I've asked myself whether it is possible to have a conflict during a Civil War. This could be possible when the primary victim holds Agriculture, and an area populated with one token more then "allowed" will partially be annexed by the beneficiary. Following the rules this should cause a conflict, even when the beneficiary also holds Agriculture.
But it never is written in the rules that resolving a Civil War can cause a conflict. So if the area isn't affected by further events (such as Barbarian Hordes) both players keeps their tokens until the next pop-ex phase, causing to have for example four tokens (each player two) on an area with face value 1.
In the most extreme situation an 5-area with 6 tokens on it can be splitted into 2 tokens for the primary victim and 4 tokens for the beneficiary. Then the beneficiary is the primary victim of the other Civil War, losing two tokens from the square to a third player. Then during the pop-ex phase all the three players pop-exes the area until it has a total of 12 tokens. I think we wish to avoid such situations because for a similar reason the Arabian Desert, originally an area with face value 1, is splitted into two smaller areas each with face value 0.
If a Civil War will cause conflicts, what happens when only one of the players holds Metalworking?

hey good thing.

in my opinion it's mainly never mentioned (or almost) becasue in practice people will notice this at the descission-part of the civil war where you choose which tokens to flip over and which to leave untouched.
As a conflict occuring to both players is a loss for both, either players would try to avoid a situation like this. Still, It could occur and therefore should be mentioned I think. (Barbarian Hordes is conflict during calamity resolution anyway indeed)

20.1.2 The population limit in areas containing only tokens belonging to a player who holds
Agriculture (30.3) are increased by one. This effect is limited to areas that do not contain other
tokens. Agriculture has no effect in areas where tokens are co-existing or during conflict.
so if we say a conflict occurs in a 1-limit area havin one token of each player, the area is left unpopulated unless a single player hold metalworking.

- A 5-limit area with three of each players leave the area populated with 2 of each unless a single player holds metalworking.

Another option that could occur, is a player holding Public Works and is having tokens in his city-area's, is hit by a civil war where the beneficiary does not hold public works. In either case if the city is annexed and the token is not, the token is annexed and the city is not, or both the token and the city is taken over, the single token dies in conflict resolution after civil war. Actually it isn't mentioned this way, but is considered an unsuccesful attack. Maybe there should be made an exception in defintion for this situation only.



Anyway

THere should be mentioned in my opinion (though it's obvious to me) that there should be a conflict-check after annexing as a part of civil war-resolution

during any conflict the rules for agriculture, metalworking, naval warfare and advanced military still apply, thus in my opinion those shouldn;t be mentioned if you state it like (something like) this:

29.4.1.8 A check is made for any possible conflict in any area that was annexed this way. In each of those areas a normal conflict occurs.




Besides, when I look it up. There is no mention of removing surplus after calamity phase (in my opinion part of city support check).

Should be there, am I right. Otherwise you could leave 3 tokens in a 2-limti area if you annexed this from a player holding agriculture where you have no agriculture. This isnt right.

Jonno??

I was just checking my civ-set to be complete for our game next week and remembered this discussion.

This is the line I added to the rules as errata for V2.10 A line like this should be added to the rulebook in V2.11 I think.


29.4.1.8 Conflict occurs when the tokens of two or more civilizations occupy the same area and the total number of tokens in the area is greater than the population limit of the area. Areas containing a city can not hold any tokens, unless the single owner of both the city and the token in that specific area holds Public Works (30.41), in which case the area can hold one token. In any other case of an area containing both a city and a token, conflict occurs. If the population limit of an area containing tokens belonging to two or more different civilizations is not exceeded, the tokens will co-exist without conflict.

NOTE 1: This situation is a unique one when involving Public Works.

NOTE 2: Maybe a mention could be made about the defintion of 'attacking' when a primary victim holds cult.asc. AND Agriculture and a benificiary annexes half of the tokens in an area. (that this is not considered 'attacking')

NOTE 3:In my opinion the definition of conflict (18.1) speaks about '...unless the city owner holds...'. Shouldn't that be '....unless the city's owner holds...' (I changed the line a bit to fit the situation mentioned here)

Conflict and removal of surplus population only occurs when the rules explicitly call for them. Thus it is possible that areas are temporarily overpopulated after a Civil War.

This is best illustrated by an example from an actual game I have played. It was an AdvCiv game, but the principle remains the same.

Egypt had Agriculture and was the victim of Civil War. Assyra was beneficiary, but didn't have enough tokens in stock to take all the spoils, so Africa got the last token. As a result they ended up with one token each in Midian (the lower right corner area next to the red sea). At the end of the calamity phase they both used the token they got for City Support (which actually mattered for Africa). Then, in the next turn, both nations got an extra token in the area due to population expansion, giving them two tokens each in a 1-pop area even though neither had agriculture. In the movement phase neither moved their tokens (as Egypt had a city in Petra and Babylon had a wilderness city in Arabia), and during the conflict phase they fought to the bitter end, depopulating the area (loosing two tokens each), as neither had Military. In the next turn (the second turn after the Civil War) Egypt shipped two tokens to the area.

Also, I have seen, though not due to a Civil War, five different nations in Germany (the Illyrian starting area), each populating, give 10 tokens in the area. I see no problems with that either, nor the fact that in some corner cases involving Civil War there might temporarily be another two tokens in the area.

Also, Civil ward is hard enough on the victim, without risking to loose more tokens in an extra conflict immediately after the calamity. Let them have a chance to move the tokens out of the conflict during the movement phase.

As for the Public Works issue, I've discussed it with some players during a game last year, and we could not find any game dynamics problems with the token being of another civilization.

As for Cultural Ascendancy, it already quite clearly only affects the movement phase:
(emphasis mine)

(you mean metalworking I guess)

This might be the way to interpret this at least when using only 'advanced civilization'. Still I think Johannes has got a point that this is not explained.

I my opinion, there should be a check for conflict and/or a check for surplus removal after the resolution of calamities. (though this will result in almost no problems in most turns.

The situation you describes might be very rare, just the situation described by Johannes, but I think this is an overlooked error the could be solved here.

I mean, just because the original Advanced Civilization does not cover this issue, doesn't have to be a reason to keep this strange thing still in the game.

Thinking of this, problems like these can also occur at Tyranny ofcourse.


About this issue, I don't think situation occur much where a player intentionally seeks conflict, cause he'd loose a token himself too and players are greedy. If the beneficary holds metalworking and the primary does not, this is a way to do seek conflict and let your experience speak. I mean this divides the better players from the weaker.



Hey I didn't know this. It's true it's not denied in the rules. I believe it's a good addition to add a line in the rulebook to describe the extra token is allowed in the city area, regerdless whose token this is.

Just to avoid doubts and discussions.


So, my bold addition is false. Still I believe in the addition of conflict/surplus check-rule and my suggestion would be this:


Civil War
29.4.1.8 Conflict occurs when the tokens of two or more civilizations occupy the same area and the total number of tokens in the area is greater than the population limit of the area. Areas containing a city can not hold any tokens, unless the owner of the city holds Public Works (30.41), in which case the area can hold one token, regardless who is the owner of the token. In any other case of an area containing both a city and a token, the extra token is considered surplus. If the population limit of an area containing tokens belonging to two or more different civilizations is not exceeded, the tokens will co-exist without conflict.

Tyranny
29.8.1.8 Conflict occurs when the tokens of two or more civilizations occupy the same area and the total number of tokens in the area is greater than the population limit of the area. Areas containing a city can not hold any tokens, unless the owner of the city holds Public Works (30.41), in which case the area can hold one token, regardless who is the owner of the token. In any other case of an area containing both a city and a token, the extra token is considered surplus. If the population limit of an area containing tokens belonging to two or more different civilizations is not exceeded, the tokens will co-exist without conflict.


I don't think the description of Tyranny is very (most) clear in this. You could interpret it in two ways, where X is the number of determined units to take over.
-(1) Tyranny allows you annex areas and at the last area, to partly annex an area until X units are annexed.
-(2) Tyranny allows you annex areas and at the last area, to end the calamity when and area can only be annexed partly to reach X, decreasing X with up to 4 units at that point.



What is the right way to interpret this calamity?

if (1) is true I think it should read:

29.8.1.3 The beneficiary must then annex a number of the victim’s unit points equal to twice the number of cities owned by the victim by replacing the units with tokens from stock. These unit points must be annexed from areas within or adjacent (by land or water) to the beneficiary's civilization. Each area is annexed in turn, with units previously annexed being used in this determination. If the number of units in a single area is exceeds the number of units to be annexed to reach the determined total, it's possible to partly annex an area.

if (2) is true I think it should read:

29.8.1.3 The beneficiary must then annex a number of the victim’s unit points equal to twice the number of cities owned by the victim by replacing the units with tokens from stock. These unit points must be annexed from areas within or adjacent (by land or water) to the beneficiary's civilization. Each area is annexed in turn, with units previously annexed being used in this determination. Areas cannot be partly annexed. If the number of units in a single area is exceeds the number of units to be annexed to reach the determined total, the calamity is over.

Of course, silly mistake


This is the way it currently works in both Advanced Civilization and Civilization: The Expansion Project. However, we can of course change the rules for future versions of CivProject


Yes, one could. In fact, I would much rather include a second conflict and remove surplus population phase between the special abilities phase and the second check for city support phase, than complicating the rules for Civil War and Tyranny any more, though personally I don't think either should be necessary.


Well, it's neither overlooked (I've known of it for some time, and even discussed it's implications with people IRL) nor necessarily an error (I think it is the appropriate way to do it).

After all, consider the following rule extract:

And while not explicitly mentioned, the same is also true for Conflict (with the only exception being Barbarian Hordes) and City Support Check (with the only exception being Slave Revolt).


Well, it is covered in Advanced Civilization, it just isn't covered the way you'd like it to be


Well, the losing a token himself isn't necessary. If we include your suggested extra removal of surplus population as well as conflict, and I became the beneficiary of a Civil War where the victim has Agriculture, I would whenever possible pick all but one token in each overpopulated area with three or more tokens, so that the casualty would go to the victim instead of me (as you said, players are greedy). The only time when I wouldn't do that was if he had metalworking and I didn't. So even if we were technologically equals he would loose more tokens than without the rule change.

And even if we didn't introduce the removal of surpluss population I might (depending on current diplomatic status between me and the victim) choose to do it it just to hurt the victim more without any cost to me.

So, what I'm saying is that it would make the arguable worst calamity even worse in most cases to solve a perceived problem that only occurs in very few cases.


I usually don't want to add everything that isn't changed by cards to the rulebook, as that would make the rulebook too complex in the long run, but this case is so very special that it might be warranted. I'll look into a formulation to use. If you have a suggestion, please tell me.


That is definitely a no-go. I really do NOT want to add that complexity to the individual calamities. If conflict and/or removal of surplus population is to occur after calamities, they should occur only once, as an extra phase, after the special abilities phase (similar to the second City Support Check phase).



The correct way is (1), with the special exception that cities can't be reduced to allow for more conversions, and that if an area contains both a city and a token, you might only be able to take over one of them, but still have points left to go.

However, you seams to mix the terms units and unit points interchangeably in your suggestions.
I've added the following sentence to 28.1.3. If you have a better suggestion, please tell me:
An area may only be partially annexed if it is not possible to annex all units in that area, and even then the beneficiary must annex as many unit points in the area as possible.

You're right.

I'd go for an extra phase after special effects.

thus: check for conflict, resolve conflict, and remove surplus -phase


Yes I have. I saw no problem in that, now I do see that's confusing. What I meant at all times is "Unit Points"



I like it. It covers the problem.

Great, then we agree on what we argue about.
For the reasons I explained above, while I do prefer adding phases over complicating the calamity phase, I still don't think we should add the second Conflict and Remove Surplus Population phases at all...


Great, then we'll use it.

Guys, I'm very glad you know what you argue about :-)

However, I have thought of it myself, and actually I don't care either solution. Having an additional conflict phase after the calamities is fine to me, but since the chances on that happening (as well as the impact) are quite low, I really don't mind not doing it either.

So, no real help from my side on this topic :-)

I asked my neigbours, my cat, and all my family members and they didn't care either...



Anyway.

I'd prefer an additional phase in a next version.
It's better, and it's not holding back when there are no problems.

And I'd prefer not to, as I see no real problem with it as it is, and see potential for real trouble if introducing it.

Also there is that "What??? Nineteen phases? But Advanced Civilization managed with just twelve!". I'm already getting that from people as is, and that with only seventeen phases...

oh ok


Well, I still think a mention somewhere should be made to cover the subject, either solving it, or either telling it is the way it is.

You mean something akin to what §20.1 does for Removal of surplus population but for Conflict and City Support Check?

Yeah, if that's the way...

Just the results of this closed topic:


1.

2.

Adding to the rulebook: