Whatever happened to Civil War?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Nope, it occured fairly often in Single player as well! Man, if they just tweaked a bit, so that you could avoid the CW if you have a lovely, well functioning empire, then it would be a COOL addition to the game!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[MC Hawking]

I saw quite a few Civil Wars in civ2. I agree that there should be greater consequences for losing the capital city, and greater benefits for capturing one, who wants to use a bunch of units to take the city when it can just convert back to the original civ? (if the option is left on).

[bongo]

Now that I have learned how to deal with CF's I think it's a nice touch.

But I agree that there should be a penalty for loosing a capitol.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The problem with civil war in Civ2 was that it happened as a result of war -- whereas, historically, civil wars tend to start during peacetime (war having this tendency to unite people and all).

Civ3, with it's cultural borders, could have a great civil war system: it's easy to imagine a system wherein, if 3 cities with contiguous borders fall into disorder on the same turn, they form a breakaway republic and civil war breaks out. That'd be very cool.

[aaglo]

Now when I start to think of it, there were civil wars on civ1. Was it so, that when you conquered enemy capital (or your capital was conquered), there was a chance of civil war - thus splitting the nation in two civs.

It was fun to see that when america had a civil war, the outcome was Americans and Germans....

[Trifna]

Originally posted by aaglo
Now when I start to think of it, there were civil wars on civ1. Was it so, that when you conquered enemy capital (or your capital was conquered), there was a chance of civil war - thus splitting the nation in two civs.

It was fun to see that when america had a civil war, the outcome was Americans and Germans....

It doesn't mean that it should give such a different civilization. It,s stil the same people thus they should have the same characteristics (at least at the beginning...). I guess it could be some sort of new evolution branch of the American civilization. I've started a thread with many ideas about how civil wars should work (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=68212) if you're interested.

[bongo]

In civ you had a civil war if the strongest civ lost their capitol. I can only remember the details from one game but then the romans split in two and the egyptians emerged forming a new civ. Those cultures are at least related to each other(in civ-manners)

[Traelin]

Well the way I think Civil War in Civ 3 should work is that you should have a Civ splitting into two factions with names like North Americans and South Americans, or something like that -- instead of splitting America into the Iroquois and Americans. That way you can attempt to reconquer the rebels without causing major cultural issues. Certain factors can affect how easy this would be to do.

The problem with this idea is very simple -- leaderheads. Firaxis does not have the leaderheads developed for rebelling factions. They would need to develop leaderheads for Jefferson Davis for the Americans, for instance.

But IMHO you MUST have two factions from the same Civ. In the American Civil War, Britain aided the South in its struggle against the Union. This can really only be represented in my model above. In Civ3, you could have a situation where the Brits hate the Americans. Then if the Americans split, the Brits would automatically have a strong relationship with the rebels.

[Homunculus]

Civil war = good

i was going to post "how to split, what new civ to create" but that was handled in the last few posts.
Same goes for the support of the aggressor(sp?)
And what about forcing an entire country to submit to you or you and allies (ie. Russians capturing Berlin WW2)

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The problem with civil war in Civ2 was that it happened as a result of war -- whereas, historically, civil wars tend to start during peacetime (war having this tendency to unite people and all).

Tell that to Tzar/Czar (how the hell do u spell that?) Nicholas II.

When the Bolshoviks stormed the Palace, two factions fought for control of Russia. The Red Army and the loyalist White Army.

Though the Rebellion started mainly because of poor living conditions I think Russia's involvement in the Great War was what finally sparked the Revolution.

Maybe increased risk of Civil War when at war, WW and all.
Or maybe certain governments could be more at risk. e.g Monarchy is more at risk because of the Class divide. Remember the Tzar, resentment of him and his family in thier Palace while the common man had to fight to stay alive.

[Trifna]

You didn't said something about this revolution! People weren't united at the end since they were against it. Thus it was puting people against the government instead of uniting it with the Tzar. Like Vietnam at the end. Seems to happen when people are seeing the war as something that shouldn't be there and is against their will, simply.

PS: Tzar/Czar depends on how you translate maybe. Saw both.

[Traelin]

Better yet, leave the original Civ's name alone, and call the rebels the *insert Civ name here* Rebels. Much simpler.

[Brutus66]

Personally, I think that the act of switching government types should carry some risk and shouldn't be done so lightly as depicted in the game. The idea of flip-flopping between democracy and communism and other gov types just is unreal. If the people of a civ have enough national character and culture that they would overthrow a conquering army in one of their towns, it just makes sense that they wouldn't fancy extreme changes in government types either.
When the bolsheviks changed the government, they had to fight a civil war to do it. Same thing in China and Viet Nam, just as a couple more examples.
The idea of civil war should definitely be included- think of the possibilities in the game! Sparta vs. Athens, Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the Roundheads vs. the Cavaliers and so on.
As an aside, I think that you should have to stick with your general path of government as you play or risk paying some consequenses. If you take a country that's a democracy for four hundred years and suddenly make it an oligarchy, chances are a lot of folks are going to rebel.
I don't think there were near enough government types included, but that's a subject for a different thread.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Personally, I think that the act of switching government types should carry some risk and shouldn't be done so lightly as depicted in the game. The idea of flip-flopping between democracy and communism and other gov types just is unreal. If the people of a civ have enough national character and culture that they would overthrow a conquering army in one of their towns, it just makes sense that they wouldn't fancy extreme changes in government types either. . .

"Unreal"??

What is "unreal" is a single damaged unit being able to instantly "raze" a city of millions and make all the bodies vanish while turning the streets, sewers, and buildings into grassland.

"What is "unreal" (and ridiculous) is an entire large veteran military force in a city disappearing like magic when that Culture Flipping stupidity happens based on Firaxis' arbitrary and false computer formula.

What is "unreal" is a civ you already have a trade deal with cancelling the deal and refusing many free bonus resources you add on because they don't like your reputation based upon something you supposedly did (but likely did not do) a thousand years earlier.

There are other examples. My point is the government switching in Civ 3 is relatively realistic compared to other things.

[Theseus]

Sheesh... you are unreal.

/Backgammon

"You got double sixes to end the game!! That's crazy!! The odds are waaay out of whack!! I can't believe this 4X rule anyway! STUPID STUPID STUPID.

/end Backgammon

Relax.