Independance

[ajli@home]

Let's say that if you establish a colony over 20 tiles away from the capital or something, if the colony goes in unrest for over 3 turns it can actualyl "declare" independance. When it does it instantly builds 2 high tech units and seizes all units inside (captures) and the city. It then influences all cities nearby to instantly have 4 unhappy citizens. If they revolt they instantly join the revolting civ that is not the "barbarians" rather a different country altogether.

Also, instead of "barbarins", we should have different small countries that wage wars on you. These new countries that have no home yet can actually build cities and start wars and stuff. These people can have like a +25% attack and defense bonus for simply historical purposes, so many games may have up to 15 civs at once in a game. This attack and defense bonus also goes to the revolutions.

[Anodyne]

Hmm. Yes, I like the idea. Or, the nation that wants independence could also just kindly ask you for independence, and you could grant it or not. If you don't grant it, there's a change of civil war in the city, and perhaps a change of some other civs disliking you for that (when the UN is around, perhaps)
And this would be an efficient way of getting minor civs into the game, too. For example, when you find settlers or an advanced tribe from a goody hut, it would become your province, that could later demand independence. Or authonomy. Or stay in your control, if you're a fair ruler.

------------------
Eating people is fun.

[ajli@home]

Asking for Independance? LOL. Hehe.

Also, we should be able to give individual taxes to city (though we can still set up the majority rates). They could either demand lower taxes or city improvements or whatever. If you fail to fulfill/ignore them, they revolt.

[Zeevico]

Thats a pretty good idea, but why not have influenced revolts, for example 15 american cities are one citizen away from unrest(enough to make another civ) and spain decides to help the newly born nation (if they decide to revolt despite their not being rioting) by gifts of knowledge and military to spite the americans (like the American Revolution, how French helped just to spite the Brits).

[ajli@home]

Yeah, Incite a revolution .

[Mo]

I think there show then also be an option to say that in 10 turns or some time frame you will grant them their independence because right now is not conveniant for some reason. Also I think that if you grant independence to the country it showed have good relations with you atleast at the begining.

[Zealot]

Well, I hope Firaxis didn't forget that in Civ I if I conquered an enemy capital city, it would split into civil war if it was a large empire! This feature wasn't in Civ II (I think), wich was too bad...

But now I think it would be a good and fun idea to put back this feature, but only alow an enemy civil war after about 5 turns of the conquest of de capital city.

The empire would split up when corruption would be high for some time, which led to the disruption of the empire! But if it was reconquered again before 6 turns, all would be well (but without a palace, though).

So, what do you think?

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Does anyone ever look up the old threads?

anyway, I wont let it bother me AGAIN. I like this idea. But now that we know that civ3 WILL have nation borders, it wont matter our far cities are away from your capital, they are technically, and offically part of your nation.

also, a certain city should be in anarchy for more then just three turns. Make it at least 5.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

oops, double post.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited January 24, 2001).]

[DarkCloud]

eh. I like the idea of the distance being a factor in independece revolutions sort of an increasing factor for the spaces away from the capital...

Diablo- I don't see why this bothers you so much (old ideas brought up again) I have been here since July and I like the old threads to be commented on but I realize that new posters have no time to look through old threads...

[The Viceroy]

Like the basis of this idea very much .. not just in the American context, but in the context of nations swallowed up by others reclaiming their independance at a later date (especially via Imperialism)..

think the idea of government intervention to aid a rebellion in your enemies cities is historically acurate .. not just the influence of the French, but also the creation of Panama by the Americans, who just wanted to build the Panama canal.

CTP already has distance from capital as a factor, but I think land mass should also come into effect, seperate land masses should quickly gain a feeling of independance, regardless of how good the home nation is to them.

Independance has been gained many times, by a simple request and without war .. Britain granted Canada & Australia nationhood . without any need for a war.. India struggled for Independance, but it was social disobediance and education which eventually made Britain grant them independance. Russia also granted many former soviet states independance.

There are certainly occations, where granting independance could be an advantage to the home civ .. certainly, a rioting city takes resources to calm down .. which in times of crisis may not be afforded. The likelyhood of a long drawn out war of independance may also be chilling .. as it could leave you vunrable elsewhere ..

[Cannes]

In conjunction with these ideas there is a feature from CTP that I would like to bring to your attention. When you conquer enemy cities and you yourself were in democracy of somekind. The conquest distress was actually positive! I haven't bothered to have look at what government the conquered nation was in, but this should be looked into. The people of that nation felt liberated!
During the second world war nations such as Romania and Italy were allied with the Germans. I know they were not the same "civilization", but they serve as an example non the less. Well back to my point When the allied took Italian and Romanian cities the people rejoiced as being liberated, not conquered. This is one feature that should be worked on in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Cannes (edited January 25, 2001).]

[Caesar the Glutton]

I like the Independence idea very much. Zealot, Civil War happens in Civ2 as well. It happened during my game last night on King level.

------------------
Nam si violandum est ius, regnandi gratia violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas

[bagdar]

quote: Originally posted by Zealot on 01-23-2001 08:06 AM Well, I hope Firaxis didn't forget that in Civ I if I conquered an enemy capital city, it would split into civil war if it was a large empire! This feature wasn't in Civ II (I think), wich was too bad...

civ ii did have the feature

[ajli@home]

quote: Originally posted by Zealot on 01-23-2001 08:06 AM Well, I hope Firaxis didn't forget that in Civ I if I conquered an enemy capital city, it would split into civil war if it was a large empire! This feature wasn't in Civ II (I think), wich was too bad...

It was there, but it only occurred in modern ages/industry ages if I recall correctly.