Civil War & Partizans

[Willem]

Originally posted by QuickGold
I'm all for a civil war mod. I loved in Civ II when a nation would split in half

Not me, it just meant that I ended up with two weak rivals who were pitifully easy to eliminate.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by Willem


Not me, it just meant that I ended up with two weak rivals who were pitifully easy to eliminate.

That's what we want to avoid. We want to create realistic scenarios that would result in more enjoyable play.

If we just split them in half, then yes, there is little point to this. BUT, if a civil war results in cities that were otherwise unusable due to corruption gaining a seperate entity, and thus becoming a world power, then it would meet our description. The Civ 1/2 model only addressed collapse due to invasion - which WOULD result in an easily defeatable opponent. We want a more well rounded system.

[gerf]

Originally posted by Willem Not me, it just meant that I ended up with two weak rivals who were pitifully easy to eliminate.

Ah, but imagine if the Kurds would split from Iraq, after which the Kurds from Turkey and Iran join them. Shifting empires along very strong boundaries happens often in real life

India/Pakistan is a modern example that's quite obviously along religious lines.
The colonies in the Americas are all splitters, with a large variety of circumstances behind them.
The USSR breakup is a huge example of splitters, and the reasons behind each i have no clue about
Yemen split, under strange circumstances
Israel is splitting, but that's obviously religious as well.
Czechoslovakia split very very peacefully.
Spain and the Moores had some crazy splitting and re-conquering back in the day.
The Phillipines split from the US, peacefully.
Korea split, with huge outside political and military influence.
A lot of countries split from Rome.
Quebec almost split from Canada recently.
China split, despite still "claiming" Taiwan.
But then, Germany united itself several times in its past
the UK is the "United Kingdom" composed of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland.
Vietnam united, though Americans don't like to think about it much.
Heck, Siam was all of SE Asia, so there's a lot of splitting.
Yugoslavia was one for a while, due to political and governmental reasons.
Austria-Hungary was one country.
Finland was all one country at one time, though no one thinks of it
Egypt was united in the ancient past.
The U.S. even united with Texas.


So, what can we generalize as reasons for splits and combinations?

[jimkirk]

i would like the idea .. however if someone made a scenario like it its fine with me i just wouldnt d/l it
and i hope firaxis does not make it in the expansion i like my civilization game humorous and half baked please i dont want anything realistic

[fezick31]

Originally posted by jimkirk
i would like the idea .. however if someone made a scenario like it its fine with me i just wouldnt d/l it
and i hope firaxis does not make it in the expansion i like my civilization game humorous and half baked please i dont want anything realistic

The best way for this to be implimented would be for it to be an option during game setup. You can turn it on or off.

A lot of us do want realism. If you don't want the mod at all, don't install it when it's done. However, if you think it's interesting, but want to to be less realistic, feel free to add to the discussion. The only bad idea is the one you don't express

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by gerf

Ah, but imagine if the Kurds would split from Iraq, after which the Kurds from Turkey and Iran join them. Shifting empires along very strong boundaries happens often in real life

It would be really, really great.

This brings something else into my mind. The Kurds have never had their own state (if we forgot about the 1945/1946 experiment). Therefore we should have more NATIONS than CIVILIZATIONS from the realistic point of view. One possibility to implement this is to give empty tiles some kind of "nationality" and after somebody builds a city on these tiles, they will start to produce citizens of different ethnicity. Number of these "native" citizens should increase as time passes, not decrease.

The other possibility is to use Barbarian cities to bring non-civ ethnoses in. Maybe these methods should be combined.

This will give us empires that would split or break up over time as the number of "native" citizens grows in border regions.

[Jaks]

I am definitely in agreeance with adding a more complex revolution model to the game. So often a game ends much sooner than it should because a single empire rises above the others and makes the game boring for all. Below are scenarios gleaned from the posts in this thread and compiled into four categories with my own twists on them:

Opponent driven autonomy system - Espionage units available in the Medieval Ages allow a government to contact and support a rebellious population of an opponent. Can only support a group that has similar beliefs/agendas. Therefore, sending in religious converters ahead of time to foreign nations helps increase the number of citizens in the opponents empire that you can one day support. The more of his population that agrees with you and not with him, the larger the seperation. New empire will be formed or a barbarian state will take over the cities.

Civilization re-emergence model - System maintains an ethnicity model of each empire and tracks dispersed cultural groups over time. As an empire becomes unstable either economically (starvation, depleting coffers and unmaintained cities), morally (constantly shifting civic/religious choices) or militarily (being invaded/threatened without having protection in the cities) then there is a chance a rebellion will happen. If sucessful a new Empire will be formed

Player induced puppet state (Sub-Autonomy) - Empire grants sub-atonomy to its fledgling rebels allowing them to form a sub-empire that is allowed to grow culturally but not militarily. A percent of the profits earned by the puppet state are given to the Empire and the empire has access to all resources of the puppet state. This allows an empire to grow further than normal as maintenance is lessened on far flung puppet states. The puppet state must remain apart of the empire for x number years before it can consider breaking away as its own empire or joining another empire as a puppet state for a smaller amount of the profits.

Opponent induced puppet state (Regime change) - If a player or AI can surround the capital of an empire for so many years it can force its citizens to enact a regime change. If it happens the current leader is replaced with a new one that has similar civics as the aggressors and is friendly with them (Open Borders). After a regime change a percent of the empires profits are given to the aggressor and all resources of the puppet state are available to the aggressor for x number of years as tribute.

The above scenarios make conquering a neighboring or far off nation more viable and allow growing an empire further than the current game allows. It also introduces many new ways to break apart a large empire. This should simulate a more realistic model of how nations are formed and collapsed and give many more choices to be aggressive without resorting to sacking cities. It also keeps it more lively in the end game as more empires are introduced to add political complexity to the mix.

Jaks

[Kristjan]

bump

[Kristjan]

There seems to exist a mod by Firaxis that simulates civil war with Barbarian activity. Good model for peasant uprisings (although Civ is about the cities only, real life is not!). Something similar was done in ever-glorious Harlan's Vikings' scenario of Civ2 (massive Barbarian uprising in Egypt, triggered by certain year number).

Thread is here:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142337

Has anybody tried this out? I do not have my own copy of the game yet.

[RadeonZero]

As I could read, there are two "partys" discusing the matter:

One, the people who wants civ4 as the world is.
Other, developers and affiliates that defend civ4 to create a world how it should be.

Those are different games.

Cheers

By the way: roots shouldn't allow political flaming

[fezick31]

Originally posted by RadeonZero
As I could read, there are two "partys" discusing the matter:

One, the people who wants civ4 as the world is.
Other, developers and affiliates that defend civ4 to create a world how it should be.

Those are different games.

One of the great things about the civ series is it's modability. We can have both games

I would put myself in the realism camp...I'd like to see a model that is fairly complex, mainly so that it has a random nature to it. If the game is over simplified, it's boring.

As for making the world as it should be, I don't think that is what civ is about (at least from the perspective of making things less complex). Every iteration of the game has come after the fans have cried for more complexity in diplomacy, commerce, government, technology, and combat models. Civ 1 was a great game, and was very simple, but if it was released now, it would either be in the children's section or the $5 rack at best buy.

However, I can understand why people would want a less complex system...if you want to predict your game with accuracy, and not deal with semi-random events, then have at it (but that civ would have to made by Disney and would have a fairy godmother for your domestic advisor... )

I think Civ is about what ifs and creating a world that could have been, not necesarrily the one that should have.

Fezick

By the way: roots shouldn't allow political flaming

Where are you seeing this?

[nckestrel]

Medieval Total War is another enjoyable game with civil wars.
One of my major complaints about Civilization is that for a game that is supposed to be at least loosely based on history, Civ is a race. History goes in cycles.
And I know Civ is not a slave to "realism", but this is one of the MOST important themes of history, not a minor detail.
Civil Wars was one of the few nods to this idea. And I really enjoyed it. But then, my only goal isn't to "win".
On a side note, I hated culture flipping. But that was more because it was so sudden and in many cases ridiculous. (I take a city with a completely foreign army and two turns later the entire army goes native, and now has better equipment than before..)
Is it too much to ask for decadence as well?

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by nckestrel
Is it too much to ask for decadence as well?

No, it is not. For example, Civs should be able to lose tech as well under certain circumstances.

[padillah]

Call me kooky but I just can't read through 4 pages of this.

My suggestions:
1) I think civil war is a good idea. It adds to the list of things to keep under control and makes unhappiness a REAL threat. (Currently it just bugs me to have them unhappy. But, since I have enough happy people working, I don't have to care.)

2) I think a Peace Treaty should also cause a small chance of a small faction breaking off. Much like the reorganization after WWII and other wars. This would be part of the diplomacy to end the war... "I offer Peace for Peace and the liberation of East Germany". If you don't want to you can keep fighting and hope to wear them down.

3) Now that we have populations (x% German, Y% Spanish) we can base a small percentage on this. It shouldn't be the driving force ('cause the player can't control it) but maybe it'll be the last straw...

4) Unless there is a more blatant warning that people are unhappy (rather than a simple little icon on the city screen) I think a warning is in order. I don't want a civil war I didn't know about. (I do like the buildup suggested earlier - Yellow, Orange, and Red.)

Tom P.

[Sloth_DC]

Hmm, a couple quick thoughts:

1) Replace culture flipping: Instead of transferring a city directly from one civ to another, have it go indepent or, if that proves too difficult, barbarian. That gives the owner a chance to put down the rebellion - or, more realistically, will cause the neighboring civs to compete for control of the newly independent city. It also eliminates the unwanted city syndrome - if the city flips, either side can eliminate it rather than incorporate it.

2) Have unhappiness manifest as barbarian units in the city radius. Again, this means the rebellion can be put down if the owner keeps his military forces handy - which might be quite difficult if he's in the middle of a war. This should get a bump when changing civics.

3) If city unhappiness is sufficiently high, this translates into a larger barbarian stack appearing.

This model has the advantage of being much simpler to implement, and eliminates the need for coding in most of the civil war - once the rebellion gets out of hand, the barb units themselves will spread the rebellion throughout the empire. It also eliminates the problem of having half the player's empire suddenly and inexplicably split off - the rising of the barbs should be gradual enough to indicate there is a problem, and give the player time to deal with it, either by garrisoning troops to put down the rebellion and/or by adjusting his policies to eliminate unhappiness.