Nation Specific Behaviour

[Doomdark]

From many of the AARs and some comments by beta-testers I have gotten the impression that many nations have been hardcoded to behave differently; IMO, a good simulation should not require such hacks.

Examples:

1) English Civil War.

I know that rebellions can occur in every nation, possibly leading to the formation of new countries. In the case of England however, it seems you can have a true civil war where the rebels have their own capital and diplomatic relations. IMO, this should be able to happen in all nations, not just England.

2) Fixed Periods of Greatness.

Sweden seems wired to expand greatly in the 17th century only to recede in 18th. I have detected similar behaviour patterns for Turkey, Spain and Russia in the AARs. If this is true I think it is a great shame. It should be enough to regulate this through the use of weak monarchs and generals.

3) Fixed Expansion Strategies.

I could be wrong about this, but it seems that the Spanish AI always goes for expansion in Central America. The English do the same in North America, never trying to expand in Europe. Turkey attempts to subjugate Austria, etc. While these are all sensible strategies, I would like to see some variation from game to game.

Perhaps one of the high and mighty beta testers can respond to these concerns?

 

[Doomdark]

Ah, thank you for the quick reply Sapura, most of my fears have been laid to rest.

However, I think you misunderstood my meaning as regards to the English civil war. England appears to be the only nation that can have a true civil war with two sides fighting for the same throne, so to speak. (As opposed to a bunch of rebels fighting for independence.)

This type of true civil war, 'Royalists vs English' or whatever, could happen everywhere IMO. I love the idea, but I think that the two sides should fight each other to the death even if they can have normal relations with all other nations.

Perhaps 'Royalists' is just a random word for a rebel faction that can't result in a true independent nation? What happens if they conquer London? Will that become the new capital? I sure hope so.

 

[Doomdark]

I increasingly get the feeling that the 'Royalist' state was the result of an ordinary successful rebellion. However, since it occured in an area of England that could not form a known nation (such as Wales or Ireland) it defaulted to the moniker 'Royalists'.

I have no problem with that, but I think that such 'splinter states' should not be as stable as regular nations...

How about this: if the capital of either side is ever taken by the other faction the nation is automatically reunited with the diplomatic relations of the winner.

 

[Doomdark]

Matthew,

Since the introduction of civil wars (that can occur to all nations)

Are you referring to the nameless rebel forces that sometimes succeed in forming new states?

Sapura,

It's just silly to have them in a _constant_ perpetual war until one perishes, in my opinion.

A civil war between government and pretender cannot end until one or the other has been vanquished, since neither side can tolerate the other per definition. This is not the same situation as an independence war.

Temporary armistices may still be agreed to in the face of external threats, but this is by no means a sure thing.

 

[Doomdark]

Besides which, can't we treat the English civil war as an independence war? Give a decent reason why.

The parlamentarian rebels wanted to limit the powers of the King; the royalists opposed that.

While either side might have held out in exile for a very long period (for example by fleeing to the New World), they would always have strived to regain control of London.

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 16-08-2000).]