Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[jc173]

Not sure if anyone has discussed this yet since I may have missed a few Posts in this topic. But recently some people suggested tying ships to the world of their construction, so that if a planet rebels ships that are crewed with population from the planet would join the rebellion. I have a suggestion on that topic and a question.

Suggestion:
Perhaps crews should have a loyalty rating?
I'm not sure how in depth people would want this to be, but I think it could sort of be like happiness for ships, maybe. Highly trained crews might be more loyal, not sure if this would necessarily be the case. Also particpating/witnessing losing battles and stalemates should drop the loyalty rating. A highly loyal crew would not join a rebellion, and of course a not so loyal crew would. In the middle ground you could have the possibility of mutiny and shipboard combat as the crew factions battle it out for control of the ship. I don't know if people would like this because it may be too detailed to implement in SEIV, maybe this should be something that ought to be considered in SE V instead.

My question is what should we do with ships with Master Computers. Since an MC can gain experience and "learn," I look at them more as AI's then something like an expert system. I'm not sure how sentient an MC would be, would it have beliefs and loyalties? Would the controlling empire consider the possibility of an MC/AI revolting and program/build in restrictions and safeguards?

[dogscoff]

To be honest I nver liked the idea of the master computer component, although I don't really know why. I guess it's because shows like B5, Trek, Farscape would be far less interesting if they had no crew=-)

I'd be quite happy to see a Version of SE with no master computers at all. At the very least they should be unable to gain experience, giving the player a reason to continue using live crews once MC had ben developped.

BTW chewy - you seem to have misread my post. I am AGAINST the idea of gov centres as facilities, largely because you shouldn't be able to scrap them.

Perhaps we should vote on this:
PLease select either
a> Government centres (regional and imperial) should be implemented as facilities.

b> Government centres (regional and imperial) should be implemented, but NOT as facilities.

c> Don't implement them at all. Find some other way to have civil wars.

We don't want to hear from those ppl who don't want civil wars at all;-)
------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 12 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

BTW chewy - I think you misread my post, I am AGAINST implementing gov. centres as facilitis, for the same reasons as you.

I think we should have a quick vote:

A> Implement imperial / regional government centres as facilities.

B> Implement them but NOT as facilities.

C> Don't implement them at all, find another way to start civil wars.

D> Who cares? Shut up. Leave me alone. Jeez.


------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[chewy027]

A

Dogscoff I didn't misread your post I was just proposing some modifications to the idea. But I do agree that they shouldn't be able to be scrapped And I like the that they have to be on planets with high pop depending on the size of the empire.

jc173 How about if each rebelling planet has a influencing radius. Then every ship in that radius has a chance (some %) to revolt. If the ship has high experience it's less likely to revolt. And if the ship is from one of the revolting planets then it's more likely to revolt.

[dogscoff]

Oops. Sorry about that Chewy. I vote B BTW.

Do you think gov centrs should b decided on population alone? I'd like to see other things taken into account, firstly for realism, and secondly because high- popullation planets are already high priority.

I would suggest taking the following things into account whn deciding upon a planet's suitability for being a government centre/ homeworld:
Spaceports, construction yards, resupply depots, other commerce generating facilities.
Population density / racial diversity.
Proximity to warp points, colonised planets & moons.
Security of system (ie near enemy space, military presences, history of local conflict)
Age of colony.

------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[Deathstalker]

A, (my 2cents), that way there would be a use for the 'palace' function that is in the background of the game. Now I don't know if this has been discussed b4 (just 'skimmin' the Posts) but back when I played CIV I this function was used every so often. The French had gobbled up the Zulu turns and turns b4 but when I took their capital the French Empire suddenly split into loyal Frenchmen and Zulu's who took over their previous cities and re-established their place in the game. Civil war could work like that, (say the EEE who disappeared years ago finally reappear in the confusion of their 'slavemasters' capital falling, their 'underground rebellion' and 'sympathizers' finally win out.)..
Just thoughts........(GREAT ideas by the way, love reading this thread )

------------------
"The Empress took your name away," said Chance.
Owen smiled coldly. "It wasn't hers to take. I'm a Deathstalker until I die. And we never forget a slight or an enemy." -Owen Deathstalker.

[serpwidgets]

I don't think the idea will add any fun to the game. It seems like the planet-stealing intel stuff is already bad enough, I can't imagine ever continuing a game after half--or any significant fraction--of my ships and planets just get up and leave. To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather have a random event that instantly wipes out ALL of my planets and ships, and eliminates me from the game completely.

And who would something like this affect? Most likely it's going to hurt the person who is already on the losing end of a war, which makes it that much harder once you fall behind to try to catch up. IMO it will just make losing that much more torturous.