Intergalactic Civil War !!??

[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 . 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

[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).