Against Conquest: INDEPENDENCE

[dasei]

The idea is to avoid great empires. The idea is when the country has more that 35 cities (i.e), in standard world, three cities start to independence process, like flipping, but the difference is that this three cities will be a new country, in 20 turns (i.e.), if you are conquering more cities, the process will be quicker. At the moment of the independence, the mother country has two choices, independence war or locked alliance and trade pacts (like english commewealth). The idea to avoid enormous empires, and improve de diplomacy game. The new country has the same tech level ?.
The only problem is the quantity of countries, but it will be extend according the maximus cities per world.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I would like something like that. However, I know a lot of people who try the ICS method of expansion wouldn't be too pleased.

 

[Galganov]

It would shouldnt come until a tech like nationalism is researced.

 

[dasei]

It´s true, many people like ICS method (I played sometimes in this way).
The idea is that you keep the control of the new countries, with a locked alliance (only break if the mother country want). You can help the new country to grow up, conquests neighbor cities, until 35 cities of course.

 

[dasei]

The idea of Galganov is good, the Independence will be available in the later game. It allows to created great empires, but if the game progress in time, you have to split some regions (will be good that you can choose it)

 

[rhialto]

I think this is a good idea. But it shouldn't be fixed at N cities. Rather, once you hit N cities, there should be a small chance each turn of an independance movement appearing. N should be high at first (the only widely known cases of this happening to complete indendance before ww2 are England and Mongolia), but after some post-ww2 tech, N should drop quite a bit.

 

[ybbor]

Read the sticky

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84798

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

why should independance have to wait 'til nationalism??

 

[rhialto]

@Rex Gracchvs

To answer that question, you'd need to understand the meaning of the word nationalism, and the context in which it first appeared.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

i do understand, thats why it seems weird to wait for a tech which i guess would come in the late middle ages at the earliest, as there were national independance conflicts long before then, eg: the spanish reconquista(?), the jews in antiquity and the greeks against the byzantines and turks (not sure if that was the case, been a while since i read much on that...)

 

[rhialto]

If you examine those carefully, you'll find they were fighting, not for nation, but for king (Spain) or religion (Judaea). There is a difference. If your loyalty is to a king, push hard enough any almost anyone can wear that crown, which is why kings were literally able to trade fiefs at times. Nationalism has a different set of priorities.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

fair enough, but then how would you represent those sorts of internal conflicts, or at least the pretender issue if they dont include religion?(which was actualy my point, struggles can happen regardless of nationalism... hence the reduced need to rely on a tech...)

 

[rhialto]

Also, the Spanish Reconquista wasn't an internal affair anyway. The Arabs never conquered the entire peninsular. Actual historical details (as opposed to Bible stories) are rather thin on the ground regarding Judaea, so I can't really comment on that one. But I wouldn't make a game mechanic to cater for a single historical event. A pattern of such events, yes, but not just one.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

oky, fair 'nuf

 

[dh_epic]

It's a good idea, for one that gets repeated ad nauseum.

Of course, like most things, I don't think it should be absolute. "X Cities" is bad. To me, the better you are at treating your people well, the less likely you'll have to deal with a breakaway state. The bigger you are, the slower you need to grow to maintain unity. This means you need to really make the new territories (and old territories) you conquer feel good, and do a better and better job of assimilating them.

And if you're a small state, you don't have to worry about these things. In fact, you can use propaganda and espionage to rock the boat of a big empire, and get a section of the population to yearn for independence.

(PS: the Greeks achieved independence from the Ottoman Turks after Nationalism. With Nationalism came the idea that they don't have to pledge allegiance to a man. They can pledge allegiance to a land that they all belong to, with common ideas and values. They truly recognized that the governor only rules with the consent of the governed.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This is why I agree with REX that 'Independance' should be able to occur BEFORE nationalism. The fact is that new nations have formed from existing empires since time immemorial. As DH_Epic says, though, it should come down to how well you treat the people in your empire, the amount of crime/corruption in your empire, and the 'appearance' of techs like nationalism should all play a part in the how likely seccession is to occur.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[crimson238]

I totally agree with the preceeding two. The breaking away of cities from your land should be based upon their level of happiness in conjunction with your empire's size. Also, the % chance of a break-away movement should substantially increase after the Optimal City Number has been surpassed.

 

[dasei]

The Independence global movement starts in America, with US and continue in South America. But they are differents. South America was splitted, England invented countries and avoid any kind of regional merge. In Africa, Asia and Oceania the situation was worst. In this way of Independence I was thinking when wrote to this thread.

 

[Evie]

The number of cities you are allowed before your chances of independance starts to increase should also vary based on map size.