C3C - Government Breakdown

[Jaybe]

Feudalism was noted for being a rural society (read "villages"/towns). Once you get to larger cities/metros the government doesn't fit, so unit costs seem ideal for forcing you to change.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

I'm not much into medieval history governments but wasn't feudalism designed to allow monarchies to control larger empires?

Second, why doesnt republic get the same WW as democracy. It seems that the game wants to model democracy after the US where in fact the US is a republic.

 

[Black Waltz]

Well Feaudalism was very expensive. The Monarchs granted land (Fiefs) to favoured political allies. These in term could subdivide these into smaller strips of land. And these strips of land could be further subdivided. In return these Lords had an obligation for military service. HOWEVER, the troops only had a certain amount of days they could be used for free. After this they had to be paid directly from the Kings Treasury for their services and this was not cheap.

 

[Civ]

Hittites are know as ultra warmongers. All they did was war So thats why firaxis decided they are suitable for fascism

 

[Ed-Firaxis]

Jaybe is correct about the thought process behind feudalism. As people began to migrate toward the cities feudalism broke down and maintaining a strong army became much more difficult.

As for the uses of feudalism, it is not meant to be a permanent goverment and should only be good during the middle ages. It is the only government that you gotten from a required tech, and is a perfect for any country that has fallen behind because of bad start spots.
I'll use my last game as an example. I got a good start city surrounded by desert, jungle, mountain and no water on my side of the mountains. My neighbors were greek and zulu. I expanded out to about 10 cities, all of size 2-6 plus a good capital city of 12. Monarchy would have killed me since I could not support enough troops with my city sizes. And with the Zulu breathing down my troat and demanding tribute, so I could not risk Republic. In addition I was lagging behind in techs and I did not want to fall farther behind going for a government. So I held out til Middle Ages, went to feudalism maxed out my free units and took the Zulus land from them.

 

[dexters]

When playing continents /pangea games, some poor civ usally gets stuck in an island somewhere and these civs basically are so backwards are useless they are just decoration in the game.

Will feudalism perhaps help make these island civs become more competitive?

BTW, i'm not sure what feaudalism really means. That chart on page 1, doesn't make it look that attractive.

Corruption is problematic... anyone point me to a post giving the lowdown on this gov?

 

[aeldrik]

Great to have so many goverments now, but one important question: will we be able to lock the goverment form for scenarios? I don't wan't Nazi Germany to turn into a democracy....

If your guys are looking for civs whose favorite form of goverment is facism, you might think of it this way:if you take a more or less historical approach, you might see a line in despotic goverments, evolving from despotism to monarchy, then to feudalism, then they went on to the absolute monarchy, and then to Empires (France). After this, though revolutions, the monarchs lost they power and the world switched to Democracy, Republic and Communism, Fascism then appeared and seems to be the successor to the Monarchy-type goverments.
Making it really good would be setting for every civ a favorite gov type for every era, and CIV like the Aztec and Inca you favored Godlike kings with the sacrifice of foreign captives would be perfect for fascism in the modern Era

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

Originally posted by Civ
Hittites are know as ultra warmongers. All they did was war So thats why firaxis decided they are suitable for fascism

But the system of Hittite law was much more rehabilitation than retribution. Babylon on the other hand exiled the Jews (though evidence suggests that Kingdom of Isreal attacked first) and its legal system was based on mutilation and death penalty. I would say Fascism fits Babylon more.

But it doesn't seem to affect the game that much anyway to me so I am not bothered. It would probably have been to controversial to have Fascism as Germanies prefered Govt and to this extent I wonder how many Russians are offended to have Communism as theirs.

I think Rome could have had Facsism as a prefered Gov. Nothing to do with Mussolini (that was Italy) and they were not racist but did see their Civ as superior to all others and the whole society was based on war and conquest and the glory of the empire.

 

[Globetrotter]

This all looks great.
Thx for the info.

I hoped however to see a Federal Government.
This kind of government would be cool, and will allow the user to build an x-tra FP, and to spread corruption around palace & FP's, etc. A mix between democracy and communism as far as corruption is concerned.

But hey, i'm eager now to try all these new governments!

 

[player1 fanatic]

Originally posted by Ed-Firaxis
Jaybe is correct about the thought process behind feudalism. As people began to migrate toward the cities feudalism broke down and maintaining a strong army became much more difficult.

As for the uses of feudalism, it is not meant to be a permanent goverment and should only be good during the middle ages. It is the only government that you gotten from a required tech, and is a perfect for any country that has fallen behind because of bad start spots.
I'll use my last game as an example. I got a good start city surrounded by desert, jungle, mountain and no water on my side of the mountains. My neighbors were greek and zulu. I expanded out to about 10 cities, all of size 2-6 plus a good capital city of 12. Monarchy would have killed me since I could not support enough troops with my city sizes. And with the Zulu breathing down my troat and demanding tribute, so I could not risk Republic. In addition I was lagging behind in techs and I did not want to fall farther behind going for a government. So I held out til Middle Ages, went to feudalism maxed out my free units and took the Zulus land from them.

True is does have good uses.

Like in warmongering games when I stay in Despotism too long and am afraid to go to Monarhy which would eat all my money (and have no enough luxury to go to Republic).

Then Feudalism could be a good way to compensate.

Or maybe not, since although it has not tile penalty, it does have WW and unit support is just 5 istead of Despotism's 4.

And somehow when you have cities up to size 6, Despotism's tile penalty does not seam too drastic.



Well, I have mixed feelings about this govenment.

 

[Black Waltz]

So is this Government simply to allow you time to build up a large army and to be able to conquer some land for yourself before you fall too far behinid?

 

[Gogf]

Sorry, please ignore this post... Other message (rong thread) edited out...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by korn469
plus it's kinda hard to offend a hittite

(seeing as how they don't exist anymore)

Since the Iroquois' fav gov is communism, the Hittites can have Facsim.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Communism - 6/6/6

Monarchy - 2/4/8

I didn't see that before.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Emperor Xerxes


I think Rome could have had Facsism as a prefered Gov. Nothing to do with Mussolini (that was Italy) and they were not racist but did see their Civ as superior to all others and the whole society was based on war and conquest and the glory of the empire.

I've got news for you- most societies even today veiw themselves as "superior", but the simple fact the Rome was willing to learn from other cultures to better itself says alot I think, about Roman opinions on there culture and the world that being- Rome is the best oput there nopw, but to teruelly be the best you must be willing to learn, and br open minded.

besides, the sim[ple fact of the matter is that until the late roman era, the power of emperor, while technically unlimited, was balenced politaclly, and leagally by the Tribunes, and to a lesser extent the senate, and to a grat extent the army- this means that the empepor more or less had to please the army, and the tribunes, witgh the senate often making the lesser descisinons, and all the branches upholding tio the 12 tables of law, means that Rome is a constitutional monarchy, or a republic

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV


Since the Iroquois' fav gov is communism, the Hittites can have Facsim.

Unless they changed that. Also, I think that everyone should wait till they have tried Fuedalism before criticizing it. After all, there could be things we don't know.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't thin Feudalism will be bad, but it looked like it would kick ass (now it doesn't)

 

[Tacit_Exit]

. . . and Fascism looks like it may actually be a viable alternative to Democracy now that it has a couple of bells and whistles up its sleeve.

Communism should have been tweaked up a little more IMO.

edit: Just noticed Facism HASN'T got free improvement maintenance; so the jury is still out for me

 

[Buckets]

Feudalism doesn't seem that bad. When you're trying to build improvements in the middle ages, it actually rewards you for pop rushing where you need it most.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Originally posted by Tacit_Exit
. . . and Fascism looks like it may actually be a viable alternative to Democracy now that it has a couple of bells and whistles up its sleeve.

Communism should have been tweaked up a little more IMO.

I think that Fascism is going to be the government of choice for war-mongerers. Such low corruption and no WW is going to be great. And it automatically starves down captured cities.