Oh, and we in North America had a confederacy and the president of that confederacy (Jefferson Davis) had a lot to do. Unfortunatly, the central government had so little power (raise armies for example) that it helped its demise.

I post this exerpt from a web page that I found here: http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Education/Republic_not_a_Democracy.htm

"I researched "democracy" and "republic" in AOL’s "Research & Learn" Channel. One of their sources was the Dictionary of
Cultural Literacy Second Edition, Edited by E. D. Hirsch, Jr, Joseph F. Kett and James Trefil, Copyright 1993, Houghton Mifflin Company. I thought Dr. Howerton, by virtue of his education and experience, would particularly like their definition of
republic (emphasis, mine):

"A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, while republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated that the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property, and the establishment of institutions such as the electoral college, were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will."

Formerly property ownership was an important requirement. Today, through the democratic process, those without property, in the majority, can and do confiscate property from those with property, in the minority, for whatever kind of justice that is,
using government as a hired gun.

Here’s what Hirsch’s dictionary says about democracy:

"A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. – Democratic institutions, such as parliaments, may exist in a monarchy. Such constitutional monarchies as Britain, Canada, and Sweden are generally counted as democracies in practice."

On Monday, I will be editing my model to fit this information.

Your observation that the definitions may be different in Europe in comparison to those in America is interesting; this would either be due to a mistranslation or an actual dichotomy. Are there any British here to give us their difinitions?

With that out of the way, let me say that I really, really like the other ideas that have been advanced, especially the more recent ones, such as Maniac’s. I had been working on my own little SE presentation, but many of Maniac’s ideas were so good that I changed much of mine (especially the SE factors), and so much of what is here is attributable to him. Simply put, a lot of this is a spin (and hopefully an improvement) on what he wrote. Please note, of course, that I totally agree with his “x10” system, and it is so good IMO that it’s presence in my SE proposal is supposed to be simply understood. Also let me say that I have not read anything concerning religion in the game as that something I personally don’t want to get into.

Sections:

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

I. SE Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. SE Range Factor
As I said earlier, my ideas concerning civilization’s bureaucracy are complicated, and it involves turning the bureaucracy into what I call a “range factor,” somewhate like setting the tax/research/luxury rate.

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

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

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

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

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

SE Categories:

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

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

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

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

Centralization options permitted: None or Imperial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralization options: None, Imperial, Federal, Unitary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralization options: Imperial, Unitary, and Centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralization options: Unitary and Centralized.

Economic options: Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism.

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

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

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

Bureaucratic range: 0-1.

Examples: the Delian League, the Aetolian League.

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

Bureaucratic range: 0-2.

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

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

Bureaucratic range: 1-3.

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

Examples: medieval Europe.

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

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

Examples: the United States, India, and Germany.

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

Bureaucratic range: 1-4.

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

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

Bureaucratic range: 4-7.

Examples: France, Great Britain, and Israel.

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

Bureaucratic range: 5-7.

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial Bartering: +1 Ste, -1 Agr
The natural evolution of autarky comes very quickly in the development of civilization and helps to increase societal commerce and business by establishing early forms of trade and financial activity.

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

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

Examples: medieval Europe.

Guilds: +2 Eff, +1 Rel, -1 Agr, -1 Env, -1 Hap
Maniac’s description of Guilds is accurate, and so I will only explain the reasons behind the modifiers for this choice.

The guilds stimulated the economy of Renaissance Europe, and inter-regional trade picked up dramatically, enhancing regional cooperation. The downsides were that each individual had to comply with strict and uncompromising rules, reducing the content of the average citizen and hygiene was often low due to unfortunate production practices.

Examples: Renaissance Europe, especially Italy.

Mercantilism: +1 Ind, +1 Nat, -1 Eff, -2 Rel
Once again, Maniac’s mercantilism is accurate, and as our modifiers are virtually the same, I’ll allow Maniac’s comments on this nationalist economic system stand, aside from the commentary that joint-stock companies frequently were the backbones of any national monopolies.

Examples: Western Europe during the colonization era.

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

Examples: industrial America, Europe.

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

Examples: the modern US, Europe, Japan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Closing
In considering my ideas, remember that I purposefully excluded religious SE options as that is a complex section of the game and I don’t want to get into it. Other than that, I think I’m pretty much finished, and I welcome any commentary. It feels so weird being finally done with this – it feels like I’ve forgotten something. Tell me if I have!

Sorry about the editing if you've already printed it out, but don't really worry about it - I was just correcting grammatical errors and typos, etc.

[This message has been edited by Technocrat (edited 09-02-1999).]

The Joker :

You're right. Units need a lot of gold as support. And it would be more realistic, so I would like it. I am only concerned that then you should need gold for too much things in Civ3. I posted a way to get more gold and solve the ICS problem in Civ3 in the Apolyton Economy thread. If I had some more time I might post it here.

You can't just assimilate people quickly. Nationalist feelings can be very strong.
There's no way to fasten people liking you. Of course, eg luxuries and panem et circenses in Colosseums, but that's already included in CivX.

In my country there is a senate AND a parliament. Perhaps let the name be decided which time period it is? Senate in ancient age and parliament in modern age.

I won't respond to your model questions right now - I'll first read Technocrat's post, which may contain good ideas that change my opinion.

Nice laws.
As a general note I don't like the half 0.5 factors. It gets too complicated if we have to make up effects for every decimal factors.
I don't see a problem with just changing the 0.5's to ones.

Freedom of Speech = of course good.

Child Labor = also nice, just change .5 to 1.
And why don't you make Slavery a law? Perhaps it could give a +2 Pro bonus - same as the Direct Democracy Pro penalty?

Environmental protection = isn't this covered by the Environment value?

Same with Militaristic Fascination.
Isn't that intrinsic to certain Gov types like Totalitarianism, Fundamentalism(= or Facism if there aren't religious government types)?

Privacy = perhaps. But isn't that a bit under the same header as freedom of speech? - it determines how open your society is.

Free education = ok.

Hospitality to Corporations.
Shouldn't it be much simplier assuming that high +Eco economy options are automatically open to corporations?

Legalized abortion.
Good. Rename it to Conception?

Isn't legalized guns something modern? I suppose in the ancient ages, everyone could was allowed to have some weapon (if they could afford it).

To everyone :

My opinion about republics...

In the ancient age to something like 1776, republics were the name for every non-monarchial government. Even if it was totally not representative, it was called a republic. So Athens (direct democracy) is as much a republic as Rome (oligarchy).
Same with Dutch, English, Italian... not representative, an oligarchy. So I totally disagree that republics have anything to do with representation.

However Cormac, I think, has told that America called itself a republic after it's independence. Then it became all clear.
So America was a republic.
But it was also representative (Congress) and it had also a president.
Probably over time the American people began to assume republic and having a representative president the same thing, although it isn't.
And of course, with all that americanism around the last 50 years, many other people in other countries and continents began to think the same.

So the old definition of republic is non-monarchial.
The new one, influenced by USA, is presidential.
So everybody is right.

However, the republic I am talking about are the ones from Rome and Greece to Dutch and English (Cromwell). They were also a _bit_ representative. Means only the nobles and/or(sometimes they were both rich and noble) the most important economical class had franchise. But I would count that under Oligarchy.

So, in gameterms, I stick with my Republic choice. Presidential is covered under (Representative) Democracy.

The Joker : About your oligarchy choice you want. If there is more than one person (= a monarch) at rule, it's a republic. But if there's not one person at rule, it must be or 1) a group (Oligarchy) or 2) the populace (Direct Democracy).
So isn't your Oligarchy idea covered under the Republic choice?

Technocrat :

Well, back to my responces:

Technocrat:

Maniac is right in his theories about the reasons why republic has gotten a new definition. America is a republic, but that says nothing about who's ruling the country. The fact that it is a (representative) democracy says all about this.

I'll read you SE model as soon as possible, but first i'll responce to

Maniac:

More gold:
I'll go to Apolyton and check it out as soon as possible.

Assimilation:
You're right. But assimilation speed should be decided by your actions.

Senate/parliament:
How about just using senate. Sen sounds far better than Par. As it is an SE factor it shouldn't change and it should be the same for all civs, or it would just be confusing.

Nice laws:
Thanks. However, i think there need to be a 0.5 pen or bon. If there is to be 5 times as many laws than i've suggested you'd end up with extreme bons and pens wich would ruin the game. Laws should be used primarily to fine adjust your civ, so it shouldn't have huge effects. Besides, we don't need effects for every decimal, just for 0.5, 1, 2 etc.

Slavery as a law:
Finally we agree on this. I was thinking of making it city based - with a percentage of the pop in every city being slaves - but it would just make things too complicated. So i totally agree on having slavery as a law. It would give +2 pro -1 hap -1 rel (or something)

About the laws and values:
I must say that i have never liked the values option. I think it is unrealistic fora civ to have one universal value, and possible to both like research and protect the enviroment. Therefor i thought about making values an option, like the others, but where each gives bons and pens, but where you can choose to have all values on low, medium or high - on the same time. If you had all on high, all on med or all on low it would add up to zero. This would make things more realistic and fun, or at least that's what i think.

BTW i still think values should take extremely long to change. Not with severe pens in the "anarchy" period, but just with no bons or pens. In a democracy with high freedom of speech it would take even longer to change, while in an oligarchy with low freedom of speech it wouldn't take as long.

"Same with militaristic fascination.
Isn't that intrinsic to certain Gov types like Totalitarianism, Fundamentalism(= or Facism if there aren't religious government types)?"

Not necessarily. What i like so much about oligarchy is that it can be used to describe extremely many forms of gov. You don't need Totalitarism, fundamentalism, fascism etc. - Oligarchy can be used to describe them all. Totalitarism would simply be an oligarchy with lo FoS and low privacy. Fascism would be oligarchy based on the military and the coorporations with capitalism, high nationalism, high militaristic fascination, low FoS an low privacy. This would also make it possible making gov types that doesn't even excist: How about an oligarchy based on the intelligentsia with knowledge and research being most important to society? Or find your own favorite!

Privacy being the same as FoS:
Not really. I hope i don't upset anyone by this, but i would say that the US in the 50's had med or low FoS as it was illegal to be a communist. But they still had high privacy.

This leads me to a new law i've come up with:

Use of propaganda:
High: +1 sen -1 res (?)
med: nothing
low: -1 sen +1 res (?)

Hospitality to coorporations:
Possibly. Not sure.

Legalized abortion:
Sure, lets rename it!

Legalized weapons:
You're right. Therefor it should be on untill a certain advance has been researched. Then you could choose.

Actually i think most or all of the laws shouldn't be availible untill a certain advance.

"The Joker : About your oligarchy choice you want. If there is more than one person (= a monarch) at rule, it's a republic. But if there's not one person at rule, it must be or 1) a group (Oligarchy) or 2) the populace (Direct Democracy).
So isn't your Oligarchy idea covered under the Republic choice?"

In Federalist Paper #14 James Madison wrote: “The true distinction between these forms...is, that in a Democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A Democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region.”

So, at that point, (in a Political Science discussion) Republic and Democracy had the definitions that I have been using.

I looked up this issue in the Encylopedia Brittanica. EB almost totally avoids the word in the article on government forms. It is used only once, and that in reference to Ireland leaving the Commonwealth. In fact the only two terms that they gave any real meaning to were MONARCHY and DEMOCRACY. I took from this that there is some discrepancy over the definitions of the other government forms. I suspect that this is because of the abuse that these definitions have gotten when used in the names of countries. East Germany was called "Democratic"(in its name), but I don't think that any of us would agree with that.

With that, I am simply going to define what I mean from now on, so when I use the term, everyone will know what I am talking about. I will be using the words REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY as defined by James Madison.

From now on i'll use the terms direct democracy and representative democracy, so noone (especially if anyone who hasn't been in this debate comes along) will be confused.

BTW i have almost completed a new SE model. It's a bit like my old one, but with some of maniacs, Cormacs and technocrats ideas incoorporated in it. I'll post it in a few days.

Also, i think Bell might wanna make a new SE thread. Downloading time are getting kinda extreme at the moment as the SE posts tend to be so long (wich they have to be as it's an important and complicated subject).

I will be editing my suggestion to have Senate and Parliment mean two different forms of representation (ie - calculation).

Cormac, I still say that the name of the legislature should be dependent upon the civilization chosen (British have a Parliament, Americans a Congress, Romans a Senate, etc.). If you want there to be different types of legislatures, perhaps the difference should lie in having unicameral or bicameral legislatures, and/or in having each region being represented by proportional populations vs. each region being represented equally.

Technocrat - Oh, by the way - I like the way that you organized your model. I will be looking at your model when I am rewriting mine.

Joker, about the CivII definition of Republic, I have reread it and have realized that its wording is vague enough to encompass both the Athenian direct democracy and the Roman republic. There are discrepancies between the CivII definition and both the Roman and Athenian governments, but I think that if we retain open minds about it, we'll see that CivII does not really refer to either Rome or Athens specifically, but only generally applies to both. For the sake of peace, whenever anyone uses "Republic" in his/her SE choice list, let's just agree to define it so everyone will know what we're talking about.

Was there ever a religion topic under the suggestions thread?

I must say that i disagree with you on having different words for senate. I see senate as being the SE factor as Maniac proposed. And it would be hell to have different words for that with different civs. I also disagree on having economy and senate being the same SE factor. It is both so important areas that they should be on their own.

Furthermore i disagree on Techno's city state. If his city state is the same as the greek, it's not at all one country. You'd have absolutely no control over any city in your empire except your capital, and you'd end up having terrible wars between your cities. Therefor the Greek city states were individual civs on just one city each, except in the end where Athens and Sparta had conquored the others. However, i think the Roman empire was city states as the individual cities were governing locally, but under the control of the central government.

I have also realized another thing wich more or less destroys some of my suggestions: Direct democracy is only possible in one city! That's it! You can't have people coming from other cities to vote if they had to do it every day. I therefor thought that direct democracy would only be possible if you have one city, or if you have an empire as structure (the pop in the capital has the right to vote, the pop in the other cities have not). This could work with Athens during the war with Sparta. But Athens was a city state! I have an idea on working this out, wich includes another SE category, but it needs some work. If it shows out to be good i will include it in my next SE model, wich i'll post within a few days.

Well, I think you're probably right about the city-state option (your suggestion would be the ideal), but how would you negotiate with the other city-states? That's the problem I can't escape. Also, if you truly split the civ up, would each city be able to have its own governmental type? It would get pretty complimated fast, but as I've said before about city-states, I don't really know, and I'm not truly decided.

I also agree with you about the Direct Democracy observation you have made, up to a point. Direct Democracy would only be possible in an individual city, but hear me out. For my Direct Demo gov, I have three centralization options available (aside from none) - Confederal, Imperial, and Unitary. This is how I imagine a directly democracratic government to operate with each centralization form:
Confederal - Each city (or small region) has its own democratic assembly, manned directly by citizens, and the assemblies would, through communications avenues (either via representatives or something of that nature), collectively decide on foreign policy matters. This is unquestionably the weakest one when it comes to plausibility, and I intend to get rid of it.
Imperial - The system of the Athenian Empire, not much explanation needed.
Unitary - Slightly different than an Imperial setting for this gov, a Unitary one would have a democratic assembly in the capital city deciding national/foreign policy matters with regional governments (of some form, maybe regional governors or magistrates) reporting to that assembly.

Concerning the legislature issue, I'm afraid I must disagree with you. The only legislature the player would have to deal with would be his own, and therefore the player would only have to know one of the names at a time. In other words, the player would deal diplomatically with the executive (or, theoretically, the executive department), not with a foreign legislature of another civ, and thus would not have to know the name of a foreign legislature. The only time the player would hear about a foriegn legislature would be if they got a message like "so-and-so's Council has refused to uphold the negotiated treaty," but in this context it is perfectly clear that it is a legislature that is being referred to. There would be no confusion about names as this would hold true. Anyway, it was only a suggestion; I just want the most realism possible. Besides, I favor having the legislature being directly affected by the government choice like Cormac proposed initially (and having it be somewhat affected by a few varied, specified SE factors) than have it under one, single Senate modifier like Maniac proposed.

One final thing, you said, "I also disagree on having economy and senate being the same SE factor. It is both so important areas that they should be on their own." What are you referring to? If you were addressing me, I don't remember ever having said that the economy and any legislature should be unified into a single SE factor. Did you misspeak? Do I just not understand correctly (this is more likely, knowing me, I'm afraid)? On the face of this situation, I think I am in favor of what you're saying - I can scarcely imagine having the economy and the legislature unified in such a manner. However, if we agree on this (and you were addressing me), you wouldn't have said that you disagree. Hmmm...

If you define a city that way, why not simply use the word "region?"

Concerning the happiness/discontent items, are you of the persuasion that we should not use SE factors? This would seem to explain the lack of such modifiers in you model...

On your list of governments at the top of your government section, change "tribal" to "autocracy," just to help avoid condusion.

About your SE categories/options, they seem to be pretty good; I'm glad that you decided to use "Autarky" (with a "k") - I had expected some opposition as that word is much more obscure than "Autarchy" (with a "ch"). I think that it is safe to imply that you support other SE categories, though, such as Social Values, etc. Is this assumption correct? If it is, would the implication that, for these categories, you would support SE modifiers also be valid?

You say -

"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." (my italics)

I don't understand what you mean by the italicized portion. You can only trade with nations for a singular moment in history? I think I understand you when you make a similar statement in the Autarky section, however.

SE Factors - exactamundo! I think that we should move away from the simplistic idea that all SE choices have the same effect on every civ.

Tribal - oops! Thanks!

Autarky - I thought that it was a very good idea, though I had not seen the word before.

Social Values - I am undecided. I don't like the idea of the government deciding social values (though in reality it sometimes happens), on the other hand I see it as a complicated programming issue if you let each civ decide for itself. I also have a problem with the idea that all social value choices have set impacts on all societies. I am wondering if it is nessesary.

Trade - "one time" - that no trade route would be established as in Civ I & II, but the quantity of trade items (multiple list of goods from your civ) and the amount of gold and or needed goods would be much larger.

Bell, if you even visit this site sometimes, could you please read this:
Make a new SE thread. Downloading times are getting extreme here.

If he does this i suggest we all start by posting our newest SE model, and base the discussion from there.

Techno:

What i meant about the city state of Greece is, that each city would be an individual civ. I'm not sure how a lot of civs with just one city each could come in a small area, but maybe if they all come from the same original city, and left because of unhappyness/revolutions etc. (i really think things like that should happend in civ3). In my model city state is like the Roman empire. It has a central government, but the cities are semiindependant.

Direct democracy:
I think direct democracy should be possible in a confederation. But i'm not sure if you should be able to have confederation as an option at all. A confederation is not really a civ, but a union of several civs (like NATO, EC, Commonwealth etc.) and leaders of confederations don't decide very much, not even the SE settings of the member countries.
I agree on the imperial.
However, i have never actually understood what that unitary thing means. Could you please explain?

Concerning the senate:
I was talking about Maniacs SE factor senate (sen). It would be pretty weird if it, when you started a new game with a new civ, was suddently called parliament (par). Don't you agree?

And concerning the economics and senate:
In your model economic cycling and senate into one factor: steadiness. I strongly disagree on this, as you could have a totalitarian country with a very unhappy population which would propably revolt soon,and still not very severe economic cycling.

And another thing:

I have come to realise that all of our models have a severe weakness: They tell nothing about wether the population lives in the countryside or in the cities. It is more or less a part of the Structure. I first realised this, when i thought of Athens and Sparta during the war between them. They had conquored all the other cities, and were therefor empires structurewise. But they were citystates at the same time! This made me invent a new SE category (wich i, unfortunately don't know what should be called - please come with suggestions - i will for the moment call it urbanism). The choises would be something like tribal, city state (i know that city state is both a structure and an urbanism, so one of them should get another name), manorialism, urbanism, suburbanism etc. the choises here would limit your economic choises (you can't have capitalism if you have manorialism)

One of the best exambles of SE evolvment is the Roman Empire.
It started as a despotic, centralized tribal civ. It got influenced by the Greeks, and sometime around 400 BC it changed from tribal to city state.
Once it started conquoring it's neighbors it became an empire, and not long after this it changed from despotism to elite control.
When it had conquored all of Italy it changed from an empire to a city state (by giving the population in the conquored areas citizenship).
Around the fall of the republic it changed from city state to feudalism (i know this sounds weird, but the rich people in Rome actually ended up having a huge clientel of people, who supported them - much like the feudal system of the middle ages). however, in urbanism it still were a city state, unlike in the middle ages, as people still lived in the cities and not in the countryside. This development ultimately ended up with Julius Ceasar having the entire Roman empire as his clientel.
Therefor it changed from elite control to absolute monarchy (or despotism, not sure on this one) with Augustus, ceasars adoptive son, as the first emperor around 20 BC.
This remained untill about 400 AD. Then the Roman empire collapsed, and because it was no longer safe to be in the cities people moved to the country - from city state to manorialism. The regional power was also moved from the cities to the local landowners - from city state to feudalism. Finally the emperor lost his power, beinhg replaced by far less absolute monarchs, which governed smaller areas - from absolute monarchy (or despotism) to monarchy.

I have written this to show, that structure and urbanism is not always the same. I would also say that today the US has suburbanism while Europe has urbanism (people in Europe still live in suburbs, but the cities are the center of people's lives).

Yeah, I understood you when you were talking about city-states, but I still think that it would be difficult not only to implement, but also to play, as it would be hard for a player to keep track of dozens of individual city-states, with each of which he/she might have an alliance, treaty, truce, etc. Furthermore, it would be a challenge for designers/programmers to make CivIII in such a way as to prevent a guaranteed eventuality that the fragmented city-states would be easily conquered by a rival non-city-state civilization. What would the appeal be in having city-states in your civ if they simply fragment your civilization and leave it open for conquest?

I am in favor of having a Confederation as an organizational option, and as such, if you think that a Direct Democracy should have it as an option, I'll take your advice and keep it. I'll work on my explanation for what a Direct Democracy - Confederation means. BTW, the reason why I am in favor of having the Confederation option as a SE option is that having it as a diplomatic option alone would preclude the possibility of the rise of civs like the US under the Articles of Confederation, and of the Confederate States during the civil war. Perhaps there should be both an option to internally have a confederation and to externally have a confederation, as this would reconcile both our respective truths.

About the Unitary Centralization option:
I thought I explained the unitary system pretty well (it's very similar to how some people have been erroneously defining federalism), but if you don't understand it, I'll try another stab at explaining it. In a unitary system, all governmental power is ultimately located in the central government, but it administers its territory via local units. These local units derive all of their power from the central gov, and the central gov can override a decision by a local government. Most nations throughout history and today use this centralization system.

About the Senate:
Yeah, if you do what you're talking about, it would be pretty wierd. Therefore, I suggest that if someone has a Senate modifier in his/her model, they simply call that modifier something like "Legislature" or some other generality that would apply to all civs. However, I personally do not see the need for such a modifier, and as of yet I have not included one into my model.

And about the Steadiness modifier, I think I see what you're saying, but I still don't see what it has to do with a Senate. I combined political and economic stability into a single modifier, not only to simplify the game for players, but also because I I think that those two realms of (in)stability actually are linked to one another. In retrospect, I think I should have separates economic cycling from this modifier, but I still think that political stability does in fact affect the economic viability of a country. In my next model, I'll find another way to include economic cycling, but I will still tie economic viability into this modifier.

I do, unfortunately, disagree that we, as the players of this game, ought to have the ability to affect the urbanization of our civs. The player should only be able to control that aspect of his/her civ via the economy, as the economy affects the viability of potential urbanization options (e.g., rural vs. urban)- i.e., the urbanism of a civ is something that is affected by, and indeed dependent upon, the economy, not by governmental orders. Given the relationship between the economy and the habitation patterns of the populace, perhaps the ideal approach would be to select economy options, which automatically would affect urbanization. Then, civs w/ more dictatorial governments (such as the USSR) could "override" the normal urban patterns of the citizens in order to further their economic goals, such as when communist countries ordered collectivization, and a good example of this would be China's "Great Leap Forward" program.

Technocrat

About the city state, i'm not saying you would want to have your empire split up into several individual states, just that it could happend. The Greek city states were primarily founded due to emigration, because of political instability and food shortage. This could happend in the game. And city states are very easy to conquor for a foreign power: After all, the Greek city states didn't excist for more than a few hundred years, before they were conquored by first the Persians and then the Macedonians. And civ3 doesn't need dozens of city states. 10 or 15 would be enough to make it fun. And if a foreign power tried to conquor them it should be possible to make an alliance between them all, as they would share exactly the same culture (there should be some kind of index of culture between civs, wich would affect their relations - there could also be an intra-civ culture rating to show wether a colony was developing it's own culture). The major problem i see with ciy state is, why you wouldn't just found new cities. Maybe this could be solved by the fact that if you have direct democracy, you would need an empire (or a confederation wich isn't invented yet) to have more than 1 city. And your people could dislike this.

I think i agree on your confederation ideas. But if you were a confederation you would have very little power over the individual provinces. BTW i still think that direct democracy i only possible in one city, so in a confederation only the pop in the state capital could vote! This would make the confederation a lot like an empire.

Unitary: So this is simply a central government?

Steadiness:
I think economical and political stability should be divided. I would use maniacs senate for political and a cycling (cyc) factor for economic.

And for urbanization:
Or maybe urbanization decides your economic model? Actually i like this more and more! E.g. in a manorialism you could only have the manorialistic economics etc. This could also describe the differences on many countries today. For instance the socialism in the USSR were urban, while the socialism in China and Cambodia were rural. Rural could have growth bonus. Urban would have eco bonus, and after industrialization pro bonus, but env pen. Suburban would have eco bon, but hap pen etc. This gives whole new options to the game.

BTW i have come up with a new law:

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

Many countries today have it on med, but the US has it on high and Japan has it on low.

City-State: As you seem to have considered, there is virtually no way of having city-states in that I can envision that would not come with a plethora of problems, and even your highly developed ideas for it have certain problems, as you noticed. Your ideas are good, plausible, and probably would be fun, but from a standpoint of competing with foreign civilizations in the long run, a city-state system would something that is totally undesirable. In other words, the system of city-states that you propose, while being the most realistic, would hinder the gameplay of the player (or the AI, God forbid) disproportionately in relation to other, non-city-state civs. That is why I initially felt as though that it would be good for the player to control aspects of rival city-states in his/her civilization that he/she would be unable to control in real life. To be honest, I am at a loss of ideas as to how make the city-state option viable for long-term civilization development in the context of competition w/ other civs, and even of scores...

Confederation: It's good to see that we're agreed, except that for the Direct Demo/Confed combination, I would imagine it to be more of a system where every city has their own democratic assembly of some sort, and still have some centralized assembly somehow. This is necessary for if the Confederation option for this government possessed only one democratic assembly for just one city, it would, by definition, not be a confederacy. Although, of course, this doesn't truly matter, as it is just speculation/analysis for us to be satisfied with the realism

Urbanization: I completed my thoughts on this above, so see what you think.

Steadiness: Perhaps you are heading in the right direction, but I still want a way in which political and economic viability will be related, as they so often affect one another directly, and only in extreme situations can they ever be truly separated. Note, however, I do agree that economic cycling should be separated from this, although it should, naturally, be tied with economic viability.

Unitary: Yes, basically; it is a central government that has local/regional governments that answer to it and operate under its authority. The difference between a unitary government and a centralized government is that a centralized government has no local governments underneath it (except for city govs), as it instead adminsters its territories directly.