Changing Goverrnments

[Guest]

Changing governments in CIV II is convenient, but highly unrealistic. How many times have I chosen democracy to discover certain techs quickly (mobile warfare, robotics) and then switched to fundamentalism to take over the world?
I think you should have to choose where you want to go early on. For instance despotism->monarchy->communism. Or despotism->fundamentalism (with perhaps something in between). Or despotism->monarchy->republic->democracy.
Once you reach an advanced form of government along any of the paths, you can't change it (or perhaps you can but not without some kind of HUGE penalty--the couple of turns of anarchy is hardly sufficient). Ask the Russians how easy it's been to change form communism to democracy. And it's ridiculous to think that the US could change to communism or fundamentalism. In fact I would suggest that after a certain amount of time, you can't switch out of democracy ever.
The benefits (or costs) of staying with a particular goverment should increase over time. After 50 turns in democracy, trade should increase again, and after another 25 turns again etc. In other words, there would be a huge advantage to staying in democracy. The 'penalty' would be that you can't just attack anyone. You could only declare war if seriously provoked or attacked first. Democracies would be very powerful but very peaceful.
For communism perhaps there should be increased production at the beginning but over time trade would decrease. For fundamentalism, you would have the benefit of being able to attack anyone you want but the penalties in science and trade would be so large that you wouldn't be able to ever become very powerful or threatening.
The statue of liberty wonder should of course be changed (perhaps to increased trade in all your cities?).
Any thoughts?

[NoviceCEO]

Well, have you seen the government system in smac? It's pretty nice. You really have to plan careful your decisions about it.

"After 50 turns in democracy, trade should increase again, and after another 25 turns again etc. In other words, there would be a huge advantage to staying in democracy. The 'penalty' would be that you can't just attack anyone. You could only declare war if seriously provoked or attacked first. Democracies would be very powerful but very peaceful."

Man!! How can you say something like that? Which planet do you live on? Or you're going to tell me that U.S only attacks when "seriously provoked or attacked first", or that U.S is "very peaceful"?

Obviuosly, making great changes on your nation's society shouldn't be done so easily. But once again, smac's system is very nice (ask me if you don't know it).

[tanis]

I think you should still be able to change into any government you wish, but that it incurs a cost, like in SMAC.
I like the idea of increasing benefits (and penalties...?) for staying with a certain SE choice though. That would indeed be an incentive to stay with the choices you made and lessen the urge to change multiple times for short term reasons.

[War4ever]

NoviceCEO... obviously you prefer SMAC to civ2.... that is apparent.... i too like SMAC but i think it lacks character. to me it is simply civ in space with darker and in my opinion lacking graphics. I know civs graphics aren't anything to shake a stick at but for some reason i like them

I do like SMACS custom units, terriitory boarders, random events, and many other things. However maybe its the sci fi part that just doesn't grab me like earth civ does. Smac is a great game though.

------------------
I am a civ addict. ARE U 2??????


icq 30200920

[NoviceCEO]

War4ever, I'm sorry but I never had the oppurtunity to play Civ2 (I'm even thinking about putting in my signature, so that I don't get misunderstood ). My comments are mostly based on my experience with smac, and a couple of times I played the orginal Civ. SMAC brings lots of new improvements (that I believe weren't available on Civ2), but Civ3 should not copy them. Civ3 should get the concepts and bring them in a unique way to Civ3. I haven't read yet that article that says that Civ3 shouldn't have a SE like smac, but for my little knowledge so far, it should include it, in a unique and different way.

I wish that when Civ3 is launched, you'll enjoy it as much as you liked Civ2.

novice

[Patriqvium]

Right. SE is just what everyone would like to see in Civ3. At least me. In SMAC, it made the government system whole new, taking some space between the Civs and AC. In Civ3, it would refresh the game concept up a lot.

Btw, raingoon is the only human (or?...) alive who has disliked the idea of SE in Civ3.

[Lord Magnus]

quote: Originally posted by deity on 01-29-2000 04:25 PM ...Ask the Russians how easy it's been to change from communism to democracy. And it's ridiculous to think that the US could change to communism or fundamentalism...

This is true but ask the Germans how easy it was to change from democracy to fascism and back to democracy. The reason it was easy is because Germans saw their democratic leaders as unfit and their economy was in ruins. Hitler and his fascist cohorts had the answer to the German's problems. After Germany's defeat in WW2, the Germans were able to change back to democracy easily because they knew the system (the Third Reich only lasted like 10 years) and their conquerors were offering them billions to become democratic. And we look at early 20th century Russia. It was able to change to communism easily because like Germany its leaders were incompetent and the economy was nearly shot.
The reason Russia isn't converting to democracy that easily is because the people weren't dissatisfied with their previous system enough. Since communism was toppled by a leader and not a revolution, the people are reluctant to step into the new democratic system. As for the US, if democracy was failing badly enough for them, they'll switch governments like the Germans and Russians.
Maybe in civ3 in order to change the government your civ has to be in very bad shape and the citizens are very willing to try a different system or if you decide to change governments if your current system is prosperous or even adequate be prepared to deal with high corruption and some cities that will be rioting or revolting. Basically if your current government is doing well and the people are happy with it, changing things will do no good.



------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

[korn469]

quote: This is true but ask the Germans how easy it was to change from democracy to fascism and back to democracy. The reason it was easy is because Germans saw their democratic leaders as unfit and their economy was in ruins. Hitler and his fascist cohorts had the answer to the German's problems. After Germany's defeat in WW2, the Germans were able to change back to democracy easily because they knew the system (the Third Reich only lasted like 10 years) and their conquerors were offering them billions to become democratic

Lord Magnus i completely disagree with you, you are contradicting yourself...the weinmar republic in germany only lasted for about 14 years and the nazi government lasted for 12, while the monarchy had lasted for like round fifty years

you say that the germans saw their democratic government as unfit and their economy was in ruins yet you state that they were able to change back to democracy easily because they knew the system...the democratic system tey had was a failure...what you don't realize is that germany had no choice, the allies made germany become a democracy...russia made east germany become a communist state

the weinmar republic was a failure and that experiance had little or nothing to do with them becoming a democracy...if WWII had of happened 150 years earlier, britan and france would have probably installed a monarchy

i'm not saying that germany was a puppet state, it's more complicated than that...but i am saying that they didn't have a choice in choosing what form of government they would have, east versus west germany is all the proof of that i need, and i am also saying that their previous experiance with democracy had little to do with their choice...if they were going to go with what they knew, they would have installed a prussian monarch

quote: The reason Russia isn't converting to democracy that easily is because the people weren't dissatisfied with their previous system enough

i disagree with you again, i think the people aren't happy with what they have...russia is in shambles right now, if they were in a state of great economic prosperity they would be perfectly happy with their system, but it isn't working...people have a short memory and i doubt that a communist system would improve russia's economy or make the people happy...the communist system in russia failed
why would a state that had used terror tactics and had silenced it's people just give up and die? something wasn't working right, things were bad, that's why...

but all of the historical analysis doesn't matter...

CIV IS NOT A SIM, IT'S NOT SIMCIV 3 THAT FIRAXIS IS MAKING

...it's civ 3 and it's just a game and they need to make it fun, balanced and give the player lots of interesting strategic choices and not just lots of micromnagement

and they need to do something about ICS

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited January 30, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Back to SMAC SE choice, my opinion (has someone else stated into CIV III wish list) is that switching SE shouldn't only cost a bunch of money and then act immediatly with all your people.
It should "morph" from actual SE to new SE, quite slowly (few turns), e.g. as:
first turn: you keep the minus effects of actual se but lose some plus (if they aren't greather into new SE, of course), next turn you get the minus of new SE, next turn you get also the plus of new SE.

Ok, I don't check carefully the math, so it may be unbalanced right here, but you get the whole concept, I suppose.

You can also get some city revolt if the temporary condition become too much to keep with previus condition (how many citizen are happy-unhappy, how many city improvment are at work, how far your city is from your capital ...).

Sure, this SE model is simplified (as Raingoon pointed out into his Column) still I have no idea how to better handle the whole concept of social effects.

I also want to point out that's a bad point of view (IMHO) to state Democracy is the only choice to play with. We only prefer this because we are (more or less) all citizen of democratic country. Some country got good results (handling their limits, quite differents from west resource and historical background) where some try to go for a democracy fell apart quite quickly.

In game terms, at last, we need more choice, not less, because this is SIMCIV (sorry korn), but not HistoryOfCiv, and SIM only means (IMO) realistic reactions to player orders as far as the game designers can handle them.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Atahualpa]

quote: and they need to do something about ICS

They will do something about it, Brian Reynolds promised it in the Firaxis Forums (before they were closed down).

Ata

[pkokko]

As above: it should not be that Democracy is the only viable option. Or that you could not change your government. The Real Me likes to live in a democracy, but Civ is a simulation game. One of the addicting ingredients is the possibility to create worlds different from ours.

So, each government should be beneficial in some way and you should be able to change between them.

How about this: the game option is called "Revolution". So why not actually let it be a _revolution_. You can stage a revolution or coup anytime you wish, but not everyone will agree with you. One part of the cities will remain loyal to the old government and the other part will go with you. In other words the Loyalists form a new civilization. If you want to keep your Empire together you have to play the revolution and conquer the other group.

And the other civilizations? Ah, there is nothing like meddling in the civil wars of foreign nations! :-)


------------------
petri.kokko@hut.fi

[Biddles]

That sounds good, but it should be that if some kinda treaty is in place than you can't overtly interfere with a nations civil war.

That doesn't mean you can't send in Delta Force to piss off the guys you don't like .


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[NoviceCEO]

Those who still think changing from a government kind to another in a couple of turns is still wrong. It's not only about Democracy to Communism, it's also about Democracy to Dictatorship. How many countries have done that in this century and now are back on Democracy?

[Hero Caesar]

I agree that the switching of governments probably needs a revise, but I would be happy enough if they just increased the penalties for switching (they should also remove any wonders/improvements etc. that remove anarchy when swiching).

[Sikander]

The crux of the SE problem in Civ is the inherent conflict between history (a long series of systems and rulers) vs the god level game (one ruler over all time, who decides when the system needs to be changed). Thus societies do not evolve in Civ, but rather are planned, with occaisional adjustments made based upon events.

In my opinion, the game tilts towards too much control by the player and not enough friction by the populace to that control. Thus you have the government type 'democracy' (which has never occured at any scale above a city state in history) where the ruler has almost the same (still unrealistic) control over his population as Stalin. The names of the government change, but the control by the player (god king) remains just about the same.

Read any history from the middle ages in Europe, or the feudal period in Japan. The rulers spent almost all of their time intriquing and fighting their own 'subjects'. In Civ, the player controls an empire / nation state from the beginning, and there is very little subtlety involved in the process. Just build stuff. The people seem to go along with very unlikely changes (like switching from Democracy to Despotism) with only a loss of a year's production.

A revolutionary game would increase the challenge of controlling your own empire, adding a lot of game play to that area. This would take a lot of pressure off the poor AI, which now has to match 'wits' with a player who has nothing better to do then turn his hungry eyes outward for victims.