Governments: Is IMPERIAL viable long term?

If you're careful, anything is viable, but expect it to be more difficult. +60% is a big improvement when Star Federation first shows up.

hi asorokop
but remember that the planets start getting harder to manage as you give them more freedom, you need to keep the morale up. In a gigantic galaxy it's hard to win while at the imperial level. It's also easy to lose planets when you are at the star federation level.

I suggest that you play in the smaller galaxies to get your used to playing the game. I spent the first week i had the game in the 2 smaller galaxies. As i got better i got to larger and larger galaxies. Now i only play in the gigantic galaxy. The game i just finished (10 minutes ago) tokk about 40 hours to play.

Is there a good explanation as to why a “Federation” merits a +60% economy bonus over a “law and order/ Pax Romana” Imperial Government.

Why are having local politicians bicker in the senate over who can bring home the most pork to their home planet, better than a benign Augustan Emperor for the economy?

I would understand if the moral choices you make throughout the game turned “you” into a Caligula like nut ball.

I realize that for gameplay reasons there might need to be an evolution of governments.
But I think there should be an alternative to having to switching to a star trek like Federation of Planets.

Suggestion: Maybe there could be a Wonder (and I know that they are in the game) that you could build instead of having to switch from Imperial. Perhaps you could use Grand Moff Tarken’s line from Star Wars: “Fear, fear will keep them in line”. Maybe there could be a wonder like the Death Star (although I know they have a quasi Death Star as a unit in the game) that makes the people just shut up and make money (like in China today) to make up for a lack of Democracy. This wonder would preclude you from switching from the Imperial style government.

I agree with your ideas asorokop, and I also like the way you articulate your opinions about the "Euro-Weenie Parliment" Maybe the dev team will slip in a few extra dictatorial governments when they start working on the epansion pack.

And yet the "law and order" style of Emperor Palpatine is what started the rebellion and self determination is a big incentive to production. Oppressed workers with no stake in the results 1). work only when watched (require more overseers) 2). do only a minimal job (work needs more rework to get it to a reasonally minimum quality) 3. Are not innovative (no ideas develop that increase the amount of product for the amount of effort), etc.

Graft and corruption are easier in an imperialism. If someone is a favorite of the emperor noone dares to point out that that person is getting away with the treasury. (Which, by the way, brings up something I find quite curious. Why do I get the feeling that the morale of the planets does not improve when your empire goes to a higher government? Sure, they are harder to govern, but aren't they supposed to be happier with their increased say in government affairs than the peon of an imperialist government?)

Jack, also keep in mind that when Palpatine took power, the existing federation of planets (or at least star democracy of planets) was so bloated and unmanageable that nothing got done.

I think history (both real and imagined) will show that there are situations where every government type breaks down. In TBS games, a natural progression of governments that go along with the tech tree and give you advantages that let you get the really good tech and $$ later in the game are a necessary element. I agree that it would be cool if governments did not function this way, but instead had other bonuses/penalties applied to them that affected the game style. In this iteration of Galciv, however, governments seem to serve the traditional method of increasing your productivity as you progress to new levels of technology. Maybe they'll explore a different methodology for Galciv 2 based on our suggestions.

-Dave

Also, in keeping with the Star Wars theme, Palpatine, as the central government, may have made a lot more money than the Federation did, or the new government did after the fall of the empire. To put it in game terms, a large empire under imperialism may make more money, but have a greater chance of empire-wide rebellion.

-Dave

The greateest historical problem with Imperial governments tended to be the very top level. Initially an Empire was formed by an extremely capable person. Often this led to a golden age for that civilization (or an expansion age) but once that person died there was no way to ensure that the best talent rose to the top.
Many very promising emporers end up corrupted with absolute power and waste resources on personal issues (building pyramids, terra cotta armies, expansion, constant parties) often destroying the empire's finances in the process.

Paul.

If you followed what happened in the latest two Star Wars movies you may have noticed that the Republic was attacked from inside (by Palpatine), and this is what lead to its breakdown. There are weaknesses in representative government systems that can be exploited, but nothing can take it down like an attack from within.

While comparing the game to Star Wars, which is fiction, is interesting.

However I think a comparison to Ancient Rome, which had both Republic and Imperial governments was more what I had in mind. Remember that Rome was a Republic first, then it developed into an Imperial system by Sulla and Augustus.

The Romans themselves thought the Republican system unworkable and preferred the Imperial system that was developed under the “five good Emperors” Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius (96 to 180AD).

A roman historian writing at the time said that they had found the perfect sytem. One “good emperor” appoints his “good successor”.

The fact that the system broke when Marcus Aurelius appointed his son is beside the point. The system wasn’t bad all the time. It worked fairly well for a couple hundred years.

The games time period as I understand it is years. With a game going for a couple hundred years at the most. (unless I am incorrect). Why assume that the emperors in that time are all clowns.

Keep in mind, though, that the Roman Empire eventually split into two empires. Although they were both "Roman", the East and West were separate in almost every important way and frequently worked against each other. The Roman Empire comparison is interesting, however, since it incorporates some of the major events that can happen during the game.

-Dave

Asorokop,

You pointed out the biggest single factor that makes an imperial government poor with your "beside the point".

OK, lets look at Democracy and Federalism for a moment. In the game they get a +40$ and +60% economy bonus. But look at the haven of pure democracy today: western Europe, where most governments operate on a variation of the proportional representation system. They are stagnant, bloated, declining countries. Look at Germany, that proportional representative system itself that pushes every tiny interest group into a political power PREVENTS them from doing any major restructuring of their economy.

The future of Europe is a GalCIV like FEDERATION embodied in the European Union. The EU is making Europe’s economic situation worse, not better. For example, the massive farm subsidy swamp that they are in and cant get out of, with each nation have more or less equal power over the other (just like the Planets in GALCIV).

Some of you will point to America as an Economic powerhouse, and say that isn’t it because it’s a Democracy or Federation. Well the USA is a Republic. The founding fathers modeled the US system of government on the Republic of Rome (with an appointed senate (at the time) and a lower peoples house just like in Rome). And as you all know from the 2000 election they made an Electoral college, and a first past the post system to prevent “mob rule” (like in most of Europe now).

Some of you will point to the British and Canadian parliaments as examples of 40%+ Democracy. You will say; Look at Thatcher, she cleaned up the mess that the UK was in. If it wasn’t for her, the UK would be in the Economic mess that the French and Germans are in now.

I say: EXACTLY!

The British and Canadian systems are even less democratic then the US systems. They are closer to the Imperial system then anything else. All power rests in the hands of one man: the Prime Minister. You can see that now in Canada with the PM there ruling with an Iron fist. His power is just power loosening with his announcement that he will retire. You can see that now in the UK, with Tony Blair pulling his backbenchers along hand in hand with Iraq. Whether you disagree with their policies is irrelevant. Because if you are citizen in those countries there is no balance, no check to their power.

'The future of Europe is a GalCIV like FEDERATION embodied in the European Union.'

'Some of you will point to America as an Economic powerhouse, and say that isn’t it because it’s a Democracy or Federation. Well the USA is a Republic.'

A Star Federation, as the tech description seems to describe it, is a Republic on an extragalactic scale. Think more along the lines of The United Federation of Planets than the European Union.

(And just to touch upon the problems you mentioned with the EU, the United States went through periods like that itself. It still has a significant farm subsidy program, for one, and the original Articles of Confederation left the States in even worse condition than the EU is in now.)