In GC2 , we had a system where we started with Imperium, then upgraded to greater degrees of local freedom up to Star Federation in exchange for economic bonuses.
For the "good" and maybe the neutral factions (some of them), it may make sense. But for others?
- All of the good factions are probably democratic
- Human may very well be democratic
- Arcean? Sounds more like the Klingons from Star Trek; probably not democratic
And the evil?
- Drengin? Probably a totalitarian society run by a military junta on top
- Yor? Technocracy? Something like what the Borg have?
- Korx? He who has the gold makes the rules?
What about Thalan? I've always thought they'd be like an insect hive. But their weakness as is often stated is numbers - hmm. So slow repoducing insects? Would they be run like an earth colony of insects with a "queen" on top?
The point is that the GC2 government system doesn't reflect this and I think it needs to be expanded on.
Read the actual descriptions, and what the Dregin call a 'republic' or 'democracy' probably aren't what we'd call one. All the governments do is give increasing degrees of freedom to the colony worlds -- they start out totally controlled and run by the homeworld, and then slowly gain rights. It's about removing the inefficiencies of trying to order every little thing on a planet far removed by slowly giving them more and more local -- not necessarily self -- rule.
Agreed. While it's likely that democratic societies are electing some planetary leadership once they get that ability, this still works if the central authority simply appoints someone (like a General) and that person leads the planetary government however he sees fit.
That said, given things like ideologies and such, I don't think this will work the same way in GC3.
Yes, but take for example the Drengin.
I don't think they'd have anything close to a "republic" or a "democracy".
More likely a military society with a military leader. Elected? Probably not. Probably a leader who has proven their worth though.
I agree with op that race/alignent specific government models could be a very interesting addition. It is in the same order of ideas as the race specific tech trees that I like so much in ToA
Civilization-specific government would be great, but the galciv system still make sense, if you strictly define it in term of micromanagement and macromanagement.
Each government in that case would have a unique set of advantages and drawbacks modified for each culture.
First I would like to see civics instead of governments. I agree different factions would have a different kind of governments. Maybe communism or facism instead of democracy or republic for evil factions. Its called an obliarchy for the Korx. As far as the Thalans it is either a monarchy, confederate, or a commonwealth. I think if the government would have different bonuses for a government with the same name run different.
The SOTSII govt is broken down nicely so any group could be anything within reason.
Your Empire is able to go any direction depending on what you do.
It would be nice if those ideas/concepts are shifted to GCIII
Democracies can be evil, especially when they degenerate into a tyranny of the majority over minorities, and dictatorships can be good.
^ Agreed. Whatever form the Drengin "democracy" takes, it doesn't mean that it will be anything like the way we think it should, and it wouldn't necessarily be corrupt since it's their own system.
This isn't something that ever really bothered me, but I will take any chance to give the factions more flavor. I like the idea suggested above of giving each race their own version of government changes. The Drengin could start out as Imperial and then evolve until they've reached a kind of constitutional monarchy where Lord Kona (or whomever) is still at the top, but the other Drengin...nobility(?) have more power. This wouldn't necessarily lead to elections since I really don't see a Drengin leader ever accepting something like elections that could potentially make his power base irrelevant.
Maybe for the Drengin, empowered planetary governors would produce less cash due to being bribed for loyalty, but produce more happiness as a result.
Although I don't think the Krynn are the religious race anymore, maybe the new religious faction (If there is one...) could become more theocratic and produce more happiness through religious fervor at the cost of some production.
Sounds like all that would be required is a simple name change regarding the various government forms.
And the values they effect, but yes lol.
SB 1070-1062 - The right of every Drengin to kill, prepare, and eat any and all Torian that he/she sees as long as he/she makes enough to share with all other Drengin around.
Vote Tally - 1,883,790,500,121,343 - Yes 2 - No
To be honest, I think that the Alpha Centauri system might work best.
You choose what you want to be with its associated drawbacks and advantages, which in turn affects your relations and empire.
As far as different governments. I think is required more than just a rename, but their are sometimes different bonuses and penalties.
I believe that you are making a mistake, by assuming that the values you associate to democracy would be the values that other civilizations associate to democracy you are misunderstanding the actual practice of that type of government.
There is no need for a name change or a civics change. The values of the citizenry determine the ideology of the democracy, in its basic form democracy is simply a representation of what the citizens desire. Thus, as some have harped on here, the desires of an "evil" society would not change merely because they have been given a voice in the process of their government. Overnight the Drengin would not stop hating Torians nor stop wanting a strong military, supporting slavery or genocide, simply put they would still value the same things that they valued before.
In its basic form democracy does not impart Good or Bad ideas, it is merely allowing for the populace to determine the law and policy the civilization should follow.
This mistake most of you are making is that you are assuming the words "Good" and "Evil" have a fixed definition. The moral Good of a Drengin would not be the same as the moral Good of a Torian, and the same would go for the Moral Bad of a Drengin would not be the same as the Humans and so on.
Yeah I would have to agree with this.
It's true that all morality is subjective, but in terms of how the empire implements, I think it would be very different from a society that we would consider "evil" versus one as "good", which in turn would drive a different set of drawbacks/advantages for each civ.
Again this is where I think civics would do the same job only better, and I think different factions would have different civics. Most people I talk to confuse free market with democracy. A mistake I made that democracy had states to represent it. Democracy could have monopolies, nationalize, slavery, segregation, imperialism, or interpendence, isolation, national banking vs private banking, national or independent education, or socialized health care vs business controlled healthcare are things that would change things how drastically is up to the game designers. Can I predict how different factions think differently I don't know.
This is a mechanic I wouldn't mind seeing in the game where the people choose what alignment you are if you are a democracy. This could be done based on how you play. This would at least provide a penalty to go with benefits for this kind of government. I imagine a lot of people would have a problem with this. I also wouldn't mind random laws being passed by congress in a democracy.
Thus, as some have harped on here, the desires of an "evil" society would not change merely because they have been given a voice in the process of their government. Overnight the Drengin would not stop hating Torians nor stop wanting a strong military, supporting slavery or genocide, simply put they would still value Athe same things that they valued before.
Assuming this response is based from my response. I would have to say yes and no. I'm assuming this is based on different factions having the same type of government being run differently. My stance is that certain factions would run things drastically that different. Assuming that we as a faction is really neutral our tyrants never step down that easily. Almost are usually crooked. Parties usually run things, business usually try to run things. People usually don't get represented. Now if someone was really evil the leaders would not easily give up power and probably kill the people who try democracy. The Thalans are thinking differently than humans. The Yor would think differently. Also this was a way to make it more fair for when a faction specifically the Yor would not get the other government options. This is a defense why different factions would think that different. [quote who="Rozier" reply="16" id="3446483"]
re In basic form democracy does not impart Good or Bad ideas, it is merely allowing for the populace to determine the law and policy the civilization should follow.
All tyrants would not give power over to the people, so if they are evil not neutral like this would democracy even come about from a more evil faction or one that doesn't even think like us.
This is why the next game is going to be idealologies instead of alignments. I hope this is more than a name change though. My main reason for the suggestion is for game tweaking and trying to fix a problem with the Yor. Also to take a reason into account is would this really help make the different factions more individualized. At least one way to fix an economic problem is to add a little to economics. Changing governments would cause the changing of bonuses that could be fixed with a different techs.
"All tyrants would not give power over to the people, so if they are evil not neutral like this would democracy even come about from a more evil faction or one that doesn't even think like us."
But tyrants only need to implement a tyrannical government when the populace is not in line with the leaders ideology Or Iif their only interest is to remain in power indefinitely.
So my point is that just because you have labeled a civilization as evil does not mean democracy would not be effective. Democracy is just a procedural government for the implementation of societal concerns, laws, and policies. meaning the procedure for the creation and implementation of democracy could be exactly the same as any other the laws created by this procedure could be radically different.
I guess my point of issue is the idea that just by being a different alignment means that a type of government would be unsuccessful. There is nothing to suggest that because a civilization has a different outlook on life that democracy could not be implemented. Not to get to deep into government procedure you dont have to be good in order to achieve a level of federalism or freedom, I believe it was ancient Greece that would annually kill the least popular elected official, does that sound morally good to you?
Relax, democracy is the rule of democrats, nothing more.
Haha!!!
A civilization that is evil will by nature do things differently in its government whether it is democratic or not. I am saying that it needs a different set of bonuses/drawbacks.
UnleashedElf - I agree. Although I think that merely being evil or good would not change the "nature" that a civilization would practice its democracy. As I have postulated, the act of being "Evil" does not mean the practice of Democracy has been destroyed. it merely would mean that "Evil Policies" would be voted through the democratic process, not that the government was inherently evil.
I understand that this line of thinking can be difficult to understand. i.e., that there is a differentiation between ideology and process of government. But it is the corner stone of what modern democracy or republics stand on.
Speak clearly man! The only thing I found difficult to understand was you. Are you saying government is a gun and politicians use it depending on their morality? Also the definition of evil policies varies on your perception of them, which is why they are called ideologies now. Did I miss something?
DARCA
Correct. Democracies have had no problem with the following; segregation, internment, mass bombing, looking the other way when genocide and gross atrocities are committed, etc
The difference is how these policies come into being, are implemented, perpetuated and perceived by the public.
To put thing in perspective, while democracies had no problem with going ahead with their worst policies (the mass displacement of populations and colonialism), even totalitarian regimes felt they had to hide theirs from the public (extermination camps and Gulags).
Also, by some mesure, democracies are the most aggresive political regimes. They dont go to war against one another, but they strike at other types of regimes more frequently and when they do, they usualy go all out. This is well represented in GalCiv by the Altarians.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
