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

[dognheat]

To me there was nothing more satisfying than seeing the message:

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

or something to that effect, then the revolution. You could then either support your new city or say the hell with it and laugh. It was a very satisfying thing I would like to see more of. In general I would like to see more territorial changes that were not gained through any action on the part of others. Lets say the culture rating of one of your not so powerful nieghbors is very high compared to yours. I think that your citties on the border should have second thoughts about your superpower status. Thoughts ???

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

[Bereta_Eder]

If the culture part is implemented as I suspect it will be, Civ III will be really great.

Let's say you opt for a huge empire, vast armies and the aim to conquer as much as you can.

But, at the same time, you simply have to neglect your culture coherence because instead of building a library you chose knights or whatever other military unit.

Now you have A LOT of cities and military. But some of your (small sized by default) border cities are next to the relatively tiny civ of the Babylonias (whose cities I loved to conquer in Civ II by the way ).

Some of your cities could admire Hammurabibi and revolt leaving your strategy a littel dry (or at least more difficult to implement).

As your border cities decide to fall for the charm of the babylonians the overall BABYLONIAN culture level is thus dropping and balance is restored and you have lost some.

This would be very good, but it also could be very messy if you see it from the other side.

Say you have created your extra technological, extra perfectionist small civ with huge sized cities, all the improvements in them, and an army capable of repelling almost any attack. Your culture level is very high.

Some nation's cities decide to intergrate with you without your permission (which by itself is a little un-historical although it has happened before but rarely).

Now you have your perfect state but suddendly you find your self with a number of underdeveloped, poorly defended cities that are propably on a VERY bad strategic location in relation with the civ from which they came from.

I think that 8 out of 10 times you will starve them to death and eliminate the new, unasked for, problem unless they have a wonder in them.

The whole idea is very good but I think it must be implemented with extreme caution by Firaxis!

I also think that it should not be the culture level but the money (money per person) that infuences the other civ cities or maybe a combination of the two.


For example Iraq people would not like to intergrate with the USA (distance excluded), despite the big difference of wealth between not only for the bombing but also because of the different culture.

Also I think most of the time there should be IMMIGRATION instead of cities changing side.

For example Albania will not integrate with Greece or Italy despite the big difference in wealth. Instead virtually half of the albanian population has now immigrated to cities of Greece and Italy.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by dognheat on 04-15-2001 02:34 PM To me there was nothing more satisfying than seeing the message: "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York" or something to that effect, then the revolution.

Yes, I felt that way too! But I also agree with paiktis that it's rather unrealistic that cities could just join your civ without you having any say in the matter! I would prefer to see that 'admiration' notice followed by diplomatic negotiations (with the seceding city/ies now being treated as a minor civ, and therefore able to negotiate). You would then have the chance either to accept them into your empire, or to ally with them as a 'client state', or in fact to make any other kind of treaty you like. If you totally refuse to negotiate with them, they would either have to remain a part of their original civ or revolt and set up as an independent minor civ (= fair game to either side!).

In fact you could really give them a hard time by refusing to absorb them into your empire, but making some kind of meaningless treaty with them - which would force them to become independent, and therefore open to reprisals from their former civ! While you watch on the sidelines and laugh, seeing your enemy being weakened in this way...

[SerapisIV]

Along your idea of reprisals from the old civ, Ikuul, I think the owning civ of the city should usually be very violently opposed to losing its territory to the point of war on most occasions, because how many times in the past has a nation given up its territory freely to another nation? Even if the territory has little in common with its original civ. Look at the entire Balkan region now with the militant Albanians.

I think that this could be a good thing because I know that I usually play a builder game, but some kind of action like this forces you into war when you don't want it, a possibly very realistic addition to Civ, while still increasing fun by making you keeping you on your toes.

Along those lines, if a city rebels and is then quickly recaptured by its original civ, they should not be able to steal tech from you as it really wasn't one of your towns anyway. A kind of transitionary period should be instituted before the city is actually able to be considered fully one of your own.

[Bubba]

I never liked the fact that cities could just join your civilization
in Civ II (or be enticed into joining). I think that there are perhaps two better ways to implement a response to "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York":

1) Create a settler or worker out of the popluation of Sparta that arrives next to NY; and/or

2) Create another (minor?) civilization out of the city of Sparta that then asks for a peace treaty or alliance with the Americans. [This is also a better way to deal with the bribing of cities then that which occured under Civ II with the spy. This was one of the good features of the CTP series].

Just a thought.

[dognheat]

I also agree that when a city has been bribed or revolted, there should be some sort of transition period before they are assimilated into any empire. Without immediate military support, often these revolutions would be crushed, just ask the Czechoslovakians about the uprisings against the Soviets.

I guess the best thing about that message (besides being informed by the AI that you are a badass ) was that it put something completely unexpected infront of you and forced you to react. Do you support that city militarily and begin the conquest of a new continent or do you just say the hell with it and let the original empire take it back along with a undiscovered tech and some money.

The settlers or population transfer is a good idea, but I would like something else to go with that. You should recieve a transport with a couple of settlers so they could colonize cities for you in another region free from military advances, maybe some new techs that they have but you don't, or some cash from their treasury.

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

[Gammaray fan]

In case some of you didn't realise, 'citizens admire the prosperity of...' was taken from Civ1. In that game, if one of your cities was ultra prosperous in relation to another city in a poor civ, they would have a small chance of revolting to your side. It was FUN, but there were many problems, as well as unrealistic elements - namely that the city revolting was usually in the middle of the enemies sprawling empire!
I believe, however that it can be implemented with a few changes in civ3.
1. Only cities that formally belonged to you (either built by you then captured, or captured by you say a thousand years ago (completely culturally assimilated) then recently captured by the enemy)should have a chance of revoluting to join your civ.
2. This obviously works both ways, but before any city asks to join another civ, they should petition the civ they are part of to ask for autonomy, or independence. (independent cities should of course have a chance of joining the civ of their culture if things get tough.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 04-16-2001 12:00 AM 2. This obviously works both ways, but before any city asks to join another civ, they should petition the civ they are part of to ask for autonomy, or independence.

Why would you ever give permission for that?

If Troy asked permission would we just say "Oh sure, you seem developed enough, you want to go your own way? Sure, with our blessings" I believe something similar happened with the USA and England...

On the other hand we have Canada... and there it almost worked.

So maybe only in a democratic government there should be that option?

Still, if you did give permission what would you gain? Maybe you would avoid the collapse of democratic government but what else? There has to be something otherwise petition has no reason to exist as an option.

Maybe there should be a petition to the civ that they admire to come and help them fight for their independence and the penalty to the reputation of the civ that comes to aid these cities might be small.

[Gammaray fan]

The petition simulates efforts by border towns in countries like France which have a culture more similar to the country across the border to gain semi or full independence.
In the game, the reason why you might consider giving them this, is that if you refuse, they may go to the civ they are culturally similar to and ask either to be integrated or for an alliance (if you were allied with THAT civ, you couldn't do a thing about it!). However, they might not try and revolt, and then you would be giving them autonomy or independence for nothing! It would introduce unpredictablility into the game, and make it more fun - give them autonomy or risk them changing sides.

[Bereta_Eder]

Giving autonomy to avoid the de facto integration to another civ makes sense.

The autonomous cities must have some differences in comparison with the other cities you have though. (less trade? etc)

And while autonomy remains you can chose to increase the culture level so you can get them back, or attack the other civ to push the danger further away.

I like it

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-15-2001 08:06 PM Along those lines, if a city rebels and is then quickly recaptured by its original civ, they should not be able to steal tech from you as it really wasn't one of your towns anyway. A kind of transitionary period should be instituted before the city is actually able to be considered fully one of your own.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, Serapis. I like the idea of negotiating with them as a minor civ around the bargaining table - and if you agree to accept them fully into your empire, then on your head be it if their former civ recaptures them and gains a tech from you! I can see it as something requiring strategy on your part: first you make a (partial) alliance with them, perhaps including mutual defence - that leaves them still as a minor civ outside your empire, so if they do get recaptured, you don't lose anything; then if they (with your help) do manage to fight off their former civ, there could be a petition on their part to become full members of your empire which you could reconsider at that point. This would provide for your 'transition period' in a more realistic way, I think.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 12:53 PM 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.

OK, I see what you mean, but what about my suggestion that you would initially just have a treaty or alliance with that city, i.e. it would not immediately become part of your empire - i.e., there would be no danger of losing any tech to the enemy if it's recaptured? Or is it that you're not wanting to count on such cities getting 'minor civ' status because we don't yet know for sure whether that will be included in Civ3?

[SerapisIV]

Sounds like it could get complex. Especially in the end-game when if a pre-determined number of turns must occur before complete annexation, with turns lasting almost an hour each, it could get lost or forgotten in the shuffle.

I definitely like the idea in principle, particularly as it has real life basis, ie Texas. But just as Texas, the mother civ should try and fight to keep it's territory. Just as Kosovo how easy it was to succeed. Actually the more I think about it the better, with earlier tech, pre-railroad, it takes a while for the mother civ to gather forces and suppress the uprising, so its easier for it to be successful, yet in modern days, technology allows for an immediate response, greater mobility of armed forces and larger standing armies, such that as Kosovo and Czechoslovakia found out, the mother civ doesn't like losing territory/power.

One problem. If you are dealing with the city diplomatically, how would the diplomacy screen look, what leader do you see, or is it all text, windowed-option based, as opposed to the full blown diplomacy model

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 02:06 PM One problem. If you are dealing with the city diplomatically, how would the diplomacy screen look, what leader do you see, or is it all text, windowed-option based, as opposed to the full blown diplomacy model

Well, I guess I'm assuming that if Civ3 does have minor civs, they will be able to be represented in some way in negotiations. Maybe just a 'generic' minor civ leader picture, or none at all. I'm also assuming that whenever a city or group of cities rebels or tries to secede from its parent empire, it automatically becomes a minor civ at least for the duration of negotiations. If after that they decide to stay with the original civ, the temporary minor civ disappears. Likewise if they are immediately fully accepted into another civ. Only if the other civ refuses to fully absorb them but makes some kind of treaty or alliance would they remain a minor civ.

[axemann]

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 get the impression that Firaxis is trying to keep the game streamlined enough to move along nicely. Since Civ3 will use national borders, I think that only bordering cities should petition to be annexed. Obviously, the acquisition of a new weak city could be penalty enough for accepting, but I think that there would be a diplomatic penalty, as well. The gaining civ would lose goodwill from the losing civ, and I suppose it could lead to war among countries marginally at peace. But I think that it should be left at that. 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.