Poll: Bring Back Civil War!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this on Zulu. There are so many good ideas about Civ that Activision came up with but Firaxis just seems to have the additude that "if they did it then by god I won't!".

[Coracle]

Yes, attacking capitals was a major strategy in Civ 2.

With Civ 3 it just hops around from town to town.

bring back civil war, or at least put a civ into ANARCHY for four or five turns if it loses the capital, and then give it a new one.

[Adagio]

I really like the idea of having a nation split into two (or more nations), but then it should NOT be as it was in ctp, were all of a sudden (Without being at war with anyone), my nation split into two nations

The trigger shouldn't only be loosing your capital. It should be loosing the capital AND a few other cities (The greater city they loose, the greater are the chance for a nation to split, when (or if) the capital is lost...

The nation that has lost the capital needs to built the palace again, to get a capital, instead of just giving it a new capital the same turn...

IF a nation is split, and one of the split parts of the nation takes back the old capital (Within a certain amount of time, the nation will be one again.

When a nation is split, it could name the parts, something like South (input name of country here) and north (input name of country here), and thereby the lines from where the nation should be split is set (Each side should have equal number of cities, though it doesn't matter what the size of the cities are...Maybe cities below size 5 doesn't count as a city, they just belong to the nation part closest)

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say here...sometimes is just doesn't make any sense at all

[Panag]

Originally posted by Coracle
Yes, attacking capitals was a major strategy in Civ 2.

With Civ 3 it just hops around from town to town.

bring back civil war, or at least put a civ into ANARCHY for four or five turns if it loses the capital, and then give it a new one.

hi ,

it would be fun to see it moving true all your territoy on its way towards the capital , .....

we should ask firaxis to have that option in the editor , so we can put it on or off , ....

have a nice day

[Dinner]

Originally posted by ADG
I really like the idea of having a nation split into two (or more nations), but then it should NOT be as it was in ctp, were all of a sudden (Without being at war with anyone), my nation split into two nations

The CTP 1&2 way makes perfect sense. If a city or group of cities has it's happiness fall to low for to long then there was the risk of revolt.

This makes more sense then only having a rebellion when an enemy army occupies the capital. How many times in real life does a rebellion start because of losing your capital to an enemy? In the real world most rebellions start in the hinterland due to some type of dissatisfaction or unhappiness with the current gov.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by bad0cat
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.

Well Eastern Europe (part of the Soviet Empire) became unified with the Western Europe and many of the Soviet Republics have strong bonds with Islamic Civilization. (i.e. the Chechyns, Tajiks, etc.)

So some of this is taken care of with culture flipping, but civil war is a unique phenomenon and needs to be dealt with independently. I loved to see a large civ fracture and then left my armies to pick up the pieces.

[Dinner]

No enmey army took Washington D.C. and set off the American Civil War. Same is true for the Chinese Civil war and the Russian civil war.

[XarXo]

Dark Age, Dark Age & Dark Age...

[HazieDaVampire]

Possibly having a monarch government in a none religous civ for to long would cause the people to rebel! (No real effects on aproval rating till everybody begins to think! Then bam your civ is split into two and you have to take a side! Round heads or Loyalists! (rounds heads is just the old name for the parlimentarys!). After civil war is the loyalists win you can still get monarchy, but lose your ability to have democracy (and maby lose republic, but i'm not sure!) If the Round heads win your lose monarchy (not much of a problem really!) and then you carry on!

Multi continental empires should have more of a chance to split! (Doesn't inclued lots of little islands! They are explained below!)

If you have an island thats far away and near the coast of a rival you should have trouble stopping it flipping because they are beginning to have more in common with them! This could also be reversed, AI feels inclind to try to take the island by militery might becuase the island is no where near your homelands and is right next to them, so it should be rightfully theirs! (Falkland islands!)

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The CTP 1&2 way makes perfect sense. If a city or group of cities has it's happiness fall to low for to long then there was the risk of revolt.

This makes more sense then only having a rebellion when an enemy army occupies the capital. How many times in real life does a rebellion start because of losing your capital to an enemy? In the real world most rebellions start in the hinterland due to some type of dissatisfaction or unhappiness with the current gov.

In theory it makes sense, in ctp1/2 it doesn't...When having less than 10 cities, I always keep an eye on the happynes in the different cities, and until the day they decided to be independent there was no sign of unhappynes in any of the cities. And when they are happy, then there's no reason to revolt

[HazieDaVampire]

I suppose revolution could spill over in to near by cities! Unless of course they are incredibly happy!

A civilwar when the cities split randomly would just be annoying, they should have a front line right through the middle of a nation. In a multicontinental split some cities on the continent thats splitting should still stay loyal, cuz theirs always some people who want to stay!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I actually don't believe that Civil War would be a multi-player "exploit" for the follwoing reasons:

1) As I noted before, capturing an enemy capital should not guarantee a civil war, but simply be one of several possible triggers for one.

2) Even if the civil war is triggered, the potential damage can be minimized by ensuring you have a largely happy, productive and culturally strong civilization (with plenty of garrisons)

3) You should, as in civ2, have the chance to move your capital but, like in Civ2, the cost should be exhorbitant!

4) Knowing that the capture of a capital might cause a civil war, you could always defend against it, not only with a strong garrison, but by ringing your capital with a number of smaller cities and defensive structures (forts, sentry stacks). It would also be harder for an enemy to reach the capital (compared with Civ2) given that you no longer gain the benefits of that civs improvements.

This is not to say that it wouldn't get used by players in the MP but, rather than an Exploit, it would be just one of many strategies the player has in his arsenal, with all the requisite benefits and potential risks!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I think that happiness is the ultimate reason for Civil Wars, and although I am not exactly sure how they should tie it to happiness (I mean, one turn of dissatisfaction in a city is no reason for a Civil War), I still think that it should be tied directly to the happiness of the cities and the majority population (like if it has a large Babylonian population but is ruled by the Russians or something).

[Panag]

Originally posted by ADG


In theory it makes sense, in ctp1/2 it doesn't...When having less than 10 cities, I always keep an eye on the happynes in the different cities, and until the day they decided to be independent there was no sign of unhappynes in any of the cities. And when they are happy, then there's no reason to revolt

hi ,

in order to prevent the above , they would have to go over this with a special comb , ....

and we would have to keep it simple , logical , and make sure that no-one start's to mod like a nut with it , so that it says "goodby , i chrash" , ....

and there would have to be some options in the editor , like on or off , and some settings concerning the how , how long , where , why , who and such , in all a huge workload , ..... is it worth it , ....can it be done , ....
loads of Q's , .....

it would be nice if someone from Firaxis would give some feedback , ...

good question for the next chat

have a nice day

[HazieDaVampire]

I don't think people would start a civil war when theirs sombody who is going to take away their rights even more!
What would you want, Facist government, or Facist government with a foreign leader! A civil war wouldn't start during another national crisis!

I'm sure if france declared another war on England just before the English civil war, the people would of banded together on both sides to fight the french! Then maby later started a civil war! And a freedom fighter / old facist government would agree to peace if their country as a hole has had war declared on them!