Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[chewy027]

A feature i think would make the game a little more interesting would be the ability for an empire to split. Perhaps when civil unrest is high in one sector or when one sector is basically fighting alone against another empire. Kinda like in Civ II when the capital city of a large empire got captured. Heck that could even trigger it in SE4, the loss of your homeworld. MM could even add it as an intel project "instigate civil war". What do you guys think? Good idea or bad idea?

[CaptSpoogy]

I think it's a good idea. It would add increased depth to the game and could you imagine trying to deal with the rest of the galaxy with half your empire against you? That would be hard!

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

[Nitram Draw]

I like that idea espescially if the split could result in two full blown empires, not neutrals. Maybe it could even be a andom event so the human players would not have complete control over preventing it.

[chewy027]

Making it a random event would definetely put a twist to it. Imagine being at war with someone and all of a sudden half of your empire revolts and forms there own imperium.

The other way you could do it is if you have planets with conquered races on them. Say you wipe out someone and occupy many of their planets. If you don't keep them under control they could go into a massive revolt and reform their conquered empire including any planets you colonized with them and ships stationed on the revolting planets.

And Yes it would be nice if they were a full blown empire not a lowly neutral.

[Oggy ben Doggy]

I like chewy's idea. Like if you have a bunch of conquored planets and they are rioting, or even if enemy empires use subVersion. Anytime one rebels, there is a chance that others will as well.

Then you pop into ground combat mode. Even if you win, you will lose some ground troops

[Q]

I don't mind too much if one planet rebels or a planet explodes. Already harder if a star becomes a supernova and kills the entire system. But if half of the empires splits off and turns against you?? And this as a random event???? In my opinion this would turn SE IV from a strategy game to a game of chance and I really would not like it.

[Master Belisarius]

I must agree with "Q". Have not sense to me, if we're talking about a full random event.

[Nitram Draw]

Half an empire would be a lot but how about one system rebelling or planets rioting? You have to give them a small chance of survival otherwise it is no different than what we have now.

[Suicide Junkie]

One of the major problems with the rebelling, is that the rebels start with just a planet, likely having unbalanced or non-existant resource production.
I think that when a rebellion happens, the game should figure out which of your planets each of your units/ships is closest to.
If they're close to the rebel's planet, they will join the rebellion.

That way, the rebels will have a chance to do something. If the rebelling planet immediately built a mineral miner & started with full resource storage, then they wouldn't just lay down and die like they do now.

[GruelThePurple]

In this same thought, I figured that the ability to incite a civil war, at least in part, would be similar to the Intel Project of Puppet Pollitical Parties. If you look at the parameters for the operation, it allows for a counter of the number of places to target...

To make a long story short, you can not incite rebellion in any more than a single planet at a time.

While the basic ability may be there, the implimentation of it is not. At least not from within the framework of the Intelligence engine.

[chewy027]

The original idea i had wasn't to make it a random event i agree it could get crazy. but that could be a possibility. What i had in mind was some sort of thing that triggered it. Then there could be a set goal for the computer to advance towards. Like I said before maybe the homeworld or something like that.

[Marty Ward]

Does the PPP intel project change planet control to the instigator? I've never used it.
If it did maybe it could be changed to revolt.

[GruelThePurple]

The PPP intelligence operation, if successful, will result in the planet either revolting and forming their own government (acting much like a neutral); or, the planet will join your empire and be like any other colony in your control.

[chewy027]

This feature would have to be hard coded wouldn't it? If so do you think MM would incorporate it in an upcoming patch or would it take an expansion to the game to add it. And do you think this feature would be worth incorporating? In my opinion (although no one asked it) it would add more depth to the game like capt_spoogy said.

Which prompts the question is MM going to eventually make an expansion and is it necessary? What are your thoughts on all the above?

[Magus38]

I like the idea, but definitely not as a random event. An element of randomness adds a certain amount of sophistication to a game, honing the ability to adapt, but civil war being random? No warning? No, that is stretching it.

Making civil war a possibility after your homeworld is taken, on the other hand, is a great idea. Going a little further, why not say that there is an ever increasing chance of civil war for every turn that you do not have a "Seat of Government", a new facility, and lacking such and establishment would have negative happiness and production consequences to illustrate the resulting anarchy its absence would provoke.

[dogscoff]

Yeah... a "government" facility. When it is destroyed / captured then it gets harde and harder to keep order until a new one is built. You'd get one on your homeworld to represent your capital ciy, and every other one you build could represent local government.

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

[Lucanos]

Even though the idea needs to be somewhat polished, I must say I like the discussion because I think the developers DO listen to its customers (you). In fact I KNOW they do, especially if the idea could be developed the way I belive this one could be developed in.

But I think the problem is the NEUTRALS. I mean, why NEUTRALS in the first place? Maybe ALL empires should be NEUTRALS, until they discover required technologies which will enable them to travel through wormholes/warppoints?

Which makes me wonder about "warpdrive" - why is there no warpdrive? (EXCUSE ME if there really is a warpdrive feature in the game I didn't know of) With warpdrive I mean the abillity to travel between solarsystems WITHOUT wormholes - which would require several turns.

Where was I?

When softly applying "Puppet Political Parties" on your enemy's private parts they should form a new EMPIRE (Instead of a NEUTRAL empire).

ESPECIALLY! - if you have chosen "No Random Neutral Empires" in the gamesetup.

That would be so much fun if it happened!

AND,
when initiating more Puppets there should also be a greater chance for them to join that new glorious empire YOU created the Last time your intelligence agents visited your hated enemy.

And this (these) new empire(s) should be your new PARTNERS (treaty) - at least a couple of turns... (please?)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogscoff:
Yeah... a "government" facility. When it is destroyed / captured then it gets harde and harder to keep order until a new one is built. You'd get one on your homeworld to represent your capital ciy, and every other one you build could represent local government.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At Last, a use for the "palace" facility.

[chewy027]

I hadn't thought of it, but a govt. building could definetely be a way of incorporating this feature. Have a galactic capital like Coruscant in Star Wars. Also, regional capitals in every solar system might be a way of keeping each solar system under control. If a reginal capitol gets captured then that solar system slowly goes into civil war ar revolt until a new one is built. Likewise, if the galactic capital is captured the entire empire slowly goes into civil war eventually splitting if a new galactic capital isn't rebuilt. We should definetely nix the random event possibility. But like Lucanos said maybe we could polish this one up.

And Lucanos I completely agree the PPP intel should effect more than one planet at a time and when they revolt they should form their own full blown empire. Then as the subsequent worlds go into revolt they would join that new empire. Nice idea. These two features go hand in hand.

Also, there is that new warp component in the mods section. Maybe that could be used for the intersystm travel. You know how sometimes you encounter a spacial distortion and are transported to another part of the galaxy. Perhaps this warp component could create a controlled distortion and you could pick what system you would come out in. Sort of like creating a wormhole, that same screen even. Then with every advance in warp technology you can warp to further and further systems.

What do think?

[CaptSpoogy]

I agree with Mr.Chewy et al...

A capital building or command centre on each planet could be used to keep control over a colony. If the building is destroyed by an attack or sabotage it might make that colony more succeptible to riot or rebel against the empire. Also, it could provide a little morale boost - like "Hey, the empire cares about us..."

[Lucanos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
Also, there is that new warp component in the mods section. Maybe that could be used for the intersystm travel. You know how sometimes you encounter a spacial distortion and are transported to another part of the galaxy. Perhaps this warp component could create a controlled distortion and you could pick what system you would come out in. Sort of like creating a wormhole, that same screen even. Then with every advance in warp technology you can warp to further and further systems.

What do think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totaly agree!

If you play a game WITHOUT pregenerated wormholes, WARPDRIVE would be essential. Then when you have the required tech you could build WORMHOLES, and you wouldn't need warpengines anymore.

In this case WARPDRIVE should be inferior to travelling through wormholes, maybe it should cost more in supplies and take longer time to travel between stars?

[jc173]

Well it would inherently be inferior, by existing. A warp drive would take up space on a ship that would normally be free on a ship that used wormhole travel as its normal mode of intersystem travel.

[Lucanos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jc173:
Well it would inherently be inferior, by existing. A warp drive would take up space on a ship that would normally be free on a ship that used wormhole travel as its normal mode of intersystem travel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly,
it should also cost more in supplies and take longer than just going through a wormhole.

Therefore there shouldn't be any wormholes at the start of the game (maybe some rarity here and there) because it would unbalance it a great deal - warpdrive is almost pointlessless if you have access to wormholes. Also wormhole technology (Stellar Manipulation) would be worth even more.

Haven't you seen "Farscape"?

[chewy027]

The best advantage i see in warpdrive technology is that you could transport a fleet relatively quickly without going from system to system (agreed there would have to be a large supply usage). Granted you could just make a wormhole, but doesn't warpdrive just SOUND like it belongs in a game like SE4.

And if your empire would go into civil war, you might need that quick strike ability to get those systems back. Or you may need to quickly intercept an enemy fleet before it takes out one of your regional capitals(hint, hint). Or maybe the COMPUTER AI would warp into your galactic capital system and catch you completely off guard. Bet you'd want a warp ready fleet then. Overall I think there are definite advantages to having warpdrive technology.

This technology was proposed originally to give a solution for the neutrals anyway. It's only an idea for that solution, but I suppose it could be expanded for the above uses. This like the civil war idea could give more depth to the game.

Thoughts?

[Marty Ward]

I'm for anything that adds variety and make the game more unpredictable.
All the ideas in this thread sound great but will/can they be added. Most are beyond my capability.

[Daynarr]

There could be and option in the game setup where we could turn this on or off, so everyone would be happy.

I have a question though. If an empire forms from another empire, what race style will it use??? All current empires that appear are neutrals and use neutral (generic one) style. If you want them to be like normal empires, they will have to use some unique style or they will all look the same (and cause great confusion).

[Lucanos]

Maybe it should look like the original racestyle with a diffrent color/flag - I mean the RACE should look exactly like the original - but the ships could look somewhat different (i.e. another color).

What do I know?

[chewy027]

Absolutely Lucanos! The race style would be the same but the color and flag would be different. Perhaps, the opposite primary color of the original and inverted flag and ship colors. Whatever, the point is the race style is same but the new empire will have varient colors. Good point Daynarr http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[Str8_Gain]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lucanos:


Therefore there shouldn't be any wormholes at the start of the game (maybe some rarity here and there) because it would unbalance it a great deal - warpdrive is almost pointlessless if you have access to wormholes. Also wormhole technology (Stellar Manipulation) would be worth even more.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've played a few games with No Warp Points and Finite Resources set, to make it interesting. Problem is, the AI can't handle this at all. Resource management is vital in that sort of game, since you gotta have enough in your treasury to pay maintenance costs on Stellar Manipulation ships. The AI basically sucks a planet dry and does not build storage facilities to retain the resources, stalling their development, and making them easy kills when I open a warp point to their system.

Also, AI research is lousy in that sort of game, since they pour so much into weapons techs instead of stuff like Applied Research and Stellar Manipulation. I basically now give them a Low-Medium bonus to start them with, but even then they're pushovers, since they go for more weapons tech.

Bottom line: if you want to implement this, the AI needs serious adjustment to its research and resource strategies.

[chewy027]

That is why warp tech would be good with few or no warp points Str8_Gain, you could just warp in and not even need wormholes. Then you would't have to pay for costly wormhole components. Maybe you'd want some wormholes between key systems or only between systems you control or at least have a regional capital in (if our idea would ever be implemented.) Either way warp tech would probably be easier on the AI anyway, and the AI would probably be a harder opponent with it.

Thoughts?

[Str8_Gain]

Let's take these one at a time:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
That is why warp tech would be good with few or no warp points Str8_Gain, you could just warp in and not even need wormholes. Then you would't have to pay for costly wormhole components.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I only use mabye a couple pairs of ships equipped with warp point components (frigate hulls, one ship carries the GQR, the other the GC). My biggest concern with this is if you can detect and intercept a warp-drive fleet before it comes into your system. Also, travel times have to be taken into account (too long, and it turns into a Stars! kind of game where it takes several game years to go from one system to another). If that's the case, by the time the first AI fleets show up on my doorstep with tech that's obsolete by months or even years, I will have ships capable of wiping the floor with them, and be well on my way to SM level 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe you'd want some wormholes between key systems or only between systems you control or at least have a regional capital in (if our idea would ever be implemented.) Either way warp tech would probably be easier on the AI anyway, and the AI would probably be a harder opponent with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm assuming you're still going to use the idea of a warp drive component that'll take up lots of room. By doing so, that means that you'd have to have a destroyer or light cruiser hull before you can build an effective combat vessel. Even so, these ships would be inferior to any defense ships you could cook up, even if the defense ships have inferior technology (they can simply use the space to stack more weapons/shields/armor/etc.). Also, you can use that time to attain numerical superiority as well. Meanwhile, I quietly research up to SM level 3, and open a warp point to your system and just pour in destroying everything in sight.

The key problem is that while all ships must have warpdrives, not all ships have to have SM components. I usually keep a fleet of 3 ships as my SM group (one to open points, one to close them, and one with a repair bay), and use my much bigger ships to protect them while they open and close warp points so they can bypass minefields and other static defenses.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts are that I have reservations about this idea of warp drives. You'd have to give the AI a low or medium tech bonus for them to be able to use this in the early game, so they have the hulls needed to build effective ships with.

[chewy027]

Interesting insight Str8-Gain. I like the way you disected my reply http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif! The time it takes to warp between systems could Depend on the tech level of the warp and the distance between systems. Also, the computer should probably give an estimated time of arrival. And I don't think the warp drive should take up any more than 100K this way you only sacrifice maybe two missiles or something for instantaneous tracel. I figure the warp, at maximum, from one end of the galaxy to the other, should take no morethan 6 or 7 turns at lowest level. Then as you increase up to the max level it gets shorter. Also, (this is a far out one now) maybe there could be one of those hidden techs, you know massive ...., that would give you instant warp drives or even (this ones even farther out) a tech thank links all ships to one warp. Now i will wait for you to disect this one http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh and by the way what do you think of the civil war idea Str8_Gain? good or bad? What are your thoughts and suggestions?

[This message has been edited by chewy027 (edited 05 April 2001).]

[chewy027]

Just wondering if the civil war idea would ever have a chance of being implemented. I mean does everyone else think it would be worthwhile? I for one would pay for it to be implemented into some expansion along with other new features. But the real question is does this idea stand out among the other hundreds that have been posted in this forum? And if not how do we get MM to notice it?

Thoughts?

[Str8_Gain]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Interesting insight Str8-Gain. I like the way you disected my reply http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yer welcome! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The time it takes to warp between systems could Depend on the tech level of the warp and the distance between systems. Also, the computer should probably give an estimated time of arrival. And I don't think the warp drive should take up any more than 100K this way you only sacrifice maybe two missiles or something for instantaneous tracel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It'd make sense. 100kt is the same space that a GQR or GC takes up. This would automatically discount using Escorts or Frigates to give the AI a whomping very early on. A Destroyer hull would be the minimum size you could use.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I figure the warp, at maximum, from one end of the galaxy to the other, should take no more than 6 or 7 turns at lowest level. Then as you increase up to the max level it gets shorter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Egad! Six or seven turns to traverse a huge galaxy? From what I see posted below, your intent seems to be that warpdrives are to be a beginning option for interstellar travel until you could build SM ships. If you did this, then researching SM to get higher levels of GQR would be worthless. With GQR I, to cross a huge galaxy from one corner to another would take six turns at a minimum (assuming the distance is 600ly). Better have Emergency Resupply Pods or a Quantum Reactor, now that the SM component supply bug has been fixed. Even with GQR V, it'll take two turns.

For a beginning level, I'd make the transit times a lot longer. Even at the top end of the tech tree for warpdrives, I'd say 6-7 turns should be the minimum for traversing a huge galaxy. Unless I'm totally misreading your intent, the warpdrive is supposed to be a slowboat inferior option to SM components.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Also, (this is a far out one now) maybe there could be one of those hidden techs, you know massive ...., that would give you instant warp drives or even (this ones even farther out) a tech thank links all ships to one warp. Now i will wait for you to disect this one http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Destabilizing, unless the component destroys itself after use, like current SM components do. It'd give one pause before sticking a drive on a ship that can send it anywhere if they need to either use the existing warp points or stick another "instant warpdrive" on it so it can bug out if need be.

The "linked" warpdrive you're describing would be even more destabilizing, unless the travel times are made so they're not too fast or put a limit on how many ships can be "linked" to one drive. In a sense, this is what I do with SM ships now, except there's no limits on how many ships I can send through (one ship to open points, all ships go through, then my other SM ship closes the point behind them).

Overall, I do like this idea, and I do like "outside the box" thinking in general. What I'd like to see is a)playtesting on this concept, and b)an option to turn this off for those that don't want to use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Oh and by the way what do you think of the civil war idea? good or bad? What are your thoughts and suggestions?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty familiar with this from playing Freeciv (Linux clone of Civ II). It's one of my favorite ways to totally fubar large AI rival empires, since the AI there is tough, even at "normal" difficulty levels. At a minimum, any conquered races should rebel if they make up the majority of the population of a system. If a system has a "mixed" population of your race plus conquered ones, there should be a chance that the planet(s) populated by your race in that system will join along with the rebellion.

Reservations: the Palace facility that's being bandied about should be invulnerable to the Industrial Sabotage intel operation. Mabye a new intel op should be added, with a higher price tag, if you want to take out a Palace and throw an entire empire into a civil war. Puppet Political Parties should not work against your homeworld, or whatever world you have your Palace on. Modifiers, such as a planet's mood, or the presence of your fleets in the system should be taken into consideration.

As far as their affiliations, conquered races should resurrect their empire (lending new meaning to "Though we fall now, we shall rise again!"). Planets populated by your race should either join a resurrected empire, an unconquered empire, or build their own, with preference given to building their own empire. And to add more insult to injury, have your race break up into multiple empires.

Again, I like this idea, and I'd like to see playtesting on it. You shouldn't be able to turn it off, IMHO, since it would pretty accurately reflect what would happen if somebody decapitated an empire's top leadership.

[chewy027]

At least we agree on the tonnage Str8_Gain http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I really hadn't thought that 6 or 7 turns would be that long. But if you make comparison to the wormholes then (hit to my pride) I must admit you are right.

However, if the wormnole prevention facility being discussed in Capt_Spoogy's interesting new things thread was instituted then warp tech would be essential. Either way I don't really care if warp tech is implemented (although it would be a nice feature along with the wormhole facility) it was just an idea for the solution to neutrals as i said before.

What I'm really interested in is the Civil War feature. And I agree with every thing you stated below.

"Reservations: the Palace facility that's being bandied about should be invulnerable to the Industrial Sabotage intel operation. Mabye a new intel op should be added, with a higher price tag, if you want to take out a Palace and throw an entire empire into a civil war. Puppet Political Parties should not work against your homeworld, or whatever world you have your Palace on. Modifiers, such as a planet's mood, or the presence of your fleets in the system should be taken into consideration."

"As far as their affiliations, conquered races should resurrect their empire (lending new meaning to "Though we fall now, we shall rise again!"). Planets populated by your race should either join a resurrected empire, an unconquered empire, or build their own, with preference given to building their own empire. And to add more insult to injury, have your race break up into multiple empires."

All these comments are great and add to the ideas polish. The only thing I don't understand is the very Last sentence, "And to add more insult..." Do you mean if an empire goes into civil war it breaks up into more than two? Or are you reaffirming the Civil War idea?

I too played civ all the time and that is where I stole this idea from http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif I figured if it can be in a great game like civ why not in an even beter game like SE4

disect away!

[Str8_Gain]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
At least we agree on the tonnage Str8_Gain http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I really hadn't thought that 6 or 7 turns would be that long. But if you make comparison to the wormholes then (hit to my pride) I must admit you are right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hold yer head up, man! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Nothing wrong with coming up with new ideas. I'm glad this is a game where we can even entertain the thought of making changes to it. The tweaking would have to come in to ensure game balance isn't totally trashed. As I said, it'd probably need to be playtested to see how well it works and to work the kinks out.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
However, if the wormnole prevention facility being discussed in Capt_Spoogy's interesting new things thread was instituted then warp tech would be essential. Either way I don't really care if warp tech is implemented (although it would be a nice feature along with the wormhole facility) it was just an idea for the solution to neutrals as i said before.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be a way around the objections that some have posted (that I agree with), namely that an empire could get away with the "isolationist" approach and thus become unconquerable. If no path exists to link your empire to theirs, you can't even use intel ops to try to take out their facilities with Industrial Sabotage.

Incidentally, if such specialty facilities as "wormhole prevention facility" and the "palace facility" are added to the game, there should be some way to tell your intel dudes to go after it specifically. Industrial Sabotage for now works totally at random, although you can narrow it down to a specific planet. You just can't tell it "Okay, I'd like to blow up the Wormhole Prevention Facility on planet XXX". Some sort of modifier system would have to come into play (if it doesn't already) to give the chances of success based on what sort of facility it is. Bumping off a low-security resource facility should be much easier than trying to take out a high-value target like a Resupply Depot, or a Medical Lab, or a Massive Planetary Shield. This could probably be the subject of a whole 'nother thread, since there's bound to be differences of opinion on what constitutes a "high-value" target.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What I'm really interested in is the Civil War feature. And I agree with every thing you stated below.

(snip)

All these comments are great and add to the ideas polish. The only thing I don't understand is the very Last sentence, "And to add more insult..." Do you mean if an empire goes into civil war it breaks up into more than two? Or are you reaffirming the Civil War idea?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does mean that there should be a chance, albeit a small one, of your empire breaking up into more than two factions within your own race. More than a couple real-life civil wars involve(d) more than two factions duking it out. It'd also make reunification of your empire a bigger challenge if you have to bring multiple factions back into the fold.

[chewy027]

We just keep going back and forth don't we http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I suppose there should be the small possibilty of breaking up into more than two. This WOULD be more realistic as long as the rest of the SE4 community agrees with that. And they start posting replies and suggestions to this topic.Along with this Str8_Gain - Chewy027 merry-go-round. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

So how the heck do we get playtesting to be done on this. Would SE4 have to make a beta and then have testers go at it?

Thoughts?

[Str8_Gain]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
We just keep going back and forth don't we http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what this board's here for! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
So how the heck do we get playtesting to be done on this. Would SE4 have to make a beta and then have testers go at it?

Thoughts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, a lot of what's been discussed below would require hard-code changes to the SE4 executable. Wouldn't hurt to suggest it to MM, although the gist I get from this board in general suggests that Aaron has a helluva workload already. It'd probably have to wait its turn to be implemented, along with the other good ideas prevalent on this board.

At any rate, I gotta bounce. My head's about to hit the keyboard here, since it's way past my bedtime. I'll be back tomorrow. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[chewy027]

Dogscoff that was a big post but it was full of good stuff http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

"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 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[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]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

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 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

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?

[mac5732]

What if you add several additional attitude traits and then when an affect happens to reduce attitudes, they reduce down, when it reaches the Last attitude, each turn it stays at that attitude, chance of rebellion increases by 5% (or more). Example;
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...

Just some ideas mac

[chewy027]

Wow! 50 replies to my lowly thread. Don't you just love when a topic takes off. Anyway thanks to everyone for all the response on this idea. Hopefully together we can get MM to implement this. Now back to business http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mac your idea sounds a lot like Trachmyr's with one world triggering the rebellion and thus influencing the others around it (read his post below).

This idea (one small rebellion instigating one BIG one a.k.a. Civil War) could be another trigger. Along with the loss of the regional or galactic capital, we now have two triggers http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

What could be some other triggers? or rules for revolting planets?

[mac5732]

In regards to system wide civil war, all ships, ftrs, troops, bases on originating world & all other worlds would go to the rebellion. The originating world would become the seat of the new empire and would become the seat of your new Govt. facility. In addition, The originating world would be the one that dictates the kind of ships, weapons, etc, that new empire would build. thus you would not have a conflict with different races/cultures/etc, of other worlds that were colonized by other races but which have joined your rebellion, when it comes to building ships & units. (It basically takes over in this area.)

Other possible triggers could be if you have more then say 3 or 4 planets in anarchy at the same time for a specific period of time within your empire. this could cause all of your planets to start dropping in attitude following those I listed in earlier post, this could cause an empire rebellion instead of a system rebellion, except for planets you have re-taken.

just some ideas mac

However, I don't know if this could be done outside of hard code changes, you might ck with one of the modders or MM. It mmight have to fall under catagory 2 as listed in my earlier thread. just some ideas mac

[This message has been edited by mac5732 (edited 06 April 2001).]

[chewy027]

Mac, again good stuff http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif having the originating planet determine those thing s is a good idea. And like was discussed before the colors would probably be changed in the ships along with the flag.

As for the new trigger for an empire wide rebellion, ie civil war, another good idea.

And yes all of these would probably need a hardcode change. But I think a lot of us would be willing to pay for an expansion with this feature in it along with others from Category 2. And like you said in your thread, they could make some money off of it in the process.

[Baal]

I fully support the Civil War Idea. It adds more dimensions to the game. I personally would like to see whole systems break away for reasons of course. Like if you are going through the galaxy glassing every alien planet you should have a rebellion, it only makes sense that people would not like genocide. If you use plague ships, BAM, one whole system breaks away from your empire.

I think my whole point is that I don't see the point of anarchy Groups. They create one easily glassable planet that has about the chance of a snowball behind a Quantum III engine of doing anything significant.


Anyway time for an original idea. Make this Civil War thing like the Mega-Evil Empire trigger but after it. Like you have been fighting the entire galaxy of races for a few years and your people are sick of war. Ya know like in World War I, Russia had a revolution because of the hardships on the country because of the war.

So... If you are MEE too long it kicks in and splits up your systems because they are sick of war. There would have to be a few things to go along with this. After your empire splits there would have to be a reverse MEE trigger.

That's all I have for now. I'll be back though.

[chewy027]

Baal, Brilliant!!! another new trigger. Plus it would give some incentive and even necessity to loose the mega evil empire flag. However, some players are so darn good at this game that they can't help becoming the MEE because they outscore everyone by so much. So how do we get around that problem. Perhaps make it really hard to become the MEE?

What does everyone else think?

[Baal]

I don't think it should be an incentive to not become MEE. It's more like an egg timer, it gives you an amount of time to do the Mega-Evil thing or you are back to square one with another empire out there that is just as bad *** as you.

It gives purpose to try to win fast or as I said you are back to square one.

As for the splitting of the empire. It should calculate your size and split you into multipul pieces accordingly. And even better it's coded to give the human player the smallest alotment of planets/ships/stuff.

[Puke]

UNION STRIKE!

all planets / ships / bases with space yards break away from your empire.

if that is overly harsh, how about every planet with some other facility? or maybe 1yr after you research SY-2, each place with a SY-1 has a chance to break off.

[chewy027]

Puke, nice name http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif, this one seems a little harsh to me. Maybe if you are capable of level 3 of some facility but only have level ones then there could be a small chance for revolt. But probably a better way to implement this would be to have a happiness decrease which would eventually lead to revolt and civil war if not taken care of. This way your good idea could be implemented but not so harshly http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif.

Baal, you little devil, this idea is real good but seems dangerous to me. I guess to some players it would be as you say, but to the less timid than it would provide incentive to not become MEE. But i do like the idea and it should be a trigger. Lets keep developing it.

Thoughts?

[Lucanos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
Thoughts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This discussion makes me think about my earlier repelling emotions towards the AI ANGER.

"Like if you are going through the galaxy glassing every alien planet you should have a rebellion, it only makes sense that people would not like genocide."
-Baal

I totally agree - shouldn't there also be an empire genocide trigger that would affect the MEE anger.

"You're not evil just because you are big."
-Lucanos (first time I ever quoted myself)

[jc173]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baal:
I don't think it should be an incentive to not become MEE. It's more like an egg timer, it gives you an amount of time to do the Mega-Evil thing or you are back to square one with another empire out there that is just as bad *** as you.

It gives purpose to try to win fast or as I said you are back to square one.

As for the splitting of the empire. It should calculate your size and split you into multipul pieces accordingly. And even better it's coded to give the human player the smallest alotment of planets/ships/stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I don't think this necessarily makes sense. What if I am a bloodthirsty empire that enjoys war? How would the other races regard your breakaway republics? Personally I don't really like this idea, I hate it when games try to force me into finishing the game in a set amount of time for no real discernable reason. I would suggest if MM includes this feature, include a flag to turn it off.

The other thing is I don't totally agree with the MEE idea. While there should be some trigger that makes the computer realize you are a threat, just having a large empire should not be a bad thing. If you implement this empire split up you are essentially penalizing the player for doing well.

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 07 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 07 April 2001).]

[chewy027]

JC173 I agree with your statement

"The other thing is I don't totally agree with the MEE idea. While there should be some trigger that makes the computer realize you are a threat, just having a large empire should not be a bad thing. If you implement this empire split up you are essentially penalizing the player for doing well."

It would be like being penalized for doing well but maybe we could change the parameters for being MEE and then implement this trigger.

Also, do you not like the Civil War idea or just the MEE trigger?

Thoughts?



[This message has been edited by chewy027 (edited 07 April 2001).]

[Trachmyr]

As an addendum to my earlier post:

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).

As to a MEE like trigger dor civil war, I would not want that implemented.

As for Genocide, that should be made a new line in Happiness.txt (?) (you know: Bloodthirsty, Peaceful, Neutral)... some races wouldn't care, some would be upset, others would cheer.

[chewy027]

Thanks Trachmyr. I'll update the overview. Keep the ideas coming. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baal]

Sometimes things don't always make sense. But here's my try. If you are bloodthirty then if you make too many treaties with other races you should have a civil war because you are not mean enough. That would require a different trigger.

Anyway MEE doesn't make sense for peacefully expanding races anyway, but it does work for bloodthirsty races. So, I guess that it is a trade off.

[chewy027]

Since some people have stated they don't like the MEE trigger maybe we could just have it influence happiness. If you are peacefull society and a MEE than people become unhappy. Likewise, as Baal stated, if you are bloodthirsty but have treaties the people become unhappy. This way the MEE indirectly can cause civil war through unhappiness.

this trigger still needs to be discussed by everyone but i have put it in the overview.

[mac5732]

My opion, only, From all that I read in the thread, it sounds like the best possible trigger would have to do with attitude of the population each planet, each system and empire wide. Civil war could be a planet, which in turn affects the system and several systems infect the empire. If the empire goes to civil war the easiest way (I'm not a modder or programer) I think would be for the computer to check all planets of the empire, those with specific attitudes would have a chance to join or not join depending on their attitude at the time. Example, Jubulient, 95% not join, Happy 85% not join,
unhappy 65% not join, indeferent 50%, riot
30%, total civil disobedience 15%, insurrection 100% to join. This way it would not matter what size the planet was etc, Also the new rebellious empire would automatically be at war with its parent. The AI would treat it the same as any other player, The new empire would have the same make up as its parent, traits, attitudes, ect, or they could be racial traited as warriors or blood thirsty or whatever.
Sorry its so long,
just some ideas mac

For empire civil war, the trigger could be if 2 or more systems rebel, This would give the chance of civil war but not made easy.
Also the new empire would automaticly be given a space yard on the originating planet as well as a Govt. Facility, It would become a new empire. You could code it as either a neutral (I personaly don't like neutrals) or a bona fide expanding empire. Remember, the less hard code changes, the easier it is to implement a change. that's why I think if we look at attitudes and what triggers them it would be easier then massive changes. Example, if your bloodthirsty, at war pop happy, lose battle goes down in that system, if lose world goes down empire wide, If peaceful, war goes down, treaties goes up, If you use biological weapons for some races attitude would go down, others goes up, depends on your racial traits. again sorry for the long post, sometimes i get long winded.
just some ideas mac

[This message has been edited by mac5732 (edited 07 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by mac5732 (edited 07 April 2001).]

[jc173]

I don't have a problem with the civil war, I like the idea actually. I also think the MEE is not necessarily a bad thing, but I just don't like the way it's triggered now. Granted being the largest and most prosperous empire may cause resentment and envy (seems to work that way in our world sometimes), but declaring war on such an empire does not necessarily make sense to me. For one thing it is not necessarily in the other empires' best interest for long term survival. The other thing is I think that systems should way more heavily in the MEE trigger not planets. Why would colonizing a moon in one of my core systems that I have claimed for years suddenly make the rest of the known galaxy decide I am the ultimate threat?

Anyhow I might not have been clear enough in my Last post, but I think that tying a rebellion to MEE is just putting a limit on the player's options just because that player is doing well. Some people may like that, and I am certainly not going to tell people how to play. But if such a feature were implemented I'd prefer to be able to turn it off.

[chewy027]

JC173 I agree with you. But i think MEE is a good trigger if the conditions for MEE would be changed.

Mac5732 happiness on each planet probably would be the second best trigger. The best trigger would be the loss of your capital or homeworld. As for the happiness that could follow one of the rule sets in the overview.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[dumbluck]

THANK YOU Chewy027!!!!!!!!!!

thank you for saving me at least 30 minutes of reading! your hard work has not gone unappreciated!!!


THANK YOU CHEWY!!!!!!!!!

[chewy027]

Dumbluck, it is my pleasure http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif. I am doing this for the whole SE4 community and anything I can do to present this idea better to the people out there I will do.

BTY, Dumbluck wnat do you think? Any thoughts/suggestions?

And would you please post a vote in the sister thread for this idea http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[chewy027]

It has been brought up by Deathstalker that if you start out with more than one planet then they are all "Homeworld" type colonies. This would pose a problem to the homeworld trigger.

My thoughts on the solution are to have one of the planets have the galactic capital on it and/or have one of the planets colony type be "Capital" not "Homeworld." This would end the confusion. If the planets are in different systems then the above rule applies and one of the planets in each of the other systems is a regional capital.

These are my thoughts. What are yours?

[BlueMage]

One moment about the comment on the Homeworld splitting off: why not? Basically, your subjects are subjects where ever they happen to be; a homeworld really wouldn't mean much later on in the game.

Take the cases of Revolutionary France, Roman Empire, and modern America:

During the Last 200 or so years of during the 'Fall' of Rome there were numerous occasions where the city of Rome itself was in open rebellion against whichever emperorlet that was running the western empire; this usually ended up with a general driving into the city, killing the old emperor and declaring himself emperor (after giving his troops lots of gold).

And, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a series of riots during the French Revolution where Paris was revolting against their civil authority when a good chunk of the outlaying countryside wasn't particularly ticked off more than 'normal'?

If, for example, Philidelphia (argueably the home of the American Government if not the current residence) succeeded from the Union, would that be any more silly than if San Diego leaving?

[Trachmyr]

Well, or we can have MM change it so that additonal starting planets aren't Homeworlds!
I think that would be easier than creating an entire new class of planet (and would be better I think).

[chewy027]

Agreed, that would be an easier way of doing it Trachmyr http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

And BlueMage I think the Homeworld would only join the rebellion if it was extremeily unhappy. Otherwise if the Homeworld broke off then that would be a trigger in an of itself.

Also, it has been suggested be Suicide_Junkie that the amount of planets braking off in the event of civil war should be in proportion to the size of the entire empire. I agree with him. Large empires loosing up to half and splitting into possibly more than two new empires, and small empires lossing only a small x percent.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this?

[Atrocities]

Thank you for updating the discussion on this. It makes it a lot easier to research. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/zine/cnchome/Shipsets.html)

[chewy027]

Atrocities, as I told Dumbluck it is my pleasure http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is nice to know that my humble effort doesn't go unnoticed http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[mac5732]

In ref to homeworld and starting with multi plantes, why not just have computer when generating starting maps, assign or designate one planet say with minimum of 2000 pop as home planet. It could put your govt facility on it as well. this way when game starts every player would have home planet with facitliy. Home world would be hard to get to revolt, but here again, attitude would come in to play. Also if you use attitude and homeworld triggers, you should probably beef up or tweak the facilities that create happy pop. maybe add another level or 2. Needs to be balanced.

just some ideas mac

[mac5732]

when it comes to how many planets revolt, if you use the system rebellion, then all planets in that system revolt. Empire rebellion could be based on percentage of total planets, systems that have already revolted count against total. to try and make it easier to mod or hard code, maybe set a parameter of what exactly is a small, med, large or huge empire, base number of planets that revolt on a percentage or set number for each type. example, small - 10 planets or less, med - 20 or less, large
30 or less, huge over 30, then when empire wide revolt happens the computer could divide by percentage minus systems revolted planets. a small or med empire should have less chance of multiple split empires, large and huge have 25-40% chance of multiple split off empires, but all should be at war with original empire. Or something similiar to this idea.
anyone else have ideas?

just some ideas

mac

[Sirkit]

Inter galactic civil war, ok chewie put me down as a huge YES!!

[chewy027]

Mac, again thanks for the great suggestions I'll upgrade the overview http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Sirkit I'll post your vote in the vote thread unless you want to do it yourself http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
At least i'll upgrade the vote overview.

Thanks for the feedback http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

[chewy027]

Something I just thought of. Do moons rebel along with their orbiting planet or are they treated seperately?

OK Mac so lets say there is a small empire with 20 planets instead of saying -10 lets say up to 25% of the empire (5 planets) could break away. And give a percentege to each size empire as to how many could break away. Is this what you had in mind?

Thoughts on the above questions?

[Puke]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
Something I just thought of. Do moons rebel along with their orbiting planet or are they treated seperately?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

seperate. at least thats the way it works now.

how about balkanization of empires? as a varaition of civil war where 1 large chunk of your empire breaks off, what if you had 50-75% of it break of into 10-20 little chunks?

i think its fairly clear that break away pieces of an empire in this game are not a real space borne threat, but they are really a hassle for the lost resources. as far as the balkan thing goes, it would be more effective if those factions concentrated all their resources on planetary defense WPs / Sats / Troops / local mines. they know they cant win a space war, but darn if they wont preserve their way of life! this would be much more effective coupled with penalties for orbital bombardmant. the lost facil/pop/10% resource penalty is good, but maybe a trade loss with your neighbors or something, or empire wide happyness hit (oh my god, we're bombing our own people?!)

[chewy027]

Puke you don't think a large chunk of your empire splitting off could be a real threat?
To me a bunch of non-cooperating little factions would be easier to take back.

What does everyone else think?

BTY have you voted yet? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Marco]

I like the concepts but I not agree with all the suggestions.
From Trachmyr's post:
In 1)and 2)I think this random event should trigger only the possibility of a general revolt, not automatically request the joining of rioting/angry planets and that would be influenced by the presence of loyal forces and ships in the system apart from the rebelling planet.
4)I Think the conVersion of only 1 planet is not enough for the check for adjacents system: a system would be claimed by the new empire only if at least half the number of colonized planets joins the new empire.
From Mac5732's post:
I don't agree with the automatic drop of attitude every fixed number of turn for non rebelling planets.
From other ideas:
I don't like:
1)Beaucause this should cause only rebelling planets if they aren't in the same system.
2)Only with very restrictive limitations about location of planets and "loyal" forces available in the others conquered planets.
4)Only for regional capitals beaucause I think this concept would be hardly well handled by the AI.
Triggers:
I dont like:
2)Beaucause I think automatical break away should be not requested.
3) I think the rioting planets needs to be localized in the same region of the empire (i.e. in adjacents systems).
4)I disagree at most: you're evil for the others empires , non for your people.

Sorry for my bad english.

[jc173]

Couple of ideas, well more like one idea and another comment.
If a non-blood thirsty emires glasses one of its old planets which has rebelled, this should trigger some sort of happiness penalty which if we're basing this civil war idea off of happiness sort of, should increase the chance of other planets to rebel. Granted along with this we need for the AI to remember which planets it used to own and have AI's take appropriate actions based on their play style, ie some empire may just blockade the world, most should try to retake the planet with ground forces, the very aggressive/angry AI's should just bLast the planet into cinders.

I still don't agree with MEE always triggering a delayed rebellion, for non-bloodthirsty empires. The citizens may end up with a serious of sense of righteousness even if it's a peaceful empire, ie we're a peaceful people all we did was expand our colonies, who are they to declare war on us?!? etc. Depending on how wars go sometimes they may engender a sense of nationalism(empirism?) in the general populace, especially if you're winning, which may be the case if you are MEE since you are supposed to be ahead of the other players.

Just my thoughts.

[mac5732]

sorry been busy haven't been on line for awhile.
Chewy, ref your question. take the 20 planets, if you use empire wide rebellion, whatever you use for a trigger goes off, then computer computes the percentage you set, in this case you stated 25%. therefore 5 planets would rebel. Howver, if you also use system rebellion, and say you had l system of 6 planets that rebelled, the computer would subtract the 6 from the 5, in this case 6 greater then 5, so no other planets would rebel and the 6 would be the only ones in rebellion.

I think I would stay away from multiple break away rebel empires. I think this could be a programers headache. I would just go with 1 new empire being formed per rebellion. You already have puppet intel in game and this would also create new empires. Remember the more complicated and involved, the harder to hard code or make changes. How about list of triggers, their effects, and how to try and decrease the liklihood of rebellion for either planets, systems or empire? Once this is solved then the rest should fall into place. You need both triggers and ways to de-trigger in order to have balance.

just some ideas, Mac

[mac5732]

Marco, In regards to the attitude per planet, If you have an empire wide rebellion, then the attitude of all planets in empire would react, (ie go down) until there is some type of positive reaction. I just used 3 as an example number, this could be any number, percent or random factor. The longer the rebellion festers without a positive, either by winning a battle, destroying a planet, or whatever, the attitude of those left in the empire would continue to go down. I was just trying to come with a way that this would happen which would force the player to take some immediate action. This could entail building more or better type pacification centers or whatever to bring the attitude back up. I'm open for suggestions. tks for feed back

just some ideas Mac

[tictoc]

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread but,I read somewhere in this thread about interstellar travel? (too tired to retrace to find the right link), instead of researching engines why not research a facility to be used on 1 planet in 1 system and only in a system you have total control of, to allow interstellar travel anywhere from within your system to the next, that way you not only have to make sure your planet is well protected (because the enemy could destroy it thereby rendering your travel useless until you have repelled the enemy and built another) but also only allows one system jumps at a time and you have to gain overall control of that system before you can repeat to the next.

tic

[chewy027]

tictoc you were reading the warp tech debate. The idea was to be able to create spacial distortions and warp anywhere in the galaxy. This would go hand in hand with the wormhole facility that would prevent players from opening a wormhole in a system. With the warp tech you could still get in a attack them. This way there could be no players who isolate themselves.

Mac I will try to upgrade the overview the way you said. It probably would be easier to understand that way, and probably not be as long.

jc I also have some reservations about the MEE trigger, but I think it could be worked out so that it is fair for all the socities if it would be used.

Marco this is not a random event. But it is greatly influenced by the happiness of the planet. And I agree that one planet is not enough to check the adjacent systems. Perhaps 25% should revolt to check next system. In the PPP intel that would happen if planets were targeted together and wouldn't necessarily cause a empire wide civil war. That is just an idea to give the rebelling planets a fighting chance. As for regional capitals that would be just like the loss of your homeworld except on the system level. So if the AI could handle the empire wide level it could handle the regional level as well. Why couldn't captured planets of another race rebel together no matter how spread out they are. They would still keep in touch with eachother and want their freedom back wouldn't they? Good idea about the rioting planets being close together! And yes the MEE trigger is not liked by all.

And a note to everybody non of these ideas are set in stone http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif That is why this thread was started in the first place, so we could all debate them http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[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 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[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 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif 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. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

BTY Jason2, if you like the idea why don't you head on over to the vote thread and let your opinion be heard http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

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 (http://mailto:ant119@hotmail.com) -
Ora Planet (http://oraplanet.tripod.com/) - Taera Republic (http://www.hyperionbase.com/hosted/oraplanet/) - League of Empires (http://students.uwsp.edu/kmusa047/LoE/index.html)

[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.

[Nitram Draw]

If there is any way they can do it, I'm all for creating this type of feature. This is one thing the game seriously lacks, all the system seem to be the same to me. I don't feel the need to defend any particular system at all costs.

[dogscoff]

I agree. I think the one thing the game lacks is the impression that your empire is a living society, and not just a giant war factory.

&lt;nostalgia&gt;
Has anyone ever played Powermonger? It's an old old game on the amiga (it was by Bullfrog). In that game you really believed your armies were marching across a living, breathing world. There were villagers with names and houses and jobs, quietly going about their lives. I often felt guilty bringing war to such a beautiful and peaceful landscape. To start with anyway=-)
&lt;/nostalgia&gt;

That's the kind of involvement I'd like to get from SEIV. Then I really would quit my job and play it all day.

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

[mac5732]

I have a question on the use of re-building regional or empire capitals. If you are allowed to tear down and rebuild them as I have read in the thread, this would mean that anytime you saw an enemy fleet approach your capitol world, you could conceivably dismantle it in order to not take chance of losing and trigging civil war or just removing it from a hot spot to a quiet area. If this is the case then it defeats the purpose of being a trigger. In my opinion, once built they should remain unless they are destroyed or captured at which time you would be able to rebuild somewhere else at a cost and over period of turns. This way you have your trigger, but also when new one is built it increases happiness therefore there is some type of balance.

Raynor, you said you see coding problems, could you be a little more specific, maybe this would give us some ideas as to what and what not to use or look at. Also in your opinion could this be made easier as part of an Expansion Pack.

just some ideas mac

[Nitram Draw]

You should be allowed to move them but there should be a heavy penalty for doing so voluntarily, say all empire production is cut in half for 10 turns if you move your empire capitol.
I can believe there would be coding difficulties. Hopefully a simple approach can be taken and at least some portion of the idea can be implemented.

[chewy027]

Wow over 100 Posts http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Well I have lots to catch up on.

Raynor I to would like you to elaborate more on the coding difficulties. I emailed MM about the basic idea, and Aaron returned the email the next day asking for more details so they could consider adding it to an expansion pack. I haven't sent the details yet becasue we are still ironing them out.

Taera there is an overview that should be near the top off the thread.

capt_spoogy why not a full blown empire?

Now to clear up some issues. How about if captured planets have a fixed amount of turns to "get settled" and don't effect the trigger number. The same with planets that have been hit by intel. Have a recovery period where you could settle the pops down. After that period then those planets would be counted toward the trigger.

Dogscoff I like your idea with a few modifications. Yes capitals should be facilities, but I don't think they should be able to be srapeed. It starts on your Homeworld and stays there until it's destroyed. If they would be allowed to be scrapped then that would carry a large penelty in production and happiness. I also agree that regional caps should only be allowed on large populated planets according to the size of the empire.

If MM would implement this and other ideas I'm sure it would go through an arduous beta testing period before it's released.

Yes I aslo agree it would add importance to systems and planets. This would add more feel to the game as well as realism and personality.

[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.

[jc173]

Not sure if anyone has discussed this yet since I may have missed a few Posts in this topic. But recently some people suggested tying ships to the world of their construction, so that if a planet rebels ships that are crewed with population from the planet would join the rebellion. I have a suggestion on that topic and a question.

Suggestion:
Perhaps crews should have a loyalty rating?
I'm not sure how in depth people would want this to be, but I think it could sort of be like happiness for ships, maybe. Highly trained crews might be more loyal, not sure if this would necessarily be the case. Also particpating/witnessing losing battles and stalemates should drop the loyalty rating. A highly loyal crew would not join a rebellion, and of course a not so loyal crew would. In the middle ground you could have the possibility of mutiny and shipboard combat as the crew factions battle it out for control of the ship. I don't know if people would like this because it may be too detailed to implement in SEIV, maybe this should be something that ought to be considered in SE V instead.

My question is what should we do with ships with Master Computers. Since an MC can gain experience and "learn," I look at them more as AI's then something like an expert system. I'm not sure how sentient an MC would be, would it have beliefs and loyalties? Would the controlling empire consider the possibility of an MC/AI revolting and program/build in restrictions and safeguards?

[dogscoff]

To be honest I nver liked the idea of the master computer component, although I don't really know why. I guess it's because shows like B5, Trek, Farscape would be far less interesting if they had no crew=-)

I'd be quite happy to see a Version of SE with no master computers at all. At the very least they should be unable to gain experience, giving the player a reason to continue using live crews once MC had ben developped.

BTW chewy - you seem to have misread my post. I am AGAINST the idea of gov centres as facilities, largely because you shouldn't be able to scrap them.

Perhaps we should vote on this:
PLease select either
a&gt; Government centres (regional and imperial) should be implemented as facilities.

b&gt; Government centres (regional and imperial) should be implemented, but NOT as facilities.

c&gt; Don't implement them at all. Find some other way to have civil wars.

We don't want to hear from those ppl who don't want civil wars at all;-)
------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 12 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

BTW chewy - I think you misread my post, I am AGAINST implementing gov. centres as facilitis, for the same reasons as you.

I think we should have a quick vote:

A&gt; Implement imperial / regional government centres as facilities.

B&gt; Implement them but NOT as facilities.

C&gt; Don't implement them at all, find another way to start civil wars.

D&gt; Who cares? Shut up. Leave me alone. Jeez.


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

[chewy027]

A

Dogscoff I didn't misread your post I was just proposing some modifications to the idea. But I do agree that they shouldn't be able to be scrapped http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif And I like the that they have to be on planets with high pop depending on the size of the empire.

jc173 How about if each rebelling planet has a influencing radius. Then every ship in that radius has a chance (some %) to revolt. If the ship has high experience it's less likely to revolt. And if the ship is from one of the revolting planets then it's more likely to revolt.

[dogscoff]

Oops. Sorry about that Chewy. I vote B BTW.

Do you think gov centrs should b decided on population alone? I'd like to see other things taken into account, firstly for realism, and secondly because high- popullation planets are already high priority.

I would suggest taking the following things into account whn deciding upon a planet's suitability for being a government centre/ homeworld:
Spaceports, construction yards, resupply depots, other commerce generating facilities.
Population density / racial diversity.
Proximity to warp points, colonised planets & moons.
Security of system (ie near enemy space, military presences, history of local conflict)
Age of colony.

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

[Deathstalker]

A, (my 2cents), that way there would be a use for the 'palace' function that is in the background of the game. Now I don't know if this has been discussed b4 (just 'skimmin' the Posts) but back when I played CIV I this function was used every so often. The French had gobbled up the Zulu turns and turns b4 but when I took their capital the French Empire suddenly split into loyal Frenchmen and Zulu's who took over their previous cities and re-established their place in the game. Civil war could work like that, (say the EEE who disappeared years ago finally reappear in the confusion of their 'slavemasters' capital falling, their 'underground rebellion' and 'sympathizers' finally win out.)..
Just thoughts........(GREAT ideas by the way, love reading this thread http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif)

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

[serpwidgets]

I don't think the idea will add any fun to the game. It seems like the planet-stealing intel stuff is already bad enough, I can't imagine ever continuing a game after half--or any significant fraction--of my ships and planets just get up and leave. To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather have a random event that instantly wipes out ALL of my planets and ships, and eliminates me from the game completely.

And who would something like this affect? Most likely it's going to hurt the person who is already on the losing end of a war, which makes it that much harder once you fall behind to try to catch up. IMO it will just make losing that much more torturous.

[chewy027]

Deathstalker Civ is where I got this idea from http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Serpwidgets I disagree with the fact that the person loosing the war will be the one who this happens to. In fact this could be an advantage to the weaker opponent. Locate their Homeworld, then make a wormhole to that system. Then send in your fleet and catch um off guard. Now you guys are even.

And why do you think that if you go through a civil war you are doomed to loose. Wouldn't that give some spice to the game. If you are dominating the game and no one can stand up to you, but all of a sudden one of the triggers is activated, then there you will find your new challenge.

What do you think? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Nitram Draw]

The idea like the most from this thread is the creation of capitols and the importance they would add to protecting them. If this can be added I would not mind the other stuff being left out, although the civil war would be nice if it is made an optional choice.

[mac5732]

Just because the civil war is put into the game, 1- does not mean you will lose, or that it will in fact happen. its based on a number of triggers, of which you would be able to guard against. Keeping pop happy, building pacification centers, increaseing your counter intel, etc. 2- also if it is made an option those who don't want to use it wouldn't have to or they could try it and see if they like it. Balance has to be struck for any changes in the game. Civil war would require some type of balance so some of the things talked about wouldn't happen. It depends on the player to keep his people in line. It doesn't mean that it will happen every game or on a continuous basis. It would be determined by triggering factors which you could guard against and if you don't ..... It also makes intel operations even more important in the game.

Just some ideas Mac

[Dracus]

Actually, Palace is listed in the abilities file, but I don't think it used in the game.


[This message has been edited by Dracus (edited 12 April 2001).]

[chewy027]

Nitram Draw it sounds like you like the idea so why don't you go vote http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mac5732 I agree wholehartedly with everything you siad. I've been trying to convince all the skeptics out there of those same points http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[serpwidgets]

"It also makes intel operations even more important in the game."

It seems like intel is already way too powerful in the game as it is. From what I've read, it's possible to take over entire empires very quickly with intel.

I really don't like the way most of these games do intel, where for some reason you can take over ships and planets that there is no way anyone in your empire could even reach them (such as being 15 jumps away behind a huge strand of black holes, etc.) I had that type of problem with BOTF, too, where I was destroying facilities on an enemy planet I've never even heard of, and it's not even on my map.

I don't mean to knock the idea, I think it's very well thought out and quite cool and realistic. I just prefer the exploring/wargaming aspect as opposed to empire management, and don't particularly enjoy the additional micromanagement that it would entail. I play with intel and random events turned off, and I'd play with this turned off, too. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[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. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon8.gif

[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 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thank you in advance for your time http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

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]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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).]

[chewy027]

Well couldn't you at least tell the AI to attack the system capital?

[raynor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
Well couldn't you at least tell the AI to attack the system capital?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No... this would require some pretty complex enhancements to the AI. It seems like the AI only sends its attack fleets to contested systems with(without?) enemy colonies in them. These systems become contested systems because they are adjacent to other AI systems. I don't think the AI knows how to attack enemy systems that aren't contested. In fact, I've seen AI empires send ships *through* my system to get to some mustering point without stopping to attack completely undefended planets.

Before you tell the AI to attack a system far removed from its borders, a logical first step would be to teach it to attack nearby enemy systems that aren't yet claimed/contested. Once you do that, then you can think about teaching it to assign them different values and attack the ones that are worth more strategically. After that, you could think about teaching the AI to use resupply ships/bases to explore a level further (in terms of warp points) and assign strategic values to those systems as well. Eventually, you might be able to show the AI how to assign a strategic value to every enemy system and determine which enemy should receive the brunt of the attack based upon strategic value. Then, and only then, you might be able to tell the AI that the capital has a very great value. Even still, it would be somewhat complicated telling the AI that one enemy homeworld four defended warp points away is a better target than a mineral rich system belonging to the same or a different enemy just one undefended warp jump away.

Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

[Daynarr]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:
No... this would require some pretty complex enhancements to the AI. It seems like the AI only sends its attack fleets to contested systems with(without?) enemy colonies in them. These systems become contested systems because they are adjacent to other AI systems. I don't think the AI knows how to attack enemy systems that aren't contested. In fact, I've seen AI empires send ships *through* my system to get to some mustering point without stopping to attack completely undefended planets.

Before you tell the AI to attack a system far removed from its borders, a logical first step would be to teach it to attack nearby enemy systems that aren't yet claimed/contested. Once you do that, then you can think about teaching it to assign them different values and attack the ones that are worth more strategically. After that, you could think about teaching the AI to use resupply ships/bases to explore a level further (in terms of warp points) and assign strategic values to those systems as well. Eventually, you might be able to show the AI how to assign a strategic value to every enemy system and determine which enemy should receive the brunt of the attack based upon strategic value. Then, and only then, you might be able to tell the AI that the capital has a very great value. Even still, it would be somewhat complicated telling the AI that one enemy homeworld four defended warp points away is a better target than a mineral rich system belonging to the same or a different enemy just one undefended warp jump away.

Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And after doing all that Aaron would probably win a Nobel price. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[chewy027]

OK I see your point. So obviously a patch possibility is ruled out. But what about an expansion? Would this be feasible for that?

[Trachmyr]

Personally, I don't see why losing a Homeworld is likly to start a civil war! Ok, happiness might drop... and the nation would either be demoralized or Pi$$ed off... either way they would do it as a whole. Maybe I'm missing something, but just because civ did it... dosen't mean that it was right/realistic. If you want some special event for a conquered Homeword, the the AI should immediatly check to see if it surrenders... otherwise it's anger should go through the roof!

[chewy027]

OK Trachmyr. I could see your point if your talking about a civilized nation. But lets take an African country for example. If ther seat of govt would be destroyed suddenly, who knows how many rebel Groups would pop up and try to claim control. Now take that concept and put it in space. If a center of govt 20 million lightyears away is destroyed don't you think the outlying colonies or even the core worlds would have rebelling factions that arise? In my opinion tht is the way it would be. They'd want to break off and start their own empire. And the more planets that join them the better chance they have. Thus a civil war would break out.

Thoughts?

[Nitram Draw]

Please excuse me if this has been suggested before but this thread is getting real long and I'm getting lazy in my old age.
Perhaps there should be an intermediate step before civil war, a period of civil disorder. If the conditions for civil war are met then all of a specific systems planets begin to riot. If after a random period of time, say sometime between 1 and 2 years, the rioting isn't stopped then the system rebels. If this could be implemented then at least you would have some warning of a rebellion.
If possible all positive happiness modifiers should be negated during the civil disobedience time except those caused by troops and ships.

[chewy027]

I like it but maybe instead of 1 to 2 years have it as 5 turns or .5 years. Even so if the Homeworld is captured or destroyed there would be immediate war. But that could work for the happiness trigger.

[dmm]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
OK Trachmyr. I could see your point if your talking about a civilized nation. But lets take an African country for example ... Thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's a thought: I think you just offended an entire continent-worth of people.

[mac5732]

Nitram Draw , earlier in thread it was suggested that levels would be added to go from Rioting to complete civil disobedience and then to insurrection. The longer a planet was in insurrection the more chance of rebellion and etc.

DMM , in regards to ruthless govt's, the happiness is based on each individual Race's racial traits similiar to present game. I.E. some races would drop due to treaties, others would not, some drop due to war or losing battles, others don't, and so on, losing your home world & govt. center would have a large effect on your pop. Maybe we should change to word happiness to
racial attitudes, therefore even with a ditatorship type govt. specific events would still trigger attitude changes among the pop to the point where they want to over throw the govt and install a new one, & the longer the attitude remains at that or a lower level
the higher the chance of revolt.

just some ideas Mac

PS. (chewy congrats on your promotion) mac

[chewy027]

dmm sorry dodn't mean to offend anyone, it's just that the African political climate is always changing and that was the first place to come to mind. Maybe instead of saying civilized I meant stable. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/confused.gif

[dmm]

OK, good save! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif
I knew you didn't mean any harm; just tweakin' ya.
BTW, have you stopped using BTY? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif
[edit: oops, I see that you have!]

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 18 April 2001).]

[chewy027]

yes dmm I stopped using BTY just for you http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[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 = 6.8 after 35 votes

[Aussie Gamer]

It must be time to tie up these ideas and post them off to MM for consideration.

I like the different levels of upsetness &lt; that's not a word I think&gt;, maybe that's a better way to go than whole sale changes such as losing half your empire to an event. A whole system should go at once though, not just one planet, including any ships in the system.

Nice thread!

[Trachmyr]

To defend my point of view that capturing a capital shouldn't create civil war, I must point out in your (not so pc http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) scenario chewy, you were talking about a seat of power being deystroyed. Ok, I see your point... maybe if the capital was glassed. But if it was captured by another empire, either the rebels would join the conquerors or they would Rebel against the conquerors... not their own empire, they've got other things to worry about. As far as glassing a capital, it should lower happiness system wide (and if happiness will be a trigger for civil war, then it will do just what you want it to... just not automatically and EVERY time), and perhaps all production is cut by a third until a new capital is built.

Oh well, that's my 1/50th of a buck.

[Trachmyr]

To defend my point of view that capturing a capital shouldn't create civil war, I must point out in your (not so pc http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) scenario chewy, you were talking about a seat of power being deystroyed. Ok, I see your point... maybe if the capital was glassed. But if it was captured by another empire, either the rebels would join the conquerors or they would Rebel against the conquerors... not their own empire, they've got other things to worry about. As far as glassing a capital, it should lower happiness empire wide (and if happiness will be a trigger for civil war, then it will do just what you want it to... just not automatically and EVERY time), and perhaps all production is cut by a third until a new capital is built.

Oh well, that's my 1/50th of a buck.

[chewy027]

Trachmyr as I figure it, loosing your capital would cause massive unhappiness, so as you said many planets probably would riot. Having them split automatically is just another way of doing it. Just to add more importance to the capital.

Aussie I did send in a copy of the latest overview of this thread. Does anyone think more than that should be sent in? Also, does anyone think I should send the vote results in?

Feedback requestd

[Trachmyr]

Yes I would send in the votes...

P.S. If "capital status" is attached to a building, what happens if the building is deystroyed via "natural Disaster" or by orbital bombardment w/o the attackes actually winning or by intell projects...

Perhaps a compromise is to cause loss of happiness, and do an immediate check to see if civil war occurs... but not automatic!

Sorry, just hitting the equine carcass.

[chewy027]

Well I was kinda thinking that the galactic cap would be immune to intell and natural disaster. But if that couldn't be done then yeah there should be a reduction in happiness. As for the orbital bombardment maybe you could give it a Last facility destroyed trait. That would probably insure that whoever destroys it would also take the planet.

And I will send the vote results in. Thanks http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[chewy027]

Well I figure 150 is a good round number. The vote will be sent in in 3 days so if you want to get your 2 cents in head on over. If you don't know anything about this idea read the overview below then vote.

Almost asleep http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[chewy027]

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]

well as seeing how there is some civil war discussion popping up in other threads i thought i'd let some newbies check this out.

I posted my thread overview just below this post so you newbies won't have to read the whole thread. Any new feedback is welcome.

I'll also bring back the vote thread so we can renew that.

[jimbob]

Quote: "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)."

This I like. Simple ratios, very straight forward. Results in a nice cascading effect. Indifferent and displeased planets actually matter.

I'd add :
i) that any ships in orbit and troops on ground will decrease the probability of rebellion by a small arbitrary %
ii) if the planet contains aliens the probability of rebellion goes up by a significant but arbitrary %
iii) any troops on/ships orbiting a successfully rebelling planet defect to the rebels! (maybe a small % are loyal, so self destruct/disband?).

Thus, keeping control by military force is a large gamble. I think many military coups go something like this... the army is built up by a nasty dictator until they realize that they have so much power that they're really in control. Sometimes they grab power for the people but devolve into the power institution themselves. Usually they just grab power for themselves.

[Tenryu]

While I like the idea of some planets breaking away from the 'mother' empire, I am not sure what they should do after that.

Become a neutral race?

or, more interestingly,
turn violently against their former oppessor(you).

That could be cute. Build a huge intergalactic empire, then end up fighting yourself. LOL!

[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: Tenryu ]</p>

[chewy027]

actually that question is addressed. Just have to find it in the summary Tenryu http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ZeroAdunn]

I like the first setup, I vote for keeping section 4 of the idea. I agree that if a planet has an alien race on it it should be more likely to rebel or join a rebelion (possibly 25% modifier)

Some ideas:

Every turn a system goes without a spaceport it should become 5% more likely to rebell (they don't feel like a part of the empire.)

This would also be great if you could establish a colony as an outpost instead (can only build 1 or 2 facilities) but the planet cannot rebel and can only hold so many colonists)

[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: ZeroAdunn ]</p>

[chewy027]

zero what do you mean by section four. If your refering to the summary there are lots of 4th points. I guess i'm just asking for a little clarity http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And The spaceport idea is good too

[Skulky]

I totally agree with this idea, probably one of the best out there, there should be the ability to research special units that can be built on a planet/transported there that are 'police,' then you can repress riots. The police could be ordered to ensure order or repress people, would effect happiness but could hold an alien race in line until you can move them off to step two of my idea, a 'prision colony/base' where they could be held for a year or so until they are properly adjusted.
Also, the empire that would be spawned by the revolt would be at a disadvantage (usually, especially if created by an enourmous intel project (100,000-800,000 points)) and then would be easily overrrun. HOwever, int he pattern of the COld War CIA you could offer assistance tothe rebels in the form of ships/money and recognize them as the ligit gov't. this would naturally piss of the gov't they revolted from. If you chose not to recognize them they would be pissed at you and the gov't they revolted from would like you, this could be an interesting situation (Arab/Israeli today where many countries wouldnt' recognize Israel for a long time).

Great thread, keep it up.

[chewy027]

skulky a police unit would be pretty cool. It would be a good way to keep pops in line. Lets say the trigger for a civil war is one of the ones discussed below in the summary, this would be another way to prevent the trigger. Have some police units stationed on each planet. They could also provide a base defense against invasions. I think this would be a little more realistic then the present militia. Anyway good thought I'll have to add it the summary along with the spaceport idea by zeroadunn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Mephisto]

Regarding Police: There is already one. Just use your troops, they will make them happy. I usually build a small troop with only a cockpit: Cheap and effectiv. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[jimbob]

It seems to me that armies aren't very good at keeping things peaceful. I personally think a police force is better able to keep things under civil control. So how about special police force "training" (read component) to differentiate the police from just any bunch of goons with guns? Armies that can control populations would need this special "training" as well (see the UN peace keeping armies).

my .26

[capnq]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>So how about special police force "training" (read component) to differentiate the police from just any bunch of goons with guns?<hr></blockquote>Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri used something like that; units with the ability "Non-Lethal Methods" counted double for police duties.

[mac5732]

The police unit sounds interesting, how about, if you make this a "facility" that can only be built on either the empire capitol and/or regional captiols? This way you would have to build and transport them to which ever world is in possible rebellion mode. This would make it possible for some planets to rebel, otherwise all you have to do is build police on every planet. Also they could act like troops except that they would only have the physical strength or combat strength of say 60-70% of combat units. They would be para-military police, but not as strong as regular military type units. So they could restore civil order and still give somewhat combat to invasions.

just some ideas mac

[chewy027]

I like that idea mac. building only on caps will give more imporatnce to the caps, and not make obtaining these "police" units as easy. Also they can take the place of militia during an invasion. If there is no military presence at all including the police then the planet wouldn't put up a fight. I hate having to bLast away millions of people before i invade.