Again, Provinces

[socralynnek]

Commander, I'd like to add something:

A player doesn't have the full control over the province.
(this also reduces micromanaging)

I don't know exactly, how this should be implemented.
Once I had the idea, that in provinces you couldn't build offensive units in provinces.

And maybe you can fund provinces with money, s.t. that you can make the development faster (and reducing the wish for independance)

 

[searcheagle]

socralynnek: I don't know exactly, how this should be implemented.
Once I had the idea, that in provinces you couldn't build offensive units in provinces.


-No. That would be unbalancing and would not lead to productive benefits.

 

[Bobisback]

This is some very good ideas

 

[Ant509y]

To Loaf Warden: Alright then. We're agreed! One more part of the province idea down... lol.

To Commander: Yes, we did touch a lot on your ideas, but still, good to see them. On #1 we had the idea of creating a 'provincial palace' sort of semi-small wonder. It probably would be a substantial, but not too expensive investment. Probably of a similar cost as a courthouse, or more likely a collosuem has in Civ 3.
#2: Yes, the benefits of a province would be things like decreased corruption. (I dont think any of us want Civ 3 style corruption again...) It would also, I'd think, allow for provincial construction of wonders, internal organization of production, to an extent Also, I had more thoughts about the details I was going to place later.
#3: Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines. Here's my thought then: Provinces should stay together if they lose even half of their cities. However, if the provincial capital is captured, either the province falls apart, or the province could all join the capturer. This could be a random thing, maybe? IF the Provincial capital stays, however, the province stays. How's that sound?
#4: Yep. Pretty much.
#5:Hmm... I never thought of this. I thought of the only bad sides to provinces being the rebellion factor. Though maybe a small tax would be sufficient, as you said, in addition to that.
#6: IT's a good idea, but I really don't want the capital province (as I call the core province) to be allowed to have more cities. As the capital province, it never rebels, of course, as it's the seat of power, and it has almost no corruption at all. It should be like the province version of the capital city, sorta. But I just don't like the thought of them being twice the regular size... on small maps, that would get boring fast, as too much land would be taken up in the capitals.
#7: I like the commonwealth idea for provinces you 'let go'. This should probably be optional at the time of the seperation, of course, and not forced on the province. Actually, what I envisioned for civil wars was at first not a total split, but a sort of half your color half barbarion color civ at first, until it is recognized officially as a new nation, or returns to the fold. Kind of like a seperate national 'mode' really. Maybe if you decide to let a province go and it agrees it could stay in that half you half seperate mode as well? Just a thought.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

 

[Ant509y]

To Socral: Things about the provinces having some control over their territory is stated earlier in the thread. Look there!

 

[Loaf Warden]

Some interesting thoughts, Commander Bello. To address some of them specifically:

After the forming has taken place, provinces should stay unchanged, since people most probably would develop some kind of "regional sub-nationalism" (don't know, how to express it in a better way).

That's a good point. I wouldn't want the provinces to be completely static, but your point about regionalism is well-taken. Very well, how about this: You can rearrange provinces, but the citizens in the cities that are leaving your original province will be angry about it, and Rebel Sentiment in those cities (in other words, in their new province) goes up. What does everyone think of that?

Cities in provinces could face less corruption, since there is another level of authorities.

I had envisioned that as being one of the functions of the Provincial Capitol building. In addition to causing the province to exist, it would also reduce corruption within that province. Of course, with their recent announcement about removing "unfun" aspects like corruption, I'm not sure if that's still meaningful.

Now, it looses another 2 cities (all numbers just examples), so it comes down to 2 cities. In that case, it could loose it's status as province, and the cities would become "unattached" cities (which of course would still belong to your empire).

I think that as long as the Provincial Capitol remains in your hands, the province should continue to exist, at least nominally. I can imagine that there would be a penalty, though, for having a province that had been reduced to below the minimum establishing number. For example, losing the ability to give provincial build orders.

As the taxes (and hopefully, all other ressources of your empire) are going to be collected in a "national basket", redistribution is needed.
This would cause inherit costs as well.
Let's say, your national income is +25 gold and you have 4 provinces. Now, the pure fact of the redistribution could cost 1 gold per province, so that the surplus would go down to 21 gold/turn (you have to pay the provincial leaders, there will be annual meetings and so on).
For every other quantified ressource, it would be the same principle (the more levels are involved in such a distribution, the more it costs).

Very interesting. I like it.

So, this core province could have double the size of a "normal" province (in matters of number of cities).

I disagree, for reasons Ant509y has already voiced.

If you would decide to let one province go (about the reasons, you have already discussed very deeply), they could become a independant nation, but form some kind of "commonwealth" with your nation. That way, for the next 10 turns or so, they could have an automatic military protection alliance with you, as well as an automatic right of passage.

I like this idea. Naturally, provinces that are angry wouldn't join up. (Angry = Rebel Sentiment too high so they don't like you anyway, or Rebel Sentiment too low and they're angry that you've abandoned them.) But provinces that are happy with the autonomy you've given them could join up into such a deal. Maybe it could even be made official, and they could come right out and call it a Commonwealth. The Commonwealth could be named after your civ (English Commonwealth, Chinese Commonwealth, Hittite Commonwealth, etc.), and it could be like a collection of civs with close ties with one another. (Close, but not as solid as if they were still part of your own empire. They're still independent civs, and their interests may not always match yours. It would be interesting to see how conflict within the Commonwealth would be handled.)

And now to address one of Ant509y's points:

Actually, what I envisioned for civil wars was at first not a total split, but a sort of half your color half barbarion color civ at first, until it is recognized officially as a new nation, or returns to the fold. Kind of like a seperate national 'mode' really. Maybe if you decide to let a province go and it agrees it could stay in that half you half seperate mode as well? Just a thought.

Excellent idea. Civs that fought for independence and won it would get a completely new color (to represent how they've severed the ties identifying themselves with you), while civs who were granted independence and opted to stay within your Commonwealth would have half their color match yours (to represent how they still retain their close ties with you). But what about civs that were suddenly granted independence and aren't happy about it? Perhaps they'd get a new color as well, to represent how they feel you have severed the ties with them. After all, we've agreed they'll be unhappy and won't be very likely to help you out anyway. Maybe they should get a new color to reflect that.

 

[Suki]

number of cities shouldn't be a concrete thing like keeps getting suggested, just have the provincial capitol start with high mantanance costs, so it won't be worth building for a cluster of 3 cities, and make, and have it's effects slowly reduce as the province grows so that the optimum number of cities would be about 5 but that would depende on your cities.

 

[Trade-peror]

Suki, that sounds like a good idea. It would probably be best to avoid having hard limits, and simply have a system that would reward/penalize players based on how far their situation is from the "optimal situation."

 

[Colonel]

ahhh to long and so i say provinces are good idea

 

[Neomega]

Just like to say I like the idea of provinces... always have.

 

[Colonel]

i was thinking about this and if u had provinces (CALL THEM STATES) and one city fell in the province fell would they all fall if so thats gay cause if i have my cities back stronger then one of my further out city i would have to move every last unit to protect a cheap crap city

 

[Ant509y]

To Colonal: IF you lost a city in a province, it would not fall. In fact, as long as the provincial capital stayed, the province would exist, as Loaf said, at least nominally.

Here's something that I read about some other place and thought it might do well here: IF, in war, taking certain key cities would cause all the rest of the weaker cities to fall. My addition and alteration of this idea I saw elsewhere is this: If you take all of the provincial capitals, in addition to the capital, the lesser cities fall-but that's ONLY if ALL of the provincial capitals fall. This would allow you to not focus so much on capturing every single city. Of course, if you do this, it shouldn't be as solid a hold as if you captured the cities manually. They might be less likely to stay, for instance. Anyway, this is just an idea I came across elsewhere. It isn't necessarry by any means, of course.

Thanks for the nods, Loaf.

About the limits on provinces: I really don't want provinces to become too large, for the same reason I disagreed with the double city limit on capital provinces: IF you allow it, it could take alot of the fun away, especially when the computer WILL do it. I just feel that a certain number of cities would be good, and I think Loaf and I agree that it is probably best to be 3-6 cities, max. I don't want it to be formed from 2 cities, definitely, but I also don't want groups of cities that are too large be allowed. Usually, I'd think that if are careful, they'd all fall into those numbers, so you wouldn't have many cities outside of provinces. I also think that provincial capitals should not be too expensive, as I DO want to see three city provinces. It's something I'm counting on! I do not wish an 'optimal number' of cities in the province to exist, but I also want it to be set, (if you really wanted to change it, you can always use the editor, I'd think...) and I desire to see groups of three cities benefiting as much as groups of six.

 

[Colonel]

i like that first idea only because it adds more realstic game play as if you look a modern wars u see some cities just get encircled and left behind so that larger cities can be taken

also with provinces shouldnt the capital of the country be a province in its self if u look at countries in reality u see the capitals are states and or provinces alot of them anyway two examples Washington D.C and Berlin Germany both are in them selfs provinces in a way and they are only the city and a little land around it

 

[Loaf Warden]

also with provinces shouldnt the capital of the country be a province in its self if u look at countries in reality u see the capitals are states and or provinces alot of them anyway two examples Washington D.C and Berlin Germany both are in them selfs provinces in a way and they are only the city and a little land around it

That's voluntary on the part of the nations concerned. New York was the original capital of the U.S., and Philadelphia was the second capital. The District of Columbia was formed because it was decided it would be better if the capital wasn't inside a state so that state wouldn't have too much influence. But not all countries do it that way. As far as I know, Ottawa, for example, does not have its own separate territory. (Though I stand more than ready for correction if I'm wrong about that!)

According to the model we're discussing, if you wanted your national capital to not belong to a province, that would be easy to do. There's no rule that says the cities nearest your capital have to be part of the same province as the capital. Just don't include the capital when you're making the provinces, and hey presto, your capital is now a separate territory.

 

[Ant509y]

I was going to respond to Colonel, but Loaf, you responded better than I could on the subject. I agree. x.x if that says anything. lol

 

[covenant]

This is a fantastic thread… this could really bring the game to the next level, especially with an economy added (god I want that added)…

You could also have the greek city state government (whatever the heck that was called) in between despotism and monarchy, the first step to provinces.

I like loyality more than Rebel Sentiment, it’s a major bar on the province screen that covers several functions, though it really does not matter what it is called. Is loyalty increasing or decreasing. Corruption would obviously increase with less loyalty. There would be obvious remedies to help loyalty. Increase entertainment and so forth. This could become a major part on many levels.

As for people dumping too much of there provinces in their empire to try to gain the small advantage of a good trade partner or ally, don’t see that happening. The consequence would be to great. Too much and you cant get domination, your culture will fall off, you will lose valuable money to your research, etc. You could do it in key situations or to avoid a real problem but overall it would not be the thing to do.

And the desire for a province to leave could be more diverse. People have mentioned in other threads about your population have desires, like a tendency towards certain governments and so forth. When the loyalty/rebel factor increases instead of just splitting off, you need to address there demands or face the consequences. It could be to switch governments, or religions, dropping or passing a major constitutional change, stopping a war or protecting them from a pestering neighbor. If you don’t maybe they start making deals with other civs, their military units start to return home, wont pay there taxes and so forth.

And what about other civs regonzining a province that wants to split before you do. Or it could be that if another civ actually accepts and recoginizes them it is the trigger for the revolt and independence. In that case you could be approached by another province in another civ and it asks you to recognize them and possibly send assistance. This would increase diplomact options and espionage in the game, plus be huge in military planning.

 

[Ant509y]

Hmm... well, I was thinking that for a province to split, it would have to tell you it wanted to, and if you refused, and it declares itself independant, a war begins in which it is still half your color. After a while in that war, not a set number of turns, but once they prove themselves independant, other nations may begin to recognize them. However, this doesnt get them out of the civil war mode, it merely means other nations recognize them and treat them like another country. Getting out of civil war mode means forcing you, the player, [or any original country] to finally give up, or something similar.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I think culture should play a very important role in determining a province/state's loyalty. 140 years ago, you could say the USA had very little "culture" and wasn't all that unified, hence the ease eleven states felt when they seceded from the Union. Today, however, the USA is older, is more established, and (in game terms) has more culture. This would have a binding affect on provinces- the more overall culture you have, the more likely your province/states are to be loyal.

And, on the other hand, if one province had a HUGE amount of culture in proportion to the nation and other provinces, they would be more apt to rebel.

Just my thoughts.


Edit: Provinces that rebelled and formed their own nation could simply draw city names from their mother country. There's a Birmingham, Alabama and a Birmingham in the UK, after all. And the leaderhead question might be solved by having a static "rebel" leaderhead for each nation that provinces would use if they revolted and formed their own goverment. I really can't see human players losing more than one province to revolt (or even losing provinces to revolt at all, since we keep an eye on things like that), so it would be largely irrelevant.

 

[dh_epic]

Damn, this is a dense thread. A lot of discussion of provinces in other threads. I think if you said "provinces" on the front of the box, or "states", it's the kind of feature that would get people talking... the same way "culture" did for Civ 3. It captures peoples' imagination, even if they don't know the details until they play.

I think they'd be foolish not to include it, conceptually.

I was thinking that it should be more wide-scale than the States of America... that is, regional palaces or what not. In a scenario with the United States proper, you might have a regional palace in LA (California), New York (New York or New England), Chicago (Mid West), Houston (The South)...

If you were Britain at its apex, one in Great Britain, one in Australia, one in Canada, etc., etc.

Limiting the number of regions/palaces/states, to me, is key, so you don't end up with a provincial palace in every city, let alone every 2-3 cities.

 

[gazdeluxe11]

ant509y: Great ideas vis-a-vis the provinces and different governments having an effect. I have often thought while playing Civ that it would be interesting to not always be the dictator... maybe give the provinces alot of say. Then again, while i am a pretty hard-core realism guy and play civ all the time, i have a bunch of friends who like to play, but like to set it on chieftan or warlord and build up big armies and take everyone over without much thought. Maybe the province govts having their own inputs could be a toggle option? I dont know if anyone has played Lords of the Realm II, a great game, but in that game they have a mode that is fairly simple and straightforward, and a mode where you have to worry about a ton more stuff (like feeding your armies and so forth). Maybe make provincial independance an option? Because too much realism can lose those casual players who just like to build tanks and take over cities.


Sorry this was so out of place, but im new to Civ Fanatics and wanted to respond to a post made a while ago.