Units and Democracy

[OrangeSfwr]

In Civ 2, Units stationed outside of cities in fortresses under a Republic do not cause unhappiness by citizens. I feel this is a very realistic concept and should be adapted to be used in republic and democracy government types in Civ 3. In Civ 2 however, Democracies do not have this luxury and units stationed in forts still cause dissent and eventually overthrow of government. In the US, military units are stationed all over the country in fortresses and people do not usually get upset at this, it's only when they go off to war (represented in the game by not being in a fortress). A good constraint would be requiring that the fortress be within a certain distance of a city occupied by that civ or an ally. And the dissent caused by one unit in Civ 2 is ridiculous, in a level 8 city under democracy, each unit away from the city would cause 1/4 of the people (2 heads) to revolt. Is that realistic?

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

[Earthling7]

Civ2 improved greatly on Civ. In the original, units had to be stationed in their own city. That was a tedious task. Viva Civ2, if only for that.

It has been said elsewhere on this forum that Civ3 should recognise if you are fighting a war of aggression, or a war of defence. That would take care of this totally. A unit stationed outside your cities, not threatening another civ's cities should not be able to overthrow the government.

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

[OrangeSfwr]

Wow, powerful idea. I love it!

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

[Slingshot]

Exactly!

Wars are unpopular when you lose. If a civ is losing lots of units, then the Democracy should complain loudly.

If a civ routes the enemy, the Democracy should be very much appeased.

It would add a new dimension to see combat as a double-edged sword!

[ivorgrubisic]

It's really great to be among you guys!! I see you all love the game as much as I do (and I don't generally like games-but civ is just something else). I only hope that someone out there is writing this stuff down. Viva CIV!

As for the units I totally agree that they should be able to stay in fortresses and not cause riots.

[Otso Vuorio]

OrangeSfwr,
You don't seem to know that the units outside a city must be WITHIN THREE SQUARES FROM THE CITY in a fortress, when you have Democracy or Republic as your goverment.
The units not stationed this way in Republic cause one unhappy citizen beyond the first unit not stationed this way. In Democracy all units not stationed within three squares from a friendly city in a fortress cause two unhappy citizen.
You should read the manual better (if you have one)

[Otso Vuorio]

Why you guys suggest "new" things, that already exist in civ2 !?!

[OrangeSfwr]

Damn dude, that time of month?

What you said is what I'm saying should change! Plus certain units cause discontent no matter what. E.G. cruise missle, war ships, etc. The U.S. (sorry, i don't know much about Finland) has troops stationed in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe. Yet these cause no discontent in our government. I agree some people feel they serve no purpose there, but they do not wish to overthrow the government because of it. What I was saying about certain units (like a cruiser for example) they cause discontent once created. Nations today have entire navy's that cause no discontent. Especially when protecting a city. I do agree that Nuke's should cause discontent. But not two people per missle. That's just ridiculous.

Along with that, Offensive units that don't always end up stationed in a fortress (defending against an invading civ) For instance - an Armor attacking another Civ's calvary. It will cause discontent if it doesn't end up in the fortress even if it is within the cities radius! Get my point now?

If not, my main point is that units (under Republic and Democracy) within a civs radius should not recieve discontent, and units stationed in fortresses outside of a civs radius (under Republic and Democracy) should have only one discontent. Nukes cause discontent. Simple enough for ya?
------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited April 26, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

and I do have a manual...

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

[Ubergeek]

Assuming that we'll see borders implemented in Civ3 (and that's a VERY safe assumption) then I don't think that your own military units should cause unrest if they're within your own borders, whether or not they're in a fortress. The fortress thing in Civ2 was an attempt to suggest borders in a game without borders, and it only half worked. As a rule, I think you should be able to move your units around at will and respond to potential threats without having to worry about leaving them in a fortress or a city.

And I very much like Slingshot's suggestion about wars only causing unrest when you're losing, or at least losing lots of units. A winning war is almost universally popular whether it's just or not.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

[Az]

I think that thing that makes democracies suffer when their units leave the house . all this issue should be "disbanded" and the new construction of the democracy-military problem should be built in a totally different manner : almost all goverments should experience a military discontent : but on different scales . Like when I lived in the Soviet Union = communism a very big protest movement rose around the afgan war ... so not only The Democracy suffers ... but another thing ; I hate seing the story below : I build in a production-rich city lotsa military , and then I go to war . when and if my army suffers a terible loss , and all the units are destroyed , the happiness returns ????!!!!!!!!!!! what the heck ? you killed our sons so we are very very glad ?
I think that unhappiness should be cause by units lost , not by units outta town ,

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Ubergeek on 04-27-2000 10:59 AM The fortress thing in Civ2 was an attempt to suggest borders in a game without borders, and it only half worked.

Well put. I hadn't actually made that logical conclusion, but you're right.

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 04-27-2000 11:20 AM I think that unhappiness should be cause by units lost , not by units outta town

That makes sense too. Perhaps a small amount of unhappiness by troops out of your borders, but significantly more if they get killed.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 27, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

I agree. These are very sensible solutions. I also noticed that once all of your military was destroyed your happiness returns and asked myself the same questions. Hopefully this will all change with Civ 3. I'm really pushing for borders to because those fortresses are only good when they're on the edge of your outermost city's borders, otherwise they really don't serve much of a purpose as far as military defense goes...

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

[Az]

borders in CIV 3 as a sure thing ? cool !

[Otso Vuorio]

Ok, sorry orangeSfwr. I think I got it wrong.
Because Finland isn't a member of NATO, we don't have troops all over the world when the crisis strike in Kosovo for example.
But because we are a part of UN, there are always finnish soldiers among the other UN soldiers in the dangerous areas after war.

Dalgetti, your idea of unit loses causing unhappines makes sense.
Borders are necessiest and we need 'em!

ps. And OrangeSfwr, I believe you have the manual, it was just a joke