Civic-centric Demogame Civ4 Bts

[Provolution]

CIVIC-CENTRIC DEMOGAME CIV4 BTS

The idea is to help along more fascinating and sweeping elections, representing real in-game civic changes, and attach these to both democracy, bureaucracy, judicial and roleplay processes. We would have different leaders posturing various Civic Reform packages along with generic foreign policy and research goals as well domestic development goals. Then we would have cohesive policies up for election with real candidates with real attainable programs.

The proposed ruleset presented by the winning candidate would be subject to a Judicial Review of the Supreme Court, now with Five Justices. We should leave the Civic Court system behind, and place that power to a Court Magistrate that mitigates player disagreements (separate this into a Civic Court and a Supreme Court to remove some of the tampering of processes).

The Supreme Court would then review the Ruleset following the winning candidates election, and the Chief Justice would write out the ruleset in legal language and vote on it. Where the Supreme Court (5 Justices), disagree on a presented rule, they can vote on it. The elected leader can still veto it, but only if the rule by the Supreme Court is not an unanimous vote. A full agreement of the Supreme Court cannot be vetoed.

This allows for a more fluid, transparent and effective model of handling combined regime and civic changes. The first elected leader is initially appointing all five Supreme Court Justices. However, if the existing Government Civic is changed, the selection of judges goes according to

Despotism (all justices appointed by leader), Military Leadership handled directly by Leader
Hereditary Rule (2 justices appointed by leader, 3 older justices kept), Military Leadership by General appointed by leader
Representation (3 justices elected, 2 appointed by leader), Governors Senate to be formed, Governors jointly appoints General for military leadership
Police State (1 justice elected, 2 appointed by leader, 1 appointed by Military Minister, 1 appointed by Chief Justice), Supreme Court appoints General for Military Leadership
Universal Suffrage (all justices up for direct election), Mayors Congress to be formed, Military Leadership appointed by Cabinet

In effect, the Governnment Civics determine the Judiciary elections and balance of executive and legal branch, as well as establishment of legislatives.

For the use of great people and placement of military authority(legal civic)


Barbarism Leader decides on use of great people and organization of military
Vassalage (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Governors decide on local use of great people and control the military (General must ask governors for troops for national army)
Bureaucracy Supreme Court decides on great people use and decides on the mandate of war and access to use of military force.
Nationhood Cabinet decides on use of great people and the use of military force, casus belli may be decided by the Supreme Court
Free Speech (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) Direct elections of great people usage, the people votes over war objectives and military activities


For the decision of wonder builds and use of workers (Labor Civics)

Tribalism Leader determines wonder builds and where.
Slavery Leader and governor jointly decides on wonder builds, slavery and use of workers
Serfdom Governors decide on local wonder builds and use of workers
Caste System (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Mayors decide on wonder builds and use of local workers
Emancipation (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) Direct election of wonder builds and host cities, workers handled by Chief Justice

For the formation of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministers, technology research (Economy Civic)

Decentralization All foreign affairs and trade, technology research handled by direct polls administered by leader.
Mercantilism Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister appointed by leader, top 3 technology research goals nominated by leader, selected by Governors (Absolutism)
Free Market Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister appointed by governors, all technologies voted on directly
State Property (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Foreign Minister and Trade Minister appointed by Supreme Court (Politburo style), Technology research decided by Cabinet Member appointed by leader
Environmentalism (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less)
Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister directly elected, technology tree decided by Supreme Court

For the choice of state religion and the choice of High Priest (Religion)

Paganism
Organized Religion (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) State religion election, direct appointment of High Priest by leader
Theocracy (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more), State Religion direct election, Chief Justice becomes High Priest
Pacifism (2 old justices more at expense of 1 elected and 1 appointed), State Religion election and direct election of High Priest
Free Religion (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) High Priest removed from the Cabinet as Church and State separates.



The civics will be the key engine of this demogame model (Civ4 BTS), and would also have some elements handling religions, corporations, land development and so on, as well as espionage. The idea is that each election has cabinet proposals (that can fluctuate from time to time) that the people can vote on in full.

Example: Year 1540 have 4 parties vying for power, a revolution or reform is called for, and elections are announced due to imminent Civic Change (A direct poll establish the need for an election through civic change, which is held two turnchats after the election is called for).

PARTY 1. PRINCEDOMS PARTY

Hereditary Rule
Vassalage
Slavery
Decentralization
Theocracy

PARTY 2. ROYALIST PARTY

Hereditary Rule
Bureaucracy
Caste System
Mercantilism
Organized Religion

PARTY 3. EMPERORS PARTY

Despotism
Bureaucracy
Slavery
Free Market
Paganism

PARTY 4. VILLAGE COUNCILS PARTY

Representation
Barbarism
Tribalism
Decentralization
Organized Religion

Each of these four leaders announce they are running for government elections, and they recruit players for their cabinet positions (initially max 4 others than leader) in Faction Threads, where the Civic Platform, intended cabinet positions and so on are announced (Supreme Court is still decided on afterwards regarding appointments). There will be an aggressive political campaign, where the four parties promote their civics combination, as well as laws surrounding the adaptation of the Civic set-up. The winner takes it all, and no 70 % consensus is needed to change rulesets. The base game rules are based on Civic dynamics and main gameplay dynamics, not an artificial Civ3 demogame template constitution. This means that each faction up for election presents a Code that follows that administration. We are emulating history here by the thousands of years, not 4 year increments as some here may think.

The opposition can still influence through the Supreme Court, which may decide to disagree with the cabinet, through the governors and through the mayors, as well as direct votes. By putting a stronger emphasis on a few "super-elections", these elections get more impact than previous demogame elections where the ruleset was hard to develop at all, due to personal disagreements on style and content, and difficulty in getting consensus.

The advantage is clear, the parties present rulesets, civics and national plans prior to each election, and the people are free to choose which main course the nation will take, as well as influencing key decisions involving wars, technology, city-builds, wonders, great people and so on (by influencing the separated powers of state and by direct vote). Reducing the voting will reduce voting fatigue.

Again, these are ideas, and possibly what is needed to get at least me interested in a new game.

 

[Joe Harker]

Good, a few things though, 5 justices to me seem a bit much, i would still like to see 3 justices, just to keep things simple and to keep the number of positions down. Plus only use one set of civics to determine the number of judges appointed or elected to keep it simple.

I like the idea of using civics to determine the government but i think it could be simplfied. Here's is my ideas, the first two civic's groups are my ideas, but i couldn't think what to do for the labour, market or religion civics so i just made some comments based on your ideas if thats ok

Despotism
Leader is elected at start of the game. and controls everything, except the courts. The leader can also appoint officals for offices. The Chief Justice is elected and then he appoints the other two judges. There is a time limit on power, after which election for chief justice and the leader happen again, the previous leader and chief justices can not stand for relection but can have some other appointed job.
(Possible we could include a method of making leaders die and then elections take place after that, but maybe too complicated to set up)

Hereditary Rule

Same as above but the leader going out of power is allowed to choose his/hers heir.


Representation
Same as despotism but instead of a time limit on power, elections every month which the current leader can stand (unless under a term limit)

Police State

Any court action and poll results can be ignored by the leader. All justices appointed by the leader

Universal Suffrage

Same as Representation but all positions, judges and offices are directly elected.

Legal civics

Barbarism

Courts: The jury decide sentencing, the judges decide punsinhment

Only officals are allowed to create binding polls on their giving area of control.

If there is no offical in control of that area, than it's the leaders reponsiblity
to post a poll on it.

Leader can cancel, and replace orders made by officals

Vassalage

Leader cannot veto over any action concerning city improvement or build queues.

Bureaucracy

All actions involing cities are under the control of one figurehead

Nationhood

(couldn't think of another good one) Jury decides punishment. otherwise same as barbarism

Free Speech.

Anyone can set up a binding poll over and issue.

The labour civics i think are perfect except the chief Justice controlling workers in Emcapitation, perhaps handing control over to either the mayors themsleves or the leader/offical.

Market civics.

Foregin and Trade minister should be merge, as they sought of cover the same area and both area's don't need one person each. Plus they should be appointed or elected like other officals.

Again techs shouldn't be decided by Supreme court, again a poll would suffice.

Religion

I like the idea of the high priest!

 

[Provolution]

All good Joe. I did not present the idea as a detailed concept people had to go with, but more as a detailed vision. You are right in that the first two would be the key here. However, having game organization changes for the remaining 3 Civics would keep it interesting.

Market Civics should determine the powers of Foreign and Trade Ministry and Religion Civics the powers of High Priest, as the market and religion waxes and wanes in contrast to the government as influences.

I can also go with 3 Judges, to keep it simple and interesting.

The election go by CIVIC PRIMARIES, which determine leader and "the new constitution" in one go. Following the CIVIC PRIMARIES, the main governor, supreme court and mayor elections follow up directly after the combined leader/civic/ruleset election. All nominate people for various positions immediately after CIVIC PRIMARIES and we only elect on the basis of the outcome of CIVIC PRIMARIES. The first turnchat is therefore fully in the hands of the new leader, who can consolidate his new leadership as we elect, appoint or fill in the remaining positions in the interim.


Hereditary Rule should force the leader to nominate who are blue blooded successors (up to three), and allow the players to choose from these in order to keep it interesting when the next civic change arrives. These nominated successors would have Prince or Princess titles.
It could make sense to have Princes and Governors as the same people.

Representation - 1 term limits of 1 month per term is introduced.

Police State - as you wrote

Universal Suffrage - as you wrote

LEGAL CIVIC should dictate the liberties of the provinces towards central powers, not the organization of courts per se.

Barbarism - every city for itself on build queues and land development (mayors rule), same applies to wonders and great people. Mayors appointed by Leader. Governors appointed by Leader.

Vassalage - every province for itself on build queues, same applies to wonders and great people (governors rule). Mayors by governors. Governors appointed by Leader.

Bureaucracy - mayors organize build queues, provinces organize great people and central government organize wonders. Mayors elected. Governors appointed by Leader.

Nationhood - Cabinet organize build queues, great people and wonders centrally. Mayors elected directly. and Governors elected by mayors.

Free Speech - Citizens are able to challenge all decisions on build queues, great wonder and great people in direct polls, and mayor elections can happen anytime a citizen challenge the mayor of a city. Elected mayors determine build queues. All governor and mayor positions elected.

LABOR CIVICS determine the Supreme Court as well as workers (as opposed to Legal Civic, which dictates the autonomy of cities and regions).

Tribalism Leader determines wonder builds, great people, workers and where.
Slavery Leader and governor jointly decides on wonder builds, slavery and use of workers
Serfdom Governors decide on local wonder builds and use of workers
Caste System Mayors decide on wonder builds and use of local workers
Emancipation Direct election of wonder builds and host cities, workers handled by individual players that "adopt" each pet worker. Individual players are of course free to transfer of control of worker to whomever they wish. Those not wanting to manage their pet worker, would forfeit the worker to the local mayor or governor if the mayor is not up for the task.

Market Civics

Determines the influence the players and government has on the Foreign Affairs screen. we can discuss this a bit.

Religion Civics

Determines the influence of the Church (Apostolic Palace built, the High Priest takes over Foreign Affairs, for example).

All new laws proposed should be made in order emulate new wonders, civics and other in-game features.

 

[Joe Harker]

The election go by CIVIC PRIMARIES, which determine leader and "the new constitution" in one go. Following the CIVIC PRIMARIES, the main governor, supreme court and mayor elections follow up directly after the combined leader/civic/ruleset election. All nominate people for various positions immediately after CIVIC PRIMARIES and we only elect on the basis of the outcome of CIVIC PRIMARIES. The first turnchat is therefore fully in the hands of the new leader, who can consolidate his new leadership as we elect, appoint or fill in the remaining positions in the interim.

That is an excellant idea and the answer to my next question, how could we fit our laws around ever changing civics?

 

[Provolution]

That is very simple, the leader proposes the new laws fitting the Civic-portfolio as his political platform. The leader election also constitute the new laws, as well as new civics. This makes the leader elections quite important, and we do not need to have separate constitutional debates (which become principle driven quarreling anyways) or separate Civic polls.

So an election of a leader would also determine new laws.
This means that citizens that want to have new laws enacted would have to bundle these with a leader candidate, and lobby the leader to make it part of his platform. The Supreme Court would revise the law proposals and make it fit the cohesion of the law structure, where new laws replace old laws if conflict occurs. This will force the players to put up the proposed laws during the main election times. CIVIC PRIMARIES therefore determine game term "constitution" of sorts, which fits with the civics, time period and leader platform. The second set of laws that will handle other shortcomings would be decided on during the second election (governors, mayors and Supreme Court), where judge candidates each present one new law they want to have included in the ruleset. The three laws with the strongest support are then included in the ruleset, and the sponsors of these three laws elected as the supreme court. This makes it key to get good law-writers to run for these elections, and allows us to get three new laws each term. These laws could cover new game mechanisms such as "Law of Espionage", "Law of Apostolic Palace" or "Law of Corporations", or more generic such as name policies and so on.

 

[DaveShack]

Any objection to putting this in the citizens forum so it can be juxtaposed with Donsig's idea on RPG-centric?

I'd be interested in a little operational information.

How many elected positions do you expect? Does it change over time?

What duties would officials have?

What rights would non-officials have? What influence would they have? Do they have something to do while they're not in power?

How many total people are needed to make it work?

What effort would it take to keep people who don't have the game well enough informed that they can feel like they're an active part of the DG?

Are there things outside the Civ game which make this attractive to folks who would like something more?

 

[Provolution]

Please move it along Donsigs proposal, that would be nice, as none of these need to contradict each other.

Operational information:

We expect the national leader, or father/mother of that particular dynasty/faction to be elected in Civics primaries (we elect leader, civics, "constitution" covering the civics structure, future plans for the realm and so on as well as a list of likely appointees for cabinet/court/governorships, depending on the Civics-combo). This will be a tremendously important election that we call Civics Primaries, where the best faction platform will decide a lot for that time-period (more citizen rights as time progress, like our own history, which will make the end-game far more interesting).

Non-officials have plenty of opportunities to influence the game through other processes, like technology choices, use of military units (in vassalage each player owns a military unit, so the general has to ask each citizen to transfer control of that unit during a war, which requires a diplomatic general), the non-officials are free to give their inputs to the regime, and if good ideas are turned down, we move a step closer to a future civics primaries. The better job the government does, the longer it takes before we get a new election.

Non-officials can also mobilize to arrange a Civics primaries on their own, if more than 50 % of the voters want it. This represents revolutions, unrest as well as sweeping elections and reforms. As we go by historicity, some civic changes may well be revolutions (more than 2 civic changes in one turn, of which one is a government civic, is a revolution, for example), not elections.

Some civics open more for non-official participation, like in real life. Where the more modern we get, the more participation we will see. Making citizen rights come gradually, makes it more interesting to fight for these rights. Now civics will constitute a demogame mechanic, not only a detached game mechanic, as it should be. We should worry about a civic as it would be a demogame law, that it impacts player rights.

We need much less people. There will be less elections too. Some appointments will remove the need for elections, but the CIVICS PRIMARIES would be a grand feast in the demogame world, as candidates are free to present holistic platforms that are voted on in full, so the game strategy that is selected has a sound unity and vision to it, as well as backing in terms of powers and game instruments. Democracy is not to be hurt, but the CIVICS PRIMARIES would have a much more profound impact.

Non-officials that want to experience the roleplay area, would get plenty opportunity, as a historical context plays out much better, non-offical power-mongers now get more time to prepare for the next big change, gather support and erode the support base of those in power. Non-officials generally constitute power-mongers, that actively seek citizen influence, roleplayers that just want to add entertainment and drama, gameplayers that always look for the best strategy and finally those that just want a good game narrative with a sense of historic drama and excitement. All these groups will be catered to. However, professional troublemakers and flamers may be at some loss here, as they get less demogame mechanics to exploit in order to cause trouble, trolls and flames. The magnitude of Civics primaries will force players to focus on the issues, not the person alone, as the traditional civ3 demogame structure did.

For the early game, we only need a few, as the leader do some appointments for cabinet and so on. We got few cities and even less provinces, a limited number of techs to choose from, virtually no foreign players to interact with (and few tools to interact with), little land to develop (few workers).
Honestly, with Civ4 BTS, we should let the nation grow organically, and add more positions, functions, powers and people as our nation emerge.

So for the ancient era, we would have a leader, 3-4 cabinet ranks, 3 judges, 1-2 governors and 5-10 mayors (mayors is not mandatory, but an option). As we get more civics in the medieval era, more cities and provinces, we would need recruitment to get it up. I much prefer less positions in the early game, and more out into the game, as the game gets more complex and interesting. An active endgame would at the maximum require leader, 3 judges, 4-6 cabinet members and finally enough governors/mayors to run regional levels.
This is a little less people than we used to, but would make elections more worthwhile and competitive.

These official duties could be comparable to previous games, with the exception that CIVIC PRIMARIES are super-elections, which decide a lot in one go (more or less the game vision for more than a traditional term, or an era or so if you prefer). The leader should be responsible for handling the main elections based on the platform from CIVIC primaries.

The effort it takes varies, but organizing elections will be made much simpler and effective, and several polls that normally fragment demogames are collected into Candidate Platforms for CIVICS PRIMARIES (leader, cabinet, in some cases court structure, civics, game strategies and policies for including non-officials). Since there is real competition for positions, and real influence to be held for elected players, the people get the effort they deserve, the candidate platform they vote for and other elections more or less dictate the level and quality of effort. However, with such a model, some effort is required to be elected, and motivation is high, as real powers are to be held (more in line with what a leader of state has in terms of real power, not the weak ahistorical power we have seen in some games). This allows the players to pick the candidate platform that best reflect the kind of effort they like and the type of leadership they like, plus, those that vote for the grand vision, actually gets it, not just a hollow power that appease occasional troublemakers.

Outside the Civgame, the running of the Labor, Economy and Religion Civics open for several subgames, that can integrate elements of the military model, economic model, cultural model, religious model, land development model, inter-city rivalry to get the best city and several other interesting in-game sub-plots. However, I will leave this to the game-population to decide, but the framework is surely in place for more roleplay with a civic-driven election model (those not into roleplay may rather concentrate on building candidate platforms and preparing factions for new CIVIC PRIMARIES, as well as using their powers to their best extent, in the best of demogame style.

 

[Provolution]

And yes, candidate platforms for CIVIC PRIMARIES should be PMed to a moderator within a deadline, and these platforms should be posted at once, so no one can alter their agenda last minute based on a posted platform.

This will assure that clever and hard-working candidates are imitated by cheapskates in setting up a platform.

 

[GenMarshall]

No offense, but I am against the idea of making a civic-centric Demogame.

 

[Provolution]

Thank you for your opinion, I am informed now. I am not going for a Civ3 traditional demogame, and recommend you to garner support for that where it belongs, in the Civ3 forums.

 

[robboo]

No offense, but I am against the idea of making a civic-centric Demogame.

CG..why would help.

I like the idea because its new.( needs refining) My only worry is the POTENTIAL for a leader to revert back to civics or accept civics which give him more power.

Maybe something like....term instantly ends if civics are changed or some other limiting factor.

The reason I like this idea is I think you have to have "trigger points' for certain offices. No need for a military officer until we meet civs or have a military. We could go a whole month and burn through turns with the right "leader". In addition I see the early game as having FEW officials, mid game with the most and then a contraction towards the end. My reasons are game based and people based for this.

Early not much going on few cities, lots of citizens lots of input and getting a feel for the game. no stress on filling offices

Mid game( right around first conflict or IW/alpha) Citizens now feel confident and want to run for offices.
More young cites lots of micromanagemnt, worker actions.... SO More offices, gradually adding appropriate offices to our current situation...going for cultural win..culture office.

END game(we have a goal and plan to win) Citzens start to die off.
contraction, game is pretty much limited in micromanaging, cities are stable or in "terminal builds"( spaceship, all cultural, all military) If we have no shot at culture....No need for an office. No shot at diplomatic..shoot the diplomats. contract down to the bare minimum to run the game.

The goal is to always have more citizens than officers without doing some stupid census. Just look around...if 10 people are voting in polls, then try for 5 or less offices.

lets see what this causes...i can go on but Nyquil typing isnt good

 

[Provolution]

I agree, leader has to be replaced as soon as Civics change (should be a totally different person). Remember, the CIVICS primaries system constitute a total election package, so the leader elections includes as well Civics, cabinets proposal,game strategy plans as well as other appointments). Also, a national leader can only be elected once in the demogame, so we get a new player for each regime.

CIVICS PRIMARIES are called for by a popular vote organized by non-officials (could be held anytime, but a proposed CIVIC change is mandatory, to avoid excessive abuse of the system).

However, the leader will be stronger in this set-up, but also more accountable. We need this to make the elections really count. Now it is merely a post, a name and some superficial strategy and by the large rants. That needs to change.

I also agree it needs refining, as it is brand brand new. I got some inputs that has helped refine some, but look for more.

About the analysis of early and mid game, I totally agree. However, CIV4 BTS has a more intense end-game than other CIV-games, and we also got the roleplay crowd to cater too. Endgame will surely be more diplomacy heavy, and since we are having roleplay elements, the game may not play out as rational as succession games or traditional demogames. Maybe powerstruggles will emerge as more Civics combinations open for more political competition.

I also agree on the scaleability of the number of positions. Early game is needed to cause interest and attract players to the story. Midgame see some expansion and finally the endgame should be organized in a more climactical way, possibly adding a CIVIL WAR variation or something (a modern style civil war multiteam demogame, where a moderator/GM part up the nations provinces into teams), or various victory combinations, or that we see some economic roleplay subgames or city rivalries emerge. Maybe we get an environmental disaster and so on. We should be open to add features when we go to the endgame, to keep things interesting.

 

[Chieftess]

I think this is a little too biased towards the judiciary. (Each civic affects the number of judicial positions.. ) On the one hand, the idea as a whole seems a bit chaotic. On the other hand... it sounds like the governments of all of the Civ3 and Civ4 demogames combined.

If we are going to go with less voting, then we need to have more RPG-ish elements, like Citizens Groups, unofficial offices (like the History Department which kept a record of historical events, resources, etc., or like the Cartography Society).

I'm still weary on this idea, though. Granted, it's more doable in Civ4 than in Civ3 (I remember the idea originated there back in Civ3 DG2 I think) due to civics allowing more RPG-related options. But, definately reduce the judiciary bias!

 

[Provolution]

Judicial positions are constant (3). However, the number of appointments/elections vary by the civic. In a more totalitarian civic, more appointments, and in a more democratic civic, more elections, very much like what has taken place historically.

This is not a traditional demogame structure, since various civic combinations gives various democratic vs. authority "bonuses". It is not hard at all to grasp, whenever you want a new government, assess the features of the civic combinations (preset like the civics in-game) and then write up the FACTION PLATFORM. I would like some citizens step forward and experiment with this, if they want to, then we can tweak the system even more.

However, I will reduce the influence of the Judiciary somewhat in the next set-up, since I approve good inputs.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am not going for a Civ3 traditional demogame, and recommend you to garner support for that where it belongs, in the Civ3 forums.

How is my opinion about being opposed to the civic-centric Demogame "traditional Civ3 demogame"? I am opposed to having a civic-centric in the Civ4 demogame. And tellong me to "garner support in the Civ3 forums" sounds a bit elitist and a bit blunt to me since it seems to me that you dont want to hear opinions from people who dont like or opposed to a civic-centric demogame.

Arent all voices allowed to voice their opinions about this or is it just only the people that want a civic-centric demogame allowed to speek their minds?

(This sort of thing, people brushing off other people because of their opinions differ from others, is what caused me to be turned off from the Demogame)

If you want me to consider this idea, it's best that you dont get all sarcastic about it and brush other people off to the side if they dont agree or like the idea.

What also turned me off to this idea is the idea of Civic Primaries and canidates is that it does not offer a chance for the average joe to be given a chance to run for an election and encurages elitism "Oh we'll only accept this poster because he is clever and hard working and toss this newbie asside". That alone does not sit me very well.

I think this is a little too biased towards the judiciary. (Each civic affects the number of judicial positions.. ) On the one hand, the idea as a whole seems a bit chaotic. On the other hand... it sounds like the governments of all of the Civ3 and Civ4 demogames combined.

That's what was going on through my mind. Is that it causes too many changes of the government with each change of the civic. I also agree with you that the idea is quite chaotic. The Non-Civic-Centric Demogame has more stability and control.

I'm still weary on this idea, though. Granted, it's more doable in Civ4 than in Civ3 (I remember the idea originated there back in Civ3 DG2 I think) due to civics allowing more RPG-related options. But, definately reduce the judiciary bias!

I'd agree, make it less judicary biased. To add to my previous statement, make the elections (I assume that the Civic Primaries and Canidates are part of the Elections) remain open to all interested and willing citizens, not restricted to a select few.

 

[Provolution]

I notice you have not seen the revised updates, which are much simplified.

This is not elitist at all, I welcome constructive inputs.

For the elections, all good posters get a chance to run for elections, like in the traditional demogames. However, comraderie would be harder, as elections get more competitive, with fewer available positions.

Some see the good with this system, others see the bad. It is understandable that you traditionalists mobilize to stop the civic-centric vision, but you may do so at the expense of the innovation of the demogame genre, and at the expense of a few players that seek a radical shift.

Elections at the mayor level (which have been given powers) and at the governor level may be open. But the key objective here is to emulate history.