Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggestion: Revolutions in highly-corrupt empires to form new nations a la America?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Suggestion: Revolutions in highly-corrupt empires to form new nations a la America?

    Here's a new idea (But before I start, I'd like to mention, I am a citizen of the United States of America, before anyone accuses me of being prejudiced against them, etc, etc, I am not.):

    IMHO, America should be removed from the civs that you can start as. However, revolutions should be possible in cities that are in disorder and suffering from high levels of corruption (This excludes Communism in most cases, unless your empire gets really large, and makes the chances of a revolution less under Democracy).

    When a city goes into revolution, it forms a new nation, depending on your civilization. If you're English, the new civ is American. Or Canadian. If Spanish, it's Mexican. If French, it's... the Quebecois Civilization. If russian, you get the Alaskan Civ, and so on. :P

    Okay, let's call the original nation England and the new one America, to make explaining how this would work easy.

    A city belonging to England near an American city will have increased unrest.

    If a city belonging to England goes into civil disorder near any American city, that city will revolt from England, and join America.

    It'd still be possible for England to conquer America, thus crushing the revolution. The unrest levels would drop back down with the elimination of the nation.

    Finally, after a few hundred years, American cities would no longer cause unrest in nearby English cities.

    As a ruler, you should be able to decide whether to stick with your nation, or take over running the rebel nation instead. That way, you can start as the English, witness the American Revolution, and take over as leader of the Americans, leaving the English to be ruled by the AI, if you really want to play Americans.

    This would make a lot better historical sense than having an American civ starting in 4000 BC like everyone else, and it would allow for "Modern" civs, which don't exist in the ancient era, but arise later, as well, making Civ a lot more historically realistic, eh?

    ---

    Thus, you can see such things as America declaring its independence, and forming a new nation, in addition to the Confederacy seceeding from America, but being crushed.
    "For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance." - Niccolo Machiavelli

  • #2
    That would but good but...

    You would need to make the AI smater in terms of diplomacy in that an enemy of England would help America in their war of independence. Also military garrisons being low in cities far from the capital would increase revolution chance and conquered civs far away from capital could revolt more easily. BUt this event would be a VERY rare occurence for gameplay interests.
    "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    Comment


    • #3
      I have often had the same thought. Hell, I think this would do wonderfull things for gameplay; I _hate_ the fact that the game seems to stop being fun unless you are activly striving for a win. this would change that...

      I agree with the dictator (Il Duce), however. Expanded diplomacy would have to be expanded, though I would like to see more diplomacy options in any case...
      Do the Job

      Remember the World Trade Center

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Andrew Cory
        I _hate_ the fact that the game seems to stop being fun unless you are activly striving for a win.
        I guess you play to lose?

        Anyhoo... in terms of gameplay, this would make the game, well, not Civ. What if I want to start the game as the Americans? I have to edit the list of Civs someone deems appropriate to start in 4000 BC?

        I guess the English would sprout from the Germans who would sprout from the Romans who would sprout from the Greeks who would sprout from the Egyptians who would sprout from the Zulus. So every game would only start with the Zulu?

        And you say "high corruption". As of now, there is no way to not have highly corrupt empires without using the editor.

        I know the links I created up there aren't exactly, well, correct.

        All of this "I dislike America starting in 4000 BC" junk is silly. It's been said many times in this forum that only Egypt, Babylon, and China have been around that long.

        You can easily make your situation with a scenario builder. Too bad one doesn't exist, yet.

        Comment


        • #5
          When I say "high corruption," I mean those cities which produce 1 shield that you have on the other side of the world.
          "For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance." - Niccolo Machiavelli

          Comment

          Working...
          X