About "tactical government switching"

[Theben]

Putting aside AH's childish trolling, and other's casual use of swear words, I have to say that as far as the game itself goes purposely lowering happiness levels won't work.

Revolutions come about for various reasons, not all of them related to population contentment. Warlords, governors, and dukes may see a weakness in the current ruler. In those situations, the government is usually not replaced. At the end of Tokugawa-era Japan, rioting was common enough and people unhappy enough that the feudal system HAD to go as it could not effectively govern- and the new ruling elite complied.

The best I'd say for civ3 is that if a govt switch allows for more luxury for your people then there's no problem, but if it switches from a freer society (repub, demo) to one less so there should be a few turns of increased unhappiness in all your cities which will slowly go away. Also that ancient forms of govt (despotism, monarchy) should not be available after more modern forms of govt are "discovered".

And republic/democracy shouldn't have happiness penalties for troops away unless they are at war, and unit deaths should cause happiness problems for all societies- moreso for repub/demo.

[Alexander's Horse]

He started it

My trolling is anything but childish - though I do feel a little bad about picking on a rank amateur like Ralf.

[rah]

RALF
"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?"

As always your "know it all attitude" is so narrow focused.

The game doesn't start in 1942. In fact I haven't seen a game last till 1942 in the last three years (except for my first occ try). You can't focus on one era. Think of the early Roman Republic, where conquest was primary. The examples are endless.
You have to think of the early game also. Most of the people I play with are in Democracy before or near 1 a.d. The game must be playable throughout time, not just the last 80 years.

So can the obvious crap and pick up a history book. I believe you will find that the Indians considered it a war (each tribe considered itself a nation). Other people have valid points, try listening.

RAH

[TechWins]

My trolling is anything but childish - though I do feel a little bad about picking on a rank amateur like Ralf.

You rarely post anything important, so I wouldn't be talking about how Ralf is an amateur. I'm not saying I do either. Since I've been here in the past few months Ralf has probably came up with the most good ideas here. Although I don't neccesarily like this idea of his.

[Paul L]

Think of the early Roman Republic, where conquest was primary.

I don't think the early Roman Republic count as a modern Democracy.

The game doesn't start in 1942. In fact I haven't seen a game last till 1942 in the last three years

Obviously Ralf meant being technology-wise post ww2 not in game years

As always your "know it all attitude" is so narrow focused.

What about all this Ralf bashing in this thread? I think he is one of the worthiest contributers on the civ3 forum.

Generally I agree with Ralf on this topic. Changing government should be a big decision, not something like: 'well, now it's war so we go communist and change back to democracy after that'

[rah]

That's the problem, I agree that he's entitled to his opinion. But so is everyone. He just dismisses them with a wave of his hand. He mentioned republics early. I also don't see anything about Post ww2 governments in the title. So whether it was obvious is immaterial, all of history is fair game. This game is about all of history.

He called my example a "A rather lame grasping-for-straws example". This is not the kind of language you use when you are trying to convince people or convey an idea. (see sig below) He brings on the anti feeling with his arrogance. It is clear that quite a few people don't agree with him.

I have liked a lot of some of his ideas. But the way he presents them and treats others ideas will not make him any friends around here.

RAH

[Grumbold]

The biggest thing to stop Democracies (or anyone else) attacking the rest of the world is the sheer impracticality of doing it successfully. A democracy would be just as capable of doing it as anyone else if they thought it was cost effective and in their best interests. Any reasons can be found or manufactured to swing popular opinion the way the government wants it.

In a tight game, switching between government types should be avoided just because vital production and research will be lost. The differences between modern governments should also be softer than in previous Civs. Democracies don't revolt for having armies and navies spread around the world. Communists are not incapable of achieving scientific advances. Civ govt styles are just too simple and linear so you have to switch easily in order to get things done.

[rah]

Thank you, Grumbold
A pure voice of reason.

Yes, one may postulate that the US can have all of troops that are around the world without unhappiness because of all the happy improvements. But I prefer to think like you.

We are not limited to the current real world when we think of governments. The game allows us to explore and come up with our own ideas. Just because the US has never had a reason to conquer and assimilate a country recently, doesn't mean a reason will never exist. And if it ever does, I'm sure the government will emply the right SPIN Doctors to sell it to the public.

Yes the current CivII definitions are two stict and limiting (Not realistic).
But I don't think they can go to crazy here. They should just maybe add some variations. Or create realistic penalties for violating the nature of the government.

Nothing was more stupid than never being able to declare war in a democracy without the government collapsing. (unless you had the U.N and lots of hawks)

Over complication of the game will reduce playablility and be very difficult for the AI to be programmed. (unless they use the cheat method currently being used)

RAH

[TechWins]

(unless they use the cheat method currently being used)

If there is a cheat mode it should just give the computer a slight advantage (i.e. increase there production a little bit) but don't let them cheat by going against the basic rules of the game (i.e. a plane never having to refuel).

Yes, one may postulate that the US can have all of troops that are around the world without unhappiness because of all the happy improvements. But I prefer to think like you.

I agree with this in come aspects there's not going to be a revolt by these troops being gone but many of the families and troops are unhappy because of being away from home (the states). I think under a democracy any troop inside his borders will not be unhappy and with the improvement of police station in his home city he will only cause one unhappiness. Without the improvement he will cause two unhappiness. So it's pretty much the same as Civ2.

[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). Maybe their political goals, where more dirty unofficially

Viet Nam wasn't full-scale enough? The US managed to kill off two million people in that country, most of whom were civilians. You can call any war anything you want, so saying that a war needs to have a moral excuse under a democracy is a useless statement. Every government has given a moral excuse for every war ever started. In my first post I swore at you, and will swear again if necessary because you continually and offhandedly accuse people of ignorance. The only reason I switched to a "#" is that, if I'm not mistaken, the entire word would have been blocked out if I used a "u". I wasn't trying to be cute. In my books, "You're nuts" is just another way of saying "you're completely wrong". That part, at least, was not given as an insult. In my local idiom, "you're nuts" is a completely offhand remark, and can be used in the most casual or formal situations. Oh, by the way: what about Israel? I'm about to get slammed by a bunch of knee-jerk Anti-Semite-baiting, but Israel has grabbed a large chunk of territory which they've held on to for quite a while. They've settled some parts of it with their own population, which leads me to believe that they're keeping it. Israel's a real democracy. So is India, but it and Pakistan haven't given up fighting about Kashmir. Neither democracy nor any other political ideology necessarily make for a peace-loving country.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TechWins
You rarely post anything important, so I wouldn't be talking about how Ralf is an amateur. I'm not saying I do either. Since I've been here in the past few months Ralf has probably came up with the most good ideas here. Although I don't neccesarily like this idea of his.

I think AH meant that Ralf was a rank amateur at trolling.

[Ralf]

Double-post, sorry!

[Ralf]

Lets look at it this way: I started this thread as a governmental game-balancing request, OK.

The way I look at things, we Apolyton-members should firstly concentrate on the "skeleton-ideas" that can improve game-challenge, gameplay and the game-balance aspects of Civ-3. Then, secondly wrap it up in "flesh and blood" by refering to a suitable historical context. In that order.
Far too many times some people here try to do it the other way around. They contributes with endless history-arguments, and the important issue of whats best for civ-gameplay always seems to come second place.

And now to my "anti-war under democracy" point:

Is it likely that a modern western democracy of today tries to conquer-and-keep other established countries by military means, in the same way Napoleon or Hitler did?
If its NOT likely (partly because of fear for nuclear holocaust, and partly because of very strong anti world-war feelings) - why shoudnt this anti war-romanticizing anti-militaristic conquer-to-keep unvillingness ALSO be portrayed in the civ-game, under late-game democracy? Or put it this way:

Why is it "historically correct" to totally ignore the western world war-disillusioned anti-war feelings, under Civ-democracy - while it, at the same time its considered "historically correct" to over-emphasize all comparibly minor examples of democracy-endorsed military envolvement in civil-wars around the globe?

Mind you: I am NOT against Civ-3 democracy-endorsed foreign military envolvement in civil-wars (helping allies and such, but also with self-conscious "worldpolice objectives": Veitnamn, Irak). I am also NOT against retaliating a fullscale-invasion on your Civ-democracy. I am NOT against that, of course.

What Im dead against is the idea that one, under Civ-democracy, should be able to initiate fullscale empire-wars, with the intention to keep the conquered land forever, for no other reason that you happen to be the strongest democracy-empire in military areas.
This, in itself, shouldnt be an sufficient-enough world-conquest engaging factor, then playing under democracy. Even some annoing, but controlable border-quarrels shouldnt be enough reason for the senate to permit you fullscale wars.
You can prepare a huge army under democracy, yes (compare with USA military power), but you should NOT be able to initiate empire-land grabbing wars in Civ-3, under democracy, without VERY, VERY STRONG reasons.
The conquer-to-keep senate-overule factor must be much stronger in Civ-3, comparing with Civ-2. If you have provokative Hitler- or Stalin-type of war-objectives; OK, fine - just convert to nationalism or communism.

Again: my main anti-war democracy focus-point however is about game-balance & challenge though. If Civ-democracy is allowed to excellence too much in ALL areas, including trouble-free military world-conquest - then this government-type simply becomes too strong and powerful for its own good.

Originally posted by rah
He just dismisses them with a wave of his hand. [...]

He called my example a "A rather lame grasping-for-straws example". This is not the kind of language you use when you are trying to convince people or convey an idea. (see sig below) He brings on the anti feeling with his arrogance. [...]

I have liked a lot of some of his ideas. But the way he presents them and treats others ideas will not make him any friends around here.

OK, rah - lets make the following comparison: Lets look at two opposing politicians that argues in a TV-casted debate: Now, whats possible for them to say and do here - what is the unwritten debating- & behaviour rules in front of the camera?

Well, on one end of the scale, these politicians cant swear at each other and call each other by names. Nor can they engage in hand-to-hand combat. Such behaviour would look very bad, and it would ultimately hurt their reputations pretty much. They must of course hold a decent level after all.

On the other end of the scale; Above politicians cant act too tenderfoot either. They cant interpret opposing arguments in over-sensitive ways - perhaps even starting to cry in front of the camera, whilst pointing a finger towards the opponent, saying; hes mean - he sweepingly dismissed my arguments when he said:

"So much for that. We don't have to look much farther for other examples, just check your history books." Or...
"A rather lame grasping-for-straws example, If you ask me."

My bottom line is: Dont take it personally. Dont interpret "hardnosed" (but still decent & above the belt) argumentation in over-sensitive ways (in short: rah - give me a break, please).

Here a few Apolyton debating-rules that can help ALL of us:

• Criticzize, complement or praise the reply - NOT the person behind the reply.
• Gameplay & game-balance is the skeleton - start with that, and add historic "flesh & blood" later.
• Dont try to convert a "thumbs down" responder - use him as a argument-sharpening grindstone instead.
• Dont pick & choose historic arguments only, in order to dismiss what you dont like. History is relative.
• Dont dismiss the idea just because the "wrong" person suggested it. Give it a chance.
• Try not to sweepingly judge ideas in a "glass half-empty" kind of way.
• Dont be abusive and dont be oversensitive.
• Dont address replies to the person - address it through the person to the rest of the forum.

[TechWins]

What Im dead against is the idea that one, under Civ-democracy, should be able to initiate fullscale empire-wars, with the intention to keep the conquered land forever, for no other reason that you happen to be the strongest democracy-empire in military areas. This, in itself, shouldnt be an sufficient-enough world-conquest engaging factor, then playing under democracy. Even some annoing, but controlable border-quarrels shouldnt be enough reason for the senate to permit you fullscale wars.
You can prepare a huge army under democracy, yes (compare with USA military power), but you should NOT be able to initiate empire-land grabbing wars in Civ-3, under democracy, without VERY, VERY STRONG reasons.
The conquer-to-keep senate-overule factor must be much stronger in Civ-3, comparing with Civ-2. If you have provokative Hitler- or Stalin-type of war-objectives; OK, fine - just convert to nationalism or communism.

This is something I do agree with. There is no way the people in the US would comply with the US to just go attack and take over Mexico or Canada, just for the purpose of conquering. The people aren't going to be happy seeing their sons or daughters dying in war just for the purpose of glorification of their nation. Nobody is going to be happy doing a war like that. That is why there should be severe reprucutions. There has to be an important reason to go to war (i.e. WW1-Pearl Harbor and many other reasons, Korean War and Vietnam War-Stopping Spread of Communism, Persian Gulf War-Iraq's attack on Kuwait, etc...).

Ralf, what I am against is your model for changing gov'ts. I just don't really like it. Not just for historical purposes either more towards gameplay purposes. I am a fun gameplay before a realistic gameplay person as well. Even though your model really wouldn't effect me in the game because I only play as Despotism, then a Republic, and finally a Democracy.

My bottom line is: Dont take it personally. Dont interpret "hardnosed" (but still decent & above the belt) argumentation in over-sensitive ways (in short: rah - give me a break, please).

Ralf, what you have to understand is people don't like to be shewed away when stating there opinions. Not many people liked your idea but everybody at least accepted what you had to say.

Here a few Apolyton debating-rules that can help ALL of us:

I really don't want a set of rules I absolutely have to follow. I mean all your rules should be followed but I think it's sad that I saw the day that they had to be written down. There just common curtisy rules.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
This is something I do agree with. [...]

Ralf, what I am against is your model for changing gov'ts. I just don't really like it. Not just for historical purposes either more towards gameplay purposes. I am a fun gameplay before a realistic gameplay person as well. Even though your model really wouldn't effect me in the game because I only play as Despotism, then a Republic, and finally a Democracy.

This is what I would like to call "glass half full" kind of critizism. No repetitious bashing with relative pick-and-choose history-examples. Just calmly explain why one dont like it, and perhaps also mention some alternative solutions that would work better.

Ralf, what you have to understand is people don't like to be shewed away when stating there opinions.

TechWins, believe me - I know exactly how that feels (being shewed away, that is). If responding civers could explain why they dont like it, and maybe come up with alternative solutions, that works better (or alternatively simply ignore the topic), then I would feel better.
Its those short & sweepingly dismissive pick-and-choose history-examples, and the adrupt "so much for that. We dont have to look much further..." statements, that triggers me. Every coin have two sides, you see. Its not only me that should think twice how things can be perceived.

I really don't want a set of rules I absolutely have to follow. I mean all your rules should be followed but I think it's sad that I saw the day that they had to be written down. There just common curtisy rules.

Those was not meant to be officially "chiseled in stone". I just typed them down anyway.