About "tactical government switching"

[Alexander's Horse]

Ralf needs some manners

Bah! Ralf is a newbie. He may have some good ideas but he needs to improve his attitude. He wasn't around when the lists were done for example and like most of you newbies, he often brings up ideas that have been discussed before.

[Ralf]

Re: Ralf needs some manners

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Bah! Ralf is a newbie. He may have some good ideas but he needs to improve his attitude.

OK, I shall try to improve my attitude. Im not completely unsensitive too criticizm, you now.

He wasn't around when the lists were done for example and like most of you newbies, he often brings up ideas that have been discussed before.

Actually I was.

I was "Ralph" back then. Check out the "Fans who contributed" list. Since then I dropped our for a long time - then re-enlisted again under a slightly changed "Ralf".

[Alexander's Horse]

Oh - its RALPH

Be as rude as you like then

[rah]

Ralf,

Gee, A listing of rules as you see then, how condescending.

Your arrogance is simply amazing.

But, Thanks for proving my point.

RAH

[Grumbold]

I would suggest that this thread has drifted so far away from calmly debating the original issue that it should be stopped and a new debate opened elsewhere if you still think it worthwhile.

[KrazyHorse]

Here we go for my thoughts on the subject:

Ralf, it's not just democracies that have begun to give up plans of conquering the entire world; it's everybody. China doesn't want to conquer all of Asia; they just want a free hand in Tibet and control of Taiwan. The last "we want it all" war was WWII. Why? Not because of any particular gentling of spirit under democracy, but because nationalism has evolved to the point that people will no longer accept their rule by a foreign power. In the middle ages and before, provinces were traded between nations like so many bargaining chips, and their population merely grumbled. Now, there would be open revolt. The futility of conquest in the modern age has therefore been demonstrated. The only way to hang on to captured territory now is to drive the original inhabitants out and replace them with your own people. That's why I'm a big fan of culture in Civ III. I think that after you discover Nationalism, your culture rating should get a large boost, and should continue to grow every turn, as the idea of a national identity becomes ever more ingrained in your people. By the time you've had Nationalism for thirty or forty turns, conquest of your cities should amount to virtual suicide. The cities should have upwards of a ninety percent chance of rebelling or undergoing discontent. Nevertheless, once you've hurt another nation enough by denying them access to special resources and by pillaging the countryside, they should be forced by their circumstances to come to terms. In the modern age, no style of government should have any chance of world conquest. I think that the discontent under democracy caused by the stationing of its troops in foreign lands is a good idea, and sincerely hope that it remains in Civ III. Actually, I hope it's strengthened, with the loss or damage of a unit causing additional discontent for a specified number of turns. Also, the "support all my troops from the city with Shakespeare's Theater" method of dealing with this should be removed. I think that the presence of discontent in a city, under any government form, should impair the efficiency of a city. Waste and corruption should exist, even under democracy and communism. These steps should be sufficient to insure that democracy is not always better as a government form.

[rah]

KH good job,
While I'm sure there will a flurry of posts stating recent historical exception, your reasoning fits the model better then just limiting it to democracies (IMHO)

And I agree that once you've been "nationalized for a while" that it should make a considerable difference. I don't want to see it go overboard though. It should still be possible to conquer the world. (it is still a game where conquest should be an option) I don't mind making it harder but shouldn't be impossible.

RAH

[Grumbold]

I'm more in agreement with Krazy on this one. It should be possible to conquer the whole world in the modern age. It should not be possible to occupy it. So, you can nuke your opponents, destroy their cities and demolish their culture but you cannot produce enough units from your continent spanning empire to occupy their cities effectively and crush all opposition while their culture is strong.

The nightmare of millions of small acts of sabotage thousands of miles from your nearest friendly base would make the whole thing impractical. Of course, if you sieze two cities every 40 turns and continue this slow expansion from 1500 to 2020 then fair enough.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, I should point out that by "conquest" I mean taking and holding. I agree that it is still theoretically possible for a single nation to destroy every other nation; it is just not possible for a single nation to rule every other nation à la Civ II end run howitzer blitz.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

But werent most brit conquests before 1868? Can you really call Britain before the 1868 reform act, with a tightly property limited suffrage, still unvevenly sized electoral districts (though not as bad as before 1832) and with open (ie not secret) ballots a democracy? Certainly those were fighting further reform thought that they were opposed to democracy. When the reform passed
they (like Carlysle) bemoaned the establishment of democracy. Britain between 1832 and 1868 was a bourgieous (sp?) state, not in the Marxist sense, but quite literally, as they dominated the electorate and the political system (though aristos still dominated the cabinets) In Civ2 terms, a Republic.

What did Britain take post 1868? much of africa, but that was defensive, to keep out of the hands of other European powers. Burma and some other rounding out, Egypt with some reluctance, and of course the Boers. Tactical expansion, not a Civ style world conquering romp.

On the whole then Ralf is right, there have been no world conquering romps by demos. OTOH there have been only 3 such romps by anyone since 1868. WW2 of course, and arguably the German imperial expansion up to and including WW1, and the Soviet expansion from 1939 to 1985. Hard to make any judgements at all on a sample of only 3(of which 2 are themselves disputable). cant go back before 1868 - only great power demo before 1868 was US, and US was aloof from affairs outside North America. ( I dont think the Indian wars were Civ2 style conquests, more driven by local considerations than by geopolitics - the Mexican American war was more similar, though still on too limited a scale)

So i think the real problem with civ2, from the historic (and i suspect also the gameplay) point of view, is not the treatment of demos, but the extent to which it favors conquest and large empires, - "imperial overstretch" is not adequately reflected. But that has been discussed elsewhere quite extensively, I believe.

LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

only great power demo before 1868 was US

Although they didn't have universal manhood sufferage (but France did implement it at around this time), I don't see how you can deny the status of Great Britain or France as democracies or Great Powers. After all, the franchise in many parts of the US before 1865 was limited to white men; a far cry from the democratic ideal.

[rah]

It might be a little unrealistic to just consider the period between wwII and now. We don't know what will happen in the next 10 or 20 years. Some of these things that people here are postulating could happen.

Imagine if the US, China, India or the like is pushed up against the wall due to lack of resources or economic. The spiraling inflation in Germany, after WWI, effectively wiped out the entire savings of a whole generation certainly played a major role in what followed. Let's say the US has a REAL energy crisis. Spiraling inflation could wipe out the savings of a lot of people approaching retirement. Intense political pressure would be brought to bear. Drastic measures could be born out of desperation. (it has happened before).

How about widespread famine in India and China. I know India has had it's eyes on some choice property, and the Chinese have longingly looked north for centuries.

Now I know that people will say that the USSR went down without barely a whimper. But the focus there was on internal strife, and I believe we got a little lucky on that one. Maybe we won't get so lucky if they fall further. They always had plenty of resources, so going after new resources really wasn't the issue.

The era of Peace hasn't really lasted that long in historical terms.
But a couple of generations that know of nothing else, shouldn't ignore what preceded it. There are enough petty dictators around to keep our memories fresh.

RAH

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
KH good job

I agree with rah - I am impressed. I certainly dont say that everything in KH's reply is undisputeable - but as a whole; Its good. I still hang on to some of my own previous arguments though, but now I can understand your viewpoint much better. All I can say is that I hope that Firaxis read this topic (ignoring the mutual mudslinging-parts), and concentrate on the somewhat better parts (and the replies commenting KH's, certainly fits in to the latter end of the scale).

One stumble-stone I have left is the one of dictatorially changing from happy/content citizen-populated democracy, to dictatorship. That really shouldnt be as easy as it was in Civ-2.

Originally posted by rah
And I agree that once you've been "nationalized for a while" that it should make a considerable difference. I don't want to see it go overboard though. It should still be possible to conquer the world. (it is still a game where conquest should be an option) I don't mind making it harder but shouldn't be impossible.

Well, the very fact that "conquer-the-world" is an 100% confirmed Civ-3 victory-option, (obviously) ensures that militaristic end-game victorys IS possible (of course). Now - If I put aside the issue of democracy-endorsed militaristic world-conquest for a while, and concentrate on the question of HOW this conquest should be possible.

The way I look at it there should be a rubberband upper max-limit on cities you can controle directly. You can STILL continue your military world-conquest though - but you must accept that although you have conquered yet another city/empire they now have some limited (mostly administrative) freedom left. Refeer to puppet regime, wichy-regime, vassal-empire, castrated & domesticated ally-empire - call it what you like. They can still rebel against you, of course.

Exactly what (and what not) you should be able to do with this conquered vassal-empires - I leave that up to the team at Firaxis (unless you guys have any suggestions - then I join in).

What Im aiming at here, is that something should be done about the challenge-downsloping "The more cities you conquer, the more resources you get - to conquer even more cities, more easily then before" phenomenon. Now, admittedly the concept of "foreign cultures hard to assimilate" idea, together with finance-funded combat-units puts a growing strain on your military/ your economy. Is this enough?
Or should conquered empires (especially the ones with very different culture-values) be given some limited freedom (= the wichy-regime concept), and by that deny the conquer-nation 100% complete control & access in every area in his already conquered territory? I think so.

[rah]

"All I can say is that I hope that Firaxis read this topic (ignoring the mutual mudslinging-parts), and concentrate on the somewhat better parts (and the replies commenting KH's, certainly fits in to the latter end of the scale). "

Unfortunately I believe we're down to the "mental masturbation" stage. Fun to do but not much is going to come from it.
The game is way too close to completion (it better be). If I was on the programming team, I would have shut my door to any changes months ago, to perfect/test (hahahah) what we had already designed. The best we can hope for is that if they do read any of this forum in their spare time that if they see a bug from a previous version listed that can be fixed/changed easily, that they do it.

RAH
Still paranoid about the CTPII city limit happiness concept sneaking it's way into CIV III

[JamesJKirk]

Or should conquered empires (especially the ones with very different culture-values) be given some limited freedom (= the wichy-regime concept), and by that deny the conquer-nation 100% complete control & access in every area in his already conquered territory? I think so.

I think having puppet states would be a great idea, and I think they'll have this since they sort of did in SMAC too. It'd be great for conquering the globe without bloodying things up (too much)

Alternately, I think a sort of neocolonialism would be good too, once it stops being profitable or plausible to maintain colonies, you should at least be able to control their economies and exert political and military pressure to get what you want from them, since they're so dependent

only great power demo before 1868 was US, and US was aloof from affairs outside North America. ( I dont think the Indian wars were Civ2 style conquests, more driven by local considerations than by geopolitics - the Mexican American war was more similar, though still on too limited a scale

Although they didn't have universal manhood sufferage (but France did implement it at around this time), I don't see how you can deny the status of Great Britain or France as democracies or Great Powers. After all, the franchise in many parts of the US before 1865 was limited to white men; a far cry from the democratic ideal.

I don't think anyone should claim the US was a democracy in the 19th century. Certainly no one back then did. While the word was beginning to be accepted back then, it still brought similar connotations to what it did in the age of our founding fathers, who were afraid of democracy. This is why we couldn't (and still don't ) vote for president, elect senators, or vote if you were a white male without land. The word only became completely accepted in the progressive era, and arguable didn't become the practice until either 1920 or the 60s, depending on how you want to look at it.
Imperial Germany had universal male sufferage before England, I don't see anyone claiming they're a democracy.