Revolutions(and the start of new empires)

[DanM]

I had this idea posted on another thread,but I thought it would get a better response as its own heading(and should have its own);
I think it might be interesting if everytime you had a revolution,there would be a percentage chance that a part of your empire,lets say for example,3 cities on another island,decided not to go in the direction you chose and these 3 cities form their own nation independent of you.This new nation would retain all advances that they had been a part of and would be a force to be reckoned with in their own right;especially if they had room to expand(like the U.S.revolting against England).This might make players think twice about switching governments all the time.
This would also be a way for new empires to "emerge" onto the world stage even though they were not there at the beginning of time.
Maybe spies could be used in this manner as well.Instead of the nation causing the revolt getting control of the city,the spy(s)would attempt to cause unrest in the region in the hopes of causing the area(a group of cities)to revolt and declare independence
(like having a civil war)

[The Joker]

This is a must for Civ3. I would personally like a far more complex model in which the people had their own agenda (which should be changeable depending on your actions and other things), so that if you changed to a gov that the people in one part of your civ didn't like they could revolt. You could send troops there to reinforce your ascendancy, but this would be costy.

[DanM]

Right.
The people should not automatically all be in favor of the new regime.A much deeper political model(and maybe religious)should be incorporated into the game,at least in so far as the general mood of the public on different idealogies.And in knowing the mood of the people,you could make a reasonable judgement on wheather or not it would be a good idea to switch governments.
Let's face it.If in the real world there was a revolution in the U.S.,and after a short period of anarchy(like in civII) they went communist, does anybody really believe that would be the end of it?I think anarchy would reign supreme until a more popular form of government was in place.

[DanM]

Deleting the past history of a government after a revolution seems like an interesting idea.Maybe if the government that was overthrown had a bad reputation,because they were ousted,the standing for the new government would be neutral.But,if the government that was overthrown had a good reputation,the chances are that the new regime may not be looked on so favorably.

I still think that when you have a revolution it should not automatically throw you into civil war every time;maybe increase the chances depending on how extreme the change of government is.And for that matter,I don't think there should ever be a revolution if you go from republic to democracy,its seems more like a natural progression.

[general_charles]

I think there can be a real good compromise made, I think that each time a country has a revolution, it has to be split in 2, a part of the country that remains loyal to the former government and a part that wants to have a new government, this could be done and would add realism, take, say the russian or spanish revolutions, there were two sides and one eventually took the other. To make sure that this works, the two countries should be at war when they start and real mad after each other, which would prevent them from making peace right away. After a while, if war goes on for too long, the two countries will make peace and hold the land they already have. I think that this should make the game much more fun. But to make sure that the revolution was usefull, i think that the past history of a government should be deleted when the government changes, this could therefore be a way of getting back into the game when you attacked some civs at the beginning.

[OrangeSfwr]

I think the solution is simple. If you're giving more power to the people (higher level goverment) than there should be no unrest at all. Say your a republic and you have a revolution and become a monarchy. You should now have a period of unrest where nothing gets done. The same production and happiness as Anarchy but under a republic government and without the damn screens that say every city is revolting. The only acception would be going from any government to fundamentalism. Than there should be no unrest at all. I think it makes sense. If you're under a despotism and become a democracy than your people are getting so much more power in the government so why would they revolt? Don't use the Iraq example because I consider them partially fundamentalist (because of Saddam and how is picture's everywhere and how he's a Sunni Muslim etc.) Also, going from Fundamentalism to Democracy causes no unrest but going from Fundamentalism to any other government causes unrest. Going from any government above communism to communism (except fundamentalism) causes civil war automatically and one portion of your empire breaks away. Example: China and Taiwan (from republic to "Communism)

So to wrap up...

Despotism --> Monarchy + (no unrest)
Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest)
Republic --> Democracy + (no unrest)
Democracy --> Republic (unrest)
Democracy --> Tyranny or Commuism (unrest + civil war)
Democracy --> Monarchy (long unrest)
Republic --> Tyranny + Communism (civil war + unrest)
Republic --> Monarchy (unrest)
Republic --> Democracy (no unrest)
Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest)
Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest)
Fundamentalism --> Democracy (no unrest)

Communism --> Monarchy or tyranny (civil war, unrest)
Communism --> Republic or democracy (civil war, no unrest)

I think I covered pretty much everything. The last one (communism to republic/democracy) shows that there is a civil war but there is no unrest in the main civs government. I hope that is clear. Any suggestions/comments?




------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[OrangeSfwr]

I wanted to add examples (to justify my theory) but didn't have the time so I'm back and here are my examples...

Communism --> Republic or Democracy
*fall of Soviet Union (I'm considering them a democracy)

Monarchy --> Communism (1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ~ Soviet Union)

Republic --> Democracy (U.S. Articles of Confederation - Constitution)

Republic --> Communism (China under Mao. Taiwan formed and is a republic to this day)

Monarchy/despotism (emperor) --> Republic (Post WWII Japan.)

Democracy --> Republic (Roman Empire - Italy. Not a revolution persay but a gradual change over time)

Democracy --> Communism (Just imagine the US changing to Communism)

Those are a few examples that demonstrate my proposed system.

On an added note, I think that it's ridiculous to have the same production/food harvest in a fundamentalist government as in a Democracy. Any thoughts on this?



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

I think that the chart of governments changing and the effects therof that OrangeSfwr posted would be a more than welcome addition to the new Civ.My only problem I have with it is that ANY government can change to Fundamentalism without even some unrest.Although there are varrying forms of fundamentalist governments,I generally think that they tend to be anywhere from slightly to harshly oppressive at least in so far as you better get with the status quo and believe what we tell you to believe or there is going to be trouble for you.I think that most of the better off democracies of the world would suddenly have alot of very unhappy(or worse)people if strict religious ideals were thrust upon them.Let's face it,most democracies have a wide mix of religious and ethnic groups and you certainly couldn't keep them all happy if you were fundamentalist.Fundamentalist governments of today(Iraq,their track record on ethnic and religious minorities in their country speaks for itself)and the past(the Spanish did a wonderful job during the inquisition,NOT!).tend to be just ONE religion or ideal which dominates all others.
A small example of fundamentalist-type rules is what happened in the U.S.during the prohibition-era.Forbidding the sale,possesion and consumption of any alcohol was prohibited for many years and only ended up promoting the rise of well-funded organized crime gangs.
Anyways,after this long-winded reply,I do like your chart idea
[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 02, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear OrangeSfwr,

When you give historical illustrations of some point I would advise to consider the consequences of your proposals and only give an example when you have some knowledge about what actually happened. Just one example:

quote: Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest) Monarchy --> Communism (1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ~ Soviet Union)

Are you kidding?!?

The Bolshevik coup d'etat was not a revolution: the revolution occurred in February spontaneously; in November the Bolsheviks took power through assault groups.
It was followed by a civil war lasting four years and a war against the peasants who refused to cooperate with the new regime. Only by unprecedented use of terror applied by the Cheka did the Bolsheviks succeed to hold power. In 1921 a major mutiny of sailors and workers(!) broke out in Petrograd and Kronstadt. The Bolsheviks were helped by a severe famine, partly the result of their own agricultural mismanagement, which killed so many people it ended the resistance of the peasants.

Pipes estimates the victims as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia at 23 million people between 1917 and 1922. This figure is two and a half times the number of victims suffered by all belligerent countries in World War I combined. And this war was till then by far the bloodiest of human history!
In Russia, according to Pipes, among males in the age group 16-49 by August 1920 -so before the famine had done its work- 29% of them were dead.

The main reason the Bolsheviks succeeded to remain in power was because in November 1917 almost no one was willing to defend the unpopular 'democratic' government. People didn't understand what was happening. Their opponents were divided and badly unorganized. In the end all resistance was broken by famine and the Red terror!

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited May 03, 2000).]

[Earthling7]

Unrest and civil war. How does that translate into Civ? here is an idea.

Some cities will revolt, and some military units will turn against the government. They would not need to be linked (btw, I favour the CTP system of civ wide support opposed to city specific). Lets say the capital is happy with the change, some units within it wouldn't be. Those units would be places outside the city, with the happy units remaining inside. The unhappy units could then try to capture the city.
Similarily, if a city is unhappy and revolts, some units may be more sympathetic, so they will be kicked out. You as a player would then be able to use them to try to recapture the city and force it under your rule.

I think this would create a real atmosphere of a messy civil war.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[general_charles]

I think some of the stuff here is good, but not all. The way to pass from despotism to monarchy without civil war and from repuclic to democracy is good, bu the others... I mean, from fundamentalism to democracy without unrest??? Do you think it is that easy??? Do you think that all people like democracy (I personally do not)??? The 2 governments above are OK because they have no dramatic differences, but the others are fundamentally different, especially communism and democracy, and communism and fascism... I think that there must be a revolution if we change governments that are different, but maybe the size of the revolution will depend from which government you are coming from and to which you are going...

Despotism --> Monarchy 0% chance
Monarchy --> Communism + 90% change
Republic --> Democracy 0% chance
Democracy --> Republic 20% chance
Democracy --> Communism 100% chance
Democracy --> Monarchy 100% chance
Democracy --> Fascism 10% chance
Republic --> Communism 90% chance
Republic --> Monarchy 80% chance
Republic --> Democracy 50% chance
Republic --> Fascism 20% chance
Fascism --> anything 100% chance
Communism --> anything 100% chance

Going from fascism and communism to anything would provoque unrest and revolution, they are totally different from pther governments, but it is quite easy to go from democracy to fascism (see pre war Germany, Hitler came to power through no protest).


------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --

[mwaf]

quote: Originally posted by DanM on 04-25-2000 11:00 PM ....lets say for example,3 cities on another island,decided not to go in the direction you chose and these 3 cities form their own nation independent of you.

These 3 cities should most likely be cities captured (formerly belonged to some other civ) ones that would join their former country or if these cities would be captured from several different civs they would, as you said, form an own nation.

Maybe if cities that are colonies would try to get other civs colonies (in the same region of course) also to revolt and join them in a new independent nation.

[general_charles]

I think that civil war and revolutions are very important aspects of history, and they are not that well managed by civ2. I think that there should be at least another attribute to the cities, which says from which civ they originally come from and what percentage of the population prefers the other civ's rule to the new one. This could be very important, and the civs that acheive a certain percentage of their population in favor of joining another or forming their own nations, they should revolt against their old governmnet (eg. USA vs. Britain).
But another sort of civil war should be when the government type changes, it should create two sides, one with the old government and one with the new one. Of course, if the old one was not popular, there could be none of the cities remaining with it (eg. American civil war)
The last type of civil war would occur when an enemy captures your capital, it would create large unrest and some cities might just join the conquering country while others just stay with the old government and establish a palace elsewhere (eg. France when conquered by the Nazis had a second government, the Vichy government)

[OrangeSfwr]

"Fundamentalism is a governing system whose laws and doctrines are rooted in the extremist and controversial views of religion. Fundamentalists believe in the absolute truth and infallibility of their religion, accepting nothing short of a literal interpretation of the scriptures of their faith. Their views are sometimes so radical as to put them at odds with even the most devout traditionalists of the religion in question. Fundamentalist movements have appeared from time to time throughout the world, including a widespread movement of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. in the early 20th century. In some cases, most notably in areas of the Middle East, these movements are so widespread that entire nations fall under Fundamentalist rule. Such governments, backed by a fanatical military force, can be a serious threat to any country that opposes their radical views."

DanM ~ yes, after reviewing your post I realize what you are saying about Fundamentalism. My only argument would be that if a nation had a clear majority (80% or so) of one religion they would be very accepting towards a fundamentalist regime...the way Iraq's Muslim's feel, or are forced to feel, about Saddam. The kurds and shiite Muslims are more opposed.) I suppose there are many factors that deal with a fundamentalist regime so I like General_charles' idea of the percentage system.
" In a communist society, labor is shared equally as well, and the benefits of labor are distributed according to need. Under such a system, all people would be equal, without class stratification."

S. Kroeze ~ The majority of Russia (being serfs) supported Communism because (in theory) it was supposed to take them away from their laboring for lords. I don't see why the peasants didn't originally go along with the new regime. Tell me more...

Earthling7 ~ I agree that some units should be "loyalists" and some should be "revolutionaries". But I feel that the capital should never be taken by the new civ during a civil war (unless captured during the war) but not right away...

General_charles ~ I like your thinking about the percentage chance rule. I think it would add an element of surprise or fate to the system. Good thinking.

mwaf ~ I agree. Hopefully this will come with some form of ethnicity in cities.

Joker ~ i like the idea of economics influencing politics as well as individualism. Also, not being able to have a revolution in order to declare war. But peace treaties should be much more extensive (I've had civs make peace and declare war the next turn 5 to 6 turns in a row, with Nuke's and my Senate overrides my decision to decline the treaty!)

general_charles again ~ As listed before, I like the idea of having ethnicity. Also, to add to your idea of revolting cities, large empires should easily revolt to form new civs (with a certain amount of corruption and unrest in cities). I don't see why democracies don't have corruption. They should be one of the most corrupt. Consider the colombian or mexican drug cartels. Both countries are democratic and the corruption is unbelievable. More than 60% of colombian GNP is from Illegal drug trafficing. Ok, that's about it for now. Happy posting!


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-03-2000 04:10 PM General_charles ~ I like your thinking about the percentage chance rule. I think it would add an element of surprise or fate to the system. Good thinking.

Hmmmm....
not that it matters,but if you check my original post at the beginning of this thread,you might notice the words "percentage chance"
I certainly am not one to toot my own horn,because this is not a contest.(I'm just genuinely happy that others are thinking about this topic because it would really add alot to the game).Anyways,I didn't display things so well like General_charles did with his chart.In case you haven't noticed,I like charts because they present ideas in such a clear and straight-forward manner.

But,I have to admit,The Jokers idea(which brings us full circle on this thread)about having a bar which shows the mood of the people on a scale from 1 to 100 is an idea which could greatly enhance the realism of the game.The question now is this;
Are the gurus who are making the game going to take the simplistic route again,or are they looking to do a more complex model-and if so,how complex?I for one am in dire need for some feedback.


[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 03, 2000).]