Am I Only One Who's Looking Forward... Civil War And Civ Partition In Civ 7?

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The popularity of Paradox games with their constant rebellions and civil wars speaks otherwise... One of the most popular and beloved of them has been crusader kings 2 where your country splitting into mess was part of the core game loop, repeating again and again!
And because it was designed as a fun challenge, players have simply accepted it as a part of the feudal life cycle.

That doesn't happen much to players in CK3, though. And while there are lots of people on Paradox's forum regularly complaining about how much easier CK3 is than CK2, I think Paradox has decided that a lot of players don't want to experience setbacks. Obstacles to overcome, sure, but not obstacles that require any significant effort to overcome.

 

[gdr_willter]

but of course these would make you question why to event play well if you are going to be punished more.

Civil wars and Civ partitions don't directly mean the punishment to well-played one. They may set the trigger for those system, like partial failure to control and feed their empires minor and newer parts.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Civil wars and Civ partitions don't directly mean the punishment to well-played one. They may set the trigger for those system, like partial failure to control and feed their empires minor and newer parts.

I agree with independence wars (and others particular organic crisis) and want them in CIV. What I was talking about is the forced way crisis are presented in the CIV7's ages system.

For example previous CIV versions and other games (included the ones from Paradox) already have more natural ways to trigger revolutions and partitions from a bad management of your territories. I mean it is not the same to see players forcing too much the system until they broke it than get smashed by an inevitable hammer at some definite moment.

 

[gdr_willter]

I agree with independence wars (and others particular organic crisis) and want them in CIV. What I was talking about is the forced way crisis are presented in the CIV7's ages system.

I'm a light fan of hard Age transition system which is designed to give some distinguishable stages and tempo to the game, and to build more fit-to-age civ designs. So what I'm talking about is the crisis sytem as the natural result of the Age transition, rather than an unavoidable random encounter itself. This is kinda new one, and I don't think so that it needs to be like former games.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Crisis Civil War is one of many things that Civ gamers would have to get used to with the Civ VII system.

Civ has ALWAYS been about the Steady Upward Progress to Victory. Anything that impeded or even modified that in any negative way was to be avoided at all costs, including save-and-retry or rage quit.

But Civ VII has been designed specifically to change that.

You WILL be seriously impeded at every Crisis Period. That's what they are for. You WILL have to start 'fresh' (well, relatively fresh) with every new Age, whether you want to or not (at least until the Modders give us Forever Civs in Civ VII, which should be within the first week or days after release).

Those that cannot get used to it will either play only modded versions of the game or not play at all.

So, all the discussion about what players will accept is slightly off the point: the game is Designed to force them to accept a basic difference in how the game plays, and that will, inevitably, be utterly unacceptable to some no matter what other 'tweaks' - like Civil Wars - you add to the new system.

Meanwhile, those of us who have already decided to give the Age-and-Crisis type of Civ game a shot are not likely to be excessively put off by the fact that there is a new Civ in town from a break-away set of Cities/Settlements when the new Age starts.

Especially if that (potentially) happens to every Civ in the game, both Hummie and AI-run. In fact, that is likely to be more of an impediment to the AI opponents than to the human player, because the human player tends to be much more adept at finding loopholes or ways to 'game' such systems: as I have posted before, I frequently see AI Civs lose cities to 'Loyalty Flip' in Civ VI, but I quickly learned how to avoid it and it is simply not a problem for me - or, I suspect, any other human player. Expect a similar result from any Civil War system in Civil War VII: it may hit everyone, but the human player will react to it better than the AI and probably learn how to frequently turn it into an Advantage rather than a Set Back at the start of each new Age.

 

[Nikolai II]

Paradox themselves have said most players quit if they lose a big chunk of their country to war or rebellion. Players don’t mind civil wars *if they win*. If they lose they tend to quit.

I get that, only reason I manage to get through some real falls from grace in those games are because I write a lot of AARs and they make good stories - after a time out that is. I've written close to 50 AARs since 2015 now I think. More than 40 for sure.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think civil war would be fun for most people.

1. Anything that takes control away from the player is generally not fun.
2. Mechanics that very harshly punish a player that is losing usually just cause the player to abandon that playthrough.
3. AI players having their empires constantly split by civil war will become even weaker than they already are. And we certainly don't need that.

 

[gdr_willter]

I don't think civil war would be fun for most people...

We know that we already have the colony independence and the rebels caused by unpleasant in past Civ games. I just want to combine both dramatically, fiting them in the Age transition system.

 

[Nikolai II]

If not in (and I suspect it's not in as most people can stomach a volcano eruption giving a small setback, but not losing half your country), I hope it can be added in mods.

 

[AriochIV]

We know that we already have the colony independence and the rebels caused by unpleasant in past Civ games. I just want to combine both dramatically, fiting them in the Age transition system.

Having a city go into civil disobedience, spawning rebel units, or even rebelling or flipping to another empire is one thing. But having your empire split and losing half of it is punishment on a higher order or magnitude. There is challenge and then there is abuse.

That it's thematically appropriate to Crisis is not the question; the question is, how is it fun? For the typical player, I mean... not just the masochists. I wonder how many people regularly used the mode in Civ6 where you lose cities at the start of every era. I played it exactly once.

 

[gdr_willter]

But having your empire split and losing half of it is punishment on a higher order or magnitude. There is challenge and then there is abuse.

You are overstating my idea by generalizing like "every crisis will be a civil war without options or narratives", I told several times that the civil war as crisis will be triggered from unmanaged huge empire. Regardless it is a human or AI player, this kind of leaders deserve to face more hard challenges.

I can't continiue the conversation when the opposite is estimating me as masochist.

 

[AriochIV]

Never mind that. Explain how it is fun.

 

[Gedemon]

I would bet civ-splitting is not part of the base game, but the civ-switching ability should give the tools to do that in a cleaner way than civ6 or civ5 for mods.

I used a compensation system in my HK mod with civ-splitting based on next era choice and territory owned, you got back gold, production point and science points in you capital based on your previous era performance, kind of an advanced re-start mid-game. I loved it, but I also know it's not for every one, people were asking for an option to not lose any owned territories.

 

[Krikkit1]

Crisis Civil War is one of many things that Civ gamers would have to get used to with the Civ VII system.

Civ has ALWAYS been about the Steady Upward Progress to Victory. Anything that impeded or even modified that in any negative way was to be avoided at all costs, including save-and-retry or rage quit.

But Civ VII has been designed specifically to change that.

You WILL be seriously impeded at every Crisis Period. That's what they are for. You WILL have to start 'fresh' (well, relatively fresh) with every new Age, whether you want to or not (at least until the Modders give us Forever Civs in Civ VII, which should be within the first week or days after release).

Those that cannot get used to it will either play only modded versions of the game or not play at all.

So, all the discussion about what players will accept is slightly off the point: the game is Designed to force them to accept a basic difference in how the game plays, and that will, inevitably, be utterly unacceptable to some no matter what other 'tweaks' - like Civil Wars - you add to the new system.

Meanwhile, those of us who have already decided to give the Age-and-Crisis type of Civ game a shot are not likely to be excessively put off by the fact that there is a new Civ in town from a break-away set of Cities/Settlements when the new Age starts.

Especially if that (potentially) happens to every Civ in the game, both Hummie and AI-run. In fact, that is likely to be more of an impediment to the AI opponents than to the human player, because the human player tends to be much more adept at finding loopholes or ways to 'game' such systems: as I have posted before, I frequently see AI Civs lose cities to 'Loyalty Flip' in Civ VI, but I quickly learned how to avoid it and it is simply not a problem for me - or, I suspect, any other human player. Expect a similar result from any Civil War system in Civil War VII: it may hit everyone, but the human player will react to it better than the AI and probably learn how to frequently turn it into an Advantage rather than a Set Back at the start of each new Age.

On the Human v AI…hopefully that factors in into the difficulty level.

The severity of a Crisis should depend heavily on
1. how far you are ahead near the end of the Age (particularly in things you carry into the next age…ahead in tech, your advantage will be wiped out on age change anyways …ahead in territory, the Crisis is the only way to take that from you so it should be harsh)

2. Difficulty level & are you human or AI
on easiest level…the AIs will get destroyed on every Crisis
on hardest level, you will have to fight desperately to keep from collapsing while the AIs have a snowball fight.

 

[gdr_willter]

Never mind that. Explain how it is fun.

It definitely gives more interactive players in the later game. It worked well in Civ 4 and make the game more unforseeable.

It can be well designed to catch a balance and give reasonable challange. Actual partition could be a worst scenario that only caused when the player finally failed to deal with the crisis.

In better scenarios, it could be end with more moderate results like adding a completely new player who have some advanced start options of new age, adding a new player who only takes a few settlements of yours, adding several Independent Powers, or the perfect reunion of your entire empire even being more happy and solid.

The system of Civ 7 provides a lot of room for ideas put more dynamic events in mid game. The crisis will give us a possibility that can be both of reward and punishment. Think about the Emergency in Civ 6. And of course it can be fun!

 

[Nikolai II]

Players are varied. Some find such opposition fun, some find it game breaking.

 

[Pistol90]

For me most wanted feature ... if you could make it work with culture, religion, economics etc .. would be great.

Civ 6 started with free-cities, and just left mechanich with nothing more, half-finished

 

[Black Gate]

In Crusader Kings things like civil wars or losing territory during inheritance are fun... if you're roleplaying. When you see your opposition as your brother that stole your rightful lands (and juicy tax base), or that duke that's been a thorn in your side your entire reign, or the emperor you lose a war to and now submit to, the setbacks are fun and create a narrative to rise against. If you aren't, they're just another enemy to fight. Civ has never simulated the world on that level and is much more about constant improvement towards the end goal. With crises and the greater focus on your opposition being leaders, not civs, this is probably the best game to implement such features but even then I'm still not sure how well they would work. Crises are about rubberbanding for the sake of evening the playing field, and losing territory to rebellion would be a pretty big setback no matter how far ahead you were.

 

[Krikkit1]

In Crusader Kings things like civil wars or losing territory during inheritance are fun... if you're roleplaying. When you see your opposition as your brother that stole your rightful lands (and juicy tax base), or that duke that's been a thorn in your side your entire reign, or the emperor you lose a war to and now submit to, the setbacks are fun and create a narrative to rise against. If you aren't, they're just another enemy to fight. Civ has never simulated the world on that level and is much more about constant improvement towards the end goal. With crises and the greater focus on your opposition being leaders, not civs, this is probably the best game to implement such features but even then I'm still not sure how well they would work. Crises are about rubberbanding for the sake of evening the playing field, and losing territory to rebellion would be a pretty big setback no matter how far ahead you were.

It partially depends on which territory and how much.

If you wiped out another civ, a massive rebellion on that civs territory during the crisis would be good.

If you have massive amounts of territory far from your capital, then a big rebellion of Distant Territories during the Crisis would be good.

By not threatening your core (unless you really mess up) it’s not as much of a loss, (and then you can try to reabsorb the rebel provinces 1812 style)

 

[dagriggstar]

If you go for colonies I actually think it should be inevitable that they split off. The (game design) trick is that, you still want to found and develop them because while you have them they are worth like 50 gold per turn or something like that. Really good, but clearly temporary, boost to the rest of your empire.
That could be in the form of feeding your "core cities" distant resources that increase their yields or just having the extra gold to invest or whatever else you can think of along those lines.
You shouldn't feel cheated or whatever because you undertake the expedition with the mentality of "this is a temporary extension of my civilization, but the benefits I get while it's mine greatly outweigh the costs"