posted August 17, 1999 12:17                

I could certainly keep track of the 15 SE factors you have proposed. Would it be fun? It would probably be okay, but substantially less fun than with a little less complexity. To express it in the terms of this complaint greater control over SE factors increases fun, but only up to a point. Afterward, with more complexity, we start getting +1, +2, and +3 annoyance (Ann). And, as we know, the more the annoyance, the fewer the buyers. I think your system goes way beyond that threshold. Ten is not a magic number, but a level of complexity at around that point seems to work for SMAC, which is why I've been harping on it. And ten is not de facto imbalanced, just as 15 factors is not de facto balanced. It's all in how you use the factors. Having seen your efforts to date, I have no doubt that you could derive a balanced system using 10 factors.

posted August 17, 1999 12:20                

I could certainly keep track of the 15 SE factors you have proposed. Would it be fun? It would probably be okay, but substantially less fun than with a little less complexity. To express it in the terms of this complaint greater control over SE factors increases fun, but only up to a point. Afterward, with more complexity, we start getting +1, +2, and +3 annoyance (Ann). And, as we know, the more the annoyance, the fewer the buyers. I think your system goes way beyond that threshold. Ten is not a magic number, but a level of complexity at around that point seems to work for SMAC, which is why I've been harping on it. And ten is not de facto imbalanced, just as 15 factors is not de facto balanced. It's all in how you use the factors. Having seen your efforts to date, I have no doubt that you could derive a balanced system using 10 factors.

posted August 17, 1999 18:58                

If I could do it with 10 factors I would, but -I've already said it- the factors affect more than the SMAC ones. And you too have to keep an eye on Accuracy (Acc). Generalizing and pushing it in too less factors gives a very negative rate.

About deleting Evangelism, how then can you represent Fundy?
And emigration is just one of the four uses of Nationalism. Deleting that can't shorten the # of factors.

Diodorus :

Deleting the Research category (do you mean that with universal research choices) is possible if you reintroduce Value - Environment to regain two +Env choices. Also to have 2 +Res things, you must have another +2 Res.
+2 Res for Religious Freedom?(see religion thread)

Perhaps solutions for if some category disappears should also be included in the very huge summary.

Research

If there's a Research category, Wise Men should have -2 Res to replace the -2 Res of the disappeared Religion - Animism.

Economy :

Don't know if you will like it. Everyone disagrees about Economy.

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg

Doesn't need an explanation anymore, I think.

Autarcy : +1 Pro, +2Rel??, -1 or 2 Corr
->Guilds : +2 Pro, +2 Rel, - 1 or 2 Eco
-->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, (-1 Corr)
--->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Corr

About Autarcy. The Greek City States were Autarcy, which means self supply. But they were also big traders (+2 Rel), not very Autarcy. How does this fit together? Diodorus, please fresh up my memory.
And about that -2 Corr. Autarcy works well for small nations, but not for big.
Prove : all the villages and cities between 500 and 1000 were Manorialism = every manor has it's own autarcy.
And I know that Communism isn't really the evolution of Guilds, but they both share the +2 Pro and they both share socialist ideology.
Which reminds me I have to say to Harel and Jon Miller that the Happiness bonus that you give to Communism, I gave to Value - Socialism. It fits better there, I think.
Oh, Bell, don't forget to mention in the summary that Utopia is a no-money-society.

Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -1 Sen, -2 Rel
->Colonial : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, +1/2 Pro (or +2 Tax), -2 Rel, -2 Nat

I don't know if that +2 Urb fits for Colonial.
And with 1/2 I don't mean a half, but 1 or 2.

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Pro, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

I just renamed Banking to Capitalism and changed the Support penalty to Military cause Mil and Sup are melted together.
About Transnational. All the other Economy choices have already a big or small +Pro.
So another is too much, I think.
Perhaps change it too
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, -8 Pol, -3 Env ?

Army

Sorry, I really need help for this one. (or otherwise said :"Where is Harel when you need him?")

So far I think...

Militia : no pos or neg

Mercenary : +?, -2 Tax
Military Caste : ?
Both evolve in...
->Professional : +2 Hap, +2 Mor, -2 Mil

Levee in Mass : +?, -2 Pro
Evolves in two choices...
->Draft : +?, -2 Hap
->Conscription : +?, -2 Mor

Can't really think of any difference what Military Castes have on a society. Diodorus, you suggested it...

The -2 Pro is for the people/farmers having to leave for war and leave behind there fields. Loss of production.
In the Roman example, the senators bought the ground from the farmers-legionnaires and got latifundia (another reason for giving Republic +2 Pro?). The ex-farmers went to Rome to join the proletariat.

posted August 18, 1999 14:55                

modifators

1. Police: rename to order.

2. Militarial:

posted August 18, 1999 16:10                

I agree that Tribal Assembly should have a corruption penalty and True Democracy a bonus. Just as in my new model... Have you read it?

And if there will be something like harmony decide how many turns it take you to switch SE options I think I would put it under Senate.

BTW Military Junta Roman????

Could you help me with my Army choices?
Could perhaps post your Army category now and not Saturday?
BTW draft is still used today. Or do you mean Civil Duty with that?

posted August 18, 1999 18:42                

Government

Control

Dictatorship : +2 Pol, -2 Hap
->Dynasty : +2 Nat, +1 Pol, -2 Tax
Parliamentary Monarchy : +2 Corr, +2 Tax, -2 Mil, -1 Sen
->Despotism : +2 Pol, +1 Pro, +1 Sen, -1 Hap, -1 Corr
Military Junta : +1 Pol, +1 Sen
Totalitarianism : +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Corr

Representative

Tribal Assembly : +2 Hap, -2 Corr
->Republic : +2 Corr, +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
-True Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Mil, -2 Sen, -1 Pol

Religious

High Priestship : +2 Eva, -2 Res
->Theocracy : +2 Eva, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Fundamentalism : +2 Eva, +2 Nat, +1 Exp, -2 Res, -2 Rel

Economy

Simple

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg

Planned/Social

Autarcy : +1 Pro, +2Rel, -2 Corr
->Guilds : +2 Pro, +2 Rel, - 2 Eco
-->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
--->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Env, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Corr

Colonial

Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -1 Sen, -2 Rel
->Colonial : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, +1 Pro, -2 Rel, -2 Nat

Free Trade

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -1 Sen

Structure

City State : no pos or neg
Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Pro
Imperial/Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

Value

Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Exp
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -1 Sen, -2 Hap
Socialism : +2 Hap, +2 Urb, -2 Tax
Survival/Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +2 Sen, -2 Pro

Research

Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Urb, +25% Economic Research
Humaniterian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, +25% Social Research
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, +25% Military Research
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap, +25% Academic Research

Army

Militia : no pos or neg

Mercenary : +?, -2 Tax}
Military Caste : ?}
}->Professional : +2 Hap, +2 Exp, -2 Mil

Levee in Mass : +?, -2 Pro
->Draft : +?, -2 Hap
->Conscription : +?, -2 Exp

Maxima and Minima without Army

Police : +2/4(*see Religion thread), -9
Military : +8, -4
Nationalism : +6, -3
Happiness : +8/10*, -7
Evangelism : +2, -0
Experience : +3, -3
Urbanization : +4, -1
Production : +6, -4
Environmentalism : +4, -3
Research : +4/5*, -2
Taxes : +4, -6/8*
Economy : +5, -2
Relations : +5, -4
Bureaucracy(Corr) : +7, -4
Senate : +4, -4

I detect some problems… Taxes, Urbanization, Evangelism.
Delete Evangelism after all?

Then it could be

High Priestship : +2 Nat/Tax, -2 Res
->Theocracy : +2 Nat, +2 Tax, -2 Res
 Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +2 Urb, +1 Mor, -2 Res, -2 Rel

And about too many Tax and too little Urb minuses.

Colonial : +1 Eco, +2 Tax, +1/2 Pro, -2 Urb, -1 Rel, -1 Nat

But then there could be too little Nat’s.

posted August 19, 1999 13:38                

My army section ( btw Maniac, I AM going to keep my market options as they are. I just hope my reasoning will be explain on my detail post.

+1 Mil: +1 Support, +5% to military production. So, +4 Mil is like +2 Military industry, and not a big bonus.

army

Basic: +0/-0

Small-standing army: increase harmony and happiness

City militia: +2 Mil, -2 Exp
->Volunteer: +1 Mil, +2 Hrm, -1 Exp, -1 Ord
-->Civil duty: +2 Hrm, +2 Hap, -2 Ord

Large standing army

Levee in mass: +4 Mil, -3 Exp, -2 Hap
->Drafts: +3 Mil, -2 Exp, -1 Hap
-->Conscription: +2 Mil, -1 Exp

posted August 19, 1999 14:54                

And is Military Caste an evolution of Mercenary??

I think I'll take over your Levee and Mercenary choices.

And BTW, if you've got your detailed post finished before Saturday, post it.
I would like to know your reasons.

Question. Banking (+2 Eco?) only seems possible from the Renaissance. How then are you supposed to get +2 Eco early in the game?

posted August 19, 1999 16:28                

About army, I cut it to four options:

Basic:

Small-standing ( low size, high happiness )
Large-standing ( large size, poor quality )
Expert ( good quality, poor size )

Mercenary
->Military caste
-->Trained
Show the evoultion of expert armies. In the old days, expert armies were almost competely hired merecnaries and pirates. Empires couldn't and woudn't spend the resources aimed to properly train the people.
When they wanted an elite group, they hired them.
I hope that the evoloution to military caste and trained is explained now.

About my large post: no, not yet. I am going to spend several hours on it tommorow. Since I want bell to just copy and paste it, I will include very detailed explantions of the options, what they are and why they are here.
And ofcoruse, the modifactors, the concept of "evoloving SE" ( we use it all the time we keep forgeting that Firaxis doesn't know what it is ), how and how long it takes to shift SE ( each by it's own model ), the idea beyond giving small civ a bonus ( in my model, atleast ), etc, etc, etc.
That will take time Maniac.

For Bell: When I do post my complete model, I request you do honor with my hard spend works ( I allready wrote many notes on pieces of paper ) and quote is competly.

posted August 19, 1999 18:25                

Can't you really find a way to give all the modern (Army) choices 2 bonuses instead of giving one +3 bonus?

Bell, I think that I'm gonna wait on Harel's model before considering if I'll post a summary post. Is Sunday OK? Probably not, sorry...

New Questions :

posted August 20, 1999 19:36                

Environment or Environmentalism is perfectly acceptable as a Value, but only a Late Game value: there’s no evidence any human society paid much attention to it before the late 20th century unless they were facing immediate environmental disaster. I suggest, therefore, that it be included, but tied to a late Advance or triggered by some level of Pollution.

Greek city states and Autarchy. The problem with the City State is that each individual city state can have a different political and economic structure. The Greeks were bound by a common language and most of a common culture, but while most of the cities were economically self-sufficient, not all were: Athens was importing food from at least the 5th century BC on, and Corinth was also a great trading city, while Thebes and Sparta were notoriously self-sufficient. Politically, governments ranged from Athens’ ‘democracy’ to Sparta’s military monarchy, the Tyrants (Despots) of Thessaly and Syracuse, and various forms of city councils and assemblies. If you define Autarchy as self-sufficiency not requiring Trade, then how is it different from Manorialism?
+2 Urb for Colonialism? Someone will have to explain the reasoning...

Harel: 18 Aug 14:55 post:

Under Environmentalism there is no intrinsic increased food output. In fact, the first stage would see same or less food output. If Environmentalism leads to increased Research in Bio Engineering, Genetic Manipulation, etc, then a masive increase in food production could be expected. It appears that you are putting the Tech Advances connected with Hybrid plants, genetic engineering, Bio Engineering, etc and their effects and lumping them all under the Environmental label.

Governments:
Military Junta!? No military junta has lasted long enough to be applicable to the game. Every ‘coalition’ of military or quasi-military politicos always devolves into One Man Rule very, very quickly, or into Civil War and then into One Man Rule of some kind: Dictator, Despot, or (starting) Dynasty. Ax it, it isn’t needed.
Monarchies come in several varieties.
Warrior King: This is actually the earliest, because the Indo-European tradition is a king who has to be ratified by the warrior/military class of the society. Historical vestiges of this are the aclamation of the Macedonian kings (like Philip and Alexander) by the Macedonian Army and the Witan or Widan assembly ratifying the early Germanic kings. The vestiges of this ‘non-absolute’ but hereditary monarchy are part of the reason fuedal kings in the middle ages were less than perfectly obeyed.
God-King: This is the next earliest, when a ruler needed a legal background for his authority over other than his immediate tribe or group, and turned to religion for it. The early Middle Eastern Empires, Egypt the most obvious but also the Assyrian and Persian, had these, and it also defines the traditional Japanese and Chinese Imperial systems. For our game purposes it can appear as the start of the Theocratic government string.
Absolute or Divine Right Monarchy: This is the ‘classic’ European monarchy, but it only dates from the end of the renaissance, when Absolutism philosophy, encouraged by the church’s example, took hold. As opposed to the God King, in which the king is special because he is a God, the Absolute Monarch is special because he has a special relationship with and favor from God. He is a secular monarch backed by God. This can be linked very specifically to the Absolutism Advance, but it is also vulnerable to Revolution when Rationalism (Age of Reason) starts men questioning the religious speciality of the king’s position.
Constitutional or Parliamentary Monarchy: When the monarchy is strong and centralized, this is indistinguishable from the Divine Right or Warrior King, depending on the rest of society’s structure. When the Parliament is strong, it is indistinguishable from Republic or Democracy.

Markets (Economy?)
Fairs are not ancient, they were a product of the middle ages, the beginnings of the ‘break out’ from a strictly local to a regional and international trading system. Similar ancient institutions would be the Agora or Forum, the central market of Greco-Roman cities, or the Bazaar market center of the middle eastern cities.

Structure.
Actually, the ‘slider’ from decentralized to centralized structure would be:
City State - Confederation - Federal - Imperial

Army
Too many ‘systems’ here, and I think it’s because you are confusing the effects of military technology with the structures affected. See the end of this post for more details of my suggestions...

The single ancient system is Levee in Masse which I'm changing the name of) everybody in the tribe who can carry a rock fights.
When weapons become specialized, the fighters become more specialized. Bronze, being a relatively expensive and rare commodity, resulted in Military Castes or aristocracies wth bronze weapons doing the fighting while the rest of society supported them. Homer calls bronze the ‘noble metal’ because swords/armor is made from it, while iron is the ‘common metal’ because it was used strictly for tools (in his day, they hadn’t learned how to temper and anneal iron for swords/armor, but it was much cheaper than bronze for everything else). When the society develops a prosperous middle class, the weapons diffuse or the society of a central state provides the weapons, and you get the civic duty or Citizen-Soldier. This is the classic Roman or Greek phalangist: a large number of citizens who can afford the panoply of weaponry or who have the ‘leisure’ time for training on the state-supplied weapons.
Once weapons get so sophisticated/expensive that the state has to supply them, the state also hires people for pay to use them, and gets professional soldiers OR it drafts/conscripts a percentage of its citizens.
Thus, the real breakdown is:
Tribal Levy (prehistoric)
-> Citizen Militia (city state, republic)
--> Conscript Army (industrial to modern times)
Military Caste (Bronze-Working, Fuedalism)
-> Mercenaries (paid soldiers: Roman to renaissance)
--> Professional Army (18th-20th centuries)

In parentheses are the developments, governments, and eras associated with each type.
The exact conditions of each military force will depend a lot on technological advances and other elements of the society. A Value of Survival /Power will take to Conscript Army or a larger percentage of its citizens in the militia than a society with a Value of Wealth.

M@ni@c: Post of 18 Aug 18:42 hrs.

Your system. Based on the comments above, here are some suggestions/comments:
First, a general comment: you and Harel both seem to be adopting a Linear design for all of the various elements. Unfortunately, this is both oversimplified and over complicated. The progression of government, government structure, economic systems, and military forms is and was not linear at all, but branched depending on specific changes in the cultural and technical milieu. I’ll try to give specific instances in the following comments.

Government.
Trying to reconcile your terminology with my structure of Monarchial types given above, how about this?

Control

Despotism: +2 Pol,-1 Hap, -1 Corr
Available from the Start
Warrior-King: +1 Pol, +1 Sen, -1 Hap, -1 Corr
Available from the Start
-> Dynastic Monarchy: +1 Nat, +1 Pol, -1 Tax
Develops from either of the above
After Advance: Absolutism, becomes:
--> Absolute Monarchy: +2 Nat, +1 Pol, -2 Tax
Totalitarian: +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Develops after Advance: Communism or Fascism from any type of government

Representative:

Tribal Assembly: +2 Hap, -2 Corr
Available from the Start
May develop into either Warrior King or Despotism (see above)
-> Republic: +2 Corr, +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
Develops after Advance: Republic
Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
Develops after Advance: Age of Reason/Rationalism from Republic, Warrior King, Dynastic or Absolute Monarchy: may require Revolution for change of government.
True Democracy: +2 Corr, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, - 2 Mil, -2 Sen, -1 Pol
Develops after Advance: Digital Communications & Wonder: Internet established

Religious:

God-King: +1 Hap, +1 Sen, -1 Res
Develops from either Despot or Warrior King after State Religion established
-> Theocracy: +2 Eva, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Develops from above after Advance: Bureaucracy and State Religion established
--> Fundamentalism: +2 Eva, +2 Nat, +1 Exp, - 2 Res, -2 Rel
Develops after Advance: Rationalism when Civ Happiness drops below (X)

In the economic model, you have 11 different forms, and I just don’t see the need for that many. Autarchy, for instance, seems to be a new buzz word in SE, but in fact ancient economic structures were not that controlled. They were either socialistic/tribal or, after coinage appeared, very Free Market. Ancient Athens had speculative markets in the olive (money) crops, forms of insurance and speculation on overseas shipping, and currency speculation - none of it regulated in any way except by the occasional angry mob of creditors or ‘ostracism’. Colonialism was simply a European search for markets under a Mercantilist economic philosophy. Specific Advances and conditional situations can account for most of the peculiarities that you’ve put into special forms here.

Value

Knowledge: +2 Res, +1 Corr, -2 Exp
Available after Advance: Age of Reason or Rationalism
Wealth: +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -1 Sen, -2 Hap
Available after Advance: Coinage/Currency
Socialism(Happiness): +2 Hap, +2 Urb, -2 Tax
Available at Start
Survival/Power: +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +2 Sen, -2 Pro
Available at Start
Environment: +2 Env, +1 Hap, -1 Urb
Available after Advance: Environmentalism/Ecology

Army (Military)

Harel: (19 Aug 16:28 post)
“In the old days, expert armies were almost competely hired merecnaries and pirates.”
Dead Wrong! Arguably, the most Expert armies of the ancient world were Alexander’s Macedonians, Imperial Romans at their peak, and the Spartans at theirs. None of them Mercenaries or pirates. Mercenaries were used in only two instances:
1. When you had more money than people, as in the small Greek city states who didn’t have the population to support the size armies they wanted to play with. Imperial Rome at the end of its days when there was a serious labor shortage throughout the empire, and Carthage, which was a commercial empire very short of citizenry to recruit;
2.When you wanted a specific troop-type that you couldn’t raise and train yourself. Best examples: Greek heavy infantry hired by the Persians, who had no citizen class to raise good infantry from, and Scythian horse archers, Baleric slingers and Cretan archers, all specialist troops very hard to train (took years and years to make a good slinger or archer)
As for your four basic types, they are worthless:
Small-standing ( low size, high happiness )
Large-standing ( large size, poor quality )
Expert ( good quality, poor size )

Mercenary
->Military caste
-->Trained

Small and Large standing relative to what? The size of the Civ, the population level, The Cash available to support them? Expert is another relative term, it defines the quality of the unit-soldier, not the structure of the army. Military caste doesn’t come from Mercenaries, they come from a social and technical situation where military skills are required and are too expensive in time and money for the entire population to receive them. Trained is a quality of units again - all armies are trained to some degree, otherwise they are simply mobs.

Both Harel and M@ni@c: I think the basic problem is that you want to set up specialized ‘army types’ to define military forms that are strictly situational. Example: There is no dictionary difference between ‘draft’ and ‘conscription’ (see Oxford English Dictionary). The real difference between your draft and civic duty models is that civic duty represents a state in which the Survival value is linked specifically to service in the army. In your example, Switzerland, it survives as an independant only by being uninvadable because of its terrain and army, which is huge for its size (500,000+ when mobilized). Before it had that system, note that Switzerland fought with or was invaded by Romans, French, Austrians, Germanic states, Burgundians, and Russians (1799-Suvorov).
In addition, most of the military values relating to the units themselves have little or nothing to do with the structure or origins of the military unit, they relate to its training, discipline, and morale. A well-trained force, which has spent lots of time on active duty training and had lots of time and money spent on it for training resources, will be better than a unit without training, no matter how enthusiastic and supportive the population/state behind that untrained unit is.

Therefore, since I don’t precisely understand how you are defining your modifiers any more (I don’t have time to keep up with 200+ pages of posts anymore and, frankly, the definitions appear to be circular, going ‘round and ‘round but never changing much) I’ll just comment on the characteristics of each of the Military Structures:

posted August 21, 1999 12:54                

I am not sure just how long a single post can be ( 64K? ) so I will split my model to two posts. No, I am not done yet, still working on the market: the rest is very easy and fast to write.

[Proposed finished model: version 4.0
By Harel Eilam

This model tries to give a solution to a very large problem: how to adapt Alpha Centaury unique Social engineering screen in the more "primitve" era of the earth-bound civilazations. While almost everyone agreed that the Social Engineering screen ( for now on, called SE in short ) is a better system that Civ I & Civ II goverement options, the methods in which we hope to achieve this are widely differ from one another.
So, in a nutshell, my own opinion.

Sections:

A. Concepts that are used in the model
B. List of social modifactors
C. The model itself
D. Summary of the model ( numbers )

A. Concepts that are used in the model

This section contains:

1. Evolving SO, or "->"
2. the X10 factor
3. Changing SO, Harmong modifactor and small civ vs. Big civ
4. Taxation ans unit support
5. Global morale
6. Leaders
7. Wars

1. Evolving SO, or "->"

Right from the start the thread, it became quite clear that the total amount of SO will be dramticly huge. For example, people didn't approve of the too-generic "democracy" defenition from Alpha Centuary. They wished to devide it to Republic and Democracy, and some to even more options. The end amount of options became un-managable. Not only that they were simply too many, the entire conept of "stratigic balancing" ( that every option has a unique bonus that shows a valid gameplay strategy ) was dead.
Therefor, I proposed to use the concept of Evolving Social options. Meaning, that as history and technology move on, certain options became obselte and are replaced by a newer system that still share the same principle and concept.
For example, Banking ( which had a free reign of economy ) was a form of free markets in the Renniense era that was replaced by the true Free market in the industrail era. Therefor, it will show like this: Banking -> Free market. Meaning, the second that Free markets are researched, Banking become obselte and is replaced by Free markets which gives a slightly bigger bonus. The transformtion is instantious, and cost no money or time.

2. The X10 factor

Since each SO gives a small bonus to a certain key product ( such as +10% ), the current number system in Civ I/Civ II/SMAC makes it nearly impossible. A +10% food bonus to a farm which produce 3 food units means nothing. Therefor, it's recommanded to move from a 8-bit byte variables to a 16-bit byte integer ( I think it can be done with current technolgy ). So, the same farm would produce 30 food units, and then a +10% food bonus would mean something.

3. Changing SO, Harmony modifactor and Small civ vs. Big civ

It been said over the forums that the most reknown small nations in history and the modern world do much better, realitivy to thier size, then thier bigger conterpart.
For example, Singapore posses an economical power that is bigger then what can be expected in her size. Israel and Taiwan, for another example, posses a military might that also is far bigger then what could be expcted by such tiny nations.
Therefor, it was proposed to give them some sort of bonus. Small nations have much better control over thier state and can shape the people far more easily. They also act like more like a single social group. People are closer to one another.
Then how to reflect this bonus?
The answer didn't not came easily. At first I thought that augmanting the bonus gotten from the selected value was in order: since the goal of the society is better felt in a small nation then a big one. But, how to balance it out?

The answer came from the debate on how long, and how costly, should a change to the SE screen take. In Alpha centuary, a certain "cheat" became infamous: people would change thier market to Planned to gain a critical cut in cost of units and wonders, get the required unit/wonder in that turn, and change the SO option on the second turn. People wanted, by giving minuses, restrain it with and money, to prevent this.
But I have been thinking: why not just let small nations do that? Only a tiny nation can reshape her self that quickly.
So, this is what I propose. On my list of modifactors ( see below ), I have the modifactor Harmony. The higher the harmony rating, the faster you can change your Social options. The smaller the nations ( in amount of cities ), the bigger the bonus to harmony, while big nations would gain a minus.
Therefor, small nations would get the advantge that only they could "cheat" and have a very flexitve society.

4. Taxition and unit support

In according to the X10 factor rule, if in the past a certain unit cost 2 gold per turn to support, it would now cost 20 gold units to support.
The recommanded amount of Taxs gotten from citizens ( 50% tax/50% luxaries - zero unrest ) is 50 gold per popultion unit.

5. Global morale

This model also assume that events in every turn would give a minus, or a bonus, to production in the next turn. For example, lose some units and gain a certain production minus in the second turn. win a battle or ally with a friendly nation, and get a small production bonus.

6. Leaders

Every X turns ( around 50, but it should be randomizeed ), your leadership change as the old ruler dies, and a new one takes it place. Leaders may also be killed by spies. When a leader is changed, there is a chance of an all-out revolution. The chance of an uprising, and how many turns it will last ( when you move to anarchy ), is decided by the people happiness, harmony rating, and the goverment type you had before the change.

7. Wars

In order to show the damage to the economy by prolonged wars, some sort of reward and punishement system is in order. While wars always boost military industry ( more then more financing, the people are more eager to help the war effort ), and your morale, while you are at the state of war, you automaticly get +2 Mil, +2 Exp ( see below ). However, the civilain industry takes a beating by this. Therefor, for the square-root ( rounded down ) of the duration of the war, you get a - to Producation and economy, ( see below ). For example, if are at war for 16 turns, they you get a +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -4 Prod, -4 Eco. The bonus to war disappear when you sign a peace treaty: the production minus shrink by one every turn. So, if you fought for 28 turns ( 5 sqaure-rooted, rounded down ), it will take you 5 full turns until the minus compelty disappears.
( Maximum minus is -5 Production, -5 Economy ).
You can also have a limited form of war: Strike. In strike you gain no minuses and no bonuses, but the public/senate will not be happy about long strikes: after several turns, expect a lobby to bequest you to end the strike.

B. List of Social modfiactors

My proposed model used a different list of Modifactors then SMAC ( that used police, economy, planet, etc. ). Ofcourse, lots of what was in SMAC is here: but this models also controls many other factors. However, there was no beta-testing and game play balancing. The numbers and actual bonus the modifactors and options grants would be, naturaly, competly un-balanced. I only try to give by this model the sense of direction.
So, here are my suggested 13 modifactors. They inform you of what advantges a high value gives you per +1 bonus ( in a general sense ). For example, if it's said that "get a +10%" bonus, then for +2 modifactor level you gain +20% bonus. Ofcourse, a negative amount would give the exact oppisite. For example, a -2 would give a -20%.

The modifactors:

1. Order
2. Military
3. Expreince
4. Production
5. Enviroment
6. Harmony
7. Loyality
8. Happiness
9. Tax
10. Relations
11. Beucracy
12. Research
13. Economy

Elborate explantions:

1. Order ( Ord )
Describe the level of order you gain over the populace. A high ratings allow you to activie many more police units to supress unhappy emotions and make the citizens less unhappy if military units are outside your terratory.

Dynasty was the old form of Monarchy, that date backs to almost pre-historic dates. It should be among the first things you can research. A blood line that date back to one, unique charcter. The rulers, or kings, are raised to the level of gods: Parroh was said to bring the sun up when he rose. ( which quite explain why they were in a very big hurry to make a new parroh the same day ). Dynsaties lasted for thousands of years, more then any democracy or future monarchy king. The egyptain empire spanned, in all it's glory, for almost 1800 years. The Dynsaty kings also ruled alone, or alone with the help of some advisors.

posted August 21, 1999 18:18                

Have you something against it if I say in my summary "For an explanation on blah, see Harel's summary Chapter 18, Section 5"?
That would seriously decrease the amount of time I have to put in a summary of me. Besides, you can write English better than me, so your explanation for certain things is better.

But I have some questions...

Since when do military units require that much gold as support. There are suggestions that they would need some gold, but the largest part of the support still is resources/shields.
And since when do citizens automatically produce taxes/gold? The tax income has to do with the trade income. Are you sure you aren't confusing Civ2 with some other game?

And when has Global Morale been discussed?

posted August 22, 1999 14:05                

first off, about my second post which include the markets... I am truly sorry, but I have been delayed. In all honesty, it starts to bore me to right about SO so much.

I DID say on the start of my post, that it's my opinion alone. And yes, some of the ideas are all mine: the global morale was something that I saw on Birth of the federation and thought it would be very nice to implamnt in my model. It IS my model, in the end.

About quoting me:
first off, check that indeed we both mean the same thing.
But, we forewarned that it would reflect poorly on your own model. Now, my model is just a suggestion: yours could be much better. I trust that Firaxis will pick the best options ( or best ideas out of the options ). However, if your own model will just "rip-off" my own explantion ( I am not saying that you will rip-off, but it WILL look like it! ), Firaxis could think less on your own model. I could be wrong, thought.

BTW, Diodorus, I took your army remarks to heart: i hope that the new army model will be to your liking.

I hope to post the rest of the model late tonight, or tommorow. They just dropped a pick inspection on me so I am very tight with time... sorry everyone.

posted August 22, 1999 14:56                

Diodorus, I was also planning to adapt the Army category.

posted August 22, 1999 16:19                

Regular ( roman age, use by roman empire. Volunteers are served into an orginized and well equiped army, and gain some good training ). +1 Exp

Citizen militia
->National guard
-->Civlian duty

Non-expert army that relies on trained civilians. It's bonus that it makes the people happy.

Tribal levee ( everyone fight )
->Forced drafts ( raiding villages for able men and boys, train them brief and send them over )
-->Recruitment ( like most democracties in wars )

Easy to obtain cheap troops, but the exp level isn't very high and the people resent it.

Military caste
->Mercenaries
-->Proffesional

Highly trained, high cost warriors.

and for Maniac:

I just finished markets. I am now sure I can finish the entire model for tommorow dead-line ( like before, Bell, I ask that you will quote my two posts compelty ).

So, I will post markets just for you, since you wished to see it. However, it's not open to discussing anymore, sorry. I might accept your opinions, but it's too late, I am not changing anything more now.

Bell, do not quote this post, since my second part of my model will be posted tommorow and will include this.

b>2. Market

Simple ( Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange )
Closed ( Autaracial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned )
Directed ( Protectionism -> Mercantlism -> Colonial -> Nationalazation )
Social ( Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia )
Free ( Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational )

Simple

Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange

Logic: The simple markets reflect the "Basic" option at SMAC. This market option boost the belief that the goverement simply select the most widely accepted form of trade, and then allow the people to use it at will. It's not, however, free economics as they dis-originzation and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvert the revenue gotten from an almost free market.
Strategy: means to serve the people who don't wish any direction of their market, and wish to have a no-effect bonus.

posted August 22, 1999 19:46                

Diodorus, this is my Army :

Tribal Levee (as you told)
1)->Citizen-Soldier/Civic Duty (as you told)
-->Draft/Conscription (eg every man a year in the army)
2)->People Army (as Harel's Forced Draft)
-->Recruitment (as in the Civil War)

Military Caste
->Mercenary
-->Professional

Bell, is tomorrow the dead-line of summary posts?!? I didn't know that.

posted August 23, 1999 16:27                

Fairs did not exist in the ancient empires. They arose in the middle ages.

Autarchy is only used by a city states and sometimes their colonies if they have any (did Thebe and Sparta have colonies?). So there are no 'different markets of the civilization'.

And Manorialism is totally NOT what Harel says it is. It arose in the 6th and 7th century after trade stopped because of the lower population and vital necessities. Trade was impossible anyway since the Islam controlled the Mediterranean Sea and later the Vikings brought also more trouble.
In fact Manorialism is just Autarchy in a larger nation. No interaction or trade between the cities and no industry and handicraft in the cities.

Mercantilism is also totally wrong. First of all, Colbert lived in the 17th century. And explaining colbertism-mercantilism now would take too long. But it isn't some kind of a cheat. I don't know where Harel got that. I wonder if he has even looked in an encyclopedy to be sure of what he writes.

And I agree with Diodorus that Colonial isn't an economy. Eg colonial Spain can be well represented with Mercantilism-Feudal or something like that.

And with Guilds I don't mean the ancient ones, but in the middle ages the craft guilds in the city.

So, if Firaxis think Harel's explanations are also valid for my model, some evolution of me don't seem right.

So, my 'summary'. I stopped writing it since I can't get it finished anymore. Today I had no time. Tomorrow neither...
Possible problems are the big differences in the Autarchy track and my Army category sucks. There is a lack of military SE factors since Support and Military Industry are united.

quote:

---

Temporary model, always open for discussion

By M@ni@c

This model tries to give a solution to a very large problem: how to adapt Alpha Centauri’s Social Engineering screen in the more complex earth societies. While almost everyone agreed that the Social Engineering screen ( for now on, called SE in short ) is a better system than Civ I & Civ II goverment options, the methods in which we hope to achieve this are widely different from one another.
So, in a nutshell, my own opinion.

Sections:

A. Concepts that are used in the model
B. List of SE Factors
C. The model itself
D. Other SE related topics

A. Concepts that are used in the model

This section contains:

1. Evolving SE choices, or "->"
2. The x10 system
3. SE switching

1. Evolving SE, or "->"

After I posted my first complete SE model, which is now replaced by a new one (this one), people said that in the modern age, there would be too many SE choices. Therefore, Harel proposed to use the concept of evolving SE choices. Meaning, that as history and technology move on, certain options become obsolete and are replaced by a newer system that still shares the same principle and concept.
For example, Capitalism ( which has a free reign of economy ) was a form of free markets in the early history that was replaced by the true Free Market in the modern era. Therefore, it will show like this: Capitalism -> Free market. Meaning, the second that Free Market is researched, Capitalism becomes obsolete and is replaced by Free Market which gives a slightly bigger bonus and sometimes a bigger penalty. The transformation is instantaneous, and costs no money or time.

2. The x10 system

When trying to find a solution for the Industry cheat in SMAC, I came up with the solution of doing everything in Civ3 x10. That means that now a grassland would produce 20 food instead of 2, but citizens should also need 20 food every turn. Same for shields/resources and trade. Trade x10 means also taxes, science and luxuries x10…
After a while it became clear that x10 can do much more than just solve the Industry cheat problem. For example you can have techs that increase your overall food production of squares with 10%.
Or you can give units a different support, so you can show the difference between Riflemen and Armor support. Now you can represent that units need food and gold as their pay.
In short, there are many applications and therefore I think x10 must be in Civ3.

SE switching

Changing your SE choices in SMAC was too easy. With just paying a little money, you could be Democracy the first turn, Police State the second and the thirth turn Fundamentalist without any problem. Therefore I suggest that SE switching takes something longer, 3 turns. Of course there should be some penalty for switching larger than some money, because that doesn’t stop people from regular switching. My suggestion :
0th turn : old bonuses and old penalties
1st and 2nd turn : old bonuses, old and new penalties
3th turn : new bonuses and new penalties
This counts for SE switching in every category except Government. There you are Anarchy for three turns before installing another Government choice.

B. List of SE Factors

My proposed model uses an expanded list of Factors than SMAC. All what was in SMAC is here: but this model also controls many other factors and effects. Therefore it is impossible to reduce the list to ten factors as in SMAC, as some people wanted. However, there was no beta-testing and game play balancing. The numbers and actual bonus the Factors and options grants is, naturally, completely unbalanced. I only try to give by this model the sense of direction.
So, here are my suggested 14 Factors. In some cases I am very precise and give effects for every possible rate. In other cases I just give one example and for the rest I use …

The Factors:

1. Police
2. Military
3. Nationalism
4. Happiness
5. Experience
6. Growth
7. Production
8. Environment
9. Research
10. Taxes
11. Economy
12. Relations
13. Bureaucracy
14. Senate

Elaborate explanations:

With most factors there is also some information that has nothing to do with SE itself, but that is necessary to fully understand the factor.

1) Police (Pol)

Declaring Martial Law means all people become content for ten turns, similar to SMAC nerve staple.
Martial Law is an atrocity, especially in modern times after the UN has been established.

In all Civ versions I wondered why airplanes caused unhappiness. The reason a manual gave me was that it was because the pilots had to do practice flights and were always in the air. That caused unhappiness. But IMHO that isn’t a reason.
As long as a democracy(Western countries) is bombarding another nation(Serbia, Iraq) there is no problem. It's only when they want to send ground troops and the boys of the country itself can get killed, there comes trouble. That's why I think Air units should cause less unhappiness. This is also a way to make Bombers more useful if you have a negative Police rate. Another benefit of Air units is that you could send them to an enemy without permission of your pact nations (see –8 and –9 Pol rates).

With allies I mean simple allies.
With pact nations I mean civs that are in your multistate-coallition(eg NATO, probably possible in Civ3). There should be at least 4 civs to have a coallition.

There should be a council proposal à la SMAC possible to or not to allow nuke use.

About territory. I think even if there aren’t sea bases in Civ3, there should be sea borders. 1 square away in ancient times after the tech discovery of the Sail. Two in renaissance after the tech discovery of the Compass. Three in modern times.

+3 : 3 units can act as police. Police effect doubled.

+2 : 3 units can act as police, each keeping one unhappy citizen content.

+1 : 2 units can act as police

0 : 1 unit can act as police

-1 : 1 unit can act as police; can’t delare Martial Law.

-2 : no police and no Martial Law (Also no police or Martial Law for all lower Police rates)

-3 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
All units in allied teritory never cause unhappiness.
Every unit beyond the first out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone.

-4 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
All units in allied teritory never cause unhappiness.
Every land or sea unit out of your or your allies' territory causes one drone.
Every air unit beyond the first out of your or your allies' territory cause one drone.

-5 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Every land or sea unit in your allies’ territory, but not in one of their cities, cause one drone.
All air units beyond the first in your allies’ territory cause one drone.
Every land or sea unit out of your or your allies’ teritory cause two drones.
All air units beyond the first out of your or your allies’ territory cause one drone.

-6 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Every unit in allied territory, but not in one of their cities, cause one drone.
Land and sea units out of your or your allies’ territory cause two drones.
Air units out of your or your allies’ territory cause one drone.

-7 : Units in your territory or in an allied city never cause unhappiness.
Units not in your territory cause two drones.
(this also counts for all lower police rates)

-8 : You (or your senate,depends on your Senate rate; later more about this) must ask permission to your pact nations to send ground or nuclear (if allowed by some agreement) units to an enemy.
½ must agree.

-9 : You (or your senate,depends on your Senate rate; later more about this) must ask permission to your pact nations to send ground or nuclear (if allowed by some agreement) units to an enemy.
2/3 must agree.

2) Military (Mil)

This is actually a combination of two factors that were earlier separated : Support and Military Industry.
To reduce the number of factors and because they are about the same thing –army- they have been melted together.

I think units should have a different support. Transports or Explorers won't need as much support as Battleships or Knights. This is easy to do with the x10 system.

For every +Military, one less resource is needed to support the unit.
For example, if a Knights requires normally 10 resources to support, with +4 Military it would only require 6 resources.

For every -Military, one more resource is needed to support the unit.
For example, if a Knights requires normally 10 resources to support, with -4 Military it would only require 14 resources.

This means that units free of support are impossible unless you have a very high Military rate.
This solves the ICS problem of “one size ten cities gives me 3 free units while ten size one cities give me 30 free units”

For –1 Military and every higher Military rate, when you found a new city you get 100 (x10!) labor/resources for free.

Military also affects your labor (see more in the Economy/Trade thread for more explanation about Labor and Resources) output when producing units with 10% per + or -.
If your normal labor output is 200 labor, when producing eg a Howitzer it would increase to 220 if you have +1 Military.
This is to solve the Industry cheat in SMAC where the cost of units, buildings and secret projects was directly affected.

…
+1 : +10% Labor production bonus when producing military units.; one less resource needed for support.
0 : normal
-1 : -10% Labor production penalty when producing military units.; one more resource needed for support.

3) Nationalism (Nat)

For this factor I am assuming there is a migration model in Civ3 (I proposed one. Perhaps you can find it in another summary.).

For more information on Conviction(=religious defense), see the Religion thread summary.

I am also assuming there will be atrocities and international punishments like trade embargos.

+6 : +75% Conviction for your state religion if you have one or for all religions in your empire if you are Religious Freedom.
No emigration possible
no bribing possible
No international punishment for atrocities

+5: +67% Conviction
Very very low emigration
no bribing
Very very low punishment for atrocities

+4 : +50% Conviction
Very low emigration
no bribing
Very low punishment for atrocities

+3 : +37% Conviction
Low emigration
+75% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions
Lower punishment for atrocities

+2 : +25% Conviction
Lower emigration
+50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

+1 : +12% Conviction
Slightly lower emigration
+25% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

0 : normal

-1 : -12% Conviction
-25% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

-2 : -25% Conviction
-50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

-3 : -37% Conviction
-50% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions

4) Happiness (Hap)

Your Happiness rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Happiness you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Happiness rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ. Also if you conquer a city of a civ with a higher Hap rate, there appear Partisans.
If a majority of the citizens of the conquered city follow your state religion, they are immediately assimilated.

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

City Limit = (8 – Difficulty) x (7 + Happiness rate) 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 will appear at some random city somewhere in the civ.

Normally you should be able to set the amount of trade you allocate for luxuries on a maximum of 50%. Happiness rate should affect this. So if you have eg a Happiness rate of –4, it should be impossible for you to mend the unhappy citizens by high luxury rates.

The Happiness rate affects how much money it costs to bribe units/cities.

The effectiveness of the Entertainer special citizen is also affected.

…
+5 : luxury rate can be set at 100%, bribing 67% cheaper, Entertainers give 50% more luxuries
+4 : 90%, bribing 50% cheaper, Entertainers +40%
+3 : 80%, bribing 37% cheaper, Entertainers +30%
+2 : 70%, bribing 25% cheaper, Entertainers +20%
+1 : 60%, bribing 12% cheaper, Entertainers +10%
0 :50%
-1 : 40%, bribing 12% more expensive, Entertainers –10%
-2 : 30%, bribing 25% more expensive, Entertainers –20%
-3 : 20%, bribing 37% more expensive, Entertainers –30%
-4 : 10%, bribing 50% more expensive, Entertainers –40%
-5 : you can’t use any luxuries, 67% more expensive, Entertainers –50%
…

5) Experience (Exp)

Necessary for this social factor to work, is off course that the Morale distinction of SMAC is used.
I don’t like the word Commando to express the experience level of a unit, so these are my proposed names.
Very Green
Green
Disciplined
Trained
Hardened
Veteran
Elite

This SE factor does also affect the Experience of Spies and Diplomats, since good armies always have a good intelligence and reconnaissance. Spy/Diplomat Experience also affect their success rate in missions.

In SMAC all the units got a Morale bonus if you eg switched to Power. I would change it. Only the units build under the +Experience regime get the bonus and even if after that you change to a choice with –Experience, that units keep the Experience bonus. The opposite is also true. If you build units when you have a bad Experience rate, they don’t get an Experience
bonus when you switch to eg Power. So cheating like only switching to Value – Power or Army – Professional when you are in war should have no positive effect on your already built units.

…
+1 : +1 Experience
0 : normal Experience
-1 : -1 Experience
-2 : -1 Experience; positive combat modifiers halved
-3 : -2 Experience; + modifiers halved
-4 : -3 Experience; + modifiers halved
…

6) Growth (Gro)

1)This determines how much your people tend to go from the countryside to the cities = their willingness to live in a huge city(in other words your population limit) and it determines how much rows must be filled to let the city grow(similar to SMAC).

2) I think cities should continue to grow even if there is no aquaduct or similar building in the city. My Growth Factor is based on it. The drawback would be that all people not having sufficient clean water(=Aquaduct, Sewer System) or living space(=Apartment Blocks, Arcology) become Revolutionaries = very unhappy citizens. Too much Revolutionaries can cause a city to revolt and form a new civ.

3) city size 7 or 8 : Aquaduct needed
12/14 Sewer System( not the modern one that came much too early in Civ2, but something like the Roman Cloaca = sewerage.
20 : Apartment Block
30 : Arcology
40 : Super Arcology? or perhaps there should be a building for 40, to similate population pressure.

4) I think in the early parts of the game, so I mean until the Modern Age, population boom should be impossible. This is as much cheating as ICS. So the pop boom problem of ‘Democracy-Planned-Children’s Creche’ in SMAC and ‘Democracy + high luxuries’ in Civ2 should also be solved.
So +6 Gro should be impossible until late in the game.

5) A granary in Civ3 should be like in Civ2, and not like a Children’s Creche, causing +2 Growth, in SMAC. Otherwise you could get pop boom early in the game.

+6 : +6 Population limit; Cities have a population boom every turn if sufficient Food is available in your city/region/civ (depends on what food system is used.
+5 : +5 Population limit; only 5 rows must be filled to let a city increase in size.
...
0 : normal
...
-5 : -5 pop limit; 15 rows must be filled.
-6 : -6 pop limit; no population growth.

Or in an other growth system (I think city growth by surplus food is totally unrealistic), like birth-die-immigration-emigration it should increase the # of children a family on an average has, thus increasing the birth rate. BTW, I suggested the beginnings of an alternate of a growth system. Perhaps you can find it in another summary.

7) Production (Pro)

For every +Production, the Irrigation/Farm Terrain Improvements produces 10% more food and you produce also 10% more labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world

For every –Production, the Irrigation and Farm TI produces 10% more food and you produce also 10% less labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world

…
+1 : +10% food output of Irrigation/Farm TI’s; +10% Labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world
0 : normal
-1 : -10% food output of Irrigation/Farm TI’s; -10% Labor when producing non-military units, city improvements or wonders of the world
…

Notes :
1)Using everythingx10 model
2)Other ways to increase Food or Resource production can be Terrain Improvements (Railroad and Farm) and Technologies :
eg in the beginning of the game an irrigation yields +9 Food.
-Pottery : +1 Food for Irrigation TI.
-Horse Plowing : +1 " " " "
-Crop Rotation : +1 “ “ “ “

8) Environmentalism (Env)

There should be three types of pollution : industrial, nuclear and population pollution

Environment can increase or decrease industrial and population population.
Unfortunately the Civ2 formulae don’t take a pollution modifier in account, so they can’t be used in Civ3.

Environment should also increase or decrease the likelyness of plagues, diseases, natural disasters, etc…

Environment increases or decreases the production of Forests, Jungles or any tree terraint type with 10% per + or – rate.

+? : less pollution; less natural disruption; more forest production
...
0 : normal pollution rate
...
-? : more pollution; more natural disruption; less forest production

9) Research (Res)

Without SE changes you can set your amount of trade used for science to 70%.

I am in favor of simultaneous research in each category. Therefore you should be able to allocate a certain amount of your research point to one category. Categories should be Economic, Military, Academic, Social, Applied. Normally this should be 50%.

Your Res rate should affect how much science icons a Scientist Special citizen generates.

+5 : +50% Research; you may set your trade allocated to science at 100%; you may allocate 100% of your accumulated science to one category; Scientists generate 50% more Science
+4 : +40% Research; trade 100%; category 90%; Scientists generate 40% more Science
+3 : +30 Res; trade 100; cat 80; Scientists generate 30% more Science
+2 : +20 Res; trade 90; cat 70; Scientists generate 20% more Science
+1 : +10 Res; trade 80; cat 60; Scientists generate 10% more Science
0 : normal science accumulation; trade 70%; category 50%
-1 : -10% Research; trade 60%; category 40%; Scientists generate 10% less Science
-2 : -20 Res; trade 50; cat 30; Scientists generate 20% less Science
-3 : -30 Res; trade 40; cat 20; Scientists generate 30% less Science
-4 : -40 Res; trade 30; cat 20; Scientists generate 40% less Science

10) Taxes (Tax)

Normal amount of trade you can allocate to Taxes is 70%.

If you have eg a tax income of 20 gold and a Tax rate of +2, you get 24 Gold.

Your Tax rate affects how much Gold a Taxmen Special citizen generates.

...
+3 : +30 tax income; tax allocation 100%; Taxmen generate 30% more Tax
+2 : +20 tax; tax 90; Taxmen generate 20% more Tax
+1 : +10 tax; tax 80; Taxmen generate 10% more Tax
0 : normal Tax income; tax 70
-1 : -10 tax; tax 60; Taxmen generate 10% less Tax
-2 : -20 tax; tax 50; Taxmen generate 20% less Tax
-3 : -30 tax; tax 40; Taxmen generate 30% less Tax
-4 : -20 tax; tax 30; Taxmen generate 40% less Tax
…

11) Economy (Eco)

In SMAC +1 Economy was +1 Energy/base. That may be a nice bonus in the beginning of the game. But later in the game it means nothing. The x10 system can correct this, since it can make the Economy factor a bit more lineair.

The capitals of civs should get 10 more trade.

In SMAC the Economy bonuses above +2 are not worth the many negatives related to me. I solved it by giving +5 Economy another big bonus.

+5 : +20 trade/square
+4 : +14 trade/square
+3 : +12 trade/square
+2 : +10 trade/square
+1 : +2 trade/square
0 : normal trade production
-1 : -1 trade/square; -10 trade in capital
-2 : -2 trade/square; -10 trade in capital

12) Relations (Rel)

Note that Relations, not Economy as in SMAC gives a trade bonus.

The commerce bonus is the same as in SMAC. A +10 trade bonus for every foreign trade route.

…
+1 : +1 commerce; better diplomatic relationships
0 : normal
-1 : -1 commerce; worse diplomatic relationships

13) Bureaucracy (Bur)

The better your Bureaucracy rate, the less trade you loose by cities far away from your capital.(so no waste in Civ3)

If cities are connected by roads to your capitals, that cities have slightly less corruption.

The formula used could :

Bureaucracy = ((Trade x (Distance / 4000 x # of map squares)) x3) / (20 x (2 + Bureaucracy)) / 4000 x # of map squares

where :

Trade = the number of trade icons the city generates

Bureaucracy = your SE Bureaucracy rate

Distance = the city’s distance from your capital (diagonal squares count as 1.5 squares when figuring the Distance)
The maximum value of Distance = 36.

14) Senate (Sen)

I think that AI civs should also have a reputation. The Senate would be less willing to sign a peace treaty with a civ with a bad reputation.

…
+1 : SE switching takes less time.
0 : normal
-1 : your Senate signs a truce or a peace treaty 25% of the time; the Senate forbids you to sneakattack an enemy 25% of the time.
-2 : 50% Senate interference
-3 : 75% Senate interference
-4 : 100% Senate interference

C. The Model itself

This model shows all the options the player may select on the SE screen. The concept of evolving SE choices( see above ) is used many times, and is designated by an -> Arrow.
For certain choices I have provided more than one name to make more clear what I mean with the choice. I also give an explanation for some factors, except if they were already explained in an earlier similar SE choice or if the reason is obvious.
The model contains 6 categories :

List of SE categories:

1. Government
2. Economy
3. Structure
4. Value
5. Research
6. Army

1. Goverments

Anarchy
Monarchial/Absolute
Free
Religious[/b]

Anarchy

Anarchy is by no means a valid option: you can't select Anarchy nor do you start with it as your first option. Anarchy is the lack of any organized government, caused by revolutions and overthrow of the current Government. It may apply to single cities that riot, or to all your society in the duration of a SE Government switch. Many societies experienced anarchy at some point: France after the French revolution, The Romans after barbarians herald the empire destruction, and so on.

Anarchy*: -3 Hap, -3 Nat

*No labor is done at all and no trade is gathered (no tax, science or luxuries)

-3 Hap because people are unhappy.
During a revolution people can be more easily bribed/converted (-3 Nat).

Monarchial/Absolute

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King
->Despotism
-->Absolute Monarchy
--->Totalitarianism
->Dynasty
-->Parliamentary Monarchy

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King : +1 Pol, -1 Hap

This is the earliest, because the Indo-European tradition is a king or leader who has to be ratified by the warrior/military class of the society. Historical vestiges of this are the aclamation of the Macedonian kings (like Philip and Alexander) by the Macedonian Army and the Witan or Widan assembly ratifying the early Germanic kings.

This choice evolves in two other choices.

1) Despotism : +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -1 Hap, -1 Bur

This is a monarchy where the control of the monarch is more absolute = +2 Pol.
The monarch also owns most of the land. That centralization results in an increased production of farms and other production centra = +1 Pro.
However people are suppressed which leads to less happiness = -1 Hap.
This is also an inefficient system of ruling since one person can’t rule a large empire = -1 Bur.
Eg : Persian Shah’s

2) Dynasty : +2 Rel, +1 Pol, -2 Tax

Another evolution of simple Warrior kings. The kings are still the leaders, but some high classes eg the nobles have some influence.
Dynasties have an advantage no other government type has : the kings can marry off their daughters which can create a family bond with other civ’s leaders. This improves diplomatic relationships = +2 Rel.
In general in dynasties a lot of tax money goes to the court = -2 Tax.
Eg : all European monarchies

The evolution of Despotism is Absolute Monarchy.
Absolute Monarchy : +2 Pol, +1 Mil, +1 Sen, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

This is the ‘classic’ European monarchy, but it only dates from the end of the renaissance, when Absolutism philosophy, encouraged by the church’s example, took hold. As opposed to the God King, in which the king is special because he is a God, the Absolute Monarch is special because he has a special relationship with and favor from God. He is a secular monarch backed by God.
He usually maintains a large army = +1 Mil.
The nobles or any other group have nothing to say = +2 Sen.
Eg : the French monarchies with the best example Louis XIV.

The evolution of Absolute Monarchy is Totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism : +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Bur

Absolute rule of a person or sometimes a party if communist. It doesn’t have to be a monarch.
Eg : Soviet Bloc, China, all other present dictators in the world.

The evolution of Dynasty is Parliamentary Monarchy.
Parliamentary Monarchy : +2 Tax, +1 Bur, -1 Mil, -1 Sen

Kings needed more money as time passed and they mostly got that from the nobles or any other economical class in the States-General = +2 Tax.
However in return they asked more political influence = -1 Sen.
They are sometimes against war, cause it could be too expensive to pay = -1 Mil.
A states-general or any other representative system makes a larger empire possible.
Eg : England with Magna Carta, Petition and Declaration of Rights.

Religious/Strong Belief

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King
->Theocracy
-->Fundamentalism

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King : +1 Nat, +1 Pro, -1 Res

This is the next earliest after Warrior kings, when a ruler needed a legal background for his authority over other than his immediate tribe or group, and turned to religion for it. The early Middle Eastern Empires, Egypt the most obvious but also the Assyrian and Persian (although they lean to Despotism), had these, and it also defines the traditional Japanese and Chinese Imperial systems.
The king promotes a strong religion and the citizens are more convinced in the religion = +1 Nat.
The king can use the citizens to do large works like the Pyramids = +1 Pro.
A religion lessens free thinking = -1 Res.

Theocracy : +2 Nat, +2 Tax, -2 Res

The religious authorities have many influence, so you could say they are actually ruling.
The church gets many donations and indulgences = -2 Tax.
Eg : medieval Europe, especially after Worms.

Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +2 Gro, +1 Exp, -2 Res, -2 Rel

All fundamentalists countries today have a larger birthrate than other countries = +2 Gro.
Fundamentalism creates a fanatic army = +1 Exp.
Other countries don’t like fundamentalist countries = -2 Rel.

Free/Representative

Tribal Assembly
->Republic
-->Democracy
--->True Democracy

Tribal Assembly : +2 Hap, -1 Bur, -1 Sen

In old nomadic tribes, and early cities, in the pre-culture era, the tribe was ruled by an assembly that compromised every adult able male. While it was not complete form of democracy ( no right of vote for females and slaves ) it was still the first step into recognizing the importance of every person (+2 Hap). The assembly voted on many things. It comprimised off the hunters ( all the able male ), the elders ( a smaller group, an inner concuil consist of the oldest members of the tribe who could veto everything ), and sometimes an elected tribe leader. However, since every person could vote (-1 Sen) , it made large empires almost impossible to manage (-1 Bur).

Republic : +2 Bur +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil

Republic was almost a throwback from the equally thinking tribal assembly. The Roman and Greek republics granted right of vote to only a very narrow broad of people. Mainly, only the upper class could vote, creating an Oligarchy. This excluded women, slaves ( which they had plenty ) and the lower class. But the republic did introduce a concept that allowed free governmnents to exand: the Senate. The idea of publicly chosen senators ( which were selected every few years by the entire inhabitants of Rome/Athens ), and delegating power to them allows the empire to expand = +2 Bur. People from all over the nation didn't have to come for every major vote: only once every few years they would select a single concuil member they would trust the most to do thier biding for them. Under a Republic there was sometimes an elected leader. But it didn’t hold much power, since it had to obey the Senate. So don’t confuse this system with what is called these days a republic : a state with a president (counted under Democracy).
The ruling class also owned much of the lands, with the Romans creating latifundia = +2 ¨Pro.
Eg : Rome, Athens, the Dutch, Italian Renaissance city states.

Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil

A democracy was a step up from the republic: first off, every citizen could vote. Women could, slaves were freed, everyone. Also, the senate in a democracy holds at least as much or even more power then the president (-2 Sen). Due to all of this, the people had a great deal of control over thier lifes (+2 Hap). Modern democracy becomes available in the 19th century. The first modern democracy was France.

True Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Sen, -2 Mil, -1 Pol

True democracy is, in a way, the return of Tribal assembly with technology. In an on-line world (+1 Eco e-commerce), there is no need for any power delegation. The senate and the senator are gone, and so it the president ( consider the player as the representation of what the people want ). Budgets, declaration of war and alliances are offered to a global voting by every citizen. New rules and suggestions can be lobbied to the public by going to a series or smaller votes ( a random 100 people need to approve it, then a bigger vote of 1000, and so on ) till is passes enough votes and is suggested to the entire public. This is only slightly futuristic, and should in game terms be available very soon after computers/internet.

Conclusion

There will always be available 4 distinct choices in every time period. One Free, one Religious and two Monarchials. If you look at the choices all together, you could say there is too less difference, but when you look per time frame, there are always 4 choices with mostly different bonuses and penalties.

2. Economy

Open
Closed
State Controlled/Planned
Free

First I would like to say that I made this model only recently and there are some problems with the model’s balance, especially in this category. For example the difference between Manorialism and Guilds is too big. The second example is that Communism is not a real evolution of Mercantilism. I only put them in together because they are both state controlled economies and they share the same effects (eg +Production). This could simply be solved by not making Communism an evolution of Mercantilism, thus creating 5 different economy choices. Feedback and ideas of Firaxis are always welcome on what to do to solve this problems.

Open

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no positives or negatives
-->Joint-Stock Companies : +2 Rel

The Open economies reflect the "Simple" Economy option in SMAC. Trade happens without any government control. It's not, however, free economics as their dis-organization and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvest the revenue gotten from an almost free market.

Barter as a form of economy is your first option in the game. Barter is the concept of item trade: you give me X cows, and I shall give you my own Y stones. The lack of any accepted trade ratio between the items cause many problems, mainly to the ruler’s tax collectors, that when in doubt tended to take too much of the owner items.

Currency replaced bartering somewhere in the pre-greek era. Many of the big ancient empires had currency, like the Phoenicians, Minoans and Egyptians. The coins consisted out of gold, silver, bronze…. They did represent a value, equal to the value of the metal used.

Joint-Stock Companies were owned by several people, each holding a share in the company. The cost and the profit of the enterprise were divided to all the share holders. A hitch (eg losing a ship full of costly trade goods) was more bearable by a joint-stock company than by a company owned by one person, since the cost of the losses was divided between numberous people. Usually the European monarchies gave monopolies to certain companies and allowed them to trade in a certain area for a certain time. That way the Indian Companies arose.

Closed

Autarchy : +1 Pro, +1 Mil, -1 Bur
->Manorialism : +1 Pol, +2 Mil, -2 Pro
-->Guilds : +1 Eco, +2 Gro, -2 Env

Autarchy ( self sufficiency ) economies tends to her needs alone, and produces everything the local market (city state) needs by himself. There is no, or very little, trade and relations with markets of other city states.

At the end of the Roman Age, trade decreased and that became even worse when the Germans came. The society became totally agraric. There was no craft specialization. Every had to make his own things. In this primitive society without cities, currency, writing, good roads, trade and industry everyone depended on what the ground produced for his food, clothes, warmth and houses.
Owning land was very important though it produced very little compared to now. In good years the peasant harvested only three times as much as he seeded. West-Europe knew an agricultural self-sufficiency, an autarchial closed economy. Every manor was a separate world, an economical entity, an autarchy who produced what it consumed. The entire production of the domain was used for the life support of the inhabitants. Of course the autarchy was never complete. For rare things as iron, salt, hides and spices who couldn’t be got on the domain there stayed a limited barter. This system used in the early Middle Ages from the 6th and 7th century is called Manorialism.

From the year 1000 trade and industry increased again in the cities. Groups of people with the same profession joined in guilds. If merchant guilds out of different cities united, it became ansa’s which means translated ‘group’. Besides merchant guilds there were also craft guilds. Every guild had a monopoly on the manufacturing of a product. The guild dtermined how many hours members may work per day, the price of the product. Publicity was forbidden. This was to eliminate competition and give everyone equal chances. Rules had to ensure the quality of the product, to ensure the consumer’s marketand to ensure a regular salary. The guild had besides economical also social and religious goals. But the negative side was that every member was bound to strict rules. it made individual ideas impossible since they had to follow a certain method of production. Innovation stagnated and gradually manufacturing of eg textile returned again to the countryside where it was also cheaper. Also some production processes caused a lot of environmental pollution and water contamination. That way the hygiene in the cities decreased = -2 Env.

State Controlled/Planned

Mercantilism : +2 Tax, +2 Pro, -2 Rel
->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Bur
-->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

This is an economical system that is perfected by the French economical ‘minister’ Colbert who lived in the 17th century. He reformed taxation. He eradicated abuses, united the tax system, redivided the burden of taxation and bettered tax inning. The result was a serious increase in tax income = +2 Tax.
He stimulated the industry and trade by establishing state owned companies. He also stimulated private companies. He controlled and regulated production, built a trade fleet, set up Indian Companies, made better connections on land and water = +2 Pro.
He made stronger the international competition position by stimulating the export and reducing the import by raising toll (import of raw materials excluded), by forbidding export of wheat to have low food prices and he developed the colonies. This form of planned economy that existed already a long time on city level but was new on national level in Europe, is called Mercantilism and in French form Colbertism. However, since an increase in national trade was thought to be possible alone at cost of other nation and since there was a close connection between state and economy, Mercantilism was equal to a cold war sphere = -2 Rel.

Communism markets were first developed in the modern era. Because real Communism never existed in the real world, I wouldn’t give it the benefits real Communism should have. Instead I would give it the benefits of Russian communism. High conviction (enforced atheism), low emigration (Iron Curtain) = +2 Nat. And also a good industry in the case of Russia and increased food production in the case of China = +3 Pro.

Utopia is a futuristic no-money society = -2 Tax, -2 Eco, -1 Bur. It also follows the real Communism ideology = +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap.

Free

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil, -1 Sen
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Bur, -5 Pol, -3 Env, -1 Sen
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Bur, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Sen

Capitalism is a general name for free trade. In the ancient era a good example are the Phoenicians. Later on in the Renaissance I would consider Banking also under Capitalism.

Free Markets, formerly established in the industrial era, was created when banks no longer needed the formal permission of the crown to build, create and deal with money: and so the bussiness of making money from money thrived. So numberous those banks became, that each hold very little power ( not the federal bank, of course ), that thier power structure crushed and tumbled, moving power in the hands of enterprisers and companies. Very soon, companies changed the market as they saw fit. However, the government ( after some fatal incididents ), did set some laws.

Transnational is the evolution of Free Markets. From companies, evolved corporations, and they become bigger and bigger since many corporations fuse. Then you get a few multinational corporations over the entire world. To know more about Transnational, read the book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

The other choices are self explanatory, so I don’t think explaining the effects is necessary. If you do need some explanation, come to the thread and ask.

3. Structure

City State : no pos or neg
Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro
Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

4. Value

Survival/Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +1 Sen, -2 Pro
Socialism/Happiness : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Mor
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

5. Research

Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, Economy techs at 75% of normal cost
Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, Social techs at 75% of normal cost
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, Military techs at 75% of normal cost
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic cost at 75% of normal cost

6. Army

Tribal Levy/Levy in Mass : no pos or neg

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

People Army/Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Citizen-Soldier/Volunteer/Civic Duty : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Tax

D. Other SE related topics

Golden Age/ We Love The … Days

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

As you see, no growth bonus to make that unrealistic pop boom impossible in the early game.

+2 Nat makes bribing more difficult.
+2 Hap makes the (conqered) city assimilate faster.
+2 Pro cause they are happier.
+1 Eco cause better economy, better trade
+1 Bur as in Civ2, less corruption

Religion

Some want Religion to be dealt with in SE, but as you can read in the Religion thread, the Religion model there doesn’t allow a SE Religion category.

Time frame

I'll type here in what time I think certain choices should appear.

Available at the start :
(if Civ2 starts in 4000 BC. In an interview Jeff Briggs has told otherwise)

Dictatorship, Tribal Assembly, Barter, City State, Survival, Wise Men, Tribal Levy

These are also the choices you have at the start.

Available in ancient era :

Despotism, Dynasty, Republic, High Priestship, Currency, Autarchy, Capitalism, Imperial/Federal, Wealth, Socialism, Natural, Practical, Military Caste(very early), Mercenary(later), Forced Draft, Civic Duty

Available in Middle Ages :

Theocracy, Manorialism(very early), Guilds(later), Feudal

Available in Renaissance :

Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Monarchy, Joint-Stock Companies, Mercantilism, Humanitarian, Exploring

Available in Industrial Revolution and Modern:

Totalitarianism, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Communism, Free Market, Confederate, Knowledge, Professional, Recruitment, Draft, Environment

Available in Near-future :

True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational

---

posted August 23, 1999 17:40                

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

posted August 25, 1999 03:42                

Maniac, about your market options: hehehehehehehehhe! Guild as closed? Communism evolved from mercantlism? How is that even remotly close to history?

posted August 25, 1999 13:03                

"Happyness can be seen as how much people want to live in a city... In this case it is the biggest factor in immegration/emmigration."-ember

As said in the ECONOMICS thread. This is why I would prefer growth be affected by a HAPPINESS CE instead of imm/emmigration CE. Likely anything that affects migration is due to a perception of a better life in the destination of the migrant. So the unhappy people emmigrate to the happier lands (immigrate). Plus the happiness CE affects many other useful modifiers.

Bell, go ahead and post my sliding scale but I'm starting to think it's not the best idea. Focus instead on the idea of having the button choices lined up similar to the scale so the HAPPINESS indicator works when switching between CEs, and definitely include my suggestions on how CEs should work.

posted August 25, 1999 15:15                

Yes, I know about the problems in my Economy category and I mentioned them myself in my updated (Bell, be sure to include the updated post and not my old one) post.

And if you won't listen to good advice about mercantilism and fairs while several people said you were wrong, I can't help you.

"Fairs are not ancient, they were a product of the middle ages, the beginnings of the ‘break out’ from a strictly local to a regional and international trading system. Similar ancient institutions would be the Agora or Forum, the central market of Greco-Roman cities, or the Bazaar market center of the middle eastern cities."

Diodorus agrees with me.

And I gave a better explanation of mercantilism-colbertism in my updated post. Exporting products is only a small part of the mercantilist strategy.
Sid Meier and hopefully for the sake of Civ3 also Brian Reynolds are history buffs and they will see that you made many mistakes in your explanations of your SE choices. So they won't accept your faulty Economy category, I think.
Just want to warn you...

Theben :

First, I wonder why you addressed me about migration in this thread.

Secondly, I don't have a SE Immigration/Emigration factor (do you mean with a CE a SE factor?). I do have a Growth factor, but that doesn't affect migration at all.

Thirth, I don't think there is a population boom in Africa because they are happy.

posted August 25, 1999 16:23                

My model is historly accurate. It has fault, yes, but it least it's accurate! what nation ever evolved from a mercantlism to communism? And how can you say communism is a planned market? It's completly free! It just limited the salaries!
Mercantlism was replaced by colonialism, and indeed that what I said.
No nation, either, evolved from manorilism to guilds. They existed AT THE SAME TIME, at different nations. Not to mention that saying that guilds are closed market it the most amusing thing I heard for a long time.

never mind. I double checked my facts, but never mind. Guess it's true what they say about belgiums.

for Bell:

didn't manage to finish it competly, but still here is the second section.

Post 2 of 2

2. Market

Simple ( Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange )
Closed ( Autaracial -> Fairs -> Manorilism -> Planned )
Directed ( Protectionism -> Mercantlism -> Colonial -> Nationalazation )
Social ( Social -> Labor union -> Communism -> Utopia )
Free ( Guilds -> Banking -> Free market -> Transnational )

Simple

Barter -> Currency -> Stock exchange

Logic: The simple markets reflect the "Basic" option at SMAC. This market option boost the belief that the goverement simply select the most widely accepted form of trade, and then allow the people to use it at will. It's not, however, free economics as they dis-originzation and lack of any structure doesn't allow the market the harvert the revenue gotten from an almost free market.
Strategy: means to serve the people who don't wish any direction of their market, and wish to have a no-effect bonus.

posted August 26, 1999 16:07                

3. Structure

City State : no pos or neg

I gave this starting option no positives or negatives.

Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro

Feudal lords are mostly also the military ruler of the region and the king can also ask a military addition of his vassals for war = +2 Mil.
Feudal lords may ask money to their vassals on many occasions = +2 Tax.
Little big cities and oppression of the inhabitants = -2 Gro.

Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap

A central power makes sure all the taxes etc goes in the treasury and little gets lost on the way = +2 Bur.
A central government makes sure the citizen feels a citizen of the nation = +2 Nat.
However a central government and less power for local regions makes people unhappier = -2 Hap.

Confederate = +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

More political freedom for the regions = +2 Hap
More freedom means more interaction with other nations = +2 Rel
The citizens feel less citizen of the nation = -1 Nat.
Some production may get ‘lost’ to local authorities = -1 Pro.

4. Value

Survival/Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, +1 Sen, -2 Pro

Survival and Power have the same effects.
Survival and Power requires the support of an army. This is accepted by the general public as a necessity = +2 Mil.
Troops are willing to fight for their country and the army is well trained = +2 Exp.
If survival is at stake (Democracy) or simply because the ruling class is in favor of war and power (Republic) the peaceful members of the Senate may be silenced = +1 Sen.
However a large portion of the production goes to the army = -2 Pro.

Socialism : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax

Support for everyone including the poor makes people happier = +2 Hap.
Less poor means less death and better living conditions = +2 Gro
However to support the poor a large part of the tax must be used = -2 Tax.

Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap

The nation/upper class/people want to get rich = +1 Eco.
Therefore an optimum production of things is handy = +1 Pro.
However the poor become poorer and a very unhappy proletariat is created = -2 Hap.

Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Exp

Research is supported by the government or research is free in the country = +2 Res. Example is the 19th century when they believed with science everything can be solved.
Better technological applications allow better connections and bureaucracy = +1 Bur.
Spoiled with technological things the people may become weak and decadent. More advanced countries are also more likely to be target of espionage = -2 Exp.

Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

Environmental care decreases pollution and may increase forest production if harvesting is carefully planned (eg Finland) = +2 Env.
‘Pure nature’ things are more likely to be bought by consumers. Also the trees are of better quality. If a country doesn’t cause pollution, it certainly will be assumed good in the international community = +2 Rel.
Random house building and exploitation of nature for new buildings is disapproved = -1 Gro.
Industry suffers if it’s bound at all sort of rules. No nuclear plants. Food production may suffer without genetic manipulation and pesticides etc = -1 Pro.

5. Research

Wise Men : -2 Res

Superstition and men who assumes themselves ‘scientists’ may decrease technological advance.

Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, 75% Economy

Same reasons as Value – Environment

Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, 75% Social

Humanitarian makes people happy = +2 Hap, but Humaniterian people are less willing to kill other people = -1 Exp.

Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, 75% Military

Enough military applications, but normal science suffers.

Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap

In the time of humanism scientists began to seek proof for what they researched or thought.

Army

Tribal Levy : no pos or neg

Everyone in the tribe who can carry a rock fights. I would let exist this option during the entire game as a no-effect choice.

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

When weapons become specialized, the fighters become more specialized. Bronze, being a relatively expensive and rare commodity, resulted in Military Castes or aristocracies wth bronze weapons doing the fighting while the rest of society supported them. Homer calls bronze the ‘noble metal’ because swords/armor is made from it, while iron is the ‘common metal’ because it was used strictly for tools (in his day, they hadn’t learned how to temper and anneal iron for swords/armor, but it was much cheaper than bronze for everything else).

Mercenaries can also be foreign, decreasing Nationalism.

The government hires troops, pays them all the time, trains them and equips them. This is very expensive in ‘up front’ costs, but gives potentially the best-trained most constantly available force.

Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Many times along history, mainly in times of war, the state declared a mass drafting of the entire populace. This resulted is a lot of cheap, easy to support units. But since they are shipped with little, or no training, needless to say the combat value of those troops is shakey at best. And even more, the result of shipping the nation finest without any training to the war fronts greatly dis-comfort the people.

Civic Duty/Citizen-Soldier : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Exp

When the society develops a prosperous middle class, the weapons diffuse or the society of a central state provides the weapons, and you get the civic duty or Citizen-Soldier. This is the classic Roman or Greek phalangist: a large number of citizens who can afford the panoply of weaponry or who have the ‘leisure’ time for training on the state-supplied weapons.
Basically, the population takes up arms as needed. The result is loss of production and economic power since workers/producers are in the military, but a lot of support and no loss of happiness because the ‘nation is in arms together’. Ancient nomadic or barbarian groups use this, also ancient city states.

This is a modern, or early modern (late 18th century) form, in which a portion of the population is called up every year, trained, then returned to civilian life. When war starts, these Reservists can be recalled, vastly expanding the effective military. The percentage called up each year and the percentage retained permanently as a Professional training cadre are variable. At one extreme,a tiny cadre and a huge ‘draft class’ approaches the Swiss system, while for most of the 19th and early 20th century, the peak of this system, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total active military were trainees each year, and the numbers were adjusted to train virtually every male reached ‘military age’ each year (roughly, 1% of the total population) and keep all the men of military ages (roughly, 10% of the population) in either the active or reserve forces.

D. The summary of the model.

1. Government

(Anarchy : -3 Hap, -3 Nat)

Dictatorship/Tribal Chieftainship/Warrior-King : +1 Pol, -1 Hap
->Despotism : +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -1 Hap, -1 Bur
-->Absolute Monarchy : +2 Pol, +1 Mil, +1 Sen, -2 Tax, -1 Bur
--->Totalitarianism : +2 Pol, +2 Mil, +2 Sen, -2 Hap, -1 Bur
->Dynasty : +2 Rel, +1 Pol, -2 Tax
-->Parliamentary Monarchy : +2 Tax, +1 Bur, -1 Mil, -1 Sen

Tribal Assembly : +2 Hap, -1 Bur, -1 Sen
->Republic : +2 Bur, +2 Pro, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
-->Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Sen, -2 Mil
--->True Democracy : +2 Bur, +2 Hap, +1 Eco, -2 Sen, -2 Mil, -1 Pol

High Priestship/Faraohship/God-King : +1 Nat, +1 Pro, -1 Res
->Theocracy : +2 Nat, +2 Tax, -2 Res
-->Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +2 Gro, +1 Exp, -2 Res, -2 Rel

[/b]2. Economy[/b]

Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
-->Joint-Stock Companies : +2 Rel

Autarchy : +1 Pro, +1 Mil, -1 Bur
->Manorialism : +1 Pol, +2 Mil, -2 Pro
-->Guilds : +1 Eco, +2 Gro, -2 Env

Mercantilism : +2 Tax, +2 Pro, -2 Rel
->Communism : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Bur
-->Utopia : +3 Pro, +2 Nat, +2 Hap, -2 Eco, -2 Tax, -1 Bur

Capitalism : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Mil, -1 Sen
->Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Bur, -5 Pol, -3 Env, -1 Sen
-->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Bur, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Sen

3. Structure

City State : no pos or neg
Feudal : +2 Mil, +2 Tax, -2 Gro
Federal/Imperial : +2 Bur, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +2 Rel, -1 Nat, -1 Pro

4. Value

Survival : +2 Pol, +2 Sen, -2 Eco
Power : +2 Mil, +2 Exp, -2 Pro
Socialism/Happiness/Welfare : +2 Hap, +2 Gro, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Pro, -2 Hap
Knowledge : +2 Res, +1 Bur, -2 Exp
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Rel, -1 Gro, -1 Pro

5. Research

Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro, Economy tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp, Social tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res, Military tech advances at 75% of normal cost
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap, Academic tech advances at 75% of normal cost

6. Army

Tribal Levy/Levy in Mass : no pos or neg

Military Caste : +1 Exp, -1 Mil
->Mercenary : +2 Exp, -1 Nat
-->Professional : +3 Exp, -2 Mil

People Army/Forced Draft : +2 Mil, -1 Hap
->Recruitment : +3 Mil, -2 Exp

Citizen-Soldier/Volunteer/Civic Duty : +1 Hap, +1 Nat, -1 Pro
->Draft/Conscription : +2 Hap, +1 Nat, -2 Tax

E. Other SE related topics

Golden Age/ We Love The … Days

+2 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Pro, +1 Eco, +1 Bur.

As you see, no growth bonus to make that unrealistic pop boom impossible in the early game.

+2 Nat makes bribing more difficult.
+2 Hap makes the (conquered) city assimilate faster.
+2 Pro cause they are happier.
+1 Eco cause better economy, better trade
+1 Bur as in Civ2, less corruption

Religion

Some want Religion to be dealt with in SE, but as you can read in the Religion thread, the Religion model there doesn’t allow a SE Religion category.

Time frame

I'll type here in what time I think certain choices should appear.

Available at the start :
(if Civ2 starts in 4000 BC. In an interview Jeff Briggs has told otherwise)

Dictatorship, Tribal Assembly, Barter, City State, Survival, Wise Men, Tribal Levy

These are also the choices you have at the start.

Available in Ancient era :

Despotism, Dynasty, Republic, High Priestship, Currency, Autarchy, Capitalism, Imperial/Federal, Wealth, Socialism, Natural, Practical, Military Caste(very early), Mercenary(later), Forced Draft, Civic Duty, Power

Available in Middle Ages :

Theocracy, Manorialism(very early), Guilds(later), Feudal

Available in Renaissance :

Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Monarchy, Joint-Stock Companies, Mercantilism, Humanitarian, Exploring

Available in Industrial Revolution and Modern:

Totalitarianism, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Communism, Free Market, Confederate, Knowledge, Professional, Recruitment, Draft, Environment

Available in Near-future :

True Democracy, Utopia, Transnational

posted August 26, 1999 18:00                

Here is a reposting of an idea I posted in the Diplomacy thread. maybe it'll get some more discussion here as well

Many people have put forth their ideas for diplomacy in this thread, and I have helped. However, I believe that I would like to try and post down my entire thoughts on how treaties should work. I apologize if this has already appeared.

let us start out with the war between the Russian Empire and the Republic of Wisconsin(I always add them to the game, so sue me :P). The war progress, with neither side able to take each other's capital, but Wisconsin is deffiantly on top. In Desperation Russia sends a message whihc reports that they would be willing to discuss a treaty.

Wisconsin ,war weary, and with unhappiness due to this, agrees to this. Immediatly they go to the 'Treaty Screen'. This would be the screen which would allow you to set the peramiters of the treaty. They would be divided into 4 catagories

Government:
Economic:
Social:
Politicle:

GOVERNMENT:

The Government header more or less speaks for itself. This would impose on the other nation the government of the winner's choice. Waisconsin could demand that Russia becomes a Republic, Monarcy ect.

ECONOMIC:

Once again this is rather self explanitory. This is where Wisconsin could demand a certian monetary exchange to Russia, forcing them to pay tribute either per turn, or in one lump sum.

SOCIAL:

This one is a bit more intersting. Under this catagory one can set certian permaiters dealing with the people in the other Empire. For instance, Wisconsin could ahve a large minority of Chinese in their Empire who are on good terms with the government. They could demand that all Chinese under Russian government are sent into Wisconsin. Like wise they could also say that certian nationalities, such as the Romans should be opressed.

Tarrifs could also be demanded, as could differant building resrictions in cities.

POLITICLE:

This might prove to be the most intersting of catagories, and the easiest way to contain another nation if need be. It would be under here where you owuld demand the status of protectorate from another nation, as well as cut up their empire and take certian cities away.

Those are, however, the most common things. Other options would be available as well. For instance, you could demand that a nation take up alliances with other nations.

the most intersting option, in my opinion, could be the creating of other nations. In this area one would be able to create new nations, giving them names, leaders, and politicle stances. They could either be based on a prior ethnic group(in which case a majority of the people in this nation must be of the ethniticity choosen or atleast contain a few of thier cities)

One could also create a ficticiouse nation such as the Philonthroper Republic. All people owuld hodl their old ethnic ID, but would devleope into that nationality after a while.

Each nation you create, you would be able to set up it's boardres, government, it's leaders and it's relations with other nations.

Now, you might ask yourself why you would wish to do such a thing, and not jsut annex the entire nation. First of all, you may feel that you don't ahve the streangth to hold on to the rest of it, and you wish for your enemy to be strong enough to resist OHER nations. Also you might only have wanted to free a religion or ethnic group. Finally, heaving to strict of a treaty might very well destroy your relations with other nations.

posted August 26, 1999 18:46                

Should I delete the Bureaucracy bonus of Communism and instead increase the Bur penalty of Totalitarianism to -2?

And Harel, don't insult me please.

I have my opinion, you yours. I perhaps don't agree with it, but I won't begin to say things like "Guess it's true what they say about belgiums."
Please clarify this and post what they say about Belgians. Then we can all laugh about what you say if it are Belgium jokes at least. (You mean Belgians right? Not Belgiums? Another type error?...)
If it aren't jokes about Belgium we can discuss about it. BTW I hope for you it are jokes, cause you said yourself on the Religion thread that RACISM is the biggest sin in your country.

Goodbye Harel.

Bell

If it depended on me alone whole section C. of my summary post may be deleted. My only fear is that Firaxis will then look to Harel's crappy explanations of his choices.
Perhaps you (or I) could replace section C by

"M@ni@c totally disagrees with Harel's explanation of his choices. If you don't understand the effects M@ni@c gave to certain SE choices of him, please ask explanation on the SE thread, but don't look at Harel's summary post."

I would like to keep the B. section. I know it contains things that aren't 100% SE, but I think that if Firaxis sees whole my explanation together instead of in parts on every thread, they will be more likely to accept it.
Eg that -25% cost for certain Research categories is totally unbalancing if there isn't simultaneous research in every category.

posted August 26, 1999 22:51                

BTW, Bell, I have checked out the older SE threads a while ago and there you regularly posted something to add to the discussion.
In SE v2.x you never did. Why?
I would like to know your opinion about the available SE options.

Several reasons. 1st, is time. The IT shop where I work lost the 2 of the 4 senior techs at the begining of the summer, and I've had to take up a lot of their workload while we're looking for replacements, so I haven't had a whole lot of time lately (by the way, the same reason why the summary is behind schedule.) 2nd, the older threads bogged down more, and sometimes I would post to keep them moving when there was nobody else around. 3rd, this version has been a lot more of the nuts and bolts type stuff, whereas the other one was much more conceptual. Conceptual thinking is really my specialty, and my brain starts to get fuzzy dealing with lots of details. And, I thought that other ideas should be put forth. If I get really involved in something, I tend to have an, erm, damping effect on all ideas other than my own, and over the years I've gotten pretty effective at it, to the point where I usually either assimilate other ideas or kill them off. I didn't really want to do that in this thread.

I know, more than you wanted to know, but I like to be comprehensive.

posted August 27, 1999 11:44                

So Section A and B of 'August 23, 16:27', Section C replaced by what I said in 'August 26, 18:46 and finally Section D and E (renamed to C and D) of 'August 26, 16:07' should be in the summary post.

posted August 29, 1999 17:56                

Bell, I was led to belive that you will quote me directly! And ask you explicitly to simply copy and paste my post! Firaxis could never understand, for example, why I choose to separte dictatorship from despotism without reading my post.
I spend hour on this! I ask you on last time: copy it as it is. Delete NOTHING, edit NOTHING. This is my personal request.

Maniac, if you don't agree with my "crappy", but accurte, explnations, write your own. I must inssist that you will keep mine.

Bell, if you intend some sort of comparsion between my own and Maniac model

( for example, in Markets, harel suggested... bla bla bla... and maniac bla... bla... bla.. ).
maniac posted no explantion of his very "weird" logic on some of his options, while I did. Our models should NOT be thus compared.

and maniac. Seriously now. No name calling. Agree or disagree with my SE reasoning, you can understand it. Ok, so you don't approve of guilds->banking->free market, for example. You have problems with my explaning fairs, for example. Thats ok.
But you can understand the logic of why I said guilds->Banking, cause I explained it on my model.
Guilds, in my opinion, gave free market to the members of the guild, banking improve upon this with giving free market to the banks members, and free market is the open-to-all free market. Circuler logic, true. But atleast you can follow it.
Le'ts view your manorilism->guilds. Yes, you explained what they ARE. However, what possible connection to they have? you didn't explain you logic at all: what made you choose those two options.
Mercantlism->Commnuism. ok, you carefully gave a nice, false explantion of mercantlism. And of communism. But HOW are they related? The logic is not apparent and is not explained anywhere.
I took the time to make sure the logic of my model is clear. You don't have to accept it: I don't fully accept it either.

posted August 29, 1999 19:00                

I also spent hours on it. So don't think you're the only one who has put a lot of work in it. And I have written my own explanation, although sometimes they're shorter.

And as you can read in the Questions to YinShining post, there will be a real summary made by Bell that includes all ideas and then there will be a section that will quote you and me. That's very good to me. Actually, I would like some comparison. After all, the names in our models are very similar. And I'm convinced that Firaxis will use things out of both models anyway. Eg I'm sure they will use Pacifism. And I'm sure they will use Colonial. But I hope they will use my factors and on the points our SE choice names are the same, they will use my effects.

Yes, I understand your unhistorical logic.

And some connections are indeed bad. I said it myself in my Economy introduction. No problem. Just delete the ->'s. Here I got the feeling that everyone agreed that there would be too much choices. So I agreed with ->. But in www.firaxis.com there are people that want as many choices as possible. Personally, I don't have a problem if they would be deleted.

I am right about mercantilism!!!!!!! I DEMAND to know where you got your explanation of mercantilism. I, for my explanation of Mercantilism, have translated (bad) a partial quote out of the thing I had closest to me, Encarta, the article Colbert, Jean-Baptiste.

"You don't have to accept it: I don't fully accept it either."

What do you mean? You don't fully agree with your own explanations?!?

And Harel, you'll be glad to hear this, in a few days, you'll be rid of me. No more annoying maniacs around (and no post anymore on the SE thread).

posted August 29, 1999 22:40                

OK, new decision. I'm going to do the summary as I think it should be done, and post the results at the end, and I'm not going to care if anybody is happy with it. Then, if attitudes haven't changed and there's enough people that one can replace me, I'm going to wash my hands of this whole project. I haven't been around these kind of attitudes since I taught chess to 6th graders! And they weren't even this bad!

I've tried to appease the various (what, two, now?) people invovled in this thread, but for crying out loud people, you're acting like a bunch of kindergardeners! The point isn't to advance your own system, or to make sure you get the proper credit, or to attack anybody who doesn't support you. This isn't politics folks, it's a game! The point of this effort is to create ideas that we think would be good for a game. This is a big brainstorming session, in essense. Then we give the ideas we come up with to the people who actually know how to build games and they decide what has merit and what doesn't. It's a great concept, but I hate to tell you this folks, not one of us is going to get our name printed in the manual, or listed in the credits, or even thrown on a text file hidden on the shipping CD. The point of this isn't us, it's the game at the end. If you would remember this for just five seconds before you typed out your latest whine of a post, we wouldn't have these problems. As is, I've had enough of it. I'll post the summary when it's done, and not before, and it will look remarkable like I think it should. What do I think it should look like? If you look at my posts (you know, read them, and remember them, and maybe even believe that when I write something I mean it) then you know what I think the summary should look like. If you haven't heard or believed what I've said all along, then I guess you'll just be surprised when the summary is posted.

posted August 30, 1999 11:54                

quote:

---

This is an economical system that is perfected by the French economical ‘minister’ Colbert who lived in the 17th century. He reformed taxation. He eradicated abuses, united the tax system, redivided the burden of taxation and bettered tax inning. The result was a serious increase in tax income = +2 Tax.
He stimulated the industry and trade by establishing state owned companies. He also stimulated private companies. He controlled and regulated production, built a trade fleet, set up Indian Companies, made better connections on land and water = +2 Pro.
He made stronger the international competition position by stimulating the export and reducing the import by raising toll (import of raw materials excluded), by forbidding export of wheat to have low food prices and he developed the colonies. This form of planned economy that existed already a long time on city level but was new on national level in Europe, is called Mercantilism and in French form Colbertism. However, since an increase in national trade was thought to be possible alone at cost of other nation and since there was a close connection between state and economy, Mercantilism was equal to a cold war sphere = -2 Rel.

---

I will say this for the last time: merctanlism is, ONLY, the economical strategy of dominiating the forgien markets by floods the markets with exports and controling the currency rating. NOTHING MORE. Everything else colbert did has nothing to do with merctanlism. Colbert widely supported merctanlism: but he also supported other, un-related things. Trust me on this one, PLEASE!

And regardless of what it is, you still didn't explain how it even vaguly connected to commnunism. You explantions are not shorter, they are non-existant. You only detailed what your options WHERE, not how they relate to one another.

posted August 30, 1999 21:18                

GOVERNMENT
-totalitarian
-parliamentary
-democracy
-total freedom

ECONOMY
-free market
-planned
-mixed

IDEOLOGY
-power
-wealth
-religion
-ecology
-knowledge
-peace

And that is it, not more complicated than that. Why do you want more choices when they just overlap and make the SE redundant and more complicated?

posted September 01, 1999 09:48                

I've tryed to read a bit of your posts, but as i don't really feel like reading 270 something posts, i've just read your summaries. And i must say i'm impressed. you've really come far.

I have some disagreements though:

First of all, why do you need those evolving SE choises. I know it was to avoid having too many choises, but i (and most other people at Firaxis - the forum, not the company) like choises. I would like to spend lots of time in the game trying to figure out how to make the SE most efficient for my leader style and situation.

posted September 03, 1999 16:24                

I think too my Economy category sucks, so every help is welcome.

If I understand you, you would like the difference between 19th super free and 20th free represented.
Could this be done by the choice
Laissez-Faire which gives +3 Eco (*) but also incredible economical booms and busts
and the choice
Capitalism which gives +2 Eco (*and of course some other factor stuff) and slighter boom/busts?

posted September 12, 1999 15:48                

Why do you have the "evolving" SE choices? With all due respect, this adds an unnecessary degree of complexity and unrealism to the game. Governments, economies, etc., do not spontaneously change, morphing into some distantly related variant of the previous system. After all, what if the player wants to stay with the old system? What if he/she felt that the "evolved" choice had unacceptable penalties? I agree with Joker that the more choices, the better. That way, the player can stay with whatever model he/she thinks best, just like civilizations can form whatever society they choose to form. The more modern choices should simply be more appealing than the older ones.

Other than that, there are some very intriguing concepts (and debates) that are floating around. Might I recommend that you visit Firaxis to see some different viewpoints? There are some interesting ideas there as well.

Keep up the good work!

posted September 12, 1999 17:21                

This is my proposal for Civ3 social engineering, first posted at Firaxis. I have only slightly polished this in comparison to the post at Firaxis; one major thing I will eventually change is my “Industry” factor, as that really ought to be termed “Production”. Also, much of this (particularly the SE modifiers) was inspired by Maniac's proposal post at Firaxis, and as such there are a few references to his proposal.

Some things to take note of before reading would be that I have included the “x10” system, and that I have avoided any reference to religion, and this is because many of the religious proposals (at Firaxis, at least) have been very complex and as such I have decided to resist its inclusion in my admittedly non-exhaustive proposal. Also know that, as this is not an exhaustive proposal, the fact that I have not included things such as a Military Organization category does not necessarily imply that I am opposed to such a category. This extends to the fact that I have not included any future SE options, e.g., there is no transnational economy option here. One final note is that at Firaxis, many agree that there should be a legislature of some type that interferes with the player’s actions in different manners, depending upon the type of government, and that this legislative concept is also implicit in this proposal.

Social Engineering Proposal v1.0

Sections:

I. SE Factors
II. SE “Range Factor”
III. SE Model
IV. Closing

I. SE Factors

I have significantly altered my list of SE factors in response to Maniac’s SE post at Firaxis. The most notable difference, however, is that I have radically different ideas concerning the concept of bureaucracy, which I will address later in the Range Factor section. Here are my thirteen factors:

1) Agriculture (Agr)
2) Economy (Eco)
3) Efficiency (Eff)
4) Environment (Env)
5) Growth (Gro)
6) Happiness (Hap)
7) Industry (Ind)
8) Militarism (Mil)
9) Nationalism (Nat)
10) Police (Pol)
11) Relations (Rel)
12) Research (Res)
13) Steadiness (Ste)

1) Agriculture (Agr)
Food production has been vital to mankind throughout history, and humanity’s social organization has been as nearly central to it as is the weather. This is very close to the food aspects of Maniac’s “Production,” but it has been separated from industrial factors, as I believe there can be highly industrious nations with significant disabilities in their agricultural sectors. Of course, I also think that this social modifier should be changeable through other means than just SE choices; rather, agriculture should be affected by a great variety of factors outside of social engineering, such as tech development or random events (for a particular city).
This modifier should also affect the likeliness of diseases and plagues, as very often the quality of agricultural practices, or rather the lack thereof, is the cause of such occurrences.
…
+2: +10% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles, +2x food per city (a certain number of extra crops should be given per city).
+1: +5% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles, +x food per city.
0: Normal food production.
-1: -5% food output from irrigated/farmed tiles.
…
One other thing: in all of these civilization games so far, if a city has reached its maximum food production and that production is an odd number, the city will starve due to a –1 food shortage (until a food route is established). A way should be worked out in order to avoid such an even-odd problem (or a five-food instead of an even ten-food problem in this x10 system). Do you see what I’m talking about? I'm not sure this is very clear.

2) Economy (Eco)
I agree with Maniac’s economy modifier, but I’ll re-post it here just for comprehensiveness (there are a few slight differences).
Capitals: +10 trade/square

+5: +20 trade/square; +25 trade/square in capital (above previous capital bonus)
+4: +14 trade/square; +20 trade/square in capital (above previous capital bonus)
+3: +12 trade/square
+2: +10 trade/square
+1: +2 trade/square
0: Normal economic activity
-1: -2 trade/square; -5 trade/square in capital
-2: -4 trade/square; -10 trade/square in capital
-3: -6 trade/square; -10 trade/square in capital
-4: -8 trade/square; -12 trade/square in capital
-5: -10 trade/square; -15 trade/ square in capital

3) Efficiency (Eff)
My decision to include an efficiency factor rather than the factor of “bureaucracy” is complicated, and I’ll explain it later when I get to my bureaucracy section. This modifier is the same as the one in SMAC, as is the presumable corruption/waste model. I think that the efficiency equation should be responsive to the actual number, however; i.e., given the equation SMAC used, there should actually be a number at which no waste occurs – in SMAC, that number should have been 4, but that didn’t work for some reason.

+?: No corruption/waste. Paradigm economy!
…
0: Normal governmental efficiency
…
-?: Rampant corruption/waste. There is economic stagnation.

4) Environment (Env)
This factor affects the amount of pollution a civilization produces, the vegetation patterns, and perhaps even the ecological stability of the region that the civilization is in. It should also affect the likelihood of diseases, plagues (like the agricultural modifier), but also natural disaster events and terraforming speed as well.

+?: Nearly no pollution; little ecological disruption, coupled with good vegetation/forestation (insofar as permitted by the terrain). This civilization is not likely to be the cause of any global warming that occurs. Terraforming rates are optimal.
…
0: Normal ecological tension.
…
-?: Disastrous amounts of pollution; vast ecological disruption, coupled with deforestation and desertification. This civilization is a major contributor to global warming. Terraforming rates are dismal.

5) Growth (Gro)
I dislike Maniac’s Growth modifier, with its strange relationship to population-related city improvements and its effects concerning revolutions. For the latter aspect, I think that sparsely populated countries can be just as prone to revolutions as much as populous countries are. Look at Chad, which has a small population but is suffering from a desperate civil war; there are a number of other examples, of course, which could also be advanced. I prefer a more traditional outlook concerning this modifier (namely, speeding up population increases), but I do like how he has an expanded population limit with higher growth numbers. However, I do not think that the population limit should be significantly reduced, as that makes this modifier the most important one – a civilization with a –5 growth factor shouldn’t be limited to size-two cities before aqueducts, or else that civilization is as good as dead. Note that I have differentiated between food production and population growth/population limits – many nations have high populations but poor agricultural capacity.
Population booms should be impossible until the Modern era.

+7: +7 population limit; cities have a population boom every turn if sufficient food is available in your city/region/civilization (depending upon what food system is used).
+6: +6 population limit; population boom.
…
+2: +2 population limit; only eight rows of food need to be filled for there to be a population increase.
+1: +1 population limit; only nine rows of food need to be filled for a pop increase.
0: Normal population limits and normal population increases.
-1: Normal population limit; eleven rows of food must be filled.
-2: -1 population limit; twelve rows of food must be filled.
…
-5: -2 population limit; fifteen rows of food must be filled.
-6: -3 population limit; no population growth.

6) Happiness (Hap)
This is another SE factor for which I disagree with Maniac’s design. For one thing, I don’t think there should be any unhappy citizens caused by increasing the number of cities – after all, if the small countries in Europe unite, will there be a sudden rise in the number of riots there? I think not. I also think that this modifier should affect how expensive it is for your units and cities to be bribed, not how much it costs you to bribe others. Moreover, this rating should also directly increase the number of happy citizens in cities, rather than just simply increasing the maximum luxury rate as otherwise the happiness rate only affects the maximum possible happiness of the citizenry rather than their actual happiness.
My happiness range is much broader than that of Maniac’s; I went through and kept track of the happiness modifiers from my SE options, and I had to have a much wider range to take into account things like “We Love the … Day,” city improvements, and random events.

+9: Luxury rate may be set at 100%; your units/cities may not be bribed; entertainer bonus is doubled; extra happy citizen for every two citizens in each city. No unhappiness for any citizen (unless starving).
+8: Luxury rate may be set at 100%; your units/cities may not be bribed; entertainer give 80% more luxuries; happy citizen/four citizens.
+7: Luxury rate at 90%; bribery costs enemy extra 90%; entertainer +70%; happy citizen/five citizens.
+6: Luxury at 85%; bribery +75%; entertainer +60%; happy citizen/six citizens.
+5: Luxury at 80%; bribery +60%; entertainer +50%; happy citizen/seven citizens.
+4: Luxury at 75%; bribery +45%; entertainer +40%; happy citizen/eight.
+3: Luxury at 70%; bribery +30%; entertainer +30%; happy citizen/nine.
+2: Luxury at 65%; bribery +20%; entertainer +20%; happy citizen/ten.
+1: Luxury at 60%; bribery +10%; entertainer +10%; happy citizen/twelve.
0: Normal
-1: Luxury at 40%; bribery –10%; entertainer –10%; unhappy citizen/twelve.
-2: Luxury at 35%; bribery –20%; entertainer –20%; unhappy citizen/ten.
-3: Luxury at 30%; bribery –30%; entertainer –30%; unhappy citizen/nine.
…
-7: Luxury at 10%; bribery –70%; entertainer –70%; unhappy citizen/five.
-8: No luxuries may be used; entertainers –80%; unhappy citizen/four.

7) Industry (Ind)
I’ve returned this factor back to its SMAC nature (more or less), separating it from agriculture. The more I think about it, this should be named “Production,” but I’ve alphabetized everything already in some Excel charts and other Word documents, and I’m too lazy to go back and change everything.
…
+1: +10% labor (or industrial output or whatever it will be named) for every production order except military units.
0: Normal industrial capacity.
-1: -10% labor.

8) Militarism (Mil)
This is the combination of the Military and Experience modifier that Maniac proposed. Of all of Maniac’s ideas, these proposals were my favorites. I have named it the much broader term “Militarism” to reflect a general warrior attitude of a society, rather than just the military’s battle-experience or the like.
…
+1: +1 Morale/Experience; +10% labor when constructing military units; one less resource necessary for support (out of 10 per unit).
0: Normal societal militarism.
-1: -1 Morale/Experience; +10% labor for military construction; one more resource for support.
…

9) Nationalism (Nat)
I like the idea of a migration model being included in the game, and so I have included this modifier. However, I also think of this as being reflective of nationalist fervor, and as such, a high rating in this area increases the cooperativeness of the legislature (Parliament, Senate, Duma, or whatever). Think of it like this: in nations with a high degree of nationalism have little resistance to governmental actions and have low rates of emigration. On the other hand, nations with low rates of nationalism detest governmental activities and will often have citizens fleeing for their lives. The only other issue I’ll take with Maniac on this one is that this modifier should have no effect upon international sanctions – domestic nationalism hardly affects other nations’ activities, and certainly is not considered by the United Nations when it is delineating punishments for atrocities. Also, I think that this rating, together with the Steadiness rating, should affect the degree of multiethnic strife in a society.

+?: No emigration, multiethnic problems rare, and little legislative interference in executive actions. (Effects on religion?)
…
0: Normal migration patterns, normal legislative willpower.
…
-?: High emigration, multiethnic strife, and high legislative interference in executive actions.

10) Police (Pol)
I like Maniac’s proposal for this, but I won’t re-post it due to its length.

11) Relations (Rel)
Once again, I like Maniac’s ideas for this one. Here they are:

Note that Relations, not Economy as in SMAC gives a trade bonus.
The commerce bonus is the same as in SMAC. A +10 trade bonus for every trade route.
…
+1 : +1 commerce; better diplomatic relationships
0 : normal
-1 : -1 commerce; worse diplomatic relationships
…

12) Research (Res)
I whole-heartedly disagree with the position that there should be simultaneous research in different categories in Civ III for gameplay reasons. Sure, simultaneous research may very well be more realistic, but I hate it. I don’t really know why, but it just isn’t as fun to me.
…
+1: +10% research output; science rate may be set at 60%; scientists’ output +10%.
0: Normal research output; science rate at 50%; scientists’ output normal.
-1: -10% research output; science rate can only be set at 45%; scientists output –10%.
…

13) Steadiness (Ste)
I almost termed this Stability, but as that is a Societal Value that I’m proposing, I decided to name this factor Steadiness. I view this factor as reflective of the general economic and political stability of a civilization, but not the social stability (with the exception of multiethnic problems), as that is dealt with under the happiness social factor. This tying of economic and political stability is justified as the two are extremely closely linked in the real world – economic turmoil inevitably leads to political turmoil (take, for example, Indonesia). The opposite is also true, as political instability is not really conducive to economic prosperity.
+?: No economic busts; the citizenry will never revolt against your government without the player actually “ordering” them to (changing the SE options).
…
+1: Less severe economic cycling; citizens are less likely to revolt than they would normally (including revolts attributable to multiethnic strife).
0: Normal economic and political steadiness.
-1: Slightly more severe economic cycling; “spontaneous” revolutions are slightly more likely than normal.
…
-?: Extremely severe economic cycling; exceptional levels of political instability.

II. SE Range Factor
As I said earlier, my ideas concerning civilization’s bureaucracy are complicated, and it involves turning the bureaucracy into what I call a “range factor,” somewhat like setting the tax/research/luxury rate. Perhaps this should be viewed as a slider that has seven choices.

As is universally acknowledged, bureaucracies are inefficient. However, most bureaucracies also have benefits that reflect the reasons for their creation. For example, in America, the Environmental Protection Agency may not be the most efficient organization in the world, but it does have the benefit that it keeps the USA’s industries in check when it comes to environmental damages that they cause. What I propose is to make the game’s bureaucracy a range of numbers, and with each number having efficiency (or happiness) penalties or bonuses; but, with the higher the inefficiency, the more benefits the bureaucracy brings to the society as a whole. These benefits would take the form of extra positives that the player could add to other SE Factors, such as the Environment rating in the EPA’s case. I recommend that the range of numbers go from 0 to 7, with the availability of the numbers depending upon the centralization choices that the player makes. (For example, if a player decides upon having a Unitary system of centralization, that player would be limited to relatively high numbers of bureaucracy.)

7: If the player chooses to set his/her bureaucracy to this maximum value, he/she is penalized with –5 efficiency and a –3 happiness ratings. However, the bureaucracy allows for additional 8 positive modifiers to be placed in any SE factor with a limit of 3 per SE factor (except for economy, which may only be given a +2 bonus). For example, the player could use these bonuses as +2 Agriculture, +3 Environment, and +3 Militarism.
6: At a penalty of –3 efficiency and –3 happiness, the player receives 6 bonus modifiers. The bonus-limit each SE factor may receive is 2 (economy 1), except for the economy, which may only have 1 bonus.
5: Penalty: -3 efficiency, -2 happiness. Bonus: 5 positive modifiers. Each factor may have 2 bonuses, except for economy, which may not receive any (this is true for bureaucratic levels 0-5).
4: Penalty: -3 efficiency, -1 happiness. Bonus: 4 positive modifiers. Each factor may receive 2 bonuses.
3: Penalty: -2 efficiency, -1 happiness. Bonus: 3 positive modifiers. Each factor may receive 1 bonus (this is true for levels 0-3).
2: Penalty: -2 efficiency. Bonus: 2 positive modifiers.
1: Penalty: -1 efficiency. Bonus: 1 positive modifier.
0: No bureaucratic functions, no penalties.

The inclusion of this system would greatly enhance the realism of the game. Take, for example, China; it has what I would view as an unstable government, namely a dictatorship, but uses its bureaucracy to enhance its political steadiness/stability in such a way to counter any potential political turmoil.

I am undecided whether the bureaucratic bonuses should also be applicable to efficiency and happiness. For efficiency, a bureaucratic bonus applied there would represent an oversight bureau. What would such a bonus, when applied to happiness, be representative of?

III. SE Model
I do not like the idea of having an evolving SE panel; rather, the more modern choices should simply be more appealing than the ancient ones. I have only four categories, but I do think there should be others (such as a Military category where you could choose your military organization). Also, I have not proposed any future society options – there is no Transnational economy option or Cybernetic future society option here, but I am not saying that there shouldn’t be any.

SE Categories:

1) Governments
2) Centralization
3) Economy
4) Societal Values

1) Governments
The governments I suggest are (aside from Anarchy and any possible future governments):
Despotism
City-State
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Republic
Direct Democracy
Absolutism
Representative Democracy
Authoritarian

Despotism: +1 Mil, +1 Pol, -1 Eff, -1 Hap
The most basic of governments, I suggest that this should be one of two defaults (the other being city-state), where the one the player is under in the beginning would depend on what civilization that is selected. I don’t agree that this should be called Tribalism, as tribes are what is abandoned upon the foundation of civilization.

The despot would encourage the military and proliferate domestic enforcement of the new way of life. Of course, such a regime creates economic inefficiency, especially when it comes to religious payments, which siphon off large amounts of the society’s resources. Also, the happiness of the citizenry suffers under the burdened of supporting the despot and his religion.

Centralization options permitted: None or Imperial.

Economic options permitted: Autarky, Commercial Bartering, and Guilds.

Examples: early civilizations, particularly the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Persia, and the Aztecs.

City-State: +1 Gro, +1 Hap, -2 Pol, -1 Ste
Another highly common form for ancient civilizations to take, each city in this model is completely independent. Although this allows for great amounts of local control, which results in better community growth and stability, the civilization overall suffers from internal squabbles and instability.

Centralization options permitted: None (?) or City-State League.

Economic options permitted: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, and Guilds.

Examples: ancient Greece, the Maya, and the Italian city-states.

Monarchy: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, -1 Eff, -2 Hap
A more complicated form of despotism, the monarch rules with the assistance of the aristocracy and occasionally a legislature of some form. The actual substance of this government can vary; in some civilizations, the monarch is simply the executive and judicial political leader, whereas elsewhere the monarch can also own much of the land, either directly or indirectly. The monarch is also frequently regarded as a god. Regardless of particulars, monarchs invariably support strong militaries and strong internal control, but their harsh rule causes unhappiness among the commoners, and the economic self-centeredness of the aristocracy causes economic problems as well.

Centralization options: None, Feudal, Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Guilds, Manoralism, Mercantilism, and Socialism.

Examples: the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the many of the European monarchies.

Oligarchy: +1 Ind, +2 Pol, -1 Eco, -1 Eff, -1 Nat
In this government, a select few exercise governmental power, often with aristocratic support. The oligarchs are not elected, but they are usually supported by a small percentage of the population (namely, the aristocracy/elite), and are invariably members of the elite of that society; as such, this government is often associated with class division and centralized control. As such, this normally is a highly productive society with fierce aristocratic dominance of society. However, such a strong policing of the population stifles not only popular support of the government, but has economic repercussions as well. These consequences would range from managerial inefficiency, especially in the outlying provinces away from the elitist center, and economic difficulties, such as severe class distinctions.

Centralization options: None, Feudal, Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Guilds, Manoralism, Mercantilism, and Socialism.

Examples: Corinth (sixth century BC to 338 BC), Carthage.

Republic: +1 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Ste, -1 Ind, -2 Pol
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a republic as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” Assuming that this is to be accepted as the correct definition, this nominally democratic government excels in administrative tasks, especially concerning areas such as economic management. The (relative) freedom allowed under such a government permits a general well being of the public at large under most circumstances. However, very often the comparative permissiveness of this governmental type translates into disorderliness – even anarchy – which corresponds to a diminished productivity in the working classes.

Centralization options: None, Imperial, Federal, Unitary.

Economic options: Autarky, Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Laissez-Faire, and Regulated Capitalism.

Examples: Republican Rome (sort of), the Spanish Netherlands after the Revolt of the Netherlands (i.e., under the States General).

Direct Democracy: +1 Eco, +1 Gro, +2 Hap, -3 Eff, -1 Pol, -3 Ste
This is the government of ancient Athens; in it, the citizenry directly vote on societal issues, without any intermediary representatives. Although the term “citizen” is invariably defined abnormally narrowly, all citizens may directly vote on all governmental issues, and indeed have an obligation to do so. The openness of such a culture results in fabulous commercial and cultural activity, which naturally allows for a more prosperous citizenry. The drawbacks of such a governmental type is the inherent instability and ineffectiveness that results, especially when it is attempting to govern a large geographic area.

Centralization options: None, Confederal, Imperial (Athenian Empire), and Unitary (central democracy, provinces under an administrative control, perhaps with a few representatives).

Economic options: Autarky, Bartering, Guilds, and Laissez-Faire.

Examples: Athens. Can anyone else think of any others?

Absolutism: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Hap, -1 Rel, -2 Res
Absolute monarchy was a form of government popularized by Louis XIV of France. In this evolution of monarchy, the monarch has absolute authority in all things and any advisory/legislative institutions whither in status, and is naturally characterized by a dramatic centralization of power and a concentration of it in the monarch. Such states have exceptionally strong military and police forces, but these traits are accompanied by unhappiness within the peasantry and a decline in intellectual activity of the nation, which is funneled into the arts that glorify the monarchy.

Centralization options: Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

Examples: France under Louis XIV, Russia under Peter I, and Prussia under Frederick William.

Representative Democracy: +1 Eco, +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -2 Mil, -1 Nat, -2 Pol
The modern form of democracy and a subset of the republic, a representative democracy has popular representatives within its institutions (especially legislative), separation of the three powers of government into three branches, and is controlled by fundamental laws, normally termed Constitutions. This government is often accompanied by a general distrust of powerful centralized institutions and as such the nationalism suffers. A society governed this way does have advantages relating to the freedom it provides to its people, however; the people are both economically and politically free, resulting in commercial prosperity and sizeable population growth. Governments of this form court international peace, and at the same time restrict both the powers of the military and of the domestic police, as both are placed under strict civilian control.

Centralization options: Confederal, Federal, Unitary, and Centralized.

Economic options: Guilds, Laissez-Faire, Regulated Capitalism, and Socialism.

Examples: the United States, most western European nations, and some Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea.

Authoritarian: +2 Ind, +3 Mil, +3 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Eff, -2 Hap, -2 Ste
This governmental system, namely the modern dictatorships and totalitarian states, has a highly centralized hierarchy and is very similar to the old absolutist monarchies. It may or may not have a legislature, but if it does, it customarily only has one party, that of the dictator. It emphasizes the “military-industrial complex” in its fiscal and social priorities, and necessarily has an extremely effective domestic policing force. The absence of freedoms and privileges eliminates nearly any possibility of economic growth and prosperity, while the necessity of constant state monitoring of its citizens creates an inefficient government. Needless to say, such an administration renders its population disconsolate and rebellious.

Centralization options: Unitary and Centralized.

Economic options: Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

Examples: Nazi Germany, the PRC, and modern Iraq.

Conclusion
The first thing of note is that I included no religious governments, which is because I wanted to avoid getting into anything pertaining to the religious aspect of Civilization III – it’s just too complicated for me to want to deal with. In order to accomplish this, I excluded theocracies of any form, but this should not be construed to mean that I don’t want them in the game. Another thing I excluded were any future governmental forms, and this is because that is an issue that Firaxis really should take up – it pertains so closely to the story line, the length of the game, etc. Another of issue of importance is that I limited both the economic and centralization options available to the player depending on the government the player chooses. This adds another element of realism, while mimicking the evolving SE panel favored by some people here; as the player chooses more and more advanced governments, the player is thus limited to more and more modern systems of administration and economics.

2) Centralization
An important point to take note of is that I have ordered these options from the most decentralized to the most centralized, forming a continuum of centralization. The choices under this category are (aside from a possible no centralization system):
City-State League
Confederal
Feudal
Federal
Imperial
Unitary
Centralized

City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 Ste, -1 Mil
Only possible under the City-State government choice, this organizational model has no central government, but rather a collection of independent cities that are related through loose, cooperative leagues, but not necessarily a single league. The reason why I included this centralization option was to vary the benefits of choosing a city-state government by allowing either no form of centralized organization or permit some cooperation between the city-states of a civilization. If a City-State civilization decides to form coactive leagues, it increases its stability and helps it economy at the expense of military preparedness.

Bureaucratic range: 0-1.

Examples: the Delian League, the Aetolian League.

Confederal: +3 Eff, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -2 Mil, -2 Nat, -3 Pol, -3 Ste
A confederation is a centralization form in which the authority of the central (or national) government is derived from its political subunits. As such, it is a union of independent states in which its central government or administration handles only those issues specifically delegated to it. This allows for extreme personal freedoms and almost excessive non-regulation; however, such a nation suffers from a variety of handicaps that stem from the decentralization. These countries’ national governments have difficulty raising armies to defend itself, as the local governments distrust centralized power, and there is often such a high degree of protectionism in relation to individual rights that police power is curtailed severely. There is also a general instability that results from a lack of any governmental control.

Bureaucratic range: 0-2.

Examples: America under the Articles of Confederation, the Confederate States in the American Civil War, Commonwealth of Independent States (in the former USSR).

Feudal: +3 Mil, -1 Ind, -2 Nat, -1 Ste
A complex organizational form in which, theoretically, nearly all land is owned directly by the king, and is held by his vassals, who swear an oath of loyalty to him and administer the land on his behalf. Very often, the king’s vassals will have vassals of their own, and who occasionally even have their own vassals, and so on. Frequently these vassals will also swear oaths of loyalty to other monarchs in order to gain more territory for themselves, a practice that can result in conflicting allegiances. The sole purpose of this social hierarchy is the advancement of militaristic power, as each vassal will have an obligation in this system to provide a certain number of soldiers for the monarch in times of war aside from the regular tribute. Naturally, such a system, despite any theories to the contrary, degrades the power of the central authority (the king) and leads to instability and petty localism. Usually there is a decrease in the productive capacity of the commoners in this system, especially when the vassals siphon off their goods and services for their own ends.

Bureaucratic range: 1-3.

Under this centralization form, only Manoralism is permitted as an economic choice.

Examples: medieval Europe.

Federal: +1 Eco, +2 Hap, +1 Pol, -1 Ind, -2 Mil
In this approach to administration, which was developed as a compromise between a confederacy and more centralized organizational forms, authority is divided in a number of ways to ensure the prevention of abuses of power. Some powers are given to the local/regional governments, and others are given to the national government, and this differentiation between powers and their users is usually given by a constitution. Within the central government, power is most often divided between three branches, a legislative, executive, and judicial governments. This complicated division of powers allows for a strong government while also guaranteeing protection of civil rights. As such, the economy prospers, as does the citizenry, who is protected by the regional governments’ police forces – another protection from abuse of power. However, the coexistence of national and regional powers, together with their coexistent regulations, hampers the industrial sector’s ability to comply with the laws and regulations.

Bureaucratic range: 2-6. (Widest bureaucratic range available.)

Examples: the United States, India, and Germany.

Imperial: +1 Gro, +2 Mil, +1 Pol, -2 Eff, -3 Rel
This is a broad category to cover the administrative system employed in governing (normally conquered) territories within an empire. Within the nation “proper,” there is most often a direct rule of the central government, but in the provinces, there are various supervising or managerial positions, such as viceroy, governor or provincial magistrate who administers, sometimes with the aid of a local legislative body or advisors, the territory. Such regional administrations are often corrupt, ineffective, inefficient, and even openly rebellious. Imperial nations are expansionistic and pursue territorial and population growth, especially at the cost of their neighbors.

Bureaucratic range: 1-4.

Examples: the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Roman Empire, and the early Holy Roman Empire.

Unitary: +1 Ind, +1 Pol, +2 Ste, -2 Eff, -2 Hap
Often confused with a federal system, a unitary system of government allows ultimate authority to be located in the national government and any regional governments derive their authority and power from it. Regional and local governmental decisions can be overridden by the national government, and the national government can usually cut off funding to local programs, and governmental functions such as education and the police are placed in the national government’s hands. The single regulatory system that results from this system benefits industry, while also increasing societal stability, especially with regards to economic cycling. Centralized control of most administrative activity frequently leads to society in which there is a faceless central authority that results in dissatisfaction in the populace.

Bureaucratic range: 4-7.

Examples: France, Great Britain, and Israel.

Centralized: +1 Ind, +1 Mil, +2 Pol, -4 Eff, -2 Hap
A decidedly rare form of governmental organization, a centralized government has no regional governments, and local governments exist only on the community/city level. Most appealing to small states, the national government is the only government in the civilization and can establish stringent regulations and rules on industrial activities, but for larger civilizations, the inefficiency and unhappiness caused by a “remote, faceless, and all-powerful” centralized government is highly problematic.

Bureaucratic range: 5-7.

Examples: many principalities in medieval-to-pre-unification Germany, early Muscovy, and the European microstates.

Conclusion
As I said earlier, I ordered these according to the degree of centralization that each choice had, from the least centralized to the most. CormacMacArt (a poster at Firaxis) previously noted, correctly IMHO, that this category concerns how the central government relates to the regional governments in terms of power and authority, just for clarification.

3) Economics
The economic choices I propose are:
Autarky
Commercial Bartering
Manoralism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez-Faire
Fascism
Regulated Capitalism
Socialism

Autarky: +1 Ste, -1 Agr, -1 Eco
One important item of note is that I have used the word “autarky” rather than “autarchy,” as the latter has two definitions – economic self-sufficiency and absolute or autocratic rule. In order to avoid confusion, I have used autarky as that only has the definition of economic self-sufficiency. This primitive economic system has each individual or family vying for its own benefit, with usually subsistence farming and the barest of extra-familial economic activity.

Examples: nearly all very early civilizations, such as Jericho and early Sumer.

Commercial Bartering: +1 Ste, -1 Agr
The natural evolution of autarky comes very quickly in the development of civilization and helps to increase societal commerce and business by establishing early forms of trade and financial activity. The primary distinction it has from later economic forms is that there is no formalized standard of exchange (i.e., currency), and as such it can be viewed, along with its predecessor Autarky, as being a purely non-currency economy.

Examples: nearly all later ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans.

Manoralism: +1 Pol, +1 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Agr
Only possible under a feudal organizational system, manoralism is the system of highly localized economies centered around the manor. In these manors, there is a lord who controls the local serfs, who work on his land and pay him heavy taxes; these serfs are unable to leave the services of the lord and rarely venture outside of the lord’s lands. Such a system thus results in benefits to the political stability of a civilization, but these manors are unproductive and contribute to population stagnation.

Examples: medieval Europe.

Guilds: +2 Eff, +1 Rel, -1 Agr, -1 Env, -1 Hap
Governments using this economic system try to protect consumers and producers by creating monopolies, called guilds, that could be easily regulated. The regulations would be tailored to ensure standards of production and profits for craftsmen, and would standardize the products (for example, having a standard size of bread loaves that could be sold). This regulation did stifle innovation, and, of course, most people in such a system are not actual members of guilds, leaving them impoverished and destitute as they would be unable to compete in any way.

Examples: Renaissance Europe, especially Italy.

Mercantilism: +1 Ind, +1 Nat, -1 Eff, -2 Rel
There seems to be some rather heated disagreements concerning this option, but here are my thoughts on it; hopefully, this definition will be one that everyone can agree with.

There was a period in time in which people viewed wealth not as a product of labor, but rather as the amount of precious metals that could be held or stockpiled. Nations, following this belief, would seek to create national economic independence that would involve having, ideally, no dependence upon other nations for any goods whatsoever and a continually favorable balance of trade. This protectionism benefited the national enterprises (which were often financed through joint-stock companies), but came at the price of antagonistic relations with trade “partners” and an inefficient allocation of capital that resulted from seeking to advance national interests rather than seeking the true development of profit for the investors.

Examples: Western Europe during the colonization era.

Laissez-Faire: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -3 Env, -2 Pol, -3 Ste
The precursor to modern capitalism, a laissez-faire economic system is grounded in a belief in governmental noninterference in the economy, which is based on the competition-driven system first theorized by Adam Smith. The flaw in such a system is that Smith had not foreseen the development of industrial trusts, which were anti-competition in nature but were necessarily allowed due to abstention of government action in the economy. That fact notwithstanding, this economic form permitted a great surge in the creation of wealth and the expansion of industrial capacity, at the cost of environmental protection and social and economic stability – the economic cycling of such a system is extreme. Furthermore, the class disparity under such a system resulted in frequent unrest in the working class.

Examples: industrial America, Europe.

Regulated Capitalism: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Env, -1 Mil, -1 Pol, -1 Ste
The evolution of a laissez-faire economic system, this form of capitalism permitted governmental regulation of the economic sector to preclude the possibility of trusts, among other anti-competition realities. This regulation to increase competition also was extended to help the worker, and included the legalization of unions, minimum wages and other devices to advance the general standard of living, therefore minimizing the drawbacks of the laissez-faire economy. In addition, a nation employing this type of economy always tries to increase its trade through improving its international relations.

Examples: the modern US, Europe, Japan.

Fascism: +2 Eff, +2 Ind, +1 Nat, +2 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Hap, -1 Rel
In this economic system, the state is exalted above virtually all other considerations, accompanied by a severe regimentation of the economy and society, a regimentation that is strictly enforced and does not permit wastefulness on the part of any administrator. Major industries are owned by top government officials and are controlled directly by the dictator, and exist to further the state, especially with respect to its industrial capacity. Conversely, the lack of competition and the single-purpose orientation of industry result in economic stagnation. Moreover, the lack of any prospect of personal advancement and the repression of any form of workers’ rights result in civil dissatisfaction with the government.

Examples: World War II Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Socialism *: +3 Ind, +3 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Agr, -2 Eff, -1 Eco
Socialism is an economic form in which the government either owns industry or regulates it extremely for the theoretical purpose of aiding the working class at the expense of an industrial elite. The government will especially own any infrastructure or primary (e.g., mining or forestry) industries to lower the cost of their products to other businesses. These states are able to achieve remarkably high industrial capacity in comparison to what such states would have otherwise achieved; they are also able to use their virtual economic monopoly to advance internal security and stability areas. Of course, their emphasis on industry normally stifles the farming sectors of the economy, markedly so if those sectors are “nationalized” or collectivized” in some way. Naturally, the efficiency of such an economy is dismal and often leads to a moribund economy.

Examples: the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC.

* Note that I agree with CormacMacArt (again, at Firaxis) that this should be referred to as “socialism” rather than “communism” as communism was never achieved and never will be achievable short of some sort of mass mind control.

Conclusion
The only thing that really needs to be said here is that, hopefully, my definitions of Guilds and Mercantilism will be acceptable enough to resolve the previous disagreements concerning them.

4) Societal Values or National Policy Objectives
Aside from having no societal values, the values that I propose are:
Expansion
Wealth
Stability
Dominance
Knowledge
Humanism
Environmentalism

Expansion: +1 Gro, +1 Mil, -2 Rel
Normally the highest priority for ancient civilizations, territorial expansion was greatly desired by despots, kings and republics alike. When a society is geared to value this, its military will often be primed to the greatest extent possible, especially in light of the increased hostility by any neighboring nations.

Wealth: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -2 Env, -1 Pol
Societies that value the accumulation of wealth and its materialist benefits above all else seek to create vibrant economic and industrial sectors with scant regard to any “minor” social unrest and virtually no regard to the inevitable environmental repercussions.

Stability: +1 Eff, +1 Rel, +3 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Hap
Nations seeking to maintain the status quo will often develop administrative techniques to ensure that no instability occurs, and this is accomplished by increasing efficiency, improving international standing with other nations, and stabilizing the economic and social domains of the civilization. This does, of course, stifle the happiness of the society; whether this social choice results in relative population stagnation or is a result of that (and a more general cultural stagnation) is a debatable matter.

Dominance: +1 Gro, +3 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel, -1 Res
The more modern form of expansion, dominance-seeking civilizations do not necessarily covet more land, but rather international prestige with respect to its militaristic strength and sizeable population. However, their bloated military budgets result in economic and intellectual decline, while the aggressive posturing of these societies harms foreign relations.

Knowledge: +1 Eff, +1 Env, +3 Res, -1 Ind, -1 Mil
Scientific preponderance is unquestionably a highly valuable objective, and often civilizations will pursue knowledge rigorously. Increasing research and educational efforts and pursuits result in side-benefits both to economic efficiency and the environment, as intellectuals will often see the benefits of recycling, resource management and other similar programs. On the other hand, self-glorifying intellectuals disdain industrial and military labor, and these aspects of society, although necessary, are frowned upon.

Humanism: +2 Gro, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, +1 Ste, -2 Mil, -2 Pol
Nations following a humanitarian philosophy value human rights and decent standards of living for not only its citizens, but also other peoples, and as such they habitually will undertake humanitarian projects and international aid. Such values do result in a noticeable contempt for excessive military and police force, however.

Environmentalism: +1 Eff, +3 Env, +1 Res, -1 Gro, -1 Ind, -1 Rel
Environmentalist nations seek to maintain and aid the biosphere and pursue other goals that will reverse the ecological degradation that occurs due to heavy industries. They value efficient resource usage and will pursue scientific activity, particularly in relation to nature. Of course, industry and population growth both suffer as a result of this preoccupation, but there is also the side-effect that these nations dislike other nations’ industrial activities and this will occasionally lead to antagonistic situations.

Conclusion
This isn’t supposed to be exhaustive, but I included all of the important, generalized policy philosophies that I could think of; there might also be some religious options as well. Also, I am undecided as to the name of this category; Joker has objected at the Firaxis board about the idea of having a singular societal value, and resultantly, I am considering names such as “National Policy” or “Administrative Priority” or something.

IV. Closing
In considering my ideas, remember that I purposefully excluded religious SE options as that is a complex section of the game and I don’t want to get into it. Other than that, I think I’m pretty much finished, and I welcome any commentary.

posted September 13, 1999 12:38                

I find considerable disagreement with your discriptions of socialism and the german nation under hitler

there was no dissatisfaction (until they were losing horribly), particularly with labor (it was labor who put hitler in charge)

I don't know what histories you've been reading but they aren't real

also you have socialsim but the you only put one version of it down

Socialisms goal is social equality

(or for some, more equality)

(you are right in that the soviet and cuban systems were/are not communist though, they were in the intermediate state on Marxs path to commuunism where the nation is supposedly set up for communism, those nations got sidetracked)

socialism is things like public education, public health care, unions

a socialist nation could have all its companies run by the people who work in them for example

the reason why so many people in the US have such a false veiw of capitalism and socialism is that we have been effected by propaganda for it throughout our lives (and by the unfortunate occurance of the mixed up USSR)

communism is: where everybody works in peace and happiness and everybody is provided for (also those who would distroy all government and live in selfsufficient communes)

posted September 13, 1999 18:23                

As far as Nazi Germany, for ethnic Germans who weren't regarded as "subhuman," you're right - there wasn't much discontent. However, one must take into account the whole of the nation, not just the favored ethnicity, and when one does so, it is undeniable that there was significant dissatisfaction with the German government of the time.

Also, about your refernces to labor, which I assume is derived from my Fascism modifier. The fact that you would disagree with my comments on Fascism suggests you do not fully understand what that economic system held. Everything I said about fascism was true, and the ideal fascism is often described as the opposite of the ideal of communism. In ideal communism, workers collectively own everything, whereas in the ideal fascism a few dozen elite governmental officials own everything, and they do so without opposition from labor. The fact that WWII Germany (early on, as you said) had no worker discontent was because the Nazi government spent considerable resources in organizations such as "Strength through Joy," which tried to pursue near-socialist worker benefits. Once the government could no longer support such programs the workers fell into the discontent that you referred to. In my SE proposal, such programs could be represented by the bureaucracy factor which I have suggested.

Jon, I realize that this probably will do little to change your opinion, and likewise, there is little you can do to change mine. As such, let's just agree to disagree about this and move on - this actually has little to do with CivIII Social Engineering. If you do want to study the issue, I suggest reading The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 by Michael Burleigh of the London School of Economics and Political Science and co-authored by Professor Wolfgang Wippermann of Freie Universitat in Berlin.

posted September 19, 1999 12:40                

1) Agriculture (Agr)
Positive agricultural ratings increase food production and reduce the chances of plagues and diseases; negative agricultural ratings decrease food production and increase the likeliness of plagues.
2) Economy (Eco)
Positive economic ratings increase the amount of trade that occurs in the civilization, negative ratings decrease it.
3) Efficiency (Eff)
This affects the amount of trade lost to corruption or waste; positive efficiency reduces corruption, negative efficiency increases it.
4) Environment (Env)
A positive environment rating reduces pollution production, and maximizes vegetation growth, as well as reducing the civilization’s contribution towards global warming and reducing the time terraforming takes. A negative rating has opposite effects.
5) Growth (Gro)
Positive growth ratings increase both the growth rates and raise the population limit imposed by a lack of “aqueducts” or the like; negative ratings decrease the growth rate and lowers the maximum population allowed without a certain improvement.
6) Happiness (Hap)
This affects the number of happy people in the civilization as well as their susceptibility to bribes by enemy agents.
7) Industry (Ind)
Positive industry rates increase the production productivity for all non-military production orders, and negative rates reduce that production productivity.
8) Militarism (Mil)
Positive militarism ratings increase troop experience/morale, speed the ease with which troops may be raised, and reduce the support required for each unit. A negative rating decreases morale, increases the expense of troops and raises the required support for these troops. I now think that this should be split into the separate modifiers Support (that affects the support and the troop production) and Morale or Experience (that affects the morale of the troops as a whole).
9) Nationalism (Nat)
A positive nationalist rating reduces emigration and multiethnic strife, and helps to reduce legislative interference in the executive’s (the player’s) actions. A negative rating increases emigration and multiethnic strife and enlarges the legislature’s role in governmental decision making. Looking back at my model, much of my decisions regarding the assignment of Nationalism bonuses/penalties are flawed and I intend to change them in a future version.
10) Police (Pol)
This affects civilian tolerance of the military, your ability to deploy troops in foreign territory, as well as the player’s ability to use units as a police force in his/her cities.
11) Relations (Rel)
This simply affects the diplomatic and economic relations with other civilizations. Positive ratings increase commerce and result in improved diplomatic relations; negative ratings decrease commerce and result in worsened diplomatic relations.
12) Research (Res)
A positive Research rating increases research output and the scientist-specialist output, while a negative rating has the opposite effect.
13) Steadiness (Ste)
Positive Steadiness reduces the economic and political volatility of a civilization; negative steadiness increases the economic and political turmoil present in society.

II. SE Range Factor

This is my section on the concept of a civilization’s bureaucracy, but it’s somewhat complicated and difficult to summate, and as a result, I refer you to the actual section in its entirety. It isn’t that long in any event anyway, so there really is no good reason to summarize it.

III. SE Model
Note that the government selection also limits the available centralization and economic choices that the player may make, and that the centralization choice affects the bureaucratic options available.

GOVERNMENT
Despotism: +1 Mil, +1 Pol, -1 Eff, -1 Hap
City-State: +1 Gro, +1 Hap, -2 Pol, -1 Ste
Monarchy: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, -1 Eff, -2 Hap
Oligarchy: +1 Ind, +2 Pol, -1 Eco, -1 Eff, -1 Nat
Republic: +1 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Ste, -1 Ind, -2 Pol
Direct Democracy: +1 Eco, +1 Gro, +2 Hap, -3 Eff, -1 Pol, -3 Ste
Absolutism: +2 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Hap, -1 Rel, -2 Res
Representative Democracy: +1 Eco, +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -2 Mil, -1 Nat, -2 Pol
Authoritarian: +2 Ind, +3 Mil, +3 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Eff, -2 Hap, -2 Ste

CENTRALIZATION
City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 Ste, -1 Mil
Confederal: +3 Eff, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -2 Mil, -2 Nat, -3 Pol, -3 Ste
Feudal: +3 Mil, -1 Ind, -2 Nat, -1 Ste
Federal: +1 Eco, +2 Hap, +1 Pol, -1 Ind, -2 Mil
Imperial: +1 Gro, +2 Mil, +1 Pol, -2 Eff, -3 Rel
Unitary: +1 Ind, +1 Pol, +2 Ste, -2 Eff, -2 Hap
Centralized: +1 Ind, +1 Mil, +2 Pol, -4 Eff, -2 Hap

ECONOMICS
Autarky: +1 Ste, -1 Agr, -1 Eco
Commercial Bartering: +1 Ste, -1 Agr
Manoralism: +1 Pol, +1 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Agr
Guilds: +2 Eff, +1 Rel, -1 Agr, -1 Env, -1 Hap
Mercantilism: +1 Ind, +1 Nat, -1 Eff, -2 Rel
Laissez-Faire: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -3 Env, -2 Pol, -3 Ste
Regulated Capitalism: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, -2 Env, -1 Mil, -1 Pol, -1 Ste
Fascism: +2 Eff, +2 Ind, +1 Nat, +2 Pol, -2 Eco, -2 Hap, -1 Rel
Socialism: +3 Ind, +3 Pol, +1 Ste, -3 Agr, -2 Eff, -1 Eco

SOCIETAL VALUES
Expansion: +1 Gro, +1 Mil, -2 Rel
Wealth: +2 Eco, +1 Ind, -2 Env, -1 Pol
Stability: +1 Eff, +1 Rel, +3 Ste, -2 Gro, -1 Hap
Dominance: +1 Gro, +3 Mil, -1 Eco, -3 Rel, -1 Res
Knowledge: +1 Eff, +1 Env, +3 Res, -1 Ind, -1 Mil
Humanism: +2 Gro, +2 Hap, +1 Rel, +1 Ste, -2 Mil, -2 Pol
Environmentalism: +1 Eff, +3 Env, +1 Res, -1 Gro, -1 Ind, -1 Rel

Remember that I decided to avoid the usage of any religion-related options as that is an entirely different thread. I hope this helps in analyzing my SE proposal.