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

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

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...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Otherwise Christantine's idea is very good.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

*Revolutions and Civil wars?
*Revolutions Master List (hosted by yours truly)

quote: There are many aspects of revolutions that have been overlooked in previous civs that I think should definitely be included in civ 3. Governemnt Revolutions -- of course this is the one that is included. I would like to add an idea is saw in a another thread to the list. The concept that the people REJECT the revolution. If you are running a lax society and you try to switch to fascism there are bound to be protests. The onyl way to stop this is to either accept the demands of the people or send in the military. Furthermore when your civ reachers certain sizes it splits into regions, each with its own capital and traits. Each region of your government must accept this revolution before it can function fully. This is like in real life where colonies were run by the military whereas back home there was a parliment or congress. Military Revolutions The basic system of military has changed so much in the last 6000 years. Is it it to be recognized with just a few advancements? No! I think that you should revolt and change your military the same way you can your government. In the beginning you could be a "caveman" type military, with a better name of course, where you can only make unamred foot units and such. With a certain advance you will have to change to "warrior code" military system. This will let you make any kind of foot unit. After a while the "Ranked Amry" military system will include cavalry and seige to the mix. You get the idea. Economic Revolution Civs will start out as "Nomad" type economies. Eventually they will evolve into "Barter" or "Bandit" type economies. Your type of economy will affect your income and your standing in the world as will your military. Economics will become more complicated in the later years, for example should you be a Communist or a Capitalist? Both of those should have similar benefits that apply to different things, Capitalism gives more money from Merchant workers and such and Communism gives more money from city improvements. Also one capatilist naition will like another capitalist nation better than a communist nation. And that communist nation will like other commies better. Social Revolutions There are too many of these to count. From recognizing the Divine Right of Kings, to the Season of Love/Hate, Labor Unions, Womans Suffrage, all will have to occur for certain things to happen or units/improvements to be built or advances learned. For example your culture must experience the Womans Suffrage Social Revolution before you can research Democracy, etc. What do you all think of this idea?

There are 2 types of revolutions:
1. Contested
2. Uncontested

Uncontested is when the Player overthrows the government, and establishes one that the people favor. There will be no rebels or secessions from this. There will only be the usual temporary anarchy.

There are 4 types of violent revolutions:
1. Conservative
2. Radical
3. Conservative (Independence)
4. Radical (Independence)

Note: Each type of violent revolution is based on the response of the population to the leader's action or inaction.

PART I: A CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION

A Conservative revolution is when the people of a nation rise up against a leader in response to the leader changing his government.

The people try to reestablish the status quo. If the new government is HATED (Ex. Democracy to Despotism)the people across the nation overthrow the new government, and the next turn the Player is made leader of the old government.

The more violent response is when only part of the people rebel in favor of the old government. A civil war begins for the purpose of overthrowing the Player. The Player's responsibility is to use its troops to reclaim rebellious territories. The rebels spread through causing other cities to join them.

The rebels are NOT a new civilization. They are the PLAYER'S territories that abide by the rules of the old government. The player simply can not control each city until they take it. If the rebel movement takes the capital, the Player is proclaimed ruler of the original government, and then has the responsibility to force the remaining cities back under the old government.

PART II: A RADICAL REVOLUTION

A Radical revolution stems from a ruler's inactivity. In other words, if a player remains under a government longer than its usefulness, the people will rise up to form a new government. It works under the same principle as a Conservative revolution except that the people are fighting for a new government rather than the old. They people can overthrow the whole thing in one turn if the old government has become VERY unpopular. And if the capital is taken the Player is declared leader of the NEW government.

PART III: A CONSERVATIVE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

This is in response to a new government made by the Player. Instead of trying to overthrow the Player, a territory or group of territories declare their independence. The Player must then fight to make the territories rejoin the civilization by taking the territories.

Once again, the revolting cities are still part of the Player's civilization. They are simply under the old government, but they have the intention of becoming independent. The Player does not have control over the rebel cities' actions. Once independence is declared, the rebellion will not spread. If another outside civilization chooses to recognize the rebels, then and ONLY then, the rebels become another civilization. The Player must then establish diplomatic relations and treat them as another civ instead of upstart rebel cities under your sovereignty.

PART IV: A RADICAL WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
This is due to the Player's inactivity to change the government. The same rules apply here as with Part III. The difference is that they are under a new government instead of the old one.

CONCLUSION: When changing governments, the player must consider 1) the popular effect it will have, and 2) his standing with other nations. If the Player chooses poorly, the citizens could rebel in a bloodless revolution or in a civil war. Other nations can recognize the rebels as being right.

Or the Player can find a chunk of cities fighting for independence, and an enemy could simply recognize the rebels and make the independence permanent.

The player must also be conscious of what change the people want. Revolutions or declarations of independence will come without warning if it is done by radicals. And it is also possible that enemy civilizations will send in spy to incite revolutions for new government. So be careful.

------------------
"...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

In fact, maybe the leader should not be able to make a Republic, it can only come from a popular revolt. Then the player would be made President of the Republic. And then from there, there is the possibility of becoming Fascist where either the people overthrow the Republic or the leader becomes a dictator.

In fact, the best thing to do MIGHT be to get rid of Democracy as a government. The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Most countries are Republics. Britain is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Monarchy. Instead you would make gradual steps toward democratization And getting a Cons. Monarchy would have similar benefits as a Democracy as would a Republic. The next step in a Const. Monarchy could be to make the Prime Minister the head of state rather than the king.

Another point, you should not be able to go from a Republic or any other kind without a king to a Monarchy. Afterall, you can't be king just because "some watery tart throws a sword at you!"

Look at Indonisia(sic)

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"