Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Puppet states and annex nations

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Puppet states and annex nations

    When you conquered a nation, you have two options: Annex nation and Puppet State, while annexing a nation brings the whole nation under your leadership. The former citizens of that nations will be unhappy and can result in re-indepence. Puppet states arent fully under your control, altough you control the whole army from soldiers that survived the war and you are in a forever in alliance with the conquered state, someone else is controlling keeping it indepandent and the people more happier (altough unhappiness caused by laziness of the government can also result in a coup wich brings the command of any of your soldiers in their nation to them). But you can do something against it bringing your troops to the capital, when the people revolt, it will be annexed to your nation.

    Is this a good idea?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    No. Why should you make it a puppet state instead of anex it, only by happiness?
    "We, civilizations, now know that we are mortals...", Paul Valéry

    Comment

    • #3
      It works fine in Paradox's games, but I somehow doubt Firaxis will go down that road...
      Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10
      I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
      Also active on WePlayCiv.

      Comment

      • #4
        They had submissive pactmates in SMAC. I don't see a reason why that couldn't be included in Civ4.
        Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
        Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Elda king
          No. Why should you make it a puppet state instead of anex it, only by happiness?
          For all the 100 reasons that it is done in reality
          And generally, this includes happiness. It's not straining your relations as much with your own population, conquered nations, or third parties (such as nations).

          Roman history shows this pretty well, and they did not conquer and annex just for fun. It was often more an obligation (with its load of attached trouble) if they didn't wanted some trouble (such as an ally turning turbulent).


          Maniac:
          What were these SMAC pacts?
          Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

          Comment

          • #6
            Civ3 was supposed to include minor Civs but I'm assuming from the transition of programmers the idea got axed. I'm hoping with a fresh start the idea will be implemented in Civ4.
            However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

            Comment

            • #7
              How fun would it be for a human player to be a puppet? I wonder if it would be feasable for civs in the game to individually have different likelyhoods for different diplomatic decisions. I thought Civ3 Barbarians were minor Civs...

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Elda king
                No. Why should you make it a puppet state instead of anex it, only by happiness?
                If Civ4 uses a more realistic war penalty model, it would be very useful.

                Even in the current game, when you reduce an AI to a few scattered settlements, the cost of going after them and the subsequent quelling of resistence an rebuilding of infrastructure is probably going to cost you quite a bit and take a while to recover. You really should be going after some other big player whose cities are actually worth taking.

                By making a civ a vassal state or protectorate, you can at least get some benefit of a tribute while you attack someone who's actually a threat to you.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Trifna

                  Maniac:
                  What were these SMAC pacts?
                  well I am not Maniac but I can answer...

                  in SMAC the AI could, instead of being totaly destroyd, become a servent those bases the AI still possed it governed. You could demand science and gold from it and so fort. Really nice if you played as the Hive or Belivers and you got University as a slave...
                  What do I care about your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Yeah, your submissive pactmates have to give you about everything you want. Eg ask to declare war on an enemy of yours. Only rarely they refuse you something, eg, if you ask to cede their base to you.
                    Contraria sunt Complementa. -- Niels Bohr
                    Mods: SMAniaC (SMAC) & Planetfall (Civ4)

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Sounds interesting.... this certainly could reduce micromanagement.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Sounds interesting.... this certainly could reduce micromanagement.

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X