Satelite Nations and Takeovers

[Colonel]

Ok so we have all read the threads suggesting small independant nations that would not really get that big, well here is a sort of add on. Think cold war type scenerio or Age of Imperialism, two three or four world powers competeing for infulence over colonies(French and Indian War), independant nations(China in mid 1800s) or satelite nations(Eastern Block) where the powerful country wouldnt annex the small countries but create a sphere of influence over the smaller one where the smaller country would do as its told in matters of war but would run itself also their would be permanent unbreakable ROP Miltary Alliance and any other agreements, the only way to break said agreements is either the Big country would release them, or the small country would rebel. A sort of Subjegation. Territory in the smaller countries could be annexed at will and the smaller countries could be entirely annexed if you so disired. To keep the AI from just annexing everything, two possiblities, one the AI has 25% chance to annex so one in four countries would be annexed after they came under that countries infulence or the AI would keep pace with you, if yoiu annexed everything they would.

 

[ledfan]

cool idea, way to dominate a smaller nation without the use of military force. Useful if your forces are commited to a war with another large nation.

It could bee made so that nations could only be annexed if they are, say, 75% smaller than yours. It would also be a good way for small weak nations to stay alive,, they could choose to fall under the large nations protection, and take advantage of it to become stronger and larger. I've always thought it was a shame that those civs trapped on a small island had no way to catch up with the rest of the world.....

 

[Colonel]

I wasnt talking about just merely smaller countries that could have possibly gotten bigger but were cut off. I was talking about an idea devolped in another thread where certian countries would stay small no matter how much space they had, two or three cities tops.

 

[ledfan]

ahh OK. which thread was that (i havent had time to read all the threads yet)? did they suggest why they wouldnt just get taken over?

still what do you think about being able to annex small 'normal' nations, who have been trapped between two large ones? This was much the case for the old Soviet Block, where small countries unable to defend themselves ran to mother russia for protection, or where annexed for strategic reasons by Russia.

 

[Colonel]

I am sure the thread is somewhere buit I cant find it at the moment. Yes to your idea but I would think their would be some conditions like you couldnt just annex a total nation all at once but rather the part of the nation more sypathetic to you.

 

[Elrohir]

Maybe similer to when you badly beat a faction in SMAC? They had to sign a Pact with you and they almost always did as you said and had a "Submissive" attitude.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, one of the threads where so-called 'minor nations' is mentioned is in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112033

To summarise, though, there would be TWO types of Minor Nations. Non-competetive Minor-Nations would replace barbarians and goody huts. These would be smaller nations which would never get very large, but with whom you could fight wars, negotiate peace and/or even trade. In time, you could even invite them to join you as an ally, a protectorate state, or an outright part of your nation.
Competetive minor nations are those which form, during the game, as a result of civil wars. Despite their more competitive nature, however, they will still form alliances or protectorate deals if they feel it neccessary to protect their newly won 'independance'. Note, also, that a non-competitive and competitive minor nation COULD be one in the same-a 'barbarian' tribe assimilated into your nation during the classical or middle ages might break away from your nation in the Industrial/Modern age-and thus become a competitive minor-nation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think that there should be no 'Minor Civs' with any difference from 'Major Civs' other than their position on the power graph.

So 'Barbarians', Civil War Rebels, and Vassal/Puppet state/Colonies
would all just be civs that are either down on their luck or started with a strong disadvantage.

 

[ComradeDavo]

OK, one of the threads where so-called 'minor nations' is mentioned is in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112033

To summarise, though, there would be TWO types of Minor Nations. Non-competetive Minor-Nations would replace barbarians and goody huts. These would be smaller nations which would never get very large, but with whom you could fight wars, negotiate peace and/or even trade. In time, you could even invite them to join you as an ally, a protectorate state, or an outright part of your nation.
Competetive minor nations are those which form, during the game, as a result of civil wars. Despite their more competitive nature, however, they will still form alliances or protectorate deals if they feel it neccessary to protect their newly won 'independance'. Note, also, that a non-competitive and competitive minor nation COULD be one in the same-a 'barbarian' tribe assimilated into your nation during the classical or middle ages might break away from your nation in the Industrial/Modern age-and thus become a competitive minor-nation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This idea is great, I would love to see it implemented.