Tweet
Remember how back in Civ 2 there would be secessions and civil wars? You would be conquering another civilization, and all of a sudden part of it would break off and form a new civilization. That was so cool! I was very disappointed when they dropped the concept from Civ 3.
Of course, I can see why they dropped it—it was poorly implemented. IIRC, A civil war would happen only when a civ lost its capital. This worked badly, since 1) it meant that a civ would fragment when it was being attacked and in a desperate situation, which seems unrealistic (where’s the nationalistic fervor?), and 2) it meant that the human player never had to deal with it, since no decent player will lose his capitol to an AI unless the rest of his empire is gone as well.
But is there not a way to bring the concept back, better than ever? It seems to me that the concept of “Civics” provides a perfect opportunity to do this. Consider:
Changing the way you run your empire should have a cost associated with it, otherwise people can just change back and forth willy-nilly to get advantages in some situation. In previous Civs, changing your government required lots of turns of anarchy. That’s okay for a government, which might change twice during a game, but it’s a big cost considering the number of Civics that will probably be changed around in a given game of Civ4. SMAC had SE, and they used money as the change-cost, but the cost of changing your SE options was very low. It only costs 15 energy credits to switch to a Cybernetic Society? Why would I ever turn that down? For balance, Civ4 should fall somewhere between these extremes.
So what if the “cost” of changing your civics was that there would be a small chance for a few of your cities to declare independence and attempt to secede? So maybe Southern Greece says, We don’t approve of this “State-owned Property” idea, so we’re going to form our own nation. Wouldn’t that be cool? I can see this chance being affected in several ways:
1) It’s more likely to occur in large / geographically non-coherent empires. So it wouldn’t happen in the early game (when it would be a disaster), but if you have colonies on other continents, they could well decide to break off.
2) It’s less likely to happen in cities/empires with high culture. If the outer regions of your empire embrace their cultural identity, why would they break off?
3) It’s more likely to happen for certain “controversial” civics. I can’t see anyone revolting over a move to Universal Sufferage, but a change to Emancipation, or a change away from Democracy, could easily provoke secession.
If part of your empire attempts to break off, you have two options. 1) declare war and reconquer them. 2) Let them go. Why would you ever let them go? Well, if you did, they would be independent, but they would be very grateful and would become really super friendly to you, and you could immediately negotiate extremely beneficial deals for any resources you might have lost when they left. Plus, you wouldn’t have to deal with corrupt, remote, hard-to-defend cities that suck away your resources. Think of what happened with the British Empire.
There would be two terrific benefits to this idea. First, it would prevent the typical Civ3 endgame situation where four huge civs dominate the two continents of the world. Boooring. Second, it would greatly increase the realism of the game. How many times in history has there been a civil war tied to a change in policy? A LOT. The British and other European colonial empires broke up arguably because those countries moved away from Colonialism (I don’t know if Colonialism is a Civic, but it could be). The Confederacy left the USA because of Emancipation. Russia and China both fought civil wars when they moved to State-Owned Property. Western Rome broke away gradually as Rome moved away from a Republic (didn’t they? Or am I making that up?). The US revolution doesn’t fit the mold exactly (the US was not resisting a Civics change), but it helps underscore the need for secessions in a game like this.
The only downside I can see is that I don’t know if the game will be able to handle a new Civ being added midway through an epic game.
Just throwing this out there. Comments? Ideas? Criticisms?
Of course, I can see why they dropped it—it was poorly implemented. IIRC, A civil war would happen only when a civ lost its capital. This worked badly, since 1) it meant that a civ would fragment when it was being attacked and in a desperate situation, which seems unrealistic (where’s the nationalistic fervor?), and 2) it meant that the human player never had to deal with it, since no decent player will lose his capitol to an AI unless the rest of his empire is gone as well.
But is there not a way to bring the concept back, better than ever? It seems to me that the concept of “Civics” provides a perfect opportunity to do this. Consider:
Changing the way you run your empire should have a cost associated with it, otherwise people can just change back and forth willy-nilly to get advantages in some situation. In previous Civs, changing your government required lots of turns of anarchy. That’s okay for a government, which might change twice during a game, but it’s a big cost considering the number of Civics that will probably be changed around in a given game of Civ4. SMAC had SE, and they used money as the change-cost, but the cost of changing your SE options was very low. It only costs 15 energy credits to switch to a Cybernetic Society? Why would I ever turn that down? For balance, Civ4 should fall somewhere between these extremes.
So what if the “cost” of changing your civics was that there would be a small chance for a few of your cities to declare independence and attempt to secede? So maybe Southern Greece says, We don’t approve of this “State-owned Property” idea, so we’re going to form our own nation. Wouldn’t that be cool? I can see this chance being affected in several ways:
1) It’s more likely to occur in large / geographically non-coherent empires. So it wouldn’t happen in the early game (when it would be a disaster), but if you have colonies on other continents, they could well decide to break off.
2) It’s less likely to happen in cities/empires with high culture. If the outer regions of your empire embrace their cultural identity, why would they break off?
3) It’s more likely to happen for certain “controversial” civics. I can’t see anyone revolting over a move to Universal Sufferage, but a change to Emancipation, or a change away from Democracy, could easily provoke secession.
If part of your empire attempts to break off, you have two options. 1) declare war and reconquer them. 2) Let them go. Why would you ever let them go? Well, if you did, they would be independent, but they would be very grateful and would become really super friendly to you, and you could immediately negotiate extremely beneficial deals for any resources you might have lost when they left. Plus, you wouldn’t have to deal with corrupt, remote, hard-to-defend cities that suck away your resources. Think of what happened with the British Empire.
There would be two terrific benefits to this idea. First, it would prevent the typical Civ3 endgame situation where four huge civs dominate the two continents of the world. Boooring. Second, it would greatly increase the realism of the game. How many times in history has there been a civil war tied to a change in policy? A LOT. The British and other European colonial empires broke up arguably because those countries moved away from Colonialism (I don’t know if Colonialism is a Civic, but it could be). The Confederacy left the USA because of Emancipation. Russia and China both fought civil wars when they moved to State-Owned Property. Western Rome broke away gradually as Rome moved away from a Republic (didn’t they? Or am I making that up?). The US revolution doesn’t fit the mold exactly (the US was not resisting a Civics change), but it helps underscore the need for secessions in a game like this.
The only downside I can see is that I don’t know if the game will be able to handle a new Civ being added midway through an epic game.
Just throwing this out there. Comments? Ideas? Criticisms?
Comment