Civ 3 VS. History

[Zoke0]

Ok, I didn't make this thread to complain about the game, but discuss how things in real life compair to those in Civ 3. I'm not a history buff, but I love hearinbg about it, so you won't hear much from me.

To start this discussion I'll give a highly disscussed subject, Goverments. If you guys want to start new subjects feel free!! Thanks in advance for replying to this, I hope I learn more.

 

[jimmytrick]

You might want to buy EU or EU2. Playing those will give you an idea of how tightly intertwined goverance and religion have been throughout history.

 

[napoleon526]

As far as governments go, I think Civ3 did a pretty good job of staying true to history.

In general, the less personal freedom a government allows, the more of a problem corruption and waste will be. When people know they have more choice in how they live and how they are governed, they're less likely to try to exploit the system. And in capitalist govts like democracy and republic, efficiency is stressed, so less waste occurs.

For example, the USA, which in game terms is a republic, experiences much less corruption than the former communist USSR. One of the things I like about Civ3 is the fact that corruption is much more of a problem in communism than it was in Civ2. During the cold war, all consumer goods were distributed by the government, and it was much easier for those in power to use the system for their own personal gain, so the majority of the people had to deal with the corruption of others. This led to huge food shortages, and the Soviet Union eventually had to start buying food from the US.

Civ3 also did well with war weariness in governments. When Monarchy was the most common form of government, wars were just grudge matches between the blue-bloods in power. Armies were the private toys of kings, made up mostly of criminals and other "scum of the earth" as Wellington put it. The common folk had little reason to care about their ruler's wars, unless it meant increaed taxes. Only later, during the French and American revolutions, did war become really important in the lives of the people. Representative govts also allow greater freedom of the press, letting the people judge for themselves whether or not they approve of the conflict.

Sorry didn't mean to ramble. Hope I didn't bore anyone. It just happens when i'm writing about something that interests me.

Vive l'empereur!

 

[FenrysWulf]

Well, I agree that in some ways the governments are more accurate. Democracy has less corruption than the others. But it still has complete corruption in overseas colonies, and that's not accurate. In democracies, corruption is limited by public vigilance no matter where the city is. Is Hawaii or Guam completely corrupt because they are far from Washington D.C.?

Something that would be interesting to make the game realistic would be internal revolutions. For example, what if you destroy the Chinese and add them to your empire, but several turns later a bunch of cities secede and declare a new nation? This would be like the Balkanization of the world, where the formerly sovereign nations of an empire reassert their independence. This would be realistic and would make the game more challenging, but it would also be very annoying. Or what if your people just decide to rise up and overthrow the government to install a new system, like the American Revolution? Most revolutions are not state-sponsored.

 

[griffon65]

Yeah but if the made all the corruption in overseas city even 50% gone with democracy no one would ever choose another form of government.

 

[Park Ranger]

I find it helps to think of corruption as occuring in two forms: high-level and low-level. High-level is when corruption occurs among high level gov't, public, and business leaders. This occurs, to varying degrees, worldwide, no matter what the gov't.

Low-level corruption occurs when the most basic enforcement of, say, traffic laws, is undermined by police officers taking bribes instead of handing out tickets. This is, at least I believe, much more characteristic of poorer countries, where the salaries of public officials are at or below the poverty line.

I'm not sure how well the game reflects this distinction. You could say that democracy reduces the low-level type of corruption, but I don't think that is necessarily true. I'd say it's true for countries that have had a long experience with democracy, or where democracy as a practise was hammered out and tweaked over several generations, but not true for more recent "converts" to democracy. I'd say that corruption has more to do with the political culture (or how well political institutions are grounded in the culture of the people governed) than the actual "type" of government. But that's gotta be a can o' worms for programming.....

Just some thoughts...in the end, the accuracy of the model has to be tempered by playability, and the whole point of corruption in civ3 seems to be to make extended conquest more difficult (though not impossible, as players have slowly realized).

Comments welcome.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
You might want to buy EU or EU2. Playing those will give you an idea of how tightly intertwined goverance and religion have been throughout history.

Religon is a feature of both games? Well, I might just consider buying it after all; I thought of both as just hackeyed super-risks with a few bells and whistles.

R.III

 

[Carver]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf
Or what if your people just decide to rise up and overthrow the government to install a new system, like the American Revolution? Most revolutions are not state-sponsored.

Well this already happened to me. I was in a democracy and was attacked. I lost a few cities quickly. They were unimportant far flung towns so retaking them wasn't a priority. (I think your people get really mad if you don't liberate your territory.) About 10-15 turns into the war and I hadn't had any significant military victories. The war weariness was madness. Temples and libraries were getting torched left and right. And then I get a message that my civ is descending into anarchy. A few turns later the screen pops up to let me choose a government, naturally I go with communism.

 

[napoleon526]

In Civ2, if you captured an enemy's capitol, part of their civ would break off and become a different civ. This makes sense historically, since minority groups have traditionally tried to take advantage of govt disruption to form their own country. Recent examples would be the former Yugoslavia and the unsuccessful attempt by Kurds in Northern Iraq to declare independence after the Gulf War.

Has anyone experienced this in Civ3? I think this would make the game more realistic, and hopefully, more fun.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by napoleon526
When people know they have more choice in how they live and how they are governed, they're less likely to try to exploit the system.

Really ? Hmmm ... how you explain then the growing mobs in modern nations ??

The common folk had little reason to care about their ruler's wars, unless it meant increaed taxes.

And also plunder of their homes, army requisitions ...
But anyway - war represent also a chance for many common people. Cynical but true ...

Representative govts also allow greater freedom of the press, letting the people judge for themselves whether or not they approve of the conflict.

War wearinnes is historically innacurate ...
Nobody here didn't see the endless "joy manifestations" when WW I was declared ? Enormous number of vollontiers ???
Sometime people living in a democracy or a republic is easy to sustain a war that another form of governement !!

 

[Magnus]

Agreed with napoleon526 - the game cannot represent new and dynamic cultures entering into the world at any given time. The game works for a civ like China as they HAVE been around for 6,000 years or so, it fails for a civ like America, which simply did not exist 6,000 years ago but emerged and grew rapidly after the 17th century - civs just cannot do this type of thing in the game. Imagine playing Germany and hitting [ENTER] every turn (i.e. doing nothing) until 200 AD or so and THEN starting up - you'd get squashed by the exisiting civs like Egypt and Greece, even though historically around that very time, the Germans became quite dynamic and were able to supercede many of the advanced civs they met. Look at Islam in the 7th century or the Mongols in the 13th. Civilization (the game) represents an abstraction and streamlining of develpoment; the real world is far more chaotic. But I think they do very well within their limitations.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
War wearinnes is historically innacurate ...
Nobody here didn't see the endless "joy manifestations" when WW I was declared ? Enormous number of vollontiers ???
Sometime people living in a democracy or a republic is easy to sustain a war that another form of governement !!

There is actually a great deal of historical revision about the "joy manifestations" at the beginning of WWI - for example, I don't want to sound like a cultist since I have mentioned him elsewhere, but see Fergusson's "The Pity of War," where he finds a clear correlation between war-related unemployment and voluntary enlistment, for precisely the reason you state - war is an opportunity for some.

Also, WW1 proves the utility of war weariness. Germany and Russia both had their war effort suffer for it, even when Germany was doing relatively well in 1918. The US had war weariness produce draft riots in 1863-65. Think, too, about war weariness in England throughout the 1300-1650 period. Frequently wars ended because nobles and merchants rebelled because they got sick of paying for it.

 

[Parmenion]

My Classical history isn't great, but as far as I can remember, Democracy was discovered and used by the Ancient Greeks. The Republic was discovered and used by the Romans (please correct me if I'm wrong). The two civilisations were seperated by a few years, the Greeks being the earliest by quite a long way. Why then is the Republic an Ancient Tech and Democracy a Medieval Tech?

Somebody did point out that the Democracy of the Greeks is represented by the Republic in the game - why? Surely the Greek Democracy was a truer Democracy than that in use in many so called developed nations today. Besides, I really don't see what the difference in the two is. We have the Republic of Ireland which is a democracy, and also several other 'Republics' which are really Democracies.

Can a US citizen please tell me the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, apart from their relative Liberal and Conservative opinions. I mean, will your government system ever change if the other party are voted in?

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by Parmenion
Can a US citizen please tell me the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, apart from their relative Liberal and Conservative opinions. I mean, will your government system ever change if the other party are voted in?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. It isn't likely to change very soon. It could only change if it was overthrown or some illegal laws (unconstitutional) were passed changing the form of government.

 

[NY Hoya]

the difference between repulicans and democrats is simply a matter of political leanings, conservative and liberal respectively. Our government does not change substantially based on who gets elected. The two parties are very similar to what the Labour and Tory parties have become over the past few years in Britain. I won't go any further in an attempt to stop a potential flame war on this topic

 

[Parmenion]

So in Civ terms the US is not a Democracy - is that why you guys don't mind the occasional war?

No really, what is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic as defined by the dictionary (I'm gonna search the web for this in a sec), and how does this differ from game terms?

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Parmenion
No really, what is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic as defined by the dictionary (I'm gonna search the web for this in a sec), and how does this differ from game terms?

I'm not sure what the dictionary says, but I think that a republic is a form of government in which citizens elect representatives to govern in their place, so the US would be a republic. Rome was the first real republic, where the people choose senators to draft legislation and 5 consuls to act as an executive branch.

Democracy, however, is where each citizen has a vote on every issue. The people themselves rule, rather than senators governing for them. Athens was one of the only true democracies, because every male citizen had a vote and could decide policy. They still had a bueracracy to keep the govt running, though.

Again, i'm not sure if this explanation fits the official definition, it's just my interpretation. It seems that there are very few real democracies in the world. In response to an earlier post, I think that democracy is learned later in history because it's a more advanced concept than republic.

Just my $0.02.

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Parmenion
Can a US citizen please tell me the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, apart from their relative Liberal and Conservative opinions. I mean, will your government system ever change if the other party are voted in?

Republicans are mostly rich white males who are the lackeys of business and industry, as well as religious conservatives. Democrats are minorities, union members, poor people, environmentalists, and the rich white males they choose to represent them.

 

[Justus II]

I don't have a dictionary, but as I remember from my Political Science classes, the difference is in how the will of the people is implemented. A true democracy involves all citizens (or at least certain classes of citizens) voting on all major issues, basically government by referendum. The ancient Greek city-states developed this model. Currently, I think the Swiss have the closest with their Cantons or town meeting concept. California is in some ways getting closer to this with the number of propositions they have on each ballot. There are some who predict that with the Internet, a true democracy would become more feasible than in the past.

A republic, on the other hand, involves the use of representatives who are elected by the people to express their will. Thus, we elect senators/representatives or members of parliment from each region, and then they meet and decide what policies to carry out. It is intended to restrain some of the excesses of the popular will. Most modern "Democracies" actually fit this catagory. The Roman model with their Senate was one of the first nations to use it.

There's probably more to it than that, but that is the main distinction as I recall. The way they are represented in the game I think has more to do with showing an advancement over time, but Republic is probably the most realistic definition.

EDIT: Didn't mean to repeat Napoleon, you must have posted while I was typing!

 

[Willem]

Originally posted by Parmenion
My Classical history isn't great, but as far as I can remember, Democracy was discovered and used by the Ancient Greeks. The Republic was discovered and used by the Romans (please correct me if I'm wrong). The two civilisations were seperated by a few years, the Greeks being the earliest by quite a long way. Why then is the Republic an Ancient Tech and Democracy a Medieval Tech?

Somebody did point out that the Democracy of the Greeks is represented by the Republic in the game - why? Surely the Greek Democracy was a truer Democracy than that in use in many so called developed nations today. Besides, I really don't see what the difference in the two is. We have the Republic of Ireland which is a democracy, and also several other 'Republics' which are really Democracies.

Can a US citizen please tell me the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, apart from their relative Liberal and Conservative opinions. I mean, will your government system ever change if the other party are voted in?

The ancient Greeks weren't as democratic as many people think they were, only a very select few were allowed to vote on issues. Mainly male citizens, either landowners or fairly wealthy merchants etc. Much of their actual production was done with slaves who had absolutely no say in anything, and women were barely allowed out of the house. They also had a system of indentured servitude for natural born Greeks, since slavery for poorer citizens would have been unthinkable. So it was actually more of an Oligarchy than a true Democracy.