Secession

[ChuckDizzle]

I would like it to be possible for parts of your empire to secede. Armed rebellions would also be nice.
Also, a system of atrocities like those in SMAC would be cool.

 

[Colonel]

Yes of course it is a good idea,any thought on how it would work.

 

[ChuckDizzle]

A far flung part of your empire would secede if corruption or something is too high or too bad. They would share the same culture as yourself, naturally, but they would have a new leader head, and have a bad attitude towards you (if you let them go, they'll think you're weak; if you attack them, they'll hate you). Captured culture improvements would not be destroyed, because you're the same culture.

The atrocities would work just like SMAC, with certain actions declared atrocities and you take a rep hit if you committ them. Also there will be international reprisal, especially from civs in representative governments. Civs that have committed similiar atrocities are likely to look the other way.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Another thing that could effect a seccession is the amount of tile improvements. If your in the Industrial Age and the rest of the country is railed, but a certain area only has a few roads and barely any mines/irrigation, then I think the citizens would feel neglected, and would be more likely to secede.

 

[elementgoo]

i like this idea, although it could be annoying if done wrong. like city culture flips in civ3

 

[Bast]

Secession due to corruption is a brilliant idea. How about slavery? hehe.

 

[MeteorPunch]

It should only occur a maximum of once per government and once you recapture their cities, they can't secede again.

 

[German Soldier]

yeah like the american civil war.

 

[elementgoo]

I like the idea, put i dont want to have to micromanage to keep my empire from rebelling against me.

 

[Vael]

Anything that causes a city to spontaneously convert to another civilization's control is not a good feature. Many of the players I knew reloaded out of frustration after a culture flip happened to them (not the AI though, of course, which is always forced to endure these events), which is a surefire sign that a mechanic is not adding to gameplay value. Making it so that multiple cities would 'flip' away would only exacerbate the issue and make it that much more annoying.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think it'd be fine as long as it's avoidable.

example 1. a pop screen comes up and tells you there is a dangerous situation that needs attending to or else, succession.

example 2. it's is something hardcoded that happens a certain way. like, cities that are over 50% corrupt and are unhappy *and* revolting for 3 turns triggers the succession.

This way you could avoid it, but it's still possible. those were just off the top of my head, so of course it needs thought and testing before implementation.

 

[Vael]

What can a player do in 3 turns to completely turn around the way things are going?

 

[MeteorPunch]

What can a player do in 3 turns to completely turn around the way things are going?

I don't know how Civ 4 will work, but with 3, to make people happy just create some entertainers.

 

[Iron Beagle]

I like this idea. Maybe there could be special civilizations that can only be played by the AI, and only if there is a rebellion. And it can be toggled on and off at the beginning of the scenario for those who don't want this option.

 

[Hyronymus]

It's definetly a nice indicator of your skill at managing a large empire. If (a) part(s) of your nation secedes you must be doing something somewhat wrong. How about the possibility that having a strong enough army around reduces the chances of secession?

 

[Vael]

I don't know how Civ 4 will work, but with 3, to make people happy just create some entertainers.

Well if it it that easy to prevent a revolt then when would it ever happen? It seems like a good way to require more micromanagement.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Well if it it that easy to prevent a revolt then when would it ever happen? It seems like a good way to require more micromanagement.

yeah. by those versions it would just happen to noobs . I don't know how civ 4 will work, so that's the main thing. If it can be implemented well with the system, maybe put it in, if not, oh well..

 

[tidho]

Anything that causes a city to spontaneously convert to another civilization's control is not a good feature.

I'm not sure this will make you feel any better about it but a true sesession is a lot different than a cultural flip in that it wouldn't convert to another civilization. It would mean the generation of a new civilization added to the game....same effect on you, no giant benefit to anyone else.

 

[sealman]

I'm not sure this will make you feel any better about it but a true sesession is a lot different than a cultural flip in that it wouldn't convert to another civilization. It would mean the generation of a new civilization added to the game....same effect on you, no giant benefit to anyone else.

Technically, the cities would flip to another civilization, although the other civilization is a new one.

One thing that noone has ever addressed in these many threads on this same topic is the techs. What happens to all techs that my civ has when another splits off? Does the new civ get them?? If so, there goes the tech lead that I spent all game working to obtain because the first turn of the new civ will be a massive tech trading/selling spree.

 

[Horus Kol]

I think secession could really work - if done correctly...

Think about the US civil war - (which was not just about slavery, but more about Lincoln wanted to give the federal government more power, and take it away from the state legislatures - which was the primary reason for the south's secession).

Or the English Civil War - a Monarch detached from reality getting his comeuppance at the hands of Parliament.


It could be that you are deciding upon a course with a great reward - but at the risk of alienating part of your nation...


As for tech lead - the Confederacy was technologically behind the Union in 1860.