Thread Tools
Old November 4, 2000, 14:49   #1
VanHalen78
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lake Villa, IL, USA
Posts: 8
Government, revolutions, and structure and policy part 1
I'd like to begin with a few general things, first with regard to revolutions, now why is it that the player or as i refer to it "supreme ruler of all" gets to choose when to have a revolution i believe it is up to the people to make that choice because there's never been a time when a government openly chooses to have a revolution it doesn't happen the people revolt and take over when the see it fit and also the government is an institution that is almost always for status-quo. Another broad topic would be the idea that no matter what government the player gets to have all power and do whatever he or she wants it makes no sense in a democracy and republic but of course thats ok with a dictatorship. so why are all governments the same??? Another flaw in governments i've seen is that while in a facist or communist government capitalism is allowed that is by no means any where near possible. Under capitalism the people work for the good of themselves or their wallet so in facist or communist government that isn't capable of happening becaues under those governments the people work for the good of the state and to support the war effort. thats all the general ideas i can think of for now please creators of Civ III don't make this mistake.
VanHalen78 is offline  
Old November 4, 2000, 17:21   #2
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
Actually, there have been times when the government has decided to have a revolution. Brazil as a matter of fact when going from a military dictatorship was a decision by the government. Actually, the last military president said "I'm gonna get Democracy if I have to break some heads!" Or something to that effect. True, a government that decided to switch is rare, but it does happen.
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old November 4, 2000, 23:38   #3
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
I am still in favor of the ability of popular revolutions in addition to government revolutions. I think that the people should be able to rise up. Check out the "Revolutions" topic.

As for the economies, that is true. I think that because the player gets to build the banks, factories, and other private businesses, it is like having communism all the way through the game. These businesses should be run independently under the AI except under fascism and communism.
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old November 5, 2000, 14:56   #4
Tical_2000
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 117

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.
Tical_2000 is offline  
Old November 5, 2000, 20:31   #5
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
I agree with tical. Firaxis could make a change so that the people choose to revolt. They could also change it so that you die after 75 years (~4 turns at the start of the game) like any normal person. This is a game not a historical simulator.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited November 05, 2000).]
Biddles is offline  
Old November 5, 2000, 21:34   #6
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
Dying after 75 years? Now you're just being ridiculous, Biddles.

But seriously, there is some merit to popular rebellions. There had better be. Otherwise, I spent a lot of time typing out a proposal in the "Revolutions" thread for nothing. 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.
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old November 5, 2000, 23:37   #7
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
I don't mind some danger for risky practices. If you push your people to hard, they may rise up against you... seems like part of the game --or should be!
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 6, 2000, 08:44   #8
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
Your citizens getting annoyed at you and revolting, yes this should be in the game. Your citizens deciding they want democracy and so have a coup d'etat, no, this shouldn't be in the game. It is ridiculous from a gameplay sense.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited November 06, 2000).]
Biddles is offline  
Old November 6, 2000, 17:39   #9
Tical_2000
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 117

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.
Tical_2000 is offline  
Old November 6, 2000, 18:43   #10
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
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.
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old November 6, 2000, 23:16   #11
roquijad
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Santiago
Posts: 383
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).]
roquijad is offline  
Old November 7, 2000, 01:25   #12
wernazuma
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
 

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 20:31.


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 © The Apolyton Team