Democracy at war

[Alexander's Horse]

Its probably too late now since development of this game is advanced but I would like to see a change to the effects of war on Democracy. In particular I think that if a democratic civ is attacked then the unhappiness restrictions on movement of troops should not come into effect.

I think the current restrictions on war are far too strong for democracies. If a democracy is fighting an aggressor, it is an awesome opponent. World War II is the best example. Vietnam has influenced the civ 2 rules too much. You could relate the extent of unhappiness also to the civ's rep.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 18, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 18, 2001).]

[JosefGiven]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-18-2001 07:16 PM ...I would like to see a change to the effects of war on Democracy. In particular I think that if a democratic civ is attacked then the unhappiness restrictions on movement of troops should not come into effect.

This is an interesting point, I have not really considered it before. Perhaps there could also be some way for an aggressive democracy to convince it's voting public that taking war to a particular opposing civ is a good idea. A propaganda campaign for example.

i.e:

(Bring up a propaganda window):

100 GP: Commision low level leaflet campaign to discredit (insert enemy here), Player's civ gets 15% chance per turn of being permitted to wage war on selected foe for next 5 turns.

250 GP: Commission TV advertisment campaign to discredit (enemy), Civ gets 25% chance per turn of being permitted to wage war on selected foe for next 5 turns.

500 GP: Commission full-blown poster, TV ad, newspaper ad, etc. campaign to discredit (enemy), Civ gets 50% chance per turn of being permitted to wage war on selected foe for next 5 turns.

Of course, the price of these propaganda campaigns should also vary with the size of the democratic population base they are designed to convince.

Well, how about it? A fairly unobtrusive added feature, and one that adds to the game without being over-complex, I think...


------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-18-2001 07:16 PM I think the current restrictions on war are far too strong for democracies.

I dont agree. Instead, it was far too easy to fight sheer land-grabbing ancient-style conquest-wars under democracy, in Civ-2. I have done it myself, in late-game sessions, again and again.

In Civ-2 "bigger was always better" in each and every area. Especially under Democracy. The puny happiness-penalty from units-away-from-cities, was rather easily overcomeable if your cities was developed enough.
The way i look at it; the ONLY wars democracys should be allowed to fight is defensive wars (and that includes any fellow civ-democracy, that has been, or is about to be conquered by an extreme government Civ. Then your own democracy can interveen in order to defend democracy, on behalf of that about-to-loose AI-democracy. Not else.

However, even then you cannot keep what your have conquered (under democracy) - democracy is reinstalled in those areas, yes, and that reinstalled AI-democracy becomes your closest and most faithful ally, yes. But, you cannot add these cities to your own democracy empire.

Want to conquer the whole world by military means? OK, but you have to do it under a more cynical and aggressive government-types, like fascism, communism, theocracy, or any of the ancient warlike government-types.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 21, 2001).]

[tniem]

I think the biggest thing would be to include the opinion of your people. In a democracy the people would lean towards peace, but that does not mean that in certain situations that they would not want to fight to the death.

Athens used democracy to gain the publics support for widespread wars. Rome's Republic took over the Mediterranean.

I am sure that if a Fundamentalist government called for the entire population to research plastics and used their fervor of God for this end that they could be quite advanced scientifically.

Government should impact your people's perception, but it should not force them to hate war or science.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-21-2001 03:58 PM I think the biggest thing would be to include the opinion of your people. In a democracy the people would lean towards peace, but that does not mean that in certain situations that they would not want to fight to the death.

In defensive wars then being attacked, or then liberating conquered fellow democracys - yes, I agree. But "fighting to the death" for the same selfish dreams of militaristic world domination as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon or Alexander the great? I dont think so.

quote: Athens used democracy to gain the publics support for widespread wars. Rome's Republic took over the Mediterranean.

You really cannot compare ancient Athens with a modern democracy. Or Rome's early republic with a modern western republic. Those ancient empires was only democratic and republic to a few; a selected elitistic group of people. Women, slaves and integrated foreigners was excluded. In practice; the only ones who had any real influence was the nobility. Even today we dont live in a real democracy (the power of money is to strong). Still, the difference between now and then, is rather big anyway.

quote: I am sure that if a Fundamentalist government called for the entire population to research plastics and used their fervor of God for this end that they could be quite advanced scientifically. Government should impact your people's perception, but it should not force them to hate war or science.

Isnt it the other way around?

Isnt the growing dislike of intolerance/bigotry and glorifying militaristic ancient/medieval-style conquering-wars, an absolut necessity, in order to establish (and maintain) real republic/democracy?
Isnt that dislike likewise, an necessity in order to science and humane values to grow?
If the people/the government is very militaristic, oppressive and aggressive - science and culture tend to shrink and suffer from that. Historic lessons from both Nazi-Germany and Stalins Soviet confirms this.

In biblical words: Is it likely to expect wonderful fruits from dry thistles and sharp thorn-bushes? Nope!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 21, 2001).]

[ajli@home]

I think democracy at war should have the same much more nullified disadvantage like republic as until something like "television" is researched.

[ajli@home]

The effects are not as dramatic until the modern age.

[Biddles]

Why does everyone assume that democracies are always pacifist. They tend to have pacifist leanings, but this isn't always the case. America, for example, isn't the pacifist nation that everyone seems to think it is. It will, and has, been an agressor on occasions where it served it's interest. It's military budget is 5 times that of any other country.

Despite this, in the present day (wide media access) civ's tend to get more pacifist. The korean war was acceptable, but vietnam wasn't. Communication tech's (t.v, internet, printing press ...) should have to do with the democracy penalties.

[colossus]

I think that democracy is militarily aggresive.
Looking at history, as long as the democracy is waging a winning war, citizens support the government enthusiastically. Only when the nation is losing and casualties are running high do citizens show weariness and pacifist leanings.

Just look at the conquest of revolutionary France or Us in the US-Mexican War(War of North American Invasion in Mexican context). In both cases, the democracy is not fighting a defensive war, but the fact that the democracy is winning keep the war popular. Vietnam is so unpopular because US is losing-how can they win when they cannot cross the frontier but the enemy can freely attack them?, and casualties are high.

My suggestion for democracy at war are:
1.For every military unit killed(except by sneak attack), two unhappiness generated across the entire civ.
2.Democracy falls whenever a city is losing to the enemy.

[MrFun]

These are very good points!

After all, why would citizens of a democratic nation be unhappy or angry when their country is fighting a war that was begun by an enemy nation, and not delcared by their own nation?

I don't recall any historical incidents when citizens of a country protested against its own government in fighting a war to defend its own territory!

[EnochF]

Democracy is fine the way it is. If you want to fight a war without penalty, switch to a different government. It's a trade-off.

[Alexander's Horse]

quote: Originally posted by EnochF on 01-22-2001 12:33 AM Democracy is fine the way it is. If you want to fight a war without penalty, switch to a different government. It's a trade-off.

What you are not taking into account is multiplayer. Human players start wars with democracies precisely to achieve that outcome - a change of government. I think it is unfair. Perhaps they could have a democratic "government of national unity" option where you are attacked.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 22, 2001).]

[bagdar]

Since Civ 3 will have borders, we won't have to worry what to do when some pathetic civ brings a settler with a ship and founds a city right next to your capital. Then, most of the wars the democracies will fight will be defensive wars, and then, as you people have suggested, the public reaction will have to be improved.

[Cannes]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-21-2001 09:03 PM Why does everyone assume that democracies are always pacifist. They tend to have pacifist leanings, but this isn't always the case. America, for example, isn't the pacifist nation that everyone seems to think it is. It will, and has, been an agressor on occasions where it served it's interest. It's military budget is 5 times that of any other country.

That's definitely not true. China has a much larger defense budget than the states.

[Grumbold]

I'm sure we were discussing this not that long ago and the same arguements were raised then. Historically, it is not purely the government form which influences the reluctance to make war. Rome was a far more hawkish Republic than it was as a decadent declining empire. The UK and US have been extremely bloodthirsty in the past and sustained horrific casualties in wars up to the early part of this century. I leave it to social historians to argue exactly what has caused more advanced nations to become much more reluctant to sustain casualties, but it appears to go hand-in-hand with growing freedom and wealth in the general populace. Tieing that to techs seems to be the easiest way of making the distinction. Even so, it doesn't make Democracies unhappy to have large armed forces doing some aggressive posturing in remote parts of the world. Only when they start getting captured, tortured or shot does popular support collapse. They should be more inclined to make peace once they have taken a few casualties and less inclined to keep the territories they capture.