1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Republican and Democratic Government

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by GhostWriter16, May 22, 2010.

?

Is this a good idea

  1. I agree with all of or almost all of the things you said, great idea!

    4 vote(s)
    7.4%
  2. I think its a good idea, but I would reform it some

    15 vote(s)
    27.8%
  3. I wouldn't be against this, but its not worth pursuing

    7 vote(s)
    13.0%
  4. I like some of what you said, but it needs major reform/Its a bad idea with some positive

    9 vote(s)
    16.7%
  5. I hate this idea, terrible!

    19 vote(s)
    35.2%
  1. MikeJep

    MikeJep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    66
    To all the haters, :p

    I realize many of the items I have outlined, may not be "fun enough" for many. This is simply the direction I wish civ would move. I would just love it if Civ went back to a 2d map but compensated with better AI & economics. If every citizen was its own economic unit I would be happiest! I dream of citizens owning infrastructure of cities (representing small- & mid- cap businesses), shares of corporations (large-cap multi-Nats), $, earning wages, loaning $, borrowing $, deciding whether to purchase consumer goods vs purchasing industrial goods for investment, voting, rioting, researching and fighting. I would love managing (or letting citizens do as they will) production chains & moving natural resources to finished goods. I would gladly give up pretty graphics for better programing and a more in-depth & complected game. This is why I hope CivV allows for the greatest Mod'n yet!

    Thanks,
    :D
     
  2. tom2050

    tom2050 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    5,516
    No false statement was made. That is how it went in what I stated.
     
  3. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted

    Dems are ultra-liberals. Even republicans are moderate at the absolute best.
     
  4. tom2050

    tom2050 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    5,516
    True.. but campaign was not very liberal-based, and 'classic democrat' doesn't exist anymore in Congress; democrats have been 'eaten alive' and turned into an unrecognizable new modern progressive agenda that does not follow American founding ideals. Again, these are NOT democrats at all (as the American people know and think of democrats). It is sad to see traditional democrats gone with the way of the wind.

    But that is it from me; don't want to go OT. ;)
     
  5. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted
    It's a good idea not to, but what is a "Classic Democrat?" Jefferson? FDR? Lyndon Johnson? Obama:lol:

    Seriously, other than Jefferson, everyone I said was a crazy liberal. FDR-Extreme liberal, Johnson- more than FDR, Obama- More than Johnson and FDR combined.
     
  6. Onionsoilder

    Onionsoilder Reaver

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,173
    No. Just... no.

    For starters, politics has no place in games, possibly excluding games designed around the political process(not Civ, for sure). The reason for this is it's often not fun, and just opens a whole new bucket of worms. Why do you think Firaxis went the route of making all religions functionally identical in Civ IV? The same thing would happen with political parties. If one party gave certain bonuses over the other, even if they were balanced bonuses, it would end up offending a lot of people. Normally I don't care much about that, but when you're marketing a product, that is not what you want to do.

    Secondly, given that the system would be based around politics, it would obviously be swayed by the developer's political views. Given your own statements about Republicans being moderate and Democrats being ultra-liberal, your own political alignment(compared to the rest of the world) would be Arch-Conservative. While you have every right to your own opinions, that definition does not fit most people in the world; By international standards, the U.S. is a very conservative country, and even our liberals are more conservative than the most of the world. So if we went in and did things like add fiscal bonuses to having a capitalist republican state, that would be bad. Fact is, there are two main economic theories, Keynes and Hayek's, one is more capitalist and the other is more socialist. But they're just that - theories, and neither has been proven. Both have their benefits and drawbacks, and giving concrete advantages to one over the other is a bad thing to do.

    Finally, I don't see any benefit this would add to gameplay. All it seems it would do is add another level of annoyance for the player to deal with, which is not a good thing. I don't really see any benefit to it. What would it add to the gameplay? While it would be kind of interesting to see a system with approval rating actually having an effect, since we lack most of the tools of statescraft(propaganda, slander & lies, bargaining, heck even spies to silence opponents) and even if we tried to add those it, it would be a lot for work for little benefit.
     
  7. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted
    I only said the Dems were ultra-liberal in response to someone else. I probably wouldn't even put the names of the parties in the game.

    What I was suggesting is an interveltionalist party that wanted less welfare, less government, a higher moral standard, exc(Representative of Republicans.) And the opposite, representative of dems. You would pick one to side with, and if you had your party in power you'd be able to do more, but you could still set up a dictatorship whenever you chose.
     
  8. phungus420

    phungus420 Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,296
    Yeah, because the party who's leaders consist of married middle aged men that fu** little boys and then try to legislate other's sexual behavior sure do set a "high moral standard" and "less government". The whole republican "War on Drugs" is sure a great example of less government and personal freedom as well. :rolleyes:

    This whole thread is nothing but a right wing circle jerk, it serves no purpose.
     
  9. Warlord Sam

    Warlord Sam 2500 hours and counting..

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    379
    Supporting a "higher moral standard" seems quite subjective and that you'd attribute that to either party is pretty inflammatory. Might wanna reconsider your wording if you don't want this thread to be flame bait.

    That said, the idea is interesting but I'd be completely against it for three reasons off the top of my head.

    First of all, one of my biggest annoyances in Civ2 was how the senate would vote against my declaring war. Limiting the player goes against what the Civ series is all about, and that was specifically stated by the developers. There's little to no chance that they'd go back to a system like that.

    Secondly, it is an extremely narrow political spectrum that you're talking about representing. In a game about tons of civilizations from all across the planet, it seems very out of place that the modern-day representative government would ignore all other possible permutations and only have a highly detailed American style democratic republic two-party system. Most countries don't have a two-party system, and I'd find it jarringly unrealistic and out of place if that was the chosen style Civ5 had for modern government. Your whole idea is just far too America-centric.

    Thirdly, it seems overly complicated for no real purpose. I don't see what it would add to the game, other than punishment for unhappiness. Civ isn't a simulator, it is a commercial item. They are trying to make the game as inclusive as possible, and your idea would never be adopted for that reason.
     
  10. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    No. Yada. Hindi. La. Khong. Geen. Aucun. Nashi. なし. Méiyǒu. 沒有.

    Intiendes?

    Long story short: bad idea. If democracy is subdivided to parts, this might apply, but it's not.
     
  11. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    57,365
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    And why model the civ5 political system according to the us one?

    To do this in a mod is very logical.

    To have it in the vanilla game is rather unwise.
     
  12. Earthling

    Earthling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,518
    So the problem of having one leader per civ means Hitler won't be a leader, well really, that can be modded just like in previous civ games for those who really want it, sure. Not the thing to mess around with in the retail game.
     
  13. Zirk

    Zirk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    I think it would be neat if each government type had a couple factions. As a monarchy you might have monarchists and pretenders. With representation, incumbents and opponents. With communism, Maoists and Stalinists. With police state, I don't know.
     
  14. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    morality is subjected as evidenced by your post

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

    usually saving people from starving is considered moral, but that is called welfare and according to you is immoral

    Republicans give welfare to corporations and try to make the poor pay revolution insurance for the poor

    When the US was a single party state in the 30s to 60s, life was pretty good...

    yes I just lumped Eisenhower in with Democrats but hey he removed McCarthy, kept the New Deal, enlarged Social Security, created the Interstate Highways, created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, proposed civil rights for African Americans, Little Rock Nine, waged war against the military industrial complex...
     
  15. Ice_Tyrant

    Ice_Tyrant Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Maybe if it was optional, and it was more then just Republicans and Democrats. So many parties, it'd.... I just don't like the idea.
     
  16. Lockesdonkey

    Lockesdonkey Liberal Jihadist

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    Why do you care?
    Overall, it's not an entirely bad proposal, but it's far too US-centric. It's completely ahistorical, as well; ther aren't just generically two parties everywhere.

    However, the point (trying to make representative regimes something other than a different set of advantages for your despotism) is an interesting one. I'm currently working out a system of my own; I'll post a link when it's ready.
     
  17. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Governments

    GalCiv2 had one of the best democratic political systems in a game.

    At the start of the game you selected one of several political parties for yourself, each of which offered a specific bonus. Every few turns, there was an election, with each party gaining seats based on how well (or poorly) you were meeting the various needs of each party and your people.

    If your party maintained their majority, you received a bonus to play based on your party's platform. An economic party meant more wealth production, a military party produced units faster, a scientific party produced more research, etc. If one of the other parties carried the day, you gained a malus based on their platform -- so if you were the economic party and the military party won a majority, you took a penalty to unit creation and lost your economic bonus.

    As the game progressed, you could choose to adopt ever more democratic systems, which provided greater bonuses but which were more difficult to dominate.


    This system is easily understood by any player, provides regular feedback on their play, has bonuses and penalties that, though fairly good, will not end the game and, finally, could absolutely be folded into the Civ5 Republic/Universal Suffrage systems without forcing the player to cede any real control over the game. If players didn't want to deal with a Senate, they could easily swap into one of the many other governing options.



    I personally prefer a governing system where the governed have the ability to force actions against my will. While this can be obnoxious at times, it enhances the immersion immensely and is infinitely preferable to the inert nations of the post-Civ2 games.
     
  18. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Now for something completely different.

    You're all ill informed ignoramuses arguing politics and policies you barely understand on a video game forum. Please just stop, unless you seriously enjoy making fools of yourselves in front of everyone who bothers to wander into this thread.

    If you absolutely positively must roll about in the mud like fat little piggies, do it in a thread devoted to organized idiocy in the off topic forum, please.

    Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  19. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,875
    Now if only we could expand on that but something tells me that a complex system that features rival aristocratic families, parliamentary systems, and much more, would be a huge mod but not in the base game.
     
  20. Hypernova

    Hypernova Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    I've always viewed the idea that you are the "leader" of a Civ as an abstraction. I rather imagine myself as the Civ itself. This is "Civilization" not "World Leader".

    Remember that politics of this sort is by no means restricted to a democracy, there is courtly politics in monarchies and despotisms, politics would be a constant minigame.

    And it wouldn't be at all consistent with the rest of Civ. Even the most powerful kings still had extremely limited powers compared to the god-like abilities you have on Civ, to command exactly where cities are founded, exactly what infrastructure is built where and exactly where military units wander. How far will playing the head of government go? Will command economy be the only economic type in which you can actually build terrain improvements? While when playing the market economy mines and oil wells are set up automatically by independent firms?

    Since I can instigate a revolution and yet somehow am not toppled even when the revolution is successful; I have always thought that while I may be referred to as the leader the thing I am really playing is the Civilization itself.

    Don't get me wrong, the idea could make a fun game, and actually already has.
     

Share This Page