Civil Wars and separatism - when, why, how?

[Optimizer]

I really like the idea of uprisings and coups breaking out by themselves, and sometimes evolve into civil wars or wars of independence.

* Colonial nationalism
If an empire grows large, citizens in distant regions would develop their own "colonial nationality". This process would be augmented if the colonies are "rich" (in resources, city improvements etc).

* Rebellions
In a city with many citizens of foreign nationality, rebellious acts would be common - especially if there is high corruption and unhappiness. As mentioned in the "civil resistance" thread, such acts could be sponsored by a rival civilization. Rebellious acts could be strikes, sabotage or creation of guerrilla units.

* Colonial units
Units produced in a city with citizens of a foreign (or colonial) nationality would have a probability of getting that nationality flag. If there are too many colonial units, there is a risk of civil war.

* Colonial linking
Some civilizations would have another civilization as their probable "colonial nationality". Rome could have Spain or France. England woould of course have the USA, and Portugal would have Brazil.

* Revolutionary wars
A revolution from a de-centralized to a centralized government could instantly create a new nationality from parts of the civilization, representing local officials who want to preserve the old system.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Great thoughts, Optimizer.

I've had a number of ideas about CW and seperatism myself, actually.

Firstly, there should be factors which determine the chance of cities breaking away. # of foreign nationals, distance of city from the Capital, overtaxing of that city (I envisage a tax model where you can go into the city screen and raise/lower the tax for that city below the average!), distance from a secessionist city, poor culture, high unhappiness, high war weariness, number of foreign troops in the city vs. number of home troops.
In addition, though, there would be certain potential 'TRIGGER' events-which could spark a civil war in cities that meet the relevent criteria. Some trigger events might be:

Changing Government, Changing Religion, Anarchy/Revolt, loss of your capital, vastly increasing tax rates, refusing to listen to one of your Civs 'Factions' demands (see my ideas in Gov and Social Engineering Thread for details of Factions ) etc.
Cities which break away from an empire on the same turn will all become part of the same, new nation. Any units belonging to those cities will also switch alleigance to the new civ!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[LDiCesare]

Did any of you check Roquijad's Government Model we are implementing in Clash? http://cullivan.com/coc/models/Model-Riots.shtml
Chapter VIII is about Civil Wars.

Envisoned events are:
Verbally Exposing Discontent / Riots / Revolutionary Forces Formation / Guerrilla Forces Formation / Attempt to Murder the Ruler / Military Coup / Army Betrayal / Declaring Independence / Rebel Duke

The various causes of discontent (not detailed in this link) include having discrimination against ethnicities/religions, discontent against the government policies, personal freedoms or lack thereof, evolution of a social group towards a new/separate ethnicity because of different environments/treatments (typically English becoming Americans)...

[GhengisFarb™]

Where did the big long thread go we were discussing this in?

[DarkCloud]

Do you mean the Civilization's thread. I Think it's on page 3. I'll try to bump it

[Kuciwalker]

Rather than corruption determining useful empire size, I'd like a "stability index" for each civ. If this goes below zero, pieces start breaking off and forming new countries. This happens faster the farther it falls.

The stability index decreases as empire size increases and as beakers/turn increases (as well as some other stuff, and these effects are changed based on the government). As an empire grows, it has to research more slowly or start disintegrating (a large empire tends to stagnate technologically because of a stagnant culture). If it doesn't research, though, it will be surpassed technologically by it's neighbors and fall to invasion. Also, if you are currently losing a war your stability will decrease, though you will gain some of the invaders tech (which will further decrease your stability) until either you are small enough that you can match them again, or you disintegrate into something small enough (and the invader can't take on lots of small, fast-researching empires). As a small empire, you will then surpass technologically the large empire, invade it, and take it over/cause it to disintegrate.

[LDiCesare]

a large empire tends to stagnate technologically because of a stagnant culture

So you mean the U.S. are researching less than France or Germany?

[Optimizer]

Originally posted by skywalker
Rather than corruption determining useful empire size, I'd like a "stability index" for each civ. If this goes below zero, pieces start breaking off and forming new countries. This happens faster the farther it falls.

Europa Universalis has kind of this, instead of happiness. It works fine.

[GhengisFarb™]

I still think my suggestion in the other threads would work the easiest and offer a good balance of postive benefits and potential negative consequeces.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

So you mean the U.S. are researching less than France or Germany?

This is modified by certain factors, such as government type, trade network, and tech level - in this day and age the "stability index" would not penalize size or research rate significantly anymore, and other factors would predominate. This means that the game culminates in the Modern Era, because the further back you go, the harder it is to win.

Oh, and I'd like to add that there are various measure you can take to simply add points to your stability index, but if the modified index goes below zero, they all disappear, meaning a sudden, enormous breakup. Sort of like, say, the Soviet Union - they had these "stopgap" measure, but when they were no longer significant, the whole thing fell apart immediately.

[Agathon]

What's wrong with the present system. Mod the corruption a bit and give it a proportional influence on unhappiness and allow cities a certain chance of revolting (a proportion of the civil disorder risk). If a city revolts, all cities nearer by 3/4 to it than to your Capitol or FP have an increased revolt risk.

To avoid this problem you can, as in EU2, create vassals - either from cities you own, or cities you capture. They pay you half their income and will suffer major revolts if they attack you, or vice versa. On the other hand vassal cities are much easier for opponents to bribe away.

I'm not a big fan of continent dominating empires. I'd like to see the typical civ game ending with 20 or so civs still in the game and options like vassalage. That would be more realistic.

[GhengisFarb™]

A vassal system would be nice.

[Optimizer]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
A vassal system would be nice.

Indeed.

I have got a rather simple idea for modelling vassalage.

* Vassalages would be a diplomatic option, like alliances or trade embargoes. An AI civilization would only accept being a vassal if it is military inferior to the neighbouring civs, and about to be conquered, and a good human civilization would probably think the same.

* Vassalages could also be formed by a large civilization. A new civilization is created out of some distant cities, together with a trade deal that usually favours the master.

* A master can break a vassalage any time at the cost of reputation. If a vassal breaks the vassalage, the master may choose between accepting the break or declaring (a rightful) war.

* Effects of vassalage:
*** One-way protection pact: An attacked vassal may require that the master declares war on the attacker. A master that doesn't, loses reputation.

*** Protection duty: If the vassal loses a city to an invading enemy, the master's reputation drops.

*** One-way right of passage: The master can have troops in the vassal territory, (perhaps even inside the cities). The vassal must pay upkeep for these troops - and that is the main bad thing of being a vassal.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Optimizer

Indeed.

I have got a rather simple idea for modelling vassalage.

* Vassalages would be a diplomatic option, like alliances or trade embargoes. An AI civilization would only accept being a vassal if it is military inferior to the neighbouring civs, and about to be conquered, and a good human civilization would probably think the same.

Yep. I think that "minor" civs like the Scots, the Hebrews, etc. would be best served in the game by being vassal civs.

* Vassalages could also be formed by a large civilization. A new civilization is created out of some distant cities, together with a trade deal that usually favours the master.

Yep. This would be quite common and would be an advantage over having these cities be a financial drain due to corruption.

* A master can break a vassalage any time at the cost of reputation. If a vassal breaks the vassalage, the master may choose between accepting the break or declaring (a rightful) war.

Yep. That sounds just like EU2.

* Effects of vassalage:
*** One-way protection pact: An attacked vassal may require that the master declares war on the attacker. A master that doesn't, loses reputation.

Or gives the vassal the option of canceling the vassalage. Also, attacking a vassal does constitute a just reason for all out war, but there should also be the option of war limited to the territory of the vassal. This is an option for two powers that want to fight over territory, but don't want the expense of an all out war. For example, the Falklands War (1982) was like this.

Of course, either side can choose to escalate, but the option of limited war allows for a more realistic portrayal of modern conflict, which is often managed through proxies - e.g. Vietnam.

*** Protection duty: If the vassal loses a city to an invading enemy, the master's reputation drops.

Yep.

*** One-way right of passage: The master can have troops in the vassal territory, (perhaps even inside the cities). The vassal must pay upkeep for these troops - and that is the main bad thing of being a vassal.

I don't think this one works as well for me. I like the other system better - the vassal pays the master a certain percentage of his income which can then be used by the master to pay for troops to protect the vassal with (or not, depending on your nature). That makes vassals much more like they are now - nations which give economic goods in return for protection.

The right of passage thing is, of course, a given.