Civil Wars

[WarVoid]

Okay, here's the scoop. In civ2, sometimes when you capture a large enemies capitol the empire breaks into many factions. Well sometimes the Romans would split into the Chinese and the Incas. That dosen't seem quite right. How about having the civs split into their actual counterparts.

Such as the Romans would split into the Byzantines and English which were actual empires created by civil wars in the Roman empire.

Or for instance the Mongols would split into the Turks and Chinese. Russians into Kazakhs and Goths. Etc.

Does anyone think this is a good idea?
[This message has been edited by WarVoid (edited April 16, 2000).]

[Earthling7]

Absolutely. It's a good idea. It's not essential to gameplay, but if you want to improve on the best game ever, you might as well do it properly

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[ivorgrubisic]

Yeah, good idea.

[tniem]

I agree, but more importantly is the whole idea of Civil Wars. They should be a lot more often and over more things. I think if there is the idea of ethniticity included in the game then regions with different ethniticities and religions would have different beliefs and then may rebel in certain situations. This can be see all over Europe throughout history.

Plus, Civil Wars occuring when the capital is taken is totally unrealistic. The American Civil War happened and the U.S. capital was never taken. Chinese, Russian, and Cuban Civil Wars to Communism never had there capital taken except when the Revolutionary party took the capital. Most Civil Wars start from the inside and have nothing to do with a foreign invader taking the capital.

I just think that Civil Wars need to be more impactful and often especially when the Rise and Fall of empires is included.