Civilization Stability

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think this kind of dovetails nicely with the issue of diplomacy with the AI. It's always bothered me how I can do almost anything I want yet my actions never seem to have any impact on how my people feel (with the exception of war weariness-which carries its own problems). What I'd like to see is this-if I'm a Democratic Civ with freedom of religion, & I make all nice & cozy with a Theocratic Dictatorship, then this should lead to my people getting angry with me. They should be able to ask, nay demand, that I break ties with them-& failure to do so should carry consequences-namely a decrease in internal stability.
Similarly, if I've been running a democratic government, then suddenly switch to a police state, this should have consequences too!

Basically, what I want is to feel like I'm running an empire with flesh & blood people in it-not just a bunch of algorithms!

Aussie.

 

[Agarwaen]

What? Now there are manifestations in the US that they end the cozy relations with Saudi Arabia?

 

[cairnsy44]

I concur with trythis. The Legends of Revolution mod handles this pretty well. I also just started to play this and really enjoy it. I sometimes get a bit frustrated because the rebel armies can sometimes seem ridiculously well-equipped, but the ebb and flow of the civs is amazing. In my last game, the Sioux (the mod makes some changes to civs and civ names....also adds a few) had a rebellion and the Iroquois led by Logan spawned. The iroquois took over most of the Sioux land...that is before I took out the Iroquois. The other lands I conquered (as England) kept trying to revolt (Egypt and Khmer) before I finally subdued them. It certainly makes a conquest-driven game even more challenging.

 

[Disgustipated]

in theory it sounds good, I have my doubts though. I disable the revolutions mod in my ROM mod. They are very annoying. I seemed to have little I could do to stop them. Stationing more units didn't work. I attacked a neighboring civ which is what they wanted, but a short time later they wanted to attack again. Sigh.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think we should base civ collapse on factor inspired from reality. I don't have a fair knowledge of History, but at least i know one type of rebellions and one type of collapsing from the Roman Empire.

First ones are coups d'Etat, provoked by some general invading the capital and fighting with other forces in a civil war, with for consequences only a change of leader, an aweakening of the militiry forces, and maybe a civic change. This can happen in large expanding empires based on military, and could be easily moded/implemented.

The second ones are an external invasion of the capital, throwing the whole system down and making the civ collapse. This could be implemented by modeling a barbarian behavior more with finesse than it has been for now. Large barbarian uprisings could occur, and should be a menace for the other civs. Particularly because they were considered "barbarians", and, among all, probably were (backwarded civically and technologically). For that, true barbarian empires should be possible. They should act like true civs, and learn at the contact of more advanced ones, militaristically and technologically. They should begin to be a real threat when they would have learn the other civs militaristic technologies. (horsebackriding, stirrup, militaristic organization, etc...)
-
Barbarians states could have their own specific tech tree. Like a tech named "great war chief", "bloodthristy" (culture) etc... Now the fun thing being that the player could choose to be one of those barbarians ingame!...
-
Barbarians would rise in the suburbs of refined civs, and would envy them. Now what's a refined civ? A strong civ according to many factors? Like the research output? Or all simply a civ that have or had have a golden age? (providing golden ages are more rare but also more decisive)

 

[Gliese 581]

It could be good if implemented right but it seems to me it clashes with one of the fundamentals of civ; the player being in full control of his empire.
It would be quite a drastic change to fiddle with this if it's to be more than a random event and actually an element of the core mechanics. I think it has enough merits that Firaxis should experiment with it though.

 

[Neo-Dar]

Sid did a speech and he said he originally wanted to have your civilization go through a prosperous time and then it would start to collapse and right before you were lost to history you would some how come back stronger than ever and repeat. But any time you started to collapse the player would just load a previous save and stop it so he dropped it and probably won't pick it up again

 

[muxec]

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.

Civilization 5: Yo-Yo of Nations.

 

[epicivfreak]

How about Civilization V: The Battle Within?

That's awesome...

Seriously though, I think you could just drop this "social stigma" against the rise and fall of civilizations concepts by counting both a civ score and a player score. So let's say you start off with Egypt. Your goal is still to do well and make Egypt last as long as possible, but winning with Egypt as a goal from turn 1 is no longer possible or necessary. You play your best game but only get Egypt to last out 3000 years (assuming a 4000BC start), so now in 1000BC, Egypt has fallen (which way doesn't matter), at this point the game prompts you to take control of another nearby (perhaps from the list of contacts that Egypt had) civilization and you choose the Arabs. Egypt's score gets logged and your player score gets logged - they are both equal up until the switch to the Arabs, now your score will equal Your Egyptian Score and Your Arab Score.
Many turns pass with the arabs and you build an impressive empire only to have it fall as well. So this time, you choos to jump over to India. Your score is now your Egyptian Score + Your Arab Score + Your Indian Score. So let's say the game finished like this. Your final score would be as just stated, plus additional player-related bonus (this is something new) like Ruling the 3 Wealthiest Civs, Ruling the 3 most Scientific civs, etc, cheesy stuff like that.
I hope to play that style of Civ in a mod for civ 5, very quickly. So GO GET TO WORK, all you lurking beta-testers, on making sure that this happens.

 

[1889]

City states might take care of some of this. As I understand it now you can conquer city states and directly control everything like we do in Civ 4 or you can ally with some city states and get a bonus. You now have to work to keep the city states allied. If you miss manage your diplomacy or some other factors they may defect to some other civ.

 

[attackfighter]

Some results of a successful rebellion could be:

1. Your ruler escapes along with some supporters and begins a counter revolution, allowing you to play as the rebels.

2. Your ruler is defeated by the rebels, but instead of disposing him they simply force him to come to terms, which could give your civ some civic restrictions, force it to make peace during an unpopular war, or something else.

3. While the rebels have won, they have trouble working together, fracturing into several small warring states (made up of your former empire). Your ruler maintains control of some areas still loyal to him, and has the option of joining the fray, possibly regaining former lands (or losing it all).

4. While the rebels were unable to overthrow your ruler, they were able to snatch some land and break away as a new civ (possibly with a sympathetic rival civ (or two) backing them up).

Successful rebellions don't have to be automatic losses or anything