Life After Death

[Deathwalker]

Way to complex and boring to, if you get conquored, you would be killed, never left to run even one city, so no. This is not a good idea

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[DarkCloud]

Sorry I can't agree with this idea, it makes the game too drawn out,
how about a simpler model based upon the capture of your capital city. (Your civ revolts and you take control of one equal half)

I believe the game already has something like that, but I have only DONE it to other Civs and never had it DONE to me.
-Because I'm such a good player (Brag, brag)

[Falke]

I like the basic idea of Christantine . I could be part of the rise and fall of empires. Simply conquer another civilisation not is enough. In history there where a lot of kings living in exile in another country organising a revolt or a civil war for example Ireland- England etc. A leader comes home after a revolution (Napoleon, Lenin).
I personally believe there should be lot more of "nationalism" in Civ II making it harder to control a new country.
Big Empires always spend a lot of time fighting revolts and civil unrest's. Why feel loyalty toward a king living across a sea in an unknown land?
Suggestions: There should be introduced the concept of a civil war in CIV 3, where you empire is spilt apart. It could be at turning points in history (changing the government, "losing a war"), depending at the distance and the connections with your capital (One of the biggest inventions of the Romans where their streets, making it possible to control such al large country), living in another continent (independence war of America, Australia, Kamboscha, India etc), more modern governments are available....

[Biddles]

I agree with Sir Shiva. If you totally defeat a civ than you can use the leader. For example, I am playing as UoP and I defeat the morgans than I can use morgan by placing him in a city as an administrator. I still make all the decisions, but that city gets a +1 economy bonus. Because there are no major conflicts between morgan and zak, there would be no adverse side effects. However if I was UoP and I conquered miriam and tried to place her in a city (to increase my probe rating in that city), my probe rating would go up but that city would have a lot of drone problems.

This can be applied in terms of the social engineering screen. If you capture morgan, as a free market economy that city would get +2 economy, as a green economy +1 economy to that city, and as a planned economy +1 economy but also 2 extra drones.

This is in terms of SMAC but it could be applied to Civ3.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[UltraSonix]

I think the idea is good in principle, but it might unbalance the game. So maybe for a certain amount of turns, the benefits/negatives are halved and rounded down. So capturing the Gaians would result in NO bonus (+1 planet is rounded to zero), but capturing the Cult would result in +1 planet (they are usually +2 planet). Perhaps only after a set number of turns do the full benefits/negatives of the captured leader set in.

Of course, you should be OFFERED the option of assimilating the captured leader - just in case you're already on -4 growth and you accidently get another -2 growth or something.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Adm.Naismith]

Sorry, but I can't remember any main leader that, loosing a war, started working on the enemy side.

The only similar concept I remember are Puppet Government, like France during Vichy or Italy during Republic of Salo'.

Sorry, I don't like this idea. OTOH, if rebellion and civil war will be implemented I would like to have diplomatic way (or secret action) to support one of the leaders, asking in exchange some bonus (special trade pact, money, military or production support, etc.).
The concept of free a leader from enemy prison (as in SMACX) can be implemented with a "rebel agreement" before the mission (and bad diplomatic effect in case of mission fails)

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[DarkCloud]

Why would the civilization that conquers yours
keep on the evil leader of the vanquished civilization, it just boggles the mind.

To think that any civilization would be so stupid to do so.

1. Killing the leader would be a rallying point for rebels but!

2. Not killing him would be an even bigger rallying point, especially if you put him in charge of a city.

That is why no leader of a conquering civ has put a conquered leader in charge of a city!

Besides, It would be too complicated.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Sorry, but I can't remember any main leader that, loosing a war, started working on the enemy side.

I'm sure that modern "persuasive techniques" can be employed to make them see the error of their old ways...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: I'm sure that modern "persuasive techniques" can be employed to make them see the error of their old ways...

Maybe, still a "puppet" can't be very helpfull, if not reducing a bit the unhappiness of conquered citizen and slowing the revolt (look at the Vichy France during early WWII, or at Mussolini after the arrest by Italians king order and the unexpected freedom by German commando on Hitler order).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant