Sorry if this has been posted somewhere else already (there are a lot of posts to wade through) but I think civ4 should have much more differentiation between government types. I haven’t really thought about earlier governments but definitely the modern age ones (democracy, communism and fascism (and fundamentalism?)) should be different. playing civ3 the only things gov. types seem to influence is corruption, unit support and war weariness. I'm sure the advocates of these different systems had/have a bit more in mind than this.
an easy way would be to make democracy more profit orientated or possibly better for research, fascism more war orientated, and communism production orientated. You certainly shouldn’t be able to build any religious structures under communism or stock markets, possibly cinemas could replace the temples/cathedrals. and some kind of improved factories (or forced labour camp) instead to replace the stock market. each government style should have more of its own wonders (glorious 5 year plans, eugenics programmes etc). and definitely unique units. once you have chosen a government it should also open up specific tech trees, (such as in some of the conquests scenarios in Civ 3).
communist governments should also have much better relations with other communist nations and bad relations with fascist nations.
gov types should also have a major effect on different nationalities in your cities, i.e. in happiness and unrest terms, making it more or less likely that parts of your empire try to break off.
any graphic differences in architecture/unit design/displays on screen would also be welcome.
I guess some people would think this unnecessarily complicate things but if there are different governments to choose then they might as well have noticeable differences. even civ 2 gov. types had greater implications than those in civ 3, though I may just have an idealised view of civ 2 having not played it for ages.

In Civ 2 balance was a huge issue because of the power of the trade bonus of Democracy. Communism could keep people happy, but just not produce the research/gold that Democracy did. Fundy was fun at the end of the game for nuking and all out war.

Personally I would like to see a distinction between economic, political, and judicial systems. For example China is a Partially Capitalist, Socialist, and I am not sure how to define the judicial system. The USSR was Communist, Socialist Oligarchy, and Police State.

Also each of these systems should have speicific names relative to their civ. Fascism referred to the government in Mussolini's Italy. Nazism was that of the Nazi party. Junta is a common term for military states in Latin America. Etc.

with regards to the politcal, economic, judicial/legal aspects that depends on whether the gov types are based on the ideal of that government or the practicality of that rule. for example, communist china might have a massive private sector now but thats certainly not how it was envisaged by Mao. fascist italy might have been intended to be some radical/revolutionary new type of state and government (a third way between capitalist and communism) but it ended up as a corrupt, ineffectual right wing dictatorship with a capitalist economy.

As has been said before on this forum, a SMAC-style government interface would be FANTASTIC! As your tech increases, you get more options in each category of gov't. Then you can only have one active option in each category, each giving you bonuses and penalties.

Very interesting, very realistic (since you enacted policies!). Bring it to Civ4!!!

with regards to the politcal, economic, judicial/legal aspects that depends on whether the gov types are based on the ideal of that government or the practicality of that rule. for example, communist china might have a massive private sector now but thats certainly not how it was envisaged by Mao. fascist italy might have been intended to be some radical/revolutionary new type of state and government (a third way between capitalist and communism) but it ended up as a corrupt, ineffectual right wing dictatorship with a capitalist economy.

Very good point. This leads me into a new game direction. If you can define cultural values throughout the game(several threads on this) then here is one of the applications. Certain cultural values or knowledge would affect how well a particular government, economy, etc. would work. A nation that has been naturally private sector for a long time would do very poorly under a communal economy. A nation that has been a serf state for centuries would do much better in a commmunal economy. Nations that are very individualized would not do as well under centralized governments as much as those who are nationalized. So this would be a natural deterent to certain styles of play if you wanted the benefits of certain governments.

you could opt for a default 'orthodox' government which would emulate soviet communism or american capitalist democracy (for example) where the settings are fixed or you could create your own ones which take different aspects from governments creating systems like western european social democracies, chinese or yugolsavian communism , or libyan arab socialism (for example).
though maybe Im just trying to turn civ into some kind of cold war global politcs simulator.

As has been said before on this forum, a SMAC-style government interface would be FANTASTIC! As your tech increases, you get more options in each category of gov't. Then you can only have one active option in each category, each giving you bonuses and penalties.

Very interesting, very realistic (since you enacted policies!). Bring it to Civ4!!!

I most heartily agree with this idea! SMAC's government style was something I very much approved of, as it allowed me to attune my government to my playing style, even when I was trying to preserve the planet as CEO Morgan or Human rights as Chairman Yang or something...

Well, as most people here would know, I support a mix of Government Labels (i.e. Republic, Democracy, Socialist, Theocracy etc)-with certain DEFAULT settings, combined with a number of sliders that you can adjust to make the government YOUR OWN. These might include 'Militarism', 'Nationalism', 'Materialism', 'Legalism', 'Theism', 'Libertarianism', 'Sufferage'-amongst others. Increasing or decreasing these will have profound effects on the behaviour of your civ, though going to far, too fast might cause people to become incredibly unhappy, wheras not going far enough might also lead to discontent within certain groups in your society.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

the trouble with these suggestions esp my own is that they only really apply to the last era of the game, from industrialisation onwards. the great majority of people in pre-industrial era had no real input into the political life of a nation (as they tended to be governed by the ideals of divine right of kings etc.)a ruler would have no obligations to them except making sure they didnt all starve. there was no advanced political concepts such as nationalism, socialism, etc as these developed in the 18th century. therefore the last part of the civ4 would suddenly introduce some heavyweight politcal ideas which wouldnt be present at the start. i would enjoy this, but a lot of people dont seem to be big fans of the modern era of the game anyway.
also balancing conflciting political factions is sometimes a pain a good example of which is tropico.

But there are core concepts that can be applied to the earlier areas. Surely, one could have an option to shift gov't policy to "Agriculture" once discovering Pottery (granary); or perhaps upon discovering Invention, enact a gov't policy for "Gov't Sponsored Intellectual Debates" ...

hmmm... this just got me thinking... what if you could actually enact empire-wide policies that were more than just the SMAC-style gov't?? So you have a Republic that abhores slavery (+2happiness, -1production?) and has Divine Mandate (+1happiness, temple no cost, -2science?). Then, you 'enact policy:' "Religious Ferver" (attack10%, -1science)...

That would add SO MUCH depth to the game, and make gov'ts all the more interesting, because it wouldn't be the same "cookie-cutter" gov'ts over and over again, with Democracy being the best (or Communism, depending on which strategy you like).

As has been said before on this forum, a SMAC-style government interface would be FANTASTIC! As your tech increases, you get more options in each category of gov't. Then you can only have one active option in each category, each giving you bonuses and penalties.

Very interesting, very realistic (since you enacted policies!). Bring it to Civ4!!!

:goodjob: That's it. No more talking necessary.

Well, as most people here would know, I support a mix of Government Labels (i.e. Republic, Democracy, Socialist, Theocracy etc)-with certain DEFAULT settings, combined with a number of sliders that you can adjust to make the government YOUR OWN. These might include 'Militarism', 'Nationalism', 'Materialism', 'Legalism', 'Theism', 'Libertarianism', 'Sufferage'-amongst others. Increasing or decreasing these will have profound effects on the behaviour of your civ, though going to far, too fast might cause people to become incredibly unhappy, wheras not going far enough might also lead to discontent within certain groups in your society.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I agree with this sort of system with one addition. Players should have less control over what type of governments are chosen and when revolutions happen. There should always be a chance that the citizens go for fudamentalizm say rather than the communist govt. that you wanted to choose.

I agree with this sort of system with one addition. Players should have less control over what type of governments are chosen and when revolutions happen. There should always be a chance that the citizens go for fudamentalizm say rather than the communist govt. that you wanted to choose.

I think that ruins the spirit of a PLAYER-controlled game. Although random events add a nice edge to the game, I still want to be absolute ruler of my civ!! :king: (no matter what gov't I am!) I'd get pretty annoyed if my 'people' autonomously changed gov't on me. :mad:

Then again, if there was an option to turn this off, I'd be okay with that. :goodjob:

I'd get pretty annoyed if my 'people' autonomously changed gov't on mad...

that same day everyone would get a train ride to the gulags.

I think that ruins the spirit of a PLAYER-controlled game. Although random events add a nice edge to the game, I still want to be absolute ruler of my civ!! :king: (no matter what gov't I am!) I'd get pretty annoyed if my 'people' autonomously changed gov't on me. :mad:

Then again, if there was an option to turn this off, I'd be okay with that. :goodjob:
Then don't choose a democracy :p . I guess there should be a way to put down a revolt too. I'ts hard for me to play the game and be the absolute ruller of my democrcy, thats all.

@brinko. Gulags would be ok; you would just have to take the production and economic hit for removing productive citizens from your workforce. Oh, and take the reputation hit perhapse.

Then don't choose a democracy :p .

I guess that's why I tend to go for Communism... :lol:

I find it highly amusing that some people want the experience of running a civilization, yet don't want the real dilemmas which come from ruling over real people :mischief: . The fact is that any ruler-current or past-has had to deal with the fact that sometimes his people did things he didn't want them to do, and/or refused to let him do the things HE wanted to do.
The way I see it, government changes should occur in one of two ways:

1) You change the government yourself, without your peoples say-so. If you try and change to a government the people don't like, then your domestic advisor will inform you of that case. Also, if you currently have a high sufferage level, then your people might try and thwart you. If you go ahead and do it anyway, then you will suffer a major happiness hit-nationwide-and could be looking at a civil war and/or rebellion. Even if you change to a government they like, you would still suffer a loss to your accumulated wealth and culture-and a smaller happiness loss-to represent the period of anarchy which often surrounds major changes in government type.

2) The people demand you change to a new government. Your domestic advisor informs you of this case and, if you refuse, then you will take a huge happiness hit. Also, if sufferage is currently high, then they can go ahead and change it without your approval (though you can change it straight back again). Either way, though, this might prove to be a trigger for either a Civil War and/or a rebellion.
These factors would go a long way towards stopping players from doing the old democracy/communism switch between war and peace, whilst not neccessarily crippling your whole nation for several turns as currently occurs.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I find it highly amusing that some people want the experience of running a civilization, yet don't want the real dilemmas which come from ruling over real people .

I don't know how to justify it, really. I like the random bits that happen here and there (volcanoes, culture flipping, etc) but for some reason, when my gov't changes without my consent, it really cheeses me off.

Call me a hypocrite. :D

EDIT: spelling :mischief:

Well, my solution above should satisfy both you, Darwin, and those wanting a more 'autonomous' populace. After all, when push comes to shove, it is still YOU who is the final decider on whether or not your nation changes its government-its just that under my system you have to be prepared to wear the consequences if you happen to misjudge the peoples mood! Ultimately, this would help to curb the 'opportunistic' government changes which are such a routine element of the current game, whilst not overly penalising players who make cautious and well-reasoned government changes. Also, it highlights the REAL importance of your people as your society becomes more open and representative.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

At least I can say I never used the "opportunistic" gov't changes. I'm too stubborn. I like my desp-mon-com route. Works like a charm every time!

I'm very interested to see how they change governments in cIV. However they do it, I'm sure it will be VERY enjoyable (even if I can be overthrown! :eek: )

EDIT: spelling... AGAIN! :cry:

I don't know how to justify it, really. I like the random bits that happen here and there (volcanoes, culture flipping, etc) but for some reason, when my gov't changes without my consent, it really cheeses me off.

Call me a hypocrite. :D
:lol: Hey, Civ just caters to that bit of meglomaniac thats in all of us. Some just have it in greater amounts ;) .

These sound a lot like ordaninces ... maybe you could enact region-wide (legalized gambling, death penalty) and country-wide ordinances (no child labor, no racism or forced religion).

That would be cool. :cool:

If regions are included, then I don't see why each region couldn't have some of its own policies (or ordinances - good choice of words). But, maybe that's too much MM...

The people's mood about their government should be related to:
- Propaganda from other civs.
- Once you achieve a % of literacy.
- Once you have reach a certain level of income per capita.
- The hapiness and demand for a new government is more high in cities with universities.
- There are several factions (ones want communism, others democracy, anothers fascism, ...).
The major parts of this features came out in industrial age, emulate the struggle for more representative government since the french revolution and give more fun to that part of the game.
The true is that are several forms of democracy, republic or monarchy wich is not contemplate in game.
Another thing is that we can have something like the Holly Alliance wich several governs help each other to mantain the type of government that we have.

@mhIda: But there are many places in the world that do NOT want representative gov'ts. Some cultures align themselves so such thoughts are anethema to the cultural identity. :sad:

Maybe if you're playing a civilization that prefers a representative gov't, once democracy is discovered, your people will begin to yearn for that over your brutal monarchy. :king: :lol:

That would work well for the AI, I think.

As for player-controlled, maybe if you had been a republic in the past (and later switched to monarchy are fascism or something), then perhaps there will be a 'faction' that yearns for a return to the 'good ol days.' :cool: Especially if you just switched gov'ts.

However, there should be a way to control this. As I've stated before, I do NOT like the idea of my gov't getting switched on me without my consent. :mad: The only time I could condone this is if I am unable to keep the majority of my cities revolt free... then I could see a King being beheaded, a Senate being put to the firing line... :lol:

I think their should always be groups that yearn for power or rights. Even in the ancient era the top tier of nobility and landowners were considerations of any king. Elites within republics were the same way. In Feudalism and even Absolutist Monarchies later on they had to consider the needs and negotiate with groups. So you should always have someone saying, "I want x or y, or stop x or y, or do x or y, etc." What changes with technology is how much and which group.

People's mood about their government should alway be directly related to economic status. If it is improving, or more of less even, then people will support their govt. If personal wealth is receeding, then people will not support their govt. Everything else is just fluff really.

This remembers me of Alpha Centauri.

In Alpha Centauri you didnt choose one government but there was four different aspects of governmental systems that could be edited.

E.g. you could choose wether you wanted a Socialistic, Capitalistic or Green (ecological) economical systems, you could introduce Police State, Liberal State or Religious State and so on.

That was a quite more advanced and realistic system that just to choose Communism, Fascism or Democracy.

I would like to see a communism as in described in "Communisto Manifesto", that would be quite cool :)

Like if...you have a poor country with much corruption etc you go over to communism, it ends like it did in the earlier game. Well...I dont really think its a good system in Civ 3.
But if you have many people that is communist (good idea to have a party system...see how much support different partys have), the country dont have much corruption and so on - Karl Marx communsim :goodjob:

Economies are really not simulated in much a sense of the word. Basing wealth of an economy in current civ terms is laughable. Otherwise I would be inclined to accept a system of mood being based on economy. Have you noticed that the world economy never depresses either?

Darwin420
"there are many places in the world that do NOT want representative gov'ts"
I desagree, people want someones who represente them. Only in China, Arabs countries, and part of Africa in a word all that ditactorships, they don't achieve some representative system. Mostly of seking of a representative system in modern age and industrial erais tied to a emergence of a middle class and some elevel of instruction.

I cannot agree that China is a pure dictatorship anymore. There has been a lot of reform, especially economic, since the Cultural Revolution. There has been even more reform since the student revolutions of the ealry 80s?(Tienemen Square) While they do not have representative politics in the traditional sense, as of yet, they are gaining a lot of economic autonomy. China is definitely a nation that proves that you can have successful non-democratic politics within a capitalist economy.

While most Americans would not feel comfortable under any of the Khaliphates, they are not necessarily the dictatorships of Peron or Charles Taylor. Sure, extremely repressive states such as Saudi Arabia could be akin to dictatorships(although they did have some kind of people's counsel), there are lots of drives for representation and reform. Although it is a slow process, Iran is becoming an interesting model of modern theocracy. While it will not serve American purposes, the Khaliphate proposed by jurists in Iraq could be an interesting mix of representation and theocracy.

While I agree most parts of Africa lack representation in government, they also lack strong central governments. The economy is shot, the soil is shot, the population is shot. AIDS, pollution, constant warfare, and lack of infrastructure has screwed most of the continent. South Africa managed to come out decently because they had a good economy.

The true is that China don't have a representative system or democracy to several factions/parties could compete for votes (with ideas and projects), people couldn't talk against government policy, there are only one party, government take off the nationalism issue to have some legitimacy wich it don't have it. So I Characterized as a ditactorship. Maybe one day it become a democracy, not necessarlly alligned with West but this another thing.
Iran is a good example of an intermediate state tied when 'solidarnosc' achieve all places in parlment in late 80's in Poland, but here are the comunist party and in Iran are the ayatholas even related that to ancient council where religion has the last word.
I don't expect that all countries as a system like West, even in Europe and US it are diferent and some countries have a ancient council, wich could be an analogy to chamber of lords in UK.
At the end a representative system or democracy is something who take time.

I would prefer defining one party politics as 'oligarchies' rather than pure dictatorships. Also, I am not sure if you can blanket-wise define theocratical states as non-representative. There are many avenues of representation within Iran's government, although progress there is slow because of conservatives. China is starting to discover more representative forms, but Party rule is not contrary to their culture. LIke I said earlier, it is an interesting twist on governments that would not work in the US, but definitely works for those cultures.

Your last point about time is very true, as well as your point about economy earlier. China is starting to liberalize because their economy is improving. Within a few decades it will probaby be Chinese currency that floats or sinks the world economy.

Hmmm, I tend to think of Oligarchies as being more of a Classical government form, though a Junta could definitely work well, or a military/Beaurecratic Dictatorship could work as well as a modern/industrial government form.
Ultimately, though, what should truly define your government are the various social settings you give it (such as sufferage, Libertarianism and the like), though the original government you choose will limit the minimum and maximum limits you can set for them!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think the biggest weakness in civ3 govs is that they are only described in terms of economic potential and military potential. There are no other paramters in which the governbments vary. This inevitably leads to a one-dimensional decision of choosing war or growth. One nice thing about CTP was teh way teh governments were each optimised for two different things, and nerfed in other areas. It wasn't strictly realistic, and made more for comic-book interpretations of the governments rather than historical accuracy, but it was easy to perceive real differences between the governments, to the extent that it was no longer a one dimensional decision as to which governemnt to choose.

I rather liked that feature.

SMAC had the best options for choosing governance. There were four different options that developed over time with research. The first was your politics, which included Democracy, Police State, Fundamentalism. Second was what kind of economy you had, including Free Market, Planned, and Green. Third was the social values the government promoted, inclduing Wealth, Knowledge, or Power. Fourth was the directions for 'future governments', including Thought Control, Eudamonia, and Cybernetic.

Of course Civ could improve upon and utilize this system and newer and even better ways. The important part was the idea that political and economic systems were different. Value was just interesting because diff administrations did promote diff things.

I have never played SMAC though by the sound of it I would enjoy it a lot. what are the graphics like? I have just realised I have become very shallow in that respect when I fired up call to power 2 to play after decieding I liked it more than civ3 cos its more complex I then quit after one turn as it looks a bit shoddy.

For regions, what if there was a mega-settler that would make a capitol city, and the surrounding cities (7-15 tiles) could be the minor cities.

We could have options that were enacted in each region, and we wouldn't need to go through 50+ cities saying "No child labor".

SMAC is worth looking into, if just for theory and case study. The graphics are a bit dated, but in many ways the terrain looks more natural. The coloring is very much aline reds and browns and now it looks pretty dated.

rhialto is right that one of the biggest problems is the fact that they collapse civil rights, political representation, and economic system all into one "government". By "democracy" do I mean a system where everyone gets to vote in every facet of society, or do I mean a system where the free market is protected from intervention as much as possible?

surely capitalism and democracy are two different things and not synonomous. you should be able to have a socialist democracy just as you should be able to have a captitalist dictactorship.
alpha centuri costs £5 now so i'll pick it up anyway just so I can talk more knowledgably about SMAC. I see on the game specs it takes up a mighty 60mb of hard disk space!

Switzerland is a socialist democracy and Mussolini's Italy was a capitalistic dictatorship. So now you can actually make a Swiss civ that works(traits Neutrality, Banking, UU = Swiss Armoured Pikemen(3/5/1).

excuse the pedantry but you mean sweden not switzerland. switzerland is quite a reactionary place which didnt give the vote to women til the 70's and hoards lots of nazi gold. sweden is the country where the social democrats have been in power for the last 70 years and has a massive welfare state system.

I knew Sweden had efficient socialized medicine, but Switzerland doesnt'? Oh well, they are still very good at banking(not just the Swastika kind). Plus the SAP were the bane of any enemy until muskets.

Well, here is a radical idea-pare back the number of 'Governments' quite significantly, and make most of the differences between governments, throughout history, dependant on Social Engineering settings through 'social development and evolution'. If this were to be done, though, what governments should remain, and where should they appear?
My thoughts might be Classical Democracy and Republic, and their modern Bicameral counterparts, Dictatorship, Despotism, Monarchy, Feudalism and Council.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I would like them to put the theocracy/fundamentalist gov type back. But if religion is going to play a big part in Civ4 then i guess if you choose dictatorship and your civ was religious enough then a theocracy would be the outcome.

there should also be a latin american style junta gov where you get to syphon off large amounts from the treasury into a secret bank account in a small neutral country, buy fleets of rolls royces and award yourself large amounts of absurd medals. :)

I'd prefer to keep religion separate from government, so no theocracy government. Instead, players choose a religion and a government.

I am veering towards SE, but I haven't yet found/made a fully fleshed model.

Well, Rhialto, that is kind of what I am putting forward-in a way. So modern Iran, for instance, would be described in my model as a 'Modern Republic', but with its Theism set VERY high (or, alternatively, its Secularism very low) and a high Legalism, low Libertarianism (but slowly rising), low to mid-level Sufferage (they were, after all, able to ELECT a moderate President and Parliament, but the Mullah's are still able to vet all parliamentary candidates!) and a powerful Religious faction. A Latin American Junta, on the other hand, might be a Dictatorship, Despotism, Council or even a Republic, but with high Militarism, low Sufferage, low Libertarianism, high Legalism and a powerful Military faction (and, possibly, an almost equally powerful Capitalist faction).

Do you guys sort of see where I am coming from? I know its incredibly radical but, like SMAC, I think it can work. It retains a few of the key Government labels from earlier civ games (like Despotism, Fascism, Monarchy etc), whilst placing the main emphasis on an expansion of the SMAC social engineering system-with the addition of a wholly new 'demographic' system which allows the player to, indirectly, decide what forces are most dominant in his/her civ.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

GIven the choice between a SMAC style gov choice and a gov model based on sliders, my experince with Victoria (an EU2 spinoff) has put me strongly against sliders for the most part. Sliders can make sense when manipulating a number, such as with the economic distribution, but when manipulating an attitude, seems counter-intuitive.

I woudl agree religion and govenrment need to be seperate, but Theocracy refers to political theory, not secularism. The English during Cromwell's reign or tyrrany were very religious, and Cromwell even took over in the name of religion. However the institution was not based on theocratic theories. Iran is a type of Khaliphate, just a more republican one than we think of when we think of theocracies. Kahliphates are nations of Islam, not nations populated by Muslims.

Hang on, Rhialto, you keep saying how in Civ you are the 'Zietgiest' of your people, and social engineering sliders tie into that idea as it represents your ability to 'urge' underlying (and/or overt) social trends-the only limiting factor being your level of social/cultural development AND any potential resistance to change from entrenched factional interest groups.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Man, you got me, aussie lurker. There I was with my zeitgeist talk yet being against sliders to manipulate how government works.

The reason that I am against sliders is because they automatically assume that every conceivable decision represented by a slider is a bipolar decision, except there may be varying degrees between two extremes. Real decisions aren't like that. To take a basic example from SMAC, the economic radio buttons had planned, free market, and green. These are not on a linear dimension - you can't say that one of these is a halfway point between the other two.

Yes, but thats why I called for an EXTENSION of the SMAC system. SMAC's sliders were much too simplistic by being either one of two extremes, or directly in the middle. What I suggest is either a (i) -5 to +5 scale, (ii) a 0-5 scale or (iii) a 0-10 scale for each 'sector'. Thus, you can have a DEGREE of Private Economics (from 0 (or -5) which would be completely State-controlled up to 5 (or 10, or +5) which would represent a COMPLETE free market economy, with almost NO state input). Of course, I wouldn't CALL the slider Private Economics, but might call it Capitalism or something like it. Same with Theism (degree of religious belief), Materialism (how important individual wealth and possessions are), Libertarianism (how free are the people to do as they wish-and how much is considered legal and/or illegal), Legalism (how strictly are laws enforced), Sufferage (what proportion of the population vote and/or how much direct input does that proportion have in day-to-day governance). There may be other settings, but these are the key ones, IMHO, and the combination of these will determine the overall nature of your government. For instance, are you a COMMUNIST REPUBLIC (0-1 Capitalism, 0-3 Materialism, 0-3 Theism, 5-7 Libertarianism, 5-6 Sufferage,
6-8 Legalism) a SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (2-4 Capitalism, 2-5 Materialism, 1-5 Theism, 5-8 Libertarianism, 5-7 Sufferage, 5-8 Legalism) or either a COMMUNIST or SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP (much the same settings, but with about HALF the levels of Libertarianism and Sufferage, and Legalism of around 7-9).
Hope that makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Huh? Your 'solution' is simply repeating the problem with sliders that I highlighted.

With a slider, you can have one of two extremes, or you can have a number of in-between points. But the decision will always be on a one-dimensional scale.

With radio buttons, you can have any number of dimensions on which the decision is made. Granted, SMAC only used the extremes, but it highlights the concept of multidimensional choices very well.

ok, Im working on a model (this may take some time) for SE. And on teh economics sie, teh following labels seem obvious...

Barter (default)
Currency
Mercantilism
Planned
Capitalism
Laissez Faire

Now, having any of these strikes me as being infinitely more immersive than "private economics level 3". This to me is another nail in the coffin for sliders.

Well, that might be true, but you have-in one swoop-probably lost around 50% of Civs potential market by forcing the players to consider way too many new conceptual ideas. Wheras my model has a very SIMPLE interface that people only need to understand at a conceptual level-i.e. do you retain complete control of your national economy, thus removing the potential for private sector corruption but at the same time stifling the growth and strength of your economy? Or do you remove all state controls from the economy, and let the private sector decide everything, thus growing the economy, but increasing the risk of financial downturns and private sector 'profiteering'. Also, each of the different factors interact to create a multi-dimensional effect, where a combination of low libertarianism and high nationalism may well reflect a nation who views all foreigners as a sub-class of human, and treats them accordingly (especially those of a different culture group), but where the actual CITIZENS enjoy a reasonable degree of freedom. If nationalism was average or less, however, it would reflect that the whole society lacks any basic freedoms. Ultimately, though, all of these variants would have certain In-Game effects, wheras I don't see how your model does?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I don't see how the SE model I am thinking of is any more complicated than SMAC.

This is a side-ways suggestion, but what if cultural decisions you make could affect how certain SE settings work. You would need certain cultural features to adapt certain SE settings. Theocracies would require a certain amount of Religious Zeal to adopt. Absolute Monarchies would require at least a certain level of infrastructure and a certain level of centralization.

Also, people who you rule whose cultures do not normally allow these settings would be unhappy. The more they do not approve of, the greater the unhappiness.

Not to overcomplicate things...

But some decisions could be sliders/knobs. For example, secularism. You could be Divine (you claim to be God), Theocratic (you claim to know what God wants and enforce it), Religious (you let your religious principles guide your decisions, but you try not to let it affect non-believers too much), Seperated (people are allowed to be religious in their own way, government is secular), or Outlawed (religion is eliminated so it cannot interfere with state power). I say slider or knob because this could be seen as a knob where it's easy to make the transition from Outlawed religion to Divinity -- where you ARE a kind of deity.

But other decisions could be flags/buttons you turn on/off. For example, you could discover the secret of "police state" on the tech tree. If you turn it on, you receive a penalty to happiness, but drastically reduced corruption and reduced chance of civil disorder. There could be another bonus available off the tech tree like "welfare state", where you turn it on and receive a bonus to happiness and prevent civil disorder, but a penalty to your overall bank roll. These two things should not be on a sliding scale: you can turn both on if you want to, or just one, or keep flipflopping back and forth, or neither.

Switches: a choice of either on or off, that's totally independent of any other decision
Radial Menu: choose one from a list of options that mutually exclude one another
Slider: choose from a list of options that flow continuously into one another
Knob: a sliding scale where the "far left" option is actually very similar to the "far right" option

This could be expressed through a social tech tree, too, where there are two steps for each tech. One is the research phase, where you discover something such as a police state or a democracy. Another is the application phase where you choose if you want to apply this new ideal. So you're a "monarchy" and discover "police state", but do not embrace it. The discovery of police state, though, helps you to research democracy, which you DO embrace.

Again, the analogy of "exploring" society, and then "settling" on the ideal that you discovered, or holding out on settlement in hopes of finding more fertile/useful/strategic territory.

all well and good but I think all these need to have noticable effects in game. if I have choosen to be a communist state I want to feel that I am the head/chairman of a 'progressive' government, which is very industry/worker focussed. I want to be able to sponser other communist movements/supply weapons to anti-imperialist forces around the world and support other socialist governments, forming alliances against the encircling capitalist vultures. your advisers should give you different advice to your previous capitalist ones. the city screen should change to reflect the exciting arcitecture of communism (grey concrete blocks, lots of red flags and massive statues and monuments). I want to be able to build a masoleum small wonder for the dead founder of the party which will give some kind of propaganda boost (possibly), a may day parade option which will boost happiness of course as the people get to watch the vast military they support trundle past. I want to be able to ban religion and turn my churches into cinemas. I should be able to build bigger and more productive factories than the west (at a greater cost). my basic infantry should be cheaper but less effective than democracies infantry. i should definealtey get an espionage boost. etc etc. the same should apply for fascism, theocracy and whatever else you get to choose.
possibly people might regard this as pointless and mainly asethetic changes but making the government types more themed would certainly add to my enjoyment. the problem is that if government types are decieded entirely by sliders then everyones government would be a mish mash. you would at least need to choose a basic gov type and then tailor the more advanced options.

Well, in my social engineering system, it WILL have an effect on the outcome of the game. If you embrace the communist economic philosophy, you WILL try to reduce the amount of private sector freedom within your society which-in turn-will seriously reduce the size and influence of your Capitalist faction. This might give much greater influence to the labourer and farmer factions.
Of course, this WILL effect the kind of nations that approach you diplomatically. Of course, the initial factor is your GOVERNMENT type (so if, for instance, you are a Republic, a Fascist government might not be very attracted to you-even IF it has also embraced a certain degree of Communism. Think the Nationalist/Socialist party.)
Of course, other factors that would play a role in diplomatic relations would be your levels of Nationalism and Theism (and, potentially, your culture group and/or religion) how free your people are and the like. Of course, ALL of these settings will also effect things like the amount of money you earn, how much of your objectives you can push through without obstruction, the happiness of your people, and the levels of crime/corruption. It can also effect how loyal your people are to the nation and/or to a particular religious belief-in fact, the list is too long to put here.
Anyway, hope that all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I like the idea of mish-mash, grey zones, and overlap. Real governments and administrative systems of written for the current and somewhat future goals. These systems also evolve out of the cultural context of the day as well as historical context. A system where cultural decisions affect options and governments can share aspects each love but have others that seem totally opposed.

One of my favorite little things of SMAC diplomacy was when Yang would praise you for 'Planned' economics but chide you for 'allowing your people to question their leaders'.