sacking the capital for a civil war in CIV III

[abracadabra]

I have a craving for the old civ II rule of sacking the capital and having a civil war ensue...

Does anyone know of a MOD out there that allows sacking of the capital and having a civil war ensue???

Looks like Im destined to return to CIV II, how sad...

[Spiffor]

It is impossible to mod the game to have civil wars for now, but maybe the editor shipped with the next expansion will allow it (I wouldn't hold my breath though).

You might be interested in this thread, it is the latest discussion on the topic

[Kingof the Apes]

Wouldn't it be unbalancing? It's easy enough to take AI capitals, and the loss of one city could cut a civ in half. Interesting, certainly, but not fun or challenging.

[dexters]

IMO, I think thats why it was left out. That and complications when you are playing a 32 civ map and a civ suffers civil war. I think it was said the engine can only handle so many Civs.

Thanks Spiff for linking to my thread Didn't think anyone remembered that.

Just to add a few comments on it. The larger context I was suggesting was for a better way to organize the a Civ. With provinces/states/regions and a capital for each. So instead of building one Forbidden Palance, players get to build as many as they have provinces for. And I would assume these capitals can be moved just like a regular capital.

It was more of a Civ 4 suggestion. And I think it would take at least that long for the computing power to be available to have an AI that can handle Civil war properly and do the provinces thing justice.

Imagine the political intrigue of it all. Players still control their Civs, but a new dimension can be added to include state governors who would have limited autonomy and make your life difficult if you don't get them on your side. Oh, I am salivating again.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
Wouldn't it be unbalancing?

Yes, and it also makes your strategy very one-dimensional.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

IIRC it would only happen in Civ2 if other nations had already been wiped out in the game. That is it was'nt always the result of taking a AI capitol, and the target usually had to of eliminated another civ earlier in the game I think.

It would only work in Civ3 if you attacked civ A who had earlier wiped out civ B and captured their capitol. The result of this would be the former captured cities of civ B
rising up and declaring themselves as being civ B once more, another form of respawning.

Also if this was implemented into the game it should be random and perhaps quite rare but it would be an interesting addition.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I still feel that my idea is a good one . That is to say that capturing the Capital should NOT automatically cause a Civil War, but should be one of many factors-such as rampant unhappiness, war weariness and corruption, vast distances from the centre of Empire, low culture and presence of foreign nationals-which determine if a city (or cities) break away. That way, if your empire is a small, happy place, with little or no corruption (and good culture as compared to your neighbours), then loss of your capital should not lead to Civil war. If, however, you have a sprawling empire, with constant corruption and a protracted war, then loss of your capital could be devestating, especially for your outlying cities!! Some of these cities would come together to form a new Civ (Civ places allowing), wheras those close to high-culture neighbours might join up with that Civ!!
Lastly, any one of these factors should have the potential to cause a civil war-even if you DON'T lose your Capital!!

Anyway, just a thought .

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[dexters]

Chris, my only concern with Civil War right now is that if it is meaningful as a feature, it should happen often enough and with known triggers (ie: like caputing AI capital) that players don't feel like its totally out of control.

secondly, it is a good idea? A powerful Civ with a capital near you might be too vulnerable to an exploit of human players going straight to the capital trying to trigger a civil war and end up having a split somewhere else. A plus for the human player, not for the AI.

Until Firaxis upgrades the AI so it can defend and attack more effectively, I think maybe this is Civ 4 territory

I'd be happy if Conquests comes with an upgraded AI fixing some of the problems I have with it.

**PLUG** My thread concerning AI A/D and Risk Taking

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hey dexters, how about this:

Triggers for Civil War:

Capital Capture; Changing Governments; more than 50% of your cities unhappy; more than 50% of your cities suffering MAJOR corruption (more than 5 shields lost, for instance); Culture of less than 1/2 that of your neighbour (if applicable); more than 25% of your cities contain foreign nationals; long-term War Weariness; more than 3 consecutive turns of anarchy (approx)

Factors which effect a city's breakaway (BA) chance would be:

1) Distance from Capital (not a factor when capital is captured).
2) City's corruption level.
3) City's unhappiness level.
4) city's War Weariness.
5) Ratio of City's culture to Civ average.
6) Ratio of Civs culture to neighbouring Civ's culture.
7) # and strength of units stationed in city.
8) # of foreign nationals in city.
9) Current Government Type.
10) Number of adjacent cities which have broken away.

These could all form the basis of algorithm for determining if a city would break away from the parent civ, with the potential for a chain-reaction to occur (see factor 10). This algorithm could occur as the final step in turn processing!!!
So, how does THAT sound?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[pedrojedi]

I loved that feature, and specially because some civs that emerged had almost nothing in common with the old nation. I remember one civ2 game that I conquered the capital of the russians, and, suddenly, the indians became aware of their own culture and way of living. Odd, weird, but very fun.

[Epistax]

Shouldn't civil war be based on culture? I'm tired of being a huge ass civilization around a small civ the entire game. They WANT to be in my civ (I'm sure), but I can't attack them lest their mutual protections kick in with the big boys.

I'd like to see culture take a kind of "stock" approach. If anyone gets a higher share in this stock than the original civilization, part breaks off, a civil war developes, etc. Maybe you could encourage a total or partial revolt.

Taking a capital should naturally have a major effect on the culture score of a society. While this number never goes down for some reason, it should become very hard to accumulate culture in the future. Now if the palace didn't magically teleport each time you took the capital, this could be done by saying no culture accumulates until the capital is rebuild.

jus' say'n

[MattH]

Maybe, if we're lucky, Conquests will ship with a powerful script editor. I would really like seeing some splitting a la TAL's triggers