Civil War

BigFurryMonster · July 22, 2002, 06:44

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 · July 22, 2002, 10:12

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

Mattaba · July 22, 2002, 11:52

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 · July 22, 2002, 12:52

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 · July 22, 2002, 14:22

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 · July 22, 2002, 15:37

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 · July 23, 2002, 15:34

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 · July 23, 2002, 15:57

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

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

Adagio · July 23, 2002, 16:21

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 · July 23, 2002, 17:31

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 · July 23, 2002, 17:41

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 · July 24, 2002, 11:42

yum!

August Borms · July 24, 2002, 18:47

Yes, it would be great!

whosurdaddy · July 27, 2002, 02:58

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

Optimizer · July 27, 2002, 04:30

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

mdkna · July 27, 2002, 15:06

Yes I would love cival wars, but capital caputure shouldn't be the only way , I like the iea of extreame war weariness like the russian revolution, or a far away group of cities or colonies like the american revolution as you have suggested, and the ideas about natural disasters seems great to, i think it could be posible to reinact pompai maybe even some kind of way to help resistance groups along and covertly trigger a cival war?

Executor · July 30, 2002, 06:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
What is ridiculous? I think it seems like a fine idea.

Learn to recognize sarcasm.

Kramsib · July 30, 2002, 07:46

I think CTP included that concept and that is good. Not only by taking the capital but also if your citizens are extremely angry they may revolt.

Look at this, imagine you are the Romans, and you have taken the city of Madras from the Indians (a different culture). Your empire is glorious, your science is the best, and the Indians are a poor Civ. The citizens of Madras start to get profit from your empire, they have a wealthy status but they still have a strong national feeling, they initiate a revolt with other conquered cities and they win but they don't want to return to India and they become a new country.

It is a good possibility, more possibilities, more interesting civ-stories, more fun, ...

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 02:07

Okay, it is obvious that we all want Civil War back in Civ3. Now let's tell Firaxis how we think it should be implemented.

Things I think should affect whether or not a Civil War breaks out:

Unhappy Citizens
Foreign Citizens
Corruption
A city or group of cities being unconnected to the capital by road, sea, or air

(High amounts of any and/or all of these factors could cause an empire, computer or human, to split.)

Things I think should NOT affect whether or not a Civil War breaks out:

When a civilization loses its capital city by conquest
Pollution

(Losing your capital to a warring rival or having lots of polluted squares should not determine whether or not your empire or the computer's empire splits.)

mwaf · July 31, 2002, 02:43

Civil War *really* needs to be implemented in PTW. I really can't see with it was left out off Civ III in the first place.

That colony forming a new country idea would be even greater (though probably a bit more difficult to implement). Even more fun would be the fact that cities of different civilizations in a 'new world' would together form a new civilization. But that should require unhappiness (mainly in the new world).

Nikolai · July 31, 2002, 07:09

IMO, a civil war feature is a must!

I can remember the good, old days of Civ1, that was fun! The only time I didn't like the feature, was once when the civ I was in war with, lost their capitol to another civ, and the new civ formed in a way that hindered my expansion...

Kramsib · July 31, 2002, 08:35

Perhaps, pollution and losing Capital city should be aditional reasons for unhappiness, and then if unhappiness is big enough there would be a Civil War.

Mattaba · July 31, 2002, 09:27

I have another idea: That you get a notification just before the civil war begins because a rebel leader contacts you for aid, but if you dont give the aid the rebellion will come later.
I'd like to see an adivisor say:
Your royal highness, a persian Splinter group wants to start a rebellion against the brutal opression of the their king, the rebel leader has requested an audience with you.

SpencerH · July 31, 2002, 09:32

I hope firaxis has noticed this poll and previous threads o a similar theme. Unlike some other proposed changes, the overwhelming majority here like the civil-war concept.

GhengisFarb™ · July 31, 2002, 10:05

I have always been in favor of the civil war concept. This would be another good reason to have leader and leaderhead choices for civs.

This way if the Babylonians went into Civil War the new civ could be called Eastern Babylonians and they could start using the other leaderset available.

TexasPride · August 13, 2002, 19:26

CIVIL WAR!!!

This is the single most important tweak I have wanted in Civilization III. I am picky about how it's implemented though. The folowing is how i think it should be organized.

*It should be triggered by long periods of unhappiness.
*It should be triggered by forieghn citizens.
*I think there should be a way to trigger one from outside the civ useing espionage or something.
*It should be triggered by extreme War-Weariness.
*It should be triggered by a switch to a form of government that your civ is against. (Like switching the US to communism)
*If there was a way to say when the taxxes are too high I would go for that too.

Ideas I don't like-
*Caused by the capture of the capitol city
*disconnected cities
*pollution (plz be serious, that's never gonna cause a revolt)

BTW- I like the idea of haveing rebels from other nations contact you on the eve of and during a civil war for help. (THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!!)

Coracle · August 13, 2002, 19:33

Hey Firaxis. Are you listening, finally?

I see 90.38% of those voting want WHAT YOU TOOK OUT - Civil Wars.

You can also end your capital hoping in Civ 3. No matter how many times we take the enemy capital it just jumps to another city or town. It should at least not occur for several turns of Anarchy.

There is an old saying - DON'T MESS WITH SUCCESS. But you messed alot with Civ 2, where Civil Wars were a basic part of the game.

Andemagne · August 13, 2002, 20:20

jep, cival war would make a nice "new" feature.

Adagio · August 14, 2002, 17:03

As I stated before, I want a civil war to be triggered by taking over the capital, BUT not just as in Civ2, were the civil war just spil the country in two in the same turn. The way I see how it could work:

By taking over the enemy capital, a lot of citicens in that country gets unhappy (Could be like one unhappy person for each 8 citicens in the cities...example: a city, size 16 gets 2 unhappy faces in the city). Those unhappy people, will stay unhappy until:
a) the capital was taken back
b) a new capital was errected (which requires: the palace shouldn't just "pop-up" in some other city the same turn...you should manual build the palace)
c) 5-10 turns has passed (only if b isn't possible...being changed)

Of course, this is not the only thing that the civil war depends on...this is just one of the triggers (unhappyness)...If your people are generally happy, then loosing the capitol wouldn't trigger a civil war, while a civ, were people have been rioting a lot lately, a loss of the capitol might trigger the civil war

IF the take over of the capitol triggers the civil war, then it doesn't happen in the same turn, but it will happen within 2 turns, unless the leader of the country can fix the problem before it's too late...

The reason why I really want the loss of capitol to be able to trigger a civil war, is that at the moment it makes no difference if you take over the enemy capital, or just some other large city. In real life war, the attackers tries to take the capitol (e.g. WW2, London...don't kill me if I'm wrong, I'm not into history, but I believe I have heard this...)

Jon Shafer · August 14, 2002, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I see 90.38% of those voting want WHAT YOU TOOK OUT - Civil Wars.

Actually, 100% do.

The 2nd option is 'yes but not too extreme'.