Tweet
Elections in CIV3
I support the concept the nation's attitude changing. I think this could be done in a very interesting way through national elections. This would add to internal policy making.
The player as a leader would always be the main figure in a nation's politics (he would stay in power the whole game) but he would have to consider the opinion of the parliament (or senate...). The role and the power of the parliament would depend on the sort of government the nation had. It would be strong in democracy and weaker in republic. Of course the elections wouldn't exist as such in communism and fascism but you would still have to face minor pressures from your (potential) political opponents preparing a coup.
My vision of civ3 elections is based on a political system with 3 or 4 parties (e.g. socialist, nationalistic, religious, environmentalist) which would compete in elections every 20 turns or so. If parties that oppose your ways of leadership won the elections you'd have to either change your internal or foreign policy, change your political system or you could try to crash the parliament fall (and face new elections).
You could also use wonders like Propaganda or media control to make sure the voters supported the parties closer to you.
Other nations (at least the democratic ones)would of course also held elections and this would ensure their change of policy now and then. If they had a parliament similar to yours, they 'd be more willing to ally with you etc.
I know my thoughts are a bit confusing but I think it would make the game more interesting and still would complicate it too much.
I don't especially like the idea of leaders themselves changing but I do support randomness in a leaders attitude. Why couldn't Hitler be peaceful or Gandhi aggressive (in another set of historical circumstances).
Tell me what you think and excuse my bad spelling.
You can email me on : grubi@email.si
------------------
The player as a leader would always be the main figure in a nation's politics (he would stay in power the whole game) but he would have to consider the opinion of the parliament (or senate...). The role and the power of the parliament would depend on the sort of government the nation had. It would be strong in democracy and weaker in republic. Of course the elections wouldn't exist as such in communism and fascism but you would still have to face minor pressures from your (potential) political opponents preparing a coup.
My vision of civ3 elections is based on a political system with 3 or 4 parties (e.g. socialist, nationalistic, religious, environmentalist) which would compete in elections every 20 turns or so. If parties that oppose your ways of leadership won the elections you'd have to either change your internal or foreign policy, change your political system or you could try to crash the parliament fall (and face new elections).
You could also use wonders like Propaganda or media control to make sure the voters supported the parties closer to you.
Other nations (at least the democratic ones)would of course also held elections and this would ensure their change of policy now and then. If they had a parliament similar to yours, they 'd be more willing to ally with you etc.
I know my thoughts are a bit confusing but I think it would make the game more interesting and still would complicate it too much.
I don't especially like the idea of leaders themselves changing but I do support randomness in a leaders attitude. Why couldn't Hitler be peaceful or Gandhi aggressive (in another set of historical circumstances).
Tell me what you think and excuse my bad spelling.
You can email me on : grubi@email.si
------------------
Comment