posted May 19, 1999 09:07                

-----------

The general concensus seems to be to move Civ to the SMAC model of social engineering. Within that broad statement:

1) Seperating the design of your culture from the design of your government, both of which would have a distinct SMAC-style Social Engineering window.
1a-Government design includes type of government and economic model.
1b-Cultural design includes many moral and social options, each with a minor effect, but which adds up to a big influence when taken as a whole.

2) Government Types:
2a-Political systems: Despotism, Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, Republic, Democracy, Tribal, Dictatorship.
2b-Economic systems: Barter, Currency, Feudalism, Banking, Mercantilism, Corporation, Labor Unions.
2c-Political structures: Federal, Confederacy, City-State
2d-Policing structure? Included in other political categories, or a set of options in and of itself?
2e-Radical changes in government incur happiness and economic penalties.

posted May 19, 1999 11:33                

This could be done by making the planned economy less efficient, but with good planning and some luck, the planned economy can be a focused, well oiled machine that reaches your goals.

On the other hand, the unrestrained capitalism would be extremely productive, but unfocused, thus you would get what you want, but also a lot of what you don't want as well.

As for Government structures I would like to see a significant growth in possibilities, especially earlier in the game. I find it odd that in Civ we have more choices later in the game than at the start of the game. But if you look at history, there was a plethora of varied government schemes is the distant past, but now most are just a flavored version of democracy, monarchy, fascist, or communist.

posted May 19, 1999 11:53                

quote:

---

It should be a lot like SMAC with Govn't, values, economy, etc. There should be negatives and positives for each.

---

posted May 19, 1999 15:26                

A

posted May 19, 1999 18:33                

Social choices can affect the above "population levels" plus the following:

1)Growth

2)Economy

3)Dispersal of Prosperity (Capatilism tends to create a polarized community, while socialism creates a more homoginous (sp?) community)

4)Enviroment

5)Pride (A high pride will allow people to suffer through hard times and posibly morale bounuses to units (esp. on own territory), lower pride give opposite effect, and makes a city more likely to join another civ in a revolt)

6)Control(similar to POLICE in SMAC, but also combines some of the effects of PROBE (information leakeage))

7)Faith/Fanatcisism

8)EGO (like pride, but with bigger +'s and penalties to foreign relations)

9)Materilism (How much stuff/money your people want)

10)Conservatism/Liberalness (sp?) (How opposed your people are to change, and how easy for other civ's to influence you people)

11)Curiosity (directly affects reaserch)

12)Gregariousness (how disposed your people are to living in big populations)

13)Vengence (likeliness to forgive past transgressions, or short-comming of your goverment... but morale +'s vs. despised enemies)

posted May 19, 1999 19:06                

Name of Religion: [User Defined] Trachmyrism
Basic Structure: Monotheistic
Special Structure: Dualistic (Good/Evil)
Afterlife: Heaven/Hell
Ferver: Moderate
Priesthood: Guidance [gives advice only]
Tenet(1): Ascetic
Tenet(2): Harsh Justice
Tenet(3): Proselytic

The effects:

-Name: no effect, just to discern between religions
-Basic Structure: Monotheism increases adhearance to doctrine (No other god to pettition)
-Special Structure: Dualism of Good/Evil, displays a Fight vs. Evil, meaning LOWERED CRIME
-Afterlife: Heaven/Hell increases adhearance to doctrine (who wants to spend eternity in hell?)
-Ferver: Base Level of Adhearance to doctrine. As Adhearance increases, religious facilities become more effective, modifiers due to componets of the religion (i.e. LOWERED CRIME) increase in effectiveness. However, more time is devoted to the religion and thus economy, production and reaserch suffers.
-Priesthood: Guidance gives no extra bonuses to religious structures, but also no extra threat in religious revolts (if your priest are seen as divine, they have a much greater influence for good and bad)
-Tenet(1): Ascetism reduces the support needed to maintain happiness amongst your people... but your markets suffer as a result
-Tenet(2): Harh Justice: further LOWERS CRIME
-Tenet(3): Proselytism allows your CIV to convert other nations to your religion or to your CIV... Nations with the same religion get along much better.

posted May 19, 1999 19:15                

I would like something like a religious Tech Tree. A civ can discover these religious "techs" randomly. Commandments could reduce crime, Mission could make conversions possible, Polygamy would increase population growth and so on.

posted May 19, 1999 19:42                

I suggest that when cultural and/or religious tech is discovered, it is only a concept... it does NOT become part of your societies make-up automatically.

Instead, the cultural choices must be implemented through "CULTURE" similar to Research. You generate CULTURE by:
1)Automatic, x points per turn
2)Relations, x points per civ you have + relations with
3)PHILOSOPHERS, a city profession like entertainers, ect.
4)WONDERS, most wonders generate A LOT of culture... after all, a wonder really is just a monument to it's people... few have real advantages

Culture is pooled (like PUBLIC WORKS), but loses say, 10% of it's total per turn. Culture must be allocated to SOCIAL CHANGES, once enough culture is spent, the social change takes effect. This way, you can not only add Cultural componets, but remove them as well.

This won't take much micromanegement, whenever you gain a tech that give a cultural choice you want, you open up the screen and allocate points (by a % of total & earned).

Many cultural choices will be available at game start, and I agree that CIVs should start with selections already made refecting that culture.

If you've got alot of choices selected, build a WONDER to get them accomplished faster. (Maybe that's why most wonders are ancient?)

posted May 19, 1999 21:18                

I like expaned religion/culture mainly because there is really no diffrence between civilizations in CIV, let's finally be able to define the actual Civilization. Besides, this way you can create Unique cultures, religions and goverments, not just a regurgitation of the more popular models in western history.

posted May 19, 1999 22:14                

I also agree that we should suggest that Firaxis refrain from using the word "Communism" without being aware of the ambiguity that applies to the word (i.e. do you mean a Stalinist political system or a Marxist economic system?).

posted May 19, 1999 22:38                

Religion plays a very important role in culture, and should be given some depth in CIV3. Could you imagine the changes in the U.S. culture, if our religion was based on Animistic beliefs? What if there was no afterlife, would people be as conservative and as reckless? No game could ever fully simulate the complexity of culture and religion, but we can cover some of the main topics.

posted May 19, 1999 23:50                

So the Republic of MicroProse decides to start worshiping the great god Sid Meier because he has done marvelous works, and handed down his almighty word in a book called "Prima's Secrets of the Game", and called all of his followers, that call themselves Civers, to be ready for the final judgment of PC Gamer. Those that continue to follow him to the end will receive everlasting enjoyment of playing CIVIII forever after spending only a few months in BUG heaven. He that doth not continue in the Civil way will spend eternity playing CTP on a 486SX25.

posted May 20, 1999 12:49                

Religion isn't enough of a government issue for it to be made a social setting. While you can have a religious government (fundamentalism), the actual effects of a religion on day to day life for any society don't really add up to anything (e.g the roman empire wouldn't have lasted any longer had they become muslim instead of christian).

So, the system should probably have 4 main types of each category, and each type has an ancient and a modern setting.

For instance, Republics no longer exist, instead they have become democracies.

GOVERNMENT
The system of government used by this civilisation. Choice of government is most important, as it will limit your options in the other areas: society, economics, and values.

Government types:
Totalitarian (cannot use Open society)
Communist
Democratic (canot use police state society)
Fundamentalist (cannot use corporate society)

SOCIETY

Determines the freedoms and ways of living of your society.

Society types:
Police State
???
Open
Corporate

Economics:

Similar to SMAC

Values:

posted May 20, 1999 01:24                

Order - how organised your society is.
Affects number of police units allowed and effectiveness of some facilities

Happiness - how happy people are to be a part of your civilisation.

Health - determines population growth rate and some resource gathering penalties/bonuses. Negative for most of early game.

Corruption - affects number of resources gathered and control over population. Positive for most early game options.

Industry - affects resource consumption. Zero for most early game options.

Economy - affects trade and commerce income. Zero for most early game options.

Knowledge - society's ability to gather knowledge (can be heavily affected)

Environment - affects environmental damage, and can confer movement bonuses. Positive for all early game options.

Unlike SMAC, however, certain technologies should immediately affect these settings. For instance, Philosophy and Physics could both give +1 to knowledge (for the first civ to obtain them), while environment will be adversely affected by both plastics and the automobile.

posted May 20, 1999 05:54                

It's important all government choices effect a lot of things: how your people consider neighbours, how your people are affected by neighbours polluting your territory. Contradicting religions could lead to crusades and very suspicious feelings if you become great friends with a completely different religion type. Government choices should go further in depth.

Yes, incorporate feelings more in government choices. Societies could have have different grades on how religious they are, if they are real high grades and the nation is successful they may influence neighbours. Maybe minorities in neighbour towns could get these religions. Maybe they will get cleric units for free now and then(which I like in CTP).

Having a very religious society could lead to problems: to become friends with certain civilizations would be tougher(as stated) as your high priests object and could possibly worry your people a lot leading to unhappiness, but crusades would be easier(units attacking a country in which they crusade against have a bonus depending on how fanatic they are!). I think a really succssful religious nation could get a second headquarter with a "pope"(high religious leader) and would be able to collect small taxes from devoted towns. And lastly, changing governments is easy, changing religions like a switchboard is not: Religions should be gained from other civilization and tougher to change up and down.

A slavery Government should definately be included: Look at the greatness of the Roman empire. Possible effects: good effectivity, good income, okay research; but risky: small chances of slave revolts(they can become pretty serious if they happen), opponents capturing cities will be able to enlist vengeful slave recruits to their army immediately.

posted May 20, 1999 06:39                

Yeah, give us Real revolutions, not these "go to sleep for a few turns" things. As Ecce Homo says there should be some chance you actually have to fight (now there's a concept ) in a revolution. Maybe the revolutions as they exist are ok for Warlord level, but by Deity you should be playing with live ammo. It would also slow down the leading civ (almost always the player) if the bigger you are the more chance there is of having a big blowup during a revolution. This would require some good play-balance to not overdo things, but that's one of the things they're getting paid for...

posted May 20, 1999 08:45                

From Cybershy:
• It must be possible to make laws. A law gets reflection on the society as well. When in 1800 the law starts to work that forbid kids below 16 years to work, but says that HAEV TO study, then production will go down for a couple of years, but soon the people will be smarter, and higher educated, which will improve your society and science rate.

Other laws are possible as well. All boys between 18 and 21 have to go into the army. Drugs are not allowed, Gay-mariage, 3-day workweek, raise vacation days, forbid swimming, give drugs free, forbid divorcion etc. etc. etc. (whatever can come up in your sick mind, mister dictator hehe)

posted May 20, 1999 12:00                

quote:

---

A starting point for the Social Engineering/Government would be to start the game with a national/ethnic character. This has been implemented in MOM, MOO(2), SMAC, and Age of Empires. Each civ should have a few starting advantages/disadvantages (the ratio of adv to disad would affect score) which could be preset or custom.
This idea is dangerous because it does lend itself to stereotypes that could be considered rascist. But I would welcome the addition for even early on there was a significant cultural difference between the highly structured Civ of Egypt and the chaos of Greece.

---

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
no no no no no no no no!
Please no!

If this was implemented the way it was in smac, it would ruin CivIII! (at least for me)

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind nations having character, but giving civ's advantages and disadvantages is not the way to go, IMO.

This should be done by giving civs personality via the AI. One possibility is giving the OPTION of only allowing certain techs to specific civs. (ie, only japan gets samurai) By giving certain civ's advantages and disadvantages, your railroading players into a specific type of game. Yuck!

To keep CivIII interesting, you must allow for any tactic a player wants to use, not push them this way or that way. (And the same holds true for the AI.)

posted May 20, 1999 12:33                

The way this might work is by modifiers to gold, production, trade, military effectiveness; positive for good rulers, negative for poor rulers. I'd even like to see succession squabbles and dynastic crises, over-throws, et cetera.

This should be even more significant for democracies and republics - societies that are almost constantly frought with leadership variation. Constitutional crises etc. Theocracies could be wracked by heretical movements. Facist leaders are subject to assasination and intrigue.

Might even have the equivalent of the CIA knocking off a leader here or there - mostly causing a couple of turns of chaos. Then there're coups...

Also, Generals.

posted May 20, 1999 15:33                

I understand your concerns about the "national-character." I agree that a nation should not be railroaded into a specific arch-type. The initial benefits/limitations should all be very minor +1 or -1 on a couple of the "social categories". Something like that. By the end of the game these initial starting points should be insignificant.

There should NOT be units limited to certain nations (like Samurai for the Japanese).

As you progress in the game social-tech's discovered should change your starting "national character." For example, take "the Alphabet." This tech has always bothered me because much of the world's great Civs never used and alphabet, many used Heiroglyps or Word Characters. This could be used to modify your civ:

Alphabet - wide spread literacy, greater social chaos.
Word Characters - limited literacy, greater social control.

This one tech could then nullify or magnify an initial-national character.

In addition to preset or custom national character, geographical could be added as well. Civs on islands will be bigoted, but with greater social coheason. Civs in Steeps would be militaristic and chaotic. Civs in river grassland would be peaceful and productive, etc.

posted May 20, 1999 17:00                

I'd really like to see this, but have to admit that I wouldn't want to play it this way every time. So how about an option to play this way, or a setup control panel that provides for Civ/Gov attribute settings including unit specializations & tech advances/benes?

posted May 20, 1999 17:28                

Slavery must be included in CIV3, I commend CtP for their bravery to included this very NON-PC but Important part of history, even if they did a poor job of it. The Roman Empire would've been nothing without slaves.

I don't like including pre-set fictional religions... reminds me of the cheesy televangilist from CtP, And I won't pray to the evil Microsoft God.

And the Roman Empire would have been VERY diffrent if they were Muslim... one fact would be the absence of the crusades and very likely the absence of the Dark Ages.

posted May 20, 1999 21:07                

Regional centres: Each civilisation is now divided up into regions, each of which has its own capital. I've suggested that, while government type cannot change across a civilisation, both Social Values (social engineering, or whatever the currently agreed equvilient here is) and the tax rate can be changed according to regional requirements.

This raises the prospect of an entire region revolting against you in the game. Which could split your empire in half, either creating a new civ (as in CivII), going barbarian (no leadership) or joining another civ.

2) Specialist citizens
Drones are now less effective at work than happy citizens. This sounds like a reasonable definition of a slave or serf to me (someone working against their will).

Ctp's slavers were a really bad idea - no one walks into a rival city and steals population. With CivII's city based approach, this makes slavery more of an implict concept - you capture a city and the populace does go to work for you, after all.

And with the SMAC concept of a captured city, it sounds like this is already enough to make the issue 'real' enough in the game.

posted May 20, 1999 21:07                

Regional centres: Each civilisation is now divided up into regions, each of which has its own capital. I've suggested that, while government type cannot change across a civilisation, both Social Values (social engineering, or whatever the currently agreed equvilient here is) and the tax rate can be changed according to regional requirements.

This raises the prospect of an entire region revolting against you in the game. Which could split your empire in half, either creating a new civ (as in CivII), going barbarian (no leadership) or joining another civ.

2) Specialist citizens
Drones are now less effective at work than happy citizens. This sounds like a reasonable definition of a slave or serf to me (someone working against their will).

Ctp's slavers were a really bad idea - no one walks into a rival city and steals population. With CivII's city based approach, this makes slavery more of an implict concept - you capture a city and the populace does go to work for you, after all.

And with the SMAC concept of a captured city, it sounds like this is already enough to make the issue 'real' enough in the game.

posted May 21, 1999 03:59                

Slaves could be captured when you win a battle and a slaver is present

or when a slaver takes a settler away

posted May 22, 1999 10:17                

Communism - Should be an economic choice, not a government choice. Granted, all communist states we've seen have been totalitarian, but it is not a necessary truth. A democratic communist nation should be POSSIBLE, but a totalitarian one should be a lot easier to implement and keep going. This, combined with other choices, could allow all the different flavours of communism.. Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, and others never implemented. Same goes for other governemnt types, too...

Continuing with choices, I saw in another thread that only totalitarian fascist nations should be able to commit genocide. Any government should be ABLE to commit genocide, but it should be a lot easier for some than others.