It occurs to me that there are certain government styles, and Hitler's setting his subordinates competing with each other is one of them, that behave notably differently in the situation of a nation expanding and conquering across a continent from how they do in a situation of relative stability. I wonder whether it would be worth having a corruption system [ corruption being how the game represents efficiency in general ] that reflected that, of whether war weariness/happiness is already doing enough for it; I have not ever actually played as Fascism, how is it in practice ?
What Would You Change And Why
- Thread starter timerover51
- Start date
It occurs to me that there are certain government styles, and Hitler's setting his subordinates competing with each other is one of them, that behave notably differently in the situation of a nation expanding and conquering across a continent from how they do in a situation of relative stability. I wonder whether it would be worth having a corruption system [ corruption being how the game represents efficiency in general ] that reflected that, of whether war weariness/happiness is already doing enough for it; I have not ever actually played as Fascism, how is it in practice ?
Although I have never played Civ1, I do like the concept of the rivers being a terrain feature rather than something outside the square. This would solve the huge flood plain issue, as well as making canals a viable idea. I agree that canals should be very time-consuming, something like a 30 or 40 turn base to discourage many canals in the Ancient and Medieval ages, and to prevent players from building gigantic canals over major continents. Canals should only be used in situations like Panama or Suez, where there are only about 1 to 3 squares of land. This makes it so you don't have to settle an extra city where you don't want to so you can move ships faster.
I don't know how to add worker actions, however. The graphics wouldn't be an issue, but there isn't an 'Add worker job' button in the editor. And changing the rivers would be a real issue, too.
Governments are a real issue in the game, mainly because the governments of every nation are very different. For example, take the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Both would be considered Communism in the game, I guess, but in reality they are actually very different countries. The economic systems alone are very different, let alone the differences to capitalist democracies like America and Great Britain. Corruption is not the only issue. I think the Civics system in Civ4 tried to address the issue, but that doesn't really work for me either. If you think about it, government is the hardest thing to work with in Civ3. With the corruption levels, and even the free unit limits. It is very difficult to keep all the governments different and keep them relatively even to begin with.
MAS
Deity
This so called corruption system isn't meant to represent actual corruption at all. It is meant to simulate the difficulties of larger empires compared to smaller ones. Also, for game-play, its good to have a system that keeps runaways in check. (something they kind a of failed to do with Civ3's corruption model, but anyway)
Maybe they should make its so that big empires need to take more and more measures to prevent a part of their civ from revolting and becoming a civ of their own. (just an idea)
Maybe they should make its so that big empires need to take more and more measures to prevent a part of their civ from revolting and becoming a civ of their own. (just an idea)
Optional
Deity
The Dutch have a reputation for making cheesy, tacky music.I don't understand the Dutch joke.
I didn't know they had civ specific music in Civ 1. Ok, so my idea wasn't original then.
That presupposes that you want to keep them relatively even, though. I would like to see there being a couple of governments that were relatively even in different ways at any given period, but that were upgraded significantly from time to time as one went on, so that you needed to upgrade your Monarchy-type government a couple of times to stay competitive if you were playing Always War, for example.
darski
Regent in Training
What about the idea of a "Constitutional Monarchy"? That could add something different to the game play... it could provide some democratic benefits to a monarchical system... whadayah think?
MAS
Deity
A Constitutional Monarchy is just a Democracy.
The monarchs serves a function similar to Hollywood stars. They are famous people that are well respected and loved by the population.
In addition they are national symbols whose status and palaces are kept in good condition to preserve tradition, but are otherwise puppets of the house of elected officials.
There is only one big advantage to a Constitutional Monarchy: No presidential elections! No useless circus and there wont be a 48% of the population that will feel disgruntled. Also, the monarch generally has less to say than the president, and will therefor be better able to do its job of representing the nation, instead of pushing its own political agenda at the cost of the 48% who didn't vote for him.
The monarchs serves a function similar to Hollywood stars. They are famous people that are well respected and loved by the population.
In addition they are national symbols whose status and palaces are kept in good condition to preserve tradition, but are otherwise puppets of the house of elected officials.
There is only one big advantage to a Constitutional Monarchy: No presidential elections! No useless circus and there wont be a 48% of the population that will feel disgruntled. Also, the monarch generally has less to say than the president, and will therefor be better able to do its job of representing the nation, instead of pushing its own political agenda at the cost of the 48% who didn't vote for him.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
In a Democracy, the leaders of a Monarchy would be admired because of their staying power. Unlike the fortunes of Hollywood stars, which rise and fall based on their last hit item (movie, book, TV show, talk show interview...) the monarchs don't change until they die. Nice and stable.
Like death and taxes.
Like death and taxes.
Jokeslayer
Dedicated
I too live there and have to disagree with you. Sweden is a hugely corrupt country. There's a thing called "statsrådsberedningen", allegedly working directly for our PM but in reality a Quango on a monstrous scale. Under our former PM, Mr Göran Persson, it topped 4000 employed politicians at politicians wages. You might call them MPs without a seat as this is in addition to those properly elected MPs. In all, Sweden employs and pays wages to no less than 80,000 local or national politicians plus politically appointed civil "servants". That's almost 2% of the adult working population - although to call what they do "work" is stretching the term past credibility. In addition, Sweden pays full wages for leading politicians currently out of a political job (such as chairman of the local council) until they find another job. Regular citizens have to do with 20-85% for a limited period of time.to us!
This is not measured by the transparency index, but is systematic corruption on a national scale. No other European country comes even close in the corruption stakes and it doesn't matter which party they represent - ALL are equally corrupt. And Sweden IS a democracy...
Oh, that is to be considered corruption too? 80,000 of them??
And I've been wondering where all the money goes when things keep getting worse at the same time as taxes become higher and higher.You would've made your own mod out of it otherwise? Cool!
The other thing about a constitutional monarchy worth having, though I don't easily see how to translate it into Civ terms, is that if the head of state and the head of government are people in very different positions, it's a conceptual brake on some sorts of extremism; it would be entirely laughable for anyone British or Canadian to talk about people not supporting Tony Blair or Stephen Harper as traitors in the way some USAn conservative rhetoric talks about people who disagree with Bush, because that kind of loyalty doesn't go there in the first place, it goes to the Queen.
Snarkhunter
Prince
With the last 38 year monopoly of the presidency by only 2 families and the supreme court being a sad joke in poor taste, I'd say the USA has an unconstitutional monarchy now.
Ah, 38 years--that would be Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton & Bush, & only 2 of them are related to each other to my knowledge. The Clinton running this year probably won't get the nomination, if it comes to that.
kk
psweetman1590
Emperor
Speaking of constitutional monarchies... they are NOT just democracies. They CAN be. However, Britain has been a constitutional monarchy ever since the Magna Carta. Would you say they've been a democracy all that time?
All a constitutional monarchy means is that the king does not have absolute power. It does not mean a situation like present day England, although that's a possibility. Having a strong king with a meaningful parliament is a constitutional monarchy. In fact, so long as there is a constitution that limits the king's power, the parliament or legislative body isn't even required.
So, I rather think it would be a good step for a government in civ. Theoretically, anyways. I'm hard put to think of decent attributes for it, though. If we make it too similar to monarchy or demo/rep, no one would use it. Considering how few variables actually go into a government, making constitutional monarchy a viable and distinct government that's worth using seems nearly impossible.
All a constitutional monarchy means is that the king does not have absolute power. It does not mean a situation like present day England, although that's a possibility. Having a strong king with a meaningful parliament is a constitutional monarchy. In fact, so long as there is a constitution that limits the king's power, the parliament or legislative body isn't even required.
So, I rather think it would be a good step for a government in civ. Theoretically, anyways. I'm hard put to think of decent attributes for it, though. If we make it too similar to monarchy or demo/rep, no one would use it. Considering how few variables actually go into a government, making constitutional monarchy a viable and distinct government that's worth using seems nearly impossible.
Snarkhunter
Prince
OT: Nope. Nobody ran it after '86. And Bush certainly didn't do it before. For that matter, many think that Cheney has been running it for the past 7 years anyhow!
Back on topic: biggest problem with the Civ govs is that they don't mean the same things in the modern eras as they do in the early eras: republics & democracies in the ancient Med were pretty different beasts than they are now. I'm not sure there even are any pure examples of the types among industrial first world societies; they're all mixtures of things. It'd be nice to force a change to different governments as time goes on, by making the newer types more efficient at handling the new circumstances/technologies, so that it pays the player to change. and instead of 8 turns of anarchy, a system where the benefits slowly phase in over time would be more in keeping with history. Or perhaps older styles of government would simply "disintegrate" as you reach the modern eras, leaving you in a state worse than despotism if you didn't switch.
kk
MAS
Deity
You are correct, semantically speaking.
Most people in present day associate "constitution" with democracy very strongly, and would not consider it can also be a part of a non-democratic government. But "a constitution" is basically just a set of rules for the government. (instead of rules for the people)
But...
But I was replying to:
A non democratic constitutional monarchy is just the monarchy government that is already in the game.
A non constitutional monarchy is basically the despotism government, that is also already in the game.
So I assumed he was talking about a "modern" constitutional monarchy, but that also already exist in the game, because thats just a democracy.
And that is what I wanted to say in my post.
The Professor
Emperor
Does anyone else miss the old Civ II government, fundamentalism? No war weariness, the economy ran great because of the tithes, and you got cheap freebie units. You couldn't research anything in a reasonable amount of time, but you could steal it or buy it.
Similar threads
