Province System: Creation

[Ant509y]

Alright, I've been talking to Loaf Warden and we've come to this conclusion: The province system lined in Again, Provinces had become too complicated. Therefor, as we desire this system to be placed in the game for real, we need to keep it as simple as possible. To start, there is deciding the bare minimum of what the province system would need to work.

Here's my starter of what I desire in the system as necessarry for my enjoyment: I hope it is added to by the rest of you.

Civil Wars: The original reason I wanted provinces in the first place was to have civil wars make sense, and therefor, without this, there is no purpose to having provinces. This is the number one thing I want in it.

Provincial Benefits: For provincial benefits, the bare minimum [and the less the better] is corruption decrease ( I do not know how the new system works, so they could do whatever they felt like with this) and have a benefit in how the province operates in some way... perhaps shield pooling in some way, or maybe bonus commerce from trade from a province? Help me with this, but keep it simple.

Military tags: I want military units to have tags showing which province it is from, so if a civil war happens, the province keeps all of its units.

Secondary desires: These are things not in the bare minimum, and they are a bit more complicated... I'll only give one or two for now.

Provincia; Diplomacy: This is something I really want, but figure is not truly reasonable if I want the bare minimum... in this, each province would tell you what it needed most, possibly has a relation to other provinces, etc. The amount of culture each province has would be a major factor. I won't go too specific now. I have elsewhere... too far in fact.

Sub-traits: Each province will develop a sub trait based on what types of buildings and units it builds... and gains a small bonus in that area.


Okay, there's my start... I hope you guys post soon, I want to hear your thoughts! If you have any questions, please ask me or Loaf.

 

[Loaf Warden]

If anyone doesn't know what we're talking about, go to the "Again, Provinces" thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87761) to see where all this is coming from.

Now then. As Ant509y said, we want this system to actually be in the game, but the model in the other thread had gotten too complicated to be a reasonable request. The less change we ask for, the more likely they are to consider our model, so we've decided to prioritize the ideas and figure out what we need for the idea to work, and what we don't.

I propose three levels of prioritization:
Level one ideas are those which are essential to the model. These are the ideas without which, the model wouldn't work.
Level two ideas are those which, while not essential, would still be good for streamlining the idea and making it more effective. We could do without them, but it would make the model less interesting.
Level three ideas are those which are not important to the model at all, but which would really add flavor to it and make it cooler.

I haven't gone back through the other thread to prioritize everything we said there, but here's what I've got just from the top of my head:

LEVEL ONE
-The building of Provincial Capitols in order to establish the province, and having the Capitol reduce corruption in that province and only in that province. (If, that is, that statement is still meaningful under their new corruption system.)

-The ability to name each province and choose by your own decision which cities go into it.

-A requirement that a province's borders be contiguous.

-Having the provincial borders visible on the main map screen so we know at a glance where the boundaries are. They can simply be a thinner version of the national borders.

-Province-wide orders, such as build instructions. (Like telling the whole province to work on Cavalry instead of going around and telling them city by city, or having one city work on a Wonder and having the shields produced in the other cities transferred--probably with a penalty--to that city.)

-A limitation to the number of cities in each province. A minimum of three, and a maximum of six. There are too many possible exploits connected with having provinces be too large or too small, and 3-6 seemed like the best plausible range.

-Civil wars/revolutions. For the revolutions themselves, I consider the following ideas to be of level one priority:
-A system of Rebel Sentiment to determine which provinces are in danger of rebellion.
-Flagging of each unit telling which province it was built in, so we'll know which units will 'flip' when the province rebels.
-Changing the color of the borders/cities/units in rebellion so we can easily keep track of them visually.

LEVEL TWO
-A Provincial Advisor screen to deal with provincial affairs. This could be done from the Domestic Advisor screen, but having a separate advisor screen would make it easier.

LEVEL THREE
-Provincial diplomacy. This would include how provinces feel about each other, as well as how they feel about other nations, or anything else of this nature that may have come up before. I'd like to see it--especially since it raises the possibility of two or more provinces joining together in the same rebellion and becoming a single new civ--but the idea itself adds many complications that may qualify as 'asking too much'.

As for the sub-traits, I never saw the point of that to begin with. I think each province should keep the same traits as the rest of the civ. I could see the point if you only mean for after the rebellion (like, say, if it's a coastal province that you've been building a lot of ships in, then the new civ is considered Seafaring), but while it's part of your own civ, I don't see why its traits would be different from yours.

 

[Ant509y]

When it comes to sub-traits, I picked this up because I want the provinces to do a few useful things, and adding mini-bonuses to production and so forth are things I like. So I'm sticking to it. Most of the rest I liked, though, Loaf, so don't worry.

 

[rcoutme]

It looks like these ideas are feasable. I would like something like this in Civ IV.

 

[Ant509y]

Rcoutme, yes, that's the point, thank you! We do hope to see it in the game...

 

[socralynnek]

Level One for me:

Having provinces should reduce Micromanaging!
You gain profits by having provinces, such as reduced corruption, but there should also be a little downside (in addition to the Civil Wars), maybe you shouldn't have the full control over the cities in Provinces, which also reduces your time you have to spend for your empire. I'm thinking about this: You can only manage the production of the cities, but not which tile they work etc. this should be done by your "Provincial Governor" whom you can give orders and whom you can give money for purposes like happiness.
Then playing on huge maps could actually be fun...

 

[dh_epic]

I actually think you more or less have it. I don't think we should get carried away. You're right about keeping it simple being very important.

Provincial palaces should also become VERY key when it comes to occupying a new piece of territory. e.g.: rome conquers spain, but to keep it from "turning back", or at least becoming a nuisance, they need to get that provincial palace up pretty quick.

That could, in turn, be the benefit. Having a provincial palace makes it more likely that partisans/guerillas will appear, resistance will happen, or a city will turn back in that region -- if it is conquered.

 

[Ant509y]

Yes... I don't really have anything else that is necessarry to me that Loaf or myself have not stated... hmm. Well, everyone else keep giving your views... we do need it simple. Though, honestly, I DO want to be able to control the individual cities in the provinces, as if I could not it would be frustrating beyond belief... the AI never does what you want!

 

[rcoutme]

Ok, here are some problems that you have not addressed.

1. If the province must be contiguous, what happens to cities that have foreign borders in between your borders? Does this mean that those cities can never be part of a province? Similarly, what about cities on islands where the city takes all the tiles of an island?

2. If all the units are marked for the province that they came from, then all you have to do is suicide the units from a province that you suspect will be rebellious. How do you prevent such exploits?

3. Once you start making provinces, is your entire empire consisting only of provinces, or are you only taking a few cities here and there and creating provinces? If the latter, then how do you prevent a player from keeping all of the best cities out of provinces (thus making them 'safe' from provincial revolutions)?

4. If provinces are 3-6 cities (which, btw, I agree with completely), how do you make sure that on large maps, the parent civilization does not just bully any given province into remaining loyal (i.e. the civ has maybe 20+ cities, 3-6 are not going to pose a threat and thus could not break off safely)?

5. I do not think that I would want a province to produce the same thing in every one of its cities. Thus, province-wide build orders seem to be nonsensical. Instead, wouldn't it be better to allow the 'parent' to tell the province "We want cavalry" and allow the province to determine how that gets done? Since these are supposed to be semi-autonomous, there could be a screen (similar to a city screen) which gives the times for how long it takes to get certain items built. Maybe reserving 1/2 the shields for provincial production decisions.

Just some thoughts to kick around.

 

[Ant509y]

Hmm... alright, these are very very good questions! I shall answer all of them.

1: I forgot about this point. In actuality, when I really think about it, I am against it. They must be close, yes, but if they are not connected, that shouldn't be too much of a problem... though they must be close. When I say this I am thinking of islands. Also, when it comes to a single city in enemy territory: No, it cannot become part of a province. At least not until you have other cities near it!

2: You prevent such exploits by not telling the player exactly how close a province is to rebelling, and also... well, I figure if a province rebels, it will take other provinces with it, and also at least a few new units are 'created' in the cities when the province rebels. I want it to be very uncommon for a SINGLE province to rebel. Even neutral-tyoe provinces would rebel if a powerful neighbor province rebelled...

3: Once you start making provinces, some cities will still not be in provinces. And to stop players from keeping their best cities outside of provinces, the bonuses of provinces would be greater than the threat of rebellion. Also, a province would always have more influence than a single city... when a province rebels, I don't want JUST that province rebelling... a powerful nearby city would be taken into rebellion as well, since the province, even if it is not that powerful or influential, is still far more influential than the city, and has a good chance of taking it with it. That would also help stop that cheat.

4: As I keep saying, I don't intend for them to rebel alone... most likely multiple provinces [say, one powerful, and one or two more weaker ones, maybe more if you have a LARGE empire.]

5: I have no idea about this one... I don't have an opinion. x.x

Anyway, there it is for ya! Again thanks for the thoughts... I needed those.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Just a few things to consider:

1) Province creation would fall under the purview of your Domestic Advisor. When you have the minimum number of adjacent cities required, your advisor will pop up and ask if you want to organise them into a province.

2) Each new adjacent city, up to the maximum, will be added to the new province automatically.

3) Provinces might become increasingly beneficial to their component cities as time goes by, but so should the risk of seccession.

4) Tech advancement should increase the maximum number of cities allowed in a single province.

5) Especially happy, powerful or cultural provinces should be able to 'attract' cities into their province IF they are under their current limit-even if the city already belongs to a province.

6) Independant cities should be at greater risk of cultural conversion than a city in a province!

I have other ideas to add, but I have to get going for now!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

@Aussie_Lurker: I would be very much against provinces taking in new cities automatically. I want to be able to organize my empire as I see fit, not as the computer likes. I think that each new city should cause the domestic advisor to ask you if you want to add it to a province.

I like the idea that tech levels affect provinces, however I'm not sure that the quantity of cities in that province is the way to go. Could you explain the rationale further, please?

 

[dh_epic]

rcoutme, good show on identifying problem areas.

everyone else, i love you guys, because you guys think like me. you LOVE the complexity. but we don't know what's good for us!

so, without further ado, here are my micromanagement free solutions!

1. If the province must be contiguous, what happens to cities that have foreign borders in between your borders? What about cities on islands where the city takes all the tiles of an island?

3. How do you prevent a player from keeping all of the best cities out of provinces (thus making them 'safe' from provincial revolutions)?

I tie these two together and kill two birds with one automated stone -- a stone you don't have to micromanage

If a city is closer to one provincial palace than another, it's in that province. Don't think of provinces as Nevada, Oregon, Conneticut, Ohio. Think of them as "The South", "The Pacific Northwest", "New England", "The Midwest". Some states are considered kind of inbetween, and are kind of on the threshold of a region -- that's how it works in real life.

Islands like long island and rhode island default to the nearest province/region.

2. If all the units are marked for the province that they came from, then all you have to do is suicide the units from a province that you suspect will be rebellious. How do you prevent such exploits?

Rather than changing the allegiance of units... you would just destroy all units (or most units) and replace them with new units. 1 or 2 or 3, conscript or regular or veteran, depending on the size of cities and the number of improvements. This is just as good for provinces with no units as it is for provinces with all your units -- it keeps things balanced.

4. If provinces are 3-6 cities (which, btw, I agree with completely), how do you make sure that on large maps, the parent civilization does not just bully any given province into remaining loyal (i.e. the civ has maybe 20+ cities, 3-6 are not going to pose a threat and thus could not break off safely)?

Good question. First off, I think a new civilization appearing and then you immediately retaking the cities in a bloody war is not unrealistic, nor is it useless. If a nation is distracted trying to occupy a province or region, constantly warring, unwilling to give them their independance, they're distracted from more important things. Plus, citizens with a new civ identity will have to be assimilated all over again. Eventually it won't be worth it to keep fighting the independant civ. This is how it works in real life.

Second off, there should be positive incentives for letting a region go peacefully if you finally decide it's not worth fighting over. Sure you don't have control over their military, but if you let them go on good terms, you could have:

- a locked alliance when a divorce is amicable, for many turns, even an age
- great trade and economic benefits -- trading between civs will bring bigger benefits than trading within a civ
- a cultural admirer -- having another civ admire you will bring bigger cultural benefits than people within your civ (who ever heard of the cultural superiority of a civilization that didn't have foreign admirers?)
- historical points -- i talked about a historical victory in another post, rewarding the user for altruism. this would be a motivation for, say, Britain liberating France from Germany instead of keeping it for themselves.
- national pride -- when it reaches the point of rebellion, usually your main citizens are just as happy to see them go as the new nation is to leave

5. I do not think that I would want a province to produce the same thing in every one of its cities. Thus, province-wide build orders seem to be nonsensical.

I think an important issue is that if micromanagement is an option, then more micromanagement will always be the best strategy. Letting the AI do things for you is a bad strategy, since you'll never get ahead of other AI civilizations.

Instead, an additional provincial benefit could be that each province gets special provincial improvements. Each province could have a:

- economic hub (large benefit to city, small benefits to province)
- military hub
- cultural/tourism hub
- regional monument
- garbage dump (come on, everyone knows that there's one city in a region that gets all the garbage of other cities) -- 2 citizens in that city become unhappy, but 2 unhappy citizens in regional cities become content.


---

Throwing that out there -- every solution I've suggested has less micromanagement, not more.

 

[Fromage10x]

So I'm not one of the engineers of this idea, but I'd like to try and address these problems as I would like to see them addressed.

1. If the province must be contiguous, what happens to cities that have foreign borders in between your borders? Does this mean that those cities can never be part of a province? Similarly, what about cities on islands where the city takes all the tiles of an island?

I gotta say, if a city is on an island all by itself like that, it probably shouldn't be able to be in a province. So too with a city that is so enmired with foreign borders that it no longer connects to any other of your cities. There needs to be some defining spatial characteristic, and contiguity makes the most sense to me.

2. If all the units are marked for the province that they came from, then all you have to do is suicide the units from a province that you suspect will be rebellious. How do you prevent such exploits?

I'm not sure this IS an exploit...sounds a lot like something the Romans might do. But in the spirit of your question, let's assume that it is. Perhaps the death (or even the disbanding) of the units from a province will be one of the factors that increases rebellious feelings...not by much, mind you, but if done en mass it could turn a future threat into a very present one.

3. Once you start making provinces, is your entire empire consisting only of provinces, or are you only taking a few cities here and there and creating provinces? If the latter, then how do you prevent a player from keeping all of the best cities out of provinces (thus making them 'safe' from provincial revolutions)?

Many times the best cities do remain loose of provincial loyalties and even seperate of provincial benefits. Look at New York and Chicago for example...they're almost states unto themselves. I don't think there would be anything wrong with people using this particular strategy...and I don't think the province system should be made SO attractive that it basically forces people to use it. On the other hand, if you did force all cities into provinces at a certain point, this would go a long way towards modelling suburbs...a first for civ, to be sure, and a pretty interesting concept...

4. If provinces are 3-6 cities (which, btw, I agree with completely), how do you make sure that on large maps, the parent civilization does not just bully any given province into remaining loyal (i.e. the civ has maybe 20+ cities, 3-6 are not going to pose a threat and thus could not break off safely)?

The parent SHOULD be able to bully a single province. If every other province is happy, then that one should be able to drag others down with it just because they're especially angry. It should have an effect on the other provinces and cities, to be sure, but if all other cities are happy and one group is mad, then that's the only one that should rebel.

Of course, having those cities rebel would be pretty horrible for that parent, because they'll be forced to turn their men inward and kill their own troops and population to retake the city...that's never an attractive possibility. That alone should strongly encourage people not to let their provinces rebel, effectively (in the long run) or not.

5. I do not think that I would want a province to produce the same thing in every one of its cities. Thus, province-wide build orders seem to be nonsensical. Instead, wouldn't it be better to allow the 'parent' to tell the province "We want cavalry" and allow the province to determine how that gets done? Since these are supposed to be semi-autonomous, there could be a screen (similar to a city screen) which gives the times for how long it takes to get certain items built. Maybe reserving 1/2 the shields for provincial production decisions.

That seems reasonable. But perhaps you could allow for both...either you give vague suggestions (Newest Mounted Unit, Cultural Enhancements) or particular, province wide orders (Everyone make Knights now).

 

[finally]

I have been lurking around these forums for a while and these ideas about provinces are interesting, but I think they should be implemented differently.

Historically, the creation of civilization often has been about assimilating neighbour tribes. The sense of regional belonging has existed long before the concept of nationalism, so I believe that the regions should exist on the map from the start, instead of being created by the player.

In a way this concept is already implemented in civ3. There are friendly native people around (goody huts) and not so friendly (barbarians). I have always thought that these concepts could be more developed and I don't think it would be so difficult to do that. So I'll give you my suggestions:

1. Every goody hut/barbarian starting location equals one tribe/"provincial center".

2. When a new city is created it becomes a member of a region. Default is the province with the closest provincial center.

3. Maybe barbarians provinces should be more prone to revolt than goody hut provinces (I think it would make sense and a new strategy level to the game).

These are just some suggestions, but I think it's a simple idea that would solve some problems and you wouldn't need all the fuss about creating provinces, decide which cities should belong etc. I also think this would make the goody huts and barabarians a more interesting part of the game.
What do you think?

 

[Ant509y]

I've looked at the newer ideas since yesterday and I have to say, this idea gets as varied as it can be! To answer a few statements:

To Finally: I am not sure exactly what you are meaning. Maybe I'm just not reading it carefully enough. I've been trying to avoid talk of barbarians, since I'm saving that for a different thing once we're done with provinces. I have my own ideas, and in many ways they seem similar to yours about them. In a nutshell, barbarians in my view can capture or create cities over time, eventually creating their own cultural area. I want them to become provinces in their own right, so to speak, but once they gain a certain number of cities become a civ in and of themselves. I think that's fair.

When conquering a barb group of cities, well, if they're a province they'd act like any other conquered province. That is, having their own identity so to speak, and being more quick to rebel than one of your home-made provinces.

But, anyway, I'm not certain what you mean by what you're saying... please elaborate. Then I'll give my real answer.


Fromage: Yes, if a city is by itself entirely, it should not be in a province. However, if there are a number of small islands, for example, near each other, but they don't quite touch culturally yet, they can still become a province... single cities, however, cannot.

I agree that demilitarizing a province that's heading towards civil war should make it come even faster...

I don't want it that when you start making provinces, every city has to have a province to be in... and actually, New York City is part of the state of New York, so your example is kinda invalid! The city states of, say, ancient greece, or Rennaisance Italy would be better examples for that, in my view. But your point that some cities could be very good outside of provinces stands. Yeah, the bonuses shouldn't be TOO great, but single cities should still be more prone to being controlled by provinces..

To dh_Epic: Your view on how provinces should work could be made could be nice, but it's not what I want. A province is made up of the cities you choose to put in it, though taking them out of the province should be almost impossible, or at least very difficult. If a city is closer to one province than another, that does not mean it's part of that province. It could be seperate from provinces, or part of the other province! Who knows how some of them will look... I bet pretty interesting sometimes. And I do not envision provinces as regions, I envision them more like states, so to speak. That's jusy my vision of them.

I also want the provinces to keep their units when they rebel.. .but also create a few new ones in their cities, just to be on the safe side. That's why I really want tags on units.

I do kinda like your thoughts on the taking and letting go of provinces, though. Nice ideas there. Also, I again have no opinion on your answer to rcoutme's 5th question.

To Aussie_Lurker: I don't want provinces taking in cities automatically by any means. It should be a conscious choice once the province is created... though since the minimum cities must be there for a province to be created in the first place. I also don't want the number of cities in a province to be able to increase over time, at least not really... not so much for the sake of realism but for the sake of myself having a very set, very stubborn notion of provinces being between 3-6 cities.

Anyway, to everyone: Keep talking about it, I'm really enjoying seeing all the ideas, as seeing the ideas travel shows me how much support there is for this. I like seeing all the ideas, even ones I disagree with! Keep posting, and I will keep replying! Well, I shall retate a more thourough set of my ideas on what should be in the province system in a little while... remember: KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

 

[rcoutme]

To clarify: Some of you seem to have misunderstood my question about units. One of the original ideas was that each unit would have a provincial flag to it (i.e. where it came from). The units that came from a province that rebelled would be rebellious units. This was the exploit I was trying to avoid.

Thus, if Province A was heading toward rebellion, the player could disband all units that came from Province A and then the province would have no units with which to rebel. Another exploit would be that units from Province A could all be kept guarding other provinces while the units guarding Province A all came from B, C, and D. This would create more micro-management but would also be a sound strategy to help quell (if not prevent) rebellions.

Therefore, I believe that the units should not have a provincial tag to them. Units in a province that rebels should either join the rebellion or not and then the rebel cities could add a few more conscripts. That's it. End of story.

There should not be a flag for New England Infantry, Mid-atlantic tanks, Midwest paratroops. This would be a huge micro-management headache and probably unnecessary.

 

[finally]

Ant509y:

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. English is not my first language and I think
we may have different views on what provinces should be.

From my point of view it doesn't make any sense to first have a big civilization and then create smaller states, since that very rarely happens historically. Maybe that happened (to a certain degree) in the US, Australia and some other modern countries, but even the US was a collection of states from the beginning. Generally, provinces are closely linked with ethnicity. When the Roman Empire expanded to France the people who lived there still belonged to their Gallic tribe and when Egypt expanded into Israel the people there were still Hebrews. I think the majority of civil wars occur because of different ethnicites too (there are of course some exceptions like the American civil war).

Ethnicity is already represented on the map as goody huts and barbarian camps. To me it makes complete sense to think about goody huts and barbarian tribes as the basis for provinces and that would make the goody huts and barbarians more interesting concepts.

Let me take an example from my country, Sweden (not completely historically accurate). You start building the capital, Stockholm. Stockholm automatically belongs to the capital province. You continue building a few cities, Uppsala and Sigtuna that also belong the capital province.

Then you go south and you find a barbarian camp with the Geats. You kill the barbarians units and choose to build Gothenburg nearby. At first your settler lives there with a swedish nationality, but as the city grows the native geats start to move into the city. When the Geats outnumber the Swedish they want to form a new province called Geatland. You build a couple of more cities some of the cities also wants to belong to Geatland, because it's closer to Gothenburg than to the capital.

Later you move up north and you find a goody hut where the Sami people live. The Sami people offers you to build a new city, but the people in the city are Sami. Therefore they want to form a new province; Samiland.

Of course you should be able to change the name of these provinces yourself and maybe there should be the opportunity to deny the to Geats form a province, which could make them unhappy and riot.

Maybe these ideas have been discussed before in threads about nationalism, but I think it's a pretty straightforward way to implement provinces. However I don't have anything against the idea to build provincial capitals and form your own provinces and I think it could easily be combined with my idea. But if you decide on provinces completely by yourself I think there is a risk that people only will build provinces if they know that the chance of rioting is close to zero, consisting of cities with many improvements and happy citizens
and that would make the provinces quite useless. If provincess should be included I think they have to be unavoidable in one way or another (with the possibility to turn on/off at the beginning of the game).

 

[rcoutme]

Finally: I agree that that would work for me. The other ways listed here would also work. Whichever way is chosen, I would like to see provinces implemented. That is the main point, I think.

 

[Ant509y]

To Finally: Oh, don't worry about it, it was more my fault than your English that was the cause. I was pretty sure that what you just said is what you meant, but I wasnt positive. It is a good idea, yes, but it simply isn't a part of my view on provinces. And actually, some parts of your idea could very well improve on the original...

Okay, have barbarian influence, but keep it simple. Here's how, in my view: Barbarian cultures (barbarians being a single entity, now, not goody huts or encampments, but a sort of minor civ instead) can form their own minor civs, that is, a sort of province, after awhile. These individual cities or provinces have their own culture (there would be many barbarian cultures... the different minor civs like Phoneaceans, Toltecs, etc) and they would not dissapear. These would be very common, and unless you destroy the peoples altogether, they will flourish and keep growing. when you conquer a barb province, their nationality will stay there, and the name of that province could be kept to what it was before. Either way, that province will still create citizens of its original type, as well as citizens of your country. Say every third citizen created is of the original nationality. This also counts for provinces of enemy civs as well, though. Anyway, those remaining barb nationals in your cities would exert an influence, and they may be prone to rebel. I also see, outside of that part, immigration as a possibility... let's say a single city you built near a barb province is more advanced and more prosperous than the barbarians. You may get immigrants, and if its too many, your city will be swarmed with barbarians... then it may pull away from your civ or something like that.

To Review:
1: Barbarians can capture cities, and smallish cities and form minor civs.
2: Barbarian provinces can also be produced.
3: If a barbarian city/province is captured, it still creates a barbarian national for every one of your nationals. This also counts for capturing provinces from real civs.
4: If a province of yours is overwhelmingly of a barbarian or enemy civ nationality, its ties to you will be weakened.

So... is this okay? And also, is it simple enough? If anyone else can think of a way to simplify it even more, be my guest! I'd appreciate it...

To Rcoutme: Yeah. I undertsnd your point. But also, the units with the tag don't have to say "Washingtonian cavalry" or whatever.. they'd just say "Cavalry" but have a tag on them saying where they were from, in the same vein as units did in Civ 2... they didn't say the city it came from on the unit! But anyway, while I see your point about placing units of another province to defend the rebellious province, it should only have a minor, not a major, effect on rebel sentiment. That's my view. And I do support tags on units, all the way!