posted August 09, 1999 15:08                

Two: NO ONE would use Practical Research. Give it a +1 Mil too, and then it is much better.

Nitpicking session ended.

posted August 09, 1999 16:08                

To answer Maniac's question to me, it doesn't answer all my concerns. I also disagree with the idea of having only SE penalties for the turns of change, as the bonuses of the change should also filter in. I'd say 1st turn: still have old SE, 2nd turn: 1/2 bonus/penalties of 1st and of 2nd, 3rd turn: new SE in effect. Keep in mind the length of time a turn is. The main penalty I'd include is a happiness penalty for the switch. My idea for happiness is apparently different from Snowfire's.

Happiness affects everything. It is probably the single most important SE choice. If you've played MOO2, think of the morale bonus given to citizens. Happiness gives a bonus/penalty to pop growth, labor production, trade, how much your citizens will support your foreign/domestic actions in diplomacy, research, etc. For this reason the bonus/penalty should be 1/2 of regular SE choices.

How it works:
I still prefer sliding scales, which I will explain why later. However, if buttons are to be used then this requires that the SE choices be placed in an order from on extreme to the other: for ex. free market-regulated market-planned market-communal (green should not be an economic choice but a environmental value). Also Totalitarian-Monarchy-Oligarchy-Republic-Democracy (-Anarchy?). When a change is made, there is a happiness penalty incurred, mutliplied by each extra space of SE difference. Over time the happiness penalty will heal. This represents people's uncertainty to change, and to their resistance to the change. Now the healing rate is relatively constant in time; this is combined with any changes to the base happiness level of the SE choices. FE, you switch from totalitarian to democracy. This has a 4 space change, so it is a severe happiness penalty. However, totalitarian has heavy happiness penalties inherent to it, while democracy has happiness bonuses. A happiness indicator will be in the SE screen.

happiness with totalitarian SE:
--------------
happiness after switch to demo:
------|----------------------
happiness with demo SE:
-----------------------------
after switch to totalitarianism:
---|----------
The break represents where the current happiness is, while the end is the potential happiness the civ will get once all happiness is "healed". Healing fixes a given amount each turn, so in that time both SE choices will have reached their maximums. SEs with bonuses to happiness also heal faster per bonus, while SEs with penalties heal slower.

This is cumulative with changing other SEs. As you can see, anarchy & revolt can easily be the result of sudden, radical changes. However, suppression by military &/or police can limit the effects of unrest; this results in an artificial boost in happiness. The healing rate would be reduced in this case, but is the best & probably the only way to quell your populace, especially in dictatorships.

Things that raise happiness:
democracy
communal economy (free-marketeers must "buy" happiness, but they're better at it)
Strong religion
Decentralized govt
Certain techs
Pacifism SE
Welfare SE
"buying" happiness
Gifts from other civs
Certain buildings
Random events
Military suppression
Committing atrocities against cultures/religions that your people are opposed to

Things that decrease happiness:
Totalitarianism
free-market economy
Secular values (opposed to strong religion)
High POWER SE
WEALTH SE
Mixed cultures/religions in a city
Changing SEs
Units dying in combat
Centralized govt
Commiting atrocities or lesser offenses vs. certain cultures/religions in your empire
Riots/plagues/rebellion
Random events

Why I prefer sliding scales:
1) They're simpler to use in comparison. 5-6 scales are all that are needed as opposed to 20+buttons.
2) It allows for tweaking of SEs as opposed to radical changes. Using SMAC as an example, you have free-market, planned, & green. Maybe I want to have a regulated market, I can't do it. Maybe I want something between what reg market and planned wiil offer for buttons. I can't "fine tune" how the SE affects my civ.
3) I believe each "value" should have it's own slider. Why can't a civ be research AND power oriented? My ideas:

POWER<--->PACIFISM
FUNDY<--->SECULAR (secular has happiness penalty but research bonus; i.e.=knowledge; fundy is opposite)
DECENTRALIZED<--->CENTRALIZED (centralized has effic bonus but hap penalty, decentral is opposite)
WEALTH<--->WELFARE: Actually I think this is covered under free market & communal, and neither are needed for sliding scales. But if buttons are used they could flesh out the econ choices.

Another thing. I propose we change how the SE effects work. I propose using percentages in the choices, and smaller ones. This will also help fine tuning. They can be increased with new technology.

ECONOMY can be a % that is added/subtracted to trade.
EFFICIENCY works well as is. It seems to be a % already, or could be easily changed to one & no one would notice, I'll bet.
SUPPORT. Each city would have a base SUPPORT % (10-20%?). This % is subtracted from the combined cost of all maintenance of units (units should have production & money support costs, possibly food too). SE choices increase/decrease the % modifier.
MORALE should be replaced with EXPERIENCE. Only a minimal bonus/penalty should be possible with this SE. Most experience should come from training (and this only to a point; maybe hardened as SMAC?) & actual combat (all the way to elite status). Again, a % would be applied as in SMAC, but it would be in smaller increments.
POLICE represents the controls you can exert on your people. It "adds" to your happiness rating, but would have different effects in that your people would resent them if they're too strong.
GROWTH is affected by happiness and many other factors. It may not be necessary to include it as SE, as only a religious choice or environmental choice should affect it. Happiness would replace Growth SE in all other areas.
PLANET =a % reduction in pollution. However I can see it also reducing growth & economy.
PROBE =a % bonus/penalty to enemy espionage missions.
INDUSTRY is so powerful and easily abused in SMAC it should be gotten rid of.
RESEARCH as norm, but with smaller % increments.
HAPPINESS as described above.

With sliding scales 2-5% increments can be used, with happiness = 1-2% increments per bonus 'cuz it's so powerful. Buttons could use 5% increments (HAP=2%), if used.

posted August 09, 1999 16:15                

M@ni@c, my point about Harels Army and research system and your research system is that it is double counting, not only do you get a bonuses for valueing knowledge, you also get a bonus if your research values knowledge, see what I mean?

Bell I expect you to post all the ideas here (even my who/method idea that M@ni@c seems to dislike and M@ni@cs original religion idea) just also put the problems of those ideas (as we have posted)

If you look at groupings of governments no one that has communism is viable

viable is a government that allows high trade (because later on, when you get communism, you cities have grown to the point where growth pluses are not your number one thing)

this is reflecting your own beleives and the chances of history, not what could have happened if the revulution was not ransacked all along the way

pluses in econ are too strong

a plus 5 econ provides 2 extra trade per city per square, no other setting that is not close to this will even be able to compete

from civ/smac we know that a plus 1 trade per square makes it so that any civ that does not have that plus 1 will not be able to keep up research, monetarily, or in happiness (the only time it is good not to have it is if you are so millitaristic that you are stealing all these things from the other civs)

I do not want to be forced into being millitaristic just because I have communism (And it does not even help you military a whole lot, you could have good military and have ok econ with other choices)

your structure is faulty in that it has selections which would not make since for veteran players ever to use

posted August 09, 1999 18:14                

Introduction

First, Harel. It isn't 7 categories; it's 8.
Of that eight one is State Religion. It has no SE effects.
Of that eight one is Army, using the very good CTP system of military readiness. It only affects Support and perhaps Morale.
That makes 6. If you still find that too much, the first one to fall off should be your Research category. Admitted, it is a good idea, but it is added after the rest of my model was made. So if it would disappear, it wouldn't cause harm to the rest of my model.
That makes 5/6.

Now, you say 8 to ten types of government.
???????? Learn counting, Harel.
At any time in the game there can only be :

5 government choices
5 economy choices
5 value choices
4 structure choices
5 research choices
6 religion choices
(5 state religion choices)
(3 army choices)

And before you say, still more then four, keep this in mind. There are 4 more SE factors. In SMAC there were 10 factors, now 14 or even 15 with your Military Industry.
So there are 40% more factors. Likewise I may have 40% more categories and choices.
4x4 = 16, so 5.6x5.6 = 31.36.
I may have 31 SE choices.
So if you don't take the categories Army and State Religion into account, I have 30 SE choices.
I am within the limit.

Small Civ

I have given the City State Structure choice 'no pos or neg'.

Military Industry

First let me quote Snowfire :

quote:

---

As for the Mil stat, perhaps there should be an asterisk next to power saying that centralization penalties don't apply to military units while using the Power SE? But see, that would probably make Power too good. What's more likely the reason China, etc. have huge armies is because that's what they're building, not structures for their people (the equivalent of buildings in CivII/SMAC). So I'm in favor of no asterisk and no Mil stat. I'm sure Bell can stick your ideas in the summary, though.

---

"The fact is could be used to cheat is not a consideration: what about the "morale" cheat? Switch to good army and power, get a +4 morale for X turns, win all the wars and then proceed to better option. So what now? Also scrap morale?"

Stupid comparison, I hope you realize that yourself. Winning all the wars takes a lot longer than one turn as with the Industry cheat.
Besides creating a good morale army in three years (the time necessary for a SE switch) is much more realistic than building a good industry.

"They still need to BUILD them. China has a poor industry but still huge armies. Why?"

Because their army consists mostly out of simple riflemen. That's why.

Environment

Hopefully there will be a disease model that makes Environment more powerful.

"Since it's not important now, I suggest that you transfer the food bonus from center to enviroment."

Food bonuses have nothing to do with Environment ! In fact, they are opposite. Biological farming may be good for the environment, but it certainly won't increase the food production. It will decrease it. No pesticides, so possible failed harvests. No genetically manipulated food, so less production...

SE switching

Please explain this sentence something better.
"The basic time is the square root of then number of cities, rounded up."
What do you mean with the square root?
But what I get is that the more cities, the more turns it takes.
16 cities 4 turns? How long will 60 cities then take, 12 turns?
Because you are perfectionist, you forget to take large civs into account.

About that fixed minus, sounds OK, but there is already a good way of SE switching problems.

The Model
==========

Introduction

Special bonuses

Stupid, cause some of them are represented by a SE factor. Sometimes you even give twice the same bonus cause the factor that is improved by your special bonuses, is also improved by your choices themself. eg :

Double votes in UN council : Diplomacy
Twice as hard for an enemy to bribe your cities : Nationalism
Twice more effective in reducing unrest : +3 Police
All units start as veteran : +3 Mor
One extra happy citizen per city : Happiness
One less proletarian in every city : Happiness

Three levels

You claim them to primitive, old to modern, fututistic.
First, what time frame do you mean with old to modern and with futuristic?

Police State futuristic?
Mercantilism futuristic?
Feudalism primitive?
Socialism primitive?

Balance

Before talking about each category individually, look at this. You see the maximum and minimum rate of each factor in the SMAC, my and your model.

SMAC

Economy : +5, -0
Efficiency : +7, -4
Support : +4, -5
Morale : +5, -4
Police : +4, -8
Growth : +6, -2
Planet : +4, -3
Probe : +4, -2
Industry : +4, -2
Research : +4, -2

Mine

Police : +4, -10
Support : +17, -6
Centralization : +6, -5
Corruption : +7, -2
Urbanization : +4, -3
Culture : +4, -2
Nationalism : +6, -3
Morale : +4, -5
Research : +5, -3
Economy : +6, -2
Environment : +4, -3
Happiness : +8, -9
Diplomacy : +2, -3
Taxes : +4, -2

Yours

Police : +5, -4
Support : +7, -7
Centralization : +5, -4
Corruption : +2, -2
Urbanization : +4, -6
Culture : +4, -4
Nationalism : +4, -2
Morale : +8, -7
Research : +6, -4
Economy : +8, -4
Environment : +4, -2
Happiness : +11, -9
Diplomacy : +2, -5
Taxes : +7, -6
Military Industry : +7, -3

Analysis

My model is very balanced and quite similar as the SMAC balance.
The important factors like Efficiency/Corruption and Economy have significantly more pluses than minuses. The police factor has more -'s than +'s. Most other factors have almost the same amount +'s as -'s, but in general a bit more + than -. All the same as the SMAC balance.
The only problems I see no with my model is Support and Diplomacy.

The high numbers are because the Support factor is totally different than the SMAC one. That's not the problem. But with a Support rate of ten most units are free of support.
This is because my original idea was to let your gov choice eliminate certain other SE choices, eg Totalitarianism and Feudalism don't match together (Feudalism decentralized, Totalitarianism centralized).
Then high Support rates could be avoided. But cause everyone was against that, the idea was not accepted. So that is not my fault.

Diplomacy has too little rates. Cause I had to change Religious Freedom +1 Dipl to +1 Res, there were to little +'s.

But now your 'balance'.

Police has too little negatives and too much positives.
Corruption has MUCH too little rates.
Urbanization has too much negatives. Pop growth would be too slow and pop limits too low.
Morale has too much rates.
Economy has too many +'s and -'s.
Happiness a little too much + and -.
Diplomacy too many -.
Taxes too many + and -.
Military Industry too many + compared to the small amount -.
So 9/14 sucks.
Conclusion : Your model sucks.
But I'm not done yet.

Government

Introduction

"Maniac, you did a mistake. Not monarchy should give the +0/-0 bonus. That bonus is only for the starting goverement, the basical one."

Obviously you don't understand my model at all.
As you should know, in the beginning of Civ2 you are stuck with Despotism, a very bad government. It is the intention that you get a better gov as fast as possible.

I tried to simulate that by letting the first SE choices not be 'no pos or neg' as in SMAC, but let them be very negative choices.
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
To simulate increased 'martial law' and much corruption.
Barter/Animism : -2 Tax/-2 Res
To simulate that you can set your taxes and science only at 50%.
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
To simulate free units up to city size and to simulate that any resource of 3 and more gets -1.
This how I simulated Civ2 Despotism.

So your goal in the beginning of the game is to get the 'no pos or neg''s as fast as possible, as it was your goal in Civ2 to get to Monarchy as fast as possible.

Want to say something first about your effects so I don't have to say it again later.
In most cases you seem to give a SE choice as much bonuses as penalties.
No! It is obvious that you haven't got SMAC. In SMAC most choices have 2 bonuses and 1 penalty. Cause if you would give it as much penalties as bonuses, what is the benefit of changing govs? Then you would better stick with 'no pos or neg'.
No! Every choice should always have bigger bonuses than penalties.
My suggestion is that you play SMAC for six months and then perhaps you could say something decent about SE.
Now you are a blind one in a country where everybody sees, you could express it.

Control Govs

Anarchy is never available as a SE choice.
The evolution of Despotism is Totalitarianism.

Free-will Govs

I have explained several times why Republic isn't the same as Democracy. Besides the difference (+2 Centr) between them is too big.

Monarch Govs

Dynasty????

Absolute Power Govs

Please explain difference with Control Govs.

Economy

Controlled

I begin to wonder if you know anything about (European) history.
Come on, linking Feudalism to Protectionism shows limited understanding of what Feudalism is. Ever heart of feudal lords and vazals?
BTW, with Feudalism I mean actually Manorialism, very decentralized.

Planned must be Communist.

Social

"And Maniac, I agree the socialism is also a value, but a free-market is left without goverment control: in a social market I mean that the goverement uses big subsidies and large funding, to improve the the living conditions of the lower classes."

I lived (recently changed by elections) in a Socialist Free Market and yes the government uses big subsidies to improve the living conditions of the lower classes.

Please explain why Communism is not under Controlled.

Free

"BTW, since the eco bonus is much lower then it was in SMAC, no need to balance it out with such a huge -support ratio,"

?????????????????

And why do you give it Centralization penalties?
You say yourself the power is centered. You even gave the penalty to Transnational and since you also read the book, you have to know that under Transnational the power is VERY centralized.

Army

The readiness system is a very good idea and I stick to it.
If it wasn't for their stupid diplomacy, combat system, unconventional combat, future, victory conditions, government choices I would have bought the game.
All the other new ideas (Public Works, Military Readiness) in CTP are very good.

Just hypothetical, I would always choose small army. This is category is even more balanced than the previous one.

"However, a small army drains much less for the economy."

Indeed they do, that's why I wouldn't give it a economy penalty, but that doesn't mean it must have an economy bonus. The economy won't do better just cause you have a small army.

Same with happiness. It wouldn't get a hap penalty, but therefore it doesn't need a Hap bonus.

Isn't +4 Mor a bit overexaggerated?
Besides I don't see Cyborgs in the next 100 years, even not partial cyborgs.
I included the option cause I wanted Civ3 to go to 2200.

Religion

"However, since I have a hard time visioning a nation which ENFORCE atheism,"

On which planet did you live the last USSR decades?

Fundamentalism -3 Hap? I don't think that Muslims are unhappy cause they have a strong belief in the Islam. In theory it would get a Hap bonus.

Value

"First off, I scrapped enviromentalism. You can simple used naturalistic on research."

Shows again your limited understanding of SE.
In SMAC each factor had at least two choices that gave you a bonus.
Knowledge and Cybernetic for Research.
Green and Cybernetic for Planet.
Police State and Thought Control for Police.
Fundamentalist and Thought Control for Probe.
Police State and Power for Support.
Power and Thought Control for Morale.

I tried to continue that tradition and it worked except with Diplomacy.

So that remark of you gives me the feeling that you find one bonus enough. Completely wrong.

"However, since you can pick philosphical in research ( res bonus ), you have no need to knowladge value."

Same remark as with Environmentalism.

BTW your Happiness Value is very alike as what I would give to a Socialism Value.
+2 Hap, +1 Urb, -2 Tax.

Why give Wealth a Centr penalty?
Under Wealth the power is in the hands of an elite = +Centr.

Research

In your Research category with BTW as usual totally unbalanced choices you are assuming that there will be 3 kinds of technologies.
1) Biology
2) Mathematics and Social
3) Military

I played on safe and gave my 4 tech kinds the names of Civ2.
Military, Academic, Economic and Social. So my adaption of your Research category is much better.

Conclusion :

Your model is totally useless and unbalanced.

"I find your current model ( mainly market and goverment, and I still have the CtP readiness idea ) very chaostic, un-balanced and with no real attitude of stratigical depth."

So before you try to write this again, remember the numbers I gave you in this post that show my model is very balanced. Next time you or anyonewrite my model is unbalanced, I will laugh at you.

I could begin discussing every effect you gave to your SE choices, but this crap simply isn't worth wasting my time.

The only things I learned from this post :

1) I gave City State 'no pos or neg' and made it the evolution of Tribal.
2) I deleted Space Exploitation.
3) Thinking about making a Socialism Value, but of course you would be against that cause you want only 4 choices.

posted August 09, 1999 18:28                

Dinoman2 : HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jon Miller :
Isn't it curious that you have comment on my Communism, but not on Harel's SE choices with -2 Eco?

You loosers, don't you get how unbalanced that model is?

Bell : As Harel requested, I have an almost complete and perfect model. Just smooth Support and find a bonus for that nasty Confederate and Evangelism.
BTW, I hope you don't think everyone accepts Harel's model cause some mutation between human and dinosaur agrees with him.

posted August 09, 1999 18:53                

Jon Miller :

"M@ni@c, my point about Harels Army and research system and your research system is that it is double counting, not only do you get a bonuses for valueing knowledge, you also get a bonus if your research values knowledge, see what I mean?"

The reason for that is mentioned somewhere in the large post.

"Bell I expect you to post all the ideas here (even my who/method idea that M@ni@c seems to dislike and M@ni@cs original religion idea) just also put the problems of those ideas (as we have posted)"

Why should Bell have to post my original religion idea if I don't stand behind it anymore?
And it's you that think there are problems, but there aren't any.

I refuse to say anything on that Communist remark cause I already gave an answer.

"I do not want to be forced into being millitaristic just because I have communism (And it does not even help you military a whole lot, you could have good military and have ok econ with other choices)"

Jeeze, then don't choose Communism.
(for the moment I am laughing at Jon Miller)

"your structure is faulty in that it has selections which would not make since for veteran players ever to use"

posted August 09, 1999 20:28                

Just because you have your own ideas does not nullify everyone else's. And as I said, had you read my earlier posts you would have seen these. I'm just clarifying those ideas. I have ideas for almost each thread so it's taking a while to clarify them all.

posted August 10, 1999 07:32                

Thanks for the comments M@ni@c

My computer broke down over a month ago and it is getting repaired and my posting time is limited (I consider reading all the threads more important than researching one post)

however, the person who owns this computer (that I am using right now) is asleep and (since it is early morning and works been long today) if I don't get to tired I will give you what you want

despotism is an older tech while communism is newer so I will not included it in my analysis (I am using as most recent 8/8 18:11) also I am not including older animism

this will be a long post

Totalitarrianism-Communism-Survival-City Sate-Wiseman-Animism: +4 sup, +2 pol, -2 hap, -2 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, +3 centr

This is: (by the way, I don't get is - sup good or bad? I'll assume bad) 4 less resources support, 10 minerals for founding city, 3 units can act as police, each making one proletarian content, one extra proletarain every 8 citizens (am I understanding this right?), -2 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

Lowdown: good support, good police, bad happiness, bad corruption, bad commerce, good morale, good production

Analysis: militaristic low tech low money producer, since late in the game others will be able to have good military tech and would be able to trounce any civ that uses this government, will not have money to buy things or keep up lots of building, will not have tech advances and will not have trade to throw into luxuries, it relies on troops for all its needs

Alternative: Republic-Manorialism-Wealth-Commonwealth-Practical-Worshiping: -2 pol, +2 econ, +2 centr, -2 hap, +2 corr, -2 mor, +5 sup, +2 tax, +2 nat, -2 cult, -1 res, +2 diplo, +1 urb

Lowdown: good support, bad police, good economy, good production, good corruption, good taxes, bad happiness

Analysis: large military, all the military units can be used for fighting instead of having to keep 3 in each city, because of the good corruption and economy and taxes a nation with this set up has so much trade (from smac and civ we know that +1 trade per square more than triples how much trade you have) that it can buy the production difference plus make up the happiness minus and be better at tech (practical even further increases military tech) even with the decrease of overal reseach (by only 10%), cult does not matter because if you are taking over a civ what do you care for what religion they are?

communist alternative: totallitarian-communist-wealth-confederate-practical-worshiping: -1 econ, +3 nat, +3 centr, -2 hap, +2 pol, -2 corr, +6 sup, -1 res, +2 urb, -2 cult, +?

lowdown: bad corruption, good police, good morale, good support, bad hapiness, good growth, good production

final comparation: the alternative is still better than any totalitarrian-communism setting, it still has a higher tech army, more money, happier citizens, and only slightly less growth (not enough so that it matters), the communists better morale would not make a difference because the alternative could by more higher tech troops and moral does not make as much difference as tech or ammount (actually because units moral can be increase via buildings, which the alternative could have more of too because of having more money, the difference between the twos troops would not be very much because the communists units would quickly reach the ceiling of moral)

if you have any better communist alternatives please post them and I will respond

Anarchy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: -5 corr, -2 econ, -1 nat, -4 hap, +3 centr

This is: one extra proletarian every four citizens, -5 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, -1 Morale, -25% enemy cost, +25% your cost, slightly lower succes rate, -12% conviction, + 30% food and resources production, 1 in 4 citizens is mad

since anarchy is a wholely negative government I will not continue with it

Monarchy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, -1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat

This is: - 1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

I am no longer going to do This is, just the lowdown (some are stopped midway)

lowdown: good production, bad economy, good moral

analysis: many of the same benifits of the totalitarrian-communist system except this has slightly better corruption, does not have to build all the units to keep its people content and the army is a lot smaller: good producer, small well trained army, bad money/luxuries/research

alternative: republic-currency-wealth-commonwealth-explorer-worshiping: +3 centr, +2 econ, +2 diplo, -3 hap, -2 pol, +2 cor, -2 mor, -2 cult, +2 urb, +2 nat, +2 res

lowdown: good economy, good production, bad hapiness, bad police, good corruption, good growth, good research

Analysis: once more the troops aren't as well trained (but not by much) but are far better teched and the happiness probels can be taken care of by the strong use of luxuries

communist alternative: monarchy-communist-wealth-city state-explorer-religious freedom: +4 centre, -1 econ, -1 corr, -1 hap, +3 res, -1 cult

lowdown: good production, good research

final analysis: this is a very close one but the alternative still wins with more money and more growth (and still more research too)

Theocracy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, -1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, +2 hap, +2 tax, -2 res

This is: one extra aristocrat every 8 citizens, -1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

lowdown: good production, good moral, bad economy, good happiness, average taxes, really bad research

analysis: good production and well trained troops and nice happiness and ok taxes, except for research which is at a crawl this is a good set up, but of course tech is the name of the game, maybe tries to use nat bonus to steal tech

alternative:

Republic-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +5 centr, +1 corr, -2 econ, +2 nat, -2 mor

This is: +1 corr (?), -.2 trade/square, -2 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 50% food and resources production

Democracy-Communism-Survival-City State-Wiseman-Animism: +3 centr, +1 corr, -1 econ, +2 nat, +2 hap, -2 sup, -2 mor

This is: 2 more resources support needed per unit, one extra aristocrat every 8 citizens, +1 corr (?), -1 trade in capitol, -1 commerce, Lower emigration, +2 morale, +50% enemy cost, -25% your cost, higher success rate, +25% conviction, + 30% food and resources production

I also think anarchy should have a happiness bonus

I am surprised you don't have any corruption disadvantages in the religion area

by the way, your morale doesn't have a -5 but it is possible, also I don't really understand what you mean by "positive combat modifiers halved"?

I really dilikes that to have a plus in police you have to have a corresponding minus in happiness

for everything: if you have any better communist alternative please respond

I'm taking a break (its 5 am where I am at), I should be back and finish it, basically, the fact that a SE choice can always get similar to one with communism in it btut have a plus 2 econ makes it so that communism is never viable (especially if you can choose protectionism instead, I would choose it instead every time)

In fact I would rather use your protectionism then your communism (there would be many more ways to make better systems than any communist system if I used protectionism)

also many of your modifiers are unbalanced, like + in nat are better than those for mor and +/- cult means hardly anything, as does a -2 in pol

posted August 10, 1999 10:07                

- is always bad.
+ is always good.

Happiness : no, you aren't understanding it right.
Happiness would be just as in SMAC efficiency that your happiness rate determines how much cities you can have before additional unhappy citizens appear.
The +4 and -4 Hap bonus and penalty of one additional happy/unhappy citizen per 4 citizens is just as in SMAC the Peacekeepers/University.
So if you have +3 Hap, you don't get additional Happy citizens.

Anarchy is never available on the SE screen.
I just included it so that we could determine which effects Anarchy should get.
You can only be in Anarchy while switching your government.

"from smac and civ we know that +1 trade per square more than triples how much trade you have"

??????

Positive combat modifiers halved is just as SMAC Morale. I thought you had SMAC.
From my Morgan games I played with Green-Wealth I think it's this.

Rocky = +50% defense -> pos combat modifiers halved = +25%
Elite Morale = 50% -> 25%
Negative penalties are not affected, so Green -12% stays -12%.

Simply all positive bonuses halved. I don't know how to explain it else.

Why do you compare Morale with Nationalism?
If you think the factors affect both unit Morale you're wrong.

Nationalism affects probe team/diplomat/spy morale.
Morale affects all other unit's morale.
Just as in SMAC...

Is -5 Mor the minimum and is -5 Mor not mentioned in my Morale post?
I can't keep track of everything, you know. Before Harel's Research section was added, the minimum was indeed -4 Mor, as in my Morale post.
It's because Research-Humaniterian and other things was added that some minima don't fit anymore.
Don't forget that my model is changed a lot compared to the original one.

So basically you are against that -2 Eco for Communism?

But it still surprises me that you nitpick about my model and don't seem to see the faults in Harel's one. He has more things decreasing Economy. And in his model it is even easier to get +2 Eco, but still you are in favor of his model.

+/- Culture means anything? Perhaps. Then it's our job on the Religion thread to make Religion and Culture worth our while.

-2 Pol ? Do you mean that -2 Pol in general means anything or do you mean the penalty for Commonwealth is too less?

posted August 10, 1999 15:38                

1. centralization: this seems to be quite similar to corruption. I would combine the effects into one factor called "corruption," like it was in Civ1/2.

2. nationalism and urbanization seem to track similar types of behavior. Indeed, urban civilizations in history seem also to have attracted high levels of immigration. Therefore, I would propose striking nationalism. If you would like to separate civ-to-civ migration and urban growth potential, I would suggest that immigration levels be determined by the available food surplus and the comparative levels of happiness of two civs. I think this is realistic -- after all, it's really the potential for improvement that fosters immigration, not government/societal policies. (After all, all the immigrant-friendly policies in the world couldn't have made the old USSR a bid immigrant destination.) I think this would have the added effect of giving happiness a greater role in the game. As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days.

3. morale and diplomacy seem to reflect mostly the civ's reputation. Again, that seems to me to be better handled by the computer in the form of how other civs view your actions toward them. I'd strike both categories.

4. I might also combine police and support, which often seem to go hand-in-hand.

I also think there are too many SE options. I'd knock out "army" and replace it with a computer-generated adjustment to overall happiness that depended on the ratio of armed forces to total population. I'd also replace the different religion choices with the following:

tolerance: +2 res, +1 urb, +1 pol, -2 cul
established church: +2 cul, +1 sup, +1 hap, -2 cor
caesaropapism: +3 cul, +2 sup, -2 cor, -1 hap

posted August 10, 1999 17:39                

Centralization and Corruption the same? What makes you think that?

Nationalism and Nationalism similar? Now I really don't understand it.

Urbanization doesn't affect migration at all and Nationalism can only prevent emigration.

"As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days."

Yea I know. That's why happiness should affect im/emigration.
That's also why I suggested that happy citizens should produce 50% more food/labor/resources/trade.

No, certainly not. Morale determines primarily your unit morale.

Yes, sometimes they go hand in hand. But not always. Besides wouldn't a combined Police-Support factor be too powerful?

I would also knock out Army.

That 3 religious choices only cover a small part of what religion actually is.

I find the religion ideas of the threadmen over there also quite intriguing (of course, I'm one of them).

Besides Caesaropapism is as far as I know a term used for the Byzantines. Doesn't really covers much.

Jon Miller :

posted August 10, 1999 17:56                

Small Civ

I am glad you accepted my opinion. What about the size of the bonus for small civ?

Military Industry

quote:

---

Stupid comparison, I hope you realize that yourself. Winning all the wars takes a lot longer than one turn as with the Industry cheat.
Besides creating a good morale army in three years (the time necessary for a SE switch) is much more realistic than building a good industry.

---

Same thing when you create an army. Changing the army SE only to get a few units faster is still a small foot-note in the way to get a really big army. And btw, centering all your units into one big strike, then switching to get +3 morale is a big cheat also. And if you think you can turn around an army in 3 years, then I suggest you come here and I'll inlist you as a cadet of mine: cause you sure need some army background.

Enviroment

quote:

---

Food bonuses have nothing to do with Environment ! In fact, they are opposite. Biological farming may be good for the environment, but it certainly won't increase the food production. It will decrease it. No pesticides, so possible failed harvests. No genetically manipulated food, so less production...

---

SE switching

quote:

---

Please explain this sentence something better.
"The basic time is the square root of then number of cities, rounded up."
What do you mean with the square root?
But what I get is that the more cities, the more turns it takes.
16 cities 4 turns? How long will 60 cities then take, 12 turns?
Because you are perfectionist, you forget to take large civs into account.

---

quote:

---

Stupid, cause some of them are represented by a SE factor. Sometimes you even give twice the same bonus cause the factor that is improved by your special bonuses, is also improved by your choices themself.

---

Ok, I am hooked. Take the special bonuses out.

Three levels

I can trust you to be so tidious. Ok, so it's not an harmonic cataogrizing. It's just three levels, when most of them represent past, present and future.

Balance

It's very hard to understand your model for outsiders Maniac: just how should I know how much +2 eco is balanced by -support? -2? -4? Maybe if you could have a chart of some sort.

quote:

---

Conclusion : Your model sucks.

---

quote:

---

But I'm not done yet.

---

Government

No, it's more clear that you don't understand my model at all. You start at anarchy, not Despotism ( just look ) and it gives you a minus. I used the concept of "evolving SE", meaning that Anarchy turns into something that gives you +0/-0 ( like you said, take the simple options from SMAC and give them minus ). I can't see how Monarchy is an evoultion of Anarchy. Beside, I still don't understand how you can give Monarchy "no pos, no neg". Can you explain that reasoning?

quote:

---

No! It is obvious that you haven't got SMAC. In SMAC most choices have 2 bonuses and 1 penalty. Cause if you would give it as much penalties as bonuses, what is the benefit of changing govs? Then you would better stick with 'no pos or neg'.

---

Control Govs

quote:

---

Anarchy is never available as a SE choice.
The evolution of Despotism is Totalitarianism.

---

Free-will Govs

quote:

---

I have explained several times why Republic isn't the same as Democracy. Besides the difference (+2 Centr) between them is too big.

---

Monarch Govs

Dynasty????

Try to read my comments Maniac. I noted that a logical step for a futursitic monrachial goverment which lines up an eternal line of kings/queens to rule over the people will use genetic engineering and cloning to establish perfect kings.

Controlled

quote:

---

I begin to wonder if you know anything about (European) history.
Come on, linking Feudalism to Protectionism shows limited understanding of what Feudalism is. Ever heart of feudal lords and vazals?

---

quote:

---

Planned must be Communist.

---

Social

quote:

---

I lived (recently changed by elections) in a Socialist Free Market and yes the government uses big subsidies to improve the living conditions of the lower classes.

---

Free

quote:

---

And why do you give it Centralization penalties?
You say yourself the power is centered. You even gave the penalty to Transnational and since you also read the book, you have to know that under Transnational the power is VERY centralized.

---

Army

I still abhor the CtP readiness option. It's really doesn't reflect Just hypothetical, I would always choose small army. This is category is even more balanced than the previous one.

quote:

---

Indeed they do, that's why I wouldn't give it a economy penalty, but that doesn't mean it must have an economy bonus. The economy won't do better just cause you have a small army.

---

quote:

---

Same with happiness. It wouldn't get a hap penalty, but therefore it doesn't need a Hap bonus.

---

quote:

---

Isn't +4 Mor a bit overexaggerated?
Besides I don't see Cyborgs in the next 100 years, even not partial cyborgs.
I included the option cause I wanted Civ3 to go to 2200.

---

Religion

quote:

---

On which planet did you live the last USSR decades?

---

quote:

---

Fundamentalism -3 Hap? I don't think that Muslims are unhappy cause they have a strong belief in the Islam. In theory it would get a Hap bonus.

---

State religon

About State religon: if it doesn't have any SE effect, it should go. I don't care if that's your way to enter our beloved Athiesm from the back-door. If it's just name-picking, it's not SE. It's like you pick names for cities: surely you don't go to the city thread and suggest city titles as an idea, do you? Because it is the same thing. No meaning? Just name? Take it out, or to somewhere else. It's not a SE.

Value

quote:

---

Shows again your limited understanding of SE.
In SMAC each factor had at least two choices that gave you a bonus.
Knowledge and Cybernetic for Research.
Green and Cybernetic for Planet.
Police State and Thought Control for Police.
Fundamentalist and Thought Control for Probe.
Police State and Power for Support.
Power and Thought Control for Morale.

---

quote:

---

BTW your Happiness Value is very alike as what I would give to a Socialism Value.
+2 Hap, +1 Urb, -2 Tax.

---

quote:

---

Why give Wealth a Centr penalty?
Under Wealth the power is in the hands of an elite = +Centr.

---

Research

I agree to your comments, more research options. Let's try:

* Wise man: no pos, no neg.
* Naturalistic: +2 Env, +2 Cult, -2 center
* Philosphical: +2 Hap, +2 Dipl, -2 Urb
* Academical: +2 Res, +2 Eco, -2 Nat
* Pratical: +2 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Res

My Conclusion

First off, the number of SE section is meangless. We can have some sort of scroll screen or split screens: the more sections the merrier. I only want to limit the number of SE options per section.

Your post proved to me that your model is even more un-balanced then I thought. Oh, it got good reasoning beyond it, I give you that. You spend lot of time and thought about it. I admire your efforts.

But, the section where you started to compare the SE max/min against SMAC proved to me you don't understand the most fundemnatical thing about the SE option which SMAC had.

You said you played SMAC a lot, used it as a starting point for your model. Is that true?

SMAC options might have been limited, but they all were different then one other. democracy was another, opposite side to Police state in SMAC. Every SE selection was off stratigical depth.

Your model, and I will say it a thousand time till it will register into your mind, your model has NO STRATIGICAL DEPTH.

Balancing the SE is more then balancing the numbers! Democracy differ from Republic by +2 center. YES, it's a big difference. But is it really big enough to justify to have two options? They are almost the same thing, offering the same stratigical idea.

When you think SE maniac, you need to think about StarCraft. You really should. 3 sides, all different, not one thing similar, but compeltly balanced in every way. That's how the SE section should be. Maybe we should have more then 3: four or five options. But every option should be different. Is Mercantlism that different from free market in your system? Is Evanglism that different from Fundemntalism? Is republic that different from Democracy?

In some points here I am wrong: maybe some of those SE are indeed distinct enough.
But say what you like about my model, it HAS stratigical depth. Every side is a different strategy then the other. Ok, maybe the numbers need changing to obtain more balance: that's fine details. First, we need to create a gem-stone that every side is opposite to the other one, but all still sides of the same thing.

posted August 10, 1999 18:04                

I have a question about your new SE choices: have you defined what they do elsewhere? If you have, could you point to where? I'd like to see them.

will: Centralization & corruption, as I see them, are different in that centralization modifies corruption(efficiency) as one of it's tasks. Other tasks would be to modify happiness, and possibly other things outside of SE, such as:
1)player's level of control of cities
2)supply efficiency, and the ability to move supplies/money/production between cities (this has historical precident)
3)The ability to modify tax/lux/science on a city by city case instead of on a nationwide level only
4)A pre-requisite to other SEs, i.e. the combination of monarchy+decentralized=feudalism, which gives you it's own bonuses/penalties

I can see combining MORALE(EXPERIENCE) & ARMY, since they are the same. However, I'd severely limit the ability to add much of a bonus/penalty to it.

If DIPLOMACY modifies how receptive the AI is to your diplomatic actions, I'd keep it separate.

"As far as I can see, in Civ2, there's really no point in having any level of happiness between the level necessary to prevent revolts and the level that would generate "We love the ..." days."

Maniac's response:"That's why happiness should affect im/emigration. That's also why I suggested that happy citizens should produce 50% more food/labor/resources/trade."

posted August 10, 1999 18:31                

no M@ni@c, I don't find Harels system perfect, I just have not gotten to really critiqueing his yet

so a plus 2 or minus 2 (or 3 or 1) hap means nothing? then why was I worried about it, you just gave a free negative so that I can use -2 hap se structures with no cost (I will revise my alternatives and communist-alternatives if you wish)

you have not addressed my point about protectionism being far better than communism (the -2 econ makes it so it can never have a lot of trade (which comes at +2 econ)

thanks for pointing out the difference between morale in mor and morale in nat (I thought nat was a super modifier)

I do have smac (isn't multiplayer on that awesome?), now that you mention it I do remember

so nat is like smac probe

I am not saying that smacs system (police state planned) is any better than your system (it is not), I just don't want any more problems like that (which will just grow with have more selections you can make)

also I would like to point out that you weakend some modifiers by splitting there effects into 2 while feeping others at the same great strength (ie econ)

remember I want research section out, but I am using it in my critique since you have it in your system

I like how you did pol in freemarket, banking, and transnational - making sure that they had real negatives

what I mean by -2 pol is that it is not to different from 0 pol (I admit that when you get to -3 pol pol starts gettimg serious and a +3 pol is good) and so is a cheap negative factor, what is wrong with your system (and unbalanced, probably true with Harels as well) is that you can get good bonuses at the cost of cheep negatives

like the econ places that matter are -1, 2, 5

I think that to determine your modifiers in a ballanced way you need to say what every group of se choices is and make sure that real bonuses are paid for by real penalties

your way could be good if you had it ballanced (not the best, I think my way and possibly Thebens is better, Harels I consider similar to yours)

for now I will not continue revising the other thread unless someone asks me to (shudder), instead I will just look at every selection (if I have time I will go back to my previous work of doing every single combination (shudder, that was my plan)

Despotism: (first government, not meant as a good one) - from smac and civ we all know the importance of having a low ammount of corruption is key to having a good large nation but since there is no numbers it is hard to find where it is unballanced, the difference between 1 unit and three acting as police is significant but not as significant as the corruption loss a big civ would have; useful only for small/early civs; conclusion: not particularly unballanced

Totalitarrianism: worse corruption (probably not good for a big civ then) good support (large army) and ok police stuck with a happiness negative that just limits it from having to more happiness minuses; useful for medium or small war like cives; conclusion: not particularly unballanced

Monarchy: balanced of course, useful only for civs until something better comes along

Theocracy: the happy bonus does not really matter (unless it is added to other like environmentalism or religious freedom) and the plus 2 tax with minus 2 research is overall bad because reseach is better than money (money is better gotten other ways); not really useful, taxes are not needed very much in the beginning (research or growth is) and it has no real bonuses since the neg in research out does the positive in taxes; unballanced, I would recommend adding more bonuses to it (like in nat, cult, ?), its bonuses are not comparrable to those of totalittarian, republic, or democracy

republic: production and corruption bonuses make this good with only a slight negative in the abillity to make war (everybody who has played civ knows that the senate is only a minnor hassle); useful for growth civs of all types/sizes and all civs in general even warlike ones; unballanced, is too good (at least compared to other se choices) and most likely the clear choice for government (with democary sometimes edging out in certain situations because of its econ bonus)

democracy: corruption bonuses and econ bonus are its only real bonuses (and the econ bonus is only useful in getting to -1, 2, or 5 econ) since +2 hap means nothing and it has basically the same negative as republic (adding or subtracting small amounts of support mean nothing); useful in the same ways that republic was useful (every way) but only is better in certain situations since in many situations the +2 centr is better than +1 econ; this is more ballanced then republic but still is unballanced

I think that republic and democracy could be fixed by adding some sort of penalty to both and decreasing republics corruption bonus to at least 0

you have to have good corruption in order to run a large civ meaning that (because a large civ has always been the best strategy in the past) any civ choice that makes more corruption will not be good in the later portion of the game

(I would choose green in smac just for the effiency bonus)

barter: of course is bad

currency: ballanced same as monarchy, use same as monarchy

manorialism: decrease in production and growth, increase in support and taxes, the better support is ofset by the bad production and growth and plus in taxes does not matter to much in regards to the other choices; semi useful for millitary civs, only worthwhile for them until a setting comes that has more bonuses then negatives (protectionalism is a far better choince for these types of civs), the decrease in production and growth will means that it will not be good for expanding civs and they are almost always the ones fighting; unballanced, will never really be chosen, doesn't really have a bonus

mercantilism: plus in economy means that it would work well with democracy or wealth or commonwealth to get to +2 econ, good growth is also a bonus to peaceful and expanding civs and the negative morale does not mean much; useful for a militaristic civ (totalitarrian government) that will take commonwealth or wealth for value system or for a peaceful civ with a democratic government (but banking/freemarket/transnational would be better in this cawse); not particularly unballanced

protectionism: good production taxes are a non factor diplomacy is not real serious and there is some corruption; useful for expansionistic/militaristic civs of small to maybe medium size; not particularly unballanced

communism: good production good nationalism bad economy and some corruption the bad economy singles this choice out as the only choice that cannot get the cheap wealth and commonwealth choices to get an easy +2 econ and the extreme benifits it has: not useful since nationalism can be found elsewhere cheaply and the production is not that much better than pritectionalism and the -2 econ is ruining as already mentioned; unballanced

I got to go now, I will try to work on this post more, basically in M@ni@cs system it is just to easy to get +2 econ and there are many choices that have no real benefit and there aare many choices with no real negative

in order to get +4 pol one would have to get -4 hap meaning that the extra good police would spend there time fixing extra unhappiness, of course this is all good in that it makes it hard to get transnational down to decent police settings

me saying that a choice is not unballanced does not mean that it is perfect or that it meshs well with the others, just that it is fine by itself

also diplo, cult, mor(to some extant), tax, hap can all be made to mean little (not give important negatives) while the se choices that have these for negatives have good positives

posted August 10, 1999 18:49                

Harel, the USSR said they were atheistic

they tought there people to be atheists and were no tolerance to religion

just like the spanish inquisition

posted August 10, 1999 19:27                

Maniac: For the most part, I agree with your model, but you'll gain no friends with a post like that.

Harel: Let's face it, some of your ideas are silly. If anything, Dynasty should be a primitive Monarchy (like China before the Han) and Monarchy should be a sophisitcated system of royalty and succession (like England and most of Europe from 1400-1800). But no intelligent person in this age is going to accept someone as a ruler because he was the old ruler's son.

posted August 10, 1999 22:05                

"It is possible to attempt to combine ideas rather than fight over whose is best. Ember & I have done this with our combat system ideas."

Our effects we gave to our SE choices are so different that I don't see any similarities.

"I have a question about your new SE choices: have you defined what they do elsewhere? If you have, could you point to where? I'd like to see them."

You're lucky. I have just this night posted some kind of a summary of my religion ideas on the Religion thread.

"Ah. I forgot to explain that in my system there would be no "happy" or "unhappy" citizens, just citizens. The HAPPINESS indicator (one set for the national level, and another in each city) would tell you how happy the city is overall, and the production bonus/penalty would be affected by that. It also affects growth, and immigration/emmigration would be assumed in the growth."

A happiness indicator? Good idea. Much easier than that stupid predetermined happy/content/unhappy/very unhappy citizens!

That production bonus/penalty would be easily done by the x10 system, also growth.

It would also be easier to determine when a city goes into riot or into revolt (then it forms a seperate civ). Just have a fix number.

It would also be easier to present the different religions with each 2 (m/f) independent icons.

If Firaxis had to create different icons for each religions, different icons for each happiness state + all it's combinations, you would get a _lot_ of icons.
Your idea would make it simpler.

Now to...
HAREL :

Small Civs :

I'm not gonna argue about that. The same for me. Do what you like.
Only concerned about this.
Suppose you choose a tiny map with 70 to 90% oceans. Then every civ should have the bonuses cause no one has many cities and then the jump from 5 to 6 cities(wasn't that when you didn't receive any bonuses?) would be too much.

Military Industry :

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Mil Ind itself. I'm only concerned about that cheat.

Well OK, let's use Mil Ind again.
In my model I would give it to Power, Practical (would decrease the many Sup bonuses)as bonus and to Humaniterian as penalty. Perhaps also a penalty for a Value. Knowledge? Wealth? Pacifism???
And of course don't forget to give it to the CTP Military Readiness system.

quote:

---

And if you think you can turn around an army in 3 years, then I suggest you come here and I'll inlist you as a cadet of mine: cause you sure need some army background.

---

Er... rather not . Draft has been canceled here in Belgium several years ago, now proffesional army. I don't think my decadent weak body wouldn't survive a year of hard military service.
BTW, I can't stand strong authority and orders.

Fish Sticks

Don't you think that all that polluting western countries have a good understanding of biology?
Sure there's nothing wrong with some genetic engineering, but still those green guys are against it. Not likely they will use it.

I have nothing against the idea itself. It would certainly make Environmentalism better. Plus it would make Centralization a more normal factor. It is quite overpowered with food AND labor bonuses. But I just don't see why Env should increase food.

Square roots

Sorry sorry sorry. Of course I know square roots. I just didn't lay the link between the English word and the Dutch word 'vierkantswortel'. Quite different as you see.
The word square made me think of map tiles.
The word root made me think at a tree.
I was quite confused...

But now about SE switching.
8 turns!!!!!!! Come on. You would loose all your cities by revolts. And I don't see why 8 turns of waiting should be more bearable when you're big.

Special bonuses

Wow. I convinced you.

Three levels

Yea I know I know. I was nitpicking. I really got in an annihilator mood.

Balance

quote:

---

It's very hard to understand your model for outsiders Maniac: just how should I know how much +2 eco is balanced by -support? -2? -4? Maybe if you could have a chart of some sort.

---

How to start that??
First tip. Huge Economy bonuses mostly have penalties that reduce your military capacity, such as Police, Support and Morale.

quote:

---

But I'm not done yet.

---

Did I scare you?

quote:

---

Conclusion : Your model sucks.

Somehow, I still don't understand why.

---

I'll give it another try (probably unsuccessful).

Police too much positive rates. Your max is 5, while the max that my Police post allows, is 3. Then you get choices that give you little positive effects because you already have the max police rate.

Too less negatives. My post allows to -10.
You HAVE TO give +2 Eco's Police penalties.
Even -5 Pol (kind of Civ2 Democracy) isn't used.

Corruption is perhaps your biggest lack. Did you just forget it or what? Perhaps it's because you play perfectionist.
You can't rule even 40 cities with only +2 Corr.
And then you gave it to Socialist (I think) which gives you -2 Eco (I think, I don't have your model before me cause it stands on the 50->100 part of the thread). That really makes large empires unlivable.
When making a model, consider all strategies, not just your (perfectionist) one.

Urbanization that much penalties. Have you something against children? It would slow growth too much.

Morale. The Morale rates and system would have to be expanded a lot to allow such positive and negative rates.

Economy. Again that much positives. I can't make up that much rates. Can you? If so, feel free to do so.

And then -4 Eco! Jon Miller is complaining cause I have ONE Economy negative choice. But you have two. Double problems...

Rest is within allowable borders (although I don't have so high and low rates for some).

Still 6/15 factors suck, when I am a bit more free in complaints.

Government

Monarchy is no evolution of Anarchy and Anarchy is never available as a Government choice (just look). That's why it's between parentheses. I also made a small remark about it in a post to Jon Miller.

The SE choices you automatically have in the beginning of the game are :
Despotism/Barter/Survival/Tribal/Animism/Wise Men/None.

quote:

---

Beside, I still don't understand how you can give Monarchy "no pos, no neg". Can you explain that reasoning?

---

quote:

---

As you should know, in the beginning of Civ2 you are stuck with Despotism, a very bad government. It is the intention that you get a better gov as fast as possible.

I tried to simulate that by letting the first SE choices not be 'no pos or neg' as in SMAC, but let them be very negative choices.
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
To simulate increased 'martial law' and much corruption.
Barter/Animism : -2 Tax/-2 Res
To simulate that you can set your taxes and science only at 50%.
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
To simulate free units up to city size and to simulate that any resource of 3 and more gets -1.
This how I simulated Civ2 Despotism.

So your goal in the beginning of the game is to get the 'no pos or neg''s as fast as possible, as it was your goal in Civ2 to get to Monarchy as fast as possible.

---

So I assumed Despotism as bad and Monarchy the good gov you have to reach, just as in Civ2.

Monarchy is the most used gov system in history. So I assumed that as normal 'no pos or neg'.
If I would have to give it effects, I guess +1 or +2 Pol. I can't really think of anything else. Monarchy is the 'normal' gov and all other govs are extremes in a certain thing.

Should I give Monarchy +1 Pol?

quote:

---

Good for SMAC. Never liked the game that much. Did play it from a long time, thought. We don't need to copy SMAC at all. And it was YOU, remember, that said that some people love to use the "no pos, no neg" options. Therefor, it the other options are not powerful enough, it's a low chance they ever will, right?

---

Indeed I said so. My intention is to make sure I have enough good strategies to make sure they don't want to use 'no pos or neg'.
If someone uses 'no pos or neg' it's because there's something wrong and deficient with that category.

Ha, I just realized I have good reason to include more than 4 options. People need it!

Control Govs

quote:

---

Ding dong! Wrong! You are still not clear between the two destinctions I made: control gov's and absloute power gov's. The difference is not that big.

---

Ha, now you are contradictious.
You say you want four different strategies, but now you say yourself the difference is not big!
So I say again, they are the same. Delete one of the two. Unite them.

Free Will Govs

quote:

---

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy? In republic, the citizenship is in the hands of a selected group, and in a democracy it's in the hands of everyone. Therefor, due to this small power-difference,

---

Do you call the difference between a selected group and the entire population small?????

I thought Ayatollah Khameini was the leader of the Iranese Sji'its.
BTW, it may be my personal view, but I think the religious cult gives some power to the democracy.
I don't think Khameini would allow democracy further if the president tried to rob his power.

I don't call the Vatican a country.

Never heart of the Sahandrin.

My view of theocracy...
Pffff... eh... I think something like the power of the pope after some agreement signed at Worms after having some trouble with the Roman/German emperor. Don't remember much details, only fragments.

Absolute power Monarchy is Monarchy-Protectionism.
Monarchy with power of the nobles is Monarchy-Feudalism.
I reask my question. Do you know anything about European history?

So differences in some govs can be showed by including other choices out of other categories.
But I can't do that to show the difference between Republic-Democracy.

The idea of True Democracy is good, but I don't like the effects you give it.

Monarch Govs

I read your comments, Harel. I just find that future unlikely.

Controlled

quote:

---

It's vassals, btw.

---

In my language it's with 'z'. And if I wrote down all the mistakes you make, I would have the longest post of all forums (now you're pissed).

quote:

---

Hahahahahahah!!!! Oh please. A planned economy uses computers to predict rise of stocks and market shifting and best utalize it to improve industry. Last time I heard, you don't have market shifting and stocks in a communist market.

---

So every country with a stock exchange is a planned economy?

BTW, ever heart of the Russian 5 year plans.
Duh, if that isn't a planned economy...

quote:

---

No comment on Utopia?

---

Again I don't like the effects you give it.

Social

I just think Planned and Socialist should melt together.

quote:

---

But I never liked sliders

---

Could you please repeat that a bit louder to Theben?

Free

quote:

---

And, in the real world and for game balance, you can't give a nation both an economy bonus and an industrial bonus. Either it's very commercial or very industrial, or somewhere in between, but it's CANT be very good at both.

---

So according to you, Japan, Europe and the USA have a bad industry? Economy and Industry go hand in hand.
About that game balance, you may be right...

Army

quote:

---

In here I have to disagree. A contract that it's army takes very small part of it is much more free and happy.

---

Debate-able

quote:

---

I can see limited cyborgs in 25 years, myself. in that i mean people with implanted poly-carbon armor to protect them, and perhaps some enhanced-vision to replace eyes.

---

Wow, are you revealing some Israelian or American secret project?

Religion

quote:

---

You presume that USSR was Athiest. Who sad i was? Atheism is the belief that there is no god. USSR didn't promote it, it just went ahead and charge against ANY religon. There is a BIG difference between religos un-sensativity and Athiest. As an Athiest, you should know the difference.

---

I don't see Atheism as a religion. The word 'religion' has a peiorative sound in my ears.
Atheism is a (the) belief. Now I'm begin to sound as an atheist fundamentalist...

quote:

---

I gave then -3 Hap because fundemnatlist religon is an oppresive one, which ruthlessly imprision the people.

consider fundemntalist as your "prosecution" idea

---

No no no.
Prosecution is when the government forces a certain religion.
In Fundamentalism the people want it themself.
In most Islam countries it's the opposite. Fundamentalists are bugging the Religious Free Govs. In that case the fundamentalists are the prosecutors. eg Egypt, Algery...

State Religion

Have you read the Religion thread?

Well, you're right it isn't real SE. But it's kinda waste of screens and boxes to make a special box where to choose your state religion while you can just put it also on the SE screen.

Value

quote:

---

Once again, that was SMAC. This is CIV III. I see no need to reflect the people tendacy toward enviromtalism with more then one option. Besides, it's logical to presume every nation that select enviromantlism as a value will also select naturalistic. Double choise isn't nessecry: it's redundant.

---

Only one option to improve your Environmentalism or any factor lessens your strategies. And that's what you want right? Strategies.
I get the feeling that I have the model with the most strategies.

Why not simulate SMAC? Firaxis invented SE. So they know what makes a good model. They know which strategies must be included in a model.
And 2 choices to improve a factor is one of them. You can clearly see that when studying the model.

So my model is more likely to be accepted by Firaxis than yours, cause it follows their SE ideas.

Before you think: "Is that the reason why he does it, the 2 bonuses?"
No, I agree with their vision on SE. It's as simple as that. Making Social Engineering Models is an art. And I know the art.(now I'm perhaps a bit overexaggerating with that art stuff)

Socialist value : do we agree on that one?

Research

Another +2 Economy!

Conclusion

quote:

---

Oh, it got good reasoning beyond it, I give you that.

---

Yes indeed, every bit is thought out well. That's why it is almost perfect.

quote:

---

Your post proved to me that your model is even more un-balanced then I thought.

But, the section where you started to compare the SE max/min against SMAC proved to me you don't understand the most fundemnatical thing about the SE option which SMAC had.

---

Please continue. You were just gonna say why you find my model unbalanced. And you were starting to give your vision on SE.

quote:

---

You said you played SMAC a lot, used it as a starting point for your model. Is that true?

---

I used that model to understand the art of Social Engineering. And a few things are pretty much the same eg Totalitarianism(Police State), Free Market, my original Cyborg idea(Thought Control), Power.

Than I took of some things the same bonuses but changed the negatives cause they didn't fit on earth or were placed into something else. Or I split up things.
eg Fundamentalism -> Fundamentalism and Theocracy
Knowledge
Environmentalism
Wealth

And off course new things or serious adaptions.
eg ...

I don't have StarCraft. I'm not blessed with all your computer games.

quote:

---

"Ok, maybe the numbers need changing to obtain more balance: that's fine details.

---

Numbers details !?!?! The names are details. The names I made up in ten minutes. The numbers and balancing is the real work.

That's what you all miss. You seem to forget the big picture when suggesting something.

posted August 10, 1999 22:59                

The last day of posts to be included in this version of the summary will be on August 23 (with a little bit of give to compensate for that whole time zone thing.) That will give me a week to summarize, assimiliate, and then clean up the mess that's left over, before I have to send it off to our fearless leaders. My (current) plan is to do the summary the week of the 23rd, then post it by that weekend, so that everybody is given a couple of days to complain about it before things are set in stone. In my current optimistic mood, I'm planning to both assimilate the systems into a list of ideas, and include a seperate section of the summary which has the integrated systems listed in their entirety.

Now, what would be really nice is if the final versions of each system (assuming they haven't been merged or discarded by then) could be reposted the weekend of the 21st and 22nd. If you don't want to, hey, that's fine, but it would certainly be helpful to me. You, as the engineers of these systems, know them better than I do, since I've just been reading along. If you don't, that's fine, I can do it, but it would reduce my confusion as to what's currently in and what's been tossed out to have a complete version staring me in the face when I do the summary. The detail level on this version is far greater than the last one, so things will be confusing enough as is . . .

posted August 11, 1999 01:07                

You are a brave man indeed. Fearlessly staring down perhaps the longest post-reply sessions in forum history!

This is really fun to watch. One of the reasons I love Civ is that it tends to draw impassioned feelings from intelligent people. Right or wrong, you guys have some great ideas, and with the dedicated Bell working with you, Civ3 might just be great despite itself.

posted August 11, 1999 06:23                

M@ni@c, I do not disagree so much with communisms -2 econ, it is just unballanced with what mercantilism, commonwealth, and wealth allow (+2 econ and an expanding and/or warlike country)

After reading Bells post I think I might need to leave off critiqueing your setup for a bit and work on my own

please read through my critiques though (they should be useful even though I was tired when I wrote them)

POPULACE

first the populace is devided by percentages into different groups of people

you choose which groups of people are in control by checking the boxe(s) when you declare a revolution

these are: scientists, military people, nobles/rich, workers (those that do the work for the nobles/rich), resource producers (like farmers, fishermen, and miners), religious

each group of people will have certain numbers that you can look at

STRENGTH

first is strength which is made up of political, economical, numerical strength

politic strength is based on which of them is in control of the government (one or multiple groups of people can be in control) and they get a number (which is gotten by deviding a set number by their numerical strength percentage) times their numerical strength is added

economic strength is figure via what values the group(s) of people who are in control have and what economic system you are in modified by your numerical strength and this number is added

ie - in communism all groups have equal ammounts of money so there would be a set number times the numerical stremgth to get the economic strength, however in free market the nobles/rich get a very very large number times numerical strength and workers/resource producers get a much smaller number times numerical strength (this economic strength is how the rich maintain control of governments throughout history)

numerical strength is made up by different things for each group and is gotten by taking the raw numerical numbers of all the groups and comparing them to get percentages and then using those percentages on the population (the number) to give numerical strength and is added

the scientists get raw numerical strength from the more libraries, schools, and other places of learning you build, scientist specialists (if they are included), and they also get more strength for the higher up the tech tree you are

military people get raw numerical strength from the more barracks and other military improvement you build, (soldier specialists), and from the ammount of units you have

nobles/rich get raw numerical strength (a small portion) from the overall population, from monetary improvements, tax men specialists (if they are included), and from overal happiness(?)

the workers get raw numerical strength from larger cities (or worker specialists) and more industrial improvements

the resource producers get raw numerical strength from how many squares you use and how improved your terrain is

the religious get raw numerical strength from the number of religious improvements, (cleric specialists), religious techs, and larger population (possibly there would be events called prophets (no names) that would jump up the raw numerical strength of the religious)

(by religious I do not mean that these are the only ones that beleive in a religion, it is just representative of how strong religion is in the civilization, a really low raw numerical strength means that the people are mostly apathetics and atheists)

world wonders like JS bachs cathedral would add to the raw numerical strength of the religious and ones like seti project would increase the raw numerical strength of the scientists

these three things add together to form strength

the group(s) of people who rule must have more strength than all the group(s) who are left out of ruling or else there will be a revolution

HAPPINESS

happiness is what percentage of each group is happy with you (how this is found I will go into farther down)

overall happiness is what percentage of the group(s) that rule are happy with you based on their respective strengths

ie - if two groups rule the civ and one has 60 strength with 60% happy and the other has 40 strength and 40% happy, the overall happiness would be 52%

if overall happiness goes below 50% there will be a revolution

each group get happiness by happiness improvements (of all types), luxuries, increasing that group's strength, and following that group's values

(a note on revolutions, during a revolution each city independently calculates it's overall happiness and if it's overall happiness is below 50% it stands a chance of splitting off and forming a new civ (all cities that break off in a given revolution form into the new civ), the chance being 100% - city overall happiness, this accurately reflects that some areas can be left out of a government and would then revolt)

(another note on revolutions, anytime there is no choice but revolution (if both conditions cannot be met) then the player loses)

(a third note on revolutions, other civs with spies can spend money to initiate a revolution with chance of success like this: chance of success: 25% - (overall happiness - 50%))

(I will put the notes in there proper place when I get to it)

VALUES

values are done by a slider and each group has a slider value for each value

the sliders go between opposite ends of the spectrum and show the group's values

each group starts every game high in some values and low in others

values for each group can be changed by education/propaganda

education has a certain ammount of points awarded per education improvement per turn that can be limited by the national values

propaganda is something else trade can be put into (or production) like luxury rate (or capitalisation) and the civ would get a certain ammount of points per turn

the total of these points can be spent to change a value of a group (if you had enough points, several values could be changed in several different groups)

all points not spent are lost

policies also affect values but they affect all values of the groups that rule

if a civ builds lots of troops for 50 years then it is following a militaristic policy and the slider between power and pacifism gets moved towards power on all the groups that rule

it is harder to move the slider at both ends of each specific value whether policy or education/propaganda is moving it

all the particular values of the groups that rule that added together, weighted by each's strength (as in happiness), gives the national values

the national values affect the civ with modifiers

values:

pacificism----power

antiimperialism (better word?)----imperialism

conservatism (somethhing else?)----knowledge
____________________________

I am tired, to be continued

posted August 11, 1999 10:09                

You and I think it two oppisite ways: I belive the goal is first to establish solid, balanced SE options that represnt a balance historial and game-play details.

( One little thing about goverements: The dictatorship/totalirist are govermenets were all power is centred into one person. That gov is not neessercly despot ( vicious ), or oppresive. Some tryants were kind: just look at some of the roman emperators. Despotism, by Oxford, is "Vicous, ruthless, Despot, a tyrant". Despotism is an oppresive goverment regiem, which limit and control the populce by brute force: like SMAC police state. Clear now? )

The numbers derive from the names. They are not the important thing: beta testing will always find flaws in every system which will need mending. You can't get the perfect balanced system in one go. You need to change and adapt the numbers.

You, however, think the numbers are the critical thing. But a good SE is more then numbers: it's several distinct possiblities.

Yes, Indeed, a republic isn't that different from a democracy. We of a westren, democratic states see the difference. But thats because of who we are. The people of a police state probaly won't see the "fine" difference.
And no, in Iran the democraticaly elected president holds quite a lot of power. If you don't like the Vatican, try Tibet. And I can give you a historial explantion of the Shandarin over e-mail if you want.
Saying the Feudalsim, can be "monarch+feudal market" is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's ok if are using broad-term declartion of what is monarchy. But by including the republic you show you include gov types when the power-shift is differernt ( all the people, upper class ).
Feudalsim isn't just a market type: the power balance is more in favor of the lords and dukes then the king. Several times in feudal states the upper class over-ruled the king desicison ( like a senate ) to go to war. If you know a bit about england history, you know what happened there.
Therefor, since the power shift between a true monarchy and a monarchy where the king gives economical/geographical and militarical power to the upper class is atleast as big as the power-shift between a democracy and a republic, you will need to include that too.

Wow, sorry, got side-tracked. I am not here to argue: if you don't agree with what I just said, ignore. I am here to offer a proposition.

Settlement

I have an idea which can benefit as all:

1. I can understand more on how to balance the social modficators of your model.
2. You, or I, might change our minds about each other models.
3. We might just well get one model, and help poor bell.

posted August 11, 1999 11:52                

As for factors, I was perhaps too eager in axing some categories. Diplomacy is probably worthwhile if it affects how diplomat units are able to operate. Morale probably makes sense, too.

However, on reflection, I think all issues of religion should be handled by a single religious conversion factor. Perhaps different value choices could have a stated effect on the conversion factor, but I see no need for a separate culture or evangelism factor among the SE factors. Happiness also seems to me to be the effect of the SE choices rather than a separate SE factor, so I'd delete it. Ditto on urbanization -- the rate and limits of city growth seem like things that the computer can handle adequately without player intervention.

I would also delete taxes as an SE factor, since I always thought it was unrealistic to think that particular forms of government limited a civ's ability to determine where it spent money, and also lessened the fun of playing the game.

On second thought, I also think we could dispense with nationalism. The computer could generate emigration/immigration rates based on relative happiness and wealth levels. In history, these have been far more important determinants of emigration than "nationalism." Indeed, periods of extreme nationalism in Japan and Italy coincided with high levels of emigration. Success of diplomats is, I think, better handled in the diplomacy factor, and religious conviction makes more sense as a religious factor. Again, look to history. Mexican and French nationalism are in many ways strongly anticlerical.

But too sum up my point -- find ways to simplify the SE options. All of the systems are just too bulky. And, as a beneficial side effect, we may cut down the length of the posts.

posted August 11, 1999 11:57                

"so a plus 2 or minus 2 (or 3 or 1) hap means nothing?"

Do I really explain everything that bad?
No that +4 and -4 Hap are just added bonuses for reaching that rate.
This is the real Happiness :

Happiness affects the addition of extra unhappy people because a civ has exceeded a certain number of cities.
The Happiness formula works as follows :

City Limit : (8 - difficulty) x (6 + Happiness) x MapRoot / 2

Where :
Difficulty : Player's difficulty level (0-5)
Happiness : SE Happiness rate
MapRoot : Square root of # map squares / Square root of 3200

For each city a civ builds or conquers in excess of this number, one additional unhappy citizen (or in Theben's system a %?) will appear at some city somewhere in your civ.

"you have not addressed my point about protectionism being far better than communism (the -2 econ makes it so it can never have a lot of trade (which comes at +2 econ)"

I wouldn't know what to say about it. Replace that -1 Corr by -1 Eco?

"also I would like to point out that you weakend some modifiers by splitting there effects into 2 while feeping others at the same great strength (ie econ)"

Efficiency was too powerful in SMAC. That was together with Economy the single most important factor. So I split up Efficiency. Very simple cause it has too very distinct uses. But I don't see something alike in Economy. It affects trade. Point. Believe me, if I could split up Economy somehow, I would.

"remember I want research section out, but I am using it in my critique since you have it in your system"

For me it's the same. I wouldn't regret if it's out. I wouldn't regret if it's in.
The only problem if I do away the Research section is that I would have too less Environment factors. But that is easy to solve. I would give +2 Env to Utopia.

Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -1 Corr, -2 Tax?

Note about True Democracy. I have given some thought about uniting Republic and Democracy. How about this?

Republic : +2 Corr, +1 Centr, -2 Mor
->Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup

I refused to unite Republic and Democracy because the difference between them was too big and I would rather have +2 Centr than +2 Hap.
Cause I lessened that Centr bonus and making Republic a bit worse, I would prefer +2 Hap over +1 Centr. So now they can be united.
And cause I give the +1 Eco to True Democracy and that is available late in the game, +2 Eco is a bit harder.

And if I add Utopia :

Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Eco
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Corr

So, what does everybody think of the changes?

Hmm, a second penalty for Commonwealth... Add a Nationalism penalty?

And then the shortage of Nat penalties is solved and can I change the penalty of Confederate from -1 Centr, -1 Nat to -2 Centr.

So :
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1/2 Nat
Confederate : +2 Hap, +?, -2 Centr

"like the econ places that matter are -1, 2, 5"

Better than in SMAC. There was it -1 and 2 only.

"I think that to determine your modifiers in a ballanced way you need to say what every group of se choices is and make sure that real bonuses are paid for by real penalties"

You're right. But doing it is more difficult than saying it.

Ah, finally some good constructive criticism to respond to.

Despotism :
That's what it's meant to be fore.

Totalitarianism :
IMHO this is a useless choice.
The police is necessary to control the extra drones and the support is needed to maintain the extra police units.
But SMAC included it, Harel wants some different strategies (though most suck), so I might as well include it.

Monarchy :
that's indeed the only use.

Theocracy :
I would rarely use it, but SMAC included Fundamentalism...
Besides not that bad, look at the following :

Republic/Power : +2 Corr, +4 Sup, -1 Centr

Theocracy/Knowledge : +2 Hap, +1 Corr

Since I don't care about Support and I care a lot about Centralization, and Happiness and Corruption are the most important factors the second choice could be better.
To win some Happiness (eg by Confederate) Republic would have to get a serious Centr penalty, while for Theocracy it just has to choose Federal for less Corruption, resulting in better Corr rate than Republic...

Heck, Theocracy is good...

Republic :

Wow wow, the senate a minor hassle?
Unless I wanted an atrocious reputation, I had to listen to that senate.
In my democracy games, the wars were in slow motion : one city per 15 turns.

democracy :

Democracy and Republic changed...

"I think that republic and democracy could be fixed by adding some sort of penalty to both and decreasing republics corruption bonus to at least 0"

Than there wouldn't be any ancient gov decreasing corruption. That would be unbalancing.

Manorialism :

Before neglecting Manorialism, consider this.
In the beginning of the game, a large portion of my shields go always to unit support due to phalanx and settlers support.
So I think that +3 Sup certainly offsets the bad effects of -1 Centr.
I think I would choose that in the early games until Banking appears.

Mercantilism :

The combination Mercantilism-Wealth gives you unhappy people, bad morale and an annoying senate.
So getting +2 Eco on that way isn't that easy as you say.

Protectionism :

Glad to hear it's balanced. I feared no one would choose it.
Would it be too bad if I replaced -1 Corr by -1 Eco?

Communism :

Nationalism can be found easily? The penalty of Federal is severe and about Fundamentalism, it's the job of Firaxis to make Diplomacy important.
BTW, Diplomacy has more uses than simply affecting other civ's mood to you.

"also diplo, cult, mor(to some extant), tax, hap can all be made to mean little (not give important negatives) while the se choices that have these for negatives have good positives"

Diplomacy : Firaxis' job
Culture : Religion threaders' job; working on it.
Morale : I find it pretty important
Taxes : You're right. on this one. I use it to give a small bonus and to have a difference between an increased economy and increased taxes.
BTW, there is a research factor. Why then no Taxes factor?
Happiness : Very important!

SNOWFIRE :

"Maniac: For the most part, I agree with your model, but you'll gain no friends with a post like that."

Just got sick of all Jon Miller's critique and Harel's unbalanced system.

So Snowfire agrees with me...

BELL :

System support :

1) Harel, Dinoman2
2) Theben, Jon Miller
3) M@ni@c, Snowfire

You see Bell. I have as much support for my model as everybody else.

repost my whole system? Does that also mean all my 14 SE factors? Now THAT will be a long post.

THEBEN :

"You don't see any similarities? The only 2 things that are irreconcilable are the buttons/slider bars. Everything else has potential common ground. FE, the happiness indicator?"

Oops. I thought you were talking about the 'similarities' between Harel's and my system. You have to admit these models can never be united.

"1) That the icon would be indicative of the civ it came from, by race and a style of dress"

That would again lead to endless combinations.
eg 30 civs and 4 religions +1 Animist 'religion' = 150 icons. Plus male/female = 300.
Plus let's say 4 time epochs = 1200.
Don't think Firaxis will do that.
(And if you would include specialists...)

Icons for each religions and for each sex = 5x2 = 10.
Four time epochs = 40.

For the sake of Firaxis I would choose the latter.

Having read the religion thread, you didn't answer my question. My question is regarding the actual SEs. Urbanization, your Happiness, Diplomacy, Culture, etc. What exactly do they do?"

Oh, you mean the SE factors? Simple.
Police and Support are in the last day or so of the SE thread v2.0.
The edited Support and all other factors are within the first 20 posts of the v2.1 thread. You can't miss.

And again to JON MILLER :

POPULACE - STRENGTH - HAPPINESS

If you use that system of Theben of a general Happiness indicator, this could be great.

Wouldn't workers and resource producers be the same?

Only don't want to link it to a 'who' system.

I stay with my point it is good represented by :

Scientists want Knowledge, Religious Freedom.

Military want Despotism/Totalitarianism, Power
Nobles want Monarchy, Feudalism.

Rich want Republic, Banking/FM/Trans, Wealth.

Workers want (True) Democracy, Communism/Utopia, Environment

Religious want Theocracy/ any Religion choice except Religious Freedom

Your SE choices could anger or make happy some of the groups by the way described above.

VALUES

posted August 11, 1999 12:28                

Harel (and Maniac),
For now actually providing numerical bonuses to any SE is pointless, IMO. It is enough to say that "X gets a bonus to ECONOMY, and a penalty to EFFICIENCY" w/o going into details that will be altered in playtesting. Any detail should be limited to "gets strong [x] bonus, and weak [y] and [z] penalties."

Will,
SMAC currently has 9 or 10 factors with 12 SE choices, though each faction is limited to 11. By your standards this is too complex? As for simplifying, I always try to do this when I post ideas, as micromanagement is a great concern of mine. As to your points:

-I also would delete army, as this is covered by MORALE/EXPERIENCE
-Religion should be limited to a single value; whether the civ has strong or weak religious beliefs
-I'd keep Research
-Happiness is the backbone of my idea, so no way!
-Not knowing what Urbanization is supposed to do, I can't say. If it affects city growth, it would be covered under HAPPINESS and GROWTH.
-Taxes. This should also probably go; taxes should be raised/lowered on the main screen, and maybe in each city's screen.
-Nationalism should be a social tech. As far as our history has shown, once you get nationalist sentiment in your people it's there to stay.

posted August 11, 1999 14:41                

Military industry

I think you missed a key thing I said to snowfire: I belive that Mil should give a percent bonus to military, not reduce cost to not allow any cheating. So, what i propose is: cut Centraliazation into two section: centr which gives +% to civic industry, and Mil which gives +% to military alone.

Now, for the model:

Goverments

Now that it's clear whats the difference between absloute power and control gov, I am attentive to your suggestions.
I still belive that a Monarchial system is not fitting for "no pos, no neg" but the control section, since monarchs should give a big tax bonus.

Anarchy: -3 Hap, -3 Tax, -3 Nat
->Despotism: No pos, no neg
-->Police state: +1 Pol
Republic: +2 Corr, +1 Centr, -2 Mor
->Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup
( Tell me what you think about monarchy. The Tax bonus is clear enough. )
Monarcy: +2 Tax, -2 Urb
->Empireship: +2 Tax, +2 Centr, -2 Urb, -2 Eco
-->Dynasty: +3 Tax, +2 Centr, +2 Mil, -2 Urb, -2 Eco, -2 Cult
Dictatorship: +2 Pol, -2 corr
->Totalarism: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Dipl, -2 corr ( Hap minus is wrong )
-->Brain-washed: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, +2 Nat, -2 Dipl, -2 corr, -2 Res ( ok? )

Maybe Theocracy could replace or be added? 5 gov types is ok. What would you suggest as Theocracy 3 stages as SE bonuses?

Market

Marcentalism, by defination is just "trade". Therefor, I belive it's a natural development from a barter system, to a currency system to a trade system.
The thing I don't understand at all is just how you like Protectionism to Communism.
I would like more debates on planned.

Barter: -2 Tax
->Currency: no pos, no neg
-->Marcantlism: +1 eco
( Tell me what you think about controlled. Good corruption cause it's effiecent )
Feudalism: +1 Corr, +2 Sup, -1 Eco (?)
->Protectionism: +2 Corr, +2 Tax, -2 Eco (?)
-->Planned: +3 Corr, +2 Urb, -3 Eco (too big eco minus? )
Socialism: +1 Centr, +2 Hap, -2 Eco ( ok? )
->Communism: +2 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia: +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 corr
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Army

Now with Mil sorted out, I think that with fine-detailing the numbers for balance it's a better system then CtP. And no, no secret plan just more confidandt in Technology.

Basic: no pos, no neg.
Militia: +1 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale
->Volunteer: +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup
-->Reserve: +3 Hap, +1 Eco, -1 morale, -1 sup, -1 mil
The people army: +3 Mil, +3 Sup, -3 Morale, -3 Hap
->Drafts: +3 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 Hap
-->Civic duty: +2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale
Mercenery: +2 morale, -2 Sup
->Trained: +3 morale, -2 sup, -1 mil
-->Cyborg: +4 morale, -2 sup, -2 mil

Structre

Tribal: +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City state: no pos, no neg.
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate: +2 Hap, +2 ?, -2 Centr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1 Nat

Religoun

Best of all worlds. Tell me what you think.

Animism: -2 Res
->Polytheism: no pos, no neg
Loose monotheism: 2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Fundementalism: +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Religous freedom: +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Urb
Prosecution: 2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap

Values

Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr ( I belive +2 Mor, +2 Mil, -2 Centr to be better )
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

Research

posted August 11, 1999 15:04                

M@ni@c, one of the biggest differences there is is that between those that work in factories/office buildings (workers) and those that work the land as farmers and miners (resource producers)

my structure not only makes it more fun to govern your own people it is also realistic

of course it is the who model as you call it

it is my plan

the values of a nation are defined by those who rule it

posted August 11, 1999 15:24                

your change to protectionism might be ballanced

tell me what other se choices are available in that tech range

thanks for explaining happiness (is more worth while now)

but with a mercantalist - wealth selection you will not be forced into -3 police with its 1 unhappy person per unit, this would be a lot worse for a warring country than your -2 happiness factor which can be fixed by the great amount of trade the civ would have

in civ republic did not have better corruption, it was the only reason to go to democracy

in smac fundamentalism had a probe and military bonus (forgot which)

this makes it viable

yours just has a wimpy happiness value

you cared about reputation

I tried once, no matter how good your reputation at the end of the game if you are winning they all gain up on you any ways

got to go

posted August 11, 1999 16:15                

Oh just to remind people, I proposed that the effects phase in starting with the penalties:

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

Theban proposed that they should phase in equally plus a happiness penalty.

I agree that Theban's proposal would work, and probably work better with his system of slider bars, but the advantage of my system is that the penalty instead of just being a standard happiness penalty is that the penalty is directly related to the change that is being made in your civ. This not only creates greater variety it also is more realistic. Take Eastern Europe's move from a totalitarian gov't with planned economy to democracy and a free market. It took a while for the reforms to generate the benefits that could be derived from these SE choices, but many of the inequities/disadvantages of the system were quite clear, which led to unhappiness. Thus with my scheme unhappiness can result, but not just as some mysterious unsettlement, but as a result of a real impact on the society.

There is an additional problem with just penalizing happiness. It can be bought off. With some proper prep, it is easy to maintain some reserves with which to buy off your citizens, be it through more food, less work, or less taxes (if the CTP system is used). And since the effect is directly on happiness you can use whichever factor you are strongest in. But with my system if you are under an industrial penalty, you would have use other means.

posted August 11, 1999 17:40                

"Once more, I have many comments on your posts Maniac. But I just don't have enough strenght to argue with you."

What do you mean, not enough strenght?
1) You can't beat my arguements?
2) You don't have enough time?

OK, let's assume we have 'evil' and 'enlighted' despots.

All the evil despots have to rule by strong police. So always the same effects.

But that enlighted ones are nasty guys, cause none acts the same as another.
That one wants to make the people happy; another wants to improve the economy; a thirth wants to give his nation power.
Well, yes this can all be represented by other choices.
But my point is, I don't see any special extremes those guys have in general.
BTW, most enlightend despots still have to use police to keep in control.

"The numbers derive from the names. They are not the important thing: beta testing will always find flaws in every system which will need mending. You can't get the perfect balanced system in one go. You need to change and adapt the numbers."

Yes, I know that. In the meanwhile, while we can't playtest (and never shall), we can try and make the best of it. Give Firaxis guidelines.

New proposal to Firaxis : all the ones giving advice may playtest their advice.

"You, however, think the numbers are the critical thing. But a good SE is more then numbers: it's several distinct possiblities."

I have distinct possibilities.
In government I have 4 different strategies.
->Monarchial
->Absolute
->Free
->Theocratical (does that word exist?)

In Economy I have a wide range of options from very closed (Communism) to very open (Free Market).

"And I can give you a historial explantion of the Shandarin over e-mail if you want."

How long would it be? Haven't got all time, but I am very interested in history.

BTW, Feudalism is renamed Manorialism. That is the economy.
So Feudalism is Monarchy - Manorialism.

"Several times in feudal states the upper class over-ruled the king desicison ( like a senate ) to go to war. If you know a bit about england history, you know what happened there."

England with Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights, Petition of Rights is a perfect example of a Monarchy evolving to a Republic.

"My idea? You don't have to agree with my model. I only ask for one thing: try to take the SE options I presented, without changes, and give them balanced numbers."

How can I give it effects if I think some choices of you are the same?
Socialist, Happiness...

Will :

"Thank you for the responses to my post. I think they miss my main point -- all of the systems I have seen are too darn complex. Thirteen or fourteen factors, with seven or eight SE categories is an immense amount of variation."

Don't worry. You'll get used to it.
I began with this model 20 days back and I know everything out of my head (is the expression 'out of my head' English?).
Why wouldn't you be able to?

BTW, variation, isn't that good? Better than SMAC where you had seen all possibles strategies with the model after three games.

Deleting Army is no problem.
Deleting Research is opional.
Without Religion my model is unbalanced, then I would rather delete Structure.

"Happiness also seems to me to be the effect of the SE choices rather than a separate SE factor,"

???????

"Ditto on urbanization -- the rate and limits of city growth seem like things that the computer can handle adequately without player intervention."

Have you got SMAC? Don't you know what Growth does?

With your way of thinking, you could say : "The computer can handle everything without player intervention. Let's delete SE."

"since I always thought it was unrealistic to think that particular forms of government limited a civ's ability to determine where it spent money,"

Does my Tax factor affect where you can spent money? I didn't think so.

"On second thought, I also think we could dispense with nationalism. The computer could generate emigration/immigration rates based on relative happiness and wealth levels."

The most important effect of Nationalism is Spy things. Should I rename Nationalism to Reconnaissance.

BTW a high diplomacy for communism doesn't sound right.

Will and Theben :

10 factors and 16 choices.
BTW, in my first long post to Harel, I have a beautiful list of the maxima and minima of each model, also SMAC's.

"-Nationalism should be a social tech. As far as our history has shown, once you get nationalist sentiment in your people it's there to stay."

Now I definitely have to find another name for it.

Theben, have you found the factor posts?

Harel :

MONARCHY

"I still belive that a Monarchial system is not fitting for "no pos, no neg" but the control section, since monarchs should give a big tax bonus."

Wrong! That big tax bonus is inherent to Feudalism/Manorialism.
When I first began my model, I was too thinking about giving Monarchy +Tax. But it's not monarchy that has the bonus! After a while you will realize you can't give Monarchy real bonuses.

That Urb penalty is for Manorialism.

In general, you gave all the bonuses that belong to Manorialism to Monarchy.

TOTALITARIANISM

"->Totalarism: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Dipl, -2 corr ( Hap minus is wrong )"

Hap minus wrong?? Would you be happy to live in an oppressive regime?

MERCANTILISM

"Marcentalism, by defination is just "trade"."

With Mercantilism I mean the English and Dutch trading systems.

CONTROLLED

"Tell me what you think about controlled. Good corruption cause it's effiecent"

Russian Communism was controlled and it had very large corruption.
I thought from the fields to the state shops, there was a waste of 70%!

"Religoun

Best of all worlds. Tell me what you think."

In that list Prosecution is redundant because it's no religion type. It's a behavior against certain religion.

Jon Miller :

"M@ni@c, one of the biggest differences there is is that between those that work in factories/office buildings (workers) and those that work the land as farmers and miners (resource producers)"

Sure I know. But how are gonna represent that difference when all the people in CivX work on the fields?

"in civ republic did not have better corruption, it was the only reason to go to democracy"

It had much better corruption rates. Perhaps you don't really notice it when you are playing perfectionist, but if you have a large empire of 50 cities, the difference is big, believe me.
But yes, you're right. The corruption jump from democracy to republic is much bigger than the one of republic to monarchy.

"in smac fundamentalism had a probe and military bonus (forgot which)"

That option is now in the religion category.
Somewhere in a far past ( a week or two weeks ago?) I explained why I made a difference between Theocracy and Fundamentalism.

"yours just has a wimpy happiness value"

Wimpy? Happiness is very important when you have a large empire. You're right. When you're perfectionist, it isn't that important.

"I tried once, no matter how good your reputation at the end of the game if you are winning they all gain up on you any ways"

I remember that in the year 1000 AD every civ's reputation worsened drastically. If they would change that, reputation and diplomacy in general would become more important.
Perhaps we should ask Harel with his Civ2 to recheck my AD 1000 story.
And if trade becomes dependent on how a civ likes you, as in real life, all diplomacy will increase in importance.

Ancient :
Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Barter, Currency, Banking, Survival, Power, Knowledge, Wealth, Tribal, City State, Animism, Natural, Practical

Middle Ages :
Theocracy, Feudalism, Federal, Establishment, Fundamentalism, Prosecution

Renaissance :
Mercantilism, Protectionism, Humanitarian, Explorer

Industrial Revolution :
Totalitarianism, Communism, Confederate

Modern :
Democracy, Free Market, Environment, Commonwealth, Religious Freedom

Near Future :
True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational

Updated List :

Government :

Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
->Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +1 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
->Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Mor
-->True Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup

Economy :

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
Manorialism : +3 Sup, +2 Tax, -1 Centr, -1 Urb
Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor
Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Eco
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -1 Corr, -2 Tax
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -4 Sup
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Value :

Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Hap
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -1 Centr, -1 Urb

Structure :

Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
->City State : no pos or neg
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +?, -2 Centr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol, -1 Nat

Research :

Wise Men : no pos or neg
Nature : +2 Env, -1 Urb, Economic Science is 75%
Humanitarian : +2 Cult, -1 Mor, Social Science is 75%
Practical : +2 Sup, -1 Res, Military Science is 75%
Explorer : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic Science is 75%

Religion :

posted August 11, 1999 18:26                

Serious.
On exactly the 50th post of this v2.1 thread, Theben said that he found SE switching too easy in SMAC.

1) So I suggested this :

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

2) You suggest this :

Turn 0: Old SE bonuses and penalties
Turn 1: Old SE bonuses and penalties, New SE penalties
Turn 2: New SE penalties
Turn 3: New SE bonuses and penalties

3) Harel suggested a fix penalty for each category.

posted August 12, 1999 12:38                

another responding post

USSR tried to do communism, it did not acheive it rather it had a planned economic system

no M@ni@c all people do not work in the fields

this is shown in civ by the population of a city

1 pt - 10000
2 pt - 30000
3 pt - 60000

the 10000 population diferrence between 1 and 2 pt represents the greater number of workers in the city and the increasing ammount shows that more and more workers are neccesarry in a city the larger it gets

you did't think that all 10000 people of the first pt worked one square and in a 2 pt city the 20000 difference works the other square did you?

the thought is frankly hilarious, civ shows the difference between an agrarrian/resource producer civ (one with a bunch of small cities) and an industrial civ (one with large cities)

I am a profectionist expansionist (expansionist before profectionist and that expansion is peaceful), I usually build 60 + cities and place them close together to get more use from them, I am profectionist in that I do not like to go to war until every city has built everything and all my land is improved

how many theocracies were in the middle ages

happiness is easy to fix

done responding

posted August 12, 1999 02:29                

DS,

Actually I do very much like my HAPPINESS system and it affects many other categories, so I won't give that up yet...

Another thing is your stated reason for not having sliders, that rulers had little control over the fine-tuning of their empire. I agree, as would sofar as to say that they had almost no control over how things were run except in the most tyrannic systems. However, months ago I proposed a system that would only allow players to attempt to influence changes in the SE choices, and that idea didn't last very long. Whether or not it's realistic, people like to have control over their games.

Another problem I have with buttons is that the SE effects are static and often wildly varying, even in the same categories.

posted August 12, 1999 04:16                

Historian guy

you got communism wrong (you may have got the USSR implementation of it but the USSR seriously messed up, that is why it collapsed)

I am sure, you being an historian and familiar with classical literature, that you know where to look to fix your misconceptions of communism

posted August 12, 1999 04:36                

historian, what do you think of the beginnings of my se idea (in particular the value portion)?

communism is the perfect and most effecient social structure if the citizens are not very individualistic/selfish

historian, what time period are you am historian of may I ask

a note, add in my values portion a value slider between individualistic and socialistic (better name?)

historian guy, I like how you look at religion by far the best of any heard yet also like what you say about the millitary

historian guy, perhaps take back earlier comment on communism but I still say that I want to try theoretical systems of government

posted August 12, 1999 05:54                

back again this time to post on my system

I am continueing into government although my populace systems values part has not been completed yet (if the est needs tweaking please inform me)

I am still trying to think of the perfect values, please suggest

the values I'm looking for are ones that have two poles and both might be good like in pacifism----power, they each have bonuses and negatives and how good they are for you depends on how you play and how your government is set up

the values affect how well the se choices of government and economics work, like an individualist people will not do well in communism but will add corruption and other things to it

economy will not be done by a slider (It could be now but before there were lots of choices not between socialism and free market)

if you think about it if those who are not able to be part of controlling the nation are stronger than those that are countrolling it of course there is going to be a revolt

(enough for the preamble)

NATIONAL

the nattional has many things on it's screen

it has overal happiness, strength of the groups that rule, all the other groups combined strength, national values

the choice to declare revolution

and STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, and ECONOMICS

STRUCTURE

in structure a slider would work perfectly between centralized and uncentralized

GOVERNMENT

government is not by slider because there are several different important forms and not all fit by a steady change

governments (and centralization and economics) do not so much have specific modifiers themselves as facilitate how the national values modify (if people had the right values, free market would not do well)

what this means for anybody who missed it is that the governments and economics just affect what different national values do

they are also affected by which group(s) are in control

how much corruption there is depends on the values, government, and economy (like if your economy is communist and your national values are individualest than your corruption is really high)

government and economic choices might modify certain national values one way and others another way depending on what choice it is

there is democracy (this is true democracy for those who want its definition)

it is where the group(s) that rule vote to direct the government

the player has weaker control in this one

democracy affects to make national values modify very strongly (the masses are not hampered from tyranny)

democracy can only be used in really small civs (where the numerical strengths of the groups that rule are very very very small) or after a certain technology (internet or something)

there is republic (represnative government, the difference from modern democracy and old republic is gotten from the groups controlling and national values)

it is where the group(s) that rule vote in representatives who direct the government

control is also limited in this government structure but not as much as in democracy

the national values are more limited in their effects than in democracy

republic is discovered early as it is in civ, arround the time of greece

there is tyranny (greek definition of tyraany (not bad), despotism is just a short term monarchy, both are tyrannies)

this is where the group(s) that rule are the ruling class with a king over them and all other groups as those with no rights below them (like in serfs)

there is much more control in this system than the previous two

national values are overall not as strong

tyranny was one of the earlier government settings (perhaps the first for civilizations which had enough excess to develope a civilization)

there is beaucracy (it is a real life government actually, China used it and meritocracy a few times, I'm going to consider meritocracy a beaucracy with knowledge values, also if you want a discription of one refer to my previous one, or look up chinese history)

it is where the group(s) rule through a civil and military beaucracy

this can have little control or great ammount of control based on national values

national values are overall not as strong

chinese are to my knowledge the first to use beaucracies

there may be more

ECONOMICS

________________________
end for tonight

I got tired earlier tonight so I am stopping sooner, government will have a lot more work done to them and i have not even started economics yet

I know I need to do a lot of fleshing out, especially of values and I will work on it later

(I am vacationing the 16th-20th so my posting time is limited any way)

often where I used values in this thread I meant something else than each group's values, often I meant national values or I meant something else entirely

I will fix this later (really sorry I got tired at this time)

my idea of having governments and economies mostly just modify the national values which do the actual modifying, is realistic in that governments like democracy would not neccessary make the senate limit you, what if your pepole were hawkish, then the senate in real life would declare war

also a peaceful civ could have high moral and a warlike civ could have low morale if that is what the values are

in some governments you can use police, but they will make those that rule more unhappy the longer they are in place (and it would take a while of not using them for happiness to return)

happiness is gained or lost per turn, you can't do something to piss of your people and have them forget about it the next year can you?

i still have to do economics and finish government