No Civil War???? What Gives??

[mwonch]

The single most EXCITING feature I loved about Civs 1 & 2 was that you could "split" a large enough civ into two by taking a capital and creating a "civil war" (thus another civ to play around with.

Frankly, I find it INCREADIBLY boring to start the game with a certain number of civs and have that number dwindle to ONE large enemy without the option of having that turn into two or more.

Why was that option taken out for Civ 3?? Am I the only one who loved that feature?

[Martinet]

Dittos

You're not alone. I still remember one epic game where I won from a position of total inferiority by sneak attacking Berlin with my meager forces. Very cool! Though there were some times where I could continue splitting a large empire time after time. Occasionally all the fragments would gang up on me.

Perhaps in Civ III capital capture could cause a massive spate of culture flipping in the affected civ, since the central government has been displaced. Perhaps civs that the affected civ has conquered could be restored (not sure how'd that work in MP though). The free palace move really makes capitals of little significance other than being the starting city. Most major wars have ended at one party's capital.

Trivia: A notable exception is the United States. Washington was captured by the British in 1814, but the US managed to scrape by. I guess the Iriquois didn't have enough culture buildings.

[FrustratedPoet]

Yep, I think a lot of us miss this feature. I know I do.

I don't know why it was taken out. Hopefully one day it will be put back in, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[aahz_capone]

I definately agree on this point. At first I thought I was doing something wrong, bu then I realized it just wasn't possible. bummer.

I don't see why it can't come back in PTW. It was a most awesome mechanism.

[Cidifer]

I don't think it would work as well in civ 3 and the people making the game probably thought so too, either that or didn't want to take the time.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

I see no reason why this would not work in civ 3 and I agree that it would be good if cities that the target nation had conquered reverted back to their original civ.even if that civ had been wiped out previously.The only restriction I would place on this is that there would still need to be some of the former civs foreign nationals in the city that flips.

[jordie]

They NEED to put this in. It would make the game so much more interesting.
It wouldn't be that hard to put in would it?

[HazieDaVampire]

civ3 is my first ever TBS, and they're much better. I'd like to see large civs have to struggle to stop splitting! would make it excitting to try and hold it together, and defeat the new civ! Or even take the side of the new civ!

[Cidifer]

Guys, people are always saying they want things in the game to be "realistic," while a capital is generally last to fall in real life simply taking a capital doesn't cause your entire nation to take up arms against their country! look at the war of 1812 for example. Another penalty may be better, for example cival disorder in cities with higher corruption (or maybe just farther away from the capital if you have a FP), low culture, and those taken from another civ. Maybe the only way to solve this would be to...
1) re-take the capital
2)Sign a peace treaty with the civ your at war with
3) build up enough culture in the new capital
or some other things.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

For my part, I've always felt that Capital Capture should just be one of several potential "Triggers" for a civil war. These were:
1) Capital Capture
2) Rampant, civ-wide corruption (about 33% of cities with 20% corruption)
3) Rampant, civ-wide unhappiness (about 50% of cities)
4) Change of government.
5) Large no. of Foreign Nationals in your empire.
6) Neighbouring a civ with culture AT LEAST 2x yours.

If these triggers are met, then the chance of a city breaking away would be based on distance from capital (or FP), unhappiness, corruption, culture and # of foreign nationals. The chance would also increase if a neighbouring city had also broken away that turn.
Basically, breakaway cities on a border would run a high risk of getting swallowed up by the neighbouring power (culture flip), but the rest would become a new civ.
Of course, if they were to include an events editor, we could script for CW ourselves, but they still haven't done it .
Failing that, I'd love to have a small wonder flag which would allow an increase in the number of optimal cities that you can have. This way, I could make things like the senate and the parliament-for instance, which would reside in the heart of your empire. If you lose your capital, then you would loose this bonus: throwing your empire into disarray until you can build a new Capital!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[HazieDaVampire]

i think it would be cool to have a massive civilwar! Say, your about to take the last city on the planet, and then half of your empire turns aorund and says "Screw you! 'm starting a revolution" and you have a cool civilwar! Kinda like starwars but on smaller scale!

[Gerth22]

i has not but yes. twice

[Cidifer]

Originally posted by Gerth22
i has not but yes. twice

What??

i think it would be cool to have a massive civilwar! Say, your about to take the last city on the planet, and then half of your empire turns aorund and says "Screw you! 'm starting a revolution" and you have a cool civilwar! Kinda like starwars but on smaller scale!

1st of all if you have all the cities but one you've probably already won.
2nd that would just needlessly prolong the game when you already know you've beaten all the civs.
3rd How often do you honestly expect this scenario to happen? most of the time it will probably happen (to humans anyway) when you've got all your troops on a far off continent or on a war front and there's virtually no way to retake the cities for many, many turns.

I remember cival war from EU, and I thought that was pretty cool (though sometimes annoying), but if your cities all eventually became 1 city nations in this game it wouldn't work too well.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Cidifer,

The kind of situation that you describe would be annoying, but would be unlikely to ever occur if the model I described was to be adopted, for the following reasons.

1) Most of the trigger events I described would mean that, if a CW were to occur, the chance of multiple cities crossing over would be quite high.

2) The chance of a city breaking away increases if one of it's neighbours has broken away. Thus, to an extent, you might get a "cascade" effect happening. This would again make it less likely that a single city nation would form.

3) On the rare occasions where such an event might occur, that single city would lack the neccessary culture to prevent being culturally absorbed into another civ-either your own, or a neighbours!

One thing I forgot to mention was that, in previous descriptions of my model, you would get a warning if one of the trigger conditions had been met (accept for capital capture, obviously ) Once you recieve the warning, you have that turn to change the conditions for breaking away before a check for CW is made (a large garrison, as in culture flips, would help prevent a city breaking away!)
Another thing which should be a trigger for CW should be EXTREME War weariness. i.e. WW which has been going on for at least 10 turns or so!?

Anyway, on a final note, even if there is never any "Official" CW, I would at least like to see Small wonders, in future games, which help to make your Capital the Administrative and Cultural Heart of your civilization! These are things like Federal Courts, Parliament (or Congress), the Senate etc, which reduce corruption caused by large number of cities! This would make defense of your Capital even more worthwhile .

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Cidifer]

I was talking about how in EU each province became an independent state, and I was relating that system to Civ 3, meaning I liked the way it worked in that game but I don't think it would work well in this one.