posted July 25, 1999 09:25                

Is it already time for a new summary? The only idea that was terminated well is about small civs.

posted July 25, 1999 09:58                

However I have changed Support. Unfortunately I can't edit it anymore.

I think units should have a different support. Transports or Explorers won't need as much support as Battleships or Knights. This is easy to do with x10 system.
Instead of Support doing +1 Sup = -10% Support cost, +2 Sup = -20% Support; why not +1 Sup = 1 less resource/mineral needed as support, +2 Sup = 2 less resources/minerals needed...
This is an easier system than working with %.

Any Support rate higher than -2 should give a just founded city for free 10 labor/resources.

3) Centralization

+10 : +100% Food and Resources production
...
+1 : +10% Food and Resources production
0 : normal Food and Resources production
-1 : -10% Food and Resources production
...
-6 : -60% Food and Resources production

posted July 25, 1999 10:10                

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

posted July 25, 1999 10:52                

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

2) I think cities should continue to grow even if there is no aquaduct or similar building. My Urbanization is based on it. The drawback would be that all people not having sufficient clean water(=Aquaduct, Sewer System) or living space(=Apartment Blocks, Arcology) become Revolutionists = very unhappy citizens.

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

4) My SE model is constructed so you can't get a population boom until the Modern Age. Cheating tactics like switching to democracy, set your luxuries to 100% for a few turn and pop boom are impossible.

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

posted July 25, 1999 11:40                

1)Culture determines how easy it for a Clerics to convert population (and units?) to your faith.

2)If a civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become automatically converted to your religion, if he has a trade route with one of your cities (or simply by geographical location?). If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate...

3) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

4) Culture affects your attack strenght(=evangelism) in religious debate/combat. Per +Culture you get +12.5% in combat. Per -Culture -12.5%.
The happiness of the population also affects the strenght.
Aristocratian : +25%
Worker : normal
Proletarian : -25%
Revolutianary : -50%
Animist : -100%
Animists are citizens without an advanced religion.

5)Your religious defense(=conviction) is determined by Nationalism.

6) Can't say numbers. Religious debate still busy on the Religion thread.

7) Numbers are relative. Means the effects are also determined by the other civ's Culture rate.

+? : Conversion easier; faster than normal assimilation

posted July 25, 1999 13:56                

The Iron Curtain Wonder makes emigration impossible and renders your civilization completely immune to any diplomat/spy action.

posted July 25, 1999 14:22                

Necessary for this social factor to work, is off course that the Morale distinction of SMAC is used.

This SE factor does not determine the Morale of Spies and Diplomats.

In the modern age there should be atrocities like SMAC for certain war crimes or crimes against your population(Martial Law).

posted July 25, 1999 14:44                

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

I said on the other SE thread that I want simultaneous research in each category. Therefore you should be able to allocate a certain amount of your research point to one category. Normally this should be 50%.

posted July 25, 1999 15:23                

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

I give commerce bonuses to some economy rates. I don't know yet what they should be because there not making real progress on the Economy thread. Only loose ideas. Perhaps if you trade resources the AI should give you more than normal. Or you should get an extra bonus for trade routes passing your territory. This requires the CTP trade system.

I give +30 trade/square to +5 Economy. Some might say that makes it's too hard for not-Free Market civs. I disagree.
1)The Superhighways improvement in Civ2 did the same thing. Yielding a bonus to Republics and Democracies, but not to all other govs. x10 solves that problem and also gives a +50% trade/square to not-free market civs.
2)I included more SE choices giving an Economy bonus, so even not-free market civs can get the +10 trade/square.

Civilization's capitals should get +10 trade.

posted July 25, 1999 15:34                

There should be two types of pollution : industrial and nuclear pollution. More about this on the Terrain/TI thread.

Environment determines Industrial Pollution.

posted July 25, 1999 15:49                

The higher your happiness rate, the more cities you can control before additional proletarians appear.

posted July 25, 1999 16:02                

there has been some suggestion that civs should tend toward democracy or something like that to show that people like personal freedoms

I agree that people like personal freedoms but think that there are other matters that affect even more what the people wish

one of these is happiness rating, the germans loved hitler until he lost them a war because he kept there happiness up, if you were to suggest a more democratic setup the people wouldn't be interested in following you

the ssame has been true through the ages

another factor is fear (or something), russia did not have people who wanted it to change for a long time (after Stalin had messed it up) partly because of this (and some people did beleive in it)

also what government and social structure the people want is affected by what is successful, not what gives the individual more power (nessarily), that is the reason why so many governments have changed towards republics the last few years, its because the US and other top notch nations are republics

the same goes for other parts of social engineering

for example, in the great depression when it looked like our current social setup was not working there were a lot of forces that wanted something different and the US was close to revolution (and did have to change it social settings)

there were facists, communists, and many other groups, the US looked a bit like pre-Hitler germany

so the main things that should guide what people want should be happiness and what the leading nations social structure is, the social force towards freedom should be the weakest of the three if it is included

it should be hard to change away from the setting of the leading nation (even if it is you) and easier to change towards the social settings of the leading nation

maybe have an additional social setting of who is in control: the masses, the rich, the religious, the scientists, and the nobles (maybe same thing as the rich?)

(maybe also special interest?)

of course as events of the previous week tell us even when the masses are suppose to be in control, the rich/nobles will still be in control (as that whole JFK jr thing proved)

maybe society is just prone to making a rich/noble class, it occured in the USSR (and is arguably the source of that nations downfall) and in the US and in France after their revolution which occured a few years after ours (it ruined them too)

maybe there should be some truly revolutionary government (and social) structures in civ3 or at least ones like a true democracy (enabled by the net)

one thing I'm afraid is that there will be bias towards personal freedoms and democracy (I admit it makes the people happy but there are some other serious weaknesses among them that the nation begans to start dilly dalling and not doing anything)

also it is possible to have personal freedoms and not have democracy or republic and the social engineering should reflect that

this has gotten a lot larger than I originally planned for it to be

Another way that the US is weak (in social engineering) is in that right now if we were attempting to become a nation we would not have the guts to take for ourselves (like from the indians) in order to become a nation nor could we go to war with other nations for territory

if we had the same social engineering we do right now at the US's founding there would be no US

if we had the same social engineering we do now in 1940, Hitler would control Europe and the Japanese would probably control the US

there were protests over kosovo even and we did not lose one man, think about what would occur if we did

(by the way, the US is not alone in acting in this fashion, many if not most first world nations do, if any third world nation got the arms to fight a first world one (with a few exceptions) the first world one would lose in no time)

that occurance was clearly a chaNGING of the social engineering by the people (no ruler or set of rulers would want to be so weakened in everything)

the only good thing (from a rulers prospective) that I can see from the change in US social engineering is that it is more ecofreindly, nobody can say that US ciitizens are more happy now than they were in good economic times arround 100 years ago

the weakness (in the nation) cannot even be connected to the good economy now (how about the bad economy in the 70s

don't get me wrong, I like the US now in someways better than the US of a hundred or even fifty years ago (and not just because we now have computers) but I can not help but notice that despite the US being the most powerful nation, internally we are a lot weaker

end rant ;~)

posted July 25, 1999 16:10                

To make this a valuable SE factor, Diplomacy should be upgraded in Civ3. SMAC was good, but it can always better.

A high diplomacy rate gives you improved relation with foreign nations. Low diplomacy rates the opposite.

Other civ's mood to you should also be improved if you have similar SE settings. Totally different settings give you a bad relationship.

Good mooded civs should be more willing to trade.

Your votes in your multistate-coallition should be affected by your diplomacy rate. Positive diplomacy rates give your more votes. Opposite also true.

To avoid the Diplomacy facor will be totally useless in multiplayer, make it also affect the cost of building Diplomatic improvements like the UN, and also make embassies give less information if you have a low diplomacy rating.

In Civ2 other civ's mood to you suddenly got worse in 1000 AD. This discourages making alliances.

You should be able to ask a civ to not trade the technologies you give him to another civ. In my case it would encourage technology trading and making gifts to other civs.

posted July 25, 1999 16:18                

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

If you have eg a tax income of 20 gold and a Tax rate of +2, you get 22 Gold.

posted July 25, 1999 16:36                

by the way the rich/nobles make less than the workers

in fact many do not produce anything at all, instead spend all there time partying

just looking at history tell you this: the rich are supported by those who do the actual work

posted July 25, 1999 16:37                

Some other time I'll begin to post my actual SE choices. All this was a prelude.

Jon Miller : Democracy doesn't give a Happiness bonus in my SE model.

posted July 25, 1999 16:40                

Is it already time for a new summary? The only idea that was terminated well is about small civs.

Well, not a big one, just an upkeeping summary, like the ones between v1.0 and 1.1. Like I said, I don't know how the formats are going to work in the 2.x threads, but that's how it was in the 1.x, and I'm just assuming it won't change. I don't know that, though.

How are you gonna summarize my posts? I included many ideas from other threads in my SE model.

posted July 25, 1999 16:52                

If you possess many things, you automatically get more stuff than the simple civilian workers who only have their house and one job.

You should count all the people working for the Aristocracy, also as Aristocracy. The people working for the aristocracy are producing more, not the aristocracy itself.

posted July 25, 1999 17:52                

No, sir, you are wrong. Have you ever conquered a city, and had other cities of yours go into revolt? Of course you have. Have you ever founded a city and had the same thing happen? Yes. Do you ever wait until you've got Mike's or JSB before founding cities? Of course. Do you ever use settlers/engineers to build roads, irrigate, and mine? Of course you do. So, you must not agree with your own statement, or else you would only use settlers for immediately founding cities.

Harel:

"About the player who won with one city at 1821 AD. I can tell you one thing: he played at easy level. How do I know? Beacause I did, several times, a similar thing at moo."

You, sir, are also wrong. It was 1861, and it was at deity. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't. Go to the strategy boards on this site, and follow the discussion of one city challenge.

You follow up by saying that you want to be able to win with one or two cities at multiplayer. Ask yourself honestly--how drastic will the bonuses you propose have to be to make this feasible, for your 2 cities to defeat other humans' 8 or 10 cities, let alone another humans 20 cities. Is that what you want to do, just so you can win at MP?

posted July 25, 1999 18:45                

2) Again I didn't wait until JSB or Mike's to expand. Until I got them I used Phalanxes to keep the people firmly under my heals as Bell expresses it so good(thanks for your answer Bell. I don't think I will type Support and Police again though. I almost lost track of my own complicated negative police rate and I don't want to experience that again.). It did keep from switching to Republic until I had Mike's and to democracy until I had JSB(without it was totally insane to maintain a democracy).

posted July 25, 1999 19:05                

Small civ stuff : I'll reveal a tip of the curtain. The rest I will reveal tomorrow. My plan for City State Structure is +2 Centralization, +2 Taxes, -3 Corruption, -3 happiness. The corruption and happiness penalties make sure this is a dumb choice for every civ except the really small ones. Plus I should give a +50% Value bonus for the City State and perhaps a immunity for it's negative values. Plus a commerce bonus if they have at least +2Economy. This makes them stronger but not unbeatable. It certainly isn't my intention to make them invincible.
We can discuss this point to eternity but actually only playtesting can say what's the best way to let the small ones prosper.

Live long and prosper.

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 25, 1999 22:42                

Fascism, -50% Trade, +10% science, +25% Gold
Notes:
-Every unit beyond the 3 is free support
-3 units in a city can eliminate unhappiness through fear.

Aristocracy, +50% Trade, -25% science,
+50% Gold
Notes:
-The people become unhappy due to the difference in social status.
-Every unit must be supported.
-Good for small growing empires, bad for large empires.

More to come

posted July 26, 1999 07:34                

First, if the guy pulled if off by 1861 at Diety, then bravo to him. I couldn't do it, I admit. And I am a GOOD civ player, I assure you.
Secondly, you assume I would like to play the game with one or two cities. Hardly. While I DO play perfectionist, I usally use 8-10 cities and mend them too perfection.
Third, I never said you should WIN with one or two cities. However, I assume that Firaxis would add "shared victory" condition, so that you can win with your allies. So, a small civ could help the war effort.
Fourth, no human player, regardless how good he is can win at multiplayer with one city. You know that just as well as I do. No bonus in the world could change that. The AI doesn't KNOW he should attack the smaller civ ( cause, as we all know, he only likes to strike at the bigger opponenets ). But the human players knows that. In the prospect of taken over a rich, lush city ( mainly when he is going for AC! ) every human player would attack and kill the small civ.
Five, the perfectionist way should be available and encourged just like the real world. You can't win, but you can float.
Six, what about my point for realism? It's more realisitc to add this feature.
Seven, you keep saying "what if the bonus would be too big". Well, I set my mind, finally on the size of the bonus. Tell me if this is too much:

Bonus only applies to the Value attribute. Every value gives +2 something, -1 something.

For one city, +4 and no minus from any SE at all ( the grand total of everything, with market and goverment, can't be a minus ).
For two cities, +3 and no minus from the value only ( +3/+0, the others work as normal ).
For three cities, +2 and no minus ( +2/+0 ).
Four cities and up, Value bonus as normal.

This is hardly a huge and drastic effect.

To maniac:

posted July 26, 1999 10:11                

Besides that : Why would a fascist government get a science bonus and an aristocracy a penalty.

Aristocracy government is represented by Republic = the elite of the country/city rules.
Examples : Rome(senators,nobles), the Dutch(traders had influence), Renaissance Italy(the bankers) and the Cromwell republic(not the king, but the high classes)

I don't see a republic as a government with a president. That is only a recent development and I count that under democracy.

posted July 26, 1999 11:13                

Some nitpickers might notice that I have included more positive and negative possibilities in my SE factors than my SE choices allow. This is because I want civs to have also SE adjustment and other benefits even in the beginning of the game. Otherwise it is pointless to include 30 civs.
Some might say : "What if the Phoenicians with a sea movement bonus start in the middle of a continent?"
My answer is simple : don't let them start in the middle of a continent. Let them always start near the ocean. Or let the Incas with some mining bonus or labor bonus start near a mountain range.

1) Government
1.1) Anarchy

This isn't a government actually. It's the period between switching government types. This is too used when a city is in a riot.

Social factors :
-4 Corruption : no trade is gathered at all
-3 Nationalism : if you are revolting, this is because you are unsatisfied with what your country is doing, so less nationalism. It also means that anarchy is the perfect time for other civs to bribe your cities.
(-4 Happiness) : means one extra proletarian on every 4 citizens.
I put it between brackets. -4 Happiness would mean that there could appear very unhappy citizens(=revolutionaries). A SE change costs one turn to take effect. So the second turn a city is in anarchy, it would form a new minor or maior civ.
I put in brackets because I only want that -4 happiness penalty to count for a city riot and not for a government switch. Otherwise you would loose a big part of your civ because you just installed a Democracy eg. That discourages government switching.

posted July 26, 1999 13:07                

Government :
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
Anarchy : -4 Corr, -3 Nat, -4 Hap
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Sup, -2 Mor
Ecotopia : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -2 Urb

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

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

Structure :
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
City State : +2 Centr, +2 Tax, -3 Corr, -3 Hap
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Cult, -1 Corr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol

Army :
Draft : no pos or neg
Reserve : +3 Sup, -2 Mor
Professional : +2 Mor, -2 Sup, -1 Urb
Cyborg : +2 Mor, +2 Nat, -4 Sup

posted July 26, 1999 16:48                

About the suggestion themselfs:

Theocracy should give a morale bonus.
Democracy should increase research ( free thinking ) but decresse effiency ( beucracy ).
Atehism should not decreese happiness, maybe morale?

More suggestions:

One thing: I belive you need to add a new factor: 15: military industry. A bonus to production that only applies to military unit construction. ( aka Mil ). Works like Industry.

I'll probaly think of more up, but right now I revert to my original army post, with using your ( very good one! ) SE model:

The people army - forced drafts to create a mass army. Very useful in times of war.
( China, Soviet union ).
+2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 happiness

Civilian duty army - using drafts, but with public acceptence and rigid training. Costly but effeicnet troops.
( Switzerlend, Israel ).
+1 mil, +2 morale, -2 support

volunteer army - soldiers volunteer for a full-pay service. However, since it's open to all groups the over-all military quaility tends to be poor.
( USA )
+2 happiness -1 morale

professinal army - volunteering army, by using very expensive training.
( Britian, Japan, France )
+1 morale, +2 happiness, -1 mil, -2 support

mercenry army - using hired proffesinal to do the work for you. Tends to be way too costly for big civ.
+3 morale, +2 Nat, -2 mil, -3 suport

brain-washed army - quite obivious. A cheap way to get a powerful army, but has drastic implications.
+2 morale, +4 nat, +2 mil, -2 support, -2 happiness

posted July 26, 1999 18:42                

I think that Moniac's system is too pro aristocracy, democracy, and free market

also his system is to hierarchial in that people will only use one or two sets of se choices at any time in the game (there seems to be a best for every step along the way, unlike smac where they were more ballanced)

for one thing aristocracy and the democratic ideals of freedom are mutually exclusive and putting them together shows a limited understanding of how things work because the aristocracy takes control

I see se choices being in the areas of
(who) is in control
method of (control)
method of (economics)
what those in control (value)
(division) of control

maybe a few more

multiple things would be under value and each could be checked (even some might not allow others)

each would also have pluses and minuses

past value and se choices would make future value choices occur

maybe value choices would not be choices you make but would instead be based on how you play the game, if you have been at peace for a while you will atomatically get the pacificist value choice at its corresponding pluses and minuses, if you have been expanding for a while you will get the manifest destiny value choice, if you have been building improvements to lower pollution (or if pollution is really bad) you will get the green choice

unlike the other se choices you cannot choose value ones and you can have multiple value chcoices in affect at once

examples of value are: green, wealth, power, knowlegde(I would consider space as part of this), manifest destiny, pacificism, individualism(this would come from being in something like democracy or republic for a while), human rights, religion, maybe others?

who is in control is only changed when a revolution occurs, if who changes all previous values are wiped

examples of who are: military, king(you, a single person), aristocracy(nobles/rich), religious, scientists, masses, maybe others?

when you declare revolution you can only put as who those groups that think you are doing a good job

each group has value choices they start with

the different groups become available at different times (starting with one person rule), religious would come early and scientists would come late in the tech

got to go more later (as well as specifics on what se will affect)

posted July 26, 1999 23:16                

Some thoughts on Democracies, Republics, etc.:
I've posted this on the Support thread before, but was told to come here instead. My thoughts: the unhappiness caused by being a democracy/republic at war (or, for that matter, ANY nation at war) should be alleviated under certain conditions. Civ I and Civ II assumed that every citizen in every democracy would rather see their way of life crumble around them than to see Johnny go off to war. This just isn't the case. In some wars, there is little to no unhappiness caused (WW II) due to the extreme nationalism and patriotism felt by most of the democracy's citizens. Support problems are lessenned (the women went to work) and happiness actually increased to some extent (people finally had jobs and the economy was doing great). In other wars (Vietnam) the unhappiness became so intense that the country came close to revolution, not to mention the fact that support was lousy (the economy suffered and the Great Society was lost).

The idea: democracies, republics, and ALL forms of government should have variable unhappiness/support factors in times of war (albeit based on the SE factors). Happiness and support will be determined by Nationalism, Happiness, Support, Morale, whatever... PLUS:
-whether or not the enemy nation attacked first
-the circumstances of that attack (did they break any treaties?)
-atrocities caused by that nation (to you and your allies, unless you've got a nation of bleeding hearts, in which case any victimized nation will count)
-relative strength of that nation (insignificant = low support+low happiness, powerhouse = high support+high happiness. This is depending on if your civ is fighting for its life (WW II) or just for the sake of fighting (Vietnam)).
-social settings of that nation in relation to your own social settings (Hitler's social settings were different from Britain's and the U.S.'s, meant more morale, but once Russia joined the Allies there were some morale problems).

Why do this? Two things: realism (if somebody reduced half of your democratic country down to smoking radioactive rubble, would you really CARE that Johnny might not come home again?) and enjoyment. No longer will your senate keep making idiot treaties with your enemies. In fact, if your enemies have angered your people enough, your senate will INSIST that you eradicate them! This could be interesting in that maybe you WANT to make peace but the senate won't let you (what if the Allied senate wouldn't have banded together with the Soviets?), but more importantly it means that fundamentalists et. al can't push democracies around as much as they used to.

posted July 27, 1999 06:13                

Also, I think that, in some cases there are two many SE options.
While SMAC SE models were too scarse ( 3 goverment types? ), too many are also a problem. Therefor, maybe some types can be replaced by later ones as technology grows.

While republic is a different form then democracy, they should be united. Republic will grow to democracy, which will grow to federation ( or "virtual democracy" ). That's probaly the only sane idea CtP had.
In the old greek republic, every citizen was an equal part of the senate. While citizenship was a rare thing: given to only to rich males, every citizen was a "parliment member". In modern democracy, the power is delegated by elections to chosen candidtats.
A virtual democracy would return the old republic prinicple, where again technology allows every citizen to gain some control on the goverment.

So, certain SE options become obselte and are replaced by a new option along the way.
I show this with ->. This will show how cultural and technological evoultion changed society, but keeping the principle the same.

In the end, we need to limit the SE models of every option to around 4 different SE options. Therefor, those are my suggestions ( using maniac SE model ):

Government:

Direct control goverment
Anarchy: -4 corr, -3 Nat, -4 Hap
->Despotism: +2 Pol, -2 Corr
-->Police state: +2 Pol, +2 Corr, -2 Hap

Absloute power goverments
Dictatorship: +2 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap
->Totalitarianism: +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
-->Fasism: +5 Sup, +3 Pol, +1 Mor, -3 Hap, -2 Corr
--->Brain-washed society: +4 Pol, +4 Nat, +2 Hap, +2 Mor, -2 Res, -2 Eco, -2 Center

Dynasty goverments
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
->Empiriship: +2 Pol, -1 Hap

Religoun based goverment
Fundementalism: +1 Mor, +1 Hap, -1 res, -1 Eco
->Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res

Free will goverment
Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
->Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Sup, -2 Mor
-->Federation: +2 Corr, +2 Center, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Mor, -2 Sup, -2 Nat

Ecotopia(?) : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -2 Urb

Economy:

Simple economics
Barter : -2 Tax
->Currency : no pos or neg
-->Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Sup
--->Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor

Goverement controlled market
Feudalism : +4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
->Protectionism(?): +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Corr
-->Planned economics: +2 Center, +1 Tax, -1 Eco

Shared economics
Socialism: +2 Center, +2 Hap, -2 Eco
->Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
-->Utopia ( no money society ): +3 Hap, +3 Centr, +3 Corr, -2 eco, -2 Tax, -2 Mor

free market
Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
->Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Values:

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

Structure:

Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
City State : +2 Centr, +2 Tax, -3 Corr, -3 Hap
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Cult, -1 Corr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol

Army:

( remember my suggestion: the Miltary-military industry bonus. It reduce military unit costs. Aka mil. )

Forced armies
The people army: +2 Sup, +2 Mil, -2 Hap, -2 Mor
->Brain-washed army: +3 Sup, +3 Mil, +1 Mor, -3 Hap, -1 Res
-->Cyborg army: +4 Morale, -1 Sup, -1 Mil

Duty army
Drafts: No bonus and no minus.
->Reserve : +3 Sup, -2 Mor
-->Citizen duty army: +1 Mor, +2 Hap, -2 Sup

small-scale army
Mercenry: +3 Mor, -2 Sup, -2 Mil
->Volunteer: +2 Hap, +2 Culture, - sup, -2 Mil
-->Professional : +2 Mor, -2 Sup, -1 Urb

Religion:

Animism : -2 Res
->Polytheism : +2 Urb, +2 Sup, -2 Cult
Monotheism : +2 Cult, +1 Res, -2 Dipl
Multitheism : +2 Dipl, +1 Hap, -3 Nat
Atheism : +2 Res, +2 Corr, -2 Hap

NEW SUGGESTION

I would like to suggest a new SE concept. This is based on the option that Firaxis would make technology much more important. Currently, the tech tree is limited. But ( read the tech tree ) people suggest bigger tech tree, cataogiral research, upgrading specific items and units, etc etc.
Therefor, I belive we should add a section called:

Research. It decided the way in which your culture treats research and science. It would contain:

Wize-man: -1 Res.
->word of god ( studing the world by learning the holy books ): +2 Pol, -1 Res

Nuture: +1 Res, +1 Ecology, -1 Urb. Biology and farming science are 75% cost.

Humanterian: +1 Res, +1 Cul, -1 mil. Social science are 75% cost.

Pratical: +1 Sup, +1 Mor, -1 Res. Military application are 75% cost.

posted July 27, 1999 10:53                

My first intention was to give theocracy a moale bonus, but then I realized I was thinking only about the christian and islam theocracies.
Do the munks of Lhasa get a morale bonus? No. They don't because they're pacifist. So you can't give all the theocracies a morale bonus because the christians and muslims were/are warlike people. Instead I gave Strict Monotheism the +2 Nat and +2 Mor bonus. That's who I would describe christianity around the crusades and islam now.

You can give democracy and some other SE choices more bonuses than I did. But I had to limit me to 2 or 3 bonuses and 1 or 2 penalties.
Besides, I already have 2 science improving choices.

About that bureaucracy penalty for democracy.
Don't confuse bureaucracy/efficiency with corruption. One note about your other post. You wundered why there wasn't a SE factor that decreased trade loss due to inefficiency. That factor is Corruption. If you would add 16) Bureaucracy, you would have 2 factors with the same use.

The Civ2 Democracy is in Civ3 Democracy/Free Market.
Republic is Republic/Banking, so a democracy has less corruption than a republic just like in Civ2.
I wouldn't begin to interfere with Corruption. In CivX the rule was always the freeer the society, the less corruption. perhaps because under a democracy there isn't a need to smuggle things like in a totalitarianism.

Why does atheism decrease happiness? In the USA and Europe less people go to church. instead more people go to sects. So I think common people can't live without some faith/religion, so more unhappiness.

Why doesn't atheism decrease morale?
Does atheism make more people weak or decadent(-Mor)? No, I don't think so. or did you want a penalty for atheism because Strict Religions get a morale bonus? strict religions get a bonus because they are convinced they have the right faith and they want tobring it to other people. You could say the same thing for atheism armies. They want to free the people from superstition. No, I don't think at all that Atheism gets a Mor penalty.
Besides : 1) There are already enough negative morale SE choices.
2)If you would give Atheism -2 Mor, than you could give republic -2 Hap(class difference) to keep it in balance, but than the senate(-Mor) wouldn't be represented in arepublic. You could give it to Banking, but then that choice should become too bad, so you would have to give -2 Sup to something else.
You see, it isn't that simple to adapt my model and still keep it in balance.

your army SE and your new factor Military Industry(=Mil) seem OK, but I would make the army category the only one where it appears. Why? USA(democracy) has a better Military Industry than China(Totalitarianism). Probably China has a better one than Belgium(democracy). So other SE choices don't interfere with your military capacity and Army choice.

Your army choices are good.
Your people and civilian duty draft can replace my draft choice. But then there wouldn't be any 'no pos or neg'. There needs to be one in every category( except Structure). Perhaps City Militia - no pos or neg?

Feel free to adapt the Army category to your specs. I am no army specialist. But conider this : my original idea for the army category was to let every choice to have a maximum % of hit points like in CTP.
Cyborg and Professional : 100%
Draft : 80%(?)
Reserve : less than draft
So would you want to give every choice a max. unit HP % ?

Small civ stuff.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. If you have one city, do you want to delete every penalty or only the one of your value choice ( means immunity for Centr, Tax or Urb). With the last I agree.

posted July 27, 1999 11:26                

You say it's too "pro aristocracy, democracy and free market".
1) Give example what factors you find bad, not just the names.
2) Give solutions.

My "system is too hierarchial". Examples, solutions...

You said the SMAC system is more balanced. Well, it's harder to have 39 balanced than to have merely 16 balanced factors.

I'll continue after dinner...
I'm back!

What do you mean : "Putting democracy and aristocracy together shows limited understanding of how things work..." I am just the one who separated them into Republic and Democracy. Harel wants to fuse them.

"Your past value choices make future choices occur." I ****ing don't want that. That wouldn't ruin my tactic I described earlier on this thread. That dumb AI would get the message I am expansionist, but after I found a number of cities, I don't build any city until late in the game there is a second smaller expansionist wave. I want to choose my value myself.

You give some new value choices. What can I do with names? Everyone can make up some names. The names for my model and my factors I had after 10 minutes. Give me effects.

You included religion as a value. I have a whole religion category. Haven't you got choice enough?

You gave some examples of who are in power. I covered them all in my model.

posted July 27, 1999 12:10                

First off, I do many type-o myself, so don't fret about it
Secondly, it's seems un-clear from your post if you support my "evolving-SE" offer. Do you think thats the goverment options your offered are better, or we should have fluxting numbers to limit to finite number of options?

I belive you are right about theocracy: therefor I suggested to split it to two levels, were fundemntalism gives a morale bonus.

I still don't agree that Atheism can should give a minus to happiness. A society that chooses to be athiest is ready to live with anysort of demi-gods and other nonsense. They live, and happy about it, with no belief system other then logic.
No religoun type should give a minus to happiness. The religoun selected is what the public believe: it's un-logical they will be unhappy because they don't posses a religoun type which they are against.
However, atheist society should not get a morale minus, it's just that the other religoun should give a morale bonus.

About percent of hits. Let's that agree that everything, every little item on CtP should never, ever appear on civ III. And no, i belive everyone should have the same X HP. The morale bonus is enough a difference.

I agree that the Mil option should only be included at the army section. However, it's an important thing.

I do belive we should have a "research" section. Different countries have different approchs to science.

About the bonus to small civ. I repeat. Every value gives +2/+2/-2.

For one city: +4/+4/-0 = all minus revert to zero ( after sub-totaling. If you have support -5 and +3, you will get +0 ). Yes, it's a big bonus. But you only have one city!
For two cities: +3/+3/-0 = no minus from value subject only.
For three cities: +2/+2/-1 = reduced minus to value only.

posted July 27, 1999 15:37                

There should be a council proposal in a multistate-coallition(read police social factor on other SE thread), named 'Peacekeeping Operation'. It should decrease unhappiness against a totalitarianist or despot ruled civ(or any not-free government).

You're dreaming if the eg English economy and happiness bettered due to the war.

posted July 27, 1999 18:59                

first a response to M@ni@c:

if you had read my choices you would know that both my religious who and value settings were not se on religion, rather it was religion in government, if religion was another se choice (which it shouldn't be, do states choose religion any more than they choose values? Well they can try but they haved ended up failing every time in past history) it would be on the level of who and value

it is to pro-democratic in that democracy has by far the best values, your settings don't really allow for having any different settings than one (that is the reason it is too hiearchial), the one that is the highest on your se choices

republic is those who are in control voting representatives who vote actual policies while democracy are those who are in control voting the actual policies

the who could be any of the sets I previously named in my previous post

it looks as if I will have to explain the value choices better

no nation has ever made its people value something (except by propaganda which may be an effect of some of the se choices)

instead a nations actions decide what the nation values, therefore after a N# turns of doing heavy terrain development and ettler production and other expansionistic activities you get the value choice manifest destiny, which goes away after a N# turns of nonexpansionistic activities (or having those activities fall below a certain level)

this shows that what people value reflects what your policy is and makes a much more realistic and subtler game

instead of choosing your people to value wealth(in smac) and then having your policy be a knowledge one, it will istead be that if you are focusing on knowledge, soon your people will too

the value choices might not even be a yes/no thing but instead could be a slider with 0 being no value at all and increased numbers corresponding with increased value of manifest destiny

maybe even the slider will be able to go into negative numbers reflecting a dislike of that value

the more those who are in control value for example manifest destiny the more your factors reflect that

manifest destiny would increase military support among the populous (the who) because they would want to expand and get more territory

actually maybe manifest destiny is to americanized perhaps a better word is imperialistic

imperialistic values would also make terrain improvement easier and settler production easier

imperialistic values would also however increase the number of unhappy people in cities above N# large and increase corruption

(N# is just a genaric unsuspecified number)

other nations would not be as happy towards those with imperialistic values, particulary those with human rights values

imperialistic values also increase pollution

more specifics later on values

also there are scientists that don't value knowledge but instead value wealth and there are similar examples of that sort of hipocracy, it is better I think to have values and who sepperate with just in certain instances for example having a military who gives you a upping in power values, of course while the miliatry is the who it can change until wealth is the value if more effort is spent on increasing you GDP or taxes

also if you have low values in the type of who you are, like low power values for a military who you should have more corruption

getting on to method of (control)

there is republic which as everyone knows is where the who votes in representatives

there is democracy where the who is directly in control

there is meritocracy where the most able of the who controls and control is based on merit

there is beaucracy (maybe some other word) where the most senior of the who controls by beaucracy

there is monarchy (maybe a better word would be parliamtery) where one is in control and the who form a group of upperclass citizens (like nobles in midddle ages)

I am sure there is more

examples

totalittarian would be who one person, monarchy as form

dictatorship would be military as who, monarchy as form

monarchy would be nobles as who, monarchy as form

communism would be beauracratic form, masses as who with socialist economic method

economic methods would be socialist, mixed, feudal, subsistence, barter, currency, mercentalist, free market, maybe others

going to have to stop now, gott to go to work and think up more ideas for the next number of hours (what I've been doing for some time

one more idea: certain se settings do not allow you to have full control of your government, instead there are different AI personalities with civil and military characteristics that you could direct to control armies and cities and groups of armies and cities

you would not hire them instead they would come out of the populous, if they had any effects like moo2 generals and administrators they would be minor

instead there main point is that they would have different AI's, like one would be a good general, another a good admiral, another a good administrator of unhappy cities

you would not know what their talents were for

by good I mean they would direct them good, like the good administrator would know what to build in order to make a good city (of course it would be more specialized than that, one administrator would have a good rural AI and a bad urban one)

generals you would just order to attack a nation or a city(ies) or defend and they will do so with their AI and the troops you give them

these would be expandable so that others could add there own and the computer AI's would come from a special et of superior (good at a lot of things) AI

each AI would have a few strategies for dealing with things

this would be more realistic for certain settings because the president does not direct what improvements are made or what actual stategic troop movements, no he directs his underlings

it would also make the game move fast later on (it would be more later structures like free market and democracy and etc. that would not allow you to decide what was being produced, rather the AI would

more on this later

posted July 27, 1999 23:48                

Also, perhaps Animism should get a +1 to Env. (can't go killing the golden calfs, now can they?)

SE choices should become outdated. Otherwise the screen would get too cumbersome.

As for Values: I'd have to say that I'm still in favor of having a Values SE choice. This is because I'd originally thought, sure, this would be in keeping with the entire Inertia concept that people have been playing with (Research Inertia and whatnot), so your country's values would be determined by your whole Civ Inertia. But then I got to thinking--what about propoganda? You just know that if there is Values inertia, then there's going to be Propoganda that you can buy in order to change the Values of your people. But buying Propoganda would be the same as paying for the SE changes you'd be making, so it all adds up to be the same thing.

HOWEVER: viewing the ideas of a Research SE, I got to thinking that the Values and Research SE's could be combined into a Research Methods SE (or something similarly named) which would determine how your Civ went about its research and what its values were in regard to its research. Examples:

Environmentally Sound: +3 Env., -1 Res., +1 Hap., -3 Tax

Unethical: +6 Res., -3 Hap., -1 Env.

Theist (in accordance to God's will): -3 Res., +3 Hap (if not Atheist), +2 Tax (Church or whatever helps fund research)

posted July 28, 1999 11:25                

First this. I have a question about UBB. You are using it more frequently lately, so I'll ask you.
To quote things, they say 'just cut and paste'. But when I cutted something on a post and then try to paste it, it doesn't go. The paste option is grey. Probably some silly mistake but please explain me.

I expected there would be voices saying there are too much choices. Your idea of making choices replace by another one is good. However, it is worked out very bad. You were using my model, you could say as an excuse, but even then you made very illogical SE evolutions. You let a choice be replaced by another one with totally different SE factors, even in your own army category. Plus you gave outrageous and impossible numbers eg +4 Police. Until someone comes up with an idea to add more positive police possibilities, +4 is useless. In general, you gave too much positive police bonuses.
I used police as an example, but there are other things. When you're distributing bonuses and penalties left and right, you have to keep in eye that, when you add up all the bonuses or penalties of a certain factor you can possibly get in every SE category, you don't get impossible numbers. You may test that on my model. It will stay between certain boundaries.
Some (Support) may cross the limit, but that's because I am in favor of 'your government choice restricts you to choose certain SE choices in other categories'. So you can't have Feudalism ( kind of Confederate system with vassals and feudal lords ) and Totalitarianism (Federal, Centralized ) at the same time, cause they are contradictious. BTW, I just realized that the 'government restriction' thing makes sure that you don't get too many choices in every category.
However, I don't think that that is enough reason to convince you.

Government

Anarchy (never available in SE. You wouldn't want to choose it anyway.)
Despotism
-> Totalitarianism
The rest the same.

That means no fusion of Republic and Democracy. I am strongly against that. However I would like a Virtual Democracy choice. Your's has too many bonuses and penalties. For a moment in the creation of my model I thought to give every choice a bonus or penalty on every factor, but that makes it a mess. You should limit yourself to 3 bonuses and 2 penalties(with Transnational the only exception). If you give too much effects to one choice, you are returning to the fully determined governments of Civ2. That's just what SE solved. With SE you can choose and decide more precisely what government you want.
Done with the SE lesson.

About Dictatorship : What use has it when you have the almost similar and better Totalitarianism? Perhaps you were thinking to recreate the Civ2 Despotism. That is represented with Despotism/Tribal/Barter/Animism ( increased support, police and corruption but decreased food production(-2Centr) and less freedom to determine Tax and Science rate(-2Tax, -2 Res)).

About Empireship : That makes obsolete Monarchy. I strongly insist that in every category there should be and stay a 'no pos or neg' choice. I know people that used that in SMAC even when they had more choices.

About the Ecotopia ? : Is it because you are against CTP? I hate it also, but I think it is unavoidable that Civ3 will have that bad-working stacked combat. Besides if you find a good idea, even if it's from the enemy, why not use it?
The reason I created Ecotopia is to have 2 Environment increasing choices, just like in SMAC. Every factor should have at least 2 times a bonus and a penalty. (Hey, just noticed I have to less police increasing things. Please include *one* in your Army category.)

I can give more examples but I won't. This post is already long enough.

Economy

Barter
-> Currency
Protectionism
-> Communism
Banking
-> Free Market
-> Transnational
Rest the same.

I am douting if Banking should disappear cause then you would be forced to have -5 Pol instead of -3 Pol.

Religion

Animism
-> Loose Polytheism

All other categories the same.

Your Research idea is excellent!!!!!!

Only I would change wise men to no pos or neg. Animism already decreases science. With another penalty you should only be able to set science to 40%.

BTW, what does Nuture mean? I didn't find it in a dictionary. Has is something to do with nudism?

posted July 28, 1999 12:14                

The values I used were wrong, I agree. To augmanted. However, I do belive the "focal" of center should change. Earlier religous goverments, for example were bloody until the interst of religous countries, as year based, made it relay more or happiness.
Therefor, fundemntalism evolve to theocracy.
Same thing for the army method.

The groups of options should be grouped into similar concepts. Smaller armies from a hired army, to a volunteer army, to a highly proffesional army along history. That's how peaceful nations, who kept a small army acts as history and technology evolved. True, the three options are VERY different then one another. But, different times different actions.

I don't understand your comment about dictatorship. Ofcourse people will use Totalirisim. It replace it. Didn't you see?
Dictatorship
->Totalirist
-->Fasism
--->Brain-washed

Totalirist is the evoultion of dictorship. If you choose dictatorship, when you discover totalirism if you automaticly upgraded to the newer level.
I think you got it mixed up: maybe you thought that the -> means all the options avilable to you. For example, a religous country could select either fundmentlism or theocracy. Wrong! What I ment is that theocracy replace the older fundmentlism, and that option is no longer avialable.

Republic is an aristocracy?! Huh? I think it was Jon miller who said it first. Jon, America is a republic! And no, not because it has a republic majority. A republic system relays more on delegated force: the elected senate members have more power then on democracy. A republic is under the belief the people are here for the republic, while a democracy belive she exist FOR the public.

Either way, it's not an arsitocracy. If you relay on early greek ( were indeed the republic was for the aristocrat alone ), then I remind you the the early roman democracy also only gave the selected few citizenship. Is democracy arsitocract too?

I still don't think that Ecotopia should exist on Civ III. It was a very silly idea.

About empireship: ok, your right. You should have the "static" option. So only give is a small bonus, and no minus. Maybe +1 Sup, or +1 Nat.

Onwards.

Maniac, you got it right. The roots of Sparta are back to the 2,500 BC. Exactly, they were an off-shot of the Minoun.

posted July 28, 1999 16:38                

Religion is definitely not what the public believes. It's what rulers want the people to believe to keep them quiet and dumb. Why else would there be schisma's, protestantism...

Some more thoughts about your evolving SE.

I meant Police State, not Dictatorship. I would eliminate Police State. Despotism is meant as the starting government. It isn't supposed to be used in the later parts of the game, so it certainly doesn't need a replacement.

Fascism is not a government type.
By this Strict Monotheism is officially renamed to Fundamentalism. This includes also Fascism.

So I would also delete Fundamentalism. Again that morale bonus of the fundamentalist religions is covered under Fundamentalism/Strict Monotheism/Fascism.

Your Brainwashed Society is too different from the original Totalitarianism. And a Totalist rule does not mean the people back the ruler, so Fascism is a bad evolution from Totalitarianism.

Your Planned Economics are useless. Communism is the extreme of Protectionism, so that's the replacement.
That ? indicates that you don't get what I mean with Protectionism. I don't mean the Japanese protectionism, but the French Colbert Protectionism under Lious XIV.

About Army.
Step 1 to 2 is OK, but 2 to 3 not. Too much difference. There isn't even a Support bonus anymore.

About Military Industry.
You're right it is important. But your plan to let it in/decrease the cost for units has loopholes. In SMAC there is something called the Industry Cheat. For example you are approaching the end of a Secret Project construction. Then you switch for one turn to Planned/Wealth to have +2Industry. Boom, you don't need to complete the remaining 60 Minerals of the 300 Mineral SP. The same could be done with your Mil. AI starts the war. You switch production in several cities to military units. When they are almost complete you switch for one turn to the People Army and you saved a lot of minerals. Than you switch back to Draft or Mercenary. That's why I suggested the everythingx10 system. In that system Centralization(=a bit like SMAC Industry) does not affect the cost of things but your labor itself.
However that can't be used for Mil. Cause then you would have two factors increasing labor for unit production.

Read the post I did to Communist_99. There I explained how I defined Republic. Democracy is a modern system and is different than Republic.
BTW, I wouldn't count the Romans as a democracy, they are typical Republic.
BTW, I wouldn't count Athens as a Republic. They are early democratic.

You're right. I didn't like Ecotopia either. I just added it cause I needed a second Environment bonus. That function can be taken over by Research - Nature.
To make that SE choice worthwhile in the early pre-industrialized civworld -when there isn't pollution to take care off- the Environment factor should need a new use besides pollution preventer. Perhaps diseases and plagues should occur in Civ3 and Environment affects it. There is a thread started in Civ3 - General/Suggestions about it, but I don't like the ideas posted there.

Instead of Ecotopia there could be Virtual Democracy and/or Utopia as Future societies.

What was that note about Sparta??? Guess you don't know a bit about SMAC. The Spartan Federation is one of the seven factions in SMAC. Check out AC-Fiction. BTW, heart something about Diodorus to solve the MinoAn problem.
BTW, in English most names of civs end on -ans or -ians. You don't write IsraeliUn. Right?

Small Civ Stuff

posted July 28, 1999 17:11                

Democracy problem.(?)
-> Democracy is only available in late game. In Civ2 it's available too early. So that limits the 'problem' to the modern age. But in and beyond the modern age there could be other SE choices.
Now we have Virtual Democracy(government) and Utopia(economy). You may also make a suggestion to offer an alternative to Democracy.
-> Civ2 is even more pro-democratic.
-> So how would you define Democracy?
-> Probably all warmongers think Democracy is too good and all peace lovers/builders think that Totalitarianism or Communism is too good.

posted July 28, 1999 17:30                

If you eliminate the Hap penalty, there are too little Hap penalties ( always keep the big picture=the wholesystem in mind).
About that Dipl penalty : then every civ with another religion than yours should give a Dipl penalty. Even if you are both Loose Monotheism. Cause the same Religion choice does not mean you have the same religion.
About that Urb penalty : No worship of places makes sure Atheism does not get a Urb bonus, but it doesn't mean it gets a penalty.

posted July 29, 1999 17:20                

Cause Ecotopia(=less options to get a high Hap rate) is deleted I think you should get a 'one extra aristocratian on every 4 citizens' on +4 Hap instead of +5 Hap.
I will edit my post about it.

Harel : Is army definite?

About Structure - Federal/Confederate.
I made some changes. Perhaps it is more realistic now.
Federal : +2 Cult, +2 Nat, -1 Corr, -1 Hap
Confederate : +2 Corr, +2 Hap, -2 Cult, -1 Nat.
I will explain my choices on request.
Who agrees with this changes?
If everyone does, I will edit my post about it.

posted July 29, 1999 22:52                

in smac planned was probably the most useful economic choice and I used power and police state too

democracy + planned + children's chreach = population boom

this is extremely nice and I use it until my cities have reached max growth for the tech

(I also use 1-1-1 trance police units)

I use power more than any other setting, I admit to only playing the second hardest level though

also my se plan besides being realistic in the value choice (what you choose to do is what sets the values of your people)

also the difference between Roman/Greek republics and the US's is taken care of in my plan besides allowing for new and exciting combinations