Civil war/rebellion?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

So, what you are saying is that you are OK with culture flips because you can exploit it, and because it doesn't interfere with your Warmonger strategy. This is exactly the problem that I have with culture flips-they are frustrating, but ultimately both weak and pointless, as they simply cannot compete with the Warmonger strategy so popular in Civ2. To me, this does not make a feature GOOD!!! A Civil War system, OTOH, can be a useful counter to both Warmongering AND the 'Snowball Effect', as it is less exploitable via conventional Warmongering tactics. My advice is if civil war is in, and you don't like it, then stick with Civ3 instead.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Shogun Gunner]

I know Culture flips have a certain level of unpopularity, but it seems that folks are just asking for a better implementation of the concept versus what was done in Civ3.

Was this the first strategy game to have such a concept? It will be interesting to see what cIV brings in this area.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
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.

There's our misunderstanding. I am hoping flips are gone.

[milenotis]

I will enter the fray with the point of view of a casual player of civ 1,2 and 3. I liked the civil war and was surprised to see it gone in three. I also like the flipping but didn't always see how to prevent/predict its occurrance. Whilst there will undoubtably be a way around either of these for the more experienced players, for the average player the civil war was a great way to rein in an overly aggressive large country. I think with tinkering the flipping could achieve a similar balance.

Cheers,

[Trifna]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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.

Do you think that it would be solved if there was a way to see how it's going and react? Just like moral with culture flipping in Galactic Civilizations...

[Wise Ass]

"If that's still not enough, you can enslave any racial group of your choice, incite holy wars, and commit crimes against humanity without regret. And if a rebellion starts to overthrow your regime, there's always the reset switch."

That is the quote from the UGO E3 preview. So it should be interesting to see if they did add civil wars.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Trifna
Do you think that it would be solved if there was a way to see how it's going and react? Just like moral with culture flipping in Galactic Civilizations...

I'm not familiar with GalCiv since I didn't pick it up (wanted to but never got around to it).

I am sure that civil war could be done in a way that I would be able to adapt to. Culture flipping was. However, what I recall are the screams from newer players. Although perhaps I am amplifying persistent complaints from a few sources.

[Krill]

Perhaps Civil wars could be a way of solving the "Eternal China" syndrome? Having part of an empire split of, peacefully (succesian), and keep all of the improvements, culture, wonders, and some of the units that were stationed there (or constructed)? They could form a new civ...

...oh, and congrats on the 10,000 post NYE...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by 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.

Actually, civil wars are no worse than culture-flips. They'd be more fun and feel more realistic.

[Trifna]

notyoueither, besides, you should simply get the GalCiv demo

[Gen. Atkinson]

I was also suprised that the civil-war feature had gone, but when I discovered culture flips (on the losing end), I was suprised that it joined the neibours, and didn't become an independant city state.
Anyway, heres my point , if there are civil-wars, would you be able to decide if you want to stay loyal to your original nation, or side with the newly formed rebels as their leader?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Gen. Atkinson

Anyway, heres my point , if there are civil-wars, would you be able to decide if you want to stay loyal to your original nation, or side with the newly formed rebels as their leader?

It would be interesting to have that choice, but i'd be happy just to have the original nation defaulted and the breakaway nation be of a different government type or religion or cities belonging to a once conquered nation, something like that.

[Gen. Atkinson]

......or once conquered nations to re-emerge if a rebellion occurs. I like it, Ninot.

A civil-war could also occur if the government changes, or the state religion, or the capital city.

[Mace]

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

Well, what if it were merely a game setup option? Just like culture-flipping is in Civ3.

Offhand, I kind of think civil war could be a neat idea. It worked, albeit in crude form, in Civ1...

[Max Sinister]

I'd like civil war too - if there was a way how to prevent it. (Though maybe it had to be "Don't bite more than you can possibly chew".)