Do we start up another game?

[MechatronicJazz]

If I may make an observer's suggestion, why not create a hybrid of the new civic system, and the old government system? What I mean is the the government civics would form the core of your rules, designating who decides on more specific rules. Maybe something like this:

Despotism: Leader has last word on all rules/governing systems. His/her word is law.

Hereditary Rule: Leader and some sort of advisers (appointed, elected, governors- leader's choice).

Representation: Elected officials and/or governors/mayors.

Police State: Leader and military related people.

Universal Suffrage: All direct votes from civilians.

The other civics would have slightly more specific rules, but only in accordance to the government civics. For example, maybe you decide that throughout the game, Organized Religion will mean having a Minister of Religion to oversee religious aspects of the game. If you are under Despotism or Hereditary Rule and the leader and/or advisers don't want a Minister of Religion, then you don't have one. Or if they want to modify the rule, and make it say, the Council of Religion, then they do it. Basically, you make the government civics the rule core, and give the rest of the civics looser rules that can be modified. This sort of set up will make use of the civics, and create a historically realistic power base that changes over the course of the game. It will also give new players the opportunity to watch and slowly participate more as more civics become available.

One more thing: the government civics don't just dictate how other civics work. The rulers also decide on the format of government. So if the reining despot wants a full, elected, national assembly, then he/she can do it. Of course they could also dispose of it with the wave a hand.

 

[Strider]

If I may make an observer's suggestion, why not create a hybrid of the new civic system, and the old government system? What I mean is the the government civics would form the core of your rules, designating who decides on more specific rules. Maybe something like this:

Honestly, I don't think anyone wants to use the old government system. I know I certainly don't and based on comments from everyone else... we are generally in agreement to throw it out the door.

 

[Provolution]

If I may make an observer's suggestion, why not create a hybrid of the new civic system, and the old government system? What I mean is the the government civics would form the core of your rules, designating who decides on more specific rules. Maybe something like this:

Despotism: Leader has last word on all rules/governing systems. His/her word is law.

Hereditary Rule: Leader and some sort of advisers (appointed, elected, governors- leader's choice).

Representation: Elected officials and/or governors/mayors.

Police State: Leader and military related people.

Universal Suffrage: All direct votes from civilians.

The other civics would have slightly more specific rules, but only in accordance to the government civics. For example, maybe you decide that throughout the game, Organized Religion will mean having a Minister of Religion to oversee religious aspects of the game. If you are under Despotism or Hereditary Rule and the leader and/or advisers don't want a Minister of Religion, then you don't have one. Or if they want to modify the rule, and make it say, the Council of Religion, then they do it. Basically, you make the government civics the rule core, and give the rest of the civics looser rules that can be modified. This sort of set up will make use of the civics, and create a historically realistic power base that changes over the course of the game. It will also give new players the opportunity to watch and slowly participate more as more civics become available.

One more thing: the government civics don't just dictate how other civics work. The rulers also decide on the format of government. So if the reining despot wants a full, elected, national assembly, then he/she can do it. Of course they could also dispose of it with the wave a hand.

Very good and constructive post, one of the better ones here.

I can agree to this, and we do not need to make the other civics count as much as the government civics. However, the legal civics should play some role for the influence of the Supreme Court where the Labor civics should play some role for the Citizen Rights. Finally, the economic civics and religion civics could be the cornerstones of potential RPG subgames or other peripheral structures impacting the government civics.

 

[GenMarshall]

The use of civics as micromanagement of the game only turns me off as making the game more complex than it is .

 

[Provolution]

Better get some historicity focus on the evolution of government civics than to have a rampant Supreme Court and an abundance of undermanned elections.

I am convinced we need this shift (those of us that wants only Civ4 BTS and a totally new approach), as the roleplay aspect as well as sense of nation building disappears with a constant anarcho-liberal 1997 type democracy.

 

[Provolution]

I hope you make civic changes executable solely by the legislative branch, since government officials may be a little weary of giving up there power by their own hand. Also these prolonged electionless periods may cause a bit of boredom among the citizens, that is if you estimate that a civic change should take place less than once a month. (And what if there are civic changes every two weeks. No time for campaigning and for some that's taking the fun out of elections, and making them just ordinary everyday polls.)

Civic changes would be executable, in this case, by both executive, legal and judicial branches, because that is what happened in our own history, upon Civ4 BTS is modeled. This means that we leave behind historical statism (permanent 1997 political culture and system regardless of era) and replace that with a civics-centric election system that allows faction platforms (we call it factions, not political parties, due to forum rules). Also, prolonged electionless periods may stir unrest, and then the citizens can present a poll calling for a civics change/election at any stage. If the majority wants a civics change, the various candidates step forward with a program (who is the leader candidate, his 4 minister candidates, his chosen civics and finally the new Civics based "constitution" as well as proposed strategies for the Civ).

This would give much room for new elections when enough players want it, enough room for changing game-rules at the most proper time, enough time to campaign following a "call for civics change vote". I am not too worried about too frequent elections, we need to believe in democracy here. If people want elections, they call for civics changes, if they are complacent, they keep things as they are. Each Dynasty/Regime would last the time it lasts between Civics changes, making it easier to document our history and to measure a regimes success or failure, which allows for great Roleplay opportunities.

 

[donsig]

The DG is as dead as the Cage Matches are. (It is interesting that the two people holding up those games have posted in this thread. Why don't you two take ten minutes and play your darn turns?)

Here's the thing people: you can't have a good democracy game without disagreements. It's impossible. Since infighting is an integral part of the game (as it is in real politics) you can't have (a fun and intersting DG) without it. If you all are going to start up another DG please keep in mind what Harry Truman said:

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

 

[Cyc]

I agree with donsig. What he says is true...

The CIV3 games were great fun! No matter how many times we tried to PI donsig! (just kidding, my friend.) I went to the mat with Chieftess, erei (god, I forgot how to spell his name...), maybe even Shaitan in the beginning. It was a great set of games because of the controversy.

But the DG doesn't have to be dead, donsig. We just need it set up by people who care. Like you and DaveShack and Provolution. Too bad Ravensfire is out. He was a great Leader. I still say CIV3 is the way to go.

 

[Strider]

The DG is as dead as the Cage Matches are. (It is interesting that the two people holding up those games have posted in this thread. Why don't you two take ten minutes and play your darn turns?)

Here's the thing people: you can't have a good democracy game without disagreements. It's impossible. Since infighting is an integral part of the game (as it is in real politics) you can't have (a fun and intersting DG) without it. If you all are going to start up another DG please keep in mind what Harry Truman said:

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6151263&postcount=609 <--- That would be why.

 

[donsig]

I have resent the 250 BC turn (again) Strider.