More Realistic Democracies

[Kayak]

Because with a democracy, the direction is less controllable by the government. This is of course more than made up by the fact that the democracy will research faster. All of them will of course eventually be available.

In this case I think that you should not have much control at all over what you research as a democracy given that it is being done mostly by private citizens.

I would prefer to see a multiple research track implemented anyway. In this case all available Techs would be reseached at the same time, but you could decide to fund research in a paticular area more or less (similar to SMAC). This is after all how most democracies work. Only in command and control governments could you chose not to research something.

 

[DBear]

3.War must be agreed upon by the Parliament/Senate/Congress and have good reasons e.g. Continual breakage of treaties.

They had this in Civ2. Everyone hated it. That's why it was eliminated in Civ3.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually DBear, I hated the Senate in Civ2 NOT because it wouldn't let me go to war, or because it signed treaties behind my back-but because it was so damned random and irrational ! The idea of NOT having complete control over your domestic and foreign policy-in ANY government type-is a great one in concept, but was very poorly executed in Civ2. If some of the ideas I have postulated were implemented, then I think that it would make democracies more unpredictable, but not completely frustrating. Use of bribery and propoganda (along with the occasional 'secret' alliance ) would be a great way of manipulating even the most recalcitrant democratic society into doing what you want them to !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Science Rules]

Without great benefits, no one will put up with hassle of constantly MMing factions in you civ.

I don't think that will be a problem, the factions and their opinions could be listed up and down the sides of the diplomacy screen where currently your empire is shown during diplomacy and would only have a yea, neh or undecided status; you could consider all of their demands from right there. The factions could also be listed in the Domestic Advisor screen, but there might not be enough room there.

 

[North King]

More happiness in democracy? O_o

Make the citizens in good peacetime (and good war) more happy, however in times of economic hardship (as well as in a bad war), unhappy. They should definately restrict control, but have bonuses to other areas like wealth and such. Restrictive governments should have lesser extremes of good happiness but bad happiness can lead to revolution, however they offer total control.

Just don't make the benefits of democracy TOO great--I don't want to see the whole planet filled with them by defacto.

 

[Kayak]

I don't think that will be a problem, the factions and their opinions could be listed up and down the sides of the diplomacy screen where currently your empire is shown during diplomacy and would only have a yea, neh or undecided status; you could consider all of their demands from right there. The factions could also be listed in the Domestic Advisor screen, but there might not be enough room there.

If you have to put reference the diplo screen every turn, or if you have to make changes every turn to appease factions then it would be a lot of extra work. The game has to flow and be playable. I think that this is avoidable, but its an all too likely an outcome given the way the AI opperates.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that a flowing game and more realistic democracy ARE compatible. A quick look in your domestic advisor screen should give you a very clear idea of the relative degrees of influence of each group-based on demography, sufferage and government type. As I pointed out, they WON'T interfere in every decision you make (I envisage their interference being capped each turn) but in a democratic civ, you have to at least consider the possibility that your people might oppose you. Of course, if they are currently very happy and/or very wealthy, then that chance is significantly reduced! I just say that, why bother HAVING democratic government types if they all play like despotisms??

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Make the citizens in good peacetime (and good war) more happy, however in times of economic hardship (as well as in a bad war), unhappy. They should definately restrict control, but have bonuses to other areas like wealth and such. Restrictive governments should have lesser extremes of good happiness but bad happiness can lead to revolution, however they offer total control.

That idea got me thinking of new ways to define governments and their roles. Since at least western civilization views almost all ideals in bipolar fashion(between two extremes), that would be a good way to view the effects of government. One such measurement is happiness vs. liberty.

The upper limit of happiness is the absolute limit of happiness, outside GA. It increases with liberty and decreases with authority.
The lowest happiness is the limit of unhappiness before the government becomes unstable. You have a greater cushion with great liberty and less with authority.
The popular response is the amount that you agreement or refusal of demands changes happiness/unhappiness level. More liberty means the popular response is greater, while authority reduces the affect of popular response.

While greater liberty looks good, sometimes too much will make it hard to do what you need. Too much control means a few bad events cause chaos. Balance, based on how good your economy and situation are, is the key.

More measurements and controls should be suggested. Of course now the governments would need to be reworked.

 

[dh_epic]

I love this kind of idea, although there are a lot of naysayers who say it would be uncivlike, among other things. Not to mention that it "takes control away from the player".

I think obstacles can be a good thing.

An obstacle like finding a way to unify your people who are feuding between races, between rich and poor, between geography -- that would be awesome.

An obstacle like the AI suddenly growing a collective hive-mind and ganging up on you, that's a really lame source of challenge.

The idea that granting your people freedom gives you a new set of benefits and a new set of problems, that's what makes choices worthwhile.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Someone here mentioned players not bothering to MM the influence of factions. However, in MY system, the player has only a VERY small amount of DIRECT control over the influence of each faction. Instead, it is the result of player actions, such as the improvements you build, the wealth of your cities, your government choices and the civics settings that you settle on. For instance, if you have a low secularism and lots of religious improvements and wonders, then your religious faction would have a lot of influence, and will tend to push you in a direction that increases their influence yet further.
You CAN adjust influence, manually, but you can only do this at the cost of another factions influence, which will result in increased unhappiness amongst any factions who lose out. To avoid MM, though, constant manual adjustment of influence settings will have a sort of 'law of diminishing returns' effect on factional happiness. That is, any happiness gains you recieve from increasing a factions influence will be reduced every time you do it within, say, a 5 turn period. However, happiness gains from stability in influence increase the longer you leave settings in place. Hope all of that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.