About "tactical government switching"

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, Ralf. Like AH and Rasputin said: F#ck off. I did read your post. I didn't say that you were proposing a polititical sub-game; I implied that by assuming that any major change of government must be preceeded by a period of unrest, you're absolutely wrong. There are numerous examples where governments have been changed due to very sudden shifts in attitude. In 1789, the only reason for the revolution was that the King called the Estates-General for the first time in over a hundred years. There had been unhappiness in Paris that summer, but it was only due to the bad harvest of the year before. There is almost always a significant period of disorder after the fact, and this is already in place. Most importantly, remember that you play God when you play Civ. You don't have to convince people to change their production or their tax rates; why should you have to convince them to change governments?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ralf
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).

You're nuts. The Gulf War was all about reinstating democratic values? How'bout Korea? or Viet Nam? South Korea and Sout Viet Nam were both run by authoritarian, military governments. South Korea had the leader of the opposition party in jail for twenty years because he opened his mouth. What about Britain in Egypt in the fifties? Or the French in Algeria? How 'bout Argentina and Britain in the eighties over a bunch of crappy islands nobody cared about? Democracies go to war whenever those in power feel that their strategic/economic interests are at stake, just like everybody else. Even the WW2 "Crusade in Europe" crap was invented as a ploy by Eisenhower and Roosevelt. The real problem was that a Nazi Europe was a reality which would have done a great deal of harm to the US. Even if you take WW2 as the best example of a "justified" war on the Allies' part (which I do), then why do you come up against the dilemma that the US went to war more reluctantly in 1941 than to any other war in their history?

[Nikolai]

Why can't we just say that a democracy can only avoid the happiness penalty when the it has been attacked, and therefore have a legal reason to counterattack? If a democracy's people want war, I see no reason for the penalties, since the unhappiness then wont come. Does anyone here remember KISS?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hey, Ralf. Like AH and Rasputin said: F#ck off. I did read your post.

What the heck is the matter with some people here?

Besides: the rule is: Get excited; criticizes all you want. But, no swearing and name-calling - i doesnt become OK, just because 2 others have done it before, and you replace on of the letters with an "#". Try to hold a decent level, please.

I implied that by assuming that any major change of government must be preceeded by a period of unrest, you're absolutely wrong.

I didnt imply anything of the kind - at least not in such a general way that you are implying. I am NOT saying that ALL government-changes in Civ-3 (not in the real world, mind you) must be preceeded with a period of unrest. Have I said that?

What I am saing is that switching away from democracy to a more dictatorial government-type should be considered a special case. The reason for this is mostly for improving gameplay & game-balance - although I also can give you historical reasons (the fall of the german Weimar-republic).

Originally posted by KrazyHorse You're nuts

Look, I dont want this topic closed just because you get so over-excited, that you feel you must underline your viewpoints with name-calling. Just type down your arguments and leave the name-calling outside the forum. You think you can handle that, Krazyhorse?

The Gulf War was all about reinstating democratic values? How'bout Korea? or Viet Nam? South Korea and Sout Viet Nam were both run by authoritarian, military governments.

O'boy, I should have guessed it. OK, since you didnt read my reply carefully enough, I must quote myself (the parts you missed I type with bold letters):

"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."

Comment: Then I give historic examples, I do it in connection to the Civ-game. The only kind of military-wars in Civ-games, is infact the ones with conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives. Am I wrong? It is this that Im thinking about then I am arguing against democracy-endorsed "big full-scale wars" in the game.

Quote: "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?"

Comment: Was the war-objectives in Korea and Vietnam to (in best Civ strategy-game style) direct-rule all future politics in in these contries, and assimilate them to 100% american land-areas, forever? Well, was it? It is THIS, that shouldnt be possible under Civ-game democracy.

Finally, for some reason you seems to have worked your self up tremendously in your too last replies. Or at least so it seems. If you want to reply this one - just stick to the game, and whether ancient-style conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives should be possible under civ-game 20:th century democracy.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
It must be the exception that prooves the rule.

Why?

Civilization III is aimed to be a lighthearted turnbased strategy-game with some humor in it. Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it.

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

First of all: I realize (of course) that history isnt over yet - far from it. Todays version of democracy are much about idealized ideas, and reality cant always keep up with that. Things will probably look very different (perhaps to the better) in a couple of hundred years.

However, my basic point is that democracy wasnt just something that "stumbled in" by accident. If some powerful historical figure would try to enforce the modern variant of democracy, in ancient times (or for example under the medieval era); he wouldnt stand the slightest chance of succeeding. The "sign of the times" simply wasnt ripe yet.
Compare also with pharao Echnaton who around 1350 BC tried to enforce the idea of monotheism replacing polytheism. He tried to do that then ancient egypt flourished, and most egyptians where content. He failed miserably nevertheless - the "sign of the times" simply wasnt ripe yet. Monotheism would stick its head up first in old-testamental Israel, as we all know.

Likewise: its something about this "the sign of the times, must be ripe, in order to succeed" factor, that I try to implement by suggesting that democracy-tech and happiness-level by itself, shouldnt be enough in order to succeed the switch to democracy.

Again; my arguments are mostly game-challenge & game-balance related, first and foremost. 100% historic & real-life consistency, without any contradictive historic irregularitys, whatsoever? God - I think I leave that one to someone else.

[Dauphin]

Ralf,

I get your whole cultural readiness idea, and I agree with that bit. Although I would assume that the tech advance for Democracy would be set at quite a high level, after the Renaissance type of age. So therefore I would assume that the culture has to be ripe in order to discover it in the first place.

My point was that almost all modern democracies were brought about through armed conflict with an establishment of some kind. Not by peaceful transition. This is already represented in the game by the period of anarchy.

[TechWins]

I think that the current system for all parts is adequate. The only thing I would like to see added for the government system is a base model such as the Civ2 and a SE such as the SMAC. That way if you wanted to be a militarisitic democracy you could turn up the happiness level of you citizens with the SE but loose something somewhere else (i.e. gain a little happiness loose a little science).

[rah]

US - Democracy.
In all reality conquered over 70% of the US from the Indians with the expressed goal of 100% assimilation forever. So much for that.

We don't have to look much farther for other examples, just check your history books.

RAH

[Ralf]

Double-post, sorry!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I get your whole cultural readiness idea, and I agree with that bit. Although I would assume that the tech advance for Democracy would be set at quite a high level, after the Renaissance type of age. So therefore I would assume that the culture has to be ripe in order to discover it in the first place.

This together with the fact that you, in Civ-3, must develop most techs in each era, before you are allowed to continue to the next era.

Hmm. OK, Big Crunch - I give in on this one. You probably right.

I however DONT give in when it comes to the idea of 20:th century style democracy, with militaristic Alexander/ Napoleon/ Hitler-style war-objectives. It just feels so totally and utterly wrong. Also; it (obviously) makes the democracy-choice way too powerful, with too few game-balancing drawbacks.

Also, to those who are against that: Whats so wrong with the idea that a well-developed civ-3 democracy, populated with mostly happy & content people just dont want to listen to any ideas about you switching to a more dictatorial government-type?
Switching from happy & content democracy to dictatorship should demand that the player must level the ground somewhat (unless his people are unhappy to begin with) in advance. He must find ways to lower the happiness-level below a certain level, in order to succeed. Is that really so dead-wrong?

My point was that almost all modern democracies were brought about through armed conflict with an establishment of some kind. Not by peaceful transition. This is already represented in the game by the period of anarchy.

OK then - but, maybe the period of anarchy could be followed by a period of gradually increasing to max-output productivity?

I just want to add something that deter too convinient and unchallenging government-switchings. Just compare with religion-switches in "Europa Universalis". I dont want to go that far, of course - I just want to add something that makes government-switchings in Civ-3, just a little bit more of a "dare I grasp the chance, or dare I not" dilemma. Just a little more of that.

[MORON]

See demon boil mind worm stack

Swich to Demo Green Reseach

Attack mind worms

Swich back

[Inverse Icarus]

actually, NAM and KOREA were part of the containment policy to combat communism in asia and to promote democracy, sdo they were enforcing democratic ideals.

IMHO, the two wars were nothign more than a game of chess between the USA and the USSR. sure the USA may have suffered great losses, but the Russians tipped their king.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
US - Democracy.
In all reality conquered over 70% of the US from the Indians with the expressed goal of 100% assimilation forever. So much for that.

A rather lame grasping-for-straws example, If you ask me. They didnt even realize they were invaders, in the militaristic country-against-country sense of the word. They just went ahead and populate it. Besides: I was talking about modern (after WW-2) democracy. Wasnt that obvious?

Please, understand that Civ-3 is an heavily simplified abstraction. The Firaxis-staff must make shortcuts. The important thing here is that they do it in ways that improves the gameplay & game-challenge, dont you agree? Now, have you any ideas or suggestions about Civ-3 democracy in terms of gameplay & game-challenge?

[Alexander's Horse]

Ah its Ralf, Mr Popularity

He's back

[Dr Strangelove]

I agree with AH, history is full of democracies going off on a playful romp of conquest around the world. Take Ms Victoria's Greater Britannia for instance. I think Republic's and Democracy's greater penalty for having units abroad simulates the real world possibility of dissent.
Saayyy- how about introducing "chauvinism" as a conceptual advance. It would neutralize the penalty for units abroad, but would in turn be nullified for all countries by the UN or Women's Rights. (Women's Rights would have to confer some other benefit.)