Effects of citizen nationality

[Louis XXIV]

I had some thoughts about Nationalism and Migration awhile back, but I think I've streamlined it since than. Blackbird's idea about nationalism inspired me to repost it, but I didn't want to go off topic in his thread.

Basically, the premise was this:
Population Growth - In Civ3, any new citizen in your territories are automatically your citizen type. My suggestion would be to make it a reflection of the population in the city. If most of the citizens are Roman (for example), the chances are that a new citizen will be Roman. Your culture can still convert them to your nationality, though.

Migration - Another factor affecting what nationality the new citizen is would be your neighbor's culture. A strong Greek culture would make citizens along border cities likely to be Greek as their culture spreads through the world. This leads to:

More Advanced culture flips - If the city's population becomes mostly Greek, there is a good chance that the city will flip to the Greeks. The biggest difference is you could visibly see the likelyhood of flipping. Of course, your number is balanced out slightly because some migration will cause your nationality to appear in Greek cities.

Nationalism and nation-states - If there is a large group of one culture who is disatisfied with your rule, they might break away and form a nation under their nationality. This doesn't require a civ of that nationality to already be nearby, but the chances aren't as good.

Effects on happiness - We all know about unhappiness for being at war with a civ of the same nationality as some of your population. This would be exactly the same. The only difference is:

Popular Support - Its basically the oposite of unhappiness for warring against a neighbor, this actually encourages you to go to war. If a nearby neighbor has a large population of a certain nationality and they commit acts of cruelty towards these people (probably pop rushing), those of this nationality in your territory would want war to liberate them. They will actually start getting uphappy if you don't declare war. Of course, you have to treat them well also, or else you will have war unhappiness for cruelty to their people.

Effect increase under nationalism - While the effect will always be there, its significance will increase very significantly after the discovery of nationalism. After this point, nationalism should be something on your mind, just like it was on the mind of the Austrian empire when they had to deal with Hungarian and Serbian nationalism.

 

[Danger Bird]

Mostly agree.

Population Growth - ... to make it a reflection of the population in the city.

Yes. Always thought it was strange that, as Rome, a recently-conquered Greek city would start having Roman babies. The only way to quickly nativize a city should be migration. Now, you could argue that the migration is happening but invisible (i.e. because there is a food surplus, Romans are migrating), but you'd still expect the native Greek population to grow as well.

Migration - ... A strong Greek culture would make citizens along border cities likely to be Greek as their culture spreads through the world.

Not sure about this. Currently, Chinese influence in far-east Russia is strong, but the Russians there are not likely to become Chinese. Some other way of spreading culture (besides flipping) would be good though. There is a good suggestion of culture spreading at this thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134

More Advanced culture flips - If the city's population becomes mostly Greek, there is a good chance that the city will flip to the Greeks.

See above.

Nationalism and nation-states - If there is a large group of one culture who is disatisfied with your rule, they might break away and form a nation under their nationality. This doesn't require a civ of that nationality to already be nearby, but the chances aren't as good.

Agree. Even if the civ has been "eliminated" from the game, it should be able to come back, like, say, the modern state of Greece, after being Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

Effects on happiness - ...
Popular Support - ... If a nearby neighbor has a large population of a certain nationality and they commit acts of cruelty towards these people (probably pop rushing), those of this nationality in your territory would want war to liberate them.
Effect increase under nationalism - ...significance will increase very significantly after the discovery of nationalism.

Agree, agree. agree.

 

[dh_epic]

This is a strong idea, and I agree with Danger Bird's additions. And I was just about to add something about culture spreading, but I realize he did that too.

Nationality should spread to other Civs by migration.
And culture should spread to other Civs by communication. (Trade, word of mouth.)

Culture and nationality should both be factors in calculating the overall unity of your empire. If one segment of your population hates you, they might just break away!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I want to see an end to 'culture flips' as they currently stand.
Instead, cities belonging to one civ, but which have a strong cultural identification with another civ will instead try and seccede from the former civ, and then try and seek to join the new civ-as an independant 'nation-state'. What is more likely to happen, though, is that a city will accumulate culture from both civs and, when they reach a certain ratio of each other, there is a chance of a 'culture crunch'. So, a Roman city that has attracted a large quantity of Greek culture has a chance of generating a new 'Greco-Roman' culture.
As for population growth, the chance of a new citizen belonging to one civ or the other should depend on both the current population of each civ, and the ratio of each culture in that city. Migration should depend on the relative strength of the two civs, and the relative happiness levels of the two cities involved.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually I'd unify the nationality of citizens with the culture of the city and make the nationality just an indicator of the culture ratios. How much that people wanted to rebel would depend on how well you treated different cultures (ie Fascism would have more trouble than a Democracy with a city not of their Culture...of course Fascists might "assimilate" the foreign culture faster)

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

This sounds like a fairly good addition to civ 4.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm with Aussie, too. That it shouldn't be single city culture flips so much as growing dissent in regions (provinces?) of your empire. Eventually they seccede if you do nothing to assimilate them or make them happy. And if you want to take them back by force, so be it. But they may very well find protection under another nation's flag, soon after secceding. And they'd be more likely to should you suddenly declare war on them.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Not sure about this. Currently, Chinese influence in far-east Russia is strong, but the Russians there are not likely to become Chinese. Some other way of spreading culture (besides flipping) would be good though. There is a good suggestion of culture spreading at this thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134

Civilization has always been abstract about the citizens. It wouldn't make any sense for citizens to change their nationality from Russian to Chinese, but it also doesn't make any sense for citizens to live hundreds of years. In both cases, it would be handled abstractly, with the addition of migration, real life events would even be reflected. For instance, many Americans immigrated to Texas when it was part of Mexico. Eventually, they wanted to be part of America itself, even though the cities were originally Mexican. It also reflects that cities along a territory do not directly reflect the nationality of those on each side (there's always overlap).

Also, migration involves more just your nation and their nation along a border. Any minorities in your empire that are strong in a certain location can have their citizens appear in a neighboring civ's bordering cities as well.

Agree. Even if the civ has been "eliminated" from the game, it should be able to come back, like, say, the modern state of Greece, after being Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

Exactly. I have too many ideas, that I didn't want to write them all (since I hate adding way too complicated stuff). But this would basically happen if one minority is allowed to dominate an area and the population isn't kept happy.

Personally, I want to see an end to 'culture flips' as they currently stand.
Instead, cities belonging to one civ, but which have a strong cultural identification with another civ will instead try and seccede from the former civ, and then try and seek to join the new civ-as an independant 'nation-state'.

I didn't want to get into my thoughts for rebellion and secession, but I think I might as well. I don't think cities should just "flip" like they do now. I think a city that rebels first must fight. The units in a city just don't disapear, but, when the city is announced as "in rebellion", they start taking damage from the population. After the units in the city are destroyed, rebel defensive units appear in its place.

What happens here depends on the reason for rebellion. If uphappiness is the cause, it will just be an independant nation-state, and will stay until the city is captured (or it will spread to other cities as well).

However, if nationalism is the cause (which is the point of this thread), the city will start as independant, but will offer itself to the culture group it wants to belong to. This civ will have to physically take the city, which could result in war. But this war might be demanded, because of "popular support" from their citizens.

If no civ of this nationality exists anymore, the rebel city will try to reestablish it. For example, if Rome destroys the Greek civilization, all the Greek cities will fall under Roman control. However, the Greek citizens might later revolt against Roman rule and city after city will fall into revolt. Eventually, one city will overthrow Roman rule and become the new Greek capital. The others would soon follow and the Greek civilization would be reborn (or the Romans send troops, recapture the cities, and crush the rebellion, either way).

 

[Chazbagel]

By forcing a neighboring civ forcing a culture to do things... Wouldn't you have to choose the population that you would like to force. Like when the Advisor says "Are you sure, this will cost one citizen" You should be able to pick which citizen, So it doesn't encourage neighboring civs to declare war on you.

And the other thing, If people were migrating to your country.... lets say you are Germany, could you force some of the people to leave, by killing some, (Ex:Jewish people) And then, the people would flee your country, so you could keep all of your cities with your culture.........................................Another thing, once you get to a more advanced age, you should be able to have Immigrants instead of migrants, and you should be able to choose if they are allowed, or not allowed into your country.

Thats just my thoughts. and im not racist that was an example.

 

[mhIdA]

Louis XIV
Population Growth
The new citizens of a multinational city should be given by respective % of nationalities, nationalities of the cities nearby who have the same nationalities of the city in question, the level of free cross the borders.
Popular Support
The popular of a war if rulers of a nearby neighbor commit acts of cruelty to their people.
If rulers are the same nationality as people, this tied to change their type of government, not only by war but by spionage or support any rebelions who appear. This support could be take directtly by government or trought by that national citizens worry about their brothetrs on other side the border, and because this could increase the immigration by refugees.
If rulers aren't of same nationality, the diference is that at same time the support by or not war is to they achieve independence.

It takes more or less turns to foreign nationalities been assimilate, it depends of improvements (libraries), wonders, culture, religion, deportation, repression. So an assimilated policy increse or not this process. To reverse this process it takes several techs not only nationalism, but also printing press, some improvements (universities-education), type of government (democracy).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And the other thing, If people were migrating to your country.... lets say you are Germany, could you force some of the people to leave, by killing some, (Ex:Jewish people) And then, the people would flee your country, so you could keep all of your cities with your culture.........................................Another thing, once you get to a more advanced age, you should be able to have Immigrants instead of migrants, and you should be able to choose if they are allowed, or not allowed into your country.

Thats just my thoughts. and im not racist that was an example.

Well actually I was thinking that one of the things you would have as part of your options or having to do with you government would be 'assimilation' ie you can pump more of your culture into the city and remove foreign culture...of course the faster you do that the more unhappy cities with foreign culure are (because it involves anything from government propoganda to forced eduation (you will learn Swahili) to the thing Fascists are known for) A Democratic government might have a Very Low rate of assimilation... but have almost no unhappiness from foreign culture.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Another intriguing potential for city nationality is the possibility that units built in a city with a VERY STRONG foreign culture, may well be the nationality of the culture to which that city belongs. This could make for potential treachery by said units-especially if forced to fight against the nation they identify with. However, how it would work in the game without making things too difficult is something I haven't thought through yet!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That was something I considered, although not for this purpose. The biggest flaw I found in my idea for nationalism among citizens (which could lead to revolt) was slave workers. If nationality was a problem, a person would just raise and replace every single city they found.

The best way to combat this problem would be to make slave workers have a chance to rebel. It would probably be a small chance, but the chance always would remain that some slave workers might convert themselves into military units that you would have to destroy. This would be a big impact on the game, but it would encourage you to balance the risks of huge amounts of slave workers. Instead of having huge stacks of free slave workers that can replace your entire domestic workforce, you might instead have to place them in your cities.

Nationality of units under your command might work the same way. Maybe not for all units, but at least for conscripted units (Civ3 only allows you to draft units of your nationality, which isn't very realistic).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, you COULD do that, Louis, but it would be considered highly 'immoral', especially in the later ages, and could see you treated as a pariah by the international community. i.e., if you start to 'ethnically cleanse' captured cities, not only will it be economically very costly-until they are repopulated-but it will also cause other nations to give you the cold shoulder-especially if they are from the same culture group as the ethnicity you are cleansing (of course, that also depends on how they get along with that ethnic group). Also, depending on the attitude of your own people towards foreigners, you may be faced with huge internal revolts as well!!!! Like your thoughts on slave revolts too, though !

Yours,

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's why I had popular support. If the Romans started doing bad things to Greek citizens, all the Greek citizens, in Rome will become unhappy. Also, the Greek populations in Egypt and Babylon will demand war against Rome, and will become unhappy if you don't. So the Romans will end up being hurt by doing so, because they will have to fight other nations.

 

[Commander Bello]

That's why I had popular support. If the Romans started doing bad things to Greek citizens, all the Greek citizens, in Rome will become unhappy. Also, the Greek populations in Egypt and Babylon will demand war against Rome, and will become unhappy if you don't. So the Romans will end up being hurt by doing so, because they will have to fight other nations.

In that case I just would make peace with Egypt and Babylon, kill off some of "my" Greeks and see the Egyptian and Babylonian cities fall into disorder, since they cannot declare war without breaking treaties.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And they would NEVER break treaties now would they

Of course, I'd not have you do it Specifically on one Civ but instead on all Civs but your own (that partly prevents the eliminate all dissent one group of dissenters at a time)

I do like the idea of all units having loyalty/nationality.. that's when you know you have to give in to the rebels is when your military begins to revolt.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In that case I just would make peace with Egypt and Babylon, kill off some of "my" Greeks and see the Egyptian and Babylonian cities fall into disorder, since they cannot declare war without breaking treaties.

Don't you get a rep hit also, if the AI breaks a treaty? Or is it only if there's something like gpt deals. BTW, reputation isn't something the AI seems overly concerned about.

Aside from that, I don't want you to get a rep hit for killing your subjects, since a rep hit has to do with trustworthiness. It should be an additude hit, which causing unhappiness in AI cities would be considered. I suppose the effects could be less extreme (instead of unhappiness, it would just be happiness for declaring war).

EDIT: Unless you kill off all your Greeks, the reaction will grow stronger with time. Unhappiness about a governments cruelty to a certain people effects the citizens under the government too, so, unless there is a very strong military to prevent civil unrest, it is likely to create some kind of rebellion.

 

[searcheagle]

I'm with Aussie, too. That it shouldn't be single city culture flips so much as growing dissent in regions (provinces?) of your empire. Eventually they seccede if you do nothing to assimilate them or make them happy. And if you want to take them back by force, so be it. But they may very well find protection under another nation's flag, soon after secceding. And they'd be more likely to should you suddenly declare war on them.

Currently the game makes a distinction between enthicities but none between nationalities. It really irritaties me when I conquered a civ early in the game and at the end, im still being penalized for it have different ethnicity. I think the game should make a distinction between ethnicity (where your grandparents came from) and the nationality you have (the nation you have loyalities too. Ethnicities would be fixed however nationality could vary.

Ethnicity could have a role in internal and external disputes because of disagreement between the groups.

 

[dh_epic]

Nationality and ethnicity are the same thing in Civ. For the sake of the argument here, I use them interchangably.

Right now, I'm actually okay with going for the oversimplified "if your nationality has changed, then your ethnicity has changed". Foreign nationals are the intermediate step before you assimilate them.