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.