posted September 28, 1999 02:48                

I don't believe they should have special restraints on what they can do (such as war powers), Republics are very old style forms of representative governments, and Democracies can be some of the most war prone nations there are. I understadn they should have some benefits and bad sides, but stay reasonable.

posted October 08, 1999 14:10                

First, there should always be a reason why a civ decides to declare war with you.

Beginning: When you don't have any goverment tech, you should not be able to make any agreements of any kind with any civilization. Meaning, you're basically have no status with any CIV. You can attack pillige and plunder at will, but they can do the same to you.

Republics: Before the invention of advanced communications and mobility (telephones, cars, etc), Republics should not be able to function in a large empire. The lack of any viable communication method should break it down, like it did with the Roman Empire. Thus, any CIV that has the republics tech, can only be the size of about 5 cities (just throwing in a number here) before suffering some serious unrest problems in the cities furthest from the empire. There could be exemptions to this rule. For example, if the capital city resides next to a river or ocean tile, any city doing the same would be able to communciate via water.

Monarchy: The problems that monarchy causes should reflect real history, and not necessarily only economic problems. It should be made so that it can reflect what happens in successions and simple family politics. For example, every once in a while, a dialog would appear indicating that a distant cousin of yours... the Duke of Marseille, has declared himself the rightful King of France, and is openly chalanging you in arms for the thrown. Effectively, a civil war breaks out.

Manarchies should be the dominant govenrment style for a great period in the CIV III game. It wasn't used enough in CIV II and it was virtually useless. There was no reason to even have it in the game, but there is so much fun that can be had with this form of government.... so many possibilities with alliances and treaties.

Democracies: You should be able to declare war against another country, however, victory or peace must come in 3 turns or less before severe ill effects begin to happen. History has shone that people are most effected by long, drawn out wars.

Fascism: This should cause severe problems with any country that is not a Fascist country, almost to the point where they automatically declare war against your government.

posted October 09, 1999 18:13                

Theben, you no longer remembr me, I was more involved during the total life of this thread then you

I have been elsewhere most the time, good thing I checked out what was going on before my ideas end up disappeared (I think my combat/unit idea already went that way)

I consider y idea not jonly the most realistic ut the most fun

I am posting my earlier incomplete SE below, since apparenty everybody has forgotten it, then I will perhaps add a little to it below

------------------

ECONOMICS

the economics settings mostly just affect the national values and control like governments but they only affect the control of cities and they have more of there own modifiers than do the governments

it can be looked at that governments modify the national values to get a se modifier and national values modify economies to get a se modifier

for example, if the people are not very individuslistic, shown by how much they value individualism they will work well with communism

the system will be set up like this

in communism increased individualism means increased corruption and decreased happiness

in freemarket increased individualism means increased trade

in freemarket increased wealth means increased trade

in communism increased wealth means increased corruption and decreased happiness

in manorialism increased individualism means decreased happiness (they don't want to be serfs any more)

all the values modify the economics in like manner (in differing degrees)

economics are

(I have not finished writing on any of them)

communist (real communism if you can get it right)
has increased happiness (this can go away with the right values)

free market (real free market)
has some harsh happiness penalties (especially for those groups do not rule), also has increased trade and production increases

socialist (maybe you should be able to choose a slider that goes between socialism and free market)
similar to communism but does not hav as big a penalties for individualism and wealth also increases happiness

manorialism (the feudal system)
those groups that do not rule are unhappy over this

mercantilist (ala Japan last 50 years and colonial britain)

barter (early system)

merchant (I'm not sure about the right word but it is meant to represent early non manorial non barter systems where merchants and small scale craftsmen as did farmers but information did not flow fast enough to make it like modern freemarket and governments did have there hand in it)

------------------------------

POPULACE

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

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

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

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

STRENGTH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these three things add together to form strength

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

HAPPINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VALUES

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

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

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

values for each group can be changed by education/propaganda

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

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

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

all points not spent are lost

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

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

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

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

the national values affect the civ with modifiers

values:

pacificism----power

antiimperialism (better word?)----imperialism

conservatism (somethhing else?)----knowledge

-------------------------------

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

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

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

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

(enough for the preamble)

NATIONAL

the nattional has many things on it's screen

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

the choice to declare revolution

and STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, and ECONOMICS

STRUCTURE

in structure a slider would work perfectly between centralized and uncentralized

GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the player has weaker control in this one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

national values are overall not as strong

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

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

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

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

national values are overall not as strong

chinese are to my knowledge the first to use beaucracies

there may be more

------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------------

Control

this is the most hodpodge of my SE model

what it is is that there are AI personalities that you can or are forced (depending on the other parts of your SE structure like what your national economy/government/values is/are) to put in control of different aspects of your country

this is the real advantage of the less free structures

the values would also affect your AIs actions

onething that might make the AI's better is to have governments that are ruled by groups of them and have each have a selection of preprogrammed strategies to use for both city and military management, also make it so that people can program more (this will really please the programming freaks), the computer will always get their managers from a better pool then the player (they will have a better chance) or maybe this will depend on level

everybody would use the same pathfinding and the like algorithim (which would need to be better), I think that set strategies (that can be expanded of course) for different situations is more lieky than an AI that can figure out every situation

some non centralization setting would make it so that you would have to put governors into outlaying provences

freem market or more free market economies means that each city would have its own AI overseeing production and you woul have to buy and order things from them

being an a repulic or democracy would decrease your control over national and foreign affairs

you could just order an AI to attack an opponent not move the troops yourselves

this would also cut down in many games on micromangement late in the game, since democracy and republic are usually more advantageous

some one who likes micromanagement would remain in some sort of tyraanical government

this is the real switch off between governments

y the way, more on how the AI actually works can be found earlier in this thread and in the radical thread

also: another idea

to devide between types of improvment cities will be able to improve terrain in their radius while their will be settlers that can also improve terrain

these will be used more for the national big projects or for military opperations (maybe the engineer unit should be military)

the cities public works bit can be controlled by that city if that is what the AI control settin is (free market, ect)

settlers however would be controlled by the national government (you lose absolute control of them in democracy and republic where your actions must be approved by the senate and the senate can unertake its own actions)

by the way, when the military is an (who) it usually takes away some of your control of your military

different levels of control are reflected in how detailed of levels of commands you can give and what choice in commanders you have (from civ/smac style you tell every individual troop commander to you just intructing large army commanders where to attack)

this idea would also even you more up with the computer because your commanders (when you don't have absolute control over the military) will be picked out of the same place as the computers (and in the higher difficulties you will get worse generals and governors while the AI will get better ones

-------

well I post this and see what I have

this place seems to have died

posted October 09, 1999 20:38                

I like your ideas, I addressed them above or on the radical ideas page a bit earlier, but you went into far greater detail than I.
Isolationism would be a good word in place of "antiimerialism"
and I definitely agree with the use of sliders and losing control as you decentralize.
I would also like to see a difference between modern parliamentary republics and presidential republics. Where in the former business would get done quickly and you may have more power, but the public can go against you more often (seeing as they don't directly elect you) and in the latter, business could move on slower due to separation of powers, but it would be more easy to unite the public in your favor. Although in either of these, and in any form of government, the public should initially be in favor of you in times of crisis, unless they tend to drag out.

posted October 16, 1999 17:36                

James: most of my ideas date to before august, look in the early part of this thread, if you stated them before that it must have been back in June when I wasn't reading all the threads here in which case I did not know you had already stated them.

Theben: it is Jon (short for Jonathan) not John

as I have said previously: governments and economical structure just effects how the nation reflects the values of those in control

a dictatorship does not always cause effeciency lost nor does it limit growth nor does it benefit police

those things all depend on the grooup that creates and runs the dictatorship

a military republic for instance might give you complete control over national and city affairs but would give you little control over the military, it would also increase police rating if the military didn't value human rights

all government things would cause like effects

posted October 27, 1999 05:17                

2. Migration, in and out, between cities in the same nation, between two regions, and between nations. Type of migrating citizens :
foreigner, tourists, legal alien, green card holder, refugees, etc.

3. Give names to geographical landmarks and historic battles.

4.Instead of the Advisors screen, why don't we just use the city improvements, like City Hall, Universities, Military bases, etc.

5. Where are the social deseases ? Organized crime, drug addicts, sociopaths, etc., they really influenced the shape of a nation.

posted October 27, 1999 13:03                

First off i will continue my debate with Techno:

GDP vs GNP:
Actually I don't even know what GDP is. I couldn't find it in the dictionary, but if you tell me what the D stands for I may be able to find the Danish term for it, and post it here. And according to my sources wealth is being measured by GNP per capita.

"...The International Institute for Management Developement ranked the US ... as the most competitive economy in the world marketplace ..."

Possibly, but those surveys always lay huge weight on wages, and as the wages in Skandinavia is very high they can't beat the US, as only very few products can compete if being made in Skandinavia (those being very capitalintensive products, R&D, management etc.). You could never make any clothes in Denmark, as it would cost 10 times more than if it was being made in South East Asia. Although all this Skandinavia is still wealthier than the US, Singapore etc.

And of cause no Skandinavian country is in the G8. They only have a few million inhapitants each. The G8 is large, wealthy countries. Switzerland is not in the G8, and that is the wealthiest country in the world. Monaco isn't in the G8 either, although it is by far the country with the most millionaires per capita. And Italy, which isn't among the wealthiest countries in the world (not at all) is in the G8.

Universities:
Ok, maybe you're right.

Growth and production:
Health care is free in Denmark, but i don't think it would make people have more children. And we don't support industry. The welfare state is made for the people, not the coorporations. Supporting industry is a thing from the protectionism in the 30s, and are not being used any more.

Agriculture:
Hmmm... I think you're right. I will include it in my version 2.1.

Morale:
Not sure about this one.

Enviromentalism:
If pollution is important (like in CCTP) it could be a modifier without the terraforming part. Besides, i don't think all modifiers should be equally important. I see your point, though.

Happyness:
Wouldn't an enemy unit consider the happyness in a country before moving there?

Militarism:
Of cause!

Relations:
I dunno. But in your model it said all trade routes, not just international ones.

Parliamental monarchies:
I don’t agree about your first point. By parliamental monarchies i didn’t mean the modern European monarchies (like UK, Spain, Sweden etc.), but the type from the dawn of modern democracy. When the European countries changed to democracy most of them kept the king, who was still the head of state (he chose the government – sometimes he WAS the government). At the same time there was a legislative power, elected by the people. This mix between democracy and monarchy was pretty common and in many countries it lasted up to the beginning of this century, and so it should be included.

Authoritarian:
My primary idea bout oligarchy was to be able to describe a wide variety of nondemocratic states, both modern and ancient. The concept is, that e.g. the USSR and Fascist Italy was way too different to be included in the same gov type. There therefor had to be made a gov type that could reflect many different oligarchies. And so i invented the supporting classes idea (BTW i heavily suggest to make it possible to be supported by one OR two classes – limiting it to one would be less realistic). In my mind an authoritan/totalitarian civ is simply an oligarchy with low freedom of speech, low privacy and high propagande. A lot of different authorian civs could therefor be portrayed. And, as i realised that Hitler, Stalin and a few more (but neither Mussolini nor Kruschov) were dictators. They ruled on their own. And so a dictatorship should be included. If you still want an authorian option, please describe in details what it would mean (as i have no acces to that book you mentiones) as i would really like to know.

Federal:
A nondemocratic federation would simply be a civ where the nondemocratic gov points out nondemocratic state leaders, who otherwise rule their state on their own. I realize that this would mean less direct control, and so i’ve given federation a –1 leg.

Centralized and Unitary:
Ohhh, now i see what you mean. And so i agree.

Economics:
Besides from the currency option i really think there should be a City states economics option. The special economic and social strucure of the city states of ancient Rome and Greece should really be included. And it can’t be described by the city state strucure option, as that has something to do with control, not economics and sociology.

Autarky:
My bons and pens are all meant relatively, not absolutely. By giving autarky a huge pen i simply mean that it should give WAY less trade than e.g. Laissez Faire.

BTW what do you think about my idea of having economic systems needing a certain amount of trade and raw materials to excist – and Autarky would be the only one always possible?

Fascism:
Except for the monopolistic large coorporations fascism was more or less like capitalism. You were free to open up your own company, the marked worked etc. And it’s real word is Corporatism, not fascism. Fascism was a concept including government and values invented by Mussolini in the early 20s. Also, corporatism should be availible with democracy. Here it would simply be the elected gov, that supported the large coorporations.

BTW what is your oppinion of having Anti monopoly laws as an options within capitalism? Low giving +1 pro –1 eco, med nothing and high –1 pro +1 eco.

posted October 27, 1999 13:07                

First off i will continue my debate with Techno:

GDP vs GNP:
Actually I don't even know what GDP is. I couldn't find it in the dictionary, but if you tell me what the D stands for I may be able to find the Danish term for it, and post it here. And according to my sources wealth is being measured by GNP per capita.

"...The International Institute for Management Developement ranked the US ... as the most competitive economy in the world marketplace ..."

Possibly, but those surveys always lay huge weight on wages, and as the wages in Skandinavia is very high they can't beat the US, as only very few products can compete if being made in Skandinavia (those being very capitalintensive products, R&D, management etc.). You could never make any clothes in Denmark, as it would cost 10 times more than if it was being made in South East Asia. Although all this Skandinavia is still wealthier than the US, Singapore etc.

And of cause no Skandinavian country is in the G8. They only have a few million inhapitants each. The G8 is large, wealthy countries. Switzerland is not in the G8, and that is the wealthiest country in the world. Monaco isn't in the G8 either, although it is by far the country with the most millionaires per capita. And Italy, which isn't among the wealthiest countries in the world (not at all) is in the G8.

Universities:
Ok, maybe you're right.

Growth and production:
Health care is free in Denmark, but i don't think it would make people have more children. And we don't support industry. The welfare state is made for the people, not the coorporations. Supporting industry is a thing from the protectionism in the 30s, and are not being used any more.

Agriculture:
Hmmm... I think you're right. I will include it in my version 2.1.

Morale:
Not sure about this one.

Enviromentalism:
If pollution is important (like in CCTP) it could be a modifier without the terraforming part. Besides, i don't think all modifiers should be equally important. I see your point, though.

Happyness:
Wouldn't an enemy unit consider the happyness in a country before moving there?

Militarism:
Of cause!

Relations:
I dunno. But in your model it said all trade routes, not just international ones.

Parliamental monarchies:
I don’t agree about your first point. By parliamental monarchies i didn’t mean the modern European monarchies (like UK, Spain, Sweden etc.), but the type from the dawn of modern democracy. When the European countries changed to democracy most of them kept the king, who was still the head of state (he chose the government – sometimes he WAS the government). At the same time there was a legislative power, elected by the people. This mix between democracy and monarchy was pretty common and in many countries it lasted up to the beginning of this century, and so it should be included.

Authoritarian:
My primary idea bout oligarchy was to be able to describe a wide variety of nondemocratic states, both modern and ancient. The concept is, that e.g. the USSR and Fascist Italy was way too different to be included in the same gov type. There therefor had to be made a gov type that could reflect many different oligarchies. And so i invented the supporting classes idea (BTW i heavily suggest to make it possible to be supported by one OR two classes – limiting it to one would be less realistic). In my mind an authoritan/totalitarian civ is simply an oligarchy with low freedom of speech, low privacy and high propagande. A lot of different authorian civs could therefor be portrayed. And, as i realised that Hitler, Stalin and a few more (but neither Mussolini nor Kruschov) were dictators. They ruled on their own. And so a dictatorship should be included. If you still want an authorian option, please describe in details what it would mean (as i have no acces to that book you mentiones) as i would really like to know.

Federal:
A nondemocratic federation would simply be a civ where the nondemocratic gov points out nondemocratic state leaders, who otherwise rule their state on their own. I realize that this would mean less direct control, and so i’ve given federation a –1 leg.

Centralized and Unitary:
Ohhh, now i see what you mean. And so i agree.

Economics:
Besides from the currency option i really think there should be a City states economics option. The special economic and social strucure of the city states of ancient Rome and Greece should really be included. And it can’t be described by the city state strucure option, as that has something to do with control, not economics and sociology.

Autarky:
My bons and pens are all meant relatively, not absolutely. By giving autarky a huge pen i simply mean that it should give WAY less trade than e.g. Laissez Faire.

BTW what do you think about my idea of having economic systems needing a certain amount of trade and raw materials to excist – and Autarky would be the only one always possible?

Fascism:
Except for the monopolistic large coorporations fascism was more or less like capitalism. You were free to open up your own company, the marked worked etc. And it’s real word is Corporatism, not fascism. Fascism was a concept including government and values invented by Mussolini in the early 20s. Also, corporatism should be availible with democracy. Here it would simply be the elected gov, that supported the large coorporations.

BTW what is your oppinion of having Anti monopoly laws as an options within capitalism? Low giving +1 pro –1 eco, med nothing and high –1 pro +1 eco.

posted October 27, 1999 13:10                

First off i will continue my debate with Techno:

GDP vs GNP:
Actually I don't even know what GDP is. I couldn't find it in the dictionary, but if you tell me what the D stands for I may be able to find the Danish term for it, and post it here. And according to my sources wealth is being measured by GNP per capita.

"...The International Institute for Management Developement ranked the US ... as the most competitive economy in the world marketplace ..."

Possibly, but those surveys always lay huge weight on wages, and as the wages in Skandinavia is very high they can't beat the US, as only very few products can compete if being made in Skandinavia (those being very capitalintensive products, R&D, management etc.). You could never make any clothes in Denmark, as it would cost 10 times more than if it was being made in South East Asia. Although all this Skandinavia is still wealthier than the US, Singapore etc.

And of cause no Skandinavian country is in the G8. They only have a few million inhapitants each. The G8 is large, wealthy countries. Switzerland is not in the G8, and that is the wealthiest country in the world. Monaco isn't in the G8 either, although it is by far the country with the most millionaires per capita. And Italy, which isn't among the wealthiest countries in the world (not at all) is in the G8.

Universities:
Ok, maybe you're right.

Growth and production:
Health care is free in Denmark, but i don't think it would make people have more children. And we don't support industry. The welfare state is made for the people, not the coorporations. Supporting industry is a thing from the protectionism in the 30s, and are not being used any more.

Agriculture:
Hmmm... I think you're right. I will include it in my version 2.1.

Morale:
Not sure about this one.

Enviromentalism:
If pollution is important (like in CCTP) it could be a modifier without the terraforming part. Besides, i don't think all modifiers should be equally important. I see your point, though.

Happyness:
Wouldn't an enemy unit consider the happyness in a country before moving there?

Militarism:
Of cause!

Relations:
I dunno. But in your model it said all trade routes, not just international ones.

Parliamental monarchies:
I don’t agree about your first point. By parliamental monarchies i didn’t mean the modern European monarchies (like UK, Spain, Sweden etc.), but the type from the dawn of modern democracy. When the European countries changed to democracy most of them kept the king, who was still the head of state (he chose the government – sometimes he WAS the government). At the same time there was a legislative power, elected by the people. This mix between democracy and monarchy was pretty common and in many countries it lasted up to the beginning of this century, and so it should be included.

Authoritarian:
My primary idea bout oligarchy was to be able to describe a wide variety of nondemocratic states, both modern and ancient. The concept is, that e.g. the USSR and Fascist Italy was way too different to be included in the same gov type. There therefor had to be made a gov type that could reflect many different oligarchies. And so i invented the supporting classes idea (BTW i heavily suggest to make it possible to be supported by one OR two classes – limiting it to one would be less realistic). In my mind an authoritan/totalitarian civ is simply an oligarchy with low freedom of speech, low privacy and high propagande. A lot of different authorian civs could therefor be portrayed. And, as i realised that Hitler, Stalin and a few more (but neither Mussolini nor Kruschov) were dictators. They ruled on their own. And so a dictatorship should be included. If you still want an authorian option, please describe in details what it would mean (as i have no acces to that book you mentiones) as i would really like to know.

Federal:
A nondemocratic federation would simply be a civ where the nondemocratic gov points out nondemocratic state leaders, who otherwise rule their state on their own. I realize that this would mean less direct control, and so i’ve given federation a –1 leg.

Centralized and Unitary:
Ohhh, now i see what you mean. And so i agree.

Economics:
Besides from the currency option i really think there should be a City states economics option. The special economic and social strucure of the city states of ancient Rome and Greece should really be included. And it can’t be described by the city state strucure option, as that has something to do with control, not economics and sociology.

Autarky:
My bons and pens are all meant relatively, not absolutely. By giving autarky a huge pen i simply mean that it should give WAY less trade than e.g. Laissez Faire.

BTW what do you think about my idea of having economic systems needing a certain amount of trade and raw materials to excist – and Autarky would be the only one always possible?

Fascism:
Except for the monopolistic large coorporations fascism was more or less like capitalism. You were free to open up your own company, the marked worked etc. And it’s real word is Corporatism, not fascism. Fascism was a concept including government and values invented by Mussolini in the early 20s. Also, corporatism should be availible with democracy. Here it would simply be the elected gov, that supported the large coorporations.

BTW what is your oppinion of having Anti monopoly laws as an options within capitalism? Low giving +1 pro –1 eco, med nothing and high –1 pro +1 eco.

posted October 27, 1999 13:13                

First off i will continue my debate with Techno:

GDP vs GNP:
Actually I don't even know what GDP is. I couldn't find it in the dictionary, but if you tell me what the D stands for I may be able to find the Danish term for it, and post it here. And according to my sources wealth is being measured by GNP per capita.

"...The International Institute for Management Developement ranked the US ... as the most competitive economy in the world marketplace ..."

Possibly, but those surveys always lay huge weight on wages, and as the wages in Skandinavia is very high they can't beat the US, as only very few products can compete if being made in Skandinavia (those being very capitalintensive products, R&D, management etc.). You could never make any clothes in Denmark, as it would cost 10 times more than if it was being made in South East Asia. Although all this Skandinavia is still wealthier than the US, Singapore etc.

And of cause no Skandinavian country is in the G8. They only have a few million inhapitants each. The G8 is large, wealthy countries. Switzerland is not in the G8, and that is the wealthiest country in the world. Monaco isn't in the G8 either, although it is by far the country with the most millionaires per capita. And Italy, which isn't among the wealthiest countries in the world (not at all) is in the G8.

Universities:
Ok, maybe you're right.

Growth and production:
Health care is free in Denmark, but i don't think it would make people have more children. And we don't support industry. The welfare state is made for the people, not the coorporations. Supporting industry is a thing from the protectionism in the 30s, and are not being used any more.

Agriculture:
Hmmm... I think you're right. I will include it in my version 2.1.

Morale:
Not sure about this one.

Enviromentalism:
If pollution is important (like in CCTP) it could be a modifier without the terraforming part. Besides, i don't think all modifiers should be equally important. I see your point, though.

Happyness:
Wouldn't an enemy unit consider the happyness in a country before moving there?

Militarism:
Of cause!

Relations:
I dunno. But in your model it said all trade routes, not just international ones.

Parliamental monarchies:
I don’t agree about your first point. By parliamental monarchies i didn’t mean the modern European monarchies (like UK, Spain, Sweden etc.), but the type from the dawn of modern democracy. When the European countries changed to democracy most of them kept the king, who was still the head of state (he chose the government – sometimes he WAS the government). At the same time there was a legislative power, elected by the people. This mix between democracy and monarchy was pretty common and in many countries it lasted up to the beginning of this century, and so it should be included.

Authoritarian:
My primary idea bout oligarchy was to be able to describe a wide variety of nondemocratic states, both modern and ancient. The concept is, that e.g. the USSR and Fascist Italy was way too different to be included in the same gov type. There therefor had to be made a gov type that could reflect many different oligarchies. And so i invented the supporting classes idea (BTW i heavily suggest to make it possible to be supported by one OR two classes – limiting it to one would be less realistic). In my mind an authoritan/totalitarian civ is simply an oligarchy with low freedom of speech, low privacy and high propagande. A lot of different authorian civs could therefor be portrayed. And, as i realised that Hitler, Stalin and a few more (but neither Mussolini nor Kruschov) were dictators. They ruled on their own. And so a dictatorship should be included. If you still want an authorian option, please describe in details what it would mean (as i have no acces to that book you mentiones) as i would really like to know.

Federal:
A nondemocratic federation would simply be a civ where the nondemocratic gov points out nondemocratic state leaders, who otherwise rule their state on their own. I realize that this would mean less direct control, and so i’ve given federation a –1 leg.

Centralized and Unitary:
Ohhh, now i see what you mean. And so i agree.

Economics:
Besides from the currency option i really think there should be a City states economics option. The special economic and social strucure of the city states of ancient Rome and Greece should really be included. And it can’t be described by the city state strucure option, as that has something to do with control, not economics and sociology.

Autarky:
My bons and pens are all meant relatively, not absolutely. By giving autarky a huge pen i simply mean that it should give WAY less trade than e.g. Laissez Faire.

BTW what do you think about my idea of having economic systems needing a certain amount of trade and raw materials to excist – and Autarky would be the only one always possible?

Fascism:
Except for the monopolistic large coorporations fascism was more or less like capitalism. You were free to open up your own company, the marked worked etc. And it’s real word is Corporatism, not fascism. Fascism was a concept including government and values invented by Mussolini in the early 20s. Also, corporatism should be availible with democracy. Here it would simply be the elected gov, that supported the large coorporations.

BTW what is your oppinion of having Anti monopoly laws as an options within capitalism? Low giving +1 pro –1 eco, med nothing and high –1 pro +1 eco.

posted October 28, 1999 12:37                

If it is impossible to put one list together that accurately represents everyone's ideas, please send them to me separately--within 48 hours!

Why so soon? Well, the list needs to be sent.

Also, some things that would be helpful to me:

1) Don't send in just a few ideas--if you have a complete system, I'd be glad to include it. Otherwise it becomes too much to present in a coherent way.

2) Please look at the summary forum for how you should number your complete system. Any submissions that don't conform to at least the spirit of good organization and numbering won't fit with the rest of the list. At any rate, we have to try to make this as easy for Firaxis to use as possible.

3) SPELL CHECK! I won't share the horror stories...

Well, send them to me if you have 'em. Otherwise, I'll run with what I have after 2 days.

posted October 28, 1999 19:30                

I don't know what they're planning, but SE and Gov't should be separate entities. The type of government should almost always be determined by the people (AI), or maybe even with your "persuasion," and should still have the typical types. However,the SE should be completely determined by the player, and would work along similar lines to SMAC. ie: Police State, Demo, Fundie, etc. But probably with more choices, and changing Demo to "Parliamentary," thus making Parliamentary Monarchies, Police-state Republics and Communist democracies possible, and adding some gov't choices to the player, but as is more "realistic," it leaves revolutions up to the people.

Also, I think certain social qualities should have to exist and take root before some governments can be effective, therefore, ineffective democracies like Weimar Germany and modern Russia would not function like the US and modern Germany, and be much more prone to collapse.

Which brings me to:
As you are conquering one civ (or it is conquering you), the losing civ will be very prone to starvation and revolution, which makes suing for peace more likely (as it should be) and with the conclusion of the peace treaty, the winning civ can force the government upon the defeated civ, while the losing civ is able to control SE effects. This ties into my first point, as a government the civ isn't used to will probably be prone to collapse.

posted October 28, 1999 19:37                

I don't know what they're planning, but SE and Gov't should be separate entities. The type of government should almost always be determined by the people (AI), or maybe even with your "persuasion," and should still have the typical types. However,the SE should be completely determined by the player, and would work along similar lines to SMAC. ie: Police State, Demo, Fundie, etc. But probably with more choices, and changing Demo to "Parliamentary," thus making Parliamentary Monarchies, Police-state Republics and Communist democracies possible, and adding some gov't choices to the player, but as is more "realistic," it leaves revolutions up to the people.

Also, I think certain social qualities should have to exist and take root before some governments can be effective, therefore, ineffective democracies like Weimar Germany and modern Russia would not function like the US and modern Germany, and be much more prone to collapse.

Which brings me to:
As you are conquering one civ (or it is conquering you), the losing civ will be very prone to starvation and revolution, which makes suing for peace more likely (as it should be) and with the conclusion of the peace treaty, the winning civ can force the government upon the defeated civ, while the losing civ is able to control SE effects. This ties into my first point, as a government the civ isn't used to will probably be prone to collapse.

posted October 28, 1999 19:40                

I don't know what they're planning, but SE and Gov't should be separate entities. The type of government should almost always be determined by the people (AI), or maybe even with your "persuasion," and should still have the typical types. However,the SE should be completely determined by the player, and would work along similar lines to SMAC. ie: Police State, Demo, Fundie, etc. But probably with more choices, and changing Demo to "Parliamentary," thus making Parliamentary Monarchies, Police-state Republics and Communist democracies possible, and adding some gov't choices to the player, but as is more "realistic," it leaves revolutions up to the people.

Also, I think certain social qualities should have to exist and take root before some governments can be effective, therefore, ineffective democracies like Weimar Germany and modern Russia would not function like the US and modern Germany, and be much more prone to collapse.

Which brings me to:
As you are conquering one civ (or it is conquering you), the losing civ will be very prone to starvation and revolution, which makes suing for peace more likely (as it should be) and with the conclusion of the peace treaty, the winning civ can force the government upon the defeated civ, while the losing civ is able to control SE effects. This ties into my first point, as a government the civ isn't used to will probably be prone to collapse.

posted October 29, 1999 11:09                

I somewhat agree on your ineffective govs, althought i don't see how it should be implanted.

And for the loosing civ being prone to starvation and revolution that should be completely determined by the factors of the loss. If you have lost completely i agree, but if you have just lost a smaller conflict it should have almost no effect on the situation in your mainland. It's not like the US faced starvation and revolution after 'Nam!

posted October 29, 1999 12:53                

Here is my Social Engineering model Version 3.0 (the earlier versions are not availible, as they were lost with the Firaxis Forum).

First of all i will say, that i agree a lot with maniacs SE factors. Second i would like a far more anagolue game, with no squares, and no pop heads. In stead cities would have a real population, unit movement would be determined by distance and agriculture, mining etc. Would represent an area.

I agree a lot with Maniacs x10 system, which i definately think should be included. I will therefor copy it here:
It means that now a grassland sqare ( i don’t like sqares, just putting it in so people will understand) would now produce 20 food per turn. Same for production, resources and trade. Trade also means taxes, science and luxuries x10.
This gives a whole new world of opportunities. You could, for instance, have a tech that increases food production with 10%. Or give units different support (units should require food, raw materials and tax for support).
There are tons of applications for this, and so i agree with Maniac that x10 must be included in Civ3.

SE factors:
1: Police (pol): Should determine how well you can police your citizens (how effective units as police would be, and also how effective civilian police would be). The higher the police rate the more efficiently you can supppress your people. There should also be crime in your civ. It would steal trade and maybe production and/or raw materials. High police would reduce this. Pol should also reflect how well you can stop your people from revolting, and not only by using units as police.

2: Military (mil): +1 giving 10% less production time when building units, -1 giving vise versa.

3: Nationalism (nat): Determining how much it costs for enemies to bribe your units, and would also affect how high a propability there is for your civ to break up.

4: Happyness (hap). Would affect how fast you assimilate conquored cities. Although a city can be assimilated within a short amount of time, it can still keep it’s nationality, not creating unhappyness, but still wanting independance when the chance comes.

5: Experience (exp): This would determine the level a newly built unit starts on (rookie, veteran etc.). +1 would make it start one level higher, -1 one level lower.

6: Growth (gro): This would for once affect the food output of cities, high values making growth faster.

7: Production (pro). +1: - 10% build time for city improvements, wonders and national projects.

8: Enviroment (env). High giving less pollution, low giving more.

9: Research (res). +1 giving 10% more research output, -1 10% less and so forth.

10: Taxes (tax). +1 giving 10% more tax income, -1 giving 10% less and so forth.

11: Economy (eco). Affecting the trade output of cities.

12: Relations (rel). High making better relations, low worse. However, relations would most of all be determined by your actions and your SE settings – especcially values (civs with the same settings like each other better than others).

13: Bureaucracy (bur): Lower giving more unhappyness and trade loss by a city’s distance to the capital. Roads and railroads should make the ”distance” smaller.

14: Economic cycling (cyc). This factor will increase or decrease the economic cycling that excists, and determines the amount of trade. This cycling would be more or less random, but wars and raw material crisises etc. would create busts, and important new advances etc. Would create booms.
+4 100% more cycling
+3 75% more cycling
+2 50% more
+1 25% more
0 normal cycling
-1 25% less
……
-4 no cycling

Legislature (leg): Would affect how much influence the legislature has. If high it could make smaller SE changes like changing laws, go from Laissez Faire to capitalism etc. Or make diplomatic changes.

Steadiness (ste): Affecting the chance of your people revolting against you (making major SE changes like from Oligarchy to Democracy) or of your empire breaking up.

The model:

The word(s) in the parentheses are the advance that makes that choise possible.

Categories:
1) Government
2) Structure
3) Economy
4) Values
5) Army
7) Laws

Government:

For the gov to remain it would either need to be supported by a large amount of the pop (people not supporting it would be a little unhappy, and they might move and join another civ or create their own – if the majority of the pop in a part of your civ doesn’t support the gov they could break loose and form their own civ. There should be ways to see this before it happends, so you could do something about it) or the gov would have to be strong enough to surpress the pop. I don’t know how this would work in the game, but it should be included. You could also do things to turn people to a different gov type. For instance, if the govs in Europe suddently wanted to turn the countries into oligarchies, the pop would do something about it. But if the gov during a period of 40 years taught kids in shool that oligarchy was best, and started using pro-oligarchic propaganda, the change would propably succeed.

Also, the period of anarchy should vary a lot depending on what gov you change to and from. So if you change from parliamental monarchy to democracy or from dictatorship to oligarchy the change would only take 2 turns or so, but from dictatorship to democracy it would take maybe 10-15 turns of severe penalties. Therefor, you might want to change to something in between first, and then to your final goal.

I have made a new Government option, where i divide Government into the 3 power: Judicial power, Legislative power and Executive power. I have done this to make far more gov types availible than before. For instance, the USSR was not a democracy, but it did have a parliament elected by the people. It is therefor possible to have a nondemocratic executive power, but a democratically elected legislative power, like the parliamental monarchies (the king was the executive power, but had to obey the laws of the legislature) of the 19th century.

Each bonus and penalty should be seen individually, so an advisory legislature would give –1 leg +1 res.

Judicial power:

Independant: nothing
Not indepentant: +2 pol –2 hap

Legislative power:

Constitution:
On: -1 leg +1 hap
Off: nothing

Legislature:
On: -3 leg +1 ste +1 res +1 hap
Off: nothing

If on:

Advisory:+2 leg –1 hap –1 ste
Lawmaking: nothing

Restrictions on the right to vote:
Low (like allmost all modern democracies): -2 leg +1 hap +1 ste
Medium (like the US before around 1960 and ancient Greece): nothing
High (like the Roman republic and most democracies before 1900): +2 leg –1 hap –1 ste

Representative: nothing
Direct: -1 leg –2 pro –2 bur +2 res +1 hap (after the discovery of some IT tech it would give –1 leg –1 pro +2 res +1 hap)

If representative:
One party: +3 leg –2 hap –1 ste
Many parties: nothing

Executive power:

Despotism
Monarchy
Absolute monarchy
Oligarchy
Dictatorship
Democracy

Despotism (default): +1 pol +2 leg –1 hap –1 eco –2 bur –2 ste
You are the absolute ruler of your civ. You have gained control by being the leading war lord, so you use force to stay in control. However, you have hardly no bureaucracy around you, so it’s a very inefficient gov type. Exambles: all civs before antiquity.

Monarchy (monarchy): +1 pol +2 leg +1 mil –1 tax –1 eco –1 hap –1 ste
You are the monarch of your civ, but rule by the support of a leading class of nobles. Exambles: almost all European civs in the middle ages.

Absolute monarchy (absolute monarchy): +1 nat +1 mil +1 pol +3 leg –1 tax –2 hap –1 eco –1 ste
The nobles have no power. You are the absolute monarch of your civ: You ARE the executive power. You also have a much better bureaucracy around you than that of a despot. Exambles: France (mostly at the reign of Louis 14th), Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.

Oligarchy (would be availible class by class – coorporations when coorporation has been invented, labour union when that has been invented etc.) +1 pol +1 leg –2 ste –2 hap
You rule by the support of a certain class, which is a minority of your population. You can rule by the support of the following, who will all giv certain bonuses:
The wealthy +2 tax (i was thinking of making it +2 eco, but that would make this a far too powerful choise)
The religion +2 ste
The army +2 mil/+2 exp
The coorporations +2 pro
The intelligentsia +2 res
The police +2 pol
The labour unions +2 hap (maybe, not sure)
This system makes it easy to police people (+1 pol) and as only a majority of the pop has political power you are more likely to get what you want (+1 leg). But people are not likely to support nor be happy in such a society (-2 ste –2 hap).
Besides from the bons and pens of oligarchy, each of the classes would give a bonus. You could base your power on one or two classes. If you based it on two, they would only give +1 each, not +2. For the system to remain you would need to base your power on a powerful group. So if you based it on the army you would need a lot of units, if you based it on the wealthy you would need a strong upper class and if you based it on the religion (you could only base it on one religion) you would need a lot of strong believers in that religion. There would need to be some graphs or something indicating the power of each of these groups. So if you based it on two groups the government would have a higher propability of remaining. This would make it possible to portray a lot of different gov types: based on the intelligentsia and the police it would be like in the USSR, on the coorporations and the army like fascist Italy, on the religion it would be a fundamentalist state. The player could make his own combinations, making it possible to make gov types that doesn’t even excist in reality (which i think is good).

Dictatorship (?): +3 mil +3 pol +3 leg –2 hap –1 eco -1 res –2 rel –2 ste
You are absolute dictator of your civ. It reminds a lot of absolute monarchy. Exambles: Hitler of Nazi-Germany, Stalin of USSR (however, after his death the USSR was turned back into an oligarchy).

Democracy (liberalism): +1 res +1 eco +2 hap +2 ste –1 pol –2 leg –2 mil
Restrictions to the right to vote:
Low: -2 leg +1 hap +1 ste
Medium: nothing
High: +2 leg –1 hap –1 ste
The modern western gov form, thought out by the French philosophers in the 18. century. The government is elected by the people.

Economic systems:

An economic system would need something to excist. Communism would require most, but the others would also require a minimum amount of trade and raw materials (imported or found in your civ) or they would collaps. Only autarky would always be possible to maintain.

Also, i see the economic system as more than just trade. The economic system defines the entire way of life for people. This is mostly seen in City state economics, but also in the other ones.

The choises are:
Autarky
Barter
Currency
City state economics
Manorialism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez faire
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism
Green Economics

Autarky (default): +1 leg +1 sta -4 eco –4 cyc
People produce what they need. Therefor there is hardly any trade (in the game intercity and international trade is impossible). Not a very good system, but the only one that can survive when there is very little trade and very few raw materials availible – in the beginning of the game or after a possible grand scale nuclear war. Exambles: all early civs.

Barter (trade): +1 leg +1 sta -3 eco –3 cyc
This is the development from Autarky. When people started moving together they couldn’t produce all they used, and so trade emerged. You can now trade between your cities and with other civs. However, as there is no currency it is very hard to trade on grand scale; how many chickens are a cow worth? Exambles: Early civilizations like the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

Currency (currency): +1 sta +1 leg –2 eco –3 cyc
Not long after Barter it was realised that you needed a currency to perform trade on a large scale. So money was invented. Exambles: Civilizations like the Aztechs and Incas, and also tribes living in the outskirts of the Roman empire.

City state economics (city state): +2 res –1 pro –2 gro –1 cyc
Ok, i know this is a bad name. But what else should i call it? There was a very special economic/lifestyle system in the citystates not seen anywhere alse. This is the economic system of the city states. It has little to do with the structure city state. This is much wider. It means, that the centre of interest in people’s lives are the cities. This is where most people live. The farmers try to come to the cities (which they live close to) every day. The wealthy people earn their money from farms in the countryside, but these farms are being run by hired people or slaves. They themselves live in the cities, where they use most of their time on philosophy, science and exchanging ideas: +3 res. Economics flourish in these cities, so there is no eco pens. However, the market is not free enough for severe economic crisises to occur: -1 cyc. However, the hired people/slaves don’t run the farms as well as the owners would, as they have little incitaments to do so: -1 pro and –2 gro. Exambles: ancient Greece and Rome.

Manorialism (feudalism/manorialism): +1 pol +2 mil –1 eco –2 cyc –3 res
The economic system used in the middle ages. Most people (including the rich) live in the country, where they produce most of what they need. Rich (educated) people have therefor little contact with each other, and so don’t excange ideas: -3 res. However, it is easy for them to get soldiers: +2 mil and to police the farmer: -1 pol.

Guilds (guilds): +1 bur +1 pro +2 gro –1 env –1 hap –1 sta
In this system merchants and craftmen were organized in guilds, who had monopoly in their field. This was done to protect the consumre and manufactorer. These monopolies (guilds) have regulations on the work day, productd etc. Exambles: The cities of rennaissance Europe.

Mercantilism (mercantilism): +1 pro +1 nat +1 tax –1 rel –1 eco
Economics as it was being done in the 17. and 18. century. International trade is being seen as a nulsum game, so the gov would try to export as much as possible and import as little as possible. The way to wealth is also thought to be by collecting large amount of money and valuable metals. There is some trade restrictions, e.g. max amount of trade allowed to be done in a city.

Laissez faire (Liberalism): +4 eco +2 bur +1 pro +5 cyc –4 env –1 pol –1 sen
After the discovery of labour union that would be a choise within Laissez faire. Of would give nothing, on would give +1 hap –1 cyc –1 pro (adding up to +4 eco +2 bur +1 hap +4 cyc –4 env –1 pol –1 sen)
The economic system invented by Adam smith. There is no longer any trade restrictions, so economy and trade flourishes. The ideal is as little gov interference in eco as possible. However, there would be extreme economic cycling, making the amount of trade vary very much. Exambles: The Western world untill 1918, the US untill Roosevelts New Deal in the 30s.

Capitalism (capitalism/keynesian economics): +3 eco +1 res +2 bur +1 pro +2 cyc –2 env –1 pol –1 sen
Labour union could be on or of giving the same as in Laissez faire.
Anti Monopoly laws would be an option.
High: +1 eco –1 pro
Med: nothing
Low: -1 eco +1 pro
After the discovery of corporatism this would also be an option. Off giving nothing, on giving +2 pro –1 hap –1 eco. (corporatism was what was being used in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, meaning that the gov supports or owns the large companies)
There would be 4 choises of the size of the public sector, very large not being availible untill the discovery of Welfare State:
Very small (like Brazil and other 3. world countries): +1 cyc +3 tax –1 hap –1 res
Small (like the US and UK): +1 cyc +1 tax –1 hap
Large (like Germany and France): nothing
Very large (like Denmark and Sweden): -1 cyc –3 tax +1 hap +1 sta
The Western governments realized that Laissez faire was a too insecure economic system. The first steps towards capitalism was in the 1890’s in Germany and Skandinavia with public welfare to poor people. But it wasn’t untill after World War 1, that capitalism was a reality. When Keynes published his economic theories in the 20’s that the theoretic basis for capitalism was realized. An integral part of capitalism is, that the public budget does not always add up to 0. This is done to regulate the economy (however this should not happend in the game. You are the civ, not the public sector). As capitalism is being used by as different countries as Brazil and Sweden, there would be choises within capitalism, as seen above.
Mayby there should be more choises within capitalism (perhaps monetarism versus keynesian”ism” or something), so please come with suggestions.

Socialism (communism): +3 pro –1 eco +2 pol –2 env –1 hap
The Soviet system. Seen as Karl Marx as the first step towards utopia (communism). The state owns everything and control all trade. The people are paid for effort and abilities. Exambles: Eastern Europe untill 1989. No exambles today, as they have changed to capitalism.

Communism (communism): +4 res +3 hap –4 cyc –2 tax –2 mil
This is Marx’s utopia. It woul give great res and hap bonuses, but be extremely hard to accomplish. It would probably require about 20 turns of socialism, plenty of all resourses needed and a factory in all cities over maybe 250,000 inhapitants, to make the goods needed or the system would simply collaps. No country has ever used this system. As in Marx’s visions people would be very happy there, and science and art would flourish: +3 hap +4 res. In communism the people, not the state, own everything, and the state only handles foreign affairs etc.

Green economics (green economics?): +2 env +1 hap –2 cyc –1 eco –2 pro –1 mil
The economic choise, not realized (yet) anywhere. But a lot of red/green parties in Europe wants it. It is a mix of capitalism and autarky. Most people produce the food they need in their own gardens, and there is a lot of enviromental protection. It would have the same options as Capitalism (labour unions, corporatism, public sector etc.). Besides this most products are being produced as in a capitalitic system.

I’m thinking about including a coorporate republic option, where the state has been replaced with a huge coorporation, who does everything the state does today. It is not very futuristic, as many of the things it would include are already reality in Japan (the workers if a coorporations lives in the apartments of the coorporation, their children go the the shool of the coorporation (maybe even taught things they would need if they were going to work for the coorporation) and when the workers are allowed vacation the coorporation has hotels availible for them).

Structure:

There would be options to give to different regions of your civ, no matter what structure type you have. They would be: Normal, Protectorate/puppet state/semi-independant province and colony.

Normal: This is the standard option, given to all new cities. The people here have the standard citizen rights, meaning, that if you, for instance is a democracy, they can vote.

Protectorate/puppet state/semi-independant province: Here the region is semi-independant. This means that it more or less runs itself. It can build it’s own units and cities and change it’s own SE, but you get a certain amount of it’s taxes and science. You also get certain rights towards it, for instance to buy a certain amount of a certain raw material to a certain price. You can also see everything it can see on your map, you can see how it’s cities are doing, and you can mover your units into it’s cities. This can have loads of uses. You could force a smaller neighbor to join you as a protectorate, or you will simply conquor it. If you have a vital oil producing colony that has developed it’s own nationality and want independance, you can make it a protectorate, to stop a war, but still get the oil you want from it. I can see tons of other applications for this, and so i really want it to be included.

Colony: This is under your direct control. The people in the colony has no political power, not even in a democracy. It would give something like +2 pro +2 mil –2 hap –2 sta for the region. As the legislature should be an AI following the will of your people the people here would have no power, and so the legislature wouldn’t take their side.

Choises:
Central government
Unitary
City state
Feudalism
Federation
Empire
Confederation

Central government (default): -4 bur +1 leg +1 nat +1 sta –1 cyc
Your civ is controlled by a central gov. It would be the best choise in a small civ with under 20 cities. It’s always easier to control a single gov than many local ones, so +1 leg. Also, a central gov can more easily make a united economic policy to fight busts in economy: -1 cyc. Exambles: most small countries.

Unitary (unitary): +1 leg +1 pol +1 sta –1 bur –1 cyc –1 hap
This strucure type give some authorities to the local govs, but unlike in a federation the central gov has the ultimate authority, also in local things. This leads to unhappyness, as the central gov is seen as a faceless authority with no contact to the people. Exambles: UK, France, China.

City state (city state): +2 bur –1 leg
Every city is it’s own province. It makes it possible to have very large empires. Exambles: the Roman empire. (i still havent found out how to implement the Greek city state option, but i would really like it as an options besides from this one, if sollutions can be found to it’s problems).

Feudalism (feudalism): +2 mil –1 bur
The civ is being run by the leader (you), who has vasals under him, obeying and supporting him, for the cost of protection and power. These vasals too has vasals, who might also have vasals and so on. This system is good in military, as the lords can force their vasals to make military service, but not good in managing very large empires. Exambles: Europe in the middle ages, the Roman empire around the fall of the republic (the 1st century BC) and Russia untill 1917 (more or less).

Federation (federation): +5 bur –1 leg –1 nat
Your civ is divided into states of up to 10 cities not too far from each other each. These might share resources. This system makes is possible to have very large empires while still controlling them.

Empire (empire): +2 mil +1 gro +4 bur –2 eco –4 rel –2 hap
I have 2 models for this one, which could easily both be included (i would like that):
1: In reality direct democracy is only possible in one city. So in an empire the entire civ except the capital (or maybe the central province – this should probably be an option within the choise Empire) is seen as conquored area, and hasn’t got the same rights (the right to vote in a democracy, for instance) as the inhapitants in the central province.
2: At the time you choose empire your entire civ is the central province, but anything conquored beyond that is seen as conquored area. So your original cities has the same rights as always.
An empire has a very high propability of breaking up if it doesn’t continue to expand or changes to another structure. Exambles: Rome before the conquest of Italy, The Mongol empire.

Confederation (confederation): +7 bur –2 leg –2nat
This is on the limit of not being a nation. Your provinces on max. 20 cities are virtually independant. They make their own new cities, and manage infrastrucure etc. They can also have individual SE settings. You control only res and can try to affect SE on the individual provinces, but not control it. You control foreign affairs, and can give the provinces orders, like give me 5 tank units in 20 turns or get trade up 20% etc., which the governors would try to accomplish. The provinces pay a part of their tax to you, you get all research, but they keep luxuries. Each province has a high propability of developing its own nationality, which could cause problems if you later changed from confederation to something else. It works more or less like each province was a semi-independant province/puppet state/protectorate.

Values:

My values category is somewhat different from the others. The reason for this is, that i don’t think you can describe a society with just one universal value. You can like wealth and knowledge at the same time. I have therefor made a system where you can choose every option individually, and set them to low, medium or high at the same time. So you can have wealth high, knowledge medium, power low and enviroment high.

If you set them all on high, all on medium or all on low the bons and pens would add up to 0. I have written what each option would give on high. On medium it would give nothing and on low it would give the opposite from on high. So if high gives +1 eco –1 mil low would give –1 eco +1 mil.

Options:
Survival: +1 mil +1 pro +1 pol –1 eco –1 res
Power: +2 mil –1 eco –1 rel –1 env
Nationalism: +2 nat +1 leg –1 rel –1 hap
Wealth: +2 eco –1 leg –1 env –1 hap –1 nat
Knowledge: +2 res +1 eco –1 mil –1 nat
Labour: +2 pro –1 res –1 hap
Enviroment: +2 env –1 pro –1 mil +2 rel +1 hap
Happyness: +2 hap –1 eco –1 pol –1 mil

Army:

The choises are:

Military caste: +1 exp –1 mil
Forced draft: +2 mil –1 hap –1 pro –25% gold support for units
Mercenaries: +3 exp –1 nat +100% gold support
Professional standing army: +2 exp –2 mil +25% gold support
Conscription: +2 mil +1 nat –1 tax –1 hap
Peoples army: +3 mil –1 hap –1 exp –50% gold support
Volunteer: +1 hap +2 nat –2 pol

Laws:

Besides from the normal SE settings there should be some laws finetuning the civ. Some laws could be set on or off (like child labour) while others could be set on low, medium or high (like anti-monopoly laws).

There should be far more laws than i’ve written here.

Exambles:

Freedom of speech:
Low: +1 sta -1 res
medium: no pens or bons
high: -1 sta +1 res

child labour:
on: +0,5 pro -0,5 res
off: nothing

Enviromental protection:
low: +1 pro -1 env
med: nothing
high: -1 pro +1 env

Privacy:
low: +1 pol -1 hap
med: nothing
high: -1 pol +1 hap

Free education: (if child labour is on free education would automatically be off)
off: nothing
on: -0,5 tax +0,5 res

Alien hospitality:
high: +1 rel -0,5 hap among your nationality, and more immigration.
med: nothing. Normal immigration.
low: -1 rel +0,5 hap among your natonality, and no immigration.

Legalized guns (weapons):
on: +1 mil, but also more crime (wich could give a bit unhappyness and steal trade and production). Could also make it possible to make a city militia in a defenceless city.
off: nothing.

Slavery: (not availible after a certain wonder)
off: nothing
on: +2 pro, but…? Would require a military unit in each city over size 2 (or over 20,000 people) to protect from slave rebellions).

Use of propaganda:
High: +1 leg -1 res
med: nothing
low: -1 leg +1 res

posted October 29, 1999 23:27                

I got some summaries today and they are looking good. Anybody still planning to send something: PLEASE make sure to send me a Word file since that makes life much easier. The Deadline draws nigh...

posted October 30, 1999 12:59                

Two points about wealth. First off, per capita income is usually based on GDP, not GNP, and this is why the World Bank specifically said that their per capita was GNP-related. Why they chose to use that as opposed to the more normal GDP related data, I don't really know, but as JamesJKirk said, its (generally speaking) a more informative indicator. My second point is that you seem to think that national wealth is based on per capita income alone, and this view is very wrong. For one thing, per capita income can be misleading as what one must look at to determine average individual wealth is the ratio of that income to the cost of living (the US and Canade have the lowest costs of living in the world) - and perhaps this is given by the PPP indicator that Kirk mentioned, although I will admit I had not heard of this previously. Another problem with your viewpoint is that per capita income actually has little to do with national wealth, which must be gauged by looking at other factors, such as the GDP, economic activity levels, the ability of the economy to incorporate new technology, and so on. This is why I mentioned the analysis by The International Institute for Management Developement, which analyzed 288 economic factors to obtain its results. I really don't understand why you insist Scandinavia and Switzerland are the wealthiest regions in the world, especially when the basis for this claim is a GNP per capita income alone.

As for the G8, I'm sorry, but look at what the World Factbook has to say about Italy: "Since World War II, the Italian economy has changed from one based on agriculture into a ranking industrial economy, with approximately the same total and per capita output as France and the UK." Italy really is economically significant and among the "wealthiest in the world." You simply have a distorted view of what it takes to be a member - economic strength and significance, combined with wealth and continuing economic globalization.

Health care is free in Denmark, but i don't think it would make people have more children.

It wouldn't make people have more children, but rather it would extend the lifespans of its citizens; national growth rates are not determined by birth rates alone. As for industry, I'm amazed at what you say, but I'll take your word for it.

Morale: What did I say about morale? Was this the comparison to experience? If so, I really think that SE models could not possibly affect the actual troop combat experience.

Environment: I think I'll probably stick to my guns on this one...

Happiness: A more likely event is that enemy troops would simply consider their immediate situation and decide from that whether to defect or not, rather than making broad social analyses about other countries.

Militarism: What did I say here? Unfortunately, if you haven't aalready guessed, I didn't save my last post at Firaxis...

Parliamentary Monarchies:
I included parliamentary monarchies as a subset option in my monarchy government in my version 2.1 model.

Authoritarian:
I agree with many of your points here, but I'm not sure you understand me. My "Authoritarian" government is simply a dictatorial government, and I used that particular word in order to cover all forms of dictatorships - it could be renamed Dictatorship, but I think the term Authoritarian is more flexible, so as to extend to countries such as Iraq, that only theoretically have a legislature. I agree that the USSR (under most of its leaders) was an oligarchy, while Fascist Italy wasn't, and I never meant to indicate that countries such as those should be included under the same government.

Federal: If the national leaders in a nondemocratic federation appointed the leaders in the subdivisional governments, it would, by definition, not be a federal system, as the subdivisional/regional govs would therefore not be independent of the national government, especially when one takes corruption and things like "political plums" into account.

Centralized and Unitary: I'm very happy by this ( ), but I wish I could remember what I said to prompt this agreement ( ).

Economics: City-states really didn't employ a different economic form than other ancient civs, but rather they simply had economies based on single-city civilizations, not on larger civilizations. Moreover, Rome was not a city-state civilization, as having city-based provinces does not amount to a city-state system. You might be confusing the term "city-state" with the idea of American-like states, but that would be incorrect as what is meant by that term is an autonomous consisting of a city and its surrounding territory (to once again use a dictionary definiton). In other words, the word "state" in city-state means, not an American-like state, but rather a nation-state consisting of a single city.

"BTW what do you think about my idea of having economic systems needing a certain amount of trade and raw materials to excist – and Autarky would be the only one always possible?"

That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's fundamentally correct - e.g., there is no material reason that Greece could not have developed into a capitalistic economy despite their lacking industrial fossil fuel resources and technology, etc. I guess it would depend on how basic the raw materials are that you're talking about, although this idea might be something that would be better suggested in the Economics threas - they might be more knowledgeable about such a resource-based economic model over there than I am here.

"And it’s real word is Corporatism, not fascism. Fascism was a concept including government and values invented by Mussolini in the early 20s."

Exactly my point, ironically. Fascist economies involve heavy government involvement and control of industries, corporations, and labor, which something that a Corporatism system does not. The ideas of Corporatism and Fascism are different, and have little to do with one another. I acknowledge that they both have large businesses, but the difference lies in competition, governmental control, and labor freedoms. Under fascism, one could not simply start ones own company, especially if there was a government corporation that already was involved in that sector of the economy.

About the anti-monopoly laws, I have mixed opinions about it. That is one of the more fundamental differences between laissez-faire and regulated capitalism, and for that I am reluctant to include it. On the other hand, however, regulated capitalist economies also can have highly varying monopoly laws (compare Japan and the US). So for me, the jury's still out on this one.

Comments on your 3.0 model:

Your choices relating to the three governmental powers is interesting, but how would this relate to ancient nations? Back then, the fusing of the three powers had very little effect on the steadiness or happiness. And about the restrictions on the right to vote, wouldn't this be more fundamentally a part of the governmental type itself? Also, how do you relate direct democracy to the legislature aspects, and what happened to the distinguishment between the two broad types of democracy, anyway?

About your economics system:
Concerning the city-state economy, see my comments above. Also, I'm still with old Cormac in that I don't think that communism should be included. I also don't intend to incorporate a public sector system in my model; it is obvious that nobody will ever agree on the effects of this, anyway. Finally, I am all for your corporate republic option, although a fine line would need to be developed in order to keep it in the economy section and not the government section a la C:CTP.

I REALLY like your semi-independent territory model, and it's too bad that I already mailed my 2.1 model to yin, for otherwise I would have inlcuded this

However, I disagree with the views you have on colonies. Here in America, the English colonies were politically separate from the monarchy up until just before the Revolution, and as such I fail to see why you have the colonies so politically oppressed.

Other than that, the only other comment I have is that I don't think that it would be a good idea for the laws to start providing decimal bonuses and penalties to the different factors. The SE factors' effects are often based on arbitrary integer-based assignments.

Overall, I really like your model - it's coming along very nicely and is very comprehensive.

I e-mailed my SE model to Yin, but I have to rewrite the UBB codes so my bold and italicized words will work here on the forums (I wasn't thinking and got rid of them entirely for the e-mail). Once I do that, I'll post it.

posted October 31, 1999 01:20                

There are also ideas that others have proposed that are to be understood as being a part of this model. Namely, the “x10” system is something that I agree with and have included, and that 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.

The last thing that needs to be mentioned is that many of my SE factors were inspired by M@ni@c, and that, although I am not sure that it was his original proposal, the first person to expose me to the concept of laws was Joker.

Social Engineering Proposal v. 2.2

Sections:

I. SE Factors
II. Bureaucracy
III. SE Model
IV. Laws
V. Closing

I. SE Factors

My list of modifiers has been expanded slightly in response to comments about political/economic stability interrelation, and although I do not entirely agree that they should be completely separate, I have significantly disassociated them in relation to what they previously were. I have also split my previous modifier of militarism, as well as changing my mind about the inclusion of a legislative modifier. Here are my sixteen factors:

1) Agriculture (Agr)
2) Cycling (Cyc)
3) Economy (Eco)
4) Efficiency (Eff)
5) Environment (Env)
6) Growth (Gro)
7) Happiness (Hap)
8) Legislature (Leg)
9) Militarism (Mil)
10) Morale (Mor)
11) Nationalism (Nat)
12) Police (Pol)
13) Production (Pro)
14) Relations (Rel)
15) Research (Res)
16) Stability (Sta)

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 has been separated from any industrial factors of a civilization, as I believe there can be highly industrious nations with significant handicaps in their agricultural capabilities. 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) Cycling (Cyc)
Economic cycling has, throughout history, greatly affected mankind’s development, and this has only increased in modern times due to the fact that capitalism is prone to dramatic cycling, although this is less pronounced now than in the industrial-era laissez-faire system. Like agriculture, I believe that this factor should also be changeable by factors outside of social engineering, such as technological advancements, weather-related catastrophes, or a “random” boom in a specific industry. Some good examples of this are how tech advancements have allowed for improved regulation by the US’s Federal Reserve Board; how many ancient civilizations have collapsed once their agricultural-based economies were destroyed by environmental events; and how the US is currently experiencing an unprecedented surge of wealth due in a large part to the computer industry.

Note that I have recognized that economic cycling is unavoidable and that truly successful economies, in the real world, minimize their busts and maximize their booms to the greatest extent possible that prevents any significant inflation.

+?: While economic busts are almost unheard of, economic booms that help further fuel the economic success of the civilization will occasionally interrupt the general economic stability of the nation.
…
+1: Booms and busts are less common, and any busts that do occur are of less severity than they usually would be.
0: Normal economic cycling.
-1: Booms and busts are slightly more common, and busts are of greater severity than they are otherwise.
…
-?: There is extreme economic cycling, and busts are more frequent and more severe than the sporadic boom that actually offers little economic relief.

3) Economy (Eco)
I agree with M@ni@c’s economy modifier, but I’ll re-post it here just for comprehensiveness (there are a few slight differences). Keep the “x10” system in mind when reading this.
Capitals: have a default +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

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) Growth (Gro)
With this modifier, both the growth rates and the maximum pre-improvement populations are affected (i.e., the maximum population allowed before aqueducts, sewer systems, etc.). 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.

7) Happiness (Hap)
First of all, unlike some others, 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.
Take into account when reading this that 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.
The bribery effects must be reconciled with Nationalism’s bribery effects somehow.

+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.

8) Legislature (Leg)
I had previously opposed the inclusion of this modifier, but I have since changed my mind about it, and let’s hope that I don’t change my mind yet again. A high rating in this area increases the cooperativeness of the legislature (Parliament, Senate, Congress, Duma, or whatever), whereas a low rating will increase the legislative interference in the player’s actions. This interference may come in a variety of forms, depending upon how extensive Firaxis wants this legislature-concept to be (please see the short intro to the Governments section). It may range from simple interference in foreign relations, such as preventing a sneak attack a certain percentage of the time, or the legislature could control significant sectors of domestic policy. These “sectors” could range from the legislature controlling what city-improvements get built or even what Social Engineering Policy Objectives are selected. I have this set up so that this should have a range from +4 to –6.

+4: Any legislative body that does exist is merely a figurehead, and has no real power, and as such it cannot interfere in the executive’s actions or orders.
…
+1: There is less legislative interference than is normal, but it still is active in certain activities.
0: There is a normal amount of legislative willpower in the country.
-1: The legislature of this country is becoming more active and is interfering in the executive’s actions and orders more often.
…
-6: The legislature is highly active and decides significant portions of the national policy.

9) Militarism (Mil)
Previously, I had combined two military-related factors, those dealing with the cost and support of the military and the morale of the military, but I have since changed my mind and separated the morale aspect, making it into a new modifier. This modifier, militarism, concerns the amount of support and the cost of production of military units.
…
+1: +10% labor when constructing military units; one less resource is necessary for support (out of about 10 per unit).
0: Normal societal militarism.
-1: +10% labor for military construction; one more resource is needed for support.
…

10) Morale (Mor)
There is one thing for which I am undecided, and this is whether this modifier should apply to intelligence units such as spies or diplomats. Other than that, I think, unlike M@ni@c, that it should in fact apply to all military units that exist or are to be built, as in SMAC, and this is attributable to the fact that this is a morale modifier, not M@ni@c’s experience modifier.
…
+1: +1 morale
0: Normal morale
-1: -1 morale
-2: -1 morale, positive morale modifiers halved
-3: -2 morale, +modifiers halved
-4: -3 morale, +modifiers halved
…

11) Nationalism (Nat)
I like the idea of a migration model being included in the game, and so I have included this modifier. The only issue I’ll take with M@ni@c 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 Stability rating, should affect the degree of multiethnic strife in a society.

+?: No emigration, multiethnic problems are rare, and your units and cities may not be bribed. (Effects on religion?)
…
0: Normal migration patterns.
…
-?: High emigration and multiethnic strife, and is rather easy and inexpensive to bribe your units and cities.

12) Police (Pol)
I have come to the conclusion that the concept of police should be more akin to real life, and that the role of the military in police enforcement should not be exclusive to any civilian policing. In ancient times, until the Roman Empire under the emperor Augustus, the military did in fact serve as the domestic police, but Emperor Augustus changed this and created both police and fire services. Therefore, there should be some advancement that allows for a civilian police force in the modern understanding, and this only makes sense in light of the absurdity in CivII and SMAC of having modern democratic nations use their military as their policing agents. This civilian police force would, however, be an option; more dictatorial regimes should have the ability to solely use their military as a domestic police force even in modern times, although there could be a UN option of declaring such an action an atrocity or something.

The civilian police should automatically operate when the player (or the AI) turns off the ancient usage of military policing. Their effect should depend upon the police rating of the civilization, and should be increased by city improvements such as Police Stations or the like. There also probably should be some cost per city associated with the usage of civilian police, and this is so that both civilian and military police have their advantages and disadvantages.

Military police: Advantages – at higher police ratings, they may make more unhappy people content (if compared to a city w/o a Police Station) and they have inherent defense abilities. That is to say, the defensive units that you already have in the city may operate in dual, police and defense, roles. Disadvantages – In modern times it may be declared an atrocity by the UN, and at lower police ratings they may in fact cause riots. Also, if there were a crime model included, they would not reduce crime as much as civilian police.

Civilian police: Advantages – at higher police ratings, they make more people content if there is a Police Station and is never considered an atrocity and never causes revolts. Disadvantages – It may become expensive, more acutely so if combined with Police Stations (that require upkeep).

Aside from that, I do not think that aircraft should cause civil unrest; I think there should be a UN proposal a la SMAC to prohibit the usage of nuclear weapons; and I think that there should be sea borders (even if there are no sea cities) that expand with advancing technology. The last thing to mention is that I have designed this so that there can always be some police effect on unhappiness.
…
+3: Four military units may be used as police in each city, and their effect is doubled (i.e., they make two unhappy people content), except for the fourth unit, which only may affect one citizen. For civilian police, four unhappy people are made content, and this is doubled with a Police Station. (Note: if there is a crime model included, naturally the crime rate decreases the higher the police rating.)
+2: Three units may be used as police, and the first two have their effects doubled. For civilian police, four unhappy people are made content.
+1: Three units may be used as police. Civilian police make three unhappy people content.
0: Two units may be used as police. Civilian police make two unhappy people content.
-1: One military unit may be used as police. Civilian police make one unhappy person content. (Note: for ALL lower ratings, both the military and civilian police systems may make one unhappy person discontent – civilian w/ Police Station may affect two people.)
-2: No Martial Law permitted (martial law = SMAC nerve stapling)
-3: Units in either your territory or your allies’ territory do not cause unhappiness, but every unit beyond the first two outside of that territory does cause one person to be unhappy (I’ll term them drones from now on for simplicity).
-4: Units in either your territory or your allies’ territory do not cause unhappiness, but everywhere else they do create one drone.
-5: Units in your territory or in allies’ cities do not cause unhappiness, but everywhere else, even allies’ territory, they cause one drone.
-6: Units in your territory or in allies’ cities do not cause unhappiness, but everywhere else, even allies’ territory, they cause two drones.
-7: Units in your territory do not cause unhappiness, but outside of your territory, they cause two drones.
-8: Units in your territory do not cause unhappiness, but outside of your territory, they cause two drones. You may not declare war unless actually attacked.
-9: Any unit outside of one of your cities will cause two drones. You may not declare war unless actually attacked.

13) Production (Pro)
This affects the industrial capacity of your civilization, but this should not be the sole factor in the game that does so. Terrain improvements, city improvements, and technological advancements should also help to increase the productive capabilities of a civilization.
…
+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 (expect for producing military units).
…

14) Relations (Rel)
Note that Relations, not the 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 as a general rule, although, of course, it will obviously also be affected by other factors.
0 : normal
-1 : -1 commerce; worse diplomatic relationships
…

15) Research (Res)
Regardless of what scientific model is incorporated into the game, I favor having scientists generate research output that is then applied to technologies, with that being changeable via tech improvements such as a Library, etc.
…
+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%.
…

16) Stability (Sta)
I broke down and decided to call this modifier “stability” even though that name is also used for a Policy Objective option. Joker has convinced me to separate economic cycling from this, but I nevertheless have maintained that political stability does affect the country’s economic viability. Consequently, I have incorporated tentative economic effects; I do not really like my current method of reflecting economic viability in this modifier, but I am currently at a loss for a better alternative. Hopefully a better solution will present itself, and if you have any ideas, by all means tell me. I guess Firaxis (hint, hint ) might have to come up with a better solution. Perhaps this modifier should also be incorporated into the economic cycling equation to play a minor role in the probability of booms and busts. Finally, remember that this, along with Nationalism, affects multiethnic strife.

+?: The citizenry of your civilization will never revolt against your government without you, the player, actually “ordering” them to (changing the SE options). The incredible political stability of the nation is conducive to business, and as such each city receives a +?*10 (please remember the “x10” system) trade bonus.
…
+1: Citizens are less likely to revolt than they would normally (including revolts attributable to multiethnic strife), and each city receives a +10 trade bonus.
0: Normal political stability.
-1: Citizens are more likely to revolt than they would normally (incl. multiethnic revolts), and each city has a –10 trade penalty.
…
-?: Exceptional levels of political instability; there is a -?*10 trade penalty per city.

II. Bureaucracy
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 is best viewed as a slider that has seven choices/settings.

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 (the EPA) 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 –4 efficiency, -1 legislature 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 may receive 1).
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.

Note: Under no circumstances should the bureaucracy bonuses be applicable to the legislature modifier. Also, larger civilizations should have additional drones/unhappy people for higher levels of bureaucracy, a penalty that should be outside of the previous happiness 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 stability in such a way as to counter any potential political turmoil and suppress political dissidents.

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 the way M@ni@c advocated; 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. Finally, take note of the fact that all governments now have a legislative modifier, in order to reflect the degree that the legislative body of those civilizations may interfere with the player’s actions.

Popular Support
In my previous model I briefly implied a similar idea (specifically in the Stability modifier description), but Joker has since articulated this concept explicitly, and so I’m going to follow suit. Although the player may change the governmental settings whenever he/she wants, the citizens themselves may also revolt, whether the player wants them to or not. This popular revolution should have the possible effects of actually changing the government of the civilization (whether the player gets to choose the new government or not is questionable), causing a breakaway civilization, a civil war, etc., and the likelihood of such an occurrence would be affected by the Stability and possibly the Happiness modifiers. Of course, another factor that should affect this likeliness is the citizenry’s preference for a particular governmental type, although like Joker, I am at a loss as to how this latter fact would be incorporated into the game.

SE Categories:

1) Governments
2) Centralization
3) Economics
4) Policy Objective (previously Societal Values)

1) Governments
Depending on the government you choose, there may or may not be a legislature that shares power with you, the executive. The extent of power that the legislature has under any particular government is something that I am inclined to think that Firaxis should decide, although it should be affected by the legislature modifier that I have included. Of course, if someone tries to convince me otherwise, I’ll consider enumerating legislatures’ powers for each government. Consult with CormacMacArt’s SE proposal to see the particulars of how such a system would operate, although I do think that the player should have a larger role to play than what some of Cormac’s governments have him/her playing.

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: +3 Leg, +1 Pol, -2 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 throughout the new nation. 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 burden of supporting the despot and his religion.

Centralization options permitted: None or Imperial.

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

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

City-State: +1 Mor, +1 Hap, -2 Leg, -1 Sta
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.

An unfortunate fact concerning this government option is that nobody has come up with a method by which the city-state “government” affects gameplay without having it be detrimental to the player’s civilization’s long-term development while still maintaining realism. Obviously, however, city-states should be included in the game, and as such, the particulars of this option will have to be worked on by Firaxis.

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

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

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

Monarchy: Basic modifiers: +1 Leg, +2 Mil, +2 Pol, -2 Eff, -2 Hap, -1 Nat
A more complicated form of despotism, the monarch rules with the assistance of the aristocracy and very 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.

For this government, the player must choose between either parliamentary support or direct aristocratic support:
- The aristocracy: +1 Leg, +1 Pol, -2 Sta
- The Parliament: +1 Eff, +1 Hap, -3 Leg

(Note: The sub-option bonuses and penalties are added onto those of the Basic modifiers)

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

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Simple Currency, Guilds, Manoralism, Mercantilism, Laissez-Faire, Regulated Capitalism and Socialism.

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

Oligarchy: Basic modifiers: +1 Leg, +1 Mor, +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -1 Eco, -2 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.

For this government, the player must choose one class to be the supporting elite of the oligarchy (this was a Joker innovation):
- The priesthood: +2 Nat, -2 Res
- The military: +1 Mor, +1 Pol, -3 Sta
- The wealthy: +2 Pro, -2 Pol , -1 Sta (The wealthy elite force the lower classes into servitude to serve their own economic ends)
- Labor Unions: +2 Sta, -2 Pro
- Corporations: +1 Eco, -2 Cyc, -1 Hap
- The intellectuals: +2 Res, -2 Mil

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

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Simple Currency, Guilds, Mercantilism, Laissez-Faire, Regulated Capitalism, and Socialism.

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

Republic: +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Sta, -2 Leg, -2 Pol, -1 Pro
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, creating an environment that is conducive to both growth and stability. However, very often the comparative permissiveness of this governmental type translates into less stringent requirements upon the working classes, which corresponds to diminished national productivity.

Centralization options: None, Federal, Imperial, Unitary.

Economic options: Autarky, Comm. Bartering, Simple Currency, 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, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -2 Eff, -3 Leg, -1 Pol, -3 Sta
This is the government of ancient Athens; in it, the citizenry directly votes on societal issues, without any intermediary representatives. Although the term “citizen” is invariably defined rather 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. This government probably should require the usage of civilian police once the appropriate advancement is acquired (see the Police modifier).

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

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

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

Absolutism: +3 Leg, +2 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Sta, -3 Hap, -2 Nat, -2 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: Comm. Bartering, Simple Currency, 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 Hap, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -3 Leg, -1 Mil, -2 Pol
The modern form of democracy, a representative democracy has popular representatives within its institutions (especially legislative), separation of the three powers of government into three distinct branches, and is controlled by fundamental laws, normally termed Constitutions. A society governed this way does have advantages relating to the freedom it provides to its people; 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. This government probably should require the usage of civilian police once the appropriate advancement is acquired (see the Police modifier).

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.

Dictatorship: +3 Leg, +3 Mil, +3 Pol, +2 Pro, -2 Eco, -3 Eff, -3 Hap, -2 Sta
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, Fascist Italy, 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 in the SE Thread 2; 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. Also, I have no idea which should be the default (probably Imperial). The choices under this category are:
City-State League
Confederal
Feudal
Federal
Imperial
Unitary
Centralized

City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 Sta, -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. (Note: This option, as well as the City-State government, is a relic of my previous line of though, which held that this system should allow for some player control of the different city-states. Joker and I have had the problem that, unfortunately, we cannot devise a city-state system that would not be detrimental to the civilization’s long-term development and a hindrance to scores. Firaxis will probably have to deal with this problem.)

Bureaucratic range: 0-1.

Examples: the Delian League, the Aetolian League.

Confederal: +3 Eff, +2 Gro, +2 Hap, -3 Leg, -1 Mil, -3 Pol, -3 Sta
A confederation is a centralization form in which the authority of the central (or national) government is derived from its political sub-units. 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.

Joker has convinced me that there should also be a diplomatic option to form a confederation with foreign civilizations. This could be implemented in a variety of ways, such as forming a single civilization that has a confederal centralization system, or else still having separate nations, but with significant military benefits or something of that nature.

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, +2 Mor, -2 Leg, -1 Pro, -1 Sta
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. There are also normally councils or associations - sometimes even alliances - of the vassals designed to advance their own interests, even over that of the king or the nation. Usually there is a decrease in the productive capacity of the commoners in this system, especially when the vassals siphon off the peasants’ 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 Leg, -1 Mil, -1 Mor, -1 Pro
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 Mor, +1 Pol, -2 Eff, -3 Rel, -1 Sta
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 Spain’s New World Empire.

Unitary: +1 Cyc, +1 Pol, +1 Pro, +2 Sta, -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, 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 a 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 Cyc, +1 Mil, +2 Pol, +1 Pro, -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, Singapore, 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 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
Simple Currency
Manoralism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez-Faire
Fascism
Regulated Capitalism
Socialism

Autarky: +1 Sta, -1 Agr, -2 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 Sta, -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 early ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians, the Hittites, and the mesoamericans.

Simple Currency: +1 Eco, -1 Cyc, -1 Hap, -1 Sta
Although silver and gold had long been used as a medium of exchange, the Lydians had standardized coins that were stamped with a royal seal in order to guarantee their purity, and this quickly evolved into a simple currency system. A nation employing the currency invention naturally has a better economy with a greater degree of commerce, but it comes at a price. The primitive, unstable currency systems result in increased economic cycling as well as corruption, combined with growing class distinctions.

Examples: the Lydians, the Romans, and the dynastic Chinese.

Manoralism: +1 Nat, +1 Pol, +1 Sta, -1 Agr, -2 Gro
Only possible under a feudal organizational system, manoralism is the system of highly localized economies centered on 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 Env, -1 Hap, -1 Sta
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 Pol, +2 Pro, -2 Eff, -2 Rel
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 Pro, -3 Cyc, -3 Env, -2 Pol
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, +2 Hap, +1 Pro, +1 Rel, -1 Cyc, -2 Env, -1 Mor, -1 Pol
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, +1 Leg, +2 Pol, +2 Pro, -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 *: Basic Modifiers: +3 Pol, +3 Pro, +1 Sta, -3 Agr, -3 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.

For this economy, the player must choose between either having a planned or market-based socialism:
- Market: +1 Agr, +2 Eff, -2 Pol
- Planned: +1 Gro, -1 Res

Examples: the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC.

* Note that I agree with CormacMacArt 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
There had been some dispute over at Apolyton as to the definitions of Guilds and Mercantilism, but hopefully the definitions I used are acceptable to everyone.

4) Policy Objectives (previously Societal Values)
There have been objections to having a category of societal values, and so I have renamed this category to suggest that it is governmental priorities that are involved rather than the populace’s values. I’m afraid that there aren’t any real changes between this version of Policy Objectives and the previous except for some minor tweaking of some modifiers. The possible Policy Objectives that I suggest are:
Passive
Expansion
Wealth
Stability
Dominance
Knowledge
Humanism
Environmentalism

Passive: No positives or negatives
I got the term “Passive” off of Harel over at Apolyton; I had previously called this simply “None,” but I think that this is much more creative.

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 Pro, -3 Env, -2 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: +2 Cyc, +1 Eff, +1 Rel, +3 Sta, -2 Gro, -1 Hap, -2 Res
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 both the happiness of the society and potential innovative scientific output; 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, -2 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, -2 Mor, -1 Pro
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 Sta, -2 Mil, -1 Mor, -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, -2 Pro, -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. I am always open to suggestions, so please feel free to tell me about something you think I’ve overlooked. (Note to Joker: Perhaps your new Societal Values section and my Policy Objectives section could be integrated by having my system of Objectives limit the options one may select in your Values. E.g., if a player chose Environmentalism in my Policy list, then he/she would be prevented from selecting your Wealth and/or Labor values. If you like this idea, tell me and I’ll edit this post to include that).

IV. Laws
As I said previously, it was Joker who first exposed me to the idea of Laws in SE; think of it as the City Ordinances of the SimCity games. In light of my bureaucracy system, I think that the laws that are here should concern only fundamental social values, such as freedom of speech or the degree of privacy, not minor policies such as whether birth control is permitted. Each law should have a prerequisite technology in order to become available. This list is not final and I am open to suggestions as to what laws I should add, and indeed I think there probably should be more. The Laws I propose are:
Criminal Rights
Equal Protection
Freedom of Speech
Gun Control
Pollution Standards
Privacy
Propaganda

Criminal Rights
This concerns how people suspected of crimes are treated and whether they are assumed innocent until guilty, etc.
- Low (low amounts of criminal rights): +1 Pol, -1 Hap
- Medium: None
- High (high amounts of criminal rights): -1 Pol, +1 Hap

Equal Protection
This concerns whether all ethnic groups are treated equally before the law, whether there are ethnic slave classes, etc., and it should have the side effect of how quickly conquered populations assimilate, as well as influencing the frequency and severity of any multiethnic problems there are.
- Low (ethnic minorities are viewed as an underclass): +2 Pro, -2 Sta
- Medium (ethnic minorities are tolerated, but unofficially discriminated against): +1 Pro, -1 Sta
- High (all ethnicities are accepted into society): +1 Sta

Freedom of Speech
This relates to governmental toleration of differing ideas and viewpoints, dissident groups, and so on.
- Low: +1 Pol, -1 Res,
- Medium: None
- High: -1 Pol, +1 Res

Gun Control
This is the degree to which civilian ownership of guns is permitted. There should be side effects on crime if there is a crime model included.
- Low (guns are easily accessible to those who want them): +1 Mor (people in the military are already accustomed to weaponry), -1 Hap
- Medium (gun industries are regulated heavily): None
- High (guns are banned): -1 Mor, +1 Hap

Pollution Standards
This concerns how stringent anti-pollution regulation is in the civilization.
- Low: +1 Pro, -1 Env, -1 Gro
- Medium: None
- High: -1 Pro, +1 Env, +1 Gro

Privacy
This is the degree of privacy from governmental monitoring that exists.
- Low: +1 Pol, -1 Hap
- Medium: None
- High: -1 Pol, +1 Hap

Propaganda
This relates to the level of propaganda that governments use on their civilians to promote their policies, especially during times of war.
- Low: +1 Res, -1 Mor
- Medium: None
- High: -1 Res, +1 Mor

V. 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. Also know that I favor a system of autonomy/localized independence movements, etc., as Joker has previously talked about.

posted November 02, 1999 03:46                

I still think that gov't should be chosen by the public, or aristocracy, depending on the period, with guidance by the player, while the economic and other SE factors should be almost totally under player control.

All-
how are corporatist (like Germany), and Statist economies (Japan and France) going to be accounted for, they have much more gov't intervention than Us-style capitalism, but less state control than socialist economies.
And, we should look more into what we think future SE choices as well, there should be a Green economic choice, as in SMAC, and room for Multinational Corporations, a la CTP, but more visible because of SE's diverse advantages.

posted November 02, 1999 11:36                

I think both the gov and the rest of SE should be chosen by both the pop and you. In a democracy you could easily change from Laissez faire to capitalism, without the approval of the gov.

About the different types of capitalism i have tryed to solve that problem by giving capitalism some subcategories, those being corporatism on/off (on as in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany), labour unions on/off plus 4 sizes of public sectors. Although me and Techno have had some pretty heavy disagreements about the bons and pens of these, ending in the extreme by us discussing what was the richest country: US or Denmark, this should be included, as the capitalism used in Brazil is REALLY different from that used in Sweden.

I agree on your future SE choises, and have included a Green economics option in my model 3.0. I also agree on having coorporations included in the game. They should be individual AI's, and could give you more trade, but if they were powerful they could force you to do stuff or take trade and production out of your civ, and maybe even make your people unhappy for a while.

BTW i have thought about giving Socialism a subcategory: Whether to use planned or market economy. USSR changed from planned to market somewhere in the 70s. Market would give +1 eco -1 pro (or something). What do you think?