Limiters

[Bluevoss]

I was just thinking on the way home - one of the great things that kill major empires are that they usually break into two major pieces.

Think about it - Alexanders Empire fragged (into four pieces).

Rome split - east and west.

The Arab empire split, also east and west.

America Split, with the north eventually taking over the south.

So how hard would this be to add, Mod-makers? Could we have something where the nation splits (either north-south or east-west, with half of the cities going to each side). The player could then keep whatever section his palace was in (or, opionally, he could play the rebel side, and take the other faction). All units would be changed to whichever's city was closest.

Tech would be the same for both empires. Diplomacy with the new faction would start from scratch (other than what knowledge was already known).

How could this work? Say that every turn, whichever nation was in the lead (point wise) would have, I dunno, a 1% chance of civil war? Or maybe it would be based, somehow, on the empires happyness. Anyway, it should come out that something like 80% happyness is the norm and anything above or below that modifies the chances.

This would really go a long way to break the back of nations that are well in the lead.

Of course, there should be a way to turn this off for those who don't care for it.

But think about it - you are rampaging across the world, and there are no challenges worth facing. And suddenly, you find yourself on par with a new, hostile nation that shares your border. Egad, would that ever put a kink in your domination plans!

Bluevoss-

[Immortal Wombat]

Huh? Why? How hard can it be? Combine a location array, an unittype array, a hitpoint and a veteran toggle array... Index uniquely determines unit...

You'd think . That's what I did, and I got array index 0 out of bounds errors all over the shop. Leave debugslic at no, and nothing happened. I'm looking at it again, Peter sent me an altered version which might help.

[The Big Mc]

I get what your going at Bluevoss and it could be a pretty good addition

like an old civ you thought you killed ages a go suddenly rebelling and you basically got to go over there and kick them around a bit.
Like the Indian mutiny against the British

Could possibly be done on the change of government so they take advantage of your anarchy.

Or when you try to change your government some people don’t want to change and split of from your civ

This could easily be done using slic

Assign every city that you capture to an array with there old owners name there and when you go into anarchy rebel all the civs hat have been completely killed of .

Unfortunately I am busy with my new orders so some one will have to code it other then me if I was looking for a new project like I do every once in a while I would do it for you but I ma so busy at the moment.

[Pedrunn]

DP

[Pedrunn]

Bluevoss,
It could be somethin like:
When a city revolts it could get 1/5 to 1/2 (ramdomly and depending on the happiness level) of the cities of the whole empire that are near to this revolting city.
I dont like the total randomness of this kind of feature. It will also revolt the player .

[Hermann the Lombard]

There probably should be more chance of revolt of peripheral cities during a change of government, and Pedrunn's idea of having an increased chance that nearby cities will go too is good.

But he's also right that it will revolt the players!

Actually, (in Cradle) there is one specific point where I think that the max. number of cities should suddenly drop, and there should be a very high chance of civil war: entering the Dark Ages. Complete that "advance" and the sh*t hits the fan. Max cities should drop to (say) 15 or 20 and shouldn't go up again until you achieve one of the medieval governments: theocracy, monarchy, or caliphate.

[child of Thor]

Hi Bluevoss,
got a few links that are worth a look, the splinter colony/Fractured civ has been discussed just can't find the link for that one.Still these are good reading and give an idea of the scope that modders are currently thinking about here , here , here , and here . Hope the links work ok and you find the info usefull - I'm a newbie here, and it's good to see someone of your experience back here

[Bluevoss]

The more I think about this, the more I realize that it would have to be a "sub-module" of cradle.

I'm reading a history of Egypt in the lands of Canaan right now. Things happen beyond the abilities of rulers there (thats putting it mildly). But things that would cause great changes to the world are all random (droughts, civil wars, decline of empires).

So we have a branch that forms at this point.

One one line of thinking, we need to preserve a game so that people can play and have a reasonable chance of succeeding, based largly on their skill. Its like playing poker and expecting the cards not to change in your hands. Call this the "Empire Building" branch.

One the other branch, we have the historical aspects. We have empires that break away (or crumble before a suddenly MASSIVE wave of raiders (the Hittites vanished overnight before attacks by the "Sea People" (who are thought to be a collection of peoples displayed by droughts - a collection of barbarian tribes). And at the time, the Hittites were the second major power in the world (behind the Egyptians, who bearly stopped the Sea Peoples). Aside from this Professor Bluevoss lecture, what I'm trying to say is that vast changes happened to empires, sometimes overnight, sometimes over decades. The game does not allow this to occure. Call this the "Historic Empires Branch".

The "Empire Builder" is good if you want to play a game that builds on itself, where you work over time to overcome your obsticles.

The "Historic Empires Branch" would allow races to grow and then fall apart. This would probably take the form of increasing difficulties from the top point empire until it falls apart under rioting and starvation. Once it fragments, it can attempt to grow once again (perhaps by fighting against parts of its former domains).

Just some thoughts - and just some notes that I acknowledge the game that some people want to preserve (including myself).

Bluevoss-

[seanas]

bluevoss: the splittiing of empires and civil war never happens just by accident.

the problem with all civil wars is that they all have, for want of a better phrase, specific trigger conditions:

>Think about it - Alexanders Empire fragged (into four pieces).

yes, but only because alexander was a tyrant who went and died unexpectedly. most tyrannies, especially as late in the game as alexander occurs, tend to be unstable. (cf: the collapse of the mongols)

> Rome split - east and west.

largely a reaction to an administrative collapse caused by distance (its what the appian way is designed to ameliorate)

> The Arab empire split, also east and west.

cant say i know a ****load about the arab empire, altho what i do know says they were stuffed by a combination of militant christianity and militant islam - ie, competing civilisations.

> America Split, with the north eventually taking over the south.

yeah, but the us civil war was largely about slavery - which is covered in the emancipation act (altho you could have more severe results from the emancipation act: empire splits rather than mere riots. but really, which player doesn't get to build the emanciaption act first, or at least abolish all their slaves prior to its construction?)

the civil war was also a result of the tensions between an industrial mode of production in the north and a mercantilist mode in the south. i guess at a pinch this could be represented by a civil war between those parts of the empire that had lots of TI and those that didnt, but realistically, this sort of distinctin is already modelled by the happiness rating of each city (which is dependent upon both TI and city improvements).

civil wars are the result of specific trigger conditions, many of which are already modelled in CTP2; the fact that only AI suffer from them reflects one or both of a: player skill; b: inherent limitations of turn-based strategy games. if i know a civil war is on the cards, or even a riot, i'll do whatever is necessary to avoid it - hence removing the possibility of a civil war. to revisit the issue by making civil wars arbitrary is to disassociate them from their hisotrical circumstances (which games like CTP2 are supposed to model), and to render them as random, and thus unameliorative by player action.

a better model might be the an lushan rebellion in t'ang dynasty china: the (barbarian) army that had established the extended boundaries of the t'ang dynasty rebelled and overthrew it - temporarily at least, but the after-effects lasted way into the song dynasties.
this might be modelled, most simply, by barbarian attacks (something, i have to confess, i do without), but perhaps, more compexly, by the sort of trigger that in the old Civ boardgame caused civil war: if yr army was too technologically advanced relative to yr government type, it could rebel and impose itself (i dont even wanna think about what the slic would have to look like tho).

civil wars are never random; droughts and empire decline likewise; they all tend to be related to the conditons of government. games like CTP2, in which the player has the role of head of state, simply can't model the kinds of crises caused by dynastic decline or misrule (or at least not without totally negating the modes of presence and gameplay inherent in turn-based strategy games).

cheers,

sean

[Peter Triggs]

Hi, sean

Welcome to the community!

i dont even wanna think about what the slic would have to look like tho).

Are you interested in this sort of stuff?

Peter

[Bluevoss]

Sean,

Good points - some quick observations on my part -

As you pointed out, an empire splits becuase its parts become too distant to control. The American colonys and (as we pointed out) the division of Rome.

An empire faces civil war when inequities force a divide acrost it.

The first could be modeled. The second would be trickier.

One thought - a lot of times, MONEY can be used to fix anything. A quick (and very dirty) solution to this would be a random event that works as follows...

1) Once in a great while, a dialog pops up and the player is told of a problem he faces in his empire. This would be so much window dressing, but would serve to give a background feel to it. "Faced with embargos fueled by your forgien policies, your merchants are forming guilds and gathering in strenghth" or "A flame of indendence has been running through your fronteer cities".

2) A list of "endangered" cities is given. They should all be grouped together.

3) A table of breakaway chances is printed. Say there are four chances for breakway. The values would be generated differently every time.

40% Breakaway chance - no gold
30% Breakaway chance - 1000 gold
20% breakaway chance - 2000 gold
10% breakaway chance - 4000 gold

The player picks an amount, showing how much "effort" his civ is putting into correcting the wrong. Then the computer determines if the cities break away into a new empire.

Its just a thought. Currently, with the ferocity of Cradle, I dunno if I really want to be bothered with part of my empire breaking away at a critical moment. Right now, I'm just tossing ideas out there.