How about a 'government of national unity' in wartime?

[Ilkuul]

We all know the frustration of being at war under Democracy: no sooner do you capture an enemy city than the senate signs a cease-fire behind your back!

During WW2 Britain had a 'government of national unity' that included both major political parties - which was a limited restriction on normal democracy during a period of national crisis.

I'd like to see something like this in Civ3: only during wartime, and only until peace is restored. I don't think it should be at the player's discretion (otherwise it would be too open to abuse!) - but perhaps after your civ has been at war with the same enemy for, say, 5 turns, you might get a message something like, "In view of the present crisis, the leader of the opposition [or whatever title is appropriate!] suggests the formation of a government of national unity for the duration of hostilities." You can then either accept or reject this. Acceptance would stop any sneaky deals with the enemy behind your back, and (under Democracy) would reduce unhappiness due to absent units - representing the high morale value of "everyone pulling together" during the war. The downside might be a corresponding slight reduction in productivity (I leave the number-crunching to the more technically-minded!).

IMO this would provide a more realistic way to wage war under Democracy, and would avoid the (unrealistic!) hassle of having a revolution to change governments in the midst of a national emergency!

What do people think of this general idea?

[Roman]

No! While the idea you propose certainly is realistic and I generally support realism, I think democracy is already unbalanced as it is due to the ability to WLTPD cities to large sizes very rapidly. Adding more advantages or getting rid of disadvantages would unbalance the situation even further.
Of course, in reality a government of national unity was formed in Britain both during WWI (in the middle of the war) and during WWII (soon after the start of the war). However, Civ 3 is a game and although I do often use it as a "history simulator", the governments need to be balanced.
In civ 3, I would support making it far more difficult to change governments to force players to choose more carefully what government they really want to run.

[JamesJKirk]

The "culture points" or whatever they use could allow war in a democracy to be continued if there's enough sense of strong nationalism to support it, or if the war is being won, or whatever, thus making it still dependent on the government, yet also allowing democracy to conduct a war

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-21-2001 07:48 PM I think democracy is already unbalanced as it is due to the ability to WLTPD cities to large sizes very rapidly. Adding more advantages or getting rid of disadvantages would unbalance the situation even further.

I see where you're coming from Roman, but I think that's a much higher level of gameplay than most ordinary folk who might be buying the game for the first time and just wanting to enjoy it. I know this from my own experience: until a year or so ago I avoided Democracy like the plague, for exactly this reason, that it seemed to make any kind of warfare (defensive as well as offensive) difficult to the point of impossibility. Only since I started browsing these forums and discovered things like OCC have I begun to realise how Democracy can be exploited in the way you describe.

quote: Of course, in reality a government of national unity was formed in Britain both during WWI (in the middle of the war) and during WWII (soon after the start of the war)... In civ 3, I would support making it far more difficult to change governments to force players to choose more carefully what government they really want to run.

I wouldn't want to treat a "government of national unity" as a separate govt. type, like Republic, Communism, etc. I would regard it merely as a temporary modification of the rules governing Democracy. So I fully agree with you that it should be more difficult to change govt. types! I think it's totally unrealistic to have the AI continually swapping between Monarchy and Democracy depending on whether it needs to wage war or not! It's partly for that reason that I'm proposing GoNU(!) - again, as a temporary modification of Democracy during an all-out war.

To satisfy the top-flight players, GoNU could be offered much less often at the higher difficulty levels (to vanishing point in Deity, or its equivalent); and of course, it would always be open to a player to refuse it when it is offered!

[Stuff2]

Ikuul. Democracies are not that bad for warfare if you only are big enough (and that's easy to acheive in a democracy). A big city with a police station and a high luxury rate can support maybe 10 - 12 units on the field without going into disorder, not too mention the giant production boost that makes it possible for you too spit out new units. With 20 howitzers, some tanks, some defence units and some spies you can wipe any civ you want in a matter of a few turns. You are immune to any kind of bribery. If you got the 'UN' and the 'Women suffrage' democracy is the ultimate choice even in warfare. If you are big enough switch to democracy and you'll quckly get so much bigger and stronger. My point is, up to a certian point democracy is hard to manage but after you have built enough happiness and economic improvements it will be the most beneficial choice even during warfare. Sure democracy in civ2 is unbalanced.
However I agree that signing peacetreaties behind your back is silly. I don't know if it ever has happened in real life. I've never heard of it, unless during a revolt within your own government. You may get happiness penalties and other kind of problems during democracy but peacetreaties should never be signed by anyone but you.

[airdrik]

In civ 2, if the enemy civ is the origonal offender, then doesn't your senate side with you if you decide to take offencive?

My idea would be that the senate doesn't interfere if either 1) the other civ attacked you first, or 2) you and the other civ hate each other's guts.

In the first case, that gives you all the reason to retaliate, but there should be a limit of some sort which is not too restrictive (ie. one city is too restrictive), but not too leanient. In the second case, there would be less restrictions because your senate hates them just as much as you do, and thus sees no wrong in removing them.

[SerapisIV]

Nice thoughts airdrik, I like the idea of the Senate having real-life motivations, as in revenge on an attacker (Dec 8/9 1941, Congress had only one "nay" vote for war, and that was only symbolic) and give much more leeway.

For your second case, how about having your culture tied to why you and another civ hate each other...maybe as the top two cultured civs, a rivalry. Also along those lines, if not culture, how would you know who the computer thinks you hate? The compute can't know how pissed I get when the AI starts planting cities right where I was about and therefore declare eternal animosity (thats why leader personalities are great, I have someone against whom to fight, not just the light blue civ)

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-23-2001 10:40 AM Democracies are not that bad for warfare if you only are big enough (and that's easy to acheive in a democracy).

Yes, I know that now (after browsing these forums for a year!), but I guess I'm making a plea here for the "little guy", the non-expert, who loves civ but isn't able to spend months at it searching out all its secrets. I was one of those "little guys" for many years, as I said in an earlier post, and I don't think I was particularly stupid or anything, 'cos there was a group of us (the others at least were pretty bright!) who used to play multiplayer from time to time, and we were all very much at the same level, and all found democracy hard to cope with when we were at war. It only takes one city to fall into disorder through absent units, and your government collapses - with who knows how many turns to wait before you get a chance to re-establish it! We all found this very discouraging - and that's my point: at the lower difficulty levels at least, you don't want to be constantly discouraging new players.

So, yes, I like airdrik and Serapis's suggestions about limiting the Senate's tendency to override you; but I would also like to see something at the lower difficulty levels to mitigate unhappiness when a Democracy is at war. The "Govt. of National Unity" idea was just one possibility that appealed to me - but maybe there would be other ways to achieve the same result...

[SerapisIV]

What about a "propaganda" tool? It would allow your democracy to accept a war that you want, however long-term or continuous use would lower its ability to work (ie, Vietnam, no Pearl Harbor rallying cry, and the war gets longer, people don't want it anymore). It could be a sort of national nerve-stapling. You could use it maybe once or twice but by keeping it active, you diminish its ability to keep the people's support.

[Ilkuul]

Yes, propaganda sounds like an idea in the right direction. I don't know how nerve stapling works in SMAC, tho': how is it implemented? A "ruler's command", like revolution (SHFT/R) in Civ2? Or an advance??

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-26-2001 03:24 AM Yes, propaganda sounds like an idea in the right direction. I don't know how nerve stapling works in SMAC, tho': how is it implemented? A "ruler's command", like revolution (SHFT/R) in Civ2? Or an advance??

I was thinking more along the lines of "you want to revolt...tough titties, you can't cause I just turned on propaganda for a few turns" kind of option. For a non-SMAC exposed player, I can't really find a CivII parallel. It really was a new SMAC idea.

[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 26, 2001).]

[Ecthy]

To me, the whole idea sounds very much like a war-based government form like Fundamentalism in CIV2...

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik: Actually, in civ 2 you could just wait until an Oedo year (look it up in the civ 2 Great Library, they occor every 4 years), then switch to whatever government you want INSTANTANIOUSLY (if you have SOL, all years are Oedo years )...

Right, I know about Oedo years, but that's exactly the kind of unreality I was trying to avoid! (Imagine the chaos if the US had tried to switch to Communism or - heaven forbid - Monarchy when the Vietnam war became unpopular!!)

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion: To me, the whole idea sounds very much like a war-based government form like Fundamentalism in CIV2...

No, no, no! That wasn't at all my idea re a 'govt. of national unity': There would still be unhappiness caused by absent units, though reduced, and production would be less; but the tech rate would remain unchanged. It would only be for a limited period, more at the AI's discretion than the player's. However Serapis's propaganda idea might be a better way to achieve this, if the SMAC mechanism for applying it (however that works!) is incorporated into Civ3...

[airdrik]

Actually, in civ 2 you could just wait until an Oedo year (look it up in the civ 2 Great Library, they occor every 4 years), then switch to whatever government you want INSTANTANIOUSLY (if you have SOL, all years are Oedo years ). So you just switch to something like a communist or a fundamentalist government, declare war, whipe them out, then wait for the next Oedo year and switch back.