ianinsane
Prince
The idea with buyout-events is fine!
I just updated the civ/civic-list with Asia and Oceania.
I just updated the civ/civic-list with Asia and Oceania.
Civics
- Thread starter NikNaks
- Start date
The main disagreement I have is on government:
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the more extreme dictatorships, and it has already been suggested that it use Totalitarian.
Iran actually is technically a Republic, even with female sufferage, albeit one with an inelectable Revolutionary Council as one part of the government, so it makes more sense to give it the Presidential civic and switch media to State-run. Also, is it a state-run economy? If so, I wasn't aware.
China is not a Totalitarian dictatorship anymore; their current government has not granted much additional sufferage, but it has adopted a new constitution that provides for separation of powers, and ensures that single men cannot build a cult of personality. They will not have something Chiang's New Life Movement or Mao's Cultural Revolution again. When conceiving civics for this game, I saw fit to split tyrannical governments between Civic categories, so I added Technocracy with China specifically in mind. At the same time, the restructured government hasn't meant overall improvement in human rights, so switch China's government to Technocracy, but also switch labor away from Organized (Collective isn't an exact designation for China's labor anymore, but it's probably still the one that fits best), and switch legal to Martial Law. China's current economic growth may be unequal, but Darwinism is the realm of borderline failed-states, and in police states (which is what Martial Law implies), it's not very appropriate.
I don't think Vietnam is Totalitarian anymore either, nor is it strictly Communist, but it does seem to be more backwards than China, so maybe change it Caesardom and Corportatist.
North Korea is, of course, still a Totalitarian state, and definitely collective. I'm not sure they'll have the tech I programmed required for Military-Industrial at the start, however, so if need be, just default them back to Communist in the Economy category.
Finally, while we're on the subject of Communist states, what happened to Cuba? Is it part of Bolivarian America now?
Other than these issues, good job!
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the more extreme dictatorships, and it has already been suggested that it use Totalitarian.
Iran actually is technically a Republic, even with female sufferage, albeit one with an inelectable Revolutionary Council as one part of the government, so it makes more sense to give it the Presidential civic and switch media to State-run. Also, is it a state-run economy? If so, I wasn't aware.
China is not a Totalitarian dictatorship anymore; their current government has not granted much additional sufferage, but it has adopted a new constitution that provides for separation of powers, and ensures that single men cannot build a cult of personality. They will not have something Chiang's New Life Movement or Mao's Cultural Revolution again. When conceiving civics for this game, I saw fit to split tyrannical governments between Civic categories, so I added Technocracy with China specifically in mind. At the same time, the restructured government hasn't meant overall improvement in human rights, so switch China's government to Technocracy, but also switch labor away from Organized (Collective isn't an exact designation for China's labor anymore, but it's probably still the one that fits best), and switch legal to Martial Law. China's current economic growth may be unequal, but Darwinism is the realm of borderline failed-states, and in police states (which is what Martial Law implies), it's not very appropriate.
I don't think Vietnam is Totalitarian anymore either, nor is it strictly Communist, but it does seem to be more backwards than China, so maybe change it Caesardom and Corportatist.
North Korea is, of course, still a Totalitarian state, and definitely collective. I'm not sure they'll have the tech I programmed required for Military-Industrial at the start, however, so if need be, just default them back to Communist in the Economy category.
Finally, while we're on the subject of Communist states, what happened to Cuba? Is it part of Bolivarian America now?
Other than these issues, good job!
ianinsane
Prince
OK, that's something to discuss about: What do the government civics mean? My take on some of them seems to be a little different than yours. Here's how I interpret the government civs:
Caesardom: An authoritatian dictatorship. This means a dictatorshop where the dictator is in absolute power and demands subjugation from his people. But he doesn't care what people do in their private non-political life, e.g. what music they here, what habits they have.
Totalitarian: A totalitarian dictatorship. Here the dictator demands total subjugation from his people in every aspect of their life. Their habits must be consistent with his ideology.
Presidential: A democratic civ. Presidential democracy. No disagreement on this I think.
Parliamentary: A democratic civ. Parliamentary democracy. No disagreement either.
Technocracy: I don't necessarily think that this must be a non-democratic form of government. In my use of this word this means that the government (elected or non-elected) consists not of polititians but of technocrats, i.e. experts. I'd given this government civic to the EU as the only one in the world.
I'd like to have a discussion on the interpretation of government civics with you guys. I know, Bahmo, that you chose the civics and had exactly in mind what you meant them to be but people who play our mod should know exactly what every civic is about. And if they (like me) think some of the civic names to be something different then they'll be confused.
So with these things in mind that's what I think about your suggestions:
Saudi Arabia: I agree. At first I wasn't sure how much the Saudi government interfers with the private lifestyle of their people but the more I think about it the better Totalitarian fits. I'll change it.
China: You're right about them no longer being Totalitarian. However, China still is a party dictatorship. And I'm not sure, either. Caesardom is misleading since it is focused on one person (maybe it makes sense to change it into "Authoritarian"?) and Technocracy is misleading since it can be taken for a democratic system, too. But if everyone else agrees that Technocracy is no form of democracy, I'll change it into Thechnocracy.
Switch to Collective and Martial Law seems good to me.
Vietnam: Wikipedia says "adherence to ideological orthodoxy has become less important than economic development as a national priority." So it might still be Totalitarian, or already be Caesardom. Maybe someone who lives closer can answer that question... what do you think, Genghis Kai?
Same with Communist... Wikipedia: "While the country has shifted toward a more market-oriented economy, the Vietnamese government still continues to hold a tight rein over major sectors of the economy, such as the banking system, state-owned enterprises, and areas of foreign trade."
Still Communist or already Corporatist? Genghis?
North Korea. I agree. But I'll leave Military-Industrial as long as we don't know the starting techs.
Cuba. Yes, it's part of the Bolivarians. But Venezuela definately is the most powerful country in that coalition so I was geared to that when I chose the civics.
Caesardom: An authoritatian dictatorship. This means a dictatorshop where the dictator is in absolute power and demands subjugation from his people. But he doesn't care what people do in their private non-political life, e.g. what music they here, what habits they have.
Totalitarian: A totalitarian dictatorship. Here the dictator demands total subjugation from his people in every aspect of their life. Their habits must be consistent with his ideology.
Presidential: A democratic civ. Presidential democracy. No disagreement on this I think.
Parliamentary: A democratic civ. Parliamentary democracy. No disagreement either.
Technocracy: I don't necessarily think that this must be a non-democratic form of government. In my use of this word this means that the government (elected or non-elected) consists not of polititians but of technocrats, i.e. experts. I'd given this government civic to the EU as the only one in the world.
I'd like to have a discussion on the interpretation of government civics with you guys. I know, Bahmo, that you chose the civics and had exactly in mind what you meant them to be but people who play our mod should know exactly what every civic is about. And if they (like me) think some of the civic names to be something different then they'll be confused.
So with these things in mind that's what I think about your suggestions:
Saudi Arabia: I agree. At first I wasn't sure how much the Saudi government interfers with the private lifestyle of their people but the more I think about it the better Totalitarian fits. I'll change it.
China: You're right about them no longer being Totalitarian. However, China still is a party dictatorship. And I'm not sure, either. Caesardom is misleading since it is focused on one person (maybe it makes sense to change it into "Authoritarian"?) and Technocracy is misleading since it can be taken for a democratic system, too. But if everyone else agrees that Technocracy is no form of democracy, I'll change it into Thechnocracy.
Switch to Collective and Martial Law seems good to me.
Vietnam: Wikipedia says "adherence to ideological orthodoxy has become less important than economic development as a national priority." So it might still be Totalitarian, or already be Caesardom. Maybe someone who lives closer can answer that question... what do you think, Genghis Kai?
Same with Communist... Wikipedia: "While the country has shifted toward a more market-oriented economy, the Vietnamese government still continues to hold a tight rein over major sectors of the economy, such as the banking system, state-owned enterprises, and areas of foreign trade."
Still Communist or already Corporatist? Genghis?
North Korea. I agree. But I'll leave Military-Industrial as long as we don't know the starting techs.
Cuba. Yes, it's part of the Bolivarians. But Venezuela definately is the most powerful country in that coalition so I was geared to that when I chose the civics.
Here is the gist of what the civics mean, as I planned them.
Both Caesardom and Totalitarian imply dictatorships, and the idea I had for distinguishing the two really came from the Second Revolution mod. There, one civic was called "Personalistic" and the other was called "Totalitarian;" I borrowed the basic idea but renamed the first one in order to be more clear about what it meant, and how it differed from a totalitarian state.
The notion of dictatorship is, as always, a sticky one to convey in Civilization IV, because the player is technically always a lifelong (indeed, immortal) dictator during the game, regardless of civics. The real validity with government civics is as a way to simulate what the effects of different governments would be, as though the leader was less than absolute and enduring. However, some things do differ based upon more than just what sort of power a leader has.
The Economist Democracy Index lists both Israel and Palestine as "flawed democracies," not because there's anything wrong with their actual government structure (except that perhaps Israel should have a written constitution, but the UK does not have a written constitution either, and does alright), but probably because of the glaring religious bias in both, which colors judgement. Mexico likewise has a constitution modeled after the US, but functions less because of poor labor conditions, economic mismanagement, and similar flaws.
The core game already has tyrannical institutions represented across every category; you'd still think a country with Universal Sufferage was fairly tyrannical if it also had Slavery implemented, for example. Rather than change this theme of multiple brands of oppression, I simply wanted to modernize it, which solicited the changes. "Hereditary Rule" does not work in the modern world, where few absolute monarchies are left, nor does it really make sense in a game where leaders are immortal. "Representation" isn't valid as a milder alternative to "Universal Sufferage," because the latter has been reached in all major democracies. Hence, both democracy and dictatorship are split into two types. A "Caesar" is basically a demagogue; he rules as a dictator, but only because the people want him to. That doesn't rule out all authoritarian measures, but it at least balances the "whip-to-carrot" ratio a little more. A totalitarian may or may not have to resort to brutal measures more than a "Caesar," but has more interest in brainwashing the country to see eye-to-eye with him.
The easiest way to understand what the difference is between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" governments, is to consider the first to be a government intolerant of certain behaviors, whereas the second is one that mandates certain behaviors. So in other words, in an authoritarian system, any behavior is probably fine so long as it doesn't threaten the government. In a totalitarian one, the government feels threatened if you don't put the dictator's portrait or something like a swastika everywhere.
Totalitarianism is therefore much less flexible, but authoritarianism in fact does not necessarily imply dictatorship. It's still possible for a democratic country to become intolerant of those who dissent from what the majority of the people decides upon. Singapore (Is it in the mod?) can be considered an authoritarian democracy. Caesardom as I interpreted it does imply dictatorship, but less as a means to keeping the people in line than as a means to streamlining the bureaucratic processes that would plague a democracy; hence the effect I gave it.
Which brings us, finally, to Technocracy, and to China. Technocracy is in my interpretation much like Plato's Republic. It isn't necessarily undemocratic, as an arguement of its advocates against democracy would likely argue that a democracy just boils down to people being misled by and electing the enlightened elite, so an enlightened elite that is good ought to be constitutionally mandated from the start. However, in the case of China, a technocracy has emerged out of two causes: One, as a secular replacement for the traditional Confucian civil service examination system, and two, due to the intentions of a communist government that understands the benefit of strong leadership to a country, but also understands the dangers of what can happen when loyalty to the leadership becomes seen as more important than usefulness to the country.
You had mentioned that the European Union was the only "country" you planned on giving the technocracy civic, and that you hadn't thought about China. They actually are not that different from one another. The European Union is a coalition of different nations; China is a multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural empire-gone-nationstate, which is part of why its leaders have always felt the need to exert firm control to keep it together. The EU may consist of democracies (to varying degrees; I still dislike the political scene in much of Eastern Europe), but its leadership isn't really all that democratic. China, in a similar fashion, has democratic elections on the local level, as well as some autonomous regions like Hong Kong, but not popular elections of the national government.
At the same time, it is a myth that China has made no political reforms. Their adoption of many market reforms alone proves that they've renounced the old Cultural Revolution motto that "It's better to red than expert," and points to the arguement for them being a technocracy, but beyond that, there is the fact that under the new constitution, their chief executives are still not popularly elected, but they also are not unchecked in power, and do not serve for life. For that matter, they also certainly don't have their portrait plastered everywhere. Your arguement that China is still a one party dictatorship really doesn't point towards using either Totalitarian or Caesardom civics for them, because those represent one man dictatorships, and furthermore, China is a one-party dictatorship only because that's how, in fact, checks and balances manifest themselves in China. To get power in China usually requires joining the Communist Party, but now the Communist Party is admitting a great deal of types who aren't particularly "communistic." Hence, there is no longer perfect unity just because only one party can legally exist in China, because that party's ranks have swelled to contain many rival factions; in China, they call them "cliques."
So yes, China's government fits best with the Technocracy civic. The view of their government as undemocratic has less to do with its actual structure (fairly similar to Western republics now) than it does with its relation to the people (still forceful and detached), so this situation is better replicated with State-Censored media, Collective labor, and Martial Law.
Both Caesardom and Totalitarian imply dictatorships, and the idea I had for distinguishing the two really came from the Second Revolution mod. There, one civic was called "Personalistic" and the other was called "Totalitarian;" I borrowed the basic idea but renamed the first one in order to be more clear about what it meant, and how it differed from a totalitarian state.
The notion of dictatorship is, as always, a sticky one to convey in Civilization IV, because the player is technically always a lifelong (indeed, immortal) dictator during the game, regardless of civics. The real validity with government civics is as a way to simulate what the effects of different governments would be, as though the leader was less than absolute and enduring. However, some things do differ based upon more than just what sort of power a leader has.
The Economist Democracy Index lists both Israel and Palestine as "flawed democracies," not because there's anything wrong with their actual government structure (except that perhaps Israel should have a written constitution, but the UK does not have a written constitution either, and does alright), but probably because of the glaring religious bias in both, which colors judgement. Mexico likewise has a constitution modeled after the US, but functions less because of poor labor conditions, economic mismanagement, and similar flaws.
The core game already has tyrannical institutions represented across every category; you'd still think a country with Universal Sufferage was fairly tyrannical if it also had Slavery implemented, for example. Rather than change this theme of multiple brands of oppression, I simply wanted to modernize it, which solicited the changes. "Hereditary Rule" does not work in the modern world, where few absolute monarchies are left, nor does it really make sense in a game where leaders are immortal. "Representation" isn't valid as a milder alternative to "Universal Sufferage," because the latter has been reached in all major democracies. Hence, both democracy and dictatorship are split into two types. A "Caesar" is basically a demagogue; he rules as a dictator, but only because the people want him to. That doesn't rule out all authoritarian measures, but it at least balances the "whip-to-carrot" ratio a little more. A totalitarian may or may not have to resort to brutal measures more than a "Caesar," but has more interest in brainwashing the country to see eye-to-eye with him.
The easiest way to understand what the difference is between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" governments, is to consider the first to be a government intolerant of certain behaviors, whereas the second is one that mandates certain behaviors. So in other words, in an authoritarian system, any behavior is probably fine so long as it doesn't threaten the government. In a totalitarian one, the government feels threatened if you don't put the dictator's portrait or something like a swastika everywhere.
Totalitarianism is therefore much less flexible, but authoritarianism in fact does not necessarily imply dictatorship. It's still possible for a democratic country to become intolerant of those who dissent from what the majority of the people decides upon. Singapore (Is it in the mod?) can be considered an authoritarian democracy. Caesardom as I interpreted it does imply dictatorship, but less as a means to keeping the people in line than as a means to streamlining the bureaucratic processes that would plague a democracy; hence the effect I gave it.
Which brings us, finally, to Technocracy, and to China. Technocracy is in my interpretation much like Plato's Republic. It isn't necessarily undemocratic, as an arguement of its advocates against democracy would likely argue that a democracy just boils down to people being misled by and electing the enlightened elite, so an enlightened elite that is good ought to be constitutionally mandated from the start. However, in the case of China, a technocracy has emerged out of two causes: One, as a secular replacement for the traditional Confucian civil service examination system, and two, due to the intentions of a communist government that understands the benefit of strong leadership to a country, but also understands the dangers of what can happen when loyalty to the leadership becomes seen as more important than usefulness to the country.
You had mentioned that the European Union was the only "country" you planned on giving the technocracy civic, and that you hadn't thought about China. They actually are not that different from one another. The European Union is a coalition of different nations; China is a multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural empire-gone-nationstate, which is part of why its leaders have always felt the need to exert firm control to keep it together. The EU may consist of democracies (to varying degrees; I still dislike the political scene in much of Eastern Europe), but its leadership isn't really all that democratic. China, in a similar fashion, has democratic elections on the local level, as well as some autonomous regions like Hong Kong, but not popular elections of the national government.
At the same time, it is a myth that China has made no political reforms. Their adoption of many market reforms alone proves that they've renounced the old Cultural Revolution motto that "It's better to red than expert," and points to the arguement for them being a technocracy, but beyond that, there is the fact that under the new constitution, their chief executives are still not popularly elected, but they also are not unchecked in power, and do not serve for life. For that matter, they also certainly don't have their portrait plastered everywhere. Your arguement that China is still a one party dictatorship really doesn't point towards using either Totalitarian or Caesardom civics for them, because those represent one man dictatorships, and furthermore, China is a one-party dictatorship only because that's how, in fact, checks and balances manifest themselves in China. To get power in China usually requires joining the Communist Party, but now the Communist Party is admitting a great deal of types who aren't particularly "communistic." Hence, there is no longer perfect unity just because only one party can legally exist in China, because that party's ranks have swelled to contain many rival factions; in China, they call them "cliques."
So yes, China's government fits best with the Technocracy civic. The view of their government as undemocratic has less to do with its actual structure (fairly similar to Western republics now) than it does with its relation to the people (still forceful and detached), so this situation is better replicated with State-Censored media, Collective labor, and Martial Law.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I didn't follow the discussion closely enough and my knowledge on the topic seems to have no where near you guys do (i didn't even heard of the term Technocracy before 
) so I wouldn't make much opinion on the topic.
But by reading the last few posts, I think I mostly would agree with what Bahmo have said, in particular, China.
) so I wouldn't make much opinion on the topic. But by reading the last few posts, I think I mostly would agree with what Bahmo have said, in particular, China.
ianinsane
Prince
Thanks for that exhaustive explanation, Bahmo. It cleared some things up for me. It turns out that we're having quite the same opinion about all that. Thanks in particularly for your words on distinguishing totalitarian and authoritarian. I meant the same but you found the right words.
Now I see that you're right about China being Technocratic. As it turns out the members of the State Council (or the secretaries) indeed are rather experts than reds. One can check that here. We agree on Technocracy being not necessarily democratic OR undemocratic so we can have both the EU and China have that civ. I'm totally fine with that.
I'll edit the changes in the list.
Now I see that you're right about China being Technocratic. As it turns out the members of the State Council (or the secretaries) indeed are rather experts than reds. One can check that here. We agree on Technocracy being not necessarily democratic OR undemocratic so we can have both the EU and China have that civ. I'm totally fine with that.
I'll edit the changes in the list.
Regarding civics i generally agree with you. I'm ok with a technocratic EU, although I want to point out, that there is actually a quiet big difference between China and the EU on this issue and I would like to explain why.
First and foremost the Chinese State Council has powers and importance, the European Commission or Parliament can only dream of. It is quiet powerful in economic questions, but decisions regarding the member states social-systems, welfare-system a big deal of judicial guidelines and laws in general they can only "propose" something, which the national governments can completely ignore if they want to. Furthermore it is also important to note, that the members of the EU all have strong represantive and in free elections elected parliaments and governments, who can anytime decide to leave the EU, if they really want to. Certainly that would have a great impact on the rest of the Union, but that doesn't diminish in any way the possibility to leave the EU if desired. That's another very big difference to China, because any secession-movement there would be (and is in Tibet) punished very, very sternly. Regarding other political fields and policies the EU works together it is important to see, that a very big part of those decisions aren't made by the "technocratic" (but note: also from the national governments selected) European Commission, but by the elected polticians and government themselves, who discuss and debate and bargain till they find a compromise. And that's in my opinion, what democracy is all about!!!
But I completely agree with you, that the construction of the Union itself isn't very democratic (although definitely more than China!) and I really hope that will better in the future. I would like to have a more common debating and active "European Public" and more transeuropean TV-channels and newspapers and maybe also some sort of directly elected "president" of the EU and, very important, the Commission replaced by a sort of european government (with the same powers naturally) elected by the European Parliament. But that has nothing to do with this mod, I'm only dreaming a little bit...........
Apart from that I think it's really great what you guys are doing here and I'm looking forward to playing this cool mod!
First and foremost the Chinese State Council has powers and importance, the European Commission or Parliament can only dream of. It is quiet powerful in economic questions, but decisions regarding the member states social-systems, welfare-system a big deal of judicial guidelines and laws in general they can only "propose" something, which the national governments can completely ignore if they want to. Furthermore it is also important to note, that the members of the EU all have strong represantive and in free elections elected parliaments and governments, who can anytime decide to leave the EU, if they really want to. Certainly that would have a great impact on the rest of the Union, but that doesn't diminish in any way the possibility to leave the EU if desired. That's another very big difference to China, because any secession-movement there would be (and is in Tibet) punished very, very sternly. Regarding other political fields and policies the EU works together it is important to see, that a very big part of those decisions aren't made by the "technocratic" (but note: also from the national governments selected) European Commission, but by the elected polticians and government themselves, who discuss and debate and bargain till they find a compromise. And that's in my opinion, what democracy is all about!!!
But I completely agree with you, that the construction of the Union itself isn't very democratic (although definitely more than China!) and I really hope that will better in the future. I would like to have a more common debating and active "European Public" and more transeuropean TV-channels and newspapers and maybe also some sort of directly elected "president" of the EU and, very important, the Commission replaced by a sort of european government (with the same powers naturally) elected by the European Parliament. But that has nothing to do with this mod, I'm only dreaming a little bit
...........Apart from that I think it's really great what you guys are doing here and I'm looking forward to playing this cool mod!
ianinsane
Prince
Ah...one thing I forgot. I don't agree on Iran. If we agree on totalitarian being not necessarily a dictatorship then this is the civic for Iran. It is indeed technically a Republic but it has a totalitarian system of, in your words, mandating certain behaviour from its people. The government and the Revolutionary Council use the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to watch people's behaviour in public (and sometimes even in private) and sanction it if it does not match the ideology.
I chose the Communist civic because Wikipedia states that "Iran's economy is a mixture of central planning, state ownership of oil and other large enterprises, village agriculture, and small-scale private trading and service ventures." I wasn't really aware of that, too.
Concerning media it is not entirely state run in Iran. There is private media but it undergoes strict censorship. That's why I chose State-Censored instead of State-Run.
I chose the Communist civic because Wikipedia states that "Iran's economy is a mixture of central planning, state ownership of oil and other large enterprises, village agriculture, and small-scale private trading and service ventures." I wasn't really aware of that, too.
Concerning media it is not entirely state run in Iran. There is private media but it undergoes strict censorship. That's why I chose State-Censored instead of State-Run.
One more thing I forgot to add about Asia: How is Taiwan "isolationist?" They want to assert their status as a sovereign nation, yes, but that doesn't imply isolationism, and while they do not have much diplomatic sway, that's not because they don't want to; it's because China requires that Taiwan be ignored diplomatically by anybody who wants to open diplomacy with them. At the same time, though, that's strictly on the political side of things; in terms of trade, Taiwan still has major ties to many world nations, and in fact, China may be their biggest trading partner now.
ianinsane
Prince
I know. I have to admit that I was pretty helpless about Taiwan's legal civic. I assumed that my choice of isolationist would puzzle some people. Here is what I thought:
Darwinism isn't right because, as you said, it's the realm of borderline failed states.
Confederacy doesn't work because Taiwan is no Confederacy or Federation or something similar.
Internationalism doesn't really work in my eyes since Taiwan only has diplomatic relations to 23 states like Nauru, Swaziland and Panama.
Martial Law...As far as I know Taiwan is under no Martial Law.
Mandatory Justice doesn't work since the tech is not yet discovered.
In my eyes Isolationism worked best because of the reasons that made Internationalism impossible. Of course it's not deliberately chosen but it is the status quo caused by China.
But I'll be glad to hear a counter-proposal.
Darwinism isn't right because, as you said, it's the realm of borderline failed states.
Confederacy doesn't work because Taiwan is no Confederacy or Federation or something similar.
Internationalism doesn't really work in my eyes since Taiwan only has diplomatic relations to 23 states like Nauru, Swaziland and Panama.
Martial Law...As far as I know Taiwan is under no Martial Law.
Mandatory Justice doesn't work since the tech is not yet discovered.
In my eyes Isolationism worked best because of the reasons that made Internationalism impossible. Of course it's not deliberately chosen but it is the status quo caused by China.
But I'll be glad to hear a counter-proposal.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
OK I lied. I will make comments But I will keep my comments only on those topics related to greater China to not making myself sound stupid
I wonder what will the cause be for Taiwan being Internationalism in the game. I suspect it doesn't have much relation with diplomatic relationship in reality, would it? Can we just make Taiwan to have no open border with most of the countries to represent that instead?
The current government of Taiwan is definitely following an Internationalism regime. Arguably, it is why the current president Ma Ying-jeou got elected (the term "flexible diplomacy" was invented and overwhelmingly propagandized in his presidential campaign). If civic represents the chosen form of government, NOT the current status of the state, then Taiwan should be Internationalism. In comparison, the old government before May 2008 would be correct to use isolationism.
But I will keep my comments only on those topics related to greater China to not making myself sound stupid I wonder what will the cause be for Taiwan being Internationalism in the game. I suspect it doesn't have much relation with diplomatic relationship in reality, would it? Can we just make Taiwan to have no open border with most of the countries to represent that instead?
The current government of Taiwan is definitely following an Internationalism regime. Arguably, it is why the current president Ma Ying-jeou got elected (the term "flexible diplomacy" was invented and overwhelmingly propagandized in his presidential campaign). If civic represents the chosen form of government, NOT the current status of the state, then Taiwan should be Internationalism. In comparison, the old government before May 2008 would be correct to use isolationism.
ianinsane
Prince
OK, I'll change Taiwan to Internationalism.
civhelp121
Prince
I have a question, is a corporatist economy also regulated? Personally, I really liked the civic set up of Rise of Mankind mod. I can see, though, how the civic set up for 2009+ would be different than a civic set up from beggining of civilization+. However, I disagree with grass roots as a choice. There are simply no civilizations in the world that completly block out corporations and only have small buisnesses. Instead, I think corporatist should be the civic that pertains to civilizations with much less regulation.
I think that grass roots should be replaced with Welfare State, to represent the more European model of Capitalism. Its defining characteristics would be added happieness, less food produced (to represent the declining populations of Europe), higher commerce and science but less hammers.
I think that grass roots should be replaced with Welfare State, to represent the more European model of Capitalism. Its defining characteristics would be added happieness, less food produced (to represent the declining populations of Europe), higher commerce and science but less hammers.
ianinsane
Prince
Sure there is no current grassroots economy in the world. But I'll switch to it first thing I play the mod, that's for sure.
Larklight
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 241
I think you have a somewhat important hole in your civics- you lack any option for the sort of free market/mixed economies that the US, UK, Canada, etc. run right now.
Corporatist, by the bonuses given, comes fairly close, except the description jarrs somewhat.
Corporatist, by the bonuses given, comes fairly close, except the description jarrs somewhat.
ianinsane
Prince
Well....I don't really see a difference there. The free market/mixed economies you describe are de facto corporatist economies.
ianinsane
Prince
Resulting more from the fact that the former is an emerging market and the latter are highly industrialized countries than from highly different economic systems. Of course the different political systems play their role, too, but that's for another civic category. The bottom line is that those three economic systems are rather deregulated free market economies. That's making the corporations the strongest players and thus they are - in my view - fairly described by "corporatist".
Larklight
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 241
If they're degregulated market economies, why not just call it free market, or market economy, or liberal, or sumsuch? Corporatist, though it has a distinct meaning, sounds rather like the facsist versions, where all corperations are subservient to the state's will
os79
Deity
Actually, it is reverse of what you said. A corporatist economy is where big businesses dictate policies whether out front or behind the scenes (like here in United States).
