Nationalism

[Lancer]

Seems to me that nationalism is fairly tame compared to its effect on history. Consider that in europe before WW1 you could go from one end to the other without showing a passport, or even encountering border stations. Diverse naional groups and religions lived together in relative calm. It took nationalism to show people their divisions and the instuments of propaganda to foster national and religious hatered to the extent that nations such as Austria-Hungary sought war to counter the nationalist forces that would have soon torn it apart else.

Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, all examples of what happens when diverse nationalities are thrown together in bunches. Civil war, splintering...The US does not count as there are few bunches. All the nationalities are fairly well mixed up. Where there are bunches we saw the beginnings of splintering, such as the Nazi party in Pensylvania which sympathized with the Germans before the war.

So, in Ci3 I'm thinking that serious revolutions should sometimes erupt in multi ethnic nations, particularly the biggies.

Also, along the same lines, issues like slavery...keeping foriegn workers...could cause civil war.\

Aspects of the culture war?

Well?

[phunny_pharmer]

Tame?

Well, I wouldn't say MPPs are tame!

But as for civil wars, slavery, and the idea of class, the game does need improvement...

But who really wants to have an empire with those problems, anyway.

[narmox]

Well, in CTP when happiness in cities fell below 60% (I think) they splintered off and started their own civ (or joined the barbarians if all 32 civs were taken). Could happen too when slaves revolted.

It was great fun Something I miss in civ3, and something I find better than the civil wars/schism in civ2

That and trade routes are the 2 main things I miss from CTP when I play civ3.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I think the possiblility of nations fracturing into smaller ethnic nations would be interesting. You wouldn't be as likely to mass produce settlers for cities then.

[Lancer]

I just came back to reply but I have to go, sorry...

[cgannon64]

Yes, there should definetly be Civil Wars in this game---maybe instead of culture flips? Although MPP's are enough to start many world wars

[MosesPresley]

I like some of these ideas, but are you kidding? There has been so much flack about the culture flipping. Could you imagine the stink that would rise after someone lost 1/3 or more of his empire due to a civil war or internal revolution?

[NeoStar]

We have too much control, the only thing citizens can do is riot and go to anarchy - seems incomplete. I wouldn't mind having the extra challenge of uniting a divided nation.

...well, as long as you could turn it off.

[Grumbold]

I like the way EU2 does it, where each province has both a primary religion and nationality and revolts can arise randomly or because you are not tolerant toward either the culture or religion. Civ would need significant modifications for that to be practical so its certainly not patch material.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I like the way EU2 does it, where each province has both a primary religion and nationality and revolts can arise randomly or because you are not tolerant toward either the culture or religion. Civ would need significant modifications for that to be practical so its certainly not patch material.

Wow, can you imagine adding a religion variable into Cvi3?

Each citizen has a Nationality that makes them likely to revolt when you go to war with their ancestoral civ.

Each citizen has a Happiness factor that makes them likely to revolt if you don't manage them well.

And each citizen has a religion that makes them likely to revolt if you start doing things that repress their beliefs.

Talk about a complicated and difficult game to play, it would almost seem ....realistic!

If this goes into Civ4 along with civil wars, nations fracturing and good ole culture flipping I may have the pizza guy deliver the food to me at my computer console.

[Iskandar Reza]

I don't mind that. Seriously. Like NeoStar pointed out, we have too much control. The citizens are almost helpless. If the citizens are unhappy, why can't they just leave? Sure, reduce the pop-points, at least you have the option to leave, therefore improvements that make them content are vital if you want the city to grow big.

Bottomline, civ givs to little power to the citizens, the basic building component of the game.

Implementing all the suggestions above should make the game more interesting. In fact, I think putting the feature above to replace culture flipping would make it far more realistic and no less enjoyable.

[notyoueither]

An interesting idea, but somewhat fuzzy.

Factional strife predates nationalism by a very long time. Take the rise of Protestantism as an example. 30 Years War anyone?

In fact, nationalism can be a force to overcome such factionalism. Such is the case in the United States and some other Western democracies (and Russia [partly], and China, and...).

It was not the case in the Habsburg rump of the Roman Empire in the early 20th century. Hence that principality blew apart at the seams.

[Zylka]

Yeah but you can only give a tech so much room as influence in the grande scheme