Civil Wars, Colonial Rebellions, and Separatists

frekk

frekk

Scourge of St. Lawrence
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
3,151
Location
Kingston, Ontario
I had an idea about how Civilizations could split to parallel the phenomena of separatists, secessions, things like the American Revolution, etc.

A city that rioted would have a small chance, each turn, of going into open rebellion. This chance could be determined by the number of rioters or some similar factors.

Open rebellion would mean the city "flips" like a culture flip, but instead of going to an existing civ, it would become a new civ.

In the round that it "flips", all cities on the same landmass and within a limited radius of the rebel city would also be checked for "flipping", only it would just be based on unhappy citizens, not rioters.

Further, all military units within flipped cities and perhaps (not sure here) all units within the city radius of a flipped city, would join the rebellion. Otherwise the rebellion could be crushed too easily.

Another fundamental difference from culture flips would be that rebel cities would keep culture.

Enemy civs could also use propaganda to help induce rebellions.

Certain technologies, improvements, or governments could lower (or perhaps even raise) chances for a rebellion.
 
I don't like the idea of flipping at all. Instead of having a random number generator funtion determining the chance of flipping, I would instead like to see it determine the chance, type and number of insurgent units produced that turn.
So instead of having the city magically flip and becomes your enemy, some insurgents will pop up, (maybe the pop of that city should go down to simulate the fact that some people joined the rebellion). If these insurgent units take your city, then that city becomes independent or whatever.
This reduce the randomness to a minimum, and give you lots of fun fighting insurgents.
 
I actually don't like flipping either. Why don't you like flipping though? Is it because it happens without warning? Personally, I wouldn't mind this kind of flipping so much because the rioting city notifies you and gives you a chance to do something about it, instead of just suddenly having your city betray you.

I like insurgents too, sort of like how guerillas popped up when a city was captured in Civ2. But I think there would have to be some chance of them actually winning, at least until the beginning of the Modern Age, so they would have to be strong enough or numerous enough to defeat entrenched infantry (not easy without making Super-Insurgents, or lots of them).

Also, just a single city rebelling ... with a few wounded insurgents to defend it ... isn't going to last long. It would be neat if there was a way for new civs to appear and actually have a chance in the game, due to poor management.
 
Yeah, I don't like flipping because it's too random and too sudden. No one will enjoy seeing their city suddenly turning into enemies.
As for insurgents, I think they should be armed good enough, and be in enough quantity to give you some serious headache. By encouraging other cities to rebell, it shouldn't mean the end of your game, unless you managed poorly, but it is supposed to impede your growth.
 
There won't be any rioting in Civ 4.

The idea of insurgents I like a lot, and is something I proposed a while ago.

With regards to the liklihood of success, it depends on the situation. If its only a couple cities and the civ in question is at peace, then like the many rebellions of history, it probably won't last long. If the rebellion takes place over 1/3 of the empire while the civ is busy fighting 2 major enemies... then it could become more of an issue.

Flipping is very, very bad...
 
OK Frekk, this issue has been brought up in around a dozen seperate threads-but I don't blame you for giving it another 'walk around the block' ;)!
You may have seen my response to the 'Annexation vs. Occupation' thread. I think that a model of 'gradual degeneration' for cities is best, with certain 'tipping points' below which things can quickly precipitate into outright revolt and/or civil war. Troops should help to reduce the chance of negative consequences from low happiness but too many troops in one city should make actual happiness drop EVEN FURTHER! The only permanent solution is to actually make the people of the city happy, through luxuries, improvement/wonder construction, government changes etc.
Failure to do so merely increases the chance of the city going into revolt (where all productive output of the city halts), civil war (where the city breaks away from your nation altogether) or production of 'rebellious units' (bandits, partisans or geurillas-depending on your tech level)!!
Hope this makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
OK Frekk, this issue has been brought up in around a dozen seperate threads-but I don't blame you for giving it another 'walk around the block' ;)!
Click to expand...

My bad!


Troops should help to reduce the chance of negative consequences from low happiness but too many troops in one city should make actual happiness drop EVEN FURTHER! The only permanent solution is to actually make the people of the city happy, through luxuries, improvement/wonder construction, government changes etc.
Click to expand...

I like that idea alot.


Failure to do so merely increases the chance of the city going into revolt (where all productive output of the city halts), civil war (where the city breaks away from your nation altogether) or production of 'rebellious units' (bandits, partisans or geurillas-depending on your tech level)!!
Hope this makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense and models things quite well. You have to make your citizens lives' good for them to be truly happy (and not just beaten down with riot sticks). But, if you let things get out of hand, or inheirit a bad situation in a captured city, you'll get insurgents, and then to deal with them, you'll have to bring in more troops - meaning more insurgents as the populace gets unhappy with the repression.
 
Yep, thats true Frekk, but troops CAN help-especially in the case of a newly captured city-to help prevent the outbreak of civil war and revolts (and even reduce the chance of insurgents being produced) in THE SHORT TERM!!! In order to get a permanent solution to the problem, of course, is to just treat them right and make them HAPPY!!! Also, how angry a captured city will be will depend on HOW you acted beforehand. So, if you blanket bomb the city prior to its capture, then you might inherit a very, VERY angry population! If you risk your men in a direct fight with the garrison-in order to limit civilian casualties-then you might inherit a much happier bunch of campers ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
They could have these names:

Despotism - Baron revolts against you
Monarchy - Rival claimant to throne
Republic - Unruly Senator
Communism - Political coup attempt
Democracy - By-election
 
PS: If a city goes against you, there would be a short 'crisis period' in which any other city can also split, depending on how happy it is (no loss of production though, otherwise we'd just have anarchy which is annoying). History has shown that just one act of defiance can spark a whole radical change (American Civil Rights Movement started by one woman refusing to give up her seat). The closer and/or unhappier a city is to the rebel city is, the greater chance of it going over. You would get notifications of which cities were likely to do so. And if you made enough attempts to make the rebel city happy (promises of building certain improvements that you HAVE to stick to else the city will rebel again) then they will gladly rejoin your civ.
 
Trip said:
There won't be any rioting in Civ 4.
Click to expand...


Is this confirmed? Or are you just saying it? And if it is confirmed, I'd be interested in knowing where you found out.
 
tmarcl said:
Is this confirmed? Or are you just saying it? And if it is confirmed, I'd be interested in knowing where you found out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think I'd say it if it wasn't confirmed? :p

It was in Soren's GDC PPT slide show under developer notes.
 
Well thank for-word expletives for that.....please tell me there's a better corruption and waste systems too
 
Civ4 was only in early planning phase. What Soren said on that slide was more of a general guideline than specific game design decision. They are likely to revise these things several times.
 
They were playing 4+ hour MP games in February, I think you have to be a bit beyond the early planning phase in order to do that...
 
They might have said that, but I seriously doubt that they had a seriously playable version of civ4 in Feb. As for civ3, they didn't even have enough time to beta test the game before releasing it. Remember civ4 isn't due out till late 2005 or even mid or late 2006. There are a good 1.5 to 2 years left in developement time. And the last patch for conquest came out not so long ago. This means the design team has just gotten started on the new project for civ4. If they already had a playable multi player game back in Feb, the game would have been almost fully development now and can be released in time for the christmas season of 2004.
 
It's hard to play an MP game if the game itself isn't already "seriously playable." :p Especially 4+ hour ones... do you think they just connected the games and sat there for 4 hours? ;)

Civ 3 wasn't released because most of the programming team left a year into development. That's a bit of a different situation from Civ 4.

Maybe they just want to make sure its polished for release next year rather than rush it out for this Christmas? Who is to say when it's "due" to be released? Are you the Firaxis CEO? :p They could easily have started it over a year and a half ago by now. Firaxis worked with BreakAway on Conquests and its patches, and would have enough people to begin Civ 4 quite a while ago, even while still working on Conquests patches. It's not as though Firaxis didn't know it was going to be making another version of Civ a few years ago. :p
 
'The Return Of The King' was already pretty much completed when 'The Two Towers' came out, so it's not unusual in media to have something new already in development at a time when you've just released everything.

Ok, it is a slightly different situation but the allegory's there.
 
Looks like what Soren JOhnson said was that they already have a MP model working, and people can play game using this model. This does not imply that the game is into that kind of the stage. If they can already play multiplayer beta, it doesn't make sense at all to wait till next year to release it. They would want money a lot more than they want to polish the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Unit flipping
Replies
1
Views
556
Ordnael
Ordnael
H
  • Poll Poll
Strong culture triggers elections at border cities. Strong religion leeches their yields and influences what they construct. Faith provides immunity.
Replies
0
Views
203
Happiness
H
S
Colonization mechanics for Exploration Age, rebellions against exploitation
Replies
1
Views
510
untitledjuan
untitledjuan
X
More gaming and diplomacy may be needed
Replies
0
Views
399
xxnssw
X
evonannoredars
Teotihuacan - Antiquity Era Civ Concept
Replies
19
Views
2K
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
Back
Top Bottom