The Concise and Universal Civics Proposition

[os79]

I personally view myself as a god in my game. I don't play with Revolutions.

 

[wilson6907]

You all are A New Dawn commies! lol

My apologies, it would've read how it was intended if I had asked you to keep your religion out, as opposed to saying deism.

And individual rule over the collective is of course better, in real life, but we're talking about a civics discussion for a game where you play a near Omnipotent leader of a country - so in Civ IV, you ARE an elite, in fact you are THE elite, and letting your citizens choose whatever they want to build is probably not the best for your planned course of action...

That was my point -when we're working on civics we need to approach them from the correct perspective - the perspective of Civ IV: the game, not Real Life.

 

[os79]

You all are A New Dawn commies! lol

I don't understand...

 

[dudeSDCA]

Drake:

I don't believe Afforess is planning on any Civic changes to AND 1.75...so I'd suggest the following:

• Recommend reviewing Killtech's Civic discussion (if you haven't already), and make any additional changes to your civics based on any other ideas you get from his
• Post a "ModMod" with the XML files for the civics you're proposing compatible with AND 1.75 (1.75 beta2 is currently out). I suspect you'll need to change 2 files
  - CIV4CivicInfos.xml
  - CIV4CivicOptionInfos.xml

You'll also need to update the tech files, and eventually, the civilopedia.

If you run into issues, you can post your in-progress XML files here with what issues you're running into and we can help...

 

[dudeSDCA]

^^^ In terms of the ideology civics, I will definitely add that later onwards. However, I don't know why Objectivism is different from Individualism. Ayn Rand accepted the presumptions of Existentialism -- that people are autonomous, sovereign individuals. Her theory would thenceforth advocate how society can develop and prosper with individuals, first and foremost with self-respect and that sense of individuality, acting freely with one another for self-interest, which, Ayn Rand argues, would ultimately benefit the community as a whole. So, it's basically a more philosophical theory of Capitalism, but I don't see that distinction between Individualism and Objectivism. Egalitarianism also looks about the same as Progressivism. Egalitarianism is just a step up from an advocacy of Meritocracy, which argues that everyone, at birth, should be totally equal. Egalitarianism goes further by saying that, even after birth, those people genetically or luckily inclined to do better than the unsuccessful man or the poor man should have to relinquish a good portion of the fruits of his labor to society, so that it can redistribute that wealth to the people at the bottom. That's essentially the same thing as Progressivism. I do acknowledge that Karl Marx's theories, as in Socialism, are quite distinct from Egalitarianism or Progressivism though. I don't necessarily understand what Centrism is as a political theory, so I would like you to explain it. However, from my standpoint, I really just see these civics for the ideologies.

Objectivism
Libertarianism
Meritocracy
Egalitarianism
Socialism

However, some Eastern Philosophies should be included as well for cultural balance in the game, such as Legalism and Confucianism, which aren't necessarily similar to the Western Philosophies aforementioned.

I defer to you on the specific flavors, but I think Ideologies (or society values) are critical, and not encompassed in the schema you posted above...so I support adding something along what you're proposing.

I think, with respect to Centrism, that the original author of the ideologies was looking for something that was the mid-point between individually-inclined vs. collectively-inclined (so you could walk the middle, if inclined). More of an artificial construct for the purpose of the game than an actual philosophy, in my humble opinion.


Also -- I think that you should think about how future civics should play into this. A lot of the future techs introduce new civic choices...so you could go the same route Afforess did and add some "future" civics to the end-state for some of these areas, OR, you could add a future civics category that would be based on future society goals.

 

[Cyrus_the_Great]

Funny how economic terms are mixed with personal world views.

 

[Skyler827]

I'm not really sure if the Ideology civics are really necessary. Until early democracies started to form, The peoples' ideologies didn't really mean anything, and were not considered by the rulers of earlier societies. Their Ideologies consisted of early and progressively more organized religion throughout history, until those secular ideologies began to be considered. Furthermore, these secular ideologies are very hard to distinguish from their implementation in the Economy category. Is there much difference between a capitalist ideology running a mixed economy, and a progressive ideology running a free market? These scenarios don't really make sense, and are pretty mutually exclusive.
While the government configurations throughout history have run different civics of high rule, rule, organization and foreign policy, none have ever had a widespread, socially relevant, secular philosophy that isn't covered by the economy civic, or any other civic. So I think the Ideology category is redundant.

Also, I think the foreign policy category needs isolationism, or non-intervention, or something. And some of the civics under Foreign policy look ridiculous to me. I have never heard of any real civilization running new world order, and I don't know how "secret government" would make sense, because the cities the player controls are no secret. I would consider scrapping the category alltogether, because I don't know much about what those policies are, and they seem so arbitrary to me. I would at least add something like "non-intervention" and remove one of them that don't seem to make sense.

 

[Grrr]

this seems to be the right place for this question

i am completely rewriting AND government civics for my self and i am looking for some ideas. I want civics that drastically alter game play but prevent me from feeling like i am choosing between different pains. I think choosing civics should be primarily about perks. Here are my changes so far

Democracy \

+50% Distance
+50% Number

+ 100% Great person
+ 100% Great General
+25% Gold/Culture/Science in all cities
+2 happiness all cities

-50% Military Production
+2 Gold per military Unit
+50 War wariness

Decrease national (slightly)
Decrease Local (slightly)

I also want all democracies to have a plus 10 attitude adjustment towards each other, but i don't know how


Fascism

+60% distance

+40% military production in all cities
+2 Happiness per military unit stationed
+20% Hammers/Espionage in all cities
-20% Gold -50% Culture in all cities

+4 unhappiness in all cities

Increase national (massive, double that of Despot)
Increase local (massive, double that of Despot)

National Wonder: GULag (WIP)
+8 unhappiness
+50% Hammers
-100% Gold
-100% Science
-2 population in all cities
halves the rebelliousness

Fascists hate everyone even other fascists so a -3 attitude adjustment towards everyone.

Federation:

-100% Distance
-100% Number of cities
+1 happiness per military unit stationed.
+25% War Weariness

Decrease National ( massive)
Decrease local (massive)


can anyone give me ideas for earlier government civics? I have ideas, but i want them to match the government type and I seem to fail at that.

 

[Skyler827]

Fascism
+60% distance
+40% military production in all cities
+2 Happiness per military unit stationed
+20% Hammers/Espionage in all cities
-20% Gold -50% Culture in all cities
+4 unhappiness in all cities
Increase national (massive, double that of Despot)
Increase local (massive, double that of Despot)

National Wonder: GULag (WIP)
+8 unhappiness +50% Hammers -100% Gold -100% Science -2 population in all cities halves the rebelliousness. Fascists hate everyone even other fascists so a -3 attitude adjustment towards everyone.

I have always enjoyed running Fascism, but I think what it really needs, more than anything else, is a concentration camp building (not a national wonder). It would reduce the population and the proportion of foreigners in the cities where it is built. I think it is most appropriate, because Fascist governments have been unstable but when the Russia, Germany and the US used concentration camps on their respectively conquered people, it gave them a huge military/political advantage but made them incredibly unstable in other ways.

Now, on different types of earlier forms of government, I'm pretty sure that Monarchies of different types existed in many times, places, and scales, but I don't think I can speak very far beyond my knowledge of history I get from civ anyway.