Thread Tools
Old January 14, 2002, 21:05   #1
TinCow
Chieftain
 
TinCow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 97
Civil War Discussion
I've noticed a lot of people asking for Civil Wars back and I agree. I know this probably should appear in one of the Top threads, but I'd kind of like a seperate thread to discuss ideas for Civil War implementation.

Civil Wars were excellent in Civ2, but I think there was one fundamental flaw in them... they essentially destroyed any opposition a civ posed to the person capturing its capital. Civil Wars were fun, but their only use was in watching an enemy civ's empire turn to dust. If Civil Wars are going to be put into Civ3, they need to apply seriously to the human players as well (it's rare that humans ever lose their capital).

What if Civil Wars had a probability of occurring based on the war weariness of the civ (like Democracy collapsing)? The longer and more aggressively you war, the more likely you are to have a revolution within your empire (depending on your govt of course). The cities that revolt will depend on their former culture rating. Cities that you founded will never join the rebel faction because they never had a 'previous civ culture level.' Every city which you have captured will defect if it's current culture level is lower than its culture level under it's original civ. Thus, enemy capitals and big cities would almost certainly go, while you would maintain control over your original cities and the smaller, more easily controllable foreign population. It should make no difference if the citizens of the rebel city have all been assimilated, if you haven't sufficiently developed the city so that it has passed its old culture level, you will lose it if a Civil War erupts. The civ that these cities join will be determined in the following order:
1) Largest civ that the player has conquered.
2) If player has not conquered any civs, the largest civ that has most recently been eliminated.
3) If no civs have been eliminated, the cities revert to the owners that had them with their highest culture rating.

In addition, all units in the cities and within the city radius should switch sides intact.

Such a drastic loss should only occur under extreme circumstances. It should be more likely (with high war weariness) under govts that tolerate more free speech (much more likely under Dem and Rep than under Comm). In addition, if it is found that this system results in too much loss for the player in question, the defecting cities could be given a probability of defection based on the ratio of their current culture to their former culture rather than just automatically defecting.

Comments? Ideas?
TinCow is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 21:40   #2
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Remember the following message in Civ2:
Quote:
As the dust settles on Berlin, what remains of the German empire has split into the loyal German factor and the rebel French factor.
I loved spliting civ's like this. Sadly this feature is missing in Civ3. I would like it reimplemented, but slightly differently...

A civil war should only break out if the civ is one of the top 25% most powerful. The civ should not split neatly like in Civ2, but be a mess. Cities close to a civ whose culture of which they are in awe, should culturally deflect.
Of the other cities, the citizens should be loyal in a ratio of the culture of that city to twice the culture of the average city of that empire, ie, the city with average culture has equal amounts of both nationalities. If a city has more loyal citizens, it remains a German city. If it has more rebel cities, it becomes a French (or whatever) city.

For instance the German empire had 7 cities:

Berlin which I captured, and trigered the Civil War
Leipzig which has a cultural value of 28
Hamburg which has a cultural value of 22
Konigsberg which has a cultural value of 16
Frankfurt which has a cultural value of 4 and is near my border
Munich which has a cultural value of 10
Heidelburg which has a cultural value of 0

Frankfurt becomes mine due to the fact that it is near my border, and they are in awe of my culture.
The average of 28,22,16,10,0 is roughly 15.
Therefore
For every 30 citizens in Leipzig, 28 will be loyal Germans, 2 will be rebel French. The city will remain German.
For every 30 citizens in Hamburg, 22 will be loyal Germans, 8 will be rebel French. The city will remain German.
For every 30 citizens in Konigsberg, 16 will be loyal Germans, 14 will be rebel French. The city will become French.
For every 30 citizens in Munich, 10 will be loyal Germans, 20 will be rebel French. The city will become French.
For every 30 citizens in Heidelberg, none will be loyal Germans, 30 will be rebel French. The city will become French.

French citizens in Germany will be unhappy or resisting, and German citizens in France will be unhappy or resisting, in the same way as when one captures a city.

Of course, a Civ this size shouldn't split.
This is the same as the reply to this thread.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 21:46   #3
TinCow
Chieftain
 
TinCow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 97
My problem with this is that I think a Civil War should be something that could happen to the human player too... not just to the poor bastard civ that's getting its arse beaten. I have rarely seen a civ recover from losing its capital... namely because if it loses what is usually the largest, most advanced, most well defended city in its empire (which is also not near the border) then it's already a goner civ... where's the excitement in seeing that civ split? In my example, you could win a war of attrition against a much larger Democratic enemy by switching to Communism and making him fight (holding your borders) until his nation goes into Civil War. I think that would be pretty damn cool.
TinCow is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 21:50   #4
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally posted by TinCow
My problem with this is that I think a Civil War should be something that could happen to the human player too... not just to the poor bastard civ that's getting its arse beaten. I have rarely seen a civ recover from losing its capital... namely because if it loses what is usually the largest, most advanced, most well defended city in its empire (which is also not near the border) then it's already a goner civ... where's the excitement in seeing that civ split? In my example, you could win a war of attrition against a much larger Democratic enemy by switching to Communism and making him fight (holding your borders) until his nation goes into Civil War. I think that would be pretty damn cool.
Civil War should be possible if more than a half of your citizens are unhappy or foreign.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:20   #5
Quokka
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 31
I agree with Grrr, Civil War should be a possibility when half the citizens are Unhappy or Foreigners or the Capital is sacked. War Weariness would be a major factor in this, just think of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Definitely should affect human players too.
The mechanics of the split should have something to do with the culture of the city. The more culture the more they are that Civ. No culture cities have no massive attachment to that culture.
I was thinking the radius needs to have more effect. Something like this. These cities would need to be in civil disorder or mostly foreign.
Radius 1(0-9): 25% of staying loyal
Radius 2(10-99): 50% of staying loyal
Radius 3(100-999): 75% of staying loyal
Radius 4 and above stay loyal always.
Majority Foreign cities would flip back to their original owners and the others could form a new Civ. Pretty basic right now but we have to start somewhere.
__________________
The only notes that matter come in wads - The Sex Pistols
Quokka is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:30   #6
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
Civil war sounds interesting but TinCow makes some good points.
There's got to be something to prevent that empire from getting easily taken piecemeal.

1. They shouldn't automatically join other civs.

2. They should form their own temporary civ - which ONLY produces military until the war is over (and NO peace is possible).
(maybe if there's an empty slot. You can have up to 8 civil wars max with 8 players, or 1 civil war with 15)

3. They should automatically convert some of their population to conscripts so they're not easy pickings.

Other civs can conquer but may not want to get embroiled in the conflict (civs in civil war should be extremely likely to revolt from foreign rule).

4. Plus, you needn't lose your capital for this to happen.
There should be a rough chance of civil war every time you have a revolution. Switching to repub from monarch will be resisted and the monarchists might resist losing authority and so take control of some cities. The more "culture" you have, the more peaceful the transition.

5. And different forms of government should increase hostility to each other. Monarchists vs Republicans, Democ vs commies, commies vs Monarchists. People in power tend to support other people in power, even if rivals, because worse of all would be your own subjects uprising.

a couple of examples:
The Russian revolution - bolsheviks vs monarchists, dropped them out of ww1 while they fought and consolidated power.
the allies got involved to restore the monarchy so that the russians would rejoin the war vs germany (one of the reasons the provisional gov fell was they voted to stay in the war in exchange for allied assistance).

The US civil war - in this case, no one else was around that cared enough to get involved in the war. they were an ocean away. sure, divided america might fall, but a far-off country full of soldiers fighting isn't a nice prize.

French revolution - not quite full civil war but close (see culture idea above), with many vying for power (Jacobins, Marat, Robespierre, Danton, the Directory, and later Napoleon), plus austria and Prussia were hostile to the overthrow of the monarchy.

The Vietnam war - first to oust the French, later the Northern communist state versus the US backed southm, here others did get involved, much to their regret

Most recent of China's civil wars - Warlord period where the Nationalists fought the communists (not the most powerful groups but the most ideological)
they cooperated at first vs the Japanese but that didn't last long!
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:34   #7
simwiz2
Warlord
 
simwiz2's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 116
"In my example, you could win a war of attrition against a much larger Democratic enemy by switching to Communism and making him fight (holding your borders) until his nation goes into Civil War. I think that would be pretty damn cool."

Great, a communist gov can already hold a democracy hostage with War Weariness and ANARCHY, and now lets add civil war to make this unrealistic and cheap strategy even more effective.

Come on, think of the multiplayer we might be getting someday. Do you really want any communist government to not only destroy a democratic government at will, but also to split the empire in half???

What a mess that would be
__________________
The Civ3 world is one where stealth bombers are unable to sink galleons, Man-O-Wars are a powerful counter to battleships, and knights always come equipped with the AT-S2 Anti-Tank Sword.

The Simwiz2 Combat Mod Version 2.0 is available for download! See the changes here. You can download it from the CivFanatics Thread or the Apolyton Thread.
simwiz2 is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:35   #8
Ghengis-Sean
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 19:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39
I have to agree with TinCow here; civil war should be possible, but not based on the old empire splitting model. Under that model you know if you take out a big civ's capital you'll split, so that's what you do. Something else is needed. possible factors that should induce revolt/civil war should be;

I think the main factor for starting a civil war is contact with Capital; if a city or group of cities have no contact with their capital for a number of turns then they should revolt and form a new civ. A new capital should be built in the largest of the out of touch cities and all cities that are not in contact with their original capital but are in contact with the new capital would then join the new civ. Under this system an especially spread out empire could break up into several factions. Certain city improvements such as courthouse, barracks or police station might delay this revolt but not stop it 100%.

EXAMPLE; the Germans based on the side of a continent control a number of medium sized islands off the coast. The Germans lose their coastal cities and also lose contact with their island cities. After a number of turns these cities should create a new civ, the French.

sound good?
__________________
Good, Bad, I'm the one with the Gun- Army of Darkness
Ghengis-Sean is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:42   #9
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
some problems
In Civ2, you could only get civil war if one of the original factions was dead -thus allowing space for the new civ using the characteristics of the dead one- so if you have all civs still around, where will this new civ come?

The major theoretical problems is categorizing the type of civil war_there are two, for control of governemnts and control of land.
The russian, spanish,and english civil wars were all about who should govern the entirety of the land. The American, Yugoslav, and Nigerian (Biafra) civil wars are about groupings that want to break off and become independant. How would these two be differentiated? And whats the victory condition for a civil war?
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:44   #10
ACooper
Prince
 
ACooper's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In a dark and scary hole!
Posts: 728
I don't care how it's implemented. Civil Wars would be very welcome. I think if 40% or more of your population is unhappy they could break away and form a new civ.

I also liked the volcanoes and other natual disasters in Civ1

Bring 'em back!
__________________
Sorry....nothing to say!
ACooper is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:50   #11
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Quokka
I agree with Grrr, Civil War should be a possibility when half the citizens are Unhappy or Foreigners or the Capital is sacked. War Weariness would be a major factor in this, just think of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Definitely should affect human players too.
The mechanics of the split should have something to do with the culture of the city. The more culture the more they are that Civ. No culture cities have no massive attachment to that culture.
I was thinking the radius needs to have more effect. Something like this. These cities would need to be in civil disorder or mostly foreign.
Radius 1(0-9): 25% of staying loyal
Radius 2(10-99): 50% of staying loyal
Radius 3(100-999): 75% of staying loyal
Radius 4 and above stay loyal always.
Majority Foreign cities would flip back to their original owners and the others could form a new Civ. Pretty basic right now but we have to start somewhere.
I prefer my way using averages, rather than radius amounts. I mean, all your useless frontier cities are going to revolt, and they are easy to capture because they have usually not built up a great deal in the way of military.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 22:56   #12
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Re: some problems
Quote:
Originally posted by GePap
In Civ2, you could only get civil war if one of the original factions was dead -thus allowing space for the new civ using the characteristics of the dead one- so if you have all civs still around, where will this new civ come?
That is not the case, civil war could occur, and the new civ got the BROWN colour. Also, an idea on implementation would be to have the same charataristics and stuff as the orginal civ, and just change the colour and civ name. For instance Germans become Huns, and French become Gauls, or Zulu's become Hutus or something similar. The same pic would be used. I mean, if you are the germans, your civ splits, and suddenly you become zulu, you never have a unique unit. You should become Hun, lead by a guy that looks like bismarck, but is acctually some other german.

Quote:
The major theoretical problems is categorizing the type of civil war_there are two, for control of governemnts and control of land.
The russian, spanish,and english civil wars were all about who should govern the entirety of the land. The American, Yugoslav, and Nigerian (Biafra) civil wars are about groupings that want to break off and become independant. How would these two be differentiated? And whats the victory condition for a civil war?
The English civil war is really the war of the two parties created by the war.

Another point I like, is that the both civ's are in a state similar to mobilization until peace or victory.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 23:08   #13
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
I prefer my way using averages, rather than radius amounts. I mean, all your useless frontier cities are going to revolt, and they are easy to capture because they have usually not built up a great deal in the way of military.
I think the radius makes more sense because you rebel cities shouldn't go off an join another civ so the other civ's culture shouldn't matter. Or tie in another idea mentioned above, contact with capital. Distance should be calculated as the shortest #moves to the capital (roads help, RR's are great, but not much you can do about oceans!)
Of course, civil disorder and happiness are the prime factors, but then distance should matter more than an enemy culture.

But, the rebel cities should get automatic conscripts. (If they have barracks then they'd be regulars). Plus some units are already in the city, that should be tough enough. Besides, it's now "foreign" territory so you can't just march over there. They have time to muster defenses.

And since they're mobilized, they're going to produce hordes of troops because it's all or nothing. No peace til total victory.
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 23:13   #14
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
one more point:

the rebel civ might not need to be a full-fledged civ AI.
it could just be a simplified AI with the goal of conquering you (or their mother AI).
after all, in *most civil wars, the prime goal was military victory, not building infrastructure! (*there are exceptions of course)

for simplicity, we could disallow war between the AI rebels and other AI civs because the AI rebels shouldn't be allowed to negotiate. It's already hard enough for you to reconquer them AND catch up to everyone else not having civil war.

(on the other hand, if we can somehow fit them in, it'd be nice to have a new full-fledged AI rival that used to be part of your empire - or someone elses!)
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 23:21   #15
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
one more point:

the rebel civ might not need to be a full-fledged civ AI.
it could just be a simplified AI with the goal of conquering you (or their mother AI).
after all, in *most civil wars, the prime goal was military victory, not building infrastructure! (*there are exceptions of course)

for simplicity, we could disallow war between the AI rebels and other AI civs because the AI rebels shouldn't be allowed to negotiate. It's already hard enough for you to reconquer them AND catch up to everyone else not having civil war.

(on the other hand, if we can somehow fit them in, it'd be nice to have a new full-fledged AI rival that used to be part of your empire - or someone elses!)
True, but isn't this making a "Standard Cookie Cutter Template".

Also, a military alliance to combat the other half of your civ would be good.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 23:49   #16
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
My thoughts on Civs and Civil War:

First, *outstanding* topic of discussion, and truly something that is missing from the current Civ-model.

Second, I think it could quite nicely tie into the Protectorate notion mentioned on the "Disenchanted" thread, thus, Civil Wars could fall into two categories:

1) General unhappiness/Culturally diverse civs with clearly divided population groups (ie - the western half of my civ, formerly cities of France, stand a MUCH higher chance of breaking away than my core).

2) A semi-Autonomous Protectorate, long tired of the burdensome taxes I'm imposing on them tries to gain their independence. (13 Colonies).

In either case, the breakaways would need the following stuff to mount a reasonable chance for succeeding:

A) A prominant leader (bobbing head) all their own
B) Outside assistance - The breakaway state should *immediately* use whatever resources are necessary to get a MPP with one or more of my current rivals, and the nearer to the action and larger, the better!
C) The breakaway state should have special rules governing terms of peace with the state they broke from (and in all liklihood, they would rather be absorbed fully by their MPP allies than be absorbed back into my fold--else they'd not have broken away in the first place).
D) Relaxed rules for using conscription/draft for X-number of turns so they can mount a credible military to back up their bid for independence, along with special "revloter status" construction costs on new units for a like number of turns (as the upstarts scramble and scrounge any and all available resources to fight off the Evil Empire)
E) Special "Revolter" status units that get a combat bonus when defending their homeland, but suffer penalties (or at least no bonuses) when counter-attacking into the territory of their former masters.


Hmmm....come to think of it, one thing that'd really be cool if they were to implement/bring back Civil Wars is to have a "Time Warp" option for players to play. The game actually starts somewhere in the Industrial Age, and the player gets control of a rebel faction, trying to stand against a well-established Empire...now THAT'D be cool!

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 00:26   #17
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Hmmm....come to think of it, one thing that'd really be cool if they were to implement/bring back Civil Wars is to have a "Time Warp" option for players to play. The game actually starts somewhere in the Industrial Age, and the player gets control of a rebel faction, trying to stand against a well-established Empire...now THAT'D be cool!
That should be easy enough to create in a scenario, however, I see the bobbing head to be the biggest nuisance!
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 00:39   #18
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
Have a look here for a quick step by step of how you could "be the rebel".

civil war & domestic politics - recapturing the throne

It's near the bottom. Second one I wrote there.

Basically the idea is that there's a chance your civ could revolt and you won't be in control of the resulting gov. You'll be a lone rebel unit running around trying to regain support and retake your throne.

Of course, in that thread, I don't know how the %chance of recapturing throne would work yet. Just that you need to get back to the capital and then you get a chance to recapture.


Grrr!!:
Quote:
True, but isn't this making a "Standard Cookie Cutter Template".
Not sure what you mean. My sig is just me complaining about genetically hardcoded unique civ attributes that you start with, instead of your civ gaining those attributes based on the way you choose to play. I never play with UUs or civ attributes.

I just threw in the not-a-full-fledged AI because there might be too many AI's in the game for Firaxis to handle. Of course, it'd be better with a fully functioning one. That was just a compromise for simplicity. Maybe that's a bad idea though?

Velo:

Quote:
D) Relaxed rules for using conscription/draft for X-number of turns so they can mount a credible military to back up their bid for independence, along with special "revloter status" construction costs on new units for a like number of turns (as the upstarts scramble and scrounge any and all available resources to fight off the Evil Empire)
Yes! That a great idea. Why not "instantly" recruit a few conscripts/regular for defense though? That civ wouldn't have its turn yet so there's no immediate threat, just the quesiton of whethr you can take it back quickly.

Quote:
) Special "Revolter" status units that get a combat bonus when defending their homeland, but suffer penalties (or at least no bonuses) when counter-attacking into the territory of their former masters.
Gotta disagree with this one - rebels usually aren't much more organized than the former authorities. They usually have support of some of the military so their garrisons would join them already. No need for special extra powerful defensive units. Losing half your army, that's hard enough without entrenching the sides. The military gains (of both sides) at the start of rebellions are usually a bit of back and forth til things settle down or until one side gains the real upper hand.

Plus, since it's enemy territory, you don't get movement bonuses. could be a long war if you've only got infantry.

Besides, you want some chance of recovering your country. Not all civil wars ended in a permanent split (US, France, Russia, England, China... all rejoined).
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 00:48   #19
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Grrr!!:
Not sure what you mean. My sig is just me complaining about genetically hardcoded unique civ attributes that you start with, instead of your civ gaining those attributes based on the way you choose to play. I never play with UUs or civ attributes.

I just threw in the not-a-full-fledged AI because there might be too many AI's in the game for Firaxis to handle. Of course, it'd be better with a fully functioning one. That was just a compromise for simplicity. Maybe that's a bad idea though?
Bad idea, well that's kind of what I meant. If you say that the AI should not be fully fledged, you are creating a "Cookie Cutter" situation, in which each time the civ will react the same, as by a specific Civil War script. If the civ becomes one of the old ones, it will have personality traits, which lead to different situations. I mean, the Indians will probably try to find a peaceful way of recapturing you, while the Russians will go for all-out-war.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 00:59   #20
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
I see your point. Full AI would be best.
But I still think it would be better than nothing. I mean, even a warmonger semi-AI rebel civ would be better than no civil war option.

I think the rebel civ should be on it's own though. It should be it's own unique civ and not join some preexisting civ.

Think in history, rebels didn't usually want to JOIN another country, they wanted to get control of their OWN - they just happen to have only partial control now. (spanish civil war, USA, England, China, Japan, Russia, France, Sudan, etc...)
Or to form their own unique civ free from ALL other civ's domination (the Basques and Spain, chechnya & russia, Eritrea & Ethiopia, Algeria & France, India & GB, etc...)

btw, rebel civs should be immune to your culture and vice-versa. you should only be able to conquer them back or threaten the AI to hand them over.
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 01:03   #21
TinCow
Chieftain
 
TinCow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Not all civil wars ended in a permanent split (US, France, Russia, England, China... all rejoined).
Sorry for being a picky History buff, but Taiwan's not exactly chopped liver. China certainly doesn't consider itself fully united.

Anyway, this has given me an idea. What if cities (colonies) linked to the capital only via water (i.e. islands or distant detached colonies) had a greater likelihood of revolting than cities connected by roads? Of course this would still require one of the above triggers to result in Civil War, but when it comes to determining which cities defect this could be a factor. I think the rebel civ would have a much greater chance of surviving if it centered itself on a different island/continent than the parent civ. Other cities not on this island/continent would also have a chance of rebelling, but perhaps give the ones there a much greater chance. It would be interesting to have have one of your medium sized islands revolt, with only one city remaining loyal and then have to defend that city as a toehold until you can ship reinforcements back over.

To make this more realistic, this added chance of rebellion on the island would only exist if it only had harbor contact (or no contact) with the mother civ. A road or an airport would give it a the same chance as every other city.
TinCow is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 01:17   #22
Ghengis-Sean
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 19:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39
first, this is *definitely* a good topic.

I agree 150% with velociryx when says that we should distinguish between revolts, internal political movement, and independence movements.

Political Revolts;
These should take place inside an empire and be spread out randomly among discontented cities. In this case rebels should have a form of government different than their original. Democracy to Communist, Monarchy to Republic, so on and so forth. Also you (or the AI) should be able to use espionage to encourage revolutions.

I also agree with the captain that Rebel civ's first goal should be to kill off the other half of the civ. If this can be done then the rebels win, the rebels goverment prevails and then the entire civ reverts to its original form, unless the rebels and the goverment make peace in which case a new civ is born.

Independence Movements.

cities on the fringe, or recently captured cities should from time to time revolt and form a new civ. These guys shouldn't aggresively seek to replace the government or join another civOf course cities sometimes defect, but I'm not talking about defection, I'm saying an entierly new civ. Somebody else brought up the idea that their should be a subset of splinter groups for each civ, I think this is spot on.

Also instead of cities defecting how about rebel armies? or rebel leaders? For each city in civil disorder how about a chance for each point of unhappy populace to spawn a rebel unit, then if the rebels capture a city then the ball gets rolling?

Also also (this almost a complete aside) in despotism and communism what happens to the population points when you rush build? In game logic they become unhappy and hit the road, well shouldn't they turn up somewhere like neighboring civs? If cities are connecting by a road net or harbors then everytime you ruch build a certain amount of that poulation loss should disipate, go to foreign countries, or possibley spawn rebels.

just some thoughts.
__________________
Good, Bad, I'm the one with the Gun- Army of Darkness
Ghengis-Sean is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 01:36   #23
Bautou
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghengis-Sean

Also also (this almost a complete aside) in despotism and communism what happens to the population points when you rush build? In game logic they become unhappy and hit the road, well shouldn't they turn up somewhere like neighboring civs? If cities are connecting by a road net or harbors then everytime you ruch build a certain amount of that poulation loss should disipate, go to foreign countries, or possibley spawn rebels.
That's an interesting idea, sorta like the Civ2 partisan system but maybe beefed up a bit to make them a more relevent factor than they were in Civ2. It could be a useful counter to overusing pop-rushing if you have to fight rebel forces that result.
Bautou is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 01:57   #24
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
tincow:
you're right! gotta be more careful. strange that it should slip my mind since I have some heritage from both Taiwan and China. Just making a list too quick I guess. Still, at the time, no one thought China would be as unified as it is now. With all the warlords plus Japan's interference over that half-century, no one would have guessed Sunny's dream would come as close to being fulfilled as it is today. of course commies aren't republics, but hey, it's not a monarchy. Still HK returned to the fold. Who knows what the future holds for the ROC? but definitely not joining Japan!

Ghengis & Bautou:

What about something like a "refugee" unit that gets spawned outside that city (or on your frontier instead).
It would be a "barbarian" unit in that it would belong to no one. Then you could recapture it (like a despot would likely try for), or the enemy AI might "recruit" them into their empire.

It would be just like a worker except less useful. Just good for increasing pop.

Maybe even a general refugee unit, so a city in great danger might spawn refugees, or you could purposefully evacuate and save some of your people. Or allied refugees might come pouring over your borders too!

Or in some cases, "barbarian" partisans get spawned instead of refugees.
Excellent! Then your freedom loving civ could have some incentive for "liberating" those cities from despotic civs since they'd be spawning hostile barb partisans on your border from all their slave-driving!

As for rebel leaders, great idea! you kill the rebel leader, they go passive and you retake the cities. But you should also get a figurehead unit, so if they kill you, they win. The higher the stakes, the more exciting!
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 04:22   #25
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Captain

have you played SMAX? it introduced Aliens to alpha centauri, and when a human conquered an alien base, or when an alien conquered a human base, that base went down to size one and two refugee units (i think they were actually colony pods but i don't remember for sure) appeared beside the city, so it is in firaxis's ability to code that in

what i would love to see is in addition to leaders forming armies, if they could lead an army, like if you hit "L" for example a leader could join an army (instead of building an army, or rushing a wonder) and would give all of the units in that army like something between a 25-50% bonus

anyways here is something quite old (march 21 2000) that you can find here

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001213-2.html

it is how i envisioned civ3 long long ago

Quote:
The ideas presented here are my ideas for how we should model the decay of a civilization…

Civil Wars: civil wars happen when a group of cities change their allegiance. Listed below are types and causes of civil wars. Though civil wars could happen anytime the chance for a civil war would increase greatly if a civ lost its capital.


*Break-away republics: this type of civil war happens when a group of cities with a similar culture forms a new civ. The effects of this are local to those cities with a similar culture. This process should happen over a very short amount of time, between one and three turns. All units supported by the break-away republics would have a chance of defecting to them, regardless of where they were at the time, and all units supported by the break-away republic inside of their territory would automatically defect to them. All units inside of their territory (only from the civ they are breaking away from, not units from other civs) would have a chance of defecting to them, regardless of where they were supported from. The only exception would be the units supported from the capital.

*Colonial Wars: this type of civil war happens when a group of colonies form a new civ. The effects of this are local to the colonies. This process should happen over an extended period of time, with some of the colonies revolting and then as time passes other colonies join them. All units supported by the colonies would automatically defect to them regardless of where they were. Units inside of their territory would have a chance of defecting to the rebels if they were supported from other colonies that didn’t declare independence. Units supported from normal cities would not have a chance to defect to the colonies even if they were inside of colonial territory.

*Defections: this type of civil war happen when a city, or group of cities (or colonies) switch allegiance to another civ. This would happen if the cities had a similar culture, or similar social engineering settings, or those cities had a very low nationalism. Also a factor would be the ratio of two civs power and wealth, poor weak cities would be more likely to defect to a strong wealthy civ. This would happen in one turn and would be local to just the cities most like the civ they are defecting to. All units supported by the defectors inside of their territory would automatically switch allegiances to them. Units supported by the defectors, but that were inside of the original civs territory would not switch allegiances, and units outside of both the rebels and the original civs territory would have a chance of defecting to the rebels. All other units inside of their territory (only from the civ they are breaking away from, not units from other civs) would have a chance of defecting to them, regardless of where they were supported from. The only exception would be the units supported from the capital.

*Sessionist States: this type of civil war happens when a group of cites with similar ideal settings would declare their independence. There would have to be a great deal of difference between their ideal settings and the rest of the civ’s ideal setting for them to just declare a civil war. However after the capital fell, they would have a great chance of defecting. All of this would happen fairly quickly with all of the cities that are going to defect, defecting over a short period of turns, say less than five. All of this would be localized to the cities with the similar ideal settings. All units supported by the rebels inside of their territory would automatically switch allegiances to them. All units supported by the rebels outside of their territory would have a chance of joining them. All other units inside of their territory (only from the civ they are breaking away from, not units from other civs) would have a small chance (maybe 25%)of defecting to them, regardless of where they were supported from. The only exception would be the units supported from the capital.

Coups: coups happen when your own military units turn against you. Coups are not always violent, and they usually happen fairly quickly, unlike a civil war which can drag on for an extended amount of time. Cities never switch allegiances during a successful coup, but during a less successful coup there might be a few break away cities.

*Ambitious Generals: An ambitious general is when a high morale command unit decides to topple the government. This is very likely to happen where the government isn’t very effective and the people are unhappy and unproductive, the worse the civ is doing the more likely a general is to seize control. Also a better general will be more likely to lead a coup, so if a command unit is green morale they will be less likely to lead a coup than a command unit that has elite morale. All units attached to the command unit will turn against you, the command unit also can effect all of the other command units around it. When a command unit decides to launch a coup, all of the command units close to it does a loyalty check. Basically this should work like psi combat in SMAC on a 1:1 attack defense ratio with no modifiers (except maybe something like polymorphic encryption could act as trance and high morale could act like empath song). If a command unit turns then other command units near it have a chance of turning but the loyalty check is made based on the coup leaders morale. Also if the command unit that launches the coup is based in the capital, the coup has a larger effective radius on recruiting other generals. If the coup manages to capture your king unit then there would be a greater chance of the coup succeeding. The results of this would be one of two things. Either part of your military forces would be hostile towards you (counts as barbarian units) and you would subdue them or the coup would take over. If the coup was successful, then for a few turns the AI would run your cities and then you would play on representing the coup leaders, with the command unit that led the coup becoming your king unit. If the coup is not successful but the renegade general does take over your civ then it is like you have been overran by barbarians.

*Failed State: If at anytime you lose half of your civs power bar in less than ten turns there would be a great chance of your entire military structure revolting against you. The less time it took for your power bar to go down the greater the chance of the military replacing your government with a new one. This would happen in one turn and when it happened it would always be successful, but it wouldn’t always happen. Once again the AI would control your civ for a few turn, change social engineering setting and production to what it thought was acceptable. Then after a few (between 3-10) turns you would be in control of your civ again.

*Hard Liners: Would work in the same manner as an ambitious general, except it would only happen after you change social engineering settings. The more radical the social engineering changes the greater the chance of a coup. The longer you kept a social engineering setting the greater the chance of a coup. If the coup was successful, then not only would the AI take over for a few turns but it would change the social engineering back to what it was originally and the player couldn’t change it for 25 turns. If the coup is not successful but the renegade general does take over your civ then it is like you have been overran by barbarians.

*Rouge Military Units: units should require money for support, and when disbanding a unit it should cost a small amount of money to do so. When military units are not paid then there is a great chance that they will turn into rogue units that act basically like barbarian units. If rogue military units overcome your entire civ, it would be like barbarians overran it and you would not get a second chance.

Popular Uprisings: This is when the people turn against you. Usually not as quick or as organized as a coup or a civil war, this represents the civil strife that constantly tears at your empire.

*Peasant Revolts: this is when unhappy citizens try to seize control of a city. This would happen spontaneously and bad conditions would encourage it. If a peasant revolt happened a number of peasant units would appear in the city and they would fight the military garrison. If the Garrison won the battle the population would go down by one. The size of the peasant army would be based on the size of the city. If the city fell to the peasants it would count as a barbarian city.

*Resistance movement: This is when a city, or a group of cities actively support a guerrilla war against your civ. This would only happen spontaneously with unhappy occupied territories, or if your reputation dropped to dangerously low levels with your people. Cities that support the resistance would have a chance of partisans appearing nearby, and the partisans would have an increased chance of carrying out guerilla activity against the city. This could tie up a large number of military units trying to combat the guerrillas.

*Revolution: a revolution would occur when great changes tug at your empire, especially if your entire civ had a different ideal setting than what you currently had. It would basically have the same effect as a failed state, except it would not always be successful when it occurred. After a revolution you would not be able to change your social engineering setting for 25 turns.

*Student Demonstrations: this would occur in more advanced civs, and would basically be peaceful riots. All production in the city would be cut in half because of student demonstrations. Students would take to the streets in support of a cause, whether it was to end slavery in your civ, or to disband your nuclear arsenal. Only cities with a university would experience student riots. Student demonstrations would end when you appeased the students. If one city had a student demonstration they would quickly spread to all of the other cities with universities. Students would only demonstrate over socially acceptable causes. Military units would no longer cause a set number of drones, but instead military units outside of your civ could trigger student demonstrations. The more peaceful and democratic your civ is the more likely students will demonstrate. Some causes would be, slavery, war, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, a more democratic form government (ie they want you to change your SE setting), greater education spending, greater health spending, starving cities ect. The students would be your civs conscious. Though marshal law could temporarily end student demonstrations this would hurt your civ's reputations and could lead to resistance movements forming.

ok that is just the rough draft for my decay model but here are some new concepts associated with it

culture: though i am still determining what this is in civ terms i think that it basically represents a people's simularities
support: although i believe in a global support budget i believe that units should still have a home city representing where they are from and where their loyalties are
defecting: this is when a unit or a city switch sides to another civ
capital: this is your civs headquaters
colonies: when you found a new city it starts out as a colony, and it takes 50 turns to assimilate that colony into your society...colonies are more likely to spontaneously revolt than normal cities
nationalism: this would be a social engineering parameter like growth, it would partially replace the probe rating it would determine how much your people wanna stay part of your civ
ideal settings: this is the social engineering setting, tax rate, ect that the people want...the more you differ from what the people want the more likely bad things are to happen to you
command unit: a noncombatant unit that lets a player form military units into a stack. players form a stack by attaching military units to the command unit. the command unit gives bonuses to the stack.
king unit: a special command unit that you could only have one of at a time. this represents the player on the map. besides having all of the abilities of a command unit, it would also have other abilities like it would make a city happier if it was in it, it would decrease corruption and lower the likely hood of revolt. losing this unit would be a serious setback to your civ, but you could rebuild your king unit.
peasant units: weak military units for the age, representing a peasant army. they would have the special ability that any number of peasant units could be in a stack without a command unit.
reputation: how your civ is veiwed by other civs and its population. carrying out atrocities against your own people could galvanize them against you.
guerilla activity: partisan units should have some of the special abilities of probe team units besides their other abilities. incite riots and carrout sabotage would be the most likely candidates. partisans, though not the toughest military units they would be problem to an occupying army.
WOW!
it's almost scary
let me say again, i wrote this in march of 2000! about a year and nine months before civ3 came out
korn469 is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 04:54   #26
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Re: Civil War Discussion
Quote:
Originally posted by TinCow
The civ that these cities join will be determined in the following order:
1) Largest civ that the player has conquered.
2) If player has not conquered any civs, the largest civ that has most recently been eliminated.
3) If no civs have been eliminated, the cities revert to the owners that had them with their highest culture rating.
Or, if a player is using less than 16, one of the unused Civs will be used.

I like the idea of the Civil War, though another post had some good ideas as well. He suggested that you appear somewhere in your empire in the form of a Leader, and you have to make it back and retake your Palace in order to continue your Empire building. I was thinking that you would have to find cities and troops that are loyal to you, and avoid those that aren't, and lead an assault on your "pretender". And if you get killed in the attempt, the game is over.

And if you do succeed, your Empire be a little smaller than it was, since the other Civs will take of advantage of the turmoil and capture a few of the frontier towns. Not a full out war necessarily, just a few weak towns that were easy pickings. Or maybe a reduction in the culture during the conflict so that they become assimilated by another Civ.
Willem is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 05:03   #27
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by simwiz2
"In my example, you could win a war of attrition against a much larger Democratic enemy by switching to Communism and making him fight (holding your borders) until his nation goes into Civil War. I think that would be pretty damn cool."

Great, a communist gov can already hold a democracy hostage with War Weariness and ANARCHY, and now lets add civil war to make this unrealistic and cheap strategy even more effective.

Come on, think of the multiplayer we might be getting someday. Do you really want any communist government to not only destroy a democratic government at will, but also to split the empire in half???

What a mess that would be
Well if the Soviet Union fell apart, I'm sure something could be arranged for a Communist gov. Some covert subversion with local freedom fighters perhaps? When it came right down to it, the US defeated the USSR and didn't have to fire a shot. A Civil War option could really put some major power in the hands of a Democracy against a Communist civ.
Willem is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 05:16   #28
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by ****gyRA
I don't care how it's implemented. Civil Wars would be very welcome. I think if 40% or more of your population is unhappy they could break away and form a new civ.

I also liked the volcanoes and other natual disasters in Civ1

Bring 'em back!
And the odd hurricane/tornado would be kind of cool too.
Willem is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 05:26   #29
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Have a look here for a quick step by step of how you could "be the rebel".

Basically the idea is that there's a chance your civ could revolt and you won't be in control of the resulting gov. You'll be a lone rebel unit running around trying to regain support and retake your throne.

Of course, in that thread, I don't know how the %chance of recapturing throne would work yet. Just that you need to get back to the capital and then you get a chance to recapture.
You would have to find and enter a city that was loyal to you, not knowing which are or aren't. You would then be able to start production in that town in order to build a force to send against your capital. You can also send envoys to other towns, and ones they encounter that are loyal, you can use for further production. If your envoy encounters a town that is not loyal, the rebels will attack him. The same would go with units in the field. You'd have to build/recruit enough loyal troops to march on the capital and retake it.
Willem is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 10:36   #30
TinCow
Chieftain
 
TinCow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:22
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 97
The "Be the Rebel" idea is definitely cool and worthy of time, but it seems to me that should be more of a scenario than a game feature. If this kind of Civil War occurred, where someone lost complete control over their empire for a period of time, most people would probably quit that game (after they played the rebel section first of course) because they would be so far behind and/or have lost so much to other civs during the revolt period. What we need is a situation where a person suddenly has to deal with a dangerous military scenario, but at the same time they can continue to develop normally in all other regards. It would be a lot easier to recapture a dozen cities from the rebels than half a dozen cities from half a dozen other civs (you're not going to want to go to war with all six at once).

I'm thinking this whole Civil War thing could be tied into the game so as to help deal with the Late Game Tedium thing that so many people complain about. What if Civil Wars only occurred in the Industrial and Modern Ages? If you had to fight off a rebel faction of your empire, that would sure as hell make that part of the game more interesting.
TinCow is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:22.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team