Duration of Government

[nationalist]

The situations of my latest game have required me to stick with Monarchy for a very long time ( more than 200 turns!). After thinking about this for a while, I have concluded that you should be rewarded for sticking with the same government for a long time.

Governments don't stay the same for hundreds of years, they evolve. Why should my Monarchy have given me the same benefits from its inception in 200 B.C. as it does in 1850 A.D.? I think that if you keep your type of government type for a certain number of turns, you should be able to modify it. For instance, I could be able to turn my Monarchy into a Constitutional monarchy in the manner of Imperial Britain, giving my people more freedom and allowing the same trade rate as a base Democracy. I could also decide to turn my Monarchy into an Absolute Monarchy in the French manner and be able to pacify more citizens militarily. Both forms should be better at handling Corruption than feudal Monarchy. All government types should evolve.

This would reward people for staying in the same government for a long time, because it would reward stability. Stable states are much more effective at governing than are unstable states. On the other side, starting a revolution in these advanced states should cause a longer period of anarchy. After all, it is hard to overturn an advanced government. When order is finally restored, the new form of government will start out at a base level and have to develop. Base Democracy might not generate as much wealth as a Constitutional Monarchy at first.

Allowing governments to evovle would make all of the governments viable throughout the game. No longer would people automatically switch governments, because the more modern government might not be as beneficial to their civilization as the old government. This would add strategy and depth to the game, and reward those who keep stable Civilizations.

[rob.derosa]

A kind of sub-government, that you would choose after a duration of time with a certain government, I like

[N. Machiavelli]

Wasn't there something similar in MOO 2? Your government type would evolve after a certain technology was reached or something similar?

[nationalist]

Not sure. I just think that it would make the game more interesting. Right now, you just move from government to government almost automatically. This could balance government forms better and add a deeper strategy to an as now pretty cut and dry issue. As of now, there is no reason to choose Monarchy over Communism or Democracy unless there are extinuating circumstances (such as in my case).

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Wasn't there something similar in MOO 2? Your government type would evolve after a certain technology was reached or something similar?

As a direct function of technological advancement; only indirectly a function of time (or duration of same the government if you like). Additionally, you couldn't change your government-type in MOO2: If you're Unification, you go to Galactic Unification; if you're Feudal, you go to Confederacy; if you're Democracy, you go to Federation et al.

I agree that it would be nice if maintaining a stable government were rewarded for being maintain for long durations.

Maybe in Civilization IV...

[Traelin]

This is kind of a cool idea, but I'd still prefer a SMACish style of government system. Maybe a mixture of both would be cool. Like instead of choosing a Green Monarchy or something, you'd be able to implement a Constitutional Monarchy with a separate tech. Now that'd be cool!

[Wormwood]

Perhaps attaching the option to a tech, like constitutional monarchy to democracy. Actually, since my understanding is that you can add governments to the editor, you could just create new governments and attach them to existing techs. Just take the base of Monarchy, and better military policing, or better trade bonuses, and so on. Maybe you could even have an improved form of communism that actually works.

[nationalist]

The point is that I don't want it to be a new tech. A new tech would force you to have a revolution. What I am proposing are changes based solely on number of turns you have been in the government. When you have been under feudal Monarchy (that is what I call Monarchy as it is presently shown) you get the option of evolving your monarchy into either Constituional Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy. It wouldn't require a revolution to become the more advanced monarchy, it would represent the evolution of the government. It would be a reward for sticking with a form of government for a long time. Adding a Constitutional Monarchy tech requiring revolution would totally defeat the purpose.

[Wormwood]

My suggestion was just a means of implementing your idea, which I feel is a good one, as well as can be done within the means at hand.

[ToeTruck]

I think Nationalist's idea is an excellent one, but like many of the other posters, I don't like the idea of "sub-governments" or associating these benefits with a tech.

The game mechanics related to government type are:

- Corruption
- Unit support costs
- Tile production
- Bonus revenue
- Pop/gold rushing
- Worker efficiency
- Spy efficiency
- Resistance to propaganda
- War weariness

I suggest that the various governments improve over time in regards to these game mechanics.

Examples:

- After 100 turns of the same government, corruption decreases by 25%.

- After 100 turns of Monarchy, Republic, or Democracy, improvement rushes cost 25% less.

- After 100 turns of Democracy, worker efficiency increases by 25%.

I've thought about this for exactly the time it has taken me to read these posts and formulate a reply so I'm sure there are a lot of better ideas out there.

- TT

[nationalist]

TT,

Yeah, that is along the lines of what I was talking about. You should get some sort of bonus for staying in a stable government for a long time. I still like my idea of those changes coming along with a modified government name (ie after 100 turns your Monarchy becomes a Constitutional Monarchy or an Absolute Monarchy and you get the bonuses that you prescribed.) This process would have nothing to do with tech progression.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nationalist
Yeah, that is along the lines of what I was talking about. You should get some sort of bonus for staying in a stable government for a long time.

I am not sure if this bonus would be realistic/justified for all sorts of governments. Certain types (monarchy/feudalism, communism) tend to degenerate over time, so a malus might be more appropriate as far as realism is concerned... it may be a good way to make more advanced forms of government (like democracy) more viable...

[rob.derosa]

Originally posted by vondrack

I am not sure if this bonus would be realistic/justified for all sorts of governments. Certain types (monarchy/feudalism, communism) tend to degenerate over time, so a malus might be more appropriate as far as realism is concerned... it may be a good way to make more advanced forms of government (like democracy) more viable...

So it could depend on the mood of the empire, more than 25% of turns with more than half of the cities rioting, it degrades, less than 25% it improves (and this would be calculated from the start of the governemnt), or something similar.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by ToeTruck
- After 100 turns of Democracy, worker efficiency increases by 25%.

If you were to implement Nationalist's idea, you would have to at least require 200 turns of the same government. Additionally (since I generally beeline for Demo), I would find increased worker efficiency to be pretty useless by the time my 200 turns was up in Demo. That would be especially true with an Industrious Civ. I'd much rather have something like an increase in trade or -- better yet -- an increase in the number of happy faces created by luxuries. In fact, that would make a lot of sense, since I really think that we Americans have become VERY content (read: spoiled) with our "luxuries" and couldn't imagine not having them.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by vondrack

Certain types (monarchy/feudalism, communism) tend to degenerate over time, so a malus might be more appropriate as far as realism is concerned

It may not be 100% accurate, but I think that my idea has at least some historical weight.

Look at the British Monarchy. It has been evolving for a thousand years. The power of the monarch has declined almost completely, but the Monarch is still there. It is still technically the monarchy. This isn't a decline so much as an evolution. The decline of Communism is also an evolution. It started as "base" Communism (Leninist U.S.S.R.), evolved into Totalitarian (Stalinist), then it started liberalizing slighty, evoloving into Gorbachev's more liberal Communism. The goernment still had the same basic structure throughout all of the periods, the policies just developed as time went on. (Granted, these are the most minimalist of summaries)
The change to Democracy was like a Civ 3 revolution. The entire structure of the government had changed.

Overall, my idea is meant to make government types other than Democrcay and Communism viable during the last half of the game. Maybe there could be a way to implement a decline in the government, to show that some systems have simply declined rather than evolved. Maybe causing a spontaneous coup de tat or revolution if things aren't acceptable (I.E. serious disorder in multiple turns for long lengths of time.)

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Traelin

I'd much rather have something like an increase in trade or -- better yet -- an increase in the number of happy faces created by luxuries. In fact, that would make a lot of sense, since I really think that we Americans have become VERY content (read: spoiled) with our "luxuries" and couldn't imagine not having them.

That's a good idea. Maybe the Democracy could have a choice of evolving into a Euro type Social Democracy where the state takes care of things like health care. That could ranslate gamewise into an increased number of happy faces from luxuries, or an increased efficiency of the happiness slider on the advisor screen.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Well if you really want to mix things up, pull out an old copy of Traveller by GDW. There were about 20 different governments in the original rules and the magazines used to have a couple more each month.

The main thing missing from the government designs is the effects of technology on the politics and cultures. The modern age is especially under influenced because there is no representation of television, movies or the Internet.

Those three have been the main cultural driving influences for the last 40 years or so. Before that it was newspapers and radio. They also affect the way people see their leaders by changing the cultural norms. I don't think it will do anything to increase efficiency, but it should definitely skew the happiness levels: riots in one city could lead to riots in nearby ones in sympathy.

The other thing missing is the ability of a city to just break away and setup on their own. CivII had barbarian cities and CTP2 had the new cities setup as their own civilization. The last option would be the best - all those isolated cities on islands or on the far side of a continent behind another civ's borders. Why wouldn't they evolve into their own civilization ? Especially if the source civ was strong enough they wouldn't flip to the neighbour's side.

Maybe in the first patch for PTW... unless we can make the editor do it for us. Just another idea for Firaxis to mull over.

D.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen

Maybe in the first patch for PTW... unless we can make the editor do it for us. Just another idea for Firaxis to mull over.

D.

Yeah. Hopefully Firaxis reads some of our posts here at Polly. Alot of people have good ideas on how to improve the game.

[Tassadar500]

Great idea. Really the republic government used to be pretty gruesome.

[jdd2007]

i think its a fabulous idea, but one that we wont see in the game for a long time

[bbaws]

Religious Civs get this crazy advantage that they can change governments willy nilly. The magna carta approach makes sense, stay with one governmant for 500 years, the revolution should be painless, the ppl must be ready for the change??? Lets face it, you are doing them a favour.

[bbaws]

One turn of anarchy once you discover the Printing Press for moving up the freedom tree, three turns of anarchy after PP if you are taking freedom away seems fair to me.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nationalist
It may not be 100% accurate, but I think that my idea has at least some historical weight.

Look at the British Monarchy. It has been evolving for a thousand years. The power of the monarch has declined almost completely, but the Monarch is still there. It is still technically the monarchy. This isn't a decline so much as an evolution. The decline of Communism is also an evolution. It started as "base" Communism (Leninist U.S.S.R.), evolved into Totalitarian (Stalinist), then it started liberalizing slighty, evoloving into Gorbachev's more liberal Communism. The goernment still had the same basic structure throughout all of the periods, the policies just developed as time went on. (Granted, these are the most minimalist of summaries)
The change to Democracy was like a Civ 3 revolution. The entire structure of the government had changed.

While this sounds right in the historical and real world context, it would not be correct in Civ terms. Although Britain is (technically? theoretically?) called a Monarchy, it is actually a Democracy in Civ terms. Or... do British cities still provide free military units to the Queen? Is the corruption in the UK still a "significant problem"?

The same goes for Communism. Sorry to say so, but you are mistaken about its "evolution"... it has actually been a steady decline for a very long time. The eventual "revolution" started by Gorbachev was an inevitable result - the system was doing worse and worse for decades. It was simply no longer possible to run it - mostly for economic reasons. Now it is closest to Democracy in Civ terms...

Throughout history, the government systems in major countries were usually getting weaker in the long run. The only system that hasn't become obsolete yet is Democracy, or, more precisely, Modern Democracy (but that one is pretty new). That's why I somehow feel that awarding long-lasting governments would be inappropriate.

I like the idea of a "freedom tree" or freedom trees (economical, religious, politic, military...?) that could be climbed up and down, incuring penalties if being climbed down, granting bonuses if climbed up. The actual type of government would actually be defined by the level of individual freedoms. People might, for example, demand more freedom depending on the level of freedom in neighbouring countries...

I guess I heard that SMAC had something like that. Never played it long enough to get to this point, though, so accept my apologies if discovering already discovered...

[NeOmega]

- After 100 turns of the same government, corruption decreases by 25%.

- After 100 turns of Monarchy, Republic, or Democracy, improvement rushes cost 25% less.

- After 100 turns of Democracy, worker efficiency increases by 25%.

I disagree with the whole premise of this. I am of the belief that governments always get worse over time.

Governments always get more corrupt over time, it is the nature of power.

Less expensive improvement rushing in Rep or Dem? HAH! Ever hear of the $8,000 pentagon toilet seat. Believe, due to government contracts, everything is more expensive than it ever was. ANd over time the connections become more and more exclusive, until only the elite are trading with the government, and charging whatever they want.

[Gen.Dragolen]

NeOmega,

I think what's missing for you (and a few of us) is the random events that make it into the news: remember how SimCity had a newspaper that had comments on what you were doing and not doing ?

Politics makes for strange bed fellows and yes, governments do become more corrupt (and that is why they seem even more incompetent as time goes by) and leads to the fall of one form and the rise of another.

Considering most of the world lives under dictatorships still (Despotism) it would be nice to see some cultural/technological changes within a government type to liven things up. A good place to start is with a free Press. Here in Canada, it was a major step towards building the country in the mid 1800's and the Prime Minister's Office has been trying to tie them down ever since.

Let's say a Free Press was an advance that led to 1 more unhappy person in a city, but reduced corruption by 50% once you built a newspaper. The effects could last until the discovery of Television. Then you get one more happy person and it costs 2-3 times as much to build.

Yes we need some different government types, but what we need is more action on the home front. Give us events like scandals that drive up the maintenance costs for one city or that sap the strength of the combat units. Another good idea would be to have the scandal increase the corruption/waste in a city for say 10 turns or so.

Or allow for things like skeleton units like the Russians had in Eastern Europe: in 90%of the Red Armies divisions, the only crews in the infantry combat vehicles were the driver and the commander. The soldiers the BMP's would carry were all conscripts, mostly from Asiatic areas who would be brought up as part of mobilization.

Another useful idea for governments would be a change of leaders: say one despotism has a leader (or communist government) and if the populace is oppressed enough, they riot, revolt and overthrown the governement. This could be in any city, or the whole country, depending on how bad things are at the time. After the requisite number of turns of Anarchy, they choose a new government type and a new leader. This would really put a damper on pop rushing units and conscripting too many infantry to fend off an invasion.

Give us a few more political options, like aiding the rebels/insurgents and look out. The game would be a little slower, more details and way more unpredictible. It would make keeping a huge empire together more of a challenge than it is. You could almost do away with domination wins since you'd be having to reconquer parts of your core empire that keep revolting and declaring independence.

(I've been playing on a huge map for the last couple of weeks and it's been getting stale waiting to produce enough units to overrun all of the immediate neighbours...)


D.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Ever hear of the $8,000 pentagon toilet seat.

It was worth every penny. You'd have to sit on it to understand.

[NeOmega]

yes, I agree more options would be nice, say republics and democracies having shifts of power and such, but to make a government get better over time? I don't like what that could be teaching our children....... WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

I mean I just disagree with the notion of a government improving over time, although I do like the idea of internal power struggles in monarchies, party changes in democracy and Republic, and a stable communist party.