Civil War

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Why is Civil War not represented in civ? Revolutions are... so many revolutions turned into civil wars that to not have civil wars, and other schisms, represented in the game is a real shame.

It'd just be a matter of adding a "new" civ when revolution occured, depending on other conditions in your empire. Perhaps just a little flag, but the same color?

[Rhothaerill]

Culture flips are a form of it right now, though they end up going to a different civ, not forming one of their own. I like the idea of a city forming it's own new AI civ if the conditions are right for it (long bouts of unhappiness, revolution, etc.), but does any human player actually let their cities stay in revolution that long? It could be doable, but right now it would only hurt the AI's.

[Rhothaerill]

Another difficulty as it stands right now is the 32civ cap on a game. If you hit 31 total civs (plus barbarians) then no more cities can secede. If they change that in Conquests then it might be viable.

[cookieman]

good idea with the civil war... but i think that when you are at war and you capture someones capital city SOMETHING should happen. besides 0 corruption what purpose does a capital serve? thats why i think that when a capital is sacked the civ should go into anarchy or a civil war

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by cookieman
good idea with the civil war... but i think that when you are at war and you capture someones capital city SOMETHING should happen. besides 0 corruption what purpose does a capital serve? thats why i think that when a capital is sacked the civ should go into anarchy or a civil war

Hmm possibly, though not always. I know that realism is sometimes eschewed for gameplay, but if you study the history of the U.S. you know that Washington D.C. was sacked and the White House burned to the ground in the War of 1812. Our government still went on.

[Matthijs]

The 32 civ cap might be a problem indeed.

But other then that, revolutions and civil war should defenitly be back in the game.

make civil war then something which MIGHT happen when someone's capital is captured.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Matthijs
make civil war then something which MIGHT happen when someone's capital is captured.

I definately agree.

As it stands right now, if you take over someones capital, their capital is automatically (magically )created in another of their cities, with no real damage happening to their civilization for having lost their capital in the first place.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Wittlich


I definately agree.

As it stands right now, if you take over someones capital, their capital is automatically (magically )created in another of their cities, with no real damage happening to their civilization for having lost their capital in the first place.

Actually I like the idea of civil war and anarchy when your capitol is taken, but it would be a matter of implementing it correctly. I would think that it shouldn't be an absolute either way. Nothing happening (the way it is now) means that the capitol is just another city to take unless it's building a spaceship. If they made it an automatic anarchy then all war plans would change to seek out an enemy capitol. If they instead make it a random event, I think it would add a degree of depth to the game. There SHOULD be a loss of some sort when you lose your capitol, but it shouldn't ALWAYS send the civ into anarchy.

Hope I explained that well.

[johncmcleod]

Well, sometimes that capital has wonders and you destroy those. In a game I'm playing right now I'm going to load up paratroopers onto helicopters and load the helicopters onto carriers (once I find out how to put the choppers onto carriers, it won't work for me for some reason), drop them off near Salamanca and destroy the capital with a few wonders in it. It also causes pyschological damage if you're playing mp and it is a moral victory. Maybe if you take the capital it increases war weariness for the other civ or something like that.

I really want civil war though. I have talked about it in many threads but no one seems too enthusiastic about it. Look at the countries of today. I bet more than half of them were once part of another country and then gained independence. Another reason for civil war could be the citizens having their own identity. For example if you had a bunch of cities on a different continent than you or there were a bunch separated from your mainland there'd be an increased chance of them separating. Look at all of the colonies Britain once had but no longer controls.

[Rhothaerill]

It sounds great to me. I don't think implementation would be too difficult a procedure (but I'm not a programmer so I don't know). They'd just have to make sure it's something the AI isn't handicapped by unless the human player is equally handicapped.

[Wittlich]

Yes Rhothaerill, I concur completely. Having a civ go into anarchy/civil war should only be a possibility not a sure thing.

[Panag]

hi ,

remember those civ II scenario's where the country would split in two if the capital went down or if cities remained in uproar for a number of turns , thats what we need back , .....

have a nice day

[Azeem]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

remember those civ II scenario's where the country would split in two if the capital went down or if cities remained in uproar for a number of turns , thats what we need back , .....

have a nice day

I completely agree, Panag. We certainly need that aspect back in Civilization.

[BKWM]

Originally posted by cookieman
good idea with the civil war... but i think that when you are at war and you capture someones capital city SOMETHING should happen. besides 0 corruption what purpose does a capital serve? thats why i think that when a capital is sacked the civ should go into anarchy or a civil war

I agree.

[johncmcleod]

The problem with panag's idea is that no human player lets civil disorder happen that long in that many cities. Which brings me to another point. Starvation should bring down happiness. People aren't happy when they're starving. It's dumb, you just hire entertainers and it doesn't matter that the people are starving. This would make sieges much more realistic. You put units on all of their farming squares which would cause the people to starve and make them unhappy. All sieges do right now is lower the population.

[johncmcleod]

Also, when a part of a country declares itself a new nation other nations could recognize it and give it supplies to fight against the big guy.

[Agathon]

Civil War was one of the best features of the Civ boardgame. I really miss it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Johnmcclouds suggestion brings me to another point about CivIII (and Civs I and II) which I feel ought to be changed, and which has been brought up elsewhere!! Namely, the idea of food and food distribution. Cities which have surplus food, and an intact trade network (connection to capital, etc) should be able to both "trade" food to other cities in the empire-and should be able to trade it to other empires. Not only would this allow more city specialization (as it is in reality), it would also change military tactics. Taking out a nations capital, even for a few turns, might disrupt the supply of food in the empire (along with luxuries and strategic resources), as would cutting off a city from the capital!! Combined with Johnmccloud's excellent suggestion on food and happiness, this add much needed depth to the game, in my opinion!!
Those who don't believe it could be done should look at Spiffors? thread, where he created some excellent mock trade screens for CivIII, with food trade included!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Hail Caesar!]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

remember those civ II scenario's where the country would split in two if the capital went down or if cities remained in uproar for a number of turns , thats what we need back , .....

have a nice day

I remember the East Wind, Rain scenario when Japan dominated the globe. I tried "Island Hopping" to get to Tokyo ASAP and half the Pacific became Zulu.

Also unrelated but I remember the Gulf War scenario where Saddam Hussein offered me $10,000 gold for Peace on the 2nd turn!

[Hail Caesar!]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

remember those civ II scenario's where the country would split in two if the capital went down or if cities remained in uproar for a number of turns , thats what we need back , .....

have a nice day

I remember the East Wind, Rain scenario when Japan dominated the globe. I tried "Island Hopping" to get to Tokyo ASAP and half the Pacific became Zulu.

Also unrelated but I remember the Gulf War scenario where Saddam Hussein offered me $10,000 gold for Peace on the 2nd turn!

[kermit_the_frog]

i dont like that i think that your civil war proposel wuld ruin the game

[Quasar1011]

Nah, it wouldn't ruin things. More often than not, capturing a capital city in Civ 2 did not lead to a civil war. There were pre-conditions, such as an open slot for a civ, size of the civ, etc. But it should at least be a possibilty.

[David Murray]

I don't get it. If an aggressor captures the nation's capital, why would the people of that nation start bickering among themselves? Surely it would be more likely to make them rally together. Civil war/revolution as a consequence of unhappiness and/or propaganda on the other hand ....

Edit: I remember the effects of civil war in Civ2, when I played the wonderful WWII scenario. I captured Berlin and half of Hitler's Germany suddenly became Shaka Zulu's Zululand. A bit silly to say the least! I much preferred the effects of revolution in CTP2, where a revolting city would randomly join another civ, form one of its own or, most interestingly, join the barbarians.

[Panag]

hi ,

its easy to change the zulu into an other civ , ......

they must have forgotten to do that in those scen's , .....

there are at least three different " east wind rain " scen's around (!) , ......

use the cheat as the easy way to change it , ......

have a nice day