c178# A SPLITTING HEADACHE?

[MarkG]

178# A SPLITTING HEADACHE?

All great empires eventually died, why should yours be any different?

By Sheepy99

[Dida]

this article is dumb, i doube if this person knows anything about history

[Kenobi]

It's not a dumb question, and the examples given are valid. One of the things the Civ games do not do well is the fall of civilizations, which has happened in every instance throughout history.

Overstretch has plagued every major empire in world history, and is not tackled at all in Civ: there are no penalties for having cities on the other side of the world, when clearly these should be most at risk of rebellion.

Likewise, the conquest of different ethnic groups created huge empires, but the forces of nationalism fragmented these empires in the 20th century. The new concept of "culture" will go a long way to reflecting the power of nationalism, but doesn't address the overstretch issue.

[Rasputin]

exactly kenobi, the stongest and longest lasting empires were those all connected via roads not sea... as soon as you cross the sea , especially in olden times, you were looking for trouble if you wanted to maintain control of the citizens over there... would USA be independant today if it was physically connected to GreatBritian, probalby not, as any uprisng would have felt the combined wieght of the British redcoats, not just the ones in USA whixh was long time to ship replacements to constantly. And US was a classic example of a nation splitting and becoming a formidable adversary.. this could be main reason US has never wanted overseas colonies, hawaii being only exception, but the natives there seem too friendly to start wars agaisnt major players...

This is defiantly part of what civ 3 should include, some form of loss of control based on distance and time to repsond based on era. eg much more likely to get revolt in ancient times, in modern times not so much revolts but UN sponsored separate states happeneing...

[Jay Bee]

Excellent... Nitpicker's historical note:

The sentence: "At one point there wasn't a place on Earth that the sun didn't shine on British soil" was coined for the Spanish empire under Philip II. The British liked the sentence so much that adapted/adopted it. The British are/were known to like many things Spanish: the American silver, the sun, the sherry... A Civ2 analogy for this in middle game would be in order, sire!

[Mech Assassin]

I think, in the early and middle (and maybe even late) game, the splitting should be more like, when your military strenght weakens in a conquered area, the area could try to return to its former owner (or entirely independent, if the former owner taxed them too much or just caused too much unhappiness or has fallen). The other possibility for splitting would be, when you run out of money (or food), your areas would try to become independent, because they're not satisfied with your lead (of course you could try to stop rebellions with military forces, but where to get the money (or food. I think, all units should consume food, like Settlers do. Maybe 1/4 food/turn for normal unit and for unit with larger crew, the cost would be larger also) to pay maintainance, when you're running low on cash/food?).

Behind-the-sea colonies should also try to become independent, if you cause them even slight unhappiness. The troops in that area could also join the rebellion.

With UN built, the UN forces could also try to force you to release conquered colonies and use its combined forces to release it with pure force, if you don't else release it.

Also, I think, high taxes should rise the unhappiness like the low luxury does (how many people would want to live in a country with 100% taxes?).

[Father Beast]

Nice article. exemplifies many of the feelings expressed in the EC3 subjects "Rise and fall of empires", and "Make it harder for civs to last".
The idea of unhappy cities of your defecting to an enemy has been tossed around these boards more than once, and I think would be not hard to implement, since a form of it was already operative back in civ1!
having a group of cities break off and form their own civ is another idea, but may yet be on the horizon. Firaxis has already told us that each citizen born in a city will be of a certain nationality (german, egyptian, etc.) and will stay that nationality no matter who holds the city. may make for some interesting times. If settlers and workers are to be used as "mobile population points", then each of those would have its own nationality. a conquerer would be encouraged to mix the new popluation with his own, so that the former german cities, say, would be less likely to break off and reform as part or whole of another civ. only a matter of high culture and loyalty to the greater empire (and a good dose of martial law and luxuries) would keep entirely foreign cities from up and leaving you.

Bottom line. a set of good ideas, and I hope some form of this eventually makes it into civ3.

[Case]

This is rather petty, but the sun still always shines on the British empire - the mighty colonies of Pitcairn Island in the Pacific and Deigo Garcia in the Indian ocean always share at least 10 minutes of sun a day

[Adagio]

I really think the civs should be able to split into 2+ nations when there's to much trouble in the civ (capitol on the other side of the ocean, hunger, etc)...

But I think this should be optional, but I know I will have it ON in all games

[War4ever]

Great article......i believe that a warmonger should suffer penalties for over stretching....... and i agree that most empires did suffer from this type of aggression.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Dida
this article is dumb, i doube if this person knows anything about history

Isn't it you who missed all history lessons

[RGE]

Seems to me as if it's not only a matter of unhappiness and geography. Unless I'm mistaken, didn't all these fallen empireas rely heavily upon military forces, if not for defense then for controlling the population? And a society that relies upon the threat of force to stay alive isn't a very stable one, is it?

Now, I haven't played Civ II in a long time now, but as far as I remember, there were plenty of chances to have your cities riot and whatnot. The only reason why that never split the empire (or made it act as if it were split) is because the player was always in control of the civilization. Once you knew the rules, you strived not to break them too often, because having a weak city was better than having a rioting city.

If they did it the other way, by not telling you when the citizens were angry, and thereby letting you always walk the edge of disaster, then some righteous empire-splitting would be much more likely to happen

[Mech Assassin]

On this matter, there should also be possibility to raze city instead of conquering it and so avoiding the problems. This would however count as a crime against the mankind and make other leaders mad at you.

[Starlite]

I've never been very comfortable with the idea of a city's past history affecting its chance of revolt. The problem is, the closer you get to reality, the more unplayable the game.

Going back to the USSR example, I'm Lithuanian (in background) so I know something about this. Lithuanian culture survived 150 years of oppression by the Russian Czars and 50 years of communist rule (separated by only 23 years of independence). If this were to happen in Civ3, razing occuppied cities and rebuilding would become an important strategy, especially in the later game. This doesn't even consider the influence of a loyal expatriot population fighting for the occuppied country's freedom (consider the Jewish example, which is better known, though it's also more about finances than freedom).

The original column also mentioned the fall of the Roman Empire. I don't profess to be an expert on the topic, but I did see a fascinating documentary on Byzantium which claimed that the Roman Empire did not so much fall as relocate its centre of power. Rome itself certainly fell into disrepair, but this was due to a lessening of trade, a weakening of its perception as a trendy place to live, and the movement of government to Byzantium (now Istanbul). The Byzantine Empire continued the gradual decline of the Roman Empire, but it did not actually fall until the 1400s, after repeated looting by crusaders and barbarians and pressure from its neighbours. So if the Roman Empire was at its height around 400AD, that's 1000 years more that it lasted -- not exactly the sudden collapse that common knowledge would have you believe.

Oh, and how exactly would you model the previous paragraph in Civ? Especially the bit about trendy people (rich merchants and nobility) moving cities?

IMHO, leave reality for more serious wargames.

Paulius

[Rommel393]

We all have to remember that this is a game and is not supposed to be totally realistic because as a game its also supposed to be fun. Some of the things talked about are good ideas and should be put into the game but once you've got them all it starts to be less like a game and more like a boring piece of crap. I wont mention which ones are good and bad cuz I don't want to put anyone down but I just wanted to try and bring you down to earth a little.