Civil War & Partizans

[fezick31]

Originally posted by Kristjan
Please mind that in Civ3 Conquests, both Settlers and Workers retain their ethnical background.

I've not played C3C, just C3 and C3PTW, so pardon my ignorance of this feature. I'll see if I can find an explaination of it somewhere.

It shoudn't change the operation though...in order to transfer citizens, you build a worker in an Indian city of Indian ethnicity. Do likewise in the captured chinese city. Then swap them...send the Indian worker to the chinese city and add them to the poplation, and take the chinese worker, and move them to the Indian city (granted, it only works in cities small enough to add population points).

This happened some in ancient times , where entire city populations were exiled from their homeland by a conquering empire in order to keep them from rebelling (Israel and Persia, for example).

It is one possibility. BTW, civ3 already has nation-specific happiness feature ("Stop agression against our mother country!").

Is this a C3C feature?

Using my example of China-owned city of 10 with 3 Chinese and 7 Indians, I would like to introduce an idea of nation-specific improvements as well. Schools for instance - one could have both Chinese Schoolhouse and Indian Schoolhouse in a single city. Indian Schoolhouse would create only Indian culture but also Indian happiness. Without it, the Indian majority would be quite unhappy. If the government wants to make Indians happier, it has to support their culture and tolerate their nationalism. Quite realistic, I suppose.

Some "Ethnical tolerance" civic should limit this kind of tensions.

Interesting idea, but it could also lead to a lot of improvements being necesarry to keep a city from rioting.

In civ3, assimilation of national minorities was unrealistically quick. I would support an idea that new population shares the ethnicity of existing population. It might be done with some random factor. Using the same example, a new citizen might have 3 chances of 10 to have Chinese ethnicity.

This might work...but keep in mind that everytime the ciy grows, the odd change. At first, there is a 70% chance of a chinese pop point. After a new chinese unit is added, now the odds are 73% in favor of chinese, then 75%, 77%, and so on...I can see a vicious cycle sarting here. Perhaps a rule that says evey nth population point must be of the minority culture, or something similar.

EDIT: changed some message copy

[Arrian]

If the option could be made via mod or added as a toggleable option via patch, that would be cool. Given the important role religion has been given in the game, I think it would make an excellent civil war trigger:

Say you have both Hindus and Christians in your empire, and you choose to switch over to the "state religion" civic. You choose Hinduism as the state religion. Your Christians ought to be fairly displeased, no?

-Arrian

[Mike4879]

Do we know for sure what the conditions were in Civ2? I think it was if your capital was taken or too much civil disorder occured, but it's been a long time. If it can be done that would be great. What a new challenge and added realism this would add to the game!

[Saad]

Civ IV's multiple leader choice might make splitting of civs easier. There is already a personality to give the new civ. Modding all the civs to have two or more leaders shouldn't be too hard.

[Armed_Maniac]

I'll bake cookies for whoever can mod in Civil War.

lol, if it is moded, it's a must for the Canadian civ (there is no way it won't be made). It would be funny to see Québec seperate... then alberta... then Nunavut? Then Ottawa will have nothing to control exept ontario... which it doesnt really control 'cause that's toronto's job...

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by fezick31
This happened some in ancient times , where entire city populations were exiled from their homeland by a conquering empire in order to keep them from rebelling (Israel and Persia, for example).

Yes, you are completely right. That's how rulers have been trying to assimilate the minorities for ages (remember deportation of Jews to Babylon).

Is this a C3C feature?

Yes, AFAIK. But actually its impact is really quite limited. Civil unrest is quite easily controllable in civ3 and even if it means losing of some population points to famine - so what?

BTW it is very unrealistic. Famine should produce more unrest, not to help to quell one.

This might work...but keep in mind that everytime the ciy grows, the odd change. At first, there is a 70% chance of a chinese pop point. After a new chinese unit is added, now the odds are 73% in favor of chinese, then 75%, 77%, and so on...I can see a vicious cycle sarting here. Perhaps a rule that says evey nth population point must be of the minority culture, or something similar.

But every minority group might still have different demographical statistics and 30% Chinese might grow faster than 70% Indians and vice versa. Demographical stuff is so primitive in Civ that one can find many explanations for every exceptional case. But overall trend should be something like the system I described IMHO.

[Kristjan]

Bump

[fezick31]

I'm still here, I just haven't had a chance to review recent posts...work has been really busy (have a deadline to meet for Monday).

[jerseydevil]

I think Civil War (or revolution depending on the victor) option is reasonable (can always leave a preference on/off button and separate into non-resident code when unused), but why not expand the concept and integrate into multiple facets of gameplay, what one might call "sub-cvilization". A sub-civilization would arise from one of the 18 major civilizations through (unasked for) secession or (chosen) colonization or even from a successful tribe of barbarians. Examples would be USA for secession and Canada for colonization. A different type of example would be the former USSR resulting from an economic collapse where the core country Russia built up the USSR, later lost it's satellite states, but still stayed in the game reverting back to its former Russian State. Another example would be India & Pakistan, but economics not being the primary reason.... India & Great Britain and yes............ an AI could absorb a human player and the challenge would be to break out from under - this might be a reasonable alternative to being just wiped out (reloading)... similar to slavery having originally been a humane alternative to completely exterminating your enemy. I believe alpha-centauri had the concept of surrender, but modify it to conditional surrender with peace treaty terms.

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil ...but why not expand the concept and integrate into multiple facets of gameplay, what one might call "sub-cvilization".

Fairly inspiring idea. My personal vision:

1) Foreign policy should be in the hands of central government. That means, sub-civilization has no Foreign Advisor. The same is true about Science Advisor. Subciv follows the international relationships of central government and gets every civ advance with central government.

2) Subciv has to have the possibility to build its own units and manage production. Otherwise its governor would start a new game. But military production should be out of question until rebellion.

3) Until rebellion, all trade resources allocated by subciv should be given to central government. Subciv has no treasury. But the palace of subciv's capital remains operative, reducing corruption and motivating central government to tolerate its autonomity.

4) Subciv has to follow the civics of central government or start a rebellion.

5) These subcivs might start a rebellion at any time, but they will get their military units after proclaimation of independence. These should be partizans in a number corresponding to subciv population size.

There are many examples of these kind of "sub-civilizations" in the history, for example the Baltic Special Rule that made Baltic gubernyas very much different from the rest of Russian Empire.

[solomon_thewise]

I was always kinda bored by Civ3 for the ridiculus corruption rate completely prevented AI Civs to grow big enough, same as preventing serious human empires. Aside from hoping they've changed that, I like the idea of splitting apart over-streched empires.

Sweeter than a Civil War weakening the only serious opponents would be if the regular bunch of looser civs could unite to form a new, serious empire. They'd have to be more successfull than the EU tho Another feature could be if an empire close to extinction could agree to join the agressors strongest enemy. Imagine your worst nightmare enemy grow stronger and stronger with every amuse geule you swallow.

[Kristjan]

Bump

[Grandpa Troll]

Has anyone tried implementing some simple changes yet?

Just curious

Gramps

[gerf]

If there's a civil war option, why not have a combination option?

Of course, that'd bring about issues such as the creation of huge empires, too quickly.

But it'd have to be done via diplomacy, between two very similar countries. Or, two countries that had a civil war, but again see the necessity of combining.

[spy14]

Another option being a protectorate, an unequal alliance between a powerful country and its puppet "friend".

Not quite the same setup as Messers Bush and Blair, but you see where i'm going with this.