Personally I find that colonization is not agressive enough, especially on the spanish side. They end up with very little cities in America, and almost never attack the Aztecs or Incas. It is possible to beef colonization up? THX!

I wouldn't worry about this very much right now, as we haven't started yet to work on the real colonization system, with a whole column of civics for colonization, and probably special type of settlers and cities for colonization. We should wait till that system starts coming and then really work on this, since it will all have to be rehashed for it anyhow.

That´s okay for me! ;)

Personally I find that colonization is not agressive enough, especially on the spanish side. They end up with very little cities in America, and almost never attack the Aztecs or Incas. It is possible to beef colonization up? THX!
Indicates game variance more than anything... in my v0.90 Greece game, America has just spawned, smushed between two (soon to be four) English cities in Canada and a large Spanish South America. Spain has Havana, two cities in Central America (ruins nearby), and 5 confirmed cities in South America. Damn Izzy... I'm stuck in the Med cause of her. :mad:

SilverKnight

Yeah, I noticed that in 0.90 spanish settler colonization is more agressive, in my last "america run" she had cities in Argentina, and Cuba, but Aztecs and Incas were still very alive and kicking.

A question about colonization, with the release of Warlords, which is in a week and a half, I think it would be better to add some Minor Nations in the Americas. This meaning, Cherokee, Iroqouis and possibly Maya.

It would be more nice to interfere with natives other than the Aztecs or the Incans, and it would result in the player not knowing who will be met.
Will he meet the Mayans or will they be already distroyed before colonization? that's what I meant.

... but I'm not as anxious about the Americas, as much as I am on Mesopotamia right now :p.

In my .90 game Spain has colonized pretty much the entire east coast of South America in addition to the Carribean.

... but I'm not as anxious about the Americas, as much as I am on Mesopotamia right now :p.

I've always thought it's really silly to have the globally insignificant Incas and Aztecs in the game, but no Babylonia, Ottomans or Vikings. :crazyeye:

HÄI, how are they globally insignificant? They represent the existance of civilization in the Americas, which was an important factor in colonizing the "New World", which was a very big issue for a pretty long time.

HÄI, how are they globally insignificant? They represent the existance of civilization in the Americas, which was an important factor in colonizing the "New World", which was a very big issue for a pretty long time.

They were very quickly conquered by Spain, which is their biggest effect on history - Spanish dominance in America. In the game it almost never happens, so their situation is a bit weird, remaining as a backwards nation till the end of the game.

I like how they're handled in Europa Universalis 2, my favourite global strategy game - when Spain conquers Cuzco or Tenochtithlan they annex the entire country. This is of course very restrictive to other colonial nations, but it is a historically deterministic game to some extend. In Civ I'd prefer them as strong barbarians.

They were very quickly conquered by Spain, which is their biggest effect on history - Spanish dominance in America. In the game it almost never happens, so their situation is a bit weird, remaining as a backwards nation till the end of the game.

I like how they're handled in Europa Universalis 2, my favourite global strategy game - when Spain conquers Cuzco or Tenochtithlan they annex the entire country. This is of course very restrictive to other colonial nations, but it is a historically deterministic game to some extend. In Civ I'd prefer them as strong barbarians.

As a part of the collapse system, I could add a rule (for every civ actually) that if one conquers a capital, he gains 1 or 2 closest surrounding cities for free.

I find that worth a try! ;)

Sounds awesome! Make it select the cities with the highest culture in case there's a tie as far as distance.

Great great idea Rhye, though the AI should then maybe emphasize its defence on the capitol more :goodjob:

And focus on attacking the enemies capital...

Tweaking the AI is tricky, i don't think I can do it.

But I just had an idea.... implement this rule for capitals, and apply to every city conquered by Persia as new Persian UP

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

Well, Persians were very effective conquerors, but I think they're so in RoC already.

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

Their very quick expansion

Good point. But won't that make it really easy for them to keep up the entire game, even becoming surprisingly powerful by the modern age? I guess the only way to know is to test it.

No, if maintenance is tuned back to normal, and even a bit higher.

For quick expansion, I would apply it to the Arabs. Persia doesn't really seem to have a problem right now.

As a matter of fact, in all my latest games the arabs are killed by the persians...

In my game, Persia has become quite powerful, keeping the Arabs in check.

In my game Arabia killed by Persia.

Ditto mine, though it took til 1800 or so. I've never seen the Arabs manage to expand through the Middle East and Egypt, let alone North Africa and Spain.

its very easy for Persia to conquer Arabia.

About the Spanish Conquest of South America: In history one-sided deseases did help the Spanish quite a bit (in fact more Native Americans got killed by deseases introduced by Spaniards than by the Spanish conquistadores). The same issue possibly also applies to the fall of Rome, when the plague lightened the Roman defenses quite a bit. Is it still intended to implement deseases/plagues in this mod (like in Civ3C)? That could prove helpfull and interesting.

About the Spanish Conquest of South America: In history one-sided deseases did help the Spanish quite a bit (in fact more Native Americans got killed by deseases introduced by Spaniards than by the Spanish conquistadores). The same issue possibly also applies to the fall of Rome, when the plague lightened the Roman defenses quite a bit. Is it still intended to implement deseases/plagues in this mod (like in Civ3C)? That could prove helpfull and interesting.


yes, it's still in the to-do list.
A good idea, to apply it to clashes of cultures

I've also never seen Arabia expand much, but see Persia reach it's historical borders very often (excluding Egypt), and even going further. Arabia need help. :king:

persia just rumbles on because they have no distance maintenance, playing as persia, its not to rough on my economy for empire, which stretches from the danube to the indus

In MY games Persia conquered the world and had 20 cities over size 30 and all the wonders built and a spaceship and ALIEN technology! :crazyeye:

LOL, just what this sounds like. I'm getting a feeling from this thread, like maybe Persia is too powerful. They take quite a hit from the barbs, but if they survive that, they use the experience against their nearest neighbor, Arabia. Why don't they ever take India? It is usually prety weak.

SilverKnight

In my game India was very weak and also nobody attacked them.

Hmm, just thought of something.

With the slightly-scripted AI colonization, is it possible for non-scripted AI civs to colonize overseas? My point being that it seems possible that Persia could have sea-based colonies in East Africa, Indonesia and/or Australia, while Mali spreads to South America early. I am very used to seeing Spain and France take South America, England take Australia and share North America with France, etc. Are there ways for the AI to colonize creatively, based on the resources at hand?

SilverKnight

Hmm, just thought of something.

With the slightly-scripted AI colonization, is it possible for non-scripted AI civs to colonize overseas? My point being that it seems possible that Persia could have sea-based colonies in East Africa, Indonesia and/or Australia, while Mali spreads to South America early. I am very used to seeing Spain and France take South America, England take Australia and share North America with France, etc. Are there ways for the AI to colonize creatively, based on the resources at hand?

SilverKnight


yes, most of the civs have American plots not-set. That means that they're not encouraged or discouraged to colonize.

In my game as mali, persia colonized madagskar and another city in east africa (pertia or something like that). As mali I found out it pays much more to settle south africa and even inner africa instead of south america. South africa has more resources and is closer.
But, in all my games persia had arabia collapse. The problem is not persia, however, but arabia which is weak.

Sounds to me that either Persia's UP needs to be toned down, or Arabia's UP needs to be toned up.

persias needs to be toned down; it is way too easy for persia to control a huge empire. arabia doesnt necesarily need to be too much stronger; it seems to me that if arabia survives for a while, they become strong enough to live, its just that early on persia can easily maul the arabs, and do so

Arabia shouldn't "survive for a while." Arabia should explode onto the scene, and be the most important Civilization in the game for a good 400 years. They should take over much or all of Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Spain - or at least, have that potential.

Arabia ought to step on the scene with a Golden Age. They were strong for a good 500 years, with a good 200 years where they were arguably "the center of the world".

Arabia shouldn't "survive for a while." Arabia should explode onto the scene, and be the most important Civilization in the game for a good 400 years. They should take over much or all of Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Spain - or at least, have that potential.
Agreed. But IRL, not only their quick expansion (high maintenance costs in Civ terms) but also external factors contributed to their somewhat lessened direct impact later. The many caliphates put in place by the global jihad branched off to be on their own. Arabia was a vast religious, but not politically united entity. It took quite a lot (a Crusade or too, in fact) for them to unite for a militaristic goal. Eventually they lost ground to Spain, Persia became its own power again (correct me if I am mistaken, please), etc. So Arabia still received wealth from its Muslim lands, but it wasn't capable, say, of fending off a concentrated attack like it is in Civ.

Hmm... not sure where to go with this right now. :confused: I'll come back to it.

SilverKnight

Agreed. But IRL, not only their quick expansion (high maintenance costs in Civ terms) but also external factors contributed to their somewhat lessened direct impact later. The many caliphates put in place by the global jihad branched off to be on their own. Arabia was a vast religious, but not politically united entity. It took quite a lot (a Crusade or too, in fact) for them to unite for a militaristic goal. Eventually they lost ground to Spain, Persia became its own power again (correct me if I am mistaken, please), etc. So Arabia still received wealth from its Muslim lands, but it wasn't capable, say, of fending off a concentrated attack like it is in Civ.

Hmm... not sure where to go with this right now. :confused: I'll come back to it.

Actually, I think Civ can model it, with the high maintenance. The quick expansion keeps the coffers full, despite the large armies, with pillaging of cities. Eventually, this runs out, and extrernal pressures - first the Turks, then the Crusaders a bit, then the Mongols. Once the Arabs start running out of money, the maintenance should kill their ability to maintain an army or tech or even keep their people happy.

Civilization has a hard time with civilizations that not only "appear late"... but also Civilizations that are subjugated and THEN re-appear later (perhaps with a slightly mutated identity). Just look at India, Greece, Mali, the Aztecs, and so on.

Arabia definitely conquered like crazy for a while, but it wasn't too long that Persia re-emerged... again, with a slightly 'mutated' identity.

I honestly wouldn't know how to suggest Rhye do this without hamstringing the game to the point that Persia doesn't even give a crap that Arabia is conquering them. If Persia could count on a re-emergence, it's hard to care that someone is beating you up.

Warlords has a Vassalage system....

All good points. Arkaeyn (how do you pronounce that?) has an impressive understanding of the kind of Arabia we want to get in the game, one that--in most games--expands quickly westward into Egypt/north Africa and eastward into Persia/India(?) to dominate the scoreboard with its new influx of converts and vassals, then weakens under its own weight. As it is, Arabia isn't that aggressive, but that can be fixed, I hope. China topples itself if it expands too much; we should allow this to happen to Arabia, too.

SilverKnight

I recently read this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306814803/sr=8-1/qid=1153691287/ref=sr_1_1/002-2043888-4943249?ie=UTF8) and generally study world history, formation of nations/empires, fall thereof, etc. So I can probably map out a good general idea of what we would want any civ to look like in a completely historical game.

(i see it as pronounced 'arcane')

Persia is actually one of the toughest to model. It was the largest empire for a while, then Alexander conquered it, then it re-emerged, then Rome conquered it, then it re-emerged, then Arabia conquered it, then it re-emerged again. And I KNOW I've probably missed some other key events.

Trying to model this AND still have fun/balanced gameplay is quite the paradox.

Well, this constant resurge of power should be a possibility for many Civs. These were big events we're talking about, huge wars, not minor civil wars or whatnot. So it should be possible to be pushed to the brink of destruction and come back again several times. Granted, Persia wasn't that much of a global power, but a large regional one. The effect would be for them to top out at 5th place (or whatever) on the scoreboard, then be invaded by Greece and slip to 7th, then come back (out of vassalage, I assume) but stuck in 6th place. In other words, I'm not suggesting that civs should jump from dead last to be the leader! :eek:

SilverKnight

I have a little idea. Let's call it Expansion Euphoria.
It has a chance of occurring whenever there is no war unhappiness in any of your cities and you've conquered or flipped a foreign city. Its chances are higher if you have an income, lower if you're losing money per turn. Its chances are higher if you are in the top 3 tech leaders, lower if your cities are unhealthy.
For two turns, you have +5 happy in all cities with at least 50% of nationality yours, no war unhappiness, +1:commerce: per trade route, and all military maintenance is halved. All military units get +1 movement during the Euphoria as well. On the turn after the Euphoria is over, each city with a foreign national majority has a chance equal to the percent of foreigners in the city that this city will riot.
Something like this means that if a well-off civilization starts expanding quickly, it will get a huge boost for a very short while, but then the conquered cities will mostly riot, causing a great deal of chaos.
It was just a thought that came up while I was reading this thread. It seems we need to better model how civilization quickly expand and then start to crumble as a result.

I have a little idea. Let's call it Expansion Euphoria.
It has a chance of occurring whenever there is no war unhappiness in any of your cities and you've conquered or flipped a foreign city. Its chances are higher if you have an income, lower if you're losing money per turn. Its chances are higher if you are in the top 3 tech leaders, lower if your cities are unhealthy.
For two turns, you have +5 happy in all cities with at least 50% of nationality yours, no war unhappiness, +1 per trade route, and all military maintenance is halved. All military units get +1 movement during the Euphoria as well. On the turn after the Euphoria is over, each city with a foreign national majority has a chance equal to the percent of foreigners in the city that this city will riot.
Something like this means that if a well-off civilization starts expanding quickly, it will get a huge boost for a very short while, but then the conquered cities will mostly riot, causing a great deal of chaos.
It was just a thought that came up while I was reading this thread. It seems we need to better model how civilization quickly expand and then start to crumble as a result.

This is a very good idea! I always hated the determinism of CIV.

I have a little idea. Let's call it Expansion Euphoria.
It has a chance of occurring whenever there is no war unhappiness in any of your cities and you've conquered or flipped a foreign city. Its chances are higher if you have an income, lower if you're losing money per turn. Its chances are higher if you are in the top 3 tech leaders, lower if your cities are unhealthy.
For two turns, you have +5 happy in all cities with at least 50% of nationality yours, no war unhappiness, +1:commerce: per trade route, and all military maintenance is halved. All military units get +1 movement during the Euphoria as well. On the turn after the Euphoria is over, each city with a foreign national majority has a chance equal to the percent of foreigners in the city that this city will riot.
Something like this means that if a well-off civilization starts expanding quickly, it will get a huge boost for a very short while, but then the conquered cities will mostly riot, causing a great deal of chaos.
It was just a thought that came up while I was reading this thread. It seems we need to better model how civilization quickly expand and then start to crumble as a result.


This seems like a complex way of saying "let's fiddle with Golden Ages."

I actually kind of preferred the way Civ3 triggered Golden Ages, by the way.

My first thought was "let's have wars trigger golden ages" but then I was like "wait that's way too long and doesn't hit quite the right spot".

Is America euphoric about the invasion of Iraq? :rolleyes: What about its general occupation of southern Vietnam? Just bad examples, I know they aren't representative of all history...

Another bad example: what about a civ with Pacifism who captures an enemy city, but loses two other cities? Say India declares war on Persia by taking an unoccupied colony in Madagascar. Persia then razes three Indian cities near its border during an invasion. Are the rest of the Indian cities still "euphoric" about their "conquest"? :p If so, those are some dillusional people. :crazyeye:

SilverKnight

Perhaps there should be two ways for the Euphoria to end.

1: no cities founded or conquered for 5 turns, they lose 1 benefit, chosen randomly. every 5 years they then lose another benefit until they have none, at whcih point the Euphoria is effectively over. If at any point in time where they still have at least 1 bnefit left, they gain a new city, they regain the benefits.

2:They lose a city, which ends the Euphoria and prevents a new Euphoria for 20 turns. (Depression period about losing) If they retake the city, the depression period ends, but they do NOT regain the Euphoria. THey will have to start a new one to get the benefits again.

This can create a sort of 'conquest necessity' if one starts the Euphoria, as they will need to keep conquering to keep it going, similar to how Rome pushed its borders out, found that to be economically useful, and then by the time thy stopped the only thing sustaining their economy was their conquest.

Also, we can have the chance be variable based on civics.

For instance, Slavery increases the chance, as does vassalage, Hereditary Rule and Serfdom. Representation lowers the chance, along with some other civics whose names I can't remember. Pacifism and Emancipation ELIMINATE the chance all together, making it happen FAR less in the modern age.
Perhaps if the opposing civ is the same religion it lowers the chance while a different religion will increase it.

Trust me when I say War Euphoria isn't the way to get the job done. This came up, if I'm not mistaken, because we wanted the possibility of being "pushed to the brink of destruction and come back again several times".

War Euphoria would generally just make tearing through the world much easer, and reward people who are already winning.

We need to provide a way that Persia can be dominated by Rome, then pop out at the end of the era and resurge in power (only to be dominated by the Arabs). In other words, we need a "bounce back" mechanism -- something that can be used at the moment your back is up against the wall.

I think that we must strive for the possibility of full empire growth and a later fall. It would be great if Rome in a AI game conquers the whole mediterranean and then fall at a later age, with the aparition and resurgence of old civs.

Is America euphoric about the invasion of Iraq? :rolleyes: What about its general occupation of southern Vietnam? Just bad examples, I know they aren't representative of all history...

Another bad example: what about a civ with Pacifism who captures an enemy city, but loses two other cities? Say India declares war on Persia by taking an unoccupied colony in Madagascar. Persia then razes three Indian cities near its border during an invasion. Are the rest of the Indian cities still "euphoric" about their "conquest"? :p If so, those are some dillusional people. :crazyeye:

SilverKnight
First of all, I never said it should always happen. It would be random. Besides that, you raise valid points. For Pacfist civs, the chance should be nigh on nill. The euphoria should have a good chance of just breaking immediately (or inverting) if the civ loses a city (although it does make sense in your India-Persia scenario that India is euphoric for a little bit and then the euphoria ends as the pain sets in. And I would note that it took a while in the current war for the Israeli public [and especially media] to stop being euphoric about the international support we're getting and to realize that rockets are still falling in friggin Haifa so it's not that unreasonable that a civ suffering damage won't care, temporarily.)
Perhaps there should be two ways for the Euphoria to end.

1: no cities founded or conquered for 5 turns, they lose 1 benefit, chosen randomly. every 5 years they then lose another benefit until they have none, at whcih point the Euphoria is effectively over. If at any point in time where they still have at least 1 bnefit left, they gain a new city, they regain the benefits.

2:They lose a city, which ends the Euphoria and prevents a new Euphoria for 20 turns. (Depression period about losing) If they retake the city, the depression period ends, but they do NOT regain the Euphoria. THey will have to start a new one to get the benefits again.

This can create a sort of 'conquest necessity' if one starts the Euphoria, as they will need to keep conquering to keep it going, similar to how Rome pushed its borders out, found that to be economically useful, and then by the time thy stopped the only thing sustaining their economy was their conquest.

Also, we can have the chance be variable based on civics.

For instance, Slavery increases the chance, as does vassalage, Hereditary Rule and Serfdom. Representation lowers the chance, along with some other civics whose names I can't remember. Pacifism and Emancipation ELIMINATE the chance all together, making it happen FAR less in the modern age.
Perhaps if the opposing civ is the same religion it lowers the chance while a different religion will increase it.
I like your ideas a lot, but please note that I only suggest War Euphoria should last for two turns. Perhaps it should be allowed to last slightly longer, but my general purpose with this idea is to facilitate rapid military expansion followed by rapid collapse, which is something history has seen several times.
I'm still not sure War Euphoria is the way to go to achieve this goal, but I am sure this kind of thing should be possible and that it currently isn't.

Hm, I see what you mean, Blas. Reading through it again, I had a different impression of your idea before. Still, it does seem like a lot of work to aid conquest like this. Here's how Civ4 as a game works: conquest comes with its own benefits, i.e. cities. Thus the revolts, the enemy culture, and maintenance costs of units and cities are stacked against it. For overcoming each of these hindrances, you have new cities with some population and maybe some infrastructure, and access to nearby resources. In RFC, the same obstacles are there, but the balancement (to allow the human to play any civ) means that conquest is far more rare since the civs are generally close in power and technology, AND the overwhelming enemy culture makes conquered cities in late game useless, anyway. Because each civ is balanced (almost) to have a chance to win, there is little give and take in the system. The whole mod needs to be more variable, allowing for greater changes and swift conquests but NOT eliminations. Blas' idea accomplishes this to an extent, but its very complex to code and may not even be accurate. We should kee thinking about solutions to this! :D
We need to provide a way that Persia can be dominated by Rome, then pop out at the end of the era and resurge in power (only to be dominated by the Arabs). In other words, we need a "bounce back" mechanism -- something that can be used at the moment your back is up against the wall.
Right, what I had in mind, just no ideas for how to get it done. We also don't want it to be TOO hard to conquer a civ, remember.

SilverKnight

P.S.- Wasn't this thread about colonization? :P

The one thing I think we may need most is dead civs resurrecting. I know it goes against a faster mod, but there should be a way to balance it all out so that this lets us make civs more aggressive and dangerous without being afraid they'll wipe everyone out (but so they still wipe some out).
Something like the following rules may work:
1. Random chance of resurrection exists only within 20 turns of elimination. It goes up quickly - turn 1, 10%; turn 2, 20%, etc, for five or six turns. Then it goes does just as quickly and remains at 5% or 10% for the remaining turns period in the short window. This percentage chance per turn is the base chance.
2. If there are any Barbarian cities in the civ's core land in a given turn, chances are doubled for that turn. However, this doubling can never happen twice in a row - if it happened last turn, this turn is normal, but next turn can have it again.
3. If a foreign capital or Forbidden Palace is in the civ's core land, its chances of resurrecting is halved. This halving is a yes/no question on a turn-by-turn basis. For whatever duration a capital or "second center" is in the core area, chances are half as big.
4. When a civ dies, nationality will have to remain for resurrection to work (it can assimilate super-quick once the window closes I guess). If any city in the core area has 100% the fallen civ's nationality, chances are double. If no city in the core area has a majority of the fallen civ's nationality, chances are halved.
5. If any units or cities have flipped to a new or resurrected civ in the whole last round (anywhere in the world), chances are double for this turn. This doubling stacks (so a conquering empire can conquer quickly, then get hit by one resurrection, then by three more, and then collapse to barbarism to later possibly return as a minor civ.)
If a random resurrection happens, every city has a chance equal to the fallen civ's nationality in it to flip to the resurrected civ. Units in the core area flip, just once, and only a small chance for each unit. No city has to flip for the resurrection to occur, it can be just a few units really.

Something along these lines will be realistic enough and most importantly create the dynamics we want, with civs dying and reappearing and changing and not being such big fat monoliths. If a civ can resurrect, we can feel free to overpower Greece, Rome and Mongolia insanely, since resurrections will assure us that at least some of their damage is later repaired. Empires will explode, growing huge in just a few turns, and then suddenly grow tiny as new and old civs take chunks out of them and likely cause them to collapse. Then later they can respawn, more moderately-sized. We can even increase the chance of collapsing if cities flip to a resurrection.
I'm toast, it's 4:00 AM and I slept badly last night (not to mention this was a long and tiring day.) I can't even proofread my post, which I customarily do. I haven't done this in a while, but if my post stinks, itsh cuj ahm reel tard!

The one thing I think we may need most is dead civs resurrecting. I know it goes against a faster mod, but there should be a way to balance it all out so that this lets us make civs more aggressive and dangerous without being afraid they'll wipe everyone out (but so they still wipe some out).
Something like the following rules may work:
1. Random chance of resurrection exists only within 20 turns of elimination. It goes up quickly - turn 1, 10%; turn 2, 20%, etc, for five or six turns. Then it goes does just as quickly and remains at 5% or 10% for the remaining turns period in the short window. This percentage chance per turn is the base chance.
2. If there are any Barbarian cities in the civ's core land in a given turn, chances are doubled for that turn. However, this doubling can never happen twice in a row - if it happened last turn, this turn is normal, but next turn can have it again.
3. If a foreign capital or Forbidden Palace is in the civ's core land, its chances of resurrecting is halved. This halving is a yes/no question on a turn-by-turn basis. For whatever duration a capital or "second center" is in the core area, chances are half as big.
4. When a civ dies, nationality will have to remain for resurrection to work (it can assimilate super-quick once the window closes I guess). If any city in the core area has 100% the fallen civ's nationality, chances are double. If no city in the core area has a majority of the fallen civ's nationality, chances are halved.
5. If any units or cities have flipped to a new or resurrected civ in the whole last round (anywhere in the world), chances are double for this turn. This doubling stacks (so a conquering empire can conquer quickly, then get hit by one resurrection, then by three more, and then collapse to barbarism to later possibly return as a minor civ.)
If a random resurrection happens, every city has a chance equal to the fallen civ's nationality in it to flip to the resurrected civ. Units in the core area flip, just once, and only a small chance for each unit. No city has to flip for the resurrection to occur, it can be just a few units really.

Something along these lines will be realistic enough and most importantly create the dynamics we want, with civs dying and reappearing and changing and not being such big fat monoliths. If a civ can resurrect, we can feel free to overpower Greece, Rome and Mongolia insanely, since resurrections will assure us that at least some of their damage is later repaired. Empires will explode, growing huge in just a few turns, and then suddenly grow tiny as new and old civs take chunks out of them and likely cause them to collapse. Then later they can respawn, more moderately-sized. We can even increase the chance of collapsing if cities flip to a resurrection.
I'm toast, it's 4:00 AM and I slept badly last night (not to mention this was a long and tiring day.) I can't even proofread my post, which I customarily do. I haven't done this in a while, but if my post stinks, itsh cuj ahm reel tard!

Excellent idea. If feasible to implement I am definitely in favor of this!
1. I think it is better to create some model of assimilation of minorities after motherland collapse. Resurrection should be possible as long as nationality exists. 20 turns seems to be short. Poland resurrected after more than 100 years (1795-1918) which is more than 20 turns in our game - and man - what do you say about Israel resurrected after WW2? :eek: However all those excellent idea make the game very complex to program.
2. Maybe also new nations appear initially as hordes of barbarians. They starting techs could be linked to achievements of existing nations.
3. My dream is also to retain some of original culture. E.g. when China resurrected after Mongol conquest they were still Chinese not brand new nation. Reconquered cities should bring back the previous culture - of course adjusted preferably by % of nationality survived. Then assimilation model becomes really crucial.

They should reappear if the conqueror doesn´t take good precautions in the area, like cultural buildings, strong garrison, etc.

Coming back to the Arabs-Persians-questions. I guess the major advantage for the Persians is their gaining stability with every city conquered. Playing as Persia, stability concerns dont matter ever.
But playing Arabia, even conquering Egypt, Greece, Persia, Carthage, my Empire soon crumbles.

By the way: It's very nice to have the the Spirale minarette and the University of Sankore as Arabs ... its the easiest way to money and research besides Shrines... ;-)

yeah, get that and the holy city shrines and you can rake in money with very little effort...