Revolution: with BarbarianCiv, Rebellion, AIAutoPlay

Hi again, I have a suggestion for the next version, how about when there is a revolution in a civ that is a rival there is a pop-up which offers you to support the revolution financially. So for example the leader of the rebels in (your past enemy/rival) and asks for money to finance his/her rebellion, if you give them money then they receive more units and money, e.g 10 gold = 1 unit; remainder goes into treasurey.

And your relations with that rebel leader increases so i dunno +3 with something like : "You helped us in our time of need" or just the average: "Our trade relations have been fair and forthright."

Thoughts?

I ike the sound of this idea, and think it could be expanded. For example, when a neighbouring civ fighting revolutionaries, both sides have the oppertunity to ask for your assistence, and which ever side you help, assuming they are victorious, becomes your vassal in the aftermath? Or if not your vassal then, as above, you get some positive relation points for your troubles.
 
Is the source included in v0.81w for Warlords 2.00 or 2.08?
 
First off want to say I love the possibilities of this mod. It's the first mod i've seen that really does something to change the core gameplay.

Here is my take on how this could expand into something completly incredible.


First Stage:

Limit the selectable civs at start ONLY to civilizations from the ancient era.

Second Stage:

Make it so when a city rebels the following occurs-

1.) You get a popup asking which side you wish to take control of (your original empire, or the new emerging one)

2.) Choose from a pool of period specific (or ficticious but possible) civilizations. For example if your in the colonial age America could emerge.

3.) If possible make it so the new civilization is given access to the original civs unique units and buildings as well as their own. (If the British split into america, they get access to the Redcoat as well as the SEAL)

4.) New Civs certainlly would help :)

5.) Give newer age civs signifigant bonuses vs older ones.

What this would do is make older civilizations stagnate the older they become. Players would be forced to make a choice between becoming a newer more powerful civ, but losing most of their empire.... or keeping their older civilization and land, but becoming less useful the further along they go.

This would help emulate the progression of socieity as well...

Using this you could also allow for several "special" situations.

For example if a city with a religious capitol were to rebel a civ like the "papal states" could emerge. Declaring war on them would severly anger other civs of the same religion. Perhaps limit them by making them AI only (no choice to switch to them) and making it so they cant control more than 3 or 4 cities. Lots of things to consider here!

As for barbarians becoming civs... The current system sounds great already...but perhaps make some civs barbarian only. You could emulate the formation of the indian nations this way for example. If there is a landmass with no non-barbarian nations on it they could form there. Their technology is limited but they get huge growth bonuses, maybe access to a seperate tech tree or several unique units each? Lots of possibilities here I think. It would mean that you'd need plenty of units to conquor a "new world", but it would likely be 20+ warrior/spearman type units to one of your musketmen or knights or whathaveyou - Perhaps trading with these civs (or conquoring them) would be the only way to gain certain techs? If you were able to give them a unique tech tree perhaps they could have special wonders that would benifit you back home as well...


A few other ideas to consider with this sytem would be:

If you conquor a civ (of the same era?) you get access to their unique units and buildings (or if you conquor enough of their cities maybe? The exact specificiations would prolly have to be determined by playtesting)

Additional Mid/Late game versions of unique units. For example Modern Jannasaries, Mideivil Gallic Knights, etc. -- Make them not as powerful as the "native to era" units of the same period, but still slightly more powerful than the regular units. This could add a good dynamic to the game.

Take for example: You start the game as the Romans, you have a revolt and become the Turks, you conquor the Mongols, and later split into the Americans. Here is what you would have in late game:

You'd have your usual Navy SEAL UU. You'd also have a "Modern Jannasary" unit, A Modern Mongol UU (lol I forgot what their UU is ;-) ) , and a modern Legionaire type unit. You'd also have access to the unique buildings of each civilization. This would mean each empire would be radicly diffrent from one another. It would also give you pause as to weather you should become a more modern empire when the choice is available, or hope that another chance comes along with units/buildings you want more. It could even lead to you INTNENTIONALLY slowing research to prevent moving into a more modern era (Didn't the church do this in real life?) in hopes of a better revolution. Again lots to consider.

I think thats everything I can think of. I know it's a lot. If I had the skill i'd make some playtest models at the very least to see whats possible here. Let me know what you guys (especially mod developer) thinks. I can prolly make civs and possibly UU's (minus the graphics) if you'd need help with this, but it's pretty easy to do so you might work faster alone :)

Anyway great idea :)

-S

UPDATE:

Finally got some time to try it out. Your definatly on the right track. A few things to note however....

I started my game with 8 empires, huge map and marathon speed (as always). By the time I reached the first age jump, ALL of the civs had been used up already, and empires were revolting into the Barbarian State!

Perhaps a solution for this (aside from creating all new empires) would be to allow any leader to control any empire (this already kind of happens when you support a rebellion), and to make "duplicate" civilzations. Maybe make a script that would make variants of the same empire name: The Persian Empire, The Persian Caliphate, The Persian Republic etc. - Maybe make some of them possible only in certain eras. Maybe "light" revolutions could occur that would split an empire into two identical empires (in terms of UU's and buildings etc.) -- this would be pretty cool in midgame if you use my idea of progressivly gaining UU's etc. -- By midgame both you and the other side could have real revolts and have mostly the same things but slight diffrences (For example: You start as Roman, split into the English, have a "light rebellion" (say for example splitting into the English Empire, and The Kingdom of England), later you (Empire) split into America, and they (kingdom) split into China - You both would have Modern Jannasaries, and Modern Redcoats, but you would have the NAVY seal, and they would have... err I forgot the chineese UU lol :)...

Just an idea on how to resolve that using the system I have above.

A few other (unrelated) things that I think would help the mod out greatly. First off I think the mod NEEEEEDS an inquisition system. Since religion causes revolts in many cases there needs to be a way to root out the evil religions causing the problem.

Second - More repressive governments usually lead to LESS rebellion rather than more - Depotisim should have the LOWEST chance of rebellion not the highest. The freer people are the more likely they are to revolt. As it stands now in early game your getting revolution messages every turn with the only way of solving is by invading neighbors... but what if your on an island map?

Third- make some updates to the tech tree. Perhaps theres an early age wonder that prevents rebellions until say The Calender is invented, and another one in each era. Maybe some buildings specificly help curtail the effects of a rebellion etc.

Fourth - While its not the focus of the mod perhaps increase research time a bit so people spend a little more time in each era. With so much stuff going on, even as is it can be a little overwhelming to advance so fast...even on marathon level.

Fifth - Add new colors for empires if possible. It gets confusing as all heck right now when you kill an empire and think you see it again later.

-S
 
yes, yes but:

Is the source included in v0.81w written for Warlords 2.00 or 2.08?

because it does not compile with 2.08.
 
I'm a bit late on the scene with this Mod so this may be obvious to those who have been following it more closely, and although I've trawled though a good number of posts I'm a bit confused as to the version numbers.

Currently, Warlords version is 0.8w and vanilla is 0.6a. Given this, and going through the changelog and other docs, can I assume that the vanilla 1.61 version is no longer in developement and that the Warlords expansion is the only version in development? Or is it in development and just behind? Or are both being worked on and the numbers are just co-incedently at different points (Warlords having more changes introduced)?

Ta.

BTW, great great mod idea and execution. Thanks muchly!!! :goodjob:

EDIT: :cringe: Oh deer, just had another read through one of the readme docs and noted this:

"This mod will be making the switch over to Warlords soon. Unless there are unforseen serious bugs, this will be the last Vanilla release."

Apologies for missing this :crazyeye:
 
I don't know if it is your mod or the game (as I usually only play your mod), but Qin Shing and Kubla Khan have their leaderheads mixed up and the graph for crop yield is messed up. It only starts like in the 700's. I have Warlords. Please help.
 
I don't know if it is your mod or the game (as I usually only play your mod), but Qin Shing and Kubla Khan have their leaderheads mixed up and the graph for crop yield is messed up. It only starts like in the 700's. I have Warlords. Please help.


Regarding the leaderheads...if it is just the other way round than it has been forever since the vanilla release version, then it is intended and caused by an official patch.
 
Great mod if only because now keeping your people happy has a significant point, also rushing to found every major religion is no longer a good idea. There is, however, one suggestion that I have, and I don't know if it's even feezible.

Would it be possible to utilize the alternate leaders in this mod? Say for instance that you are playing the English as Churchill and a split occurs. Would it be possible to rig it so that the alternate civ that emerges is also English but controlled by Elizabeth or Victoria? That would create a whole new dimension when choosing who to play as you are no longer simply choosing yourself, your choosing whom you may have to oppose in a civil war. It would also create a much more realistic civil war senario and give a use for the multiple leaders. For those civs with only one leader, the rebels could simply be barbarian.

Perhaps this could also take the place of the whole 18 civs max thing. Instead of allowing a nation to multiply until the globe contains 18, perhaps you could rig the game to only allow each civ to split into its different factions. You start out with Egypt, Rome, and Germany (3 civs) and end up with up to Egypt (2), Rome (2), and Germany (3) (totalling 7 civs).

The tricky part, I realize, would be finding a way to spawn alternate versions of the same civ in-game without making it totally confusing. How does the computer seperate them without having them seperate at the beginning selection phase? Maybe it's impossible, but if implemented, I think that it would be incredible, so why not throw the idea into the mix, eh?
 
The tricky part, I realize, would be finding a way to spawn alternate versions of the same civ in-game without making it totally confusing. How does the computer seperate them without having them seperate at the beginning selection phase? Maybe it's impossible, but if implemented, I think that it would be incredible, so why not throw the idea into the mix, eh?

I've played a game when the same civ occurs twice, although not on any mod, what i saw was the computer (imaginatively) choosing two different colours for the civs. That being the only difference, and when you open up a screen in a city the nationality section will just be 50% English (white) 50%English (grey). (Try it, its funny to see a nation declare war on itself.)

The whole idea of multiple Englands/Russias etc. fighting each other is a great one i think, the problem i think would be if one of the rebel civs wanted a leadership change, you could end up with two victorias fighting one another, that would be weird.
 
About the financing a rebellion idea i mentioned before i've been thinking about it, how about when there is a rebellion in another land which you have contact with a window opens up saying something like:

News of rebellion from the land of (civname) reachs your capital, you now face the options of diplomacy.

Recognise Rebels as a true faction
Offer financial aid to the Rebels and Recognise them as a true faction
Condemn Rebels altogether
Ignore rebellion

If you chose to recognise the rebls as a true faction then your relations with the parent civ would suffer, while the rebel civ would increase.
If you offered financial aid to the rebel civ you'd get a "our trade relations have been fair and forthright" and "you gave us help" diplo increase, while the parent civ would refuse to talk with you.
If you condemned the rebellion then the rebels would refuse to talk to you, while you're relatios with the parent civ would increase.
Ignoring the rebllion altogether would make the rebels refuse to talk to you (a pattern emerging) and you're relations with the parent civ would be uneffected.

Also after this an announcment would be sent out, like the whole "support for the rebellion swells" but it would say something like:

(your civ) (recognise/finance/condemn/ignore) the (rebel civ).
 
I've played a game when the same civ occurs twice, although not on any mod, what i saw was the computer (imaginatively) choosing two different colours for the civs. That being the only difference, and when you open up a screen in a city the nationality section will just be 50% English (white) 50%English (grey). (Try it, its funny to see a nation declare war on itself.)

The whole idea of multiple Englands/Russias etc. fighting each other is a great one i think, the problem i think would be if one of the rebel civs wanted a leadership change, you could end up with two victorias fighting one another, that would be weird.

That could tie into that whole idea I mentioned earlier (read the monster post I put before) of renaming civs dynamicly (The Kingdom of England, The English Empire etc.) -- would at least be one way to handle that idea
 
As would having a list of pseudonyms for such nations with multiple leaders. England and Britain. Russia and Soviet Union. America and United States.
 
Sarke, i have read your monster post before, but after re-reading it i find it intriguing. I find your idea of civs gaining UU and UBs scary, imagine a civ with Immortals, Cho-Ko-Nu's, Preatorians, Jannisaries, Redcoats, Panzers? That would be a monster nation to fight, i couldn't imagine any counter to such a monster.

Perhaps instead of having the ability to gain UU and UB's a system could be made that put extra happiness into the cities of new civs, and increased the loyalties, or lowered loyality from older civs. This would lead to a constant chnage of rulership of regions, which would duplicate history, in regions such as Persia were empires rose and fell again and again. While not leading to monster nations because of course a nation with multiple powerful UU's could crush any rebellion.

I have no idea of how the inquistion idea could be put into Civ4 Warlords.

But an extra feature could be put into the game were rebels could be proclaimed as the defenders of the say Budhist faith against the encroaching Hindus. This would lead to an interesting game, and perhaps be a starting point for further religious action into religion.
 
Sarke, i have read your monster post before, but after re-reading it i find it intriguing. I find your idea of civs gaining UU and UBs scary, imagine a civ with Immortals, Cho-Ko-Nu's, Preatorians, Jannisaries, Redcoats, Panzers? That would be a monster nation to fight, i couldn't imagine any counter to such a monster.

Perhaps instead of having the ability to gain UU and UB's a system could be made that put extra happiness into the cities of new civs, and increased the loyalties, or lowered loyality from older civs. This would lead to a constant chnage of rulership of regions, which would duplicate history, in regions such as Persia were empires rose and fell again and again. While not leading to monster nations because of course a nation with multiple powerful UU's could crush any rebellion.

I have no idea of how the inquistion idea could be put into Civ4 Warlords.

But an extra feature could be put into the game were rebels could be proclaimed as the defenders of the say Budhist faith against the encroaching Hindus. This would lead to an interesting game, and perhaps be a starting point for further religious action into religion.

They are mainly brainstorms of course... balance would be the main decision making factor if they decided to put any of it in. As for the UU's... they would be a monster nation to fight if they managed to stay alive that long.... after a rebellion they would be fighting for their lives simply to exist. Many "older" empires would win out over their advanced rebellions simply due to sheer numbers. For a chain of rebellions to happen 5 or 6 times would be nearly unheard of-- and if it did they wouldnt have enough territory. Of course some things would have to be coded to prevent abuse (make it so you only can have 1 or 2 UU per era maybe?) ...

Imagine how any of those changes would completly change the whole scope of the game though :)

:king:
 
They are mainly brainstorms of course... balance would be the main decision making factor if they decided to put any of it in. As for the UU's... they would be a monster nation to fight if they managed to stay alive that long.... after a rebellion they would be fighting for their lives simply to exist. Many "older" empires would win out over their advanced rebellions simply due to sheer numbers. For a chain of rebellions to happen 5 or 6 times would be nearly unheard of-- and if it did they wouldnt have enough territory. Of course some things would have to be coded to prevent abuse (make it so you only can have 1 or 2 UU per era maybe?) ...

Imagine how any of those changes would completly change the whole scope of the game though :)

:king:

Hmm, a system to limit UU's might work, perhaps once you reach three UU's the oldest UU is removed, so there can only be two UU's. An example could be the Incas have a rebellion the Mali, the Mali now have Quechas and Skirmishers, there is then a rebellion in the Mali empire and the English are formed, the oldest UU the Quecha is not available to the English only the Skirmishers and there own UU the Redcoat.

The same could happen for UB's, to prevent Unique U/B collecting.

As to old empires surving multiple rebellions with numbers alone I'm not so sure, in my last game there was a massive rebellion in the Aztec Empire and they were overthrown in a single turn. Admitadely the Aztecs were backward and being invaded by me at the time, but i have seen similar things, especially when empires are losing wars, or have been to successful, have expanded to far for there own good.
 
Hmm, a system to limit UU's might work, perhaps once you reach three UU's the oldest UU is removed, so there can only be two UU's. An example could be the Incas have a rebellion the Mali, the Mali now have Quechas and Skirmishers, there is then a rebellion in the Mali empire and the English are formed, the oldest UU the Quecha is not available to the English only the Skirmishers and there own UU the Redcoat.

The same could happen for UB's, to prevent Unique U/B collecting.

As to old empires surving multiple rebellions with numbers alone I'm not so sure, in my last game there was a massive rebellion in the Aztec Empire and they were overthrown in a single turn. Admitadely the Aztecs were backward and being invaded by me at the time, but i have seen similar things, especially when empires are losing wars, or have been to successful, have expanded to far for there own good.

true enough :) -- Theres so much potential in the concept though... so many ways it could be implemented.... Maybe instead of limiting the UU's -- Embrace the changes... give each empire their own SET of UU's... making you want to rebel into a nation that has something that compliment it... or ...or... the whole concept just gets me too excited to think to be honest lol... But yeah there would definatly have to be some limits if a system like this was implemented....
 
Top Bottom