Civil War

[Coracle]

I was once in a massive long war with the Russians in Civ 2. I had a few minor allies and so did he. It was a bloody stalemate.

I backdoored the Russians and loaded up three transports with 24 units, plus 3 packed carriers and other naval units. It was a huge amphibious invasion. . . and I after a major battle captured Moskow, and his civ split into civil war. That game was decided in that one turn.

So, maybe you don't like the Civil War idea, but taking the enemy capital must have a really important effect, but in Civ 3 it has NO effect as the capital just automatically switches to another city/town. That is a crock.

[Cyclotron]

Yes, just like the British burning (razing) the American capital in the War of 1812 had such a huge impact.

[loleod]

Originally posted by Grrr
You newbies always seem to discuss the same topics. Yes, Civil War should be implemented, and no it probably won't be in a hurry. Civil war should be affected by culture though.

Generally when I post I look over a few pages into the board to make sure Im not making a redundant statement. These ideas are new to me for th most part, or I saw them while I was ghosting the board for the past month ( before I jump into a board I observe for a while to see what the "locals" are like before I post) . If it was mentioned more then once then hey it was a good idea, and it should be considered by the programmers more then once. If your looking for new and innovative ideas from myself I suggest you wait until I grow into the game , and for that matter this board.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by dunk999
I dislike this idea. Why? Because it's too easy for a human player to exploit.

You're at war. Simply go for the capital and BAM, two civs, one you can make peace with and another to fight with half of its power. All the human player needs to do is stockpile units in his/her capital and the AI ignores the city.

It wouldn't be all that unfair though. Besides, I thought that it wouldn't happen unless there's a large number of discontented people in the empire. I've played Civ II, seized an enemy capital and there was no civil war at all.

Some of the other ideas are ok. Your FP city could break away and become the capital of a new civ along with a few other cities.

Yeah. That's brilliant. It should depend on both the discontent in that part of your empire, and the distance from the actual palace. But it would get annoying having a large empire over two large landmasses. One landmass has my capital, the other has my FP. The FP landmass breaks off. I play to conquer the world, and I don't really like the idea of my own people being a thorn in my side.

[dunk]

Azrael...

I know it doesn't happen all the time. But, when it did, the war was over and the AI lost miserably. Not like they didn't anyway.

[wrylachlan]

For Balance sake civil wars should not happen when a civ is at war with another civ. Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

Additionally if you pray on a newly divided civ, the other civs attitude towards you should seriously degrade.

[centrifuge]

I miss Civil Wars as well.

[danimal]

Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by danimal
Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

Yeah. During the FIRST generation. After that, they will all perish.

[loleod]

I think a few people have missed the point that it wouldnt happen all the time. just to have the chance of it. You would have to meet the requirments, and even then you would only have lets say a 10% chance of having a civil war break out. I agree with making it not happen every other turn. IRL We would have well over a million countries currently running. Yet at the same time we have had quit a few civil wars that end in more then one country ( Civil war would include rebellion , and also would include a massive country just breaking up without violence).

I will take this time to apoligize to Tibet for being ignorant , I was trying not to get to involved in the political ramifications of the relationship betwee Tibet and China.

I know there are allot of people here that want to control the world ( thats great , really it is), but many real life persons have had the same aspiration. For the most part they all failed ; Rome, England, France ect. I tend to get bored by the time I control 50 percent of the world , theres no one worth fighting with anymore.

I also civs that split should have the chance to reunite when one ( Probaly the original civ) gets itself under sontrol , and/or becomes better then it was at the time of the split. Also very very close alliances could also cause two civs to combine. The US started off being very loosely knit states , but then in a very short period of time merged into one. Along the way they sucked in other states that started off as independant. this happened because of military force ( protection and military coertion), and the budding culture of the new country. On that note I should have the choice to choose wheter or not to join another civ. My domestic advisor would pop up and say we have grown so close to blah blah maybe we should consider joining forces.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
For Balance sake civil wars should not happen when a civ is at war with another civ. Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

I agree. More important things to be thinking about than breaking off when there is a war.

Additionally if you pray on a newly divided civ, the other civs attitude towards you should seriously degrade.

I don't think so. It should depend on what type of government the original/rebel civs have, whether the original civ was prone to betraying everyone, etc.

Think about this scenario...

The Aztec civilization has hit hard times. The despotic government is having trouble keeping everyone in line. The people are being treated as slaves, and are constantly whipped to hurry projects in their respective cities.

The Americans are at war with them, and seize Tenochtitlan. Following this, there is a huge division between the "Loyal" Aztecs, and the "Rebel" Iroquois.

The new Iroquois rebel civ is ruled under a republic, people are enjoying more personal and political freedom, and they are paid overtime wages to hurry projects.

The Americans themselves are governed by a Republic and are accustomed to a lifestyle of greater freedom, and are saddened that their neighbours the Aztecs are being whipped like dogs by their despotic government.

If the Americans made peace with the new Iroquois civilization, and continued their war against the Aztecs, would the nearby English, Greeks and French (who are all also under republic governments) start to hate the Americans for attacking a newly divided civ? Maybe if they attacked the Iroquois, then yes. But not when they attack the old Aztec despotism.

[dunk]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

The Bolsheviks.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by dunk999


The Bolsheviks.

well, usually counterbalanced by the 'rallying around the flag' thingie

[ACooper]

Originally posted by danimal
Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

Who the h#ll is this guy?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by LordAzreal

I don't think so. It should depend on what type of government the original/rebel civs have, whether the original civ was prone to betraying everyone, etc.

My reason for saying other civs attitude toward you degrades if you pray on newly divided civs was not a reality one, but an attempt to keep it from becoming an exploit. If there's no reason not to attack newly divided civs then people will bomb the other civs improvements untill their people are all unhappy, then a surgical strike on the capital and hope for a civil war. I can depifinitely see this becoming an exploit if checks are not put in place. I suggested the first check that came to mind. If you have a better one, I'd love to hear it.