New Governments

[DarkCloud]

What type of governments would you like In Civ III and what effects might they have.
Here is a basic list (without effects yet)
-Despotism
-Tribal (New!)
-City-State (New!)
-Monarchy
-Feudal (New!)
-Theocracy (New!)
-Communism
-Fascism
-Socialism (New!)
-Republic
-Democracy
-Market (New!)


-What efects should these have?

[DarkCloud]

Effectiveness Ratings 0-100%
They also have other special bonuses; but I cannot think of those yet.

Despotism-
Tax Collecting- 50% (taxes)
War- 100% (unhappy by war)
Infastructure- 20% (production)
Happiness- 25%

Tribal-
Tax Collecting- 25%
War- 50%
Infastructure- 75%
Happiness- 100%

City State-
Tax Collecting- 50%
War- 25%
Infastructure- 100%
Happiness- 75%

Monarchy-
Tax Collecting- 75%
War- 75%
Infastructure- 40%
Happiness- 40%

Feudal-
Tax Collecting- 50%
War- 100%
Infastructure- 30%
Happiness- 30%

Theocracy-
Tax Collecting- 40%
War- 40%
Infastructure- 50%
Happiness- 70%

Communism-
Tax Collecting- 100%
War- 50%
Infastructure- 30%
Happiness- 30%

Fascism-
Tax Collecting- 75%
War- 100%
Infastructure- 40%
Happiness- 20%

Socialism-
Tax Collecting- 75%
War- 60%
Infastructure- 40%
Happiness- 40%

Socialism-
Tax Collecting- 75%
War- 60%
Infastructure- 40%
Happiness- 40%

Republic-
Tax Collecting- 75%
War- 40%
Infastructure- 50%
Happiness- 60%

Democracy-
Tax Collecting- 85%
War- 55%
Infastructure- 60%
Happiness- 80%

Market- *Most advanced form of Government
Tax Collecting- 100%
War- 60%
Infastructure- 75%
Happiness- 85%

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

[Shadowstrike]

Hmm... I think I would add a "true democracy" in the sense that citizens could vote for any bill and the middlemen known as "representatives" could be squeezed out. City-state isn't really a form of government, it was a type of state that could have had many different governments (i.e. Sparta's double monarchy, Athens democracy, etc.)

If we were also doning a bit into the future, a "Hive Mind" government could also work. I must be watching too much Star Trek...

[Dauphin]

quote: If we were also doning a bit into the future, a "Hive Mind" government could also work. I must be watching too much Star Trek...

Isn't that the same as your true democracy.

[Biddles]

I assume that you aren't separating economic systems: That your using a Civ1/Civ2 style government system.

How does:
-socialism differ from communism
-feudalism differ from monarchy
-tribalism differ from despotism
In the game sense. I know that in real life these systems may differ in some respects, but how do you represent that in the game.

Personally I prefer social engineering.

[Shadowstrike]

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch on 11-22-2000 07:04 PM Isn't that the same as your true democracy.

No. In a True Democracy, people can vote and choose as they want, with their own free will. In a Hive Mind, there is a central computer, which decides what each person (stripped of all personality, et al) will do at every moment (i.e. no free will)

[UltraSonix]

quote: -Despotism -Tribal (New!) -City-State (New!) -Monarchy -Feudal (New!) -Theocracy (New!) -Communism -Fascism -Socialism (New!) -Republic -Democracy -Market (New!)

I'm not an expert on this sort of stuff but here goes...

"Tribal" should be the form of government for civs less advanced than the starting civ2 civs - it would be the "government" of the nomadic tribes idea that some people here like.

"Feudal" would be a very specific type of government that reduce efficiency a lot (the peasants each manage a small lot of land) , and yet at the same time allow cavalry/infantry units to be more easily built. Under this, a castle improvement could be built for more cheaply (it would allow for perhaps defence bonuses against non-gunpowder units). Taxes would be harder to collect, but there would be less unhappy people.

------------------
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!)

quote: -socialism differ from communism

In realistic in-game terms (ie. how the two are percieved in R/L): Socialism is a "milder" form of communism, in that it still retains some of the features of the democracy (more freedoms, less autocratic control). A "compromise"-type government for those who want a clean, easy government type without major drawbacks.

In idealistic in-game terms (ie. how the "pure" marxist would view the two concepts): Socialism is the government which is now designated communism. Communism is an ideal stateless world in which either (according to Marx) no politics exist, or (according to Trotsky) only very superficial politics exist. Leadership would therefore be removed, and your entire existance will cease to be important. Everyone lives in a perfect paradise world. You've won the game!

I suspect FIRAXIS would not be overly thrilled at the second version. Still, it'd be interesting to make a mod for civ which completely follows the Marxist model of historical development...

[Zer0_T0lerance]

quote: "Tribal" should be the form of government for civs less advanced than the starting civ2 civs - it would be the "government" of the nomadic tribes idea that some people here like.

I like this idea.

------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)

[Christantine The Great]

quote: feudalism differ from monarchy

Feudalism is really an economic system where feudal lords own vast tracts of land that were farmed, for free, by serfs. Since creature comforts were kept at a minimum (for the peasants) and the huge numbers of "free" workers to conscript from it would allow you to build a large army. Of course since the peasants could only work the lord's crops and not their own, and the occasional plague, would lower efficiency a whole lot.

The rest of the list looks great except for city-state and market. In a city-state you would either find a true democracy or some kind of monarchy, nothing else really since the era of city-states is well far behind us. I assume market would lean towards something like the Morganic faction of SMAC. This could be a economic system, though.

Would "tribal" be where everybody reports to "Big Chief"?

[DarkCloud]

Shadowstrike-

A true democracy is a good idea.


-Socialism- Like in Scandinavia and Great Britain
-Communism- Like in China, North Korea
-Tribalism- 'Pure Communism' of the Native Americans (Only good for states under 15 population)
-Feudalism- Like in the Ancient Chinese states (The king has less power than in a Monarchy. The vassals are near-rivals and have almost as much power as the king, as opposed to the king having Absolute power.)

[Tical_2000]

A true democracy sounds unnatural and strange. How could every person in a nation vote for every bill? Things would never get done. I think a true democracy would be less productive than a despotism. Can someone please explain to me the concept of social engineering so I can perhaps formulate my own opinions on it? Thanx.

[JamesJKirk]

I think a "true" Marxist would only view the Soviet system as a dictatorship than any sort of socialist ideal. Socialism is economic control by the people, ie workers, not the government. "Marxism" was well warped into being a sort of catchall economic and political revolution by the end of the 19th century, whereas in reality, The workers of an industry would control that industry, and the entire of a society would have equal control over the political system. The Soviet system was I guess Socialist in an economic sense, but not in a real sense, since socialism implies equality and justice, which were limited. in the "true" sence, since "true" forms of govenrment seems to be the theme here. I suppose in a very broad sense, the stated goal of the USSR was to guide society into a classless system, and it dubbed itself socialist, but aside from the welfare state benefits, it was just a dictatorship. I would think Socialism government would be akin to Sweden, or other more moderate european democracies, still the difference lies in economics not politics. But what I wonder why would "Market" be the most advanced government? Should people strive toward cooperation rather than petty competition? Hasn't the Gilded Age taught you all anything?

Darkcloud- UK and Scandinavia are democracies, aside from health care, that UK economy isn't much more socialize that that of the US- the political systems are similar, although Europe tends to follow a parliamentary system, and the US has a presidential system. Big whoop, people still vote for representatives, etc etc. And I think it's established most gov't functions will be replaced by Social Engineering. Perhaps, maybe even hopefully, we can have a basic government shell and control the SE of that gov't. It would allow popular revolutions, while letting the player control the specifics.

Tical- Haven't you heard of the Athenian Democracy? It was a true democracy, sort of, all of the male citizens could vote on every bill, so it's been done, it would have to work in a small nation, unless it were done electronically how CTP suggests. Social Engineering is the ability of the player to select the type of economy, social structure, etc etc of a tribe, play SMAC doing it explains it better than me telling you.

[Shogun Gunner]

There are no examples in our history of a true communist government on a country level. It's agreed by most people that there is a separation of economic systems and government systems. This should be addressed in Civ III.

[Christantine The Great]

With the internet a true (pure) democracy is possible. And I would like to point out an important fact. There are NO ACTUAL democracies functioning on this earth today! There are republics (France), democratic republics (U.S.A.), constitutional monarchies (U.K.), monarchies (Netherlands(?)), theocratic "republics" (Most Arab nations), dictatorships (Iraq), and communist dictatorships (China) but NO democracies. (Ok, I may have left out some governments but do you get the point?)

Socialism and Communism are not governments but economy models. They are usually enforced by dictatorships (Which should be on the list!)

I hope I'm not sounding too pushy.

[Nikolai]

Here in Norway we have a king, so we are a monarchy.

BUT we have a parliament and democratic elections, so we are a democracy.

BUT we are a welfare state, so we are socialistic.

I'm a bit confused.....

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great on 11-24-2000 01:33 AM Socialism and Communism are not governments but economy models. They are usually enforced by dictatorships I hope I'm not sounding too pushy.

Not pushy, but still wrong IMHO.

Communism is a government type, ruled by a single political party that makes all the decisions, economic or otherwise. Because of this it can hardly have anything else but a planned economy, if it wants to function at all. However, other government types can also have a more-or-less planned economy.

Socialism is not a government, nor is it an economy model. It is an ideology that calls upon the (any) government to take care of all citizens, in contrast to "laissez fair". This encompasses economic factors (key industries controlled or directed by the government, so at least partly planned is mandatory) as well as social (welfare, healthcare, housing).

Both Democratic and Communistic governments are well capable of carrying out "socialist" policies.

The Netherlands do not have a Monarchy type of government, but a (rather socialistic) Democracy. Iraq is a Monarchy, like Jordan. Lybia is a dictatorship (Despotism), Egypt a Democracy. As far as I know there are no Arab Theocracies; Iran (non-Arab!) was one but is now in transition again.

The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that is a Republic the few elect the few (like the Roman senate chose its own members), while in a Democracy (be it "pure" or representative) "everyone" has the right to vote and "anyone" can be elected.


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
[This message has been edited by Ribannah (edited November 24, 2000).]

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-24-2000 10:07 AM Not pushy, but still wrong IMHO. Communism is a government type, ruled by a single political party that makes all the decisions, economic or otherwise. Because of this it can hardly have anything else but a planned economy, if it wants to function at all. However, other government types can also have a more-or-less planned economy.

Ribannah, it sounds like you are describing the reality of Communism - especially Soviet, not the true theory of Communism. In "pure" Communism, there is no planning, there is no government since the "worker's paradise" would be achieved. Very unrealistic and hard to represent in CIV. We may have to be content with a Communism government type based on the Soviet example.

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-24-2000 10:07 AM The Netherlands do not have a Monarchy type of government, but a (rather socialistic) Democracy. Iraq is a Monarchy, like Jordan. Lybia is a dictatorship (Despotism), Egypt a Democracy. As far as I know there are no Arab Theocracies; Iran (non-Arab!) was one but is now in transition again.

You missed one, and it is a 'theocracy' to an extent, Isreal. And if you don't think that's theocratical enough, try ancient Isreal before king Saul (in the bible).

[Stalker0]

There is so such thing as a real democracy, even the US is simply a republic. However, a democracy could theoretically be created through the internet and other kinds of technology like that. But since Civ already considers a difference between Republic and a US Republic (Civ's democracy) I don't think they'll change it.

I also like the SMAC social engineering concept. Then you can create welfare states, socialist republics and so forth

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 11-22-2000 06:05 PM Market- *Most advanced form of Government Tax Collecting- 100% War- 60% Infastructure- 75% Happiness- 85%

I dont know how long Civ-3 is supposed to stretch into the future, but generally i DONT think "Market" should be the most advanced form of government.

Its just too controversial. Like having Marxism/historical materialism as a base to build the economical mechanics behind the game. The game-designers of Civ-3 must avoid having such traditional "red" or conventional profit-worshiping choices as so-called "most advanced" governments.

Market economy is about economical dog-eat-dog ideals, that limps along because, at present, there isnt any believeable alternatives. But, for the next 100, 200 or even 500 years into the future? Please, dont give up hope...

To cheer you guys up, i give the following simile about our civilisations history and future:

The mid-winter (dec) is the darkest part of the year, but often not yet the coldest. By comparison, the late-winter period (feb) is gradually more brighten, but at the same time often the coldest month of the year.

Similarly, we aften talk about our medieval/ancient history as a morally "darker times", but also a time where people was much less cynical and jaded about believe-systems and ideals (= dec: yet not so "cold" times).

By comparision, our modern world, symbolises februari: We live in somewhat "brighter times" in some limited ways: We have education, medical and geriatric care, red cross, social work and material/technical conveniences, that all contributes to make our lives somewhat easier to live.
At the same time the modern man have found himself in much "colder times". Many modern people dont beleive in anything anymore. Not in a God and overal purpose, and not in any other beleive- or value-systems either.

Well, im maybe incredible naive here - but what comes after late-winter? Our civilization has perhaps not reach its coldest turning-point yet: Maybe there are temporary social and economical collapses, and even major wars along the way - i dont know.

But, does late-winters last forever an ever? Nope!

Why not have a really wise, altruistic and humanly intelligent future-only government-form, that perhaps dont work today, but MAYBE in year 2100-2400?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, I'm getting a little tired of association of Communism with dictatorship. As I've said before, the reason why Communist countries usually are dictatorships is because they are usually countries that have LONG histories of absolute rulers and autocrats. And also these were violent revolutions which almost always lead to dictatorships.

But there is NOTHING that says a Communist country can not have free elections (a cornerstone to a Democracy). And there is no reason why a Communist country can not have a Parliament or Congress, and there is no reason they can't have a fair court system. And in Civilization, the game should be showing the fundamental intentions of a government not what the results have been.

I think that the best thing to do is have different economies and governments, and even different levels of democratization as was previously suggested.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3

[Tical_2000]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-24-2000 11:53 AM
Ribannah, it sounds like you are describing the reality of Communism - especially Soviet, not the true theory of Communism. In "pure" Communism, there is no planning, there is no government since the "worker's paradise" would be achieved. Very unrealistic and hard to represent in CIV. We may have to be content with a Communism government type based on the Soviet example.

-Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism. So what the hell is your point? If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken. What we are discussing here is how to best implement gov'ts in Civ3 and whether they should be separate from economic systems. My personal opinion? No. They shouldn't be.

err.... I go for SMAC like flexible government model, not that old classic frozen government forms model... !!!

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-26-2000 01:38 PM But there is NOTHING that says a Communist country can not have free elections (a cornerstone to a Democracy).

As was always the case in Yugoslavia. However, under Communism only members of one party can be elected, so it isn't the same as under Democracy.

Tical_2000, I think your definition of "pure" Communism is a bit strange, but if we want Civ to represent history there is no place for "pure" Communism or Democracy anyway if the real world never had something like that.

I'd much prefer to adjust the definitions so that they fit common reality, instead of the other way around


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-26-2000 03:52 PM Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism.

Mat 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away".

"Heaven" means mankinds present value-systems and believes.
"earth" means mankinds present ways of doing things.
"my words" means the underlying moral in the Sermon on the Mount.

quote: If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken.

Well, im amused
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Antonios]

Market as a government?No.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-26-2000 03:52 PM -Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism. So what the hell is your point? If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken.

Darn, you were in my target audience and I didn't amuse you... I was planning the Trotsky Stand Up Hour and even contemplated building the Adam Smith Comedy Hall Wonder. Would you perhaps snicker at the Lenin List of Jokes? I heard Marx bombed on the Issac Newton Show!

How can I go on....?

[DarkCloud]

There can be pure communism! Everyone is equal. The only problem would be when money grabbers get to the top of the ladder and apportition more to themselves or make it 'government funds'

Market can be real: look at Wall Street, now imagine an entire world governed by free enterprise and stocks, that is Market.

Market is the world. Market will come next. Market-World 2010. It is Market or the fall of civilization.

[Christantine The Great]

[q]under Communism only members of one party can be elected, so it isn't the same as under Democracy.
[q]

NO! Under a true democracy the people can vote for ANYONE they want to. They do not need to constantly vote for Democrats, as under a Republic you don't need to vote for Republicans.

Communism is an economic model. Dictatorships usually use a combination of a secret police and a communist economy to keep the people of a country in check.

[q]but if we want Civ to represent history there is no place for "pure" Communism or Democracy anyway if the real world never had something like that.
[q]

Remember, we are rewriting history. That means we can do what history says we can do but never really did it!

Market...Hmm...not too realistic, the world being governed by the rise and fall of stock prices. It sounds like the people will be a bit pissed, not too happy.

In Civ II the designers favored a Democratic government probably because they lived in a democratic republic (U.S.). They made democracy the "best" government with the communist government that history shows us in second place. Each government should have its strong points that other governments cannot have.

Maybe, along with the regular choices, there should be a panel of check boxes on the side of the screen that differ from each type of government. The check boxes would be small changes you could do to your government to further refine it.