 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
Anarchy (and later military Junta)
Tribal (default)
Theocracy (egiptian. An ancient monarchy)
Dictatorship (Ellenistic Greece, in war time Rome)
Republic (late Greece, classical Rome)
Feudalism
Monarchy (absolutistic)
Empire (classical China, India, ottoman Turks, Austria. Different corruption than monarchy. better for larger states. Worse reserch and happyness)
Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away)
Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Yoleus
Anarchy (and later military Junta)
Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away) |
I don't know. The Nazis at least were technology happy. I might go with better military and tech under facism and better production under communism.
quote: Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military) |
Ahh, I like these ideas. Arguably, technocracy might just be the perfect bureacracy. The term itself means expert-rule - I guess as opposed to rule by the people (or 'masses' to be derogatory). It could also mean rule by scientists after a fashion with massive social engineering initiatives and great respect for science and expertise over all else (doesn't sound so bad really . . . ) Perhaps production suffers and happiness suffers as luxuries and material goods are de-emphasized in favor of science. Perhaps production increases due to the efficiency of expertly planned economies (in practice, of course, expertly planned economies never looked all that expertly planned). Yeah, Technocracy is going into my personal mod.
Federation? Maybe a name for the trade blocks that have emerged? Sort of a post nationalist nation - NAFTA and EU type stuff? If so, that's a neat idea. Democracy in civ might represent a national form of government, made obscelete when nationalism gives way to new ideology. How very Hegelian! Damn Yoleus, that's some swift thinking.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Faboba
|
 |
Scotland. I can't be more specific else they'll find me.
Jan 1970 time: 05:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Yoleus
Anarchy (and later military Junta)
Tribal (default)
Theocracy (egiptian. An ancient monarchy)
Dictatorship (Ellenistic Greece, in war time Rome)
Republic (late Greece, classical Rome)
Feudalism
Monarchy (absolutistic)
Empire (classical China, India, ottoman Turks, Austria. Different corruption than monarchy. better for larger states. Worse reserch and happyness)
Democracy
Communism
Fascism (more production and military, less tech than Communism)
Fundamentalism (yes, I wouldn't throw this away)
Federation (Like Dem but with more happyness higher rate of "absorbtion" of other cities)
Technocracy (not some SF, just the perfect controlling bureocracy:
like Dem but with less corruption, more production, slightly more military) |
Why would this not work you ask? Because your last two are super-govs.
That's not civ at all. Civ is about balance and realises that the older govs still have advantages in SOME areas over the modern ones. For example in democracy the people were a lot more 'gyah' ( they would celebrate or revolt at the drop of a hat ) and with communism your income was too low to sustain yourself for very long.
Fudementalism is the example of a well balanced super-gov. It had incredible benifits ( no support, no unhappiness, vast ammounts of money ) which were tempered with the abominable science rate ( and had it been in Civ 3 they'd have prolly given it weak diplomats )
What you're suggesting is actually become a recognised condition called 'power-gaming' ( i.e you get Baldurs Gate and use the editor to make yourself a living god just cause of the cheap power trip you get. ) Having govs with vast advantages without substatial disadvantages goes against the whole point of what they're trying to do.
Mind you, you'll get an editor. Do as you please.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Faboba
Why would this not work you ask? Because your last two are super-govs.
That's not civ at all. Civ is about balance and realises that the older govs still have advantages in SOME areas over the modern ones. For example in democracy the people were a lot more 'gyah' ( they would celebrate or revolt at the drop of a hat ) and with communism your income was too low to sustain yourself for very long.
Fudementalism is the example of a well balanced super-gov. It had incredible benifits ( no support, no unhappiness, vast ammounts of money ) which were tempered with the abominable science rate ( and had it been in Civ 3 they'd have prolly given it weak diplomats )
What you're suggesting is actually become a recognised condition called 'power-gaming' ( i.e you get Baldurs Gate and use the editor to make yourself a living god just cause of the cheap power trip you get. ) Having govs with vast advantages without substatial disadvantages goes against the whole point of what they're trying to do.
Mind you, you'll get an editor. Do as you please. |
Congrats! You are the only person I've ever seen say that Fundy was well balanced!
Seriously though, it depends how much Federation and Technocracy got cranked up whether or not its power gaming. I mean, democracy was a significant step over republic in civ2, but I wouldn't say democracy was a super government.
As for being unciv . . .
I think a "third wave" of governments could be balanced, and since civ DOES go a bit into the future (spaceships, fusion power, solar plants that CAN power a city the size of DF) I see no reason to exclude them. Of course, you don't have to use the editor you get.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mars
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Sep 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
Technocracy could be balanced with Lassiez-Faire style government (i would call it Corporate Capitalim), Fundamentalism, and something like the hive
Technocracy - High tech bonuses, barely any corruption, low esponage due to freeedom of knowledge
Corprate Capitalism - High Economy, Medium Corruption, High Espionage, Low Happiness
Fundamentalism - High Happiness, low science, medium corruption
Hive - High Production, Moderate Corruption, Low Science, Low Happiness, High military
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lorizael

|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mars
Technocracy could be balanced with Lassiez-Faire style government (i would call it Corporate Capitalim), Fundamentalism, and something like the hive
Technocracy - High tech bonuses, barely any corruption, low esponage due to freeedom of knowledge
Corprate Capitalism - High Economy, Medium Corruption, High Espionage, Low Happiness
Fundamentalism - High Happiness, low science, medium corruption
Hive - High Production, Moderate Corruption, Low Science, Low Happiness, High military |
What exactly would a Hive be, Mars? And Corporate Capitalism is a style of economy, not government. Also, I think Fundamentalism would have low unhappiness, but not necessarily high happiness.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
splangy
|
 |
of my own little kingdom...
Jun 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
Governments will probably be the #1 thing I change, I never liked Civ2's Model (to Limiting) or Ctp's (To fake IMHO) It'll look alot like this.
Fundy-gotta have the original its basically civ2's fundy with bad diplomats and good spys (terrorism)
Military regime- Troops shut alot of people up, lots of free units,Medium corruption (no Modern gov in civ can have high corruption and be used often), average diplomats, above average spys, and a 20% science penalty.
Fascism- Basically millitary regime with 10% sci penalty, lower corruption, but units cost more.
Fuedalism- The early war gov, with alot of free units, all of them oppress 2 citizens, above average corruption (to represent fueding city-states) good dips, bad spys.
Empire- It's monarchy because it sounds better early on.
Monarchy- (It comes with a advance witch makes it availible around the beggining of the gunpowder age) A few free units, low corruption, Very good Dips (to represent the "high society" of the imperialistic fammilies) average spys, good control of taxes, but it wont have the ability to rush labor (for gameplay not realism)
Just a few random Ideas...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Droximus
|
|
One thing that annoys me about the whole Civ line of games is the perpetuation of not distinguishing between government and economic systems.
Communism is not a government system, it is an economic system...capitalism is not a choice with a government, so communism shouldn't be either.
It would be interesting to be allowed to choose both an economic and government system, but that might get a bit too complicated for the masses.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
I'd just like to note that all this matters little since the game's already gold.
However, I wanted to say that I liked the Tropican forms of government that allow for a wide variety of possibilites within one system. Haven't played AC, but heard that there are many fans of the SE system.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|