Civil Wars

[Will9]

I think that if you people fell that you are not meeting their needs they can raise up and try to defeat you. This is how I a civil war starting:

1: Unhappiness starts to go over the amount happiness in that city.

2: Half the population are resisters and the city goes into disorder (similar to in civ3).

3: Your troops in the city will slowly be weakened, the more resisters the faster the troops are weakened.

4: Resisters continue to increase, and if the disorder lasts long enough people start to get angry that you arn't doing anything to stop the revolt.

5: If the garrison is killed or all citizens become resisters the city breaks away.

6: When a city breaks away all cities with 75% of the citizens are resisters will break away and join the first city. Any city then only needs 75% resisters to join the rebels.

7: You then have 3 options: 1) you can attemt to defeat them militarily, 2) Improve your happiness so that if the Rebel cities joined you there would be no resisters. If you do that the Rebels will join you, 3) you can reconize the rebels independence.

There are some civics that can increase or decrease the things needed for a city to break away.

Before your capital breaks away you will have five turns to elimate the number of resisters to pre-disorder levels. If can't do that your capital will break.

Changes and other ideas are welcome.

[Thedrin]

Voted no.

I was in favour of them. When Firaxis had a poll which contained a section to submit ideas I entered a brief way to model civil wars.

However, with the introduction of vassal states it looks like a way to break up empires has emerged which can be viewed as a way of very loosely mimicing a civil war - not a great way but satisfactory. Civil wars on scales less than the territory of multiple civs would be a poor addition to the game.

[Prussia]

The only problem with your last point is that if you recognize their independence, it adds a whole new Civ to the game, making it more complicated/adding problems, such as, if every Civ had a civil war on a standard map, that would be around 15 or 14 civs and the game would start to get really slow.

[Qwertqwert]

I posted how I think Civil Wars should be in the Omega Expansion thread, basically the entire city shuts down, and you have multipul ways of dealing with it. Some bring immeadiate restoration to the city at a loss of a lot of gold or military units, some bring unhappiness but open up the city again, at the loss of a little gold or a few military units, or you can just let it be and hope that it dies out, or choose to deal with it later. Every few turns a civilian unit dies, and if it goes on too long it will eigher become a new country or join another nearby country.

[gdijedi7]

Each civ should have a "splinter civ." ie for the Americans, the Confederates would appear. For the Russians, the Soviets would appear.

Whether they seccede or not should be geographically based in addition to other factors. Don't have New York, Los Angeles, and Atlanta break away, have Atlanta, Savanna, and Orlando break away (if city placement is like the real world). Nothing is more annoying to me in a civil war, if the rebels have no chance because they are too scattered.

[Adagio]

I would like a civil war, but more like this:

If your civ is too large compared to how advanced you are, how far away the cities are from your capital, how happy those cities are (and maybe depending on civil choices) a civil war might break out
The cities that wants to break away are often cities located elsewhere compared to your capital. If you have cities on another continent far away from your continent, all cities on that continent might try to break away. The cities joining a revolt will never be spread too far away from each other
In case other civ(s) is in the same condition at the same time, also having cities on the same continent (and their capital is far away too), then they might join the revolting cities too. If both revolting parts succeed, then they join each other making one larger civ

A civil war is will be like this:
* At first all cities who wants to revolt will show a small revolt icon by the cities for 1-2 turns. During this time the cities are still yours, but all production has stopped
* After these first couple of turns the revolting cities will get some units of varying kind (located outside the cities) (the more cities = the more units). The units located inside the revolting cities will still be yours
* You will now have 10 turns to decide the outcome. The side that has the most citizens (one size 10 city is better than two size 4) after 10 turns will be the winner. All other revolting cities will go to the winner
* If the revolting side wins, the revolting cities will be a new civ in the game. This will give a name change to both sides (instead of it being just Germany, it'll now be North-Germany and South-Germany, or maybe West-Germany and East-Germany (depending on location on the revolting cities). The revolting civ will get the other leader for the civ (this requires all civs to have at least two leaders)

The new civ will get an extra bonus, to help it get started

Civil Wars shouldn't happen often. Each civ can only have one successfull civil war (this applies to both sides of the war) and for each civil war, there'll be less chance for another one. During a normal game with 18 civs, there shouldn't be more than 2 civs who split up (out of maybe 4 civil wars)


When a civil war starts you will get the option to surrender your cities to the revolting group. This could be usefull if you know you have no chance of winning, and prefer to start with a good relation with the new civ

These two civs will not have the "become vassel" option for each other. The vassal option will be renamed to "reunite", the small civ can't deny the reunification if asked, but to even become a possibility the loser civ should have lost 80% of all his/her cities (again one city size 10 is better than two size 4)



This is what I had in mind. The most important part is that the new civ will get a bonus, otherwise it would be too crippled to survive. Maybe giving a bonus to the civ that lost the war too

[Prussia]

If you have preset "break-away" civilizations, you can only have one Civil War, which is bad for strategy to know that another Civil War (if you can have another) wouldn't be so bad for you if another Civ could break away.

I see it could be a smart idea, but it would need some adjustment, and again, the same problem appears in my earlier post about overcrowding the maps with rebel states.

[Will9]

I did say civics could increase the odds of civil war. Like Monarcy, Slavery, and Serfdom, and Universal Suffrage, Free Speech, and Emanctipation decrease the odds. Also, distance does sound like a good idea. Also maybe a recent conqest could increase the odds of a city breaking away. If the civ was destroyed and a conquest was the cause than the civ will return. Also if the state religon isn't in that city the odds of a city breaking away increase. Adagio, you have said some good ideas.

[Adagio]

I'm sure my ideas would need a lot of adjustments, I just got the idea while eating breakfast (still being half-asleep), so I didn't really think everything through
Also didn't read all the posts in this thread before posting... was too much in a hurry

I like your ideas on what could increase/decrease odds of starting a civil war

[LordShiva]

If I built a huge civ, and then half of it decided to stop being part of my civ, I'd be pissed as hell.

[sparkyal]

I voted yes, but not quite like this. I think civil wars should be based off of civilzations that you have taken over. they are far more likely to splinter and go back to their own ethnicity. Of course, this would mean that once you wipe out a civ, that civ would still have poeple on the map within their ex-cities. there could be some neat variations with this in that once the civ is wiped out a certain number of the pop automatically become yours if your civics are nice. More later if you build nice things. but, if you are a real jerk you should have to pay for it. That also leads to another idea of posible dispersing a civ that you have taken over to another city. that would cost a lot of gold, but....

sparky

[Adagio]

Originally posted by LordShiva
If I built a huge civ, and then half of it decided to stop being part of my civ, I'd be pissed as hell.

Of course it should be optional

I remember how it was in ctp, where it was more or less random. Even though my cities were happy, at one point they just revolted to join their own civ, without giving me any warnings at all. That was a gamebreaker

[nullspace]

Originally posted by LordShiva
If I built a huge civ, and then half of it decided to stop being part of my civ, I'd be pissed as hell.

I like the idea of civil wars because it should be hard to hold together a large empire, but this would be no fun at all. This is like a Civ 3 culture flip times ten.

I think the the way to make it fun would be to give the player control over it, they way we have control over revolutions now. You get to decide when and if there will be a civil war, with pros and cons for the various methods of seperation.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Adagio


Of course it should be optional

I remember how it was in ctp, where it was more or less random. Even though my cities were happy, at one point they just revolted to join their own civ, without giving me any warnings at all. That was a gamebreaker

Optional, as in you could turn it off just like tech trading.

[gdijedi7]

I think that was the idea.