Elections in CIV3

ivorgrubisic · April 18, 2000, 07:33

I support the concept the nation's attitude changing. I think this could be done in a very interesting way through national elections. This would add to internal policy making.

The player as a leader would always be the main figure in a nation's politics (he would stay in power the whole game) but he would have to consider the opinion of the parliament (or senate...). The role and the power of the parliament would depend on the sort of government the nation had. It would be strong in democracy and weaker in republic. Of course the elections wouldn't exist as such in communism and fascism but you would still have to face minor pressures from your (potential) political opponents preparing a coup.

My vision of civ3 elections is based on a political system with 3 or 4 parties (e.g. socialist, nationalistic, religious, environmentalist) which would compete in elections every 20 turns or so. If parties that oppose your ways of leadership won the elections you'd have to either change your internal or foreign policy, change your political system or you could try to crash the parliament fall (and face new elections).

You could also use wonders like Propaganda or media control to make sure the voters supported the parties closer to you.

Other nations (at least the democratic ones)would of course also held elections and this would ensure their change of policy now and then. If they had a parliament similar to yours, they 'd be more willing to ally with you etc.

I know my thoughts are a bit confusing but I think it would make the game more interesting and still would complicate it too much.

I don't especially like the idea of leaders themselves changing but I do support randomness in a leaders attitude. Why couldn't Hitler be peaceful or Gandhi aggressive (in another set of historical circumstances).

Tell me what you think and excuse my bad spelling.

You can email me on : grubi@email.si

------------------

Earthling7 · April 18, 2000, 08:20

A generally good idea. I think 20 turns would be too much though. 10 maybe? The reason being that in real life, governments are sometimes half way through a painful improvement when they face another election.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

MidKnight Lament · April 18, 2000, 21:09

I agree with your nation having an attitude, but I'm not sure that having political parties is the best way to represent it. I think it might get a little complicated, and also constantly requiring your attention. It'd feel like there was elections going on all the time. I'm not dead set aganist it, but I've got some reservations.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 18, 2000).]

ivorgrubisic · April 19, 2000, 08:17

In the early years elections as such wouldn't exist. In this phase certain social groups like clerics or royalties would implement some pressure (or 'friendly advice) to meet their political goals. With democracy, republic and to some extent communism and fundamentalism elections would exist. However, the strength of different political parties would change subtly, so generally political situation would change in the long run. This could only change as a result of radical events regarding your civ such as unexpected wars, attrocities etc.

I admit that the idea should be worked upon.

Donn · April 19, 2000, 15:50

To my opinion the introduction of elections elevates the simulation to a higher ground.
Your simulated subjects would become fellowmen.
There are certain ways of interference already implemented in Civ2 (via Republic
or Democracy Governments), but if you are required to deal with your people almost
on equal terms (having to concede to their political, military or social attitudes) it
would surely be a totally new level of complexity. I expect this to be Civ5 or Civ6.
I'm looking forward to it nevertheless.

tniem · April 19, 2000, 20:56

I think the best way to deal with public opinion is the newspaper idea that evolves through history. In old SimCity style the paper could tell their opinion of you and a couple things that they are gripping about. You then as the leader would have to fix the problems in order for you to stay in power.

In Democracies, war would not be hard to declare it just would be harder for the people to support you and thus you could have a revolution or Civil War on your hands.

Also, if you have a low tax rate and your people's number one gripe is taxes than you know that your country is doing well.

April 20, 2000, 01:36

So what happens if you are communist or fundamentalist or fascist or something?

Perhaps if your secret police isn't strong enough and the people don't support your policies, they could revolt automatically..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

ivorgrubisic · April 20, 2000, 05:34

Well, if you a have a fascist/fundamentalist government it's presumed that you have stronger control over public opinion and your political ooponents (at the expense of larger trade, science etc.), so you wouldn't have to bother as much with internal problems. But in democracy (which every average player of civ2 preferres anyway) would you have to be really careful not to 'piss on someone's shue'.

Sirotnikov · April 20, 2000, 13:06

Oh come on people!

communist and fascist governments don't hold REAL elections. People get a piece of paper that looks like that:

---------------------

"Please confirm that you support your current government by drawing a circle around the correct answer"

Yes* *****no

---------------------

No real elections. The only way this govt. can fall is if there is lot's of unhappyness and the police isn't strong enough.

(Edited to correct the colors)
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited April 20, 2000).]