Should Civ rulers share their power or remain omnipotent?

[J-S]

Should Civ include a Congress in a Democracy? (or other forms of limitations?)
Should the player be able to do whatevery pops into his head? That wouldn't be too democratic, I say. But, even in a 'coup', the boss (you) can't just do whatever he wants without risking pissing off the ally who sells him weapons or even causing a revolt.

So, the idea is to basically expose one's ideas about this in the most brief manner (not my speciality).
Thanks for posting your idea on this

 

[Richard III]

I'd love to see a Civ variant where you could get voted out of office if you'd been an idiot - and then have to sit out the game until the next election, while watching the computer run your civ the way an opposition party would, prioritizing the opposite of what your priorities had been in previous turns (e.g. if you lost an election while at war, the civ's new government would make peace if possible, and then start going hog wild building improvements).

 

[J-S]

Originally posted by Richard III
I'd love to see a Civ variant where you could get voted out of office if you'd been an idiot

That's a must-have if you ask me because that's just how power works in real life. Not only do you have to make your civilization prosper but also maintain yourself in power . For example, in the Democracy the player obtains all sorts of bonuses (+culture, +happiness, +trade, etc) BUT has to accept the fact that every x turns, elections are made. Depending on what decisions you made (corruption levels, war, etc) your chance of success (+ propaganda).

Originally posted by Richard III
have to sit out the game until the next election, while watching the computer run your civ

I never thought I'd hear anyone say that . The most interesting and innovative concept a civ game could include: loosing (temporarily) command!

I'm thinking my next post is gonna be a long one on the forms of goverments and their possible advantages and limitations to the player.

 

[Zachriel]

You mean I won't be president-for-life anymore?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by J-S
I never thought I'd hear anyone say that . The most interesting and innovative concept a civ game could include: loosing (temporarily) command!

Well, as a political hack, I think one of the funnier things is watching politicians make the transition from having power to waiting to get it back. And the last job syndrome that comes with it. There is no greater enemy to a former cabinet minister than the cabinet minister who took his job over.

The beauty of this simulated in civ would be the frustration in having your grand vision ripped apart by the opposition. Imagine, after 40 years of immigration into the "fertile corridor" to limit Chinese expansion, and suddenly, your successor gives it up! And signs a pact with the bastards! And the iron that went to your allies, the aggressive Romans, stays at home! And that big surplus you built up, squandered on unnecessary public improvements, as part of a socialist plan of reconstruction!

Oh, the horror!

 

[Beam]

Sounds quite similar to the Civ 2 "feature" where your Democratic government would be overthrown if a city was in disorder for more then one turn. Makes you work on keeping them happy he he he. Not sure if I liked that feature that much.

 

[Sixchan]

And if the Bordertowns get too unhappy, they could declare independence (instead of flipping), or worse, stage a coup!

Another thing would be definig your party stance in a democracy. So if you definied yourself as right-wing you would have to amass hoardes of gold, but keeping a balance, because if the treasury gets too low, they'll vote you out in favour of another right-wing party, and if you get to much gold, the people go all Socialist on you and your evil, greedy, fascist opressive reigime and vote in the Socialist Alliance.

 

[rev063]

Originally posted by J-S

That's a must-have if you ask me because that's just how power works in real life.

Perhaps, but it sure doesn't sound like much fun! Just think, you've worked on a game for days, get caught up in a war, citizens get unhappy and then BOOM, you lose control and the game is effectively over.

I'd hate such a feature if it existed, and would disable it if I could.

Civ3 isn't like real life because real life often isn't fun.

- rev

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

Well, you should be able to initiate propaganda or some such nonesense inorder to make your people vote for you.

Also, their should be presidential terms so that you can't get elected out of office until the term is over. A coup however is a different story...

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by rev063


Perhaps, but it sure doesn't sound like much fun! Just think, you've worked on a game for days, get caught up in a war, citizens get unhappy and then BOOM, you lose control and the game is effectively over.

I'd hate such a feature if it existed, and would disable it if I could.

Civ3 isn't like real life because real life often isn't fun.

- rev

rev063- I agree with you about 1000%! I say NO WAY to this "feature".

VOTE NO!!!

This would make people so angry they would re-load and if it happend a lot, they would quit playing. This is a definite Bad Idea for Civ.

 

[simwiz2]

one of the most irritating features of civ2 was the senate. personally i am glad its gone, and dont want to see any forms of it return.

 

[royfurr]

Upon voting after writing my post, I was floored to see almost as many people voting for as against. This "feature" is worst then the Senate in Civ II as Sim was saying.

Citizens, hear me out! THIS could happen to you ....


Thrown out of the game because you were not playing it the way Firaxis wanted/expected you too!


AGGGGHHHHH!!!

 

[J-S]

Originally posted by rev063
Civ3 isn't like real life because real life often isn't fun.

Rev, I think many people would agree with me on the fact that Civ is a real-life based strategy game. I mean, c'mon, what makes Civilization a lovable game is basically the fact that it is based on human history and lets you take a decisive role in it. Look at it this way... nothing you do in the game is un-real: I mean, the most fantasious aspect of the game is it's random map generator!

Originally posted by royfurr
This would make people so angry they would re-load and if it happend a lot, they would quit playing. This is a definite Bad Idea for Civ.

Do you reload everytime you loose a battle?

Originally posted by royfurr
Thrown out of the game because you were not playing it the way Firaxis wanted/expected you too!

When you have to build that 60-turn Temple in a size 2 city, we all know you're not doing it for culture... you're doing it to turn an unhappy citizen happy! What's all this about keeping your people happy!? Well, Fireaxis decided it. So technically, everytime you play the game, even under a wacko-totally-different-mod, you're playing the way Fireaxis wanted you to (or within the possibilities it's editor/programming code gives you, wich in my op is the same).

In Civ2 everyone save-loaded whenever the Senate prohibited them from declaring war... but this is different. I'm thinking of adding a whole new aspect to the game, not just a random number that decides whether or not the Senate votes for or against.
I'm not saying "build your empire, choose Democracy and loose to your opposition". That's exactly the reason why I started this thread: to discuss this. Plus this way I get to hear other opinions on this. That's why I appreciate the criticism, just so long as it's based on more than "real life sucks - civ rules" .

 

[J-S]

Just so we're clear, I'm all for limitations to decision-making BUT I also understand that an on/off option should be available.

Anyway, can't any of you see how senseless it is that YOU were king before the republican revolt wich YOU began, and YOU became the president instantly after all the revolting!? This should definitively be changed, though I'm not sure how.
I'm thinking of the French Revolution... did the king actually intend to get his head chopped off? Well, why can't something like that happen in Civ? You mess around too much and -slak- off with your head... 2 turns later though, your son/you cause the city you're in to revolt and become an independent nation! Then maybe invade the Republic ruled by your assasins! Or on the other hand, you could "reencarnate" later as a first-place man of trust for the Republic's new leaders and are designed the goverment of Marseilles? Then you decide to invade the capitol with the troops you made in that city! If that dosen't sound interesting, then just go ahead and vote no, no hard feelings .

 

[korusus]

The game is already plenty frustrating and micromanaged as it is. I don't know about you but I didn't pay 50 bucks to watch the computer play my civ for an hour while I stare at the screen, watching it move every single unit without forifying You must be joking

 

[J-S]

It's a little more than just let the cpu move your units for you. The idea is to have to maintain yourself in power besides making your civ survive. So that being king, for example, you can't raise taxes to 90% without risking a mayor revolt. And by revolt I don't mean those "make an entertainer and it's cool" revolts. I'm willing to go even farther... when you discover a tech like "Democracy" it's not YOU (ie your scientists clostered up in some underground lab) that discoveres it, but it's an intelectual breakthrough that your people have on how the ideal goverment should be... therefore, that leaves you 2 choices: reject this new division of powers (executive, legislative and judicial) like EVERY king did after the French Revolution (check it out, they all have parlaments ) or peacefully decide to make some changes to how decisions are made... One way gets you through ok, the other with your head chopped off, but both end in the same place: a more democratic form of goverment.

Let me get this straight, cause it's what I've been picking up from recent posts... the only reason there seems to be for not incorporating a possible way to realistically limit decision-making is: that it's too complicated?

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by J-S

Let me get this straight, cause it's what I've been picking up from recent posts... the only reason there seems to be for not incorporating a possible way to realistically limit decision-making is: that it's too complicated?

A couple of replies, J-S:

First, in reply to the quote above, I am not sure that its too complicated to do, BUT I AM VERY SURE that it would massively detract from the pleasure the player gets and add to the player's frustration level ... in a MAJOR way. Hence the strength of my response. This is not to put down YOUR thoghts or the fact you make this suggestion, clearly your are thinking creatively, it is just that the effect on the fun of the game for me, AND I BELEIVE FOR THE MAJORITY OF OTHER PLAYERS, would be very very bad. However, if it was too complicated to do, (and it MIGHT BE, I am not enough of a programer to estimate that for certain either way), it would also probably be a bad idea, because if its complicated, there is a much greater chance of it being mis-implemented, and thus resulting in negative unforseen consequences- the old "golden road to hell is paved with good intentions" sorta thing. It would take most vigerous (sorry- sp.) playtesting and that does not seem to be Firaxis's strong suit. Still, even if it was implimented PERFECTLY, personally I would HATE IT and I highly suspect the majority of players would also. Your poll is possibly skewed becasue many people who would vote against this, won't even spend their time reading the post in the first place because the idea is anthema (sp. again, sorry) to them, and obviously don't vote if they haven't read the post.

Originally posted by J-S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by royfurr
This would make people so angry they would re-load and if it happend a lot, they would quit playing. This is a definite Bad Idea for Civ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you reload everytime you loose a battle?

Quite simply, No, I do not, and your implidcation that I do sounds like an attempt to deflect my position by an accusation of wimpness on my part. FYI, the ONLY time I reload is when I make a physical mistake, like hold down a key to long and mis-move a unit and things of that type. Personlly I find the suggestion that I reload all the time ("every time you loose a battle") not only a low shot but insulting. There is a world of difference I believe in ones reaction to defeat in a battle, as anyone with any kind of realistic expectations knows they will loose a number of battles, based on how strong their attack and the opponents defense is (its also part of the fun, recovering from the tribulations of defeats and still in the end accomplishing the objective). But in being kicked out as the leader of your civ and watching the computer runs things for X turns, I think most people would be a lot more reactive then due to losing a battle, hence angry, hence reload. If if happened more then twice in a game, then if there is not an option to turn this "feature" off, the game is off my harddrive. A sad fate for a classic like Civ. THe point here is that part of the fun is BEING IN CHARGE, and getting kicked out is NOT fun. And fun is of course the objective of a game. The game already has mechanisms for givng a player an enducement to not due ahistorical things like staying a despot when he wants to push up population growth and tech growth, etc.

No, I agree with Korsusus, I didn't get this game to get bossed around by the computer and watch it play my turn for me.

Sorry, J-S. I disagree with your suggestion.

(Please note that I have not accused you of being stupid or constantly re-loading, I just think your idea is one that will hurt the games' success, as people will dislike it overall, people will quit buying it if it had this feature, and then there would be no additional versions of civ coming out, and the series would be dead for financial failure reasons.)

But more important, the feature would be frustrating and UN-fun.

Have fun in Civ, and this thread, I will probalby be off the forum for most of the weekend as it looks like a very tough and a very long war with the Iroquios has just started ... civ on J-S.

 

[J-S]

First of all, I want to apologize (sp?) to you or any that felt offended in ANY way by ANY of my remarks: it was not my intention to do so (including the "do you load everytime you loose a battle?" part). Honest .

Royfus, I read your last post and I have to say I totally agree with you, and congratulate you on being the first in actually argumenting the omnipotent vote . Your remarks where very reasonable.
However, I still have the "fantasy", if you will, that if something like unhappy citizens were once made, then that something like this can be made... not the way everyone interprets it though. Find something balanced, that would somehow introduce this new aspect without totally breaking the playability of the game. Like you said, I'm sure it has got to be something very hard to accomplish but that's why I started this thread: to discuss it and see if we can find a mid-point between 2 extremes. I mean, I'm sure that when years ago, someone said "hey, let's make citizens riot if they go unhappy!" some people didin't like it, but it's there, and it adds to the fun in a sorta weird way (isin't it fun to see how they celebrate Day of the Emperor? ).

Again, I apologize for maybe overreacting over the past posts and thank you all for posting your ops on this.

J-S

PS: coming soon is a list of ideas on Democracy.

 

[chasbolt]

I prefer the CTP2 method of unhappiness with rule. Revolution and a new civ. Not barbarians though this is civ3 so a revolt due to a ruler's misuse will result in a new civ run by the AI in that part of your civ. I voted for omnipotence.

 

[damunzy]

omnipotent or nothing.

I would enjoy playing a game where you had to keep yourself in power but Civ3 would be, IMO, a bad game to implement it in. How would you track how close you are to getting kicked out? Firaxis doesn't even give us a good way to track our trades so I doubt they could put something like a power struggle in the game. Besides, that would require a lot of recoding of the game, somethign a game company wouldn't want to do....a lot of the ideas I see on here (the fora) are good ones but I don't think they would fit into a "Sid Civ" game.