Regime change

Da Koach

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
5
Location
Los Angeles
I don't post here much but reading the article in PC Gamer mag on Civ4 got me to thinking about it and reading some of the ideas here.

I don't know if someone's thought of this before but what about demanding a change in government after a war, a regime change, as another option besides tech and money. Example, fascist Germany starts a war but get defeated and one of the demands of the victors is for Germany to change to Democracy or face the consequences. Maybe even change religions too, as I've read Civ4 would incorporate religions. You can have a crusade or have missionaries change a foreign country's religion, and that can have bonuses to reputation and the like. Any thoughts?
 
Seems like a nice idea to me. With improved diplomacy and espionage civ4 wouldn't have to be all about conquering, wars could be fought for other reasons if these ideas were to be implemented.
 
great idea and not only force nations that surrender to change we could also use spys to make different civilizations change governments during peace time! this would bring in true espionage :evil:
 
You see, what I WOULD love to see are 'protectorate/Client State' agreements. That way, rather than have to capture every city a nation has, you might only need to win some very decisive victories-victories which convince your enemy that they might be destroyed, and that it is simply easier to give up their independance. The civ in question would retain effective control of its cities etc, but you would have the power to veto any diplomatic agreements they make, and go into their cities and alter their specialisations and/or build queues. In addition, you could decide how much of their national income goes into YOUR treasury, and can station troops in their cities and fortresses! Lastly, under such an agreement, the flow of culture into their nation is doubled-making it more likely for their citizens to identify with your nation later down the track!

Oh and, whilst on the subject of Diplomatic Agreements, I never could understand why alliances in civ3 actually had to be AGAINST a specific opponent. Firstly, I don't see that an ALLIANCE has to neccessarily be ALL military in nature and, secondly, an alliance should just be a standing agreement on military co-operation (after all, the ANZUS treaty is part MPP, but is also an agreement by both parties to come to each others aid in times of war-even if neither sides interests are directly attacked!) An alliance agreement should, then, be like a MPP PLUS, where your alliance partner is much, much more likely to declare war on an opponent if you are at war with said opponent, and even MORE so if you ask the other civ to declare war on your opponent! It would also grant permission for allies to place units in each-others forts and cities, as well as the sharing of intelligence, and information gleaned from espionage!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
@Aussie_Lurker Client states and protectorates would be lots of fun to manage, but there would have to be method for those "vassal" civs to rebel somehow and break free from the hated yoke of their masters. Especialy if the player wanted to sponsor such a rebellion! If the situation was permanant it really isn't a separate civ anymore. There should be some way similar to culture flip to take troops stationed in their territory so the former slave civ has the power to stand up the rival powers too.
 
I just don't see the point unless you have less reason to just outright conquer them and finish them off.

But I've always thought that would be one way to make the modern age more interesting: first world nations would no longer be able to engage in imperialism, and could only control the world through proxy.
 
Well, DH_Epic, if we make TRUE domination and military conquest slightly more difficult to achieve, then it might prove more beneficial to simply make them into a vassal state! i.e. you might have sufficient units to destroy the bulk of that nations army, but not enough to both conquer and occupy every city (and, even if you did, the cost in money, resources and reputation would simply to great to pay) So, instead, you simply offer them 'vassalage' or 'protectorate' status instead. You get most of the benefits of 'owning' that civs cities, without the headache of defeating and occupying them.
Also, a smaller civ could, without threat of force, ask for vassalage status from a more powerful neighbour-in order to avoid being swallowed up by a more aggressive neighbour! What makes it important, for me, is that it allows a more nuanced approach to inter-civ relationships-with many shades of alignment from outright war, through peace, through alliance and all the way to vassal and defeated status.
Oh, and Kayak, I totally agree that even a totally subjugated nation should be able to rebel and possibly regain its independance down the track. How likely this might be to happen would depend on how strong their own native culture still is, and how you have treated them over the years!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Yeah, find conquer Rome and replace the militaristic and whatever the other thing with an agriculturalistic and industrious leader. True submission and much more benefitial as you are leading the vassal state!

I think leader type should list all the same traits as the civ, and would either expand the scope of the traits or strengthen them.
 
Great idea regarding a protectorate state Aussie Lurker. Wouldn't it be great if part of those protectorate/client states can rebel and break off to creat another state, an East/West Germany, a North/South Korea, a new confederate republic of United States or something. You can then try to unify the divided states through diplomacy or conquest, with a boost or hit to your national prestige and reputatino depending on how you hadle it.

They can be goals of scenarios too, to try to broker a peace between "Democratic Republic of Japan" and the "People's Socialist Republic of New Japan".
 
Well, Da Koach, consider the following scenario-which brings together my ideas for protectorates, culture flow AND an improved intelligence system:

You have three civs-Spain, France and Germany-all sharing the same land-mass. Around the early Middle Ages, Germany decides to make its move and launches a massive invasion into Northern France-with its Teutonic knights, Halbardiers and men-at-arms. The French meet the German offensive in several major battles, but is soundly thrashed-leaving just a few left-over defenders, some rapidly assembled militia and a devastated civilian economy! With German knights poised to capture the Capital-an act which could plunge the French nation into civil war and/or a Dark Age-Germany approaches the French leader and demands that he pledge alleigance to the German nation. Faced with little choice, the French player capitulates-handing virtual control of his nation to the German conquerers.
For much of the rest of the Middle Ages, France remains entirely under the German Yoke. Though they are not overly oppresive, they do tax the French nation heavily, and have large numbers of troops garrisoned throughout France. Cities in Southern France, in particular, are unhappy with German rule though, because they are all underdeveloped compared to their northern neighbours, and are beyond the reach of much of the German 'cultural juggernaut'-thus retaining a much stronger French identity than their northern cousins.
Meanwhile, Spain has grown fearful of the presence of a nation, close to its own borders, that owes its alliegance to their 'on again-off again' enemies, the Germans. Unfortunately, the Spanish lack the military needed to meet the German/French threat head on.
What they DO have, though, is an excellent Intelligence network, which they have invested heavily into investigation of both France and Germany (with some crossover due to the vassalage agreement). With the information that Spanish intelligence has gained, the Spanish player starts moving the bulk of its Intelligence 'machinery' out of Espionage, and in to Sabotage and Counterintelligence. Over the next few turns, Germany and France both start suffering from numerous acts of vandalism and destruction, with evidence implicating either the French or the Germans-depending on who the victim was. This creates major difficulties, as Germany is forced to move more and more of its forces into French cities in order to supress the early stages of a non-existent insurgency-an act which leads to increased anger and resentment in the cities of Southern France.
Eventually, Spanish Intelligence inform the Spanish player that they have an opportunity to spark a civil war within France, and if they should pursue it. The player says yes and, in the following turn, a dozen cities in the South of France declare themselves a new nation-independant of Germany and its puppet French rulers. In the upheaval, the German units stationed in these cities are expelled violently (suffering major damage in the process). Fearful of losing northern France as well, Germany moves its units back closer to their own border-reinforcing their position within the cities of Northern France.
In an act of brazen opportunism, Spain now opens diplomatic channels with the virtually defenseless new Republic of Toulouse, asking if they would consider becoming a Spanish Protectorate. Fearful of reconquest by the forces of Germany and France, and feeling a greater cultural affinity with Spain, Toulouse accepts Spains offer of protection-seeing a small sacrifice of independance as a small price to pay for such protection.
During the early industrial age, Spain uses its 'Toulousian Buffer' as a staging ground from which to launch an offenive against Germany's Vassal, France. In a desire to shore up its relations with Toulouse, Spain decides to 'Liberate' all captured French cities to their Toulousian friends.
Towards the end of the Industrial age, and with all of its strategic aims achieved, Spain dissolves its protectorate arrangement with Toulouse-granting the nation its full Independance-and gaining a staunch ally in the process ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
@Aussie_Lurker- I totally agree, that would be a great idea, though there should be another way of doing it by economic might- ie the British East India Company which, though backed by an army of sepoys, conquered India mainly through economic power. This could lead to dissatisfaction amonst some cities but the increased economic status, rather than purely cultural, would mean that the country would be pacified, for a while. And I'd like to see some sort of backlash against culutral change in protectarate states if the idea were ever implemented.
 
I've been a HUGE fan of vassalage. It starts in the middle ages, with independant feudal states coming into your empire without lifting a finger -- just the threat of force sways them. And vice versa, other Kings can come along and say "hey, you're not protected by them anymore. you're protected by US" -- and if they're cowardly or hate you enough, they sway.

In the late middle ages into the industrial age, this takes on the form of colonialism. And by the time you reach the modern/postmodern age, after WW2, this takes the form of neo-imperialism: everyone officially condemns invasions, but hypocritically sponsors regime changes and such (think the USSR's movements into East Germany and Czechoslovakia, or their support for North Korea -- not that I'm a historical expert).

The catch is, of course, that these would have to be more profitable than outright conquering. The tacit assumption in Aussie's scenario (which I love) is that Germany would rather offer France a protectorate agreement than to outright conquer them in a "Final Solution" (to use one of history's worst euphamisms).

To me, the difference maker would be culture. There's a reason that Britain was able to hold America, or especially Canada for so long, but that Africa was less so, India less than that, and China even less still. In the Americas, the people had a culture, but not strong enough to resist assimilation. Africans finally return to governing themselves, but have a lot of culture of the colonizer. India self-governs but English is the language of the elite. And China is still basically Chinese, although it has a few key influences from the west. Each scenario has increasing culture.

To me, this would be the determining factor in who can successfully resist being conquered and assimilated. Also, to me, it's strange that in a game where Nationalism is an absolutely-no-choice-about-it step, none of the conquered peoples under your empire suddenly say "hey, you know, we're GREEKS. We're not Ottomans!" or "We're Vietnamese, not French!" Nationalism as an idea stands in direct opposition to Imperialism. After the discovery of nationalism, many of these nations (provided they have enough of their own unique culture) would emerge as independent states.

But by no means is this an effort to remove domination. You can have domination without imperialism. This is where all those vassals and protectorates and puppet regimes come in. If the USSR has favorable regimes installed in the Koreas, the Carribean, in Latin America, and in Europe, is there any doubt that it would have obtained a domination victory?

Boris -- contact the leader of the communist party in Argentina.
 
You see, I do believe that the culture relationship between two nations should decide both how likely a vassalage agreement will be accepted and/or how long it will last. How the overlord treats its new vassal will also determine the length of a vassalage agreement and, as you so rightly pointed out, the discovery of NATIONALISM, by either nation, should also have a major effect-perhaps reducing the flow of the overlords culture and/or a boosting of any culture produced by the improvements/wonders of the Vassal state!
As for the benefits of 'vassal/protectorates' over outright domination-the major ones would be a combination of costs and reputation. If CivIV properly models the true economic cost of war, then it should be quite difficult (though not impossible) to completely conquer a mid-to-large sized nation-at least not without going into major debt for several turns and possibly undermining the general economy (consider the Rail and Road Capacity model, discussed elsewhere, for one way in which this could be modelled). The other factor is that the longer you stay at war, and the more civilian population centres you conquer, the lower your reputation will become in the eyes of your neighbours-even your allies! These kinds of wars can also exacerbate war weariness within your own population. For both these reasons, you can see why simply breaking the back of a nations military, then forcing obeissiance, would be a much more acceptable option in some cases. And, YES, I would see vassals and protectorates as counting towards a domination victory!

From a historical perspective, consider this: when Edward I conquered Wales, he did so NOT by conquering every individual city, but by meeting and detroying almost the entirety of the Welsh army, conquering one or two cities, and then forcing the Welsh authorities to swear alliegance to England!
Of course, there is a historical example of the standard domination approach-as displayed by the Roman conquest of Carthage. Of course, this was as much inspired by revenge as it was by a desire for territory!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I really like the idea of vassalage. I do wonder how to keep the vassal civ strong enough to resist a foriegn power after it had a rebellion. Especialy if the overlord had veto power over construction issues. They certaily would not permit military units.To use ALs example above, The French would have to accept or invite Spain to "protect" against Germany or they would be crushed all over again, and this time Germany would just create Lebensraum, not slaves. As to cultural assimulation, there are more independent nation states today than ever. Some of these haven't been independent for hundreds or even thousands of years. I'm not sure if that is a good model in this case.
 
what issue of pc magazine is civ4 in?
edit: or are u talking about the pc gamer magazine?
 
Yeah Black_Hole, I meant the Jan PC gamer with the games of 2005 article, I'll fix my post.

I really like this vassalage idea. Not only should it work towards domination, but if you're culture is sufficiently strong enough, it should work towards that too. Your vassals with "inferior" culture can eventually culture flip over to you, negating the need for war all together, making the diplomatic and cultural paths an equal option to the millitary path.
 
Hey Aussie -- good points on the true costs of war. To me, the challenge (design wise) would be making it just barely possible to bare the costs of outright eradicating a neighbor... but that much cheaper to get a surrender. And with the costs of eradication so heavy, it would make you a sitting duck for some other invader.

To me, the more interesting proposition is reputation and even mood. I particularly see an opportunity to leverage citizen mood in encouraging vassals and puppet regimes.

It's simple:

Take out their army, ask their president to step down --> people receive you mildly, or even positively (as a liberator)

Ruthlessly moving your army through every last city, killing every last troop, leaving carnage in your wake --> people receive you mildly at best, if not as a genocidal maniacal tyrant

And this kind of mood, this kind of perception will make it that much harder to hang onto them when the tide starts to turn. (Again, related to Nationalism and Culture...)
 
I think that won't work in civ, because when you conquer a country you onwn it and therefore it follows your gov system.

BUT: How about this adation from your idea:?

Put it into the diplo: ->Ask a neighbor to skip his fashist gov and take the agicaulture way. So you can prevent perhaps a war with him..
 
Back
Top Bottom