Commonwealths - Version III

[stormbind]

I always liked the idea of building a Commonwealth in Civilisation, and have posted versions of it several times.

There are many Commonwealths in the world. Russian Commonwealth is one example, but the EU, NATO, Francophone, Commonwealth of Nations all add new perspectives. The historic British Commonwealth is probably the closest match to existing Civ3 game concepts and this proposal.

However, none of the above can be compared directly to this proposal because each real-world Commonwealth has had different objectives. The objective of this fictional Commonwealth is To Increase Fun.

Here's the latest and most refined version of my Commonwealth idea. In previous attempts to bring awareness to my idea, there were disagreements on how it could best be implemented. Perhaps this is being too complicated?

Objective

Loosely speaking, the objective of Civilisation is to conquer the world, and there are many ways to accomplish this victory.

This proposed Commonwealth idea is a unique passive-aggressive alternative. It complements both Diplomatic and Domination victories.

Reasoning

One of the problems associated with large empires is corruption. Currently, the best solution to actually building in far-away cities is the dreaded Communism government-type.

Commonwealth is an alternative solution, with it's own pros and cons. The risks are greater, but the so are the potential gains - this is why I say it's fun!

Small Wonder: <%YCiv_Name%> Commonwealth

If you have cities on more than one continent, you may build the <%YCiv_Name%> Commonwealth in any of your cities. Preferably in your capitol. This is comparible to other special buildings such as Pallace and Inteligence Agency

Click it's icon to bring up the Commonwealth Advisor screen which lists all members of your commonwealth - there's no civs listed yet!

Improvement: Commonwealth Building

After building the Small Wonder, you may then build a 'Commonwealth Building' in any city. It is a small improvement. Lets say it is built in a far away, corrupt city...

On completion, that city becomes the capitol of a new AI-controlled Civilisation.

New AI to the Commonwealth start out as sharing:

1. Gracious attitude
2. Rights of Passage
3. Mutual Protection Pact
​

Increasing your influence in the game

Go to your Commonwealth Advisor screen and the new civilisation is listed there, allong with some options, such as a dreaded 'Tax' slider and 'Boot' button - so that you may boot any member from your Commonwealth. 'Invite' option has been added to your diplomacy options (in trade).

Although you now directly influence fewer cities, these new options mean your control over the game has not diminished.

Taxing your members!

Evil overlords may want something in return for their benevolence, so there is a 'Tax Slider' that you can manipulate. However, the more you tax, the less gracious that civilisation becomes. Revenue may reduce the amount of power lost but sliding it to 100% will make them furious and risks war - breaking your ROP & MPP! Demanding more money than they have will obviously force war. Use it wisely.

Luxuries & Resources

Each member of the Commonwealth can trade luxuries/resources within the Commonwealth without suffering -1 to their stocks! This is no less realistic than spreading one luxury over a massive empire - as in the current game. It is also important to maintaining playability, because it limits power lost from handing over strategic cities.

Granting Cities

Through regular trade, you can give the new AI-controlled civilisation some of your more corrupt cities. These aren't much use to you anyway, and it will boost Gracious attitude. You could hand cities over slowly to offset the effects of taxing heavilly (wealth), or relinquish control with one act of enlightenment to strengthen your staunch ally's production (military).

Effects on Dimplomatic victory

Due to attitude, Commonwealth members will more than likely back each other up at the UN, but this doesn't guarantee Diplomatic victory because the exact relationship between AI-civs within the same Commonwealth is hard to predict: There is nothing to say they will put the founder before another member.

Effects on Culture Flipping

Not even a new capitol can flip so this topic is not terribly influencial. You can decline any other cities that do try to flip back after you gave them to the AI. However, to give the new-AI Civilisation a fighting chance against your common rivals, it's capitol must have high culture - proportional to your original capitol! This is both realistic from the perspective of shared culture, and increases playability.

Effects on Conquest victory

The ROP & MMP mean that unless you make a big blunder, the new-AI ally will back you up in times of war. Although you cannot influence their tactics directly, due to reduced corruption, the new-AI will produce more units than you could have with the same cities. This helps you, but the young Civilisation will also be vulnerable and need your protection.

Internal War!

Any civilisation that attacks a member of your Commonwealth is automatically 'Booted' before the 'MPP' takes affect. This fixes the problems associated with having a network of MPP and prevents your entire Commonwealth collapsing because of one rogue state.

Booting a member

In addition to the above, you need to option of booting a member manually. You may want to use it because of the effects of government types. Your commonwealth might favour Democracy, and yet have a member which choses to be something else, causing internal animosity. Or, the rogue member might be picking a fight with a superpower you really don't want to clash swords with. For added realism, not booting a trouble maker, could reduce Gracious attitude among other members.

Inviting a member

In addition to booting, it would be safest if could re-introduce a member without having to conquer them. For an added dimention, the invite could even be extended to 'foreign' civilisations aswell - this has happened in real Commonwealths.

However, anything less than a gracious attitude must make this agreement impossible.

Members of more than one Commonwealth?

Because a Commonwealth is an international organisation, this is not a completely unrealistic scenario, but it is still rare. In exceptional cases, You could even be invited to join an AI-controlled Commonwealth. The temptation of luxuries/MPP might be hard to resist.

Commonwealth Strategies

There are a number of ways to use a Commonwealth. Warmongers would emphasise the combo: Reduced corruption & MPP - they would also be quick to re-conquer booted members. In contrast, Diplomats would emphasise the influence it has on Government-type and trade. Other player-types may try to lure foreign civilisations into their commonwealth or use Military-Alliance to sever ties with a rival commonwealth, and so on.. Quite fun imo!

 

[Zild]

I think that the commonwealth concept is something that has been left out of Civ for too long, and your ideas sound pretty good. But some comments nonetheless...

Commonwealth Wonder: I'm just curious as to where in the timeline this would come? Would it be with a new or existing tech? Part of me feels that a minimum number of cities should be required, but part of me doesn't (I'd just mod it to 1 city for the OCCs I'm so keen on doing)

Commonwealth Improvement (to make cities part of commonwealths): I'm actually wondering if it shold require a building to create a commonwealth member, or if the option should be free - both have benefits. But I also think it should be possible for a city to declare independance, and thus become a member on its own. Whilst most developed empires might be able to take the city back, it could cause some trouble A number of factors could determine when a city becomes a commonwealth member.

I'm not certain about civs becoming members of more than one commonwealth - things could get unnecessarily complicated.

I agree with the idea that resources should be shared amongst each member of the commonwealth (I think the existing resources model needs re-working to account for the number of cities, perhaps even the population, it is shared amongst). But I also think that things like MPPs, ROPs and even goods trades should be more binding - for example, a commonwealth member who withdraws an MPP, ROP or trade of a resource source that they were effectively given when given a city, should be risking war (almost civil war). Other commonwealth members can declare war on that member, with neither side being "blamed" as such.

For culture, I'm wondering if commonwealths might share culture? So the culture of all members is combined into one value. The problem with this, of course, is the effect it could have if a member leaves the commonwealth...

One major concern is what these new AI civs will be like. What tech will they have? What military? What finances? What civ-specific traits?

Although I don't think it's very realistic, I would opt in favour of a system where the new civs gain the traits of the civ that produced them. If, for example, the Bahamas was granted liberty from the English, they should have the Man 'o' War UU, and should have the same traits as the English. This doesn't strike me as very historical, but it would at least be simple! The alternatives seem to be: Have many, many more civs programmed in (not likely). Or, have each newly-formed civ-AI as a basic civ with no UU or special traits (puts them at a bit of a disadvatage, but that's not entirely unreasonable). Or, give them random UUs and traits. Or, finally, a combination of those ideas.

For techs, I think they should have the same basic techs as the civ that created them, or the same techs, minus the three most recently acquired (change number at your will). This way, they cannot trade your latest prized techs. For military, perhaps two of the best defensive units currently available (Regular level) or three or four at conscript level. Perhaps following the existing culture-flip system might work - I can't remember how that works though.

For money, I think they should either cost a set amount to set up - the player pays a set fee, or a fee based on city size, number of cities, whatever... That money is then the money the civ starts with.


One criticism of the idea is that although the commonwealth becomes more productive in terms of shields, this is generally not true in terms of science - whilst it's possible to try to research different things and trade with each other, this cannot exactly be arranged with the AI. I would like to see the option of shared research available between any civs, not just commonwealth members, but with commonwealth members far more likely to undertake it. The basic principle is that all civs sharing research contribute beakers to a central fund, which will provide the tech for them all once completed. There would be a penalty due to lack of co-ordination, for example 50% more beakers required. And interesting things could happen if members pull out of the project part-way through...


But yes, a feature I would very much like to see, and in my opinion handled rather well

 

[stormbind]

I think that the commonwealth concept is something that has been left out of Civ for too long, and your ideas sound pretty good. But some comments nonetheless...

Thankyou, I think we are on the same wavelength

Commonwealth Wonder: I'm just curious as to where in the timeline this would come? Would it be with a new or existing tech?

Would it come with Democracy, Nationalism, or just after Nationalism? The British started theirs in the early 1800s, about the time of the Rifleman, but there may have been earlier examples?

Commonwealth Improvement (to make cities part of commonwealths): I'm actually wondering if it shold require a building to create a commonwealth member, or if the option should be free - both have benefits.

Yes! It is hard to build things in very corrupt cities (even a temple is hard) and those are the cities you most likely want to turn into capitols. Cheap improvement is the only way to go... it's just a case of how cheap is ballanced?

I also think it should be possible for a city to declare independance, and thus become a member on its own. Whilst most developed empires might be able to take the city back, it could cause some trouble

If they declare independence before you have built <%Civ_Name%> Commonwealth (i.e. Philidelphia, 1776) then they are obviously not a member - all the more reason for building it asap!

If they declare independence after you have built <%Civ_Name%> Commonwealth, and if they automatically become a member, you still have the choice of booting them and conquering them a turn later. So, that leaves your options open - which is good for playability.

What would be the effects on attitude if you conquer/oppress a city that wants independence? Would it make every rival civilisation think of you as a warmonger?

I agree with the idea that resources should be shared amongst each member of the commonwealth (I think the existing resources model needs re-working to account for the number of cities, perhaps even the population, it is shared amongst). But I also think that things like MPPs, ROPs and even goods trades should be more binding - for example, a commonwealth member who withdraws an MPP, ROP or trade of a resource source that they were effectively given when given a city, should be risking war (almost civil war). Other commonwealth members can declare war on that member, with neither side being "blamed" as such.

The "Internal Politics" are the most exciting part, imo

One problem is complexity, and I think the rules should work inherently (or, 'out of the box') without new rules for each situation. I was thinking, if civs can trade without losing -1 goods, wouldn't trade be cheap and therefore encouraged; even with AI? It is something to think about..

One major concern is what these new AI civs will be like. What tech will they have? What military? What finances? What civ-specific traits?

Why can't finances come from their low-corruption cities/roads? You could just give them some extra money if you think they need it. Also, you might want to give them some workers too

With Civ3 rules, you cannot give military units, so the new AI would need to build it's own. But maybe that should be changed - at least inside a Commonwealth?

Civ-traits/UU ideas are interesting. In the real-world, members of the same Commonwealth do share some military assets, so sharing UU is not without merit, but they also make their own, so I don't know..

This makes me think: If you conquer a foreign civilisation, and then later make them a new civilisation in your commonwealth... do they have the traits of both capitols, or just the most recent capitol?

Perhaps not the best example: Does modern India have post-British traits, or does it have pre-British traits, or a mixture of both? What about Russian UU in Siberia?

This way, they cannot trade your latest prized techs.

Good point! Humn.. there are so many great things that can come of a Commonwealth, that maybe this should be one of the great risks to ballance it?

One criticism of the idea is that although the commonwealth becomes more productive in terms of shields, this is generally not true in terms of science

The cities you gave to the AI, because of formerly high-corruption, probably don't have many libraries or universities. You would therefore expect the new civilisation to slip behind a little on technology - at least in the short term. Does that sound realistic?

I also like your idea of shared-science spending but it is quite complicated. It exists outside commonwealths, and there are UK-US examples of it, and UK-EU examples aswell.

However, inside the modern Commonwealth of Nations (formerly British Commonwealth), they trade engineers and experts to boost technology in poorer members. Commonwealth of Learning (a subsidiary of the same Commonwealth) is hosted in Canada and I think it increases education in poorer members.

But yes, a feature I would very much like to see, and in my opinion handled rather well

Thank you. I hope the developers are reading

 

[stormbind]

Supplemental: The names of the new civilisations has not been addressed.

It's very complicated, but I have this very simple solution: The player just names the new civilisation when the commonwealth improvement is built. Afterall, what's in a name?

Because of that, any new civ would probably inherit the traits of it's motherland. Otherwise, players would be naming their commonwealth members to inherit traits which has nothing to do with them. For example, I might make a Commonwealth member called Germany just so I have an industrious ally

UU should either be inherited from the motherland, or there should be no UU, because Commonwealths would be a late-game feature (emphasis).

Motherlands with a late-game UU (i.e. Germany or America) would have an unfair advantage. What is the point is inheriting Impii UU in the 19th Century?

On the other hand, it might offset any percieved advantage of having an early UU... this would need testing. Imo, to be ballanced, it has to be one of these solutions.

 

[Zild]

Indeed - I meant to make that very same point about names!

I just hope somebody besides us takes an interest!

 

[Xanthippus]

I'm very interested, it's an excellent idea. I would kill to see it implemented!

I am really adverse to the idea of belonging to multiple commonwealths, however.

Firstly, I strongly disagree that any historical examples exist of such cases. Imagine that the Spanish happened to have their own Commonwealth, do you think the British would lay back and give their blessings to, say, India joining it? I think not; they would fight over the rights for it. I think that if a member of the Commonwealth should accept an offer to another one, they should be booted from the first and the owner of the original Commonwealth should have the oppurtunity to declare war without any adverse affects to reputation (and there should be a high chance that the AI will take advantage of that option, depending on personality of course). If and when reinstated in the Commonwealth, the country should be sour about it, but that's got to be expected. Also, the other Commonwealth that gave it the offer should have the option to defend it, but if it chooses that option it should take a big hit to reputation, because really they are "stealing" another nation's country.

Also, the restrictions for creating a Commonwealth should be far, far more stringent. Having the only requisite as a city another continent will mean there will be 31 Commonwealths in every game (if you play with 31 AIs), because the AI always sends a settler off to some remote location on another continent. I think, for starters, you should have to have 20 or more cities, at least 5 of those should have to be on one continent other than your starting one, and another 5 on a different continent other than your starting one. That way it makes it more difficult, and you won't get Commonwealths popping up everywhere.

I don't like the idea of having to build something to set a country free, either. I think it's a great notion, but realistically, unless it only cost 10 shields or something ludicrously low, it will take half the game just to build it and then it won't be worth it at all.

Otherwise, excellent layout you have here, couldn't have done it better myself.

 

[Zild]

I'm against you on the number of cities required - in fact, I'm against all current improvements/wonders/concepts that require a minimum number of cities (except perhaps FP). But this is probably due in no small part to my love of OCCs

I would much rather see it related to total population than total number of cities. That said, if the number of cities were used, I'd tie it in to the OCN, since we are essentially talking about a way to combat corruption. That aside, I personally don't think there should be any restriction on where cities exist...

Hell, look at Scotland and Wales - growing independance from England, but right on it's doorstep, on the same landmass...

 

[Xanthippus]

Hell, look at Scotland and Wales - growing independance from England, but right on it's doorstep, on the same landmass...

That's very different. Scotland, Wales and even Ireland aren't English, they were their own seperate countries. However, they were never part of the Commonwealth because they were conquered and, through military might, forced into being a direct part of Great Britain - they ceased being countries and became provinces. A member of a Commonwealth is its own country, with its own provinces, and its own, seperate government. This was not the case for Scotland, Wales or Ireland (Ireland later, but they fought for their independence).

I understand you enjoy OCCs, but like you said before, it's easy to modify it so that you can remove the number of cities required isn't it? I don't mean to estrange you or make it seem like your view isn't valid, but I really don't like the idea of having every nation with its own Commonwealth, it would be a horrible sight to see. No fun at all, in my opinion.

Perhaps it should be a GW. On the other hand, it would also be plausible (and make sense) to tie it to a government, i.e. Commonwealth Monarchy; Commonwealth Democracy etc. and make it a SW under those types. With this system, not every country will make use of it, and you could even use the government to bring in some negatives for having a Commonwealth. As it is, there are too many positives - I don't see any reason not to found a Commonwealth (unless you were using Communism and had the communal corruption trait). With the government, you could add things... like greater war weariness (especially if you're fighting a former Commonwealth member) and other drawbacks to counter balance it.

 

[rhialto]

@zild

Does splitting off one or more cities to make a commonwealth even make sense in the context of a OCC?

 

[stormbind]

As it is, there are too many positives - I don't see any reason not to found a Commonwealth (unless you were using Communism and had the communal corruption trait).

Downsides to building a Commonwealth:

1. You lose direct control of some military units; AI isn’t very tactical.
2. AI members of your commonwealth may pick a fight with a superpower*...
3. AI members might choose a government type disliked by other members...
4. ... booting a member is “damage control” but conceedes losses.
5. You cannot sell the goods of your commonwealth allies with foreign powers; that’s their choice.
6. Commonwealth allies could sell any technological advantage they inherited.
7. You may need to maintain a global military presence to defend weaker members; be prepared to punch above your weight.
8. Your MPP/ROP is less valuable to foreign rivals.

Although you can try to prevent it, or even boot them, AI members could still drag you into a war you don't want...

Upsides to building a Commonwealth:

1. The same cities can become more productive.
2. AI manages units and cities quicker than a human does.
3. Because they are likely to be Gracious, AI members are more likely to vote for you at the UN.

 

[stormbind]

I am really adverse to the idea of belonging to multiple commonwealths, however.

When I suggested that, I was applying a very loose definition of what a Commonwealth is.

The only thing that is true for all Commonwealths, is that they create a special relationship between it's members - but with different commonwealths, it’s often a completely different type of relationship!!

For example, the UK is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and European Union. Canada is a member of Commonwealth of Nations and Francophone. France is a member of Francophone and European Union. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and has it’s own Australian Commonwealth.

I'm not proposing that Civ4 should mirror them all, or even a specific type of Commonwealth, but ROP/MMP is fun and easy to do (judging from Civ3) and it’s also close in design to the British Commonwealth & Russian Commonwealth - which are the two most historically significant examples.

I don't like the idea of having to build something to set a country free, either. I think it's a great notion, but realistically, unless it only cost 10 shields or something ludicrously low, it will take half the game just to build it and then it won't be worth it at all.

I was actually thinking just that - something ridiculously low. Ofcourse, you could use money to rush it

That's very different. Scotland, Wales and even Ireland aren't English, they were their own seperate countries. However, they were never part of the Commonwealth because they were conquered and, through military might, forced into being a direct part of Great Britain - they ceased being countries and became provinces. A member of a Commonwealth is its own country, with its own provinces, and its own, seperate government. This was not the case for Scotland, Wales or Ireland (Ireland later, but they fought for their independence).

Well... actually, that's not accurate. Part of the confusion comes from the British using the words Country, Nation, and State differently to Americans. Other confusion is caused by Hollywood

The union of England and Scotland was not through conquest. England and Scotland had seperate Parliaments, both under the same Scottish King. His realms were collectively called Great Britain, but that term didn't have a formal meaning.

Then the Scottish Parliament went bankrupt. The English Parliament put together a rescue package in which both English & Scottish Parliaments would be dispanded, and a new Parliament of Great Britain created - a lot like a company merger.

However, both Scotland & England remained seperate countries! They have seperate law courts, seperate police forces, seperate aristocracy, and infact just about everything "domestic" remained seperate of each other.

I'm not saying they didn't fight aswell, but their wars did not result in lasting unification.

Completely unrelated... the British Commonwealth consisted of self-governing nations within the British Empire; Dominion of Canada is the prime example.

I think what Zilch was getting at is... for example, if England were to seperate from the UK, then it would almost certainly become a member in the Commonwealth of Nations... and from that, concludes that geography is not a deciding factor. The null effects of geography are even more clearly demonstrated by the Russian Commonwealth.

However, it would be exceedingly difficult to make an accurate model of any commonwealth in a computer game, which is why I pointed out that the proposal is not a copy of any specific real-world commonwealth, but is instead a rough outline of the general concept.