 |
| |
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Naokaukodem
I think it is already the case in Civ3, look at Democracy that can't fit to a warmonger so much. |
Actually, I kind of disagree.
Democracy is really great because it offers you maximum productivity and efficiency with minimum corruption and waste, and as far as warfare goes, it just means you have to plan your wars well to keep them from lasting too long. Even under democracy, it does take a while for that war weariness to really kick in, and once you make peace everybody's instantly happy again. Then you can take a break, regroup and redeploy your forces, and you're all set to go again! As long as you prepare well and stick to blitzing one or two enemies at a time, you shouldn't have a problem in the world!
This from a guy who does NOT wish to be considered a warmonger - although certain AIs may disagree. War IS part of the game, though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Naokaukodem
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guardian
it just means you have to plan your wars well to keep them from lasting too long. [...] blitzing one or two enemies at a time, you shouldn't have a problem in the world! |
That's why i think that Democracy is not a government for war, because you have to blitz it... Of course if you are well prepared and have plenty cities, under those two conditions only, Democracy can be "efficient" for war, but you would have to stop it some times yet. But if you don't have plenty cities and/or are not prepared for war, it is to say that you can't control the time it will remain, Democracy can't be considered the governement for war, can you? This is why I say that Democracy have already some tweaks that define it like already a non-war government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Hi mate,
Very pleased that you mentioned Europa Universalis- Policy sliders in EU II make the argument for government types a non-starter: as you are the government!!
How many sliders are there?- very few, the system is excellent and I commend it to the producers of Civ 4.
They also (Paradox), as they must in order to produce historical reality between 1400-1815 offer the option to make a nation a vassal of yours- something that would fit very well into the Civ model.
A nation ramdomly declaring war upon you, from 8,000 map miles away should know that there are certain consequences if they fail- but at least they will continue to exist once defeated. Programming this in might allow for the jovial attitude distant nations currently have about war with you- a mate until then, whilst we can leave them as an intact nation, but as a vassal to remind other nations of the same fate should they choose to also attack you. (you can of course annex them as well)
Of course, I'm only thinking from the deeply flawed Civ 3 perspective.
Toby
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 13-02-2005 at 12:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
And where's the difference between totalitarian-democratic and liberal-authoritarian? Are there any authoritarian democracies or liberal totalitarianisms?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
quote:
there's a conflict that religion appears twice, which i need to solve. |
As Adagio, I would bring that "religion ------ science" are not opposed. What is opposed though, is:
- Science vs an all-englobing mystic/dogmatic religion (everything is only mystic/dogmas including natural world);
- Religion vs an all-englobing rationalistic science (everything is about "rational laws" including the spiritual)
Thus, the contradiction is, on the one hand, between religion and extreme-rationalism and, on the other hand, between science and extreme-mysticism/dogmaticism. One could thus simplify w/o the former contradiction:
"mysticism / dogmaticism ------ strict rationalism"
So this is not anymore only a religion / science slider, but covering all system of thoughts (including magic beliefs, positivism or rastafarianism).
Anyone to disagree?
Also, I would not replace perfectionism by isolationism. It goes together as a doctrine: isolationism is by concentrating on oneself rather than exterior. It is a "mood" (as classic China, or as the post-Civil War USA).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
@Sandman: There've been several nations who were, esp. on islands in the Pacific. On these islands, where you're guarded by the ocean against potential enemies, it is indeed no problem to be absolutely pacifist.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:14
|
|
Nah. Just go Hobbesian: There's only Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and there's not much difference between any of them.
Though sliders arguably amount to the ultimate in customization, I would wonder if they don't overlook some of the more intricate features that have made governments interesting in the past. For example, exactly where do you have to be on the dogmatism vs. rationalism slider before you can, say, build a "fundamentalist" unit? And even then, that unit might not make sense depending on exactly what kind of government you had. Maybe a unit is a bad example, but it seems like it would be difficult to really show different and special governments and situations with an all-slider interface.
On another note, Siro's post above brings up the question of whether religion and socio-econo-political (new word!) factors should, in fact, be seperate. One could mix and match a slider-based government system with "named" religions, which would have various effects and strain against (or synergize with) the slider-government in various ways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Did anyone of you check the Clash model?
The religion part is considered by deciding who holds power (power distribution): It can be the people, the military, the clergy, the (absolute) ruler, or a combnation of these through sliders.
And then there are other sliders that let you decide of other policies like tax rates, ethnic and religious discrimination, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
The current Labour Government in the UK is both what the Yanks would call "left-field" as if a dirty word, whilst being authoritarian.
My mum at 60 seemed quite shocked at how authoritarian the Labour Goverment is, whilst I always knew they were both (Left and Authoritarian), 20 years of the Tories might have dimmed her memory, but the left wing (my vote) has always been so- It's only America that has a problem with the Democrats- to us lot in Europe the US is right-wing full stop: the Democrats begin where the British Labour Party stops, although they are changing,
If you want to see another social nation, look to Sweden or Denmark, but the US is so off the European political scale, I doubt they'd understand either nation.
A couple of anarchists mates in Sweden used to say "know how you say Big Brother is watching you?" (in Britain), In Sweden it's "big mother is watching you" Fine by me.
Both Sweden and Denmark are two of the most successful nations in Europe, "despite" the fact they actually care about the population, rather than use it.
Governments exist when a point in history demanded them- central control, things like a universal postal system helped to gel a nation, along with a national clock within it, which the invention of the railways ensured happened.
I think the US political system is the only democracy now owned by companies, not the people- although all can still vote, it's merely a choice of pockets in the election- the left or right pocket, business owns the jacket anyway.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-01-2005 18:30
|