Civil war/rebellion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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.

[sophist]

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]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by sophist
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."

Having much warning doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

[Tattila the Hun]

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]

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?

[Ninot]

Civil wars, as proposed, are just as much arbitrary as culture flipping ever was.

Again, it has to be an option.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by sophist
Um, you did notice each one of those messages stated a specific reason and those reasons increased over time, right?

And those 'specific reasons' arise fairly arbitrary. And the time after you get those reasons you'll see a split is arbitrary. A lot of things are arbitrary about it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

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.

[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.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

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.

[Tattila the Hun]

Hmmm? What say you?

[sophist]

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]

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.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Or simply becomes 'barbaric'.

Way easier for the game.

All four futures for rebels should exist:

1) Join another civ - secessionist move of previously conquered.

2) Recreate a defeated one - why not? If you treat them like sh** and starve them to death, don't they have a right for a freedom fight? And they may come up under "new - old" name: Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis.

3) Spawn a new one - Brasilians, Americans, Mexicans, South Africans, etc. Why not?

4) Or simply becomes 'barbaric'. Yes! poor culture and low literacy might create independent barbarians. That will make barbarians more fun (in Civ 3 Barbarians are completely unfun, because they are dumb and cannot even conquer a city).

And the future path of rebels should definitely depend on YOUR policy towards secessionists and their ethnicity.