Argetnyx's Empire-Crashing Idea

I have been away from Civ for a while (at school), so I've had time to think...

Would anybody like to see civil wars in Civ? I know this has been suggested before, but not in this way:

1. When a civ breaks apart, the mother civ cannot just ignore it -like the AIs probably would. The rebelling land is seen as 'theirs' and the civ will do whatever it can to regain the land.

2. When a country gets split, the new 'independent' nation is not a 'civ', in the diplomatic sense. The only way for it to be recognised by other civs to be a true civ is if it shows a definite edge against its mother country -either by having a stronger military, or simply fighting to a draw.

3. When this happens, the rebels are recognised in diplomatic relations and can carry on just like any other civ. This allows other civs to join the fight for or against the new civ.

Is this a good idea?

Click to expand...

Where is the idea?

What would constitute a rebellious region? What factors would cause a region to become rebellious? Would it sheerly be overcome through conquest? Would everything within the rebellious region become part of that region's control (e.g. units, city production, etc.)?

It is a good idea to attempt to institute civil wars and empire disintegration in the game, IMO, but I struggle to come up with a feasible way in which to do this, without resulting in the complete inability to build a huge empire. Perhaps the only thing that is needed is a greater emphasis on economics in the game in order to replicate economic collapse due to over-extension, or some other game mechanic in order to create some other such factor?

Camikaze said:

It is a good idea to attempt to institute civil wars and empire disintegration in the game, IMO, but I struggle to come up with a feasible way in which to do this, without resulting in the complete inability to build a huge empire. Perhaps the only thing that is needed is a greater emphasis on economics in the game in order to replicate economic collapse due to over-extension, or some other game mechanic in order to create some other such factor?

Click to expand...

The best "factor" would probably be the stability calculations a la EU3 and Rhye's mod. Running brutal civic combinations, choosing to repress your people in random events (for example, the crackdown on slave revolts instead of negotiating and giving money), using the Slavery civic heavily, high war weariness, etc. could contribute to low stability, which could trigger a civil war.

Actually assigning numbers to all this is a lot more difficult unless you copy Rhye's mod and just make modifications. I don't know all the factors that go into that, but somebody could probably post them here.

Where is the idea?

Click to expand...

Where are you getting this idea that there is no idea?

What would constitute a rebellious region? What factors would cause a region to become rebellious? Would it sheerly be overcome through conquest? Would everything within the rebellious region become part of that region's control (e.g. units, city production, etc.)?

Click to expand...

I'm actually talking about after it started...

Argetnyx said:

Where are you getting this idea that there is no idea?

Click to expand...

As said Camikaze, the more important when it comes to rebellions is to define the circumtances that lead to them.

What you bring to the rebellions idea is very, very thin.

As to rebellions, civics can influence them. Stability. Random events. Whatever. It's actually more r-CENSORED.

Antilogic said:

The best "factor" would probably be the stability calculations a la EU3 and Rhye's mod. Running brutal civic combinations, choosing to repress your people in random events (for example, the crackdown on slave revolts instead of negotiating and giving money), using the Slavery civic heavily, high war weariness, etc. could contribute to low stability, which could trigger a civil war.

Actually assigning numbers to all this is a lot more difficult unless you copy Rhye's mod and just make modifications. I don't know all the factors that go into that, but somebody could probably post them here.

Click to expand...

This sounds good. I don't think that any numbers would have to be visible to the player, more than a simple stability index out of 100, indicating how likely a civil war is. I think a few more city elements would have to be instituted to allow for this to be feasible, however, such as a small degree of city autonomy, and more city demands, necessitating attention on particular cities to stop them from becoming disloyal and starting a rebellion.

Argetnyx said:

I'm actually talking about after it started...

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps before we get to that, what would start them?

Camikaze said:

Well, perhaps before we get to that, what would start them?

Click to expand...

Pre-Civ 4, this is a solved problem; an unhappiness mechanic with actual teeth is what's called for here.

rysmiel said:

Pre-Civ 4, this is a solved problem; an unhappiness mechanic with actual teeth is what's called for here.

Click to expand...

yes, your suggestion would be a move in the right direction. still the pre-civ4 happiness model needs tweaks to really shine.

Happiness should be part of it, but it is not an entire solution. If, for example, unhappy cities form the core of your empire, then it is more likely that they wouldn't rebel, due to centralised power. Perhaps distance from palace would be a factor, alongside happiness, compliance with city demands, military strength in the area, etc. And other ideas?

Camikaze said:

Happiness should be part of it, but it is not an entire solution. If, for example, unhappy cities form the core of your empire, then it is more likely that they wouldn't rebel, due to centralised power. Perhaps distance from palace would be a factor, alongside happiness, compliance with city demands, military strength in the area, etc.

Click to expand...

This is already taken into account in the pre-Civ 4 model; distance from capital affects corruption, corruption affects income, reduces the impact of luxuries, therefore unhappinesss is rather directly modified with distance from capital. And as regards military strength, presence of military units in cities as military poolice affecting happiness in despotic governments, and unhappiness due to military being out adventuring in representative governments, are also already in.

I'm not saying it's perfect, I am saying it is a solid basis from which to develop.

rysmiel said:

This is already taken into account in the pre-Civ 4 model; distance from capital affects corruption, corruption affects income, reduces the impact of luxuries, therefore unhappinesss is rather directly modified with distance from capital. And as regards military strength, presence of military units in cities as military poolice affecting happiness in despotic governments, and unhappiness due to military being out adventuring in representative governments, are also already in.

I'm not saying it's perfect, I am saying it is a solid basis from which to develop.

Click to expand...

corruption is the key. since cities built far away from the capital should have a high corruption rate, their production will be low. but the player can rush buy improvements that decrease corruption. so why not not take into account the corruption rate when calculating rush buy costs? if corruption rate is, say, 80% than the cost of rush buying anything will be 5x normal. therefore the player will think twice before investing such sums in cities, located far away from the capital.

Hail said:

corruption is the key. since cities built far away from the capital should have a high corruption rate, their production will be low. but the player can rush buy improvements that decrease corruption. so why not not take into account the corruption rate when calculating rush buy costs? if corruption rate is, say, 80% than the cost of rush buying anything will be 5x normal. therefore the player will think twice before investing such sums in cities, located far away from the capital.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, definitely.

I am inclined to think that one useful way of of making this model more effective would be for corruption to effect both income and productivity, and for different improvements or other fixes to affect one OR the other OR both and cost appropriately. Another would be combining non-linear corruption penalties with governments that allow more over time so that significant growth of your empire requires and is enabled by changes of government model. Or having different governments change the variation of the corruption; so that there are some where it gets worse more or less smoothly, and others where it's very low in the core and increaes steeply thereafter.

As said Camikaze, the more important when it comes to rebellions is to define the circumtances that lead to them.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there are already enough threads about how rebellions start, I'm talking about what happens after the much discussed rebellions actually start. I am seeing a worrying lack of interest in this. The most important part, when it comes to rebellions, is not only the prerequisites, but the end product as well.

Okay, maybe we need another thread for what would cause the actual rebellions themselves. Such as this one.

I think that after a civil war, or rebellion, or whatever you want to call it, there are two factors that will determine what happen, and that need answering.

1. What control over cities will rebellious groups have?
2. Will rebellious groups act as new civilizations for all intents and purposes, or will they be more like barbarians, or something different entirely?

Camikaze said:

I think that after a civil war, or rebellion, or whatever you want to call it, there are two factors that will determine what happen, and that need answering.

1. What control over cities will rebellious groups have?

Click to expand...

1. 
   
   I'm inclined to think that if we have some mechanism that quantifies rebelliousness, that one could have civil disorder as per pre-Civ 4 up to a certain point, and that if it got worse - or was left unfixed for a certain span of time - one could then have declarations of independence, collapse of one's govenrment into anarchy, or both.
   
   

   [*]Will rebellious groups act as new civilizations for all intents and purposes, or will they be more like barbarians, or something different entirely?

   Click to expand...

I would favour a size threshold here, I think. Maybe a single city in revolt becomes barbarian but a group of cities in revolt together (for the same reasons ?) become a new civilisation ?

I am opposed to "something different entirely" unless someone comes up with a stunningly cool new model here; novelty for its wown sake is not my thing.

rysmiel said:

I'm inclined to think that if we have some mechanism that quantifies rebelliousness, that one could have civil disorder as per pre-Civ 4 up to a certain point, and that if it got worse - or was left unfixed for a certain span of time - one could then have declarations of independence, collapse of one's govenrment into anarchy, or both.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be good. But would it mean that rebels would have control over a city's production, buildings and units/

I would favour a size threshold here, I think. Maybe a single city in revolt becomes barbarian but a group of cities in revolt together (for the same reasons ?) become a new civilisation ?

Click to expand...

That is a good idea, although if the rebellion was in a powerful city, then it may be more powerful that some small civs on the map, and would therefore probably deserve some form of recognition as such. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have it so that rebellious groups act like colonies in Civ4 BtS, breaking off from the original civ and forming their own unique identity.

@the bolded part- that would be something interesting, and could lead to two separate rebellions within a civ at the same time.

I am opposed to "something different entirely" unless someone comes up with a stunningly cool new model here; novelty for its wown sake is not my thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have no idea what 'something else entirely' would be.

Camikaze said:

Yeah, that would be good. But would it mean that rebels would have control over a city's production, buildings and units/

Click to expand...

Onece they had declared independence, yeah. (Possibly with a small chance of losing individual buldings ? Do we want a model with differing degrees of violent rebellion<->peaceful succession ?)

That is a good idea, although if the rebellion was in a powerful city, then it may be more powerful that some small civs on the map, and would therefore probably deserve some form of recognition as such. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have it so that rebellious groups act like colonies in Civ4 BtS, breaking off from the original civ and forming their own unique identity.

Click to expand...

Query; do we want there to be a firm dividing line between other civs and barbarians other than size anyway ? I mean, if barbarians can take a city, should they not be then the equivalent of a one-city civ ?

@the bolded part- that would be something interesting, and could lead to two separate rebellions within a civ at the same time.

Click to expand...

Or to good empire management involving not getting into too many edgy situations at once.

I think I would like it if some consequence of this were a necessity to research in directions that let you upgrade government/civics every now and again, so that as your empire got bigger it would need more advanced methods of organisation to stay together.

rysmiel said:

Onece they had declared independence, yeah. (Possibly with a small chance of losing individual buldings ? Do we want a model with differing degrees of violent rebellion<->peaceful succession ?)

Click to expand...

The model should be based on two degrees, violent rebellion and peaceful succession. I don't see anything in between as particularly viable.

Control of cities brings forth the problem of individual citizens and their opinions. If there is a majority of citizens in a city that want rebellion (let's say, for argument's sake, all the unhappy ones), will the whole populace, including the unrebellious citizens, rebel and take over the city as one whole, or will only parts of the city work for the new regime? Perhaps a solution for this would be to have it so that those citizens that didn't want rebellion would go on strike for a certain time, or that there would be an unhappiness penalty within the city due to the rebellion.

Query; do we want there to be a firm dividing line between other civs and barbarians other than size anyway ? I mean, if barbarians can take a city, should they not be then the equivalent of a one-city civ ?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's best just to go with civs being civs and barbs being barbs, without blurring that line. Having rebellious groups as barbarians would only mean that other civs could come and take the city for themselves.

That brings up another point again. If there is a rebellious civ (that isn't viewed as legitimate by the original civ, obviously), and another civ decides to declare war and take all of its cities and keep them for themselves, will the original civ consider it an attack on their own territory, due to the fact that they would believe that they are the legitimate owners of that territory? And how long after true independence would this last?

Or to good empire management involving not getting into too many edgy situations at once.

I think I would like it if some consequence of this were a necessity to research in directions that let you upgrade government/civics every now and again, so that as your empire got bigger it would need more advanced methods of organisation to stay together.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the best way of implementing this would be to simply provide a instability penalty for older civics as time progresses (although that really belongs in the other thread).