Mod for 'Cede to independency' - Settle new cities and make them new civilizations Hello everyone!

[Gussrrosa]

Hello
(i'm not a native speaker of english, so 'forgive me' for any grammar mistakes i may commit)

I was wondering if some skillful modder could enjoy the following idea (for civ6):
How about creating the ability to settle new cities and cede them to a new civilization?

Basically this is making the player able to create new civilizations during ongoing games.
For example, a player settle a new city, and then one button may appear to choose 'cede to independency'. If a player clicks on it, one must choose the name of a new civilization, the name of its leader and colour. The leader-screen can just be a blackscreen showing the new names (doesn't need to be too much elaborated).
The newly created civilization must emerge with the current technological progress from its founder civilization. I'm aware that a lot of parameters should be considered such as civ agendas, which can be nullified for the new civs, they can behave just based on victory conditions and difficulty. Also there must be a source list for city names as the new civs will settle new cities, or they can borrow city names from other in-game civs just like Attila in Civ5.

Imagine if your game has become too easy or you just regreted that you didn't chose more civs to compete in your current game. This idea could be very interesting.

 

[RFormica]

I had an idea somewhat similar to this:
IMPROVED REVOLUTION
The first few times a city has too little amenities, barbarian units will spawn. However, the fourth or fifth time, a new civilization will be created! They will be at war with you, and if you make peace with them, they will remain independent. If you crush the rebellion, then there will be some kind of bonus. There could be a name of ~50 civs (Confederate States of America, Crimea, any post-colonial country, etc.).

However, that is a good idea! (And, to make it more irritating, maybe the AI could denounce you every turn for being "imperialist" if you do not cede any cities. Fun!)

 

[679x]

This is a really interesting idea, but I feel that there should be some sort of incentive to do this in all your games. Instead of it only being a good idea if you think the game is too easy, perhaps you could do something to make it a viable strategic move.

Maybe it could work like this: when you cede a city to a new civilization, you gain a portion of its science, gold, culture, and faith outputs, since it used to be part of your empire, but when the new civilization settles a city of its own, you do not get the yield outputs from their new city. You can also get unique bonuses from interacting with the new civilization (trading with it, giving it gifts, etc) kind of like if it were a city-state, except the new civilization can expand and work toward a victory.

The idea behind this is that you can cede a city if it's low on amenities or is inefficient, and you can still gain benefits, maybe even unique ones. Otherwise there's no good reason to cede a city IMO, since it's basically sacrificing your own city to add a new enemy to the game that you have to worry about.

I don't want to twist your idea too much but this is a really cool idea, and I want to think of what it could be like. So imagine this: I settled a city but an enemy of mine is constantly attacking it and the city is suffering. I can then cede the city and allow it to fend for itself without me having to be at war with the enemy anymore. If my enemy goes to attack me again later, I can make a deal with the ceded city so that it will help me in the war. For being allies with this ceded city, the city gives me unique bonuses (like being suzerain of a city state). As the ceded nation grows, I continue to gain benefits for interacting with it, but it can still fight me and potentially become stronger than my own empire, so there are many pros and cons of ceding a city.

Either way, though, this is a great idea and I can see that it would be fun, adding new dynamics to the game.

 

[Scrum Lord]

I really like these ideas, but I think it would make more sense if your ceded city became a random city state instead of a civ, because the new civ would be at a severe disadvantage victory-wise for starting later in the game at a spot chosen by an opponent. A new CS, on the other hand, doesn't care about winning the game, and instead has potential value to all civs in the game for quests, influence, trade routes, etc.

If you purposely found the new CS, then perhaps you get a diplomatic bonus similar to the first civ to discover a CS. And if you found a city using a captured settler, then maybe the settler's original civ gets the bonus instead. This would allow you to weigh the pros/cons of membership with your empire over autonomy and reduced overhead.

If, however, a city cedes out of protest / amenity shortage, then maybe the CS declares war with you, or maybe the other civs become less happy with you or even assist the city states. So there could be diplomatic and/or military consequences for cities rebelling. This could make a large, overextended empire think twice about warmongering to avoid civil war.

Speaking of civil war, if a rebellion occurs, then I could imagine rebel cities forming a united "city state" that actually consists of multiple cities going to war with your empire. I still think it makes more sense for a multi-city rebellion to be a CS instead of a civ, only because a rebel civ would probably never win the game.

One more idea along these lines: if you capture a civ's capitol, then you could have a game option of "Divide civ after losing capitol": a civ is completely destroyed after losing its capitol, and the remaining cities (and units too?) split into two or three "faction" city state groups. The remaining civs could then compete for influence/control over the remaining factions. As I recall, Civ II had something like this.

 

[Zobtzler]

I've though about this as well and tried to come up with a good way to do it.

There would need to be multiple ways of adding new city state to the game you are playing.

War

Imagine going to war against an enemy civ, you decide to try to take over their cities.
When you successfully take a city, and the "keep city" option comes up, there will be a new option where you can create a new city state.
The options that currently exist are keep and raze (and return to original owner if it has been conquered before, the create city state option should not show up if it was a city state to begin with).
The newly created city state will give you automatic suzerain, and your warmongering penalty would be lower than keeping a city, but higher than liberating a city.
The city state will have the tech and civic tree of it's previous owner.

Pros:

• Your enemy has one less city.
• You get a new city state to receive bonuses from.
• Your warmongering penalty is lower than keeping the city.
• If the enemy had climbed higher in the tech tree, any military units that are created in the city may be levied by you, thus giving you more powerful units to fight with.

Cons:

• You don't get to keep the city.
• Enemies may receive suzerain status if you are not careful.

Independence

When a city is running low on amenities, and the requirements of a revolution is met, the player will be asked to give the city independence. If the player grants the city independence, the player will receive 6 free envoys to the new city state.
The city state will have the same tech and civic tree as you did.

Pros:

• You get a new city state to receive full bonuses from.

Cons:

• You loose a city.
• Enemies may receive suzerain status if you are not careful.

Revolution

When a city is running low on amenities, and a revolution is started (i.e. a player does not grant independence), barbarians will try to attack your cities. If they succeed to take a city, that city becomes a city state, and all barbarians within it's territory plus 2 tiles away from it's territory becomes the city state's new units.
You will not receive any free envoys in this city state.
The city state will have the same tech and civic tree as you did.

Pros:

• None.

Cons:

• You loose a city
• You don't receive any free envoys in the city state.

Example of what this could look like:

Before


After

 

[Knasp]

How about creating the ability to settle new cities and cede them to a new civilization?

I think it would make more sense if your ceded city became a random city state instead of a civ

I actually had a similar idea today, and my suggestion would go even further than any of yours. It would essentially bring back one-city challenges, but with settling:

Every City that you settle, after your initial one (the Capital), will become a City-State that you are suzerain of (3 envoys), with your religion/ethnicity.

Conquering a city belonging to a CS would convert that City into a "friendly"/suzerain CS. Conquering a capital belonging to an enemy Civ would either convert it into a friendly CS, or remain your personal City (for Domination victory).

Prerequisites:

• No CS (settlers) would spawn when the game starts (they would be reserved for settling).
• A script for converting new cities into CS
• New victory conditions? Domination can include CS control of enemy capitals? Maybe a "Control 66% of all land area, with suzerain CS"? Religious victory could be modified to also include a majority of cities world-wide (not just Civs).
• Probably have to change/modify the effects of many policies, relgious belliefs etc, to balance the lack of cities?
• Maybe reduce the cost of Settlers?
• (Optional) New options for influencing CS to do what you want (Diplomacy) or other ways to boost your Capital through CS trade etc
• (Optional) New/modified CS bonuses, so that the CS provides the bonuses that you would otherwise get from more cities
• (Optional) Reduce cost of levying CS armies, for TOTAL WAR...

Pros:

• One-city challenge!
• Increases the importance of CS
• CS armies could be a cornerstone of war (like for most historical empires)
• Ability for player to influence the number of CS in the game
• Players/civs could sabotage eachothers domain and control of resources by sending envoys or conquering enemy CS

Cons:

• Less cities to control could mean less choices to make and strategies, and therefore a less interesting experience?
• Could easily turn into a stalemate?
• Too dependent on CS management?
• Would probably require a lot of balancing of policies/beliefs etc.
• Not sure if the AI could handle it

If you think the One-city suggestion above sounds a bit extreme, then I have 2 alternative ideas:

• Set a max cap of player/Civ controlled cities, maybe 3. Every addtional city settled would become a CS.

Or:

• A settled city becomes a CS only if it is too far away from your current cities. Meaning that distant colonies would become semi-autonomous. But that you could expand and conquer them if you wanted to.

Does anyone else think these ideas sound interesting?

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

A mod like this already exists for Civ IV. Cities would become unhappy, then revolt and spawn new civs. I'm not sure if this is possible with Civ 6 but modders always seem to surprise me.

 

[Gedemon]

I had no time yet to really try it, but for what I've gathered when converting the Historical Spawn Date mod from civ5 to civ6, it should already be possible for full civs (forcing the max number on setup screen, "killing" some immediately at start, then spawning them again when required for a revolution). Not sure about CS, I had issues to make them (re)spawn after the initial turn IIRC.

 

[Zobtzler]

I guess now that Rise & Fall is coming out, most of these wishes will come true.
Now if a free city could become a city state would be cool

 

[Zeronix]

Yup, this definitely seems within the realm of possibility with the new expansion.