Civil war in civ 4

[apatheist]

Of course there was Hitler who went out with suicide. After his death no German had the strength to prevent Germany to become East and West. Of course it was less of a civil war than a country being made a vassal or satellite state. More military governance... so I've negated my own point. But it was split in two!

Germany wasn't split in two after the war. Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and de Gaulle agreed well before the end of the war that Germany would be split into 4 zones of control, one for each of those powers. It just so happened that the USA, UK, and France decided that the 3 zones they occupied should be merged into a single state.

Originally posted by Belcarius
I'ev said it before: that is a very illogical reason to cause a Civil war. Can you think of any country which has ever split into two in the face of invasion?

The Byzantine Empire in 1204 for one.

Was that a result of the invasion, or did it merely coincide with it? Was the invasion just the straw that broke the camel's back?

 

[Ochylski]

That's why I said could not Prevent Germany being split in two and more military governance. What I said wasn't very clear though. In the event of a civil war, there could be one nation led by an authoritarian government and one still controlled by the government but in unrest... not necessarily anarchy. And the conquering civ would be restrained by the senate or the people or something. This gets back to another topic about military occupation...

 

[Joey_Ramone]

It would be interesting if your capital city was taken and then this would cause a seperation in your country, like a small section un-happy with the way you are deffending the country, they would divide into a small section. The smaller country might even try to seek alliances with former enemies if you try to take back your former territory.

This is how it occured in previous civs and I think this works really well. It adds a whole new dynamic and actually has a meaning to the capital city and gives incentive to attack/defend capital cities. The way it is now the Capital just moves to another city automatically with no penalty which IMO takes out the fun.

 

[Godwynn]

Keep the civil disorders down or we will split from the empire! A wondrous idea!

 

[Corvex]

The way I see it, if a capital is taken and a government exterminated, then the people will be more united than ever for the cause of forcing the invaders out of their country. It is only when that war is over that a civil war may erupt (think about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Losing your Capital-as I have stated in previous posts on this subject-should only be one factor in determining if a city breaks away or not-but should not be the fundamental cause. Ultimately, the causes of civil war should be major religious and/or socio-politcal upheavals or-failing that-any other kind of major change (such as when a nation starts a war, or makes peace; loses its capital; makes diplomatic contact with another nation; suffers a major disaster-such as plague-or enters a completely new technological age.)
Even then, these causes should not themselves determine if you enter civil war or not (or else it would always be happening). Instead unhappiness, poor culture, poor health, ethnic/religious diversity, civics settings, distance from the capital and/or lack of a decent garrison should be the factors which determine how likely a city is to go or stay. The way that losing your capital effects this is that the Distance element (X), will be set to its maximum possible setting for all cities-thus boosting any inherent chance of secession, at least until a new capital can be founded (at a cost). However, this distance factor means nothing if no-one in your cities is unhappy.
Anyway, check out the model Meleager mentioned to get a better idea of what I am on about.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

There is a very simple reason why you won't find civil war in Civ IV. It's the same reason why they've eliminated culture flips: losing cities through some sort of a random mechanism (i.e. anything other than it being captured by an enemy civilization) just isn't fun.

Losing your capital is bad enough. Imagine if an AI ROP-rapes you, takes your capital and half of your cities become another AI. At that point, most players would almost certainly give up in disgust. Cultural flips and civil war are far more fun havoc to inflict on other players, but are extremely frustrating to experience after you've spent lots of time building improvements, micromanaging, capturing a city or sending a settler there, etc. Now multiply the effort put into one city that gets culture flipped and multiply that by half of your empire.

Imagine if you could loss half your empire randomly through an event over which we have even less control than losing your capital, such as those suggested by Aussie_Lurker. If you think people curse the RNG gods now...

Civilization is not meant to be a realistic enactment of history -- if that were the case, a single leader (you) would not have complete control over a civilization for 6000 years! The fun part about Civ games is having that control, and anything that takes away from that needs to be considered very, very carefully.

 

[Drakan]

Civil wars is a great idea. Had them back in Civ II why not in Civ IV ?

 

[Superkrest]

The way I see it, if a capital is taken and a government exterminated, then the people will be more united than ever for the cause of forcing the invaders out of their country. It is only when that war is over that a civil war may erupt (think about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

any american who has read anything of its own history should think losing your capital as a pretence for civil war is a horrible idea. the war of 1812 should have made the US a colony again..but after the saking of washington..the americans found an unheard of strenght and repealed all other advancments. id have to say that if civil wars are implented ...unhappy cities should be the cause..not an outside force. in all honest its a very new concept for on nation incite civil war in another nation..theres rarely any benifit...supporting of the rebel side is common..but the war was most likely started by internal termoil...i hate the idea of "loose your capital...loose your empire" ..it makes no sense.

 

[jkp1187]

Not at all -- you're presupposing that nationality and empire all equal the same thing. This is somewhat true today; for most of human history it was NOT. Most empires were multinational and had numerous subjects who were kept in check only by the power of the central government/king/dictator. One reason the European empires collapsed so quickly after WW2 was that, except the UK, they had all been defeated and occupied. In some cases, people in the former imperial holdings of those empires actually began running things for themselves and resisted restoration of the empire. (Properly construed, the Indochina and Algerian wars were a "civil war" within the French empire. Ditto the Dutch war in Indonesia.) Other excellent examples include the collapse of the Spanish and Portugese empires in Latin America due to Napoleon's occupation of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808-14. And let's not forget little demilitarized Iceland's declaration of independence in 1944, while Denmark was busy being occupied by the Nazis!

If the center collapses, parties on the fringes will move to take advantage. Let's not take World War II in Russia as the paradigm of how countries and peoples behave during wartime. If an entire people is faced with subjugation and annihilation, it's easier for them to stay together and even support a Stalin to prevent that outcome. In a normal, non-revolutionary, "balance of power" situation, people will behave differently.

 

[Superkrest]

i simply feel that the loosing of a capital should not be the only pretext for a civil war..it happens..but most revolutions or civil wars are cause by internal termoil or unhappiness. i think it better repersented by city happiness, war weariness, or a defunct and outdated civic(slavery or religious freedoms) this would also have counters..and be up to the player..not the enemy civ...if the capital was the pretext then i know what my tactic would be..storm the capital...every time. and what if a small benine civ manages to get a number of troops next to your capital and invades suddenly...boom...your massive empire is split..in realiaty ..i think the larger civ would unite stronger and smolt the ruins of the little civ. it opens to much possibility of abuse.

 

[doronron]

Let's put it this way. Losing your capital should cause those cities you conquered or acquired through "peaceful" means from other civilizations to revert to their previous owner. However, Civil Wars should have more than one cause: unhappiness over governmental policies or religion, a rival general, etc. -- not just the loss of the capital.

 

[Princeps]

Many civil wars, in humanity's history, I think, are not caused by the people, but rather by disloyal generals, governors and other leading officials, such as feudal dukes and barons.

These rebel-officials in turn, bring some of the people into their cause, and take their armies into the civil war against the government.

 

[searcheagle]

There is a very simple reason why you won't find civil war in Civ IV. It's the same reason why they've eliminated culture flips: losing cities through some sort of a random mechanism (i.e. anything other than it being captured by an enemy civilization) just isn't fun.

Disagree-The reason flips were hated were because they were SUDDEN, Without WARNING, AND without much the player can do about it.

Losing your capital is bad enough. Imagine if an AI ROP-rapes you, takes your capital and half of your cities become another AI. At that point, most players would almost certainly give up in disgust. Cultural flips and civil war are far more fun havoc to inflict on other players, but are extremely frustrating to experience after you've spent lots of time building improvements, micromanaging, capturing a city or sending a settler there, etc. Now multiply the effort put into one city that gets culture flipped and multiply that by half of your empire.

I don't think most people liked capital lose causing civil war, except of course to do it to an opponent. I certainly do not.

Imagine if you could loss half your empire randomly through an event over which we have even less control than losing your capital, such as those suggested by Aussie_Lurker. If you think people curse the RNG gods now...

Aussie's proposal was not for a lose of half an empire. Rather it was for provinces, especially those on the far reaches, which have been very unhappy and feel alienated from the main city. AND you would have warnings of these actions.

Civilization is not meant to be a realistic enactment of history

Agreed in the sense that it was not designed to be a simulator, it was designed to be a game.

-- if that were the case, a single leader (you) would not have complete control over a civilization for 6000 years! The fun part about Civ games is having that control, and anything that takes away from that needs to be considered very, very carefully.

I think most people want to make this botha fun game and a quasi Real World Simulator.

Side note: Post Number 800!

 

[DAv2003]

I think a good option would be that a civil war threat would increase during a period of Anarchy between governments. Your most distant and unhappy cities will be in great risk of seceding from your Empire into a nation of their own. Only if the cities have a good amount of culture in them or surrounding them will they remain.

 

[jkp1187]

i simply feel that the loosing of a capital should not be the only pretext for a civil war..it happens..but most revolutions or civil wars are cause by internal termoil or unhappiness. i think it better repersented by city happiness, war weariness, or a defunct and outdated civic(slavery or religious freedoms) this would also have counters..and be up to the player..not the enemy civ...if the capital was the pretext then i know what my tactic would be..storm the capital...every time. and what if a small benine civ manages to get a number of troops next to your capital and invades suddenly...boom...your massive empire is split..in realiaty ..i think the larger civ would unite stronger and smolt the ruins of the little civ. it opens to much possibility of abuse.

Agreed. But the capital/civil war thing is easier to implement by the programmers, whereas other things are not. And while harsh, it could be considered a fair rule, as long as it's implemented fairly, with objective criteria. Other civil war scenarios might bring back bad memories of the "culture flips" from Civ III, which often happened without warning, seemingly done capriciously by the AI, to damage the human player at a particularly inopportune time. (At least, that's how it seems to me sometimes!)

 

[Superkrest]

i definitly agree that it would be easier to implement..and i want civil wars..but not if it is implemented like that. id assume not have them then have them through the easy route

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

Disagree-The reason flips were hated were because they were SUDDEN, Without WARNING, AND without much the player can do about it.

That's essentially what I meant by "random." You're right though: any implementation of civil war needs to be both easilly forseeable and avertable, at the very least.

Aussie's proposal was not for a lose of half an empire. Rather it was for provinces, especially those on the far reaches, which have been very unhappy and feel alienated from the main city. AND you would have warnings of these actions.

This is much more reasonable. But at the very least, I would restrict it to:

1. Only border cities. Preferably far removed from your empire.
2. Only small and/or low culture cities.
3. Cities that have little military presence.

But we're nearly back to culture flips already. And "civil war" is fundamentally different than that -- an actual war between two substantial factions of a civilization. In Civ terms, civil war is an interesting mechanic but means almost certain doom for the civilization which suffers from it, unless they already had a major head-start and the factions make peace or one wins quickly.

One vitally important thing to avoid with civil wars is a, uh, "reverse snowball" effect. Civil wars triggering upon losing your capital is especially bad because you're already likely in danger of being conquered and now you've lost even more of your empire due to a random effect.

Speaking from personal experience, losing a city, under any circumstances, can be infuriating. I've learned to deal with culture flips when invading another civ, but in the midst of a war I can simply recapture the city.

I'm trying to think of context in which I would not be very angry about a civil war. I suppose the mechanic would have to be entirely predictable and avoidable, such as happiness and civil disorder. But that just adds an entire additional level of micromanagement.

 

[Corvex]

What would work woulc be the provincial model (wherein provinces are more likely to separate if they feel alienated or if they have ethnic, religious or economic differences). When a capital is conquered, the civilization could be thrown into a brief period of anarchy, during which time these provinces are likely to 'take advantage' of the civilization by seceeding. For example, say that you are a predominatly christian civilization. Off of your coast, there's an island province of your territory which is somewhat poorer than the average and has a majority jewish population. There's been some minor unrest there (this may be a good way to incorporate 'terrorism' as a random event), but you can keep them in check. Then one day, your neighbour invades you in an unprovoked assault and siezes your imperial capital. In the ensuing chaos, a coup takes place on your island, and it declares independence.
As you can see, this is a much more realistic and much more reasonable scenario than half of your cities arbitrarily betraying you for no real reason. Once the war is resloved, it should be easy enough to recapture this province...and it doesn't even really have to seceed, it's just more likely too. Nor is it only the loss of a capital which can make this happen; it could be triggered by unpopular policies (in the example noted, curtailing religious freedoms) or even by economic downturns.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To me, Secession (a better and broader term than Civil War BTW ) should follow the DH_Epic rules of "The 3 P's". Namely, they should be:

1) Predictable : Though a player should never be 100% certain of the likelihood of secession, a quick look at his nation should give him a reasonably good idea of the likelihood. Clusters of cities which are unhappy -particularly if they are also unhealthy, distant, and ethnically/religiously diverse should catch the players attention, and encourage them to do something to fix the problem before it gets 'out of hand'. This predictability would be very easily achievable, IMO, with the new WYSIWYG interface.

2) Preventable : A player should, through dint of good high-level management (not micromanagement), be able to completely prevent Secessions from occuring. Keeping your nation small or-failing that-ethnically homogeneous and/or governmentally Devolved should help, as would avoiding uneccessary-or unecessarily long -conflicts. Avoiding frequent socio-political and religious upheaval would also help and, if all else fails, boosting funding to culture/entertainment and/or domestic propoganda.

3) Provokable : A player should, through good use of Intelligence and Covert Operations, be able to detect the weak links in another civilization, and be able to exploit them in such a way as to cause a secession in that nation. With a half-way decent diplomacy system and-hopefully-decent minor nations, this last element could radically alter the dynamic of the game and prove the ultimate 'death-blow' for the Ever Expanding Juggernaut/Snowball Effect which plagues the other games.


Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.