Riflemen and Armor support. Now you can represent that units need food and gold as their pay.
In short, there are many applications and therefore I think x10 must be in Civ3.

SE switching

Changing your SE choices in SMAC was too easy. With just paying a little money, you could be Democracy the first turn, Police State the second and the thirth turn Fundamentalist without any problem. Therefore I suggest that SE switching takes something longer, 3 turns. Of course there should be some penalty for switching larger than some money, because that doesn’t stop people from regular switching. My suggestion :
0th turn : old bonuses and old penalties
1st and 2nd turn : old bonuses, old and new penalties
3th turn : new bonuses and new penalties
This counts for SE switching in every category except Government. There you are Anarchy for three turns before installing another Government choice.

B. List of SE Factors

My proposed model uses an expanded list of Factors than SMAC. All what was in SMAC is here: but this model also controls many other factors and effects. Therefore it is impossible to reduce the list to ten factors as in SMAC, as some people wanted. However, there was no beta-testing and game play balancing. The numbers and actual bonus the Factors and options grants is, naturally, completely unbalanced. I only try to give by this model the sense of direction.
So, here are my suggested 14 Factors. In some cases I am very precise and give effects for every possible rate. In other cases I just give one example and for the rest I use …

The Factors:

1. Police
2. Military
3. Nationalism
4. Happiness
5. Experience
6. Growth
7. Production
8. Environment
9. Research
10. Taxes
11. Economy
12. Relations
13. Bureaucracy
14. Senate

Elaborate explanations:

With most factors there is also some information that has nothing to do with SE itself, but that is necessary to fully understand the factor.

1) Police (Pol)


Declaring Martial Law means all people become content for ten turns, similar to SMAC nerve staple.
Martial Law is an atrocity, especially in modern times after the UN has been established.

In all Civ versions I wondered why airplanes caused unhappiness. The reason a manual gave me was that it was because the pilots had to do practice flights and were always in the air. That caused unhappiness. But IMHO that isn’t a reason.
As long as a democracy(Western countries) is bombarding another nation(Serbia, Iraq) there is no problem. It's only when they want to send ground troops and the boys of the country itself can get killed, there comes trouble. That's why I think Air units should cause less unhappiness. This is also a way to make Bombers more useful if you have a negative Police rate. Another benefit of Air units is that you could send them to an enemy without permission of your pact nations (see –8 and –9 Pol rates).

With allies I mean simple allies.
With pact nations I mean civs that are in your multistate-coallition(eg NATO, probably possible in Civ3). There should be at least 4 civs to have a coallition.

There should be a council proposal à la SMAC possible to or not to allow nuke use.

About territory. I think even if there aren’t sea bases in Civ3, there should be sea borders. 1 square away in ancient times after the tech discovery of the Sail. Two in renaissance after the tech discovery of the Compass. Three in modern times.

+3 : 3 units can act as police. Police effect doubled.

+2 : 3 units can act as police, each keeping one unhappy citizen content.

+1 : 2 units can act as police

0 : 1 unit can act as police

-1 : 1 unit can act as police; can’t delare Martial Law.

-2 : no police and no Martial Law (Also no police or Martial Law for all lower Police rates)

-3 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
All units in allied teritory never cause unhappiness.
Every unit beyond the first out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone.

-4 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
All units in allied teritory never cause unhappiness.
Every land or sea unit out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone.
Every air unit beyond the first out of your or your allies' territory cause one drone.

-5 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Every land or sea unit in your allies’ territory, but not in one of their cities, cause one drone.
All air units beyond the first in your allies’ territory cause one drone.
Every land or sea unit out of your or your allies’ teritory cause two drones.
All air units beyond the first out of your or your allies’ territory cause one drone.

-6 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Every unit in allied territory, but not in one of their cities, cause one drone.
Land and sea units out of your or your allies’ territory cause two drones.
Air units out of your or your allies’ territory cause one drone.

-7 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Units not in your territory cause two drones.
(this also counts for all lower police rates)

-8 : You (or your senate,depends on your Senate rate; later more about this) must ask permission to your pact nations to send ground or nuclear (if allowed by some agreement) units to an enemy.
½ must agree.

-9 : You (or your senate,depends on your Senate rate; later more about this) must ask permission to your pact nations to send ground or nuclear (if allowed by some agreement) units to an enemy.
2/3 must agree.

2) Military (Mil)


This is actually a combination of two factors that were earlier separated : Support and Military Industry.
To reduce the number of factors and because they are about the same thing –army- they have been melted together.

I think units should have a different support. Transports or Explorers won't need as much support as Battleships or Knights. This is easy to do with the x10 system.

For every +Military, one less resource is needed to support the unit.
For example, if a Knights requires normally 10 resources to support, with +4 Military it would only require 6 resources.

For every -Military, one more resource is needed to support the unit.
For example, if a Knights requires normally 10 resources to support, with -4 Military it would only require 14 resources.

This means that units free of support are impossible unless you have a very high Military rate.
This solves the ICS problem of “one size ten cities gives me 3 free units while ten size one cities give me 30 free units”

For –1 Military and every higher Military rate, when you found a new city you get 100 (x10!) labor/resources for free.

Military also affects your labor (see more in the Economy/Trade thread for more explanation about Labor and Resources) output when producing units with 10% per + or -.
If your normal labor output is 200 labor, when producing eg a Howitzer it would increase to 220 if you have +1 Military.
This is to solve the Industry cheat in SMAC where the cost of units, buildings and secret projects was directly affected.

…
+1 : +10% Labor production bonus when producing military units.; one less resource needed for support.
0 : normal
-1 : -10% Labor production penalty when producing military units.; one more resource needed for support.

3) Nationalism (Nat)


For this factor I am assuming there is a migration model in Civ3 (I proposed one. Perhaps you can find it in another summary.).

For more information on Conviction(=religious defense), see the Religion thread summary.

I am also assuming there will be atrocities and international punishments like trade embargos.

+6 : +75% Conviction for your state religion if you have one or for all religions in your empire if you are Religious Freedom.
No emigration possible
no bribing possible
No international punishment for atrocities

+5: +67% Conviction
Very very low emigration
no bribing
Very very low punishment for atrocities

+4 : +50% Conviction
Very low emigration
no bribing
Very low punishment for atrocities

+3 : +37% Conviction
Low emigration
+75% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions
Lower punishment for atrocities

+2 : +25% Conviction
Lower emigration
+50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

+1 : +12% Conviction
Slightly lower emigration
+25% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

0 : normal

-1 : -12% Conviction
-25% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

-2 : -25% Conviction
-50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

-3 : -37% Conviction
-50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

4) Happiness (Hap)


Your Happiness rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Happiness you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Happiness rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ. Also if you conquer a city of a civ with a higher Hap rate, there appear Partisans.
If a majority of the citizens of the conquered city follow your state religion, they are immediately assimilated.

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

City Limit = (8 – Difficulty) x (7 + Happiness rate) 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 will appear at some random city somewhere in the civ.

Normally you should be able to set the amount of trade you allocate for luxuries on a maximum of 50%. Happiness rate should affect this. So if you have eg a Happiness rate of –4, it should be impossible for you to mend the unhappy citizens by high luxury rates.

The Happiness rate affects how much money it costs to bribe units/cities.

The effectiveness of the Entertainer special citizen is also affected.

…
+5 : luxury rate can be set at 100%, bribing 67% cheaper, Entertainers give 50% more luxuries
+4 : 90%, bribing 50% cheaper, Entertainers +40%
+3 : 80%, bribing 37% cheaper, Entertainers +30%
+2 : 70%, bribing 25% cheaper, Entertainers +20%
+1 : 60%, bribing 12% cheaper, Entertainers +10%
0 :50%
-1 : 40%, bribing 12% more expensive, Entertainers –10%
-2 : 30%, bribing 25% more expensive, Entertainers –20%
-3 : 20%, bribing 37% more expensive, Entertainers –30%
-4 : 10%, bribing 50% more expensive, Entertainers –40%
-5 : you can’t use any luxuries, 67% more expensive, Entertainers –50%
…

5) Experience (Exp)


Necessary for this social factor to work, is off course that the Morale distinction of SMAC is used.
I don’t like the word Commando to express the experience level of a unit, so these are my proposed names.
Very Green
Green
Disciplined
Trained
Hardened
Veteran
Elite

This SE factor does also affect the Experience of Spies and Diplomats, since good armies always have a good intelligence and reconnaissance. Spy/Diplomat Experience also affect their success rate in missions.

In SMAC all the units got a Morale bonus if you eg switched to Power. I would change it. Only the units build under the +Experience regime get the bonus and even if after that you change to a choice with –Experience, that units keep the Experience bonus. The opposite is also true. If you build units when you have a bad Experience rate, they don’t get an Experience
bonus when you switch to eg Power. So cheating like only switching to Value – Power or Army – Professional when you are in war should have no positive effect on your already built units.


…
+1 : +1 Experience
0 : normal Experience
-1 : -1 Experience
-2 : -1 Experience; positive combat modifiers halved
-3 : -2 Experience; + modifiers halved
-4 : -3 Experience; + modifiers halved
…

6) Growth (Gro)


1)This determines how much your people tend to go from the countryside to the cities = their willingness to live in a huge city(in other words your population limit) and it determines how much rows must be filled to let the city grow(similar to SMAC).

2) I think cities should continue to grow even if there is no aquaduct or similar building in the city. My Growth Factor is based on it. The drawback would be that all people not having sufficient clean water(=Aquaduct, Sewer System) or living space(=Apartment Blocks, Arcology) become Revolutionaries = very unhappy citizens. Too much Revolutionaries can cause a city to revolt and form a new civ.

3) city size 7 or 8 : Aquaduct needed
12/14 Sewer System( not the modern one that came much too early in Civ2, but something like the Roman Cloaca = sewerage.
20 : Apartment Block
30 : Arcology
40 : Super Arcology? or perhaps there should be a building for 40, to similate population pressure.

4) I think in the early parts of the game, so I mean until the Modern Age, population boom should be impossible. This is as much cheating as ICS. So the pop boom problem of ‘Democracy-Planned-Children’s Creche’ in SMAC and ‘Democracy + high luxuries’ in Civ2 should also be solved.
So +6 Gro should be impossible until late in the game.

5) A granary in Civ3 should be like in Civ2, and not like a Children’s Creche, causing +2 Growth, in SMAC. Otherwise you could get pop boom early in the game.

+6 : +6 Population limit; Cities have a population boom every turn if sufficient Food is available in your city/region/civ (depends on what food system is used.
+5 : +5 Population limit; only 5 rows must be filled to let a city increase in size.
...
0 : normal
...
-5 : -5 pop limit; 15 rows must be filled.
-6 : -6 pop limit; no population growth.


Or in an other growth system (I think city growth by surplus food is totally unrealistic), like birth-die-immigration-emigration it should increase the # of children a family on an average has, thus increasing the birth rate. BTW, I suggested the beginnings of an alternate of a growth system. Perhaps you can find it in another summary.

7) Production (Pro)


For every +Production, the Irrigation/Farm Terrain Improvements produces 10% more food and you produce also 10% more labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world

For every –Production, the Irrigation and Farm TI produces 10% more food and you produce also 10% less labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world

…
+1 : +10% food output of Irrigation/Farm TI’s; +10% Labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world
0 : normal
-1 : -10% food output of Irrigation/Farm TI’s; -10% Labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world
…

Notes :
1)Using everythingx10 model
2)Other ways to increase Food or Resource production can be Terrain Improvements (Railroad and Farm) and Technologies :
eg in the beginning of the game an irrigation yields +9 Food.
-Pottery : +1 Food for Irrigation TI.
-Horse Plowing : +1 " " " "
-Crop Rotation : +1 “ “ “ “

8) Environmentalism (Env)


There should be three types of pollution : industrial, nuclear and population pollution


Environment can increase or decrease industrial and population population.
Unfortunately the Civ2 formulae don’t take a pollution modifier in account, so they can’t be used in Civ3.

Environment should also increase or decrease the likelyness of plagues, diseases, natural disasters, etc…

Environment increases or decreases the production of Forests, Jungles or any tree terraint type with 10% per + or – rate.

+? : less pollution; less natural disruption; more forest production
...
0 : normal pollution rate
...
-? : more pollution; more natural disruption; less forest production

9) Research (Res)


Without SE changes you can set your amount of trade used for science to 70%.

I am in favor of simultaneous research in each category. Therefore you should be able to allocate a certain amount of your research point to one category. Categories should be Economic, Military, Academic, Social, Applied. Normally this should be 50%.

Your Res rate should affect how much science icons a Scientist Special citizen generates.

+5 : +50% Research; you may set your trade allocated to science at 100%; you may allocate 100% of your accumulated science to one category; Scientists generate 50% more Science
+4 : +40% Research; trade 100%; category 90%; Scientists generate 40% more Science
+3 : +30 Res; trade 100; cat 80; Scientists generate 30% more Science
+2 : +20 Res; trade 90; cat 70; Scientists generate 20% more Science
+1 : +10 Res; trade 80; cat 60; Scientists generate 10% more Science
0 : normal science accumulation; trade 70%; category 50%
-1 : -10% Research; trade 60%; category 40%; Scientists generate 10% less Science
-2 : -20 Res; trade 50; cat 30; Scientists generate 20% less Science
-3 : -30 Res; trade 40; cat 20; Scientists generate 30% less Science
-4 : -40 Res; trade 30; cat 20; Scientists generate 40% less Science

10) Taxes (Tax)

Normal amount of trade you can allocate to Taxes is 70%.

If you have eg a tax income of 20 gold and a Tax rate of +2, you get 24 Gold.

Your Tax rate affects how much Gold a Taxmen Special citizen generates.

...
+3 : +30 tax income; tax allocation 100%; Taxmen generate 30% more Tax
+2 : +20 tax; tax 90; Taxmen generate 20% more Tax
+1 : +10 tax; tax 80; Taxmen generate 10% more Tax
0 : normal Tax income; tax 70
-1 : -10 tax; tax 60; Taxmen generate 10% less Tax
-2 : -20 tax; tax 50; Taxmen generate 20% less Tax
-3 : -30 tax; tax 40; Taxmen generate 30% less Tax
-4 : -20 tax; tax 30; Taxmen generate 40% less Tax
…

11) Economy (Eco)


In SMAC +1 Economy was +1 Energy/base. That may be a nice bonus in the beginning of the game. But later in the game it means nothing. The x10 system can correct this, since it can make the Economy factor a bit more lineair.

The capitals of civs should get 10 more trade.

In SMAC the Economy bonuses above +2 are not worth the many negatives related to me. I solved it by giving +5 Economy another big bonus.

+5 : +20 trade/square
+4 : +14 trade/square
+3 : +12 trade/square
+2 : +10 trade/square
+1 : +2 trade/square
0 : normal trade production
-1 : -1 trade/square; -10 trade in capital
-2 : -2 trade/square; -10 trade in capital

12) Relations (Rel)


Note that Relations, not Economy as in SMAC gives a trade bonus.

The commerce bonus is the same as in SMAC. A +10 trade bonus for every foreign trade route.

…
+1 : +1 commerce; better diplomatic relationships
0 : normal
-1 : -1 commerce; worse diplomatic relationships

13) Bureaucracy (Bur)


The better your Bureaucracy rate, the less trade you loose by cities far away from your capital.(so no waste in Civ3)

If cities are connected by roads to your capitals, that cities have slightly less corruption.

The formula used could :

Bureaucracy = ((Trade x (Distance / 4000 x # of map squares)) x3) / (20 x (2 + Bureaucracy)) / 4000 x # of map squares

where :

Trade = the number of trade icons the city generates

Bureaucracy = your SE Bureaucracy rate

Distance = the city’s distance from your capital (diagonal squares count as 1.5 squares when figuring the Distance)
The maximum value of Distance = 36.

14) Senate (Sen)


I think that AI civs should also have a reputation. The Senate would be less willing to sign a peace treaty with a civ with a bad reputation.

…
+1 : SE switching takes less time.
0 : normal
-1 : your Senate signs a truce or a peace treaty 25% of the time; the Senate forbids you to sneakattack an enemy 25% of the time.
-2 : 50% Senate interference
-3 : 75% Senate interference
-4 : 100% Senate interference

C. The Model itself


This model shows all the options the player may select on the SE screen. The concept of evolving SE choices( see above ) is used many times, and is designated by an -> Arrow.
For certain choices I have provided more than one name to make more clear what I mean with the choice. I also give an explanation for some factors, except if they were already explained in an earlier similar SE choice or if the reason is obvious.
The model contains 6 categories :

List of SE categories:

1. Government
2. Economy
3. Structure
4. Value
5. Research
6. Army

1. Goverments

Anarchy
Monarchial/Absolute
Free
Religious[/b]

Anarchy

Anarchy is by no means a valid option: you can't select Anarchy nor do you start with it as your first option. Anarchy is the lack of any organized government, caused by revolutions and overthrow of the current Government. It may apply to single cities that riot, or to all your society in the duration of a SE Government switch. Many societies experienced anarchy at some point: France after the French revolution, The Romans after barbarians herald the empire destruction, and so on.

Anarchy*: -3 Hap, -3 Nat

*No labor is done at all and no trade is gathered (no tax, science or luxuries)

-3 Hap because people are unhappy.
During a revolution people can be more easily bribed/converted (-3 Nat).

Monarchial/Absolute

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King
->Despotism
-->Absolute Monarchy
--->Totalitarianism
->Dynasty
-->Parliamentary Monarchy

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King : +1 Pol, -1 Hap

This is the earliest, because the Indo-European tradition is a king or leader who has to be ratified by the warrior/military class of the society. Historical vestiges of this are the aclamation of the Macedonian kings (like Philip and Alexander) by the Macedonian Army and the Witan or Widan assembly ratifying the early Germanic kings.

This choice evolves in two other choices.

1) Despotism : +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -1 Hap, -1 Bur

This is a monarchy where the control of the monarch is more absolute = +2 Pol.
The monarch also owns most of the land. That centralization results in an increased production of farms and other production centra = +1 Pro.
However people are suppressed which leads to less happiness = -1 Hap.
This is also an inefficient system of ruling since one person can’t rule a large empire = -1 Bur.
Eg : Persian Shah’s

2) Dynasty : +2 Rel, +1 Pol, -2 Tax

Another evolution of simple Warrior kings. The kings are still the leaders, but some high classes eg the nobles have some influence.
Dynasties have an advantage no other government type has : the kings can marry off their daughters which can create a family bond with other civ’s leaders. This improves diplomatic relationships = +2 Rel.
In general in dynasties a lot of tax money goes to the court = -2 Tax.
Eg : all European monarchies

The evolution of Despotism is Absolute Monarchy.
Absolute Monarchy : +2 Pol, +1 Mil, +1 Sen, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

This is the ‘classic’ European monarchy, but it only dates from the end of the renaissance, when Absolutism philosophy, encouraged by the church’s example, took hold. As opposed to the God King, in which the king is special because he is a God, the Absolute Monarch is special because he has a special relationship with and favor from God. He is a secular monarch backed by God.
He usually maintains a large army = +1 Mil.
The nobles or any other group have nothing to say = +2 Sen.
Eg : the French monarchies with the best example Louis XIV.

The evolution of Absolute Monarchy is Totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism : +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Bur

Absolute rule of a person or sometimes a party if communist. It doesn’t have to be a monarch.
Eg : Soviet Bloc, China, all other present dictators in the world.

The evolution of Dynasty is Parliamentary Monarchy.
Parliamentary Monarchy : +2 Tax, +1 Bur, -1 Mil, -1 Sen

Kings needed more money as time passed and they mostly got that from the nobles or any other economical class in the States-General = +2 Tax.
However in return they asked more political influence = -1 Sen.
They are sometimes against war, cause it could be too expensive to pay = -1 Mil.
A states-general or any other representative system makes a larger empire possible.
Eg : England with Magna Carta, Petition and Declaration of Rights.

Religious/Strong Belief

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King
->Theocracy
-->Fundamentalism

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King : +1 Nat, +1 Pro, -1 Res

This is the next earliest after Warrior kings, when a ruler needed a legal background for his authority over other than his immediate tribe or group, and turned to religion for it. The early Middle Eastern Empires, Egypt the most obvious but also the Assyrian and Persian (although they lean to Despotism), had these, and it also defines the traditional Japanese and Chinese Imperial systems.
The king promotes a strong religion and the citizens are more convinced in the religion = +1 Nat.
The king can use the citizens to do large works like the Pyramids = +1 Pro.
A religion lessens free thinking = -1 Res.

Theocracy : +2 Nat, +2 Tax, -2 Res

The religious authorities have many influence, so you could say they are actually ruling.
The church gets many donations and indulgences = -2 Tax.
Eg : medieval Europe, especially after Worms.

Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +2 Gro, +1 Exp, -2 Res, -2 Rel

All fundamentalists countries today have a larger birthrate than other countries = +2 Gro.
Fundamentalism creates a fanatic army = +1 Exp.
Other countries don’t like fundamentalist countries = -2 Rel.

Free/Representative

Tribal Assembly
->Republic
-->Democracy
--->True Democracy

Tribal Assembly : +2 Hap, -1 Bur, -1 Sen

In old nomadic tribes, and early cities, in the pre-culture era, the tribe was ruled by an assembly that compromised every adult able male. While it was not complete form of democracy ( no right of vote for females and slaves ) it was still the first step into recognizing the importance of every person (+2 Hap). The assembly voted on many things. It comprimised off the hunters ( all the able male ), the elders ( a smaller group, an inner concuil consist of the oldest members of the tribe who could veto everything ), and sometimes an elected tribe leader. However, since every person could vote (-1 Sen) , it made large empires almost impossible to manage (-1 Bur).

Republic : +2 Bur +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil

Republic was almost a throwback from the equally thinking tribal assembly. The Roman and Greek republics granted right of vote to only a very narrow broad of people. Mainly, only the upper class could vote, creating an Oligarchy. This excluded women, slaves ( which they had plenty ) and the lower class. But the republic did introduce a concept that allowed free governmnents to exand: the Senate. The idea of publicly chosen senators ( which were selected every few years by the entire inhabitants of Rome/Athens ), and delegating power to them allows the empire to expand = +2 Bur. People from all over the nation didn't have to come for every major vote: only once every few years they would select a single concuil member they would trust the most to do thier biding for them. Under a Republic there was sometimes an elected leader. But it didn’t hold much power, since it had to obey the Senate. So don’t confuse this system with what is called these days a republic : a state with a president (counted under Democracy).
The ruling class also owned much of the lands, with the Romans creating latifundia = +2 ¨Pro.
Eg : Rome, Athens, the Dutch, Italian Renaissance city states.

Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil

A democracy was a step up from the republic: first off, every citizen could vote. Women could, slaves were freed, everyone. Also, the senate in a democracy holds at least as much or even more power then the president (-2 Sen). Due to all of this, the people had a great deal of control over thier lifes (+2 Hap). Modern democracy becomes available in the 19th century. The first modern democracy was France.

True Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Sen, -2 Mil, -1 Pol

True democracy is, in a way, the return of Tribal assembly with technology. In an on-line world (+1 Eco e-commerce), there is no need for any power delegation. The senate and the senator are gone, and so it the president ( consider the player as the representation of what the people want ). Budgets, declaration of war and alliances are offered to a global voting by every citizen. New rules and suggestions can be lobbied to the public by going to a series or smaller votes ( a random 100 people need to approve it, then a bigger vote of 1000, and so on ) till is passes enough votes and is suggested to the entire public. This is only slightly futuristic, and should in game terms be available very soon after computers/internet.


Conclusion

There will always be available 4 distinct choices in every time period. One Free, one Religious and two Monarchials. If you look at the choices all together, you could say there is too less difference, but when you look per time frame, there are always 4 choices with mostly different bonuses and penalties.

2. Economy

Open
Closed
State Controlled/Planned
Free

First I would like to say that I made this model only recently and there are some problems with the model’s balance, especially in this category. For example the difference between Manorialism and Guilds is too big. The second example is that Communism is not a real evolution of Mercantilism. I only put them in together because they are both state controlled economies and they share the same effects (eg +Production). This could simply be solved by not making Communism an evolution of Mercantilism, thus creating 5 different economy choices. Feedback and ideas of Firaxis are always welcome on what to do to solve this problems.

Open

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no positives or negatives
-->Joint-Stock Companies : +2 Rel

The Open economies reflect the "Simple" Economy option in SMAC. Trade happens without any government control. It's not, however, free economics as their dis-organization and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvest the revenue gotten from an almost free market.

Barter as a form of economy is your first option in the game. Barter is the concept of item trade: you give me X cows, and I shall give you my own Y stones. The lack of any accepted trade ratio between the items cause many problems, mainly to the ruler’s tax collectors, that when in doubt tended to take too much of the owner items.

Currency replaced bartering somewhere in the pre-greek era. Many of the big ancient empires had currency, like the Phoenicians, Minoans and Egyptians. The coins consisted out of gold, silver, bronze…. They did represent a value, equal to the value of the metal used.

Joint-Stock Companies were owned by several people, each holding a share in the company. The cost and the profit of the enterprise were divided to all the share holders. A hitch (eg losing a ship full of costly trade goods) was more bearable by a joint-stock company than by a company owned by one person, since the cost of the losses was divided between numberous people. Usually the European monarchies gave monopolies to certain companies and allowed them to trade in a certain area for a certain time. That way the Indian Companies arose.

Closed

Autarchy : +1 Pro, +1 Mil, -1 Bur
->Manorialism : +1 Pol, +2 Mil, -2 Pro
-->Guilds : +1 Eco, +2 Gro, -2 Env

Autarchy ( self sufficiency ) economies tends to her needs alone, and produces everything the local market (city state) needs by himself. There is no, or very little, trade and relations with markets of other city states.

At the end of the Roman Age, trade decreased and that became even worse when the Germans came. The society became totally agraric. There was no craft specialization. Every had to make his own things. In this primitive society without cities, currency, writing, good roads, trade and industry everyone depended on what the ground produced for his food, clothes, warmth and houses.
Owning land was very important though it produced very little compared to now. In good years the peasant harvested only three times as much as he seeded. West-Europe knew an agricultural self-sufficiency, an autarchial closed economy. Every manor was a separate world, an economical entity, an autarchy who produced what it consumed. The entire production of the domain was used for the life support of the inhabitants. Of course the autarchy was never complete. For rare things as iron, salt, hides and spices who couldn’t be got on the domain there stayed a limited barter. This system used in the early Middle Ages from the 6th and 7th century is called Manorialism.

From the year 1000 trade and industry increased again in the cities. Groups of people with the same profession joined in guilds. If merchant guilds out of different cities united, it became ansa’s which means translated ‘group’. Besides merchant guilds there were also craft guilds. Every guild had a monopoly on the manufacturing of a product. The guild dtermined how many hours members may work per day, the price of the product. Publicity was forbidden. This was to eliminate competition and give everyone equal chances. Rules had to ensure the quality of the product, to ensure the consumer’s marketand to ensure a regular salary. The guild had besides economical also social and religious goals. But the negative side was that every member was bound to strict rules. it made individual ideas impossible since they had to follow a certain method of production. Innovation stagnated and gradually manufacturing of eg textile returned again to the countryside where it was also cheaper. Also some production processes caused a lot of environmental pollution and water contamination. That way the hygiene in the cities decreased = -2 Env.

State Controlled/Planned

Mercantilism : +2 Tax, +2 Pro, -2 Rel
->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Bur
-->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

This is an economical system that is perfected by the French economical ‘minister’ Colbert who lived in the 17th century. He reformed taxation. He eradicated abuses, united the tax system, redivided the burden of taxation and bettered tax inning. The result was a serious increase in tax income = +2 Tax.
He stimulated the industry and trade by establishing state owned companies. He also stimulated private companies. He controlled and regulated production, built a trade fleet, set up Indian Companies, made better connections on land and water = +2 Pro.
He made stronger the international competition position by stimulating the export and reducing the import by raising toll (import of raw materials excluded), by forbidding export of wheat to have low food prices and he developed the colonies. This form of planned economy that existed already a long time on city level but was new on national level in Europe, is called Mercantilism and in French form Colbertism. However, since an increase in national trade was thought to be possible alone at cost of other nation and since there was a close connection between state and economy, Mercantilism was equal to a cold war sphere = -2 Rel.

Communism markets were first developed in the modern era. Because real Communism never existed in the real world, I wouldn’t give it the benefits real Communism should have. Instead I would give it the benefits of Russian communism. High conviction (enforced atheism), low emigration (Iron Curtain) = +2 Nat. And also a good industry in the case of Russia and increased food production in the case of China = +3 Pro.

Utopia is a futuristic no-money society = -2 Tax, -2 Eco, -1 Bur. It also follows the real Communism ideology = +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap.

Free

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil, -1 Sen
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Bur, -5 Pol, -3 Env, -1 Sen
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Bur, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Sen

Capitalism is a general name for free trade. In the ancient era a good example are the Phoenicians. Later on in the Renaissance I would consider Banking also under Capitalism.

Free Markets, formerly established in the industrial era, was created when banks no longer needed the formal permission of the crown to build, create and deal with money: and so the bussiness of making money from money thrived. So numberous those banks became, that each hold very little power ( not the federal bank, of course ), that thier power structure crushed and tumbled, moving power in the hands of enterprisers and companies. Very soon, companies changed the market as they saw fit. However, the government ( after some fatal incididents ), did set some laws.

Transnational is the evolution of Free Markets. From companies, evolved corporations, and they become bigger and bigger since many corporations fuse. Then you get a few multinational corporations over the entire world. To know more about Transnational, read the book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

The other choices are self explanatory, so I don’t think explaining the effects is necessary. If you do need some explanation, come to the thread and ask.

3. Structure


City State : no pos or neg
Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro
Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

4. Value


Survival/Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +1 Sen, -2 Pro
Socialism/Happiness : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Mor
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

5. Research


Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, Economy techs at 75% of normal cost
Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, Social techs at 75% of normal cost
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, Military techs at 75% of normal cost
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic cost at 75% of normal cost

6. Army


Tribal Levy/Levy in Mass : no pos or neg

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

People Army/Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Citizen-Soldier/Volunteer/Civic Duty : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Tax

D. Other SE related topics

Golden Age/ We Love The … Days

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

As you see, no growth bonus to make that unrealistic pop boom impossible in the early game.

+2 Nat makes bribing more difficult.
+2 Hap makes the (conqered) city assimilate faster.
+2 Pro cause they are happier.
+1 Eco cause better economy, better trade
+1 Bur as in Civ2, less corruption

Religion

Some want Religion to be dealt with in SE, but as you can read in the Religion thread, the Religion model there doesn’t allow a SE Religion category.

Time frame

I'll type here in what time I think certain choices should appear.

Available at the start :
(if Civ2 starts in 4000 BC. In an interview Jeff Briggs has told otherwise)

Dictatorship, Tribal Assembly, Barter, City State, Survival, Wise Men, Tribal Levy

These are also the choices you have at the start.

Available in ancient era :

Despotism, Dynasty, Republic, High Priestship, Currency, Autarchy, Capitalism, Imperial/Federal, Wealth, Socialism, Natural, Practical, Military Caste(very early), Mercenary(later), Forced Draft, Civic Duty

Available in Middle Ages :

Theocracy, Manorialism(very early), Guilds(later), Feudal

Available in Renaissance :

Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Monarchy, Joint-Stock Companies, Mercantilism, Humanitarian, Exploring

Available in Industrial Revolution and Modern:

Totalitarianism, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Communism, Free Market, Confederate, Knowledge, Professional, Recruitment, Draft, Environment

Available in Near-future :

True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 25, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 25, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 27, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Or perhaps instead of a large explanation of my SE choices, I could write something like "for more information on the choices, you can always ask something on the SE thread or e-mail M@ni@c".

If they really want to use ideas of people in Civ3, they will ask (which I doubt).

[Maniac]

Want to post something I forget cause I shorcutted my summary post. Golden Age/We Love The Days and their effects.

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

As you see, no growth bonus to make that unrealistic pop boom impossible in the early game.
+2 Nat makes bribing more difficult.
+2 Hap makes the (conqered) city assimilate faster.
+2 Pro cause they are happier.
+1 Eco cause better economy, better trade
+1 Bur as in Civ2

[Harel]

Sorry, sorry, sorry...
Bell if it's not to late, I will post the second section of my model today.
If i see i can't finish it by nightfall, i will post what I have ( with no explnations ).

Maniac, about your market options: hehehehehehehehhe! Guild as closed? Communism evolved from mercantlism? How is that even remotly close to history?

And btw, I am absoultly correct about mercantlism and fairs.

[Theben]

Maniac,

"Happyness can be seen as how much people want to live in a city... In this case it is the biggest factor in immegration/emmigration."-ember

As said in the ECONOMICS thread. This is why I would prefer growth be affected by a HAPPINESS CE instead of imm/emmigration CE. Likely anything that affects migration is due to a perception of a better life in the destination of the migrant. So the unhappy people emmigrate to the happier lands (immigrate). Plus the happiness CE affects many other useful modifiers.

Bell, go ahead and post my sliding scale but I'm starting to think it's not the best idea. Focus instead on the idea of having the button choices lined up similar to the scale so the HAPPINESS indicator works when switching between CEs, and definitely include my suggestions on how CEs should work.

Between the HAPPINESS description, CEs, SE choices listed earlier, and the HAPPINESS indicator I've said everything I have to say here, but I don't want it lost due to the volumes of input by others.

[Maniac]

Harel :

Yes, I know about the problems in my Economy category and I mentioned them myself in my updated (Bell, be sure to include the updated post and not my old one) post.

And if you won't listen to good advice about mercantilism and fairs while several people said you were wrong, I can't help you.

"Fairs are not ancient, they were a product of the middle ages, the beginnings of the ‘break out’ from a strictly local to a regional and international trading system. Similar ancient institutions would be the Agora or Forum, the central market of Greco-Roman cities, or the Bazaar market center of the middle eastern cities."

Diodorus agrees with me.

And I gave a better explanation of mercantilism-colbertism in my updated post. Exporting products is only a small part of the mercantilist strategy.
Sid Meier and hopefully for the sake of Civ3 also Brian Reynolds are history buffs and they will see that you made many mistakes in your explanations of your SE choices. So they won't accept your faulty Economy category, I think.
Just want to warn you...

Theben :

First, I wonder why you addressed me about migration in this thread.

Secondly, I don't have a SE Immigration/Emigration factor (do you mean with a CE a SE factor?). I do have a Growth factor, but that doesn't affect migration at all.

Thirth, I don't think there is a population boom in Africa because they are happy.

Fourth, however I agree that Happiness should affect migration. But except just the happiness migration should also be affected by
1) ONLY in the very ancient age by the food production of the city.
2) Only in the modern age by the resource production (jobs) of the city.
3) In all times the trade production should affect im/emigration.

[Harel]

First off, Maniac, it's very clear you don't understand what Fairs are about. The egyptain and maians, for example, used Fairs system: every city stood by itself, by the main cities hold a bazar with goods from all over the nation. The way I define fairs ( read it ), fairs are more then 1500 years more ancient then what you said.
About mercantlism: I know what I am talking about. Sad thing you don't.

My model is historly accurate. It has fault, yes, but it least it's accurate! what nation ever evolved from a mercantlism to communism? And how can you say communism is a planned market? It's completly free! It just limited the salaries!
Mercantlism was replaced by colonialism, and indeed that what I said.
No nation, either, evolved from manorilism to guilds. They existed AT THE SAME TIME, at different nations. Not to mention that saying that guilds are closed market it the most amusing thing I heard for a long time.

never mind. I double checked my facts, but never mind. Guess it's true what they say about belgiums.

for Bell:

didn't manage to finish it competly, but still here is the second section.

Post 2 of 2

2. Market

Simple ( Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange )
Closed ( Autaracial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned )
Directed ( Protectionism -> Mercantlism -> Colonial -> Nationalazation )
Social ( Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia )
Free ( Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational )

<u>Simple</u>

Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange

Logic: The simple markets reflect the "Basic" option at SMAC. This market option boost the belief that the goverement simply select the most widely accepted form of trade, and then allow the people to use it at will. It's not, however, free economics as they dis-originzation and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvert the revenue gotten from an almost free market.
Strategy: means to serve the people who don't wish any direction of their market, and wish to have a no-effect bonus.
<list>[*]Barter as a form of economy is your first option in the game. Barter is the concept of item trade: you give me X cows, and I shell give you my own Y stones. The lack of any accepted trade ratio between the items cause many problems, mainly to the ruler taxe collectors, that when in doubt tended to take too much of the owner items.[*]Currency replaced bartering somewhere in the pre-greek era. Many of the big ancient empires had currency, like the Pheonican, Minoun and Egyptains. The national coins were not always valuable as they contains very low amounts of gold. They did represent a fixed amount of value, set by the goverement. Very quickly, fixed exchange ratio between foreign currency was also established, which gave a big boost to extrenal trade as well as the internal one.[*]Stock exchange was first established in the early Reinessance. It represent a step higher the currency: items and companies were represented by "stocks", a fictional, arbitery value that it's actul current value shifted according to demand. While currency were very static, and many times didn't represntive the true state of the market, the flexise stock exchanges offer quick and easy trade in any resources or holding.

Barter: -1 Eco
->Currency: no effects.
-->Stock exchange: +1 Tax

<u>Closed</u>

Autarcial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned

Logic: Closed markets existed along most of human culture. Those markets rarely dealt with external trade, and tended to be competly self supportive. This is true to the most early and primitive tribes, all along to middle age europe, and proceeding to numerous modern nations. Even due that trade and economy takes such a key rule in the modern world that no nation is foolish enough to ignore the many benefits, many rulers tended to stay on thier own, fearting for spies and drop in industry.
Strategy: closed markets boost powerul industry over commerence and relations with other nations.
<list>[*]Autarcial markets are one of the oldest markets in history, and is available right from the start of the game. Autarcial ( self supportive ) markets are compelty cut off from outside markets, including thier own. Every market ( city ) tends to her needs along, and produce everything the local markets needs by him self. Thier is no, or very little, trade and relations between the different markets of the civilazation. Since the citizen of one city almost never travel outside thier town and see the rest of the city, they hardly feel citizen of the nation.[*]Fairs were introduced before the ancient empires, but were most popurly used when civilzation dropped to a brinking halt in the early middle ages. An important improvemnt over the isolated autracrial markets: annual, or half-annuls ( twice a year ), a fair was sent to the near town or several close cities. The fair moved from town to town, introducing rare items create in every standalone market to the inhabitants of the entire reigon, and even the entire nation. The fairs were a critcal link between the isolated cities. With pirates and barbarians, a large fair was the only way to safely travess the distance between two isolated cities. The fairs linked the nation, boosted commerece by introducing rare items, and generated enough revenues to pass a poor family for many monts after the fair.[*]Manorlism was first introduced as a large-spread system on the 12th centaury. It was a much more orginized form of closed markets. While fairs were created indenptantly by a few local cities, any real direction of the market was non-existant. The king, or ruler of the fair market had almost no control over the markets, beside sending a few tax collectors to bring him whats due. There was no central market. Manorilism is a system of indenptant markets ( cities ), that all directly report to the goverement ( king/ ruler/ president ). The trade between the markets is much better established: instead of fairs, goods kept coming and going between the various cities. The manorlist market was still close to external trade and kept him self-supportive: but with better regulation and control, each market assisted each other by reugulating the required resources amounts between the near by cities. Many local barons signed pacts with other barons to share certain resources each other needs, and both assisted the federal goverement when time arrised ( by troops, money and any resources required ).[*]Planned economy is the pinnacle of evoultion of any market that wish to be competly self supportive. All cities act like one, huge unified market. With the help of powerful computers, and programs that forsee future resources demand, the resources of the entire nations can be adjusted and regulated to perfection. While many nations use such programs today, thier is still a few years needs to pass to reach a technology advanced enough to intrast the entire market planning in her hands.

Autarcial: +2 Prod, +2 Hrm, -2 Loy, -3 Rel
->Fairs: +3 Prod, +1 Hrm, -1 Loy, -3 Rel
-->Manorilism: +3 Prod, +2 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel
--->Planned: +4 Prod, +2 Beu, +1 Mil, -2 Eco, -3 Rel

<u>Directed</u>

Protectionsim -> Mercantalism -> Colonial -> Nationalzation

Logic: As the empires on Earth grew bigger and bigger, many nations found the closed market system un profitable. Trade with other empires has become a vital resource of free cash: some nations even based thier entire economy on trade, like the pheonicans. But, needless to say, that mass amount of money trading hands between empires with no supervision of the empire made the king/ruler very uncomfertable. Traders were a path for espionage and terrorism, not to mention that external imports tended to harm national products. When importing goods becomes a cheaper and better option that buying the local goods, the home industry suffers. And no ruler wanted that. So, while some kings choosed to let the market shape it self, many kings choose to take several measured that will insure the continual of thier state. Most european powers along this millennia used one system or the other to shape all external trade, imports and export, to a form best fitting thier vision.
Strategy: boost effeiceny and allows you to build very large empires, but economy takes a dive.
<list>[*]Protectionism is the name for a economical shield policy. On this systems, the goverement set quota to certain key resources. Any imports that exceed that quota pays a very large import fine. By this system, the goverement kept regulting the market, gains a nice dividand, and insure the proftiably of local products. While every nation uses protectionist rules to some extent ( the US limits textile export, for example ), many middle ages nations uses protectionist market plans for many years to keep tabs on the market. However, protectionism as a system dates back to the roman era.[*]Mercantlism is more of a economical strategy then an option. It was the hallmark of the economical model suggested by the French economist Colbert in the 16th centaury. Mercantlism is an evoultion of protectionism, a "cheat" that was used in the 16th and 17th to gain free money out of helpless nations. With the development of Stock excahnges, smart brokers "swamped" the forgien stock with a huge amount of items: timbers, wool, what ever it took. While the cost dived for zero, a quick buck was made by quickly selling and buying different currency, and make a fortune with the currency ratio.[*]Colonial was ment to replace protectionism and Mercantalism. As the import quota proved far too limiting to trade when used so widely, goverements choosed to cancel the import fines and try to direct the market by other means. As the conquest of the new lands proved to be more and more lucrative, in the 17th centaruy, the goverements choosed to sponsor "formal-companies", that by them the ruler shape the market according to his liking. The british, for example, did not conquer India for the crown or the land: they conquered it for the British India company. It was the company that ruled over the far east, not the crown. But the king financed all those companies and controled them in-directly. In our modern world, try to vision IBM and Microsoft peons in the hand of the American goverements.[*]Nationalzation is both a more free market, and a more controled one then Colonial, at the same time. While in the colonail era the king financed the companies and directed them by messages, in this market options most major companies are nationalized. The goverement does not spend money on the companies, which makes the company more free to choose her heading, but in contrast, the board of directros and CEO are selected by the goverements and are subject to immdiate changes at will. Nationalzation should be available in the late modern era.

Protectionism: +2 Beu, -2 Eco
->Mercantalism: +2 Beu, +2 Rel, -2 Eco, -2 Tax
-->Colonial: +3 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Mil, -3 Eco, -3 Hap
--->Nationalazation: +4 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Tax, -3 Eco, -2 Rel

<u>Social</u>

Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia

Logic: A social market is one who attunes himself to the need of the public, not the industry or the economy. The happiness of the people comes before any other consideration. There should be a very clear distinction about "psuedo" social markets and true social markets. A free market with social tendenacies is NOT a true social market: it's best described with free market and "wealthfare" as value ( see below in Values ). When a goverement choose to embark on a social market option, it attunes all it resources to better fead and cloths the entire people.
Strategy: while social goverements usally takes high amount of taxes, most of them are returned in the form of luxaries: so in fact the actul amount of social Tax is preety low. In contrast to the lower taxes, you get a very happy bunch of people.
<list>[*]The first social market were used allready in the roman era, but they were never very popular. In many ways, socialism is a form of primtivie nationalazation. But while a nationalize market ( see above ) is just the goverement way to achieve control and high effiency, a social market nationalaize the main industaries to insure that every citizen gets the bare minimum to surive. Farms belong to the goverement, and so those the food transportion. Food is quotered so that every person get atleast what he needs to live. The main companies, such as water, communiction and electricty all belong to the goverement. Large subsidies ensure that every person can buy those nessecaties. Job in the nationalaize companies is free to all and sponosored by everyone. Can't find a job? The goverement will always find room for in a farm of gov factory, earning a good wage. Child upkeep is heavly sponsored, and so those health care and operations. It widely differ from social free markets, that only keep loose watch on key items. And more, no social free market every nationalaized the food production: that was left to free enterprise.[*]Labor union is an industrial imporvement over social markets. While social goverements always take care, generaly, of the worker class, a large, solid, goverement supported labor union insure the workers gets those little things that the goverement can't remember, or doesn't care to remember. Wages are fairer, and while hampering the industry, strikes always, in the end, benefit the entire society.[*]Communism markets were first developed in the modern era. While communism, at it's pure form, never existed in the world: equal wages, equal conditions, equal people, some nations really came very close. However, as the industry slackened in a pure communism market, the goverement took preliminary steps to insure the loyality of the people. Farmers got benefits to insure the food supplies, and acadamic and militarial centeral people got better conditions and treatment. The goverement still inforced the shared wages to all: a general would get the same wage as a privite. But the general got more alcohol provision, for example, bigger flats, more food and better school for his childern. It was not the perfect society it should have been: the human greed is a mighty force, and without a cash insentive the people became lazy. But it was a good step in the right direction.[*]Utopia is a futuristic option, the most advanced SO in the game, but in close observation is more and more probale. With fusion power and nano robots the future holds infinite power and wealth. Any item, food, buildings, cloths, could simply be created with no cost, just time. With time, every item you require could be provided. The transformation of decade minerals would make any element frequent enough to lose it's value. All material possesions become meangless: you only pay for things that can be duplicates, man power. See a movie used with actors? Pay credit. Resturant with real waiters, learn in school with real teachers, you pay for those items. In fact, the only reason you will need to work at all is to earn some luxary credits. While this may seem futuristic, it's not the case. It's more the possible. All ready modern robots and computers show us a future where most man-made work is redudenant. ( Personal advice: The SF book "Forver peace", the hugo winner of 98' by Joe Haldeman is a PERFECT example of what I have in mind ).

Socialism: +2 Hap, +2 hrm, -2 Tax, -2 Mil
->Labor union: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, -3 Tax, -1 Mil
-->Communism: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, +2 Loy, -3 Tax, -3 Rel
--->Utopia: +3 Hap, +3 Hrm, +3 Loy, +2 Env, -3 Tax, -3 Eco, -3 Rel

<u>Free</u>

Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational

Logic: when someone comes to the concept of free markets, he must remember they are never competly free. It was the lack of any minimum and maximum to certain key items, no set minimum wages, the concept of income tax, all of those things used by capatlist nations to keep some tabs on what on what is going on the market that led to the world-wide crash of 1923. Free market types before that were when appointed offices and/or orginization had a mandat from the crown to deal with the trade more or less as how they so fit. While free markets are the most popular market type in the modern world, it was not really the case in the past. Indeed, many ports and other small polis ( city-state ) used trade guilds and later originzed banking to trade freely with the rest of the world. Even the roman empire, another the benevolent rule of some kind dictators, in the height of her evolution, gave guilds enough power that - for that brief time - it could be considered a free market.
Strategy: Boost a powerful economy, but loose control and order on your nation.
<list>[*]Guilds date back to the origin of many ancient empires: even to the Aztec and the Egyptain. But in those times, they hardly controled enough power to be considered a valid market option. Guilds exprienced a brief glance of power in the roman era. But only in the middle ages did the guilds truly blossmed. Guilds, as a general rule, are a group of members that had gain a formal permission for the state to control freely, and further carry the interst, of a specific craft. The ship-wrighter guilds, the oldest of all in the known history, was used by the goverement many times in consturction contract of ships ( for example, the Athenaian league ). The guild had a free reign, an almost compelte autonomy on the buissness of that craft. While the power was not equally distributed, and reserved soley for the guild members, those few gained free rule of trade, as guilds usally created prolonged pacts with other guilds. Togther, they could almost by-pass the goverement competly, trading commodities from one another freely, and export and importing whatever they wished, for wherever thier buissness took them. Later, as trade guilds and alliances grew stronger ( Jeneboze, the trade city from which columbus came, the Hansa - a trade alliances that used trade guilds to sail the far seas, the venosian city-states ), the use guilds were the only way that one could freely trade items.[*]Banking also dates back to the depths of history, to the Babylonians, but only in the reinessance did banking became such widly spread that they transformed the entire economy. The invention of paper money, the growing economical power of the cities ( when before the distributed system of manorilism was used ), all contributed to the need to create a solid market place in the cities. Banks safe-guarded money, but they did more then that: you could buy bonds, stocks, everything via the banks. The banks were a source of free, unlimited wealth, and everyone could use it. The old system distibuted power in the hands of the nobel ( or the guild members, in another case ). Banks allowed anyone, with a buck ofcourse, to trade. Ofcourse, that banks hold a formal permission of the crown to do so, and only a very few ( but very big ) banks were created. It lasted as a system till the days of the industrial era ( eh, Mr. lorry, the eternal banker... one should only read the description of the Tellson bank to have such a keen picture of the entire escapde! )[*]Free markets, formerly estbalished in the industrial era, was created when banks no longer needed the formal permission of the crown to build, create and deal with money: and so the buissness of making money from money thrived. So numerous those banks became, that each hold very little power ( not the federal bank, ofcourse ), that thier power structre crushed and tumbled, moving power in the hands of enterprisers and companies. Very soon, companies changed the market as they saw fit. However, the goverement ( after some fatal incididents ), did set some laws.[*]Transnational is the evolution of free markets. From companies, evolved coporations, and from them, unions. And very soon, those unions started to branch to every other free market nation ( and some who aren't ). The idendity of companies became competly separted. Most of the time, is just doesn't matter. Is IBM truly an american company? And honestly, does it matter? Transnational is a modern option, that even further enhance commerence, but does open the room of espionage.

Guilds: +2 Eco, -2 Ord
->Banking: +2 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -1 Mil
-->Free markets: +3 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -2 Env
--->Transnational: +4 Eco, +3 Rel, +2 Prod, -3 Ord, -2 Loy, -2 Env

3. Values

Passive
Survival
Happiness
Power
Wealth
Knowldge

<u>Passive</u>

Passive is the starting value option, and acts like SMAC option: survival, meaning an option that niether gives any bonus or any minus. It is used by those who don't wish any changes in their society, and just doesn't approve of any of the options.

Passive: No effects

<u>Survival</u>

Survival got a preety strange treatment in SMAC. Survival is a second option that is available in the start of the game, but Passive is default. Survival exactly puts your nation in the state of fortification, and rationing. It bests fits countries that are on the state of a long, prolonged war.

Survival: +2 Prod, +2 Loy, -2 Eco

<u>Happiness</u>

Happiness is yet another of a more social society. It goes hand in hand with social market options ( much like wealth goes well with Free market ), but its indeed a value. It represent the society basical view that the happiness and well being of it's citizens is the most fundemntal requirement of the state, and acts accordingly.

Happiness: +2 Hap, +2 Prod, -2 Mil

<u>Power</u>

A country that select power as value is one that puts the military as the most important part of thier society. The military industry encorparte most of the people, and the needs of the public is second to the army requirement. While this makes any army quite strong, the society suffers greatly from this oppresive value.

Power: +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -2 Hap

<u>Wealth</u>

To make money from money, as much as you can and as long as you can. As strange as it sounds, wealth can be selected with every market option, not only free market. Yes, including social. While the way to define "wealth" in a communist market is different, a wealth communism society is one made of people that are eager to achieve what ever rank, or position, that could be offer them ( while the money gaining option is overruled ). Needless to say, that such a go-getter society create distinct class that very soon leash on one another.

Wealth: +2 Eco, +2 Tax, -2 Hrm

<u>Knowladge</u>

The search for knowladge as a goal is a truly benevolent mean, and many nations supported the search for knowladge ( and, hopefully, some pratical militarial aplications ). A scientifical nation tends to excel at researching and inter-national relations, as other nations both tend not to fear research nations, and because that scientifical coporations make things easier. Math IS the universal laungue after all...

Knowladge: +2 Res, +2 Rel, -2 Exp

4. Structure

City state
Confedaration
Federal
Empire

This section defines the structre of your power, and how it spreads along your empire. The more power you give to the regional command, the more power is delegated, the harmony factor increase. People act more like a society when they are in a small, closed, friendly group. If every city stands alone, then the people will be more contacted to one another in that society. Also, since delegated power takes control and offload work out of central command, city state is much more efficent in terms of beucracy. However, isolated nations tends to alienate the people against the state. A federal nation, for example, will be much more known that a city state one. The more related the people will feel to the state, the more loyal they will be to her. In even worse, they less contacted they feel to the state, the less taxes they will be willing to spend,

<u>City state</u>

City state reflect that every city on your nation is independtatly ruled and controled. In fact, the general goverement is very scarce. The bonds that tie the invidual cities is very weak. While it can, for example, represent the early Greek empire, it relates also to the feudal structure of the middle ages. Every city ( belongs to a certain lord ), controls his own city and is only limitled contacted and responisble to the crown. In democracy, in means the citizen elect the mayor of thier city which has almost complete autonomy. The mayor concuil meets every time and then to dicuss general strategy. They elect a representative mayor ( you ), but he has very limited power.

City state: +2 Hrm, +2 Beu, -2 Loy, -2 Tax

<u>Confedartion</u>

In a confedartion state, every region/state/city is very independat, however they are directly under the control of the federal goverement. While the federal goverement almost never interving in regional matters, the federal power is very real and obivous: not nearly like the "virutal" control of the gov in city states. It defines the inter-relation in the USA, for example. Every state had independt goverenor, but it is the president that has the over-ruling power in the end. In a democray, the citizen both elect the regional goverenor, the federal senate and the federal president.

Confedaration: +1 Hrm, +1 Beu, -1 Loy, -1 Tax

<u>Federal</u>

Most nation, modern and old, were federal. A federal structure simply means that all power is in the hands of the central goverement. The regional manager, or mayor, has very limited power and is directly responisble to the federal state. In a democracy, the people elect the mayor, the federal senate and the president. However, since the mayor rarly solve the local problems, the citizen will raise thier problem in the 2 senate ( -1 Harmony makes the senate intervention worse ).

Federal: +1 Loy, +1 Tax, -1 Hrm, -1 Beu

<u>Empire</u>

While not frequently used today, many nations used the empire structre option for many times. The federal govrement is the one who elect the regional ( city ) overseer. The overseer tends to the gov command and intersts, and rarily care enough for the local problem. In a democracy, the citizen elect the senate and president, but it's the cooliation that elect the regional managers ( mayor/overseer ). The citizen can send complaints and request a swap in management: but the control on who ruled over thier local problem is gone from thier hands.

Empire: +2 Loy, +2 Tax, -2 Hrm, -2 Beu

5. Army

Regular ( Regular )
Citizen ( City militia -> National guard -> Civil duty )
Masses ( Tribal levee -> Forced drafting -> Recruitment )
Expert ( Military caste -> Mercenery -> Proffesional )

<u>Regular</u>

While being a sort of a "Default" option, the Regular army option only becomes available in the roman era. Regular army is well deciplined and eqaully well equipted and trained. It dervies from volunteers from all over the country. They are originzed into large battalions, undergo basical training and are positioned in a certain sector, when they constantly pass rigious training. While not having an extream proffesionaly in comabt ( like military caste and the rest ), they are, most of the time, much more diciplined then the other troops in the field. The dicipline is a key requirement in using large-scale field strategy, that gained the ancient armies so much sucess. The roman empire, Alxender invasion force, and many other nations along history, all used the regular army option.

Regular: +1 Exp

<u>Citizen</u>

City militia -> National guard -> Civilian duty

Logic: Citizen armies are recruited civilians that serve and train in the community. Those volunteering civilians act as neighbourhood watch, aid and replace in need the police, and are mass recruited in war as standard army. It was most of the time by small nations, that had no real ability to defend themselfs from a large invasion anyway.
Strategy: Local army forces make the populace very orderly and loyal, but the combat ability of the force tends to be very poor.
<list>[*]City militia is one of the first things you can research. It was used by many early nations/empires, until the size of thier standing armies reach a certain size when they forced to change army options. The city militia is requruited from able volunteers from all over the local region. They are not properly equiped, but undergo decent training, more then can be said about Tribal levee. The city milita also works as police, increasing the order in the city.[*]National guard was a vast imporvement over the city militia in the roman era. The national guard in Rome, for example, was well trained and was also used as the city fire man. The national guard was based on nation wide volunteer, adapting proper training and accepted standards, and with good connection between the local national guard stations for quick activion. In time of war, the national guard could act like a single unit, and not a commonwealth of different militia from different cities.[*]Civil duty date back to the Reinnessanse era. All citizen are required to donate X years of civil duty: either in the army or in helping the state in different ways. The civilain army is properly trained and acts almost like any other army, except the numbers and cost are much greater. Switzerland is allready using this system from many years now.

City militia: +2 Ord, +1 Loy, -1 Mil, -2 Exp
->National guard: +3 Ord, +1 Loy, -2 Mil, -1 Exp
-->Civil duty: +3 Ord, +2 Loy, -3 Mil

<u>Masses</u>

Tribal levee -> Forced drafting -> Requrietment

Logic: Many times along history, mainly in times of war, the state declared a mass drafting of the entire populace. This resulted is a lot of cheap, easy to support units. But since they are shipped with little, or no training, needless to say the combat value of those troops is shakey at best. And even more, the result of shipping the nation finest without any training to the war fronts greatly dis-comfort the people.

Tribal levee: +4 Mil, -3 Exp, -2 Hap
->Forced drafting: +3 Mil, -1 Exp, -2 Hap
-->Requrietment: +3 Mil, -1 Hap

<u>Expert</u>

Military caste -> Merceneries -> Proffesional

Military caste: +2 Exp, -2 Mil
->Merceneries: +3 Exp, -2 Tax
-->Proffesional: +3 Exp, -1 Mil

6. Religoun

Tradional
Strict
Intolerance
Freedom
Athiesm

<u>Tradional</u>

Tradional: No effect

<u>Strict</u>

Strict: +2 Exp, -2 Rel

<u>Intolerance</u>

Intolerance: +2 Ord, +2 Loy, -2 Hap, -2 Res

<u>Freedom</u>

Freedom: +2 Hap, -2 Ord

<u>Atheism</u>

Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Hrm

7. Research

Wise-man
Naturalistic
Academic
Humanitarian
Practical

<u>Wise-man</u>

Wise-Man: no effects.

<u>Naturalsitic</u>

Naturalisitc: +2 Env, -2 Prod*

*Biology techs at 75% cost.

<u>Academic</u>

Academic: +2 Res, -2 Exp*

*Universaties bonus increased by addional +25%.

<u>Humanitarian</u>

Humanitarian: +2 Hap, -2 Mil*

*Social techs at 75% cost.

<u>Pratical</u>

Pratical: +2 Mil, -2 Res*

*Prototypes are at free.

</u>D. Summary of the model ( numbers )</u>

Goverements

Anarchy*: -3 Hap, -3 Prod, -3 Loy

Despotism: +2 Ord, +3 Mil, -2 Beu, -2 Hap, -2 Loy
->Military autocraty: +2 Ord, +1 Mil, -2 Hap
-->Police state: +3 Ord, +2 Loy, -3 Hap

Dictatorship: +2 Loy, -2 Beu
->Totalatirms: +3 Loy, +2 Mil, -3 Beu

Dynasty: +2 Tax, -2 Eco
->Monarchy: +2 Tax, +2 Prod, -2 Eco, -1 Hrm
-->Parlimental: +3 Tax, +3 Prod, -2 Eco, -2 Hrm

Priestship: +2 Hrm, -2 Rel, -1 Res
->Emmisary: +2 Hrm, +2 Tax, -2 Rel, -2 Res
-->Popedom: +3 Hrm, +2 Tax, +1 Loy, -3 Rel, -2 Res
--->Theocracy: +4 Hrm, +2 Tax, +2 Loy, -4 Rel, -2 Res

Tribal assembly: +2 Hap, +2 Hrm, -2 Ord, -3 Beu
->Republic: +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Ord, -1 Hrm
-->Democracy: +2 Hap, +2 Eco, -2 Ord, -1 Mil
--->True democracy: +2 Hap, +2 Hrm, +2 Eco, -2 Ord, -2 Mil

Market

Barter: -1 Eco
->Currency: no effects.
-->Stock exchange: +1 Tax

Autarcial: +2 Prod, +2 Hrm, -2 Loy, -3 Rel
->Fairs: +3 Prod, +1 Hrm, -1 Loy, -3 Rel
-->Manorilism: +3 Prod, +2 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel
--->Planned: +4 Prod, +2 Beu, +1 Mil, -2 Eco, -3 Rel

Protectionism: +2 Beu, -2 Eco
->Mercantalism: +2 Beu, +2 Rel, -2 Eco, -2 Tax
-->Colonial: +3 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Mil, -3 Eco, -3 Hap
--->Nationalazation: +4 Beu, +2 Prod, +1 Tax, -3 Eco, -2 Rel

Socialism: +2 Hap, +1 hrm, -3 Tax
->Labor union: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, -3 Tax, -1 Eco
-->Communism: +3 Hap, +2 Hrm, +2 Loy, -3 Tax, -2 Eco, -1 Rel
--->Utopia: +3 Hap, +3 Hrm, +3 Loy, +2 Env, -3 Tax, -3 Eco -2 Rel, -1 Exp

Guilds: +2 Eco, -2 Ord
->Banking: +2 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -1 Mil
-->Free markets: +3 Eco, +2 Rel, -2 Ord, -2 Env
--->Transnational: +4 Eco, +3 Rel, +2 Prod, -3 Ord, -2 Loy, -2 Env

Values

Passive: No effects
Survival: +2 Prod, +2 Loy, -2 Eco
Happiness: +2 Hap, +2 Prod, -2 Mil
Power: +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -2 Hap
Wealth: +2 Eco, +2 Tax, -2 Hrm
Knowladge: +2 Res, +2 Rel, -2 Exp

Structre

City state: +2 Hrm, +2 Beu, -2 Loy, -2 Tax
Confedaration: +1 Hrm, +1 Beu, -1 Loy, -1 Tax
Federal: +1 Loy, +1 Tax, -1 Hrm, -1 Beu
Empire: +2 Loy, +2 Tax, -2 Hrm, -2 Beu

Army

Regular: +1 Exp

City militia: +2 Ord, +1 Loy, -1 Mil, -2 Exp
->National guard: +3 Ord, +1 Loy, -2 Mil, -1 Exp
-->Civil duty: +3 Ord, +2 Loy, -3 Mil

Tribal levee: +4 Mil, -3 Exp, -2 Hap
->Forced drafting: +3 Mil, -1 Exp, -2 Hap
-->Requrietment: +3 Mil, -1 Hap

Military caste: +2 Exp, -2 Mil
->Merceneries: +3 Exp, -2 Tax
-->Proffesional: +3 Exp, -1 Mil

Religoun

Tradional: No effect
Strict: +2 Exp, -2 Rel
Intolerance: +2 Ord, +2 Loy, -2 Hap, -2 Res
Freedom: +2 Hap, -2 Ord
Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Hrm

Research

Wise-Man: no effects.
Naturalisitc: +2 Env, -2 Prod*
Academic: +2 Res, -2 Exp**
Humanitarian: +2 Hap, -2 Mil***
Pratical: +2 Mil, -2 Res****

* Biology techs at 75% cost.
** Universaties bonus increased by addional +25%.
*** Social techs at 75% cost.
**** Prototypes are at free.

[Maniac]

Update from 3. Structure and all the rest after it...

3. Structure

City State : no pos or neg

I gave this starting option no positives or negatives.

Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro

Feudal lords are mostly also the military ruler of the region and the king can also ask a military addition of his vassals for war = +2 Mil.
Feudal lords may ask money to their vassals on many occasions = +2 Tax.
Little big cities and oppression of the inhabitants = -2 Gro.

Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap

A central power makes sure all the taxes etc goes in the treasury and little gets lost on the way = +2 Bur.
A central government makes sure the citizen feels a citizen of the nation = +2 Nat.
However a central government and less power for local regions makes people unhappier = -2 Hap.

Confederate = +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

More political freedom for the regions = +2 Hap
More freedom means more interaction with other nations = +2 Rel
The citizens feel less citizen of the nation = -1 Nat.
Some production may get ‘lost’ to local authorities = -1 Pro.

4. Value

Survival/Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +1 Sen, -2 Pro

Survival and Power have the same effects.
Survival and Power requires the support of an army. This is accepted by the general public as a necessity = +2 Mil.
Troops are willing to fight for their country and the army is well trained = +2 Exp.
If survival is at stake (Democracy) or simply because the ruling class is in favor of war and power (Republic) the peaceful members of the Senate may be silenced = +1 Sen.
However a large portion of the production goes to the army = -2 Pro.

Socialism : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax

Support for everyone including the poor makes people happier = +2 Hap.
Less poor means less death and better living conditions = +2 Gro
However to support the poor a large part of the tax must be used = -2 Tax.

Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap

The nation/upper class/people want to get rich = +1 Eco.
Therefore an optimum production of things is handy = +1 Pro.
However the poor become poorer and a very unhappy proletariat is created = -2 Hap.

Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Exp

Research is supported by the government or research is free in the country = +2 Res. Example is the 19th century when they believed with science everything can be solved.
Better technological applications allow better connections and bureaucracy = +1 Bur.
Spoiled with technological things the people may become weak and decadent. More advanced countries are also more likely to be target of espionage = -2 Exp.

Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

Environmental care decreases pollution and may increase forest production if harvesting is carefully planned (eg Finland) = +2 Env.
‘Pure nature’ things are more likely to be bought by consumers. Also the trees are of better quality. If a country doesn’t cause pollution, it certainly will be assumed good in the international community = +2 Rel.
Random house building and exploitation of nature for new buildings is disapproved = -1 Gro.
Industry suffers if it’s bound at all sort of rules. No nuclear plants. Food production may suffer without genetic manipulation and pesticides etc = -1 Pro.

5. Research

Wise Men : -2 Res

Superstition and men who assumes themselves ‘scientists’ may decrease technological advance.

Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, 75% Economy

Same reasons as Value – Environment

Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, 75% Social

Humanitarian makes people happy = +2 Hap, but Humaniterian people are less willing to kill other people = -1 Exp.

Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, 75% Military

Enough military applications, but normal science suffers.

Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap

In the time of humanism scientists began to seek proof for what they researched or thought.

Army

Tribal Levy : no pos or neg

Everyone in the tribe who can carry a rock fights. I would let exist this option during the entire game as a no-effect choice.

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

When weapons become specialized, the fighters become more specialized. Bronze, being a relatively expensive and rare commodity, resulted in Military Castes or aristocracies wth bronze weapons doing the fighting while the rest of society supported them. Homer calls bronze the ‘noble metal’ because swords/armor is made from it, while iron is the ‘common metal’ because it was used strictly for tools (in his day, they hadn’t learned how to temper and anneal iron for swords/armor, but it was much cheaper than bronze for everything else).

Mercenaries can also be foreign, decreasing Nationalism.

The government hires troops, pays them all the time, trains them and equips them. This is very expensive in ‘up front’ costs, but gives potentially the best-trained most constantly available force.

Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Many times along history, mainly in times of war, the state declared a mass drafting of the entire populace. This resulted is a lot of cheap, easy to support units. But since they are shipped with little, or no training, needless to say the combat value of those troops is shakey at best. And even more, the result of shipping the nation finest without any training to the war fronts greatly dis-comfort the people.

Civic Duty/Citizen-Soldier : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Exp

When the society develops a prosperous middle class, the weapons diffuse or the society of a central state provides the weapons, and you get the civic duty or Citizen-Soldier. This is the classic Roman or Greek phalangist: a large number of citizens who can afford the panoply of weaponry or who have the ‘leisure’ time for training on the state-supplied weapons.
Basically, the population takes up arms as needed. The result is loss of production and economic power since workers/producers are in the military, but a lot of support and no loss of happiness because the ‘nation is in arms together’. Ancient nomadic or barbarian groups use this, also ancient city states.

This is a modern, or early modern (late 18th century) form, in which a portion of the population is called up every year, trained, then returned to civilian life. When war starts, these Reservists can be recalled, vastly expanding the effective military. The percentage called up each year and the percentage retained permanently as a Professional training cadre are variable. At one extreme,a tiny cadre and a huge ‘draft class’ approaches the Swiss system, while for most of the 19th and early 20th century, the peak of this system, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total active military were trainees each year, and the numbers were adjusted to train virtually every male reached ‘military age’ each year (roughly, 1% of the total population) and keep all the men of military ages (roughly, 10% of the population) in either the active or reserve forces.

D. The summary of the model.

1. Government

(Anarchy : -3 Hap, -3 Nat)

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King : +1 Pol, -1 Hap
->Despotism : +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -1 Hap, -1 Bur
-->Absolute Monarchy : +2 Pol, +1 Mil, +1 Sen, -2 Tax, -1 Bur
--->Totalitarianism : +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Bur
->Dynasty : +2 Rel, +1 Pol, -2 Tax
-->Parliamentary Monarchy : +2 Tax, +1 Bur, -1 Mil, -1 Sen

Tribal Assembly : +2 Hap, -1 Bur, -1 Sen
->Republic : +2 Bur, +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
-->Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
--->True Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Sen, -2 Mil, -1 Pol

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King : +1 Nat, +1 Pro, -1 Res
->Theocracy : +2 Nat, +2 Tax, -2 Res
-->Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +2 Gro, +1 Exp, -2 Res, -2 Rel

[/b]2. Economy[/b]

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
-->Joint-Stock Companies : +2 Rel

Autarchy : +1 Pro, +1 Mil, -1 Bur
->Manorialism : +1 Pol, +2 Mil, -2 Pro
-->Guilds : +1 Eco, +2 Gro, -2 Env

Mercantilism : +2 Tax, +2 Pro, -2 Rel
->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Bur
-->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil, -1 Sen
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Bur, -5 Pol, -3 Env, -1 Sen
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Bur, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Sen

3. Structure


City State : no pos or neg
Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro
Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

4. Value


Survival : +2 Pol, +2 Sen, -2 Eco
Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -2 Pro
Socialism/Happiness/Welfare : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Exp
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

5. Research


Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, Economy tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, Social tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, Military tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic tech advances at 75% of normal cost

6. Army


Tribal Levy/Levy in Mass : no pos or neg

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

People Army/Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Citizen-Soldier/Volunteer/Civic Duty : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Tax

E. Other SE related topics

Golden Age/ We Love The … Days

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

As you see, no growth bonus to make that unrealistic pop boom impossible in the early game.

+2 Nat makes bribing more difficult.
+2 Hap makes the (conquered) city assimilate faster.
+2 Pro cause they are happier.
+1 Eco cause better economy, better trade
+1 Bur as in Civ2, less corruption

Religion

Some want Religion to be dealt with in SE, but as you can read in the Religion thread, the Religion model there doesn’t allow a SE Religion category.

Time frame

I'll type here in what time I think certain choices should appear.

Available at the start :
(if Civ2 starts in 4000 BC. In an interview Jeff Briggs has told otherwise)

Dictatorship, Tribal Assembly, Barter, City State, Survival, Wise Men, Tribal Levy

These are also the choices you have at the start.

Available in Ancient era :

Despotism, Dynasty, Republic, High Priestship, Currency, Autarchy, Capitalism, Imperial/Federal, Wealth, Socialism, Natural, Practical, Military Caste(very early), Mercenary(later), Forced Draft, Civic Duty, Power

Available in Middle Ages :

Theocracy, Manorialism(very early), Guilds(later), Feudal

Available in Renaissance :

Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Monarchy, Joint-Stock Companies, Mercantilism, Humanitarian, Exploring

Available in Industrial Revolution and Modern:

Totalitarianism, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Communism, Free Market, Confederate, Knowledge, Professional, Recruitment, Draft, Environment

Available in Near-future :

True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 26, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 27, 1999).]</font>

[Cartagia the Great]

Here is a reposting of an idea I posted in the Diplomacy thread. maybe it'll get some more discussion here as well

Many people have put forth their ideas for diplomacy in this thread, and I have helped. However, I believe that I would like to try and post down my entire thoughts on how treaties should work. I apologize if this has already appeared.

let us start out with the war between the Russian Empire and the Republic of Wisconsin(I always add them to the game, so sue me :P). The war progress, with neither side able to take each other's capital, but Wisconsin is deffiantly on top. In Desperation Russia sends a message whihc reports that they would be willing to discuss a treaty.

Wisconsin ,war weary, and with unhappiness due to this, agrees to this. Immediatly they go to the 'Treaty Screen'. This would be the screen which would allow you to set the peramiters of the treaty. They would be divided into 4 catagories


Government:
Economic:
Social:
Politicle:

GOVERNMENT:

The Government header more or less speaks for itself. This would impose on the other nation the government of the winner's choice. Waisconsin could demand that Russia becomes a Republic, Monarcy ect.

ECONOMIC:

Once again this is rather self explanitory. This is where Wisconsin could demand a certian monetary exchange to Russia, forcing them to pay tribute either per turn, or in one lump sum.

SOCIAL:

This one is a bit more intersting. Under this catagory one can set certian permaiters dealing with the people in the other Empire. For instance, Wisconsin could ahve a large minority of Chinese in their Empire who are on good terms with the government. They could demand that all Chinese under Russian government are sent into Wisconsin. Like wise they could also say that certian nationalities, such as the Romans should be opressed.

Tarrifs could also be demanded, as could differant building resrictions in cities.

POLITICLE:

This might prove to be the most intersting of catagories, and the easiest way to contain another nation if need be. It would be under here where you owuld demand the status of protectorate from another nation, as well as cut up their empire and take certian cities away.

Those are, however, the most common things. Other options would be available as well. For instance, you could demand that a nation take up alliances with other nations.

the most intersting option, in my opinion, could be the creating of other nations. In this area one would be able to create new nations, giving them names, leaders, and politicle stances. They could either be based on a prior ethnic group(in which case a majority of the people in this nation must be of the ethniticity choosen or atleast contain a few of thier cities)

One could also create a ficticiouse nation such as the Philonthroper Republic. All people owuld hodl their old ethnic ID, but would devleope into that nationality after a while.

Each nation you create, you would be able to set up it's boardres, government, it's leaders and it's relations with other nations.

Now, you might ask yourself why you would wish to do such a thing, and not jsut annex the entire nation. First of all, you may feel that you don't ahve the streangth to hold on to the rest of it, and you wish for your enemy to be strong enough to resist OHER nations. Also you might only have wanted to free a religion or ethnic group. Finally, heaving to strict of a treaty might very well destroy your relations with other nations.

Also the other nation coudl reject the treaty, and dicerking could go on(FUN!), but there is always thei dea that if you want peace enough, you'll take what you can get.

[Maniac]

A bit late. Nobody will respond to it, but I will ask it anyway.

Should I delete the Bureaucracy bonus of Communism and instead increase the Bur penalty of Totalitarianism to -2?

And Harel, don't insult me please.

I have my opinion, you yours. I perhaps don't agree with it, but I won't begin to say things like "Guess it's true what they say about belgiums."
Please clarify this and post what they say about Belgians. Then we can all laugh about what you say if it are Belgium jokes at least. (You mean Belgians right? Not Belgiums? Another type error?...)
If it aren't jokes about Belgium we can discuss about it. BTW I hope for you it are jokes, cause you said yourself on the Religion thread that RACISM is the biggest sin in your country.

Goodbye Harel.

Bell

If it depended on me alone whole section C. of my summary post may be deleted. My only fear is that Firaxis will then look to Harel's crappy explanations of his choices.
Perhaps you (or I) could replace section C by

"M@ni@c totally disagrees with Harel's explanation of his choices. If you don't understand the effects M@ni@c gave to certain SE choices of him, please ask explanation on the SE thread, but don't look at Harel's summary post."

I would like to keep the B. section. I know it contains things that aren't 100% SE, but I think that if Firaxis sees whole my explanation together instead of in parts on every thread, they will be more likely to accept it.
Eg that -25% cost for certain Research categories is totally unbalancing if there isn't simultaneous research in every category.

BTW, Bell, I have checked out the older SE threads a while ago and there you regularly posted something to add to the discussion.
In SE v2.x you never did. Why?
I would like to know your opinion about the available SE options.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

About what's in and what's out on the summaries: I'm going to have to balance them somehow, but I'm still working on how to do it. At this point, my oh-so-carefully worked out (yeah, right) time frame is slipping, so while I would usually post a message and ask people what they think, I'm going to have to make some decisions on the fly as I'm doing it.

BTW, Bell, I have checked out the older SE threads a while ago and there you regularly posted something to add to the discussion.
In SE v2.x you never did. Why?
I would like to know your opinion about the available SE options.

Several reasons. 1st, is time. The IT shop where I work lost the 2 of the 4 senior techs at the begining of the summer, and I've had to take up a lot of their workload while we're looking for replacements, so I haven't had a whole lot of time lately (by the way, the same reason why the summary is behind schedule.) 2nd, the older threads bogged down more, and sometimes I would post to keep them moving when there was nobody else around. 3rd, this version has been a lot more of the nuts and bolts type stuff, whereas the other one was much more conceptual. Conceptual thinking is really my specialty, and my brain starts to get fuzzy dealing with lots of details. And, I thought that other ideas should be put forth. If I get really involved in something, I tend to have an, erm, damping effect on all ideas other than my own, and over the years I've gotten pretty effective at it, to the point where I usually either assimilate other ideas or kill them off. I didn't really want to do that in this thread.

I know, more than you wanted to know, but I like to be comprehensive.

Oh yeah, to everyone, leave the non-thread stuff outside. That includes the racial stuff, and name-calling, and general nastiness. Thanks.

[Maniac]

I have edited my post another time. Made a difference between Survival and Power.
Survival has +2 Pol since even under Capitalist (or FM) economies people aren't unhappy if survival is at stake. So less unhappiness of units abroad.

So Section A and B of 'August 23, 16:27', Section C replaced by what I said in 'August 26, 18:46 and finally Section D and E (renamed to C and D) of 'August 26, 16:07' should be in the summary post.

Just edited this post to say that I tweaked the Relations, Taxes and Bureaucracy factors a little bit.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 27, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Crappy explantions? Hrrrm... Never mind.

Bell, I was led to belive that you will quote me directly! And ask you explicitly to simply copy and paste my post! Firaxis could never understand, for example, why I choose to separte dictatorship from despotism without reading my post.
I spend hour on this! I ask you on last time: copy it as it is. Delete NOTHING, edit NOTHING. This is my personal request.

Maniac, if you don't agree with my "crappy", but accurte, explnations, write your own. I must inssist that you will keep mine.

Bell, if you intend some sort of comparsion between my own and Maniac model

( for example, in Markets, harel suggested... bla bla bla... and maniac bla... bla... bla.. ).
maniac posted no explantion of his very "weird" logic on some of his options, while I did. Our models should NOT be thus compared.

and maniac. Seriously now. No name calling. Agree or disagree with my SE reasoning, you can understand it. Ok, so you don't approve of guilds->banking->free market, for example. You have problems with my explaning fairs, for example. Thats ok.
But you can understand the logic of why I said guilds->Banking, cause I explained it on my model.
Guilds, in my opinion, gave free market to the members of the guild, banking improve upon this with giving free market to the banks members, and free market is the open-to-all free market. Circuler logic, true. But atleast you can follow it.
Le'ts view your manorilism->guilds. Yes, you explained what they ARE. However, what possible connection to they have? you didn't explain you logic at all: what made you choose those two options.
Mercantlism->Commnuism. ok, you carefully gave a nice, false explantion of mercantlism. And of communism. But HOW are they related? The logic is not apparent and is not explained anywhere.
I took the time to make sure the logic of my model is clear. You don't have to accept it: I don't fully accept it either.

Therefor, Bell, once more please quote me directly.

[Maniac]

Never mind. Never mind. I do mind. If you don't want me to mind, don't say/write it. I was (am and will always be, I'm not really a forgiving person) angry.

I also spent hours on it. So don't think you're the only one who has put a lot of work in it. And I have written my own explanation, although sometimes they're shorter.

And as you can read in the Questions to YinShining post, there will be a real summary made by Bell that includes all ideas and then there will be a section that will quote you and me. That's very good to me. Actually, I would like some comparison. After all, the names in our models are very similar. And I'm convinced that Firaxis will use things out of both models anyway. Eg I'm sure they will use Pacifism. And I'm sure they will use Colonial. But I hope they will use my factors and on the points our SE choice names are the same, they will use my effects.

Yes, I understand your unhistorical logic.

And some connections are indeed bad. I said it myself in my Economy introduction. No problem. Just delete the ->'s. Here I got the feeling that everyone agreed that there would be too much choices. So I agreed with ->. But in www.firaxis.com there are people that want as many choices as possible. Personally, I don't have a problem if they would be deleted.

I am right about mercantilism!!!!!!! I DEMAND to know where you got your explanation of mercantilism. I, for my explanation of Mercantilism, have translated (bad) a partial quote out of the thing I had closest to me, Encarta, the article Colbert, Jean-Baptiste.

"You don't have to accept it: I don't fully accept it either."

What do you mean? You don't fully agree with your own explanations?!?

And Harel, you'll be glad to hear this, in a few days, you'll be rid of me. No more annoying maniacs around (and no post anymore on the SE thread).

OK, Bell, sorry I change my opinion again, but could you again quote my entire posts? And perhaps you could say in your own summary that in my model the ->'s aren't really needed. In fact, they would solve some "weird logic" problems.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This post has now been sanitized for your protection

OK, new decision. I'm going to do the summary as I think it should be done, and post the results at the end, and I'm not going to care if anybody is happy with it. Then, if attitudes haven't changed and there's enough people that one can replace me, I'm going to wash my hands of this whole project. I haven't been around these kind of attitudes since I taught chess to 6th graders! And they weren't even this bad!

I've tried to appease the various (what, two, now?) people invovled in this thread, but for crying out loud people, you're acting like a bunch of kindergardeners! The point isn't to advance your own system, or to make sure you get the proper credit, or to attack anybody who doesn't support you. This isn't politics folks, it's a game! The point of this effort is to create ideas that we think would be good for a game. This is a big brainstorming session, in essense. Then we give the ideas we come up with to the people who actually <u>know how to build games</u> and they decide what has merit and what doesn't. It's a great concept, but I hate to tell you this folks, not one of us is going to get our name printed in the manual, or listed in the credits, or even thrown on a text file hidden on the shipping CD. The point of this isn't us, it's the game at the end. If you would remember this for just five seconds before you typed out your latest whine of a post, we wouldn't have these problems. As is, I've had enough of it. I'll post the summary when it's done, and not before, and it will look remarkable like I think it should. What do I think it should look like? If you look at my posts (you know, read them, and remember them, and maybe even believe that when I write something I mean it) then you know what I think the summary should look like. If you haven't heard or believed what I've said all along, then I guess you'll just be surprised when the summary is posted.

Oh, and just so people know, I am an equal opportunity flamer, and this applies to several people in this thread. The last post just happened to be the straw that broke the proverbial dromedary's back.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Bell (edited August 29, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Maniac, did colbert invent mercantlism? No. Does he own the system? Hardly. So what makes you think that Colbertism is EXACTLY like mercantlism? And why you look for Colbert for explantion on merctanlism? They are connected: colbert supported the system. But he doesn't own it! You said:

This is an economical system that is perfected by the French economical ‘minister’ Colbert who lived in the 17th century. He reformed taxation. He eradicated abuses, united the tax system, redivided the burden of taxation and bettered tax inning. The result was a serious increase in tax income = +2 Tax.
He stimulated the industry and trade by establishing state owned companies. He also stimulated private companies. He controlled and regulated production, built a trade fleet, set up Indian Companies, made better connections on land and water = +2 Pro.
He made stronger the international competition position by stimulating the export and reducing the import by raising toll (import of raw materials excluded), by forbidding export of wheat to have low food prices and he developed the colonies. This form of planned economy that existed already a long time on city level but was new on national level in Europe, is called Mercantilism and in French form Colbertism. However, since an increase in national trade was thought to be possible alone at cost of other nation and since there was a close connection between state and economy, Mercantilism was equal to a cold war sphere = -2 Rel.

Most of what you said are simply reforms colbert made. You are still following your basic error: mistaking colbertism with merctanlism. A metaphore: a writer writes a novel, and after it a short story. Does it mean that every novel must follow a short story as a general note? Hardly.

I will say this for the last time: merctanlism is, ONLY, the economical strategy of dominiating the forgien markets by floods the markets with exports and controling the currency rating. NOTHING MORE. Everything else colbert did has nothing to do with merctanlism. Colbert widely supported merctanlism: but he also supported other, un-related things. Trust me on this one, PLEASE!

And regardless of what it is, you still didn't explain how it even vaguly connected to commnunism. You explantions are not shorter, they are non-existant. You only detailed what your options WHERE, not how they relate to one another.

and BellM: here here.

[SWPIGWANG]

My Head is Spining. Make the SE a little
simpler please.
The point of the game is NOT to give someone a head ache.