Democracy needs fixing!

[Dr. Broom]

Maybe they should add internal factions to the game for government and other purposes. If they all become very opposed to you because you are ruining the nation, have too many pointless wars or oppress the people too much then you will have problems. The problems could vary depending what sort of government you have. If it is a more totalitarian style of government you risk civil war while if you have a more representative government you could tmeporarily lose your place as head of state or if that is too drastic then the nation might fall into a state of anarchy instead. More detailed and varied results could be added as well to make it more interesting.

Why does democracy need fixing? It is already the 2nd best government for a large nation and the best for a small nation if anything it should be made worse.

 

[cfacosta]

Epic, those are all possible ways of making the system better. I would like to know what your opinion of the SMAC style of "government" selection is. After all, that would tend to go very well with customizing the various aspects you mentioned.

As far as what Dr. Broom mentions, that might work out well. The game can have a more serious limitation of power aspect. Under democracy, for example, declaring war might simply be disallowed without cause. (remember the old hawk party having to derail the senate jazz) The only problem is you don't fix the fundamental problem in civ governments.

The real problem, at least in my opinion, is that corruption is ridiculous. In civ3 vanilla you simply could not effectively grow past a certain size. Now in C3C, commi is the only government that can handle the insane corruption of large empires. I think if corruption was toned down it would be a lot easier to address inequities in government forms. To illustrate... one big bonus in demo is lower corruption/extra commerce. This can't be compared directly, however, to communism because there is a hidden limitation on what size empire can opperate under demo. Effectively, a large empire cannot reap any benefits from democracy because rank corruption will kill non-core cities. I guess I am rambling...but I really think a revamping of the governments MUST come hand in hand with a revamping of the corruption system.

 

[Princeps]

Yes, Democracy should be improved, but so should the other governments as well.

The starting government should not always be despotism, but a Tribalism, or Chiefdom. The despotism should be a form a... decalining government, so that every government could become despotism.

Monarchy could be also improved. There should be a royal family of someshort, Dynasties. The player would be informed when the dynasties change: Like for example the Chinese yang dynasty changes to the ming dynasty. Every dynasty would have a ''nature'', it would be liked or disliked, efficient or inefficient, deciving or honest. So that a monarchy could be even more democratic then a republic, or more totalitarian than a fascism. Also, there could be dynastic civil wars.

Feudalism would be very much like monarchy, but it would have barons and dukes that wishes you would have to lisson sometimes or there even could be a baronial revolt. The advantages of feudalism would be a moderate number of free units. The Barons would pay the support for them.

Republic could be a more bureocratical or something. It would have a senate that wishes you would sometimes have to lisson, and much more war weariness.

Communism should not have communial corruption.

Fascism would be very much the same as now. But it would have a peace weariness, that I have suggested before. Also when a civilization would change to a fascism, all the other civ's moods against to you would be lowered by one level. The Xenophobia could also be improved.

Democracy should have a senate too... otherwise the same, I guess...

 

[MeteorPunch]

America is supposed to be a Republic. It is portrayed by the newsmedia as a Democracy. I actually consider it Corporate Socialist.

 

[Princeps]

America is supposed to be a Republic. It is portrayed by the newsmedia as a Democracy. I actually consider it Corporate Socialist.

Well I think that the consept of a republic and a democracy has beed mixed.

The first real republic in rome was not a democracy in the modern sense, but it did have a strong democratic element in it. It was rather oligarchial.

 

[howeman]

I haven't experimented enough with the "advanced" governments much, but I echo the corruption sentiment.

I am currently playing a game on a large map, and the corruption in some of my outer cities is over 90% (I'm only getting one shield/trade per turn out of 10) This should be toned down. I dont' remember, but I'm guessing they changed the no corruption in Civ 2 because it was too powerful. If this is the case, they should bring back at least some of it, maybe in democracy the maximum corruption/waste is 50% of the total. That would make democracies more effective on a large scale.

Honestly, I don't think the whole point is to shoot for accuracy but to aim for better gameplay, unless the moral they're trying to send is don't be imperialistic, because you can't maintain such an empire

 

[mitsho]

I sum evertything in this thread concerning governments (not democracy up):
- The aim is to improve all governments by specialising them.
- Specialization can occur in Corruption, Economy, War, Peace, Science, etc.
- No government should be similar to another
- primarly fun/gameplay is needed, because with the upper conditions, realistic governments are not doable (also because we can't really agree what a government is)
- government should or shouldn't include economic systems?

Did I get something wrong?

Now, while reading this, an idea popped up in my mind: Whenever you are doing bad in the game, the people should become unhappy and demand that you change government. Examples: France 1789; Germany: The Weimar Republic; Rome: From Monarchy to Res publica (Republic). I know this is a generalization, but this is needed. Now, you're citizens are unhappy, revolts occur in some cities. Either you can quell them or you just need to change government.
I would appretiate that idea, but before this could be included, the problem of anarchy would need to be solved. Because in the current system, the penalty of having to change the government could be too high. A problem: How do we define when a civ is doing bad and when not? When losing a war isn't really a good idea (gameplay and realism-wise). Other parts are hard to define (to a computer....). Examples: Certain amount of corruption, few money, scientific backwardness.

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

When people refer to fixing Democracy, it's not because it needs to be made better, but because it needs to be balanced and have more interesting consequences (good and bad). Government on the whole could use this.

And cfacosta, I've never played SMAC, but from the sounds of it, the model would work really well if they could adapt it to Civ 4 properly. (Obviously green economy isn't a relevent idea until the modern age, let alone the question of a free market versus a planned market.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As far as corruption goes, I think a % based system would be the best way to go! My thinking in this regard is that newly built cities, with only around 5-6 shields, might only lose 2 or 3 shields a turn-with a corruption level as high as 50%. A large and well developed city however, with over 40 shields a turn, will have a lot to lose even from relatively low levels of corruption.
I think the other thing is that HOW corruption is calculated should be redone-and more based on the age and population of the city, amongst other things. Distance from the capital should only be a minor element in corruption.
Unfortunately, it sounds like they are doing away with corruption altogether-which is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if you ask me. I only hope they replace it with something even BETTER!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd easily replace corruption with loyalty/seperatism. And an improved culture spreading model, with "local culture" acting as a kind of cultural corruption

I mean, what we're talking about is a challenge that makes expansion harder and harder, without being as stupidly artificial as corruption (2 shields per city, with no way to resolve it). They can find a replacement.

 

[morbror_sven]

Drawing inspiration from the "facism needs fixing!" thread...

Democracy needs to be truly unbeatable at sheer economic might. It should suck at war--relatively--but if you are committed to peaceful victory, it should be so good that it is the only real option.

With that broad mandate, I leave suggestions for fulfilling this idea to the community...

Democracy is the most powerful goverment, especially if you want the money to flow...
I always switch to this goverment fast as possible to benefit from its great advantage.

Uhm.. did i hear rigth??
You want Democracy to be more powerful??
Your idea of making Democracy more powerful is probably just becouse of your own interests. For example i like numidian mercenaries.
What you say is the same as if i had said "make numidian mercenaries 3.5.2, please!".
Good for the one who likes carth, but problematic for the others .

I want this game to be open for many different ideas and ways of playing.
That's what makes the game fun to many peapole. Don't you see that making democracy too powerful would just make the game less fluctating?

 

[cfacosta]

I'd easily replace corruption with loyalty/seperatism. And an improved culture spreading model, with "local culture" acting as a kind of cultural corruption

Bingo. This change would solve a lot of problems. Expansionist players would be able to, in theory, maintain large and productive empires. The trade-off would be that the farther from your core you got, the more local happiness would become a problem. Either large investments in luxuries or large garrisons would be needed to keep the peace. The large garrisons (i am thinking 6-8 units or more in really far away cities....and scaled by city size), at least, would require that a warlike player truly commit to the war and build large amounts of troops. This would create a point of distinction among some governments. Fascism vs. communism (not that there is really a competition here) I essentially have the same unit support under both....more than enough. The ten per metro does nothing because my empire is usually large enough to have 3-4 defenders per city and a 100+ unit army with just a flat 6 per city. Additionally, now democracy is made a bit worse at expansionism (not warfare in general) in the sense that its no military police makes it hard to hold far away territory. At this point, war weariness could be tuned down a bit so the demo player could effectively defend him/herself without terrible annoyance.

Oh...as an aside....I have mentioned it before, but the model for units (no matter the number) in a city getting wiped out during a flip is asinine. It would need revision for this idea to work properly.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

When trying to differentiate too, one really has to look at what drives the game, and the Civ 1-3 is really Military+Economy, ie you get more power either by rolling over it with tanks or building it yourself. Those are the only effective ways, and so that is the only choice (Military v. Economy) By adding political stability (through Culture, Unhappiness) then you can also get power through revolutions. That allows at least one other government, and means that some 'intermediate governments' may actually be reasonable.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree, cfacosta. To me, the key is that the player has some CONTROL over it. They can improve their culture to build a sense of patriotism, and they can improve happiness so people wouldn't want to leave. Even if it takes more energy the more cities you have, it's still possible to deal with.

Unlike corruption, where it's pretty much guaranteed that your 20th city will suck, no matter what you do... and you only have courthouses and police stations to deal with it.

 

[Rohili]

Democracy is great as it is. It is the best government if you are going for economic might. I don't see what is wrong with it.

Now don't start talking about war weariness, because if you use it you are better off aiming for a peaceful victory.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I know I am going to get flamed soooo badly for this suggestion, but I think it could work.
In Hearts of Iron 1 and 2 (which, I confess, is RTS) your people need a certain amount of 'Consumer Goods' to remain happy-with the amount being dependant on the type of government the country had. At the same time, military units require a certain amount of supplies to fight at full effectiveness. Thus, the difficulty for the player is between supplying your units in wartime and keeping your people satisfied. So, here is my idea for CivIV:

1) Shields produced by a city have 3 possible fates-they can be sent to your 'national pool', sent to your production queue for building units and improvements, or left in your city pool as 'consumer goods'. The bigger and wealthier your city is, and the more materialistic your society as a whole is (partly based on government choice, but also based on civic settings) the more 'consumer goods' your people need to remain content.

2) Shields in your 'national pool' have 3 fates: they can either be sent to another one of your cities, traded along with your natural resources to other nations, or used to supply units fighting outside of friendly territory.

3) If you don't have enough shields to supply all your units, or if your units are 'out of supply' (due to being out of range, or unable to trace a supply line back to friendly territory) then their combat effectiveness is reduced.

Please note that I am NOT talking about going back to the system in civ2-where individual cities supported individual units. Instead, like gold support, your nation provides the supply needs of your armies in foreign campaigns. What I hope this idea would do is twofold-first would be to more strongly link war and economics-forcing warmongers to consider their domestic economy when they engage in long, drawn out campaigns. Second, I would hope the idea would link government and civics choices more directly to your ability to wage wars AND maintain a strong economy.

Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mitsho]

@Aussie_Lurker Great Idea, but what does it have to do with Democracy?
I'd like to comment on this in another thread, because I do not like fredjacking.

mfG mitsho

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to 'treadjack'. Its relevance is that, within most western 'Democracies', the people tend to have much greater demand for consumer goods-and this could be represented within the governmental system of the game. However, you are correct that I should discuss this matter more fully in a fresh thread !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is actually a good idea, in th sense of trying to put a cost on people's demands (I feel that is probably a good idea in the sense that you should have two ways of dealing with unhappiness
1. Give into the demands..."consumer goods"essentially the same as corruption, but in a more communist sense...this ony should work so far
2. suppress the demanders...a cost of military efficiency..Civ1-3 Sort of had this with Military law, but normally the number of units from military law were just as many as a rasonably defended city would have anyways

So a democracy would have a higher level of 'consumerism' required because the people Naturally give you less military trouble (something like a minimum setting for the luxury slider)
Wheras a non representative type government would have a miniumum level of Military law (to suppress the natural trouble causers)

Then to deal with the 'Excess' unhappiness, governments have a maximum capacity to deal with it through 'spending or shooting'...

Which means for extreme unhappiness, you would Have to give into their "demands" (ie stop the war, get us more food, give us new government*, give us a civ of Our culture*, Support/Stop Suppressing Our religion*)
The other option would be changing what they want which you could do with* options through culture.


So a Democracy would actually be Poor economically (in terms of useful output) but good culturally/politically (the people don't revolt)

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

So a Democracy would actually be Poor economically (in terms of useful output) but good culturally/politically (the people don't revolt)

I agree with this.

In fact, if somehow my ideea with "degrading" governement over the ages will be implemented, a democracy should be the most "longevive" one.

Regrads