Government

[J-S]

Civ is a game, not a simulation of the real world.

I see your point, but... couldn't civ be a game that exagerates, simplifies but also simulates a certain aspect of the real world? IMHO the problem is about finding the correct balance between reality and playability, entertainment, etc.; and not about choosing between a totally abstract game or a simulation of the real world.

 

[frekk]

This shouldn't be a problem if the devs work hard on separating the different categories. What you shouldn't be able to do naturally is have a representative and a dictatorship at the same time (representation),

Rome, after Caesar.

or things like freemarket and communism (economy)

China, after Deng Xiapong.

 

[J-S]

universal sufferage and slavery
barbarism and state property

It depends on what you mean by those terms.
If "universal suffrage" means that everybody who can -in the sense of legal requisites- vote will be able to, that could perfectly exclude slaves, since the law could permit the existance of slaves, and could exclude them from voting (ancient roman law for example regulated almost every aspecto of slavery).
And regarding the second example, it highly depends on what you mean by "barbarism" and by "state property".
I still think that if the options available in each category are chosen correctly, there should be no possibility of contradiction between them.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I think a barbaric legal system would not have a controlled economy or any state owned property
and my definition of universal sufferage is that everyone is free

 

[jkp1187]

I'm not quite sure what this debate is about. There is nothing inherently impossible with having, for example a free market, representative governement, and slavery, for instance, socialist economics, democratic polity, and an aristocracy, or (hypothetically) green economics, a police state, and emancipation, or a free market-police state, etc. *** Whether or not these would all be workable in terms of game play is a different matter, but that's where the fun in playing comes in, yes?

As I recall, SMAC excluded certain social engineering choices from certain factions not because they were inconsistent with each other, but because they would have been inconsistent with the ideological choices of that particular faction (i.e., you couldn't go socialist if you played Morgan, the free-trader guy.)

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I agree all of your examples are workable but I think some others are not yes and like I said the scientist couldn't become a fundamentalist in SMAC (he was the only one I played as). Also I think some are unlikely for various reasons as well as some being impossible and these should in my opinion have penalties attached but I think having some choices should make others impossible. If you disagree with me thats fine but does anyone know if there are going to be penalties or ones which are not allowed together.

 

[J-S]

Rome, after Caesar.
China, after Deng Xiapong.

Regarding Rome, before Caesar became Emperor there was a triunvirate (he was one of 3 who ruled Rome). I imagine you are referring to the time after Caesar became Emperor (the other 2 triunvirates died) and the Senate was still working. Well, this isin't a fully representative goverment, nor a complete dictatorship. So, these type of things could be reflected in a sort of "parlamentary monarchy" or something like that, under the "Representation" tab, or whatever it will be called.
Regarding China, it's a bit more complicated. China, it is true, uses a kind of communist economic model and a free market one. The thing is, China uses a different model for different regions. The reason I didin't bring this up, is because if implemented into the game, that would mean that civs would have "regions", and that each civ's region would have it's own social, political and economical model... wich would IMHO make things too complex.

 

[frekk]

Ooooh ... I don't think any Roman would have thought too highly of calling it a monarchy. And, it wasn't (at least not in the sense of a limited monarchy such as England in the later parts of the Enlightenment). Monarchy implies alot of things besides the role of the regency itself.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

despotism would perhaps be more appropriate for rome

 

[J-S]

Ok that's why I said "...". It was just a suggestion for it's name. What I meant was, that Rome's Emperor-Senate mix can't be categorized under "Representative" or "Despotism", because it's neither of them.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I would say it was more despotic or monarchic because they were were the real power lies whereas as in britain, who also posses both a monarchy and a representative democracy, representative would be more appropriate because the pm has the power not the queen. However you are right that neither is completely right.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think there will be some with penalties (after all War Weariness... a penalty has to be in somehow, and Civics options will probably make it worse or better)

However, I don't think that they will have prohibited combinations (nor should they as I think all combinations could come out as reasonable)

Of course none of the real world will Perfectly fit into the ideas we have for those settings, because the settings are at an individual point rather than the range that reality is. So whether China today would qualify as a Free Market or a Communism government is a debate similar to whether it qualifies as Aggressive or Philosophical
1) not entirely appropriate because these are game terms
and
2) not resolvable because the game is Simplified

 

[Tiger_Nation]

when I said penalties I meant for choosing two options together which are unlikely to happen not penalities for choosing any individual option which are obviously going to occur.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think some options may not go Well together, ie they will be rarely used (like Feudalism or Fascism in Civ 3 could represent a particular combination) but I don't think that there will be a special set of rules for any combinations (like Free Speech Police States get a -1 to happiness)