What are reasons to be a democracy?

[Victor Cortez]

In-game: Democracies have no bonuses because the main purpose of having different ideologies is to restrict what democratic countries (mostly France, UK and US) can do.

In real life: Democracies are more efficient as they tend to be less corrupt, with less bureaucracy, with less people in the police forces and with more internal competition. Democracies also attract scientists and intellectuals, spies and whatnot.

 

[Lorehead]

I like the idea of there being some kind of advantage to democracy even in a scenario where the democracies don’t start out in the strongest position or the U.S. goes Red. Which can happen in some popular mods, or a multiplayer game.

Maybe it’s that the democracies had much stronger economies (Although, can we really call the British Empire during the famine in India a “democracy?”) than Communist or Fascist countries. Maybe it’s that they had better research: the Germans ideologically rejected large parts of modern physics and the Soviets large parts of modern biology, and a number of important scientists defected. Maybe it’s that they’ll end up, after every election, with a party most of them are happy with and policies that are more or less appropriate to the situation. They can change their leaders and their course non-violently and get a honeymoon.

 

[elessar90]

i don't really get why nations have to be balanced in a historical WW2 sandbox. Not to mention the most powerful democracy also happens to be the most powerful nation in the world anyway...

because it is sandbox as you mentioned, I think

 

[elessar90]

I've edited first post to clarify what I mean.

 

[Number 7]

because it is sandbox as you mentioned, I think

yeah, but its a historical WW2 based sandbox, meaning it plays by the rules set by the period. Which is democracies being more limited than dictatorships.

 

[elessar90]

yeah, but its a historical WW2 based sandbox, meaning it plays by the rules set by the period. Which is democracies being more limited than dictatorships.

I don't complain about limitations - they're must be in the game. I'm just wondering why they don't have any benefits here. Is it accurate enough? I don't think so.

 

[Gort11]

I don't complain about limitations - they're must be in the game. I'm just wondering why they don't have any benefits here. Is it accurate enough? I don't think so.

You haven't really suggested a benefit for them to have, though. A vague sense that because one thing has limitations it must also have benefits is not enough.

 

[Kubusta]

I don't complain about limitations - they're must be in the game. I'm just wondering why they don't have any benefits here. Is it accurate enough? I don't think so.

Well that bonuses should they have? Democracy does not bring any advantage compared to other regimes. People are mostly happy in all regimes. Democracy is here to bring freedom. Actually also in today's world we can see that sometimes democracies are not working as they should and that dictators are sometimes better for the country, if the country is used to that..
I mean there should not be a reason to have any bonuses. IF you want to switch, it is just an alternate option that the game gives you. But expect switching to something just because some bonuses?.. I mean you are playing with the regime that suits to your play-style, right? Fascist are here to conquer, Commitern to spread their communist power and democracies are here to stay strong and free.
Also remember that if you switch to democracy, you are more likely to ally with USA UK etc.. so it depends on what do you want to play in the game..

EDIT: And as I´ve read above, "democracies are more limited than dictatorships". Of course they are. Cause to make something happen in democracies is very hard thanks to the law, government, this and that. But if you have a dictator, you don't care. So yea, that is just a fact how does it work so no need to give them something they should not have.

 

[elessar90]

You haven't really suggested a benefit for them to have, though. A vague sense that because one thing has limitations it must also have benefits is not enough.

Actually I suggested they to have bonus IC or something, or maybe better national unity to defend their freedom.

and democracies are here to stay strong and free

Yup, and they have nothing to be strong except for starting conditions. Not everyone, though.
And if anybody switch to democracy he will not become strong and free. Well, maybe just free, but not strong

 

[Dalnar]

Maybe democracies could have more civilan factory output so they can buy more resources ?

 

[Kubusta]

Maybe democracies could have more civilan factory output so they can buy more resources ?

I think though that in democracies civilians tend to work less than in regimes of dictators..cause if they didn't work, they would be killed

 

[fabius]

I think though that in democracies civilians tend to work less than in regimes of dictators..cause if they didn't work, they would be killed

Perhaps your circumstances means that you have never seen workplace with strong union and 'work to rule'. Productivity is so much more than being at place of work for more hours.

 

[elessar90]

Perhaps your circumstances means that you have never seen workplace with strong union and 'work to rule'. Productivity is so much more than being at place of work for more hours.

Agree. But there is no better motivation than hangman behind you
"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." ©

 

[t6.28]

I think though that in democracies civilians tend to work less than in regimes of dictators..cause if they didn't work, they would be killed

Well , the problem is that working is not just a binary spectrum. It isn't just "you work or you don't work", but you can also work more or less. And if "work or I'll kill you" is your only incentive, it will not be too helpful. You'll have to decide on how hard persons will have to work so you don't shoot them. Put the threshold too high and you'll kill lots of otherwise productive workers, put the threshold too low and many persons will get away with being lazy. "The more you work, the more money you'll get" seems to be a more appropriate motivator.

Back on the topic, I think the main problem is that fascism is a way too diverse term, ranging from mostly pragmatic to highly ideological countries. And most of the mali you could give to the more ideological ones (or rather boni that you give to the democracies) have no right to apply to the more pragmatic ones.

 

[fabius]

Agree. But there is no better motivation than hangman behind you
"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." ©

Ha, yes. Certainly some authoritarian regimes achieved big things. Read Adam Tooze on what the Nazi regime managed. Also Soviets. But they are largely the exceptions, and came at huge costs that meant that way of doing things was a loosing way in the mid to long-run.

Other things. Maybe some of the benefits of democracy could come out in later planning mechanics. They certainly were better at co-operating.

Also, science/tech bonuses for truer sharing. And diplo trade bonuses. A democratic ally is unlikely to stab you in the back. Authoritarian regimes end up paranoid by their nature and are quick to change as the fortunes of the war changes. (obviously some exceptions to these).

 

[Gort11]

Actually I suggested they to have bonus IC or something, or maybe better national unity to defend their freedom.

"I dunno, bonus IC or something" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

 

[jockedahl]

Agree. But there is no better motivation than hangman behind you
"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." ©

Democracies maybe could have a buff to consumer goods produced or something like that. I'm not completely sure what consumer goods actually do though so I don't know if that would totally useless.

I still feel there should be some Democracy bonus, but it should be one that pays off in the long run. Something that reflects more diversity in products and the specialization of industry and comparative advantages.

 

[elessar90]

"I dunno, bonus IC or something" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

Dude, I am not a game designer at PI All the stuff needs to be balanced and I can't just place concrete feature plan here. I didn't ever saw the game.
Just want to know your and developers' point of view on democracy.

 

[Gort11]

All the stuff needs to be balanced

No, it doesn't.

 

[Lorehead]

I don’t think greater national unity for democracies makes a lot of historical sense: France didn’t have more of it than the Soviet Union. And there’s the example of Finland allying itself with Germany to invade the Soviet Union and get its lost territory back.

Civilian industry and research are still the two areas where I think it makes the most sense to give democracies an advantage, but another could be the ability to change leaders peacefully. Britain of course did this at the start of the war, and Finland did too when they needed to get out of it. But there was no way for Italy to get rid of Mussolini without killing him.