1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Independence Movements

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Rhye's and Fall of Civilization' started by LBaeldeth, Oct 7, 2006.

  1. LBaeldeth

    LBaeldeth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    (Edited to add new suggestions)

    We've all seen it happen - "The cities of <long-ago destroyed civilization> are declaring their independence from <massive empire>!" I'll wager many, if not most or all, have had it happen to them personally.

    I like this feature. It adds an element of unpredictability into the gameplay and throws an obstacle in the face of world-spanning empires. But I do have a problem with it.

    The problem lies in re-taking the revolting cities. In and of itself, that's easy - the garrisons they get upon revolting aren't exactly awe-inspiring, and if you've troops in place there's no problem reasserting control before they start manufacturing more soldiers. No, what I've got a beef with is how re-taking the cities destroys the buildings within.

    I realize that this is a function of Civ and not Rhye's excellent mod. However, Rhye's mod brings it to new heights of annoyance because there is nothing to be done to prevent this. In a war with another civ? Garrison your border cities well to prevent their capture and the necessity of taking them back. A chunk of your 'heartland' suddenly waxes nostalgic for their old flag? Well tough cookies, those cities are going to be set back several centuries when you re-take them after they automatically flip wholesale.

    Now, all I've heard said about revolutions is that they have a chance of happening after researching X technology (Nationalism was one of them, and I think one or more others). Are there no other modifiers? If so, I would like to propose some.

    1. Cities within the "historical" bounds of the nation have an independent chance of revolt. The entire nation going up at once is both (a) aggravating, and (b) not quite realistic. Instead, I propose ...

    2. If a nearby city has rebelled, surrounding cities have an increased chance to do so as well. This is typically how revolution spread (especially before the advent of mass communication); one community at a time rose up as word reached them. This modifier could be cumulative, producing a dominoe effect that the player scrambles to counter.

    3. Culture output of the city in question. The higher the Culture/turn, the lower the chance of the city joining the rebellion, as they identify with the empire more than their old nation.

    4. Military presence in the city. The larger the garrison, the easier it is to put down dissenters. This could also be measured in terms of military units vs. city population as opposed to a flat scale; the larger the city, the more soldiers needed to maintain the same level of control. However, the bonus from military units decreases as civics representing more free-thinking or "liberal" policies are adopted.

    5. Happy/Unhappy and Healthy/Sick modifiers. An unhappy, disease-ridden populace is more likely to turn to a radical movement such as revolution than one kept giddy and healthy by their overseers.

    6. War-Weariness modifiers (separate from Happy/Unhappy). Why should they fight for the glory of their distant overlords? A high War Weariness increases the chance of a revolt. In the same vein, buildings that reduce War Weariness reduce chance of revolution (a dissenter is a dissenter), even if War Weariness is not present.

    7. How long the city has been a part of the empire at large. If Bordeaux was conquered by Spain in 920AD, by the time 1800AD rolls around it ought to be more or less fully integrated. Efforts at integration could be represented by the city's total culture; each "level" (Poor, Fledging, Developing, Refined, etc.) comes with an increasingly larger anti-revolution bonus.

    8. The "historical" capital of the former nation (i.e., Paris) has a higher chance of revolt than other cities. It is more steeped in the trappings of its old culture.

    9. No city may revolt for X amount of turns after the destruction of their parent civilization. The citizenry are still reeling from the blow of their conquest and cannot mount an organized resistance.

    In fact, revolutions could be made independent of technology with a selection of modifiers like the above.

    Now, before anyone asks, "Do you have any idea how much work that would be?!" the answer is, "No." I have pretty much zero knowledge of scripting in general and Civ's system in particular, and don't even know if any of the above are possible.

    However, losing dozens, even hundreds of turn's worth of building in four, five, or more cities due to circumstances apparently beyond my control is incredibly aggravating. As such, I have suggested - as above - ways to give control to the player, so that they may minimize the chances of this happening (if they choose to devote the resources to doing so). This is an intriguing feature of the mod, and I'd love to see it further developed.
     
  2. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    some of your proposals shouldn't be too much hard to do. I'll see what I can do.
    (by the way there already is a condition that makes immune cities in we love the king's day.)
     
  3. Tboy

    Tboy Future world ruler

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    At my Computer, somewhere in the UK
    Great ideas LBaeldeth! :goodjob: The only problem I can see with them is, as you said, implementation. But hopefully at least a few of them should get into the mod. After all, those ideas make sense, and a careful player should be able to stop revolts with those factors influencing them, as they are easily within a decent player's control.

    EDIT: Ah, see Rhye posted just before me. Fingers crossed he'll be able to get some of them into the mod.
     
  4. McA123

    McA123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    NS, Canada
    Ahh, well I was thinking of posting something about this, except my suggestion was to integrate a minimod made by... The Lopez I think it was? Anyways, it sets it so that when you retake a city, you regain half + a random number up to 1/4 of your culture back, or something like that. I don't remember the exact details but someone posted something about it in the minimods thread.
     
  5. LBaeldeth

    LBaeldeth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    @Rhye, Tboy: Thanks. The ideas aren't only to alleviate the lack of control over revolutions, but also to hopefully add a new strategic dynamic the player must face.

    Do you capture Paris, with its rich lands and the Wonders within, and risk it becoming the base of a revolution that sweeps across the countryside? Or do you sacrifice the city, its people, and the Wonders in a night of fire, leaving only smoking rubble and no symbol for radicals to rally around?

    Do you put up with the expense of large garrisons to quell dissent and revolutionary rumblings, or save your coin and risk a nationalist movement taking the city from your grasp? Or do you enact a more brutal solution; raze their cities to the last stone and erect your own settlements above the ruins? (Actually, would that work under the current setup?)

    A new level of decision-making, alternately slowing your empire's growth yet keeping it intact, or supporting a swift expansion with a fragile hold over your takings.

    @McA123: My grief with retaking lost cities isn't the culture, but how dozens or hundreds of turns' worth of buildings are destroyed in the process. To suddenly find one's cities set back by centuries, or millennia, because they were snatched away by a game mechanic over which we have no control, is ... well, very, very aggravating. Hence the options to allow players to take steps and minimize the chance of revolution (at the expense of other areas, i.e. production, expansion).
     
  6. TheGreatOne

    TheGreatOne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    cincinnati, OH
    good proposals but:
    The more millitary preasence doesnt really keep the peace. It can make the citizans more angry especially if you have a more free sociaty. This is like the American revolution how when the British send in more troops it actually strengthened the american cause.
    Mayby you could make it so that if there are many troops in an angry settlement it could make some reables appear outisde the city and cause a greater chance if rebellion in other citees nearby. These effects would be greater when moving from more "free" civics to less free civics.
     
  7. LBaeldeth

    LBaeldeth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    Military force alone is not intended to be the wholesale solution to the problem; it's merely one of many factors, one of which is keeping the citizens happy. However, I do see your point. Perhaps military units only give a bonus when using civics that represent less "free" societies; i.e. Hereditary Rule, Despotism. The "Freer" your civic choices, the less bonus military units give, ending up with 0 bonus at the most "liberal" civics, reflecting increasing restraints placed on military privileges as citizen's rights are advanced.

    In fact, there's another factor right there. The more "liberal" civics come with a slightly increased chance of rebellion (the chance being larger the more "liberal" the civic is), representing both the flourishing of alternate opinions in mainstream politics and radical groups that espouse things like, say, violently throwing off the mantle of the Spanish empire and re-taking their Roman heritage.

    The general idea is to make preventing rebellions take more effort than leaving things be. Hence the basis of "more soldiers"; it takes additional time to train them and money to upkeep them, so the player has to choose between that, and risking the city rising up. And there also, the more "profitable" high-end civics come with an increased chance of nationalist fervor; balancing risk of rebellion against greater cash flow, research, what have you. In addition, they decrease the anti-rebellion bonus from using the military to keep citizens forcibly in line.
     
  8. Tboy

    Tboy Future world ruler

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    At my Computer, somewhere in the UK
    I don't think that more liberal civics should encourage rebellion, because freer civics would actually make the people happier with their freedoms. People are much more likely to hate a brutal, despotic dictator than a freely elected leader.
     
  9. captain beaver

    captain beaver Civ 3 addict

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    the great forest
    The middle ground here would be that less liberal civics are better at preventing rebellions, but if a rebellion occur it is X time stronger. More liberal civics would encourage rebellions, but weaker ones. It could represent the fact that as people are allowed to settle freely their differences with communication, they are less likely to take up arms against you but they are a bit more unruly.
     
  10. TheGreatOne

    TheGreatOne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    cincinnati, OH
    The boston massecre started the american revolution and it was caused by the millitary in a free sociaty. The people didnt like the millitary enfrocing unjust laws so they protested.
    I think that also changing from free to less free civics should also cause rebellion.
     
  11. McA123

    McA123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    NS, Canada
    My biggest issue with the rebellion system is when you take back your cities and their totally useless, devoid of buildings and culture and overwhelmed by foreign culture. This is even worse when they're some of your best cities.

    To be honest, the only thing the revolution feature has ever done is discourage me from invading, or when I do invade, to just raze everything.
     
  12. Phallus

    Phallus Freudian Slip

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    605
    Location:
    The magical realm of Essex
    More likely it was 'caused' by ordinary members of the public throwing things at the soldiers who overreacted, and it was hardly a massacre.

    Just my pedants of eight.
     
  13. NitroJay

    NitroJay Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Tecumseh, MI
    I totally disagree. If the rebellions get linked in with the civics, it should make more sense than this...

    Here's the deal: If a liberal civ with Free Religion, Free Speach, etc. has a HUGE military pressence in the cities, this should trigger a rebellion, no free society wants "the man" stepping down on them... And vice versa, a civ with the more oppressive civics should experience rebellions if the military pressence in the cities is TOO LOW... That's how it works in the real world...

    I'm ALL FOR having the rebellion system modified, but I don't think a player should be punished with rebellions, even weak ones, if they have a free society... And if the player wants to rule with the iron fist civics, they should keep plenty of military units in the cities to keep the populous from starting a civil war...
     
  14. NitroJay

    NitroJay Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Tecumseh, MI
    I didn't see this post when I wrote the last one... I totally agree with this concept. I also think the length of anarchy should be extended when changing civics to a more opressive regime.
     
  15. TheGreatOne

    TheGreatOne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    cincinnati, OH
    I know that but because of the free sociaty it allowed the press to make it seem wore than it actually was. The people who wrote about it made it seem like a massecre and blamed it on the British. that is what made the colonists angy. When there is free speach sometimes events are blown out of propotion and used by peopel to acheive their own goals.

    The boston massecre is also very similar to the kent state massecre. Very few people died but because of what people said about it it got to be a very large event.
     
  16. LBaeldeth

    LBaeldeth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    That sounds about right. As you implement more "liberal" civics, you no longer need to enforce your rule with an iron fist - in fact, will get some backlash if you do - but lord help you if someone declares war on your ungarrisoned cities!

    @McA123: That is exactly what's driving me up the wall, and what motivated me to suggest the changes to the rebellion system.
     
  17. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,691
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    These are very good ideas! ;)
     
  18. Vishaing

    Vishaing The Son

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    347
    On the subject of millitary occupation, I have this to suggest;

    While increasing the number of troops makes people unhappy sometimes, it shouldn't make them unhappy all the times, becasue sometimes you station a massive army in a city simply for defense.

    This is one of the largest differences between cIV and real life, because in Real Life most of the millitary isn't stationed in cities but on millitary bases spread around the country.

    As such, i think if a city is thinking of rebelling, then millitary presence should increase the chance of rebellion if the civics are 'liberal' but otherwise it shouldn't. Otherwise it would be impossible for a civ to defend itself in the late game, and also the AI wouldn't be able to understand the system like a human, and would keep all of their units in cities, and crumble, whereas a clever human would just keep his units outside of hte city in a big circle in the 8-plot square.
     
  19. Tom Veil

    Tom Veil Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    169
    I just played a game where the Persians have revolted and re-formed their own civ THREE times -- and there's still 50 turns left. Quite impressive for a civ that collapsed in 700 AD with only 3 cities! Also quite annoying, might I add, since I had invested tons and tons of culture in the 2 cities that I controlled, such that they were 99% Indian when they first revolted, and 95% the second time. I ended up burning Parsae to the ground and founding a city adjacent to it. C'est la vie.
     
  20. LBaeldeth

    LBaeldeth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    @Vishaing: That's true, the AI wouldn't know how to grasp the concept. Let's shift it back to: Anti-rebellion bonus for large garrisons under "despotic" civics, that gradually decreases to zero with progressively more "liberal" civics; at no point do garrisons ever encourage rebellion, lest the AI constantly destroy itself.
     

Share This Page