Revolution: with BarbarianCiv, Rebellion, AIAutoPlay

[jdog5000]

I have done a lot of brainstorming and based on my previous work I have written this small suggestion to what feature I currently consider to be the most important feature to add. The purpose of this Sid Meier’s Civilization IV Revolution is: [Said by Jdog500] The goal of this modpack is to make Civ4 more dynamic. New empires will rise in the middle of the game, over-extended empires may crumble, or colonies break away from oppressive rulers. Currently new empires only emerge based on negative factors. Based on history this is a narrow way of looking at the dynamics of the birth of new civilization, and thus I suggest letting civilizations form federations.

Federations Will:
Create a more dynamical gaming experience:
One of the major problems with Sid Meier's Civilization IV is that if you are the strongest empire at the beginning of the game it is likely that you will be the strongest at the end of the game. This will often make the game very static and predictable. Sid Meier’s Civilization IV Revolution does help patch this problem to a little extent, but the game has yet to become what it could be.
Create a more natural and historically accurate game:
Federations have always been a very important part of history. Most major conflicts, which has occurred thru out history, has had at least one federation involved, be it the Second World War or the Cold War. Federations are not a new thing either, they have been formed hundreds of years ago.

Definition of a Federation In The Game:
Rise:
3 or more civilizations that share similar civics, religion, continent and open borders might form a federation.
The leader of the largest civilization to merge becomes the leader of the new federation.
The new federation is given one of the following names: United States of America, United States of Europe, Soviet Union, Kalmar Union or Union of Myanmar.
Fall:
If [revolution index] surpasses 1000 in a city the federation falls.
If the federation falls the civilizations that formed the federation will reemerge and seize the cities they owned before the federation was created. New cities that are build or captured by the federation will become a randomly picked civilization that are located nearby.

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

Feedback would be appreciated.

EDIT:
Oh and Caesium that is not a bad idea.

The idea of federations is certainly good, and would help with the fracturing of the map into small, technologically backwards civs ... in many of my games, a few large empires manage to hold together, but others crumble and it seems nothing emerges from the ashes. Fortunately Vassal States make the small rebel factions quite interesting, but allowing civs to band together is certainly a good idea and will add a lot more rising to the mod

Your specific proposal of having civs merge and then potentially unmerge however would be very difficult to implement well. Keeping track of which civ should get what units if the federation breaks down would be difficult for one ... and also, all the AI relations for the federation members would have to get propogated. The former federation members would probably feel angry at civs who had attacked the federation ... and dividing up the spoils of conquered territory would be a mess (which is probably appropriate given how it's gone historically). So, here's my proposal for the federation mechanic:

Instead of truly fusing, the federation members a placed on the same team. If you've never played a team game (can be done in singleplayer), try it out. Teammates share line of sight, relations, research, wonder benefits, and their score is lumped together. It perhaps isn't truly a federation, as there is no "federal government" to set civic policy over the whole group, they only share relations and research at the federation level. There might be a way to constrain civics settings, but that'd take some further work.

The reasons for the splitting of the federation would still need to be ironed out, but taking players off the same team ought to be doable. There'd be no switching of who owns what needed, which would be nice.

 

[jdog5000]

Hey, well i installed the mod today, it looks great, liked what it adds to the game. My first game was a mess. I lost my capitol and another city(i only had 3) then the 3rd one rebels and i choose to play as new civ. But the city appears as city ruins, not as a city with a name. How do you fix this?

This would be a bug in the mod, probably related to the one where taking over for a barb civ causes cities not to display properly. Did you found this city, or was it a barb city?

 

[jdog5000]

Will there be a limiting number for new civs from barbs? Also on small maps there are up to ten Civs... quite a little bit too much...

Sure, I can add this ... two options, one limiting the number of civs from barbs and one providing a python level limit on the number of civs to limit new civ creation.

 

[jdog5000]

For those of you who have questions about the Amravolution mod pack, please contact skylined. If you ask enough questions I'm sure he'll open a thread.

Also, the revolution mod is not multiplayer compatible so Amravolution won't be either.

 

[jdog5000]

Hi jdog5000, in first THANK YOU!
your mod was something deeply missed in the game.
I had great time reading the thread and playing with your mod.
It adds deepness to the game...when you think things are getting safe and stable, something new can bring a huge change in the equilibrium.

For example 3 events from my last match:

event 1.
I may have avoided it, with some change of policy, but I didn't.
So I got 15 turns with the AI looking onto my empire. Fortunately he continued a policy or rebuilding after the war, so not too far from what I would have done... maybe I was lucky... but there wasn't so much more for the AI to do.
At least he didn't wage war to anybody in the meantime.

Event 2.
Very good that happened to Alexander... but it's very disruptive.
If it happens in the wrong moment it's hell on your empire.
With your mod better to kill every barbarian town in sight of your border, it's far too dangerous if they develope in an ostyle civ.
Does the AI understand it?

Event 3.
In general I think it's everything ok for builders civ... it was just in the very special case that their cultre bomd created problems.
if it happened near my homeland it woukdn't have had a huge impact (I always keep one culture bomb ready for special occasions).

In general great mod... it need a bit of flexibility in the human player to adapt to more events.
Your mod brings a mutability and dynamic that was missing in CIVIV: it was far too easy to follow a fixed plan to win, with your mod we are forced to a bit more of improvvisation.

Your welcome, glad you enjoyed it. To answer your question about barb cities and the AI, I have not added anything to make the AI more aware of the danger of these cities. However, they naturally do a good job of attacking them fairly early I've found.

 

[jdog5000]

Will you make in this mod the spy that can steal a technology from an rival civilizations that can be used from also by I.A. others Civilizations ?

I'm hoping I can borrow that from someone else's mod ... if so, I can certainly put it in there as a configurable option. I can't decide whether I personally would want to play with it on, as having the AI steal techs from me was something I found very annoying about alpha centauri. It also opens the door for what I consider an exploitation strategy: Set science slider to 0, build mostly military units, and then just spy all the techs you want ... you'll be able to pay for the spy missions and if anyone attacks you, you're military power can just crush them.

 

[Zarco]

Yeah, the city that appears as ruins was founded by me and then became an spanish city. Also, does the mod work on multiplayer?

 

[Dom Pedro II]

The best way to do the Spy thing is if the Spy does not steal the tech but rather beakers towards a tech like the GP's give or the enhanced tech conquest does... if it's a very cheap tech, they'll get it in one shot... if not, they'll have to do it several times.

And also, with Scotland Yard, it ensures that the player will not be able to build hordes of Spies but rather only in one particular city every couple of turns.

And decreasing the probability of success to say 25% or less would ensure that setting your science rate to zero would not be a viable option.

These three factors, I think, would balance it out... of course, the exact numbers would have to be figured out through testing.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I've also realized that another good mod component to integrate into this is Jeckel's Fort mod... The reason for this goes back to make trouble with the Malinese who kept rebelling time and time again... Unfortunately for me, my units were ejected from the Malinese cities when they rebelled, but they were not thrown out onto neutral or friendly territory... they were still very much in the heart of the rebel region.

A nice strong Jeckel fort there would've been a blessing! So occupiers of a country would do well to build such forts and keep them garrisonned in the event of a revolt... which, interestingly enough, is exactly what imperial countries have done in the past!

 

[jdog5000]

I've also realized that another good mod component to integrate into this is Jeckel's Fort mod... interestingly enough, is exactly what imperial countries have done in the past!

A good idea, will do.

does the mod work on multiplayer?

No

 

[GRM7584]

This is quite a fantastic mod, so I'm interested in which directions it goes. For forts, I have only one consideration: Will the AI use them? If not, I'd say leave them out, the human already gets a huge advantage over the AI, especially on higher levels (where the AI makes a habit of expanding recklessly and then breaking apart) and doesn't need yet another method of countering revolution that the AI has no access to.

In regards to the reckless expansion I mentioned: is it possible to slow that down, or reduce the optimal number of cities the AI tries to hold on to? Every game I have played, I've felt tremendously lucky if a single AI player is able to survive from the start to the end without slipping to the bottom of the totem pole through repeated revolutions and reconquests. Its a nasty cycle, and is probably fueled further by war weariness. Especially noticeable when an AI starts alone on a medium/large landmass: They have no competition and enough time to spread without encountering barb hordes, and soon cover the entire continent. It doesn't last long though, as it almost immediately breaks apart into lots of little civs, and generally stays that way the rest of the game due to the aforementioned cycle. I think the team Federations idea could potentially help a lot, provided they last long enough for the AI to build up their infrastructure. Might be good if the AI got higher health/happiness, or a higher priority on health/happiness buildings and civics. I'd also say that if it isn't already the case, the penalties for negative civics should be reduced or ignored for AI civs, if that's possible.

Again, I'm not sure if its already implemented or has already been suggested, but it seems like this would be a good mod to implement some less-than-total revolution type concepts in, like city rioting, mass emigration, or military defection; that is, say that a city is at Warning and declining, there could be a small chance of a Building being destroyed, a population unit "moving" to a foreign country (in the form of a worker unit), or a military unit stationed there disbanding or outright defecting to an enemy civilization (or turning into a partisan [barb] and fortifying itself outside the town).

It would be interesting if newly generated or changed civs (especially those from rebellions, or in the case of temporary election take-overs) could receive temporary, random (-3 to +3) modifications to their diplomatic relations with all other civs they have contact with, to show the increased diplomatic instability and disagreement that a new civ (or regime) next-door could potentially create between existing 'established' civs. For instance, lets say America spawns from England in a violent revolution, and randomly receives a small diplomatic bonus with France, who isn't too happy with England as it is and agrees with a proposal from America to declare war as a favor due to their (random and temporary) +3 relationship.

For limiting number of civs: I actually quite like the crowding that occurs, but there should be a distinction between major powers and minor powers, especially in the late game; if there is a way to increase the chance of civ integration for the AI (or better yet, a select few AIs) late in the game (Industrial onward) that would be a good thing. Its fun to have a destablizing patchwork of small civs (developing world) but its no good if the whole late-game map apart from the human is covered with 20 1-city civs loaded with longbows while the human is building the SS Engine.

The best way to do the Spy thing is if the Spy does not steal the tech but rather beakers towards a tech like the GP's give or the enhanced tech conquest does... if it's a very cheap tech, they'll get it in one shot... if not, they'll have to do it several times.

Maybe the spy should just be "stationed" in a city, and they create a constant small trickle of beakers for a single tech the spying civilization doesn't own but the spyee does, something along the lines of the "tech-leak via trade routes". The AI already knows how to station spies in cities to watch production, right?

And one more thing: If you're considering integrating other mods, I'd think a cultural mod component, specifically something like cultural decay, would be called for, given the amount of times that land changes hands. I like seeing the 6+ different cultures in a city in significant and insignificant amounts, but I doubt the AI is fully equipped to handle frequently inheriting cities with massive enemy culture, and could use some help in the form of decay in making it "their" city.

For Evaluation: I always play on Emperor, Standard, and various Map Settings, but mostly standard Continents for this mod.

Edit: Good grief. Wall of text. Don't read all that at once.

 

[Mrdie]

Do you have any plans on making a way for people to customize the names of "unborn" civs, so to speak?

For example, let's say it's about a year from now IRL, and you manage to have the mod work on pre-made maps like, say, a Europe map. And Amra's mod pack (+This mod) is installed.

Rather than have, say, Canada suddenly pop up in modern day Denmark, there could be customization tools to change things like this while creating the map (Like if the map was made as a scenario that didn't require you to download Amra's mod with this mod and then the tweaks by the user as another mod).

So even if it would be a bit unrealistic for, say, a user-made Irish country (Same flag etc as Canada, but different name and leader name) to spawn in Denmark, it'd still be more realistic than Canada.

 

[wolfigor]

Something I also noticed from my game is the extreme fragmentation that can occour in some continents... especially for the AI this is a huge problem.

I report more of my last game to share with others a lot of events due to the mod (hopefully more and more people will use it).

In my map you can count 4 continents.
(1) The estmost one was equally shared by mansa and Brennus.
Nothing strange happened here, it looks like no CIV was added/removed.
The two CIVs live in golden isolation.

(2) the westmost by Caesar (me), Alexander, Asoka, and Saladin.
Saladin was eliminated by the romans (I was playing as a warmonger), Asoka colonized the east, Alexander had to fend with a huge jungle.
The barbarian sublimated into the germans (Bismark) and burned each others armies (with a few towns)... the romans happily cleaned, bringing everything in their empire.

(3) Centre-West, Peter (south) & Wong(north). I don't think anybody else was there at start.
Long war between Russians and Koreans, leaving a lot of empty space at the centre (with a large jungle).
Barbarians became the Babylonians... not agressive so they didn't disrupt... a war-CIV would have been incredibly destabilizing.
Funny enough the Babylonians became, friendly, Vassals of the Russians.
The north of the continent was very fragmented.
I conquered Soul, former korean capital & buddist holy city... you have no idea how much trouble it gave me later!
I was crushing the Russians taking or burning half of their towns.
Peace threaty (no capitulation) and the russian leader changed to Stalin.
The baylonians weren't vassals of Russia anymore... but still at war with me, and refusing to talk!!!
They got the war because of the russians and now instead of suing for peace, they were trying to continue the war from their 2 remaining pityful towns.
This is probably a limitation of warlord.
Finally soul rebelled, I wanted to crush the rebellion but they had too many and too good military units (the same tech level as me), in the region I didn't have good units, the best were fighting a war against the russians.
Luckily, after a few turns, they capitulated to me: without a single combat!

(4) centre-east ... difficoult to see who was there at the beginning (I should take an autosave and look with WB).
Inca and Spain (Isabella) were there from the beginning... I'm almost sure.
Toku, Monty, Washington-Rosewelt (changed leader sometime during the game) probably joined later.
The continent is a patchwork!
Looking at the towns' names Toku can be a spin-off from the Inca...
Monty probably was a barbarian made CIV ... maybe not too far from truth even in vanilla game
All the CIVs here are pretty backward in this continent without enough towns to be meaningful at all in the game.
A human player can just land and cash-in all of them on the point of a gun.

I think continent 4 is far too fragmented, while continent 2 and 3 were spared by this frgmentation only because a large war of conquest an unification by the Human.

Continent 3 may have been spared extreme fragmentation also by the easy vassalage of the newborn CIVs.
Maybe this should become a standard feature: newborn CIVs have a more likehood of become vassals of an established (start-game) CIV.

 

[jdog5000]

Do you have any plans on making a way for people to customize the names of "unborn" civs, so to speak?

For example, let's say it's about a year from now IRL, and you manage to have the mod work on pre-made maps like, say, a Europe map. And Amra's mod pack (+This mod) is installed.

Rather than have, say, Canada suddenly pop up in modern day Denmark, there could be customization tools to change things like this while creating the map (Like if the map was made as a scenario that didn't require you to download Amra's mod with this mod and then the tweaks by the user as another mod).

So even if it would be a bit unrealistic for, say, a user-made Irish country (Same flag etc as Canada, but different name and leader name) to spawn in Denmark, it'd still be more realistic than Canada.

I do not have any specific plans for this. Currently, rebel civs are chosen based on similar art style, so that there is usually some correlation (a European civ will spawn a European rebel if possible). I'd imagine the best way to do this would be through an XML file ...

You just gave me an idea. I didn't want to add info to the standard civ XML files, as I want my mod to be easily pluggable with any XML based mod ... no modifications required. Instead, I could create a new XML file that sets up preferencial rebel types for civs. If this file exists, the mod will use it ... if not, it will use the existing artstyle machinary.

This file would look something like:

England:
rebel civ types:
America
India

How does that sound?

 

[GRM7584]

England:
rebel civ types:
America
India

How does that sound?

That would be extremely useful for modders wanting to incorporate your mod who have different civ setups in theirs, I think. When it runs out of rebel civ types, will it default to the normal mechanic?

 

[jdog5000]

This is quite a fantastic mod, so I'm interested in which directions it goes. For forts, I have only one consideration: Will the AI use them? If not, I'd say leave them out, the human already gets a huge advantage over the AI, especially on higher levels (where the AI makes a habit of expanding recklessly and then breaking apart) and doesn't need yet another method of countering revolution that the AI has no access to.

Glad you like it, and thanks for posting all these ideas! Whether the AI will use forts is certainly a good question, that combined with the major overhaul of the JFort mod scheduled for December have led me to stall in adding it in. There's a smaller component that just adds a sort of ZOC to forts that I might add instead.

In regards to the reckless expansion I mentioned: is it possible to slow that down, or reduce the optimal number of cities the AI tries to hold on to? Every game I have played, I've felt tremendously lucky if a single AI player is able to survive from the start to the end without slipping to the bottom of the totem pole through repeated revolutions and reconquests. Its a nasty cycle, and is probably fueled further by war weariness. Especially noticeable when an AI starts alone on a medium/large landmass: They have no competition and enough time to spread without encountering barb hordes, and soon cover the entire continent. It doesn't last long though, as it almost immediately breaks apart into lots of little civs, and generally stays that way the rest of the game due to the aforementioned cycle. I think the team Federations idea could potentially help a lot, provided they last long enough for the AI to build up their infrastructure. Might be good if the AI got higher health/happiness, or a higher priority on health/happiness buildings and civics. I'd also say that if it isn't already the case, the penalties for negative civics should be reduced or ignored for AI civs, if that's possible.

I do not know of any simple way to slow down the AI's expansion. This is certainly a bigger issue since you're playing on Emporer ... I'll try some tests at that level and see if there is a simple fix from the Revolution index logic side. I'll also add an AI only rev index offset that will in effect let you set their level of cohesion a little higher. In terms of civics, it's true that the AI is blind to the fact that these civics can cause revolution trouble. However, in most of these circumstances rebels will ask the AI civs to change their civics away from the offensive ones, and the AI will accept quite often. I feel this balances the effects ...

Again, I'm not sure if its already implemented or has already been suggested, but it seems like this would be a good mod to implement some less-than-total revolution type concepts in, like city rioting, mass emigration, or military defection; that is, say that a city is at Warning and declining, there could be a small chance of a Building being destroyed, a population unit "moving" to a foreign country (in the form of a worker unit), or a military unit stationed there disbanding or outright defecting to an enemy civilization (or turning into a partisan [barb] and fortifying itself outside the town).

I contemplated things like desertion or building destruction, and thought that even if they are realistic, they're not exactly fun. Having to replace buildings destroyed by riots seems a little much too, the rioters would probably not completely destroy the courthouse, just trash it. Perhaps the lost revenue and production during the riot could be seen as going to repairs? I've intentionally made rebellions large events ... in the very beginning, single barb units would run at your city every few turns if it was rebellious. These units are not a threat, as they have no backup ... they may pillage a couple things and then get destroyed. No challenge and not really any fun either.

It would be interesting if newly generated or changed civs (especially those from rebellions, or in the case of temporary election take-overs) could receive temporary, random (-3 to +3) modifications to their diplomatic relations with all other civs they have contact with, to show the increased diplomatic instability and disagreement that a new civ (or regime) next-door could potentially create between existing 'established' civs. For instance, lets say America spawns from England in a violent revolution, and randomly receives a small diplomatic bonus with France, who isn't too happy with England as it is and agrees with a proposal from America to declare war as a favor due to their (random and temporary) +3 relationship.

An interesting idea ... currently, this happens for cities rebelling for cultural reasons. So, if civ A owns a city with major culture from B, and it revolts, A is offered the choice to just give it to B. If A declines, relations between A and B take a temporary hit and B is offered the option of jumping in to save their city. If they don't, rebel civ C is spawned hating A and liking B. I could expand this so that rebels might start out with an affinity to other civs at war with A. A lot of this should be handled by the base relation logic, but I guess it takes a little while for religion and war sharing effects to kick in.

For limiting number of civs: I actually quite like the crowding that occurs, but there should be a distinction between major powers and minor powers, especially in the late game; if there is a way to increase the chance of civ integration for the AI (or better yet, a select few AIs) late in the game (Industrial onward) that would be a good thing. Its fun to have a destablizing patchwork of small civs (developing world) but its no good if the whole late-game map apart from the human is covered with 20 1-city civs loaded with longbows while the human is building the SS Engine.

This is certainly a big issue ... the little civs I usually enjoy quite a bit, as they add a little to the dynamic. With Vassal states, they can actually be interesting and involved in the game as AI masters at war seem to give their vassals techs fairly freely. But a whole map of tiny civs doesn't present a challenge to a big civ. Team federations are one way I hope to solve this, as the little civs will share tech discovery. I'm also thinking of expanding the assimilation logic, which right now only applies to civs whose capital has a large cultural influence from a bigger civ.

Maybe the spy should just be "stationed" in a city, and they create a constant small trickle of beakers for a single tech the spying civilization doesn't own but the spyee does, something along the lines of the "tech-leak via trade routes". The AI already knows how to station spies in cities to watch production, right?

Certainly a good idea, as it slows down the stealing process and makes it more detectable.

And one more thing: If you're considering integrating other mods, I'd think a cultural mod component, specifically something like cultural decay, would be called for, given the amount of times that land changes hands. I like seeing the 6+ different cultures in a city in significant and insignificant amounts, but I doubt the AI is fully equipped to handle frequently inheriting cities with massive enemy culture, and could use some help in the form of decay in making it "their" city.

What do others think of this?

 

[jdog5000]

When it runs out of rebel civ types, will it default to the normal mechanic?

Definitely.

 

[Eskel]

Few ideas:

1. Revolting city should have two possibilities: stand on their own or join existing civ
2. Newborn Civs should remember its origin civ
3. Joing and assimilation of civs having the same origin should be significantly easier. This rule should apply to small empires, so medium can stay on their own
4. I like idea of federations, but it shouldn't restrict player's or AI's freedom. Tere shouldn't be number, size or time restrictions. Federation members should have a right to join or leave in any moment (though some diplo penalties could appear)
5. It would be nice if revolution was preceded by 1-2 turns of standard Civ4 unrest, so it wont to be so much surprise.
6. I disagree that despotic rules increases chances of revolution. Its against historical experience: most empires were absolutist and obscurant despotisms to keep their citizens in obedience. Maybe despotism should increase unhapiness/revolution index, but then military troops should have a possibility of decreasing rev index and quelling of revolution. This should also lessen an AI's civs fragmentation.
7. It doesnt seem realistic to me that in each case rebels got the whole city, especially slave rebels. Is there any possibility to spawn them sometimes around city?
8. If there were units stationed in city during revolution, they should take some collateral damage and have small chance of defection to rebel side.
9. Revolution should produce units depending on city size. Smaller cities and single-city rebellions could be then much easier quelled.
10. Capital city should have a positive modificator against rev probability.
11. This mod would work great with new completely re-made civics system.

 

[Eskel]

BTW: Great, really great mod!!!

 

[Dom Pedro II]

6. I disagree that despotic rules increases chances of revolution. Its against historical experience: most empires were absolutist and obscurant despotisms to keep their citizens in obedience. Maybe despotism should increase unhapiness/revolution index, but then military troops should have a possibility of decreasing rev index and quelling of revolution. This should also lessen an AI's civs fragmentation.

Well, these forms of government certainly arose to try to crush resistance. But yet these empires fell just as hard or harder as any other forms of government. Especially since violence begets further violence.

7. It doesnt seem realistic to me that in each case rebels got the whole city, especially slave rebels. Is there any possibility to spawn them sometimes around city?

Originally, the rebels never got the whole city.

8. If there were units stationed in city during revolution, they should take some collateral damage and have small chance of defection to rebel side.

Agreed... especially non-human units.. i.e. tanks, cannon, etc. Equipment basically. They have no loyalties

9. Revolution should produce units depending on city size. Smaller cities and single-city rebellions could be then much easier quelled.

I believe this is already the case, but I'm not sure.