Governments

[frekk]

There are three government 'types': Democratic, Authoritarian, and Socialist; each have different properties. Right now you're thinking "Yes, this simplifies things, but too much".

I'm more thinking that it's too 20th century.

The other thing is that I like civics. Overall I'm not a big fan of the rushjob that was civ4, but, civics were done well and I don't want to go back to just one-size-fits-all governments.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't like the idea of three governments and all that, but I do think the idea of different types of occupation. And, was puppet state supposed to make them a vassal?

It's a different discussion, but it would be interesting to see more things to fight over then just cities.

 

[KIEJ.MANIK]

Everybody wants more civics, more options to customize their game, civilizations are all about customzation

 

[President]

Quite honestly, as someone who became a Civilization fan at Civilization IV, and someone who uses many mods, the main, and actually only, reason I did not go backwards in history and buy Civilization I, II, and III is exactly because they don't use civics. Frankly, the civics in Civilization IV even felt dull to me. Mods like Rise of Mankind and its A new Dawn, however, did exactly what I want for the civics system. Governmental systems aren't just Democratic, autocratic, and socialist. The United States was never a Democracy until FDR. It was, before then, a Republic -- and some even argue against it. Some argue that it was Federalist, and the Federal government should therefore not have the same authority as that of a government of a Republic, as John Locke defined it. All these nuances aren't just minuscule. They are considerable and define your nation's identity. Just because countries call themselves the "Republic of Sudan" or the "People's Republic of China" does not mean they are just a Republic or a People's Republic.

There is more that goes into societies than that. What if they're a Republic that emphasizes State Property? What if they're a Constitutional Monarchy that controls the elected officials through a shadow government? All these nuances should be emphasized in the game, because I am sure that the silent majority fanatics of this game want the game to imitate politics as much as possible. I do like the idea that countries should be drawn towards certain civics, but it shouldn't be because of the country in and of itself. People need to remember that America in real life is not the same as the America in the game. An America that was founded in 4000 BC would not be the same as the one in real life. The countries in the game should be drawn to specific civilizations in the basis of its context, its history in the game. If a country just achieved independence from a monarchy, it might very well levitate towards a Republic. Of course, resources and whatnot would play a role as well. I've heard that Civilization V will be doing things with a Civic Tree or something, and it'd be interesting to see how it'll turn out. In terms of the current civics system, however, I think that something like this would grab the essence the government of a country.

ORGANIZATION: Federalism, Centrism, Confederacy
GOVERNMENT: Anarchy, Aristocracy, Authoritarianism, Autocracy, Consociationalism, Demarchy, Democracy, Fascism, Gerontocracy, Kratocracy, Kritocracy, Magocracy, Minarchism, Monarchy, Noocracy, Ochlocracy, Oligarchy, Panarchism, Plutocracy, Technocracy, Theocracy, Timocracy, Tribal
SOCIETY: Libertarian, Meritocracy, Egalitarianism
ECONOMICS: Capitalism, Subsidized Capitalism, Corporatism, Progressive, Socialism, Communism
RELIGION: Storytelling, Prophets, State Church, Intolerance, Secular, Atheist.
NATIONAL IDENTITY: Illuminati, Progressive, Free Trade with World, Patriotism, Nationalism, Tribal.
MILITARY: Feudalism, Standing Army, Volunteer Army, Conscripted Army, Unmanned Army.

Obviously, there could be more, but I think the above would be a step in the right direction. People play Civilization to make their own society. They want at least certain control over things.

 

[Naokaukodem]

There are three government 'types': Democratic, Authoritarian, and Socialist

! Now that's kinda clunky, and a naive vision of the world. Socialism is not a government type, and it's not opposed to democracy nor authoritarism, but to liberalism.

 

[Matthias Wasser]

! Now that's kinda clunky, and a naive vision of the world. Socialism is not a government type, and it's not opposed to democracy nor authoritarism, but to liberalism.

Well, "liberalism" is a fuzzy word, much like "socialism" itself. When we speak about liberal democracy vs social democracy, say, it's clear that we're talking about economics, because the opposing force is "social" and "democracy" is being held constant. But of course it can refer to cultural freedom and civil liberties as well - which is presumably the nomenclature adopted by Civ as well, since Liberalism allows Free Religion and Free Speech and, just like Glenn Beck told you, leads to Communism.

This is why the civics system is so great! You can say in what spheres liberalism (or whatever) applies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In response to President, personally, (And I'm not naive) don't even know what some of those governments are. What's a Magocracy or Kratocracy?"

Probably a few less government types, but I do like the idea of "More options."

 

[Matthias Wasser]

Kratocracy is another word for despotism. Magocracy is rule by wizards, and, to say the least, wouldn't make much sense outside of a fantasy mod.

And most of the examples he listed are of this sort! Autocracy is another word for despotism, Ochlocracy is a pejorative term for democracy, Demarchy is democracy where leaders are chosen by sortition (as in jury duty,) Minarchism describes a government's scope and scale rather than form, Technocracy describes a style rather than form, &c. There's probably room for an Aristocracy government civic, but it's not strictly needed, as it straddles Hereditary Rule and Representation.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Magocracy is rule by wizards, and, to say the least, wouldn't make much sense outside of a fantasy mod.

To be fair, it could also be the Zoroastrian equivalent of theocracy...

 

[President]

Kratocracy is another word for despotism. Magocracy is rule by wizards, and, to say the least, wouldn't make much sense outside of a fantasy mod.

And most of the examples he listed are of this sort! Autocracy is another word for despotism, Ochlocracy is a pejorative term for democracy, Demarchy is democracy where leaders are chosen by sortition (as in jury duty,) Minarchism describes a government's scope and scale rather than form, Technocracy describes a style rather than form, &c. There's probably room for an Aristocracy government civic, but it's not strictly needed, as it straddles Hereditary Rule and Representation.

I'll generally concede that most of that is pretty true. The purpose of all those governmental civics was mostly to show that real government isn't simple, and neither should the game's governmental system be. It really doesn't even need to be complicated for the fans that just aren't particularly interested in all that jargon. Each governmental civic would have the direct, in-game effects on your society. (Communism, for example, would decrease gold production by 75%, but it would increase the food production by 25% and the working rate at 35%.) Anybody can understand that, and this could make gaining techs with governmental civics in them more frequent, which means that the user would be able to have more freedom of choice. Quite frankly, a plethora of government civics would probably be seen as more of a means of customization of your civilization than a complexity.

In terms of the technocracy, you make a great point. Most actual names for governmental civics doesn't necessarily have to fall under the "GOVERNMENT" category at all. Technocracy could probably have another whole category, which would be about how much your civilization would prize technology. That is the same for a Theocracy. This is the same reason I put Communism as an economic policy rather than a governmental policy. The reason I put all those governmental civics in there, however, is because those are essentially all the possible forms of government out there. They each should be represented, however, because they all have distinct policies that would drastically make one society different than a society without those civics.

I do believe that governmental systems like Despotism shouldn't be included, however. That's what a person calls a government; it isn't what a government calls itself or its policies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'll generally concede that most of that is pretty true. The purpose of all those governmental civics was mostly to show that real government isn't simple, and neither should the game's governmental system be. It really doesn't even need to be complicated for the fans that just aren't particularly interested in all that jargon. Each governmental civic would have the direct, in-game effects on your society. (Communism, for example, would decrease gold production by 75%, but it would increase the food production by 25% and the working rate at 35%.) Anybody can understand that, and this could make gaining techs with governmental civics in them more frequent, which means that the user would be able to have more freedom of choice. Quite frankly, a plethora of government civics would probably be seen as more of a means of customization of your civilization than a complexity.

75% I'm pretty sure that would make it unusable. Which is perfectly realistic

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Noocracy?

What is Noocracy?

 

[Takhisis]

The government of noodles, by noodles, for the noodles?

 

[bob_page]

How about, in addition to sliders for government policies, markers/sliders for citizens' political views. By throwing money into propaganda the player could gradually align the citizens views with their own, and significant disparity between the two would raise dissent and possibly trigger a revolt.

 

[Craobh Rua]

In reply to the original post,
This sounds almost exactly like the system In Hearts of Iron(the old one at least). Firstly I think using this system in Civ would be a much too blatant rip off of HoI and secondly I think its really only suited to HoI because it covers a very short span of history and a complete ideological flip would be unrealistic in the 10 - 15 years of history it covers. In Civ changing at the rate that HoI allowed would equate to hundreds of years, which isn't realistic and would make the game too rigid.

 

[Ahovking]

I Love the civic system of Civ 4 and love to have more options and more decisions

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Yeah. I hate to say it, but the OP's suggestion sounds like a serious violation of KISS to me. Lockesdonkey's elaboration, even worse.

Civics make up a good, solid, approachable system, and while I'm eager to see more of this "civ tree" that Firaxis has hinted at, the improvements that I can think to make are superficial rather than fundamental. Stuff like clarifying the difference between the Government and Legal columns, harmonizing the categories so you can't do stuff like run a Police State with Free Speech (or at least, making this a Very Bad Idea), and avoiding "black hole" options like Emancipation that practically eliminate all other possibilities. Oh, and integrating the system more with diplomacy and morale.

I was merely elaborating what the OP's system, properly thought out, would look like. In either case, the system would primarily operate behind the scenes, and the player would likely have their choices dictated by the axes.