Governments Mod ver0.91

In this mod I have added 3 more goverments an replaced 1, and tried to make none obviously advantegeous. I don't claim that I am more intelligent than Sid Meier so I tried not to change the tech tree too much. Here it goes:

1. Communism is made immune to steal technology.

2. Fundamentalism, still a surviving type of government, is added to the game. It replaces Printing Press on the tech tree, requiring Theology. Fundamentalists enjoy every unit free as people work for the God. They also face minimal corruption because of the high moral values. But they suffer standard tile penalty, 50% science cap, inefficient worker rate,an assimilation rate of 2 and cannot hurry. They don't fear war, conscription rate is high (3) for djihads and crusades, military police limit is up to 4.

3. Democracy is replaced by Capitalism. What is a democracy anyway? It is an abstract term. Even East Germany was calling itself "Democratic Republic of Germany"! Anyway, this capitalism is not immune to initiate propoganda. Misdistribution of wealth can make people unhappy and lead to revolt. Why should it be immune? Besides it suffers nuisance corruption. Although there is an illusion of "representative democracy" people feel the decline of moral values in social life and watching money becoming the only value. They will force their chance to get some respect. Money means respect in capitalism. Capitalism is a type of government where people cannot get what they deserve, think they get higher than they deserve. On the positive side capitalists have a higher draft rate. (How could USA fight the world in the last 50 years without a huge army?) capitalism requires Theology and Economics.

4. Fascism is also in the game. Fascist governments proved that they are as productive as the capitalist ones. (Even more productive!) But they suffer assimilating people in the conquered cities. (Do they assimilate or just kill?) Problematic corruption, draft limit of 2, military police limit of 4, forced labor, standard trade bonus, no war weariness, free units 2,4,8 are the other characteristics of this type of government. Fascism requires Nationalism and Industrialization.

5. Social Democracy. Well this is exactly the same of former democracy but units cost 2. If you pay them what they deserve, it costs. Not a good type of government for those who try to expand. Even can be vulnerable to protect itself. A big army costs too much! think of Norway and Sweden mobilizing for war. Social Democracy can be found after corporation.


In this mod none of the goverments has a distinct advantage in the game. Every type of goverment has its own advantages or disadvantages. Republic is back as an efficient type. Only the default despotism and monarchy becomes outdate at some level. This mod offers a greater challenge I guess.

The mod is open to debate and trial for further improvements. I am also thinking of replacing some civilizations with the Turks, Spanish, Swedish, etc.



Here is how it is in the readme.txt:

Changes Made
------------
Democracy is removed and fundamentalism, fascism and social democracy are added to the game.
Corruption is managed by icreasing the number of cities high corruption starts, 10 times.

All new goverments are enabled by the discovery of the same named technology:
Capitalism requires Theology and Economics.
Fascism Requires Industrialization and Nationalism.
Fundamentalism requires Theology.
Social Democracy requires Corporation.

Printing Press, Steel and Democracy are removed from the tech tree.
Combustion prerequistes refining only.
Police Stations are enabled by fascism and Intelligence Agency is enabled by communism.


GOVERNMENT TYPES
----------------

Anarchy, Despotism, Monarchy, Republic: No changes made.

Communism is now immune to steal technology.

Capitalism: Initially called democracy now has nuisance corruption and is not immune to initiate propoganda but has a higher draft rate (2).

Fascism: worker rate 3, assimilation chance 1, corruption problematic, draft limit 2, military police limit 4, forced labor, standard trade bonus, no war weariness, free units 2,4,8.

Fundamentalism: rate cap 5, worker rate 1, assimilation chance 2, corruption minimal, draft limit 3, military police limit 4, cannot hurry, standard tile penalty, no war weariness, all units free.

Social Democracy: Is like the former democracy except units cost 2.

EDITED
link removed... due to limited customization options, I found out that the initial 4 types of governments are best for gameplay. No version 1.0.

A democracy is a government type ruled by the people. Direct democracys would, in effect, pretty much have everyone (who meets any age, etc. qualification) running the country. A representative democracy have people elect officials to do the work. Simple.

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism is not centered around the aquisition of wealth (though that can often times be the goal of many people), but the protection of individual, propery, and intellectual property rights, and the idea that man is in full control of his labor and its benefits, and should be able to do just about anything he wants with it. You are sort of right on the get what you deserve thing. In capitalism, you get what you and your employer (if you're an employee) agree you should get. Considering it's extremely difficult, or maybe even impossible to determine how much someone deserves to get compensated for their labor, capitalism is the most fair economic system in terms of the size of one's paycheck. All this is characteristic to pure capitalism, however; and no, the United States does not have a pure capitalist system.

But, despite your opinion on capitalism, you should know that it is not a government system. A country with a monarchy can have a capitalist economy. It may take a great deal of power away from the monarch and any parliament, but it isn't inconcievable. The only economic system dependant on a specific government type that I can think of would be pure communism (direct or very represtative democracy), which could be argued to be a government type itself, considering its nature.



Fun Fact: Adam Smith was a moral philosopher.

You are right on your points but I cannot guess a better name for the game. In these so called democratic countries you have a right to vote for either of the candidates which do offer similar policies. Democracy requires different views supported by different parties. In USA that is not the case. You cannot form a Communist Party. Not that democratic. You can be a candidate on your own of course but you would need money to express yourself otherwise would be ignored by media. Money is directly linked to power. If your campaign is supported economicly by some groups, it would be imposibble to take actions against them. Also "free press" can always be "cooperative press", a tool for manipulating citizens' views. This type of represantative democracy is only an illusion of democracy which works directly to the benefit of the wealthier.


continued....

Definition of democracy is not that simple. Even in communism citizens vote for the Communist Party officials. Democracy requires the rule of law. In US, de facto it is the rule of lawyers. Justice is a game. No matter what you did, you are guilty or not is determined according to your lawyer's capability of convincing the joury selected from ordinary people. If you are rich, you hire a more capable lawyer, if you are poor, you suffer. Some citizens are more equal and tsome others less in the system.

... and about that bargaining thing; rich always have the advantage. If I reject the offer I will starve. If I reject the offer, the employer can make the same offer to somebody who will prefer getting less than he deserves instead of starving. That is why we should have `efficient`, `uncorrupted` labor unions. If I am a farmer and my product is watermelon, I have to sell it quickly as I will not be able to sell it later. That again gives the trader a huge advantage in bargain. The farmer. for example, only gets 20 cents from one pound of watermelon which you buy at 5 dollars. Rest is enjoyed by the trader. That is why strong farmer unions which can develop their own trading facilities are required.

We should rename all the forms of government as `communist democracy`, `capitalist democracy, `fundamentalist republic` (Iran Islam Republic is the official name), `fascist republic` if we have to follow your point of view. I think we should make a differance between the American understanding of democracy and European understanding of it... As the Russian understanding of democracy is distinctly implemented into the game.

Originally posted by Qelebex

Democracy requires different views supported by different parties. In USA that is not the case. You cannot form a Communist Party. Not that democratic.

Click to expand...

Um...In USA that is the case.You've been misinformed. You can form a Communist party. And someone already has: there is a U.S. Communist Party, there's a National Socialist party and a whole plethora of even...uh...weirder ones.

Granted, these fringe parties don't get many votes but there's nothing stopping new parties from being formed.

Fenris

I think these changes are great, and right on the point. I thought there needed to be more clarification of Democracy in the game. And although Capitalism is not technically a form of government, in reality it ends up controlling the direction of government to such a degree that the laws of the land resemble the doctrines of capitalism more than the original idea of "Democracy". And there should be no debate about not getting paid what you deserve in Capitalism, since the average US worker makes well less than he/she should make compared the the wealth being generated by companies and industry.

OF COURSE the rich have an advantage in a capitalist economy. The whole point of a capitalist economy is to motivate people to do their best and move up the economic ladder. All of these privledges that rich people enjoy are INCENTIVES for people to work hard and become rich. As far as the corruption goes, capitalist economies have very little corruption. They are noted for being remarkably ineffient (arguably the same thing in civ3) because the market provides incentives (money) for corporations that work with high efficiency. Morover, the draft rate should be lower, not higher in a capitalist government (if you are likening this government to the US it always creates a huge amount of protest etc. when the government tries to draft people. Think back to vietnam).

Interesting off-topic debate about the merits of capitalism I'm a radical left-wing American, which basically means I'm about as far left as a British Tory. What part of Scandanavia are you from, Qelebex

I agree that capitalism is not really a government either in the game's sense nor in reality.

But the distinction you raise between Capitalism & Social Democracy is of course an important one, and most reasonable people today if asked how to properly run a country would mention one or the other.

I have generally considered that game's conception of the distinction between Republic & Democracy is that the Democratic government is more immediately accountable to the people for any of a number of institutional reasons. One of the possible reasons dluting accountability is the US's first-past-the-post multi-district system, which creates a two-party system almost by necessity. (Note that I'm not saying that's bad.) I would consider it to be arguable whether the current US government is in Civ terms a Rep or a Dem, while Sweden is clearly a Dem. I think the US was clearly a Republic in 1789.

But that distinction gets pretty unimportant by the modern era. I think that there is thus plenty of room to split the Democracies in the game into Capitalist Democracies and Socialist Democracies. Capitalists should produce more stuff and money, and Socialists should be happier and perhaps less willing to fight.

Most countries worth living in would fall somewhere in the Capitalist Democracy-Social Democracy-Republic triangle.

I also think Fascism and Fanatacism/Theocracy both clearly belong in the game. However. I'd like to see those 2 developed in such a way that they are inherently unstable and useful only in emergencies.

My $0.02

The only weakness I've found in Civ3 so far is the governments, they should be much more advanced and it should matter a lot more which government you have.. There were _lots_ of emmigrants who move to USA during the early 1900s, and way before that. And today people are moving from areas with war, dictatorship, etc, so I think population growth should be represented more...

I agree that no country can be only a "democracy", so you should also be able to customize more in that matter, perhaps choose on a scale how democratic your society should be, with the pluses and minuses that comes with it. Now since we cannot do all these things, the thing you can do is making lots of combination-governments, and I'll download your pack, do some goverments of my own, and then post them here too.

Personally I don't see much difference in the rule of Swedish "social democrats" and pure capitalism. Of course there WERE a difference a couple of decades ago, but now the whole western world is run one way. Perhaps the ruler of a Capitalism government should be CEO of Microsoft :vampire:, or someone else who has the power in a society? That's the way were heading, even if we might not be just there yet...

Do these added Govts really work and don't crash the game!?

Is there a limit to the amount of added Govts?

Someone pleeze answer!

"You are right on your points but I cannot guess a better name for the game."

Oh, ok. I've talked with people that actually thought capitalism was more than just an economic model, so that's why I got into that whole thing about it just being an economic model.

"Democracy requires the rule of law."

I suppose, but only laws that make sure the democratic process is not inhibited. Any other laws, or lack of them, don't keep a government from being a democracy.


"That is why we should have `efficient`, `uncorrupted` labor unions. If I am a farmer and my product is watermelon, I have to sell it quickly as I will not be able to sell it later."

The labor union is perhaps one of the most capitalistic organizations that can be created. When the govenment gets involved too much (with both sides), though, things start to suck and become very unfair. Oh, and corruption will always be a problem, regardless of economic/government model.

"We should rename all the forms of government as `communist democracy`, `capitalist democracy, `fundamentalist republic` (Iran Islam Republic is the official name), `fascist republic` if we have to follow your point of view."

Huh? A government system is different from an economic system. Adding the economic model a government uses isn't renaming it or making it a different governmet, it's being specific about the kinds of policies you should expect it to have.

Well let me try to answer some of the arguments.

"Um...In USA that is the case.You've been misinformed. You can form a Communist party."

In Capitalist Democracies may be you have the right to form parties with radical views but it is "guaranteed" that they cannot come to power nor represented in the assembly by using various laws. For example in England there is this restricted area system in which every area is represented with one parliamenter. The candidate that recives the most votes is elected. So when the elections takes place lets give an example:

In Region 1 party A gets %40 of the votes, party B 35%, party C %25. In Region 2 it is A % 50, B 40%, C 10%. And in Region 3 it is A %30, B 60%, C 10%. A gets 2 seats and B 1. 15% of the population is not represented in this system. And 40% of the population represented by 67% of the seats.


"All of these privledges that rich people enjoy are INCENTIVES for people to work hard and become rich"

It does encourges people for being rich but not working hard. That is why corruption is a problem. You cannot socially mobilize with hard working. People who goes rich in this economic type of model are the traders, people who buy and sell. If you have a Translation Bureu and lets say market price of 1 page translated is 1$, the bureu who makes the connections get 6 cents and the translator who actually "works" get 4 cents. The system does not encourage you to work. Instead it encourages you think of how to earn easy money. It idealogiclly supports individualism, weakening unions.


""We should rename all the forms of government as `communist democracy`, `capitalist democracy, `fundamentalist republic` (Iran Islam Republic is the official name), `fascist republic` if we have to follow your point of view."

Huh? A government system is different from an economic system. Adding the economic model a government uses isn't renaming it or making it a different governmet, it's being specific about the kinds of policies you should expect it to have."

What I meant here was as USSR was calling itself a democracy and Iran as Republic, then we shouldn't add fascism, communism or fundamentalism to the game and should stuck only to republic, moarchy or anarchy. The game, naming them types of governments, in fact realises different types of policies.


"Do these added Govts really work and don't crash the game!?"

They do work. No limits on type of governments, but you are limited on goverment characteristics. If it was I would make Capitalism more efficient in trade than Social Democracy and Social Democrats more happy as it is suggested by ryank. But in this case I only found the solution to increase the conscription rate to 2, as if it remained one capitalism would only have a higher worker and assimilation rate but also a higher war weariness than republic, giving it almost no advantage; and if I made corruption minimal, then social democracies would suffer with their unit costs.


I insist on my view, which is, the goverment type represented by white house in the game is just an illusion of democracy, legitimazing its being by using peoples votes, which has no effect on the state's policies in fact. Though, it is an efficient illusion.

Anyway, the other change in the mod is the 10x of optimum number of cities when high corruption starts, so civilizations do not suffer heavy corruption according to their sizes anymore which makes nuisance corruption not a very big problem anymore.

I think I liked the government system in SMAC much more than the traditional Civ system.. allowed a lot more possibility for alternative types of gov't, like democratic planned economies.. made the important distinction between economy and politcal system. Oh well, maybe for Civ IV

I start to think that the civ political system is a bit simple for such a great game. I think there should be more flexibility to form different governments. Now, there are far too many discussions about the governments that exists or has existed. For examle the big discussion about the fascist patch. I think many people care more about the names of the governments than the actual political systems. I think civ should be neutral to the names of the systems and let the player decide how the system should be forme, based on several different factors. Those factors should influence the game in different ways.

One factor, for example, could be loyalty. I the loyalty is high, the chance for riots and uprisings are very low and the morale in the army would be high, but on the other hand, the science would be quite poor due to the unability to freely criticize the governments.

Science rate, for examle, should not be a factor but a result of several other factors (like loyalty above).

Other factors that could be in the game is social factors, like the level of social welfare (high would create happy citizens - low would save lots of money to the civ), maybe economic factors, like the ownership of production (private faster science - public less corruption).

Which factors that should be in the game and what they should do is of course a great matter of discussion. The factors should have several steps and give the player the possibility of being neutral. At all steps of all the factors there should be just as many advantages as disadvantages. Then there would be up to the player to decide what society he/she would rule.

mine is v1.29f.. cannot download...

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Do these added Govts really work and don't crash the game!?

Is there a limit to the amount of added Govts?

Someone pleeze answer!

Click to expand...

Hmm, some fellow made a MOD with like 24 new governments. Yea, it works if you add the civilepedia.txt entries without messing it up.

Added some new gov't. myself. 'Tis fun!

bye.

Originally posted by Fenris


Um...In USA that is the case.You've been misinformed. You can form a Communist party. And someone already has: there is a U.S. Communist Party, there's a National Socialist party and a whole plethora of even...uh...weirder ones.
Fenris

Click to expand...

Agreed! Just look at The Green Party!

American government and economy is best described as a socialist oligarchical "capitalism". this capitalism is in result no different than communism. in communism, government maintains complete control of economy directly, while in american capitalism, both government and economy are controlled by large corporations and international trusts. in either communism or the american system, there is central control of both government and economy.

Originally posted by ryank
I have generally considered that game's conception of the distinction between Republic & Democracy is that the Democratic government is more immediately accountable to the people for any of a number of institutional reasons

Click to expand...

Democracy it's supposed to be the "government of the people" be it direct or representative. In fact there are many arguments through this thread proving it'll never happened in history.

Republic it's where the 3 powers: executive, legislative and judicial are separated as oposed to absolute monarchy where the 3 powers are all in hands of the king.

Keep civilized

David

Firstly, I agree about democracy - it is a very vague concept; but then so too are republics, not to mention Communism. To get at the sort of democracy that Sid Meier is hinting toward I think "liberal democracy" would be the appropriate name, engendering a system combining constitutional protections (liberalism) and democracy.

I think your solution of creating a capitalist government, qelebex, seems much more informed by an ideological grudge, and not an accurate representation of capitalism. Firstly, the United States is not the only capitalism state (nor has it been particularly warlike these past 50 years, nor does it have the draft). Secondly, if we look at capitalism as a degree, the US has been much more warlike in the period in which it was characterized by a mixed economy. The period prior to World War II was characterized by an isolationist foreign policy and laissez-faire economics (except for the 1930's, with the new deal - although perhaps tellingly Roosevelt was also opposed to isolationism).

Furthermore I don't see what theology has to do with capitalism, except perhaps in that religious intolerance drove some people in minority religions to engage in enterprise (which was frowned upon), founding the basis of capitalism.

The biggest problem with these changes, however, is that republicanism and capitalism are indistinguishable.