Civil Wars in CivIII

I would like to see in Civ III civil war occuring. Most major empires at one time or another have had a civil war. this could happen if certain percenage of the citites under an empires control where in disorder. All of the city that are in disorder would form a colaition and attack the other cities. The two sides would not be able to negationate except through a outside power. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

[Urban Ranger]

Not until modern times would a splinter faction negotiate with the original country, and negotiate via a third power is even a rarer occurance.

Most historical civil wars were resolved by force: one side won by conquest and that's the end of the story.

Civil wars must happen in CivIII, of course. I think it would be worth giving each civ a default rebel name.

e.g.

Americans - Confederates
English - Republicans

It just makes me laugh when the French empire splits in half, to be attacked by the Indians.

[connorkimbro]

civil wars DID occur in the original civ1, when the capital city was taken of a large empire. . it was a very realistic touch, and should be included in civIII, perhaps done a bit better though. .

[The Joker]

Civil wars should definately occur. And quite often too. I think it should be EXTREMELY hard to have a civ with more than 20 cities without having civil wars every 50 turns or so. Most often these would be smaller ones with just a few border cities rebelling (you would often just be happy giving them freedom or let them become a protectorate as the costs to win them back and surpress them would be large), but the large destructive ones should also occur, often reducing you to a smaller power. This way civs would not stay strong. The power in the world would be dynamically divided, not statically as in civ2. It should often be good to stay a smaller power untill the end game, and then begin expanding.

I don't know abotu civil wars occuring about every 50 turns. Unless your country is third world that won't happen as oftern in a industrilized society. But I do aggre about the greater occurence of civil wars. I would also like to see the ability to switch side to the rebelling side and play the game from there.

[LOGO]

You should have civil wars for Reasons! not because a certain amount of turns go by, although I'm looking forward to the idea of a civil war it'll have to have a bit better system then that.

LOGO

[Pythagoras]

A good idea would be to have a civ with more than 3 or 4 cities undergoing drone riots (cant remember Civ 2 name, been smokin the SMAC) those cities than would rebel, and have a small chance of taking those either geographically nearby or near rioting. This would add lots of realism, think when you switch from monarchy to republic ussually a couple cities revolt and if you dont manage it carefully, your civ could go into a civil war, and that might give your foreign enemies a chance to strike at you while you are weak.

Uh, when you change goverment there should be a chance(15%?) of civil war during the next 2? turns

[mwaf]

a small point to stodlum on:
>It just makes me laugh when the French empire splits in half, to be attacked by the Indians.
I fully agree on this but then again if the French had conquered the Indians the most realistic civil war would be French vs Indians (meaning also that the Indians should get their own cities not any built by the French).

mwaf,
That's an even better idea! When you (completely) conquer a side, a civil war would result in that side's cities forming the rebel faction in a civil war, with their ame.

Switching to a less advanced form of gov't should also have repercussions. Most Americans wouldn't like the US to go communist or to have a king. I also like to idea of a conquerd naitons revolting together. They should have a higher likelyhood of revolutoin against the conqering gov't than native cities.

[This message has been edited by Gen. Thomas Jackson (edited January 04, 2000).]

sorry, I double posted.
[This message has been edited by Gen. Thomas Jackson (edited January 04, 2000).]

Any change of goverments should give a chance of civil war, but a change from Republic to Democracy would not be as likely to produce civil war as a change from Fascism to Communism.

mwaf,stodlum: I agree

[The Joker]

I didn't mean that civil wars should just emerge spontaneusly every 50 turns. Just that they should be quite frequent. In modern times they shouldn't be as frequent, but before industrialization they should definately be.

Actually rulers before industrialization had very little control over their civ. Peasant revolts came with just a few years between, and it was often that the aristocracy began a civil war because they didn't like how the king ruled the country.

The peasant revolts almost always came due to food shortage. This could be because of a bad harvest. This could be a sponaneus event happening very often in a city (City X will produce only one half of it's normal food production for 2 turns), and if the people starved there could emerge 1 or 2 (pretty pathetic) units in or near the city. If the units garrisoned weren't capable of destroying these the city would fall into the hands of the peasants (a new civ would have emerged), and this could give major unhappyness in the nearby cities, perhabs causing them to revolt. So if you didn't destroy all resistance fast Machiavellan style you could end up with a large civil war.

Other causes of civil wars could be nationalism (a colony could become it's own nationalistic entity if there was not enough contact (migration and trade) between that and the motherland) causing a war for inependance. Or a once conquored enemy could suddently revolt, causing rebellions in it's previous cities.

Too high taxes could also cause civil wars, and so could unhappyness with your current SE settings. I think the people in each city should have it's own distinct "personlality", meaning that they would have a rating on 1-10 in different areas - individualism, militarism etc. Your SE settings would have to somewhat resemble your citizens' characteristics. So if you were a democracy you would need at least an individualism level of 5. And if it was 6 or 7 there would be a significant amount of corruption and waste (look at Russia). If you had a low individualism level your people wouldn't be unhappy with a nondemocratic govenment. But what if one of your cities had a much lower individualism level than the other cities and you were a democracy? That would give a lot of unhappyness and corruption in that city, and a high chance of rebellion. What if there were 10 cities next to each other which were all different from your other cities? That would be a very good reason for a civil war.

I think the problems with having a too polarised civ should be so large that you in modern times would not integrate a conquored civ, but make it a protectorate or give it it's independance back.

I also think that civil wars (and other things) would give you so much trouble being a huge civ that it would often be better being a smaller one. This would also remove some of the micromanagement.

The idea of city's having thier own personality could get rid of an aspect of Civ2 that I do dislike. Unit out of territory, people in ythe home city are mad thing. Instead of having that maybe cities could be rated on how pacafist they are. A pacifist city would be unhappy with a state of war, not units being out of teriitory. Think of the domestic oppositon to Vietnam. The pasifist rating would be dynamic, and the level of pacifism would be dependent on the opposing civ. A war against a peaceful civ would be the most likely to cause civil unrest. On the other hand a war against an agreesiev civ would cause less unrest if any. Another unrest causing factor could be the amount of casulited. If the casuiltes start rising the home cities of the unit will start getting mad. If the war causes too many casuelties then those home cities will revolt, to name one example Russia during WWI. An unpopular and costly war would make managing a warmongering civ difficult.

[LOGO]

that's the thing about Civ. II, the city system works in anciant time but not now.

[Gara]

Originally posted by Dobermann on 01-04-2000 03:26 AM
Uh, when you change goverment there should be a chance(15%?) of civil war during the next 2? turns

I hope the routine to check for civil wars won't be that simple...

Gara:
I hope to , actually that was my roundabout way of saying that historically there has been few changes in government without a civilwar. To implement it in civ3 would be an idea worth considering.

Most republics evolved slowly into democracies, so the change from a republic to a democracy shouldn't involve a civil war, unless several cities have problem with that type of government(a another city personality spec). Those cities that did have a problem with democracies would revolt and try to continue being a republic.

[raingoon]

Definitely like the idea that every civ has a default rebellion name. In addition to:

American - Confederates
English - Republicans (or Welsh/Scotts?)

Some others might be:

Russian - Bolsheviks
Native American - (whatever Tecumseh's confederacy of Indian nations was called)

In Civ I Civil War was a nice strategic tool to use AGAINST a too-large computer opponent, by capturing their capital. However, obviously capturing a large civ's capital might very well unite such a country against you, rather than divide them.

In Civ III, whatever causes civil war must be the relationship between the player's needs and their citizen's needs. For instance, somebody's suggestion that "devolving" your government to a lower form may cause a civil war. Perfect example from a game design point of view. The player playing a democracy needs to wage war in a more economical way. The citizen's needs in the same democracy are to grow, and peacefully. Thus, imposing Fundamentalism on them would lead to civil unrest, with a percentage chance that one of the cities will outright revolt against the capital, starting the civil war.

So that's my suggestion. Make civil war be a risk the player takes when imposing their own needs over those of their civ citizens.

I agree, for most of history people have revolted due to their leaders lack of concern or abuse of them. I also agree about the fact that the loss of a civ's capitla should not automatically throw them into civil war. But it should increase the chances of a civil war 30-40%.

This is a grest discussion, bringing up more ideas that I could have thought of. I want to organize the ideas together and place them on the list(if I can figure out which one to place it on). Keep those ideas coming!

Okay, I have complied the ideas put forth so far in this thread (as of the 1/6/00) to give a general idea of the ideas so far and have added some new ones of my own. If looking for more detail look back over the rest of the thread.

Civil Wars in Civ 3

1. Reasons for Civil Wars
2. Causes
3. The Revolting Faction
4. Effects
5. Misc.


Reasons for Civil Wars
The idea for civil wars to occur more frequently in Civ 3 and to be more severe is based on a two things.

1. The vast majority of nations have had or continue to have some sort of civil war.
2. The outcome of some civil wars have changed the course of history or forever changed the nation ( the American Civil War, English Civil War, Boshlivak Revolution, and the French Revolution just to name a few).

Causes of Civil Wars

1. Lack of food - If city is in a state of famine( meaning loss of city size) for two turns, then the people in the city would revolt. This would correspond with the peasant revolts in most ancient time due to a food shortage.
2. Change in government - If a civ changes its form of government, then a revolt in cities that have an opposition to that form of government should occur . The same is true if a civ reverts to a less advanced form of government i.e. Monarchy to Despotism, Republic to Monarchy, cities that have a lower individual liberty rating will have no problem, but cities that are big on individual liberty will be mad and most likely revolt( will revolt if the change is from a republic or democracy to a communist or despotic government).
3. Pacifistic City - If a city is pacifist, meaning it has a low militarism rating, and the nation is involved in a war, then there should be some unhappiness or a good chance of revolt in the city. If the war is against a smaller, peaceful neighbor, then there should be a great likely hood of revolt in the city.
4. Casualties - Cities that have lost a certain percentage of its unit during a war would being to get upset and if the losses continue then the city would revolt and demand peace.
5. Capture of a Capital - In Civ 1 and I think in Civ 2, if the capital of civ is captured then there was a chance of a civil war in that country. I think that countries that have a non-representative form of government( non republic or democracies) should be the only ones affected by this.
6. Revolt in Neighboring Cities - Cities that are close to one that is in revolt should have a greater chance of revolting against the government. Sympathy with neighbors is a common way for civil wars to spread.
7. Occupied Cities - Cities that have been conquered by a nation should always be threatening to revolt against their conquers. If the cityÍs civ is still alive then the threat of revolt is great. The moderating influences on this is if the conquering nations have military superiority and if the civ has died.
8. Overtaxation - The overtaxaiton of citizen is a sure fire way of getting them mad at you. If a city has a tax burden greater than 30% of its base trade income (excluding all multiplying factors except the marketplace and trade routes) then the city would go into a state of revolt.


The Revolting Faction

1. A civil war should occur only if two or more cities located in near each other are in a state of revolt for more than one turn. (This is just for the sake of playability) However, if a civ changes it government or loses its capital, then the time limit is removed.
2. The revolting faction should have a historical name of the revolting faction that correspond with the original civ. American Ü Confederate, English Ü Republicans are a few names.
3. The home nation can give the revolting faction its independence, offer to give it autonomy, or subdue the rebels.
4. The revolting faction has the possibility of recognition and intervention of a foreign power in their favor. This would occur only if the revolting faction had dealt a certain amount of casualties on the original civ. This would allow the revolting faction to conduct diplomacy with the recognizing civ.


That's it so far. Keep those ideas coming!!


[This message has been edited by Gen. Thomas Jackson (edited January 06, 2000).]

[korn469]

i think that we should also include military coups in which a large portion of your army turns against you, and then less co-ordinated uprising carried out by unhappy and or disloyal troops...i can expand on this idea if u want me too

korn469

Expanding on korn469:s idea. You could have a diplomatic option to support a rival faction. With money, units, tech... everything would make a civil war in the other civ more likely.

I like the idea of military coups. Military coups are prevalent form of revolution in third world countries. Implemenitng it would be difficult, maybe units would have a rating of morale(not to be confused with experince, i.e, veteren, commando...) a unit with a low morale would be more likely to surrendur to an opposing force, and if the morale droppped below a certian amount would rebel. All of the units that are stacked with it would suffera noticeable drop in morale and they too could revolt. The factors for this would be, capture of home city, poor equipment, and high casuelties.

Dobermann is right, for a long time nations have been funding other countries' coups.

Though not every coup ends in violence. The coups in Ivory Coast and Pakistan were peaceful.

I like the idea of units having a morale rating, it would be great.

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Gen. Thomas Jackson on 01-06-2000 09:38 PM Okay, I have complied the ideas put forth so far in this thread (as of the 1/6/00) to give a general idea of the ideas so far and have added some new ones of my own. If looking for more detail look back over the rest of the thread. Civil Wars in Civ 3 1. Reasons for Civil Wars 2. Causes 3. The Revolting Faction 4. Effects 5. Misc. Reasons for Civil Wars The idea for civil wars to occur more frequently in Civ 3 and to be more severe is based on a two things. 1. The vast majority of nations have had or continue to have some sort of civil war. 2. The outcome of some civil wars have changed the course of history or forever changed the nation ( the American Civil War, English Civil War, Boshlivak Revolution, and the French Revolution just to name a few). [This message has been edited by Gen. Thomas Jackson (edited January 06, 2000).]

This most interesting thread shouldn't be forgotten. I think Gen Thomas Jackson made an excellent summary!

[general_charles]

if you's like to know more about some ideas, go here: Revolutions(and the start of new empires Thread

[polypheus]

"Gen Thomas Jackson's" Civil War model is one of the most complete and realistic models that I have seen thus far! I certainly hope that at least some of these ideas are being considered by Firaxis!