I thought I would ask what your favourite civic combinations are as well as post mine.

1) Peaceful 'Builder' Middle Age Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Bureaucracy
Serfdom
Decentralization
Organised Religion

2) Aggressive 'Military' Middle Age Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Vassalage
Slavery
Decentralisation
Theocracy

3) European Absolute Monarchy
Hereditary Rule
Nationhood
Caste System
Mercantalism
Theocracy

4) Colonial Empire
Representation
Nationhood
Caste System
Mercantalism
Organised Religion

5) Liberal Democracy
Universal Suffrage
Free Speech
Emancipation
Free Market
Free Religion
Commonwealth

6) Communism
Police State
Nationhood
Slavery
State Property
Occupation

7) Fascism
Police State
Nationhood
Slavery
Free Market
Occupation

Discussion of my list is welcome.

I almost never have your combinations.:)

Here are my 3 combinations (I NEVER use police state or occupation, and despite numerous attempts to use state property, I've never had the heart to swallow all those free trade routes or extra health)

1) Peaceful 'Builder' Medieval Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Bureaucracy (vassalage only if I can squeeze it in)
Serfdom/Slavery (usually the former first, then slavery to whip the population)
Decentralization/Mercantilism ASAP
Organized Religion/Pacifism (Theocracy if some AI really wants me like Spain)

2) Liberal/Commercial Republic
Representation
Bureaucracy (if I have a good capital) or Free Speech
Emancipation
Free Market
Pacifism (if I have a religion)
Commonwealth/Resettlement

3) Late game, advanced limited democracy/environmentalist republic
Representation (only switching to US if I have Cristo Redentor, and only for limited time while building up small cities or wonders)
Free Speech
Emancipation
Environmentalism
Free religion (>20 moves for a great person, IMHO, is not worth the 10% extra science)
Commonwealth

The first combination maximizes building/infrastructure while maintaining happiness.

The second combination emphasizes commerce and science (partly done by great people). The race to get first techs makes this of more priority than production.

The third combination grows the population to maximum (health) while emphasizing culture and production. By this time my economy should prosper without the extra trade routes (when corporation is known).


As in real life, there are no ideal government types except in theory.

Maybe your communism should have viceroyalty instead of occupation (like the satellite states of Eastern Europe).

Also for fascism, caste system may be more correct (Nietzsche).

I don't normally use any truly set combinations (probably should, but don't).
My civic usually go:
HR until Rep is available.
Slavery until I start taking stability/happiness hits, then Emancipation.
Mercantilism/Free Market, depending on how many people hate me.
OR for builder/Theocracy for warmongers.

The Stability civic, I don't make a single consistent choice, it truly depends on the civ and style I am playing.

My other fairly commonly used civics:
Serfdom for large empires with lots of improvements.
US if I have cottages, or lots of gold income.
State Property for large colonial empires (I haven't really to into corporations).

I don't normally play late enough into the game for the bottom four, though.

If I have a Huge Colonial Empire in the Industrual Age, I run Mercantilism+Representation+Free Religion to keep my science rate in the norm.

The stability one I use does change in each game genorally. As fascism I do kinda have two that one and one the same but with Mercantalism and Caste System. But thats kinda of a Fascism/Colonial hybrid....

In the colonial empire I do sometimes switch it for free religion depending on how many religions I have in my borders. I also sometimes use Theocracy as spain. Like the Absolute Monarchy. (Theocracy+Drafting=Drafted units with a promotion!)

Hmm, Communism's not a very good name, maybe you were thinking of Stalinism?

(sorry to nitpick)

Your right it is Stalinism but the term Communism is normally applied to Stalinism so I wanted to use the more well known term.

HR and Slavery for life. Other than that very little is needed until mid-game.

Government: Hereditary Rule then Representation. Nothing else.
Legal: Vassalage then Freedom of Speech. Nothing else.
Labor: Slavery then Caste System. If I play 600 AD starts, I often choose Serfdom for initial land improvement. Emancipation if I am forced to.
Economy: "Nothing real matters" here...
Religion: Organized; or Theocracy if I need to make a lot of wars and if I have a religious goal.


I may choose Bureaucracy if I play a small civ that relies much on its capital (there are a few).
I may choose Free Religion when playing an Asian civ since these normally have several religions available.

Onedreamer and others: how come you don't list Pacifism in your choices, especially since you use caste system (I presume to maximize great merchants or scientists for bulbing techs)? I've almost stopped using organized religion in my recent games since I feel that if I can't whip a building it's not worth building with or without the 25% bonus.

Three reasons: 1) you will cripple your economy initially unnecessarily, since you can get a high amount of GP anyways in RFC. Pacifism is effective on a long run only IMO 2) The AI will not like Pacifism, except maybe Ghandi, which will love you anyways whatever civic you adopt. I'm not saying Pacifism, or Nationhood are useless civics, it's just that compared to others they aren't generally worth IMO. 3) There should be very special conditions to lead me think I need any of the civics I didn't list, especially those that come later, because adopting them means a stability hit. Pacifism comes almost always later than Organized Religion and Theocracy, so I would have to switch away from these. And I just can't convice myself that it's worth the stability hit.

edit: forgot to say, Caste System for me is very good because of the production bonus. You can have a production 5 in a plains plot without resources before railroad... better than a plains mine, and equal to with a railroad.

I don't use it because I simply under-utilize GP. This is something I can't get used to in Civ IV.
Also, I like big cities, which is in opposition to whipping, though I am getting to do it more and more. This is a hold-over from Civ II, where my goal is always as many cities as possible, and get them as big as possible, then worry about everything else. So I like OR.
If I am I highly militaristic civ, I will go theocracy ASAP (and pacifism cost me an arm and a leg, preventing me from hacking other people's off).

That said, I normally pick OR/Theocracy early, and avoid changing as much as possible (unless I am India, or late game with Christo Redentor).
I hate anarchy, my last game, as Maya, Anarchy nearly killed me when I suddenly needed theo/vassalage (French found me with a galleon and I got religion off the bat) as the Euros were coming Combined with a horrible economy rating (regular pillaging by Euros for a century or two and me (voluntarily) confined to central America, with 3 cities) I was collapsing when I got a lucky GP and popped a (second) GP (odds were overwhelmingly in favour of the same type as my first one) golden age 8 turns from the finish, any more anarchy and I likely would have lost.
Then I realised I was playing the release version and could have changed during my 3 golden ages with no anarchy :wallbash:.
But my point remains, I like the others, and don't like switching. And I don't mind not using it, sine I wouldn't use it effectively anyways.

Large cities are for late game--the early infrastructure should be built ASAP and the benefits in the long run are substantial. The fact that the damn plague will hit you at least 2-3 times means that if you whipped early you would not have lost the pop that would have died from the plague but they would have contributed hammers. Put in another way, buildings don't get sick and die. :) I whip as soon as I can (to minimize the unhappiness) but not enough to hinder my growth. I usually switch from organized religion to pacifism when I have another civic I can switch to (e.g. bureaucracy, commonwealth, mercantilism, emancipation) so I can do both. (some civs like Arabia and Mongolia for some reason need 2 moves for 2-civic changes...)

For city size, I know, I just hate to kill off people. I have stated to do it at the happy cap fairly well, but I still play enough civ II to be stuck in that mindset.

One thing I forgot to mention:
I am a warmonger at heart, if that is a viable strategy, I go for it.
My Spanish strategy, right off the bat was to collapse France and England (in Warlords), I even sent a raiding expedition to Scandinavia to make sure they didn't found a city.
Knowing I could pretty much take the Incas/Aztecs with one caravel, my entire game was about taking Western Europe.
Same with the US, if it wasn't too slow to play.
And if I play for fun, it is ALWAYS bloody.

So large armies generally make pacifism too expensive (along with lost xp and slowed infrastructure in new cities).
BTW: does OR affect the amount of hammers from whipping?

uhm, Pacifism without Vassalage is suicide for me.

Just reread the article in the wiki about stability. I've been more stable in my recent games and couldn't figure out why, and this is probably the reason: Pacifism and Free religion do not take hits when you have nonstate religions in your cities, as opposed to OR and Theocracy.

I knew free religion, but not pacifism............

until when being "more stable" doesn't give any advantage on being "stable" or "unstable", Pacifism will still have too high of a cost for its benefits.

I would entirely change the following :

6) Communism

a)Hereditary Rule (in a sense not of Monarchy but of Autocracy, think of One Party instead of One King, moreover the Communist System all over Easter Europe were also kept in line by numerous Russian Tanks, which is the effect of Hereditary Rule )

b)Bureocracy (The USSR and its Satellites States were not much about nationalism, but all about Bureocracy. In fact the Communist System systematically surpressed Nationalism and thought of it as a threat. Just think of all the National and Ethnic Conflicts in the former USSR (Central Asia, Caucasus) or in Yugoslawia that broke loose AFTER the communist system failed.)

c)Emancipation (this is for sure, Slavery is not fitting at all for Communism, Gender equality and the absence of statemade discrimination of races or classes was a reality in communism and think of the rapid urbanization in all Communist States - Emancipation is best fitting in terms of mechanics and idea - you might confuse emancipation with free speech - free speech did not exists in communism)

d)State Property

e)Pacifism (At foundation the USSR was not meant to be aggressive but they only took up arms when Germany assaulted them and then they initially liberated Eastern Europe which only later turned into an occupation or better into a System or better into a System of Satellites States quite like the Persian Satrapes. In general all Communist States did not engage in any open war, except when dragged into conflicts. And philosophy-wise Pacifism is best fitting. Last but not least the Communist USSR was breeding a huge chunk of 'Great People' so the mechanism is best fitting as well)

f)Viceroyalty (Satellites States , no doubt)

I would entirely change the following :

6) Communism

a)Hereditary Rule (in a sense not of Monarchy but of Autocracy, think of One Party instead of One King, moreover the Communist System all over Easter Europe were also kept in line by numerous Russian Tanks, which is the effect of Hereditary Rule )

b)Bureocracy (The USSR and its Satellites States were not much about nationalism, but all about Bureocracy. In fact the Communist System systematically surpressed Nationalism and thought of it as a threat. Just think of all the National and Ethnic Conflicts in the former USSR (Central Asia, Caucasus) or in Yugoslawia that broke loose AFTER the communist system failed.)

c)Emancipation (this is for sure, Slavery is not fitting at all for Communism, Gender equality and the absence of statemade discrimination of races or classes was a reality in communism and think of the rapid urbanization in all Communist States - Emancipation is best fitting in terms of mechanics and idea - you might confuse emancipation with free speech - free speech did not exists in communism)

d)State Property

e)Pacifism (At foundation the USSR was not meant to be aggressive but they only took up arms when Germany assaulted them and then they initially liberated Eastern Europe which only later turned into an occupation or better into a System of Satellites States quite like the Persian Satrapes. In general all Communist States did not engage in any open war, except when dragged into conflicts. And philosophy-wise Pacifism is best fitting. Last but not least the Communist USSR was breeding a huge chunk of 'Great People' so the mechanism is best fitting as well)

f)Viceroyalty (Satellites States , no doubt)

Rod, why do you and almost everyone else confuse COMMUNISM with the SOVIET SOCIALISM ?
Read Karl Marx FFS ! There hasn't been Communism anywhere in the world except in guilds in MMORPGs, and it worked wonders there.

b)Bureocracy (The USSR and its Satellites States were not much about nationalism, but all about Bureocracy. In fact the Communist System systematically surpressed Nationalism and thought of it as a threat. Just think of all the National and Ethnic Conflicts in the former USSR (Central Asia, Caucasus) or in Yugoslawia that broke loose AFTER the communist system failed.)


The Sovietic System you mean, and no it didn't suppress Nationalism at all. They thought of American Nationalism, which is actually Imperialism, as a threat. Meet someone who lived in the USSR and stop believing in written things.

The are many different interpretations of Cummunism and your one is pretty accurate, although I wanted one that would lead to a good benifit for your empire over accuracy.

I only have 2 objections to your list. Firstly would be Emancipation. When everyone are slaves to the state they are all equal but not all free, I was taking as much inspiration from books like 1984 than I was from the USSR.

Secondly Heriditory Rule. The Party was in power but the power was not passed on Hereditorally. The spy net works, KGB, etcetra all typify plice states much better.

Rod, why do you and almost everyone else confuse COMMUNISM with the SOVIET SOCIALISM ?
Read Karl Marx FFS ! There hasn't been Communism anywhere in the world except in guilds in MMORPGs, and it worked wonders there.



The Sovietic System you mean, and no it didn't suppress Nationalism at all. They thought of American Nationalism, which is actually Imperialism, as a threat. Meet someone who lived in the USSR and stop believing in written things.

My wife IS Russian, thank you for your advice..

The are many different interpretations of Cummunism and your one is pretty accurate, although I wanted one that would lead to a good benifit for your empire over accuracy.

I only have 2 objections to your list. Firstly would be Emancipation. When everyone are slaves to the state they are all equal but not all free, I was taking as much inspiration from books like 1984 than I was from the USSR.

Secondly Heriditory Rule. The Party was in power but the power was not passed on Hereditorally. The spy net works, KGB, etcetra all typify plice states much better.

I go along with Hereditary Rule, because I also did not really like the choice, but I also do not really see anything better in the list. Certainly Police State is the next best fitting option.

However I can not agree with Slavery, but only with Emancipation.

I was born in Eastern Germany and I experienced the system change when I was eleven years old.
I was certainly not mature and academically sound with eleven, but I had already gathered lots of memories and I am believe I am able to put them into the right context now, 18 years later.

So 1984 (which is a awesome novel, but still a novel) is not depicting the Communist reality of 1984 in any way.
People were quite confident towards the authorities and tried to get their turf in an already visibly declining Communist world by all means. The Politburo was a big joke (it was called the cabinet of Grandfathers) and the political celebrations and the propaganda campaigns were seen as what they were, fresh paint for a rotten house.

If these were slaves that they were most rebellious and disobedient slaves ever. (please understand that slaves think of themselves as something less valuable than their masters, that is the basic principle of all Slavery. Otherwise the system would not work. The citizen of the 2nd world never ever considered themselves as less valuable then the members of the party, just the opposite).

Moreover I really need to stress on Gender Equality. Women were much more equal in the Communist societies then they are in our current liberal Western societies. A huge majority of women were working full time.
The education of the children was almost entirely outsourced to a huge system of Kindergardens, Playschools and basic schools with afternoon support. The system started to care for the children from 2 years onwards. So the benefits for the women were that they could pursue their own working lifes and their own academic careers without worrying about a trustworthy care for the children and many many did. This kind of personal responsibility and personal independence then led to a huge change in behavioural patterns. Communist women in general were no housewifes by no means but they demanded equal share of wealth and workload and they succeeded.

But back on topic :

Communism did not work, because the combination is not good. (e.g. Pacifism and Hereditary Rule or Police State .. ehh .. no)

BUT

we might just create our own version of Communism that could work wonders in Civ 4.

BUT

at first we must define whether Communism should support an aggressive play style - we might call this War Communism and we could look for inspiration at the Russian Civil War, Stalinism or maybe to some extend even Maoism

OR

we could define Communism as a mean to support builder strategies. And we have inspiration in Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism which are btw. pretty different.

1984 was written in the 1940's or their abouts, it is not ment to be a completly accurate prediction of 40 years in the future. Now I do actually agree with onedreamer in that Soviet Socialism is very different to Marx's theories (and yes, I have read quite a bit of Marx). Societ Socialism I do not find too interesting and my civic choices were more geared towards a more Orwelian Communist state, although I think that it depicts the USSR pretty accuratly. Police state is Defonatly more accurate than heriditory rule and the idea of emancipation in XXth century communist states is just Laughable to be honest.

Oh and how about this. Communist Utopia;
Universal Suffarage
Free Speach
Emancipation
State Property
Free Religion
Commonwealth


EDIT: Also just as communist did not work well in Russia so your Civic options contradict with each other. You have heriditory rule, requiring lots of soldiers and pacifism increasing the cost of each one, Emancipation encouraging Cottages, but state property encouraging workshops and watermills, state property encourages a large land area but beaurocracy is good only for smaller empires, etc... This is actually pretty good as it represents the major weaknesses of the Soviet state.

Communism did not work, because the combination is not good. (e.g. Pacifism and Hereditary Rule or Police State .. ehh .. no)

It was Communism only in the name. Bad implementation, from Lenin to Stalin. They used an idea of someone else to move masses of people. Who knows if they even believed in it. Probably not, or not entirely.


we could define Communism as a mean to support builder strategies. And we have inspiration in Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism which are btw. pretty different.

none of which is Communism. They are Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, as you correctly defined them.

My wife IS Russian, thank you for your advice..

Like mine :D
Problem is that when you say Communism = Hereditary Rule and Vassalization, you make all German philosophers of XIX century turn in their tombs. Poor guys... a bit of respect please ? Make a distinction between Soviet Socialism and Communism, please.

1984 was written in the 1940's or their abouts, it is not ment to be a completly accurate prediction of 40 years in the future.

What you don't say .. Naturally a novel will NOT predict accurate realities. This I have mentioned in my thread.

idea of emancipation in XXth century communist states is just Laughable to be honest.

Please provide some arguments to support your statement. Just laughable does not sound very convincing.

EDIT: Also just as communist did not work well in Russia so your Civic options contradict with each other. You have heriditory rule, requiring lots of soldiers and pacifism increasing the cost of each one, Emancipation encouraging Cottages, but state property encouraging workshops and watermills, state property encourages a large land area but beaurocracy is good only for smaller empires, etc... This is actually pretty good as it represents the major weaknesses of the Soviet state.

This is exactly what I said in my thread. Have you read my thread at all or are you putting down your own lines and pretend to argue ??

Problem is that when you say Communism = Hereditary Rule and Vassalization, you make all German philosophers of XIX century turn in their tombs. Poor guys... a bit of respect please ? Make a distinction between Soviet Socialism and Communism, please.

I never spoke about Vassalization, never.

Marx and Engels were living and writing in UK, but not in Germany. If any other "German" philosopher was writing about Communism then I am not aware of it. (btw. Even the German worker's movements were initially based almost entirely on Lasalle ideas and the theories of Marx never gained much of a following throughout the last 150 years, except when East Germany was involuntarily turned into a Communist Satellite State).

Apart from this we need to understand that Soviet Communism in all its shades was THE major practical implementation of the Communistic ideas. The Russian (and later their .. Vassals ..) were lab mices for one of the biggest social experiment in human history.

(an old Russian joke goes that a babuschka comes to the gate of the Kremlin and demands to see the people inside with their white coats. The guardian stops her and ask why and for what reason the people inside should wear white coats ? She answers that she always thought the politburo were made of real scientists, who are testing their theories with animals BEFORE they apply them to real people ... )

Nevertheless the experiment was grounded on the original Marx's Theory, even when modified. But the modifications were still leaving the most of the core of the original idea in place. We therefore have to come to the conclusion that the original idea has to be reworked. Marx was wrong, BUT that does not mean that UTOPIA is not working.

UTOPIA the free, equal, social and whatever society is still a dream that has to come true. But we need a new theoretic basement for it's realization. Like I said Marx can not help us in this matter. He was wrong and his ideas are not applicable. We need something new.

Frankly speaking I sincerely hope that UTOPIA will work one day, because our current societies .. well, I am working for the last 3 years in the IT-industry in India and therefore I am can experience first hand the boom years of a Free Market society. The experience has convinced me that our current economical and social system are just the LEAST harmful system, but they can NOT be the future. There has to be something better !!

(So I keep on watching Star Trek ... :) )

Marx and Engels were exiled to England after the 1848 revolutions, something they have in common with most revolutionaries and revolutionary thinkers of the 19th century. But the fact remains they were born in Germany, educated in Germany, highly influenced by contemporary German philosophy, wrote their early work in Germany and all of their work was originally published in German.

the theories of Marx never gained much of a following throughout the last 150 years

...that is quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard on these forums.

I never spoke about Vassalization, never.

Sorry, meant Viceroyality. Already the word "Royal" should make a bell ring in your ears...

Marx and Engels were living and writing in UK, but not in Germany.

??? If now I move to UK, my mentality and way of thinking will stay italian.

Apart from this we need to understand that Soviet Communism in all its shades was THE major practical implementation of the Communistic ideas. The Russian (and later their .. Vassals ..) were lab mices for one of the biggest social experiment in human history.

Did you say Vassals ? :P
It wasn't a social experiment. It was a dream and an ideology. I am really surprised that your wife is russian....................... The people in the USSR really believed in Communism.

(an old Russian joke goes that a babuschka comes to the gate of the Kremlin and demands to see the people inside with their white coats. The guardian stops her and ask why and for what reason the people inside should wear white coats ? She answers that she always thought the politburo were made of real scientists, who are testing their theories with animals BEFORE they apply them to real people ... )

Do you want me to start a huge list of "social experiments" of much bigger failures in the non-communist countries ?

Nevertheless the experiment was grounded on the original Marx's Theory, even when modified. But the modifications were still leaving the most of the core of the original idea in place. We therefore have to come to the conclusion that the original idea has to be reworked. Marx was wrong, BUT that does not mean that UTOPIA is not working.

No, he wasn't wrong. All he wrote is not utopic but perfectly doable. The only, ONLY thing it takes to implement it is the will from men to do it. As I said, in other context (not political) communism has been highly successful. Also, persecuting and killing people, destroying a big chunk of russian culture by killing or forcing to exile the aristocracy (read: the most cultural and knowledgeable class), and then having farmers teach in the schools isn't what Marx wrote, but it's what Lenin did. Again: bad implementation, and not communism.

UTOPIA the free, equal, social and whatever society is still a dream that has to come true. But we need a new theoretic basement for it's realization. Like I said Marx can not help us in this matter. He was wrong and his ideas are not applicable. We need something new.

We only need new people with new mentality, not new theories.

Frankly speaking I sincerely hope that UTOPIA will work one day, because our current societies .. well, I am working for the last 3 years in the IT-industry in India and therefore I am can experience first hand the boom years of a Free Market society. The experience has convinced me that our current economical and social system are just the LEAST harmful system, but they can NOT be the future. There has to be something better !!

(So I keep on watching Star Trek ... :) )

I came to your same conclusions working in the IT industry in Italy. A country which is a perfect example of the corrupted society we live in. And not only the society is corrupted, the air is also unbearable. Do you smell trash from here ? :mischief:


One thing I fully agree with you though: the USSR was much more emancipated than our western, bigot society. But I'm not going to discuss this with american victims of cold war propaganda. I'd prefer discussing theological matters with islamic extremists. Now Russia is westernizing though... sad thing.

The is a difference between everyone being equal and everyone being free. I would agree that in Soviet communism everyone was equal (although some were more equal than others) but not that they are all free.

Kairob, we said they were more emancipated then many western non communist countries. None said they were ALL free and equal.

Of course, a lot of people think they are absolutely free and equal in the western countries. Like I said, I am not going to discuss with such victims of our society.

t didn't suppress Nationalism at all.
But they did try. :)
Nationalism for the soviet state (in the beginning) was a huge threat, it had to be repressed for two main reason:
- ideology: universal equality between people of any race, religion, gender.
- practicality: nationalism could break down the Russian empire that the communist state "inherited" from the previous regime

The early soviet state did everything possible to curb nationalism and replace it with soviet ideology.
Even the internal borders of the various soviet republics (inside SSSR) were drawn to curb the "power" of the russian nationalism.

However with the 2nd world war the soviets had to find a way to unite the population against the nazist: nationalism was a good way to go forward.

??? If now I move to UK, my mentality and way of thinking will stay italian.
Yes and no.
If you don't completely isolate yourself from the society around you, you'll change.
I moved from Italy to Sweden (then to London, and now in Germany): I always remained Italian but I also got changed by the local culture.
From nay points of view I'm a mix of Italian and Swedish mentality (plus influx from russian girlfriend and from working for a japanese company).
Going back to topic, Marx was german and influenced a lot by german culture, however the british society influenced him as well.

Apart from this we need to understand that Soviet Communism in all its shades was THE major practical implementation of the Communistic ideas.
Yes, however Lenin did try to implement a theory in a real society with huge practical problems:
- WW1
- Civil war (white vs red)
- foreign invasion (Poland, Britain, Japan)
- collapse of agricoltural production
- need to rebuild industrial infrastructure

utopias are VERY hard to implement with such constrainst.
all the following development was a result of the compromise between constrainsts and the utopic theories... no wonder that the implementation suffered a lot.
Going from good emancipations in some areas and repression in others.

You have heriditory rule, requiring lots of soldiers and pacifism increasing the cost of each one, Emancipation encouraging Cottages, but state property encouraging workshops and watermills, state property encourages a large land area but beaurocracy is good only for smaller empires, etc...
no wonder that at the end the soviet state collapsed.
"heriditory rule" suggests monarchy, but I prefer to think about it as "autocracy", and in this way better applies to the soviet state (as well as many others).

My wife IS Russian, thank you for your advice..
ohhh poor us... we do know what it means russian dictatorship. :)

I came to your same conclusions working in the IT industry in Italy.

IT+Torino... let me try to guess... Telecom Italia or Motorola?



Do you smell trash from here ? :mischief:

<Italian-joke on>
That's Napoli, not Italy. :)
</Italian-joke on>

ahah, no I hate Telecom. Let me not get started. But I'm not working in the industry anymore, though I am still in the IT.

And yeah, it's Napoli. Even its neighbors don't want its trash, figures the rest of Italy. Apparently though Germany is going to make money with it, and Italy is even going to pay for this ! Could you imagine a more ludicrous scenario ? They make fun of us regularly, but now they really must be rolling on the floors and rubbing their hands.


ohhh poor us... we do know what it means russian dictatorship. :)

The difference between a german / italian woman and a russian woman is that the first 2 would be tyrants as opposed to the latter, actually ;)

I still wonder why we're still keeping Napoli inside Italy.
Can't we give it for free to any other nation? Tunisia? Libia? Albania?

They wouldn't want it :D