1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ Splitting

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by djb13, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. djb13

    djb13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    This is an idea for Civ 5.

    Throughout history some Civilisations have remained almost continous, for instance the Greeks, whilst some have been very volitile, for instance the Anglos, to the English, to the British, to the Americans, to the Ohio'ans.

    The idea is that corruption is turned up significantly, especially for the earlier governments/civics. But you may choose to build as many 'forbidden palaces' as you like, which significantly reduce corruption in surrounding cities.

    The alogorithm for civil disorder (which is reintroduced) is changed. As in Civ 4, the number of unhappy citizens contributes to the productivity of a city, but there is also a chance that an unhappy citizen becomes a resisting citizen at random. Once that has happened the chance of other citizens becoming resisters, both in the city and in surrounding cities increases, with a risk that content citizens may also become resisters. Certain events could be required to trigger the first citizen becoming a resister, starvation, diseise and war. A city with a single resister it deemed to be in civil disorder.

    If a city with a forbidden palace gets a resister in it, then it declares itself an autonomous region, and 1/2 of the soldiers in the city ally with the rebels, and 1/2 ally with you and are ejected from the city. If you choose you may try to reclaim the city.

    In addition to this, Civs may choose to join together to form a more effective super-civilisation. A player could choose to allow an autonomous region to form volentarily, as this gives some benifts such as shared scientific research for 50 turns (or so), and also means that you can limit the size of the autonomous region.

    Certain Civs have preffered terrain. The Eygptians are associated with the desert flood-plain, the native-Americans with the plains, and the Scots with Hills. So if a a city on a hill splits from England then it should be Scotland.

    The Four Big Problems:

    1. Leaders

    This new system means that a vast number of leaders, as well as leaderhead and diplomacy messages would be needed.

    2. Starting Civs

    Because of the tree-like structure by which civs split, it would only really be possible to allow Civs which actually existed at 5000 BC (or whenever the game starts) to start the game.

    Although, there are benifits to this. You could choose an option that says that you start the game half-way through as a newly formed autonomous region, cutting out the slightly boring early game-play. You could also specify certain 'new' Civs that should develop throughout the game. For instance, you could say that you start with the Greeks, Eygptians, Sumerians, Aztecs and an Early-Germanic tribe, but also say that the Americans and Iraqis should be two of the new Civs that form.

    3. Lack of Actual Case Studies

    Some real-life civilisations never split! Like the Greeks, or Mayans. In these cases it might be possible to fudge it slightly, for instance seeeing what administrative regions exist/existed in those times (e.g. Macedonia), or name the new Civ after a city, or (as they did in Germany post-WWII) just call one of the new Civs 'West Maya', or 'Machu Piccu'. Therefore a number of stock leaders would also need to be made (I can just hear the graphic designers groaning).

    4. The Famous Civs May Be Less Likely To Be Made

    As I said before, America is a result of three seperate splits. I think it would be more fun if the game were biased towards making certain new Civs, so that the famous ones are more likely.
     
  2. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    I'm afraid this reads to me as another one of those ideas where more realism makes for worse gameplay.

    I'm all for this notion, though possibly at a limit of one forbidden palace per four cities or something like.

    Oh, no. Make it something that points build up towards with number of unhappy citizens over time, but the game has too much randomness in it already.

    Why is cuivil disorder happening at random supposed to be more fun than civili disorder as a predictable risk you can take steps to counter ?

    I am entirely opposed to civilisations having preferences of that sort.

    which would be a game-killer for me.
     
  3. djb13

    djb13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks for the feedback. Responding to the points in order

    1. I don't think this would make for worse game play. It would mean that there are extra paths to domination victory, by playing through convincing AIs to join your Civ (perhaps I didn't emphasize this enough), because then you don't end up with a situation where the number of Civs is permanently reduced each time this happens.

    2. 4 Forbidden Palaces per city is a good idea. Although, to avoid it from being over-used there does have to be some comeuppance, of which the risk of autonomous regions forming is a good one.

    3. The idea of having points contribute to when an unhappy citizen becomes a resister would combat this.

    4. That was more of an optional extra. Maybe there could be an option to turn it off?

    5. As I said, there would also be the option to start games half-way through, so you're not limited to Civs that actually existed 5000 BC. In a way it could mean that longer tech trees can be used, adding realism, because of the mid-way game joining option. Also, to combat games becoming too long, it might be necessary to add non-modern age endings. For instance continental dominance as well as world dominance; being the first Civ to explore the Antarctic as well as Space Ship building, etc.
     
  4. Scilly_guy

    Scilly_guy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    403
    Hmm, some people enjoy the early game, for me its the best bit! I have mulled over the concept and your mechanic is probably the best way to implement it, or some other way that I haven't thought of. I just think that the process of rebellion needs to be worked on. As for which civs are available when, I think its best to allow every civ at the start by default, perhaps an option to turn this off. The choice of who leads the new civ would be the same as over seas colonies at the minute.
     
  5. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    I've always thought of reducing the number of civilisations as one of the more satisfactory things about progress towards winning, but I see your point. I think my main sticking point really is with the notion of a random element to the revolutions; I'd far rather they were things that good players could work to avoid, and that a player in a jam could finely calculate the threshold that had to be avoided and how much flex they had in prioritising elements. I do like the notion of what would be, essentially, a diplomatic domination victory. given good mechanisms for persuading other civs to merge with you in closer and closer alliance.

    Thing is, I think "over-used" there is a matter of cost. You make the things expensive, a player who gets an economy and good cities up and working can afford them, a player who isn't doesn't. Further penalties and setbacks don't feel like they'd be fun to me. [ Maybe the number of cities per FP should scale with map size, too.

    That's kind of my point. I hate unique units, I hate unique buildings, I hate any suggestion that "realism" of that sort improves the game, because I really do not find it does.

    Not following your logic here; why not have a much longer tech tree anyway ?

    And there's the rub; my favourite length for an ideal Civ game is three months of evenings, a couple of hundred hours in all. To my mind, people who want short games should have options like accelerated production and smaller maps, not hacks to the overall structure of the game, which should support as wide a range of options as possible.

    mmm. As i've said before, I favour the non-modern endings being linked to ages in the tech tree, so you have a switch that says "last viable age". Then when you finish the technlogies in, say, the Classical Age if you have picked that, rather than getting any subsequent techs you just get unspecified future techs; and there is a suitable lots-of-work victory condition that is equivalent to the spaceship, like, say, starting the Industrial Revolution at the end of the Renaissance.
     
  6. djb13

    djb13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    That would just seem to make a snow-ball effect. The player with the better economy buys more FP's, so they get a better economy. If you're going to have systems whereby better economies lead to benefits, they should lead to benefits in other areas of the game, as currently happens.

    That's a matter of personal taste. But a lot of these 'personal taste' options can be turned off at the beginning of the game. I haven't played Civ IV much (I prefer Civ III, as do all my friends), but from Civ III, things like unique units can be turned off (via the Scenario), or Scientific Leaders etc.. This could be one of those things that can be turned off? That is a bit of a wimps way out though, and I'll come back to you on if I get a better idea.

    Because then the game gets way too long. In order to have longer tech trees you need the option of joining half-way through, or finishing earlier. Although a condensed tech-tree could be made for those who enjoy playing the whole way through.

    I've done some working on it over night and here's a prototype.

    When a city hits 500 'resentment points' an unhappy citizen becomes a resister, then after that happens any unhappy citizen can become a resister at random (representing how rebellion spreads), although with a bias towards those in the same city, in surrounding cities, and being of the same race as other resisters (if you have many races in your Civ, as would become increasingly likely under this system).

    Resentment points are added or subtracted each turn, with the minimum number being zero (in other words, no matter how satisfied you make your citizens, you can't build up 'credit'). This is the approximate calculation:

    (Happy citz. - Unhappy citz.) + 10 * (Citz. conscripted in the last 20 turns*) + 50 * (Citz. conscripted who died that turn) + 2 (if city is experiencing starvation) + 50 (if city loses a citizen through starvation) + (Government modifier) - 5 (As a constant)

    That's only a prototype, I've probably missed some variables off.

    I would make 350 resentment points the time at which advisers advise you do something, and 450 the point at which advisers suggest that you negotiate independence agreements (if the affected city is a FP city).

    New Idea

    As a basis, two types of palace are defined: Temporary Palaces and Permanent Palaces (as well as Forbidden Palaces). Both have the same effect on corruption, but only PP's generate culture. To start with, all Civs only have TP's, and when you discover Masonry, you can build a PP.

    When you invade somewhere, and capture their Palace city, assuming it is a PP, it is transformed into a FP. In the meanwhile, assuming that the defender has other cities, a TP is established in their next biggest city.

    After you discover (a new) racial equality tech, unhappy migrants from Civs which have RoP agreements with you may voluntarily join your Civ (hence free workers - an advantage), but citizens in your own country will start to become unhappy with you having an empire* - the size of the empire one factor in how unhappy they are. In essence this represents decolonization.

    *They only become unhappy if there are people who are not of the same race are the majority population in cities in your empire, so you won't be punished for a city that you invaded ages ago where all the citizens are now assimilated.
     
  7. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
  8. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    Yes, buit it's at the cost of not spending the same thing on improving research, or armies, or culture, or religion.. I do not see how it's any different to suggest that than to have improvements that decrease corruption, or increase your income, as is.

    What are you defining as "too long" ?

    I still don't like the random element here. Maybe something like the "very unhappy people" function in Civ 2 would be more suited here. I'm not sure I buy resisters from an unhappy city spreading randomly to other cities whether the other cities are happy or not as plausible, and it's annoying as a mechanic unless there is a way of putting effort into countering and/or preventing it.

    Why not ?

    The factor in there I would be inclined to quibble with is citizens conscripted, it should depend on the circumstances; conscripting defenders who save the city from an invasion that would otherwise have succeeded should not to my mind have a net-negative effect, whereas conscriiption for an aggressive war is more arguable.

    That's interesting. I'm not sure about the temporary/permanent divide, but captured palaces serving as FPs would make capitals strategic goals in ways that has potential. I do think that when a capital is captured getting a new one should need actively building a new palace, though.
     
  9. djb13

    djb13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    The point of that is so that any autonomous region that formed would be of a decent size. There is a way of countering it - reduce the number of unhappy citizens.

    Otherwise a sudden and highly unpopular change in policy would take ages to filter through. In otherwords, you want the risk of rebellion to always be there, although not always a serious risk. If you can build up credit, then a leader who has been popular with his/her people throughout the whole game could be a total dick in the last 50 years and get away with it.

     
  10. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    You talk about that as if it were a bad thing; it would strike me as a virtue.
     
  11. raigainousa

    raigainousa Stelthy Jet

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Oh come on, it is not supposed to be built more than once. Leave it.

    Calling civil disorder to something that can be controlled is not appropriate. It is, in fact, not a good idea, a worse one.

    Just because there is a resister in a city with a forbidden palace doesnt mean it will declare independence.

    Instead, a city with more than five angry citizen and without forbidden palace will start a revolution. Nearby cities will also tend to have angry citizens building up, and the resisting city will automatically generate units that will cause destruction in your civ. Now that's civil disorder.


    I dont think
    "uniting into 'super-civs'" is a good idea, but an autonomous region must have lower maintenance costs.

    Leave it, it is not a good idea.

    The Four Big Problems:

    1. Leaders

    No need, as long as they will be named into something like "republic".

    2. Starting Civs

    As I said before, they will become a "republic"

    3. Lack of Actual Case Studies

    4. The Famous Civs May Be Less Likely To Be Made

    As I said before, America is a result of three seperate splits. I think it would be more fun if the game were biased towards making certain new Civs, so that the famous ones are more likely.
    XD
     
  12. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    "supposed to" ? By what argument ?

    I am utterly and completely opposed to this. Random selection of civilisations at the start, everyone should be able to play all the way through. Historical determinism is the enemy of flexibility, surprises and fun.
     
  13. raigainousa

    raigainousa Stelthy Jet

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    It is a wonder. Wonders are only built once.:crazyeye:
     
  14. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    You seem to miss the point of my question, which is; why is a Forbidden Palace, or a generalised "secondary administrative centre for my empire", something that "should be" a build-once-only Wonder ?
     
  15. buffalo6542

    buffalo6542 Nuke Maniac

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    272
    It would make players and AI overpowered by allowing them to drastically reduce costs.
     
  16. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    Players and AI overpowered, if the AI uses it sensibly, just keeps the game balanced.

    I would suggest that the new admin centres be rather expensive. If you're using a sensible corruption system like Civ 3, the places you'll benefit from them most will be places that are very slow to build things anyway, so they are major undertakings.

    Civ 3 lets you have a Secret Police Headquarters with Communism that serves as a third centre. There are mods that give a couple more such centres as Wonders great or small, coming reasonably spread out through the tech tree so they become possible as your empire grows. This seems like a good idea to me, and slow enough not to be too overpowered.
     
  17. Scilly_guy

    Scilly_guy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    403
    You could just say that you can only have 1 for every 7 courthouses or some such limit. Added with the fact that if it is overpowered you can make it more expensive and/or weaker, reducing its affect until it isn't overpowered. Everything can be balanced some how, the only thing is it adds to the depth and makes the game ever more complex, don't get me wrong, I am not against this, I would just imagine the publishers (and a lot of players) are.
     
  18. dh_epic

    dh_epic Cold War Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,627
    Location:
    Seasonal Residences
    I'm a big fan of the idea of civil wars. But there's a lot of fundamental problems. How do you make a game out of it? For some people, this question won't matter, but then they shouldn't be playing a game. Civ is a game.

    Probably the best way to sum up the problem... why should a game company spend months of development and balance just to create an interesting way to lose? Losing half your empire because you didn't mange your happiness properly is defeat. It's something that will only happen if you screw up. It's a punishment for making a small mistake. Why punish unhappy civs with by cutting their empire in half when you could just as well assassinate the leader, and call it game over?

    The answer: because that's not fun.
     
  19. rysmiel

    rysmiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    The way I see that it could be fun would be if it were a tactic one could apply against one's opponents. Say that you can get a civil war in an empire with a certain amount of unhappiness, and you have mechanisms for affecting another empire's happiness, and that also, something like the Civ 1 mechanism where if you take the capital of a large empire, it sometimes splits, or that empires doing badly in a war might split and one side immediately try to make peace with the enemy.

    Civil war happening to the player as a failure mode of really not paying attention to happiness for a long time does not seem to me a game-breaker, just one more challenge to be engotiated.
     
  20. Scilly_guy

    Scilly_guy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    403
    Civil war needs to be more complicated than just some unhappy people deciding their city isn't going to be a part of the nation any more. The game Knights of Honour had some civil war aspects. For instance if your king dies without an heir one of you knights can assume the throne but certain provinces might leave your kingdom, this was annoying but not the end of the game. Also if you married your daughter off to gain an ally that ally might claim a rite to some of your provinces if your king dies.
     

Share This Page