Ordinances: The Vote

Do you like my idea? (please read below)

  • Total voters
    32
Sorry, but I STILL feel that Social Engineering is the best way to go. Consider the following situation:

1) It is now 1830 CE and, over the last 100 years (20 turns) you have been rapidly industrialising your nation. This, in turn, has led to a rise in the influence of the worker faction of your society. Eventually, your domestic advisor approaches you saying 'Sire, the workers are demanding a greater say in the affairs of state. I suggest you raise national sufferage'. However, if you do so, then your powerful religious and capitalist factions might resist your attempts.

2) After decades of sabre-rattling, you know its only a matter of time before you go to war with your neighbour. However, you are concerned that doing so might lead to runaway War Weariness-especially if you don't achieve quick victories. Therefore, you decide to begin ramping up your nations Nationalism Level, propogandizing to your people about the evil foreigners who want to destroy their national identity. Unfortunately, your foreign faction gets very angry with you because they are bearing the brunt of your peoples racial villification and violence.

These are just two examples, but you can see how a single SE setting can, in fact, cover a large number of individual ordinances.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie, I like your ideas. But sometimes, when these things are implemented in a game, they have a tendency to become opaque and the users aren't quite sure what the heck and is going on. The cause and effect of any action you take have to be clear and there must be feedback.

MoO3's problem was it broke all those rules. You would be setting your tax rates at some level and your advisors would actually be fighting you behind your back and things take longer to achieve. Things would be happening in your empire that is not transparent, because the game is designed to behave that way.

It can be argued that is more realistic, but it makes for a terrible game. I think the best solution would be to take what is fairly well established in Civ3, that is, quantitative modifiers and apply it to social engineering. The player has full control, cause and effect is immediately apparent and a player can fix his problem. Also, there shouldn't be AI factions in your empire resisting your changes, as it is exactly what Moo3 tried to do and failed. You can probably model cost and benefit of a shift in social policy by the application of happiness.

That said, there is no evidence social engineering will be in Civ4. The closest we might get to is the civics concept, which might be a great abstraction of social policy and simply be a one variable item, much like culture was, with the variable being the amount of culture you have. I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Because I could almost see the discussion tipping into the 'elaborate social engineering game within a game' feel, which detracts from the Civ experience as the game is so much more than just social engineering.

Another knock against social engineering is, the idea isn't new but its been left out of Civ for 3 strait games. I also recall some of the Firaxians making public statements about how they do not feel social engineering has a place in Civ, which is not something I disagree with either.

we'll see
 
I, for one, have no problem with factions who might try and oppose your actions-so long as it occurs in a SENSIBLE FASHION!!! For instance, if I try and reduce my nations theism (i.e. its degree of religious belief) then the religious faction should become very unhappy. If this faction is also currently very influential, then they should have a chance to resist your efforts-either directly by moving theism BACK to where it was, or indirectly by rebelling against you (and, therefore, denying you the BENEFITS of religion). Having lost uncounted hours to all three iterations of the civ franchise, the one thing which has ALWAYS prevented the game from being TRULY immersive has been this absence of 'interaction' between myself and my people.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I agree with Aussie. If I were to get down to a missing ingredient that would solve a lot of problems (narrow military focus, boring modern age, emphasis on expansionism, one major path to victory) it could very well be "you versus your people".

Randomly taking power away from the player is stupid and annoying.

But the entire point of a game is a series of challenges, not merely a series of goals. If the challenges are sensible and interesting, then they can be fun. If there are multiple systematic ways to manage your people and deal with the problems they can give you, the game takes on a new dimension. Again, not randomly overriding the player's decisions, but punishing players for poor management, and rewarding them for good management.

Sliders are cool (a la social engineering).
Reforming the tech tree with multiple paths would be cool (a pro-democracy branch versus a pro-monarchy branch).
And regularly distributed ordinances/edicts/issues would be cool.

The theme of all these things is you give the player a CHOICE. That's something Civilization is direly lacking. Sometimes Civ is more like a puzzle game where you're trying to crack the developer's recipe for success, rather than customizing your own path and rewriting history.
 
searcheagle said:
What's wrong with this aspect of SimCity in civ is that you have 100-200 cities at least. In SimCity, there is only one city to manage. So managing that many cities would be extraordinarily difficult.

I would be for a where laws (or in the words of this post-ordinances) are enacted on a national level or a province level (if that system is included). These would only concern important and unusual laws such as:
  • Asylum seekers-allow them or prohibit them
  • Emigrants-can you leave?
  • Immigration-can you come?


This allows for differentiation of civ from whatever the basic government type is.
Click to expand...


make the governor do it!!!
 
OK, I think the ONE thing which has become readily apparent over the last 3 iterations of civ is that there is truly very little 'social variation' in the games. For instance, by the Middle Ages, the entire world is either a Republic or a Monarchy and, by the industrial age, the entire world is either Communist or Democracy! Although introducing long, long lists of new governments is one way to solve this problem-I don't think this will help if the best options still remain Democracy for peacetime and Communism for war!
Instead I feel that the secret is to have just a few CORE governments, with the REAL variation coming through your society's Social Engineering settings. For instance, is your Democracy tough on crime or does it take a laid-back approach? Are you a Socialist Republic, a Communist Republic or a Theocratic Republic?
Also, though, with factions whose happiness you have to keep in mind, and who can actually push you down certain paths, this will also prevent the world from looking as 'samey' as it has in the past!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I entirely agree with you, Aussie. Too bad ;).

BTW: everyone with RoC installed knows what Rhye did to get more diversity in the game. The downside, as Aussi pointed out, is that you get different types of the same main government time pretty soon in a row. With a profound social engineering system you would have much more liberty (no revolution needed to change between goverment subtypes i.e.) and much more diversity. It's really too bad they didn't incorporate the SMAC approach in Civ sofar.
 
Republic or a Monarchy and, by the industrial age, the entire world is either Communist or Democracy!
Click to expand...

That's because under the current system, Civs all benefit similarly under each government. so there is INFACT one BEST government under a given situation for every Civ. That leads to a pack effect of everyone switching to the same government. The AI is programmed to go for that government.

Going OT for a bit, an interesting innovation for Civ4 could be to expand the 'shunned' 'preffered' government system beyond attitude modifiers and have Civs actually benefit from them.

ie: Dutch preferred government is Monarchy, thus they and all Monarchy preferring Civs will receive bonuses in commerce, production and food. Alternatively, a Civ like America, which has Republic has its preferred government would receive bonuses under Republic but those bonuses will not only disappear but REVERSE! under Communism which is America's shunned government. For Civs which uses a government it neither shuns or prefers, there is no bonus.

Given this way, playing different Civs also entail different types of government coming into play. No more switching to communist government for the warmonger win as a general rule. That may still work for some Civs, but not all.

AND... here's another idea that's on topic.

Players could reduce or enhance these preferred/shunned modifiers through the social engineering aspects of the game. For example, if playing Dutch, which neither prefers nor shuns the Republic, a player could through its social policy move their Civ closer to that preference so if they switch to a Republic, they will receive some bonus, instead of no bonus.

This could lead to some very interesting cost/benefit trade offs. Republic and Democracy should probably still remain as the uber commerce / research governments, thus, a player playing under America could choose to play to its strength and go Republic then modify through social engineering the Republic bonus even further or they may play a gambit and go for a neutral government like Monarchy which wont give it bonuses but may have unit support and war weariness advantages that allows the American player to go the warmonger route.
 
Hardwiring stuff based on your Civ takes control away from the player. What happened to choice?

Aussie, in abstract, summarized the problem. But he's slightly off. The problem isn't just a lack of variety, it's a lack of choice. Forcing players into various situations isn't much different from having one choice that's better than all the others -- ultimately, you're still taking choices away from the player.

Why not genuinely give the player multiple ways to win? With multiple paths to victory, the gameplay becomes genuinely creative. With a single path to victory, the game becomes nothing more than a mechanical race.
 
I agree with Dexters that, like Traits, preferred and shunned governments can play a great role in the game, but that they should not be hardwired!! (I 'forgive' the hardwiring, in Civ3, for traits and governments largely because it was the first time they had ever sought to define these factors in the game ;)!)
Anyway, what I DO want to see is these things evolve throughout the game. So, for instance, if you are on a large continent surrounded by other civs, then you might find yourself evolving a 'militaristic/commercial' trait combination and, in line with this, you might find your people preferring either an Imperial or Republican government type-depending on what faction you have helped raise into dominance.
If, OTOH, you find yourself alone on a large island, in the midst of a mountainous jungle region, then you might find yourself developing an 'Industrious/Expansionist' or an 'Industrious/Religious' trait combo, and your preferred government types might be some kind of despotism or council, possibly with a strong theocratic streak to it-again depending on what factions you have most favoured.
An idea I also really liked is that, if your traits do evolve, then you might get a choice of a new leader at this point too-one that properly reflects your current traits.
Lastly, I think that the preferred/shunned government system should cover many of the ideas Dexters raised, but should also effect how willing the people of YOUR civ and/or any AI civ is to embrace that government type (and how likely they are to try and demand it).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I like your dynamic environment based idea Aussie.

Let me explain my position more clearly however.

Each Civ is essentially based on the same cookie cutter model. Before Civ3, there were no differences outside of aesthetics. Civ3 introduced the UU and the Civ trait. I think the next logical step would be to tie in governments to these Civs.

The idea I have is about variety, but it is also about choice. Currently, there are BEST governments that render everything else less important. I'd be interesting to see a Civ stay in Facism and thrive for example. The idea is to make governments fit each Civ and make each that fit stronger, so that you don't end up with 10 civs all in either republic or democracy during peace time.

Yes this does imply certain civs will be stronger on certain maps, and that is no different that Civ3, and it probably enhances that effect. A more dynamic system where preferred and shunned governments develop based on how the game plays out could work also, but that is counterintuitive insofar as each Civ would essentially not have any government specific strengths and would tend to undermine the UU and Civtrait idea which I quite like in Civ3 and encouraged people to try out different Civs.

As for choice, sure there's choice. I gave an example in my last paragraph. I'll quote it again:

This could lead to some very interesting cost/benefit trade offs. Republic and Democracy should probably still remain as the uber commerce / research governments, thus, a player playing under America could choose to play to its strength and go Republic then modify through social engineering the Republic bonus even further or they may play a gambit and go for a neutral government like Monarchy which wont give it bonuses but may have unit support and war weariness advantages that allows the American player to go the warmonger route.
Click to expand...
 
Heres the thing though, Dexters, I don't think there SHOULD be any uber governments per se. I agree with you, though, that if a government is a civs current preferred type, then not only should they get certain bonuses for adopting it, but that the period of anarchy after your government change should be shorter as well.
How good ANY government is to a given civ, though, should depend on both how preferred the government type is AND how the player handles the internal social engineering settings allowed by that government type!
Hope that made sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Wow :wow: :wow:
Not being here for a day can mean a lot of missed posts.

I see aussie's point (post 27) in that there is not much point in the governments as they get older. In each government, it would be cool to have more than one kind of it, like he said. However, the problem would be: What techs would let you get each government?

Well, here's an idea:
-two tech trees with techs, being researched at the same time (1 tech at a time)
-one is for diplomacy, commerce, and peaceful governments, the other is for production, millitary, and military governments
 
I'm also thinking about this from the AI perspective. I think the system I propose could also benefit them by allowing each AI Civ to find its preferred government, stay in it and kill off the pointless government switch during times of war, which really hurts the AI exclusively. They can stay in their preferred government during times of war and work under those parameters.

This probably would imply governments would tend to be more static insofar as once a Civ has researched their preffered government, they will likely stay in there (unless Soren comes up with some uber algorithm that lets the AI switch things up), that said, I think this also opens the door to allow the AI to keep working under one ideology and may tie into a diplomacy where on average, a Fascist government is not going to get along with a Communist one and this effect kicks in after Nationalism. That's not to say they can never be allies, there would be enough positive modifiers to allow polar opposites to co-exist in common alliance, so don't misunderstand the purpose, but rather, think of the government preferences and the Civ choices for a governments as magnets that has an INFLUENCE on alliances in the late game, attracting and repelling Civs between each other. This is basically the same as the embryonic attitude modifier idea used in Civ3, but done on a larger scale with deeper implications.

Could this be exploited? perhaps. But a human player who knows America will adopt the Republic which happen to the same preferred government as their Civ can't treat the American Civ like crap, invade, break treaties and expect things so suddenly be peachy once nationalism kicks in and both their Civs have similar governments. And we could also introduce another iea.

The 'model state' concept.

Think of a Civ game and imagine a breakdown of Civs, each would have their governmental preferences.

Lets say we have an 8 Civ map, we havd 3 Monarchy, 1 Fascist, 2 Republic, 2 Despotism

Within the Monarch camp, each of the 3 Civs, after the introduction of Nationalism would start competiting for the status of 'model state' and this could be a score based on cultural, civic and social achievements or whatever variables Firaxis would want to throw in (in fact this score can be totally detached from territory size and penalize warmongers and reward builders). The Civ with the highest score becomes the 'model state' and thus represents MONARCHY as the model for world government. The lone Facist Civ would have no competition in this case and thus would be considered a non-aligned state and the non-alinged states would also compete for a leader in a similar scoring system. The model states could also infer special powers, such as special votes in the (hopefully) revised UN.

These model states would thus be the focal points of alliances of likeminded and neutral (non shunned) Civs. However, there could also be room for intrigue. The runner up could always defect, make his own alliance comprised of a collection of non-aligned states that didn't get to join the party of the major alliances.

With this model, you could always have major powers that are non-aligned willing and ready to mercenary themselves at others services and this could be where warmongers exist where they intentionally pick a Civ without any partners in the map so that they'll become non aligned and play the warmonger game all the way to victory.

The system can actually be more in-depth, but what I want to get accross is how governments can be used to spruce up the modern/industrial era and how diplomacy could experience a paradigm shift in this regard.
 
That kind of ties in with an idea I saw a couple of weeks ago regarding a pseudo-domination/pseudo-diplomatic victory. The idea was that a particular civ of a specific government type would gain points for every civ that they 'convert' to their side-by fair means or foul. The way I thought it would work would be thus:

Say you have 8 MAJOR civs (as you said, Dexters ;)) 3 of them are defined as 'Socialist' Republics (Modern Republics), 2 are defined as Monarchies (one 'constitutional'-high sufferage-and one 'theocratic'-high Theism), 2 are defined as 'Capitalist' Democracies and 1 is a Military Dictatorship ( high Militarism, almost no sufferage). At this point of the game there are also 24 MINOR civs still in the game.
Anyway, at the end of the Industrial Age, one of the Socialist Republics becomes the first (in its group) to get 'The Manhatten Project', thus becoming a Superpower. In order to win this victory, it must try and get as many of the minor and/or major civs as possible to either ally to him or change to his form of government (specifically Socialist Republic). He can do this through conflict, diplomacy or espionage, though the amount of points he gets would depend on the MANNER in which he achieves the goal. So, for instance, each minor nation that he converts to Socialism via conquest/annexation might get him 1 point, wheras if he does it via espionage then he might get 2 points. Diplomacy, OTOH, might get him as much as 4 points per minor nation. Major nations he wins over get him maybe 1.5x to 2x the points. If his government type ever changes, though, then he is out of the Superpower victory race, and another major civ of that government type can have a shot at it!
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I see what you mean about choices, dexter, about choosing between playing your civ's strength and the "overall best strategy". But I think this is inferior to "multiple good strategies". Rather than giving each Civ a bonus to some of the secondary governments, why not make the secondary governments into uber-governments in their own right?

And why stop at government? Why make government the big uber choice?

That's why ordinances, social engineering, and multiple mini-branches in the tech tree are so appealing to a lot of people. They all take shots at the same target.

In each concept, the user is empowered to customize their Civ and make tradeoffs between equal options, ultimately defining their own path. And it's not as dull and dreary as picking your strategy from a drop down list. ("Will I be the war government, or the peace government?") There's an opportunity to combine choices and slip between a variety of overall approaches.

It beats the hell out of the "master the game by finding the developer-designed ideal recipe for success".
 
ut I think this is inferior to "multiple good strategies".
Click to expand...

What I described WAS multiple strategies. And there are multiple good strategies with regards to government choices in Civ3 too, only the AI never uses it.

The tricky matter with governments is, it has to work on some basic level and each has to have its strengths and a reason to exist.

The proposal was basically to do away with switching governments for war and peace postures, align each Civ more closely with one or a few governments and allow Civs to thrive even under communism, facism, monarchy without these governments turning into the warmonger's choice, but rather A choice a player may choose.

And why stop at government? Why make government the big uber choice?
Click to expand...

It was an OT idea but governments could be improved and ultimately it ties into whatever amount of social engineering Firaxis may include. Then again, thye may include none and the government system would still need the improvements.

In each concept, the user is empowered to customize their Civ and make tradeoffs between equal options, ultimately defining their own path.
Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. That's the idea. But I'm thinking more in terms of the overall logic of how the ideas fit and how the AI may behave under these new features and not just end up with humans get to choose their own path while the AI sticks with democracy and switches to facism during war.

My problem with the oridinances idea as suggest was it was too sim cityish, especially with the fancy floury fake legislative language, cause and effect would as a result be murky to the player, and it is not clear the AI could understand to handle it or if the AI would even have these options at all.

A slider system where there are a few main parameters to adjust and combinations of which would tilt a Civ closer or further from a government would seem to work better and be more clear.

Ultimately, I'm on the fence on this whole ordinance idea. I have some suggestions, but I haven't yet been convinced we really need it in Civ. That's why when I think about the micro domestic legislating and social engineering, it naturally floated upwards to the macro ideas behind how the governments function. Because if you think about it, all the complex sliders, check boxes, and individual peices of legislation that some people would like to see could all be abstracted into the idea of government. By working on the kind of government governing your land, you essentially work on the social engineering aspect. Hence, as you noted, we're aiming for the same target. I'm just thinking about government choices and how that system could be improved to accomodate the very good ideas here about social engineering without neccessarily have to live or die by social engineering even being included in the game. Because it may not be, but governments likely will stay in one form or another.
 
Why don't we call it 'National Laws' and get rid of SimCity

Things like 'Child Labor' could decrease research, lower happiness, and make production a little higher when high; and increase happiness, have normal research, and normal production when low. 'Commercial Freedom' could help with commerce, increase happiness at levels when high; and when low it could create stability. Why not have those unlocked with certain techs or when certain things are built? Certain laws like 'Loyalty to GOVT' could be unlocked when you are in certain governments.
 
@dexters

I can understand your frustration with features that essentially only humans can properly utilize. This was a chronic failure of SMAC if you define failure in that sense. Personally I believe the current amount of design adjustment for AI is correct. However that may just be antiquated thought until AIs get better. As games require more true intelligence we may have to adjust game mechanics more and more to make a competative and fun AI.


System Basis:

I would say the biggest problem with the current government system is its simplicity. Administrative systems, civil rights, social values, and economic systems are neatly assigned to one of seven titles. Unfortunately this means combinations are hard-wired and no variation can exist. Most countries in world history outside Europe would have seldom had these particular combinations.

If anything, seperate all these elements and then deal with each as you see appropriate. That could be the SMAC selection, Civ 3 drop-box, combination slider/transition states, or something even more elegant. However you need to be able to define your society by more than rhetoric.

Ordinances and Such:

I would suggest some form of a crises/ordinance system for holistic appeal. Now you use proactionary and reactionary policy, which just feels realistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Beyond the Game - Competitive Expansion
2 3
Replies
53
Views
24K
P&nny
P
Hydromancerx
C2C - Ordinances
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
14K
tmv
T
T
  • Poll Poll
I play III. Which of IV or V solves the "More Cities = Always Better" problem best?
Replies
19
Views
4K
mintcandy
M
Hydromancerx
Ordinances
Replies
8
Views
2K
generalstaff
generalstaff
Martin Alvito
Tearing Up the Tech Tree - Science Strategies for Deity Play In the .217 Patch
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
101K
Tr4shman
T
Back
Top Bottom