General discussion for civics

[raxo2222]

That is competence, transparency and other stuff.
For example German and French democracies work bit differently.
Or Iranian/Vatican theocracies.

Traits are here, but they are static by themselves.

There would be few properties, that would change effects of civics.

This feature would cause 2 civilizations with same traits and civics have different goverments and bonuses.
Also that would make game more interesting.

Now it seems all "life" comes from cities, that work under ever constant law set until new civics or traits are selected.

For starter it could be influenced by weighted by city size average of crime and education levels of cities

 

[tmv]

That should be handled by the civics IMO. This is pretty much what we have civics for as opposed to government forms like Civ 1 - 3.

E.g. there are presidential democracies (like USA or France, although France has head of state and head of government separated), parliamentary democracies (like Germany, in this case the head of government is usually much stronger than the head of state, and - more importantly - the parliament forms the government, instead of controlling it), parliamentary monarchies (like UK), constitutional monarchies (like the Netherlands), direct democracies (like Switzerland), and those are just the existing possibilities for democratic governments.

Other differences are unitary states (mostly like France, although that has changed a little bit), federal states (like USA, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, and many other countries), confederacies (currently there seems to be no country that is clearly a confederacy, but there are historical examples).

There are other differences that are not handled with the current civic system. An example would be symmetric (like USA) / asymmetric (like Germany) representation of states. But what should those differences do? Should symmetric representation make smaller cities happier and larger cities unhappier and asymmetric representation vice versa? Or perhaps a slider-like civic going Confederacy - Symmetric Federation - Asymmetric Federation - Unitary State?

under ever constant law set until new civics or traits

...or ordinances...

are selected

 

[raxo2222]

That should be handled by the civics IMO. This is pretty much what we have civics for as opposed to government forms like Civ 1 - 3.

E.g. there are presidential democracies (like USA or France, although France has head of state and head of government separated), parliamentary democracies (like Germany, in this case the head of government is usually much stronger than the head of state, and - more importantly - the parliament forms the government, instead of controlling it), parliamentary monarchies (like UK), constitutional monarchies (like the Netherlands), direct democracies (like Switzerland), and those are just the existing possibilities for democratic governments.

Other differences are unitary states (mostly like France, although that has changed a little bit), federal states (like USA, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, and many other countries), confederacies (currently there seems to be no country that is clearly a confederacy, but there are historical examples).

There are other differences that are not handled with the current civic system. An example would be symmetric (like USA) / asymmetric (like Germany) representation of states. But what should those differences do? Should symmetric representation make smaller cities happier and larger cities unhappier and asymmetric representation vice versa? Or perhaps a slider-like civic going Confederacy - Symmetric Federation - Asymmetric Federation - Unitary State?


...or ordinances...

Well goverment as whole may be more or less corrupt/competent and this can't be decided by civics.
Corruption and competence would change how civics works and it would be depedant on weighted by city size education and crime level.

 

[Toffer90]

Well goverment as whole may be more or less corrupt/competent and this can't be decided by civics.
Corruption and competence would change how civics works and it would be depedant on weighted by city size education and crime level.

I'll eventually want to work on a policy system that lets you customice each civics somewhat. It will be a new screen opened from a button inside the civic screen. The policies available, that you can turn on and off, will depend on what civic combinations you are using. Some policies will be mutually exclusive, and the border civics eill most likely become policies that are mutually exclusive. Policies may require techs that are more advanced than the civic it requires unlocs at.

P.S. We may work on making more synergies between traits and civics further down the road, it is not technically difficult.

 

[raxo2222]

I'll eventually want to work on a policy system that lets you customice each civics somewhat. It will be a new screen opened from a button inside the civic screen. The policies available, that you can turn on and off, will depend on what civic combinations you are using. Some policies will be mutually exclusive, and the border civics eill most likely become policies that are mutually exclusive. Policies may require techs that are more advanced than the civic it requires unlocs at.

P.S. We may work on making more synergies between traits and civics further down the road, it is not technically difficult.

That is nice too.
Well im asking about synergy between properties (can be bundled into weighted by city size average) and civics themselves.

 

[tmv]

Well goverment as whole may be more or less corrupt/competent and this can't be decided by civics.

Competence could depend on Education but instead of corruption what about loyalty? That could do pretty much the same thing regarding the government / civil service, but in addition could penalize military units.

 

[Logoncal]

Hey, a corruption property would be nice to implement.

 

[tmv]

Hey, a corruption property would be nice to implement.

A loyalty property for units would be nice as well.

 

[Praetyre]

While we're on that subject, are there any plans to (perhaps through an NPC faction or factions of some sort) introduce Roman-style civil wars in the mid to long term future of C2C? Those have historically brought down many empires in history and could prove an area for ruthless exploitation by other players, as well as interaction with Rev (though I have a feeling that we might start from square one and do our own Rev system at some point in the long term).

 

[Thunderbrd]

While we're on that subject, are there any plans to (perhaps through an NPC faction or factions of some sort) introduce Roman-style civil wars in the mid to long term future of C2C? Those have historically brought down many empires in history and could prove an area for ruthless exploitation by other players, as well as interaction with Rev (though I have a feeling that we might start from square one and do our own Rev system at some point in the long term).

Actually I do have a plan for that as part of the Idea system and Adopting Cultures projects. But it's been begged to be optional so it probably would be. That's a long long ways out now that I've lost most of my modding time though.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

That is competence, transparency and other stuff.
For example German and French democracies work bit differently.
Or Iranian/Vatican theocracies.

Traits are here, but they are static by themselves.

There would be few properties, that would change effects of civics.

This feature would cause 2 civilizations with same traits and civics have different goverments and bonuses.
Also that would make game more interesting.

Now it seems all "life" comes from cities, that work under ever constant law set until new civics or traits are selected.

For starter it could be influenced by weighted by city size average of crime and education levels of cities

What would be an example of how those mechanics, however implemented, would come into a strategic decision? What's the gameplay?

Also the second quote from your sig is found in Girl Genius by Phil & Kaja Foglio

 

[raxo2222]

What would be an example of how those mechanics, however implemented, would come into a strategic decision? What's the gameplay?

Also the second quote from your sig is found in Girl Genius by Phil & Kaja Foglio

That would make more liberal civics, where people have freedoom to do stuff like Democracy, Capitalism and other such civics prone to rotting.
This way you can make liberal civics stronger than authoritarian, but at cost of maintaining low crime and high education at least in biggest cities.
Otherwise your copy of Norway/Switzerland would lose benefits of liberal civics
Democracy won't work if everyone is dumb and capitalism/labor/welfare civics won't work, if everyone commit crimes.
Basically if you let society organize itself freely, or with some help, then it should be more efficient, than if you had full control on it with right conditions.

Here's all civics:

Here are civics + other stuff reference, that I created:
http://www119.zippyshare.com/v/1DZPnTQu/file.html


As for quote actually reference can be found in wiki link above

 

[Praetyre]

As I've said elsewhere, I oppose making any civic clearly superior to another (aside from things like Primitive->Tribal->*Insert ancient and later civics here*), even with mechanical drawbacks. It's too likely to result in arguments infused with the participants real life politics, and would make for fairly uninteresting gameplay.

 

[raxo2222]

As I've said elsewhere, I oppose making any civic clearly superior to another (aside from things like Primitive->Tribal->*Insert ancient and later civics here*), even with mechanical drawbacks. It's too likely to result in arguments infused with the participants real life politics, and would make for fairly uninteresting gameplay.

Well liberal civics would be superior only if you manage to get high education and low crime.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well liberal civics would be superior only if you manage to get high education and low crime.

This comment completely exemplifies the point that the previous post made. I cannot say how strongly I disagree with this statement... from a US terminology perspective. IIRC, Liberal, as a term, can mean dramatically different things from one nation to the next. As does conservative, progressive, etc... It all tends to be colored by whatever the status quo happens to be.

I do a lot of arguing about politics and economics on twitter to probe for opinions and try to make what points I have to make... it gives me some relief from bringing it here too much. But in general, I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that it's a matter of balance. There are many opposing political forces and opinions, and usually a balance of the two, or even oscilation between the two, or just more reliance on one over the other when the situation calls for it, can end up with the best overall system. Thus it can be quite difficult to generalize the impact of a given system.

That said, I believe I'm beginning to see some future civic concepts emerging, which is a big reason I think so much about the subject... trying to consider where we might be headed in terms of unforseen new territory and political theories and governing ideals and methodologies to come.

I think some interesting civic modmods could well encapsulate differing political views from modding players. I'm certainly not against seeing those being presented for consideration. But openly trying to discuss this stuff and expecting agreement among the players and modders would be pretty well impossible. Even trying to create a civics set that is impartial to so many strong views and opinions is very difficult, if not impossible. And if ours come across as illogical to some, maybe those points are what create the smoke screen that stifles such deep global conflicts of opinion here?

I know someday... some day in the distance, I'll probably take a look at civis and put to game effect what I think we're really looking at in the same way you are suggesting be done, though I will also do so with the intent to really highlight the good aspects of even systems I'm not a fan of so as to, for game purposes, try to satisfy the opinions of all who play, even the most opinionated.

 

[raxo2222]

Well then I have to ascend to higher level of abstraction

Civics are essentially law sets. One give more rights to people than others.
More liberal for me means more rights/protection for people.
What is "liberal" for you? Small goverment?

Also it sounds like education/crime levels doesn't matter more or less, if its Totalitarianism or Democracy, Federal or Mind Control, and so on for other types of civics in pic above.

 

[Noriad2]

Well liberal civics would be superior only if you manage to get high education and low crime.

Superior in what way? Historically, liberal civics are a very recent experiment (last 2-3 centuries?) by majority ethnic European countries. Around 1900, ethnic Europeans formed about a third of the world's population. Mid 20th century they were down to 25%, around 2000 they were down to 14% , a percentage that is still dropping. If current demographic trends continue, at the start of the 22nd century, ethnic Europeans will form roughly (order of magnitude) about 1% of the world's population, i.e. "game over" if a new world war would break out. Muslims formed 12% of the world's population in 1900, are currently at 23% and are expected to grow to a third of the world's population in 2100.

So tell me how liberal civics are "superior" when the ethnic European civs are rapidly losing "the game" in real life and muslim civs are rapidly winning despite being behind in tech? Thanks to the " rights" given to muslims by European nations, and unrestrained migration, many European cities will flip control to islamic and African civs during the 21th century, while many USA cities will flip to Latin American civs.

 

[raxo2222]

Superior in what way? Historically, liberal civics are a very recent experiment (last 2-3 centuries?) by majority ethnic European countries. Around 1900, ethnic Europeans formed about a third of the world's population. Mid 20th century they were down to 25%, around 2000 they were down to 14% , a percentage that is still dropping. If current demographic trends continue, at the start of the 22nd century, ethnic Europeans will form roughly (order of magnitude) about 1% of the world's population, i.e. "game over" if a new world war would break out. Muslims formed 12% of the world's population in 1900, are currently at 23% and are expected to grow to a third of the world's population in 2100.

So tell me how liberal civics are "superior" when the ethnic European civs are rapidly losing "the game" in real life and muslim civs are rapidly winning despite being behind in tech? Thanks to the " rights" given to muslims by European nations, and unrestrained migration, many European cities will flip control to islamic and African civs during the 21th century, while many USA cities will flip to Latin American civs.

Europe is not growing because of high education and high GDP/c.
At least there is negative correlation between HDI (that uses education level, life expancy and GDP/c) and population growth.

Also European civs have Open Borders civics.
Muslims, Africans and Latin Americans are mostly in poor countries, which are not nicest places to live.
So this means America and Europe are magnets for them.
I bet there will be migration to China, if they get richer and more free.
So liberal civics especially Open Borders could make cities more prone to cultural conversion.

Also true superiority would be visible if there was 0 crime and max education levels in all cities.
This way even cultural zerg rush wouldn't be efficient against civs with liberal civics.

That is minimal corruption and maximum competence would make goverment efficient at assimilating immigrants.
Other magnified perks for liberal civics (other civics would get normal/reduced perks) would be higher GP generation and research/production rate + possibly longer golden age.

 

[tmv]

What is "liberal" for you?

Depends on the continent. European Liberalism is American Libertarianism and American Liberalism is European Social Democracy (more or less). In many aspects these 2 viewpoints are polar opposites, but the European use of the word is the original one. Of course, these 2 sets of policies have common enemies, like Feudalism, Absolute Monarchies (the original enemies of both), and Fascism.

 

[raxo2222]

Depends on the continent. European Liberalism is American Libertarianism and American Liberalism is European Social Democracy (more or less). In many aspects these 2 viewpoints are polar opposites, but the European use of the word is the original one. Of course, these 2 sets of policies have common enemies, like Feudalism, Absolute Monarchies (the original enemies of both), and Fascism.

Well then if liberalism is 2D concept and Europe/America are looking at it from different ages, then civics should be treated equally by crime/education, so Europeans and Americans wouldn't get confused at it .
This is thing already at city level education and crime levels modify their output.

Then let me change suggestion: Lets make it indepedant of civic nature and boost/reduce what it changes already.
Can be there 2 global modifiers, that depend on weighted average by city size of education/crime levels and produces autobuilt national wonder, that modifies stuff globally?
This way this could be treated as corruption/competence level of your goverment indepedently from nature of civics, but they would be modified in roundabout way by national autobuilding.
End result could be for example 2*5 = 10 different autobuildings, that have global modifiers - 5 for corruption - crime depedant, and 5 for education (or even 11 as it goes two ways)