Poll: Bring Back Civil War!

[GraveEatr]

Back in the original Civilization and I think even in Civ2, there were civil wars. If you captured a large civilizations capital, the large nation would split into 2 civs: the original civ whose capital you captured, and the "rebels".

This poses for great military strategy. You could align yourself with the "rebels" and repel the original civ, and gain a new ally.

Or, you could initiate propaganda against the enemy civ, and if you're launch successful propaganda against, let's say... 3 of the target civ's cities, they break out into civil war.

With the new PTW civilizations coming with the game, you could easily have the civs that you don't select to play during the game (granted the max in one game is still 16) and have them play the role of the "rebel" civs if ever a civil war breaks out. You could even break it down further to have certain civs in the same culture play "rebel" to the other civs in the same culture.

Example: The Babylonians can rebel against the Persians, the Mogols rebel against the Chinese, the Americans against the English, etc...

What does everybody else think about this?

[JtheJackal]

I don't think Civ 2 had civil wars

[Panag]

Re: Poll: Bring Back Civil War!

Originally posted by GraveEatr
Back in the original Civilization and I think even in Civ2, there were civil wars. If you captured a large civilizations capital, the large nation would split into 2 civs: the original civ whose capital you captured, and the "rebels".

This poses for great military strategy. You could align yourself with the "rebels" and repel the original civ, and gain a new ally.

Or, you could initiate propaganda against the enemy civ, and if you're launch successful propaganda against, let's say... 3 of the target civ's cities, they break out into civil war.

With the new PTW civilizations coming with the game, you could easily have the civs that you don't select to play during the game (granted the max in one game is still 16) and have them play the role of the "rebel" civs if ever a civil war breaks out. You could even break it down further to have certain civs in the same culture play "rebel" to the other civs in the same culture.

Example: The Babylonians can rebel against the Persians, the Mogols rebel against the Chinese, the Americans against the English, etc...

What does everybody else think about this?

hi ,

this is certainly something they should bring in ,
there is room for a total of 31 or 30 civ's , so they could do something like that , .....

, it does not even have to be a complete new civ , just a split , like a civil war , if you have certain obligations fullfilled you could re-unite it , ...

have a nice day

[GoodFella]

Yes, I loved doing that in Civ II (although it was quite a rare affect).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

HI Guys,

I have been arguing for Civil War for as long as I knew CivIII was going to be released!!
I think that losing your capital should be the main trigger for a Civil War! With the cities with highest happiness and/or highest culture remaining true to the original Civ! Border cities who join the rebels would also, in my opinion, run a higher risk of joining up with another nation (culture flip!). Like a culture flip, a strong garrison should also be enough to stop a city from joining the rebels!
Other possible causes of civil war might be

a) Excessive, long-term corruption in more than 1/3 of your cities!

b) Civil unrest in 3 or more cities, which remains unsresolved for several turns.

c) Extremely low culture.

d) Extreme war weariness or "Revolution"

e) Government Collapse!

All of the above triggers would have a level of "priority", with each higher priority trigger having a greater chance of causing a Civil War. Capital Loss and revolution would be at the top of the ladder, with corruption and low culture being at the bottom. If you are suffering from multiple triggers, then the chance of Civil war would be based on the highest "priority", with the others having an additive effect.
Once the trigger is "pulled" every city in your civ would check for seccession, based on factors such as:

1) Distance from Capital

2) Cultural Value of City

3) No and average strength of garrison

4) No. of resistors

5) No. of foreign nationals

6) No. of unhappy citizens

7) Level of corruption/waste.

All secceding cities would become, collectively, a new civ as closely related as possible, culturally, to the parent civ. This new civ would be hostile to the parent Civ (at first) in diplomatic relations!

Anyway, thats my thought on the issue! Please, please FIRAXIS, bring back CW!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[zulu9812]

I remember in CTP2 Spies could cause a rebellion in a city, which would cause that city to declare itself a new civ. But that was another good idea from Activision, so it won't happen in Civ3

[monkspider]

Great thread graveatr.

[FrustratedPoet]

Absolutely!

Civil Wars, implemented in a similar way to how they were in Civ 2, would be an excellent addition to PtW.

I doubt we're gonna get it, but it would really be great ...

[Gangerolf]

what if the americans split up into yankees and confederates, the russians into reds and whites, the indians into hindus and muslims and so on...

i reckon all civs have been to some sort of civil war, so it wouldn't be impossible to find two fractions for each civ

[bad0cat]

Civil War --> yes yes yes!

Civs splitting into two (or more) warring factions would be an awesome addition to the game. This was a very cool feature in CTP.

I see the possibility of abuses in mulitplayer, however. If seizing someone's capitol brings a high chance of civil war then it would totally change warfare between players, the capitol would always be the target of a lightning fast assault. Imagine:

1) Country A goes to war against more powerful country B

2) instead of throwing large numbers of troops at obvious targets, country A instead sends a mass of fast moving units to attack country B's Capitol

3) country A wins the battle and B loses its Capitol, it then splits apart in civil war

4) now country B has to fight country A and the rebel "faction" of its original civ, LAME!


Instead of losing the Capitol being a major trigger (like it was in CivII), civil war should be the result of high corruption and unhappiness in many cities. Also, maybe long periods of anarchy should bring a chance of civil war. That would make players think twice about pulling the old "democracy- make army, communism- use army" trick.

[jdd2007]

i think this sort of thing is taken care of with culture flipping. the basic idea is that if you neglect cities (culturally) you lose them...

but none the less

[bad0cat]

i think this sort of thing is taken care of with culture flipping. the basic idea is that if you neglect cities (culturally) you lose them...

Ya but the cool thing about rebellion/civil war in CTP was the emergence of a completely new power. I think its more realistic for cities to splinter off into their own factions than just "flip" to an opposing civ.

USSR was a perfect example, it became Russia (original civ) and a bunch of other sovereign states. It didn't "flip" and become part of the US or Europe.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by JtheJackal I don't think Civ 2 had civil wars

I don't think Civ1 had Civil Wars.

I know Civ2 did, because I would always try to cripple civs by taking their capital first and hoping for a split. It worked well in one game, and I won the space race because of it.

I think the Civil War idea is good, but I don't know what should cause it. Taking a capital city doesn't seem like it would to me...

[Dimorier Maximus]

Holy Cow! 27 yes and 0 no and only 3 who don't care! That is overwhelming. If Firaxis sees this and has the time to implement it, Civil War will be back!

[Pythagoras]

Civil wars were the ultimate game balancer in civ1. If I was smaller than a huge enemy, conquering their capitoly was a sure way to cause turmoil and power grabs. Maybe capturing the capitol shouldnt trigger it, but some rampant internal chaos should. Maybe during times of civil disorder national movements can arize and citizens can revert back to their original nationality. If enough of this happens, civil war!

Firaxian method of argmument:

You could get an embargo against a huge civ, denying them luxaries. Citizen unhappiness increases and internal chaos pursues, prompting civil war.