Revolution and Realism

**Geesterix** · March 07, 2009, 05:51 PM

Here's an important issue of realism. I was playing Prussia, surrounded by absolute monarchs with whom I had very good relations. I had a revolution, guillotined my monarch and became a Republic. This did NOT change my relations with my neighbors. This doesn't seem realistic. I wanted to bring it to the attention of the community so this has the opportunity to be changed in some future update. Sorry for posting a new thread, but I thought this issue was important enough to deserve its own.

**Legio** · March 07, 2009, 05:55 PM

Moved to historical research center.

**Yui108** · March 07, 2009, 07:42 PM

change your relations, as in make all of them immediately declare war on you, ala war of the first coalition?

**Monglor** · March 09, 2009, 08:32 AM

I do think that a change in relations is quite likely, I mean nothing scares the ruling classes more than a demonstration that the general population could do away with them if they chose.

**MrOsterman** · March 09, 2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Monglor

I do think that a change in relations is quite likely, I mean nothing scares the ruling classes more than a demonstration that the general population could do away with them if they chose.

From a game play perspective, what does this offer as an improvement?

Okay so here I am and have chance to usher in democracy. But what does this offer as an improvement if the result is that half the nations on the continent turn on me for it? Looking at the OP's situation, but having every nation around you ally to stop the new republic might be 'realistic' but it also reduces that as an option as the punishment is pretty severe.

O

**Geesterix** · March 22, 2009, 11:20 AM

I think it would be good for game play. For one thing realism adds to game play by making the experience believable.

More importantly, the Republic is simply the superior choice in government. It is so much easier to keep populations happy with this government, which saves money and resoucres <towns>. I find myself orchestrating a revolution in my first few turns just to get a Republic, but if it made half the countries in Europe turn on me as it would historically, then I'd hesitate and my game would be more challenging.

Also, is it realistic that a country who's friendly with your monarch will be equally thrilled to deal with the group that beheaded him or her? Any realism that adds to a game's challenge without venturing into drudgery (like having to organize a campaigning army's toilet paper supply) is an improvement and this simple tweak of diplomacy upon revolution seems very easily doable.

**Inhuman One** · March 24, 2009, 01:09 PM

I would want to see recruitment differences.

A rebellion of the people may result in guerillas, hunters and other such troops becomeing available while a monarchy could have royal troops.

**fluffstalker** · March 26, 2009, 08:13 PM

I also noticed this and I agree that it is very doable.

As Russia especially which is a very entrenched traditional monarchy I had a revolution and not one of my relations changed. That is countries that were hostile were still hostile (including republics like venice and UP, which are supposed to like me now) and countries with monarchs that were friendly before are still friendy.

It says in game that government type has an affect on diplomacy but so far Ive seen absolutely nothing to suggest this -everything seems the same.