Civilization Stability

[helpless_writer]

I recently just got back into playing cIV and am using the Rhye's and Fall mod. Anyone else think that Civ in general needs to update how your empire works internally?

I mean in recent memory they added on to diplomacy, added random events and even did a few upgrades for the units but they never really made internal issues that important. And part of most civilizations histories all include some type of internal (otherwise known as civil) war.

I was think this would be good for a expansion pack, maybe also expand (other than whatever they are offering) on the advisors and great leaders.

 

[Ataxerxes]

It'd be nice to have as an option. But then, that's the part of RFC I like the best. The problem might be getting the AI to not collapse. If you play an RFC game through 4000 years of history, some of those civs get to be like yo-yos. Collapse, rebirth, collapse again.

This is another item that some will like and some will hate. That's why it should remain an option. RFC is almost a different game from BTS. A list of the differences would be a long list.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I recently just got back into playing cIV and am using the Rhye's and Fall mod. Anyone else think that Civ in general needs to update how your empire works internally?

I mean in recent memory they added on to diplomacy, added random events and even did a few upgrades for the units but they never really made internal issues that important. And part of most civilizations histories all include some type of internal (otherwise known as civil) war.

I was think this would be good for a expansion pack, maybe also expand (other than whatever they are offering) on the advisors and great leaders.

Honestly, general stability for standard games had crossed my mind, though I'd say a Civl War with 2 Factions (Like the American Civil War) should be the maximum effect, and it should be less likely to happen then RFC.

Then again, this is theoretical only.

 

[Ahovking]

Adding Civilization Stability to Civ 5 OR 6 should be the next step

 

[attackfighter]

there needs to be a way for large civs to die out. asides from having a larger civ kill them, that is.

it'd fix the bug where several civs blob up the map all game while everyone else sits around twiddling their thumbs

 

[Naokaukodem]

It would be perfect as a Civ5 scenario or custom game. Civs would merge, collapse, and upon all that wars would occur. It would be a mess. I'd love to play such a game. But the hardest is still to determine which are the factors of collapsing? I mean, collapse should be more or less inevitable, so we shouldn't make a "good managed civ" imune to it.

 

[helpless_writer]

It would be perfect as a Civ5 scenario or custom game. Civs would merge, collapse, and upon all that wars would occur. It would be a mess. I'd love to play such a game. But the hardest is still to determine which are the factors of collapsing? I mean, collapse should be more or less inevitable, so we shouldn't make a "good managed civ" imune to it.

A few factors off the back would have to be your civics, your government (which deals with overall health and satisfaction of the union), economy, and foreign influence.

Just to explain foreign influence, this can be on a small level dealing with emancipation, freedom of religion and other things (that foreign civs offer) or at the same time, who would assist them in the war. Like if they had a specific resource as a country you traded, because they own it France or whoever would side with them to maintain that trade and effectively disassociate themselves from what you now own.

 

[helpless_writer]

Adding Civilization Stability to Civ 5 OR 6 should be the next step

I don't see at all why this needs to wait until Civ 6, if anything it deserves it's own expansion pack. Civ 5: Domestic Affairs lol

 

[KrikkitTwo]

A key issue would be the Effect of poor stability, if cities just spontaneously were removed, that would be a problem, but if poor stability led to Rebel units being generated, then it would merely mean that you would have a military challenge.

 

[Heathcliff]

I think the stability should not be like in Rhye with whole civilizations collapsing and become independent, it's too sudden. In EU3 Stability gives modifiers, converted to civ they could look like: Stability +3 (the best gives all cities) +30% food, hammers and commerce. And if your stability would be the worst -3, it would give -30% food, hammers and commerce. That would mean civilizations with bad stability would gradually decline and not like now, if an AI gets the lead it will become larger than the other AIs for the rest of the game.
How to calculate the stability value could be done something similar to Rhye's formula.

 

[Emperor_Jackal]

If stability was to be implemented, I'd prefer there to be a way for your former empire to peacefully reunite after completely declaring independence (possibly with the exception of cities on other continents, islands). Sure, other players collapsing is fun, but when it's happened to me I just end up quitting. I can't say I like the permanent negative stability in RFC either.

 

[Shurdus]

there needs to be a way for large civs to die out. asides from having a larger civ kill them, that is.

it'd fix the bug where several civs blob up the map all game while everyone else sits around twiddling their thumbs

Yes, all that annoying map blopping can indeed be a problem... And then the AI not attacking those civs. Such a bug...

I like the option for civil wars to occur insofar that it acts as a way to keep the sizes of the empires in check. This is solely because I do not like the micro involved with large empires, and I do not like that others become so huge that there is virtually nothing left to stop them. Then again I am unsure if adding anstability as proposed here will indeed make civ a better game. It sounds to me like it will add even more micro since it will cause players to tweak every little detail in order to prevent revolts and such.

All in all a system for revolts seems fine, but players will learn to manipulate that system in such ways that it is no longer logical and the system will be 'gamed'. I think it makes not for a better system than ther is right now.

 

[Kid R]

In Civ 4 empire management already seems fairly complex, with city and unit maintenance, all the civic options, the happiness and health mechanics etc. I don't mind if they chuck all that out and replace it with different stuff but I wouldn't want it to get so complicated it distracts from the basic game which is colonizing and/or conquering territory.

And I never saw how something like stability as implemented in RFC makes the game more fun at all. To me it's just irritating ongoing micro every turn that contributes nothing towards victory. I'm with Sid in that every game mechanic should give the player interesting choices and tradeoffs to make, not add to complexity for complexity's sake, or to somehow make a "deeper experience" by being more arcane. That becomes either a puzzle game or "The Sims".

 

[trythis]

Did any of you try the Legions of Revolution MOD? I am on my second game and stability is handled a little different and stability is determined by several factors like distance from capitol, current civic running, buildings in city, and I believe a few more factors. Something you guys may want to try out.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In Civ 4 empire management already seems fairly complex, with city and unit maintenance, all the civic options, the happiness and health mechanics etc. I don't mind if they chuck all that out and replace it with different stuff but I wouldn't want it to get so complicated it distracts from the basic game which is colonizing and/or conquering territory.

And I never saw how something like stability as implemented in RFC makes the game more fun at all. To me it's just irritating ongoing micro every turn that contributes nothing towards victory. I'm with Sid in that every game mechanic should give the player interesting choices and tradeoffs to make, not add to complexity for complexity's sake, or to somehow make a "deeper experience" by being more arcane. That becomes either a puzzle game or "The Sims".

Well I think a "stability" system would be best done as a
1. 'second level' of the colonizing/conquering mechanic.
2. Replace the happiness mechanic

In Civ 4 you have 2 sytems to limit city size, happiness and health
I'd suggest keeping health as a limiting factor, and revise happiness

Revisions
1. Remove "Overcrowding" factor, happiness is now totally independent of Size
2. Strengthen other factors (culture, 'civics', war weariness, diplomatic actions, distance from capital, total number of cities, etc.)
3. The EFFECT of poor happiness is not decreased production in that city... so no 'entertainer specialists, or unhappy people that don't work.

4. The Effect of unhappiness IS to generate rebel military units that will (Intelligently) try and conquer the unhappy city. (the rebel units may cooperate with other civs depending on the situation)



So 'conquering/colonizing' a city gives you access to its economy... but you need to 'culture' the city to make it safe (ie free from Rebel attacks)
'culturing' a city would be slower and more expensive than 'conquering' it.

You could both offensively and defensively culture (spreading your culture would encourage pro-you rebellions, putting your culture in your cities would give you additional forces if an opponent took them)

 

[Kid R]

Fair enough - it all sounds good, so long as there are interesting decisions to make, and the game doesn't randomly keep causing me extra micro. I want the mechanics there to make it so I can know what I have to do to be 100% sure of no rebellion.

 

[attackfighter]

Fair enough - it all sounds good, so long as there are interesting decisions to make, and the game doesn't randomly keep causing me extra micro. I want the mechanics there to make it so I can know what I have to do to be 100% sure of no rebellion.

No one's proposing 'random' rebellions...

Yes, all that annoying map blopping can indeed be a problem... And then the AI not attacking those civs. Such a bug...

I'm not saying small civs should kamikaze on larger one's, but they should attempt to compete with them. They could compete by excluding large powers from certain trades and alliances, entering into federations with one another, or merely attempting to increase their own individual powers'. Alas, Firaxis seems more intent on making Middle East maps and charging exorbitant sums for them Such a tragedy....

 

[Danger Bird]

Well I think a "stability" system would be best done as a
1. 'second level' of the colonizing/conquering mechanic.
2. Replace the happiness mechanic

In Civ 4 you have 2 sytems to limit city size, happiness and health
I'd suggest keeping health as a limiting factor, and revise happiness

Revisions
1. Remove "Overcrowding" factor, happiness is now totally independent of Size
2. Strengthen other factors (culture, 'civics', war weariness, diplomatic actions, distance from capital, total number of cities, etc.)
3. The EFFECT of poor happiness is not decreased production in that city... so no 'entertainer specialists, or unhappy people that don't work.

4. The Effect of unhappiness IS to generate rebel military units that will (Intelligently) try and conquer the unhappy city. (the rebel units may cooperate with other civs depending on the situation)

I like this idea, of redesigning the happiness mechanic so that it would model stability. In RFC, I often find that stability and happiness are redundant and sometimes contradictory: i.e. very happy cities on the verge of declaring independence from your empire.

However, I don't think unhappiness should merely generate rebel military units (as 4 above). This wouldn't be troubling at all. Indeed, some players would deliberately create some unhappiness in order to give their army battle training and experience points.

Instead, I think unhappiness should create a chance of revolt, similar to Civ4 cultural revolts, where the whole city shuts down for several turns. There could also be a chance for cities in revolt, if the army is not sent in, to become independent. So the revolt would act as a warning. This would make players pay attention to happiness/stability.

 

[_random_]

I don't see at all why this needs to wait until Civ 6, if anything it deserves it's own expansion pack. Civ 5: Domestic Affairs lol

How about Civilization V: The Battle Within?

 

[the343danny]

How about instability ala the revolutions mod that many of you guys should know as it was included in LoR and many others? I think something between that and the RFC system would be fine. In RFC an entire civ revolts far too often, and all the sudden the huge Ottoman empire is reduced to independents, even Turkey itself revolts. In LoR, some civs get crushed by revolutions and although sometimes you have a few powerful civs that rose up through revolution, but especially in the early game most of the civs that are on a collapsing spree collapse into quite a few civs, most which never play a large role besides occupying land and being vassals who bring along some troubles for the vassalizer(??).

So, a system I would want is that some civs spawn due to revolutions but many cities should simply go independent. That would let them be absorbed by smaller civs who might actually become a dominant force on a global scale, or allow the civ it revolted from have a chance.

Not that I would expect it to be in the game, but perhaps a mod