Lord Protector

[Kanadees]

One should look at subdividing a country. The Americans have states with Governors or counties with Sheriffs, The English have boroughs with Mayors, the Zulus have kingdoms with chiefs, The French have provinces with Premiers, etc.
There could be a rule that this State, Province, etc. should consist of at least three cities with a combined population of thirty, and not bigger than whatever. Taxes can be levied on this level, certain functions like building railroads, bridges and dams can be this level’s responsibility. Newly conquered or acquired territories are usually poor, keeping their Taxes down this way could be helpful, while taxing the richer states.
Vassal States should also be allowed, they declare themselves subservient to you, perhaps small weak Civs or after being decimated by your troops, or by another stronger enemy. Your country should control some of their aspects as you see fit. They can off-course rebel if you tax them more than help them! Keeping too tight control on them will lead them to declare UDI, allowing them near independence, but being their Lord Protector might just keep them happy enough to remain a vassal state.

Have gun - Will kill

 

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Kanadees
One should look at subdividing a country. The Americans have states with Governors or counties with Sheriffs, The English have boroughs with Mayors, the Zulus have kingdoms with chiefs, The French have provinces with Premiers, etc.
There could be a rule that this State, Province, etc. should consist of at least three cities with a combined population of thirty, and not bigger than whatever. Taxes can be levied on this level, certain functions like building railroads, bridges and dams can be this level’s responsibility. Newly conquered or acquired territories are usually poor, keeping their Taxes down this way could be helpful, while taxing the richer states.
Vassal States should also be allowed, they declare themselves subservient to you, perhaps small weak Civs or after being decimated by your troops, or by another stronger enemy. Your country should control some of their aspects as you see fit. They can off-course rebel if you tax them more than help them! Keeping too tight control on them will lead them to declare UDI, allowing them near independence, but being their Lord Protector might just keep them happy enough to remain a vassal state.

In regards to what? I feel like I've joined in on a conversation. Perhaps an interesting one.

 

[philippe]

nice ideas but i think the makers of civ3 are to lazy to do that....

 

[Chingis Khan]

Cool idea, sounds like an awesome solution to the corruption problem as well as adding a whole new dimension to the game. 2 thumbs up!

 

[Mkulu_Mfundi]

Great Idea - this will make the game more fun as it will not be war war war all the time.

 

[Propaganda]

Oh man, I've been waiting for someone to come out of their shell with these ideas. These are great; I've actually been thinking about this, myself, and I agree. There should be states, and blocs. Blocs act as countries, but are under one big empire, where around 5 cities can make up one bloc. Also, IMO, the Senate needs a return, not just for Democracy, but for all governments, and as a choice. I feel I should be able to edit any government(in mid-game) to what I feel I'd like it to be like. For example, with Communism, if I decide to make more of a social-democracy, I should have a choice in doing so, in mid-game! There should also be a choice where citizens living in cities, states, or blocs are allowed to vote on governors, if they feel the AI governer isn't doing a very good job making them happy or whatever else. It will probably be a hassle to program, and haha, I doubt anyone at Firaxis would actually consider using these ideas, but this is just my two cents, and IMO, it would make the game a lot better.

P.S. Someone sticky this. I love this thread!

 

[dojoboy]

I believe in EUII there are vassal states which would be a cool addition to Civ3. Instead of simply sueing for peace and paying out $ by the AI or human, it would be interesting to have another component to diplomatic status/relationships between civs (e.g. Soviet Bloc nations).

Re: local governments within each civ --- it would add tremendous depth to the game. But, could this be pulled off effectively by software designers?

Personally, I'd like for my civ to be able to hold elections each time I changed governments or say a player has the choice to hold elections once every 20 turns. During times of economic strife or war, your civ might fall into disorder (which does occur) followed by elections where any government form could be selected by the computer based on some preset conditions. The player may have to endure this form of government for, say, 20 turns.

I, too, liked the role of the senate and wish it was still part of Civ3.

 

[zse]

In the future Sid Meier's Civilization® III: Play The World
Firaxis anonced the feature "Hotseat games". IMO it means that you can play 2 or 3 Civ simultaneously at the same game.

 

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by zse
In the future Sid Meier's Civilization® III: Play The World
Firaxis anonced the feature "Hotseat games". IMO it means that you can play 2 or 3 Civ simultaneously at the same game.

You reckon' we'll still have to go through the hassle of typing in a password and watching it load for the next civ? Or, will we simply play the next civ once the last one's turn ends?

 

[zse]

Originally posted by dojoboy


You reckon' we'll still have to go through the hassle of typing in a password and watching it load for the next civ? Or, will we simply play the next civ once the last one's turn ends?

Now there is no information from Firaxis about it but I hope that it will be simply play the next civ once the last one's turn ends (maybe with passwords BUT without reloading).
IMO, the first approach (you pointed it above) is more suitable for E-Mail game, but not for Hotseat.
I think that we must wait additional details from LA E3 (May 22 - 24, 2002).

 

[Mkulu_Mfundi]

Should one not also be able to have a colony, with cities, not just a colony outside a city. like a large chunk of early USA being a colony of Great Britian?

 

[Heffalump]

I like the whole idea of vassal states. It would definitely add another dimension to the game.

A Vassal State recipe:
*you get ROP
*you may claim access to vassal state's resources & luxeries. (Since taking a vassal state's only source of silk would make them unhappy you can also try to win favor and lessen the chance of rebellion by leaving things to them.)
*you get any vassal state's techs
*you may order a vassal state to declare war
*last and least, you get vassal state's vote in any UN election

A vassal state may rebel and attempt to throw off the yoke. It will depend on your relative cultural strength, how many resources and luxeries you plunder, and the size of your occupation force.

 

[Demetrias]

this would be cool i have these huge games where the whole freaken world is my friend and it would be a lot nicer to make them vassales or turning them into nato where they share resources, money, and technology. I mean you worked hard too make them all your allies but you can only inlfuence who they do go to war with not who they don't. Making an in game real version Nato or UN would be cool.

 

[Kanadees]

A weak CIV may also request protection from you - If you are strong enough! Other CIVs better lay off attacking your Vassal Sate or "suffer the consequences".

Your CIV may also offer Vassal State status to a very weak CIV:

1. By offering gold - through in some silk for the ladies, horses for the guys!

2. By intimidation - Let us protect you - OR ELSE!

In the event that you become extremely powerful - All CiVs may request Vassal State Status.

And hey Presto - Another way to wim the game!

:grad:

Have Paratrooper - Will Jump