I like the idea of giving just the AI a big revolution stability bonus while the players don't get it. That way players can experience the fun parts of revolutions, and the AI will not fall apart because of revolutions
I would play it. But so far that means only another thing to consider while managing cities. Part of the fun of revolutions is also, um, the revolutions. I
want to see new civilizations break away. There should be at least some mechanism for introducing new civilizations. For those proponents of Barbarian Civs, revolutions is like BarbCivs after all the barbarians are gone. If Rev ultimately dies, I would like to see some other way for cities/land to go back to the barbarians.
I had a cool, off-topic idea on that note:
What should be avoided is an AI that tries to manage Stability but doesn't manage it effectively. Worst case is when they drag their economy down while trying. (Such as when they mass-produced expensive LE units before TB's crime tweaks.) However, that doesn't need to mean AI that are safe from revolutions. It could be that the AI recognize the risk-reward ratio of fast expansion.* Why is it a bad thing that empires fall apart? (That is, after all, what they tend to do irl...) There are two ways I can look at this:
1. In a multiplayer game, I'm okay with the AI being weaker. I usually do MP with my family: three humans and the rest AI. In this setup, weak AI are like puppet states tugged between the influences of the big superpowers. There's no loss to game play and there's the benefit of Rev's immersion. Isn't this what happens to Barbarian Civs anyway? Late to the game, they'll always be somewhat followers among the big players. If you're okay with having some small civs, why not a few more?
2. It's okay if empires fall apart,
provided that whatever new Civ which rises up to fill that power vacuum is strong and competitive enough to take its place. When I was playing a "vanilla" Rev game, I once witnessed a Civ going on a warmongering spree, carving out a huge piece in the center of the Pangaea (It was Shaka, to no surprise). A rebellion arose, and the new Civ (Egypt, iirc) managed to defeat and conquer all of what was once the Zulus, staying strong. My point is, crumbling empires doesn't need to cause weak AI. So long as there is a balance: a) Some sprinters/rapid expansionists, who measure the potential reward against the potential risk and do not reach for low-reward goals. There is a positive snowball effect from conquering, irrc, which they could benefit from. b) Some cautious growers, prioritizing stability. c) And some opportunists, to fill the middle of this spectrum, who can step in when the big boys fall. With the new game mechanics favoring the bottom of the scoreboard (already being considered) like TD and WFL, and maybe some extra boosts when a faction gets out of "rebel" status into "independent nation" status, might it be possible?
The discussion seems to be assuming that all AI should be the conservative and secure type. What's wrong with letting some crash and burn,
a la Rhye's and Fall?
*Please realize, I say this all without any knowledge of the process and difficulty behind making it. I'm just suggesting final-product visions, take it all in consideration.