Unemployment!! Riots! Strike! Lockout! Cracks! Outbreak of war!

[Deathgoroth]

Civ4 should reflect real world problems, and be otherwise more sophisticated.

If you produce a certain amount of wealth (in city production) there should be increased UNEMPLOYMENT. In Civ4 terms, unemployment would be represented by a kind of spesialst that do nothing (e.g. not increasing luxury, science, tax), and also counts as one unhappy citizen. This specialist can not be happy due to luxuries and cathedrals. Unemployment will decrease when there are more building going on in your cities.

A crack on the stock exchange should also lead to unemployment. Extensive trade with other nations decrease unemployment (except if you buy goods you already have), but if these nations are struck by calamities, war or disasters, unemloyment could again increase in your own country.

If this is implemented in Civ4, it would be much more interesting, and there will be incredible good lessons to learn from it before Civ5.

 

[Ballazic]

That idea is evil. Ok evil. It would make gameplay suckier.

 

[Deathgoroth]

That idea is evil. Ok evil. It would make gameplay suckier.

From that I conclude that you think the game would be more realistic.

 

[Evie]

The game being more realistic at the expanse of the gameplay being suckier is *not* a good thing.

 

[Al-Hejazi]

Deathgoroth! Well what you are thinking of does make sense but depends! we should like give disablities to every goverment type like for example

-democracy *may lead to anarchy* *and its a tru fact! Arnold schwatzaneger... i don't think he CAN! govern something... cause he is only a stupid actor who can hardly speak english! and if anyone read the novel Fahrenheit 451 it really gives you good examples! this book was wrote in the year 1950 and the guys idea of the future we are living in is like really true!*

-Republic *"leads to Coup d'etat" haha its true! saddam! no one liked him! and he is an angel compared to the other arabic goverments ... Pakistan had 2 coup d'etat so like.... i think it leads to a "coup d'etat" because like its the goverment type that had the most overthrowing by my knowledge*

-Monarchy *same thing as republic, in france poor louis he didn't last long the next one coming is Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia hahahaah*

-Caliphates *Can be a "peaceful or violent coup d'etat" if the caliphate is evil, but like he can be killed from the people governing or the people if he went too far, like in andalusia/arab conquerd spain when Muhammad Abi Amer became a minister and kept going up until the caliphate died he took everything and didn't let the son of the caliphate take place not to let it be a dynasty, And a violent one in egypt with the mamlukes and shajarat al-dur and the most violent one which was never to be repeated was before the prophet died in almost 20 or 30 years when the Ummayads became really racist and they were like extreme dictators and the Abbasids*their cousins* came and ended their misery.*

So it would be a good idea like the way you govern the country! if you are bad first thing will appear are Riots *like a warning* then something else then the massive punch, etc.!

You go on the rest!

 

[Denarr]

Unemployement is one of the many and sundry subjects that are grouped under the heading Discontented Citizen. When cities are overcrowded there are fewer jobs, more interaction amongst the discontent, more protesters, etc.. When the Discontent outnumber the Happy, then we have Civil Unrest, Riots, destruction of property, just like in the Civ game.
If it lasts too long, the government collapses, until some enterprising individual sets things aright again, either establishing a different governmental system, or trying to run things better under the old governmental system. (Anarchy and the choosing of the government at the end of Anarchy.)

I don't really understand the suggestion of allowing for the possibility of a governmental collapse and subsequent takeover, when one alreadly exists in the game.

The example of a middle east takeover is easy to simulate in the game....
A rival civ is constantly in turmoil, cities go into revolt, you go take over one of their revolting cities.
Unlike what the U.S. has done/will do, you probably won't give that city back, even after you give the rival government the secret of Democracy (as if you'd actually give a rival a free tech).

 

[Al-Hejazi]

The example of a middle east takeover, is easy to simulate in the game....
A rival civ is constantly in turmoil, cities go into revolt, you go take over one of their revolting (Eww...what's that smell?) cities.
Unlike what the U.S. has done/will do, you probably won't give that city back, even after you give the rival government the secret of Democracy (as if you'd actually give a rival a free tech).

What the hell are you trying to get at? Iraq...? well 85% of iraqis want america out after they saw those abuse pictures in the abu ghraib prison and the people have an extremly bad image of "american Democracy and Liberty" The Mayor of London stated a few weeks ago that everything is lost in iraq because of that teenager george bush and stated that the war in iraq was a gift to osama bin laden which is true! all of the iraqi resistance allied and some joined al-qaeda after the movie he released about berg, Because iraqis took that as He brought back our honor... Don't take things personal please and Iraq is for iraqis not americans and everyone knows they are here for the oil!

Don't try to deviate from the subject please we are taking about goverments and the way they fall. And arabs don't want democracy because it will turn into a dictatorship, same thing for republics and monarchy the only thing that lasted was caliphate and in iraq the 80% who want America out 30% want a caliphate because it isn't primitive as a monarchy or a republic, it is like a democracy but the only people allowed to elect a leader and govern the country are the highly educated.

 

[Denarr]

Which would be an example of a city culture flipping back to its original nationality.

This topic is about Unemployment!! Riots! Strike! Lockout! Cracks! Outbreak of war! and the possibility of having some of the Unemployed becoming a non-productive Specialist, not about goverments and the way they fall.

I suppose I should steer away from plays on words, or any other jokes that could be misconstrued as making fun of a current war.

Perhaps the next time I give an example, I should leave real situations out of it, since it seems to be such a touchy subject.

 

[Glorfinder]

How about, if your thing are going bad enought your nation could split to two? (like Vichy French)

 

[t3h_m013]

rnold schwatzaneger... i don't think he CAN! govern something... cause he is only a stupid actor who can hardly speak english!

haha, and sometimes when you use the "governet" your entire city riots and destroys every improvement in it. specially when that city has austrian foreign nationals living in it

 

[Henrikrd]

I think the idea of an unemployment-feature would be nice. On the other hand one would say that this feature is already represented through corruption and/waste, so...

In any case it's important that the gameplay not suffers from such feature.

 

[Deathgoroth]

Unemployement is one of the many and sundry subjects that are grouped under the heading Discontented Citizen. When cities are overcrowded there are fewer jobs, more interaction amongst the discontent, more protesters, etc..

I disagree. It is clear that there are no unemployment in Civilization. Either the citizens work on the field and then contributes to trade, shields and food, or they are specialists. Your interpretation that unemployment is grouped under the heading discontent citizens implies that the unemployed are no more that clowns (entertainers), which I find rather intimidating on behalf of the unemployed (no offence to professional clowns implied here!). The fact is that entertainers produce something, as they increase happyness, or the luxury rate. There are no consept of reduced production in this game! There are, however, inefficient application of labour, but NO UNEMPLOYMENT!
There should be some sort of mechanism that affects the potential force of labour in the game. I know of no society that do not have to relate to this problem.

 

[Evie]

Unemployment is represented in part by waste/corruption IMHO ; ie people that could be working (and thus add shields to your production and taxes to your revenue) but aren't. Of course corruption and waste represent more than just that, but IMHO it represent that in part.

That, plus corruption is bad enough at making gameplay less interesting - let's not add unemployment on top of that. Civ is supposed to be a game, with interesting gameplay. Not a reality simulator with photographic-level accuracy!

 

[Deathgoroth]

Unemployment is represented in part by waste/corruption IMHO ; ie people that could be working (and thus add shields to your production and taxes to your revenue) but aren't. Of course corruption and waste represent more than just that, but IMHO it represent that in part.

I could not disagree more to that. In Civ3, at least, corruption represent quite different things than unemployement. If not your interpratation does indeed imply a fascist thinking - as police and a feudal state palace will have to reduce unemployment. Basically, my idea introduces a new sound variable, that will actually work as an incentive to increase the interaction among players in the game, but few people seems able to grasp that fact. Following your reasoning, one should also get rid of all other variables that keep the player ahead from exponentional growth. That would contradict my views of interesting and balanced game play. The political implications of Civ3, as it is, does in fact suck to such a degree that it makes that game suckier, and adding realsim to balance game play and increase interaction could not make it any worse.

 

[gerth6000]

How about, if your thing are going bad enought your nation could split to two? (like Vichy French)

I think this is quite important thing to implement. Throughout history one of the key elements of winning a war and taking the opposing territory was to take the opponent's capital and create your own government. Most government types in Civ would probably surrender and make policy according to the victor, but the most loyal would defy the new rule and create their own kingdom/republic whatever.

To me, taking the capital of an opposing nation should have more effect, and losing your own capital should of course be a disaster.