 |
|
Tical_2000
|
|
Try to understand that this is not real life. The so-called 'revolution' is just there so you can switch your government type and progress your civilization. No real 'revolution' by any sense of the word takes place besides maybe some civil disorder or whatever. People need to understand that Civilization is a computer game and not a 1:1 exact replication of global politics nor does it try to be. Besides, who wants random government switching because the "people" are upset that their government does not treat them fairly while they are trying to play a game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maybe some kind of parameters (don't ask me how they should be calculated) could be set to see what government your people prefer. If there's absolutely no one who prefers a theocracy and you simply change your government to theocracy it would be as efficient as anarchy. The amount of people who accept (not WANT) a government could determine its efficiency. I wouldn't go so far to let the computer decide when your government changes (a horrible thought) but acting against the will of your people should be less effective (and therefore less attractive)
------------------
Wernazuma alias Cheshirecat alias Wörn
Master Mind of the World of Arendra
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tical_2000
|
|
The ideas of VanHalen and others are good ideas, they just simply don't add up in a computer game. What draws the line between a revolution and a coup d'etat in a computer game? What causes the "people" to become frustrated with your leadership/government. Is it declaring war too much, a bad reputation, not building enough temples, WHAT? Lets say random revolutions are implemented in Civ3. There you are, just turns away from totally obliterating the Romans when suddenly, uh oh, the people back home are enraged that you are building warriors instead of temples. There goes your government and your entire political agenda until you build trash the war effort and build a couple temples. Not to mention how irritating this would be in the modern ages when every turn matters. Like I said, they're very enlightened ideas, they just don't make sense in the Civ world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Tical, I think you've got the wrong idea about what would cause revolution and what the revolution would be. The idea is that the people are trying to establish a new government. Therefore, either you have established an unfavorable government, or that you have not changed to a more favorable government. A revolution should really not come as a surprise to ANY leader.
If you have just changed from a democratized government to a fascist, communist, or other repressive government, there should be some backlash from the people. There is no way that you would not see that coming. And if you've been stuck in the same old unprofitable, poor science, repressive Monarchy, you should not be surprised if the people revolt. If anything, it is beneficial by forcing the player to keep up to date. So the scenario given is really not quite possible.
The revolution should be, as I suggested in the Revolutions thread, that certain cities come under control of another government type under AI control. The responsibility of the leader is either to recapture those cities, wait for the your government to become popular in those cities again, or wait until your opposition becomes so great that your government is overthrown and you are made leader of the new government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Hi All,
I'm in charge of the govt model in the Clash of Civilizations. I just want to say a couple of things for you to think about. We've had discussions like this in Clash and I think some advice could be useful to you.
First of all, maybe you're lacking of an agreement about how important the internal civ conflicts are going be in your game. I have learned in these months working for Clash that interest for what could happen inside your civ varies a lot from player to player. There's a category of people I call "war-gamers" whose main interest is the civ vs. civ struggle. Beat the other civs is their main goal, mostly through war. For them, having an internally stable empire is important and most of things like revolutions and other internal problems are seen as boring and "against-the-game-fun". It's obvious: you want your war machine healthy and working.
On the other extreme, there're some people who find the internal politics very interesting and could even see this part of the game as a "game-within-a-game". Interacting with local politicians, local leaders, blackmailing them, bribing them, confronting revolutionaries, etc are a whole experience most of civ games don't have, but they would love to see in them.
So, maybe you should first talk about your priorities in the game and define what's fun and important in it before deciding how govt shifts should occur or if the player should have or not a "change regime" button.
I wouldn't say we've such an explicit agreement in Clash, but the current govt model we have has had enough support to say that we're closer to the we-care-about-internal-conflicts position. Clash intends to be as historically accurate as possible, so we don't see the game only as a war game between civs. Clash is supposed to put the player facing the challenges of ruling an empire with all the problems and conflicts rulers in real life had to deal with. But the important thing is we chose to do it that way and you all should choose something about this topic too.
The following are some of the things we'll have in Clash and that we see as challenging and fun to deal with regarding the inner world of civs:
1) Nationalistic revolts: For example, celt uprisings in a roman-controlled province.
2) Slaves revolts.
3) Ideological revolutions: For example, democracy supporters trying to overthrow a monarchy.
4) Independence of provinces, leading to the formation of new civs.
5) Military coups, leading to new regimes.
6) Different degrees of despotism, so players will have less control in representative govts than they'd in dictatorships.
7) Different types of economic systems, actually working differently depending on the govt setting.
8) Social classes with political aspirations and trying to influence the govt. A religious class, for example, could be very influential in a fundamentalism, but not in a democracy.
All this in Clash is achieved through modeling what people want (no random events), and while the player is the main character in this movie, there're other actors inside the civ who could push to major changes and act independently of player's desires. Your empire could in fact be threatened by insiders as much as it could be by neighboring civs.
We chose the game to be that way.
I hope this helped. Please don't hesitate to stop by the Clash forum here in Apolyton and give us input about this part of the game. It'll be appreciated.
Rodrigo
[This message has been edited by roquijad (edited November 06, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2000 23:49
I'm not saying the people can go and rebel any time they feel like it, but they should be able to in response to a government change on the part of the leader. Also, they should be able to revolt if the leader has kept them under a particularly repressive government for a long time. I just think it makes things more interesting. It IS a game, but lets make it a tough one.
|
|