Revolutions(and the start of new empires)

[markusf]

Cival war is a good idea for a single player game, but if that happened to me in Multiplayer game i would be pretty pissed. I would probably just quit the game and so would most other players i know if they lost half their empires.

[The Joker]

Things are never this simple.

I hope that you all agree on having SMAC SE replacing Civ2 gov types. The SE is superior in all ways. The gov changes you have written here should therefor not be in the game. Democratic as well as oligarcic and despotic communism AND capitalism plus all other economic choises should be possible. There should be no swich from democracy to communism, but rather an economic switch from capitalism to communism and a gov swich from democracy to oligarcy.

If you are interested you should read some of the SE models in the List v2.0 (mine, perhabs?). They all describe how complex an SE model in Civ3 could be made.

I do not think that some SE changes should always nor never make the people revolt or riot. As I wrote before I think that the people should have an agenda, so they have some prefered choises. The best way this could be done (or at least that's what I think) is with having a bar, going from 0 to 100%, that describes your people. There should be a few of these indicators, that could all be used in both deciding what policy to go by, and what SE shoises to have. The most usefull of these would be the Individualism rating. It would show you how Individualistic your people are. If this value is low then this would have certain effects on your SE settings. For instance, having a Democratic gov type with a low Individualism rating would give a lot of inefficiency (like Russia these days). Having a capitalistic economic setting with a low Invididualism rating would give an economy penalty (as the people would not be individualistic enough to work well in business - also look at Russia today). At the same time there would be no unhappyness for having a nondemocratic gov type.

If, on the other hand your people's Individualism rating was very high there would be much unhappyness with having a nondemocratic gov type (the people want to rule themselves). A capitalistic economic setting would give an economy bonus (as the people were good at trade and such).

There could be other of these indicators (like Militarism), but I think the Individualism would be the most important one.

The ratings would not at all be static. They would be changed by things that happened (a destructive war would lower the Militarism rating) and by things you did - choosing democracy or capitalism or such should highten your people's Individualism rating over time. You should also be able to use money on propaganda, with which you should be able to slowly move your people's ratings to where you wanted them.

After all, although the american people would revolt if the gov type was suddently changed to fundamentalism, if the leaders of the country bombarded them with profundamentalist propaganda for 40 years, the change from democracy to fundamentalism would pass by without any trouple at all.

I think having all these things included in Civ3 should not make it impossible to make SE changes, but should make them take longer and require more plannning. You shouldn't just be able to switch to a more warlike SE setting if you suddently were in a war. I think that you should be forced to try to find the chance of you being sent into war (this should be easier done in Civ3 compared to SMAC due to a better AI and better alliances, economic independance etc) and then choose what SE setting were best for you.

[Adm.Naismith]

markusf, you wrote

quote: Cival war is a good idea for a single player game, but if that happened to me in Multiplayer game i would be pretty pissed.

I ask to you: Why?

As long as the Civil war happens because of your game decision (e.g. you switch to unpopular government by bad s.e. choice) or heavy external influence (e.g. enemy propaganda) and not by stupid random events I think you must accept it as your fault, like trying to attack a battleship with a trireme and not be surprised by poor results.

DanM, I like the "CIVers" concept, the "social agenda", a form of S.E. advanced from SMAC one. About your idea

quote: 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?

my only fear is about the learning curve it will be needed to enjoy this advanced feature. I had some problem to master the (simple) SMAC SE, I can't imagine how a nightmare could be our CIV 3 proposal!

So, IMHO a better model is needed, but it should let the newcomer player to learn step by step at the easy levels, not screw up the whole game because of a misunderstand of an SE choice.


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[general_charles]

I'm sorry that DanM feels like I have taken some of credits, it is true that I was largely inspired by your chart but if you look in other threads where I have posted messages, you will see that I had these ideas from a long time... Besides, to tell you the truth, I love history, and I like to use historical facts to back up my civ 3 ideas... Besides, I like politics as well, and I know the roots of a lot of systems, especially the ones in the modern era. This is how I based my percentage, and I explained it even more in the second post, to be sure that it was clear.
Anyway, the systems that were expressed above were good, but I'd like to say what seemed not so good to me:
Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest)
It has already been said why
Democracy --> Republic (unrest)
The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?
Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest)
Come on
Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest)
If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

PS

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-03-2000 08:17 AM Republic --> Communism 90% chance Republic --> Monarchy 80% chance Republic --> Democracy 50% chance Republic --> Fascism 20% chance Fascism --> anything 100% chance Communism --> anything 100% chance

I don't know why this line is here.

[general_charles]

One more thing, I'd like to know why all of you refer to tyranny and communism as the same???

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

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Democracy --> Republic (unrest) The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?

I see your point. But I don't see the idea of overthrow. Maybe just a long period of unrest.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest) Come on

I think under the circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. Religion has to be a factor.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest Reread this, I think either... 1) you meant to say "wouldn't" be unrest or 2) you misread the original statement.

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Democracy --> Republic (unrest) The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?

I see your point. But I don't see the idea of overthrow. And who says just because they're under Democracy that they believe in it. If it's a very well educated, small country they may welcome a republic to keep the "stupid" people out of the process.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest) Come on

I think under certain circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America where diversity is huge. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. I guess Religion has to be a factor.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

Reread this, I think either...
1) you meant to say "wouldn't" be unrest or
2) you misread the original statement.

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

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 04, 2000).]

[general_charles]

quote: Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

I misexpressed myself, I meant to say that if the fundamentalist system was overthrown even though the people liked it, they would be unhappy with the new system and there would probably be no revolution.

quote: I think under certain circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America where diversity is huge. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. I guess Religion has to be a factor.

I do agree with you, I'm not questionning wether Iraqi people like the fundamentalit system or not, I'm only saying that when it was set up (I have no idea when, or was it after the last British troops withdrew?), there probably was some unrest. The subject of this thread is no whether people like the system but more what happens when you change it...

[OrangeSfwr]

Yah, I see your point. I didn't really say anything about the change to a Fundy system...just that some people support it. I guess the Iraqi situation has two variables (change in System and change in who ruled Iraq) so it can't be determined what caused the unrest.

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

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-04-2000 06:25 AM my only fear is about the learning curve it will be needed to enjoy this advanced feature. I had some problem to master the (simple) SMAC SE, I can't imagine how a nightmare could be our CIV 3 proposal!

First of all,I loved the SE in Alpha Centauri.And I enjoyed it.But learning and mastering are two distinctly different things to me.The different combinations that could be used in SMAC only increased the replay value for me.I don't want to master a game real fast because then I will do the same thing over and over and over again because it works.SMAC had those combos and I liked that,and that made it more difficult to do the same thing repeatedly every game.
I wouldn't be upset if they used a variation of it for Civ3(although why not do something original instead?).
But I must say,if Civ3 doesn't incorporate a more complex model which bar-graphs the mood of the people,a future version will because it is simply more realistic.They are increasing the realism in this version compared to the last,and the trend for more realism will,I am sure,continue.
People are smart,they can learn.And if done properly,a more complex system can still be fun.
Maybe some ideas are just ahead of their time...

[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 06, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

And again some information about the Russian/Bolshevik Revolution:

First of all I will recommend two excellent studies about the Revolution and the period of the civil war:
-R.Pipes: 'The Russian Revolution',1991
(this study concentrates on the causes of the revolution, starting in 1899 it describes events until the end of 1918 when the Red Terror became daily grind)

-R.Pipes: 'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime',1995
(this study starts with the civil war in 1918 and continues till the death of Lenin in 1924)

Then I would like to point out that the serfs were liberated in 1861 in the reign of the 'liberal' Alexander II(1855-1881), one of the more able Russian monarchs though not a strong personality, during the period of the so-called Great Reforms. The peasants became personally free at once, without any payment, and his landlord was obliged to grant him his plot for a fixed rent with the possibility of redeeming it at a price to be mutually agreed upon. If the peasant desired to redeem his plot, the government paid at once to the landowner the whole price, which the peasant had to repay to the exchequer in 49 years. By 1880 only 15% of the peasants had not made use of the redemption scheme, and in 1881 it was declared obligatory. The landowners tried, but in vain, to keep their power in local administration. The liberated peasants were organized in village communities governed by elected elders.

The following citations do come all from the books of Pipes.

'There exists a widespread impression that before 1917 Russia was a "feudal" country in which the Imperial Court, the Church, and a small minority of wealthy nobles owned the bulk of the land, while the peasants either cultivated minuscule plots or worked as tenant farmers. This condition is believed to have been a prime cause of the Revolution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the image derives from conditions in pre-1789 France, where, indeed, the vast majority of peasants tilled the land of otheres. It was in such Western countries as England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (all of which happened to avoid revolution) that ownership of agricultural land was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, sometimes to an extreme degree. Russia, by contrast, was a classic land of small peasant cultivators. Latifundia here existed primarily in the borderlands, in regions taken from Poland and Sweden. At the time of their Emancipation, the ex-serfs received approximately one-half of the land which they had previously tilled. In the decades that followed, with the help of the Land Bank, which offered them credit on easy terms, they bought additional properties, mainly from landlords. By 1905, peasant cultivators owned, either communally or privately, 61.8 percent of the land in private possession in Russia. As we shall see, after the Revolution of 1905 the exodus of non-peasant landowners from the countryside accelerated, and in 1916, on the eve of the Revolution, peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine-tenths of the arable land.'

'In the winter of 1917-1918, the population of what had been the Russian Empire divided among itself not only material goods. It also tore apart the Russian state, the product of 600 years of historical development: sovereignty itself became the object of duvan. By the spring of 1918, the largest state in the world fell apart into innumerable overlapping entities, large and small, each claiming authority over its territory, none linked with the others by institutional ties or even a sense of common destiny. In a few months, Russia reverted politically to the early Middle Ages when she had been a collection of self-governing principalities.

The first to separate themselves were the non-Russian peoples of the borderlands. After the Bolshevik coup, one ethnic minority after another declared independence from Russia, partly to realize its national aspirations, partly to escape Bolshevism and the looming civil war. For justification they could refer to the "Declaration of the Rights of the Nations of Russia", which the Bolsheviks had issued on November 2, 1917, over the signatures of Lenin and Stalin. Made public without prior approval of any Soviet institution, it granted the peoples of Russia "free self-determination, including the right of separation and the formation of an independent state." Finland was the first to declare herself independent (December 6, 1917, NS); she was followed by Lithuania (December 11), Latvia (January 12, 1918), the Ukraine (January 22), Estonia (February 24), Transcaucasia (April 22), and Poland (November 3) (all dates are new style). These separations reduced the Communist domain to territories inhabited by Great Russians -that is, to the Russia of the mid-seventeenth century.'

'The Germans found the Bolsheviks serving their purposes and propped them whenever they ran into trouble; the Allies were busy fighting for their lives. The question posed by one historian -"How ...did the Soviet government, bereft of significant military force in the midst of what was until then mankind's most destructive war, succeed in surviving the first year of the revolution?"- answers itself: this most destructive war completely overshadowed Russian events. The Germans supported the Bolshevik regime; the Allies had other concerns.'

'Under War Communism, the Russian "proletariat" fell by one-half, industrial output by three-quarters, and industrial productivity by 70 percent. Surveying the wreckage, Lenin in 1921 exclaimed: "What is the proletariat? It is the class engaged in large-scale industry. And where is large-scale industry? What kind of a proletariat is it? Where is your [sic!] industry? Why is it idle?" The answer to these rhetorical questions was that utopian programs, which Lenin had approved, had all but destroyed Russian industry and decimated Russia's working class. But during this time of deindustrialization, the expenses of maintaining the bureaucracy in charge of the economy grew by leaps and bounds: by 1921 they absorbed 75.1 percent of the budget. As for the personnel of the Supreme Economic Council, which managed Russia's industry, it grew during this period a hundredfold.

The Bolshevik Government treated the peasant population as a class enemy and waged on it a regular war by means of Red Army units and detachments of armed thugs. The program of 1918 -to choke off all private trade in agricultural produce- had to be modified in view of fierce peasant resistance. In 1919 and 1920, the government extracted food from the peasantry by a variety of means: forced deliveries, barter of food for manufactured goods, and purchases at somewhat more realistic prices. In 1919, it allowed limited quantities of food to be sold on the open market. Dairy products, meats, fruits, most vegetables, and all foodstuffs growing wild were initially exempt from state control but later regulated as well.

Through a combination of coercion and inducement, the government managed somehow to feed the cities and industrial centers, not to speak of the Red Army. But the prospects for the future looked bleak because the peasant, having no incentives to grow more than he needed for himself, kept on reducing the cultivated acreage.'

'The Civil War, which tore Russia apart for nearly three years, was the most devastating event in that country's history since the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century. Unspeakable atrocities were committed from resentment and fear: millions lost their lives in combat as well as from cold, hunger, and disease. As soon as the fighting stopped, Russia was struck by a famine such as no European people had ever experienced, a famine Asian in magnitude, in which millions more perished.

As is true of many terms applied to the Russian Revolution, "Civil War" has more than one meaning. In customary usage it refers to the military conflict between the Red Army and various anti-Communist or "White" armies lasting from December 1917 to November 1920, when the remnant of White forces evacuated Russian territory. Originally, however, "civil war" had a broader meaning. To Lenin it meant the global class conflict between his party, the vanguard of the "proletariat", and the international "bourgeoisie": "class war" in the most comprehensive sense of the term, of which the military conflict was only one dimension. He not only expected civil war to break out immediately after his taking power, but took power in order to unleash it. For him, the October coup d'état would have been a futile adventure if it did not lead to a global class conflict. Ten years before the revolution, analyzing the lessons of the Paris Commune(1871), Lenin agreed with Marx that its collapse was caused by the failure to launch a civil war. From the moment the World War broke out, Lenin denounced pacifistic socialists who called for an end to the fighting. True revolutionaries did not want peace: "This is a slogan of philistines and priests. The proletarian slogan must be: civil war." "Civil War is the expression of revolution....To think that a revolution is possible without civil war is the same as to think it possible to have 'peaceful' revolution," wrote Bukharin and Preobrazhenskii in a widely read manual of Communism. Trotsly put it even more bluntly: "Soviet authority is organized civil war." From such pronouncements it should be evident that the Civil War was not forced on the Communist leaders by the foreign and domestic "bourgeoisie": it lay at the heart of their political program.'

'In 1920 and 1921, the Russian countryside from the Black Sea to the Pacific was the scene of uprisings that in numbers involved and territory affected greatly eclipsed the famous peasant rebellions of Stenka Razin and Pugachev under tsarism. Its true dimensions cannot even now be established, because the relevant materials have not yet been properly studied. The Communist authorities have assiduously minimised its scope: thus, according to the Cheka, in February 1921, there occurred 118 peasant risings. In fact, there were hundreds of such uprisings, involving hundreds of thousands of partisans. Lenin was in receipt of regular reports from this front of the Civil War, which included detailed maps covering the entire country, indicating that vast territories were in rebellion. Occasionally, Communist historians give us a glimpse of the dimensions of this other Civil War, conceding that some "bands" of "kulaks" numbered 50,000 and more rebels. An idea of the extent and savagery of the fighting can be obtained from official figures of the losses suffered by the Red Army units engaged against the rebels. According to recent information, the number of Red Army casualties in the campaign of 1921-22, which were waged almost exclusively against peasants and other domestic rebels, came to 237,908. The losses among the rebels were almost certainly as high and probably much higher.

Russia had known nothing like it, because in the past peasants had traditionally taken up arms against landowners, not against the government. Just as the tsarist authorities had labeled peasant disorders kramola (sedition), so the new authorities called them "banditry". But resistance was not confined to peasants. More dangerous still, even if less violent, was the hostility of industrial labor. The Bolsheviks had already lost most of the suport they had enjoyed among industrial labor in October 1917 by the spring of 1918. While fighting the Whites they had managed, with the active help of the Mensheviks and SRs, to rally the workers by playing on the fear of a monarchist restoration. Once the Whites had been defeated, however, and the danger of a restoration no longer existed, the workers abandoned the Bolsheviks in droves, shifting to every conceivable alternative, from the extreme left to the extreme right. In March 1921, Zinoviev told the delegates to the Tenth Party Congress that the mass of workers and peasants belonged to no party, and a good portion of those who were politically active favored the Mensheviks or the Black Hundreds. Trotsky was so shocked by the suggestion that, as he interpreted it, "one part of the working class muzzles the remaining 99 percent", that he asked that Zinoviev's remarks be struck from the record. But the facts were irrefutable: in 1920-21, except for its own cadres, the Bolshevik regime had the whole country against it, and even the cadres were rebelling. Had not Lenin himself described the Bolsheviks as but a drop of water in the nation's sea? And the sea was raging.'

I hope the general picture of a disintegrating, chaotic Russia becomes clear. The books of Pipes are true gems!

[general_charles]

this is nice and it sure shows that you know a lot about the bolshevik revolution, but how would you put all of this information in civ3????

[OrangeSfwr]

Thanks for the brief history lesson :-)

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

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-08-2000 05:03 PM Thanks for the brief history lesson :-)

Brief?
Interesting(I love history)
but OUCH!

[Christantine]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that sometimes the army revolts and seperates from the motherland. This has happened many times in history (Not much modern happinings).They might take some cities but not alot. The army would probably then lead a campaign aganst it's former homeland. They wouldn't become barberians which would probably walk away and attack someone else. They would not be a civilization because they lack the social sophistication that a culture would have. I think this should only happen in ancient times though because in the modern world where do you take an army of 20 tanks and "disappear". I think this should only happen under governments that have a ruling party but not under a government that has an iron grip on it's people's throats (communism) or in a government that offers too many freedoms to lose (Democracy, Republic). Well maybe a republic but at a reduced chance than that of a monarchy or a despotism (because of the individual freedom of the people). If the army conquers enough cities (from you or other civs) than they decide to form a new civilization that has a militiristic attitude. (I do not think they should sit down and make a republic though because they what they just did to their homeland is what Caesar did to Rome. Caesar just proclamed himself emperor.) I also think that when the civ is created than it should have a science handycap and they would have to expereience a period of despotism (because the most powerful general is still in charge) and then move on to monarchy. This transition should take a while.

------------------
I came, I saw, I conquered...my allies!!