Civil War

[BigFurryMonster]

In Civ I, we could provoke a Civil War by capturing a Civ's capitol. The Civ would then split - a number of cities would actually form a new Civ (with a new name or the name of a civ that had already disappeared from history). This new Civ would be at war with the original one. Both Civs would get a (new) capitol.

I really liked this concept - it was a great way to stir things up in the world, and it was a nice reward for capturing a capitol.

I think it was taken out of Civ II - at least, I never saw it there.

Is is a good idea for PtW..? Maybe the effect should be not so strong (i.e. just a few cities would defect, depending on Civ size)

I think: yes!

[HazieDaVampire]

i don't mind, aslong as another civ doesn't get my citys, only the new one!

[Mattaba]

It would also be good that if an enemy has a very big empire and he neglects the eastern part for example by not building a good infrastructure and doesn't build many city improvements,while the western part is well developed, that the eastern part would rise up and form a new civ.

[Apocalypse]

It wasn't taken out of Civ2. I didn't happen every time you took a capital though. I'm pretty sure a few of their cities had to be in civil disorder or at least have some unhappy citizens.

[Inverse Icarus]

civil wars were sweet.

i think they should happen if you have enough unhappiness in your empire, never mind someone taking your capitial.

this would make war weariness even worse stupid democracies!

[Gen.Dragolen]

Unwashed Masses in Revolt ?

Greeitngs All,

I agree that they should have had a civil war as the result of too many turns of unhappiness amongst a population.

But they should also include the other big civilization killer: natural disasters. Aside from Global Warming, put in code for flood damage, drought, hurricanes/typhoons. They should have more than just a 1 tile impact too.

It would be nice to see a War of the Roses battle happen if enough cities are in civil disorder, as opposed to just having them flip to the neighbouring civ.

D.

[bnmac3]

I agree with the thought of a civil war, and that the two sides would have to go to war at least 20 turns until peace can be granted.

[Fatwreck]

I used to love the concept of civil war... hope that Firaxis brings it back...

BTW it was in civ2!!!!!!!

[Adagio]

I loved that civil-war concept, I can't believe they didn't include it in Civ3...it's too boring when there's no difference in taking over the capital or some other city...

Bring it back, though make it optional, in case somebody hates it...

[HazieDaVampire]

it gets boring once your big, your so big, and your militery is so big that you can take enemys in a few turns!

[Odin]

I think civil wars should hapen if a colony becomes very powerful and is unhappy (like the U.S. in 1776)

I also liked empire spliting, take the Capital and you get a new civ, keeps things interesting.

Your Highness, the Babylonians are in civil war and a new nation has been formed. They're calling themselves Turkey!

[HazieDaVampire]

yum!

[August Borms]

Yes, it would be great!

[whosurdaddy]

A RIDICULOUS IDEA!!! Something like that being implemented might make Civ3 almost as in depth of a game that Civ2 was ...

[Optimizer]

What is ridiculous? I think it seems like a fine idea.