 |
| |
|
|
Matthevv
|
|
Crawley, W.Sussex, England
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
The Civ3 civil unrest is quite a bore, because it is totally predictable, and just requires you to open up the city and make an entertainer to resolve it (or tweak the happiness slider). In other words its just a tedious administrative task. So I'm not sad to see that go. I won't even discuss the culture flipping nonsense, the sooner that is buried the better!
The "Rome Total War" game though has an excellent rebellion model. Its a probabalistic thing, so you can never be totally certain whether a city might rebel, though you can affect the likelihood according to temples, food, and garrison strength. If it rebels you can either send a diplomat to bribe it back, or an army to repress it. Depending on your preference you can leave the likelihood of rebellion high, saving money on building temples and stuff but keep an army handy to clear up any disorder that occurs, or you can keep everybody happy. I find this model is a good addition to the enjoyment of the game, as it makes it more difficult as your empire gets larger, to keep all your cities in order, while still keeping armies available to expand (though I have noticed that a few resounding military victories has an effect of reducing the probability of rebellions).
I think any civil war model would be better as an option, though, as there are some types of Civ player that might not enjoy it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
That was what I was thinking of. The ratio of unhappy citizens to total citizens equals the % chance that a city riot will break out-how much damage the riots cause dependant on the number of unhappy citizens.
In addition, each unhappy citizen also gives a % chance of the city secceding-modified by factors like garrison size and strength, city rioting, distance from capital, number of cities in the nation, # of resistors and/or foreign citizens and city culture and health levels.
The point is that, as you mentioned, the probablistic nature of rioting and civil war means that you can't merely micromanage it away, but have to attempt broad policy changes to decrease unhappiness.
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
Imagine that each citizen has a "loyalty" rating that you could see. Loyalty would be a function of their ethnicity; their religion; their happiness level; how nationalistic your social engineering is; the strength of your culture; the distance from the capital; whether the city was founded by your civ, acquired peacefully, or conquered; how enlightened your civ is; what bad things you've done in recent history; health; how wealthy they are; how many military units there are in the area (and whose they are); and some other factors that people have mentioned.
You could look at each city and see how loyal its citizens are. If there are some very disloyal citizens, there may be riots as the loyal and disloyal fight each other or the disloyal commit acts of violence to gain independence. If there are many very disloyal citizens, there may be rebellion (either to join another civ or to go independent). If there are some moderately disloyal citizens, nothing will happen. If there are a few very disloyal citizens and many disloyal citizens, nothing will happen, but the situation is fragile; you could provoke rebellion by changing a policy, declaring war on someone those citizens are sympathetic to, using martial law, etc., another city in your empire going into rebellion, a nearby city in someone else's empire going into rebellion (think French Revolution just a short time after the American Revolution, or the wars of independence in South America), or the city could be easily subverted.
Loyalty would be a function of more than just bread and circuses. The citizens remember what you've done. If you haven't been keeping them content over the long term, they'll stab you in the back the minute you turn around. Jacking up the luxuries may buy you some time, but it doesn't build any long term loyalty. On the other hand, if you've been good to them for a long time, anyone who tries to take them from you will find it hard to keep them. I think it should be like previous rebellions and civ3 culture flipping in that the whole city should go, as opposed to spawning guerrillas. Unlike culture flipping, though, you will always be able to tell how close you are to losing a city, so it's not something that happens out of the blue. You'll always know exactly how far you're pushing it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
Doesn't seem too complicated to me (of course). I mean, they're doing all those happiness, ethnicity, distance, etc. calculations as it is; combining them would just add a few lines. And we certainly want to keep the ability to subvert cities.
As far as picking a leader goes, the rebelling cities would either join another civ, recreate a defeated one, or spawn a new one. In the first case, there's no issue. In the second case, they can either use the leader they had before or (I think this is better) use the second leader for that civ (if there is one). In the third case, the game just picks some available, unused civ and whatever leader it has. It's pretty trivial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sophist
As far as picking a leader goes, the rebelling cities would either join another civ, recreate a defeated one, or spawn a new one. In the first case, there's no issue. In the second case, they can either use the leader they had before or (I think this is better) use the second leader for that civ (if there is one). In the third case, the game just picks some available, unused civ and whatever leader it has. It's pretty trivial. |
i wouldn't be against a generic civ. Like Barbarians, but capable of everything any other civ can do. Just don't give the civ a unique unit, or make it a copy of another civ, but with some random name. Having a text file with civil-war civ names would be very easy to implement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, that's a good suggest, Ninot. I don't want to see respawn civs. It's silly to be the, say, Americans and in a civil war, the Chinese come up. WTF?
...
Just a city list perhaps and a 'barbarian' leader pic for negotiations screen.
But still, make it an option. |
It would be trivial to tell it which civs can spawn which others, although it might not be as obvious as you think. The Dutch became independent of the Spanish, after all. I'd be willing to forego the "spawn a new civ" part, though, and restrict it to joining an existing civ or the rebirth of a civ that you conquered (and owned that city), like how Persia emerged again from being under the Arabs, or how Byzantium was basically a Greek empire that forked off from Rome (even though they called themselves Roman).
I don't like having a group of "real civs" and a group of barbarians. That seems kind of judgmental, especially since in many cases, the lines aren't nearly so clearly drawn. After all, the Mongols were barbarians initially, but they became an empire and they're a civ in the game. The Goths were barbarians, but they became the Franks and the various German nations, and they're in the game as both French (sort of) and Germans. Ditto for the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes becoming England, or (some) Slavs becoming Russia, etc.
Making it an option would be a poor choice. This would be pretty fundamental to game play. You keep your people happy and your empire manageable in size in order to avoid revolution. Eliminate the possibility of revolution and there's no counterweight. I also think that people are too willing to make something an option rather than really focus on making it good. I think they or we can come up with a mechanism that satisfies both of us with enough effort.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
Well, in the Civil War Model I suggested at Civfanatics, I had the equations Denominator determined by the Difficulty setting of the game (with an option of setting it in the editor too). So, if playing a Chieftan game, the Denominator would be a 0, meaning that Civil War is not possible. Warlord would be 1 etc etc. Making Civil Wars harder to prevent as you play at ever harder levels-though never truly crippling.
Another point, though, is that Civil Wars should only have a chance to occur when triggered by certain events-such as starting/ending wars, changing religions, changing civics settings and high-level unrest.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
I think it would have to be an option, and not mandatory.
Many people have made many fine points on why Civil Wars are undesireable to a Civ game. They cannot simply be ignored.
But I just hope its in the game at all. |
I guess I haven't seen any of those fine points, then. The only issue I thought was serious was unpredictability, and that can be addressed through several different mechanisms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sophist
It would be trivial to tell it which civs can spawn which others, although it might not be as obvious as you think. The Dutch became independent of the Spanish, after all. I'd be willing to forego the "spawn a new civ" part, though, and restrict it to joining an existing civ or the rebirth of a civ that you conquered (and owned that city), like how Persia emerged again from being under the Arabs, or how Byzantium was basically a Greek empire that forked off from Rome (even though they called themselves Roman). |
The Dutch and Spanish are from the same continent. As for rebirth of a civ, what if you haven't conquered any? If you don't conquer a civ does that mean no civil war?
quote:
I don't like having a group of "real civs" and a group of barbarians. That seems kind of judgmental, especially since in many cases, the lines aren't nearly so clearly drawn. After all, the Mongols were barbarians initially, but they became an empire and they're a civ in the game. The Goths were barbarians, but they became the Franks and the various German nations, and they're in the game as both French (sort of) and Germans. Ditto for the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes becoming England, or (some) Slavs becoming Russia, etc. |
Having 'barbarians' is the only way, IMO, of having a civil war if you haven't conquered anyone else. That's why you call them generic barbarians and not name them as something else. Therefore no civ is tarred with that name.
quote:
Making it an option would be a poor choice. This would be pretty fundamental to game play. You keep your people happy and your empire manageable in size in order to avoid revolution. Eliminate the possibility of revolution and there's no counterweight. I also think that people are too willing to make something an option rather than really focus on making it good. I think they or we can come up with a mechanism that satisfies both of us with enough effort. |
It HAS to be an option. So many people hate it, it would be a big source of contention and I'd imagine some players would try to code it out themselves (with the game being so customizable). I'd rather have a stable game with and without the civil war option.
The counterweight is less benefits from your city. No shield are produced and no food. If it goes on for too long, they may join another civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for rebirth of a civ, what if you haven't conquered any? If you don't conquer a civ does that mean no civil war?
|
That's a good point. I guess a civ appearing out of nowhere would have to stay in then.
I still don't understand why you think it would be such a big deal, though. I think it would make sense to people. If you grow too slowly, you become militarily weak, don't have good tech, etc. If you grow too fast, though, you risk collapsing under your own weight. If you're a little too big, you get inefficient. If you're a lot too big, you split. It seems to me to be a less annoying way to limit growth than making half your cities useless from corruption or having a hard cap on the number of cities or other mechanisms for achieving this result. Just mention the dot-com crash in 2000 and people will get it ;-).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
To put it another way, you only risk a fatal fall if you climb too high. If you only climb a little bit, you may still fall, but only a little ways and you just get a bump on the head. If you stay on the ground, you don't fall at all, but you don't see the stars, either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Cause people get ultra pissed off at that 'feature'. Enough that plenty would start a new game or go back to an earlier save. People can understand losing a war, but a Civil War where the computer arbitarily takes half of your empire? A lot of people don't like that at all, in the slightest. |
It would not be arbitrary. It would be predictable and preventable. You would have plenty of warning:
"Your highness, the Egyptian citizens of Ashur are unhappy about the war. The city has not had a governor for 4 years due to the large size of our empire."
"Your highness, there were protests in Ashur because citizens are unhappy with the war with Egypt and the lack of a cathedral."
"Your highness, there were riots in Ashur due to the war with Egypt, the lack of a cathedral, and your highness's decision to free the slaves."
"Your highness, Ashur has defected to Egypt, and we fear Ur may be next."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
Well, if it helps, here is the Civil War model which I suggested in the Civfanatics forum.
A key thing you have to remember is that exact numbers would depend on game balance issues, and that for a civil war to even be checked for would require a Trigger Event . These trigger events will probably be matters of War and/or Peace, or Philosophical/Governmental/Religious grounds. Though a seriously unhappy city (more than 50% unhappy) could also provide a trigger.
Anyway, here is the model itself.
1) The base formula could be either (D/(Pt-Pu) or (D/(Pu/Pt)): where D is the denominator, based on your difficulty setting (from 0-4), Pt is the total population of the city, and Pu is the number of unhappy citizens.
2) All other factors (nationality, religion, distance from capital, garrison and civics settings) increase or decrease this chance by multiplication or division-not direct addition/subtraction.
3) One issue is that the implementation of Nationhood would
reduce the chance of your own cities seceeding, but increase the chance of cities with large numbers of foreigners seceeding.
As an example though, say you have a city-in a warlord game-with population of 10 and 3 of them are unhappy, whilst another 3 of them are happy. This would mean that the base chance of the city seceeding would be 1/(10-3) or 1/7=0.14% chance of secession. In addition, though, each happy citizen might reduce the secession chance by 0.5. This means that this city may only have a .0175% chance of secession. Of course, if the city had a population of only 6-and no happy citizens, then the chance of secession would be 0.33% (around 3 times that of the other city).
4) To reduce unecessary micromanagement (unlikely as it is with a WYSIWYG system) you would get a 1 turn warning of an impending secession. Cities likely to seceed would be indicated by a relevent symbol (such as a Confederate Flag for instance). In addition, your domestic advisor will warn you of impending civil war and the most likely cause of their complaints.
A great guy called Meleager-who is a maths whizz (unlike me) rewrote it in this fashion
Base
C = Chance to Defect
PTot = Total Population
PSad = Sad Citizens
D = Dificulty Setting Value
C = D x ( (PSad - 1) / PTot )
So if you have a city of pop 5 with 5 unhappy people
1 x (4 / 5)
0.80% chance of succession
A City of population 1 with 1 un-happy citizen
1 x (0 / 1)
0 % chance of succession
A city wont be able to reach the full D value also cities with a pop of 1 cannot defect. (and cities will not reach the point where they ALWAYS defect)
Base + Culture
CulAvg = Civilizations Average Culture (per city)
Cul = Culture of the City
C = D x ( (PSad - 1) / PTot ) x (CulAvg / ( Cul + 1) ) )
The Base works the same as before but now if a city has less culture than the nations average then ( CulAvg / (Cul + 1) ) will be greater than 1 (otherwise, if the cities culture is greater than the national average then it will be less than 1) . This is then multiplied by the Base and timesed by the dificulty alterator. The + 1 exists so that their will be no multiplication by 0.
An Example:
Pop = 5
Sad = 3
National Avg Cul = 700
City's Culture = 500
D = 1
C = 1 x ( ( 2 / 5 ) x ( 700 / 501 )
C = 1 x ( 0.4 x 1.4 )
C = 0.56%
However if,
City's Culture = 800
C = 1 x ( 0.4 x (700 / 801) )
C = 1 x ( 0.4 x 0.87 )
C = 0.35%
As you can see the base would have been 0.4 % but the culture chanced this. However, there is a problem if it is a new city with a culture of 0:
C = 1 x (0.4 x (700 / 1) )
C = 280%
I was thinking of using a multiplier on the culture part of th equation to stop this but it effects the normal cities too much. Perhaps the culture should only be taken into acount when it is greater than the nations average.
Base + Culture + Distance
Dist = Distance from Capitol or the Forbidon Palace or SPHQ whichever is closer
DistSec = Distance from the Nearest city also Separating
C = D x ( (PSad - 1) / PTot ) x (CulAvg / ( Cul + 1) ) x (Dist / ( .5 x DistSec) ) )
You will notice a side effect of the above calculation is that your capitol and any city with a forbidden palace or a SPHQ cannot defect as Dist = 0.
We will use the example above where the chance so far is 0.56%
A city defects 5 tiles away, the capitol is 19 tiles away
0.56 x ( 19 / ( .5 x 5) )
0.56 x 7.6
4.256%
City defects 8 tiles away, the capitol is 9 tiles away
0.56 x ( 9 / (.5 x 8) )
0.56 x 2.25
1.26%
So cities could naturally split apart as groups. To increase the chance of this we could reduce the .5 to .2 or lower (reducing this value will increase the chance of cities breaking away in groups).
Cities with pop 1 are always safe with this model. That may be a bad thing. Also I still need to find a way to handle cities with no culture and I have not found a way to make effect cullumative over time.
Sorry for the extreme length of the post guys.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
 |
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
As for the new leaders of the new civ, there usually are enough rebels in any nations history. Let's say they rebel because of general unhappines from english civ. They become The People's Republic of Ireland  and their leader is someone like Michael Collins...
For american flavor, Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis.
Or, if no such person exist, generic Che Guevara leading the Free People of Polynesia...
I also think I, and strong AI's, should be able assimilate smaller, and decicively weaker AI's, under certain circumstances. Say, China annexes Tibet. Most of the cities go to chinese, but some on the northern border decide to stick with russians. Same with regicide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Having much warning doesn't make it any less arbitrary. |
Um, you did notice each one of those messages stated a specific reason and those reasons increased over time, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
They wouldn't be arbitrary if the reasons led to civil war in a fairly predictable fashion. Just have a look at my post to see what I mean.
For instance, if you are a religiously intolerant society, and a new religion suddenly rears its head in one of your cities, then this could be a potential trigger for a civil war. However, if your society is happy, cultured and-better still-compact, then such a trigger will be of no danger whatever. Its only if your nation is suffering from internal dissent and-worst still- is also ethnically diverse and/or culturally underdeveloped that triggers like political/socialogical change or increased religious diversity pose a threat to the integrity of your nation.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
In my system, the major determinant of whether a civil war will occur is unhappiness-with a greater risk if those who are unhappy are resistors or foreign nationals. If one of the trigger factors occurs, and any cities fail their 'secession' check, then said cities will appear with an appropriate flag over them (perhaps a Confederate flag?). Your domestic advisor will also warn you of the impending civil war and its cause and-if you don't take any action-then you will end up in a state of actual civil war in the following turn.
The major point is that, with a WYSIWYG system, it should be very easy to tell if your nation is at risk of civil war, with a final warning if one is on the verge of occuring.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And the problem is with the numerous factors that may lead to a civil war, how do you keep track of all of them to determine how close you actually are to a civil war? Do you get a number? All I see is very vague warnings there which won't lead you to know when or if a civil war is imminent. |
So you're saying you want a warning? i.e., "if you do nothing, Osaka will rebel?" That makes the whole thing rather pointless. You should be able to easily discover what your chances are, maybe in a simple green/yellow/red threat level scheme, but the degree of warning you seem to want would not work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yarco_TW
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
How could those Philistines call Civil War unfun. YES, it has to be done right in order to BE fun, but this could easily be achieved. [...]
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker. |
 Precisely. Civil War is fun, and most of the reasons were already mentioned in this forum.
One more major unlisted reason is that I am bored to see all civs (including Americans) being created 4000 BC. I want to have Ottomans created from Seljuk, Americans from British, Brazilians from Portuguese, Byzantines from Romans, Portugese from Visigoths, Russians from Kievan Rus, Taiwanese from Chinese, Aztecs becoming Mexicans after independence war, Majapahits and Shrivijayans becoming Indonesians, and so on.
Then you can start with 7 civs 4000 BC, and play with 36 civs, but they will not be always on the map, they will develop, rise and fall. Celts should appear 1000 BC, and Ottomans 1300 AD.
In history this is normal: successful military states, like Franks, Kievan Rus, Mongols etc. conquer large tracts of land with sparse population. As time comes, and population grows, higher level of culture and military force is needed to keep the greater numbers of folks together. If you do not have enough military, disorders become more frequent. If you average culture per head sucks, you should (!) get more corruption. High corruption, low culture and poor military should eventually destroy you, or persuade you to split the empire.
And, some people (Romans, Charlemagne, etc.) split their empire being quite reasonable people.
Yours,
Yarco_TW
P.S. This also means, that all non-seceding civs should have their "creation" date fixed, and normally not equal to 4000 B.C., but this is off topic.
Last edited by Yarco_TW on 04-07-2005 at 22:27
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2005 18:24
) Bringing in a non-selected city to be that civ always struck me as strange.
|