Civil War

[loleod]

I remember playing Civ one for SNES, and one of the most exciting things for me was a split amongst the Romans. I was pounding Roman city after Roman city when out of no where Rome split and became Rome AND Greece. Having these splits would add a new level of game play , especially in this game with democracy. I would assume the two civs would hate each other.

I think people would think twice about sacrificing one part of their empire if they knew there was a chance it would split off. This is definitly documented in history. The one that comes to mind in modern times would be the British Empire. You had the US , Australia , Canada, India , ect. they all made a split from England because England wasnt taking their interests into account.

How about with China , they have had Renegade provinces for a while now. Taiwain , Hong Kong and Tibet. Maybe you could have a split , but the new civ might someday rejoin their parent civ.

this would be difficult to manage though seeing as A few of the selections from England are actually in the game.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Ioleod,

I would agree with you on pretty much everything you've mentioned here!! The lack of a model for revolution and civil war is, to me at least, one of the MAJOR oversights in what is otherwise a fantastic game!! Maybe they'll include it in an XP or perhaps, when they bring out a scenario scripting language, they'll have a provision for scripting civil wars and other man-made/natural disasters into the game!
On a slightly political note: Tibet is, by no means, a renegade province! The truth is that China and Tibet have very little in common, and have in fact been seperate nations for centuries! That's why their occupation of Tibet is SO illegal. This is very different from Taiwan and Hong Kong, however, which do share an identical culture and history!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[nationalist]

Civil wars were interesting. I used them to my advantage plenty of times, and I wish that they were still around.

[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.

[Spock]

Methinks Grrr has forgotten he was a newbie once upon a time.

On topic: would I hate for my "country" to revolt against me...half for me...half against...odds are I would lose all my precious resources...or even be cut off from my allies...maybe it would pin me in between the revolutionist who are calling for my head on a platter and my most hated enemy(Zulus) who are calling for my head on a pike? sounds like fun...just bring it.

[Txurce]

Civil wars are what I miss most from Civ2. I have no idea why it was dropped... unless it has to do with the unfairness of one city being such a tempting target to the scheming human.

[Flanker]

Well, if your own empire was cut into a civil war and you just loose half of your cities, I guess that´s what you call a immidiate restart of the game.
Txurce, was there really civil wars in Civ II as well? I don´t remember that... But maybe I´m wrong. That has happened before...

[Txurce]

My recollection is that civil war... and the resultant sundering of a civ in two... occurred if there were less than the maximum number of civs still playing (so you could add a new one), and the largest civ lost its capital. Reading "civil war sweeps across the ___ Empire. When the dust settles, two nations remain - the _____, and the rebel ______" was a blast. I once won an OCC game when, halfway through, barbarians took the capital of the dominant civ, which was right next to my city.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

I think it would be HEAPS of fun!!! It shouldn't be completely random, though!
I think the chance of Civil War should be based on the Civs culture, the cities happiness, the number of units in the city, the distance of the city from the Capital, and whether you can draw a connection between the capital and the city via roads, ports and airports (like trade!)
Civil war should only be checked for when:

a) You Change Government types
b) You lose a resource
c) You lose a luxury
d) A city becomes discontent.
e) When war weariness reaches a certain level (don't know what level, though)
f) You lose your capital, or it gets get off from the rest of the Empire!!!
g) When you draft citizens into military service!
h) If you increase your taxes!
i) Every X turns after an embargo!
j) If you lose a city via culture!
k) You change your from Peace to Normal or Normal to War (or Peace to War).

Cities that fail the check would be on the edge of civil war! A pop-up screen could appear to warn you that there are grumbles of discontent in "...."
After a mandatory X turns, these cities are re-checked. If their situation has not improved, then they will most likely REVOLT! Cities that revolt would have their culture and borders recalculated, and would automatically get a capital located in the Oldest city! Any cities next to the border of another Civ would need to check for culture flipping immediately! Any draftees or "local" military forces would join with the rebels, and any "foreign" forces would be expelled to the borders of the Old Empire, but not before suffering 0-3hp of damage!
The rebel cities would become a new civ (like in civ2), and would be initially quite hostile to your civ. If you treat them nicely, then you could become great allies (just look at Australia and Britain!), or you could just try and use extreme military force to bring them back into the fold (a la War of Independance).
Anyway, just a thought. I know that it either won't ever happen, or won't happen for a while, but a man can DREAM, can't he?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[star mouse]

In CIV2, if there was a civil war and the maximum number of civs was already in play, the new civ would call themselves Barbarians.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Spock
Methinks Grrr has forgotten he was a newbie once upon a time.

[The Viceroy]

I actually like CTP's model on this one .. where if a city was rioting for too many turns it would revolt and cause a new civ .. and one of the wonders came with a risk of splitting your empire ..

I think it would be best in Civ3 if corruption/culture could influence it .. Id like to see where there are 2 or 3 cities, close to another civ .. instead of flipping to that civ, forming there own civ .. maybe as an available civ with cultural ties to the close civ .. eg ... Romans from Greeks, Spanish from Romans, Americans from English etc etc etc etc ..

I would not want random revolutions .. as revolutions just are not random events .. they usually are traumatic events caused by stresses and strains .. maybe diplomacy can help revolution in othe civs ??where there is 2 + cities willing to revolt .. you could choose to activly join the civil war by openly supporting the revolution, or you could support it undercover (more expensive) and pray it can support itself (if you don't fancy the war) ..

Sounds like fun, especially on a multiplayer game, where your massive neighbour is baring storming ahead ...

T

[badassb]

I thought that civil war ( breaking up the civ in 2 parst) occured in CivII when the capital was conquered. It was not automatic however. There was only a small possibility it would happen. I only saw it very rarely and it only happend to me once.

..., but I'm not sure, so don't shoot me for it.

[dunk]

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.

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.

I think war weariness is a bad way to implement this... non-representative governments wouldn't be affected (think of the Russian Revolution... Monarchy to Communism).

Losing resources and luxuries? Oh, comon, why not make it happen every 20 turns? Too common of an occurance.

Increase taxes? As far as I know, you can't increase the tax rate that the citizens pay. Only how you spend the revenue.

Losing a city to culture... well, that's what that is, a revolution in that city.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I actually like CTP's model on this one ... and one of the wonders came with a risk of splitting your empire

Oh, lord, that was by far the worst part of CTP. Please, please, never put a wonder in a Civ game that has ridiculously negative consequences.

Civil war may be an interesting idea, but far too many players would get irritated and reload (I might) and it would be too good of an exploit for the human.

The Civ2 script language had a "noschism" option... perhaps civil war could be implemented on an optional basis like this. By the way, I beleive civil wars only happened when:

1) A civ is bigger/more powerful than you, and declares war on you (not the other way around)
2) You capture their capital.

As a result, I didn't see civil wars very often... I never let another Civ get bigger or more powerful than me. Plus, I always start my own wars.