Revolutions

[Shadowstrike]

Civilization II makes revolutions too easy. Sure, sure, you go through a couple turns of Anarchy, but its all bloodless and everything. They should change this for Civilization III. A schism everytime you start a revolution would be more realistic, or barring that, a loss of a few population points and some damage incured to units would suffice.
Another problem with revolutions is the radical shifts. In Civ 2, you can shift from Democracy to Fundamentalism to Communism to Monarchy without any penalties. There should be a more significant result if you start a revolution to change governments radically. Ideally, if you shift from Democracy to Fundamentalism, expect intolerance from some of your cities.

[Comrade Dan]

Have some of your Civ break off, like in a civil war. Have the Russian Civil war as a template, or the English civil war. Loyalists and 'modernists' - and you end up in control of modernists trying to wipe out the loyalists.

The fragmentation shouldn't be too big, like 5 out of 30 cities...

Not all revolutions are blood baths- in Britain the transition from monarchy to republic was called the glorious revolution- no battles (except debatably the battle of the Boyne). As for the transition from republic to democracy- painless. The same is true for nations like Germany, where the government collapsed and was replaced.

[UltraSonix]

What about SMAC's way of fixing "easy revolutions" - pay money based on difficulty level.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Shadowstrike]

Well, mostly, I was refering to the bigger shifts, like from Communism to Democracy. Generally, the penalty should be small or nil from small shifts, like from Republic to Democracy.

[Par4]

Ah but there needs to be a need. Maybe if everyone is 1 religion or most everyone 1 religion they might want fundy, or if there's lots of lower class people or poor people or unemployed they might want commieism. Or if the current government is bad, be it was or loss of economy strength, they might want revolution.

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[FireWater]

quote: from Communism to Democracy.

That reminds me of one thing that should really be corrected:

Monarchy, Democracy, Anarchy, Oligarchy are all forms of state ( how a state is ruled ), Communism is in the same group as free Market or limited Market ( how economy works in the state ).

We have seen Oligarchic Communisms, Fundamentalist Regimes using a limited free Market economy and many other combinations in the "real" world.

Don't compare apples and bananas.

Ha ha.. religion has a way of sneeking into every thread..

Maybe conversions from despostism/monarchy/republic to democracy could all be v. peaceful.. Conversion to communism, early republic or fundamentalism would involve modernists and loyalists...

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

Perhaps the longer you have a government form the worse the revolution, to represent the way the establishment is entrenched. Or perhaps there could be the option of slow revolution, over 10 or 20 turns.

[phunny pharmer]

Hey, look what happened to Russia in the second decade of this century.

1) Autocratic monarcy gets itself in a war due to nationalistic ties to the Serbs.
2) Ill-equipped peasant army is worked by German war machine. Example: Tannenberg
3) Autorcratic army loses vast territories to the Germans. Counterattack of 1916(?) recovers some land, but the army breaks apart.
4) Czar is stuck on a railroad siding in the boonies. The Russian revolution begins.
5) The provisional government, a collection of liberals, forms to continue the war. From the start, the solviets, or workers councils, work to undermine the regime.
6) Lenin is given safe passage to Russia from Switzerland. The Germans try to subvert the Russian war machine. They are successful.
7) Anarchy and civil war. The provisional government falls out of favor. Lenin, by a series of meneuvers by himself and his henchmen, take control of the solviets, and eventually oust the provisonal government.
8) Lenin makes peace with the Germans. In the treaty of Brest-L(something (it's been three monthis since the AP)). Russia gives up 1/3 of its population.
8) Civil disorder and civil war. 'Reds' fight the 'Whites', in a great civil war. Reds hold Moskow, while Whites attack from sides of the empire. Whites are not united, and are fought off. Lasts 1918-20
10) Lenin dies (1923). Power sruggle follows.
11) The New Economic Plan is implemented (1920's). Viewed as 'two steps foward, one step back', it restores limited capitalism so that the govenment can increase productivity. Russia is a wasteland at this time.
12) In the purges, communism is reinstated.

I guess this isn't exactly a planned revolution...

[Shadowstrike]

This brings us to a wonderful idea. What about unplanned revolutions? Sure, they happen under Democracy with a city in civil disorder, but what about the revolutions you didn't plan? It could cause a dramatic shift of strategy to deal with an unplanned schism. As a benificial side effect, this could thwart ICSers by having their empire reduced.

[phunny pharmer]

Or how about having parts of your empire go into revolution while other parts try to maintain control- not quite the same thing as a rebellion, as you can choose to side with communist regime as to the monarchy...and watch your empire infight and struggle for power...hehehe...hehehe...

[UltraSonix]

quote: This brings us to a wonderful idea. What about unplanned revolutions? Sure, they happen under Democracy with a city in civil disorder, but what about the revolutions you didn't plan? It could cause a dramatic shift of strategy to deal with an unplanned schism. As a benificial side effect, this could thwart ICSers by having their empire reduced.

Yeah! So if your civ gets too big then different parts of it would want different governments (or SE settings?) and would try to break away. You could change govs to appease the repel group, but the result is that the other group would try to break away because they liked the old way better.

(And I just had another thought - why can't diff parts of the civ be under diff SE/gov? This could be done under the provinces system people here like so much. The condition would be the gov types/SE settings are not too uncompatible with each other.)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Shadowstrike]

We should really extend this concept to include changes in the SE (or SI)system, assuming that Firaxis will use it. For instance, a schism starts because the communists in your civilization feel threatened by your sudden shift into capitialism (financial system) or the military feels threatened beacuse you now help the merchant class more, and some of your units defect to the new side.

Speaking of the values system, I think we should make it into a sliding bar, i.e., you have to divide your support (using tax money) up between the military, the economy, the scientists and the people. You can try to satisfy everybody, but it would cost a lot of money, or you could satisfy only one faction and leave the rest unhappy (and liable to revolt) Satisfied factions should offer their support cheaper too (for instance, if the military likes you then you can build cheaper units, etc.)

[Christantine The Great]

I think I have an idea.

When you start the revolution you get a timer (based on turns) that tells you how well your government-making is going. The timer is longer if you have had your current government for a long period of time because the old gov leaves a bigger stain to be cleaned up the longer it has been there. During this time you cannot build new military units and you collect half of your taxes. Scientific research is suspended. Also during this time cities or regions can secede from your country.

A city or region will secede because of what it is a major hub or base of. There are three major types of cities. They are science, military and trade.

A science hub will secede if you change from any government to a Fundimentalist gov because that gov supresses scientific research.

A military base (section of empire that has many military units and facilities) will secede if you switch from a any government to a Republic or Democracy because they support peace.

A trading hub will secede if you switch from a Republic or Democracy to anything else because they all have high corruption rates and communist and fundimentalist, too. (those two stifle trade)

A military revolt would take all vet. units except ones in the capital and any city with strategic value 8 squares away from the capital. These cities have more military improvements than trade routes and science improvements. No city limit.

A science revolt would take all science cities that are 8 squares away from the capital. These cities would have more science improvements/wonders than any others in the area. They would take the top 5 away.

A trade revolt would take away the top 5 trading cities that are 8 squares or more away from the capital.

If a revolt is going to happen it will happen within the first 50% of the timer's countdown. When a revolt happens, you have until the end of the timer to take back those cities before they are able to be reconized by the rest of the world as countries. All allies with you will not reconize their independence unless you tell them they can. All countries who hate yours will help them in the civil war by only supplying them with troops, money or tech.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[UltraSonix]

I like your idea in principle, but I think it can be changed slightly - instead of having the "redemption period", any cities that decide to leave in a revolution simply leaves (so obviously the chance of that happening is quite small).
And any cities that does leave will not become independent. A military city will join a militaristic civ if there is any etc. If they're isn't, then it WON'T LEAVE. This is because simply having the city go independent isn't viable - it'll just be crushed by the rest of your empire, so it'll see that, and won't leave unless it can join another civ.

Otherwise Christantine's idea is very good.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[DarkCloud]

How about the Governments changing would result in a pay-off as I believe someone suggested.

This pay-off would be different depending on the type of civilization you were.
If you were Millitary but switched from Despotism to Republic, the millitary would either disband or require a (large) sum.

-DC

[DarkCloud]

Or perhaps when you change governments the state goes through a period when for 1-5 turns depending on your difficulty level you have no control over your civ.

Yes I know this can be annoying, but it really does illustrate anarchy.

[Shadowstrike]

*MAJOR BUMP*

Any more opinions on this?

[Nick-oh]

What is everyones obsession with distance from the capital city. Does it really make that much difference in a revolution. I mean the capital is where all the political minds of your empire congregate. Is there a more likely place for a plot to be hatched against you? Granted in many cases it is easied to control the capital than outlying areas, but the reverse also holds true.

My favourite idea is that entire regions (if implemented) might break off from your empire and declare independance. Not one or two cities, but big chunks. Really damaging stuff. Any units supported by the cities that break away, but kept in your remaining cities would attack your troops in the cities. Spies in similar situations would try to convert your troops and if not dealt with quickly more cities could fall in this manner.

If a region has been taken over from another civ, nationalistic pride should increase the chance of revolution a la Austria-Hungary and the Balkans.

In short, large empires should be exceptionally hard to maintain, particulary so if aquired militaristically. This would also go a long way toward solving ICS problems

[UltraSonix]

Nick-oh, I suggest you go through the old threads, I've lost count of the number of times regions/revolutions has been discussed here - including your suggestion.

*UltraSonix shudders at the thought of the old idea resurfacing*

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Revolutions should happen a couple turns after a gov't type has been discovered based on yor civs city improvements. For example if you discover democracy, this form of gov't is most preferred by merchants and academics, and you have lots of markets, banks, and universities, and less military and religious improvements you will switch to that form of gov't in a random number of turns <7. If you have few markets and universities and lots of temples then you would not be able to have a democratic gov't.

I also like the concept of nationalism in civ. Conquered cities or advanced tribes would break away during a change of gov't or at any time they had enough angry citizens.

Just wanted to say that it's good to see some new faces in the forums

Revolutions has been a highly debated topic. My thoughts are that giving the people more power should be less likely to cause a bloody revolution. I mean, who's going to argue when the King is overthrown to begin a democracy where people can vote on issues? well the royal family of course

Comrade Dan - that's not neccesarrily true about only 1/6 cities revolting and forming their own nation. Generally, it's probably accurate. But what about the colonies? Our population was greater than England's when we revolted and formed the USA. As well as India (even though that was much more peaceful). The USSR was more peaceful as well, and..they're still sorta in anarchy...but 13 countries were formed as a result of the break up...I'm sure you have more knowledge about that than I do

Just some food for thought

------------------
"One day I will become a master at every woman's favourite game,'Guess what I'm upset about'" ~ LatG
"Dookie doesn't spam, he just makes funposts" ~ Dookie
"I duct taped myself to the wall" ~ Fallen Angel Lord
"You have a dangerous degree of obesssion with modern chivalry" ~ EvC on Speer
"um...Geez, I don't know. I'm mature for my age or something?" ~ Bill3000
"It's a good bunch here!...better than my miserable social life in Hull" ~ Provost on Apolyton

[Shadowstrike]

*yawn* I stayed up all last night playing SF...

That's about what we're trying to simulate. Generally, if you have a lot of unhappy citizens, you get more then civil disorder, you get revolt. They should rise up, form their own civ.

And when you declare a revolution, and some citizens become unhappy, they might rebel. It curbs ICS though revolts, and provides realism. Two birds with one stone, what could be better?

[DrFell]

My thoughts were that under anarchy you might get barb partisans or whatever springing up near unhappy, revolting cities... this'd make barb revolts make more sense in the game... or if you have a serious problem during revolution, i.e. capital in disorder then you could get a major civil war where cities break off forming a new civ... at war with you of course. Generally this would happen in cities far from the capital i.e. with high corruption, and unhappiness of course. This would force you to place more emphasis on keeping the people happy during the revolution, which seems realistic. I think civil wars like this should only happen under anarchy tho... with other government forms even despotism i assume you have too much control over the government to allow anything but minor civil wars (barb uprisings) from revolting cities. Certainly frequent revolutions, especially the way the AI seems to work this should cause them problems - it seems ridiculous going into anarchy every time the AI decides to go to war.

Well, I've been reading some of the posts here on this topic, and I think that it is important to evaluate exactly what a revolution is.

First, if the king or queen overthrows his Monarchy and becomes Fundamentalist or Communist, there should be nothing more than the usual government switching because its the leader's decision. If they switch from Monarchy to Democracy or Republic, who's going to complain? No violent revolutions here.

Second, there are two kind of violent revolutions...
1. Where the people of the status quo rise up against a changing government.

Example: The American Revolution and the American Civil War.

2. When the revolutionaries rise up against the status quo government.

Example: The Russian Revolution

In the case of the American Revolution and the American Civil War, the people were dealing with a government threatening their current way of life. It was usually because of or the fear of a government becoming more powerful. In Civ terms this the result of the leader who changes their more people-friendly governments for a government that gives them much more control.

In the case of the Russian Revolution, the people rose up against an inactive government. It was a government that was pulling back on every move toward democracy that it made. There were other factors of course, but it was the lack of the development of democracy that led to the rise of the Communists. But also there was a tremendous amount of White Russians that wanted the Monarchy back. So in Civilization terms, it is the people seeking a whole new form of government that rise up before a leader has altered their government. This could either be a group of military units that appear or an actual forcing of the civilization into anarchy in order to set up a new government.

Or maybe another possibility is like that of the Russian Revolution. The Communists didn't just take Russia, they moved out and expanded their territory taking it from the White Russians. Maybe a certain city could become the main starting point for the revolution. Then they would cause other cities to revolt. They would not be new civilizations because if they completely took over, they would just force the new government into effect and things would continue, but you can use the military to retake cities and bring them back under your government. Or if they take the capital and leave other cities, you take command of the new government, and the other cities will continue to fight on under the old one. You than have to retake those cities or attempt to switch back to the old government.

As for individual regions completely separating from the empire, it depends. Like with the American revolution, it depends on how heavily the government is coming down on that region. If the government imposes heavy taxes or passes legislation that directly hurts the region, they will. That sort of thing would be incredibly difficult to employ in the game.

It might also be if the government is not doing enough for that region. It could also be religious. If they put religion in the game, conquered cities should certainly be more prone to breaking away.

One more important point, the revolutionaries may not be wanting to go from a Monarchy to a Democracy. Maybe, as was the case in Europe before WWII, most of the country wanted Fascism in order to lead them out of the Depression. Or in the case of Brazil where most of the country supported a military coup to overthrow the President to have new elections (they never came, but still the people backed it in the beginning).

Just a few things to consider.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited October 03, 2000).]

[Roman]

Just for accuracy, Orangeswr, when USA revolted against Britain, it actually had a much smaller population than Britain (about a half if I recall correctly). I do see your point though, maybe it should be random amount of cities that revolt with 1/6 as the mean.

[Shadowstrike]

EL BUMPO

[Dom Pedro II]

(This goes back to my (Hannibal3)'s post in this thread)

Okay, this is a real stretch, but how about if any new government has to seek some kind of recognition? Whenever a government is overthrown, the new government has to seek international recognition otherwise it is just a group of revolutionaries. The way to be recognized is to sign a treaty with one other civilization after the revolution because all diplomatic status will be cleared.

If no nation will recognize you, then they support the old government, and if there are some of your cities that continue under the old government, they will be on their side in the civil war. This has been true for many years in revolutions including the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese revolution (although after fleeing to Tawain, there was no more internal fighting... yet).

This could also prove a danger to an old government run by you. They could recognize a rebelling province as a new country. (This was a concern during the American Civil War because Britain and France came close to recognizing the CSA. So you as a ruler must prevent recognition). Once they are recognized, they become a new player in the game that you have to set up treaties with and treat as a real civilization. Other civs could do worse and recognize it as the true government of your nation!! (It depends on whether a province is seeking separation or is trying to lead a rebellion to overthrow your government) If they do this, they'll probably attack you.



------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

[UltraSonix]

from the archives (may '99):

quote: REVOLUTION: I know you can change your government type, and this simulates revolution. However, I would like it if there was real revolution- a Reigon or some cities decides to break away from your Civ and become one of it's own. This could happen for a number of reasons- Tax rate (if there is one) Inefficiency (they're far away, and you're managing them inefficiently) Psych (you use too many police/military for drone control, too many riots in a given time span) Once the revolution happens, you've got the usual options- crush the rebellion, or let them go. They would then be a civ of their own accord. Annoying as hell, yes. But authentic. And 'forment revolution' would be a nice, authentic, and nasty ability to add to the spies... (first wave of spies: incite riots. Second wave: forment revolution). Tehee.

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