SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver2.1): Hosted by Bell

Koyaanisqatsi · July 24, 1999, 22:32

Social Engineering and Government
Wherein we shall discuss various methods of keeping the people firmly under our heels. This is a continuation of the posts in <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000002.html">Social Engineering ver1.0</a>, <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000070.html">Social Engineering ver1.1</a>, <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000107.html">Social Engineering ver2.0</a>, and <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000548.html">CIV3: Starting a list for social choices</a>. (Note: I haven't included any of the religious discussions in this summary, since religion has its own thread now. All future discussion on that topic should probably go there.) There will soon be a summary of the previous thread, once it is decided what format the v2.x summaries will take and where they will go. In the meantime, there is no need to repost ideas from the previous thread. I'm not saying not to discuss them, but reposts won't be necessary, because the ideas from the older threads will be included in the summary (once one exists.)
[This message has been edited by Bell (edited July 24, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 09:25

Bell, I've already posted the Police and Support SE factors on the previous thread. I find it stupid that they would be separated from the others I'm going to post here. Isn't there a way to transfer them to here.

Is it already time for a new summary? The only idea that was terminated well is about small civs.

How are you gonna summarize my posts? I included many ideas from other threads in my SE model.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 25, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 09:58

You can find 1)Police and 2)Support on the SE/G v2.0 thread.

However I have changed Support. Unfortunately I can't edit it anymore.

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 x10 system.
Instead of Support doing +1 Sup = -10% Support cost, +2 Sup = -20% Support; why not +1 Sup = 1 less resource/mineral needed as support, +2 Sup = 2 less resources/minerals needed...
This is an easier system than working with %.

Any Support rate higher than -2 should give a just founded city for free 10 labor/resources.

3) Centralization

+10 : +100% Food and Resources production
...
+1 : +10% Food and Resources production
0 : normal Food and Resources production
-1 : -10% Food and Resources production
...
-6 : -60% Food and Resources production

Notes :
1)Using everythingx10 model
2)So a city normally producing 60 Food and 20 Resources should produce 72 Food and 24 Minerals with +2 Centralization.
3)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 " " " "
-Something that's called 'tweeslagstelsel' and 'drieslagstelsel' in Dutch. Two kinds of Crop Rotation.
In a tweeslagstelsel every year 50% of the fields is uncultivated. In a drieslagstelsel every year 33% of the fields is uncultivated. The 'drieslagstelsel' technology should increase irrigation production with 16%, so +1 or +2 Food.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 25, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 02, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 04, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 10:10

4) Corruption

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

+10 : very little corruption
...
0 : more corruption
...
-6 : very much corruption

[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 04, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 10:52

5) Urbanization

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. My Urbanization 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 Revolutionists = very unhappy citizens.

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) My SE model is constructed so you can't get a population boom until the Modern Age. Cheating tactics like switching to democracy, set your luxuries to 100% for a few turn and pop boom are impossible.

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

+6 : Cities have a population boom every turn if sufficient Food is available in your city/region.
+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 : no population growth.

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 11:40

6) Culture

1)Culture determines how easy it for a Clerics to convert population (and units?) to your faith.

2)If a civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become automatically converted to your religion, if he has a trade route with one of your cities (or simply by geographical location?). If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate...

3) Your culture 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 +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

4) Culture affects your attack strenght(=evangelism) in religious debate/combat. Per +Culture you get +12.5% in combat. Per -Culture -12.5%.
The happiness of the population also affects the strenght.
Aristocratian : +25%
Worker : normal
Proletarian : -25%
Revolutianary : -50%
Animist : -100%
Animists are citizens without an advanced religion.

5)Your religious defense(=conviction) is determined by Nationalism.

6) Can't say numbers. Religious debate still busy on the Religion thread.

7) Numbers are relative. Means the effects are also determined by the other civ's Culture rate.

+? : Conversion easier; faster than normal assimilation

-? : Your population gets converted; no assimilation if lower culture
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 08, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 13:56

7) Nationalism

The Iron Curtain Wonder makes emigration impossible and renders your civilization completely immune to any diplomat/spy action.

+6 : No emigration possible; +5 Spy/Diplomat Morale; no bribing possible; Spy/Diplomat have 100% chance of success; -75% cost of Spy/Diplomat actions; +75% conviction(=religious defense)
+5: Very very low emigration; +5 Morale; no bribing; -75% cost; very very high success rate; +67% conviction
+4 : Very low emigration; +4 Morale; no bribing; -50% cost; very high success rate; +50% conviction
+3 : Low emigration; +3 Morale; +75% cost of enemy Spy/Diplomat actions; -50% cost of your Spy/Diplomat actions; high succes rate; +37% conviction
+2 : Lower emigration; +2 morale; +50% enemy cost; -25% your cost; higher success rate; +25% conviction
+1 : Slightly lower emigration; +1 Morale; +25% enemy cost; -25% your cost; slightly higher succes rate; +12% conviction
0 : normal
-1 : -1 Morale; -25% enemy cost; +25% your cost; slightly lower succes rate; -12% conviction
-2 : -2 Morale; -50% enemy cost; +25% your cost; lower succes rate; -25% conviction
-3 : -3 Morale; -50% enemy cost; +50% your cost; low success rate, -37% conviction
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 08, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 14:22

8) Morale

Necessary for this social factor to work, is off course that the Morale distinction of SMAC is used.

This SE factor does not determine the Morale of Spies and Diplomats.

In the modern age there should be atrocities like SMAC for certain war crimes or crimes against your population(Martial Law).

+5 : world opinion does not punish you for atrocities because they don't expect anything else from you; +5 Morale
+4 : +4 Morale; no world opinion punishment
+3 : +3 Morale; less world opinion punishment
+2 : +2 Morale
+1 : +1 Morale
0 : normal Morale; you alone decides about war and peace
-1 : -1 Morale; 25% of the time the senate decides to sign a truce or treaty; 25% of the time the senate forbids you to sneak-attack an enemy
-2 : -1 Morale; positive combat modifiers halved; 50% senate restrictions
-3 : -2 Morale; + modifiers halved; 75% senate restrictions
-4 : -3 Morale; + modifiers halved; always senate restrictions

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 14:44

9) Research

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

I said on the other SE thread that I want simultaneous research in each category. Therefore you should be able to allocate a certain amount of your research point to one category. Normally this should be 50%.

+8 : +80% Research; you may set your trade allocated to science at 100%; you may allocate 100% of your accumulated science to one category.
...
+5 : +50% Research; trade 100%; category 100%
+4 : +40% Research; trade 100%; category 90%
+3 : +30 Res; trade 100; cat 80
+2 : +20 Res; trade 90; cat 70
+1 : +10 Res; trade 80; cat 60
0 : trade 70%; category 50%
-1 : -10% Research; trade 60%; category 40%
-2 : -20 Res; trade 50; cat 30
-3 : -30 Res; trade 40; cat 25
-4 : -40 Res; trade 30; cat 25

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 15:23

10) Economy

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.

I give commerce bonuses to some economy rates. I don't know yet what they should be because there not making real progress on the Economy thread. Only loose ideas. Perhaps if you trade resources the AI should give you more than normal. Or you should get an extra bonus for trade routes passing your territory. This requires the CTP trade system.

I give +30 trade/square to +5 Economy. Some might say that makes it's too hard for not-Free Market civs. I disagree.
1)The Superhighways improvement in Civ2 did the same thing. Yielding a bonus to Republics and Democracies, but not to all other govs. x10 solves that problem and also gives a +50% trade/square to not-free market civs.
2)I included more SE choices giving an Economy bonus, so even not-free market civs can get the +10 trade/square.

Civilization's capitals should get +10 trade.

+7 : +24 trade/square; +4 commerce
+6 : +22 trade/square; +3 commerce
+5 : +20 trade/square; +2 commerce
+4 : +14 trade/square; +2 commerce
+3 : +12 trade/square; +2 commerce
+2 : +10 trade/square; +1 commerce
+1 : +2 trade/square; +1 commerce
0 : normal trade production
-1 : -10 trade in capital; -1 commerce
-2 : -2 trade/square; -2 commerce
-3 : -3 trade/square; -2 commerce
-4 : -4 trade/square; -2 commerce

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 15:34

11) Environment

There should be two types of pollution : industrial and nuclear pollution. More about this on the Terrain/TI thread.

Environment determines Industrial Pollution.

+6 : less pollution
...
0 : normal pollution rate
...
-4 : more pollution

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 15:49

12) Happiness

The higher your happiness rate, the more cities you can control before additional proletarians appear.

7 : Happy people
...
+4 : one extra aristocratian every 4 citizens
...
0 : Normal people
...
-4 : one extra proletarian every 4 citizens
...
-9 : Unhappy people
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 29, 1999).]

Jon Miller · July 25, 1999, 16:02

hi all

there has been some suggestion that civs should tend toward democracy or something like that to show that people like personal freedoms

I agree that people like personal freedoms but think that there are other matters that affect even more what the people wish

one of these is happiness rating, the germans loved hitler until he lost them a war because he kept there happiness up, if you were to suggest a more democratic setup the people wouldn't be interested in following you

the ssame has been true through the ages

another factor is fear (or something), russia did not have people who wanted it to change for a long time (after Stalin had messed it up) partly because of this (and some people did beleive in it)

also what government and social structure the people want is affected by what is successful, not what gives the individual more power (nessarily), that is the reason why so many governments have changed towards republics the last few years, its because the US and other top notch nations are republics

the same goes for other parts of social engineering

for example, in the great depression when it looked like our current social setup was not working there were a lot of forces that wanted something different and the US was close to revolution (and did have to change it social settings)

there were facists, communists, and many other groups, the US looked a bit like pre-Hitler germany

so the main things that should guide what people want should be happiness and what the leading nations social structure is, the social force towards freedom should be the weakest of the three if it is included

it should be hard to change away from the setting of the leading nation (even if it is you) and easier to change towards the social settings of the leading nation

maybe have an additional social setting of who is in control: the masses, the rich, the religious, the scientists, and the nobles (maybe same thing as the rich?)

(maybe also special interest?)

of course as events of the previous week tell us even when the masses are suppose to be in control, the rich/nobles will still be in control (as that whole JFK jr thing proved)

maybe society is just prone to making a rich/noble class, it occured in the USSR (and is arguably the source of that nations downfall) and in the US and in France after their revolution which occured a few years after ours (it ruined them too)

maybe there should be some truly revolutionary government (and social) structures in civ3 or at least ones like a true democracy (enabled by the net)

one thing I'm afraid is that there will be bias towards personal freedoms and democracy (I admit it makes the people happy but there are some other serious weaknesses among them that the nation begans to start dilly dalling and not doing anything)

also it is possible to have personal freedoms and not have democracy or republic and the social engineering should reflect that

this has gotten a lot larger than I originally planned for it to be

Another way that the US is weak (in social engineering) is in that right now if we were attempting to become a nation we would not have the guts to take for ourselves (like from the indians) in order to become a nation nor could we go to war with other nations for territory

if we had the same social engineering we do right now at the US's founding there would be no US

if we had the same social engineering we do now in 1940, Hitler would control Europe and the Japanese would probably control the US

there were protests over kosovo even and we did not lose one man, think about what would occur if we did

(by the way, the US is not alone in acting in this fashion, many if not most first world nations do, if any third world nation got the arms to fight a first world one (with a few exceptions) the first world one would lose in no time)

that occurance was clearly a chaNGING of the social engineering by the people (no ruler or set of rulers would want to be so weakened in everything)

the only good thing (from a rulers prospective) that I can see from the change in US social engineering is that it is more ecofreindly, nobody can say that US ciitizens are more happy now than they were in good economic times arround 100 years ago

the weakness (in the nation) cannot even be connected to the good economy now (how about the bad economy in the 70s

don't get me wrong, I like the US now in someways better than the US of a hundred or even fifty years ago (and not just because we now have computers) but I can not help but notice that despite the US being the most powerful nation, internally we are a lot weaker

end rant ;~)

Jon Miller

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 16:10

13) Diplomacy

To make this a valuable SE factor, Diplomacy should be upgraded in Civ3. SMAC was good, but it can always better.

A high diplomacy rate gives you improved relation with foreign nations. Low diplomacy rates the opposite.

Other civ's mood to you should also be improved if you have similar SE settings. Totally different settings give you a bad relationship.

Good mooded civs should be more willing to trade.

Your votes in your multistate-coallition should be affected by your diplomacy rate. Positive diplomacy rates give your more votes. Opposite also true.

To avoid the Diplomacy facor will be totally useless in multiplayer, make it also affect the cost of building Diplomatic improvements like the UN, and also make embassies give less information if you have a low diplomacy rating.

In Civ2 other civ's mood to you suddenly got worse in 1000 AD. This discourages making alliances.

You should be able to ask a civ to not trade the technologies you give him to another civ. In my case it would encourage technology trading and making gifts to other civs.

+6 : good diplomacy; more embassy information; more votes
...
0 : normal diplomacy
...
-4 : bad diplomacy; less embassy information; less votes
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 02, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 03, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 16:18

14) Taxes

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.

+8 : +80% taxes
...
+3 : +30 tax; tax allocation 100%
+2 : +20 tax; tax 90
+1 : +10 tax; tax 80
0 : normal Tax income; tax 70
-1 : -10 tax; tax 60
-2 : -20 tax; tax 50
-3 : -30 tax; tax 40
-4 : -20 tax; tax 30

Jon Miller · July 25, 1999, 16:36

hi M@ni@c

by the way the rich/nobles make less than the workers

in fact many do not produce anything at all, instead spend all there time partying

just looking at history tell you this: the rich are supported by those who do the actual work

Jon Miller

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 16:37

The faces are used up. My social factors too. If you have new CONCRETE ideas for other SE factors, tell them.

Some other time I'll begin to post my actual SE choices. All this was a prelude.

Jon Miller : Democracy doesn't give a Happiness bonus in my SE model.

I agree small civs should tend to the big civ SE choices. That also counts for the human player if he is the weak one. Civs with similar SE choices should have increases trade and diplomacy.

Koyaanisqatsi · July 25, 1999, 16:40

M@ni@c writes:
Bell, I've already posted the Police and Support SE factors on the previous thread. I find it stupid that they would be separated from the others I'm going to post here. Isn't there a way to transfer them to here.

Not that I have. I don't know if the moderator(s) can do it or not, though . . . just go ahead and copy those two over if you want.

Is it already time for a new summary? The only idea that was terminated well is about small civs.

Well, not a big one, just an upkeeping summary, like the ones between v1.0 and 1.1. Like I said, I don't know how the formats are going to work in the 2.x threads, but that's how it was in the 1.x, and I'm just assuming it won't change. I don't know that, though.

How are you gonna summarize my posts? I included many ideas from other threads in my SE model.

I'm not sure yet. I posted a complete tech system to the Technology thread a while ago and had it hacked apart into its component ideas, which I really didn't like, but I didn't have any better suggestions for dealing with it either. It's hard to maintain it as an entire system, though, without really putting it forth to BR & Co. as the system that all have decided to use, which it isn't. I'm going to have to think about it . . . and of course, I'm open to suggestions, as always.

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 16:52

With the riches/aristocracy/elite/happy people I mean the people possessing much, including many lands(Food), mines(resources and labor) and all kinds of money delivering things(trade).

If you possess many things, you automatically get more stuff than the simple civilian workers who only have their house and one job.

You should count all the people working for the Aristocracy, also as Aristocracy. The people working for the aristocracy are producing more, not the aristocracy itself.

If you only count the real aristocratians to the 'happy people' in civ, you would never have one happy citizen in any city in your empire.
Even in Rome, the best city of the Roman Empire and living place of the aristocracy(if they weren't in some villa on the countryside), there were only 1.5% nobles.

Flavor Dave · July 25, 1999, 17:52

"3) Having a city is better than not having a city. That was always true in CivX."

No, sir, you are wrong. Have you ever conquered a city, and had other cities of yours go into revolt? Of course you have. Have you ever founded a city and had the same thing happen? Yes. Do you ever wait until you've got Mike's or JSB before founding cities? Of course. Do you ever use settlers/engineers to build roads, irrigate, and mine? Of course you do. So, you must not agree with your own statement, or else you would only use settlers for immediately founding cities.

Harel:

"About the player who won with one city at 1821 AD. I can tell you one thing: he played at easy level. How do I know? Beacause I did, several times, a similar thing at moo."

You, sir, are also wrong. It was 1861, and it was at deity. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't. Go to the strategy boards on this site, and follow the discussion of one city challenge.

You follow up by saying that you want to be able to win with one or two cities at multiplayer. Ask yourself honestly--how drastic will the bonuses you propose have to be to make this feasible, for your 2 cities to defeat other humans' 8 or 10 cities, let alone another humans 20 cities. Is that what you want to do, just so you can win at MP?

I give up--you aren't thinking like a Firaxis employee, you're thinking only about what you want. It ain't gonna happen, that they'll change the game enough that even the best human player can win with 2 cities against other good humans. Go ahead and live your fantasy.

[This message has been edited by Flavor Dave (edited July 25, 1999).]

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 18:45

1)Flavor Dave, you're right I sometimes had cities revolting after conquering or founding cities. But if that happened, I just created an extra entertainer while I switched production to a happiness producing building or rushbought the building when it already was in construction. So happiness didn't keep me from conquering and founding cities. If it did to you, then 1) I'm an expert in city happiness management or 2) you're bad in it. I hope for both of us the first.

2) Again I didn't wait until JSB or Mike's to expand. Until I got them I used Phalanxes to keep the people firmly under my heals as Bell expresses it so good(thanks for your answer Bell. I don't think I will type Support and Police again though. I almost lost track of my own complicated negative police rate and I don't want to experience that again.). It did keep from switching to Republic until I had Mike's and to democracy until I had JSB(without it was totally insane to maintain a democracy).

About that settler stuff. Actually the first millenia I didn't use settlers for terrain improvement. Mostly it was building one Irrigation and Road and then go to a place to build the next city. When that happened production of the next settler was complete. Until I had 30 to 60 cities (dependent on how big my continent was and how early I was surrounded by other civs) my entire civ was a settlers producing organism. This tactic kept my cities small anyway, so I never had happiness problems. When the last cities were build and the others growing(the only time I had real hap problems), back in one of my first cities Mike's was getting ready. Then I switched to republic and sometimes I lost a few settlers due to food shortage! I remember almost in every game 5 settlers running for the last available spot. The others condemned to road building to their previous home cities(or starving of hunger). The good old Civ2 days...

Maniac · July 25, 1999, 19:05

Flavor Dave, I forgot to mention what I was trying to say. My point is it didn't keep me from conquering. If it did to you and all other civplayers I apologize, but until I know that sure, I'll try to make conquest less desirable and trade a better option.

Small civ stuff : I'll reveal a tip of the curtain. The rest I will reveal tomorrow. My plan for City State Structure is +2 Centralization, +2 Taxes, -3 Corruption, -3 happiness. The corruption and happiness penalties make sure this is a dumb choice for every civ except the really small ones. Plus I should give a +50% Value bonus for the City State and perhaps a immunity for it's negative values. Plus a commerce bonus if they have at least +2Economy. This makes them stronger but not unbeatable. It certainly isn't my intention to make them invincible.
We can discuss this point to eternity but actually only playtesting can say what's the best way to let the small ones prosper.

Live long and prosper.

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

Communist_99 · July 25, 1999, 22:42

Hi all, I am sorta new here, but I have a few suggetions for the gouverments. There should be a few new gouverments, such as:

Fascism, -50% Trade, +10% science, +25% Gold
Notes:
-Every unit beyond the 3 is free support
-3 units in a city can eliminate unhappiness through fear.

Aristocracy, +50% Trade, -25% science,
+50% Gold
Notes:
-The people become unhappy due to the difference in social status.
-Every unit must be supported.
-Good for small growing empires, bad for large empires.

More to come

Harel · July 26, 1999, 07:34

Flavor dave:

First, if the guy pulled if off by 1861 at Diety, then bravo to him. I couldn't do it, I admit. And I am a GOOD civ player, I assure you.
Secondly, you assume I would like to play the game with one or two cities. Hardly. While I DO play perfectionist, I usally use 8-10 cities and mend them too perfection.
Third, I never said you should WIN with one or two cities. However, I assume that Firaxis would add "shared victory" condition, so that you can win with your allies. So, a small civ could help the war effort.
Fourth, no human player, regardless how good he is can win at multiplayer with one city. You know that just as well as I do. No bonus in the world could change that. The AI doesn't KNOW he should attack the smaller civ ( cause, as we all know, he only likes to strike at the bigger opponenets ). But the human players knows that. In the prospect of taken over a rich, lush city ( mainly when he is going for AC! ) every human player would attack and kill the small civ.
Five, the perfectionist way should be available and encourged just like the real world. You can't win, but you can float.
Six, what about my point for realism? It's more realisitc to add this feature.
Seven, you keep saying "what if the bonus would be too big". Well, I set my mind, finally on the size of the bonus. Tell me if this is too much:

Bonus only applies to the Value attribute. Every value gives +2 something, -1 something.

For one city, +4 and no minus from any SE at all ( the grand total of everything, with market and goverment, can't be a minus ).
For two cities, +3 and no minus from the value only ( +3/+0, the others work as normal ).
For three cities, +2 and no minus ( +2/+0 ).
Four cities and up, Value bonus as normal.

This is hardly a huge and drastic effect.

To maniac:

No, I don't get my info from Diodorus, but he IS the historian. Maybe we should check with him.
About the police state SE: again, I tell you, you can't force a certain SE model on a kind of civ! A SE should be good for everyone, big and small. A democracy can hardly pick "police state". Taiwan and Israel are no "police states", while true police states in the real world can't pick that SE cause it's huge in-effinecy makes it only useful for smaller civ.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 26, 1999).]

Maniac · July 26, 1999, 10:11

Communist_99 : You definitely need to read some of the previous threads. Probably there will be Social Engineering in Civ3. And not fully determined governments like you suggested.

Besides that : Why would a fascist government get a science bonus and an aristocracy a penalty.

Aristocracy government is represented by Republic = the elite of the country/city rules.
Examples : Rome(senators,nobles), the Dutch(traders had influence), Renaissance Italy(the bankers) and the Cromwell republic(not the king, but the high classes)

I don't see a republic as a government with a president. That is only a recent development and I count that under democracy.

Fascism is not really represented in my SE model. You could count it under Totalitarianism or Theocracy/Strict Monotheism( the people adore their leader as a god).
Perhaps I should rename Strict Monotheism, cause I gave it the same benefits as I would give to a fascist government.

Maniac · July 26, 1999, 10:35

Harel, what are you blah-ing about Police State? I can't remember saying anything about police states.

1) I haven't included Police State in my SE model. It's called Totalitarianism.
2) If it's about City State. It's kinda strange for a small civ to have a Confederate structure. So the most logic choice should be City State.
3) You can't be Democracy and Totalitarianism at the same time, cause they're both Government choices.
4) Why are dragging Israel and Taiwan in to this. I know also they aren't a police state.
5) Small police state : Sparta
Large police state : China
6) SE immunity for everything if you have only one city is a huge and drastic effect.
7) In SMAC there is a cooperative victory condition.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]

Maniac · July 26, 1999, 11:13

1)Ok, this is the first of the 39 SE posts I'll make. Again, don't flame if my model sucks and is full of mistakes and loopholes. I'm not a historian like Diodorus and I can't playtest my model since it's based on things I can't edit in SMAC.

Some nitpickers might notice that I have included more positive and negative possibilities in my SE factors than my SE choices allow. This is because I want civs to have also SE adjustment and other benefits even in the beginning of the game. Otherwise it is pointless to include 30 civs.
Some might say : "What if the Phoenicians with a sea movement bonus start in the middle of a continent?"
My answer is simple : don't let them start in the middle of a continent. Let them always start near the ocean. Or let the Incas with some mining bonus or labor bonus start near a mountain range.

1) Government
1.1) Anarchy

This isn't a government actually. It's the period between switching government types. This is too used when a city is in a riot.

Social factors :
-4 Corruption : no trade is gathered at all
-3 Nationalism : if you are revolting, this is because you are unsatisfied with what your country is doing, so less nationalism. It also means that anarchy is the perfect time for other civs to bribe your cities.
(-4 Happiness) : means one extra proletarian on every 4 citizens.
I put it between brackets. -4 Happiness would mean that there could appear very unhappy citizens(=revolutionaries). A SE change costs one turn to take effect. So the second turn a city is in anarchy, it would form a new minor or maior civ.
I put in brackets because I only want that -4 happiness penalty to count for a city riot and not for a government switch. Otherwise you would loose a big part of your civ because you just installed a Democracy eg. That discourages government switching.

Special :
No labor is done during anarchy.
Other SE categories may not influence the -4 Corruption and Happiness. Otherwise trade would be generated by the rioting cities.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 26, 1999).]

Maniac · July 26, 1999, 13:07

I don't feel like posting 38 other threads, so I'll post all my SE choices here. After that I will post the reasons for certains things and the problems/inaccuracies in my model. Also I will post the special advantages for some SE choices, for instance City State.
The first choice in every category is the one you automatically have in the beginning of the game.
The last of every category is a futuristic choice. Cause I want Civ3 to go to perhaps 2200 AD. I don't care about Sid Meier's Sweep of Time Trilogy. You don't ruin a game because you want it to be a prequel to another one(SMAC).

Government :
Despotism : +2 Pol, -2 Corr
Anarchy : -4 Corr, -3 Nat, -4 Hap
Monarchy : no positives or negatives
Totalitarianism : +4 Sup, +2 Pol, -2 Hap, -1 Corr
Theocracy : +2 Hap, +2 Tax, -2 Res
Republic : +2 Centr, +2 Corr, -2 Mor
Democracy : +2 Corr, +2 Cult, +1 Eco, -2 Sup, -2 Mor
Ecotopia : +2 Env, +2 Hap, -2 Urb

Economy :
Barter : -2 Tax
Currency : no pos or neg
Banking : +2 Eco, -3 Pol, -2 Sup
Feudalism : +4 Sup, +2 Tax, -2 Centr
Mercantilism : +1 Eco, +2 Urb, -2 Mor
Protectionism : +2 Centr, +1 Tax, -1 Dipl, -1 Corr
Communism : +3 Centr, +2 Nat, -2 Eco, -1 Corr
Free Market : +2 Eco, +2 Corr, -5 Pol, -3 Env
Transnational : +3 Eco, +2 Corr, +2 Centr, -8 Pol, -3 Env, -2 Mor

Values :
Survival : no pos or neg
Power : +4 Sup, +2 Mor, -2 Centr
Knowledge : +2 Res, +2 Hap, -2 Tax
Wealth : +1 Eco, +1 Centr, -2 Urb
Environment : +2 Env, +2 Corr, -2 Centr
Space Exploitation : +2 Urb, +1 Centr, -2 Tax

Structure :
Tribal : +2 Sup, -2 Centr
City State : +2 Centr, +2 Tax, -3 Corr, -3 Hap
Federal : +2 Corr, +2 Nat, -2 Hap
Confederate : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -1 Cult, -1 Corr
Commonwealth : +2 Dipl, +1 Eco, -2 Pol

Army :
Draft : no pos or neg
Reserve : +3 Sup, -2 Mor
Professional : +2 Mor, -2 Sup, -1 Urb
Cyborg : +2 Mor, +2 Nat, -4 Sup

Religion :
Animism : -2 Res
Loose Polytheism : no pos or neg
Strict Polytheism : +2 Urb, +2 Sup, -2 Cult
Loose Monotheism : +2 Cult, +1 Res, -2 Dipl
Strict Monotheism : +2 Nat, +2 Mor, -2 Dipl
Multitheism : +2 Dipl, +1 Hap, -3 Nat
Atheism : +2 Res, +2 Corr, -2 Hap

Harel · July 26, 1999, 16:48

Maniac, now i notice you ment "structure - city state". That make's more sense.

About the suggestion themselfs:

Theocracy should give a morale bonus.
Democracy should increase research ( free thinking ) but decresse effiency ( beucracy ).
Atehism should not decreese happiness, maybe morale?

More suggestions:

One thing: I belive you need to add a new factor: 15: military industry. A bonus to production that only applies to military unit construction. ( aka Mil ). Works like Industry.

I'll probaly think of more up, but right now I revert to my original army post, with using your ( very good one! ) SE model:

The people army - forced drafts to create a mass army. Very useful in times of war.
( China, Soviet union ).
+2 Mil, +2 Sup, -2 morale, -2 happiness

Civilian duty army - using drafts, but with public acceptence and rigid training. Costly but effeicnet troops.
( Switzerlend, Israel ).
+1 mil, +2 morale, -2 support

volunteer army - soldiers volunteer for a full-pay service. However, since it's open to all groups the over-all military quaility tends to be poor.
( USA )
+2 happiness -1 morale

professinal army - volunteering army, by using very expensive training.
( Britian, Japan, France )
+1 morale, +2 happiness, -1 mil, -2 support

mercenry army - using hired proffesinal to do the work for you. Tends to be way too costly for big civ.
+3 morale, +2 Nat, -2 mil, -3 suport

brain-washed army - quite obivious. A cheap way to get a powerful army, but has drastic implications.
+2 morale, +4 nat, +2 mil, -2 support, -2 happiness

BTW, Maniac I ment no minus is the final calculations. For example, -3 support from free market and +2 support from goverement. So, the final figure is -1 which is then turned to +0. Not simple eliminting the minus to get +2 support.
Besides, that is only for a one city civ.
BTW, it was your idea

Jon Miller · July 26, 1999, 18:42

Hello all

I think that Moniac's system is too pro aristocracy, democracy, and free market

also his system is to hierarchial in that people will only use one or two sets of se choices at any time in the game (there seems to be a best for every step along the way, unlike smac where they were more ballanced)

for one thing aristocracy and the democratic ideals of freedom are mutually exclusive and putting them together shows a limited understanding of how things work because the aristocracy takes control

I see se choices being in the areas of
(who) is in control
method of (control)
method of (economics)
what those in control (value)
(division) of control

maybe a few more

multiple things would be under value and each could be checked (even some might not allow others)

each would also have pluses and minuses

past value and se choices would make future value choices occur

maybe value choices would not be choices you make but would instead be based on how you play the game, if you have been at peace for a while you will atomatically get the pacificist value choice at its corresponding pluses and minuses, if you have been expanding for a while you will get the manifest destiny value choice, if you have been building improvements to lower pollution (or if pollution is really bad) you will get the green choice

unlike the other se choices you cannot choose value ones and you can have multiple value chcoices in affect at once

examples of value are: green, wealth, power, knowlegde(I would consider space as part of this), manifest destiny, pacificism, individualism(this would come from being in something like democracy or republic for a while), human rights, religion, maybe others?

who is in control is only changed when a revolution occurs, if who changes all previous values are wiped

examples of who are: military, king(you, a single person), aristocracy(nobles/rich), religious, scientists, masses, maybe others?

when you declare revolution you can only put as who those groups that think you are doing a good job

each group has value choices they start with

the different groups become available at different times (starting with one person rule), religious would come early and scientists would come late in the tech

got to go more later (as well as specifics on what se will affect)

Jon Miller