Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by winddbourne, Nov 26, 2005.
Brilliant reposte. I applaud you.
It makes no sense that you can't vote in a global free market agreement. This happens in the real world all the time. I could also accept being able to vote in a global state property civic, as some countries have had ideologies based on state property. As someone pointed out it would make no sense to vote in global mercantilism.
A universal religion definitely should be included as an option, as opposed to "free religion" what else was spain fighting for during the inquisition and with the conquistidors? How about the thirty year war in germany? An established church and an established hegemony over the WORLD were the bywords of the day, even if they didn't quite have the technology to pull it off. However they weren't far off and if our culture hadn't swerved in another more democratic direction . . . well who can say where western culture would have gone?
Similiarly the Jihad of Islam was supporting a universal church and government, and there are people still behind that ideal in the middle east and asia today. And we aren't THAT far away from the rise of the "national socialist movement" in germany, or the time when Japan's God King tried to conquer a good portion of the earth.
A global religion isn't farfetched, it's almost a historical given. And given THAT, if you could get it voted in (i've had all but one country jewish five times now) you could obviously also vote in a global theocracy, or a global organized religion civic.
Good arguments. I'd just add that these modern ideals that we have and that UN supports are also the result of education. So, if you wanted to keep to the old ways and fight democracy and modern ideals, you should, in game terms, close down libraries and universities, teach creationism in schools rather than darwinism and otherwise stop your people from learning about science and the scientific theories/knowledge.
The UN represents the fight of liberalists and liberalism. Repressive regimes are never (knowingly) elected through populist means. (By knowingly, I mean that sometimes repressive regimes are elected, but often they become repressive after rising to power. In other cases, i.e. the recent Zimbabwe situation, the integrity of the election result is nearly always questioned).
If you want International Slavery, then you've got to do it the hard way - by demanding that your rivals adopt it and going to war when they don't.
Actually the "holy roman empire" (the western version) was for a long time an elected body even though it supported slavery. Republicanism and democracy are both electorial forms, but republicanism doesn't conflict with either aristocracy or monarchy. The roman emperors I believe were actually elected by the military. Nothing says the votes in an alternate UN are democratic, indeed when monarchies are voting (such as saudi arabia) you could say that it isn't a democratic institute at all.
As for saying that such things are the enemies of literate reason, well you have only to look to such literate societies as the 13nth century ottoman empire, the greek city states (the slave state of sparta for instance) the empire of Alexander, and especially the Empire of China which invented such things as gunpowder and the compass (and which even today is NOT exactly a democracy as it looks to become a world power again).
I really hate it when people think our modern way is the only way, or even the only "good" way for people to live. Freedom of choice also means accepting when people decide to live in a different kind of society, otherwise we have no real freedom at all.
Very educated people can find positives to say about things like aristocracy, or theocracy. You could say that aristocracy (for example) vests those with power into the land and prevents the most rampant abuses to the environment (if your children and grandchildren are going to be getting their wealth from the same piece of property you plan ahead and take care of it), theocracy could be said to promote the humanities and family values, plus societal traditions, a lack of womans sufferage could be said to promote lower prices (no two family incomes) and better child rearing (one parent always at home). Educated people know that each of these decisions have their pros and cons. Not that they are a godsend, but they aren't necessarally the source of barbarism and enemy of education either.
Ok off my rant against the narrowminded and uneducated . . . lol. The point is an elective body like the U.N could very easilly represent a world republic where all the voters are monarchs, emperors, god-kings, etc . . . And adopting values our current world doesn't share is just alternate history, not a contradiction of what the body MUST stand for.
It would be better if the law just stated that only one parent can work, regardless of gender.
I have figured out that I can in fact come up with an advantage and a disadvantage for anything.
They are alot less for slavery than abolition in my opinion though.
Back on topic, what if each civ doesn't change civics?
Does it happen automatically?
What if it was changed within 5 turns of the last change?
A more useful version would be to have "abstains" not get affected.
Of course a "-1" would apply to them from the voters.
Or make it like the real UN and make it for culture only.
We all know the UN doesn't do anything except be a tourist attraction in NYC.
You know what would make all the religous fascist hegemonists happy would be the option to do a north korea and give the big finger to the UN and say "I'll keep my slave filled police state thank you very much. Just you try and stop me". Now that would be more realistic and fun. Then all the UN nancies would have the option of ganging up on you and "peackeeping" yo ass out of the game.
(Not that I dare mention it's name here, but didn't a certain 3rd sequel to a space TBS attempt this rebelling against the "council" that part seemed quite good even if other aspects of the game were awful)
That would be nice, but it would also make the "diplomatic victory" a farce. The whole concept seems to imply an institution that actually has the whole world under it's thumb. I can see "America" trying to claim it had won a diplomatic victory and an alliance of N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and S. africa saying "Not our OUR world!" and marching on the U.N building. LOL
That wouldn't be much of a "victory" more of a sad joke. With no real victory until and unless all the dissenters where eliminated or enough of those who had voted FOR America were gone to make the election Null And Void.
To me the U.N is all about the establishment of the global hegonomy over the world, certain values (who care which ones for a game) being imposed by popular consent, and eventually one world leader elected to "win" the game with the same result as if he'd conquered the world with tanks and bombs. Everyone saying "yup, your the boss."
This is exactly what real life "anti-globalisation" supporters want though isnt it?
Personally I think every civic should be available in the UN, and if God forbid Tokugawa wins the election, he should be able to propose Mercantilism.
Kind of OT, but does anyone know what happens if you raze the city with the UN in it? Does the UN persist anyhow or is it out of the way for good?
what i would like is the ability to resist the UN. Get negative modifiers from other member states, sure. But sometimes, i just don't want to change civics out of my currently fine set up.
Repressive regimes. However, to a great extent, repression (or lack thereof) of one's own populace is not implemented in the game. Pretty much any civic in the game could include repressive laws or policies.
Anyway, it's entirely logical and reasonable for an enlightened regime to be elected to power. That is, for the electorate to voluntarily give up democratic process, or part of it.
Anyway, I personally would have no problem if you could use the UN to force global slavery, or global whatever. I think it'd be an improvement in game play.
Well, maybe Jose Bove. But not Noreena Hertz or Antonio Negri for example: they'd prefer opening up labor markets as fast as goods markets: not just free trade but free migration as well. And some sort of global social security, which might be equivalent to global state property. I think Bove is in a untenable position, as popular as it may be at the moment: local interests and worldwide solidarity don't mix. But that doesn't mean the entire 'anti-globalisation' movement is nonsense, though effectively everything useful in it is actually revamped socialism, but let's just keep that quiet ...
Quite frankly the ONLY Civics that I can any reason for excluding from the 'Global' system are the Basic ones (It would be fun, but pointless in a game sense to have Global Barbarism as an option)
I am sorry but I get a REAL laugh out of people who believe the UN is all about "peace, love and sun shine." The UN is NO different then any other political body in the history of man kind. It's about power and greed and about maintaining that power and greed. Yea I know that sounds bad but heck the UN was created by the 'winners' of WWII for the very purpose of trying to maintain that power.
I have NO problem believing that had the Axis won the war that they would have set up some kind of UN in their own image. To the victors goes the spoils. I could easily see a UN voting in slavery, one religion, or even abolishing religion, instating a world wide dictatorship is very feasible.
This is the BIGGEST problem I have with Civ IV, is the end game, it truly turns into politically correct BS. If I am truly some super being that lives forever, and the ultimate goal is to 'WIN' the game then why can't I do it in any form I see fit?????? If I command that much power then why shouldn't I be able to get some puppet UN to vote in any form of government, religion and economy????? Pfffttt I hate political correctness it even gets into our games sigggghhhh.
I agree. In my last game I built the UN and within 20 or so turns my Theocratic mercantelist dictatorship turned into a soft, sappy democracy simply because I lost the election once. I was the most powerful civ at the time too. I would like to see the UN be a little more dynamic than it currently is. Has anyone tried the mod yet?
This is a really good idea to me.
1) There is *still* slavery in the world - it takes many forms
2) The CSA did not succeed from the Union solely to continue operating legal slavery. Slavery just happenned to be one issue that the majority in the north disagreed with the minority south. It was more about how a majority from one region could dictate law and policy on a minority in another region where the interests of the minority were not represented by the majority, but were enforced upon the minority. This is still a problem in the US to this day - see the last election where all major metro areas went Kerry and all rural areas went Bush. I suppose this will always be a problem with a representative democracy (or whatever you want to call it...) that spans over such a large region and ergo many areas where special interests are totally different.
3) This is hardly the forum to discuss the merits of the US Civil War and it really has no real bearing on this discussion at all
Actually this isn't entirely true, many large powers have found benefit in almost the opposite. For example the chinese beauracracy with it's many ideas of every persons proper place and even the proper number of lines and words per line in poetry, or the persians (or medieval europeans) who held down their land by forcing the people to support highly expensive and well trained cavalry as an upper class, or even the sultan's of the educated and cultured Ottoman empire (murad the mad for example), not to mention the Assyrians or the Inca.
Liberal institutions are benefitial when:
(A) People maintain a certain level or respect for tradition and personal responsbility (beyond that it leads only to chaos)
(B) People are well educated and all have a fairly high standard of living
(C) Culture is fairly uniform and/or accepting of the unusual
(D) There is no massive threat to peoples security, most (not all) people will give up liberty for security and/or prosperity (hitler promised his people riches for example)
The "value" of liberty and liberal institutions can be VERY fragile.
Separate names with a comma.