On Being a Bad Ruler

[Kael]

Not sure. I think it should be -%50 for # AND Distance. Since "capitals" as such arnt really accurate in a "city state" system. There might be a city that "leads the alliance" Like ancient athens or sparta, but it wasnt a "capital" as we think of them today. Same with the Anceint chinese. If anything, city-states should reduce all maintenance.....but have an increase chance of "Schizm" and civil war, and organizational and millitary cohesiveness difficulties.

In a Fantasy mod, i tend to think of teh "free cities" of westeros. They are incredibly effecient, and economically prosperous. But they squabble amungst themselves all the time. Not "unhappiness" mind you, just power struggles.

-Qes

Yeah, thats my vision too. Im just having a problem translating it into game terms.

 

[QES]

Yeah, thats my vision too. Im just having a problem translating it into game terms.

Without doing some quote "fancy" coding, the only thing i can imagaine is production negation. As organization is what suffers in power struggles.

The more "flashy" answer would be to increase the chances of barbarians around the cities, or greater chance that the city (or group of cities) break off from your civ and form their own. Like the "schizm" idea.
Another answer is that perhaps sometimes the cities themselves, would spawn units that would pillage their own tiles (inter-city warring). This might just be Barbarian-spawn.

Still, the simple answer is -20% production. Even though its not the "best".
-Qes

EDIT: Something that could be interesting, is if you had to "convince" your cities to go along with whatever plans you have. This could be interprited as demagogery - if cities are unhappy, they dont produce ANYTHING. not merely slowly, but outright refusal. They also might not generate ANY income. So, and unhappy city would REMAIN that way, until some outside influence stopped them. THey would of course, provide for themselves (food, and maintenance costs for themselves), but any excess income would be lost. (I would think culture would work normally).

This would force the player to make sure his cities are Happy and going along with what he/she wants them to do. Maybe city states would have access to a unique unit (the Diplomat - National Unit, Limit 3) That while in a city automatically makes the city content.

 

[Kael]

Im thinking about having City States halve the culture garrison value of the city. It will make the city more likely to flip away, or at least require more powerful units be stationed in the city to keep it loyal.

Im just not sure how much of a real effect it will have. Oh well, thats what you guys are for.

 

[QES]

Im thinking about having City States halve the culture garrison value of the city. It will make the city more likely to flip away, or at least require more powerful units be stationed in the city to keep it loyal.

Im just not sure how much of a real effect it will have. Oh well, thats what you guys are for.

Well you know me, I'll try anything. This is like being in a candy store.
No, not a kid in a candy store, ME in a candy store.
-Qes

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I was thinking cottages etc. grow slower could be a balancing effect, but I can't really think of a logical reason why that'd be for city states. Hrm, could be -1 gold from cottages etc due to thier own independance...

-culture def% might have a big effect sometimes, since city states is for far flung cities that might be more vulnerable anyway. (thinking of all my recently captured barbarian cities.)

EDIT: Something that could be interesting, is if you had to "convince" your cities to go along with whatever plans you have. This could be interprited as demagogery - if cities are unhappy, they dont produce ANYTHING. not merely slowly, but outright refusal. They also might not generate ANY income. So, and unhappy city would REMAIN that way, until some outside influence stopped them. THey would of course, provide for themselves (food, and maintenance costs for themselves), but any excess income would be lost. (I would think culture would work normally).

That sounds a lot like the rioting cities in Civ 3, which they took out cause it frustrated people, and streamlined it to just unhappy people not working.

 

[QES]

I was thinking cottages etc. grow slower could be a balancing effect, but I can't really think of a logical reason why that'd be for city states. Hrm, could be -1 gold from cottages etc due to thier own independance...

-culture def% might have a big effect sometimes, since city states is for far flung cities that might be more vulnerable anyway. (thinking of all my recently captured barbarian cities.)



That sounds a lot like the rioting cities in Civ 3, which they took out cause it frustrated people, and streamlined it to just unhappy people not working.

I know that generally im alone in this thought, but part of the entertainment of CIV games is that it IS frustrating sometimes. And that you get past it. I've felt a greater deal of triumph in dealing my own cities and winning in SPITE of them being persnickety.
There is also a two-fold reason for this. Sometimes things ought to be frustrating (or situations occuring that could be perceived as frustrating) becuase other civs might take advantage of it. This is true in the opposite direction. If a foreign civ is having problems, and i know their city states....maybe i want to change to civics that increase the latent unhappiness in their civ - so as to cause them further problems. OR crank my culture rating, since i know they cant do much to fight it.

I'm not a big fan on the squelching of city-states culture, since by definition that's the real thread that keeps the civ together. If culture is hurt, then really arnt they just a bunch of different little civs? I see it as more ONE culture, with different governements. I understand that when we think "independance" we also think "vulnerability." But i dont think that culture is that vulnerability - I think its abject military conquest. City-states main difficulty is in facing a well organized military rival. City-states should be the FAVORITE target of warfare/conquest civs.

OR am i way off base?
-Qes

EDIT:
Or look at the mongol empire (not quite "cities" persay) but they were a faction colilition that was also warfare/conquest based. So you could be city-states and conquesty, but only if you went so far as to ACTUALLY chose those civic options. - This was also true of the greeks when they got organized.

 

[Maniac]

To get schisms, why not take over parts of jdog5000's Revolution modpack?

The City States civic could increase the chance of rebellion.

 

[QES]

To get schisms, why not take over parts of jdog5000's Revolution modpack?

The City States civic could increase the chance of rebellion.

Since I'm Fairly oblivious to how coding works, my natural inclination is to say "yeah, that'd be great", but since im not sure how mods mesh into each other (and i suspect its not plug-'n-play) Mr. Jdog5000 would have to be in contact with the coding experts of the FFH2 team to decide if that was possible. I am however, all for discussing it 'in thread' if he were around to discuss the difficulties and processes. Really getting different moders to dialogue is the best that I can hope to see.
-Qes

 

[Sureshot]

I was thinking of it like communism for some reason (which had uniform corruption no matter the distance in civ 2 or 3).

Maybe for city states the governors (the AI builders for a city) are turned on and you can't change production? But you get -80% distance penalty and -50% city number penalty?

Other than that it seems like it should just be a production (or just military production) penalty (making it a good option if you aren't in need of units and want to just relax and work on your tax rate).

 

[Nikis-Knight]

When I think city states, I think sparta and athens... entirely different cities. City states didn't take down sparta's military production, nor Athen's culture.

Going on that model, maybe city states should force cities to specialize... i.e., commerce, production, food, or culture, which ever was highest (on some sliding scale) would get a slight bonus, 10% or so, the other 3 take a hit. But that's probably too weird.

 

[Sureshot]

If there was a way to force governor usage and abiding by their decisions (no ability to change production or decide which tiles to use), then you could do as you say, and just give general demands (click the focus on production thing, or focus on commerce, and all that).

 

[Maniac]

When I think city states, I think sparta and athens... entirely different cities. City states didn't take down sparta's military production, nor Athen's culture.

Going on that model, maybe city states should force cities to specialize... i.e., commerce, production, food, or culture, which ever was highest (on some sliding scale) would get a slight bonus, 10% or so, the other 3 take a hit. But that's probably too weird.

On the other hand, Phoenician cities were are all based on trade.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Ah, probably true... not my area of expertise, I'm afraid...

 

[QES]

I was thinking of it like communism for some reason (which had uniform corruption no matter the distance in civ 2 or 3).

Maybe for city states the governors (the AI builders for a city) are turned on and you can't change production? But you get -80% distance penalty and -50% city number penalty?

Other than that it seems like it should just be a production (or just military production) penalty (making it a good option if you aren't in need of units and want to just relax and work on your tax rate).

While this is a good idea in theory, i think if you took players abilities away to actually control what they were making in any given city, they'd VERY quickly stop using that civic, even if it had all sorts of bonuses.

"Crap the enemy is 4 squares away, ill need to rush my swordman.....ah crap! i cant alter the production.....its a doomed city?!?!" Sort of thing.

Negative production has a SIMILAR consequence, without actually destroying the gameplay.
-Qes

 

[QES]

When I think city states, I think sparta and athens... entirely different cities. City states didn't take down sparta's military production, nor Athen's culture.

Going on that model, maybe city states should force cities to specialize... i.e., commerce, production, food, or culture, which ever was highest (on some sliding scale) would get a slight bonus, 10% or so, the other 3 take a hit. But that's probably too weird.

I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA! But i think culture should be left out of the equasion. Maybe it should be Gold, Research and Hammers. Which ever the city "can" make the most of has its "emphasise" button automatically on. Is this possible? To force each city to have a "emphasise" button on? Except, the problem then is whats really "unique" about emphasising food? Its just a big delapitated city? I guess. But still, this is something that needs thought.
-Qes

 

[QES]

On the other hand, Phoenician cities were are all based on trade.

If all your cities are along the water, and it forces emphasis on the best resource, maybe then your cities would all emphasise trade naturally?
-Qes

 

[QES]

I had another idea of how one might rue the day.

Specifically, revolutions and anarchy seem to me to be a bit weak. I imagine summoning my financial councelor and minister of the commonfolk and telling them that "we will be having a revolution on monday, i plan on becoming a god as well as king. IT should take a few years, but please make the necessary arrangements." And then my empire is "busy" (which seems similar to "loading") getting itself together for the new system.

This stinks. Frankly. Revolutions are bloody, dangerous, and generally cause for so much alarm that people resist them at every opportunity. (Save for those doing the revolutionizing.)

My thought is this. We should change or "enhance" the consequences for going into anarchy. NOW BEFORE YOU ALL TRY TO BEAT THE TAR OUT OF ME, hear me out.

Anarchy, when your empire is big, can take up to 3 turns for ONE change. Attempting to change several things can put you in anarchy for up to 12 years (yes this happened once). But......when it came down to it, that's merely like adding 12 years to all build cues, growth rates, and research quotas. All in all, not a terrible deal. In fact...id go so far as to say.....theres NO down side. Your simply PAYING for transition.

How about this. Anarchy, no matter what, takes between 1-3 Turns. Period. The biggest changes result in three, the simplest 1. Here's the trade off. The more "turns" you would normally invest in anarchy are instead translated into a % chance of "Schizm" and/or a % chance of your units going rogue/barbarian. Not merely "spawning barbarian" but YOUR units, BECOMING barbarian. This hurts doublely so. Revolutions should ALWAYS be risky. If we go with the "Schizm" thing, then anarchy would end immediately. The side that stays WITH You, would have your new civic options. The side that is now its own civ, would have your OLD civic options. And if we have our way, it'd be the "other leader" from your civ's file. (I also think it'd be neat if a "schizm" was to occur, the game would check to see if there are already two of the same civ in the game - becuase a civil war already had occured - and then negate it. In this, if you "reconquered" your lands for yourself. You could go through another civil war later, but if theres already 2 civs of "you", then it doesnt.)

I ALSO think it would be neat, that if you changed your "government" civic (and this applies only to the govnerment options) that your "relations" with other nations would go back to 0. As if you'd just met. After all, its a whole new regime! They dont know if your the same. (Perhaps some things would remain like "you declared war on us" or "you're heathens" and things that are civ and religion based instead of leader based.) But modifiers on trade, and modifiers on diplomacy ("you denied us help during war") would be wiped clean.

If we dont want/cant eliminate the excessive turns for anarchy, then we could , i hope, put in a small % chance that grows with each year of successive anarchy. First year 2%, maybe doubling every turn. 4% for 2 years of anarchy, 8% for 3, 32% for 5 years, 64% for 6, and at 7 or greater, your basically guarenteed civil war over it. THIS would force players to change their civic options more slowly. And with that little revolutionary delay, it would take a LONG time to switch over completely to something. This makes it quite different than simply "paying" for it.

And.....quite naturally, spiritual aspect civs, would be immune. Perhaps they could be given a "flat" rate of like 4% chance of Civil war every time they switched, no matter the amount of switching. But they'd still never enter anarchy.

Ok, go ahead and throw your stones now.
<Hides behind impenetrable cardboard-box-fort>
-Qes

 

[QES]

On Dark Ages:

Maybe certain events could give a civilization a -100% gold for 20 turns? That'll mess up a world quick.

 

[Qthzandra]

On Dark Ages-

I like the idea of Great People causing problems in a foreign land. I think that Dark Age might be what you call it, but Cold War is what you are really accomplishing.

I have no clue how difficult it would be to code, but different sorts of effects could be gotten from different types...the rate of your state religion spreading could increase in the target's lands with a Great Prophet, military production could be hampered by a Great General, economic war with a Great Merchant, building production with a Great Engineer, etc. Loki is a good model for a cultural cold warrior...perhaps a Great Person could act like Loki (with their own unique effects) if they are simply sent to an opponent's city. I would enhance Loki to be at least 2-3 times more damaging relative to whatever damage a Great Artist would cause. I suppose the Gypsy wagon level for civs other than Baselraph.

 

[Zap]

Another possible effect of this could be that you lose your capital, and can not build it when you are under city state? That's like 8 commerce, and one happiness. I know that I tend to use my capital for all my major projects in the early game for the happiness bonus there.

-Zap