IMHO the following would make a good set of governments:

Chieftain: Starting government, no war weariness, rampant corruption away from the capitol, chance of outlying provinces rebelling is high. Tile penalty applies (i.e. 3+ food etc. are reduced by 1). Support for troops is fairly good, however, rebels get the troops that the cities come with.

City States: Corruption is still high but is universal (the capitol would really not exist in a city-state system anyways, although the palace would still be kept). Support for units is ok (maybe 2 per city), but would not increase due to city size. A senate would be allowed to ask for certain improvements such as more roads, more irrigation, more luxuries etc. Refusal would cause something similar to WW in Civ3. The difference is that this would be a Rebellion Factor (RF) and would cause rebellions at high levels. Distance from capitol would also be a factor in RF (even though it would not affect corruption). (Tile penalty would only affect one thing, i.e. food or corruption) Rebelling cities might form another civ or simply remain as independent cities. The troops in those areas would be likely to join the independent faction.

Despotism: Somewhat similar to current Despotism but with limited tile penalty (similar to CS above except that commerce could be one of the limits). Support for units would be fairly good, but cost of extra units would be higher (2 instead of 1). Corruption would not be nearly as bad as in Chieftain but would be up there and would be dependent on how close to the capitol (and not matter for how many other cities are closer). RF would still be high away from the capitol but the troops would be more loyal so a rebellion would see the troops expelled from the territory and these units could try to help retake the rebellious provinces. The size of the civ before RF becomes a factor would still be fairly low (and, of course, dependent on map size).

Imperialism: (Think Roman Empire) similar to Despotism, no tile penalties would occur. RF would be lower than in Despotism and this would be the time when a FP could be established. City support for troops would be pretty good and would not have the extra cost. Corruption would be lower than in the above gov’ts but still a problem, especially away from the capitol. Tax collector would be introduce here (i.e. the tech leading to this gov’t would be required before any citizens would be allowed to switch to tax collectors). Coinage would be a good Civ advance to have this gov’t come about.

Republic: Similar to current one except that corruption would be higher and universal. Either that, or corruption would have universal spread in certain ranges, i.e. within 4 squares of capital all cities, including capital, have same corruption. From 5 to 10, new corruption level. Support for troops would be city-size based. Tile commerce bonus. RF would be higher than in Imperialism and a senate would be able to ask for things as in CS above. WW would be significant but would be greatly lessened if the Republic was the defender. Troops in rebellious provinces likely to join rebels.



Feudalism: very different from C3C. Corruption would be on a par with Republic (slightly better than Imperialism) but would be based on the capital. RF would be fairly high due to the likelihood that a rival noble would be trying for the throne. Troops in outlying provinces would be very likely to join rebel faction. This could be based on how many troops are actually there (i.e. only the quantity of troops actually supported by the rebel cities would join the rebels, the others would be expelled). The difficulty of troops traveling from the capital to the outlying cities would also greatly affect the RF. No tile bonus or penalty and otherwise fairly similar to C3 Monarchy.

Monarchy: Similar to C3 Monarchy. Corruption would be less than in Feudalism or Republic and would be based on proximity to capital. RF would be dependent on distance from capital and how difficult it is for troops to get to the target city. Unit support would be similar to Civ 3. Troops would be less likely to join any rebel faction. RF would be less than Feudalism.

Colonial Monarchy: Similar to Monarchy above but would allow some sort of building project to gain a reduction in corruption away from the capital. Troops would be unlikely to join any rebels (being expelled instead). How long it takes units to get to the target cities would affect RF and would definitely include sea travel if the civilization had any harbors.

Constitutional Monarchy: Cities would have fairly decent support for troops. Corruption would be based on proximity to capital. Nobles would be allowed to ask for goodies (see CS above) and failure to comply would cause unhappiness or RF points (or both). Corruption would be less than in Monarchy. Units would be unlikely to join any rebel faction (instead being expelled). Commerce tile bonus would apply, otherwise similar to Colonial Monarchy.

Representative Government (or early Democracy): Similar to Democracy in C3C. No support for standing armies, although coastal cities would each support one combat navy. Conscription of troops would be as follows: Each city of a certain size would be allowed to conscript one unit. This would not cause any unhappiness in the city unless the unit was destroyed by some sort of combat action. This could occur only if the civ is at war. These units automatically disband after the war is over. These units would be supported automatically (even if their home city was conquered or destroyed by the enemy). A senate would be allowed to ask for goodies as in CS, with similar hits for failure. Corruption would be low, but still out there and would depend on proximity to capital.

Communism: similar to C3 except that corruption should be based on proximity to capital. Switching out of communism would cause a commerce penalty where any tile producing more than 1 commerce would have a –1 penalty for 10 turns.

Fascism: similar to C3C except: workers would not be faster than Democracy. Captured workers would receive a penalty (i.e. work even slower). Corruption would be fairly high and dependent on capital proximity. Commerce tile bonus would occur (but would be somewhat offset by the corruption). Cities with a majority of foreign citizens would not support any units. Relations with certain governments would have a negative modifier (i.e. Communism, Democracy, Const. Monarchy, City States, Republic, Rep. Gov’t, etc.) to reflect the xenophobic nature of the government.

Democracy: corruption would be low and universal (not capital proximity related). As in Rep. Gov’t above, the first conscript unit would not cause unhappiness unless destroyed. If a war exists cities of certain sizes would be allowed to conscript more troops (to a limit) but these would cause unhappiness until disbanded (but would keep causing it if destroyed). All conscripted units would disband when war was over. Again, this would have to be a defensive war or one forced on the civ through an alliance. Cities would support standing armies if within a certain distance from a rival border. Interior cities would not give any freebies. Cost of standing armies would be fairly high. Navies would gain support from coastal cities.

Socialism: No support for standing armies or conscripts (although conscription would be allowed). Similar benefits (tile bonus, etc) to Democracy above. WW would occur whenever ground and air combat units were stationed outside of the civilization and whenever naval units were in foreign territory (out in the ocean is ok). Air units would be allowed to be on carriers, but would cause WW if they fly into another civ’s airspace. These restrictions would include units in allied civ territory. Corruption would not exist at all. Certain buildings would not require maintenance (library, temple, etc.)

With all these added goverments would it ever be worth changing to some of these new goverments when new ones are right around the corner? In My games I usualy only make one goverment change during the entire game.

In response to that, I would suggest that the transition time to a new government should be somewhat dependent on which gov't you had before. Going from Rep. Gov't to Democracy would be virtually free. Going from Monarchy to Col. Monarchy might be one turn. Going to Const. Monarchy, however, would cause some chaos (as it did during Cromwell's time in Britain). Also, I would lessen the time that one has for Anarchy all around.

Incidentally, the ability to go to similar gov'ts would require that the Civ2 system of choosing the new gov't be implemented again (which I happen to believe was better than that in Civ3).

Just one important governtment-type missing in there -- Fundamentalism/Theocracy. It should probably be similar to Fascism, but have a lower corruption, higher support ability and higher support costs, as well as some sort of penlty to Science and to other, non-Fundamentalist, governments (if religion is implemented, always at least Polite toward Fundamentalisms of the same religion).

OOPS! Forgot about that one. Thanks, Cuivienen. I agree that Fundamentalist should be included. I think that RF should be very high, however, since fundamentalist governments typically alienate people, not bring them together. I also believe that the Fundamentalist gov. in Civ2 was very, very unrealistic. No unhappiness? Bah!

What about city states? every no corruption but low optimal muber of cities.

City-states are more like independent countries. They can war with each other, trade with each other, etc. "City-state" would not be a viable form of government.

I don't like the idea of more units, more techs, more options,...
it makes the game more difficult to play and to balance. The essence is the way you conquer (diplomatically, military, demographically, ...) the world. Adding fifteen governments would not change the game. It makes it only harder to understand the game and to balance it...

Hi!

Fascism: I don't think that slaves would be slower.
Nazis in the WWII made lamps and other things(soap) from people who were in the concentration camps.
Nazi leaders calculated, that in that way, slave would yield -I think- a net of 1,6 RM(Reich's Mark) for each "processed" slave.
As to compare some prices:

Panther Tank~120-150.000 RM
Tiger Tank~200-250.000 RM.

Switcing out of Communism:
This should be only to LOW-INFRASTUCTURE cities.

The phenomena that you tried to simulate was because the Wasava-pact, so Every nation in that pact was heavily overmilitarised.
In the '60-'70 Hungaries military forces(with reserves) was 1.000.000. The population was around 10.000.000, so every 10. person was somehow attached to military.
This may not seem high at first, but don't forget, that children until age 18, women and elderly people wasn't really connected to the military.
Albania didn't have any Air Defense, because there was a bunker for every 2 or 4 peoples.
So in other words: we didn't build almost any iprovements, but military units!!! And took loans from Western-Countries. Of course the interests was paid in democracy mainly.
Around 1996-8 the loan interests was around 20% of the public finances(800 billion Forints<budget(govermental income) around 4.000 billions Forints>).
1 USD was around 250 Forints(don't know exactly).

Socialism:
What exactly do you mean by that?
No corruption???

That's all.

I think this is a little overboard on number of govs. I like a few ideas in them, though.

Maybe have a few standard govs, but allow each of them to have a couple subclasses, which is similar to what you propose, but these could be changed gradually without any anarchy period (only anarchy when you switch main classes).

So, for instance, Democracy could include socialism or a more free market based. The socialism maybe would have higher growth, but would definately have more corruption (less efficient).

Fasicm should have faster captured workers, but they could also die from being overworked.

I really like the idea of having colonial monarchy.

Subclass govs would work well. So Democracy goes Social Democracy or Corporate State (its in the government mod on the mods threads), Communism goes both right and left as well. What if you could only switch to those subclasses if you had researched different govs, so only Social Democracy if you've researched communism AND democracy, or only Colonial Monarchy if you've done Monarchy AND Feudalism (not an exact fit, but you get the idea). That way you'd reward the player who does all the research (or trades for it) as opposed to the quickie era change. Anyway, just some thoughts.

I was not trying to give too many governments, all of which would be needed in cIV. I was suggesting possibilities of extra ones. Whether or not more types come is up for grabs as far as I am concerned. If I want the governments I listed above, there is only the fact that the editor does not have good variables stopping me from creating them. The editor needs to allow a lot more possibilities for corruption choice in governments.

Right now corruption has minimal through catastrophic, with communal being a specialty one. Given the individual tweaking that you can do with support for units, ww, etc. it seems amazing to me that the Firaxix folks didn't include at least a slidebar for various corruption choices.

In addition, I think that perhaps the Fascism government should either be eliminated or changed to reflect that it just didn't work! Consider that the longest running fascist government was Franco's. Perhaps one of the additional alterations for Fascism would be that all banks and stock exchanges would give a one-time bonus of x gold but then function at 1/2 efficiency for the duration of the government (to reflect taking the wealth of all those bankers and others and putting them in concentration camps).

One of the problems with much of the thinking that I have seen in all of these threads is that most writers are equating the player with the government. Granted, the correlation is easy, especially considering the responses from the advisors, but, the player is supposed to be the driving force behind the civilization. Thus, the ideas on commerce miss the fact that the private sector is part of the civilization and therefore the money made in the private sector is part of the civilization. The government is a major part of the civilization, but it is not the only part of the civ. When a civil war splits the civ, the player should actually be able to choose which side he wants to lead.

When you are chosen in 4000 B.C. you are not the individual leader, you are the zeitgiest, the driving force behind the civilization. Thus, great leaders can come about given certain events (many of the names are actually political leaders of the culture) but you are the one still directing the civilization. This needs to be remembered when posting threads for changes on the cIV game.

I don't like the idea of more units, more techs, more options,...
it makes the game more difficult to play and to balance. The essence is the way you conquer (diplomatically, military, demographically, ...) the world. Adding fifteen governments would not change the game. It makes it only harder to understand the game and to balance it...

Yeah, I agree with this to some extent. As it is its often almost impossible to know whether changing over to another government would result in a better corruption level than your current gov. And rather than wait 6 turns of anarchy just to find you are in a worse state than before some people either stick with the same gov all the way or will save, make the change and then load up again (cheaters!).

I do think there should be more customisation of govs but the choices should be fairly simple. One idea is to seperate government from ecconomy.

The following are models of government;
Despotic rule (rule by a single person)
Aristocratic rule (rule by the rich, inherited)
Executive/military rule (rule by an executive group or heirachy)
City state representetive (voting by city)
Limited representetive (voting by individual, but limited to a certain "Citizen group")
Senate representetive (shared power within an elected executive group or heirachy)
Full representetive (full democaracy with direct voting on every issue, would need special tech like computerised voting)

While these are models of ecconomy;
Slave/serf labour (the government owns everything and the people work for the government)
Controled ecconomy/Redistributed ecconomy (a capital driven ecconomy with heavy state controls on ownership and personal wealth with some welfare)
Unrestrained ecconomy (a capitalist ecconomy with a government which only take enough taxes to administrate itself)
anarcho-sydicist socialist ecconomy (worker co-operatives own the means of production and all profit/surplus is returned to the system)

These two groups should be mixed and matched together to create a wide veriaty of governements. (for example Executive/military rule & Slave/serf labour =communism)
I also agree that changing government or ecconomy should be easy or difficult based on how similar the new form is compared to the old.
I'd also like to see an option where you can preview the effects of a new ecconomic model on your ecconomy, perhaps by buliding a city improvement or researching a special tech (a bit like future tech).

City-states are more like independent countries. They can war with each other, trade with each other, etc. "City-state" would not be a viable form of government.

Was an ordinary organization of state structures in the earliest civs, like Sumeria and Babylon...

I think that with the current system of 6 turn anarchy, more governments add nothing to the game; even C3C seems to overdo it for my taste. I usually only make one switch per game (to Republic or less likely, Monarchy), unless I'm playing a religious civ.

If you don't understand why, consider how long it will take for Democracy's slightly better corruption and worker speed to repay the loss of 6 turn's worth of production in a mature empire (as an example) ...

However...

Subclass govs would work well. So Democracy goes Social Democracy or Corporate State (its in the government mod on the mods threads), Communism goes both right and left as well.

I really like this idea. If the designers really want to add more governments, they should perhaps rather make it a two-tiered system, with a few very generalized government types, each with a number of variants ("subclasses").

I'm with Smoking Mirror. The limitations of the current governments are a result of trying to cram too much into a single concept rather than a problem with the number of choices. Add a third axis to his government/economy axes (possibly the expanded religion that Soren mentioned) and you'll get a lot of easily understood options.

Though I haven't had a chance to read ALL of this thread, I can say one thing for certain. The fact is that, if Soren is to be believed, the whole entire corruption system is due for a COMPLETE overhaul. This means that it will be very hard to discuss the corruption effects of governments-or any kind of corruption effects for that matter-until we know more about what the new corruption system will look like!
If it were up to me, I'd hope to see Corruption seperated out into Crime and Waste. Crime would, especially in the early game, be a matter of distance from the capital (the 'Wild Frontier' effect ;)), Large city sizes, technology and trade in contraband resources. Waste would be an issue of small city size and technology-nothing at all to do with distance. Though waste would be more of an issue if you traded shields and food between cities-but thats a completely different issue!
Anyway, regardless of the model they use for corruption, I will have a more thorough look at this thread, and then post my proper opinion ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

More governments would very welcome:)

Some could be introduced from conquests, such as imperialism from rise of rome and others like blood cult from Mesoamerica.

Like I say though, whether the governemts are Two axis (Gov+ecconomy) or just one axis (fixed gov) What we realy need is a ecconomic preview! so that you don't spend 6 turns of anarchy only to have to spend another 6 just to get back to a usefull gov. Admitedly it is interesting to not be sure if a revolution is going to be a good choice or not, but 12 turns of non production is just way too much.

Also the length of anarchy and extent of curruption and unhappyness should be adjusted by how close the gov change is from the original.

Concerning the transition between governments:

(1) Its already been suggested that anarchy-free transitions is a somewhat strange attribute for the Religious trait. Its a large enoug advantage that I often pick religious civs just for that ability, and it doesn't real feel "realistic" at all.

(2) Civs already have preferred and shunned governments, right? How about adjusting the period of anarchy based on that? Transitioning to a preferred govt would be quicker, a shunned govt would take longer.

(3) How about some Wonders to allow anarchy-free transitions? Maybe Magna Carta to allow anarchy-free transition to democracy, or Das Kapital for communism (yeah, Russia's transition to communism in RL wasn't free of anarchy, but Marx was a German, so in RL, it wasn't Russia that built Das Kapital anyway ;) ) I'm sure clever people could come up with some other examples (especially if the number of govt types was increased) but there's no need to have one for every single govt type anyway - having just a few would be interesting.

Actualy it was the invention of socialism that helped bring about fascism, as many traditionl liberal nations rushed towards totalitarianism to save them from the "Red Rabble", if anything Das capital should allow an anarchy free switch to despotism or fascism. :)

Actualy I agree that anarchy quashing wonders would be a good idea. Perhaps they need not be wonders at all, but social engineering projects..

Civic/social engineering projects
How about a new categoy of city improvement, these would be built just like a building or small/great wonder, but when complete would result in a set temporary social event.

Example; Economic asessment.
cost 200 shields.
result; allows a preview of what your ecconomy would be (corruption and waste in each city) under a different government.

Social reorganisation;
cost 400 shields.
Allows a anarchy free (or one turn) transition to another government type. Represents a carefully planned change of government through peacfull means, with lots of propaganda to ease the transition.

Capitalisation;
cost 80 shields.
Shields are only converted to capital once all 80 shields have been gathered.

Army recritment drive;
cost 500 shields.
drafts one conscript unit in every city without causing unhappyness. Even effects cities too small for conscription normaly, representing a last ditch call to arms in defence of the city.

Theres lots of other projects you could have, and lots of odd rules that could be represented with this function.

Actualy it was the invention of socialism that helped bring about fascism, as many traditionl liberal nations rushed towards totalitarianism to save them from the "Red Rabble", if anything Das capital should allow an anarchy free switch to despotism or fascism. :)

Actualy I agree that anarchy quashing wonders would be a good idea. Perhaps they need not be wonders at all, but social engineering projects..

Civic/social engineering projects
How about a new categoy of city improvement, these would be built just like a building or small/great wonder, but when complete would result in a set temporary social event.

Example; Economic asessment.
cost 200 shields.
result; allows a preview of what your ecconomy would be (corruption and waste in each city) under a different government.

Social reorganisation;
cost 400 shields.
Allows a anarchy free (or one turn) transition to another government type. Represents a carefully planned change of government through peacfull means, with lots of propaganda to ease the transition.

Capitalisation;
cost 80 shields.
Shields are only converted to capital once all 80 shields have been gathered.

Army recritment drive;
cost 500 shields.
drafts one conscript unit in every city without causing unhappyness. Even effects cities too small for conscription normaly, representing a last ditch call to arms in defence of the city.

Theres lots of other projects you could have, and lots of odd rules that could be represented with this function.
I like that idea :goodjob:

Especially the army recruitment drive!

It would be very good to see 'temporary' improvments like this, would make the game more dynamic :)

Also it would give you something to do with your capital or high production cities once you've built all the available Improvements and have a good size army. If you cant bulid any wonders then you are just left with capitalization, and its realy anoying seeing all that uncorrupted production being bypassed soboringly (especialy before you've researched economics when the income from capitalization is pitiful).

Other temporay improvements could be;

Military parade
Cost 300 shields
Huge temporary rise in war wariness handling capability. Good as a propoganda exercise before a war of agression, would also add fun to the espionage part of the game; If a nearby civ was building a "Military Parade" in thier capital it would be a good bet that they were just about to become agressive. Perhaps it could also add a temporary boost to your civs military reputation (based on number and strength of military units and judged by your military advisor), making everyone more respectfull. A military parade could then be used as a bluff to ward off an impending war.

Cultural Festival
Cost 500 shields
A bit like either the Nuremburg rallies or other 20th century "historical festivals" which atempted to link the new national order with previous cultural ideas. Would give a ten point increase of culture in every city on the continent.

Scientific exibition
Cost 1000
Like the great exibition in London or the futurama expo in america. Could give a temporary boost to science generation in all cities Or a single large boost of beakers directly.

judgement, point (1) and (2), exactly my thoughts. Point (3): very interesting.
In short: I am with you!

Regards,
Jaca

I would like to see a more recent capitalist government than demo, thats way back in middles ages something better would be nice in the industrial or modern

Have a look at the Rise and Rule mod for C3C. It has a lot of very good government types.

Or this could be better handled by using the social engineering system from Alpha Centauri. Under governments you would have Chieftain (default) with choices of Monarchy, Representative, or Totalitarian. Under economics you would have Individual as default, with choices of Barter, Capitalist, or Communist. Under religion you would have animism (default), with Polytheism, Monotheism, Agnosticism as choices.

That's all I can think of for now.

dbear, under that model, every modern industrial country in Europe, North America and teh Far East would have exactly the same government, but we all know there are differences. Come to think of it, except for the religion aspect, Ancient Athens would also be the same government.

This is why SMAC style won't work for any historical model.

Thats nonsense Rhialto! Each civs individual circumstances and play style would dictate the nature of both the government AND Social engineering settings. For instance, a player who is embarking on a domination victory will probably tend more towards fascist and communist government types. Within these government types, though, the player would probably also adjust his militarism and nationalism settings, in order to keep war weariness down and assimilation rates up! A more isolated, building player, OTOH, going for a cultural and/or moral victory might tend towards democratic or republican governments, but would probably have high libertarian and sufferage levels, in order to keep happiness and culture levels as high as possible! Of course, a completely isolated player, even one going for a moral victory, might set a high nationalism just to keep other civs 'at bay' as it were!
The reality is that the government models in civ3 do give us a great starting point for modelling the different government types. However, to get the full range of choices actually available in real life, these 'baseline' governments should be combined with some kind of Social Engineering system! Also, if you read some of my other posts, the extent to which you can vary your SE settings would depend greatly on the extent to which you have progressed down the 'socialogical/ethical' pathway of the tech tree! Meaning that your Classical Greek democracy will still be VERY different from your modern democracy, as the former's understanding of emancipation, womens right and sufferage were very different from those of the latter!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well, you've just explained how the smac system gives more options for maximising your government to your play style. you haven't explained how it works better for modelling actual governments.

Simple Rhialto,

In real life, whole government changes are in fact VERY RARE-yet in civ1,2 and 3 they happen very frequently!! However, minor social changes WITHIN a particular type of government occur almost all the time, and yet this is not very well accounted for in the civ series to date. Social Engineering allows you to change your playing options without neccessarily going through the very nasty upheavals involved in changing government types! Of course, your government choices will restrict the extent to which you can alter your social engineering settings, in which case government change will become neccessary-assuming your own people haven't brought it about themselves!!
Lastly, the current government models do not accurately reflect the variety in Real World 'same government' types. For example, Indonesia, France, Germany, Brazil and USA are ALL republics, yet they are ALL very different kinds of republics (and, of course, the original French and US republics are a far cry from their modern day counterparts)! Similarly, Britain, Australia and Canada are all Democracies but, again, they are all quite different in certain 'incremental' ways! Social engineering would allow you to better model the 'incremental' differences which exist between governments which 'appear' the same at the macro level!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Have a look at the Rise and Rule mod for C3C. It has a lot of very good government types.

Oh, this just figures. I spent MONTHS and months (heck, since Conquests came out) checking Bernskov's site every other day for the RAR patch and finally gave up about the beginning of September! :lol:

Well, downloading it now. But if it's like the DYP expansion for PTW, then yes the Governments they added all make a lot of sense. I like the various Monarchies especially. I wish there were one or two more in the modern era though, maybe a modern version of a junta or military rule that wasn't as limited as the old despotism or as all powerful as fascism. Something like a Banana Republic/Castro government. :D

-Elgalad

Simple Rhialto,

In real life, whole government changes are in fact VERY RARE-yet in civ1,2 and 3 they happen very frequently!!


Most people claim to change government 2-3 times at most in a typical epic game, and I haven't found myself increasing that with teh R&R mod which has about a dozen government types. That's about one government change every 2 millenia. Hardly what I'd call very frequent.

However, minor social changes WITHIN a particular type of government occur almost all the time, and yet this is not very well accounted for in the civ series to date. Social Engineering allows you to change your playing options without neccessarily going through the very nasty upheavals involved in changing government types!


Now this is ENTIRELY an implementation issue. SMAC had no change penalty beyond a token money cost, the opposite extreme of the civ series. Because of this, everyone thinks that social engineering means you CAN'T have a major revolution period as a consequence, and conversely civ123 style means you MUST have one. Ain't so. Civ 2 had a much less debilitating anarchy period, and even if you ignored a certain cheat (count the game yar, divide by 4), there was a wonder to remove that period entirely.

Of course, your government choices will restrict the extent to which you can alter your social engineering settings, in which case government change will become neccessary-assuming your own people haven't brought it about themselves!!
Lastly, the current government models do not accurately reflect the variety in Real World 'same government' types.


Agreed. But I think the government types can be extended to account for this. At the risk of over-praising the R&R mod, it has (in the modern age),

Constitutional Monarchy
Social Democracy
Federal Republic

Plus Democracy and Republic as distinct early era open government types, plus a few new governments for the less freedom-loving players among us.

For example, Indonesia, France, Germany, Brazil and USA are ALL republics, yet they are ALL very different kinds of republics (and, of course, the original French and US republics are a far cry from their modern day counterparts)! Similarly, Britain, Australia and Canada are all Democracies but, again, they are all quite different in certain 'incremental' ways! Social engineering would allow you to better model the 'incremental' differences which exist between governments which 'appear' the same at the macro level!


I think a broader list of government types, along with a defined list of governments that can 'transition' to each other (a kind of easy-going revolution) would work far better.

The SMAC system was more sensible to me than the current civ system. What would need a workover is the transition cost for changing. What about this: when you change the slider rule with for instance government(despotism/absoultism/representative/oligarchy) you would still have anarchy but less 2-3 turns. (I mean during/after WW1 with russia/germany/austria abandoning monarchy you had only 2-3 years of unrest, actually there was hardly a thing you could call anarchy, the switch to Fascism in the late 20´ and early 30´was without unrest at all)
A transition in economy (basic/guilds/mercantilism/capitalism/communism/ecology) would cost money,
a transition between religions (Druids/Polytheism/Monotheism/Atheism) would cause unrest/pop loss. I also suggest like in SMAC a slider called paradigma with basic/wealth/power/knowledge the transition costs are maybe production loss for 2-3 turns. You could with such a system forbid certain transitions based on your civilisation or on your civtraits. (Religious-no atheism, or commercial- no communism). All chioces have boni AND mali and, of course need to be balanced well in order to prevent an "always best" choice.
The choices would come as in SMAC with the related tech (knowledge with invention, guilds with monarchy, wealth with currency, atheism with scientific methods, mercantilism with maybe education -invented in early 18th century)
To discuss: communism a gov type or an economy type? (Imo eco, most comm governments fall into oligarchy or despotism)

Edit: an economic win would also make sense- we need to encourage different playstyles and win options

Another possibility was as proposed earlier in this threat a system with Governments and subsystems, where the change to a subsystem would only cost money and the transition to another government would cause anarchy.

The main point is: we need more choices which make sense (current situation: republic is always preferred, communism when going for domination in late industrial area, monarchy for AW, practically unused: Fascism and Democracy) and due to more switches a shorter anarchy period. (Always laughed when the computer switches to Demo in late MA, you attack him, he falls back to Monarchy, you make peace, again democracy and when he researches it switches to Fascism). The trades need also a big workover, imo.

ok, can you propose a SE model that can reflect the differences between the various modern democratic governments? That's something I have yet to see from anyone.

I would make it in my system that way: democratic is a representative government, differences which would make sense would be in economy (capitalism vs. socialistic), religion (monotheistic vs. atheistic) and, if implemented in paradigma (wealth, power and knowledge). The US would be capitalistic, monotheistic with power as paradigma, sweden ecologic (or with a better term socialistic), maybe atheistic (people without confession increase rapidly in europe) with knowledge as paradigma. GB capitalistic, atheistic and wealth as paradigma. Austria socialistic (changing to capitalistic at the moment), monotheistic (soon also atheistic) with knowledge.

Republics would be representative governments with other ecologic systems and religions as they are to my understanding pre democratic systems, at least in civ. A representative government with polytheism and maybe slightly enhanced ecologic system (don´t have a word for it, maybe could come with currency) and power as paradigma would be republican rome, absoultistic would be emperialistic rome since caesar. Attic greece maybe with knowledge as paradigma.

Fascism would be absoultistic, atheistic, power as paradigma and to my understanding with communistic economy since nearly the whole economy worked for the state to provide goods for the war.
I hope the system makes sense, maybe someone can comment on it or has ideas for tweaking it into something which satisfies the community.

Yeah, I think Mr Blonde has the fundamentals there. I mean, I could take my own personal stab at it.

One is your economic model. (Highly regulated or highly free)
Another is your security model. (Highly regulated or highly free)
Another is your moral model. (Highly regulated or highly free)
And your political model (Highly authoritative or highly representative)
Maybe even quality of life (Highly subsidized or completely free)

Each dimension would need to have advantages one way or another. A lot of gameplay balancing needed. But you could have two democracies -- one that has health care, another that doesn't... one that lets the corporations rome free, and one who holds them accountable. (Just to give examples, not that you'd actually see little corporations or hospitals.)

Regardless of what the dimensions are (god knows we could argue until we're all blue in the face), I'm sure the developers would be able to come up with something. And inventions in the tech tree would open up new ideas (e.g.: you discover capitalism and suddenly have the option to give greater economic freedom to your nation)

Also, there is very strong evidence to suggest that this whole argument might be moot, as all the facts seem to point towards the much touted 'Civics' as referring to Social Engineering-especially given what we know of the dictionary definition of the word 'civics'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Socialism: No support for standing armies or conscripts (although conscription would be allowed). Similar benefits (tile bonus, etc) to Democracy above. WW would occur whenever ground and air combat units were stationed outside of the civilization and whenever naval units were in foreign territory (out in the ocean is ok). Air units would be allowed to be on carriers, but would cause WW if they fly into another civ’s airspace. These restrictions would include units in allied civ territory. Corruption would not exist at all. Certain buildings would not require maintenance (library, temple, etc.)


Excuse me, but no corruption under socialism?! Socialism is one of the most corrupt systems imaginable because everything is run by politicians. :eek: No maintenance either?!

If Civics refers to that, then it's a pretty good sign. Still, could mean a lot of other things.

I think that the team surely knows that social engeneering needs an improvement. They invented luxury resources, culture and the civtraits for civ3, but the governments were kept nearly 1:1 from the predecessors.

I look forward that they will improve this system, since there already was the SMAC social engeneering, which everybody I know was very fond of. Maybe it was too easy to switch, but together with the unique fractions and the forbidden choices (no paradigma knowledge for the religious fraction for instance) it was the best system around at this time. (I don´t know Call to Power, maybe it was better there).

All they need to do is a workover in the frame of civ and a balancing of the effects with other changes. I think for instance that the effects of the civtraits have to be reworked when they change the social engeneering.

What impacts should the social engeneering have?
Several which come to my mind are (with big credit to SMAC):
Happiness
Corruption
Commerce
Production
Growth
Unit support
Unit morale
Science output (independend of commerce)
Tax output (independend of commerce)
Culture per citizen (I think that every citizen should produce culture which
would only go to the civs total culture, maybe some
choices would lead to a decrease of culture-think of real
world fascism, communism, theocracy like in Iran,...)

As you can see some impact interferes strongly with civtraits - growth and agricultural, unit morale and militaristic... With this system the civtraits make sense if they prevent some choices or force you to take some choices when they are available. This would lead to little difference between the civs in the beginning as there are less choices but there would be a bigger differentiation in a later stage of the game, though I´m not sure if this is good.

By the same token though, Mr. Blonde, setting and maintaining certain social engineering settings should be one of many factors in the 'evolution' of civ traits! For example, a commercial civ might adopt a very militaristic policy and set its militarism levels high! This would have the positive effects of lowering war weariness and either (a) speeding up the speed of unit contruction or (b) improving unit training rates. The negative effects would be that this would neccessitate a lower setting in another social engineering trait AND the possible loss of the commercial trait (to be replaced with the militaristic trait!)
Anyway, it does bear some consideration, IMHO!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

A good point. So at the beginning your civs boni would be determined by your initial traits as there are little choices in social engeneering, but as the game proceeds your civ would develop depending on the choices you make.
Imo, there have to be restrictions considering the frequency of transitions and the choices you can take, so that the development is somehow gradually and not too fast. It would be impossible to switch in an instance from a representative, monotheistic, capitalistic and wealth as paradigma government (some form of democracy) to its complete revert a Fascist like government which would for instance be absolutistic, atheistic, communistic and with power as paradigma. This would force the player to plan more long term concerning playstyle and the victory condition you want to meet. You would have to live with your choices longer and you can not play too opportunistic.

The way you would probably do what you describe would be to slowly pare back Sufferage and Libertarianism levels, to ween your people off of democratic principles (i.e. your current sufferage levels might be +3 and +4 respectively, and you drop them back to -1 and -2, respectively, over several turns) Once you have 'prepped' your population, then you can turn around and change to fascism, without major difficulties!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I like that.

Having to ween people towards a very different lifestyle...
Having to make difficult choices about what lifestyle your Civ should lead...

Maybe there should be sliders that you can only move once every X turns and when you do so there are at first some 'resistance' to the new policies but gradually it dies down and then you can make another incremental change towards the direction you want to go towards.

Alternatively, you could have two other ways of limiting the extent to which you can move sliders:

1) Tech Level and Government Dependant. Each government might have a minimum and maximum setting for each slider. In addition the maximum/minimum setting you might have for each slider might be limited to your current tech level in the area connected to that slider!

2) YES you can move the sliders more than one place in a turn, but the amount of resistance and unhappiness you encounter will increase for each additional place you move it! This might be exacerbated depending on your civ traits!

This way, a leader who had encouraged great wealth and happiness in his nation might have much greater latitude for making major reverses in the peoples freedoms and attitudes!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

For many of these government choices, a binary slider isn't logical. Notice that SMAC had 4 different choices for each aspect, none of which lent themslves to being a slider. A green economy is not simply a more extreme socialist economy, it is qualitively different from socialist, controlled, and capitalist schemes.

Yeah, doesn't have to be a slider, could be a radial or drop down menu.

I think combining an economic model (Free Market, Re-Distributed, Socialist, Green, Regulated) with a political model (Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy, Elected Monarch, Oligarchy, Spiritual Leader) and a few other civil choices (Police State, Welfare State, Collectivist State, Father Knows Best State, Libertarian State, Consumerist State) ... this could really correspond with the tech tree. Discovering new ideas on how government or economy or human rights ought to be ensured would open up a new option.

I'm still keen on sliders equally as much though.

Just one important governtment-type missing in there -- Fundamentalism/Theocracy. It should probably be similar to Fascism, but have a lower corruption, higher support ability and higher support costs, as well as some sort of penlty to Science and to other, non-Fundamentalist, governments (if religion is implemented, always at least Polite toward Fundamentalisms of the same religion).

Theorcracy as a form of government is missing, but your characterization is far from being realistic. Similar to Fascism, well, debatable, as everything that doesn´t depend on the power of the people can be fascist - but lower corruption, excuse me, what planet do you live at??
Penalties to Science might apply, but if you look to real world examples, Iran is not really behind in developing nuclear weapons. About your last point: Real life politics is basicly machiavellian, pragmatics rule - if I can ensure my power over my country, I´ll make an agreement with the devil. ;-)

I think the problem with Civ when it comes to autocratic governments is that you have complete control over your civilization ANYWAY. An autocratic government in real life, corruption is more than losing a few gold here or there. It is a constant, ongoing threat to the order of the government that could fall at any moment. Under a democracy, the government accomplishes much less, but there's more order and less threat to the order of it because of it.

Until you model that, there is no disadvantage to being machiavellian, and no advantage to being gracious.

@dh_epic
The solutipon to that is that autocratic govs should have higher corruption than democratic ones. However, democratic govs should have a % chance each time something is finished that the city leaders demand that a particular building be produced in their city. Of course, you don't have to build that in the city, but unless and until you start building it, the city suffers from war-weariness-style unhappiness. The happiness advisor would then say something like, "Sir, the people are unhappy because you are denying them their democratic rights".

Corruption is not enough. As of now, it's more of a nuisance -- it's never stopped me from winning, let alone expanding. And there's talk of eliminating corruption.

But I think the whole idea of "democracy weariness" is a killer idea. A lot of people have talked about "forcing" the user to do stuff under democracy, because the people want it. I think the biggest problem with this is that it takes control away from the user. But in this case, with unhappiness being the motivator, the user can still make the choice themselves -- but there's an incentive to behave differently in a democracy than you would in a fascist country. I think this is a killer suggestion, rhialto.

I like the idea of your people being able to try and block your decision making in democracies and republics-as I have so often said before.
Personally, I think the chance of being blocked by your people should depend on how much 'sufferage' you give them, as well as how much your decisions chime with their own goals. This can be, in part, dictated by your civs traits, so that a commercial civ will be much more likely to support decisions you make that increase the wealth of your cities, wheras religious civs might be more supportive of decisions which increase the influence of religion within your society! This can even extend to your foreign relations, and support for war, peace and/or any other diplomatic relationship. You can ignore your peoples wishes, of course, but this will reduce happiness levels-as has been suggested previously. Do this too often, and you could be looking down the barrel of a rebellion and/or civil war!
As for corruption, I think it would be unwise for Firaxis to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', as they say.
Instead, I think it is possible to make corruption more effective AND less tedious to deal with. Firstly, 'corruption' should be seperated out into crime, corruption and waste. Government and 'relative' distance should still be a factor in all three determinants of 'Corruption', and 'relative distance' can be reduced through improved technologies. Overcrowding, unhappiness, poverty, and legalism/libertarianism levels should all contribute to crime levels. Wheras excessive luxuries, wealth and legalism/libertarianism levels should help to contribute to corruption. Tech level and city size should contribute to waste. Waste, corruption and crime should also all be reducible through the building of appropriate wonders and improvements, and the assignment of specialists.
Lastly corruption should primarily bite into a cities per turn income, with a minor effect on shields/food. Crime should effect primarily shields and food, with a minor effect on the cities per turn income. Waste should effect primarily shields and, to a lesser extent, food-and produces pollution.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I don't like the idea of more units, more techs, more options,...
it makes the game more difficult to play and to balance. The essence is the way you conquer (diplomatically, military, demographically, ...) the world. Adding fifteen governments would not change the game. It makes it only harder to understand the game and to balance it...

I do. The more techs, the more units, the more governments: the better. I love complexities and really loooooooong, drawn out games. But each to their own.

The point I am making is that there will always be two sides of the argument, and a compromise on the matter might leave both unsatisfied - too much for one, too little for the other. Seeing as, in the event Firaxis decided to make the game more complex, they would have to do the work anyway, perhaps they could include two modes: Simple and Extended (or Complex/Advanced/etc.) The Simple game can remain closer to the original, plain Civ game, and the Extended game can include all the new additions. That way, everyone is happy.