ooooooh. I am almost drooling over the idea of doing proxy wars!

TBH, proxy warfare (i.e. funding a rebel faction or something similar so that you aren't directly (and sometimes even indirectly) implicated) is actually one of the best ways to wage warfare on the interstellar scale.

Of course, realism is a low priority in Sins (doesn't matter though, still an AWESOME game), but I would love this idea to be implemented.

  I wonder what would happen if you gave the Militia, maybe even the Pirates (Oh My!!) a colony ship and a few extractors and a handful of "researchable" abilities?    Haha, it might shake things up, just as you are saying.

Of course i'm probably off from what your idea is about if you want spies and insurgent chaos,    But a handful of small added playable Militia "factions" that make their own small empires might be very very very cool indeed! 

-Teal

Agreed. I'd be ecstatic if Stardock implemented my idea. It'd be badass to send in supportive fleet to assist in a rebellion, and eventually establish a new, independent empire in the game.

Basically the rival faction would form up together as their own entity in the game - just like any other player, and it could be given all the resources, military entities, and structures belonging to the planets that were part of the rebellion (maybe even a donated fleet from a sympathetic empire?). And yes, it could arise from poor infrastructure development, repeated enemy invasions of particular planets (they might get annoyed and feel like they aren't getting adequate defense), and poor cultural influence.

Also, perhaps this new rival faction would automatically be entered into trade agreements and peace treaty with any empires that assisted in its rebellion and establishment.

Destroying an enemy empire from within is...very much my style - I would be thrilled to be able to do this, and it would bring the game one step towards realism in terms of empire-to-empire relations.

Now let's see what a SoaSE developer might say on the matter - most likely a no, because it sounds like such a big change in the gameplay (then again, so was the addition of starbases and defensive research in SoaSE: Entrenchment).

So I do hope some developer might actually look at this, be impressed, and try his/her best to implement it into the expansion, even if it means a delay in its release. I've modded many games before, so I know what adding an entirely new component of a game entails, and how it would be relatively complicated.

- PR-0927

maybe is we start chanting a dev's name, they will come.

frogboy...frogboy...frogboy...

lolz

^^ include rain dance and maybe some ritiualistic slaughter

RYAT

In the words of the UaW Peacemaker, They'll get here eventually

Man Harpo, what do you have against me

Am I trying too hard to kill your Cyats or something?

lol

They could limit it to less planets. Also, it is balanced if everyone is susceptible to this. Were it a specific race's weapon, it'd be unfair.

It could also be limited to happen only after a certain amount of planets, to ensure that the player isn't so crippled that he/she finds no fun in the game.

There are many easy solutions to the points you brought up.

- PR-0927

My point is that you're talking about an effect that's more powerful than a superweapon.  Doesn't matter if you give it to every side to keep things equal, it just seems way too powerful.  At very least it would leave culture a joke.

Consider the losses incurred by a civil war.  We can assume that each planet has at least two population upgrades (1000 credits, 525 resources) and likely has three extractors (750 credits).  Using the standard 4:1 credit to resource conversion rate, the direct losses incurred from a single backwater planet turning are about 4000 credits.  That's direct losses, simply counting the amount of money you invested in this planet that has now poofed away.  If the planet had some additional infrastructure, those losses could easily be as high as 8000 or 10000 credits for a single planet.

So if a civil war breaks out across 3 planets, it's quite reasonable to presume that you instantly lose about 15000 credits worth of assets, but probably a lot more.  This is already looking overpowered even before we consider the fact that you're proposing putting a hostile faction in the location of the lost colonies.  Not only has the player lost everything he invested in these planets, he now has a serious threat materialize their former location.  It's very hard to put a money value on that, so let me spell it out to you:  I'd appraise the damage caused by a 3-planet rebellion between 30k-100k credits.  That presumes that important military worlds (ie, ones with starbases) are immune to turning in a civil war.

Bottom line: this is out of line.  You're proposing an ability that makes a bunch of assets that a player has paid for just go "poof", and replace them with a faction of hostiles bent on destroying more assets.  I'll reiterate what I said originally: this is way more powerful than the superweapons.

this would really discourage fast expansion out to a far away player.

this would cause games do drag out longer then they tend to do already.

Yes, quite frankly, you sound like one hell of a douche. Sorry to let you know. I'm not just saying that because you disagree with me. Your tone is not conducive to agreement.

That being said, I cannot say anything but that I disagree with your presumptions. The "logical fallacy" you stated above makes little to no sense - technically it is fair by logic to have everyone harmed in the same way, to the same extent.

The civil war threat isn't supposed to be something "easy" to deal with. It's supposed to be an "oh, shit" moment. Yes, you do lose money. Yes, you do have a new enemy. Yes, you have lost territory. But these things would be preventable, and would be something the player would bring upon him/herself by not focusing enough on the threat of dissent. This is supposed to be a threat the player would fear and try his or her best to avoid.

I personally find the pirates method of attacking and their "buyability" to be overwhelmingly disastrous, and potentially more devastating than the effects of a superweapon. So, I just disable pirates, or learn how to play with them, even if it causes a game, as one commenter posted "to drag out longer then they tend to do already."

In the spirit of attacking everything I said, you seemed to ignore any solutions I offered to problems in my idea, such as the option to enable or disable civil wars, or a sliding scale of civil war intensity/speed/frequency. Maybe I'm being too optimistic regarding that, but you're not criticizing constructively, and not giving any advice/solutions.

This is uncalled for. Did I ever say my idea was flawless? Did I ever assume that the developers would incorporate an idea by a fan, as-is? Of course not. Do read the title of the thread: "[Suggestion] Civil Wars." The word "suggestion" means something here. I'm offering an idea to the developers. Who said they have to incorporate it in any way that I envisioned it to be? Perhaps they will incorporate civil war, but in a completely different fashion. This isn't some academic paper for class that lists out every single detail and every answer to any counterargument. While I'm sure that'd be helpful, I'm sure that such effort in figuring out every last detail would be in vain.

The developers are the deciders here. If they are interested in any kind of possibility for implementing civil war or assistance of rebellion in other empires, they will look into it, and implement it in the way that they want to.

I'm offering an idea here, and you're offering hostility, as if it's already been implemented, and you want it removed. How about some constructive criticism or amendments to ideas that may have a flaw, not just some ranting negative responses to an entire idea on the basis that "it's more powerful than a superweapon."

And yes, in case you were hinting at this or would mention it later, I'm well-aware of the difficulty of implementing new components to a game. It really depends on a lot of factors, such as the engine and its boundaries and capabilities, amongst others.

- PR-0927

My point was that he didn't specify details, so it's silly to accuse me of having misconceptions.  Anyone who looks at this idea is going to interpret it uniquely, and it's silly to fault people for that.

I felt I made fair presumptions given the ambiguity of the suggestion.

There are no other random events in Sins currently.  Frankly I think added them would be a major departure from the current way the game is built.  Random works well in Civilization, where virtually everything has an element of chance to begin with, not so much in Sins where if you had all the facts you could theoretically make 100% accurate predictions due to its strong determinism.

Where are you getting this "shoddily implemented" from?  When did I imply that at all? 

My core presumption was that a civil war means you lose control of the affected planets, and a hostile enemy faction spawns on them.  The rest of my post was simply analysis based on that simple presumption.  How is that "shoddy implementation"?  It seems to be the very definition of a civil war. 

Yup, I apologize for my tone and manner, though I stand behind my arguments.

My entire point is that just because everyone is harmed to the exact same extent doesn't mean it's balanced at all.  Balance is a lot more than just fairness between factions.  It's about expanding the tactical options within the game.

Having a single very powerful option, even if it may be shared between all factions, is not balanced because it wipes out so many other options.

The difficulty worth considering here is this: we agree that the costs of a civil war are very high, therefor any sensible player will invest in countermeasures.  This leaves a simple conundrum: we have a highly complicated and elaborate feature that will require significant development resources to implement, but because of its nature players are going to work tirelessly to prevent it from ever actually occurring.  The feature is self-defeating, its own ramifications ensure players won't ever allow it to come to pass.

That's not to say that there isn't a middle ground where it's preventable but still happens, but I think you have to make a case for that.

Uh, what? Pirates are weak.  Maybe the first attack is dan./gerous, but after that they're nothing but free experience for your capital ships.  Put up a few repair bays and leave a small guard and watch your defenders toast a force ten times their size. 

No, I didn't speak much about these because if it doesn't turn out to be a good idea then they shouldn't be implemented in the first place.  If you need a toggle for your feature because it might be unpopular or potentially gamebreaking, then you probably should be reconsidering the feature.

As I said, I apologize for my tone and demeanor.  My point wasn't that there is something inherently wrong with fan ideas or suggestions.  My problem was with you suggesting that the devs will figure it all out.  The devs have lots of different ideas on the drawing board.  If there are big glaring holes in a concept that doesn't have an obvious solution, do you really think they're going to actually put weeks of effort into trying to get it to work?  No, they're going to go for more graceful concepts.

If you can't come up with a reasonable idea of how your own idea would work, why would the devs devote time and energy to do so?