Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[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.

[dogscoff]

This is gonna be another too-long post. Sorry.

I think the civil war idea is the best suggestion for hard-code changes I have seen suggested so far. More sophisicated civilian management (rather than just as a portable workforce with a "happiness" score for each planet) would really improve the depth of the game. After all an empire is not a purely military entity (that comment will start debate) - the purpose of being in charge of one is to bring happiness to your population, not just to squish aliens and conquer the universe for your own ego=-). If the game motivated you more to keep your population happy it would improve realism / atmosphere enormously.

I think the idea of a capital city/ homeworld as a centre of civic order is a good one, and I like the idea of local government as well - doing the same job on a smaller scale. I suggested something along these lines in the pirate thread as a way of
seperating space-borne races (nomadic, pirate) from "settled" ones (everyone else), by not allowing the nomads & pirates to have these features.

As for the implementation of it... since we are talking about MM making hard-code changes I don't why these government centres should be facilities.

How about if cities were to grow on planets automatically, without any direct influence from the player? Each colonised planet would have a city, rated from "Outpost" to "Metropolis". This status would not be a simple factor of population but would be influenced by things like space ports, security, planet population, system population, breathable atmos, colonised moons, racial diversity, proximity to warp points and diversity of facilities/ industries.

High-status cities would give back huge benefits in production, pop growth, troop defence and maybe even extra facility space or something. Government and capital cities would have even better benefits. This would have the added advantage of forcing the player to consider stability - Picking up 80 million people and taking them away, or suddenly redeploying the massive fleet stationed in orbit would have a major impact on a planet's city. Gradual changes would be better, just like in real life.
Of course the AI will hate all this=-)

Local government cities and Capitals should have a "Minimum Status", as follows.

A system with a tiny population has no local government of it's own, but is a dependent of the nearest system with local government. Once the dependent system has a city of minimum status or higher, it gets it's own local government in that city.

A player can transfer a government centre/ capital to another city but the nw city must be of minimum status. The transfer also costs time and resources.

When a government centre is destroyed, or falls below minimum status the player can select another city in the system to be the government centre. If there is no city big enough, then the system becomes dependent another system. Transferring power from city to city or systm to systm takes time, however, and all the while civil unrest is growing. Civil unrest can lead to insurrection in the affected system and it's dependent systems in the ways already thouroughly discussed.

Capital cities work in a similar way, except the effects are empire wide rather than system+dependent wide. Capitals can be moved anywhere within the empire, at a cost. When a capital is destroyed or shrinks to below a minimum statusthe player must select another city to transfer power to. If there is no other city of minimum status or higher civil unrest will grow across the empire until either another capital can be built or the empire bcomes a protectorate of another empire.

This is the clever bit: Minimum status for a capital would be tied it to the overall empire size: A huge empire requires a city of status "Massive City" to be it's capital, but a small empire needs only "Large Town." Local government minimum statuses are scaled accordingly. Therefore, if an empire's minimum status for capital is "massive city", and it does not have a city that big, unrest will grow until part of the empire breaks away. The first empire is now smaller and therefore has a lower minimum status, enabling it to build a capital and restore order.

This would restrict the speed of empire growth, but would make the game far more involving. It would make targetting specific planets and systems far more meaningful, and would make use of the near- redundant protectorate treaty.

Just my two pence worth (with interest=-)


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

[chewy027]

I think if the regional capital was destroyed then that system might have the chance of rebelling and form a new empire. The palace facility, or regional govt building, or whatever should have a large impact on happiness throughout the system. If it is lost then the pops steadily get more restless.

Likewise, if the galactic capital is captured or destroyed then the entire empire would become extremely unhappy and half of it would automatically split off. This would give added importance to the galactic capital or homeworld. There might be a small possibility of breaking up into even morethan two, but only if you are a LARGE empire.

So which worlds would split off? Well i agree with most all of dmm's post below. Probably need some changes here or there, but that is why the rest of us are out here posting.

What does everyone else think?

3a) for instance. The loss of your homeworld would make the people very unhappy throughout your empire. So probably every planet would be neer rioting anyway.

And Deathstalker Civ is where i stole this idea from in the first place. And yes barbarians or pirates would be nice, they would spice the game up a bit. But this is another topic which deserves it's own thread.

And dogscoff I read everything in this post and reply to everyone. I really want to see this thing put in the game.

Any feedback is always welcome! The more the merrier.

BTY would it be a good idea to have a civil war petition sent to MM, or would that be worthless?



[This message has been edited by chewy027 (edited 06 April 2001).]

[Trachmyr]

Please forgive me If I repeat earlier comments, I skimmed over this thread rather quickly.

I do like the idea of a civil war (what's so civil about war anyway?), as for the way it would work... here is my suggestion:

1) It would start with the same random 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.

Note: If you want to make things more difficult, if a full empire forms then the happiness of LOYAL planets in borders claimed by the new civ drops one level... before they are checked to see if they join the new empire... and the planets of the starting system of the new empire is checked again!


As for the Warp technology, I could take it or leave it... But I want the restrictions on requiring remaing movement to use stellar componets removed for bases. I really want to create a "Stargate Base".

[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 06 April 2001).]

[jc173]

I like the idea but I would lean toward one of the earlier suggestions, planets should have a reason to break away. Happy planets don't just rebell and form their own government for no particular reason.

[chewy027]

Good suggestions Trachmyr.Thanks

If we combine some of dmm's ideas and Trachmyr's ideas for the way the planets would rebel, we would have a pretty solid rule base for the civil war idea. Of course the trigger for this would still be the loss of your galactic capital/homeworld or the regional capital.

Thoughts on the rule base? Suggestions?