This is a continuation of the previous thread, SOCIAL ENGINEERING: Managed by Bell. I haven't created a summary yet, because I'm waiting for whoever's running the list this week (Dan, I believe) to let us (us being the thread managers) know what's going on and what we'll need to be doing. However, if you look over the previous thread (linked above) and the summary from version 1 of the list (at http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions/thelist/gov.shtml you can get a pretty good idea of what kind of ideas have been generated and discussed. Although I haven't done the summary, I did want to insert a break point into the previous thread, since it was getting pretty long.

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.

TRADE - caravans or shipments would have multiple goods on them and in earlier portions of the game would be combined with diplomats. The trade would be negociated with another civ as to its value in gold and other nessesary items.

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; OLIGARCHY

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.

[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited 09-17-1999).]

Given its huge role in evolving our world civilization, I think religion should be represented in Civ III, and to a larger extent than it was in Civ I or II. After studying all the posts in the relevant threads here and over at Apolyton, I have a modest proposal that I think might allow many of the previous ideas to work. Generally, I think religion as a game concept should be about on the level of trade in Civ II in terms of the time you spend thinking about it during the game. Or, in other words, it should have its own, relatively small chapter in the game manual. With that in mind, I propose the following:

1) Specific religions should exist in the game, but not necessarily real world religions. Much has been said elsewhere about this issue -- that it would be too easy to offend one sect, or even cause legal (?) issues with others. Without debating that, I believe there should only be three religions in the game, and that each should be weighted exactly equal to the others in terms of its values/modifiers. While I recognize naming them after major religions may be too controversial, I think made-up names would throw you out of the game. Others have suggested names along the lines of monotheism, polytheism, animism,
or even agnosticism. Again, I stress it should not matter what they're called as far as gameplay goes. Each religion should be weighted and valued equally; the right labels can be applied later.

2) Why only three religions? First, religions are not as important as governments in terms of gameplay. More than three would tend to increase their weight in importance, if you measure importance by the time you spend thinking about something during a game. Three religions are all that is needed for this idea to work, and be fun. Secondly, as any sociologist will tell you, three is an inherently unstable number and conflict is the hallmark of religious strife throughout history. Hence, I suggest three religions.

3) Each religion would be denoted in the interface by its own color for ease with bar graphs, etc. This color would not be confused with any Civ colors, and would NOT be represented on the game map itself. Religions would only be visible at the city level, or, by region, at the civ level, and in the latter case only if you filtered for it (hit the F1 key, for instance -- see below for explanation of a "region.").

4) Every unit in the game would subscribe to a religion. Barring a government type that forbade it, each unit would be independently capable of changing its affiliation upon contact with another religion it deemed "superior."

Here is how I see this working: Whenever any two religions met, each would seek to dominate the other. With the exception of units vs. cities (see below) one would always prevail. Religions would "meet" in two ways: a unit passing adjacent to another unit with a differing belief, or a unit entering or passing a city with a differring belief. Thus, simply "rubbing shoulders" would be cause for a religious conflict between two entities with differing beliefs, and all religious conflicts would resolve "behind the scenes."

Essentially, each of these conflicts is a mini philosophical debate. It is appropriate to have the AI handle this instantly, while the player deals with more important, less abstract, gameplay issues.

5) In resolving each religious conflict, each unit in Civ III would have the same base values for religious "attack" and "defense". These values could be modified by government type, or, as in SMAC, social engineering plusses and minuses. Thus, the religious beliefs of a unit with a high "Theocracy" modifier will usually prevail over the beliefs of a unit who has no modifiers. For those who haven't played SMAC, "social engineering modifiers" could be anything like "+ 2 for theocracy", etc.

5) Religion would be visible beginning at the city level. In the case of units passing by or entering cities, the city, unlike units, would be able to retain percentages of up to all three religions. It needn't be utterly "defeated" the way a unit would be. In the case of a unit coming in contact with a city that already has its belief, the unit would simply add its belief to that percentage the first time it came in contact. Thus the city's religious makeup would be dynamic and changing. Eventually a city might become totally homogenized with one belief.

6) Important: While most cities would usually contain some percentage of all three religions, the majority religion would rule, and each city would be represented in a "fight," and also on the game map, by that one religion (see Cormac's post).

7) Under these rules, it is hard to imagine that a "monotheistic" city could remain predominantly "monotheistic" for very long, if it is surrounded by "polytheistic" cities. Eventually a polytheistic region would form. Thus, "religious regions" become the second level the player is able to track his/her Civ's religious allignments.

7) I suggest religion be present from the beginning of the game (this may definitely rule out naming each religion anything other than a generic brand like polytheism or animism). My idea is that the map would be randomly seeded at the beginning of the game with religion tiles. In the earliest years of your civilization, a "non-aligned" unit passing near a religion tile would attain that belief -- from nature, as it were. It would then spread that belief until it came into contact with a belief it deemed superior (i.e., until it lost a religious conflict with another unit or city).

8) In sum, religion in Civ III would be very much like a virus. In time, you would watch certain religions in your civ grow or be stamped out altogether, on their own or as a result of your actions. There are a whole host of benefits or penalties your civ could have, depending on its religious status -- i.e., divided or harmonious. City improvements, wonders and scientific advancements could further help you control the spread of one religion or promote another in an effort to gain strategic benefits out of the result.

9) Other elements of strategy in the game would also be affected. Choosing to have a smaller civ would increase your chances of having religious harmony. Choosing to make your civ very large would increase the likelihood that you would have different religious regions within your borders.

10) Religion should probably be an option you can set on or off at the beginning of the game.

There are many aspects of this that I haven't figured out, obviously. Military engagement or conquering comes to mind. Previous ideas from others, such as Holy Cities as religious capitols, and crusades, seem compatible with what I'm suggesting and should be discussed. In the end, the idea is to make religion work as a game concept that still looks and acts like religion in the real world.

I'd appreciate all comments. I think I've put a lot of thought into this, but it's never enough. I may not be seeing the forest for the trees. Some of what I'm saying may be good, some of it bunk. But I'd like to think I'm at least onto a solid suggestion for the wish list.

I like your ideas, although I would prefer if the religions had their own AI's and could be negociated with. Also, are you saying that the actual percentages for each religion in a city would not be seen by the player and just be a number for the computer to use or something that the player will see? Did you look at the posts on the topic of religion in GENERAL/RELIGION IN CIV3 ?

No, I hadn't read the GENERAL/religion thread -- although I've read it now, thanks for giving it a promotion. I think I've read everybody's post on religion in the last 100 days here, and at Apolyton.

Btw, I've posted a version 1.2 of this idea at Apolyton's religion thread, and to the religion thread here that you pointed out.

To answer your question, yes, actual percentages of each religion in a city would be seen by the player. This the first level you would see religion in the game. Although I guess a unit's affiliation could be shown in that unit's info bar along with its veteran status, etc. But in the city screen I imagine a simple pie chart or bar graph would give you an at-a-glance breakdown, letting you know what religion the city was dominated by, and if any comers are about to over-throw it.

I've liked your ideas on this -- Here's a way negotiating with an AI religion could work in the model I'm suggesting. Remember, in effect, I'm saying religion and population units are synonymous, that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a hypothetical AI religious leader making demands on behalf of that religions interests -- which is of course single minded domination of all thoughts in the known universe.

Maybe it could work like this -- It could be that the largest city dominated by each of the three religions would be named that religion's Holy City when a certain advancement was discovered -- as when Philosophy is discovered in Civ II -- and thereby give a bonus to the player who possesses it from them on. At that point, each religion could be negotiated with by any player, with an edge in diplomacy given to the player who holds the Holy City.

But it would be a bit like holding a wolf by the ears. Depending on how you engineer your social rules, the Holy City could help or hurt you. It could be that a civ that gets a Holy City might decide on a strategy to erradicate all other religions within its borders, and then from around the world. As many have suggested, religious domination of the world would clearly be a new victory condition. Conversely, turning your back on this strategy might cause that religion to call other civs to crusade against you, and take over the Holy City. The third option would be some sort of pacification that you could negotiate with your Holy City, neither forcing you to wage Holy War, nor condemning you to attacks by crusade, but simply maintaining a home for that religion's Holy City within your borders... until you get a message saying the religion is losing its foothold in world percentage -- do something at once or else! So, your idea, the fun of negotiating, would be that if you owned a Holy City, you would find yourself negotiating with the AI leader of that religion to meet his demands for holy wars or money, etc., or defending against crusades against you by rivals, etc. And the power of the church would be if you didn't comply with their demands, they could immediately destablize any city dominated by their doctrine into civil unrest, or even cause a region to secede and join another civ, etc.

Is this getting close to what you were suggesting?

[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited 08-02-1999).]

Is it possible to have the religions actions be related to the type of governement they'e under? Like in a democracy as most western countries claim to be, several quite hardliner factons of religions live amongst the rest of the folks in peace. While in countries like China and Iran, the hardliners suppress all sorts of religion either 'cause they don't acknowledge it or are very much in favor of one particular faction.

(There should be more future SE choises than i've included)
The advances you'd need to make that SE choise is in the parentheses.
Each choise would have advantages (+) and penalties (-). the penalties and advantages i've made are only suggestions, as i'm not at all sure of what they should be.
Main groups: Government type, centralism, economic model, religion, military and others.

Government type:
Despotism (default): The original form of government with you in complete charge.
-happiness (hap), trade, production (prod) and growth.
Examble: almost every ancient civ.

Direct democracy (democracy? - an antiquity advance): Every citizen has a vote, all citizens vote directly.
+hap
-prod (a lot) due to people having to spend a lot of time in politics and therefor not working. Maybe the advance internet would reduce this penalty a lot, because people could now vote from home.
Examble: the Greek city states.

Absolute monarchy (absolute monarchy?): the king is absolute, so the aristocracy have no power. Like despotism, but with less penalties, as the king (or whatever)'s son now enheritages his fathers position. It would also have a better bureaucratic system.
+war
Examble: several European states in the rennaissance, e.g. France.

Indirect democracy (modern democracy/liberalism?): the modern democracies. The people elect a parliament and a government to rule for them.
+trade, hap, growth
-war
Examble: most countries today.

Elite control (??): the civ is controlled by an elite, being a small percentage of the population. You would then have to choose which group to place your power on. The options should be something like: The military, the wealthy, the intelligentsia, the coorporations, the religion etc. Each would have bonuses and penalties. The group you based your power on would also have to be powerful, so if you based your power on the military you'd have to have a lot of units, if you based it on the religion (you could only base it on one religion) you'd need a lot of religious people, and if you based it on the wealthy there would have to be a strong upper class in your civ etc. You could base your power on several things, which would make the system more stable, but would also give you less bonuses and more penalties.
Examble: Most middle age countries in Europe, The Soviet Union, fascist Italy, Nazigermany. Also, when democracy first came, very few people could actually vote, so this would also be elite control (in USA in 1776 only 2% of the population could vote!!).

Virtual (real) democracy (virtual democracy): The future utopia, where everybody would have equal rights. Eliminates crime and corruption.

Centralization:

Central government (default): Good with small civs, but a lot of waste with large ones.
Examble: early civs, most small modern countries.

Citystate (citystate/republic): Each city is a province.
+trade and science
-growth

Feudalism (feudalism): The civ is divided into small provinces (representing the aristocrats, who each controlled their own area) of 1-5 cities each.
+growth
-trade and science.

Federation (federalism): The civ is divided into large provinces of max 20 cities each.
+prod.
Examble: most modern large countries, including germany, USA and Russia.

Economic model:
Self suppliance (default): People produce what they need. Generally bad, but the best choise if you have very little resources (like in the beginning or after a possible nuclear apocalypse)
-trade and science.
Examble: all early civs.

Citystate economics (city state/republic?): I'm not sure about this one, but there should be an economic system connected with the citystate. you would have to choose this to have the citystate.
+trade and science.

Feudalistic economics (feudalism): You would have to choose this to have feudalism.
-trade and science.
To make it worth wile having feudalism it would have to give some huge growth bonuses.

Mercantilism (mercantilism?): The economic system of the rennaissance. I don't know much about it, but it would generate more trade than the previous ones.

Laissez Faire/free market (liberalism): would generate much more trade than the previous ones, but with huge economic booms and crisis's. It would be a very uncertain economic system. Perhabs it wouldn't let the player decide what to build or what to research. (note: no country in the world uses this system today)
-hap due to poverty.

Communism (communism): Karl Marx's utopia. Would let everybody give as they could and recieve as they needed. Not much economic progress. It wouldn't let you trade with countries with another system. If the civ didn't have plenty of all raw materials needed the economy would totally collaps.
Huge hap and science bonuses.
(note: no country in the world has ever used this economic model).

Capitalism (capitalism/keynes's economics): Like liberalism, but the government now has some role in economics too. Some boom/crisis like in liberalism, but not so extreem. Would have several undergroups, from the laissez-faire capitalism of USA to the mixed economics of Skandinavia.
-hap due to poverty.

Socialism (socialism?): The system of Eastern Europe untill 1989. Would also contain undergroups, based on the level of unequality.

Coorporate republic (?): the whole civ will be dominated by a single coorporation who rules the civ.

Religion:
Each religion should be shown, along with the percentage of your people worshipping it (in your city management screens you could see these percentages for the individual city). There should be different types of religions: animalism, polytheism, mysticism, monotheism and atheism. I think a religion should be created every time a civ discoveres one of the those advances (animalism being ceremonial burial and atheism being evolutionary theory – of cause there should be only one type of atheism). A new religion should come in one of the cities in that civ, saying that some prophet has founded a new religion and creating a religious building in that city. The city should be randomly chosen and act as the ”capital” of the religion. The name of the religion could be chosen by you. Every religion should have ratings from 1 to 10 (being randomly chosen) in the fields of: how well it converts people and how well it gets people to continue beliveing. This would create a whole lot of religions, far more than there should be in the game. But most of these religions would have relatively low ratings, and would therefor never convert any people, or would at least die out pretty soon. Religions would only spread from a civ to another if the civs were in contact with each other. Trade routes would make them spread faster.
The religions should also add bonuses and penalties to their worshippers in fields like science, war, prod etc. You would be able to see all those numbers. With time the religion with the highest 1-10 numbers would convert everybody in the world.People could also join foreign religions. In general modern religions would have higher 1-10 numbers than ancient ones.
With all religions you could choose how your civ should react to them. There would be options like: forbid, tolerate, support and worship blind. This would to some point affect how the religions evolve in your civ. You would probably support one that gives you bonusses and also has high 1-10 numbers. You could only worship blind one religion, and then max tolerate the others. If you forbid a religion people of that faith would be unhappy, possibly revolt if they were the majority in some cities, or else emigrate to other civs, but with some time most of them would convert to another religion.
The religious leaders would have some power and could tell you what they wanted (like forbid other religions or conquor the city with the ”capital” of that religion). If you didn’t obey them they could make some unhappiness among its worshippers. If the majority of your population worshipped that religion they might make revolution or rebel, splitting your empire apart. But if you systematically kept working against the religion you could weaken its leaders with time (people would keep worshipping it, but wouldn’t be affected as much by what its leaders told them). You could even, somehow, make the religion your state religion (like the reformation) so you would be in total control of the religion.
Maybe the people could have different levels of worshipping a religion, ranging from very religious to almost not religious. People who weren’t very religious would not be affected very much by what the religion told them.

Military:
Conscription (conscription): Giving you as large an army as you had people, but would generate unhappiness.

Professional standing army (?): You couldn’t make as many units, but there would be no unhappiness.

Mercenaries?

I guess there should be more options here.

Others:
There should be other, more specific cases that you could either set for low, medium or high (like with enviromental protection) or on or offentlige (like with child labor). They could be changed pretty easy, and in a democracy people could perhabs change these by themselves.
Exambles:
Freedom of speech: High giving more hap and science, but would make unpopular decisions by you harder to make. Would also make it hard to have an undemocratic government if everything (economy, war etc.) didn’t go exceptionally well and vice versa.

Hard punishments:High would give less crime but unhappiness and vice versa.

Importance of nationalism: If high in a nation of one ethnic group would give bonuses, but in a civ with many nationalities it would make unhappiness and probable rebellions.

Militaristic fascination: (it’s a bad name, but it should be in the game) High would give you more units in a professional standing army but less science(?) and vice versa.

Enviromantal protection: High giving less pollution but less prod and vice versa.

Child labor: High giving higher prod but less science.

Free education: Would cost money but give more science and prod.

Foreign hospitality?

Hospitality for coorporations?

There should be several of these to make it work, letting you fine-adjust your empire (please come with suggestions). Some of these should occur after certain advances, like welfare state to make free education.

Thing to debate:
Should there be impossible combos or should certain combos just give penalties or be hard to keep (I favor the last one)?

SE changes shouldn’t occur as soon as you’d made them, but take some time, probably giving only penalties at first (representing the anarchy between governments). Major changes (like from absolute monarchy to democracy or from socialism to capitalism) should give major penalties leaving your empire crippled for a long time – up to 20 turns or so. You would then probably swich to something in between for a period.

The people could also conduct a revolution by itself (like most democratic revs in Europe and the iranian rev). You could then try to work against it by using force, propaganda etc. or you could go with the revolution and support it. A revolution could very well lead to a civil war if a part of the population is against it - possibly splitting up an empire (espessialy a large one).

Impressive concept. I must say that what i like most about it is your idea that different SE choises gives you different ways to interact, or govern you empire.

However, i disagree at some points, and think you are wrong in others. You might wanna read my SE ideas, wich i have reposted above.

I think you are right, that tribal should replace despotism as the original government form. However, you are not the absolute ruler in a monarchy, but the leader supported by a ruling class of aristocrats. There should therefor also be an absolute monarchy. I also dislike your republic - i think it should be replaced by the direct democracy (a republic is either 1) an empire built out of city states, or 2) a country that has no monarch). I also think you should include the elite control. This could portray various government forms, as you could base you power on different classes (the religion would give a theocracy, the wealthy a monarchy, the intelligentsia a communist etc.). I also think that in your democracy, the parliament is way too powerful. I know that's how it's like in the real world, but this is a game, and if you don't decide what to research or build i think the meaning of the game disapears. Also, communism is an economic model, not a government form - you could easily have a democratic communistic country.

I neither think the organizatrional form should have anything to to with weather people are represented. That is decided by the government form, as you could easily have both a democratic and a elite controled federation. I like your provincial form, and definately think it should be included. However, a federation shouldn't have anything to do with weather people are represented in the parliament. It just means the civ is divided into states - like the US. And i don't think the individual cities in any organizational form should hold militia besides from the central army. It would make things too complicated.

You say yourself that you don't know much about economics, so i don't think you'll mind if i said you ideas in this area are a bit ... defective. However, i like your fascist economic model. It means that the state coorporates with the large coorporations to "do the best for the state". Should be included.

Also, io think it's extremely important that there are options to choose from if you choose socialism and espessially capitalism. I think about 10 options within each of them would do the trick. These options would be about things like the size of the public sector (both Brazil and Denmark are capitalistic, but in Brazil the public sector produces about 5-10% of BNP, in Denmark it produces more than 50%), weather labour unions are legal etc. The options within socialism could be about what type of socialism it should be (the socialism in China was very different from the one in the Soviet Union.

Joker:

Thank you for a hearty critique of my suggestion! On to my responces:

monarchy: I was looking at monarchy from a historical perspective. Specifically, the monarchies of Ancient Israel, Egypt, Bablyon, Medio-Persia, Ireland, England, and France. The common denomenator between all of these was one person in charge. The differences between them were how much authority that one person had. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was Absolute Ruler of his empire, but Cormac Mac Art (High King of Ireland) was not. The latter was bound by the laws of the land concerning his rule. Indeed, it was a Tribal Monarchy in my sceme.

Republic:
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : 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 (2) : a political unit (as a nation)
having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
I was using def B(1). - found it in Websters online.

Elite control:
I would love to have it, but I dropped a few things from your suggestion (which was THE template for this idea) because I could not figure out a way to impliment it. Included in this list is Direct Democracy (see below).

Democracy:
Theoretically, a President of a direct Democracy (what I attempted to get as close as possible to) has very little duties. I realize that this is distasteful to some, but I dislike the fact that we change governments, but besides a few annoiances and how many people are happy, we are still dictators.

Communism:
Actually, Communism is ALL THREE: a form of government, a regional organizational form, and an economic form. I took the viewpoint that true Communism is impossible and used the Soviet system as my model.

Organizational Form:
I included this because of what I found in my research. England's transitions over the years have been far more in the area of its organization (Feudal, during the reign of King Richard the Lion Heart; Provincial during the American Revolution; Centralized today). The difference can be seen when comparing democracies; how you organize effects how people are represented. Thus as ruler, we will want it going in one direction and the people will want it to go in another.

City Militias:
What can I say, I like the idea - especially with feudal states.

Economics:
This is what I gleaned from a 1964 version of Collier's Encylopedia in conjuction with the amount of economics found in Civ II, so I don't think its TOO bad. Actually, I will be posting an update to my idea tomorrow (8/10/99).

Your last paragraph:
I am not sure what you mean in the first part

"I think about 10 options within each of them would do the trick. These options would be about things like the size of the public sector"

but I have not been thinking about the little options like labor union laws and such. As for the last part about the different socialist systems, how were they different in terms of Civ II?

REVISED SUGGESTION ABOVE
------------------
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
-Qui-Gon Jinn

[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited 08-09-1999).]

Direct Democracy :
First of all : Democracy is modern. Doesn't fit in the ancient age. I would rename it Republic.
The slaves did all the work, so no production penalty.

Feudalism :
I don't get at all why Feudalism has a Growth bonus.

BTW, I myself have some humble and small ideas (say nothing Raingoon and Bell ) about Social Engineering on Apolyton. Tell me if you like them.
Why don't you go there for once?

Direct democracy did excist in ancient Greece about 700-300 BC. It's true, that the slaves did most of the work, but i don't think slavery should have anything to do with your government form. After all, Sparta won the war against Athens (Athens was a direct democracy and Sparta was an oligarcy) mainly because it's government system worked far better. And the people in Greece didn't work very much, so there should be a production penalty, which you could compensate for by using slaves. After all, being a democracy doesn't mean you can't use slaves. Direct democracy wasn't a very effeccient government type, so you would probably only choose it if you don't have any enemies and therefor can affort to loose some production by gaining some happyness and science.

And Feudalism gives growth bonus because when farming was changed from the city-state type to the type where the aristocrats live at their farms it started producing much more food, and therefor more growth. Besides, feudalism gives so many science and trade penalties there's got to be an upside to it or noone would ever choose it.

Cormac:
Thanks for responding to my critiscism. This is turning into a nice debate. Here's what i have to say:

Monarchy:
You have a point, that there are different levels of absolucy. Therefor i have come up with a suggestion: Let's have democracy be an opportunity like the others. But if you choose it, there should be several options within, from the ruler being totally absolute to having a very strong aristocracy beneath, and laws he'd have to obey. These would be the extremities, but there should also be a few options between. Each would have bonuses and penalties.

Republic:
I don't think i understand... Isn't B1 the definition of a democracy?

Elite control: (i actually prefer the term oligarcy, which means the same)
I really like this idea, so i'll explain it again: Your power as the ruler is based on a certain group, being a minority of your population. To keep the system working this group needs to be strong enough to stay in power. The groups you could base your power on would be:
the religion
the wealthy
the army
the coorporations
the intelligentsia
the police?
There should possibly be more options. Each of these groups would have bonuses and penalties (the coorporations giving more trade, the intelligentsia giving more science etc.). To keep things realistic, you could base your power on one or two of these (fascist Italy based it on the coorporations and the army, USSR on the intelligentsia). Basing it on two would make the system more stabile, but would also give less bonuses and possibly more penalties. You would also need to do things to keep the group powerful. If you based your power on the army you'd need a lot of units, if you based it on the wealthy you would need a strong upper class (this would need some demography - a figure showing how much unequality you have in your nation) and if you based it on the religion (you could only base it on one religion) you'd need a lot of strong believers among you citizens).

Democracy:
I know that the leader of a direct democracy has very little duties. But so has the leader of a democracy. We must face it: being a president in a democracy would be absolutely no fun to play. Therefor, i think you, as the leader of a democracy would control everything, except that the parliament could make peace without your approval, and that it might change the other SE options if things don't work out well (if your country has very little economic growth it might change the economic model etc.) A direct democracy would change things far more often than a modern one, as people would want change faster if they themselves are in charge of everything.

Communism:
I think we should use the term socialism, as it was what Karl Marx used. I know that socialism in USSR was undemocratic, but that doesn't mean it should be impossible. By far not! Therefor, a democratic socialism should definately be possible. However, if the country is very poor and uses socialism, the parliament might change it to something else without your approval. So it should be difficult to have a democratic socialism, but by far not impossible.
As for communism, i don't think it should be impossible. It would just require a lot of all resources needed, making it very hard to optain and keep. But it should be possible, and i would love trying to make it possible.

MONARCHY/CENTRALIZED/social form: absolute dictator
MONARCHY/PROVINCIAL/social form: a democratic monarchy where the people make some choices, but "colonies" are excluded
MONARCHY/FEDERAL/social form: a democratic monarchy
MONARCHY/FEUDAL/social form: essentially, an OLIGARCHY with the cities as a power base
MONARCHY/CITY-STATE/social form: a democratic monarchy
MONARCHY/TRIBAL/social form: efficient form of CITY-STATE.

In most of the options, the monarch (or dictator) has to bow to pressure from his population. I changed FEUDAL so that it is closer to what you had in mind with the aristocracy. This is the sort of changes that the model needs.

REPUBLIC: in a democracy citizens can vote on the actual issues (like in Athens), but in a republic, the citizens vote in representatives to vote on the issues for them.

Elite control/Oligarcy: I was trying to match your list with my model when I thought of something.
1. In Civ II, all of our actions had an effect that we could see in our "High Council"

2. It is possible to devide up society among those councilors.

Proposition: under OLIGARCHY those councilors have "votes" that either support you as leader or do not.

the religion: THEOCRACY
the wealthy: TRADE
the army MILITARY
the coorporations ?
the intelligentsia SCIENCE ADVISOR
the police? SPY (secret police?)

DEMOCRACY: I know that it would not be fun for some people (I would like it for large civs) to have the AI controlling most of what goes on in your civ, but that would be the balance that each player would have to find. What amount of control do I want? - government form What amount of input do I need to give my people to enable the highest amount of happieness? - organizational form What amount of control do I need over my economics?

COMMUNISM: Actually, the people in the U.S.S.R. did vote in a "parliment", you were limited to comunist candidates. And I agree, that is why you can choose a socialist economic form while being a republic or a democracy. It is a good choice if you are a small civ and feel overwhelmed by big corporations. As for true communism (the final form proposed by Marx) would be the elimination of all government, except what would be needed to communicate and defend from outside forces. I believe that Marx and Lenin felt that communism would need to become world-wide before it could be reached, so I guess you could argue that it is outside the realm of the game.

Economics: I agree that there should be options that you can legalize or not depending on your civ's economic form. I was not trying to be exclusive, but rather the opposite. I wanted to come up with a SE model that would allow as many options as possible, so that we could manage our civs as we liked. When I was thinking about it, I realized that none of us left DICTATORSHIP in CivII because we didn't like it, but because it was inefficient. I hated Democracy because unhappiness would interfere in warfare. I realized that these things were because the programmers were making generalizations. If there were an AI representing the people and it was as pissed-off as I was, then they would HELP me and not hinder me in this war. That is why I have been trying to tie the happiness to WHAT we do and not just what form of government we use.

You are inverting cause and consequence.
You are saying that they didn't work much, so they used slavery. It's the opposite.
Because they had slaves, they didn't need to work much.

Why would you rename direct democracy to tribal assembly? The ancient greeks (who were the ones who invented the government form and were some of the only ones who has ever used it) called it democracy, and as it is direct, and not representative as today, why not call it direct democracy? Tribal assembly sounds like a couple of old guy sitting around a tree in a village. The ancient greek city states were not just tribes, but highly evolved cities with advanced infrastructure, trading and science.

And they didn't work very much, and they would have had more production if they worked more. End of story. Besides, it should be possible to have direct democracy without slavery, and that would give even lower production. Face if, direct democracy was a very inefficient government form, wich was part of the reason why Athens lost the war to Sparta. Therefor, direct democracy would be something you would choose if you don't have any enemies, and could afford to pay production for happyness and science.

You're right, i don't understand what you mean. A democratic monarchy? What's that? In Denmark we have a democratic monarchy, but that means the monarch does nothing except opening museums and stuff, and that the power is with the government with the prime minister in charge. And i don't think that's what you mean.

Republic:
Isn't your definition of a republic the definition of a modern democracy?

Oligarchy:
That idea sounds ok, but face it, the intelligentsia didn't support the Nazis in Germany, and that didn't matter at all.

Socialism (please call it socialism):
Don't say USSR was democratic. Although the people could vote in a parliament, they could only vote for socialistic candidates, and the leader of the USSR was elected by an elite. Ok, true communism needed the entire world. But it could be possible in a large country where all needed raw materials are needed, or in a union of smaller countries working together for a common good.

--No, not really.
The MONARCH would have complete control over:
diplomacy,values (knowledge, power, mores, etc.), religious attitude, and the direction of research.

The PARLIMENT (depending on how you organized your empire) would have some power over: military (feudal lords might ignore a call for soldiers if the king was not respected/powerful), taxes (approve increases, etc.)

Republic: Isn't your definition of a republic the definition of a modern democracy?

--Sort of, "Modern Democracies" should really be called republics. Athens, as you know was a democracy, while Rome (for a time) was a republic.

Oligarchy: That idea sounds ok, but face it, the intelligentsia didn't support the Nazis in Germany, and that didn't matter at all.

--True, they have never occupied (yet!) a large enough portion of the population to do so, but theoretically they could.

--socialism:
U.S.S.R. - I know that when it came down to it, it was party controlled. All I was saying about TRUE communism is that it would eliminate our role in the game completly.

Haleluja on your last idea! Definately!

--That is the heart of the idea - our SE choices should not have immediate bonuses or restrictions because we choose republic or a dictatorship. In my system, it would be possible to have people happy under a dictatorship and revolt under a democracy.

I have almost finished an entire SE model on Apolyton.

The Athens democracy in my system is called republic.
Tribal Assembly was used by all ancient cities and villages. And yes, in the minor tribes it is a couple of old guys around a tree. BTW, I'm backed by a historian who helped me with the model.

You don't get it. They would have worked if they hadn't slaves.

AAAARRRGGGH!!!! Massive population growth in the middle ages??? Go back to high school and ask your history teacher. Food production was very low, perhaps one seed only delivered 2 while now one delivers 30 new seeds. It was very bad on everything.
However the feudalist system allows the feudal lords to ask a lot of taxes and favors to his vassals. And it is also good at military.
In my SE model, it is +2 Military, +2 Taxes, -2 Production. And why do you think people would choose a feudal system after a revolution. That system was very bad for the lower classes.
So in my model, it is good early in the game when you haven't got large cities and don't build many city improvements. It is also good for war.

Do you mean with Democratic Monarchy a Parliamental Monarchy as in England?

And in my model, the senate can be for war.

And as much SE options as possible. Well, I would find it nice, but on Apolyton most people are against it. They want to limit in to 4 choices per category as in SMAC.

And ok, feudalism wasn't as efficient as the system used today, but more efficient than the system used in ancient Rome or Greece. But there was a massive population boom in the middle ages. It would probably give war bonus, but that tax bonus wouldn't matter as it would give massive trade and science penalties. And by the people i didn't mean the lower classes (face it, they have never had any real power to do anything) but the aristocracy. And they wouldn't just choose it after a revolution, but make a revolution on their own. You would then get a message like "40 percent of the people want revolution, and they are supported by a part of the military". You could then choose to send troops to the revolting cities, and theirby risk a civil war, or give up and support the revolution.

A democratic monarchy shouldn't be possible. In England the monarch is unimportant in civ terms, and England would therefor be a democracy.

I think a democratic monarchy is a contradicto in adjectio. It sounds like you just made up that idea along the way. Has there ever excisted a democratic monarchy as the one you've described?

And why would a modern democracy be called a republic? A republic actually just means that the country does not have a monarch. Therefor, many European countries are democracies, but not republics. And there were nothing democratic in the republic of ancient Rome. It was controlled by the senator-class, which was a lot like the aristocracy of middle age Europe. The major difference between the two systems is, that the rich people in Rome lived in the cities, while the rich people in the middle ages lived out on their castles. This way, science and trade was much more evolved in Rome than in the middle ages. This difference would in my SE model be portrayed as Rome being a city-state while in the middle ages it was feudalism.

Oligarchy:

I would say that the intelligentsia together with the police controled the Soviet union. To make the system work we would just need something to show how strong the different groups are compared to each other.

Communism:

Hmmm.... i have to agree with you on that one. When the state is gone there wouldn't be much left to do. However, i would still like to play a communistic country. Or (with the risk of being politically incorrect) realising true communism could be a way to win the game - reaching utopia. Just a suggestion.

And i still support your last idea.

The Joker: Monarchy - look at the political structure of Great Britain at the time of King John Lackland. His brother and father before him were kings over feudal lords with very little power. Those lords consolidated their power and created a parliment that would have power to restrict some of the kings powers. That parliment evolved over time to have a republic section (the lower house of commons). Thus for a time, there was a real mixture of monarchy and republic.

I know that the terms "democracy" and "republic" are used differently (and inconsistantly), but I am attempting to use them properly.

Athens was a democracy (technically speaking, an indirec democracy is a republic), but had rules that allowed some form of representation. Rome (this is before Julius Ceasar) had a representative government. Originally, the senate was made up of elected citizens who had served in the army. After the advent of the emperors, it lost much of its power and became a club for aristocrats.

Oligarchy: I agree, the system needs work.

Communism: I thought about that way of winning the game, I am opposed to it for philosophical reasons. For true communism to succeed humans would have to be basicly "good" in nature; I do not believe this to be true. On the other hand, I am willing to comprimise on this.

------------------
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
-Qui-Gon Jinn

quote:

---

Temporary model, always open for discussion

By M@ni@c

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

Sections:

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

A. Concepts that are used in the model

This section contains:

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

1. Evolving SE, or "->"

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

2. The x10 system

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

SE switching

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

B. List of SE Factors

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

The Factors:

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

Elaborate explanations:

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

1) Police (Pol)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 : 2 units can act as police

0 : 1 unit can act as police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Military (Mil)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Nationalism (Nat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 : normal

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

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

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

4) Happiness (Hap)

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

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

City Limit = (8 – Difficulty) x (7 + Happiness rate) x MapRoot / 2

Where :

Difficulty = Player’s Difficulty level (0-5)
Happiness = SE Happiness rate
MapRoot = Square Root of # map squares / Square Root of 3200

For each city a civ builds or conquers in excess of this number, one additional unhappy citizen will appear at some random city somewhere in the civ.

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

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

The effectiveness of the Entertainer special citizen is also affected.

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

5) Experience (Exp)

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

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

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

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

6) Growth (Gro)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7) Production (Pro)

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

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

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

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

8) Environmentalism (Env)

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

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

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

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

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

9) Research (Res)

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

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

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

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

10) Taxes (Tax)

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

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

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

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

11) Economy (Eco)

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

The capitals of civs should get 10 more trade.

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

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

12) Relations (Rel)

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

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

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

13) Bureaucracy (Bur)

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

The formula used could :

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

where :

Trade = the number of trade icons the city generates

Bureaucracy = your SE Bureaucracy rate

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

14) Senate (Sen)

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

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

C. The Model itself

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

List of SE categories:

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

1. Goverments

Anarchy
Monarchial/Absolute
Free
Religious[/b]

Anarchy

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

Anarchy*: -3 Hap, -3 Nat

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

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

Monarchial/Absolute

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

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

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

This choice evolves in two other choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious/Strong Belief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free/Representative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

2. Economy

Open
Closed
State Controlled/Planned
Free

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

Open

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

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

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

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

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

Closed

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

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

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

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

State Controlled/Planned

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

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

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

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

Free

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

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

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

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

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

3. Structure

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

4. Value

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

5. Research

Wise Men : -2 Res
Natural : +2 Env, -1 Gro
Humanitarian : +2 Hap, -1 Exp
Practical : +2 Mil, -1 Res
Exploring : +2 Res, -1 Hap

6. Army

Tribal Levy/Levy in Mass : no pos or neg

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

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

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

D. Other SE related topics

Golden Age/ We Love The … Days

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

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

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

Religion

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

---

Meanwhile:

Cormac:

Monarchy:
Could be. Don't know much about british history.

However, i think there is a major difference between our SE models: in my model, organizational form has nothing to do with who's in charge of the empire (this is the government form). It's just about who's running the empire regionally. So you could have a monarchic federation. It would simply be a country where the monarch chooses people to rule each of the empires provinces. Democratic feudalism should also be possible. It would simply be a country where the people regionally choose leaders, who organize the army and who controls farming etc.

"technically speaking, an indirec democracy is a republic."
What??!!? No way! A republic is simply a state without a monarch! Nothing else. Therefor, USA, Germany, USSR and Rome before Ceasar are/were republics, while Britain, Denmark, Brunei and all European country in the middle ages are/were not republics. Being a republic says nothing about wether you're a democracy or not (need i remind you that Denmark is far more democratic that the US?).

And ancient Rome were not very democratic. I know that all citizens had the right to vote, but fact is, that the richer you were, the more votes you had! So you'd need about 5000 plebs (the lowest class) to get as many votes as 10 of the highest class. This way, the upper classes had almost all of the power - not very democratic. In my model ancient Rome would be an olicarchy based on the wealthy and maybe the army.

Oligarchy:
True, but i like the concept a lot.

WOW! That's impressive. I've read it through, and i have a lot of stuff to say about it.

First of all i think it's very impressive, espessially the fact that you've given all the SE choises pens and bons, something i had trouple to do.

However, there's also some things i need to criticise.
First of all, why the h... is there only 4 choises per category? This is by far the thing i hate most about the model, and i don't at all see why we should be limited to 4 options. I think there should be as many options to make the model most realistic and fun.

Second, i don't get those evolving SE things. Why not just put them all in when the appropriate advance is developed and keep the old ones there? After all, you could make a monarchy in the modern times - there's plenty of exambles: Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Jordan and many more.

SE switching:
Agree, but in some cases there should be a longer time of anarchy, if you swich to something comepletely different from what you had before. E.g. if you swich from Laissez Faire to Socialism it should take perhabs 10 or 15 turns of severe penalties before the swiching would be in place. Therefor, you would probably want to swich to capitalism first, have it for some turns and then swich to socialism.

Police:
I agree with lower unhappyness for aircrafts, but i also don't think the people should be as unhappy if you're fighting an enemy close to you that have conquored one or more of your cities (there should be an AI portraying popular opinion) - People wasn't rioting in Britain during WW2, when Britain had 100s of 1000s of soldiers on foreign ground. That was because people knew they neede to win the war or the country would be conquored. I agree with your coallitions and sea borders. But if you have a pol less than -2, can't you have units act as police? BTW i guess a drone is an unhappy citizen.

Military:
Units should definately have different support. I also think they should require both money, labour and raw materials. There should be different raw materials (like iron, coal and oil) and units should require some of these. That Economics/trade thread is that here or at Apolyton? i agree with your military effect.

Nationalism:
I agree there should be migration in Civ3 (mostly from poor to rich countries - you could set in your SE wether to accept all, some or no immigrants.

Happyness:
I agree with your assimilation, but why not just add 10 turns if you have a hap 1 lower than the civ you've conquored the civ from? Otherwise it could be very hard to be a militaristic nondemocratic regime. I also think you should be able to make an assimilator special citizen wich could speed up assimilation. That city limit thing should also depend on your SE choises (a federation can have more cities than a centralized govt).

Experience:
I agree on this one.

Growth:
I agree on 2). BTW have you seen my city idea? It's in the radical ideas forum and has some (think i) good ideas, eg that a city should consist of people and not heads. This could work with your idea, as it would now require an aqueduct to have more than say 300,000 inhapitants in a city. Agree with 5) and your last thought about growth depending on other factors than food.

Production:
Agree.

Enviromentalism:
I think normal and nuclear pollution is enough - nuclear would be very hard to remove and units would slowly die standing on it. Pollution should also be able to make global changes like deserts spreading and forests dissappearing.

Research:
sounds fine.

taxes:
Don't you mean you'd get 24 instead of 20 tax if you have +2 tax (+10%)? Otherwise i agree.

Economy:
Sounds ok. I think there should be an underlying economic system in the game, going from boom when you eg have just made an important new discovery to boom when war erupts or the country you buy oil from raises the prise. the amount of boom/bust would be decided by your economic structure, laissez faire giving very great variation and capitalism giving less (i'm using my economic SE choises).

Relations:
I think you mean bonus on international trade routes, right?

Bureaucracy:
I suggest no map grid in Civ3, so the trade loss would be determined by the distance. Also, if you build roads between your cities there'd be less trade loss.

Senate:
Why not call it a parliament. Senate is too ancient Rome'ish. I agree a lot about the other civs having a reputation.

The model itself:

Governments:

Anarchy:
Agree. The people should also be able to make revolutions wich you could suppress or support. But why shouldn't any labour be done? Just giving it large penalties would be enough for me.

Monarchial/absolute:
I'd give +1 sen to despotism. Your monarchy choises sounds fine, but they should all be there at the same time. However, totalitarism isn't absolute! It should be replaced by oligarchy wich would be an option like monarchy and democracy. Please read my oligachy model, where you base your power on one or two minorities in your civ. These would give bonuses and penalties, eg basing it on the wealthy would give you more trade.

Religious/strong belief:
I honestly don't think this should be there at all. I think a fundamentalist society could be created by a oligarchy based on the religion (one religion), and that you worship that religion blindly and forbid all others.

Free/Representative:
I like your tribal assembly as a possibility for small empires. It shoul, however have lower bur rate.
Republic: We seem to keep arguing about this. First of all, i would like it to be called direct democracy as it is a more true name. But i totally disagree with you on the rest. First of all, Rome's government system wasn't at all like that of Athens. In Rome the upper classes had way more power than the lower ones. In Athens, everybody (except the slaves) had one vote. This meant that almost 50% of the grown men had the right to vote (all but slaves and foreigners), which is far more than, say, the US around 1800. There only about 4% of the grown male population could vote. And the parliament of Athens was the people, who spent hours every day (don't keep saying i'm wrong here, cause i'm not) in politics. Therefor direct democracy should have -2 or -3 pro. This could be compensated for by having lots of slaves (like Athens had) but this should be chosen somewhere else and should have nothing to do with the govt type. In my model the govt form in Rome would be oligarchy based on the wealthy.
Democracy: I agree, but women couldn't vote untill 1917 (UK). Therefor, it should be an option within democracy. Also, i think there should be severe pol pens with democracy and true democracy, and none by any of the economic form. You can easily have a free economy and still be a police state. Exambles could be many of the South American dictatures.
True democracy: Agree. But it should have +4 res as people are free to think what they like and have new ideas.

Economy:

I must say that i don't like your economy very much. Have a look at mine. I definetaly don't like your "capitalism turning into free trade" thing. That's so wrong! I say have liberalism being an advance sometime in the 18th century. It gives you democracy and laissez faire economics. This would give far more trade than anything before, but also very extreme boom/bust economics, and would lead to the descovery communism, wich could give socialism and communism (communism being utopia) and later Keynes' economics, wich could give you capitalism. Face it: no country today uses laissez faire. They all use capitalism! In capitalism there would also be boom/bust, but not as much as in laissez faire. Also, capitalism should have some options, eg the size of the public sector an legalization/banned labour union. As i have written before there shouldn't be any pen on pol with any economic system. Also, religious communism should be possible.

Structure:
I'd give res bonus to city-state. Other options should be centralized govt, but there shouldn't be any confederate. I don't think a confederation is a country, but a union of countries (like Commonwealth) and would therefor leave virtually no control to the central govt (you).

Value:
What's mor?

Research:
I don't think it should excist.

Army:
Like the ideas, but military caste wouldn't be replaced by mercenaries. They should both be options, and so should professional. Mercenaries and professional should cost more money.

Other SE related topics:
Sounds great.

I think there should be different laws, wich could be used to fineadjust your empire (although some of them might have a large effect). these would be things like: Labour union, freedom of speech (which could be set for low, medium or high - low giving you ability to take unpopular decisions, but give less research and vise verca. You could have an oligarchy with high FoS, but if things didn't go well, people would demand revolution, or a democracy with low Fos), child labour (giving more pro but less res), enviromental protection etc. There should be loads of these to make it work.

I. Religion in Civ3

A. Why have it?

Religion is a fundamental force driving civilizations. The effects of religion permeate the history of nations, their borders, their wars and their treaties. Your ability to direct religion's impact is likewise varied. For the first time you will be able to identify your citizens individually by their beliefs, track the rise and fall of major religions, and affect the social mechanics that make your civilization grow and evolve over the centuries.

B. Defined.
Religion is a game element comparable to trade. Where trade deals with resources, religion deals with population.

1. Religions are synonymous with citizens; each citizen has the ability to belong to one religion.
2. Each city is represented on the game map by the religion practiced by the majority of its citizens.
3. Each religion shall have its own symbol.
4. No religion has greater or less numerical values than any other.
5. Religion names can be edited by the player, thus Firaxis can choose to set the the AI to default to historical religions, defunct religions, or fictional religions, or whatever they deem most appropriate. The player could have the start-up option of choosing which religion "brands" he/she wanted in the game.
6. At any time, there can be up to three more religions than there are civs. If there are ever four more than X civs, the smallest religion shall be eliminated and its members given to the second smallest religion.
7. Religions are visible in the game in four ways:
a. In the city screen by each member of the population holding a flag with its religious symbol on it. When the population gets too large for this to work, there will be a separate graphic showing the number of each citizen adhering to the religion.
b. On the main map you will see the current religious borders of the world, as determined by cities, by filtering for it (e.g., hitting F1 key).
c. Cleric units visually represent both a specific civ (color) and a specific religion (symbol).
d. On the main map, the symbol of the majority religion appears on the city flag next to the number of citizens.

II. Religion Concepts

A. Origins

Once civs have had time to establish a foothold, prophets begin to appear. Religions spread immediately thereafter. New religions will appear through the centuries, some never growing more than a city or two, others becoming recognized world religions. Some that are eradicated will never be heard of again; others might enjoy a revival two thousand years later.

1. Prophets
a. All civs begin pagan (citizens are non-aligned) and will experience the emergence of at least one prophet beginning with the second millenium of the game, but not before the discovery of religion.
b. A prophet is not a unit, but rather a newly born citizen in a given city's population window, identified by his/her new religious symbol, with higher conversion values (20 evangelism, 25 conviction) than regular citizens (see conversion, below, for explanation of conversion values).
c. After their appearance prophets last for X turns, where X is randomly chosen from between 15 and 30, then convert back into regular citizens; their religious symbol remains.
d. After the prophet disappears from a city, the remaining citizens continue to benefit from the prophet's greater conversion values for 20 more turns. This is to ensure fledgling religions will have a chance to develop.
e. Prophets can appear at any time during the game.
f. Turywenzism begins with the announcement: "Turywenzo has begun preaching in London."
g. Prophets can appear in any city.
h. Upon appearing, prophets instantly convert one citizen (other than themselves, of course); after that, conversion proceeds under the normal rules for citizen to citizen conversions (see, below).
i. If a government persecutes the new religion while the prophet is preaching, the prophet is considered martyred, the prophet disappears, leaving behind his/her bonus as described in rule "d" above, and all non-aligned citizens within 8 squares immediately convert to the new religion.
j. A religion can re-appear with a new prophet only after its religion has previously been eradicated.

B. Conversion

Each religion is incompatible with all others. Whenever two religions overlap "zones of influence," each will seek to dominate the other. The AI will handle the calculations, and keep track of the results. New conversions are noted in the population window of the appropriate city.

1. Evangelism
a. All citizen units in the population window have evangelism values.
b. Evangelism is the "attack" value of a religion.
c. All religions begin with the same base evangelism value, 10.

2. Conviction
a. All citizen units in the population window have conviction values.
b. Conviction is the "defense" value of a religion.
c. All religions begin with the same base conviction value, 15.
d. The higher conviction rating is so that, all things being equal, citizens should successfully defend against conversion attempts about 66% of the time.

3. Adjusting Conversion Ratings
a. You can increase (or in some cases decrease) your citizens' conversion ratings by:
[list][*]donating money to a specific religion
[*]declaring a state religion
[*]hosting a holy city
[*]building a city improvement
[*]building a Wonder
[*]discovering a technological advance
[*]setting your civ's attitudes towards religion in the religion screen
[*]4 like believers in one city increases each believer's values by .25; thus, a 4 stack of 4 Yahoos at 10 evangelism each is worth 50.[/list]

4. Passive Conversions
[list][*] Calculations are made by "stacking" citizens together by religion and combining their values.
[*] Passive conversions reflect the influence of the citizens in a city on their fellow citizens and the proportionately weaker influence of citizens in nearby cities.
[*] Passive conversions are calculated, on average, every five turns. The computer will randomize the interval between passive conversions so that players cannot boost evangelism/conviction factors the year before a scheduled passive conversion.
[*] Possible formula for calculating passive conversion:
[/list]

quote:

---

The Evangelism (Conviction) of a religion within a city is the sum of: the Evan(Conv) of each member in the city; plus (1 - dist/10) * Evan(Conv) of each member of that religion in a city less than 10 squares away; plus 1/2 * Evan(Conv) of each member of that religion in a city that has a mission to the city. If a religion has no members in a city, it is not attacked by other stacks.

---

A sample conversion turn within a city:

quote:

---

4 Turywenzists in London start with an evangelist factor of 10. England has Turywenzism as the state religion, and tithes a set amount of money to that religion each turn, both of which increase each Turywenzists citizen's base evangelism value to 15. The city of London has a cathedral (+.10 modifier), and 4 of its citizens are Turywenzists (+.25 modifier each). This gives each Turywenzist in London an evangelist factor of 21 (rounding up), for a combined stack evangelism value of 84. This factor is calculated against the conviction ratings of the 2 Londoners who are Yahoos who receive none of the modifiers, but whose higher conviction ratings nevertheless combine to equal 30, increasing the odds they won't capitulate in one turn. When the calculation is reversed, there is an even smaller chance the Yahoos combined evangelism rating of 20 will have any effect at all on the Turywenzist stack's combined conviction rating after all the modifiers have been figured in.

---

For more discussion of modifiers and the religion screen, see section III below, "Effects of Religion."

d. For every successful conversion, one unit in the defending religion stack converts.

5. Active Conversions - "Missions"
a. Missions established by a player
[list][*]cleric units establish missions as caravans in Civ2 established trade routes; like caravans, clerics have no values themselves.
[*]clerics represent the religion of the city they were built in (again, city religion being determined by the religion with the greatest number of believers in that city).
[*]missions can only be established outside your civ.
[*]a mission brings the foreign city into the home city's zone of influence; the foreign city is now treated as if it resided 4 tiles away from the home city and follows the rules for city to city conversions until the mission is de-established.
[*]when first established, the mission automatically converts one citizen (preferring non-aligned citizens, if any), then attempts conversions once per turn for five turns; thereafter, conversion attempts proceed normally (city to city, once every five turns).
[*]clerics disappear after they have established one mission.
[*]like trade routes, missions are always successfully established.
[*]like caravans, clerics may be destroyed en route.
[*]missions can only be de-established by purging the mission's religion from that city (see "state religion" and "persecution" rules in Section III.[/list]
b. "Missions established by the religion
[list][*]when a religion has accumulated X+Y gold pieces, where X = total number of believers throughout the world and Y= a base factor determined through play testing, the religion creates a cleric in the city with the highest evangelism factor that has an available spot for a mission.
[*]the cleric then travels to a city selected by the religion based primarily on maximizing the number of conversions.
[*]clerics generated by a religion move like clerics built by a civ, and may be destroyed by a vigilant enemy.
[/list]

6. Population growth expands religions
a. In the case of new citizens being born, the percentage chance they would be born believing in religion X, Y, or Z would be equal to the percentage that religion X, Y, and Z were represented within that city.

C. Tithing

Gold pieces are what religions use to fund ministries, their most powerful tool for expansion. All religious gold is understood to have come from "under citizen mattresses," and not from the government coffers; it does not come from the trade stream.

1. Under religious freedom. Each turn, every city tithes one gold per religion represented, to the respective religion's coffers.
a. Religious coffers are tracked by the AI.
b. The amount of gold a religion has can be seen in the religion screen, and only if that religion has a holy city (see Diplomacy, below).
2. Donations. Religions will ask for donations periodically, and in increasing amounts.
3. Under a state religion. In a "state religion", the tithe paid by the government is automatically sent into that religion's coffers.
4. When a religion has built ministries in all available cities it continues to collect tithes and build its coffers.
a. A religion can loan gold to the civ that possesses its holy city (see Diplomacy, holy cities, below).

III. Effects of religion

The player will have several options with regard to each religion. He or she may choose to establish a church or allow religious freedom. Regardless of whethere there is religious freedom or an established church, the player may choose to persecute one or more religions.

A. Under religious freedom

1. Effect on happiness, using current system.
a. For each religion in a city, one unhappy citizen becomes content or, if there are no unhappy citizens, a content citizen becomes happy. This effect continues indefinitely, so that each religion present in a city adds step to the base happiness level of the city.
b. To keep religion from having too great a benefit, the happiness effects described in a will apply to no more than one out of every four citizens in a city. That is, if there are seven citizens and three religions, only two citizens may be made happy.

2. Effect on happiness under alternate systems. Several people have proposed systems under which happiness becomes a percentage factor for each city that affects the productivity, and is not an attribute of the citizens. Under such systems, the conversion of one citizen to a new religion would increase the overall happiness/productivity percentage. When one religion attained majority status in a city, one of that religion's citizens would gain a step in happiness.

3. Effect of religious freedom on conviction. Under religious freedom, the conviction rate for all citizens is 20 percent lower than it would otherwise be.

4. Effect of full toleration. In addition to the effects listed above, if the player does not persecute any religion for five turns in a row, the research output of the civ increases by 10 percent (under the Civ2 system) or the Research SE factor improves by +1. That effect ceases immediately when the civ begins persecuting.

B. Establishment of a state church.

1. General. Under this system, the state picks one church as its official religion. Establishing a state church does not imply or require persecution of any of the other religions within the civ's territory.

2. Effect on happiness
a. The effects on happiness described above under religious freedom cease.
b. Under the Civ2 system, in each city that has at least one citizen who belongs to the state religion, one unhappy citizen becomes content or, if there are no unhappy citizens, a content citizen becomes happy. Thereafter, a content citizen becomes happy for every four believers in each city or, if there are no content citizens, an unhappy citizen becomes content. If a different happiness/productivity system is adopted, proclamation of a state religion increases a city (or civilization) happiness/productivity level by a factor of 25 percent times the proportion of citizens who belong to the state religion.
c. An additional unhappy citizen becomes content if more than 50 percent of the citizens of a city are members of the established church. In alternate systems, there is a further increase in the happiness/productivity level.
d. Conquered cities take 20 fewer turns to assimilate.
e. The number of cities that can be built before the civ undergoes a happiness penalty increases.
f. Bribery becomes 25 percent cheaper.
g. Entertainers produce 20 percent more luxuries.
h. The established church's evangelism factor increases by 20 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of that civ.
i. Deestablishing the church. A civ may deestablish a church at any time. However, deestablishment shall result in a period of anarchy for one turn.

3. Tithes. A civ that has an established church must pay 20 percent of its total trade as tithes to the church. Under an alternate system, the civ gets –2 Tax..

4. Cathedral. Only a civ that has a state religion may build a Cathedral, which has the same effect as in Civ2. If the civ then converts to religious freedom, any cathedrals will generate an amount of gold proportionate to the number of citizens it would have made happy, to reflect the tourist revenue generated by the cathedral.

5. Multiple civs with the same state church.
a. A civ may establish a religion as its state church even if another civ has already made that religion its state church. In such cases, the religion will not take any action against either of the civs, and will remain neutral in any conflict between them.
b. If the religion has a holy city, one of the civs may request the excommunication of the of
the other civ's leader. The religion will demand a contribution related to the number of believers in the excommunicated civ and the religion's attitude toward the possessor of the hold city and the civ that it wishes to excommunicate.
c. A civ whose leader is excommunicated by a religion may no longer have that religion as its state religion. It may either convert to religious freedom (with the associated two turns of anarchy), deestablish the old religion and establish a new state religion, or declare a schism (see below) and adopt the new religion as its state religion.
d. When two civs have the same state religion, either of them may at any time declare a schism of the church. 75 percent of the citizens of the old church will convert to the new church, while 25 percent will remain faithful to the old.

D. Persecution.
Under this system, belonging to a persecuted religion is illegal. A government may persecute one or all religions.
1. A persecuted religion's conversion factor is reduced by 25 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of the persecuting civ.
2. In each city that contains members of the persecuted religion, one content citizens become unhappy for each member of the persecuted religion, and one happy citizen becomes content for each two members of the persecuted religion, reflecting the angst of innocents who are caught up in the persecution. (Under a revised happiness/productivity system, persecution results in a decrease in a city or civitlization happiness/productivity level by 25 percent times the proportion of citizens who are subject to persecution.) The city's the research output decreases by 25 percent to reflect the effect of intolerance.
3. Persecution has no positive effect other than those that result from the increase in the number of believers in other religions. If there is a state religion, the state religion is likely to be the chief beneficiary of persecution.
4. If a civ persecutes a religion, its reputation with any civ that has chosen that religion as it's state religion will worsen. Also the religious leader of the persecuted religion may ask a civ that has chosen that religion as it's state religion to begin a holy war/Jihad.

D. Religious improvements.

The types of religious improvements remain the same as in Civ1/2 and may be built by any civ that has obtained the necessary technologies. A temple is necessary to obtain the advantages of religion under a state of religious freedom. If a state religion is declared, the temple will make one unhappy citizen content.

IV. Religious diplomacy.

A. Major and minor religions
The diplomatic options available for interacting with a religion depend on the size of the religion.

1. Minor religions. All religions start as minor religions.

2. Major religion. A religion becomes a major religion when it has a number of adherents greater than the total number of citizens in the world divided by the starting number of civs. It remains a major religion even if an increase in world population or decrease in the number of adherents results in the religion's share of global population falling below 1/(starting number of civs).

3. Proclamation of the holy city. When a religion becomes a major religion, the city where that religion started is proclaimed the holy city of that religion. If that city has been destroyed, the extant city nearest to the founding city's location becomes the holy city.

4. Building a Great Shrine. Any city that has proclaimed a state religion may build a Great Shrine, which shall cost a number of resources equal to a wonder for that age. When the Great Shrine is complete, the holy city for the state religion is transferred to the city with the Great Shrine, which remains the holy city for that religion unless the city is destroyed. If that occurs, a new holy city can be proclaimed by building a Great Shrine in another city.

B. Diplomatic options for both major and minor religions.

1. Request a donation. Any religion may request a donation from any civ. If the religion has a large number of believers in that civ, or if the religion is the state religion of that civ, refusal to give the donation will have a negative effect on the religion's attitude toward that civ.

2. Voluntary donation. Any civ may give a donation to any religion. The donation will be treated as tithes and used to generate a ministry to a city chosen by the civ using the same formula it would use to determine the destination of a ministry generated by tithes. A player could use this system to prop up religions that another player is attempting to eliminate, or to subvert another player's state religion.

3. Request a ministry. Any civ may request a religion to send a ministry to one of its cities. The religion will charge an amount of gold equal to the cost of a ministry, and adjusted upward or downward depending on the religion's attitude toward the requesting civ and whether the religion is the state religion of that civ.

C. Additional diplomatic options for major religions.

1. A major religion may:

a. Request a civ to conduct a jihad against a civ that is persecuting the religion. The religion may offer to fund the jihad from its tithes. A religion will request a Jihad when (1) a civ is persecuting the religion, (2) a civ that does not have a substantial number of adherents to the religion has captured the holy city, or (3) a civ has a particularly bad reputation with the religion.

b. Request a civ to defend another civ from a jihad.

c. Request a civ to conduct a crusade to take control of the holy city from another civ.

d. Demand that a civ sign a treaty with another civ.

e. Ask to become the civ's state religion.

f. Failure to accede to these requests will hurt a civ's reputation with the religion. The effect will be greater if that religion is the state religion of the civ.

2. A civ may request a major religion to:

a. intervene in a war by demanding that its opponent sign a treaty.

b. pronounce a blessing, which would increase happiness in that civ for a fixed number of turns.

c. send a ministry to a city owned by another civ.

d. excommunicate another civ's leader if that civ has established the religion as its state religion. Excommunication makes all the followers of the religion that has excommunicated have one lower level in happiness.

e. repeal an excommunication of the civ's leader.

f. proclaim the civ defender of the faith. A civ may only request to be made the defender of the faith for its state religion. If it subsequently deestablishes the state religion, it ceases to be the defender of the faith. The defender of the faith pays half of the normal monetary cost for any of the actions it asks the religion to take. If the defender of the faith fails to comply with a request from the religion, it loses its status as defender of the faith and its reputation with the religion suffers greatly.

g. loan money to the civ.

Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

In Federalist Paper #14 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.”

These are the TECHNICAL definitions, not the definitions used by the average person.

------------------
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
-Qui-Gon Jinn

Democracy:
Government form, where decisions are being made by the people who they effect.
(...)
At direct democracy the decisions are being made by direct voting. At representative democracy by chosen representatives.

Republic:
A non-monarchic government form.

THESE are the technical definitions, and far my correct than what can be found in any war manual.

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"
-Plato

"Plato was a bore."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."
-Leo Tolstoy

However, i don't understand why Plato wouldn't want to engage in politics. After all, he did wrote "The State", a book describing his utopia - a very political book.

I must say i agree with both Nietzsche and Tolstoy. BTW, i have read some of your responces about religion. Did you know that Niezsche was the one who said that god was dead? He was also kind of a fascist, as he thought war was good, and it would be an illusion to think that everybody are equal.

Slán!

The Joker :

Yea, I would also like more choices and those evolutions are not necessary for me, but some annoying people don't want too many choices.

And about Monarchy in Arabia etc... you are totally invited to defend your point on Apolyton. I will back you.
But for the moment I am outnumbered.

SE switching : Anarchy is only for switching Government choice.

And about longer switching time for radical changes; therefore there have to be more choices (means no evolutions).

Police :

You inspired me to make a new value : Survival.
Actually I splitted Power and Survival apart.
Now Survival has +2 Police (less unhappiness for troops abroad) and +2 Senate (Senate/Parliament is more warlike).
Penalty is -2 Economy.

"But if you have a pol less than -2, can't you have units act as police?"

Possibly. But that would mean another factor and people eg Will are against too much factors.

Military :

The proposal right now is I think resources, and a little bit gold and food as support.
I don't see why they should need labor.

"There should be different raw materials (like iron, coal and oil) and units should require some of these."

There is a similar proposal in the Apolyton Economy thread.

Happiness :

Yea, probably right about assimilation and nondemocratic regimes.
An Assimilator citizen? I don't see the need to invent fictional people. An assimilator doesn't exist.

"That city limit thing should also depend on your SE choises (a federation can have more cities than a centralized govt)."

I don't understand you. It is affected by SE choices.
Confederation (you mean that instead of federation, right?) has a happiness bonus and Federal a Hap penalty.

Growth :

About that cities consist out of people instead of heads, as all your ideas that has already been proposed in, again, the Economy thread . You really should go to Apolyton. I really wonder why people are willing to post in such an empty never visited super ugly blue bad supported unfriendly (the Firaxians, not you) Firaxis cave.

Environment :

Of course normal and nuclear pollution. Sorry.
But what I mean is that there are two pollution formulae in Civ2.
Population pollution is caused by the populace and can be eliminated by Mass Transit.
Industrial Pollution is caused by Shields/Resources/Labor/Whatever and can be eliminated by Solar Plant. At least in Civ2.

Taxes :

Woops. Better hurry and repair that mistake before anyone else notices it.

Economy :

You guessed it . Somebody on Apolyton already has suggested that (boom/bust) in the... Economy thread.

Relations :

Hmm. Yes. I'd better clarify that.

Bureaucracy :

Oh yes. You're right. That road thing causing less corruption was also in Civ2.
However I haven't found a formula for it.

Senate :

Fine to me about Parliament. However in my country there still is a senate. Not in yours?

Anarchy :

As in Civ2 I thought no shields are accumulated during Anarchy.

Monarchial :

I think there is too litle difference between Despotism and Absolute Monarchy if I also give Despotism a Sen bonus.

Religious :

If this is deleted, I fear there will be too little choices. Unless the evolutions are scrapped.

Representative :

Yes I know Athens was MUCH more democratic.
And I know the Athenians spent hours on politic. But IF there is slavery in Civ3, it should be a prerequisite for Direct Democracy.
Direct Democracy without slavery is impossible.

BTW, I totally agree with your definitions of Democracy and Republic.

The game balance is high economy rates = very low police rates. This is true in all versions of CivX. Not giving the +2 Eco Police penalties would seriously unbalance whole Civ3.

And isn't +4 a little too much?

Economy :

I see your point.
Laissez-Faire would be the 19th century and 20th century economy until the economic depression in the twinthies.
And under Capitalism there are some laws.
Do I get it right?

But by what serious penalty would you replace -Police?

Structure :

It's not because some Greek city states had some philosophers that suddenly every city state should get a Res bonus.

A federation is centralized.
And confederation is a country. Best example is the US. There is a federal government, but the states hold a lot of power (I think).

Actually my country Belgium (you know, the one Denmark has a pig embargo with while your own Danish pigs have also too high PCB values) is also a Confederation with Flanders and with the Walloon provinces.

Value :

Oops. Morale is kind of the SMAC equivalent of Experience.

Army :

Yea. My original idea was just as yours to keep Military Caste and Mercenaries apart, but then a historian commented.
BTW, it isn't really my friend. It's just a guy with as profession historian that has given me good advice for the model.

About laws. There are already some proposals for them on the SE thread (Apolyton).
Were you the one that suggested them?
However I don't think Freedom of Speech has already been suggested.

To you and Cormac

I must say that these SE posts are becoming incredibly long, but I am trying to read through the non-religious ones with the hopeful end of developing my own suggestions. From what I read so far, I really want to commend everyone on their creativity and diligence! With any luck, Firaxis will actually incorporate most of these ideas.

BTW thanks for liking the work being done here.

Cormac:
Ohh.

Maniac:
I have been to Apolyton, but i don't really feel like reading 270+ posts about SE to know what's going on there. But if you think i should post some of my ideas there, then i guess i will.

Now on with my replies:

Anarchy:
Sure, but shouldn't it be possible to build something - with a high penalty - during a period of anarchy? Espessially if Firaxis incoorporates those really long anarchy periods (which i hope).

Military:
I agree, no labour is needed. But it shouldn't just be a little gold. It should be a lot of gold. In ancient times and up to the rennaissance gold was what kept countries to have large standing armies. After all, knights don't need very many raw materials to work, but they needed a pretty high salary. With modern units things could change: they would still need the same amount of gold (but as you would now be a large and rich country it wouldn't matter so much any more), but way more raw materials, reflecting that a fighter needs a lot of oil, iron and other stuff to function.

Assimilaton:
Maybe you're right. But there must be something to do to assimilate people faster. Also if you have a semi-independant province in your empire, the governor of that would need something to do to keep his people as a national entity, so he could get support to the war of independance he would like to make sometime. At the same time you would have something to do to assimilate his people as fast as possible.

Senate:
In my country the parliament is called Folketinget. This means The Peoples House (more or less). In some countries it's called the Senate, in some it's called something else (like the House of Commons is UK), but the word describing all of them is a parliament.

Monarchial:
Maybe you're right. But despotism needs a sen bonus. How about just giving it +1 pol, as it isn't very effective at policing people?

Religious:
that's just another reason why the evolutions should be scrapped. There should be loads of choises, and als0o choises within each category, like in oligarchy or capitalism.

Direct democracy:
Why would direct democracy without slaves be impossible? Because it would have a major pro penalty? I don't agree. It would simply be a very inefficient gov type without slaves.

Economy:
I agree it could give problems game-wise to scrap the -pol with capitalism. But let's face reality here: There are many oligarchic gov types that uses capitalism, and they don't have very bad police rates (among others the military govts in South America in the 70s). Democracy is the one giving -pol, and it should still be that way. How about giving laissez faire -2 hap due to poverty and capitalism -1. I know they should have more pens, but i can't think of any reasonable at the moment.

Citystate:
I wasn't talking about philosophers, but the citystate system itself. In citystates the wealthy people who make their money on farms outside the cities all have people running their farms for them. Therefor they all live in the cities and has nothing to do. They therefor talk with each other and their children go to universities and become smart. The point is that they exchange ideas with each other. That is the reason development was so fast in ancient Greece and Rome. When things changed to feudalism the wealthy people moved out to their farms outside their cities (mainly because of secutiry reasons - after the fall of the Roman empire the cities were no longer safe). They started running their farms themselved (i thought they would be better at this than hired people - that's why i gave feudalism +gro), but no longer talked very much with each other. Therefor there was stagnation in res and eco.

federation:
Actually US is a federation. A federation is a country divided into states, who are selfgoverning in some areas. A confederation is a union of independant states - like NATO and Commonwealth. I therefor thought it would be no fun running a confederation as you wouldn't be doing anything.

Laws:
I would really like those laws. Freedom of speech could easily be a law, as you could have an oligarchy with high freedom of speech (like the society in Starship Troopers). People would just revolt if things (economy, war etc.) didn't go well. You could also have a democracy with low FoS. Actually, i think the US in the 50s would be an examble of this - it was illegal to be a communist. High FoS would give +1 res -1 sen. Medium would giv nothing and low would give -1 res +1 sen.

BTW i think there should be more to the senate than just war. I think, that the lower your sen value the more often the sen would force you to change some SE settings. So if economy went very bad the senate might change that.

Also, direct democracy and virtual democracy should have -3 sen, as a senate consisting of professionals would more often wait longer if things go bad than the population would - they would demand changes instantly.

Note: Some or all of these laws wouldn't be availible untill certain techs has been discovered (like welfare state for free education).

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

Militaristic fascination:
low: +1 res -1 mil
med: nothing
high: -1 res +1 mil

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

Importance of nationalism:
Would be more complex. If high in a single-ethnicity society it would give some advantages (like +1 pro or something - possibly more bons), but in a multiethnic society it would also give hap pens and raise the propability of revolts.

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

Hospitality to coorporations:
low: no coorporations in your civ.
med: normal amount of coorporations in your civ.
high: more coorporations.
Coorporations would give you more trade, but powerful coorporations could order you to do things, and if you didn't obey they could "steal" trade and production from your cities (i don't know how this would be done in the game, but i trust that Firaxis (is there anything they can't do?) will do it in a good way.)

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.

Some of these aren't exactly laws, but more like values (like militaristic fascination and importance of nationalism). These would take very long (10 turns or so) to get the bons and pens they give, while the other laws would work as intended after just 1 turn.