Thread Tools
Old June 25, 2001, 20:46   #31
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Putting aside AH's childish trolling, and other's casual use of swear words, I have to say that as far as the game itself goes purposely lowering happiness levels won't work.

Revolutions come about for various reasons, not all of them related to population contentment. Warlords, governors, and dukes may see a weakness in the current ruler. In those situations, the government is usually not replaced. At the end of Tokugawa-era Japan, rioting was common enough and people unhappy enough that the feudal system HAD to go as it could not effectively govern- and the new ruling elite complied.

The best I'd say for civ3 is that if a govt switch allows for more luxury for your people then there's no problem, but if it switches from a freer society (repub, demo) to one less so there should be a few turns of increased unhappiness in all your cities which will slowly go away. Also that ancient forms of govt (despotism, monarchy) should not be available after more modern forms of govt are "discovered".

And republic/democracy shouldn't have happiness penalties for troops away unless they are at war, and unit deaths should cause happiness problems for all societies- moreso for repub/demo.
__________________
I'm consitently stupid- Japher
I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned
Theben is offline  
Old June 25, 2001, 22:07   #32
Alexander's Horse
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Alexander's Horse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: In a tunnel under the DMZ
Posts: 12,273
He started it
My trolling is anything but childish - though I do feel a little bad about picking on a rank amateur like Ralf.
__________________
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer.

Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Alexander's Horse is offline  
Old June 25, 2001, 22:46   #33
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
RALF
"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?"

As always your "know it all attitude" is so narrow focused.

The game doesn't start in 1942. In fact I haven't seen a game last till 1942 in the last three years (except for my first occ try). You can't focus on one era. Think of the early Roman Republic, where conquest was primary. The examples are endless.
You have to think of the early game also. Most of the people I play with are in Democracy before or near 1 a.d. The game must be playable throughout time, not just the last 80 years.

So can the obvious crap and pick up a history book. I believe you will find that the Indians considered it a war (each tribe considered itself a nation). Other people have valid points, try listening.

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 25, 2001, 23:10   #34
TechWins
King
 
TechWins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
My trolling is anything but childish - though I do feel a little bad about picking on a rank amateur like Ralf.
You rarely post anything important, so I wouldn't be talking about how Ralf is an amateur. I'm not saying I do either. Since I've been here in the past few months Ralf has probably came up with the most good ideas here. Although I don't neccesarily like this idea of his.
TechWins is offline  
Old June 25, 2001, 23:12   #35
Paul L
Chieftain
 
Paul L's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 78
Quote:
Think of the early Roman Republic, where conquest was primary.
I don't think the early Roman Republic count as a modern Democracy.

Quote:
The game doesn't start in 1942. In fact I haven't seen a game last till 1942 in the last three years
Obviously Ralf meant being technology-wise post ww2 not in game years

Quote:
As always your "know it all attitude" is so narrow focused.
What about all this Ralf bashing in this thread? I think he is one of the worthiest contributers on the civ3 forum.

Generally I agree with Ralf on this topic. Changing government should be a big decision, not something like: 'well, now it's war so we go communist and change back to democracy after that'
Paul L is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 08:28   #36
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
That's the problem, I agree that he's entitled to his opinion. But so is everyone. He just dismisses them with a wave of his hand. He mentioned republics early. I also don't see anything about Post ww2 governments in the title. So whether it was obvious is immaterial, all of history is fair game. This game is about all of history.

He called my example a "A rather lame grasping-for-straws example". This is not the kind of language you use when you are trying to convince people or convey an idea. (see sig below) He brings on the anti feeling with his arrogance. It is clear that quite a few people don't agree with him.

I have liked a lot of some of his ideas. But the way he presents them and treats others ideas will not make him any friends around here.

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 10:23   #37
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
The biggest thing to stop Democracies (or anyone else) attacking the rest of the world is the sheer impracticality of doing it successfully. A democracy would be just as capable of doing it as anyone else if they thought it was cost effective and in their best interests. Any reasons can be found or manufactured to swing popular opinion the way the government wants it.

In a tight game, switching between government types should be avoided just because vital production and research will be lost. The differences between modern governments should also be softer than in previous Civs. Democracies don't revolt for having armies and navies spread around the world. Communists are not incapable of achieving scientific advances. Civ govt styles are just too simple and linear so you have to switch easily in order to get things done.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 11:21   #38
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
Thank you, Grumbold
A pure voice of reason.

Yes, one may postulate that the US can have all of troops that are around the world without unhappiness because of all the happy improvements. But I prefer to think like you.

We are not limited to the current real world when we think of governments. The game allows us to explore and come up with our own ideas. Just because the US has never had a reason to conquer and assimilate a country recently, doesn't mean a reason will never exist. And if it ever does, I'm sure the government will emply the right SPIN Doctors to sell it to the public.

Yes the current CivII definitions are two stict and limiting (Not realistic).
But I don't think they can go to crazy here. They should just maybe add some variations. Or create realistic penalties for violating the nature of the government.

Nothing was more stupid than never being able to declare war in a democracy without the government collapsing. (unless you had the U.N and lots of hawks)

Over complication of the game will reduce playablility and be very difficult for the AI to be programmed. (unless they use the cheat method currently being used)

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 14:31   #39
TechWins
King
 
TechWins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
(unless they use the cheat method currently being used)
If there is a cheat mode it should just give the computer a slight advantage (i.e. increase there production a little bit) but don't let them cheat by going against the basic rules of the game (i.e. a plane never having to refuel).

Quote:
Yes, one may postulate that the US can have all of troops that are around the world without unhappiness because of all the happy improvements. But I prefer to think like you.
I agree with this in come aspects there's not going to be a revolt by these troops being gone but many of the families and troops are unhappy because of being away from home (the states). I think under a democracy any troop inside his borders will not be unhappy and with the improvement of police station in his home city he will only cause one unhappiness. Without the improvement he will cause two unhappiness. So it's pretty much the same as Civ2.
TechWins is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 16:26   #40
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
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). Maybe their political goals, where more dirty unofficially
Viet Nam wasn't full-scale enough? The US managed to kill off two million people in that country, most of whom were civilians. You can call any war anything you want, so saying that a war needs to have a moral excuse under a democracy is a useless statement. Every government has given a moral excuse for every war ever started. In my first post I swore at you, and will swear again if necessary because you continually and offhandedly accuse people of ignorance. The only reason I switched to a "#" is that, if I'm not mistaken, the entire word would have been blocked out if I used a "u". I wasn't trying to be cute. In my books, "You're nuts" is just another way of saying "you're completely wrong". That part, at least, was not given as an insult. In my local idiom, "you're nuts" is a completely offhand remark, and can be used in the most casual or formal situations. Oh, by the way: what about Israel? I'm about to get slammed by a bunch of knee-jerk Anti-Semite-baiting, but Israel has grabbed a large chunk of territory which they've held on to for quite a while. They've settled some parts of it with their own population, which leads me to believe that they're keeping it. Israel's a real democracy. So is India, but it and Pakistan haven't given up fighting about Kashmir. Neither democracy nor any other political ideology necessarily make for a peace-loving country.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 17:10   #41
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
You rarely post anything important, so I wouldn't be talking about how Ralf is an amateur. I'm not saying I do either. Since I've been here in the past few months Ralf has probably came up with the most good ideas here. Although I don't neccesarily like this idea of his.
I think AH meant that Ralf was a rank amateur at trolling.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 17:14   #42
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Double-post, sorry!

Last edited by Ralf; June 26, 2001 at 17:44.
Ralf is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 17:16   #43
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Lets look at it this way: I started this thread as a governmental game-balancing request, OK.

The way I look at things, we Apolyton-members should firstly concentrate on the "skeleton-ideas" that can improve game-challenge, gameplay and the game-balance aspects of Civ-3. Then, secondly wrap it up in "flesh and blood" by refering to a suitable historical context. In that order.
Far too many times some people here try to do it the other way around. They contributes with endless history-arguments, and the important issue of whats best for civ-gameplay always seems to come second place.

And now to my "anti-war under democracy" point:

Is it likely that a modern western democracy of today tries to conquer-and-keep other established countries by military means, in the same way Napoleon or Hitler did?
If its NOT likely (partly because of fear for nuclear holocaust, and partly because of very strong anti world-war feelings) - why shoudnt this anti war-romanticizing anti-militaristic conquer-to-keep unvillingness ALSO be portrayed in the civ-game, under late-game democracy? Or put it this way:

Why is it "historically correct" to totally ignore the western world war-disillusioned anti-war feelings, under Civ-democracy - while it, at the same time its considered "historically correct" to over-emphasize all comparibly minor examples of democracy-endorsed military envolvement in civil-wars around the globe?

Mind you: I am NOT against Civ-3 democracy-endorsed foreign military envolvement in civil-wars (helping allies and such, but also with self-conscious "worldpolice objectives": Veitnamn, Irak). I am also NOT against retaliating a fullscale-invasion on your Civ-democracy. I am NOT against that, of course.

What Im dead against is the idea that one, under Civ-democracy, should be able to initiate fullscale empire-wars, with the intention to keep the conquered land forever, for no other reason that you happen to be the strongest democracy-empire in military areas.
This, in itself, shouldnt be an sufficient-enough world-conquest engaging factor, then playing under democracy. Even some annoing, but controlable border-quarrels shouldnt be enough reason for the senate to permit you fullscale wars.
You can prepare a huge army under democracy, yes (compare with USA military power), but you should NOT be able to initiate empire-land grabbing wars in Civ-3, under democracy, without VERY, VERY STRONG reasons.
The conquer-to-keep senate-overule factor must be much stronger in Civ-3, comparing with Civ-2. If you have provokative Hitler- or Stalin-type of war-objectives; OK, fine - just convert to nationalism or communism.

Again: my main anti-war democracy focus-point however is about game-balance & challenge though. If Civ-democracy is allowed to excellence too much in ALL areas, including trouble-free military world-conquest - then this government-type simply becomes too strong and powerful for its own good.

Quote:
Originally posted by rah
He just dismisses them with a wave of his hand. [...]

He called my example a "A rather lame grasping-for-straws example". This is not the kind of language you use when you are trying to convince people or convey an idea. (see sig below) He brings on the anti feeling with his arrogance. [...]

I have liked a lot of some of his ideas. But the way he presents them and treats others ideas will not make him any friends around here.
OK, rah - lets make the following comparison: Lets look at two opposing politicians that argues in a TV-casted debate: Now, whats possible for them to say and do here - what is the unwritten debating- & behaviour rules in front of the camera?

Well, on one end of the scale, these politicians cant swear at each other and call each other by names. Nor can they engage in hand-to-hand combat. Such behaviour would look very bad, and it would ultimately hurt their reputations pretty much. They must of course hold a decent level after all.

On the other end of the scale; Above politicians cant act too tenderfoot either. They cant interpret opposing arguments in over-sensitive ways - perhaps even starting to cry in front of the camera, whilst pointing a finger towards the opponent, saying; hes mean - he sweepingly dismissed my arguments when he said:

"So much for that. We don't have to look much farther for other examples, just check your history books." Or...
"A rather lame grasping-for-straws example, If you ask me."

My bottom line is: Dont take it personally. Dont interpret "hardnosed" (but still decent & above the belt) argumentation in over-sensitive ways (in short: rah - give me a break, please).

Here a few Apolyton debating-rules that can help ALL of us:
  • Criticzize, complement or praise the reply - NOT the person behind the reply.
  • Gameplay & game-balance is the skeleton - start with that, and add historic "flesh & blood" later.
  • Dont try to convert a "thumbs down" responder - use him as a argument-sharpening grindstone instead.
  • Dont pick & choose historic arguments only, in order to dismiss what you dont like. History is relative.
  • Dont dismiss the idea just because the "wrong" person suggested it. Give it a chance.
  • Try not to sweepingly judge ideas in a "glass half-empty" kind of way.
  • Dont be abusive and dont be oversensitive.
  • Dont address replies to the person - address it through the person to the rest of the forum.

Last edited by Ralf; June 26, 2001 at 17:56.
Ralf is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 18:28   #44
TechWins
King
 
TechWins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
What Im dead against is the idea that one, under Civ-democracy, should be able to initiate fullscale empire-wars, with the intention to keep the conquered land forever, for no other reason that you happen to be the strongest democracy-empire in military areas. This, in itself, shouldnt be an sufficient-enough world-conquest engaging factor, then playing under democracy. Even some annoing, but controlable border-quarrels shouldnt be enough reason for the senate to permit you fullscale wars.
You can prepare a huge army under democracy, yes (compare with USA military power), but you should NOT be able to initiate empire-land grabbing wars in Civ-3, under democracy, without VERY, VERY STRONG reasons.
The conquer-to-keep senate-overule factor must be much stronger in Civ-3, comparing with Civ-2. If you have provokative Hitler- or Stalin-type of war-objectives; OK, fine - just convert to nationalism or communism.
This is something I do agree with. There is no way the people in the US would comply with the US to just go attack and take over Mexico or Canada, just for the purpose of conquering. The people aren't going to be happy seeing their sons or daughters dying in war just for the purpose of glorification of their nation. Nobody is going to be happy doing a war like that. That is why there should be severe reprucutions. There has to be an important reason to go to war (i.e. WW1-Pearl Harbor and many other reasons, Korean War and Vietnam War-Stopping Spread of Communism, Persian Gulf War-Iraq's attack on Kuwait, etc...).

Ralf, what I am against is your model for changing gov'ts. I just don't really like it. Not just for historical purposes either more towards gameplay purposes. I am a fun gameplay before a realistic gameplay person as well. Even though your model really wouldn't effect me in the game because I only play as Despotism, then a Republic, and finally a Democracy.

Quote:
My bottom line is: Dont take it personally. Dont interpret "hardnosed" (but still decent & above the belt) argumentation in over-sensitive ways (in short: rah - give me a break, please).
Ralf, what you have to understand is people don't like to be shewed away when stating there opinions. Not many people liked your idea but everybody at least accepted what you had to say.

Quote:
Here a few Apolyton debating-rules that can help ALL of us:
I really don't want a set of rules I absolutely have to follow. I mean all your rules should be followed but I think it's sad that I saw the day that they had to be written down. There just common curtisy rules.
TechWins is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 19:19   #45
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
This is something I do agree with. [...]

Ralf, what I am against is your model for changing gov'ts. I just don't really like it. Not just for historical purposes either more towards gameplay purposes. I am a fun gameplay before a realistic gameplay person as well. Even though your model really wouldn't effect me in the game because I only play as Despotism, then a Republic, and finally a Democracy.
This is what I would like to call "glass half full" kind of critizism. No repetitious bashing with relative pick-and-choose history-examples. Just calmly explain why one dont like it, and perhaps also mention some alternative solutions that would work better.

Quote:
Ralf, what you have to understand is people don't like to be shewed away when stating there opinions.
TechWins, believe me - I know exactly how that feels (being shewed away, that is). If responding civers could explain why they dont like it, and maybe come up with alternative solutions, that works better (or alternatively simply ignore the topic), then I would feel better.
Its those short & sweepingly dismissive pick-and-choose history-examples, and the adrupt "so much for that. We dont have to look much further..." statements, that triggers me. Every coin have two sides, you see. Its not only me that should think twice how things can be perceived.

Quote:
I really don't want a set of rules I absolutely have to follow. I mean all your rules should be followed but I think it's sad that I saw the day that they had to be written down. There just common curtisy rules.
Those was not meant to be officially "chiseled in stone". I just typed them down anyway.
Ralf is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 20:06   #46
Alexander's Horse
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Alexander's Horse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: In a tunnel under the DMZ
Posts: 12,273
Ralf needs some manners
Bah! Ralf is a newbie. He may have some good ideas but he needs to improve his attitude. He wasn't around when the lists were done for example and like most of you newbies, he often brings up ideas that have been discussed before.
__________________
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer.

Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Alexander's Horse is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 20:35   #47
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Re: Ralf needs some manners
Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Bah! Ralf is a newbie. He may have some good ideas but he needs to improve his attitude.
OK, I shall try to improve my attitude. Im not completely unsensitive too criticizm, you now.

Quote:
He wasn't around when the lists were done for example and like most of you newbies, he often brings up ideas that have been discussed before.
Actually I was.

I was "Ralph" back then. Check out the "Fans who contributed" list. Since then I dropped our for a long time - then re-enlisted again under a slightly changed "Ralf".
Ralf is offline  
Old June 26, 2001, 21:29   #48
Alexander's Horse
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Alexander's Horse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: In a tunnel under the DMZ
Posts: 12,273
Oh - its RALPH
Be as rude as you like then
__________________
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer.

Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Alexander's Horse is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 08:46   #49
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
Ralf,

Gee, A listing of rules as you see then, how condescending.

Your arrogance is simply amazing.

But, Thanks for proving my point.

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 09:47   #50
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I would suggest that this thread has drifted so far away from calmly debating the original issue that it should be stopped and a new debate opened elsewhere if you still think it worthwhile.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 10:56   #51
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Here we go for my thoughts on the subject:

Ralf, it's not just democracies that have begun to give up plans of conquering the entire world; it's everybody. China doesn't want to conquer all of Asia; they just want a free hand in Tibet and control of Taiwan. The last "we want it all" war was WWII. Why? Not because of any particular gentling of spirit under democracy, but because nationalism has evolved to the point that people will no longer accept their rule by a foreign power. In the middle ages and before, provinces were traded between nations like so many bargaining chips, and their population merely grumbled. Now, there would be open revolt. The futility of conquest in the modern age has therefore been demonstrated. The only way to hang on to captured territory now is to drive the original inhabitants out and replace them with your own people. That's why I'm a big fan of culture in Civ III. I think that after you discover Nationalism, your culture rating should get a large boost, and should continue to grow every turn, as the idea of a national identity becomes ever more ingrained in your people. By the time you've had Nationalism for thirty or forty turns, conquest of your cities should amount to virtual suicide. The cities should have upwards of a ninety percent chance of rebelling or undergoing discontent. Nevertheless, once you've hurt another nation enough by denying them access to special resources and by pillaging the countryside, they should be forced by their circumstances to come to terms. In the modern age, no style of government should have any chance of world conquest. I think that the discontent under democracy caused by the stationing of its troops in foreign lands is a good idea, and sincerely hope that it remains in Civ III. Actually, I hope it's strengthened, with the loss or damage of a unit causing additional discontent for a specified number of turns. Also, the "support all my troops from the city with Shakespeare's Theater" method of dealing with this should be removed. I think that the presence of discontent in a city, under any government form, should impair the efficiency of a city. Waste and corruption should exist, even under democracy and communism. These steps should be sufficient to insure that democracy is not always better as a government form.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 12:03   #52
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
KH good job,
While I'm sure there will a flurry of posts stating recent historical exception, your reasoning fits the model better then just limiting it to democracies (IMHO)

And I agree that once you've been "nationalized for a while" that it should make a considerable difference. I don't want to see it go overboard though. It should still be possible to conquer the world. (it is still a game where conquest should be an option) I don't mind making it harder but shouldn't be impossible.

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 12:24   #53
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I'm more in agreement with Krazy on this one. It should be possible to conquer the whole world in the modern age. It should not be possible to occupy it. So, you can nuke your opponents, destroy their cities and demolish their culture but you cannot produce enough units from your continent spanning empire to occupy their cities effectively and crush all opposition while their culture is strong.

The nightmare of millions of small acts of sabotage thousands of miles from your nearest friendly base would make the whole thing impractical. Of course, if you sieze two cities every 40 turns and continue this slow expansion from 1500 to 2020 then fair enough.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 13:21   #54
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Yes, I should point out that by "conquest" I mean taking and holding. I agree that it is still theoretically possible for a single nation to destroy every other nation; it is just not possible for a single nation to rule every other nation ā la Civ II end run howitzer blitz.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 13:27   #55
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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.
But werent most brit conquests before 1868? Can you really call Britain before the 1868 reform act, with a tightly property limited suffrage, still unvevenly sized electoral districts (though not as bad as before 1832) and with open (ie not secret) ballots a democracy? Certainly those were fighting further reform thought that they were opposed to democracy. When the reform passed
they (like Carlysle) bemoaned the establishment of democracy. Britain between 1832 and 1868 was a bourgieous (sp?) state, not in the Marxist sense, but quite literally, as they dominated the electorate and the political system (though aristos still dominated the cabinets) In Civ2 terms, a Republic.

What did Britain take post 1868? much of africa, but that was defensive, to keep out of the hands of other European powers. Burma and some other rounding out, Egypt with some reluctance, and of course the Boers. Tactical expansion, not a Civ style world conquering romp.

On the whole then Ralf is right, there have been no world conquering romps by demos. OTOH there have been only 3 such romps by anyone since 1868. WW2 of course, and arguably the German imperial expansion up to and including WW1, and the Soviet expansion from 1939 to 1985. Hard to make any judgements at all on a sample of only 3(of which 2 are themselves disputable). cant go back before 1868 - only great power demo before 1868 was US, and US was aloof from affairs outside North America. ( I dont think the Indian wars were Civ2 style conquests, more driven by local considerations than by geopolitics - the Mexican American war was more similar, though still on too limited a scale)

So i think the real problem with civ2, from the historic (and i suspect also the gameplay) point of view, is not the treatment of demos, but the extent to which it favors conquest and large empires, - "imperial overstretch" is not adequately reflected. But that has been discussed elsewhere quite extensively, I believe.

LOTM
lord of the mark is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 13:42   #56
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark

only great power demo before 1868 was US
Although they didn't have universal manhood sufferage (but France did implement it at around this time), I don't see how you can deny the status of Great Britain or France as democracies or Great Powers. After all, the franchise in many parts of the US before 1865 was limited to white men; a far cry from the democratic ideal.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 14:12   #57
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
It might be a little unrealistic to just consider the period between wwII and now. We don't know what will happen in the next 10 or 20 years. Some of these things that people here are postulating could happen.

Imagine if the US, China, India or the like is pushed up against the wall due to lack of resources or economic. The spiraling inflation in Germany, after WWI, effectively wiped out the entire savings of a whole generation certainly played a major role in what followed. Let's say the US has a REAL energy crisis. Spiraling inflation could wipe out the savings of a lot of people approaching retirement. Intense political pressure would be brought to bear. Drastic measures could be born out of desperation. (it has happened before).

How about widespread famine in India and China. I know India has had it's eyes on some choice property, and the Chinese have longingly looked north for centuries.

Now I know that people will say that the USSR went down without barely a whimper. But the focus there was on internal strife, and I believe we got a little lucky on that one. Maybe we won't get so lucky if they fall further. They always had plenty of resources, so going after new resources really wasn't the issue.

The era of Peace hasn't really lasted that long in historical terms.
But a couple of generations that know of nothing else, shouldn't ignore what preceded it. There are enough petty dictators around to keep our memories fresh.

RAH
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 14:18   #58
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally posted by rah
KH good job
I agree with rah - I am impressed. I certainly dont say that everything in KH's reply is undisputeable - but as a whole; Its good. I still hang on to some of my own previous arguments though, but now I can understand your viewpoint much better. All I can say is that I hope that Firaxis read this topic (ignoring the mutual mudslinging-parts), and concentrate on the somewhat better parts (and the replies commenting KH's, certainly fits in to the latter end of the scale).

One stumble-stone I have left is the one of dictatorially changing from happy/content citizen-populated democracy, to dictatorship. That really shouldnt be as easy as it was in Civ-2.

Quote:
Originally posted by rah
And I agree that once you've been "nationalized for a while" that it should make a considerable difference. I don't want to see it go overboard though. It should still be possible to conquer the world. (it is still a game where conquest should be an option) I don't mind making it harder but shouldn't be impossible.
Well, the very fact that "conquer-the-world" is an 100% confirmed Civ-3 victory-option, (obviously) ensures that militaristic end-game victorys IS possible (of course). Now - If I put aside the issue of democracy-endorsed militaristic world-conquest for a while, and concentrate on the question of HOW this conquest should be possible.

The way I look at it there should be a rubberband upper max-limit on cities you can controle directly. You can STILL continue your military world-conquest though - but you must accept that although you have conquered yet another city/empire they now have some limited (mostly administrative) freedom left. Refeer to puppet regime, wichy-regime, vassal-empire, castrated & domesticated ally-empire - call it what you like. They can still rebel against you, of course.

Exactly what (and what not) you should be able to do with this conquered vassal-empires - I leave that up to the team at Firaxis (unless you guys have any suggestions - then I join in).

What Im aiming at here, is that something should be done about the challenge-downsloping "The more cities you conquer, the more resources you get - to conquer even more cities, more easily then before" phenomenon. Now, admittedly the concept of "foreign cultures hard to assimilate" idea, together with finance-funded combat-units puts a growing strain on your military/ your economy. Is this enough?
Or should conquered empires (especially the ones with very different culture-values) be given some limited freedom (= the wichy-regime concept), and by that deny the conquer-nation 100% complete control & access in every area in his already conquered territory? I think so.

Last edited by Ralf; June 27, 2001 at 14:55.
Ralf is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 14:37   #59
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
"All I can say is that I hope that Firaxis read this topic (ignoring the mutual mudslinging-parts), and concentrate on the somewhat better parts (and the replies commenting KH's, certainly fits in to the latter end of the scale). "

Unfortunately I believe we're down to the "mental masturbation" stage. Fun to do but not much is going to come from it.
The game is way too close to completion (it better be). If I was on the programming team, I would have shut my door to any changes months ago, to perfect/test (hahahah) what we had already designed. The best we can hope for is that if they do read any of this forum in their spare time that if they see a bug from a previous version listed that can be fixed/changed easily, that they do it.

RAH
Still paranoid about the CTPII city limit happiness concept sneaking it's way into CIV III
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old June 27, 2001, 14:41   #60
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Or should conquered empires (especially the ones with very different culture-values) be given some limited freedom (= the wichy-regime concept), and by that deny the conquer-nation 100% complete control & access in every area in his already conquered territory? I think so.
I think having puppet states would be a great idea, and I think they'll have this since they sort of did in SMAC too. It'd be great for conquering the globe without bloodying things up (too much)

Alternately, I think a sort of neocolonialism would be good too, once it stops being profitable or plausible to maintain colonies, you should at least be able to control their economies and exert political and military pressure to get what you want from them, since they're so dependent

Quote:
only great power demo before 1868 was US, and US was aloof from affairs outside North America. ( I dont think the Indian wars were Civ2 style conquests, more driven by local considerations than by geopolitics - the Mexican American war was more similar, though still on too limited a scale
Quote:
Although they didn't have universal manhood sufferage (but France did implement it at around this time), I don't see how you can deny the status of Great Britain or France as democracies or Great Powers. After all, the franchise in many parts of the US before 1865 was limited to white men; a far cry from the democratic ideal.
I don't think anyone should claim the US was a democracy in the 19th century. Certainly no one back then did. While the word was beginning to be accepted back then, it still brought similar connotations to what it did in the age of our founding fathers, who were afraid of democracy. This is why we couldn't (and still don't ) vote for president, elect senators, or vote if you were a white male without land. The word only became completely accepted in the progressive era, and arguable didn't become the practice until either 1920 or the 60s, depending on how you want to look at it.
Imperial Germany had universal male sufferage before England, I don't see anyone claiming they're a democracy.

Last edited by JamesJKirk; June 27, 2001 at 14:58.
JamesJKirk is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright Š The Apolyton Team