Your empire, the challenges that civ-3 should have

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Your empire in civ3 should be more then just warfare, and building improvements. In real-life, leaders have had to deal with terrorists, criminals, power outages, civil war, citizen risings, etc. all throughout history. In civ2 all you need to worry about is warfare, and building improvement, and agriculture. There should be more then that, civil war, power outages (for later in the game), citizen risings (revolutions), and criminals/terrorists. I do have some ideas, but I would like to hear what others have to say first.

[Deity Dude]

Here we go again, I agree wholeheartedly, I'm just not sure why when I suggested civil wars and seccesion in a post (12/12 "Just a thought") I was told by you it was thoroughly discussed. Next your gonna post a thread on slavery.

[Jer8m8]

I 100% agree with Deity Dude. You criticized us, yet some of your ideas have been discussed ad nauseum. You complained to him about mentioning a topic that you just brought up

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

In that thread, "just a thought", he said he wanted to here our ideas, well here they are.

look up on my thread, Advice for Newbys. THere I wholeheartedly apologyzed for, 'jumping on you newbys'. Now I feel like yer doing it back to me.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 14, 2000).]

[OreoFuchi]

If I wanted to deal with power outages, I'd play Simcity.

[Deathwalker]

Some good ideas, but please don't go to far, it's not sim city? Though teroism is a good idea.

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

[Grumbold]

I'd be interested in a Civ spinoff where your rate of civil growth, happiness and such was assessed from your success at building up your capital city in SimCity/Caesar style. I don't see it being a realistic prospect at present, though. If the styles were blended like this there would be ample opportunity to include the prehistory age and the space exploration endgame. All of these are very much more suited to 1 person play than multiplayer. I can't see people being too happy to wait 30 minutes while player B introduced trams into his city centre because he discovered the tech that turn!

[airdrik]

Attrition: How would this be represented in Civ 3?
In Civ 2 you could always support the same number of units forever, but that is not always the case. In Civ 3, units not in a city cost 1 food to support (or 1 food per x units not in a city). If there is a shortage of food, then the food is cut off to the units in the feild who take 10 hp/turn until the shortage is solved.

[DrFell]

o we definitely need civil war in there i think. for one thing its a brilliant way of 'generating' new civs and giving those huge empires that i so often see a few problems. rioting/high corruption cities should have a higher chance of revolt, as it is on civ having a city go 'out of order' for a turn or too is just too light a 'punishment' for not managing your civ properly. plus the collapsing democracies, etc. and revolutions should give you more problems than just an anarchy government, civil wars are ideal. terrorists are a good idea too.. what about barbarian diplomat sabotage

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Ok, cut out the power outages, what about the other stuff (terrorists, civil war, etc)?

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

If you look up on my old thread, Riots and Revolutions, I said how civil war would work out. Since Im sure most of you wont look it up, Ill just say it here:

When one of your cities happiness drops below 50%, then that city goes into a riot, and at least one if your military units is thrown out, or killed by the citizens. during the first 3 turns that city is in revolt, the surrounding cities have a 10% chance of going into revolt, as the citizens spread. if the city stays in revolt longer, then during the next 5 turns there is a 20% chance, and so on. When more then 3 cities is in revolt for more then 5 turns, those cities completely revolt against the authorities. all units in those cities are thrown out, or killed, and those cities form their own minor civ. IF you attack that civ, to take back your cities within 10 turns of it formings its own, then it is not an attack, but it is considered crushing rebelions. beyond 10 turns, it is considered a full out invasion, since it is proven that that minor civ has the power to rule themselves.

Also, you should be able to freely kill any citizens in a revolting city.

[airdrik]

The thing about that is you'd increase the unhappyness in those cities before they would get a chance to go into civil war. Unless your idea is that you cannot build anything in that city, in which case how would you stop it from going into civil war? There should be a way before it attracts the 3rd city.

Also, the rates for attracting cities should be like 10% for 3 turns, plus 10% for every 5 turns after that and 10% for every city that joins (-10%/happy citizen, -x% for being closer to the capitol)

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

you would get the cities under control by moving into the city, and killing off the 'unhappy' citizens that are looting the city. for example:

quote: "If you kill the Shepphard, you kill the herd."

Same thing with terrorists, kill the main part of the problem, and the rest should be easy.