Cities minorities and revolt

[black_imperator]

I was thinking about some improvements about the city system. It isn’t logical that a new captures city produces the conqueror’s units , I mean ,that an elvish city captured by dwarves produces dwarves , for example.
It would be interesting that you can produce units from the former civ of your cities . It might be too difficult to do this for all cities but at least for former capitals it would be interesting…
It implies that these cities would still have buildings from their former civ.


This kind of cities would have an happiness malus and have more chances to revolt so as to return with their original civ , even reviving it if it had been destructed . If this happens , it would be interesting that units produced in this city would revolt too.

Player would have the choice of making this city like another or not .

I think it is a good possibility of showing kind of cultural tensions in an empire , but I don’t know if it is technically possible.


Sorry for my english...

 

[Adrogans]

I think that this idea was thrown around before but it was very complicated if at all possible.

 

[MrManNo1]

It would be interesting that you can produce units from the former civ of your cities . It might be too difficult to do this for all cities but at least for former capitals it would be interesting…
It implies that these cities would still have buildings from their former civ.

This is a horrible idea, no offense. From a logical perspective, yes, it works. However, from a gameplay perspective, aside from making it extremely complicated from the programmer's side, it would also make it so people could mix and match their army. This allows someone to create a "perfect" army that would be unbeatable by any other player. The reason FfH works is because each race had advantages and disadvantages. If you could keep your advantages, obtain another race's advantages, and throw out all the disadvantages, the game would become broken.

The idea of racial tensions within a city would be interesting, though. Increase unhappiness based on the race and alignment of each citizen, based on your civilization's race and alignment.

 

[coko]

Maybe instead should be added this idea of slowing coverting the population, at least it should drop in some way...

 

[black_imperator]

If you could keep your advantages, obtain another race's advantages, and throw out all the disadvantages, the game would become broken.

It wouldn't throw out all disadvantages if new units can disband or revolts each turn ....

 

[MrManNo1]

It wouldn't throw out all disadvantages if new units can disband or revolts each turn ....

I still don't like it. It just doesn't seem right to me that a dwarven empire can create an elven mage to make up for some of the dwarven magic shortcomings. Dwarves are known (and balanced) for their inability to perform magic, and giving them the ability to produce elven archmages wouldn't be a good idea.

 

[QES]

You may also look at it this way.

When you conquer a city there is a period of transition - the revolt that is taking place. One must, through the use of magic or force, subdue the city. By that time, there is usually at least a small minority of "your" civiliations people in the city - units and the like are drawn from this minority. Conquered dwarves wouldn't work willingly for elves. Nor would the mercurians work at all (unto death) for the infernals. So it would make little sense to grab units from the opposition's ranks.

However - through the use of trickery (magic) and perhaps tryanny, (conscription) perhaps some method could be allowed for this logical progression? I agree that it fundamnetally destroys game balance - but the use of conscripts - by nature alters the "power" spheres involved.

I like the idea that conscripts and conscripts alone should have at least in part, some acknowledgement of the percentages of the population - but for volunteerism and recruits - that can come from a minority no matter how small.

My two coppers,
-Qes