Politics in CIV.

[Darth Balrog]

Hi,

Preamble: I enjoy play CIV.

But...

Something I real didn't like in CIV is the menagement of the politics.

This are the reasons:

1. Production: Why with the democracy people produce more shield and grain? I mean this would been better it depends by technology, not by politics!

2. Corruption: Why with democracy there is less corruption? Maybe because the USA are a democracy? I'm not so sure that in USA there is not corruption... Or, I don't belive that in the USA there is less corruption than in the first years of Rome (monarchy or dictatorship that was it...).

3. Spy ability: Why with communism the spy are best? Did they look too 007 films? The ability of an army or a spy wouldn't depend by politics, but by others things: thecnology at first.

I'm not communist, or for monarchy for sure, but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

[georges bonbon]

Originally posted by Darth Balrog

I'm not communist, or for monarchy for sure, but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

I do not agree with you at all.

Whatever mapsize you are playing on, big empires only produce under communist rule.

[Kuciwalker]

Heck no. With COMMUNAL corruption, communism is really bad for big empires.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Darth Balrog

..., but sometimes CIV looks like an advertising for USA democracy...

Don't you?

I always wondered whether the programmers had no kwnowledge at all in politics or whether they just had choosen politically correctness.

Probably both.

They all mix together.

They call "governments type" things so much different as communism and monarchy. Communism is an ideology, monarchy is a government where the state's leader is one man, for is entire life, and often with hereditarian rules. For example, you can have a democratic monarchy (UK) or a communist one (North Corea).

And of course, in civ, democracy must be economicaly liberal, communism is always a sovietic "stalinist" government, there is no fascist despotism, etc.

I am not communist neither. I don't think at all that sovietism is a solution, neither enlighted despotism and so on...

I just say this because I am not sure every one can get the nuances of what I have written.

[Azeem]

I modded the governments a bit to be more sensible. There is NO "communism" but rather, I had it divided into "Bolshevism" (which evolved into "Stalinism" in the Soviet Union and then "Maoism" in China) and "Democratic Socialism".

The government system really lacks depth and is over-simplified. If I can get a decent graphics program, I would mod the governments further so they can each have unique "edicts" and buildings.

[dexters]

M. le Comte , Firaxis has said repeatedly they want Civ to be an experience in reliving history and not so much a laboratory in social engineering.

I think it would have been obvious for them to separate religion from political institutions and political institutions from ideologies/economic systems, and allow people to mix and match.

That's been on the wishlist for a long time, and an argument can be made for it, since it can be said the way Civ is played by most people, we are re-writing history. Who is to say that a communist monarchy wouldn't be possible in some alternate universe ?

Anyways, maybe in Civ4.

[ktaek]

The bad naming is because the 2 major real world models for what govts they were using called themselves those names, even though they had little to do with the actual principles.

A true democracy would work feasibly only for small states. In Washington state we have what could be called a democracy since citizens vote on major bills, not the legislature. Even for just washington it's a nightmare.

A true communist state, well i have no idea what that would be like on a nation scale.

Since Civ3 is more about history and less about theory (for that go play Alpha Centauri), those names get associated with their HISTORICAL examples vs their THEORETICAL examples.

[Kuciwalker]

The thing is that with the number of options for governments, creating very specific governments would be pointless, as they'd be indistinguishable from an in-game point of view

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azeem
I modded the governments a bit to be more sensible. There is NO "communism" but rather, I had it divided into "Bolshevism" (which evolved into "Stalinism" in the Soviet Union and then "Maoism" in China) and "Democratic Socialism".

The government system really lacks depth and is over-simplified. If I can get a decent graphics program, I would mod the governments further so they can each have unique "edicts" and buildings.

hi ,

huh , what country would you say fits under " social democraZy " , .....

have a nice day

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, actually Panag, he said Democratic Socialist-which is VERY different from a Social Democracy!! There are NO truly Democratic socialist governments that I am aware of, though the local governments of some left-leaning nations do fit that mould!! Social Democracies, on the other hand, tend to be identified by a Centre-left government, usually as a coalition! They also can be identified by their "High-Tax, High-spending" policies! Most Central and Northern European governments fit into this mould-eg Sweden, Norway and Germany!

Hope this helps, Panag.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[CrONoS]

Hi
Canada can be fit under Social Democracy (free health care, social assistance, strong central government, higher taxes.... )
Here there is a strong social-democracy tradition, maybe all political party in Canada, are left-centrism or right-centrism... we do not have real right-wing or left-wing political party...

It has been say before, but, I will suggest that some aspect of your government can change after doing some action or taken some decision, your government evolving not by clicking on the Revolution button but when taken some decision...

We can separate Government, by having an Economic and Political aspect of our government. If we do not want this too complex, we just have to add an Economic aspect and a Political Aspect for your government in Civilization(4?)... I think it will be quite simple and better...

see ya

Dom,

[Agathon]

The effects of the various government types should alter with the tech level increases.

Democracy just isn't going to work until a certain level is reached. I mean, look at Athens, what a disaster.

[ktaek]

We can separate Government, by having an Economic and Political aspect of our government.

Alpha Centauri did something very similar, they had 4(?) separate aspects to your government and you could research and choose which mix of 4 aspects. It was awesome.

But i think someone else said it best, Civ3 is mainly about replaying history not inventing the future. So those govts that never really came about (such as a true socialism) aren't in the game.

[bobbo008]

"But i think someone else said it best, Civ3 is mainly about replaying history not inventing the future. So those govts that never really came about (such as a true socialism) aren't in the game."

i wouldn't say "replaying history", as, you know, the Aztecs never really learned how to create Pikeman, which contradicts the Aztec stealth bombers currently flying overhead in my game...

[Azeem]

How is my playing as the Iroquois conquering all of America "replaying history"? This game absolutely IS "inventing the future" because you're supposed to "recreate" and "alter" the course of history.

[Paulypav]

Governments are thousands of times more complex than anything that we can have in civ. I have always felt that the traits of the governments were intended to mirror the theoretical foundations of these governments with some of the pratical mixed in. In a democracy, because of the fact that people are supposed to be involved in the decision making of the country they will be more willing to work increasing productivity and commerce, and because people made the decisions together there will not need to be as much theft and corruption. In theory, corruption and waste would dissapear in a democracy, since this is not the case in reality, it is not the case in the game.

In response to the thought that democracy having its beneficial traits being the result of a pro-american bias, I think it's garbage. I am sure that if you asked any american and in many cases american programmers in particular you would find that most of us felt there was a great deal of corruption in our great democracy. All politicians are believed to be liars and crooks, and we feel the same about many of our corporate officers. Democracy does not eliminate corruption but it does reduce it.

[GePap]

It would have been very nice if Cv3 had kept SMAC's social enginnering scales, in which different types of ecomics and politics could be mixed to create more varied forms of governemnts and societies.

It would have been great for the civ line to incorporate this very smart addition (which is slightly different from exisst in Europa Universalis).

[Chilean President™]

In C3C they are going to include more governments but I think that the ones included in the mod Double your Pleasure (by Kal-el) were very good and should be a must in the next XP.
Facism, Federal Republic, Absolut Monarchy, Chiefdom, Social Democracy, etc...

they should add also the parliamentarian monarchy and the parliamentarian democracy, used commonly in Europe.

[Panag]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Ummm, actually Panag, he said Democratic Socialist-which is VERY different from a Social Democracy!! There are NO truly Democratic socialist governments that I am aware of, though the local governments of some left-leaning nations do fit that mould!! Social Democracies, on the other hand, tend to be identified by a Centre-left government, usually as a coalition! They also can be identified by their "High-Tax, High-spending" policies! Most Central and Northern European governments fit into this mould-eg Sweden, Norway and Germany!

Hope this helps, Panag.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

hi ,

it does not matter what he said , there aint a single country that comes close to it , ......

have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chilean President
In C3C they are going to include more governments but I think that the ones included in the mod Double your Pleasure (by Kal-el) were very good and should be a must in the next XP.
Facism, Federal Republic, Absolut Monarchy, Chiefdom, Social Democracy, etc...

they should add also the parliamentarian monarchy and the parliamentarian democracy, used commonly in Europe.

There is basically no difference in how the last two work, and what thier effects could be, not on trade, porduction, espionage, drafting, or anything else. The biggets porblem in civ is that "government" comes to also include values and economic systems, as if those two were inseperable form a form of government, which is not true.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

This game, while it would be great to be some complex for some of us, the general populous majority needs simpler rules with simpler ideas. The more complex the ideology behind the game, the fewer they sell.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
This game, while it would be great to be some complex for some of us, the general populous majority needs simpler rules with simpler ideas. The more complex the ideology behind the game, the fewer they sell.

While this is true, there should be some catering to their hardcore audience while thay still have one. Civ3 Advanced? It apparently isn't impossible if it has been modded already.

[johncmcleod]

I wrote a thread on what I thought would be a better idea for an economic system. In it was the idea of choosing a government and an economic system. There are two sliders you have. One is the economic slider. To the right would be capitalism (I mean extreme capitalism, General Pinochet style), in the middle would be socialism, and to the left would be communism. Of course there'd be lots of notches in between. The US would be just to the left of capitalism. Then there'd be the government slider. Each notch would be a government. To the right would be fascism, to the left would be anarchy, and other stuff would be in between.

[lord of the mark]

iiuc some of the inspiration for the Civ2 political system is from Francis Fukayamas "The end of history and the last man" a Hegelian work that posits late capitalist democracy as the culmination of history (dont ask me why, go read the book if youre interested) This would match the Hegelian view that Reynolds (an undergrad Phil major, IIUC) designed into the game, in which despotism, monarchy, democracy etc are not opposites, but stages which dialectically evolve into each other - the earlier stage is necessary for the later stage, and the later stage is the solution to the contradictions presented by the earlier stage. Republic and monarchy represent two alternate paths to Demo, and Commie and fundie represent alternate responses to particular historical conditions, which are both however beaten by the most fully developed Demos. Commie must be included, as the last great ideological battle is that of leninism against capitalist demo. Fundie is in as this is discussed by Fukayama as a potenial rival to demo, but one he expects to lose. Fascism is not included - post-1945 right wing despotisms are seen by Fukiyama as having no real ideology - real fascism, 1922 to 1945 is to short an episode. Social democracy is not included, because Fukiyamas view of capitalist democracy is broad - youre still a capitalist democracy with nationalized healthcare, high taxes, etc. Those are "details" - again see the book.

Civ2 uses historical govt types for the historical atmosphere, and to play out the above historical narrative. SMAC is a sci-fi game, where different combos seemed more appropriate. IIUC there are gameplay problems with them in SMAC though - they add to the complexity of a very complex game - with problems for mass appeal and also for the AI.

I havent played Civ 3, but my sense is they no longer have the philosophical orientation Brian had.

For more on philosophy and Civ2, see my column, Civ2's Hegelian tech tree. I dont know SMAC well enough yet to discuss its philosophical issues, but clearly Brian was having philosophy fun in that game.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


There is basically no difference in how the last two work, and what thier effects could be, not on trade, porduction, espionage, drafting, or anything else. The biggets porblem in civ is that "government" comes to also include values and economic systems, as if those two were inseperable form a form of government, which is not true.

i think to fukiyama, they are inseperable. You cant have democracy without the private space made possible by private property and freedom to contract (note that capitalism is seen broadly - a well developed welfare state, progressive taxation, some govt ownership of the means of production, etc are still possible within a broadly capitalist economy) And fully developed industrial capitalism is NOT possible in the long term without democracy - Pinochet's Chile, post-1980 China, etc are temporary expedients, and generate contradictions that will lead to change.

[Aramis]

There is little point, I've come to realise, in caring a whit about the name of the government type I choose. In CIV all that seems to really matter in the govt types are what they do for production and corruption. My experience has been seeing all the AI civs eventually become Democracies (unless hopelessly losing a war--then they turn Communist). This is to take advantage of the increased production and decreased corruption. I'm not getting into effect on unit costs or spy experience, as they are relatively minor.
I've yet to see the preferred govt type of any civ become their long-term govt. They always wind up as Democracies. Me, as well. I can't even see any purpose to the preferred govt types except (and I'm not completely sure) in determining the length of turns a civ is in anarchy while changing govts.
In short-- the names of govt types in CIV mean nothing. They're just a tool in dealing with production and accumulating gold and might as well be labelled A B C D and E. A very useful game tool, but they don't resemble much of anything in history.

[johncmcleod]

Cronos mentioned Canada having a strong central government. Isn't Canada more of a confederation?

[Kuciwalker]

Canada is Canana. 'nuff said

[Jon Shafer]

I think the way governments work in Civ 3 is pretty cool (despotism can only produce so much, support costs, etc.), though I wish they would refine some things. For example, Monarchy and Communism are both nearly worthless unless you're fighting a big war.

As Rob said, there's not much connection between government type and its Civ (3) reflection, aside from a couple things like forced labor and such.

[Panag]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Cronos mentioned Canada having a strong central government. Isn't Canada more of a confederation?

hi ,

yeah , but one thats part of the commonwealth , ......

now there is something that might be intresting , .....

look at the french , they have the overseas dept , the brits have canada , australia , etc , ...... the US the marshall island , etc , ......

it would be nice to see this reflected in the game , .....

have a nice day