President Evil
Chieftain
A communist democracy? Not quite sure if that could exist. Anyone else think they should contradict each other? 
Why doesn't Order and Freedom/Liberty cancel out each other?
- Thread starter President Evil
- Start date
A communist democracy? Not quite sure if that could exist. Anyone else think they should contradict each other?
Just ignore the names for the SPs, they need some work. As is, it is possible to have a Socialist Monarchic Theocratic Communist Democracy with freedoms of speech and religion
urbancamper
Chieftain
Eh, it would limit the social policies too much if there were any more restrictions than there already are. And mixes of democracy and communism are at least theoretically possible, and exist to varying extents in the form of semi-socialist (by American standards) democracies such as Sweden. It's not like the Autocracy v Liberty/Freedom block, which makes sense within the very definitions of those terms.
President Evil
Chieftain
Can't wait to see them fixed in the future. I'm tired of having a Communist Theocratic Yet Free Religious Democratic Republic ruled by a Lord.
This.
Please, let's not turn this into another "AMERICA POOWEER COMMIES SUCK!!!!!1!" discussion.
Communism doesn't rule out freedom/liberty/democrasy at all... On the contrary.
well, true communism isn't really possible gameplay wise right? A true communist empire... more of a victory condition than a SP I think.
While we're at it, let's not turn this into a USA vs. Europe battle
Ciek
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 119
My opinions on the craziness that is the social policies tree, read them at your own personal risk
.
I imagine social policies more like an evolution of the government through time, as in your country doesn't die throughout it's history theoretically and retains at least some potion of the last major governmental institution within the culture of the country in question. Whereas switching to Autocracy causes a huge shift and change of regime when compared to any form of republic or democracy found in Liberty or Freedom.
Because if you start to view social policies as being all active components in your society's social institutions you start creating some crazy societies and governments ex. a Theocracy with Free Religion, which is plain silly to me, because i figure that a nation-state that allows freedom of religion lacks an institutionalized state religion. Whereas if you allow a state to evolve, as I imagine it, say you take the policy of "Theocracy" and then take the policy "Reformation" and then "Free Religion" it makes much more sense, as in your society was once a Theocracy and it still affects some aspects of government but technically your society now respects free tolerance of religion due to a large Reformation in society.
The Order policy track does not necessarily imply a lack of Liberty or Freedom like the Autocracy does, in fact if we look at the Policy of "United Front" and apply that to the cold war era, both the USSR and USA would have taken that policy it's just that the USA took only the policies of United Front, Nationalism, and Socialism, whereas the USSR invested it's cultural point all the way through Planned Economy and Communism as well.
This is just how I imagine and somehow justify the names of the policies in my convoluted thought processes, and somehow I think this might be what the designers intended.
.I imagine social policies more like an evolution of the government through time, as in your country doesn't die throughout it's history theoretically and retains at least some potion of the last major governmental institution within the culture of the country in question. Whereas switching to Autocracy causes a huge shift and change of regime when compared to any form of republic or democracy found in Liberty or Freedom.
Because if you start to view social policies as being all active components in your society's social institutions you start creating some crazy societies and governments ex. a Theocracy with Free Religion, which is plain silly to me, because i figure that a nation-state that allows freedom of religion lacks an institutionalized state religion. Whereas if you allow a state to evolve, as I imagine it, say you take the policy of "Theocracy" and then take the policy "Reformation" and then "Free Religion" it makes much more sense, as in your society was once a Theocracy and it still affects some aspects of government but technically your society now respects free tolerance of religion due to a large Reformation in society.
The Order policy track does not necessarily imply a lack of Liberty or Freedom like the Autocracy does, in fact if we look at the Policy of "United Front" and apply that to the cold war era, both the USSR and USA would have taken that policy it's just that the USA took only the policies of United Front, Nationalism, and Socialism, whereas the USSR invested it's cultural point all the way through Planned Economy and Communism as well.
This is just how I imagine and somehow justify the names of the policies in my convoluted thought processes, and somehow I think this might be what the designers intended.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
What precisely about the Order policy tree is actually incompatible with the Freedom/Liberty policy tree in the first place?
Most of the Order Policies have to do with distribution of material goods and/or national identity, none of which is incompatible with voting over the distribution of state-controlled goods or writing newspaper articles decrying the last vote over state-controlled goods or applauding the superior method of state-governed goods as opposed to the oppressive sweat shops of a commercially run empire.
Most of the Order Policies have to do with distribution of material goods and/or national identity, none of which is incompatible with voting over the distribution of state-controlled goods or writing newspaper articles decrying the last vote over state-controlled goods or applauding the superior method of state-governed goods as opposed to the oppressive sweat shops of a commercially run empire.
SKILORD
Insurgent
It being a videogame I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have such a utopian governing model. Get your Chicago school prejudices out of my fun time.
President Evil
Chieftain
I think the thing that ticks me off more than the Order and Liberty/Freedom problem (if there is one) is the fact that Social Policies actually restrict your Empire more than Civics ever did. Say that you want certain parts of a tree, yet they are at the end, and you don't like the idea of that being your empire in the future. Like in the Order tree, Communism is at the end. Once Communist, always Communist that means. Or Commerce's Protectionism, or being a diplomat after taking Patronage in the past. Would you still be considered a Communist, Protectionist, or Diplomat in the future? I think all trees should atleast have 1 other tree that cancels it out.
I think they have to make it so that you lose bonuses of a specific policy. Have like a red X through the box if you adopt one icon but not the other. Where the path is fixed if you go down a particular road. Unless you want anarchy and lose a policy that was once activated.
Presumably the game is using the ideal states of these political systems. So a free, democratic communist political system is perfectly fine in ideal terms, it's only when you add human beings to the system that it all comes crashing down.
The people in my games are made of zeros and ones and therefore don't have all the frailties that humans have, so they can enjoy communism in the way it was envisioned, rather than the mess humans made of the idea.
The people in my games are made of zeros and ones and therefore don't have all the frailties that humans have, so they can enjoy communism in the way it was envisioned, rather than the mess humans made of the idea.
Dalai Lama wanted socialism, religious freedom and democratic all while basically lording over his people in a theocratic dictatorship... so it could work...
I like the fact that we get more option, why restrict ourselves to narrow scope.
I don't think you could turn an empire communist overnight. Socialism is a pretty important step on the way, as is a planned economy. I'll give you that stuff like free religion coming later than theocracy and in the same tree is kind of nonsensical, but communism is a very involved process.
There is no problem being all three, though. There is no tree that is ideologically opposed to the concept of communism, either. If there's an antithesis to the Freedom/Liberty trees outside of Autocracy, it's the Tradition tree. President-King?
A communist democracy? Not quite sure if that could exist. Anyone else think they should contradict each other?
I think this is possible if people of the country deny private property looking for the good of everyone. guess this system didn't appear now,because we need something to organize this system. And Communist is the kind of system that gives a lot of power to the politics,that's why so many private organizations(corporations,vatican,...) fear it.
