Civics?
- Thread starter orinsul
- Start date
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
I hope it will at least prevent such absurdities as having a police state with free speech.
Sparthage
Fighting Tyranny
Perfxion
Warlord
The problem with civics, was that for the most part there are no real negatives.
Early Wars: Monarchy/Vassalage/Slavery/none/Theocracy.
--Most amount of free units and happiness without anyone's religion messing anything up.
vs.
Late wars: Police Sate/Free Speech/Emancipation/State Prop/Free Religion
--Most amount of happiness and least war weariness for fighting all over the world.
Problem is that you can run Early Wars style civics all game and not really need to change with the times. The only plus of the late wars is just less maintenance for a far flung empire. Nothing in either is a true consequence for using.
I hope the new system puts greater negatives in the game as time goes on so that it forces change with the times. So far only emancipation does this, and it would allow people not to be medieval kingdoms in the 19th and 20th century.
Early Wars: Monarchy/Vassalage/Slavery/none/Theocracy.
--Most amount of free units and happiness without anyone's religion messing anything up.
vs.
Late wars: Police Sate/Free Speech/Emancipation/State Prop/Free Religion
--Most amount of happiness and least war weariness for fighting all over the world.
Problem is that you can run Early Wars style civics all game and not really need to change with the times. The only plus of the late wars is just less maintenance for a far flung empire. Nothing in either is a true consequence for using.
I hope the new system puts greater negatives in the game as time goes on so that it forces change with the times. So far only emancipation does this, and it would allow people not to be medieval kingdoms in the 19th and 20th century.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Sure there is. Its opportunity cost; if you pick one civic, you can't pick another.
Many people enjoy this more than explicit penalties.
But in much of the world, there were still medieval kingdoms in the 19th and 20th century.
How many democracies were there in 1900?
Heck, in Thailand its still a crime to insult the monarchy.
1950s China was still effectively using serfdom.
Most of Africa spent most of the 20th century in despotism.
US was still using slavery into the second half of the 19th century.
Indian caste system was pretty strong well into the 20th century.
Mercantilism; Smoot-Hawley anyone?
Organized religion and Theocracy still very common.
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
Ahriman right, nut i think that civics should have negatives. like in SMAC, all the civics had their positives and then there negatives
Ahriman
Tyrant
Why?
There was a design article about this once; the designers thought of that, but instead deliberately implemented a system where the only penalty was the opportunity cost, on the basic psychological grounds that people like bonuses better than penalties.
Humans are weird like that; we consider losses and foregone gains quite differently (look up loss aversion some time).
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Having played both SMAC (which had bonuses & penalties) & Civ4 (bonuses only), you can be rest assured that SMAC did it much, *much* better!
If the only cost to a civic is its opportunity cost, then it quickly slips into the old war/peace system that we say in older civ games-(in Civ2 & Civ3 it was the old Monarchy/Communism=war vs Republic/democracy=peace; in Civ4 it was Monarchy/Police State=war vs Representation/Universal Suffrage=peace, with other civics often falling into exactly the same trap). If there were penalties-other than opportunity costs-associated with civics, then players would probably think twice about switching to a "war" civic just because they were about to go to war.
Aussie.
If the only cost to a civic is its opportunity cost, then it quickly slips into the old war/peace system that we say in older civ games-(in Civ2 & Civ3 it was the old Monarchy/Communism=war vs Republic/democracy=peace; in Civ4 it was Monarchy/Police State=war vs Representation/Universal Suffrage=peace, with other civics often falling into exactly the same trap). If there were penalties-other than opportunity costs-associated with civics, then players would probably think twice about switching to a "war" civic just because they were about to go to war.
Aussie.
Ahriman
Tyrant
This represents a design failure in not making the effects of different government types different enough, not in making them have no explicit downside.
Social policies need to be different enough so that they will actually change your style of play, or be optimal under different circumstances.
I like to think that our Dune Wars mod civics for example do a pretty good job of this, for example.
[Early draft here, not quite the final design: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=331036 ]
People can/do carefully consider the costs of losing benefits they're currently getting when abandoning a civic.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Insulting the queen is a crime in Holland too, and I would reckon it is a crime in pretty much every country. On a side note, it is a crime in Holland to insult my next door neighbor too...
Ahriman
Tyrant
In English speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) you can say pretty much whatever you like about anyone, monarch included. There are libel statutes of varying strength (weak in the US, stronger in UK) but general insults or complaints are protected speech.
Some hate speech is protected too, as long as it doesn't advocate violence.
In these countries, the idea of criminalizing free speech like that would be pretty outrageous.
Nonetheless, Thailand has (and enforces) much stricter monarchy-protection rules than anywhere else that I know of. I'm guessing much stricter than Holland.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Probably stricter than in Holland. I am unsure why you use the distinction 'English speaking countries' rather than 'Western countries'. Anyway, being a lawyer I know for a fact that you can say prety much as much as you want up to a certain point. Once you step over a border when an opinion becomes insulting then there is a question if the purpose in which this insult was voiced is weighed heavier than the right of the one insulted to be not insulted. If the insult serves a valid purpose then you may get away with it. If the insult serves no respectable right then you do not get away with it, not in Holland not in the UK and I would be highly surprised if you got away with it in the US.
For example, a famous Dutch lawyes was once called a 'maffiamaatje' which translates as 'buddy of a mobster.' This hurt of course the reputation of the lawyer, who sued the journalist over this. In the end the journalist was not penalised because his insult served a purpose - or at least the judged felt it did. You can see that this is a very, very fine line.
All I am saying is that free speech is nice and everything, but one shouldn't think everything is fair game. If I called the Obama an n-person for no other purpose then to insult him then you bet there will be hell to pay. Same if I called the queen of Holland a prostitute. If I did it because I had in fact eveidence that the had intercourse in return for some form of payment and I wanted to make that public as a journalist then I may get away with it. Should I do it because my nose itches then there will be consequences.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
I agree that the social policy tree won't have explicit penalties, because, as Sid and other designers have said numerous times, bonuses are more fun than penalties. That said, I do hope that the different social policies offer substantial bonuses and correspond to different play styles and goals. This is already the case in Civ IV, but it could be developed further in Civ V.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Because there are many western countries that are not English speaking, and I don't know what their legal systems are like.
Besides, surely Holland is a "western country", so the claim "western countries let you say whatever you like, including insulting the monarch" would not be true, whereas substituting English-speaking for western means the claim *is* true.
You'd be wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably sure that you could call the Queen a slag or a ho in England without any respectable purpose, merely because you felt like insulting her, and it would not be illegal. And I'm absolutely certain that you can say all kinds of things in the US and be completely covered by the first amendment. Just look at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck! You can deny the holocaust, you can say that gay people are evil, you can call the president a nazi, all constitutionally protected. Pretty much the only exceptions are encouraging violence and gross negligence ("shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre" is the cliche example of prohibited speech).
It would be entirely legal in the US, you can call him anything you like. Now, if you did it in the wrong place you might get beaten up (which would constitute assault), but the police can't touch you.
Free speech, ain't it great?
But Thailand was a side-issue; my main point was to say that its not true to say that illiberal civics like hereditary rule, slavery, despotism, caste system and so forth didn't exist after the medieval period; "medieval kingdoms" are alive and well in relatively recent history.
Precisely.
migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
Nope, its COMPLETELY legal. Isn't the first amendment great!?
I wonder if the 'social policy tree' means that the choice you make now in choosing a goverment determines what choices you'll have later.
As a quick example if you choose to be a Republic then your choices are democracy or Empire, and you can't choose to go to Monarchy or Communism next. Or, as an absolutist state you can't become a freer state without a revolution.
As a quick example if you choose to be a Republic then your choices are democracy or Empire, and you can't choose to go to Monarchy or Communism next. Or, as an absolutist state you can't become a freer state without a revolution.
