Civil War & Partizans

[fezick31]

First, props to Sophist and his petition system of warnings.

I would love to see Independence Movements in Civ. It adds complexity to the game, and face it, that's what civers like (or we would only play FPS).

I like what Malig had to say, but I do have some remarks:

Originally posted by Malig


Yes i like the above with the following addendum:

1) If your civ has taken over cities of another civ and the captured/destroyed civ had a high culture rating then:
Within 1000 years perhaps less:
The cities belonging to that civ may move for independence (like greece having been part of the roman , byzatine and ottoman empire).
Then if they are successful they would become an independent civ before they were destroyed like in Medieval total war, a destroyed faction would sometimes come back. etc.

This seems to happen more when the conquering Civ collapsed...Greece came back not because of their strong culture forcing itself away Constantanople or the Ottomans, but because the Byzentine and Ottoman Empires collapsed or were conquered. In the poer vaccume, Greec arose because the alternative was nothing. So on the note...perhaps totalitarion, central power base based civs would risk a shattering of their territory if their capitol (the keystone of their empire) fell.

2) If the split off occurs and the culture is the same as yours if another leader of your nation (like victoria and elizabeth) exist they would be the leader of that nation with colors similar to the original nation for continuity sake.

2a) If there is no other leader available like for Spain, the rebelling nation would have a random image or a silhouhette picture of a person as the leaders image. The colors would be similar for continuity sake.

2b) The new nation would receive the same specials as the original nation it had rebelled against. It would count as a whole other civ but viewed differently by the AI if at war with the nation it had rebelled against. That is the AI would understand this is a rebelling nation with the same culture as the nation it is rebelling against.

Perhaps new leaders could be developed as part of the mod?

3) If the rebelling/independent nation is not the same culture as in part 1 (greece) then other civs may attack them and take that culture over.

I would like to see the AI have to make a decision about whether or not to recognize the new entity as a sovereign entity. It would force the player to negotiate with other nations before acting. Look at the American Revolution vs the American Civil War. In 1776, France and Britian were already at War, so France immediatly recognized the USA as a new nation and established diplomatic ties. Conversely, in 1863, Lincoln realized that European nations were about to recognize the CSA...legitimizing their fight and opening the door for external help for the southern states. As a result, he issued the Emancipation Proclomation, which had no effect on Southern Slavery, but made the war overtly about freeing slaves...after that Europe wouldn't touch the CSA with a 10 foot pole. Adds some intrigue to the game (although it may be beyond the scripting ability of the game)

3a) If the rebelling/independent nation is the same culture as yours then there should/might be special options available. For instance you may be allied with another nation that helps you in your unifying efforts and would capture a rebelling city and 'hold' it for you and hand it over to you when ready. Much like liberating a city like Berlin/Paris during ww2.

3b) On the other hand perhaps an ally of yours has been completely captured and destroyed IE. xxxx civ has been destroyed so (total civs - 1). If you were able to capture enough of the enemies cities of your allies (now defunct) culture you maybe re-establish your ally as a nation once again. This would/should cause this ally to be so grateful as to always side with you in all matters or something. Would be similar to the puppet nation mentioned by above poster but both options would be good.

Good idea, but it doesn't always happen this way. Look at France...they were liberated by the allies in WW2, but they are far from a puppet govt. Maybe you would see increased civil unrest in those cities if you DIDN'T re-establish that civ. I can't imagine how ticked the French would've been if Paris was the capitol of the 51st state, and not an independent country...

4) May be redundant but to be clear I just want to make sure the AI understands the circumstances involved and not to treat it indifferently. Which also means some civs inclined to being evil may try to take advantage of the situation perhaps helping the rebels with funds or units etc.

That happens in real life. for example, when Afghanistan rebelled against the USSR, the US provided them all the arms they could carry. Same for China & North Korea, or the USSR and N. Vietnam. I think proxy wars could be an interesting development. You may find yourself limited in your retalitory capacity due to the precence of foreign "advisors".

[sophist]

Originally posted by fezick31
First, props to Sophist and his petition system of warnings.

Thanks, though all I did was consolidate what others had said and put it in a pretty package.

Originally posted by fezick31
This seems to happen more when the conquering Civ collapsed...Greece came back not because of their strong culture forcing itself away Constantanople or the Ottomans, but because the Byzentine and Ottoman Empires collapsed or were conquered. In the poer vaccume, Greec arose because the alternative was nothing. So on the note...perhaps totalitarion, central power base based civs would risk a shattering of their territory if their capitol (the keystone of their empire) fell.

I think what he was referring to was more that the Byzantine was a Roman Empire in name only. The Byzantines were effectively Greeks who called themselves Roman.

The extensions that have been stated above sound like they would get pretty complicated. I'd like to keep it simple. You have several degrees of centralization of your government. You also have several degrees of closeness with other nations. The most decentralized government isn't much different from the closest alliance. Then you add on top that your citizens can request civics changes, as well as push for their area to become more autonomous/independent, based on money, luxuries, religion, culture, and the other obvious ingredients to secession.

[fezick31]

The extensions that have been stated above sound like they would get pretty complicated.

That is true...one can dream though...but then I don't know python, so I get to pull the "you're a programmer, you can do anything" line I get from time to time... :-P

I think what he was referring to was more that the Byzantine was a Roman Empire in name only. The Byzantines were effectively Greeks who called themselves Roman.

I understood him to be wanting to preserve the original culture of a civilization. Like a cultural seed, if you will, that after a certain time period will try to reassert itself. For example, I conquer the Aztecs as the Japanese, 100 turns go by, and now the Aztecs try a bid for independence to re-establish their nation, with their old culture and uniqueness. <- Malig, correct me if I'm wrong

I can see that after 10 or 15 turns (representing the generation that saw their parents conquered), but having it happen in essentially a different game age (1000 years is a long time), would require outside impetious...by that point, a large portion of the population is going to consider thenselves Japanese, not Aztec.

I do like the idea though.

[Tartan Spartan]

Possibilities

Definately feeling the need for civil wars

I like the idea of ideological splits (american civil war / vietnam / korea) with the possibility of war by proxy

I also like the idea of nations reasserting themselves, either if their master weakens or social change means that they become more self aware of the cultutal differences between them and their rulers (like indian independance)

In the old days may empires ruled diverse people without huge nationalist revolts. Class, caste and religion were perhaps more important, it was only with the rise of the nation as an idea that it became untennable for austrias to rule czechs etc

Overly large and poorly integrated empires should also have the possibility of fissionng, independantly of these other proplems.

You could use somthing similar to the culturally linked starting locations to guide what nation they would become. Eg. A set of towns which are highly interconnected but a long way from their capital could revolt. Englsh might spawn americans or germans, french might spawn romans or spaniards etc


Bring on the rebels

Strength and Honour!

[sophist]

Originally posted by fezick31

That is true...one can dream though...but then I don't know python, so I get to pull the "you're a programmer, you can do anything" line I get from time to time... :-P

Actually, implementing that would be easy. I mean complicated from the player perspective. It's already a complicating dynamic, so making it so involved would be a net loss. I figure that anyone who does this should aim for the simplest thing that could possibly work and then gradually add things until it feels right. No sense in overdoing it.

Originally posted by fezick31

I can see that after 10 or 15 turns (representing the generation that saw their parents conquered), but having it happen in essentially a different game age (1000 years is a long time), would require outside impetious...by that point, a large portion of the population is going to consider thenselves Japanese, not Aztec.

It would depend on the strength of the culture of the conqueror, of course, and the ethnic compatibility as well. Common religion, happiness, and the other factors that affect likelihood of civil wars should also influence rate of assimilation. It should be possible, even likely, for a conquered city to assimilate very little even over hundreds of years.

[Kristjan]

Greece came back not because of their strong culture forcing itself away Constantanople or the Ottomans, but because the Byzentine and Ottoman Empires collapsed or were conquered. In the poer vaccume, Greec arose because the alternative was nothing.

The Byzantine Empire was essentially Greek state long before it fell. For instance, it is well known that Austrvegr (trade route from Baltic Sea to Black Sea) was described as a "path from Variags to Greeks" already during the age of Vikings. The population was overwhelmingly Greek and Greek language was primarily used for centuries.

[fezick31]

Kristjan said:
The Byzantine Empire was essentially Greek state long before it fell. For instance, it is well known that Austrvegr (trade route from Baltic Sea to Black Sea) was described as a "path from Variags to Greeks" already during the age of Vikings. The population was overwhelmingly Greek and Greek language was primarily used for centuries.

I don't know enough of the specific history to argue this, so I stand corrected on the presence of Greek culture. I still hold that it was the collapse of the BE, not an assertion of that Greek culture that led to Greece becoming a nation.

sophist said:
A...
It should be possible, even likely, for a conquered city to assimilate very little even over hundreds of years.

B...
Actually, implementing that would be easy. I mean complicated from the player perspective. It's already a complicating dynamic, so making it so involved would be a net loss. I figure that anyone who does this should aim for the simplest thing that could possibly work and then gradually add things until it feels right. No sense in overdoing it.

A) I agree it should be, but you don't see many examples of it in history.

B) From the player perspective, I see what you mean. However, it seems like most of these are behind the scenes operations used to dictate what would drive a rebelion to start. For me, I'd like it more complex, as it makes it more random, and increases the replayability. However, I understand I'm not the only Civ player in existence, and that others would want to predict the occurance with accuracy. I also don't have the game (and probably won't for awhile), so I'm not in a position to speak on its UI with any authority.

[adarel]

I think a Civil War mod would be fantastic! I miss the random events of Civ1 as well - pirates, famine, etc. It was carried over into Alpha Centauri as well, never too bad, good, predictable or common to be a bad feature. I loved it!

I think that half of a civilization may indeed be too much, but it could depend on geographical factors. If a large part of the empire is on a island halfway across the world from the capital, it makes logical sense that if conditions were not pristene, eventually, they would fight for independence.

I agree they would not have to be enemies *after* the split. Consider America and Britain - relations might be on the rocks for a little while, but an alliance could very likely develop.

And I think excessive warnings would just defeat the purpose. I think in real life, it's *hard* to rule a civilization and keep it together - nobody gets direct warnings from some all-seeing deity that New Holland is going to revolt. It's a logical endpoint for bad ruling, or even not-the-best ruling.

If I were more savvy, I'd make the mod myself - but, instead, I will worship whoever does.

Ad

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by fezick31 A) I agree it should be, but you don't see many examples of it in history.

I see plenty of them. For instance, Estonia was foreign-occupied from the 2nd quarter of 13th century to 1918. And we are still here

Most of Central and Eastern Europe nations were in fact foreign-occupied for centuries and most of them did not assimilate. There are many nations in the world that have never had anything like nation-state, that means, they have been foreign-occupied from some early Despotism stage by Civ terms that makes thousands of years. These nations are still there, speaking their own languages, living their own way of life behind imported banners.

Ethnical groups are maybe even surprisingly persistent in many parts of the world.

[sophist]

Originally posted by adarel

And I think excessive warnings would just defeat the purpose. I think in real life, it's *hard* to rule a civilization and keep it together - nobody gets direct warnings from some all-seeing deity that New Holland is going to revolt. It's a logical endpoint for bad ruling, or even not-the-best ruling.

It's a tricky balance. The event must be predictable, otherwise it's frustrating. In addition, in the real world, it's easier to get a pulse on what your people want. It's trickier with Civilization. The various types of suggestions and warnings from "a delegation of citizens" could be a sign of civil war to come, or just general unhappiness. It's not so much a warning per se as a bigger, fuller feedback mechanism to for you to learn about the moods and concerns of your citizens.

It could also be a way to introduce non-state independent actors in the game like the People's Revolutionary Congress or the Assassins or the Knights Templar or the Red Cross or Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by fezick31

I don't know enough of the specific history to argue this, so I stand corrected on the presence of Greek culture. I still hold that it was the collapse of the BE, not an assertion of that Greek culture that led to Greece becoming a nation.

The Byzantine Empire was a Greek nation. The fall of the empire didn't lead to a Greek nation for that reason, and also because the area of modern Greece was conquered by the Turks around the time of the capture of Constantinople. The Greek nation as we know it today emerged in the early 19th century and was consolidated in the early 1920s after a treaty established the modern boundaries of Turkey, which also resulted in the expulsion of over a million ethnically Greek inhabitants of Anatolia, and somewhat fewer Turks from Greece proper.

Originally posted by fezick31

A) I agree it should be, but you don't see many examples of it in history.

To continue with the Greece example above, the first treaty dividing the Ottoman Empire after WWI granted to Greece Constantinople and the area around Smyrna/Izmir, which had a substantial Greek population until the expulsions named above.

Poland spent centuries alternating between independence and occupation, as did Finland and (to some extent) Norway. The Persians re-emerged from both Arab and Mongol occupation. Armenia was occupied by Romans, Parthians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and Persians. Ukraine was a Russian territory for centuries. China was occupied by both the Mongols and the Manchurians. Then there are the Balkans...

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by sophist
It could also be a way to introduce non-state independent actors in the game like the People's Revolutionary Congress or the Assassins or the Knights Templar or the Red Cross or Al Qaeda.

I have always thought about a scenario, where some non-state entities were in. Some avanturists sneaking their way to power or just highway robbers...

Robin Hood and Merlin. The Pope and Usamah ibn Laden. Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Captain Nemo. None of them has a real state behind them (no "cities" by the terms of Civilization).

It would be easy to give "Nautilus" unit as first unit to some civ. But I have not had heart to throw any existing civilization out. There are so few of them...

That is one of the reasons why I strongly support the idea "more is better". I want to be able to make a scenario where 64 civs clash together as well as a scenario where 20 civs and 44 non-civ wiseguys operate.

[refardeon]

Anarcy = Civil War

You guys do realize that there is already a model of civil unrest and -war in the game, don't you?

In Civ3, your government can collapse if enough of your cities are in unrest, throwing your empire into a period of anarchy. It takes a few years, then order is restored, leaving you with no production or research. If you let this happen, it is bad enough; if you take some citys from the player, it's even worse. If you think of the Civ game mechanics, this would be the best oppertunity for an enemy to grab a chunk of your former territory, leaving you crippled... I'm not sure how the anarchy thing is handled in Civ4, but I'd guess it'll run along those lines.

Honestly, an empire-split would be incredibly unfun to the vast majority of gamers. In Civ 1, this could happen only to the AI, not to the players - this should tell us something...

Civilization is not about recreating history, folks. It is about great gameplay. Some people here already said that most players would simply reload if all of a sudden half of their empire has gone missing, or quit the game altogether. And if you'd make a rebellion very unlikely to happen as someone else mentioned, you might as well scrap the idea. It just does not fit into the game mechanics well.

Of course, with the moddability of Civ4, I am sure that there will be mods that include the empire split - but it won't be any fun to 99% of all civ gamers. The idea was dumped back with Civ2, and honestly, Civ has always been a game of going forward, not going back - and so should we

Note: Of course, that does not mean that there couldn't be scenarios about civil war; the US War of independence or the October revolution in Russia come to mind. I'm sure you could do some great scenarios based on the idea.

[Verenti]

Re: Anarcy = Civil War

Originally posted by refardeon
Honestly, an empire-split would be incredibly unfun to the vast majority of gamers. In Civ 1, this could happen only to the AI, not to the players - this should tell us something...

Obviously Sir, The vast majority of the population on this thread, Disagrees.

[ajbera]

Besides, we're not envisioning losing half your empire, just a couple of cities (depends on how many you have, obviously). And, most importantly, things would have to get very, very bad in your empire, and you would have multiple warnings and opportunities to amend the situation before the split.

In other words, if you govern very badly, you will receive progressive warnings of your populace's discontent, and if you don't tend to it, and the situation becomes dire, a portion of your empire splits and forms an independent entity. This is a blow to you, but not a game-ending one. You can try to reconquer those wayward cities, accept their independence and trade with them, etc. But it won't be a sudden, out of the blue occurrence, and it won't cripple your empire (though it will be quite a setback).

[fezick31]

by refardeon:
In Civ 1, this could happen only to the AI, not to the players - this should tell us something...

Actually, I remember this happening to me a couple of time as the player.

We aren't going necesarrily for the most player friendly game here...I'll concede that a lot of players wouldn't like this happenig TO them (heck, I wouldn't). However, most of the people here are looking for a higher degree of realism (why else would we debate the historical and cultural siginifigance of the collapse fo the Byzentene Empire), and dynamic empires that grow and shrink are historical - and so are civil wars and independence movements. We don't want to create a mod where some random event cripples the play (that would NOT be fun)...we want an influental event that increases the diplomatic complexity and demands more mental exertion on the part of the player.