My take on stuff

[Xanthippus]

Are you using the latest svn?

Woops... no, I was using the full release. Haha I've downloaded the SVN version now and it's working fine. Thanks.

 

[Arakhor]

It's bureaucracy, as I'm sure you know, but martial law is what you're after, not "marshal".

Quite apart from the fact that you've also misspelt rogue, a kleptocracy is where those in charge exploit the country's natural resources and extort wealth from its people. Is that what you're after? If not, how does that differ from "Rogue rule"?

I know what a stratocracy is, but I'm probably fairly odd. It's not the same as rule by the army or various African dictatorships, as it's where the armed forces are part of the state and essentially anyone with any public responsibility is a military officer.

 

[Yudishtira]

anyone with any public responsibility is a military officer.

I disagree.

Wikipedia makes a distinction between stratocracy and military dictatorship or junta, but it's a kind of arbitrary one. It says that a stratocracy is backed by a legal and/or constitutional framework. However by the very fact of taking power, a junta is working under a de-facto framework, even if that could be formalized in the three words: "we're in charge"... If they last long enough, they will rewrite the legal/constitutional framework to legitimize themselves, thus more overtly becoming a stratocracy (although their detractors will naturally not accept their legitimacy and continue to call them names).

 

[Toffer90]

A kleptocracy is where those in charge exploit the country's natural resources and extort wealth from its people. Is that what you're after? If not, how does that differ from "Rogue rule"?

Well, I was asked to replace the -ocracy words with more commonly understood words.
So it is not really supposed to differ, at least not much.

Same goes for Anocracy-Vague, Kratocracy-Situational, Stratocracy-Military.
The -ocracy word is what will be used in the pedia for these civics.

@Yudishtira: Seems to me that you completely agree with Arakhor.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@Toffer90,

Hope you have a Real Thick Skin. Civics has Always been a battle to make. I think it becomes so hard to get a concensus that that it is why Eldrinfall (2nd C2C Civic set) and CivPlayer8 (current Civic set) no longer come around here. And the more complicated each Civic becomes so too does the discussion and dissension. Just sayin'.

JosEPh

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer90,

Hope you have a Real Thick Skin. Civics has Always been a battle to make. I think it becomes so hard to get a concensus that that it is why Eldrinfall (2nd C2C Civic set) and CivPlayer8 (current Civic set) no longer come around here. And the more complicated each Civic becomes so too does the discussion and dissension. Just sayin'.

JosEPh

I'm prepared for that, and if I can't get a consensus I will just take a decisions on it myself and keep it as a modmod the way I ultimately want it to be.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I was asked to replace the -ocracy words with more commonly understood words.

I seem to recall being the one to suggest that.

So it is not really supposed to differ, at least not much.

So, if that's the case, why would anyone aspire to a kleptocracy? By that I mean what sort of modifiers would this civic have if the best you can say about it is that your politicians really are a bunch of crooks and liars and at worst the country is a complete basket-case, existing only to enrich its leaders at the expense of everyone and everything else?

 

[Toffer90]

So, if that's the case, why would anyone aspire to a kleptocracy? By that I mean what sort of modifiers would this civic have if the best you can say about it is that your politicians really are a bunch of crooks and liars and at worst the country is a complete basket-case, existing only to enrich its leaders at the expense of everyone and everything else?

No one aspire to kleptocracy but it still emerges throughout history on its own accord; corrupt politicians is not really that uncommon ^^.

You, the player, would be the biggest crook of them all. I'm not sure about the particulars yet, but I'm thinking there should be some complex economical stats for this one. The main idea would be that the wider population is neglected mad:(-)%); production gets inefficient (-%); science funding staggers (-%), while the leadership might end up with a lot of capital to do with as they wish depending on the size of the nation. This civic might end up as a good choice for small military aggressive nations or as a possible way to avoid bankruptcy.
It would give an attitude penalty to other nations too.

This will all be figured out when I start balancing it towards the other, then defined, civics in the category.

 

[Toffer90]

6. draft:

-Reintroduced AGRICULTURE category
-Removed Bureaucracy as it is something that has almost always existed in various degrees; and is more or less the sum of all other civics.
-Some name changes.
-Added pacifism to MILITARY category.

EDIT: I'm curious about what people think of the name changes, I for one would like to return all but Corporate back to their -ocracy versions.

Also, if anyone has a good grasp on the future eras of C2C. I would very much appreciate any suggestions for some futuristic civics. Don't have to be detailed, but I would like some arguments.

 

[Yudishtira]

Yes an unenviable task to be sure.

What's a Strongman Democracy? If it unambiguously meant a dictatorship with elections (that would have to be fake), I'd maybe accept it, but why couldn't it also mean a democracy where the 'strongman' was more of a puppet/figurehead? Overall, since one by definition makes a mockery of the other, I don't think you should be able to run two such civics simultaneously.

I suggest this means that 'Strongman' and 'Democracy' cannot be civics in different categories, unless you can make civics prereqs for each other - ie. if you're in 'Strongman' you can't choose 'Democracy' and vice-versa (that would solve a lot of problems don't you think?).

I suggest that proletarian - as opposed to egalitarian/democratic - rule is so unstable as to be impossible. Almost immediately a set of proletarian oligarchs come to power, which becomes as concentrated in the hands of an elite or individual as it ever was (eg. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cultural Revolution in China, possibly Khmer Rouge, etc.)

What's the difference between Oligarchy and Council?

Matriarchy/Patriarchy/Neither needs either to be a category by itself, or to be dropped. It is obviously never going to fit anywhere else. In their current location, for example, it rules out there being a patriarchal caste system or meritocracy, when the best recognized examples of both (Hindu India and Ching China) were clearly patriarchal (eg. lots of females in the Brahmin caste, but none of them are brahmins in the sense of religious officials/priests).

 

[Toffer90]

What's a Strongman Democracy? If it unambiguously meant a dictatorship with elections (that would have to be fake), I'd maybe accept it, but why couldn't it also mean a democracy where the 'strongman' was more of a puppet/figurehead? Overall, since one by definition makes a mockery of the other, I don't think you should be able to run two such civics simultaneously.

A strongman democracy would be a democracy where people vote for the most intimidating candidate either due to a low security society or a cultural norm. If you are strong enough to make them vote for you then you will rise to power. Yes quite a fake democracy but there is precedence for it in history.

I suggest this means that 'Strongman' and 'Democracy' cannot be civics in different categories, unless you can make civics prereqs for each other - ie. if you're in 'Strongman' you can't choose 'Democracy' and vice-versa (that would solve a lot of problems don't you think?).

This is far beyond my capability.

I suggest that proletarian - as opposed to egalitarian/democratic - rule is so unstable as to be impossible. Almost immediately a set of proletarian oligarchs come to power, which becomes as concentrated in the hands of an elite or individual as it ever was (eg. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cultural Revolution in China, possibly Khmer Rouge, etc.)

Proletariat does in this case represent egalitarian in any way it might be possible for them to be the most influential group in society.

What's the difference between Oligarchy and Council?

In principle the same, although a council could be voted in or based on merit. I was thinking of something like an elder council or something more specific than just "rule by the few"(oligarchy). I included it because I wanted there to be a stepping stone in the prehistoric era in this category.

Matriarchy/Patriarchy/Neither needs either to be a category by itself, or to be dropped. It is obviously never going to fit anywhere else. In their current location, for example, it rules out there being a patriarchal caste system or meritocracy, when the best recognized examples of both (Hindu India and Ching China) were clearly patriarchal (eg. lots of females in the Brahmin caste, but none of them are brahmins in the sense of religious officials/priests).

Meritocracy can even apply to caste system; why does it have to be either/or when there can be degrees of. If you chooce meritocracy, merit will be the major factor for your position in society.

Regarding patriarchy/matriarchy, I think they fit in well. your position in society is based on lineage be it either on the male or female side of said lineage.
I could merge them into 1 civic called lineage. Would you prefer that?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, "vague" doesn't mean an awful lot, whereas "kleptocracy" is an actual term, but "anocracy" and "ergatocracy" not so much.

I'd agree that Matriarchy/Patriarchy should be one civic, whether it's "Lineage" or "Gender Roles" or what-have-you.

 

[Toffer90]

Well, "vague" doesn't mean an awful lot, whereas "kleptocracy" is an actual term, but "anocracy" and "ergatocracy" not so much.

Hmm, ponder, ponder.

I'd agree that Matriarchy/Patriarchy should be one civic, whether it's "Lineage" or "Gender Roles" or what-have-you.

But would they not represent two quite different social structures that merit two civics?

Pondering some more.... perhaps one civic would be the best but the category is shrinking.

EDIT: I can live with that shrinkage.

 

[Rwn]

But would they not represent two quite different social structures that merit two civics?

How exactly?... Patriarchy and matriarchy both are systems where members of one gender hold power (and usually have dominance over the other gender). I don't really see what makes a society where women dominate structurally different from one where men dominate...

 

[Faustmouse]

How exactly?... Patriarchy and matriarchy both are systems where members of one gender hold power (and usually have dominance over the other gender). I don't really see what makes a society where women dominate structurally different from one where men dominate...

I remember reading somewhere that matrichries tend to to focus more on family and peace. They are less agressive and power addiccted than patriacharts. So the current way (more for pat, more for mat) makes quite sense.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I remember reading somewhere that matrichries tend to to focus more on family and peace. They are less agressive and power addiccted than patriacharts. So the current way (more for pat, more for mat) makes quite sense.

Actually Faust any Civic that has as it's main component is weak game play wise. And has been for sometime in C2C. (Could care less about "historical relevance", because C2C is not a historical mod, RI fills that niche.)

There is another Civic set that is similar to these 2 and that is Barter and Subsistence. Subsistence is just so weak because it's based, same as Mat.is in this discussion.

JosEPh

 

[Rwn]

I remember reading somewhere that matrichries tend to to focus more on family and peace. They are less agressive and power addiccted than patriacharts. So the current way (more for pat, more for mat) makes quite sense.

I'm not very comfortable with this... Tying the the gender of the dominant people with global society properties would mean that women are intrinsically better at caring and nourishing (so they would do that better when in power) while men intrinsically are intrisically better at building things and making warfare (so they would do that better when in power)?...

 

[Toffer90]

What about changing just matriarchy to lineage, as matriarchy is so rare that it's existence in history can't be definitely proven. At the time patriarchy emerged there were probably a focus on lineage in non-patriarchies as well. Lineage would thus be more egalitarian than what patriarchy is.

What Faustmouse had read was probably using the more loose definition of matriarchy, where any societies that isn't patriarchy is a matriarchy; because there is no real basis for defining how a matriarchy would work.

 

[Faustmouse]

Maybe, it's been quite a while

But I have to agree with Joseph anyways. is abundant and you don't really need it in c2c after a certain point in late PH. After that, uncontrolled growing is more a problem of starvation most of the game.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not very comfortable with this... Tying the the gender of the dominant people with global society properties would mean that women are intrinsically better at caring and nourishing (so they would do that better when in power) while men intrinsically are intrisically better at building things and making warfare (so they would do that better when in power)?...

It also comes across as somewhat sexist.