Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
and then, what about of the civil war itself? which cities should be of the rebel side, and which should be in our side?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Civil War
- Thread starter Comrade Pedro
- Start date
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
and then, what about of the civil war itself? what cities should be the rebel side, and what should be in our side?
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
and then, what about of the civil war itself? which cities should be of the rebel side, and which should be in our side?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
When I think of Civil War, I don't just think of "a country divided exactly in half, fighting against one another". I also think of a small breakaway state of 3 cities. I also think of a breakaway state that might do so amicably. I also think of a country that was conquered hundreds of years ago claiming its independence. So there's a lot of different contexts.
I think a lot of it would be tied to where the seperatist sentiment starts. It would start in a city that is very unhappy. As soon as a civil war actually happened, that city would be the first to go.
The algorithm would then determine which neighbouring cities would follow. It would look at all the neighbouring cities, and for a certain set of factors, they would be more likely (but not guaranteed) to follow.
- Being seperated by a river or mountains would lower the probability that city would follow the first city into a new state.
- Being founded or conquered at very close times (e.g.: one in 1700, one in 1750) would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state.
- Having more foreign nationals would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state
- Having a lot of unhappiness would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state
- If you add a culture spreading model, then you could look for cultural differences too (e.g.: cultural similarity would cause a neighbouring city to follow)
Basically, the whole thing would be a chain reaction. Cities that are similar would follow the rebelling city. Cities that are seperated by a different culture, different history, different quality of life, or different geography would be less likely to follow.
This could also be a model for determining provincial/regional borders within a Civilization. Similar levels of foreign nationals, cultural similarity, being founded/conquered around the same time, and being delimited into a similar geographic region (by mountains, rivers, or islands) would cause a group of cities to be automatically grouped as a province. Thus, civil war would occur usually at a provincial/regional level, with one province/region trying to earn its independence.
I think a lot of it would be tied to where the seperatist sentiment starts. It would start in a city that is very unhappy. As soon as a civil war actually happened, that city would be the first to go.
The algorithm would then determine which neighbouring cities would follow. It would look at all the neighbouring cities, and for a certain set of factors, they would be more likely (but not guaranteed) to follow.
- Being seperated by a river or mountains would lower the probability that city would follow the first city into a new state.
- Being founded or conquered at very close times (e.g.: one in 1700, one in 1750) would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state.
- Having more foreign nationals would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state
- Having a lot of unhappiness would increase the probability it follows the first city into a new state
- If you add a culture spreading model, then you could look for cultural differences too (e.g.: cultural similarity would cause a neighbouring city to follow)
Basically, the whole thing would be a chain reaction. Cities that are similar would follow the rebelling city. Cities that are seperated by a different culture, different history, different quality of life, or different geography would be less likely to follow.
This could also be a model for determining provincial/regional borders within a Civilization. Similar levels of foreign nationals, cultural similarity, being founded/conquered around the same time, and being delimited into a similar geographic region (by mountains, rivers, or islands) would cause a group of cities to be automatically grouped as a province. Thus, civil war would occur usually at a provincial/regional level, with one province/region trying to earn its independence.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
I totally agree with you. Civil wars wasn't just one faction fighting agaisnt another. It could exist various ones, depending on how much government types is available, as well as cultural and the other elements that you refered.
majk-iii
Eeh?
i'm thinking that before, for example nationalism, even army-units could rebel for no real reason other then a leaders ambitions. (caesar?)
majk-iii
Eeh?
or that some strong cities could demand greater autonomy... if granted, they remain a loyal part of the empire, but you can only make a couple of general governor-overrides depending on their level of autonomy. if not granted they might try to take it and, if they win, form a new civ... and if they loose, they'll still be yours, but since you're forcing them, it'll take time for them to once again become full citizens... and if you're fully literate/modern this could, if wery bloody, the oppressed cities might cause other cities to become unhappier. ...this sort of mecanics could sometimes even be about forms of goverment... like you go to fascism in a not so favorable climat... and three of your five armies together with a couple of cities revolt... a war starts and the whole country's tossed into lets say communism after your fascist troops are killed or have given up their fight... or even changed sides.
This would have to have a lot of parameters or it would be to easy to manipulate your neighbors into civil war, and then move in.
This would have to have a lot of parameters or it would be to easy to manipulate your neighbors into civil war, and then move in.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
At what point would a city or region demand greater autonomy? Well, I mentioned some stuff in an earlier post, in that just being *different* from your empire would be enough to make unhappiness have more sweeping effects.
But to take a step backwards in abstraction, Civil War is simply impossible unless you give greater autonomy to the cities. The cities need to have their own forces, their own impulses, and part of your job should be to satisfy and manipulate these impulses. I could really only see it coming from two places.
1) The citizens (what I talk about when I look at culture and such).
2) The leader of the city (haven't really focused on this, but in theory, a civil war is just a war within a nation. If a city has a leader who has certain impulses that are incompatible with what you're doing, they could just as well rise up.)
I think #1 is easier to model, though.
But to take a step backwards in abstraction, Civil War is simply impossible unless you give greater autonomy to the cities. The cities need to have their own forces, their own impulses, and part of your job should be to satisfy and manipulate these impulses. I could really only see it coming from two places.
1) The citizens (what I talk about when I look at culture and such).
2) The leader of the city (haven't really focused on this, but in theory, a civil war is just a war within a nation. If a city has a leader who has certain impulses that are incompatible with what you're doing, they could just as well rise up.)
I think #1 is easier to model, though.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
That's because those military units was too much dependent on his military leader(caesar)....majk-iii said:
Roman civil war happened because soldiers no longer served the Senate of Rome, but served their generals....
majk-iii
Eeh?
Comrade Pedro said:
Yes... and i understand that it's probably to complex to implement in the game... but still.
majk-iii
Eeh?
the same has been the case in all less centralized societies, like for example feudal europe... like i said, i'm not sure myself on how to put it in the game... but if possible, it could prove pretty cool.
majk-iii
Eeh?
...Possibly if the different types of government in the game weren't so static, but instead at certain points in the game you would arrive at "legal crossroads" where you can choose one out of several paths. Like: more or less central power, cut religious organisations off their monetary holdings or bend to them even more... wage laborers versus indetured serfs, feudal lords or state army... magna charta-type law or rule by decree... and so on...
Now, depending on how your empire's evolved so far, different decisions will have different ramafications. Like: the stronger the nobility's getting, the more dangerous it will be to try to lessen their grip, but thats when you want them gone the most... if you however feel that the people are with you for whatever reason, it might not be so dangerous after all.
Civ4 should put more emphasis on exactly WHY certain unhappiness occur, against what/whom, and what you can do with it.
And as the techs roll in and libraries are put up it would create a growing preassure for some amount of libertarian reforms... unless of course the country's allready cemented a greater religous aproach. Theese and more choices, all with pros and cons and so on... like the rest of Civilization it should make for a big complicated system thats easy to learn and funny to play.
Now, depending on how your empire's evolved so far, different decisions will have different ramafications. Like: the stronger the nobility's getting, the more dangerous it will be to try to lessen their grip, but thats when you want them gone the most... if you however feel that the people are with you for whatever reason, it might not be so dangerous after all.
Civ4 should put more emphasis on exactly WHY certain unhappiness occur, against what/whom, and what you can do with it.
And as the techs roll in and libraries are put up it would create a growing preassure for some amount of libertarian reforms... unless of course the country's allready cemented a greater religous aproach. Theese and more choices, all with pros and cons and so on... like the rest of Civilization it should make for a big complicated system thats easy to learn and funny to play.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
i see your point and agreed with you, but that huge changes to the game would be very difficult to do.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
Another ideia is the distribution of the military units to each faction, when the civil war happens in Liberal and in Non-Liberal governments. If the country is an liberal one, the military units will get more dispersed between the factions. In a non-liberal one, the military units tend to stay loyal, because the fear and discipline methods used in dictatorship. The happiness in the cities is also ruled by this aspect, i think.....
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Except cases where the civil war is caused by a military coup...
It's true, there's a lot of difficulty in the details of a civil war model. The key to a successful one is to not take away too much control from the player, while empowering players to shake their neighbours into civil war with propaganda and other mechanisms... and keeping it simple that you model the essence, but not necessarily the very letter of civil war.
It's true, there's a lot of difficulty in the details of a civil war model. The key to a successful one is to not take away too much control from the player, while empowering players to shake their neighbours into civil war with propaganda and other mechanisms... and keeping it simple that you model the essence, but not necessarily the very letter of civil war.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
Other new thing is to cause civil war in other civs, throughout propaganda. (sorry if anything said that before)
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I definitely like that idea. Messing with another nation's happiness, maybe a culture group within that civilization... to me that's one of the most interesting ideas about civil war -- interference.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
and the help of other civ to a faction of the civil war is also a matter of thinking....
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I agree with DH that player control must be maintained to a fairly high degree, but should NEVER be absolute! There should always be a certain 'Wildcard' element in whether or not a civil war or rebellion should occur. One possible wild card could be keeping actual happiness levels secret, and instead simply describing citizens' mood using a simply adjective-like content, happy, ecstatic or very angry, defiant, rebellious. Each of these moods would relate to a specific happiness range (like 0-10%, 45-55% etc), but you won't know EXACTLY where within that range your people currently are (unless you are a MM FREAK who checks ALL of his cities every single turn 
!)
Another thing I would like to see is splitting the concept of 'civil disorder' into different types-namely 'revolt/rebellion', 'religious schism' and 'civil war'.
1) A revolt/rebellion occurs when a particular 'faction' of your society becomes especially unhappy. Whether a faction can and will revolt would depend on a combination of that factions happiness level AND current influence. If you enter the 'danger zone' for a revolt, your domestic advisor will warn you and even give you a hint at what the faction is demanding.
The nature of a revolt, when it occurs, would depend on the faction behind it. So a workers revolt might lead to a huge loss of shields, a mlitary revolt might cause you to lose control of many of your units and loss of military production and a religious revolt might lead to you losing much of the happiness and culture created from your religious buildings. Also, if a revolt continues unabated, cities containing a high % of the rebelling faction have a chance of units and buildings being damaged. Eventually, cities dominated by the faction might break away in a civil war (see (3) below). You can prevent or put down a revolt by either acquiescing to their demands (via government change, social engineering change or building of units and/or buildings etc) or by cracking down on them hard-via Military Police or social engineering adjustments. The latter course, if not done right, may have the opposite effect, however, or merely create a 'band-aid' solution. Lastly, a general rebellion can ensue if average happiness drops below a certain critical level. The effect of this would be much like the anarchy period which currently ensues when you change government in civ3.
2) Religious schisms occur when a city containing a large number of people from a foreign religion ecclesiastically break away from your nation. Though you retain some control over the city, any religious buildings you have there cease to produce happiness and/or religious culture for you. In addition, rival civs from the foreign religion may build their religious buildings in that city. Lastly, a religious schism increases the likelihood of that city 'breaking away' at a later date (again, see (3) below).
3) Civil War is when one or more cities break away from your empire. Certain critical events can act as 'POTENTIAL' triggers for a civil war, which are:
(a) happiness dropping below a critical level.
(b) Crime/corruption rising above a critical level.
(c) The ratio of Foreign:Native culture rising too high.
(d) Loss of your capital.
(e) A rebellion/revolt.
(f) A religious schism.
(g) foreign propaganda.
(h) changing government.
If a trigger event occurs, you will be warned by your domestic advisor of potential trouble. Any time after the trigger event, however, your city(s) can break away. The chance of this actually happening would be based on:
(a) the city's happiness levels.
(b) its corruption/crime levels.
(c) the city's distance from the capital.
(d) the # and strength of all units in that city.
(e) proximity to another secessionist city.
(f) # of foreign nationals in your city.
(g) ratio of foriegn:native culture.
(h) If the city is already in revolt and/or religious schism.
If a single city breaks away, it will usually join up with a neighbouring power (either minor or major), wheras if a collection of cities all break away at once, then they will usually band together as a new nation (again, either minor and major).
As you can see in all of the three examples I have cited, the chance of civil disorder is NEVER completely random-instead being based on 'pseudo' predictable algorithms. A small, well-run and content nation-state will almost certainly NEVER suffer from civil disorder, wheras large sprawling empires which rule through fear and conquest will almost CERTAINLY suffer a civil war at some point in their lifetime. Of course, there is a very small, random element in this, but the majority of it is decided by in-game player actions (either of the nation itself or one of its rivals). The thing is that these examples, along with other 'pseudo-random' events, would go a VERY long way to preventing the current 'snowballing' phenomenon which is endemic in the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!)Another thing I would like to see is splitting the concept of 'civil disorder' into different types-namely 'revolt/rebellion', 'religious schism' and 'civil war'.
1) A revolt/rebellion occurs when a particular 'faction' of your society becomes especially unhappy. Whether a faction can and will revolt would depend on a combination of that factions happiness level AND current influence. If you enter the 'danger zone' for a revolt, your domestic advisor will warn you and even give you a hint at what the faction is demanding.
The nature of a revolt, when it occurs, would depend on the faction behind it. So a workers revolt might lead to a huge loss of shields, a mlitary revolt might cause you to lose control of many of your units and loss of military production and a religious revolt might lead to you losing much of the happiness and culture created from your religious buildings. Also, if a revolt continues unabated, cities containing a high % of the rebelling faction have a chance of units and buildings being damaged. Eventually, cities dominated by the faction might break away in a civil war (see (3) below). You can prevent or put down a revolt by either acquiescing to their demands (via government change, social engineering change or building of units and/or buildings etc) or by cracking down on them hard-via Military Police or social engineering adjustments. The latter course, if not done right, may have the opposite effect, however, or merely create a 'band-aid' solution. Lastly, a general rebellion can ensue if average happiness drops below a certain critical level. The effect of this would be much like the anarchy period which currently ensues when you change government in civ3.
2) Religious schisms occur when a city containing a large number of people from a foreign religion ecclesiastically break away from your nation. Though you retain some control over the city, any religious buildings you have there cease to produce happiness and/or religious culture for you. In addition, rival civs from the foreign religion may build their religious buildings in that city. Lastly, a religious schism increases the likelihood of that city 'breaking away' at a later date (again, see (3) below).
3) Civil War is when one or more cities break away from your empire. Certain critical events can act as 'POTENTIAL' triggers for a civil war, which are:
(a) happiness dropping below a critical level.
(b) Crime/corruption rising above a critical level.
(c) The ratio of Foreign:Native culture rising too high.
(d) Loss of your capital.
(e) A rebellion/revolt.
(f) A religious schism.
(g) foreign propaganda.
(h) changing government.
If a trigger event occurs, you will be warned by your domestic advisor of potential trouble. Any time after the trigger event, however, your city(s) can break away. The chance of this actually happening would be based on:
(a) the city's happiness levels.
(b) its corruption/crime levels.
(c) the city's distance from the capital.
(d) the # and strength of all units in that city.
(e) proximity to another secessionist city.
(f) # of foreign nationals in your city.
(g) ratio of foriegn:native culture.
(h) If the city is already in revolt and/or religious schism.
If a single city breaks away, it will usually join up with a neighbouring power (either minor or major), wheras if a collection of cities all break away at once, then they will usually band together as a new nation (again, either minor and major).
As you can see in all of the three examples I have cited, the chance of civil disorder is NEVER completely random-instead being based on 'pseudo' predictable algorithms. A small, well-run and content nation-state will almost certainly NEVER suffer from civil disorder, wheras large sprawling empires which rule through fear and conquest will almost CERTAINLY suffer a civil war at some point in their lifetime. Of course, there is a very small, random element in this, but the majority of it is decided by in-game player actions (either of the nation itself or one of its rivals). The thing is that these examples, along with other 'pseudo-random' events, would go a VERY long way to preventing the current 'snowballing' phenomenon which is endemic in the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
