02-12-2004 07:18									#1
	Civl Wars and Breakaway Civilizations in Civ 4. Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It seems like the vast majority of veteran civ players miss the Civ 2 civil wars. I think that they need to return in Civ 4, but they should return in a much different form.
In Civ 2, civil wars erupted when your a large civilization's capital was conquered. That was fun, but it was a severe limitation on the frequencies of civil wars. Civil Wars have been common throughout history; the amount of civil wars directly caused by a foreign power conquering the capital are a distinct minority. Most civil wars occur when one region of the country is dissatisfied with the policies of the central goverment. I think that Civ 4 should somehow implement this.

INTRODUCTION:

My idea on how to do so goes as follows: There should be a mechanism that evaluates the strength of each city. The evaluation would include shield production, commerce production, food production,and cultural production. Border expansion of cities would also need modified, and would include cultural level, commerce, shield production, food production, and military strength (which would be measured in home units, which are explained further in this post). These factors would combine into a "strength sum," and its borders would expand at strength sum increments, the same way that borders in Civ 3 increased in cultural increments.

City strength would be indicated by its strength sum, which would be aggregated every turn in the same way that culture is aggregated in Civ 3. Cities with high strength sums would exert influence on neighboring cities with smaller strength sums.

These strong cities, due to their contributions to the empire, need to be appeased in some way (I suggest that you should be able to adjust the tax/luxury ratio for each city in your empire. If a city needs appeased you can increase its luxuries, or build an improvement or a wonder in that city). If these powerful cities go into revolt, there is a chance that they will try to break away from the empire, taking with them the smaller neighboring cities that they have influence over. There would need to be some kind of equation to determine which cities would follow the break away larger city. The largest, most powerful break away city would then be the capital of a new Civ, a Civ that would participate in world diplomacy the same way that the others civs would.



FACTORS DETERMINING BREAK AWAY

Before a city and its region would break away, the major city in the region would have to be in disorder.

There would be a variety of factors that would go in to determining whether a city would break away from the empire. From here on, when I mention region I am referring to the main city that is breaking away plus the other cities that would, according to a comparison between the influence exerted on them by the breakway city and influence exerted on them by loyal parts of the empire, join the major breakaway city.

Geographical factors would be one element. Distance from capital and connectivity with the capital (through roads, harbors, airports) would be one major factor. Another factor would be location on continent/ city border; a region bordering an ocean would be much more likely to break away than would a region right in the center of the empire. The way to analyize this would be to look at what the cities cultural borders are touching. If the region has cultural borders that largely border other civs or don't border other borders it would be more likely to revolt than if it would be completely bordered by the mother empire.

Corruption level in the area is factor; a highly corrupt region would be much more likely to break away than would a low corruption region located close to the capital. Along with corruption level, city improvements would also be taken into account. The same improvements that lower corruption would decrease likelyhood of revolt, as would the presence of Wonders in the civ that effected the entire civ.

Ethnicity would be a major factor. If a certain region had a large population of an ethnicity different than that of the empire, it would be much more likely to break away than would a region populated by co-nationals. Example: Say you played as Germany and conquered England. London, as former capital of the English, would still have cultural influence over the surrounding English cities. If the English cities weren't kept under control well enough, ther would be a good chance of them declaring themselves to be independent and re-emerging as the English civ, at war with the German empire.

Government type would be another factor. Break away regions and civil wars would be much more likely under Feudalism and Despotism than they would be under Democracy

A final factor would be military strength inside the region. For this to work, the concept of unit hometown would have to return. Though there would still be civ-wide unit maintenece payments, the individual units created would have their hometown listed. In the event of a rebellion, the units would go with their hometown. THe number of units that a city and its region has, and the location of those units, would be factors that would be included in the breakaway evaluation. A region that had a significant number of military units would be more apt to revolt than would a region that had few or no military units.

Individual unit strength would also be taken into account. Each units' military value would be measured by adding its A/D/M points (for non bombardment units) or by adding movement and bombardment points (when evaluating bombardment units like cannons or ICBMs).
The number of military units and the sum of their value would both be compared when a region is considering separation. That way, simply having a horde of warriors or workers wouldn't discourage a potential break away region from leaving.

The number of units that are not from the region but are located in the region will be tabulated. If there are large numbers of units whose hometowns are from other parts of the empire located in a region, then that region is less likely to revolt. However, if a non-native unit is stationed in a within another cities radius for 20 turns, its hometown switches to be that of the city in which it is stationed.

Every unit that belongs to a breakaway town goes into revolt, even if its located in a foreign land or in a part of the empire that's not in revolt. If fortified in a loyal city, that rebel unit will be automatically moved one square outside of the city.

CIVIL WAR

When a region breaks away, you would automatically be at war with that region. I sugest that you would then have three options:
1. Re-conquer the cities and treat them as you would any occupied country (like the US and the CSA after the Civil War), but the citizens of those cities would be a new ethnic minority (shown by a slightly different color on the population screen), with the chance that they might try to rebel again in the future.

2. Try and negotiate some sort of reconcilliation, maybe by being forced to agree to lower taxes on the cities in the region for a certain period of time.

3. Try and make peace with the break away country, thereby recognizing it as an independent civ.

CONCLUSION

What my idea amounts to is basically an internal culture flip. The factors that I mentioned would be measured by the computer. If the cities were in disorder and the equations showed that they should break away, then they would break away. This would increase the strategy involved in the game, as you'd have to make sure that the cities that you built didn't turn into rival power centers. Its also a way that distance based corruption could be fixed. Civ 3 supercorruption would be replaced by a chance that distant cities would try to break away from your empire. It'd also be a way to render the real world phenomenon of conquered civilizations eventually returning to existance (like Poland, German States after Napoleon, France after WW2) In Civ 3 conquered civs basically disappear; with my proposal, there would always be a chance that conquered areas would revolt and return to life.

I think that my suggestions would make the game more exciting, and I think that they could be implemented without changing the mechanics of the game too much.
Please post any questions or comments regarding my sugestions.

Last edited by Wycoff on 02-12-2004 at 08:22

	02-12-2004 10:49									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I kind of found civil wars annoying, but I still think it would be interesting to bring them back, for the sake of change for no particular reason and as an excuse to bring in civs that aren't selectable in setup, whether with names of realworld internal divisions or fictional. I have posted the idea of beginning with proto civs (super civs) like the Indoeuropeans, the Semites, and the Chinese that progressively split until we get more of the specific civs that are more familiar to us, and ficticious civs or civinated subregions in the case of China.

I would like it if the game somehow arranged for cities that are near eachother in the real world would also be near eachother in the game. And there would be some degree of tendency for cities in the game which belong to the same internal division in the real world to break off together if and when they break off.

How about if regions within your empire that began unified develop regional cultural distinctiveness unless you direct internal migration?

When a player civ in a multiplayer game is conquered and later breaks away again, I suppose the reincarnation is an AI civ. I suppose either when you conquer the last rival civ the game ends more or less immediately or the conquered civ has a few turns' opportunity to break away again. I would think that you wouldn't have to wait until retirement year to achieve a victory no matter what.

It sounds to me like your suggestions would change the game more than you say, but I do not consider that a bad thing. However, it is too late for big changes suggested by fans for Civ4, but there is always Civ5.

	02-12-2004 16:13									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Aren't Civil Wars generally about one part of a country feeling disadvantaged and unfairly treated by the government? What about if people could rebel like this: "Washington's got a stadium, a library and a factory, while we in Montgomery don't have any of these! Change that or we'll secede!"

You could also create unrest because people are envious of other countries: "We in Egypt are poor and oppressed, while other countries have democracy and wealth! Change that, by war if you have to, or we'll overthrow you!"

	03-12-2004 01:02									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Max Sinister Aren't Civil Wars generally about one part of a country feeling disadvantaged and unfairly treated by the government? What about if people could rebel like this: "Washington's got a stadium, a library and a factory, while we in Montgomery don't have any of these! Change that or we'll secede!" You could also create unrest because people are envious of other countries: "We in Egypt are poor and oppressed, while other countries have democracy and wealth! Change that, by war if you have to, or we'll overthrow you!"

Those are both good ideas, and I think fit within my scheme. The first idea could be reflected in two ways. 1: if a city does not have a colosseum or temple in its town, it would be more likely to go into disorder and thus more likely to seceed.

2: Promising to build certain structures in rebelling cities could be a way to entice breakaway regions to return to your country. Game wise, this could be done by having the cities building ques changed to whatever the cities are demanding if you agree to accede to their demands and negotiate a peaceful re-entry. One you have agreed, those ques would be unchangeable. Just an idea.


I think that your second idea is reflected in the fact that rebellions would be more likely in despotisms than in Democracies. Plus, maybe it could made so that government types are more likely to rebel when surrounded by more liberal regimes. Each government would have a set separatism ratio, then there would be a modifier that reflects neighboring governments that are more liberal (Republic, Democracy). I think that thats already a factor in Culture flips in civ 3.

	03-12-2004 02:14									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Brent I kind of found civil wars annoying, but I still think it would be interesting to bring them back, for the sake of change for no particular reason and as an excuse to bring in civs that aren't selectable in setup, whether with names of realworld internal divisions or fictional. I have posted the idea of beginning with proto civs (super civs) like the Indoeuropeans, the Semites, and the Chinese that progressively split until we get more of the specific civs that are more familiar to us, and ficticious civs or civinated subregions in the case of China.

I was thinking more along the lines that either: 1. New Civs would be named after historical breakaway regions (Like a break away region of the US would be called the Confederacy) or
2. Create some generic name formula (probably the best option)- would use the name of the capital city to create a name for the new civ. If Los Angeles were the capital, the new Civ would be the Empire/Kingdom/Republic of Los Angeles, and the leader head would be randomly picked out of a set of premade random leaderheads.

The Player would be given the option of renaming the breakaway civ if he wants to.
Also, if a breakaway region was a formerly conquered civ, then that civ would return with the breakaway of that region.

quote: How about if regions within your empire that began unified develop regional cultural distinctiveness unless you direct internal migration?

That's a very interesting concept. It would further enhance this model of seperatism, but I don't know how it could be implented

quote: When a player civ in a multiplayer game is conquered and later breaks away again, I suppose the reincarnation is an AI civ. I suppose either when you conquer the last rival civ the game ends more or less immediately or the conquered civ has a few turns' opportunity to break away again. I would think that you wouldn't have to wait until retirement year to achieve a victory no matter what.

World conquest would end the game immediately.

	03-12-2004 02:28									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'd like the game to give you multiple suggestions, like 3 to 5, for names for the new Civ, to choose from or be able to enter a different name. At least one of the new civ name choices should be created by the game, and sometimes all of them would have to be.

	03-12-2004 20:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Wycoff:

Remember that Civ is also played by the average players, which is not necessarily a strategy nut, and may stick to what is svery simple. How would you propose to include civil war in a "simple and efficient" way?

I'm not saying that it is not possible to include civil war, but I wonder how you'd implement this.

Most Civ3 players would not look at every single factor, except if they are streamlined and can easily be seen somehow. Maybe a mood "rainbow bar" can do something:
What counts is the total bar, which is composed of each factor which has its own color. What counts is the sum of each part (with its color) of the bar forming the "rainbow bar". When it reaches a certain line, you get trouble. This bar coult be on the city screen (and get diminished by entertainers, etc.).

This seems like the "simple and efficient" I wish.

	03-12-2004 20:22									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yeah. Although Strategy games are my favorite, I am not a strategist. I guess I am attracted to Strategy games because of the theme of playing through history.

	03-12-2004 21:21									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Wycoff: Most Civ3 players would not look at every single factor, except if they are streamlined and can easily be seen somehow. Maybe a mood "rainbow bar" can do something: What counts is the total bar, which is composed of each factor which has its own color. What counts is the sum of each part (with its color) of the bar forming the "rainbow bar". When it reaches a certain line, you get trouble. This bar coult be on the city screen (and get diminished by entertainers, etc.).

I was thinking that a city going in disorder would be the warning sign. A city would never try to revolt after its first turn of disorder. However, the more turns it stays in disorder, the greater the chances that it will break away. Some cities would break away more quickly than others, depending on how many of the secession criteria that that city meets. There could be some kind of warning bar that comes into play when a city goes into disorder telling you how many turns before that city declares independence. That way you'd have some notice that you'd better fix things before they get to a breaking point.

To make my idea work better, a city going into disorder will have an effect on its surrounding cities. If an influential city goes into disorder, then the surrounding cities over which the influential city has influence over are made much more likely to go into disorder.

Another useful option would be if you had an internal affairs adviser who let you know how much influence each city had over the others. I'm thinking that, to ispire a region to revolt, the city needs to have some major influence. There would have to be a minimum level of city power below which a city could never seceede no matter how long it was in disorder.

	04-12-2004 07:31									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sure, you add more elements. But the problem is to manage all these elements! If there are 10 factors affecting an aspect (cf.civil war), then the player needs to check these 10 factors. And civil war comes, he needs to figure out which of the damn factor he must adjust. So, how can this be user-frinedly (manageable) in your opinion?

	04-12-2004 23:11									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Sure, you add more elements. But the problem is to manage all these elements! If there are 10 factors affecting an aspect (cf.civil war), then the player needs to check these 10 factors. And civil war comes, he needs to figure out which of the damn factor he must adjust. So, how can this be user-frinedly (manageable) in your opinion?

Just as in real life, many of those aspects would not be manageable. Some cities will natuarally grown bigger and more powerful than others, due to more favorable land situation. Most of those factors that I listed are simply factors that would be used to determine how to measure city power and influence. Location factors are by nature unmanageable.

There would only be two things that a player would really have to manage to avoid civil wars: happiness and ethnicity. If a city doesn't go into disorder, then it won't seceede, no matter how big and powerful. Keep the big cities happy and you won't have to worry about secession.

If you can't keep cities with large ethnic minorities happy, either try and starve the minority population or, through the creation of workers, resettle the ethnics throughout your empire to dilute their influence on any particular city.

Also, if there was one particular region that you just couldn't keep happy, make sure that you have move large numbers of units from other parts of the empire to the unhappy region to help discourage secession.

Player management required by my idea wouldn't really be much different from Civ 3 empire management. If you keep your cities happy, then there won't be a revolt. If you can't keep cities happy, move units there to discourage revolt. I don't think that it would require much more management by the player to prevent secession. Secession would result from chronic unhappyness that can't be fixed by govt. changes, much like real life.

	07-12-2004 04:58									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I have been thinking about this for some time, mostly because when my empire gets big the level of corruption bothers me. Once you get past a certain point, corruption kills you--a built in limitation of superpower status, I guess.

I think this sucks. I think one way to manage the massive corruption would be to allow the creation of states (or regions) that are all part of the union but have a state capital that would allow for reduction in corruption; a hierarchical government if you will. In exchange for dividing your nation into two or more states, you run the risk of states breaking off and forming their own civilization, based on factors suggested.

In that way, nations could divide along state boundaries instead of city by city, which I think is a lot more realistic. I mean, come on, you don't see Tijuana, Vancouver, or Toronto flipping and becoming part of the US.

Also, I think there should be a way that a state (or a whole nation) can not only split away and become its own civilization, but could also choose to join another nation. For example, if you have high influence over another state or nation, they may decide to join you and create a superpower. You may also be able to convince them to through negotiations (think Louisianna purchase).

So yes--I think large portions of nations should be able to divide, become autonomous, change loyalties, or come together to create superpowers.

This would make things interesting when you are leading the AI handily--two or three smaller nations may combine to create a superpower to rival you!

Of course, I think all of these things should be able to be turned off, since many players will find them annoying or even frustrating. I think they should be tunable, as well, such as "Likelihood of cecession / Likelihood of conglomeration" (or whatever terms you prefer).

I think with a careful design the complexity could be kept manageable and make the game very interesting.

	07-12-2004 07:17									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree, even though really a city in the game can usually represent a state or region. Geographically they are the right size. But When you have literally larger than life empires, like if you are on a huge map with only one opponent, grouping cities together makes a lot of sense. And I just think it would be fun to have the city name lists sorted by region and such, for example if I have a huge Swiss Empire I'd like to have a few cantons consisting of the appropriate cities.

Also, maybe you should be unable to directly control specific cities in outlying regions. It could be a little bit, but not much, like they are separate nations that are all your close allies. Maybe you could have one set of governor settings for each of these regions. You would be able to directly control each individual city in your central region. Maybe the outlying regions would simply tend to follow your example.

I would like it if there are set names for specific combined civs, like if you begin with individual American colonies or Swiss Cantons, when a group consisting of largely the right small civs merges, you get the United States of America or the Swiss Confederacy. And for combinations with no historical parallel, the game creates a new name to suggest. With any combination, you can always enter a name other than the one suggested.

	10-12-2004 09:59									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

There has to be that possibility - I mean the whole american continent is made of nations who broke away from their mother country...

	11-12-2004 09:04									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff I was thinking that a city going in disorder would be the warning sign. A city would never try to revolt after its first turn of disorder. However, the more turns it stays in disorder, the greater the chances that it will break away. Some cities would break away more quickly than others, depending on how many of the secession criteria that that city meets. There could be some kind of warning bar that comes into play when a city goes into disorder telling you how many turns before that city declares independence. That way you'd have some notice that you'd better fix things before they get to a breaking point. To make my idea work better, a city going into disorder will have an effect on its surrounding cities. If an influential city goes into disorder, then the surrounding cities over which the influential city has influence over are made much more likely to go into disorder. Another useful option would be if you had an internal affairs adviser who let you know how much influence each city had over the others. I'm thinking that, to ispire a region to revolt, the city needs to have some major influence. There would have to be a minimum level of city power below which a city could never seceede no matter how long it was in disorder.

A city would not revolt after only its first turn being in disorder.

So where would the challenge be to prevent a revolt? Because in every game I play, I resolve the disorder in the same turn that it began.

	14-12-2004 04:35									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by diablovision I think one way to manage the massive corruption would be to allow the creation of states (or regions) that are all part of the union but have a state capital that would allow for reduction in corruption; a hierarchical government if you will. In exchange for dividing your nation into two or more states, you run the risk of states breaking off and forming their own civilization, based on factors suggested. (snip) I think with a careful design the complexity could be kept manageable and make the game very interesting.

I like this basic idea. It would help to simulate things like the American colonies breaking off from the mother country. If a rebellion happened, you could even give the player a choice which part of the civs they wanted to play. As was said, a lot of people might not like this option, but so long as it switchable, it shouldn't bother anyone.

	14-12-2004 12:56									#17
	re: civil war Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: It seems like the vast majority of veteran civ players miss the Civ 2 civil wars. I think that they need to return in Civ 4, but they should return in a much different form.

i realize i am a lurker (bows politely) and have not posted before, but i'd like to interject here. i am a long-time civ player (since the beginning). i remember the civil wars in civ2, and i believe it was wise of firaxis to remove them as a game element. let me explain.

when you are creating a game of any sort, your first consideration must always be FUN. fun comes before realism, before detail, before anything else at all. that said, here's why i think civil wars in civ are not fun to most players.

we all know how a game of civ goes. in some games, there comes a point where you realize that you are never going to "make it" and win the game before the clock runs out. now i understand that many people play thru to the end regardless, but that's beside my point. my point is that a system that can keep the game "close" as opposed to creating blow-out scenarios, makes for a lot more fun for all. i don't know if you have played or heard of Puerto Rico, a board game by Rio Grande Games, but it is an example of a game that allows for consistently close endings that can't be called until the final points are tallied. keeping a game close means keeping players involved and fighting hard for the win.

game mechanics that make for blowout games are those that create huge power shifts, often for minor reasons or even out of pure luck. in civ3, the single most dramatic agents of change are probably (off the top of my head) either nuclear weapons (could easily be argued otherwise) or alliances, depending on how you see it. now, those powerful agents of change are okay for several reasons. (bare with me as i'm sure you can sense i am nearing my point.) nuclear weapons, although powerful, do not occur until close to the end-game, thus accelerating things properly at advances stages in play. alliances are balanced in that they are available to all players (assuming normal circumstances) and are easily dissolved. the primary reason, however, that these powerful agents of change are viable is because they are resultant of player choices and stratagems.

would any player (AI or human) ever choose to split its nation in half? under civ2 rules or those currently being discussed, of course not, because the results are disastrous. in fact, in the course of history, more often than not, successful civil wars succeeded BECAUSE the country was such a mess that after the dust settled both nations (the old and the new) were better off than before. now i realize there are exceptions, i am merely stating a generality. and if we agree on this generality, then we must agree that a civil war that destroys a player (again, AI or human) to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to catch up to other intact civs is just too big a power swing and unbalances the game.

remember, a game of civilization is basically a race, and when you are out of the running you are plain out of the running. it is a downward spiral. small civs incur more penalties than bonuses. sure, you get a better trade return on luxuries, but you also have all the larger civs extracting tribute from you or declaring war because they smell blood. when an AI player in civ2 factioned, it was always cause for celebration. why? because the two new civs were shells of their former power. it became pathetically easy to divide and conquer. in that light, civil wars among the AI are simply too upsetting to the global balance of power.

civil wars for a human player are even worse. i think somebody mentioned a chance of civil war being triggered at the discovery of certain techs. i'm sorry to disagree so bluntly, but this is a no-no. when you mix a chance-triggered "bad" feature with a necessarily "good" feature, you break the game's natural progression. for example, if discovering democracy is going to have even the slightest chance of splitting your entire civ in half, which you've spent countless hours nurturing, are you going to even want that tech? no, you are going to avoid it like the plague or just reload if you don't like the result. and that's not FUN, and it's also not realistic. you'll have players going in awkward circles around certain advances in the tech-tree, avoiding a specific gameplay element, and that's not an in-game strategy, that's working around a design flaw.

to return to civil wars happening to human players: first off, it is pretty rare that the AI has the ability to take a large civ's capital. secondly, how many people actually keep playing after their nation splits, instead of reloading or quitting altogether. i'm not asking for a poll, i'm sure that some hardcare players do, but in general it is an event (mostly outside your control) that wrecks your dozens of plans and micro-plans that you've been laying out for thousands of game-years. it's just BAD GAME MECHANICS.

now, all of that said, i will admit that civil wars do represent an important trait in mankind's history. *IF* one were going to propose the inclusion of such a trait, and that's a big if, it would have to be contigent on a few factors.

first, and i sort of got into this earlier, revolts should be a natural progression for a civilization that (while changing the global dynamic of gameplay and thereby adding interest) it still happens for a good enough reason that the resultant civs at least GAIN in some areas while losing in others.
for example: a civ spread far too thin, with a huge amount of corruption and a decentralized government could faction off from civil war into two equal sides or (more likely) into a fledgling infant-state and an amputated but still dominant parent-state. the point here is that such a change could actually HELP the parent civ in some ways, such as decreasing its corruption, the amount of territory to defend, and the number of unhappy citizens (who would have been predominantly in the more remote areas of the empire), while at the same time no doubt injuring it by removing some of its dominion. when executed this way, civil war or secession actually plays a logical, natural role of trimming down fat, overgrown civs that are unbalanced in their strategy.

this directly addresses the problem of infinite sprawl AND the rabid and too-early colonialism ever-present in the civ3 system. it also creates gameplay balance by giving some advantage to smaller civs, while not automatically handicapping any civ that simply becomes too succesful. and again, to re-emphasize: civil war then becomes an effect that stems from a natural cause, not an arbitrary trigger that ruins an otherwise healthy nation.

if carefully implemented, you could keep the good things: global shift in dynamics that comes from a new player's entry, and eliminate the bad things, mainly arbitrary power shifts that essentially flip the 'gameboard' upside down. and if you think that this is merely 'drama' or 'flavor', think practically and remember that nobody likes the guy (or the game which causes it) who flings the gameboard off the table in anger because some immediate, arbitrary, disaster struck him from the runnings while offering no advance warning nor consolation for his obliterating setback.

to conclude, when you are brainstorming all the rules and sub-rules that would make civil wars integrate properly, seriously consider whether these rules would actively add fun to the experience, or merely act as a patchwork of 'realism' features that, while possibly novel at first, would eventually distract from the core elements of the game.

comments?

Leto

	15-12-2004 01:39									#18
	Tired of ads?

Leto

good post I really enjoyed it, and I agree with your many of your points, the most important is that features should agument the game and not hinder it

although I think that civ3 did take steps to combat ICS that civ4 could take it to another level and civil wars/break away republics could be part of that equation

I think that the current rules work against civil wars for a number of reasons

*a good/obessive player can prevent his civ from ever having a single unhappy city
*all new cities start out as perfectly loyal subjects
*starving cities down to size to weed out ethnic populations
*only two things resist blitzkrieg campaigns in civ3, the AI military prowess, and culture flipping

in order to have civil wars happen I civ4 would need to include a few new rule changes

*All cities always have to have at least one worker that players couldn't change into specialists. That way players could completely avoid unhappiness by changing everyone into entertainers. Then if a city stays in revolt for x number of turns it either flips back to its original civ, or if it isn't an occupied city it breaks away and forms a new civ (and raises the civil war risk for surrounding cities).

*Newly founded civs should start out with colonists instead of citizens if founded more than x number of tiles away from the capital. That number would increase with technology; however until then, newly founded cities would consist of colonists. Colonists wouldn't produce normal culture, instead they would produce a colonist type of culture that would work like other civs culture. The higher it gets the more likely these cities would break away. Eventually the core cities (or other civs) would absorb these colonist cities if they didn't break away.

*Starving cities should have double unhappiness and an increased chance of revolting and breaking away. Coupling that with the one worker rule would prevent players from engaging in the civ3 version of ethic cleansing, and make conquests slightly more dangerous. Especially if every time a city breaks away (either flipped back to its original civ or became a new civ) that the risk of surrounding cities doing the same would double.

*Blitzkriegs in the mid to late game usually allow players to absorb AIs very quickly, so quickly that AI defenders or culture flipping isn't able to stop it. Simply make it harder to absorb conquered civs, and make it much more likely they would reemerge through civil wars. Two rules could make this happen, any time an occupied city doesn't have military units in it, it automatically breaks away, and occupied cities have a much higher risks of breaking away.

I think these rules and very few others are all that's needed to implement civil wars in civ4.

	15-12-2004 03:07									#19
	Re: re: civil war Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Leto first, and i sort of got into this earlier, revolts should be a natural progression for a civilization that (while changing the global dynamic of gameplay and thereby adding interest) it still happens for a good enough reason that the resultant civs at least GAIN in some areas while losing in others. for example: a civ spread far too thin, with a huge amount of corruption and a decentralized government could faction off from civil war into two equal sides or (more likely) into a fledgling infant-state and an amputated but still dominant parent-state. the point here is that such a change could actually HELP the parent civ in some ways, such as decreasing its corruption, the amount of territory to defend, and the number of unhappy citizens (who would have been predominantly in the more remote areas of the empire), while at the same time no doubt injuring it by removing some of its dominion. when executed this way, civil war or secession actually plays a logical, natural role of trimming down fat, overgrown civs that are unbalanced in their strategy.

That is basically what would happen under my proposed civil war/secession scheme. As I have said, a region couldn't break away unless it was in disorder, and would have to be in disorder for multiple turns. As Mr. Fun pointed out, its relatively easy in most circumstances to bring a city out of disorder in one turn. I realize that. Under my structure, for a civil war to occur the city that breaks away needs ot be one that is so unhappy that it remains in disorder for a few turns and that the creation of entertainers can't solve the disorder. One example would be a city made unhappy due to extreme war weariness. Basically, instead of a chonically rebellious city having mobs that destroys city improvements, you have a region that is fed up with a government and yearning for independence.

As for benefitting the mother civ, if a region breaks away the corruption levels of the parent region would drop by default. Corruption is based on a large extent on the number of cities in your empire. If a chunk of 5 or 6 cities breaks off of your periphery, the rest of the empire's corruption levels would naturally decrease, especially if you were using a communal corruption government.

quote: this directly addresses the problem of infinite sprawl AND the rabid and too-early colonialism ever-present in the civ3 system. it also creates gameplay balance by giving some advantage to smaller civs, while not automatically handicapping any civ that simply becomes too succesful. and again, to re-emphasize: civil war then becomes an effect that stems from a natural cause, not an arbitrary trigger that ruins an otherwise healthy nation.

I agree with this reasoning 100%, and I think that my system reflects this. My system abandons the nonsensical Civ 2 empire split at capital capture, and replaces it with a more rational, realistic split along the lines of your suggestions.

	15-12-2004 03:53									#20
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by korn469 I think that the current rules work against civil wars for a number of reasons *a good/obessive player can prevent his civ from ever having a single unhappy city *all new cities start out as perfectly loyal subjects *starving cities down to size to weed out ethnic populations... *All cities always have to have at least one worker that players couldn't change into specialists. That way players could completely avoid unhappiness by changing everyone into entertainers. Then if a city stays in revolt for x number of turns it either flips back to its original civ, or if it isn't an occupied city it breaks away and forms a new civ (and raises the civil war risk for surrounding cities).

I think that you should be able to have as many specialists as you want. However, they should make each entertainer progressively less effective than the last. That way you can still starve your cities if you want to, but you can't keep your city artificially happy by having 80% of the city be entertainers.

quote: *Starving cities should have double unhappiness and an increased chance of revolting and breaking away. Coupling that with the one worker rule would prevent players from engaging in the civ3 version of ethic cleansing, and make conquests slightly more dangerous. Especially if every time a city breaks away (either flipped back to its original civ or became a new civ) that the risk of surrounding cities doing the same would double.

I agree that there should be extra unhappyness for starvation, but I think that you should still have the ethnic cleansing option. It may not be pretty, but it is realistic. Maybe there should be an ethnic cleansing option. That way, the game city targets that minority and only starves them out, but the game recognizes that you are deliberately ethnic cleansing. Selecting ethnic cleansing would create extra unhappyness, and the levels would vary depending on which government you are in. That way you can't fool the game with ethnic cleansing. It knows what you're doing and punishes you for it, unlike the ignorant Civ 3 AI. Keeping a minimum number of citizens who must remain citizens would eliminate the "ignorant" ethnic cleansing. That way you can choose the low road if necessary, but take your punishment, which would be the greater chance of revolt.

quote: *Blitzkriegs in the mid to late game usually allow players to absorb AIs very quickly, so quickly that AI defenders or culture flipping isn't able to stop it. Simply make it harder to absorb conquered civs, and make it much more likely they would reemerge through civil wars. Two rules could make this happen, any time an occupied city doesn't have military units in it, it automatically breaks away, and occupied cities have a much higher risks of breaking away.

Those are pretty good ideas.

	15-12-2004 23:26									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

These posts are all full of really good ideas so far, but I think my favorite new wrinkle to the whole thing (new to me anyway, I've been away for a while) is that cities founded too far from the capital get "Colonists" instead of "citizens."

These colonies could then have a different set of rules that bind them together based on geography (so you could have several sets of related colonies), and create a possibility of schisming with the original country. Lots of models could be created based on this simple rule, for revolts, for absorption, for defections.

That's easy, simple to understand, and doesn't have weird logical flaws (like systems in which any city on a different "continent" is a colony). Good work to you!

	19-12-2004 01:02									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Oh god, hell no. It's interesting for a civil war to happen, but for the love of god there has to be an option where I can turn it off.

	21-12-2004 06:02									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I like the idea of a "turn off" option for players. I'd like to be able to turn civil wars off at the start of a game if I so choose, but I'd also like to be able to turn it on.

Another idea as far as making civil wars/secession likely would be to add a bonus/penalty (depending on your point of view) for a significant body of water or significant amount of enemy-held land being between your capitol and the city up for secession. This is one thing that contributed to colonial secessions...the presence of the Atlantic Ocean in the new world, and the distance overland in Asia and Africa. Simply say if the # of land tiles exceeds, say, 10 or the number of sea tiles exceeds 8 (or some other set of numbers), then that acts as a factor. The thing is, this isn't just a distance issue...it's also an issue of being able to control the place in question.

Another version of this might be adding a penalty for not being able to trace a land or sea line to the city in question, though these cases would be much more unusual (either landlocked cities or cities on inland seas), and might make this one not worth the coding involved.

	21-12-2004 06:20									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Krushchev Another idea as far as making civil wars/secession likely would be to add a bonus/penalty (depending on your point of view) for a significant body of water or significant amount of enemy-held land being between your capitol and the city up for secession.

Yeah, that is very relevant. However the penalty should also change with technology as better communications and transport make interactions easier. This is both the pleasant sort of interactions, and also the end-of-a-gun kind!

	23-12-2004 20:41									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I like the idea of civil wars.

	16-01-2005 20:25									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The concept of Civil Wars is great but it, as many other concepts, must be kept simple. Designers should find a middle point between the too simple (and difficult to happen) "civil war only if capital is conquered" and a system in which we have to pay attention to each and every single city each turn just to make sure that it doesn´t split from our empire. Remember, the main point of any feature is to provide fun. Civil wars could be a very funny feature, but only if well designed.

	17-01-2005 03:12									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

CIVIL WARS ARE NOT FUN. DO NOT HAVE THEM. Culture flips can be extremely annoying, any idea that involves losing multiple cities simultaneously would be far worse.
Also the breakway civ would be easy pickings for another nearby civ and therefore would alter the power ratings of all civs too drastically

	17-01-2005 19:11									#28
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm surprised to say, but I don't mind the possibility of civil wars. Flipping is not so good (unless it's in my favor) because it's not so interesting. When I play, flipping is usually in my favor, so maybe I don't mind afterall, but if the tables were turned, that would be no good. But having a civil war and having a new civ break off from mine would be worth it. I just like the concept of having a civ in the game representing the Confederacy, or having a civ based on a region that was never independant in the real world, or a completely ficticious civ, or just bringing in an established civ just for a change midgame, or having a specific Norwegian civ when they are normally just part of the Vikings. I like the idea of having someone new to trade with, especially if I get bored with the settings I chose or if the number of civs had been reduced, and having a new partner in diplomacy, or the sudden effectiveness of the Great Library. I actually don't mind having balance of power shift, especially if the civil war is in another civ and I'm still as dominant or more so.

	17-01-2005 19:17									#29
	Remove this text

civil-wars start 99% of the time between two etnic groups. Thus, I am the dutch, I conquer germany (mostly other way around, but hey, it's just an example)

After 600 years all the german cities in my empire could feel dissatisfied because of certain decisions the governament has made, and splits up from my great dutch empire.

That's the only way a civil war should happen.
keep your minorities happy.

	18-01-2005 18:06									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

* Adagio jumps into the thread without reading any of the posts

Civil wars would be great to have in Civ4, but it might be a bit diffecult to get into the game while making it realistic...
Just make civil wars kinda like in Civ2, where when the capital is taken the rest of the civilization goes into an unrest for a few turns, and if the player doesn't manage to make all cities happy again (entertainers shouldn't help in this case) the civilization splits in two...