Whatever happened to Civil War?

BrewPatriot · November 18, 2002, 22:51

I was just wondering what happened to the civil wars of the Civ2 days, when capturing an enemy capital resulted in their empire being split in two. Does anyone know of a way that can be implemented in Civ3? IMHO I'd like it if there was a more crippling effect to a civ if they lost their capital, be it civil war, rampant corruption (by means of not being able to move the palace automatically, having to rebuild it) or some other means. If anyone can think of a way any of these scenarios can be brought about, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks,

Eric

Jethro83 · November 19, 2002, 01:05

Nope. Can't be done. At least not in this game, within its own limits. Looks like another concept that has to wait for Civ IV.

Playa del Carmen · November 19, 2002, 01:16

I didn't even know it was missing until now.

Cyclotron · November 19, 2002, 02:22

Well, I played Civ2 for years and it only happened to me once... so I don't miss it.

No, Civ3 doesn't have the feature.

bongo · November 19, 2002, 05:23

If you knew how to provoke it could be really destructive. Only the strongest civ would suffer a civil-war when they lost their capital, which explain why it is rare. The others rebuilt their capital in another city if they had the cash to rush-buy it, if not all their cities became extremly corrupt and real cheap if you wanted to buy them.

The Pioneer · November 19, 2002, 06:11

That's a great shortcoming of Civ 3. Capturing an enemy capital has no real impact on that particular civ

So long...

NeoStar · November 19, 2002, 08:04

Civ splitting civil wars was one of the few good things I remember in CTP2 - however, you'd want to be able to turn it off. Can get very annoying.

Quote:

Capturing an enemy capital has no real impact on that particular civ

Except with spaceships...

The Pioneer · November 19, 2002, 09:16

Well that's true the Spaceship gets destoyed but the matter of the fact is that the impact is minimal if you choose the path of War!

So long...

Traelin · November 19, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by NeoStar
Except with spaceships...

Hehe I think the last time I ever even played with the Spaceship option was Civ I.

The_Aussie_Lurker · November 19, 2002, 22:16

OK, I know I've said this before but, just for the record:

First, I don't see why we'd have to wait for Civ 4 for this feature. After all, they've added a lot of stuff in patches which would be much harder to code than CW's. That said, capital capture should not be the only means of causing a CW, nor should it be automatic. It should instead be one of several "Triggers", along with Low Culture (compared to average), high corruption (Compared to Average) and high Unhappiness (again, compared to average).
If any of these triggers are met, then the chance of a breakaway (as opposed to a Flip) would be based on the cities distance from the Capital, the levels of culture, happiness and corruption present and the number of troops present. If the city breaks away, then adjacent cities should also have to check! This way, if you keep your empire happy and non-corrupt, then a chance capture of your Capital should not be a sign of imminent destruction. Also, though, it should be a LOT harder to move your capital!!
On a final note, in the absence of CW, try the following. Through the editor, try creating some small wonders which require the palace to build and which, when built, increase happiness and productivity, and reduce corruption and war weariness! Some examples are Parliament, Senate, Empire, Supreme Court, Federal Police, Union Movement and the like. This way, if your capital is captured, or if you capture someone elses, then it's likely to have a devestating effect on their Civilization (and might take a while to recover from, too !)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Unconquered · November 19, 2002, 22:21

They resued old civ2 code for civ3, it is obvious (no improvement in the governments at all), to implement Civil War would not be hard, as they could reuse the code, with minor modifications...

Naiveplayer · November 20, 2002, 00:35

Wow, I'm a Civ 3 newbie (haven't played Civ or Civ 2) and I'm suprised at how much they took out of Civ 2 in making Civ 3. Senate, spy and diplomat unit, caravans, capture city and get a tech, all these other stuff.

No they did not reuse the code for Civ 2 on Civ 3. On another Civ forum, one person said that it's not easy to use the same code for two games.

The_Aussie_Lurker · November 20, 2002, 01:16

Welcome NP,

I have to say that I'm glad that the diplomat and spy units are gone

it was too much bother having to move them around. I feel much the same way with caravans, though I do wish they had introduced a CtP style trade route system-where you could pirate or blockade them!
Definitely miss the old senate, though if it came back, I'd like to see it revamped to take account of War Weariness, cultural factors and Civ traits. I didn't much like the way they did the capture tech idea in Civ2, but do believe that capturing a civs capital city should give you a chance of getting a tech-but only if you've already got the prerequisites for it! Failing that, their capital should give you a one of science bonus (to reflect the capturing of key documents!).
What I REALLY miss, though, comes from SMAC-namely Protectorates, Social Engineering and Military Alliances that allowed you to base units in allies cities!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Dis · November 20, 2002, 01:57

gameplay issue. It was too overpowering. And how realistic was that really? Not very. War brings people together not split them apart.

I played one scenario in civ2 where you have two evenly matched civs. I was having a difficult time conquering the other civ until I decided my only hope was capturing their capitol. Lol and behold their empire split in two. I made peace with one while I wiped out the other. Far too easy a victory.

bongo · November 20, 2002, 04:57

Dissident , you're right. Civil wars were simply too powerful in civ1 & 2. It's an interesting idea though, maybe it would work better if just a smaller part of an empire broke away, demanding freedom. The idea of your productive core cities splitting in two and fighting each other is a bit absurd, but a remote, totally corrupt province breaking away makes sense.

NeoStar · November 20, 2002, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
Dissident , you're right. Civil wars were simply too powerful in civ1 & 2. It's an interesting idea though, maybe it would work better if just a smaller part of an empire broke away, demanding freedom. The idea of your productive core cities splitting in two and fighting each other is a bit absurd, but a remote, totally corrupt province breaking away makes sense.

It may be powerful, but things get tricky when you try to diminish a feature like that - I don't mind it at all as long as it can be turned off.

Remember - historically revolutions work best when "core" cities give support...

aaglo · November 20, 2002, 10:02

I think it's annoying to read things like "Why did they change this in civ3, since civ2 system was better/worked fine".

I've never played a single game of civ2, so obviously I don't know what the heck are people talking about.

I guess I just have to ignore such comments...

The Pioneer · November 20, 2002, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
gameplay issue. It was too overpowering. And how realistic was that really? Not very. War brings people together not split them apart.

Well, realistically speaking if the capital of one country falls the rest of the country usually looses a lot of the organizations that make up the country itself. Such a move is a devastating one bring chaos to the rest of the country. Especially, in older times because of the nature of the goverments (monarchy, etc.) such an event (especially if you take the destruction of the capital as the elimination of the leader of that civ) caused long civil wars.

The least they could've implemented in the game would be to throw the civ in an anarchy state for a short time. Until the civ scrambled to get a new gov't in place at another site!

So long...

bongo · November 21, 2002, 08:46

Pioneer, great idea

A few turns of anarchy while a new capital is built sounds right. As is loosing your capital has no bigger effects than loosing any city.

Verto · November 21, 2002, 19:14

Um...what he said.

Dis · November 22, 2002, 00:39

good point.

Civ3 is utterly ridiculous about losing a capitol. At least the ai losing a capitol. It's too easy for them to escape and have a new capitol in another city instantaneously. That is just bullshit. I put forth a lot of effort to take capitols for nothing.

bongo · November 22, 2002, 08:44

Have you taken many capitols recently

Seriously, in civ3 I view capitols as just another city. Taking them will give AI's problems cause they often are very valuable(culture/production/wonders etc.)

The only reason left to target capitols is the satisfaction you get when your troops conquer the capitol of an once powerful enemy, dancing to the melody of your own maniac laughter, muwahahaaaaahaaa

Meshelic · November 22, 2002, 17:54

I must say that I personally loved the civil war issue in CIV2. Why the got rid of it for CIV3 is far beyond me. That question can be asked of alot of things for CIV3, "why did they get rid of that?? that was cool!" etc etc.

An idea for how it can be done: Depending on city happiness, and depending on citizen nationality, and depending on a few other various factors, civil wars should become a part of the game again. Not by splitting you oldest and most advanced cities to two sides, but the more remote and distant and corrupt cities that are further from your empire.

I also think it would be cool if during your game certain sporadic political reactionary groups sprung up in cities, ones that either support your empire or ones that are against your empire. This 'reactionary' groups either attempt to start a riot (which you can put down with military forces), or they can form the base of a partisan or militia group or something. The leaders of these groups you can communicate with, and reach deals and agreements or disagreements with. That would open up a very important part of the game, in my opinion....

Naiveplayer · November 22, 2002, 19:34

That would be nice...so there can be a civil war in peacetime too, not just wartime. But I think that WW needs to be a factor too.

CellarDweller · November 23, 2002, 02:59

The way the AI works in CIV 3, it would probably happen to you more than them. I can remember how frustrating it was to have it happen to me once, after playing past the year 2000.

gsmoove23 · November 24, 2002, 12:16

Isn't losing the capitol incredibly inconvenient because you lose the palace? I've never actually lost my palace but wouldn't corruption skyrocket with no way to rush buy a new palace unless you have a leader? Plus, I go for the capitol if I'm going to have peace with the civ soon and I want to make sure that the cities I hold don't culture flip. The further away the capitol the less chance.

I do think it should be made obvious to a player where an opposing civs FP is. I would go for this too if I could.

vondrack · November 24, 2002, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Isn't losing the capitol incredibly inconvenient because you lose the palace? I've never actually lost my palace but wouldn't corruption skyrocket with no way to rush buy a new palace unless you have a leader?

When you lose your palace, a new one is built instantly and free of charge in another city (I believe it is the city with the highest population).

MrWhereItsAt · November 25, 2002, 00:43

There were Civil Wars in Civ2?!?!?!?! Wow, I thought it was just Civ. Never happened to me in 4 years of play.

I would have liked it back, though. I see it as a kind of reward for taking the capital - all of a sudden the world changes - with diplomacy the way it is in Civ3, the world would change DRAMATICALLY with the splitting of one previously established Civ.

And just imagine if a player lost their capital and suddenly had to cope with half the empire belonging to someone else....

bongo · November 25, 2002, 06:04

MrWhereItsAt , now that you mention it I'm suddenly uncertain about seeing ciwilwars in civ2 at all. As I haven't seen a CW for years I don't remember if I saw it last in civ or civ2.

Does someone have better memory than me?

MrWhereItsAt · November 25, 2002, 10:31

Well there're plenty of old threads in the Civ2 forums that talk about civil wars being triggered upon the loss of a capital, so I guess they must exist.

Only... I've not seen one. Maybe it's MP only?