Civ III Fundamentalism

[FBMan]

Fundamentalist Government

Well, I thought this should be put back into civilisation III. This was my first attempt at adding a new government. Usually I do some minor graphic work but I felt that I could use the image of theology, so this file only alters the civilopedia.

The backup is included.

This is the information included in the files

**************************************************
Fundamentalist Government

Author: Iain Forbes
File Info: This file adds the Fundamentalist government to Civilisation III when the player completes research into Theology. It also alters the civilopedia and for that reason a backup is contained in this zip. just extract the zip to your c: or respective drive

I would also like to stress that I, in no way shape or form, support Fundamentalism. I just thought it should not have been removed from Civ II.

Gov Info:
Fundamentalism is a form of government based on the literal, forceful and uncompromising interpretation of religious dogma. Fundamentalist societies maintain their own beliefs are the only true path to salvation, and tend to be rigidly intolerant of any dissenting views. Under Fundamentalist governments workers are happy to produce more and soldiers to work for less. It gives the player the benefits of communism on the military and democracy on propaganda but at the cost of halving scientific research.

Corruption and Waste: Minimal
Hurry Method: Forced Labour
Worker Rate: 3
Assimilation: 1%
Draft Limit: 2
Military Police: 5
War Weariness: None
Cost/Unit: 1
Free Units Per
Town: 2
City: 5
Metropolis: 10
Immune to Propaganda
Improvements require no maintenance
****************************************************

 

[sebanaj]

didnt you overrate it a bit??

 

[FBMan]

Not really, I thought that I had to account for the effects of greater population loyalty. Therefore I made the production rates higher and military a greater power. If i remember Civ 2, the science was affected. I wanted to reduce this to 10%, but the damn editor only allowed 50% but hey!

 

[LesserEvil665]

I would just like to say that not all fundamentalist governments are backed up by RELIGIOUS dogma. The government of Oceania in 1984 was a fundamentalist government, and it banned it's middle and upper class citizens from practicing any sort of religion.

 

[Caligula]

Fundamentalist regimes tend to be totalitarian, but the reverse is not true: totalitarian regimes are usually Marxist or nationalistic, not fundamentalist. The government of Oceania in 1984 was a totalitarian one, with Marxist and nationalistic elements, and was modelled on the Soviet Union. It was not a fundamentalist regime in any sense.

Fundamentalism is a specific form of religion which seeks to return to the origins of that religion, through the literal reading of religious texts, and strict adherence to them. Where as a modern interpretation looks for moral lessons in religious texts, the fundamentalist one insists all the stories in those texts are true and happened exactly as described, and therefore that any orders given in those stories must be obeyed.

I think Civ3 should have included a Totalitarian form of government instead of a Communist one. Marxism/Communism is, after all, a strange economic theory (some would even say a cult or religion, owing to the use of dogma instead of reason), and not a form of government. Moreover, many important totalitarian movements opposed Marxism (e.g. National Socialism, Fascism).

SMAC was much better in this respect, providing a very flexible architecture in which a wide variety of political and economic systems could be represented. I don´t understand why this system was replaced in Civ3 with one that´s so much worse. It´s very disappointing to have such a poor choice of governments.

 

[FBMan]

Im a Gov-Pol student and would like to inform Caligula that totalitarianism is not a type of government rather a feature of it.

Basically what I'm saying is you would have to place it in a context i.e. a totalitarian maxist government or a totalitarian fascist government, even a totalitarian liberal government

It basically means a government that exercises autocratic control of its citizens and the nations legislation, irrespective of the type of government.

Im am also happy to create a government based on true marxism, but Karl Marx did not actually approve of ANY type of governmental centralisation, let alone totalitarianism.

Post any more ideas if you think of any.

 

[Caligula]

Sorry, but I think you´re wrong: even a dictionary will tell you that totalitarianism is a form of government, and there is often little to distinguish one of these regimes from another, whether the underlying ideology is Marxism, nationalism or religion. Changing the ideology or economic system does not require a change to the form of government either (e.g. China has changed its economic model, but the form of governmemt remains the same).

SMAC reduces this confusion between economic organisation and political organisation by allowing each to be independently set. For instance, it allows a democratic regime with a planned economy (i.e. social democracy), a police-state regime with a free-market economy, etc. It´s a pity Civ3 lacks such flexibility, but if adding a lot of individual political/economic systems can simulate it, that would be an improvement.

I don´t mean to be critical of adding more governments, which is a good thing, as long as they´re balanced and are different enough to be useful. The problem I´ve had with them is that the anarchy when changing governments is so destructive that I usually only change twice (Despotism to Republic, then Republic to Democracy). Another problem is balance: if the AI always uses one modern system of government over others, it´s probably unbalanced.

As for Marx, he prophesied the forced overthrow of the existing order and the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat which would abolish private property and classes. Such things can only be done by totalitarian regimes, so any claimed opposition to centralisation is a sign of further inconsistency within already irrational theories. This is why Marxist regimes tend to be totalitarian, and why most social democrats have long rejected Marxism. The Civ3 Communism is therefore accurate in that sense, but should, I think, be a general totalitarian system, independent of the economic organisation (unless using a lot of more specific forms of government works well).

 

[sebanaj]

Totalitarian is used to describe the governments who repress the people... it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

The model of Karl Marx wasn't totalitarian, Stalin government was totalitarian...

Communism not necessarily is totalitarian...
When the repression is too hard... and there are politic prisoners , terrorism by the government, then it is when a form of government become totalitarian...

If in a democracy the government decides to repress people who are protesting for a decision taken by the government, and then the government repress them with the police, then it's totalitarian too...

 

[Puffer Fish]

Hi - any chance you can do a mod containing both your Fundamentalist and Fascist Governments ? While not subscribing to either ideology, I think Civ III lacked in the this area - too PC - and variety is the spice...

Too many governments in a mod is overwhelming but these two forms probably add the right balance.

Have you done much play testing with these governments to see how the AI adopts them ? For example governments at game end ? Just curious.

Keep up the good work

Thanks in advance

 

[FBMan]

Look, totalitarianism is not a government! You can have a totalitarian government, but that is a description. As sebanaj said

it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

And in response to your comments on Marxism, I will say again that Karl Marx was opposed to centralised government. However Stalins interpretation of Marx, meant that he felt that centralisation or in his case totalitarianism was acceptable.

All I am saying is, no-one can make a government in civ 3 that is just called totalitarian because it is a description of government, rather than a government itself.

And to anwser Pufffer Fish, I will put both govts together, some time this week

 

[sebanaj]

any form of government can be totalitarian if taken in the wrong way, and handled by mad people...

 

[Genuis]

When adding a government to Civ III does it replace an existing one? I hope not...

Anyway thanks for making Fundamentalism a government. It was my favorite in Civ II and I'm glad someone else liked it too. Is there a way to add the Fanatic back in? As I recall in Civ II you could only build it under Fundamentalism. I don't think it was too powerful but it had good defense...I might have to install it again and check it out.

Well I will probably download your mod soon but please tell me if it replaces a different government.

 

[Caligula]

Originally posted by FBMan
Look, totalitarianism is not a government! You can have a totalitarian government, but that is a description. As sebanaj said

it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

And in response to your comments on Marxism, I will say again that Karl Marx was opposed to centralised government. However Stalins interpretation of Marx, meant that he felt that centralisation or in his case totalitarianism was acceptable.

All I am saying is, no-one can make a government in civ 3 that is just called totalitarian because it is a description of government, rather than a government itself.

And to anwser Pufffer Fish, I will put both govts together, some time this week

I don´t think you know more than these guys: http://encarta.msn.com/

Totalitarianism, in political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state. Several important features distinguish totalitarianism, a form of autocracy peculiar to the 20th century, from such older forms as despotism, absolutism, and tyranny.

Totalitarianism is more fitting with other general systems of government, like depotism, monarchy, republic and democracy, than is communism, which is a particular form of totalitarian system, with a particular ideology. I think the `communist´ system in Civ3 is equally good for representing totalitarian systems which are not Marxist in ideology.

If you want to know what a Marxist system is, look at systems created by people who believed in it: Stalin and Lenin were not alone in their intepretation, you see. I don´t in fact know of any Marxist regime that was not totalitarian. This is why, I suspect, the `communist´ government in Civ3 reflects totalitarianism.

Anyway, enough ranting. I´d like to try your combined patch to see how it plays, and if is improves upon the defaults.

 

[sebanaj]

then msn is wrong, that's not what my books and what i learnt in college...

 

[Caligula]

Originally posted by sebanaj
then msn is wrong, that's not what my books and what i learnt in college...

Yes, yes, along with britannica.com, dictionary.com, dictionary.cambridge.org... are you sure they´re all wrong?

Did you know that `democratic´ is a characteristic of many government forms? Does that mean `democracy´ is therefore invalid as a government form itself, and should be replaced in Civ3 with `capitalistic presidential republic´ (e.g. USA), or some such thing? What then about democracies that are not capitalistic (nor republics, nor presidential) and capitalisms that are not democratic?

 

[Genuis]

My opinion:

Fundamentalism is a characteristic of some governments and also a type of government. The problem with defining this is that some countries' governments claim to be other than they are. Like "President" Musharraf of Pakistan: can he really be President if he wasn't elected?

Anyway...

I just downloaded this and am going to try it out...hopefully it will be able to load into games that have already started?

 

[Erevos]

Originally posted by Genuis
My opinion:

The problem with defining this is that some countries' governments claim to be other than they are. Like "President" Musharraf of Pakistan: can he really be President if he wasn't elected?

The same applies also to non funtamentalistic governments.
How many of the African or south American presidents for example, are elected?

Anyway I believe funtamentalism is a form of government that not only exists in our world, but allso has played a great part in the way this world is today. I wonder why they didn't put it in civIII, (It' s not politically correct , I guess)

 

[Dreifels]

"President" isn't a label restricted to leaders of democratic governements.
Anyone can be named "President", or "King", or "General", or ....
this only depends of his power he has/represents.

But what I really miss in Civ3 iare the two government models of Fundamentalism and (Military) Dictature are. Both a very important role had been all over the world.

 

[MetalChild]

so just in time to get back to the original subject of this thread, i would suggest to set monotheism as the prerequisite for fundamentalism rather than theology - assuming that fundamentalsim relies on religious motives, that is (since this is exactly what today's fundamentalist governments are).

while fundamentalists 'take literal what is written' (to put it *intentionally* THIS SIMPLE), theology seems to me the exact opposite, for it tries to rather interpret those things in a more scientific approach and so practically eliminating a fundamentalist government's chances (much rather than anything else).

 

[NickSD]

When I think fundamentalist government, I think Taliban, Khomeni's Iran, many other Islamic states. How about calling it "theocracy?" Or is that a totally different thing?

Nick