Game Breaks

[Leodavinci]

When entering new era there should be small percentage of game break event to happen.
EXAMPLE:
You are Alexander of Greeks, You have conquested Persia (Cyrus) and Egypt (Hatty). New era comes and "my oh my", governor of conquered Persia (Pericles or Darius) appears and declares independence. Which means every city which have kept Persian ethnicity now is Persian Empire in Independence War with you.
EXAMPLE II:
You are Montesuma of Aztecs, You have conquered 3 out of 7 Incan cities. Game break comes and governor of those 3 cities (any unused leader/civ most likely close to Aztecs or Incans) declares independence.
EXAMPLE III:
You are Bismarck of Germany, you have close borders with Romans. 3 of your cities have significant Roman ethnicity and 2 of Roman cities have German. Game break comes and those cities realize that they have their own culture that is neither German or Roman (more of Suiss kind ) and new civ appears in Independence War with both Romans and Germans.
INDEPENDENCE WAR:
unlike any other wars can be stopped immideately by former master
does not have negative diplo from newly created Civ side.

percentage of this happening should vary from high to low, such events would definitely make Conquest victory near to impossible (which is true in real world anyway) and Domination would be hard to achieve as well. So this should be optional.

 

[gps]

When entering new era there should be small percentage of game break event to happen.

Sorry, but I don't see any improvemt or advantage here. What good is it to ruin somebody's game, who has not done anything wrong. The only thing you're achieving ist to annoy the player. Player should be punished for stupid strategies or decisions but not at random.

 

[GuitarHero]

It seems somewhat solid. But, it would be better if said cities went into complete Anarchy until you added a unit to each city garrison.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Sorry, but I don't see any improvemt or advantage here. What good is it to ruin somebody's game, who has not done anything wrong. The only thing you're achieving ist to annoy the player. Player should be punished for stupid strategies or decisions but not at random.

I agree. Like alot of suggestions I read here, it seems as though some people want to include a multitude of unnecessary trivia and complexities that do not add anything to the gameplay rather than coming up with fresh ideas that enhance or improve the actual game mechanics.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

This is also why Civilization: Call to Power was such a disappointment. There was a whole heap of really unnecessary crap and not alot of solid gameplay. All well and good to be able to build domed cities and underwater civilizations but what is the point when the gameplay itself focuses more on trivial rubbish rather than deep, addictive and fun strategy.
If Firaxis had the rights to the game of chess and they took seriously the suggestions that some people make on this forum the rooks would have flamethrowers, the queen would double as a shop where bishops could buy powerups using gold that is mined by pawns.