One Empire, Two (or more) Governments

Domandest · Apr 8, 2005

Okay, so let's say you're a democracy. You take over another civ. Now you have all these cities that you have to rule justly, make happy, etc. Bull!!!!! You don't want to suddenly give these enemies a say in your government, or worry about their happiness and wotnot. You want to rule that district as a military despotism, don't you?! You want to population-rush everything, blatantly exploit everything whereever possible! :king:

! Isn't that how empires work? No empire, not even the US, has governed its colonies as it has governed its core. To do so would be naive and stupid. By not allowing this, Civ III makes coldly efficient administrations impossible without having unwanted effects on your core area(s), the only producing cities you actually really might care about.
How this can be instituted in practice may be tricky. Suggestions?

DOMinateAndDESTroy
DOMANDEST
DOMANDEST
DOMANDESTRUCTION

Domandest · Apr 8, 2005

Let me add for purposes of clarity that I am fat and sassy.

Moderator Action: Warned for spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

sir_schwick · Apr 8, 2005

I believe in the thinking presented here. Being able to rule your cities/regions under different government types(some primary, some colonial) would be extremely useful.

Louis XXIV · Apr 8, 2005

Its a very good point. I think corruption might have been changed, so my suggestion is probably out of date, but making it have less corruption would make sense. On the negative side, it would also increase the chance of rebellion.

Domandest · Apr 9, 2005

We are all caught in the trap of believing in corruption or effeicient administration/rebellion. The balance struck in an indubiable necessitation but ultimately only of ephemeral consequence. No empiure has lasted that has not garnered sufficient means of decreasing corruption, yet it has been done. CIV must give us that oppurtunity and ifg that means ruling parts of the empire by force and cruelty and unmitigated evil then SO BE IT.
DOMANDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEST

Aussie_Lurker · Apr 9, 2005

Well, 'Corruption' may well be better represented as 'Crime' and 'Stability'-both of which would be respresented as a %. This way, newly acquired cities with very few shields or 'commerce' will suffer far less from even quite high levels of either (after 50% of 2 is 1-always rounded down

!) Wheras your larger cities, with lots of shields will potentially suffer from even small amounts of instability and crime (10% of 45 shields is 4-which could make all the difference in a close game!)
Anyway, back O/T now, I think that what Domandest has suggested would be possible IF your nation could be arranged into provinces-as has been suggested before. The default civic and government settings for all your provinces would be the same, but you might have the power to go in and change these on a province by province basis. For instance, you may be a democracy, but wheras your sufferage levels in the 'Homelands' might be greater than 60%, your sufferage levels in the Conquered Provinces may only be around 10-20% (meaning that your give rights to certain key collaborators, but no-one else).
Anyway, I agree with the idea-in principle.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Naokaukodem · Apr 10, 2005

Domandest said:
You don't want to suddenly give these enemies a say in your government, or worry about their happiness and wotnot. You want to rule that district as a military despotism, don't you?!

No. I want to unificate the people to create an empire of hapiness and prosperity.

But the idea of several governements is interesting, particularly for corruption or have the occasion to rule more than one civ at a time. I think it would be interesting to play more than one civ at a time. They could be allied and do commerce, and elaborate war and invasion strategies. Anyway it would be an interesting feature.

KrikkitTwo · Apr 10, 2005

I think that 'governments' should be the way of defining the relationship between a city and a civ. So when a city rebels, it nolonger wants to associate with your civ in the way it currently is (ie it doesn't want to be an English Monarchy) If it still likes your civ enough you may win it back by offering it a type of relationship that it wants (English Fascism) but if it is disgusted enough with your civ, it doesnt want to 'just be feudal' it wants nothing to do with you and will either associate with a new civ or go out on its own. (unless you have enough troops to forcibly bring it back in)
So 'occupation' or 'Colonial' could be modifications to governments 'Colonial Republic' 'Communist Protectorate' etc.

sir_schwick · Apr 10, 2005

Also this could change the way many wars play out, especially in decentralized states. Often local warlords would pledge fealty of some kind to whomever they thought would bring the best security/prosperity(culture is an important part of that though). This means if you defeat the former ruling military(who probably had a similar deal), you can give cities(ruling elites) the option of joining your nation under whatever form of rule.

Aussie_Lurker · Apr 10, 2005

That could be another kind of Civic Setting-how centralized or provincial your mode of government is. A highly centralized setting would be good for smaller nations, as it effectively boosts the power of the capital in terms of cultural osmosis and stability boosting-but only over a limited distance (perhaps the distance is inversely proportional to the boost). Beyond this range, though, stability and cultural corruption would be even HIGHER than normal-meaning that far flung cities would benefit more from a decentralized government system, but that your inner cities will be less stable/cultural than normal. Swings and Roundabouts is probably how to best describe it.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Lockesdonkey · Apr 10, 2005

Erm, why not call this civic setting federalism? Out of sheer curiosity...

CoolioVonHoolio · Apr 10, 2005

I think that we should also have states and in those states you can change the govt. (slightly) for the purpose of the state.

elementgoo · Apr 10, 2005

I think that this is a good idea because the cities gained from military conquest (especially distant cities) offer little economic help in the area of shileds.

Aussie_Lurker · Apr 10, 2005

Well, Lockesdonkey, the NAME of the civic setting is less important-IMHO-than what it actually does-which is to determine to what extent the running of your nation is directed from a central location. The more central your nation, the more stable it is-but to a less effective distance. The more Federal or Provincial, then the lower the stability boost-but the effective range is boosted. The other upside/downside to centralised/decenentralised states is the amount of power your governors have to change your build orders and/or your shield/food/income priorities.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Domandest · Apr 11, 2005

I very MUCH like the idea of provincial/federal distinction. Another tradeoff this entails might be cultural profusion. If you are French and federal, those cities that are attached to you in a federal manner will be stable but will become "french" very slowly. This is because FEDERAL systems allow for multiculturalism. Unitary/provincial systems are the opposite tradeoff, which is fast cultural hegemony/homogeny but for at the cost of stability and loyalty for a smaller core area.

The question is now should this be a feature of the civ or of the government type? Maybe a multi-directional government type like democratic-federal or monarchy-unitary might be worthwhile.

DOMANDESTROYNESS

mastertyguy · Apr 12, 2005

Me too I like this idea. Would be fun to see a "unnamed" province separate from a "unnamed" country :lol:

If you don't see what I'm talking about, see my signature.

Synthshadow · Apr 13, 2005

mastertyguy said:
Me too I like this idea. Would be fun to see a "unnamed" province separate from a "unnamed" country
If you don't see what I'm talking about, see my signature.

I see it but unfortunatly I cant read it, not that advanced in my french, could you help me? :confused:

Aussie_Lurker · Apr 13, 2005

Well, I can't be certain of EXACTLY what the sig says, but the gist of it is that he is a supporter of Quebec's seccession from Canada. Am I right? If so, what do I win

!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Synthshadow · Apr 13, 2005

Respect from me for a start! :worship:

Che Guava · Apr 19, 2005

I like the idea of having specific rules for particular cities, especially in conquest situations, but wouldn't it be easier to just be able to declare matrial law one city at a time? Let's say you're a democracy and you just took over a province of a rival: each new city you take could be run under martial law (as if the city was in a despotism) until things cool down, resistors have disapeared and you can integrate them into your society at large. I think this might also be useful for putting down mobs of unhappy citizens in border cities when you attack thier "mother countries"...

One Empire, Two (or more) Governments

Chieftain

Chieftain

Archbishop of Towels

Le Roi Soleil

Chieftain

Deity

Millenary King

Immortal

Archbishop of Towels

Deity

Liberal Jihadist

Quit WoW, back to Civ.

Lazy Monarch

Deity

Chieftain

I'm tired!

Bow to my Chieftainess

Deity

Bow to my Chieftainess

The Juicy Revolutionary

Similar threads