• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Why I am still here (10 years+) New ideas to share?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And, as a note, vassal and puppet states and protectorates do not necessarily, or even in majority in total instances, change their FORM OF GOVERNMENT - just their diplomatic posture, with a strong subservient stance to the one who defeated them.
Eumenes II came to Rome in 172 BC and delivered a speech to the Senate denouncing the alleged crimes and transgressions of Perseus.[201] This convinced the Roman Senate to declare the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BC).[note 14] Although Perseus's forces were victorious against the Romans at the Battle of Callinicus in 171 BC, the Macedonian army was defeated at the Battle of Pydna in June 168 BC.[202] Perseus fled to Samothrace but surrendered shortly afterwards, was brought to Rome for the triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, and was placed under house arrest at Alba Fucens, where he died in 166 BC.[203] The Romans abolished the Macedonian monarchy by installing four separate allied republics in its stead, their capitals located at Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia.[204] The Romans imposed severe laws inhibiting many social and economic interactions between the inhabitants of these republics, including the banning of marriages between them and the (temporary) prohibition on gold and silver mining.[204] A certain Andriscus, claiming Antigonid descent, rebelled against the Romans and was pronounced king of Macedonia, defeating the army of the Roman praetor Publius Juventiud. I'm right
 
Eumenes II came to Rome in 172 BC and delivered a speech to the Senate denouncing the alleged crimes and transgressions of Perseus.[201] This convinced the Roman Senate to declare the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BC).[note 14] Although Perseus's forces were victorious against the Romans at the Battle of Callinicus in 171 BC, the Macedonian army was defeated at the Battle of Pydna in June 168 BC.[202] Perseus fled to Samothrace but surrendered shortly afterwards, was brought to Rome for the triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, and was placed under house arrest at Alba Fucens, where he died in 166 BC.[203] The Romans abolished the Macedonian monarchy by installing four separate allied republics in its stead, their capitals located at Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia.[204] The Romans imposed severe laws inhibiting many social and economic interactions between the inhabitants of these republics, including the banning of marriages between them and the (temporary) prohibition on gold and silver mining.[204] A certain Andriscus, claiming Antigonid descent, rebelled against the Romans and was pronounced king of Macedonia, defeating the army of the Roman praetor Publius Juventiud. I'm right
Still, Macedonia aside, specific anecdotes versus the trend of the great majority of cases is a losing - but, for some reason, popular - style of argument today.
 
what about the treaty of Versailles ? the collapse of the Austro Hungarian Empire
And, the Weimar Republic, the Republic of Turkey, and the successor states of Austria-Hungary formed their own new governmet styles due to internal pressures - they were not dictated to them, or that heavily influenced, by the WW1 Allies.
 
I tend to agree with Patine here. You're, quite bluntly, lumping together a lot of different form of government type changes and labeling them all at being imposed from the outside when that's simply not always true.

Now, having a mechanism where certain states can become "Revolutionary" states - states that are trying to upend the established world stage and change the world order along ideological lines - and thus will impose government changes on their vassals (but will lose both the revolutionary type and their current government if defeated by their non-revolutionary enemies), that could be an interesting dynamic, which would roughly cover most of the nineteenth-twentieth century examples.

(NOTE: becoming a revolutionary state would be a choice made by the player, which does not cause the player to lose the game, nor cause the player to lose their leader).
 
I tend to agree with Patine here. You're, quite bluntly, lumping together a lot of different form of government type changes and labeling them all at being imposed from the outside when that's simply not always true.

Now, having a mechanism where certain states can become "Revolutionary" states - states that are trying to upend the established world stage and change the world order along ideological lines - and thus will impose government changes on their vassals (but will lose both the revolutionary type and their current government if defeated by their non-revolutionary enemies), that could be an interesting dynamic, which would roughly cover most of the nineteenth-twentieth century examples.

(NOTE: becoming a revolutionary state would be a choice made by the player, which does not cause the player to lose the game, nor cause the player to lose their leader).

Your revolution mechanism seems fun!
 
And, as a note, vassal and puppet states and protectorates do not necessarily, or even in majority in total instances, change their FORM OF GOVERNMENT - just their diplomatic posture, with a strong subservient stance to the one who defeated them.
When a monarchy defeats another monarchy, they’re not going to put a democratic leader in place.
 
I mean, no, not really. The system I just mentioned has nothing to do with loyalty and city flipping.

The two could be integrated, but what I'm describing with the revolutionary civ is a civ aiming to upend global political systems, and to impose new ways on the world such as France exporting the french revolutionary ideals or Soviet Russia exporting communism.
 
I mean, no, not really. The system I just mentioned has nothing to do with loyalty and city flipping.

The two could be integrated, but what I'm describing with the revolutionary civ is a civ aiming to upend global political systems, and to impose new ways on the world such as France exporting the french revolutionary ideals or Soviet Russia exporting communism.

A very similar mechanism could also be applied in-game to aggressive religions aimed at evangelizing the World, whether anybody wanted them or not. That would be aimed primarily at converting the population religiously rather than politically, although changing governments might certainly be a part of it: both Christianity and Islam in their most aggressive forms never supported anything resembling 'democratic' government types!

Off hand I can't see any major difference in the process of religious and political conversion, so using a similar process in the game (but please, not requiring hordes of individually-moved 'Missionaries' all over the map) would be an elegant solution to modeling two types of major events that have had huge impact on human history: the aggressive spread of religion and ideology.

- And both could be related directly to 'city flipping' and 'loyalty', if Loyalty is defined in terms of loyalty to a government/ideology OR to a specific religion, so that a city could be 'flipped' either politically or religiously, using, perhaps, different means (missionary work, agit-prop, etc) but a similar game mechanic.
 
I completely agree with the idea of religion and ideology using essentially the same mechanisms. They really are far too similar to do anything else.

Flipping or loyalty can definitely play a role, it's just I never got as far as to figure out what that role should be.

Really to me these all should play together into the *real* cultural victory. Not some nonsense about winning by luring tourists to visit you.
 
This is why I am for a system of Ideologies mostly related to cultural and diplomatic victories, since the inflence gameplay make a lot of sense for both religion and government systems.

Talking about imposing your ideologies over others civs it should be something that is possible and more significative the more you advance through the eras. I mean historically first some religious started with Proselitism and Universalism (not for nothing religions with these ideologies are the biggest now), then Humanism, Constitunionalism, Nationalism, Socialism and all kind of modern socio-economic ideologies started to be promoted, imported, exported and even forced all around the world, at the same time some of these ideologies with ideals of respect, equality, cooperation and progress made the traditional way of imperialism less viable, changing the geopolitical competition to built spheres of influence (we know decolonization, cold war and all those since middle 20th century).

I alredy have presented some suggestions with examples of ideology specific mechanics to represent all kind of different governments as something unique, significative and with narrative value instead of be the mindless acumulation of bonuses from tech-like civics/policies as we have in CIV6.
 
This is why I am for a system of Ideologies mostly related to cultural and diplomatic victories, since the inflence gameplay make a lot of sense for both religion and government systems.

Talking about imposing your ideologies over others civs it should be something that is possible and more significative the more you advance through the eras. I mean historically first some religious started with Proselitism and Universalism (not for nothing religions with these ideologies are the biggest now), then Humanism, Constitunionalism, Nationalism, Socialism and all kind of modern socio-economic ideologies started to be promoted, imported, exported and even forced all around the world, at the same time some of these ideologies with ideals of respect, equality, cooperation and progress made the traditional way of imperialism less viable, changing the geopolitical competition to built spheres of influence (we know decolonization, cold war and all those since middle 20th century).

I alredy have presented some suggestions with examples of ideology specific mechanics to represent all kind of different governments as something unique, significative and with narrative value instead of be the mindless acumulation of bonuses from tech-like civics/policies as we have in CIV6.
different ideologies need different leaaders so you don't need fixed leaders but dynasties and characters
 
different ideologies need different leaaders so you don't need fixed leaders but dynasties and characters
But, fixed leaders are a long-standing iconic trademark of Civ. There are other 4X games that dispense with it, but it's an integral part of Civ, and highly unlikely to change to facilitate one new mechanic, or because a tiny number of critical players say so.
 
But, fixed leaders are a long-standing iconic trademark of Civ. There are other 4X games that dispense with it, but it's an integral part of Civ, and highly unlikely to change to facilitate one new mechanic, or because a tiny number of critical players say so.
Logic can not see Napoleon communist or Stalin king every person and daughter of his time and a historical law!
 
Logic can not see Napoleon communist or Stalin king every person and daughter of his time and a historical law!
No, hard logic can't, I agree. But the Civ series - or any other 4X games - has their signature conceits that deviate greatly from hard logic. The Age of Empires series, Humanity, the Paradox Games, and the Total War games, and pretty much all others, have their own signautre deviations from hard logic. And, such deviation are NECESSARY to make these games playable and enjoyable.
 
I think you’ve been missing the point that this game series is not a history simulation.
true and a civilization simulator with its leaders forms of government , dynasties the godfather civera made with leaders because technologically limited was 1991 . in call to power they are replaced by ambassadors
 
true and a civilization simulator with its leaders forms of government , dynasties the godfather civera made with leaders because technologically limited was 1991 . in call to power they are replaced by ambassadors
Technology is not the reason.
 
A state can collapse even without a war like the Roman Empire fell by a coup , or like the Soviet Union ended for internal reasons and the bankruptcy of the state , this should be simulated ! I am ready for discussion
 
In. Various types of government should be present : monarchy , republicics, confederation, Federer action, as a state form, and as a form of government , fascism, democracy, theocracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, communism, ecologist utopia, of course if you are a communist you cannot be a monarchist, and you cannot build the stock exchange , and the revolution cannot be without consequences ,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom