Civl Wars and Breakaway Civilizations in Civ 4.

[Wycoff]

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.

[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 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.

[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!"

[Wycoff]

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.

[Wycoff]

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.

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

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.

[Brent]

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.

[Trifna]

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.

[Brent]

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.

[Wycoff]

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.

[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?

[Wycoff]

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.

[diablovision]

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.

[Brent]

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.

[Niptium]

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

[MrFun]

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.