Civil Wars

[polypheus]

Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

In real life, nations died and were reborn as borders shifted and rebellions succeeded.

It would be good to see similar things happening in a Civ3 game. The game would be much more dynamic, realistic and fun.

[KrazyHorse]

Even if your capital is not captured, it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by polypheus
Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

it DOES apply to HPs.

try it in civ 2.

cheat, and give yourself like 100 cities

make ure capital a size 10 city, leave it empty, and put an AI unit there, and set them to war.

they take it, you split.

it also happens in multiplayer, when you capture an enemy human's cap.

Originally posted by polypheus
Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

In real life, nations died and were reborn as borders shifted and rebellions succeeded.

It would be good to see similar things happening in a Civ3 game. The game would be much more dynamic, realistic and fun.

I see a potential problem with Civil Wars in Civ 3. You will need a city size 3 before you can build a settler and a city size 2 before you can build a worker. Firaxis has already told us a settler will cost 2 pop. points and a worker will cost 1 pop. point. That is going to slow down new cities for sure. If we have to worried about revolt and Civil War early on, it might make the game to difficult for some player including myself.

[Rasputin]

no you jsut wont be able to grow a city large as quickly, you will need to build city happy controls such as Temples etc..


Having only palyed Call to power a few times , one thing I do like about it is the unhappiens sin each city being able to cause that city to go into civil war.... doesnt need the capital to be taken to cause this. I think this is fair mroe realsitic way of making civil war ....

[Sean]

it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic. Of course, they are also less likely to follow your 'leadership' if there is a small govt presence either...
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by polypheus
Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

The biggest domestic civil-uprising flaw in Civ-2, was that your empire, no matter how big it was, always acted as an ancient greek city-state (in economical sense), with more or less selfstanding and independant cities - and as an idealized working top-ruled Stalin-Soviet, then in came to how easy it was to tie all these cities together to a whole empire.

The distance-factor from the capital was (politically & economically) way too easily overcomeble. This should all change i Civ-3. The number of cities that you can found under each government-type should be limited - not by some blunt hard-coded max number, of course. But instead indirectly by gradually being faced with too difficult to hande domestic powerstruggles, and likewise too overburdening economic problems. These problems can temporarily be counteracted by building courthouses and other appropriate city-improvements as well. But only so much, and for only so long...

At a certain geographical empire-size and/or number of cities, you just cannot counteract it anymore, regardless what recapture city attempts and/or martial laws you try to enforce. You MUST switch to a more effective government-type. The most effective empire-size government should NOT be democracy, because it would make that choice way too powerful. I reserve that advantage to nationalism and communism.

[Iskandar Reza]

Originally posted by Sean
it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic. Of course, they are also less likely to follow your 'leadership' if there is a small govt presence either...
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

i don't think so

your people will riot, but they won't revolt. your large millitary presence makes sure of that.

try playing tropico, and you'll see how effective even one soldier is at killing two rebels.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sean
Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic.

I wasn't necessarily talking about a large military presence (although this should come into play as well); I was talking about the lack of government infrastructure. If a region feels that its interests are being ignored by its government, then it might break away. Take, for example, the American Revolution. Although the stated causes of complaint against the British were excessive taxation etc., the taxes levied by Britain had, by 1773, been reduced to almost nothing. The true roots of the revolution were planted in the early 18th century when Britain's troubles at home caused her to ignore the colonists. These colonists thereby developed a sense of independence and self-reliance which was insulted when Britain attempted to wield the same level of control exercised previously. Even if they hadn't done so, the colonies were drifting towards independence already.

Originally posted by Sean
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

I think this is a debate best left for another day.

[Sean]

Thanks for clearing that up KrazyHorse...it makes much more sense now

Its a fine balance for a govt, present but not opressive. If it is opressive, it needs appropriate ideology/propaganda to sustain this for any reasonible length of time.

[TechWins]

Remember this is a game to have fun with not a government simulator.

[KrazyHorse]

Why can't it be both? For me, half of the fun is taking part in a somewhat realistic historical simulation.

[Ilkuul]

Originally posted by Ralf
At a certain geographical empire-size and/or number of cities, you just cannot counteract it anymore, regardless what recapture city attempts and/or martial laws you try to enforce. You MUST switch to a more effective government-type...

I would prefer to see a situation where VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long, regardless of what government-type you have. This would be more realistic historically. Areas that are geographically far removed from the centre of govt. will naturally want to split off and go it alone.

So anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course. And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests.

[polypheus]

I agree with most of what has been said.

It is simply the case that historically and realistically, nations rose and fell and died and were born as a result of revolts and civil wars.

Civil Wars have been such a major factor of history that it is essential that it is modelled well. At least much better than the "capture the capital" model. (which really is flawed since you could always just disband the palace).

A distance from the capital might be a good thing. It would be nice to replicate history by establishing far-flung colonies and then having them revolt and declare independence a la the nations of the western hemisphere! Of course tied in to the culture concept as well.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ilkuul
I would prefer to see a situation where VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long, regardless of what government-type you have. So anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course.

I agree. That "very large-limit" can be somewhat different according to government-type & other factors - but a certain point...

All Civ-3 preview info indicates that a "very large" empire now will consist of max 20+ founded cities + perhaps 15-20 conquered ones. At around 50+ cities (even in well-managed empires) bad things really should start to happen on the domestic front, if not before.

It shouldnt be impossible to conquer the world - but it sure as hell should be, by far, the hardest and most infrequently achieved victory goal in Civ-3.

And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests.

Well, with 16 civs on the map, I think that at least half of them will play the role of those mini-civs. I hope however that supreme & alone world-conquerings becomes impossible in Civ-3. Allied world-conquerings (with the succesful HP as "top-dog", of course) is more realistic. Why not re-post the idea of "allied world-conquerings only" under its own topic, Ilkuul?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Ilkuul


I would prefer to see a situation where VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long, regardless of what government-type you have. This would be more realistic historically. Areas that are geographically far removed from the centre of govt. will naturally want to split off and go it alone.

So anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course. And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests.

America is a huge country if you think about it.

Germany is half the size of Wisconsin.

sure we've only been around for 200 years, but do you honestly see us breaking up?

(they already tried that, and we smacked them back into place)

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by UberKruX


America is a huge country if you think about it.

Germany is half the size of Wisconsin.

sure we've only been around for 200 years, but do you honestly see us breaking up?

(they already tried that, and we smacked them back into place)

Exactly. There ARE huge stable countries in the world. Russia isn't exactly stable, but it IS enormous and has been for a long time. The second-largest nation, Canada, is also stable (there are talks of Quebec breaking off, but the people of Quebec voted no and that stance is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and even if it happens Canada will still be HUGE). Compared to what you find in Europe Australia and Brazil and China are gargantuan. Admittedly, a very relevant example, the Commonwealth, is made up of independent nations now, much like the minor-civ major-civ relationships discussed above. Nevertheless, precedent has been set for stable governments spanning vast distances.

[polypheus]

I agree that there are huge nations such as USA and China can be stable. But the question is that is it realistic for a nation to last for 6000 years without any civil wars or revolts occuring?

Let's look at some of the examples:
USSR - broke up into many nations (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.)
USA - itself was formed from revolt from UK, also USA itself underwent a Civil War
China - underwent many Civil Wars throughout its history and was broken up and put back together many times in its long history
Roman Empire - broken up into modern European nation-states
Modern India - broke up into current-India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
Ottoman Empire - broken up after WWI
Austria-Hungary Empire - broken up after WWI

Of course there are also examples of smaller countries such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.

I definitely don't want Civil Wars and civ breakups to be occuring too frequently in Civ3. But I do want it to be a more prominent occurrence than in Civ1/Civ2.

One way to do this would be to allow you to support a rebellion in a Civ similary to "bribe a city" but which causes a the Civ cities to declare independence as a new Civ but not join your civ outright.

I'd like to see nations fighting Civil Wars, nations getting broken up, new nations being born during the course of a Civ3 game just like you'd expect in real history! If its done right, occurs only rarely (but more than happens in Civ1/Civ2), it doen't have to be too annoying or unbalancing and would add to gameplay, fun, and suspense!

Also it adds to diplomacy. Allies can be called upon to help put down a rebellion. Hostiles can intervene on the side of the rebels!

If Civ3 really can support 16 simultaneous civs, and if Civil Wars and breakups of civs is more common, then playing with 7 or 8 initial civs might be the best option since new civs will be born later in the game which would be both realistic and fun!

[Kc7mxo]

I'm still annoyed by the fact that there is so few civilizations. That just blows. I cannot understand how a TURN based game can have such a small amount of opponents in this day and age. I bet the real reason is they didn't want to have to do so many graphical faces. And they shouldnt. The faces should just be of ambassadors, and then they could use the same face for lots of differnet races. Come ON. Ive heard as low as 7 and as high as 16, and thats just too few. Especially with the limitations on cities. Ick.

[Deathwalker]

I agree the civil war model needs a huge overhall, it was way to simple in civ 2.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I'm still annoyed by the fact that there is so few civilizations. That just blows. I cannot understand how a TURN based game can have such a small amount of opponents in this day and age. I bet the real reason is they didn't want to have to do so many graphical faces. And they shouldnt. The faces should just be of ambassadors, and then they could use the same face for lots of differnet races. Come ON. Ive heard as low as 7 and as high as 16, and thats just too few. Especially with the limitations on cities. Ick.

And of course there is the matter of the unique units and balancing them...perhaps Firaxis are going for quality instead of quantity??

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by polypheus
I agree that there are huge nations such as USA and China can be stable. But the question is that is it realistic for a nation to last for 6000 years without any civil wars or revolts occuring?

True, but they aren't huge the whole 6000 years

Let's look at some of the examples:
USSR - broke up into many nations (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.)
USA - itself was formed from revolt from UK, also USA itself underwent a Civil War
China - underwent many Civil Wars throughout its history and was broken up and put back together many times in its long history
Roman Empire - broken up into modern European nation-states
Modern India - broke up into current-India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
Ottoman Empire - broken up after WWI
Austria-Hungary Empire - broken up after WWI

Where's the Canadian rebellion? The Australian revolt? Not that I don't agree, but it's quite possible and not just the same kind of possible as it is possible for an IQ 60 person to score IQ 176 on a test.

Of course there are also examples of smaller countries such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.

I definitely don't want Civil Wars and civ breakups to be occuring too frequently in Civ3. But I do want it to be a more prominent occurrence than in Civ1/Civ2.

Okay, I can agree with that. Every civ over the course of 6000 years should have one, maybe 2 minor rebellions. If you screw up or if you're just unlucky you might even get a major rebellion, maybe even a successful revolution.

One way to do this would be to allow you to support a rebellion in a Civ similary to "bribe a city" but which causes a the Civ cities to declare independence as a new Civ but not join your civ outright.

Actually, I've always thought that it should be that way. But you should be able to bribe territory - not necessarily just one city.

I'd like to see nations fighting Civil Wars, nations getting broken up, new nations being born during the course of a Civ3 game just like you'd expect in real history! If its done right, occurs only rarely (but more than happens in Civ1/Civ2), it doen't have to be too annoying or unbalancing and would add to gameplay, fun, and suspense!

Yes, but just make sure it isn't too common. And no dumb stuff like rebelling into six civs when an aggressive no-reputation punk comes in with a huge army.

Also it adds to diplomacy. Allies can be called upon to help put down a rebellion. Hostiles can intervene on the side of the rebels!

REALLY good idea, unless you're UberKrux the evil peace hater

If Civ3 really can support 16 simultaneous civs, and if Civil Wars and breakups of civs is more common, then playing with 7 or 8 initial civs might be the best option since new civs will be born later in the game which would be both realistic and fun!

I imagine that's how it would have to be. Otherwise, it would be a hard time NOT having about 4 of the initial civs die off before you make first contact. Sometimes civs die within the first thousand years with Largest map and 7 civs, on TOT's Extended Original (basically 6 Earth civs)!