{The List -} Government & Social Engineering

[Mr. Orange]

To clarify, a government in Civ is specific, a "democracy" is hard coded, and any Civ who uses it gets the same bonus.

Rather then saying I am in a "democracy" I was think how though the US or UK are both countries with similar ideas, their effects are different. The US does not have the social welfare net the UK had/has or of that in continental Europe, like Scandinavia. But we also have a lower tax rate, so people can concentrate more waetlh to themselves for whatever. Another example is the US has weapons out the kazoo and uses them (justified or not), other countries might use culture (France) or money (Japan), this effects the make-up of the country.

But still we all considered "democracy" because certain rights are given, free press elections nad that is what I was trying to emulate on the spreedsheet, if cetain "culture" points are used (maybe phiolosophy would be better, but it might interfer with the Tech name), that is your essence.

However policies by your government might be a bit different. And on the empire sheet, the way those points are used woul tell what type of government you are emulating in a braod sense, Like you are Representative Centralised Aristocracy... which might sommething UK was when House of Lords had power.

I think it also gives you flexibity with your own game to change with what is going on, and gives intel to see how the governmet changes to think of what their stategy might be.

[Trifna]

Azazel, I think that the way you described my idea... is decribing another idea
Here a way I would resume it, as an example:


The goal is to look at what forms a government and to see how we could bring all this in a few aspects shown as the SMAC social engeneering.
Example:
"System of values", "Justification of power", "Control system [justice, police...]", "Statecraft", "Administrative structure", "Economic system"
Example of subdivision for "Justification of power":
theocratic - nationalist - militarily enforced - representativity - self-governance - nobility - technocratic
For the complete model: second post at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...81#post3173279



Here is a quote of the original thing:

I think I can update and resume my way of looking at this:



Goal

The goal is to look at what forms a government and to see how we could bring all this government in a few aspects. The ones I see are "System of values", "Justification of power", "Control system [justice, police...]", "Statecraft", "Administrative structure", "Economic system".




Definitions

- System of values: what forms the core belief for someone's life
- Justification of power: what is the rulers' justification for their power
- Control system: how citizens are controlled (justice, police...)
- Statecraft: who is put to direct the state, which necessarily implies how the state is ruled and its philosophy
- Administrative structure: the way power is divided between the main part the subdivisions
- Economic system: how economy is ruled





Difference with Civ 3 system, and this system's way to look at the problem

The main difference here is that it is about showing what structures and forms the government, not about showing a few possible results to chose from. In other words, it is not about creating categories like "fascism" and "democracy" as in precedent titles, but to show what is forming societies and, of course, someone can bring fascism or representative democracy (or what pleases him) by puting what forms that. ANY society can be built through such a system, in its broad aspects. Everything that forms a government should be there in a simple way.




Example that I brang earlier (updated, and not perfect)

*System of values*
religion - science - nobility [goes from European nobles to Confucius] - individualistic freedom - nationalism

*Justification of power*
theocratic - nationalist - militarily enforced - representativity - self-governance - nobility - technocratic

*Control system*
theocratic - oligarchic - martial - tribal or local - free for all [each locality organized itself as they wish and can]

*Statecraft*
totalitarian [includes king only, pope or else, depending on "justification of power"] - oligarchic [includes king + nobles or whattever else] - moderate democracy [some have more power, like actual democracies] - total democracy

*Administrative structure*
centralized - federation - republic - [Switzerland-like] - decentralized [includes anarchist local self-government, tribal local governance...]

*Economic system*
communism - soft-line communism [not following completely] - wealth state - moderate capitalism - complete capitalism

[Az]

a little bump never hurt anybody.

[Az]

I've copied your short definition from the PM into the OP, Trifna.

I am, again, very sorry guys, that I don't and describe your entire systems the way you want them to, in full detail, however, this is the point of the list, IIUC, to extract the essense, and (hopefully) inject it into Civ4.

Amazingly enough, I like almost all of your ideas, and they rarely contradict. So, hopefully, as many as possible will be implemented.
All that is left is to engage my mind-control probe on the design team.

[Trifna]

Thanks Azazel. Would it help you if people checked how their ideas were resumed and commented if pertinent? Besides, I am not that surprised to see certain common patterns in our ideas


PS: Azazel, I contacted Rael to get a clone of Sid. Do you think we can get anywhere at Firaxis with the cheaper baby model?

[Az]

PS: Azazel, I contacted Rael to get a clone of Sid. Do you think we can get anywhere at Firaxis with the cheaper baby model?

Oh, I think we can get somewhere, but I am afraid that neither of us will like it.



Anyway, tomorrow is duedate, and the man (read: DarkCloud) has said that I better include all of you jerks' models in the OP.


So I guess I should.

[Az]

And I am spent.


This is, (as they called it in the memo ), the "rough draft" of the variety of ideas, and models, that you folks have proposed. Over the following months, I think we should build a single model representing a good compromise that we all can (while grumbling ) agree on.


On a more personal note:

I don't think that a "Civilization" game should lose too much of it's qualities (but I believe in a constant improving of quanitites: more techs, more terrain improvements, more resolution ( a tile will represent a smaller area), more units, more civilizations on a single map, etc. etc. ( to a point of course)

I am, however, a solid believer in radical change in the "Governments" field. SMAC has shown how much rich and interesting it can be. I believe that the devopment of societal models is the future of civilization series. It seems that most of the contributors to the thread agree with me, and I am glad to hear that, because it means that to some extent, my own ideas will be in the game as well.

That doesn't mean, however, that the vast, interesting, complex ideas that so many of you folks have had for the "classical" government model shouldn't be implemented. I think that the vast majority of them can be implemented for SE choices, just as well. Also, additions in the fields of "small wonders", "governments varying over time, and civilization", etc. Are viable options for the SE models as well.

That's why I think that the people in this thread should propose a single unified model: There is nothing that we really disagree upon, for the most part. If we unite, there is more of a chance that "they" will listen to us. "They", are of course, the designers of the game.

Cheers.

[DarkCloud]

Thank you all!

Especially Dalgetti (Azazel) for your tireless dedication to this summary!

I'll get to work on incorporating it into the final document as soon as possible!

[Az]

Cool.

I am eager to see a PDF of the alpha of the list .

[DarkCloud]

well, I can make WORD files, but not PDF's... I don't have that program... so you'll have to regrettably be somewhat disappointed

But word can convert word files into HTML so maybe that'll work

[Az]

You can use OpenOffice to create PDF files.

[Toby Rowe]

Sliders (not my idea BTW),

I love the idea of perhaps upto 6 slider-choices making your government type (control v freedom etc).

No fixed model, Your nation is actually how YOU make it.

All choices will have an impact on the amount of money your government collects, and how happy your people are.

If you combine this slider system with trade and diplomacy sliders, you will have a fluid, dynamic interaction between them giving a unique game every time, if you want to experiment.

Based on this slider idea, I thought of pollution control- How much do you wish to spend on controlling it?

At the end of the day, the programmers need to translate models into idea's;

Whilst sliders might sound simple, it gives a fixed notch in say Trade that mathematically can be applied to other notches in other departments. With even only 24 different sliders, this must get difficult, but possible.
(Military, Trade, Government and Diplomacy share the 24 in total), government and trade get the lion's share of sliders.

Of course, most choices will effect your budget or citizens.

Toby?

(Ps; The diplomacy slider would effect attitude towards a nation, not a diplomatic model, for a real working AI is really needed in this area). The result of a conversation with another nations' diplomats would allow you to change the slider a notch or two towards that nation- and only once every so often, with a commiserate thaw/freezing betwix the two, but war only being allowed on the lowest notches.

[Spiffor]

Idea #1: Bring a political advisor. Just like war, politics can be very fun in a computer game, and it deserves to be an integral part of Civ, hence having its own advisor screen
The political advisor's role will be to warn you in case of unrest or impending unrest, and also to offer an interface for political decisions: change of government or social engineering, and maybe other kinds of decisions about internal politics.

---

Idea #2: The idea I'm bringing could complete both a Social-Enginnering model, and a fixed-government model. This idea is influenced by Tropico, which has an excellent and very enjoyable political model.

Along with the major changes that happen when a revolution is held, the player could take small-scale political decisions, called "edicts", "laws", or whatever.

These Edicts do affect the game, and a power-player can optimize them. But their main point is to be flavorful, for the "Little Napoleons" to create their own utopia or dystopia.

Edicts require a tech, but they can also require a government form, a building, a certain # of cities, a minimal population, what have you.

The Political Advisor would ask you if you want to make an Edict once the requirements are met, and you could make or repel Edicts at any time in the Political Advisor screen.

---

Here are three "Edicts" I could think of:
- "Tolerate Dissent":
Requires a government that allows military police (units turn unhappy citizens into content citizens)
Your maximum military police is reduced by one. Every city produces one extra commerce and culture per turn.

- "Religious education":
Requires at least one Cathedral, and the Theology tech.
Each cathedral produces two beakers. Universities raise your beakers by 25% instead of 50%

- "Welfare":
Requires the Communism tech.
All citizens made unhappy by surpopulation become content. It costs two gold per citizen changed and per turn.

What do you think about it (these particular edicts may be unbalanced - I'm talking about the idea in general)

[Toby Rowe]

The simple slider idea has no concept's (or precepts).

Your nation exists only by how you allow it to be, and I repeat, this must a nightmare for computing and maths I think, but would be fascinating if the programmers worked out a way for these sliders to allow this level. Basic for us- not for the blokes that must make it so if they agreed.

Toby

[Trifna]

Toby, you mean that sliders are a problem to bring in games for technical reasons? Then maybe you can change a little what you say to bring it closer to what I say: use only a few fixed positions on the slider, just as in Alpha Centauri.

[Toby Rowe]

Yep,

Sliders would represent say your stance towards another nation, perhaps represent your civ's toleralance to pollution as goverernment policy, as paid for.

It will never represent what military unit units you build- but a "funding level" slider might allow you to build many units, without affording the wages (and thus morale of them)- You get what you pay for- Armies are no different in the West today, but they will provide a warning as a border is attacked (assuming "borders" are allowed in Civ 4), only the quality will matter.

Spiffor

- By use of the perhaps 6 political sliders provided by the game, YOU decide on how your government treats both its populace, and potentially interacts with the maybe 6 sliders available in foreign affairs (perhaps two is enough on this slider. eg: in Britain until WWI we had no vote- Your level of freedoms can be set by you as King, this will then interact with the sliders set by less or more advanced (or enlightened) nations around you- As I said, I think this involves complex maths, and I'm crap at it!! But someone so inclined, should be able to link the sliders in both AI terms and real maths.

(BTW, sliders should never interfere with real AI diplomacy- just be the backdrop to it. ((Like Russia and Britain in WWII- We are still accused of pretending a British Cruiser sunk as it was carrying Russian Gold to pay for American Tanks- It was HMS Edinburgh, and it damn well sunk like we said, now proved correct once she was found on the seabed.))

I dunno- maybe two sliders on foreign policy, perhaps 4 on domestic policy: Tolerance, honesty, Work ethic and beliefs (religion/attitude)- Well the Romans hated us British being Pagan, but adopted many godesses, along with the Greek ones.

Anyway, it's 5am here, my wine glass is empty, I simply think that bar borders, sliders might, just might, give us the govermental choices we all want for our Civ's!

I for one dream of a European Liberal democracy- 1000 BC- would be fun to see if it worked- At least sliders might be able to reproduce that, the current model doesn't.

Toby

[Marcel I]

I like the SE idea better than the simple government choices in Civ I to III.
A lot of the European countries are constitutional monarchies. Meaning they have a representative government aside from their monarchs.
A few variable choices (eg Economic system; Representative system) like Fosse or some others suggest could give the game a bit more depth than it has now.
I also think there should be a different effect on your civ when you change the government (SE) yourself and when your people revolt (due to unhappiness).
Your own choice should have (cost) effects in terms of less production/growth etc due to chaos. Maybe advancing to a more sophisticated form of government (SE) should have less negative effects while falling back to a more primitive form of government (SE) would increase these effects.
When your people revolt though, cities should go in disorder like they do in Civ III while you lose your grip on production in these cities for a few turns.

[Az]

Spiff: I finally got to your post.

Your edicts idea is great. I think that it, too, can be added to the SE/Government model.

about the political advisor... well, what you described is sort of done by the domestic one (unrest, etc.)

In any case, I am not sure if this is the proper part of the list.

[korn469]

I admit I haven't had the chance to read over this entire thread, so I may commit the sin of simply rehashing many often argued points. When we started working on the list for civ3 I had many spirited debated with Ralf. He was a civ2 purist whom I vehemently disagreed. At the time I don't think I every really elaborated on why I truly believed each of the civ games need to make changes. I believe that while the civ series certainly has entertained me for countless hours it has several areas which it needs drastic improvements to fill voids in the game. Governments are one of those areas.

I'm not sure if anyone ever asked why we need governments other than to mimic the real world, but I've thought about it. I think that governments exist in the game to help differientiate between various playstyles. I also think that governments should exist to enhance certain strategies.

If apolyton or any other civ site held a contest in which all players started off with the same save file and had to win by a space ship victory it's certain that most players would have their own individual approaches for achieving that victory. On less strenous levels where using an optimal playstyle doesn't really matter there could be literally hundreds of different ways from achieving that. Some players like playing in certain ways at certain times. One game a person may want to play using self imposed restraint that prevents the player from absorbing their neighbors in a bloody (at least for the AI in most cases) series of ociliating wars. In another game the player may want to be a vicious tyrant. I feel that civ does have an implied role playing aspect to it. Governments can easily fill this roleplaying aspect of civ. In order for that to happen governments need a few traits.

Interesting differences
If I'm playing as a peaceful communist sincerely trying to build a workers paradise ideally I should notice some differences between my play style and a war crazied fascist. So governments in civ3 should have noticable differences. Notice enough that one playstyle might not work at all with certain government types, while in others it might excel. For example maybe communist citizens shouldn't generate any extra commerce, but communist governments would simply ignore upkeep on all buildings. Democracies on the other hand would get an additional happy citizen for every ten points of commerce the citizen generates. I'm not suggesting those two particular ideas, but I'm simply demostrating meaningful differences firaxis could add to governments. I'm also saying that as far as roleplaying goes the differences between a republic in civ3 and a democracy in civ3 offered no real choice. Yes those two choices did have a real bearing on exactly how you played the game but not on what you felt about it.

Governments should also enhance certain strategies. If a player decides on all out militancy as a last desperate measure to take out a foe on the verge of winning, the governmental choice should matter. Civ3 and the other civ games do a better job in this area than providing meaningful choices, but they could still show improvements. I think that governments can enhance the civ4's strategic depth by doing the following things.

Governments should have oppertunity costs
This means there shouldn't be one uber government. Every government should have things it's good at but on the same hand each government should have a weakness. If a player wants to choose the government best at waging war, in almost every instance this shouldn't also be the best at researching, culturally dominating, and building. For a player to really gain an edge they should have to give something up in return. On the same hand there could also be a government that has the strength of being medicore, neither very good or very bad.

The best government for a civ should depend on the game
Governments should have enough balance and enough differences so that in any particular game the best government depends on the players exact situation. I'm not saying that this is completely different than what civ3 does now, but this should come into play even more than it does now. However balance shouldn't constrict what governments can do so that basically all governments are either the exact same or mirror images of each other. For example -1 commerce to all citizens, military units cost half as much & +2 commerce to all citizens military units cost twice as much.

I don't think that governments have to come in any particular form. I think that either the civ way of representing governments or the smac way could work. Sliders, or bundles of ordinances could work as well. I'm fairly agnostic on the exact gameplay structure this should take.

If I was the lead designer of civ3 I'd structure it as follows.

Have broad government types like civ3. Each of these government types would have a series of smac like values they could choose. Like domestic policy (happiness), economic policy (trade and science), and foreign affairs (military, espianoge and diplomacy).

For example lets say we have a democracy and fascist government type.

Democracy: +1 happy citizens per town, +2 per city, +3 per metro. Every citizen that generates commerce gets a +1 commerce bonus. Has extreme war weariness.

domestic policy: constitution, blah, blah
economic policy: free markets, blah, blah
foreign policy: arsenal of democracy, blah, blah

constitution -> can never use marshal law, changing to a totalitarian system of government turns half of the civ's population into resistors, rioting cities don't lose production of happy or content citizens, but they do cause 2 unhappy citizens in every other city per rioting city

free markets -> economic building don't cost upkeep, all citizens eat one more food, military upkeep costs doubled

arsenal of democracy -> automatically in a state of war with any nondemocracy that is at war with any of your allies, can't declare war on democracies, troops can enter into any other democratic civ to defend them, liberates (returns to original owner democracy or not) any city you occupy

fascism -> +2 happy native citizens during times of war. Any occupied city without a military unit garrisoning it automatically flips back to its original owner.

police state -> Military units quell three population points. All other happiness structures cease to work. Can't turn citizens into entertainers.

command economy -> All buildings and military units cost half as much. Luxeries stop making citizens happy.

perpetual war -> All military units start as veterans (units built in barracks start as elites). Drafting units doesn't cause unhappiness. All captured citizens automatically start out as resistors. Any civ you declare war on ignores war weariness against you.

Then I would have a few universal ordinances, and governmental specific small wonders. And this is my ideal form of governments for civ3.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

If Civ 4 is to remain as static as Civ 3, then I will personally support all of your idea's for political governance except "pertetual war" which doesn't really exist- except now you will give an example!!

Other than that, as an updating of the format we suffer under I'd say most were spot on.

Personally I'd still prefer a slider system in several area's to give ultimate control over your Civ- at times I could be alturistic and benevolent to my people, yet also be militartistic in terms of national service duty:

My people might not know "a Rome" borders us, but I certainly do.....as my diplomats have have to deal with them for 4 years and found them "unpleasant" shall we say..... Sliders would allow me the freedom to both make my citizenry as content as possible, whilst defend my borders as much as possible, within the constaints of the treasury.

Different government types will never give you this level of choices that sliders could potentially allow.

Toby

[korn469]

I guess I should have clarified that all of those last things were simply example of how the system could work, not actual true stats i'm proposing or anything

Though I do have a question about your slider system, and hopefully you could answer me. Do you still envision civ as being basically the same? If so lets say you had a happiness slider for example, wouldn't it basically be a finite number of whole numbers if we keep the current civ system? If no while there are hundreds of possible combinations with sliders, only certains would would really be useful, and amongst the ones that work, there wouldn't be that much of differences between most. I do think it could work, but I'm afraid it would add micromanagement. Even worse I'm afaid that it could give civ more of a spread sheet type feel than it needs. After saying that though, I think sliders if implemented properly could certainly work and work well.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate, certainly not my idea- It was a Yank bloke that had this idea- I read his post and thought what a great flexible idea this could be- breaking away from the set idea's each goverment type should have, and react to, is a radical ground breaking idea.

He refuses to come forward, but his post is one I replied to, so a search of mine should reveal his original post.

I mentioned about maths I think- People with knowlege of computing should know if it's possible- If not, just end my dreams of what I think is one of the best idea's ever for Civ! That level of freedom on the sliders is just so appealing.

Apparently Civ 4 will suffer no pollution- but if it did, it could be replicated on a slider for pollution control- the more Victorian sewers (sic) you build, the less pollution you get- until solar plants and hydrogen buses ($1 million each at the moment) eliminate it

A diplomacy slider could set your current attitude towards another nation, and vice versa- I just don't know how complex it might be, but for 4-odd sliders alone in governmental attitudes say, only the mathmatical basis programmers have to achieve can tell me if it's "pie-in-sky" to reach. I hope they can do it- but then I would! But what a great idea- no governmental systems, and you create your own!

Toby

[Az]

Hi folks. I will be missing from Apolyton in the near future, due to minor stuff, like higher education.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

Once went to Haifa plus a kibbutz due to a girlie I knew marrying an Israeli- enjoyed it so much I stayed for 6 months rather than the 2 weeks the family decided upon (they went, I stayed).

Anyway, pose the mathetical problems to the relevant professors- I guess 6 types of government "ideals" and slider bars might be mathmaticaly impossible- but I still think it the best idea Civ 4 might yet have- oh the control!.

I dream of shaping a nation I want!! Liberal (like Denmark), Democratic (like Germany), Well defended (like Sweden), and supported by the majority (Like?........(I still dream of the day us British adopt the Danish system of Democracy)

Toby!

[Max Sinister]

What's impossible? Calculating whether all possibilities make sense? That's true... if every slider has a scale from 0 to 10, that's more than a million possible governments (if there are six sliders).
But still I believe that every combination of possibilities should be allowed.
Different domains shouldn't influence each other... f.e. political and economical liberty: There have been communist dictatures (SU), fascist dictatures (nazi Germany), capitalist democracies (USA) and welfare-state democracies (Sweden).

[Toby Rowe]

Max,

So is it programmable, if economic sliders etc also had to be calculated into the Governmental sliders?

Toby? (I hate maths!)

Ps; I was thinking of say 6-ish fields of governance (control, education,public service (works)/military service etc) each slider of that field having 5 or 10 notches that you can adjust, but then chuck in trade and diplomatic sliders within the maths- but never the need to get that complex- most people would be simply happy to control the type of government, so perhaps all other area's could be fixed anyway?

[Theldion]

Hmm... perhaps sliders or buttons that differ according to the government you've chosen? Like, Theocracy having a slider which ranges from Polythiestic (many gods, people are generally happier, commerce generated varies more (could be bad, or good), to Monothiestic (one god, the government controls much of everything, meaning commerce doesn't vary much, useful if Polythiesm keeps giving bad returns, people are generally less happier than under a Polythiestic govt)

Or a Democratic government, where there are radio buttons (only one can be active) which determine the kind of government you try to achieve (with some success, if it's what the people want, they do it).. Republican option increases industry/production, people are happy so long as there are jobs, but not as happy as they would be under the Democratic/Liberal option, akin to the Polythiestic option of a Theocratic government: Commerce varies more than it does under Republicanism, people are generally happier... the Green/Ecological option (this is IF pollution is incorporated into the game) tends to be pretty much a last resort for someone who is making a LOT of pollution: Pollution generation is reduced, there is a chance that pollution in a square/hex/unit of area is removed, a chance terrain change due to pollution/global warming is undone, "Plant Forest" action speed is increased, but Remove forest/jungle speed is decreased and costs money... also, industry/production is slowed, making people unhappy unless there are more people unhappy due to the amount of pollution.

[Toby Rowe]

No,

The entire idea is to avoid governmental stereotyping.

[Trifna]

Hi Toby and welcome around (it's the first time I see you anyway). It's exactly what I tried to do so perhaps you can give me some comments on what I wrote, and how you would make it better. It's a bit long, but the concept is pretty simple and it's the concept that counts. To read it, just go at the second post of this page.

[Max Sinister]

@Toby: it should be programmable. Hey, it actually was programmed in several other games. It#s only a lot of detail work: A capitalist society will get an economical bonus compared to a communist one, but how much? And so on, for all sliders and all possible values.

BTW: I think the sliders should be completely independent. i.e. the economy slider should only influence the economy directly, while it shouldn't also influence happiness. If you make more money because of your better economy and can give the people more luxuries, that's different, of course.