Civic Mini Mod / Suggestions for RoM

[Lawrie]

Now im new to these forums, and i love the RoM mod! (I just played a game on the gigantic map on snail speed with 20+ civs, and really, my head is ready to implode.)

Anyway for my personal use, im customising the civics to my own (machiavellian tastes) and thought i'd post the results as a suggestion to for the mod, and just for discussion if thats ok?

Warning - this is long but comments appreaciated


Civic Ideas -

Government - from executive, legislative, ideological and you name it - are often times contradictory in their manifestations. In RoM the government options reflect a mix of 'political structures and ideologies' somewhat uncomfortably. Sometimes they are too similar such as majority rule, representation and universal suffrage and others are too generic or circumstantial - such as Police or Corporate State.

With the Corporate State for example, with varied connotations, is usually linked to fascism - (such as mussolini's italy) while others (particularly yanks, link it less as a political/economic philosophy than to a matter of circumstance, ie. a govt dominated by lobbying corporations. This is a little awkward since it is a matter of circumstance and nod 'governmental' ideology.

Likewise the 'Police State' has always had a strange connotation to it in Civ 4 - of course the 'police state' represent generically - fascism, communism without any of the exciting specificity or flavour! Neither does that civic itself accurately represent those ideologies.

Part of the problem really - is that the Government Options (in Civ 4) do not provide the 'political realism' (as a theory) or machiavellian reality of the government. It tries to do to so much with its umbrella representations that governments become generic! RoM has added exciting new civic options however these new columns are built on this murky foundation. I believe that in terms of political science - we can use these new columns to add further definition as to the type of governmental manifestation that has resulted - to show beyond the executive facade where the power really lies. In this case - the civics from economy, religion (or likewise with the renamed civic columns of Welfare and Culture.)

So to give flavour to our Government civics I suggest changing 'Legal' to 'Politic' - as this allows for an additional dimension to be represented in the players choice of government.

Currently the 'Legal' civics combine elements of 'human rights' and governmental forms - but this is currently a little clumsy and again lacks flavour and specificity. In many cases, we can presume the associated human rights (such as free speech etc) with the type of government, politic and 'society' (renamed from Labor).

So,

I have replaced my Government civics with,

Government

Chiefdom
Despotism (The office of Despot or emperor etc.)
Monarchy
Theocracy
Republic
Fascism
Communism
Democracy


Politic

The Legal civics have become,

Aristocracy
Bureaucracy (Advisors/Party dedicated personally/ideologically/exclusively to govt)
Bourgeouise (power lies with the rich, from venetian merchants to bill gates)
Absolute (Louis 15th style Absolutism - or personal control
Feudal (from 12th century barons to 21st century warlords)
Senate (Patrician dominated democracy) usa, rome
Parliament (comprising democracy) britain
President (Stronger executive democracy) usa, french republic

It is important to note - that the Politic category in my mind is now a machiavellian indication of where 'power really lies'. It allows for an interesting range of governmental types - that at first may seem unusual - but I believe makes more sense.

So I know your all going 'come on thats nuts' with some of the combo's your pairing, but I'll give you some examples for sake of plausability of the more extreme government and politic combinations with plausible historical examples.

1 Despotism - Parliament (Oliver Cromwell, Rump Parliament)

2 Theocracy - President (Iran, present day)

3 Democracy - Feudal (Afghanistan, present day)

4 Communist - Bourgeouise (China, present day)

5 Republic - Absolute (Revolutionary France)

The Politic systems adds definition to the government civics, in as I like to see it - a cynical fashion. Now, in calculating the bonuses for these civics - they should be so that a player can choose between them, to help (as they do normally) when their civilisation faces certain situations.

So for example, a democracy under grave threat, may need to instigate politic changes for military bonuses, or a cash strapped 'absolute' monarchy may need to cede politic civics to the 'bourgeouise' to make more pennies.


LABOR

Now this I have renamed to 'Society'. Instead of a list of 'reforms' for the work-place (which I think proved to be a bit consequential) and somewhat un-colourful, I have instead renamed Labor to 'society' gives us a much wider canvas to look at. It also gives us a little more colour in the types of social engineering we can seek to achieve with our civs, and do more to describe the circumstances of our civs populations.

NB. The Labour type civics, I have combined with the health civics, into a new and renamed Welfare category.

So these civics represent the type of society our civs encourage and or enforce.

Tribalism
Serfdom (For most medieval and in effect ancient history)
Classism (Conservatism/status quo, for most modern history)
Oppressed (Big brother)
Liberal
Socialist

I should note - that these types of society all offer bonuses and are not a series of improvement over the other. Classism is as 'modern' as Socialist or Liberal, each conferring different advantages and disadvantages. Oppressed is fairly self explanatory, and is not necessarily unique to fascist, or communist governments. As a means of ensuring controls we have seen many declared democracies use this during wartime.


Economy

I was never much a fan of the economic civics, as again they descibed a mixture of circumstance and theory often overlapping. For example 'Global economy' can easily be a result of any other economic civic (through circumstance)

I think we have an opportunity to reflect real economic norms - and add a little political flavour to it also. I think also that slavery is perhaps one of the most pivitol economic stages in early civilisation and its crude representation (with spent populations) is quite unrealistic. It was a cruel, but purely profitable stage in the development of 'civilisation' (despite its immorality)

So I have,

Barter - its fair to say that losing decentralised is not a loss?
Slavery - a grim and useful economic trait - we did still have it till the 1860s..
Mercantalism -
Laissez Faire - free trade/ austrian school
Planned - State owned economy from communism to absolutism
Keynesian - Interventionalist Economy ( - Mixed Economy, more socialist)
Chicago School - (free trade, institutional, big corporates, central bank)
Corporatism - Imagine instead of governmental 'patronage' giving businesses monopoly (ala mercantalism) that its the reverse. In effect the most modern form of protectionism.

NB. For you economists, the austrian and chicago schools of fair trade - differing mostly with the chicago school regarding some govt control as necessary - i think is best represented by
classifying austrian school within the laissez faire civic despite its 'evolutionary development' since that theory. Again like all civics, none are simple evolutions from one over the other, but each retain value dependent on circumstance.


Religion

Religion i think is a little unused and not as political as it could be. Paganism, shamanism, sacrificial cult and idolatry could all be part and parcel really. Ive never understood 'pacifism' as a religious civic because as a belief, it has no part in state policy over religion. While Free Religion and Secularism is really part and parcel in some regards, secularism can itself be deemed the most 'tolerant' of religious civics without a seperate civic existing for that purpose. This frees up Atheism as a choice, which as an anti-religious civic formed a vital part of many fascist, communist, and other ideologies.

Paganism
Prophets - early religious tech, basically priests, institutional religion
Free Church - eg medieval church
State Church - eg Church of England - Henry VIII !!
Divine Rule - eg Divine Mandate, Leader Cults - great for a despot
Intolerance - eg Scariness...
Secularism
Atheism

As above, Intolerance and the Free church represent religion at its political might. The State Church is religion (under the heel of its political rulers, as does divine rule, and atheism.)


Healthcare

This is a great idea, but it looks very messy in RoM, with its varying degrees of socialised medicine, and awkward sci-fi universal antidote. I have categorised this differently as 'Welfare' and again each civic is not just an improvement over the last, but an ideological choice. Some players may even find reason to never change civics - the point being to make all relatively interesting in their own right. Naturally the compromise of welfare civic choices is the power given to other sectors of the political, business and religious spectrum.

Charity - give us a penny gov...
Church - Big expansion of church influence
Private - Business/ Insurance companies,
Corporate - Corporate monopoly over this huge industry...
Subsidy - Akin to the US health care system
Socialised - Akin to the NHS UK etc


Education

Education is a bit bland - i think its because, one imagines that the number of improvements that can be built presently add a lot of 'detail' over the education component of the game. Again the sci fi civics of virtual learning etc are a bit ichy.

I changed mine to Culture, and see it as an opportunity to present something completely different - which is the transcending cultural goal of the people. Its bonuses are similar to 'education'.
Mines are,

Conservative
Militant
Cultured
Industrious
Materialist
Enlightened
Socialist
Nationalist

This adds a little more flavour to civs too. Again each would have different bonuses, not obsoleting one another.

The bonuses and penalties for civic choices would influence player choices in the types of combinations they choose - but not force them. It is entirely possible and plausible (and quite machiavellain) for contradictory civics to be chosen. Call it Political Realism!

So again, if we look at a seemingly absurd example

Govt Fascist
Politic President
Society Liberal
Economy Chicago School
Religion State Church
Welfare Corporate
Culture Socialist

So in this case, we have a fascist govt, under Presidential authority, practicing free trade with a liberal society. Such civic bonuses could contradict each other, and one can imagine the rev checks that would result from this setup. However perhaps this has resulted because the fascist player is facing imminent revolution and is desperately giving 'Reform' to society in order to maintain military benefits from his govt civics? Pausible in transition? Indeed!

I actually find it quite fun linking real countries to the civic options - most are likely and easy, but putting the most unusual combos and finding nations is amusing and easy!

Anyway those are my thoughts on the civics and i would be delighted if RoM was interested in them. I have not worked on bonuses and to be honest would be better at providing 'ideas' rather than specifics for the game mechanics.

PS - I should add that I would never release any ammendment of this mod without the mod leaders permission! Cheers

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

well, this certainly looks like well-thought and I'm sure zappara will be interested in your ideas... by the way, he is in the process of rethinking some of the civics, I think... so this is the right time to make suggestions about that, and since you seem to know well what you're talking about I'm sure this could turn out awesome

 

[Lawrie]

Well that would be very cool, well if RoM were interested in blethering to me on helping out with the civics feel free to PM me as id be happy to help out. I'm also a 2d graphic artist so textures for buttons etc and stuff id be happy to contribute too

 

[Lawrie]

Government Civics Discussion

Here's me doing a bit more blethering about the ideas behind the civic suggestions.

Chiefdom - Now we all start with this - this could provide egalitarian bonuses for extremely small civs (city states) where the sense of community really comes into play.

Despotism - This is an office legitimised politically, religiously, and is not a straight forward dictatorship. Do most manifest themselves that way? Indeed many can do. Julius Caeser for example was one of dozens made so by the Roman Republic.

So this specific political office was never appropriate as the starting government civic. It's purpose was to rule during periods of emergency (and we all know how long those 'periods' can last. Of course it can become legitimate and even benevolent.

If we imagine in RoM, that the Roman player, with Republic civic is prosperous but seizes an opportunity to strike against its barbarian rivals... then the yummy benefits of the despotism civic (for military units) and centralised control, allow for it to become an empire.

Likewise the Govt Despotic civic can play with the Senate Politic civic.

As such, Despotism (as a granted office) was a government styled under some degree of learning - and probably should be accessible at the same time as democracy.


We can look at some other examples.

Burma today, is ruled by a military Junta. It does not have a fascist ideology, but certainly is Despotism. (Justified military rule...) If it lived in the realm of civ 4, then a smaller civ, could benefit from the centralised control, especially if combined with Politic such as Bureacracy.

Or if we look to Genghis Khan then combining Despotism with Feudal Politic could bring similar military reward!

As such in the politic civics there is no immediate opposite to despotism. As it is often democratic institutions (relatively) would create Despotism.

As a player, Despotism should offer the chance for aggressive military expansion - the charge for glory or as an urgent requirement.

Even Napoleon - with the Despotism and Senate Politic would best represent the 'French Empire' of that period.

It should be noted that in civilisations that expanded during periods of Despot rulership - that eventually they do transition into other more institutional forms of government. Be that monarchy or back to representative forms of democracy. With the exceptions that do exist we know that Despots go to great lengths to institutionalise their rulership.

So too can Despots with these civics, through a range of feigned or effective legitimacy with the politic civics, through insitutionalising one self with Divine Rule (Kim Song) or the State Church (Henry VIII) to the insane kind of mixes one could imagine with leaders such as even Eva Peron!

So to cut a long story short Despotism in this case is no longer the 'crappy first govt civic'. But a legitimate and potentially devastating, exciting and disturbing form of personal rule!

Goodness knows but I would love for improvements and Rev checks to marry variously depending on the combinations of civic for this government choice!

 

[zappara]

Ooh, that looks fantastic I might adopt it The current civics in RoM are originally from couple different civic mods, though I've heavily modified them several times but got to admit I haven't been totally happy with them and without the scrollable civic screen I haven't been able to modify them exactly the way I wanted as I had planned 9-10 categories and normal civic screen fits only barely 7 categories.

Originally I had plans to divide Government to 2 separate groups, bit like you did with Government+Politics categories though I had plans to keep Legal category as well and would have divided Government to Ruler and Advisors categories. The 9th category after Education would have been Culture Values with following options: Harmony, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Mastery, Egalitarian Commitment and Conservatism. Plan was also to have 1 futuristic option for each category or a new Future society category (SMAC style) which would let you pick just one future civic.

 

[Donkey Puncher]

that sounds awsome

 

[Lawrie]

Hey Zapp that would be great! Well please feel free too - if its okay i'll continue rambling on about my idea for these civics with discussion and real world examples. Of course I'll be delighted if you use them.

I would suggest caution with too many civic options - especially in the case where by definition some civics can overlap with others.

I'll give you an example - legal in effect governs morality and human rights - but it is almost impossible to distuingish them from governmental or political types.

For example, you could have a fascist state with free human rights or a communist state with private health care. Its not that one can ague whether it could not happen but just that by having so many specific options we create minutia in detail.

Looking at legal - we go from no laws, code of laws/commandments, magna carta, constitution, Bill of rights etc. You could have a law civic that admonishes these rights for a brief time.

The problem is that they become I think consequential - during time, we have seen our legal rights expand, based on founding principles. However they have not undergrown great change from their original influences, religlious etc. There are secular law elements that are not however, such as gay marriage etc (wow now theres a civic!) hehe

Another way is to have the legal civics be represented by types of court, from (im spitballing here) Peers, Religious Courts, Secular Courts, etc

I think though, its possibly superfluous!

I think likewise with Advisors - its a level of unnecessary detail - and perhaps not indicative of where political power lies in a state. Only in certain types of government can power lie with the central advisors. To have them could add cute advantages (like they could be lobbying influences from commerce, industry and so on.)

Regarding the cultures - I would suggest considering simplifying their names, and relating them on a more 'provocative' level as to the type of 'culture' governing a people. With mine - ive got very simple terms so that people could think oh... the japanese are materialists etc. Where as Affective Harmony is very abstract!

I like to think personally of the civics as quite RPG ish as well, like they define a civ's character (like it would a person) so we get a real idea if there a nice guy, or a jerk etc. With abstract terms for philosophies and politics (hell i can't find anything other than chicago school for my economics civic and i hate that name lol) it can make them difficult to relate too.

Part of the advantage of Civ 2 governments simplicity was that right away you got an idea of another civc 'character.'





Government Civics Discussion

Monarchy

This is somewhat simplified ingame especially given that during the thousands of years this style of government has ruled mankind that it has had substantial differences between one another. It is peculiar in the first place that the name Hereditary Ruler was used in Civ 4 as its quite impersonal. Like calling it 'Genetically linked Control' or something? Why oh why?

The concept of Monarchy is widespread and its creation has rested on many diverse elements which have resulted in many diverse styles of monarchy. Rather than trying to 'represent' it all in the civics, im designing them to try and allow players to accurately reflect styles of monarchy under their choice.

Its quite boring to be stuck with 'monarchy' and thats that... they were diverse, and changed a lot, and of course we still have many today.

If Despotism is the office of Personal Rule, then Monarchy is far more abstract. To be King was not necessarily to be ruler en' charge. Many were 'elected' into that position - a position even referred in many governments as an office!!

I will look at some types of monarchy the current civic ideas allow - forgive the focus on Western History (though i'm sure the flexible parallels will easily apply to Asian and other civilisations.)


Elective Monarch

Seen in states such as Scotland, or the most popular civ (Holy Roman Empire) where Kings in effect were elected by their princely peers, and of course Pepin the Short (father of Charlemagne) who would be elected King of the Franks.

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Aristocracy

The civics resulting in Bureacracy and Bourgeiouse would be available early on tech wise - to give choice. So using the starting politic of Aristocracy by no means represents the simplest form of Monarchy civic wise. Neither does it represent the vassalation of Feudalism.

Absolute Monarch

Not to be confused with Despotism - this is often referred to for Monarchs who succesfully transformed or maintained a style of government that allowed for utter centralised control. The term is popularised after Louis 15th who made France a super power during the 18th century and created the modern 'nation' state as a result.

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Absolute

Of course such a system of government does not bode well for less competent rulers. The coining of this term (absolutism) reflects a 'national' consciousness as well and is why one wouldnt use it necessarily to describe the monarchy of Ancient Egypt. (Though it was for example 'absolute')


Divine Monarch

In such cases to recreate Ancient Egypt, players can instead use the politic civic of Bureacracy. This is more than adept at reflecting the political sphere shifting from the aristocrats and into the hands of learned civil servants, advisors, sycophants, eunachs you name it! From Darius to Tutankamun! Not that these men told the King what to do (though in some circumstances in Ancient China... the dastardly eunachs!) The religious civic Divine Rule also reflects the grip divine monarchs could hold over their people. (Not to be compared with the State Church civic, where some monarchs made themselves the heads of their nations churches, such as Henry VIII)

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Bureacracy
Religion - Divine Rule


Popular Monarch

This isn't about a popular monarch (we love the king day sorta stuff) but a monarchy who is there more or less by the will of the political establshment (and remains there to some extent by his popularity within it.) I would argue that many monarchs (especially during the renaissance) would fall into this category. In this case the Bourgeouise politic civic, represents the very first instance of power coming from 'the people' and in this case the patrician classes... the rich, landlords, aristocrats and merchants all bundled together.

Such monarchs would have included Charles Ist (who lost his head after the English Civil War due to his quest to impose Absolutism) and Charles II (his son who took over and resided over the 'restoration' of the british monarchy.


Feudal Monarch

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Feudal

The feudal monarch is best represented perhaps by France of the middle ages. It is in effect all about 'obligation,' before, with the politic civic of aristocracy - there is not necessarily the same level of obligation (I described it as akin to elective monarchs...) as there is in feudalism. Indeed manorialism, and other 'isms' all refer to the heirarchal system of society based around the military/warrior based nobility. This type of government would be ideal for those rulers seeking to keep agriculture, shields and a tough military to boot at the expense of anything too sensitive, enlightened and nice!


Constitutional Monarchy

Govt - Monarchy
Politic - Parliament/Senate

Finally, possible with the Monarchy Civic, and the Politic civics of Parliament or even Senate. (I'll describe their differences later.)

From the Renaissance several monarchies came to rely on parliament more and more for money. This lead to conflict (inevitably) in the case of the english civil war. The restored monarchy (and the restored French monarchy post their civil war...) all relied on parliaments, or congress (respective to senate) for oversight and control.

In the case of Britain, the power monarchs wielded with parliament was far less but still substantial. The family of Hannover that came to rule over Britain, encouraged many military expeditions (including fierce resistance to American Independence!)

There are many constitutional monarchies today (in their most influential political form they existed and ended in the early 1900s in my opinion.)

 

[Mister Giggles]

Both the lack of and the insulting of sci-fi killed this for me.

 

[Lawrie]

My goodness I wouldnt say I insulted sci-fi - where?! Problem is that futurology is very hard! We can take apart the past and it has some credence of authenticity but suddenly, we all have to beome futurologists to predict techs, units and so on! Which is much much harder for anyone to do and make look 'real or authentic', which some might not care about but it seems pointless to have gone to so much effort before hand to make techs, units and civs all so realistic!

I think a quite somber and cautious appraisal of the future would herald better future techs and units. Civics though are antoher matter, you may notice that many economic and political theories keep going in cycles (we keep adding neo- to old phrases) Neo-mercantalism! Neo-Socialists, neo conservatives etc etc. So in terms of 'civics' there is very little in theory that is really changing! People also cared about the environment two hundred years ago too... It was all relative... So having environmentalism (for example as a futuristic civic) is silly imo, the social consciousness of that is achieved via the improvements players build (and certainly not for example, by an economic civic!)

Even worse is if we get some crazy named future tech like 'Ultimate Cure' or 'Universal Freedom' arch... not only does it destroy the old civics and their diversity but it also makes you feel you feel like you've left a simulation of human civilisation and walked into an episode of Gundam Wing!

Btw if anyones got suggestions for the civics/criticisms id be happy to hear!

 

[zappara]

I think likewise with Advisors - its a level of unnecessary detail - and perhaps not indicative of where political power lies in a state. Only in certain types of government can power lie with the central advisors. To have them could add cute advantages (like they could be lobbying influences from commerce, industry and so on.)

I used Advisor word in my earlier post due to lack of having better word to describe it (it's middle of night here and I'm sleepy ). Anyway, the idea with my "Advisors" group was that as your nation's politic system evolves from stone age to modern days the people who counsel the leader evolve as well from Family to Senate/Parliament. So if leader civic was say President, you could pair it with Senate (US system) or if leader is Dictator you could pair it with General staff or if you have King it could have advisor group Family/Senate/Parliament/Generals etc.. it's bit blurry now as I haven't thought about the whole system for while.

Legal system is kind of tricky too - in most western countries government decides the laws but legal system often works independently and can even overthrow government/president if they are found to not "suitable". So in my structure it would more like how people act/behave/obey and not be political system.

Those culture values were the ones I learned when I was studying multi-cultural leadership and we were not given any better descriptions for them so I had to live with those I've thought lot about culture category - while it could be implemented as civic category, I don't like that player can whenever he wants to choose what his culture is like. In real life cultural values are gained as you grow up (and most people don't even notice what those are until someone teach this stuff to them). So in my opinion it would be better if the choices you make throughout the game define your cultural traits (bit like leader traits but gained during game progress) and you wouldn't be able to choose freely your cultural values. For example I wouldn't lead corporation in the same way as U.S. citizen or Chinese person would lead it because my cultural traits are different from them and that's only because I grew up in different kind of environment. After studying different cultures I do though know how to address people in different situations based on knowledge about their values so I guess I'm multi-cultural person now.

 

[Mister Giggles]

Lawrie,

Unless you completely close your mind off to the advancements in technology, you must conclude that at some point in time we will reach a point where we will have a Universal Cure, thus ultimately making all other health options hopelessly obsolete.

But it seems you already have...

 

[Lawrie]

Yep well im going to post some revisions - I think the 'cultural' column is a bit sloppy actually (as ive posted it) - most of what its 'about' can be covered in some revised Society civics.

Yep the challenge with advisors progressing with tech (relative also to government choices) is the inevitable restrictions of choice that will ensure in how 'detailed' the types of government a player can create would be. Not necessarily problematic!

I'm looking at reducing the civics to 7 a piece (removing Democracy from govt civics and president from the politic civics) since, a player picking republic and parliament or senate would in effect have a democracy. (How democratic would be decided by the revised society civics ill post.)

Mister Giggles I don't quite see your point there.

1 In terms of playability having an overriding civic choice eliminate all others destroys the diversity and point of having several to choose from.

2 It presupposes that an advance such as you mention is a realistic expectation within the civ' 4's normal timeframe. A 'universal cure' for all ie. immortality... is probably centuries away!!! Even if it wasn't - such a civic would also presuppose that the govt, or corporations, would share such a cure universally... and administer it for free! It presupposes all kinds of political and commercial elements in one magical civic.

Even with futuristic high tech medical advances, they will still as medical services be provided through systems of health care already represented in the civics. The 'universal cure'... would be more effectively represented by a technological breakthrough - not a civic.

I'm not close minded - but theres a difference between realistic future projection and clumsy 'win game' sci-fi civics?

As a point of note im very interested in future techs, units, and improvements, but for civics (given that what we have is based on centuries of historical evolution) then it is wise to be careful and to scrutinise those future civics included. I love RoM but some of its future civics at the moment are pop cultural (its not to my taste but plenty others like it!!!)

Now don't let me interrupt your episode of Babylon 5!

 

[Mister Giggles]

"Mister Giggles I don't quite see your point there."

I'm not agreeing with you, so of course you don't see my point.

"1 In terms of playability having an overriding civic choice eliminate all others destroys the diversity and point of having several to choose from."

Civilization has always attempted to follow a general advancement of mankind. Most mods, thusly, try to continue this trend. Ultra advanced technologies, will eventually pop up and will easily be superior to every single system to come before. Iron to bronze, bullets to arrows, etc. There are cases where no balance is possible. No disease to disease, for instance. The former is obviously superior, and in RoM, the gameflow is far enough into the future where it's possible.

Now it's perfectly fine and possible to have nicely balanced civics that are boring, mundane and redundant, like yours, but that's something I wouldn't want to play and I specifically avoid in modpacks. Because it shows a lack of knowledge and imagination - RoM has an extended future era, and yet everything you propose has been around in one form or another for centuries. There is no room for anything new, exciting, futuristic. It's just...boring and generic.

"2 It presupposes that an advance such as you mention is a realistic expectation within the civ' 4's normal timeframe. A 'universal cure' for all ie. immortality... is probably centuries away!!! Even if it wasn't - such a civic would also presuppose that the govt, or corporations, would share such a cure universally... and administer it for free! It presupposes all kinds of political and commercial elements in one magical civic."

Rise of Mankind doesn't use 'civ' 4's normal timeframe'. It uses its own, and it happens to use one that goes way the Hell into the future. By the way, when did the cure for all disease become immortality? Why are you, again, suggesting that things that are possible in the future to be 'magic'? Are you one of those people who would have claimed back 60ish years ago that it was impossible for mankind to go to the moon?

The only problem mankind has ever had advancing has been people like yourself who simply do not see the forest for the trees and accept advancement.

"Even with futuristic high tech medical advances, they will still as medical services be provided through systems of health care already represented in the civics. The 'universal cure'... would be more effectively represented by a technological breakthrough - not a civic."

Which could very well require a mindset of getting everyone in the country/world this universal cure - therefore the civic.

"I'm not close minded - but theres a difference between realistic future projection and clumsy 'win game' sci-fi civics?"

Yes, you are. Insulting technological advancement, claiming any technology that can significantly better mankind is 'magic', and continuing to push it with claiming it's 'clumsy' and 'sci-fi'. Well, I guess that's fair. You know what I think of >your< civics. Of course if you hadn't started throwing insults to begin with...

"As a point of note im very interested in future techs, units, and improvements, but for civics"

Ahahahaha. AHAHAHA. That's laughable at best.

"Now don't let me interrupt your episode of Babylon 5!"

Ah, thank you. Go back and keep reading your newspaper. I hear there's an article in there about something called a Model-T...

 

[zappara]

@Mister Giggles

Fear not, there will be always futuristic Civic options in my RoM mod.

 

[Mister Giggles]

^_^

I know. You know why? You're awesome. You have your eye on the ball. Now fix that CTD...

>.>

 

[Lawrie]

Mister Giggles -

My attempted reworking of civics is based on research, cynicism and realism, while you find that 'boring' because it lacks certain sci-fi elements, that is no reason to dismiss it repeatedly or insult my endevour.

From your first comment you sought to make an abrupt and provocative impact that is not constructive or helpful. Ive tried to explain that im not anti-sci fi, and that I think it is best represented by units, techs and improvements less than civics. You've continued to bluntly insult my work and I can see nothing constructive resulting.

We'll agree to disagree and move on yes? Please understand that any baiting I will report to the mods for deletion.

 

[Mister Giggles]

"My attempted reworking of civics is based on research, cynicism and realism, while you find that 'boring' because it lacks certain sci-fi elements, that is no reason to dismiss it repeatedly or insult my endevour. "

Really...maybe you should have thought about that before you ignored, insulted, etc, all of Zappera's future techline work...since he's the one who put Universal Cure in there to begin with.

Also, I believe you should take a lesson away from all of this: Know your audience. Bring traditionalist thought into a modpack with extraordinary ideas, and you should expect some friction.

"From your first comment you sought to make an abrupt and provocative impact that is not constructive or helpful. Ive tried to explain that im not anti-sci fi, and that I think it is best represented by units, techs and improvements less than civics. You've continued to bluntly insult my work and I can see nothing constructive resulting."

Oh? Huh...what's so wrong with telling you the lack of and insulting of sci-fi killed this for me? Is having an opinion wrong? Is elaborating on that opinion wrong? Is strongly disagreeing with you wrong? I see, comrade.

"We'll agree to disagree and move on yes? Please understand that any baiting I will report to the mods for deletion."

M.A.D. policy, you say...

 

[Lawrie]

I understand your a big fan of the mod, I am too, and am confused why you suggest I am not. Either way you cannot go off at people like that.

I spent over three years working on various mods for Operation Flashpoint and know the work that goes on behind them. I would never under appreciate the effort Zapp, or other artists make here.

Neither should you under appreciate what im trying to do, ive spent ages scouring background research to work on these civics. Just because it doesnt fit your personal tastes is no reason to be offensive.

 

[Mister Giggles]

It's wonderful you've worked on a lot of stuff. I fail to see its importance in >this< discussion. Experience is nice, but the problem with your civics are that they don't fit in with the flavor and style of the mod. The 'magical sci-fi' is as much a part of it as the human history that came before it. Ignoring that fact so purposefully and adamantly is not proving your case.

If this was Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, then yes, your civics would be a valid thing to look at and examine. If this was any mod that ends at around the Vanilla game's techline, then yes, your civics are perfectly rational alternatives.

Rise of Mankind, however, is not that kind of mod. It dares to skate tradition and explore new frontiers. Every bit and piece of the mod, therefore, needs to fall into a similar feel.

I'm GLAD you've done research. I'm GLAD you've put tremendous amounts of time and effort into this. MOST of it's misplaced in the application you decided to use it for.

 

[Lawrie]

Okay but that is just your opinion! In the suggestion sub topics for this mod you will observe a wild variety - many if not even most running counter to your described vision for the mod as 'magical' and 'sci-fi'. This is also irrelevant because the modmakers themselves will craft the mod in their own taste.

As such Zapp and the mod team can answer for themselves, my development of civics, as either a useful research aid for RoM, or as a template for them to use if they wish, has not been descouraged.

Your view is unique, it is your very own. But we know it now, and I think we can move on okay...