c178# A SPLITTING HEADACHE?

[smellymummy]

RGE brings up a good point by mentioning the barbarians. We really still dont know what they do, how they act and how they are formed.

Cities could revolt in such a way and turn red (barbarian). A nearby civ with high culture could then maybe swallow the city up, which means that culture also has to play into the factor of a revolt.

who knows..

[Kc7mxo]

Thats an interesting idea. I've always thoguht the the amoutn of curruption should determine the chance of a rebellion. But only when combined with happyness.

If you simply allow corruption to take control then you'll have cities splitting off with their corrupt leaders. Why should the leader want that? They're already looting the joint, they have nothign to gain from leaving.

On the other hand, if the people are unhappy, and your control is weak (as per the corruption level) then naturally they'd be happy to leave.

Of course it would be rather frustrating to have someone steal your capital and then all your cities break off cause their corruption leverls skyrocket.

It would also make revolutions more interesting, because all sorts of cities would be ditching you when you switched governments.


As I recall cities in civ 1 would sometimes switch civilizations, it would tell you that the citizens of such and such admire the wealth and prosperity of such and such and off they'd go.

But it was a damn annoying, i used to pick up enemy cities in the middle of their empire, and then they'd be conquered. And then they'd rejoin. Argh.

[RGE]

I suppose happiness could be a contributing factor, although there is already the rioting to encourage rulers to keep their population content. I would suggest that as soon as a city is rebelling, every unhappy citizen creates one partisan unit, or the ancient/medieval equivalent (warriors/pikemen?). That way the usurper can take advantage of those people who don't like the current ruler, and maybe even create a force large enough to overturn several nearby cities, much like an organized revolution.

As for a local ruler not having a reason to rebel if the population is happy, I don't know about that one. Some think that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven, and those would be likely to want more power if they can get it. Also, the city still produces shields, and if the local ruler rebelled, they'd get to control what those shields are to be used for. And most cities prodcuce both corruption and regular trade, and the local ruler might want all those little trade arrows.

I don't think losing your capital would cause a tremendous upheaval though, since you can build a new palace in just a few rounds. Meanwhile the corruption might be high, but since a decent sized city can cost thousands to bribe, it would probably take a great many turns of high corruption to have any actual effect. Although, if there are several cities around the capital that have already accumulated a lot of corruption, and also cost an even higher amount of gold to bribe, maybe the fact that they're not close to a capital anymore will make them suddenly drop in bribe cost, turning them all at the same time. That would be kind of like the good old empire splitting from Civ I