Addressing The People

[BlueNine]

I have an idea that would help give Civ rulers a chance to talk with their people. Being able to Publicly Address the peoples of the nation would mean that you (or the current gov leader, under your control) could, for example, explain why there was/is/will be a war and afterwards it gives you an indicator of how well it went, like "50% of the populous are in favour of a war against Italy, 38% are against a war altogether, 10% are in favour of waiting to see how things develop, 2% are in favour of surrender" and it decreases war wariness for a few turns.

This could be done in a Political Leader unit, that appears randomly and has the action of "switch government" (1/2 normal Anarchy time) or "address the people".

 

[Mewtarthio]

I'm in favor of this, but I think that such effects shouldn't be limited to a Great Leader (there's already a large topic on Propaganda. Perhaps said Leader should increase the effects of Propaganda?) The leader shouldn't be completely random, but I can't think of what would trigger it right now.

 

[sealman]

my people would alwa ys say that they are 100% behind my actions. Afterall, if they don't agree...

or :suicide:

after all, i am

 

[dh_epic]

I think the execution is off, but your heart is in the right place. There needs to be an element of public opinion in the game.

 

[Arathorn]

I can right-click on any unhappy citizen and get their feeling on things. I think the current abstraction is very good and adding complexity here is completely unwarranted.

Arathorn

 

[ybbor]

i assume when i go to war i have alreadt adressed the people

 

[Ian Beale]

I think it could be a good idea. In a democracy you could avoid war weariness by telling the people why you are going to war, they may then support the reason or oppose it. If a majority oppose then war weariness will be very damaging, if they approve it will be insignificant.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

One way of doing it, perhaps, would be via a 'SMAC council' style system! In this system you would have 'factions' such as 'Religious', 'Military', 'Workers', 'Commercial' and 'Upper Class'. Each faction has a particular 'Influence' based on your government type, social engineering factors and your current civ characteristics, and each faction will also have its own 'happiness' rating . Anyway, if you want to go to war with another civ, for example, without dealing with massive war weariness and unhappiness, then you can go to the factions with the greatest influence and convince them to go along with you! This could entail bribes and/or rhetoric but, if successful, any happiness losses due to otherwise unpopular decisions could be held off til later! Of course, you could still go to war, make trade deals, build improvements etc without consultation, but you suffer greater chances of decreased happiness-especially in more democratic societies. The flip side of this system would be that, at the beginning of a turn, you might get a rep. of one of the factions asking to speak with you about a matter that affects their interests. If you fail to do something about their concerns, then their happiness will decline. Of course how bad this is in the overall scheme of things would depend on their current level of influence!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Wow, I like that factions idea. (Has a more meaningful ring than "domestic affairs"). I'd really like to see your civilization split into several groups, rather than one congealed "we all love this / we all hate this" mass. It's one of those really important history type things, and couldn't ring more valuable even today.

Moreover, I'd just like to be able to exploit it in my enemy. "The Russians are having trouble pleasing their workers... maybe we'll see how well they can dominate when their workers rise up!" Or "The Romans are being absolutely vicious to me in this war. Maybe I can make an appeal to their religious wing to put an end to this cruelty. Propaganda: away!"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also, I really don't see the Factions adding a great deal extra work to the game either! It would work pretty much the same way as normal diplomacy-except you would enter it through the domestic advisor! You could offer to reduce working hours or increase wages/rations, you could promise to increase the amount of luxuries or reduce taxation-all to make the various factions happy! The flip side is that 'well, now I have made YOU happy, will you agree to me doing THIS....'! If you can get ebough of the factions to agree with your plans (be they domestic or foreign) then you should be able to offset any negative consequences! The number of factions you would need behind you would depend on their influence, and the type of government you are in!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[dh_epic]

I think it would be pretty neat to see your military advisor, economic advisor, and domestic advisor all step up when you declare war.

Military: I think we can kick their ***.
Economic: We jeopardize an important traderoute through their waters.
Domestic: The religious population is asking you to give peace a chance.

Giving you a chance to set things right: organize a traderoute through other waters, and offer a little luxury boost to your religious population. Or impose an embargo on your enemy, and rally your supporters among the worker population.

 

[Trade-peror]

The idea of factions actually reminds a bit of Tropico, where citizens belong to various factions and view the ruler accordingly, with rebellion being a possible last resort. Pleasing the factions (and the leaders) would then assure support when elections came up.

Although I would not want elections every couple of years deciding the player's fate, I think the idea of factions would be excellent and could impart a greater sense of having to manage a real population, as opposed to an army of mindless automatons (wasn't there an option called "nerve-stapling" in SMAC? ).