Dynamic Civs (The thread before the poll)

[Dell19]

Since its leading the other poll with the most votes I feel that its time to start a new thread where people post their different views on how dynamic civs would be implemented. I'll try to use the second post for a list of different ideas and then will try and group them together into different categories so that eventually a poll can be created that will probably end up being multiple choice so that people can combine several dynamic civ mechanisms together that make up their view.

Heres dh_epic's post from the other thread to begin with:

I think before there can be a poll there needs to be a roadmap of many of the suggestions. Most are compatible, some are not.

I've heard nation splitting used in the same discussions as:

- dark ages (the value of which is both supported and questioned, but intimately tied to the idea of an empire split / civil war)

- culture (people are enslaved or assimilated, but then emerge later as a nation once again, in another age ... depends on how culture might be calculated differently)

- trade (as it ties to culture, in particular what happens when an empire starts importing all kinds of outside influences, and its culture begins to become more scattered)

- domestic economics (as it ties to how you treat certain ethnic or worker groups. e.g.: all greeks under romans rebel, all farmers and workers under russia rebel)

- government (likelihood of big changes durring anarchy and government change)

- imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, commonwealths (rather than fighting a war through every one of a nation's cities, you basically make a deal with a civ-leader to "surrender" and you get some or all control over his wealth and resources... and colonies will not remain passive forever, they will eventually fight for independance. this encompasses combining as well as splitting)

- ages (you have to meet certain requirements to make it to the next age, e.g.: buildings. if those buildings are lost, then you might end up in a dark age ... and potentially a civil war / empire split, a la ancient rome)

- great leaders (stimulating a civil war in a rival nation, or to a colonial ruler if your nation has turned into a colony)

- domination victory (how do you dominate if civil war is a probable effect of trying to control too many geographic regions?)

You can see how everything's very interconnected... and I don't think I addressed all of the basic ideas / tie-ins. I'm not sure a poll is practical at this point.

 

[Dell19]

..................List to start here...............

(Just some thoughts to start off with)

• Civil war - A return to Civ2's version of a large empire splitting in two if the capital is taken.
• Civil war - Loss of capital leads to anarchy and possibly to a split
• Civil war - More potential triggers (eg war weariness)
• Dark Age - Reduction in tech level?
• Plague - Reduction in population?
• Barbarian civs - eg the Mongol civ may appear with a large stack of current units and techs and be able to carve out an empire.
• Barbarian civs - Huts could turn into a group of cities so the barbarians start with some cities to begin with
• Vassalisation - The ability to diplomatically invite another nation with great relations to become under the protection of another nation whilst providing a percentage of their income.
• Force Vassalisation - If a civ is nearly destroyed then a peace option would be to force the remaining cities to agree to become a vassal (Relations would still be poor)
• Vassals split if treated poorly
• Surrendering - If war weariness is too high and/or too many cities lost then a civ may surrender and give up it's cities
• Annexing - The ability to annex vassals so that they merge with the main nation (Peaceful version of conquest)
• Vassalisation and Annexation easier for civs in the same cultural group
• The ability to use an annexed civ's UU in their former cities
• Rebellions - A group of cities in a distinct area may rebel causing civil disorder which may lead to further consequences if the causes are not removed
• Gaining independence - New civs can break away from the home civ if they have been rebellious for long enough
• Cultural points used to decide how long a civ's population remains in existance after all their cities have been captured.
• Colonisation of new lands in later periods more likely to lead to an eventual rebellion especially if it is overseas.
• The ability to allow a colony independence, perhaps by giving it commonwealth status to avoid a revolt
• Commonwealth - the ability to reduce corruption in outlying cities but with reduced control
• More Forbidden Palaces - A corruption wonder can be built to reduce corruption but the likelyhood of a rebellion is increased
• faster and easier domination, permitting victory through annexing, puppets, colonialism
• more difficult domination game, with corruption growing in large empires, with more empire splitting
• Have any of these ideas be optional
• Dislike all the above options
• Like the idea of dynamic civs but not really sure which options I would prefer

The side issue:

• Negative dynamic civilization events should randomly occur and the human player should have very limited control
• Negative dynamic civilization events should randomly occur but the human player has some control over limiting the effects once they occur
• Negative dynamic civilization events should be largely preventable by the human player
• Negative dynamic civilization events should never occur in a well run empire

 

[LLXerxes]

There are countless threads about this.
Like mine.
I'm all for it.

 

[Beloyar]

Wow, Dell19, I can't concentrate on this topic looking at your new avatar

 

[LLXerxes]

Wow, Dell19, I can't concentrate on this topic looking at your new avatar

Veering offf topic
But I think the other was better

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, back on topic ! I pretty much agree with ALL of the ideas that have been put forward by Dell19 at this thread! I've long been a supporter of expanded diplomatic options, in the form of vassalage, annexation and Commonwealth Arrangements. I feel that a commonwealth agreements should be a multilateral pact that gives all civs within it a bonus to existing and future trade and alliance agreements with other members-just as a thought.
I also feel that loss of your capital should not AUTOMATICALLY lead to civil war, but should be one of many potential 'TRIGGER' events-just like Dark Ages. i.e. Certain events will cause the computer to 'check' for the occurance of a 'Civil War', 'Dark Age' or 'Plague' and, if its RNG is equal to or less than the current 'Chance' for the event occuring, then it will occur.
Trigger events might be: losing your capital, war weariness, unhappiness and/or corruption passing a certain threshold, Your culture being behind by a certain ratio etc. In the case of civil war, the computer will check for breakaway on a city-by-city basis-from the farthest flung to the nearest. If a city passes the neccessary 'threshold', then it breaks away. The same would occur for plagues, wheras dark ages would look at a WHOLE CIV level. All of these checks would occur BETWEEN one turn and the next!
Anyway, just some random thoughts !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Beloyar]

Order in the forum!! Order!!!

Veering offf topic
But I think the other was better

What would do?

 

[Beloyar]

I remember I wrote about almost exactly the same commonwealth idea way back before PTW was even announced.

I don't think there should be "chance" events. Things don't happen by accident. Civil war, plague, famine, revolution, and ruin happen for a reason. Either your own inability to rule well, or specific actions against you by other civs.

One Fun Factor for the game would be when my civ splits into factions as a result of revolution or civil war or other events, I would have to make a choice which faction I will rule. One principality as King A, or another republic as Prince B, etc.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I couldn't agree more, Beloyar. I have been a VERY strong advocate of what I call 'SEMI-RANDOM' events. That is to say that-whilst a certain element of randomness will always exist in if, or how often, events occur-the player/AI will be able to take actions which can minimize/maximise the chance of an event occuring.
To take civil wars as a case in point: If one of the 'trigger events' I mentioned occurs, then the computer will look for several 'elements' in each city-such as distance from capital, # of foreign nationals, current culture value, current war weariness/corruption/unhappiness, ongoing rebellion, # of troops stationed in the city and proximity to another 'break-away' city. If the sum of these different factors brings the city over the 'threshold', then that city will break away. All cities which break away in the same turn will belong to the same, new civ-preferably one belonging to the same culture group as the parent civ. The same methodology would also be used in plague and dark ages determination. This creates a neccessary balance between the need for randomness, whilst still leaving enough player control to ensure that such events are not simply UNFAIR!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[polypheus]

In addition to the fine ideas of rebellion (your own people or conquered people) and vassal states idea, I would also like to propose the Barbarian->Civ concept.

In real history, "barbarians" would carve out territory from existing Civ(s) and then would become its own Civ. This happened many times. So I suggest that a couple/few times a game, "barbarian" stacks of death should be created using units of an actual Civ that did not start from 4000BC (Ex Mongol horde would appear although it did not start out in 4000BC)

These "barbarian" conquerors would also need to have or gain contemporary techs so are competitive (can't just have Mongol hordes conquer lands but have 4000BC tech which wasn't the case IRL either).

 

[airrahul]

Beloyar, I think the previous one was better. But that is off topic.

Hmm...dynamic civs. Civil War when the capital is taken sounds good. I'm in agreement with all ideas you posted Dell19, but one question on rebellions. How do we define a "distinct area". Will these definitions randomnly come about? Or perhaps an area of much higher cultural value than those around it sees itself as better than its fellow cities and is more likely to rebel? Perhaps just having regions or areas come about randomnly will be best. For annexation, annexing civs of the same cultural group should be easier (Romans and Greeks, Chinese and Koreans, etc.). Furthermore, you should get to build their UU (but only in that Civ's former cities) after annexing them. However, their rebellion potential will be high but so will their cultural value, making them important but perhaps more susceptible to unhappiness and such than your empire's own originally settled cities.

On gaining independence, rebellious tendencies translating into independence wars sounds good. But what about civs that were conquered? To do this, there should also be a way to model distinct ethnic groups that correspond to Civs, both existant and conquered. These groups should persist through the ages if their Civ was culturally significant or if it had great enough accomplisments. Ethnic groups would give the game a new aspect to consider when conquering areas. "Do I really want to conquer city X with all those luxuries if I have to put up with rebellions and such from a population that is not in the same culture group as me and hates my civ with a passion?" Things like this will come into play (unless of course you are one for razing cities regularly).

Vassalation should have unintended benefits going both ways such as technology transfer also. However, the vassal should find their resources used by their patron often more than they would like. Vassalage would also give a civ an option between the current "make peace on these terms or we destroy your entire Civ and wipe out all trace of its existence". Interesting ideas.

 

[one_man_assault]

How do we define a "distinct area".

an area that may have a diffrent ethnicity or not as developed as the inner empire

 

[airrahul]

Good idea there one_man_assult. But then we have to account for ethnicity and some kind of development index. If you have a set of 5 cities on the edge of hte empire with little or no development that you use for producing workers or wealth or little stuff like that, they may decide to rebel. Similarily, a conquered area with population of different ethnicity may also rebel. Sounds good.

 

[The Yankee]

I think there should be other triggers to a civil war besides the capture of the capital. Besides, no one said the civ had to be divided perfectly in two to have a civil war. Perhaps far-flung, corruption hit areas could revolt. Or if you've been pop-rushing too much, you'll find most of the empire coming for your head.

The other ideas are great. I think we should have the ability to turn them off, however, because I know many players may not feel like playing a game where you have to tread carefully at times. So, put a check box next to them or something.

 

[dh_epic]

I have a vision. I posted it as its own thread, but I hope you guys check it out too. I'm sorry that it's long and dense.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=90610

 

[Dell19]

Added some extra points to the list, not all may be included in a poll...

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

Negative dynamic civilization events should be largely preventable by the human player
Negative dynamic civilization events should never occur in a well run empire

IMHO and IIRC the ability of preventing those events will gradually-if not immediately-reduce their impact to an equivalent of civil disorder.
And we all know how to avoid that.
Events in order to be dynamic, should be unavoidable, or , so hard to prevent, that a preventive strategy would heavily bear on all other aspects of empire-building and/or consolidation....

 

[Dell19]

Added another option to that section to include an option where rebellions may occur but it would be possible for the human player to put down the rebellion if they have the spare units so they have some control rather tahn immediately losing cities for example.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

perfect now...my lecturer in demographics would be proud of you...

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, of course military might could keep a vassal (as they're being called) under the thumb significantly longer.

I think that my rickety bridge is a solid analogy, if you check out my post.

Here are the variables, in my mind:

The larger the empire, the more likely of a split.
Beyond a certain size, (e.g.: multiple continents) a split is inevitable.
The more diverse the empire, the more likely of a split.
Beyond a certain number of vassals (2?), a split is inevitable.
The better a vassal is treated, the longer it will take to split.
The better a vassal is held in check by military, the longer it will take to split.
The more culture a vassal has, the less likely it will be assimilated, and the more likelihood it will split. (Becomes almost a given once the printing press is invented.) Does not apply if the vassal is your culture (e.g.: you retook them after a civil war)
The more another nation interferes, the more likely a split.

But by getting a few vassals and covering a certain area of the globe, you could win the game right there in 200 AD, or 1700 AD! Even though the split WILL happen. ... you will be remembered as the greatest Empire, no matter what happens from then on.


Oh, and I need help describing neo-colonialism (for lack of a more common word) where you can turn a nation into a puppet without anyone actually knowing (unless they use their intelligence agency). I seriously think that makes the modern game ten times more interesting than it is currently. Imagine a cold war with the US and Russia playing with puppets, and they're even swaying a nation back and forth between empires.

E.g.: secretly sponsoring a military coup: "i trade you 16 marrines and 200 gold for a military coup, and subservience for years to come. ps: don't tell anybody"