SOCIAL ENGINEERING Mk. I
SOCIAL ENGINEERING Mk. II

Definitions:

CITY - a region defined by a specific set of cultural attitudes and a religion

VOTING CITY - a city that has the right to participate in the election of a representative body. This must be intentionally granted to conquered cities. This is a treaty option for the ceding of a city to another civ.

CULTURE - the attitudes of militaristic, perfectionistic, etc, on a -10 to 10 scale instead of -1 to 1

ASSIMILATION - the slow change of a conquered city's attitudes to match that of the empire's.

HAPPINESS - a percentage based on the closeness between a city's cultural profile and the REPRESENTATIVE BODY of the civ.
EQUATION: H% = (1-((|rv1 - cv1| + |rv2 - cv2| + … + |rvn - cvn|)/n)/20) * 100
where H% is the percentage of people happy
rvn is the numerical cultural value "n" of the representative body
cvn is the numerical cultural value "n" of the city

DISCONTENT - a percentage based on the discrepancy between a city's cultural profile and the
leader of the civ.
EQUATION: D% = (((|Lv1 - cv1| + |Lv2 - cv2| + … + |Lvn - cvn|)/n)/20) * 100
where D% is the percentage of people disgruntled by the actions of the civ leader
Lvn is the numerical cultural value "n" of the Leader, taken from the leader's profile
cvn see above
Note - a player starts out with a profile identical to his first city's. Over time, his profile is amended by his/her actions.
Note - the equation above does not take corruption into account and therefore is not complete

UNREST - a cumulative measure of the unhappiness of a city

SENATES, QUORUMS, AND PARLIMENTS - representative bodies that have some measure of power in a civ. They are elected (recalculated) every 5 years (baring war), or after the change in the number of VOTING CITIES.

SENATE - a representative body whose profile is determined by the average of each individual city profiles.
EQUATION: Svn = (c1vn + c2vn + ... + cmvn)/total number of voting cities

Svn = SENATE value "n"
cmvn = value "n" of city "m"

QUORUM - a representative body whose profile is determined by the average of each different TYPE of profile present in the civilization. Thus if an empire has 10 cities, but they can be classified into 4 profiles (eg - English, Irish, Scotch, partially assimiliated Irish), those four profiles will be averaged to become the QUORUM profile.

PARLIMENT - a representative body whose profile is determined by the average of all city profiles multiplied times their respective population points. Thus if an empire has 10 cities, the profiles of all cities are multiplied times their population size and then averaged to become the PARLIMENT profile. Thus a city with a large population has more representation than a city with a small population.

I may need to add different definitions as I see people's comments.

There would be three parameters related to the governing of the civ:

Government Form - how I interact with the people
Organizational Form - how I interact with my cities
Economic Form - how I manage my economy

GOVERNMENT FORM: AUTOCRACY; MONARCHY; REPUBLIC; COMMUNIST; THEOCRACY; DEMOCRACY

AUTOCRACY - You are the Lord of your civilization and control:
Values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
Religious attitude
Diplomacy (although not all your city governors may feel bound by your decisions)
Military (restricted by Organizational Form)
Direction of research
Organizational Forms: CENTRALIZED
Economic Forms:
Benefits: little corruption when composed of one civilization; one unsupported military unit per city;
Restrictions: unassimilated cities must have troops stationed in them to maintain order and insure the payment of tribute;

MONARCHY - You are ruler of your civilization and control:
diplomacy
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
military (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
direction of research
taxes (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
Organizational Forms: CENTRALIZED, FEUDAL, CITY-STATE, PROVINCAL
Economic Forms:
Benefits: upon switching to MONARCHY, all powers are vested in the monarch, and the assembly has no inherent powers. They must be granted to the assembly by the monarch, but once granted rescinding those powers increases the baseline for discontent to 30%.
Restrictions: unrest may develop in conquered civilizations; no conquered city may be represented in the assembly for at least 100 years;

REPUBLIC - You are Speaker of your civilization's SENATE and control:
Diplomacy (SENATE must ratify treaties and declare wars upon your request, but you are allowed some use of military force without SENATE approval)
Military
Subject to SENATE's approval
Direction of research
Values
Religious attitude
SENATE controls (but considers proposals by the Speaker):
Taxes
Organizational Forms: CENTRALIZED; PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL; CITY-STATE

Economic Forms:
Benefits: central treasury; unrest slower to develop
Restrictions: loss of total control; military actions that are not declared wars will set baseline for discontent at 10%

THEOCRACY - You are the religious head of your civilization and control:
values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
religious attitude
diplomacy (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
military (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
direction of research
taxes (may be restricted by Organizational Form)
Organizational Forms: CENTRALIZED; PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL
Economic Forms:
Benefits: central treasury; corruption minimal in "loyal" cities;
Restrictions: You must choose a religion and that AI becomes your "parliment" if you
choose the Centralized Organizational Form, otherwise only those cities with that
particular religion are represented in PARLIMENT; PARLIMENT may rebel if you deviate too much from its profile;

DEMOCRACY - You are the President of your civilization and control:
Diplomacy (PARLIMENT must ratify treaties and declare wars)
Military
PARLIMENT controls (but considers Presidential proposals):
Military funding
Values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
Religious attitude
Direction of research
Taxes
Organizational Forms: CENTRALIZED; PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL; CITY-STATE
Economic Forms:
Benefits: central treasury; unrest slowest to develop
Restrictions: military actions that are not declared wars, will lower happiness temporarily military actions that are not declared wars will set baseline for discontent at 10%

COMMUNIST - You are chairman of the communist party and you control:
Values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.)
Religious attitude
Diplomacy (PARLIMENT must ratify)
Military
Direction of research
Taxes
Organizational Forms:
Economic Forms: SOCIALIST - all existing corporations are liquidated first, all production is controlled as in Civ II
Benefits: If another communist country goes into REVOLT moving military units into that country, to quell the rebellion is allowed and not an act of war.
Restrictions: All food is distributed equally to each city w/waste and corruption level.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORM: CENTRALIZED; PROVINCIAL; FEDERAL; FEUDAL; CITY-STATE


CENTRALIZED
Benefits: assimilation of conquered/absorbed peoples fastest; centralized military; perceived strength in diplomacy +1; each city has the same tax burden
Restrictions: corruption increase is steepest upon increasing distance from capital, but can be controlled with Governor's Residences;

PROVINCIAL - Only cities having a population over 10 take part in elections
Benefits: centralized military; corruption slope lower than in centralized form; corruption in non-represented cities depends upon distance to nearest represented city; very low possibility of revolt for represented cities; tax percentages can be modified on a city-by-city basis;
Restrictions: discontent in unrepresented cities can turn into a full-blown civil war;

FEDERAL
Benefits: no possibility of city revolt during wartime; corruption slope lower than PROVINCIAL and levels off at a distance of 10 (Civ II, large map dist) ;
Restrictions: vulnerable to revolt from city discontent; city may hold militia separate from central military, but can only be used within city radius; cities collect more money than requested and use it to pay for militia

FEUDAL
B: very easy system to get minor civs, and cities from neighboring civs to join; corruption relative to ratio of city/capital strength (except the capital, which is lower)
R: the autonomy (control of trade, production, military & payment of taxes) and assimilation of each city depends upon the relative strength of the capital to each city; each city can independently control the production of military units; borders cities can change allegiance without notice if neighboring another FEUDAL system civ;

CITY-STATE
B: most alluring to minor or small civilizations and neighboring cities; corruption slope shallow;
R: easiest for cities to leave; as Leader of the civ, you may put items on the city's (other than the capital); only mercenaries can have veteran status, all native troops have only one year service; items can be placed on the production queue, but the city governor can delay production to third place on queue at the time of request; assimilation stagnant; each city can independently recall its military; limited in the tax% that you can levi


ECONOMIC FORM: AUTARKY; NATIONAL BARTERING MERCANTILISM; SOCIALIST; FASCIST; KEYNES'; FREE MARKET


AUTARKY - the beginning civ will start out at this, but will be unable to return to this as a choice, although a player should be able to "return" to it by choosing to eliminate trade with other nations. No trade outside of civilization and internal trade is on a one-time basis.

NATIONAL BARTERING - this is trade with other nations as initiated in Civ II, that is it takes place along side of diplomatic negotiations. It is on a one-time basis. Taxes are independent of trade income of cities.

MERCANTILISM - Trade routes can be established by the civ (visible and automatic) and by trade companies (these are the foundations of the future corporations - one per civ) if commissioned by the civ. The civ will also be able to cotrol how much revenue is received from the trade co. along with what the trade company can trade in.

SOCIALIST - production and trade are controlled by the state, corruption increases with production. Under COMMUNISM, all corporations are liquidated.

FASCIST - production done within the civ is dictated by the state. Corruption increases with production and distance from the capital.

FREE MARKET - the government has no say in production (by corporations) or trade and can make no regulations on pollution or land use.

KEYNES' - production and trade are monitored and only controlled by the state when necessary (ie. war). Each corp. in the civ is monitored as to what it is producing/trading in and to whom it is going. Trade with other nations is controlled in the Foreign relations screen. Also, regulations on the amount of pollution can be linked to taxes to the civ.

Assumptions:

1. If a civ is conquered it can attempt to found a Government in Exile in a friendly civ. The government in exile prevents the assimilation of its former capital and lasts until all former cities have been assimilated and the capital is razed.
2. Trade companies, Corporations and Banks can be formed within civs, springing up as a response to a new economic form or commissioned by the government.

I suggest that CONFEDERATION be a treaty choice.

I will be making revisions to this based upon suggestions that others make or in responce to Firaxis itself, if BR gets time to look at this.

I might as well continue our discussion here,

Techno:

City state:
you have a very good point. I can't find any solution to this problem, so Firaxis should use a lot of energy on solving this one.

Confederation:
I think a province in a confederation would consist of several cities, making direct democracy impossible.

Urbanization:
I must say that i still like the concept. And economics and urbanization doesn't always affect each other. Capitalism is possible in both rural, urban and suburban urbanization options. This should, like values, take very long to change (taking longer if you have a high sen value).

I think economics and economic cycling should be seperated. After all, capitalism and laissez faire should have the same economic bonus, but capitalism should have a lower cycling value.

Unitary:
I don't think there's any country without local administration, so unitary and central gov would be more or less the same.

I will post my SE model version 2.0 sometime this weekend.

One last thing would be to comment that some important civilizations have had a centralized organizational system as I have defined it, and this most notably includes early Muscovy, which would eventually annex the territories of Rus and become modern day Russia.

Is there any country where local govs doesn't get their authorities from the people whom they control? In my country (Denmark) we have a central gov. There is local "govs" to, whom are elected by the people within their area, but they don't have very much power, as they can't make any laws, just administrate those made by the central gov. Would this be a unitary in your system? If it would be, then i disagree on it creating unhappyness etc.

Techno:
I will include urbanization in my model. And yes, it will take very long (20 turns or so) to change - not giving pens in the "anarchy" period. A totalitarian state could make it be done slower. But other SE settings take a long time to change too. Values can't just be changed over night. It would take about the same time as urbanization, and low freedom of speech and high propaganda would make it faster.

Consider how the unitary system compares to less centralized governmental systems. With less centralized systems, the lower, more local, levels of government have control over important policy issues, and thereby can become the focus of political dissatisfaction. This is especially true when the local/regional governments control limited local economic issues. In a unitary government, however, the central government, although not administering all policy, creates all (or almost all) policy, and is therefore the single object of dissatisfaction. Also, for larger countries, local interests will have difficulty getting their needs addressed by the central government, which may have been elected by a majority from a different region (thus with different/conflicting interests), or when the central government simply does not have the time to address everything. When there are regional/local levels of government, however, a regional interest may be adressed without conflicting with another region's interests.

Relating to this is that there has been a modern phenomenon of minority's resistance in participating in central/national governments, and the most glaring example is the Basques of Spain. This ethnic minority was for a long while controlled by the Spanish government, but more recently they had been driving for independence. When Spain began to transfer some the central gov's power to the local governments, most Basques became satisfied - they now were a majority in their region's government and could work on policies that otherwise would have conflicted with the Spanish majority's interests.

Yet another, more extreme, example is that for significantly large countries, such as China, the central government can become very removed and insulated from the local problems. The national gov often passes legislation designed to advance the interests of the region around the capital (or other favored region), while ignoring the problems in more remote, less politically important areas of the country. Even worse, the national government may really care and want to help solve local problems, but acts on limited information or on misinformation. The government is simply too far removed from the people, limiting citizens' access to, and influence on, that government.

This was sort of a ramble, but I hope you can see why I included a happiness penalty, especially in light of how the vast majority of countries in Civ games are usually geographically large. Of course, I'm still trying to decide whether to get rid of the happiness modifier altogether in my model. Once again you guys, I'd value your input. Should I keep that modifier? What alternative to the unhappiness penalty is there for the Unitary system (if you haven't been convinced that it really does need to be there)?

1. Modifiers have a tendency to eliminate cultural differences between civs.

2. Since a human player is going to be able to figure out which is the "best" government system with relative ease, this will be programmed into the AI and thus give a big advantage to the AI (in terms of knowing when to switch to what gov before a war, during a war and after a war, for example).

3. No matter how many levels of modifiers you make, it will be just a matter of time before a player knows which govs to avoid and which to play.

4. Having a game where COMMUNISM is the best gov to play to win one time and another where DEMOCRACY blows all other forms of gov away would make the game rise to a whole new level of excitement. This cannot be acheived with modifiers, no matter how complex, for one reason - the equations are linear and thus single solution.

Cormac - Let me respond to your observations out of order:

3. I disagree here, as the "best" SE choices depend upon personal playing preferences. For example, in SMAC, I would always (unless playing the Morgans or the Hive) choose to have the Green economic system, whereas there were many who were simply fanatic about their Free Market choice. Others would vary their economy choice to compliment their particular situation at any time (starting out, at war, under a development phase, etc.) Another example is that I would always choose Democracy, unless in a very desperate war, and there were others who would always choose to have a Police State under any circumstances, and then there was one person who would always play Morgan w/ a Fundamentalist gov, and the list goes on. It all depends on the person playing and where their priorities lie; some people viewed the economy modifier as the end-all, but I favor research and efficiency bonuses. Modifiers simply provide a way to customize a civilization to the person's playing methods (which, of course, might even vary within a game), and as everyone has their own playing style, nearly every combination of SE choices will be used.

4. Perhaps, but how does a system without modifiers bring this into reality? Anyway, I disagree that modifiers a linear and only have one solution, as there are always circumstances in which I might view a police bonus as more valuable than an economy bonus, and vice versa. Then there is the addition of laws (as Joker has mentioned) and my bureaucracy model, which allows for further variation under any particular SE choice combination.

1. Well, true, but there are other ways to have cultural differences outside of governmental/organizational/economic types, as a culture is not defined by simply what economy it has under what government there is.

2. You've lost me here, I'm afraid. You say it's easy for the player to figure out the "best" governmental system, and then you say that this provides an advantage to the AI. Could you clarify, please?

BTW, I think I'm finished with my SE Proposal v. 2, but I'd like to proceed w/ this conversation about modifiers a little before I post it.

I totally agree on you're thought on fundamentalist countries.

I like some of the other ideas listed but all of them seem to have something that makes them either hard to create, or very unrealistic. What I think should be done is like thise :

Social engineering is based on the way YOU play. You start out by choosing some basic traits that you think you have (i.e. an expansionist, explorer, etc.) then as you play the 'game' watches what you do and adds traits. For example, if you spend a lot of time trading, or buildings cities, this will cause your followers, and govenors, to 'feel comfortable' with this. So if you were to suddenly try to start wars, it would cause discontent amongst your citizens, which of course would die down if you continued following that path.

Along with that there could be a social engineering option screen that bascially lets you design how your society works (sort of similar to SMAC's). You choose if your people vote and to what extent, or if the system is more similar to a monarcy where a child become sucessor (can't think of the word for it). There could be different religions to choose from (monotheismic, none, polytheismic, etc.). Also constrictivness of laws (very conservative, where many things are regulate to liberal, where there are only a few simple lawas) and the ability to add specific laws (embargo's on other nations, bans on certain ethnic groups,etc).
Each item has certain effects just like SMAC's social engineering.

A few ideas that would surely enhance the realism of this that I have read or ethnic divisions in cities. Say a city that has been built by your empire, or been under your control for a long time is mainly of your empires ethnic type; where as a city that is on the border or has been recently conquered would be mainly of other ethnic types. That way maybe one of the border towns could be mainly of another ethnic type that doesn't agree with your ways and might choose to break away maybe rejoining an empire of it's ethnic type. Also, to add as an added 'pain' there could be divisions of ethnic types in your empire (say some of your people like democracy while others follow communism) if your people don't like how things are going more and more might switch ethnic group and either break-away forming new empires, or, if you change choices, stay.

Oh yes, certain selections/laws of course couldn't be used until certain techs are available AND if your civilisation is to big, too small or has a very opposite social structure.

I believe that is everything, I hope it makes sense (I tend to explain things in a confusing way).

SE factors:
1: Police (pol) like Maniacs, but i also think there should 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) like Maniacs.

3: Nationalism (nat) like maniacs. But i don’t see why the international society shouldn’t punish you if you have high nat.

4: Happyness (hap). Like maniacs. But if you have hap lower than the civ you’ve just conquored a city from it should just add 10 turns per point lower to the assimilation period. The assimilation period should also be decided by actions you take (somehow). So if you’ve just slaughtered a city assimilation would take much longer. It should also be possible to have your people migrate to the conquored city. This should also effect crime. High hap would reduce crime.

5: Experience (exp). Like Maniacs.

6: Growth (gro). Like Maniacs. But i still think that population should consist of people not heads. So it would be 200,000 – aqueduct or something.

7: Production (pro). Like Maniacs.

8: Enviroment (env). Sounds great, Maniac.

9: Research (res). You’ve guessed it! But i disagree on having simultaneous research in different categories.

10: Taxes (tax). Maniac.

11: Economy (eco). Maniac.

12: Relations (rel). Like Maniac, but only bonus on international trade routes.

13: Bureaucracy (bur). I don’t know about the formula, but the concept is right. Lower giving more unhappyness and trade loss by distance. 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

High eco would often come with higher cyc.

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
6) Urbanism
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.

Government types:

Despotism
Monarchy
Absolute monarchy
Parliamental monarchy
Oligarchy
Dictatorship
Direct democracy
Representative democracy
True democracy

Despotism (default): +1 pol +2 sen –1 hap –2 eco –2 bur –1 res
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 sen +1 mil –2 tax –1 eco –1 hap
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 sen –2 tax –2 hap –1 eco
The nobles have no power. You are the absolute monarch of your civ: you ARE the state, and you make the law. 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.

Parliamental monarchy (parliament): +1 bur +1 tax –1 mil
You are the monarch, but must obey the law of the parliament, to which the entire people (male pop) can vote. Therefor you are the executive power, but the parliament is the legislative power. Exambles: most ”democratic” European countries untill around 1900.

Oligarchy (would be availible minority by minority – coorporations when coorporation has been invented, labour union when that has been invented etc.) +1 pol +1 sen –2 nat –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 nat
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 any political power you are more likely to get what you want (+1 sen). But people are not likely to support nor be happy in such a society (-2 nat –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 sen –2 hap –2 eco -2 res –2 rel
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).

Direct democracy (democracy): +2 hap +1 eco +3 res –3 sen –1 pol –2 pro –2 bur
The senate is the entire male population (except slaves – wether your civ should have slaves should be decided as a law). The people use hours every day in politics: -2 pro. The entire population is harder to control than a small senate consisting of professionals: -3 sen.
If your civ has more than one city it would only be possible with empire (and perhabs Technos city state if we find a sollution to it’s problems).
Exambles: most of the city states in ancient Greece. However, the Roman republic was very different. There only a very small part of the pop could vote, so in my model it would be an oligarchy based on the wealthy and at the end the army.

Democracy (liberalism): +2 res +1 eco +3 hap –2 pol –2 sen –2 mil
The modern western gov form, thought out by the French philosophers in the 18. century. The people elect a senate (parliament – in other words legislative power) to make the laws for them, and a gov to rule. The senate is elected by the people and therefor not controled by you: -2 sen. People in a democracy are happy: +3 hap. When you give people influence they become smarter: +2 res.
A choise within democracy would be womens right to vote. However i am unclear what this would give.

True democracy (true democracy): +3 res +3 hap +2 eco –2 mil –3 sen –3 pol
This is more or less the online version of direct democracy.

Economic systems:

I don’t know much about economics before Adam Smith, so my choises in old economicv systems are, well, lacking. Please do what you can to criticise the, But i know a lot about modern economics, so my choises there are pretty covering. Or at least that’s what i think.

I don’t think Barter should be availible, as as soon as trade is being done people invent money, and real trade is not possible without currency.

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. Therefor the economic system are limited by your choise of urbanizm. You can’t have autarky in an urban civ, neither have city state economics in a rural one.

The choises are:
Autarky
City state economics
Manorialism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez faire
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism
Coorporate republic

Autarky (default): +1 sen -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 countries up to antiquity.

Currency (currency): +1 sen –3 eco –3 cyc
When people started moving together trade soon began. However, i don’t think it is possible to have trade (except for the very, very little amount of trade with gold etc. In autarky) without money. So barter is impossible as economic model. Here there is a small amount of trade, but still very little. Exambles: early civilizations like the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

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.

Guilds (guilds): ????
In this system merchants and craftmen were organized in guilds, who had monopoly in their field. As Techno and Maniac almost completely disagree on this one, and i don’t know very much about it, i honestly don’t know what bons and pens it would give. Exambles: The cities of the late middle age Europe (although manorialism was still being used in the country, where most people lived, so i would define late middle age Europe as manorialistic).

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.

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 off giving the same as in capitalism.
After the discovery of corporatism (with 2, not 3 o’s) 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 res
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 –2 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.

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:

Choises:
Central government
City state
Feudalism
Federation
Empire
Confederation

Central government (default): -4 bur +1 sen +2 nat
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 sen. Exambles: most small countries.

City state (city state): +2 bur –1 sen
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, as the Roman empire collapsed partially due to shifting to this in the 5th and 6th century. 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 sen –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).
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 sen –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. (This is somethng i think should be possible to do with other civ, colonies etc.)

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 sen –1 rel –1 hap
Wealth: +2 eco –1 sen –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

Urbanism:

This determines where in your empire your people live. It also sets restrictions to what economic models you can use. At first i thought of having manorialism and city state as an urbanism option, but i have realized that city state is more an economic system with an urban urbanism (wow, that sounded bad). And manorialism is an economic system with a rural urbanizm.

There is therefor only 3 options left here. I would like to have more, but can’t think of anything right now. Please come with suggestions.

If we don’t find any more options maybe the choises should be replaced by slider bars, determining how large a percentage of you pop lives where. What do you think?

Options:

Rural
Urban
Suburban

Rural (default): +3 gro –2 pro –1 eco
Most people live in the country, where farming is the most important occupation. There is lots of space and growth potential in tha countryside, so +3 gro. However, when people live far from each other they don’t trade as much, and it’s hard to find sufficient larbour for large factories, so –2 pro –1 eco. Exambles: The western world untill about 1800-1870, Parts of Africa today.
Economic choises: autarky, manorialism, currency, mercantilism, laissez faire, capitalism, socialism, communism.

Urban (cities?): +1 eco +1 res –3 env
Most of the pop live in the cities, where they talk and trade: +1 res +2 eco. It gives +1 pro after the discovery of industrialization due to factories. Many people living close together generate a lot of pollution: -3 env. Exambles: Europe today.
Economic choises: City state economics, currency, mercantilism, laissez faire, capitalism, socialism, communism.

Suburban (suburbanism): +1 eco +2 pro –1 hap –1 env
People have moved from the cities to gigantic suburbs. This makes many people feel desillutionized: -1 hap. People trade a lot: +1 eco, and the physically larger cities makes prices on land drop, making it cheaper to build large factories: +2 pro. And enviroment problems arent as severe as in the large cities: -1 env.
Economic choises: As urban.

Laws:

Besides from the normal SE settings there should be some laws finetuning the civ. Some laws could be set on or offentlige (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 pol -1 res
medium: no pens or bons
high: -1 pol +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

Legalized abortion:
on: -0,5 gro +0,5 hap (maybe less)
off: nothing

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 sen -1 res (?)
med: nothing
low: -1 sen +1 res (?)

Anti-monopoly laws:
low: +1 pro -1 eco
med: nothing
high: -1 pro +1 eco

Does any of you have other ideas for laws?

[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited 10-08-1999).]

The first thing in need of discussion is the Cycling modifier; I’m afraid that my cycling number range is the exact opposite of yours. In other words, my positive numbers provide more economic stability and my negative numbers produce more cycling. This isn’t a complaint or anything, just a “heads up” for when I post my model in order to avoid confusion.

About your government introduction, I agree that that would be good.

The first thing that strikes me about your government list is that you got rid of city-states and moved it down into economics, which I disagree with. The difference between a city-state civilization and a non-city-state civilization is too extreme to be reflected as a mere economic option, but I know that nobody has come up with a satisfactory solution anyway, so changing this isn’t very important.

You’re Oligarchy government is incredible, and I’m going to change my feeble excuse for an Oligarchic option to mimic yours. Yours is so great, with all of its available supporting classes! That’s really innovative, and I’m astonished.

“I don’t think Barter should be available, since as soon as trade is being done people invent money, and real trade is not possible without currency.”

I flatly disagree with this assertion. Currency wasn’t invented until the Lydians, who lived in ancient Anatolia much later than the beginning of civilization and certainly after the development of trade (which long preceded civilization). In fact, many civilizations operated well before Lydia without currency (especially in the Near East), and these include the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Indus Valley civilization, the Hittites, the Israelis/Hebrews, the Mittani, the Phoenicians, etc…

I guess a random comment I’ll make is that early SE options shouldn’t be too heavy in penalties as the fledgling civilizations that use them would have their growth stunted. Rather, different later options should have larger bonuses that would be necessary to compete with other civilizations (and to maintain the level of sophistication/power that the society has grown accustomed to).

About Guilds, how do M@ni@c and I disagree?

“There would be 4 choices of the size of the public sector (in capitalism)” What do you mean by this?

The last thing in the Economics section is that I agree with CormacMacArt that “Communism” should be excluded.

Your Values section is very interesting, but I avoided the problem you mentioned by naming the section “Policy Objectives,” and it will be very hard for anyone to convince me that more than just one or two could be selected at one time…

Now, moving onto the Urbanization section of your model. I know that you really feel differently, but I still don’t believe that urbanization should be included, because (especially) in modern times, the distinction between suburbanism and urbanism are becoming increasingly blurred as transportation technology improves. In other words, there is little difference in my living in the suburbs or in a downtown area as, in either location, I can now go to wherever I want to in the city in a matter of minutes. This blurring of the effects of the two options is becoming increasingly acute as the Internet grows in significance, as now I can shop, research, and interact with people from anywhere at all, even some isolated canyon or something. There really isn’t that much difference, and take my word on it because I’ve lived in both urban and suburban areas. There isn’t much difference in the quality of life (other than the lower suburban crime rates) and I spent just as much in the suburbs as in metropolitan areas. Besides, I really disagree with the modifiers you’ve assigned, but that’s a different discussion.

Most of my laws are like yours, except that my list is shorter, for reasons you’ll see if I ever get around to posting my model…

Overall, it’s a very good model.

Using SMAC type modifiers, I'd imagine the system looking something like this (anarchy being the default -2 Police, -2 Industry, -2 Research, -2 Efficiency):

Military Government: Strict regimentation of society controlled by a supreme military leader. New ideas that question the chain of command are immediately stopped.
Special Ability: Negative research modifiers only apply to non-military technology. Furthermore, any reserch negative is treated as a bonus to military applications (-1 research is +1 for military technologies studied)
Tribalism (+1 Police, +1 Support, -1 Research)
Autocratic (+1 Police, +1 Morale, +2 Support, -1 Research, -1 Economy)
Dictorship (+2 Police, +2 Morale, +2 Support, -1 Research, -2 Economy)

Unitarian Government: People band together to achieve the common good but group decision making leads to inefficient application of services and poor adaptability to new situations.
Special Ability: Impunity to negative industrial modifiers when applying societal values and economic models.
Enclave (+1 Industry, +1 Probe, -1 Efficiency)
Collective (+2 Industry, +1 Probe, -1 Efficiency)
Communist (+2 Industry, +2 Probe, +1 Support, -2 Efficiency, -1 Economy)

Spiritualist Government: Reading, Writing, and literacy are important to ensure all can seek their own spiritual identity. Industry suffers as people need time to worship and enjoy other spiritual pursuits.
Note: Religious government should not be confused with spiritual societal values where people pursue strict conformance with religious doctrine.
Special Ability: Impunity to negative growth modifiers when applying societal values or economic models.
Cultist (+1 Research, +1 Growth, -1 Industry)
Theocracy (+1 Research, +2 Growth, +1 Morale, -1 Industry)
Fundamentalist (+1 Research, +2 Growth, +2 Morale, -1 Economy, -1 Industry)

Representative Government: People choose their leadership to maintain individual freedoms while preserving the law. Adaptability to changes in public attitude and the requirement for public accountability by leaders increases the efficiency of the government but limits the States power to apply military and police force.
Special Ability: +1 talent (or civ III equal) for every 5 population in a city.
Populist (-1 Police, -1 Morale, +2 Efficiency)
Republic (-2 Police, -1 Morale, +3 Efficiency, +1 Research)
Representative Democracy (-3 Police, -2 Morale, +4 Efficiency, +2 Research)

Elitist Government: An upper class rules the uneducated masses creating greater work output but diminishing inovation. Individual rulers can efficiently manage the population, although they hold little homage to central authority and in themselves are prone to bribery and corruption.
Special Ability: Every city gains a +2 bonus to its population maximum. New cities created begin with a population of 2 instead of 1.
Oligarchy (+1 Industry, -1 Research)
Monarchy (+1 Industry, +1 Efficiency, -1 Probe, -1 Research)
Confederacy (+2 Industry, +2 Efficiency, -1 Probe, -2 Research)

I also envision Societal values and Economic models having similar breakdowns. I would suggest 5 societal values (Imperialistic (military expansion), Environmental (conservation of resources), Spiritual (strong religious influence), Individualistic (human rights paramount), Regimented (more tolerance for centralized control) and 3 economic models (Industrial (worker control), Capitalist (private control), Regulated (governmental control)). Each value/model, would have its own primative, advanced, and modern state just like the primary governmental forms above.

I could elaborate more on my ideas on societal values and economic models later if anyone is interested. I'd like to hear inputs on the governmental forms first to see if its even worth posting.

Needless to say, I could see a game starting where a player chooses a militarist (for the additional units and police) spiritual (for the research and growth) or unitarian (for the additional industry and resistance to spys) form of government early then transitions into representative governemnt later on. I suppose this system would also allow you to vary the degrees of governemental impact you'd want. A somewhat religious or unitarian government or a full blown representative democracy.

The cost of switching governments should be free when moving one notch within a governmental category (tribal to autocratic within a militaristic government for example), a bit more expensive moving to another form of government (militaristic to spiritual for example) and prohibitively expensive changing governmental forms and advancing a stage in complexity (tribal (primitive militaristic) to Republic (advanced representative) for example). Limiting the number of SE changes you can make to once every 10 turns would also help prevent leap frogging around.

Some tweaking may be necessary to limit the number of modifiers with each system and to make sure societal and economic modifiers don't throw the total system out of whack.

Great to see that other people actually visit this site, so we're not just talking to ourselves.

Now to your model:

I have some disagreements on it. Fist of all, why can't a dictator be nonmilitaristic, like Fidel Castro? And i don't get how that unitarian thing could work. Would it be with people having actual power, like in a democracy? Cause that would lead to anything except unitarism. And communism is an economic form, not a government type. And i think that USSR was elite controlled. My biggest disagreement in your model is, that you've actually given fundamentalism a research bonus. That's as far from reality as anything can be. Fundamentalism force people to think in a specific way, destroying research. BTW what is a populist gov? Is it like ancient Greece? Finally, i disagree on your definition on a confederacy. A confederacy is simply a union of independant countries like the EC, NATO, Commonwealth etc. It has nothing to do with elite control.

Overall, i think your model needs some work. However, i must say that i disagree on the very concept of your model: to have different levels within each category. Why not just have individual choises, which can be far or close to each other, determining the time a gov change would take.

Saldic:

To some point i agree on your idea on having the game give you bonuses to things you do a lot. But you shouldn't have to choose at the beginning of the game what kind of game style you would use. The bons and pens would simply come automatically with time.

I can't say a lot about your SE ideas, as you've only come up with a few exambles. If you have a complete model, please post it. Either way, go check out the models that have been made here, and tell the world (meaning whoever sees this thread) what you think.

On you last idea about ethinc diversity and people following different SE concepts, i can only say one thing: I totally agree! This is one of the thing i would like most in Civ3, adding a whole new dimension to the game.

Techno:

Thanks for replying so soon. And i would like to see your model as soon as it's ready.

Cycling modifier:
I don't know how it should work. I thought it was more obvious if hight numbers would give more cycling, but i can also see why you think the higher numbers should give less cycling, as you would then want high numbers like at the other factors.

City state:
City state has never been a gov option. It was a structure option, which it still is. But the structure city state is not as important as the economic city state. The economic city state is what we all think of, meaning that people live in the city etc. (like in ancient Greece). The structure city state simply means that your civ is divided into semi-independant cities. I thought of having city state be an urbanism choise, but it's really a lot like urban. The point is, that it should be possible to have ciy state as economics/urban option, and other things in the strucure option. For instance, as i wrote in the model, Athens was an empire structurewise, and Rome was feudal at one point, but economically/urbanism"ally" they were both still city state.

Thanks for your comments on my oligarchy option.

Barter:
really? I thought the Babylonians invented money when they moved together in large cities. Well, maybe you're right. But i disagree on trade preceding civilization. Sure, people traded with gold and knifes, but nothing grand scale. I would still call them autarkic, as they made almost everything they used.

Penalties for early choises:
Maybe you're right. But then modern choises should have large bonuses, as they are far better than the early ones (who would ever question whether capitalism was better than manorialism?).

Guilds:
You have given guilds +2 eff +1 rel -1 agr -1 env -1 hap
Maniac has given it +1 eco +2 gro -2 env.
there is a significant difference between these two. All you agree on is the env penalty.

Capitalism:
Capitalism is being used by virtually every country in the world today. And we're talking about very different countries. I therefor thought there should be choises within capitalism, beyond labour union and corporatism. These options are the size of the public sector. In Denmark about 50% of the GNP runs through the public sector. We pay up to 60% in tax, and the lowest you can get on public welfare as an unemployed is about 1000$ a month. Brazil has a public sector administrating about 10-20% of the GNP. There is millions of homeless people, and no public welfare at all. I thoight that that should be portrayed in the game. I therefor came up with 4 choises of the size of the public sector (very small, small, larg and very large) each giving bons and pens. The choises and what they give can be seen in the capitalism description.

Communism:
I agree that it might not be possible. But i would like to see it be an option, just very hard to get.

Values:
Yeah, that would remove that problem. But i still like my model. Guess we'll just have to see what's best when you post your model.

Urbanization:
I have thought about it, and now i think that my urbanization model should be replaced by slider bars, determining the amount of people living in each of the different zones. I would really like that model. The only problem is to define bons and pens. And for the IT problem, i have realized that you're right about that. So after the discovery of Internet (or the construction of the wonder Internet as in CCTP) the eco and res pens would be significantly reduced. Also, your thoughts about fast transportation would also reduce pens a bit, but only after a certain transportation improvement has been constructed in the city. It's true that urbanization isn't very important today, but it was very important untill about 4 years ago, so i think it should be included. And for the modifiers, you're probably right.

Thanks for the response, I didn't put any examples/details up because of lack of time and I hadn't read what everybody else had posted. I will try to put up a full run down of the SE tonight (oct. 9)

Concerning my benifits/penalties idea, I figured it might be a good idea to start with a simple style that you play so that some of the effects of your style would take effect right away rather than 20+ turns into the game. Now that I think of it maybe it should optional though.

Glad to see some one agrees with ethnic diverstity. I liked it alot when I first saw some one else post it. I have some ideas about how it should be setup that I will post when I put up my SE design.

City-States:
Oh… it was just a government in my model. It really is only a structural option, with independent city-states each with their own government and economic systems (and arguably their own structural systems when you compare the Athenian Empire to the Spartan imperialistic sphere after the Peloponnesian War.) Essentially, city-states are closer to independent civilizations grouped together for cultural/ethnic reasons, and this is what our problem relating to city-state game implementation comes from. I hate this whole option, and I’m so glad that Firaxis is going to have to deal with this and not me!

Barter:
Yes. What you’re thinking of is that the later Babylonians actually invented primitive banks (along with interest, but not anything resembling today’s investment banks), but these did not have currency in the modern sense, but rather standardized rates of commodity exchange (one horse is equivalent to two oxen, etc.). As far as trade is concerned, you’re right if you only consider large-scale trade resulting from commodity surpluses and not simply “a couple of my shiny rocks for your hides” or any other primitive, small-scale trade.

Guilds:
There actually isn’t that much difference when you consider the differences between my modifiers and those of M@ni@c’s. Except for the efficiency/economy difference (which really isn’t too different in that they both affect the nation’s economy), my agriculture modifier is similar to his growth bonus (I differentiated between the two despite their similarity). I just tacked on a Relations bonus as the Guilds system facilitated interregional trade and a happiness bonus because in the European countries that used this there was a significantly large population (the majority of the citizens, actually) that was not included in the guild system and were left indigent and disenfranchised.

Capitalism:
You missed my question. What did you mean by the size of the public sector? If you meant how much is spent on social programs, then I totally disagree with you on two points. First, this is something that should be included in the annual budget (which is covered in the Trade/Economics thread IIRC), not in the economic system of the SE panel. Second, if it isn’t moved to there, I strongly oppose the modifiers that you’ve assigned those public sectors. This is because high degrees of social programs actually stifle the evolutionary abilities of the economy (by which I mean that the economy cannot innovate to rise to new economic opportunities). Take France as an example of this. In France (this also applies to Germany and others as well I’m sure), there are pro-labor laws that make it highly difficult to fire employees. Intuition would seem to indicate that this would result in lower unemployment, but in fact the opposite is the case as these labor laws have resulted in a situation in which businesses are very reluctant to hire any new employees. Consequently, there are an inordinate amount of strikes and labor tensions in France. Now, let’s look at the opposite case, that of Hong Kong. With virtually no social welfare system in place, with extremely low taxes, regulation, etc., Hong Kong has been able to create a thriving economy despite the fact that there are no natural resources in the area, and as a result throngs of people want to immigrate there despite the anti-immigration stance of the government (of the city, not of China). People are happier there as they can try their hand at almost any economic activity they want, including starting their own business without bureaucratic hassles (look at India), work in any type of job they qualify for (look at the old USSR), etc. (This is in spite of their current economic slump, and if you aren’t convinced because of that, look at the US, which is a better example). Anyway, if this isn’t what you meant, then I’ve ranted for no particular reason, but oh well…

Values:
Look at my note to you at the end of my Policy Objectives section.

Urbanization:
I still think that this is a function of the economic system and not the other way around. In Europe, when the economics were changing from Manoralism to a Guild system, thousands left their little rural farms and flocked to the cities, which became overcrowded as a result of this. Also, how would this urbanization system deal with the urbanization required by a nation that is industrializing? One last note of dissent is the fact that governments do not normally control the urban/rural patterns of their populace, and as such, the player really shouldn’t control it unless we want this to be a god-game (which I thought we didn’t). I know that this may not convince you, and all this is really doing is explaining my lack of such a category in my new model, which is finally being posted (sigh, I wish my English teacher could see this transition )…

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here, at last, is the second version of my model. It is not nearly as progressive as CormacMacArt’s, which has gone so far as to remove SE factors entirely, but I think I’ll play the conservative and stay close to the SMAC precedent. Most of the changes that have been included have been prompted by the discussions on these Social Engineering threads, and so, in order to continue development, by all means feel free to comment. Some information to keep in mind is that I have avoided including any religious options as that is a separate thread topic and anything I put here would probably be mediocre compared to the religious ideas discussed there. Also, I have not included any future SE options, e.g. Cybernetics or whatever, as it is not very clear how far into the future the game is going to go. Also be aware of the fact that, as this is not an exhaustive proposal, the fact that I have not included things such as a Military Organization category does not necessarily imply that I am opposed to such a category.

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 (if anyone needs to know what this is, check SE Thread 2 or post a question), 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. 2.0

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.

+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 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. If you want to see M@ni@c’s opinion, it is located in the Social Engineering Thread Mk. II.
…
+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, and multiethnic problems are rare. (Effects on religion?)
…
0: Normal migration patterns.
…
-?: High emigration and multiethnic strife.

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 is 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 always can 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
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, 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, and Guilds.

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

Monarchy: +2 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.

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

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

Examples: the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the many of the European 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, Feudal, Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

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

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

Republic: +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, Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Laissez-Faire, and Regulated Capitalism.

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

Direct Democracy: +1 Eco, +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, Bartering, 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: Bartering, Guilds, Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

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

Representative Democracy: +1 Eco, +2 Eff, +1 Gro, +1 Rel, -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.

Authoritarian: +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, the PRC, and modern Iraq.

Conclusion
The first thing of note is that I included no religious governments, which is because I wanted to avoid getting into anything pertaining to the religious aspect of Civilization III – it’s just too complicated for me to want to deal with. In order to accomplish this, I excluded theocracies of any form, but this should not be construed to mean that I don’t want them in the game. Another thing I excluded were any future governmental forms, and this is because that is an issue that Firaxis really should take up – it pertains so closely to the story line, the length of the game, etc. Another of issue of importance is that I limited both the economic and centralization options available to the player depending on the government the player chooses. This adds another element of realism, while mimicking the evolving SE panel favored by some people 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. The choices under this category are (aside from a possible no centralization system):
City-State League
Confederal
Feudal
Federal
Imperial
Unitary
Centralized

City-State League: +1 Eff, +1 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.

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 Spanish 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 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, 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
Manoralism
Guilds
Mercantilism
Laissez-Faire
Fascism
Regulated Capitalism
Socialism

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

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

Commercial Bartering: +1 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 later ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans.

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

Examples: the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC.

* Note that I agree with CormacMacArt 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 simple “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, -2 Env, -1 Pol
Societies that value the accumulation of wealth and its materialist benefits above all else seek to create vibrant economic and industrial sectors with scant regard to any “minor” social unrest and virtually no regard to the inevitable environmental repercussions.

Stability: +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 the innovations that may be produced; 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. I’m still resisting the inclusion of an Urbanization section…

One last, very important, thing is that Bell has in essence shed his obligation to summarize the SE threads due to unforeseeable circumstances (see “Summary Volunteers Needed” thread at Apolyton). Joker, Cormac et al, this is something that we really need to address, for otherwise all of this is all for naught and Firaxis will never receive our ideas.

Technocrat

I envisioned a unitarian form of government along the lines of the "workers paradise" model. While I would still consider communism a governmental form and not an economic model in the big picture it's not worth splitting hairs over. Calling it a collective industrial society by any other name is what Marx what have envisioned I'm sure.

As far as your objection to Fundamentalist government, it is a problem with many to forget all of the good things that religion has done over the history of the world. Again, calling in Fundamentalist was my bad, I could have used an adjective that better describes an advanced religious government. I will stick to attitude that if government was founded on the principles of things religion are supposed to be about and not on intolerance, etc, the basic philosophy does not preclude free thinking in one's pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. Since religious institutions were more responsible for educating the masses for the majority of world history, it only makes sense that they receive the research bonus. As I also pointed out, societal values and economic models would impact how religious the people acutally were in their country. Just as a military government could have a pro individual rights, pro free market agenda, a religious government should be allowed to make the same choices.

Now onto confederacy. I envisioned it as a group of united territories, each controlled by a powerful leader and only loosely tied to a central authority. If that wasn't a good term to use then a change of adjective will work. Guess I should invest in a thesaurus (pardon the spelling).

I still prefer the concept of phasing in the governmental forms for the simple reason that it's the only way to really mold a government early and maintain play balance. Besides, why should a primitive form of government be as useful as a modern form? In civ II, if you could have broken staight into republic or democracy from turn 1 you would have done it. Seems to me whenever I played the old civ I I'd reset the game if I didn't achieve democracy by 3000BC. In civ II I'd restart if I wasn't republic by 2000BC. That made a lot of games short.

I would like to say my goal was to achieve a short and sweet post, but I already busted that limit. Since long posts are the norm here and not the exception, I'll throw in my Societal SE choices and economic models just for information only (it can all be scrolled through anyway for people who don't give a crap - right?)

SOCIETAL CHOICES

Imperial: The society is driven to control as much territory and therefore, resources as possible. Industry suffers as it works to support the constant milatary and colonial expansion.
Expansionist (+1 Support, +1 Morale, -1 Industry)
Empirical (+2 Support, +1 Morale, -1 Industry)
Dominating (+2 Support, +2 Morale, -1 Industry)

Environmental: The society believes in the preservation of nature and conservation of resources. Industrial production suffers as additional safeguards must be used to prevent pollution. Primitive civilizations have a better understanding of plants and animals allowing a bonus to farming and morale bonus to mounted troops. As mechanization eliminates the use of domesticated animals the society gains a research bonus for its continued emphasis on the study of nature.
Preservationist (-10% pollution, +1 food/unimproved space producing food, -1 Industry, +2 Morale for Mounted troops)
Conservationist (-20% pollution, +1 food/unimproved space producing food, -1 industry, +1 Morale for Mounted troops)
Naturalist (-30% pollution, +1 food/unimproved space producing food, -2 Industry, +1 Research)

Spiritual: The society values a strict and regimented religious society. Research is penalized as secular idealisms are muted, but loyalty to the society increases morale and reduced the influence of probes (spys).
Believing (+1 Morale, +1 Probe, -1 Research)
Religious (+2 Morale, +2 Probe, -2 Research)
Zealotry (+2 Morale, +2 Probe, +1 Support, -2 Research)

Individualistic: The society views the rights of the individual over the state as paramount. People tend to be happier and research gains from the free flow of ideas.
Emancipated (+1 talent/base, -1 Growth, +1 Research)
Equality (+2 talent/base, -1 Growth, +1 Research)
Libertarian (+2 talent/base, -2 Growth, +2 research)

Regimented: The society values governmental controls to keep everyone focused on its greater goals. Support for all members of society is increased but efficiency suffers as society gets larger and more difficult to manage.
Managed (+1 Police, +1 Support, -1 Efficiency)
Controlled (+1 Police, +2 Support, -1 Efficiency)
Police State (+2 Police, +2 Support, -2 Efficiency)

ECONOMIC MODELS:

Industrial: Workers maintain control over their specific industries increasing productivity, but reducing efficiency as adaptibility suffers.
Tradesmanship (+1 Industry, -1 Efficiency)
Guilds (+1 Industry, +1 Support, -1 Efficiency)
Unionized (+2 Industry, +2 Support, -2 Efficiency)

Capitalist: Restrictions on the free flow of capital are eased. Private ownership and financing of business ventures increases incentive for profit and the economy gains, but at the expense of support.
Privitization (+1 Economy, -1 Support)
Free Market (+1 Economy, +10% trade, -1 Support)
Venturism (+2 Economy, +20% trade, -2 Support)

Regulated: The government regulates the economic policy of the country. Output of industry is increased, but the economy suffers as government takes more resources to manage output.
Managed (+1 Industry, +1 Support, -1 Economy)
Directed (+2 Industry, +1 Support, -1 Economy)
Planned (+2 Industry, +2 Support, -2 Economy)

As far as what the modifications all mean, I think a 10% per plus or minus system would work best for most modifiers. +2 economy means +20% economic output, -2 industry means -20% industrial output (or +20% resources required). Growth, Research, Probe, and even Efficiency could all work on this system as well (where +2 efficiency equals -20% corruption than normal and -3 efficiency could equal +30% corruption). A positive police rating should indicate the number of military units that can be used to keep angry people content (+2 police = 2 military can keep people content). A negative police rating should indicate the number of people made angry when a military unit is outside the countries territory (-3 police = 3 people angry when a military unit is outside territorial boundary. To give the police rating some additional bite, it could also impact corruption, where military units could be used to reduce corruption 10% per plus when a military unit not being used to quell public discourse in town. A negative police rating would indicate additional corruption when a military unit is not in town. Support would either require a table like in SMAC or may be able to go on a 10% scale (+2 support indicating that a unit requires 20% less support, -2 support meaning an addtional 20% is required). The 10% scale model would require a change in how units presently receive support however. All in all, I'd try to simplify what each modifier means to the system. The extensive use of tables in SMAC make the system more complicated than it has to be in my opinion.

I like a lot of the bureucracy ideas, but again, I think simplicity is preferred over complexity. I would take a page out of the game Colonization on this one and create a War Room/Prolitariet/Religious Congress/Senate/House of Lords (depending on what government was used). In whatever ruling chamber was created I'd have a supreme leader. This leader would start the game with a +1 bonus at whatever SE category the player wanted. The leaders SE choice would effect his whole nation for the rest of the game. From that point on, whenever a city in that players kingdom achieves a population of 10 it would contribute a person to that leaders ruling body. Each of these leaders would have a +1 bonus in some SE category that would only affect his city. On the other hand, whenever the supreme leader gains around 10 of these bureucrats, he should gain an additional +1 bonus to the SE category of his choice. This would give every country its own identity based on their leaders strength. Whenever a capital is destroyed all the bonuses from the supreme leader and his bureucrats are lost until a new one is built. It's not quite a Colonization type Continental Congress, but it's close enough for me. Should a city drop below its required population to support its bureucrat, that city leader becomes temporarily inactive until the city gets back up to size. I city lost would eliminate its bureucrat altogether.

I'd like to say that's all my 2 cents, but I think I typed closer to an even dollar.

Ok here is my SE. After looking it over I find it needs some refining.

It is some what similar to SMAC's except it also works like the tech tree. The option you use higher up the tree dictates what options you can use below. This is so you can't make weird choices.

Oh yes, here are the types of modifiers. Different techs could modify these (i.e. espionage could go up as you discover associated techs)
Economy - (+ more revenue) Internal Economy of the 'empire'
Trade - (+ more trade) Internal & international trade.
Efficiency - (+ more effiecient) How much inefficiency is caused by empire structure's bearaucracy (spelt wrong, I know).
Industrial Production - (+more food/sheild production) How much mineral/food production.
Espionage - (+ improved effectiveness)Take a guess.
Counter-Espionage (+ improved effectiveness)
Happiness - (+ more 'talents')Overall happiness of the populace.
Growth - (+ quicker growth)Population growth. Certain situations could cause this to drop (i.e. highly advanced society)
Research - (+ more research)Guess
Unrest - (+ less unrest) How much of the populace is displeased by the ruler. Certain structures/goverments make this more likely.
Military - (+ Better attack, defense, morale) How well trained/equipped the military is.

Note: Some people I have seen have used a 'pollution' modifier. I don't think this would be necessary because other things affect pollution, but not really empire structure (I think).

This list is not complete, nor correct. I'll try in fix redundancy, holes, etc later.

Social Structure:
Tribal - (Default)Very simple structure. Only the most basic government, religion, etc.
City State - (+Tra, --Eff, -Esp, --Unr)Fairly simple. Groups of people working together but not fully one unit.

Communal - (+Eco, -Eff, +Ind, +Hap, ++Res, -Esp, -CEsp, --Mil)Simple in some respects. Bascially communism. Everybody is fairly equal, not much along the lines of complex governments. Possible for all sizes of empire, but difficult to control since there is not central government to watch over things.

Empire - (+Eco, --Eff, +Ind, ---Unr)Large and often (not always) structure. Centralized government that is not very easy to control. Usually more of a dictatorship, so this sturcture tends to split if the people are unhappy.
Democracy - (+Eco, --Eff, +Hap, +Tra, +Gro, -Mil, +Res) Usually a mix between Empire and
Communal. There is a centralized government but it to some extent is managed by the people.

Government(modifiers)[structures]:
Anarchy - (--Res, --Tra, --Eco, --Ind, Hap=N/A, Unr=N/A, Res=N/A)[Communal] No government.
Tribal - (+++Eff, --Tra, --Eco, --Ind, -Unr, -Esp, -CEsp, -Mil, ++Gro)[ALL] Simple government.

Monarchy [City State, Empire] Similar to tribal just on a large scale.
??? : (++Eff, -Res, --Mil, -CEsp, -Eco, -Ind, -Gro, --Unr)King/Queen rules exculisively.
??? : (+Eff, -Res, -Mil, -Eco, -Unr)King/Queen rules with help from upper-class.
Feudal : (-Res, -Eco, -Tra, ---Unr, -Ind)King/Queen rules but has Lords/Ladys who might defect if they don't like the king.

Dictatorship [Empire, Tribal] Different Types of Dictatorship based on ruler.
Financial - (++Eff, ++Eco, ++Tra, +Mil, +CEsp, +Esp, +Res, --Unr)Comes to power through financial means.
Social - (++Eff, ++Ind, +Mil, +CEsp, +Esp, +Hap, -Unr)Come to power through social means.
Military - (++Eff, +++Mil, +CEsp, ++Esp, -Hap, ---Unr, +Res)Comes to power through force.

Elective [Empire, City State, Democracy, Communal]
Representative Party - (---Eff, ++Eco, ++Tra, ++Gro, ++Ind, ++Res, --Mil, ---Unr)Groups of people try to get as many representatives elected in areas as possible. Most control of elective
Representative Non-party - (----Eff, +++Eco, ++Tra, ++Hap, ++Ind, ++Res, --Unr, --Mil)Individuals are chosen for areas and voice views for that area.
Less control.
True - (-----Eff, ++++Eco, +++Tra, +++Hap, ++Ind, ++++Res, ----Unr, ----Mil)Everybody elegible is the government. Only possible in small empires or with certain techs (i.e. World Wide Web). Almost no control. The ONLY elective allowed to communal.

Trade(modifiers)[structure]: Anarchy is only allowed None.
None - [ALL]No real trade beyond cities is done.
Inter-tribal/city - (+Tra)[City State, Empire, Democracy, Communal]Trade is done amongst nearby cities/tribes.
National - (++Tra, +Eco)[City State, Empire, Deomcracy, Communal]Trade is done throughout the empire.
International - (+++Tra, ++Eco)[City State, Empire, Democracy, Communal]Trade is done with everybody willing to trade.

ALSO there is another option that is how much trade is regulate.
From highly regulated (more stable but weaker economy)
to very unregulated (very unstable but healthy economy)

Religion:
None
Tribal - (+Hap, ++CEsp, -Esp, +++Mil, --Res) Very simple religions. People follow very closely.
Polytheismic - (+Hap, +CEsp, -Esp, ++Mil, --Res)More complex religions with many gods. People follow closely but seem more free then in tribal.
Monotheismic - (+Hap, +CEsp, -Esp, +Mil, --Res)Single god/diety/leader. Not AS strict as the above.
Atheist/Blend - (-Hap, -Unr, -Mil, +Esp, -CEsp)Blends one or more religions and religious types.

ALSO I think there should be minor things that religions should have. I'll try to add this at a later time. The religion is not the state relgion. Just the style of relgion comonly accepted.

Regulation:
None - (++Tra, ++Ind, ++Hap, ++Eco, +Eff, --CEsp, ++Unr, +Gro)No regulation whatsoever. No laws can be set. Only available to communal.
Tribal - (--Tra, -Res, --Ind, ---Hap, --Unr, ++Eff, +Esp)Very strict, most follow what the tribe says.
Fundemental - (-Tra, -Res, -Ind, +Hap, +Unr, --Eff, +Mil, ++CEsp, +Esp)Based on the relgion. Usually quite strict
Democratic - (+Eco, +Eff, +Ind, +Hap, +Unr, -Mil) Free to a certain extent.

Laws:
Note: I need ideas for more specific laws that can be passed. Help me out here.
Embargos on - trade, immigration (population can't move from another nation(s), emmigration (population can't move to another nation(s). immigration embargo could add a bonus for anti-espionage attempts, where as emmigration embargo could reduce espionage in that empire.

The part of Civilization that makes it interesting is that it gives the player a chance to see how things could have happened throughout history, not how they did happen. The earliest years of the game are vastly more fun to play than the last years for that very reason. The problem with many of the suggested laws posted on this board is that they wouldn't make sense until the very end of the game (kind of like future societies in SMAC). To a civ starting in 4000 BC, what is gained by passing laws related to gun control, individual rights, abortion, the death penalty, and state sponsored gambling? Such political questions are fine for modern political discourse, but not that interesting for a computer game that starts at the dawn of history.

I'm operating under the assumption that Firaxis is not going to change the game mechanics much, if at all, in the next version of Civ. They'll upgrade the graphics and probably include SMAC style SE choices, but other than that it will remain a game where options are based on technology. So if laws were to be included in the game, how would they be implemented. Discovering Code of Laws may give you access to a laws pull down menu, but then what? I'm trying to get straight in my mind what technologies would lead to what choice of laws. Would the discovery of gunpower allow the gun control law to appear? Would the discovery of democracy lead to anti-slavery laws? What tech would allow for criminal protection laws? Most importantly, how many of the suggested laws could be implemented early enough in the game to make them worth while?

Just a few thoughts on laws. As far as the other SE systems on the board, many are just too complex. I think SMAC was to simple where you basically had 3 governments, 3 societal values, 3 economic values, and 3 future societies (4 for each if you include the defaults that all offered no bonuses and no penalties). On the other hand it is also possible to have too much micro-management. At some point a strict adherence to Websters definitions on what separates the Feudal gov from a monarchy have to go out the window for the sake of playablility. Civ III has to be about more than Social Engineering. City management, military management, and diplomacy also have to fit into the big picture someplace.

So what's the point, I don't believe the historians and political science majors will get a game that reflects SE to the level of detail they'd like. I don't think those who like tactical combat will get a military management system they'd like. I don't think there will ever be enough diplomatic options for people into the art of the deal. Finally, there won't be enough city management for those who like SimCity type games. For the sake of playability, these limits in and of themselves are not a bad thing.

Now if Firaxis were to consider rewriting the game code from the ground up there would be some interesting options for all elements of the game to open up, not just in the area of social engineering.

Personally, I think the game should be more unit oriented like Colonization with it's farmers, elder statemen, fishermen, and so on. These units could be upgraded throughout history as new technology is discovered. In civ, as it stands now, a primitive society is only different from a modern one it that it's military units aren't as good - a high population still beats a small one. Needless to say the biggest countries on this planet are not necessarily the most advanced by any stretch of the imagination.

I even preferred Colonization's resource and commodity management (or even Imperialism's resource system). As the ultimate compromise, I'd even like to see a MOOII sort of production scheme, where you'd have to upgrade your mines and factories over time to keep your productivity up. Anyone else ever have a MOOII colony not build the automated factory first? Even that sort of system makes more sense than the Civ system of I control the square, so I automatically get all the resources in it. Sure, late in a civ game I can build factories and manufacturing plants, but by then let's face it, the game is usually already over. Sigh, these things are just not meant to be.

I got a little off topic there, sorry. Just as long as you don't ask me to name a modern religious government using my definitions from previous posts. There isn't one anywhere that I know of. I would even consider Iran and Saudi Arabia to be elitist governments with strong spiritual social values, not religious governments with regimented social values (using my definitions). Oh well.

Hmmm.... Interesting.

You have a good point there, which should be discussed. I agree that some laws are too much. Ok, i shouldn't have included legalized abortion. But other laws are useful, like freedom of speech and privacy. And ok, most of them wouldn't be availible untill late in the game. But most of the game does take place in the modern era. Face it, you get to the year 1000AD in no time. And there's a turn per year after 1800 (i think, not sure). And it's in the modern time that you have the most units and cities, so that's where you use a lot of time.

You wrote somewhere that the SE we have been making here would include too much micromanagement. I don't think so. It would include more macromanagement. The probably biggest flaw in Civ2 is, that you don't really run a civ. You are just in charge of some individual cities. Management involving the entire civ is almost gone. It's only included when you change govenment once in a while and when you talk to another civs leader. It probably uses only about 5% of the gaming time. Almost the entire game is used moving units around and telling cities what to build. And that is not what i want for Civ3. I would like less micromanagement. This could be done by including some of the concepts from CCTP: city build queues, replacing settlers as terrain improvers with the Public Works, waypoints for units etc. All of cause better done than in CCTP. I would like a significant amount of gaming time used on SE and diplomacy. I would like to use several minutes trying to figure out how to improve the overall civ condition by making SE changes. I would like to have peace conferences where me and my allies discuss how to split up the civ we've just beaten. I would like to force small neighbors to join me as protectorats. I would like to manage a civ as a whole, and not just a bunch of cities.

Havent been this much trafic here since... well, ever!

GREAT!

techno:

I will read your model later and comment on it then. First of i will continue our debate:

Citystates:
I don't think it should be a gov, as you could have a democratic and a oligarchic city state empire. There is 2 types of city state options as strucure: the one used by the Roman Empire, where each city is simply it's own province, with a central gov in charge of foreign affairs etc. This causes no problems. The problematic one is also the most interesting one: The one used in ancient Greece. Here the citystates were independant, and fought wars against each other. I agree with you that i don't have to implement the last one in the game, but would really like it if it could be done well.

However, city state is not merely that. If a civ is a citystate empire also determines an entire way of life for people. In a citystate the city is the centre of interest for everybody. Most people live in the city, and those who don't come there as often as possible (see "city state economics in" my model for details). This was actually my reason for including urbanization in the first place: I thought city state was too wide a concept to simply be an economic model. And the structure city state does not cover the social/economic part of it. I therefor think it is important to divide the 2 types of definitions of city states.

Barter:
You've convinced me! Barter should be included as economic system and be availible between autarky and currency.

Guilds:
Maybe you're right. So the bons and pens of guilds should simply by what you and Maniac could agree on.

Capitalism:
If i missed your question then i'm not sure what you're asking about! The size of the public sector would determine how large an amount of the GNP runs through the public sector. This again would determine tax level (for the citizens - i think the civ-style tax should be determined besides from this.), the amount of welfare, whether or not to have free medical care, education etc.

And now we're getting political! I think you're right when you say that France have an inflexible labour market. But that doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with the size of the public sector. In Denmark we have the largest public sector in the world. It controls more than 50% of the GNP. All hospitals, colleges etc. are free, and the minimum amount of welfare you can get is more than 1000$ a month. Many working people in the US earn way less than that. The difference labourwise between France and Hong Kong is, that labour unions in Hong Kong (and in the US) have very little power. In France on the other hand they have a lot of power. So to protect their members they have demanded that it should be very hard to fire people. In Denmark we have more welfare than in France, and just as powerful labour unions. But Denmark is one of the easiest places in the westen world to fire people, making the labour market very flexible (unemployement have dropped from 12 to 6% since 1993). The reason the labour unions haven't done anything about this is, that welfare is so high people can easily live without a job. If we hadn't had that high welfare it had never approved on that. BTW i can't at all see why the labour policy in France should lead to strikes.

I think you would want a high public sector to give a eco pen, right? On that i totally disagree. Denmark (again) is the 4th richest country in the world. Our GNP is 10% higher than that of the US. Did you know that the real income (the amount of goods you can buy) for the pop in the US except the richest 10% hasn't risen since the early 70s? The wages in the top has consumed it all.

The reasons for my bons and pens are:
Very small: the public sector has almost no influence on the economy, making larger cycling (+1 cyc), but it doesn't cost very much (+3 tax). On the other hand people don't like to be homeless (-1 hap), and as there is no free education people don't get very educated (-1 res).

Small: about the same as above, but it cost a bit more (+1 tax), people still don't like to be homeless (-1 hap), but basic education is free, so no res pen.

Large: I have set this as the default. Maybe there should be a medium option.

Very large: the public sector has a great influence on the economy, causing less cycling (-1 cyc), but it costs a lot of money (+3 tax). On the other hand people like to be secure not to loose their home and income due to unemployemt(+1 hap - this is true, by the way. Crime in Denmark is very rare), and as everybody with sufficient grades can go to university, research flourishes (+1 res).

BTW if you would want the size of the public sector to be included in the annual bugdet, how should this be done?

Values:
You can follow different things at the same time. Most western countries like both knowlegde, happyness, wealth and the enviroment at the same time.

Urbanization:
I think it is possible to have a lot of economic system everywhere. You can have both rural and urban laissez faire (rural was before 1850, urban after - more or less, depending on the country). If you were industrializing you would want people to move to the cities. This would take some time, if you didn't force them (you could do this if you were nondemocratic). And for the "gov-doesn't-control-urbanization-patterns"-thing i disagree. First of all, the game isn't realistic if you were only to be the government. After all, the gov doesn't decide much of the research being done, nor what to be built in cities, etc. Second the govs sometimes decide where the people should live. After the revolution in Russia in 1917 the gov forced many people to move to the cities - it was creating an urban socialism. In China, on the other hand, the gov forced people to move to the rural areas, making a rural socialism. I think all of this should be included in the game.

I haven't fully read over everybody else's laws but I don't see a point to having laws like freedom of speech in the game. Which is why my law list is so short. I use the laws as a way to limit computer controlled aspects of your empire (i.e you won't generate trade with certain empires even if you can).

Well I got to go, I'll post more refinements to my SE structure later.

To Joker:
I think we're in agreement that in the original Civ games SE had very little impact. Once you got Republic you switched over until you discovered Democracy. Then you'd stick with Democracy the whole game adjusting the luxuries rate during times of war or when you needed that quick population boost. There was never a need to use any other form of government at all.

I disagree on the point of view that most of the game was in the modern age. If you played the wimpiest levels (chief or warlord), you could colonize Alpha Centauri around 1850 easily taking your sweet time. That's provided you didn't just wipe everyone out with the early elephant rush. That's splitting hairs though so it doesn't matter. I played very few games where the game wasn't decided by 1000AD. You may have had to finish out the string to see what your final score is going to be, but the result was already known in advance. Even when the computer opponents banned together and got on a roll you knew when it was time to throw in the towel quite early. Civ has never been a game for the come from behind win.

The reason I proposed the system I did was that it was simple to implement (only 5 governments, 5 societal values, and 3 economic systems if you exclude the defaults), you could pick any government you wanted early, but you still have to make technology decisions later in the game to constantly upgrade the effectiveness of your government, societal values, and economic systems. I'll stick to my guns and say simplicity and upgradeability is the way to go.

Looking back, I'd eliminate all the morale bonuses to the Spiritual government since it really didn't fit into what my definition of what a religious government would be like. The morale bonus is still in the Spiritual societal values where it belongs.

As for fine tuning the civ and adding a little more management, I'll stick with my idea on creating a leadership chamber to replace the throne room and/or palace screen from the original civ games and stocking it with the nations supreme leader and his cabinet of representatives. If you wanted even more management you'd set it up so you could move the cabinet members around from city to city so their strengths could be applied where you needed them.

Our game should not attempt to judge the economic and political models available in the world. Anyway implementing such a system will certainly throw the game balance into chaos.

Lynch, how did you arrive at this conclusion? The US, while being the first federated representative democracy, had extremely low levels of freedom of speech at first (under the Alien and Sedition Acts), and there tons of other examples that could be cited to say that "democracy" does not necessarily provide either freedom of speech or privacy.

I'll stick to my guns and say simplicity and upgradeability is the way to go.

What's so inordinately complicated about Joker's or my model? Aside from the Laws, the length of my model at least is that I had taken the time to completely explain the logic behind every modifier, choice, etc. I also have space devoted to limiting some options based on the government chosen (so there aren't any fascist democracies or any other paradox). Other than that, yes, I do have about twice as many choices as you (if one discounts your upgrade options... you should compare your system to M@ni@c's or Harel's). However, I view that as necessary as I do not believe it is at all plausible to say that governments "expire" and are replaced; look at the Vatican's medieval-based theocracy that still survives, the various absolute monarchies that still exist in some places of the world, and so on. It's irrational to say that some governments cannot persist into the modern world, and that's just in the real world - not even the fictional one. I want a game in which it's possible to depart from reality and have a game where Oligarchies are the dominant form of government rather than the real-world Democracy. Your system doesn't permit that. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least consider what I've said.

One last thing is my suggestion that, if you don't finish your SE models and wish to expand them, you should edit your previous post rather than posting your expansion in a new post. I'm getting people's respective models confused as they're taking the form of a patchwork... for the sake of readability, just use the edit option. (Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to sound egocentric or anything, it's just getting confusing around here.)

Joker:

City-States:
I'm going to wash my hands of this (as we both agree that we can't come up with a perfectly viable system of implementation), but I do want to ask on thing - why do you think Rome was a collection of city-states? Now, granted, under the administration of the early Etruscan ruling dynasty, this label is applicable, but later on, especially under the Empire, this is not true. Do you mean early on in Rome's history?

Barter and Guilds:
We've reached agreement!!! This isn't really the first time, but still .

Capitalism:
The France v. Hoing Kong example was a little off-topic (I see this now) - the term "public sector" has an enormous variety of meanings and applications (here in the States, at least?) that I'm still not very clear on what you're trying to say, but I think I understand a bit more...

I think you would want a high public sector to give a eco pen, right? On that i totally disagree. Denmark (again) is the 4th richest country in the world. Our GNP is 10% higher than that of the US.

Just the opposite. I think that there should be an economic bonus for the middle-to-low area. And just to clarify, I don't know where you're getting your statistical data. The US's is $8.511 trillion, versus Denmark's $124.4 billion (in other words, the US is 68.41 times that of Denmark). Also, the fourth wealthiest country in the world is Germany (the top 4 - US, Japan, UK, Germany).

Did you know that the real income (the amount of goods you can buy) for the pop in the US except the richest 10% hasn't risen since the early 70s? The wages in the top has consumed it all.

This info is also wrong (it's probably leftover from the early eighties, actually). The Federal Reserve Board is actually in a panic right now because the spending power of the average American is up much higher (and growing faster) than it should be to keep away inflation (although, it's doing a good job at keeping inflation at 0 anyway so I don't see what the fuss is all about).

My objections to your bons and pens:
Small: Lack of stringent governmental regulations allows industries to innovate as the market demands, giving a economy bonus. Also, I think your view of education in the US is slightly off; the state governments have state universities which are almost free, especially to minority or gifted students.

I agree about a medium option.

Very large: My complaint here is the research bonus. Here in the US (which has the largest science output in the world), a lot of people simply receive undergraduate education and then receive corporate education that allows them to to be more highly educated w/o a spending a lot of time at a university, and this is especially true in light of the current tight US labor market. Also, research stems from scientists, not the population as a whole, and what matters is if they're sufficiently educated in science, not if some police officer or accountant can understand the dynamics of migrating planet models. Giving high levels of education for free to everyone is nice, but really doesn't affect science output if the majority of people receive education anyway. Besides, I can easily envision deleterious affects to university research if the government became overly involved with the universities.

I don't really know how budgets would work, but I know that people at the Trade/Economics thread (here or at Apolyton??) had developed some system of budgets.

Urbanization:
I'm still convinced that your premise is flawed, but if you want that to be an option, I guess feel free. Just remember that, in most societies, people themselves choose to move to where economic opportunities are, as living patterns really are a function of the economy...

I think that's it, but we REALLY need to address my comments on Bell...

Techno:
With 'government interference' in universities you say that it could have deletirious effects on their research. Well here in Australia we have heaps of universities (not sure on exact number but probably around 100, not including technical training institutions of which there are thousands). Of these all are owned by the government except one. If you looked at australia's research per capita (hey, we only have 17 million people), I think you would find that it would be extremely high. The governments completely fund the universities but have absoloutely nothing to do with their running.
Anyway, as more educted people are more likely to accept new technologies quicker, research would be increased by an educated population. In a market economy, people who adapt to new technology are always going to be asking for better and better technology (really bad explanation, but you get my point).

Oh boy, a list of questions in need of answering. On democracy not providing individual freedoms. Ok, but that's why I included Individualism as a societal value. I loosely defined it as the rights of the individual are paramount over the rights of the state. So why couldn't privacy and speech rights be covered there?

On governments expiring. In game terms they do expire (even in your system they expire - since I doubt you'd have access to all 9 governments, 7 forms of centralization, 9 economic models, and 8 policy objectives (societal values) from turn 1 - maybe I'm wrong on that). In the real world they change over time. Does the US government of George Washington's day mimic the US government under Bill Clinton (I'm not talking policy, I'm talking the implementation of it). I'd say the expanded role of government and its affects have changed a lot over the past 200 years - (perhaps that's why you included the laws option). I would even go as far to say that government has become better at administering programs over time and therefore has more impact on society (more SE modifications) than it would have centuries ago. This change took place slowly and did not require a revolution to a new form of government (like your system would require). Therefore, a model that adjusts over time to take new philosphies and technology into account makes sense. An ancient democracy should not have the same impact on society as a modern one. The problem is, in your system the difference between an ancient government and a modern one is that it changes adjectives. In my system the player has the option of slowly upgrading his governments impact on society. No where did I say that a player had to upgrade his government. I believe the post made it clear that a player could choose the degree of Government/Societal/and Economic impact he wanted. If you wanted to remain an ancient tribe, with ancient spiritual values, and ancient regulated economy, you could do it. Since it's a game though, how often is that going to happen?

On democracies being beat out by oligarchies. That's doable in my system. Heck, you could even have a government in anarchy rule the world if you wanted to. Maybe I missed something in your post.

I believe you wanted to know what was so complicated about the system you proposed? Hmmm, unless I miscounted there were 16 SE factors, each with its own table (like an AD&D players manual), 9 Governments, 7 forms of centralization, 9 economic models, and 8 policy objectives. I guess you're right again - nothing comlicated about programming a computer AI for that mizerly number of factors (nothing personnal, it's sarcasm). Seriously though, look at how the SMAC factions beat each other up with just 3 govs, 3 econ, and 3 societal choices (not including the neutral defaults). I suppose there would be a way to put each factor on a sliding scale so the computer would know that it's direct democracy shouldn't have a gripe with its neighbors representive democracy, but at what point does diplomacy suffer because there are just too darn many factors for the computer to consider at once? I'm not a programmer so I couldn't say. I do know from the SMAC experience that it wouldn't seem to be an easy task. Again, if I have to keep going back to my proposal, you could easily program the computer to ignore the ancient, advanced, modern theme of each SE choice and focus strictly on the main gov/econ/societal category. The question then becomes, is 5 govs, 5 societal values, and 3 econs (excluding defaults) too complicated to program for?

As far as laws go, I don't think I was totally opposed to the idea, I was just pointing out that everything suggested only impacted the end game. Anyone who's ever played Civ knows that by end game, the winner is already a foregone conclusion, your're just eeking it out to get the final score. That's why I compared your system of laws to SMAC's future societies. I've never played a SMAC game where the future society choices meant the difference between winning and defeat. I don't see picking a few laws up as having any impact either, but maybe they were never supposed to affect the actual outcome of the game.

I guess my overall critism is your system is long on idealogy, uses every major governmental adjective ever created, covers every nook and cranny from agriculture to fall fashion, (ok, so there wasn't really fall fashion - can someone say SE factor 17) and reads like an outline for a history of government term paper, it doesn't seem to lend itself well to a game (certainly not to a game programmer). In games people basically only look at the plusses and minuses of each system and pick the most advantageous for their own strategy. Builders go for efficiency and research, conquerors go for morale and support. There's really not much more to it than that. Programmers look for SE matches to determine in the AI should be your friend or foe.

The only good thing to be said about a more complex system is that it makes for better multiplayer games (since people tend to prefer exploiting differences for strategic advantage, and if there's no differences, then you're just relying on dumb luck). A more simplified system favors the computer AI since it will be programmed to pick the obvious choice for whatever situation it's in (in war it goes with the production/support/morale options, in peace the reasearch/efficiency/economy option), usually the same choices as the human opponent it's up against.

In that respect, I would suspect that your system would be superior in human vs. human games since there would be more room to manuver around SE wise while trying to gain strategic advantage. I honestly wasn't thinking in terms of person vs. person, but man vs. machine when I made my proposal. I don't see a machine being able to assimilate all your SE options and still function on a diplomatic and strategic front. Like I said though, I'm not a computer programmer, so programming all that stuff in may be a piece of cake. If it was that easy though, I gotta believe it would have been done a long time ago.

Later, I'm sure this isn't the last of the discussion.

At the moment i'll focus on the recent posts and comment on everybodys SE models once they post complete onces, as i don't really feel like sitting here all night.

Saldic:

Why do you think having laws like FoS and privacy are too extreme? these are probably my favorite laws! It should definately be possible to have a nondemocratic country with high freedom of speech (enlightened absolutism, anyone?). It would simply be a country where there's no democracy, but where people could freely say what they want about the government. A bit like the society in Starship Troopers. Of cause, if you didn't had succes with what you were doing (war, economy etc.) people would revolt faster than if you had low FoS. And it should also be possible to have a democracy with low FoS. Actually, the US in the 50s had medium or low FoS, as it was illegal to be a communist.

Lynch:

Ok, you're right. The game is more or less determined at the end of the game. But in my mind that's also a thing that should be changed. After all, 100 years ago, who would have thought that a useless country west of Europe was gonna be the most powerful country in the world today? The way to make the game more uncertain could be done good by making it very difficult to have a very large country, due to ethinc problems, revolutions etc.

And for your "Technos and Jokers SE systems would be too hard to program" talk i can't at all take that seriously. After all, Firaxis is making the best game ever here (it better be), so they shouldn't just take the easy way out and reuse the SMAC system. And if we can loose a space probe behind Mars --- i mean, if we can land a space probe on Mars we can handle 16 SE factors. After all look at the size of the computers we're playing with today. And i would rather reuse SMAC (or even Civ2) graphics and have fantastic SE, diplomacy and trade than having awesome graphics in a game that's really a "SMAC Gold - Back to earth".

Prosaic:

Of cause the game should be balanced. And it shouldn't require and MBA. But it should also be realistic, as realism is the whole concept of Civ games. You're managing a civilization! That requires realism or it will simply end in nonsence.

Techno:

Thank's for backing me up there.

City state:
Rome was actually an empire of city states (although this sounds like nonsence with our SE model, it is the truth). At first it was an empire, as only citizens in Rome could vote. But after the conquest of Italy it changed to a city state civ, as all citizens within it's borders now had equal rights. And as each city was partially inependant and had little control from Rome (except for having to pay a small amount of tax and maybe a Roman garrison) i and many historians would call Rome a city state empire.

Barter and guilds:
Yep!

capitalism:
I see your point but completely disagree. BTW your story about US being the wealthiest country in the world was - sorry to say this - undoubtably the dumbest thing you have said so far. Of cause i meant per capita. It's not like Denmark has a higher GNP than the US, as the latter has about 50 times more people in it than the first! Also, i am pretty sure that the GNP (not per capita) of Germany is larger than that of UK. (off topic, sorry) The wealthiest country in the world is Switzerland.

I don't think there should be an eco bonus for a small public sector, just a tax bonus, as it doesn't cost very much money. The discussion of whether a small or large public secor should give eco bons/pens can not at all be settled by us. Economists can't even agree on that, as there is different "shools" in economy saying the opposite of each other (advocating for a smaller public sector is the classisists, the neoclassisists and the monetarists (monetarists being less extreme than the others) and for a large public sector is the keynesians and the neokeynesians). I think a relatively large public sector is not bad for the economy. There are bons and pens on having a large public sector. For instance, free health care helps curing more people, letting them get back to the labour market. I can find dozens more exambles. Of cause, you can find dozens of exambles why it would hurt the economy, so it won't really get us anywhere. Again using Denmark as an examble, our GNP per capita has risen fr more than that of the US since the early 70s, although the public sector and the tax level in Denmark has went up every year since, and the public sector in the US has become smaller and smaller. The difference between rich and poor in the US has become larger and larger, in Denmark it has become smaller and smaller. By this i'm not saying that you are neccesarily wrong in your statement, just that there are a lot of facts that indicate that you might.

The real income for americans hasn't risen since the early 70s. It's true. I know that the economic boom has made problems with inflation and the balance of payments (Denmark is having similar problems), but that hasn't been going on for more than the last 5 years or so. And even if the average american is getting wealthier, it doesn't mean that the broad american population is getting that. It could simply mean that the president who has been favored in the US since Reagan came to power has now bought another Lamborghini. The workers could still be driving around in their old... cheap american cars (whatever they might be).

BTW state colleges aren't excactly free. I am hoping to go to the US for a year after the summer break, and am checking out University of Massachusets at Boston. It costs $23,000 per year. I don't know about you, but i wouldn't call that cheap.

I wasn't giving the US public sector a res pen, just the very small public sector. That is because i am sure that when 90% of the kids in Brazil don't recieve any reasonable education it's bound to hurt the science output.

And for the science bon for the very large PS Biddles agrees with me on this. If you didn't want a res bon what would you want? Looking at your model a small public sector would by far be better than a large one.

Urbanization:
The gov doesn't decide very much of what we do in a civ game. I will keep it as an option, but you are free to dislike it and not include it in your model.

What did you mean by adressing your comments on Bell.......?

Technocrat - your responces to my statements on modifiers makes my case. You are able to tell me what SE choices you almost always make and under what circumstances that you choose different. When I play Ireland in Civ II, I research Republic as soon as I can and switch to it. I know that when a very large civ changes its gov and then wants to talk to me that its time to prepare for war.

The Joker - I am looking at population growth right now. So far as I can see, SE choices don't seem to have much of an impact on birth rates in the real world.

I say "Dump modifiers for equations relating actions to happyness or unrest" in every area possible.

Trade Suggestions for Civ III

This model assumes SMAC style trade and social engineering as a baseline, but uses Civ terms for cities and such. Sorry for any resulting confusion.

I. Remove the division between ECON and Commerce. ECON is now used exclusively, although in function it will actually resemble commerce more.

I.a ECON has no effect on the energy production of individual tiles. It is purely a measure of a civs interest in trade, affecting the revenue generated by the trade equation. (Which may be the same as the SMAC trade equation or a new one.)

I.b Every civilization trades with itself. Cities are paired up from largest to smallest, with the odd one out paired with itself if necessary. This shows up in the trade window as "internal trade." Trade generated substitutes for the energy gained or lost from ECON tile modifications, so the trade level for a developed city in free market democracy trading with itself should roughly approximate the size of the city, which is the current bonus. A small modifier to the trade equation may be required for this to work out to the right number.

I.c Tech advances that would increase Commerce increase ECON. Thus a civ that develops coinage will see an immediate boost in all trade revenues. This makes sense. (Note that this concept might be useful for other SE factors. Frex, medicine might give +1 GROWTH.)

I.d Certain city improvements will increase ECON for that city only. A marketplace might increase city ECON by +1, for example. Wonders might have greater effects; frex, the Colossus might give +5. It is also possible that certain improvements might reduce ECON as a side effect, frex Cathedrals might give -1 econ, representing increased religious tithing and condemnation of usury.

I.e Certain terrain specials generate extra ECON. Gold, jewels, oil, etc. all can increase the ECON of a city exploiting them. Additionally, a city on a river gets +1 ECON. (Port cities will get an ECON bonus from a Harbor, as opposed to getting a straight bonus.)

II. Give the player more control over inter-civ trade, and allow for diplomatic effects of trade.

II.a Start trade at contact, rather than requiring a peace treaty. Unless actively prevented, there will be trade between any two civs that aren't actually at war. (And even then there might be smuggling between them - see below.) Suggest a ratio of 1/2/3 trade income between neutral/peace treaty/allied civs.

II.b Allow player to set a trade policy for each civ they know, with diplomatic and economic effects:
TRADE SUBSIDY: Other civ gets X % of your trade revenue, you in turn get 100-X%. Positive diplomatic effect, stronger if much revenue is generated.
OPEN TRADE: Standard. Small positive diplomatic effect if lots of revenue is generated for the other civ.
BOYCOTT: No trade, regardless of diplomatic status, but smuggling is possible. Negative diplomatic effect. Not possible for allies.
Note that if the other civ sets a trade policy as well, the lower one from the list above applies. They don't have to accept a trade subsidy, or may want to give you one. (If both civs want to subsidize each other, trade reverts to open trade.) It is possible to negotiate trade status on the diplomacy screen.

II.c If two civs have boycott, cease fire, or war status, smuggling is possible. It happens if trade generated under most recent friendly status (default neutral, if two civs meet and immediately declare war) would have been larger than POLICE + PROBE + 5 for both civs. (The POL + PRO +5 equation is just a guess, but seems like a good start.) When smuggling occurs, it shows up highlighted in the trade window. The city with better ECON gets neutral level trade. The city with worse POLICE + PROBE suffers -1 EFFIC. After five turns of war, recalculate assuming neutral status.

II.d Allow for improving your trading relationship with another civ through production. Early on, you could build a "Caravan" to civ X, which gives +2 ECON for trading with Civ X. (This is not a unit, but a city improvement.) If you go to war with civ X, there is a 10% chance each year that the improvement is destroyed, 20% if there is smuggling.) Later on, a "trade consulate" will increase this to +3, and a "free trade agreement" will increase it to +4.