Revolution in a Civ type game

[npburg]

I just thought of this idea about handling revolutions in Civ. This idea is not part of the game, so far, but hopefully could be added to an expansion pack or maybe even a Civ 4.

(I'm copying the following for a text file I made so I'm sorry for any problems with the format.)



Revolutions
Can be initiated by either the leader(you) or by the people and has to choice a "goal" government
at the beginning of the revolution that will resulting government after the "anarchy".

Note: These rules of revolution would work better if cities were to have a class structure
with class politics but that is another discusion.


If you declare for a new government you are looking to continue to be the new leader.(duh)

If the government you ask for is seen as good by most of the people they will most likely let
you become leader.
Monarchy to Communism, Republic, or Democracy
Communism to Republic or Democracy
Republic to Democracy
Note: Even this change wouldn't be accepted by everyone (like rich and powerful under
the old system) so there is still a small chance of resistance.
* Each government would have a rating to how much the poeple would like it with Democracy
being the best.
* Forgien civs could come to the aid of each side in a civil war.
The civs that hate you the most will likely support the rebels.
(France helped the American Colonies against the English)
The civs that like you might support you.
(Hard to think of one cuz most of the time civs stay out of internal affairs)
* Civs with the same government will be more likely to support you
and civs with the "goal" goverment will support the rebels
(Monarchies of Spain, England, Russian and a few other suppressed democractic
uprisings during the 19th century)

If you move towards a government with less freedoms or less popular support the people will
most likely resist.
If resistance is extremely weak then you change governments with some temporary resistance
in some cities.
If resistance is strong enough this will start a civil war.(see below)
If resistance is overwhelming then you will be taken over and thrown into exile.(see below)


If the people start the revolution they are looking to overthrow you or curb your power.
If you have enough support you could try to go along with the revolution.
If you succesed then you continue to be ruler.
(Monrachy to Republic; you are a constitutional monarch who still had the reigns of power.)
If you fail to win the support of the revolution then then you are thrown into exile.(see below)

If you resist the revolution this creates a civil war (see below)


Civil War
If the resistance is bad enough a civil war will start with you controling some cities and the
oppoistion government controling the rest.
The war ends with
You winning back all the rebel cities.
You sign a peace treaty where the civ is split into two civs
The two civs would be North "civ", South "civ"
or East "civ", West "civ"
Note: If later both goverments are republic or democractic and maybe
communism, they can have a reconsiliation so the civ become one again.
The last option is if you loss all but one city then you are forced into a peace
treaty and loss the civ to now have to build an empire from you single city
(effectively like exile)


Exile
This is when you lose control of the civ to the computer and now get just one city of the old civ.
You now start a new civ to try to rebuild. You keep all your tech an money and other things but
are at a major disavantage with just one city.




Most of these rules could be added to a game like Civ3 without changing the fundamental rules of the game.
Civ 1 had civs split into two if the capital was captured. Civs can going into Anarachy if the people under
Democracy or Republic are unhappy for too long. This could be extended to all government and now the
opposition can try to take over. This would also make having revolutions less appealing to just keep switching
back and forth and give the people a chance to overthrow a dictator who ignores internal affairs.

 

[Setsuna]

Some good ideas here. I've always felt the domestic struggles were pretty small. Why does no one ever challenge your power from within? Why do empires never crumble apart? (Although that would be extremely annoying..) Why do civilizations have the same mighty (Or crappy ) leader for their entire existance when history is replete with examples of kingdoms disappearing entirely when an incompetant leader comes into power?

One of the <strike>few</strike> only things I liked in the Koei game Genghis Khan 2 was how leaders were handled. You have to make sure to have children and then hope to God that your progeny could live up to you. Leaders had various abilities scores that determined how good they were at politics, military, et al. Perhaps most importantly how much they could DO per turn (No matter how smart you are, it's hard to make good with a leader that can only do one thing per turn.)
And I never liked it when I captured the Chinese capitol and the other faction called themselves the.. French?

 

[npburg]

And now with the new diplomacy rules maybe you could could try to get the people of other civs to start a revolution. Ship Lenin back to Russia sort of thing. (This would also be something you would have to worry about) And the people wouldn't always go for Republic or Democracy, if another civ supports the rebels they could be left or right wing groups trying to take over. Thats why you need to have facism. In Civ there is no rules for a rise of Hitler. This would mean that you not just have to worry about a French Revolution and a Russian Revolution but also the rise to power of Hitler. While his government was oppressive to freedoms the people still supported him because of the good economic times he brought. Most people want to eat more then they care about some freedoms. In addition the revolution could start out moving towards Republic or Democracy but the leaders of this movement after getting the support of the people might want to take power into their own hands and become dictator.