Type of goverments!

[Al-Hejazi]

Well Guys what type of goverments would you like there to be?

Me i would suggest

-Democracy
-Repulic
-Caliphate *Shura, In other words which means council - In which only the highly educated can take part in governing the country*
-Monarchy
-Communism
-Fascism
-Despotism
-Socialism

 

[GeZe]

1984 type government

 

[ElorTeglen]

1984 type government

That would be sooo cool!!

 

[Al-Hejazi]

i don't get it guys? what are 1984 type of goverments

 

[Phoenix]

Al-Hejazi - I think they are referring to the novel by Huckley in which 'Big Brother' spies on all the citizens.

I love the Caliphate one (that has to be included) - has that ever actualy been tried out?

BTW - how about some future governments such as one where AI makes the decisions?

 

[Archer 007]

Im sure you mean Orwell.
Huxley wrote Brave New World.

 

[belunar]

a few more ideas for government types

technocracy - a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control

Could give more bonuses to research, though wouldnt be available untill sometime in the industrial or space ages.

plutocracy - A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes.

(or another way of looking at it, they follow the golden rule = "He who has the gold makes the rules.")

Could give bonuses to luxury and trade, and penilise by increasing corruption

theocracy - A government ruled by or subject to religious authority

This may be considered by some to be same as fanatic, maybe this could be simular or just a better name for it.

Transitional - A government in a state of change between two different government types.

Realisticly, governments dont usualy change overnight. Even in the case when one government is overthrown and another put in its place a change takes place over time. Example: when Russia was overthrown and the Czar taken out of power, the country still took time to transition from Monarchy to Anarchy then to Comunisim.

If Transitional is used, I could see it as being an option that could be turned on and off, so that if one doesnt want to use it the game plays like Civ always has, if they did wish to use it then it could take 3-5 turns to migrate from the old government to the new one, getting partial bonuses and penalties from each during the transition. This phase in could varry also, where first turn of change its mostly the old government and the last phase its mostly the new.

Just some ideas of mine.

 

[bg2soatob]

I think absolute democracy is missing (the Greek kind). It basically a sort of town hall to decide on everything. I would give it the following stats:
1)Can't be used is a place with more than 5 (arbitrary number) cities, as the original I believe was done in city-states, and is impossibly hard to do with large populations.
2) Here come the plusses: No corruption whatsoever. The people can't steal their own money.
3) 200% worker efficiency.
4) No support for troops, but full support for non-combat units.
Etc.
It would suck late in the game, but I think it would do well to encourage the few players (like me) who enjoy having only a few strong cities.

 

[primeminister99]

I don't know maybe there could be a sort of absolute democracy called anarchism (which literally means with out ruler). But instead of having it near the begging of the game they could have it near the end. One pre-requisite I would make is that it would be only available with at least 95% literacy and nearing the end of the modern age.
A Disadvantage would be that war-wariness would be very high near if you start a war just for extra territory/resource or w/e else. Also the economy might be a bit more volatile, if real negative things happen to the civ ie: massive invasion, do to the real grassroots nature of the gov't. But a possible advantage would be that because the people are less cynical about gov't due to their direct control of it and their high education levels they would be more efficient than any other type of government. Ie: their workers work much faster than 100%, they get an industrial bonus and they get a commercial bonus.
The reason why I’m saying that they have to be very educated is because everyone in the society is somewhat intrested in the political process so they have to be at least somewhat aware. Although since this is the game you would be head of some sort of citizens comitee or whatever that proposes actions that the people usually go along w/, as long they see that it’s in their best intrests.

 

[Al-Hejazi]

Thanx for the reply phoenix and really it would be great to have futuristic Goverments

 

[rcoutme]

I don't believe that governmental improvement would make workers work all that much faster than civ already has, pm99. If there is no centralized government, then each town or city would be responsible for its own infrastructure, thus eliminating the centralized planning necessary for interstate highways, RR, airports, etc. Some sort of futuristic governments might be nice, but since we don't know how Firaxis is planning to handle Religion, Civics, Corruption, and Pollution (they said all of these would be different) it is kind of hard to figure out what plusses and minusses each governmental type would have.

 

[Kjle]

Maybe revoutions could be started by game play. For instances:military victories might lead to monarchy, or poorly run cities from republic to communism. The time and nature of revolutions could be influenced by game play, but not instituted by command. Or maybe revolutions could be unsuccesful, like so many of my attempts at espinage.
I'd also like to see a return of and deveopment of the civil war from previous Civ(I forget which one). Maybe larger countries, especilly those with poor infrastructre, could split apart. As long as this happens fairly and frequently to everyone it could be lot of fun. As much as I enjoyed tearing countries apart with civil war in CivI, I also liked putting mine back together(at least I liked it when I was successful).

 

[primeminister99]

rcoutme that's true but I'm just hoping that there's more depth in the game w/ regards to things like "the economy". I know it would be difficult but I think having a more complex (but playable) economic aspect to the game would really help in creating more variety in regards to diffrent types of governments. That's just one thing but it's pretty important.

 

[hauchdeslebens]

What about the SMAC approach?
I have to admit that I liked the way it was handled...
Do you think it would make sense to incorporate an adapted SMAC system in Civ4?

 

[hauchdeslebens]

I think absolute democracy is missing (the Greek kind). 4) No support for troops, but full support for non-combat units.
Etc.
It would suck late in the game, but I think it would do well to encourage the few players (like me) who enjoy having only a few strong cities.

Do not forget that the greek city states were quite militaristic. Athens was a naval power with quite a landforce as well. Since it is limited to 5 cities you cannot have a vast empire anyway, so I think you should not have to pay any support for the units. A small empire should have an efficiency bonus and since it is more family like country the support of the population is higher for units.
It should be available quite early in the game...may be with the Discovery of Writing?

 

[rcoutme]

Going along with bg2soatob and hauchdeslebens (sorry guys but I'm going to abreviate your names from now on!), City States should have major war weariness. When the Peloponesian (pardon the spelling) War occurred, Athens had so much war weariness that the play, Lysistrata, was written by Aristophanes in protest (one of the greatest comedies ever, btw). As hd said, the place was like a family. Family members do not like it when sons and fathers get killed. So, although support for units should be high, WW for killed units should also be high.

 

[gerth6000]

-Democracy
-Repulic
-Communism
-Socialism

Most republics today are federal republics, so I would like to the possibility of a Federal Government city improvement during a Republic. Something like 1 in 8 cities could build it and it would act like a minor palace.

I wonder what the difference between Communism and Socialism would be in Civ terms.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

What about the SMAC approach?
I have to admit that I liked the way it was handled...
Do you think it would make sense to incorporate an adapted SMAC system in Civ4?

I was so incredibly disappointed when I bought Civ 3 and I would not find a SMAC goverment approach...

I thought also that all models were, even when simple, quite well thought, but of course they would have to be tweaked to cover ancient age.

How about something in these lines:

Goverment:

Monarchy (the basic one, a single man or family ruling through divine or just basic power)
Oligarchy (group of people or class of people ruling)
Democracy(government elected by the people)
Police State (That would be the Communist or Fascist gov)

Economy:

Classical (would be the basic esclavist model, the initial economic model did not change a lot until the middle ages)
Feudal
Capitalist
Planned

Value: ( I will stick with the SMAC but sticking Religion instead of Knowledge, since that would not be a valid historic value, only to the most recent times, and still I always thought it was too politically correct)

None
Power
Religion
Wealth

For example, let's study governments through the ages:

Pharaonic Egypt: Monarchy - Classical - Religion
Classical Greeks (Athens model): Democracy - Classical - Wealth
Classical Greeks (Sparta model): Oligarchy - Classical - Power
Rome: Oligarchy - Classical - None
Abbasid Caliphate: Monarchy - Classical - Religion
Middle Ages France: Monarchy/Oligarchy(nobility when the king had very few power) - Feudal - None
Renaissance Spain: Monarchy - Feudal - Religion
Dutch Republic (when it rebelled from Spain): Oligarchy - Capitalist - Wealth
Soviet Russia: Police State - Planned - Power
Nazi Germany: Police State - Capitalist - Power
Homeini's Iran: Police State - Feudal - Religion

Of course, these are just examples of what I try to show, I may not be right on every model, and I'm sure the options would need refining. What do you think of this line of thought? I think it helps to simulate better a civilization's model of government than just monolithyc names.

EDIT: Just read it

Most republics today are federal republics, so I would like to the possibility of a Federal Government city improvement during a Republic. Something like 1 in 8 cities could build it and it would act like a minor palace.

I wonder what the difference between Communism and Socialism would be in Civ terms.

How about..?

Communism: Police State - Planned - whatever
Socialism: Democracy - Planned - whatever

 

[bg2soatob]

A bit off topic, but I got to thinking: It never made sense to me (or anyone) that the same leader stays from 4000 BCE to 2050 AD. While the player must not be allowed to die, how about he needs to face elections in certain government types? And if he loses, he loses the game. It would force players to sometimes need to deal with the domestic in addition to the international.

 

[baseballfan45]

you guys are forgeting fundementalism,