Civil War

[loleod]

I remember playing Civ one for SNES, and one of the most exciting things for me was a split amongst the Romans. I was pounding Roman city after Roman city when out of no where Rome split and became Rome AND Greece. Having these splits would add a new level of game play , especially in this game with democracy. I would assume the two civs would hate each other.

I think people would think twice about sacrificing one part of their empire if they knew there was a chance it would split off. This is definitly documented in history. The one that comes to mind in modern times would be the British Empire. You had the US , Australia , Canada, India , ect. they all made a split from England because England wasnt taking their interests into account.

How about with China , they have had Renegade provinces for a while now. Taiwain , Hong Kong and Tibet. Maybe you could have a split , but the new civ might someday rejoin their parent civ.

this would be difficult to manage though seeing as A few of the selections from England are actually in the game.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Ioleod,

I would agree with you on pretty much everything you've mentioned here!! The lack of a model for revolution and civil war is, to me at least, one of the MAJOR oversights in what is otherwise a fantastic game!! Maybe they'll include it in an XP or perhaps, when they bring out a scenario scripting language, they'll have a provision for scripting civil wars and other man-made/natural disasters into the game!
On a slightly political note: Tibet is, by no means, a renegade province! The truth is that China and Tibet have very little in common, and have in fact been seperate nations for centuries! That's why their occupation of Tibet is SO illegal. This is very different from Taiwan and Hong Kong, however, which do share an identical culture and history!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[nationalist]

Civil wars were interesting. I used them to my advantage plenty of times, and I wish that they were still around.

[Grrr]

You newbies always seem to discuss the same topics. Yes, Civil War should be implemented, and no it probably won't be in a hurry. Civil war should be affected by culture though.

[Spock]

Methinks Grrr has forgotten he was a newbie once upon a time.

On topic: would I hate for my "country" to revolt against me...half for me...half against...odds are I would lose all my precious resources...or even be cut off from my allies...maybe it would pin me in between the revolutionist who are calling for my head on a platter and my most hated enemy(Zulus) who are calling for my head on a pike? sounds like fun...just bring it.

[Txurce]

Civil wars are what I miss most from Civ2. I have no idea why it was dropped... unless it has to do with the unfairness of one city being such a tempting target to the scheming human.

[Flanker]

Well, if your own empire was cut into a civil war and you just loose half of your cities, I guess that´s what you call a immidiate restart of the game.
Txurce, was there really civil wars in Civ II as well? I don´t remember that... But maybe I´m wrong. That has happened before...

[Txurce]

My recollection is that civil war... and the resultant sundering of a civ in two... occurred if there were less than the maximum number of civs still playing (so you could add a new one), and the largest civ lost its capital. Reading "civil war sweeps across the ___ Empire. When the dust settles, two nations remain - the _____, and the rebel ______" was a blast. I once won an OCC game when, halfway through, barbarians took the capital of the dominant civ, which was right next to my city.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

I think it would be HEAPS of fun!!! It shouldn't be completely random, though!
I think the chance of Civil War should be based on the Civs culture, the cities happiness, the number of units in the city, the distance of the city from the Capital, and whether you can draw a connection between the capital and the city via roads, ports and airports (like trade!)
Civil war should only be checked for when:

a) You Change Government types
b) You lose a resource
c) You lose a luxury
d) A city becomes discontent.
e) When war weariness reaches a certain level (don't know what level, though)
f) You lose your capital, or it gets get off from the rest of the Empire!!!
g) When you draft citizens into military service!
h) If you increase your taxes!
i) Every X turns after an embargo!
j) If you lose a city via culture!
k) You change your from Peace to Normal or Normal to War (or Peace to War).

Cities that fail the check would be on the edge of civil war! A pop-up screen could appear to warn you that there are grumbles of discontent in "...."
After a mandatory X turns, these cities are re-checked. If their situation has not improved, then they will most likely REVOLT! Cities that revolt would have their culture and borders recalculated, and would automatically get a capital located in the Oldest city! Any cities next to the border of another Civ would need to check for culture flipping immediately! Any draftees or "local" military forces would join with the rebels, and any "foreign" forces would be expelled to the borders of the Old Empire, but not before suffering 0-3hp of damage!
The rebel cities would become a new civ (like in civ2), and would be initially quite hostile to your civ. If you treat them nicely, then you could become great allies (just look at Australia and Britain!), or you could just try and use extreme military force to bring them back into the fold (a la War of Independance).
Anyway, just a thought. I know that it either won't ever happen, or won't happen for a while, but a man can DREAM, can't he?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[star mouse]

In CIV2, if there was a civil war and the maximum number of civs was already in play, the new civ would call themselves Barbarians.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Spock
Methinks Grrr has forgotten he was a newbie once upon a time.

[The Viceroy]

I actually like CTP's model on this one .. where if a city was rioting for too many turns it would revolt and cause a new civ .. and one of the wonders came with a risk of splitting your empire ..

I think it would be best in Civ3 if corruption/culture could influence it .. Id like to see where there are 2 or 3 cities, close to another civ .. instead of flipping to that civ, forming there own civ .. maybe as an available civ with cultural ties to the close civ .. eg ... Romans from Greeks, Spanish from Romans, Americans from English etc etc etc etc ..

I would not want random revolutions .. as revolutions just are not random events .. they usually are traumatic events caused by stresses and strains .. maybe diplomacy can help revolution in othe civs ??where there is 2 + cities willing to revolt .. you could choose to activly join the civil war by openly supporting the revolution, or you could support it undercover (more expensive) and pray it can support itself (if you don't fancy the war) ..

Sounds like fun, especially on a multiplayer game, where your massive neighbour is baring storming ahead ...

T

[badassb]

I thought that civil war ( breaking up the civ in 2 parst) occured in CivII when the capital was conquered. It was not automatic however. There was only a small possibility it would happen. I only saw it very rarely and it only happend to me once.

..., but I'm not sure, so don't shoot me for it.

[dunk]

I dislike this idea. Why? Because it's too easy for a human player to exploit.

You're at war. Simply go for the capital and BAM, two civs, one you can make peace with and another to fight with half of its power. All the human player needs to do is stockpile units in his/her capital and the AI ignores the city.

Some of the other ideas are ok. Your FP city could break away and become the capital of a new civ along with a few other cities.

I think war weariness is a bad way to implement this... non-representative governments wouldn't be affected (think of the Russian Revolution... Monarchy to Communism).

Losing resources and luxuries? Oh, comon, why not make it happen every 20 turns? Too common of an occurance.

Increase taxes? As far as I know, you can't increase the tax rate that the citizens pay. Only how you spend the revenue.

Losing a city to culture... well, that's what that is, a revolution in that city.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I actually like CTP's model on this one ... and one of the wonders came with a risk of splitting your empire

Oh, lord, that was by far the worst part of CTP. Please, please, never put a wonder in a Civ game that has ridiculously negative consequences.

Civil war may be an interesting idea, but far too many players would get irritated and reload (I might) and it would be too good of an exploit for the human.

The Civ2 script language had a "noschism" option... perhaps civil war could be implemented on an optional basis like this. By the way, I beleive civil wars only happened when:

1) A civ is bigger/more powerful than you, and declares war on you (not the other way around)
2) You capture their capital.

As a result, I didn't see civil wars very often... I never let another Civ get bigger or more powerful than me. Plus, I always start my own wars.

[Coracle]

I was once in a massive long war with the Russians in Civ 2. I had a few minor allies and so did he. It was a bloody stalemate.

I backdoored the Russians and loaded up three transports with 24 units, plus 3 packed carriers and other naval units. It was a huge amphibious invasion. . . and I after a major battle captured Moskow, and his civ split into civil war. That game was decided in that one turn.

So, maybe you don't like the Civil War idea, but taking the enemy capital must have a really important effect, but in Civ 3 it has NO effect as the capital just automatically switches to another city/town. That is a crock.

[Cyclotron]

Yes, just like the British burning (razing) the American capital in the War of 1812 had such a huge impact.

[loleod]

Originally posted by Grrr
You newbies always seem to discuss the same topics. Yes, Civil War should be implemented, and no it probably won't be in a hurry. Civil war should be affected by culture though.

Generally when I post I look over a few pages into the board to make sure Im not making a redundant statement. These ideas are new to me for th most part, or I saw them while I was ghosting the board for the past month ( before I jump into a board I observe for a while to see what the "locals" are like before I post) . If it was mentioned more then once then hey it was a good idea, and it should be considered by the programmers more then once. If your looking for new and innovative ideas from myself I suggest you wait until I grow into the game , and for that matter this board.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by dunk999
I dislike this idea. Why? Because it's too easy for a human player to exploit.

You're at war. Simply go for the capital and BAM, two civs, one you can make peace with and another to fight with half of its power. All the human player needs to do is stockpile units in his/her capital and the AI ignores the city.

It wouldn't be all that unfair though. Besides, I thought that it wouldn't happen unless there's a large number of discontented people in the empire. I've played Civ II, seized an enemy capital and there was no civil war at all.

Some of the other ideas are ok. Your FP city could break away and become the capital of a new civ along with a few other cities.

Yeah. That's brilliant. It should depend on both the discontent in that part of your empire, and the distance from the actual palace. But it would get annoying having a large empire over two large landmasses. One landmass has my capital, the other has my FP. The FP landmass breaks off. I play to conquer the world, and I don't really like the idea of my own people being a thorn in my side.

[dunk]

Azrael...

I know it doesn't happen all the time. But, when it did, the war was over and the AI lost miserably. Not like they didn't anyway.

[wrylachlan]

For Balance sake civil wars should not happen when a civ is at war with another civ. Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

Additionally if you pray on a newly divided civ, the other civs attitude towards you should seriously degrade.

[centrifuge]

I miss Civil Wars as well.

[danimal]

Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by danimal
Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

Yeah. During the FIRST generation. After that, they will all perish.

[loleod]

I think a few people have missed the point that it wouldnt happen all the time. just to have the chance of it. You would have to meet the requirments, and even then you would only have lets say a 10% chance of having a civil war break out. I agree with making it not happen every other turn. IRL We would have well over a million countries currently running. Yet at the same time we have had quit a few civil wars that end in more then one country ( Civil war would include rebellion , and also would include a massive country just breaking up without violence).

I will take this time to apoligize to Tibet for being ignorant , I was trying not to get to involved in the political ramifications of the relationship betwee Tibet and China.

I know there are allot of people here that want to control the world ( thats great , really it is), but many real life persons have had the same aspiration. For the most part they all failed ; Rome, England, France ect. I tend to get bored by the time I control 50 percent of the world , theres no one worth fighting with anymore.

I also civs that split should have the chance to reunite when one ( Probaly the original civ) gets itself under sontrol , and/or becomes better then it was at the time of the split. Also very very close alliances could also cause two civs to combine. The US started off being very loosely knit states , but then in a very short period of time merged into one. Along the way they sucked in other states that started off as independant. this happened because of military force ( protection and military coertion), and the budding culture of the new country. On that note I should have the choice to choose wheter or not to join another civ. My domestic advisor would pop up and say we have grown so close to blah blah maybe we should consider joining forces.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
For Balance sake civil wars should not happen when a civ is at war with another civ. Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

I agree. More important things to be thinking about than breaking off when there is a war.

Additionally if you pray on a newly divided civ, the other civs attitude towards you should seriously degrade.

I don't think so. It should depend on what type of government the original/rebel civs have, whether the original civ was prone to betraying everyone, etc.

Think about this scenario...

The Aztec civilization has hit hard times. The despotic government is having trouble keeping everyone in line. The people are being treated as slaves, and are constantly whipped to hurry projects in their respective cities.

The Americans are at war with them, and seize Tenochtitlan. Following this, there is a huge division between the "Loyal" Aztecs, and the "Rebel" Iroquois.

The new Iroquois rebel civ is ruled under a republic, people are enjoying more personal and political freedom, and they are paid overtime wages to hurry projects.

The Americans themselves are governed by a Republic and are accustomed to a lifestyle of greater freedom, and are saddened that their neighbours the Aztecs are being whipped like dogs by their despotic government.

If the Americans made peace with the new Iroquois civilization, and continued their war against the Aztecs, would the nearby English, Greeks and French (who are all also under republic governments) start to hate the Americans for attacking a newly divided civ? Maybe if they attacked the Iroquois, then yes. But not when they attack the old Aztec despotism.

[dunk]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Who's thinking of internal strife when the enemy is baring down on you?

The Bolsheviks.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by dunk999


The Bolsheviks.

well, usually counterbalanced by the 'rallying around the flag' thingie

[ACooper]

Originally posted by danimal
Civil Wars would be a really dumb idea...frustration would abound. But lesbians on the other hand would be an interesting new civilization.

Who the h#ll is this guy?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by LordAzreal

I don't think so. It should depend on what type of government the original/rebel civs have, whether the original civ was prone to betraying everyone, etc.

My reason for saying other civs attitude toward you degrades if you pray on newly divided civs was not a reality one, but an attempt to keep it from becoming an exploit. If there's no reason not to attack newly divided civs then people will bomb the other civs improvements untill their people are all unhappy, then a surgical strike on the capital and hope for a civil war. I can depifinitely see this becoming an exploit if checks are not put in place. I suggested the first check that came to mind. If you have a better one, I'd love to hear it.