World Wars and turn of the century Ideaologies

[thecommonnate]

I've recently found out that it is quite impossible to hold on to a large scale world war with this mod without coming very very close to a major rebellion.

Now I understand that there does need to be unrest during war, always... but I also think that the amount should be dynamic. Nationalism and Liberalism are the two big techs that I believe should be able to start large scale wars for an empire. Nations should be able to start a "patriot movement" after the discovery of Nationalism that decreases war weariness and possibly adds to the nations stability unless defeat is sure (WWI).

You should be able to do the opposite with the discovery of Liberalism. Besides the complete misinterpretation of the idea of liberalism, nations should be able to start a movement against nationalism, fascism (Police State), and maybe Monarchy (HR), Communism (SP), and Despotism. (Mainly WWII)
-PS, I only say this for Liberalism because it is defined by the game as a freedom and secular ideology (Which is not always true).

Anyway, those are my thoughts; in addition I also second the other nationalism idea on this forum making it harder for you to keep unindependent
colonies, vassals, and foreign territory.

 

[das]

Shouldn't anti-communism have more to do with nationalism, at least potentially? Also, anti-liberalism. But yes, it would be nice to see ideologies here, possessing varying degrees of influence under different circumstances and pushing for specific civics (both at home and abroad, the latter manifesting itself as support for ideologically-similar rebel movements, possibly leading to some events that cause strife with the ones they're rebelling against even if the ideology in question is not accepted or even tolerated by the player). Nationalist/patriot movements should probably also call for war when border tensions with other nations run high.

 

[jdog5000]

I am definitely planning on increasing the differences in the game before and after nationalism ... the invention of the concept of the nation and patriotism really had an enormous effect on the interactions between government and people. This will be part of the new "national" stability and revolution effects, and I will definitely be aiming to add pieces like your ideas.

That said, it's very hard to simulate or recognize a WWII like scenario in Civ, at least from the Allies side ... Dom Pedro has a really neat mod component in development which allows you to set up a puppet government (ie vassal) when you conquer cities. This will help make it possible to wage a massive war in the late game without necessarily incurring serious stability problems at least in your core area.

 

[thecommonnate]

Thats cool, but thats really what I wanted to hear you say jdog...I'll be looking forward to that.

@ das, I have to disagree with you. At the time it was founded Communism was a very liberal movement (preaching and demanding considerable change in lifestyle/politics). While republican and democratic ideals were conservative in nature because they had been around for the first part of the century (were talking 19th) and did not demand change.

But civ defines liberalism as liberty, and not liberal, therefore meaning freedom and equality, which is why I said what I said about it sort of going against nationalism in this case (countries nationalizing and wanting to only run their nationality against equality loving countries and the like).

Kind of screwed up, but a good way to incorporate these things I think.

 

[das]

At the time it was founded Communism was a very liberal movement (preaching and demanding considerable change in lifestyle/politics).

Wrong adjective: you're looking for "progressive", which doesn't have to coincide with Liberalism or Communism (which certainly don't have to coincide with each other either). Being progressive and being liberal are not necessarily the same things (see Orwell).

Anyway, I think you misunderstood, because I wrote unclearly. I suggested that anti-liberalism should also exist, at least as a component of other ideologies.

what I said about it sort of going against nationalism in this case (countries nationalizing and wanting to only run their nationality against equality loving countries and the like).

Problem: in real history, early nationalism often coincided with liberalism (see: pretty much every successful or failed revolution in late 18th-middle 19th century Europe).

 

[thecommonnate]

Okay, I like the word progressive, but I hope it's to a lesser extent then is radical (if you can't already tell I'm speaking from my knowledge of the political spectrum). But either way I will read some Orwell.

I defiantly know what you mean in your second point, but I'm just trying to use my original ideas in the first point to make it easier on the creator. I agree with you here though.