New Governments

[Blunt_Axe]

They say 2 of the new governments will be Islamic Sultanates & Confucian Bureaucracies.

What orher governments do you think or hope there will be?

I am hoping for some sort of facist or nazi type government and maybe theocracy or something. Maybe an ecclesiastical state like the vatican or something.

What do you think there will be?

 

[steviejay]

I'm not being the budding Nazi here but I would really like to see a Nazi style Dictatorship government implemented in C3C for the main reason that its a part of our history, we can't just block it out. And ok, I can understand some people might feel uneasy about being a Dictator but look at Franco of Spain, he was a Dictator from the Spanish Civil War until his death in the 70's I think. so I think Dictatorism (is that a word?) would be very good in keeping with the Historical realism that the Civilization series is so renouned for

 

[Vietcong]

yes, thay need thay kinda gov... its caled facisam, many ppl think facisam and the gooverment germany had was the same.. but ther NOT. facisam was in italy, and spian and a few other places.. germany was a natinol socilst goverment or nazi gov..

 

[Pvt. Cowboy]

I believe that Socialism would be a new government that is appropriate for the game. I think that to be fair, it would reduce productivity but enhance the public happiness -- at least in the short term. I am also dubious on how different it is from Communism since I believe that Communism is just Socialism with a militaristic government in charge. I don't mean to offend you Socialists out there, but that's the facts. Maybe the disadvantage of Socialism should be that if too many military units are built, the government automatically converts to Communism? I also don't believe that Communist governments should permit temple/cathedral benefits. In fact, having a Communist government with a significant religious improvement base should cause cities to revolt. The player would be forced to raze their religious improvements to stay in control much like Communists have done in real-life.

On that note, a Socialist government that produces the Nationalism discovery in the tech tree should be in danger of converting to National-Socialism -- Nazism. Though it might be thrilling to play while on the offensive in wartime, the resistance in defending against an oncoming powerful enemy might cause the National-Socialist civilization's cities to crumble like cookies.

Theology needs to be brought back into CivIII as a government. It's annoying to have various Religious cultures in the game without the ability to be a theocracy. Makes no sense. I can't understand how PTW's Arab culture isn't inclined to be a theocracy.

Maybe one of the enhancements in C3C would be that the player may have their government switch on them without the ability to control it. That might add a huge amount of excitement to the game, especially in multi-play. I don't understand why that's not already in the game: If your culture is a Republic that discovers Communism just to get the police station improvement, why wouldn't a segment of your unhappy populace decide that they're Communists and want to overthrow the Republic? Since Democracy would still have the benefit of being resistant to Communist propoganda, it would finally mean something important.

 

[Vietcong]

hay hay hay,... im communist and religous. we shold model our live on earth after that in heaven... comnpleat equality, and no socila injustics..

 

[konwinskir]

There is a huge differance between socialism and communism, other than communism has a large military. Many Democracy's follow a Socialist path. ( ie .. norway) The big distinction between socialism and communism is that socialism is usually an elected government that tends to be peaceful, while communism is usually a military dictatorship formed a hostile take over.

 

[Xiasar]

Study more Plato, Aristoteles, Campanella, Hobbes and Marx to find out what comunism is (and it's not what we say it is and has been in history!), please stop talking without knowledge of what you're saying, people

Great idea the one of the uprise of National-socialism. I would implement an uprise of theocracy as well, for regilious civs wich seem only to have merits (too much religion could endanger the nation...).

 

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Originally posted by Xiasar
Study more Plato, Aristoteles, Campanella, Hobbes and Marx to find out what comunism is (and it's not what we say it is and has been in history!), please stop talking without knowledge of what you're saying, people

Great idea the one of the uprise of National-socialism. I would implement an uprise of theocracy as well, for regilious civs wich seem only to have merits (too much religion could endanger the nation...).

I don't want to engage in a political debate here, but I refuse to acknowledge a theoretical dream of what Communism should be under laboratory conditions. I am quite familiar with the philosophy of it all, and have heard Marx's rant before. Before you try to continue with me here, please understand that scientific theory (even political science, mind you) requires *proof*, and Communism has provided quite enough proof in 75 years of exactly how it ends up. Simply put, Communism only has it's history to account for itself; It is what it's history proves it to be. Sorry, but it's track record proves it to be the worst widespread inhumanity ever foisted upon humankind with National-Socialism running a close second.

Anyway, the point I intended to make was that an upgrade to CivIII (or CivIV, if it ever comes out) would be for the game to take political control away from the player if they make mistakes in choosing their intended path of government. It somehow seems wrong to me that the player still is permitted to act as a despot in a Republic through forcing public works to be built, can benefit from religious improvements under Communism, or is allowed to make instant all-encompassing decisions with no opposition in a Democracy. Only a Monarch should be permitted such extravagances without opposition, and I believe that the game should allow a King (A player in the role of the monarch) to be assassinated, as history shows has happened many times.

At some point, CivIII should take the role of a political simulator in the modern stages. A Despot should have the most control over the game, followed by a Monarchy, Communism, a Theocracy, Socialism, a Republic, and finally Democracy which has the least control over a population.

 

[RX2000]

Originally posted by steviejay
so I think Dictatorism (is that a word?) would be very good in keeping with the Historical realism that the Civilization series is so renouned for

As someone pointed out on the other Governments thread, Despotism is a Dictatorship, so thats pretty much already in the game. Also, Fascism is just Despotism with some racism thrown in, so how exactly would you represent that within the game.

And btw, WTH is up with Confucian Bureaucracies? That sounds like bull****.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

The types of Government in Civ3 have always seemed strange to me, and I'm not sure if adding more governments will make it better or worse. take America for example, it's a democracy but it's also a republic, Canada is also a democracy (i'm canadian) but it's not a republic. The Roman's are known for having the republic, but itwas a flawed system and the Roman Empire didn't really become great until after the Republic fell. So the Roman's preferred government should really be some sort of Imperialism, but even then Roman Imperialsm is pretty much a monarchy anyway even though the romans shunned monarchies...okay, I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, it's just some observations.
Also, I gave up adding my governments to the game because there wasen't really anyway to make them different from the already existing ones...does anybody know how Conquest will address this?

 

[Sims2789]

i hope Fascism and Constitutional Monarchy will be in there.
________
Website Host

 

[Pembroke]

IMHO the problem in classifying governments in the real world is that the nominal government of a country is rarely a description of how the country is really ruled. For example the UK is a monarchy, but that hardly describes it. If you disregard what Britain chooses to call itself a more fitting description would be democracy. Also if you consider the various "people's democracies" (now there's an oxymoron!) you'll probably conclude they are really dictatorships.

I think that whatever terms you decide to use the logical thing to do would be to _first_ make the definitions what the terms mean, and only then go on classifying the various nations. And that based on how things actually are instead of what their constitutions or laws say they ought to be.

The civ system is simple and it's really enough for the purposes of the game. It produces a "feel" of history and yet keeps things very straightforward: a simple ranking from "less freedom" to "more freedom" with the game implementation that "less freedom" equals "more military but less gold" whereas "more freedom" means the opposite.

 

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Xiasar
Study more Plato, Aristoteles, Campanella, Hobbes and Marx to find out what comunism is (and it's not what we say it is and has been in history!), please stop talking without knowledge of what you're saying, people

You're right and thats why ommunism should maybe renamed to marxism or something like that and should be less militaristic and another form of communism (maybe Stalinism) could be added... anyway, plato ans aristoteleles were talking about some pre-communistic government that would have worked in a polis and not in huge nations... maybe some other new government to add.

 

[Benderino]

Along with "Constitutional Monarchy", there should be "Parliamentarianism". Also, how about "City-States", or "Federalism". Socialism shouldn't be added, because its an economic function, not political, just like capitalism. For modern democracies, we could either have "Social Democracy" (like much of modern Europe is called) or "Democratic Republic" (like the USA).

"Imperialism" should be a government function, like war mobilization. It should work under certain governments (ie. Parliamentarianism, Constitutional Monarchy, Despotism, etc.).

There should be a modern despotism, either named Fascism or Authoritarianism. The latter for states like the one run under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the former, of course, run under Mussolini in Italy. If the villainous Communism should be allowed (which it should, for historical sake) then so should the villainous Fascism.

Theocracy is a good idea as well. Its kinda like the Fundementalism of Civ II, but they took that out for a reason. It can't remain the same as it was (probably for the unlimited troops thing ). If they changed that, then I'm all for it.

 

[Black Waltz]

I'm sorry. I'm addressing the ignorance some people seem to have in this topic.

Hitler may have called his party the 'National Socalists' but when he was in power he totally SHUNNED the Socalist side. The Nazi's were as Socalist as they were lovers of democracy. They were indeed Facist. By Facist that means extremely military minde, repressive yet less anti Business then Comunism. In fact the Nazi's were very pro-business. The parent company of Merceedes-Benz for instance made a fortune during WWII.

Socialism is a VERY diffrent form of Government from Comunism. Under Communism EVERY method of production is taken over and used by the state - Socalism on the other hand retains key industries in Government hands yet still allows Private Enterprise. More focus is placed on workers/childrens/disabled/elderly people and their rights. Normaly a strong social saftey net is evident and healthcare and education is top rate. This is normally funded by higher income taxes on the richer classes and business. Military budgets are also normally kept low in order to fund such social programs. However, Socalist Republics such as France are known for their democratic nature and rule of law and therefore corruption is quite low.

Communism however is much harsher on private enterprise and private property. Often known as 'Peoples Republics' they are said to be 'taken over by the people' but instead it spawns a large, sprawling auto-cratic government. Corruption tends to be rife the longer the regieme is in power. Hence China. Although one party and dictatorship the only reason it is changing to Capatalism is to make it easier to keep their population under control. All thoughts of ideology have been thrust from their minds as all they care for is power.

Also, Depotism is quite diffrent from Dictatorship. Depotism at the time was simply the strongest warlord having control. There was no 'state' as such hence the reduced production assosaited with it. True dictatorships would mean wholly state-controled lives such as what happened with Stalinism and Facism.

Anyway. I would like to see Facism covered as a new Government. However, one idea could be that you suffer a rep hit for becoming such a Government and in return you get increased production (slave labouring, etcO and maybe some other bonuses and drawbacks that would have to be thought about.

Socalism. I like the happiness idea. I think maybe the drawbacks could be maybe troop upkeep costs are increased or maybe a drop in earnings all together.

It will be intresting to see how the other new Governments play out. I especially like the Confucious idea. Quite popular in Korea early on if I remember correctly.

 

[RX2000]

Could someone explain what a Confuscious Bureacracy is? I've never heard of it in my life; I dont study Eastern history much.

 

[Evie]

Basically, a Confucean Bureaucracy is an Intelectualocracy. The state is entirely run by a vast bureaucracy, which is chosen from a number of very selected students who had demonstrated great knowledge of the classics (that is, pretty much, political science, philosophy and economy).

Thence, the administration of the empire was in the hand of a selected number of highly competent and inteligent officials, and with varying failsafe built in to make sure people did their job right.

It worked all right - as long as the country was headed by a strong emperor. The second the emperor became weak, or lost contact with reality, the system started royally screwing up because there was no emperor to keep everyone else in line.

All in all, not a bad system. Certainly better than any system were nobility determined who had the right to administer stuff, and (as it worked out in China), and far more egalitarian than most systems up til modern democracy, as anyone could try for the exams (it was not uncommon to see peasant villages pulling their ressources together to send one of the village's kid - the brightest - to take the tests.)

 

[RX2000]

So its sort of like a monarchy, but instead of the rich landowners supporting the monarch and helping run things, its the smart people?

 

[bewareofgnomes]

im thinking that it would then be used as sort of a compromise between democracy and monarchy, gaining economic and scientific benefits due to having smart people, and low war weariness due to being run by a select few people.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Basically, a Confucean Bureaucracy is an Intelectualocracy. The state is entirely run by a vast bureaucracy, which is chosen from a number of very selected students who had demonstrated great knowledge of the classics (that is, pretty much, political science, philosophy and economy).

Not those; more like literature, calligraphy, ethics, poetry, philosophy (mentioned) etc. The Confucian mandarinate was anti-capitalist.

Thence, the administration of the empire was in the hand of a selected number of highly competent and inteligent officials, and with varying failsafe built in to make sure people did their job right.

I wouldn't say competent and intelligent; more like ethical. The scholar-officials worked for social prestige, as well as whatever pay there was.

It worked all right - as long as the country was headed by a strong emperor. The second the emperor became weak, or lost contact with reality, the system started royally screwing up because there was no emperor to keep everyone else in line.

Actually, at times, it worked well too around weak emperors. Like during the Song dynasty, it was the bureaucracy that kept things runnng, despite the emperor.

All in all, not a bad system. Certainly better than any system were nobility determined who had the right to administer stuff, and (as it worked out in China), and far more egalitarian than most systems up til modern democracy, as anyone could try for the exams (it was not uncommon to see peasant villages pulling their ressources together to send one of the village's kid - the brightest - to take the tests.)

Result of the Qin and Han emperors' efforts to weed out Zhou feudalism, fr Chinese society.