Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

[more_cowbell]

Something just occured to me. I was struck by the in game reference to Joseph Stalin's leadership in WW2 and the fact that he led a police state as the "only" reason why Russia was able to defeat Germany. This fails to take into account, however, the fact that he slaughtered most all of the competent generals of his army before the start of the war, almost fatally crippling his country's ability to wage war in the first place.

Examples like this abound everywhere. In Iraq, Saddam purposely kept most of his army in a state of unpreparadness and incompetence lest they revolt against him. In Germany in WW2, Hitler's contstant meddling with the war plans certainly played a large role in Germany's snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory which they almost won early on vs Russia.

Contrast this with the performance of the United States Armed forces in WW2. Though badly outnumbered in the initial stages of WW2 in the Pacific theater, through brilliant leadership and inspired individual initiative, the U.S. was able to win battle after battle against the Empire of Japan. This continued into the European theater as well.

There are sound reasons behind why a democracy SHOULD outperform a dictatorship in a war. First, the democratic army is led by a meritocracy, not a bunch of cronies afraid for their lives lest they question the dictates of el presidente. Second, the troops are inspired by love of freedom, which is an extreemly powerful motivating force. Third (though I'm sure others can share more reasons) commanders and their troops in a democracy will tend to fight with much more individual initiative (see the example of the Americans at Omaha beach.)

The game really SHOULD reflect this in some way (perhaps by giving democracies a combat bonus when fighting vs a non-democratic civ, much like how universal sufferage gives an unhapiness effect in all other non democratic civs.)

Thats my .02, anyways

[Yosho]

Re: Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

There are sound reasons behind why a democracy SHOULD outperform a dictatorship in a war. First, the democratic army is led by a meritocracy, not a bunch of cronies afraid for their lives lest they question the dictates of el presidente. Second, the troops are inspired by love of freedom, which is an extreemly powerful motivating force. Third (though I'm sure others can share more reasons) commanders and their troops in a democracy will tend to fight with much more individual initiative (see the example of the Americans at Omaha beach.)

(shrug) Not necessarally. AFter all, a dictatorship is often run by a very compatent general who took over the place, and the army often feels a very strong loyalty to him.

On the other hand, it is true that as time goes on, war werieness tends to sap the millitary strength of democracies. Even in the civil war, there were draft riots in New York City, for example. The same is true for Britian, even in the hight of it's imperial power; several times, a long war would arouse resentment amoung the people and merchants in that country, which is one reason the United States won the Revolutionary War.

[more_cowbell]

I'm not arguing against "war weariness." That is already factored in the game, though.

My point is that, in general, if you have a democracy facing a dictatorship, that the democracy will be led by better generals and their troops will be more highly motivated and have better initiative.

Germany vs France at the outset of WW2 was somewhat of an exception because Hitler did not have the political power to kill off all of the generals in the German army before the outset of WW2. Therefore, Germany still had its oustanding officer corps intact, and they executed a brilliant strategy. This, historically, is generally not possible as el presidente will tend to kill off any generals he sees as "too" competent.

Don't forget, though, that many of these same very competent officers tried to kill Hitler later in the war, so the idea of bumping off your professional military leaders is not without it's merits for el presidente.

[Son of David]

LIke other people have said, the civics are not 'realistic' but balanced for gameplay.

Like for example 'state property' ELIMINATING corruption instead of increasing it. I have NEVER understood that one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by more_cowbell
My point is that, in general, if you have a democracy facing a dictatorship, that the democracy will be led by better generals and their troops will be more highly motivated and have better initiative.

How so?

Lets take the Iraqi situation as an example.

Originally posted by more_cowbell
I was struck by the in game reference to Joseph Stalin's leadership in WW2 and the fact that he led a police state as the "only" reason why Russia was able to defeat Germany. This fails to take into account, however, the fact that he slaughtered most all of the competent generals of his army before the start of the war, almost fatally crippling his country's ability to wage war in the first place.

That's precisely the point. If He did not run a police state there was a much bigger chance of USSR losing to Nazi Germany.

[Amarsir]

I believe Stalin's success there was due less to his brilliant "shoot your own men" strategy and more to simply having enough people to throw at Germany. Were the USSR a smaller country, being a police state wouldn't have carried them through. By contrast, a capitalist democracy would arguably have been less undersupplied and thus accomplished more even with fewer people.

That being said, it's not really a great representation of democracy in general because it's not like your cities can vote you out of power. It's a relatively balanced game though, and that makes it OK by me.

[more_cowbell]

@ Urban Ranger: I don't understand. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me

I stated that the reason that Russia had such a struggle vs a much smaller nation was that it was frightfully ill-prepared to enter a war vs Germany due to the fact that he KILLED all of his generals. This was needed due to the fact he was running a dictatorship. This happens predictably and reliably with every dictatorship. Running a police state is part and parcel with a dictatorship (they are essentially interchangeable.)

You cannot have a pure meritocracy in your officer corps if you are a dictator. You would soon find yourself replaced by one of your succesful generals. Stalin knew this and killed off all his generals in order to put his cronies in positions of power.

Dictatorship = police state = inferior generals. Stalin used predictably ruthless tactics to "win" a war that he shouldn't have been "loosing" in the first place if he had competent generals commanding his army in the first place. Thats the point I was trying to make.

[Tokyo Sexwale]

Hmmm, interesting topic, I tend to agree with you, cowbell. Meritocracy is a big factor. Perhaps another example would be the British from 1700+ who held off the Spanish and French - they had the most "democratic" monarchy in Europe, if that makes sense.

I find universal suffrage a bit weak and usually run representation.... maybe add something in there?

[Urban Ranger]

Rush buy is nice to have, though.

[DrSpike]

No they shouldn't. Even if you have a case, game balance trumps historical debate, as indeed it should.

[johnmcd]

So Bush and Rumsfeld's democratic war in Iraq or Nixon's Vietnamese input showed the triumph of democracy on the field?

The trouble you point to in Hitler's Germany was not a military one but a political leader not understanding where to draw the line on his military interferance. I think you can cheerfully draw parallels in many wars and many government types - Britain's Suez debacle perhaps. Democracy is not meritocracy and they are certainly not geared to deliver either superior military or free markets. Those are things our democracys have given us, but in other parts of the world they have been used for different goals.

Democracy just means the people get to choose their leaders, why that should translate to more success in war is not clear to me.

[fed1943]

Well,democracy doesn´t help to win battles;but increases prodution;and prodution(logistics)wins wars,unless the enemy can achieve a blitzvictory.
(In WWII,the URSS was suplied by the USA).
Similary,in civ4 there is universal suffrage and free spitch.
Best regards,

[Fire_Spy]

The soviet military in the second world war was motivated by the fact that any retro movement ws met with machinegun fire. And the germans were told they were winning the war even as allied bombs fell on their cities. Dictators always end up dictating their plans and beliefs to their underlings.

be that as is may.. I believe that in this game , where some things are far removed from reality , that things should remain as they are. Or maybe I shouldnt play Civ IV when drunk...maybe just one more turn...LOL.

please excuse me..

[Yosho]

Originally posted by more_cowbell

My point is that, in general, if you have a democracy facing a dictatorship, that the democracy will be led by better generals and their troops will be more highly motivated and have better initiative.

That's the point I disagree with.

When you have a case where you end up with a dictatorship run by a very talented general (Napoleon comes to mind, but there are other examples), then the army as a whole will be very well run and orginized, the dictator will pick good generals to work under him, as he probably has a very good idea of what a good general is, and the army might be very loyal to the dictator and therefore very motivated.

The problems you're speaking of mostly happen in either a fairly weak dictatorship trying to hold itself together (Iraq after they were crushed in the first gulf war), or an overly paranoid dictator (like Stalin), but that's not always the case.

[Loader2k]

Second, the troops are inspired by love of freedom, which is an extreemly powerful motivating force.

The Japanese in WW2 had Kamikaze pilots. The islamic
extremists these days have suicide bombers. Sounds pretty
motivated to me.

In a war you can be sure that both sides do the appropriate
propaganda and people in Police States wont be told
"Hey guys, we from the Axis of Evil are fighting Gods own
country and their little helpers. So get out there and kick
some freedom-loving, peace-bringing asses!"

Also a Police State doesnt necessarily have to be a regime
led by a megalomaniac lunatic.