Eskel
Warlord
Dont you think that quantity is better than quality?
Let's save the brilliant simplicity of original Civ 4 idea and playability...
I think that Aussie Lurker's system is a bit too complex.
For example, many choices from ideology category cause mess, as they are connected with particular government types, and thus are not needed in my
oppinon . What for should I choose fascist or communist ideology, when it is realized by Police State setting and Free Market or State Property economy models? Moreover, for example Libertarian/Democratic in the core is the same
what the Universal Suffrage.
If applied, such double-settings will produce nonsense results, where fascist civic model would be used with non-fascist doctrine, or libertarian/democratic ideology in totalitarism.
I think that configuration set on civics screen, should show what civilization is actually, not what it wants to be or what talks about. Thats why I would preffer non-schisophrenic system, where is no opposition between ideology and government, having by the way less number of options.
There is very important question derived from what I have written before - isnt this entire category a mistake between cause and effect? From sociological point of view more important is form of government than ideology it uses: what meaning has a decent ideology if it covers a mere dictatorship?
Let's look for example over fascism and communism: functionally they are almost the same totalitaristic systems with only difference in private property, while ideologies are often described as opposite.
Whats more, why not join it with Values? Though I doubt if those categories are necessary, I have to notice there could be some very inspiring dychotomies anyway :
individualism, plutocracy - communalism, social equality
nationalism, xenophobia - cosmopolitism
obscurantism, fundamentalism - liberalism
But then there would be three additional categories, and a lot of troubles with interactions with them
Next one is legal category. As I posted earlier, it isn't clear for me. If it was about country management and administration, it is almost the same as the Aussie Lurker's organization category. But then it should describe whether country administration is centralized or not. Rather small category.
But can anybody explain to me, what it really means now?
Vassalage is form of primitive army employment without money- sovereign gives land or share in loots for loyalty and military service. Such policy creates a narrow elite caste of warriors (nobles), most often horsemen, but they gradually turn into landowners, and their military value decreases over time, until finally maybe it is higher than conscripts, but cannot withstand with professionals.
Nationhood - when I wrote it is State Property it was simplification, but not as big as it seems. This is system which gives priority to national and strategical goals set by government. For me it means government control and increase in purposive production at cost of economical freedom. What perfectly fits in state property economical model...
Bureacracy - the only one that obviously fits in category.
The last - two categories for religion affairs.
Isnt enough when we describe only influence the religion has over the community, what means that dogmas are already included into this evaluation and it is unnecessary to specify them separately?
At this scale of problem, the sentence of particular dogmas is completely meaningless.
Additionaly, current model from Civ 4 presents different types of religious attitude: unorganized, focused on wealth, focused on military might, focused on spirituality, free. I would risk thesis, that they already show approach towards another Faiths (e.g. Theocracy), so why create separate civics category for this?
The only thing I can admit is that organized religion should be more oppresive against non-state religions.
Maybe before we add new categories, we should think what we want achieve through this, what distinction apply etc.
I proposed military civics category, because currently civilization with strong economy has weak army (not in quantity but in quality) and has no possibilities to improve its units starting experience. That seemed creepy and unnatural to me, so I wanted to change it.
Let's save the brilliant simplicity of original Civ 4 idea and playability...
I think that Aussie Lurker's system is a bit too complex.
For example, many choices from ideology category cause mess, as they are connected with particular government types, and thus are not needed in my
oppinon . What for should I choose fascist or communist ideology, when it is realized by Police State setting and Free Market or State Property economy models? Moreover, for example Libertarian/Democratic in the core is the same
what the Universal Suffrage.
If applied, such double-settings will produce nonsense results, where fascist civic model would be used with non-fascist doctrine, or libertarian/democratic ideology in totalitarism.
I think that configuration set on civics screen, should show what civilization is actually, not what it wants to be or what talks about. Thats why I would preffer non-schisophrenic system, where is no opposition between ideology and government, having by the way less number of options.
There is very important question derived from what I have written before - isnt this entire category a mistake between cause and effect? From sociological point of view more important is form of government than ideology it uses: what meaning has a decent ideology if it covers a mere dictatorship?
Let's look for example over fascism and communism: functionally they are almost the same totalitaristic systems with only difference in private property, while ideologies are often described as opposite.
Whats more, why not join it with Values? Though I doubt if those categories are necessary, I have to notice there could be some very inspiring dychotomies anyway :
individualism, plutocracy - communalism, social equality
nationalism, xenophobia - cosmopolitism
obscurantism, fundamentalism - liberalism
But then there would be three additional categories, and a lot of troubles with interactions with them
Next one is legal category. As I posted earlier, it isn't clear for me. If it was about country management and administration, it is almost the same as the Aussie Lurker's organization category. But then it should describe whether country administration is centralized or not. Rather small category.
But can anybody explain to me, what it really means now?
Vassalage is form of primitive army employment without money- sovereign gives land or share in loots for loyalty and military service. Such policy creates a narrow elite caste of warriors (nobles), most often horsemen, but they gradually turn into landowners, and their military value decreases over time, until finally maybe it is higher than conscripts, but cannot withstand with professionals.
Nationhood - when I wrote it is State Property it was simplification, but not as big as it seems. This is system which gives priority to national and strategical goals set by government. For me it means government control and increase in purposive production at cost of economical freedom. What perfectly fits in state property economical model...
Bureacracy - the only one that obviously fits in category.
The last - two categories for religion affairs.
Isnt enough when we describe only influence the religion has over the community, what means that dogmas are already included into this evaluation and it is unnecessary to specify them separately?
At this scale of problem, the sentence of particular dogmas is completely meaningless.
Additionaly, current model from Civ 4 presents different types of religious attitude: unorganized, focused on wealth, focused on military might, focused on spirituality, free. I would risk thesis, that they already show approach towards another Faiths (e.g. Theocracy), so why create separate civics category for this?
The only thing I can admit is that organized religion should be more oppresive against non-state religions.
Maybe before we add new categories, we should think what we want achieve through this, what distinction apply etc.
I proposed military civics category, because currently civilization with strong economy has weak army (not in quantity but in quality) and has no possibilities to improve its units starting experience. That seemed creepy and unnatural to me, so I wanted to change it.
) If the number of choices is simply too many for people to handle, then I am ALWAYS open to dropping/consolidating civics.
).
