Revolts, Independences and Civil Wars

[Panag]

Originally posted by Optimizer
I think that nationality should play a greater role in future Civ games. A few points:

* Assimilation would be much slower, or would just happen if the population were very happy. For instance the people of India felt nationalistic in 1947, though none of them had experienced an independent India during heir lifetime.

* Citizens far away from the capital would develop their own nationality - for instance USA.

* Foreign citizens would cause more corruption and maybe unhappiness.

* The combination of foreign citizens, corrruption and unhappiness would transform citizens into resisters.

* Resisting citizens could leave their city and be transformed to partisan units.

hi ,

a state system like the US would be nice to have , .....

have a nice day

[Sore Loser]

My thread on a Massive Multiplayer Civ touches this issue. In order for civil war to be an interesting aspect of the game, I think the participants need to be human players.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
My thread on a Massive Multiplayer Civ touches this issue. In order for civil war to be an interesting aspect of the game, I think the participants need to be human players.

hi ,

yes and no , in the end it shall result in better gameplay , but with a good programmer , and a second AI disk it should be possible , ......

have a nice day

[Sandman]

Revolutions should be bloodier. Rather than having a few turns of non-production, there should be a significant risk of new factions appearing, with a long and bloody war needed to defeat the rebel/loyalist factions. You may even decide to let a poweful faction go its own way, rather than go to the trouble of reconquering it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sandman
Revolutions should be bloodier. Rather than having a few turns of non-production, there should be a significant risk of new factions appearing, with a long and bloody war needed to defeat the rebel/loyalist factions. You may even decide to let a poweful faction go its own way, rather than go to the trouble of reconquering it.

hi ,

barbarians popping up , rebels surfacing , etc , .......

loose some techs , maybe discover new ones afterwards , change of gov , etc , ......

have a nice day

[Cardenio]

I agree -

the way to counter the " just expand - expand - expand " method of jamming Civ II with the ' corruption ' idea of Civ III ought to have been ' civil wars / internal problems / revolutions ' etc.

Unhappy poupulation might spawn Settlers that go off looking for someplace else - something like that. Lots of different things could do it - but - what could you do without change the whole thing sigifigantly ?

It dosen't look to me like they're going to develop the actual Civ game anymore. They're focusing on ' more action ! action sells games ! ' with Conquests. There's no longer term plan for the series - they're going to get what they can out of what they've got and then move onto something else ( $ )

[Panag]

Re: I agree -

Originally posted by Cardenio
the way to counter the " just expand - expand - expand " method of jamming Civ II with the ' corruption ' idea of Civ III ought to have been ' civil wars / internal problems / revolutions ' etc.

Unhappy poupulation might spawn Settlers that go off looking for someplace else - something like that. Lots of different things could do it - but - what could you do without change the whole thing sigifigantly ?

It dosen't look to me like they're going to develop the actual Civ game anymore. They're focusing on ' more action ! action sells games ! ' with Conquests. There's no longer term plan for the series - they're going to get what they can out of what they've got and then move onto something else ( $ )

hi ,

there where no "long term" plans after CIV III neither , and look now , two XP's and maybe a third , .......

each XP has brought us new stuff , .......

have a nice day

[geeslaka]

Re: I agree -

Originally posted by Cardenio
the way to counter the " just expand - expand - expand " method of jamming Civ II with the ' corruption ' idea of Civ III ought to have been ' civil wars / internal problems / revolutions ' etc.

Unhappy poupulation might spawn Settlers that go off looking for someplace else - something like that. Lots of different things could do it - but - what could you do without change the whole thing sigifigantly ?

It dosen't look to me like they're going to develop the actual Civ game anymore. They're focusing on ' more action ! action sells games ! ' with Conquests. There's no longer term plan for the series - they're going to get what they can out of what they've got and then move onto something else ( $ )

This surprises you? The entire gaming industry is based on profit. Their goal is not to make a good game, it's not even to make a half-way decent game. Their goal is to make a game that will sell. They set moron deadlines they can't possibly make and games usually suck horrendously. When they do get insanely lucky and make a worthwhile game, instead of developing the basic idea, they milk it for all it's worth and move on.