Openciv3 - Regions

[Shadowstrike]

Well, I just had an idea in mind, where you would recievwe a report that goes something like "The citizens of Suchandsuchville have many dissenters within their ranks! Revolution is possible!" And then, you'd have a few turns...

After that time, (and if you still did nothing) you would get another message informing you of the rebellion there. You can try to put it down with your military untis, but some may join the rebellion... Of course the game would be funner if this happened out of the blue sometimes (not in a "core" city, just some outskirts)

[Guildmaster]

As long as we're talking about revolutions, I would like to point out that there were revolutionaries in Russia from the late 1800s all the way until 1917 when the communists finally tool over. In fact, it was Germany that grabbed Lenin from his exile in Switzerland and sent him into Russia to try and get Russia to surrender and get out of the war so they could focus their efforts on France.

------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray

[XWaste]

I have just started browsing around this forum and it seems like there is some pretty interesting stuff.

Some ideas that might be useful regarding revolutions, Normally they arise from the rural population so that in a region that has a high level of discontent then you can have a couple of military units appear in a rural hex which then spread out as far as their resources and opposition allow (these units come from the rural population). Perhaps the independance army only control hexes they are currently in, so if they move they lose control over the hex they left - representing the way some armies keep mobile to escape capture. Depending on the level of dissent, the army could convert a % of the population each time it moves into a hex as they get more converts. I guess if the independance army form a border around a zone then they control the whole zone rather than just the hexes they are in - representing blockades etc.

Providing that the independance army isn't killed in their first turn then they could possibly have some form of limited diplomatic abilities - this would allow rival civs to give aid to the revolution, displacing a troublesome government with a more malleable/friendly one.

This could also be used then to reinforce cultural ties between regions that may presently be ruled by different civs but historically have been close.

[amjayee]

This sounded good! Wasn't that excactly what Mao did in China on his Long March? Marched through the countryside converting people to his cause? Of course independence wars are usually quite short, so we will have to think how to make this.

[XWaste]

Some wars are quite short, others have been going on for ages - how long have the Tamul Tigers been operating, or the IRA.

As I see it, the higher the dissent, the more converts the army will get and the quicker/more bloody the war will get. At times where the dissent isn't high enough for the sort of mass conversion of a quick independance, then basically you have bands of rebels moving around your country areas, because they lose control of a hex when they move their attacks on cities represent more terrorist attacks than conquest/seccesion as they can attack and then move back into their rural seclusion to avoid capture/defeat.

[Guildmaster]

Of course with the existence of one revolutionary army, it is entirely possible for another army to pop up somewhere else in your civ. After all, if they're going to revolt, why shouldn't we?

------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray

[Shadowstrike]

And that will probably kill off ICS, and provide a huge dose of realism... go for it!

[The Joker]

Cool!

------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson

GGS Website

[Guildmaster]

Why are we even worried about ICS?
I think it's not even a possibility even if you tried. Think of this things we already have:

1) Your cities grow when they want to, not when you want them to.
2) Even though you may found a city, there is no guarantee anyone will want to live there.
3) Production is based on actual workhours, materials, industry. all these things are measureable based on the nature of the terrain occupied and the population and relevant tech level. So even if you did manage to get a million cities, there is a strong possibility you won't have any industry at all since most of your people will starve to death because there is no way to feed the masses.
4) Even if you did manage to feed all those people with no farmland, even if you did manage to get all the benefits ICS is supposed to give, one little case of smallpox would sweep through your precious civ so fast by the time you found out about it half your people would be dead and you already spread it to civs on the opposite side of your farthest borders.
5) Even if you somehow managed to get a million cities, even if you did manage to feed them all without farmland, even if you could successfully prevent a slate-viper from wiping your people out, remember that ICS depends on SMALL cities. hundreds of SMALL cities. So then where is HEAVY industry going to come from? Where is heavy commerce going to come from? Big corporations like big cities so that they have all they need in one spot, don't have to waste too much time and money on shipping things, don't lose too many good workers for lack of things for them to do, want to have a prestigious place for comany headquarters, want to save money on taxes, etc. With really small cities, all your private sector would go overseas and dry up your economy, leaving you with no money to feed your people, then they starve, their health goes down and a disease comes through and finishes you off.

So you see ICS is basically impossible by design, and even if it were possible, it would be suicide. So I don't want to hear any more talk about ICS ok?

------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray

[amjayee]

Well said Guildmaster!

[The Joker]

You are right, of cause, Guildmaster.

But actually there is a broader definition of ICS.

Back in the days Korn was in charge of a large analyzation of ICS, where we all joined in to figure out what to about it. And we ended up finding not 1, but 3 types of ICS.

They are:

1: Infinite City Spread/Sprawl/Sleaze (The classic one)
2: Infinite China Syndrome
3: Infinite City something something...

I don't remember the name of the last one. But still. The first is, that having a large empire with lots of people, and more important lots of cities, is always better than a small, perfectionist one. This ICS we should have removed by now. The second is how all civs in Civ2 ended up being China like civs, that stays the same for millenia. Basically solving this one is implementing the rise and fall of great powers idea. The third one is about how no matter how many cities you have conquored, they always all stay loyal to you. No matter what you do. So solving this one would mean implementing nationalism and a political/government model in the game.

So when using the broad definition of ICS it really becomes everything we want to fight in GGS. The fact that a game of Civ2 always ended up as a static task, without much real change.

------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson

GGS Website

[Guildmaster]

I think that by giving the player limited control of their own government we should avoid the infinite china syndrome, eg:
Say you have a king, who is a really bad king. He is destroying your empire and causing you to lose the game. Despite your best attempts at assassinating him, he manages to survive and still do damage.
I don't like this idea because it takes away the game from the player.
If instead we allow alternative factions within your civ to think for themselves, perhaps an ambitious general sees the civ you built is more powerful than all others but he thinks you're too peaceful. So he takes over thus ending your game and tries to take over the world.
I think the game should end for the player when that player loses all political power and "dies." That's why we should allow the player to have a character I think.
Napolean was ousted and sent into exile. If the player's game ends at that point then he never would have come back from exile to rise again.
Lenin was sent into exile into switzerland. Even though he lost all direct influence in Russia, he was sent back later during the war and took over from there.
I think that we should allow the player to have a character with a limited lifespan, say 60 years or so (And make it possible for a disease to kill him, or to be killed in battle, executed, assassinated, etc.)
Then when that character expires, you are presented with three options:
1) Sit out the next few turns until that character is removed from power and use the time to attempt to regain control. You could use the same diplomacy word generator to say "To the Mexicans: If you invade Cuba and install me as dictator I will rule in your favor."
or possibly run in a re-election campaign or something. You can do this until that character "dies."
2) Spend 10 points to assume the character of your successor- should you choose this option you take precedence over those in option 3.
3) Pick from a list of countries without a ruler which one you want to rule next. Gain bonus points based on relative tech level and global power.

------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray

[The Joker]

The character game might be interesting, I agree. Especcially when linked with Korns great idea of hopping between civs.

But sometimes it would also be nice to be able to play with the same Civ for a long time. Then characters would just be someone you worked with. You, however, would be "whoever was in charge of your civ". So if an ambitious general takes over you would still be in charge, only you would have to deal with an incredibly strong military class with a demand to conquor the world - and going against them would be lethal.

So both options should be possible.

------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson

GGS Website