Civil Wars

[polypheus]

Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

In real life, nations died and were reborn as borders shifted and rebellions succeeded.

It would be good to see similar things happening in a Civ3 game. The game would be much more dynamic, realistic and fun.

[KrazyHorse]

Even if your capital is not captured, it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

[Inverse Icarus]

Re: Civil Wars

Originally posted by polypheus
Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

it DOES apply to HPs.

try it in civ 2.

cheat, and give yourself like 100 cities

make ure capital a size 10 city, leave it empty, and put an AI unit there, and set them to war.

they take it, you split.

it also happens in multiplayer, when you capture an enemy human's cap.

[joseph1944]

Re: Civil Wars

Originally posted by polypheus
Now in Civ1/2, taking of an AI capital might incite a Civil War if that Civ was larger than you. But I hope that Civ3 implements a better model which would also apply to HPs.

Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

In real life, nations died and were reborn as borders shifted and rebellions succeeded.

It would be good to see similar things happening in a Civ3 game. The game would be much more dynamic, realistic and fun.

I see a potential problem with Civil Wars in Civ 3. You will need a city size 3 before you can build a settler and a city size 2 before you can build a worker. Firaxis has already told us a settler will cost 2 pop. points and a worker will cost 1 pop. point. That is going to slow down new cities for sure. If we have to worried about revolt and Civil War early on, it might make the game to difficult for some player including myself.

[Rasputin]

no you jsut wont be able to grow a city large as quickly, you will need to build city happy controls such as Temples etc..


Having only palyed Call to power a few times , one thing I do like about it is the unhappiens sin each city being able to cause that city to go into civil war.... doesnt need the capital to be taken to cause this. I think this is fair mroe realsitic way of making civil war ....

[Sean]

it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic. Of course, they are also less likely to follow your 'leadership' if there is a small govt presence either...
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by polypheus
Ideally it would involve culture and distance from the capital as well as other factors but it would occur more frequently than it does in Civ1/Civ2.

The biggest domestic civil-uprising flaw in Civ-2, was that your empire, no matter how big it was, always acted as an ancient greek city-state (in economical sense), with more or less selfstanding and independant cities - and as an idealized working top-ruled Stalin-Soviet, then in came to how easy it was to tie all these cities together to a whole empire.

The distance-factor from the capital was (politically & economically) way too easily overcomeble. This should all change i Civ-3. The number of cities that you can found under each government-type should be limited - not by some blunt hard-coded max number, of course. But instead indirectly by gradually being faced with too difficult to hande domestic powerstruggles, and likewise too overburdening economic problems. These problems can temporarily be counteracted by building courthouses and other appropriate city-improvements as well. But only so much, and for only so long...

At a certain geographical empire-size and/or number of cities, you just cannot counteract it anymore, regardless what recapture city attempts and/or martial laws you try to enforce. You MUST switch to a more effective government-type. The most effective empire-size government should NOT be democracy, because it would make that choice way too powerful. I reserve that advantage to nationalism and communism.

[Iskandar Reza]

Originally posted by Sean
it should be possible for a civil war to break out if there is not a strong government presence (if corruption exceeds a certain level) in a significant number of cities.

Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic. Of course, they are also less likely to follow your 'leadership' if there is a small govt presence either...
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

i don't think so

your people will riot, but they won't revolt. your large millitary presence makes sure of that.

try playing tropico, and you'll see how effective even one soldier is at killing two rebels.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sean
Actually, it is often a large govt presence that causes the people to revolt, because the are being oppressed. You can see the logic.

I wasn't necessarily talking about a large military presence (although this should come into play as well); I was talking about the lack of government infrastructure. If a region feels that its interests are being ignored by its government, then it might break away. Take, for example, the American Revolution. Although the stated causes of complaint against the British were excessive taxation etc., the taxes levied by Britain had, by 1773, been reduced to almost nothing. The true roots of the revolution were planted in the early 18th century when Britain's troubles at home caused her to ignore the colonists. These colonists thereby developed a sense of independence and self-reliance which was insulted when Britain attempted to wield the same level of control exercised previously. Even if they hadn't done so, the colonies were drifting towards independence already.

Originally posted by Sean
I also suspect corruption is usually caused by the presence of govt, not there absence.

I think this is a debate best left for another day.

[Sean]

Thanks for clearing that up KrazyHorse...it makes much more sense now

Its a fine balance for a govt, present but not opressive. If it is opressive, it needs appropriate ideology/propaganda to sustain this for any reasonible length of time.

[TechWins]

Remember this is a game to have fun with not a government simulator.

[KrazyHorse]

Why can't it be both? For me, half of the fun is taking part in a somewhat realistic historical simulation.

[Ilkuul]

Originally posted by Ralf
At a certain geographical empire-size and/or number of cities, you just cannot counteract it anymore, regardless what recapture city attempts and/or martial laws you try to enforce. You MUST switch to a more effective government-type...

I would prefer to see a situation where VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long, regardless of what government-type you have. This would be more realistic historically. Areas that are geographically far removed from the centre of govt. will naturally want to split off and go it alone.

So anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course. And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests.

[polypheus]

I agree with most of what has been said.

It is simply the case that historically and realistically, nations rose and fell and died and were born as a result of revolts and civil wars.

Civil Wars have been such a major factor of history that it is essential that it is modelled well. At least much better than the "capture the capital" model. (which really is flawed since you could always just disband the palace).

A distance from the capital might be a good thing. It would be nice to replicate history by establishing far-flung colonies and then having them revolt and declare independence a la the nations of the western hemisphere! Of course tied in to the culture concept as well.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ilkuul
I would prefer to see a situation where VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long, regardless of what government-type you have. So anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course.

I agree. That "very large-limit" can be somewhat different according to government-type & other factors - but a certain point...

All Civ-3 preview info indicates that a "very large" empire now will consist of max 20+ founded cities + perhaps 15-20 conquered ones. At around 50+ cities (even in well-managed empires) bad things really should start to happen on the domestic front, if not before.

It shouldnt be impossible to conquer the world - but it sure as hell should be, by far, the hardest and most infrequently achieved victory goal in Civ-3.

And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests.

Well, with 16 civs on the map, I think that at least half of them will play the role of those mini-civs. I hope however that supreme & alone world-conquerings becomes impossible in Civ-3. Allied world-conquerings (with the succesful HP as "top-dog", of course) is more realistic. Why not re-post the idea of "allied world-conquerings only" under its own topic, Ilkuul?