Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: May 2002:
[freeciv-data] Re: Tech and Ancient Units

[freeciv-data] Re: Tech and Ancient Units

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: Tech and Ancient Units
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:40:27 +0200 (MEST)
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> > Also, make governments to match. An "Ancient Republic" for instance,
> > relies much on the fact that citizens and soldiers are the same people.=
> > was when citizens and soldiers parted ways that we came to the next
> > "step", the "Empire". The big difference could be that Empire has lower
> > upkeep magnifiers and lower trade modifier than Ancient Republic. Legio=
> > could depend on Empire while Phalanx on Ancient Republic.
> Hmm.  There's nothing primitive about the Roman Empire, IMHO -- nor the
> Republic.

Well they depended on slavery. A very inefficient and primitive way of
running a society, I'd say.

> Just because Europe reverted to feudalism and personal
> monarchy doesn't mean that they represented "progress"; feudalism was a
> way to hold things together absent a real government.  I would argue
> that Roman Empire, French Empire (First and Second), and assorted modern
> charismatic dictatorships are the same thing in Freeciv terms.  At any
> rate, the Bonapartes certainly considered them equivalent!

Yes there were so many things that were different, though the most
important differences are not strictly speaking in the type government but
the social foundation it rested on. What I call "Monarchy" is more like
empire-without-slavery+more efficient agriculture+strong aristocracy.
Maybe it isn't a good name, but it is the closest I could think of.

Maybe "Feudal"?

> Similarly, Republic is not primitive, nor strictly ancient.  Any number
> of modern oligarchies (pick a Latin American country other than Nicaragua=
> Cuba) could be called Republic when in between military governments --
> it's rule by the "populus", where "populus" is the rich and powerful in
> economic (not military) terms.

Right. "Ancient Republic" isn't a good name. Any suggestions?

Maybe just "Republic"... But that's confusing.

> You missed Social Democracy.  This is very different from Liberal
> Democracy, in that you will have much less unhappiness because the poor
> have a `safety net'.  Pure liberalism is very brutal (think
> 1900-era commerce).

How would you model Social Democracy in Freeciv terms? I'm not sure if it
is sufficiently different to warrant its own government type. And calling
states like the US social democratic would be a stretch.

> Dictatorship needs to distinguish simple and totalitarian.  While the
> existance of generic totalitarianism (=E0 la Hanna Arendt) is not
> generally accepted by historians, it is useful for a Freeciv scale
> because the philosophical differences between Stalinist and Hiterite
> r=E9gimes isn't all that important.  The simple type ought to be
> functionally the same as Roman Empire.

But we already have Empire. Even though I classified it as "ancient"
doesn't mean it can't be used in modern times :) Also maybe use
"Totalitarian" instead of "Dictatorship" (that would include Fundies too)?

> Theocracy isn't at all modern, BTW.  The Khalifat under the Rashidun
> (i.e., the seventh-century Islamic empire) was certainly a theocracy, at
> list in principle.  The flowering of Islamic culture was a bit later, at
> which time you could arguably call the government Imperial.

Theocracy may be a bad idea.

> > "Horse Training" (+ Wheel =3D> Chariot) -> "Horseback Riding"?
> `Domestication' (of animals) (+ Wheel =3D> Chariot) -> Horseback Riding.
> same -> Irrigation

Sounds good.

> You shouldn't be able to do Irrigation without the requisite tech,
> which requires draught animals -- no large-scale agro without animals,
> and thus no large cities or urban culture.

Freeciv cities can grow pretty big without irrigation.

> > > In Freeciv terms, it ought to be nothing more than a Phalanx with bet=
> > > stats.
> >
> > And lower upkeep to represent that it is a standing army.
> I assume you mean higher upkeep, right?

No, lower. Phalanx can be almost as good as a legion, but with plenty
upkeep which means you can't field them many or for long. Not entirely
accurate but perhaps as close as you get.

And then perhaps only Empire can build Legion, while only Republic can
field Phalanx and only Feudal can build Knights. Hmm perhaps conversely,
only (Liberal) Democracy may build Marines, while only Totalitarian can
field Fanatics. Interesting possibilities.

That leaves me with

        Republic              |
            |               Empire
            |                 |
        Democracy             |

Where the left-hand side favours science and trade, and the right-hand
side war. Democracy would be an "upgrade" of Republic, kind of, while
Totalitarian would be an "upgrade" of Empire, sort of. Weird, but better
than PayCiv govts, I think :)


"As Israeli forces pursued militants, civilians
continued getting in the way and dying as a
result." -- New York Times, April 21

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]