Civil war/rebellion?

[Ninot]

Hello all,

was a big Civ 3 buff untill my PTW CD got stolen (literally stolen). VERY excited to hear a Civ IV is due for November it seems.

1 thing I havent found quickly reading over the thread.

Will there be a chance of a Civil war type thing? Like playing as England and then the U.S.A rebelling? Or have they not factored this in?

I sorta hope its in, cuz it would be a refreshing twist when you've already dominated the world by the middle ages.

[Jon Shafer]

Welcome back Ninot.

[Ninot]

Thanks Trip

*postcount goes up*

oops, sorry.

I read through the "features" list for CIV. Civil war ain't there

[Shogun Gunner]

Not that we know of yet. This topic came up in anothre thread in this forum

Civil war from Civ2 reference

[Trifna]

I think that civil war was declared "unfun". So it's dead before even being born to test life.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

How could those Philistines call Civil War unfun. YES, it has to be done right in order to BE fun, but this could easily be achieved. Civil war should NOT be about whether you lose your capital, it should be about how content your people are, how big your nation is, how many foreign or heathen citizens you have in your cities, how much culture your cities have, how may troops you have garrisoned, and how well you defend against another nations underhanded attempts to subvert your cities. As DH_Epic from Civfanatics puts it-Civil war would be incredibly fun if it follows the 3 P's-it should be Predictable (to a point), Preventable (to a point) and Provokable in others!
I should point out that the recent UGO article does point to the possibility of your people Rebelling against you-though whether that means anything, it is tough to say!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[notyoueither]

Yes, I can see many new players feeling the fun in having a civil war break out in their civ.

They might feel the fun all the way to the trash can when they store their CIV cd.

[ajbera]

Civil war need not be totally debilitating. In Civ3 you could lose cities to high-culture neighbors; why not lose some cities that form an independent nation? It really should be included in some fashion, though perhaps not on the scale that Civ2 had (only because of schmucks who would think it "not fun" - I'd love to see Civ2-style civil wars/rebellion return.)

[Trifna]

notyoueither: Wouldn't you see fun way to bring this in?

It is unfun to get civil war just as to get an invasion. We wont block the AI's capacity to invade though, since a good dose of it seems challenging. Isn't it the same with well-implemented civil-war, just as culture-flipping?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

The thing is that Culture Flipping is WAAAAYYYYY more Unfun than a well implemented civil war model. After all, there was never any warning of culture flips, there was little you could do to stop a culture flip from occuring and there was little you could do-short of going to war with another major power-to get the city back. Yet none of this stopped Civ3 from being a VERY popular game.
In civ4, if the conditions are ripe for a civil war, then your domestic advisor could advise you of the danger, telling you how 'Cities to the East are becoming restive', or something along those lines. Given the improved interface of Civ4, it would be very easy to check those cities that you have been warned about, and formulate a plan to prevent them breaking away. Of course, if you have allowed multiple problems to crop up for a while, then it may be too late to do anything to prevent it when a 'trigger event' actually occurs.
However, even if cities DO break away, with a decent diplomacy system, it should be possible to induce them to 'come back to the fold'-without resort to violence. Even if that fails, then at least you don't have to go to war with an established nation in order to get these breakaway cities back. Plus, imagine the fun of investing money in domestic sabotage, and directing it towards pushing a threatening civ into civil war-then giving diplomatic and monetary support to the rebel cities !
All of which makes civil war a HELL of a lot better than culture flipping.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Trifna
notyoueither: Wouldn't you see fun way to bring this in?

It is unfun to get civil war just as to get an invasion. We wont block the AI's capacity to invade though, since a good dose of it seems challenging. Isn't it the same with well-implemented civil-war, just as culture-flipping?

I didn't find the mechanics of culture flipping fun, in the least.

To prevent it I starved any potentially effected city to 1 pop and left that pop as a specialist. Thus the flip was defeated by mass murder and circuses.

That was an experienced player's response.

I don't see a lot of new players being attracted by a quarter or a third of their cities going rebel for some unobvious reason that they have no idea about. Bismarck attacking without provocation would be hard enough for them to handle.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Did you not read my post NYE? I illustrate how a civil war model can be created which is easy to handle for both the expert and novice player alike. Of course, a civil war model would work best in combination with a system of Protectorates/Vassalages-such that though you can LOSE half a dozen cities, you can also GAIN the same through clever diplomacy.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[notyoueither]

I was responding to Trifna.

Incidently, I disagree that there was little you could do to stop a culture flip. When warmongering, once I learned to starve and leave specialists, I never experienced a flip.

Also, I disagree that close management of cities is anything easy for new players to accomplish.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

First up, your method of preventing Culture Flip sounds as bad-if not worse-as the culture flip itself. It would take AGES for a city like that to get back to a useful state again. Even worse, have you EVER had a city flip to you? If you refuse it, then it will simply pop back up again a few turns later-really annoying you. If you accept, then you are suddenly at war with the previous owner ! With my system, secceeding cities become a newly independant state-thus leaving you with the option of either going to war, or trying to bring them back diplomatically-much better than the Culture Flip system, even if you CAN get around it.
As for new players having to excessively manage their cities. Can you say City Disorder? Avoiding this required frequent, intensive management of all your cities, yet this never drove new players away (and DON'T get me started on pollution ). With the new civ4 interface, however, and with a decent domestic advisor, you should not need to intensively manage your cities in order to prevent a civil war.
I'm sorry, but the more arguments 'against' civil wars that you present, the more sure I become that civil wars are a NECCESSARY replacement for the broken culture flip system.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Krill]

First up, your method of preventing Culture Flip sounds as bad-if not worse-as the culture flip itself. It would take AGES for a city like that to get back to a useful state again.

No it's not, it is the most efficient way of controlling captured land in the late game, when you are aiming for a domination/conquests victory. You don't need any more productive cities becusse you already have your cores up and running.

Even worse, have you EVER had a city flip to you? If you refuse it, then it will simply pop back up again a few turns later-really annoying you. If you accept, then you are suddenly at war with the previous owner!

WTF? accepting a city from a culture flip does not start a war. You having a (much) weaker military that the AI will precipitate a war. Try to build units instead of buildings.