Coalition/ Emergency government

red_jon · October 21, 2000, 05:18

I think that the fact that you (usually) have to have a revolution and change government in a war when you are a Democracy is unrealistic.

You should be able to change the government into a coalition (all the political parties working together, voting rights suspended) like Britian did in both world wars.
I mean, you're hardly going to carry on voting, with the parties trying to undermine each other, when fascist hordes are on your doorstep!

But, if you carry the coalition on after the war, it should make citizens increasingly unhappy.
Rationing should also be a possibility.

Evil Capitalist · October 21, 2000, 06:30

I agree- although suspending voting rights?

My guess is that the makers of Civ2 were thinking Vietnam rather than WW2 when they wrote that rule. This is yet another reason for my 'levels of war' idea, not that anyone cares.

red_jon · October 21, 2000, 07:23

Yeah, that a good idea.

And yes, suspending voting rights. If all the parties are working together, you can't exactly vote for a single one.
That is what a coalition is about- its only for emergencies.

------------------
...And if the British Commonwealth and its people live for a thousand years, man will still say "this was their finest hour".

DarkCloud · October 21, 2000, 17:50

Isn't civ entirely based around no voting, even though a govt is called a Republic or Democracy, you always rule.

UltraSonix · October 21, 2000, 19:00

quote:

Isn't civ entirely based around no voting, even though a govt is called a Republic or Democracy, you always rule.

Yeah, but remember sometimes you couldn't declare war because the senate/house overruled you...

And I think there should be a downside to establishing one of those governments, else the game would become unbalanced. Maybe the citizens become less happy / produce less science, or something...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

red_jon · October 22, 2000, 05:03

The downside would be citizen unhappiness. The longer it is in effect, the more unhappy the citizens should be.

It would create less happy people and more unhappy people. However, martial law can be used to an extent. (However, this should make citizens more unhappy in other cities).

The bonus would be an increase in production for military units (citizens pitching in to do their duty to their country).

Under coalition science, gold and luxuries should be severely hampered.

I think it would give a real feeling of emergency for your civilization.

------------------
...And if the British Commonwealth and its people live for a thousand years, man will still say "this was their finest hour"- Winston Churchill.

UltraSonix · October 22, 2000, 17:28

By the way, has this proposal got anthing to do with the Middle East situation? I hear that Barak is trying to form one of these emergency governments, but I've no idea what benefits it could impart on him...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Evil Capitalist · October 22, 2000, 17:41

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-22-2000 05:28 PM
By the way, has this proposal got anthing to do with the Middle East situation? I hear that Barak is trying to form one of these emergency governments, but I've no idea what benefits it could impart on him...

He gets veteran spies, up to 3 units can institute martial order and his courthouses become a drain on the economy.