How about state borders and governors?

[dancal]

I think Civ4 should incorporate the idea of allowing us to carve up our nations into regions or states, then allow us to control state governors.

This occured to me when I wanted 8 cities in a particular area to create Modern Armor, but the only way to do it was to order 8 different governors to build nothing but Modern Armor. There's no efficient way to do that at the moment.


Possible tweaks:

* National borders could be a solid line.

* State borders could be a dotted line.

* Players should be allowed to name the states/regions.

* City leaders could be called Mayors and state leaders could be called Governors.

* Taxes could be applied differently in different regions.

* Regions with lucrative resources would be more affluent.

* Unhappy states could break away from your nation and declare independence, and may be re-conquered later.


Things to consider:

* The nation would have to be quite large before it could be carved up.

* The added complexity could slow gameplay.

* Governor control would have to be overhauled.



I know this is a step away from micro-management, but I think these changes could lead to a more "real-world" experience during gameplay. Thoughts?

[joncha]

I think this may make things overly complex, with no real pay-off.

I think a better (read: simpler) solution to the problem you mentioned is an option to "link" city governors together on a list. This way you can just open a window with your city names on it, and group them together any way you want.

I like the idea of regions, but I'm not sure about the feasability of it (in terms of the AI, CPU usage, etc). Someone in another thread (Gengis maybe?) mentioned wanting to claim/trade regions. Perhaps if the regions are part of the physical map, this would be do-able: in terms of your idea, it would mean you can set orders for all the cities in a geographic region, whether that's 1 city or 12.

jon.

[Rasputin]

actually this sound sbrilliant, i hope it gets included ...

[dancal]

Thanks Rasputin. I probably made it sound more complicated than it needed to be, but I think allowing this sort of "federal" nation structure could be cool.

[joncha]

I do agree with the sentiment. It would be cool.

jon.

[Brent]

And if you want, different human players could be governors within the same empire, and the game would be political but I guess you could have a civil war if you really want.

[dancal]

Sweet idea, that could add a completely new dynamic.

A region with uranium might break away in order to cut off supply to the rest of the nation and launch an attack on a neighbour. That might force the "motherland" into quashing the rebellion.

When Rome got too huge to defend, it was split into two pieces. Britiain's territory covered a quarter of the earth at one stage - until the colonies broke away and became independent.

I think Civ 3, as it currently stands could use some changes to bring it into line with what actually happens around the globe.

[Brent]

Overseas territories might automatically start as one state per new landmass. Your subjects might decide when to form a new state.

[dancal]

Yes, maybe if that state was far-flung it would need lots of culture improvements or military units in order to remain loyal. Neglect it and it might declare independence.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The original idea I proposed was that there be some advantage to "grouping" cities together to form a region. Say a reduced corruption rate or something.

But the disadvantage would be that there would be a possibility of the entire region revolting/forming a new nation/civ if they became unhappy with the nation as a whole.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Provinces ?

I like your proposal Ghengis especially the chance to revolt.

[dancal]

It looks like I wasn't the first person to have this sort of idea.

I'm new here Ghengis so please forgive me. No copyright infringement was intended

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Bleh, its just more people to take the heat when Firaxis sues us all.