Governments

I think it would be great if civ4 had a social engineering table for government structure, much like that of alpha centauri. The idea would be if you chose certain perameters, your government would be called each of the governments available in any other civ game - monarchy, democracy, republic, etc., but you could engineer more governments to suit your needs. It seems like most of the time no one monarchy was the same, nor any democracy the same, so it would make sense to make a more flexible governmental system.

Sounds good, but one problem: you might be able to eventually make a government that was infinetly better than the AI could think of.

Complex, but interesting...

I think it is 'doable' if you make it a limited selection like in SMAC ...

so for democracy, you could have one that is focused on Money (capitalist democracy) which would gain a bonus to tax income, or a scientific one, or a militaristic one etc ...

each government could have a different set, and they would require a pre-req of a certain cultural level or other precondition. So for money, you need 4 banks or something ...

This could finally mean that we could have a Communist government type which is actually focused on a socially progressive society, rather than Civs treatment of this as just another Despotism ... (but this option would need a lot of culture)

Yeah, almost no governments are just a Republic or just Communist. We are a democratic republic and the old U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian communism.

I agree with this -- it's more realistic, more immersive, and more strategic.

And I'm not too worried about the AI. It wouldn't have any hard government preference, but would push sliders in various directions until it found some optimal combination. If the player found a combination that was surprisingly effective (the same way some people found out it's very easy to win the game with your science slider at zero), a quick fix is very possible.

I'd really like to see this in Civ 4 - was definitely one of my favorite things about SMAC...

I'd agree about keeping the number of options reasonably low.

As an addition, I'd not want to see full Anarchy for each change made!!!

Perhaps degraded performance in relation to the scope of the changes made. Would make 'the best' way to completely change governments a gradual process. Course, if you want to make massive, quick changes it would require revolution and anarchy.

again, like in SMAC, instead of full blown anarchy, just a transition cost ... perhaps this could be effected by the "level" of transition, so a monarchy to republic might be very bloody (and cost a lot) while a republic to democracy might be very easy ...

of course, there would always be a % chance that something goes wrong, and your country does fall into chaos!

Albow said:

again, like in SMAC, instead of full blown anarchy, just a transition cost ... perhaps this could be effected by the "level" of transition, so a monarchy to republic might be very bloody (and cost a lot) while a republic to democracy might be very easy ...

of course, there would always be a % chance that something goes wrong, and your country does fall into chaos!

Click to expand...

That's why I favour an expanded list of civ governments with each government having a list of "favoured" government types to which you can transition to, with all others requiring a revolution. Of course, I also think you should have to choose your new government before you start your revolution.

I hear you loud and clear, Rhialto ! I always felt that the 'preferred/shunned' governments of civ3 were actually pretty pointless! Instead there should be a 'spectrum' for each civ, as Rhialto suggested, from MOST preferred to LEAST preferred. This spectrum will determine 4 things:

1) How likely an AI civ is to adopt, or even obtain knowledge of, the particular government type.

2) How the citizens will react if you change to this government-which effects civil war/revolt chances AND the cost and duration of any transition period.

3) The likelihood of your citizens DEMANDING that you change to this government type.

4) How a civ responds to someone with this government type in diplomacy!

As for Social Engineering/Civics settings, a la SMAC, I do think that within a base government type, there should be several settings that you can adjust in terms of social and economic standpoints, and that these should have a cost associated with them. Large changes in SE settings should not only cost more, but should also run the risk of a revolt and or civil war. So, for instance, changing Religiosity from 1 to 4 (on a 1-5 scale) would severely risk whole cities rising up against you, and exacerbate any pre-existing 'civil war tensions' which might already exist (as people are essentially seeing you turning your nation into a theocracy 'by stealth'!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

aussie luker, I know you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you understand that what you thought I said is not what I meant to say.

Let's say the basic list of civ governments is expanded. here's my current proto-list

Ancient - (anarchy), chiefdom, dynasty, oligarchy
Classical - republic, democracy, tributary empire
Medieval - feudalism, monarchy, mercantile empire
modern - modern republic, federal republic, social democracy, communism, junta, fascism
futuristic - peoples' republic, virtual democracy, technocracy, corporate republic

As part of a governemnt definition, it might have something like:

Communism:

can transition to peoples' republic in 1-2 turn
can transition to junta in 1-2 turns
can transition to federal republic in 3-6 turns

(all others take 4-8 turns)

Especially favoured transitions might be possible with no anarchy period, just a (steep) gold cost.

Hi Rhialto,

OK, I see where you're coming from now, and I DO agree with what your saying WITHIN the confines of the current civ Government model. That said, do you agree with the point I'm making about preferred/shunned goverments as well though?
On the matter of civics/SE again, though, and how it might relate to the ideas you have put forward. Your BASE government type would have a possible impact on the social engineering settings that you can have. For instance, democracies and republics would have an easier transition from low 'sufferage' to high 'sufferage', but not the other way around-same with libertarianism. Socialist/communist governments would probably resist increasing 'private sector influence', wheras corporate states would heartily embrace it!! Can you see where I am coming from on this?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

lurker,

Yes, the existing preferred / shunned gov thing nees to be vamped up. It should have an affect on diplomacy, something like how SMAC had alliances breaking because you changed part of your government.

Definately sounds like some good stuff... i can't stand the "anarchy" period... i would love to see more smoothly functioning governments...

let's just look at america for example... we started out a Confederacy (with the Articles of Confederation) where the states had more power than the Feds... then we moved to a Republic with the Constitution... and now we are in some mix of a Federal Repubic/Democracy... and definately seem to be moving towards a Socialistic form of government...

the first change (confederacy to republic) came because the people were getting upset with the current form of government and were taking up arms and causing probs.

then somewhere between the republic and the democracy we had a civil war because alot of people didn't like the changes that were taking place...

but other than that, most of the changes have been taken pretty smoothly...

i definately like the idea of "favored" government types and each government having certain "sliders" that they can lean towards...

but what types of "sliders" would you all recommend?

i would like to see a "religiousness," an "economic/capitalist," a "progressive/social," a "science/philosophy," and an "entertainment."

any ideas on this?

OH... sorry to double post... but had another idea...

what if each city had a "preferred government" as well... for example... your country is totalitarian communist... you take over a city that was part of a People's Republic... obviously they enjoyed more freedoms before than they do now, so their resistance would be higher... they would be far more likely to break away from your country if given a chance...

so i would recommend having the people being much more influenced by the form of government than they are now... for example... when Rome went through taking over country after country... most of the lands that they took over were 'more free' after they came through... so they didn't have too many problems with uprisings (that i know of) within the places that they conquered... except in areas like Israel where there was a religiousness to their form of government...

The main reason I am against sliders is that those sliders that might be important under one government form aren't necessarily relevant to another. How width of enfranchisement is irrelevant to half the governments, and nobility influence to 3/4. But within th group where such sliders would be relevant, they are extremely important.

@eromrab
The USA is definately NOt heading towards a sociaist government. Haven't you noticed that shift towards theright lately? If anything, the government is heading towards a corporate republic form.

the forms of socialism that most countries have is very corporate... most european countries don't have "mom and pop" stores like america... in fact, wasn't the corporation invented in europe? i think the republicans in america are very leftish... and the democrats are that much worse

@eromrab
And most Europeans regard both major US political parties as hopelessly right-wing. The average European "conservative" party looks pinko from a US perspective.

You're right that mom & pop stores are dying out in America, thanks to Walmart and the like. But England at least was famous for them (Napoleon's "a nation of shopkeepers"), but there too they are dying out. Yes, corporatism was invented in Europe, but invention and mastery are two different animals.

Anyway, by corporate government, I meant a government that is controlled, or dangerously strongly influenced by, private corporations. I think you have a different idea of what I meant by this.

ah, yes we are definately a corporate republic according to that definition... but i would also beg to say that we are a lobbyist republic... or... a mob rule republic seems like anyone with enough money can speak loud enough to be the "people" for a lil while, and so we are lead by some stinking mob with an agenda... if Jesus weren't in control i'd be scared ;-)

rhialto said:

aussie luker, I know you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you understand that what you thought I said is not what I meant to say.

Let's say the basic list of civ governments is expanded. here's my current proto-list

Ancient - (anarchy), chiefdom, dynasty, oligarchy
Classical - republic, democracy, tributary empire
Medieval - feudalism, monarchy, mercantile empire
modern - modern republic, federal republic, social democracy, communism, junta, fascism
futuristic - peoples' republic, virtual democracy, technocracy, corporate republic

As part of a governemnt definition, it might have something like:

Communism:

can transition to peoples' republic in 1-2 turn
can transition to junta in 1-2 turns
can transition to federal republic in 3-6 turns

(all others take 4-8 turns)

Especially favoured transitions might be possible with no anarchy period, just a (steep) gold cost.

Click to expand...

Sounds fun! The new short anarchy is good. Although it makes sense to have a long anarchy changing from say Monarchy to Democracy, or vice-versa.
But I never understood why such a long anarchy from Republic to Democracy, that should be fairly smooth. Especially in modern times.