Whatever happened to Civil War?

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by bongo
Dissident , you're right. Civil wars were simply too powerful in civ1 & 2. It's an interesting idea though, maybe it would work better if just a smaller part of an empire broke away, demanding freedom. The idea of your productive core cities splitting in two and fighting each other is a bit absurd, but a remote, totally corrupt province breaking away makes sense.

It may be powerful, but things get tricky when you try to diminish a feature like that - I don't mind it at all as long as it can be turned off.

Remember - historically revolutions work best when "core" cities give support...

[aaglo]

I think it's annoying to read things like "Why did they change this in civ3, since civ2 system was better/worked fine".

I've never played a single game of civ2, so obviously I don't know what the heck are people talking about.

I guess I just have to ignore such comments...

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Dissident
gameplay issue. It was too overpowering. And how realistic was that really? Not very. War brings people together not split them apart.

Well, realistically speaking if the capital of one country falls the rest of the country usually looses a lot of the organizations that make up the country itself. Such a move is a devastating one bring chaos to the rest of the country. Especially, in older times because of the nature of the goverments (monarchy, etc.) such an event (especially if you take the destruction of the capital as the elimination of the leader of that civ) caused long civil wars.

The least they could've implemented in the game would be to throw the civ in an anarchy state for a short time. Until the civ scrambled to get a new gov't in place at another site!

So long...

[bongo]

Pioneer, great idea A few turns of anarchy while a new capital is built sounds right. As is loosing your capital has no bigger effects than loosing any city.

[Verto]

Um...what he said.

[Dis]

good point.

Civ3 is utterly ridiculous about losing a capitol. At least the ai losing a capitol. It's too easy for them to escape and have a new capitol in another city instantaneously. That is just bull****. I put forth a lot of effort to take capitols for nothing.

[bongo]

Have you taken many capitols recently

Seriously, in civ3 I view capitols as just another city. Taking them will give AI's problems cause they often are very valuable(culture/production/wonders etc.)

The only reason left to target capitols is the satisfaction you get when your troops conquer the capitol of an once powerful enemy, dancing to the melody of your own maniac laughter, muwahahaaaaahaaa

[Meshelic]

I must say that I personally loved the civil war issue in CIV2. Why the got rid of it for CIV3 is far beyond me. That question can be asked of alot of things for CIV3, "why did they get rid of that?? that was cool!" etc etc.

An idea for how it can be done: Depending on city happiness, and depending on citizen nationality, and depending on a few other various factors, civil wars should become a part of the game again. Not by splitting you oldest and most advanced cities to two sides, but the more remote and distant and corrupt cities that are further from your empire.

I also think it would be cool if during your game certain sporadic political reactionary groups sprung up in cities, ones that either support your empire or ones that are against your empire. This 'reactionary' groups either attempt to start a riot (which you can put down with military forces), or they can form the base of a partisan or militia group or something. The leaders of these groups you can communicate with, and reach deals and agreements or disagreements with. That would open up a very important part of the game, in my opinion....

[Naiveplayer]

That would be nice...so there can be a civil war in peacetime too, not just wartime. But I think that WW needs to be a factor too.

[CellarDweller]

The way the AI works in CIV 3, it would probably happen to you more than them. I can remember how frustrating it was to have it happen to me once, after playing past the year 2000.

[gsmoove23]

Isn't losing the capitol incredibly inconvenient because you lose the palace? I've never actually lost my palace but wouldn't corruption skyrocket with no way to rush buy a new palace unless you have a leader? Plus, I go for the capitol if I'm going to have peace with the civ soon and I want to make sure that the cities I hold don't culture flip. The further away the capitol the less chance.

I do think it should be made obvious to a player where an opposing civs FP is. I would go for this too if I could.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Isn't losing the capitol incredibly inconvenient because you lose the palace? I've never actually lost my palace but wouldn't corruption skyrocket with no way to rush buy a new palace unless you have a leader?

When you lose your palace, a new one is built instantly and free of charge in another city (I believe it is the city with the highest population).

[MrWhereItsAt]

There were Civil Wars in Civ2?!?!?!?! Wow, I thought it was just Civ. Never happened to me in 4 years of play.

I would have liked it back, though. I see it as a kind of reward for taking the capital - all of a sudden the world changes - with diplomacy the way it is in Civ3, the world would change DRAMATICALLY with the splitting of one previously established Civ.

And just imagine if a player lost their capital and suddenly had to cope with half the empire belonging to someone else....

[bongo]

MrWhereItsAt , now that you mention it I'm suddenly uncertain about seeing ciwilwars in civ2 at all. As I haven't seen a CW for years I don't remember if I saw it last in civ or civ2.

Does someone have better memory than me?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well there're plenty of old threads in the Civ2 forums that talk about civil wars being triggered upon the loss of a capital, so I guess they must exist.

Only... I've not seen one. Maybe it's MP only?