Colonies, Protectorates, Minor nations..

[Sir Shiva]

OK, here's an idea for different statuses (or is it stati)..


Nation (the type you control directly)

Protectorate:-
Your control over a protectorate of your nation would be the vote in international assemblies;
they would have no military units of their own;
You can control their building queues;
But,
They have a separate treasury;
their stats don't show up in your demography..
etc..

Minor Nation
Enough on them already.. They can have their own stati(?) like satellite state, friend, supporter..
If you are very good to them, they could be upgraded to a protectorate of yours.. Or if they become powerful, they could become Nations..

Colony
They are set up by colonist units in the industrial/medieval age...
They would have their own units and treasury.. You can control their building queues and Empire tax..
If you treat them badly, they can turn against you and become minor nations and maybe even Nations.. Or they could integrate/become protectorate of a nation of the same ethnicity..
If you treat them well, or if the colonies population's dominant ethnicity is yours (as opposed to native/indigenous), or if you build enough missions and missionaries, they could become protectorates or even integrate into your empire..
This way, America could break away from England and become a civ.. Their techs would be the same as the parent civs at the time of independence..


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Andz83]

Yes, this seems to be interesting, although it's sometimes a bit confusing because of its depth...

This is really a good start for considering the base of the world politics. (I wouldn't say that this is the final solution, but it's ready for a brainstorming on it)...

Which kinds of international relations ould you prefer? (e.g. peace, ceasefire, war. alliances etc.)?

------------------
"The more I know, the more do I know that I don't know anything" - forgotten who said that...
"Within the peace, enemy attacks us..." - Kaiser Wilhelm II, August 1914
"Hell, yeah!" - James Hetfield, while singing "Master Of Puppets" on Metallica-S&M-concert in spring 1999 in San Francisco

[Donn]

Remarkable sketch!
Allows for lots of new strategies.
Nevertheless I'd suggest to have it
linked to existing structures, though.
So what about having revolting cities
alienate themselves from their original
nations claiming a status of enhanced
independence.
To establish colonies or true nations
at all there is a strong necessity
for political borders, a feature I was
missing very much in Civ2 because its
the foundation of modern military and
political structures. Your nation has
to have a defined territory, not only a
bunch of city radii. The engine has to
calculate the territory from the distribu-
tion of your cities. Cities external to
the core region around your capital could
likely be called colonies then.

[Andz83]

Hey, Donn: When you want to fill in the whole space of a post, don't hit the [ENTER] button at the end of a row. When you just go on writing at the end of a row, he'll make the new row at the end of th old one in the post not in the editor window. You should know, the reply-editor-window is smaller than the post will be, so your posts look awful when you end the rows manually hitting [ENTER]

------------------
"The more I know, the more do I know that I don't know anything" - forgotten who said that...
"Within the peace, enemy attacks us..." - Kaiser Wilhelm II, August 1914
"Hell, yeah!" - James Hetfield, while singing "Master Of Puppets" on Metallica-S&M-concert in spring 1999 in San Francisco

[WarVoid]

Good idea.
Maybe too much micromanagment. Don't want to bog the game down.
I think barbarians should be able to build their own cities. Hell the Huns did. Etselenburgh - modern Budapest.

[tniem]

Barbarians need some revamping. Nations were born out of nomadic warring tribes which the barbarians represent. But in Civ whenever a barbarian unit captures a city they just constantly produce an attacking unit not caring one bit how to defend the city. Maybe for a few turns they can be stupid but after that they should at least rise to the level of all other Civ AI

[WarVoid]

I fully agree.

edit:
Maybe this is where the extra civs can come from.
Barbarian unit captures city.
Ten turns later new civ is born.
i.e. Goths, Huns, Franks, etc.
[This message has been edited by WarVoid (edited April 19, 2000).]

[Sir Shiva]

Barbarians should not be just barbarians..
Each 'band' of barbarians should be a potential minor civ.. They can have settlers and when they capture/build enough cities, they could turn into minor civs, and later on into major civs..

I don't think that micromanagement will be a problem, because, as I see it, there is no micromanagement required...
The method of creation or diplomatic stance makes a civ a minor nation/colony/protectorate, so where's the micromanagement?

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[ivorgrubisic]

Great concept, Shiva!
The only thing I would add is the possibility of integrating protectorates into your national state. This could be done democratically (through referendum), via religious or military pressure. This would also depend on your religious and ethnic ties to the protectorate as well as your economic situation (the would be more eager to join your nation if you were very rich.

Of course, none of this can't be done properly without a more inteligent and fair AI than in Civ2.

[tniem]

Needed to be included in colonies, protectorates, and minor nations are states. I want to macromanage a series of cities through one central command. Of course I could still individually change build orders in each city, but the entire area would be together.