Revolts, Independences and Civil Wars

[Spiffor]

Every now and then, we on Apolyton ask Firaxis to implement revolts and independence wars or civil wars. Many people want these revolts for improved realism, or to crush the enemy more easily (Civil wars à la Civilization 2).

But from a gameplay perspective, why would Civil wars be fun ? What would they really bring to the game ?

1. The counterweight to expansion: shrink
I think the main answer to that question is that Civil wars would bring huge dynamism to the game. Actually, they'd bring the missing half of the historical dynamics to the game:

Civilization games all challenge you to stand the test of time. While this sound incredibly difficult at first (only China managed to do that in the real world), it happens to be really easy in the game. Except if the player tries to conquer the whole world, most civilizations will have stood the test of time by the end of the game, while a few would have been eliminated.

Why is that ? Because the only possible dynamics for a Civilization is to expand. In the early game, a Cvilization will grab as much unsettled territory as possible, and in the later game, it will try to conquer another territory. A successful conqueror will be stronger and stronger as he acquires more cities and more productive centers ; in the long run has nearly no chance to fall. On the other hand, a Civilization lucky enough not to get involved in wars will always stand the test of time.

In short, most of the Challenge in Civilization games is to "win". "Not to fall" is not a challenge per se, except if you have bad luck.

And this kind of challenge is exactly what would be brought by Civil wars.
To some extent, Firaxis already took steps to avoid expansion as being the obvious choice. The high corruption and cultural conversions in Civilization 3 make sure the conqueror must be cautious, and should avoid overstretching his empire. This is completely different from Civilization 2, where a city was fully productive after the conquest (no corruption, no risk of conversion), and where a conqueror would become exponentially stronger.
But these steps do not adress the core of the problem, that is that a expanding Civilization is about sure to be permanently stronger after the expansion than before. They only affect Civilizations marginally.

Civil Wars are the real way to have Civilizations shrink despite being at peace with foreigners. They could prune huge empires into smaller ones, and ease their elimination in case of foreign war. They would really bring in the challenge in "standing the test of time".

2. Creative destruction: the emergence of new Civilizations during the game
From a historical perspective, there is a fundamental flaw in every Civilization game. That is to have all Civilizations start at the same time, and let them be eliminated as the game progresses. The rival Civs remember your past deals with them and offenses to them.
Civil wars can add new Civilizations midgame, if the rebels are indeed a new Civilization. The emergence of new Civilizations would be refreshing for the game and, I think, fun. It would add some surprise, and hence some extra excitement. And we all want a game to be exciting right ?

Civil Wars may also do a great case to integrate more Civilizations, both very ancient and very modern. As such, the presence of an Italian Civilization would not be absurd despite the presence of Rome already.

I think these two reasons are why Civil wars, Independence wars and rebellions should be in Civilization games. I look forwards to see them one day

[PeaSoup]

civil wars is always something I like to see in the game, I remember my very first game of Civ I where the Russians took my capital and split my already small empire in 2. I found that game to be challenging, much more than current Civ III diety games where you just have to fight the AI's various production and food bonuses.

The problem is how do they implement this? Through the capture of the AI's capital? That'll just prompt people to beeline to the capital. Through a certain % or turns of unrest? The governer handles citizen moods pretty well.

So until Firaxis can figure out the best way to put civil wars in the game, I don't think it should be included, not in the current game at least...

[Spiffor]

I have put some thought about the implementation, and I came up with these ideas:

- Civil wars would happen semi-randomly, from a formula based on a number of factors: distance from the capitol, corruption, culture, amount of people from foreign cultures, local military presence (these are the same elements as culture flipping)
A special calculation could be done when the capitol is taken, and it would make civil wars more likely to happen, but not sure to happen.

- Rather than being simple culture flips, Civil wars would oppose rebel armies to your own military. The rebel armies would 'magically' appear, and their strength would be dependent from the amount of foreign nationals in your cities. Say, if you have plenty of Celts in a province of yours, and if you don't bother assimilating them or guarding them heavily, a ig Celtic army will emerge to claim the cities with an important Celtic population within. I think this army would then ask for peace once its objective has been reached, or once all its original offensive units have been defeated.

- The creation of new Civilizations during the game needs a new concept, which is the oppositie of assimilation. In Civ3, you have a chance to assimilate people, but these people can not become "dissimilated". I think there should be a chance for "dissimilation" for citizens to become a nationality that doesn't exist yet, or that is long extinct. This dissimilation would of course depend of various factors, such as distance from the capitol, government, culture etc.

[GhengisFarb™]

I think you should be able to loan and sell units also.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- The creation of new Civilizations during the game needs a new concept, which is the oppositie of assimilation. In Civ3, you have a chance to assimilate people, but these people can not become "dissimilated". I think there should be a chance for "dissimilation" for citizens to become a nationality that doesn't exist yet, or that is long extinct. This dissimilation would of course depend of various factors, such as distance from the capitol, government, culture etc.

CPT2 does this. IIRC, it is based on distance from capitol and overall happiness. If you do not manage your empire carefully, suddenly one or significantly more cities will revolt and declare themselves a nationality which was not in the game at the inception. And as often as not, these new civs are spawned with a hostile attitude toward you.

It’s a great concept I wouldn’t mind seeing in this Civ series.

[Turk Man]

maybe or maybe not!

[Spiffor]

GhengisFarb:
See my sig

The Arsenal:
You have just given me incentive to check out CTP2. It was the only Civ Game to which I've never player so far. I'll try to get it.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Arsenal:
You have just given me incentive to check out CTP2. It was the only Civ Game to which I've never player so far. I'll try to get it.

It’s different. And will take some getting used to. But it’s a great deal of fun. Cut my Civ teeth on it. There has been an enormous amount of work put into improving the game from its out of the box configuration. So be certain to play a mod such as Super Apolyton Pack (which is only a mod in so much as it fixed bugs and vastly improved AI behavior, but does not alter rules or units), which can be easily found from searching the CTP2 boards here.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Spiffor
GhengisFarb:
See my sig

I fully agree, I think it would be cool to rent our troops as mercenaries to other civs then once you got a few dependent on you, take em back and annex em.

[Dr. A. Cula]

Speaking of revolts, how about this: if you stack several slaves (maybe of the same nation) in one tile, there would a chance that some of them revolt and revert back to their original owner. This is more annoying than destructive, since you can capture them back the next turn, but you have been delayed in your building project.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Spiffor,

As you might know I have LONG been an advocate of a really IN-DEPTH form of Civil War for Civ3!!! I would like to put forward the following ideas, though, if I could:

-Civil wars, like in Civ2, should be about cities breaking away, rather than armies being created-in my opinion at least!! What I was thinking was that, if a number of cities break away to form a new nation, then it should avoid the discrepancies of the Civ2 system by being as culturally based as possible! i.e. if you're a European Civ, then the new Civ that forms should, if possible, be one of the unused European Civs!!
-The exception to this, though, is the example you gave about foreign nationals!! If the city contains more than X% foreigners, then the city will pass over to the Civ those foreigners belong to-EVEN if they have been otherwise eliminated from the game!!!
-When a city becomes independant, then a certain proportion of any units in the city should become rebels, with the rest becoming loyalists-who then get shunted to the nearest loyalist city!!!
-Other factors for calculating the chance of a Civil War should be: proximity to another rebel city (dominoe effect!), a change in your government, excessive War Weariness and unhappiness. A low city culture compared to average civ culture!!
-Some improvements and small wonders should reduce, but not eliminate, the chance of a CW!!
-You should get some warning if your civ is on the brink of a CW, but NOT the exact cause !!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[korn469]

what we need to do is keep the same basic civ system, but add some factors in some deterministic factors that increases the basic difficulty of maintaing your empire

here is how i'd simulate the rise and fall of empires...

the first thing i'd change, (and this is the most important thing in my opinion) is to make it so that every city had to have at least one laborer...this would make it impossible to simply switch everyone to an entertainer and basically be able to completely ignore civil dissent if you so choose, which in my opinion is a major loophole in the rules

then here are some other changes i'd make

Revolts
*everytime a city goes into civil disorder it would have a chance to revolt, maybe something like 10 to 20%
*if the city was starving it would have an increased chance of revolting, also a starving city would have more unhappy people in it
*anytime an occupied city (one taken from the enemy) didn't have a military unit in it it would automatically revolt
*when a civ went into anarchy it would have an increased chance of revolts
*other revolts on the current turn would increase the revolt risk
*each turn a city remained in civil disorder it would have an increased chance for revolting
*distance from the capital would increase the chance of a revolt
*cities with dissenters would have an increased chance of revolting

a couple of notes about revolts...

*only cities in civil disorder could revolt
*the capital city would never revolt

Civil Wars
*all governments would have a basic civil war risk, for example despotism might have a 2% civil war risk
*there would be a maximum number of safe cities, and if a civ exceeded this number they would experience an increased civil war risk, for example the civil war risk in despotism would jump from 2% to 5% if a despotism exceeded 5 cities for example
*there would be a beaurocracy technology line that would increase the maximum number of cities, and reduce the civil war risk
*civs in anarchy would have a higher chance of having a civil war
*if a civ lost it's capital it would have a greatly increased chance of a civil war
*civs that had a civil war would break roughly in half

Renegade units
*it would cost 1 gold to disband units
*if a civ didn't have enough money to pay its units, they wouldn't always simply disband on their own, instead a random unit would have a chance of either disbanding or tuning into a renegade unit which would basically act like a barbarian unit, except if it captured a city the city would automically revolt

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
-Civil wars, like in Civ2, should be about cities breaking away, rather than armies being created-in my opinion at least!!

Well, I was thinking of warfare because unlike this "instant conversion", you can do somthing about it. If the revolt happens near a place where you have a strong military, it'll be killed quickly (until the next emerges). If the revolt happens in a faraway place with little military (other continent, remote place on your own continent), your loss.
I fear that "instant conversion", if it becomes a key feature, will piss off a great many players mightily.

What I was thinking was that, if a number of cities break away to form a new nation, then it should avoid the discrepancies of the Civ2 system by being as culturally based as possible! i.e. if you're a European Civ, then the new Civ that forms should, if possible, be one of the unused European Civs!!

to that. Actually, I didn't like the Civ2 system that much. I think the culture system of Civ3 has a huge potential in this regard, and in other regards.

-The exception to this, though, is the example you gave about foreign nationals!! If the city contains more than X% foreigners, then the city will pass over to the Civ those foreigners belong to-EVEN if they have been otherwise eliminated from the game!!!

My thoughts exactly

-When a city becomes independant, then a certain proportion of any units in the city should become rebels, with the rest becoming loyalists-who then get shunted to the nearest loyalist city!!!

Well, since I think the independentists should conquer their cities, I'm not to thrilled with this idea
However, if Civil Wars function like cultural conversions, that is a good idea.

-Some improvements and small wonders should reduce, but not eliminate, the chance of a CW!!
-You should get some warning if your civ is on the brink of a CW, but NOT the exact cause

Exactly. Some things should be able to be done about the risk of civil war, the same way we can do something to struggle against corruption (be commercial, be a democracy, build improvements and small wonders, hopefully we'll see "direct influence" techs which will reduce corruption upon discovery etc.

[Spiffor]

Korn:

I agree with everything you said. It should be more difficult to keep your population quiet, and your suggestions help a great deal to it (especially the "hunger makes unhappy" suggestion.

However, something should be done for the dissent to be shut at all. In a democracy, under your system, it would be impossible to shut the dissent up, since it would be impossible to rush-build a cathedral, AND impossible to let the military "appease" the dissidents (what can be done with authoritarian regimes).
That would make the city pretty much stuck in civil disorder unless you can bring a new luxury quickly, or if you raise the luxury slider bigtime for this one city.
A possible solution to that problem would be to have a martial law in disorder cities even under Democracy. Maybe there are other possibilities, but they don't come on top of my head right now.


I'm very fond of your "renegade units" system

[aahz_capone]

I think this is a good idea, and with the comming of C3C, there will be enough civs so that even playing a 16 civ game, and by 500 ad there are only 10 left, they can plit up into new civs without repeating any old civs.

[korn469]

Spiffor

a martial law command could be used to restore order, something akin to nerve stapling in SMAC but not the same since atrocities don't exist in Civ3...

possibly a city under martial law couldn't collect any taxes or science, it couldn't assimilate citizens, buildings wouldn't produce any culture, also curroption and waste would be higher, but each military unit would do double police duty for civs that had police units, and for civs that didn't it would give one or two units police ability

[Spiffor]

Again, smart suggestions Korn It really makes me hope a Firaxian reads that

[Oerdin]

I like this idea. The should bring back civil wars.

[SIV]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Civil wars can add new Civilizations midgame, if the rebels are indeed a new Civilization. The emergence of new Civilizations would be refreshing for the game and, I think, fun. It would add some surprise, and hence some extra excitement. And we all want a game to be exciting right ?

I think newly created civs would be too weak to have a chanse to win the game or even to influince it a lot, unless coming to the game early.
In the industrial age for example, would can a 4-city rebel country do when stuck between two 25-city civs?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SIV
In the industrial age for example, would can a 4-city rebel country do when stuck between two 25-city civs?

That's precisely why I think an independentist party should have a military to begin with (and conquer its targeted cities), rather than just having a few simultaneous culture flips.
With enough army + a good technology (the tech from the "oppressing" Civ), a small Civilization can play a role, even though it has little chance of being huge. Besides, the civil war will most likely happen at a time when the oppressing Civ is in trouble ; that could motivate the independentist Civ to start a very normal war after the end of the independence war.
Or it could bully an even weaker Civ. Or join a grand coalition if one is occuring. Small Civs can do things in Civ3. Especially if there are many of them, they have their own playground.

[Vince278]

Spiffor - I wholeheartedly agree with the idea and the thoughts you put into it. I'd like to see it as well.
The rebel territory should be able to start at the tech level of its parent and seize (most of) whatever assets are in its territory (units and workers). That would give it a fair chance without being too powerful. A civil war would be more of a challenge.