Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
i am so sick of every nation picking democracy, there should be conditions that decide gov't or encintives with each gov't for each fulfiilled condition, but i have no idea what conditions, elaborate.
No More Democracy Everywhere!!
- Thread starter Mr. Dictator
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
That is kind of rubbish, Cuivienen. Not only are many countries NOT democratic, even those nations which ARE democracies are very, very different from one another!
Saudi Arabia and half the Middle East are still Monarchies, Russia is a Soft Autocracy, much of Africa is still in some form of Soft or Hard Autocratic state (just look at Egypt). Much of Latin and South America has 'degrees of Democracies', from Democratic Republics to Military Dictatorship. Indonesia is only JUST coming out from under a military dictatorship (and the military is still a VERY powerful force there), Vietnam is still Communist-as is North Korea and China, and the list goes on.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Saudi Arabia and half the Middle East are still Monarchies, Russia is a Soft Autocracy, much of Africa is still in some form of Soft or Hard Autocratic state (just look at Egypt). Much of Latin and South America has 'degrees of Democracies', from Democratic Republics to Military Dictatorship. Indonesia is only JUST coming out from under a military dictatorship (and the military is still a VERY powerful force there), Vietnam is still Communist-as is North Korea and China, and the list goes on.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
Aussie_Lurker said:
Yeah, but those countries aren`t very influential, aren`t they?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Seeing as Saudi Arabia basically has veto power over the USA's middle eastern policy, and Vietnam successfully repelled the army of a superpower only to war with another one (that the first superpower was worried they'd ALLY with)...
... yes, some of those countries are VERY influential.
... yes, some of those countries are VERY influential.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Cuivienen said:
First, what are important countries? How to measure their importance? Vietnam has been important during the 60ies and 70ies in a world-wide scale, as it influenced the policy of the whole northern world at that time.
1) USA (having 1.5 million votes less [G.W.Bush in 2000], and become head of the state ????)
2) Russia (as mentioned above, some kind of autocracy)
3) Iraq (has influenced worlds economy for over 20 years)
4) North Korea (look at the news)
5) Canada (as the British Queen is head of state, it seems to be a constitutional monarchy)
Well, most will not agree with this list, but I just wanted to display that it is very hard to find "absolute" rules for determining both:
what is a democracy
how do you measure "influence"
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Vietnam (drawing a superpower into a conflict out of fear that you'll align with another super power qualifies you, let alone repelling an invasion), North Korea, Libya, Venezuela (depending on your perception of Hugo Chavez), Iran...
... and maybe a few others, in terms of influence.
Not to mention other minor nations that have been involved in critical conflicts in the past 50 years.
And not to mention countries that are more republics or constitutional monarchies than democracies -- but those are obvious.
... and maybe a few others, in terms of influence.
Not to mention other minor nations that have been involved in critical conflicts in the past 50 years.
And not to mention countries that are more republics or constitutional monarchies than democracies -- but those are obvious.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
However, Cuivienen's initial points basically stand
1. The AI choses Democracies in peace because they are the better government
2. Most of the Economy+Military+possibly population of the real world is in nations whose closest civ3 Equivalent is Democracy or possibly Republic.
And the reason the AI doesn't choose Republic is because it switches Government too much Republic is an intermediate government so it is never the best for Right Now..although it is the best if you want an OK government in several different 'right nows' ie short wars, etc. that you don't have to change.
1. The AI choses Democracies in peace because they are the better government
2. Most of the Economy+Military+possibly population of the real world is in nations whose closest civ3 Equivalent is Democracy or possibly Republic.
And the reason the AI doesn't choose Republic is because it switches Government too much Republic is an intermediate government so it is never the best for Right Now..although it is the best if you want an OK government in several different 'right nows' ie short wars, etc. that you don't have to change.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Krikkitone, I think that IS the point. That Democracy shouldn't be so distinctly powerful in Civilization. It was Cuivienen's point to bring up realism. that democracy SHOULD be that powerful and popular, because it is in real life.
Many people were focusing their energy on how unstrategic it is to have "one ideal government", but since the realism point was brought up people have been trying to debunk that point too.
At any rate, in case I haven't been clear, having one ideal government for peace is neither strategic nor realistic.
Many people were focusing their energy on how unstrategic it is to have "one ideal government", but since the realism point was brought up people have been trying to debunk that point too.
At any rate, in case I haven't been clear, having one ideal government for peace is neither strategic nor realistic.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well the point is that you Should have one ideal government for each strategic situation. In Civ3 you only have 3 potentially winnable late game strategic situations...medium/large peaceful, small war(recovery state) and large war. Each corresponds to one of the Civ 3 governments.
Which is set up for WWII/Cold War such that most modern governments (in terms of gross power held) are lumped together with Civ3 Democracies.
When there are more truly different strategic situations, then a differentiation of governments is possible, and the US and Sweden can be modeled by the different governments they truly are.
Which is set up for WWII/Cold War such that most modern governments (in terms of gross power held) are lumped together with Civ3 Democracies.
When there are more truly different strategic situations, then a differentiation of governments is possible, and the US and Sweden can be modeled by the different governments they truly are.
i think war wariness should be less in demo's and rep's. obviosly the USA dosen't have any war wariness cause bush is still in office 
.
there should also be a democratic republic government. more variations, like constitutional monarchy, and what about imperialism? many countries were imperial at one point (russia, rome, france, you name em)
.there should also be a democratic republic government. more variations, like constitutional monarchy, and what about imperialism? many countries were imperial at one point (russia, rome, france, you name em)
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
There's plenty of war weariness in the US when a majority are against the current war that's being faught. The key for war weariness to have an impact, though, is to have an objective and aggressive free press. I'll say no more 
But I think you raise a good point Krikkitone. When there's really only one major strategy in the game (expand and conquer), it makes sense that one government will be ideal for conquest, and another will (by default) be ideal for peace. If you open up more strategies (say, culture, economy, and more complex forms of conquest like colonialism and neo-colonialism), suddenly a greater diversity of governments starts to make more sense.
Fascism --> Conquest Strategy
Constitutional Monarchy (?) --> Colonial Strategy (Vassals)
Republic --> Neo-Colonial Strategy (Puppet Regimes)
Fundamentalism --> Religious Strategy
Democracy --> Economic Strategy
Social Democracy (?) --> Perfectionist Strategy
(Just as hypothetical examples, moving from the most plain-war-like to the most plain-peace-like.)
As opposed to Communism for War, and Democracy for Peace (which isn't really that great a strategy anyway). The point is that for there to be more than one viable government, there has to be more than one viable strategy (and maybe even more than one viable victory condition).
But I think you raise a good point Krikkitone. When there's really only one major strategy in the game (expand and conquer), it makes sense that one government will be ideal for conquest, and another will (by default) be ideal for peace. If you open up more strategies (say, culture, economy, and more complex forms of conquest like colonialism and neo-colonialism), suddenly a greater diversity of governments starts to make more sense.
Fascism --> Conquest Strategy
Constitutional Monarchy (?) --> Colonial Strategy (Vassals)
Republic --> Neo-Colonial Strategy (Puppet Regimes)
Fundamentalism --> Religious Strategy
Democracy --> Economic Strategy
Social Democracy (?) --> Perfectionist Strategy
(Just as hypothetical examples, moving from the most plain-war-like to the most plain-peace-like.)
As opposed to Communism for War, and Democracy for Peace (which isn't really that great a strategy anyway). The point is that for there to be more than one viable government, there has to be more than one viable strategy (and maybe even more than one viable victory condition).
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
A reflection on the SMAC SE screen:
Like any open system, usually there are a few 'best options'. SMAC was no different, where there were ideal combinations for the various strategies. However two things made this system much more organic and fun than the 'list' options of Civ.
1) The multiple requirements fo the 'best choices' often meant that you were dealing with partial version of your best options for a long time. This is somewhat similair to evolution, as the developement of a particular option may allow a totally different SE choice.
2) You could change one of the four options to make a variation of an ideal combination that fit a particular niche need. When that need was complete you could readjust.
I am not saying we adopt the SMAC SE system, yet. If another system can achieved those effects simply and without 20000 options, then it is equally good. Currently the system lacks transition states, niche states, and real clear evolution.
Like any open system, usually there are a few 'best options'. SMAC was no different, where there were ideal combinations for the various strategies. However two things made this system much more organic and fun than the 'list' options of Civ.
1) The multiple requirements fo the 'best choices' often meant that you were dealing with partial version of your best options for a long time. This is somewhat similair to evolution, as the developement of a particular option may allow a totally different SE choice.
2) You could change one of the four options to make a variation of an ideal combination that fit a particular niche need. When that need was complete you could readjust.
I am not saying we adopt the SMAC SE system, yet. If another system can achieved those effects simply and without 20000 options, then it is equally good. Currently the system lacks transition states, niche states, and real clear evolution.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
In continental legal theory and theory of state we distinguish:
a)form of political system: democracy, autocracy
b)form of state authority: parliamental system, presidential system, assembly system
c)form of state regulation: unitary, federal
d)form of state regime: monarchy, republic
Maybe we souldn`t put all eggs in the same basket?
a)form of political system: democracy, autocracy
b)form of state authority: parliamental system, presidential system, assembly system
c)form of state regulation: unitary, federal
d)form of state regime: monarchy, republic
Maybe we souldn`t put all eggs in the same basket?
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Mr. Dictator said:
No more Facism everywhere!! Idiotic countries switching to that as a war government...
Lockesdonkey said:
Ok, I know the historical examples lost badly under fascism, but given teh relative sizes of the economies involved on both sides, I think that defeat was inevitable regardless of government. Is there any objective reason why you think it should be bad as a war government?
Philips beard
Prince
Norway is the only real democrazy in the world, and we are lucky for having our oil. Without it we would have to be a dictatorship to survive, I guess..... 
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
rhialto said:
No, it's just that Facism in Civ3 is a bad government. Ditto Communism if you're small (which these countries so often are)
