dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Sir_Schwick, that idea is pure genius. I know how I'd like to play if they implemented that strategy 
Trading military units
- Thread starter Pirog
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Its how many nations have used and perpetuated war for the ultimate economic victory. In 1984 Orwell discusses the idea, but with a different focus. His discussion was that the world had a continuous state of war in "1984" so industrial strength would be diverted into war materials instead of consumer wealth. Consumer wealth would increase individualism and captialist tendencies, both of which would not work for the current govenrment(thought control). In my variant other nations spend all their money on war, keeping those people dumb and non-democratic, allowing you to more easily manipulate their governments. I know this theory is not quite accurate to how diplomacy works, and has a few holes, but some of the tenets are what matters.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, I'd like to see more militaristic practices inherently interfere with democracy. A lot of people would tell you that democracy couldn't emerge until the military advantages the ruling class had could be equalized. (1984 is "one of those books" for me, too.)
More on topic, though,
You ought to be able to sell weapons and leave nations to their own devices.
But you also ought to be able to actually fund and pilot a lesser Nation's army -- secretly, and "buy into" partial-control of that smaller nation.
More on topic, though,
You ought to be able to sell weapons and leave nations to their own devices.
But you also ought to be able to actually fund and pilot a lesser Nation's army -- secretly, and "buy into" partial-control of that smaller nation.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
dh_epic said:
Actually this got me thinking into a feature that could be very interesting, Military Consultation. In Vietnam the US sent in many consultants to train the South Vietnamese militaries how to use US manufactured weapons and tactics. Also, the University of the Americas(I think that's the name) military academy was a place where the US hired out generals as intelligence agents in Latin and South American armies. Noriega was on the US payroll for a considerable time, providing us detailed information about other generals and Panama.
Gameplay Applications:
Military Consultation - If a nation does not have the technology to build a unit, they probably can't use it either. You can train them just how to use the unit, instead of selling them the technology. After a certain time(10 turns should be sufficient) the schooling is learned locally and they no longer require consultation to use weapons of those kinds.
Military Infiltration - A side-effect of consultation is that you will establish many contacts within that country. This means you have a deep level of penetration into their miliatary structure. Of course this penetration means you have excellent espionage, but it also means you can set up non-Democratic coups.
As for your first point, I always assumed that advantage was an economic one, the one the middle class can gain. Democracies tend to do much better in wealthy economies. Although in the short time the rich may rule, the wealth eventually runs over and the people get their dues. Consider the fact that almost all the policy goals of the Socialist party in the US during the late 1800s have been enacted since. Maybe civ should require a certain amount of economic development before political democracies can flourish.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Pretty much any government will collapse without economic prosperity. If you have a bare minimum of prosperity, you can probably keep your people unhappy but not barricading the streets.
I think the tricky thing is what you mean by democracies. Political -- as opposed to economic -- is probably a good distinguisher. This probably ties into a more multidimensional slider type interface (SMAC?) than absolute governments.
Nonetheless, I'm still very much into the idea of setting up a dependency military wise, instead of giving someone the technology and money to do it themselves. Many a great political move has been made by getting deeply involved in another country's conflicts.
I think the tricky thing is what you mean by democracies. Political -- as opposed to economic -- is probably a good distinguisher. This probably ties into a more multidimensional slider type interface (SMAC?) than absolute governments.
Nonetheless, I'm still very much into the idea of setting up a dependency military wise, instead of giving someone the technology and money to do it themselves. Many a great political move has been made by getting deeply involved in another country's conflicts.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Democracy is always a political term, the same way Socialism is. Communism is an economic system.
I think military dependency in the sense you are talking would be complicated, especially since allies cannot use each others cities or squares.
Selling someone the ability to use a unit would make the decision to reinforce the Mongols with Swordsmen less painful since they would still not have Iron Working. In many countries that have 2nd Tier weapons today, the industry to make those weapons simply does not exist. The world arms market is a very profitable one.
Also, there should be a Police State government(not Fascism) for countries that have engineered violent overthrows. It is how the US has influenced and guided the history of the Western Hemisphere for roughly 200 years. 1804 was the Monroe Doctrine.
I think military dependency in the sense you are talking would be complicated, especially since allies cannot use each others cities or squares.
Selling someone the ability to use a unit would make the decision to reinforce the Mongols with Swordsmen less painful since they would still not have Iron Working. In many countries that have 2nd Tier weapons today, the industry to make those weapons simply does not exist. The world arms market is a very profitable one.Also, there should be a Police State government(not Fascism) for countries that have engineered violent overthrows. It is how the US has influenced and guided the history of the Western Hemisphere for roughly 200 years. 1804 was the Monroe Doctrine.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Absolute Monarchy. Or Absolute something. Or maybe just "Dictatorship". Makes three unhappy citizens in every city content without any structures or martial law. Experiences large amounts of corruption. Any unhappy citizen causes twice as much negative effects than any other government.
I'm all about installing favorable dictatorships. Particularly ones that are forever indebted to me. Sure I'll give you weapons to become a puppet dictatorship -- just give me permanant access to your uranium deposits.
I'm all about installing favorable dictatorships. Particularly ones that are forever indebted to me. Sure I'll give you weapons to become a puppet dictatorship -- just give me permanant access to your uranium deposits.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
"Martial State" maybe?
I like your effects idea, except that instead of unhappiness being 2x you could generate an extra unhappy face in each city. Also, towns<under size 7) would lose a population as a 'resistance fighter'. EAch of these fighters would form a camp nearby their home city(Country Name Insurgents). They also take 1/(no of citizens in city) share of that cities treasury. Every turn they would generate an additional fighter and every five a camp generator. The Insurgent movement could 'funded' (secretly because otherwise you would have invaded) by foreign nations and get better weapons and intel. Also, the nation who put the dictator in power would still have connections within and could pull the plug if the nation did not play nice. Of course the nation would be able to try a purging program, but of course then there is a chance that safties built into the infiltration could kill the leader. Finally, there would be an option start from a save-game spot where a new dictator is put in power. You could choose the dictator from your entire game to play as. Then it would start where that occurred. You would be the one worried about how to deal with your suppliers.
I like your effects idea, except that instead of unhappiness being 2x you could generate an extra unhappy face in each city. Also, towns<under size 7) would lose a population as a 'resistance fighter'. EAch of these fighters would form a camp nearby their home city(Country Name Insurgents). They also take 1/(no of citizens in city) share of that cities treasury. Every turn they would generate an additional fighter and every five a camp generator. The Insurgent movement could 'funded' (secretly because otherwise you would have invaded) by foreign nations and get better weapons and intel. Also, the nation who put the dictator in power would still have connections within and could pull the plug if the nation did not play nice. Of course the nation would be able to try a purging program, but of course then there is a chance that safties built into the infiltration could kill the leader. Finally, there would be an option start from a save-game spot where a new dictator is put in power. You could choose the dictator from your entire game to play as. Then it would start where that occurred. You would be the one worried about how to deal with your suppliers.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, more or less, I dig the idea of having much stronger checks on unhappiness, but making unhappiness that much more dangerous when it DOES occur.
Tying it into what we've been talking about with trading units and funding revolutions would be pretty awesome.
Tying it into what we've been talking about with trading units and funding revolutions would be pretty awesome.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
The main reasons for resistance fighters is that nations that need military assistance usually cannot fight them off alone. The government that hosted the original coup could even secretly sell weapons to the rebels to create a military dependence. Resistance movements would be like Barbarians, just taking money for more weapons, until they were supported in an uprising by a major power.
Similar threads
- Poll
