Suggestion: Despotism

Shadowlord · April 7, 2002, 20:21

In the real world, a large number of countries are despotisms. There *are* some advantages to it, but it still has severe restrictions. IMHO, it can be improved in Civ, to be both more realistic and more fun.

Despotism should have very high (or no) limit on the size of the military. Plus, the military will unconditionally do whatever they're told (Not that the other government's militaries don't).

Due to the form of the government, however, anyone intelligent and cunning enough to want to displace the Despot will usually not be permitted to survive. It is a dog-eat-dog world in a despotism, and if the despot permits anyone to rival him, he may be taken out and replaced.

As a result, if a Great Leader under a Despotism goes to a city, there should be a chance of a civil war (as in civ 2 (a portion of cities becomes a new nation. The capital should be the city the leader went to.)). Of course, Despots can order the execution of Great Leaders with the disband button (so can other governments, but they have little reason to do so.).

In addition, for the same reason (Despots crush anyone qualified to replace them), in the event the leader is assassinated (See my post on suggestions for espionage), Despotism should have a 100% chance of a civil war.

With those penalties in mind, and the bonus for the military, the production restrictions on a despotism could be reduced, to make it more playable. The idea is to give it more flavor, and make it a viable government in the late game, if the player is willing to take the risk of civil war (There are things they can do to hold civil war off, such as execute any GLs they get and to have very high protection for their leader - Of course, a sleeper agent assigned to kill the leader may take 20 years to do so and have only a 10% chance of getting in position, but is unlikely that he would be stopped if he made it.)

GeneralTacticus · April 7, 2002, 21:22

A better idea would probably to keep Despotism as it is and have a 'Dictatorship' form of govt in the late game, to avoid unbalancing things early on with the ability to have a huge army.

Besides, military dictators may generally have bug armies, but they have to pay for them, and they do so at the price ofgenerally wrecking their national economy.

dawidge · April 7, 2002, 22:05

That sounds an awful lot like how civ3 classifies communism. Despotism with no sector production caps and, large unit support per city, and lower corruption.

Shadowlord · April 8, 2002, 10:38

Okay, Dictatorship in late-game would work.

Did I say corruption should be reduced? If I did, I was mistaken - It shouldn't be. Corruption can be expected to be very high in a dictatorship.

(FYI "Despotism" means the same thing as "Dictatorship," as "Despot" is the same thing as "Dictator," essentially. But it's fine for Civ III to make two separate governments.)

Inverse Icarus · April 8, 2002, 15:43

the modded Facism is a nice addition to any civ game, but because it's not "official" my friends wont let me play with it (we have a set of rules we plan to use for MP)

oh well. commies it is.

GeneralTacticus · April 8, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

(FYI "Despotism" means the same thing as "Dictatorship," as "Despot" is the same thing as "Dictator," essentially. But it's fine for Civ III to make two separate governments.)

If you want to split hairs about it, 'dictator' and 'despot' were actually titles in Rome and Byzantine. The Byzantines were ruled by 'despots', and in an emergency the Roman Republic was ruled by 'dictators'.