24-06-2001 15:44									#1
	About "tactical government switching" Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I wrote this piece under the Civil wars in CivIII thread, but maybe it was under the wrong topic. I recreate it under its own topic instead:

So called "tactical government-switching" shouldnt be possible anymore - at least not so easily as it was in Civ-2. Switching from democracy to communism or nationalism, should ONLY be possible if you are willing to pay the "grasp the opportunity" prize (Im thinking Weimar-republic here).
What you basically must do if you plan to go from more free-living government-types to more controlled ones, is to prepare/stage a political coup. You can do this by deliberately raise the general unhappiness-level to a certain point (by for example sell out some happiness-improvments), and then "grasp the opportunity", by switching to communism or nationalism. This is somewhat risky, because you can end up with revolting independence-declaring cities, that you must recapture after a succesful coup.

The only exception from above rule is then several cities of your democratic or republic empire have been invaded & conquered. Then switching to nationalism is of course much easier.

On the other hand: Switching to democracy from more ancient government-types (or from nationalism & communism, by all means) shouldnt be possible just by having access to the tech alone. Its easier from republic of course, but still; you really must achieve a certain length of political & economical stability under peace, in order to even try to switch to democracy. Just having enough happiness-boosting city-improvements + the democracy-tech, shouldnt by itself be enough.

Last edited by Ralf on 24-06-2001 at 15:53

	24-06-2001 15:57									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is silly. You can't model individual events into a strategy game of this scope. You pay with a period of disorder, which is already a significant penalty.

	24-06-2001 16:14									#3
	Democracy fights well Put an end to popups!

Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

	24-06-2001 16:32									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

Definitely, although I think it should be associated will valid excuses, such as allies under attack, or public dislike of another nation.

You could generate dislike or admiration for a civ through propaganda and counterpropaganda at home and abroad. Using things like mass media.

quote: you really must achieve a certain length of political & economical stability under peace, in order to even try to switch to democracy. Just having enough happiness-boosting city-improvements + the democracy-tech, shouldnt by itself be enough

I agree, most democracies are based on gradual adoption, but the English Civil was based on the fight for a more Democratic government. When Parliament won it was hardly a culmination of a period of economic/political stability.

I also seem to recall Russia going from absolute Monarchy to Democracy to Communism in less than one year.

	24-06-2001 17:08									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse This is silly. You can't model individual events into a strategy game of this scope. You pay with a period of disorder, which is already a significant penalty.

If you bother to read the thread before you answer , you should know that I never suggested anything of the kind. I DONT suggest that you should "outmaneuver your advisors/ the senate" and by that suggesting a game within the game.

All im saying is that you must temporarily lower the happiness-level (unless its low to begin with), in order to succed a downgrading government-coup. Thats all.

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's horse Democracy and Republic should be able to go to war easier in civ 3.

Why?

Also, why just a 1-line statement? Why not add some good arguments why this wouldnt unbalance the democracy-choice too much? What you basically asking for is that democracy should - on top of having clear boost-advantage in all civil areas, now also should have an militaristic conquering-the-world abilty as well. What about government-choice game-balance???

	24-06-2001 17:45									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch I agree, most democracies are based on gradual adoption, but the English Civil was based on the fight for a more Democratic government. When Parliament won it was hardly a culmination of a period of economic/political stability.

Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we.

Its just a fun game - and I am trying to suggest ideas that, in this case, makes government-switching more of a challenge, and by that also balance the gameplay somewhat.
Converting to/from democracy should be a fun challenge in itself. Not just a question of having the democracy-tech and enough happiness-boosting city-improvements.

	24-06-2001 17:47									#7
	Ralf is a bore Enter the AD-FREE zone

F#ck off Ralf. I made my point. Didn't you understand it?

	24-06-2001 18:08									#8
	Re: Ralf is a bore Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse F#ck off Ralf. I made my point. Didn't you understand it?

No - I really dont understand what you mean. In what way would easier warfare under democracy improve gameplay & game-balance in Civ-3? Explain to me.

The whole point with these kinds of forums, is that one should - not only type down upgrade-wishes - but also try to lay forward good arguments why it should be implemented, and how it could improve the game.
Giving and recieving fun well-argued criticism and praise. Otherwise, these forums just becomes shallow non-interactive notice boards. Would that be fun?

	24-06-2001 18:42									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

actually ralf for the first time (and hopefully last) I agree with AH... F%#K off.. these forums are for fun for expressing peoples ideas and if that means a quick one line repsonse so be it.. Being verbose doesnt mean being clever ....


The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

	24-06-2001 20:01									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

Theres a big difference.

Democracys have ONLY (without exception) started big fullscale-wars, either to defend their own country, or to defend/ reinstate democratic values (USA in Europe WW-2, for example). Maybe their political goals, where more dirty unofficially speaking, yes:

But what is completely unrealistic however, is the idea of a well-developed democratic country/empire that goes to war with Alexander/ Napoleon/ Hitler-style militaristic conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives. USA didnt take advantage of the defeat of Japan by trying to direct-rule all future politics in Japan, and assimilate it as yet another 100% american state, did they?

Why then should it be possible under democracy in Civ-3? Such, mostly ancient-style militaristic conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives was/is politically impossible. An extremely nationalistic country, like nazi-Germany, imperial Japan or Stalins Soviet can pull it off in the modern era, yes - but this is exactly my point:

You want to "conquer the world", by forcefully assimilate other cultures & countries forever under your personal rule, by using militaristic means? Fine - but choose an appropriate militaristic government-type. Not Republic or Democracy - that just aint realistic. Nor is it any good in terms of game-balance.

I am NOT saying that going to war should be impossible under Civ-3 democracy. You can always (of course) defend your motherland, and also help out an ally thats getting attacked. The latter also by using military means. Or trade units (or as a gift) to a friendly AI-civ - perhaps, because you want him as a shield/ buffer-state between yourself and a too powerful militaristic neighbor.

But you shouldnt - under democracy - be able to conquer in order to assimilate that foreign empire forever.

By the way: It really was too easy to conquer other empires, under democracy in Civ-2. I always done that near the end-games, after I launced my AC-ship. If you prepared yourself with all the happiness- improvements/wonders available, you can do it easily. I have again, and again moved around 70-80+ combat-units on the field, without any democratic units-avay-from-home problems. The 50% senate-disapproval occured rather seldomly, and it was easy to cheat around anyway. It shouldnt be so easy - it should be harder...

	24-06-2001 20:07									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

IMHO, if you play the game that long you deserve to find it easy.

the best battles in civ 2 take place pre-automobile. the industrial era is a real hot spot.

i absolutely HATE games where you know your going to win, in like 100+ turns, which is basically every game of civ 2.

but with an enhansed AI maybe it wont be so bad.

maybe i'll finally lose a city to the ai besides those Vikings who bribed my cities yesterday with their 60 gold my embassy said they had. maybe they were making a few grand a turn.

but anyway, i think i should be harder to switch from democracy to communism, they're just completely different ends of the spectrum. (well democracy is more in the middle, with facism on the right and communism on the left, but whatever)

	24-06-2001 20:55									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ralf Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we. Its just a fun game - and I am trying to suggest ideas that, in this case, makes government-switching more of a challenge, and by that also balance the gameplay somewhat. Converting to/from democracy should be a fun challenge in itself. Not just a question of having the democracy-tech and enough happiness-boosting city-improvements.

I agree it should be hard to switch SUCCESSFULLY to Rep or Demo. I dont see why one shouldnt be allowed to try.

Heres yet another contraindicative historical example - the French revolution, arguably attempted by the elite as a tactical switch (see Schama - "Citizens") which did not quite take hold, but had a variety of important consequences. (granted your reluctance to overweight single examples, but FR was VERY important historical event, and along with Russian rev may very well have been one of the original inspirations for the Civ2 govt model)

LOTM

	24-06-2001 21:05									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin actually ralf for the first time (and hopefully last) I agree with AH... F%#K off.. these forums are for fun for expressing peoples ideas and if that means a quick one line repsonse so be it.. Being verbose doesnt mean being clever .... The problem with Demo and rep is that unlike the real world, when i goto war i can end up in civil uproar, when usa goes to war now, i dont see the goverment throwen out of office, yes some peopl;e are unhappy, but not whole government collapse...

Evidently you werent in the US in 1968

War in a demo, under certain circumstances, can definitely throw cities into civil disorder. The unrealistic aspect of the civ2 model is having the regime collapse just because one city goes into disorder for a couple of turns. Long established modern demos are more resilient to civil disorder than that, whether the civil disorder results from war or other factors.

Agree that civil disorder in demo should be greater for some wars than others - eg Viet Nam versus WW2. Not sure best way to implement. But it should still be possible for a demo to engage in aggressive war, but should be at greater cost or require additional Womens suffrage type wonders/improvements.

Now to go out on a limb for a "realism" feature that may or may not add to gameplay. To model changing attitudes to imperialism - demos find it easier to engage in aggressive war against technologically more primitive civs, until certain level of social development (an anti-racism tech that improves happiness?). Thus France in Algeria in 1960 should be more costly than French imperialism in 1885.

LOTM

	24-06-2001 21:34									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ralf Lets leave exceptional contradictive history-examples out of the debate, shall we.

It must be the exception that prooves the rule.

Give me some examples of major world democracies coming out due to peaceful economic and political change. Of the top industrial countries today:

English Civil War.
American Revolution
French Revolution\Napoleonic overthrow
German defeat in WW2
Italian overthrow of Mussolini
Japanese defeat in WW2

	24-06-2001 22:08									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Evidently you werent in the US in 1968

Gladly no !~!! But I dont recall the American GOvernemnt coolapsing and the whole USofA going into rebellion and no work getting done, yes may have bene large riots or protests re war in veitnam but the governemnt still ruled

quote: War in a demo, under certain circumstances, can definitely throw cities into civil disorder. The unrealistic aspect of the civ2 model is having the regime collapse just because one city goes into disorder for a couple of turns. Long established modern demos are more resilient to civil disorder than that, whether the civil disorder results from war or other factors.

I guess we actually agree on this point

quote: Agree that civil disorder in demo should be greater for some wars than others - eg Viet Nam versus WW2.

biggest differnece was simply Media coverage, if Media are broadcasting pics of of your boys dying people hate war, if media broadcasts only good news then the people ar eok with it. A thing the US learn fro mVietnam was to contro lmedia during war eg Gulf War ...
Not sure best way to implement. But it should still be possible for

	25-06-2001 01:04									#16
	Put an end to popups!

Hey, Ralf. Like AH and Rasputin said: F#ck off. I did read your post. I didn't say that you were proposing a polititical sub-game; I implied that by assuming that any major change of government must be preceeded by a period of unrest, you're absolutely wrong. There are numerous examples where governments have been changed due to very sudden shifts in attitude. In 1789, the only reason for the revolution was that the King called the Estates-General for the first time in over a hundred years. There had been unhappiness in Paris that summer, but it was only due to the bad harvest of the year before. There is almost always a significant period of disorder after the fact, and this is already in place. Most importantly, remember that you play God when you play Civ. You don't have to convince people to change their production or their tax rates; why should you have to convince them to change governments?

	25-06-2001 01:20									#17
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ralf Democracys have ONLY (without exception) started big fullscale-wars, either to defend their own country, or to defend/ reinstate democratic values (USA in Europe WW-2, for example).

You're nuts. The Gulf War was all about reinstating democratic values? How'bout Korea? or Viet Nam? South Korea and Sout Viet Nam were both run by authoritarian, military governments. South Korea had the leader of the opposition party in jail for twenty years because he opened his mouth. What about Britain in Egypt in the fifties? Or the French in Algeria? How 'bout Argentina and Britain in the eighties over a bunch of crappy islands nobody cared about? Democracies go to war whenever those in power feel that their strategic/economic interests are at stake, just like everybody else. Even the WW2 "Crusade in Europe" crap was invented as a ploy by Eisenhower and Roosevelt. The real problem was that a Nazi Europe was a reality which would have done a great deal of harm to the US. Even if you take WW2 as the best example of a "justified" war on the Allies' part (which I do), then why do you come up against the dilemma that the US went to war more reluctantly in 1941 than to any other war in their history?

	25-06-2001 01:34									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Why can't we just say that a democracy can only avoid the happiness penalty when the it has been attacked, and therefore have a legal reason to counterattack? If a democracy's people want war, I see no reason for the penalties, since the unhappiness then wont come. Does anyone here remember KISS?

	25-06-2001 02:52									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Hey, Ralf. Like AH and Rasputin said: F#ck off. I did read your post.

What the heck is the matter with some people here?

Besides: the rule is: Get excited; criticizes all you want. But, no swearing and name-calling - i doesnt become OK, just because 2 others have done it before, and you replace on of the letters with an "#". Try to hold a decent level, please.

quote: I implied that by assuming that any major change of government must be preceeded by a period of unrest, you're absolutely wrong.

I didnt imply anything of the kind - at least not in such a general way that you are implying. I am NOT saying that ALL government-changes in Civ-3 (not in the real world, mind you) must be preceeded with a period of unrest. Have I said that?

What I am saing is that switching away from democracy to a more dictatorial government-type should be considered a special case. The reason for this is mostly for improving gameplay & game-balance - although I also can give you historical reasons (the fall of the german Weimar-republic).

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse You're nuts

Look, I dont want this topic closed just because you get so over-excited, that you feel you must underline your viewpoints with name-calling. Just type down your arguments and leave the name-calling outside the forum. You think you can handle that, Krazyhorse?

quote: The Gulf War was all about reinstating democratic values? How'bout Korea? or Viet Nam? South Korea and Sout Viet Nam were both run by authoritarian, military governments.

O'boy, I should have guessed it. OK, since you didnt read my reply carefully enough, I must quote myself (the parts you missed I type with bold letters):

"Democracys have ONLY (without exception) started big fullscale-wars, either to defend their own country, or to defend/ reinstate democratic values (USA in Europe WW-2, for example). Maybe their political goals, where more dirty unofficially speaking, yes:

But what is completely unrealistic however, is the idea of a well-developed democratic country/empire that goes to war with Alexander/ Napoleon/ Hitler-style militaristic conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives."

Comment: Then I give historic examples, I do it in connection to the Civ-game. The only kind of military-wars in Civ-games, is infact the ones with conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives. Am I wrong? It is this that Im thinking about then I am arguing against democracy-endorsed "big full-scale wars" in the game.

Quote: "USA didnt take advantage of the defeat of Japan by trying to direct-rule all future politics in Japan, and assimilate it as yet another 100% american state, did they?"

Comment: Was the war-objectives in Korea and Vietnam to (in best Civ strategy-game style) direct-rule all future politics in in these contries, and assimilate them to 100% american land-areas, forever? Well, was it? It is THIS, that shouldnt be possible under Civ-game democracy.

Finally, for some reason you seems to have worked your self up tremendously in your too last replies. Or at least so it seems. If you want to reply this one - just stick to the game, and whether ancient-style conquer-to-assimilate-forever war-objectives should be possible under civ-game 20:th century democracy.

	25-06-2001 04:01									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch It must be the exception that prooves the rule.

Why?

Civilization III is aimed to be a lighthearted turnbased strategy-game with some humor in it. Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it.

quote: Give me some examples of major world democracies coming out due to peaceful economic and political change. Of the top industrial countries today:

First of all: I realize (of course) that history isnt over yet - far from it. Todays version of democracy are much about idealized ideas, and reality cant always keep up with that. Things will probably look very different (perhaps to the better) in a couple of hundred years.

However, my basic point is that democracy wasnt just something that "stumbled in" by accident. If some powerful historical figure would try to enforce the modern variant of democracy, in ancient times (or for example under the medieval era); he wouldnt stand the slightest chance of succeeding. The "sign of the times" simply wasnt ripe yet.
Compare also with pharao Echnaton who around 1350 BC tried to enforce the idea of monotheism replacing polytheism. He tried to do that then ancient egypt flourished, and most egyptians where content. He failed miserably nevertheless - the "sign of the times" simply wasnt ripe yet. Monotheism would stick its head up first in old-testamental Israel, as we all know.

Likewise: its something about this "the sign of the times, must be ripe, in order to succeed" factor, that I try to implement by suggesting that democracy-tech and happiness-level by itself, shouldnt be enough in order to succeed the switch to democracy.

Again; my arguments are mostly game-challenge & game-balance related, first and foremost. 100% historic & real-life consistency, without any contradictive historic irregularitys, whatsoever? God - I think I leave that one to someone else.

	25-06-2001 22:37									#21
	Support Apolyton

Ralf,

I get your whole cultural readiness idea, and I agree with that bit. Although I would assume that the tech advance for Democracy would be set at quite a high level, after the Renaissance type of age. So therefore I would assume that the culture has to be ripe in order to discover it in the first place.

My point was that almost all modern democracies were brought about through armed conflict with an establishment of some kind. Not by peaceful transition. This is already represented in the game by the period of anarchy.

	26-06-2001 01:03									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think that the current system for all parts is adequate. The only thing I would like to see added for the government system is a base model such as the Civ2 and a SE such as the SMAC. That way if you wanted to be a militarisitic democracy you could turn up the happiness level of you citizens with the SE but loose something somewhere else (i.e. gain a little happiness loose a little science).

	26-06-2001 02:39									#23
	Tired of ads?

US - Democracy.
In all reality conquered over 70% of the US from the Indians with the expressed goal of 100% assimilation forever. So much for that.

We don't have to look much farther for other examples, just check your history books.

RAH

	26-06-2001 02:44									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Double-post, sorry!

Last edited by Ralf on 26-06-2001 at 03:43

	26-06-2001 02:46									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch I get your whole cultural readiness idea, and I agree with that bit. Although I would assume that the tech advance for Democracy would be set at quite a high level, after the Renaissance type of age. So therefore I would assume that the culture has to be ripe in order to discover it in the first place.

This together with the fact that you, in Civ-3, must develop most techs in each era, before you are allowed to continue to the next era.

Hmm. OK, Big Crunch - I give in on this one. You probably right.

I however DONT give in when it comes to the idea of 20:th century style democracy, with militaristic Alexander/ Napoleon/ Hitler-style war-objectives. It just feels so totally and utterly wrong. Also; it (obviously) makes the democracy-choice way too powerful, with too few game-balancing drawbacks.

Also, to those who are against that: Whats so wrong with the idea that a well-developed civ-3 democracy, populated with mostly happy & content people just dont want to listen to any ideas about you switching to a more dictatorial government-type?
Switching from happy & content democracy to dictatorship should demand that the player must level the ground somewhat (unless his people are unhappy to begin with) in advance. He must find ways to lower the happiness-level below a certain level, in order to succeed. Is that really so dead-wrong?

quote: My point was that almost all modern democracies were brought about through armed conflict with an establishment of some kind. Not by peaceful transition. This is already represented in the game by the period of anarchy.

OK then - but, maybe the period of anarchy could be followed by a period of gradually increasing to max-output productivity?

I just want to add something that deter too convinient and unchallenging government-switchings. Just compare with religion-switches in "Europa Universalis". I dont want to go that far, of course - I just want to add something that makes government-switchings in Civ-3, just a little bit more of a "dare I grasp the chance, or dare I not" dilemma. Just a little more of that.

	26-06-2001 03:30									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

See demon boil mind worm stack

Swich to Demo Green Reseach

Attack mind worms

Swich back

Last edited by MORON on 26-06-2001 at 03:37

	26-06-2001 04:07									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

actually, NAM and KOREA were part of the containment policy to combat communism in asia and to promote democracy, sdo they were enforcing democratic ideals.

IMHO, the two wars were nothign more than a game of chess between the USA and the USSR. sure the USA may have suffered great losses, but the Russians tipped their king.

	26-06-2001 04:19									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by rah US - Democracy. In all reality conquered over 70% of the US from the Indians with the expressed goal of 100% assimilation forever. So much for that.

A rather lame grasping-for-straws example, If you ask me. They didnt even realize they were invaders, in the militaristic country-against-country sense of the word. They just went ahead and populate it. Besides: I was talking about modern (after WW-2) democracy. Wasnt that obvious?

Please, understand that Civ-3 is an heavily simplified abstraction. The Firaxis-staff must make shortcuts. The important thing here is that they do it in ways that improves the gameplay & game-challenge, dont you agree? Now, have you any ideas or suggestions about Civ-3 democracy in terms of gameplay & game-challenge?

	26-06-2001 04:56									#29
	Ah its Ralf, Mr Popularity Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

He's back

	26-06-2001 05:14									#30
	Got spare money?

I agree with AH, history is full of democracies going off on a playful romp of conquest around the world. Take Ms Victoria's Greater Britannia for instance. I think Republic's and Democracy's greater penalty for having units abroad simulates the real world possibility of dissent.
Saayyy- how about introducing "chauvinism" as a conceptual advance. It would neutralize the penalty for units abroad, but would in turn be nullified for all countries by the UN or Women's Rights. (Women's Rights would have to confer some other benefit.)