Revolutions

[UltraSonix]

Two short threads from the archives:

*Revolutions and Civil wars?
*Revolutions Master List (hosted by yours truly)

quote: There are many aspects of revolutions that have been overlooked in previous civs that I think should definitely be included in civ 3. Governemnt Revolutions -- of course this is the one that is included. I would like to add an idea is saw in a another thread to the list. The concept that the people REJECT the revolution. If you are running a lax society and you try to switch to fascism there are bound to be protests. The onyl way to stop this is to either accept the demands of the people or send in the military. Furthermore when your civ reachers certain sizes it splits into regions, each with its own capital and traits. Each region of your government must accept this revolution before it can function fully. This is like in real life where colonies were run by the military whereas back home there was a parliment or congress. Military Revolutions The basic system of military has changed so much in the last 6000 years. Is it it to be recognized with just a few advancements? No! I think that you should revolt and change your military the same way you can your government. In the beginning you could be a "caveman" type military, with a better name of course, where you can only make unamred foot units and such. With a certain advance you will have to change to "warrior code" military system. This will let you make any kind of foot unit. After a while the "Ranked Amry" military system will include cavalry and seige to the mix. You get the idea. Economic Revolution Civs will start out as "Nomad" type economies. Eventually they will evolve into "Barter" or "Bandit" type economies. Your type of economy will affect your income and your standing in the world as will your military. Economics will become more complicated in the later years, for example should you be a Communist or a Capitalist? Both of those should have similar benefits that apply to different things, Capitalism gives more money from Merchant workers and such and Communism gives more money from city improvements. Also one capatilist naition will like another capitalist nation better than a communist nation. And that communist nation will like other commies better. Social Revolutions There are too many of these to count. From recognizing the Divine Right of Kings, to the Season of Love/Hate, Labor Unions, Womans Suffrage, all will have to occur for certain things to happen or units/improvements to be built or advances learned. For example your culture must experience the Womans Suffrage Social Revolution before you can research Democracy, etc. What do you all think of this idea?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited October 24, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, here is a better format for my combined theory:

There are 2 types of revolutions:
1. Contested
2. Uncontested

Uncontested is when the Player overthrows the government, and establishes one that the people favor. There will be no rebels or secessions from this. There will only be the usual temporary anarchy.

There are 4 types of violent revolutions:
1. Conservative
2. Radical
3. Conservative (Independence)
4. Radical (Independence)

Note: Each type of violent revolution is based on the response of the population to the leader's action or inaction.

PART I: A CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION

A Conservative revolution is when the people of a nation rise up against a leader in response to the leader changing his government.

The people try to reestablish the status quo. If the new government is HATED (Ex. Democracy to Despotism)the people across the nation overthrow the new government, and the next turn the Player is made leader of the old government.

The more violent response is when only part of the people rebel in favor of the old government. A civil war begins for the purpose of overthrowing the Player. The Player's responsibility is to use its troops to reclaim rebellious territories. The rebels spread through causing other cities to join them.

The rebels are NOT a new civilization. They are the PLAYER'S territories that abide by the rules of the old government. The player simply can not control each city until they take it. If the rebel movement takes the capital, the Player is proclaimed ruler of the original government, and then has the responsibility to force the remaining cities back under the old government.


PART II: A RADICAL REVOLUTION

A Radical revolution stems from a ruler's inactivity. In other words, if a player remains under a government longer than its usefulness, the people will rise up to form a new government. It works under the same principle as a Conservative revolution except that the people are fighting for a new government rather than the old. They people can overthrow the whole thing in one turn if the old government has become VERY unpopular. And if the capital is taken the Player is declared leader of the NEW government.

PART III: A CONSERVATIVE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

This is in response to a new government made by the Player. Instead of trying to overthrow the Player, a territory or group of territories declare their independence. The Player must then fight to make the territories rejoin the civilization by taking the territories.

Once again, the revolting cities are still part of the Player's civilization. They are simply under the old government, but they have the intention of becoming independent. The Player does not have control over the rebel cities' actions. Once independence is declared, the rebellion will not spread. If another outside civilization chooses to recognize the rebels, then and ONLY then, the rebels become another civilization. The Player must then establish diplomatic relations and treat them as another civ instead of upstart rebel cities under your sovereignty.


PART IV: A RADICAL WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
This is due to the Player's inactivity to change the government. The same rules apply here as with Part III. The difference is that they are under a new government instead of the old one.


CONCLUSION: When changing governments, the player must consider 1) the popular effect it will have, and 2) his standing with other nations. If the Player chooses poorly, the citizens could rebel in a bloodless revolution or in a civil war. Other nations can recognize the rebels as being right.

Or the Player can find a chunk of cities fighting for independence, and an enemy could simply recognize the rebels and make the independence permanent.

The player must also be conscious of what change the people want. Revolutions or declarations of independence will come without warning if it is done by radicals. And it is also possible that enemy civilizations will send in spy to incite revolutions for new government. So be careful.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).
[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited October 24, 2000).]

[JamesJKirk]

That's a great idea, dom, but I think there should be more long term planning by the player. Britain didn't switch from Monarchy to Republic to Democracy simply because a couple people said so, it was sort of laid out, certain reforms should be able to be done by the play allowing more or less freedom, but you have to think in the long term, as a more repressive regime may have more of an immediate economic or military benefit, likewise there should be incentive for the player to commence counter revolution, like France's transition from Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy to Repressive Republic to Empire with certain liberties, to Monarchy then to Const. Monarchy, to Republic, Empire, etc, etc over the course of less about half a century. There should be a balance between the player and the AI controlling his/her citizenry.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, I was giving it some thought, and maybe there should be some steps in governments. For example, a monarchy would set up a Parliament or Duma while still being a Monarchy. The people can see that as a progressive step. You can, however, retract the parliament which may cause a revolution. Then the people may set up a Republic thereby eliminating the monarch.

In fact, maybe the leader should not be able to make a Republic, it can only come from a popular revolt. Then the player would be made President of the Republic. And then from there, there is the possibility of becoming Fascist where either the people overthrow the Republic or the leader becomes a dictator.

In fact, the best thing to do MIGHT be to get rid of Democracy as a government. The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Most countries are Republics. Britain is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Monarchy. Instead you would make gradual steps toward democratization And getting a Cons. Monarchy would have similar benefits as a Democracy as would a Republic. The next step in a Const. Monarchy could be to make the Prime Minister the head of state rather than the king.

Another point, you should not be able to go from a Republic or any other kind without a king to a Monarchy. Afterall, you can't be king just because "some watery tart throws a sword at you!"

And in addition, I think that this could tie into the recent topic of civilization personalities. Often, the kind of government has a huge impact on a country's habits. A Democracy is typically not aggressive expansionists through conquest. The United States gained most of its western lands through conquest over the Mexicans but Americans had already begun massive amounts of settling there, and it was hardly a difficult war to win. Also, a civilization should be much more aggressive to those countries that aided their enemies in their revolution.

[Shadowstrike]

Yeah, that the general idea. Basically, revolutions happen when you make changes that the people don't want and spontaneous revolts keep ICSers in line. They also keep players from leaving a city in disorder for too long...

[RAF]

Revolts would not be necessarily the formation of new civilizations. Only if these last long for a turns(ou number other passage of time used) if they would transform in Civil War when they are not stuffy for the empire or if this is weak and not to get to win the rebels. Because many riot they are for mistreatments or terrible conditions, not because they really want to stand out of the empire. For instance he/she could have a second level of Civil War whose the rebels are proclaimed independent but still united to the empire that these they rioted, because these could win the current government (changing the civilization, creating another civilization or the government's change, this but common in the modern times), to cause an impasse in the Civil War that could result in an agreement in that the empire would recognize the new civilization, but it would not guarantee to total peace (!), or the rebels' defeat with the eventual consequences... rebellious. Or as it happens it could really receive aid of neighbor civilizations ,(when this other level of Civil War that I mentioned it was available), mainly of the enemies of the empire that they struggle against, recognition as civilization that could benefit the rebels giving them credit in the world, or I reject what would happen the contrary of the described before and even attack of these. Another point that I find interesting it would not be to total it defeats of the player when your civilization was defeated, (only in the case of Civil War!!) he could survive the new government's judgement or to flee for secrecy or exile, remember many monarchs they live like this for the world when your countries banished the monarchies or they suffered revolutions, it would also depend on the new government they also remember that the communists executed the Czar and your family. If he/she has the refugees' option he would join to that group and they would wander in search of help, or of empty lands in that could erect new city and to begin again as the old civilization or with other name ...Ou as it happened with the israeli that you/they obtained the foundation of the State of Israel with civilizations friends' aid ... Of course he could also try to return to the power in the own civilization in case the rebels don't have a stable government or it goes even a democracy in that he could return to the power with help of supporting

[Lonestar]

I think that if there are a series of events that happen close together (economy crashes, change government, military defeat) the question should arise as to whether or not your civ can survive as a nation-state.

Look at Indonisia(sic)

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Zeevico]

your civ should break up into smaller and bigger civs. But how about you get the smaller one?
ie.
'The people revolt into a democracy from your monarchy! Fortunately, a small loyalist stronghold remains, and you flee there to create a new government. '
The amount of cities should be about 35%-25% of your civ depending on a random factor, happiness and city placement (even if one of your cities loves you, if it declares independence while surrounded by the breakoff civ cities, it would be in trouble), and 45%-35% (random, happy factor city placement) would be the enemy.
20-25% would be nuetrals, places either too small to make a difference or cities that are content (the nuetrals cannot be attacked by your or the breakoff civ, they sit it out and wait to watch who wins, then give them control. they are given a x2 defense bonus against oppurtinistic civs who try take the cities).
This would be VERY challenging.

[raingoon]

I don't know if this has been said already, but I always heard that in a revolution, if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Eh... useful?

[Shadowstrike]

Good Lord, my first thread is still alive!

Anyhow, I have this idea that the number of civs shuld be dynamic, that is varible based on the fortunes of the differant nations. You may start with 16 civs, but by the end of the game there could be 84. Nations conquer one another, seperate, then join back together. Its all one big cycle. I'd like to see that in Civ3.

[Zeevico]

I actually said something very similar to that in one post. Except i would think that there would be 64 start off nations instead of 14. Same cycle, but (i think) more accurate.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

In Civ I and II, you were essentially declaring a revolution against your own government. Revolutions have always been against the government and Civ III should reflect that. Firaxis should make it so that you don't have to "research" any of the different governments. But when you do, you're forced to swtich to them. If you want to switch back to another one, there would have to be some sort of public wish for that to happen. if your in a Democracy, and there are lots unhappy people, you would have to switch to communism

heres a list of how the revs. would work based on CivII govs. Everything works 2 ways

Despotism-Monarch
Monarchy-Republic/Democracy/Fundamentalism/Communism
Republic/Democracy-Communism
Communism-Fundamentalism

ex. lets say that your in a Republic, and a lot of people are unhappy citiznes. Your governement would then change to Communism. It works for a while, but then theres a big religious upheaval (random) that changes it to Fundamentalism. You would need a large percentage of people to be unahppy for them to change governments. What would also work is that if other civs are in Republic and your in Monarchy and theyre so much better than you, people would want to change governements.

There should always be some sort of loss of trade, food, production, and population after a revolution. This would reflect the workers and people wh o went out to fight the war. After a few turns, depends on how violent the revolution was, it would return to normal. Any change from Capitalism to communism or Fundy or vice versa, would have large penalties because there are complete opposites.

One more thing and i know that it doesnt belong here but Democracy should work better in smaller civs. Democracy means that every single person votes, while a republic is where elected officials vote for you. A republic would be better off in a bigger civ and democracy would be better at a smaller civ.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now