Ordinances: a simple idea to improve government in Civ3 (aka plz read firaxis)

korn469 · February 6, 2001, 14:09

This thread started as a debate over which system is better (and should therefore be the system civ3 uses); rigid civ2 like governments or modular SMAC like SE. I believe that the SE system is superior to the government system, but that is just my opinion; furthermore there are many who hold that not only is SE a worse system than the government system but it actually ruins the game to an extent. However, we have been able to find some middle ground in the form of an idea I had on how to add some flexibility to the way civ3 manages government.

The idea is to add ordinances that work in a similar manner to the ones found in SimCity 3000. Ordinances would work equally well with either system (governments or SE) and it would be an easy to understand system that could increase player emersion exponentially. Though while this suggestion may be hard to program into the game (it may not I don't know) it would not violate the Sid rule of complexity is never a substitute for depth. It is straight forward, you open up a screen click a box and it goes into effect. It adds depth, each box would make a civ unique to an extent and it would allow for interesting game play possibilities. Ordinances would be tied to technology so you couldn't have "clean air laws" before you knew what air was. So here are some examples of what I would like to see included in the game. My examples will be in simple civ2 terms and concepts.

Constitution: a constitution codifies the customs and practices of a government. It gives an acceptable legal frame work on how to solves crisis situations on how to govern. A constitution symbolizes a government's legitamacy. It has the following effects:
[*]Increases cost to bribe cities.[*]Decreases the chance by half that a civ will errupt into civil war when it's capital falls.[*]Gives democracy a 1/3 chance of not collapsing when a city remains in disorder for two consecutive turns.[*]Automatically triggers a civil war when a civ changes it's present form of government. (aka going from republic to communism)

Bill of Rights: This document enumerates all of the civil liberties a society holds dear. A Bill of Rights gives the people certain inalienable rights which the government cannot ignore. It is the very foundation of freedom. It has the following effects:
[*]Doubles the effect of luxery spending.[*]Negates the effect of police stations to make unhappy citizens content.[*]Cities only have 1/4th the chance of normal that infrastructure will be destroyed during disorder. (peaceful demonstrations)[*]Every one unhappy citizen made content by a military unit cause two random content citizens throughout the civ to became unhappy.[*]Increases your civ's reputation by one level.[*]Cannot select Bill of Rights and Secret Police at the same time.

Secret Police: A tool despots have used for centuries to oppress their people. These organizations rely on the use of terror to keep people inline; committing atrocities to protect the status quo usually strains relations with the free world. It has the following effects:
[*]A spy unit will double the number of unhappy citizens that a military unit will make content.[*]Spy units get a 50% bonus on defense when they are in a friendly city or fort.[*]Cities with a spy unit present have 1/2 the chance of revolting.[*]Cities without a spy unit cost half to bribe and have double the chance of revolting.[*]Each time a city goes into riots a random number of partizan units appear around the city.[*]Lowers your civ's reputation by one level.[*]Cannot be used at the same time as Bill of Rights.

Universal Health Care: A civ decides that every member of society has a right to recieve free health care. This progressive policy helps to eliminate sickness and to create a more content populace. However it requires a huge beurocracy to implement this plan. It has the following effects:
[*]Cities with a hospital present will have one unhappy citizen became content.[*]Epidemics only have half the chance of effecting your civ.[*]Doubles the upkeep cost of hospitals

Conscription: Every able bodied citizen has to serve in a civ's military. This massive allocation of resources allows a civ to muster huge armies, usually this comes at the cost of fighting spirit as draftees replace volunteers in the ranks. It has the following effects:
[*]Decreases cost to build military units by 1/4th.[*]Decreases a unit's morale by one level.[*]Units only have half the chance of gaining morale as normal units.

__________________________________________________ _____

ok so that is how i envision ordinaces working. you open a screen click a box and suddenly your civ has a constitution...not only do u have a constitution but the player now has some interesting strategic choices to make

any thoughts or comments are appreciated
discussion is encouraged

korn469

Henrik · February 6, 2001, 14:55

But there would ofcourse be more of them, right?
Like: Bureocracy (when that was firstt tried out in the 17th century it became a great tool for the rulers to actually change what happened in their realm, during the middleages a ruler could proclaim all he wanted that everyone had to do something, like not wear pants(stupid example I know) but nobody would care, simply becouse there was no way of seeing to the fact that something actually happened, whit the advent of bureocracy curruption was widely reduced, and effiecency and mobilization of armies where much more effective, countries who didnt have a burecracy soon fell to thier more advanced neighbors (look at the Polish/Lituan Comonwealth in the 1650's, the polish king Jan Kazimierz was very able to do something about the swedish/russian invassion, but his feudal land owning nobles wouldnt let him, had he had a bureocratic system serving him (they allways served the king only) he could have mobilized annyway. The effect was that the army was parted up, each noble stealing some part of it. Soon Brandenburg and Transylvania joined in and Poland was turned into a butchers field.).
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited February 06, 2001).]

raingoon · February 6, 2001, 15:17

I have been staunchly against SE being in Civ 3.

However, I am totally in support of Korn's idea here. First of all, it's not SE. The model he is trying to suggest does not mire itself in +/- factors of numbers that become tedious, a la SE in SMAC (my opinion, of course). He's describing a Civ style universe of adjusted percentages and levels being affected. Nice. This would really work, I think.

[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited February 06, 2001).]

korn469 · February 6, 2001, 16:16

Henrik

yes there would be more of them, lots more hopefully. there should be enough choices where a player could have a very unique civ. i also think that many of the choices should be opposites of one another (like bill of rights and secret police) and i think that they should cover a broad range of areas from politics to the economy to the environment.

raingoon

thanks for the support!

if u like please suggest more ordinances...just make sure all ordinances have both good and bad in them

subjective choices are much more interesting than objective choices

korn469

Henrik · February 6, 2001, 16:29

Sorry, if you where thinking about my bureocracy post.
I just can't think of any bad sides of (that kind of) bureocracy. Well there is one ofcourse; the newlyt built burecracys where very expensive. All of the Great Powers of the time had lots of debts (although the swedish king Gustav Vasa did have an interesting solution to that; he owed the Hanseatic Leuge a lot of money, so he bombarded Lübeck untill they whitdraw his debts, that would probably not be included in the game though).
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited February 06, 2001).]

bagdar · February 6, 2001, 16:59

yes, yes, yes, I think this is a great idea. It would enhance the three sliders greatly.

Ralf · February 6, 2001, 17:20

I like the idea with Civ-2 style governments with more "how shall we distribute our wealth" slider-bars and government-/tech-specific ordinances.

I have some questions & viewpoints about above, but I must quit now. I come back later.

LTD · February 6, 2001, 20:29

I must say I liked the idea Korn has suggested and came up with a few ideas of my own to add to idea, feel free to let me know you opinions.

Here are ideas, obviously there's room for more, but I was bored and doing this kept me busy, there are hints of other ideas in here too (like earthquake zones)

Total Freedom

- Police effects are negated
- Corruption is zero
- Waste +50%
- Luxuries +10%
- All content people become happy
- Cities never revolt or change loyalties
- Cannot use Total Control
- Cannot use Drafting
- Cannot use Forced Labour
- Automatically activates Legal Drugs

Forced Labour

- Food & Production +50%
- Every 4th Citizen becomes unhappy
- Cities always revolt if unhappy people > garrison units

Drafting

- Military units require -25% Production (-50% if infantry)
- Every 2nd military unit reduces population by 1

National Health Service

- Each medical building makes one unhappy person content
- Cannot use Privitisation

Privitization

- Service buildings cost 0 upkeep
- Service buildings cannot be scrapped
- Service building cost -50% Production to build
- One person in each city > 5 becomes unhappy

Legal Drugs

- Corruption is -25%
- Waste is +25%
- Tax is +5% in all cities
- Half the unhappy people in your cities (round down) is made content
- Each person made content by this method increases waste +5%

Total Control

- Production, Food, & Tax are -25%
- All content people become unhappy (before other modifiers)
- Cities are twice as likely to revolt
- Cities require less incentive to change loyalty
- Police effect is unlimited
- There is no corruption
- No foreign stealth unit may enter your cities unless elite

Capital Punishment

- One content person is made unhappy
- One content person is made happy

Environmental Protection

- Production is -25%
- Pollution is -50%
- Upkeep on all Production enhancing buildings is +1
- You can clean up Pollution twice as fast
- Each square of Pollution in your territory makes one content person unhappy in the nearest city, and all of your cities within 3 squares of it
- Cannot use Excessive Mining

Nuclear Ban

- You may not build Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Plants
- The cost to build natural energy plants is -25%

Excessive Mining

- One content person is made unhappy
- Each square produces +1 production
- You cannot create hills or mountains
- There is a 5% chance a hill or mountain square that you are working will be replaced with plains
- The bonus from your mines is doubled
- When a hill or mountain collapses there is a 25% chance the city's population will be reduced by one
- You can build mines twice a quickly

Strengthened Buildings
(Applies only to cities in earthquake zones)
- Earthquakes, Terrorist Bombings and Saboteurs do not destroy your cities improvements
- You must spend 5 upkeep on cities in general
- Each improvement cost +25% to build
- One content person becomes happy
- Earthquakes do not reduce your population

Geared Production (Military/Scientific/Social/Other)

- Building (chosen category) cost -25% Production
- Building other categories costs +25% Production
- Cannot choose other Geared Production

Some of the ideas like drafting was my own interpretation of conscription (no offence).

colossus · February 7, 2001, 01:36

I like the Korn's ideas, but I would like to add a few points.

Those 'Ordinance'(better called charters) are promugated to meet certain circumstances, eg: Conscription for warfare, Bills of Rights for happiness. It tends to change or distort the nature of government so a price must be paid for that.

1.It hinders the change of government(more turns for anarchy if ordinances are on).

2.There should be maximum no. of ordinances on at the same time, possibly three or four.(Questions of guns or butter, you can't have both)

3.Certain ordinances are contradictory(Bills of Rights Vs Secret Police) and cannot be on at the same time.

4.Immediate price paid for promugation of ordinance: money/science/production/anarchy, some of these.

5.Price paid for lifting the ordinance: money/science/production/anarchy, some of these.

Ordinances are HIGH PRINCIPLES determining the policy of governments. As more efforts are concentrated in specific areas, other areas receive less attention/resources, so ordinances should confer both ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES.

Like a change of governmant, promugating an ordinance produces confusion and it takes time for the civ to adapt it, so there will be some loss of money/science/production, even anarchy possibly.

Lifting the ordinance produces similar effects so there will be some loss of money/science/production.

When more than one ordinances are promugated, they tend to conflict with each other and compete for resources, so there cannot be more than a few ordinances on at the same time.

Ordinances are generally considered improvements on existing governmant, so it will be harder to change government when ordinances are on.(the better the current govenmnet, the less incentive to chane it)

yin26 · February 7, 2001, 01:49

Interesting. I, for one, am all for making the switching between governments and any resulting changes play out far more dramatically than it currently does. As things stand now, switching governments represents little more than maximizing your CURRENT strategy.

In other words, it's too easy to manipulate the system on a short-term basis.

korn469 · February 7, 2001, 02:55

Ralf

i am looking forward to your comments

LTD

you have some nice suggestions in there, i especially like forced labor and environmental protection

colossus

thanks for the comments! here is my responces

1. i agree, but besides just increasing the number of turns a civ spends in anarchy maybe it could strengthen the ill effects that anarchy has on a civ instead of just increasing anarchy time...things like infrastructure gets distroyed, military units get disbanded, part of the treasury disappears and other nasty things.

2. i disagree, i don't think that there should be limit on the total number of ordinances you could have at one time as long as they aren't contradictory...i don't think that society has to choose which it would rather have, freedom of speech or freedom of assembly i think that it can have both, i think they are independent of one another and easy to provide...but on the other had, privacy and security are two things that you can't have infinite amounts of, you must sacrifice one to satisfy the other

having said that i would support only being able to approve/repeal one ordinance per five turns...this represents the time and political capital it takes to influence society on a massive scale. there would be one exception, and that would be during a revolution when you could approve or repeal a number of ordinances...however the more changes you make the worse the upheaval would be

3. i strongly agree!

4. i think that the up front costs should be rather low and the real cost should be built into the ordinances through its disadvantages

5. same answer as before

i agree with you and truly believe that all ordinances should have both advantages and disadvantages

on the whole i agree with just about everything you said except for the total number of ordinances that a civ can have in effect at one time

yin

do u have any suggestions on how to make it more difficult to manipulate the system without adding to complexity? also do u have any comments on the idea of ordinances themself?

korn469

raingoon · February 7, 2001, 05:29

Korn, colossus, et al.

I like these ideas. Especially keeping them in terms of Civ 2 (percentage changes, etc.) I suppose there is room for the old "Makes 2 Citizens content" or what have you.

For some reason my ideas are coming more in the macro. Like, along the lines of colossus' comment, it's not really "ordinances" first of all, which sounds too municipal and local, but rather "Policy." I suggest "The Policy Screen," as equivalent to "The Trade Screen." And the options available in this screen appear as your technological level warrants.

From there, it seems you would have major categories, not unlike SimCity 3000's Ordinance window. For Civ I would guess the obvious choices are:

Trade
Civil
Environmental
Military

Note these four categories coincide with the four cornerstones of the genre itself, respectively:

Explore Trade
Expand Civil
Exploit Environmental
Exterminate Military

I just noticed that, and if I'm not mistaken SMAC had five different categories? I wonder if that helped to create the disconnect that Ralf and others mention when they explain why they didn't like the SE system. At any rate, naysayers like myself and Ralf can now easily see how actions taken within this system would impact their game in each of its respective fundamental areas.

I strongly recommend limiting the categories to these four cornerstones. Glancing over what's been suggested so far -- you can easily see where they would all fit in. Comments? Disagree?

ChrisShaffer · February 7, 2001, 06:07

I like the idea, and it would certainly add a lot of options for scenario creators.

However, it's fraught with complications. People will be second guessing the assumptions that go into the ordinances.

For example, korn469 proposes that "Bill of Rights" and "Secret Police" can't be selected at the same time, which is ludicrous given that the United States currently has both. And I would object to the idea that a Constitution means automatic civil war in the event of change of government. There have been numerous bloodless coups. The idea that Universal Health Care requires a larger infrastructure than other systems is silly. And in many cultures / historical periods, the idea that draftees would be worse fighters than volunteers doesn't work either.

Note that I'm presenting the above list as an example of the kinds of arguments that ordinances will generate....perhaps this is a good thing and will spur scenario creators? Or is it bad, and will there be protests of the bias in the game?

Grumbold · February 7, 2001, 08:44

I'm in favour of ordinances having growing effects over time rather than static. Pollution controls will slowly reduce the environmental damage because it takes time for factories to retool, cars to switch to less polluting fuels etc. The (UK) National Health Service is in big trouble at the moment because people are living longer and the courts are tending to support legal challenges for expensive treatments to be administered which the local and central government funding has not provided for. Consequently the cost of providing health care is increasing faster than it can be funded. An ordinance that makes people happy at the cost of doubling hospital maintenance costs is too simple for my liking.

korn469 · February 7, 2001, 11:36

raingoon

i think that it would be quite acceptable to change the name from ordinance to policy...i used the name ordinance becuase that is what they are called in simcity and that is what gave me the inspiration...so a name change is quite in order

i think that each policy should cover broad subjects and have some basis in history

ChrisShaffer

i am sure that you are completely right about people protesting any change, and not only will people protest any change, they will tear each one apart and say that it isn't insert derogitory name here

however i think that it would add to the game depth without adding complexity...i think it would also add to variety and variety helps make the game more fun to play over and over again...each policy would add a little strategic wrinkle to the game and would help keep the game fresh

also my examples were only suggestions of how that firaxis could implement this idea...i would like to see more things in civ that has both good and bad aspects, each benefit should have some cost

and to the people who start bickering over the realism of each policy...well i think that civ has never sacrificed fun for realism...i mean civ has very tenious ties to realism...its just a game, not a definitive simulation of history...and games should be just that

jglidewell · February 7, 2001, 12:24

I like the idea.

This where religion could come into play besides only making people happy. It could shape the type of ordinances you could apply.

I think that the Spartans where just as happy with thier code of cunduct as the Athenians as with thiers.

Religion is the underlying assumptions for actions/laws/ordinances.

Just some random thoughts:

All men are created equal - +immigration, +production, +lawlessness

The King has descended from the gods and is divine - +police, +control

There is an after life - requirement for pyramids, requirement for ceremonial burial.

raingoon · February 7, 2001, 14:52

A-Ha! jglidewell wins the prize for being the first to bring this back to SMAC's +/- SE system -- just kidding, it was bound to happen. But I do want to stress that, for many of us, SMAC-style plus and minus quantifications of abstract social concepts such as "police" and "control" are a sure way to squash this as a Civ3 idea.

If we keep this in terms of Civ 2 percentages of happiness and production and the trade stream, though that's probably a new system by now, then I can keep going along with it.

Meanwhile, Chris Shaffer -- you said it's ludicrous to consider Bill of Rights and Secret Police in opposition to each other, since the US has both. Not sure what you mean by that, but I sense you're being literal, maybe referring to the U.S. Secret Service? For me when Korn says Secret Police I assume he means Gestapo squads, KGB Stalinistas -- imagine whatever is required for you to see an organization in opposition to a Bill of Rights, and that must be what Korn means.

It's fruitless to argue what the effects of any policy would be -- such a thing would have to be determined by Firaxis where they can see how it balances in the game, if indeed they are able and willing to consider this system at all. But I suggest everybody feel free to imagine whatever they want.

Ralf · February 7, 2001, 15:35

As I said earlier; I basically like the idea of ordinances, but I also must say that I dont like how it grows more or less out of proportion in some of above posts.
Keep in mind that you dont interact with other civs, with above options. All you really do is fine-tweaking your choosen government platform. These ordinances by the way, should all be about "gentle nudges" in this or that direction. If the player wants anyting more drastic - he must change government-type.

There are too many ordinances! What I have in mind is between 5 to (max) 10-12 ordinances totally for each government-type, depending on how advanced it is. Better a few carefully balanced and really worthwhile ones, then trying to cram in as many of them as possible (it just gets rather inflationary in the end).

Also, many of the suggested ordinances dont seems to be "weighted" in any way. By that I mean that choosing any single ordinance-choice, should be associated with a economical cost (as in SC3K, by the way). Even if you find a specific ordinance attractive, you may still avoid choosing that ordinance, because of the cost/benefit-ratio in that game-situation is too hard to swallow for the player.
Without "weighted" ordinances, the whole idea gets pointless. Also: Too many of them destroys everything.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 07, 2001).]

ChrisShaffer · February 7, 2001, 22:18

quote:

Meanwhile, Chris Shaffer -- you said it's ludicrous to consider Bill of Rights and Secret Police in opposition to each other, since the US has both. Not sure what you mean by that, but I sense you're being literal, maybe referring to the U.S. Secret Service? For me when Korn says Secret Police I assume he means Gestapo squads, KGB Stalinistas -- imagine whatever is required for you to see an organization in opposition to a Bill of Rights, and that must be what Korn means.

I don't see much difference between the Gestapo squads or KGB Stalinistas and current police tactics in the United States. I certainly wasn't referring only to the FBI. The US military/police/spy industry is quite frightening and certainly qualifies as a secret police.

I wasn't saying that the secret police aren't opposed to the Bill of Rights, I was saying that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Korn469, I think you missed my point. I did not say that people would be opposed to change simply because it is change. I said that designing them in a consistent fashion would be quite difficult, as it was relatively easy to find serious objections to the handful you suggested as examples. Similar objections would doubtless be raised against any ordinances designed by Firaxis.

I actually like the idea....I just think it would be very difficult to implement.

colossus · February 8, 2001, 01:14

Korn

While in reality you can have many, many ordinances, in civ3 you will destroy the game. The effects of unlimited ordinances are similar to unlimited wonders in a more uncontrollable fashion. You can solve the problems of happiness, production, money, science, etc. simultaneously by issuing the appropriate ordinances. Then there is no point for change of government. In civ2, we still have to choose fundy for conquest or demo for A.C., but if demo can be as strong militarily as fundy, why change the government? The game will degenrate to rushing all the advances to get the benefits of ordinances.

Grumbold · February 8, 2001, 07:32

The way I envisage ordinances they are not things that can, even in combination, solve all the problems of any government type except at massive cost. For example, state funded healthcare will have a good impact on happiness, assist population growth by saving and lengthening lives, benefit medical science but slowly grow in cost until it becomes a huge financial burden to maintain. Somewhat opposite to this, pollution controls will cost significantly from the outset but not have many benefits until it has been in place for years.

A democracy with pollution controls, free health, full education, anti-nuclear, no conscription/national service, extensive police funding but no death penalty will be an enviable place to live but runs the risk of being dangerously uncompetitive and needing high levels of taxation. If the policies are chosen well you should always have to think carefully before activating any of them because there could be long term implications. If all they do is add +1 to something and -1 to something else, as you say it will be all to easy to calculate optimum combinations of policies to fit your circumstances.

Another good one would be War Bonds. It should greatly reduce the cost of maintaining all buildings and troops but when switched off would leave the government double the savings to repay. War is an enormously expensive undertaking that none of the Civ games have ever reflected properly. the UK was effectively bankrupt for almost a decade after WWII.

Biddles · February 8, 2001, 07:48

Civ2 and CTP style governments are just SE, except you don't get to see the pluses and minuses (well in CTP you did see "good" , "bad", "terrible" etc but it wasn't the same). Does anyone disagree with this. I think that SE choices should have points other than just +/- (democracy - civil war etc.), but whichever system is chosen, the choice is inherently +/- based, whether you see what your picking or not.

February 8, 2001, 21:32

I all for anything that improves your choices for goverments... And for min/maxing, yes everyone will do this... but what each person considers to be more important will differ (unless the choices are unbalaned)... I am not a war-monger, I'll take hits in that area to improve health/happiness.

Each person has a diffrent style of play, and I hope that CIV3 will be able to accomodate everyone... and you have to do that with choices.

colossus · February 8, 2001, 23:58

Grumbold

Oh, I strongly agree your points.
To prevent excesses of ordinances the negative effects have to be at least as great as the positive effects. Ordinances may solve an imminent problem but also have grave legacies. This cures my worries about too many ordinances.

For example, conscription can allow for cheaper units(reduced shield costs) but greater maintenance costs, penalties for tax and luxury rates, which impair the growth of civ in long term. So, unless national existence is at stake, you don't want to invoke conscription.

Zeevico · February 9, 2001, 20:05

i really liked the first few ideas by Korn but the rest seem just a bit too complicated. maybe 1 or 2 more of them would be nice but no more than that or else complexity and not depth takes over.

jdlessl · February 10, 2001, 16:51

ChrisShaffer

There is such an unbelievable world of difference between the KGB, Gestapo, etc and today's US law enforcement agencies. For instance, a friend of yours writes an essay for the school newspaper detailing some of the downsides of some minor government policy. With an out-of-control secret police, it would not be unheard of for your friend to simply disappear. Any attempts to find out what happened would be _strongly discouraged_. Should you ever be allowed to leave the country (as, say, a tourist), you would have to do it in a group which would almost certainly have an agent there to keep an eye on you.

Now we gripe often about the heavy hand of the law, and they do sometimes get out of control, but it is like the touch of a feather compared to what went on and in many places does still.

All this means is that I am absolutely in love with this idea of ordinances/policies/charters. Civ with a dash of SimCity. You could actually give your civ distinctiveness. Though it would probably be very hard to balance them all just right.

--
Jared Lessl

Henrik · February 10, 2001, 17:07

quote:

Originally posted by jdlessl on 02-10-2001 03:51 PM
ChrisShaffer

There is such an unbelievable world of difference between the KGB, Gestapo, etc and today's US law enforcement agencies. For instance, a friend of yours writes an essay for the school newspaper detailing some of the downsides of some minor government policy. With an out-of-control secret police, it would not be unheard of for your friend to simply disappear. Any attempts to find out what happened would be _strongly discouraged_. Should you ever be allowed to leave the country (as, say, a tourist), you would have to do it in a group which would almost certainly have an agent there to keep an eye on you.
Now we gripe often about the heavy hand of the law, and they do sometimes get out of control, but it is like the touch of a feather compared to what went on and in many places does still.

Ever heard of the echelon project?
The NSA is monitoring all internet traffic. That's pretty much like a secret police to me.

Zeevico · February 10, 2001, 23:44

there's a difference between echelon and the KGB. in Stalinist Russia, an agent would walk up to you, pretend he's a normal guy and then get you to talk about the government. if you complained then you might be in very big trouble. people opposing the gov. would be taken to Siberia, or prison, or killed. anyhting against the gov. is totally banned. Does echelon have such an influence on internet traffic (would it use it in a democratic society such as america?). Sorry its off topic.

korn469 · February 10, 2001, 23:53

ok after reading the previous post a couple major points become readily apparent...basically you don't want policy inflation and you want for some to make sure that all policies have a downside well here is what i suggest:
[*]have a pool of ordinances that are available to each government[*]have a small pool of global ordinances that any government can choose[*]make it so that only so many ordinances from either pool can be on at once[*]each ordinance has both positives and negatives; these should be stated in the ordinance description[*]more advanced governments have a larger (more interesting) pool of ordinances...since they have a larger pool you can have more ordinances in effect at once[*]when a civ changes an ordinance they have to pay gold (like in SMAC)[*]no change in principle to the civ2 process of changing governments[*]when you change governments your ordinances from the government pool get reset

i think those rules would make ordinances work just fine...

here is an example:

despotism has 12 ordinances available to it in the government pool(with the right tech of course)
you can choose up to 1/3 of the ordinances at any one time...so despotism can have 4 ordinances in effect at one time

monarchy has 15 ordinances available to it in it's government pool, 5 of which can be in effect at any one time

democracy has 18 ordinances available in its government pool, 6 of which can be in effect at any one time

although each government has a specific pool of ordinances, not every ordinance in that pool would be unique...for example both a republic and a democracy would have bill of rights in their pool while both despotism and communism would have secret police in their pool

how does that sound? does anyone object to the general idea of ordinances working within those constraints? if so please explain why

korn469

MagnusL · May 29, 2001, 06:39

I think the list of ordinances was a little capitalistic biased. Why would you
want "Universal Health Care" in a communistic contry, where all resources, products and
services are shared equal among the people?; Everybody already have "free" healthcare..

Also, "Constitution" would loose its meaning under a communist model; There is no
government, there is no ruling class; how can you declare the governments legitamacy if
there is no government?