About "tactical government switching"

[Ralf]

I wrote this piece under the Civil wars in CivIII thread, but maybe it was under the wrong topic. I recreate it under its own topic instead:

So called "tactical government-switching" shouldnt be possible anymore - at least not so easily as it was in Civ-2. Switching from democracy to communism or nationalism, should ONLY be possible if you are willing to pay the "grasp the opportunity" prize (Im thinking Weimar-republic here).
What you basically must do if you plan to go from more free-living government-types to more controlled ones, is to prepare/stage a political coup. You can do this by deliberately raise the general unhappiness-level to a certain point (by for example sell out some happiness-improvments), and then "grasp the opportunity", by switching to communism or nationalism. This is somewhat risky, because you can end up with revolting independence-declaring cities, that you must recapture after a succesful coup.

The only exception from above rule is then several cities of your democratic or republic empire have been invaded & conquered. Then switching to nationalism is of course much easier.

On the other hand: Switching to democracy from more ancient government-types (or from nationalism & communism, by all means) shouldnt be possible just by having access to the tech alone. Its easier from republic of course, but still; you really must achieve a certain length of political & economical stability under peace, in order to even try to switch to democracy. Just having enough happiness-boosting city-improvements + the democracy-tech, shouldnt by itself be enough.

[KrazyHorse]

This is silly. You can't model individual events into a strategy game of this scope. You pay with a period of disorder, which is already a significant penalty.

[Alexander's Horse]

Democracy fights well

Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

Definitely, although I think it should be associated will valid excuses, such as allies under attack, or public dislike of another nation.

You could generate dislike or admiration for a civ through propaganda and counterpropaganda at home and abroad. Using things like mass media.

you really must achieve a certain length of political & economical stability under peace, in order to even try to switch to democracy. Just having enough happiness-boosting city-improvements + the democracy-tech, shouldnt by itself be enough

I agree, most democracies are based on gradual adoption, but the English Civil was based on the fight for a more Democratic government. When Parliament won it was hardly a culmination of a period of economic/political stability.

I also seem to recall Russia going from absolute Monarchy to Democracy to Communism in less than one year.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is silly. You can't model individual events into a strategy game of this scope. You pay with a period of disorder, which is already a significant penalty.

If you bother to read the thread before you answer , you should know that I never suggested anything of the kind. I DONT suggest that you should "outmaneuver your advisors/ the senate" and by that suggesting a game within the game.

All im saying is that you must temporarily lower the happiness-level (unless its low to begin with), in order to succed a downgrading government-coup. Thats all.

Originally posted by Alexander's horse
Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

Why?

Also, why just a 1-line statement? Why not add some good arguments why this wouldnt unbalance the democracy-choice too much? What you basically asking for is that democracy should - on top of having clear boost-advantage in all civil areas, now also should have an militaristic conquering-the-world abilty as well. What about government-choice game-balance???

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I agree, most democracies are based on gradual adoption, but the English Civil was based on the fight for a more Democratic government. When Parliament won it was hardly a culmination of a period of economic/political stability.

Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we.

Its just a fun game - and I am trying to suggest ideas that, in this case, makes government-switching more of a challenge, and by that also balance the gameplay somewhat.
Converting to/from democracy should be a fun challenge in itself. Not just a question of having the democracy-tech and enough happiness-boosting city-improvements.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ralf is a bore

F#ck off Ralf. I made my point. Didn't you understand it?

[Ralf]

Re: Ralf is a bore

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
F#ck off Ralf. I made my point. Didn't you understand it?

No - I really dont understand what you mean. In what way would easier warfare under democracy improve gameplay & game-balance in Civ-3? Explain to me.

The whole point with these kinds of forums, is that one should - not only type down upgrade-wishes - but also try to lay forward good arguments why it should be implemented, and how it could improve the game.
Giving and recieving fun well-argued criticism and praise. Otherwise, these forums just becomes shallow non-interactive notice boards. Would that be fun?

[Rasputin]

actually ralf for the first time (and hopefully last) I agree with AH... F%#K off.. these forums are for fun for expressing peoples ideas and if that means a quick one line repsonse so be it.. Being verbose doesnt mean being clever ....


The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Rasputin
The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

Theres a big difference.

Democracys have ONLY (without exception) started big fullscale-wars, either to defend their own country, or to defend/ reinstate democratic values (USA in Europe WW-2, for example). Maybe their political goals, where more dirty unofficially speaking, yes:

But what is completely unrealistic however, is the idea of a well-developed democratic country/empire that goes to war with Alexander/ Napoleon/ Hitler-style militaristic conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives. USA didnt take advantage of the defeat of Japan by trying to direct-rule all future politics in Japan, and assimilate it as yet another 100% american state, did they?

Why then should it be possible under democracy in Civ-3? Such, mostly ancient-style militaristic conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives was/is politically impossible. An extremely nationalistic country, like nazi-Germany, imperial Japan or Stalins Soviet can pull it off in the modern era, yes - but this is exactly my point:

You want to "conquer the world", by forcefully assimilate other cultures & countries forever under your personal rule, by using militaristic means? Fine - but choose an appropriate militaristic government-type. Not Republic or Democracy - that just aint realistic. Nor is it any good in terms of game-balance.

I am NOT saying that going to war should be impossible under Civ-3 democracy. You can always (of course) defend your motherland, and also help out an ally thats getting attacked. The latter also by using military means. Or trade units (or as a gift) to a friendly AI-civ - perhaps, because you want him as a shield/ buffer-state between yourself and a too powerful militaristic neighbor.

But you shouldnt - under democracy - be able to conquer in order to assimilate that foreign empire forever.

By the way: It really was too easy to conquer other empires, under democracy in Civ-2. I always done that near the end-games, after I launced my AC-ship. If you prepared yourself with all the happiness- improvements/wonders available, you can do it easily. I have again, and again moved around 70-80+ combat-units on the field, without any democratic units-avay-from-home problems. The 50% senate-disapproval occured rather seldomly, and it was easy to cheat around anyway. It shouldnt be so easy - it should be harder...

[Inverse Icarus]

IMHO, if you play the game that long you deserve to find it easy.

the best battles in civ 2 take place pre-automobile. the industrial era is a real hot spot.

i absolutely HATE games where you know your going to win, in like 100+ turns, which is basically every game of civ 2.

but with an enhansed AI maybe it wont be so bad.

maybe i'll finally lose a city to the ai besides those Vikings who bribed my cities yesterday with their 60 gold my embassy said they had. maybe they were making a few grand a turn.

but anyway, i think i should be harder to switch from democracy to communism, they're just completely different ends of the spectrum. (well democracy is more in the middle, with facism on the right and communism on the left, but whatever)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ralf


Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we.

Its just a fun game - and I am trying to suggest ideas that, in this case, makes government-switching more of a challenge, and by that also balance the gameplay somewhat.
Converting to/from democracy should be a fun challenge in itself. Not just a question of having the democracy-tech and enough happiness-boosting city-improvements.

I agree it should be hard to switch SUCCESSFULLY to Rep or Demo. I dont see why one shouldnt be allowed to try.

Heres yet another contraindicative historical example - the French revolution, arguably attempted by the elite as a tactical switch (see Schama - "Citizens") which did not quite take hold, but had a variety of important consequences. (granted your reluctance to overweight single examples, but FR was VERY important historical event, and along with Russian rev may very well have been one of the original inspirations for the Civ2 govt model)

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rasputin
actually ralf for the first time (and hopefully last) I agree with AH... F%#K off.. these forums are for fun for expressing peoples ideas and if that means a quick one line repsonse so be it.. Being verbose doesnt mean being clever ....


The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

Evidently you werent in the US in 1968

War in a demo, under certain circumstances, can definitely throw cities into civil disorder. The unrealistic aspect of the civ2 model is having the regime collapse just because one city goes into disorder for a couple of turns. Long established modern demos are more resilient to civil disorder than that, whether the civil disorder results from war or other factors.

Agree that civil disorder in demo should be greater for some wars than others - eg Viet Nam versus WW2. Not sure best way to implement. But it should still be possible for a demo to engage in aggressive war, but should be at greater cost or require additional Womens suffrage type wonders/improvements.

Now to go out on a limb for a "realism" feature that may or may not add to gameplay. To model changing attitudes to imperialism - demos find it easier to engage in aggressive war against technologically more primitive civs, until certain level of social development (an anti-racism tech that improves happiness?). Thus France in Algeria in 1960 should be more costly than French imperialism in 1885.

LOTM

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ralf


Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we.

It must be the exception that prooves the rule.

Give me some examples of major world democracies coming out due to peaceful economic and political change. Of the top industrial countries today:

English Civil War.
American Revolution
French Revolution\Napoleonic overthrow
German defeat in WW2
Italian overthrow of Mussolini
Japanese defeat in WW2

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Evidently you werent in the US in 1968

Gladly no !~!! But I dont recall the American GOvernemnt coolapsing and the whole USofA going into rebellion and no work getting done, yes may have bene large riots or protests re war in veitnam but the governemnt still ruled

War in a demo, under certain circumstances, can definitely throw cities into civil disorder. The unrealistic aspect of the civ2 model is having the regime collapse just because one city goes into disorder for a couple of turns. Long established modern demos are more resilient to civil disorder than that, whether the civil disorder results from war or other factors.

I guess we actually agree on this point

Agree that civil disorder in demo should be greater for some wars than others - eg Viet Nam versus WW2.

biggest differnece was simply Media coverage, if Media are broadcasting pics of of your boys dying people hate war, if media broadcasts only good news then the people ar eok with it. A thing the US learn fro mVietnam was to contro lmedia during war eg Gulf War ...
Not sure best way to implement. But it should still be possible for