Civilwar-inclined-civs

Loppan Torkel · Sep 7, 2004

Since there's a good chance civilwars and rebellions will be features of civ4, the civs could be differently inclined to rebellions and civilwars.
It wouldn't hurt if the civs were set apart by more things than traits and agg.level, and this wouldn't steer the game according to history too much either.
Balancing the game won't be a problem since there'll always be ways to make up the bad with some good. They will playtest and balance the game before release anyway....

Pook · Sep 7, 2004

I like the idea- but I'm wondering- if you implemented this- who would ever want to play a civilization that had a high tendency to civil war and rebellion?
One historical example I can think of is the Celts. Great warriors as individuals and in tribes, but it was only on rare occasions that the tribes united as one (the Boudicca rebellion, etc). Standard Roman policy was to play the tribes against each other. As one Roman general observed "If they had been inseparable they would have been insuperable."
It would certainly be challenging to play, knowing that at any moment your civ could crumble and turn in on itself.

Loppan Torkel · Sep 7, 2004

Every civ should of course be at risk of a civil war or rebellion depending on certain situations but some civs should be more inclined to it, and those who are should have other bonuses that weighs it up. It wouldn't have to be exactly the same bonuses since the civs would become even more unique if there were different advantages and disadvantages to the civs. There are probably plenty of things suggested that could balance it out....

Loppan Torkel · Sep 7, 2004

There could be a scale up to 5, like the agg.level, how breakable a civ would be.
The Scandinavians have been at each other plenty of times. If you equate the English as the British then you have the England-Scotland-Wales-Ireland conflicts. Spain should get something for the Basque-etc.thing. Germany have a history of heterogenesy(?). The American civilwar comes to mind. The Romans and Celts are already mentioned. Japan was pretty divided earlier.

One option would be to give the civs eras of higher risk of breaking up, which would balance it all out within the concept.

ybbor · Sep 7, 2004

maybe as a triat? like unified that would reduce civil war chance, but not as an independant factor

Dreadnought · Sep 7, 2004

@Loppan Torkel: Almost every country today has had at least 1 civil war.

Anyway, I voted don't care

Jake5555555 · Sep 7, 2004

Government should affect how breakupable the civs are.

Loppan Torkel · Sep 8, 2004

@Loppan Torkel: Almost every country today has had at least 1 civil war.

That's why they could make the scale from 1-5, they did an aggressionscale even though almost every country have been aggressive at some point in history....

Government should affect how breakupable the civs are.

Probably, I can't think of which governmenttypes would be at highest risk or so but it wouldn't rule out different risks for different civs to begin with.

maybe as a triat? like unified that would reduce civil war chance, but not as an independant factor

The risk of civilwar should depend on how you're playing, and there should be ways to reduce the risk, but if you're playing certain civs you should be more aware of the higher risk and don't play as carelessly as you might've done with other civs.

Elgalad · Sep 8, 2004

Easy solution: the balancing feature (varying levels) of the civil war susceptibility or resistance from it would only affect a civ played by the AI. If the civ were human controlled, it would either be automatically high susceptible or high resistance (as selected by the player on the options/preferences screen). That way, if a player wanted the possibility of their civ splintering they could have it, and if they didnt like the risk, they could disable it.

Sounds simple to me.

-Elgalad

tmarcl · Sep 8, 2004

On the other hand, I'd love to go back to the (Civ 2?) idea of when you capture a nation's capital, the country has a chance of falling into civil war (ie, splitting into 2 civs). If this were tied more into general unhappiness, rather than capturing the capital, I'd love to see it back.

Pook · Sep 8, 2004

There is already an entire civil war thread at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84798 to which I've already contributed several posts. Not that anyone reads them, but they are there. Perhaps this thread could be appended to the Civ 4 Civil War thread.

Loppan Torkel · Sep 8, 2004

Perhaps this thread could be appended to the Civ 4 Civil War thread.

?
Linking this thread in the other?

It's a problem when threads are too general, they have a tendency to grow too long and noone bothers to read them through.
I liked the idea of further distinguish the civs from each other by implementing different suscepibility of civilwars, and wanted to see if there were any interest in it.
..i hope you get it, can't come up with a better formulation at the time, feel free to correct me..

Exel · Sep 9, 2004

What nation has not had a civil war in its history? :rolleyes:

Loppan Torkel · Sep 9, 2004

Exel said:
What nation has not had a civil war in its history?

I don't get your point...

I don't know if every country in history has had a civil war, but even if they have, some civs might be more inclined to it, hence the scale 1-5.... like the aggressionlevel I already used as an example - most countries have been aggressive too at some point in history.

Of course you're free to disagree with me, but the point is not whether all countries have had a civil war, but whether it's a good idea or not to have different civs stable or unstable history represented and woven into the gameplay.

Pook · Sep 9, 2004

Loppan Torkel said:
?
Linking this thread in the other?

It's a problem when threads are too general, they have a tendency to grow too long and noone bothers to read them through.
I liked the idea of further distinguish the civs from each other by implementing different suscepibility of civilwars, and wanted to see if there were any interest in it.
..i hope you get it, can't come up with a better formulation at the time, feel free to correct me..

I would not dare correct you at all. I like your idea as part of an overall civil war model, that's all I was saying. I thought it would be easier for Firaxis to review (we can all dream, can't we?) if all the civil war related ideas were together.

Exel · Sep 9, 2004

Loppan Torkel said:
I don't know if every country in history has had a civil war, but even if they have, some civs might be more inclined to it, hence the scale 1-5.... like the aggressionlevel I already used as an example - most countries have been aggressive too at some point in history.

Of course you're free to disagree with me, but the point is not whether all countries have had a civil war, but whether it's a good idea or not to have different civs stable or unstable history represented and woven into the gameplay.

I don't think any civ should be more prone to fall into civil wars than another one. I don't think that the civil wars should be random by any means - they should only be the result of civ mismanagement, outside influences, etc. History knows not of any cultural civil war tendencies. They simply don't exist.

Loppan Torkel · Sep 9, 2004

Exel said:
I don't think any civ should be more prone to fall into civil wars than another one. I don't think that the civil wars should be random by any means - they should only be the result of civ mismanagement, outside influences, etc. History knows not of any cultural civil war tendencies. They simply don't exist.

The people of some civs might be more unruly than others, it doesn't make the civilwars random at all just another factor to take into account.
Haven't history shown that some people are more prone to rebellion than others?! and that some civs have a greater central power than others?!

I liked it when you had to wait to counquer Portugal or Scotland in Medieval: Total War just because you knew that they would rebell on you if you hadn't a major army to stay in the province...

Exel · Sep 9, 2004

Loppan Torkel said:
Haven't history shown that some people are more prone to rebellion than others?! and that some civs have a greater central power than others?!

Some nations have had more civil unrest than others, but I don't see it as a cultural phenomenon. Civil unrest occurs only if the people are unhappy, and it is the circumstances that create unhappiness, not culture or genes.

Loppan Torkel · Sep 9, 2004

Exel said:
Some nations have had more civil unrest than others, but I don't see it as a cultural phenomenon. Civil unrest occurs only if the people are unhappy, and it is the circumstances that create unhappiness, not culture or genes.

Ok, I get your point. However with this narrow definition of culture I fail to see how the traits and aggressionlevels manage to pass as cultural phenomenas.

As I see it culture forms through history and if the civs have a history of certain things you could call it culture, or something else, and make the civs unique by implementing these things.

Stid · Sep 9, 2004

civs in real life rebelled cos of their predicaments in relation to the current state of the country - not because theres something genetic inside them that says rebel.i disagree with this as civs in the game would have entirely different circumstances to those in real life its what makes the game great

Civilwar-inclined-civs

Civilwar-inclined-civs

yes

maybe

no

don't care/other

Deity

Bloviating

Deity

Deity

Will not change his avata

Deity

Warlord

Deity

Bully!

Prince

Bloviating

Deity

Prince

Deity

Bloviating

Prince

Deity

Prince

Deity

Warlord

Similar threads