New Government Types

[Indignator]

This topic was probably beaten to death before, but I'm new to this forum, and the few pages of threads that I browsed didn't have include new governments. Anyway, here are my ideas:

Theocracy:
Better unit support than monarchy, but corruption on the level of Despotism.

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy:
Same as Democracy, except has limited unit support, but workers work normally.

Socio-Democracy:
Unit support on the level of Constitutional Monarchy, but corruption is same as Communism. Other than that, same as Democracy.

Fundementalism:
Units and/or improvments are FREE, but has the production penelty of Despotism, and cannot mobilize for war.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM, MONARCHY AND DESPOTISM:
Despotism is a form of government where the leader has absolute control through his army. Normal Monarchy involves a leader who is recognized by the people and (most of all) by the nobility as the one chosen by God. Feudalism is an entire social system, with a social ladder with the King at the top, who gives land to the Barons (in exchange for defense), who give land to the Peasants (in exchange for all that they grow on it).

[Thrawn05]

I like it... good job.

[ThePlagueRat]

I liked it too... but Socio-democracy should be renamed Social-democracy. (or just Socialism?)

[Mikhail]

One thing: Fundamentalism is a state of mind/being, not a government type. Israel and Saudi Arabia have, for the most part, fundamentalist governments, but they exist within a democracy and a monarchy

The United States is one of the most fundamentalist countries in the world, though not their government, but the general people. There was a poll that came out several years ago, that had less than 10% of the US's population believing in evolution.

Theocracy is okay I suppose, but Fundamentalist is just a status.

Personally, I'd like to see such statuses implemented.

I'm envisioning

Society: (society type) Government: (existing governent that's in the grame)

You could have the base governments we have now, all that could be combined with Society Types:

Capitalist (economic bonus)
Socialist (happiness bonus)
Fascist (military bonus)
Fundamentalist (corruption reduction)

they'd need to be balanced a bit more (Capitalist and Fascist are obvious, but I can't think of anything good for Socialist and Fundamentalist)

Thus, you could have a Fascist Communism (such as the Soviet Union, creating a war machine that's not good for much else), or Socialist Democracy (similar to current Western Europe governments, a peace time combination), or Fundamentalist Monarchy (as we see in the mid east), etc.

I realize that Fundamentalism and Socialism are pretty weak, but consider them to come early in the game, like Monarchy and Depotism are now. Though, if you're having problems with corruption or happiness (as Democracys often do during war), switching your society to Socialist or Fundamentalist would still have a purpose.

I much rather that kind of system, adding a lot of variety and possibility, but not cluttering up the number of governments there are (CTP had just too many, that were obviously in a 'ladder of usefullness', instead of all being useful in different situations)

[Darkworld Ark]

Sounds good, just add Clerics as a 'UU' for Theocracy (look at CTP Cleric for blueprint), Facism (higher, or even unlimited unit support, Democratic curruption level, allways mobolized for war, has bad relations with Republic, Democracy, & maybe even Communism).

[notyoueither]

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic

You've got Feudalism and Monarchy backwards. Established monarchs (absolutism) are more 'advanced' than primitive feudalism, and are better for trade due to central authority. Monarchs also have to employ mercenaries more often than feudal lords.

[Indignator]

Established monarchs (absolutism) are more 'advanced' than primitive feudalism, and are better for trade due to central authority

Lack of central authority is exactly what makes the Republic and Democracy better for trade. The people just do what they want. And under Feudalism because the lords have a free hand they engage in trade more. Maybe not historically accurate or realistic, but few things in the game are.

As for unit support, just what makes units free anyway? Why all units under Democracy require support? Because they are a profesional army? Many Democracies in the world still conscript troops in peace time. Unit support is just a game concept, to give different governments pros and cons.

In any case, I just wanted to include an early game alternative to the Republic, and I thought that Feudalism would be a good candidate.

EDIT: Some minor punctuation changes.

[notyoueither]

I would simply swap the places of Feudalism and Monarchy.

Democracies and Republics are better at trade due to the rule of law. Monarchies (absolute) are much better at central control than pure feudalism. Monarchs grew out of feudalism in Europe.

It is difficult to trade when you are being taxed by every tin pot feudal lord through whose territory you must travel.

As for unit costs... feudal lords would be able to rely on regular drafts of peasant fodder as well as subordinates in the feudal system as knights. These forces cost nothing. Service to the liege lord is a condition to continued living.

Whereas later monarchs, even absolute ones, are often cut off from these levies. Many monarchs relied on paid soldiers to maintain their realms. A feudal lord would lack the cash.

[Indignator]

I would simply swap the places of Feudalism and Monarchy.

Does it really matter what it's called? You can always edit "Democracy" to "Kitty Rule." But the point is, do you like the gov pros and cons?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Indignator
This topic was probably beaten to death before, but I'm new to this forum, and the few pages of threads that I browsed didn't have include new governments. Anyway, here are my ideas:

Theocracy:
Better unit support than monarchy, but corruption on the level of Despotism.

Feudalism:
Unit support lower than normal monarchy, but has the trade bonus of Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy:
Same as Democracy, except has limited unit support, but workers work normally.

Socio-Democracy:
Unit support on the level of Constitutional Monarchy, but corruption is same as Communism. Other than that, same as Democracy.

Fundementalism:
Units and/or improvments are FREE, but has the production penelty of Despotism, and cannot mobilize for war.

After which civilization advances would these various governments become avalible?

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Mikhail
Personally, I'd like to see such statuses implemented.

I'm envisioning

Society: (society type) Government: (existing governent that's in the grame)

You could have the base governments we have now, all that could be combined with Society Types:

Capitalist (economic bonus)
Socialist (happiness bonus)
Fascist (military bonus)
Fundamentalist (corruption reduction)

they'd need to be balanced a bit more (Capitalist and Fascist are obvious, but I can't think of anything good for Socialist and Fundamentalist)

Thus, you could have a Fascist Communism (such as the Soviet Union, creating a war machine that's not good for much else), or Socialist Democracy (similar to current Western Europe governments, a peace time combination), or Fundamentalist Monarchy (as we see in the mid east), etc.

I realize that Fundamentalism and Socialism are pretty weak, but consider them to come early in the game, like Monarchy and Depotism are now. Though, if you're having problems with corruption or happiness (as Democracys often do during war), switching your society to Socialist or Fundamentalist would still have a purpose.

I much rather that kind of system, adding a lot of variety and possibility, but not cluttering up the number of governments there are (CTP had just too many, that were obviously in a 'ladder of usefullness', instead of all being useful in different situations)

This would be sort of nice, because it more acurately reflects the differences between the government form, and the socio-economic structure. Though to be most accurate, it should be modelled by three seperate selections, reflecting goverment type, economic system and social order.

Which would be quite like SMAC, and something people have asked/hoped for in Civ once they saw and liked the SMAC system. Unfortunantly, I would hazard that while Sid and company might like to take Civ in that direction, this is one of those aspects of the game where they feel continuity is more important than making major adjustments, or they might have done it already.

Now, if in terms of balancing for Fundie and Socialism, you mean the negative aspects, I can give a few suggestions.

For fundie, one potential balancer is reduced research levels. Most societies throughout history that would be considered fundimentalist, also tend to be hostile to scientific research that may potentially upset the apple cart as it were. They also tend to be a little rough on free thinkers. Could you imagine Darwin trying to propose his theories in the Rome of Galileo's day? He would have been lucky to get put in a permanent house arrest like Galileo. He probably would have been killed.

For socialist, I would think a combination of slight reductions in commerce and industry or maybe just a reduction in commerce would be good balancers. One reason is that the main method by which socialist goverments would have that increased happiness is from their heavy taxation of the populace to support the government programs that are making people happy in the first place. That heavy taxation means that while the government is able to help provide the basics of health care, housing, and education to people, it also means that there is less money in the economy for people to freely spend on commerce and/or capital investment. The tendency of strongly socialist societies towards dissociation of the level of wage earned from the nature/perceived importance of the job could also similarly affect commerce and industry.

I do have a couple of questions though.

First, why would you say socialism would come early? I would see it as more of a late-game thing, being that it has a lot of relation in its origins to Communism, which is in a certain respect as much or more a matter of socio-economics than as a matter of government. I'm not really sure any society before the late 1700s could really be said to be socialist in nature, except maybe some of the smaller tribal societies of North America, Africa, Australia and Polynesia.

Second, socially how would you classify some of the early cultures in history, like the Romans or Greeks? I'm not sure they really fit the four choices you have, and suspect there may be a fifth choice you're missing, and just can't think of what it would be called myself at the moment.

[Imp. Montezuma]

2 Mikhail

Add society:
- Slavery from Begin
- Feodalism with Feodalism tech
BTW Fascism with Fascism tech
Governments:
- Dictatorship with Nationalism

2 Bleyn

Seems Fundamentalism tech are redundant with Monotheism.

Ancient Israel with Monotheism and Medieval monotheistic Christian ALL are Fundamentalist. Early Islam (during Arab Khalifat) aren't Fundamentalist. But later (during Ottomans) are.

Communism not yet exist as society. And Communism theory exclude every form of government.
Just society without classes, without government.
Communist Anarchia!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Indignator


Does it really matter what it's called? You can always edit "Democracy" to "Kitty Rule." But the point is, do you like the gov pros and cons?

You want a better system, right?

You want it more realistic, right?

Then get it right!

[Oerdin]

There most certainly should be additional government types because the current scarecity is appaling. A few suggestions for the PtW team would be:

* Facism-No explanation need here.
* Virtual Democracy-a 5th age future version of democracy.
* Theacracy-ruled by priests.
*Some sort of modern military dictatorship-this gov would suck but be better then despotism.
* Corporate Republic -a 5th age version of Republic where the state works mainly to promote and assist big business.

[Duddha]

I doubt any new governments will be added in PTW because it could become controversial for govs like Fascism(damn PC) and because it's the simplest thing to change. Why bother if the people who want it will add it on their own anyways?

[Oerdin]

Simply put the choices are far to limited. Even if I mod in a new government type I must first delete one of the existing types. If more government slots were added then everyone would be happy modder and nonmodder alike.

[Duddha]

"Simply put the choices are far to limited. Even if I mod in a new government type I must first delete one of the existing types. If more government slots were added then everyone would be happy modder and nonmodder alike."
-Oerdin

Really, I don't have too. I've added something like 13 new governments in my own mod and the game runs smoothly.

[Indignator]

You want a better system, right?

You want it more realistic, right?

Then get it right!

No, I really don't care about realism. And no need to get mad - though it's my fault, I shouldn't have been so defensive.

[Oerdin]

hmmm, wow. I didn't know that could be done. The only mod I saw was one which replaced Communism with Facism. It's good to hear we can add government types that why there's still hope even if Firaxis drops the ball.

[Mikhail]

Yay, I get to defend my theory. Lucky me.

Originally posted by Bleyn

I do have a couple of questions though.

First, why would you say socialism would come early? I would see it as more of a late-game thing, being that it has a lot of relation in its origins to Communism, which is in a certain respect as much or more a matter of socio-economics than as a matter of government. I'm not really sure any society before the late 1700s could really be said to be socialist in nature, except maybe some of the smaller tribal societies of North America, Africa, Australia and Polynesia.

By early, I mean the end of the middle ages. Socialist theory became well known in the early 1800s of course, though the industrial age didn't start until the late 1800s. "after the late 1700s" as you say, is still the middle ages.

Remember, that this is just a Socialist society, not a Socialist government, which would be in the 'future age' since we haven't had one yet

Second, socially how would you classify some of the early cultures in history, like the Romans or Greeks? I'm not sure they really fit the four choices you have, and suspect there may be a fifth choice you're missing, and just can't think of what it would be called myself at the moment.

Neither can I. but a 5th society structure would be a good addition.

Historically, you could consider Rome a lot of things. Capitalist. Fascist a little bit. And on the government side, an 'in-between' of Republic and Monarchy. There's really no 'set' combination for them. Just as there's no 'set' combination of Society and Government for the United States. Capitalist, a little bit Fascist (fascism wrapped in an American flag of course) , a little bit Socialist (welfare), and a little bit Fundamentalist (if anyone's been to/lives in the United States around the Holiday times, there's no denying such).


Imp Montezuma: Thanks for your imput.
A slave-ist society would actually be pretty interesting. Ability to sell (and buy, if the other civ is practicing slavery as well) workers that aren't garrisoned in cities.

Perhaps it could give access to a "Slaver" unit, that you can assign 'smuggling missions' to, and can conjure workers without taking away from one of your cities populations.

These 'conjured' workers would have no nationality, (i.e., how if you capture an enemy worker, it would say "Worker - Babylon", slaver conjured workers would appear as "Worker - Slave") and you could only trade workers gained this way to other Slave-ist societies.

combine this with quicker terrain improvements and lower 'worker support' costs, (forced labor, long hours, little food) you can have a really powerful society type, that most all players would use unless they specifically needed Fundamentalism's happiness bonus or something.

So what are the draw backs? Of course, i've already though of that while I was typing!

Once you engage in slave trade (or trade smuggling), you CANNOT change societies again untill you have gotten rid of your slaves (by having them join cities). Fundamentalism and Socialism could be skipped if the player didn't have a need for their respective bonuses, but when more advanced society types emerged, such as the economic-powerhouse society of Capitalism, or the war-time-powerhouse Fascist society, they'd need to get out of slavery fast.

Large wonder:

Emancipation Act

Sends Slavery societies to anarchy for X amount of turns, then sets them back to Fundamentalist untill they change. (since there are only 5 types of societies, that make up the way your citizens live their lives, changing them would take 2 or 3 times as long as a government revolution, I figure)

All slaves become barbarian class spearman/riflemen/whatever (depending on the point in the game)

Non-slavery societies, that still have foreign workers, simply have them join the nearest city, rather than the 'uprising' the slave-ists have happen.

Researcher of Emancipation Act get's a 'Free Worker/Refugee' bonus of 1/4

if there are 4 slavery societies, each with 5 slaves each, the EA researcher would get 5 free workers.

If there are 16 civs, and the EA researcher is the only one not practicing slavery, you can expect them to cover their empire with railroads shortly, all those immigrants. (hey, it happened to the US)

Big advantages, yes, but otherwise, you can bet there'd be people slave trading all game. And being politically correct WARRANTS big advantages.

I'm not sure Feudalism is really a society type though. More of a Monarchy-pseudo government. *shrugs*

And that would be the aforementioned "fifth society I can't think of" as well:

Fascist
Capitalist
Socialist
Fundamentalist
Slave-ist (slavist doesn't seem right. not all the slaves would be from Russia )

Imp Montezuma (yes, this is still replying to you ):

We can add governments on our own, if we need be. Dictatorship would probably be pretty easy to add. I'd rather not petition Firaxis for things we can make on our own. Rather, things that require coding into the game.

[Thrawn05]

I wouldn't mind a capitalist government, being that I'm a big builder and money whore.

[realn]

* Theacracy-ruled by priests.

Good Idea Oerdin. I think that an UU for Theacracy could be a Priest . Now it is just a defensive unit with a good 0-6-1. It is very expensive because its other ability will be happiness. You know how when you have a garrison unit inside a city it brings a little happy sign ( ), well the priest would bring more happy signs(about 3). Therefore a happiness creating unit. I was think that the expense was about 500 shields. It would have to be high right so that it doesn become a thing were there is two of them in each city. Only cities in need.

Now you will have to change the name of the leader then. Pope?

[Imp. Montezuma]

For the Game purpouse (and may be for P.C. )only would like
Theocracy==Fundamentalism
Dictatorship==Fascism
Change Communism to Socialism with paid labor.

For Theocracy would like UU Monk (remember Tampliers, Maltians, Shaolin etc). Generally in addition for Civ Specific Units add Culture Specific Units (Knights for Europeans, Peltast for Mediterraneans etc) and Government Specific Units (For Despotism/Slavery - Slaver Unit, for Communism/Socialism - Commisars, For Dictatorship/Fascism - SS or Death Scadrons etc)

Aparently for Slavery idea. Slaver units take slaves from Goody Huts and Barbarian Camps. Mikhail, good idea for Hidden Nationality for they.

Slaves not exist with Democracy and Communism/Socialism. Slaves with Dem/Comm brings to proper nationality and becomes regular workers. Slaves is happy with Despotism/Slavery, is unhappy with other Govs. You can liberate slaves for money. Or trade 'speaking goods'. From Industrial era applies Internment Rule: after war captured enemy workers automatically return after 5-6 turns

[dunk]

Originally posted by Mikhail
There was a poll that came out several years ago, that had less than 10% of the US's population believing in evolution.

Um, what poll was this?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Duddha
I doubt any new governments will be added in PTW because it could become controversial for govs like Fascism(damn PC) and because it's the simplest thing to change. Why bother if the people who want it will add it on their own anyways?

I don't think there is any reason not to include Facism. After all Stalin & Mao each killed as many people as Hitler yet Communism made it in.

Facism, like Communism, was a promonent political idealogy during the 20th century so it would be silly not to include it.

[dunk]

I think socialism should be in. There should be a communist-like government with money to rush rather than the whip.