What in the high holy fu$%?

[GePap]

Dem and war.

To Venger:
I think your picture of war and the US is not complete. First, the Mexican-American war did meet up with protest (due to possible political consideration of aquired territory), so did the war of 1812 (New England thought of secceding from the union and this was a clear fear). All the other examples you give are of very short campaings (no matter what the game says, in civ terms the plain tribes would best be portrayed as barbarians, and in the game, dems don't care about barbarians). The Spanish American war was seen as self-defense (remember the Maine) and it was very short. The longer and more bloody campaign to quelsh the Filipino revolt was not as popular. Again, both world wars were seen as self-defense. As for unconditional surrender- if you demand your opponent to give up, and they do with no conditions, well there you go. Invasions only happened because we believed it was key to getting them to surrender. At the same time, we gave the territory back to the other groups (germans, Japanese) to administer.
Your government collapsed because of a very long war- centuries- the original meaning was lost for your people and they were just sick of an endless war with no conclusion (if your going for conquest, make it short). Finally, 'democracy' in civ3 is not american democracy as such,so saying that it did not happen in America, which is a democracy, and such is not valid doesn't work. Dem. in Civ3 is a romanticized picture, I doubt it wouls include such things as segragetion and such that were part of the US system till the 60's. Also, since there is no economic model in Civ3, dem. also includes the notion of free markets. being in a constant war would mean constant government control of the economy (certainly true for some WW type copnflict in the middle of the modern age) or continuos censoring of civil rights (secrecy and so forth). An idealized dem. (which is what this is [remember, the US is not the first or only dem.]) would not behave the same as the US did historically.
Finally, the idea of continual world conquest with a dem. is ludicrous. When you capture folks, they become your citizens. Do you think they are happy with what has happened or perhaps your continuing battle with their national brothers? The only way to stop this would be to deny citizenship to those you conquer, but quickly venger, you then stop being a democracy.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Venger
That said, it's just STUPID to have my government, with a 70% approval rating and WLTPD all over the place, overthrow the government and go into a starving anarchy... there has to be a better way...
Venger

Sometimes you just can't buy people off.

-shrug-

I say, good for your people, standing up
to you.

The population decrease your civ experienced could
have been from people moving away.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Lets not forget that the governments in Civ3 represent how the government is SUPPOSE to react, now how they do.

A true democracy should act the way it does in Civ 3.

If you want to look at Communism in the real world vs. it in Civ3, you'll understand.

~A.

[Venger]

Re: Dem and war.

Originally posted by GePap
To Venger:
I think your picture of war and the US is not complete. First, the Mexican-American war did meet up with protest (due to possible political consideration of aquired territory),

Sources? And it was the Mexican government that was in upheaval during the war, not the American one. Local rebellion and a total collapse of the government after the conquest of Mexico City. I have seen no information showing any type of popular outcry against the war. The annexation of Texas and the later cede of most of the West from Mexico to the United States was hardly unpopular.

so did the war of 1812 (New England thought of secceding from the union and this was a clear fear).

This was never a serious consideration; although it was espoused by a few members of a Federalist convention, most simply wanted a limit to Republican powers. The North was pissed because of the interuption of commerce caused by war (which is done in Civ3 pretty well - No Soup For You!)

All the other examples you give are of very short campaings (no matter what the game says, in civ terms the plain tribes would best be portrayed as barbarians, and in the game, dems don't care about barbarians).

Depends on how you define the terms - does it really take 80 years to move my legion across my map? No - so these conflicts are already on shaky "time" ground.

The Spanish American war was seen as self-defense (remember the Maine) and it was very short.

Boiler explosion. But wait, you mean a self-defense war can be popular? Hey, that was my point...

An idealized dem. (which is what this is [remember, the US is not the first or only dem.]) would not behave the same as the US did historically.

As such, why are we using historical American examples then? Alas, I know of course what you are saying, I still think having the government collapse is WAY too much, especially with ZERO warning whatsoever.

Finally, the idea of continual world conquest with a dem. is ludicrous. When you capture folks, they become your citizens. Do you think they are happy with what has happened or perhaps your continuing battle with their national brothers? The only way to stop this would be to deny citizenship to those you conquer, but quickly venger, you then stop being a democracy.

And your solution to this dilemma is...what? I think the game mechanics for war weariness, resistance, and post conquest unhappiness are actaully pretty good, although I think city reversion and all out Civ collapse are way overdone, without any apparent rhyme or reason, other than "war weariness", which is why I built suffrage and police stations...

Venger

[SirSebastian]

Keep in mind that the US is a democratic republic, not exactly a democracy. And this was more true during the 19th century wars that people are citing... largely due to limited communication, limited suffrage, and the indirect election of US senators (they were not originally elected by the people). In short, the historical US is much more like a Republic in Civ III, and for better or worse, we continue to edge towards the style of government represented by Democracy in Civ III. Before you start complaining, read the Civilopedia description of Democracy.