Type of goverments!

[Mewtarthio]

Fundamentalism would rock! You could have things like war happiness and reduced corruption. Obvious downsides would include reduced research rate and a nasty rep hit from people of different religions. I think that the "no unhappiness" Fundamentalism of CivII was way overpowered.

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).

No. There is a difference between realism and fun, and having no control over something as important as government is not fun. You might as well say that you should not be able to control anything under Democracy since the people could just overrule you.

 

[primeminister99]

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.

Perhaps but if you take the theoretical principals of what such a government would be like (from theorists, political scientists and philosophers and novels imaging such societies like the Dispossesed by Leguin) and what it requires then I think generally there would be more happiness and contentment within the citizenry, so long as you listen to them even more so than today's democracies, due to the fact that they are so involved. This of course would create larger problems like not having the fun of being able to bully smaller nations without serious domestic repercussions, when you feel like evil is a must , or when swift decisive leadership might be better than democratic debate.

But like I said if this government is included the citizens would feel, due to their control of government, a certain responsibility and pride in knowing they control their destiny this would mean a higher bonus level in the game for industry, food production, commerce and perhaps scientific research. On the other hand though if this type of gov't is included the efficency level of things like commerce, industry, food production and so on could drop with dropping education and happiness levels which can be caused by lots of things.

On edit I forgot to say how that's a good point because we don't know how firaxis is planning on handling aspects of the game that would affect gov'ts, especially futuristic ones. Although that's the point of this sub-forum, speculation.

 

[Talesin]

I agree with baseballfan. Fundamentalism should be a gov't(government) type and what about constitutional monarchy (like England now Monarch but with a ruling parliament). What about certain types of goverments are needed before full governments. Like the 'Dictatorship of the Proleterait' before full communism. For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about Lenin said before full communism could be set up there would need to be a ruler/s that set up the state so that communism would be most affective.

The idea of trying to get elected should be a rule that could be turned on or off like preserve random seed. Or it could get boring trying to please the masses and wipe certain civ of the face of the earth. Maybe, If this rule were on, there could be people who start a demonstration in your cities if you are a bad ruler. This oculd then split your country and armies arise on each side. Therefore creating a civil war. If you win you either re-instate your gov't or change it to suit the people. IF you lose then your out of the game. Only 1 major floor I can think of your enemies could attack you and could destroy as you are weak.

What do ya all think. Good? Bad?
Personally I think it would be good as several leaders could all appear at once and turn several civs against each other.

E.G
You are Russia playing a monarchy. You are bordered by Communist France, Monarchist England and republican Persia. A revolt begains and half of your civ decides it wants to be communist. France would help the revolutionary half as it wants the whole world to be communist. England might help you as you are a monarchy but Persia would remain neutral but could be brought in to help

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

BTW I think you should see this post by rcoutme:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1877326#post1877326
I think it covers this also