Democrocy. what's the point?

[Dan Severn]

Actually, the soviet made its way ahead by having complete disregard for ethics or safety. As far as I can remember, 8 US citizens were killed in spacecraft. (Apollo 1, Challenger). We'll probably never know how many cosmonauts died. And the Soviet Union is one of the most hopelessly polluted realms in the world. Tens of millions of people were killed by the USSR in the name of progress. Furthermore, their entire focus was on war. That was a large factor in their downfall.

You mentioned the Bikini atoll tests. The Islanders were not poisoned, they were removed beforehand. The risk to the navy and airforce men was not nearly as great as you might think. It is true that the Islands are still not liveable, and that the islanders are justly pissed, but it was not an accident or a mistake.

The Us id do above ground tests on home soil. They built a mock-up of a town and blew it up. They gained quite a bit of data during their experiments concerning how to protect people if the USSR attacked.

As for china, it is and was a third-world country. There are many wealthy chinese, now that it has been opened up to american business. (Apparently slave labor is more profityable for major corporations than american workers.)

As for this threads intention, Democracy is fairly useless compared with republic (my fave). You find yourself with minor advantages in trade, but with major problems for the military. In my experience, communism is too much of a wimp in the game. If they had clear advantages in production and military research, it would be more accurate. (Perhaps reduced cost for Military improvements, such as in AOE?)

[Venger]

Originally posted by Dan Severn
Actually, the soviet made its way ahead by having complete disregard for ethics or safety. As far as I can remember, 8 US citizens were killed in spacecraft. (Apollo 1, Challenger). We'll probably never know how many cosmonauts died.

An awful lot.

As for this threads intention, Democracy is fairly useless compared with republic (my fave). You find yourself with minor advantages in trade, but with major problems for the military. In my experience, communism is too much of a wimp in the game. If they had clear advantages in production and military research, it would be more accurate. (Perhaps reduced cost for Military improvements, such as in AOE?)

I reduced Democracy war weariness to low when it became apparent that it had been implemented so poorly in the game. This of course makes Democracy simply an evolutionary step of Republic. I left Republic at low war weariness as well. I am considering giving Republic a 1 factor for MP and 1 free unit per town to make a difference between them, and to make a Republic more feasible during wartime (no reason you should have to go to a communist government when fighting...).

Venger

[Thoth]

Democracy's sole advantage over Republic is the faster worker speed. If I'm playing an Industrious (and non-Religeous civ) I stay a republic. If you've got the happy wonders and Universal Suffrage, you can wage war for a *long* time as a Republic while continuing to enjoy the trade bonus and cash rushing.

[daveroswell]

Dan,

I don't think that Disregard for human life is a matter of government choice, it's a matter of greed. Ever hear of asbestos, tobacco, or medical malpractice? Corporate murder as in the numerous ruining of lives--i.e. WorldCom or Enron? This country (democracy) isn't completely innocent; it just shows it's evil head through corporate greed.

[dojoboy]

Democracy = faster worker speed and faster research rates. If you can keep wars off your continent or within your enemy's borders, WW is minimal.

The best thing to do during war while in democracy is to utilize artillery to continually weaken the enemy and to minimize the loss of units. Fight slowly, fight w/ the advantage (terrain bonuses), protect (save) units (lives), and take/raze cities.

[SpencerH]

I go from despot to republic and never change. Why bother?

[crowatbitemedotcom]

Dave,

Does WorldCom, Enron, asbestos, tobacco and medical malpractice, even all rolled into one with all our questionable government programs, really compare with the tens of millions of Soviets that Stalin had killed/'disappeared'/worked to death? The US is of course not completely blameless, but do you not think that the differences in government had anything to do with the relative number of lives ruined?

Despite all the problems we've (the US) had, I don't think that the regard for human life in the US in the past 100 years has been anywhere near as low as it was in the USSR from the 20s through the 40s. Except for WW2 when the USSR was fighting for it's very existence I would say that the type of government was the main cause of these differences.

[Bambul]

"Democracy's sole advantage over Republic is the faster worker speed"

Democacie's advantages over Republic
-----------------------------------------
1.5x workers speed
Less corruption
Immune to propaganda (next to useless in SP I know)

Disdvantages
--------------
Higher war weariness

I think you meant sole *dis*advantage over Republic!

There's also the anarchy in between, so you could theoretically see that as a disadvantage I guess

[frostycreep]

I always play with democracy, but in order to avoid war i give in to all demands. I put the emphasis all on science and never trade with anyone(techs anyway). I can usually get a tech lead of about three techs and then win by building spaceships. If i do get a war, i go on defensive and pay a neighbouring civ to fight the war for me. This is all on monarch level. In conclusion, democracy = excellent

[Phil_de_geezer]

People always point to Stalin when they say Communism is evil - but this man was a murderer not a Communist. Don't forget that there are a lot of dictators around pretending to run democratic states. People like Stalin just use anything they can to gain power - think about Mussolini joining the Communist party and then switching to the other side.

What i'm trying to say is that it is difficult to gauge the true effects of a government type simply by looking at countries who claimed to be running it. Communist countries don't have to kill people.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Phil_de_geezer
People always point to Stalin when they say Communism is evil - but this man was a murderer not a Communist. Don't forget that there are a lot of dictators around pretending to run democratic states. People like Stalin just use anything they can to gain power - think about Mussolini joining the Communist party and then switching to the other side.

What i'm trying to say is that it is difficult to gauge the true effects of a government type simply by looking at countries who claimed to be running it. Communist countries don't have to kill people.

But those countries were intended to be communist- says a lot about human nature, eh? Your "true" effects would be what happened if people acted the way you wanted them to. I know communist countries don't have to kill or oppress people. But the fact is, they do. That's like saying Republics don't have to be full of corruption, or despots don't need to use the military to control people. Communism means a powerful government, and power means corruption. In their effects, fascism and communism were very much the same; censorship, intimidation, and lies.

And I never claimed the United States was blameless, but comparing enron with stalin? All they did was take people's money. They didn't murder them. Believe it or not, to be poor in the US is a hell of a lot better than it is to be wealthy in many parts of the world. This is actually one of the cleanest, safest countries in the world, because people are free to criticize the government- something very dangerous in much of the developing world.


Oh, frostycreep. "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!"

[Darkworld Ark]

I can see Democracy becoming alot better with MP, picture this;

One civ (preforbly Scientific) enters a unofficial one-way protection pact with a War Civ. In exchange for the War civs protection, the Demo civ gives the War civ advances & builds it's improvments. If another civ declares war on the Demo civ, they'll have to deal with the War civ, which doesn't have to worry about science or workers.

Currently though, since there's no one-way protection pacts, democracy's pretty useless.

[phunny_pharmer]

People always point to Stalin when they say Communism is evil - but this man was a murderer not a Communist. Don't forget that there are a lot of dictators around pretending to run democratic states. People like Stalin just use anything they can to gain power - think about Mussolini joining the Communist party and then switching to the other side.

All right, we'll ignore Stalin and his murders. But how about [pardon the misspellings] Trotsky, Motolotov, and the whole bunch back in the 1920s? They were just as bad. They had legalized anarchy because the only rule was the rule of guns.

Then, the Soviet land reforms all ended in disaster. Ignoring the dead (which was huge, by the way, but I said that I would ignore murder), the land reform ended in lower productivity. In fact, it was so low just after the revolution that the "Great Leap Forward" had to be implemented: a not-so-veiled return to rural capitalism. Of course, once productivity rose and the state became stable, all those farmers got... (whoops, I said I would…) By the late 20th century, the Ukraine, one of the most fertile areas in the world, was importing food.

Furthermore, as Free Enterprise and others point out, the per capita income in Russia was much lower than in the US. Because the command economy was not self-correcting (it was ‘infallible’), six factories made refrigerators when only one was needed. The five-year plans and ten-year plans were smoke and mirrors, because the people always had to be directed in one way or another to prevent revolt. In many cases, the same five-year goals were recycled into the next plan, because the original objectives were not achieved, or were achieved in such a shady manner that a new repair plan was necessary.

During the Second World War, it is true that the Russian people slaved to evict the Germans. Yet they did this despite their government. Russian propaganda during this period does not emphasize communism, but instead highlights nationalism and the fatherland. If Stalin and his henchmen had openly fled Moscow, and the populace found out, the whole system would probably have collapsed within a week. Only by military rule could the government remain in power.

I do not mean to be inflammatory with this post. I just wish to point out that history cannot be too apologetic to this state. Granted, it wasn't communism in an unadulterated form, but these men were responsible for its perversion.