"The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York"

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by axemann on 04-16-2001 06:26 PM I like the basic idea of a phased-in assimilation, but some of the ideas here might be a bit too complex to integrate into the game.

I'm assuming that some kind of structure involving minor civs is already included (from remarks Sid has made) - i.e., that there would already be the possibility of negotiating with minor civs. If this is not the case, then I would have to agree with you.

quote: Since Civ3 will use national borders, I think that only bordering cities should petition to be annexed.

A very good point, and IMO quite a realistic limitation to impose.

quote: Any phase-in system is going to be too complex, although perhaps a parallel system of disgruntled cities breaking off into new civs would be a good idea.

If disgruntled cities can break away and become a minor civ, why couldn't they also apply to join a bordering civ that they admire? The two things seem one and the same to me! (The 'phase-in' would come about if the new civ doesn't immediately offer complete annexation - assuming an existing setup for minor civs, as I said earlier...)

[SerapisIV]

If minor civs are in the game and you have regular or even limited diplomacy with them, I'm all for treating annexed towns as minor civs for a small transitionary period before full annexation. That's a real good idea. It gives the momma civ a chance to get back her territory without including you in the conflict, at least unless you want to.

[SerapisIV]

Ikuul I was only talking in terms of technology. I go to great pains to defend my tech from the AI. Suddenly having a town a full screen away from the rest of my empire without having had the chance to fully set up defenses would really stink. That and how quickly would it take for technology from my civ to the new city? In any conquered city or joined nations (east and west Germany), if Russia invaded East Germany in 1995, how much western technology would've been gained? I might be wrong but I'm sure a significant time was spent simply restructuring, rebuilding then setting up modern facilities.

My transitionary period is solely based on paranoia of lost tech, not much else. Other then that though, the city in question should be politically and economically yours

[Ilkuul]

Yes!

[Stuff2]

About getting techs when capturing cities. I think that only techs that are applied should be able to give.
If a rifle man manage to actually kill your new tank then there is some risk that the tank technology could fall into their hands. When you capture a city with a bank you suddenly gain banking. But getting techs that are not applied could maybe be considered if you manage to capture a library (but only academic techs). Improvements destroyed during the invasion don't give new techs. This is not totally realistic but it's simple and logical and it would keep extremely militaristic civs from being to successful (which in my opinion makes the game unbalanced). I see that my post is very messy so I make it a little more clear.
Getting techs through warfare is achieved when you manage to either kill a unit that has that tech as a prereq or when you manage to capture a city without destroying improvements that has those techs a prereq.
Getting a library or a university should also give away techs.

[Stuff2]

About cities upraising and so on.

I have had an idea that you have a maximum number of things to control and you can choose different levels.
I know my english is not the best so i'll try explain my point.
For example your empire are based on 227 cities grouped in 36 provinces and 5 regions.
There is no way possible for you to manage this on yourself, having much power also means having to distribute that power wisely. Let's say that you can only control 40 objects, this is the game limit. This means that you have to leave over control of big parts of your empire to local governors. There are three levels of control:
city control is when you actully do all of it yourself.
Provincial control means that a provincial governor is told what to do and does so.
Regions is (when they fully belong to you) a regional governor that follows your guidlines.
When your empire is smaller than 40 cities you can easily control every city if you like it, or you can group them into 5 - 7 provinces, which you also can control on a provincial level, or simply (if you feel extremely bored) control on a regional level.
But when there is more than 40 cities (227 cities) you have to have atleast some of them formed under provincial governing. You can freely choose how you distribute the governing. You have 40 spaces to fill. In this case I choose to govern 8 cities, 27 provinces and 1 region. You have 40 objects to control (or if you are lazy to hand over to AI-governors).
The thing is that when cities are governed one by one they will only revolt one bye one, provinces will revolt as provinces and regions will revolt as regions. This idea means that the greater your empire is the less is your absolute control over it.

[Ilkuul]

I really like this idea. I just hope it can still be included in the game; maybe AI governors, with the cities they control, would technically be a particular type of minor civ...

I assume you mean that regions are groupings of provinces? So you have 3 levels of government, national, regional, and provincial? Or were you saying that a region would be a different type of province, one that has more autonomy?

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-17-2001 06:22 AM About getting techs when capturing cities. I think that only techs that are applied should be able to give. If a rifle man manage to actually kill your new tank then there is some risk that the tank technology could fall into their hands. When you capture a city with a bank you suddenly gain banking. But getting techs that are not applied could maybe be considered if you manage to capture a library (but only academic techs). Improvements destroyed during the invasion don't give new techs. This is not totally realistic but it's simple and logical and it would keep extremely militaristic civs from being to successful (which in my opinion makes the game unbalanced). I see that my post is very messy so I make it a little more clear. Getting techs through warfare is achieved when you manage to either kill a unit that has that tech as a prereq or when you manage to capture a city without destroying improvements that has those techs a prereq. Getting a library or a university should also give away techs.

I like that idea, how about getting tech only from cities that have either libraries, universities, or a building improvement that requires tech you don't have, say a factory and you're still pre-industrialism, or research lab when you're pre computers. It would make war more costly as you don't get technology unless you capture it.

An example, the Allies didn't get German jet or rocket technology by retaking Paris or France, only by capturing V2 sites or the scientists themselves after the war.

[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 17, 2001).]

[dognheat]

Outstanding idea stuff2. Tech advances should only be gotten if improvements/units that utilize that technology are present in the city that is captured. Also I would say that if you defeat an enemy unit (within your city radius or territrial boundries) that is from a technology you don't have you should be able to reverse engineer that technology given time, say a couple of turns. There could possibly be a city improvement like a weapons lab that could research defeated units.

------------------
*PLOP*

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-17-2001 02:04 PM I really like this idea. I just hope it can still be included in the game; maybe AI governors, with the cities they control, would technically be a particular type of minor civ... I assume you mean that regions are groupings of provinces? So you have 3 levels of government, national, regional, and provincial? Or were you saying that a region would be a different type of province, one that has more autonomy?

Nope, no difference in autonomy, just difference in management. Still every 'object' except the capital city can declare it's independence when things get too bad. And I also suggest that the regions, provinces groupings are automated (using natural borders). All three layers of control co-exist all of the time. This means that even if you act as a regional governor some provinces within this region can revolt against you. But if the majority of provinces within a region are unhappy with you the whole region will revolt, unless it's the capital region since you can't loose the capital this way no matter what, then it only will be a revolution and you get a chance to change government. And the same is true within provinces, if one city is unhappy it can try and declare it's independence, but if the provincial capital or the majority of cities within the province are unhappy the whole province will be unhappy. Ofcourse every city, province or region won't declare indepence as soon as they are a bit unhappy, but a few turns with unhappiness will make them declare their independence (if there is room for another ai-player).
Also, you can manage a region from a regional window or let an ai-governor do it
Same thing about provinces. Province window or provincial ai governor.
Same thing for cities.
But your control are limited to a certian number of entities. A propose a number between 30 and 80.
So you can never have total control if your empire is big enough, you have to distribute your control wisely in order to maintain your empire content and under your control.

[dognheat]

With the concept of regions, provinces and other groupings of territory being floated around it would only make sense to have the option to toggle a political map display. For those of you from Palm Beach (or Florida in general), a political map displays the bounderies and borders that a region/ciounty/empire has under its control. the displays could be ala sim city where you go to a world map and have different map overlays you could impose to get information about areas of the world. If a region was unhappy it would disply red on the map overlay. If this was something you could toggle onto the main map, then the border outline could be red. Thoughts ??

[Ilkuul]

I'm 100% in favour of having a political map display and map overlays. I've envisaged it as an alternative "political" map: i.e., you would have a button alongside the main map screen that would toggle between the normal "geographical" or "terrain" view, and a "political" view with different colours shading the areas occupied by the various civs - and also (as a further option?), regions & provinces of your own civ. I like the idea of having the border appear in red if the province or region is unhappy.

[Cyberbugs]

I think that if another civilizations city is revolting, the revolt will last for, for example, ten turns, and you will have the option to either bring your troops there to support the revolutionists or the government of the "mother civilization". The civilization may require that you send troops to end the revolution by military means. Of course, supporting the revolution could be considered as an act of war.

[Stuff2]

Indeed i'd like to see political maps in civ3.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Cyberbugs on 04-21-2001 05:52 AM I think that if another civilizations city is revolting, the revolt will last for, for example, ten turns, and you will have the option to either bring your troops there to support the revolutionists or the government of the "mother civilization". The civilization may require that you send troops to end the revolution by military means. Of course, supporting the revolution could be considered as an act of war.

Jeez, I don't want 10 turn revolts. I think the AI should be at least as smart as a human is in that respect. Rarely do I let a city in revolt for more then a turn or two. Revolts should be opportunities (expanded espionage?!?), but one with a very small window of time for which to take advantage. It should also be easier as time progresses in the game to take advatage of revolts (increased communications) also because of their infrequency in the endgame (at least unprovoked vs. spy-caused) revolts