Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[chewy027]

Serp you really think it would add that much more micromanagement? I mean keep your pops happy and defend your capital. How much more is that?

[dmm]

chewy, you're driving me nuts. Stop using BTY as an abbreviation for By The Way.

[dmm]

One problem that I see is that, as envisioned, you would need to keep your pop happy to prevent rebellions. This doesn't leave any room for the "ruthless dictator" style of leadership. A lot of empires have Lasted for a long time without the people being happy.

"Fear will keep them in line. Fear of this battlestation."

[chewy027]

You could still be ruthless just use unarmed troop garrisons, pacification centers etc.

OK I'll stop using BTY. But it was fun while it Lasted :P

[chewy027]

updated 11 times

Just so anyone who is new to this post doesn't have to go all the way to the back, here is a summary of what has been discussed and suggested for the Civil War idea. If you are a regular Subscriber to this thread than please skim it once to make sure I didn't miss anything. I have tried to give credit to everyone for their ideas.

Also, check just below this overview for the current discussions

First Point -- The original idea was to have an empire be able to split into two empires if the homeworld was captured. It was later suggested by Str8_Gain that if the empire is
big enough than it could split into more than two. The rebelling factions would use the same shipstyle as the empire they broke off from except with different ship and flag colors. -Lucanos Also, this feature could be toggled on or off in the game setup in case you don't like it .-Mac5732 and others And if you start with more than one planet only one would be the Homeworld instead of all of them. -Trachmyr and Dathstalker


Second Point -- Many things have been discussed as to what should trigger the civil war. Here they are.

1 If your homeworld/galactic capital gets captured or destroyed. This would automatically cause a percentage of your empire (depending on your size) to break off and form a new empire. This is the way it's handled in the Civ games.

2 If your regional capital gets captured or destroyed then a percentage of that system would break away.

Note: if you defened the planets with the capitals on them very well, then you could avoid triggers one and two. Also, triggers 1 and 2 would not be influenced by happiness.

3 Happiness trigger: If 4 or more planets at a single time are rioting throughout the empire and they are within close proximity to eachother then the happiness trigger would go into effect. This trigger would follow a rule set similar to the ones posted below. If you keep your pops happy, you don't have to worry about this trigger.

4 if you become the MEE then after a set amount of turns you split unless you are a
bloodthirsty society. -Baal
(this trigger is not liked by all, give us your opinion)


Third Point -- Many rule sets have been suggested as to how the happiness trigger should be implemented. Here are snips of some suggestions (they are pretty long)

from Trachmyr's post

1) It would start with the same event that causes a planet to break away and become a neutral.

2) After one planet "breaks away", then each other planet in the system is checked to
see if they join... All Rioting/angry planets join 100% of the time, unhappy/Displeased planets join 50% of the time, Indiffrent planets join 25% of the time (happier planets do not join).

NOTE: Your HOMEWORLD will never join, but captured Homeworlds are 25% more likly to
join.

3) It is now determined if the new empire will be a neutral or a FULL empire... If the
planets have a shipyard and have a Empire Score of say 20K (This should be changeable
in setting.txt) or perhaps the empire is worth at least 10% of the original empire (again changeable), then the Empire is a FULL empire... if not, it is only a neutral.

4) If the new empire is a Full Empire, then more "checks" are made. All adjacent systems
are now checked, at the same %'s as above... if atleast 1 planet converts, then that
system is claimed by the new empire, and all systems adjacent to that one is checked...
so, on and so forth... if happiness is low then it could spread across your entire empire.

5)As for ships that join the new empire, only vessels in systems that now have planets of the new empire have a chance to convert. All ships in the same sector as a planet,retain the loyalty of that planet... ships in sectors with out planets have a chance to convert equal to: (# of planets converted in system) out of (# of planets loyal + # of
planets converted).

from dmm's post

1a) Your home planet should never rebel. That's just silly.

2a) Minor planets should be unlikely to start a rebellion. Riot, yes. Rebel, no. HOWEVER, ifthere 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.

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.

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.

from Mac5732's post

planet goes to rioting, then complete civil
disobedience, then insurrection. At insurrection, each turn increases the possibility of rebellion for that planet by increments of 5% accumulative. When it finaly does rebel, all planets in that system, no matter who they belong to drop 1 attitude from their current status and they in turn drop 1 attitude for say every 3 turns, until rebelling world is either re-taken or they in turn rebel and join the rebellion which in turn could creat a new system wide empire...

from chewy027' post

if x planets are rioting and they are at least adjacent to one other rioting planet's system, then the civil war trigger is pulled. Depending on the happiness of the other planets the revolt could spread throughout the empire.

some other ideas brought up

1 if you do a PPP intel project to more than one planet at a time than then those planets
will break off and and start their own full blown empire together. -Director Tsaarx

2 if the planet a conquered empire is on rebels then the rest of the conquered planets go along and reform their empire with their original racestyle. -Str8_Gain

3 if a player goes around glassing planets the people become very unhappy unless they
are bloodthirsty. -Baal
This would involve a new line in the happiness.txt -Trachmyr

4 two new facilities the palace/galactic capital, and the regional capital would be
implemented. -Magus38
The planet the regional cap facility was built on would act as a system capital. Likewise the galactic capital acts as the entire empires cap planet.

5 Their would only be one Homeworld/Capital colony type with a palace/galactic capital
on it if you start the game with more than one planet. The rest would be other colony
types.And the minimum pop for a galactic capital is 2000M -Deathstalker, Trachmyr, and
Mac5732

6 planets and moons orbiting aroung them have an equal chance to revolt. Just because a moon joins the other side doesn't mean the planet is, and vice versa - Puke

7 the happiness facilities would be tweaked as well as adding maybe one or two more
levels of happiness. This would help balance the happiness trigger. -Mac5732

8 once you build a regional cap facility you can't move it without a penalty to production or happiness. The galactic cap begins on the homeworld and stays there until it is destroyed.

Final thought -- Sorry this was so long but I figure it's better than going all the way to the beginning. If there is anything I missed please post in this thread and I will add it to this post.

As new ideas/suggestions are added I will upgrade this overview .

Thanks Chewy027

[chewy027]

I have created a new thread entitled Poll/Vote for the civil war feature. I think it would go a long way if everyone who has put so much imput into this idea would take the small amount of time to visit there and cast a vote. Even if you just read this thread for the first time stop on over and tell us what you think.

It would also be a great show of support (if we get a positive response) to MM that evryone really likes this idea.
So get on over there and excercise your SE4 given right to vote. You don't even have to be 18

Thank you in advance for your time

current average rating = 7 after 32 votes

[chewy027]

A few people have stated that the civil war would be unbalancing, I thought about it and I really can't understand why it would be unbalancing. In fact from, my point of view, it would add balance to the game.

So why is it unbalancing?

[raynor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chewy027:
A few people have stated that the civil war would be unbalancing, I thought about it and I really can't understand why it would be unbalancing. In fact from, my point of view, it would add balance to the game.

So why is it unbalancing?

---

Mainly, it is unbalancing because it gives the human player such a huge advantage over the already struggling AI. The human player would *always* attack the AI's homeworld, wouldn't they? But the computer doesn't yet have the ability to target mineral-rich systems much less the capital system.

[chewy027]

Raynor wouldn't that be an easy hardcode change though. Insert something that tells the AI to seek out and destroy the Homeworld. I really don't know much about programming, but it seems like it would be easy.

[raynor]

From what I can determine, the AI offense fleets only attack enemy colonies in systems they have claimed. And the AI only claims systems adjacent to its colonies.

So... it would require a very, very large change in the code for the AI just to attack a system non-adjacent to one of its own systems much less attack a system that is far removed from its colonies.


[This message has been edited by raynor (edited 16 April 2001).]