 |
| |
|
|
Propaganda
|
 |
From Russia, With Love.
Jun 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Well, with a new XP approaching, I thought I might add some suggestions that could spice it up.
So, here we go.
Government/Diplomatic model - Historically, we've seen wars fought between different idealogies/different ways of thought, so I ask why not include this in Civ III? My proposal would be to add various values for each government type to determine how reactionary they would be towards an opposing idealogy or even towards it's own idealogical partners, in effect, moving the Shunned/Preferred preference from being civ-oriented to government-oriented, but with some reform to the system. So lets say, for example, you are Russia under a Communist government, and China has recently come under a Communist revolution, you would(on a scale from 1-10 in the editor) have a value of 8 in your relationship value(note that this is a value reflecting ONLY relations between Communist countries)In effect, each government has a different relationship value to different governments. Going back to the example, lets say a value from 1-4 makes the civ either "Furious" or "Hostile", a value of 5 makes it "Cautious" and a value from 6-10 "Polite" or "Gracious", you and China start off with "Gracious" relations, which in effect says you can have good and fair trade deals and can sign MPP and military alliances with one another[IMO, for something like an MPP or MA, you need to have very good relations(i.e. "Gracious"), otherwise, you will get a remark like one does when he tries to give away cities)]. However, say you are again Communist Russia, attempting to deal with a Monarchy and it so happens that they do not see eye-to-eye with you(they are "Furious" or "Cautious" or have a value of 1-4), you will have to pour plenty of aid, or make favorable deals with it to make it change it's stance on you. This way, you will be able to sign MPP or MA and have better trade deals. Likewise, if you are the US under Democracy, and are attempting to approach Communist Russia.
Now, lets say you are again the US under a Democracy and declare war on a country. Nothing won't stop Communist Russia and its allies from trying to bury you anytime you try to expand, unless they are "Polite" or "Gracious" towards you and don't have trade agreements and/or MPPs signed with that nation being attacked. In a case where Russia is "Hostile" and has trade agreements(but no MPP) they might deny your diplomatic envoy, quite possibly join the war against you(should depend on how strong they are, militarility and once again, on your relations)embargo you, and cancel all trades(though this should depend on how much they need a resource and/or your money), along with their allies(though they, on a percentage calculation, might keep their relations with you intact.)
Now another aspect I'd like to talk about is government transitions/revolutions. I feel that the model is too simplistic(simply clicking Republic to change the government, as an example). My idea is to have governments change only because of dissent. As an example, lets say Germany is a Monarchy and has discovered Communism and Democracy a while ago, yet it has been in peace for a good period, but just recently went to war and is losing. Now assuming a Monarchy would have more contempt for a Communist movement rather than a bourgeoisie democracy, the Communist movement is the one that gains more favor if revolution is immiment(may not be a good system, maybe some folks here can think of something better). Back to the example, we see cities plagued with civil disorder(lets say that if Civil Disorder is not quelled, it spreads like wildfire to other cities), and a pop-up comes up asking whether you support the revolutionaries or are willing to fight them. If you support the revolution, your leader is abdicated(maybe a box can come up asking for your leader's new name) and your government changed to Communism(As a result, you might suffer a penalty like losing some units and/or gold). However, if you choose to fight, you are forced to quell the Civil Disorder with many units(and spend a lot into luxury goods), making sure as well not to have it spread, otherwise, you are forced into a Communist government anyway. For penalty, you might lose some pop points.
I have a critique of the science/luxury sliders, but I won't get into that now.
Anyway, that's all for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Propaganda
|
|
From Russia, With Love.
Jun 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor |
quote:
Good idea Propaganda. It seems practical and realistic too.
If I understand correctly, and to be short, you want the choice of government to affect the diplomatic stance from the others ? Like having democracies more annoyed at communisms, or having monarchies more annoyed at Republics than at fellow monarchies ?
I think it would be cool, and make for 'ideological' wars or blocs quite well  I also think it would be cool if it doesn't take precedence over normal diplomacy, i.e if it is still possible to fight against a fellow Republic and to ally with an evil Sultanate. |
That's correct, but I feel the 'mood' system should be reformed in itself. Civs should be more strict in their stance, and harder to influence, IMO. Signing an alliance with, using your example, an evil Sultanate should be impossible, unless he's already at war with the Republic or you have influenced him to be more positive towards earlier on, in which you can sign an alliance when he's not at war. BTW, if you war against a fellow Republic, you should lose support from the others. That means MPP, Trade agreements, etc. are dropped and their stance should be changed to 'Furious', but that is unless you sign an MA with them against the other Republic.
quote:
It may also help the MPPs and trade agreements into being more consistent. Really, good idea. I wonder if such an idea could be easily implemented though. |
Well, Firaxis has..what...a couple of months? I SAY, GET TO WORK, FIRAXIS! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Actually, Propoganda, this is what I've been trying to say for a while too. Not only should Civs have shunned/prefered govts., but govt types should have preferred/shunned govt. types-but on the scale you mentioned.
One of the things I've wanted to see is a return of the senate for Democratic govets (republic/democracy). The scale of govt/ reaction would play a role in a senate system. i.e., the chance of the senate blocking a diplomatic maneuver with another civ would depend on
1) Your Civ traits (on a scale of 1 for militaristic, to 5 for commercial).
2) The opposing Civs traits (on the same scale as above).
3) The opposing Civs govt (from 1-10 as suggested by Propoganda)
4) The cultural relationship to your Civ (positive mod if from same culture group, negative if from different group)
5) The differences in culture rating between the two civs (negative mod if opposing civ is lower culture, positive mod if higher).
6) Possession of UN by either of the negotiating Civ's.
This would give you a basic algorithm for the chance of the senate blocking or accepting your diplomatic overtures. With declaration of war obviously acting in reverse  . If you are blocked by the senate, then you should be able to click on "Dissolve Senate" in the pop-up box. If you do that, however, it should cause the govt to collapse, and lead to a period of anarchy, as normally occurs when you change govts. It should also be a potential trigger for Civil War (i.e. if your civ is already very unhappy, corrupt etc, then the dissolution of the Senate could precipitate a CW)!! It should also increase unhappiness Civ-Wide!
Further to your ideas for Govt Change, Propoganda, I think that you should be able to change Govts at will but, if you change to a govt type that is shunned by your civ, then it should lead to a revolt and, again, be a trigger for CW!! Further, if your civ is already in revolt, or CW, or if a preferred Govt type becomes available (through research/trade) then the citizens should be able to demand that you change govt and, if you don't: Revolution or even another bout of CW!!!
Anyway, I don't know how likely this idea would be to find itself into an XP! Might be more likely a change for Civ4!?
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
I actually only thought that preferred/shunned government referred to whether the AI would use that government itself!!!
Still, it would be nice to see a little gradation in attitudes, rather than absolutes!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
Propaganda,
This is a great idea, and makes a lot more sense than each civ having a preferred and shunned government. Firaxis should replace that system (which is really only hit and miss, since the AI's govt choices have nothing to do with this setting) with yours. Here's hoping they do.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-05-2003 16:55
Err... but Civ3 DOES have preferred/shunned government types for each civ, and being in a Government form that is another civ's shunned form DOES cause a difference in attitude towards you!
|