Province System: Creation

[dh_epic]

Well, I shall retate a more thourough set of my ideas on what should be in the province system in a little while... remember: KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about this thing, so I'm trying to use as much of my mental capacity to be stupid for simplicity sake. Never forget that's the angle I'm coming from.

But most importantly, I think we can all agree that provinces are awesome, and create great possibilities for civil war, merging, rebellion, forced surrender, annexing other land, colonialism, neocolonialism, and liberating your allies. ... all because a nation turned into a province, or a province turned into a nation.

To dh_Epic: Your view on how provinces should work could be made could be nice, but it's not what I want. A province is made up of the cities you choose to put in it, though taking them out of the province should be almost impossible, or at least very difficult. If a city is closer to one province than another, that does not mean it's part of that province. It could be seperate from provinces, or part of the other province! Who knows how some of them will look... I bet pretty interesting sometimes. And I do not envision provinces as regions, I envision them more like states, so to speak. That's jusy my vision of them.

Besides realism, I don't see how that makes the game better. It adds a lot of unnecessary micromanagement, quite frankly. It's the same reason that civ the same reason civ has never forced you to manually draw your borders, even though they'd be more realistic this way. It's the same reason that even in a realistic map scenario, the USA would be lucky to have 50 CITIES, let alone 50 states.

Civ inherently simplifies things because it simulates people, time, and space with smaller more managable chunks. The line between cities and states is blurred in Civ, when you really only have "New York", plus "Buffalo" if you're lucky. 50 provinces (states) is crazy to happen. Imagine setting up 150 cities into 50 states.

I also want the provinces to keep their units when they rebel.. .but also create a few new ones in their cities, just to be on the safe side. That's why I really want tags on units.

There's a reason that Civ 2 went to Civ 3 and cut out "home cities" for units. The added benefits? "Go home", "individual city maintainence", and perhaps "realism". The costs? Extreme amounts of micromanagement and tedium.

What do we gain by home provinces? It's a lot like a nationality within a nationality, so you know which units go with which provinces if/when they secede. The costs? Extreme amounts of micromanagement, plus an obvious exploit of stacking the odds in your favor when a rebellion is coming: ditch your rebellious units, let alone set them to another province.

If we automatically calculate the size of the rebel army, we speed that up and simplify it a LOT, and make it harder to exploit.

I do kinda like your thoughts on the taking and letting go of provinces, though. Nice ideas there. Also, I again have no opinion on your answer to rcoutme's 5th question.

I'm glad you're down with that. I think history is full of interesting events, not just war. But those other things are "optional" in Civ, since world domination will get you everywhere. In real life, it's actually a really good strategy to not try for world domination (even though it's still a good strategy for a handful of conquerors). If we want people to have the option, we can't just give them freedom, but we have to give better rewards for taking an alternative route.


At any rate, I hope you see where I'm coming from. But if you're really attached to provinces the way you see it, you can give me more reasons why. I tried to show I understood your reasons, but maybe there's a reason I'm not aware of.

Wait, the 3-6 city thing. Maybe, for automated provinces, it just automatically picks the 3-6 nearest cities to the palace. The other cities DO fall between the cracks, and lean one way or another when it comes to a civil war or fight for independence (depending on how unhappy those people are, their ethnicity, etc.).

(Still, whoever heard of a nation with provinces/states, with cities unsure of which province they're in? Region, maybe.)

 

[Ant509y]

Oh, a city outside of a province isn't 'unsure' of which province they're in. They know they are outside any province, and under their own rule alone.

Thank you for your civility. And also, with the Keep It Simple, Stupid, thing, its a phrase I've heard elsewhere. I hope you don't think I was being direct to you, or insulting you.. it's simply how the phrase goes.

To your view on unit tags, they shouldn't be too significant. I mean, they don't have any effects other than saying where the province is from, and if civil war happens, rebelling with them. I didn't like the way it was in Civ 2, and I do not intend that. You have a point on the tags allowing a cheat in which you destroy the units, however... I always figure that when a province rebels, they create new units automatically as well. But your point is valid, and I'd probably be fine with either way. So while I still want provincial unit tags, I woulnd't mind yours either. Of course, when I thought up the unit tags, I had been creating many ideas of what provinces could do that will not be in there for simplicity's sake. Things like a province not allowing its units to leave in some government forms if it does not want to let them out. But those are gone now, so maybe provincial tags aren't as necessarry now... but I still like the idea!

I think of provinces as similar to states, but a U.S. map usually would NOT have 50 'provinces' due to size problems. I don't imagine it like that... and besides, I'm thinking of epic games, not simulations of real world events so much. I just don't want provinces to be made randomly. When I think of random, I think of it placing your cities into provinces without any of your control, with you unable to control it, and very likely, due to stupid ai issues, do it unlike how YOU want... I simply want to be able to say "okay, these particular cities will become a province, these particular cities will be a province..." etc. I want provinces to be made by creating provincial capitals in a region, and then choosing the cities surrounding it to join it. On the other hand, building the provincial capital and having it place the few cites around it in that province could be close to what I want... you'd simply have to be careful where you place the provincial capital. Maybe that would work. But I also feel it should be optional... that's what I'm thinking. I just don't think it would be THAT great a micromanagement... once a province is there, is stays there, and it would only take a few moments to enter the cities into a province. And besides... I LIKE that. But thats just me.

Yes, I agree with you that provinces are a kickass idea, and if it was your idea entirely that went, instead of mine, I'd still rejoice! Because I want provinces. Badly!

 

[elementgoo]

I think that if you have a group of a couple cities outside of the main nation (island etc.) they could become a province, but have less corruption.

 

[Ant509y]

Yeah, that's the plan, elementgoo!

 

[dh_epic]

Yes, I agree with you that provinces are a kickass idea, and if it was your idea entirely that went, instead of mine, I'd still rejoice! Because I want provinces. Badly!

Ditto that! I'd be happy if they had provinces the way you talk about them, too. I'm glad there's a lot of support for this in one form or another.

I just see a slight issue with defining a province manually, beyond just the micromanagement. If I wanted to, after I've conquered France, I could deliberately set up my provinces to split up France. I take one french city, and couple them with several domestic cities, and bam, I have a province that's much less likely to rebel... even though, in real life, the province would kind of emerge by virtue of its own identity, because France would feel like they have a lot in common, even under someone else's rule... and I couldn't reduce the chance of rebellion just by changing carving up their borders.

By including ethnicity in the province calculation, it would allow a city to be right next to a provincial capitol without being in that province... because that city regards itself as ethnically more similar to another province, even though that capitol is further away.

Take that a step further. Settlers, sooner than military units, should be the ones with provincial-origin tags. This way, when you build a city with that settler, it is more likely to have loyalties to that provincial capitol if there's a civil war or province-wide rebellion. And users who are crazy about keeping their provincial borders sharply defined can use said settlers to sway a city from one province to a different province, for micromanagement fanatics!

To me, giving the user complete control over the provincial borders is not only tedious... but dangerous and exploitable. Not to mention potentially unrealistic if they, I dunno, create a province shaped like a "G", or ignore ethnicity/culture in how the province is defined.

 

[Ant509y]

You are right about the exploitable part. But if a province already exists, that is, a provincial capital, and a city is part of that, you should not be allowed to place that city in another province, even if you conquer it... of course, destroying the provincial capital would end the province, but that's another story.

You seem to have a problem with cities being near a provincial capital without being in a province. I don't see the problem with that... I don't mind it! I also don't want the provinces to all be in a rather boring blob shape... I not only don't mind a G shaped province, but will probably make several of my own!

Ethnicity should be a factor in provinces, but not a ruling factor. I don't mind having provinces with cities primarily of other nationalities... no big deal to me, honestly. Oh, wait, you said when you include nationality you can have a city next to a provincial capital without being in that province... that I agree with! lol. Anyway, sorry that I'm being stubborn... remember, I still like your idea, I just like mine also!

 

[dh_epic]

Oh, wait, you said when you include nationality you can have a city next to a provincial capital without being in that province... that I agree with! lol. Anyway, sorry that I'm being stubborn... remember, I still like your idea, I just like mine also!

Hehe, no prob. Yeah, the proximity thing, you want to be able to have a city close to a capitol without being in that province for the user freedom... I want to be able to have a city close to a capitol without being in that province to prevent user exploitation, and push realism -- that is, a conquered french city isn't going to regard itself as part of Germany, no matter how you define your capitol or borders.

I'm still very much for automating this decision, to keep rebellion possible and sensible. ... as opposed to letting the user make the game take longer, with little personal advantage except the aesthetic beauty of a G shaped province (with I guess a C shaped province inside it), and potentially exploit it.

But hey, I think we're reaching the point where we agree to disagree. Unless you have anything else that might persuade me.

 

[Ant509y]

Nah, I think we've reached that point. But yeah, I do get it. Yours is a good system, I have to admit. User exploitation is a problem. Of course, when a French city is captured by Germany in the game, it doesn't really have a choice but to be ruled by you, but if a province already exists, it stays there. I hope we agree that if a province already exists but is conquered, it stays a province, right?

 

[Ant509y]

By the way... some one else post! We need more ideas! More input! Please! ^_^;;

 

[finally]

I agree that it would be fun to decide yourself how the provinces should look like , but:

- Less realism
- More micromanagement
- Risk of user exploitation
- Probably there has to be an automatic system anyway for the AI to create its provinces.

I agree that it gives the user more control over the empire to create provinces yourself, but when you create a big empire, it's harder to stay in control. That's why big empires can collapse.

I also think that big empires should require provinces. Like, you can only build 12 or so cities and then you would have to build provincial capitals to be able to expand further. Because otherwise, who would build provinces if they know that it's gonna cost them civil wars later in the game?

Or as I would like to see it - that provinces form automatically when you reach a certain point, or because of different ethnicities. I'm not against the idea of provincial capitals as such, but I think it would be more realistic if that option came later in the game, like in the industrial age.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

First, on looking again, I do agree that you should be able to CHOOSE what cities go into a province-at least, at first you can. I still hold to the notion of very old and 'powerful' provinces being able to SUCK cities-either independant or from a less powerful province-into itself, if it is not yet at its maximum size.
As for the other matter, I'm thinking that certain 'organisational' techs should increase the number of cities that can be incorporated into a province-either that or certain small wonders!
As for the benefits, well I think that there should be reduced corruption and increased wealth within a province, units from the same province should get benefits when operating together in combat. Cities in provinces should also get a bonus to resisting propaganda and cultural conversion. As I said, these benefits should start small, but slowly increase with time-as should the chance of the province breaking away!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

I am (mostly) with Aussie_Lurker on this one. If you create provinces with only 3 cities and the culture of those cities is high, they should be able to influence other provincial cities (or independant ones) into their province. This could even be true of foreign cities (although at a much lesser rate).

 

[Ryth]

How about having physical province lines, and all the barbars in it are called one group, and the first city you build in that area must be called Geat (or whatever) and it is the capital of that province. It'd get a bonus of once pop point of that nationality, and a map of the province, since these extras would have local knowledge. When you place another city inside that province area the name gets suggested from your country's list, and is as normal. These lines would not be visable, but you'd know you were entering a new area because you're meeting a new cultural sub-group in the local goody huts/barbars.
These provinces could be affected by culture - the border could be a little variable within a 2, 3 square amount that is defined by relative culture - like national boundaries are now. I also think that where your settler is created should have an effect, not just distance from the capital - if your settlers come from your capital they'll have a stronger sense of national identity than those whose link to the capital is five or six times removed, if you know what I mean.
As to size I agree that 3-6 is a good size - perhaps extending to be able to fit 8 or 9 cities on huge maps so that there isn't a need to research even more of the tribes just to have enough names.
I know this is starting to sound complicated, but most of it seems fairly easy to impliment (no, I'm not a programmer, so I'm probably wrong).

If there's one thing I love about Civ more than any other, its the interconnectedness of it all - its hard to discuss one area of it with out detailing six others and the realtionships between them!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, just as I've said elsewhere, I feel that the whole 'Barbarians/Goody Huts' system needs to be....reworked. My feeling is that 'Minor Nations' should be the 'collective' headings for these two groups. More aggressive minor civs would be akin to your barbarians, wheras your less aggressive civs would be more like your 'goody huts'. The point is that you could use diplomacy and/or conquest to assimilate these minor powers into your empire, wipe them off the face of the Earth, or leave them be as a trading power/ally. Of course, they could try and do the same to you ! In order to add incentive to retaining Minor Nations, they should all probably have some kind of special ability which they can grant the nation that successfully assimilates them!
Anyway, to keep this post On Topic, my point is that Minor nations would never be MORE than 1 province in size-by natural means, at least. More aggressive/less sedentary civs might be only 2-3 cities large, wheras passive/sedentary civs would be around 4-6 cities large. Once they are this size, minor powers will NOT produce more settlers! Of course, they can still conquer other cities, in which case they COULD become a major power-if they conquer enough cities to form a second province! Though this should be VERY rare indeed! By the same token, when a province breaks away from you, it would probably be only a minor nation-though if more than one province broke away on the same turn, then they would probably form a new, major civ!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I hope we agree that if a province already exists but is conquered, it stays a province, right?

Yeah, I agree. More the reason to automate provinces, in my mind. Particularly if Germany conquers half a French province ... it should be treated as its own province when it comes to revolt (even unofficially).

If I conquer all of a French province except its capitol (3 french cities) as Germany, and THEN I define 3 german provinces to seperate 3 conquered cities (1 + 1 + 1) ... what happens when I conquer the French provincial capitol? Those cities are in German provinces now. I've erased the French province by redefining the borders. And now that group of cities is less likely to unite and rebel.

Plus france now has a province with a capitol, and no cities. And you open up a whole new world of exploitation if provinces can be changed on a whim.

This is a problem in your scenario. But it doesn't mean it's unsolvable.


But I have no problem with the non-provincial city, which would happen in the "user determines province" scenario. I do think it would still need to automatically have that city "lean" towards a province, even if the user wasn't aware of it. So if a province rebels, there's a chance that other provinces and cities near it will join in a chain reaction. But otherwise, I don't see a problem if we go the user-defined route.

Still, I'm not a fan of the micromanagement, realism, and user-exploitation problems ... but I'd still be all over provinces. God knows I micromanage more than anyone I know in Civ 3

 

[Fromage10x]

Hurm...sorry, this goes back a little while, but I'm gonna do it anyway, heh.

Fromage: Yes, if a city is by itself entirely, it should not be in a province. However, if there are a number of small islands, for example, near each other, but they don't quite touch culturally yet, they can still become a province... single cities, however, cannot.

Oh...so they just have to be connected CULTURALLY? Well, in that case I'm even more inclined to say that the island province shouldn't exist. You realyl should have to just wait untill they link up...if they aren't connected culturally, why would they form a province?

I agree that demilitarizing a province that's heading towards civil war should make it come even faster...

I'm glad. And, like I said, I'm talking about both suiciding those troops and disbanding them for shields. I remember when they closed down a lot of military bases here in the US, people were rather ticked off about it. They didn't rebel, certainly, but it was a relatively major thorn in a lot of paws.

I don't want it that when you start making provinces, every city has to have a province to be in... and actually, New York City is part of the state of New York, so your example is kinda invalid! The city states of, say, ancient greece, or Rennaisance Italy would be better examples for that, in my view. But your point that some cities could be very good outside of provinces stands. Yeah, the bonuses shouldn't be TOO great, but single cities should still be more prone to being controlled by provinces..

Well, I did say that New York City is actually in New York State...and that Chicago is in Illinois...but they are in fact actually pretty markedly divorced from the state in most ways. This is something that could be interesting to explore...and has already been discussed a bit...a city that is much larger than the others in it's province would have a tendency to "bully" the others. Perhaps it could do so to such a degree as to prompt the other cities to request (or even demand) that it be removed from the province.

Ok, I'm just kinda thinking out loud here...but living in downstate Illinois you hear a LOT about how Chicago is basically it's own state. I'm sure you hear much of the same thing in up-state New York. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[Quasar1011]

Provinces ought to be able to be toggled off at start up, so that those who do not like such levels of micromanagement, need not deal with it.

 

[Ant509y]

Okay, I've been reading everyone's posts, and I think we have enough data to start forming the actual thing, not just throwing out ideas... I think we should start creating the list of what we want, to send to Firaxis. I don't really mean get it ready now, but start with it, and begin agreeing with what should be in it. I took a long walk and was thinking about what it should look like... I'm trying to be fair to the ideas out there, as compromise is the only way we're gonna get it. I'm also trying to be as simple as possible, as it's Firaxis's job to deal with the programming details. And in that spirit, do tell me what is good and bad about my list.

Necessarry things (First priority)

-Provinces created via building provincial capitals.

-Provinces allow Civil Wars.

-Cities in province chosen automatically, from the cities around the city that builds the provincial capital.

-The number of cities in a province is a set range, changeable due to size of map, for example, 3-5 on small, 4-8 on huge maps.

-Provinces are formed from cities that are culturally connected only.

-Provinces decrease corruption, and have other benefits due to its nature.*

-(Hidden) provincial tags on units.**

- Once a province exists, it cannot be changed much without destroying the provincial capital.

Secondary (not essential, but still might be good)

-provincial culture flip; cities changing provinces occasionally

- provincial culture ratio (useful for above)

-provincial trade bonuses

- potentially toggleable? (most likely to complex for that)

Third Tier (most likely too much to be implemented... but a dream nonetheless)
-I'll leave these things for some other time. In fact... they aren't really necessarry to be put.

Anyway, there's a first bit about it... please tell me what you think, I'm attempting to create it simple, clear, and in a way that most people can agree on. Tell me what you think needs to be added, changed, or placed in a different spot! We need to start getting it together, to make this more than a pipe dream!

* At this point I'm leaving the other benefits either to Firaxis or the rest of you... I don't have enough of a feeling for what should be the benefits, really.

**Perhaps we could have provincial tags that are hidden, not shown... or none at alll, or ones that are shown. I am not sure yet.

+With certain things I am not goign to mention here. I'll say it about Minor civs. In my opinion this is a huge thing that should also be done, and be done in unity with provinces. However, I also think that it doesnt deserve to be a sub-subject here, and should get its own major thread! So therefor, I won't mention it yet in the list of things to be in provinces.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Oh dear! Am I too late?

Every now and then I see a new idea that never occured to me and that has real potential. This is one of them. But I only saw it two days ago and have not yet been able to get it all clear in my mind.

Anyway if you are in a hurry I'll have to give my half-formed notions.

Firstly, and most importantly, you have to think about the fabric of the game. Not what it will look/feel like, but what difference it will make, how it will play. Otherwise we are just talking about candy gloss, and quite frankly that's easy and not worth much forum time. So, it has to make a difference. And it has to contribute to the sense of authenticity that the overall model provides (I would use the word realism but that gets some people thinking about the correct way to spell Koln or campaigning for refueling stops for HMS Ark Royal - presumably twice in every turn.

So, provinces. What are they? Not states (as in US states), not counties, not departements, not colonies, not soviets. Not even provinces (as in Roman administrative units). Why not? Because that confines them to a specific time or organizational structure, meaningless and discordant with the game premis. Provinces have to be generic to work. They have to be an aspect of government (i.e. in the range between somewhat closer than allies on the one hand and administrative units on the other. They have to have a logic to their formation. This should be a combination of geography and ethnic features. They have to be large enough to be meaningful but not large enough to swamp the game (so three to about eight or ten cities, depending on the size of empires, rather than board size I think).

Provinces should be natural entities. Typically they either emerge from natural local groupings (e.g. settlements that grow and merge in one area), or they are a way of managing assimilated (conquered) territories. So they cannot be defined explicitly by the player, rather they have to emerge from conditions. Okay, it's not what you have been saying, but bear with me.

This is not to say that the player has no control. There are some possible factors here. For example, provinces may only be allowed under certain government types, or, more subtly, may have lesser or greater effects under different government types. Even within this, enabling the creation of a provincial structure could be optional decision for the player for their own empire. Setting it up would have costs (possibly some special build in the capital) and dismantling it could have some costs (possibly including increased discontent for a period and the risk of seccession/civil war etc.).

Provinces should have restraining influence on certain types of activity such as declaring war and they should have some benefits, such as lower corruption, or increased trade.


..................

I need to go to work right now. There is more to say. I have to talk about what they do for the game (as distinct from how they work for the player)


I'll try to get the rest in place tonight.

Cheers


Algae

 

[Ant509y]

Oh, don't worry, Algernon, you aren't too late, so have no fear! Yes, your thoughts are very useful... anyway, provinces in game have functions like starting civil wars, decreasing micromanagement (that's my goal at least) and potentially creating a new foil in how the game is played. They ARE to be "general" in the sense that they represent any number of types of states/province/city-state.

I understand what you're saying about the natural formation of provinces... back before this particular thread, in our earlier one a lot of talk was done about natural borders, and all sorts of complex things... however, the theme of this thread has basically been keeping it simple, for the sake of them getting the idea in the game in any form. To tell the truth, the format that I wrote, and which will hopefully be edited as time goes by, is nothing like what the true province system should be. I want inter-province interaction, realistic borders, trade that deals with provinces, military controlled by provinces, governments altering provincial functions, a thousand grand things! But most likely if it's all placed in this idea than the people at Firaxis would not dream of making it... it would be too complicated. So, therefor, this is being formed, a consensus on what is necessarry for provinces in Civ 4. By Civ 5 I am hoping for all the things that were wanted... but at this point they would be too much.

It does make me sad that provinces won't be what I originally dreamed, not nearly as complicated (that is, unless Firaxis deals in making dreams come true) or great, however... the idea DOES have merit in my mind, and I hope that we can pull it together. I'm not so much in a hurry as I am simply desiring to see what people think, and what could be decided on as necessarry.

Ya know what, Algernon? I like what you have to say! If those things were followed, we'd have the ultimate system. However, at this point if it becomes too complicated it will sink, and we need it to float. Please complete your thoughts and form them and help out, the system needs as much as possible. And as you finish forming those thoughts, remember to aim for simplicity. As I said at the beginning of this thread, it's a necessarry thing. I can't wait to hear the rest of your thoughts, however! Good night to you.