Bring Back the Civil Wars

[sir_schwick]

also revoultionary tendency should be measured to the instability caused by change. the more change(affluence, war, technology progress) should make maintaining solidarity difficult. now large empires would have to be careful or ready for problems when they import or develop really quickly.

 

[Arne]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, Arne.

Sure? I would think YOU are. *just joking*

I mean, even if the civsplitting is a feature for my neighbors to use against me, it still HAS to be fun FOR ME (= player) - otherwise leave it out. My point is not, what or how many things have some influence on rebellions or civ splitting. My pont is also not telling if civil wars/civsplittings are bad/good, my point is: How can civil wars etc. being implemented well, without stopping the flux of the game, an without make (some?) players going mad?

You know, Firaxis removed/replaced corruption, pollution etc. for that reason. They will hopefully ... not include something, that will work same way. If there will be only a simple message "Sire/Madam, we have lost a dozen cities becouse of civilwar/rebellion. " then I don't see how I could enjoy it in that way. If there - for example - will be created some "rebelling units", then that "fun" depend on how these units will be implemented and how smart the AI could use them and - last but not least - what these units can do. Are they able to capture badly defended towns or do they act like Civ3 barbarians? Will they just pillage? Will the birth of such rebelling units "cost" population points from my nearest city or have they no effect on my cities? Many things, that have influence on how much I will like the game.

 

[AndrewH]

hmmm. How would civil war work online?

 

[searcheagle]

hmmm. How would civil war work online?

MP should handle no differently then in the current game. Civil wars would affect all civs, not just you're own. So, there would be no difference in MP versus Single player, except one angry person on the other end.

 

[dh_epic]

Arne,

Rebellions would result in the secession of a few cities from your empire. But you'd probably get ample warning, unlike the current culture flip model that seems to happen almost spontaneously (even if it's somewhat predictable).

On top of the three P's -- predictable, preventable, provokable -- I could think of the following few things to keep the player sane and having fun.

1) Warning signs: strikes, protests, civil disorder, and so on... these should always precede a rebellion, and then by more than a few turns.

2) Provinces/Regions: if your cities could be automatically and intelligently grouped into provinces, this would allow you to more easily see when and where a rebellion would be likely to happen. Even if you had 6 major regions, you'd quickly be able to assess the overall happiness and rebel sentiment of these city-groups. And you'd also be able to recognize just where your borders would fracture, if civil war looks inevitable.

3) Surrender/Vassalization: you shouldn't have to conquer every last city to conquer a Civ. At least not all the time. Depending on other sets of factors, some civs would surrender to you if you destroyed the bulk of their army. Particularly in civil war, conquering 2 or 3 out of 6 cities could bring that region back under your control.

4) Minor Civs with Minor AI: If a competitive Civilization will play until the very last moment, a minor civilization is one that's just there for flavor. Minor Civs are only present to give the feeling that there are people in the world who act emotionally and rationally, instead of blindly competitive. Minor Civs do not play to win. Civil War would only produce minor civilizations, as opposed to major competitive civilizations. These minor civilizations would differ not only in AI temperment -- being less competitive. But they'd also be more willing to give up their sovereignty. They'd accept protectorates, surrender, and even vassalage more readily.

These factors would make civil wars easier to predict and thus prevent... as well as making the effects of rebellion much less disasterous, but still significant enough for you to care. Kind of like spinning out on a race course, you want them to lose some time, but not necessarily the whole race.

 

[searcheagle]

I think it would make the game interesting if efforts save a civil war from occuring, such as those that dh_epic was talking about, could cause problem on the home front. This would force the player to balance the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Needless to say, DH_Epic, that we are VERY much on the same page on this matter. Also, your point #4 ties very much into what I am trying to drum home in the Barbarians thread. Pointing out that having Minor Nations will give you more 'people' who you can relate with in a way OTHER than trying to beat them-or vice versa. People complain that Minor Nations will box players in, but not only do I not see that as a completely bad thing (rampant early expansion is, to me, one of the single most unbalancing elements of the game), I also feel that it is not completely true. As Minor nations are ruled by a 'minor AI', they might be MUCH more willing to join with you, or trade with you, than a major civ would-if their interests were served by doing so!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dr. Broom]

I would have to dissagree that civs would have a higher chance of rebellion during war, at least to an extent. If the war goes on forever and it has little cause people will become angier like during the Vietnam war. More frequently they support their government at a time of need such as in the Napoleonic wars or the World Wars and many others.

If a civ does rebel it should not automatically start attacking its mother civ, it should declare that it wants to be free of it and you as the player have an opportunity to say yes you can abolish ties with us and become your own nation or become your own nation? not if I have anything to do with it. Just imagine how annoying it would be if you just got done with a big war or didnt build a big army and you have a rebellion. Then how much more annoying would it be if the rebels wiped you out?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Dr. Boom, for me it will depend on HOW war weariness is handled.
For instance, War Weariness (as a happiness penalty) should rise and fall according to changing circumstances. For instance, a defensive war should cause WW to rise at a MUCH lower rate than a war fought on the other side of the world (and wars to defend/liberate allies should also count as 'defensive'), and militaristic civs should gain WW at a lower rate than, say, commercial and agricultrual civs. The resources you put into 'internal security' should also effect WW accumulation (to reflect propoganda), as should your levels of Nationalism and/or Theism. Another factor which should effect war weariness, though, is VICTORY/DEFEAT. If you lose lots of battles, lose cities, or lose lots of conscript/regular forces, then WW will rise. If, however, you WIN lots of engagements, then War Weariness may actually go DOWN to the point of getting 'War Happiness' !!
If War Weariness reduces happiness enough, then it should be a possible trigger for a civil war/rebellion!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Well, Dr. Boom, for me it will depend on HOW war weariness is handled.
For instance, War Weariness (as a happiness penalty) should rise and fall according to changing circumstances. For instance, a defensive war should cause WW to rise at a MUCH lower rate than a war fought on the other side of the world (and wars to defend/liberate allies should also count as 'defensive'), and militaristic civs should gain WW at a lower rate than, say, commercial and agricultrual civs. The resources you put into 'internal security' should also effect WW accumulation (to reflect propoganda), as should your levels of Nationalism and/or Theism. Another factor which should effect war weariness, though, is VICTORY/DEFEAT. If you lose lots of battles, lose cities, or lose lots of conscript/regular forces, then WW will rise. If, however, you WIN lots of engagements, then War Weariness may actually go DOWN to the point of getting 'War Happiness' !!
If War Weariness reduces happiness enough, then it should be a possible trigger for a civil war/rebellion!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Great idea; I had the idea for the Ecstatic citizen type, the polar opposite of the Resistor; he can only be of your nationality (i.e. if you're Egypt, only Egyptian citizens can become Ecstatic) who work better and reduce war weariness (explanation: if you have an Ecstatic citizen, it acts as an Entertainer, but only if the unhappiness is caused by WW) because of the firy, perhaps overzealous patriotism of the Ecstatics.

 

[dh_epic]

Just on the topic of what war does for your nation's unity...

I thiink it's obvious to say that it will generally have a unifying effect. You can even look at ancient Greece, with feuds between Sparta and Athens, until Persia loomed across the sea. And you can look at America today and remember 3 and a half years ago when our President had a 90% approval rating.

But it's obviously more complicated than that. The fact that they were attacked, instead of being the attacker... that has a much more unifying effect.

There are factors like how generally happy the were in the first place. If America had recently conquered Mexico, I figure the new Mexican-American region would be a bit more apathetic about 9/11. And probably antipathetic if they had to fight for their new ruler.

And there's an expression about people -- they don't like wars, they like WINNING wars. People were more enthusiastic about Iraq when it was going to be a quick march to Baghdad, the toppling of a statue, getting your flowers and candy, watching democracy flourish, then going home. Now that it's been drawn out for 2 years, with 200 billion dollars spent, and 1500 American casualties, it's an issue that divides the country.

But hey, speaking of Iraq, how about their unity?

 

[sealman]

I am still on the fence on this whole rebellion/civil war thing. I agree with Arne that it needs be implemented in such a way that it is fun for the casual player, not just us dieharders. However, until I see a proposal that leads me to belive that the whole concept will be fun and balance, I have to stay on the no side of the fence, even though the idea is promsising.

Dh_epic seems to be the most articultate proponent of the "for" cause and I hope that he becomes a play tester for CIV 4 because I believe that there will be some civil war/rebellion aspects to it. And he seems to have the best handle on how to make it fun and balanced.

 

[BlackBetsy]

dh_epic, you've had some truly brilliant thoughts on this subject.

Here's what I like the most:

(1) Civil War as a counterweight to overexpansion. Corruption now plays a part in that - you don't get much beyond your core territories but you can deny resources to the AI and still get some marginal production / ability to rush from the Optimal City Number + nth city. [Thought - why not make corruption in non-optimal cities make rushing more expensive? If it costs 100gp to rush in your capital, why not have it cost 200gp to rush in a city with 50% corruption?]. Having the risk that they rise up and form a new civilization with all your techs and your garrisons of units is a great balance to managing growth. If you throw 5 settlers out to rush to resources and to set favorable borders, that should come with a substantial risk. Much more so than culture flips on your border.

(2) The mini-civ, mini-AI, mini-goals are impressive concepts. I especially like the thought that civil wars are triggered by dissatisfaction over central authority and to force a new government. What if civil wars were more prevalent in certain types of government? Republics are already loose conferederations of city-states, but the Republic government provides huge tech advantages early in the game. What if the cost of that (beyond unit support) is the greater risk of breakaway regions? In addition, it seems to make a lot of sense that people would get cranky with Monarchy after Democracy and Communism are discovered. Monarchy is an ancient form of government and should cause discontent later on...civil war sounds like a good response. You could have three resolutions - (1) armed conquest of the rebelling region, with the same problems of resistors, culture flips to neighboring regions; (2) concessions to the mini-government - change in government form for X amount of turns, a minimum luxury slider of 20% for X amount of turns, or forced building of improvements that can only be changed by war-time mobilization; (3) permanent secession and founding of a new, rebel regime. All the while, your sci funding is screwed because you've lost 1/4 of your cities and have to build units to recapture them. In the meantime, you're fighting and killing the units you built, making you weaker vs. external threats. Nothing better could happen to an overly aggressive empire.

I don't agree that this is going to be something you can necessarily force on the AI - it seems like it could be an internal calculation based on size of empire vs. period in history, whether cities are connected by roads, whether cities are disconnected culturally, etc. There are already intricate rank corruption calculations that could be used as a starting point.

(3) I love how this would affect the domination-type game. Domination now is pretty easy if you get the right military units. Gimme armored units against rifles or infantry and I'm pretty much going to get a domination victory in 50 turns or fewer. Easy civil war would make domination rare like 100k cultural victory and make conquest a much more palatable option. I hardly ever go for conquest because domination just seems like a nature course to run.

(4) Civil wars caused by widespread disorder are a good idea. Now, disorder makes culture flips more likely, but who allows a city to go into disorder for more than a turn? A certain number of angry citizens in a "region" could cause a mass secession.

(5) How about introduce foreign interference? If you have a big empire, and a civil war happens, the foreign civs could "recognize" the rebels, which would essentially start a war with you. If the rebels are recognized by a certain number of civs (say a majority of existing civs or civs with a majority of culture not belonging to you), they can immediately become a new civ...and trade off all of your techs to the preexisting AI. Too delicious for words.

I can see civil wars being a massive braking mechanism for overexpansionism. It also may make the AI more formidable if you were limited to a certain number of cities. Right now, I think most humans beat AI simply because they have more cities instead of better cities.

 

[sealman]

(5) How about introduce foreign interference? If you have a big empire, and a civil war happens, the foreign civs could "recognize" the rebels, which would essentially start a war with you. If the rebels are recognized by a certain number of civs (say a majority of existing civs or civs with a majority of culture not belonging to you), they can immediately become a new civ...and trade off all of your techs to the preexisting AI. Too delicious for words.

There is one aspect I have not noticed before - techs. Who woud want their hard earned tech lead to suddenly vanish because of a civil war? Not me.

 

[dh_epic]

Good point. I actually think that a new civilization that comes into the game with nearly all of your technology is a dangerous thing for gameplay balance. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but seeing as civil war will produce minor civs that are not meant to be competitive, maybe the minor Civ AI would not trade techs they are "born" with. Only when they finally research something for themselves do they get the chance to trade.

Plenty of factors could increase the likelihood of civil war, and governments would have their own strengths and weaknesses in this regard.

Right now the balance is severely tipped towards expansionism, and perfectionism isn't a great strategy. This would put that back into balance -- while still making expansion viable. The effects of civil war and seperation should never be so severe that you lose the game. It should be a minor setback unless you really screw up and someone is especially powerful/smart in manipulating world affairs against you.

To use the analogy, your racecar should spin out and get passed by a few people, not explode completely. And if you manage to get another car to spin out, it could shift the momentum in your favor.

 

[Aramda Master]

Instead of a culture flips, cities, en mass, rebel agianst your empire. In some cities, you are automatically lose, others partasians apper in the countryside. They mess around untill you crush them, or make peace with you.

Not all flips are caused by Culture. Sometimes citizens revolt due to pronganda.

 

[Corvex]

Tying this in with the idea of provinces, you should have entire provinces (rather than cities) all separating at a time. However, there should be a special 'Partisan' unit that can be built after the discovery of nationalism. These units are relatively weak, but when you put it into a city, it will not separate when the province rebels (it will just trigger some riots, which may, depending on how the game is set-up, be enough to kill the partisan). When the partisan is destroyed (during a rebellion), the city will separate. These partisans should have no effect in provincial capitals (if there are provincial capitals).

 

[cidknee]

Tying this in with the idea of provinces, you should have entire provinces (rather than cities) all separating at a time. However, there should be a special 'Partisan' unit that can be built after the discovery of nationalism. These units are relatively weak, but when you put it into a city, it will not separate when the province rebels (it will just trigger some riots, which may, depending on how the game is set-up, be enough to kill the partisan). When the partisan is destroyed (during a rebellion), the city will separate. These partisans should have no effect in provincial capitals (if there are provincial capitals).

sooo u wanna call this Quebec? lol

 

[sir_schwick]

I liked the Civ 2 system where Geurilla Warfare gave you free partisans whenever a city was taken. Of course measures would need to be taken to prevent players from preventing this. Geurilla units are an obvious fill in for this role, and maybe a city should generate as much as one geurilla unit per pop point. It would make modern war more interesting, or at least not as 'crush your enemies in one turn' able.

 

[azzacanth]

I dont agree that a rebellious civ should have all of your tech. I mean if the people of Washington state decided to rebell, would we have access to all of the information about the most recent classified research, for example all of the research being done in propulsion lately? Not likely! Makes no sense that an area in civil disorder would have full access to all the technology of the original, commanding civ. Maybe have a maximum level for the rebelling nation to be "behind" (like half a tech age or something). Then beyond that the rebelling nation could have a % of the techs based maybe on things like how much of the civ is rebelling, and whether the cities in the rebelling nation were some of the bigger science (beaker) producers in the original nation. (since obviously the higher research cities would have more of the recent techs available to them)