Privatized Research

[thorsr]

hello all,first day,first post
1st-the facist economy was highly cartelized.it means that few wealth man controled a lot of the economy,but if ou think about it is not quite a huge private sector as burgeois democracies are,because the state was incumbed with buying from the industry then redestributing.this way they made sure they would please both sides.and there were verticalized unions,much like in soviet union,and yes were just like the bush envoyermentalist guys.

but on topic
I dont think a private sector is able to represent the dinamicy in which techs pop out.i think the kind of government based research is good for modern age(yes fiat did made the tanks but it sure didnt discover it),but early on i think it should be more spontaneous.
i mean not random,but guttemberg could have appeared here or there in europe(as they were all on the same level at that time).so i think the model should be,you have a percentage every turn of discovering every technology you have the pre requisits to acomplish.other stuff should get in this percentage,as literacy rate,universities,wonders and how much you trade with civs that have it(Loved this idea partcularly.it would balanc out fantasticaly,and is very historicaly precise,you could be like meiji in japan that went from feudal to modern).now atmodern age I think you should just get he slider,its true.i mean sure you have guys everywhere making research but you wont have two guys in the garage make a stealth fighter(or even the internet,as it was developed for military purposes)
are not heavily militarized at all,and while they had help they did develop vaccines and stuff(very good doctors also).
and communism someone refered in this post is not meant so be all socialist states.i mean look at cuba,they


oh and someone said something about revolutions being on your hands.I dont think that makes sense.I mean,your population should urge for those reforms(or another country impose it on you),and the situation should become bad if you didnt change.this would vary of course with the level of scholarship your people have,if they are starving,if they earn too little...
Im just happy they are already making something like this with emancipation sending a wave of unhappiness.

and communism someone refered in this post is not meant so be all socialist states.i mean look at cuba,theyare not heavily militarized at all,and while they had help they did develop vaccines and stuff(very good doctors also).dont take stalinism for all comunism(as they did in other civs but fixed in this)

 

[perilisk]

Its not really a matter of the private sector being unrepresented vs the public sector being represented.

In fact, even though you're called the leader, you don't represent any real functioning government. You decide when revolutions occur, how to develop culturally, who to go to war with. You aren't a government or a leader, you are the force behind the whole civilizaiton.

In reality, the problem is the game has to abstract everthing. First, it abstracts civilization into a player, against competing players. In real life, nobody can dictate which way a civilization develops (i dont think its 'unconscious' just that its driven by consensus and practicality). Revolutions happen as a response to social change. With building infrastructure, its not just private industry that builds, its individuals within the enitity of the civilzation, the abstraction forces the civilization to act as a unit, whether in revolution or building, ingoring the forces that make it up and individuals. It also abstracts governments into 'types' you choose between (and can switch between on whim), technologies into a discrete 'tree', happiness tied to food and entertainment. Breakthroughs aren't decided by either a button or a slider. Whether its public or private. And theyre facilitated by individual thought, not just funding.

For civilization to tackle these problems the game has to be completely rethought

Agreed, Civ has always had to stay balanced between a competitive strategy game and a sandbox sim-style game. That's why every form of government still essentially functions as a dictatorship -- because the player isn't just the player, or the state, or any particular power structure. He sort of vaguely represents a national zeitgeist. Not to stay Civ must always stay this way, only that pushing farther away from such a role to the role of a realistically limited (albeit immortal) ruler represents a major change to the gameplay.