Government

shadowlessasasin · November 23, 2000, 21:47

Many posts had been made in the other "government" posts regarding what type of government to choose from.

I think I like the Alpha Centauri style of choosing the type of government. In fact, in Alpha Centauri, one can choose the type of government, the form of economic system as well as the vaue a society holds.

For example, one can choose a Democratic government, a Central planning economy and a society whose value is based on acquisition of knowelege. One can also choose a dictator government, a free market economy and a society whose value is based on acquistion of money.

Civ III should follow something like this. One can choose democracy, monarchy, and feudalism and theocracy for government. One can choose free market, communism, traditionalism for econ. Then one can choose Confuciousm, enviornmentalism and other types of philosophy for value. The different combination of government/econ/values will generate different effect for the empire as a whole. A society based on democracy will have a free, less corrupted government where literatures, education, science, and arts flourishes and people are happy. If capitalism is adopted in combination with the already existing deomcracy, scienctific research, wealth will soar. But crime however will increas as well as damages to environment. However, this increase in crime and environment may be offset by adoption of Confuciosm values, which stress less on material gains, and accentuates morale, and condemn acts of stealing...etc.

Now, I think government/econ/values shouldn't be something that can be used through research only. There should still be research done just so that certain type of government/econ/values can be part of the variety of choice from which one can select. However, contacts with different civilization should aid in improving research in this area.

For example, if China trades with the Roman empire, Chinese traders may bring back ideas of Democracy back to the Middel Kingdom. If more and more interactions between China and Roman empire take place, then eventually, democracy will be disvoered without the need of scientsts to research on it. But if there are existence of interactions between China and Rome, and that this interaction is very very limited, then Chinese researchers who began doing researches on Democracy will take less time to discover democracy than it would take to discover something else. For example, it takes 10 turns to discover a new technology. But interactions between Rome and China has been such that when research on democracy begins, it will take only seven turns for it to be discovered.

Now what I am about to suggest is really minor. I am not being picky, I just think it may add a little more realism.

When a technology about the use of....oh lets say, computer is discovered, the screen that pops out to inform us of the discovery of computer often says "Chinese scientsts discover computer" And if Democracy is discovered, the screen that pops out will say "Chinese scientsts discover Democracy" I thought that's kind of......werid. So I would suggest that whenever a technology/science is discovered, the screen that informs of these discovery would say "Chinese scientists discover this technology" And if the disovery is a form of government, value, or a set of ideas, then the screen that pops out that informs us of this discovery would say something like " Chinese philosopher writes a book on Democracy" That makes things a little more interesting. But again, it is such a minor thing that it wouldn't matter.

[This message has been edited by shadowlessasasin (edited November 23, 2000).]

Christantine The Great · November 24, 2000, 02:48

Stuff2 · November 24, 2000, 08:23

One thing about monarchy. This is how it worked in europe.
During the dark ages, and the middle age aswell, the king had no total power, instead he was the head of a number of local leaders that only had to support him with some armies and money. He had little or no real impact on the country he "ruled" other than defending it from other countries. Often the local leaders had war between them. Not until somewhere between 1400 - 1600 the almighty king showed up on the stage. With a little help from the more capitalistic economy and the reformations. Also, in many states in europe during 1500 - 1800 a parlament became a part of the government. In Sweden during most of the eighteent century the parlament had much more power than the king. And in todays europe many states still has a king (or a queen) but with absolutely no power at all.

Tical_2000 · November 24, 2000, 17:49

I personally think that the Eco-Republic was one of the most irritating things about CTP. I mean, what the hell is an Eco-Republic??? I doubt that this will formulate into a government in the future.

Gilgalad5 · November 25, 2000, 01:21

I found the Civ2 government types to be quite satisfactory. What really needs work is the revolution model, and the effects of each type.

I don't see the point of having city-state democracy a la classical Athens, unless the whole city model is going to be revamped

Despotism should have a different name, since it clearly simulates a more decentralized system than monarchy. And there should be some kind of cost associated with adopting monarchy (bureaucratic expenses?), because as it is, there is absolutely no contest between it and "despotism."

As for the modern period, Democracy, Communism, and Fundamentalism cover almost everything the real world has experimented with. (it's my opinion, though, that only minor civs should be allowed to be fundamentalist) Socialism, as previous posters have defined it, seems to be just a high-domestic spending and peaceful variation on Democracy. Perhaps some kind of party politics model for Democracies would provide all the depth you are looking for.

UltraSonix · November 25, 2000, 09:08

In my mind, there is no contest between the Civ2 form of choosing a government or the SMAC SE model. The SMAC model, even if it's not entirely realistic, offers far greater replay value.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

red_jon · November 25, 2000, 12:59

Meritocracy should be its own semi-futuristic government form, where the country is ruled by a group of elected intellects.

How far each citizen succeeds is dependant on the intellect of the individual. This would greatly increase science output but less money (due to the fact that the system isn't based on market forces).

It would create more happy citizens in the sense that they can now achieve their potential, but it leaves behind a number of disgruntled, less intelligent citizens.

------------------
...And if the British Commonwealth and its people live for a thousand years, man will still say "this was their finest hour"- Winston Churchill.

DarkCloud · November 25, 2000, 19:14

Values=Religion - Not always so...

Values
-

For the People/For Yourself/For Your Country/For Science/For Money/For Luxury

Odin · November 26, 2000, 15:02

quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud on 11-25-2000 06:14 PM
Values=Religion - Not always so...

Values
-

For the People/For Yourself/For Your Country/For Science/For Money/For Luxury

Yes, but most values start from ones religion

DarkCloud · November 26, 2000, 20:38

Yes, but to make civ less controversial it is better not to have religion.

airdrik · November 27, 2000, 14:05

You can have religion: polytheist, pagan, monotheist, atheist. Have various sects in each religion(poly 1, mono 2, etc.) You don't have to name them after real religions in the world today. You could even have one religion be the one true religion and which ever civs live according to the principles of that religion gets a bonus(+1 to all stats of all units until you sway from it's teacings, or just +1 AT to all units).