I really think that Civs fighting against fascism should experience much less war weariness than fighting any other goverments, even if you are demo! Simply because the people should know that their army are actually fighting for a good cause...
Fighting Fascism
- Thread starter sausnebb
- Start date
Exactly, the fascist civ has of cause no WW. But I think it's a little wierd that if I'm a democratic civ and am at war against a foul fascist one, all of my democratic citizens are complaining... There are so many benefits by being fascist in CIVIII, that I think one disadvantage should be that your enemies woudn't have much WW, so they can actually fight you with democracy. That's both likely and makes a better balance, I think.
Blackbird_SR-71
Spying from 85,000 ft
I agree. but why don't we just extend this so that includes that theirs less WW if your fighting your civs shunned government. Now that would be interesting.
Blackbird_SR-71 said:
Yes it would. And in addition maybe every goverment could have a rate witch indicates how much WW you would experience if you fight them, e.g. (your gov y, their gov x):
Goverment Desp Mon Rep Feu Dem Com Fasc <---x
Desp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 1 2 3 2 3 2 0
Rep 2 2 3 2 4 2 0
Feu 1 1 2 2 3 2 0
Dem 3 4 5 4 6 4 1
Com 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fasc 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
....... or something, he-he
I think thins idea could work with some modification. WW should be based on several factors:
1. Gov't of opposing Civ
2. Average unit loss per turn
3. Reputation of opposing Civ (prior wars with civ)
4. Offense/Defense (did they attack you or did you attack them?)
Gov't factor should vary based on the extremism of that civ's gov't. If it where a Hitler-esque Fascism that your Pure Democracy was facing, very little war weariness would be experienced from this factor, however, if you were an absolute monarchy, with only 99.7% of your population owning anything, fighting a capitalist supergiant, war weariness would be catastrophic.
1. Gov't of opposing Civ
2. Average unit loss per turn
3. Reputation of opposing Civ (prior wars with civ)
4. Offense/Defense (did they attack you or did you attack them?)
Gov't factor should vary based on the extremism of that civ's gov't. If it where a Hitler-esque Fascism that your Pure Democracy was facing, very little war weariness would be experienced from this factor, however, if you were an absolute monarchy, with only 99.7% of your population owning anything, fighting a capitalist supergiant, war weariness would be catastrophic.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Modelling similarity and difference would be a great asset to the game. They could at least start with government.
Fighting someone more different should keep morale higher. Fighting someone similar should result in weariness sooner.
On the other hand, I think there should even be peace weariness for watching someone similar (even government wise) be attacked by someone different. Even with tension between nations, democratic countries generally unite in the face of an outside threat, the same with fascist nations, and even communist nations.
Fighting someone more different should keep morale higher. Fighting someone similar should result in weariness sooner.
On the other hand, I think there should even be peace weariness for watching someone similar (even government wise) be attacked by someone different. Even with tension between nations, democratic countries generally unite in the face of an outside threat, the same with fascist nations, and even communist nations.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
I don't agree with this, as look at the US now with the war in Iraq, sure we went to war against a Facist nation, but there is plenty of war weariness. I know in most of my games and propably a lot of others wars started by humans aren't usually out for a "good" cause.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
I wouldn't consider Iraq Fascist. Probably Despotism.
Edit: Oh, by the way, sausnebb, there's a new tag available:
that can make tables much easier to read:
[pre]Gov Dsp Mon Rep Feu Dem Com Fas
Dsp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 1 2 3 2 3 2 0
Rep 2 2 3 2 4 2 0
Feu 1 1 2 2 3 2 0
Dem 3 4 5 4 6 4 1
Com 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1[/pre]
^ Your table with pre tags
Edit: Oh, by the way, sausnebb, there's a new tag available:
PHP:
[pre][pre]Gov Dsp Mon Rep Feu Dem Com Fas
Dsp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 1 2 3 2 3 2 0
Rep 2 2 3 2 4 2 0
Feu 1 1 2 2 3 2 0
Dem 3 4 5 4 6 4 1
Com 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1[/pre]
^ Your table with pre tags
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Governmental difference still counts for a lot.
With 70% supporting the Iraq war at the start...
Just imagine if they wanted to go to war with a democratic country.
But like all good democracies, unprovoked war has been met with increased weariness and skepticism. Compare that to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the entire world rallied around America -- war does become justified, even if it's a lot to do with perception.
With 70% supporting the Iraq war at the start...
Just imagine if they wanted to go to war with a democratic country.
But like all good democracies, unprovoked war has been met with increased weariness and skepticism. Compare that to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the entire world rallied around America -- war does become justified, even if it's a lot to do with perception.
Philips beard
Prince
CIVPhilzilla said:
Yeah! agree! In Civ3 you can fight a long time with no WW if you are attacked when you are democratic! But if you are the aggressor, as the USA in Iraq, thats something quite different. It's not to be compared with the democratical nations fight vs the fascist states during WW2!
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
WW should not depend on the governemnt type you are fighting against. There certainly is more dependance on ww if you are the aggressor or the defender and this if fine now. (although it is easy to get the AI to attack you)
Maybe an atrocity system like in SMAC which influences WW would be good. Actions like killing other ethnicies (as it happens in Fascism automatically) or something like nerve stapling in SMAC if your people are rioting should be regarded as atrocities which should hit your rep and lower WW (or cause war happiness) for civs attacking you.
BtW what about a civ trait called "Chauvinism" which lowers WW for your civ and lowers the chances of flipping (in both ways) or include this into miitaristic (which would make sense, IMHO)?
Maybe an atrocity system like in SMAC which influences WW would be good. Actions like killing other ethnicies (as it happens in Fascism automatically) or something like nerve stapling in SMAC if your people are rioting should be regarded as atrocities which should hit your rep and lower WW (or cause war happiness) for civs attacking you.
BtW what about a civ trait called "Chauvinism" which lowers WW for your civ and lowers the chances of flipping (in both ways) or include this into miitaristic (which would make sense, IMHO)?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think morale is a key concept. If the other side has a horrible reputation, or makes the first strike against you, or both (they backstab you seemingly out of the blue), your morale should be HUGE against them.
This way it will be a long time before morale falls enough to hit war weariness levels.
I still think government difference counts for something... but not as much as "who started it" and "why".
This way it will be a long time before morale falls enough to hit war weariness levels.
I still think government difference counts for something... but not as much as "who started it" and "why".
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
This is already modelled.
If you're attacked (by any nation) you get a happiness bonus (until WW counteracts it, which may never happen).
If you attack a nation, you personally suffer no penalty, but as time goes on WW will build up with casualties and lost territory.
Just like reality. No change necessary.
If you're attacked (by any nation) you get a happiness bonus (until WW counteracts it, which may never happen).
If you attack a nation, you personally suffer no penalty, but as time goes on WW will build up with casualties and lost territory.
Just like reality. No change necessary.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Red Ant said:
Hey, let's not forget that Hitler was Democratically elected and he was decidedly Fascist all throughout his campaign (of course, he got rid of German Democracy shortly thereafter). Fascism, as I see it, is a government based off extreme militaristic nationalism. People rally behind a leader (initially, at any rate) because he promises them new greatness (and then beats up people at the voting booths). It has a stringent "ends justify the means" program, but the end involves bringing the country to a greater glory. Despotism is more of a single man with absolute power who cares only about getting stronger/richer/more comfortable with no regard about the long-term effects of his regime.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Fascists consider themselves democratic in the sense that they serve the people. Communists make the same claim.
Fascism implies despotism. But despotism does not imply fascism. That's like saying "grass is a green thing" and then trying to say "a green thing implies it is grass" -- not all green things are grass. And not all despots are fascist. QED.
Sorry
I couldn't help myself.
Fascism implies despotism. But despotism does not imply fascism. That's like saying "grass is a green thing" and then trying to say "a green thing implies it is grass" -- not all green things are grass. And not all despots are fascist. QED.
Sorry
I couldn't help myself.Alvaro da Luna
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 256
I know this much about world war II... people didn't exactly thing it was a bad thing as it created jobs and ended the great depression. In the US, arms manufacturers made some money, selling to Great Britain and Germany (although selling to Germany was discontinued eventually).
Musolini, the original fascist, said that fascism was an alliance of corporations and government. That is what their symbol depicted - a bunhc of sticks tied together stands together.
In that respect, it would be utterly wrong to describe Saddam's Iraq as fascist, as the corporations had no recognisable identity outside the baath party.
In that respect, it would be utterly wrong to describe Saddam's Iraq as fascist, as the corporations had no recognisable identity outside the baath party.
