What in the high holy fu$%?

Venger · November 23, 2001, 19:06

It's 1774, and having toured my empire mid turn, and having numerous cities in WLTPD, imagine my suprise with my domestic pimp telling me my citizens are overthrowing my democracy despite a 70% approval rate...what in the FUĊK is going on?

Boracks · November 23, 2001, 19:32

Pardon the obvious question, but is it possible that you had a city in disorder for more than one turn? I know that would cause a democracy to fall in CIV2 (which this isn't) and I know that, with the quick flash by, one doesn't always note the cities that are in disorder, or even that you have any.

(I would assume you checked but someone has to ask the obvious.

)

Excelsior · November 23, 2001, 19:38

Hmmm, I haven't seen that before. I didn't know it could still happen. I am quite confident that two consecutive turns of disorder does not neccesarily mean a revolt under democracy. As I've said, I've never seen that before and I have had my entire empire in disorder for two turns or more.

GePap · November 23, 2001, 19:43

Being in disorder for multiple turns is not a cause of anarchy for Dems. I say this out of experience, and also because if in game terms that were true, then war weariness (a big factor for dems which causes much unhappiness) would usually make democracy quite useless for war.
Hey Venger-perhaps there's enemy spies afoot.... And its nice to see Elvis again.

Venger · November 23, 2001, 19:43

Yes. I even have gone back and reloaded a previous turn, checked every city, and pumped luxuries up to 70% - there is not a city in disorder.

Unless I get some info on this that is satisfactory, I'm gonna have to vote "Bogus" on the whole damn shooting match... cause that's BS...

Venger

Excelsior · November 23, 2001, 19:47

I found this in the manual.

"War weariness (described earlier in this chapter) has a profound negative effect on your citizens' happiness. In fact, if you remain at war for too long, your Democracy can fall into anarchy."

Perhaps you have been at war with a one city civ for the last 600 years and just forgot about it? I know that doesn't make sense when your cities were in WLT_D, but it is all I can think of.

Excelsior · November 23, 2001, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
Yes. I even have gone back and reloaded a previous turn, checked every city, and pumped luxuries up to 70% - there is not a city in disorder.
Venger

Does it happen again when you reload?

Venger · November 23, 2001, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Excelsior
I found this in the manual.

"War weariness (described earlier in this chapter) has a profound negative effect on your citizens' happiness. In fact, if you remain at war for too long, your Democracy can fall into anarchy."

Oh GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK. Yes, I've been at war with the Aztecs for a long time. And kicking their ass. You telling me a democracy doesn't like a successful war? Oh my lord...

Quote:

Perhaps you have been at war with a one city civ for the last 600 years and just forgot about it? I know that doesn't make sense when your cities were in WLT_D, but it is all I can think of.

I think you've gotten it on the head. At least it's in the manual - make your opponents democracy fall by keeping him at war! What HORSE$HIT!!!

I half expected after that for a palace upgrade the way the damn thing works...

Thanks for finding it! Must modify...will let you know if it is modifiable in the editor...

Venger
P.S. Yes it happened after reloading and adjusting my luxuries just to test. Nothing I did would help. I've been trying to make peace the last few turns, and nobody accepts my envoy. Suddenly NOW they all allow contact...I must have tripped the "He's winning" trigger...

Excelsior · November 23, 2001, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
Thanks for finding it! Must modify...will let you know if it is modifiable in the editor...
Venger

The only thing you can do in the editor is to change the degree of war weariness. Since Republic has low war weariness and, according to the manual, no risk of anarchy, if would follow that if you change Democracy to low war weariness it would solve the problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger P.S. Yes it happened after reloading and adjusting my luxuries just to test. Nothing I did would help. I've been trying to make peace the last few turns, and nobody accepts my envoy. Suddenly NOW they all allow contact...I must have tripped the "He's winning" trigger...

Does it not happen if you make peace with all your enemies?

GePap · November 23, 2001, 20:28

You don't have to make peace with all those you are at war with, only those that you attacked, i.e you begun the war. According to the manual, if someone decleres war on you, it causes no war weariness in democracy. i don't know if this means that someone declaring war on you cancels out all war weariness, or if the computer keeps tack of which wars you are engaged in are of self-defense and aggression and manages war weariness accordingly.

dexters · November 23, 2001, 21:09

The Republic
is relatively efficient at allowing you to wage war without being hamgstringed up to your neck by ****ing hippies and communist subersives and their so called war weariness. We all know its a lame excuse at attacking your government so they can form a communist government.

Be aware of the hippies chanting anti-war slogans. They are not what they seem.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 21:22

Quote:

You telling me a democracy doesn't like a successful war? Oh my lord...

Hey, people wanted out of the Persian Gulf War, and there are many who adamantly oppose sending in any number of troops to Afghanistan.

It's realistic, and it adds a nice breaker to the power of a Democracy- which is good.

Zylka · November 23, 2001, 21:49

Yes, realistic. Watch for a citizen led coup detat to come out of the Afghan pummeling. Just like in the gulf war. Or the Vietnam war.

Realistic.

Rust · November 23, 2001, 21:57

Yes, I should hope that would happen if the government decides to ignore the greater majority of citizens.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 22:04

Quote:

Yes, realistic. Watch for a citizen led coup detat to come out of the Afghan pummeling. Just like in the gulf war. Or the Vietnam war.

Realistic.

Yes, as realistic as this game can get. Overthrows may symbolize an upset at the polls where those who were in power are voted out and their policies ignored. An abrupt change in a higher-echelon of decision-making will have a few turns of instability, lack of focus, and a general economic downturn. Listen to the polls, man.

Setsuna · November 24, 2001, 01:52

If you leave the game on too long at certain points, the game does a screen capture. It then opens a paint program and edits the pic. After the same event happens again the edited event happens instead.

Right Venger?

Venger · November 24, 2001, 02:03

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
The Republic
is relatively efficient at allowing you to wage war without being hamgstringed up to your neck by ****ing hippies and communist subersives and their so called war weariness. We all know its a lame excuse at attacking your government so they can form a communist government.

Be aware of the hippies chanting anti-war slogans. They are not what they seem.

Ah, the good old days, when I could be hawkish and virulently anti-left... now with the Soviets gone it's so much harder...

Venger

Venger · November 24, 2001, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Setsuna
If you leave the game on too long at certain points, the game does a screen capture. It then opens a paint program and edits the pic. After the same event happens again the edited event happens instead.

Right Venger?

You mean how Elvis looks? Yeah, that was pretty much how I looked, except my speech balloon said "What the FUĊK?"

Venger

Setsuna · November 24, 2001, 02:11

Wait a minute, you mean aside from that part of the pic the whole thing was for real?! That's not something you just made up!!!?

My gambit has failed - I must flee!!

Venger · November 24, 2001, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Setsuna
Wait a minute, you mean aside from that part of the pic the whole thing was for real?! That's not something you just made up!!!?

I have the Elvis domestic advisor mod, that's the actual screenshot where Civ3 told me to bend over and relax...

Venger

Setsuna · November 24, 2001, 02:18

Blah, I took one look at the pic and assumed it was all a hoax (And not just because of Elvis, the rough edges around the text looked edited.) Just like the supposed "Contact" victory.

I only looked around in the thread to see if anyone else had "realized" it was a hoax. Doh. >_<

Venger · November 24, 2001, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Setsuna
Blah, I took one look at the pic and assumed it was all a hoax (And not just because of Elvis, the rough edges around the text looked edited.)

Ah, the joys of JPEG compression artifacting...

Venger

Zylka · November 24, 2001, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Cian McGuire

Yes, as realistic as this game can get. Overthrows may symbolize an upset at the polls where those who were in power are voted out and their policies ignored. An abrupt change in a higher-echelon of decision-making will have a few turns of instability, lack of focus, and a general economic downturn. Listen to the polls, man.

That is a good justification. It should be labeled that way in a Democracy, but still shouldn't be so crippling.

Raleigh · November 24, 2001, 05:47

There should at least be some warning. That's the first time I have ever seen that too.

Also, successful prosecution of war can lead people to protest for an end to it. Consider, when soldiers achieve a major goal like acquisition of a new territory (Germany's acquisition of Alace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War - of course Germany was probably a Republic or Monarchy there), smacking down a rival in a decisive battle (where the winner has "proved the point" - Spanish American War) or undercutting a major enemy (Cambodian incursian).

When victory or war expansion occurs people may very well riot.

GodSpawn · November 24, 2001, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Yes, realistic. Watch for a citizen led coup detat to come out of the Afghan pummeling. Just like in the gulf war. Or the Vietnam war.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Imagine that the vietnam war had gone on for more than 250 years... That would change things a little, don't you think?

Ludwig · November 24, 2001, 11:48

I think, to a certain extent, many gamers' perception of the stability of democracy is colored by the fact that they are Americans. Despite the huge Civil War memorabilia industry, we have a tendency to consider our government absolutely un-toppleable, and we extend that impression to other democracies - or, at least, other MODERN democracies.

But I think the events in France in 1968 demonstrate that democracies are not anarchy-proof. Maybe Venger's war was made it necessary for some bureaucrat to raise tuition at the Venger Memorial College, and the students decided to burn the country down as a result. Why not? If it can happen to France it can happen to you.

I do agree with you that it was bogus for the event to recur on re-load after you raised luxuries to 70%. The random number you've got seeded in there must be REALLY bad. Maybe if you attacked with one more unit in the previous reloaded turn, to "burn" that really bad number, you'd get a more realistic result?

Venger · November 24, 2001, 13:20

Ludwig -

I don't think it was a random event, rather a cumulative event. So nothing I was going to do was going to change it. Except for making peace with the Aztecs, which I did, and alas, no fall of the government. I bet the game has a watermark counter that increments with every turn at war per civ...

That said, it's just STUPID to have my government, with a 70% approval rating and WLTPD all over the place, overthrow the government and go into a starving anarchy... there has to be a better way...

Venger

napalm010 · November 24, 2001, 13:52

Dont forget this fact about waging war in a Democracy. War weariness is decreased while being attacked (inside your borders). Once u start winning and take the fight to enemy civ, war weariness starts building. It assumes u are the attacker after first battle u do in enemy territory. U will receive a new at war message at this point. So u would need to make peace with that civ to decrease war weariness.

Venger · November 24, 2001, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by napalm010
Dont forget this fact about waging war in a Democracy. War weariness is decreased while being attacked (inside your borders). Once u start winning and take the fight to enemy civ, war weariness starts building. It assumes u are the attacker after first battle u do in enemy territory. U will receive a new at war message at this point. So u would need to make peace with that civ to decrease war weariness.

I don't like that rule - it just makes democracy weak. The rule should be modified so that if you are attacked, you can fight that same Civ until peace is made without weariness.

ALSO - I think weariness should be more influenced by success/failure and the loss of units than it apparently is.

Venger

napalm010 · November 24, 2001, 14:29

Venger I agree with u mostly. Personally think it should be linked to the damage u do to the enemy civ.

They attack u. U defend and return the favor to their territory. U take 2 of their cities. Message pops up, Your citizens feel they have been avenged. Continuing with your attack against "xxx" civ will result in war weariness increasing every turn.

This gives u the chance to payback the enemy civ and weaken them. Preventing them from having power to do attack again.

Or having weariness kick in after destroying certain # of enemy units.