First I want to say that I am not a programmer. I have only little understanding of the complex working of xml and python, so this idea needs to be programmed by someone else.
My aim with this idea is greater complexity, diversity and historical realism. I feel CIV is focused a bit too much around the relations between civilizations and obviously it deals with it very well. What I think is lacking is a bit more focus inwards on the real backbone of a civilization: The People. Historically most civilizations have fallen because of internal crisis and conflict rather than being conquered by external powers. Currently in CIV when one civilization gets a lead it pretty much keeps it: Bigger civ-> bigger production/better economy -> better army -> ability to keep its lead by military means. My proposition is to increase the influence of internal conflict, in order to allow greater dynamics over time: A great, but mismanaged empire will suffer from internal crisis, while a smaller civ may rise through using its possibilities to the best.
What I propose is:
Expand the happiness/unhappiness to classes. I suggest: Nobles, Clergy, Bourgeoisie, Workers, Peasant and Slaves, with perhaps four class members for each ordinary population point.
Each citys population will be divided based on its surroundings and buildings:
Much farmland -> big peasant population, a few nobles (landlords)
Many mines, factory, -> many workers
Religious buildings, religious centre -> bigger clerical class
Cottages, villages, towns -> workers, bourgeoisie, nobles
Commerce, market, banks, Wall Street -> bourgeoisie, some workers
Educational buildings: -> nobles, bourgeoisie
The slave would be a 1-production specialist added to cities through conquered units (it think something like this has already been made(?)). It would increase happiness for the other classes during slavery civic, but decrease it under any other.
So for instance your capital with much trade and educational buildings would have a relatively large amount of nobles and bourgeoisies, while your small rural town with only farmland improvements would mainly consist of peasants.
I believe it technically should be possible to add people of different classes in a similar manner of the current specialist systems, only it should be forced specialists, distributed according to a calculation of total population vs. presence of the before mentioned buildings and improvements. Each of the citizens representing the different classes would be happy, unhappy or contend based on the current system as well as the following factors:
I would like to add some sliders, much similar to those in Europa Universalis. I suggest:
Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism
Conservative vs. progressive
Centralism vs. decentralism
Religious vs. secular
Some of these are to some degree part of the current civics, but I would like to see some more accurately adjustable factors concerning the inner structures of a civilization.
The sliders would have effects on the known factors: Production, commerce, research and happiness.
More or less I consider a slider at 50% to be more or less the same as the current system.
100% hierarchy would increase happiness of the upper classes, and decrease it for lower classes along with a boost to culture (lets face it: culture is created by the upper classes).
100% egalitarianism would bring a major decrease in happiness for upper classes and increase happiness for lower classes, but at the expense of some culture and research.
100% conservative would increase culture but decrease research, increase happiness for the upper classes and decrease it for the lower, and vice versa for progressive.
100% Centralism would give a growth, production, culture and commerce boost to the capital and some of the bigger cities, while decreasing the same factors for small cities far from the capital quite considerably.
100% decentralism would decrease growth, production, culture and commerce in the capital but give a boost to the lesser provincial cities (politics, bureaucracy etc. handled locally rather than in the capital). This way you have a bigger strategical choice: Make your capital the greatest city in the world and always a contender to great wonders, but at the expense of the development of the rest of your country (think 19th century Austria-Hungary), or make all of your cities equally fine, but decreasing the potential of your greatest cities. Also: 100% decentralism and 100% centralism may not add up to the same complete amount of culture, production and commerce. Is it worth sacrificing your provinces for a greater outcome or vice versa?
Finally: A religious society would increase the happiness effect of religious buildings and of the clergical class at the expense of production and research, a secular society would leave the clergy unhappy and more or less disrupt the effect of religious buildings, but with increase of research, production and commerce.
Each citizen and whether he is happy, contend or unhappy will have some effects on the city he lives in or on the civilization as a whole.
I suggest:
Noble : Happy : ++Culture ; Contend:+culture ; Unhappy: - culture
Clergy : Happy: +spread of religion ; Unhappy: -- spread of religion, damaged diplomatic relations to civilizations with shared religion
Bourgeoisie: Happy : ++commerce ; Contend:+commerce ; unhappy: --commerce
Worker : Happy :+ production ; Unhappy:--production
Peasant : Unhappy: Risk of uprising, i.e. creation of a barbarian unit in the citys surroundings.
This should force you to make strategically choices to keep the greatest amount of people happy (or at least the people who are important for your current needs). Keep your peasants contend, but risk angering the nobles in your capital. Favour the upper classes and risk nationwide uprising from the peasant equivalent to a civil war.
This is my general idea, some of it may not be completely thought trough, and some of it may not be executable, so I leave it to this great community to improve, balance and develop it.
My aim with this idea is greater complexity, diversity and historical realism. I feel CIV is focused a bit too much around the relations between civilizations and obviously it deals with it very well. What I think is lacking is a bit more focus inwards on the real backbone of a civilization: The People. Historically most civilizations have fallen because of internal crisis and conflict rather than being conquered by external powers. Currently in CIV when one civilization gets a lead it pretty much keeps it: Bigger civ-> bigger production/better economy -> better army -> ability to keep its lead by military means. My proposition is to increase the influence of internal conflict, in order to allow greater dynamics over time: A great, but mismanaged empire will suffer from internal crisis, while a smaller civ may rise through using its possibilities to the best.
What I propose is:
Expand the happiness/unhappiness to classes. I suggest: Nobles, Clergy, Bourgeoisie, Workers, Peasant and Slaves, with perhaps four class members for each ordinary population point.
Each citys population will be divided based on its surroundings and buildings:
Much farmland -> big peasant population, a few nobles (landlords)
Many mines, factory, -> many workers
Religious buildings, religious centre -> bigger clerical class
Cottages, villages, towns -> workers, bourgeoisie, nobles
Commerce, market, banks, Wall Street -> bourgeoisie, some workers
Educational buildings: -> nobles, bourgeoisie
The slave would be a 1-production specialist added to cities through conquered units (it think something like this has already been made(?)). It would increase happiness for the other classes during slavery civic, but decrease it under any other.
So for instance your capital with much trade and educational buildings would have a relatively large amount of nobles and bourgeoisies, while your small rural town with only farmland improvements would mainly consist of peasants.
I believe it technically should be possible to add people of different classes in a similar manner of the current specialist systems, only it should be forced specialists, distributed according to a calculation of total population vs. presence of the before mentioned buildings and improvements. Each of the citizens representing the different classes would be happy, unhappy or contend based on the current system as well as the following factors:
I would like to add some sliders, much similar to those in Europa Universalis. I suggest:
Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism
Conservative vs. progressive
Centralism vs. decentralism
Religious vs. secular
Some of these are to some degree part of the current civics, but I would like to see some more accurately adjustable factors concerning the inner structures of a civilization.
The sliders would have effects on the known factors: Production, commerce, research and happiness.
More or less I consider a slider at 50% to be more or less the same as the current system.
100% hierarchy would increase happiness of the upper classes, and decrease it for lower classes along with a boost to culture (lets face it: culture is created by the upper classes).
100% egalitarianism would bring a major decrease in happiness for upper classes and increase happiness for lower classes, but at the expense of some culture and research.
100% conservative would increase culture but decrease research, increase happiness for the upper classes and decrease it for the lower, and vice versa for progressive.
100% Centralism would give a growth, production, culture and commerce boost to the capital and some of the bigger cities, while decreasing the same factors for small cities far from the capital quite considerably.
100% decentralism would decrease growth, production, culture and commerce in the capital but give a boost to the lesser provincial cities (politics, bureaucracy etc. handled locally rather than in the capital). This way you have a bigger strategical choice: Make your capital the greatest city in the world and always a contender to great wonders, but at the expense of the development of the rest of your country (think 19th century Austria-Hungary), or make all of your cities equally fine, but decreasing the potential of your greatest cities. Also: 100% decentralism and 100% centralism may not add up to the same complete amount of culture, production and commerce. Is it worth sacrificing your provinces for a greater outcome or vice versa?
Finally: A religious society would increase the happiness effect of religious buildings and of the clergical class at the expense of production and research, a secular society would leave the clergy unhappy and more or less disrupt the effect of religious buildings, but with increase of research, production and commerce.
Each citizen and whether he is happy, contend or unhappy will have some effects on the city he lives in or on the civilization as a whole.
I suggest:
Noble : Happy : ++Culture ; Contend:+culture ; Unhappy: - culture
Clergy : Happy: +spread of religion ; Unhappy: -- spread of religion, damaged diplomatic relations to civilizations with shared religion
Bourgeoisie: Happy : ++commerce ; Contend:+commerce ; unhappy: --commerce
Worker : Happy :+ production ; Unhappy:--production
Peasant : Unhappy: Risk of uprising, i.e. creation of a barbarian unit in the citys surroundings.
This should force you to make strategically choices to keep the greatest amount of people happy (or at least the people who are important for your current needs). Keep your peasants contend, but risk angering the nobles in your capital. Favour the upper classes and risk nationwide uprising from the peasant equivalent to a civil war.
This is my general idea, some of it may not be completely thought trough, and some of it may not be executable, so I leave it to this great community to improve, balance and develop it.
