• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Civil War

Instead of "Nationality" each citizen could have a "Culture." Unhappy citizens have a chance of forming a new culture (one from a list), or joining one that already exists locally, other than the culture in political control. Also, cultural influence from other civs has a chance of changing a citizens culture, as would infiltration of citizenry (concealed nationality units that cost pop and come join your city rather than attacking, adding one new citizen of the infiltrating nationality). Culture specific buildings can influence culture (you would have to have a whole line of culture specific buildings, so that Chinese Temples influenced citizens to be Chinese, for example. When a majority of the citizens of a city have that culture, they have a chance to rebel, depending also on unhappiness, and the city may have a political revolution, each rebelling citizen becoming a unit of the draftable line and attacking the garrison. The success of a rebellion would have to have a large, one turn only, cultural influence on neighboring cities, perhaps causing them to flip also. To defend against culture flip, citizens coud be turned into "prisoner" specialists however (less productive laborers who always suffer from tile penalty) and then they don't count for revolution purposes.
There could also be lesser wonders perhaps that would allow you to absorb minority cultures. For a poor example, the New Age wonder could allow you to merge American culture with Buddhist culture, perhaps, so that all Buddhist citizens in American cities became Americans.

In reality, culture is multidimensional, consisting at a minimum of nationality and religion, so if you wanted to go into detail, you could have religious revolutions as well. Perhaps each citizen would have each, and players could play religions OR nationalities. This would work well with an "allied victory" victory condition like from a of e, where if any member of the alliance wins all members win. There would have to be some elegant way of limiting the number of such alliances a playing entity could enter, to prevent them from setting it up so they win no matter what (but why really?). I guess one way would be to require building of wonders to allow victory-alliances.

It would take some thought to do this tastefully, respecting our culturally closed societies while glorifying our culturally plural ones.
 
I think there's a lot of talk about Civil war -- the more that you model differences between individuals, the more factors you can incorporate into civil war. I'd definitely love to see a worker revolt VS. a military coup, but I'm not sure Civ has the depth to reflect this. If Civ had this level of depth for Civil war, then I would ask for no other features, because the game would be perfect ;)

Taking a step back, though, I think Aussie is on the right track with it being "semi unpredictable". Although I wouldn't use those words. Just that you'd normally have a 0% chance of civil war. And once you break a threshhold of serious unhappiness, suddenly there's a 10% chance of civil war, and as it persists, it becomes more and more likely (until it's like 90% chance). But it would not be preventable -- you would be able to stay at 0% pretty easily, and even at 10% chance you'd start to see some important warning signs that would allow you to take corrective action.

- Hit them with propaganda
- Stop a war that might be making them unhappy
- Build a certain building that might pacify them
- Start a war that might make them MORE unhappy, but at least keeps them from splintering off because they're so scared
- Give independence to a city or two or three (and invade them again when you have your empire working properly again)
- Change government to something more democratic that lets them be themselves
- Change government to something more autocratic, reducing the likelihood of civil war but increasing the scale should it actually happen
 
Comrade Pedro said:
That is also a good idea, but i think this will only apply to the ancient times and end almost in the medieval times. I'm saying this, because if we see the facts of history, we realized that this happens only in this period.

This was on the first page, and I'm sorry if it's already been replied to, but I really didn't have time to read the whole thread.

Sorry Comrade, but that's a load of belloni. Rebellions and revolutions are something that has always, and will always, occur, no matter what the time period is. From the earliest empires of Sumeria and Babylon, to Egypt, Rome, the Franks, the Ottomans, Russia, Germany... they ALL had to deal with them. If you want a modern day example, take Chechnya. It will never end.
 
This is true. But it has a lot to do with citizen managment. If your people are happy, why would they rebel? If you are a dictator who rules with an iron fist, there will always be some people who want more freedom. But you do also have to have the other extreme. Having fanatics (like terrorists/revolutionaries/insert name) always has been and always will be a problem. But the question is: do they have the support of the people? If one is managing their citizens well enough, then these extremists are kept at bay w/n your civ by happy citizens and local law enforcement. Maybe these rebels could also be encouraged by neighboring civs.

Maybe a way to introduce this into the game is to have unhappy citizens create a possibility that a (or multiple) rouge military unit is created w/n your borders, near the city that was unhappy enough to create them. These wouldnt just be barbarians, but units perhaps equal to (or near) one's own arsenal. Or like Civ2, just be the partisans.
 
Xanthippus said:
This was on the first page, and I'm sorry if it's already been replied to, but I really didn't have time to read the whole thread.

Sorry Comrade, but that's a load of belloni. Rebellions and revolutions are something that has always, and will always, occur, no matter what the time period is. From the earliest empires of Sumeria and Babylon, to Egypt, Rome, the Franks, the Ottomans, Russia, Germany... they ALL had to deal with them. If you want a modern day example, take Chechnya. It will never end.
Well, if you would read a little more further, you'll realiaze that i was talking about headline's post: the concept of cities states :) :)
 
slc193 said:
Having fanatics (like terrorists/revolutionaries/insert name) always has been and always will be a problem.

Why do you say that? Revolution is necessary in some cases. If people had your thoughts there wasn't occur important revolutions like the French Revolution or the Declaration of the Independence of America......
 
slc193 said:
This is true. But it has a lot to do with citizen managment. If your people are happy, why would they rebel? If you are a dictator who rules with an iron fist, there will always be some people who want more freedom. But you do also have to have the other extreme. Having fanatics (like terrorists/revolutionaries/insert name) always has been and always will be a problem. But the question is: do they have the support of the people? If one is managing their citizens well enough, then these extremists are kept at bay w/n your civ by happy citizens and local law enforcement. Maybe these rebels could also be encouraged by neighboring civs.

Maybe a way to introduce this into the game is to have unhappy citizens create a possibility that a (or multiple) rouge military unit is created w/n your borders, near the city that was unhappy enough to create them. These wouldnt just be barbarians, but units perhaps equal to (or near) one's own arsenal. Or like Civ2, just be the partisans.

It's not always that black & white. Nationalism is a HUGE encouragement for people to revolt and/or establish independence. I think that after nationalism, the chance of cities switching sides, establishing independence etc. should sky rocket if they contain other nationalities.

Comrade Pedro said:
Well, if you would read a little more further, you'll realiaze that i was talking about headline's post: the concept of cities states

Ah, my apologies. But in that case, they ended a bit later. In fact, it wasn't until approx. 1876 that the city state died out once and for all. Until then you had all the Italian city states (i.e. Milan, Tuscany, Napoli etc.), and the German city states (they weren't named after the cities themselves, but their borders didn't extend beyond a large city radius). Both Italy and Germany were unified by 1876, ending the city states once and for all.
 
I think Italian cities-states were almost all conquered by Napoleon XVIII/XIX centuries, and then some passed to Austrian Empire.....
 
Italy was basically completely divided between the Roman Empire and recent history. There were a few city states, and a few strong leaders (like the Medicis) who controlled a significant part of Italy (but far from all of it) for a couple generations. But many times city states allied themselves with part of a larger empire, such as the Franks or Spaniards, or were occupied for a time by another empire, like the Ottomans.
 
Comrade Pedro said:
I think Italian cities-states were almost all conquered by Napoleon XVIII/XIX centuries, and then some passed to Austrian Empire.....

Napoleon did conquer Italy, but it didn't last for long. Before this, Aragon and Spain held Napoli and Sicily, but these gained their independance eventually. Afterwards, Austria controlled Veneto (Venice), but no further south than the very most northern provinces. For a large period France also held Milan, but beyond this, as dh_epic said, they remained independent from the Roman Empire's collapse. Italy was, basically, a chaotic hotch potch of unceasing war, with not only the city states divided against each other, but France, Austria, Spain and the Ottomans all vying for control of it, and the poor Papal States caught between it all. :lol: It all ended in 1876 with a war between France and Austria. Austria wanted to subjugate the isle, and France wanted to prevent that at any cost. The French gave aid to Sardinia-Piedmont, and relinquishing control over Milan, Italy was unified, save Veneto, which remained in Austrian control until the partition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
 
But this serves to explain how weak cities-states are. They have been conquered and liberated all the time, but they always use someone else aid for their liberation and they can't even protect themselves without help from others.
 
Agreed. I think this kind of fragmentation before Nationalism should be reflected in the game. Nationalism is HUGELY important -- it's not just "hey, we like our country more". One of the most world-changing social movements in history.
 
But nevertheless, These ideal movements were so developed that they actually caused the First World War and the Fascist governments.....
 
Comrade Pedro said:
I think in the next civ, to the things get more harder, it will be some kind of civil war in your own country, when you are screwed the things and the people are not very content with your goverment. Then it appears various factions, each one with its own possible goverments (the ones that have been discovered), and the player have to "liberate" all the cities. This would occur even if you are at war with other countries, and that wars continue normally.
If in some time, nothing resolves, then the factions can go to a deal, forming then new countries....

Please give your comments....

Aahh, that´s what I was talking about, I like this, I was missing that from CIV2.
 
No news. It's a popular suggestion. But just as common are some of the fears that a model of Civil War (rebellions, nationalism, seperatism, seccession, annexing, provinces, regions, wars of independence, breakaway states, balkanization -- and countless other synonymous suggestions) would make the game really annoying.

I don't think this is the way it has to be, though. I think there's an intelligent way to do civil wars in a way that's not annoying but empowering.
 
All good, all good. I really do like the suggestion about civil war, actually I made it myself before. Sorry, but I just had to renew my probably unpopular, but oh so necessary note about excluding all "new world" and ex-colonial civs such as brazil, canada, mexico, australia and, yes, america too. It's simply not realistic to include these nations as civs because they've only existed a few hundred years. After all, the game runs from 4000 BC to the near future right? Anyway of course the game will never be rid of these countries, because to many "patriotic" americans are playing. But my mission on this forum is to spread the notion that there should be an "america-less" alternative in CIV4, as there has been with CCQ and PTW. It's just far more realistic. :p
 
If you go by that arguement, Hemlige, then why would we be having England and France and Germany and those other states? They have only existed the last millenium or so, or even less. They didn't exist at the beginning of 4000 BC either. Of course, neither did Rome nor Greece nor the Byzantines.
 
Ant509y said:
If you go by that arguement, Hemlige, then why would we be having England and France and Germany and those other states? They have only existed the last millenium or so, or even less. They didn't exist at the beginning of 4000 BC either. Of course, neither did Rome nor Greece nor the Byzantines.

I'll refer you to the conversation I've been having on the vote for 19 civs thread... :)
 
Top Bottom