Fundy is GONE!!

May 5, 2001, 22:07

According to Computer Gaming World magazine, Fundamentalism will not be in Civ III. I call this a blessing, because it was extremely unrealistic. You're supposed to be an evil dictator, and the people are all happy. Also, the rediculous amount of gold you earn is messed up, because religious dictatorships are always poor.

------------------
- SilverDragon, scourge of the western skies

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com

ancient · May 5, 2001, 22:12

yep she was a *****y unrealalistic govt. but god bless her, flags shall be at half-mast.

May 6, 2001, 02:59

I am still in mourning over this news

------------------
Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic Off Topic www.delphi.com/prot1

May 6, 2001, 04:14

Fundamentalism merely needed to be balanced. And why shouldn't it be included? There are several fundamentalist nations in the real world. Not to mention several political groups in the USofA that would like nothing more than to burn the Bill of Rights and institute an Evangelical Southern Baptist Fundamentalist state.

My question is will anything replace it. If Firaxis thinks democracy, republic, monarchy, communism, despotism are enough they are wrong. CTP even had Theocracy and Facism (sp?). Not to mention some of there "future governments" weren't too far off the mark. Isn't the Corporate Republic what Seattle and Quebec were about? Aren't libertarians often ranting about the Technocracy? Come on, at least give us the same choices Activision gave us. You guys at Firaxis don't want to be outdone by Activision do you? Better yet - give us Social Engineering, an endearing element of SMAC and far superior to CTP.

JamesJKirk · May 6, 2001, 04:52

Well Fundamentalism ISN'T a type of government, that's why. It's merely an aspect of a government. I mean Iran is an Islamic Republic, Cromwelliam England was somewhat similar...There have been Fundamentalist Monarchies throughout history, did you ever hear of the divine right of kings, and even a few right out Theocracies. But most importantly, just because a nation bases it's code of laws on religious law doesn't automatically make it a crazed fanatic regime, it's nice to have those little stereotypes so we can see things in black and white, but that's just not how it is.
But, I do definitely agree with you about the need for more future looking governments, as CTP had.
[This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited May 06, 2001).]

Sean · May 6, 2001, 05:51

I won't miss her passing. But there should be a couple/few more government-type options.

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

ancient · May 6, 2001, 08:40

i demand that socialism and communism be seperated, because they are different communism could be the new ideological government and socialist could be communism in civ2 which is pretty crappy. but how ever they could work it out so you could only become comunist after you become socialist for so many years, which would be a nice balancing effect and how the govt. is supposed to work out.

JamesJKirk · May 6, 2001, 13:42

Just the same, Communism, as well as Socialism aren't really types of goverments, they're socioeconomic ideologies. As with Fundamentalism, you could have a communist monarchy, democracy, or dictatorship, or maybe even a futuristic govt where Communism is actually something like was described by Socialist writers and Utopians

MrFun · May 6, 2001, 14:57

I have an idea for an interesting government.

How about ethnocracy?? An ethnocratic government basically gives democratic freedom and rights to one race or ethnic group while denying those same freedom and rights to other race or ethnic groups.

------------------
"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, making exceptions to it -- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?"
-- Abraham Lincoln's quote, and his anti-racist ideals

Warm Beer · May 6, 2001, 15:49

Ohh! That makes me so happy. I was never a big fan of fundamentalism (although I have been known to use it from time to time). For even a large empire with plenty of science improvements could compensate for the lack of science funding. Hmm, though it was mildly amusing to create an ungodly (pun intended) amout of fanatics and going 'jihad' on an opponent... ain't nothing like free cannon fodder.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez

Imran Siddiqui · May 6, 2001, 19:03

I wonder though... will government selection be like Civ2/CtP or SMAC's Social Engineering (SE). I am personally pulling for SE, because then you can have a government type with different philosophy's. It'd be fun to play a Liberal (in the true sense of the word) Republic, or Socialist Dictatorship, etc.

faded glory · May 6, 2001, 19:56

Ahh yes no fundamentalism, but I hear there must be some sort of 'Religous Republic'.

The_Aussie_Lurker · May 6, 2001, 23:41

Hi Everyone,
Well, I can't say that I'll miss Fundamentalism (having replaced it with Fascism long ago!), but I hope that Firaxis completely revamps the government/SE model. I feel that a combination of both SE/Government types is best (ie. you have all the basic government types, with their set bonuses and limitations, but you can use SE to modify the governments "feel" to match your own tastes!). Like most people, I also feel that some more basic government types are needed (like those in CTP1 and 2), but most important of all is the need for greater Social Interaction (SI), which I believe was put forward by The Joker on an earlier civ III forum- with the concepts of factional support and Absolutity (both of which were great ideas). My reason for wanting more SI is so that I feel like my civilization contains real, thinking, people and not just automotons who yield to every dictate I make (like I felt in Civ II at times!) I'd especially like to see true-to-life representations of Civil War and Revolution.
Anyway, sorry for the length of the post, but I've been waiting to say that for months!!
From,
The Aussie Lurker

Roman · May 7, 2001, 06:53

Welcome to Apolyton, Aussie Lurker!

Russian King · May 7, 2001, 08:51

It doesnt matter to me whether fundy is gone, as long as its reallistic!
I used commie more than fundy. better prod and science(and sumtimes gold.)

and YES, FIRAXIS!!!
You should change the WHOLE gov't system into something close to CTP!
and make it a bit more modyfiable!

Phalanx_TS · May 7, 2001, 09:38

* screams in vain * damn nation
my endless wall of fanatics !!! all gone !!!

Pedrun · May 7, 2001, 10:39

The governments shoud be set with two characteristics (and not be a government right away). The Characteristics would be:

1 - Politics- The way the government rules(The civ start withall of this choices) and it could be:

*Democratic Monarchy (Parlamentarism - like england today
*Democratic Republic (Like most countries including USA)
*Absolute Monarch (Like the Modern age states with onipotent kings)
*Absolute Republic (Military Dictatorship - Like the ones that happened in the 1970s in Latin America)

2 - Economics- The ways of production,( must reseach it) it could be:

*Subsistence- The tribal government based on family society (gentility comunity) the one you start with. no units
*Slavism- A societ like the roman empire and greece. unit Slaver
*Feudalism- Like the Medieval Europe. unit Cruzaders or Feudal Sir
*Fundamentalism- Like in theocracies based on god's will. unit Cleric
*Capitalism- Money is everithing like usa. unit ctp's Corporative Branch
*Comunism- like the economy in URSS. unit Comunit Chief
*Liberalism- big companies rules. unit Multinacional Company
*Ambientalism- protect the enviromental. unit Pollution Cleaner
And other economic choices could be created

We could have governments like
................... + Subsistence - pre-historical govern
Democratic Monarchy + Capitalism - England today
Democratic republic + Slavism - Athens in the past
Democratic republic + Capitalism - USA today
Absolute Monarchy + Comunism - URSS
Democratic Republic + Comunism - Marx Ideal government
Absolute Monarchy + Feudalism - Medieval Europe
...
There wouldnt be a government called Anarchy because it never existed (It sounds really stupidy a government that has no govern)

JamesJKirk · May 7, 2001, 11:43

Pedrun-

A lot of stuff like that was mentioned in the pre-list era, but in more detail, but I don't see a point in having democratic monarchies, both becasue of the oxymorony of it (democracy-freedom and equality, monarchy-deep social hierarchy), and because in modern constitutional monarchies, the monarchs are there by tradition, and have no functional use whatsoever. Maybe a difference between Parliamentary and Presidential democracies would be worth trying out, but even then there are too few differences to matter, and what would you do about odd balls like France?
Also, the military dictatorships that refered to themselves as Republics where by no means republics, they just called themselves that for their propaganda purposes, and got knows what else. okay, last qualm, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm bashing you or anything, because that's not my intent. But only under Stalin was the USSR really a dictatorship under one person, for much of the rest of its history, it was in essence a bureaucratic dictatorship, with much power resting in the politburo. Also, it's economic system was more akin to state-dominated capitalism than actual Communism. That's all, and keep up the postings!

Pedrun · May 7, 2001, 13:49

I agree with you about the Democratic Monarchy its contradiction and the tradition-only of the royal family of england. I just wanted to make a logical path between absolute/democratic and monarchy/republic so i associate parliamentarism with it, a unhappy choice like you showed me.
But i still keep the idea of Absolute Republic. where the government is restrict to one class. That happened in my country where there was president(indirect voted), senators and a constitution but that was restrict to militaries. And in Veneza or Polony before XIX where it was restrict to the arithocracy . Although thinking about it that is not going to change enough the gameplay to be considerate a political type.
Living me with Monarchy, Republic and Parliamentarism.
Despite all this i still keep the separation of the politics and economics characteristics (whatever the politics characteristics should be).

TINOMan · May 7, 2001, 16:35

I'm not happy about the losing of fundamentalism, but I understand their decision. When I played, I found that it could be an "easy way out", and it makes sense to abolish it.

tniem · May 7, 2001, 16:58

I still hope that S.E. is back from SMAC and in Civ III in an expanded format. There are just way too many governments today and in the history of the world to simply put them in strict subcategories like they have in the past. Force us to pick balanced elements of each government. I have always felt that to be the best solution.

Matthew · May 8, 2001, 01:42

Aside from the riches availible to a fundamentalist government, the scientific restrictions were also unrealistic. The Islamic world kept science alive in the middle ages, and as reactionary as the Catholic Church was at times, it was also the sole bastion of learning in western Europe during the early middle ages.

Father Beast · May 8, 2001, 05:53

quote:

Originally posted by Phalanx_TS on 05-07-2001 09:38 AM
* screams in vain * damn nation
my endless wall of fanatics !!! all gone !!!

I can appreciate that, but you can always play civ2, just like you can play civ1 if you want the settler cheat.
with a combination of the settler cheat and the unlimited movement cheat, I could improve every square in 1 turn!

now, I wonder if they'll do something about my armies of unlimited movement, unstoppable spies. When a civ attacks me, they all of a sudden discover their cities have no improvements, and are either in civil disorder or are size 1. there goes their unit support...

May 8, 2001, 06:18

The Horse Empire is innately fundamentalist

Our Religion is Horslam!

Our war cry is Allah Horsebah!

Our motto is There is no Horse but Horse!

------------------
Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic Off Topic www.delphi.com/prot1/

Roman · May 8, 2001, 06:56

quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 05-08-2001 06:18 AM
The Horse Empire is innately fundamentalist

Our Religion is Horslam!

Our war cry is Allah Horsebah!

Our motto is There is no Horse but Horse!

ROFLMAO

Anarcho · May 8, 2001, 18:47

Being a Libertarian, I think a good thing to replace Fundamentalism would be Minarchy. Or, even better, Anarcho-Capitalism! (if you're wondering what the hell i'm talking about and are bored, go to anarchism.net) Hey, maybe I'll make a mod

. Also, I agree with some here that Fundamentalism only needs to be balanced, not annihalated.

ancient · May 8, 2001, 20:58

actually communism isnt a form of govt because under communism the working class rules.. and everyone works for the good of the nation.. no one takes more than they need.. it is very idealistic.. and it is nothing like socialism which is a govternment and lives under govt. which is usually not idealistic but realistic..

but heres a idea i have
the abiliaty to mix two or more govts to get a different govt. it would work and it could give you some weird mixes.. but none of them could be all positive cus the program would make sure negativs must be mxed in with positives..
heres a few mixes which we see in the world around us
Democratic Republic - usa (since it isnt a true democracy)
well couldnt think of more.. but i know theres more..
so if you wanted to you could go
Democratic-Communist
Mix Traits from Monarchy and republic and much much more..

St Leo · May 9, 2001, 16:06

Aside from the riches availible to a fundamentalist government, the scientific restrictions were also unrealistic. The Islamic world kept science alive in the middle ages, and as reactionary as the Catholic Church was at times, it was also the sole bastion of learning in western Europe during the early middle ages.

That's because they were not Fundies.

Some SE Ideas:

Economy:
Standard, Feudal, Mercantile, Laissez Faire
Decision Making:
Autocracy, Oligarchy, Representative, Direct
Priorities:
Stability, Wealth, Knowledge, Technology

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

tniem · May 9, 2001, 17:50

Since we are talking about social engineering screen, I have a suggestion that may or may not work.

There has been a lot of talk about woman's suffrage, end of slavery, etc. Why can't a lot of these sweeping social changes happen in the social engineering screen?

You would have to gain the research necessary to get them just like the rest of the S.E. choices, but on top of that there would be a large cost to them. There would be both positive and negatives to all of them. Ending slavery, minorities are happier but loss of cheap labor. Woman's suffrage leads to women in the workplace making them feel more independent but possibility of children to be less healthy (may be to controversial - not sure even I believe that). Any way I think this would add to the S.E. screen and be a perfect place to put these social choices.

Admiral PJ · May 9, 2001, 20:00

SMAC style Social engineering would be great,
but it would be nice to also have defined Democracy/monarchy/communist/despot etc government types as the main SE
choice perhaps,that dictate the major factors.
Maybe whenever you change the full government you get to rearrange your SE choices for free with the new leader and administration (well.. they would already have had a revolution at least so its only fair)

You should at least be able to see something about what the other civs Government/SE choices are.

I wonder if communism would decrease culture levels too, and democracy could increase it.. culture could be a factor in SE manipulations.

Admiral Pete