Vive le revelution!

[Impaler[WrG]]

A FUN game mechanic to reflect the historical tendencies for empires/states to break-up due to internal civil-war is the Holy Grail of Civ modding. For it's entire existence Civ has been a game about 'creating' an empire whether it be by the sword or the plow the player is always trying to get MORE of everything. Breaking up an empire is going to take something away from the player and that is fundamentally a punishment in a game about getting MORE. Either their would need to be a mechanism to literally give a 'Less is More' effect (BTS approach with Colonies) or Civ would need to be a game about something other then getting MORE stuff, at which point it wouldn't really be Civ anymore.

 

[Ahriman]

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

That's not random. That's easy to control by fighting off the enemy invaision with your military.

There is a large difference between a barbarian invasion and some event based on info you can't see on the main screen that instantly loses your city.

I agree with your comment above:

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

It seems you no longer do?

My cities shrink due to unhealth taking their food

Yes, unhealth and unhappiness are purely negative effects. They're there as critical game-balancing effects, and their penalties are relatively minor and accrue slowly over time. They can't cause you to instantly lose a city.

How do city walls help you?

They protect your cities, meaning that your units are more likely to win fights.
That's a positive effect.

City Defense (buildings, CG promotion, Archers) is a purely Negative mechanic.

Rubbish. City defense makes your military stronger. THere is an obvious positive effect.

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.

I wonder if you don't understand what positive and negative mean. Units are a positive; you invest resources, you get a Thing that makes you Stronger.

A FUN game mechanic to reflect the historical tendencies for empires/states to break-up due to internal civil-war is the Holy Grail of Civ modding. For it's entire existence Civ has been a game about 'creating' an empire whether it be by the sword or the plow the player is always trying to get MORE of everything. Breaking up an empire is going to take something away from the player and that is fundamentally a punishment in a game about getting MORE. Either their would need to be a mechanism to literally give a 'Less is More' effect (BTS approach with Colonies) or Civ would need to be a game about something other then getting MORE stuff, at which point it wouldn't really be Civ anymore.

Agreed. Rhyes managed this within a specific narrow context, but isn't really generally applicable, and it could *still* be very frustrating to deal with. RFC is not really aimed at the casual player.

 

[Afforess]

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

Citation Needed.

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.

Point by Point rebuttal, shall we?

City walls are not a purely negative feature. For the record books here, a Purely Negative Feature is one that only serves to harm the player, with the negatives grossly outweighing any benefits. I don't see how city walls falls into that category, since building walls is obviously a beneficial move, protecting cities for vital turns.

Combat units are likewise a net-positive feature, as it allows expansion when room runs out, as well as providing for defense against others.

Nuclear weapon are another net-positive feature. The cheap cost and huge usefulness make them a valuable last-stand unit. Does the threat of being nuked deter players from building them? No.

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)

Sure, there is this minor positive, but this can not outweigh the negative reaction from having cities completely rebel against you, and being defeated by your own cities. It's the net effect we care about.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's not random. That's easy to control by fighting off the enemy invaision with your military.

so its OK if the mechanic is Controllable, even if part of it is outside of your control.

Yes, unhealth and unhappiness are purely negative effects. They're there as critical game-balancing effects, and their penalties are relatively minor and accrue slowly over time. They can't cause you to instantly lose a city.

Unlike combat... so you ARE OK with mechanics that can cause instant city loss as long as it is
Controllable.
(Note: I'm not proposing anything different than combat as a mechanism for city loss)

They protect your cities, meaning that your units are more likely to win fights.
That's a positive effect.

Your units are only more likely to win fights that would otherwise cause instant city loss.

That is what City Garrison/City Walls do, they reduces the amount of "Combat instant city Loss" by damaging enemy units that would otherwise cause that to you.

Rubbish. City defense makes your military stronger. THere is an obvious positive effect.

How is a stronger military positive?.. because you can Do more with it... Well city defense itself does Not let you Do more.
The only way city defense Lets you Do more is by making something you HAVE to do less expensive (like courthouses... they don't give you anything you can do, they reduce something you have to do.. so a Courthouse is a science building.... because it reduces the amount of gold you need)

I wonder if you don't understand what positive and negative mean. Units are a positive; you invest resources, you get a Thing that makes you Stronger.

How does it make you stronger? because you have more 'Things'?
Is maintenance a positive mechanic because you invest resources in a courthouse and now you are stronger? you'd probably say no, so let me continue

Military Units are only positive for 1 reason
1. They can get you a city (oh forgot pillage gold)
on that basis nuclear weapons+siege weapons are NOT positives

Military units (including nuclear weapons+siege) ARE useful for 2 basic reasons
1. Imposing a negative mechanic on your enemy (taking a city/unit loss/pillage)
2. Preventing an enemy from imposing a negative mechanic on you


any "Thing" in the game should do one of those 3
1. Get you closer to the victory line (new cities do that for domination, or indirectly for space race)
2. Make your competitor get away from the goal
3. Prevent/mitigate those things that would take you farther from the goal (some are competitor caused some are 'balancing' mechanics)


I'm proposing that revolution/rebels be
1. Nonrandom
2. Something you can affect the amount of in your cities
3. Something you can affect the amount of in enemy cities (both ones founded by the enemy and ones recently taken by them)
4. Something with multiple ways to handle (nearly pure military up through nearly pure culture/happiness)

In what way is this different than combat (other than the level of complexity in combat)

The Revolution mechanic should not directly cause city loss, it should cause Combat.

That Combat may then lead to city loss.


I think I see the distinction Afforess may be making

Maintenance=Negative mechanic
Courthouse=Positive mechanic (reducing negative effect)

Enemy AI/Barbarians=Negative mechanic
City walls=Positive mechanic (reduces negative effect)

Unhappiness= Negative mechanic
Happiness Booster=Positive mechanic

Cultural borders=negative mechanic (they stop you from working)
Culture generating buildings=positive mechanic

BFC=negative mechanic (it is purely negative that I cannot work a tile anywhere in the world)
Ability to found cities=positive mechanic


The issue for a mechanic that is negative is if there are associated positive mechanics that can be fun and provide strategy (civ 3 pollution failed, Civ 4 unhealth did better)


since you are worried about net effects let me assure him that is not a problem. I'm proposing this 'net negative mechanic as a Replacement for other net negative mechanics (ie unhappiness, enemy culture stealing tiles, possibly even city maintenance, etc.)

We have Health to balance a city size cap... unhappiness is redundant for that.. make unhappiness a way to control the size of your Empire... bigger empire, the cities are more unhappy, they generate more Rebels... (unless you do things to make those cities more happy..ie build temples, put Your culture on the tiles it works, get the right civics)

 

[Ahriman]

so its OK if the mechanic is Controllable, even if part of it is outside of your control.

If a mechanic is controllable, it is less likely to be seriously unfun for the player.

Unlike combat... so you ARE OK with mechanics that can cause instant city loss as long as it is Controllable.

War isn't instant. They have to beat your army first, and they have to invade your territory. They don't get to just say "hey, I want that city" and it instantly becomes theirs.

How does it make you stronger? because you have more 'Things'?

Because these things have value. You can use them to expand and conquer, and you use them actively.

There is a very basic human psychology at work. We like being active in making decisions, and determining our fate. We don't like things that just seem to "happen" to us. The Revolutions mod is great, but its very non-transparent to casual players.

Military units (including nuclear weapons+siege) ARE useful for 2 basic reasons
1. Imposing a negative mechanic on your enemy (taking a city/unit loss/pillage)
2. Preventing an enemy from imposing a negative mechanic on you

Using units are active. You do things with them and make decisions with them, and they are a form of strength and power.

I'm proposing that revolution/rebels be
1. Nonrandom
2. Something you can affect the amount of in your cities
3. Something you can affect the amount of in enemy cities (both ones founded by the enemy and ones recently taken by them)
4. Something with multiple ways to handle (nearly pure military up through nearly pure culture/happiness)

What does this achieve that unhappiness and culture doesn't achieve already?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What does this achieve that unhappiness and culture doesn't achieve already?

First, It makes them become implemented in a way that
1. is more significant
2. can be more actively managed
3. is more intuitive

Note: unhappiness in Civ 4 (and 1-3 to some degree) is effectively nothing more than a population cap mechanism.

Second, it allows Military implications to non military pursuits (while pursuing a cultural type victory you can get military benefits, ... similar to military victory pursuits giving other benefits... and military players can't neglect their culture/happiness in the exact same way that culture type players can't neglect their military)

If a mechanic is controllable, it is less likely to be seriously unfun for the player.

War isn't instant. They have to beat your army first, and they have to invade your territory. They don't get to just say "hey, I want that city" and it instantly becomes theirs.

The mechanic should be predictable and managable, yes.

There is a very basic human psychology at work. We like being active in making decisions, and determining our fate. We don't like things that just seem to "happen" to us. The Revolutions mod is great, but its very non-transparent to casual players.
Using units are active. You do things with them and make decisions with them, and they are a form of strength and power.

So its not that these things you het are positive, but that you Do something with them.

You don't use buildings actively, so I guess buildings are best compared to 'upgrades' of a city (which you do use actively)

What I'm proposing is a way you can use your cities and diplomacy(and/or whatever eventually replaces espionage) actively to cause/prevent military situations.

Ways that you can gain strength and power, making your empire harder to attack, making your enemies weaker.

A FUN game mechanic to reflect the historical tendencies for empires/states to break-up due to internal civil-war is the Holy Grail of Civ modding. For it's entire existence Civ has been a game about 'creating' an empire whether it be by the sword or the plow the player is always trying to get MORE of everything. Breaking up an empire is going to take something away from the player and that is fundamentally a punishment in a game about getting MORE. Either their would need to be a mechanism to literally give a 'Less is More' effect (BTS approach with Colonies) or Civ would need to be a game about something other then getting MORE stuff, at which point it wouldn't really be Civ anymore.

Simply, you don't need an empire to break up.... you just need to make conquest require multiple stages

1. Stage 1... get Troops in their city
2. Stage 2... get them Happy/Cultured enough to want to stay with you

Stage 1 is (and should be) Fast... it should probably be faster.. (my Ideal civ would have wars only lasting between 1-5 turns)

Stage 2 should take a Long Time

So in terms of 'getting more' you have

What you Really have (cities that are happy and content with you.... this can suddenly change with 'civics' switches or other imperial unhappiness events though)

What you are trying to solidify your hold on (places that you have, but can more easily be taken if you move the troops out)


The "More" of the game would be about expanding category 1, which should continually get more if you are playing well

Category 2 would be more flexible... easy come, easy go... if you are a good player it also would expand most of the time... but sometimes it might be worth giving it up to get more of Category 1.

Technologies would continually allow you to expand your reach (cutting down distance unhappiness)
Competing cultures would allow you to cut into someone else's Territory (like it does in 3+4, but in a more predictable resistable way)

 

[Darkhour]

A FUN game mechanic to reflect the historical tendencies for empires/states to break-up due to internal civil-war is the Holy Grail of Civ modding. For it's entire existence Civ has been a game about 'creating' an empire whether it be by the sword or the plow the player is always trying to get MORE of everything. Breaking up an empire is going to take something away from the player and that is fundamentally a punishment in a game about getting MORE. Either their would need to be a mechanism to literally give a 'Less is More' effect (BTS approach with Colonies) or Civ would need to be a game about something other then getting MORE stuff, at which point it wouldn't really be Civ anymore.

I do believe that the game is to "...build an empire to stand the test of time". The 'building' is simulating the creation of an empire, and 'to stand the test of time' (Aggressive civs, random events and possibly vanilla 'revolutions' etc.) is to battle against adversity in doing so.

 

[Chalks]

Unlike combat... so you ARE OK with mechanics that can cause instant city loss as long as it is
Controllable.

No controllable mechanic can be called "instant". If you know you are in danger of losing a city and able to take action to control the mechanic, then it is not instant.

The concept is that if completely out of the blue you get "BAM bad thing!" and there's nothing you can do about it, this reduces the enjoyment of the game. Since it's a game, the number one priority is to increase enjoyment.

The only reason anything negative exists in the game is because the game would be less enjoyable without them.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

First off there should be plenty of time between checks for revolution, and a few turns prior to the revolt you should be forewarned. For example you have a high tax rate one of your overseas colonies is unhappy the distance from the capital, the unhappieness, and the grueling taxes, combined with being a monarchy causes these colonies to revolt, but a few turns before the colony revolts you are warned of rumors of a revolution for independence, you can then try and fix the problem by making concessions to the colonists.

Another thing that could result from this mechanic is civil wars and revolutions in city states, this would considerably spice up the diplomatic game. For example Stockholm lies at a strategic point between Japan and England, Stockholm is allied with japan, England and Japan are not on the best of terms. The situation remains stable until Stockholm had a civil war between pro-English rebels to the west and the pro-Japanese loyalists to the east. Englan swiftly moves to support the pro-English faction against the stronger loyalists, Japan sends troops to support the loyalist faction against the rebels. These events cause war to break out between Japan and England. With this sort a variability added diplomacy would become much more intresting.

 

[Ahriman]

For example you have a high tax rate one of your overseas colonies is unhappy the distance from the capital, the unhappieness, and the grueling taxes, combined with being a monarchy causes these colonies to revolt, but a few turns before the colony revolts you are warned of rumors of a revolution for independence, you can then try and fix the problem by making concessions to the colonists.

I really hate the idea that many people seem to have today that the American colonists revolted because of *high* taxes. They weren't highly taxed, they were barely taxed at all. The Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxes being too high (the stamp duty was pretty trivial), it was that they resented paying any taxes at all to a democratic government that did not enfranchise them.

If the English government had acted responsively, they could have enfranchised the colonists, and avoided the revolution.

I also think its unlikely you're going to have different tax rates for different cities in Civ5. Gets too complex.

Another thing that could result from this mechanic is civil wars and revolutions in city states, this would considerably spice up the diplomatic game.

I think you have to really note Impaler's point from post #21. Intervening in other faction's civil wars sounds fun at the time... but having your own faction fall apart and devolve into civil war is just really not fun.
This is why they relaxed cultural revolts in Civ3 going to Civ4. Losing cities through non-military means is something that many casual players really don't enjoy.
Which is why this kind of mechanic belongs in a mod, not the main game.

 

[zizzeus]

Losing the city in civ3 I could deal with. Losing my entire army acting as garrison in the city, with no compensation whatsoever ... quite another.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I never said that the colonists revolted because of high taxes they revolted because of taxaition without representation. That example was just loosley based off of the revolution. Well the idea is that if you are careless enough to let a city revolt after you've been warned you probably deserve to lose that city. Secondly the main perpose of this feature is to make civics changes more interesting. Civil wars between factions wanting different civics would certanly spice things up a bit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

. Losing cities through non-military means is something that many casual players really don't enjoy.
Which is why this kind of mechanic belongs in a mod, not the main game.

No.. that is why the mechanic needs to operate through military means...

Revolutions should not cause anything to happen to cities

Revolutions (caused by unhappiness/Civic Switches/foreign culture/conquest) should generate enemy millitary units.

The player knows how to deal with that.

 

[Ahriman]

Revolutions should not cause anything to happen to cities

Revolutions (caused by unhappiness/Civic Switches/foreign culture/conquest) should generate enemy millitary units.

The player knows how to deal with that.

I have no particular problem with that kind of mechanic, as long as its transparent to the player what they can do to avoid uprisings.
Still, it seems like the kind of mechanic that might get added in an expansion, rather than the vanilla game.

And there IS an advantage to trying to get Firaxis to add these kinds of mechanics rather than doing it through mods; they can try to adjust the AI to properly deal with the causes of Revolutions.
This is the ultimate downfall of the Revolutions mod IMO; the AI just can't handle it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

2x post, sorry

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I have no particular problem with that kind of mechanic, as long as its transparent to the player what they can do to avoid uprisings.
Still, it seems like the kind of mechanic that might get added in an expansion, rather than the vanilla game.

And there IS an advantage to trying to get Firaxis to add these kinds of mechanics rather than doing it through mods; they can try to adjust the AI to properly deal with the causes of Revolutions.
This is the ultimate downfall of the Revolutions mod IMO; the AI just can't handle it.

I do think it is more likely to appear in an expansion (CivV: Rebel Alliance ) particularly because
Espionage and Religion would have potentially big effects on that.


The biggest advantage (to me) is that it would be a lot more sensible implementation of Happiness.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Agree with Ahriman, and Krikkitone.