The current system has promise, but should be expanded. I have no python skills myself, but i think it would be quite straightforward.

1. Civics currently DO affect relations but not nearly as drastically as they should. A good example is Emancipation:goodjob: - other Civs without it suffer a penalty.

Using this logic, Civs taking Police State:strength: & State property:hammers: should suffer a far greater drop in relations with civs with Free speech:thumbsup: & Environmentalism:health:.

Or, a highly religious , expansionary and militant Civ (Theocracy:religion:, Vassalage:move:, Police State:strength:) getting at odds with a "godless", artistic, liberal Civ (Free Religion:religion::religion:, Caste System:hammer:, Emancipation:goodjob:).

I know this does happen already, but maybe its not quite as obvious as i would like...?

2. Not all Civics should be compatible with all other Civics.

Eg., the Idea of a Police State:strength: also using Free Speech:thumbsup: is inherently illogical.
Or, combining Universal Suffrage:high5: with Vassalage:viking:, Slavery:assimilate: and Theocracy:religion::strength:.

Im not saying ALL civics should have non-compatible ones, but at least some kind balance!
I mean, Police State w/ Free speech - :aargh:

Comments ?
HDK

The current system has promise, but should be expanded. I have no python skills myself, but i think it would be quite straightforward.

1. Civics currently DO affect relations but not nearly as drastically as they should. A good example is Emancipation - other Civs without it suffer a penalty.

Using this logic, Civs taking Police State & State property should suffer a far greater drop in relations with civs with Free speech & Environmentalism.
I don't see why environmentalism should conflict so much with State Property. There are quite a lot of watermelons in modern politics ;).

Or, a highly religious , expansionary and militant Civ (Theocracy, Vassalage, Police State) getting at odds with a "godless", artistic, liberal Civ (Free Religion, Caste System, Emancipation).
Yes, it does seem odd that Free Religion removes all negative diplomacy that comes from other religions.

2. Not all Civics should be compatible with all other Civics.

Eg., the Idea of a Police State also using Free Speech is inherently illogical.
Or, combining Universal Suffrage with Vassalage, Slavery and Theocracy.

Im not saying ALL civics should have non-compatible ones, but at least some kind balance!
I mean, Police State w/ Free speech - :aargh:
As I said in another thread, this is because Police State is not a perfect fit for its category. The Civics system already has this in place: You can't have both Emancipation and Slavery, see? The problem comes when you put Police State in government, when it really isn't.

Also, why do you have to use so many emoticons?

Well, part of the solution to the last issue is that used by Dom Pedro II-that having certain civics combinations leads to CivicAnger. As for the other stuff, I reckon it should be possible to mod things such that each Civic Category contributes more to diplomatic relations.
For example. You could say that each shared civic per category grants you a +2 diplo bonus. Wheras a closely related one might only give you a +1 (say, Representation & Universal Sufferage). Certain civics in each category, however, might be seen as antithetical. So, as a case in point, Police State & Universal Sufferage are 'Antithetical'-leading to a -2 diplomatic malus. Universal Sufferage would have a -1 malus vs Hereditary Rule, but Police State & Hereditary Rule would receive no bonus/malus. Hope that makes sense.

Similar antithetical relations could exist between Free Market & State Property (with a smaller malus vs Mercantilism), Emancipation & Slavery (with a lesser malus vs Serfdom & Caste System) & Free Religion & Theocracy (with a lesser malus vs Organised Religion & a smaller bonus vs Pacifism).

Beyond that, it would be nice if you had things like :+1 "You declared war on a tyrannical regime" or -1 "You Attacked a democratic state", etc etc.

Aussie_Lurker.

Heh, kinda got carried away with the emoticons, but theyre so pretty arent they? :P

Dryhad,
you have a point about environmentalism & State property...but it has happend so rarely that I think it can be dismissed.

But, isnt Police State a government? Maybe simply rename it to Totalitariansim, or Dictatorship (which requires the fuctions of a ploice state). Either way, it inherently conflicts with the principles of free speech.

Aussie_lurker,
Youre on the right track, especailly with your final idea of Tyrannical v. democratic points; which i presume would only apply to the right ones-
ie, a Civ has Police State, declares war on a Representation civ, suffers the -1 penalty with other Representation/Universal Suffrage civs. After the war it converts to Representation itself, and loses the -1 penalty with those civs (Or gains +1 for changing from PS).

The classic real -life example is Nazi Germany-->WW2 -->Modern Germany.

Further Thoughts:
An initial list of governments & their incompatible civics:
Despotism- Free Speech,emancipation, free market, pacifism
Hereditary Rule- barbarism, state property,
Representation- Barbarism, Decentralisation,
Police State- Free Speech, Emancipation (there is Always a systemic inequality somewhere in a PS), environmentalism, Pacifism & Free religion.

There should also be self-reinforcing benefits:
eg.
Universal Suffrage/Representation adds a further cultural benefit to Free Speech, and more trade routes with Free Market,and more science with Free Religion/more happiness with Pacifism.
or
Police State decreases Beaurocracy's benefits (but increases Nationhoods), increases Slavery's effect, maximises further State Property and adds more free units to Theocracy.

This i think will give a greater wieghting to the importance of a Civs choice of government- it is the decision maker after all, as well as the Public face. I understand Firaxis' desire to reduce the monolithic govs of Civ 2/3, but i think a more subtle relationship is required.

Thoughts?
Many thanks for comments:)
HDK

Dryhad,
you have a point about environmentalism & State property...but it has happend so rarely that I think it can be dismissed.
Dismissed in favour of what? Environmentalists and Communists at each others throats over perceived ideological differences while Free Marketers sit back in the sidelines? That doesn't make sense.

But, isnt Police State a government?
Define government. Hell, define "Police State"

Maybe simply rename it to Totalitariansim, or Dictatorship (which requires the fuctions of a ploice state).
It totally doesn't.

Either way, it inherently conflicts with the principles of free speech.
I don't think I can accurately phrase just how mistaken you are here. You assert that a country with a single ruler who makes all governmental decisions is incapable of allowing its citizens freedom of speech, by definition?

You have a point, Dryhad. Hence my point re: CivicAnger. People who have free speech in a society where they cannot elect their government are likely to show their anger at every opportunity (at least in my opinion).

Oh, & here is the wikipedia definition of Police State:

The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

You have a point, Dryhad. Hence my point re: CivicAnger. People who have free speech in a society where they cannot elect their government are likely to show their anger at every opportunity (at least in my opinion).
A flavourful solution, yet one that is difficult to implement.

Oh, & here is the wikipedia definition of Police State:
By that definition it is not government. Government defines the ruling body, not how they exercise control.

My understanding of Government Civics is it is a broad definition of the manner of Selecting the Government as well as the way in which it behaves-which makes Police State appropriate (though I would prefer Junta myself!)

Aussie_Lurker.

Sorry, but I'm with Aussie on this one....

In the game, Police State is used to broadly reflect the societal organisation of a totalitarian state- from the usage of party membership to define outisders, to the presence of a dictatorial person or group of persons directing the state apparatus (Junta, anyone?..:) )

Every single state in history where a society is controlled top-down requires that speech Not be free as it is too dangerous to the rulling group. Once that control is lost there is an immediate effort by the populace to speak their minds. The calssic example is Gorbachov allowing russians freedom of speech(gradually) and thence eventually the collapse of the USSR.Once people realised they could speak out and not be hunted down, the criticismcame flooding in.Control was lost, and the police stae fell apart.

Because there is a distinct beaurocratic and ministerial effort to control everything in a Police State, how can speech then be free? Ergo, they are incompatible civics....

However Im not sure PS should cause Anger- after all its aim is to suppress all expression that does not agree with the State's line. One thing that is Always associated with Police States is corruption and waste- so maybe higher Maintenance and more Unhealthiness.

re other points:
Ima little conused- environmentalism, free market and Communismare all in the same cic group... so how can they be at each others throughts or sitting back? You choose one or the other, no?

And how could a dictatorship function without some kind of police control? Caser had his army to gain power, but died because he did not have an effective Police force to root out and persecute dissent before effective plots could be made. In the field,his Army was his police force; within rome, bereft of the protection of legions, he was highly vulnerable to anger and dissent.

The point here is that the Sole Person/Small group in charge of the country wish to retain power- either by avoiding elections, rigging them or restructring theentire sytem in their favour. All this requires persuasion and when that fails, brute force. An army is too unsubtle for this- only a police force operating on the principle of fear can achieve the required control over the long term.

Hitler,Stalin, Pol-pot, Franco, Pinochet, Napoleon, Mao, Tojo - they all had police forces at thier disposal to suppress dissent. Name me one Dictatorship which rulled effectively for more than 5 years without some form of state control over free speech. If you can, ill eat my hat:)

Good discussion:)
HDK

(accidental double post)

Ah... this is some of the stuff I was tackling with my Syvics modcomp that I tinkered with so much that I got it to work and then broke it :) which is why it hasn't been released yet.

It adds in the ability to add blocking civics to prevent running several combinations of civics (like Police State and Free Speech). But it also added, as Aussie Lurker has stated, civic anger wherein one increases the anger caused by another. There's also some commerce modifiers/free experience/etc. for different civic combinations.

I did not address attitude effects for diplomacy. I've given some consideration to this, but ultimately I'm against going overboard here because it would make all other diplomacy factors irrelevant without a general recalibrating of the entire attitude system.

One of the things I have been working on in the last week is the idea of AI effects for civics. In particular, I'm revisiting my Religion Mod, and I'm adding in AI modifiers with regards to the Holy City to the civics. The result is that civs running a civic like Theocracy will be happier with civs that control their holy city if they run the same state religion and a bigger attitude loss if they don't. It will also make it very likely that if a "heathen" civ conquers the Theocratic civ's holy city or if they were the original founder but changed state religion, it will declare war and it will make the holy city the primary target.

So I'm also thinking about extending this to other things where civs running good war civics will be more likely to declare war, etc. It will help produce a little bit more dynamic (but not random) AI behavior.

My understanding of Government Civics is it is a broad definition of the manner of Selecting the Government as well as the way in which it behaves-which makes Police State appropriate (though I would prefer Junta myself!)

Aussie_Lurker.
Well then either accept a combination that you consider to be inherently contradictory or recognise that this is exactly the sort of thing the civics system was supposed to correct!

Sorry, but I'm with Aussie on this one....

In the game, Police State is used to broadly reflect the societal organisation of a totalitarian state- from the usage of party membership to define outisders, to the presence of a dictatorial person or group of persons directing the state apparatus (Junta, anyone?..:) )
So rather than changing the civics to fit better, the answer is to change the civics in order to shoehorn an overly complicated and inappropriately placed civic in the place Firaxis chose for it, at the expense of every other civic's original design?

Every single state in history where a society is controlled top-down requires that speech Not be free as it is too dangerous to the rulling group. Once that control is lost there is an immediate effort by the populace to speak their minds. The calssic example is Gorbachov allowing russians freedom of speech(gradually) and thence eventually the collapse of the USSR.Once people realised they could speak out and not be hunted down, the criticismcame flooding in.Control was lost, and the police stae fell apart.
Yes, which is why I said it shouldn't be police state! Scrivan in-a-box, "Oh no, Firaxis wanted it to be police state for arbitrary reasons that probably had to do with SMAC, therefore we won't change that. Now, this is how your arguments about Dictatorship don't apply to Police State..." :rolleyes:

Because there is a distinct beaurocratic and ministerial effort to control everything in a Police State, how can speech then be free? Ergo, they are incompatible civics....
Bureaucratic, you say? If only there was some way to represent Bureaucracy. Some way that was mutually exclusive with Free Speech. Hmmm.

Ima little conused- environmentalism, free market and Communismare all in the same cic group... so how can they be at each others throughts or sitting back? You choose one or the other, no?
You were talking about diplomacy, remember? You said civs with State Property should suffer relation penalties with civs with Environmentalism. This is what we're talking about right?

Now why did you say that? Is it because those two civics are inherently opposed to one another, or because all civics should give relation penalties? Because I disagree with both. I have already explained the former, and as for the latter, why should a slaver mind if some other civ has adopted serfdom? "How dare you treat your serfs marginally better than we treat our slaves? That is morally reprehensible!" The slaver might fear the spread of Emancipation, should another civ adopt it (this is already partially included in the game, with the happiness penalty), but not all civics are created equal. A difference in government should not per se trigger lower relations religion-style.

And how could a dictatorship function without some kind of police control? Caser had his army to gain power, but died because he did not have an effective Police force to root out and persecute dissent before effective plots could be made. In the field,his Army was his police force; within rome, bereft of the protection of legions, he was highly vulnerable to anger and dissent.
It may surprise you to learn that dictators can be loved. Especially if they give their citizens freedom of speech ;)

The point here is that the Sole Person/Small group in charge of the country wish to retain power- either by avoiding elections, rigging them or restructring theentire sytem in their favour. All this requires persuasion and when that fails, brute force. An army is too unsubtle for this- only a police force operating on the principle of fear can achieve the required control over the long term.
How many centuries was most of Europe ruled by hereditary monarchs with nigh-absolute power? Sure, there already is a Hereditary Rule civic, but functionally there's no difference between a hereditary monarch and a dictator.

Hitler,Stalin, Pol-pot, Franco, Pinochet, Napoleon, Mao, Tojo - they all had police forces at thier disposal to suppress dissent. Name me one Dictatorship which rulled effectively for more than 5 years without some form of state control over free speech. If you can, ill eat my hat:)
Define dictatorship.

Dryhad, after more consideration, I think you're right that Police State IS unacceptable as a Government Civic. Let me see if I can explain it:

In my view you have several kinds of governments

1. Tribal-a primitive form of government by one or more people-usually the wisest, eldest or strongest in the social group. Real life examples: any pre-agricultural society.

2. Oligarchy-government by a mid to large group of "elites" (by dint of Wealth, or Land-Ownership or Technological Superiority or Military Strength or Party Membership). Usually self-appointed (& often based on family relations) but can also be selected via a range of pseudo-democratic measures. Real life examples: Roman republic, USSR & China.

3. Dictatorship-government by a single, all-powerful, individual. Either self-appointed or put in place by a "ruling elite" (see Oligarchy). Real life examples: Rome under Caesar & Sulla, Cromwell's England, Suharto's Indonesia & Pinochet's Chile. Some Emperors were also "dictatorial", though they are better described as Absolute Monarchs.

4. Monarchy-government by a single individual, selected purely on the basis of heredity. Real life examples-the royal families of Denmark, Sweden & Britain-though technically parliamentary democracies-are in fact constitutional monarchies.

5. Republic-government by a single individual popularly elected by the people. Said individual usually wields great power, but that power is vetted by either 1 or 2 chambers of politicians that are also popularly elected. Real-life examples: US of A, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina & Brazil. (Now, I know this is actually, more accurately, a Presidency, but Republic just sounds better ;) ).

6. Parliamentary Democracy-government by a group of popular elected politicians-either in a unicameral or bicameral system. This government type will often have a Head-of-State but, unlike in a Republic, this Head-of-State is purely a Ceremonial Role, with very little real power. Real-Life examples-Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Israel & Germany.

7. Junta-government by a very small group of self-appointed elites-usually a committee of less than 20 people (thus distinguishing it from an Oligarchy). Most often of a Military Nature, but could theoretically be by any group with the clout to make themselves rulers of a nation (theoretically, a Board-of-Directors of a multi-national company could take over a small nation & rule it as a Junta). real-life examples: Burma, 1970's Cambodia, 1980's El Salvador & Guatemala.

OK, now I know this isn't a PERFECT set of government civics, but I think its much more accurate than the one given by Firaxis.

Edit: Oh, & I feel I should point out that, the key difference between 5 & 6 is that, with 5, the Head of State is also the Head of Government, wheras in 6 they are 2 separate people-with the Head of Government usually being called the "Prime Minister". The Prime Minister has the power over the day to day running of the country (with the support of parliament, of course).
Aussie_Lurker.

Hmm I can see where youre coming from, but i think the differences are too subtle in parts for a/the game. eg, that differences between a Dictatorshgip and a Junta are not terribly far apart - for game purposes. Or the Republican or Parlimentary systems as you have them described here(very accurately in fact).

But we're getting away from the main thrust of this thread, which was to analyse and define the distinctions between the various Civics so as to determine which, if any, should be mutually exclusive.

To re-itrate part 2 my 1st post:
2. Not all Civics should be compatible with all other Civics

Ergo,
(a) I still suggest Dictatorship/Police State negates the possibility of Free Speech.
It is such a fundamental difference of aims (prevent any possible expression and hence development of dissent vs. allow free and open discussion soas to improve/change government operation) that I cannot see how they could possibly exist together in the 'pure' form they are presented as in Civ 4.

(b) Slavery/Serfdom/Vassalage should not be possible under Universal Suffrage.
The very name of the latter civic inherently defines that slavery etc is unacceptable- otherwise the suffrage is NOT universal. Vassalage/Serfdom has a direct master-servant relationship, built into the society and maintained by a preponderance of force on the side of the Master. This is again in direct opposition to Uni. Suffrage.

Aussie, Im just about to check out your Civics Mod 3d. Seems quite interesting.

Thanks for the comments guys, great discussion. Sorry for the late reply.
HDK

To re-itrate part 2 my 1st post:
2. Not all Civics should be compatible with all other Civics
And to reiterate my post, they aren't. You can't have Hereditary Rule and Universal Suffrage at the same time. You can't have Theocracy and Free Religion at the same time. Use the system that already exists, rather than adding layers of silly and pointless complication!

(b) Slavery/Serfdom/Vassalage should not be possible under Universal Suffrage.
The very name of the latter civic inherently defines that slavery etc is unacceptable- otherwise the suffrage is NOT universal. Vassalage/Serfdom has a direct master-servant relationship, built into the society and maintained by a preponderance of force on the side of the Master. This is again in direct opposition to Uni. Suffrage.
Four words: Confederate. States. Of. America.

I have read this discussion but am a little confused on some of the goals - are you looking to create civic "anger" (which would imply unhappy faces within your own civ) or civic "relations anger" (which would mean negative diplomatic modifiers with other civs)?

If there is a mod out there, or one in the works, that does the latter or both, I would be very interested in it. :)

I have read this discussion but am a little confused on some of the goals - are you looking to create civic "anger" (which would imply unhappy faces within your own civ) or civic "relations anger" (which would mean negative diplomatic modifiers with other civs)?



If there is a mod out there, or one in the works, that does the latter or both, I would be very interested in it.

It's in the works, but when it actually gets done remains to be seen since I'm but one man with an unfortunately large number of modcomps to finish.

Four words: Confederate. States. Of. America.

Yes, but the slaves couldn't vote. Granted, all those who were considered citizens: white males over a certain age... were elligible to vote. This is one of the reasons why I think there needs to be some more clarification along majority-minority relations in civics.

Yes, but the slaves couldn't vote. Granted, all those who were considered citizens: white males over a certain age... were elligible to vote. This is one of the reasons why I think there needs to be some more clarification along majority-minority relations in civics.
It explains in the civilopedia that Universal Suffrage is not necessarily universal:

Note however that even the most universal suffrage is usually less than totally universal; in the United States, for example, one must be 18 years of age to vote, and being convicted of certain criminal offenses results in permanent loss of suffrage.

If it's really a problem then the answer is to change the name of Universal Suffrage to something that better describes what it actually is, not to make it a civic that has never existed and in all likelihood never will.

A Police State does not exclude Free Speech. However, it should incur a great unhappiness penalty. If you think about it, you'll realize this.

(Ie, just because you may express/say whatever your heart desires, doesn't mean the ruler(s) will give a damn about it.)

It explains in the civilopedia that Universal Suffrage is not necessarily universal:

Oh well, if it says it in the civilopedia... ;)

Of course, there's a substantial difference between saying universal suffrage which prevents a very small portion of its population from voting is close enough to warrant the name, and saying that a country where far fewer than 50% of the population can vote practices universal suffrage.

But the Confederacy and universal suffrage aside, I don't really understand why you're giving him such a hard time about this. He wants to have some civics in one category block a civic in another... what's the big deal? He's not trying to force it into your game. It just seems like you're getting rather irritated about the way other people want to mod their game.


EDIT: I think though that Police State and Free Speech really cannot go hand in hand. It doesn't mean that all speech will be controlled, but it means that the level of tolerance will be set considerably lower under a police state. Democracy, however, is quite possible under a police state. Universal Suffrage and Police State should not be mutually exclusive. Universal Suffrage and Representation should definitely not be mutually exclusive.

I would personally like to see a new category concerning power transfer and another for government. So for example, in the government category, you'd have Despotism, Monarchy, Representation, and in the power transfer category you'd have Hereditary Rule, Limited Suffrage (not set on that name), and Universal Suffrage. So you could have a republic with a legislative body made up of many men but it would still be passed on from father to son, etc. Rome's system was quasi-hereditary, so it's certainly possible to have such a system.

Eg., the Idea of a Police State:strength: also using Free Speech:thumbsup: is inherently illogical.

I mean, Police State w/ Free speech - :aargh:

Comments ?
HDK

Yeah, thats true, its not like a country with a constitutional right to Free Speech would ever censor the media, tap phones without warrants, hold people indefinitely without trial, suspend habeas corpus, have prisons overseas to hold people, prevent people from smoking in public, allow the police to stop and search people or demand id without cause, etc. That would NEVER happen in a country with Free Speech.

Yeah, thats true, its not like a country with a constitutional right to Free Speech would ever censor the media, tap phones without warrants, hold people indefinitely without trial, suspend habeas corpus, have prisons overseas to hold people, prevent people from smoking in public, allow the police to stop and search people or demand id without cause, etc. That would NEVER happen in a country with Free Speech.

1) The criteria of a Police State are largely open to interpretation and virtually no state declares itself a police state. Thus, declaring the contemporary USA a police state is subject to intense debate (one that I would rather not have here).

2) Your civics in Civilization are not collectively a constitution. They are what you have in practice. So that said, if censorship of the media is going on here (even if it's self-censorship), is there really free speech in practice?

Thanks Dom Pedro- seems ive gotten under a few skins with this.
You are also correct, my aim is to make civics more realstic in relation to eachother. Right now in my current game i have universal suffrage and slavery, which just rankles me completely.

Ive had enough of this silliness with arguments that inherently make no sense:

Dryhad, im going to be blunt.
You are totally totally wrong about the CSA. Using it as an example where Universal Suffrage was in existence unfortunately displays a complete lack of understanding about what that is. The slavery system in the CSA did NOT allow universal suffrage.
To spell it out: how could the suffrage be "Universal" when a significant proportion of the Souths population was denied just even the most basic human right- the right to be born free? ONLY the white population had the vote, and just men in general! That is a LIMITED suffrage. And one that was imposed through force, against the will of the slaves. There is no true dispute about this.

Surely you can come up with a better argument in favour of combining UniSuff and Slavery?

JefMart- thats the Point. In a country with free speech you can talk about those things, protest about them, pressure your lawmakers, write articles about them, make films and freely expect them to be released uncensored. In a police state None or Very few (and in limited ways) of those avenues are open to you. The very fact that you even Know about those kind of things betrays the other fact that you Are living in in a society WITH free speech. A perfect example would be the controlled police state of USSR- despite the constitution you were not allowed demonstrate, be distinctly critical of the state, pressure youre local lawmamkers etc. You certainly could never have made a Farenheit 9/11 (im not a Moore fan at all, just using him as an example).

Krille, when has that ever happened- that a ruler in a police state has allowed people to say whatever they want, to demonstrate, to organise political resistence, to write articles freely condemning the government and to have them published uncensored? And for NONE of that to go unpunished?

To sum up-everyone please back off and come up with better arguments. You current ones (for US&S, PS&FS)are inherently wrong. Also I havent said anything till now as I did not want to seem controlling but frankly im tired of the shrill tone of some of the posts here.

If you dont have constructive, straightforward suggestions and realistic arguments for/against then please dont bother to post. As Dom Pedro said- Im not trying to change YOUR personal game.

So, Comments/ideas on how to actually implement somethign like this? Because I only want to do a very limited, but quite powerful intervention. Suggestions for python code in order to negate the choices of certain other civics would be most welcome....

Regards,
HDK

Oh well, if it says it in the civilopedia... ;)
I rather imagine the civilopedia is a better reflection of Firaxis's intention that the subjective interpretation of players.

Of course, there's a substantial difference between saying universal suffrage which prevents a very small portion of its population from voting is close enough to warrant the name, and saying that a country where far fewer than 50% of the population can vote practices universal suffrage.
Is there? If you ask me it's a changing attitude of who "counts". Someone might carelessly say today that "everyone can vote" but they'd be wrong. Minors and criminals don't count. Slaves didn't count, women didn't count, people under 30 didn't count in days gone by. Where is the cut off? Where is the point where nobody could say "everyone can vote" because I daresay in an earlier society they might have.

But the Confederacy and universal suffrage aside, I don't really understand why you're giving him such a hard time about this. He wants to have some civics in one category block a civic in another... what's the big deal? He's not trying to force it into your game. It just seems like you're getting rather irritated about the way other people want to mod their game.
Well where are you when people try to tell me that I'm doing atheism wrong, hmm? That said, I'm not getting irritated by him making a mod, I'm getting irritated by the fact that he doesn't get the point of the civics system. Why do you care that I care? Seems to me that it affects you even less, if that's possible.

Dryhad, im going to be blunt.
You are totally totally wrong about the CSA. Using it as an example where Universal Suffrage was in existence unfortunately displays a complete lack of understanding about what that is. The slavery system in the CSA did NOT allow universal suffrage.
To spell it out: how could the suffrage be "Universal" when a significant proportion of the Souths population was denied just even the most basic human right- the right to be born free? ONLY the white population had the vote, and just men in general! That is a LIMITED suffrage. And one that was imposed through force, against the will of the slaves. There is no true dispute about this.
Then don't call it universal suffrage! Problem solved, and you don't have to tear apart a perfectly good game mechanic to do it! I don't think of it as universal suffrage, I just think of it as democracy. That's why I said that, because I don't necessarily follow your definition of everything.

If you dont have constructive, straightforward suggestions and realistic arguments for/against then please dont bother to post. As Dom Pedro said- Im not trying to change YOUR personal game.
At least your critics understand what you're trying to do but simply disagree. Try putting in atheism somehow if you think this is bad.

So, Comments/ideas on how to actually implement somethign like this? Because I only want to do a very limited, but quite powerful intervention. Suggestions for python code in order to negate the choices of certain other civics would be most welcome....
I have a very constructive idea as to how to implement this, and it only requires very simple XML modding. Put Police State and Free Speech in the same category, and change Universal Suffrage to something you can live with. Everybody wins.

I rather imagine the civilopedia is a better reflection of Firaxis's intention that the subjective interpretation of players.

My point was that the civilopedia isn't exactly known for being historically accurate.

Is there? If you ask me it's a changing attitude of who "counts". Someone might carelessly say today that "everyone can vote" but they'd be wrong. Minors and criminals don't count. Slaves didn't count, women didn't count, people under 30 didn't count in days gone by. Where is the cut off? Where is the point where nobody could say "everyone can vote" because I daresay in an earlier society they might have.

Well, by your logic then, oligarchies and democracies are identical forms of government with absolutely no distinction. Hell, even a monarchy is then exactly the same form of government then... you've allowed everyone who "counts" a vote.

Well where are you when people try to tell me that I'm doing atheism wrong, hmm? That said, I'm not getting irritated by him making a mod, I'm getting irritated by the fact that he doesn't get the point of the civics system. Why do you care that I care? Seems to me that it affects you even less, if that's possible.

Well, I didn't see those threads. My point is that you seem to be getting unnecessarily stressed out (and belligerent) about what somebody else wants to do in their mod. And if he "doesn't get" your... how did you put it?... "subjective interpretation", then let him be. Or is it the word of God when it comes from the mouth of Dryhad?

At least your critics understand what you're trying to do but simply disagree. Try putting in atheism somehow if you think this is bad.

Self-pity is not an excuse for rudeness. Just because you think others have given you an undue amount of grief doesn't suddenly give you the right to pay it forward to someone else.

I have a very constructive idea as to how to implement this, and it only requires very simple XML modding. Put Police State and Free Speech in the same category, and change Universal Suffrage to something you can live with. Everybody wins.

In this case "everybody wins" means you bullied somebody into changing their mod to be the way you want it to be. He is under absolutely no obligation to compromise with you on this. All any of us can do is offer him advice.

wtf?

Where the hell did atheism come in? What the hell do i know about youre arguments in other threads? And suggesting mixing Free Speech and Police State undermines your arguments entirely. It can only strike me as a deliberate hint that you think that this entire thread is your chance to vent out your feelings about some stupid, childish, totally off-topic random crap.

Dryhad Ive had enough of this juvenile crap. Ive PM'd an admin to step in, or at least monitor this thread. I consider your posts of absolutely no use to the discussion, unneccesarily accusatory and unduly aggressive. Please do not post in this thread ever again.

Dom Pedro- thank you very much for your replies and observations.

Regards,
HDK

My point was that the civilopedia isn't exactly known for being historically accurate.
This has nothing to do with history, it's about what Universal Suffrage is supposed to represent. And it says unambiguously that it's not universal.

Well, by your logic then, oligarchies and democracies are identical forms of government with absolutely no distinction. Hell, even a monarchy is then exactly the same form of government then... you've allowed everyone who "counts" a vote.
The difference is intention. Oligarchies and monarchies don't pretend to be democratic, and even if they do they're unlikely to be described by the populus as universal suffrage. With slaves and stuff it's different, voters simply don't consider them to be people. But as I said, change it to something that's not universal, because it's clearly not.

Well, I didn't see those threads. My point is that you seem to be getting unnecessarily stressed out (and belligerent) about what somebody else wants to do in their mod.
I feel the need to justify why this situation is different from those in which I have made the same complaint to others.

And if he "doesn't get" your... how did you put it?... "subjective interpretation", then let him be. Or is it the word of God when it comes from the mouth of Dryhad?
No, you're taking me out of context. The subjective interpretation is of what the civics represent. That's fluid, you can change that easily and many do. What the mechanic does, on the other hand, is not subjective. And he does not get it.

Self-pity is not an excuse for rudeness. Just because you think others have given you an undue amount of grief doesn't suddenly give you the right to pay it forward to someone else.
I am not trying to be rude. I apologise. I'm not trying to "pay it forward", I'm just saying he doesn't have it very bad.

wtf?

Where the hell did atheism come in? What the hell do i know about youre arguments in other threads?
I'm sorry. Really. I was out of line. Sorry.

And suggesting mixing Free Speech and Police State undermines your arguments entirely.
How?

It can only strike me as a deliberate hint that you think that this entire thread is your chance to vent out your feelings about some stupid, childish, totally off-topic random crap.

Dryhad Ive had enough of this juvenile crap. Ive PM'd an admin to step in, or at least monitor this thread. I consider your posts of absolutely no use to the discussion, unneccesarily accusatory and unduly aggressive. Please do not post in this thread ever again.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to do anything like that. You've misinterpreted my intentions and I've misinterpreted yours and then of course it just feeds back into itself and we both read things into each others posts that aren't there. I'm not trying to run your mod or whatever you think I'm doing, I'm just trying to offer you a suggestion that I believe makes more sense and is much easier to do. Perhaps I should have walked away earlier. I definitely shouldn't have made that last post. But I'll say again that you're seeing things that aren't there (and I probably am too).

(b) Slavery/Serfdom/Vassalage should not be possible under Universal Suffrage.
The very name of the latter civic inherently defines that slavery etc is unacceptable- otherwise the suffrage is NOT universal. Vassalage/Serfdom has a direct master-servant relationship, built into the society and maintained by a preponderance of force on the side of the Master. This is again in direct opposition to Uni. Suffrage.
Vassalage is not in direct conflict with Universal Conflict, in my opinion. Think of it as more like militarism - the soldiers get great benefits in exchange for their devotion to the state. Sure, it can also be considered nationhood, but lots of civics can cross over (representation/universal suffrage being the most obvious, in my opinion).

Dryhad,

Your apology is of course, accepted. And Ive read your other threads and checked out your mods and you do have some fine ideas.

Just please be more careful with your tone- there was a definite style of unnessary belligerence and aggressiveness to your posts. Also, the use of replying to every quote suggests a tit for tat attitude. You DONT need to reply to every line in a previous post. A general reply is fine. Also, it makes the thread much easier to read. I think we can all move on a little now :)

Interesting point, milly.
Im not entirely convinced yet, but go for it :)
Allow me to put my "rebuttal" :) :Vassalage suggests to me a specific system of master and slave- eg a lord, his knights, their peasants. It suggests a rigidly heirarchal system, with the lower classes denied access to realistic and effective legal means of holding their masters to account.

A classic historical example would be the magna carta- this wa not done on behalf of the peasants, but was a deliberate desire by the Nobles to make the English king accountable in a legal manner. Once this was signed it provided the legal start of the whole process whereby the King was gradually removed from a position of absolute authority.

In other words, it was the rise of the individual rights enshrined in a legal document that eventually changed and removed the system of vasslage.

But I am certainly open to your point...

Regards,
HDK

Seems you lot have sorted it out.... Please keep it on topic, and civil.