I apologize if I gave off that tone. I know revolutions isn't something you're interested in and I'm not asking for you to make changes or implement things. I'd be interested in giving it a try myself, but there's little documentation out there on how to code for Civ 4, what stats/information is available and how to access them, etc, so I was just asking whether the idea was technically possible, and was open to answers from anyone. Similarly, was hoping for comments by other revolutions players on whether they think the idea would be a good one or a bad one.Yes, yes, I understand that people would like me to devote all my time and effort to separatism.
Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
The city in question is Uppsala. First pic show the unrest building. Second pic show smoke and a fist but as you can see from city list (pic 3) there is no icon for revolt so probably just a bug?
Spoiler pics :
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
It's fine. It's a tongue-in-cheek reaction from me, just an observation that everyone seems to circle back to separatism again and again. More specifically, I think it's not a great idea, as introducing a whole new factor to basically every city would necessitate rebalancing everything.
Feels like if the RI audience had their way, my time would be split 50/50 between adding endless new playable civs and adding more separatism features
Technically possible, yes. Lots of stuff is technically possible in Civ 4. Technically sound? Maybe, if done well. Certainly more technically feasible than checking for territorial discontinuity.
You know you can get a detailed rundown of all the factors in a mouseover tooltip?
Takofloppa
Capybara
I had kind of similar idea some time ago, as separatism based on distance feels (at least for me) pretty natural - the first step to this was implementing increased sep from population when the city is on a different landmass than the capital (something I really like), which should encourage scenarios like rebelling colonies. The issue I see with the distance factor is I'm not sure how to balance such thing as we all play on different map sizes, also AI setting cities somewhere on the other side of the world for whatever reason and instantly losing it to rebels is concerning too.
This is why I try to help in this area, so you can take care of things you enjoy more. I know playing with revolutions is not in everyone's taste, but for roleplaying and immersion purposes it's really great, as long as we understand it will always handicap AI a bit.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
It's also not very realistic TBH. If we take XIX-century Russia (for the extreme size example), Alaska or Russian Far East would be among the last regions one would expect separatism from - whereas Poland and Ukraine, quite close to the capital, would be highest on the list. Even if we discard the obvious candidates (culture and religion), would Vladivostok really be more inclined towards independence than, say, Kursk or Samara? I don't feel that distance by itself should matter much. More often than not, it were the relatively central regions that fell away. XVI century Spain had Dutch independence way before any colonial independence movements. Sufficient regional population and wealth seems to be a far better predictor than remoteness.
Gotcha. I think when we've all been benefiting from your work for so long, and with little chance to give back in return, it's very easy to feel guilty and/or overly imposing. So sometimes even the slightest bit of tongue in cheek makes me feel like I hit a nerve.
It directly tackles one of Civ's (and 4X's in general) design problem: How do you make a game set on a single scope last thousands of turns without getting stale? If something is off balance, then you get a runaway player/civ that steamrolls everyone else way ahead of when the game should be over. If everything is perfectly balanced, things end up staying the same throughout the course of the game with little change. Separatism offers a solution by allowing runaway civs to exist and make the game feel more alive before collapsing and bringing back some balance to the powers of the game, but leaving behind a new landscape that can be explored and exploited. And it does it in a way that feels organic and, satisfyingly, punishes civs (including ourselves) for any hubris.
It's not perfect, but I think it makes a lot of sense for people who have been playing the game for as many years as the typical RI player has to seek out ways to introduce more variety and surprises into a single game run.
As is often the case with my suggestions.
"Hey, let's make archers strength 2 and refactor from there, and shake up every unit's power value too! Thx waltz luv ya"My thinking wasn't that distance would generate separatism but rather act as a magnifier for existing separatism. So a far away city that's content wouldn't have any cause to rebel, but a far away city that's unhappy with the rule would feel less obliged to remain part of the empire--unless you have sufficient military presence there to make them feel elsewise.
But I lack the historical knowledge to understand what typically motivated separatist movements and how they often took shape, so maybe that's not as realistic as I imagined it would be.
Ahnarras
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 264
Feels like if the RI audience had their way, my time would be split 50/50 between adding endless new playable civs and adding more separatism features
*sneak a "when terrains graphical update" sign and pit-pat away back to his cave*
Thanks for all the answer, again ^_^
Right, seems like the main culprit for independatism is believing a city / population can do "well enough" on it's own and see no point in paying tribute/tax to their lord/governement anymore.
The fact that Separatism is affected by the number of population represents it quite well, I find. Perhaps in need of a bit of number tuning, but otherwise the mechanism is good for me.
So sometimes even the slightest bit of tongue in cheek makes me feel like I hit a nerve.
Lurking on these forums for years (how many ? Oh god.), I saw Walter lash out a few time (usually to specially rude people).
I hope I will never be so demanding that I end up on the receiving end of his wrath
I just had the perfect exemple this afternoon : as the Middle Age were coming to an end, I was quite in a good position to be the first to reach Astronomy & Scientific Method (Yummy Science wonder, double yummy free tech).
Then a war, and another, and yet another, stall me down, and the Japanese managed to reach those Tech before me. I was sad.
Then they used that huge
output to rush Flintlock and now they are the only one with real gun on their side of the world.They didn't even needed a whole century to erase the Koreans, who where a big and strong kingdom and amongst the top 10 of the board.
Next turn after having wiped a Civilisation, they launched another war, targetting this time the Chinese. And I'm pretty sure it was looking bad for Cao Cao.
What could little old pacifist me try to do ? Tokugawa had the Science wonder of this Age and was discovering two tech for every one I did, his military was unparalleled and he was on the way to conquer most of Asia (while already having a good chunk of it before the war even started, mind you). It reeked of snowballing effect and I was even considering trying to had my weight in the war just to stop him from winning 1k turn before the end of the game.
But then... Separatism started to act. A bunch of cities he took at the beginning of the war revolted and resurrected the Korean. Now Tokugawa has his army in West China fighting Cao Cao and a huge stack of angry Koreans ready to retake their kingdom.
It's not only entertaining to watch, but it also gives me a purpose : perhaps this war will slow him down enough to let me come back on science and rebalance the game without having to go "urr durr destroy his capital full of wonders or loose". Instead he over-extended himself and is now paying the price of not taking a century to consolidate his korean conquest before starting on China.
Separatism may not be the most balanced feature for a small game or if you intend for the IA to be a real threat to you, but for the roleplaying part of the world ? It's glorious
Last point, a quick bug report : The Inca spawned Simon Bolivar has a rebel civ, and his color is suppose to be a dark orange - red according to the scoreboard.
But his borders are the same bright blue as the Incan. On the SC attached, the blue coast on the left of my boat is like 90% + "Palenque" so it should be his, I think ?
Spoiler :
in order not to modify the xml files, I wrote a phyton script that decreases the cost of all industrial era and later constructions by 30%, now, at least for me, it seems quite balanced with the game turns.
The script is very light and does not affect loading times, but it allowed me to test the lower costs
The script is very light and does not affect loading times, but it allowed me to test the lower costs
Separatism shouldn't be tied to distance or any other parameter other than lack of food, health, and religious intolerance, at least until the Renaissance. Until then, populations valued only that; there was too much illiteracy to consider other aspects. The greatest danger should be the spread of religions other than the state ones. Corruption phenomena could only generate small, easily suppressed insurrections. Furthermore, a true split from a central state could not occur without a defeat on the battlefield, so in practice, when a nation is ready to separate, it should generate a mega army capable of defeating the state army. This goes back to the pre-industrial era, although even today, if you think about it, it is difficult to separate from a central state without war and without being recognized as a nation by the rest of the world
the war should come before separation not after.
I think that civ 4 represents separatism very well, because on a cultural level I can understand that one part of a nation annexes itself to another, when it is closer in culture and language, but even that a nation splits in two at least in the last 500 years is such a rare event that it is negligible.
the opposite is more likely, that small nations will merge with others, or unite together to found a larger and more powerful one, think of the unity of Italy
only 164 years ago or to the United States of America 1776 or the Germany 1871 or Tanzania or United Arab Emirates
. Separatist movements have always existed, but it is very rare that they have actually had any effect.
excluding the cases of dissolution of the URSS and Yugoslavia
the war should come before separation not after.
I think that civ 4 represents separatism very well, because on a cultural level I can understand that one part of a nation annexes itself to another, when it is closer in culture and language, but even that a nation splits in two at least in the last 500 years is such a rare event that it is negligible.
the opposite is more likely, that small nations will merge with others, or unite together to found a larger and more powerful one, think of the unity of Italy
only 164 years ago or to the United States of America 1776 or the Germany 1871 or Tanzania or United Arab Emirates
. Separatist movements have always existed, but it is very rare that they have actually had any effect.
excluding the cases of dissolution of the URSS and Yugoslavia
Last edited:
Ahnarras
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 264
Jumping in again for two more small details :
- One of Charle de Gaulles special dialogue (the one where he's speaking about cheese) start with "Entré, PlayerName". It should be "Entrez".
- Blister Steel technology require Mettalurgy as a needed tech to research, but that doesn't make much sense given that Mettalurgy is already on the same "line" as Blister Steel so you have no choice but to research it before.
(Almost 50 years of uninterrupted peace, I'm flying throught the Tech tree wouhouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
)
- One of Charle de Gaulles special dialogue (the one where he's speaking about cheese) start with "Entré, PlayerName". It should be "Entrez".
- Blister Steel technology require Mettalurgy as a needed tech to research, but that doesn't make much sense given that Mettalurgy is already on the same "line" as Blister Steel so you have no choice but to research it before.
(Almost 50 years of uninterrupted peace, I'm flying throught the Tech tree wouhouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
)
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
War with whom, if that's the case?
Oh my. Ever once in a while, I see a take so fresh, it's actually amusing. Let's inspect the "negligibly rare" events in a specific case, shall we? Let's take just 100 years from 1900 to 2000, and just Europe (the vast majority of the new countries in the world during the XX century sprang up outside Europe due to decolonization). Also, I will specifically exclude the USSR and Yugoslavia cases and any countries that failed to exist more than 10 years (so, for instance, the first independence of Ukraine doesn't qualify either). I will also be very conservative with what Europe is, and exclude the Caucasus. So let's see, where are we in 1900?
Let's see now, I count around 20 independent countries, not counting microstates like Andorra. Let's look at 2000 now:
Over 30 countries, fun! Let's look at the ones that didn't exist in 1900 and aren't a product of USSR or Yugoslavia disintegrating:
- Ireland (they'd be delighted to hear separatist movements don't matter!)
- Norway
- The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania): while currently independent post-USSR, they first gained and sustained independence in 1918.
- Finland
- Poland (territory held by three different countries in 1900, no less!)
- Czechia and Slovakia (springing from earlier Czechoslovakia falling apart too, not existing in 1900 either)
- Hungary
- Iceland (not seen on either map, but not existing as an independent entity in 1900)
- Malta
- Cyprus (and its internationally unrecognized northern half)
- Albania
- East Germany, which is on neither of those maps, but existed for several decades.
Thanks, noted.
War with whom, if that's the case?
Oh my. Ever once in a while, I see a take so fresh, it's actually amusing. Let's inspect the "negligibly rare" events in a specific case, shall we? Let's take just 100 years from 1900 to 2000, and just Europe (the vast majority of the new countries in the world during the XX century sprang up outside Europe due to decolonization). Also, I will specifically exclude the USSR and Yugoslavia cases and any countries that failed to exist more than 10 years (so, for instance, the first independence of Ukraine doesn't qualify either). I will also be very conservative with what Europe is, and exclude the Caucasus. So let's see, where are we in 1900?
View attachment 737238
Let's see now, I count around 20 independent countries, not counting microstates like Andorra. Let's look at 2000 now:
View attachment 737239
Over 30 countries, fun! Let's look at the ones that didn't exist in 1900 and aren't a product of USSR or Yugoslavia disintegrating:
So over a dozen of countries in a space of 100 years, and just in Europe. Not bad for "negligibly rare!"
- Ireland (they'd be delighted to hear separatist movements don't matter!)
- Norway
- The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania): while currently independent post-USSR, they first gained and sustained independence in 1918.
- Finland
- Poland (territory held by three different countries in 1900, no less!)
- Czechia and Slovakia (springing from earlier Czechoslovakia falling apart too, not existing in 1900 either)
- Hungary
- Iceland (not seen on either map, but not existing as an independent entity in 1900)
- Malta
- Cyprus (and its internationally unrecognized northern half)
- Albania
- East Germany, which is on neither of those maps, but existed for several decades.
Thanks, noted.
The story needs to be read in depth, most of the separations you talk about are just reborn from forced annexations, the game and your mod not represent this, I think it's clear
look at the 1918 map of Europe as you can see it is very similar to the one today, it is normal that if you take the one from 1960 and compare it with the one today it appears as you say, but history should not be distorted, seen only to support our personal thesis
what you say it supports what I was saying in part,spontaneous separations
is very rare, what you are talking about are divisions following forced annexations for the most part, in the game there are no forced annexations that then end in separations, but separations for other reasons, which I repeat are very rare
the disintegration of several European states during the 20th and 21st centuries is often linked to previous forced annexations or unifications that were not fully accepted. In many cases, regions with strong ethnic, cultural, or linguistic identities were incorporated into larger states against the will of part of the population. Over time, these tensions led to separatist movements, internal crises, or even civil wars.
Key Examples:
---
1. Soviet Union (USSR)
Forced annexations: In the 1940s, the USSR annexed various republics and territories (e.g., the Baltic states, parts of Poland, Moldova).
Disintegration (1991): Many of these republics declared independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, often in reaction to centralized control and ethnic or political repression.
Examples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova.
---
2. Yugoslavia
Formation: Created in 1918 as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, it united diverse peoples with different histories and religions. After WWII, it became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Tito.
Forced unification: Some regions were included in the new state not by popular will, but due to postwar geopolitical decisions.
Violent disintegration (1991–2006): Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and finally Kosovo (2008) all broke away. The wars of the 1990s revealed how deep-rooted historical tensions could erupt violently.
---
3. Czechoslovakia
Formation: Established in 1918, uniting Czechs and Slovaks into one state.
Historical and cultural differences: Though less traumatic than other cases, tensions between Czechs and Slovaks (partly linked to Hungary's past control over Slovakia) led to a peaceful split in 1993, known as the "Velvet Divorce."
---
4. Ireland
Forced annexation: Ireland was gradually conquered and formally annexed into the United Kingdom in 1801.
Independence: After the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921), most of Ireland became a free state, leaving only Northern Ireland under British control.
This is a case where a disintegration (UK vs Ireland) resulted from a reaction to a long history of forced annexation.
---
Conclusion
Yes, many cases of state disintegration in Europe are directly related to previous forced annexations or artificial unifications imposed through war, treaties, or authoritarian regimes. When central control collapsed (e.g., fall of the USSR or Tito’s death), local identities re-emerged strongly—often demanding independence.
Attachments
Last edited:
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
This is a bit more nuanced, yes, but still suffers from the notion of all cultures pre-existing in their "original" state. Every culture/ethnicity/country came from some origins, and those were usually linked to splitting off a larger ethnicity. What are French and Germans if not Franks that split in two? All Slavs seem to have spoken a mutually intelligible language (hence "Slav"/"Slovene", "someone who speaks") around the VIth (and probably well into something like the Xth) century and would later diverge into separate peoples (often at each other's throats ever after). Post-colonial identities in the New World are also a clear example of new identities forming off the main culture (especially in relatively monolingual Latin America, but even in the more melting pot-like US the English were by far the dominant component pre-independence).
More importantly, a "national identity" is a very modern invention anyway. "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy", and any judgement of "previous forced annexations or artificial unifications" ignores the fact that it is ultimately true for any component in any state. At some point, Winchester, Canterbury and York were all parts of different states. Does that really mean that if the Midlands or Northumberland secede from the UK at some point in the XXI century, it'll be due to "previous forced annexations or artificial unifications" rather than any new factors that would be in play? The notion you're suggesting is very post hoc selective of an already successful independence. The homogeneity of modern cultures is a very modern development, brought about by mass media almost entirely during the last 150 years. While there were obviously some clear-cut cases, such as with Sweden/Finland, more often there was a cultural continuum rather than strictly defined "national cultures". Even in the English/Irish case, by the time of Ireland's independence, Ireland was a majority English-speaking island (not to mention there was never historically a unified Ireland pre-conquest to get back to):
I've never heard this before and it's delightful (in a way). Thanks for sharing that.
I agree, but in the mists of time, populations were born in small, separate groups, only to unite, whether forcibly or not, and then separate again. To be well represented, however, I believe this is almost impossible in the game. A situation should be created in which two small civilizations unite into one, and then, in particular cases, separate. This is why, for me, the system already included in Civilization 4 illustrates this well, that is, incorporating a nearby city from another nation. Separatism in the current game, let's say, is a new way to have fun, an added feature, but it's a bit unrealistic. Obviously, this is my point of view.
absurdly, the separatism I mean is closer to the current vassal system
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
It was originally uttered in Yiddish in the immediate aftermath of WW2. One can easily see the historical backdrop...
I actually believe that the game handles it quite well, so long as one doesn't expect the "civilization" to always be a coherent single political entity. A "German civilization" does not and should not necessarily mean "German nation"; it might represent at various points in time a collection of proto-Germanic tribes barely aware of each others' existence or dozens upon dozens of mostly independent princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The unifying undercurrent, whether cultural, pragmatic or violent (but usually a mix thereof) is assumed to always exist - that is, unless and until there is a greater force that pulls a chunk of said civilization to a different historical orbit.
Let's say that understood like this, it could even be fine, but in reality the game represents a nation with a capital and a central government, let's say that as separatism is understood in the current version of the mod, it should always be preceded by a war of independence, or by the destruction of the nation's capital.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
Again, war with whom, mechanically, if we don't spawn a civ before?
RezerCuid
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2024
- Messages
- 286
It would be cool if, during the revolution in Germany, by historical standards, every city declared its independence. Additionally, the city would be divided into two parts. Each part would have 10 (at best) tiles. Furthermore, some farm cells would be unattainable due to their occupation by local independent feudal lords.
(This is a humorous suggestion)
(This is a humorous suggestion)
The army should represent the future nation, and conquer the cities that will then become its own, but I don't know if it's feasible. for example, they send 20 Macedonian troops, who conquer a city which obviously becomes Macedonian, then if they fail, obviously the attempt at separatism also fails
