I got an idea of how civilization 4 could implement civil wars and provinces, first i think that in civ IV, all the cities could build a building that will capitalize them, so you would have a lot of capitals in one only civilization, this will make possible to have, colonial capitals, and things like that, i know that this will make the game too easy but, there would be a problem whit making other capitals, the capitals you build, would have risk of separing themselves whit near cities of your civilization, becoming another civilization (obviusly, this civilization has to be linked whit the mother civ, like if you are USA, the civ could be the Union or the Confederated) in at war against the mother civ, and the only way of making the capitals don´t rebel, is puting military units in the capitals, i think that the new civs that would be created, should have the same leaderhead of the mother civ, or other random leaderhead by the culture, the cities and leaders of the new civs, should be the same as the mother civ, and the traits should be random, the same UU and the same Civilization advances.

I don´t know if another idea like this has been posted, or if civilization IV already have a civil war system, but i don´t loose anything posting the idea.

PD: Sorry for my english is not my languaje

i agree that states should be created...for example the states is a whole bunch of little countries combined...thus called the united states, but each state has its own flag and history. when a country occupies another country, that of which is kept and occupied should become a state. it should be notably different then the rest of the country, where in civ3 all the buildings change there characteristics instantly upon occupation. although the occupied are under your control, they shouldnt have to salute the flag the comes with it. look at iraq, afganistan and other puppet states...we all know the states owns them all, but they give an impression that they dont...
in the industrial age it would of been different because of imperialism. but in the modern age, provinces, states especially territories should be implemented.

Ant509y and I had a couple of very detailed (probably far too detailed, to be blunt about it) threads about working in provinces and civil wars, many many moons ago. I'm sure they're still floating around here somewhere.

However posting a new one is not a bad idea. Sometimes really old threads get so long that most players see the 10 page content and decide to pass.

_______________________________________________--

This is not so much a system as a way of looking at beginning of simulation. All cities should be their own local entities, just with strong ties to whatever cultures inhabit the city.

Yes. Loaf and I did go way too deep. I guess, when it comes right down to it, a simple version of our province idea could be like this:

1.) Every few cities have a provincial capital. The national capital is the provincial capital of the first few cities.

2.) Each province, once formed, cannot be changed without destroying the provincial capital.

3.) Each province gives information on its status, like a city screen, only the information of a whole province.

4.) Some benefits for provinces should exist. (I forgot what good ones should be)

5.) Provinces would allow civil wars.

There's a basic bit. Man, I miss that old set of complicated ideas...

would each province have a default name stemming from the nation ie states in the USA or counties in Britain?
you should be able to sponsor insurrections, maybe by supplying weapons or money, in other nations provinces providing there is a certain level of unhappiness, caused by lack of infrastructure or development in cities, different ethnic groups to the majority or different political or religious sympthathy to that of that nations government.

would each province have a default name stemming from the nation ie states in the USA or counties in Britain?
you should be able to sponsor insurrections, maybe by supplying weapons or money, in other nations provinces providing there is a certain level of unhappiness, caused by lack of infrastructure or development in cities, different ethnic groups to the majority or different political or religious sympthathy to that of that nations government.

I would hope they would make a default state/province name list like with cities. I would like the idea to target a province because I would hope that each province would be a little unique. THat uniqueness could make some provinces, especially border provinces, more vulunerable.

It sounds like a really great idea and is something I've always wanted in the game. The only thing I'm not sure about is how revolutionary states would get their armies. If they'd keep whatever armies were stationed in their cities or if they'd have their own armies before the revolution, or if they'd have to produce all their armies from scratch at the begining of the civil war.

I think provinces should be implemented, however here are some different ideas (in corollary with yours):

Your first city is by default you National Capital (and capital of your first province, when you get that ability). A Provincial Capital should be something akin to a small wonder (but you can build more than one) and should be tied to a technology.

Once you have at least 6 cities, you can build your first Provincial Capital, and designate 3-5 cities as part of that Province. Of course, your National Capital must have at least 3 cities for it's Province. The game should be programmed with default Province names, but you should be able to supply your own. These names are transparently overlaid on the game map, as is your empire name (Kingdom of Korea - if monarchy), (but you can elect not to display them).

There should be a report screen that divides into the provinces, so at a glance you can see:

1) National Military, Economy, Science Output, etc;
2) Province status (all of #1, plus what cities are part of province, wonders in province, resources in province)

This will help you figure out which provinces might be more susceptible to attack. I think also that provinces should have something unique to them - maybe if you capture a provincial capital, you automatically conquer the province? (albeit with loads of resistance in the cities captured that way).

I haven't fully thought all that out just yet, but I'm working on it!

I agree that you should be able to support a provincial uprising, instead of just a city. And, if you don't want to have provinces, you don't have to. Also, if you want to add more cities to a province, you should be able to do that by clicking on the provincial capital (or going to the province screen) and adding cities up to the limit (6 is reasonable, I think).

This could also reduce corruption, a la FP (although on a much lower scale); maybe even get rid of the FP altogether?

I miss our old model, too. I would be absolutely ecstatic if they really did implement it in exactly the way we'd described. But somewhere along the way I realized we were asking way too much.

Here's a summary of what I consider the most basic and most important parts of our idea:

-You can build an improvement called a Provincial Capitol. The city it is built in becomes the capital of a new province, and functions as a mini-palace for the cities in that province, while having no effect on any cities outside the province. To prevent exploits, provinces can have no fewer than three cities and no more than six. Also, the borders of a province must be contiguous, to avoid another exploit of having provinces consist of scattered cities on different continents. The provincial borders would be clearly visible on the map as a thinner version of your national borders.

-Each civ would have a default list of names of provinces, such as Essex and Shropshire for England, Massachusetts and Virginia for America, Gansu and Qinghai for China, Assam and Nagaland for India, and so on. Naturally, you could change the names of your own provinces at will, just like you can with cities.

-Provinces can be given special orders (such as having all shields produced transferred to a single city to speed a massive build project, for example). They can also be given different tax rates, and other bonuses like that.

-A factor known as Rebel Sentiment would come into play. Separate from the concept of Happiness, Rebel Sentiment is the measure of discontent the provinces feel at being part of your empire. There would be ways to keep it down, but if you weren't careful, it would rise to very high levels and spark a revolution.

-A province in revolt would change its color to half yours and half barbarian. All military units that had been produced in that province would switch over and fight against you. (Each unit would be labelled as to which province it had come from so you could see for yourself, of course.) If you could not reconquer the province quickly enough, it would become a new civ. The new civ would get a new color, and the ruler would be a name from your Military Leaders list with a generic leaderhead from your culture group. I don't think we ever resolved the issue of how its traits, UU, and future city list would be decided, though I'm pretty sure culture group would be the simplest way as far as city list is concerned.

-There would be a new advisor, the Provincial Advisor, from whose screen you could handle provincial affairs. Options include giving provincial orders, rearranging provinces (I didn't want them static, but I think we did agree there should be a penalty for changing them once they've been set up), and checking the levels of Rebel Sentiment. These would be expressed only in vague terms, so you could never be too sure how far a given province is willing to be pushed before it rebels.

Believe me, we got a lot more complicated than that. We had stuff worked in there about provinces' attitudes toward each other as well as toward you. We had a whole thing about deliberately granting independece to provinces and having them join a Commonwealth with you. We had ideas for how provincial interaction would differ for each government type. We had all kinds of stuff. Frankly, I loved it, but like I said, we were asking too much. Glancing over it, even my boiled-down version is probably asking too much. The best we can really hope for is, "Firaxis, could you work provinces in somehow, please?" But the more ideas they took from our threads, the happier I would be. :D

Edit: Even trying for the simplest explanation I could give, this post came out about three times longer than I had wanted it. And that was only the parts I considered essential to the idea. I think that shows you how complicated we got. . . .

I LOVE THIS IDEA VERY, VERY MUCH. To relive the American Revolution would be awesome, as an American or a Brit.

I am still skeptical to this whole idea. With the AI be able to handle the whole provice concept correctly or will they forgo building these provincial capitals? If that is the case and they go with one big empire, similar to now, this will give the human player a huge advantage.

IIRC, the AI is not even good at choosing the location for its forbidden palace. I just see this as expanding on this problems.

edit - However, I will concede that this appears to be the most "workable" idea I have read on this whole concept.

only thoses territories that have been captured should be regarded as provinces or states, such as the province of iroquois or the province of france or possible the state of egypt. big or small, whatever the case. i dont know how else borders could be determined.

Sealman, I think the hope is that cIV will offer a more comprehensive and intelligent AI. I'm even hoping for a 'learning' AI that gets better the more you play against it.

that sounds like that one computer that was designed for chess... it took it three turns to figure your moves out and after that it was impossible to beat it.

Regionalism could and should occur automatically. There's a lot of micromanagement that comes from designating which cities belong to the same province and which is the actual capital. Instead, they could use a combination of factors to automate the development of regional sentiments. This would take the burden off the player while still offering them the benefit of dealing with some concepts at the level of their 5 major regions, instead of their 25 cities.

The factors, in rough order from most important to least important:

1) Geographical proximity and landscape: closer cities that aren't seperated by rivers and mountains and lakes would be more likely to fall into the same region.

2) Age of city and development of city: cities who are more close to each other in their development would be more likely to fall into the same region. a "newer" or "backwards" city might be more likely to splinter off into its own region.

3) Culture -- only if they can model any kind of culture flow (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134) where foreign cultures infiltrate and exist within your borders. Your eastern region which you took from Germany, or your southern region with Spanish influence, for example.

4) Religion, similar to culture.

5) Other factors, such as building a regional capital to consolidate the region.


If you automate the actual formation of regions, the user only has to focus on what to DO with regions. Economic Capitals, Manufacturing Capitals, and Cultural Capitals could all be small wonders that you used to confirm the "hub" of a region, and stop the sometimes shifting regions of your empire. And so on.

Regionalism could and should occur automatically. There's a lot of micromanagement that comes from designating which cities belong to the same province and which is the actual capital. Instead, they could use a combination of factors to automate the development of regional sentiments. This would take the burden off the player while still offering them the benefit of dealing with some concepts at the level of their 5 major regions, instead of their 25 cities.

The factors, in rough order from most important to least important:

1) Geographical proximity and landscape: closer cities that aren't seperated by rivers and mountains and lakes would be more likely to fall into the same region.

2) Age of city and development of city: cities who are more close to each other in their development would be more likely to fall into the same region. a "newer" or "backwards" city might be more likely to splinter off into its own region.

3) Culture -- only if they can model any kind of culture flow (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134) where foreign cultures infiltrate and exist within your borders. Your eastern region which you took from Germany, or your southern region with Spanish influence, for example.

4) Religion, similar to culture.

5) Other factors, such as building a regional capital to consolidate the region.


If you automate the actual formation of regions, the user only has to focus on what to DO with regions. Economic Capitals, Manufacturing Capitals, and Cultural Capitals could all be small wonders that you used to confirm the "hub" of a region, and stop the sometimes shifting regions of your empire. And so on.
:thumbsup:

I would love to see provinces in Civ4. Of all the new ideas that one sounds the coolest to me :)

This opens up so many ideas...Personally, I would like to have ways to culturally isolate a certain province from an enemy Civ by making there citizens more sentimental to my Civ through propaganda. You could either try and get them to defect to you, or get the to split off and cause a revolution with their current Civ, or you could take them over and they would not resist (it would be more like liberating them if they like you more than their other leader). It would make propaganda so much more useful and viable, to be able to influence a chunk of their territory rather than just a single city. And it would make sense, since the province might be more seperated from the rest of the Civ (especially if the citizens were not of the same nationality of the rest of the Civ).

I also think that the size of your provinces (i.e. the ratio of provincial capitals : provincial cities) should be affected by government type, though I'm not sure how. I would like to see a Confederacy Gov't, in which you have many loosely-linked provinces which are less likely to work together, but would have some other sort of benefits.

Random brainstorming bit: you could even appoint different Governers to "lead" the proinces, and interact with them like you do the leaders of other Civs, and get them to negotiate deals with each other, for luxuries and such. Of course, this would likely be way too micromanagement-heavy, but I thought I may as well post it.

Another random brainstorm idea would be that each province would use up one luxury / strategic resource. So, you might have one province with three Iron in it. And you could, say, be trading one source of Iron with another Civ, while giving another source to one of your own provinces. In this way, you could specialize provinces: a core province with high shield production might be hooked up to the Iron to produce swordsmen, while your outer provinces are working on cheaper, Iron-less units. And, you might have a small outer province with a source of Wines, but one of your core provinces is getting really large, so you give it to that province so that the people are happy.

So, the advantage of having lots of smaller provinces would be: more prov. capitals, so less corruption. But the disadvantage would be that they can't all have the resources. This fixes the issue of "one source of oil feeding my 157 cities" problem, but adds some micromangement, which could make it less fun :(

Of course, both luxury and strategic resources would need to be much more common everywhere if this were the case.

Also, while brainstorming with the province idea I came up with a new victory condition, you can read about it here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111176).

I have seen this victory condition mentioned before, but as you can see by my post count, I'm fairly new, and I apologize if it is a redundant thread. (I checked under the other "New Victory Types" thread and didn't see it in there.)

</ramble>

Sealman, I think the hope is that cIV will offer a more comprehensive and intelligent AI. I'm even hoping for a 'learning' AI that gets better the more you play against it.

I am hoping for that as well, well maybe except for the AI learning curve. I just am not expecting the AI will be competent enough to fully utilize this concept considering two things.

1) the game is coming out in 2005 (maybe)

2) they need to get the AI to comprehend many other more important things first. Like when to join in alliance against another civ, how to properly run an offisive or defensive military campaign, how to successfuly use arty....

If they can do it all and still meet deadlines, great. If not, fix what is already a problem before creating new problems. I am pretty sure that the majority of the folks who want providences/rebellions/civil wars ect. want a system that works and is balanced instead of a half-@#$ system that is all buggy and unbalanced. Just my opinion.

I think the idea.But what is a province?
A province should be same caracteristics to be considered like one.
- A province couldn't must be an automatic process since we get a minimum of cities.
- We dont't need to have a minimum number of cities to get a province.
- Have some diference in ethnic or/and culture wich is diferent from the main civ cities - first province.
- Have some geographic diferences.
- Have a provincial capital wich reduce corruption.
- Not be in a continuous territory or if are been separate by ocean.
- Be sure to not will been just a 2, 3 civs that as been controled by one player.
I think that are same things in AI in relations, alliances, trade and diplomacy between civs or settled and expand for anywere before we go to more issues and have more bugs.

More than anything, I want a provincial system that's easy to set up with immediate benefits. If it's either tedious as heck to set up, or creates a whole new set of complexity to manage, there's no doubt that people will call for it to be removed. And we'll never see them again.

Not to mention that it has to have benefits. If people say "you created provinces to give me more problems?!", then the design is very very poor.

i think the only benifits that provinces should have is a cosmetic benifit. Besides looking at city names to remember if they were captured or created. Those regions of which have been aquired through war, should be notably different. even if a city in between is created after control of the region was obtained, this city should remain within the colors and comestic differences of that of the province it was build in.

to differ the provinces from the main state.
if a country borders or colors are originally green, then the province borders for example should have a green ribbon with red or gold lines. for different provinces have different colors intermixing with the main color, which in this case would be green.

for units created in provinces, they should have a juristiction identity, so instead of having it solid green like the mainlands, u could easily identify created units with green and gold stripes, or red stripes or blue strips, and tell right away which province they were from.

this would also bring to the battlefield some dazzle and individuality within the troops and units. knowing that on your east front, units from the french province are standing on guard. on the north front, units from the zulu province are staging a naval assualt, and to the east units from the mainland, comprised with units from the provinces of america, germany and japan are amassed, ready with their colorful penants, and guns to invade the romans.

i know the colors dont really look together, but in civ 4 im sure the graphics and colors will be vibrant

I've thought of a way to modify the strategic resource distribution for provinces.

As long as you had, say, oil in your national borders, you could build tanks anywhere. However, provinces not supplied directly with oil would take longer to produce the units.

For example, 2 of your outer provinces have oil sources, and you have four "core" provinces, with barracks in all of the cities, which you want to use for tank production. What you could do, is supply two of the core provinces with the oil. For those provinces, tanks would take less shields to make than normal (they would get an "Oil Bonus"). In the other two, you have the option of building tanks which would take longer, or using those to build different units. (Say, you had a source of Rubber and you wanted one of those provinces producing infantry. The other one which had no oil or rubber could be building something cheap like Guerillas.)

The outer provinces that you are getting the oil from could be building infrastructure.

For this example, I'm pretending that tanks don't need rubber, for simplification :)

One advantage of Provinces would be the Provincial capital would reduce corruption. Perhaps there could be local boosts to productivity, or happiness, or commerce.

I think some limitation to resources would be good, since one source of oil doesn't seem like it could supply 100+ cities. Then again, it is an abstracted concept, so maybe keep it the way it is.

I think regional capitals that not only reduce corruption but perhaps give another bonus as well could be interesting. You make New York your "Economic Capital" or "Economic Hub", giving it a huge boost to trade, as well as the cities in the same region. You make Los Angeles your "Cultural Capital", giving it a huge boost to culture, as well as the cities in the same region.

If something is introduced into the game for purely aesthetic benefit, and actually increases the likelihood of bad things happeningm like civil war, people are going to hate it. That's if they implement it at all.

If something is introduced into the game for purely aesthetic benefit, and actually increases the likelihood of bad things happeningm like civil war, people are going to hate it. That's if they implement it at all.

Well said! :goodjob: