Regions and Revolts

[MonkeyPaw]

This is just a brainstorming thread about ways such historical events as the American Revolution could be implemented in Civ3.

My thought: instead of Forbidden Palace, multiple "Regional Capitals" may be built, the number allowed depends on the number of total cities. These have the same effect as Forbidden Palace, and in effect create a sub-region in your empire, which can be named when the Regional Capital is built.

So while this has obvious waste-fighting advantages, there is a negative side to it. When the citizens are uphappy, there is a small chance the entire region may revolt and become its own civilization. One thing that could possibly contribute to a revolt is if the region contributes alot of commerce to the empire, yet is left behind other regions in infrastructure, etc. Basically, if the citizens feel they're supporting other regions instead of their own.

The chance of revolt should be quite small, and you would be adquately warned before it happens. However, there is also an option which sometimes may be strategically necessary: abandoning a region, giving it autonomy. One example of this being useful: Imagine a region is threatened by a powerful civ, and you want to avoid a war. Well, you could send in military units, then abandon the civ to fight for itself, although you could still support it with gold contributions too.

Anyways, these are just some thoughts I'm throwing out there. Any others??

 

[Alphidius]

MonkeyPaw: I would seriously advise you to go play Europa Universalis 2

In Civ3, it would already be difficult to define 'regions' needless to say that implementing a revolt event in the region as part of the game would be folly.

What I would agree upon is that a certain number of cities should allow additional Forbidden Palaces to be built. However, each Forbidden Palace will cost more to build as it increases and the effect of the Palace on corruption will be lessen. It is like from a centralise government to a de-centralised one, leveling corruption evenly (though not totally) over a large area.

However, it'll be unfair for small empires, as they'll find themselves competed out in production ini this case. So what I think could be changed is instead of using number of optimal cities before corruption, use the size of the civ before corruption.

Let me explain this more clearly. Right now say optimal city for huge map is 24 and say the player has 25 cities and is the smallest civ in the world. In his 25th city at the other end of the world from the capital, he won't be able to build anything there. So in this change, regardless of number of cities, if the civ is the smallest in population in the world, that civ should not have to put up with the crap the other larger jugganauts suffer from.

That would bring about a level field of play for the small civs but they may still be over whelmed by the multiple Forbidden Palaces. So for the large civs, the highly corrupted cities may suffer from bribery (didn't we have that in civ2?). Chance of revolting to other civs in espionage acts will increase and if war is waged in that city, for a few turns, the city may turn over to the current attacker (citizens have enough of the highly corrupted officials and suffered enough of the war that they want no more part of it)

Another thought is if corruption is so rampant in a city, shouldn't the cost for rush build (only for gold rush) be more expensive? I mean the city is corrupted and whatever money that goes there gets siphoned out by officials, merchants, soldiers, nobles and such? Just my thoughts anyway a little long winded though

 

[Zarn]

He's taliking about revolution not corruption. I think the idea is grea, but it needs some thought to it.

 

[MonkeyPaw]

Thanks. Like I said, my idea is very basic, and I was looking for thoughts on how to better it.

The main problem with my idea, I believe, is we would need ALOT more civilizations, as the idea of regions become autonomous has the potential to create 20- to 30-civs in a single game! (However, I'd hope with balancing such revolutions would be rare.)