Revolutionary Nations?

[makoto]

How about new civs that break away if a revolt is sucessful? I mean the america and many other countries won their nationhood this way. Also how about the civilization you own granting autonomy to like, a city or a group of cities to form a new nation/civilization? Wha do ya all thinK?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think that each city should be a potential civ,

There are three problems and solutions I can see with Revolutionary Nations (which really only exist in the New World, where the Previous invaders were able to wipe out most of the previous nation's culture..other wise they are just an old civ reemerging)

1. How are their bonuses interpreted/given
Solution: Select a playable Civ for that game and Copy them (if that Civ already exists in the game then just change the name... So the Americans might be a copy of the Russians ie Cossack UU, Catherine Leader, but the Name would be Bostons/New Yorkers.. based on the Revolting City they formed from, because the name Russian was already taken by an existing Civ...this is what Civ 2 did, but I'd include the name change so that one could have a couple 100 civs in a game without thinking up 100 seperate combinations of traits/UU/whatever else is Civ specific in CivN*)

2. How they score points (if Final game score is based on your score on all turns of the game, some Civs would be at a disadvantage)
Solution: allow a Civs points to be rated based on when they enered the game

3. Who controls them...It'd probably have to be an AI, unless Human players can 'switch horses' or 'late enter'

*I say Civ N because this is something I would like to be in any Civ and since cIV is probably not going to include this if it doesn't have it already

 

[searcheagle]

Problem 4. The total number of civs in the game and their associated colors. Solution: A new civ is not created untill an orginial civ dies. This way there is never more then 16 civs.

 

[rhialto]

The fact that civs are represented by a mere single colour (plus shadings) is a big flaw. We should have actual flags associated with teh civs, flying with each unit and each city.

 

[searcheagle]

The advantage of colors is the making of easy identification by the human participate. The disadvantage is there limited number of possibilities.

Because of the identification component, I say colors must remain.

 

[rhialto]

Why do you think flags would be harder to identify than a mere colour? While few people could probably reliably identify the few hundred flags in active use today, I imagine that there is no one who would normally play civ who could distinguish between any two flags. For game purposes, you don't need to recognise, merely distinguish. That level of identification is child's play, and allows for a greater number of easily distinguishable entities than you could get with just one colour per civ.

Quite a few civ2 mods had real detailed flags instead of the single colour flags that came in the default game. It added anm incredible amount of flavour to the mods.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well you could have Civs identified with a two color combination. for any Real diplomacy, you really need far more than 16 civs

 

[Commander Bello]

I think the idea with the flag is not bad.
As it would have to be a *very* small flag, it the unit would have to show it constantly, it just could pop up as soon as you move the mouse button over it and would disappear, as soon as the mouse button would be somewhere else.
Same would go for towns and other installations.
This doesn't require much, neither much computing power nor very difficult algorithms. It would require a second set of backgrounds, though. Although not being an artist, I think that this would be the least problem.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not that conservative that I think colors are the only way to do it. Although it does make looking at that mini-map really really easy. You do need more than 16 civs (even a bunch of minor "barbarian" civs) to make diplomacy more compelling.

(Although as a side note, national flags weren't really invented until the middle ages. In ancient times, there were kind of a bunch of miscilaneous banners. Then again, in the ancient times, there were kind of a bunch of miscilaneous tribes and states.)

 

[rhialto]

At http://www.rhialto.easynet.co.uk/jwinfaq/ you can see a few flag icons that were made to be used in civ2 mods (yep, I appropriated them for another purpose). These icons are 16x16 pixels, but quite distinguishable for all major countries. Perhaps a single colour for the minimap (which I think the player should be able to change in-game to make it easir to read), but flags are definitely the way to go for the main map.

 

[crimson238]

What about different patterns of colour on the mini-map to represend civs (red with blue stripes ect...) and for the boarders, and then distinguishable units.. i know it's a lot more atrwork, but have the tanks ect.. look at least slight different
failing that, then i think that just having the colours on the unit as now with stripes/checkers ect.. is the way to go. Of course, it depends a lot on the scale of the units in as much as visibility goes.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, no one needs to ask what I think of 'Revolutionary Civs' !
I do find it intriguing though that, some of histories 'Revolutions' have played out like Civ2 civil wars (The American Revolution, for instance) wheras some Civil Wars have played out like Civ2/3 Revolutions (like the English Civil War-Charles: "I wanna change my government to 'Absolute Monarchy"; Domestic Advisor: "Sire, this will be VERY unpopular with your people". "I don't care, I'm changing it"; "Oh dear, sire, it looks like the Worker and Middle Class factions have rebelled against you!")

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well that is one thing I would like to do is merge the model for government change and the one for Revolution

Essentially 'Government' is a specific relationship between one City and a Civ (so you can have divided government) and if a City didn't like its current 'situation' (governmentally, unhappiness wise or they're Indian and your Chinese) that City would attempt to break off.

The idea is that the government people prefer should largely (but not entirely) be based on how happy they've been under that government, so if your people have been kept happy under Fascism, attempting to suddenly change to Democracy because you are at peace and have conquered and 'cleansed' your continent will result in them becoming unhappy.. so the first few turns of a 'revolutionary Government' are very risky and you have to get your happiness in order quickly... (now if other situations have the people demanding you switch your government because you haven't kept them happy, then that might work, but it would still be messy)

Note: a City Rebelling should be fairly easy to reconquer, if you can meet its demands (or have enough troops) ie the French Civ renegotiated with all its cite that rebelled.. so it was a governmental change, The English Civ didn't and so New Civ was formed as the cities merged into it.

 

[dh_epic]

And America's Civil War was relatively short, when you look at a "game" that lasts 6000 years. Rebelling shouldn't be a death knell.

It should slow down good player, and never happen to the best players. In fact, for the best players, they should be able to rock the boat of another Civ, then grab some power, influence and land before they can recover completely.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, I see a Rebellion (successfully managed ala Union-Confederate v. English-American) to be something at worst like Anarchy. (although it could probably be serious when dealing with foreign conquests)