Civil unrest after conquest too long

[Blasphemous]

I'm playing a game of America on 0.96 and most of the game I've been at war with the Aztecs (it's now some time in the mid-1800's, and hopefully they will collapse shortly. I even dreamt they did last night .) I noticed it takes hellishly long to get a conquered city to start working for me. It doesn't make much sense. When in history did it take twenty years to reign in a large conquered city? I propose civil unrest times be halved, and for cities sizes 1 and 2, completely abolished. Also, every age should bring with it shorter civil unrest. In WWII, conquering armies had their cities more-or-less under control within months - that's less than one game turn.
I know the game is designed to stack everything against the imperialist, but there are better, more realistic ways to do that. Perhaps civil unrest can be almost replaced with a large and slowly deteriorating unhappiness modifier in conquered cities, so it's still a long while before the city is actually useful, but at least it gives you control of the surrounding area soon enough.

 

[Rhye]

is there a variable in XML to easily change it?

 

[Vishaing]

<Define>
<DefineName>BASE_REVOLT_OCCUPATION_TURNS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>REVOLT_OCCUPATION_TURNS_PERCENT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>REVOLT_TOTAL_CULTURE_MODIFIER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>100</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>REVOLT_OFFENSE_STATE_RELIGION_MODIFIER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>100</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>REVOLT_DEFENSE_STATE_RELIGION_MODIFIER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-50</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>REVOLT_TEST_PROB</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

I found these in the GlobalDefines.xml file. They look like they might do it. I'm not sure what good they might do, but perhaps setting the base to 0 would be a start. Perhaps the culture modifier would help, especially considering that compared to America, Aztec culture will be very 'established'

One other small xml change I would like to request is a change to the cost of upgrading a unit here;

<Define>
<DefineName>BASE_UNIT_UPGRADE_COST</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>UNIT_UPGRADE_COST_PER_PRODUCTION</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

in the same file. By putting the values to 10 and 1 respectively, going from the medieval to rennaisance age will on average bankrupt your treasury if you upgrade ALL of your units, whereas before you could bankrupt your treasury upgrading maybe 10 units, not the hundreds you (and the computer) will end up having usually.

I like the idea of lowering revolt times for later eras. To use the WW2 example again, some of the most important Uboat bases for Germany were on the West Coast of France.

 

[OzzyKP]

I'm playing a game of America on 0.96 and most of the game I've been at war with the Aztecs (it's now some time in the mid-1800's, and hopefully they will collapse shortly. I even dreamt they did last night .) I noticed it takes hellishly long to get a conquered city to start working for me. It doesn't make much sense. When in history did it take twenty years to reign in a large conquered city? I propose civil unrest times be halved, and for cities sizes 1 and 2, completely abolished. Also, every age should bring with it shorter civil unrest. In WWII, conquering armies had their cities more-or-less under control within months - that's less than one game turn.
I know the game is designed to stack everything against the imperialist, but there are better, more realistic ways to do that. Perhaps civil unrest can be almost replaced with a large and slowly deteriorating unhappiness modifier in conquered cities, so it's still a long while before the city is actually useful, but at least it gives you control of the surrounding area soon enough.

*coughiraqcough*

 

[Elhoim]

*coughiraqcough*

and

(damn too short post!)

 

[SilverKnight]

Another good point. Baghdad (late Babylon) is at LEAST a size 15 city, so it's unrest would be something like 7 or 8 turns, correct? It has only been 3 years/turns, so that may yet be accurate.

But that isn't every case, as evidenced by WWII already. Maybe an upper limit of a few turns, at least for most cases.

SilverKnight

 

[dh_epic]

I dunno if lowering the resistance is a good idea. Going for timeline realism in Civ has ALWAYS been a bad idea. Do we really want to make it possible for units to travel across the Roman Empire 10 times in one turn (a 10 year turn!)? Do we really want a bank to be buildable in a single turn (banks don't take that long to build!)?

We can't use the real world as a barometer for civil disorder either. Game balance has to be the #1 priority. And if you can conquer an entire civ in 5 turns, that's NOT good for game balance.

 

[SilverKnight]

Very true. Ok, I vote we leave it for now, and work on balancing other pressing issues, like the Congress.

SilverKnight

 

[Blasphemous]

I dunno if lowering the resistance is a good idea. Going for timeline realism in Civ has ALWAYS been a bad idea. Do we really want to make it possible for units to travel across the Roman Empire 10 times in one turn (a 10 year turn!)? Do we really want a bank to be buildable in a single turn (banks don't take that long to build!)?

We can't use the real world as a barometer for civil disorder either. Game balance has to be the #1 priority. And if you can conquer an entire civ in 5 turns, that's NOT good for game balance.

Some things should be taken as more metaphorical, some less. The buildings are all very metaphorical. Of course no bank takes that long to build. Heck, even the world wonders are often projects that took just a couple of years. Conquest unrest though, is not a metaphorical matter - it represents how long it takes for a conqueror to gain control of a highly-populated area after vanquishing all major military resistance. Perhaps the best way to make conquering a whole civ quickly harder is to somehow add extra conquest unrest for each city already in conquest unrest. The first city won't stay in it for long, but then if you quickly take another city and another, you're headed for a world of chaos. Devastating success.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't see how conquest unrest is any more "metaphorical" than buildings. Of course no bank takes that long to build -- of course no city takes that long to subjugate. But in both cases, the goal is to have certain productivity costs that make sense for gameplay. Lowering the cost of a bank has the same reprocussions on game play as making resistance shorter: in both cases, they're both time factors that the player has to contend with.

Above all, you have to be consistent in the design principles.

 

[Blasphemous]

Well, we shortened the number of turns in the game. As far as I know, conquest unrest has not been adjusted in accordance. Buildings are being built at the right rate. Empires are not.

 

[SilverKnight]

Point, agreed.

I'm so easily swayed late at night.

SilverKnight

 

[dh_epic]

I didn't realize there are fewer turns in the game now. If that's the case, dropping a turn from Civil Resistance across the board might not be a bad idea.

 

[Blasphemous]

I'm not sure about the exact numbers (for RoX I still remember 400 turns instead of 520) but I am absolutely sure Rhye cut down the number of turns to make for a faster-loading game.

 

[SilverKnight]

- New timeline: 500 turns, 3000BC-2050AD

How many turns was it before?

SilverKnight

 

[dh_epic]

That means there's MORE turns. So, if anything, that suggests civil unrest could afford to be *longer* as far as game balanced is concerned.

I just don't see a problem with the game as is.