Tweet
Every now and then, we on Apolyton ask Firaxis to implement revolts and independence wars or civil wars. Many people want these revolts for improved realism, or to crush the enemy more easily (Civil wars à la Civilization 2).
But from a gameplay perspective, why would Civil wars be fun ? What would they really bring to the game ?
1. The counterweight to expansion: shrink
I think the main answer to that question is that Civil wars would bring huge dynamism to the game. Actually, they'd bring the missing half of the historical dynamics to the game:
Civilization games all challenge you to stand the test of time. While this sound incredibly difficult at first (only China managed to do that in the real world), it happens to be really easy in the game. Except if the player tries to conquer the whole world, most civilizations will have stood the test of time by the end of the game, while a few would have been eliminated.
Why is that ? Because the only possible dynamics for a Civilization is to expand. In the early game, a Cvilization will grab as much unsettled territory as possible, and in the later game, it will try to conquer another territory. A successful conqueror will be stronger and stronger as he acquires more cities and more productive centers ; in the long run has nearly no chance to fall. On the other hand, a Civilization lucky enough not to get involved in wars will always stand the test of time.
In short, most of the Challenge in Civilization games is to "win". "Not to fall" is not a challenge per se, except if you have bad luck.
And this kind of challenge is exactly what would be brought by Civil wars.
To some extent, Firaxis already took steps to avoid expansion as being the obvious choice. The high corruption and cultural conversions in Civilization 3 make sure the conqueror must be cautious, and should avoid overstretching his empire. This is completely different from Civilization 2, where a city was fully productive after the conquest (no corruption, no risk of conversion), and where a conqueror would become exponentially stronger.
But these steps do not adress the core of the problem, that is that a expanding Civilization is about sure to be permanently stronger after the expansion than before. They only affect Civilizations marginally.
Civil Wars are the real way to have Civilizations shrink despite being at peace with foreigners. They could prune huge empires into smaller ones, and ease their elimination in case of foreign war. They would really bring in the challenge in "standing the test of time".
2. Creative destruction: the emergence of new Civilizations during the game
From a historical perspective, there is a fundamental flaw in every Civilization game. That is to have all Civilizations start at the same time, and let them be eliminated as the game progresses. The rival Civs remember your past deals with them and offenses to them.
Civil wars can add new Civilizations midgame, if the rebels are indeed a new Civilization. The emergence of new Civilizations would be refreshing for the game and, I think, fun. It would add some surprise, and hence some extra excitement. And we all want a game to be exciting right ?
Civil Wars may also do a great case to integrate more Civilizations, both very ancient and very modern. As such, the presence of an Italian Civilization would not be absurd despite the presence of Rome already.
I think these two reasons are why Civil wars, Independence wars and rebellions should be in Civilization games. I look forwards to see them one day
But from a gameplay perspective, why would Civil wars be fun ? What would they really bring to the game ?
1. The counterweight to expansion: shrink
I think the main answer to that question is that Civil wars would bring huge dynamism to the game. Actually, they'd bring the missing half of the historical dynamics to the game:
Civilization games all challenge you to stand the test of time. While this sound incredibly difficult at first (only China managed to do that in the real world), it happens to be really easy in the game. Except if the player tries to conquer the whole world, most civilizations will have stood the test of time by the end of the game, while a few would have been eliminated.
Why is that ? Because the only possible dynamics for a Civilization is to expand. In the early game, a Cvilization will grab as much unsettled territory as possible, and in the later game, it will try to conquer another territory. A successful conqueror will be stronger and stronger as he acquires more cities and more productive centers ; in the long run has nearly no chance to fall. On the other hand, a Civilization lucky enough not to get involved in wars will always stand the test of time.
In short, most of the Challenge in Civilization games is to "win". "Not to fall" is not a challenge per se, except if you have bad luck.
And this kind of challenge is exactly what would be brought by Civil wars.
To some extent, Firaxis already took steps to avoid expansion as being the obvious choice. The high corruption and cultural conversions in Civilization 3 make sure the conqueror must be cautious, and should avoid overstretching his empire. This is completely different from Civilization 2, where a city was fully productive after the conquest (no corruption, no risk of conversion), and where a conqueror would become exponentially stronger.
But these steps do not adress the core of the problem, that is that a expanding Civilization is about sure to be permanently stronger after the expansion than before. They only affect Civilizations marginally.
Civil Wars are the real way to have Civilizations shrink despite being at peace with foreigners. They could prune huge empires into smaller ones, and ease their elimination in case of foreign war. They would really bring in the challenge in "standing the test of time".
2. Creative destruction: the emergence of new Civilizations during the game
From a historical perspective, there is a fundamental flaw in every Civilization game. That is to have all Civilizations start at the same time, and let them be eliminated as the game progresses. The rival Civs remember your past deals with them and offenses to them.
Civil wars can add new Civilizations midgame, if the rebels are indeed a new Civilization. The emergence of new Civilizations would be refreshing for the game and, I think, fun. It would add some surprise, and hence some extra excitement. And we all want a game to be exciting right ?
Civil Wars may also do a great case to integrate more Civilizations, both very ancient and very modern. As such, the presence of an Italian Civilization would not be absurd despite the presence of Rome already.
I think these two reasons are why Civil wars, Independence wars and rebellions should be in Civilization games. I look forwards to see them one day
!!!
Comment