Managing civs: Ingame splitting & merging

[BrianB]

I don't know wether it's already suggested, but how about the ability to split and merge nations? It would be difficult to fit in gameplay perhaps, but would add great historical value.. Imagine

Splitting the USA in USA / Confederates during the civil war
Merging the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg after the Waterloo battle

Alright, enough bad examples, I hope you get the point. Perhaps splitting is not as difficult as mergins (creating an new AI vs. sacrifising one > what to do in multiplayer games? Say NL & BE merge would lead to one of them going game over, or both controlling the same civ? any suggestions?)

-----------------------------------------------

Other small suggestion: Era specific Great Leaders (Say, General Ulysses Grant appearing only during the civil war, and Eisenhower in WW II)

Same goes up for Leaders (Leaderhead portrait, name, title etc):
Russia changing leaders from tsar Nicolas II to Comrade Boris Ulianov Lenin during the revolution...

 

[Haradrim]

Yes, a very good idea. I would just love to be able to include in a peace treaty the complete turnover of all Babylonion territory to the Mighty Ottomans. As for splitting, that would also be a very good addition.

I just love the idea of having different leaderheads/names through the ages, maybe having dynasties during Despotism/Monarchy.

 

[BrianB]

Yes I agree about the dynasties.. One fundamental question then:

What should be the trigger for a new leader? The date or a development / age advancement?

 

[sealman]

I merge with other nations via conquest and assimilation. Works fine for me

The splintering of nations has been discussed in many many many many (add a few more manys) threads. Just scroll through the past days' forums and there are some pretty good debates over this topic.

No point, at least in my opinion, of changing leaderheads during the years

 

[Haradrim]

Obviously, whenevery you change governments you would get a new leader. Depending on governments, you would get a new leader periodically, for despotism, maybe once every 50 or 60 years, for monarchy, maybe every 30, for democracy, you would get a new leader every 4 years. Cities under civil disorder may choose to assasinate your current leader. You r leader may die of disease, or be killed in a Regicide game. As for leaderheads, it would take a huge investment of time to make 50 or so different leaderheads for each civ, so maybe make 4 or five leaderheads, and cycle through them each time you get a new leader. Each civ would also have a list of leader names, seperate from great leaders, however for civs such as Carthage, there may not even be enough names we know of to make it realistic, so you should be able to name your leaders if you want. As for dynasties, it could be possible for different dynasties to give minute bonuses, like bumping up shield production of cities below size 3 by one, or reducing corruption by one in each city above size 5. Changing leaders would not affect gameplay very much, but it would make it a bit more realistic.

 

[BrianB]

If you use just a government change as a trigger (which is very obvious of course) you might get some pretty strange results however: Tsarina Catherine organising a revolution against Stalin....

 

[Ant509y]

When it comes to splitting and merging, that is covered in the Again, Provinces thread. It's very good, and the province system not only would allow civil wars, but would almost always make them much better than simply single city rebellions. Whole groups of cities rebelling at once makes for a much better war.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm a big fan of this. People talk a lot more about splitting than merging, but merging can't be forgotten.

I also recommend the provinces thread.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I guess the only way to merge is then to take away the feature that forbids you from trading for or your capital.

 

[dh_epic]

Nah. I mean, nobody's going to voluntarily give up their civilization and give it to someone for "the greater good". That's essentially surrendering.

I'm thinking merges will happen:

- when a surrender is forced (e.g.: take x amount of cities, have x amount of troops more than the enemy)

- with "non-competitive AI civs" (these would be AI civs that would be present for flavor, versus a few other AI civs that would never surrender and be competitive, employing expansionistic strategies as if they were a player)

I'm undecided on when a human player surrenders, since some will surrender just to sway the outcome of the game. If they surrender, they should just be managed by an AI, unless they're the last human opponent, and unless they've met the forced surrender / defeat quota.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I wouldn't be so sure, DH_Epic. First, if you added a 'Protectorate' and/or 'Allied Victory' to civ4, then 'giving up' your nation to someone else won't neccessarily mean losing!
In addition, it might be in your best interest to amalgamate with a much more powerful/friendly neighbour, than to risk being destroyed by your equally more powerful and hated enemy!
Another way to ensure that it works in the game is to allow cities that decide to amalagamte with another civ to retain their culture for much longer than normal, and to allow the player to retain some limited control over his old cities. He can't change governments or engage in diplomacy, however, as that is now the balliwick of his new 'Master'!
In time, if you felt strong enough, you could even try and secede from your new 'superstate'-though that might be seen as treacherous by your 'Master' and be reasonable grounds for WAR!!!
Anyway, just some thoughts!

 

[jst666]

Nah. I mean, nobody's going to voluntarily give up their civilization and give it to someone for "the greater good". That's essentially surrendering.

In merging the two civs could be under one chief-ruler, but the other one could control some cities, and units that come out of those cities. Foreign policy and trade would be controlled by the chief. Would be quite funky to run a civ where eastern parts of territory would be run by AI...

 

[dh_epic]

I stand corrected.

The key, then, would be a difference between annexing, being in a forced alliance, in forced subordination...

and all out surrender.


Being in forced subordination would have to be very rewarding. For example, if Civ 4 had a battle.net, winning under someone else would be worth a lot of points on the ranked ladder.

 

[covenant]

In merging the two civs could be under one chief-ruler, but the other one could control some cities, and units that come out of those cities. Foreign policy and trade would be controlled by the chief. Would be quite funky to run a civ where eastern parts of territory would be run by AI...

I put this in the Again Province thread, your position of power to other civs would force you to need to act in certain ways. I.E. Get permission from your 'portectorate' civ in dealing with another civ, or if you were really weak, you would just have to do as that other civ said. So you would not be under direct control but your position would be subject to influence. Would look maybe like this. Each civ has a score of 0-100. If you mius your score from the other civ, that score determines how each interact. So france has an 88 (very strong) and the Zulu (weak) is 22. The difference is 66. A farily high score so France would be very able in manipulating the Zulu. 0-40 no influnce. 41-65 the weaker civ will work to please the other civ (ie. wants to trade with you, wants to help in military campaings, etc.) 66-80 will do almost anythign to please teh more powerful civ except something counter to long held traditions (ie, ask approval on diplomacy and trade. declare war as requested, etc). Above eighty, slave with little freewill (ie. stronger civ says attack, they attack. Give troops, they give troops, etc.)