Again, Provinces
- Thread starter Loaf Warden
- Start date
phorvath2110
Upgradable to Cav
This is a really neat thread! 
Actually I have a suggestion about provincial capitols. Someone previously suggested that if a player captured the provincial capitol then the entire province would be captured. Perhaps to avoid people cheating and just taking provincial capitols is to make the capitol similar to a wall. It gives the defending city a substantial defence bonus so that it would be harder to take, or perhaps be an "automatic SAM battery/Coastal Fortress/Wall" as well.
Also, let's suppose that you start off as Babylonians with a province of 3 cities of Babylonians. You're neighbours with the Germans and you capture a German city. Is it possible to include that in your province, and if so what would these "immigrants" to the province have in regards to effect on the province?
Let's suppose that the Germans are the leading culture would they assimilate the Babylonians and how would that affect the province?
Just some questions
Actually I have a suggestion about provincial capitols. Someone previously suggested that if a player captured the provincial capitol then the entire province would be captured. Perhaps to avoid people cheating and just taking provincial capitols is to make the capitol similar to a wall. It gives the defending city a substantial defence bonus so that it would be harder to take, or perhaps be an "automatic SAM battery/Coastal Fortress/Wall" as well.
Also, let's suppose that you start off as Babylonians with a province of 3 cities of Babylonians. You're neighbours with the Germans and you capture a German city. Is it possible to include that in your province, and if so what would these "immigrants" to the province have in regards to effect on the province?
Let's suppose that the Germans are the leading culture would they assimilate the Babylonians and how would that affect the province?
Just some questions
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Ant509y said:
@Ant509y and Loaf Warden:
Thanks for your replies. Again, you proved to have put deep thoughts into that concept.
Especially I have to agree to your concerns about my proposal #6, which in fact is not that good - particularly not on smaller maps, as I now see.
I agree upon the fact that the reduction of corruption should be assigned to the construction of the provincial capitol.
On the other hand, this could be a pre-requisite of the forming of the province, as well. There could even be two or three capitols (to be build in consecutive order) which effects would increase from one level to the other. it could be a provisional building at the beginning, just to enable the forming of the province, with very low effects. After let's say four other cities have been attached to the province, there could be the option to build a bigger, more expansive, but better Capitol building, and after the province got it's maximum size (maybe with some other requirements to be met for the whole province, as number of courthouses or whatever) there could be the third level of Capitol buildings. Of course, the higher level building would replace the lower level's one.
The President
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 14
Some suggestions
1. If this idea gets adopted, it would replace the current forbidden palace. Provincial capitals would be the only way to reduce corruption outside the capital. They wouldn't be created automatically. A wonder might be required to create them, and then each provincial capital would need to build the equivalent of a palace in order for the province to be created.
2. Cities could join only one province and could not change. Otherwise, I see to easy an opportunity for manipulation, and the game would be too easy. Good players should have to think carefully about where they were going to put their provincial capitals. There would be an exception: Conquered cities could be reassigned upon reconquoring.
3. Provinces would need to be contiguous, and distance from provincial capitol would affect corruption. There would be a substantial corruption penalty for gerrymandered provinces.
4. I'd suggest a practical rather than absolute limits on the number of provinces and number of cities per province. If there were too many provinces, the chance of the farther-away or higher-rebellion-score provinces breaking away would be exponentially increased for each extra province. Likewise, provinces that were too large would have increased waste and corruption to the point of being useless. The practical limits would change with government type and era, and might be influenced by technologies, wonders, happiness, culture, civ characteristics, or other game-play factors.
5. I'd suggest not having any sort of separate provincial administrations or anything like that. KEEP IT SIMPLE!!! Provinces would simply replace forbidden palaces, plus add a little color to the map. Government, units, etc. would all get administered centrally.
6. Provinces would come at a very high price. I like the idea that there would always be a chance of rebelling or being assimilated by other civs, and moving from representative governments to non-representative ones (which I think is unrealistically easy in Civ III) would greatly increase that chance. I agree that the chance should also be increased by the things that currently decrease happiness, the cultural influence of other civs, etc. I also like the idea that capturing a provincial capital should result in the capture of the whole province. The result is that one would have to think very, very carefully about whether to build provinces at all, how many and where to build them, how to place them, and how to defend their capitals.
7. As to what to do with independent provinces: In Civ2, it was possible for civil war to split a civ in two. The Burgundians, for example, might break off from the French. This suggests that the game could have a list of provincial names, leaders, and default city names to pick from. One could add ones own. For people so inclined, the game could permit (although not require) provinces to have their own building appearance and other special graphics to make things look interesting. It would probably be too much investment for Firaxis to make provinces playable as independent civilizations from the start, but mod-makers could add that ability. If you played the Burgundians I suppose you could make France one of YOUR province names.
1. If this idea gets adopted, it would replace the current forbidden palace. Provincial capitals would be the only way to reduce corruption outside the capital. They wouldn't be created automatically. A wonder might be required to create them, and then each provincial capital would need to build the equivalent of a palace in order for the province to be created.
2. Cities could join only one province and could not change. Otherwise, I see to easy an opportunity for manipulation, and the game would be too easy. Good players should have to think carefully about where they were going to put their provincial capitals. There would be an exception: Conquered cities could be reassigned upon reconquoring.
3. Provinces would need to be contiguous, and distance from provincial capitol would affect corruption. There would be a substantial corruption penalty for gerrymandered provinces.
4. I'd suggest a practical rather than absolute limits on the number of provinces and number of cities per province. If there were too many provinces, the chance of the farther-away or higher-rebellion-score provinces breaking away would be exponentially increased for each extra province. Likewise, provinces that were too large would have increased waste and corruption to the point of being useless. The practical limits would change with government type and era, and might be influenced by technologies, wonders, happiness, culture, civ characteristics, or other game-play factors.
5. I'd suggest not having any sort of separate provincial administrations or anything like that. KEEP IT SIMPLE!!! Provinces would simply replace forbidden palaces, plus add a little color to the map. Government, units, etc. would all get administered centrally.
6. Provinces would come at a very high price. I like the idea that there would always be a chance of rebelling or being assimilated by other civs, and moving from representative governments to non-representative ones (which I think is unrealistically easy in Civ III) would greatly increase that chance. I agree that the chance should also be increased by the things that currently decrease happiness, the cultural influence of other civs, etc. I also like the idea that capturing a provincial capital should result in the capture of the whole province. The result is that one would have to think very, very carefully about whether to build provinces at all, how many and where to build them, how to place them, and how to defend their capitals.
7. As to what to do with independent provinces: In Civ2, it was possible for civil war to split a civ in two. The Burgundians, for example, might break off from the French. This suggests that the game could have a list of provincial names, leaders, and default city names to pick from. One could add ones own. For people so inclined, the game could permit (although not require) provinces to have their own building appearance and other special graphics to make things look interesting. It would probably be too much investment for Firaxis to make provinces playable as independent civilizations from the start, but mod-makers could add that ability. If you played the Burgundians I suppose you could make France one of YOUR province names.
I do like the idea of each province having a seperate 'name' so to speak, a provincial name.
Another thing: Provinces are something I would want to begin early in the game, and happen often. I also don't want them to be something too easily decided upon. Therefor, a price closer to something like a Colloseum may be appropriete, or even slightly lower. Provincial capitals need to be an investment, but one that could make creating provinces in far away territories possible.
Yes... provincial cities that are not connected culturally should have some sort of penalty, but I also want to see provinces made up of several nearby small islands, even if they aren't connected culturally yet.
I'll state it again: My idea for province sizes is between 3-6 cities. Not too big on small maps(3), and can get to a decent size for larger maps. (6).
About cities changing provinces: I would imagine a city could join a province after it's formation, and during certain times change province. However, when I think about it, maybe not. Of course, you could always destroy the provincial capital, ending the province entirely to restructure... but what a headache that would be! Also, when you conquer enemy cities, if they are part of a province, and you conquer the entire province, the provincial capital is not destroyed, and you simply own that province as well now.
When it comes to a province's functions, I DO want many interesting effects. However, I also don't want you the player, or me for that matter, to deal with a thousand new things! What I want from it is decreased corruption, a tab on the units created in each province so that if civil war breaks out, those units will follow suit, as well as a province's telling you the things that particular province needs, which would be things they would need anyway, and would mean you can just see what they say instead of looking at the cities themselves (in fact, that could decrease that element of micromanagement at least a little bit!) Provinces would keep tabs on the culture of the province. That means that each city's culture would go together into a provincial culture moniter. You could look at that to see each region's culture, to get a larger picture than just every city. Provinces should be able to pool production, to at least some degree, as well. I also want resource management to have bonuses for provinces. If one province has a resource, and the others don't, when it trades [automatically] with the other provinces, it gains a bonus commerce or two for every other province that takes its resource, without the other losing anything. If you have multiple provinces with that resource, they will be spread along to the other provinces based on who's closer to whom. Of course, if their resource is traded to other countries, they gain more bonus commerce than if they were trading with other provinces. Would be a little bit more interesting resource useage.
Anyway, I know I have more, but I hope I'm getting the point across with this. What I'm trying to convey is that most of these should not increase micromanagement, since they are either automatic, or allow you a broader view on your empire than simply each individual city's needs, definitely a good thing. They should add some more depth, but not a lot more micromanagement. No more so than adding tradeable resources and culture added more micromanagement.
Anyway, I do hope this helps... of course, I'm simply repeating myself, but sometimes the same things get said in this thread... I'll get to more of them later.
Another thing: Provinces are something I would want to begin early in the game, and happen often. I also don't want them to be something too easily decided upon. Therefor, a price closer to something like a Colloseum may be appropriete, or even slightly lower. Provincial capitals need to be an investment, but one that could make creating provinces in far away territories possible.
Yes... provincial cities that are not connected culturally should have some sort of penalty, but I also want to see provinces made up of several nearby small islands, even if they aren't connected culturally yet.
I'll state it again: My idea for province sizes is between 3-6 cities. Not too big on small maps(3), and can get to a decent size for larger maps. (6).
About cities changing provinces: I would imagine a city could join a province after it's formation, and during certain times change province. However, when I think about it, maybe not. Of course, you could always destroy the provincial capital, ending the province entirely to restructure... but what a headache that would be! Also, when you conquer enemy cities, if they are part of a province, and you conquer the entire province, the provincial capital is not destroyed, and you simply own that province as well now.
When it comes to a province's functions, I DO want many interesting effects. However, I also don't want you the player, or me for that matter, to deal with a thousand new things! What I want from it is decreased corruption, a tab on the units created in each province so that if civil war breaks out, those units will follow suit, as well as a province's telling you the things that particular province needs, which would be things they would need anyway, and would mean you can just see what they say instead of looking at the cities themselves (in fact, that could decrease that element of micromanagement at least a little bit!) Provinces would keep tabs on the culture of the province. That means that each city's culture would go together into a provincial culture moniter. You could look at that to see each region's culture, to get a larger picture than just every city. Provinces should be able to pool production, to at least some degree, as well. I also want resource management to have bonuses for provinces. If one province has a resource, and the others don't, when it trades [automatically] with the other provinces, it gains a bonus commerce or two for every other province that takes its resource, without the other losing anything. If you have multiple provinces with that resource, they will be spread along to the other provinces based on who's closer to whom. Of course, if their resource is traded to other countries, they gain more bonus commerce than if they were trading with other provinces. Would be a little bit more interesting resource useage.
Anyway, I know I have more, but I hope I'm getting the point across with this. What I'm trying to convey is that most of these should not increase micromanagement, since they are either automatic, or allow you a broader view on your empire than simply each individual city's needs, definitely a good thing. They should add some more depth, but not a lot more micromanagement. No more so than adding tradeable resources and culture added more micromanagement.
Anyway, I do hope this helps... of course, I'm simply repeating myself, but sometimes the same things get said in this thread... I'll get to more of them later.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think that's actually a cool idea... diminishing returns on provinces... a practical limit instead of an absolute limit.
e.g.: the first provincial palace costs less than the tenth, and just starts demanding more and more shields
e.g.: ten palaces reducing corruption fairly, versus five palaces reducing corruption quite well ... which would you rather have? what suits your empire?
e.g.: ten palaces would be under a greater threat of civil war and seccession (is that a word?) into a new Civ...
e.g.: the first provincial palace costs less than the tenth, and just starts demanding more and more shields
e.g.: ten palaces reducing corruption fairly, versus five palaces reducing corruption quite well ... which would you rather have? what suits your empire?
e.g.: ten palaces would be under a greater threat of civil war and seccession (is that a word?) into a new Civ...
phorvath2110
Upgradable to Cav
So what is the general consensus with regards having the entire province be captured if the provincial capital is taken?
I suggested that to make it more balanced, the provincial capital would get defensive bonuses to make it extra hard to capture.
I suggested that to make it more balanced, the provincial capital would get defensive bonuses to make it extra hard to capture.
searcheagle
Emperor
I am opposed to the capture the capitol city, capture the province concept. If there are only 4 province, there will only be 4 captures- way too few.
I am for the province concept though. I would like to see corruption reduced through this system.
Production could also be simplified through this system. All the cities of a province could chip in to produce a large improvement, or could work on multiple copies of the same unit.
I am for the province concept though. I would like to see corruption reduced through this system.
Production could also be simplified through this system. All the cities of a province could chip in to produce a large improvement, or could work on multiple copies of the same unit.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
phorvath2110 said:
I'm with this. It'll make the domination game happen much faster, too. The balance would not only come from defensive bonuses to the provincial capitol, but the emergence of "uprising partisans" (which they should bring back from Civ 2). ... as well as the need of the attacker to quickly occupy the provincial cities, spreading himself kind of thin.
covenant
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 162
Why not just not let people select this option in the set up window before the game. Like choosing your victory conditions. "Provinces fall with Provincal Capital". Then everyone wins.
But this needs to be addressed. I hate in Civ 3 that if a city flips and you have 10 units in that city you lose them all. Just stupid. Those units should just be expelled back to your territory, and especially so if you going to lose an entire province. That could be gastly and very "unfun". Or to make it more realistic, each unit rolls to see where its loyalty will be. 1-2 the unit flips as well, 3 unit killed in uprising, 4-5 unit loses and returns home. Much more balanced.
As for province size: it should not be a set number but an optimum balance based on pop and geography. A small territoral country would probably have as many provinces as a large territoral one if the pop was the same. Provinces are about representation of the people and managing of the beuracracy of large governements. A grass country, with lots of food, and so a large pop would be divided much more than a country with vast territory but little in the way pop. Look at Russia vs Japan.
Also provinces should fit into logical geographic areas. A large mountain chain cuts a country in two and will have a large effect on the two cultures that will develope seperately on each side of those mountains. Though maybe this is getting too deep, just annoys me how little moutains seem to effect game play. My pet peeve.
dylanhatesyou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 115
catpure provincial capital = capture province? thats ********.
What are you thinking?
What are you thinking?
To dylanhatesyou: I don't think we need any flames around here. I'd appreciate it, and I'm sure Loaf would also, if you stopped.
To Bibisback: I have begun first preparations for such a thing already... I'm asking Loaf Warden if he wants to make a master list with me, and I'm also going to ask a few others who seem to have great thoughts for it. Anyway, I'll PM them in the next few days about it.. so don't worry, it'll come soon, I hope! At least, I want it to,
About provincial siezure: Yes, I think that it should be a togglable option. I wouldn't mind playing with both it on and off, myself. And certainly, bringing back partisans for captured provincial capitals is a good idea. Maybe limit it to provincial/national capitals only?
To Bibisback: I have begun first preparations for such a thing already... I'm asking Loaf Warden if he wants to make a master list with me, and I'm also going to ask a few others who seem to have great thoughts for it. Anyway, I'll PM them in the next few days about it.. so don't worry, it'll come soon, I hope! At least, I want it to,
About provincial siezure: Yes, I think that it should be a togglable option. I wouldn't mind playing with both it on and off, myself. And certainly, bringing back partisans for captured provincial capitals is a good idea. Maybe limit it to provincial/national capitals only?
Provinces is a great idea, they could add a realistic dimension to the game, but I hope they wouldn't overcomplicate it. I would like to see them being created automatically and run with little micro-management. I can see it working like this:
[1] At the start of the game your nation is, in effect, one province.
[2] A province will split in two if it contains more than a certain number of cities. The probability that a province will split depends on the number of cities it contains so it is inevitable that, at around a certain size, sooner or later, the province will split.
[3] Cities on separate continents _always_ form separate provinces. (Not sure how to handle islands).
[4] Cities split between the new and old provinces depending on position East/West, North/South. The city with the most trade (not necessarily the biggest city) in the new province automatically becomes its Provincial Capital.
I don't like the idea of capturing an entire province just because you got its capital, so:
[5.1] Captured cities fall under the control/influence of the Province that the capturing unit comes from (fun!). Since the capturing province is likely to be distant, corruption/crime/unhappiness/etc will be fairly high.
[5.2] Captured cities remain in this limbo until/unless their original Provincial Capital is captured, at which point they automatically rejoin it. That means that capturing a Provincial Capital is valuable - it will reduce corruption/crime and unhappiness in other captured cities of the same Province (more fun!).
[5.3] If a Provincial Capital is captured; uncaptured cities fall under the rule/influence of the nearest home province and become more prone to falling under foreign cultural influence, so they _may_ switch sides because of cultural pressure, or may not. That means that defending a Provincial Capital is important.
[6] A province with a high independence may switch traits (commercial, scientific, agricultural, etc). An early warning that it may rebel.
On a slightly separate subject: and my history is a little hazy on this, but am I right in thinking that as the British empire collapsed, the countries they lost with a fight remained hostile, but relations with those they let go more peacefully were better. Examples:
Anglo/US relations were pretty bad right up until the first world war
In India the British resisted at first but eventually withdrew peacefully, India joins Commonwealth.
What happened to relations between Rome and its satellites as it's empire diminished?
Granting independence to a 'province' peacefully should be possible and should be rewarded in the game in some way - long term goodwill, easy trade agreements. Unless, of course, you turn round and reinvade it - seriously bad karma.
[1] At the start of the game your nation is, in effect, one province.
[2] A province will split in two if it contains more than a certain number of cities. The probability that a province will split depends on the number of cities it contains so it is inevitable that, at around a certain size, sooner or later, the province will split.
[3] Cities on separate continents _always_ form separate provinces. (Not sure how to handle islands).
[4] Cities split between the new and old provinces depending on position East/West, North/South. The city with the most trade (not necessarily the biggest city) in the new province automatically becomes its Provincial Capital.
I don't like the idea of capturing an entire province just because you got its capital, so:
[5.1] Captured cities fall under the control/influence of the Province that the capturing unit comes from (fun!). Since the capturing province is likely to be distant, corruption/crime/unhappiness/etc will be fairly high.
[5.2] Captured cities remain in this limbo until/unless their original Provincial Capital is captured, at which point they automatically rejoin it. That means that capturing a Provincial Capital is valuable - it will reduce corruption/crime and unhappiness in other captured cities of the same Province (more fun!).
[5.3] If a Provincial Capital is captured; uncaptured cities fall under the rule/influence of the nearest home province and become more prone to falling under foreign cultural influence, so they _may_ switch sides because of cultural pressure, or may not. That means that defending a Provincial Capital is important.
[6] A province with a high independence may switch traits (commercial, scientific, agricultural, etc). An early warning that it may rebel.
On a slightly separate subject: and my history is a little hazy on this, but am I right in thinking that as the British empire collapsed, the countries they lost with a fight remained hostile, but relations with those they let go more peacefully were better. Examples:
Anglo/US relations were pretty bad right up until the first world war
In India the British resisted at first but eventually withdrew peacefully, India joins Commonwealth.
What happened to relations between Rome and its satellites as it's empire diminished?
Granting independence to a 'province' peacefully should be possible and should be rewarded in the game in some way - long term goodwill, easy trade agreements. Unless, of course, you turn round and reinvade it - seriously bad karma.
Hey, sodasquad:
I kinda like your ideas # 5-6.
5.1: This does seem to be a good idea. Of course, maybe it would be slightly better if instead of becoming a full-fledged member of that province, those cities are province-less yet under the 'influence' of the province which took it? By this I mean that while they do not contribute to that province's culture or whatnot, it is under it's 'control', with the provincial name in parenthases or something similar. This could be very interesting.
5.2: Most definitely. Though I never really articulated this, this idea is in perfect accored with my vision of it already. ^_^
5.3:Hmm... seems to be pretty good. Though that percentage of the time it flips should be rather high, you know?
6: Hmm... maybe, maybe not. I'll have to think about this one.
When it comes to your # 1-4, I have to disagree. Not because it's a bad idea, but because I'm stubborn and shall continually reiterate that in my idea of province system, you have to build a provincial capital. Of course, maybe HOW the cities split could be determined more by your idea.... I don't know. I haven't given much thought yet on whether you choose yourself, or if it's automated. I'll think about it, though your thoughts on it ARE pretty good!
I kinda like your ideas # 5-6.
5.1: This does seem to be a good idea. Of course, maybe it would be slightly better if instead of becoming a full-fledged member of that province, those cities are province-less yet under the 'influence' of the province which took it? By this I mean that while they do not contribute to that province's culture or whatnot, it is under it's 'control', with the provincial name in parenthases or something similar. This could be very interesting.
5.2: Most definitely. Though I never really articulated this, this idea is in perfect accored with my vision of it already. ^_^
5.3:Hmm... seems to be pretty good. Though that percentage of the time it flips should be rather high, you know?
6: Hmm... maybe, maybe not. I'll have to think about this one.
When it comes to your # 1-4, I have to disagree. Not because it's a bad idea, but because I'm stubborn and shall continually reiterate that in my idea of province system, you have to build a provincial capital. Of course, maybe HOW the cities split could be determined more by your idea.... I don't know. I haven't given much thought yet on whether you choose yourself, or if it's automated. I'll think about it, though your thoughts on it ARE pretty good!
dylanhatesyou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 115
dylanhatesyou said:
Thats a flame? Apologies. I just thought it was a really bad idea, and that was my uncultured way of stating it
dylanhatesyou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 115
Ant509y said:
I like the idea of troops of an American province, we'll say "Nebraska" taking over a city of a Roman province "Sicily". The Civ Rome would lose some, and the province of Sicily would lose some, sheilds, gold, whathaveyou.
Both Nebraska and America would gain from those. It makes me think of the american civil war and earlier, where sectionalism was predominant. This trend should discontinue with nationalism, like in real life...maybe?
A few random ideas, in reply.
In the back of my mind I was thinking that a province represents a kind of identity for its population; so:
Oversize provinces split because geographically diverse populations will form different identities (northerner/southerner for example). Province identity can escalate - which is why traits may change, and ultimately the identity becomes nationalism and the province rebels.
Provincial populations may identify with their Provincial Capital at least as much as with the National Capital, so the Provincial Capital gives benefit to the whole province - reduced corruption/crime, reduced unhappiness. In the game; perhaps improvements built in a Provincial Capital could have a side effect on the whole province - a courthouse, a cathedral. This seems realistic to me. Perhaps this is how you build your Provincial Capital, it has all the regular improvements, but some of them have added value for the whole province.
In favour of it being automated I would say that the idea is to add a realistic dynamic to the game without adding too much difficulty. But also, and more importantly - one of the things I don't like about Civ is that as you go up to higher levels it just becomes more and more war-like. It's like being hit over the head with a club harder and harder, it would be more interesting if you got hit with something else, or in a different spot... I would prefer it if additional problems appeared. Perhaps at the lowest levels there are no provinces (or just one big one) and corruption is always at such a low level that it is not a big problem. As you go up the levels new problems appear - and new ways of managing them. The game gets harder because it gets more complicated.
Choosing your own provinces or having it done automatically might be a preference you could set. I guess it's subjective, but I would like it to be automated - partly for simplicity, but also because it seems more realistic - few rulers get to control a population's self-identity or allegiance, except very indirectly. From which, another thought - [1] under despotism or monarchy you get to choose the Provincial Capital and you can move it by building a new provincial palace, [2] under republic and democracy the people decide.
In the back of my mind I was thinking that a province represents a kind of identity for its population; so:
Oversize provinces split because geographically diverse populations will form different identities (northerner/southerner for example). Province identity can escalate - which is why traits may change, and ultimately the identity becomes nationalism and the province rebels.
Provincial populations may identify with their Provincial Capital at least as much as with the National Capital, so the Provincial Capital gives benefit to the whole province - reduced corruption/crime, reduced unhappiness. In the game; perhaps improvements built in a Provincial Capital could have a side effect on the whole province - a courthouse, a cathedral. This seems realistic to me. Perhaps this is how you build your Provincial Capital, it has all the regular improvements, but some of them have added value for the whole province.
In favour of it being automated I would say that the idea is to add a realistic dynamic to the game without adding too much difficulty. But also, and more importantly - one of the things I don't like about Civ is that as you go up to higher levels it just becomes more and more war-like. It's like being hit over the head with a club harder and harder, it would be more interesting if you got hit with something else, or in a different spot... I would prefer it if additional problems appeared. Perhaps at the lowest levels there are no provinces (or just one big one) and corruption is always at such a low level that it is not a big problem. As you go up the levels new problems appear - and new ways of managing them. The game gets harder because it gets more complicated.
Choosing your own provinces or having it done automatically might be a preference you could set. I guess it's subjective, but I would like it to be automated - partly for simplicity, but also because it seems more realistic - few rulers get to control a population's self-identity or allegiance, except very indirectly. From which, another thought - [1] under despotism or monarchy you get to choose the Provincial Capital and you can move it by building a new provincial palace, [2] under republic and democracy the people decide.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
Unfortunately I won't have time to respond as thoroughly as I'd like for a few more days yet, but I'd like to jump in here and make a few quick points.
-The purpose, in my mind anyway, of having it so that an entire province falls when the capital is taken is to add another layer of cohesion to the province and even make them available as bargaining chips. ("I will give Catalonia back to you if you send me all your silks and thirty gold per turn!") The disadvantage to the idea is the potential imbalance to war strategy, by means of making nations too easy to conquer. If all you have to do is take the capitals of each province and the whole empire is yours, what fun is that? That's why I can't quite put my full support behind the idea. It would only be good, game-wise, if a way around that problem could be found.
-I want to compile a "master list" of ideas, but I'm holding off on that for now because I want to see what we can get the majority of people in this thread to agree on first. Obviously some points are still controversial, and I just want to see if we can carry it through to some consensus before we try to send this on to Firaxis.
-I would absolutely oppose the notion of having provinces be formed automatically. I would rather have no provinces at all than provinces that I can't control.
No ruler in history has ever had the degree of direct control that we already have over our empires. No ruler has ever had complete control over where new cities are built or what gets built in them. No ruler has ever had complete control over the actions of workers or the movements of the military. That's why it's a computer game. We must have more direct control than that which is possible for a real-world ruler, or there's no game, there's no fun. If they ever release a Civ game where all we, as the ruler, can do is sign paperwork and give press conferences, then that's the point where I stop giving them my money. I'll go back and play the older games.
-The purpose, in my mind anyway, of having it so that an entire province falls when the capital is taken is to add another layer of cohesion to the province and even make them available as bargaining chips. ("I will give Catalonia back to you if you send me all your silks and thirty gold per turn!") The disadvantage to the idea is the potential imbalance to war strategy, by means of making nations too easy to conquer. If all you have to do is take the capitals of each province and the whole empire is yours, what fun is that? That's why I can't quite put my full support behind the idea. It would only be good, game-wise, if a way around that problem could be found.
-I want to compile a "master list" of ideas, but I'm holding off on that for now because I want to see what we can get the majority of people in this thread to agree on first. Obviously some points are still controversial, and I just want to see if we can carry it through to some consensus before we try to send this on to Firaxis.
-I would absolutely oppose the notion of having provinces be formed automatically. I would rather have no provinces at all than provinces that I can't control.
sodaquad said:
No ruler in history has ever had the degree of direct control that we already have over our empires. No ruler has ever had complete control over where new cities are built or what gets built in them. No ruler has ever had complete control over the actions of workers or the movements of the military. That's why it's a computer game. We must have more direct control than that which is possible for a real-world ruler, or there's no game, there's no fun. If they ever release a Civ game where all we, as the ruler, can do is sign paperwork and give press conferences, then that's the point where I stop giving them my money. I'll go back and play the older games.
Similar threads
