Civil War is the way to reset stability. Every particle has an anti particle. Every great civilization had an anti-civilization. Similar, and yet so diametrically different they would annihilate each other. Republican and Imperial Rome. Nationalist and Communist China. Northern and Southern American States. White and Red Russia. They did not loose cities to faceless independents. They all followed the same formula: Major Instability-Anarchy-Civil War-New Stability.
There are 2 basic approaches to modding: make vanila "larger" and make vanila "deeper". More eras, units, techs, civs, resources, promotions="larger". Dynamic Rise and Fall, stability, better AI, Congresses, lost contacts = "deeper".
Proposed Civil War mechanics meant to add depth to the mod, and not to make it like the car in your cartoon. The idea is not to punish the unstable leader, but on the contrary, create the catharsis moment: basically reset the stability by winning a bloody war against half of your former cities/units.
Many mods have something similar. In PAE, for example, a stack of 20+ units, especially lead by a GG, can revolt (become barbarian) and cause some serious rebellion. But barbarians are enemies of all, they have always war mode against all. I was proposing to design a special civ that is "barbarian" only in relation to the target civ. A civ which has "Vendetta" or "Always War" mindset against the target, but acts normal (just like target civ) with others.
I know it is hard to implement but this is how the ideal final result works. Say you are playing as a big, leading but unstable civ (China) and want to change civics. This triggers one-time only Major Civil War. A generic civ, as an evil twin, copies your war and settler maps, gets assigned to your UU, UB, UP, only different in leader and has an old civic as favorite one (Old China). Half of your units and cities (randomly chosen, so you can't prepare in advance) stay loyal to you (New China), the other (Old China) acts like a China for others, but as "Always War" Civ against you. Your stability gets reset to default, all your old penalties disappear, it is almost like you are experiencing a respawn right after collapse. But this comes with a price: you have to face your evil AI twin.
Basically human player can face his AI reflection at some point in his long game as a special challenge.
Just want to foreword this by saying I really respect your opinions, Tigranes,
because you can rationalize them very well and clearly explain your intent.
Now, I am still of the opinion that we need to be particular about what goes into the game, but I am glad you clarified this wouldn't just be a "punish the leader" mechanic.
I still have reservations about the mechanic overall for several reasons which I'll outline here:
1) Effect on the AI:
Like Leoreth said, the game has to be random enough to be interesting every time you fire up a scenario and samey enough to feel like baseline's progression of history as a reference point.
I love alt-history scenarios and seeing different things from baseline but I feel like this mechanic has a potential to get out of hand:
Will this mechanic ensure that there is always a civil war civ at all times, and how unrecognizable would the landscape be if you say, spawned as a late civ?
Will this mechanic only come and go three times per game like the plague?
How will the AI deal with this mechanic? Do we expect them to fall helplessly or maybe have a chance to fight back and win their empire back?
2) Effect on the Player (As Early Civs):
As mrrandomplayer, Fresol, Shadow Merc and I have stated on a number of occasions, ancient civs are very difficult to win expert victories with.
Going above and beyond with an Early civilization is an amazing experience; it proves you are the best of the best.
I can't speak for all of them when I say this, but it's precisely because it's so hard that we have a general trend of opposing changes that would make it harder.
Winning Domination with an European civ? Child's play. I could probably do it without save-scumming if I wanted to.
Try doing it with Egypt or Babylon, civs with weak modifiers, or China, a civ loaded with all sorts of special and hidden penalties.
It's almost like senior abuse to try and nerf them from their existing positions (although not in relation to each other; Babylon still needs some nerfs to make the Persia game suffer less).
This mechanic as described, I feel, will be a nail in the coffin for these attempts, which are some of the most expertly crafted experiences in the game.
You will exist for far longer, and thus, are subject to the mercies of this mechanic more often than if you ran a 600AD English or French start.
3) Effect on Performance:
I understand you understand the distinction between cramming new things into the mod and features that alter depth.
This is one I can be variable with. If Leoreth can whip something up that won't be very memory intensive, I can be willing to help refine this idea.
But as it stands, this will purportedly take up another civ slot and that's not a good idea to me.
Granted, we just got Canada, and Leoreth is the undisputed master of what goes in and what goes out, but I think it's important that we keep the modmod at a reasonable requirement threshold for players.
Again, see the Tell Me Your Secrets To Increase Performance thread.
It's not just Imp. Knoedel but I've heard more than once on occasion people lamenting not being able to play DoC because of toasters or performance issues.
Community is the lifeblood of this modmod and making the mod less accessible will shrink the number of voices considerably.
4) The Rubberbanding Aspect is still Immensely Offputting:
Now, I just so happen to actually love Mario Kart, but I can't stand rubberbanding.
It's going to feel like rubberbanding regardless if this mechanic will work anything like you said for PAE.
Consider this as well, if 20 units defect, you are not only losing your Hammer investment, you now have an immediately large threat present that can quickly decimate your ability to respond.
If you've ever played a computer version of Risk and used the Border Threat tool, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Armies are something you have to build up or spend tons of gold to stock up on.
Even if you are rushbuying, it takes at least 4-5 turns to build up a decent retinue. If these troops are selected at random, then how do you respond?
I'm under the impression your best war stack would be whisked away and you'd be left with garrison troops which are typically paltry.
Most players don't garrison their cities with many troops unless they have a choke or are healing up. That's just a basic fact, due to the innate design of Civ4. Offense is king.
Couple this with the fact that players
hate when they lose troops to noncombat sources.
I asked before if anyone actually liked being on the receiving end of the horrid "Our troops are joining the enemy in their war of liberation" and nobody, nobody piqued up.
Hell, players hate losing their units to combat sources already! I guarantee that every single one of you reading this right now have raged or come close to raging or delivered a biting "You kidding me?"
when losing a battle at 90+% odds. How do you think someone will react when they lose 20 units instantly to a civil war mechanic?
You'll lose half of all your outputs as well, which is seriously crippling and in some cases, you may as well throw the game.
Those are my points and I look forward to your response.
