To FIARAXIS: Provinces and independence.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by UberKruX
no it wouldn't. just because the germans failed doesn't mean i'll make the same mistakes

All empires when they reach a certain size will prove impossible to manage successfully. Trying to please 50m people with a single policy is hard enough, imagine trying to keep 500m content or 1bn.

The problem with Civ is that once you get a big empire you're pretty much unstoppable in the game. You can effectively do what you want and have no problems. A way to combat grossly overlarge empires would give players a challenge in the end game, a challenge other than - "I have to move these 400 MA this turn again *yawn*".

Obviously you'd need to be able to prevent it happening, so a far more intelligent system than culture flipping is necessary.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Demerzel


All empires when they reach a certain size will prove impossible to manage successfully. Trying to please 50m people with a single policy is hard enough, imagine trying to keep 500m content or 1bn.

The problem with Civ is that once you get a big empire you're pretty much unstoppable in the game. You can effectively do what you want and have no problems. A way to combat grossly overlarge empires would give players a challenge in the end game, a challenge other than - "I have to move these 400 MA this turn again *yawn*".

Obviously you'd need to be able to prevent it happening, so a far more intelligent system than culture flipping is necessary.

Exactly ! I didn't think of this, but provinces and independance could be great to fight late-game tedium, which is one of Civ3's flaws.

[dexters]

Thanks for the support

One thing though. Superpowers do exist and they exist because it is profitable for them to exist. They accure power and it becomes a self perpetuating thing. So I'm a bit weary of making it impossible or so difficult to achieve that it becomes not worthwhile to have it.

But I'm assuming the point is to have a bit more challenge to superpower players?

[Spiffor]

Dexters :

I really like the province idea. It can help managing a huge empire, can help fighting late-game tedium, can help fighting corruption (with the famous "several forbidden palaces" option). Your ideas are sound, yet I'd like to elaborate on them a bit.

I don't think provinces have anything to do with autonomy, because "autonomy" is not really a civish concept : in your empire, you are able to micromanage everything, and every decision can be yours. Cities are either dependant of your rule or independant (AI controlled). 'Autonomous' cities would mean some of the decisions are solely taken by the governor's AI without you being able to change anything, while other decisions are taken by you.
I am talking about autonomy, because it is very essence of city-states, a kind of government that had never made it in Civ. City-states aren't about fighting corruption. They are about a very opposition to what we call an empire. In some way, they are 100% corruption when it comes to the wealth they bring to your empire.

That's why I think in-game provinces should be rather administrative than anything else. Don't get me wrong : I'd like to see them trying to secede and create their own Civilization. But while they are under your control, they should have no autonomous decision whatsoever.
Autonomy was the biggest historical drawback of city-states, and Civ cannot feature this drawback.

To refine your idea of limiting province capitals, I think you should be allowed to build one for every X cities you own, much like armies. I am not sure whether X should change according to the size of the map. This way, if the player really wants to add a corruption-fighting building in every core city, he'll be able to do so only if he has a huge empire, and only if he's ready to abandon his outer rim cities.

---

Maybe a better idea (I'm thinking out loud as I write) : you don't need a provincial capital to create provinces. Creating/modifying a province could be done in a few clicks, but you can only create a province everytime you have X cities (except for the first one around you capitol). You can build one provincial headquarters in each province except the one harboring your capitol.

However, what would make this mechanics interesting for the greedy player or AI ? Why would they bother to create provinces, if it can come to unrest and independance ? The ability to build good provincial headquarters would sure help the case of provinces, but is there something else ? What could the existence of provinces bring to the leader of a Civ ? What did they bring historically ? I feel the answers of these questions can help us refine the concept even more. Anybody knows ?

[Kuciwalker]

I think that once a province has existed for a certain amount of time, it should still be able to revolt even if it is reorganized.

[Fosse]

Spiffor,
One thing that provinces could do well is reduce micromanagment of the leader.

This doesn't mean making them autonomous, either. You could give province wide orders, goals to be met by the cities within it, and otherwise sweeping commands that would guide the governors of those cities. You could, of course, always modify their decisions.

That would allow me to tell my biggest producing province to crank out the military units, and my highest commerce one to go bank-crazy.

I think being able to change my empire from being a 100 city clickfest where I hve to decide on every infantry build, into a 10 province country would I could issue sensible goals based on province characteristics, would be a huge incentive to subdivide, besides corruption fighting benefits.

[Spiffor]

Fosse :
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I would use provinces this way too. But my questions were more ingame-specific, a.k.a what ingame bonuses would a province bring for the AI and the control-freak human to create ?

[Kuciwalker]

It would allow the AI to understand strategy better, by adding another layer of abstraction.

[Spiffor]

Erm, I don't understand
Could you please be more specific ?

[Fosse]

Spiffor,
I actually saw the use of provinces by human players as so helpful for reducing micromanagment that is would be reason enough. No need for extra bonuses.

Though, if each province is its own corruption zone, and slicing your empire into reasonable chunks reduces corruption, then that's all the bonus you'd need, in my opinion.

Other ideas though... if a province has a certain ratio of resource to city - say your entire empire's wine supply is in Gaul and there is a 1:1 ratio of wine to city - then perhaps you'd get a percentage commerce bonus for exports from that region, since its people are "experts."

Being able to set luxury/science/tax settings for each province would allow both the human and AI to fine tune their economy to get the best in each area. So my core cities, with every happiness structure, don't need to spend any luxury, while my outpost province, recently conquered and experiencing unrest, can quell its populace without needing to contribute to the country's coffers... yet.
I would see this as you have your empire tax screen, with displays of how much each province provides each economic area on this screen. CLicking on a province lets you change that province's rates, and on the main screen it's highlighted to show a different tax system there, and you see the resulting amounts.

If cities not aligned with a province suffer a higher chance of revolt (in addition to greater corruption) than those in a province, then that would feel like a bonus.


edited for typo

[Kuciwalker]

The province would enhance AI strategizing because it could understand threats on a province level. Thus, it can recognize and prioritize threats to its empire without looking at individual tiles.

This is in fact what humans do. Don't you think, "oh, the zulus are threatening this section of my empire", not "oh, the zulus are threatening city x"? This lets you realize that the entire region is threatened, not just a single insignificant city.

[Spiffor]

Excellent points Fosse
Edit : and Skywalker too

[Sultan Richard]

Bravo Fosse and Spiffor

On the capital province:

Would it be possible to have the capital city as its own province, like how Washington D.C., USA is a Federal Territory or like how Canberra, Australia has its own Capital Territory? This idea could be expanded for the 'Federal Jurisdiction' to extend over the cities with no provinical affiliation

-----

Also, could the function, bonuses and mechanics of provinces be different for each Government type?

For example, Canada is a Federal state whereas New Zealand isn't.

Examples for Governments:

Despotism: No provinces allowed

Monarchy: Provincial centres will require the construction of a building called CASTLE or COUNTRY HOUSE etc, with provincial bonuses like increased farming (for example, touching on the example of feudalism)

Republic: Provincial centres will require the construction of a building called PROVINCIAL SENATE etc (and increasing the draft rate)

Communism: Provincial centres will require the construction of a building called PEOPLE's SOVIET etc


etc and so on.

-----

Drafting could be applied at a city or provincial-based model. You could have different kinds of drafts, like NATIONAL DRAFT, PROVINCIAL DRAFT and LOCAL DRAFT for the different categories, and all three could be enabled, or only one, depending on Government, happiness etc

[Demerzel]

yes being part of a superpower is an advantage but consider the Soviet Union which had to use military might to hold bits of its empire in.

unless you can provide a genuinely superior option, people will always want to govern themselves rather than let some bureaucrat from 1,000 - 10,000 miles away do it for them.

[Nym]

Very interesting ideas!