|
Author
|
|
Topic: Culture and Government change |  |
|
Father Beast
Prince
American Fork, UT USA
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted April 02, 2001 01:13
   | 
 |
 |  |
While reading about the culture notes in the CGW preview, I got an IDEAWhat if your civ gained momentum by staying in the same government. as in, the longer you stay in monarchy, the longer you stay in anarchy when you try to change.
this as opposed to a random (or non random, see statue of oedo) number of turns 1-3. if you spend centuries in democracy and then change to communism, you should pay the price for your folly. |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
 |
posted April 02, 2001 10:40
 |
|
| |
Well, indeed it's not a new topic.
Usually some problems arise, looking at historical example and at game playability.E.g. they mention that falling from monarchy into anarchy, just because you are translating into democracy, is silly at least. The best suggestion I red about it (not the easiest, perhaps) take into account distribution of some social modifiers (religions, trade control level, etc.). Having your citizens already a mix of culture and political needs, you gain sustain and opposition every time you steer your Civ politic too much away from your population (lower class, middle class, military, religions, etc.). I don't think Firaxis is ready to implement this model in full, I suppose their culture dominance approach will be very bland, instead. ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted April 03, 2001 15:34
|
|
| |
No, no, no. The form of government should not be a "cultural preference." A country may have a benevolent monarchy that endures for centuries, only to have it come crashing down under the rule of one despotic tyrant, sparking a revolution to a republic or democracy. And the people's reaction to a new form of government, it seems to me, would be largely dependent on how truly novel the government was. If your country is still a monarchy, but there are two other civs that have a republic, that would make the transition to republic more peaceful: that form of government has been "tested," and people would have more trust in it. On the other hand, if no civ on the planet has ever tried a communist government and you try to establish one, they may be highly resistant. Or, on the other hand, maybe there is a great deal of momentum stemming from social injustice after industrialization; maybe there's a feeling that "we don't know what a communist government would be like, but it has to be better than what we've got." Or maybe there has been a "great awakening" of religious fervor, and people are urging a fundamentalist regime. It's a complicated system.Don't get me wrong. I applaud the design team for including a nebulous game variable of "culture." I like having the cultural identity of your civ gradually increase with time as you build libraries and wonders. That makes sense. Gradually, your civ will be producing great thinkers and philosophers that will influence the thinking of your people. They will come to identify themselves with your great cities and accomplishments, and be resistant to being taken over or assimilated by other civs. If your civ is a mighty military power with long terms of military service, your culture will be somewhat martial and disciplined, perhaps quick to anger and eager to declare war on a civ for minor incidents like spying or crossing a border. If your civ is grotesquely rich and burgeoning with trade routes, your people will value money and personal gain above all else; they will resist going to war with cultures rather than trading with them, for example. And it also makes sense that they will take a certain pride in their leader. But that doesn't mean they demand a king instead of a president, or a pharaoh instead of a prime minister. So, I still think that the player should have absolute control over the form of government his civ should have. And a reasonable amount of control of social engineering, if it's incorporated. |
JosefGiven
Warlord
Okehampton,Devon,UK
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted April 03, 2001 18:02
 |
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by EnochF on 04-03-2001 03:34 PMSo, I still think that the player should have absolute control over the form of government his civ should have. And a reasonable amount of control of social engineering, if it's incorporated.
|
Yes, quite reasonable. But as someone else said a few weeks ago, each of the different combinations of the Social Engineering factors should have it's own name, in order to give it some...identity, for want of a better word.For example, oh, I don't know, State-Run Economy + Police State = Dictatorial Communism State-Run Economy + Democracy = Socialism Laissez Faire + Democracy = Capitalism Theocracy + Police State = Fundamentalism You get the idea. (except others have done a better job of quantifying it). It's just little touches like this that would make Social Engineering a welcome part of Civ III for me.  |
MrFun
Prince
United States, Iowa
Nov 2000
|
|
posted April 04, 2001 23:22
|
|
| |
Look at the first French Revolution -- it was only temporarily successful and only to a limited extent, and then in the 1830s, the monarchy was restored.Let's put the guillotine city improvement in Civ 3!  (joking) | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
