[Freeciv-Dev] Balance of gameplay

[Peteris Paikens <peteris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 I have a proposal of a small change in rules that would change the gameplay
a lot, essentially making a different, though in my opinion, better game. It
could be done as a server-side option probably so as not to break
rule-compatibility with civ2. 
  If you're just interested in the change, not in the reasoning, it is at
the end of the message.
  I was thinking about the overall balance of games. Many, including
freeciv, are of the type that the rich get richer - being more powerful
makes it easier togain power. Having a small edge over your opponent,
provided you have equal skill, only helps you gain more advantages later.
Thus the importance of the early expansion phase of freeciv, etc. However,
in life rules are a bit different - things tend to balance themselves out,
not sway to the winner's side. The military most powerful nation does not
conquer the entire world - just because the rules of life and politics are
against that. Being further from your homeland and deeper into enemy's makes
it much more difficult to wage war. Being pressed to the wall makes you
fight more fiercely. Small nations are more likely to win wars, given equal
forces. It is easier for the small ones to expand, compared with large
empires. Histery has numerous examples for that. Over expanding and
counquering others puts you at the risk of splitting. Remember British
Empire and the USSR, just to name a few?
 Summing it up - in freeciv, conquering others gets easier if you are larger
and have acquired other nations' lands. In life, it gets more difficult,
because of supply problems, revolts and internal struggles.
  The change is to add a chance of your empire splitting. It would increase
with the number of cities. The limit below which no splitting would occur
will be much lower for governent types such as despotism and monarchy. Also,
having conquered cities increases the chance. Unhappiness would greatly
increase that chance. Army would not help to reduce unhappiness accounting
for this; total unhappiness before taking military units into account should
be used, because army may prevent a single city from rioting, but if the
empire is splitting, the military will split as well. Collapse of the Roman
Empire is a fine example of that..
  So, if you run a medium-sized democracy, have all the happiness thingies,
and live in peace, then you wouldn't have a chance of splitting. But if your
despotism has just conquered 2/3 of the world and half of the newly
conquered cities are reioting, then you might have a 10% chance of your
empire splitting. Cities far away from capitol, unhappy cities, and cities
another nation created would split off from the mainland. The player should
get to choose which part to govern, and other part should go either to the
AI or some player whose empire was destroyed before.
 I would like to hear as much comments about this as possible :)