Who needs revolutions? I want successions!

[Starving Poet]

This was an idea I've been tossing around with a few friends of mine who don't really feel that starving their civs or ignoring their demands has any adverse affect but -at the ultimate worst- causing a few turns of anarchy.

Well my idea would be that let's say you are democratic and you are just always at war, conscripting the hell out of people and your approval rating drops below 25%. Now what happens is that you can dumped back into anarchy and lose production for a few turns. Well, if I want all I have to do is make all my citizens into specialists and though I can't produce anything I can keep my research at least moving forward, or I can keep the money flowing. Whatever.

Well, what if my discontented towns decided to succede from my union? Now I would be worried. Instead of having half my towns in disorder... now they are not even mine anymore and now my concerns are conquering this new AI opponent that has taken everything I used to build those towns up against me. My primary concerns would shift from world domination to reuniting my country. And if, shame on me, I let my production powerhouses become too unhappy, then I might never be able to get them back. So now I have 1 more enemy to conquer and a much smaller production base from which to do it.

 

[BomberEscort]

I agree, there are not enough negative consequenses to Republic and Democracy when you conduct yourself like you said...

 

[Krayzeenbk]

I agree there should be more consequences, but I don't think that secession should be one of them.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

I agree that democracy is too strong in civ3.
The only drawback is high war weariness. However the experienced player will learn to deal with that. For instance when you have market places, acces to 8 luxuries and cathedrals plus the michelangelo wonder,plus Women's suffrage, being in a Democracy is a walkover. If on top of that you are religious it becomes ridiculous.

Some suggestions for making democracies a bit more of a challange.

1)Pollution should cause unhappiness. For instance every third (more or less) deathshead sign might cause one unhappy citizen.

2)In Democracies a greater share of GDP goes into private consumption. One way of representing this in relative terms might be to raise the cost of military units from 1g to 2g per unit.

3)Democracies must be totally UNABLE to declare war on other democracies. I don't believe thare has been an instant in world history where two democracies have fought eachother. This a severe design flaw in the game.

4)Democracies can only mobilize if they are in fact at war with another civilization. No electorate would find mobilization in peacetime acceptable.

5)On the plus side in order to strengthen Democracy versus the Republic, going from a Democracy into another form of government will only cause one turn of Anarchy, since after all it was the majority of the 'people' who decided they needed another form of government.

 

[akinkhoo]

3)Democracies must be totally UNABLE to declare war on other democracies. I don't believe thare has been an instant in world history where two democracies have fought eachother. This a severe design flaw in the game.

the reason most nation don't go to war is due to free market...
no one wants to lose their economy, it is not due to democracy but capitalism.

modern nation doesn't have democratic governing system, most usually are republic (+constiution).
democratic governing requires the people to has their say "per issue", and not a "package deal" in todays' government.
some of the country USA has fought are democratically elected republics.

i am in a "so-called" democratic country, allied closely to the USA.
however, the country has such a weak constiution that there is no room for opposition voices.
it is a "democracy", but with only 1 "package deal" available.
it is a "important ally and friend" to george bush who stop by recently because we happen to have a free trade agreement!

seriously, it is "ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!"

 

[Rik Meleet]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
3)Democracies must be totally UNABLE to declare war on other democracies. I don't believe thare has been an instant in world history where two democracies have fought eachother. This a severe design flaw in the game.

I don't agree with being unable to, it should not be benificiary. Perhaps declaring war as Democracy on another Democratic civ should have a very severe penalty; for instance a huge unhappyness due to immediate War Weariness, a 25% extra corruption/waste or a doubled units cost.

But that would mean; the "if you want to be safe choose Democracy" gets too powerful. You are now already safe from many spy-actions. And you could cripple your Democratic AI rival a lot, by failing to plant a spy, demand troops to leave etc. I think your plan has too many disadvantages over advantages.

I remember the Civ 2 days when every time I wanted to fight the horrible parliament blocked further actions and signed a peace traty. I hated that.

 

[Sun]

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I remember the Civ 2 days when every time I wanted to fight the horrible parliament blocked further actions and signed a peace traty. I hated that. [/B]

Oh yeah, those were the days!! It would infuriate the hell out of me

And most the time I just switched goverment just so I could finally get my war on

Anyways, I think secession would be a cool additional aspect to have. I can easily imagine a far off colony on some remote island to decide to go their own way when war weariness gets the better of them.

Of course, if this were ever implemented and would happen to me, ay, I'd pull the hairs out of my head in frustration.