Roleplaying Civs and the Policy Tree

GenjiKhan · Sep 16, 2011

Babri said:
Again I have to disagree with that statement. As I mentioned before

Non muslims were not supposed to pay Zakat & Ushr.

They either had to participate in military or had to pay Jizya.

You can check out this link for more information about taxes. http://www.muslimtents.com/shaufi/b16/b16_13.htm#CHAPTER 13

Well,I think it would be better to have a military Conscription for non-muslims than having a extra tax for them,just like the way I have in my country . For the little I understood about Zakat and Ushr,they are some kind of donation,where they can send to wherever they want,while Jizya is a tax for the govermenent . This tiny difference shows that Jizya can be heavier to the saving than Zakat & Ushr,which confirms my theory about "force people to accept Islam in a financial way" . You wouldn't want a extra heavy tax just because you were born in a community different from the others .

Babri said:
Scholars have different opinions about leaving Islam. MY belief is that if someone leaves Islam & then speaks/propgates against Islam, only then he deserves punishment. (just like a traitor).

This is more related to Piety than Autocracy,which is the two points that you consider offensive to them . But,this point,beside affecting the Free thought(because you are threat to say about what you think about the official religion) of the Arabia,also affects the Free speech(you will be penalized to say what you think about anything),which is one of the Social Policies of the Freedom branch . So,Arabia wouldn't have Rationalism,neither Freedom . What if Arab Spring goes to Saud Arabia,then that country became a democracy? it wouldn't affect this,because the chart analyzes the history of the civilization,since their beginning and choose the social policies that better fits to their whole history . And I'd like to ask if a Spaniard would be offended if someone says that his/her country would prefer Piety/Autocracy,because this is the same situation of Arabia(if there's a Spaniard reading this,I'd like to know your answer) .

Babri · Sep 16, 2011

GenjiKhan said:
Well,I think it would be better to have a military Conscription for non-muslims than having a extra tax for them,just like the way I have in my country . For the little I understood about Zakat and Ushr,they are some kind of donation,where they can send to wherever they want,while Jizya is a tax for the govermenent . This tiny difference shows that Jizya can be heavier to the saving than Zakat & Ushr,which confirms my theory about "force people to accept Islam in a financial way" . You wouldn't want a extra heavy tax just because you were born in a community different from the others .

Non-muslims did offered military services in some cases (Mughals for example under Aurangzeb) & so they were exempted from jizya. It was their choice whether they want to serve army, pay jizya or accept Islam.

GenjiKhan said:
This is more related to Piety than Autocracy,which is the two points that you consider offensive to them . But,this point,beside affecting the Free thought(because you are threat to say about what you think about official religion) of the Arabia,also affects the Free speech(you will be penalized to say what you think about anything),which is one of the Social Policies of the Freedom branch . So,Arabia wouldn't have Rationalism,neither Freedom . What if Arab Spring goes to Saud Arabia,then that country became a democracy? it wouldn't affect this,because the chart analyzes the history of the civilization,since their beginning and choose the social policies that better fits to their whole history . And I'd like to ask if a Spaniard would be offended if someone says that his/her country would prefer Piety/Autocracy,because this is the same situation of Arabia(if there's a Spanish reading this,I'd like to know your answer) .

Well Freedom of Speech/expression has limits even in many European countries as well as US through censorship but that is a seperate issue. I would say give Order to Arabia, autocracy doesn't match Arabs at all. It is like saying US should get Autocracy because it has done a lot of warmongering in past years (WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Afghan War, Iraq War etc).

GenjiKhan · Sep 16, 2011

Babri said:
Non-muslims did offered military services in some cases (Mughals for example under Aurangzeb) & so they were exempted from jizya. It was their choice whether they want to serve army, pay jizya or accept Islam.

It's important to see that going to war,usually,isn't the best choice,because of the obvious risk of dying there. Would you die for the country that invaded your community,just to avoid paying a tax that they impose to your community? Guess this case would be considered exception,and I guess that happen because they shared the looting of the conquests with them.

Babri said:
Well Freedom of Speech/expression has limits even in many European countries as well as US through censorship but that is a seperate issue. I would say give Order to Arabia, autocracy doesn't match Arabs at all. It is like saying US should get Autocracy because it has done a lot of warmongering in past years (WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Afghan War, Iraq War etc).

I agree with you about the limits of Freedom of Speech,because nobody can scream "fire" at a full theater . But the Freedom of Speech I'm talking about here is about where you can complain about anything without being penalized(as long you don't incite hate to other groups) by the law,something that doesn't happen on Arabia . On US,you can complain about government or these wars without being condemned to death(the FBI might "disappear" with you,but that's a slightly different problem :mischief:

) . And if you analyze the differences between the Order and the Autocracy branch,you realize that Order is good for defense and Autocracy is good for Offense,because Autocracy put the Army needs above population needs and the Muslim conquests show clearly which one is more important . For the same reason,Spanish also has Autocracy,because they were hostile to American Natives,which had been forced to adopt Christianism .

Babri · Sep 18, 2011

GenjiKhan said:
It's important to see that going to war,usually,isn't the best choice,because of the obvious risk of dying there. Would you die for the country that invaded your community,just to avoid paying a tax that they impose to your community? Guess this case would be considered exception,and I guess that happen because they shared the looting of the conquests with them.

You see, you still have the choice. U complained that Non-muslims were forced to pay & were pressurised economically which is wrong. There are cases where christians & jews invited muslims to conquer the cities so that they have to pay lower taxes compared to Byazantines & Persians.

GenjiKhan said:
And if you analyze the differences between the Order and the Autocracy branch,you realize that Order is good for defense and Autocracy is good for Offense,because Autocracy put the Army needs above population needs and the Muslim conquests show clearly which one is more important. For the same reason,Spanish also has Autocracy,because they were hostile to American Natives,which had been forced to adopt Christianism .

You must have realised it by now that when empires grow powerful, most of the time they go on offence instead of sitting on defence. America, British & France are perfect examples. I would give Arabs Order because of their expansive approach & a very strong law & order system. Do you know that the today Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates.

And just compare them with the other conquerors of their time or even modern day US. The usual tradition is to slaughter the population, and even US did that (Iraq War, Vietnam War) despite of believing in human rights & freedom.

GenjiKhan · Sep 20, 2011

Babri said:
You see, you still have the choice. U complained that Non-muslims were forced to pay & were pressurised economically which is wrong. There are cases where christians & jews invited muslims to conquer the cities so that they have to pay lower taxes compared to Byazantines & Persians.

You're confusing the history of the Islamism with the History of the Arabia . It's true that the History of Arabia is heavily influentiated by Islam,but let's focus on the History of Arabian Civilization,which is the point that you think is offensive .

Babri said:
You must have realised it by now that when empires grow powerful, most of the time they go on offence instead of sitting on defence. America, British & France are perfect examples. I would give Arabs Order because of their expansive approach & a very strong law & order system. Do you know that the today Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates.
And just compare them with the other conquerors of their time or even modern day US. The usual tradition is to slaughter the population, and even US did that (Iraq War, Vietnam War) despite of believing in human rights & freedom.

There's a tiny difference between a empire which grows and sustain your empire through diplomacy and a empire that does the same based on the brute force(army) . The British and France empire would be still Freedom,even with their empires,because they accepted the independence of their colonies(that happened after ww2) . About USA,they didn't supress intensively the culture of the American Natives to adopt their culture and their religion,unlike Spain when they occupied the American continent . The same Saudi Arabia which has one of the lowest crime rates also has one of the most repressive government in the world(even Iran isn't so repressive than them) . About USA being warmonger lately,I guess that happen because the people that control the power of the USA(the people that control the politics),has decided to attack these countries and they don't want to show us why they do this . This is off topic,because it's related to conspiracy theories,which is a complicated subject to discuss.

Camikaze · Sep 20, 2011

Moderator Action: This isn't the off-topic forum or the history forum, guys. Please take such discussions there.

Babri · Sep 20, 2011

GenjiKhan said:
You're confusing the history of the Islamism with the History of the Arabia . It's true that the History of Arabia is heavily influentiated by Islam,but let's focus on the History of Arabian Civilization,which is the point that you think is offensive .

No I was talking about Arabs that is why I mentioned Byzantium & Persians specifically.

GenjiKhan said:
There's a tiny difference between a empire which grows and sustain your empire through diplomacy and a empire that does the same based on the brute force(army) . The British and France empire would be still Freedom,even with their empires,because they accepted the independence of their colonies(that happened after ww2) . About USA,they didn't supress intensively the culture of the American Natives to adopt their culture and their religion,unlike Spain when they occupied the American continent . The same Saudi Arabia which has one of the lowest crime rates also has one of the most repressive government in the world(even Iran isn't so repressive than them) . About USA being warmonger lately,I guess that happen because the people that control the power of the USA(the people that control the politics),has decided to attack these countries and they don't want to show us why they do this . This is off topic,because it's related to conspiracy theories,which is a complicated subject to discuss.

When I was talked about low crime rates I was trying to convey that their law & order is pretty strong that is why they deserve Order more than Autocracy. Also unlike Macedonia, Mongolia, Nazi Germany or Timurids, Arab empire still flourished even after the age of conquests (advances in science & technology, mathematics, medicine, architecture etc). So your point that their success solely depended on army is weak. Even though they used conquest to fuel their power, but they had their other aspects much stronger than their conquests. The same reason is for giving them Piety instead of Rationalism because even though Science was a big achievement of medieval Arabs, Religion still played a much bigger part in their civilization.

The key point here to note is that all civs have flavours in different trees. So US warmongering gives it a point in Autocracy but since their Freedom/Liberty point is much stronger that is why they are given Freedom. In reality Piety & Rationalism can go well along as seen in the Islamic Golden Age, still due to limitations in ciV design, we have to prefer one of the trees. Arabs tendency towards Order is stronger than Autocracy that is why they should get Order instead.

Camikaze said:
Moderator Action: This isn't the off-topic forum or the history forum, guys. Please take such discussions there.

I am trying to stick with ciV as much as I can. Still I have to back up my arguments with history.

GenjiKhan · Sep 21, 2011

Babri said:
When I was talked about low crime rates I was trying to convey that their law & order is pretty strong that is why they deserve Order more than Autocracy. Also unlike Macedonia, Mongolia, Nazi Germany or Timurids, Arab empire still flourished even after the age of conquests (advances in science & technology, mathematics, medicine, architecture etc). So your point that their success solely depended on army is weak. Even though they used conquest to fuel their power, but they had their other aspects much stronger than their conquests. The same reason is for giving them Piety instead of Rationalism because even though Science was a big achievement of medieval Arabs, Religion still played a much bigger part in their civilization.

You're confusing the Muslim people with the Arabians people . it's true that the history of Arabian Civilization is deeply connected with the history of Islamism,but let's not forget when the Arab history ends and Islam history begins . Beside,you can get low crime rates on Autocracy too . The difference is,in Order,you get low crime rate by equalizing the income of the most of citizens,which can stifle the motivation of breaking the law,while in Autocracy,you get low crime rate by having heavy punishment for those who wish to break the law,like having death penalty for being homosexual or adultery . Order would be more suitable to Arabia,if they splitted religion and government and that's why Spain isn't an religious Autocracy nowadays .

Babri said:
The key point here to note is that all civs have flavours in different trees. So US warmongering gives it a point in Autocracy but since their Freedom/Liberty point is much stronger that is why they are given Freedom. In reality Piety & Rationalism can go well along as seen in the Islamic Golden Age, still due to limitations in ciV design, we have to prefer one of the trees. Arabs tendency towards Order is stronger than Autocracy that is why they should get Order instead.

About US,I think we should wait at least three more centuries before giving Autocracy to them,because their hostility to weak countries isn't so strong that makes them adopt a dictatorship government to support their huge army . But with the high public deficit they have,I wouldn't be surprised if they changed to Autocracy,instead reducing the size of the army .

davane · Oct 16, 2011

JWAT44 said:
no it really isnt. the us is one of few nations in all of world history that never had religion run any part of the government. the fact that there are still more religious individuals than in other industrialized nations and that those people try to make laws based on their religious morals does not make the country pious. any other civ would be a better fit for piety except for babylon and korea because they have science bonuses.

I think it does when the people making those laws happen to be the Republican President trying to amend the constitution with the Defence of Marriage Act because of religious beliefs on what marriage is.

The very strong ultra-conservative right makes for a lot of piety. Remember that America is the home to a branch of Christianity known as the Mormons, and also has a number of Amish, Catholic, and Protestant believers. Christianity is very strong in the heartland or "Bible Belt" of America. Thus Piety makes sense when considering the nation as a whole, even though it does have a high science output, this is largely due to commerce and religious grounds, not rational ones.

Notable scientists of the era spent more of their time "patent trolling" than actual inventing, which is why they are credited as the inventors of many inventions even though this is not actually the case. This has been going on extensively, and caused many industries to move to other areas to escape the eyes of the US Patent Office.

We are talking about a nation that devotes resources to researching and developing a hormonal "anti-gay" device to "cure" homosexuality because it is deemed immoral on religious grounds by a substantial part of the community. Does that sound like rationalism to you?

silverspirit · Oct 16, 2011

Back on topic, playing monty on deity, finished tradition, one short on religion and planning to go onto autocracy next. I wonder if honor is appropriate as the next policy since human sacrifice is not honorable. Was planning to go rationalism (yes I know it conflicts with religion), using flawed (ie completely discredited science of eugenics) science as an excuse to subjugate the whole world.

SO what ya think?

Glassmage · Oct 16, 2011

uh aztec was honorable, even with the sacrifices...They went to wars for sacrifices instead of randomly killing someone. They were not rational, if anything that trait is Maya. You should be Tradition, Honor, Piety, Patronage, and Autocracy.

Udey1 · Oct 16, 2011

edit: unproductive

silverspirit · Oct 17, 2011

Glassmage said:
uh aztec was honorable, even with the sacrifices...They went to wars for sacrifices instead of randomly killing someone. They were not rational, if anything that trait is Maya. You should be Tradition, Honor, Piety, Patronage, and Autocracy.

Patronage would be a little unproductive, since I don't play with any city states. I don't think I will manage to get 5 policies anyway, since I am not playing for cultural victory, And I am at turn 600 already (but now 2 policies into autocracy). Still not sure about honor - monty does not seem the chivalrous type. He always backstabs everyone in other games I've played.

Bocoraton · Oct 17, 2011

seasnake said:
"Yes there are problems, there will always be problems, especially in the current economic situation. A lack of higher education, about which I hear so much, is one of them. And it will be resolved, as will all others, in my next mandate."

(Massive Kudos to whoever recognizes this quote).

Tropico 3 when you chose education in your speech.

Becephalus · Jun 21, 2012

I have updated this to go along with the new expansion. Obviously as you can see from the thread below the choices will always be controversial, but I basically used the same system.

JWAT44 · Jun 22, 2012

Ra's Head said:
I had tried a similar project, but ended up frustrated since I felt that the vast majority of civs would have taken tradition. If you want to force roughly equal numbers of each policy tree, you will have some historical inaccuracies. Honestly, that is fine. After all, it is just a game.

As far as Arabia is concerned, I doubt the original poster meant to offend anyone. Piety refers to the prevalence of Islam in the founding of the civilization and is certainly appropriate. Rationalism is also appropriate since the height of the Arabic empire was marked by important scientific work not to mention arts (patronage?). Unfortunately, the game only allows one of these. This is the same problem with the USA. In reality, the rift between science and religion is relatively modern and many famous scientists were also theologians. Blaise Pascal comes to mind.

Looking at the individual policies, would you argue that the scientific revolution wasn't important to America? Would you argue that the reformation wasn't important to America? I mean a really accurate policy count would not be game-legal. We have a professional army, but definitely not a military caste. I could go on.

The real problem is that of Autocracy, Order, and Freedom, only Freedom will probably be considered 'good' by people. So any civ assigned the other two may be offended. I don't know about Arabia as an autocracy (referring to various dictatorships in the region in modern times I guess) but I am not sure Freedom fits, since even at the times of Harun, it was clearly not democracy as we know it. Mostly the choice is up to the player.

all good points. people like to forget how big of a role religion and religious people played in education and science. for example, it was a monk who discovered dominant and recessive genes. i'm neither religious nor atheist but we need to give credit where it's due. back to the game, i think they should stop autocracy from cancelling order (every communist state to date has been an autocracy). i think it used to be that way but i don't remember. they could also have autocracy cancel patronage. why would someone out to conquer the world care about being allied to a bunch of city states when he can just conquer them? :mischief:

Flying Mathias · Jun 22, 2012

Why are people arguing over this? If you want America to have rationalism, you can do so in your game. If you want Arabia to have order, go ahead. It's not like you have to obey the list fully.

Becephalus · Jun 22, 2012

Flying Mathias said:
Why are people arguing over this? If you want America to have rationalism, you can do so in your game. If you want Arabia to have order, go ahead. It's not like you have to obey the list fully.

Those out of compliance will be hunted down and forced to play with all the goody huts only revealing barbarian locations!

HazzMadd · Jun 22, 2012

I think I love you, man.

But really, this is so awesome. 7 out of 7 papayas!

Babri · Jun 23, 2012

I was thinking about starting a topic about appropriate religions for the civs.

Roleplaying Civs and the Policy Tree

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Administrator

Emperor

Emperor

Warlord

Chieftain

The Desert Flame

Prince

Chieftain

Chieftain

King

Prince

Warlord

King

Chieftain

Emperor

Similar threads