Civil War & Partizans

[problem_child]

I used to really enjoy causing civil wars in Civ2, watching opponents rip-themselves apart after a well placed nuke for instance, I was quite dissapointed it wasn't possible in Civ3.

Will Civ4 see the return of the Civil War? And for that matter, will we see the return of Partizans that don't have to be built, but rather just appear when you take a city?

[smellymummy]

i don't think its in, although maybe we can mod in game level events where a civ splits up when X occurs.

not sure if we could automatically inject a new civ into the game though, maybe just a part of the civ would have to become barbarian

as for partisans, i always thought they were really weak and most of the time after taking a city I would have plenty of units to clean up

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

A number of Australian civ-fans (myself included) are going to try and put together an in-game script for determining a chance of a civ-split if certain trigger conditions are met (such as loss of a capital or changing civics). Of course, the ACTUAL chance-if any-of it happening will depend on such things as happy/unhappy, culture, distance from capital and # of cities.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
A number of Australian civ-fans (myself included) are going to try and put together an in-game script for determining a chance of a civ-split if certain trigger conditions are met (such as loss of a capital or changing civics). Of course, the ACTUAL chance-if any-of it happening will depend on such things as happy/unhappy, culture, distance from capital and # of cities.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Good idea, I would just suggest that if you will have a chance for civil war changing civics to have a display or a popup confirmation to both warn the player and indicate the probability of cities rebelling- perhaps even listing out individual cities if the probabilities are going to be varied.

[Lorizael]

Very few people would enjoy a game where half of their empire suddenly becomes their enemy. While realistic and potentially fun, it is frustrating.

But I would enjoy seeing this feature. In order for this feature to be fun, though, a couple things would need to take place. The first thing is that there should be multiple warnings telling you that a civil war or rebellion is near. Players should be able to do things about this in order to reduce the probability that it occurs. If the civil war is going to occur despite their actions, it should be that what they have done will lessen the severity of the event.

Second, the player should receive a final warning that a civil war will occur in one turn. This leaves the player with a single turn to do whatever he can to make sure that it does not happen. I think the player should always or almost always be able to prevent the event, but only after a massive expenditure of resources. You need to make it so that the player has a choice, so that preventing the civil war may appear to be the more costly of the two choices.

This way, if a player screws up badly enough to warrant a civil war, the player can either choose to let half their empire fall away and continue with what they've got (or fight to reclaim), or they can specifically harm the majority of their empire, by spending money or sacrificing population points or whatever it takes to prevent the civil war, and manage to hold onto the entirety of their empire.

Bad things should never just happen to a player. There should be a choice involved. Lesser of two evils. And there should always be something that the player can do about it.

[Locutus]

Civ splits are bad, bad, bad game design. If they happen to an AI, it becomes a walk-over, if it happens to a human 99.9% of the time (s)he will reload. If it's easily preventable it will never happen. It was fun back in the days of Civ1 when AI wasn't an issue, but those days are long over.

[Nikolai]

It works well in games like EU, I can't see why it shouldn't be possible in Civ too. But it needs to be done right of course.

[ajbera]

You need not lose half your empire, as in Civ1 & 2. But rather than losing cities via culture flipping (unrealistic, IMO), I'd rather have a city or 2 split off and form a new civ. Builder-type AI civs could be supportive of the new civ, while aggressive civs could see them as fresh meat.

But I agree it should not happen all the time, only when discontent reaches extreme levels, and is not rectified in a fair amount of time.

I can understand Firaxis' decision not to include it in vanilla Civ4, but I think it's a no-brainer choice for a mod.

[Kristjan]

I definetely vote FOR civil wars. I would certainly not reload if it happened and if conditions are properly defined, the split would happen anyway. I mean the civil war should be a culmination of long-lasting problems and it gan be used to take ICS out (maybe even instead of city cost which is actually a civ3 feature).

I am a civ1 vet and I really enjoyed capturing the enemy's capital and watching the empire split. Because the AI was so weak in these days, I never ever lost MY capital to these guys

Possible civil war triggers:
1) too many unconnected cities (but it would be logical if these rebelled)
2) religious split - empire is divided between 2 religions (obsolete by religious freedom civic)
3) geographical distance (an island breaks off)
4) economic collapse
5) anarchy between change of civics (it has always disturbed me that revolutions were so easy in civ; remember 1917 & it is possible to think about American CW as triggered by the change in civics)
6) sometimes it just happens :P

[sophist]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Very few people would enjoy a game where half of their empire suddenly becomes their enemy.

I won't disagree with this statement, but I will point out several assumptions it makes that are not necessarily valid. First of all, it's not necessarily half. It might be half, but it's more likely to be a couple of cities.

Secondly, it wouldn't be sudden; civil wars Civ1 style are silly and not what is intended. It should be more like the real world, where civil war breaks out after a long period of tension and barely restrained hostility due to economic, ethnic, religious, and political pressures.

Thirdly, why does this branch have to become an enemy? We've been told that in Civ4, it may be in your best interest to give away a city because it could be unprofitable. Perhaps you have three cities that are unprofitable for various reasons that overlap with real-life drivers for secession. Rather than those being foisted off onto an existing nation, they are spun-off into their own entity. In some ways, that nation could be more likely to be an ally, in the way that Australia and Canada are close with the UK. An actual war would only happen if some set of cities seceded and the parent civilization wanted to reassert control. If you're ok with letting them go, there's no war.

Originally posted by Lorizael
But I would enjoy seeing this feature. In order for this feature to be fun, though, a couple things would need to take place. The first thing is that there should be multiple warnings telling you that a civil war or rebellion is near.

That a city is consistently unhappy is sufficient warning of secession risk. Secession will only happen because of specific causes that you will be well aware of in the turns leading up to the actual secession.

Originally posted by Lorizael
Second, the player should receive a final warning that a civil war will occur in one turn. This leaves the player with a single turn to do whatever he can to make sure that it does not happen.

Again, I think this is redundant. What I would prefer instead is a way to negotiate with the seceding region to try to bring them back into the fold peacefully. We're probably talking about the same thing, only I prefer the drastic steps to happen after formal secession rather than before. Perhaps there's an intermediate step between "part of your empire" and "independent nation." Well, actually, there is; you have one or more cities in a chronic state of revolt. That's your warning. That's your chance to prevent the civil war. That's also your chance to accelerate it by proactively granting independence.

Originally posted by Locutus
Civ splits are bad, bad, bad game design. If they happen to an AI, it becomes a walk-over, if it happens to a human 99.9% of the time (s)he will reload. If it's easily preventable it will never happen. It was fun back in the days of Civ1 when AI wasn't an issue, but those days are long over.

That's far too broad a generalization to be supported. Reloads won't help because secessions will be deterministic. The AI won't become a pushover due to the fragmentation of the empire, either. Such fragmentation is most likely to happen to nations that are already weak in some way. In addition, the fragments could still be allied as described above. Also, since mindless expansion isn't the optimal strategy in Civ4, AI weakness doesn't mean that it would be profitable for the player to try to take advantage. Furthermore, the fragments could just as easily be picked up by another AI rather than the player. And finally, neutering the game due to AI limitations is bad, bad, bad game design.

[Ninot]

I'll bake cookies for whoever can mod in Civil War.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by sophist
Reloads won't help because secessions will be deterministic.

Then most players will abandon the game and start over.

The AI won't become a pushover due to the fragmentation of the empire, either. Such fragmentation is most likely to happen to nations that are already weak in some way.

And splitting them up only makes it worse.

In addition, the fragments could still be allied as described above.

Then what's the point in splitting them up? It's supposed to be a civil war after all...

Also, since mindless expansion isn't the optimal strategy in Civ4, AI weakness doesn't mean that it would be profitable for the player to try to take advantage.

That doesn't mean that several small civs aren't easier to take on than one big one.

Furthermore, the fragments could just as easily be picked up by another AI rather than the player.

Humans are far more adapt of taking optimum advantage of this than any AI ever will be.

And finally, neutering the game due to AI limitations is bad, bad, bad game design.

Then how come games with bad AI get so much flak? Making gameplay that works for the AI is quintessential to good game design, unless it's an MP-only game.

Seriously, how many games have you ever seen where this actually worked? I've seen dozens of tries at this, both by professional designers and by fans. None of them could make it work. It's as bad an idea of a Unit Workshop. A good game is more than a bunch of in theory neat ideas...

[sophist]

Originally posted by Locutus

Then most players will abandon the game and start over.

Those are the same player that will abandon a game if they lose a war, or if they're not the ones to build the Pyramids, or any number of other setbacks. This one isn't special.

Originally posted by Locutus

And splitting them up only makes it worse.

Only in a game where ICS works, and it looks increasingly like yin is going to have to eat that box. Consider an empire with 21 cities. It might be losing 200 gold per turn due to maintenance. If you broke it up into three empires of 7 cities, on the other hand, you might have three empires that each make 100 gold per turn, for a net gain of 500 gold per turn. That's an invented example using only one metric, but it's also valid. Given the ways that allies can cooperate in Civ4 with research and war, it could very well yield a stronger group of opponents.

I'd also favor adding a more decentralized set of choices to the game to accompany this. It should be possible to have a very centralized government, like France; a looser style one like the United States; a very loose republic of states like... er, no example comes to mind; and a federation like the EU. Then secession could be a more gradual, two-way process with various costs and benefits that change which is best in a particular situation.

Originally posted by Locutus
Humans are far more adapt of taking optimum advantage of this than any AI ever will be.

That's a very broad generalization that's almost sure to be wrong.

Originally posted by Locutus
Then how come games with bad AI get so much flak? Making gameplay that works for the AI is quintessential to good game design, unless it's an MP-only game.

You are equating two statements that are not equal. What I said is that you shouldn't neuter a game because of AI limitations. That doesn't mean you should design a game without regard for your ability to construct a good opponent, it means that your fix for an AI that is bad at one particular thing shouldn't be to just remove that feature.

[vStauffenberg]

civil wars should at least be an option to choose in the game settings

[Hozchelaga]

Civil wars work fine in other games. Europa Universalis II and Victoria (both Paradox) showed what could be done with a little history and a lot of imagination.

And let me tell you, fighting those civil wars was FUN. There's nothing better, IMO, than running down a breakaway Crimea after expanding the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania a little too far...

Of course, those (fantastic) games were positioned to niche markets. And there's the rub. As much as I love the Civ franchise, it's (out-of-the-box) potential is diminished by populism. Yes, the legacy of the franchise itself threatens to become a noose, borne of one-half mass marketing, one-half fear.

A majority of consumers wouldn't like civil wars in game, so there are no civil wars. A majority of consumers wouldn't like natural disasters in game, so there are no natural disasters.

Religion barely made it in, by the look of things. Nevermind that EUII, Victoria and Crusader Kings implemented religion, including religion bonuses and penalties, years ago, without 'backlash' or complaint.

It took them four tries at Microprose/Firaxis, and there are still people complaining.

So how to make everyone happy? Moddability. Now you (or a friend) can pick up the vanilla (no civil wars) version and add that in. You can make Civ as realistic as you want.

Nobody else is going to do it for you.