Vive le revelution!

[Me,myself,and,I]

I have come up with a segestion for ciV.

In civ there is never internal turbulence, no civil wars or revolutions. So I was thinking that you could have a revolt and rebellion system where every so often the game will check a region of your empire for rebels based on factors such as happiness, civics, distance from capital, number of military units in the area, and culture. Depending on the circumstances this could generate rebel armies. These armys (banding together when they have a common cause) would each want something. Sometimes their demands can be met peacfully, somtimes not. A revolutionary movement will want something, lower taxes, emancipation, independence, or a change of civics. Certain civics can decrease the chance of revolution; at a price, often population productivity, or income, for example police states have a smaller chance of revolts but at the cost of a point of population every time a revolution would normaly happen. To change civics a player would declare anarchy and whatever civics he wanted to change to then armies under his command would fight the loyalists for control therfore sparking of a civil war or, if the rebels are strong enough, a revolution. This system would make great statesmen very useful because they would have a very good chance of pulling of a bloodless revolution, and would make it almost impossible to launch a revolution against the government as long as he is loyal. Just my thoughts, may be difficult with this new system though.

Down with the king!!!

 

[Bezurn]

You should check out the RevDCM mod for civ4, as well the other various mods that incorporate this mod. It does basically all that you mentioned in that very large paragraph that I only read part of

 

[the343danny]

Hahaha. Sounds like you will love the revolutions mod for Civ4. I use it as a part of Legends of Revolutions, or you can just use it with RevDCM as Bezurn said.

They wont demand lower taxes though, although the economy definitely affects stability. You can lead the rebel armies against your own nation by the way. This makes the game way harder especially at high levels like immortal, but you will love it.

I would love that for Civ5 though. Its kind of the only gripe I have with it; it might not ever have the revolutions mod.

 

[Gedemo]

I remember it was done in Civ Call to power II

 

[Afforess]

I'm pretty sure that Sid or anyone else at Firaxis will never add any revolutions-type component to Civ. Sid talked pretty adamantly against features that made the game harder to manage without making it more fun. That pretty much describes this feature.

 

[idle]

Fun is subjective, though.

Some might not think it fun to be watching out for rebels and internal opposition, but for those of us who really enjoy surprises and game-changing twists RevDCM is really a boon. I mean, rebellion is preventable if you play carefully, but it also means that you have to take a bigger risk when going on an offensive campaign. Another choice, so to speak. Being careful and avoiding rebellion might mean that you can't expand to secure the chokepoint or resource you want.

 

[Ahriman]

Some might not think it fun to be watching out for rebels and internal opposition, but for those of us who really enjoy surprises and game-changing twists RevDCM is really a boon

Which is why this makes a great mod, but a poor vanilla game characteristic.

 

[Afforess]

Which is why this makes a great mod, but a poor vanilla game characteristic.

Exactly.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Fun is subjective, though.

Some might not think it fun to be watching out for rebels and internal opposition, but for those of us who really enjoy surprises and game-changing twists RevDCM is really a boon. I mean, rebellion is preventable if you play carefully, but it also means that you have to take a bigger risk when going on an offensive campaign. Another choice, so to speak. Being careful and avoiding rebellion might mean that you can't expand to secure the chokepoint or resource you want.

Lots of "unfun" things have been in civ, pollution, corruption, anarchy, city maintenance, AIs that attack you.

The key is to make it
1. predictable
2. managable
3. manipulatable

#3 is different from #2 inthat it allows you to Use the strategy to further your goals


Revolutions/Rebellions would be EASY to do this with.

Currently there is a happiness mechanic, and all it does is limit the size of your cities.
What if a Happiness mechanic generated 'enemy units' instead. (no "Overcrowded" component, the city grows as large as the food allows.... but if there are things that make the city unhappy.... bad civics, enemy culture, not enough culture, you have too many other cities, etc.)

That would make it combat, which most people find interesting.

You stop it being "Whack-amole" by assigning units/cities on 'suppression' in which case the rebel units don't get generated, but the Suppresser takes damage.

 

[Set]

their should be few things capable of causing a revolution i mean if ciV is released two days late in santo domingo (where i will be living when it is released) al the civers there wil not rise up and overthrow he president. if revoultions are caused at all it should only be from bad civics or maybe (very maybe) war weariness.

 

[Afforess]

Lots of "unfun" things have been in civ, pollution, corruption, anarchy, city maintenance, AIs that attack you.

Those are all balancing mechanics, not gameplay mechanics. There is a huge, huge difference.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Those are all balancing mechanics, not gameplay mechanics. There is a huge, huge difference.

and why wouldn't revolution be a good balancing mechanic? It'd probably be better than most of those (especially because you could have ways to manipulate it... just like you can manipulate AIs that attack you.. get them to attack someone else)

If you conquer a lot of cities you have to deal with spontaneous enemy units being generated.

It seems like it would be more fun for a conquest oriented player to deal with productive cities that are swarming with rebels rather than unproductive conquests swamped with enemy culture. (because they can Deal with the rebels in the same way they got the conquests... militarily... of course they can only do that so much... they should have the possibility of biting off more than they can chew and having their new conquests rebel)

It would also provide a way to get Military benefits (more rebels in enemy territory, less in yours) through non military play (economics/culture) [since you can do the reverse]

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I was thinking more along the lines making it more important to please your people, and to make civics changes more fun. 'Cause really, since when does a kingdom change to a republic or viceversa without at least some fighting and unrest?

 

[Ahriman]

Because there are a lot of people who find having large numbers of their cities revolt out from under them annoying, and there are a lot of casual players who don't like having to keep track of the complex array of factors that contribute to Revolutions.

(Cultural) revolts were much more common in Civ3 than they are now, and many people really hated that. Conquering a city only to have it revolt back out from under you? Not fun.

Having barbarians or partisans appear that you have to deal is one thing. Losing control of a city (or several cities at once) is another.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Having barbarians or partisans appear that you have to deal is one thing. Losing control of a city (or several cities at once) is another.

That is why that is how revolutions should work.

Palyers should not Randomly Lose cities.. they should only lose cities in Combat or Diplomacy.

However, there should be other aspects to that combat/diplomacy (Partisans that are continually generated around unhappy and/or conquered cities, the ability to "Liberate" a city)

Basically Partisans need to be strong enough to be a balancing factor on Conquest.. especially v. Culture.

note: Civ V will have Puppet States (seemingly a way to collect the goods from a city you conquered without having to manage it. But that might have deeper uses than just a management tool for conquereors)

 

[Afforess]

and why wouldn't revolution be a good balancing mechanic? It'd probably be better than most of those (especially because you could have ways to manipulate it... just like you can manipulate AIs that attack you.. get them to attack someone else)

Balancing Mechanics are created out of necessity. This is clearly not a necessity.

It seems like it would be more fun for a conquest oriented player to deal with productive cities that are swarming with rebels rather than unproductive conquests swamped with enemy culture. (because they can Deal with the rebels in the same way they got the conquests... militarily... of course they can only do that so much... they should have the possibility of biting off more than they can chew and having their new conquests rebel)

It would also provide a way to get Military benefits (more rebels in enemy territory, less in yours) through non military play (economics/culture) [since you can do the reverse]

It's a very hard system to balance perfectly, just ask Jdog5000. He spent 3 years getting it right. As a feature, it's purely negative, it can only serve to restrict the player. Purely negative features are unpopular, and would not drive sales. So there is no way Shafer would design a revolutions system.

Don't get me wrong, I actually play with and use RevDCM, but it's simply not a good selling point for Civ5.

 

[NBAfan]

I say don't worry about it because the RevDCM team has said they will probably make one for Civ5.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Balancing Mechanics are created out of necessity. This is clearly not a necessity.

I'm saying it would be far better than most other balancing mechanics

As a feature, it's purely negative, it can only serve to restrict the player. Purely negative features are unpopular, and would not drive sales. So there is no way Shafer would design a revolutions system.

You mean purely negative like city walls?
Or purely negative like combat units?
or purely negative like nuclear weapons?


It can serve to do far more than restrict the player.

If the player can manipulate it, to use Against their enemies, then it becomes more than a balancing mechanic, it becomes a gameplay mechanic (like AI players)

 

[Ahriman]

You mean purely negative like city walls?
Or purely negative like combat units?
or purely negative like nuclear weapons?

Umm, what? These are things you can build. They're not negative mechanics, they're positive mechanics. You invest resources, you get a reward, a shiny toy that helps you.

A pure negative mechanic is something that exists only to harm you. Like having a chance of your cities randomly leaving your empire. Or having your units lose strength through attrition, or have your population shrink from pandemic plagues. None of these are in the main game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Umm, what? These are things you can build. They're not negative mechanics, they're positive mechanics. You invest resources, you get a reward, a shiny toy that helps you.

A pure negative mechanic is something that exists only to harm you. Like having a chance of your cities randomly leaving your empire. Or having your units lose strength through attrition, or have your population shrink from pandemic plagues. None of these are in the main game.

Citys do 'randomly' leave your empire... an enemy/barbarian unit that I do Not control walks in and the city leaves my empire

Units Randomly lose strength when those same enemy units attack them

My cities shrink due to unhealth taking their food (especially when the water supply is poisoned)

How do city walls help you? They Don't. They only slow down your adversaries, or worse they slow YOU down when you are attacking them.

A city wall is a "shiny toy" that you HAVE to build (in certain circumstances)

City Defense (buildings, CG promotion, Archers) is a purely Negative mechanic. You use it to avoid a loss.

For that matter so are combat units for portions of the game (sometimes the whole game)...You have this 'Shiny toy' but you didn't build it because you Wanted to. You built it because You HAD to otherwise Washington or the Huns would excercise that "City Loss" mechanic.

Bringing it back to revolutions/rebellions

If a player can Invest Resources in
1. Making his cities more resistant to rebellion
2. Making enemy cities* more likely** to rebel

Then he gets his "shiny toy" (partisans to use against his enemy Or a safe city)

*including enemy cities that were yours a short time ago, enemy cities that are nearby yours, enemy cities that you can cut off from other enemy cities.


This would be especially useful because a player has Multiple ways to invest resources with that mechanic (more units=>kill/support the rebels, more culture/happiness buildings=>less/more rebels generated)

**Note: I'm not saying ther should be ANY chance element, any more than Happiness or Health in Civ IV has chance involved.
If City Rebel Factors>Rebel resitance, then city spawns rebels...more/stronger Rebels the greater the difference