Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[chewy027]

In the vote thread many people who don't like the idea think that if you go through a civil war, then you are done. Why? Why would you be done? Granted a percentage of your empire broke away, but you could still get them back. Anyway, you could easily defend against the triggers by keeping your people happy and defending your caps well.

What are your thoughts? Especially you guys who don't like the idea

[Jason2]

I like the idea of Civil War! I think it should be more than 4 planets though... happiness can be hard to maintain, especially if you meet the Darloks or some other high intel race.

I currently am playing a game where I am 5th out of 12 and winning more through intel (food contamination and anarchy Groups) than with my fleets.

The capital being destroyed trigger is excellent. How would a world be designated the system capital?

Anyhoo, this sounds like a great idea especially if there is a trigger in the set-up that allows it to be toggled on/off.

Jason2

[chewy027]

Jason2 the capital would be the planet that has the regional capital facility on it. That way you could change your regional capital if you want to. Likewise for the galactic capital which would start out on your Homeworld.

And I wouldn't say any more than 6 or 7 planets in a given area. Remember that they do have to have some proximity to eachother. Example, planets1,2,3,and 4 are all rioting.
1 is in an adjacent system to 2 and 3 is in an adjacentt to 2 but not to 1 and 4 is adjacent to 3 but not to 1 or 2. This would be the MOST spread out they could get. The revolting planet would have to be in contact with the rest at least through the other revolting planets. That is why, for now, the trigger is at 4.

BTY Jason2, if you like the idea why don't you head on over to the vote thread and let your opinion be heard

Thanks for your thoughts.


[This message has been edited by chewy027 (edited 11 April 2001).]

[raynor]

My strong vote against is based on playbalance and difficulty of coding in all the pieces to make this work.

[CaptSpoogy]

I would like to see the feature added if it's similiar to my description below:

Only a few unhappy planets in close proximity to each other would rebel at any one time. Most of the nearby ships would join their cause. If the rebellion is stopped, then the planets rejoin the empire, and if the conflict is not resolved then the rebels could become a neutral empire using neutral colours and such from the game files.

Visit the Spoogy Federation: http://spoogyfederation.tripod.com

[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 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.