Civil Wars!

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think it'll be completely gone; I think Soren meant he was reworking it to be less unfun.

[Apocalypse]

Out as we know it at least.

[Kuciwalker]

Thankfully.

[PresidentMarcos]

I think cIV should reflect the fact that historically, most war has been between people of the same civilization fighting amongst themselves.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by PresidentMarcos
I think cIV should reflect the fact that historically, most war has been between people of the same civilization fighting amongst themselves.

I would have to disagree that most wars were civil wars, as internal conflit resulting from power struggles rarely split empires - they mainly ended in a lot of Royal blood spilled.

It also depends on how you look at the civilization - from our perspective we see those wars as having been faught within a civilazation (i.e. feudal japan, china, england, etc). However, prior to those "civil" wars, there wasn't much a of a civilization - just a collection of independent duchies and city states.

War as Civ has always presented it has been the grande scale aggression we see throughout history when one group decides it wants what another group has. A civil war is more about NOT wanting what others have - to the point of conflict.

[GePap]

I agree that civil wars should come about from massive internal unhappiness, which means a change to the unhappiness model.

It would be simplest, I think, to break down the system thus:

Each city has an unhappiness factor, from 1-10, with the chance of riots in a city going up as it gets closer to 10, with 0 chance at 1 to say 90% at 10 (figured each turn). Cities of different nationalities would never go to 1, but hover around 3 or so.

A National unhappiness scale would be based on the % of cities over unhappiness 5 or so. The more such cities, the greater the national unhapiness scale. And if the sacle goes above a certain spot, a chance for a full blown rebellion occurs.

This would force one not only to paficy each city, but make sure all the cities are not simply just bellow exploding.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think unhappiness need be the determining factor; it could play a role, but social factors unrelated to happiness can cause a civil war as well.

[PresidentMarcos]

No, no. Like lots of different petty states. To build an empire, you would have to unite a group of them close to you.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by PresidentMarcos
No, no. Like lots of different petty states. To build an empire, you would have to unite a group of them close to you.

I like this idea a lot. It also came up in a thread the maximum number of civs that should be available. The idea of minor vs major civs was brought up, and I thought it would be interesting if eveyone started as a minor civ, and had to work your way up.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=2

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't think unhappiness need be the determining factor; it could play a role, but social factors unrelated to happiness can cause a civil war as well.

And how would you model such "social factors"?

The simplest way would be to give them an unhapiness rating of some sort, meaning if said "social factors" exists, there is underlying unhapiness with the system (wich is true) that makes it more likely to face social disturbances.

[GePap]

Originally posted by fezick31


I like this idea a lot. It also came up in a thread the maximum number of civs that should be available. The idea of minor vs major civs was brought up, and I thought it would be interesting if eveyone started as a minor civ, and had to work your way up.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=2

The notion of a minor civ is a device to increase the number of civs in the game while limiting the drain on AI powers. Any civ being played by the player would instantly function as a "major civ". The distinction is not one of size or power at any point in the game, but the ability to become a great power by having a greater set of skills that AI can use to expand, trade, conquer, and research.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by GePap


The notion of a minor civ is a device to increase the number of civs in the game while limiting the drain on AI powers. Any civ being played by the player would instantly function as a "major civ". The distinction is not one of size or power at any point in the game, but the ability to become a great power by having a greater set of skills that AI can use to expand, trade, conquer, and research.

I understand the technical needs - just misunderstood the intent in reading those posts. I still like the idea of "minor civs" as a concept though. Perhaps what we are approaching is the difference between city states and empire (and the tendancy of those city states to want to be independent from said empire; this is afterall a thread on civil wars).

What if there were two type of barbarians - standard mauraders, and minor tribes that when conquered, could be added to your empire? This could also lead to two different types of splits in civil wars - monir civs that break off, but aren't big enough to really be considered a seperate power (i.e. taiwan type nations), and others that would be full fledged civs (i.e. USA, France, Byzantium).

[conmcb25]

I like the idea of Civil Wars.

I have seen it in CIV2 and in EUII and I like the concept, and theres no reason not to have it, if you can turn it off.

[GePap]

Originally posted by fezick31


I understand the technical needs - just misunderstood the intent in reading those posts. I still like the idea of "minor civs" as a concept though. Perhaps what we are approaching is the difference between city states and empire (and the tendancy of those city states to want to be independent from said empire; this is afterall a thread on civil wars).

What if there were two type of barbarians - standard mauraders, and minor tribes that when conquered, could be added to your empire? This could also lead to two different types of splits in civil wars - monir civs that break off, but aren't big enough to really be considered a seperate power (i.e. taiwan type nations), and others that would be full fledged civs (i.e. USA, France, Byzantium).

Well, there are many ways to treat a possible civil war, including civil wars within AI empires.

Some of the ones I see that might work fine are:

1. For AI empires- empire breaks down into multiple minor civs, from 2 on (with the original civ being one but demoted to minor civ). Then the game at random picks a minor civ to become a major civ to keep the number the same- now, the game may randomly chose one of the civil war civs as the new power, or it might not.

2. an AI empire losses large sections that become independent minor civs, but automatically retain great power status for the areas left.

3. for a player empire, same as #2 for AI,

4. A human empire breaks into 2, with the other side a major civ, while another major civ in the game gets demoted to minor to keep the number of majors equal.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, there are many ways to treat a possible civil war, including civil wars within AI empires.

Some of the ones I see that might work fine are:

1. For AI empires- empire breaks down into multiple minor civs, from 2 on (with the original civ being one but demoted to minor civ). Then the game at random picks a minor civ to become a major civ to keep the number the same- now, the game may randomly chose one of the civil war civs as the new power, or it might not.

2. an AI empire losses large sections that become independent minor civs, but automatically retain great power status for the areas left.

3. for a player empire, same as #2 for AI,

4. A human empire breaks into 2, with the other side a major civ, while another major civ in the game gets demoted to minor to keep the number of majors equal.

These are good ideas, but they operate on the assumption that the status quo must be maintained for the game. If the intention of minor civs is to limit the demand on the AI, perhaps the AI could be developed so that there are a couple of "empty" slots that it could still handle and be competetive. That way you could still get the twist of a new major player interacting with its mother culture without sacraficing other civs status. Otherwise, I could see civil wars just serving as a way to take powerful civs out of contention (although that would be an interesting strategy if there were ways to influence a civil war in another culture).