View Full Version : Independence Movements


LBaeldeth
Oct 07, 2006, 01:09 PM
(Edited to add new suggestions)

We've all seen it happen - "The cities of <long-ago destroyed civilization> are declaring their independence from <massive empire>!" I'll wager many, if not most or all, have had it happen to them personally.

I like this feature. It adds an element of unpredictability into the gameplay and throws an obstacle in the face of world-spanning empires. But I do have a problem with it.

The problem lies in re-taking the revolting cities. In and of itself, that's easy - the garrisons they get upon revolting aren't exactly awe-inspiring, and if you've troops in place there's no problem reasserting control before they start manufacturing more soldiers. No, what I've got a beef with is how re-taking the cities destroys the buildings within.

I realize that this is a function of Civ and not Rhye's excellent mod. However, Rhye's mod brings it to new heights of annoyance because there is nothing to be done to prevent this. In a war with another civ? Garrison your border cities well to prevent their capture and the necessity of taking them back. A chunk of your 'heartland' suddenly waxes nostalgic for their old flag? Well tough cookies, those cities are going to be set back several centuries when you re-take them after they automatically flip wholesale.

Now, all I've heard said about revolutions is that they have a chance of happening after researching X technology (Nationalism was one of them, and I think one or more others). Are there no other modifiers? If so, I would like to propose some.

Cities within the "historical" bounds of the nation have an independent chance of revolt. The entire nation going up at once is both (a) aggravating, and (b) not quite realistic. Instead, I propose ...


If a nearby city has rebelled, surrounding cities have an increased chance to do so as well. This is typically how revolution spread (especially before the advent of mass communication); one community at a time rose up as word reached them. This modifier could be cumulative, producing a dominoe effect that the player scrambles to counter.


Culture output of the city in question. The higher the Culture/turn, the lower the chance of the city joining the rebellion, as they identify with the empire more than their old nation.


Military presence in the city. The larger the garrison, the easier it is to put down dissenters. This could also be measured in terms of military units vs. city population as opposed to a flat scale; the larger the city, the more soldiers needed to maintain the same level of control. However, the bonus from military units decreases as civics representing more free-thinking or "liberal" policies are adopted.


Happy/Unhappy and Healthy/Sick modifiers. An unhappy, disease-ridden populace is more likely to turn to a radical movement such as revolution than one kept giddy and healthy by their overseers.


War-Weariness modifiers (separate from Happy/Unhappy). Why should they fight for the glory of their distant overlords? A high War Weariness increases the chance of a revolt. In the same vein, buildings that reduce War Weariness reduce chance of revolution (a dissenter is a dissenter), even if War Weariness is not present.


How long the city has been a part of the empire at large. If Bordeaux was conquered by Spain in 920AD, by the time 1800AD rolls around it ought to be more or less fully integrated. Efforts at integration could be represented by the city's total culture; each "level" (Poor, Fledging, Developing, Refined, etc.) comes with an increasingly larger anti-revolution bonus.


The "historical" capital of the former nation (i.e., Paris) has a higher chance of revolt than other cities. It is more steeped in the trappings of its old culture.


No city may revolt for X amount of turns after the destruction of their parent civilization. The citizenry are still reeling from the blow of their conquest and cannot mount an organized resistance.


In fact, revolutions could be made independent of technology with a selection of modifiers like the above.

Now, before anyone asks, "Do you have any idea how much work that would be?!" the answer is, "No." I have pretty much zero knowledge of scripting in general and Civ's system in particular, and don't even know if any of the above are possible.

However, losing dozens, even hundreds of turn's worth of building in four, five, or more cities due to circumstances apparently beyond my control is incredibly aggravating. As such, I have suggested - as above - ways to give control to the player, so that they may minimize the chances of this happening (if they choose to devote the resources to doing so). This is an intriguing feature of the mod, and I'd love to see it further developed.

Rhye
Oct 07, 2006, 01:45 PM
some of your proposals shouldn't be too much hard to do. I'll see what I can do.
(by the way there already is a condition that makes immune cities in we love the king's day.)

Tboy
Oct 07, 2006, 01:46 PM
Great ideas LBaeldeth! :goodjob: The only problem I can see with them is, as you said, implementation. But hopefully at least a few of them should get into the mod. After all, those ideas make sense, and a careful player should be able to stop revolts with those factors influencing them, as they are easily within a decent player's control.

EDIT: Ah, see Rhye posted just before me. Fingers crossed he'll be able to get some of them into the mod.

McA123
Oct 07, 2006, 05:02 PM
Ahh, well I was thinking of posting something about this, except my suggestion was to integrate a minimod made by... The Lopez I think it was? Anyways, it sets it so that when you retake a city, you regain half + a random number up to 1/4 of your culture back, or something like that. I don't remember the exact details but someone posted something about it in the minimods thread.

LBaeldeth
Oct 07, 2006, 09:15 PM
@Rhye, Tboy: Thanks. The ideas aren't only to alleviate the lack of control over revolutions, but also to hopefully add a new strategic dynamic the player must face.

Do you capture Paris, with its rich lands and the Wonders within, and risk it becoming the base of a revolution that sweeps across the countryside? Or do you sacrifice the city, its people, and the Wonders in a night of fire, leaving only smoking rubble and no symbol for radicals to rally around?

Do you put up with the expense of large garrisons to quell dissent and revolutionary rumblings, or save your coin and risk a nationalist movement taking the city from your grasp? Or do you enact a more brutal solution; raze their cities to the last stone and erect your own settlements above the ruins? (Actually, would that work under the current setup?)

A new level of decision-making, alternately slowing your empire's growth yet keeping it intact, or supporting a swift expansion with a fragile hold over your takings.

@McA123: My grief with retaking lost cities isn't the culture, but how dozens or hundreds of turns' worth of buildings are destroyed in the process. To suddenly find one's cities set back by centuries, or millennia, because they were snatched away by a game mechanic over which we have no control, is ... well, very, very aggravating. Hence the options to allow players to take steps and minimize the chance of revolution (at the expense of other areas, i.e. production, expansion).

TheGreatOne
Oct 07, 2006, 09:54 PM
good proposals but: Military presence in the city. The larger the garrison, the easier it is to put down dissenters. This could also be measured in terms of military units vs. city population as opposed to a flat scale; the larger the city, the more soldiers needed to keep peace.

The more millitary preasence doesnt really keep the peace. It can make the citizans more angry especially if you have a more free sociaty. This is like the American revolution how when the British send in more troops it actually strengthened the american cause.
Mayby you could make it so that if there are many troops in an angry settlement it could make some reables appear outisde the city and cause a greater chance if rebellion in other citees nearby. These effects would be greater when moving from more "free" civics to less free civics.

LBaeldeth
Oct 07, 2006, 11:46 PM
Military force alone is not intended to be the wholesale solution to the problem; it's merely one of many factors, one of which is keeping the citizens happy. However, I do see your point. Perhaps military units only give a bonus when using civics that represent less "free" societies; i.e. Hereditary Rule, Despotism. The "Freer" your civic choices, the less bonus military units give, ending up with 0 bonus at the most "liberal" civics, reflecting increasing restraints placed on military privileges as citizen's rights are advanced.

In fact, there's another factor right there. The more "liberal" civics come with a slightly increased chance of rebellion (the chance being larger the more "liberal" the civic is), representing both the flourishing of alternate opinions in mainstream politics and radical groups that espouse things like, say, violently throwing off the mantle of the Spanish empire and re-taking their Roman heritage.

The general idea is to make preventing rebellions take more effort than leaving things be. Hence the basis of "more soldiers"; it takes additional time to train them and money to upkeep them, so the player has to choose between that, and risking the city rising up. And there also, the more "profitable" high-end civics come with an increased chance of nationalist fervor; balancing risk of rebellion against greater cash flow, research, what have you. In addition, they decrease the anti-rebellion bonus from using the military to keep citizens forcibly in line.

Tboy
Oct 08, 2006, 02:57 AM
I don't think that more liberal civics should encourage rebellion, because freer civics would actually make the people happier with their freedoms. People are much more likely to hate a brutal, despotic dictator than a freely elected leader.

captain beaver
Oct 08, 2006, 09:29 AM
The middle ground here would be that less liberal civics are better at preventing rebellions, but if a rebellion occur it is X time stronger. More liberal civics would encourage rebellions, but weaker ones. It could represent the fact that as people are allowed to settle freely their differences with communication, they are less likely to take up arms against you but they are a bit more unruly.

TheGreatOne
Oct 08, 2006, 09:32 AM
The boston massecre started the american revolution and it was caused by the millitary in a free sociaty. The people didnt like the millitary enfrocing unjust laws so they protested.
I think that also changing from free to less free civics should also cause rebellion.

McA123
Oct 08, 2006, 11:07 AM
My biggest issue with the rebellion system is when you take back your cities and their totally useless, devoid of buildings and culture and overwhelmed by foreign culture. This is even worse when they're some of your best cities.

To be honest, the only thing the revolution feature has ever done is discourage me from invading, or when I do invade, to just raze everything.

Phallus
Oct 08, 2006, 01:20 PM
The boston massecre started the american revolution and it was caused by the millitary in a free sociaty.

More likely it was 'caused' by ordinary members of the public throwing things at the soldiers who overreacted, and it was hardly a massacre.

Just my pedants of eight.

NitroJay
Oct 08, 2006, 01:57 PM
The middle ground here...More liberal civics would encourage rebellions, but weaker ones. It could represent the fact that as people are allowed to settle freely their differences with communication, they are less likely to take up arms against you but they are a bit more unruly.

I totally disagree. If the rebellions get linked in with the civics, it should make more sense than this...

Here's the deal: If a liberal civ with Free Religion, Free Speach, etc. has a HUGE military pressence in the cities, this should trigger a rebellion, no free society wants "the man" stepping down on them... And vice versa, a civ with the more oppressive civics should experience rebellions if the military pressence in the cities is TOO LOW... That's how it works in the real world...

I'm ALL FOR having the rebellion system modified, but I don't think a player should be punished with rebellions, even weak ones, if they have a free society... And if the player wants to rule with the iron fist civics, they should keep plenty of military units in the cities to keep the populous from starting a civil war...

NitroJay
Oct 08, 2006, 01:59 PM
I think that also changing from free to less free civics should also cause rebellion.

I didn't see this post when I wrote the last one... I totally agree with this concept. I also think the length of anarchy should be extended when changing civics to a more opressive regime.

TheGreatOne
Oct 08, 2006, 03:40 PM
More likely it was 'caused' by ordinary members of the public throwing things at the soldiers who overreacted, and it was hardly a massacre.

Just my pedants of eight.

I know that but because of the free sociaty it allowed the press to make it seem wore than it actually was. The people who wrote about it made it seem like a massecre and blamed it on the British. that is what made the colonists angy. When there is free speach sometimes events are blown out of propotion and used by peopel to acheive their own goals.

The boston massecre is also very similar to the kent state massecre. Very few people died but because of what people said about it it got to be a very large event.

LBaeldeth
Oct 09, 2006, 02:10 AM
Here's the deal: If a liberal civ with Free Religion, Free Speach, etc. has a HUGE military pressence in the cities, this should trigger a rebellion, no free society wants "the man" stepping down on them... And vice versa, a civ with the more oppressive civics should experience rebellions if the military pressence in the cities is TOO LOW... That's how it works in the real world...
That sounds about right. As you implement more "liberal" civics, you no longer need to enforce your rule with an iron fist - in fact, will get some backlash if you do - but lord help you if someone declares war on your ungarrisoned cities!

@McA123: That is exactly what's driving me up the wall, and what motivated me to suggest the changes to the rebellion system.

Elhoim
Oct 09, 2006, 05:26 AM
These are very good ideas! ;)

Vishaing
Oct 09, 2006, 06:22 AM
On the subject of millitary occupation, I have this to suggest;

While increasing the number of troops makes people unhappy sometimes, it shouldn't make them unhappy all the times, becasue sometimes you station a massive army in a city simply for defense.

This is one of the largest differences between cIV and real life, because in Real Life most of the millitary isn't stationed in cities but on millitary bases spread around the country.

As such, i think if a city is thinking of rebelling, then millitary presence should increase the chance of rebellion if the civics are 'liberal' but otherwise it shouldn't. Otherwise it would be impossible for a civ to defend itself in the late game, and also the AI wouldn't be able to understand the system like a human, and would keep all of their units in cities, and crumble, whereas a clever human would just keep his units outside of hte city in a big circle in the 8-plot square.

Tom Veil
Oct 09, 2006, 07:06 AM
I just played a game where the Persians have revolted and re-formed their own civ THREE times -- and there's still 50 turns left. Quite impressive for a civ that collapsed in 700 AD with only 3 cities! Also quite annoying, might I add, since I had invested tons and tons of culture in the 2 cities that I controlled, such that they were 99% Indian when they first revolted, and 95% the second time. I ended up burning Parsae to the ground and founding a city adjacent to it. C'est la vie.

LBaeldeth
Oct 09, 2006, 10:40 AM
@Vishaing: That's true, the AI wouldn't know how to grasp the concept. Let's shift it back to: Anti-rebellion bonus for large garrisons under "despotic" civics, that gradually decreases to zero with progressively more "liberal" civics; at no point do garrisons ever encourage rebellion, lest the AI constantly destroy itself.

captain beaver
Oct 09, 2006, 02:41 PM
I have never seen a rebellion yet in my games, as I am usually in the position to supply enough happyness/healthyness ressources to my empire combined with the fact that I'm not overly aggressive, but from what I understand, when a rebellion occurs, the concerned cities are removed from your control and rebels appear in those cities, right? So instead, wouldn't it be better to make the rebel units spawn outside of the concerned cities with an automatic state of war against you? You would keep the cities and the garrison in it, but units outside could convert. It would resolve the problem of losing cities in which you have heavily invested since if your garrison is large enough, you would suffer only from mild-to-heavy terrain improvement damage. This might be an adequate solution between losing well developed cities versus razing every ennemy cities and rebuilding them. The only downsides that I can see is 1) that rebellions become unsure business as you only need more units than the rebels have in the region 2) rebels will destroy much of the captured cities potential, making them easier targets in the long run as they have no solid core.

LBaeldeth
Oct 09, 2006, 06:03 PM
There's also the possibility that without any cities, the newly-resurgent civ is automatically declared destroyed once more.

Or maybe not. I've got absolutely no idea how that works.

In response to "problem #2", a city's buildings will be destroyed in any case when the player re-takes it from rebel control. It's what prompted me to suggest alternatives to "Automatic no-control rebellions".

Unless you're referring to it being a problem for the rebels ... but unless you're planning to let them keep the city, I don't think they have time to worry about it. And if you are letting them keep the city, why not just let them peaceably break away in the first place?

captain beaver
Oct 09, 2006, 07:01 PM
There's also the possibility that without any cities, the newly-resurgent civ is automatically declared destroyed once more.

Or maybe not. I've got absolutely no idea how that works.

In response to "problem #2", a city's buildings will be destroyed in any case when the player re-takes it from rebel control. It's what prompted me to suggest alternatives to "Automatic no-control rebellions".

Unless you're referring to it being a problem for the rebels ... but unless you're planning to let them keep the city, I don't think they have time to worry about it. And if you are letting them keep the city, why not just let them peaceably break away in the first place?
I works fine with the complete kill option (requires that all units and cities of a given civ be destroyed before it is considered dead).
For problem 2, I just meant that if people are looking for strong rebellions where they have the possibility of flourishing back into a major power, this is not a solution as the ressurging civ would be wipped out most of the time.

Tom Veil
Oct 09, 2006, 07:03 PM
I have never seen a rebellion yet in my games, as I am usually in the position to supply enough happyness/healthyness ressources to my empire combined with the fact that I'm not overly aggressive....
As far as I understand, that doesn't have much to do with it. I was at war when all of my rebellions happened, but my Persian cities were both happy and healthy.

Rod
Oct 10, 2006, 12:34 AM
Hello,

actually the question is how to reduce destruction in conquered cities. This is the overall problem, not the Rebels spawn inside or outside.

If a conquered city gets always emptied it is no fun, we know that.

So is there any way in coding to keep more buildings in a city after it got conquered ?

LBaeldeth
Oct 10, 2006, 02:39 PM
My problem isn't with the loss of city improvements in and of itself - I think it's totally logical that pitched fighting for a city would engender hefty damage to its infrastructure (although having damn near every building go "poof" is sometimes taking it too far).

What I dislike, and am hoping to improve, is that unlike cities lost during wartime, there is no way to prevent a rebellion snatching away a double handful of advanced cities. There is zero control on the player's part, and so the loss of infrastructure is something imposed without options to offset it.

Hence trying to further develop the rebellion system; letting a civilization trade off benefits of, perhaps, increased commerce, in exchange for a strong military presence and boosted culture rate, both of which dampen the chances of a revolution occurring.

Tom Veil
Oct 10, 2006, 03:35 PM
That's my problem with indepence, too. If there were clear things that I could do to suppress independence movements, like generate culture and happiness, and it were relatively easy to monitor, then I would have zero problem with independence movements -- in fact, I'd want more of them.

The current method only seems to favor nations that are located in uncrowded spots on the map, like America and Mali, and hurt nations in crowded spots. Why should independence have anything to do with some city being Persian or German 1000 years ago? Wouldn't Texans, Serbians, etc, be just as likely to revolt? And wouldn't they be more likely to revolt from an ill-managed government than from an effective one?

NitroJay
Oct 10, 2006, 06:15 PM
Oh yes! Being able to MONITOR it would be excellent! Even a message about "cities XXX are demonstrating for independance" a few turns before the revolt would be useful...

I think a cities culture should also effect the revolution, if it's been neglected in the culture department, it should me more likely to revolt, but a city I took 1000 years ago should be intregrated into my civ's culture if I took care of it's culturaly...

I think the cultural decay mod I've seen mentioned here-and-there would go along way toward fixing some of these problems.

ALLYGATORUT
Oct 10, 2006, 06:27 PM
I also completely agree with this concept. Having more liberal civics would be fantastic!

ElConejo
Oct 10, 2006, 08:18 PM
Wow, thanks for starting up this thread, and as Rhye has already posted, I hope he will be doing something to implement these sorts of factors into the mod. I love the mod, and in fact one of the biggest reasons I do love it is because of the independence movements. Its one of the biggest reasons I come back, and the OP outlines alot of things I'd like to see from independence movements, and I wouldnt mind if they were more frequent if it were based on that model.

Like I said, I am anxious to see what Rhye can do with that, and how it will effect the Mod.

captain beaver
Oct 11, 2006, 09:12 AM
Oh yes! Being able to MONITOR it would be excellent! Even a message about "cities XXX are demonstrating for independance" a few turns before the revolt would be useful...

I think a cities culture should also effect the revolution, if it's been neglected in the culture department, it should me more likely to revolt, but a city I took 1000 years ago should be intregrated into my civ's culture if I took care of it's culturaly...

I think the cultural decay mod I've seen mentioned here-and-there would go along way toward fixing some of these problems.
Well, I'm taking my ideas from this excellent revolution mod : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171127

Of course, for RFC, the only revelent part would be when a dead civ makes a revolution to come back. But what is really good is that matters such as civics, religion, holy cities, whom you are at war with, happyness, healthyness, distance from palace, if its a colony (i.e. on another continent) and some other factors all have a say in creating revolution. They even have a popup that you can access anytime which tells you which cities are likely to revolt, which would join a revolution if it happens and what factors you have to change to improve their loyalty. Moreover, depending on other factors, revolutions can be small, big or dangerous to the entire empire. Another cool option is that you can negotiate with the rebels : 2 turns before the rebellion, a popup comes asking things like if you want to pay gold to the rebels to make them wait a bit or if you want to change civics to make the rebels happy. You can refuse at your own risk, but even giving in doesn't mean there will be no rebellion. It makes rebellions avoidable but still fun and it makes a large empire difficult to manage.

Onyl downside, I had proposed this to Rhye a while back and he said that it couldn't be incorporated with the mod due to coding issues :( .

ElConejo
Oct 11, 2006, 01:30 PM
What sorts of problems does that model face that the original post not? I suppose the negociation or maybe the revolution instead of independence? Because Rhye said he would look into making the OP (at least a few suggestions) workable.. but it doesnt sound terribly different than that which you describe Beaver. I am curious and anxious to see any version (whether the OP or the revolution model) that gets plugged in because I think either would greatly improve independence movements and make them much more enjoyable.

captain beaver
Oct 11, 2006, 03:18 PM
What sorts of problems does that model face that the original post not? I suppose the negociation or maybe the revolution instead of independence? Because Rhye said he would look into making the OP (at least a few suggestions) workable.. but it doesnt sound terribly different than that which you describe Beaver. I am curious and anxious to see any version (whether the OP or the revolution model) that gets plugged in because I think either would greatly improve independence movements and make them much more enjoyable.
Well, since a ,lot of posts said that revolution were random and you didn't know when and why they would happen, this could help as the mod's pop-up clearly says what's wrong. Of course, it doesn't make cities lose less buildings when they get captured, but it makes revolution manageable as you will know more or less when they come knocking to your door. Maybe a huge loss of buildings could be accepted in exchange for advance warnings and the ability to quell the revolution by changing civics or buying more happyness ressources. But yes your right it doesn't make the loss of a developped city less dramatic.
Plus, and this would help, this entire system is already well coded and in its final beta testing. It would be an easier solution than designing a totally new system.

MrThing
Oct 11, 2006, 04:57 PM
All very good and well-thought out ideas.

#7 Could perhaps be combined with a modified version of Culture Mod. The Culture Mod seems to handle boarders a bit differently and in ways that would be especially problematic with the city spacing in RoC but the intergration of culture groups would work well in RoC.

Aussie_Lurker
Oct 11, 2006, 06:59 PM
Captain Beaver is right on the money guys. This already excellent mod/scenario would benefit greatly from a merger with the equally brilliant revolution mod. In fact, certain features- such as switching civs mid-stream are already features of both mods, so that will make them even EASIER to merge, IMHO.

Aussie_Lurker.

Rhye
Oct 12, 2006, 06:11 AM
I never said that variables influencing revolutions can't be implemented. I said that Revolutions mod can't be merged with RFC, that's different ;)


In my plans, after Warlods there is an expansion of the current system, which would make cities turn independent ("Independent" is a minor civ that replace barbarians for this kind of things) and add a few more conditions.

qdm
Oct 15, 2006, 06:08 AM
What should be remembered (and something which is very frequently overlooked in real-life analysis) is that independence movements are frequently set up by the RICHEST regions, especially today :

- USSR : The first to leave were the Baltic states

- Yugoslavia : They left almost from the richest to the poorest Slovenia > Croatia > Bosnia > Macedonia > Kosovo > Montenegro (the only difference should be that Kosovo should have left after Montenegro and Voivodina)

- Belgium : Flanders want to leave because it feels it gives too much money to lazy Wallons

- Spain : In terms of GDP, the richest region is the Basque Country, then Catalunya. Carlist movements in the XIXth century have more or less the same pattern

- France : The 1789 revolutions could be analysed as a revolt of rich people submitted to high taxes by tax-exempt nobles. Nobles which would get a lot of support by devout poor people in the West of the country (the religious factor should be taken into account, what about internal revolutions against freedom of religion ?)

It seems thus there is a trend in independence movements, at least in recent times :

If a peripheral region is richer than the Capital, it is likely to secede, especially if it was historically independent at one time (no need for a very long independence). Counter-model, the USA. Or maybe not...

Tom Veil
Oct 15, 2006, 09:54 AM
The USA is most certainly NOT the counter-model. The colonies were rich beyond their wildest dreams, far richer than any observer in, for example, 1726 could have reasonably expected them to be just 50 years later. The problem was, they rightly realized that they were responsible for their own success. That was also the problem with Slovenia, the French revolutionaries, etc: they realized they didn't need to keep their leaders around to be successful.

Crayton
Oct 15, 2006, 05:47 PM
Should it be possible to be able to switch to a remerging civ? We can switch to new civs if we haven't done so already, but I think it would be nice to include that function when a civ re-emerges.

Also I was thinking about the current independence system. When a city wants to succeed to a nearby civ there is often 5 or so turns of rebellion. This is due mainly to the foreign culture in the city. When a civ dies all of it's culture disappears. Obviously the current system has been sufficiently coded so my idea is already lacking.

Perhaps after a civ collapses each city built by that civ begins producing 2 culture for the extinct civ. No tiles would flip because the civ would have no cities, but there would most certainly be chances of revolution, just like in normal culture flips. This way in the far future when a third civ takes the city, the ancient culture is now most dominant and liable to create an independence movement.

qdm
Oct 16, 2006, 05:08 AM
The USA is most certainly NOT the counter-model. The colonies were rich beyond their wildest dreams, far richer than any observer in, for example, 1726 could have reasonably expected them to be just 50 years later. The problem was, they rightly realized that they were responsible for their own success. That was also the problem with Slovenia, the French revolutionaries, etc: they realized they didn't need to keep their leaders around to be successful.

I thought more about the contemporary USA. Washington D.C is not a very rich area. And California independentist movements are negligible...

NitroJay
Oct 16, 2006, 05:16 AM
Yeah, I don't see money as being the primary reason for any rebellions... I'm sure there are plenty of rebellions in history where money was a factor, even now, the upper pennisula of Michigan has been trying to become it's own state (apart from the rest of Michigan) because the rich folk up there are sick of their state tax dollars going to Detroit... But there are THOUSANDS more examples of the richer cities remaining in the empire/country. Look at Alaska now, it used to be Russian and it's one of the richest states in US, but it's not revolting... In civ4, if these changes are put in, it would be. (But I figure Rhye's congress would have given it back to Russia by now...)

NitroJay
Oct 16, 2006, 05:19 AM
Washington D.C is not a very rich area

Whoa... We must be staying in different places then... I was just there on a two day layover a couple days ago... There are a lot of homeless people there but I can understand why... $17.99 for a crappy breakfast buffet?! The omlet alone was $12!!! Only rich people could afford a breakfast like that everyday... (I'm bitter)

Phallus
Oct 16, 2006, 12:17 PM
Not necessarily. If they're desperate for omlettes they could take out a loan.

qdm
Oct 16, 2006, 02:57 PM
Internal revolutions are caused by the feeling that central government is taking too much money from the group which ignites the revolution.

As there is often a money transfer from the central govt to the poor, they have no interest to revolt. It is the rich which are likely to start the revolution. See historical examples that I listed above.

Tom Veil
Oct 17, 2006, 09:44 PM
I thought more about the contemporary USA. Washington D.C is not a very rich area. And California independentist movements are negligible...
Common misperception. The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is actually the 4th-wealthiest in America (http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm) (out of 361). And the District itself (NOT counting the suburbs), if it were a state, would be either #1 or #2 in per-capita income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income), depending on how you measure it.

NitroJay
Oct 18, 2006, 03:04 PM
That explains the expensive breakfast foods...

ElConejo
Oct 18, 2006, 04:16 PM
That explains the expensive breakfast foods...
That and tourism has a nasty effect of jacking up the price of everything. :mad:

Riker
Oct 19, 2006, 04:43 PM
I came to a conclusion. I hate the current revolt system. Why should a civ conquered thousands years before return to life? It's just TOO far in time to be reasonable. And why should I develop cities that I know that will gain independence, that I'll have to conquer them again and that will lose most of my upgrades?
You can stand against the congress, you can stand against newborn civs, why can't you stand against resurrections?

Blasphemous
Oct 20, 2006, 09:44 AM
Sorry to sound like an outsider, but I haven't played in a while and I can't recall how revolutions work. Aren't there clear ways to keep cities you control from revolting?
It most definately makes sense for long-dead civs to return, at any rate. They do in real life.

NitroJay
Oct 20, 2006, 11:47 AM
The only way to keep civs you've conquered from revolting is to have the said cities in "we love the king" day all the time. It's a pain in the ass sometimes...

Although, as for "long dead" civs coming up out of nowhere, I -kind of- agree. I think time should be a factor, but not an eliminator... The longer dead civ's cities have been (happy) under the new civ's control should LESSEN the chance of revolution. But if things get bad enough in said city, they should be able to attempt a revolution, no matter how much time has passed...

SadoMacho
Oct 20, 2006, 01:35 PM
I'm having troubles with civ revolting only after the civ has nationalism. When China is conquered by Mongolia it will take to long before it becomes a living civ again.

Nationalism can also lead to integration of minorities in nations. France is an example. There is the laugue d'oc, the langue d'oïl (Southern and northern France), Celtic Bretagne, German Elzas, and Flemish northern France. The regions have all been incorporated in France, with a frence nationalistic feeling.

Tom Veil
Oct 21, 2006, 12:36 AM
I'm having troubles with civ revolting only after the civ has nationalism. When China is conquered by Mongolia it will take to long before it becomes a living civ again.

Nationalism can also lead to integration of minorities in nations. France is an example. There is the laugue d'oc, the langue d'oïl (Southern and northern France), Celtic Bretagne, German Elzas, and Flemish northern France. The regions have all been incorporated in France, with a frence nationalistic feeling.

True, but look at how nations that outsiders mistakenly believed to be unitary, like 1600 Poland, 1900 Ottoman, and 1990 Yugoslavia, proved extremely easy to splinter. The Poles had controlled the Ukraine for what, 400 years? The Ottoman had ruled Mecca for over 200 years. The Yugoslavs desperately suppressed a splintering during WWII to stay united for 74 years. And now no one could imagine any of them reuniting without a major revolution.

SadoMacho
Oct 21, 2006, 01:09 AM
Germany and Italy were also united by nationalism, Austria-Hungaria was split up because of nationalism.
Serbia tried to form a great Serbia in the 90's and unite all Serbs in nation (that's also nationalism).

My first point was that nationalism is a 2 way ideology. It unites and it divides nations.

My second point was that nationalism has always been there, not only in the 1800's when Europe had many nationalistic revolutions, so CiV's should be able to resurrect before the nationalism tech. The nationalism tech should just give the will to resurrect a big boost, because nationalist movements were not so commen before the 1800's.

I'm sorry, but i have ADD and if I type half of what I want to say, it could be concidered a new record. I think it must often be hard to really understand what I'm trying to say.

Blasphemous
Oct 21, 2006, 03:23 AM
It looks like we need a more complicated engine for determining revolutions.
How about this: every time you discover a new tech, there is a tiny chance that civs you have conquered will revolt. Say a 1% chance. Some civs should be tagged to ignore the "enough dead civs" requirement, like China, but the rest will still be bound by it. Then whenever a civ discovers nationalism, something special happens. There is a 40% chance that nationalism wil unite the nation. If this happens, you get a message saying "Nationalist sentiments have strengthened the bonds that hold our people together!" and every city has +2 happy for ten turns. For 30 turns after this happens, your civ has no chance of a revolt. The other options when discovering nationalism are 10% that nothing special happens and you have the regular 1% chance of a revolution, and finally a 50% chance that nationalism will start to cause splintering in your country. If that final option occurs, you get a message saying "Nationalist sentiments among ethnic minorities are causing disrest!" and you get -1 happy in each city for 10 turns. For these ten turns, there is a 3% chance each turn that a revolution will occut. Also, from this moment on, the chance of revolt when you discover a new tech is 3% instead of 1%.
A later tech, like perhaps Mass Media, should be a leveler with a set effect. When you discover it, any nationalism-related happiness or unhappiness is immediately erased, and the only reason for revolt becomes discovering a new tech, with a 3% chance.
Also there should definately be a model of revolutions spreading from city to city. This comes with some strategic problems. So here is what I propose: whenever a revolution occurs because of the revolution engine, one city is selected to start it. The capital of the old civ has a 50% chance, if it's not that then it's completely at random among the other cities belonging to that civ. The first city to start a revolution will have a special animation to mark it. For five turns, this animation will be visible, and the city will have +100% defense. This is so it's not as easy to just send your entire army in to quench the revolution. Then the next turn, each of the dead civ's cities has a chance equal to 5% per already-revolting city within a 10-tile radius to join the revolution as well. Every city in the revolution gets a special animation, but there is a separate one for the city that started it. The other cities also get the animation for five turns, and for that time they get +50% city defense. Whenever there is a check to see if a city joins the revolution (including the first one to start it), the chance is -1% if the city has at least three units garrisoned in it or if it has barracks as well as a courthouse, and then the chance is halved if the city is not unhappy and not unhealthy. If the city is in WLTKD there is no chance of revolt at all. Also, every wonder built in the city lowers the chance by 1% (but the only thing that can lower the chance to 0% is WLTKD). Once all the animations have had their run, the revolution won't spread anymore on its own.
I know, I know, my ideas are complicated, but national revolutions are complicated so that's alright. I think a dynamic model of revolutions like this will not be unfun. The conquerer can do a lot to diminish the chances of a revolution, and many revolutions will start in one city, last a few turns, and end by force of arms. But then there will be ones that spread like wildfire and really piss off the conquerer and possibly last as an actual civ.

Phallus
Oct 21, 2006, 03:33 AM
I think your choice of civics and the level of integration should both play an important role in the chances of revolution. If you conquer a large area of land and do nothing to improve the cities or satisfy the population, you should face the possibility of uprising. If on the other hand you intensely develop the new cities, employ civics like representation and spread other religions to avoid the formation of cultural blocks, you should be allowed to relax.

I'd like to see Blasphemous's idea implemented one day. While it appears complicated, it would be delightfully simple in practice.

SadoMacho
Oct 21, 2006, 03:38 AM
Blas, I like your ideas. The dynamic revolution model will be hard to implement, I think, but it would be very nice. Your idea to start the revolutions by tech-discovery is a good system.

Elhoim
Oct 21, 2006, 07:34 AM
The old Blas is back! Great and complex to implement ideas, as always! :goodjob:

Blasphemous
Oct 21, 2006, 08:01 AM
Actually this idea is more implementation-oriented than what I usually propose. I could have written out most of the idea in a way more similar to programming to show how few the factors are and how simple it is. The key is that it all revolves around an existing event - tech discovery - with a complex but nonetheless completely algorithmic routine running every time said existing event occurs.
I have to run now, but I definately missed the things Phallus mentioned. The numbers I used can and should be tweaked upwards so that more factors can be made to remove %chance to revolt. Civics, religious isolation and improvements should all be factored in.
See you all next weekend (after that I will probably have Internet at the apartment as well and then it'll be more like days of yore. :))

Vishaing
Oct 21, 2006, 08:26 AM
When cities start to 'join the revolution', I would lower the radius of revolution, but increase the percent chance that they revolt. a 10 tile radius is massive, and even with only a 5% chance the general distance between two cities is 2 tiles, 1 in Europe in some places. With that many cities, even with a 5% chance the entire Empire might rebel in a single turn simply due to the recursive power of the function.

On another note, I think the first city to rebel should have a join radius of 4 tiles, while every other city should have a radius of 2 tiles. But that might just be increasing the complexity for no apparent reason.

I like the whole 'techs give a chance of revolt' system, but I think it should only be certain techs that are tagged with a higher percentage chance, for instance;
writing
alphabet
civil service
guilds
currency
...
others along those lines which I can't remember about. I feel these techs are techs that unite people or divide them, or could cause resentment. once you've got writing, one city state might not 'write' the same way another one does. Once you get alphabet you can start getting true colloquial dialects started, which can further devide people. However I don't see Horseback Ridding or Animal Husbandry do as much, though it can definately create some culturel differences.

Also, I think when a city revolts it should start out Barbarian for a few turns, and then, if the former capitol of a dead civ revolts, or if it is ever detected that the civ's traditional capitol is barbarian, then there is a rather high chance that the civ might ressurect and influence the surrounding cities just like a normal spawn, the cities MIGHT ask to flip (based on culture and happiness and healthiness and civics) and if their request is refused the betrayal period begins again.

Another thing that should be done for reviving civs is tech advancement, I think they should start with every tech they had when they died, and then get either a 'generic era tech list' that gives them most if not all of the techs from the previous era, or they should dynamicly get most of the techs their 'parent' nation had.

Zetetic Apparat
Oct 22, 2006, 06:55 AM
I think that it would be better if there wasn't a directly increased chance of rebellion. If rebellion was better linked to unhappiness and nationalities, then you could simply increase the "We yearn to join the motherland" penalty for a certain number of terms. I do think that the tech-discovery trigger is a good idea ; maybe even civic-'related' techs specifically/especially?

Personally, in my latest game as Japan, I'm getting more than a little irritated with Nanchang... (I would burn it, but a Holy City for two religions and the Pyramids?)

Aussie_Lurker
Oct 22, 2006, 06:06 PM
Well, I still say that jDogs revolution mod would serve as a perfect model for determining the chance of nations re-emerging or otherwise trying to become independant. In fact Rhye and jDog should form an alliance which could 'Rule the Galaxy as Father and Son.' ;)

Aussie_Lurker.

Vishaing
Oct 22, 2006, 07:19 PM
It's all fun and games till someone breaks out the Star Wars Quotes.

I really have nothing else to add, save that I think the JDog's Revolution mod might be very useful, especially if combined with my 'if the territorial capitol is barbarian ressurect' system.

McA123
Oct 23, 2006, 03:13 PM
Rhye stated that the two mods can't be merged, but I agree that some of the features from JDog's mod would be a big improvement.