04-09-2001 04:02									#1
	Violent Revolutions Suffering from ads?

Are revolutions still going to work in the same way as civ 1 and 2?

I always thought that they were too easy. A few turns of anarchy was a small price to pay for a more efficient system of government. The revolution left your civ relatively unscarred.

I want counter-revolutionaries seizing control of some of my empires cities and forcing a long civil war. The player is forced to make a genuine decision between an inferior system of government or a long drawn out conflict which could doom their civilisation. Smaller empires will of course have an easier time with revolutions, providing a antidote to 'the strong get even stronger' problem.

If you wanted to change back to say, monarchy, after trying a republic, then the counter-revolutionaries will automatically revert back to your control.

If you wished to end the conflict, you could negotiate a truce and the counter-revolutionaries would turn into a mini-civ, probably to be eventually absorbed by your culture.

Finally, when your government changes, alliances and other pacts would have to be renegotiated and you could ditch alliances without diplomatic penalties.

Not much has been said about revolutions so far, so maybe, just maybe, firaxis have put in a more elaborate system (fingers crossed).

	04-09-2001 04:14									#2
	Tired of ads?

Nah, this is a game, and revolution is the method you undertake to change government...I don't think it should be any worse than anarchy for a brief spell...

	04-09-2001 07:59									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That would be a great idea sandman, perhaps a highly skilled mod-maker can one day implement something similar to this. A system along these lines would do well to help implement a feeling of "Rise and fall of empires" in the game. Which is something i have been so desperate for.

	04-09-2001 08:29									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I always thought that revolutions were a bit unrealistic too, but with civil disorder doesn't that make up for the unhappiness in the civil war? It would be really cool if there were more severe reprocussions to a government switch, but I'd like to focus on killing my enemy and not my own people in a civil war. A rival faction or two within your own empire would spice things up a bit.

	04-09-2001 08:47									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like the idea, even if it where something as simple as slaping down some barbarian partisans around your larger cities I think it would add alot.

Remember that the Religon bonus ellimantes anarchy between goverments, so there may need to be some tweaking to even things out, aswell.

	04-09-2001 13:59									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nice idea, Sandman

Perhaps instead of some out-lying cities reverting to counter-revolutionary control, you could have in all your cities (depending upon its cultural value) a certain number of population becomming "unassimilated" people... unproductive and disruptive, like when you conquer another civilization's cities. This would cause small problems for small civs, and bigger problems for bigger civs, which we all like

	04-09-2001 14:23									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Great idea! Could go a long way toward making huge civs not such a winning prospect.

	04-09-2001 16:50									#8
	Suffering from ads?

Good idea. I totally agree. Itīs the kind of ideas weīve been posting in the wish list the last couples of years, but Iīm afraid firaxis wonīt go this way, cause they want a game friendly to play to anyone, specially to "age of empires" and such games aficionados , and such details (which are the more demanded for the civfanatics) are out of their plans.

In the same way goes the idea of the "neutral civilization" instead of barbarians, a civ that could have common reseach, but with every city managing itself with autonomy (as small states), and players could peacefully (a la Imperialism) incorporate that cities in their civ, by cultural/commercial influence.

	05-09-2001 03:57									#9
	Tired of ads?

Going over the idea again, some issues raise themselves.

Supposing you change from monarchy to republic. The loyal monarchists will have a military advantage over the republicans.

I had previously thought that it should be guaranteed that your rebels seize the capital. But this could be abused by heaping all your military units into the capital prior to the revolution. So not even your capital would be safe from counter-revolutionaries. Although a revolutionary capital should be a reasonable bet.

Should rebel cities be totally random, just on the outskirts of your empire, or decided in a more obscure way? Like cities with factories being more likely to become/remain communist.

Remembering the religion special ability: Looks like the revolution system is the same as always. Oh well. It's fun to speculate. Maybe civ4?

	05-09-2001 04:15									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

Stuff like this has been discussed before. I for one am glad that Firaxis decided to keep Civ3 fun by not including anything like this (at least it appears as if they didn't). It doesn't add much fun at all. Lets keep Civ fun and have Alt. Civ's or mod creators make complex situations like this be in the game just to make the game complex, even though it makes gameplay worse.

	05-09-2001 04:41									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

eh. you can't have civs breaking into pieces over and over. i think the enroaching culture deal will be sufficient.

	05-09-2001 05:01									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Remembering the religion special ability: Looks like the revolution system is the same as always. Oh well. It's fun to speculate. Maybe civ4?

Domestic politics were included only nominal in Civ and Civ2 (unhappy citizens, senate), and nothing we know about Civ3 so far indicates a change. (And while SMACīs Social Engineering was viewed as superior to Civīs governments by some members of Apolyton, it did not improve the revolution system either.)

As a matter of principle, I like the idea that during revolutions or prolonged wars, some part of my empire may try to split off and establish itself as a new civ. However, I donīt like random factors that decide which part tries to split off. After all, this is no natural disaster a la Civīs earthquakes. If I lose one third of my prospering cities to seceders, this should be only the result of subjacent differences and tensions that were already there before.

To model this in Civ, youīd probably need local underlings that you could piss off by seemingly wrong decisions. Internal factions and struggles. The whole domestic politics stuff. I donīt think thatīs going to happen in Civ3. Maybe in Civ4 if thereīs such a thing. (And, if Quicksilver delivers as promised, in Master of Orion 3).