Fall of an empire

[Princeps]

In civ there's just one way for civ to fall, and thats by it been conquerd by another... So i'd like to here some ideas about other ways to an empire to fall in civilization. Rebelions, diciease epidemic, dynastic wars, lack of loyalty to the governemnt...

 

[Hyronymus]

Rebellions, dynastic wars and lack of loyalty to the government are variations on 1 theme if you ask me. If you guide social unrest into your oppositional channels you'll have a rebellion soon. Depending on who the leader is you might call it a dynastic war. Epidemics are a powerful threat to human scoieties but I wonder if one has ever eradicated a total nation. Natural disasters are accounted for that. They think a massive earthquake made the mighty civilization on the Mediterranean isle Crete too weak to hold up its own pants. Pompeii was a great disaster too and if you imagine Pompeii as a city state you might easily see that it would've been reduced to rumble by Mother Nature (if it were a city state). But I don't think it's safe to say natural disasters are strong enough. Perhaps somebody with vast knowlegde on disappearing civilizations can add something interesting to this topic.

 

[Princeps]

Well, epidemics have hastent meny falls, enculding romes...

 

[Dida]

Fall of empire is interesting, however it is not interesting if it is your empire that is falling apart.

 

[Commander Bello]

IIRC, one of the mezoamerican nations did disappear because they had water pipes made from lead and so they slowly slipped away from decontamination.
But currently I cannot recall their name. Mezoamerican history is not my strongest subject.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm very sympathetic to Dida. Not to mention the fact that a lot of empires get taken down by dumb luck. Nobody wants this for the game.

Still, empires should be able to fall. But any way they fall should STILL be something that they can predict, prevent, and provoke.

The problem with disasters is they're not predictable (how do you predict a tsunami?), preventable (how do you prevent a tsunami?), nor provokable (how do you START a tsunami that hits your enemy?)

Civil war / rebellion / independence is actually the best thing to fit this bill. You can usually see it coming, which also means that there are ways to prevent it (at least we'll be optimists for the sake of the game). And most importantly, you can screw with other players in this way, by provoking divisions within their empire.

Sure it sucks if your empire is the one falling apart. But if you pull off a slick move of propaganda where you make your neighbor's empire fall apart, then you start to see the value of it.

 

[crimson238]

I agree with the aforementioned that nothing unpredictable should allow your empire to crumble (save for global warming.. which can be quantified, and is slow progressing.) I'd also say that rebellions/civil unrest are the best route for the fragmentation of an empire

 

[Naokaukodem]

I say that fall of empires would be interesting if it bring new ways to play. For example, you would have to maintain several things in order to your civilization to work correctly. Not necessarily micromanagement or boring stuff, but additionnal gameplay, like the citizen mood management. There you could need some studies of the criminality like in Sim City to know where to implant a courthouse to fight corruption for example. But at the scale of a geographic and systemic civilization, not a geographical city.

 

[crimson238]

@Naokaukodem

That might add a bit of MM to the game, and can be abstracted in the forms of corruption/unhappiness as it is now. I dont think we need a new system of management for the status of our cities, just a new outcome if we let things slide too far (aside fomr the citizens of washiongton revolt and burn down the temple...)

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

IIRC, one of the mezoamerican nations did disappear because they had water pipes made from lead and so they slowly slipped away from decontamination.
But currently I cannot recall their name. Mezoamerican history is not my strongest subject.

That's got to suck.

 

[crimson238]

You know, I have this theory that the lead pipes of rome explain Calligula (spelling?)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Look, personally I think the Roman Empire example is a good one from a gameplay perspective. Historically, the depopulation of whole cities-as a result of malarial outbreaks from North Africa-did help to hasten the decline of the Roman Empire. Note though that it HASTENED IT, not caused it. The decline had already set in as a result of the Empire being overstretched, hamstrung by greed and corruption at the highest levels, inability to cope with the new 'religious crisis', external pressure from 'Minor Civs' being pushed to within Romes boundries by Near and Far Eastern Nomadic Tribes-and so on. The Malaria was kind of 'the straw that broke the camels back', and could be well represented in a game like civ. i.e. Bad things happen, but one bad thing should not spell doom for your empire. Multiple bad things, though, could represent overall poor management, which should be paid for with possible failure!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

If a disaster is going to set in, I think that should happen when you surrender.

E.g.: "Forget it, things have taken a bad turn, I quit."

"Sire, we have just received word that dh_epic's empire has fallen victim to widespread malaria. Sages believe this is the straw that broke the camel's back."

And my empire becomes a bunch of minor civs.

 

[Helmling]

What I'd most like to see is a RISE and FALL, and back again.

The problem with Civ is that, with few exceptions, when a Civ is out, they're out. I'd like to see Civ's reemerge after being conquered long ago. I'd like to see Civ's beaten into obscurity rise again to prominance.

It would make things much more interesting. I used to love in Civ2 taking a big empire's capital and watching it split down the middle. (Of course, we wouldn't want anything that simplistic in Civ4, but you know what I mean.)

 

[Dida]

Yes, civs can definitely come back after being completely conquered. Especially so if they have strong culture and a huge population. China would be a perfect example.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

All you would need is sufficient cities where their people still identify themselves as members of the former nation, and sufficient reason for them to break away from whatever nation they were conquered by and-WHOLAH-you have that nation back again (albiet small and weak at first, possibly).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rysingsun]

one good "idea" of civ III that was not really well implemented was propaganda. i remember the old days of the cold war when russia used to give aid to the communist parties of the west and the third world in an attempt to spread sympathy for their causes to cause unrest to encourage pacifism and so on. it certainly was a clever alternative to tanks and artillery. but what if something like it were added to civ? for gameplay's sake we would not make it something so simplistic as overthrowing a city. instead a player could make a policy of spending much money on this technique for dozens of turns or even more. it would have the same effect on the population as what you would get if their cities were infiltrated with many citizens of your nationality. what you are trying to encourage of course is culture flips. if the home nation forcibly takes back the flipped cities then they need to be penalized with LASTING war weariness among the remaining foreigners of their empire. the point being it needs to be an effective enough strategy that some players would actually choose this as THE means they intend to try to win the game without being so overpowering as to be the only way. it must be carefully playtested and balanced.

 

[Princeps]

Look, personally I think the Roman Empire example is a good one from a gameplay perspective. Historically, the depopulation of whole cities-as a result of malarial outbreaks from North Africa-did help to hasten the decline of the Roman Empire. Note though that it HASTENED IT, not caused it. The decline had already set in as a result of the Empire being overstretched, hamstrung by greed and corruption at the highest levels, inability to cope with the new 'religious crisis', external pressure from 'Minor Civs' being pushed to within Romes boundries by Near and Far Eastern Nomadic Tribes-and so on. The Malaria was kind of 'the straw that broke the camels back', and could be well represented in a game like civ. i.e. Bad things happen, but one bad thing should not spell doom for your empire. Multiple bad things, though, could represent overall poor management, which should be paid for with possible failure!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Thats exatly what i'd like to see in civ