Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[chewy027]

Dogscoff that was a big post but it was full of good stuff .

"I think the civil war idea is the best suggestion for hard-code changes I have seen suggested so far."

Thanks for the support!

"How about if cities were to grow on planets automatically, without any direct influence from the player?"

If MM would put this in I think we should still be able to pick what facilities are built. The govt. buildings In my opinion should also still be facilities. I mean we should be able to decide what planet will be our regional capital. I like your idea though because it forces you to look more at the pop happiness. Although I think the civil war feature could still be implemented quit nicely without the automatic city growth.

Lets see what everyone else thinks

[dogscoff]

I never said you wouldn't be able to decide which planet is the local/ regional capital. Towards the bottom of the post it explains that you can change them as often as you like- as long as the new city is big enough and you have the time/ resources needed to carry out the transfer of administration.

Thanks for th feedback by the way. It's nice to know that someone took the time to read that lot.

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

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 05 April 2001).]

[Taqwus]

Hrm. And if one successfully captured (invasion, say) a local seat of government, what would happen? Would the other colonies be merely penalized via civil disorder, or would there perhaps even be a chance of surrendering on their own -- especially if they're very much isolated from the rest of their empire?

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Nitram Draw]

If the building could be created then maybe it absence shoud cause unhappiness, say -40. Then if you lost it your planets would begin to riot. Maybe rioting for a certain number turns would cause a revolt, probably a hardcode change.

[DirectorTsaarx]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
If the building could be created then maybe it absence shoud cause unhappiness, say -40. Then if you lost it your planets would begin to riot. Maybe rioting for a certain number turns would cause a revolt, probably a hardcode change.

---

I think it's already set up that planets in "riot" status have a chance of breaking free; of course, they just become a neutral empire (or, for multiple planets, multiple neutral empires). The hardcode change would be setting it up so that multiple planets in riot status could all revolt together, and form a "non-neutral" empire.

[Deathstalker]

This sounds alot like the events in Civ I and II when you captured a capital city sometimes. It would split the captured empire in two, and rioting cities (or planets in this case) would sometimes go over to another empire 'in envy'. I to would like to see this option. Another thing that is missing is the concept of 'barbarians' or 'pirates' (like Civ I and II), roving bands of non-neutral origin that just hit the closest empire. (this way with the new map editor we could put a sphereworld with ruins and a baseship guarding it...Orion!!)

------------------
"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.

[dmm]

(Long post, written Tues when server was down.)

I'd like to see civil war as a possibility, but only on "realistic" terms. Also would like to see PPP intel be more "realistic." Here's what I mean by "realistic":

1a) Your home planet should never rebel. That's just silly. Moscow is never going to rebel against Russia, London is never going to rebel against UK, etc. for the simple fact that much of their importance derives from being the seat of government.

2a) Minor planets should be unlikely to start a rebellion. Riot, yes. Rebel, no. HOWEVER, if there is a major planet nearby that has rebelled, then they might JOIN the rebellion.

3a) Planets should not rebel if they are happy. Happy people don't rebel. They go to work, pay taxes, and raise families. If they're happy, why are they rebelling? Is the entire planet populated with teenagers?

4a) The ruling species is unlikely to rebel. They are in power; why revolt and risk being taken over by aliens?

5a) Planets that are close to the homeworld and/or have been part of the empire for a long time are less likely to rebel.

6a) Planets that are economically dependent on the rest of the empire are less likely to rebel. For instance, a planet with nothing but mines is less likely to rebel than a planet with balanced resource development and a shipyard.

In contrast,

1b) Former homeworlds of other empires should be more likely to rebel.

2b) Major planets (larger, more pop, better resources, more facilities) are more likely to be centers of rebellion.

3b) Unhappy planets should be more likely to rebel.

4b) Planets with a sizeable majority of an out-of-power species should be susceptible to rebellion, even if the empire is treating them well. (Populating planets with captured species would then carry a long-term risk to go along with the benefits.)

5b) Natural barriers like asteroid systems and black holes would encourage rebellion. Being on the empire's periphery would encourage rebellion. Being newly acquired or newly colonized would encourage rebellion.

6b) Another empire nearby that presents good trading opportunities would make a planet more likely to rebel, especially if there were no trade agreement in place.