Life After Death

Christantine The Great · July 23, 2000, 20:37

As I had once said in another thread, when a civ is conquered in Civ II it is gone for good. In SMAC, when a faction is conquered than their cities retain the style of the conquered for 50 turns which is stupid. I think that in Civ III when you are conquered you can have an option to keep running your last cities to be conquered as a governer type of person. You can slowly build up a secret military when the civ that conquered you doesn't use the production from a city under your control. You can divert money from the coffers to supliment your annual "pay". To do this you have to suck up to people you can work your ways up the ranks to becoming a extreamly powerful official who can call on the military power from an entire region (please include these Firaxis!) to revolt aganst your king. The ranks would be something like this:

Mayor-You control one city (former capital). If you disobey your orders once than you are killed and your game ends. Your pay is 10 gold every other turn. You stay a mayor for 20 turns.

Local Governer-You control 2 cities. You may disobey your orders once and get a 50% cut in pay for 10 turns. The next time you die. Your pay is 20 gold every other turn. You stay a Local Governer for 15 turns.

After you are a Local Governer you can chose one of two paths to follow. You can be a Colonial Governer or a Regional Governer. If you chose Colonial Governer than you are in control of half of the overseas cities owned by the civ. If you chose Regional Governer that you are in control of one third of the cities on the home continent. The following is the colony path:

Colonial Governer-You control half of all colonies. You can disobey 2 times without penalty before the discovery of steam. (Info travels slowly) After that you can only disobey once without penalty. After the last free lie you can disobey and lose your pay for 5 turns. The next time you are demoted to a Mayor with no pay until you become a Local Governer. The next time you die. Your pay is 40 gold a turn. You stay at this level for 25 turns. This is the lowest level in which you can revolt and break away from the mother country and form your own country. Your only armed forces at the start are your secret army and a milita/partisan unit from each city under your command. You can build new units though. If you fail your game ends.

Colonial Magistrate-You control all colonies. You can disobey orders 3 times without penalty. after that you are demoted to Local Governer, then to Mayor, then death. Your pay is 70 gold a turn. This is as high as you can go.

This is if you follow the mainland way:

Regional Governer-You control 1/3 of all cities on the home continent. You can disobey orders once without penalty. Then you lose your pay for 5 turns. Then you are demoted to Mayor with no pay. Then you die. You cannot revolt because you are too close to the ruler. Your pay is 50 gold a turn.

Regional Magistrate-You control half of the main cities or your former empire. You can disobey orders 2 times without penalty. after that it is the same as the Colonial Magistrate. Your pay is 100 gold a turn. This is when you can break away from the mother country. This is as high as you can go here.

You use your money for three things. One, to buy your secret army. Two, to make whatever your ruler wants and still build a unit and three, to pay off your superior so you can disobey your ruler without penalty.

Please revise this and make suggestions.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

Adm.Naismith · July 24, 2000, 10:42

If my Civ become conquered, I'll simply start a new game

Where I can understand the need of a rule to restore AI factions from cinder, what's the point of some overcomplicated rules to save my "back" if I made a bad game?

Christantin, that's not real life, we can lose without harm, can't we?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

Napoleon I · July 24, 2000, 17:10

Christantine:

Maybe I am just a little slow here but would your idea really add some good things to the game? I mean I would have to agree with Admiral, You can just start over

. I think that such random tinkering with the game mechanisms is not going to add anything significant in terms of playability, but might succeed in complicating matters to a point where no one will really be able to play the game due to the huge amount of different rules.

------------------
Napoleon I

Christantine The Great · July 24, 2000, 20:07

Fine. Forget it but I want to tell a little story. I started an empire on the world map in Europe and I grew large but not large enough and was conquered. I managed to escape to Austrailia with some men. I survived there for a little while until some idiot made the Apollo Program and found me. If I had run away a little earlier I would have been prepared for what would happen next. I managed to get to Madigascar before all of my cities were conquered and survived there until 2250. I had left Europe in 1100. My point is that you are not always doomed if your base of your Civ is captured.

Back on topic...

I guess the idea s**ks so don't bother posting anymore everybody.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

Napoleon I · July 24, 2000, 22:48

Christantine, I really did not mean to be so negative. Based on your post I think that you might have taken some of the criticisms too much to heart. In that case I offer my apologies

All I wanted to do is start up some meaningful discussion of the merits of your idea.

*Napoleon I gets up, walks over to Christantine, tries to shake his hand. Christantine gets up smacks Napoleon in the face*

So much for reconciliation

------------------
Napoleon I

Comrade Dan · July 25, 2000, 02:25

nope. Not a good idea. Too confusing.

Christantine The Great · July 25, 2000, 21:50

Forget it Napoleon, I don't mind.

quote:

*Napoleon I gets up, walks over to Christantine, tries to shake his hand. Christantine gets up smacks Napoleon in the face*

Nah. But since Comrad's post is should go something like this...

*Napoleon I gets up, walks over to Christantine, tries to shake his hand. Christantine gets up and throws the chair at Comrad Dan*

Just kiddin'

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

Napoleon I · July 25, 2000, 22:03

I'm glad you're cool with it Christantine. Keep them good ideas rolling.

Reconciliation complete

------------------
Napoleon I

The Joker · July 26, 2000, 10:44

Are you guys kidding??!!??!?

This is a GREAT idea!

Perhabs not so much for yourself, but particularly for the other civs. Nationalism would be a fantastic addition to Civ3. I think that when you conquor another civ's cities then these cities should remain loyal to that civ, and they would want to break away. After a few turns with peace with the other civ (or after it's annihilation) these cities will accept that they are now a part of your empire. But the wish for independance would still be there. And if your civ was at one point weakened, for instance because of a large war, they could rise against you and cause huge problems.

Adding this would introduce a whole new, and as far as I'm concerned required dimension to the game. It shouldn't be possible to just conquor the entire world and keep it without problems. your civ should have a large possibility of simply breaking apart, if you have just conquored lots of other civs without thought.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

CornMaster · July 26, 2000, 11:27

Christantine:

I think it's a pretty good idea too but it's just a smidge too complex. If you simplafied it a little (not so many levels) it would be pretty good. and would add a whole new dimension to the game.

The Joker:

I just don't think that your civ should only rebel when you weak but also when you are neglecting them, or doing stuff they don't like. I also think that civs should be able to merge together. Like Canada and the USA now. They are considered one country by many people in the world and in Civ 3 this show also be able to happen. As well as new Civs breaking away from you that are in colonies but this would have to be done through a province system.
Anyway, that's all for now.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If the great Emperors of Rome, Egypt and Greece were alive today, do you think they would prefer Coke or Pepsi?"

Az · July 26, 2000, 16:21

yep I agree with the joker . it is a good idea . but i thought more of the direction of the place where does the waste go .

sure you see it as waste but actually these are resourses for an army of partisans
( no not the ones that cost 50 shields ! )

gold and shields are accumulated for a matter of turns and then cheap partisans attack . they will get an attack bonus and will have saboteur capabilities .

Regarding all the resistance movements it will only be fair !

------------------
Prepare to Land !

Christantine The Great · July 26, 2000, 19:37

CornMaster

I really don't see any levels to take away without taking away too much (Well...maybe Mayor).

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

July 31, 2000, 19:12

The idea is GREAT!! It could also add to a second version of the civ. game. I mean, there's the empire game, then the rebellion game. Though if you lost your civ. it would become a rebellion game. That would be awesome, starting as either is a good addition for the idea. Again, your Idea is GREAT! I'm sorry, but my Psy. powers won't show you the future,(I am a Mew after all. And Mews have Psychic powers...) but I hope this is included in Civ 3...or it could become an entire game itself!

Adm.Naismith · August 1, 2000, 08:07

Civmew, you wrote

quote:

It could also add to a second version of the civ. game. I mean, there's the empire game, then the rebellion game.

How many games do you think Firaxis can write and debug at the same time? Or, more important, how much $ do you think they will charge for the boundle

Sometimes I think we are so falled in love for Civ that we would like every games become to be in and named Civ

Folks, there are more good games as CIV is, in different genre than TBS!

Next time someone will start wondering of a car race game as GP3 as a City improvement to add to Civ III

BTW, I saw your last statement

quote:

... it could become an entire game itself

I'm just kidding a bit

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

August 2, 2000, 00:02

I don't think I'd like to be a mayor for a couple hundred years..

But this idea could apply to conquered AI leaders.. Perhaps after you conquer them you could choose to execute him or use him in your administration. He could have some special administrative qualities and would benefit you somehow.. If he didn't rebel, that is..

------------------
Get paid for every second you spend online at http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk
Refer people (like what I'm doing) to earn even more. $50 a month is not uncommon.

-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980

Deathwalker · August 2, 2000, 04:55

Way to complex and boring to, if you get conquored, you would be killed, never left to run even one city, so no. This is not a good idea

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

DarkCloud · August 10, 2000, 11:35

Sorry I can't agree with this idea, it makes the game too drawn out,
how about a simpler model based upon the capture of your capital city. (Your civ revolts and you take control of one equal half)

I believe the game already has something like that, but I have only DONE it to other Civs and never had it DONE to me.
-Because I'm such a good player (Brag, brag)

Falke · August 18, 2000, 08:01

I like

the basic idea of Christantine . I could be part of the rise and fall of empires. Simply conquer another civilisation not is enough. In history there where a lot of kings living in exile in another country organising a revolt or a civil war for example Ireland- England etc. A leader comes home after a revolution (Napoleon, Lenin).
I personally believe there should be lot more of "nationalism" in Civ II making it harder to control a new country.
Big Empires always spend a lot of time fighting revolts and civil unrest's. Why feel loyalty toward a king living across a sea in an unknown land?
Suggestions: There should be introduced the concept of a civil war in CIV 3, where you empire is spilt apart. It could be at turning points in history (changing the government, "losing a war"), depending at the distance and the connections with your capital (One of the biggest inventions of the Romans where their streets, making it possible to control such al large country), living in another continent (independence war of America, Australia, Kamboscha, India etc), more modern governments are available....

Biddles · August 18, 2000, 21:36

I agree with Sir Shiva. If you totally defeat a civ than you can use the leader. For example, I am playing as UoP and I defeat the morgans than I can use morgan by placing him in a city as an administrator. I still make all the decisions, but that city gets a +1 economy bonus. Because there are no major conflicts between morgan and zak, there would be no adverse side effects. However if I was UoP and I conquered miriam and tried to place her in a city (to increase my probe rating in that city), my probe rating would go up but that city would have a lot of drone problems.

This can be applied in terms of the social engineering screen. If you capture morgan, as a free market economy that city would get +2 economy, as a green economy +1 economy to that city, and as a planned economy +1 economy but also 2 extra drones.

This is in terms of SMAC but it could be applied to Civ3.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

UltraSonix · August 18, 2000, 22:26

I think the idea is good in principle, but it might unbalance the game. So maybe for a certain amount of turns, the benefits/negatives are halved and rounded down. So capturing the Gaians would result in NO bonus (+1 planet is rounded to zero), but capturing the Cult would result in +1 planet (they are usually +2 planet). Perhaps only after a set number of turns do the full benefits/negatives of the captured leader set in.

Of course, you should be OFFERED the option of assimilating the captured leader - just in case you're already on -4 growth and you accidently get another -2 growth or something.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Adm.Naismith · August 21, 2000, 06:59

Sorry, but I can't remember any main leader that, loosing a war, started working on the enemy side.

The only similar concept I remember are Puppet Government, like France during Vichy or Italy during Republic of Salo'.

Sorry, I don't like this idea. OTOH, if rebellion and civil war will be implemented I would like to have diplomatic way (or secret action) to support one of the leaders, asking in exchange some bonus (special trade pact, money, military or production support, etc.).
The concept of free a leader from enemy prison (as in SMACX) can be implemented with a "rebel agreement" before the mission (and bad diplomatic effect in case of mission fails)

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

DarkCloud · August 22, 2000, 21:15

Why would the civilization that conquers yours
keep on the evil leader of the vanquished civilization, it just boggles the mind.

To think that any civilization would be so stupid to do so.

1. Killing the leader would be a rallying point for rebels but!

2. Not killing him would be an even bigger rallying point, especially if you put him in charge of a city.

That is why no leader of a conquering civ has put a conquered leader in charge of a city!

Besides, It would be too complicated.

UltraSonix · August 23, 2000, 05:10

quote:

Sorry, but I can't remember any main leader that, loosing a war, started working on the enemy side.

I'm sure that modern "persuasive techniques" can be employed to make them see the error of their old ways...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Adm.Naismith · August 23, 2000, 11:04

quote:

I'm sure that modern "persuasive techniques" can be employed to make them see the error of their old ways...

Maybe, still a "puppet" can't be very helpfull, if not reducing a bit the unhappiness of conquered citizen and slowing the revolt (look at the Vichy France during early WWII, or at Mussolini after the arrest by Italians king order and the unexpected freedom by German commando on Hitler order).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant