[energizer]

Remember when you first started your nation? Yehhhh. Way back when right? Remember when you had to go through the grueling task of matching of what kind of government your people would prefer (after a period of X days they became upset)? That is of course, until you realized the only downside of not matching the government was a -1 happiness reduction. Which could easily be compensated with the GM, or by simply switching to a government that offered +1 happ to offset the penalty. That's when monarchy became to be so popular (especially when it had its +environment bonus) and why most government selections are not made solely on what the people want, but what a ruler wants so long as they don't suffer a penalty (leaving only governments that offer +happiness points). So, if a government can simply be choosen, and with the penalty being compensated for, what does the current system really offer? But more directly, how can I get a government that suits what I need without suffering from the people or environment?


Make the government position YOUR government

Heres what I mean :

Quote

---------------
A foreign nation around the world has begun declaring war on numerous peaceful nations and gobbling up huge swaths of lands. According to your foreign intelligence this nation is declaring war on the premise of ethnic cleansing and rumors have spread about the horrible cruelties experienced by the citizens of the conquered nations. Recently, the war mongering nation has declared war on a close ally of yours who has asked your nation to step in and fight along side them. What is your government's position?

We have no interest in war, we are a peaceful nation. (+.5 happ)
We would like to help, but must remain neutral until we are attacked first. [+$1.50 avg gross income]
Deploy all available military. It's time for war. [+1.5% military]
No position at this time.[ +3% spy attack and defense]

A foreign nation has asked you to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty whereby you will sign off on your option to research and develop nuclear technology including nuclear weapons. What is your government's position?

We will sign the treaty in order to appease the other nation. We are opposed to all nuclear research and weapons. [+1 happ]
Our government will not sign the treaty because our nation believes in the use of nuclear technology to build power plants, however we do not promote the use of nuclear technology for weapons of mass destruction. [uran + -1% infra reduction]
We will never sign such a treaty. Doing so would endanger our people. Our nation promotes the use and build up of nuclear weapons. [n00ks + 2% soldiers]
No position at this time.[+1 environment point]


Drug traffickers are crossing into your borders from all sides bringing with them narcotics and an assortment of recreational drugs. Many of your citizens are becoming addicted and have been unable to hold steady jobs which is both endangering your citizen's lives and hurting your economy. What is your government's position?


Our leaders are aware of the situation but are too addicted to drugs themselves to do anything about it. [+1.25 avg gross income]
Our nation will open new rehabilitation centers and educate our citizens to the dangers of drugs, but we are not prepared to declare an all out war on drugs.[+5% literacy rate, -2% tech price]
Our military has been positioned at all border crossings and is arresting all drug traffickers. Drugs are illegal in this nation. [+2% soldiers]
No position at this time. [+.5 happ]

-------------

and so on


Now as for why the results are so low, is because they will all add on. With about, what? 8-10 positions. Id say thats pretty good. Say someone went all out happiness, sure, they would get like, +5-6 happ, but at the same time, they would lose infra, military, tech, etc... that the same person could of gotten. (same would go for war. Sure they will have like, super soldiers, but that nation would only be able to pay them with dirt)

So, how often can someone switch? As many times as one wants! However, they would have to go through a period of 3 days worth of anarchy before the new government is set in place (the monument reduces this), this would prevent any immediate attacks from someone pro-econ to pro-war overnight (or someone collecting then goen all out infra buying). As for the anarchy, it'll really make someone think "is it really right for me to switch right now?"


So to recap;

it'll offer a wider range of possibilities you can make your government
it isn't restricted
there is a penalty to prevent abuse
make your nation more unique
something new for nations young and old
and it isn't biased towards either decision on what is better. Offering more decision making.

What yall think?

This post has been edited by energizer: 17 January 2009 - 09:48 PM

[Kyle McDavern]

approved for discussion.

[Lord Xnut]

I like it, anything to change they way it works now.

It would also be interesting if your government position locked certain options for you. That way if your nation is a dictatorship with government focus on military you can do pretty much what you want, but your citizens will be unhappy.

If you are a democracy your people will be happier, but you can't just randomly attack another nation without having discussions, votes and other bureaucracy actions.

Bonuses and penalties is all well and good, but some of your choices should tie your hands on other issues. If you have a peacfull nation it takes longer to rally your nation for war, than if you have an army general as your nation leader.

[ChairmanHal]

Quote

Plans are on the way within Haleenstar Republic to open new rehabilitation centers across the nation and educate its citizens of the dangers of drug use.

I would just be happy if at some point...say before Kevin shuts down the server...those rehab centers I asked for when i started my nation were actually finished.

Seriously, isn't there some way to code in a change to the "boiler plate" description after some period of time? Other aspects of the extended nation description change with time/specific tech levels.

Also, I support some form of mods to Happiness, Income, etc. based on the answers to those question, even if this specific proposal isn't adopted.

[Jason Salovsky]

yeah, an overhaul to gvnt of anykind sounds good

[energizer]

Lord Xnut, on Jan 19 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

Bonuses and penalties is all well and good, but some of your choices should tie your hands on other issues. If you have a peacfull nation it takes longer to rally your nation for war, than if you have an army general as your nation leader.

Aye, actually was considering the positions to being tied with the main government choices, but for now, its best to see how this works out. If it does and admin approves, then Id be all for the options reflecting the main government, and in turn certain effects similar to the ones you mentioned.

[evilgm]

on of the things that I think is really interesting about this proposal is that to change government settings requires a period of anarchy. That is in line with other government switching games I've played (Civ 3 anyone?), but it would mean some interesting things for war. What if your government positions got reset during anarchy? If that were the case then you couldn't develop new nuclear weapons while you were in anarchy. No coherent government would be able to assist in that effort. That would put a whole new light on things.

[Lord Michael]

Quote

Our leaders are aware of this situation but are too addicted them selves to do anything about it. +$1.25

There should be environoment penalty with it like -0.5.

[LeVentNoir]

Easiest thing

We have events right? And we have several rather easy measures of other kinds of freedom, Why not choose the political compass method, have your nation start off at 0, 0 and then move according to several govt positions like indicated in the OP, as well as having other things (like event responses, tax rate and spy levels) effect it as well. It should take a concerted effort to change ends of the spectrum.

Now, why do this? Because balanced bonuses come into it. The further to one extreme you are on an axis, the larger your bonus, which no bonus being applied at 0, 0. (Obviously the bonuses should not be opposite, and should include military and economic parts).

[evilgm]

LeVentNoir, on Jan 20 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

Easiest thing

We have events right? And we have several rather easy measures of other kinds of freedom, Why not choose the political compass method, have your nation start off at 0, 0 and then move according to several govt positions like indicated in the OP, as well as having other things (like event responses, tax rate and spy levels) effect it as well. It should take a concerted effort to change ends of the spectrum.

Now, why do this? Because balanced bonuses come into it. The further to one extreme you are on an axis, the larger your bonus, which no bonus being applied at 0, 0. (Obviously the bonuses should not be opposite, and should include military and economic parts).

In your scenario you have a basic premise of an idea, but it works better when there are only two choices, like good and evil. You can pick the neutral path and get no bonuses, or you go either all good or all evil and get the appropriate bonuses as a result. If you have 12 different governments to choose from, then your scenario becomes somewhat more problematic to implement.

[LeVentNoir]

evilgm, on Jan 21 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

In your scenario you have a basic premise of an idea, but it works better when there are only two choices, like good and evil. You can pick the neutral path and get no bonuses, or you go either all good or all evil and get the appropriate bonuses as a result. If you have 12 different governments to choose from, then your scenario becomes somewhat more problematic to implement.

There are two axis, so Socialist / Capitalist and Liberal / Authoritarian. There are 4 govts. Liberal Socialistic, Authoritarian Socialistic, Liberal Capitalist and Authoritarian Capitalistic. Not 12 govts.

The thing is, that there are bonuses at each end of each scale, and none at the middle. This means being in a corner gives two sets of bonuses, (one set for each axis you are at a extreme off)

[Sumeragi]

LeVentNoir, on Jan 21 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

There are two axis, so Socialist / Capitalist and Liberal / Authoritarian. There are 4 govts. Liberal Socialistic, Authoritarian Socialistic, Liberal Capitalist and Authoritarian Capitalistic. Not 12 govts.

The thing is, that there are bonuses at each end of each scale, and none at the middle. This means being in a corner gives two sets of bonuses, (one set for each axis you are at a extreme off)

Interesting. I like it.

[Doom Lord]

Here's an idea:
Capitalist boosts income (by a percent) and reduces bills whereas socialist boosts population and cheapens infra (cheap labour).
Authoritarian cheapens military/reduces the negative effects of happy on income (so it only does -1.9, etc), liberalism boosts environment and cheapens tech.
Also, extreme choices cause negative effects of the opposite, so nazi germany would have:
Increased income
Reduced bills
Reduced population
More expensive infra
Cheapens military
Lower happy-
Worse environment
More expensive tech

So basically the choices effect what area you are in.

[evilgm]

I agree with Doom Lord that if you go to the extremes that there should be penalties as well as benefits. Staying neutral would let you avoid the penalties.

[Lord Xnut]

I don't agree, in fact I think there should be added bonuses for going to the extreme, if all nations just stays neutral then it's a waste of time adding this suggestiong. The point of this would be to make nations differens from eachother, not just a buch of cloned nations that are all a monarchy.

There is also the question about what bonuses and penalties the different government should have. We should be especially be carefull with the happines bonuses, who's to say that the capitalist population is more happy than the communist population?

[Doom Lord]

So you're saying we should promote nations becoming extreme and commiting genocide (as practically any extreme government has done). It should be about moderation, because people in communist countries, while they got all the socialist benefits, did lost out due to a lack of capitalism, it's only logical. And to put it onto the other spectrum, very liberal societies do have roblems due to lack of security. And if you say it will end up like monarchy did, then surely your extremity thing will be even worse, with practically people having around 4 choices (capitalist, socialist, liberal, dictatorship).

[Lord Xnut]

Doom Lord, on Jan 26 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

It should be about moderation, because people in communist countries, while they got all the socialist benefits, did lost out due to a lack of capitalism, it's only logical.

I don't agree with this either, while it's two completely different systems it does not mean you need a mix of both to be succesfull.
Social benefits means a longer average life time for your citizens that means they can work longer and give you more income taxes, but people miss out on the oppertunity to work their way up and get wealthy.
In a capitalist community you encourage the smartest and best people to be the best they can be, these people will live for a long time and earn a lot and give your nation large incomes in the form of private companies, while people that are less clever or don't have the ecconomical network misses out, dies sooner and don't generate income for their nation.
It's two different systems but in the end it ends up about the same. So the big difference will be the role playing aspect.

If you go to the extreme then a liberal country don't need security since they don't have any enemies, and a concervative country need to defend the their right to live as they want without anyone saying that they can't.


And even if going to the extreme only gives us these four options; (capitalist, socialist, liberal, dictatorship), then atleast that is four different directions that is way better than the current system where every nation is a monarchy.

[Doom Lord]

I'm not saying you need both to be successful, but that a nation should not purely go for one line (like pop bonuses) without some sort of negative effect. Unless certain choices, while pushing your nation in one direction, maybe have a negative impact anyway (like in communist nations, removing all inequalities means you have to give up the idea of motivation, creating negative effects).
So maybe nations have to make a choice with each government position between what will be better for the nation overall (happy, environment, military), and what will benefit it in a specific way (population).

[Lucas Perry]

Make the government more RPish.

Have it to where when you answer questions a certain way, your government will automatically change to the result of your answers. Than say a month later you can answer those questions again to keep it up to date.

This idea is good.

[Carter]

Sounds like a winner to me.