I was playing Civ III the other day, and suddenly an idea for the next game struck me... Wouldn't it be awesome if internal disputes in your country could lead to civil wars? :D Or if regions of your empire could declare their independence and try to start their own states... Just a thought, but personally I think this could help bring the game to a whole new and even more thrilling and realistic level.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"This is my rifle, this is my gun! This is for fighting, this is for fun!"
-Stewie Griffin

I was playing Civ III the other day, and suddenly an idea for the next game struck me... Wouldn't it be awesome if internal disputes in your country could lead to civil wars? :D Or if regions of your empire could declare their independence and try to start their own states... Just a thought, but personally I think this could help bring the game to a whole new and even more thrilling and realistic level.

-Stewie Griffin



I can't remember which Civ it is, but cant cities defect anyway-on a culture basis. I remember that it was something to do with if you have more cities in the area than the nation who owns the city, it may defect to join you. Thats a similar idea, right?

Welcome to CFC [party]

If you were not new, I would say this : this topic has been used, reused, rereused for month, and it is probably one of the first ideas which has been sent on CFC. But it is a good one, so good idea!!
@ Pablicosta : civil wars aren't like city defection. With culture flips, the city goes to another civ, with civil war it creates a new state with a WAR.

Link 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84798&page=1)

Link 2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2797202#post2797202)

Welcome :)

You know, I gotta say, Firaxis would be beyond dumb to have ignored us on this point. I havn't seen one person posting here who doesn't want civil wars of some sort. I sure hope firaxis is just not telling us for strategic advertising reasons, just like on the idea of Minor Civs, and anything big about civics choices, or a host of other things they haven't fully disclosed/discounted/admited/quantified/qualified yet.

I for one would trade Soren Johnson/Sid Meier back religion to get a sweet civil war system and a minor civs system. Actually, I'd trade it back for either one.

But for the sake of adding one more voice
- cIV w/ Civil war and/or Minor Civs = :goodjob:

Please please please do it! If you do, you'll get plenty of
:worship: :king: <<Civ 4 team :worship:

From plenty of people here.

Well, you know me, I will ALWAYS throw my weight behind ANY call for the implementation of Civil War-and Minor Civs-in the game!!!! Great Idea :)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Welcome to CFC [party]

If you were not new, I would say this : this topic has been used, reused, rereused for month, and it is probably one of the first ideas which has been sent on CFC. But it is a good one, so good idea!!
@ Pablicosta : civil wars aren't like city defection. With culture flips, the city goes to another civ, with civil war it creates a new state with a WAR.

Thanks mastertyguy! :goodjob:
Guess I should have looked for other posts with the same topic before posting it... :blush: But the idea had been in my head for so long, that I just had to get it out! :D

You know, I gotta say, Firaxis would be beyond dumb to have ignored us on this point. I havn't seen one person posting here who doesn't want civil wars of some sort. I sure hope firaxis is just not telling us for strategic advertising reasons, just like on the idea of Minor Civs, and anything big about civics choices, or a host of other things they haven't fully disclosed/discounted/admited/quantified/qualified yet.

I for one would trade Soren Johnson/Sid Meier back religion to get a sweet civil war system and a minor civs system. Actually, I'd trade it back for either one.

But for the sake of adding one more voice
- cIV w/ Civil war and/or Minor Civs = :goodjob:

Please please please do it! If you do, you'll get plenty of
:worship: :king: <<Civ 4 team :worship:

From plenty of people here.

Then you don't look to closely. There are a number of people who don't want this feature.

Then you don't look to closely. There are a number of people who don't want this feature.

Perhaps you could explain why you don't want it then?

Perhaps you could explain why you don't want it then?

In short, I can not see how this feature could be implemented in such a way that would make the game fun without requiring undue micro-management.

To make an argument that I have raised in a number of these threads, the whole concept of a part of your empire breaking away from you is the same as a single city "flipping" (CF) to another civ, just on a larger scale. Very few people on these forums liked that concept so it escapes my mind why they want it on such a larger scale. Sure, the CF goes to another city while the break way cities would form a new one, but it is still the same thing. How much fun will it be to be tolling around with your civ and then suddenly seeing that a good protion of your empire is no longer yours? I can't see that as being any fun.

Sure, people say that there will be indicators that something is coming but to prevent it, one will have to resort to micro-managing their cities to keep the cities in line and I for one, do not enjoy the micro-managing aspect of CIV (although there are some who do).

So, you take one un-fun element of the game, Culture flipping cities, and increase its influence. But to combat it, you have to increase another unfun element of the game, micromanaging. Sure, civil wars and rebellions, would add a nice more realistically historical element to the game, but as far as I see it, would distract from the overall enjoyment of the game.

A second issue with the whole concept is technology. What happens to the civ's techs when they lose a portion of their empire.? Does the new civ get all the techs? To keep it historically accurate, I would say yes. Now that really would suck because say I have tech advantage that I have strived to achieve and maintain and have some key techs that I am intentially withholding from my rivals in order to hold a military edge. Suddenly, 5 cities rebel and the first thing that they do is sell my tech advantage to my enemies. Again, how could this be fun?

Unfortunately for me, I think that this whole concept will be in Civ 4. And I hope that if it is included, my fears of an unbalanced and half-finsihed civil war feature is un-founded.

Don't get me wrong here. I do like the idea of having civil wars in the game provided that the game is still balanced and fun to play. But the pessimist in me does not expect that to be the case and I would rather have a fun game without Civil Wars than an un-fun game with them.

How I want Civil Wars to be like is that certain cities defect. On the map, it'll still say they are American (if you're American),but maybe a little symbol or a note that says (Rebels) and the cities culture-color becomes like, a shade lighter or darker (so theyre the same color, only a little darker/lighter). They act as their own nation, and you have to recapture them, as if you were at war with a whole 'nother nation.

rather than having cities flip..why not have a random number of "rebel" units generate near to "rebelious" cities. The level of unhappiness, city size, tech level and cultural level would determine the type and number of these units. If they capture a city then they "declare independance".

This would be easier to deal with than a sudden flip of half your empire but still give you the feel of civil war. Also those areas with constant unhapppines would continually produce one or two units...giving the element of both terrorism or guerilla warefare in captured territories.

These units would also affect national happiness...so the more that are present...the more that are likley to be created...giving a sort of escalation into civil war over a period of turns...as more and more cities start to become unhappy more and more units start to appear.

If you remain at war with the "rebels" and they have cities the new units would join them. if not at war then new rebels would have a percentage chance of either joining the old rebel civ...or forming their own nation. your country could start to break into LOADS of factions if not controlled properly..or find itself having to continually battle its former lands. Like palastine or chechnya or Ireland.

How about once a civil war breaks out another nation can provide support for either rebels or the original government. I could be in secret like first planting a spy so you can then give money trough that spy so you won't get critized by other civs or just intervining for which ever side you choose but if you do this then you'll get hell in deplomacy from civs who support the other faction.

I wonder if we put up a poll, how many people would say yes to civil wars / and or small nations. I would.

Personally I like the ideas from "A Big Vision For Civ4" best. I'm sure you've all seen them (if you haven't check the thread out, it is a sticky)

I did have an idea which might help to allay some of Sealman's chief concerns (at least, I HOPE they will ;)!)
First, we know that in Civ4 unhappy citizens will simply NOT work anymore. However, I thought why not go further (but not back to city disorder a la Civ2 and Civ3). Basically, the ratio of unhappy citizens to total citizens gives the % chance that rioting will erupt in that city. The more unhappy citizens you have in a rioting city, the more damage they do to your city/terrain improvements and/or garrisons. The base chance of rioting would be modified by the city's distance from the capital, the presence of resistors, the presence of foreign nationals (double if of a different culture group), level of city organisation and health, and number/strength of any garrison in the city (though garrisons would have a chance of MAKING people unhappy in the first place!!)
The importance of this method is that it doesn't lend itself to micromanagement as the old system did-all you can do is alter broader social and city level policies to reduce your risk, not merely go city to city-changing content people to entertainers!!
The other thing which unhappy citizens might cause is potential secession. Basically, each unhappy citizen gives an x% chance of secession, with each resistor giving an x*2% chance. This base chance is then modified by the presence of foreign nationals, distance from capital, level of city health and organisation, whether the city is rioting, how many resources the city controls (i.e. a city with lots of its own resources is more likely to seceed), proximity to another seceeding city-and the presence and strength of any garrison.
Like rioting, this system does NOT lend itself to MM, as there are a number of factors which MODIFY the basic chance of seccession. All you can do is prevent things getting that bad in the first place, and adjusting broad policies to boost happiness, health, organisation and culture throughout your nation.
Now, to address Sealmans key concern. When cities secede to form a new nation, they do so with x% of the parent nations total technologies. This % depends on HOW many cities seccede. So, if only 1 city seccedes, then it only gets 50% of techs (unless that city has a LOT of beakers). Each additional city which seccedes grants an average of 3-4% more techs, up to around 95%. Additionally, until the breakaway civ gets its FIRST INDEPENDANT TECH, it cannot trade any of the techs it got from its parent to another civ (though it can trade FOR technologies).
Anyway, I hope that sounds good to you guys.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

In earlier versions of Civ, if you you captured the capital city of a Civ that exceeded a certain size, there was a chance that half of the remaining cities would automatically defect and join up with the conquering civ. Made Bloodlust games a lot easier. If I remember correctly, in that same version, if you had a certain percentage of your own cities in CD at the same time (excluding periods of anarchy) you ran the risk of having your own kingdom rift.

Barbarian cities were also an interesting attribute of earlier games. If a barbarian unit moves in to an undefended city (or kills the defender and then moves in), the city became a barbarian state out of which they could opperate. That would be very interesting to allow the Carib or Khazaks to become an upstart civ through the taking of a city.

Another former feature was the "taking" of a technology from a captured civ. Let me tell you, if you were the first to discover gunpowder, you defended your cities well because you KNEW the AI was going to try to steal the secret from you if they couldn't barter for it.

Of course, you woud do the same to them, so... :)