Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[TaeraRepublic]

OK, this topic is FAR too long, so could anyone write in short what its all about?

------------------
Emperor Klis't of the Taera Republic.
Proud member of the League of Empires.
E-Mail -
Ora Planet - Taera Republic - League of Empires

[Marco]

For mac5732.
I agree to your reply if an empire wide rebellion spread out and a rebel planet is in a system with loyal planets, but if the rebelling planet is not a part of a new empire I woud prefer the dropping in attitude would stop, let say, at angry level, before causing the entire system to revolt and possibly the collapse of a strong empire in a chain reaction.
Often it happened to me to have in distants corners well developped and jubilant systems with a few or lonely rioting planet acquired by surrender or ground troop and without the possibility to counter this before a considerable amount of turns. In the case of conquered rioting planets the rioting people is a race at war or previously at war with my empire and I prefer it should not have the possibility to start a civil war on my planets simply beaucause I can't force a pacification just after the conquest.
For chewy027
I think that captured planets of the same race have a great chance to rebel togheter but this should be always a check proces for all the planets involved, influenced by the relatives conditions of each planet, and not an automatic event triggered only by a revolting planet.
For the concept of regional capital I only thinked that a human player could plan few selected capital-hannihilation attacks to make a rival empire collapse far better than AI, and that it could also plan a far better defence against a similar attack.
If there is only a empire capital I think is far more simpler for the AI, and for AI modders, to plan the defence or the attack of a lone capital, without problems of resources destination and priority among differents capitals.

Thanks and regards.


[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 11 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

If MM decide to implment this idea, prhaps they could do it in stages - introduce empire capitals, se how it goes, and if it works, introduce regional capitals later on.

Umm.. did anyone think my idea for all this was a good one? I don't like the idea of having government centres as facilities, so I posted a rather lengthy suggestion a while back. Seems to have been largely ignored. *sniff*

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

[Nitram Draw]

I think that adding Govenrment facilities a GREAT idea.
It would create valuable territory, something you would have to protect at all costs. That is missing from the game right now. Every system is as unimportant as any other. If you lose it, go take it back later, you've only lost the production and facilities. Lose your capitol and your whole empire suffers. There should be more facilities along those lines, provincial government buildings that affect the entire system, regional buildings the affect all connected systems, etc. This is one change that, on a scalce of 1 -10, would be a 20!

[dogscoff]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I do like the idea of regional / imperial capitals, but I don't think they should be implemented as facilities.

I don't like the idea that you can just build / scrap them at will. Also, what happens when you lose your imperial capital?
Logically, your next biggest regional capital would take over that role, but the facility implmentation does not allow that.

I suggested having capitals not as facilitis but as "cities". Every planet has one, and it grows automatically according to things like population, facilities on planet, proximity to warp points.

One city in each heavily populated system would be the regional capital, and there would be an imperial capital as well.

It's all written out in more detail in my other post: posted 5th April, 12:10 on this thread.(Currently on page 5.)

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

[Nitram Draw]

I agree, they should not be able to be scrapped. Maybe the ability could be applied to a planet. One of your homeworld planets would be designated as the Capitol, the first planet colonized in a system would be that system capitol, etc.
You should be able to move your capitols though, with a small penalty.
Sorry about not checking back further. This is a long thread!

[This message has been edited by Nitram Draw (edited 11 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

Yeah, that's exactly how I suggested it. The first city in each system to reach a minimum capital size becomes the regional capital. Systems without a big enough city are counted as part of a nearby system.

Moving a capital (either by choice or because the old one was lost) should take several turns and have a cost in resources. It should also cause a temporary drop in happiness because there is no centre for law and order. It is during this happiness drop that you risk civil war, especially if there is no city of the minimum capital size.

The minimum sizes for imperial and regional capitals are determined by the size of the empire - that way, when a capital is destroyed and cannot be replaced quickly (because the remaining cities are all too small), happiness drops, civil war breaks out and the empire splits up.

As the empire becomes smaller, the required minimum capital size becomes smaller and smaller until it matches an existing city. When that happens a capital can be assigned and happiness would increase again. The civil war would end and the fragmentation would stop. That would answer the "how much of the empire splits off during civil war" question.

I also thought that if an empire has no capital and can't build another, it could become a protectorate / subjugated empire, and get it's law and order from the controlling empire. Those treaties are hardly ever used otherwise.

Does all this make sense to anyone else or am I too deep into it to describe it to other ppl?

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