http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3999/picture01za6.jpg

Now im new to these forums, and i love the RoM mod! (I just played a game on the gigantic map on snail speed with 20+ civs, and really, my head is ready to implode.)

Anyway for my personal use, im customising the civics to my own (machiavellian tastes) and thought i'd post the results as a suggestion to for the mod, and just for discussion if thats ok?

Warning - this is long but comments appreaciated


Civic Ideas -

Government - from executive, legislative, ideological and you name it - are often times contradictory in their manifestations. In RoM the government options reflect a mix of 'political structures and ideologies' somewhat uncomfortably. Sometimes they are too similar such as majority rule, representation and universal suffrage and others are too generic or circumstantial - such as Police or Corporate State.

With the Corporate State for example, with varied connotations, is usually linked to fascism - (such as mussolini's italy) while others (particularly yanks, link it less as a political/economic philosophy than to a matter of circumstance, ie. a govt dominated by lobbying corporations. This is a little awkward since it is a matter of circumstance and nod 'governmental' ideology.

Likewise the 'Police State' has always had a strange connotation to it in Civ 4 - of course the 'police state' represent generically - fascism, communism without any of the exciting specificity or flavour! Neither does that civic itself accurately represent those ideologies.

Part of the problem really - is that the Government Options (in Civ 4) do not provide the 'political realism' (as a theory) or machiavellian reality of the government. It tries to do to so much with its umbrella representations that governments become generic! RoM has added exciting new civic options however these new columns are built on this murky foundation. I believe that in terms of political science - we can use these new columns to add further definition as to the type of governmental manifestation that has resulted - to show beyond the executive facade where the power really lies. In this case - the civics from economy, religion (or likewise with the renamed civic columns of Welfare and Culture.)

So to give flavour to our Government civics I suggest changing 'Legal' to 'Politic' - as this allows for an additional dimension to be represented in the players choice of government.

Currently the 'Legal' civics combine elements of 'human rights' and governmental forms - but this is currently a little clumsy and again lacks flavour and specificity. In many cases, we can presume the associated human rights (such as free speech etc) with the type of government, politic and 'society' (renamed from Labor).

So,

I have replaced my Government civics with,

Government

Chiefdom
Despotism (The office of Despot or emperor etc.)
Monarchy
Theocracy
Republic
Fascism
Communism
Democracy


Politic

The Legal civics have become,

Aristocracy
Bureaucracy (Advisors/Party dedicated personally/ideologically/exclusively to govt)
Bourgeouise (power lies with the rich, from venetian merchants to bill gates)
Absolute (Louis 15th style Absolutism - or personal control
Feudal (from 12th century barons to 21st century warlords)
Senate (Patrician dominated democracy) usa, rome
Parliament (comprising democracy) britain
President (Stronger executive democracy) usa, french republic

It is important to note - that the Politic category in my mind is now a machiavellian indication of where 'power really lies'. It allows for an interesting range of governmental types - that at first may seem unusual - but I believe makes more sense.

So I know your all going 'come on thats nuts' with some of the combo's your pairing, but I'll give you some examples for sake of plausability of the more extreme government and politic combinations with plausible historical examples.

1 Despotism - Parliament (Oliver Cromwell, Rump Parliament)

2 Theocracy - President (Iran, present day)

3 Democracy - Feudal (Afghanistan, present day)

4 Communist - Bourgeouise (China, present day)

5 Republic - Absolute (Revolutionary France)

The Politic systems adds definition to the government civics, in as I like to see it - a cynical fashion. Now, in calculating the bonuses for these civics - they should be so that a player can choose between them, to help (as they do normally) when their civilisation faces certain situations.

So for example, a democracy under grave threat, may need to instigate politic changes for military bonuses, or a cash strapped 'absolute' monarchy may need to cede politic civics to the 'bourgeouise' to make more pennies.


LABOR

Now this I have renamed to 'Society'. Instead of a list of 'reforms' for the work-place (which I think proved to be a bit consequential) and somewhat un-colourful, I have instead renamed Labor to 'society' gives us a much wider canvas to look at. It also gives us a little more colour in the types of social engineering we can seek to achieve with our civs, and do more to describe the circumstances of our civs populations.

NB. The Labour type civics, I have combined with the health civics, into a new and renamed Welfare category.

So these civics represent the type of society our civs encourage and or enforce.

Tribalism
Serfdom (For most medieval and in effect ancient history)
Classism (Conservatism/status quo, for most modern history)
Oppressed (Big brother)
Liberal
Socialist

I should note - that these types of society all offer bonuses and are not a series of improvement over the other. Classism is as 'modern' as Socialist or Liberal, each conferring different advantages and disadvantages. Oppressed is fairly self explanatory, and is not necessarily unique to fascist, or communist governments. As a means of ensuring controls we have seen many declared democracies use this during wartime.


Economy

I was never much a fan of the economic civics, as again they descibed a mixture of circumstance and theory often overlapping. For example 'Global economy' can easily be a result of any other economic civic (through circumstance)

I think we have an opportunity to reflect real economic norms - and add a little political flavour to it also. I think also that slavery is perhaps one of the most pivitol economic stages in early civilisation and its crude representation (with spent populations) is quite unrealistic. It was a cruel, but purely profitable stage in the development of 'civilisation' (despite its immorality)

So I have,

Barter - its fair to say that losing decentralised is not a loss?
Slavery - a grim and useful economic trait - we did still have it till the 1860s..
Mercantalism -
Laissez Faire - free trade/ austrian school
Planned - State owned economy from communism to absolutism
Keynesian - Interventionalist Economy ( - Mixed Economy, more socialist)
Chicago School - (free trade, institutional, big corporates, central bank)
Corporatism - Imagine instead of governmental 'patronage' giving businesses monopoly (ala mercantalism) that its the reverse. In effect the most modern form of protectionism.

NB. For you economists, the austrian and chicago schools of fair trade - differing mostly with the chicago school regarding some govt control as necessary - i think is best represented by
classifying austrian school within the laissez faire civic despite its 'evolutionary development' since that theory. Again like all civics, none are simple evolutions from one over the other, but each retain value dependent on circumstance.


Religion

Religion i think is a little unused and not as political as it could be. Paganism, shamanism, sacrificial cult and idolatry could all be part and parcel really. Ive never understood 'pacifism' as a religious civic because as a belief, it has no part in state policy over religion. While Free Religion and Secularism is really part and parcel in some regards, secularism can itself be deemed the most 'tolerant' of religious civics without a seperate civic existing for that purpose. This frees up Atheism as a choice, which as an anti-religious civic formed a vital part of many fascist, communist, and other ideologies.

Paganism
Prophets - early religious tech, basically priests, institutional religion
Free Church - eg medieval church
State Church - eg Church of England - Henry VIII !!
Divine Rule - eg Divine Mandate, Leader Cults - great for a despot
Intolerance - eg Scariness...
Secularism
Atheism

As above, Intolerance and the Free church represent religion at its political might. The State Church is religion (under the heel of its political rulers, as does divine rule, and atheism.)


Healthcare

This is a great idea, but it looks very messy in RoM, with its varying degrees of socialised medicine, and awkward sci-fi universal antidote. I have categorised this differently as 'Welfare' and again each civic is not just an improvement over the last, but an ideological choice. Some players may even find reason to never change civics - the point being to make all relatively interesting in their own right. Naturally the compromise of welfare civic choices is the power given to other sectors of the political, business and religious spectrum.

Charity - give us a penny gov...
Church - Big expansion of church influence
Private - Business/ Insurance companies,
Corporate - Corporate monopoly over this huge industry...
Subsidy - Akin to the US health care system
Socialised - Akin to the NHS UK etc


Education

Education is a bit bland - i think its because, one imagines that the number of improvements that can be built presently add a lot of 'detail' over the education component of the game. Again the sci fi civics of virtual learning etc are a bit ichy.

I changed mine to Culture, and see it as an opportunity to present something completely different - which is the transcending cultural goal of the people. Its bonuses are similar to 'education'.
Mines are,

Conservative
Militant
Cultured
Industrious
Materialist
Enlightened
Socialist
Nationalist

This adds a little more flavour to civs too. Again each would have different bonuses, not obsoleting one another.

The bonuses and penalties for civic choices would influence player choices in the types of combinations they choose - but not force them. It is entirely possible and plausible (and quite machiavellain) for contradictory civics to be chosen. Call it Political Realism!

So again, if we look at a seemingly absurd example

Govt Fascist
Politic President
Society Liberal
Economy Chicago School
Religion State Church
Welfare Corporate
Culture Socialist

So in this case, we have a fascist govt, under Presidential authority, practicing free trade with a liberal society. Such civic bonuses could contradict each other, and one can imagine the rev checks that would result from this setup. However perhaps this has resulted because the fascist player is facing imminent revolution and is desperately giving 'Reform' to society in order to maintain military benefits from his govt civics? Pausible in transition? Indeed!

I actually find it quite fun linking real countries to the civic options - most are likely and easy, but putting the most unusual combos and finding nations is amusing and easy!

Anyway those are my thoughts on the civics and i would be delighted if RoM was interested in them. I have not worked on bonuses and to be honest would be better at providing 'ideas' rather than specifics for the game mechanics.

PS - I should add that I would never release any ammendment of this mod without the mod leaders permission! Cheers :)

well, this certainly looks like well-thought and I'm sure zappara will be interested in your ideas... by the way, he is in the process of rethinking some of the civics, I think... ;) so this is the right time to make suggestions about that, and since you seem to know well what you're talking about I'm sure this could turn out awesome :D

:lol: Well that would be very cool, well if RoM were interested in blethering to me on helping out with the civics feel free to PM me as id be happy to help out. I'm also a 2d graphic artist so textures for buttons etc and stuff id be happy to contribute too ;)

Government Civics Discussion

Here's me doing a bit more blethering about the ideas behind the civic suggestions.

Chiefdom - Now we all start with this - this could provide egalitarian bonuses for extremely small civs (city states) where the sense of community really comes into play.

Despotism - This is an office legitimised politically, religiously, and is not a straight forward dictatorship. Do most manifest themselves that way? Indeed many can do. Julius Caeser for example was one of dozens made so by the Roman Republic.

So this specific political office was never appropriate as the starting government civic. It's purpose was to rule during periods of emergency (and we all know how long those 'periods' can last. Of course it can become legitimate and even benevolent.

If we imagine in RoM, that the Roman player, with Republic civic is prosperous but seizes an opportunity to strike against its barbarian rivals... then the yummy benefits of the despotism civic (for military units) and centralised control, allow for it to become an empire.

Likewise the Govt Despotic civic can play with the Senate Politic civic.

As such, Despotism (as a granted office) was a government styled under some degree of learning - and probably should be accessible at the same time as democracy.


We can look at some other examples.

Burma today, is ruled by a military Junta. It does not have a fascist ideology, but certainly is Despotism. (Justified military rule...) If it lived in the realm of civ 4, then a smaller civ, could benefit from the centralised control, especially if combined with Politic such as Bureacracy.

Or if we look to Genghis Khan then combining Despotism with Feudal Politic could bring similar military reward!

As such in the politic civics there is no immediate opposite to despotism. As it is often democratic institutions (relatively) would create Despotism.

As a player, Despotism should offer the chance for aggressive military expansion - the charge for glory or as an urgent requirement.

Even Napoleon - with the Despotism and Senate Politic would best represent the 'French Empire' of that period.

It should be noted that in civilisations that expanded during periods of Despot rulership - that eventually they do transition into other more institutional forms of government. Be that monarchy or back to representative forms of democracy. With the exceptions that do exist we know that Despots go to great lengths to institutionalise their rulership.

So too can Despots with these civics, through a range of feigned or effective legitimacy with the politic civics, through insitutionalising one self with Divine Rule (Kim Song) or the State Church (Henry VIII) to the insane kind of mixes one could imagine with leaders such as even Eva Peron!

So to cut a long story short Despotism in this case is no longer the 'crappy first govt civic'. But a legitimate and potentially devastating, exciting and disturbing form of personal rule!

Goodness knows but I would love for improvements and Rev checks to marry variously depending on the combinations of civic for this government choice!

Ooh, that looks fantastic :D I might adopt it ;) The current civics in RoM are originally from couple different civic mods, though I've heavily modified them several times but got to admit I haven't been totally happy with them and without the scrollable civic screen I haven't been able to modify them exactly the way I wanted as I had planned 9-10 categories and normal civic screen fits only barely 7 categories.

Originally I had plans to divide Government to 2 separate groups, bit like you did with Government+Politics categories though I had plans to keep Legal category as well and would have divided Government to Ruler and Advisors categories. The 9th category after Education would have been Culture Values with following options: Harmony, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Mastery, Egalitarian Commitment and Conservatism. Plan was also to have 1 futuristic option for each category or a new Future society category (SMAC style) which would let you pick just one future civic.

that sounds awsome

Hey Zapp that would be great! Well please feel free too - if its okay i'll continue rambling on about my idea for these civics with discussion and real world examples. Of course I'll be delighted if you use them.

I would suggest caution with too many civic options - especially in the case where by definition some civics can overlap with others.

I'll give you an example - legal in effect governs morality and human rights - but it is almost impossible to distuingish them from governmental or political types.

For example, you could have a fascist state with free human rights or a communist state with private health care. Its not that one can ague whether it could not happen but just that by having so many specific options we create minutia in detail.

Looking at legal - we go from no laws, code of laws/commandments, magna carta, constitution, Bill of rights etc. You could have a law civic that admonishes these rights for a brief time.

The problem is that they become I think consequential - during time, we have seen our legal rights expand, based on founding principles. However they have not undergrown great change from their original influences, religlious etc. There are secular law elements that are not however, such as gay marriage etc (wow now theres a civic!) hehe

Another way is to have the legal civics be represented by types of court, from (im spitballing here) Peers, Religious Courts, Secular Courts, etc

I think though, its possibly superfluous!

I think likewise with Advisors - its a level of unnecessary detail - and perhaps not indicative of where political power lies in a state. Only in certain types of government can power lie with the central advisors. To have them could add cute advantages (like they could be lobbying influences from commerce, industry and so on.)

Regarding the cultures - I would suggest considering simplifying their names, and relating them on a more 'provocative' level as to the type of 'culture' governing a people. With mine - ive got very simple terms so that people could think oh... the japanese are materialists etc. Where as Affective Harmony is very abstract!

I like to think personally of the civics as quite RPG ish as well, like they define a civ's character (like it would a person) so we get a real idea if there a nice guy, or a jerk etc. With abstract terms for philosophies and politics (hell i can't find anything other than chicago school for my economics civic and i hate that name lol) it can make them difficult to relate too.

Part of the advantage of Civ 2 governments simplicity was that right away you got an idea of another civc 'character.'





Government Civics Discussion

Monarchy

This is somewhat simplified ingame especially given that during the thousands of years this style of government has ruled mankind that it has had substantial differences between one another. It is peculiar in the first place that the name Hereditary Ruler was used in Civ 4 as its quite impersonal. Like calling it 'Genetically linked Control' or something? Why oh why?

The concept of Monarchy is widespread and its creation has rested on many diverse elements which have resulted in many diverse styles of monarchy. Rather than trying to 'represent' it all in the civics, im designing them to try and allow players to accurately reflect styles of monarchy under their choice.

Its quite boring to be stuck with 'monarchy' and thats that... they were diverse, and changed a lot, and of course we still have many today.

If Despotism is the office of Personal Rule, then Monarchy is far more abstract. To be King was not necessarily to be ruler en' charge. Many were 'elected' into that position - a position even referred in many governments as an office!!

I will look at some types of monarchy the current civic ideas allow - forgive the focus on Western History (though i'm sure the flexible parallels will easily apply to Asian and other civilisations.)


Elective Monarch

Seen in states such as Scotland, or the most popular civ (Holy Roman Empire) where Kings in effect were elected by their princely peers, and of course Pepin the Short (father of Charlemagne) who would be elected King of the Franks.

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Aristocracy

The civics resulting in Bureacracy and Bourgeiouse would be available early on tech wise - to give choice. So using the starting politic of Aristocracy by no means represents the simplest form of Monarchy civic wise. Neither does it represent the vassalation of Feudalism.

Absolute Monarch

Not to be confused with Despotism - this is often referred to for Monarchs who succesfully transformed or maintained a style of government that allowed for utter centralised control. The term is popularised after Louis 15th who made France a super power during the 18th century and created the modern 'nation' state as a result.

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Absolute

Of course such a system of government does not bode well for less competent rulers. The coining of this term (absolutism) reflects a 'national' consciousness as well and is why one wouldnt use it necessarily to describe the monarchy of Ancient Egypt. (Though it was for example 'absolute')


Divine Monarch

In such cases to recreate Ancient Egypt, players can instead use the politic civic of Bureacracy. This is more than adept at reflecting the political sphere shifting from the aristocrats and into the hands of learned civil servants, advisors, sycophants, eunachs you name it! From Darius to Tutankamun! Not that these men told the King what to do (though in some circumstances in Ancient China... the dastardly eunachs!) The religious civic Divine Rule also reflects the grip divine monarchs could hold over their people. (Not to be compared with the State Church civic, where some monarchs made themselves the heads of their nations churches, such as Henry VIII)

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Bureacracy
Religion - Divine Rule


Popular Monarch

This isn't about a popular monarch (we love the king day sorta stuff) but a monarchy who is there more or less by the will of the political establshment (and remains there to some extent by his popularity within it.) I would argue that many monarchs (especially during the renaissance) would fall into this category. In this case the Bourgeouise politic civic, represents the very first instance of power coming from 'the people' and in this case the patrician classes... the rich, landlords, aristocrats and merchants all bundled together.

Such monarchs would have included Charles Ist (who lost his head after the English Civil War due to his quest to impose Absolutism) and Charles II (his son who took over and resided over the 'restoration' of the british monarchy.


Feudal Monarch

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Feudal

The feudal monarch is best represented perhaps by France of the middle ages. It is in effect all about 'obligation,' before, with the politic civic of aristocracy - there is not necessarily the same level of obligation (I described it as akin to elective monarchs...) as there is in feudalism. Indeed manorialism, and other 'isms' all refer to the heirarchal system of society based around the military/warrior based nobility. This type of government would be ideal for those rulers seeking to keep agriculture, shields and a tough military to boot at the expense of anything too sensitive, enlightened and nice!


Constitutional Monarchy

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Parliament/Senate

Finally, possible with the Monarchy Civic, and the Politic civics of Parliament or even Senate. (I'll describe their differences later.)

From the Renaissance several monarchies came to rely on parliament more and more for money. This lead to conflict (inevitably) in the case of the english civil war. The restored monarchy (and the restored French monarchy post their civil war...) all relied on parliaments, or congress (respective to senate) for oversight and control.

In the case of Britain, the power monarchs wielded with parliament was far less but still substantial. The family of Hannover that came to rule over Britain, encouraged many military expeditions (including fierce resistance to American Independence!)

There are many constitutional monarchies today (in their most influential political form they existed and ended in the early 1900s in my opinion.)

Both the lack of and the insulting of sci-fi killed this for me.

My goodness I wouldnt say I insulted sci-fi - where?! ;) Problem is that futurology is very hard! We can take apart the past and it has some credence of authenticity but suddenly, we all have to beome futurologists to predict techs, units and so on! Which is much much harder for anyone to do and make look 'real or authentic', which some might not care about but it seems pointless to have gone to so much effort before hand to make techs, units and civs all so realistic!

I think a quite somber and cautious appraisal of the future would herald better future techs and units. Civics though are antoher matter, you may notice that many economic and political theories keep going in cycles (we keep adding neo- to old phrases) Neo-mercantalism! Neo-Socialists, neo conservatives etc etc. So in terms of 'civics' there is very little in theory that is really changing! People also cared about the environment two hundred years ago too... It was all relative... So having environmentalism (for example as a futuristic civic) is silly imo, the social consciousness of that is achieved via the improvements players build (and certainly not for example, by an economic civic!)

Even worse is if we get some crazy named future tech like 'Ultimate Cure' or 'Universal Freedom' arch... not only does it destroy the old civics and their diversity but it also makes you feel you feel like you've left a simulation of human civilisation and walked into an episode of Gundam Wing!

Btw if anyones got suggestions for the civics/criticisms id be happy to hear!

I think likewise with Advisors - its a level of unnecessary detail - and perhaps not indicative of where political power lies in a state. Only in certain types of government can power lie with the central advisors. To have them could add cute advantages (like they could be lobbying influences from commerce, industry and so on.)I used Advisor word in my earlier post due to lack of having better word to describe it (it's middle of night here and I'm sleepy :D). Anyway, the idea with my "Advisors" group was that as your nation's politic system evolves from stone age to modern days the people who counsel the leader evolve as well from Family to Senate/Parliament. So if leader civic was say President, you could pair it with Senate (US system) or if leader is Dictator you could pair it with General staff or if you have King it could have advisor group Family/Senate/Parliament/Generals etc.. it's bit blurry now as I haven't thought about the whole system for while.

Legal system is kind of tricky too - in most western countries government decides the laws but legal system often works independently and can even overthrow government/president if they are found to not "suitable". So in my structure it would more like how people act/behave/obey and not be political system.

Those culture values were the ones I learned when I was studying multi-cultural leadership and we were not given any better descriptions for them so I had to live with those :lol: I've thought lot about culture category - while it could be implemented as civic category, I don't like that player can whenever he wants to choose what his culture is like. In real life cultural values are gained as you grow up (and most people don't even notice what those are until someone teach this stuff to them). So in my opinion it would be better if the choices you make throughout the game define your cultural traits (bit like leader traits but gained during game progress) and you wouldn't be able to choose freely your cultural values. For example I wouldn't lead corporation in the same way as U.S. citizen or Chinese person would lead it because my cultural traits are different from them and that's only because I grew up in different kind of environment. After studying different cultures I do though know how to address people in different situations based on knowledge about their values so I guess I'm multi-cultural person now.

Lawrie,

Unless you completely close your mind off to the advancements in technology, you must conclude that at some point in time we will reach a point where we will have a Universal Cure, thus ultimately making all other health options hopelessly obsolete.

But it seems you already have...

Yep well im going to post some revisions - I think the 'cultural' column is a bit sloppy actually (as ive posted it) - most of what its 'about' can be covered in some revised Society civics.

Yep the challenge with advisors progressing with tech (relative also to government choices) is the inevitable restrictions of choice that will ensure in how 'detailed' the types of government a player can create would be. Not necessarily problematic!

I'm looking at reducing the civics to 7 a piece (removing Democracy from govt civics and president from the politic civics) since, a player picking republic and parliament or senate would in effect have a democracy. (How democratic would be decided by the revised society civics ill post.)

Mister Giggles I don't quite see your point there.

1 In terms of playability having an overriding civic choice eliminate all others destroys the diversity and point of having several to choose from.

2 It presupposes that an advance such as you mention is a realistic expectation within the civ' 4's normal timeframe. A 'universal cure' for all ie. immortality... is probably centuries away!!! Even if it wasn't - such a civic would also presuppose that the govt, or corporations, would share such a cure universally... and administer it for free! It presupposes all kinds of political and commercial elements in one magical civic.

Even with futuristic high tech medical advances, they will still as medical services be provided through systems of health care already represented in the civics. The 'universal cure'... would be more effectively represented by a technological breakthrough - not a civic.

I'm not close minded - but theres a difference between realistic future projection and clumsy 'win game' sci-fi civics?

As a point of note im very interested in future techs, units, and improvements, but for civics (given that what we have is based on centuries of historical evolution) then it is wise to be careful and to scrutinise those future civics included. I love RoM but some of its future civics at the moment are pop cultural (its not to my taste but plenty others like it!!!)

Now don't let me interrupt your episode of Babylon 5! ;)

"Mister Giggles I don't quite see your point there."

I'm not agreeing with you, so of course you don't see my point.

"1 In terms of playability having an overriding civic choice eliminate all others destroys the diversity and point of having several to choose from."

Civilization has always attempted to follow a general advancement of mankind. Most mods, thusly, try to continue this trend. Ultra advanced technologies, will eventually pop up and will easily be superior to every single system to come before. Iron to bronze, bullets to arrows, etc. There are cases where no balance is possible. No disease to disease, for instance. The former is obviously superior, and in RoM, the gameflow is far enough into the future where it's possible.

Now it's perfectly fine and possible to have nicely balanced civics that are boring, mundane and redundant, like yours, but that's something I wouldn't want to play and I specifically avoid in modpacks. Because it shows a lack of knowledge and imagination - RoM has an extended future era, and yet everything you propose has been around in one form or another for centuries. There is no room for anything new, exciting, futuristic. It's just...boring and generic.

"2 It presupposes that an advance such as you mention is a realistic expectation within the civ' 4's normal timeframe. A 'universal cure' for all ie. immortality... is probably centuries away!!! Even if it wasn't - such a civic would also presuppose that the govt, or corporations, would share such a cure universally... and administer it for free! It presupposes all kinds of political and commercial elements in one magical civic."

Rise of Mankind doesn't use 'civ' 4's normal timeframe'. It uses its own, and it happens to use one that goes way the Hell into the future. By the way, when did the cure for all disease become immortality? Why are you, again, suggesting that things that are possible in the future to be 'magic'? Are you one of those people who would have claimed back 60ish years ago that it was impossible for mankind to go to the moon?

The only problem mankind has ever had advancing has been people like yourself who simply do not see the forest for the trees and accept advancement.

"Even with futuristic high tech medical advances, they will still as medical services be provided through systems of health care already represented in the civics. The 'universal cure'... would be more effectively represented by a technological breakthrough - not a civic."

Which could very well require a mindset of getting everyone in the country/world this universal cure - therefore the civic.

"I'm not close minded - but theres a difference between realistic future projection and clumsy 'win game' sci-fi civics?"

Yes, you are. Insulting technological advancement, claiming any technology that can significantly better mankind is 'magic', and continuing to push it with claiming it's 'clumsy' and 'sci-fi'. Well, I guess that's fair. You know what I think of >your< civics. Of course if you hadn't started throwing insults to begin with...

"As a point of note im very interested in future techs, units, and improvements, but for civics"

Ahahahaha. AHAHAHA. That's laughable at best.

"Now don't let me interrupt your episode of Babylon 5!"

Ah, thank you. Go back and keep reading your newspaper. I hear there's an article in there about something called a Model-T...

@Mister Giggles

Fear not, there will be always futuristic Civic options in my RoM mod. :)

^_^

I know. You know why? You're awesome. You have your eye on the ball. Now fix that CTD...

>.>

Mister Giggles -

My attempted reworking of civics is based on research, cynicism and realism, while you find that 'boring' because it lacks certain sci-fi elements, that is no reason to dismiss it repeatedly or insult my endevour.

From your first comment you sought to make an abrupt and provocative impact that is not constructive or helpful. Ive tried to explain that im not anti-sci fi, and that I think it is best represented by units, techs and improvements less than civics. You've continued to bluntly insult my work and I can see nothing constructive resulting.

We'll agree to disagree and move on yes? Please understand that any baiting I will report to the mods for deletion.

"My attempted reworking of civics is based on research, cynicism and realism, while you find that 'boring' because it lacks certain sci-fi elements, that is no reason to dismiss it repeatedly or insult my endevour. "

Really...maybe you should have thought about that before you ignored, insulted, etc, all of Zappera's future techline work...since he's the one who put Universal Cure in there to begin with.

Also, I believe you should take a lesson away from all of this: Know your audience. Bring traditionalist thought into a modpack with extraordinary ideas, and you should expect some friction.

"From your first comment you sought to make an abrupt and provocative impact that is not constructive or helpful. Ive tried to explain that im not anti-sci fi, and that I think it is best represented by units, techs and improvements less than civics. You've continued to bluntly insult my work and I can see nothing constructive resulting."

Oh? Huh...what's so wrong with telling you the lack of and insulting of sci-fi killed this for me? Is having an opinion wrong? Is elaborating on that opinion wrong? Is strongly disagreeing with you wrong? I see, comrade.

"We'll agree to disagree and move on yes? Please understand that any baiting I will report to the mods for deletion."

M.A.D. policy, you say...

I understand your a big fan of the mod, I am too, and am confused why you suggest I am not. Either way you cannot go off at people like that.

I spent over three years working on various mods for Operation Flashpoint and know the work that goes on behind them. I would never under appreciate the effort Zapp, or other artists make here.

Neither should you under appreciate what im trying to do, ive spent ages scouring background research to work on these civics. Just because it doesnt fit your personal tastes is no reason to be offensive.

It's wonderful you've worked on a lot of stuff. I fail to see its importance in >this< discussion. Experience is nice, but the problem with your civics are that they don't fit in with the flavor and style of the mod. The 'magical sci-fi' is as much a part of it as the human history that came before it. Ignoring that fact so purposefully and adamantly is not proving your case.

If this was Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, then yes, your civics would be a valid thing to look at and examine. If this was any mod that ends at around the Vanilla game's techline, then yes, your civics are perfectly rational alternatives.

Rise of Mankind, however, is not that kind of mod. It dares to skate tradition and explore new frontiers. Every bit and piece of the mod, therefore, needs to fall into a similar feel.

I'm GLAD you've done research. I'm GLAD you've put tremendous amounts of time and effort into this. MOST of it's misplaced in the application you decided to use it for.

Okay but that is just your opinion! In the suggestion sub topics for this mod you will observe a wild variety - many if not even most running counter to your described vision for the mod as 'magical' and 'sci-fi'. This is also irrelevant because the modmakers themselves will craft the mod in their own taste.

As such Zapp and the mod team can answer for themselves, my development of civics, as either a useful research aid for RoM, or as a template for them to use if they wish, has not been descouraged.

Your view is unique, it is your very own. But we know it now, and I think we can move on okay...

Guys, no need to make it personal and claim that the "only problem mankind has ever had advancing has been people like yourself" (for example). Discuss the post, not the poster.

Stay on topic of civics and proposed changes...

edit: BTW, I have played RoM and I did enjoy it.

Thanks and cheers thats all i ask for :)

Tomorrow I will post further background on changes to Govt, Politic civics, and a radical change suggestion for the Culture column in the first post.

No hard feelings Giggly but the mod is God ;) lets just keep it postive and on topic

Ginger_Ale,

Ahahaha. Lovely. Acceptable, as long it applies to Lawwy as well...

It applies to everyone in the forums Giggly ;)

Nonsense, you say? Well, well, well.

I did say I was leaving it off with a last word, though...

As long as you post civic options I don't believe fit the feel of RoM, I'm going to disagree with them.

Unless I can't disagree, of course...in a >respectable< way.

Okay well you haven't disagreed with any civic ideas yet! Just on my musings about the future civics presently.

The civic system from vanilla civ4, remains the most influential in realistic based mods. That is a civic system based on 'Ideas and Beliefs' borne from various techs based around political, social, or religious 'theory'.

Now my civic development is based on creating a more realistic representation of historical precedent but based heavily on a cynical and politically realistic perspective. So in that sense its heavy with macabre flavour, and does not necessarily exclude futuristic civics.

However, I think in RoM, the civic system includes columns of civics that can already be presupposed based on ideological civics chosen by the player already.

Eg. Can we not presume that a socialist democracy will have socialised medicine for example? For civics are ideas not circumstances.

Likewise with future civics, that seem to be devoid of Idea or Belief (hence not a civic) but they end up being a circumstance that is vaguely apolitical (sometimes not.)

Environmentalism is not a form of economy, but often is the choice for the most advanced economic form... Cure for All is an apolitical wonder of the world, not a civic.

So if futuristic civics represented penultimate forms of previous civics then really they could safely be represnted by outstanding civics. (No need for Neo-Communism) - they end up being gimmick like civics that clutter the screen.

The challenge imo is two fold - first to create a realistic foundation of civic representation, which for my taste, is one that adds a darker more flavoured depiction of civs. Then for any future civics they actually have to be 'new ideas or beliefs' to really qualify as civics. Otherwise we're just adding unnecessary gumpf to specific budget/systems of health... education etc... which while nice - are difficult to combine with govt and political chocies that would already dictate how such departments would already be run.

The flaw I see in the civics is that many (the health and education for example) relate to how much our civ pays for it, and are a little ideologically clumsy. For example we inevitably end up requiring socialised medicine even if we still have a monarchy govt! Yet the worst socialised medical system would be inferior to the best private health care system. These contradictions do not enhance the games diversity, but force the player down certain routes.


Soooo Mr Giggles a challenge for you!

What futuristic civics in RoM presently would not be represented better than with particular improvements, wonders, techs, bonuses etc?

Wow. its nice to see ppl so passionate about this mod. Civilisation is the name of the game and thats what i want to play. I dont want to see my civ stop at modern day tech, i want to watch it start from cave man days and go far into the future. Civilisation: A Call to Power 1 and 2 were cool for that but i always liked the gameplay of sids games but would get annoyed when the most advanced thing i could make was nukes and stealth bombers. When BTS came and took those few steps into the future i was thrilled. Then i found RoM and the first thing i did when it downloaded was check the civpedia to see how far it went and was even more thrilled. I play on huge earth maps at snail pace with 34 civs. I dont go for quick wins and like to manipulate and watch the civs grow and develope. To see this mod further develope a well thought out realistic future era. I dont mean big fancy space marine armored dudes with massive plasma cannons, more thought out cost effective, what resources are needed and tactical value future era units would be. i have noticed the thread for a future add on and have added some ideas there for the modding pro's to check out. Keep up the good work!:goodjob:

I'm not sure if someone has ever thought of this idea, but I had it last night and I felt that I had to post it: what if you could expand your resources?

I'll explain myself: if you have a resource that comes from plants or animals, you can take a worker, send him to that resource (once the improvement has been done, like a farm for corn/rice/wheat or a pasture for sheep/cow/horse/pig resources) and, using the special action, they can take a sample or something like that, and the next action they do (apart from moving, of course) would be "planting" the resource in a new place. There would be a % probability that it works or not, depending on the terrain and some random values calculated by the computer. For example, using wheat on planes would have a 50% probability of working, with an extra 25% if there was a farm in the place. The same for everything else that is a resource based on animals or plants, but, for obvious reasons, no mineral ones (how would you make gold sprout out of a mountain if there wasn't anything in before?)

Ok, I like the trend of this thread (for the most part). I.e., civics need some more thought, lots of tweaks, and could possibly benefit from a redo.

Just to weigh in on the giggles-lawie feud (and yes, I'm trying to make light of the matter, not trying to make things worse or disrespect either of you): I think Law is right in suggesting that there are some ways to improve the historical and political accuracy of the civics system. He's dead right in saying, for example, that you can have a democracy (of sorts) headed by a despot (ahem, Bush). I think, as he's suggested, that the problem lies in improperly delineated categories and overlapping meta-civics that just don't fit well into the vanilla civ paradigm (i.e., Universal Sufferage is best example I can think of).

However, Giggles is also right in a sense... even though he appears from his handle to be an evil clown. This is a discussion, basically, on politics however, so we have historical precedents for evil clowns being allowed to contribute or even dominate discussions (ahem, Bush). This mod attempts to bring more historical detail and accuracy up until the modern age, and then grant a peek into the future. This is as it should be, since that is the way Zapp wants it and it's his work we're discussing.

So, my proposal is this... think carefully about some revisions to the Civics categories and the particulars, and then have (get ready for this) TWO future tech options available in each category. Call it sci-fi, speculation, futurism, or whatever you like, but the vast majority of human thinking on our future as a species has tended to fall into two broad categories--utopian and dystopian. Political, literary, sociological, and psychological discourse all tend towards this polarization of the future into best and worst possible outcomes.

So, I'll float some ideas about historical/current sociological models (since that is basically what we're discussing in this thread) in the following post, then perhaps weigh in on some futuristic ideas at a later point.

Ya know, I started writing up this fancy 7 civic category list and then realized what a total pain in the ass it is. So I'd like to say... props to Zappara for actually getting any functional civics list to work, and props to lawrie for actually giving a coherent (if controversial) list of alternatives.

So, rather than revamping the whole list, I'll just give some generalized comments and then let you details guys do the hard work ;)

A) I like the idea of separating, somehow, Who leads the civilization (a council, a warlord, a king, a president, etc.) and Who empowers the leadership (elected, appointed, divinely chosen, etc.). I.e., there really are differences between a hereditary monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, and a divine-right monarchy (think differences between Elizabeth I of England, Victoria of England, and Louis XIV of France).

B) I think Inquisitorial should maybe be rolled into the idea of Theocracy (all theocracies I can think of historically were inquisitorial in some sense) and it should go under the Religious category... I know this is controversial, but... for the sake of simplicity it gives the idea of a civic which limits the spread of non-state religion, allows for the Inquisitor, and would severely limit scientific development).

C) Related to B, is it possible to link civics so that some combinations just aren't possible? I.e., it really makes no sense to have, say Inquisitorial-Free Religion (I think possible currently) or Universal Sufferage-Theocracy (if Theo moved to religion). Likewise, Police State and certain civics don't really cohabit comfortably.

D) Yes, Hereditary rule or monarchy needs to be revamped. Historically speaking, monarchies were quite useful and important in the development of civilizations as we know them today, and they aren't always dreadful (witness current European constitutional monarchies, the Indo-Mongolian Khanate between 750AD and 1800 with it's religious freedom, some of the Chinese dynasties, etc.) Maybe it could have bonuses to stability (assuming the mod goes forward in conjunction with RevDCM which I hope it does), culture, and military with penalties to GP, commerce, and science (representing the relative inefficiency and inherent conservatism of monarchies).

E) I like Majority Rule idea as it is, in the sense that it differentiates Classical Democracy from more modern forms, but it seems like we need some renaming... How about Classical Democracy and Parliamentary Democracy for MR and Representation. I'm not sure that Universal Sufferage really fits here, since it's a refinement to Representation or Parliamentary that has less to do with government style than with labor/legal (i.e., who is considered a citizen and has full rights).

F) I like the idea of contracting, but seems weird to me to have the penalty for not having emancipation (since it is the 'advanced' civic and has higher bonuses across the board). I.e., the penalty for not having a certain civic is in Vanilla an attempt to force civs out of slavery and serfdom in the modern age once someone does emancipation, and this is historically semi-accurate and neat. We don't want to penalize more 'advanced' futuristic cultures though, do we?

G) Same for Gov't Healthcare... doesn't make sense to penalize the more advanced healthcare options. Why would people want to be more unhealthy when they have better options?

H) Despite modern Western bias, we need to rethink the massive penalties or uselesness of certain un-PC historical civics... hereditary rule, slavery, theocracy, serfdom, etc. may be unpleasant to most of us today in theory, but they certainly played a role in the history of all of our respective civilizations and there is no reason the game and gameplay shouldn't reflect this... they served a purpose at the time (and often for great lengths of time). Slavery is horrific foshure, but we sure do like them nifty vacations to see the Pyramids.

Brilliant comments gents - well i am still working on a revised model of the original suggested alternatives - so i look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.

The points you make gruffydd are entirely the point of my attempt at this - which is to represent a historical precedent with the civics but i think where it is misunderstood by some - was that i was attempting something 'boring'

For its not just realistic im aiming for but a redrawing of moral perspective that is based on machiavellein precepts.

For example, slavery as we know was used up to the 1800s (We even had it till the 1860s in some Western Countries!) and of course - it existed that long for a reason! Power and Money.

Im not a big fan myself of specific civic lists for health and emancipation etc, i think these can be better represented by civics for 'welfare' in general and 'society' - in fact let me see what notes i have toddling about ;)

I will get replies to u other chaps ideas in a split sec ;) - and yep about mr giggles he's welcome to post - i just want this to be a positive discussion without hyperbole - the dreaded hyperbole!

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5897/testbu9.jpg

Okay!

Some basic changes!


Governments

As you can see, i've removed Theocracy - I think its very difficult to imagine it as an 'executive' form of government. It is possible to create theocracies (any from history) with the above civics through the right combination of authoritarian govt, political and especially religious civic choices.


Politic

These civics relate to the source of governmental power - be it institutional or not.

Ok, changes here include the removal of politic civics of Absolute, Bourgeoisie, and Feudal.

Instead - Bourgeoise has been changed to Patrician.

Patrician represents those elite wealthy families, of both noble and non noble lineage but all of them RICH!

This civic represents the political power behind government coming from the wealthy classes. Its combination with Democracy is apt for representing early classical democracy and or elitist democracies in general. I don't think a 'classic democracy' is necessary as democracy is an ideology - how far it is fulfilled is better represented by which politic civic the player chooses.

Absolute is really already represented by Bureacracy. Any monarchy from Darius I, to Louis the 15th or the Egyption pharoes (that ruled in absolute forms of monarchy) can be represented with the monarchy and bureacracy civic. (As a point of note, for the absolute monarchies of Europe say during the Renaiscence then the nationalist society civic would represent it ideally.)

Feudal has simply been changed to the Soviety Civic listing and is itself replaced by Vassalage (otherwise remaining the same.)


Society

These civics represent the dominant social class in society - they also exude where in ' the power lies. They are not literal indicators of power, but an abstract indication.

Tribal, Liberal and Social remains the same.

Classism has been split into Proletariat and Bourgeois, these are more indicative of the social structures post medieval period. It should be noted that these two represent in history the most prominent formation of society since the end of the feudal system. The consciousness of the Proles - is a late 19th - 20th century phenomenon. They are apolitical.

The other three civics are indicative of ideological influences on society, Nationalist and Socialist quite obviously reflecting those political movements. Liberal representing the multi-cultural and reformed societies familiar to us presently in the West. (er more or less.)


Economy

Only change here is the removal of the Chicago civic. That is the Chicago School theory of free economics (the most prevelant today.) It is however a school of thought on 'free trade' that only really seperates from the Austrian School on its belief that some trade should be regulated (with central bank, interest controls etc.)

Not to annoy any economists but I think both schools are better represented in the Laisses Faire choice of economic civic.

For a more 'controlled' form of Free trade that is fine represented I think by Keynesian economics (best representing a mixed economy) of governmental stimuli and free trade.


RELIGION

The only change here is the deletion of Paganism which i think is finely represented by Prophets. Paganism is after all a religious belief prevelant in secular societies even today.


WELFARE

Just as a note this civic combines the health care, educational and other welfare reform.

Charity, Church, Private and Corporate remain the same. Corporate refers to Corporatism incidentally - as a theory of economics theory - in this case given control over state welfare. Which we should note - is big business in itself!

Subsidy, Reformed respectively represent varying forms of welfare with different degrees of government support.

Public is a socialised form of welfare.


CULTURE

The culture civic column I have removed - it was a bit crap anyway, and i think can be put to better use for a proposed 'Future civics'

Now this is where it can be interesting. The Future civics category can provide a whole range of choices (that add a futurologist element) to the govt combinations.

I will come to this one last however before sorting the others. So lets hear your thoughts gents :P

Ok - another post - I would really like to hear your feedback on this - this i reckon would be recommended techs for these respective civics.

Government

Chiefdom
Despotic - Democracy
Monarchy - Monarchy
Republic - Democracy
Fascist - Fascism
Communist - Communism
Democracy - Representative Democracy


Politic

Aristocracy
Bureaucracy - Code of Laws (changed on recommendation of MrWhereItsAt)
Patrician - Trade
Vassalage - Civil Service
Senate - Philosophy
Parliament - Liberalism
President - Nationalism


Society

Tribal
Feudalism - Feudalism
Proletariat - Labor Union
Bourgeois - Currency
Nationalist - Fascism
Socialist - Communism
Liberal - Representative Democracy


Economy

Barter
Slavery - Slavery
Mercantile - Mercantalism
Laissez Faire - Economics
Planned - Marxism
Keynesian - Industrialism
Corporatism - Corporation


Religion

Prophets
Divine Rule - Sacrifice Cult
Free Church - Priesthood
State Church - Theology
Intolerance - Fundamentalism
Secular - Modern Education
Atheism - Marxism


Welfare

Charity
Church - Theology
Private - Education
Subsidy - Socia lContract
Reformed - Medicine
Public - Industrialism
Corporate - Corporation


Some of you may wonder - why put all the future civics in one category - i'll tell you why. Because they just end up being a silly (game winning civic) on the end of the other categories thus destroying the diversity.

However, having a progression of future techs make the future civic column available will force players to choose one out of the 7 techs (eventually available.)

This would be a civic that helps define all types of other civic choices for the future era - and thus ensures that not all the nations will end up the same.

Government

Chiefdom
Despotic - Democracy
Monarchy - Monarchy
Republic - Democracy
Fascist - Fascism
Communist - Communism
Democracy - Representative Democracy



Did you really mean to make Democracy the pre-req tech for Despotism? I know you were all talking about dictators (I think Putin and Berlusconi fit the role better than Bush) in democracies, but I don't think that's right...


Politic

Aristocracy
Bureaucracy - Writing
Patrician - Trade
Vassalage - Civil Service
Senate - Philosophy
Parliament - Liberalism
President - Nationalism



Now here I want to step in with a gameplay consideration. Bureaucracy as it currently stands is a civic that really only works for a decent-size, rather developed civ. Appearing at writing it's likely to be completely skipped for a long time. Now there's nothing wrong with having a civic appear long before it's useful, yet it IS a little bit strange. Maybe Code of Laws would be better, since a Bureaucracy relies on keeping written records and having a law to enact. There may be other civics to consider in relation to where they become available in the progress of a game, but that was the one that jumped out at me (plus it's the most familiar to me - I haven't yet had a RoM game of any version play out as far as many of the later civics due to CTDs every time :( ).

In general though, I like where this is headed. The effects, now THAT will take some thought...

Hey could suggestion for Bureaucracy - ive changed its pre-tech to Code of Laws.

Bureaucracy is a vital civic that distinguish those empires of ancient times that rule based on absolutism such as Ancient Egypt, Persia, the eunachs of China, or the renaiscence powers of France. It leaves nobles and bourgeious sidelined, moaning as appointed advisors of the ruler hold court! Now a player can mould civs based on that form of rule instead of compromise with the 'Patrician' (nobility and elite ie. rich citizenry) or the nobility alone.

Patrician is ideal for early classic democratic civs that only gave the vote to their elite citizenry - more democractic than aristocracy! Senate can be used throughout the eras but in ancient times would best represent the mid to late Roman republic (as an example) as much as it might the Republic of Venice during the Renaiscence!

I would love to really revolutionise the bonuses but to ensure compatability with the current mod mechanics we have to be very careful! For that I will be consulting with folks every step of the way!

Regarding Despotic - it is a government office borne from democratic institutions (from Ancient Greece, to Rome) and was a much more acceptable office back then than it is now.
Julius Caesor, Marius, or Oliver Cromwell are excellent examples of 'legal' despots. Hence why the civic is borne from 'democracy' tech - it invented the notion of apolitical dictatorship as well as giving flourish to freedom (for a few at least) in early democratic forms.

Naturally the civic choices allow one to define their despotic regime (be it legitimate or illegimate, comparitively liberal or utterly absolute!) What is great - is that Despotism is out of the shadows, and should be a much more exciting choice - that the crappy starting civic everyones desperate to dump on their rush to monarchy. No longer - it will be a very interesting alternative!

I just want to say I like the way this is shaping up. :thumbsup:

JosEPh

umh, I'm not sure I like the future tech column... cultural values column looks fine to me. if your worried about future civics becoming top of the line- then the easy solution is to

1) not making them too good to be the ONLY viable choice
2) instead of 1 future civic per column, make it two or even more if available so there is still choice. sci-fi setting is good and is part of the mod, although I'd agree we'll have to come up with better names than universal antidote cuz that one sounds a bit cheap imho ;)

Good job Lawrie... I have two suggestions based on my understanding of history that might help clarify for some people.

I. I'd put Despotic prereq at Military Training tech myself. Yes, there were often democratically appointed Despots, but in the classical democracies it was almost always a case of the Senate ceding control to a warleader because of serious external pressure from an invasion threat.

Examples would include Julius Caesar (although he sort of forced the senate to make him despot), Alexander (senate ceded almost all central authority to him in order to allow him free reign to combat the spread of the Persians), maybe Cromwell (again, it wasn't so much a democratic 'free' election of him as a despot as a leveraged takeover while maintaining some parliamentary institutions). Anyhow, since virtually all despots throughout history arose in time of war, I've always seen it as a historical non-monarchical response to the necessity for centralized power in time of war. Just an idea.

II. Second idea would be to change Aristocracy to 'Elders' to better reflect that there was an 'elite' in early days of civilizations, but it was more based on experience and 'wisdom' rather than titles handed through family. *Edit* I'd then change Patrician to Aristocracy, to indicate that with the development of trade and inheritable fortunes, aristocracies as such came into being. Patrician is a sort of wiggly iffy category imo... it refers to many things for many people, and only really has a specific connotation in terms of the Roman republic. Even then, the category was often broken (i.e., women often wielded true political power from the Patristic families, and Plebes were allowed a voice almost immediately). Anyways, maybe just semantics, but might make it more clear from some players.

Overall, I like the general structure. I might disagree about the future civic category the way you have it... I'll have to think about it and see what sort of possibilities and drawbacks that structure might have.

I understand your reasoning, but I still don't agree that you should get rid of Theocracy.
Other than that it's all looking really good.

Joseph

Cheers mate - encouragement appreciated! Im really trying to create an (organic) system of civics that represent the macabre reality of terrifying governmental and political existence.

Gruffydd

Well - its not a bad idea to make Despotic linked to a military technology - but I don't know if it confuses the political element of that office with the idea that its the 'military govt' which although it most often is - does represent also a form of absolute authority in civs that can be apolitical.

I think the civic should still come with Democracy as that will force a change of perception to what i think is more appropraite BUT to recognise that military element - it should have another pre-required technology that is military focussed and on cost parity with democracy.

Elders is a bit iffy for me ironically for the reason you state Patrician is haha - that its a bit generic and not really related to 'power.'

Remember in this case, the politic column (in relating to where power lies) is stating in a pre-socialised class context (of not bourgeious or proles) that the power lies with rich nobility and rich citizenry.

Patrician is a term not unique to Ancient Rome, but also during the renaiscene (forgive typo) among rich merchant families, of which many had royal and aristocratic bearings too.

This is the upper classes basically - as opposed to the Aristocracy civic which is only those of nobility.

I should add also, just as a bit of character - that the civics contain or should - a cynical element. Money talks - sword talks, but elders carries the connotation of wisdom (and while these guys would be used and abused by power wielding politicians or nobility) they rarely exercised 'power' themselves.

Except perhaps in the politic Bureacracy Civic - where civil servants (and elders) can exercise the true power - dreaded Chinese Eunachs!

I see the politic civic as very pro-active, (equal power wielders, through force, money and influence) to the government civic.

Gruffydd do you have a military civic you would suggest as an extra pre-req for Despotism?


Preytor

I would like to discuss this - as you see im a big fan of terrifying theocratic empires in civ hehe (call it the dark side.) The change in these civics is that they don't 'tell' you what the government. They 'indicate' the government, in a cynical form of showing the power lies. So you can construct the government to your taste.

There is no governmental ideology for how a theocratic government is run, its not got any rules for executive or legislative ideology or structures etc. Any theocracy that has existed has always used the structures of government be it monarchy or republic.

To create a theocracy in these civics, a player should pick an authoratarian sytle of government. eg.

Republic - Bureacracy - Intolerance, and with Church (for welfare civic.)

In this case you have a civ, with no royal ruler, but a republic, run by a bureacracy (ministers... in this case of the church) with the intolerance religious civic. This gives the 'church' the apex of power - over life and death of its own citizens outwith secular law - but with religious law ;) - with welfare (health... education etc) using the church civic also.

There are various combos of govt and even polit civic you can use to create the governmental structure a theocracy uses - but a player can create a theocracy by the power it gives religion over life in general with the religion and welfare civics.

Again to point out that none of these civics are designed to go obsolete - they each have purposes to play, even in the modern era.

[to_xp]Gekko

I hear what your saying about the future civic, but again heres the prob, if you research the last economic civic, or the last politic civic say, then what choice does it really give you? Either you pick the future civic for that category or poof... your stuck with the ones you have in the game so far.

The advantage of having 7 future civics is that they can be spaced out to make future techs more interesting to pursue (and giving that side longevity)

Also, that a civ can only pick one from that column, will allow for some real diversity between civs in the future era. It should be in some way an ideological cap on the height of human progress.

What it should not be is anything that is better represented by an improvement, wonder, or unit. Imo it has to be a theory or belief to qualify as a civic - anything material can be catered elsewhere.

For the future civics, I think we can debate them here - but i will also check into some futurology forums, and ask for advice too. These guys, many of them into economic theory, political evolution, based on real world projections, could have some very interesting and plausible future visions for mankind - that would be exciting to have.

But again - one column will make the civs in your future era game thought provokingly (and emotionally!) different from each another!

Lawrie:

I see your point about refocusing attention on despot not being a 'negative' civic, but also remember that you can't leave players hanging out into the late classical age without some civics to change! That's my number one complaint about how civics are right now... most of the civics don't come until well into the renaissance or industrial, but ancient civs were usually quite sophisticated... something should demonstrate that; I thought despot might be a good one.

As for the elders thing, I agree it is wishy washy; however, the starting civics are meant to be indicative of what tribal societies were like pre-metalworking, writing, trade, etc. And while 'elders' might be wishy washy, there was certainly no concentrated wealth and inheritance laws in 6000bc in order to allow for noble families ;) Just something to consider... I see your point, but aristocracies didn't evolve for thousands of years after our start date here.

Yep Gruffydd -

Thats totally ironic as i was certain id actually made the ancient setting more detailed in its civic representation.

In RoM you can access beyond the default, 8 extra civics during the ancient period - 3 of them in religion (which ive grouped that whole column of civics to that point under prophets in mine.)

Govt
Despotism
Monarchy
Democracy

Legal
Barbarism
Tribal Law

Economics
Decentralised
Barter

Labor
Tribalism
Slavery

Religion
Paganism
Shaminism
Sacrifice Cult
Idolatry

Health
Herbalism

Education
Ignorance


In my revised version you can 9 civic choices beyond the default.

Govt
Chiefdom
Monarchy
Democracy
Despotism

Politic
Aristocracy
Bureaucracy
Patrician

Economics
Barter
Slavery

Society
Tribal

Welfare
Charity
Church

Religion
Prophets
Divine Rule
Free Church

nb. The free church civic relates to an independent church operating without interference (and with great influence within the state) - divine rule, has the church controlled tightly by the leader, (in effect manipulating that civs religion) into a leadership cult. Not unlike Ancient Egypt, or many of the ancient civs that considered their leaders divine.

So in effect there are basically the same number of civics except we've cut the religious civics of RoM's originals and handed more diversity to the political/governmental civics.


While regarding Elders - heres my main criticism

1 - Making them elders (advisors) causes the civic to be redundent. It just becomes another tribal civic to be leapt from - while there is then no politic civic to then represent the exclusive power hold of aristocrats. (Vassalage represents their submission into a political social system of obligation, so doesnt really represent that accurately.) While 'elders' really fall into the partisan advisor/minister category which you can get with the bureacracy civic (very early on with code of laws)

Im sure even in 6000 BC aristocracy existed in a very abstract form, at least (and most probably) through a warrior elite of sorts.

But on the contrary im totally with you on the importance of expanding the civic representation of governments in the ancient ages - so i hope that shows I have ;) I also really want to avoid adding more than 7 civics per column, i mean for example the RoM religious civics are filled with overlapping civics that are (ceremonial specific even) etc. So less is more as well!

@ Lawrie

Convincing argument you give. :)
One of the reasons that I like Theocracy in Civ IV are the values (balance) it provides for my Civ (in RoM).

To create "my Theocracy" using your Civic mini mod I beleive I'd use the following:

Government: Fascist
Politic: Vassalage
Society: Proletariat (must have Marxism)
Economy: Corporatism (I'd start with Laissez Faire until I could get Corp.)
Religion: Intolerant (state church might work too)
Welfare: Church

Keynesian maybe a good way religion (the state) could control the economy too.

I don't see Bourgeois being an option when we already have Proletariat. Perhaps it's just my ignorance on the details of these idea for society, but they seem very similar to me. I can see Bourgeois in the middle ages, which would later evolve into Proletariat.

I also don't think Slavery should be a form of economy.
I do acknowledge it has been a very crucial part of some economies through out history, but Slavery was a part of those economies.
I think a player could have a lot (or all) of your listed economies with or with out Slavery.
I don't know where else to place Slavery. Perhaps it could be a special option to it's self?

Sure thing Preytor what kind of Theocracy is it you have in mind? Is it one that can be compared to a nation that exists today? Fascism is an overriding political ideology that would be interesting but its values will reflect fascist view points rather than the churches. I wouldnt pick it just to ensure an authoratian control of the church in the civ. A combination as you put it would probably great an extremely xenophobic fascist nation that is religiously intolerant to the point of extermination rather than say a very very authoratarian theocracy.

The values for these civics haven't been decided yet but in principle though a theocratic player would probably best want to choose 'apolitical' govt civics, maybe Despotism would be good (despotism is out the closet now as a viable civ choice btw and as an office with no royal connection would be ideal perhaps for representing a high priest, church official.) Burearacy as the politic civic would ensure power lies in the church administrators hehe.

I haven't had a chance to describe these civic ideas fully yet of course - I think probably Intolerance or Free Church would be good. Free Church is 'independent' where as Intolerance is 'independent and centralised' as a church authority (in fact its authoratarian) - State Church is a state regulated church (so in that case its the govt that owns the churches ass - for example Henry VIII Church of England.) Where as an example the situation before would have been 'free church'. As a point of note Henry VIII was nearly deposed by a vast armies of rebels who came to protect against his 'reform' of the church.

Laissez Faire would be an interesting choice! Free trade ;) Mercantilism would offer in comparison stricter economic control. I dont think the civic values have really given the economic civics the 'results' to be expected from these philosophies, so you may find with changes to them that different choices become more apparent.

The Bourgeiouse and Proles, in the civic 'Society' column, like all the society civics, will indicated where power lies within society - albeit in abstract, political/economic forms.

These two social classes (identified in socialist theory) are diametrically opposed to one another. The Bourge are the middle classes up, the Proles the working classes down.

Now, to represent the political consciousness of 'richer folks' in earlier preriods, we have the 'Patrician' civic in the politic column. To represent the social consciousness of class conflict (circa the social structure we have seen defined since by Marx.) we have the social civics.

So, while Bourgeious becomes socially 'conscious' before the proles get a chance, they do represent radical differences. A bourgeious dominated society, represents at every level in society, the dominance of bourgeious life, in its institutions, law bias, aspirations, pyschology of man and so on.

In many cases this is the prevailing social dynamic of Western countries today, (consumerism makes it less apparent but its there.)

A prole dominated society, is one based around one where it is the working classes that hold sway - through a pre-eminenent acceptance of socialist thinking.

It's important to note that socialism in effecting society does so because its far more than just a political theory, it has influenced ideas of economics, the arts, class and individual perception, and even psychology (freud for the bourge, statistical analysis for the Socialists) That is not to say whatsoever that the Bourge arent still powerful in a Bourge society, but that they are not the thrust in social dynamics like we see in the West and certainly not a communist society or anything utterly extreme.

So a prole society in a theocracy could work very well, as a form of social equality and lack of upward mobility (being wrought under authority of the church.)

Keynesian economics is a liberal/socialist hybrid form of economics, in this case crudely representing the 'third way' often cited by Bill Clinton, blair etc, for social democracies. Theocracies or facsists or you name it will use all kinds of economic norms to govern their otherwise exceptional political institutions. Corporatism may represent a more credible economic civic - as one where assemblies represent the industries and plot a path for the $$$ of the nation (big business with political authority / or planned would be good, with state monopoly.)

Barter won't be so rubbish that people will just have to drop it and accept the 'unethical' slavery civic. So there will be a choice in so much as that - but slavery i think is an acceptable economic civic.

The reason is simply that entire empires were founded on the exploitation of capture and dominated persons. Egypt, Rome, you name it. Even the economic growth of the Southern States of the USA were advanced by this - and the colonies of course of Great Britain, France etc (pre emancipation.)

At the same time however, we should not let ethical perceptions of slavery make us 'simplify' our perception of the economic complexity such a system of forced labour, and industry presented itself to civs that used it on a huge scale. The institution of slavery as a means of control, represents a huge social departure from tribal origins. Its that means of dominance that again gave so many early civs the chances to expand and grow so quickly. But as a civic it wont be an automatically superior choice to retanining barter.

So that was a real blether eh!

So gents any more comments?

I think I can go on to make some mild descriptions of the society, religious and so on civics then we can discuss values? Any suggestions about required techs?

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5897/testbu9.jpg
Didn't have time to read whole thread, just looked at the pretty picture and few thoughts about it:

About future civics. First one must be empty one ie. all options must be zeros or none so that it won't affect anything at the start of the game and the real first future civic would start at choice 2. Why 1st must be set to zeros is because of each category must have initial civic option chosen or the game will set it to 1st government choice and in this case you would end up having Chiefdom 2 times active with bonuses active from both.

Few future options that I can think of now could be Android/Robotic Labour / Automized labour, Thought Control (there's some movies/books about this), money obsolete economy (Star Trek, don't know word for this choice), instant learning type of thingy (people already can control computers with brainwaves, it's just matter of time before we learn to transmit information to brains) - could be some sort of collective mind thing (Borgs?).. don't remember few others now, have to check my notes when later at home. See my Epic mod for Warlords, think it had more of those future civics than currently in RoM.

Majority Rule was actually synonum for Direct Democracy and it's used in RoM to represent the old greek democracy system. Women couldn't vote in that system, only men could. I added this to RoM because I wanted choice to represent despotism, ancient democracy and ancient monarchy systems while other choices represent later rebublican/democracy systems.

Just my opinion but I think that Welfare should start with something else than Charity. To me charity sounds like religious civic (rich give to beggars, church help poor) and at the game start there aren't any religions present (if you count out paganism). I think Harmony/Herbalism (tribes live with what nature gives them) might be better choice at the start of this group. There's still some tribes on Earth living in harmony with nature (tribes in Brazil was in news recently).

I'll come back in few weeks to check how you've progressed with this ;)

Hi Zapp cheers will keep working on this!

Thats very interesting about Direct Demoracy and of course the lottery of citizens that would become representatives in particularly Athenian society is a unique state and stage of democracy.

I think where its flawed probably is that it is a very specific form of ideology and political practice, that usually only came from a pool of citizeny (about 30k) based also on circumstances unique to the Athenians at that time - population size, the ability to administer the system.

I think its also perhaps too specific as a government system and too generic in its name - 'majority rule',

The way these civics are outlined (with the politic column representing the base of power) and govt its institution - i think majority rule, as a perjorative negates the value of the associated politic civic chosen.

In a republic the power can lie with the aristocracy, the patricians and so on, but in majority rule, its relative politic civic would seem less effective.

Charity could be changed to Community perhaps, but i think it represents the most basic form of non institutional welfare. People were charitable even before institutional religion as borne from our collective tribal battle for survival.

Regarding the future civics, good ideas - and that is the really tough one likes. For the starting civic that too will present a quandery lol.

I honestly think we're probably a bit crap at predicting very good future civics unless any of us are experts of futurology :( Of course you can pick fun future civics from pop cultural sources, but personally i really want to see what foremost futorologists in the fields of economics, political theory etc have to say, so that we can really have some thought provoking choices.

Giggles said something to that effect, about it charting the course of human civilisation. In that sense the future civics should be ground breaking in their 'ideas or beliefs' rather than describing a circumstance such as 'Robot Labor.' Again that could be an improvement or a wonder in my mind.

Regarding herbalism too - i think it describes a technological circumstance. A tribal civ with either its church or own charitable citizenry providing healthcare will use herbalism in effect if thats the only medicine they know. Again its why i think the civics are about the ideas and beliefs of where power should lie in the civ and how its practiced - rather than creating technologically progressive charts of 'circumstance' that describe a state of development in a civ.

In the case of herbalism for example, this is really catered for by the herbal hut!

Of course disagree and use whatever ideas you find useful Zapp by the end of this process!!

Some of these ideas may end up being so radical - especially new values (that i put them in a new mod - but first id really like to develop this as a component and group of suggestions for RoM)

Regarding Despotic - it is a government office borne from democratic institutions (from Ancient Greece, to Rome) and was a much more acceptable office back then than it is now.
Julius Caesor, Marius, or Oliver Cromwell are excellent examples of 'legal' despots. Hence why the civic is borne from 'democracy' tech - it invented the notion of apolitical dictatorship as well as giving flourish to freedom (for a few at least) in early democratic forms.

Naturally the civic choices allow one to define their despotic regime (be it legitimate or illegimate, comparitively liberal or utterly absolute!) What is great - is that Despotism is out of the shadows, and should be a much more exciting choice - that the crappy starting civic everyones desperate to dump on their rush to monarchy. No longer - it will be a very interesting alternative!

Good points... I didn't think about the history of Despots - like the true origin of the word Draconian! I fell into the trap that you are twisting out of all recognition - Despostism being a low-level civic you choose when all others are unavailable. It could be quite fun, sprucing it up as suitable to use post-Democracy!

Cheers MrWhereitsAT - its important to get these govt roles as they were but at the same time allow them to be so broad as to incorporate (realistically) a duplitious in representation for types of government, and also have enough of an impact to help create 'a narrative'

You see thats whats often missing with civics based purely on theory and not theory and belief. They must also be so broad as to be 'credible' and also i think, incorporate cynicism.

Majority Rule, as a democratic civic for example provides a very meek narrative. But Republic - and you thinkg of Rome, Revolutionary France, neo-classical architecture etc right away!

Same especially with civics purporting to represent things like culture or politics. Now ive not tried to make each civic represent a narrative, but as a whole, as assembly of choices i think (and hope) allows a player to get an 'impression' of another civ or their own.

ECONOMICS

A double post! My god - this is a discussion of the Economic Civics. First of this mod (especially in its bonuses) presupposes that economies are in some way based on the capitalist model, even communist style economics (are not immune.) Of course as we know - they never were either.

I would like to hear ideas about the civics themselves and for bonus recommendations



Barter

The simplest economic model, as it stands its like the 'oh god lets dump it civic' - could it be more interesting?



Slavery

Slavery is of course unethical - and our personal interpretation of this issue has made our representation of this economic basis lop sided in Civ. Of course there is no principle theory of Slave economics, they used various forms of early mercantilism, and other monopolised or free traded forms at least as they existed from the ancient to 1800s.

This civic is simply indicative that slavery forms the foundation of the civs economic foundation - and boy does that have advantages.

Rome, Ancient Egypt, Greece, you name it. Some civs could be quite abstract about their laws governing slaves - others famously formalised (such as Rome) others based on religious / and ethnicity, xenophobia etc.

Yet Slavery as the principle of economics can only be of benefit where 'slaves' provide the foundation. They are not en masse - educated citizenry (not to dispute a slaves humanity.) But their effectiveness should be where brutal labour is required. Construction, mines, plantations.

Trade should be a mix of free market and protectionist tendencies.

The risk of rebellion etc should be represented but modestly. While there was Spartacus (Iiiim Spartacus!) We should recall that social structures, and many other factors kept slaves in their place. After all faaar more slaves worked and died as slaves than those rebelling! Citizenry had no quams with slaves for hundreds and thousands of years.

Note - you will not find a greek or roman writer complaining about slave slaughter in the games for 'ethical reasons!' (Rather than as an unnecessary excitement for the heart etc my god lol.)

Of course Americans are struck with their slave past (Europeans find it easier to forget about their slave pasts) - but the point is it existed as a form till the late period for a reason - it works.

As an economic civic we have to give it more sophistication, and make it a credible albeit terrifying alternative to the mercantile and free market civics.



Mercantile

This is a VASTLY misunderstood economic civic in my opinion.

Mercantalism was the principle economic theory for oh about 300 years (it could be argued far older also.) Its popular representation is however a renaiscence based economic form based on monopoly and imperialism.

At the moment the civic blocks foreign trade - and internalises trade with a players own cities.

In other words - its almost a protectionist economic civic - but was it that historically?

Yes and no.

Mercantalism did seek at all costs to reduce foreign imports/ increase state industry and maximise exports. However, countries did trade with each other - and virtually the entire western world was mercantalist yet trade occured with each other - as they were all playing this game of maximising domestic industry and maximising exports!!!

So er... how do you make folk import if there all busy with mercantalism? FORCE - and that is projected power (particularly with naval power.) Of course this is the case with 'free trade' to an extent... but anyway, the British Empire provides a great example of mercantalist imperialism.

Our trade with the American colonies, was a goldmine for England, when prior to 1775, Scotland (then independent) was allowed bugger all? Why - big angry english ships with cannon for one.

Incidentally poor old Scotland attempted to create its own 'foreign colonies' to have exclusive trade with (which ended in disaster, the Darian Expedition which destroyed some 20% of Scotlands wealth...)

Why?

Loads of reasons, but one was a lack of military power and direct influence. The expedition ships were picked off by all kinds of factors, but they included Spanish ships boo.

So, its not about trading inside the empire at all, but enforcing trade, and limiting but not wiping out foreign imports. Its protectionist but aggressive in its export (to the point of war and conquest i might add.)

Yes the trade was monopolised to trading guilds and such like too, but that is not in any way to be confused with state controlled industry like central planned economics.

So any thoughts?



LAISSEZ FAIRE

This is the popular term for free traders based on the French expression. It also is a charming name in comparison to 'Free Trade' blurgh!

Mercantalism should imo remain a more effective choice for bigger military powers viciously exporting exports and (affording.)

Free trade is a great way to get more wealth in the country when there is less wealth coming out the country (as it should be too.)

The great fear of free markets was of course, ones nation being pumped full of cheap imports that destroy domestic industry. (money is power)

Its argument for of course was simple. Some nations just build better equivelants than others, so that if the Dutch build better clogs, then why should the Belgians do too - they can instead make chocolate mmm.

Then everyone gets better clogs and chocolate?! So it was as much about economic 'potential' and efficiency as well.

Yet while the term was coined in the 1680s, as a theory it wasnt really developed and put into action till the 1860s plus, (first in the UK where a treaty would be negotiated with France.) In all, its never existed however a universal form of economic theory (With most countries participating.)

Tarriffs, and other bits and bops always exist. Some protectionism occurs, and truth be told, i think many economists probably agree that most countries (as they do today use a variant form of Mixed Economy, loosely based on free market ideas and reforms.)

That is the type of reality that laissez faire will represent. Not a pure free market (since it never existed anyway) but the purportedly and mostly free market.

But what kind of um bonuses? Certainly it should represent an enormous boost in foreign trade exports and imports.

As a point of note this civic should also reflect the Austrian/Chicago (my god how can i combine them hehe) school of economics.


Planned

This is a bit of a crap name, but basically this refers to a state controlled economy, as popularised by marxist economic forms (that fascists or communists would aspire to use!)

State owned industry, central planning etc. Certainly it is not an economic form immune to capitalism or the international marketplace.

The Nazis and communists of Russia (and im not comparing them just saying!!) both traded in the global market, whose prices effected their own.

The advantage is direct control and that is the disadvantage also - far less opportunity for entrepenerial expansion among the citizenry!



Keynesian


No exciting description for this - in effect this is the 'mixed economy civic' which combines elements of central planning and free market.

The theory in effect suggests that a nations economy is best served through a combination of state and private enterprise - and that the state has a vital role to play in helping to encourage and stimulate the economy.

This economic form is largely a reaction against Laissez Faire as it stands. This should be an ideal compromise civic that promises less pennies but greater 'stability' and internal growth.



Corporatism


Now this is something that can EASILY be confused with 'Corporations' - this is not a pathetic attempt to reflect the modern era of globalisation and huge corporations by simply labelling this present circumstance hehe.

It's an economic theory that can plausibly represent to an extent an economy dominated by huge corporations but of private or public ownership.

In effect it espouses the idea of businesses and corporations representing themselves at 'civic assemblies'.

So for example, Agriculture, would comprise of a cartel of farming leaders.

There are significant differences to this economic system and say Planned or Mercantile.

Mercantile is as much about the domination of the export trade as it is about restricting (foreign exports) and thus ones imports. And monopolies of course.

Planned - is the governmental control of the economy (through its institutions.)

Corporatist places the control in the hands of the corporations (state/private) to dictate themselves the economic policy. It is invariably a form of mixed economy, its advantage can come as a compromised form of planned (with less of its drawbacks.)


There are many types of corporatism we've seen and its interesting to hear what you think about this. Many say this is the case in Russia presently, there is the economic reform (fascist corporatism) in Italy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

See what ya reckon? It is a more apolitical type of economic civic than planned.

I have to say this is one fantastic list of civics you made here, coming from a politics/economics junkie. I do have some suggestions, however. Right now, the starting techs describe the circumstantial type of government used in ancient history. This is fine since this is a historical game, but you also want to make them plausible for some situations in times beyond the ancient age rather than the crappy civics you start with and then scrap. For this, I think you should keep Aristocracy and Charity. However, the rest are just other civics dipped in ancient flavor.

Government: Right now, you have Chiefdom. Chiefdom is essentially monarchy, except in an unstable form and not necessarily in hereditary form. By the theory of government presented by John Locke, the natural state of government is Anarchy, or a lack of centralized authority. According to Locke, people lived in anarchy, and then voluntarily created government for their protection. Anarchy would not be an absolute state of chaos as it is normally perceived to be (e.g. Somalia), but instead a system of government (or lack of in this case) where people just live their daily lives without any government whatsoever. It would represent both the lack of government used in neolithic times and the modern attempt of utopian anarchy. This could be combined with Laissez-Faire economy to create Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, or with Planned economy for Marxist anarcho-communism. It should be a type of civic such as Pacifism in that it would completely nerf any military or expansion attempts, but benefit science, economy or culture decently enough to make it viable in the modern era. Since all nations would start with it, the war penalty would be essentially negated until nations research Democracy and get access to Despotism, which would increase the incentives to research Democracy early. And later on in the game, it will function as a great peace-time governmental type to boost commerce, science, culture, ETC. Also make it so religions and corporations spread far more easily under Anarchy. You would have to rename what is now anarchy to transitional government, and make it so changing civics away from Anarchy takes no turns in "transitional government" due to the unstable nature of Anarchy.

Politic: This looks good, but I would somehow squeeze in a Politic civic representing judicial supremacy and one for Dictatorship (rather than power in executive, power in one unelected person). Not necessary, but would make for some interesting combinations.

Society: I think society should not be a mixture between philosophy and dominant classes (Liberal is philosophy and Bourgeois is dominant class), but strictly philosophy. For example, Collectivism could be a good first civic. Collectivism is essentially what a tribal society was: live for the collective tribe, and could represent modern communism. Others you could use are Individualism (Social Darwinism and Ayn Rand objectivism), Nationalism (Mussolini fascist "benefit the state" philosophy), Liberalism (civil liberties important), Socialist (workers' rights), ETC. Or you could just keep the Society civics to include the dominant social class and include other classes to replace the philosophies. But either way, I would remain consistent. Philosophy or dominant social class.

Economics: Finally someone fixing the screwed-up economics in both Vanilla and RoM. How is State Property cheaper than Free Market????? I like having a difference between Laissez-Faire and Keynesian economics, which I was sad to not see in Vanilla since there is clearly an economic difference between FDR and Coolidge. And I love to see Environmentalism gone (not an economic system). However, I would in fact replace Barter with Decentralization. Barter describes the type of economy used by the ancients, but it makes it simply a throw-away civic not to ever be used again. Decentralization could be used to represent the lack of regulation used in ancient times and also the Austrian School of completely free markets without any protectionism. Laissez-Faire could represent the Chicago School or supply-side economics that includes tariffs, central banks, ETC. Decentralization would have to be given decent benefits that could work in a modern economy, however. Hong Kong has a decentralized economy and it is one of the most prosperous nations economically in the world.

Religion: I'm not an expert in theology so I don't know much about religious systems. This looks good, although Prophets looks like another throw-away civic. I would replace it with something that could exist in the modern age, such as Paganism or Shamanism, to make it viable throughout the game.

Welfare: Looks great, although I would replace Charity with Tribal or Communist to represent how everyone cooperated for survival. And it could also represent modern communist utopias where people share land, resources, ETC.

Future: I am not sure about this. As you said, it cannot be something situational such as Robot Workers, but a new civic idea that could exist in the future due to higher globalization, more advanced technology, ETC. I think the future civics should replace one of the 6 civic types, while the first would do nothing and cost nothing. That way you could have one and only one, but each would affect a different part of your civilization. This will be difficult trying to come up with new ideas that would spring up due to new technology, but not be situational to those technologies. For example, communism is not situational, but industrialization led to its creation.

<Thumbs up to Zappera for making Lawwy's ideas useful for RoM>

Hi Big Heb - some really thought provoking comments there!

Righto so regarding the starting techs - your quite while some of the revised civics makes them applicable (in combos and in later eras) many are still throwaway.

Chiefdom is very circumstantial. Anarchy is a better political representation of the times - the great challenge however, is the misunderstanding of this word among most folks. They will see this as a kind of revolutionary turmoil despite it being a credible political theory that the tribal ancients circumstantially lived by (to some extent anyway!) and that could prove a viable choice in future (especially if subsequent techs could improve the bonuses the govt choice allows in the future.)

So I think this is a good idea - but it would have to be explained! Before i get a million posts saying 'hey man, ancient tribes werent in constant anarchy!' etc

In the Politic section im a bit iffy on the judiciary and dictatorship (there good suggestions as by specific definition there missing) but i think with the despotic and fascist civics its easy enough to create this type of government. While any govt choice outwith a 'democratic institution in the politic' civic will be to some extent authotarian or less representative.

The way i percieve the society civic column is as a definition of where power and influence lies in society (as encouraged by the government) and not necessary by circumstance. This makes sense if you imagine that a play using a specialist economy could be thriving with loads of merchants - but then picks a prole society civic which would seem ironic. So it doesnt define the society as much as it does the govts ideological/social/political/cultural promotion of certain aspects of society.

Now that isn't ideal, but a purely philosophical column of politic civics can be a bit dry and abstract to players. Take for example the tribal commune - and communism. They could come under the first society civic as you suggest (but could folks tolerate it without misunderstanding the concepts.) Of course im also being a little machieveillian here, these civics are representing a bit of 'flawed' circumstance with their ideas - so that by definition its not just a philosophy (as if it were realised with perfection in society) but a combo with dominant class.

Tribal is rubbish however, this could be made into 'Commune' as a more apolitical benevolent form of equality in comparison to reactionary, and more beligerant communist forms. (Not that communist ideology is written to be bad ass and controlling) but communism born as a reaction to class divide and poverty with commune (if chosen in the modern era as an acceptable return to communal equality) is viable. However, again techs, could make the commune choice more viable in the future (for players to return too) should they want too.

Feudal is self explanatory

Prole/Bourge are the flip side of the coin (and the most circumstantial) in political terms they crudely represent where the power lies. It is a very distinct choice of apolitical society civics in comparison to the political science that gave birth to romantic forms of society, that are nationalist, liberal, socialist, which to varying degrees are more 'balanced' in social class than the bourge or prole choices.

Its not ideal however, and there may be better words to represent the bourge and prole civic choices?

In terms of economics, I think your probably right barter is a throwaway - but the term decentralised seems so awkward? That is perhaps where the impression of the word is getting the better of me over its actual meaning. I think we will revert back to this economic civic choice, with a better explanation of it - again with techs increasing its viability in the modern period etc.

Yes economics is a vital part of any civ (to many they would say the most vital given its governance over a civs security!) At present i don't always feel a huge difference between my economic choices (as they effect the game) and of course I really should. So im pleased you like the choices, it will be interesting to see what bonus suggestions we can put together for them in the main game.

Prophets in religion is a bit throwaway. Paganism and Shaminism isnt ideal either however as rather than a non-institutional form of religion they still seem to represent a very primitive form of religion. However Prophets needs changing, and Paganism looks better than it!

I think in welfare the Public civic choice best represents the socialised form of welfare, charity is of course quite abstract. I think it represents the charity of man to his fellow man - it doesnt however take in that this was utterly mutual for survival of course. However Communal for example would be awkwardly placed i think in peoples minds. So im not sure on that one!

Yes totally agreed about the future civics - i think its a good idea, that the one choice can really advance a particular part of a players civ. But goodness knows what to make them yet!

I will post another revised graphic of civics.

I read about a page and a half of the arguments between lawrie and giggles... and i havent the patience to keep reading to see if
my opinion has already been expressed by someone with that patience. Regardless... i enjoy RoM and while changes to the civic screen would be welcomed an over haul of the way civics are used isn't necessary.

at one point lawrie i think you were saying overlapping civics between different categories aren't necessary but i strongly disagree. overlapping civics allow for an extremely wide variety while still allowing the possibility of realism from the player. however, i think it would be unfair to players with opposing views to be forced to accept your "cynicism and political realism" i myself sometimes feel as if im a bit cynical but when im sitting down and spending upwards of 4 hours playing i dont want to feel like im dealing with the predictable and absoluly present downfalls of the human race. after all we're not on earth, atleast i dont play on earth, when we play. if we were on earth then i'd be playing Ryhe's mod ( which is also awesome ) and i would LOVE added realism. but here i want to have pacifism(or free religion) mercantilism private schools globalization and representation regardless of how much they overlap or unrealistic it is.

i encourage the addition of new civics ( a scrollable screen would be neat) but as for reduction because its not cynical enough to suggest that a universal cure would be shared i feel is absurd.Not to say your ideas are bad or even unappreciated just to say that in RoM i would hate to see any civics go away without new ones being added that achieve the same effect.

If you had a mod where everything was realistic and completely logical id try it but i live a life of logic and realism i play civ to escape that and create/explore new (yes unrealistic) possibilities.

sorry double post

On a different note; on some late civs that add unhappiness:

there may be two in the same category that add anger, which inturn makes it hard for any civ to deviate from what the other civs pick b/c the other option still makes citizens unhappy from pressure. ( if that unclear i can retype it but it sounds unclear to me, personally)

i think the civics that add external unhappiness should also add internal happiness because while a private health care nation may have unhappy citizens due to the subsidized health care nation next door. there will also be happy citizens that prefer private

Hi Big Heb - some really thought provoking comments there!

Righto so regarding the starting techs - your quite while some of the revised civics makes them applicable (in combos and in later eras) many are still throwaway.

Chiefdom is very circumstantial. Anarchy is a better political representation of the times - the great challenge however, is the misunderstanding of this word among most folks. They will see this as a kind of revolutionary turmoil despite it being a credible political theory that the tribal ancients circumstantially lived by (to some extent anyway!) and that could prove a viable choice in future (especially if subsequent techs could improve the bonuses the govt choice allows in the future.)

So I think this is a good idea - but it would have to be explained! Before i get a million posts saying 'hey man, ancient tribes werent in constant anarchy!' etc

In the Politic section im a bit iffy on the judiciary and dictatorship (there good suggestions as by specific definition there missing) but i think with the despotic and fascist civics its easy enough to create this type of government. While any govt choice outwith a 'democratic institution in the politic' civic will be to some extent authotarian or less representative.

The way i percieve the society civic column is as a definition of where power and influence lies in society (as encouraged by the government) and not necessary by circumstance. This makes sense if you imagine that a play using a specialist economy could be thriving with loads of merchants - but then picks a prole society civic which would seem ironic. So it doesnt define the society as much as it does the govts ideological/social/political/cultural promotion of certain aspects of society.

Now that isn't ideal, but a purely philosophical column of politic civics can be a bit dry and abstract to players. Take for example the tribal commune - and communism. They could come under the first society civic as you suggest (but could folks tolerate it without misunderstanding the concepts.) Of course im also being a little machieveillian here, these civics are representing a bit of 'flawed' circumstance with their ideas - so that by definition its not just a philosophy (as if it were realised with perfection in society) but a combo with dominant class.

Tribal is rubbish however, this could be made into 'Commune' as a more apolitical benevolent form of equality in comparison to reactionary, and more beligerant communist forms. (Not that communist ideology is written to be bad ass and controlling) but communism born as a reaction to class divide and poverty with commune (if chosen in the modern era as an acceptable return to communal equality) is viable. However, again techs, could make the commune choice more viable in the future (for players to return too) should they want too.

Feudal is self explanatory

Prole/Bourge are the flip side of the coin (and the most circumstantial) in political terms they crudely represent where the power lies. It is a very distinct choice of apolitical society civics in comparison to the political science that gave birth to romantic forms of society, that are nationalist, liberal, socialist, which to varying degrees are more 'balanced' in social class than the bourge or prole choices.

Its not ideal however, and there may be better words to represent the bourge and prole civic choices?

In terms of economics, I think your probably right barter is a throwaway - but the term decentralised seems so awkward? That is perhaps where the impression of the word is getting the better of me over its actual meaning. I think we will revert back to this economic civic choice, with a better explanation of it - again with techs increasing its viability in the modern period etc.

Yes economics is a vital part of any civ (to many they would say the most vital given its governance over a civs security!) At present i don't always feel a huge difference between my economic choices (as they effect the game) and of course I really should. So im pleased you like the choices, it will be interesting to see what bonus suggestions we can put together for them in the main game.

Prophets in religion is a bit throwaway. Paganism and Shaminism isnt ideal either however as rather than a non-institutional form of religion they still seem to represent a very primitive form of religion. However Prophets needs changing, and Paganism looks better than it!

I think in welfare the Public civic choice best represents the socialised form of welfare, charity is of course quite abstract. I think it represents the charity of man to his fellow man - it doesnt however take in that this was utterly mutual for survival of course. However Communal for example would be awkwardly placed i think in peoples minds. So im not sure on that one!

Yes totally agreed about the future civics - i think its a good idea, that the one choice can really advance a particular part of a players civ. But goodness knows what to make them yet!

I will post another revised graphic of civics.

Thank you for considering them.

I definitely think Anarchy will be better than Chiefdom, as humans technically lived in anarchy until the first monarchies and republics were created. Picture the United States, but remove the federal and state governments and leave only local governments, and you have the tribes and clans of the ancients. Maybe a boost to Anarchy upon the discovery of Liberalism? Since the idea of anarchy came to be during the late Enlightenment (e.g. Lysander Spooner), or perhaps upon the discovery of Philosophy since Taoism basically proposed anarchy.

I do agree now to scrap dictatorship, since as you said Despotism, Fascism and Communism combined with President would be essentially a dictatorship. I would rename President to Executive, however, since the executive branch of government is not always president in every country. It could be prime minister, chancellor, chairman, president, ETC.

For Society, Commune is a lot better than Tribal. But two of them mean exactly the same. Proletariat would basically be Socialist, since socialism is meant to benefit the working class, which the proletariats are. Liberal would basically mean no class is really in power but that they are all equal, so it is good. I am not sure what to replace Socialist with, however. Commune should get a boost upon the discovery of Marxism.

A decentralized economy is an economy put in the power of the people without any government interference whatsoever, like people running shops and there never being a government inspector coming to make sure you are making good shoes. You could replace it with Free Market, although that sounds the same as Laissez-Faire. I wouldn't use Austrian School since that would imply that there is a currency, which there was not in ancient times. Decentralized is a general term for a completely free market void of regulation and protectionism, which is what the ancients had and what the Austrian School suggests. You could try putting Decentralized into the thesaurus to try and find a better sounding word, but I don't think there is a word that is much better that would still apply to ancient economies. Decentralized should get a boost upon the discovery of Economics.

Not sure about the first religion civic. Prophets seems circumstantial and, as you said, represents primitive religion like Paganism and Shamanism. Maybe it should start with Philosophers or some type of science/religion hybrid. That could make it get a boost in the Renaissance age, such as upon the discovery of Education. Although that is also pretty circumstantial since only Greece, Rome, Babylon, China and Egypt had this type of religion civic in the ancient age, with a lesser extent to Maya and the Celts.

I guess Charity would work fine, although the first type of welfare was essentially a form of communism where people shared resources. Although this died out upon the development of civilization, so charity would be the type immediately preceding that. It could get a boost upon the discovery of Humanism or Liberalism.

The future techs will require some debate. They cannot be circumstantial like Robotic Labor, but they also can only be possible due to changing moral, political and social conditions due to increase in technology, such as globalization.

I'm eager to see the new list.

Back! If you want to have a blether with me Big Heb - i see you've been busy id appreciate your input again - will move on to make some changes to the proposed suggestions! Will update!

Right....

First of all Anarchy instead of Chiefdom now thats very interesting but its potentially confusing.

Chiefdoms and tribalism etc describe a state (and thats boring isn't it and certainly is not a civic.) At the same time however, Anarchy is both an ideology and a state of affairs.

Hmm... Thats a difficult one isn't it. The possibility that could work is that Anarchy starts of as it is... (tribal/decentralised political form) but with the advent of technologies, the civic can have a resurgent of sorts.

Problem is if that was the case - how could we make the AI consider it (with researches) as a more viable civic in the future? It is obviously worth noting that there aren't many Anarchic states (as in the ideology!)

So thoughts?

Hmm President and Executive - thats an interesting one, of course the civic choice 'President' represents the true power being held within the executive - but I think executive is perhaps a little too generic (as it does represent a branch of government anyway) rather than the type of civic choice President represents.

In that sense President choice is quite interesting as it can be picked to provide executive lead authority for so many types of government (communist, fascist, democracy etc.)

I think if we focus on providing the president civic with a good description (describing the executive nature of it) and an appropraite graphic, then that should work I think?

Thats not a bad idea about the Socialist instead of Proletariat - but i think the Prole/Bourgeouis draw very strong 'social' comparisons (in marxist theory they are the class struggle) while socialist that we have (later in the civic tree) represents a left wing ideologically - based society. Proles represents that despite the Bourge - power lies more with them. In that sense, one can use that civic for a left leaning society (strong unions, social policies.)

Not that the socialist civic itself is a communist cartoon like civic (americans get carried away with left wing demonising) so it is a valid utopian style civic... or is it hehe

Now Commune is interesting - I think that is way better than tribal - and certainly that could have some tech changes see that civic come back into play.

Yep decentralised is a bit iffy isn't it. The economy of the ancients of course was never devoid of forms of wealth and currency. Be it food! The ancient egyptions used grain and wheat I think. Barter is the easy choice of course... perhaps too easy!

I don't think decentralised economies can exist in the characterisation of one 'free of governmental infuence.' Economic forms are all about control ;)

Yep Prophets is a little crude - but again creating any system that is more complex (and benefiting with later techs) depends a lot on whether the AI would jump up and down the civic tree based on techs?!

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/30/civicsw3.jpg

Are you gonna publish this anytime soon?

I'd really like to try it out.

:D

JosEPh

Right....

First of all Anarchy instead of Chiefdom now thats very interesting but its potentially confusing.

Chiefdoms and tribalism etc describe a state (and thats boring isn't it and certainly is not a civic.) At the same time however, Anarchy is both an ideology and a state of affairs.

Hmm... Thats a difficult one isn't it. The possibility that could work is that Anarchy starts of as it is... (tribal/decentralised political form) but with the advent of technologies, the civic can have a resurgent of sorts.

Problem is if that was the case - how could we make the AI consider it (with researches) as a more viable civic in the future? It is obviously worth noting that there aren't many Anarchic states (as in the ideology!)

So thoughts?

Hmm President and Executive - thats an interesting one, of course the civic choice 'President' represents the true power being held within the executive - but I think executive is perhaps a little too generic (as it does represent a branch of government anyway) rather than the type of civic choice President represents.

In that sense President choice is quite interesting as it can be picked to provide executive lead authority for so many types of government (communist, fascist, democracy etc.)

I think if we focus on providing the president civic with a good description (describing the executive nature of it) and an appropraite graphic, then that should work I think?

Thats not a bad idea about the Socialist instead of Proletariat - but i think the Prole/Bourgeouis draw very strong 'social' comparisons (in marxist theory they are the class struggle) while socialist that we have (later in the civic tree) represents a left wing ideologically - based society. Proles represents that despite the Bourge - power lies more with them. In that sense, one can use that civic for a left leaning society (strong unions, social policies.)

Not that the socialist civic itself is a communist cartoon like civic (americans get carried away with left wing demonising) so it is a valid utopian style civic... or is it hehe

Now Commune is interesting - I think that is way better than tribal - and certainly that could have some tech changes see that civic come back into play.

Yep decentralised is a bit iffy isn't it. The economy of the ancients of course was never devoid of forms of wealth and currency. Be it food! The ancient egyptions used grain and wheat I think. Barter is the easy choice of course... perhaps too easy!

I don't think decentralised economies can exist in the characterisation of one 'free of governmental infuence.' Economic forms are all about control ;)

Yep Prophets is a little crude - but again creating any system that is more complex (and benefiting with later techs) depends a lot on whether the AI would jump up and down the civic tree based on techs?!

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/30/civicsw3.jpg

Good refreshment to bring this up again.

Decentralized does not mean a lack of an economy, but is exactly a "Market" economy (Command and Market are the extremes on the economic scale). Lack of government intervention just means people trade and go about their business, except there are no taxes and all the services the government would give are in the private sector. I don't agree with the system (unstable and utopian), but it could function like Anarchy as describing an ancient economy and then could have a renaissance after a certain tech is discovered. I am iffy about Barter because I believe a Market economy (not capitalist, but market) should be represented. That's my only beef. Other than that, it is all good.

Also, I think you should have a look at the idea of Monetary civics. The topic should be near the top in this forum. They could use some balancing, but would give some good historical flavor.

Also maybe keeping a Legal civic category, but using civics like Common Law, Constitutional Law, Martial Law, Inquisitorial Law, ETC.

Also maybe move Democracy to the classical era (like Majority Rule in RoM now) and add Progressive as the last government civic. Then you could make Democracy and Despotism be available at nearly the same time, but Democracy made for peace and Despotism made for war. Adds historical accuracy like how the Roman Republic would appoint a dictator to rule in war-time.

And once we are done bickering about the names, we should think of the types of bonuses and descriptions the civics would give.

I think I'll look into this thread more deeply when I start making 2.4 version ;)

This is an idea I'd had. Very complicated and probably unable to fit in the civics screen, but nevertheless very flavorful.

Size of Government
- Anarchy - No centralized government.
- Minarchy - Very weak centralized government rules over whole country.
- Federation - Weak centralized government holds sovereign states (cities in game) together.
- Bureaucracy - Powerful centralized government divided into bureaus to specialize in different areas.
- Authoritarian - Very powerful centralized government.

Type of Government
- Chiefdom - Rule by a tribal chief.
- Despotism - Rule by one ruler who has absolute power.
- Direct Democracy - Rule by majority vote.
- Monarchy - Rule by one ruler without absolute power who comes into power by divine right or hereditary rule.
- Republic - Rule by a congress or parliament of representatives elected by the people.
- Totalitarian State - Rule by a government where the people serve and are at complete mercy to the government.
- Utopia - No ruler. Can only be used with Anarchy.

Political Power (dominant class)
- Barbarism/Something - The physically strong have political power.
- Autocracy - Only the ruler has political power.
- Aristocracy - Nobility has political power.
- Plutocracy - The wealthy have political power.
- Theocracy - The clergy has political power.
- Proletariat - The working class has political power.
- Liberal - All classes have equal political power.

Legal
- Lawlessness - No code of laws.
- Common Law - Law is based on common moral belief and the decisions of the judiciary.
- Vassalage - Law is based on feudal contracts.
- Constitutional Law - Law is based on the rights and powers laid out in a document.
- Inquisitorial Law - Law is based on religion.
- Statutory Law - Law is based on the decisions of the legislature (if one) and/or the executive.
- Martial Law - Military law with the intent of controlling treasonous behavior.

Foreign Policy
- Isolationism - No diplomacy with foreign nations. Would function like Pacifism now.
- Non-Intervention - Diplomacy but no aggression.
- Intervention - "Big stick" policy.
- Imperialism - Aggression with the intent of conquering or capitulating foreign nations.

Economic Policy
- Market - Free markets with no government intervention.
- Capitalism/Monetarism - Free markets with little government intervention.
- Keynesianism - Free markets with moderate government intervention for economic success.
- Socialism - Slightly free markets with heavy government intervention and heavy welfare. Government often owns important markets such as energy.
- Command - No free markets. Government has complete control and ownership of economy. Can only use Central Planning for Monetary.
- Mercantilism/Protectionism - Slightly free markets with high tariffs to discourage foreign imports and maximize domestic trade and exports.
- Fascism/Corporatism - Slightly free markets with heavy government intervention for benefit of state and corporations.

Monetary Policy
- Barter - No currency.
- Metal Currency - Uses gold, silver and copper coins as currency.
- Gold Standard - Uses paper notes backed by gold reserves as currency.
- Bimetallic Standard - Same as Gold Standard, except exchange of silver as a currency is permitted.
- Flat Currency - Uses paper notes not backed by anything as currency.
- Central Planning - Government owns all banks and plans all financial transactions. Can only be used with Command for Economy.
- Fractional Reserve Banking - Allows use of credit as currency as well as paper notes.

Political Philosophy
- Nationalism - Belief that what is good for the nation is good for everyone.
- Theology - Belief that following religion is good for everyone.
- Progressivism - Belief that modernization and experimenting with social programs is good for everyone. Essentially modern U.S. liberalism.
- Conservatism - Belief that maintaining tradition is good for everyone.
- Libertarianism - Belief that preserving liberty is good for everyone. Essentially classic liberalism.
- Communism/Marxism - Belief that abolishing private property and achieving economic equality is good for everyone.
- Environmentalism - Belief that saving and conserving the environment is good for everyone.

Religion
- State Religion - Same as Organized Religion now.
- Secularism - Separation of church and state.
- State Atheism - No religions are allowed to be practiced.
- Fundamentalism - Religion is a major part of people's lives.
- Divine Rule/Imperial Cult - No state religion in game. Instead the people worship their ruler(s) as gods.
- Free Religion - Freedom of religion.

Welfare
- Almsgiving - No organizations, but the rich give food to the poor.
- Church Charity - Welfare is given by the clergy who receive it from church-goers' donations. Cannot be used with State Atheism.
- Private Charity - People donate money to charity organizations who
- Philanthropy - Rich people donate money on a regular basis, especially for research.
- Social Welfare - The government provides financial aid and subsidies through social welfare programs to the poor, paying it by increasing taxes on the rich.
- Corporate Welfare - The government provides financial aid and subsidies to corporations in order to hurry technological innovation or production.
- Welfare State - The government provides free healthcare, free education, and other free benefits to all people, but increases taxes dramatically.

Labor
- Agrarianism - People work their land to feed themselves.
- Slavery - Some people are sold as slaves to work and build.
- Serfdom - People sign contracts with feudal lords or the government offering work for protection.
- Caste System - People are born into their occupations.
- Industrialization - Slavery emancipated; people work to make a good or service and use money to feed themselves.
- Unionism - People join trade unions in order to increase standard of living and wages.
- Conscription - People are required to join the military for a set amount of time or are selected to fight under a draft.

Have all of you taken a look to the civics of e.g. Sevomod. Yes, mostly an outdated mod and civics system in this context, but it might yield some good ideas, as I think you are advancing a bit too fast in this planning of the "new civics system". Careful planning and playtesting is the key to success. Historical accuracy is also appreciated by most of the players, I think. However, perhaps all the new mainstream theories (and their alleged populism) may also mislead you when choosing proper civic categories and definitions.

Making things accurate doesn't mean over-generalizing or over-simplifying them. The playing experience has to be taken into account, also. So, imagination and new innovative ideas are also most welcome regarding the civics and their use in the game. I'd personally hope that there would be a true diversity of viable civic options available for the player (which of course means also a larger number of different sets of tactics and strategies!), and that the civics would not be merely a list of generalized government types and some economical ideologies. Theories about the definition and function of those can be argued ad nauseum, anyway.

So, a little bit more imagination is all I ask at this point, so please keep posting your visions and experiences! :)

Have all of you taken a look to the civics of e.g. Sevomod. Yes, mostly an outdated mod and civics system in this context, but it might yield some good ideas, as I think you are advancing a bit too fast in this planning of the "new civics system". Careful planning and playtesting is the key to success. Historical accuracy is also appreciated by most of the players, I think. However, perhaps all the new mainstream theories (and their alleged populism) may also mislead you when choosing proper civic categories and definitions.

Making things accurate doesn't mean over-generalizing or over-simplifying them. The playing experience has to be taken into account, also. So, imagination and new innovative ideas are also most welcome regarding the civics and their use in the game. I'd personally hope that there would be a true diversity of viable civic options available for the player (which of course means also a larger number of different sets of tactics and strategies!), and that the civics would not be merely a list of generalized government types and some economical ideologies. Theories about the definition and function of those can be argued ad nauseum, anyway.

So, a little bit more imagination is all I ask at this point, so please keep posting your visions and experiences! :)

The list I have just made allows for massive customization, and of course it is going to require some revisions as this is only a rough draft. Some categories will be scrapped, some added, and the descriptions and bonuses have yet to be decided.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/30/civicsw3.jpg

Righto, new page - so will post this to show where we are so far!

Okay so the suggestions are a very radical departure from the current alternative i've got suggested - and the original RoM civics.

There extremely detailed so i will go through them with the same level of effort Heb, that you have in creating these.

I think - fundamentally, these are different to the ones im suggesting in that they are are very specific, very varied, and descriptive of states of 'play' and 'politics' and 'ideology'. I think they do lack narrative and drama though, and that is quite important i think - ie. that they have the correct emotional impact. In the changes made based on your past recommendations that ive done (as image shows) ie. chiefdom to anarchy, and tribal to commune, we may in theory have created something more 'realistic' but one that is confusing in part in how it comes across.

One of the stand out difficulties here though is perhaps the lack of 'organic' chemistry as it were (bad metaphor) between the civics. Some are difficult to reconcile with each other - and this may not be the case when taken at their true academic interpretation but if so, then their names may need rectifying but i think it does go beyond that.

They seek to describe every facet detail of what can and does exist but some choices here (as recommended) seem very circumstantial, rather than as a civic.

Size of Government
For example size of government, now in politics we hear those politicians chiding the 'size of government' especailly in the USA, but the size of government in itself is rarely devised as a matter of policy. It evolves itself from often times non-ideological circumstances.

So where as we currently have 'government' as a civic choice (in the pic) above, i find picking a 'size of government' a little awkward.

Again I am eager to avoid words that are rarely in useage in political descriptions. So for example 'Minarchy' seems awkward here. Federations often result from parameters beyond a governments singular choice. eg. states coming together. For a player to choose a federation seems clumsy. I think in the modern context, that is perhaps more how we would imagine small vassal states in civ4 (than in the vassal medieval form) at least by the time we hit the modern game.

Bureaucracy I think works better as a 'Politic' civic outlined before, (and that is the 'body politic' - I don't think we can describe any government really as non bureacratic anyway. Authoritarian as a size of government has little relation - and i think is better represented through choices of ideology.

Type of Government

Chiefdom, despotism etc, all work as singular types of government. Direct Democracy is i think too variable. Again we have from Athens forms of ancient direct democracy, but its a very specific form of democracy to suggest as the first 'ancient democracies'. Inevitably these were republics - how democratic or whether they were democratic at all was decided really by where the power lay. Again the politic civic column, where players can choose between aristocracy, patricians etc deal with that. They tell the player where in their republic the power lies... that is that group of citizenry. Direct Democracy doesn't tell you where the power lies, (not cynicall anyway) and i think thats important.

Totalitarian State, is doubling authoriatrian (really) and i think its fairly obvious, based on government choices of fascism or communism etc what type of government they will be. Utopia is very subjective.

Political Power

So this is basically the politic column, This is interesting as it is what the politic class tries to achieve, I think the Liberal class is again subjective. I think this is best served already in the Politic column (while the size and type of governments are dealt with already by the government column.)

Code of Laws
Now many will like this - but i think this is minutia really. I think personally that research can better show a progression of law (very basically) and not automatically leading to 'better' laws. Just the earliest scribed laws, that we know lead to modern law eventually. (ie. code of laws already, maybe something relating to roman law, or the rights of man etc)

Some choices could lead to results that are perhaps too contradictory.

This is especially the case with Foreign Policy as in this case, players are choosing civics that are already represented by how players are treating other civs ingame. If they are being imperialists they will be by conquering civs, not by picking a civic.

Monetary Policy
This is a good idea, but again we are using alien terms, and some of these are a little clumsy i think. Using metal currency, gold, (or bimetallic standard) i think these are too specific. In fact, in a way thats the problem, is that many of these civics are combining 'civics and policy' into one awkward lump?

I think these can be represented fine within the Economic Civic column already. While not impossible to prove otherwise, the economic civic column, are fairly indicative of the type of monetary policy countries practice. Whether it is relevant to gameplay is also another issue.

Political Philosophy
Pretty much the Society civic column, I think again its better left within the society civic column.

We don't have the Religion or Future civic columns, I think for making the late game more interesting the future civic columns are a must. But given the relevance of the church and religion in all civs, losing that column is a bit too costly (in comparison to suggestions like code of law columns etc.)

So overall, its an exhaustive and great effort Heb, but i think its specific focus in policies is a bit more like ' Victoria - an Empire in the Sun ' by Paradox Games, rather than the sweeping civics used to portray and emotional and accessible 'impression' of a civilization.

Conclusion

So, basically at the moment, i think we're nearly there with the present civics, but not all the choices are perfect yet, neither is the welfare column - and of course the incomplete future civic column. I definately don't think the answer is in expanding everything into minutia choices, or going into 'government policy' as well as civics. In a way we want these choices to be succinct and perfect, not huge and very detailed ;)

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/30/civicsw3.jpg
Size of Government
For example size of government, now in politics we hear those politicians chiding the 'size of government' especailly in the USA, but the size of government in itself is rarely devised as a matter of policy. It evolves itself from often times non-ideological circumstances.
Size of government is probably not a good way of explaining. You are right that the size usually occurs out of political ideology and government type. The intent I had was to make it start as an Anarchy-Chiefdom and then later on Anarchy could be revisited to use Utopia, which would have some good commercial/cultural benefits.


Type of Government

Chiefdom, despotism etc, all work as singular types of government. Direct Democracy is i think too variable. Again we have from Athens forms of ancient direct democracy, but its a very specific form of democracy to suggest as the first 'ancient democracies'. Inevitably these were republics - how democratic or whether they were democratic at all was decided really by where the power lay. Again the politic civic column, where players can choose between aristocracy, patricians etc deal with that. They tell the player where in their republic the power lies... that is that group of citizenry. Direct Democracy doesn't tell you where the power lies, (not cynicall anyway) and i think thats important.

Totalitarian State, is doubling authoriatrian (really) and i think its fairly obvious, based on government choices of fascism or communism etc what type of government they will be. Utopia is very subjective.

Chiefdom I added in because I had Anarchy under size. Direct Democracy I added so there is a type of government available besides Monarchy and Despotism in the classical age. You could make Republic available early then get better after Liberalism, but coding it I think could be a problem.

I created Totalitarian State because both Communism and Fascism are circumstantial to the Economic civics (Communism would use Command and Fascism would use Corporatism). If you want Communism or Fascism, you could just combine Totalitarian with one of those Economy civics.


Political Power

So this is basically the politic column, This is interesting as it is what the politic class tries to achieve, I think the Liberal class is again subjective. I think this is best served already in the Politic column (while the size and type of governments are dealt with already by the government column.)

Yes I modeled this after the Politic category. However, Bureaucracy and Vassalage seemed out of place so I made it consistent to be the ruling social class. Plutocracy is Patrician. Liberal just implies that there is no class in power, which is what the Enlightenment tried to accomplish. You could make a separate civic column for what branch of government is in power, but it is circumstantial to a Republic or Democracy (notably the Senate, Parliament and President civics.)


Code of Laws
Now many will like this - but i think this is minutia really. I think personally that research can better show a progression of law (very basically) and not automatically leading to 'better' laws. Just the earliest scribed laws, that we know lead to modern law eventually. (ie. code of laws already, maybe something relating to roman law, or the rights of man etc)

Some choices could lead to results that are perhaps too contradictory.
[/quotes]
Very true.

[quote]
Monetary Policy
This is a good idea, but again we are using alien terms, and some of these are a little clumsy i think. Using metal currency, gold, (or bimetallic standard) i think these are too specific. In fact, in a way thats the problem, is that many of these civics are combining 'civics and policy' into one awkward lump?

I think these can be represented fine within the Economic Civic column already. While not impossible to prove otherwise, the economic civic column, are fairly indicative of the type of monetary policy countries practice. Whether it is relevant to gameplay is also another issue.
Monetary policy deals with finances and would affect the sliders rather than strictly commerce. Check my Monetary Policy thread to see what I mean.


Political Philosophy
Pretty much the Society civic column, I think again its better left within the society civic column.
The only problem I have with the Society column is that Proletariat and Socialist are essentially identical, and Socialist would fit better as an economic civic. Also, the philosophy would mainly represent the behavior of the people rather than government policy, which I think is what you tried to accomplish with the Society column. This introduces known political beliefs into the game like Progressivism and Conservatism, and also allows us to keep the Environmentalism civic but in a more fitting category than Economy.

We don't have the Religion or Future civic columns, I think for making the late game more interesting the future civic columns are a must. But given the relevance of the church and religion in all civs, losing that column is a bit too costly (in comparison to suggestions like code of law columns etc.)
I added a religion column to my list. It is largely the same as yours with some minor name changes. The Future civics I think we should decide after we get the rest of the civics agreed upon.

So overall, its an exhaustive and great effort Heb, but i think its specific focus in policies is a bit more like ' Victoria - an Empire in the Sun ' by Paradox Games, rather than the sweeping civics used to portray and emotional and accessible 'impression' of a civilization.
Perhaps it does make the game very black and white.


So, basically at the moment, i think we're nearly there with the present civics, but not all the choices are perfect yet, neither is the welfare column - and of course the incomplete future civic column. I definately don't think the answer is in expanding everything into minutia choices, or going into 'government policy' as well as civics. In a way we want these choices to be succinct and perfect, not huge and very detailed ;)
I think we have the foundation cement drying. Some civic changes here and there, but the overall idea is there.

I made that list to spark some debate. My main concerns are with the Politic and Society columns, which seem to overlap in some areas. Foreign Policy and Size of Government can be scrapped, the former being shown in-game anyway and the latter would be ultimately determined by other civic choices.

Hey there!

Righto, well thats interesting about the percieved overlap of Society and Politic and thats something i'll have to look at.

However, we should not see the civic choices as 'shapes to fit through holes' - they are rather (or as im attempting) to create a cynical and personal reflection of civs, rather than list every option if you get my drift.

The challenge with that is it can be confusing. For example, the Politic civic column illustrates where the power lies in the civ, but its not arbitrary, its not the 'type of political' party that rules either, its abstract.

I think thats appropriate, especially if the civics are not policy specific. Where as if they were - the Politic Civic would be more like a Party Selector (not disimilar to that in Victoria, or Galactic Civilizations) The problem is thats very 'neat' and doesnt carry realistically i think, its associated social dynamics.

It may make it clearer to rename the Politic column to 'Power' so that the 'Government' civic and its ideologies are not confused with mis-percieved ideologies in the 'politic' column.

I don't think each column should feel totally seperate to the processes in the other, interlinking i think makes it all a bit more organic.

The Society column again is abstract, it relates to the type of society encouraged, condoned, by government. It's not an automatic social engineering switch (no type of society has ever been 100% this or that have they?)

They do not consist of political ideologies until the later civics are discovered (Nationalist, Socialist, Liberal) in particular, as these are great the society affecting political ideologies of modernity. It is a modern concept to politicise society in accordance to an actual ideology.

The apolitical choices, bourgeious and Proles (are not apolitical by name - as they are socialist definitions of wealth) but are common terms accepted as defining class. In this case, this allows a player to choose in which way their society is tiled, class basis for different benefits, but neither is exclusive of the other.

Here are some notes on your comments Heb :)

Size of Gov

Yep Republic is made available in the classic period. The nature of that democracy is defined by the politic civic (for ancients that would be the choice of the Patrician class) or in other Bureacracy.

The difficulty with Utopia (coming back) is it suggests that is the ultimate form of govt - but also and this is the real issue - i dont think the AI would ever do it? Its also a little idealistic!

Totalitarian states being either communist or fascist is not circumstantial to just economics. They are different on a host of other levels! Taking away the actual choice between the two, again is a way of making the game less personal.

"Oh there totalitarian, lets check their monetary policy to see if there evil?' hehe you get the idea ;)

Fascist and Communist states - as we know - have picked and changed their economic policy all the time! So its no definition - just look at China, despite their communist ideology, their fervant pursuers of capitalism (almost the mercantile civic!) - a kind of autocratic capitalism!

Political Power

Yep the problem with Plutocracy is that it defines 'rule' by the powerful/rich elites (hence the 'cracy') but really, that would be a 'government choice' and one by circumstance not by ideology (hence why i havent included it in the government civic either.) Patrician I think is more effective at allowing civs to extend political influence to the rich/ merchants, and noble families. In essence this is the voting base (to varying degrees) of ancient democracies.

Bureacracy represents the civil servantry, in some ancient civs, Cyrus, to medieval chinese civs (the damned eunachs) these kinds of governments relied on powerful bureaus to rule. In effect, it is not suggesting that only civil servants have power - but that - is the base, by which the government can operate.

Likewise with vassalage, it is modus operandi almost - of subserviant aristocrats, rich merchants and limite rights etc. As opposed to a direct political class in bureacracy. In that sense, we are not creating a clear cut choice of what 'class' to put in power, but an abstract representation of certain polical elements that a player can choose to 'accenctuate' (what a typo) within their civ.

Monetary Policy

I think it looks like a cool idea in terms of 'policy' based civic models, but again its rather too specific to work with these more ecompassing civic models. I think the presumption with the economic choices already for the type of monetary policy is satisfactory.

After all, if a player chooses Mercantile or Planned, are they really going to miss much from not getting to choose between Bimetallic Standard or Metallic Standard?

Its important we don't just throw detail at this, but think carefully in terms of game design concepts and efficiency as well.

Religion
Nice suggestions but i think the current column is just about right really, as a point of note the 'state church' in the column represents a church submitting to state control (never a popular move with the people) but think Henry VIII, the free church represents it as independent and powerful (medieval) and intolerant, as that also but with extremism encouraged also from the state.

As a note these civics in the civopedia will get some great descriptions custom written i think, with some nice pics to really illustrate how and what there contexts are.

Regarding Labour, Welfare etc, those are a bit a difficulty really.

Welfare

I think almsgiving (sounds great) but with 'charity' as it is, its more obvious what it means. Interestingly you have Church Charity - however, welfare as i see it is not a civic choice of 'who helps people' or at least not entirely. Welfare is also 'power' - and 'money'. So there is a power dynamic to the welfare provisal.

I think Charity, Private, Church, Social, Public, Corporate, Welfare State might be a good combo though - something like that. Out of our current civics those are the most 'policy' relating, though ive done my best to try and expand them beyond anything too specific.

I don't think we really need the labor civic column - again ingame, we know what our little citizens are doing. If most are one workshop tiles... we have an industrial labor force, if most are farming etc. It's fairly self explanatory.

Again theres no need to add more detail, which is also why im loathe to add any more columns than we presently have.

6 with 1 for the future seems ample if when we expand we're just looking at more 'policy type' columns, looking at very specific elements.

Later today I will update the civic columns based on suggestions you have made to welfare name changes, possibly religion - then we can look over again and see if we're ready to get onto bonuses!

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/8523/civic2hm4.jpg

Righto!

Changes
Okay had a review over civics - now Big Heb made a great suggestion about Communal/Commune, and Anarchy, but i think in retrospect while (technically accurate - at least to many!) they didn't express enough meaning.

While reverting to Chiefdom and Tribal may seem a little 'easy' - its worth noting two points.

One the AI would not revert back to earlier civics (even if techs gave them new bonuses and players could re-interpret them - at least mentally).

Finally, situations in Iraq, and Afghanistan, Sudan etc, show us that even modern nation states can crumble into feuding warlords, and that their populations can descend into brutal tribal conflict.

However a suggestion Big Heb made that has stuck was to make the 'politic' category clearer. In my mind it was always the 'body politic' but that term is neither commonly known, or fit comfortably on the civic screen!

So 'Power' replaces that title, and hopefully makes an impression on players that it refers to where power within the government lies.

Oh and also, 'Divine Rule' as suggested by Heb, is now Divine Cult - better terminology.

Progress
I think the Government, Politic, Society and Economy columns are about right 'name wise'.

There are some civic options that need improving -

'Prophets'
With something as subjective as religious belief, putting paganism etc seems a little inaccurate or wrong? Or is it? What do you guys think?

The Welfare column is a tricky one, because I am wondering if really it is actually needed at all. Or if it could not be replaced with something more interesting. What are your opinions on this?

Now before you go asking 'but how can i give my people free health care...' such presumptions (for welfare) can surely be assumed if one picks ideologies (in the government and society columns) relevant to that.

If welfare is important, then the 'Reformed' civic choice is essentially meaningless - its a kind of inbetween version of subsidy and public. So what could improve the welfare column? Making a new column such as 'Rights' - that could combine elements of welfare and human rights? Im thinking something more abstract might be better?


Future
Oh and lets hear some ideas for future civic options - these can be related to the other civic columns (perhaps a futuristic society civic and a government civic and so on) or whatever. With any ideas however, please bare in mind the current tech tree in Rise of Man. Also that it is a 'civic' and if - IF it can be done with an improvement, a tech, or a wonder, then it is not a civic (its not easy!)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5514/civic2lp1.jpg

I feel that this is more satisfying. - The civic Reformed has been removed and replaced with Public - allowing for the representation of those social democracies with well funded welfare - and then Socialised, representing the pinnacle of the welfare state.

In the Society column, - Socialist has been replaced with Marxist - this is perhaps more appropriate given that Marxist theory was focussed on his idea of society. This is the same as picking a Socialist Society (and bearing in mind society civics are representing an abstract element of legal/labour/judiciary etc - the type of society the gov encourages.)

I think there should be more early game Civic options (Say... from ancient to classical and medieval eras) to allow more different early game strategies. Also, the system should not be so Eurocentrist and based on modern political theories and definitions. There should be alternatives available to create a wide range of different early societies - Such as those found in Asia, Africa and Americas before European influence. (Such as the early Inca society "state property" system with its curios (social ranking system) and such, for just one example,)

How about that?!! Historians and visionaries, do your magic! :D

Speaking of that, i once created a new civic for the Economy category,called Ascetism. (req. Medititation),placed between Barter and Slavery.

The idea was to emulate a society which refuses the whole idea of economic growth ,based on greed, for deep moral,spiritual and religious reasons, instead focusing upon internal personal growth, discipline,contact with the divine etc.,and keeping the basic economic functions down to absolute minimum. (Tibetan monks etc.) It had some bonuses to health and and gave bonus specialists, but all city production had a modifier of -60 percent (food production - 15 %).

Hey thanks for the comments,

Matissi
If you check post 42 on this thread, you will see that with reorganised and new civics there is actually quite a bit more variety now - than in the original RoM civic choices for the ancient period.

We've discussed before, that we're not seeking to create civic options that describe a unique or circumstantial form of government or society - but as true civic choices express ideas. As a point of note if you check the earlier pages you will see a lot of discussion about ancient chinese civilisation too, and others - and how one can reflect or build those types of civs with the civic choices we're developing.

Albeit their abstract, but its not I think a good idea, to try and develop loosely conntected terms with our perceptions of ancient civilization. I'd challenge one to find an ancient civ that could not be represented by the 'ancient' civic options available in post 42 - is there is any significant civ that couldn't be - ill certainly look into it!

Ersner
Asceticism is quite a curious choice - it typically refers to a lifestyle of abstinance - I think one can use it to characterise that, or perhaps even a type of society (or at least something it strives for.) It isn't a very convincing model of economics. As we know economy is rarely driven by those individuals emphasising morality - even if they purport to be its masters.

Required Techs?
Okay, if we're more or less happy with the list so far (okay we'll come back to future tech) then what are your opinions for suggested required techs, based on RoM's current tech tree.

Comments
Oh just wanted to come back and mention that indeed there is a euro-centric perspective to civics at least in the ideologies and political terms. Of course there are other expressions for (similar types of politics and government.) You can find many excellent examples in Chinese civilization who indeed were utterly sophisticated in their understanding of government and bureacracy in comparison to the medieval governed states of Europe.

We cannot realistically bring terms or expression of political idea from ancient civs when their meanings are lost on most folk, and when their 'ideas' have been absorbed already into modern political expression. While European thought and political science has dominated the modern world - it was not created from Europe itself, (much / most depending on your view) but is itself imo an absorption of world ideas. It's no coincidence that it was the 20th century, that saw the realisation of the most radical political forms and cultural science. (To varying degrees of success i might add...)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5514/civic2lp1.jpg

I feel that this is more satisfying. - The civic Reformed has been removed and replaced with Public - allowing for the representation of those social democracies with well funded welfare - and then Socialised, representing the pinnacle of the welfare state.

In the Society column, - Socialist has been replaced with Marxist - this is perhaps more appropriate given that Marxist theory was focussed on his idea of society. This is the same as picking a Socialist Society (and bearing in mind society civics are representing an abstract element of legal/labour/judiciary etc - the type of society the gov encourages.)
I'm disappointed with not choosing Anarchy and Communal, but you brought up a good point that the AI will not switch back to them.

Making it Power and not Politic definitely makes it clear as to what the civic column is hoping to achieve. Now one thing I am wondering, however, is what the bonus differences will be between Senate and Parliament, since both seem to be very similar to each other.

For Society, again it is a little iffy. Liberal, Marxist and Nationalist are political ideologies while Proletariat and Bourgeois are social classes. I would suggest you pick one or the other. I would suggest ideology. How is this?

> Tribal - People believing in sustaining the tribe and living an agrarian, tribal lifestyle. They are skeptical of modernization, industry, urbanism, ETC.
> Feudal - People believe in a rigid social hierarchal structure led by nobles served by serfs. Requires Feudalism
> Liberal - People live in a society where civil liberties and an isolationist foreign policy are highly valued. Requires Liberalism.
> Conservative - People live in a society where preserving tradition, free trade and an isolationist foreign policy are highly valued. Requires Economics, Realism.
> Marxist - People live in a society where social and economic equality is highly valued. Requires Marxism.
> Nationalist - People live in a society where whatever benefits the state is highly valued. Requires Nationalism.
> Progressive - People live in a society where social change, social justice, efficiency, environmental conservation, and humanitarian intervention foreign policy are highly valued. Requires Industrialization.

The way I interpret the Society civic column is society's dominant ideals and therefore how the populace reacts to your in-game decisions. This is not policy, but how the people react to your policy that you make while playing the game. For example, having a very high population and "radical" new building ideas (e.g. Paved Roads, Libraries, Arenas, ETC.) will cause unhappiness under Tribal. And going to war under Nationalist or Progressive will be well-received, while war weariness would be high under Liberal or Conservative. And whipping would be more acceptable under Tribal, Feudal and Nationalist than the others.

I highly advocate that you consider this model for the Society civic. I believe it is an idea that could be very flavorful in-game.

Religion looks good, although I do not know what Intolerant would be. Does it mean an intolerance of other religions? If so, wouldn't that fall under State Church?

Welfare is still a little iffy. Charity, Church, Socialist and Corporate are good. However, Subsidy and Public are basically the same thing (tax money (subsidies) given to the struggling poor and for public works). Unless you want to replace Public with Public Works (think New Deal Works Progress Administration). Then it would be perfect.

My next post will include some future ideas.

Hmm that is interesting - good suggestions, I think that may be a little better actually.

What i liked about having the 2 social classes, was that they represent a far more apolitical society in comparison to the last 3 which are arguably inventions of the 19th/20th century.

I think however, the feel I want to put across can still be achieved with your definitions, - for like all the civics i think we are going for something that will require intuitive graphics and well written descriptions to get there 'narrative' meanings across. As its important that players should relate and feel something about their civic choices.

Comments
So, yep, based on those suggestions I will re-evaluate. I don't quite agree with your definitions of Liberal and Conservative but thats neither here nor there presently!

I think that feels just about right - I think Progressive is a bit iffy. (its a bit neo-liberal) which just seems a bit of a waste - what we could do however, is add a new society civic for the /ancient period as at the moment it could do with a choice alternative from Tribal.

But goodness knows what!

Second post for better organization.

Required Techs
Government
Chiefdom - Default. Would get boost after Communism.
Despotism - Requires Slavery.
Monarchy - Requires Monarchy.
Republic - Requires Democracy. Would get a large boost after Constitution.
Fascist - Requires Fascism.
Communist - Requires Communism.
Democracy - Requires Representative Democracy.

Pretty easy considering most of the techs have the same name as the civic.

Power
Aristocracy - Default.
Patrician - Requires Trade. Would get boost after Corporation.
Bureaucracy - Requires Civil Service. Would get boost after Scientific Method.
Vassalage - Requires Feudalism. Would get boost after Nationalism.
Parliament - Requires Constitution.
Senate - Requires Liberalism.
President - Requires Representative Democracy.

Society
Tribal - Default. Would get boost after Philosophy.
Feudal - Requires Feudalism.
Liberal - Requires Liberalism.
Conservative - Requires Liberalism, Economics.
Marxist - Requires Marxism.
Nationalist - Requires Nationalism.
Progressive - Requires Industrialism.

Economy
Barter - Default.
Slavery - Requires Slavery.
Mercantile - Requires Mercantilism.
Laissez Faire - Requires Economics.
Planned - Requires Communism.
Keynesian - Requires Industrialism.
Corporatism - Requires Fascism.

Religion
Prophets - Default.
Divine Cult - Requires Mysticism. Would get boosts after Divine Right.
State Church - Requires Monotheism.
Intolerant - Requires Fundamentalism. Would get boosts after Fascism.
Free Church - Requires Humanism.
Secular - Requires Liberalism.
Atheist - Requires Compulsory Education.

Welfare
Charity - Default.
Church - Requires Priesthood.
Private - Requires Trade. Would get boosts after Industrialism.
Subsidized - Requires Labor Union.
Socialized - Requires Communism.
Public Works - Requires Mass Transit.
Corporate - Requires Manufacturing.

Future (A list of ideas, so more than 7)
> Open Source Governance (Government) - Requires Fiber Optics, The Internet.
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page
> Anarcho-Capitalism (Government) - Requires Conglomerates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> Noocracy (Power) - Requires Superstring Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noocracy
> E-Government (Power) - Requires Artificial Intelligence or Supercomputers. Artificial intelligence supercomputers are programmed to a run certain type of government (government civic).
> Machine Cult (Religion) - Requires Terra Computer. Worship of artificial intelligence as a god.
> Scientific Religion (Religion) - Requires Superstring Theory. Religion has been proven to be true or false (edited for political correctness).
> Digital Economy (Economy) - Requires Advanced Computers. Technology allowing the transformation of atoms to bits, allowing the download of physical products instantly makes the Internet the main marketplace.
> Universal Welfare (Welfare) - Requires Environmental Economics. The process of making and distributing medicine and food has become so cheap that it has become like free water.


For society, instead of Progressivism (which I was thinking of neo-liberalism at the time), you could add some kind of Greek or Roman philosophy (Socrates' "you live for the polis" type society). Or you could change Liberalism to Libertarianism and Progressivism to Liberalism. Those definitions I put come from the Progressivism wiki, and neo-liberalism and progressivism are very similar, so it is your call.

Excellent recommendations and yep many are fairly self explanatory, I'll be putting these civics, and the recommended research techs into a final doc for Zapp to examine and consider.

I think when we get to the bonuses it may be more important to give general suggestions (based on whats possible with the xml files) for Zapp, as he will find the best way to incorporate them within what ever game-balancing model his mod likes to use etc.

Yep I will have a think on that society civic tomorrow, - over what ancient alternative might or could be added!

Comments

Again i'm not sure about the boosts to previous civics (if the AI can or would use them then great, but if not then theres no point really.)

Can anyone confirm how the AI chooses between civics? That would help?

Power
Yep just as a point of note I think was asked earlier - about the difference between the senate and parliament civics. In this case it is the modern context we use.

We can generalise only a little,

Parliament refers to a strong legislative branch, that is more moderate, compromising, consisting of pri-ministers and the like. An obvious example would be Great Britain (if matched with a democracy govt civic) or even Mussolini's Italy if paired with Fascist. With 'nastier' governments, its certainly a more apolagetic power base. - so think 'legislature' - at least if i spell it right!

Senate
Think stronger executive branch, not necessarily 'less' moderate, but it has the capacity to be so. Think Republican France or even the United States.

President
This is a legitimate, extreme executive tilted choice - the USA could be an example if paired with democracy, but it also offers, a modern form of 'legitimised' autocracy for nastier govt choices.

None of these power choices precludes the existence of assemblies, parliaments etc, they just indicate where the power mostly lies.

In terms of tech - all these power civics should be available ala enlightenment period - i think you've got it right there Heb.

Religion

Yep this is tricky, as what im calling these civics struggle to express their meanings. If i describe perhaps we can find more appropriate required techs for the.

Divine Cult is fine, State Church should only be possible -after, Free Church.

The Free Church represents an independent and powerful church. As we know from history - particularly in the medieval period, the free church was as powerful, as the rulers of kingdoms and nations. I would see the free church as offering 'vital' bonuses but at the same time infuriating compromises.

The State Church, in comparison, is the submission of the independent church, and its powers and appointments being overseen by the govt.
Think Henry VIII!!

The rest seem fine though, i think maybe compulsory education is a little iffy for Atheism though?

Okay, I will take a look at the future civic suggestions in more detail tomorrow - however, the other pre-req tech suggestions seem fine.

If you get a chance Heb - alternatives etc would be welcome - your doing good work.

Everyone else feel free to comment!

Fine, but how many options you actually have before the medieval times? I'd say there's room for at least three options (including the "default") in every category! Both in the historical sense and in order to create the most stimulating experience in gameplay...

(Early strategies!) That is the thing what made our cultures on this planet so diverse! :)

Its not a case of just picking a number out of thin air - and saying i want 3 choices for each column in the ancient period.

They actually have to be credible ideas - and also they should not be ideas (bar the defaults in most cases) that would be discarded automatically when a more 'advanced' civic is discovered. They should be credible and realistic civics that we can still see around the world, that we can recognise. Not anything utterly obscure just for sake of variety.

There are 7 defaults, and 10 extra civic choices, one could make in the ancient period (17) as opposed to 15 in the current RoM.

Consider also that the 17 have been re-defined, where as the 15 in Rom, consisted of many that overlapped (imo) such as tribal religious type civics, or early medicines.

I disagree.

Creating these options is absolutely necessary, if you do not see any "credible ideas" yourself, perhaps you should wait for a consultation. I think the requirements for the first option besides the default option in many categories are too far away from the ancient technologies, resulting in a global monoculture. Early gameplay with only one real option in Civics is not correct, no matter how you look into the issue.

Please, reconsider and ask for consultation if needed. I am ready to participate, but as I am a historian, that might lead to some far too complicated solutions. Keeping the Civic system balanced in between "historically accurate" and "playable" should be the main objective in this area of modding.

Please keep up the good work.

Cheers mate - well before you disagree (and with what exactly?!) Lets hear your suggestions as that will be really helpful!

Now if you check Post 73, you will see the current choices - with the exception of the bottom Society civic progressive (that will be removed, and added as a new ancient period society option) to provide something other than slavery or tribal.

As a historian your input is most welcome, my perspective on this mod is not to represent 'circumstances of history' though - but instead the principle ideas and theory that have shaped the evolution of civs in history.

An example of something less useful is a civic whose sole basis is a relatively (and its all relative eh) obscure historical incident, that did not transcend either one particular geography, or large amount of time. That is not to suggest I am ignoring any civ as an inpiration for the civics. The reason we have what we have, is so there is the opportunity to create any type of civ a player wants within historical precedents.

So your comments are appreciated - and I really look forward to hearing your ideas! Then it will be me you and Heb having this epic discourse ;)

I would describe myself as an amatuer historian / I did my studying of ancient history and modern (how drole i know) at St Andrews (i am a film director now though, and look forward if needed to making some videos for civic choices - wouldnt that be cool if it were possible.)

Like the wonder video but for when u change to a civic for the first time - what better way to get the feeling across hehe (ok leave that for your own mod buster hehe - but if it could be done zapp and u were keen be happy to help.)

Okay! :) Thanks for your nice attitude. You'll just have to give me some time to give my first list of suggestions... It's 6 AM in Japan right now and I have to catch my flight back to Finland after spending 11 months here studying as an exchange student...

So, it might take a few days before I get all settled and fully oriented in Finland once again. ;) Then I will compose my list of suggestions. Thanks for your patience in advance!

Hmm

Now heres a challenge,

Presently in the Society Column, Heb has mentioned (and feel free to comment Heb) over the inconsistency of the present column.

Tribal
Feudalism
Proletariat
Bourgeious
Nationalist
Marxist
Liberal

This is because it mixes some social classes and 'ideologies'. I have thought on this, and decided that really, while they are not directly comparable to each other - they do all relate to society.

Although one can argue this, i think it is generally accepted, that we have seen the greatest politicalisation of society with the ideas of nationalism (first as a state of national consciousness ie age of enlightenment) to Marxism and Liberal thought.

Those last 3 have sought to re-design society from the ground up.

However society has never been completely apolitical! Yet we cannot say that society has always been driven by the huge political influences of the last 3 (over the last couple of centuries.)

I see the last 3 as representing options for the implementation of radical ideas on society.

So the choice of Proles and Bourge, these of course relate to the working and upper classes (as defined in marxism) - however, they are retroactive definitions - that one could use to define the earliest hierarchal societies.

These relate to the political consciousness of social groups, for example the plebs of Rome and their tribunes, or their domination by patricians would be an early example.

In that sense those civic choices also represent societies with far greater freedom than feudalism confers. (Its benefits are quite different however.)

In that sense Feudalism is not an ideology either, (in fact the terms relating to medieval society while named such have far more exotic names!)

I think the mix is also necessary to ensure there is a 'development' that can occur within the research of that column. For if it were just social classes then they would already exist within the society for the player to choose between.

If they were just ideologies then neither would they work within the system of ideologies expressed within the govt, politic, and other columns.

So its a long explanation but suffice to say, the only thing i think worth changing now is the Tribal civic to Caste?

However, it may be nice to express some element of Conservatism and classic liberalism in the prole and bourge choices (in their description, and graphic.) Nothing extreme, and it is debatable.

Classically the working classes have been more conservative than the more secular middle and upper classes. Utterly subjective of course - comments please :)

Oh especially on the idea of making the social classes bourge and prole available earlier (for those civs like rome that obviously had politicised and well developed social / hierarchal structures.)

(And no... we don't have to wait past the tech of marxism before we can use that theories well known class of social definition!)

Here are some possible changes to religion. I assumed Free Church to be freedom of religion, but I guess Secular fills that role.

Prophets - Default.
Divine Cult - Requires Mysticism.
Free Church - Requires Monotheism.
State Church - Requires Theology
Intolerant - Requires Fundamentalism.
Secular - Requires Humanism.
Atheist - Requires Biology? I think Darwin's theory of evolution caused atheism to start spreading. If not perhaps Scientific Method?

And also here are some basic ideas for what each civic will give, starting with the government civics. These are not exact numbers, but rather an idea for what they would do. My idea is not to do what RoM does by giving boosts everywhere to commerce, culture and science, but instead to have effects more representative of what the civic does.

Government
> Chiefdom - Boosts to food for faster population growth. That would represent the neolithic revolution that allowed for rapid population growth. There could also be higher maintenance costs, since chiefs trying to run an empire would be nearly impossible.
Examples to Model: Neolithic cities, tribes; modern utopian communities, tribes.

> Despotism - Quicker military production and less war weariness. And also less unhappiness from slavery could be a good idea. This would also identify with modern military dictatorships, so either boosts later on or appropriate starting bonuses to represent that are a must.
Examples to Model: Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Mycenaens, Mongolia; modern Myanmar, Liberia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, ETC.

> Monarchy - Faster wonder production, more experience for military units, faster culture growth, and maybe something to do with vassals. Most successful monarchies are identified by stable government, provincial conquest, cultural revolutions, and good commerce. The Hereditary Rule civic is a good start, but moving away from old-style gameplay I believe is a must.
Examples to Model: ancient Persia, Macedon, Han China, Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Ottoman, Islamic Caliphate, ETC.

> Republic - I am assuming this is an Athenian, Roman or Enlightenment constitutional republic opposed to forms of oligarchy like China. I am not sure what the effects should be, however. The Representation effects are very "unrepresentative" of a republic.
Examples to Model: Athens, Roman Republic, early USA, modern Britain, ETC.

> Fascist - +1 happiness from garrisoned troops (increased police control), lower war weariness, able to finish production with slavery, major unhappiness and risk of riots when amount of garrisoned troops is lower than population, increased maintenance costs. Maybe a bit overpowered, but maintaining a large empire would be a major drain on a fascist economy. Fascism is self-explanatory.
Examples to Model: Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, North Korea, ETC.

> Communist - Would have to be used with Planned economy. Not sure what the government civic would do.
Examples to Model: Soviet Union, PRC, Vietnam, ETC.

> Democracy - I see the difference between Republic and Democracy as that in a Republic the government's role is security and strictly protecting liberty while in a Democracy the government's role is carrying out the will of the people. I'm open to disagreement, however.
Examples to Model: modern USA, ETC.

Hmm

Now heres a challenge,

Presently in the Society Column, Heb has mentioned (and feel free to comment Heb) over the inconsistency of the present column.

Tribal
Feudalism
Proletariat
Bourgeious
Nationalist
Marxist
Liberal

This is because it mixes some social classes and 'ideologies'. I have thought on this, and decided that really, while they are not directly comparable to each other - they do all relate to society.

Although one can argue this, i think it is generally accepted, that we have seen the greatest politicalisation of society with the ideas of nationalism (first as a state of national consciousness ie age of enlightenment) to Marxism and Liberal thought.

Those last 3 have sought to re-design society from the ground up.

However society has never been completely apolitical! Yet we cannot say that society has always been driven by the huge political influences of the last 3 (over the last couple of centuries.)

I see the last 3 as representing options for the implementation of radical ideas on society.

So the choice of Proles and Bourge, these of course relate to the working and upper classes (as defined in marxism) - however, they are retroactive definitions - that one could use to define the earliest hierarchal societies.

These relate to the political consciousness of social groups, for example the plebs of Rome and their tribunes, or their domination by patricians would be an early example.

In that sense those civic choices also represent societies with far greater freedom than feudalism confers. (Its benefits are quite different however.)

In that sense Feudalism is not an ideology either, (in fact the terms relating to medieval society while named such have far more exotic names!)

I think the mix is also necessary to ensure there is a 'development' that can occur within the research of that column. For if it were just social classes then they would already exist within the society for the player to choose between.

If they were just ideologies then neither would they work within the system of ideologies expressed within the govt, politic, and other columns.

So its a long explanation but suffice to say, the only thing i think worth changing now is the Tribal civic to Caste?

However, it may be nice to express some element of Conservatism and classic liberalism in the prole and bourge choices (in their description, and graphic.) Nothing extreme, and it is debatable.

Classically the working classes have been more conservative than the more secular middle and upper classes. Utterly subjective of course - comments please :)

Oh especially on the idea of making the social classes bourge and prole available earlier (for those civs like rome that obviously had politicised and well developed social / hierarchal structures.)

(And no... we don't have to wait past the tech of marxism before we can use that theories well known class of social definition!)

The way I interpret Proletariat and Bourgeois is which class is catered to in society. So basically Proletariat would be Socialism or Populism (progressivism and neo-liberalism could fit under there as well), and Bourgeois would reflect elitist views, such as the political beliefs of the USA Federalist Party in the late 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_party

I do see a problem now with Conservative. Since it pertains to maintaining the status quo, its meaning differs from country to country. It used to mean those who wanted to keep the monarchy, and now it means those who want to strictly follow the Constitution. I guess if Liberal receives bonuses that reflects that of classic liberalism rather than FDR-style neo-liberalism, I would be fine with keeping the classes. Liberal has a twisted meaning these days.

I am not sure if this is how you interpreted it to be, but if it was wouldn't Marxist also fall under Proletariat and Feudalism fall under Bourgeois?

Hey Heb,

Govt Civics/Religious pre-req
Cheers for the comments, those recommendations for the govt civics look good, as does the religious civics - we'll start confirming civics and descrips as part of a recommendation for Zapp. Excellent work though.

Society Civic
Yep bearing in mind though, that proles and bourge are just social classes (albeit the name of those classes and definitions are based on marxism) they are not as classes defined as either socialist/ elitist etc.

You are right however, there are political leanings with these choices - but not necessarily based on socialist/capitalist leanings (they can have that subjective impression when or if players retain these civics in the industrial age) but if when they become available earlier - then we can imagine their differences.

However, proles would indicate 'the rights of the masses' where as bourge, would indicate more, 'the privilages of the rulers' (subjective, but of the middle and upper classes. - as a note it never fails to surprise me how politicians try to convince the populace that 'most' are middle class nowadays particularly in the USA.

Neither is supposed to be as 'extreme' as the last 3 society civics, but you are right, in suggesting that proles is probably going to be more to the left and perhaps bourge to the right (slightly) - though only in regards to political and economic thought, not so to cultural or religious thinking. For as we know, in that regard working classes are far more conservative and religious than more often, the more secular middle classes and rulers. Its an interesting contrast - but thankfully thats what the other civic columns are there for - to help flesh out our characterisation of society.

But basically proles and bourge civic choices mean their 'interests' as a class supercede the governments attempts to indoctrinate them into any particular political ideology (the last 3 civics) hence why i wouldnt say proles are basically marxist or bourge feudal etc. As a point of note we know that being a proletariat (by definition anyway)

Such choices when paired with fascist govt choices for example, would simply indicate a more open/less ideological/ moderate society (comparative) only to the govts official ideology. Communist China being a good example of that.

You are quite right about Liberal and its distortions, likewise however with Conservative philisophy. Its worth noting how different their 'neo' versions are to their original counterparts. Those neo's are difficult to define and represent a flux within those political movements (that i dont think qualify really as alternative civic choices.) I think we can leave it to the players own subjective perspective, whether they intend their liberal or neo-conservative *ahem* nationalist civic choice, play styles will be 'traditional or neo'.

//

Interesting Note

What is a challenge in a way, is where to place our social class of prole and bourge - at what point in history did such social classes exist with political/economic consciousness to such an extent they should be represented. Given how complex Roman society was, and how sophisticated, it would be arguable that such options should be present then. As while the 'dark ages' and their 'darkness' have been exaggerated, no kingdom of europe for example really competed with the social/political dynamic, till at least the renaiscence. In that sense feudal / as a society civic must bring a very particular advantage - that was obviously something needed at that time in history. It certainly evolved from a circumstantial need for control/domination/stability rather than as an evolution of intellect and philosophy.

What is a challenge in a way, is where to place our social class of prole and bourge - at what point in history did such social classes exist with political/economic consciousness to such an extent they should be represented. Given how complex Roman society was, and how sophisticated, it would be arguable that such options should be present then. As while the 'dark ages' and their 'darkness' have been exaggerated, no kingdom of europe for example really competed with the social/political dynamic, till at least the renaiscence. In that sense feudal / as a society civic must bring a very particular advantage - that was obviously something needed at that time in history. It certainly evolved from a circumstantial need for control/domination/stability rather than as an evolution of intellect and philosophy.

That does bring up a good debate. Do we want to make it available when the ideas of classes came to be (ancient era), or when these classes began to play a gigantic role in society? Do we want them available from the same technology, or different ones?

I am thinking they should be available in the classical era when social hierarchies developed, but from different technologies. Aristotle defined democracy as "rule by the poor" and oligarchy as "rule by the rich". Perhaps using that idea, Proletariat could be available from the Democracy tech and Bourgeois from the Monarchy tech.

I think a good idea would be to make it so both Proletariat and Bourgeois would be feasible throughout history.

For example, Proletariat could reduce the costs of buildings like Granaries, Arenas, Libraries, Butcheries, Forges, Lighthouses, Healer Huts, Temples, Monasteries, Aqueducts, Bakeries, ETC. in the ancient era and buildings like Schools, Public Transportation, Hospitals, Power Plants, Water Treatment Plants, ETC. in the modern era.

Conversely, Bourgeois could reduce the costs of builds like Markets, Theaters, Bazaars, Brothels, Jewelries, Ports, Doctor's Offices, Paved Roads, ETC. in the ancient era and buildings like Commercial Ports, Factories, Supermarkets, Skyscrapers, Industrial Parks, Casinos, ETC. in the modern era.

Early on, Proletariat would help food and production while Bourgeois would help commerce and culture, which is a perfectly accurate representation of history. Later on, there would be different buildings with different functions in both civics, so rather than deciding which area you want to concentrate on it essentially becomes Proletariat helping public works and Bourgeois helping industry and luxury, which again is a perfectly accurate representation of history.

Doing this shows which class your civilization caters to, as you would most likely end up building more of the buildings you get a discount for. This idea of reduced cost buildings would only apply to the two class civics, as the big three political ideologies function far more specifically while the two classes cover a broad range of ideologies.

Ah, very eloquent quote from Aristotle Heb, yep, in that case I think we should make those society civic options available in the ancient era too.

But with which techs could they become available?

It does mean however, that until the age of enlightenment (approximately) we won't get to nationalist and liberal, (and then victorian era for marxism).

I think the improvement discount is an excellent idea, however I don't know whether its possible without radical changes to the xmls/ or code, but something I think is definately worth Zapp considering. Your definitions and ideas for the class representations are accurate, very good.

Medieval
Its interesting to consider that feudalism is hardly a superior for of civic to the enlightenment of the most sophisticated ancient civilizations. It is interesting to note that this 'historical regression' (at least in the earliest formation of feudal government and society) is still in civ4 a technological advance.

That said im not suggesting anything is done otherwise - its just ironic.

I must say that this took a while. ;)

At the moment in RoM and even Vanilla, all the civics seem to just give random bonuses and use the names to represent the differences. This is the complete first draft. I supplied numbers, but they are estimations and only discussion and play-testing will produce the final result. And the descriptions are general and will need to be worked on.

New Civic Update: Version 0.1

Government
Government represents the size, scope, and role of the state in the civilization. Since the state has all the power, it is able to direct the civilization into a certain broad direction. Other civic columns and in-game decisions will bring that broad direction to a more specific direction, but Government sets the foundation.

> Chiefdom
Bonuses: +1 food from Farms; +1 hammers from Mines and Quarries; +2 happiness from Monument; +10% maintenance
Requirements: Default
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Chiefdom is a weak autocratic state ruled by a leader known as a chief. Chiefdoms can be simple and composed of only one settlement, or it can be a confederacy of different tribes or a complex chiefdom ruled by a paramount chief. The defining element from Chiefdom is the sense of community. Chiefs often rule over a very small amount of people, so it is far easier for him to direct day-to-day activities. Chiefdoms are good for new civilizations or struggling civilizations that are underdeveloped and want enhanced local government, but offer little benefit and more expenses to larger civilizations. Chiefdoms were common during the Neolithic period and were the governments commonly used by nomadic people such as the Native Americans.

> Despotism
Bonuses: +1 unhealthiness from sacrificing population (no unhappiness penalty); +10% military production; +50% production for Barracks and Garrison; +1 happiness per Police Squad garrisoned in city
Requirements: Slavery
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Despotism is a form of autocratic government where the ruler has absolute power over his/her subjects. Despots do not need to be cruel military dictators, although they often are. Peaceful despots could use their power to subdue slaves in order to produce great public works for his/her citizens. However, cruel despots, known as tyrants, can use their absolute power to abuse his/her subjects and slaves in order to fund massive military campaigns. Despotism was common in ancient times with examples being the Egyptians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Mycenaean Greeks, and others, and also is seen in present day with military dictatorships such as Myanmar, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and others.

> Monarchy
Bonuses: +2 experience points for new military units; +50% culture in all cities; unlimited Noble specialists; -1 turn of Anarchy from civics switch (has to be at least one turn); +25% Golden Age length
Requirements: Monarchy
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Monarchy is a broad form of autocratic government common throughout human history. It is commonly associated with a hereditary line of succession of rulers. While Despotism is associated with unstable government and military dominance at the expense of the people, Monarchy is often associated with a slower rate of conquest but cultural and economic growth and stable government. Monarchies have existed in almost every part of the world, but the most famous monarchies in history are the Roman Empire, Britain, France, Spain, China, the Ottoman Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate.

> Republic
Bonuses: +2 happiness per city; +50% war weariness; +25% Anger Duration from Sacrificing Population; +25% culture in all cities; -25% maintenance; +1 commerce and +1 production from Cottage, Hamlet, Village, Town after discovery of Constitution
Requirements: Democracy
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: A Republic is a government that is characterized by a lack of autocratic rule and some involvement of the people. In almost all cases, democracy is a key component of a republic, although some republics have been closer to oligarchies than democracies. In a Republic, following the law or constitution is regarded as more important than submitting to the peoples' demands. Common examples of Republics are Athens, the Roman Republic, and the early United States.

> Fascist
Bonuses: +1 happiness per garrisoned military unit; can draft 1 unit per turn; +25% maintenance costs; all military units start with Fanatic promotion; -50% Great Person rate; all corporations’ headquarters are moved to the capital
Requirements: Fascism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist government strongly influenced by militarism, statism, collectivism and nationalism. The Fascist government conditions its citizens at birth to believe the country is more important than their own lives. While much of the population submits to the fascist ideology, some speak against it, and those people are quickly silenced by the military. The citizens of a Fascist nation are conditioned to accept and even prefer authoritarian law and conscription, of which is an honor in the country. Soldiers are conditioned to value the state over their very lives, and thus are more likely to sacrifice themselves in order to win battles. Economically, Fascist nations nationalize their corporations. The most common examples of fascist states are Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

> Communist
Bonuses: Corporations have no effect; +2 commerce from workshops; cottages, hamlets, villages and towns do not develop and give no commerce; 0% Great Person rate in all cities; +50% unit production in all cities
Requirements: Communism; Planned economy civic
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Communism is often referred as the higher phase of Marxist Communism, opposed to Socialism being the first phase. A Communist government, however, is the transitional government used by countries wishing to move from another country into the first and later the higher phase of communism. Communist governments are generally led by a political party calling themselves the Communist Party, although it can also be led by an autocrat such as Stalin or Mao Zedong. While there are many forms of communism, the common components of all forms are a banishment of private property, the outlawing of corporations, social and economic equality, and a substantial boost to production. Common examples of Communist governments are the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, former Yugoslavia, ETC.

> Democracy
Bonuses: +1 happiness per Police Squad garrisoned in city; +25% war weariness; +25% commerce in all cities; +1 food from cottages, hamlets, villages and towns; can draft 1 unit per turn; +2 unhappiness in all cities with Slavery economy civic
Requirements: Representative Democracy
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Democracy represents a form of government where the people elect representatives who make up the state and fulfill the wishes of the people. The distinct difference between a Representative Democracy and a Republic is that a Republic exists to protect the people and Democracy exists to serve the people. The people entrust the government with the power of income taxation that can be used to finish production. Since the people choose who to elect, they know they have a lot of power in government and thus are more likely to vocally oppose a war if one has dragged on too long and without much interest for the people.

Power
Power represents where the political power in the government lies. At this point, I am unsure as to what role the political power will play in game-terms, so I have left all of the descriptions and bonuses blank for now.

> Aristocracy
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Default
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> Patrician
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Trade
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> Bureaucracy
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Civil Service
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> Vassalage (thinking this should be replaced)
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Feudalism
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> Parliament
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Constitution
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> Senate
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Liberalism
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

> President
Bonuses: To Be Determined
Requirements: Representative Democracy
Cost: To Be Determined
Description: To Be Determined

Society
Society represents the most common traditions and values of your civilization’s society. Early in history, you are able to decide the social hierarchy of your civilization’s society. After the Enlightenment era, however, new civics representing influential political movements are available to you. These civics affect society itself, so what civic you choose will have an effect on how your citizens view your in-game decisions and choice of building projects. If you behave contrary to their beliefs, they may be less productive and unhappy, while following their beliefs will result in the opposite.

> Tribal
Bonuses: +1 happiness for every food resource (duplicates do not count); -25% war weariness; +2 unhappiness in every city per number of cities; no risk of revolution
Requirements: Default
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Tribal represents an agrarian society with a low population and a strong sense of community. Tribal societies have little desires except survival, so they are happy in areas with plentiful food and are not afraid of going to war. Tribal societies are generally the type of society that exists prior to the society becoming a civilization, so it is it is nearly impossible to maintain an empire.

> Proletariat
Bonuses: +40% production for the following buildings: Granary, Butchery, Forge, Lighthouse, Healer’s Hut, Temple, Aqueduct, Bakery, School, Public Transportation, Hospital, Water Treatment Plant; +2 health and +1 happiness in all cities after construction of Labor Union; +15% maintenance costs in all cities
Requirements: Democracy
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Proletariat represents a society ruled by proletariats, otherwise known as the lower or working class. Under such a society, the interests of the proletariats are regarded as more important than that of the bourgeois. Early in history, a Proletariat society would place production of buildings necessary for farmers and artisans in top priority, and in modern times a Proletariat society would build public works more cheaply. Neo-liberalism, populism and progressivism are modern examples of Proletariat ideology.

> Bourgeois
Bonuses: +40% production for the following buildings: Library, Market, Jewellery, Brothel, Doctor’s Office, Port, University, Factory, Oil Refinery, Skyscraper, Industrial Park, Power Plants; +2 happiness in all cities after construction of Central Bank; +15% maintenance costs in all cities
Requirements: Monarchy
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Bourgeois represents a society ruled by the bourgeois, otherwise known as the middle and upper classes. Under such a society, the interests of the bourgeois is regarded as more important than that of the proletariats. Early, a Bourgeois society would place production of buildings necessary for merchants, scientists and bankers in top priority, and in modern times a Bourgeois society would build industrial buildings more cheaply. Protectionism and in some countries conservatism are modern examples of Bourgeois ideology.

> Feudal
Bonuses: +1 happiness per Noble specialist; workers build improvements 50% faster; +1 unhealthiness in all cities; can build Manor building; +1 food from workshops; can sacrifice population to finish production
Requirements: Feudalism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Feudal in most instances represents the social structure used during the Medieval period. It consists of peasants bound by contract as serfs to lords. The lords own manors with large amounts of farmland which the serfs work for payment and protection. However, as demonstrated by Friedrich Hayek in his novel Road to Serfdom, the practices of economic central-planning governments can lead to a modern form of feudalism, replacing the lords with the government and the serfs with all citizens.

> Liberal
Bonuses: +50% culture in all cities; +50% Great Person birthrate; +1 extra happiness from Broadcast Towers; +25% war weariness; +1 production from Village, Town; cannot be combined with Fascist or Communist government civics
Requirements: Liberalism
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Liberal represents the liberal political ideology. A liberal society regards civil liberties, free speech and being the best you can be with great worth. Due to the acceptance of civil liberties, a Liberal society cannot live under a Fascist or Communist government, both of which operate by prohibiting liberty.

> Nationalist
Bonuses: +10 free units; no unhappiness from drafting; foreign corporations have no effect; -25% war weariness; no risk of revolution
Requirements: Nationalism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Nationalist represents a society that believes people should work and fight for their country over themselves. Nationalism leads to a higher number of volunteer soldiers, less anger over conscription, and less anger over a long war. However, nationalism also leads to a large sense of nativism and a lack of acceptance of buying imports.

> Marxist
Bonuses: +1 happiness with Communist government civic; +1 happiness with Planned economy civic; +1 food from workshop
Requirements: Marxism
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Marxist represents a society that believes capitalism exploits workers and believes in an abolition of social class structure. Marxism is often considered to be what led to the creation of communism, socialism and planned economies.

Economy
Economy represents the economic policy the government has in place. Every economic civic has bearing on commerce and trade in your civilization.

> Barter
Bonuses: All wealth is converted to commerce; +1 commerce from Farm, Pasture, Workshop, Plantation, Orchard
Requirements: Default
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Barter represents an economy with a lack of currency. The economy runs on the exchange of goods and services without a medium of exchange. As there is no currency, money cannot be added to the treasury and is instead converted directly into commerce. Since barter economies rely on the exchange of goods, improvements that produce goods improve the economy better than cottages.

> Slavery
Bonuses: Can sacrifice population to finish production; Unlimited Slaves; +1 commerce from Plantation, Workshop; +1 happiness and +1 unhealthiness per Slave specialist
Requirements: Slavery
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Slavery represents an economy that requires the enslavement or involuntary servitude of humans in order for the economy to function. Slavery economies often involve the collection of cash crops, the mass production of products, and a plethora of building projects. Famous examples of economies with slavery at its foundation are Greek Sparta, the Roman Empire, Egypt, and the more modern Confederate States of America.

> Mercantile
Bonuses: No foreign trade routes with non-Mercantile-using civilizations; +1 commerce from domestic trade routes; +50% increase of wealth in treasury
Requirements: Mercantilism
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Mercantile represents an economy using the mercantile system. The mercantile system believes that the volume of the world economy is constant and the prosperity of a nation is equivalent to the amount capital owned by that country. Capital is represented by gold and silver bullion owned by the government, and the government actively attempts to make the exports higher than imports in order to create a net gain of capital. The government does this by increasing tariffs, or taxes on imports. Civilizations not using the mercantile system tend to choose not to trade with mercantilist nations due to the high tariffs, so trade is restricted to domestic trade and foreign trade with other mercantilist nations where the tariffs balance out. Some scholars consider it to be an early form of capitalism while others consider it to be an entirely different economic theory.

> Laissez-Faire
Bonuses: +1 trade routes in all cities; double development speed of cottages, hamlets, villages and mines; +1 production from cottages, villages and mines; Central Bank has no effect until after discovery of Industrialism; Labor Union has no effect; +1 commerce on all road and railroad tiles; +1 unhealthiness in all cities
Requirements: Economics
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Laissez-Faire is a French term meaning “let do.” Laissez-Faire represents many types of capitalism, including the Chicago School, the Austrian School, monetarism, and supply-side economics, all of which believe the government should not intervene in the economy through regulations. Until the formation of the Federal Reserve System, laissez-faire economists were against the idea of a Central Bank. Due to lack of regulations, workers prefer having higher wages than better working environments, thus decreasing their health. Time periods using laissez-faire economics are characterized as having a massive boost in production and increased foreign and domestic trade.

> Planned
Bonuses: +1 food and +1 commerce from workshop; +50% production of World Wonders; +50% production of Projects; no trade routes; +25% maintenance costs in all cities; +50% corporate maintenance costs; -25% commerce in all cities
Requirements: Communism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Planned represents an economy completely controlled, owned and planned by the government, otherwise known as state capitalism. Under a planned economy, all labor, capital, production, agriculture, utilities, and finances are run by the government, and all service businesses are owned by the government. Because there are no private companies, no trade exists. Planned economies are able to concentrate their resources on major projects such as world wonders and world projects, but are very costly to maintain.

> Keynesian
Bonuses: Can use wealth to hurry production; +25% corporate maintenance costs
Requirements: Industrialism
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Keynesian represents the form of capitalism as advocated by economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes advocated a mixed economy where the government intervenes in the economy in order to increase demand and stimulate the economy. The expensive regulations and bureaucracy used to maintain the interventionist policies come from taxation with a bulk of the taxes coming from corporations. Keynesian economists believe in smoothing the business cycle, which causes booms and busts, by raising taxes and interest rates to cool the economy and lowering taxes and interest rates to stimulate it. The result is a relatively stable economy void of depressions and panics, but also of giant boom periods. Keynesians also believe the government should actively invest in infrastructure as a method of increasing demand.

> Corporatist
Bonuses: +1 trade routes in all cities; corporations that use the same resources can coexist in the same city; spreading corporations costs no wealth; can build unlimited executives; foreign corporations have no effect ; +5 unhappiness in all cities
Requirements: Globalization
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Corporatist represents an economic policy that is geared toward giving the highest possible profits and highest possible growth to domestic corporations at the expense of consumers and workers. Corporatism can be caused either by corporate executives running the government or from bribes by corporate lobbyists. Corporatism leads to a large amount of wealth accumulated by the government and a much lower cost of maintaining corporations, but it severely angers the bulk of society: the working class, so it should only be used if you are sure you can satisfy the people with buildings and resources. As of now, no country has employed a corporatist economy.
Religion
Religion is a broad category that represents with different civics the relationship between the clergy and the state, how religion is spread, and the general beliefs toward religion itself.

> Prophets
Bonuses: +1 happiness with The Oracle; no state religion; all religions in your civilization spread (like having a Temple) without Open Borders; can build missionaries without monasteries
Requirements: Default
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Prophets represents religion spreading through the orations of wandering prophets. The state is too primitive at this point in order to control the spread of religion, so religions spread easily throughout your civilization and foreign civilizations geographically near you without the need of open borders agreements since the prophets have no political allegiance.

> Imperial Cult
Bonuses: +7 free units; +1 experience for new military units; +2 happiness with Monument; -25% culture in all cities
Requirements: Mysticism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Imperial Cult represents a state-run cult that forces all citizens to worship the civilization’s rulers as gods. The state uses this religion as justification for military campaigns. A classic example of a civilization employing an imperial cult is ancient Egypt and modern North Korea.

> Free Church
Bonuses: Can build missionaries without Monasteries; cities with state religion build buildings +25% faster; +2 happiness in cities with state religion; +50% Great Person birthrate in all cities; +1 trade route and 25% commerce in holy city of state religion
Requirements: Monotheism
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Free Church represents a strong central church that is independent from the state. Technically, the state has authority over the church, but the church is often exhibits more power than the state. In some cases, a strong free church can infiltrate the state and employ theocracy, but not in all cases. An example of a strong free church is the Roman Catholic church during the Medieval era.

> State Church
Bonuses: Can build missionaries without Monasteries; cities with state religion build buildings +25% faster; +25% culture in all cities; -25% science in all cities; +1 trade route and +25% commerce in capital city
Requirements: Theology
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: State Church represents a religion run by a church that is owned and operated by the government. In a theocracy, the clergy have power over the state, but in a state church the state has power over the clergy. Similarly to Free Church, the church is powerful and has influence on the civilization. However, commerce and trade increases in the capital city rather than the holy city due to the state’s centralization of religion.

> Intolerant
Bonuses: Can build Crusader without King Richard’s Crusade; all new Gunpowder units start with Fanatic promotion; +7 free units; must have state religion; all non-state religions are removed from all cities in your civilization except holy cities; no non-state religion spread; -50% science in all cities
Requirements: Fundamentalism
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Intolerant represents a society that is extremely intolerant of all non-state religions and scientific research that could undermine their religion. An intolerant society, with the help of the church and/or the state, eradicates all non-state religions in your civilization through an inquisition. In addition, all soldiers are conditioned to fight to the death for their religion and are guaranteed a good afterlife if they do so. Intolerant is great for creating a massive religious military campaign, known as a crusade or holy war, but completely undermines all scientific and technological advancement. Examples of intolerance are Europe during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and modern Islamic Jihadists.

> Secular
Bonuses: No state religion; +1 happiness per non-state religion in a city; +50% culture in all cities
Requirements: Humanism
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Secular represents a complete separation of church and state. Specific religions are given no special benefits from the state and all religions are accepted and guaranteed rights in the civilization. An example is the United States.

> Atheist
Bonuses: No state religion; religions have no effect; +1 unhappiness per non-state religion in a city; +50% science in all cities; +1 happiness from Broadcast Tower; +1 happiness from Theater; no spread of non-state religion
Requirements: Biology
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Atheist represents a society with a distrust of all religions and atheism set as the state religion. Religions are not allowed to hold public displays nor try to convert others to their religion, which angers anyone who practices a religion. However, religions are allowed to preach and exhibit their history on the radio and in plays, which helps balance the unhappiness.

(continued)

Welfare
Welfare represents how the poor and struggling receive assistance to survive.

> Charity
Bonuses: +1 health from Healer’s Hut; +1 happiness from Granary
Requirements: Default
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Charity represents unorganized charity as a means of welfare for the poor. Local healers and generous wealthy farmers are the source of welfare for most poor people.

> Church
Bonuses: +1 health from Temple; +1 happiness per Priest specialist; +2 health from Cathedral
Requirements: Priesthood
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Church represents welfare supplied by the church. People who attend religious ceremonies and prayer put food into a charity box and the poor can come to collect food if they need it.

> Private
Bonuses: +1 happiness and +1 healthiness per Merchant specialist; -5% commerce in all cities; +1 healthiness per corporation in a city; +5% science in all cities
Requirements: Trade
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Private represents organized private charity as a means of welfare for the poor. Wealthy merchants and corporate executives, due to moral beliefs or to create a reputation of generosity, give money and food to charity organizations and fund research projects that could benefit the poor.

> Subsidized
Bonuses: +2 health in all cities; +15% science in all cities; +15% commerce in all cities; -15% production in all cities; +25% Great Person birthrate
Requirements: Social Contract
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Subsidized represents the government putting in place a progressive income tax where the rich pay higher taxes and the revenue is used to subsidize low income housing, food stamps, ETC. Also included is free public education for elementary, junior high, and high school for children, which puts more people into the fields of science and business.

> Socialized
Bonuses: +5 happiness and +5 health in all cities; -40% commerce in all cities; +15% science in all cities; +25% corporate maintenance costs
Requirements: Labor Union
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Socialized represents the government giving free universal healthcare and free universal college educations to all citizens. Socialized welfare makes the bulk of society very happy (except the top 5%) and very healthy, but removes many industries from the market, and the ridiculous tax rate harms commerce dramatically.


> Public Works
Bonuses: +25% normal building production; +25% National Wonder production; workers build improvements 50% faster
Requirements: Mass Transit
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Public Works represents the government using tax money to fund public infrastructure.

> Corporate
Bonuses: -50% corporate maintenance costs; +1 unhappiness in all cities
Requirements: Logistics
Cost: Medium Upkeep
Description: Corporate represents the government using tax money to help corporations expand and maintain themselves.

Future
Future civics represent theoretical civic ideas that could rise due to new technology and globalization. You may pick one future civic from the list to use at a time and each future civic belongs to the other civic columns and replaces the other civics from that column (or two in some cases). Note that this column is still under production, so if any of you have a future idea feel free to post it.

> Pre-Future
Bonuses: None
Requirements: Default
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Pre-Future is the filler you use until the future techs are available. It replaces no civics and does nothing.

> Open Source Governance (Government/Power)
Bonuses: -50% maintenance costs in all cities; +50% war weariness; +25% commerce in all cities; +3 happiness in all cities
Requirements: Fiber Optics; Virtual Reality; someone having built the Internet
Cost: Low Upkeep
Description: Open source governance is a political philosophy which advocates the application of the philosophies of the open source and open content movements to democratic principles in order to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a wiki document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry in this way, allowing policy development to benefit from the collected wisdom of the people as a whole. Some envision this form of governance as a post-national "virtual state" governing structure, where policy-setting is decoupled from territorial management. Some models are significantly more sophisticated than a wiki, incorporating levels of control or scoring to mediate disputes. In any event, the idea demonstrates the still untapped potential of how open source philosophies can merge with government. (www.wikipedia.org)
In game terms, this means very little tax money will be used on corruption and the rulers’ payroll, resulting in an increase in commerce and a very happy populace.

> Anarcho-Capitalism (Government/Economy)
Bonuses: +1 unhappiness in all cities; +1 unhealthiness in all cities; no maintenance costs in all cities; +2 commerce from Courthouse; +100% commerce in all cities
Requirements: Conglomerates
Cost: No Upkeep
Description: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as free-market anarchism)[1] is an individualist anarchist[2] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the provision of security from aggression against person and property by the private sector in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors rather than through compulsory taxation. Nonintrusive personal and economic activities would not be regulated, because the natural laws of the market - rather than politics - would order society. Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[3] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, non-state community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[4] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. (www.wikipedia.org)

> Noocracy (Government/Power)
Bonuses: +50% spaceship production; +50% science in all cities
Requirements: Superstring Theory
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: Noocracy, or "aristocracy of the wise", as defined by Plato, is a social and political system that is "based on the priority of human mind", according to Vladimir Vernadsky. As defined by Plato, Noocracy is considered to be the future political system of the entire human race, to replace Democracy, "the authority of the crowd", and other forms of government.

> Digital Economy (Economy)
Bonuses: All owned resources automatically connected to all your cities; all your cities connected to all foreign cities and able to make trade routes; +4 trade routes in all cities
Requirements: Advanced Computers; Computer Center built; The Internet built
Cost: High Upkeep
Description: A digital economy is an economy that is based on electronic goods and services produced by an electronic business and traded through electronic commerce. That is, a business with electronic production and management processes and that interacts with its partners and customers and conducts transactions through Internet and Web technologies. (www.wikipedia.org)

In this case, the technology of converting atoms into computer bits allows the buying and selling of tangible products via the Internet. Through virtual reality e-Marketplaces, people can buy and sell like eBay without needing to wait or pay for delivery. This boosts trade and connects every city in the world to a global online marketplace. The marketplace requires several advanced supercomputers to operate and costs money to maintain.


That is all I have so far. :eek:

Feel free to make criticisms wherever possible.

Wow!

Eventually when we're done, i will compile our work into a short doc for Zapp, as our official suggestions. Im sure he will read it because of the number of posts/research going on here (of course its his mod and he can pick or not pick whatever he chooses :)) but my god, we'll have to make a mini civic component mod for all this hehe, its rather an epic.

I think its probably better in general if we are not specific about the bonuses (hammers, foods etc) but give a rough suggestion, as Zapp if he considers these will implement bonuses based on his own mod/game balancing anyway. - Also if guys get into debating the bonuses we'll soon find ourselves off topic -

Okay, now your post is brilliant Heb, so im gonna give this a good detailed reply tomorrow (its late here, but my timezone for this forum is all wrong lol, but this deserves a big detailed reply.)

Your doing great work, im truly delighted with the input your making. So I'll reply in detail tomorrow!

The descriptions look brilliant Big Heb, but i tell you what, lets leave them to the next stage (though ill comment on some -) lets first just get some very short definitions (almost bullet points) of what they should be good and bad it (to make this easier for Zapp to consider.) I'll annotate some of your suggestions (within the descriptions) correct me if i mischaracterise them! Oh I don't think any requirements are applicable (ingame code) but regardless of that i don't think there necessary really. I mean regarding communism, we've seen that in various forms around the world that would challenge anyones classic definition of what to expect!

Government

Chiefdom
+ more food
+ hammers
+ happiness from monuments
- higher maintenance

Notes - Interesting, I think this civic can represent less a single chiefdom ruling a civ, but the presumed collection of assorted chiefdoms. (akin to anarchy.) In that sense, it can give a small civ 'stability' out of its instability if you like. That is bereft of bonuses, (perhaps bar a little food) but with no maintenance, and less unhappiness (only within a limited number of cities) with excessive penalties beyond?


Despotism
+ military prod bonuses buildings/units
+ garrisson happiness bonuses

Notes - Yes this seems about right, Despots can be quite apolitical, and some of course were benign, however they were all obsessed with security. I've added garrisson happiness bonuses as, i think in any society where civil liberties dont assure the populace (they will be safe from being made to 'obey' by the govts security forces) then true enough they will do what their told without those guarantees (or of course rebel!)

Monarchy
+ more experienced military units
+ culture bonuses
+ unlimited nobles
+ longer golden age length
- more maintenance (added)

Notes - Yep, More experienced military units, and perhaps more costly, culture bonuses indeed. Yep, seems about right. Ive added more maintenance as a penalty - to imagine those expensive royal tastes!

Republic
+ more happiness
+ culture bonuses
+ less maintenance
+ more commerce
+ production bonuses from cottage tiles
- war weariness

Notes - Yep, I think there should be a lower war weariness factor than democracy, as we all know how war like our republics often are! Looks good, i don't think the culture bonus of monarchies should exceed republics however.

Fascist
+ garisson happiness
+ draft units
+ units get fanatic promotion
- High Upkeep
- more maintenance

Notes - This is a tricky one, high upkeep/more maintenance. Perhaps, higher upkeep, but im not sure about maintenance penalties.

Communist
+ commerce from workshops
+ faster unit production
- no cottage growth
- High Upkeep

Notes - Interesting, i don't know about the lack of cottage growth (some may want communist/capitalist govts, i mean look at China! Faster unit production seems right, they should be able to draft as well as the fascist - perhaps even more so! Im not sure about commerce from workshops, to represent the radically different economy we may want to add unlikely food bonuses to certain tiles (and maybe the commerce too.) interesting though.

Democracy
+ Commerce
+ food from cottage tiles
+ can draft units
- unhappiness with slavery civic
- war weariness

Notes - Not sure about the food from cottage tiles, certainly commerce bonus, not sure about drafting units though. Highest war weariness for sure.

Now I must get to bed haha, will continue comments tomorrow.

As a note, I think Vassalage looks like an improvement indeed, but I think Imperial Cult is probably too specific (Divine Cult is a little more generic) not that we don't all want to be Roman Emperors!

I've not completely been following this thread, but if I want to just use these civics in the regular BTS game without the other parts of the RoN mod, how would I go about installing them? or just downloading this 'mini-mod'.

Well mate thats a good question - basically ill see about releasing it as a seperate mod component when its done.

First priority is to grovel to Zapp to consider applying it to his mod - but its a thorough process, we're taking our time to very carefully to get it right.

You look at the epic political discussions and you can see the detail going into this. Just to add i have massive respect for Zapp, what he's doing with this mod, is EPIC and challenging for any single guy.

Lawrie, how are the rest of the civics?

When I get the time I will make a condensed list with more general bonuses than the specific bonuses I have now.

Yes my friend, apolages for not getting back to the rest of them - im killed for time but i will tomorrow! Again you've done some great work there mate.

Right - Ok I am going to take Big Heb's suggestions, comment and somewhat para-phrase them into generic short descriptions. Such descriptions are only for our basic ease of understanding on the thread (as all this information gets overwhelming!) and isnt representing what descriptions they would have in the pedia.

Government

I think that looks fine Heb, Points I would reconsider are,

Chiefdom I think this should provide less bonuses, be volatile and unstable.
Despotism This should come availabe when Republic does probably (or a tech close to when it does.) As Despotism would itself lead to a country becoming a non-democratic republic. But such a concept requires republicanism. Personally i think if both were made available - the polar opposites, with republic, then that would give players a great branching choice.
Monarchy Yep very good.
Republic Looking good, but is the tech democracy available within the ancient period in RoM? Yep id say a modest war weariness, make the military bonuses of the alternatives higher, rather than compensating for the benefits of this civic by increasing war weariness (for as we know, the roman republic, or french republic were fairly scary.)
Fascist Yep looking fine - high upkeep but not high maintenance, big military production bonuses. Social penalties - unstable.
Communist Think it should have production bonuses (more hammers), and like fascism both these civics should have great draft bonuses and social penalties.
Democracy Yep looking good, dont think it should be able to draft though!


Power

Aristocracy Military bonuses? Garrison happiness bonus?
Bureacracy Maintenance bonus, increased gold?
Patrician Modest Happiness, extra gold/trade
Vassalage Production bonus, unhappiness, Garrison happiness bonus?
Senate More focused on trade, hammers, military
Parliament Mix of modest general bonuses, a wide moderate spectrum
President Higher happiness and unhappiness - military bonuses

All your suggested pre-requisites sound fine to me Heb.


Society

Tribal I think a modest happiness bonus for a limited number of cities, i dont think food bonuses are necessary.
Proletariat Yep I think your ideas sound good, and if there too complex to apply, then they'll at least give Zapp an impression to consider. I would maybe also add modest trade commerce penalties.
Bourgeious Again looking good, more commercial bonuses, more happiness and unhappiness?
Feudal Yep looking good
Liberal Again good.
Nationalist Id say it should retain revolution (in fact even increase it!) We must remember these society civics are an imposition on those who don't agree. Yep more militaristic benefits etc.
Marxism Yep, perhaps more bonuses in general, but looking good. All pre-requsite techs look good.


Economy

Barter Again perhaps no bonuses ?
Slavery Looking good, maybe not have the unhealthiness though, more bonuses from work improvements i think (especially mines!)
Mercantile The no foreign trade route aspect is a complete misunderstanding of mercantalism. Is there no way it can reduce imports, increase exports? Yep more commerce/ gold in pocket too for sure.
Laissez-Faire More trade/commerce, i would say more unhappiness too though. Without the protectionism of mercantalism life can hurt.
Planned Yep looking good.
Keynesian Cool
Corporatist Yep, the bonus would not necessary be more trade actually, just more money going straight to the coffers. Definately more unhappiness sure.


Religion
This all looks good to me, I think thats all looking good, though of course making imperial cult divine cult is perhaps better? mind you though hmm...

Free Church should be something people always demand at quite a cost.

State Church, should be unpopular, but beneficial in other means.

Intolerant - seems good.

Yep thats looking good - id say at present the USA is a bad example of Secularism though! :(

Welfare
I think that is more or less looking good. I think the corporatisation of welfare might be even less popular than 1 unhappy face haha.


In general it would be good for these civics to create more happy and sometimes more unhappy faces at the same time? If possible - as we can then represent the polarisation of certain political views and decisions the player makes. Which would be great if they can have subtle effects on the revolution index.


Future

Open Source Governance - yeah thats quite good actually, maybe a better name though eh? But well done.

Anarcho-Capitalism - I dont really know about that one - too hard for that choice not to conflict with economic civic chosen.

Digital Economy - This sounds great, yep very nice, dont know if that bonus is too strong but looking good.

Ok so for the futures - we got,

1 that effects government infrastructure
2 an economic bonus

Okay, perhaps something to do with Genetics - human life expectancy etc? superhuman type thing? Something like -

Genetic Idealism - health bonuses, some unhappiness (at the morality etc)

Any other suggestions guys? I think we're getting there.

I for one would like to see more spy options...specifically from past civ games, like bribe or sabotage foreign military units.

Sure that would be cool, but bare in mind this thread is just about the civic options - and such like - and its zapps mod, why not make a new topic to discuss that?

I feel a little intimdated posting here, what with all the epic discussion that I haven't participated in, but I think a few of those modifiers are a little too extreme. Particularly the Socialist civic - maybe the bonuses could be tied to buildings, like they are now, or reduced, or something. But -40% wealth sounds like too much. Ditto the 50% science bonus for Atheism.

I think Slavery should have medium or high upkeep, too, or perhaps some other penalty. Whipping is incredibly powerful, and I liked the science and culture penalties you get for being able to do it.

Chiefdom I think this should provide less bonuses, be volatile and unstable.
Better idea.

Despotism This should come availabe when Republic does probably (or a tech close to when it does.) As Despotism would itself lead to a country becoming a non-democratic republic. But such a concept requires republicanism. Personally i think if both were made available - the polar opposites, with republic, then that would give players a great branching choice.
Monarchy and Democracy are available near each other. I see Despotism as a giant hammer. Leaves you vulnerable in other areas, but packs a big punch. Republic could force the player to play in a very specific way (follow the Constitution) while Monarchy would allow more free-roam.

Democracy Yep looking good, dont think it should be able to draft though!
Civil War? World War I? Vietnam War? The U.S. used conscription in the first and selective service in the last two. If the country elects a pro-war president/Congress/parliament, then at least 51% support going to war. Also, modern representative democracies have pretty powerful central governments.


Mercantile The no foreign trade route aspect is a complete misunderstanding of mercantalism. Is there no way it can reduce imports, increase exports? Yep more commerce/ gold in pocket too for sure.
I am no expert on mercantilism, so I may be wrong, but I believe mercantilism was characterized by high tariffs to make sure there were more exports than imports because it would result in a net gain of capital. When trading with capitalist countries, I doubt the high tariffs are going to energize many industries to trade with them. Perhaps instead just -1 commerce from foreign trade routes to non-mercantilist countries to represent less trading? In the pre-Adam Smith days when everyone was mercantilist, it would not matter much since everyone had high tariffs.

New Civic Update: Version 0.11

Government
To build on your idea of branching off governments, I redid some of the effects to represent the polarizing ideas, and grouped them all together in essentially different groups. The Ancient group consists of just Chiefdom, representing the time when there was not much variation in government and humans were still developing. The Classical/Medieval group consists of three: Despotism, Monarchy and Republic, with Despotism as the military extreme, Republic as the domestic extreme and Monarchy as the middle ground. Then we have the Modern group, which also consists of three: Fascist, Democracy and Communist, all of which mirror the old governments. Fascist is the military extreme, Communist is the domestic extreme and Democracy is the middle ground. Republic and Despotism get a boost, but both represent two “radical” governments.

Name: Chiefdom
Requirements: Default
General Effects: +1 unhappiness per population; +1 happiness w/ Granary; +1 food from river tiles; no chance of revolt
Reason: The idea behind Chiefdom is to depict the Neolithic revolution. The idea is quick growth to a population of about 3 or 4 depending on food resources, and then have harsh penalties to contain it at that level until new governments arrive. Having no revolution depicts the communal idea behind chiefdoms rather than the flex of military muscle that other governments have, and makes it so the unhappiness and unhealthiness does not make the civilization fall but instead just keep it small.

Name: Despotism
Requirements: Military Training
General Effects: Much faster military production (+50%?); garrison happiness bonus from Police Squad; can draft units; much less commerce and research; base unhappiness penalty; less support costs for military units; all Great People points converted to Great General points; negative for Revolution
Reason: Despotism could act as a branching from Republic, but the only historical branching I see is by polarizing foreign expansion with domestic expansion. Then Monarchy could act as the middle ground. The idea behind despotism is not a small but quality professional army, but fielding a large, inexperienced army. Conquering other nations is easier since you have a giant army and can afford to field it, but your serious impact to commerce and research will take a toll on your army when your enemies start fielding more advanced units (such as your horde of Axemen versus a bunch of Longbowmen). The garrison bonus from Police Squad gives it a boost in the modern age, since Despotism still exists today in military dictatorships. In modern times, Despotism is the radical unstable military extreme.

Name: Monarchy
Requirements: Monarchy
General Effects: experience for new units; +50% culture; unlimited Nobles; extra Golden Age length; positive for Revolution; high maintenance costs; +1 support costs for units
Reason: With Despotism representing the iron war machine, Monarchy represents the middle ground. It is neither progressive nor repressive to research and commerce, like Chiefdom, but unlike Chiefdom it does not try to contain your growth and actually spurs your land area with the culture bonus. It is beneficial to military, but rather than field a large horde or keep a small defensive force you field a smaller but better trained army. This seemingly-wonderful middle ground is off-set by high maintenance costs, so really the big three governments you can pick in the Classical era are pretty balanced.

Name: Republic
Requirements: Democracy (yes, it is researched right after Writing. Representative Democracy is the tech that comes later)
General Effects: Big bonus to commerce and research; some war weariness; no military bonus; big happiness and culture bonus after Constitution; giant nerfing of military power after Liberalism; positive for Revolution
Reason: Republic is going to be hard to code, because in history we have two ideas of a republic. First is the Athenian and Roman republics, which were indeed pretty scary, but then you have the Enlightenment republics which were more isolationist. This one is going to require some debating in order to represent both Republican ideas (Plato’s idea and John Locke’s idea). But early on it should give no military bonuses (but no penalties either since we have Athens and Rome) and bonuses to research and commerce, making it leaning domestic but still able to defend itself. After the Enlightenment, it should be like Pacifism in RoM now and give huge domestic power but completely nerf all military short of a peacekeeping force.

Name: Fascist
Requirements: Fascism
General Effects: high upkeep costs; garrison happiness bonus; can draft units; all military units start with Fanatic promotion; big penalty to Great People, culture, and research; all Great People points converted to Great General points; base unhappiness; negative for Revolution
Reason: It essentially mirrors what Despotism was in ancient times, but is slightly more stable (Fascist states were not very unstable in fact) than what Despotism was. But instead of fielding a giant army, you get a fanatical army and a suppressed people at home.

Name: Democracy
Requirements: Representative Democracy
General Effects: garrison bonus from Police Squad; war weariness; commerce bonus; food from cottages; can draft units; big culture bonus; positive for Revolution
Reason: Democracy is the middle ground, similar to Monarchy before it. Representative Democracy is not the pro-liberty, peaceful, free trade government that it is painted as being (Enlightenment Republic is that), but rather a populist form of government where the government just does what the people want while looking for their own interests in the process. An example to prove that is that pre-emptive military strikes, foreign occupations, universal healthcare, social security, ETC. would not exist in a Republic, but could in a Democracy. Democracy is essentially a Republic with some Fascist and Communist twists to it depending on the peoples’ opinions, which is why I put it as the middle ground and why you can draft units.

Name: Communist
Requirements: Communism, using Planned economy civic
General Effects: high unit production; basic production bonus; corporations have no effect; commerce from workshop; no Great Person points; negative for Revolution
Reason: Essentially the domestic extreme of the modern era. Instead of huge bonuses to research and commerce, you get huge research to production and some to commerce if you use workshops.

Power
I think I’ll touch upon some ideas for power. What you put seems good, but I disagree in some areas. Thinking about it, I think Power should not give new bonuses of itself, but enhance or reduce the bonuses that other civics give, since Power represents who in the government has political power. Aristocracy, Patrician and Vassalage are essentially combined in a group, with Senate, Parliament and President in another.

Name: Aristocracy
Requirements: Default
General Effects: Base unhealthiness; Noble specialists give +1 production; Slaves give no food penalty; no war weariness with Republic civic; negative for Revolution
Reason: Aristocracy is generally not an idea of military rule. It is more an example of extreme social class division, with hugely powerful nobles and near powerless commoners. In the ancient era, it doesn’t really do anything except limit your growth with unhealthiness, showing how the aristocracy really does not care about the welfare of the commoners. It gets more use in the Classical era when it can be combined with Republic to represent the imperialistic Athenian and Roman republics and with Monarchy to represent practically every stable monarchy in history. Again, I do not see it as a military civic.

Name: Patrician
Requirements: Trade
General Effects: Extra trade route; extra commerce from resource tiles; Merchant specialists give +3 research; war weariness; can construct Slave Market without Slavery civic; +1 production and commerce per corporation in city; negative for Revolution
Reason: While Aristocracy is more geared toward production, Patrician is more geared toward research and commerce. Unlike Aristocracy, its effects do not normally matter between governments, since wealth can get you power in practically any government short of anarchy. It can represent special interests and corporate lobbyists having political power in the modern era, which is why there is the bonus with corporations.

Name: Bureaucracy
Requirements: Civil Service
General Effects: Less maintenance costs; high upkeep costs; all bonuses to research, commerce, and production from other civics are increased by a percentage
Reason: Bureaucracy in Vanilla and RoM does not accurately depict what a bureaucracy really is. Bureaucracy is not keeping everything in the capital, but spreading out departments and increasing division of labor to specialize in particular areas. It is the same logic behind the assembly line. This bonus might not depict it well, but the idea is to enhance the bonuses of any civics that already give bonuses to commerce, research and production.

Name: Vassalage
Requirements: Feudalism
General Effects: 7 free units; +25% military production with Castle; +1 experience for new military units with Manor; positive for Revolution
Reason: Vassalage is not manorial serfdom, but rather the military practices of feudal Europe. Knights fight for lords and kings and in return get paid in return with land and in some cases political power. In terms of political power, it could mean the “warrior elite” or military has political power. This would increase incentive to fight in the military, thus giving free units and the military production bonus from a Castle. It also increases the incentive to run the Feudalism society civic and build Castles, which are paramount symbols of the Middle Ages.

Name: Parliament
Requirements: Constitution
General Effects: Not Sure
Reason: I see a Parliament as following the Westminster System. Parliaments are characterized by a lack of separation of powers and essentially a combination of the legislative and executive branches. So it could act as middle ground between legislative and executive political power. How to represent that in bonuses I do not know. Parliament is normally less democratic and itself could be ruled by an aristocracy and patricians, but perhaps what should separate it from that is the following of a constitution.

Name: Senate
Requirements: Liberalism
General Effects: Not Sure
Reason: I see a Senate as following the American federal system with massive separation of powers. Basically it would be a separation of the legislature and executive, with the legislature having power. Again, how to represent that in bonuses I do not know.

Name: President
Requirements: Representative Democracy
General Effects: Not Sure
Reason: I see President as representing a system where the executive has most of the power. So it could be a Senate or Parliament, or even any of the others, but with one man having more power than the rest. What separates it from being autocracy is that the people vote in the president, so I think happiness and unhappiness with actions dictated by the Society civic, as well as some military bonuses, are what President should represent.

Society
I see Society as not what the government forces you to think, but naturally what a majority of the civilization thinks and values.

Name: Tribal
Requirements: Default
General Effects: +3 base happiness; +1 unhappiness per number of cities; less war weariness
Reason: Rather than limiting population like Chiefdom, Tribal would limit the number of cities.

Name: Proletariat
Requirements: Democracy
General Effects: large production bonus to construction of buildings listed above; extra happiness and healthiness in all cities w/ Labor Union; higher maintenance
Reason: Helps the construction of buildings associated with the lower class, like public buildings and agricultural/artisan/religious buildings. It essentially specializes in food and production early, with health later on.

Name: Bourgeois
Requirements: Monarchy
General Effects: large production bonus to construction of buildings listed above; extra happiness and healthiness in all cities w/ Central Bank; higher maintenance
Reason: Same as Proletariat, but helps build buildings associated with the middle and upper classes, like luxury buildings, industries and financial buildings. It essentially specializes in commerce and happiness early, with production later on.

Name: Feudal
Requirements: Feudalism
General Effects: +1 happiness per Noble specialist; workers build improvements 50% faster; +1 unhealthiness in all cities; can build Manor building; +1 food from workshops; can sacrifice population to finish production
Reason: Just represents Feudal Europe and the life under a command economy.

Name: Liberal
Requirements: Liberalism
General Effects: culture bonus; Great Person bonus; happiness from Broadcast Towers; war weariness; +1 production from Village, Town; cannot be combined with Fascist or Communist government civics
Reason: Liberal is a political philosophy where liberty is dominant over everything else, so essentially it should help culture and give happiness with radio commentators saying whatever they want. The production and Great People bonuses represents the individualist values the people have (put work in and you will success mentality).

Name: Nationalist
Requirements: Nationalism
General Effects: free units; no unhappiness from drafting; foreign corporations have no effect; less war weariness; no risk of revolution; less culture
Reason: I see nationalism as not forced nationalism (that is fascism), but like having a majority of the country waving flags and buying bonds and such. It gives free units and people are not unhappy to be drafted since they want to fight for their country, and they are unwilling to buy foreign goods. They are committed to the country and not an ideology, so no revolutions can occur.

Name: Marxist
Requirements: Marxism
General Effects: +1 happiness with Communist government civic; +1 happiness with Planned economy civic; +1 food from workshop
Reason: I’m no expert on Marxism, so I do not know what they value besides economic equality. This one probably needs some work. Any Marxists here?

I'll do the rest later.

I think I could marry Heb - ;) Its exhausting doing this stuff and yet typing what Heb does, descriptions etc - im very grateful for your help!

Civil War? World War I? Vietnam War? The U.S. used conscription in the first and selective service in the last two. If the country elects a pro-war president/Congress/parliament, then at least 51% support going to war. Also, modern representative democracies have pretty powerful central governments.

Yep - but but i think there is nothing unique about the draft - in relating to democracy. Now we all have different perceptions of democracy of course. I would think that Democracy (as opposed to 'a' democracy with republic and the senate or parliament power civics chosen) is that it is more in tune with how one might define a very modern democracy. On that presumption we might assume that its peoples might not want to be drafted.

The USA of the civil war, ww1 and even vietnam would be better represented with Republic and varying power civics. Thats just an opinion hehe - i think that republic would be more militarised than democracy. It is 'difficult' for a modern democracy nowadays (europe, the usa) to institute a draft. Perhaps too difficult in the world of ipods for that to happen. Its that perspective i think democracy more represents? The more militarised republican democracies, of the USA, French Republic, Roman Republic etc are better represented with something less idealistic than democracy which is why the draft doesnt fit for it. As a game choice, we want the democracy civic to encourage material goodies - but with miiltary penalties. (and no draft!)

Mercantile
Yep good definition of mercantalism, of course it was quite imperial -one of the reasons why us europeans got so excited about our navies too. UK and the North American colonies was one of the most jealously guarded examples of mercantalism.

However its simulation in the game - of trade 'just' between ones own cities, ignores the world economy. Mercantalism was basically an aggressive form of trade - but still trade with other nations (that was essential) but ingame its like you trade within your nation, which is a completely different characterisation and not mercantalism at all! (more like some kind of neo-communist economic theory!) So yep, it should be strong exports, with penalties in other areas (corruption i reckon) and general revenue increases.

Republic
Yes - i think the thing to remember when you have a civic government choice like this (or monarchy) that can be enlightened, or autocratic etc, is that - that is where the other civic column choices come to 'define' the nation. In that sense we dont need the civic of republic to cover everything but jut let anything be possible (ok that is a little abstract!)

I don't think there should be any reason for republic to become peaceful or not with modern techs. It is basically just that - a republic - governed by the power - and so on column civics. It could be an autocratic state - it could be a peace loving democracy by choices of civics. So we don't want to push someone down a certain path with this. However, Democracy does give players a more ideological style of democracy (over a democratic combo republic.) which better caters for democratic idealist players.

Democracy
Yep i think I would see Republic as more the 'inbetween' (of left and right poles) than Democracy. I think Democracy should represent a structure indicative of open society etc with Republic being comparatively conservative. So in that sense Democracy is less hawkish than Republic (i think a lot of nations you would consider under the democracy civic i would the republic civic with varying power column choices.)

That said, we already have republic as a hawkish commerce civic, so democracy should be more flower power no draft, more culture / science etc.


Parliament
Excellent descriptions - the parliament, is more democratic than the senate, and more moderate in its bonuses. Maybe a little bonus to lots? A bit of culture here, happiness there, % work bonuses here and there?

Senate
This is a bit more hawkish than Parliament, more - gold and military bonuses?

President
Higher polarisation of happiness/unhappiness maybe, - free to do more without restriction? Whatever those might be. Any ideas Heb?

Nationalism
Yep looks good but i think it must remain susceptable to revolution, after all, while the govt might push nationalist ideas there will be opposite reactions within that society.

Marxist
Yep I think generally more work improvement bonuses? Something to represent the organisation of labour - production bonuses. A good example is the rapid industrialisation of states like Russia post revolution.

Thats looking excellent mate, we're getting there! I really look forward to the next installment ;)

Jabarto
Hi there mate - thanks for posting on the thread good to get more folk involved in the discussion. Yep I think your right - in a way though I think when Zapp considers these civics he will take the descriptions more seriously than our suggested bonuses as he knows the mechanics of his mod way better than we can hope to.

I think I could marry Heb - ;) Its exhausting doing this stuff and yet typing what Heb does, descriptions etc - im very grateful for your help!
:eek: You're welcome?


Yep - but but i think there is nothing unique about the draft - in relating to democracy. Now we all have different perceptions of democracy of course. I would think that Democracy (as opposed to 'a' democracy with republic and the senate or parliament power civics chosen) is that it is more in tune with how one might define a very modern democracy. On that presumption we might assume that its peoples might not want to be drafted.
I guess I'm expressing some libertarian bias here. I see a modern Republic from the strict enlightenment idea. This quote basically sums up how I picture a republic after the research of Liberalism.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine

Paine was one of the most vocal proponents for creating a republic.


The USA of the civil war, ww1 and even vietnam would be better represented with Republic and varying power civics. Thats just an opinion hehe - i think that republic would be more militarised than democracy.
Again, I see a Republic as the more isolationist nation along the lines of Washington and Jefferson, whom tried to avoid foreign entanglements. I tend to associate Democracy with "giving the people what they want", like if the people want to go to war against some tyrant like Saddam Hussein. I see the presidents TR, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and nearly every president after FDR as examples of what the Democracy civic should represent. But of course that is my opinion.

It is 'difficult' for a modern democracy nowadays (europe, the usa) to institute a draft. Perhaps too difficult in the world of ipods for that to happen. Its that perspective i think democracy more represents? The more militarised republican democracies, of the USA, French Republic, Roman Republic etc are better represented with something less idealistic than democracy which is why the draft doesnt fit for it. As a game choice, we want the democracy civic to encourage material goodies - but with miiltary penalties. (and no draft!)
It may be difficult to get support for a draft, but in '60s it would be nearly impossible to get support for a socialist idea like universal healthcare. And under a Republic, a $9 trillion deficit would be legally impossible. I am thinking perhaps the benefits of Democracy should depend upon the Society civic for accuracy, but how to do that I have no idea.

I think the problem is that when people hear the word "republic", they might think of the Republican Party (whom are hawks) or the People's Republic of China (which is authoritarian).

Hey there Heb ;)

Yep, interesting comparisons. In basic terms then Democracy should accenctuate both the advantages and penalties of Republic. Of course its important to bare in mind that the republic and democracy are fairly flexible in how one can realise them with the other column civics.

Yep, the strongest impression one gets from Republic is probably, Roman Republic, French Republic etc. USA, and of course the Republican Party of the USA presently does lend that impression haha. I think its best however that we do not presume the Republic is democractic - it only is if a player chooses power civics that are themselves democratic institutes (Senate, Parliament etc) A Republic is only really that - because there is no King / monarchy etc.

In a way it is the only we give to those nations not ruled by a monarch! Democracy takes away any ambiguity you could say of the Republic.

Sorry for the delay here, I was having some logistical and personal problems which also limited my time pondering the issue.

I like the idea of adding welfare-category very much, but the internal logic and the layout of the the whole civic system here seems to be quite misleading, oversimplified and hampered by your aims to develop the advanced modern civics only. You add civic options like "marxist" and "proletariat" even in same category and even define proletariat rule somehow related to neo-liberalism??!?

Also, where are the tools of creating a clan-based society using barter as a method of trade (completely different from a "state of decentralization") and indeed having a specific religious segment based on sacrifice cults? How do you model an early democracy of Athens and how do you effectively separate and distinguish it from the modern "democratic" systems? Can you do it in your civic system? (Every so-called democracy today is a representation far from the ideal of direct democracy.)

Before middle ages you have basically two civic options per category to choose, and all of them are Eurocentrist and lacking strategic significance - thus, you only have one viable option. Every civilization a generic "tribal/communal" society before serfdom (which did not even develop in many parts of the world at all)!?? There have been and should be at least 3more variations of early society before serfdom and besides serfdom.

The game starts with a primitive hunter-gatherer society. So, either in government, or politics, or in society category there should be a civic option "anarchy" as a default. (The true definition of it - no political apparatus but the small family unit of hunter-gatherers itself as the biggest social unit, all people in the society interacting only with other individuals in a relativist set of rules and values.)

Then, when the political structures and governments start to develop (as food production is acquired and centralized, permanent societies arise), then there are still so many different variations how human civilizations developed. Theocratic monarchies of the Mesopotamia and Egypt, or clan-based tribal hierarchies (cattle-"economy") e.g. in many places of Africa. Or the Mediterranian aristocracies, despotisms and even democracies. Oligarchy, plutocracy, early free trade or system for "simple" barter... Barter with slavery... now they are mutually exclusive! Not the only thing that makes no sense and shows that many of these Civic categories overlap, and on the other hand also leave huge gaps in between them when defining the nature of society. (Isn't and shouldn't every Civilization be unique!)

Of course, the environment and geography largely dictated the direction of development in real human societies - a thing we can't yet properly simulate. In Civ, the development of a civilization is simply "dictated" by the player - only one more reason to allow more strategies in the early game, more civics before Iron Working and so on.

Furthermore, your suggestions in defining the civic effects are absolutely ridiculous, as if you had never played the game! Do you know what radicalities like "no trade routes" or "-40% commerce all cities" or their opposites like "+50% research in all cities" practically cause?! - They don't only render one civic option the only reasonable option, but they actually make it absolutely the only way to play the game at all!

It has been fascinating following your definition and debates of the modern civics, too. That you do from your cultural context and discourse only, of course. I think these theoretical debates should be put aside for a while when seeking more participants from different locatiions and backgrounds. Instead, it might be wise to further investigate the top of the Civic menu more carefully. The modelling of the wide diversity of ancient societies and civilizations all around the globe... Perhaps reading some books of Marvin Harris and Jared Diamond in the process... and for the "ancient", classical world of our own cultural discourse and background, some Platon! :)

I hope you could grasp something out of this which could expand your perspective and give you some delicate guidance. Please, check out those prerequistices for the civics and notice how you neglect the dawn of man, the Rise of Mankind. How about playing a test game, or "simulating one" in your mind? How many options you have in the field of Civics early game? Then reflect it to your knowledge of the ancient world and the early, ageless human societies in all their diversity? It does not have to be a radical civic of late game to make a difference - it all starts from 4000 BC on and is the exact reason and root of our differences on this planet.

Keep up the good idea of this Civic-improving!

Hey there!

Bonuses
We're discussing this in regards to the civics, but we see Zapp himself interpretating more from our descriptions - and applying his own mod balanced bonuses rather than directly taking our bonus suggestions. Which aren't final but are still wrapt within the world of discussion.

You add civic options like "marxist" and "proletariat" even in same category and even define proletariat rule somehow related to neo-liberalism??!?

I think you will have to go into more detail to justify that argument. Marxist society (if that is the society column) refers to a society based on marxist ideology. That is a new political invention onto itself and radically different to how that theory defines the 'working class or middle class' - which of course they do by the terms proletariat and bourgeious etc. There have been other naems of course too. Proles and Bourge do not eleminate the other from society, they simply indicate where the weight of influence is tilted. As such they are to an extent more apolitical also.

How we define the type of nation is taken as a whole, the civics all add to the flavour, with a slight abstract element.

Also, where are the tools of creating a clan-based society using barter as a method of trade

This is a definition, I'll let Heb express his point of view to you over this. Decentralised, or Barter as the starting tech is fine with me for economic.

and indeed having a specific religious segment based on sacrifice cults?

This is not really a civic, its simply a type of ceremony that many religions engaged in (and evolved from etc) I think from your general point of view it seems that you want more 'specific details' in these civics to represent very 'specific' elements of ancient civilizations. Its important to bare in mind, that these civics should have weight, that lets them balance against the other civics, and should be in some context useful at any time. Blood Rights, or Herbal healing etc as civics, are not themselves civics, but a mixture of policies and or techs, that we've really moved this civic tree away from.

How do you model an early democracy of Athens and how do you effectively separate and distinguish it from the modern "democratic" systems?

A play can interpret the civics to create almost any civ - i find it hard to find one that cannot be created with these choices.

For the democracy of Athens, I myself would pick something like,

Republic - Senate/Patrician - Bourgeious

Its important to bare in mind the power civic column in our system defines where in power lies politically - in its structures, and society the basis of other powers, (Wealth, cultural influence, etc etc.)

Athenian democracy - where rich could hold office and poor folks (well to an extent could at least vote) is not so exceptional that it requires a unique civic to describe their system of democracy amongst others. Our system allows for players to create Republics and pick where the power then stems from - in that sense it alludes to its electorate, (be it aristocrats to patricians) or with greater rep (and the politicians themselves) with power civics like senate and parliament.

Yep likewise with the Athenian definition, so too are the theocratic monarchies of Egypt possible too. Quite easily so in fact.

Monarchy - Bureacracy - Aristocrats - (and a State Church) - maybe something like that.

Economics
You discuss economic civics overlapping but you are tending to fall into the trap of hyberbole in your discussion lol! Less drama and more specifics - what economic civics overlap? You will have to argue this a little better!


In general as I recall from your earlier post you are wanting more detail in the civics for the ancient period, now adding more primitive civics that would obviously be discarded as societies progress to me seems a waste. In actual fact over RoM current civic tree there is actually a few extra ancient period civics now.

Anyway I'll let Heb put his input - but please try to clarify your argument for Economic civics.

Thanks for your speedy and clear reply!

I wouldn't like to criticize the economic civics you suggest right now, it isn't exactly my expertise and you misunderstood my point. I meant that some of the civics in ALL categories ALWAYS have the TENDENCY to overlap and on the other hand, leave huge GAPS in this "social planning" we do with civics. So, what I was wanting to point out, is that it might require some standard oldschool "pencil and drawboard" planning to trim the civic system to its optimum configuration. ;)

And as for the simulation of the ancient regimes... You have these combinations "Republic - Senate/Patrician - Bourgeious" and "Monarchy - Bureacracy - Aristocrats - State Church(?)" <- nice anachronist term ;).

Okay! Sounds fine? But what are the prerequistices for these civics? Is it possible to create i.e. the Egyptian system in the game as early as it would be realistic AND thus ALSO more convenient for the gameplay? What are the other options? If all the civs have only this optimal path, it ruins the whole idea.

In addition, can you also simulate with your civic system a clan ruled society elsewhere in Africa, that barters cows and does not count for centralized government instead of fragmented warlordism? (Looong before Feudalism and such technologies.)

How would you simulate the Inca society or China before Xi Huang Di? How about native American tribes? (If nomads don't count as a civilization, then Cherokee etc.)? Polynesia? Tibet?

Yes, most societies have always had their own unique civic paths and indeed it seems that the European society evetually dominated the world... This is from the 15th century onwards... but RoM starts thousands of years before that. And this is not a game of simply displaying the world history as it was... (And even if it was, there would still not be any reason to rule out the most exotic* civic arrangements anyway?) *Alien to us does not mean primitive, nor even rare, actually!

And the big question: What kind of and how many different combinations of Civics are possible at around 2000BC? How many different development paths and identity it allows for the different civilizations with the civic variations? (And these are far more radical differences than some mere modern day comparisons of political systems!)

You have many great ideas, and especially I have to thank you about the master idea of editing civics in general! I hope you see my concern of the early game strategy variations and the ability to "role play" with the civics also. And yes, the more advanced civics seem to dominate as the time progresses - but that isn't big news in the already existing Civ 4 mods anyway, is it? Only historically accurate! But it should not ruin the fun of gaming and removing the "variety of the old and obsolete" would indeed be historically incorrect if anything!

Also, please pay attention when the time comes to plan the effects of all these new civics! The existing suggestions are far too radical and won't work in the field of gameplay. Furthermore... I guess they are more like someone's personal fantasy and opininions than an attempt to create historical realism! (Carefully planned delicacy and moderation is the key, imho.)

But anyway, like to all the modders, my hat is off to you for your great volunteer effort, and I see your sincere motives and will to boost this magnificient game (and mod) even more! I will follow the future discussion here in this thread with the best of my attention and enthusiasm!

Thank you and best regards! :goodjob:

Cheers, I think though you are still being far too vague in your criticism and lending to views that seem to be more popularist than specific - I also don't think you should presume there are great faults in the system thus far without proving specific criticiques and improved suggestions.

;) To make my point these critiques seem lazy!


State Church(?)" <- nice anachronist term

Anachronistic? lol, its an acceptable turn of phrase to refer to a religious institution ruled by the state - that is its predominant Church. State Religion is too generic, when the State Church is quite specific, and perfectly contradictory to the Free Church civic.

Is it possible to create i.e. the Egyptian system in the game as early as it would be realistic...

Yes...

AND thus ALSO more convenient for the gameplay?

Convenient? Depends on your perception, does it exist within the ancient era - yes. You have to be clearer.

What are the other options? If all the civs have only this optimal path, it ruins the whole idea.


The civic options available from the ancient period allow for a realistic depiction of any society that is simply because they are not too specific, and in organic combinations can allude to any society a player wishes to create. This has been the purpose of the civics suggestions since the beginning. Because its impossible without huge columns of minutia to let every civ have specific civic choics atune to its peculiarities. So instead, these civics allow a player to create broad encompassing definitions that still work to add more choice than in the original RoM columns.


If all the civs have only this optimal path, it ruins the whole idea.

Our civics system allows (bar the default starting civic in most cases) for a player to create a path of consistent variety, not an optimal path leading to pre-determined 'best' civics. That is the purpose - qualitive variety, of this civic pack. Its also the reason we don't include pecularities that came and went within political spectrums, or if they were an innovation of a larger theory - they have simply been amalgamated, with the other civic columns existing to hone that civs politics/culture/outlook.

In addition, can you also simulate with your civic system a clan ruled society elsewhere in Africa, that barters cows and does not count for centralized government instead of fragmented warlordism.

Yes if you maintain the Chiefdom civic - it does not indicate rulership by a single Chief, and one can imagine those chiefdoms being clans, especially with corresponding civic choices from the other columns.

How would you simulate the Inca society or China before Xi Huang Di? How about native American tribes?

lol come on... again the civics columns are there to let players define the civ - they are not specific, they are organic, and they do overlap a little (in a philosophical way) not in a technical fashion. And only so much as one imagines that society and politics can overlap.

The fun is that the system can accomodate any civ, so hrmph. Lets take ancient Peru.

Like all societies it was class based, Royals and Nobles at the top, then the general public. I would probably pick Aristocracy for the Society civic, possibly Patrician. For the Power I would definately pick Bureacracy, for the govt I would pick oh... maybe monarchy or Despotism. Theres loads of ways you can define the civ with this civic system, its quite open to interpretation.

I think you should probably find more value in arguing what civilization could
1) Not be represented under any circumstances - the civic tree thus far
2) Wether that exceptionally constitutes inclusion with the othe civics.

Those are the conditions really for making this work - adding more for sake of 'specified variety' is pointless. We know that there are many variations of chiefdom type governances, but lets face it, we dont have a list of them in the civic columns do we? Its clutter and definately not some kind of idealistic diversity...

there would still not be any reason to rule out the most exotic* civic arrangements anyway.

Yep but this is rather silly. Any introduced civic has to match the others in value and useage. The civics included describe and can describe almost any combo. The point with its organic structure and slight overlapping is to add more flavour to create such unique attributes (that you would propose are included as full civic choices.) So for example, a Free Church, or an Intolerant one (from the Religion Civic) will be create for lending an impression of more theocratic societies. They all work in this way to help. Now of course Western Political Theory does retain the biggest influence in how we define governance. That is no reason to find ancient alternatives - especially when those ancient alternatives are just variations of styles of government already defined by Western Theory.

There are varities of monarchy, we know this... that is why the other civic columns are there to aid in the player creating the 'type' of monarchy they want.

And the big question: What kind of and how many different combinations of Civics are possible at around 2000BC?

2000BC... that is not the biggest concern of players, do you know how quickly most games get to 2000BC!!! Im not discounting it - just saying its a silly question.

You also go on to tout 'radical' alternatives that should be available in the modern era (i think.) Well this is not a civic mod of various 'isms'. It is based on a cynical interpretation of political history - of those prevailing theories and social groups. It's not an exploration of alternative political theory.

So...

So yes, after all that im basically saying, yes there is variety - more variety now in fact, and that the bonuses would be looked at by Zapp really, based on the descriptions.

I guess they are more like someone's personal fantasy and opininions than an attempt to create historical realism!


Again with the hyperbole not only is this system historically realistic, but you are yet to provide a real model of alternative recommendations. Instead, it would seem that you are complaining about the lack of representation (as you see it) for select ancient civilizations, and the bias of western political theory on the types of civic available.

Regarding the fantasy and opinion comment... I find that quite amusing! I don't thiknk hyperbole and exaggeration is the best way to make your point (that you have yet to make specific and clear). The system so far has been developed in consultation with Heb and others. So perhaps it is your 'unique' bias towards obscure historical references and their specific representations that is more fantastical and opinionated than the realities of current political science. :mischief:

I wrote:

Also, please pay attention when the time comes to plan the effects of all these new civics! The existing suggestions are far too radical and won't work in the field of gameplay. Furthermore... I guess they are more like someone's personal fantasy and opininions than an attempt to create historical realism! (Carefully planned delicacy and moderation is the key, imho.)

This paragraph is all about the civic effects! Right?

You replied citating this one line of mine:

I guess they are more like someone's personal fantasy and opininions than an attempt to create historical realism!

And started to reply your own interpretation and explanation:

Again with the hyperbole not only is this system historically realistic, but you are yet to provide a real model of alternative recommendations. Instead, it would seem that you are complaining about the lack of representation (as you see it) for select ancient civilizations, and the bias of western political theory on the types of civic available.

Regarding the fantasy and opinion comment... I find that quite amusing! I don't thiknk hyperbole and exaggeration is the best way to make your point (that you have yet to make specific and clear). The system so far has been developed in consultation with Heb and others. So perhaps it is your 'unique' bias towards obscure historical references and their specific representations that is more fantastical and opinionated than the realities of current political science.

- Well, I didn't mean to accuse or in any way imply that your proposed civic system (the whole thing/mod) was "just personal fantasy and opinions". I was talking about some of the proposed civic EFFECTS that all the writers of this thread have listed and speculated so far! (I listed some examples in the previous messages.) I'm sorry if that paragraph was obscure. If all of these proposed effects advance to the level of accepted effects in the near future, I would like to see the complete listing - but as radical as they have been when popping up in this thread... I must really remain extremely sceptical about the mod until we see the results and feedback of the first few dozen test games!

And please, generally, don't take it like I would oppose your civic mod completely and blindly - actually I'm quite curious and eager to test it as soon as you complete the first (beta?) release! (Especially now when I see how firmly you defend your ideas!) ;)

Indeed...

Well one is rather forced to make an interpretation of your vague points mon amie, because still you refuse to make specific suggestions for improvement or provide alternatives. Take Heb as a good example, he gets into the nuts and bolts.

It is meaningless to sit back and make vague criticisms or complaints. It is even worse to do so with rhetoric and undermining language. Who cares if you 'remain extremely sceptical' lol, until you can express with regards to the current civics why that should be the case, then its just hyperbole.

This is a debate about the civics, not a stage to express vague opinion and criticism - especially rhetoric and hyperbole.

Im not defending as much as I am criticising the tone of your posts, they are vaguely critical without any specificity.

The 'effects' of the civics are not a current priority, and neither did your 'fantasy' comment, clearly indicate it referred to them, while numerously I have said that the effects are ones that Zapp himself would interpret no doubt in his own way anyway :)

What you need to do is decide if your looking at the civic columns? names? descriptions etc. If you think anything is missing, suggest it, and justify it for inclusion. Then do so with respect to the work done so far, and argue for it without condescending the work of others...

Just to say, If you're going to do a communist civic, remember that the soviet union was NOT communist. It was an totalitarian hellhole masquerading as communist.
For Instance in a true communist society (in civ 4 anyway :)) there would be no suppression of great people, (or at least great artists) because only it was Stalinism that controlled art. (Socialist Realism)
I'd also assume there'd be a boost of happiness for 90% of the population as Communism, when done right, works for the working class - the majority. Or maybe your 5 most populated cities.
You should also have either no trade routes with other empires or a deduction from foreign trade routes, as a proper communist society would have no currency.
Also other civs without a Communist/Marxist/Socialist civic could have a +1/2/3:mad: against your civ depending on what their civics are (e.g. fascism is on the opposite end of the political spectrum).
Also thinking about it, you might be able to code it that you can only transition to communism after 10/20 turns of socialism as it is often seen as a transitional form of society.

Just to say, If you're going to do a communist civic, remember that the soviet union was NOT communist. It was an totalitarian hellhole masquerading as communist.
For Instance in a true communist society (in civ 4 anyway :)) there would be no suppression of great people, (or at least great artists) because only it was Stalinism that controlled art. (Socialist Realism)
I'd also assume there'd be a boost of happiness for 90% of the population as Communism, when done right, works for the working class - the majority. Or maybe your 5 most populated cities.
You should also have either no trade routes with other empires or a deduction from foreign trade routes, as a proper communist society would have no currency.
Also other civs without a Communist/Marxist/Socialist civic could have a +1/2/3:mad: against your civ depending on what their civics are (e.g. fascism is on the opposite end of the political spectrum).
Also thinking about it, you might be able to code it that you can only transition to communism after 10/20 turns of socialism as it is often seen as a transitional form of society.
How many correct Communist governments have existed? Exactly.

If we have a Communist government in terms of what is "theoretically great", then we'd have to include every other government type that is "theoretically great." It means that a totalitarian state would have to give happiness because if done right, the state would not be corrupt and the people would be happy. And same with a "theoretically correct" direct democracy, where 100% of the population can come to a conclusion that benefits 100% of the population with no drawbacks for anyone. An anarcho-communist government could be a potential Future civic, but the non-Future civics are based on historical accuracy rather than political theory. A majority of historical Communist parties in communist nations used Leninist, Stalinist or Trotskyist communism, thus that is what the Communist civic is based on.

Yes I certainly have a few left wing sympathies FishFish, but it is a little idealistic to imagine Communism or any ideology - benefitting a civ as if it could be 'perfectly realised or accomplished.'

As a sidenote - I think one of the reasons Communism emerged in the nations it did was because the working classes were so oppressed, that they were driven to that ideology (and its revolutionary imposition.) - Communism as one of several new political theories of the century...

It is important to note however, that the communist nations therefore that exist, are thoses almost bathed in histories of dictatorship, absolutism, etc. Its not surprise in some respects then that the communists that emerged, perhaps from cultural/historical backgrounds, came to mirror the societies and pasts they sought to so radically reinvent.

One has to imagine that if communism (which does have elections/ for party reps - councils most particulary) emerged in a country known for its culture, pacificism and riches, that it might not be utopian (the communist ideal.)

Naturally that conjecture can be applied to the other ideologies too in our civic system. None of which are innocent, and each of which can be as idealistic or cynical and oppressive as the player wants - by both the choice of other civics in the columns, and by their game behaviour.

So FishFish the option is there in the civic columns to create the perfect incarnation of communism - if you can!



So then - I take it we're more or less settled on the choices of Civics, I think now we should consider focussing on that Future Civic List. Lets get that sorted - then we can focus on descriptions! However please feel free to continue your description/analysis/suggestions Heb!

Actually, Lawrie, you are quite right. Now when I look back at these postings, I see that I composed them hastily and vaguely, indeed.

I'm sorry I wasted your time. Frankly, I'm actually having serious depression and almost had a nervous breakdown lately... Perhaps I should also take some vacation from modding too. (Actually I'm so cynical and neurotic about the Civilization rule sets, that I should perhaps wait a while before even trying the latest version of RoM, anyway...)

I look forward to try your civic mod as it gets completed someday. Then perhaps my mind works again more clearly and I can offer some solid feedback and suggestions.

So, sorry for my bad argumentation and thank you for your effort in creating this civic mod! :) Keep up the good work, everyone!

Argh well thats terrible maatissi, I hope things improve in your life soon!

I've been reading this thread now and I think I'll have to read it still few more times before I start to make any changes to RoM 2.3->2.4. Just now wanted to thank Maatissi, Lawrie and Big Heb and all the others for such great feedback and ideas. :) And cheer up Maatissi, I really think there's words of wisdom and reasoning in your messages ;)

Few words about those proposed civics at this point (seen in pics in this thread): I'll just have to admit that at first glance there are some that I don't know what they are - so I ask the question: can some better words be found that "describe" those few civics better? I'm not historican and english is my 2nd language so when I saw those pics, I just said to myself that I don't understand what all those choices stand for. So from regular player's point of view (and not native english) I think civic choices should be kept some what simple (and gameplay fun) so that any player knows what all civics are when they first time glance the civic page, complexicity of course comes from understanding all the effects from civic combinations.

Hi Zapp!

Yep you don't want to judge from the wip at the moment, we're getting there though! When we get a list we'll compile them in a doc for you to review our suggestions etc!

I'm honored to see the interest, Zapp. ;)

Some of these are words that would not be known by the common person (e.g. Patrician, Proletariat, Bourgeois, Keynesian, Subsidized, Socialized, Public Works), but they are the most accurate words to describe what they represent. These are the definitions of all the new civic ideas, and descriptions such as these could be put in the Civopedia as a reference for people who would not know what a civic meant.

Government
Chiefdom - State ruled by a chief or a number of chiefs.
Despotism - State ruled by a dictator.
Monarchy - State ruled by a hereditary king or emperor.
Republic - Broad definition, but essentially the state is ruled by a government not ruled by a monarch but where the people themselves installed the government.
Democracy - Representative democracy. The people elect rulers to either defend their Constitution or to carry out the peoples' wants.
Fascist - State ruled by a totalitarian government with the intent of benefiting the country as a whole.
Communist - State ruled by a totalitarian government with the intent of creating a classless society.

Power
Aristocracy - State ruled by the noble class.
Patrician - State ruled by the wealthy class.
Bureaucracy - State ruled by many specialized departments.
Vassalage - State ruled by the ruler and the people he makes contracts with (e.g. knights)
Parliament - State ruled by a council which is a fusion of legislature and executive.
Senate - State ruled by a council that is strictly legislative, with the executive branch having lesser power.
President - State ruled by one ruler and his/her advisers that is strictly executive, with the legislative branch having lesser power.

Society
Tribal - Society values tribal life.
Proletariat - Society values benefiting the working class.
Bourgeois - Society values benefiting the upper classes.
Feudal - Society values a rigid social structure (such as Medieval feudal serfdom).
Liberal - Society values giving all or most of the people liberty.
Nationalist - Society values their country as more important than any other goal.
Marxist - Society values trying to achieve equality.

Economy
Barter - Economy without currency and runs on exchange.
Slavery - Economy using barter or currency that uses slavery as a base for production, resource gathering, ETC.
Mercantile - Economy with the intent of exporting more than importing.
Laissez-Faire - Economy with a lack of government intervention. So a capitalist or market economy.
Planned - Economy that is planned by the government.
Keynesian - Economy that uses government intervention with the free market to maximize economic growth and weaken recessions. Essentially a mixed economy.
Corporatist - Economy that relies on many protectionist policies and government regulations put in place to benefit the corporations rather than the consumers.

Religion
Prophets - Religion spread by non-partisan disorganized preachers.
Divine Cult - Religion run by government and includes worship of the ruler as a god.
Free Church - Religion run by a private-run church with immense political power.
State Church - Religion run by a government-run church.
Intolerant - Religion run by a church that is intolerant of other religions.
Secular - Religion is run by a private church with no political power.
Atheist - Government decision or cultural consensus makes the state religion "atheist"

Welfare
Charity - Unorganized private welfare.
Church - Organized welfare run by the clergy.
Private - Organized welfare run by private organizations,
Subsidized - Private welfare combined with the government giving money to the poor (subsidies).
Socialized - Government supplies free welfare to all citizens.
Public Works - Government invests a lot of money in public works such as transportation, utilities, ETC.
Corporate - Government gives welfare to corporations.

If we have a Communist government in terms of what is "theoretically great", then we'd have to include every other government type that is "theoretically great." It means that a totalitarian state would have to give happiness because if done right, the state would not be corrupt and the people would be happy. And same with a "theoretically correct" direct democracy, where 100% of the population can come to a conclusion that benefits 100% of the population with no drawbacks for anyone. An anarcho-communist government could be a potential Future civic, but the non-Future civics are based on historical accuracy rather than political theory. A majority of historical Communist parties in communist nations used Leninist, Stalinist or Trotskyist communism, thus that is what the Communist civic is based on.

I'm just thinking though, you may want to at least have the ideology fit as close to the guy that thought it up.
That, or do as you said you will, do Trotskyist government. Trotsky wasn't a Totalitarian, and the USSR would not have been as much of a shithole if Trotsky had got into power - Trotsky wanted democratic elections.
I'm just saying that I think it's unfair to base the communist civic off Stalinism ,which pretty much isn't even mildly communism, it just called itself so. His Soviet Union was an Uber-totalitarian government with state controlled industry. Hell. The government pretty much became the new ruling class.
Anyway, I'd say there were very brief moments of near genuine communism, The very early days of the Soviet Union (The Soviets (workers unions) genuinely in power) and Early Cuba, (Che Guevara giving the plantation owners land back to the workers).
Seriously, talk to any genuine communist or go to any respectable communist forum, and you can see their resentment of any Stalinist that wonders onto them.
Seriously, read the communist manifesto.

Hurrah great descriptions Heb, yep we're just about there!

There's just one or two short descriptions we can take another look at it (maybe to be a little more decriptive/expressive.

I'll just copy the pre-existing list Heb, that you've just posted, and we can refine from that ok?

Zapp - indeed the descriptions for many civics and their associated artwork will help lend very immediate 'impressions' of these civics. If your interested i run a multimedia company that can throw in some artwork to make this spruce ;) (www.newagefilm.co.uk)

Heb - any that ive tweaked, ive added an asterix, too.

Government
Chiefdom - State ruled by a chief or a number of chiefs.
Despotism - State ruled by a dictator.
Monarchy - State ruled by a hereditary king or emperor.
Republic - Broad definition, but essentially the state is ruled by a government not ruled by a monarch but where the people themselves installed the government.
Democracy - Representative democracy. The people elect rulers to either defend their Constitution or to carry out the peoples' wants.
*Fascist - State ruled by a totalitarian nationalist government.
*Communist - State ruled by an authoritarian government with the intent of creating a classless society.

Comments - Above changes are minor, but with authoritarian we are creating a little more scope for Communists to go beyond their classic (Stalin) style perception - to more moderate interpretations like Castro etc. Fascist we've just shortened (and that description is a bit more apt anyway eh?)

Power
Aristocracy - State ruled by the noble class.
Patrician - State ruled by the wealthy class.
*Bureaucracy - State ruled by civil servants in specialized departments.
*Vassalage - State ruled by the ruler and favoured nobility.
*Parliament - State ruled by a chamber of many politicians, giving greater power to the legislature.
*Senate - State ruled by a council of fewer, more powerful politicians, giving greater power to the executive.
President - State ruled by one ruler and his/her advisers that is strictly executive, with the legislative branch having lesser power.

Excellent descriptions - again tweaked though as parliament is the more moderate (legislature emphasised choice) and senate the more executive. In Vassalage rather than contracted knights, have put in thier place 'favoured nobles' Others just add a bit more here and there.

Society
Tribal - Society values tribal life.
Proletariat - Society values benefiting the working class.
Bourgeois - Society values benefiting the upper classes.
Feudal - Society values a rigid social structure (such as Medieval feudal serfdom).
Liberal - Society values giving all or most of the people liberty.
Nationalist - Society values their country as more important than any other goal.
Marxist - Society values trying to achieve equality.

Perfect

Economy
Barter - Economy without currency and runs on exchange.
Slavery - Economy using barter or currency that uses slavery as a base for production, resource gathering, ETC.
Mercantile - Economy with the intent of exporting more than importing.
Laissez-Faire - Economy with a lack of government intervention. So a capitalist or market economy.
Planned - Economy that is planned by the government.
Keynesian - Economy that uses government intervention with the free market to maximize economic growth and weaken recession. Essentially a mixed economy.
Corporatist - Economy that relies on many protectionist policies and government regulations put in place to benefit corporations rather than consumers.

Religion
Prophets - Religion spread by non-partisan disorganized preachers.
Divine Cult - Religion run by government and includes worship of the ruler as a god.
Free Church - Religion run by a private-run church with immense political power.
*State Church - Religion run by a government approved church.
*Intolerant - Religion run by a zealous church intolerant of other religions.
Secular - Religion is run by private churches with no political power.
*Atheist - Government has banned religion and promotes "atheism"

Yep, great again. Tweaked bits here and there. Mostly in Atheism, which is really a radical political imposition that any cultural possibility. (We can't imagine a time when nobody in a country at all would be even a little bit religious, hehe well John Lennon might!) But we know that many communist nations for example, saw religious as a threat, and promoted atheism. Its benefits of course are obvious (pure 'fact' and science) its drawbacks are obvious too, unhappiness for those who believe!

Welfare
Charity - Unorganized private welfare.
Church - Organized welfare run by the clergy.
Private - Organized welfare run by private organizations,
Subsidized - Private welfare combined with the government giving money to the poor (subsidies).
Socialized - Government supplies free welfare to all citizens.
*Public Works - Government invests a lot of money in public works such as public infrastructure, as a means to create work.
*Corporate - Government gives welfare to corporation instead of the people.

Righto so instead of the happiness and health bonuses one might expect, public works could perhaps make certain improvements available and or provide worker bonuses / hammers maybe. Corporate could help to increase wealth or trade. So in that form those two types of welfare are not social at least in comparison to the others. I like it.

So, I think that probably looks about right Heb. I think we're probably able to focus entirely on the future civics? Then when there done, ill post it to Zapp! And we can grovel ;)

FishFish
I think changing from totalitarian to authoritarian for Communist makes it a little less hardcore. Remember that the choice of civics other than government define how liberal that nation could be in comparison to ones expectations of a political ideology.

Lets take an example, if you picked,
Example 1
Communist - Parliament - Liberal - Keynesian - Secular - Public Works.

and compared it to this -

Example 2
Communist - President - Marxist - Planned - Atheist - Socialised

So, if you chew on both those combos - you can imagine how different each civ would be - how each type of communism would result in being quite different.

In the first example... I would wake up, go to work on the state 'infrastructure project' that got me off unemployment... check my wages to see if i had enough for the new wii console... read a newspaper (from a free press) criticising some politicians. I decide come the parliamentary elections to pick a different (communist) candidate out of the choices available. On my way home I might pop into church, say hello to my pastor, before rushing off to get my free dentist appointment to fix my tooth.

In the second example... I would wake up, listen to morning announcements from the president, buy a censored newspaper, talk about left wing ideas at special lunch break meeting organised by party officials. I might enjoy a free Social Realism Art Exhibition, criticising bourgeious excess, after work at a state corporation. I would walk past churches getting boarded up, turned into public buildings by party workers. A couple of religious protestors are being arrested... At home, more party workers are helping to make sure my living conditions are sanitory, that i have utilities I need, even a state doctor might check in on me for his regional health survey etc. I go to sleep dreaming of buying our state clone of the Wii...

Now you get an idea of the differences with some civic combos - even by still choosing communism you can create liberal or scary versions, so don't fret Fishfish. Both examples above imagine the civs being fairly wealthy I might add - most communists had to work with imporvershed nations with histories of autocratic government and turmoil naturally!

FishFish how can you be so cruel - i make that amazing example hehe and not even a kiss!

FishFish how can you be so cruel - i make that amazing example hehe and not even a kiss!

Oh right yeah, sorry, Thanks for straightening that out :)

Nice... :goodjob:
It would be great, if the RoM contain this. :D

Government
...
Power
...
Society
...
Economy
...
Religion
...
Welfare


Do not forget Education.


Community - The parents/community educate.
generan knowlege, no comprehersive view, no specialization
not orgaized
educates all
Wise man - The wise mans educates.
general knowlege, comprehersive view, no specialization
not organized
educates minor
Professions - Pros educates their jobs
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, specialization
not organized
educates minor
Private schools - Teachers and pros educates the talent and the rich ones
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
not organized
educates minor
Compulsory education - Teachers and pros educates childrens, supported by state
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
organized
educates all
Corporate - Teachers and pros educates, supported by corporates
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, extra specialization
organized
educates majority
Brain stimulation - Subconscious education)
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
organized
educates all
Braint inplantatum - Instant access to knopwlege bases
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" all (no direct knowlege, but instant access to it through inplantant)
Brain manipulation - Instant learning by maipulationg the brain
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" all
Genetic learning - Basicly the genetics of the human race is altered completly, the descendants inherits all the knowlege of their ancestors.
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" allI give them names, but english isn't my native language, so if you thing that the names are not qite proper, the just post a reply. ;)

I have ideas for the bonuses, but until now no one have suggested it, so...

Do not forget Education.


Community - The parents/community educate.
generan knowlege, no comprehersive view, no specialization
not orgaized
educates all
Wise man - The wise mans educates.
general knowlege, comprehersive view, no specialization
not organized
educates minor
Professions - Pros educates their jobs
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, specialization
not organized
educates minor
Private schools - Teachers and pros educates the talent and the rich ones
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
not organized
educates minor
Compulsory education - Teachers and pros educates childrens, supported by state
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
organized
educates all
Corporate - Teachers and pros educates, supported by corporates
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, extra specialization
organized
educates majority
Brain stimulation - Subconscious education)
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specialization
organized
educates all
Braint inplantatum - Instant access to knopwlege bases
general knowlege, no comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" all (no direct knowlege, but instant access to it through inplantant)
Brain manipulation - Instant learning by maipulationg the brain
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" all
Genetic learning - Basicly the genetics of the human race is altered completly, the descendants inherits all the knowlege of their ancestors.
general knowlege, comprehersive view, specializations
organized
"educates" allI give them names, but english isn't my native language, so if you thing that the names are not qite proper, the just post a reply. ;)

I have ideas for the bonuses, but until now no one have suggested it, so...
We took Healthcare and Education and combined it into Welfare. Most of your proposed civics fit directly in the Welfare civic column.

Community = Charity
Wisemen = Church (monks) or Private (rhetors)
Professions = Private
Private Schools = Private
Compulsory Education = Subsidized or Socialized (depending on other welfare)
Brain ***** = One possible future civic. Very circumstantial.

Yep Pluribus_Unum cheers for posting details and contributing to the thread!

Yep Education is a funny one because really there is no unique civic/ideology that represents a theory of education imo. They all result from policies from other ideologies.

Governments heavy on ideology insert that in schools, religious theocracies will insert spiritualism/religion into education etc. There is no great disparity however in the structure of education, from schools for kids, adults, and universities etc.

So we wanted to avoid specifying the peculiarities of government policy to education when they are already alluded to by a players choice of other civics.

Yo Big Heb good to see you - and yep we're now focussing on the future civic tree - im gonna post some tomorrow. We've got the others about nailed I reckon!

Just dropping here to say that no progress at all at incorporating these to next version yet. This is due to real life things - my apartment's bathroom is under renovation for couple weeks (actually all apartments' bathrooms are being "fixed" in that building which takes couple months) so I'm staying at my relatives and thus can't really do any modding now for while (except thinking process).

Hey Zapp thats okay mate - there not done yet either though, this is just a talking shop really, when we get this finalised we want to kinda present it to you for discussion etc! We're still working at the mo on the idea for what the future civics would be :)

Just dropping here to say that no progress at all at incorporating these to next version yet. This is due to real life things - my apartment's bathroom is under renovation for couple weeks (actually all apartments' bathrooms are being "fixed" in that building which takes couple months) so I'm staying at my relatives and thus can't really do any modding now for while (except thinking process).

As Lawrie said, it's no problem at all. We still have the future civics, and some more review of the other civic effects would be good to give you a perfect general idea as to what the specific effects should be.

Speaking of future civics, do you have any ideas Lawrie?

To bring up my old ideas, I stand by Open Source Government ("wikipedia-style" internet-based direct democracy, GOVERNMENT), Scientific Religion (scientifically proven religion or atheism, RELIGION), Digital Economy (technology of converting atoms to digital bits creates virtual online marketplace as center of economy, ECONOMY), and Noocracy (scientists, teachers and intellectuals have political power; Plato's "philosopher king" idea, POWER).

Anarcho-Capitalism is iffy because it results in a complete market economy and no government at all, which would rule out many civics that need government to function (Planned economy, Socialized welfare, most Power civics, ETC.)

Perhaps a government where there is no central government but corporations control different cities? It could simulate the "cyberpunk" future idea seen in a lot of science fiction. That would essentially be what anarcho-capitalism would lead to in the absence of a law code, so it could be good.

Big Heb

Ah my partner in arms hehe. Let's discuss your ideas first Heb (and your a great guy for making these, ill put some too.)

The future civics are extremely difficult to propose, and their far easier to shoot down than create! Especially of course if we are proposing genuine future civics that are plausible.

Heb if i seem overtly critical bare in mind, as i say its easier to challenge ideas than create them!


Open Source Government
The idea of a digital democracy, is essentially either a point made about the practical process of election (ie using the internet/high tech gear) but that assumes a kind of Proportional Representation style of democracy. Does it class with the govt choice of civic, and if not then is it simply a more technologically advanced version of the players govt civic. So its a bit iffy I think!

Digital Economy
Now this is interesting, as the digital economy (as opposed to just calling it digital currency) can have an interesting and far reaching implication. As a theory of economics it can be based entirely on certain economic forms (outwith gold standards/ stock markets etc) For this I think we should speak to a specialist on economy and futurism.) The concept however, is for a form of economy that is 'through technology' transcendent from other trade forms.
The difficulty is to ensure that this does not become a more 'advanced' level of currency AND that it can rest comfortably (and subjectively) with the more modern choices of economic civics.

So this is great i think, a great future choice for trade/ civs, but one that we are going to have to put our heads together for the description!


Noocracy
Now I kind of pooh pooh'd this suggestion when you originally made it Heb, but reconsidering that now. What is interesting is that in effect it is a kind of oligarchy really. That perception put me off, (as something essentially ancient and circumstantial.) However this is not necessarily the case if we can find a decent amount of theory and credibility to back it up.

Essentially we are finding that within the drive towards globalisation, corporatism and scientific progress that power is going more to the hands of the few as it were. Now Noocracy suggests this power would reside within the intellectual elites, andthat can be fairly abstract as to include general perceptions for what that 'genius' may be - be it the most enlightened candidates that should win in democratic forms, to their specific selection by ruling fascist parties etc.

So as an abstract ideal it should be open to interpretation for other players government choices.

As an interesting side note, we are finding in Russia and China today, that governments are becoming generally 'popular...' or at lest populist through nationalism etc, and that its democractic forms in Russia are becoming redundent in the face of rampant consumerism.

In that sense Autocratic Capitalism seems to be on the ascendency - is that another form of noocracy (certainly not as envisioned by Plato) but as an interpretation (one of many) for players that choice civics appropriate to it.

Okay so that might be a bit confusing lol, but i like this one too, albeit its going to need a hell of a description too!)

//

So at the moment, Digital Economy looks great, and Noocracy looks promising albeit we're gonna have to work a bit on both.

Essentially we are looking at broad concepts, in terms of gameplay, we should look at a future civic that helps to cap off an idea - and expression of a civs late achievement. A civic for trade, military, happiness, etc.

Okay im going to get my thinking cap on and post back!

The Future

Perhaps we should broaden our discussion for the future a little - i would love to hear everyones opinions of this! In a way, our future civics are taking plausible outcomes for the future of this Earth... in creating deep and meaningful ideological civic ideas that can work and compliment (the vast majority) of the civic lists we have developed thus far - at least those of the 'modern period 1800s+)

Naturally there will be an element of the hypothetical in our ideas, but they certainly should be inspired by the reality of our world, and not the fiction of one's favourite sci-fi movie!

Let's start our discussion with a brief analysis of current future projections (and I BEG ALL OF YOU) this discussion is a basis for devising the future civics, not for arguing about national pride, and egotistical rubbish!

Future of Democracy
The fundamental theory of Democracy has evolved a little in its ideology, mostly in its implication. The extension of freedoms lower social classes and or of differing races, religions etc. The 'reliability' of democracy in practice has evolved a little bit recently (or devolved depending on pov) with the inclusion of electronic electoral devices etc, with the future promise of the web.

The stability of democracy of course depends on transparancy, social desire, honest political representation and so on.

Competing interests have oft challenged democracy and lead to its defeat (as a form of government) by various competing interests.

Religious fanaticism (Iran, 79')
Instability (Weimer Republic, many more...)
Consumerism?

Indeed, is consumerism and individual self interest for prosperity and good living destroying an interest in politics? Obama in the USA would suggest that is not necessarily true, but what then of rising autocratic movements in Russia, (that enjoy relatively speaking popular support) despite their curbs in democracy. Likewise in China, heavily Capitalist (and more nationalist at times than communist!) yet that nation is not awash in revolution presently. On the contrary, financial freedoms have alleviated many political desires among the folks.

Is it possible to find an even more enlightened version of democracy that can transcend the forms we've seen come and go.

The greatest prospect of futuristic forms of democracy may well come less from the United States (and its classic republicanism) but from the quasi democratic institutions set up within the European Union.

Those of us in Europe are familiar with the gradual powers ceded to commissioners there and the european parliament. In 50 years time, it is hard to imagine its government not dominating over national parliaments of member states. Its also hard to imagine it being a model that is not extremely modern and future focussed, - it will hardly utilise a standard form of democracy such as the electoral college of the USA.

That example, is worthy of consideration, as the EU 'democracy' of the future (For europe wide citizenry) will be the biggest and most modern interpretation of the 'democratic ideal' (hypoethically speaking of course, for naturally the EU could disentegrate before then or be anything but democratic)

It will also be a form of democracy invented in the midst of a period of time where the nation state itself (as a romantic concept of the 19th century) is crumbling. Globalisation and international agencies are taking increasing precedance over individual national governments.)

So future democracies may have basis on ideologies akin to social liberalism, over national interests/ borders.

- As such, a civic regarding futuristic democracy must also concern itself with compatablitiy with governments that are not in themselves 'democratic' under common conception. For example, Fascist...

So in that sense, we are talking about an abstract form of government, with futuristic electoral forms (that are not necessarily democratic) that are transcendent from the 'nation' state.

*breathes deep* Quite a mouthful eh! So lets look at some hypothetical examples.

2050, The EU abolishes as a political instrument, the 'institution' known as the nation state. Instead its new democracy is based around the agreement of certain rights (in accordance with its ideology, in the EU of present that would be liberal - socialist). The EU is not a nation, but a political body, its democracy is not of national citizens, but of members of this political organisation itself.

Note: In a sense it is not hard to imagine that a radical USSR might have done something akin to this, though of course it did not.

Let's stretch plausibility a little with an example for the USA...

2100, USA is dominated by apolitical corporations whose interests in economic - and its associated social - economic policies have become such that archaic institutions such as congress and the senate, are dominated completely by committees and sub committees created to represent the specified interests of true power. Increased secularism, multi-culturalism has left any notions of nationalism a romantic past dream... as such nations like Canada... Mexico etc, find themselves absorbed within trade organisations that find themselves with enormous political influence. Corporatism...

Both those situations indicate a defeat of the concept of the nation state, and nationalism. They do not indicate democracy overcoming or becoming the ultimate winner even in present modern and well developed democracies. (using these hypothetical and completely arguable examples!)

In that case maybe 'Democracy' is the wrong word to use here. As a Government civic, we can have one that represents a transcendance from the concept of the nation state - which preserves the ideological choices a player has made in the govt civic and subjectively shows the sphere of power - form the politic civic.

It's bonuses are another matter. But in terms of concept and imagination, it heralds a huge event which we struggle to percieve - that the country we call home, becomes a bedtime story replaced by corporate agencies, international organisations.

Note
That is not to suggest this is the most advanced form of political understanding ones civ should have in the game. It is a choice from a column of future civics (so a player can only pick this or another future civic.) It just represents one form of plausible and interesting futuristic extreme, that can really define a players civ in the future age!

Conclusion
Therefore perhaps as opposed to Open Source Government we can called this Ideological Ascent - National Transcendance (ok not that word!) you get the idea. Something that works with players choices, but is radical and futuristic!

Okay I'll continue this er epic discourse -

So we're now looking at a future govt style column civic - for the future civic tree that can work as a compliment for most modern ideologies the player may have chosen.

If a player has picked communist or democratic it should 'fit' and yet be amazingly credible and futuristic.

I discussed before the idea of digital democracy, (and Heb as Open Source Government) but I expanded that idea (due to difficulty of implementing a fancier tech version of democracy incompatable with players choosing non democratic govt civics) to something more abstract.

Which is 'more influence by the people' which since it is not being expressed (or perhaps can't be) by more futuristic forms of democracy or government per say is so, by a ground changing event.

That is the 'death of the nation state' concept, that i discuss in the post before this one.

There are two principle concepts to the 'successor' to the nation state, which is the concept of 'transnationalism' which more or less describes the experience of the ended nation state (and belonging to its organisation based succcessor) and cosmopolitansim which more or less advocates the humans of the world belonging to a single moral community - standing in contrast to ideas and romantic ideals of nationality, patriotism and so on.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

If a player chooses this civic, it represents the overriding influence of there peoples 'ideals' and 'ideologies' over the concept of national belonging, and nation state concepts and institutions. (They remain just as they would, but are now subserviant to the grandious borderless imaginings.)

Yet this is subjective for any players civ.

Its most apparent incarnation is through ideas such as worldwide revolution espoused in Marxism etc.

In Democracy it is better represented by the ideals of cosmopolitanism,

In Fascism?

What might be great for this, is that this future civic could while providing generic bonuses/penalties, could also allow perhaps for some wonder, civic specific for a nations ideology? Who knows.

Big Heb
So I think we can take Open Source Government and take it in this more abstract area to make it compatable with other civic choices players may have made, but at the same time is pretty far out but credible. In a way this is what i want the future civics to represent - credible, and fascinating alternatives that we ourselves possibly face.

So what about names for this? Based on the basic theories...

'TransNationalism','Cosmopolitanism',

Or our versions (since they are a bit long!)

'Post-national','Transnational'?

Note
Lets get this one sorted first, then we can move onto Hebs Digital economy future civic idea.

Lawrie, I think you bring up a good point with the EU. Ever since the end of WWI, the world's political stage has been dominated by treaty organizations such the League of Nations, the United Nations, NATO, Warsaw Pact, EU, NAFTA, ETC. Open source governance will probably only surface as a utopian system of government for a small amount of tech savvy people. I am going to suspect the United States will not be dominated by corporations in the future, but eventually a North American Union between Canada and Mexico could surface. All of these treaties and alliances have risen due to economic globalism and defense concerns, two components that will only strengthen as future technology is discovered and the world is more interconnected through improved communication.

I think an idea is a government type that is a union or federation. It would make having Permanent Alliances and Vassals more profitable, and it could make the United Nations play a bigger role in gameplay and in your favor. The general effects should be debated, but I think the idea of "world government" or just simply "regional union" is a possible future of government unlike any of the other choices.

For Power, I stand by Noocracy. Just to stand by Plato's claims that it is the government of the future, and because technological innovation could indeed lead to the intellectuals, scientists, professors, ETC. getting political power in the future.

Society is open for ideas. If there are any sociologists here who can see a new movement from modern events, feel free to input.

For Economy, again I stand by Digital Economy. What is interesting is that a technology converting atoms to bits would allow for copying and thus duplication of atoms, thus duplications of products. I doubt organic goods could be duplicated, however, and there will still remain a scarce market for services. However, with duplication and downloading of resources possible, essentially you remove scarcity from the equation for inorganic goods and undermine the core foundation of economics as a social science. So the effects should be completely unlike any other Economic civic.

For Religion, scientific research could prove religion to be true or false. Effects for this would be difficult to make, but I do not now of any other ideas except perhaps a machine cult, which is very circumstantial.

For Welfare, any ideas?


So if I am not mistaken, there will be one Future civic per other category all in one category and you can pick one future civic to use at a time. Therefore, the effects of each future civic should be considerably good since you only get one at a time.

Hey Heb - yep there will be just one future civic a player can choose however - we have to make them so abstract and 'relative' that they can be both bold but also work within the govt civic choices a player has made.

So for example, if we had a future civic, er lets give it a randon name hehe, ok 'enlightened pacifism' then, that would be bizarre for players who have chosen nationalist republics, or fascist states and are waging war etc.

So annnyway, yep I think we can propose for sure so far, something like

Post National (-as I describe, end of 'nation state' ie. akin to globalisation)
Digital Economy (Pretty much as you describe heb)

Right so we've got two for sure so far! We'll get back to these to clarify final names, descriptions etc.

Noocracy
Well basically every future civic has to work at least in some interprative abstract way with likely modern player choices, ie, democracies of varying kinds, communist, fascist, authoratarian / theocratic states etc.

So of course we have Plato's theory of government, but is its application too unique to work with the other civics. If it was lead by intellectuals and scientists for example, - then its very relative to the players civ. A theocratic state with noocracy or fascist etc are examples of combos that Plato could have hardly have envisioned in his theory.

I think also that Noocracy is perhaps too circumstantial to work, and is not really a theory that comes of the tip of our tongue when we consider the future world.

Hey Heb - yep there will be just one future civic a player can choose however - we have to make them so abstract and 'relative' that they can be both bold but also work within the govt civic choices a player has made.

So for example, if we had a future civic, er lets give it a randon name hehe, ok 'enlightened pacifism' then, that would be bizarre for players who have chosen nationalist republics, or fascist states and are waging war etc.

So annnyway, yep I think we can propose for sure so far, something like

Post National (-as I describe, end of 'nation state' ie. akin to globalisation)
Digital Economy (Pretty much as you describe heb)

Right so we've got two for sure so far! We'll get back to these to clarify final names, descriptions etc.

Noocracy
Well basically every future civic has to work at least in some interprative abstract way with likely modern player choices, ie, democracies of varying kinds, communist, fascist, authoratarian / theocratic states etc.

So of course we have Plato's theory of government, but is its application too unique to work with the other civics. If it was lead by intellectuals and scientists for example, - then its very relative to the players civ. A theocratic state with noocracy or fascist etc are examples of combos that Plato could have hardly have envisioned in his theory.

I think also that Noocracy is perhaps too circumstantial to work, and is not really a theory that comes of the tip of our tongue when we consider the future world.
Hey Lawrie, it looks like we are making some good progress.

This post is all ideas for names for future civics, and we can add and subtract names off the list when needed. Names grouped together are different names for the same thing.

Government
Open Source Government (laws edited by anyone, voted by a significant majority)
Direct Democracy

Transnationalist (global government or government that extends beyond your civilization and extends to vassal states and alliance states)
Supranationalist
Confederate
Postnationalist

Power
Noocracy (intellectuals, engineers, scientists, ETC. have political power)
Technocracy

Mobocracy (those who satisfy the needs and wants of the most people possible have political power, or could mean mob rule)
Ochlocracy
Mob Rule

Society
Utilitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
Collectivist

Globalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)

Postmodern/Postmodernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism)

Environmentalist

Scientistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

Economy
Post-Scarcity Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity)
(More general term for my idea of a Digital Economy)

Ecological Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics)
Thermoeconomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics)

Bioeconomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioeconomics)

Neo-Austrian
(I can hope...) :D

Religion
Scientific Religion (religion/atheism has been proven to be true/false)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Welfare
Not sure

Hi everyone. I'm new to this thread and desperately trying to do some catch-up reading to see the new ideas. So if I repeat something or misunderstand, I apologize in advance.

Much of the discussion that I've read has seemed to focus on political aspects of the game. However, one of the major attractors of Civ IV (at least, for me), has been the inclusion of relgion. And perhaps this is an area I can be of assistance.

In the world today, studies in the field of religion are moving towards defining them by their worldview. For those of you to whom this term might be new, a worldview is simply 'how one views the world.' Catchy, eh? Different religions are classified into seven very basic worldviews (listed here in no particular order):
1) atheism
2) pantheism
3) panentheism (no, that's not a typo)
4) deism
5) finite godism
6) polytheism
7) monotheism

And in some cases, you can also break down the category into subcategories. For example, Polytheism is the worship of many gods/goddesses. Henotheism (a subcategory of polytheism) is the belief in many gods/goddesses, but the worship of only one god/goddess) while Tritheism (a subcategory of polytheism) is the belief and worship of three gods/goddesses as a pantheon. Or for example, Monotheism would encompass Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Both Judaism and Islam represent Unitarian Monotheism (meaning only one god) while Christianity represents Trinitarian Monotheism (meaning three persons in one god).

Thus, you can have different types of religions with the same type of worldview, but still have radically committed factions that don't mingle. Again, both Judaism and Islam share Unitarian Monotheism, yet they are fiercely in conflict with one another.

So what does that do for gameplay in Civ IV? Well, it could mean a major restructuring of how religion functions in the game. And for gameplay purposes, it might work well to tie it in with the Power aspect being discussed in conjunction with the Political side. For example, a prophet could have the support of the people, the support of a ruling class (like a priest caste system), a rebel fanatic preaching doom and gloom in the rural countryside, or have a small following and be labeled a "cult leader" . . . all depending on "power."

And just because two nations have the same religion does not mean they share the same "theology." For example, the United States was founded by settlers calling themselves "Pilgrims" (those who could no longer accept the teachings of the Crown-governed Anglican "Church of England" -- who separated themselves). Those who tried to change the Church of England from within called themselves "Puritans". So, in England, during the 1600s you had Anglicans, Separatists (Pilgrims), and Puritans but all of whom rejected Roman Catholic Spain (not just on a geopolitical scale, but mostly on theology). Yet, all these groups were "Christian."

So, these historical and theological facts got me to thinking about application in Civ IV. Is there a way to do a "Revolution" Mod only on the religious side? Perhaps a "Revival" Mod? When a people's religious needs are not being met (the possibility for a "Spiritual Awakening" or "Revival" could take place or mass conversions or apocyliptic hysteria or a wave of spiritual renewal to generate half costs on social reforms or prayer movements that increase happiness for a number of turns, or overthow of the "goddless president" to make their new "prophet" the ruler.

So generally, those are my three ideas: 1) how to make it so that different types of religions can be in the game (worldviews) but each with their own unique "flavor", 2) tie in religion with power, and 3) spiritual events that are generated from and affect gameplay.

Granted these ideas will take some "fleshing out" but that's the kernel anyway. So what do you all think?

Oh, on a side note, one idea I would like to see implimented in the next RoM 2.4 (hopefully), is the abiltiy to customize before the game starts. For example, say I want to play with 34 different Civs and their respective leaders, but I want to play "me" and lead nation X to victory. I would like to see an option in the leaders listed to play "self". After the game parameters are established and you launch it, it gives a pop up window for you to put in name, leaderhead selection, nation to lead, and your two leader traits . . . and then it continues with starting the game.

Currently in RoM 2.3, you can select to play any leader with any civ. That's nice, but it scrambles all the rest of the civs, too. So, that's why I was asking about customization for "self" (and that way the other civs keep their respective leaders).

Currently in RoM 2.3, you can select to play any leader with any civ. That's nice, but it scrambles all the rest of the civs, too. So, that's why I was asking about customization for "self" (and that way the other civs keep their respective leaders).
Isn't it easier to make your own civ and add it to RoM as a modular civ?

Easier? Not for what I'm talking about.

You can design your own civ and add it, yes, but that means you have to play that one civ all the time. What I was talking about is more flexible. Lets say I want to play Romans one day, Celts the next day, or even Egyptians on the third day. If I create my own civ, it will have just the custom units I give it ALL the time. No changes. If I play another civ, if I make it change leaders, then ALL the leaders change. Its an ALL or NOTHING proposition.

What I'm asking about is a "change self only" mode. Thus, if I want to play one of those other civs, unique units intact, yet change up leadership traits (and thus, the WAY I play that civ), I could. Doing it that way, those special units and buildings stay with each civ, but I can change out leadership traits as I desire to play them while keeping all the other civs as they are (same leaders, same traits, same unique units, etc.).

Basically, I'd like to customize "self" (human players only) while keeping the rest of the world intact.

Hi Zappara,

I just caught your post a few weeks back about how you didn't want to make any major changes to religion at this time, but rather that you wanted to focus on your new project of a new tech tree.

With that in mind, I was wondering just how far RoM could go with new tech? What I'm thinking of is rather ambitious: RoM + Planetfall mod (as far as the tech tree goes). Planetfall is a mod based on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri where players terraform a new planet (so its a sci-fi Civ game). The tech tree in Alpha Centauri was pretty cool, too. So, I was wondering if it would be possible (feasible, practical) to create a huge tech tree that spanned the dawn of civilization all the way up and past "futurology" (includng futuristic civics, development of Psi units, bio/chem warfare, genetic enhancement of one's populace, and even to the point where players could 'terraform' tiles - level mountains, raise/lower sea level, and so forth in late game play)?

I'm hoping that with Plantfall as a mod already having been developed, much of the work would have already been done. But not being a programming, I'm not sure what all would still remain to be finished to make its appealing parts work with RoM. It may be just too much work. I don't know. But I'll toss out that idea as a possibility for greater RoM enhancement. :)

Well, the more I read, the more I seem to see the same ideas I was having already being suggested. :p

I've found lots of sci-fi ideas that were posted already, so, my congrats to those folks. Lots of good stuff in there (I really liked the Deuterium production idea).

Okay, so with new techs being proposed and new a new civics system being designed, is there a way to enhance the "economy" of Civ IV? Something like a 3-tier system: Resources -> Materials -> Goods. For example, to go from Cotton -> Textiles -> Ship Sails (or whatever). Each could be traded to a nation, but increases in value the further up you go. Raw resources are cheap, but materials get more profit than resources and goods get more profit than materials.

Just a thought . . .

Whooooaaah hehe slow down!

Thanks for the input guys but lets keep this on topic, we're discussing the future civics for the future civic column presently. Let's not get distracted there are other threads for discussing techs, gameplay models etc

Sorry about the off-topic drift. I kept thinking of tying everything into the civics. To tweak one part meant tweaking other parts and got a bit focused away from the civics. Oops! :blush:

So, back to religion as civic . . .
During all the prior discussions, it seems we have a fuzzy definition of what we're trying to do here. Are we talking about the religion itself (its beliefs and practices) or are we talking about the religious institution (how its run)?

The most current set of civics outlined for Religion is like this:
Religion
Prophets - Religion spread by non-partisan disorganized preachers.
Divine Cult - Religion run by government and includes worship of the ruler as a god.
Free Church - Religion run by a private-run church with immense political power.
*State Church - Religion run by a government approved church.
*Intolerant - Religion run by a zealous church intolerant of other religions.
Secular - Religion is run by private churches with no political power.
*Atheist - Government has banned religion and promotes "atheism"

Prophets -- as a name doesn't quite carry the meaning; for example, a prophet is one who is in communion with the supernatural such as, but not necessarily god(s)/goddess(es). Tribes have shamans, holy men, druids, witchdoctors, . . . all of whom are very different from prophets. If you are looking for a default religious institution, perhaps Animism is a better term (also as an alternative to Paganism).

Divine Cult -- how is a divine cult religious civic different from a theocracy?

Intolerant -- now there's a politically-charged word. I understand, by its definition, what you want to achieve here, and agree something like this needs to be in the civics, but I don't think the term chosen is the best. After all, its only "intolerant" to the people who don't share that belief; to those who believe it is the right course of action, often talk about thier motives as being "purist" (keeping out "bad" religious and/or cultural influence).

Secular -- this term actually refers to governments turning a blind eye towards religion (non-involvment) and has nothing to do with zeal or passion or tolerance or intolerance of those religious groups. So, yes, we could probably use a "Secular" religious civic, but the definition doesn't quite fit.

Atheist -- the government doesn't have to promote atheism in order to be atheistic; it just promotes freedom FROM religion (any).

Scientific Religion -- that's just another form of atheism; to make matters worse, "proof" and "science" is like asking for certainty and in science, 'certainty' never gets used. Even for science to make claims about where people come from, since it cannot be "observed" nor "repeated" in an experiment, it still comes down to 'best guess' (a statement of faith). Even science cannot be 'certain.' Now, if you're looking for another type of atheism to include in the game, perhaps Agnosticism is a better option (or Skepticism)? Or if you are looking for other secular philosophies, perhaps Nilhism is another to consider? Maybe even Hedonism or Materialism?

- - - - -

Alternative issues to consider: how do you want a synagogue, church, mosque, ashram, monastery, temple, meditation garden, and so forth to be represented?

How will religious civics be kept different from theocratic government agencies? For example, In Iran, the president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shia clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which also decide who may run for office (a "theo-democracy" or "religious democracy.") Or consider that Saudi Arabia is run according to a codified version of Shari'a (Islamic legislation) with the Quran declared to be the constitution and is therefore sometimes classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in political fact a hereditary monarchy, with the King wielding near-absolute power.

How will religious persecution play a role in choosing a government and religious civic? There are generally five types of religious persecution:

1. Restrictive legislation
Passage of a restrictive religion law, widely criticised for its overly broad interpretations of what is considered appropriate religious practice. (France)
Strict registration requirements and general monopoly of the Orthodox Church in some regions, resulting in discrimination of other churches and religions. (Russia)
A law was drafted, which gave only certain churches and communities the status of a legal entity. Others would have had to fulfil various conditions in order to be registered. (Serbia)
Passage of a restrictive religion law, which prohibits religions that have existed in the country for less than 20 years from publishing literature or setting up missions. (Belarus)

2. Violence against specific religious or belief groups
Escalating group violence against worshippers of non-Orthodox faiths, especially Evangelical Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The government has failed to prosecute those responsible. (Georgia)
Assaults on Jews and vandalising of their homes, businesses, and places of worship. (Belgium, Germany, and the UK)
Physical assaults on Muslims, firebombing of mosques, and hate speeches directed towards the Muslim community. (USA and Australia)
Bloody religious clashes between Muslims and Christians (N. Nigeria) and between Muslims and Hindus. (India)

3. Human rights discriminations against religious or belief groups
Prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves for Muslim women. (Turkey)
Muslims are denied rights of citizenship and cannot receive national identity cards. Among other things, this effects their ability to get jobs. (Burma)
Members of the Bahá’í Faith are denied pensions and opportunities for students to go on to tertiary education are also denied. (Iran)
Town councils have refused to register the residencies of certain belief groups (Japan).

4. Incidents involving religious property
Destruction of two Buddhist statues, which were renowned as both religious and archaeological treasures. (Afghanistan)
Destruction of mosques by security forces as well as series of attacks on Orthodox churches by unknown arsonists. (Macedonia)
Lack of restitution of property to mosques and churches, which continue to be state owned. (Bulgaria and Romania)
Public worship by non-Muslims is banned and places of worship other than mosques are not permitted. (Saudi Arabia)

5. Arrests and detentions
Both Buddhist and Christian leaders continue to face arbitrary detention and arrest. (Vietnam)
Only the Russian Orthodox Church and the state-approved Spiritual Directorate of Muslims are officially registered. Prayer meetings of other religious groups are frequently raided and worshippers detained. (Turkmenistan)
Several thousand Muslims are in jail for religious reasons, as only one governmental body sanctions the practice of Islam (Uzbekistan)
Members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement have been detained, arrested, or sent to labor camps. (China)
Jehovah’s Witnesses are jailed for their beliefs related to conscientious objection to military service. (Armenia)

These examples are merely to explain what I mean and how they could impact a civic (whether generating events, unhappiness, restrict trade, spread culture, and so forth). I list several examples only because when people hear the word "persecution" they tend to think of worst case scenarios only. So, its just to clarify here. :)

- - - - -

Oh, and for government civics, are there any plans to distinguish communism from socialism? Just curious . . . .

Hey there Rone, cheers for the input now we can get a discussion going ;)

Righto lets start with the religious civics. They do indeed describe institutions and ideologies (so much as the church effects the state with political ramifications) than instead - any individual pecularities of theology etc.

Prophet
I don't think prophet is ideal for the starting religious civic, but rather than describe a belief system (as if that religion itself was so simplistic that it should be evolved from - when in new age circles we see folk returning to it etc.) Instead prophets seemed more apt to describe that key starting development for any of the major religions of our time. That is, they all began more or less with some kind of prophet, be it a teacher, philisopher, so called God or god appointed and so on!

Divine Cult
A theocracy does not necessarily include the leaders of the state within its religious theology. A theocracy is really a political religious hybrid of course, where as Divine Cult, represents a personal rulers promotion at all costs of a religion (per say a cult really) that places him as god like. It is an authoratarian means of control, especially in the ancient world.

Examples might be the cult of the Caesers, some could event stretch to say Kim II of Korea today!

Intolerant
Intolerant is a politically charged word (we like them!) adds to the dramatic flavour of the game. In essence it is 'puritanical' - such as the Covenaters of Scotland, Roundheads of England etc. But to the excess of where violence against opposing religions is tolerated, promoted.

It does not represent the church at its most powerful (necessarily) but it does represent a singular form of religious violence promoted by church and state.

Secular
Indeed I agree more or less with your description - our short definition doesnt disagree. As a point of note, we intend to expand these descriptions in the pedia to cover not just (the theory) but with examples of practice within a civ game.

Atheism
Secular is a better representation of freedom of religion (not by specifity, but simply by the lack of state control or regulation within religion.) Atheism is itself a form of 'non-religious' promoted by Marxism, so the reason for this option, is to have a 'radical' option. It doesnt mean there is no religion, simply that the state is attempting to crush it.

Scientific Religion
Yeah im not too hot on that personally either, as science can demand passion and intensity (much like religion) and even faith in so much as one has faith in one's ideas and theories. But its belief system is based on fact, and imperical evidence etc. Religion is absolutely not! It is far more subjective (and to any religious folks here thats fine! Its all relative so take no offence!) I also think proving ones religion as a civic idea or choice would just be a bit too bizarre in a game of civ!

Theocracy
I will come back to this point Rone, and discuss with you within the current frame work how i personally would represent some famous theocracies. I think you may be particularly interested maybe in helping us craft the descriptions too?

Nice post! I love detailed analysis. So, let me start by saying thanks for the in-depth reply.

To answer the last question first, sure, I'd be happy to help. :D

Well, I guess the first thing to do is to discuss religion as a definition. Here's one of the problems we're going to run into due to the design mechanics of the game. (I was hoping to avoid such a controversial topic, but I guess there's no getting around it). Religious beliefs (whether labeled monotheism or polytheism or dualism or sacrifice cult or divine right . . .) are part of the tech tree. And this is an inherent problem. Why? Because the game mechanics dictate an "evolutionary" view of religious belief. One set of beliefs are built upon another (improved) from another. I mean, before we get to putting in which major religions to be part of the game, the tech tree itself necessitates one religion being available before another just by the order of techs discovered (and hence, they type of religious civic-institution available).

So, yes, I do want to discuss religious civics. Please bear with me for a sec on this small digression into the "spiritual" techs. Historically, monotheism and polytheism emerge fairly close together in the world (timewise). And yes, you can always find some "expert" on either side to say that one came from the other first. For game mechanic purposes, would it be possible to have them both available at roughly the same time and let players "split off" depending on what path they chose? As such, perhaps move the "discovery" of a religion to some other tech so that neither provide an "instant" religion (but rather represents a basic "theology" -- theism -- if you will, required for a "religion" discovery). Both polytheism and monotheism represent a set of beliefs. As such, I would not make a religious civic dependent on either one alone, but perhaps certain civics (institutions) available further down the tech chains.

Ritualism is a good "non-descript" starting "spiritual" tech. It focuses on the practices of the religion rather than on a belief system. Prior to beliefs (whether Mysticism, Dualism, Monotheism, Polytheism, and so forth), "practice" techs (whether prayer/meditation or sacred dance or rites/chanting or storytelling/oral tradition) would probably work best. Being non-descript, they could apply to any belief system. Once beliefs enter the picture, then we start to see the development of religious civics (significant attempts to organize and practice the beliefs for the benefit of the community).

For example, the major monotheistic religions of the world refer to human life starting with being created by God (this is shared in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Thus, the "starting tech" would be monotheism. Polytheism would be a corrupting offshoot with atheism developing later (sometime after "Education" tech as people found more articulate ways to rebel against their Creator). Yet, to someone who does not embrace the monotheistic worldview, starting off with "polytheism" might make more sense. But to do so, the game mechanics would have to be "inverted." Hence, for peace in the Civ IV community, rather than espouse one side for the other, it might be best to design the game so that "beliefs" emerge simultaneously. But anyway . . . let me continue with the example of Judaism. According to Judaism, Abraham is refered to as the "father of faith" -- the one who started the Hebrew nation (not the originator of monotheism, but still a significant historical figure). Yet, Judaism doesn't get codified until Moses (several hundred years later). Abraham wasn't a "prophet" nor had a "priesthood" been established yet. He was the leader of a large family (clan), but that's about it. Sociologically, he doesn't even have the trappings of a cult.

So lets take that and look at religious civics:
"Prophets" -- the more I turn this one over in my head, the more dissatisfied with it I become. Prophet seems to be more about a title than an institution. Priesthood might be a better label (yes, just like the tech). A priest/shaman/holy man is a mediary between the people and the supernatural. Sage, perhaps? A sage is just a wise person but not afforded any special status (other than being a good person to turn to for advice).

Divine Cult -- I liked your example of the Caesars. The Pharaohs had the same deal going, too. And this is the point I was trying to make -- religion + government civic = various results depending on power/influence.

Intolerant -- I like the definition; I just think there's got to be a better word for it. Something with a positive spin. :)

But one problem: How is "intolerance" as an attitude different from "intolerance" as a method of organizing religion for the populace? Is this more or less strict than theocracy?

Secular -- ok.

Atheism -- well, I have to disagree a bit here. Atheism CAN be embraced by Marxism (and is), but it isn't limited to Marxism. Atheism can be benign ("head in the sand" approach) or militant (purge ALL religion). In which case, you end up with two group types: atheism (such as Naturalism, Skepticism, Nihilism, Marxism, Leninism, and so on) or anatheism. By definition, atheim means "a" ("no") + "theism" (god) = no god. Anatheism means "ana" ("against") + ("god") = against god (or "intolerant atheism"). If the state is attempting to crush a religion, it would fall under "intolerant" (whatever name it gets called).

Scientific Religion -- science is based on fact and empirical evidence where religion is not? Sorry, but that's not true. Science, like every field of endeavor, has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven, but must be assumed to be true. And if its assumed, its faith. Behind the field of science, there must be a collection of assumptions of how to do science and how science is supposed to work. Those assumptions make up the philosophy of science. For example, there is nothing in science that proves one can trust a person’s mind. If a scientist is observing an experiment, science assumes that a person can (has the ability to) watch and write down accurately what happens. The scientist trusts what he sees, hears, tastes, touches, and smells, but only assumes his senses give him truthful information. Yes, sometimes the senses get fooled, but even so, no one ever just goes around with their eyes closed just because they got fooled a few times. Why? Because most often, they receive accurate data.

Now, let me address the second half -- "religion is not based on historical fact". Christianity stands or falls based on historical fact. Now other religions may have a good teacher or a set of beliefs, that is not the case for Christianity. If the founder of Christianity, Jesus, did not exist, the religion is nothing because its central tenet is based on his identity and work having taken place at a specific place and time in human events. You take Jesus out of Christianity and there's nothing left. In fact, the issue is of such importance that people have dedicated their entire lives to researching the facts (whether in archaeology, manuscript study, and historical research).

So, no, I cannot agree that its all "relative." But I would agree that trying to prove one's civic or religion through the game mechanics of Civ IV is not what we're trying to achieve. :)

Personally, I'd recommend scrapping the "scientific religion" category for something more useful.

Theocracy -- time for the "good," the "bad," and the "ugly." Basically, a theocracy is a form of government where the ruler(s) claim to be ruling on behalf of a set of religious ideas or as direct agents of deity. A theocracy may involve one ruler (Prophet Muhammad, Caesar, Pharaoh, Pope of Vatican City) or a council (Jewish Sanhedrin) to impliment religious ideals. For game mechanics, Theocracy should not be available to a player until that player has chosen some religion. And if atheism were added to the game as a belief system, I suppose "Atheistic Theocracy" would be a society that actively promoted atheism and the ideals/values of the atheistic philosophy. Guess that would make your "scientists" into your "priests". :)

I don't know. The more I go over the game mechanics and compare them to real world definitions and examples, the more its starting to give me a headache. :lol:

Hey there Rone, yep don't be afraid of being a little controversial - debate is good - its part of our idea that the civics should express a tiny nuance of emotional meaning in them as well - only so much that they help flavour a civ narratively if that makes sense.

So you can glance over another civs civics and get an instant impression almost.

Anyway ok to the religious civics.

First of regarding the techs and how religion is represented in them - your quite right it is an awkward system that does presume a form of evolution which is somewhat awkward in its implementation. In a crude kind of way the techs that allow religions to be discovered are matched with historically matched techs (at least from our history.) So that religions start when they might have here, (but its not great.)

However thats just my opinion on the matter since you brought it up, but we're not looking to suggest any changes on the techs - i mean look how many posts and views there are for the civics discussion alone!

Priesthood isn't a bad suggestion but again its about the impression it lends. Priests aren't exceptional, they exist within almost every religion (in some form) and every religious institution, so to start of with them, lends an impression of sophistication that 'prophets' doesnt have. Which is better, as it lends instead a view to the future, a more superstitious impression, which is adequate for the starting 'religious' civic. Sages would do likewise, but really the word is too short to look good in the column haha *ahem*

Intolerant is the 'nasty' religious civic, so its right that it shouldn't have a positive spin (who wants to be the PR guy for the Taliban, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the the most violent of the Puritans etc and so on.

Atheism Yep, Marxism promotes atheism in so much that religion is seen as a means of manipulating the people, but obviously thats just one political view and certainly your right in that it is not the sole reason there are atheists lol. Its an interesting point you raise that Atheism is in effect very much like Intolerance, however, the distinction is that Atheism would have very different consequences to religious intolerance. Despite them both being horrible they don't share much else in common so it makes sense for them to be seperated.

Atheism is also subjective, if matched with democracy, it will simply represent a stringent promotion of its values, as opposed to under a more militant implementation (as a communist state might.) Where as Intolerance is not subjective, its plain mean - but useful in game!

Scientific Religion Well Science does not identify itself as a religion or a religious institution so its not really appropriate as a religious civic. Of course im aware of religious folks percieving the influence of science as pervasive and quantify it as much a religion as any other. Personally I don't see that, anything unproven in science is called a theory, and what quantifies a theory is quite strict (within science) and is not as abstract as we er outside the scientific world consider ourselves.

No scientist worth his salt can claim anything as a fact just because he has 'faith' in it - it doesnt constitute evidence for a theory etc.

I think its true that religion is far more subjective than science because science is not a religion, its governed by facts. I think were religious folks get angry about science is probably because the presumption is that science is always right about its facts or theories - which of course it isnt. But that isnt the same as saying science uses faith on the same manner as a religion!

I'm presuming you are Christian yourself Rone, but whatever religion you, or anyone is - i think its fair to say that we cannot presume that every religion is true, and every religion is based on fact, and that in so much as having a civic (in the future column) that proves one religion over another is flawed at best!

Theocracy
Yep well theocracy's are best created in the mod not through picking a govt civic as 'theocracy' as theocracy is not a theory of governance really, more the impression one has of certain types of governments with strong religious foundations (and usually of authoritarian natures.)

In our mind the religious civics are important in this definition, as the free church, or intolerant represent the religious institutions in the appex of their power really.

Hey Lawrie, lots of good stuff there in your post. I like your sense of humor. Got a few good laughs reading through that post. :lol:

I quite agree that our goal should be to impliment a system that mimics how our history unfolded (so that the emergance of the religions occurs in rough approximation to how history unfolded). That's why I suggested putting both monotheism and polytheism side by side, yet do not "spawn" a religion. It allows the pathways to the founding of a religion to exist without dictating that one set of beliefs necessarily follows after another (bypassing the religious "evolution" idea).

I can see your point about priests and prophets. I guess I was thinking more in terms of anthropological discoveries made of tribal groups. Finding a "holy man" was common, but not necessarily an organized religion (as priest might carry in the more contemporary use of the term).

Well, the more we're discussing religious civics for the game, the more it seems like this category is somewhat jumbled. I mean, a civic is a way of doing things (a way of organizing and managing for the benefit of one's community, nation, empire). So the religious civics ought to be ways in which religion is managed, right?

Let me go back to the example of Judaism (I'm hoping this is a familiar subject so that a great deal of explanation isn't required . . . my fingers get tired of typing :p). If one starts with Abram (Abraham), then you have the basis of monotheism in place. Hundreds of years later, Moses comes on the scene bringing Law (which in game terms could mean a religious civic is introduced through discovering Code of Laws tech). And if I remember right, I think that's how RoM 2 has it -- Judaism being "discovered" through Code of Laws rather than Monotheism. Monotheism describes a belief system whereas Code of Laws tech describe how that belief system is implimented.

In the same sense, I think we should do the same thing with our religious civics. Our religious civics should not describe belief systems, but rather how those belief systems are managed, organized, and allowed to function.

So how would that work? Well, things like "atheism" would not appear in our religious civics, but rather how "atheism" (if that's the nation's 'religion'/worldview) gets put into practice. For example, Communist USSR (pre-fall) would have had a state "church" of atheism - intolerant of other religious beliefs. Its "religion" would be atheism, but how atheism functioned was intolerant and state-wide. So, the civic ought to be different from the belief system.

Intolerant -- nasty religious civic (:lol:). Well, think of it from their point of view. Its 'nasty' only if you don't share that belief. I mean, in all the Taliban interviews, I've never once heard one say they were 'intolerant' but rather speak with passion about protecting their citizens from ... (insert random evil influence). So if YOU were to pick "intolerance" for YOUR civ, I don't think YOU would describe yourself as 'intolerant.' That's why I was thinking of it needing a name change -- even if the definition stayed the same. And yes, I agree it needs to be in the game, too. :D

Atheism -- well, atheism CAN be intolerant, but doesn't have to be. Again, I think this is an area where we're crossing belief system and civic.

- - - - -
When vanilla Civ IV was shipped, it came with five basic religious "civics." But look at the definitions:
Paganism -- "... religions that believe ..." <-- belief system
Organized Religion -- "... a central authority which determines theology ..." <-- civic
Theocracy -- "... form of government ..." <-- civic (political?)
Pacifism -- "... the religious belief ..." <-- belief system
Free Religion -- "... a society in which on single religion is dominant ..." <-- civic

I just think it would be better to focus on the ways in which religions are expressed and function, rather than include belief systems among religious civics. However, I'm also in favor of adding more "belief systems" to the game for crossover (and hopefully a more realisitc way to mimic how our history played out).

Paganism --> Prophets/Holy Men
Divine Cult
Organized Religion (split Organized Religion into ...)
Independent Church?
State Church?
Theocracy
Intolerant/Puritanical
Pacifism --> ?
Free Religion --> Secular

Futuristic Religious Civic:
CyberChurch -- physical attendance no longer required for participation in religious rituals or activities (civic is handled through electronics); perhaps requires Network tech.

So, what do you think?

Hey there Rone - its great you put detailed posts up like me muhaha! This kind of discourse is important for the civics.

- So excuse me if this post is a little brief (it shouldn't be but im having to rush out to get some munchies!)

Yep the civics are tied to this loose idea I descrbed originally, which is for a more macabre and cynical perspective of politics and ideas (under a banner name of machiavelli macabre - a mod id love to make but unfortunately lack the skill to do!) Now RoM is not like that of course, but the civics are tied more towards a 'political' perspective - (as influenced mostly by modern Western Political theory) rather than anything sociological, or anthropoligical! So thats the perspective!

So the religious civics describe the way religion is 'managed' - indeed that is the objective - though some choices refer to a church that is independent and outwith 'government' control.

The examples of those would be the 'free church' (think of the UK Church, pre-Henry VIII). Intolerant is actually a bit more abstract (in fact all the civics are abstract and subjective depending on other civic choices - which will be dealt with in the descriptions for them.) Intolerant represents a scary powerful church, it could be free or state owned, it is a type of aggressive policy. It is not describing a theory of religious thought!!

As an example, it would reflect those governments and powerful religious institutions that have worked hand in hand to destroy swathes of society, classes, opposing groups etc.

So in that sense the religious civics describe the church/institutions as more, political man-made institutions (and their politics, effects in society) rather than as modes of belief, and spiritual ideology. The Free Church is the closest to allowing a church to represent the beliefs I'd imagine of that said religion, and its benefits are there for the player but with serious drawbacks. For as we know, politically a powerful church can outlast any secular prince.

So regarding Intolerant, its describing a choice - of aggressive, xenophobic, religious hatred etc as a purposeful decision. Its not saying that civs believers, or genuine religious figures are evil gits - but that those in control... are working together to enact nasty things.

Atheism
I think Atheism again as a choice is a great choice for players seeking to promote foremost a non-religious point of view. Its a great choice that was once policy for some states, but whether it is intolerant will be fairly obvious based on the players govt choices.

Safe to say Atheism under Fascism will be - state policy from schools up, where god is a myth and churches are boarded up! Under democracy it would simply be promoted - from schools to the media (Richard Dawkins 24hours a day!)

Atheism thus referred to here, is as a matter of policy, not as a belief system.

Conclusion

So in all we're not attempting to express the manner of belief, but the political institutions created to harness the power of belief (for so often, the dread purpose of manipulation, violence, control.) -

However, for the religious idealist the options are there to not be an evil git!

- The future civic for religion - thats good actually! We can work that out a bit more likes but i think thats a good idea.

Hey Lawrie, lots of good stuff there in your post. I like your sense of humor. Got a few good laughs reading through that post. :lol:

I quite agree that our goal should be to impliment a system that mimics how our history unfolded (so that the emergance of the religions occurs in rough approximation to how history unfolded). That's why I suggested putting both monotheism and polytheism side by side, yet do not "spawn" a religion. It allows the pathways to the founding of a religion to exist without dictating that one set of beliefs necessarily follows after another (bypassing the religious "evolution" idea).

I can see your point about priests and prophets. I guess I was thinking more in terms of anthropological discoveries made of tribal groups. Finding a "holy man" was common, but not necessarily an organized religion (as priest might carry in the more contemporary use of the term).

Well, the more we're discussing religious civics for the game, the more it seems like this category is somewhat jumbled. I mean, a civic is a way of doing things (a way of organizing and managing for the benefit of one's community, nation, empire). So the religious civics ought to be ways in which religion is managed, right?

Let me go back to the example of Judaism (I'm hoping this is a familiar subject so that a great deal of explanation isn't required . . . my fingers get tired of typing :p). If one starts with Abram (Abraham), then you have the basis of monotheism in place. Hundreds of years later, Moses comes on the scene bringing Law (which in game terms could mean a religious civic is introduced through discovering Code of Laws tech). And if I remember right, I think that's how RoM 2 has it -- Judaism being "discovered" through Code of Laws rather than Monotheism. Monotheism describes a belief system whereas Code of Laws tech describe how that belief system is implimented.

In the same sense, I think we should do the same thing with our religious civics. Our religious civics should not describe belief systems, but rather how those belief systems are managed, organized, and allowed to function.

So how would that work? Well, things like "atheism" would not appear in our religious civics, but rather how "atheism" (if that's the nation's 'religion'/worldview) gets put into practice. For example, Communist USSR (pre-fall) would have had a state "church" of atheism - intolerant of other religious beliefs. Its "religion" would be atheism, but how atheism functioned was intolerant and state-wide. So, the civic ought to be different from the belief system.

Intolerant -- nasty religious civic (:lol:). Well, think of it from their point of view. Its 'nasty' only if you don't share that belief. I mean, in all the Taliban interviews, I've never once heard one say they were 'intolerant' but rather speak with passion about protecting their citizens from ... (insert random evil influence). So if YOU were to pick "intolerance" for YOUR civ, I don't think YOU would describe yourself as 'intolerant.' That's why I was thinking of it needing a name change -- even if the definition stayed the same. And yes, I agree it needs to be in the game, too. :D

Atheism -- well, atheism CAN be intolerant, but doesn't have to be. Again, I think this is an area where we're crossing belief system and civic.

- - - - -
When vanilla Civ IV was shipped, it came with five basic religious "civics." But look at the definitions:
Paganism -- "... religions that believe ..." <-- belief system
Organized Religion -- "... a central authority which determines theology ..." <-- civic
Theocracy -- "... form of government ..." <-- civic (political?)
Pacifism -- "... the religious belief ..." <-- belief system
Free Religion -- "... a society in which on single religion is dominant ..." <-- civic

I just think it would be better to focus on the ways in which religions are expressed and function, rather than include belief systems among religious civics. However, I'm also in favor of adding more "belief systems" to the game for crossover (and hopefully a more realisitc way to mimic how our history played out).

Paganism --> Prophets/Holy Men
Divine Cult
Organized Religion (split Organized Religion into ...)
Independent Church?
State Church?
Theocracy
Intolerant/Puritanical
Pacifism --> ?
Free Religion --> Secular

Futuristic Religious Civic:
CyberChurch -- physical attendance no longer required for participation in religious rituals or activities (civic is handled through electronics); perhaps requires Network tech.

So, what do you think?

Hey Rone. This is a very good critique of the religion civics we came up with.

Paganism - The problem with paganism is that paganism itself is just a grouping of similar but different religions based upon mysticism rather than deities, and the Christians saw any polytheistic religion as pagan as well. Paganism would not apply as a civic to any of the in-game religions except perhaps Buddhism and Taoism as the rest are not exactly pagan religions. Prophets is not a very good word to use, but it explains what exactly the civic means better than Paganism, which is a bonanza of unorganized religions with different people following different prophets. Perhaps Prophetism would work instead to make it sound better. Prophetism would make no state religion possible, but missionaries can travel through rival territory without open borders and can attempt to spread the religion.

Divine Cult - This would be another civic that lacks state religion, since the religion is direct worship of the rulers. Egypt and Rome are the best examples, as is modern North Korea. I think this is a far better replacement for a Sacrifice Cult, since only the Mesoamerican civilizations had them as their religion for an extended period of time, while Divine Cults are common in history.

Independent Church - This actually would be a better name for Free Church. Free Church could be mistaken for Free Religion, when in fact it means a church with political dominance over the state but independent from the state, such as the Medieval Roman Catholic church.

Intolerant - Intolerant is not the best term, but is the best of all the terms I can think of (Holy War, Militant Religion, ETC.). The basic idea behind Intolerance is militaristic or domestically aggressive religion. Examples are the Crusades, Jihad, Zoroastrian-justified wars from Persia, the Inquisition, the Puritans, ETC. The effect would be unhappiness from other religions without a Courthouse (hang the infidels!). But some great military benefits, particularly the free Fanatic promotion and making Crusader units in the Middle Ages.

Pacifism - I guess Pacifism would be a good thing to keep in to contrast with Intolerant as State Church contrasts with Independent Church (state dominance over church vs. church dominance over state), but Pacifism seems like more of a philosophical or political idea than a religious one. Perhaps Humanism, which could come not from the Humanism tech?

Theocracy - Independent Church and Intolerant both represent forms of theocracy. Independent Church shows religious dominance over the state itself, which in itself could be considered a "peaceful" theocracy. Intolerant could be an Independent or State Church, but nevertheless would show the religious sect in power as being aggressive and willing to engage in Holy War, and the sect having the power to influence the people or state to comply. Therefore, Intolerant can be seen as an "aggressive" theocracy.

Secularism - Secular means a separation of church and state, meaning people are able to worship however they please (free religion). It differs from Independent Church in that since there is no state religion, the church lacks political power.

Atheism - Atheism can be both a belief system and it can be a civic. However, since belief systems are represented through the different religions in the game, the Atheism civic describes the civic, being the state religion officially being atheism. The effects would be increased research but unhappiness from all religions.

Cyberchurch - The thing is that Cyberchurch does not really describe a whole new idea. Scientific Religion is of course a controversial idea and, if implemented, would make many turn their heads. Scientific Religion just means that some scientists claim to find scientific proof to validate their own religion and not the others. The reaction would be like the religious response to Darwin's theory of evolution, but worse. Cyberchurch just describes any of the above ideas using electronics, which is not a fundamentally new idea.

Hey Heb!

Yep good points you make too Heb, also clarifying some of my mystifying statements as well!

Yep I agree with all your points also, the only problem with Independent Church is fitting it in the column list (name wise) Free Church isn't perfect, we can keep exploring names for that I think.

I think we should definately have a future civic primed for religious civics, i think the proof of any religious god is a bit impossible to implement anyway (several players could 'prove' their gods, we'd have a whole pantheon!

I think Heb is on the right track though, ie. something thats a (i hate to use this quote lol) 'game changer' *ahem* for religions.

Just like we have the idea of transnational being revolutionary in that its hard to imagine living outwith the concepts of the 'nation state', likewise 'Digital Economy' (we've still to develop a final outline of exactly what that will be but Heb and his sub atomic theory is on the case!)

I was just thinking again on that Heb, and the point you made about the duplication of matter - that is perhaps just what we need to revolutionise the theory of economics. Since value based economies are based on the value of materials (er, and in the charming world of capitalism their hopeful value!) So in a situation where the duplication of matter (perhaps with some tech) and not perhaps specifically duplication of matter etc, but something like that - can actually make it possible for a new enlightened principle of economics (to work in cohesion with another players choice from the economic column.)

Ok that was probably meaningless but er hopefully some gist came through there!

Future Religious Civic

At the moment we have proof of god - as a suggestion, we should get more! I think while that one is awkward it can be tweaked. If for example, it represented more, a partial proof, something that instilled in believers supreme comfidence, - giving a boost to their religious stats and so on, (rather than 100% proof.) It could also represent as a matter of policy, a search for the proof of god etc. something like that ?

Lawrie and Big Heb, nice discussion! :D

In reflecting on what we're looking at, I was trying to focus on what one aspect unifies all these ideas. And then, I got the idea of "attitude." How a nation's attitude was reflected in its religion whether tolerant or intolerant, grass-roots or organized, cultural or research based . . . it seems to be "attitude."

So, how would our ideas be reflected if we changed the civics to focus on attitudes of the national religion? Here's a new outline:

Folk -- starting civic. Tends to be animistic, nature-oriented, oral tradition (storytelling). Fairly simple. No upkeep.
Mystic/Reform -- Tends to enhance personal renewal, increases personal happiness. (Happiness bonuses to population) Low upkeep.
Orthodox -- Tends to enhance tradition. Discovered with Code of Laws (similar to Organized Religion). Low upkeep (maybe medium)
Structured -- Tends to utilize pomp and ceremony. Lavish construction of religious buildings (perhaps -25% cost of building temples and monastary). Medium upkeep.
Evangelical -- Tends to be missionary-focused (spread religion/growth). Missionary units are cheaper to build.
Ecumenical -- Tends to be social reform focused. (Health bonuses to population). Perhaps Health increasing buildings can be built at discount (like aqueduct or healer's hut or doctor's offices).
Philosophical -- Tends to focus on education. Discovered with education (Reseach bonuses to population).
Dogmatic -- Tends to focus on intolerance of other religions. Inquisitor units are cheaper to build. High upkeep.
Syncretistic -- Tends to focus on tolerance of other religions. Discovered with Liberalism. Happiness bonuses per non-state religion.

Anyway, these civics do not reflect any one particular religion and should be compatible with all religions regardless of the nation. Since they focus on attitude, they are interchangable. :)

Oh, and the notes beside the names are just rough descriptors. Of course, the specifics haven't been worked out yet. That's just to "get the ball rolling" so to speak. ;)

Lawrie and Big Heb, nice discussion! :D

In reflecting on what we're looking at, I was trying to focus on what one aspect unifies all these ideas. And then, I got the idea of "attitude." How a nation's attitude was reflected in its religion whether tolerant or intolerant, grass-roots or organized, cultural or research based . . . it seems to be "attitude."

So, how would our ideas be reflected if we changed the civics to focus on attitudes of the national religion? Here's a new outline:

Folk -- starting civic. Tends to be animistic, nature-oriented, oral tradition (storytelling). Fairly simple. No upkeep.
Mystic/Reform -- Tends to enhance personal renewal, increases personal happiness. (Happiness bonuses to population) Low upkeep.
Orthodox -- Tends to enhance tradition. Discovered with Code of Laws (similar to Organized Religion). Low upkeep (maybe medium)
Structured -- Tends to utilize pomp and ceremony. Lavish construction of religious buildings (perhaps -25% cost of building temples and monastary). Medium upkeep.
Evangelical -- Tends to be missionary-focused (spread religion/growth). Missionary units are cheaper to build.
Ecumenical -- Tends to be social reform focused. (Health bonuses to population). Perhaps Health increasing buildings can be built at discount (like aqueduct or healer's hut or doctor's offices).
Philosophical -- Tends to focus on education. Discovered with education (Reseach bonuses to population).
Dogmatic -- Tends to focus on intolerance of other religions. Inquisitor units are cheaper to build. High upkeep.
Syncretistic -- Tends to focus on tolerance of other religions. Discovered with Liberalism. Happiness bonuses per non-state religion.

Anyway, these civics do not reflect any one particular religion and should be compatible with all religions regardless of the nation. Since they focus on attitude, they are interchangable. :)

Oh, and the notes beside the names are just rough descriptors. Of course, the specifics haven't been worked out yet. That's just to "get the ball rolling" so to speak. ;)
Hey Rone,

Very interesting. I actually like this list a lot. But I would make Dogmatic more of a military civic like how Philosophical is a research civic. I like my idea behind Intolerant being a free Fanatic promotion for all military units and building Crusaders without the Crusades wonder. I've never used Inquisitors.

I'll await for Lawrie's judgment before making final opinions.

Hey! Now theres some very good points in there but thats quite a radical alternative to the definition of politics/church type idea we have going.

I think these would work better within a more anthropological/philosophical set of civics overall, because they are accurate and academic even, but they don't work within the context of the current civics, (which are more or less, secular 20th century political definitions.)

If we were talking 'theology' then they would be the perfect column, but the civics we have here, are 'political and social' on their basis. So a player can scan the choices and get a sense of political and social ramification for the type of church they promote in the civ (or choose.) Rather than them picking a belief system/definition for their existing church. It is spiritually precise but politically abstract! ;)

So for example, with Henry VIII

The 'Free Church' represents presently a church of dominant importance, its bonuses may help maintain stability among the people but at great cost to the secular rulers who were quite antsy about their limited authority (over church law) their having less pennies than the church and so on.

In this case, a 'State Church' emerged from the semi-reformation that took place which filled the states coffers with church gold, established secular law as supreme (or royal law and so on.) The move prompted widespread rebellion and nearly unseated Henry VIII I should add.

If it were a choice between the current religious civics (to define those momentous political/civil war shaping events) what would they be? As spiritualism is quite subjective isn't it, which those choices are too!

So I think the work behind the list is great, and its an amazing list but just not suited to the type of civics we have established thus far. They are spiritually and theologically 'definitive' but are too politically and socially abstract to work with the other columns.

Hey! Now theres some very good points in there but thats quite a radical alternative to the definition of politics/church type idea we have going.

I think these would work better within a more anthropological/philosophical set of civics overall, because they are accurate and academic even, but they don't work within the context of the current civics, (which are more or less, secular 20th century political definitions.)

If we were talking 'theology' then they would be the perfect column, but the civics we have here, are 'political and social' on their basis. So a player can scan the choices and get a sense of political and social ramification for the type of church they promote in the civ (or choose.) Rather than them picking a belief system/definition for their existing church. It is spiritually precise but politically abstract! ;)

So for example, with Henry VIII

The 'Free Church' represents presently a church of dominant importance, its bonuses may help maintain stability among the people but at great cost to the secular rulers who were quite antsy about their limited authority (over church law) their having less pennies than the church and so on.

In this case, a 'State Church' emerged from the semi-reformation that took place which filled the states coffers with church gold, established secular law as supreme (or royal law and so on.) The move prompted widespread rebellion and nearly unseated Henry VIII I should add.

If it were a choice between the current religious civics (to define those momentous political/civil war shaping events) what would they be? As spiritualism is quite subjective isn't it, which those choices are too!

So I think the work behind the list is great, and its an amazing list but just not suited to the type of civics we have established thus far. They are spiritually and theologically 'definitive' but are too politically and socially abstract to work with the other columns.
Good point Lawrie. And none of these theology civics would fit in an Atheist or Secular society.

Don't worry Rone. I had an idea of making a Philosophy column with civics like Individualist, Collectivist, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, ETC. and had to scratch it. They are great ideas and I find the detail impressive and accurate, but doesn't fit into a "civic" system.

It would be perfect if there were two types of "civics" in the game: civics (state-decided) and culture (society-decided). Theology and Philosophy would fall under culture. But unfortunately, it wasn't coded into the game and would probably be hell to code it in.

Yep but again like Heb says, its a great column and the detail is impressive and accurate like Heb says, so please don't let it discourage you from contributing more ideas etc.

I actually think you could be our saving grace for helping with the religious civic descriptions.

Can you think at all Rone of any ideas for a future religious civic that would be compatible even if a player picked atheist from the current column? Thats proving a stumbler!

Hey Big Heb,

That's a good point about Fanatics. We could do one of two things:

Add a Militant Religious Civic or add Fanatics to the Dogmatic Religious Civic. Either works. Keeping them separate might be good if a combination makes the game unbalanced, but as a civic definition, combining them would work, too.


Hey Lawrie,

Have to disagree, my friend. These terms define how religions are governed ("politics") which is exactly what a "civic" is supposed to be. A philosophical set of civics would be comprised of "-isms" (beliefs, worldviews). Are these 20th century secular definitions? That I cannot say. I have not studied the origin nor etymology of these terms.

If we were talking 'theology' then they would be the perfect column, but the civics we have here, are 'political and social' on their basis.
No, if we were talking about 'theology' (theos = god, ology = study of), then we again, would have belief systems.

So a player can scan the choices and get a sense of political and social ramification for the type of church they promote in the civ (or choose.) Well, that's assuming the player has "churches". I agree with the intent, but I'm trying to come up with a system of governing religion that does not require a particular type of religion.

So for example, with Henry VIII

The 'Free Church' represents presently a church of dominant importance, its bonuses may help maintain stability among the people but at great cost to the secular rulers who were quite antsy about their limited authority (over church law) their having less pennies than the church and so on.

In this case, a 'State Church' emerged from the semi-reformation that took place which filled the states coffers with church gold, established secular law as supreme (or royal law and so on.) The move prompted widespread rebellion and nearly unseated Henry VIII I should add.

Very true. But notice that it was a reformation of beliefs that altered how the religion was governed; the structure of priests and bishops remained the same. It was still Structured, just with the King in charge instead of the Pope. Unfortunately, because Civ IV paints with such large brush strokes, I don't think we'll be able to come up with a system that allows us to explore such subtle historical variations. :(

So I think the work behind the list is great, and its an amazing list but just not suited to the type of civics we have established thus far. They are spiritually and theologically 'definitive' but are too politically and socially abstract to work with the other columns.
I thank you for the compliment, but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet. In fact, I believe its the closest we've come (yet) to getting a working set of religious governing civics that doesn't dip into belief systems.

And none of these theology civics would fit in an Atheist or Secular society.
That's a good point, Big Heb. In fact, I deleted "Secular" from the post at the last minute when I was writing up the first draft because I didn't like the definition. But I agree, if there is indeed an Atheist belief system (and I think it should be added to the game), then there needs to be some other way to allow for its expression.

So lets say we have a nation that embraces Atheism as its national philosophy (religion). How is that belief system governed (religious civic)? If Atheism gets "discovered" in the Medieval era, lets look at the civics that begin to emerge from the Medieval period forward.

Structured -- Tends to utilize pomp and ceremony. Lavish construction of religious buildings (perhaps -25% cost of building temples and monastary). Medium upkeep. Obviously Atheists don't have temples or monastaries. Perhaps instead they have Community Centers and Training Facilities. A "worship" service is a self-help seminar.
Evangelical -- Tends to be missionary-focused (spread religion/growth). Missionary units are cheaper to build. Instead of Missionaries, Atheists have motivational speakers to spread atheism.
Ecumenical -- Tends to be social reform focused. (Health bonuses to population). Perhaps Health increasing buildings can be built at discount (like aqueduct or healer's hut or doctor's offices). Again, the atheistic society that is ecumenically focused will have lots of welfare and government aid programs.
Philosophical -- Tends to focus on education. Discovered with education (Reseach bonuses to population). The atheistic society that is philosophically oriented will promote its ideas in the classrooms.
Dogmatic -- Tends to focus on intolerance of other religions. Inquisitor and Fanatic units are cheaper to build. High upkeep. Atheists in medieval era may use "inquisitors" but in the industrial era and beyond, that unit may be upgraded to "lawyer" (like the ACLU but on a larger scale -- out to expunge any competing religious ideas). This one would be good for describing Communist USSR.
Syncretistic -- Tends to focus on tolerance of other religions. Discovered with Liberalism. Happiness bonuses per non-state religion. Atheism in a syncretistic society may not care what anyone thinks; live and let live (your truth and my truth; pacifistic).

Should we add Secular to this list as a religious civic? I'd be for it if can come up with a good defintion that has a good contribution to gameplay.

Future religious civics? Well, the one I came up with about not requiring a physical presence (cyber), seems to fit a current trend that's beginning to occur.

What about extending out an existing religious civic in a more technological direction? For example, the Atheist support of evolution + technology = Borg (the synthesis of organic and inorganic for "perfection"). Biotech revolution.

Or replacing the Pope with A.I. (Artificial Intelligence to offer spiritual guidance - the ultimate Computer)? Log in and commune with G.O.D. ("General Operations Director").

Or the opposite reaction -- true spirituality can only be achieved through the absence of technology (back to nature) - Reformed Druidism (they can pray at bushes, too - not just trees). :D Perhaps the Sierra Club gets organized?

Extropia - citizens develop communes for spiritual exploration through creative expression (anything goes in architechture, social relations, artistic development, technological media, and so forth). High censorship on outside "vulgarity" - so its intolerant, but passive (like a monastic community 'hiding' from the outside world). Like biodome communities.

So, that's my input for now. Hope these ideas help (and even generate more ideas). :)

Ah cool bro your entitled to those ideas and there good ideas, but i think we have to call put and move on though, just to focus on the future civics. There will be folk who would question for reasons too, the other columns but to replace the entire slate, is a bit radical. The argument that the religious civics with their philosophical leanings represent more what a 'civic' is, is true to an extent, but they are a departure from 'again' the politico and somewhat darker representation we have with the other columns, and also are not necessarily compatable with certain choices.

The point about Henry VIII there, (and it was a huge trasformative event in history not subtle) is that it could give players the same political experience reforming the church, with social implications - than the more intellectual / theological civics you propose.

So I know your gonna your gonna body slam me for this hehe but i think we'll just keep the propose religious civics at present, however if you want to look at better names for some, in particular the free church then that would be great. While the ideas you mention won't go to waste, but can be incorporated within the descriptions.

Hey Lawrie,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry if its coming across too much "iron gauntlet" and not enough "velvet glove." I'm not trying to be harsh (and I'm not feeling like that on this end of the keyboard). :blush:

Is it radical? Yes. But for a mod, especially a mod that is intending to go above and beyond what anyone else is doing, I was okay with that. But you're right. Not everyone would feel comfortable with such a huge transition.

Of course, we disagree on whether or not the radical approach would work, but that's good. That's how great ideas are spawned. :D After all, everyone is entitled to be wrong about something, and I guess this is your day (heh, just kidding :lol:). Its good that we can amicably disagree. :p

The point about Henry VIII there, (and it was a huge trasformative event in history not subtle) is that it could give players the same political experience reforming the church, with social implications
Not seeing your point here. I mean, lets look at it in terms of Civ IV. England undergoes a civic change, but the religion (Christianity) remains the same. This Christianity is different from Roman Catholic Spain and different from secular-Christianity in France. The results of the civic change was merely a change of leadership (from Pope to King :king: ) while the remaining structure stayed intact. So, how exactly do you recreate those events through the Civ IV civic structure? I'm not understanding how you are planning on accomplishing this. :confused:

- - - - -
I don't have any problem coming up with alternative names for something like "free church", but my point is that the underlying ideology behind the religious governing descriptions is inconsistent. A civic is about "how" something works. In government, its about "how" the politics work. For the economy, its about "how" supply and demand work. In education, its about "how" education is administered. In healthcare, its about "how" medical treatment is provided. But suddenly when we talk about religion, "civic" goes right out the proverbial window. The religious civics ought to be about "how" the religious beliefs are administered -- not about any particular belief system. (and at present, only some of the suggested terms could be considered a civic).

So, I'm not intending to "body slam" here ;) I just think we can do a better job of actually listing genuine civics for the category of religion instead of some hodge-podge assortment of civics, philosophies, and belief systems.

Hey there I can see the point your making as in 'how something works' and in the case of your religious civic suggestions that is how that 'religion' works.

But that is not the concern for these civics, it is instead how the religion - and church works, with a politico - social and theological abstract combination. Its theological component is a description within a political and social context with heavy emphasis on the religious/church institution chosen and not as you propose which is more an explanation within a theological and spiritual context.

Why this is relevant is because within the Henry VIII example I cite, within your proposed religious civic, there is no change that would (because of the lack of political and social context within them) that really expresses the tumultous changes that such civic changes should bring. But as we know, the reformation, and what happened with Henry VIII had enormous - huge ramifications that require a bigger more abstract system than the one you propose. They extended far beyond the manner in which an individuals spiritualism or religious conscience was concerned, or what spiritual theology a religion embraced. They resulted for financial, political and social reasons also, and that has to be part of the column (as it is all the columns.) We discussed this earlier in the thread, the organic almost overlapping nature of the civics, so that one can draw an overall impression of a civ quite quickly. Each column can't be idiosyncratic, working within its own special context, with little impression on how they all come together as a whole.

So *again* ;) its not a bad column, its great in fact, but its not very compatible with the heavily political/social based columns already organised. Adopting yours would require changing others, and overall changing the onus of the civics into a more abstract intellectual philophical basis. - Ours is focused more on the political/social structures, classes, and institutions. They are the reflected consequences of those ideas based on our history, rather than the hypothesis of those ideas exclusively.

Thanks for the explanation, Lawrie. Now I'm beginning to see why we're having a fundamental disagreement.

But that is not the concern for these civics,
and
its not very compatible with the heavily political/social based columns already organised

I was saying "its heavily political/social based and needs to be fixed" whereas you've been saying "its heavily political/social based and needs to stay the same." (rough paraphrase)

Personally, I would have changed the other categories as well -- education, healthcare, and so on in order to be not so heavily political/social based, but true to their own historical civics. And we haven't even started that discussion yet. :p

Yep well there more or less complete now Rone, we're looking at the odd name improvement, the focus is now on the Future civics really.

Your paraphrasing is roughly correct, but i think you must bare in mind when you say 'true' historical civics - just how relative that is. We are trying to create a set of civics, that are accurate about the ideas and consequences, the institutions and power shifts that occur between choices (as they have transpired from our world history.)

So for example fascism is militaristic but if taken by its 'true' intellectual philosophy is not necessary militaristic. This doesn't really work imo, we have to draw our conclusions about the realistic consequences of these ideas (beyond their purported philosophical meanings) when we give them bonuses/penalties.

And we haven't even started that discussion yet.

We have - about a dozen pages ago! It seems like these are not your cup of tea, but i would say there are already a lot of civic mods that focus on isms, ideas and philosophies. This one is a little darker, with a bit more of cruel reality and grit ;)

Its all very well to discuss the civics and ideas, but another to come in with an entirely different perspective and seek for that to be implemented overall. As it stands they already combine their philosophical truisms, with adament earth based reality...

So Rone ;) it would be more productive to focus your attention on either better names for the pre-existing civics, or ideas for future civics.

And we haven't even started that discussion yet.
You and I. Not in general.

So Rone it would be more productive to focus your attention on either better names for the pre-existing civics, or ideas for future civics.
Or simply change my copy of the mod myself. :D

Well, after going over it again and again and again and again . . .

Its pretty good the way it is. I guess if "rad" is out, then only a few cosmetic changes would be in order.

Paganism+Shamanism = Animism
Sacrifice Cult = Divine Cult
Idolatry (probably just keep it as is)
Organized Religion = Orthodoxy
Pacifism (probably keep it as is or move it to a Military Civic - yes, that's new)
Free Religion = (I'd probably change that to Syncretism, but that's controversial)
Secularism = (probably keep as is/it covers atheism well enough)

and that adds room (from combining Paganism and Shamanism) for Dogmatism (to include a religion that's exclusivistic, militant, and intolerant).

That's eight choices. Given how the other civics line up, I wouldn't be concerned about adding "future" religious civics. But yeah, they would be pretty much set.

But that also leads into a few other civic ideas . . .

Any chance for adding a Military Civic? Maybe something like Militia, Martial Arts (self-defense), Feudal Levy, Nationhood (moved from legal), Standing Army, Doctrine of War, Pacifism (moved from religion).

What about adding Automation to labor civic?
What about adding Hospice Care (pre-hospital) to healthcare civic?
What about adding Technocracy to govenment (future government civic)?
What about adding Tutorage to education (sages; pre-private schools)?

What about adding Medical Profession to healthcare (or would that be considered Regulated healthcare)?

What about adding Legalism (or Jury Trial) to legal civic? (probably after vassalage but before bureaucracy)
- any way to simulate trial by combat or trial by ordeal as legal systems before jury trial? (as a separate legal civic; that may be too much detail, but I'll throw it out there anyway)

What about Outsourcing for labor civic? (or something that describes contracting cheap labor in a foreign country)

What about Parlimentary for government civic?

What about Independent Farming for labor civic (the name is too long; thought about horticulture or broadacre cropping or terracing, but they don't seem to fit either).

Would Socialism be more useful for State Property in economy civic or just keep it as State Property?

Well, anyway, those were some more ideas. Nothing new yet on future religious civics other than what's already mentioned.

Ah you misunderstand, the civics that are pretty much settled now, are posted on Heb's post, 117, (with just the future civic column missing.

So check those baring in mind our objective, and see if you have any better suggestions and you will find checking the whole thread really beneficial - to see how we get to where we are!

I posted this earlier, but it was ignored from the sidetracking. I agree with Rone's idea of Technocracy, which is essentially a more contemporary name for a Noocracy.

Government
Open Source Government (laws edited by anyone, voted by a significant majority)
Direct Democracy

Transnationalist (global government or government that extends beyond your civilization and extends to vassal states and alliance states)
Supranationalist
Confederate
Postnationalist

Power
Noocracy (intellectuals, engineers, scientists, ETC. have political power)
Technocracy

Mobocracy (those who satisfy the needs and wants of the most people possible have political power, or could mean mob rule)
Ochlocracy
Mob Rule

Society
Utilitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
Collectivist

Globalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)

Postmodern/Postmodernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism)

Environmentalist

Scientistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

Economy
Post-Scarcity Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity)
(More general term for my idea of a Digital Economy)

Ecological Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics)
Thermoeconomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics)

Neo-Austrian
(I can hope...)

Religion
Not sure

Welfare
Not sure

Any ideas for Religion and Welfare?

Government
Open Source Government (laws edited by anyone, voted by a significant majority)
Direct Democracy
How about Instant Democracy for civic name instead of Direct Democracy? People could use cellphones or whatever communication devices we have in future to vote on each national issue.


Society
...
Globalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)
...
I'd change Globalist to Glocalist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glocal)

Another possible choice could be related to Multiculturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural) - as people move freely nations' ethnic groups become more mixed and thus people need to understand many different cultures and how societies work differently in other cultures and nation also has to protect more the rights for each individual ethnic group.

Any ideas for Religion and Welfare?Only one that I can think for religion is Neopaganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism). Maybe something from it can be "converted" to suitable future religious civic. I tried to do some research on religions but couldn't find anything that could be used as civic material.

For welfare category - I think the only thing that is missing from the current list is global welfare system which would be run by international agencies (not corporations) and not by your own government. I have no idea for the name for that civic.

One other thing that catched my attention from these modding forum was this picture:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5189/civics10yf1.jpg

This kind of civic screen would allow up to 10 categories... or 5 categories for ancient->modern time civics and 5 extra categories for future time civics which would allow mod to have Wonders that give player access to all ancient-moderntime civic category but not to the future era civics. Only problem would be then that on future era you could have for example have 2 Government civics active (normal + future) so future civic category entries would have to be treated somewhat differently than normal civic choices, maybe future ones could just add 1 or 2 extra modifiers. Anyway it would get really complex to set up all the modifiers... :lol:

I think that page could be tweaked even more to fit 7 categories in one row so there would be total of 14 categories. So just letting you know that we're not tied to the max 7 category civic page anymore so you can go crazy with the civics... ;)

Yeah I like Technocracy as a name, and in the description it could talk about noocracy as well as its philosophical basis. Its quite relative of course and one has to imagine exactly how this fits into the combinations folk might have of government.

However I think it can describe in quite an abstract way various forms of noocratic interpretation (by various ideologies) and how - in the culture of scientific hyper-competition and personal drive, how it reflects something different culturally - not broadly (in social terms necessarily) but at least where in the power lies - that these are people most knowledgeable, but not necessarily most enlightened (if a player for eg. had a fascist government.)

So, we have 7

Starting tech something abstract like,

Inspiration Any idea what the starting future tech can be, something that can effectively sit comfortably dormant.

Post National(End of the romantic period concept of the nation state)

Digital Economy (is this not in effect heterdox economics Heb? based on the subatomic stuff you mentioned?)

Technocracy (basically an inner noocracy relative to player civ type)

Environmentalism (how could we forget this)

Globalisation - rather than glocalism we always had in mind the more 'cultural' aspect of gloabalim - relative to a players type of civ Zapp - see what you reckon?

Superhuman - (either a heavy dose of genetic nietzsche for nasty civs or the drive to 'perfect' the human race in more positive terms.)

Zapp
Hiya mate, well we've come up with new terms (for our suggestions to you) already for direct democracy, you can see the current list on post #114
on the thread. The future civic column we have to suggest, allows a player to choose one future civic or the other, but there not on the ends of other civics.

So they have to be pretty big and relative ideas, thats why say Instant Democracy, would not really be compatable as a player could be a fascist dicatotorship, or an authoratarian despotism etc.

I think neo-paganism as a bit of a hippy myself at times hehe ;) is a funny one in a way, as picking it as a civic basically indicates a wholesale return to those kinds of pagan beliefs (or secularised new age beliefs) which represent a minor social dynamic really - maybe not so appropriate as an entire civic etc? The international agency idea for welfare is good though, we'll discuss that and develop a civic or perhaps integrate that into one of the bonuses that a player gets for the Post National future civic. As that is all about the assertive influences of international organisations (not business corporations necessarily, but for eg, UN, or EU and NAFTA and so on and so on.)

I'll bare in mind the extra civic choices, we'll try and get these ones tied down first as this represents an easier application of these ideas first maybe for your mod - before moving on to using any of the cool potential of other bigger civic choice structures.

I think with the example you post there, you could definatly create a seperation, between Civic Ideology and matters of specific competitive policy perhaps. But as we know the essence of design is perfected less!

Thanks for the referent to post 117. I couldn't find it before. :lol:

Ideas:
Society
Manifest Destiny -- Society values their country as having a special purpose or future in the world.
(I like multicultural and utilitarian here, too)

Economy
Altruistic – Economy using favors and goodwill as a base for production, resource gathering, etc. No currency. (like Gene Roddenberry's ideal cashless society)

Religion
Instead of "Atheist - Government decision or cultural consensus makes the state religion "atheist""
what about . . . .
Irreligious -- Government decision or cultural consensus denies any state religion.

Xenologic -- religion is run by a church that is tolerant of other sentient lifeforms.

The idea of this civic comes from a discussion currently under debate among a few Roman Catholics. I came across this article and took out a portion so you can see it for yourselves.

According to Father Fernando, a tentacled alien could not be permitted to the episcopacy because, lacking hands, he would be unable to perform sacraments that require the laying on of hands. I will now attempt to counter Father Fernando and in the process show just how theologically ignorant I really am.

Let us begin with the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident. I will claim that it is the substance of the hand that it is a manipulative appendage. The accidents of the hand are that it is a modified forelimb of a quadruped and that it has five fingers. If a man were to lose a finger, his hand would not cease to be a hand. In other words, it would remain the same in substance even though the accidents have altered.

Now, if an alien had a set of tentacles that it could use in much the same manner that a human uses a hand, the alien would have a manipulative appendage that could be considered the same in substance as a hand, even though the accidents are different. Therefore, the alien could be considered to have hands, could be permitted to the episcopacy, and could validly ordain or confirm by the laying on of tentacles.

Furthermore, the aliens simply must be permitted full rights within the Church. It would be impious to think that God had created a sentient species with free will and immortal souls, but no means by which to fully receive and confer all the sacraments God has created for their salvation.

Not sure if this civic would really warrant inclusion, but perhaps its food for thought about futuristic religious civics. ;)

- - - - -
So what happens to Healthcare? Labor? Education? If Zappara can have spae for 10 civics, will those be coming back? (that would be nine civics). Would Military be a feasible tenth civic category?

I take it that with the interest in future civics, there will be advanced tech to come. And given the comments, perhaps a discussion of Superhuman or Eugenics is in order. I bring this point up because undoubtably it will raise questions in a society. For example, do clones have equal rights as naturals? Can something grown in a lab be considered "alive" or "sentient" or "have a soul"? Can a society simply "harvest" clones for needed replacement parts for naturals? I raise these questions for one purpose: Should a separate civic be considered for Citizen Rights? Well, I guess that falls under the Legal category. I'm not sure. Just thinking out loud. I guess the same questions would fall towards robots/androids as well. Do robots have equal rights as humans? Can something built in a factory be considered "alive" or "sentient" or "have a soul"? Can a society simply "deactivate" robots for upgrades or even just scrapped for a newer model? Can a robot commit a crime or would it simply be classified as an "industrial accident"?

Of course, these issues stem all the way back. Do women have equal rights as men (patriarch society)? Do men have equal rights as women (matriarch society)? Do children have rights? (development of child labor laws). Do animals have rights? (development of humane treatment of animals). And so on . . . .

So, there's a few more ideas on the table. :)

Hey Zapp. That is definitely an interesting template to use for civics. It could definitely spark some new debate for some extra civic categories. But I will touch upon that after the future civics are out of the way.

Here is an organized list of all of the future civic ideas thus far, with some other ideas I have.

Future Government
Instant Democracy - A simpler name for Open-Source Government, and follows the same basic idea of direct democracy on a large scale made possible via wireless communication. Example would be a wikipedia-style bill-writing system.

Post-Nationalist - Changed it to the -ist suffix since all other gov civics are. Basically would build upon the Apostolic Palace and UN wonder ideas, but would contained within permanent alliances and vassals. Examples would be the League of Nations, EU, NAFTA, NATO, UN, ETC.

Future Power
Technocracy - A more contemporary name for a Noocracy. Basically the scientists, engineers and other intellectuals have political power. We are probably firm on this one since it doesn't seem to be disputed.

Future Society (lots of ideas)
Globalist - People put behind racial and national differences and unite together as one human race.

Environmentalist - It is certainly not an economy, but it has its place since it is one of the only late-game health boosters.

Manifest Destiny - It is a good name, but is essentially the same as Nationalist.

Utilitarian - Mass collectivism.

Neoeugenicist/Master Race - Combines Rone's eugenics idea with Lawrie's superhuman idea. It is basically a future idea of Nazism with the government trying to create a superhuman "master race" through the use of new genetic technology.

Future Economy
Digital Economy - Research in nanotechnology and computers results in the speculative discovery of a method of converting atoms to bits, allowing for the infinite copying of capital, thus putting the civilization into a post-scarcity economy.

Post-Capital Scarcity - Same as above, but leaves the method of reaching post-scarcity of capital up to the player's imagination.

Altruistic - The problem is that all economies except Planned are based on the principle of greed resulting in competition. The only way you could maintain an altruistic economy would be if all people abide by it or if you forced everyone to abide by it, which would make it a Planned economy.

Ecological - An economy that transfers from the orthodox monetary economy idea to a heterodox "natural capital" idea, which would essentially become a highly advanced barter economy that runs on the same ideas that run natural ecosystems. The idea itself is a future technology in the game, so it could be viable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics

Religion
Neopaganism - Basically a reversion back to primitive religion. However, that would probably be properly done through being in the future era and just switching back to Prophets.

Irreligious - Government decision or cultural consensus denies any state religion.

Xenologic - Religion is run by a church that is tolerant of other sentient lifeforms.

Welfare
International - Welfare is distributed via international organizations.

This is essentially the list. These are the civics I personally would prefer.

Post-Nationalist
Technocracy
Neoeugenicist
Digital Economy/Post-Capital Scarcity
Irreligious
International


Back to the topic of this new civic format. Since there are 5 on top and 5 on bottom, perhaps we can divide the civic categories into "State" civics (civics in its own definition) and into "Cultural" "civics". Or we could just make some more categories and scratch this idea. We should all discuss it once the Future civics thus far are finalized.

So what happens to Healthcare? Labor? Education? If Zappara can have spae for 10 civics, will those be coming back? (that would be nine civics). Would Military be a feasible tenth civic category?For the moment I'm staying with the idea of max 7 civic categories as it would require lot more planning with 10 or more categories.

I take it that with the interest in future civics, there will be advanced tech to come. And given the comments, perhaps a discussion of Superhuman or Eugenics is in order.Well, at the moment RoM has tech Homo Superior which could be taken as Superhuman... If you can, try to fit the new civics to techs that exist in RoM now. Even though it's not too difficult to add more new techs to future era I'm trying to avoid editing the tech tree too much at this point.


I bring this point up because undoubtably it will raise questions in a society. For example, do clones have equal rights as naturals? Can something grown in a lab be considered "alive" or "sentient" or "have a soul"? Can a society simply "harvest" clones for needed replacement parts for naturals? I raise these questions for one purpose: Should a separate civic be considered for Citizen Rights? Well, I guess that falls under the Legal category. I'm not sure. Just thinking out loud. I guess the same questions would fall towards robots/androids as well. Do robots have equal rights as humans? Can something built in a factory be considered "alive" or "sentient" or "have a soul"? Can a society simply "deactivate" robots for upgrades or even just scrapped for a newer model? Can a robot commit a crime or would it simply be classified as an "industrial accident"?Clones - if you look science fiction literature, in most cases authors have written that mankind acknowledges clones and androids as alive and sentient eventually, it might not happen on 21st century but on 25th century or 30th century or later, but I doubt most religions will never accept the thought that robot could have a soul - who knows what happens when our AI projects reach that far.

Anyway, for the mod, I'd go with the idea that eventually AIs are given the same rights as humans. Robin Williams' movie Bicentennial Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182789/) is a good example how mankind might handle the situation.

Then there's the question that do we want to make all robots/androids as clever as humans. What if we purposely keep worker robots "stupid" and only the most sophisticated robots will get to ask the questions "who am I", "Why do I exist?" etc. What if people start to transfer their minds to android shells and become cyborgs who can live forever (religions might have something to say about this)? What if one civ decides that they become "The Borg" when their people turn into cyborgs? Do we install Asimov's laws to robots brains so they'll never harm people (though one of the rules kind of allows it anyway)? What if robots rebel and enslave mankind (Matrix)? I could think of few events from this one.

Then let's think about future environment on our planet - clearly it's now proven that we are causing global warming. How we'll fix it in future and can this be turned into a civic? Terraforming Earth back to pre-industrial state? What happens if we try to control the atmosphere (RoM has Weather Control tech)? And let's not forget space - as it's another frontier where humanity tries to find ways. If we build colonies to other planets and moons, does Earth still rule them? Do we move our industry to space to preserve Earth's environment? How commercially our corporations will conquer the solar system? and so on... I could continue this whole evening but since I got few series to watch, I'll stop here now ;) Do I have civic choice options to suggest for Future civic category - well, not at the moment but maybe you can work out something from all this :lol:

So they have to be pretty big and relative ideas, thats why say Instant Democracy, would not really be compatable as a player could be a fascist dicatotorship, or an authoratarian despotism etc. I guess my morning coffee wasn't in circulation by the time I wrote that post as I was thinking future era civics to other categories and not to the future category. :lol: Anyway.. since Instant Democracy is obviously bad name for that civic, how about Instant Ruling? Then it could fit to all kinds of governments. Say democratic government could use instant voting system while fascists could use the same system to pass new laws/rules to their citizens via instant messaging.

I think the instant democracy or ruling etc, really refers to a more sophisticated form of bureacratic organisation (ie through technology) that isnt really that revolutionary just a case of greater efficiency. In a way we want the future civics to help (as you pick just one for your civ - to really help add a definition to it for the future age.

Okay lets get confirming this list a bit then and lets keep the names efficiently short or the columns will look crazy haha.

Post-National / ist
Digital Economy - (this is a discussion in itself!)
Homo Superior - (that or Superman, i don't think its necessarily fascist Heb, but its not specific, as you can imagine like all the abstract elements of these techs, it has to fit with players choices, a nice civs version of homo superior will be different to the fascists)
Technocracy (This has to be more about the noocratic theory, and not jus a research bonus, but i think represent the most futuristic ideological slant of players ideological choices.) All this can be achieved with clever bonuses, and very good descriptions relative to ideological selection.
Globalism I think the idea of cultural imperialism, and the future cross national domination of culture (as opposed to the secular nation state with post national) is a vital distinction - especially for cultural powers. Almost a combined economic/cultural civic.
Xenologic Oooh now this is interesting, in a way though, this would be good if it represented the ability of one religion to harmonise its message with sentient lifes, transcending other religions in their ability to embrace futuristic concepts? A choice for the religious civ?

Comments

International this is a cute idea but not very pratical, while we can imagine cross border welfare as attributed to the power and policies of organisations such as the UN (human rights) - or the EU (workers rights) and so on, this is not something in itself futuristic. Again we don't want our civics to describe a state of circumstance that could otherwise be reasonably created within the other civic choices a player makes. If anything is is just one element of the Post Nationalist choice.

Clones - I think the homo - superior should definatley talk about clones and add that element within the drive of human perfection - i mean nothing too silly, but plausible and realistic hyper genetics research relative of course to player civ choices.

Irreligious is simply secular and is already established and is not very futuristic is it. If we don't have a particular civic for environmentalism, then that can become a part of digital economy.

We must bare in mind that the future civics as a singular choice has to match a fair combination of other civic choices. - More advanced versions of a previous idea is not a new civic, just one more efficiently 'realised'.

I definately think we should stick with the current civic column structure, and get that one balanced and sorted first - thus ensuring a very comfortable application for the ROM - and naturally this has to be compatable also with the existing tech tree for that mod.

So then, what about the above list ive outlined, taking one of Rones, Hebs, a bit of Zaps and so on.

If we can confirm that we can move on to discussing what the future civics are - description wise (a fun discussion i look forward too!)

wow, nice discussion going on here. I've been lurking a bit just looking for discussions on improving the religious part of the the game (with interest in the WoC project). I really like the ideas going here. one comment i'd like to make. I saw one mod already use atheism as a religious civic and it just doesn't fit. Rone, I like your idea of irreligious instead. that terms seems to fit better. I know I haven't been part of the discussion, but the ideas here are getting me interested in trying out this mod. if you do change it, I'm sharing my point of view for whatever that's worth. Lawrie and Big Heb, those were really good points on political and economic civics. Zapp, you have your work cut out for you with tons of good ideas. i look forward trying your mod.

Hi there Taminent welcome to the discussion - i definately suggest if you have not already - that its worth reading the previous pages too :)

You will have to explain why you think atheism doesn't fit ;) as the reasons for its placement here are fairly well explained. Irreligious IS NOT am ideological choice, but a circumstance.

If someone is irreligious, or a people are, then they are as a matter of their opinion or attitude towards religion. The civic list isn't there to describe circumstantial consequences within a players civ. In actual fact no one civic can hope to infer a circumstance within a players civ. Players can only presume this through the combinations of civics they choose (what they hint) and what the player themselves imagine the civics to represent. That is why its pointless to choose and think of civics that are both specific and circumstantial. Irreligious people will exist within any civ, regardless of the religious civic chosen, while Atheism is a direct contradiction to any religion or religious institution. So its relevance as a contrasting choice - supported by the political/religious experimentations of communists, and certain fascists, socialists and corporatists gives credence to its legitimacy as a choice. While it, like every civic choice, will not automatically presume that suddenly every person in a players civ is now an atheist lol (again this is why its silly to think circumstantially about these civics.) Instead it is the prevailing ideology that the players government would support. (So for example it is our imagination, that lends the impression that a democratic civ would do so though albeit legal manipulation, media, encouragement, or that a militant communist state would by boarding up the churches.)

Its also why, any circumstantial choices are terrible choices (normally crude) for a civic, for they are absolute! In my Democracy/Communist example up, going along circumstantial thinking, you would have two civic choices, inciteful atheism and militant atheism. Did we really need to choose one or the other to understand their both atheist? Do we therefore need to pick an irreligious civic to know there will be irreligious people in the society? As picking it to reflect a 'majority being irreligious' is circumstantial... and not an ideology - not a civic.

Oh Taminent, also if you want to comment on the future civics, bare in mind, that a player chooses just one for their civ out of the future column, and that we're looking for ideas that make them compatable with other govt/political choices a player might have picked.

Okay, if we're more or less settled, we can whilst continuing any existing debate on the future civic list, begin discussing the plausible details of the future civics.

Let's start with Hebs favourite ;)

Digital Economy

In terms of future will we presume we're talking up to 2050?

Oh, did i step on someone's hot button? Nice circular logic. Lawrie makes the claim that irreligious is a circumstance (whatever that means), and then spends the rest of the time trying to show why a circumstance doesnt fit as a civic - but that's only true if you grant the assumption that irreligious is a circumstance in the first place. assuming the conclusion to support the premise if circular reasoning.

Sounds like Lawrie wants athiesm in the game no matter what anyone else says regardless of whether it fits or not. Its one thing to customize one's own game to suit their "machiavellian tastes" but to suggest it as a global change that Zapp should use for everyone, everywhere . . . have to disagree. the civics ought to represents ways a nation handles different aspects of its government, not one person's personal agenda.

sorry, Lawrie. you have passion and zeal for the atheistic philosophy (which is commendable for anyone's personal beiefs), and it works as a religion, but not as a civic.

This is inevitable with the discussion of religion - folk take things personally and make all sorts of presumptions. Taminent, its obvious with your going on about my passion for atheism (er what!?) that on the contrary its your own hot button thats been pressed. You also make no sense regarding this 'global change' that you are saying having 'atheism' included brings? Any of the civics we have described, indicate that where power or govt promotion is based, nothing is absolute. So picking atheist does not mean everyone in your civ is an atheist, but as a matter of govt ideology it becomes pre-eminent in its perspective on religion, relative to the type of govt you have. Of course it does not destroy religions already inherent in the civ, just like atheism in the USSR policy to relgion did not destroy its churches, and believers (albeit it suppressed them.) Same here.

Its true I started this thread advocating a mini mod of the civics for Rom, according to a certain perspective and taste. I won't deny that, and ive made its real politic perspective, or machievellian outlook clear. If you have a problem with that start your own ;)

Of course we want deep and meaningful discussion but not hyperbole, and not circumstantial civics that describe states of being within a civ rather than its 'big ideas'. Certainly we don't want silly presumptions about posters beliefs ;)

So regarding the circumstantial point, let me try to make it clearer.

Irreligious is a state of being, an attitude of some people towards religion. It is not a singular philosophy - and never has it been one made into a form of government ideology or religious policy. On the contrary it is often used by religious people to describe atheists, secularists etc etc... how drole.

Atheism is a philosophy, and one we have seen adopted by powerful nation states in our history. I am not advocating it, but that China... the states within the USSR... Cuba... has and had, mades it obviously credible.

Now moan about it if you will but unless you can say philosopher x proposed irreligious as some great theory, that was officially adopted by x countries as a matter of civic ideology...

:lol: Well, actually, I have to agree with both Taminent and Lawrie. You both have very good points.

Irreligious can be viewed as an attitude as Lawrie says, so it may not be the best descriptor for a religious civic. And yes, atheism is a philosophy which Lawrie points out. Taminent, you are correct that as a philosophy, atheism does take on the characteristics of a belief system. So having a religious civic that automatically gives all the cities of that nation a "belief" (like an instant religion) would probably be unfair and unbalanced.

Lawrie is correct that many of the nations did have atheism as their "state religion" (often with an intolerant attitude). So, since that was a vital part of our history, I think we still need to work on how we incorporate that into the game so that it does get represented, but does not unbalance gameplay.

So, good ideas guys. But, yes, I think it still needs a little more work before that part is finished.

And as Lawrie points out, we still have lots of work to do on those future civics. I'm looking forward to that. :)

Yep the religious civics in this mod, intentionally let the games religions (and their spread across the map) indicate the true spread of religions and their dominance etc. Its just our choice of religious civics tie more to the political / social sphere, in how the government for a players civ tries to interfere or not with the church.

Atheism is an extreme ideology (which it is when a government decides thats what people should believe, rather than as a philosophy, which a person can or cannot come to by themselves.)

I'll do one of my cute little examples hehe...

Lets say its 1880... my govt civic is Republic, power civic Parliament, society bourgious, state church.

So I get up in the morning, off to work trunding along the cobblestones, buy my paper for a penny on the way to the er churning mill. Ooh, there I read in the news, various stories of politicians, a national holiday for the state church where the priminister will be speaking also (ooh must attend...) and a group of high art / economic articles, which really put me in my mental place.

Now lets say it was atheist instead of state religion, but everything eles out of the above choices was the same.

I get up, off along the cobbles in my mushy shoes to the churning mill, I get my local paper, there it tells me MP's have voted to enact an Atheist platform for the public good!! The elites of the country, humanist liberals, scientists, darwinists and so on, have decided its for the good of the country. Churches will be heavily taxed! Many will end up having to close! The Govt is paying for all these public lectures - against superstition! Superstition!!! Normal folks are grumbling loud and clear... others are embracing it as the new era? It won't stop me going to church!


Hopefully in narrative that clears up that no civic is absolute in its implementation. Lets look at another example.

Fascist - President - proletariat - Planned (Economy) - Atheist - Public Works

I wake up in the morning, off I go to help build a super highway from the capitol... not got a choice - unemployment is illegal! Still it pays for food! President is the president for life! At least prices are stable... he decides the cost of bread... and he's liberated our minds from the superstition of our bourgious manipulators... the church! At least thats what I say... but they cannot look inside my heart ;)

Oh and one other thing - we're just getting the names right at the moment and the choices, not the bonuses and penalties. Obviously atheism as a matter of civic is whether done subtly or oppressively - a suppression of religion. That is going to have considerable penalties as well as its bonuses. Its extremity has to be properly expressed - but we'll leave the discussion of bonuses/penalties until we get all the lists finalised.

I think we should really get our focus on the future civics, and describing them, if we're more or less sorted on the other civics. We can start discussing the future civcs starting with digital economy?

Okay, if we're more or less settled, we can whilst continuing any existing debate on the future civic list, begin discussing the plausible details of the future civics.

Let's start with Hebs favourite ;)

Digital Economy

In terms of future will we presume we're talking up to 2050?

The technology itself is entirely speculative, but then again so is much of the future techs. This is a rough sketch of what the effects would be.

Name: Digital Economy
Future Type: Economy
Tech Requirements: Advanced Computers, Fusion
Building Requirements: Computer Center, Fusion Power Plant
Upkeep: High Upkeep (need to upkeep the supercomputers)
Effects: +2 commerce from foreign trade routes; +1 foreign trade routes in all cities; can duplicate one bonus resource per turn; +10 hammers in all cities; mines, quarries and workshops have no effect; +50% city maintenance costs in all cities
Description: A digital economy is a form of post-scarcity economy that could speculatively develop with further research in nanotechnology and computer science. Working at the atomic level and using a new form of technology, scientists can transform inorganic objects from atoms into bits and vice versa. Once in the bit state, the objects can be copied as many times as the supercomputer memory can hold and can be downloaded and converted from any computer employing the new technology.

A digital economy would completely revolutionize the field of economics, which is based on the principle of scarcity. While land, labor and entrepreneurs will remain scarce, capital will cease to be scarce, transforming the economy from a good-service hybrid to solely service and agricultural economy. Mines, quarries and workshops will become obsolete with all building materials, machinery and prepared goods available for download directly off the internet.

The downsides of a digital economy are easy to see. First is upkeep. It costs a lot of energy to produce hydrogen power, and even more so to split an atom. Therefore, to convert atoms to digital bits must require an insane amount of energy, requiring a large source of energy like fusion to maintain it. The supercomputers running the online marketplace would have to be maintained by the government so they can regulate what is copied (to stop drugs, weapons, ETC.). And giving the government that much power over duplicating capital gives them a power that can breed a massive amount of corruption, represented by the high maintenance costs.


This probably needs to be toned down a bit, but these are the basic ideas: increased foreign trade, increased maintenance costs, duplicate resources, obsolete traditional means of production but give an automatic high hammer boost to all cities (since they are all connected via network).

Lawrie, I agree with your goal, just not how you get there. :)

when a government decides thats what people should believe
Okay, that is a civic. No doubt about it. But when a government decides what people should believe that's a State Church. The subject of belief just happens to be atheism.

To use your example, shouldn't it be:
Fascist - President - proletariat - Planned (Economy) - State Church - Public Works
with Atheism as the "religion" in the cities (maybe with a DNA symbol or something)?

Oh, and I liked your examples (nice sense of humor :lol:)

And one last question: how come irreligious doesn't work because its an attitude, but intolerant does work because its an attitude? Seems contradictory there.

Taminent, those are some good questions. I agree with you that atheism ought to be a separate "religion" in the game. I think what Lawrie is trying to say is that we need a religious civic that represents many of the atheistic/communist nations that arose particularly in the 20th century (such as USSR and China and so forth).

If you look closely, I think you will notice that Lawrie is using "atheism" as both religion/philosophy and civic. Yes, that can be confusing. And I agree, the category needs a different name, but that's the goal anyway.

Yes, I did suggest a set of "attitude" civics for the religious category. Lawrie believed it would just be too radical to implement. The idea behind "intolerant" is the more aggressive religions. I agree "intolerant" does represent an attitude. Perhaps Dogmatic or Militant might be a better descriptor, but that's why that type of religious civic is there.

So do you have any ideas on a better name for "atheism" as a religious civic that describes what Lawrie is talking about? All ideas are welcome. :)

Oh, on a side note, theres' a religious civic we haven't considered yet.

World Church -- currently the world church is a syncretistic organization believing that all religions lead to the same god/goddess. Its very much "live and let live" in its support for all religions. It would be a "junior" step towards Xenologic (which goes beyond just all relgions to embrace all sentient life).

Just toss that one out there just in case.

Atheism stays
We don't need alternative names for Atheism... its quite self explanatory really. I dont think anyone finds it confusing... but I know you and taminent find it a little distasteful! Well don't pick it for your civs ;) but some players will like too, and powerful nations have in our history - before.

Digital Economy
Hey Heb, sounding good. Well the thing is that this variant form of economics has to work within the other economic civics the player is likely to choose. Fortunately it does - the only thing to ensure is that it fits quite plausibly within the tech tree and the power of that nations industry to do actually do as you describe. Perhaps if it could also add benefits to certain improvements also?

Certainly we're on the right track to that - is there not actual theories then governing a form of economics where base materials through duplication lose their inherent value?

World Church
Not bad, its hard to make a futuristic version of a religion without it having to change its theology? Any suggestion of it becoming for example, tolerant of aliens lol, or otherwise futuristic is quite controversial to a lot of religious folks - conservatives etc who won't see that necessarily as an advancement. Its a difficult one!

World Church
Not bad, its hard to make a futuristic version of a religion without it having to change its theology? Any suggestion of it becoming for example, tolerant of aliens lol, or otherwise futuristic is quite controversial to a lot of religious folks - conservatives etc who won't see that necessarily as an advancement. Its a difficult one!It was quite recently when Vatican announced that it's ok to believe in aliens and that the Big Bang really was the way how universe formed. And they also put solar panels to vatican roofs :eek: I've always thought catholic church as old-fashioned but now I can see that they're trying to become more openminded (I feel sorry for all those creationists... now they'll have to believe to evolution theory since vatican believes to it too... :lol:). Some other religions have treated nature and all life bit differently than christianity and I think they'd accept aliens easier than some christian people (just my opinion).

Because we people have so different belief systems that are tied quite closely to cultural values, I doubt that there ever will be true World Church - though many religions would like to gain that status (all those holy wars throughout the history kind of proves this...). But we could also say that all major religions today are World Churches since they have followers all around the globe so would this option be really futuristic civic?

I can think of one other futuristic civic option for religious civ - Enlightment (or Nirvana or similar idea) - I'm not saying this should be the name for the civic, just the idea behind it - with technological (mind-affecting) tools people could achieve higher religious consciousness, sort of gain the abilities to see glimpses from higher planes of existence.

Atheism stays
Digital Economy
Hey Heb, sounding good. Well the thing is that this variant form of economics has to work within the other economic civics the player is likely to choose. Fortunately it does - the only thing to ensure is that it fits quite plausibly within the tech tree and the power of that nations industry to do actually do as you describe. Perhaps if it could also add benefits to certain improvements also?
Advanced Computers and Fusion are on different beelines, so it will be employed pretty late in the game. I'm thinking if we have the technology in the first place, we would be able to convert and duplicate non-living organic substances (e.g. wood, grains, fruits, meat, furs). So basically any improvements that would create or distribute capital (farms, mines, quarries, workshops, pastures, plantations) would provide less or nothing with cottages providing more with a huge boom in the service industry (more money available to spend on services). I am thinking that this civic should probably neuter improvements, but give some big bonuses to in-city buildings, which are where the service industries lie, so maybe +1 happiness per building in city and no improvements except cottages, windmills and watermills produce anything?


Certainly we're on the right track to that - is there not actual theories then governin