"The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York"

[dognheat]

To me there was nothing more satisfying than seeing the message:

"The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York"

or something to that effect, then the revolution. You could then either support your new city or say the hell with it and laugh. It was a very satisfying thing I would like to see more of. In general I would like to see more territorial changes that were not gained through any action on the part of others. Lets say the culture rating of one of your not so powerful nieghbors is very high compared to yours. I think that your citties on the border should have second thoughts about your superpower status. Thoughts ???

------------------
*PLOP*

[Bereta_Eder]

If the culture part is implemented as I suspect it will be, Civ III will be really great.

Let's say you opt for a huge empire, vast armies and the aim to conquer as much as you can.

But, at the same time, you simply have to neglect your culture coherence because instead of building a library you chose knights or whatever other military unit.

Now you have A LOT of cities and military. But some of your (small sized by default) border cities are next to the relatively tiny civ of the Babylonias (whose cities I loved to conquer in Civ II by the way ).

Some of your cities could admire Hammurabibi and revolt leaving your strategy a littel dry (or at least more difficult to implement).

As your border cities decide to fall for the charm of the babylonians the overall BABYLONIAN culture level is thus dropping and balance is restored and you have lost some.

This would be very good, but it also could be very messy if you see it from the other side.

Say you have created your extra technological, extra perfectionist small civ with huge sized cities, all the improvements in them, and an army capable of repelling almost any attack. Your culture level is very high.

Some nation's cities decide to intergrate with you without your permission (which by itself is a little un-historical although it has happened before but rarely).

Now you have your perfect state but suddendly you find your self with a number of underdeveloped, poorly defended cities that are propably on a VERY bad strategic location in relation with the civ from which they came from.

I think that 8 out of 10 times you will starve them to death and eliminate the new, unasked for, problem unless they have a wonder in them.

The whole idea is very good but I think it must be implemented with extreme caution by Firaxis!

I also think that it should not be the culture level but the money (money per person) that infuences the other civ cities or maybe a combination of the two.


For example Iraq people would not like to intergrate with the USA (distance excluded), despite the big difference of wealth between not only for the bombing but also because of the different culture.

Also I think most of the time there should be IMMIGRATION instead of cities changing side.

For example Albania will not integrate with Greece or Italy despite the big difference in wealth. Instead virtually half of the albanian population has now immigrated to cities of Greece and Italy.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by dognheat on 04-15-2001 02:34 PM To me there was nothing more satisfying than seeing the message: "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York" or something to that effect, then the revolution.

Yes, I felt that way too! But I also agree with paiktis that it's rather unrealistic that cities could just join your civ without you having any say in the matter! I would prefer to see that 'admiration' notice followed by diplomatic negotiations (with the seceding city/ies now being treated as a minor civ, and therefore able to negotiate). You would then have the chance either to accept them into your empire, or to ally with them as a 'client state', or in fact to make any other kind of treaty you like. If you totally refuse to negotiate with them, they would either have to remain a part of their original civ or revolt and set up as an independent minor civ (= fair game to either side!).

In fact you could really give them a hard time by refusing to absorb them into your empire, but making some kind of meaningless treaty with them - which would force them to become independent, and therefore open to reprisals from their former civ! While you watch on the sidelines and laugh, seeing your enemy being weakened in this way...

[SerapisIV]

Along your idea of reprisals from the old civ, Ikuul, I think the owning civ of the city should usually be very violently opposed to losing its territory to the point of war on most occasions, because how many times in the past has a nation given up its territory freely to another nation? Even if the territory has little in common with its original civ. Look at the entire Balkan region now with the militant Albanians.

I think that this could be a good thing because I know that I usually play a builder game, but some kind of action like this forces you into war when you don't want it, a possibly very realistic addition to Civ, while still increasing fun by making you keeping you on your toes.

Along those lines, if a city rebels and is then quickly recaptured by its original civ, they should not be able to steal tech from you as it really wasn't one of your towns anyway. A kind of transitionary period should be instituted before the city is actually able to be considered fully one of your own.

[Bubba]

I never liked the fact that cities could just join your civilization
in Civ II (or be enticed into joining). I think that there are perhaps two better ways to implement a response to "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York":

1) Create a settler or worker out of the popluation of Sparta that arrives next to NY; and/or

2) Create another (minor?) civilization out of the city of Sparta that then asks for a peace treaty or alliance with the Americans. [This is also a better way to deal with the bribing of cities then that which occured under Civ II with the spy. This was one of the good features of the CTP series].

Just a thought.

[dognheat]

I also agree that when a city has been bribed or revolted, there should be some sort of transition period before they are assimilated into any empire. Without immediate military support, often these revolutions would be crushed, just ask the Czechoslovakians about the uprisings against the Soviets.

I guess the best thing about that message (besides being informed by the AI that you are a badass ) was that it put something completely unexpected infront of you and forced you to react. Do you support that city militarily and begin the conquest of a new continent or do you just say the hell with it and let the original empire take it back along with a undiscovered tech and some money.

The settlers or population transfer is a good idea, but I would like something else to go with that. You should recieve a transport with a couple of settlers so they could colonize cities for you in another region free from military advances, maybe some new techs that they have but you don't, or some cash from their treasury.

------------------
*PLOP*

[Gammaray fan]

In case some of you didn't realise, 'citizens admire the prosperity of...' was taken from Civ1. In that game, if one of your cities was ultra prosperous in relation to another city in a poor civ, they would have a small chance of revolting to your side. It was FUN, but there were many problems, as well as unrealistic elements - namely that the city revolting was usually in the middle of the enemies sprawling empire!
I believe, however that it can be implemented with a few changes in civ3.
1. Only cities that formally belonged to you (either built by you then captured, or captured by you say a thousand years ago (completely culturally assimilated) then recently captured by the enemy)should have a chance of revoluting to join your civ.
2. This obviously works both ways, but before any city asks to join another civ, they should petition the civ they are part of to ask for autonomy, or independence. (independent cities should of course have a chance of joining the civ of their culture if things get tough.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 04-16-2001 12:00 AM 2. This obviously works both ways, but before any city asks to join another civ, they should petition the civ they are part of to ask for autonomy, or independence.

Why would you ever give permission for that?

If Troy asked permission would we just say "Oh sure, you seem developed enough, you want to go your own way? Sure, with our blessings" I believe something similar happened with the USA and England...

On the other hand we have Canada... and there it almost worked.

So maybe only in a democratic government there should be that option?

Still, if you did give permission what would you gain? Maybe you would avoid the collapse of democratic government but what else? There has to be something otherwise petition has no reason to exist as an option.

Maybe there should be a petition to the civ that they admire to come and help them fight for their independence and the penalty to the reputation of the civ that comes to aid these cities might be small.

[Gammaray fan]

The petition simulates efforts by border towns in countries like France which have a culture more similar to the country across the border to gain semi or full independence.
In the game, the reason why you might consider giving them this, is that if you refuse, they may go to the civ they are culturally similar to and ask either to be integrated or for an alliance (if you were allied with THAT civ, you couldn't do a thing about it!). However, they might not try and revolt, and then you would be giving them autonomy or independence for nothing! It would introduce unpredictablility into the game, and make it more fun - give them autonomy or risk them changing sides.

[Bereta_Eder]

Giving autonomy to avoid the de facto integration to another civ makes sense.

The autonomous cities must have some differences in comparison with the other cities you have though. (less trade? etc)

And while autonomy remains you can chose to increase the culture level so you can get them back, or attack the other civ to push the danger further away.

I like it

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-15-2001 08:06 PM Along those lines, if a city rebels and is then quickly recaptured by its original civ, they should not be able to steal tech from you as it really wasn't one of your towns anyway. A kind of transitionary period should be instituted before the city is actually able to be considered fully one of your own.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, Serapis. I like the idea of negotiating with them as a minor civ around the bargaining table - and if you agree to accept them fully into your empire, then on your head be it if their former civ recaptures them and gains a tech from you! I can see it as something requiring strategy on your part: first you make a (partial) alliance with them, perhaps including mutual defence - that leaves them still as a minor civ outside your empire, so if they do get recaptured, you don't lose anything; then if they (with your help) do manage to fight off their former civ, there could be a petition on their part to become full members of your empire which you could reconsider at that point. This would provide for your 'transition period' in a more realistic way, I think.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 12:53 PM My transitionary period is solely based on paranoia of lost tech, not much else. Other then that though, the city in question should be politically and economically yours.

OK, I see what you mean, but what about my suggestion that you would initially just have a treaty or alliance with that city, i.e. it would not immediately become part of your empire - i.e., there would be no danger of losing any tech to the enemy if it's recaptured? Or is it that you're not wanting to count on such cities getting 'minor civ' status because we don't yet know for sure whether that will be included in Civ3?

[SerapisIV]

Sounds like it could get complex. Especially in the end-game when if a pre-determined number of turns must occur before complete annexation, with turns lasting almost an hour each, it could get lost or forgotten in the shuffle.

I definitely like the idea in principle, particularly as it has real life basis, ie Texas. But just as Texas, the mother civ should try and fight to keep it's territory. Just as Kosovo how easy it was to succeed. Actually the more I think about it the better, with earlier tech, pre-railroad, it takes a while for the mother civ to gather forces and suppress the uprising, so its easier for it to be successful, yet in modern days, technology allows for an immediate response, greater mobility of armed forces and larger standing armies, such that as Kosovo and Czechoslovakia found out, the mother civ doesn't like losing territory/power.

One problem. If you are dealing with the city diplomatically, how would the diplomacy screen look, what leader do you see, or is it all text, windowed-option based, as opposed to the full blown diplomacy model

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 02:06 PM One problem. If you are dealing with the city diplomatically, how would the diplomacy screen look, what leader do you see, or is it all text, windowed-option based, as opposed to the full blown diplomacy model

Well, I guess I'm assuming that if Civ3 does have minor civs, they will be able to be represented in some way in negotiations. Maybe just a 'generic' minor civ leader picture, or none at all. I'm also assuming that whenever a city or group of cities rebels or tries to secede from its parent empire, it automatically becomes a minor civ at least for the duration of negotiations. If after that they decide to stay with the original civ, the temporary minor civ disappears. Likewise if they are immediately fully accepted into another civ. Only if the other civ refuses to fully absorb them but makes some kind of treaty or alliance would they remain a minor civ.

[axemann]

I like the basic idea of a phased-in assimilation, but some of the ideas here might be a bit too complex to integrate into the game. I get the impression that Firaxis is trying to keep the game streamlined enough to move along nicely. Since Civ3 will use national borders, I think that only bordering cities should petition to be annexed. Obviously, the acquisition of a new weak city could be penalty enough for accepting, but I think that there would be a diplomatic penalty, as well. The gaining civ would lose goodwill from the losing civ, and I suppose it could lead to war among countries marginally at peace. But I think that it should be left at that. Any phase-in system is going to be too complex, although perhaps a parallel system of disgruntled cities breaking off into new civs would be a good idea.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by axemann on 04-16-2001 06:26 PM I like the basic idea of a phased-in assimilation, but some of the ideas here might be a bit too complex to integrate into the game.

I'm assuming that some kind of structure involving minor civs is already included (from remarks Sid has made) - i.e., that there would already be the possibility of negotiating with minor civs. If this is not the case, then I would have to agree with you.

quote: Since Civ3 will use national borders, I think that only bordering cities should petition to be annexed.

A very good point, and IMO quite a realistic limitation to impose.

quote: Any phase-in system is going to be too complex, although perhaps a parallel system of disgruntled cities breaking off into new civs would be a good idea.

If disgruntled cities can break away and become a minor civ, why couldn't they also apply to join a bordering civ that they admire? The two things seem one and the same to me! (The 'phase-in' would come about if the new civ doesn't immediately offer complete annexation - assuming an existing setup for minor civs, as I said earlier...)

[SerapisIV]

If minor civs are in the game and you have regular or even limited diplomacy with them, I'm all for treating annexed towns as minor civs for a small transitionary period before full annexation. That's a real good idea. It gives the momma civ a chance to get back her territory without including you in the conflict, at least unless you want to.

[SerapisIV]

Ikuul I was only talking in terms of technology. I go to great pains to defend my tech from the AI. Suddenly having a town a full screen away from the rest of my empire without having had the chance to fully set up defenses would really stink. That and how quickly would it take for technology from my civ to the new city? In any conquered city or joined nations (east and west Germany), if Russia invaded East Germany in 1995, how much western technology would've been gained? I might be wrong but I'm sure a significant time was spent simply restructuring, rebuilding then setting up modern facilities.

My transitionary period is solely based on paranoia of lost tech, not much else. Other then that though, the city in question should be politically and economically yours

[Ilkuul]

Yes!

[Stuff2]

About getting techs when capturing cities. I think that only techs that are applied should be able to give.
If a rifle man manage to actually kill your new tank then there is some risk that the tank technology could fall into their hands. When you capture a city with a bank you suddenly gain banking. But getting techs that are not applied could maybe be considered if you manage to capture a library (but only academic techs). Improvements destroyed during the invasion don't give new techs. This is not totally realistic but it's simple and logical and it would keep extremely militaristic civs from being to successful (which in my opinion makes the game unbalanced). I see that my post is very messy so I make it a little more clear.
Getting techs through warfare is achieved when you manage to either kill a unit that has that tech as a prereq or when you manage to capture a city without destroying improvements that has those techs a prereq.
Getting a library or a university should also give away techs.

[Stuff2]

About cities upraising and so on.

I have had an idea that you have a maximum number of things to control and you can choose different levels.
I know my english is not the best so i'll try explain my point.
For example your empire are based on 227 cities grouped in 36 provinces and 5 regions.
There is no way possible for you to manage this on yourself, having much power also means having to distribute that power wisely. Let's say that you can only control 40 objects, this is the game limit. This means that you have to leave over control of big parts of your empire to local governors. There are three levels of control:
city control is when you actully do all of it yourself.
Provincial control means that a provincial governor is told what to do and does so.
Regions is (when they fully belong to you) a regional governor that follows your guidlines.
When your empire is smaller than 40 cities you can easily control every city if you like it, or you can group them into 5 - 7 provinces, which you also can control on a provincial level, or simply (if you feel extremely bored) control on a regional level.
But when there is more than 40 cities (227 cities) you have to have atleast some of them formed under provincial governing. You can freely choose how you distribute the governing. You have 40 spaces to fill. In this case I choose to govern 8 cities, 27 provinces and 1 region. You have 40 objects to control (or if you are lazy to hand over to AI-governors).
The thing is that when cities are governed one by one they will only revolt one bye one, provinces will revolt as provinces and regions will revolt as regions. This idea means that the greater your empire is the less is your absolute control over it.

[Ilkuul]

I really like this idea. I just hope it can still be included in the game; maybe AI governors, with the cities they control, would technically be a particular type of minor civ...

I assume you mean that regions are groupings of provinces? So you have 3 levels of government, national, regional, and provincial? Or were you saying that a region would be a different type of province, one that has more autonomy?

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-17-2001 06:22 AM About getting techs when capturing cities. I think that only techs that are applied should be able to give. If a rifle man manage to actually kill your new tank then there is some risk that the tank technology could fall into their hands. When you capture a city with a bank you suddenly gain banking. But getting techs that are not applied could maybe be considered if you manage to capture a library (but only academic techs). Improvements destroyed during the invasion don't give new techs. This is not totally realistic but it's simple and logical and it would keep extremely militaristic civs from being to successful (which in my opinion makes the game unbalanced). I see that my post is very messy so I make it a little more clear. Getting techs through warfare is achieved when you manage to either kill a unit that has that tech as a prereq or when you manage to capture a city without destroying improvements that has those techs a prereq. Getting a library or a university should also give away techs.

I like that idea, how about getting tech only from cities that have either libraries, universities, or a building improvement that requires tech you don't have, say a factory and you're still pre-industrialism, or research lab when you're pre computers. It would make war more costly as you don't get technology unless you capture it.

An example, the Allies didn't get German jet or rocket technology by retaking Paris or France, only by capturing V2 sites or the scientists themselves after the war.

[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 17, 2001).]

[dognheat]

Outstanding idea stuff2. Tech advances should only be gotten if improvements/units that utilize that technology are present in the city that is captured. Also I would say that if you defeat an enemy unit (within your city radius or territrial boundries) that is from a technology you don't have you should be able to reverse engineer that technology given time, say a couple of turns. There could possibly be a city improvement like a weapons lab that could research defeated units.

------------------
*PLOP*

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-17-2001 02:04 PM I really like this idea. I just hope it can still be included in the game; maybe AI governors, with the cities they control, would technically be a particular type of minor civ... I assume you mean that regions are groupings of provinces? So you have 3 levels of government, national, regional, and provincial? Or were you saying that a region would be a different type of province, one that has more autonomy?

Nope, no difference in autonomy, just difference in management. Still every 'object' except the capital city can declare it's independence when things get too bad. And I also suggest that the regions, provinces groupings are automated (using natural borders). All three layers of control co-exist all of the time. This means that even if you act as a regional governor some provinces within this region can revolt against you. But if the majority of provinces within a region are unhappy with you the whole region will revolt, unless it's the capital region since you can't loose the capital this way no matter what, then it only will be a revolution and you get a chance to change government. And the same is true within provinces, if one city is unhappy it can try and declare it's independence, but if the provincial capital or the majority of cities within the province are unhappy the whole province will be unhappy. Ofcourse every city, province or region won't declare indepence as soon as they are a bit unhappy, but a few turns with unhappiness will make them declare their independence (if there is room for another ai-player).
Also, you can manage a region from a regional window or let an ai-governor do it
Same thing about provinces. Province window or provincial ai governor.
Same thing for cities.
But your control are limited to a certian number of entities. A propose a number between 30 and 80.
So you can never have total control if your empire is big enough, you have to distribute your control wisely in order to maintain your empire content and under your control.

[dognheat]

With the concept of regions, provinces and other groupings of territory being floated around it would only make sense to have the option to toggle a political map display. For those of you from Palm Beach (or Florida in general), a political map displays the bounderies and borders that a region/ciounty/empire has under its control. the displays could be ala sim city where you go to a world map and have different map overlays you could impose to get information about areas of the world. If a region was unhappy it would disply red on the map overlay. If this was something you could toggle onto the main map, then the border outline could be red. Thoughts ??

[Ilkuul]

I'm 100% in favour of having a political map display and map overlays. I've envisaged it as an alternative "political" map: i.e., you would have a button alongside the main map screen that would toggle between the normal "geographical" or "terrain" view, and a "political" view with different colours shading the areas occupied by the various civs - and also (as a further option?), regions & provinces of your own civ. I like the idea of having the border appear in red if the province or region is unhappy.

[Cyberbugs]

I think that if another civilizations city is revolting, the revolt will last for, for example, ten turns, and you will have the option to either bring your troops there to support the revolutionists or the government of the "mother civilization". The civilization may require that you send troops to end the revolution by military means. Of course, supporting the revolution could be considered as an act of war.

[Stuff2]

Indeed i'd like to see political maps in civ3.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Cyberbugs on 04-21-2001 05:52 AM I think that if another civilizations city is revolting, the revolt will last for, for example, ten turns, and you will have the option to either bring your troops there to support the revolutionists or the government of the "mother civilization". The civilization may require that you send troops to end the revolution by military means. Of course, supporting the revolution could be considered as an act of war.

Jeez, I don't want 10 turn revolts. I think the AI should be at least as smart as a human is in that respect. Rarely do I let a city in revolt for more then a turn or two. Revolts should be opportunities (expanded espionage?!?), but one with a very small window of time for which to take advantage. It should also be easier as time progresses in the game to take advatage of revolts (increased communications) also because of their infrequency in the endgame (at least unprovoked vs. spy-caused) revolts